Point to point camera legislation introduced.

johnboy 30 June 2011 115

speed camera

Simon Corbell has announced he’s introduced a bill to start up point-to-point cameras.

“The first point-to-point system will be installed on Hindmarsh Drive and is expected to become operational in the second half of 2011.

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 the back of vehicles as they pass two places (detection points) to calculate the vehicle’s average speed between those points. If the average speed exceeds the average speed limit between those points, the driver may be charged with a speeding offence.

For those wanting more detail the Forward Design Study is available.

Simon promises your privacy will be protected to the same standard as other ACT Government projects.

It’s all for your own safety of course.


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
115 Responses to Point to point camera legislation introduced.
Filter
Order
« Previous 1 4 5 6
colourful sydney racing identity colourful sydney racing identity 3:14 pm 07 Jul 11

Holden Caulfield said :

deye said :

Suicide rates higher though I suspect suicide would account for a few road deaths here and there too.

AFAIK, it’s unlikely any suicide related deaths involving motor vehicles would be included in an official road toll.

A lot of single vehicle accidents are suicides.

Holden Caulfield Holden Caulfield 2:00 pm 05 Jul 11

deye said :

Suicide rates higher though I suspect suicide would account for a few road deaths here and there too.

AFAIK, it’s unlikely any suicide related deaths involving motor vehicles would be included in an official road toll.

buzz819 buzz819 11:44 am 05 Jul 11

averagejoeaussie said :

No doubt the good old A.C.T. Government will release figures to show these cameras are bering installed along notorious “black Spots” where there are high rates of accidents………

Lets show them all, we find a speed camera each week and organise like 5 crashes each week at each speed camera, that will show the government they don’t stop crashes!

colourful sydney racing identity colourful sydney racing identity 11:35 am 05 Jul 11

Tooks said :

averagejoeaussie said :

No doubt the good old A.C.T. Government will release figures to show these cameras are bering installed along notorious “black Spots” where there are high rates of accidents………

They don’t have to put them in black spots. Their main aim is to raise revenue. If the cameras happen to reduce collisions on the stretches of road in which they are installed, then so much the better.

Either way, I won’t be contributing to the revenue, so I couldn’t care less.

Absolutely agree.

colourful sydney racing identity colourful sydney racing identity 11:33 am 05 Jul 11

gazket said :

zippyzippy said :

Mysteryman said :

The ACT government has no interest in road safety. If they did, we wouldn’t be seeing point-to-point speed cameras. They don’t “save lives” and they sure as hell don’t make the roads safer for road users.
.

What makes you say they don’t improve safety? Is there evidence for that? Because everything I’ve seen says that they do improve safety – and this seems to be fairly respectable, independent research.

most accidents are caused by inattentive drivers day dreaming . not people speeding. .

Evidence for this claim?

Tooks Tooks 8:44 am 04 Jul 11

averagejoeaussie said :

No doubt the good old A.C.T. Government will release figures to show these cameras are bering installed along notorious “black Spots” where there are high rates of accidents………

They don’t have to put them in black spots. Their main aim is to raise revenue. If the cameras happen to reduce collisions on the stretches of road in which they are installed, then so much the better.

Either way, I won’t be contributing to the revenue, so I couldn’t care less.

averagejoeaussie averagejoeaussie 7:49 pm 03 Jul 11

No doubt the good old A.C.T. Government will release figures to show these cameras are bering installed along notorious “black Spots” where there are high rates of accidents………

deye deye 2:29 am 03 Jul 11

Watson said :

deye said :

You can die at 10 kph

Allrrrrright. I’m out.

In the 12 months to July 2010 two people died in road accidents in a 10 kph zone in Queensland. Of course they weren’t in a car at the time. One was a pedestrian and one was a cyclist.

If you don’t believe me, go to the fatal road crash database and look it up yourself.
http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/road_fatality_statistics/fatal_road_crash_database.aspx

The same database shows that about 1500 people died in road crashes in 2009 across Australia. If you then go to http://abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/B6940E9BF2695EE1CA25788400127B0A?opendocument you’ll see that land transport accidents ranks as the 20th most common form of death in Australia for that year (there is a slight discrepancy in road death numbers between the two databases, but it doesn’t affect the ranking) Heck, even the flu beats out road accidents for causing death. Suicide rates higher though I suspect suicide would account for a few road deaths here and there too. Consider how many flu shots you would be able to buy for the money spent on speed cameras and how many deaths that could prevent, not too mention how much money saved from cutting back on the number of sick days per year.

Classified Classified 8:44 pm 02 Jul 11

deye said :

Watson said :

But my point was not about under what circumstances people start daydreaming behind the wheel. But the severity of the consequences at different speeds. If you admit that some people cannot be trusted to pay attention whilst driving, you should agree that it’s safer for everyone involved to keep the speed limits on most roads down to a speed that does less damage if a crash occurs.

You can die at 10 kph, you can die at 110 kph. Go down that line of thinking and we’ll be back in the days where someone walks in front of the car with a red flag waving.

Educate yourself as a driver, minimize the distractions, drive in a manner that keeps in mind that you don’t know what the other drivers are going to do and for the most part you’ll be fine.

There is always going to be a risk of an accident and/or death in driving, it doesn’t matter how safe we make cars, how slow we drive, or how well the roads are made. After a certain point it’s a waste of time and money in trying to reduce the accident rate to zero as it just won’t happen. You just have to accept that risk and move on.

Frankly there are other areas that we could be looking at to improve the death rate and quality of life that don’t involve roads and vehicles and will help more people.

Careful – that sounds dangerously like common sense…

Innovation Innovation 7:38 pm 02 Jul 11

#101 shadow boxer typed “Why would your last point be relevant ?, I speed all the time but haven’t got a ticket for ages.”

Are you complaining about speed limits or arguing against more monitoring and enforcement?

If you’re complaining about a speed limit somewhere do something constructive about it and I presume that you wouldn’t have any problem with the Gov’t going for broke with monitoring driving infringements everywhere else?

If you’re complaining about monitoring and enforcement, what’s your definition of “ages” and how many tickets and how much revenue have you contributed over time? If you don’t get tickets now even though you “speed all the time”, why would you care if there was more monitoring?

#103 deye typed “You can die at 10 kph, you can die at 110 kph.” True but surely you understand that the degree of risk of dying in a 110km/h smash is much higher than at slower speeds. Alternatively, look at it another way, if the inattentive driver, who is apparently the cause of all accidents, hits you (or someone you care about) when you are doing 110km/h what do you think your chances of survival are?

You also typed “There is always going to be a risk of an accident and/or death in driving, it doesn’t matter how safe we make cars, how slow we drive, or how well the roads are made. After a certain point it’s a waste of time and money in trying to reduce the accident rate to zero as it just won’t happen. You just have to accept that risk and move on.

“Frankly there are other areas that we could be looking at to improve the death rate and quality of life that don’t involve roads and vehicles and will help more people.”

No-one is so naive as to try to reduce the accident rate to zero. However I don’t see how it is a waste of time and money if offenders are caught and contribute to the cost of enforcing responsible safer driving. Your last point is excellent. Let’s raise monitoring and fines through the roof and contribute the revenue to science (eg find a cure for cancer)?

deye deye 7:26 pm 02 Jul 11

Watson said :

Um, what about 100kph roads that they are familiar with?

In my experience and observation people pay more attention to those than roads they are familiar with at 50 or 60.

For example, most Canberra people are familiar with the Tuggeranong Parkway, when you drive down that are you paying more attention to the road and what you are doing than when you are driving in the street your house is in ?

For most people the answer would be yes given the volume of traffic, the speed they are doing and the propensity for objects to be lying next to the concrete divider and the middle of the road, especially at night given the level of lighting and that you usually can’t use your high beams due to the amount of traffic. It’s a great motivator to be paying attention to the situation.

Watson Watson 7:21 pm 02 Jul 11

deye said :

You can die at 10 kph

Allrrrrright. I’m out.

deye deye 6:51 pm 02 Jul 11

Watson said :

But my point was not about under what circumstances people start daydreaming behind the wheel. But the severity of the consequences at different speeds. If you admit that some people cannot be trusted to pay attention whilst driving, you should agree that it’s safer for everyone involved to keep the speed limits on most roads down to a speed that does less damage if a crash occurs.

You can die at 10 kph, you can die at 110 kph. Go down that line of thinking and we’ll be back in the days where someone walks in front of the car with a red flag waving.

Educate yourself as a driver, minimize the distractions, drive in a manner that keeps in mind that you don’t know what the other drivers are going to do and for the most part you’ll be fine.

There is always going to be a risk of an accident and/or death in driving, it doesn’t matter how safe we make cars, how slow we drive, or how well the roads are made. After a certain point it’s a waste of time and money in trying to reduce the accident rate to zero as it just won’t happen. You just have to accept that risk and move on.

Frankly there are other areas that we could be looking at to improve the death rate and quality of life that don’t involve roads and vehicles and will help more people.

Watson Watson 5:43 pm 02 Jul 11

deye said :

Watson said :

gazket said :

most accidents are caused by inattentive drivers day dreaming . not people speeding. The new cameras are Labours way to get more revenue and give it to Greens to build cycle paths and flower beds.

And if people are going to be day dreaming at the wheel, it’s much better if they do it going 60kph than 100kph.

Go for a drive for an hour or so down the highway at 100 or 110, take note of how much attention you pay. Come back into town and drive through a few 60 and 50 zones, also note how much attention you pay.

From what I’ve seen over my life people pay much more attention to what they are doing while driving when they are going 100/110 rather than 50/60, even more so when they are on streets they are familiar with.

Um, what about 100kph roads that they are familiar with?

But my point was not about under what circumstances people start daydreaming behind the wheel. But the severity of the consequences at different speeds. If you admit that some people cannot be trusted to pay attention whilst driving, you should agree that it’s safer for everyone involved to keep the speed limits on most roads down to a speed that does less damage if a crash occurs.

shadow boxer shadow boxer 3:07 pm 02 Jul 11

Innovation said :

I’m sure that everyone who posts here wants safer roads for everyone. This means drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists and pedestrians (and perhaps some other groups I can’t think of).

Where we all seem to diverge, however, are in areas such as:
1/

Methods for monitoring behaviour of road users (eg speed limits);
2/

Methods for punishing or modifying behaviour of road users;
3/

Appropriate road rules (eg speed limits);
4/

Environmental issues (eg public transport design/use, road design/use, vehicle design/use)
5/

Methods for spending revenue (eg raised from 2/ above).

We need ideas (and eventually a system) that will help us to focus on each of the above five issues seperately. Otherwise these threads just keep going around in circles.

Perhaps RA could lead the way somehow to help focus issues/concerns, help groups to reach consensus and coordinate and lobby for action.

Personally, among other opinions, I don’t think there is enough enforcement of road rules (be it more P2P or random cameras, safety inspections or even a greater police presence). Better enforcement should lead to a cultural change in the behaviour of road users and/or it will generate more revenue. I know it’s a bit simplistic but more revenue (should) = less taxes and/or better services.

My main gripe is that I am not aware of any direct accountability as to where revenue goes. As a result, everyone speculate and complain (eg the Gov’t is just out to make money by setting too low a speed limit somewhere or increase monitoring). Obviously we wouldn’t agree as to what money should be spent on but at least we all would know and the Government could blatantly increase road enforcement making it clear what better services (eg buses, light rail, roads or more police) our money would be paying for.

Oh and my last point is, those posters on RA who whinge about speed limits, increased monitoring etc, to me, have no real credibility unless they list their driving offences and over what period of time.

Why would your last point be relevant ?, I speed all the time but haven’t got a ticket for ages.

deye deye 2:28 pm 02 Jul 11

Watson said :

gazket said :

most accidents are caused by inattentive drivers day dreaming . not people speeding. The new cameras are Labours way to get more revenue and give it to Greens to build cycle paths and flower beds.

And if people are going to be day dreaming at the wheel, it’s much better if they do it going 60kph than 100kph.

Go for a drive for an hour or so down the highway at 100 or 110, take note of how much attention you pay. Come back into town and drive through a few 60 and 50 zones, also note how much attention you pay.

From what I’ve seen over my life people pay much more attention to what they are doing while driving when they are going 100/110 rather than 50/60, even more so when they are on streets they are familiar with.

deye deye 2:22 pm 02 Jul 11

Innovation said :

Oh and my last point is, those posters on RA who whinge about speed limits, increased monitoring etc, to me, have no real credibility unless they list their driving offences and over what period of time.

One very minor bingle at an intersection not long after I got my first car, at the beginning of my first long distance trip to somewhere I had never been before. I was a bit nervous and a bit excited and wasn’t paying enough attention at an intersection I was familiar with as it was just around the corner from where I lived. I was in the first year of having my p plates.

One minor speeding fine of 117 in a 100 zone also in the first year of my p plates when after working all night at a night club I gave a lift to my flatmate and his friends from Toowoomba to Brisbane because they slept through their alarm, missed their taxi, which missed their bus that was to take them to Brisbane to catch a train up north. I was feeling awake and felt like a drive so I took them to catch the train. On the way back I was feeling very tired and fatigued and stupidly pushed on. My speed kept creeping up, I would eventually notice and bring it down to under 115. Going along the Gatton bypass I passed a police car with a radar gun going the other way. There was at that time no way for them to cross in that location and book me, I knew they operated in pairs so I paid more attention to keeping the speed limit down, but fatigue was really getting to me at that point and further down the road as I came around a large corner at one end of a straight that did have a cross point in it my speed crept up to 117, just as a police car entered the straight at the other end. He lit his lights and crossed over to my side of the 4 lanes divided section and booked me. I woke up enough to make it home with no more problems. I recognize the symptoms of fatigue now and don’t drive that way any more.

They happened in the last half of 93 and the first half of 94. I have never been booked for any offence since, although I expect I’ll get a new speeding fine at some point.

Innovation Innovation 9:51 am 02 Jul 11

I’m sure that everyone who posts here wants safer roads for everyone. This means drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists and pedestrians (and perhaps some other groups I can’t think of).

Where we all seem to diverge, however, are in areas such as:
1/ Methods for monitoring behaviour of road users (eg speed limits);
2/ Methods for punishing or modifying behaviour of road users;
3/ Appropriate road rules (eg speed limits);
4/ Environmental issues (eg public transport design/use, road design/use, vehicle design/use)
5/ Methods for spending revenue (eg raised from 2/ above).

We need ideas (and eventually a system) that will help us to focus on each of the above five issues seperately. Otherwise these threads just keep going around in circles.

Perhaps RA could lead the way somehow to help focus issues/concerns, help groups to reach consensus and coordinate and lobby for action.

Personally, among other opinions, I don’t think there is enough enforcement of road rules (be it more P2P or random cameras, safety inspections or even a greater police presence). Better enforcement should lead to a cultural change in the behaviour of road users and/or it will generate more revenue. I know it’s a bit simplistic but more revenue (should) = less taxes and/or better services.

My main gripe is that I am not aware of any direct accountability as to where revenue goes. As a result, everyone speculate and complain (eg the Gov’t is just out to make money by setting too low a speed limit somewhere or increase monitoring). Obviously we wouldn’t agree as to what money should be spent on but at least we all would know and the Government could blatantly increase road enforcement making it clear what better services (eg buses, light rail, roads or more police) our money would be paying for.

Oh and my last point is, those posters on RA who whinge about speed limits, increased monitoring etc, to me, have no real credibility unless they list their driving offences and over what period of time.

Watson Watson 9:48 am 02 Jul 11

gazket said :

most accidents are caused by inattentive drivers day dreaming . not people speeding. The new cameras are Labours way to get more revenue and give it to Greens to build cycle paths and flower beds.

And if people are going to be day dreaming at the wheel, it’s much better if they do it going 60kph than 100kph.

gazket gazket 9:37 pm 01 Jul 11

zippyzippy said :

Mysteryman said :

The ACT government has no interest in road safety. If they did, we wouldn’t be seeing point-to-point speed cameras. They don’t “save lives” and they sure as hell don’t make the roads safer for road users.
.

What makes you say they don’t improve safety? Is there evidence for that? Because everything I’ve seen says that they do improve safety – and this seems to be fairly respectable, independent research.

most accidents are caused by inattentive drivers day dreaming . not people speeding. The new cameras are Labours way to get more revenue and give it to Greens to build cycle paths and flower beds.

« Previous 1 4 5 6

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site