Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Skilled legal advice with
accessible & personal attention

Here come the point to point cameras

By johnboy 23 September 2010 194

[First filed: Sep 21, 2010 @ 10:01]

report cover

I get a little confused about dates sometimes. But I’ve checked the calendar and it confirms today is indeed Tuesday 21 September 2010.

So I’m not quite sure what it means when TAMS says this on its website:

On Thursday 21 September 2010 the ACT Government announced that the ACT’s first point-to-point speed cameras would be installed on Hindmarsh Drive, to be operational by mid next year.

The forward design study is available and says the cameras are also good for:

    – fixed speed offences;
    – bus lane enforcement;
    – unregistered and uninsured vehicles;
    – unlicensed drivers;
    – providing traffic data to a Traffic Management Centre (TMC);
    – Road User pricing;
    – identifying vehicles associated with crime; and
    – mass surveillance.

That last might have perked some of you up. Here’s what the study has to say on mass surveillance:

P2P systems have the potential to provide data for mass surveillance applications. This application is distinguished from the Non-traffic Related Offences application described above as it is not based on the use of hotlists to define vehicles of interest. Rather it stores data (either vehicle registration and timestamp, or vehicle registration, image, and timestamp) for all vehicles passing the camera and makes it available for future interrogation.

Maybe we just have to get used to them watching our every move?

UPDATE: Mr Stanhope has now put up a media release wherein he explains why this is good for us:

“The ACT will be one of the first jurisdictions to use a network of point-to-point road safety cameras in an urban area. Ultimately, the cameras will monitor stretches of roads, entry and exit points to roads, and check for unregistered, stolen or other vehicles of interest to police using number plate recognition technology.

“The cameras are part of a suite of ACT Government measures designed to challenge the culture of speeding on Canberra’s roads, reduce road trauma and save lives.”

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
194 Responses to
Here come the point to point cameras
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
10
Jethro 9:18 pm 13 Oct 10

bjnetzone said :

farnarkler said :

Oh and TAMS please, please, please set up a point to point camera on Ellenbrough St in Kaleen. You’ll make $millions.

And pretty much anywhere in Gungahlin…

William Hovell Drive could do with a few.

bjnetzone 6:37 pm 13 Oct 10

farnarkler said :

Oh and TAMS please, please, please set up a point to point camera on Ellenbrough St in Kaleen. You’ll make $millions.

And pretty much anywhere in Gungahlin…

shadow boxer 6:07 pm 13 Oct 10

Deary me, it’s like the internet version of someones head exploding. Wouldn’t it have been easier just to write i’m sorry I did misrepresent your post and have been caught out. Now I will try and adress your points in a a sane and rational manner.

georgesgenitals 4:35 pm 13 Oct 10

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Relax mate!

I’m not the one who took three attempts to say the same thing – badly.

Smile for the cameras! I know I do.

I smile because I’m not getting caught!

The three attempts thing is quite interesting. I wrote post 186, but it didn’t appear in ‘awaiting moderation mode’, so I rewrote it from memory when the page refreshed. The third post (yay I’m a three post nutbag) was because I got a giggle from your rant.

Jungle Jim 4:34 pm 13 Oct 10

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Smile for the cameras! I know I do.

As I hope we all do. 🙂

Woody Mann-Caruso 4:05 pm 13 Oct 10

You really do honestly think you’re better than everyone else, don’t you?

Just about.

Relax mate!

I’m not the one who took three attempts to say the same thing – badly.

Smile for the cameras! I know I do.

georgesgenitals 2:37 pm 13 Oct 10

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

More fines, more revenue, more research showing it reduces costly crashes, more idiots whining that it isn’t fair they were only shows three enormous white signs warning them about the camera ahead. Boo f*ckin’ hoo, my heart bleeds. Oh wait, no it doesn’t – because I’ve got what I want, and get more of it every day, and the roads are safer than ever. Ha ha!

Most of us just slow down for the cameras. It’s not like we don’t know where they are (those speed vans can be spotted miles away).

Relax mate!

georgesgenitals 2:29 pm 13 Oct 10

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Maybe george can tell you how many more cars we need – he doesn’t know how many there are now, and is on the record as saying he doesn’t care, but I think there’s good scope for you two to bond.

I stated that I thought it would be a good idea to use speed camera revenue to fund additional marked police cars (in response to the question that has arisen before of ‘how do you pay for them’). I said this becuase people generally curtail stupidity around marked police cars.

But thanks for another Woody-bomb to brighten a rainy afternoon.

georgesgenitals 2:24 pm 13 Oct 10

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

< More police? Maybe george can tell you how many more cars we need – he doesn't know how many there are now, and is on the record as saying he doesn't care, but I think there's good scope for you two to bond.

My point, made previously, was that I thought we could use revenue generated from speed cameras to fund additional police police on our roads. The post had nothing to do with 'how many do we need', but rather expressed the view that people behave better behind the wheel when there's a visible police presence.

But thanks for another great Woody-bomb.

Jungle Jim 2:19 pm 13 Oct 10

The above ‘on topic’ statement should have ended with “and this deserves punishment, whether by fine or other”

Jungle Jim 1:58 pm 13 Oct 10

Jeez, Woody, I’ve just read through some of your posts on this thread – You really do honestly think you’re better than everyone else, don’t you?*

I bet you’re a hoot at parties.

Back on topic though, I do agree that being caught speeding, whether it be a patrol car, a fixed camera or a mobile speed van, is the result of stupid behaviour or not paying attention to your surroundings.

*please note: I am not sticking up for any contradictory arguments here, just making an observation.

Woody Mann-Caruso 1:46 pm 13 Oct 10

totally misrepresent what I said

Let’s look at what you did say using quotes then, shall we?

I can count four of our young people who have been killed in the surrounding region in the last couple of weeks and no amount of speed cameras will stop that while the vast majority believe the current limits to slow.

Let’s begin by laying out your claims and the links between them:

– people die on the roads
– they died despite the presence of speed cameras
– you totally reckon everyone else totally reckons we should be allowed to go faster

What’s the take home message from this mismash, mr boxer? You neglect the possibility that there are people who would have died had there been no speed cameras. There’s plenty of research linked to in my many, many, many other posts on the subject that shows a clear and undeniable link between reductions in crashes, injuries and deaths and the introduction of speed cameras. You also neglect thepossibility that more cameras could have prevented these deaths. Further, you make an unstated but clearly implied postulation that, as speed cameras haven’t prevented all deaths, they must be ineffective. If you’d like to print a contrary view, and go on the record that speed cameras are effective, by all means, do so. It’d kinda make your first claim here look – well, retarded, to be frank.

As for the last bit, some advice: the next time you find yourself postulating based on ‘the majority believe’, think twice. What are the odds that the majority comprises the 50 per cent of people with above average intelligence and only a handful of idiots? Rather than ‘belief’, try ‘evidence’ from ‘experts’. See below – what evidence do you have that your eminently ‘reasonable’ limits would improve road safety? (The answer is ‘f*ck all’ – you ‘just reckon’).

What gem of wisdom did you have for us next?

A revised strategy centred around, reasonable limits, bigger points, better trasing, increasing the driving age and better, divided roads might have saved at least one of those lives.

I’ll have to admit I have no idea what ‘trasing’ is. Tracing? Training? Tasering? You’ll need to elaborate.

So, you open by claiming we need a revised strategy centred around:

– reasonable limits – what’s reasonable? Use an 80 zone as an example. What should it be? 85? 90? 95? 100? What evidence do you have that this new limit would reduce deaths, rather than simply resulting in fewer people breaking the law (or even that this latter case would even occur, given that differences in interstate limits show people will break whatever the limit is, even if it’s higher than back home?)

– bigger points – do you mean even greater penalties for speeding? But fines and points are already handled by – wait for it – speed cameras. You know, the same speed cameras you reckon don’t work, and no number of them will further reduce fatalities? How do you propose we detect people breaking these new limits? More police? Maybe george can tell you how many more cars we need – he doesn’t know how many there are now, and is on the record as saying he doesn’t care, but I think there’s good scope for you two to bond. By the way – why do you want penalties anyway? If you think we need more penalties, then that means you think speeding is dangerous – but then you’d have to be for speed cameras that catch and punish speeders. If you think speeding isn’t dangerous, then wouldn’t you want fewer penalties? What’s the big deal, right?

– increasing the driving age – because poor Mully was a teenaged P-plater. What’s that? He was 23? Well, what age do you propose we let people drive, then? 25? 30? Spit it out.

– divided roads – you mean like the one Mully died on?

But all that’s academic, because our existing road strategy is already centred on engineering and education as well as enforcement. You have read it, haven’t you?

In closing – give up. People like you have been ranting and whining for years, and guess what? The world looks more and more like I want it to every day, and less and less like you want. More speed cameras. New and better camera technology. More fines, more revenue, more research showing it reduces costly crashes, more idiots whining that it isn’t fair they were only shows three enormous white signs warning them about the camera ahead. Boo f*ckin’ hoo, my heart bleeds. Oh wait, no it doesn’t – because I’ve got what I want, and get more of it every day, and the roads are safer than ever. Ha ha!

shadow boxer 1:06 pm 13 Oct 10

How does my post saying this

“A revised strategy centred around, reasonable limits, bigger points, better training, increasing the driving age and better, divided roads might have saved at least one of those lives”

equate to this summary

“Some people still die on the road, therefore speed limits, fining people for speeding and speed cameras for enforcement are an ineffective waste of time?”

And you reckon I didn’t get out of the second grade. Carry on though, i’m sure your road safety strategy will produce wonderful results over the Christmas holidays just like it did last long weekend.

10

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site