New Revenue Speed Cameras Active

Jazz 16 August 2007 63

John Hargreaves has put out this media release on the activation of 4 new permanent speed cameras around Canberra.

New locations are Canberra Avenue/Captain Cook Crescent/Manuka Circle; Gungahlin Drive/Gundaroo Drive, Tuggeranong Parkway, near the Cotter Road Overpass; and Federal Highway, southbound, approaching the Antill Street roundabout.

With these ones yet to come.

Federal Highway, northbound, approaching the Antill Street roundabout
Tuggeranong Parkway, both directions, near the Hindmarsh Drive underpass
Barton Highway, both directions, between Curran Drive and Gold Creek Road
Barton Highway, both directions, between Gungahlin Drive and Ellenborough Street
Monaro Highway, both directions, near the Hindmarsh Drive overpass
Monaro Highway, northbound, between Lanyon Drive and Sheppard Street
Monaro Highway, southbound, between Mugga Lane and Isabella Drive


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
63 Responses to New Revenue Speed Cameras Active
Filter
Order
PK PK 2:33 pm 15 May 08

Just out of interest, has anyone actually been booked by one of the fixed speed cameras that have been installed on the Monaro Highway (either at Hume or near Isabella Drive)? The reason I ask this is that at other speed camera sites, as you go past the camera itself you can actually see the sensors that have been installed in the road itself which are the things that detect what speed you are actually doing. Neither of the ones I see on the Monaro Highway have these sensors, so I am thinking that theu are either ones that use a different method to detect speed (eg radar), or…. are they dummy units just designed to make people slow down???

Secondly, I saw on the Barton Highway just near the GDE overpass that there is a camera in both directions. BUT… have a close look at these cameras. In the direction where you are going away from Canberra, there is a flash unit and a camera unit as expected. However, on the side of the road coming into Canberra, there is a flash unit only, but no camera unit – it is actually facing the other way to get people leaving Canberra. And, do these have sensors in the road? How can the unit take a photo of you as you approach Canberra if the camera is facing the other way?

The ones on the Parkway definitely have the sensors because you can see then, but at the other sites I mention, definitely not!

Just interested…

Straight Shooter Straight Shooter 11:43 pm 24 Aug 07

Ok here’s the deal. I have never been busted speeding and frankly the new cameras don’t faze me in the slightest. However, as most of you know by now, there are two new speed on the Monaro Hwy tucked away behind sign posts eager to trap unsuspecting drivers. How devious ! These so called “safety” cameras are put in spots identified by the Labour Government as problem areas. So tell me why I rarely see speed vans or police patroling these areas during peak hour traffic? I have driven on the Monaro Hwy 6 days out of 7 for the past 6 years and I only ever see added police presence during the snow season when busting interstate visitors is easy. Please don’t tell me that these cameras are not revenue based ! In essence I am sick and tired of our own Government telling us blatent lies…thats what really annoys me. Tell me the cameras are for revenue and I could deal with it but don’t give me this cock and bull story about them “saving lives”. Saving your budget more like it. Here’s an idea…spray paint the new camera poles fluro pink…just for safety reasons of course.

flyingblind flyingblind 8:24 am 22 Aug 07

jemmy re Victoria,

I completely agree about their unrealistic speed tolerances, so much so that i avoid driving there at all costs,and i have family there. We just catch public transport around Melbourne when there.

We also have black listed Victoria for any family driving holidays as a destination as a direct result of their driving tax. Its market forces i guess, Victoria – too bloody expensive to move in!

Thumper Thumper 8:13 am 22 Aug 07

Speed cameras have absolutely no effect on me whatsoever.

I don’t speed. Never been done by a speed camera.

However, I still see them as purely revenue raising implements.

case in point, driving to work today some dildo cut across Ginninderra Drive nearly causing rear enders in two lanes, yet he was only doing about 50-60 klicks.

A cop car on the road would have seen him sorted out. A speed camera in that situation is useless.

As for speed, it’s bloody obvious that you have less reaction time at 120 klicks than you would have at say 80-100 klicks. Less reaction time means more chance of not being able to get out of a situation which subsequently means more chance of a bingle.

jemmy jemmy 5:52 pm 21 Aug 07

Those in favour of cameras or who say it’s a voluntary tax are assuming that the government will continue to set realistic speed limits. However, the pressure to use it as a revenue device will prove irresistible.

Simply by reducing limits by 10kmh they will ping just enough drivers to get $120 a time, yet not enough drivers so that the whole community becomes outraged.

You have no experience of governments that act unethically. The Victorian govt has lowered limits and set unrealistic limits to the extent that so many people have tickets that insurance companies no longer question Victorian drivers about their speeding tickets when renewing.

Most people do have a self-preservation instinct and drive to suit conditions. The speed limit that causes the fewest accidents is at the 85% level in the fourth quartile of the ‘natural’ speed, i.e. the speed done by unconstrained drivers. The Victorian government intentionally sets their limits less than that, thereby causing more accidents.

The Victorian government now gets over $500m a year; it is so much that it is a permanent budget allocation. If they were honest about it, it would not be recurrent revenue because surely the aim is to reduce it to zero, i.e. no drivers speeding.

niftydog niftydog 5:46 pm 21 Aug 07

Perhaps. But we will never know since you simply cannot actively avoid unforeseen, random events.

Unforeseen? Random? Hey, there’s an argument for the effectiveness of mobile cameras!

caf caf 5:14 pm 21 Aug 07

Bollocks.

niftydog niftydog 4:37 pm 21 Aug 07

That’s fine, Mash, but your taxes have been used to buy these things and what do you get back? Has road safety improved? Marginally, maybe, if you squint really hard at the figures!

The government just aren’t being honest about it. If they just came out and said “these things cost a lot of tax payers money, make us millions of bucks in unallocated funds and do little to improve road safety” then I’d shut up. Instead they continue to lye outright to us on a daily basis.

caf said: “…you’ll find it easier to avoid an accident if you’re going 100km/h rather than 120km/h.”
That’s a flawed argument. It’s equally likely that you’ll actually put yourself in harms way by doing 100 instead of 120. Besides, no speed camera is ever going to solve that problem.

I advocate driver training and stricter conditions on granting licences, but that costs money and reduces revenue so that’s never going to happen.

Mash Mash 4:30 pm 19 Aug 07

I still can’t fathom what everyone is whinging about! If you exceed the speed limit and get caught – it’s your own fault. It’s not the fault of the Government or Police, or even the hoon tail-gating your bumper bar.

Quite simply, speeding fines are voluntary taxes.

For those wanting to see more Police on the street, look squarely at the ACT Government who have provided inadequate resources for the plod for way too long.

That’s just my two (or maybe three) cents worth.

Bundybear Bundybear 4:39 pm 18 Aug 07

How do you multiply and maximize the impact of a speed camera? Put lots of big signs up in the kilometre of road before the camera, thereby creating motivation to reduce speed sooner, and stay at correct speed longer. Outcome: Increase in road safety. Problem: fewer people caught speeding, less revenue. Chances of it occurring, zero.

Thumper Thumper 8:53 am 18 Aug 07

I must add that speed cameras really don’t worry me as I don’t speed.

Haven’t had a speeding fine since, well, at least 15 years ago….

I’d rather see more police cars on the road rather than cameras, especially in cases such as WMC has pointed out.

Pandy Pandy 11:31 pm 17 Aug 07

Will these cameras suffer the Gatso treatment?

http://www.speedcam.co.uk/gatso2.htm

Woody Mann-Caruso Woody Mann-Caruso 9:49 pm 17 Aug 07

Exactly WMC, Those cameras on the parkway are actually dangerous if anything.

That’s the exact opposite of what I said. What’s dangerous is hoons tearing along at 130 under the bridge and then cleaning up somebody coming down the entry ramp. Watched a P-plater do it last weekend – tore up behind me, jerked into the right hand lane flooring it past me, jumped back in front of me into the left hand lane, then had to slam on his brakes (I’m talking lock up here) and swerve back into the right lane to avoid cleaning up a station wagon that’d just entered the left lane from the ramp. They use the downhill slope to pick up speed – perfect place for a camera, I reckon. Ditto with the one at Chisholm roundabout – gettng tired of being sideswiped by wankers screaming down the lefthand lane, then cutting across two lanes to get into the roundabout turnoff at the last second.

caf caf 5:03 pm 17 Aug 07

(that’s the sound of the point sailing over your head as you missed it completely)

hingo hingo 4:48 pm 17 Aug 07

“For example, if someone else on the road loses concentration and changes lane into you”

And how exactly can a speed camera ping such dumbass drivers?

caf caf 4:44 pm 17 Aug 07

Oh and in the interests of full disclosure, I myself got pinged for speeding last weekend. I’m yet to arc up about it though.

caf caf 4:43 pm 17 Aug 07

It’s interesting that the anti-camera lobby don’t seem to address the point that even if a particular accident isn’t primarily caused by speeding, the fact the one or both parties are speeding can well have reduced the avoidability of an accident, and/or made the results of the accident more severe. For example, if someone else on the road loses concentration and changes lane into you, you’ll find it easier to avoid an accident if you’re going 100km/h rather than 120km/h.

GregW GregW 3:33 pm 17 Aug 07

Taking the use of speed camera’s for revenue raising and not crash reduct as a given, is there any practical reason why the government couldn’t assign revenues from camera’s to a certain area, like as AG suggested hospitals, or on road works etc.. Practically it would make no difference as the government would then simply decrease allocated funding to the department, but it might make those with fines to pay a little more happy knowing that the money will flow to whatever cause.

VYBerlinaV8 now_with_added grunt VYBerlinaV8 now_with_added grunt 2:44 pm 17 Aug 07

If we want to look at stats we need to look at things such as:
1) Where did deaths and major injuries actually occur?
2) Were there any common factors leading to such situations (there aren’t always)?

In my opinion, there are three main causes of serious road accidents:
1) People who lose concentration, or lack the skills to control their car in an exceptional situation.
2) Mechanical failure.
3) People jerking around going for a ‘top speed run’, showing off to their mates, etc.

I’m not sure how speed cameras address ANY of these things. Personally, I’d be much happier with a greater marked police presence on the roads.

niftydog niftydog 12:38 pm 17 Aug 07

Fines don’t stop bad drivers either, aussielyn.

“Stanhopeless’s press release… claimed that 15% of people speed on the Parkway.

Can we see these stats?”
Who cares about THOSE stats, how about looking at stats that are actually relevant?! Just because that’s true doesn’t mean it’s causing an increase in accidents.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

 Top
Region Group Pty Ltd

Search across the site