Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Skilled legal advice with
accessible & personal attention

Another 21 speed camera sites

By johnboy - 11 December 2006 13

Our drink driving roads minister, John Hargreaves, has decreed that there shall be another 22 speed camera sites. The total now stands at 120, which you can see on the transport website. (I’ve actually dug out the page you need which is more than Caitlin Bessell did when she wrote the media release.

The real question is why have designated sites? Why not let the camera operators just seek out the best spots?

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
13 Responses to
Another 21 speed camera sites
VYBerlinaV8 9:21 am 13 Dec 06

I’ve never been done by a speed camera in the ACT. The vans are so bloody obvious anyway.

I agree with Chris S – when we start seeing some compliance activities with rules such as indicating, lane discipline, running red lights, and generally having some sort of clue, we might see some improvements to road safety.

Speed cameras are nothing more than revenue raising.

TrapperKeeper 8:34 am 13 Dec 06

I really hate when they sit at the bottom of a hill to catch you on the slight speed increase…. for safety.

Big Al 9:30 pm 12 Dec 06

Ahh… another tired idea to squeeze a few extra quid from an already over-taxed community dragged out under the justification of road safety. So be it … I just wish that they wouldn’t piss down my back and try and tell me that its raining…

JC 9:11 pm 12 Dec 06

This week’s Chronicle has an article that mentions that we now have another 21 mobile cameras (not sites), making a total of 120 cameras operating at 105 sites. Hmmmm something seems a little wrong with that story.

Chris S 9:30 am 12 Dec 06

Which is why, bighead, we can all accept that this is nothing but a revenue raising exercise.

If they were serious about road safety, then ALL road rules would be enforced. Indicating, lane changing, badly-aligned headlights, stupid use of “driving” lights, etc etc ahould all be on the menu for enforcement.

But what do they do? Just enforce speeding rules, because it is easy and profitable to do so.

And what message does it send to all drivers? You can do anything you want, be a dickhead in every conceivable way, but the only crime we’ll get you for is speeding.

The result? It sends all the wrong messages, and ergo, accidents and fatalities continue to increase. Why? Because the dickhead govt can’t think beyond the revenue stream and actually want to genuinely do something about road safety.

Spectra 8:33 am 12 Dec 06

How many times I have seen them on William Hovell is countless.
Errr…dude, I draw your attention to locations 66 and 67, which have been on the list for almost a year, and which are noted at the bottom as not yet having been added to the map image.
Sure, they should update the map, but that doesn’t mean the cameras haven’t been sticking to the list.

bighead 4:08 am 12 Dec 06

If they are meant to be in those sites only according to the map, then they should ONLY be in them. How many times I have seen them on William Hovell is countless. fucking bastards….get a real job!

I dont support speeding, nor do I do it. I had someone I know tonight say that he was waiting at a set of lights the other night, he had a few beers earlier, was easily over the limit. Basically sped off from the lights, next to an unmarked police car. Kept speeding, police car pulled them over. Did not breathalise him. simply gave him a verbal warning. He had sped, and was drink driving, He would have easily lost his lisence too.

Now where is the sense in that, dosnt really belong here, but I hate people that speed past me or act like dickheads on the road.

Cameron 12:23 am 12 Dec 06

They specify the sites to as to keep up the appearance of the cameras serving as a speed deterrent as opposed to a revenue program.

The theory goes, if we know where they might be, we’d be less likely to speed there.

*shrug*

DavidM 7:41 pm 11 Dec 06

Johnboy, I suppose one explanation is the old saying that all you need to make a minefield is one mine and a press release. In a way, knowing where the cameras can be might be enough to slow people down. (Probably not!)

johnboy 6:14 pm 11 Dec 06

agreed there are definitely a limited number of places they can sensibly or effectively be used.

just curious as to why that needs to be announced with such fanfare.

not that I’m complaining mind you, it just seems like an odd little outcropping of transparency.

Binker 5:55 pm 11 Dec 06

My guess as to why there are designated sites is that:
-the cameras probably have specs which say things like false reading may occur if there are crash barriers (or some other reflective material) within 100m, etc;
-and if they are parked in certain places they may pose a danger both to themselves and motorists, cyclists etc. You wouldn’t want one just on the far side of a blind corner as speeding motorists may suddenly brake leading to a pile up. Given that the operators are private (I believe) and that they probably have some performance targets in their contract there would be an incentive for them to flout any safety guidelines in order to make target.

JC 5:44 pm 11 Dec 06

Well it will be good to see on some more SUBURBAN roads in west belconnen. Archdall street is a like a back straight on a race trace, same too with Spofforth St in Holt.

threeze 4:18 pm 11 Dec 06

can anyone point out the figures where these things have actually had a positive effect? apart from income, that is.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site