22 September 2011

Big brother gets his groove on. Point to point is hot to trot

| johnboy
Join the conversation
65

A busy Simon Corbell has informed us that his point-to-point speed camera legislation has passed the Legislative Assembly.

The first point to point system is being built on Hindmarsh Drive and is expected to become operational later this year. A second system is expected to be commissioned in 2012.

The system uses cameras equipped with with Automated Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) technology, and scans photographs to identify vehicle numberplates. The system takes time-stamped photographs of vehicles as they pass two places (detection points) set at a known distance apart. If the average speed exceeds the average speed limit between those points, an infringement notice for a speeding offence may be issued.

ANPR technology is already used in the ACT, as part of ACT Policing’s RAPID (Recognition and Analysis of Plates IDentified) system to detect offences involving unregistered or uninsured vehicles and unlicensed drivers.

“The system photographs only the back of vehicles and the images do not identify drivers or riders,” Mr Corbell said.

“There are strong safeguards to protect personal information, and the legislation explicitly restricts access to and use of these images. Images that do not show offences will be destroyed after 14 days.

Simon assures us they won’t be used to track our movements.

Join the conversation

65
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

@ Jimbo Jones.

Having just replied to you, I’m now thinking that you are probably the most deliberately argumentative person on this site. Congrats!

Jim Jones said :

milkman said :

Jim Jones said :

milkman said :

The issue here is the slavish following of speed limits in the belief that it somehow makes driving ‘safe’.

How is that an issue? You’re the only one who’s mentioned it.

No one has said anything even vaguely similar to that.

What about use of the term ‘no such thing as safe speeding’? Zippy brought up exactly this point.

Saying ‘there is no such thing as safe speeding’ does not in imply that ‘not speeding = complete safety’ any more than saying ‘swans are white’ implies that all white things are swans.

That’s basic logic right there.

Agreed. Which is exactly why I said that following speed limits slavishly in the belief that you are safe is incorrect.

Jim Jones said :

milkman said :

Jim Jones said :

milkman said :

The issue here is the slavish following of speed limits in the belief that it somehow makes driving ‘safe’.

How is that an issue? You’re the only one who’s mentioned it.

No one has said anything even vaguely similar to that.

What about use of the term ‘no such thing as safe speeding’? Zippy brought up exactly this point.

Saying ‘there is no such thing as safe speeding’ does not in imply that ‘not speeding = complete safety’ any more than saying ‘swans are white’ implies that all white things are swans.

That’s basic logic right there.

Do you mean to suggest that black swans are not swans?

milkman said :

Jim Jones said :

milkman said :

The issue here is the slavish following of speed limits in the belief that it somehow makes driving ‘safe’.

How is that an issue? You’re the only one who’s mentioned it.

No one has said anything even vaguely similar to that.

What about use of the term ‘no such thing as safe speeding’? Zippy brought up exactly this point.

Saying ‘there is no such thing as safe speeding’ does not in imply that ‘not speeding = complete safety’ any more than saying ‘swans are white’ implies that all white things are swans.

That’s basic logic right there.

Holden Caulfield said :

Palifox said :

And how far apart are these points? Suppose I drive from Weston Creek to Fyshwick and fluke most of the traffic lights green. My point to point speed is far higher than usual, even though I may be 5kph below the posted limits all the way.

qbngeek said :

It needs to be set up between the traffic lights or it will be worse than useless

And they are.

It looks like the detectors will work for both directions of traffic with one set of cameras set up 100-200m west of the Dalrymple St/Mugga Lane traffic lights. The other cameras are positioned several hundred metres east of the Palmer St lights.

NSW has point to point cameras set up near Lake George on the freeway. Be interesting to see whether things have changed much (in terms of average speeds, accidents, etc).

Jim Jones said :

milkman said :

The issue here is the slavish following of speed limits in the belief that it somehow makes driving ‘safe’.

How is that an issue? You’re the only one who’s mentioned it.

No one has said anything even vaguely similar to that.

What about use of the term ‘no such thing as safe speeding’? Zippy brought up exactly this point.

Holden Caulfield11:34 am 30 Sep 11

Palifox said :

And how far apart are these points? Suppose I drive from Weston Creek to Fyshwick and fluke most of the traffic lights green. My point to point speed is far higher than usual, even though I may be 5kph below the posted limits all the way.

qbngeek said :

It needs to be set up between the traffic lights or it will be worse than useless

And they are.

It looks like the detectors will work for both directions of traffic with one set of cameras set up 100-200m west of the Dalrymple St/Mugga Lane traffic lights. The other cameras are positioned several hundred metres east of the Palmer St lights.

milkman said :

The issue here is the slavish following of speed limits in the belief that it somehow makes driving ‘safe’.

How is that an issue? You’re the only one who’s mentioned it.

No one has said anything even vaguely similar to that.

zippyzippy said :

milkman said :

jrsubs said :

All, — ALL—-, the people I know who smugly say ‘if you speed you deserve to get caught’ are people who fundamentally don’t know how to drive. They can’t assess situations, they have no idea about relative speed, they just rely on obeying the speed limit to make them ‘safe’ in lieu of actually driving with thought or using even a modicum of expertise.

+ 1000000000000

I find the conceit in this attitude mind-boggling. (i wasn’t going to mention it until someone ’+1000000000000’d it’). You’re effectively 1) endorsing the myth of ’safe speeding’ and 2) saying you’re a special driver who is better than anyone else. Both of which are dangerous attitudes. Ever seen those surveys where 90% of drivers say that they would be in the top 10% of most skilled drivers? And anyway, you know that no matter what your skill, you can’t do anything about random events – animal runs on the road, another car brakes or pulls out etc – and that small differences in speed make a very big difference in terms of severity of an accident…. Anyway, i’m not going to go on about it anymore.

Ps: the media watch page is really full of excellent info at the moment that all the counters should look at.

The issue here is the slavish following of speed limits in the belief that it somehow makes driving ‘safe’. You (not me, remember) introduced the term ‘safe speeeding’, which is an advertising buzzword that illustrates this perfectly. Do you think you are safe if you don’t speed? I know plenty of people who carry on about how they ‘never speed’, but ride with them and it’s scary as hell, as they have no idea what’s going on around them.

Also, I’m not saying I’m a special driver (again, your words), rather that I would rather consider risk in a more pragmatic way, and have road safety measures that lead to better outcomes. Read my post above the one you quoted as an example.

Speeding is only one factor that relates to road safety, and when speed cameras aren’t even routinely used in high risk or blackspot areas it is hard to see such measures as genuinely useful. Where are the fixed speed cameras in school zones, for example?

I support red light cameras, but then here is my conspiracy theory. At far too many instances the signal operation is different to any other intersection and one can clearly see it to be opportunist. For example where you have a red light camera the intersection signals will give green to a turn even if no vehicle was present, giving a possible false start to person opposite who is expecting a green light as in any other sitation. And no matter at what time of night you go to that intersection it has a set operation and does not follow vehicle sensors.

Secondly the times from green to red are actually different and Amber to red is far little than at any other intersection.

Now some person who does program the CPU’s on these lights may shed more light but every time I see an intersection with a camera these symptoms seem to prop up.

And finally driving is a skill that can be improved and there needs to be stress upon that rather than giving a log book once in life and then never revisiting the mistakes you made there, and for some unfortunately they become habbits and then are too hard to change.

That should say ‘all the doubters should look at’. Auto-correct.

milkman said :

jrsubs said :

All, — ALL—-, the people I know who smugly say ‘if you speed you deserve to get caught’ are people who fundamentally don’t know how to drive. They can’t assess situations, they have no idea about relative speed, they just rely on obeying the speed limit to make them ‘safe’ in lieu of actually driving with thought or using even a modicum of expertise.

+ 1000000000000

I find the conceit in this attitude mind-boggling. (i wasn’t going to mention it until someone ’+1000000000000’d it’). You’re effectively 1) endorsing the myth of ’safe speeding’ and 2) saying you’re a special driver who is better than anyone else. Both of which are dangerous attitudes. Ever seen those surveys where 90% of drivers say that they would be in the top 10% of most skilled drivers? And anyway, you know that no matter what your skill, you can’t do anything about random events – animal runs on the road, another car brakes or pulls out etc – and that small differences in speed make a very big difference in terms of severity of an accident…. Anyway, i’m not going to go on about it anymore.

Ps: the media watch page is really full of excellent info at the moment that all the counters should look at.

jrsubs said :

All, — ALL—-, the people I know who smugly say ‘if you speed you deserve to get caught’ are people who fundamentally don’t know how to drive. They can’t assess situations, they have no idea about relative speed, they just rely on obeying the speed limit to make them ‘safe’ in lieu of actually driving with thought or using even a modicum of expertise.

+ 1000000000000

I’d be a big supporter of speed cameras if they were placed in locations known to have speed related accidents, or in places where the speed limit needs to be held low for a specific reason.

The cameras on the Monaro Hwy, for example, are pure revenue raising.

And no, I’ve never been done by one.

And FWIW, I remember clearly the nasty accident being referred to on Hindmarsh Drive (about 15 years ago I’d guess). It was 4 young lads from a local private school borrowing daddy’s new falcon, and they left the road at over 160km/h. One of the parents also tried to sue the driver the of the truck they hit (which was parked well off on the grass).

It may have been discussed before but the location is quiet clear to confirm that it is a revenue raising affair. How does putting the cameras on gradients check the real accuracy of speed? I have not seen this stretch of road to be unsafe as there is a gradient and just because there is a slope and cars may be going faster due to laws of motion does not constitute an accurate description of road safety. I would be very tempted to see the research behind the justification of why these spots were chosen over others. It is no different than any other place. Victoria recently had their P2P cameras turned off due to technical inconsistencies. I am all for road safety but this is not making roads any safer. I see too many idiots every where else where they know no one is looking. I don’t have the solution but we need more education and more government incentive to good drivers.

Jim Jones said :

Ah the lulz:

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3326211.htm

Beat me to it. Agreeing with A Current Affair should always be seen as a warning sign.

Not just the nsw auditor general found they were improving safety, also the Victorian auditor general. Just this year. Auditor generals have a fairly good reputation for being thorough, independent and willing to criticize if they need to. But nope.

Really, you just need to get over it. There’re going to be speed cameras around to catch you if you speed. Don’t speed.

Jim Jones said :

Mysteryman said :

The evidence in favour of them is ubiquitous now? Give me a break. I bet you haven’t even read the study you keep referring to.

As opposed to all the evidence that you have, but can’t link to because you’re much too busy.

Hell, even the NSW auditor general showed that speed cameras overall were indeed improving safety (see above).

Is he also part of the government conspiracy?

A simple “no. I’m just copying and pasting news links without ever having read any of the study” would have been sufficient, thanks.

Not to worry, your superhuman senses will alert you any time there’s a speed camera nearby, and you can just shave off 40km/h to get under the speed limit until you’re past it.

All that being said Im sorry to say I do recall a very horrible fatality on hindmarsh drive (heading west, towards woden) where a few people were killed due to young fellas hooning their overpowered (for them) vehicle. If they have to have controls on any stretch of road in Canberra, this would be the place I would prefer it the most becuase of this.

Speed cameras almost never catch outrageous speeding and idiotic behaviour like this, 99% of people they catch are ordinary people who know how to drive and are in a hurry, drive to the conditions and get to 95kph in an 80 zone – not criminals, not dangerous, just unlucky.

All, — ALL—-, the people I know who smugly say ‘if you speed you deserve to get caught’ are people who fundamentally don’t know how to drive. They can’t assess situations, they have no idea about relative speed, they just rely on obeying the speed limit to make them ‘safe’ in lieu of actually driving with thought or using even a modicum of expertise.

Speed cameras catch a very very few people who shouldn’t be on the road and a vast majority of people who are fundamentally frustrated by speed limits that are far too restrictive.

Of course reducing speed on roads will reduce accidents, I have no idea why anyone disputes this. But that is not the question. The question is the balance between low speed for safety and higher speed for efficiency, lack of frustration, and prevention of sleep and boredom while driving. If you take the lame-brained approach that ‘lower speed is safer’ then we should set all limits to 4kph or walking pace. Of course that is safer. But not useful or efficient. Speed limits need to be set as a sensible balance and at the moment they are too slow generally and way too slow in some places.

They are LIMITS, not required traveling speed, so should not be set low enough to make the worst driver safe in the worst conditions. They should be set at a speed over which average drivers are getting towards being unsafe. I’d be all for speed cameras on Hindmarsh over the hill if the limit was raised to 100kph as it should be. At 80kph it is just revenue raising against better, or at least more experienced or spatially aware drivers who die of frustration at 80kph. This reflects the Government approach to the whole matter – set speed limits too low to encourage frustration, then fine the poor sods who travel at sensible speeds.

allyroger said :

ok so you don’t like the daily mail telling you the facts

LOLZ

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=daily+mail+libel

Mysteryman said :

The evidence in favour of them is ubiquitous now? Give me a break. I bet you haven’t even read the study you keep referring to.

As opposed to all the evidence that you have, but can’t link to because you’re much too busy.

Hell, even the NSW auditor general showed that speed cameras overall were indeed improving safety (see above).

Is he also part of the government conspiracy?

allyroger said :

ok so you don’t like the daily mail telling you the facts – here are some more, google is your friend if you want to educate yourself on the subject. Remember that the UK has speed cameras everywhere and has had them including point to point for a long time. Sources are referenced in the articles

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/29/2913.asp
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/00/33.asp

The first article is about the UK Government miscounting traffic accident figures, the second article is about a discontinuity in the 1966-1993 trend line. The link of the discontinuity in that trend line (which is now almost 20 years ago) to speed cameras isn’t evidenced.

It’s not particularly compelling – although it certainly demonstrates that Alan Buckingham is the go-to guy when anyone wants to cite an academic who doesn’t think that speed cameras are effective.

I suppose these cameras will never catch those that actually cause the accidents… presumably they won’t make it to the second camera 😀

The evidence in favour of them is ubiquitous now? Give me a break. I bet you haven’t even read the study you keep referring to.

I think it’s clear from the debate surrounding it that the police see much more potential in these than just road safety.

ok so you don’t like the daily mail telling you the facts – here are some more, google is your friend if you want to educate yourself on the subject. Remember that the UK has speed cameras everywhere and has had them including point to point for a long time. Sources are referenced in the articles

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/29/2913.asp
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/00/33.asp

I’m not 100% on the veracity of the claims on this site, but it seems to be fairly well researched.
http://www.roadsense.com.au/facts.html
http://www.roadsense.com.au/misleading_data.html#twopercent

Problem is, the reasons for the existence of speed cameras dont stack up. It allows lazy politicians to make out like they’re doing something. Anyone who’s every worked for the government knows that numbers are easier to control than behaviours and easily measured policies. My biggest issue with speed cameras is that it allows goverments to abdicate their responsibility of providing the best training possible producing the safest drivers possible or adding to the number of police that can actually observe crap driver behaviour and punish it accordingly. To add insult to injury, the revenue collected from cameras which are supposed to be directed to road safety initiatives If it wasn’t a revenue raising exercise, then why are speed camera revenue predictions factored into budgets?

At the same time it gives some drivers a false sense of superiority (for lack of a better word), I mean how many times have you heard I dont speed I’m a good driver, I’ve heard this from many friends who couldn’t drive to save themselves, especially in an emergency situation. I have a feeling that many people who blindly support speed cameras need them to convince themselves they’re the best driver out there. The real good drivers actually go out and better their driving skills through courses and emergency techniques. I’ve never lost a point! Big deal, you might not have ever been caught. My grans never lost a point either, but I’m sure she’s cause about a million accident, but oh, she follows the speed limit… (rant off).

Mysteryman said :

Jim Jones said :

Mysteryman said :

Jim Jones said :

Where are the opposing studies then? I’ve had a good look at the subject, and the only opposing views seem to come from vested interests editorialising without any evidence.

I haven’t seen stats on Canberra road safety, so I have no idea of the levels of effectiveness of speed cameras. The only opinion I could offer would be anecdotal – that they function very well as traffic calming devices: people don’t speed through areas they know (or suspect) have speed cameras in them.

Regardless, I’m not going to ignore a bunch of peer-reviewed scientific studies simply because it doesn’t accord with my opinion.

To quote Keynes: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

It’s a nice quote. Look for the facts related to ACT roads and come back when you’ve changed your mind.

What facts? Seriously – give me some evidence or data and I’m ready to look at it.

The absence of data is not evidence of anything.

The data is there, on the ABS website. As mentioned earlier, I’m at work so I don’t have the time to retrieve it for you.

The data the ABS has is going to be about rates of accidents on ACT roads – to look at efficiency of speed cameras, there’s a lot more work to do: correlating against rates of traffic on the roads, looking at the particular areas where cameras are positioned, etc.

If you (or anyone, for that matter), has data that shows that speed cameras are ineffective in the ACT, then I’d be keen to see it.

It’s telling that, for all the wailing and gnashing of teeth, nobody has actually provided any such data, while peer reviewed evidence attesting to the effectiveness of speed cameras is almost ubiquitous.

Jim Jones said :

Mysteryman said :

Jim Jones said :

Where are the opposing studies then? I’ve had a good look at the subject, and the only opposing views seem to come from vested interests editorialising without any evidence.

I haven’t seen stats on Canberra road safety, so I have no idea of the levels of effectiveness of speed cameras. The only opinion I could offer would be anecdotal – that they function very well as traffic calming devices: people don’t speed through areas they know (or suspect) have speed cameras in them.

Regardless, I’m not going to ignore a bunch of peer-reviewed scientific studies simply because it doesn’t accord with my opinion.

To quote Keynes: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

It’s a nice quote. Look for the facts related to ACT roads and come back when you’ve changed your mind.

What facts? Seriously – give me some evidence or data and I’m ready to look at it.

The absence of data is not evidence of anything.

The data is there, on the ABS website. As mentioned earlier, I’m at work so I don’t have the time to retrieve it for you.

allyroger said :

Why has NSW cut off a bunch of cameras recently?

Red Light Cameras are a different story but speed cameras do not increase safety and are purely revenue raisers.

Ha ha – because it was a Liberal Party election promise, that’s why. They cut the ones that the auditor general said were not reducing accidents. But, once again, that study by the NSW auditor general showed that speed cameras overall were indeed improving safety.

“The audit found that:
• total crashes and injuries each fell 26 per cent, and fatalities fell by more than two-thirds, in the three years after the installation of fixed speed camera. Long term trends show that these reductions have been maintained
• the average number of speeding fines per fixed and safety cameras declines over time
• fixed and safety speed cameras were located in areas with high road safety risk.”

In fact, maybe that NSW scenario puts this whole thing in some context. The A-G found some of the individual cameras weren’t reducing accidents. Liberal Party takes them out with fanfare and everyone goes “yeah! the speed cameras don’t work!” (I’m sure the UK Daily Mail would have been onto that). And they conveniently ignore the overall finding of the A-G that the speed cameras were actually improving safety.

Mysteryman said :

Jim Jones said :

Where are the opposing studies then? I’ve had a good look at the subject, and the only opposing views seem to come from vested interests editorialising without any evidence.

I haven’t seen stats on Canberra road safety, so I have no idea of the levels of effectiveness of speed cameras. The only opinion I could offer would be anecdotal – that they function very well as traffic calming devices: people don’t speed through areas they know (or suspect) have speed cameras in them.

Regardless, I’m not going to ignore a bunch of peer-reviewed scientific studies simply because it doesn’t accord with my opinion.

To quote Keynes: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

It’s a nice quote. Look for the facts related to ACT roads and come back when you’ve changed your mind.

What facts? Seriously – give me some evidence or data and I’m ready to look at it.

The absence of data is not evidence of anything.

I think one of the points most people leave out when discussing speed camera’s is “They work great at reducing accidents within a defined radius of where they are implemented.”

I don’t think that people are disputing that they don’t work, I think they are more emotional about the implementation of them in the ACT.

Last year there were 18 or so fatalities in the ACT, Monaro and Canberra Avenue, no speed camera, Erindale Drive, no speed Camera, I can’t remember the other locations off the top of my head, but that counts for 6 of the fatalities. Are there speed camera’s in those locations? No.

Where the current speed camera’s are, Hindmarsh, Tuggy Parkway x 2, Federal Highway, Monaro Highway x 2, Canberra Ave and Captain Cook Cres, Northboure and Barry Drive, Marcus Clarke and Barry Drive, Northbourne and Antil etc. I can’t remember, in recent years how many fatal accident’s have occurred at those intersections, I don’t believe any, I might be wrong, I just can’t remember any. Are they HIGH accident zones, or just high traffic complaint zones?

While speed does contribute to death’s, there is always other circumstances, Erindale Drive – could have been speed and playing with an iPod, Monaro Highway – Speed and getting away from the Police etc. I don’t believe reducing the speed will stop the crash, it just lower’s the seriousness of the crash.

Having a speed camera on Drakeford Drive and Marconi Crescent is not going to stop a fatal accident on Kuringa Drive etc.

The Government needs to stop selling lie’s to it’s people to raise money. If they were to say “It has been shown that having speed camera’s effectively lower’s the speed at the area’s they are installed.” I don’t think anyone could really argue with them, that is what it does, if people then speed through those area’s they get a fine.

Speed Camera’s work at certain things, they aren’t going to fix the way Canberran’s drive, they aren’t going to stop fatalities or crashes, but they help reduce the amount of people who speed through area’s where they are implemented.

Jim Jones said :

Where are the opposing studies then? I’ve had a good look at the subject, and the only opposing views seem to come from vested interests editorialising without any evidence.

I haven’t seen stats on Canberra road safety, so I have no idea of the levels of effectiveness of speed cameras. The only opinion I could offer would be anecdotal – that they function very well as traffic calming devices: people don’t speed through areas they know (or suspect) have speed cameras in them.

Regardless, I’m not going to ignore a bunch of peer-reviewed scientific studies simply because it doesn’t accord with my opinion.

To quote Keynes: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

It’s a nice quote. Look for the facts related to ACT roads and come back when you’ve changed your mind.

allyroger said :

There are plenty of studies that show speed cameras cause more accidents:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2029361/Speed-cameras-cut-accidents–create-study-finds.html

Why has NSW cut off a bunch of cameras recently?

Red Light Cameras are a different story but speed cameras do not increase safety and are purely revenue raisers.

With respect, the Daily Mail is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal, it’s a grubby UK Tabloid famous for paying buckets of cash in libel lawsuits.

Without hoping to upset anyone, Im sure after 7 years of speed cameras, if there had been a reduction in road fatalities, there would be media releases about it advertising this fact. I think the silence has been deafening. All we have heard thoguh is how much money they have made.

All that being said Im sorry to say I do recall a very horrible fatality on hindmarsh drive (heading west, towards woden) where a few people were killed due to young fellas hooning their overpowered (for them) vehicle. If they have to have controls on any stretch of road in Canberra, this would be the place I would prefer it the most becuase of this.

There are plenty of studies that show speed cameras cause more accidents:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2029361/Speed-cameras-cut-accidents–create-study-finds.html

Why has NSW cut off a bunch of cameras recently?

Red Light Cameras are a different story but speed cameras do not increase safety and are purely revenue raisers.

Mysteryman said :

Jim Jones said :

Mysteryman said :

Jim Jones said :

Mysteryman said :

Speed cameras don’t improve road safety or reduce serious collisions. It’s been proven time and time again.

Where?

All the peer reviewed evidence I’ve seen shows that controlling and reducing speeding contributes to lower accident rates.

http://www.physorg.com/news140443278.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/death-rate-down-at-speed-camera-sites-755740.html
http://www.news-medical.net/news/20101006/Speed-cameras-reduce-road-accidents-significantly-Study.aspx
http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/

etc.

The first link – news report to 1 study that suggests cameras work.
The second link – a news report about a study funded by a government that was in favour of speed cameras.
The third link – looks interesting, but I can’t find any information on who funded the study, or the actual findings.
The fourth link – goes to a website about accidents, not any actual info.

I’m at work so I don’t have the luxury of spending time googling studies and posting link after link of studies that found speed cameras to be ineffectual, but answer this: has there been a noticeable improvement in accident numbers and fatalities in the ACT since the introduction of speed cameras?

Meh, you can ignore evidence if you want – from those links I provided there are links to absolute stacks of peer-reviewed studies, including the one that analyzed 35 other studies.

Regardless, it puts the lie to the comment that “Speed cameras don’t improve road safety or reduce serious collisions. It’s been proven time and time again.”

No, it doesn’t. It puts forth an opposing argument. There are numerous studies that have found the opposite, which is why the study you keep harping on about hasn’t made the impact that people like you are obviously hoping for.

Why not answer my question? If they are as effective as you think they are, then they would have had an effect on the stats for the ACT, wouldn’t they? We’ve had speed cameras in Canberra for roughly 7 years now. Have our roads gotten safer? Have we recorded less accidents and less fatalities?

Where are the opposing studies then? I’ve had a good look at the subject, and the only opposing views seem to come from vested interests editorialising without any evidence.

I haven’t seen stats on Canberra road safety, so I have no idea of the levels of effectiveness of speed cameras. The only opinion I could offer would be anecdotal – that they function very well as traffic calming devices: people don’t speed through areas they know (or suspect) have speed cameras in them.

Regardless, I’m not going to ignore a bunch of peer-reviewed scientific studies simply because it doesn’t accord with my opinion.

To quote Keynes: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

Jim Jones said :

Mysteryman said :

Jim Jones said :

Mysteryman said :

Speed cameras don’t improve road safety or reduce serious collisions. It’s been proven time and time again.

Where?

All the peer reviewed evidence I’ve seen shows that controlling and reducing speeding contributes to lower accident rates.

http://www.physorg.com/news140443278.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/death-rate-down-at-speed-camera-sites-755740.html
http://www.news-medical.net/news/20101006/Speed-cameras-reduce-road-accidents-significantly-Study.aspx
http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/

etc.

The first link – news report to 1 study that suggests cameras work.
The second link – a news report about a study funded by a government that was in favour of speed cameras.
The third link – looks interesting, but I can’t find any information on who funded the study, or the actual findings.
The fourth link – goes to a website about accidents, not any actual info.

I’m at work so I don’t have the luxury of spending time googling studies and posting link after link of studies that found speed cameras to be ineffectual, but answer this: has there been a noticeable improvement in accident numbers and fatalities in the ACT since the introduction of speed cameras?

Meh, you can ignore evidence if you want – from those links I provided there are links to absolute stacks of peer-reviewed studies, including the one that analyzed 35 other studies.

Regardless, it puts the lie to the comment that “Speed cameras don’t improve road safety or reduce serious collisions. It’s been proven time and time again.”

No, it doesn’t. It puts forth an opposing argument. There are numerous studies that have found the opposite, which is why the study you keep harping on about hasn’t made the impact that people like you are obviously hoping for.

Why not answer my question? If they are as effective as you think they are, then they would have had an effect on the stats for the ACT, wouldn’t they? We’ve had speed cameras in Canberra for roughly 7 years now. Have our roads gotten safer? Have we recorded less accidents and less fatalities?

Mysteryman said :

Jim Jones said :

Mysteryman said :

Speed cameras don’t improve road safety or reduce serious collisions. It’s been proven time and time again.

Where?

All the peer reviewed evidence I’ve seen shows that controlling and reducing speeding contributes to lower accident rates.

http://www.physorg.com/news140443278.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/death-rate-down-at-speed-camera-sites-755740.html
http://www.news-medical.net/news/20101006/Speed-cameras-reduce-road-accidents-significantly-Study.aspx
http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/

etc.

The first link – news report to 1 study that suggests cameras work.
The second link – a news report about a study funded by a government that was in favour of speed cameras.
The third link – looks interesting, but I can’t find any information on who funded the study, or the actual findings.
The fourth link – goes to a website about accidents, not any actual info.

I’m at work so I don’t have the luxury of spending time googling studies and posting link after link of studies that found speed cameras to be ineffectual, but answer this: has there been a noticeable improvement in accident numbers and fatalities in the ACT since the introduction of speed cameras?

Meh, you can ignore evidence if you want – from those links I provided there are links to absolute stacks of peer-reviewed studies, including the one that analyzed 35 other studies.

Regardless, it puts the lie to the comment that “Speed cameras don’t improve road safety or reduce serious collisions. It’s been proven time and time again.”

Jim Jones said :

Mysteryman said :

Speed cameras don’t improve road safety or reduce serious collisions. It’s been proven time and time again.

Where?

All the peer reviewed evidence I’ve seen shows that controlling and reducing speeding contributes to lower accident rates.

http://www.physorg.com/news140443278.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/death-rate-down-at-speed-camera-sites-755740.html
http://www.news-medical.net/news/20101006/Speed-cameras-reduce-road-accidents-significantly-Study.aspx
http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/

etc.

The first link – news report to 1 study that suggests cameras work.
The second link – a news report about a study funded by a government that was in favour of speed cameras.
The third link – looks interesting, but I can’t find any information on who funded the study, or the actual findings.
The fourth link – goes to a website about accidents, not any actual info.

I’m at work so I don’t have the luxury of spending time googling studies and posting link after link of studies that found speed cameras to be ineffectual, but answer this: has there been a noticeable improvement in accident numbers and fatalities in the ACT since the introduction of speed cameras?

Jim Jones said :

“A study was conducted by Australia’s University of Queensland. They analyzed 35 studies from Australia, the United States, Canada, Germany, Denmark, Finland, Britain, Hong Kong, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Norway and saw the usefulness of speed cameras in preventing accidents.”

“Collated findings from all the studies showed that speed cameras cut the average speed by 1-15 percent and the percentage of vehicles that exceeded local speed limits between 14 percent and 65 percent. The numbers of crashes in the areas of the cameras also fell by between 8 percent and 49 percent, while fatal or serious injury crashes reduced by between 11 percent and 44 percent.”

Peer-reviewed, scientific method, collating findings from 35 studies.

Seems to me, that if putting in a speed camera is going to result in a reduction in crashes between 8 and 49 per cent, then putting the speed camera somewhere where there are *lots* of accidents would seem to be the way to maximise road safety? There are always lots of crashes out on Point Hut Rd for example. Yet the speed cameras have mostly been placed roads like the Tuggeranong Parkway (and not on the few bends and blind rises, but on the dead straight bit). At least these point to point camera systems will be checking the speed of people going over the somewhat blind crest on Hindmarsh.

Personally I would rather see the Government introduce mobile speed cameras until they reach saturation.

“A study was conducted by Australia’s University of Queensland. They analyzed 35 studies from Australia, the United States, Canada, Germany, Denmark, Finland, Britain, Hong Kong, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Norway and saw the usefulness of speed cameras in preventing accidents.”

“Collated findings from all the studies showed that speed cameras cut the average speed by 1-15 percent and the percentage of vehicles that exceeded local speed limits between 14 percent and 65 percent. The numbers of crashes in the areas of the cameras also fell by between 8 percent and 49 percent, while fatal or serious injury crashes reduced by between 11 percent and 44 percent.”

Peer-reviewed, scientific method, collating findings from 35 studies.

Mysteryman said :

Speed cameras don’t improve road safety or reduce serious collisions. It’s been proven time and time again.

Where?

All the peer reviewed evidence I’ve seen shows that controlling and reducing speeding contributes to lower accident rates.

http://www.physorg.com/news140443278.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/death-rate-down-at-speed-camera-sites-755740.html
http://www.news-medical.net/news/20101006/Speed-cameras-reduce-road-accidents-significantly-Study.aspx
http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/

etc.

I’m almost certain they are installed on the part of hindmarsh drive between Woden and Fyshwick.
People regularly drive at 100kmh here. I know I have because the road is perfectly capable of handling 100km/h. Thats not deliberately, but more driving to the conditions.

But of course there are traffic lights and that means 80 maximum in Canberra although on the Monaro heading south they manage to do 100 down to 80 for lights with extra warning lights.

Where speeding is often the cause of an accident is in areas where a blind corner is and its often 80 in a 60 zone there. But you don’t see speed cameras in blind spots or school zones, just in high capacity straight stretches of road. The speeding that causes accidents on straight patches of road is often by hoons doing well in excess of 150km/h. They just won’t hoon where these P2P cameras are. They’ll still find straight patches of road to excessively speed on.

qbngeek said :

And for those complaining about how it is just revenue raising. Stop speeding and it won’t be an issue. Sppeding fines are just a stupity tax for those who don’t deserve to be on the road.

That’s where you’re partially wrong. If nobody sped, it would still be an issue because the cameras cost us money to maintain, and the government (who install the cameras to make money) rely on the income they provide. If you take that income away you will probably find that speed limits will lower (under the guise of “road safety) in order to try to “catch” more people out, or they will implement new ways to fine/tax people to make up the deficit (increased rego fees, etc). One way or another, the money will come out of the pocket of the general public.

Jim Jones said :

what_the said :

What a fvcking waste of money of this mindless obsession with speed enforcement – only one of hundreds of variables required to drive a car.

And yet somehow I suspect they’ll make their money back pretty quickly.

But will it increase road safety or lower fatalities? After all, that’s why the government claim to be implementing the point-to-point speed camera systems. The answer is no, it won’t. Speed cameras don’t improve road safety or reduce serious collisions. It’s been proven time and time again. So why are they really doing it? If the government genuinely cared about road safety they’d be exploring/funding other avenues (no pun intended) that are more likely to actually make a difference.

Innovation said :

#1

RedDogInCan – I know it’s not a traditional P2P but doesn’t the M7 measure speed over distance and pass on the info to let law enforcement issue traffic infringements?

THis is an urban legend which has been denied by all parties involved.

And to all those complaining about traffic lights affecting the times. The system is being installed between the two sets of lights as you go over the big hill. Hence the ongoing works on the median strip and the massive poles that went in there a few weeks ago. The system needs to be installed between traffic lights as it will not account for the timing of the lights and will not give an accurate reading.

And for those complaining about how it is just revenue raising. Stop speeding and it won’t be an issue. Sppeding fines are just a stupity tax for those who don’t deserve to be on the road.

Evil_Kitten said :

Does anyone know when the ones on the Federal Highway are going to come into effect? Or is it for trucks only?

As for Hindmarsh, I think I will just avoid that road when they come in. Too much speedo watching for my liking! Also, weren’t they supposed to go all the way to the Monaro Highway? Why is there a second set of poles as you come over the hill on that first downward part in Red Hill?

It needs to be set up between the traffic lights or it will be worse than useless

Palifox said :

“There are strong safeguards to protect personal information, and the legislation explicitly restricts access to and use of these images. Images that do not show offences will be destroyed after 14 days.”

Why do they need to keep the images 14 days? If you were not speeding, why can’t they delete the image 1 second later? Would save a lot of data storage space.

#1 RedDogInCan – I know it’s not a traditional P2P but doesn’t the M7 measure speed over distance and pass on the info to let law enforcement issue traffic infringements?

Personally, I don’t know why all the fuss. Action’s MyWay collects (and probably stores) details of commuter trips every day and I don’t recall people complaining.

As for the cameras. It would be great if they reduce speeding and monitoring speeding is better than not monitoring any driving offences at all. And, provided I don’t get booked, any revenue raised from P2Ps etc, hopefully, means that I pay less taxes somewhere else.

My only gripe is that there should be more accountability. Any revenue gained should be identifiable and committed to specific services eg, policing, roads, public transport, so we can see some sort of improvement.

Mysteryman said :

what_the said :

What a fvcking waste of money of this mindless obsession with speed enforcement – only one of hundreds of variables required to drive a car.

Yep. Agreed.

I don’t blame the government entirely, though. I blame the people who voted for them.

Same here!! …….and the clever people who think they’re teaching the major parties a lesson by voting green who are totally oblivious to the fact that they’re really voting Labor. ..shakes head..

Now I wait for all the “If we had an alternative” replies….you are the problem. To get anywhere in life, you need to take risks.

Back to the subject of point to point speed cameras: It should be of real concern that drivers on Hindmarsh Drive will need to be more focused on looking down at their speedo than watching the road and surroundings ahead.

The thing with speed is it’s the variable most easily quantified.

what_the said :

What a fvcking waste of money of this mindless obsession with speed enforcement – only one of hundreds of variables required to drive a car.

And yet somehow I suspect they’ll make their money back pretty quickly.

It may be only one of hundreds of variables required to drive a car, but for some reason it’s the one that many people think is unimportant or just doesn’t apply to them.

Speaking of which, where’s Mr G? He can always be guaranteed to argue the case that speed limits are a dangerous imposition on his freedom and that they cause accidents … and look at the sexy newsreader!

Palifox said :

And how far apart are these points? Suppose I drive from Weston Creek to Fyshwick and fluke most of the traffic lights green. My point to point speed is far higher than usual, even though I may be 5kph below the posted limits all the way.

But your average speed will still be under the speed limit, so I’m not sure what you’re getting at here.

what_the said :

What a fvcking waste of money of this mindless obsession with speed enforcement – only one of hundreds of variables required to drive a car.

Yep. Agreed.

I don’t blame the government entirely, though. I blame the people who voted for them.

“There are strong safeguards to protect personal information, and the legislation explicitly restricts access to and use of these images. Images that do not show offences will be destroyed after 14 days.”

Yeah, right. How long is that going to last? I’d give it five years maximum before the regulations are changed to make the records last a lot longer if not permanent.

And how far apart are these points? Suppose I drive from Weston Creek to Fyshwick and fluke most of the traffic lights green. My point to point speed is far higher than usual, even though I may be 5kph below the posted limits all the way.

Anyone have a white VX Commodore I can borrow for half an hour? I want to get done for 700+ km/h over the limit.

Another way to have less requirement for less police presence and to rake in more revenue. We are really being looked after here as taxpayers. This will save so many lives…..end sarcasm. If speeding is such a huge issue , why not install limiters nationally in cars so we can’t speed…..ah no revenue then. That would save much more lives ……no sarcasm intended this time. I really wish they would spend more on infrastructure rather then just clear revenue makers, like enough parking for everyone…ah again more ”needed’ revenue. I guess most of the parking areas are privatised now, and the road tolls are privatised or contracted out , so not even the Government is directly organising getting the cash from us. They let the companies do the ‘work’ set the ‘rules’ and then sit back and laugh while taxpayers fight over being charged for something that has no real requirement to exist in the first place other then to make money. Then the Government collects any tax from it, with not a care in the world, and no accountability. What a wonderful system we all keep well financed.

What a fvcking waste of money of this mindless obsession with speed enforcement – only one of hundreds of variables required to drive a car.

Does anyone know when the ones on the Federal Highway are going to come into effect? Or is it for trucks only?

As for Hindmarsh, I think I will just avoid that road when they come in. Too much speedo watching for my liking! Also, weren’t they supposed to go all the way to the Monaro Highway? Why is there a second set of poles as you come over the hill on that first downward part in Red Hill?

RedDogInCan said :

This is going to be interesting for our interstate visitors. NSW also has point to point speed cameras but only for heavy vehicles. The NSW signage is a bit vague in that respect and anyone from NSW, on seeing similar signs in the ACT, would probably make the assumption to their detriment that the cameras were only for heavy vehicles here as well.

it’ll be fun tricking NSW folk into putting money into ACT coffers though won’t it? not to mention if they’re breaking the law (ie travelling faster than signposted speed limits), it doesn’t matter whether they come from – NSW or the moon – then getting caught is their own problem!

This is going to be interesting for our interstate visitors. NSW also has point to point speed cameras but only for heavy vehicles. The NSW signage is a bit vague in that respect and anyone from NSW, on seeing similar signs in the ACT, would probably make the assumption to their detriment that the cameras were only for heavy vehicles here as well.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.