Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Buying off the plan?
View our developments

Speed cameras are bunk? [With poll]

By johnboy 25 June 2012 57

speed camera

The Liberals’ Alistair Coe is wearing his Member for Motorists hat and taking a swing at the safety impacts of fixed speed cameras:

Information obtained by the Canberra Liberals shows the ACT Labor Government’s fixed speed cameras are failing to reduce accidents, with accident rates actually increasing at most of the camera locations. ACT Shadow Urban Services Minister Alistair Coe said today this is evidence of the government’s flawed speed camera strategy, which prioritises revenue over safety.

“Overall, accidents have increased by 40 per cent at fixed speed camera sites, while revenue continues to rise in the millions of dollars,” Mr Coe said.

“It’s clear that instead of installing fixed speed cameras in places that will raise the most revenue, the government should be taking an evidence based approach to road safety.

Fixed speed cameras

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
57 Responses to
Speed cameras are bunk? [With poll]
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
NoImRight 10:28 am 27 Jun 12

Mmmm. So consensus is the issue isnt speed cameras in themselves but a lack of driver education? So maybe the money collected from camers should be used to fund improved driver training? Not for us of course ist already been established we are all brilliant drivers. Its the other guys….

BTW #50 “but the local road toll comes down to intersections and motorbikes.” Id love for you to expand on this. Nice job of ducking responsibilty for your own actions at this stage but perhaps Ive misunderstood?

bundah 9:58 am 27 Jun 12

OpenYourMind said :

The period of installation of cameras is really only going to be a fleeting moment in the era of automotive transport. Not far into the future speed limits will be governed by your vehicle and not by you. The feature creep heading toward autonomous cars is happening at an ever faster rate. Once Governments cotton on to the benefits of autonomous cars the legislation will accelerate the takeup. Governments will see benefits including dramatically lower road toll and therefore health costs, new ways of tracking and controlling people and a complete understanding of why an accident occurred if one does occur. Before you scoff at such a suggestion, consider that the US is already in the process of passing legislation to make this a reality: http://www.pcworld.com/article/254152/senate_passes_bill_requiring_black_boxes_in_all_new_cars.html

Ok, there’s the big brother aspect, but there’s also all the passive and active safety systems continually being improved to eliminate the idiot behind the wheel. It’s already near impossible to get unstuck on a corner if your car is fitted with vehicle stability control, your car won’t lock its brakes and now many of the upmarket cars have some kind of brake assist whereby if you, after being warned, haven’t hit the brakes, if the car thinks you’ll crash, the car will do it for you. (brake assist).
Some newer car’s stability control has moved from controlling car yaw through individual applications of braking to now controlling steering where the car will sense a skid, evaluate the coefficient of friction and adjust the steering accordingly. Most new cars have fly by wire for the throttle. These shifts in technology all are lead-ins to autonomous vehicles.

Once we move to autonomous vehicles, there wil be all sorts of shifts in our society that we can’t even imagine yet, let alone plan for. In the same way that the internet has changed the way we do so many things, so too will autonomous cars. Concepts such as car parks, traffic jams, car insurance, commuting to work and even car ownership may all shift. Imagine sitting in a car, reading a paper as it takes you to the front door of the mall. The car then heads off to a recharging station somewhere and will return at your request.

So with all this in mind, prattling on about the voluntary tax cameras is really just a puff of wind when you put an eye to the future. Same goes for arguments about bicycles and cars. In the future an autonomous car will spot a bicycle before you can blink and will drive politely past the bicycle at a safe opportunity – shame some car drivers don’t have the ability to do this now.

The future is looking warm and rosy but we are talking about the here and now!

Gungahlin Al 9:31 am 27 Jun 12

Mr Gillespie joins a thread and it immediately turns to mush. As usual. And it isn’t even Troll-day.

bundah 9:27 am 27 Jun 12

There have been many studies done on the efficacy of speed cameras and most conclude that they have produced positive outcomes. That being said however i have always believed that high visibility policing is very effective at slowing the speedsters down but unfortunately govts priorities are focused elsewhere.

OpenYourMind 9:25 am 27 Jun 12

The period of installation of cameras is really only going to be a fleeting moment in the era of automotive transport. Not far into the future speed limits will be governed by your vehicle and not by you. The feature creep heading toward autonomous cars is happening at an ever faster rate. Once Governments cotton on to the benefits of autonomous cars the legislation will accelerate the takeup. Governments will see benefits including dramatically lower road toll and therefore health costs, new ways of tracking and controlling people and a complete understanding of why an accident occurred if one does occur. Before you scoff at such a suggestion, consider that the US is already in the process of passing legislation to make this a reality: http://www.pcworld.com/article/254152/senate_passes_bill_requiring_black_boxes_in_all_new_cars.html

Ok, there’s the big brother aspect, but there’s also all the passive and active safety systems continually being improved to eliminate the idiot behind the wheel. It’s already near impossible to get unstuck on a corner if your car is fitted with vehicle stability control, your car won’t lock its brakes and now many of the upmarket cars have some kind of brake assist whereby if you, after being warned, haven’t hit the brakes, if the car thinks you’ll crash, the car will do it for you. (brake assist).
Some newer car’s stability control has moved from controlling car yaw through individual applications of braking to now controlling steering where the car will sense a skid, evaluate the coefficient of friction and adjust the steering accordingly. Most new cars have fly by wire for the throttle. These shifts in technology all are lead-ins to autonomous vehicles.

Once we move to autonomous vehicles, there wil be all sorts of shifts in our society that we can’t even imagine yet, let alone plan for. In the same way that the internet has changed the way we do so many things, so too will autonomous cars. Concepts such as car parks, traffic jams, car insurance, commuting to work and even car ownership may all shift. Imagine sitting in a car, reading a paper as it takes you to the front door of the mall. The car then heads off to a recharging station somewhere and will return at your request.

So with all this in mind, prattling on about the voluntary tax cameras is really just a puff of wind when you put an eye to the future. Same goes for arguments about bicycles and cars. In the future an autonomous car will spot a bicycle before you can blink and will drive politely past the bicycle at a safe opportunity – shame some car drivers don’t have the ability to do this now.

Martyn94 5:08 am 27 Jun 12

Very Busy said :

Jungle Jim said :

I reckon they should have point to point speed camera at every school zone.

Yes, because the safest outcome would be to encourage motorists to be continually focused on looking down to ensure that the speedometer needle doesn’t inadvertently creep up to 42kph rather than scanning their surroundings and being prepared for a child running or riding onto the roadway.

The problem with this is that you’re not thinking enough about the consequences of your alternative. You start from the premise that most Canberra drivers can’t fart and chew gum at the same time – ie in this case manage their speed as well as looking at the road. That seems true enough to me, though you said it not me.

So your answer is to let them go at the speed they like in the hope that this will free up some mental space for them to look at the road. The problem in a school zone is that they will kill some kids at 50 kph even if they are trying as hard as they can, but they will kill none at 20kph even if they are blindfold. (A 40 kph limit is the worst of both worlds: low enough to be mildly annoying, but not remotely low enough to be effective).

We can’t hope that our Canberra drivers will get their heads round this: we already agree that they are clueless. But there is ample evidence that their behaviour can still be changed for the better: you just have to play whack-a-mole, so that it hurts, day after day and year after year until the culture changes.

X71 10:27 pm 26 Jun 12

Driving and the road rules is not like a democracy it’s a dictatorship.
It has to be that way so we all drive in a similar and thus predictable manner.

I feel much safer when doing the speed limit on Hindmarsh Drive now because there aren’t speeding cars about to ram me from behind because they are traveling so much faster when at 100 in the 80 zone.

I also could happily do 100kph down that hill but I follow the rules and only do 80.

cranky 9:15 pm 26 Jun 12

I’m with Mr G on this.

I am certainly of the opinion that speed limits are set more for their revenue raising power than road safety considerations.

Hindmarsh Drive over the P2P should be 90K. Why is Melrose through Phillip 60K? 3 lanes wide heading north, no driveways, but a favourite of the speed cameras. GDE is 100K designed. Conversely, Majura Lane is bloody dangerous at 90K. And Pialligo Ave to Qbn is a nonsense at 100K, given the many low level intersections along it’s length.

More than happy to comply with red light cameras, and may there be be many more visible Police vehicles, but the local road toll comes down to intersections and motorbikes.

Speed cameras have minimal effect. But Govco rely on the income.

Thumper 8:50 pm 26 Jun 12

fragge said :

Thumper said :

Put more of them in, especially at schools, after all it’s just an idiot tax.

The article calls out fixed cameras as causing more accidents at their installation site and your first suggestion is to put more in school zones? If I didn’t hate children as much as you seem to I would totally call you out for that embarassing lack of editorial vigour.

That’s fine then. I’ll call you out for your stupidity.

Let’s just let bogans in commodores tear past schools at 80-90 klicks.

It’s obviously much safer.

Woody Mann-Caruso 6:26 pm 26 Jun 12

That, sir, is bullshit, and you know it.

How so? I’ve never paid the idiot tax. What’s wrong with you that you do?

That’s right – you can’t control a motor vehicle, and it’s everybody’s fault but yours.

fragge 2:17 pm 26 Jun 12

Thumper said :

Put more of them in, especially at schools, after all it’s just an idiot tax.

The article calls out fixed cameras as causing more accidents at their installation site and your first suggestion is to put more in school zones? If I didn’t hate children as much as you seem to I would totally call you out for that embarassing lack of editorial vigour.

bigfeet 12:56 pm 26 Jun 12

Mr Gillespie said :

You are missing the point. That money that you have to make as a “voluntary contribution”, as some so ignorantly and arrogantly put it, doesn’t just disappear in a puff of smoke. The money falls into this black hole and we can only assume somebody is benefitting, and not actually EARNING that money through legitimate wages, etc.

Wow! Even for you Mr G, that is a particularly bizarre statement.

Keep up the good work, although might I suggest a bit more use of the CAPS LOCK key to really get your point across.

Jim Jones 12:12 pm 26 Jun 12

Mr Gillespie said :

You are missing the point. That money that you have to make as a “voluntary contribution”, as some so ignorantly and arrogantly put it, doesn’t just disappear in a puff of smoke. The money falls into this black hole and we can only assume somebody is benefitting, and not actually EARNING that money through legitimate wages, etc.

Now.

As for breaking the law, there are many other law-breaking activities that these cashboxes on the side of the road aren’t capable of detecting. Mobile phone usage. Driver blood-alcohol levels. Tailgating. And so on…..

The point I am making is not condoning breaking the law, but the undue emphasis on only one law-breaking activity in particular, and that is driving at a speed exceeding an arbitrary limit set by some faceless bureaucrat that thinks it is unsafe to go beyond that limit, even by a small amount.

Are you understanding a little bit clearer now, or do I really have to repeat the arguments I have put out in previous threads on this site regarding this subject.

Have you got any pictures of these bureaucrats without faces … it sounds truly horrifying. How do they speak, or even breathe?

Also, if we should get rid of speed cameras because they don’t stop all law-breaking activities, does that mean we can also completly ignore the police, because they don’t stop all the crimes?

Finally, are you still stalking weather girls? Because that’s pretty creepy.

Mr Gillespie 11:45 am 26 Jun 12

You are missing the point. That money that you have to make as a “voluntary contribution”, as some so ignorantly and arrogantly put it, doesn’t just disappear in a puff of smoke. The money falls into this black hole and we can only assume somebody is benefitting, and not actually EARNING that money through legitimate wages, etc.

Now.

As for breaking the law, there are many other law-breaking activities that these cashboxes on the side of the road aren’t capable of detecting. Mobile phone usage. Driver blood-alcohol levels. Tailgating. And so on…..

The point I am making is not condoning breaking the law, but the undue emphasis on only one law-breaking activity in particular, and that is driving at a speed exceeding an arbitrary limit set by some faceless bureaucrat that thinks it is unsafe to go beyond that limit, even by a small amount.

Are you understanding a little bit clearer now, or do I really have to repeat the arguments I have put out in previous threads on this site regarding this subject.

buzz819 11:29 am 26 Jun 12

bigfeet said :

Mr Gillespie said :

Jethro said :

It’s an entirely voluntary payment that anyone can choose not to make.

That, sir, is bullshit, and you know it. We’ve been through this argument before on this site

Yes we have. And you have lost that argument every time Mr G.

But it never fails to be amusing!

No, Mr G is right, the payment is not optional, the speeding is optional, that’s what he doesn’t get.

Mr Gillespie said :

Thumper said :

Don’t speed and don’t get fined.

It really is that simple.

Wrong.

Wow. So which is it then? Do speed and don’t get fined, or, don’t speed and do get fined?

bigfeet 11:12 am 26 Jun 12

Mr Gillespie said :

Jethro said :

It’s an entirely voluntary payment that anyone can choose not to make.

That, sir, is bullshit, and you know it. We’ve been through this argument before on this site

Yes we have. And you have lost that argument every time Mr G.

But it never fails to be amusing!

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site