Fine period looms for mobile detection cameras, almost 200 drivers caught each day

Judging by the number of ‘unlicensed/suspended’ drivers that get nicked by the police for other offences (we see it on Riot Act on an almost daily basis), I would say that demerit points are not are not a very good deterrent. Hit ’em where it hurts, I say….

@Bob
Surely you are taking the proverbial, Bob!

1. It’s only revenue raising if people are stupid enough to break the law. You do realise – no using yout mobile while driving = not caught on camera and therefore no fine. Not rocket science.
2. Why remove the fine? It’s consistent with every other infringement of the road rules – speeding, not wearing seat belt, and so on.
3. If “… this revenue is already baked into their budget”, then it just goes to show how predictably stupid some Canberra drivers are.

Kali – If people are willing to drive unlicensed or suspended, do you really believe that they will pay a fine turning up in the mail? If these people are driving around unlicensed, the only solution is more police on the road to catch and arrest them.

I am also all for people driving unlicensed or suspended getting jail time but again, the only way to enforce this is with an actual police presence on our roads which would cost money, not bring in a revenue source like this garbage.

Justsaying –
1) That doesn’t do anything to change the perception that this is about money. You really want to change people’s actions, take their license from them and get them off the road.
2) So, because that’s the way they have always done it, we should just keep doing the same thing huh? It’s clearly working so very well currently as the tens of thousands of people caught breaking the law shows.
3) If they are already budgeting for money coming in from the fines, it shows they have no incentive to actually remove these people from the roads as it will hurt their budget.

If it wasn’t about revenue, they would directly threaten to remove them from the roads if they break the laws… but if that happens, they don’t get their money.

Pretty sure non-payment of fines can still result in prosecution too (under the Road Transport Act). Better still would be a way of USING the money from fines to pay for more police out on the roads….hmmm.

@Bob
… and nobody who has had their license suspended or cancelled continues to drive, eh Bob? Yeah, that’s a real deterrent for idiots.

Also, you keep on regurgitating this “it’s about the revenue” argument. Well, what don’t you understand about => don’t do it and you don’t have to contribute to government revenue? It’s a simple concept that every law abiding road user understands.

Ok Bob, but if people are willing to drive unlicensed or suspended, what good will it do if they’re “disqualified from driving for 6 months”? They only get disqualified for their disregard for the law, why would they suddenly start obeying it when it becomes even more inconvenient?

Bill – As I stated previously, if people are willing to drive unlicensed, what makes you think they would:
A) Pay a fine that arrived in the mail and
B) For those driving an unregistered vehicle, how do you even know where they live to send them a fine?

The only way to actually remove these people from the road is with a higher police presence which has been massively declining for decades now. It is actually a rarity to see a marked police car on the roads these days.

JustSaying – My post was about the nearly 60,000 people caught on their phones while behind the wheel but of course, you need to try and turn it around to talk about unregistered drivers instead. How very unlike you to be unable to stick to a topic without trying to redirect it…

As I said earlier, the only way to actually remove those imbeciles from the road is with an increased police presence. They have zero interest in that and just go for revenue raising instead. How about those in unregistered vehicles? Oops, don’t have anywhere to send the fine.

@Bob
“… you need to try and turn it around to talk about unregistered drivers”
What are you on about, Bob? Where did I mention unregistered drivers? And you say I’m the one who “… unable to stick to a topic without trying to redirect it”!!! Get a grip on reality, sunshine.

“… nearly 60,000 people caught on their phones while behind the wheel ..” and the number of people caught is relevant, because ….?

“How about those in unregistered vehicles? Oops, don’t have anywhere to send the fine.” … OK, genius – how do you identify them to take away their license then?

“… the only way to actually remove those imbeciles from the road is with an increased police presence” Yes, no argument there but as that’s not going to happen anytime soon the technology delivers an alternative to police presence. Oh and before you lambast me for supporting the lack of police presence – I don’t but I also don’t control their numbers on the road.

JustSaying – “What are you on about, Bob? Where did I mention unregistered drivers?”

“… and nobody who has had their license suspended or cancelled continues to drive, eh Bob? Yeah, that’s a real deterrent for idiots.”

You apparently have an exceedingly short memory…

“and the number of people caught is relevant, because ….?”

Because it’s evidence that the current system of fines very clearly does not work as a deterrent to these idiots on their phones behind the wheel.

“OK, genius – how do you identify them to take away their license then?”

How many times do I need to state that the only real way to get these idiots off the road is to increase the police presence? We both know that won’t be happening though as that would cost them money rather than bringing in all those millions of dollars of revenue they rely on in their budgets.

Based on the number of people constantly being caught for speeding and breaking the laws with these speed cameras, the current system very clearly doesn’t work as a deterrent, does it? If it doesn’t work for speeding, what makes you think a fine will deter other kinds of behaviour?

What is the colloquial term for repeatedly doing the same thing and expecting a different result?

@Bob
Well, Bob, because I have “an exceedingly short memory”, you’ll have to help me out. Again, where did I mention unregistered drivers?

“Because it’s evidence that the current system of fines very clearly does not work as a deterrent to these idiots on their phones behind the wheel.”
Ummm, Bob – from the article: ‘Infringements and demerit points for offences detected by the cameras will begin next month’ … yeah right, these fines that they are currently NOT receiving are NOT working. I’m sure you understand your logic.

“Based on the number of people constantly being caught for speeding and breaking the laws with these speed cameras, the current system very clearly doesn’t work as a deterrent, does it?” That argument can apply for any ‘punishment’ imposed for a breach of the law. So, it’s no good locking up muderers, as it doesn’t deter others from committing murder? The fine system works in a high percentage of cases because ‘normal human beings’, will pay the fine, realise they ****ed up and not do it again. Idiots will be idiots no matter the breach, no matter the penalty.

“What is the colloquial term for repeatedly doing the same thing and expecting a different result?” Insanity, Bob. So, why do you keep banging on about police presence on the road, when “We both know that won’t be happening …”? Especially, as police presence is a ‘point in time’ deterrent – in other words, they have to actually be there to catch the offender. Cameras are always there.

In the meantime, if those 60,000 people continue to use their phones while driving, after the fines are introduced, then all I can say is thank you for your contribution. That’s definitely the definition of insanity.

Bob, as a starting point let us assume we add exactly two police and one vehicle (this can be extrapolated). What do you think they will be doing? List police priorities, top to bottom. Now tell me where randomly driving around Canberra in the vague hope of seeing someone using their phone stands, when static cameras are more cost-effective? What will they do when they actually catch someone (I exclude summary execution)? Fine them with penalty points? What is the difference from cheaper cameras?

Any other action involves a magistrate, adding to cost, time, waste of police resources standing around near a court, for the same result that they either obey the law in future or not.

I know, “more police” gets authoritarians excited in their night-times. In this context it is pretty much a complete waste of your taxes.

JustSaying – So you’re now saying that: “… and nobody who has had their license suspended or cancelled continues to drive, eh Bob? Yeah, that’s a real deterrent for idiots.” was not talking about unregistered drivers? What were you talking about exactly?

That is correct, I misspoke (or misswrote) I was referring to people doing stupid things while behind the wheel such as driving without a seatbelt, running red lights, speeding etc. All of which can currently be caught by cameras and none of which have been stopped by writing people fines.

You have to be completely delusional if you believe the current system of fines effectively discourages people from speeding. Have you spent any time on the Public Service Speedway(err Tuggeranong Parkway) recently? much less any other road in Canberra or anywhere else for that matter? It doesn’t work and everyone knows it… but it sure brings in many millions of dollars to pay for the police budgets.

THIS is why I keep “banging on” about police presence on our roads: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01-28/fewest-police-but-canberrans-feel-safer-than-other-australians/100787356 – “Canberrans, via their government, also spent significantly less on policing — $444 a year per person, while the national figure was $549.50.” The local ACT council simply won’t spend the money required to run an effective police force and instead rely on revenue raising toys that are clearly NOT working.

It’s funny that there used to be lots more police on the roads but this seems to have disappeared over the years when they realised it was much more profitable to simply send out automated fines, even though it doesn’t remove these people from the road like a police presence would.

So you don’t actually care about removing the dangerous idiots from the road? You’re just interested in the money it will bring in? That’s assuming of course, that these people will even pay the fine if they get it or they are not driving an unregistered vehicle and there is somewhere to send the fine..

byline – See my above post to JustSaying for the link to the ABC article showing how we spend the lowest amount of money in the country in policing.

I don’t know if you’re really young and don’t remember what things were like pre revenue raising devices but YES police used to maintain a significant presence on the roads in the “old days” so it absolutely is possible.

If you read my initial post I was advocating for “Get caught once doing something this stupid – 5 demerit points, get caught twice, disqualified from driving for 6 months.” I never even initially mentioned speed cameras which JustSaying seems to have fixated on but he simply refuses to stick to a topic and insists on moving around the goalposts in every conversation. I mentioned prioritising getting these idiots off the road, not bringing in as much money as possible which is the current policy.

The current system of automated fines for offenses like speeding and running red lights are not stopping people from doing it, people just learn where the stationary cameras are, where the vans are parked and continue to drive like idiots anyway. Why do you think that these large, highly visible devices will be any more effective than what is already in place to curb idiots behind the wheel? Spoiler: They won’t be… they’ll sure bring in a whole load of revenue though, which is what is really important.

It would be a “complete waste of your taxes.” If the current system of fines actually worked… which it doesn’t.

@Bob
Oh OK, now I understand. Perhaps you should check your wording before ranting about my memory – I’ve only ever talked about licenses. You REGISTER a vehicle and you LICENSE people to drive vehicles, Bob.

” … speed cameras which JustSaying seems to have fixated on but he simply refuses to stick to a topic and insists on moving around the goalposts in every conversation”
Actually, I’ve been talking about mobile phone detection cameras, Bob … you know the subject matter of this article? You were the one who first raised speed cameras. “Based on the number of people constantly being caught for speeding and breaking the laws with these speed cameras …”. Shame you seem to have no ability to actually read and comprehend what others write – and you suggest I’m delusional!

So, let’s just say we make it to your Fantasyland, Bob, and we do get more police on the road. Where are they going to be? How will they be more effective than mobile detection cameras or (because of my fixation with them) speed cameras? IF they happen to be in the right place at the right time AND they observe a driver breaking the law (excellent use of limited police resources, by the way), the police will issue the offender with an infringement notice – which will have associated demerit points. So what happens then? Because the offender was ticketed by a police officer, they are suddenly going to be ‘cured’ and not reoffend? The process is exactly the same as happens when an infringement notice is issued as a result of detection by a camera!

Anyway, Bob, you clearly have no understanding of the concept of efficient use of resources, so I’ll leave you to wallow in your ignorance and you keep on bleating about the lack of police resources. Meanwhile, I will wait for the media reports once the fines from mobile phone detection have been live for a bit.

I have read that ABC article Bob. Did you not notice in it that, with a lower than average police ratio, not only do Canberrans feel safer but they are less likely to be victims of crime, i.e. actually safer?

On that evidence you raised, what on earth do you imagine to be your point? That a union would like more members?

Please provide specific evidence from reliable research that fines do not curtail offences, your repeated claim.

If you have a sane method to guarantee zero offences then the world would like to know it.

Why not reap loads of cash from idiots who selfishly risk the lives of others through their pathetic obsessions. At this rate of offending, we can commence Stage 3 well ahead of time!

@William Newby
So, William, how stupid are these people to contributing to “Rattenburys pointless tram”? It’s pretty simple, actually – don’t break the law and you don’t have to contribute. Even the citizens of your “woketopia” understand that.

@marg51510
Yes, we do need big brother, because the siblings are too stupid to obey the law.

@Bill
“The graph shows ‘detections’ increased since the cameras were switched on – was that the intended outcome?”
I think it would be very difficult for the cameras to detect anything if they weren’t switched on – but I hazard a guess that ‘detections’ are the reason the cameras were turned on.

Sure, but the graph shows a trend with more and more detections the longer the cameras were operating (and its per month, not cumulative), with the first month showing the fewest, and the last month showing the most (perhaps approx. 3x the number compared to the first month) – seems like they just encouraged more and more phone use over the year

@Bill
Perhaps the increase in the latter two months was due to the implementation of an additional fixed camera on Gunghalin Drive in November? Also, it’s not unreasonable that as the mobile cameras are moved around, they may detect more offenders in certain locations.
You seem to be suggesting that people may have decided to use their phones more because the cameras were there and when they got caught, they would not get fined. Have I got that right?

There is no real “trend” shown.

A new camera was turned on in June which explains the clear jump in that month.

The numbers then are consistent til November/December where there is another lift in numbers.

Considering that the majority are mobile cameras, it’s far more likely that they’ve optimised locations to where they were receiving the most infractions, rather than the actual amount of phone use increasing.

@chewy14
Yes of course. I only saw the report of the extra camera in November, but as you say there was also an addition in June … and the figures correctly reflect those increases.

“Considering that the majority are mobile cameras, it’s far more likely that they’ve optimised locations to where they were receiving the most infractions …” – agreed, and why wouldn’t they deploy the devices to those locations?