Speed Camera Slam

gooterz said :

bigfeet said :

gooterz said :

bigfeet said :

Only absolute idiots have to pay this particular tax.

Its also a tourist tax…

Welcome to Canberra, have a fine or 3, come back soon..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur

Yes thanks . I actually did notice that you introduced a non-sequitur. I wondered why you tried to link those two concepts but now I see you have also realised your error.

Well done.

Tooks said :

EvanJames said :

house_husband said :

Nearly half of our accidents are nose to tail crashes but how many people are fined for following too closely? Or how many are issued tickets when they actually cause a rear end crash? Not many I suspect.

Exactly. They cluster like ants over things that are so easy to prove, a machine can be left to do it. The rampant aggressive driving and tailgating in the ACT, forget it. Too hard. And yet when you cruise by a crash, it’s evident that someone’s nose got crumpled into someone else’s backside.

What a load of crap. Tailgaters are frequently fined, especially if they cause a prang.

Never met anyone who has been fined for tailgating. You really are full of it!

bigfeet said :

gooterz said :

bigfeet said :

Only absolute idiots have to pay this particular tax.

Its also a tourist tax…

Welcome to Canberra, have a fine or 3, come back soon..

I must have missed the bit in the road rules which states that tourists are exempt from following the laws.

What other laws are they exempt from?

Red lights? Shoplifting? Drink Driving?

Does this apply to me if I am a tourist somewhere else?

Handy to know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur

EvanJames said :

house_husband said :

Nearly half of our accidents are nose to tail crashes but how many people are fined for following too closely? Or how many are issued tickets when they actually cause a rear end crash? Not many I suspect.

Exactly. They cluster like ants over things that are so easy to prove, a machine can be left to do it. The rampant aggressive driving and tailgating in the ACT, forget it. Too hard. And yet when you cruise by a crash, it’s evident that someone’s nose got crumpled into someone else’s backside.

What a load of crap. Tailgaters are frequently fined, especially if they cause a prang.

gooterz said :

bigfeet said :

Only absolute idiots have to pay this particular tax.

Its also a tourist tax…

Welcome to Canberra, have a fine or 3, come back soon..

I must have missed the bit in the road rules which states that tourists are exempt from following the laws.

What other laws are they exempt from? Red lights? Shoplifting? Drink Driving?

Does this apply to me if I am a tourist somewhere else?

Handy to know.

bigfeet said :

Only absolute idiots have to pay this particular tax.

Its also a tourist tax…

Welcome to Canberra, have a fine or 3, come back soon..

What a joke.

If they published a list of repeat speeders, who had lost their licences it’d be a different ballgame.

Sandman said :

I’m all for the revenue raising aspect of speed cameras. It’s a tax on the stupid, and it works. I really don’t see a problem.

Got to agree with you. Just market them as a revenue raising device and forget pretending that they are a safety instrument.

The speed limits are clearly posted and known. The fixed cameras have piles of warning that they are ahead. The vans stand out like dogs balls, if you can’t see them up ahead you really shouldn’t be on the road.

Hell, I would support devices being installed on every car that automatically send you a ticket every single time you go over the speed limit.

As for whether the actual speed limits are correct for different stretches of road…that is a different discussion. There are ways to change laws but arbitrarily breaking them is not one of them.

Only absolute idiots have to pay this particular tax.

I’m all for the revenue raising aspect of speed cameras. It’s a tax on the stupid, and it works. I really don’t see a problem.

HiddenDragon said :

EvanJames said :

house_husband said :

Nearly half of our accidents are nose to tail crashes but how many people are fined for following too closely? Or how many are issued tickets when they actually cause a rear end crash? Not many I suspect.

Exactly. They cluster like ants over things that are so easy to prove, a machine can be left to do it. The rampant aggressive driving and tailgating in the ACT, forget it. Too hard. And yet when you cruise by a crash, it’s evident that someone’s nose got crumpled into someone else’s backside.

Interestingly, the Hindmarsh Drive point-to-point cameras seem to have reduced aggression and tailgating on the relevant section of that road; if the limit there was a little higher – 90, or even 85 (which would still be less than what was typical in earlier days) – it would be a double plus.

Other than this, there was nothing surprising in the reported excerpts of the audit, and in answer to magiccar9’s question, the speed vans are still out and about – typically in locations which suggest easy revenue, rather than safety, as being the priority.

One thing I can’t get stand is that the speed limits don’t factor speed increase from the hills. Should be slower on the top then have an increase down the bottom.
Also the speed going uphill is less important than speed downhill as you have many times more breaking power going up hill. Yet speed limits each side of the road should be the same.

EvanJames said :

house_husband said :

Nearly half of our accidents are nose to tail crashes but how many people are fined for following too closely? Or how many are issued tickets when they actually cause a rear end crash? Not many I suspect.

Exactly. They cluster like ants over things that are so easy to prove, a machine can be left to do it. The rampant aggressive driving and tailgating in the ACT, forget it. Too hard. And yet when you cruise by a crash, it’s evident that someone’s nose got crumpled into someone else’s backside.

Interestingly, the Hindmarsh Drive point-to-point cameras seem to have reduced aggression and tailgating on the relevant section of that road; if the limit there was a little higher – 90, or even 85 (which would still be less than what was typical in earlier days) – it would be a double plus.

Other than this, there was nothing surprising in the reported excerpts of the audit, and in answer to magiccar9’s question, the speed vans are still out and about – typically in locations which suggest easy revenue, rather than safety, as being the priority.

house_husband said :

Nearly half of our accidents are nose to tail crashes but how many people are fined for following too closely? Or how many are issued tickets when they actually cause a rear end crash? Not many I suspect.

Exactly. They cluster like ants over things that are so easy to prove, a machine can be left to do it. The rampant aggressive driving and tailgating in the ACT, forget it. Too hard. And yet when you cruise by a crash, it’s evident that someone’s nose got crumpled into someone else’s backside.

well the results of this study are a surprise…..NOT

in the ACT Govt’s defence, it is not the only jurisdiction seduced by the revenue raised by speed cameras being masqueraded as “road safety devices”

another report shows that the road toll has actually gone up in NSW and VIC despite the existence of cameras

http://www.carsales.com.au/news/road-deaths-surge-in-nsw-and-vic-42348?R=42348&Cr=35&surl=aHR0cDovL2VkaXRvcmlhbHN5c3RlbS5jYXJzYWxlcy5jb20uYXUvRGVza3RvcERlZmF1bHQuYXNweD9UYWJJRD0xNDA4NjEwJk5vPTIwJlFwYj0xJm51bT0yMCZOPTI5ODErNDI5NDk2NzI4Mis0Mjk0OTY3Mjc5JnNpZD0xNDI0M0RDMjYyQjgmTm5lPTIwJk5zPXBfRGF0ZUF2YWlsYWJsZV9EYXRlVGltZSU3QzE.

If we used cameras in places where speed was actually a regular factor in accidents, as opposed to say, wildlife (e.g. hindmarsh drive), then I’d be all for them.

About time the fraud of “evidence based road safety” was exposed for what it is. A badly planned series of knee jerk reactions whose real purpose is to raise revenue and even then they can’t get that quite right with cost blowouts.

The Forward Design Study for point to point cameras was a classic case of a consultant giving the government customer the answer they wanted.

Nearly half of our accidents are nose to tail crashes but how many people are fined for following too closely? Or how many are issued tickets when they actually cause a rear end crash? Not many I suspect.

Certainly didn’t prevent the rear-ender on Hindmarsh/Yamba Drive intersection (red light and speed camera intersection) on Wednesday afternoon. Old lady hits the brakes for orange light, is hit from behind by P-plater, but of course the cameras PREVENT crashes right? Also another thing I was appalled at from this incident was that when the police showed up (most of the accident had already been cleared by the firefighters), they blocked the only lane that had moving traffic – in peak hour – for absolutely no reason.

It’ll be high time that actual consideration is put into the cameras for once, instead of just bunging them here, there, and everywhere that someone has a whinge.

On a side note, has anyone seen any speed vans recently? I haven’t seen one in the last 6 or so months….