17 February 2012

Point to point cameras go live in 10 days time

| johnboy
Join the conversation
185
hindmarsh drive p2p cameras

Justice and Community Safety want the word to know that the Hindmarsh Drive point to point cameras are commencing operations from 27 February 2012:

During the testing of the point to point cameras, speed measurements taken by the camera system indicated approximately800 motorists a day are speeding along the stretch of road where the cameras will shortly commence operating.

“Unfortunately it appears that many ACT motorists continue to speed, in spite of the risks that this behaviour presents to them, their passengers and other road users,” Ms Greenland said.

The point to point system uses cameras equipped 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. It then matches images, calculates the time difference and determines the vehicle’s average speed between those points. If the average speed exceeds the average speed limit between those points, an infringement notice for a speeding offence may be issued.

“Strong safeguards to protect personal information have been incorporated in the road transport legislation, including explicit restrictions on access to and use of these images. The images from the point to point cameras are not capable of identifying vehicle occupants and images that do not show offences will be destroyed after 14 days,” Ms Greenland said.

The location of the first point to point cameras on Hindmarsh Drive was determined following an assessment of sites suitable for these cameras taking into account road safety and traffic considerations.

“Hindmarsh Drive was the highest ranked site against the relevant criteria, which included crash history,” Ms Greenland said.

“During the period 2004 to 2008 there were 538 crashes, including 17 injury crashes, on the Hindmarsh Drive corridor where the cameras are located.”

[Photo Courtesy of TAMS


View Larger Map

Join the conversation

185
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

Eppo said :

gkcasey said :

One of my clients was taken out by a drunk driver – end of her life as she knew it. Because she was brain injured she needs 24 hour support, will never work again, 2 young kids effectively lost their mother etc. So when I hear its al about revenue raising etc – get over it its about people’s lives.

Well, then I guess it’s a good thing P2P cameras are able to stop drink drivers then.

Oh, wait…

So wrong. Red light cameras stop drink drivers.

Oh, wait…

gkcasey said :

One of my clients was taken out by a drunk driver – end of her life as she knew it. Because she was brain injured she needs 24 hour support, will never work again, 2 young kids effectively lost their mother etc. So when I hear its al about revenue raising etc – get over it its about people’s lives.

Well, then I guess it’s a good thing P2P cameras are able to stop drink drivers then.

Oh, wait…

Now that PTP cameras have been operating for a while … has anyone being fined and for how much over the limit… is it merely a camera on a pole … if thats the case its been very effective.

I used Hindmarsh drive for the first time since the P2P cameras were installed. What bliss – drivers were obeying the road rules. Not speeding, not dangerously weaving in and out, no tailgating drivers who have the gall to follow the speed limits etc etc

It is becoming anarchy out on the roads – most days I see horrific acts of stupidity, wonton disregard for safety and arrogance just because being in a car is somehow an exemption to following rules.

Its not about personal choice to be an idiot – it is about breaking the law.

I report people now, get their numbers, take a video – I let the police know via their website. Once they get enough intel on people they will act. It is an act of social justice to somehow get people to take responsibility for their actions.

One of my clients was taken out by a drunk driver – end of her life as she knew it. Because she was brain injured she needs 24 hour support, will never work again, 2 young kids effectively lost their mother etc. So when I hear its al about revenue raising etc – get over it its about people’s lives.

Looks like JETHRO and JONO are serail tag team opinion fundamentalists.

I said “Take your eyes off the road for the 2 seconds it takes to check your speed and you travel 50-60 metres – while driving blind’

Jethro and Jono were quick to make multiple out of context trolling of this science based and researched arguement – this is road safety rules as they are TAUGHT to road users, and supported by road safety studies. Just becuase you think you are not taking 2 seconds to focus your attention back on the road doesn’t mean its not hapenning. (if you read the comment you would see I prefaced that with much more info. That 2 seconds is what they call the safety margin – lose just one factor of saftey margins are you are due for an accident (speed/fatique/folllow too closely etc)

And the white elephant $30 million two lane bridge could have been built for $5million as an underpass and function better, and Jono you fat assed pubic servant I drive through Russel four times a day or more, and at peak hours (BTW the asshole in the grey mx5 was you? learn how to merge you fwit)

milkman said :

SnapperJack said :

I went to Fyshwick today and everybody (including myself) were definitely going much slower than before. In fact everybody was driving at around 70km/h, much different than previously when I used to drive just over 80 and had everybody whizzing past me.

So it would appear in these early days that the installation of the cameras has been a success and achieved its goal of slowing people down. Whether that continues remains to be seen.

I guess that means lives are being saved, then.

Speed cameras aren’t about saving lives. They are about raising revenue and reducing the risk of prangs (fatal or otherwise) on a particular stretch of road.

caf said :

chewy14 said :

-Normally drivers will travel at a speed they consider safe for a section of road. The vast majority of people are actually surprisingly good at judging the correct speed for a road.

There is absolutely no evidence for this – in fact it seems likely to be false. Given the wet weather, I’m sure there will be a couple of rear-enders this very evening caused by people driving too fast and too close for the conditions.

Given no limit, the vast majority of people will in fact choose a speed that is the fastest they feel they can drive and still be able to respond to the known and expected obstacles on their journey. This will, however, likely be too fast to respond to the unknown and unexpected obstacles.

There’s plenty of evidence for it and its the basis of most speed limits.

On a free flow road, the speed of cars usually fits a normal distribution with the speed limit set at or near the 85th percentile of speeds (although we set it 10km/hr lower here). It’s based on the fact that most drivers are reasonable and don’t want to have an accident.

Here’s a link from the US that even Jim should be able to understand. OK, well maybe not Jim.

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/fhwasa10001/

The funniest thing is when you see people slow down for the first one, speed up again, and then slow down for the second one. Pretty sure they haven’t quite grasped the concept. When they get their fines in the mail they might “get it” LOL

SnapperJack said :

I went to Fyshwick today and everybody (including myself) were definitely going much slower than before. In fact everybody was driving at around 70km/h, much different than previously when I used to drive just over 80 and had everybody whizzing past me.

So it would appear in these early days that the installation of the cameras has been a success and achieved its goal of slowing people down. Whether that continues remains to be seen.

I made the same trip today and heading down-hill toward Fyshwick everybody was riding their brakes at 70 kph. I’ve never seen that before.

SnapperJack said :

I went to Fyshwick today and everybody (including myself) were definitely going much slower than before. In fact everybody was driving at around 70km/h, much different than previously when I used to drive just over 80 and had everybody whizzing past me.

So it would appear in these early days that the installation of the cameras has been a success and achieved its goal of slowing people down. Whether that continues remains to be seen.

I guess that means lives are being saved, then.

chewy14 said :

-Normally drivers will travel at a speed they consider safe for a section of road. The vast majority of people are actually surprisingly good at judging the correct speed for a road.

There is absolutely no evidence for this – in fact it seems likely to be false. Given the wet weather, I’m sure there will be a couple of rear-enders this very evening caused by people driving too fast and too close for the conditions.

Given no limit, the vast majority of people will in fact choose a speed that is the fastest they feel they can drive and still be able to respond to the known and expected obstacles on their journey. This will, however, likely be too fast to respond to the unknown and unexpected obstacles.

I went to Fyshwick today and everybody (including myself) were definitely going much slower than before. In fact everybody was driving at around 70km/h, much different than previously when I used to drive just over 80 and had everybody whizzing past me.

So it would appear in these early days that the installation of the cameras has been a success and achieved its goal of slowing people down. Whether that continues remains to be seen.

chewy14 said :

Jim Jones said :

“The vast majority of people are actually surprisingly good at judging the correct speed for a road.”

BWAAAAA HAHAH AH AHAH AH AHA HAAHA HAHA HA HA

Ah Jim,
you do know what the 85th percentile actually means right? And why they set speed limits at it?

Actually scratch that, from your last comment it’s clear that you don’t.

That’s not funny.

Go back to the funny stuff … you know, about how we don’t need speed limits and everyone’s perfectly capable of driving carefully at whatever speed they want to.

chewy14 said :

Watson said :

So “they” don’t normally check what speed they are going? And when they do, it takes their attention away from the road to an extent that it could cause a traffic accident? And why exactly do drivers who normally drive over the limit need to pay more attention to the road than other people when they are doing the speed limit?

The logical part of my brain is twitching…

Obviously not twitching hard enough.

-Normally drivers will travel at a speed they consider safe for a section of road. The vast majority of people are actually surprisingly good at judging the correct speed for a road.
-Usually speed limits are set at the 85th percentile speed (usually, although it’s becoming less common)
-Most drivers will glance at their speedo occasionally, adjusting slightly if necessary.
-Having a section of road with P2P cameras makes a lot of people drive slower, well below the speed limit to avoid getting a fine
-Some drivers however, will now pay far more attention to their speedo to control their speed at or near the limit to avoid getting a fine, whereas previously they may have been travelling 5-10km/hr over the limit and paying more attention to the road and other cars.
-This is apparently meant to be a road safety measure.

Don’t worry, the logical part of my brain is now offline because my BS radar just exploded.

Jim Jones said :

“The vast majority of people are actually surprisingly good at judging the correct speed for a road.”

BWAAAAA HAHAH AH AHAH AH AHA HAAHA HAHA HA HA

Ah Jim,
you do know what the 85th percentile actually means right? And why they set speed limits at it?

Actually scratch that, from your last comment it’s clear that you don’t.

“The vast majority of people are actually surprisingly good at judging the correct speed for a road.”

BWAAAAA HAHAH AH AHAH AH AHA HAAHA HAHA HA HA

what_the said :

I’ve recently moved to the States, and thankfully here they’ve had the sense to get rid of speed cameras, not put more up. See, they have these things called police officers. What these police officers do is actually monitor the behaviour of motorists in all driving aspects, not just one factor amongst 100 different factors for safe driving which speed cameras cannot monitor.

Good god, man, the doughnut shops must have fallen on very tough times over there.

Watson said :

So “they” don’t normally check what speed they are going? And when they do, it takes their attention away from the road to an extent that it could cause a traffic accident? And why exactly do drivers who normally drive over the limit need to pay more attention to the road than other people when they are doing the speed limit?

The logical part of my brain is twitching…

Obviously not twitching hard enough.

-Normally drivers will travel at a speed they consider safe for a section of road. The vast majority of people are actually surprisingly good at judging the correct speed for a road.
-Usually speed limits are set at the 85th percentile speed (usually, although it’s becoming less common)
-Most drivers will glance at their speedo occasionally, adjusting slightly if necessary.
-Having a section of road with P2P cameras makes a lot of people drive slower, well below the speed limit to avoid getting a fine
-Some drivers however, will now pay far more attention to their speedo to control their speed at or near the limit to avoid getting a fine, whereas previously they may have been travelling 5-10km/hr over the limit and paying more attention to the road and other cars.
-This is apparently meant to be a road safety measure.

I’ve recently moved to the States, and thankfully here they’ve had the sense to get rid of speed cameras, not put more up. See, they have these things called police officers. What these police officers do is actually monitor the behaviour of motorists in all driving aspects, not just one factor amongst 100 different factors for safe driving which speed cameras cannot monitor. While people here cheer on more cameras going up (because I suspect it bolsters their opinion that they’re the best driver out there because they can follow an abitrary number), less funding i provided for police officers. I’m yet to drive to work and not see the Highway Patrol pulling someone over, every single day. Last week I saw 3 police cars lined up next to each other one one stretch, and about 5 more in the next hour.

And here’s the other point about speed cameras. If they were working, then shouldn’t we be seeing less of them, not more? If they were effective in controlling the behaviours of motorists then we wouldn’t ‘need’ more of them. The fact that more are going up means they’re obviously not working. And instead of the revenue going towards road safety programs like they should be, they’re just being divereted into more speed cameras to collect more revenue, rather than into proper safety initiatives like putting more police officers on the road to catch the real idiots out there.

chewy14 said :

No its the fact that the people who drive over the limit will be paying more attention to their speedos in this area.
The exact people who you want to be paying more attention to the road and their driving won’t be.

Sorry – I think that I have this straight – you’re saying that the people who speed will now be watching their speedos, but will continue to speed? And the combination of speeding and, this apparently elusive skill for so many of monitoring their speed, will make them more dangerous?

So, how many do you think will fall into this category? That is, drivers who are so concerned about being pinged that they’ll be monitoring their speed, but so unconcerned about being caught that they’ll ignore the speedo anyway?

I wish the speed camera at the hospital wasn’t there – it’s annoying turning the cruise control off at the second P2P camera, hitting 100 again, and then having to slow down to 80 AGAIN *sigh*

chewy14 said :

Watson said :

dpm said :

chewy14 said :

Watson said :

Every time I read all these waah-waah posts about how “difficult it is to retain a constant speed” or how unbearably annoying it is to have to slow down to below how fast your car could go if you would only be allowed to do what you want – *insert toddler tantrum* – I think that none of these people should have have been allowed a licence, full stop. There should be some psychological test to find out if you have basic control over your urges and are able to follow simple instructions and accept authority and rules. As well as testing whether you are physically capable of keeping a constant speed for 2.7 kilometers without wearing yourself out.

I guarantee most drivers would not be able to maintain a speed over this stretch of road say +/- 5km/hr without looking at their speedo.

Not sure I understand fully. Isn’t that the main reason they are there? To be checked every now and then?

Apparently it is too tiring/annoying/soul-destroying for them to do check the speedo. Those speed camera nazis are so cruel!

No its the fact that the people who drive over the limit will be paying more attention to their speedos in this area.
The exact people who you want to be paying more attention to the road and their driving won’t be.

If you think that improves road safety, then is suggest you’re the one in need of psychological testing.

So “they” don’t normally check what speed they are going? And when they do, it takes their attention away from the road to an extent that it could cause a traffic accident? And why exactly do drivers who normally drive over the limit need to pay more attention to the road than other people when they are doing the speed limit?

The logical part of my brain is twitching…

Watson said :

Every time I read all these waah-waah posts about how “difficult it is to retain a constant speed” or how unbearably annoying it is to have to slow down to below how fast your car could go if you would only be allowed to do what you want – *insert toddler tantrum* – I think that none of these people should have have been allowed a licence, full stop. There should be some psychological test to find out if you have basic control over your urges and are able to follow simple instructions and accept authority and rules. As well as testing whether you are physically capable of keeping a constant speed for 2.7 kilometers without wearing yourself out.

+1

Watson said :

dpm said :

chewy14 said :

Watson said :

Every time I read all these waah-waah posts about how “difficult it is to retain a constant speed” or how unbearably annoying it is to have to slow down to below how fast your car could go if you would only be allowed to do what you want – *insert toddler tantrum* – I think that none of these people should have have been allowed a licence, full stop. There should be some psychological test to find out if you have basic control over your urges and are able to follow simple instructions and accept authority and rules. As well as testing whether you are physically capable of keeping a constant speed for 2.7 kilometers without wearing yourself out.

I guarantee most drivers would not be able to maintain a speed over this stretch of road say +/- 5km/hr without looking at their speedo.

Not sure I understand fully. Isn’t that the main reason they are there? To be checked every now and then?

Apparently it is too tiring/annoying/soul-destroying for them to do check the speedo. Those speed camera nazis are so cruel!

No its the fact that the people who drive over the limit will be paying more attention to their speedos in this area.
The exact people who you want to be paying more attention to the road and their driving won’t be.

If you think that improves road safety, then is suggest you’re the one in need of psychological testing.

shauno said :

Tooks said :

shauno said :

800 a day and how many where killed? a big fat 0

A whole bunch of robberies recently and how many were killed? A big, fat zero.

Only punish those who cause death. Is that your message?

No i think you will find more accidents will happen by people religiously sticking to 75 or whatever. The deaths that occurred on the woden to red hill road what ever its called

Tooks said :

shauno said :

800 a day and how many where killed? a big fat 0

A whole bunch of robberies recently and how many were killed? A big, fat zero.

Only punish those who cause death. Is that your message?

No my message is stop fixing the budget bottom line with fines

More accidents will be caused by people travelling below the speed limit? I tell you what – if you are right, I’ll buy you a car.

dpm said :

chewy14 said :

Watson said :

Every time I read all these waah-waah posts about how “difficult it is to retain a constant speed” or how unbearably annoying it is to have to slow down to below how fast your car could go if you would only be allowed to do what you want – *insert toddler tantrum* – I think that none of these people should have have been allowed a licence, full stop. There should be some psychological test to find out if you have basic control over your urges and are able to follow simple instructions and accept authority and rules. As well as testing whether you are physically capable of keeping a constant speed for 2.7 kilometers without wearing yourself out.

I guarantee most drivers would not be able to maintain a speed over this stretch of road say +/- 5km/hr without looking at their speedo.

Not sure I understand fully. Isn’t that the main reason they are there? To be checked every now and then?

Apparently it is too tiring/annoying/soul-destroying for them to do check the speedo. Those speed camera nazis are so cruel!

pay up suckers

HenryBG said :

Watson said :

. There should be some psychological test to find out if you have basic control over your urges and are able to follow simple instructions and accept authority and rules. t.

Yes, I believe George Orwell wrote about that particular utopic ideal of yours.

The fact is there are society’s passengers, happy to follow all the rules and incapable of producing anything original. Then there are the individuals who are not entirely constrained by petty rules, who think and behave originally, and who produce every advance our society benefits from. A balanced society needs both sheep and goats. Unbridled resentment of the goats by the sheep gives you stuff like Nazi Germany or Communist Russia.

Are you for real? Portraying those who think they can ignore road rules because they are “not fair” – *insert another toddler tantrum* – as visionaries is delusional to say the least. Speeding has nothing to do with originality but all with arrogance and selfishness.

Get back to me if you want to use your goat originality for something that actually matters, like say equity in our education system.

Watson said :

. There should be some psychological test to find out if you have basic control over your urges and are able to follow simple instructions and accept authority and rules. t.

Yes, I believe George Orwell wrote about that particular utopic ideal of yours.

The fact is there are society’s passengers, happy to follow all the rules and incapable of producing anything original. Then there are the individuals who are not entirely constrained by petty rules, who think and behave originally, and who produce every advance our society benefits from. A balanced society needs both sheep and goats. Unbridled resentment of the goats by the sheep gives you stuff like Nazi Germany or Communist Russia.

Tooks said :

shauno said :

800 a day and how many where killed? a big fat 0

A whole bunch of robberies recently and how many were killed? A big, fat zero.

Only punish those who cause death. Is that your message?

No i think you will find more accidents will happen by people religiously sticking to 75 or whatever. The deaths that occurred on the woden to red hill road what ever its called

Tooks said :

shauno said :

800 a day and how many where killed? a big fat 0

A whole bunch of robberies recently and how many were killed? A big, fat zero.

Only punish those who cause death. Is that your message?

No my message is stop fixing the budget bottom line with fines

chewy14 said :

Watson said :

Every time I read all these waah-waah posts about how “difficult it is to retain a constant speed” or how unbearably annoying it is to have to slow down to below how fast your car could go if you would only be allowed to do what you want – *insert toddler tantrum* – I think that none of these people should have have been allowed a licence, full stop. There should be some psychological test to find out if you have basic control over your urges and are able to follow simple instructions and accept authority and rules. As well as testing whether you are physically capable of keeping a constant speed for 2.7 kilometers without wearing yourself out.

I guarantee most drivers would not be able to maintain a speed over this stretch of road say +/- 5km/hr without looking at their speedo.

Not sure I understand fully. Isn’t that the main reason they are there? To be checked every now and then?

shauno said :

800 a day and how many where killed? a big fat 0

A whole bunch of robberies recently and how many were killed? A big, fat zero.

Only punish those who cause death. Is that your message?

Watson said :

Every time I read all these waah-waah posts about how “difficult it is to retain a constant speed” or how unbearably annoying it is to have to slow down to below how fast your car could go if you would only be allowed to do what you want – *insert toddler tantrum* – I think that none of these people should have have been allowed a licence, full stop. There should be some psychological test to find out if you have basic control over your urges and are able to follow simple instructions and accept authority and rules. As well as testing whether you are physically capable of keeping a constant speed for 2.7 kilometers without wearing yourself out.

I guarantee most drivers would not be able to maintain a speed over this stretch of road say +/- 5km/hr without looking at their speedo.

Every time I read all these waah-waah posts about how “difficult it is to retain a constant speed” or how unbearably annoying it is to have to slow down to below how fast your car could go if you would only be allowed to do what you want – *insert toddler tantrum* – I think that none of these people should have have been allowed a licence, full stop. There should be some psychological test to find out if you have basic control over your urges and are able to follow simple instructions and accept authority and rules. As well as testing whether you are physically capable of keeping a constant speed for 2.7 kilometers without wearing yourself out.

800 a day and how many where killed? a big fat 0

colourful sydney racing identity9:59 am 28 Feb 12

gazket said :

The cameras are not there for speeding, that’s just how they get them approved to be installed.

They are Automated Number Plate Recognition cameras so *the reptoids* can track how many times you use the road and at what times so they can build a profile on cars and their owners. The *reptoids* are keeping the data the cameras generate.

fixed it for you.

Thoroughly Smashed8:06 am 28 Feb 12

switch said :

a road engineered for 100kph.

Really?

#143 how cool, a Canberra conspiracy!!!

Everyone doing 70 (and riding their brakes) down the hill this afternoon, on a road engineered for 100kph. Well done!

Well I went through it today. It wasn’t so bad, but probably because I had the road pretty much to myself. I put my cruise control on 80km and went to sleep lol

On a kinda-related note, once again today I saw there was a MVA outside Calvary Hospital on Haydon drive. This must be at least the 10th crash i’ve personally driven past outside Calvary in the last 12m!
I’ve whinged about this before, but surely this must be the biggest accident ‘black spot’ in Canberra??
I say, instead of spending the next X hundred thousand $ on another speed camera, they fix this black spot in whatever way is required to limit the carnage. Either that, or perhaps use the first month’s extra revenue from the Hindmarsh P2P to fund the remediation roadworks for Haydon? That way you can guarantee the fine money is being put to good road saftey use! 🙂

gazket said :

The cameras are not there for speeding, that’s just how they get them approved to be installed.

They are Automated Number Plate Recognition cameras so police and government can track how many times you use the road and at what times so they can build a profile on cars and their owners. The police are keeping the data the cameras generate.

Yes that is what they are doing, just so they know when you are driving, then, this is the good part, then they are going to ignore you like nothing ever happened, then, then after they ignore you for years and you don’t speed down there you wont even remember how stupid your comment is that you have just posted.

The cameras are not there for speeding, that’s just how they get them approved to be installed.

They are Automated Number Plate Recognition cameras so police and government can track how many times you use the road and at what times so they can build a profile on cars and their owners. The police are keeping the data the cameras generate.

Jim Jones said :

You’re seriously going to change your driving route because doing the speed limit is an inconvenient imposition?

Yes I seriously am. There’s a few other ways I can go that take a similar time, Hindmarsh was just the most convenient.

Plus everything that Erg0 said.

Jim Jones said :

You’re seriously going to change your driving route because doing the speed limit is an inconvenient imposition?

I drive down there roughly four times a week, but I’m less likely to do so in future. Although I don’t habitually speed and have never had a fine, I accept that I am not a perfect driver and may inadvertantly exceed the average speed over that stretch if I’m not super-attentive to my speed on the downhill section.

I don’t particularly feel like paying the government $100+ (or whatever the fine is) for what I consider an extremely minor transgression, and combined with the likely idiotic behaviour from other drivers who think they need to do 20 under the limit or brake heavily as they approach the second camera, I’ll be more likely to take another route if there’s not a significant difference in travel time.

Evil_Kitten said :

What if you cruise at 120km/h?

It’s not the time ‘saved’ that’s the issue really. It’s just annoying. It’s something you have to remember and be a bit anal about (and possibly put the cruise control on for so you’re not constantly checking your speedo). It’s a bit like having roadworks on your commute – yes it’s easy to do the speed limit through it – but it’s just annoying and not something you want on your drive to work and back Every. Single. Day.

You’re seriously going to change your driving route because doing the speed limit is an inconvenient imposition?

VYBerlinaV8_is_back9:19 am 21 Feb 12

Thoroughly Smashed said :

Anyway. Perhaps, in the spirit of John Galt, people could deliberately drive at or below the speed limit around speed cameras, thus cutting off the government’s revenue stream and causing it to collapse?

What we really need is a bumper sticker campaign: “I BRAKE FOR SPEED CAMERAS”

Thoroughly Smashed8:59 am 21 Feb 12

Perhaps Ayn Rand’s John Galt has a message for us after all. Libertarians and other wackaloons in the USA occasionally ramble about “going Galt”, that is to deliberately earn less money, thus reducing the government’s tax revenue, as some sort of bizarre protest. It seems to revolve around a complete misunderstanding of how marginal rate taxation works, which is to say the least amusing when you’re talking about people earning $250k+.

Anyway. Perhaps, in the spirit of John Galt, people could deliberately drive at or below the speed limit around speed cameras, thus cutting off the government’s revenue stream and causing it to collapse?

MissChief said :

Tooks, No offence but… you’re not hearing me. Nor are you hearing the unpopular view about the P to P camera on a steep hill (of all places). Obviously TAMS IS hearing this which would explain their misleading statement on the issue.

What is this misleading statement you’re talking about?

HenryBG said :

buzz819 said :

You’re kind of missing the point, you have to prove in court that the drivers direct actions would have caused an accident if there had of been reason for the first car to stop.
.

People get fined for speeding every day of the week without anything ever having to be “proven in court”.
People get convicted in court for drink-driving every day of the week without anybody having to prove that “the drivers’ direct actions would have caused an accident”.

So much for your argument, Buzz…

Oh dear. You still don’t get it. Give up Buzz, it’s a lost cause.

HenryBG said :

Tooks said :

HenryBG said :

Tooks said :

KeenGolfer said :

Tooks said :

That’s because there’s no offence called ‘tailgating’ and few people do it in front of police cars anyway, making it more difficult to enforce.

No, but there is “DRIVE BEHIND OTHER VEH. TOO CLOSELY TO STOP SAFELY”, $216 and 1 point. But as you say it’s almost impossible to police in a marked vehicle.

Exactly. People seem to think it’s a matter of seeing a tailgater and giving them a ticket. Not quite that simple.

Go down to Mugga Lane, draw some white lines on the road, then sit back, take film of the traffic, pull everybody over, and use the film to prove they are all travelling with about 15m distance between each other.

Not rocket science. Might cut into the donut-eating time and involve stepping out of the office to do some actual police work, though. I can see why speed cameras are so popular.

That’s possibly the stupidest comment on this thread.

…and that’s Tooks’ objective analysis. Nothing like the mention of donuts to get his pulse racing.

You wanted objective analysis? If I thought for even a second that your suggestion to draw lines on the road and video drivers was serious, and not just a lame attempt at trolling, then I may have taken the time to point out all the problems with the idea (starting with how absurdly impractical it is).

BTW, you really dug deep into your bag of witty sledges with that one. Haven’t copped such an insult since I was seven.

HenryBG said :

buzz819 said :

You’re kind of missing the point, you have to prove in court that the drivers direct actions would have caused an accident if there had of been reason for the first car to stop.
.

People get fined for speeding every day of the week without anything ever having to be “proven in court”.
People get convicted in court for drink-driving every day of the week without anybody having to prove that “the drivers’ direct actions would have caused an accident”.

So much for your argument, Buzz…

They get fined for speeding because the offence is speeding, they broke the law by exceeding said speed limit, that is the proof of the offence, they go to court for drink driving because they exceeded the prescribed concentration of alcohol, that is the offence.

The proofs of both the above offences have nothing to do with accidents, they are both measurable against a limit, ie driving at 90km/h when the limit is 60km/h, or having a blood alcohol concentration of 1.13grams per 100ml of blood, when the limit is 0.05grams of alcohol per 100ml of blood, nothing to do with accidents.

For negligent driving, dangerous driving, driving to close to stop safely, it would have to be proved that your actions were negligent, or dangerous or you were driving to close to stop safely, how can that be proved off observations when no collision occurred?

Think about it, there is no set distance a car can be from another car which constitutes an offence, if there is no collision how can you prove the car was to close to the other car, or if the driver was in fact driving dangerously or negligently. There is no damage to either cars, there is no injury, both cars continue on their merry way, one driver maybe upset because the other drive is in their private space, but that is all.

Hopefully with a bit of education you understand how the offences work a little better, I have said it before, just because you think it is against the law and you have seen a TV show that has an offence, does not mean it is so in real life. So the ball is back in your court Henry, I look forward to you telling me that my argument is wrong, when you don’t really know what is going on.

“During the testing of the point to point cameras, speed measurements taken by the camera system indicated approximately 800 motorists a day are speeding along the stretch of road where the cameras will shortly commence operating.”

“During the period 2004 to 2008 there were 538 crashes, including 17 injury crashes, on the Hindmarsh Drive corridor where the cameras are located.”

Just to put more numbers on what itsallme, cranky and other have said…

Lets assume that those crashes occurred where the testing area is (and not on the other 5/6ths of Hindmarsh drive), and were caused by speed (as HarryBG said kanagaroos cause the crashes), and that the fines would be the minimum amount ($162).

Then revenue would be:

$130k per day

$441k per accident

$14m per injury

It seems to me that the revenue is ridiculously greater than the amount of harm being caused by speeding.

buzz819 said :

You’re kind of missing the point, you have to prove in court that the drivers direct actions would have caused an accident if there had of been reason for the first car to stop.
.

People get fined for speeding every day of the week without anything ever having to be “proven in court”.
People get convicted in court for drink-driving every day of the week without anybody having to prove that “the drivers’ direct actions would have caused an accident”.

So much for your argument, Buzz…

What if you cruise at 120km/h?

It’s not the time ‘saved’ that’s the issue really. It’s just annoying. It’s something you have to remember and be a bit anal about (and possibly put the cruise control on for so you’re not constantly checking your speedo). It’s a bit like having roadworks on your commute – yes it’s easy to do the speed limit through it – but it’s just annoying and not something you want on your drive to work and back Every. Single. Day.

According to my odometer this morning it’s 2.7km between the cameras. So for those who routinely cruise up Hindmarsh sitting on 90km/h (which seems to be most of us), being forced to slow down to 80km/h is going to add a whopping great (gulp) 14 seconds to our morning commute. Seriously people, we’re debating 14 seconds. Are your jobs really that important that you need to be chained to your desks that 14 seconds earlier? Or does it mean you’ll jump the coffee queue 14 seconds before your work colleagues and then have the additional 14 seconds to gas-bag about your weekend when you get to your desk / work site / other? Let’s get a sense of perspective here shall we!!!!

Tooks, No offence but… you’re not hearing me. Nor are you hearing the unpopular view about the P to P camera on a steep hill (of all places). Obviously TAMS IS hearing this which would explain their misleading statement on the issue.

MissChief said :

I’m always wary of statistics, especially when used with clever writing. I would like to know:

1) How fast over the 80klm speed limit motorists were going. It’s a commonly held belief (Canberra driving culture) that 10% of the posted speed is given as an allowance. How many of the 800 motorists were travelling above this?;
2) What are the statistics for death when travelling 1 or 2klm over the posted speed limit? Was the death actually attributed to “speeding” or something else;
3) “Continue to speed” – when and where (vague!). Was there a survey previously? Was it that stretch of road? Where are the details?;
4) Is 538 crashes for the whole of Hindmarsh Drive or just that section?;
5) What are the statistics for crashes at other sections of Hindmarsh Drive (particularly the busy areas near Fyshwick and Woden)?

It really annoys me that they put the cameras where they have. It is incredibly difficult to keep a consistent speed over a steep hill and reeks of revenue raising. The electric billboards are deceptive and irrelevant. They do not give an average speed and will only serve to confuse motorists about the workings of the point to point system.

No offence, but all I’m hearing are excuses.

Incredibly difficult to maintain a consistent speed over a steep hill? Seriously? The more of this thread I read, the happier I am about these revenue raisers being installed. I just hope they spend all that money wisely.

I’m always wary of statistics, especially when used with clever writing. I would like to know:

1) How fast over the 80klm speed limit motorists were going. It’s a commonly held belief (Canberra driving culture) that 10% of the posted speed is given as an allowance. How many of the 800 motorists were travelling above this?;
2) What are the statistics for death when travelling 1 or 2klm over the posted speed limit? Was the death actually attributed to “speeding” or something else;
3) “Continue to speed” – when and where (vague!). Was there a survey previously? Was it that stretch of road? Where are the details?;
4) Is 538 crashes for the whole of Hindmarsh Drive or just that section?;
5) What are the statistics for crashes at other sections of Hindmarsh Drive (particularly the busy areas near Fyshwick and Woden)?

It really annoys me that they put the cameras where they have. It is incredibly difficult to keep a consistent speed over a steep hill and reeks of revenue raising. The electric billboards are deceptive and irrelevant. They do not give an average speed and will only serve to confuse motorists about the workings of the point to point system.

Evil_Kitten said :

Solidarity said :

There would have been less people speeding if they didn’t have those signs that tell you what your speed is. Heaps of people have been trying to see how high they go….

Yep, that was me!

And me! Four times a day 🙂

Solidarity said :

There would have been less people speeding if they didn’t have those signs that tell you what your speed is. Heaps of people have been trying to see how high they go….

Yep, that was me!

Erg0 said :

It’s worth noting that the 800 speeders per day were likely fully aware that the cameras were not yet switched on. I would expect the number to decline pretty sharply in 10 days’ time.

Also me! Will be avoiding the road altogether!

HenryBG said :

buzz819 said :

So you have successfully proved that they were within 15 meters of another car, without a collision how do you prove that they were travelling to close to safely stop?

Well – the lazy way would be to take them back to the cells and beat an admission out of them.
However, this heretofore popular method has fallen out of favour lately, so the police would have to rely on stuff like, you know, *measurements, *data*, *maths*, *analysis*, *physics*, and maybe a tables such as the one below:

http://www.police.act.gov.au/roads-and-traffic/speeding.aspx

You’re kind of missing the point, you have to prove in court that the drivers direct actions would have caused an accident if there had of been reason for the first car to stop.

If the driver is in, let’s say an AMG Mercedes C63, it can go from 70mph (112Km/h) to 0 in 49 meters (http://www.examiner.com/automotive-in-national/2012-bmw-m3-mercedes-c63-amg-two-hard-hitters-open-it-up-review), that is the same on the graph that you provided as a car travelling at 65 km/h, so if it was doing 30 km/h slower it would stop well before the car in front of it does. So are they still travelling to close to stop safely? Discuss.

Postalgeek said :

The reason for most of the bingles I’ve personally witnessed in Canberra usually came down to one of two things: people have no idea what the give way rules are, or simply don’t look.

A few days ago in Kingston I was watching two drivers opposite each other trying to negotiate an intersection. The one going straight was hesitating. Then the other car wanting to turn right went across, and I don’t think it was because they were impatient.

I have to assertively indicate to drivers opposite me to go ahead when I’m waiting to turn right with monotonous regularity. Waving me across might be nice, but in no way is it a safe practice.

Yep. If someone has right of way and stops because they don’t realise they do, I don’t go. Put simply, if they realise at the last minute that they don’t have to give way and hit the accelerator, I’m the one who would be in the wrong for failing to give right of way to the other driver.

buzz819 said :

So you have successfully proved that they were within 15 meters of another car, without a collision how do you prove that they were travelling to close to safely stop?

Well – the lazy way would be to take them back to the cells and beat an admission out of them.
However, this heretofore popular method has fallen out of favour lately, so the police would have to rely on stuff like, you know, *measurements, *data*, *maths*, *analysis*, *physics*, and maybe a tables such as the one below:

http://www.police.act.gov.au/roads-and-traffic/speeding.aspx

chewy14 said :

Tooks said :

The_TaxMan said :

The Gov’t has already said it expects to earn $1,000,000 per week from these cameras….BUT it’s not about revenue hahahahahaha

They won’t be getting a cent of revenue from me.

The only people who get worked up about speed cameras are the numbnuts who cop the fines.

Really?
I’ve never been fined by a speed camera and I hate them. If you’re smart and attentive they’re not too hard to avoid.

However, take a drive around Canberra and you’ll see hundreds of dangerous actions by drivers that are never punished and the idiots never learn.
But don’t you dare go a few km/hr over the limit around a speed camera because then the government says you’re a dangerous driver who needs to be fined.

Speed cameras have their place but you’d have to be blind not to see the government uses them for more than road safety.

Speed cameras wont pick up a wide range of offences but ignoring speeding drivers wont make those other offences go away either. It doesnt have to be either or.

Tooks said :

HenryBG said :

Tooks said :

KeenGolfer said :

Tooks said :

That’s because there’s no offence called ‘tailgating’ and few people do it in front of police cars anyway, making it more difficult to enforce.

No, but there is “DRIVE BEHIND OTHER VEH. TOO CLOSELY TO STOP SAFELY”, $216 and 1 point. But as you say it’s almost impossible to police in a marked vehicle.

Exactly. People seem to think it’s a matter of seeing a tailgater and giving them a ticket. Not quite that simple.

Go down to Mugga Lane, draw some white lines on the road, then sit back, take film of the traffic, pull everybody over, and use the film to prove they are all travelling with about 15m distance between each other.

Not rocket science. Might cut into the donut-eating time and involve stepping out of the office to do some actual police work, though. I can see why speed cameras are so popular.

That’s possibly the stupidest comment on this thread.

…and that’s Tooks’ objective analysis. Nothing like the mention of donuts to get his pulse racing.

chewy14 said :

Tooks said :

The_TaxMan said :

The Gov’t has already said it expects to earn $1,000,000 per week from these cameras….BUT it’s not about revenue hahahahahaha

They won’t be getting a cent of revenue from me.

The only people who get worked up about speed cameras are the numbnuts who cop the fines.

Really?
I’ve never been fined by a speed camera and I hate them. If you’re smart and attentive they’re not too hard to avoid.

However, take a drive around Canberra and you’ll see hundreds of dangerous actions by drivers that are never punished and the idiots never learn.
But don’t you dare go a few km/hr over the limit around a speed camera because then the government says you’re a dangerous driver who needs to be fined.

Speed cameras have their place but you’d have to be blind not to see the government uses them for more than road safety.

Yes, but you don’t get all worked up about it do you? I was referring more to the rabid, mouth breathing anti-camera types.

As for your last paragraph, absolutely. I don’t think many here would disagree.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Tooks said :

The_TaxMan said :

The Gov’t has already said it expects to earn $1,000,000 per week from these cameras….BUT it’s not about revenue hahahahahaha

They won’t be getting a cent of revenue from me.

The only people who get worked up about speed cameras are the numbnuts who cop the fines.

It’s not really a road safety measure, but I agree that if you don’t spot it and/or can’t control your vehicle then no sympathy from me.

I tend to agree that speed cameras are more about revenue than road safety, but surely you can’t say they offer no road safety benefits?

I wonder if taking some of these cameras out with a rock, paintball or laser would become a sport?

HenryBG said :

Tooks said :

KeenGolfer said :

Tooks said :

That’s because there’s no offence called ‘tailgating’ and few people do it in front of police cars anyway, making it more difficult to enforce.

No, but there is “DRIVE BEHIND OTHER VEH. TOO CLOSELY TO STOP SAFELY”, $216 and 1 point. But as you say it’s almost impossible to police in a marked vehicle.

Exactly. People seem to think it’s a matter of seeing a tailgater and giving them a ticket. Not quite that simple.

Go down to Mugga Lane, draw some white lines on the road, then sit back, take film of the traffic, pull everybody over, and use the film to prove they are all travelling with about 15m distance between each other.

Not rocket science. Might cut into the donut-eating time and involve stepping out of the office to do some actual police work, though. I can see why speed cameras are so popular.

So you have successfully proved that they were within 15 meters of another car, without a collision how do you prove that they were travelling to close to safely stop?

VYBerlinaV8_is_back2:12 pm 20 Feb 12

Tooks said :

The_TaxMan said :

The Gov’t has already said it expects to earn $1,000,000 per week from these cameras….BUT it’s not about revenue hahahahahaha

They won’t be getting a cent of revenue from me.

The only people who get worked up about speed cameras are the numbnuts who cop the fines.

It’s not really a road safety measure, but I agree that if you don’t spot it and/or can’t control your vehicle then no sympathy from me.

Tooks said :

The_TaxMan said :

The Gov’t has already said it expects to earn $1,000,000 per week from these cameras….BUT it’s not about revenue hahahahahaha

They won’t be getting a cent of revenue from me.

The only people who get worked up about speed cameras are the numbnuts who cop the fines.

Really?
I’ve never been fined by a speed camera and I hate them. If you’re smart and attentive they’re not too hard to avoid.

However, take a drive around Canberra and you’ll see hundreds of dangerous actions by drivers that are never punished and the idiots never learn.
But don’t you dare go a few km/hr over the limit around a speed camera because then the government says you’re a dangerous driver who needs to be fined.

Speed cameras have their place but you’d have to be blind not to see the government uses them for more than road safety.

The_TaxMan said :

The Gov’t has already said it expects to earn $1,000,000 per week from these cameras….BUT it’s not about revenue hahahahahaha

They won’t be getting a cent of revenue from me.

The only people who get worked up about speed cameras are the numbnuts who cop the fines.

The reason for most of the bingles I’ve personally witnessed in Canberra usually came down to one of two things: people have no idea what the give way rules are, or simply don’t look.

A few days ago in Kingston I was watching two drivers opposite each other trying to negotiate an intersection. The one going straight was hesitating. Then the other car wanting to turn right went across, and I don’t think it was because they were impatient.

I have to assertively indicate to drivers opposite me to go ahead when I’m waiting to turn right with monotonous regularity. Waving me across might be nice, but in no way is it a safe practice.

Speed merely amplifies the results of of this pre-existing ignorance.

The Gov’t has already said it expects to earn $1,000,000 per week from these cameras….BUT it’s not about revenue hahahahahaha

HenryBG said :

Tooks said :

KeenGolfer said :

Tooks said :

That’s because there’s no offence called ‘tailgating’ and few people do it in front of police cars anyway, making it more difficult to enforce.

No, but there is “DRIVE BEHIND OTHER VEH. TOO CLOSELY TO STOP SAFELY”, $216 and 1 point. But as you say it’s almost impossible to police in a marked vehicle.

Exactly. People seem to think it’s a matter of seeing a tailgater and giving them a ticket. Not quite that simple.

Go down to Mugga Lane, draw some white lines on the road, then sit back, take film of the traffic, pull everybody over, and use the film to prove they are all travelling with about 15m distance between each other.

Not rocket science. Might cut into the donut-eating time and involve stepping out of the office to do some actual police work, though. I can see why speed cameras are so popular.

That’s possibly the stupidest comment on this thread.

Tooks said :

KeenGolfer said :

Tooks said :

That’s because there’s no offence called ‘tailgating’ and few people do it in front of police cars anyway, making it more difficult to enforce.

No, but there is “DRIVE BEHIND OTHER VEH. TOO CLOSELY TO STOP SAFELY”, $216 and 1 point. But as you say it’s almost impossible to police in a marked vehicle.

Exactly. People seem to think it’s a matter of seeing a tailgater and giving them a ticket. Not quite that simple.

Go down to Mugga Lane, draw some white lines on the road, then sit back, take film of the traffic, pull everybody over, and use the film to prove they are all travelling with about 15m distance between each other.

Not rocket science. Might cut into the donut-eating time and involve stepping out of the office to do some actual police work, though. I can see why speed cameras are so popular.

KeenGolfer said :

Tooks said :

That’s because there’s no offence called ‘tailgating’ and few people do it in front of police cars anyway, making it more difficult to enforce.

No, but there is “DRIVE BEHIND OTHER VEH. TOO CLOSELY TO STOP SAFELY”, $216 and 1 point. But as you say it’s almost impossible to police in a marked vehicle.

Exactly. People seem to think it’s a matter of seeing a tailgater and giving them a ticket. Not quite that simple.

john87_no1 said :

Just put more police on the roads. People dont like the indiscriminate and impersonal approach of speed cameras/point to point, drivers dont get a chance to communicate with a camera they just receive the fine in the mail. A fine that drivers dont have the ability to fight against or plead your case.

Not true. You can fight any traffic fine in court if you choose to do so.

Thoroughly Smashed said :

mooo_cow said :

http://www.delonixradar.com.au/speed-cameras/

The style of this page makes sense if, while reading it, you imagine it was written by a man with underpants on his head.

lol +1

Just put more police on the roads. People dont like the indiscriminate and impersonal approach of speed cameras/point to point, drivers dont get a chance to communicate with a camera they just receive the fine in the mail. A fine that drivers dont have the ability to fight against or plead your case.

Thoroughly Smashed11:49 am 20 Feb 12

mooo_cow said :

http://www.delonixradar.com.au/speed-cameras/

The style of this page makes sense if, while reading it, you imagine it was written by a man with underpants on his head.

I don’t really have an issue with them being there. But because Speed cameras are implemented to reduce the number of accidents (rather than to raise revenue). I would like to see a commitment from the Government to provide us with the statistics after their 12 moths in use to see if there has been more than a 10% reduction in accidents. And if there is not, they should be removed.

http://www.delonixradar.com.au/speed-cameras/

Wish more people would read RiotACT – they were all slowing down this morning to read the sign, which had changed to read that the cameras will go live next Monday.

If they are 2.7km apart, you will need to take 121.5 seconds to go between them.

Felix the Cat6:15 am 20 Feb 12

buzz819 said :

Another thing you have to realise that goes hand in hand with all these facts, the fatality and accident rate have been in decline because of Police enforcement of traffic related offences.

I’d reckon it has more to do with modern vehicles equipped with ABS brakes, airbags, traction control etc.

goggles13 said :

buzz819 said :

milkman said :

Negligent driving? Dangerous driving? Surely there are offences that cover it…?

For both of them they have to be proved in court that the person was in fact driving dangerously or negligently, if there is no collision as a result, how could either of those offences be proved?

and in the same vein, how would FURIOUS driving be proven? love to know the definition of that offence!

Furious Driving is normally used in a pursuit I belive, it is for when the offender drives at other vehicles or rams Police cars, that type of thing. It is more down to the deliberate action of the driver, as opposed to Dangerous driving, which can be down undeliberately but still dangerously…

buzz819 said :

milkman said :

Negligent driving? Dangerous driving? Surely there are offences that cover it…?

For both of them they have to be proved in court that the person was in fact driving dangerously or negligently, if there is no collision as a result, how could either of those offences be proved?

and in the same vein, how would FURIOUS driving be proven? love to know the definition of that offence!

Tooks said :

milkman said :

Jethro said :

Personally, I see tailgating as far more dangerous than sitting at 8 or 9 k’s over the speed limit, but tailgating laws are basically unenforced. How many nose-to-tails occur in Canberra every day because some wanker has been sitting less than a metre from someone rear-end while driving at the speed limit?

+1.

That’s because there’s no offence called ‘tailgating’ and few people do it in front of police cars anyway, making it more difficult to enforce.

I really would have thought there would be an offense called ‘following too closely’ or something along those lines. I really can’t imagine that there isn’t something to deal with what has to be one on the number one causes of collisions on our roads.

Tooks said :

That’s because there’s no offence called ‘tailgating’ and few people do it in front of police cars anyway, making it more difficult to enforce.

No, but there is “DRIVE BEHIND OTHER VEH. TOO CLOSELY TO STOP SAFELY”, $216 and 1 point. But as you say it’s almost impossible to police in a marked vehicle.

milkman said :

Negligent driving? Dangerous driving? Surely there are offences that cover it…?

For both of them they have to be proved in court that the person was in fact driving dangerously or negligently, if there is no collision as a result, how could either of those offences be proved?

Negligent driving? Dangerous driving? Surely there are offences that cover it…?

milkman said :

Jethro said :

Personally, I see tailgating as far more dangerous than sitting at 8 or 9 k’s over the speed limit, but tailgating laws are basically unenforced. How many nose-to-tails occur in Canberra every day because some wanker has been sitting less than a metre from someone rear-end while driving at the speed limit?

+1.

That’s because there’s no offence called ‘tailgating’ and few people do it in front of police cars anyway, making it more difficult to enforce.

Jethro said :

Personally, I see tailgating as far more dangerous than sitting at 8 or 9 k’s over the speed limit, but tailgating laws are basically unenforced. How many nose-to-tails occur in Canberra every day because some wanker has been sitting less than a metre from someone rear-end while driving at the speed limit?

+1.

legal said :

Takes your eyes off the road for the 2 seconds it takes to check your speed…

Fail. If it takes you 2 seconds to check your speed, you should do the community a favour and hand in your driver’s licence, as it means that you’re not even close to having the skills required to drive a car. Any even moderately competent driver can monitor their speed with infrequent and very quick glances at the speedo.

legal said :

Instead of spending $30 million on a two lane bridge on Kings Ave Parkes Way, and all the other white elephant projects, the ACT govt ought to look at the simplest, most proven and cheapest solution – highly visible Police patrol cars. But no, we need to waste millions of dollars on projects that do not benefit the community and require millions more to operate and do not deliver on their core promise.

Have you ever worked out at Russell? That roundabout was completely unable to cope with the peak hour traffic it was meant to. The bridge at Russell was completely necessary, and unlike many of our road projects, completely relatively quickly and pain free. I would wager that more than one accident won’t happen because of the upgrade there.

A more reasonable argument would be that we should make sure revenue raised from speed cameras goes straight towards other road safety measures. Personally, I see tailgating as far more dangerous than sitting at 8 or 9 k’s over the speed limit, but tailgating laws are basically unenforced. How many nose-to-tails occur in Canberra every day because some wanker has been sitting less than a metre from someone rear-end while driving at the speed limit?

legal said :

Takes your eyes off the road for the 2 seconds it takes to check your speed and you would have travelled 50 or 60m. In that time your attention is not on the road – you are driving blind. This is where road safety is most affected for the typical safe driver.

I’m sorry, but this is the worst possible argument being put forward against enforced speed limits. Any competent and safe driver needs to be constantly aware of more than simply what is going on in front of them. You should constantly be scanning your mirrors, checking your speed, making sure you are aware if someone is in your blind-spot, and so on. All of these things require you to move your eyes away from staring straight ahead.

When I sat my driving test there was a criteria called ‘observation’ or something similar. Basically, if you weren’t constantly checking all of those things, you would get a cross in that criteria. Three crosses in that criteria was an immediate fail.

If you are unable to drive safely while constantly scanning mirrors, speed, etc, you really, really shouldn’t be driving.

JulesZ said :

Far out you’re a cynical bunch.

Fact: Speed doesn’t cause accidents, but far out it makes them worse. Ask a paramedic.
Fact: The number of fatalities has been in significant decline since the 70’s when it peaked
Fact: The number of serious injuries has been in significant decline since the late 60’s.
Fact: (And this one is important) If you don’t speed (which is actually breaking the law) then you won’t get fined. It’s like most of those laws, if you don’t assault someone in a bar you won’t get arrested for it. If you don’t steal someone’s bicycle you (wait for it) won’t get arrested for stealing someone’s bicycle. Seriously, you’re fine following those laws, so why do you have such a hard time leaving earlier to get to work or dealing with the fact you’re going to be a little bit late?

Have any of you thought about what the actual implications of driving at the speed limit are?

Introducing speed limits on highways, improved safety standards for cars, better driver training, all these things have led to the point where we are at now. Don’t get me wrong, I can see the benefit of increasing the speed limit on highways that can support it, but far out, getting worked up about enforcing a law which exists simply to stop people from dying… there are bigger fish to fry.

Facts from here:
http://www.atcouncil.gov.au/documents/files/NRSS_2011_2020_15Aug11.pdf
http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/89/Files/RDA_Jan2011.pdf
http://www.transport.sa.gov.au/pdfs/safety/road_crash/Crash_Facts.pdf

Another thing you have to realise that goes hand in hand with all these facts, the fatality and accident rate have been in decline because of Police enforcement of traffic related offences. When traffic infringement notices started getting handed out the amount of collisions in general dropped significantly because people were getting stung in the hip pocket straight away. Enforcing all road rules will reduce accident rates, I would rather people get tickets for failing to give way, stopping for no reasons at roundabouts, failing to stop at stop signs, no seatbelts and using mobile phones, as well as defective vehicle checks to occur more, or over the pits every year for cars.

This is the only way that people will start getting the hint that the road is there for them to use only if the wish to follow the rules, going 10km’s over the speed limit is not going to hurt anyone, specially on a dual carriageway 3 lane road, in NSW it would be a 110km stretch, not 80.

Speed is the only quantifiable and measurable aspect of road safety – but the govt is guilty of treating it as a cash cow instead of addressing the other factors that have a far greater impact on road safety.

Takes your eyes off the road for the 2 seconds it takes to check your speed and you would have travelled 50 or 60m. In that time your attention is not on the road – you are driving blind. This is where road safety is most affected for the typical safe driver. Going by the stats also, there is a direct link between speed cameras and accidents.

Instead of spending $30 million on a two lane bridge on Kings Ave Parkes Way, and all the other white elephant projects, the ACT govt ought to look at the simplest, most proven and cheapest solution – highly visible Police patrol cars. But no, we need to waste millions of dollars on projects that do not benefit the community and require millions more to operate and do not deliver on their core promise.

JulesZ said :

Fact: Speed doesn’t cause accidents….

I absolutely agree with most of what you said, but I’m sorry, this is just wrong. Speed can, and does cause accidents. Imagine a car driving through a school zone (or any suburban street) at 80km/h, and a child darts out in front of them from behind a parked car – they don’t react in time and hit the child. Same situation, but the driver’s now travelling at the speed limit and is able to stop in time. The speed has been the difference between an accident and no accident. There are lots of situations where the difference between a near miss and something serious will be the speed. But you’re right, if there is an accident, any additional speed will almost certainly make it worse.

Far out you’re a cynical bunch.

Fact: Speed doesn’t cause accidents, but far out it makes them worse. Ask a paramedic.
Fact: The number of fatalities has been in significant decline since the 70’s when it peaked
Fact: The number of serious injuries has been in significant decline since the late 60’s.
Fact: (And this one is important) If you don’t speed (which is actually breaking the law) then you won’t get fined. It’s like most of those laws, if you don’t assault someone in a bar you won’t get arrested for it. If you don’t steal someone’s bicycle you (wait for it) won’t get arrested for stealing someone’s bicycle. Seriously, you’re fine following those laws, so why do you have such a hard time leaving earlier to get to work or dealing with the fact you’re going to be a little bit late?

Have any of you thought about what the actual implications of driving at the speed limit are?

Introducing speed limits on highways, improved safety standards for cars, better driver training, all these things have led to the point where we are at now. Don’t get me wrong, I can see the benefit of increasing the speed limit on highways that can support it, but far out, getting worked up about enforcing a law which exists simply to stop people from dying… there are bigger fish to fry.

Facts from here:
http://www.atcouncil.gov.au/documents/files/NRSS_2011_2020_15Aug11.pdf
http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/89/Files/RDA_Jan2011.pdf
http://www.transport.sa.gov.au/pdfs/safety/road_crash/Crash_Facts.pdf

Mr Gillespie5:23 pm 18 Feb 12

“Unfortunately it appears that many ACT motorists continue to speed, in spite of the risks that this behaviour presents to them, their passengers and other road users,” Ms Greenland said.

Oh go stick it you Justice & Community Revenue Raising snobhead

claireinqbn said :

Why is this so controversial? If the signs say the speed limit is 80kph, then you do no more than 80mph,

Exactly – 129km/h is a good upper limit for that stretch…

Woody Mann-Caruso9:28 pm 17 Feb 12

I doubt the number of crashes on the road. It’s much higher than the smaller number I’ve personally witnessed during the tiny fraction of time I happen to be driving on it. Things can’t happen if I’m not there to see it. That’s quantum physics.

Also, I can count to potato.

It might be refreshing if the Government just admitted to revenue raising rather than slinging around BS stats and justifications.

I hope they raise enough revenue to at least pay for the cameras.

Three post nutbag

May I further correct myself. My original numbers need to be halved. So it’s an accident every 3 weeks, and an injury every 2 years. Wow, these statistics are certainly showing how Govco are looking after our road safety. Hundreds of thousands of dollars to reduce this accident rate?

Have we got the Government we expected? Where it deliberately targets motorists with unrealistically low speed limits to line its coffers? The GDE is another example. The above statistics show the manipulation to raise revenue, unrelated to any accident data.

I hope the various politicals explain their policies on this matter before the next election.

The bottom line is that these cameras will slow drivers down for that specific stretch of road but will do nothing to slow drivers on the other 99.99% of roads in the ACT. A periodic police presence using hand-held radar guns on the same stretch of road – and on other roads across the city – would be much more effective in creating a deterrent effect and making people more aware of their speeds on the off chance there may be a radar gun around the next bend. Whoever in government believes these cameras are effective in curbing driver behaviour is missing the woods for the trees …

I must correct my previous post. ABC News reports that the distance between the cameras is 2.7Km, not the 5 Km that Google maps reported.

Therefore my figures must be doubled. There is more than one accident a week (but less than 2), and we injure 2 people per year.

But I will contend that the press release was written to deliberately confuse the ‘corridor’ with the length of monitored speed with the overall length of Hindmarsh. I cannot trust this Gov when it comes to honesty. I would love to read the advice received from their Pub Servs regarding the revenue stream expected.

switch said :

Wish someone would organise another lightning strike.

no just organise a group of english people to come over and “fix” the cameras. they do a good job over there

And yes, I agree with goggles, it isn’t necessary to go downhill on the brakes – but if you need to apply the brakes, then do it. That’s what they’re for.

Why is this so controversial? If the signs say the speed limit is 80kph, then you do no more than 80mph, whether there are cameras operating or not. Ditto for 110, 100, 70, 60, 50 and 40. Oh, and 20 in some places. Why do so many people think the limit doesn’t apply to them, and then whinge when they get caught?

“During the period 2004 to 2008 there were 538 crashes, including 17 injury crashes, on the Hindmarsh Drive corridor where the cameras are located.”

According to Google maps, the stretch of Hindmarsh Drive covered by the speed cameras is almost precisely one third of the length of Hindmarsh Drive.

So even if the many intersections/accident blackspots on Hindmarsh west of Yamba are disregarded, we are left with 177.5 crashes and 5.6 injuries IN 5 YEARS. Or 35 crashes per year, or one every week and a half, and 1.1 injuries PER YEAR. A family member had their car written off at one of the Hindmarsh/Weston Creek intersections during this period.

And these statistics result in Govco deciding that hundreds of thousands of dollars should be spent to reduce these alarming numbers even further?

Perhaps truth in Government could be a vote winner for a party, unlike the lying bunch of mongrels currently in power.

mcharlton said :

Having driven this road every day for a number of years, unless you ride the brakes on the way down, your car will gain speed.

both of my cars (one manual, one auto) don’t gain speed on the downhill run as I change down gears to use engine braking…..try it sometime, you might be surprised how effective it is – it still allows me to use the throttle pedal to modulate my speed!

Lazy I said :

Spectra said :

“During the period 2004 to 2008 there were 538 crashes, including 17 injury crashes, on the Hindmarsh Drive corridor where the cameras are located.”

Always amusing to see statistics like this thrown into statements which imply, merely by their presence, that there is a link. How many of those crashes actually had speed as a key contributing factor? Oh, we’re not given that bit of information, in spite of the fact that it’s rather crucial to assessing the relevance of this statistic.

It is intentionally ambiguous.

The ‘Hindmarsh Drive corridor’ would include the entire length of Hindmarsh drive not just the ‘corridor’ that these cameras are located on.

not ambiguous, this quote explains the area of Hindmarsh Drive that Justice and Community Safety are referring to:

“During the period 2004 to 2008 there were 538 crashes, including 17 injury crashes, on the Hindmarsh Drive corridor where the cameras are located.”

Watson said :

itsallme said :

Wait, 800 speeders per day, not sure how much a base >15kph fine is, but guessing more than $100.00. So, 800 people times $100.00 fine = $80,000.00 per day, times by 365 days = $29.2 million a year. And that’s assuming an average $100 fine. If the average is $200.00 then that’s a whopping $58.4 million the ACT will get in revenue per year…I wonder how much more art they will buy…

Oh yeah, the money comes from you the ACT people (who despite what you say on RA, you all speed once in a while I know it)…best start saving.

It is really sad that someone thinks that all these people who say they don’t speed must be lying.

It is a voluntary contribution as said so many times before. And they won’t be getting a cent from me. I should be grateful for those who choose to add to the revenue, but less speeding drivers would make me happier.

+1
The cameras a permanent. Everyone know they’re there, so if you get caught, you can’t blame the ‘cop hiding behind the bush’ or any type of deceptive conduct. How anyone can go through a permanent speed camera that you know is there and get done for speeding is beyond me.

The revenue raising capabilities of these permanent cameraswould drop to zero if people stopped thinking they are above the law.

Well if the cameras detected 800 people a day speeding in that particular corridor, then it’s probably not a big stretch to assume a good proportion of those prangs involved excessive speed. As you said though, there’s no way of knowing.

What is classed as excessive speed? I do believe that some cameras in Victoria were calibrated at only 1kp/h over the limit before you got stung. This is yet another revenue raiser to catch innocent motorists who coast on the downhill side to find that they may be a few kp/h over the 80k limit.

videodrome said :

Am I the only one thinking that having traffic lights between the 2 points kind of defeats the point of the exercise? I could be doing 20kms over the limit all the way but catch a red light and hey presto I am a law abiding citizen all of a sudden.

And where would these traffic lights be? I am so unaware of my surroundings I haven’t seen them.

HenryBG said :

Solidarity said :

There would have been less people speeding if they didn’t have those signs that tell you what your speed is. Heaps of people have been trying to see how high they go….

Lol! So annoying when the people in front of slow down just as you’re about to post a ton!

Apparently (I wouldn’t know) if you post about a buck eighty, they show 140ish.

All hearsay though.

Tooks said :

basketcase said :

As usual, nothing to do with road safety, since when did cameras prevent accidents.

It’s all about revenue.

Let me guess – you are a regular viewer of A Current Affair and/or Today Tonight?

There are numerous studies saying otherwise. I’ve probably said this before, but if you are caught by a speed camera then you are driving with your head up your arse. These point to point cameras are no different.

Speed cameras only catch speeding drivers who aren’t paying attention to their surroundings. Drivers who don’t pay attention to their surroundings (such as the big speed van 200m up the road) are dangerous. These are the drivers who deserve to be fined.

I can’t see my surroundings because my eyes are glued to my speedo ffs

Am I the only one thinking that having traffic lights between the 2 points kind of defeats the point of the exercise? I could be doing 20kms over the limit all the way but catch a red light and hey presto I am a law abiding citizen all of a sudden.

The ACT with its ultra low road toll and so called high quality roads has invested/wasted tax payers money on a previous Chief Ministers whim. The section of road under scrutiny is engineering rated at 100kph yet the nurse maids in the ACT govt are revenue raising by artificially reducing the speed limit. If they were serious they would at least resurface the road from its dangerous state and install lighting so that wildlife can be spotted more easily. The Black Spot was treated several years ago, all TaMS and the Terrotory govt are doing is revenue raising at the expense of the Canberra motorists. I urge canberrans to write to your representative and if necessary adjust your vote in October accordingly.

m_ratt said :

qbngeek said :

NoImRight said :

So what should the speed limit on that road be?

80km/h makes sense since there are traffic lights on either side of the hill, a blind intersection on the eastbound side and traffic backs up due to the lights.

So that justifies the limit for a couple of hundred metres before and after the lights and the intersection. What about the 3km between intersections westbound?
Traffic banks up on the Monaro Northbound at Hindmarsh, yet that’s still greater than 80.

Im not sure what your point is? Traffic is at a standstill so the speed limit should be raised?

m_ratt said :

qbngeek said :

NoImRight said :

So what should the speed limit on that road be?

80km/h makes sense since there are traffic lights on either side of the hill, a blind intersection on the eastbound side and traffic backs up due to the lights.

So that justifies the limit for a couple of hundred metres before and after the lights and the intersection. What about the 3km between intersections westbound?
Traffic banks up on the Monaro Northbound at Hindmarsh, yet that’s still greater than 80.

And then you will all start whinging that the speed changes too often. Starting to think you lot just whinge for the hell of it. This entire issue can be solved by not speeding, but that seems to hard for a lot of you.

Holden Caulfield4:08 pm 17 Feb 12

Grrrr said :

Felix the Cat said :

I thought there was some regulation that you couldn’t have speed cameras on a hill?

I don’t understand how anyone could imagine this to be true. Why would legislation allow people to speed on hills?

Oh boy talk about adding 1+1 and getting 5!

It’s not about being legal to speed on hills, haha, more that the measuring devices may no longer be accurate if used on a gradient with a steep incline.

itsallme said :

Wait, 800 speeders per day, not sure how much a base >15kph fine is, but guessing more than $100.00. So, 800 people times $100.00 fine = $80,000.00 per day, times by 365 days = $29.2 million a year. And that’s assuming an average $100 fine. If the average is $200.00 then that’s a whopping $58.4 million the ACT will get in revenue per year…I wonder how much more art they will buy…

Oh yeah, the money comes from you the ACT people (who despite what you say on RA, you all speed once in a while I know it)…best start saving.

It is really sad that someone thinks that all these people who say they don’t speed must be lying.

It is a voluntary contribution as said so many times before. And they won’t be getting a cent from me. I should be grateful for those who choose to add to the revenue, but less speeding drivers would make me happier.

qbngeek said :

NoImRight said :

So what should the speed limit on that road be?

80km/h makes sense since there are traffic lights on either side of the hill, a blind intersection on the eastbound side and traffic backs up due to the lights.

So that justifies the limit for a couple of hundred metres before and after the lights and the intersection. What about the 3km between intersections westbound?
Traffic banks up on the Monaro Northbound at Hindmarsh, yet that’s still greater than 80.

Someonesmother3:55 pm 17 Feb 12

I doubt the figures that in that particular stretch of road there were 538 crashes. I used to travel that stretch of road all the time and the crashes were ususally at the lights on Hindmarsh and Dalrymple, Jerrabomberra & Hindmarsh or further along where the slip lanes come in to play. It is all about revenue raising and if the ACT Gov’t think that we are going to buy that sort of rubbish they must be living in La LA land.

“”What about drivers whose eyes are glued to their speedometers because they’re afraid of getting pinged by the revenue machine?”

If you need to keep your eyes glued to the speedo then do us all a favour and hand back your licence, as you are too incompetent to be driving.”

… I wasn’t talking about me, I was talking about the other muppets on the road. Most of them have a hard enough time realising that anyone else is on the road as it is – this only makes it worse.

PrinceOfAles said :

NoImRight said :

So what should the speed limit on that road be?

My astra could handle it at about 490km/h

But can you? 🙂

NoImRight said :

So what should the speed limit on that road be?

80km/h makes sense since there are traffic lights on either side of the hill, a blind intersection on the eastbound side and traffic backs up due to the lights.

Ohhh…hang on, its 80km/h now.

PrinceOfAles3:42 pm 17 Feb 12

NoImRight said :

So what should the speed limit on that road be?

My astra could handle it at about 490km/h

colourful sydney racing identity3:28 pm 17 Feb 12

Grrrr said :

Felix the Cat said :

I thought there was some regulation that you couldn’t have speed cameras on a hill?

I don’t understand how anyone could imagine this to be true. Why would legislation allow people to speed on hills?

Secondly, every road is a hill. You’re always travelling up or down hill, even if the gradient is only small.

Lastly, the concept of speeding downhill being exempt from detection is backwards. If anything, cars should be forced to drive slower downhill than on the flat (or up) because braking is less effective because gravity also must be opposed.

I understand it is the case in NSW as an appeasement to truckies, who argue that they go faster down hills to make up for the slower speed they have to go up hills. I am not joking.

Felix the Cat said :

I thought there was some regulation that you couldn’t have speed cameras on a hill?

I don’t understand how anyone could imagine this to be true. Why would legislation allow people to speed on hills?

Secondly, every road is a hill. You’re always travelling up or down hill, even if the gradient is only small.

Lastly, the concept of speeding downhill being exempt from detection is backwards. If anything, cars should be forced to drive slower downhill than on the flat (or up) because braking is less effective because gravity also must be opposed.

So what should the speed limit on that road be?

Truck drivers are going to laugh at this – since they crawl up the hill, they will probably delight in being able to do 100Km/h down towards Woden and stay within the average.

This is total crap. It’s a revenue grab. I have done a lot of driving around the ACT as part of my work and I also travel often up/down Hindmarsh over the hill (where the P2P system is.) I think the amount of crashes I have seen (since I live nearby too) is way lower than the stated amount, they must be happening further up the other end, parkway or weston creek ends, possibly even down the canberra avenue, monaro off/onramp areas.
Ironically, what the significance is:
1. No speed van’s or cop cars allowed between the points, as it is illegal to be booked twice (you can’t be done for the same infringement twice.)
2. The concept of the LAW is suspended between these points, from Point A to Point B = you are “GUILTY (At Point A) until proven INNOCENT (at Point B.) You have your photo taken, not on triggering a high speed alert, but on passing – held, until proven otherwise, then out of the calculation = given a fine as needed.
3. It will cause unsafe driving practices, which we already see (and others have commented on) on the parkway and other places. People jamming on the brakes, cutting their speeds from 80/90 to 40/60 to try and change the timing equation… (yeah right!)
4. All the idiot drivers who drive in the right or left lane (indiscrimately) and ignore the classic “keep left unless overtaking” will just increase.

Note speaking on Lane Trolls, gotta love some people’s approach to overtaking, a Truck & car hit the rise after the cotter overpass, car goes to overtake. Truck wins in the end to get to the top of the hill. Both were doing 80 km/h by that point. Wonderful overtaking skills.

Anyway, I dither, in the end – I am all for some constructive soul from Charny or Kambah heading out that way and throwing some rocks. 🙂 I recommend a slingshot my good bogan friends. (LOL, that article is a cracker!)

One more revenue grab… stupid govt.

Holden Caulfield2:25 pm 17 Feb 12

Felix the Cat said :

I thought there was some regulation that you couldn’t have speed cameras on a hill? Where’s Sgt Bunger when you need him?

If that rule exists—I’ve heard of it too, but IIRC it’s a furphy—then I’d say it applies to hand held devices anyway. The whole point of a p2p set up is that it relies on basic physics which, in this context should provide a black or white result.

We’ll probably have a “How long does it take to get a ticket from the P2P cameras on Hindmarsh?” post on RA inside a month, so I guess we’ll soon know how effective they are and what tolerances they have (if any).

VYBerlinaV8_is_back2:23 pm 17 Feb 12

Yawn.

Revenue raising.

Speeders who are aware of their surroundings won’t get caught, as usual.

Yawn.

These are the most useless things in the universe, what a gawd awful waste of time, money and effort. I don’t even use that road and I am not a speeder and it still annoys the hell out of me.

My personal view on speed camera type things is thatthat they are not going to prevent speeding, not in a million years. The driver does not really learn a lesson, they just simply lose cash. Have a true-to-life police person pull a driver over and tell them that they are breaking the law and I am sure the lesson would stick a lot longer than at ~$100 fine. In fact, a cardboard cut-out of a police car would probably do the job better than those silly cameras.

BrassRazoo said :

Having all too frequently witnessed sheer bloody mindedness (a lot of it outright bullying) on our roads I welcome any measure to crack down on those who won’t abide by the rules and put others at risk, but wonder how cameras on either side of such a steep hill are going to catch drivers of trucks which crawl up the hill and hurtle down the other side. On the other hand, average speed cameras might be effective in say, identifying the bastards (have to say a high proportion in newish Navaras or 80s sedans in IME) who specialise in weaving at speed in and out of long but well-flowing traffic streams such as along Adelaide Ave and Yamba Drive. Must be others out there who also wonder how they keep getting away with it and their likelihood of doing the right thing in other community interactions.

+1

mcharlton said :

Having driven this road every day for a number of years, unless you ride the brakes on the way down, your car will gain speed. I normally set my cruise control on this section of road, but gravity is a big force to be dealt with.
I can understand the use of P2P on Monaro Highway or any other flat section of road, but to choose the biggest hill on the southside is revenue raising at its worth.
I challenge any politician to drive the section of the road as close as they can to the speed limit and not have to look at the speedo every 5 seconds on the way down hill.
Watching a speedo and not the road will lead to more crashes.

I drive a small, light car, and find it cruises well down either side of the hill if I am at the right speed and take my foot off the accelerator (away from and towards woden). I usually only need to brake when i’ve got 2 + passengers. Maybe people could consider not driving big heavy cars or, stop accelerating when you don’t need to. Although this doesn’t help people driving trucks and other heavy vehicles for work..

Tooks said :

mossrocket said :

the speed logging sign post is way off as well – I went past it this morning at 90kmh on my speedo (which – with the size of my wheels being different to the stock wheels that the speedo was calibrated against – is actually 80kmh), and it said I was doing 64kmh…

You might want to have your speedo calibrated. I went past the same sign a few days ago and it was spot on.

I drive past this sign every day. Last week, I drove past it 5 days in a row (M-F) at the same speed, give or take 1-2 kph, with a workmate in the passenger seat with a speed app on an iphone and my gps active(just to be sure we were doing the same speed each time). That sign has given me widly different speed readings each day, showing anywhere between 60-90kph while doing 80kph. I work odd hours and the five days we used other devices to verify our speed there were no other cars around us to give it a different reading. A few weeks ago it guessed my speed correctly and I nearly had a heart attack.

I wonder if there is a case for getting away with speeding, as the sign set up by the government (I -ASSUME-, please correct me if I’m wrong) isn’t calibrated/working/useful in any way?

Having all too frequently witnessed sheer bloody mindedness (a lot of it outright bullying) on our roads I welcome any measure to crack down on those who won’t abide by the rules and put others at risk, but wonder how cameras on either side of such a steep hill are going to catch drivers of trucks which crawl up the hill and hurtle down the other side. On the other hand, average speed cameras might be effective in say, identifying the bastards (have to say a high proportion in newish Navaras or 80s sedans in IME) who specialise in weaving at speed in and out of long but well-flowing traffic streams such as along Adelaide Ave and Yamba Drive. Must be others out there who also wonder how they keep getting away with it and their likelihood of doing the right thing in other community interactions.

mcharlton said :

Having driven this road every day for a number of years, unless you ride the brakes on the way down, your car will gain speed. I normally set my cruise control on this section of road, but gravity is a big force to be dealt with.
I can understand the use of P2P on Monaro Highway or any other flat section of road, but to choose the biggest hill on the southside is revenue raising at its worth.
I challenge any politician to drive the section of the road as close as they can to the speed limit and not have to look at the speedo every 5 seconds on the way down hill.
Watching a speedo and not the road will lead to more crashes.

In fact it’s kangaroos that cause most crashes here – the money wasted on cameras should have been spent on keeping kangaroos off the road to deliver tangible safety benefits.

Felix the Cat said :

bd84 said :

If the cameras in Victoria can’t be proven as accurate when they’re on sections of road which are dead flat and smooth, I wish the ACT Government luck in defending all the accuracy challenges when they have placed them on a rough road that has very steep inclines and declines. I’m guessing they would have very high tolerance levels built in..

Rather a stupid place to put them as usual. While there have been speed related crashes along there, from memory both were at least 10 years ago and I would say most crashes that occur along that stretch of road are related to drivers not paying attention, tailgating or illegal lane changes. But never mind, they won’t bother policing those because they can make far more money catching people speeding when rolling down the hills.

I thought there was some regulation that you couldn’t have speed cameras on a hill? Where’s Sgt Bunger when you need him?

Why would that be the case? How hard is it to use that big wide pedal in the middle to slow you down, or alternatively use you transmission to do the same thing. Yesterday I heard someone complain that using the transmission to slow down uses more fuel…O.o. An engine running downhill under no load will use virtually no fuel regardless of how many revolutions it is doing.

Having driven this road every day for a number of years, unless you ride the brakes on the way down, your car will gain speed. I normally set my cruise control on this section of road, but gravity is a big force to be dealt with.
I can understand the use of P2P on Monaro Highway or any other flat section of road, but to choose the biggest hill on the southside is revenue raising at its worth.
I challenge any politician to drive the section of the road as close as they can to the speed limit and not have to look at the speedo every 5 seconds on the way down hill.
Watching a speedo and not the road will lead to more crashes.

Solidarity said :

There would have been less people speeding if they didn’t have those signs that tell you what your speed is. Heaps of people have been trying to see how high they go….

Lol! So annoying when the people in front of slow down just as you’re about to post a ton!

Felix the Cat1:30 pm 17 Feb 12

bd84 said :

If the cameras in Victoria can’t be proven as accurate when they’re on sections of road which are dead flat and smooth, I wish the ACT Government luck in defending all the accuracy challenges when they have placed them on a rough road that has very steep inclines and declines. I’m guessing they would have very high tolerance levels built in..

Rather a stupid place to put them as usual. While there have been speed related crashes along there, from memory both were at least 10 years ago and I would say most crashes that occur along that stretch of road are related to drivers not paying attention, tailgating or illegal lane changes. But never mind, they won’t bother policing those because they can make far more money catching people speeding when rolling down the hills.

I thought there was some regulation that you couldn’t have speed cameras on a hill? Where’s Sgt Bunger when you need him?

Holden Caulfield said :

predator_pb said :

If this is about road safety, drivers that ride their brakes all the way down the hill at less than the speed limit should also receive a fine.

They will. It will be in the form of new pads and rotors!

This highlights one of the real problems with p-to-p on a downhill run.

When we will know when a car is braking hard(er) for some obstruction on the road, a feral kangaroo, or if they are pulling over to take a phone call?

The whole idea of brake lights is to give warning to those behind. When drivers ride their brakes downhill for fear of the cameras, then this early-warning device has lost its effectiveness.

Whoever planned this debacle needs to go back to kindergarten and start their education all over again.

The only people who complain about stuff like this are those who speed. If you DON’T SPEED, you won’t get fined. It’s very simple.

I guess it’s easier to blame the govt though?

Holden Caulfield12:56 pm 17 Feb 12

predator_pb said :

If this is about road safety, drivers that ride their brakes all the way down the hill at less than the speed limit should also receive a fine.

They will. It will be in the form of new pads and rotors!

For goodness sake. Do not speed – you won’t get fined – and you won’t need to waste time whinging about the cameras.

If no one speeds, it’s not revenue rasing.

A small point, but you are in control of your destiny.

Holden Caulfield12:55 pm 17 Feb 12

Tooks said :

Spectra said :

“During the period 2004 to 2008 there were 538 crashes, including 17 injury crashes, on the Hindmarsh Drive corridor where the cameras are located.”

Always amusing to see statistics like this thrown into statements which imply, merely by their presence, that there is a link. How many of those crashes actually had speed as a key contributing factor? Oh, we’re not given that bit of information, in spite of the fact that it’s rather crucial to assessing the relevance of this statistic.

Well if the cameras detected 800 people a day speeding in that particular corridor, then it’s probably not a big stretch to assume a good proportion of those prangs involved excessive speed. As you said though, there’s no way of knowing.

How do you define “excessive speed”, with direct reference to Hindmarsh Drive where the point-to-point cameras are?

Is it 10km/h over the limit? Hardly. Is it 20km/h over the limit. Possibly. Is it 30km/h over the limit? Probably.

When do you reckon the cameras will kick in? 😉

Moreover what proportion of motorists recorded in the sample period were travelling at excessive speeds as compared to those (ie. my guess is the majority) who coast down the hill at 90km/h or so?

I agree with you though, if you get pinged by a fixed camera or a road side van you deserve whatever you get.

p1 said :

Reprobate said :

“During the period 2004 to 2008 there were 538 crashes, including 17 injury crashes, on the Hindmarsh Drive corridor where the cameras are located.”

So that’s 1 accident (traffic incident) every 2.75 days, and 1 injury crash every 86 days. No mention of any deaths in that period. Doesn’t appear to be a horror stretch o f road on those figures…

Or, 0.00145349% of speeding trips along that road result in injury (assuming all injury crashes were speeding).

How many of these crashes were inside the envelope of the P2P cameras?
How many were directly caused by speed?

If this is about road safety, drivers that ride their brakes all the way down the hill at less than the speed limit should also receive a fine.

Speeding doesn’t cause accidents?

I think we can all agree that there is some speed which is unsafe for any given combination of road/vehicle/driving conditions. The perception of what is a safe speed will vary significantly between drivers. I’m thinking this is why we have speed limits in the first place. As there are clearly many drivers that I would not trust to make that decision.

If we agree that there need to be some limits on speed then speeding presents a fairly obvious danger. Cars moving at a significantly different speed requires judging closing speeds, overtaking/lane changes. Other road users have to be more aware of cars that are passing at higher speed.

I don’t even have to theorise. Experience tells me when I drive down to Melbourne it is much less stressful driving in Victoria than NSW. Not only do the cars mostly travel at the same speed so there is less overtaking, I don’t feel any great need to “push the envelope” myself.

Reprobate said :

“During the period 2004 to 2008 there were 538 crashes, including 17 injury crashes, on the Hindmarsh Drive corridor where the cameras are located.”

So that’s 1 accident (traffic incident) every 2.75 days, and 1 injury crash every 86 days. No mention of any deaths in that period. Doesn’t appear to be a horror stretch o f road on those figures…

Or, 0.00145349% of speeding trips along that road result in injury (assuming all injury crashes were speeding).

It’s worth noting that the 800 speeders per day were likely fully aware that the cameras were not yet switched on. I would expect the number to decline pretty sharply in 10 days’ time.

niftydog said :

One would hope the system would just ping you for driving past the first camera at 250km/h.
Though perhaps there’s no speed detection equipment on either of the cameras.

Anyone know more about the system specs?

Don’t claim to be authoritative, but I believe they’re cameras only with no instantaneous speed detection. The devices on Hindmarsh are much smaller than fixed speed cameras.

This road’s about to become unusable (OK, maybe just annoying) due to hordes of dimwits afraid to exceed 60km/h and too witless to move left :-\

itsallme said :

Wait, 800 speeders per day, not sure how much a base >15kph fine is, but guessing more than $100.00. So, 800 people times $100.00 fine = $80,000.00 per day, times by 365 days = $29.2 million a year. And that’s assuming an average $100 fine. If the average is $200.00 then that’s a whopping $58.4 million the ACT will get in revenue per year…I wonder how much more art they will buy…

Oh yeah, the money comes from you the ACT people (who despite what you say on RA, you all speed once in a while I know it)…best start saving.

I won’t be speeding through p2p. If you’re stupid enough to do it, then I thank you in advance for your voluntary contribution to govt revenue.

Reprobate said :

“During the testing of the point to point cameras, speed measurements taken by the camera system indicated approximately 800 motorists a day are speeding along the stretch of road where the cameras will shortly commence operating.”

Wow. So if speeding = instant death (as the Gov’t would have us believe), why aren’t there 800 deaths/accidents a day on this stretch of road alone?

Quote me one person in Govt, in the history of this country, who has suggested speeding = instant death.

fnaah said :

“Drivers who don’t pay attention to their surroundings (such as the big speed van 200m up the road) are dangerous”

What about drivers whose eyes are glued to their speedometers because they’re afraid of getting pinged by the revenue machine?

If you need to keep your eyes glued to the speedo then do us all a favour and hand back your licence, as you are too incompetent to be driving.

“During the period 2004 to 2008 there were 538 crashes, including 17 injury crashes, on the Hindmarsh Drive corridor where the cameras are located.”

So that’s 1 accident (traffic incident) every 2.75 days, and 1 injury crash every 86 days. No mention of any deaths in that period. Doesn’t appear to be a horror stretch of road on those figures…

In my research I’ve discovered that spare tyres are a factor in 100% of vehicle collisions. Dangerous bloody things… 😉

mossrocket said :

So – drivers could go over the hill at 250 kmh and park for 30 minutes and not get a fine.

One would hope the system would just ping you for driving past the first camera at 250km/h.
Though perhaps there’s no speed detection equipment on either of the cameras.

Anyone know more about the system specs?

“During the testing of the point to point cameras, speed measurements taken by the camera system indicated approximately 800 motorists a day are speeding along the stretch of road where the cameras will shortly commence operating.”

Wow. So if speeding = instant death (as the Gov’t would have us believe), why aren’t there 800 deaths/accidents a day on this stretch of road alone?

“Drivers who don’t pay attention to their surroundings (such as the big speed van 200m up the road) are dangerous”

What about drivers whose eyes are glued to their speedometers because they’re afraid of getting pinged by the revenue machine?

Wish someone would organise another lightning strike.

Wait, 800 speeders per day, not sure how much a base >15kph fine is, but guessing more than $100.00. So, 800 people times $100.00 fine = $80,000.00 per day, times by 365 days = $29.2 million a year. And that’s assuming an average $100 fine. If the average is $200.00 then that’s a whopping $58.4 million the ACT will get in revenue per year…I wonder how much more art they will buy…

Oh yeah, the money comes from you the ACT people (who despite what you say on RA, you all speed once in a while I know it)…best start saving.

mossrocket said :

the speed logging sign post is way off as well – I went past it this morning at 90kmh on my speedo (which – with the size of my wheels being different to the stock wheels that the speedo was calibrated against – is actually 80kmh), and it said I was doing 64kmh…

You might want to have your speedo calibrated. I went past the same sign a few days ago and it was spot on.

colourful sydney racing identity11:30 am 17 Feb 12

Tooks said :

basketcase said :

As usual, nothing to do with road safety, since when did cameras prevent accidents.

It’s all about revenue.

Let me guess – you are a regular viewer of A Current Affair and/or Today Tonight?

There are numerous studies saying otherwise. I’ve probably said this before, but if you are caught by a speed camera then you are driving with your head up your arse. These point to point cameras are no different.

Speed cameras only catch speeding drivers who aren’t paying attention to their surroundings. Drivers who don’t pay attention to their surroundings (such as the big speed van 200m up the road) are dangerous. These are the drivers who deserve to be fined.

+1

dpm said :

I wonder if the Govt will be nice enough to reduce (even slightly!) land rates or parking fees once this revenue cash cow is switched on?! 🙂

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahaha

the speed logging sign post is way off as well – I went past it this morning at 90kmh on my speedo (which – with the size of my wheels being different to the stock wheels that the speedo was calibrated against – is actually 80kmh), and it said I was doing 64kmh…

I propose a new sport…

Whoever has to park for the longest time at the side of the road before they pass the second camera wins!

So – drivers could go over the hill at 250 kmh and park for 30 minutes and not get a fine.

Anyone want to design the iPhone app to track times and upload them to a website*

*may be used as evidence against you in a court of law…

basketcase said :

As usual, nothing to do with road safety, since when did cameras prevent accidents.

It’s all about revenue.

Let me guess – you are a regular viewer of A Current Affair and/or Today Tonight?

There are numerous studies saying otherwise. I’ve probably said this before, but if you are caught by a speed camera then you are driving with your head up your arse. These point to point cameras are no different.

Speed cameras only catch speeding drivers who aren’t paying attention to their surroundings. Drivers who don’t pay attention to their surroundings (such as the big speed van 200m up the road) are dangerous. These are the drivers who deserve to be fined.

I wonder if the Govt will be nice enough to reduce (even slightly!) land rates or parking fees once this revenue cash cow is switched on?! 🙂

If the cameras in Victoria can’t be proven as accurate when they’re on sections of road which are dead flat and smooth, I wish the ACT Government luck in defending all the accuracy challenges when they have placed them on a rough road that has very steep inclines and declines. I’m guessing they would have very high tolerance levels built in..

Rather a stupid place to put them as usual. While there have been speed related crashes along there, from memory both were at least 10 years ago and I would say most crashes that occur along that stretch of road are related to drivers not paying attention, tailgating or illegal lane changes. But never mind, they won’t bother policing those because they can make far more money catching people speeding when rolling down the hills.

watto23 said :

Speed alone is rarely the cause, its just easier to catch speeding than it is to catch distracted drivers on mobiles, listening to loud music, trying to block other traffic to stop them from speeding etc etc.

I agree speeding is easy, I also think that those other issues you mentioned are more or less impossible to police

Of course it is about road safety. New, safer roads cost lots of money which the government needs to raise through voluntary contributions such as speed camera fines.

There would have been less people speeding if they didn’t have those signs that tell you what your speed is. Heaps of people have been trying to see how high they go….

watto23 said :

Speed alone is rarely the cause, its just easier to catch speeding than it is to catch distracted drivers on mobiles, listening to loud music, trying to block other traffic to stop them from speeding etc etc.

Agree speed is not the only reason but its always one of them.

As usual, nothing to do with road safety, since when did cameras prevent accidents.

It’s all about revenue.

“During the period 2004 to 2008 there were 538 crashes, including 17 injury crashes, on the Hindmarsh Drive corridor where the cameras are located.”

I wonder how many of those were rear-enders caused by people jamming on their brakes when they see a speed van?

Seriously though – any thoughts on where these crashes would be occurring on a (relatively) straight stretch of road with good visibility? The only potential black spot I can think of is that stupid, stupid intersection on the northbound side, just over the crest of the hill. Speeding traffic obviously doesn’t help there, but if there are lots of accidents then the correct action would be to just block the damn thing off.

Spectra said :

“During the period 2004 to 2008 there were 538 crashes, including 17 injury crashes, on the Hindmarsh Drive corridor where the cameras are located.”

Always amusing to see statistics like this thrown into statements which imply, merely by their presence, that there is a link. How many of those crashes actually had speed as a key contributing factor? Oh, we’re not given that bit of information, in spite of the fact that it’s rather crucial to assessing the relevance of this statistic.

It is intentionally ambiguous.

The ‘Hindmarsh Drive corridor’ would include the entire length of Hindmarsh drive not just the ‘corridor’ that these cameras are located on.

In any given week I would see 3 or 4 cars busted up in afternoon traffic (from Woden) at the Hindmarsh Drive -> Parkway turn off. Everyone comes in far too hot in the right lane and then lock up when they realise the traffic is banked up from under the bridge wanting to turn right onto the Parkway.

http://goo.gl/bX5I2

Speed alone is rarely the cause, its just easier to catch speeding than it is to catch distracted drivers on mobiles, listening to loud music, trying to block other traffic to stop them from speeding etc etc.

Spectra said :

“During the period 2004 to 2008 there were 538 crashes, including 17 injury crashes, on the Hindmarsh Drive corridor where the cameras are located.”

Always amusing to see statistics like this thrown into statements which imply, merely by their presence, that there is a link. How many of those crashes actually had speed as a key contributing factor? Oh, we’re not given that bit of information, in spite of the fact that it’s rather crucial to assessing the relevance of this statistic.

Well if the cameras detected 800 people a day speeding in that particular corridor, then it’s probably not a big stretch to assume a good proportion of those prangs involved excessive speed. As you said though, there’s no way of knowing.

“During the period 2004 to 2008 there were 538 crashes, including 17 injury crashes, on the Hindmarsh Drive corridor where the cameras are located.”

Always amusing to see statistics like this thrown into statements which imply, merely by their presence, that there is a link. How many of those crashes actually had speed as a key contributing factor? Oh, we’re not given that bit of information, in spite of the fact that it’s rather crucial to assessing the relevance of this statistic.

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.