Another 21 speed camera sites

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.

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

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…

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.

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.

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.

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.

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*

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!)

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.