25 June 2012

Speed cameras are bunk? [With poll]

| johnboy
Join the conversation
53
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 ...

Join the conversation

53
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

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?

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 Al9:31 am 27 Jun 12

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

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.

OpenYourMind9:25 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.

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.

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.

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.

Woody Mann-Caruso6:26 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.

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.

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.

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 Gillespie11:45 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.

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.

colourful sydney racing identity11:20 am 26 Jun 12

Mr Gillespie 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?

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!

Mr Gillespie said :

Don’t speed and don’t get fined.

It really is that simple.

Wrong.

Wow Mr Gillespie, I didn’t realise how special you are. You get speeding fines even when you don’t speed? NICE! The world works!

Tooks said :

Jim Jones said :

Mr Gillespie said :

Don’t speed and don’t get fined.

It really is that simple.

Wrong.

A compelling argument.

Perhaps you could elucidate on why you shouldn’t be getting fined for breaking the law?

Durp. Cos the speed limits are arbitrary and I’m a really good driver and I should be able to decide how fast I can go and it’s not fair that I get fined it’s all revenue raising yarp yarp yarp.

I didn’t even see your lips move!

Jim Jones said :

Mr Gillespie said :

Don’t speed and don’t get fined.

It really is that simple.

Wrong.

A compelling argument.

Perhaps you could elucidate on why you shouldn’t be getting fined for breaking the law?

Durp. Cos the speed limits are arbitrary and I’m a really good driver and I should be able to decide how fast I can go and it’s not fair that I get fined it’s all revenue raising yarp yarp yarp.

Mr Gillespie said :

Don’t speed and don’t get fined.

It really is that simple.

Wrong.

In the words of another nutter: “Please explain”

What exactly is ‘wrong’ about Thumper’s statement? There are two options, which the majority of Canberrans have already figured out:

1. Don’t speed and you wont be fined as a result of the cameras
2. Slow down just before the camera and then resume your reckless driving a suitable distance later

These speed cameras have to be the easiest things to master. There are usually no less than two signs warning that a speed camera / red light camera is operating ahead. If you’re aware of your surroundings, you should see that, apply the brakes, comply with the speed limit and then continue with your day.

What exactly is so hard about that?

Mr Gillespie said :

Don’t speed and don’t get fined.

It really is that simple.

Wrong.

A compelling argument.

Perhaps you could elucidate on why you shouldn’t be getting fined for breaking the law?

Mr Gillespie9:42 am 26 Jun 12

Don’t speed and don’t get fined.

It really is that simple.

Wrong.

patrick_keogh9:21 am 26 Jun 12

I couldn’t answer the poll without a comment. The second choice “Have almost no impact on my driving” is ambiguous. For some people they have almost no impact because they speed anyway, and for others they have almost no impact because they don’t speed anyway. I’m in the latter category.

Mr Gillespie8:38 am 26 Jun 12

Jethro said :

I don’t entirely have a problem if it is nothing more than revenue raising.

We always demand our government provides more for us, so revenue needs to be raised in some way. If it wasn’t raised here it would likely get raised somewhere else.

There are more ethical ways of obtaining public money than to milk people with automated speeding fines.

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 and I know all the rebuttals and “answers” you’re gonna give, so don’t bother boring me with them again because no amount of it alter the facts. I have better things to do with my time than to waste it repeating what I have already said before.

I don’t entirely have a problem if it is nothing more than revenue raising.

We always demand our government provides more for us, so revenue needs to be raised in some way. If it wasn’t raised here it would likely get raised somewhere else.

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

Mr Gillespie7:51 pm 25 Jun 12

Alister Coe not against speed cameras either. God, talk about dumb and dumber! Not much of an “opposition”!

Just goes to show whoever is in government is addicted to speed camera revenue.

Very Busy said :

The vast majority of Canberra drivers are just too impatient and ignorant to sit at a speed 12.5% lower than the posted limit. I understand your advice but what I’m saying is that very few drivers will adopt it. THAT is what would make P2P cameras dangerous in school zones.

I hear ya Busy.

Jungle Jim said :

Very Busy said :

Jungle Jim said :

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.

How about just sticking to something closer to 35 and maintaining that speed (+/- 3kph) through feel? It’s not that hard.

Haha, that’s just like saying how about everyone just obey the road rules. It’s not that hard.

Jim, it’s not my ability to safely keep within the speed limit that worries me, it’s the ability of the majority of the general ACT population.

Obeying the rules has nothing to do with skill – it’s a choice people make. If someone seriously can’t maintain a fairly constant speed without having their eyes pretty much glued to the speedo, then they shouldn’t be driving. Plain and simple.

To me, it’s one thing to consciously travel at 120+ on the parkway and another altogether to creep up to 42 in a school zone, but the latter can be managed by aiming for a lower speed to counter the creep. I HATE seeing people breeze through school zones at 60+ and I’ve never once seen anyone booked for it in the ACT (not to say it doesn’t happen, I’ve just never seen it).

For what it’s worth, I don’t agree with the placement of the P2P camera on Hindmarsh, as I don’t see that as a particularly dangerous section of road – although before the camera, I know that the majority would usually travel between 90-100 the entire stretch (up and down).

If it’s that hard to maintain speed (again +/- 3kph) by feel, then perhaps think about shifting to a lower gear and maintain speed by sound. For school zones, I know that when I’m in 2nd, 3000rpm is almost spot on 40kph. If people got to know their cars, they wouldn’t need to constantly check the speedo, thus (as you say) endangering everyone around them.

Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy,

You’re completely missing my point. I agree with everything you are saying.

The issue is that the way you and I drive and the attitude that you and I have, puts us in the minority.

If a P2P Camera was put in a school zone the majority of Canberra drivers will NOT allow a margin for speed creep regardless of what advice YOU or anyone else gives them. They WILL sit right on 40kmh and they WILL pay more attention to their speedo than their surroundings outside the car. The vast majority of Canberra drivers are just too impatient and ignorant to sit at a speed 12.5% lower than the posted limit. I understand your advice but what I’m saying is that very few drivers will adopt it. THAT is what would make P2P cameras dangerous in school zones.

Woody Mann-Caruso5:52 pm 25 Jun 12

Hnuruurhrnn everybody. My name is Alistair Coe and I can count to potato! Just watch.

First I pick nine cameras at which there has been a statistically insignificant increase (‘completely normal variation’ would be a better way of putting it) in the number of accidents. I won’t mention any where it might have gone down by a similarly, completely normal amount.

Next, for no reason at all, I add all the increases together.

Now, I’m left with what still seems like a small number – 16. Doesn’t sound like much spread over nine cameras, does it? Hrm, what to potato, what to potato. I know! I’ll make it a percentage!

40 POTATO INCREASE IN TRAFFIC POTATOES

Very Busy said :

Jungle Jim said :

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.

How about just sticking to something closer to 35 and maintaining that speed (+/- 3kph) through feel? It’s not that hard.

Haha, that’s just like saying how about everyone just obey the road rules. It’s not that hard.

Jim, it’s not my ability to safely keep within the speed limit that worries me, it’s the ability of the majority of the general ACT population.

Obeying the rules has nothing to do with skill – it’s a choice people make. If someone seriously can’t maintain a fairly constant speed without having their eyes pretty much glued to the speedo, then they shouldn’t be driving. Plain and simple.

To me, it’s one thing to consciously travel at 120+ on the parkway and another altogether to creep up to 42 in a school zone, but the latter can be managed by aiming for a lower speed to counter the creep. I HATE seeing people breeze through school zones at 60+ and I’ve never once seen anyone booked for it in the ACT (not to say it doesn’t happen, I’ve just never seen it).

For what it’s worth, I don’t agree with the placement of the P2P camera on Hindmarsh, as I don’t see that as a particularly dangerous section of road – although before the camera, I know that the majority would usually travel between 90-100 the entire stretch (up and down).

If it’s that hard to maintain speed (again +/- 3kph) by feel, then perhaps think about shifting to a lower gear and maintain speed by sound. For school zones, I know that when I’m in 2nd, 3000rpm is almost spot on 40kph. If people got to know their cars, they wouldn’t need to constantly check the speedo, thus (as you say) endangering everyone around them.

Jungle Jim said :

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.

How about just sticking to something closer to 35 and maintaining that speed (+/- 3kph) through feel? It’s not that hard.

Haha, that’s just like saying how about everyone just obey the road rules. It’s not that hard.

Jim, it’s not my ability to safely keep within the speed limit that worries me, it’s the ability of the majority of the general ACT population.

Felix the Cat2:57 pm 25 Jun 12

eh_steve said :

A little bit OT, but I think the conversation on speed in this country needs to seriously consider raising the speed limit on highways to 130km/h.

Roads are safer and better maintained and cars are safer and more driveable than they were when the 110 limit was determined.

Problem is people’s driving skills (generalisation) aren’t up to it.

dazzab said :

It’s entirely possible to equip cars to sense when they are exceeding the speed limit and fine the drivers bank account automatically. Probably would cost less than all the infrastructure being installed to control speed. So what do you say Rioters, who’s for a greater nanny state?

Wouldn’t you just have the car refuse to speed?
It’d be an interesting experiment to see if eliminating all speeding (as defined by exceeding posted limit, rather than exceed conditions) actually reduced accidents or increased them.

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.

How about just sticking to something closer to 35 and maintaining that speed (+/- 3kph) through feel? It’s not that hard.

It’s entirely possible to equip cars to sense when they are exceeding the speed limit and fine the drivers bank account automatically. Probably would cost less than all the infrastructure being installed to control speed. So what do you say Rioters, who’s for a greater nanny state?

A little bit OT, but I think the conversation on speed in this country needs to seriously consider raising the speed limit on highways to 130km/h.

Roads are safer and better maintained and cars are safer and more driveable than they were when the 110 limit was determined.

Many studies show that it makes almost no difference to safety, or a positive safety impact in reducing fatigue. The National Road Safety Council simply prefer to focus on the studies like Nilsson’s study from 1981 that show a risk to safety, rather than engaging in a meaningful conversation.

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.

helium said :

Unfortunately the camera’s don’t actually catch the perpetual speeders as they simply slow down for 10 seconds then continue on again at 20+ over the limit, hence point to point.

Exactly, so the conditions which lead to a lot of accidents (varying speed and speed differential between different vehicles on the same road) are worsened by these cameras. Leading to more accidents.

And meanwhile, tailgating, a contributing cause to most accidents, is not being policed in any way at all.

Gungahlin Al said :

Correlation does not equal causation.

That’s what I said 🙂

I think that the speed cameras present a privacy intrusion that can be justified with appropriate controls on the use of the data (which I believe there is), as long as there is a clear public benefit to their use.
If there is not a clear public benefit, then I would personally advocate for the removal of the cameras and a return to traditional enforcement of traffic offences.

Looking at the source data there is no mention of how the accidents were measured (distance before or after the camera) ? e.g can you attribute an accident on a roundabout to a camera that was passed long ago or not yet reached.

Or the severity/type of the accident ? or of other reference material like general trend, comparison to other road sections over that time, etc, or of other factors (roadworks, traffic volume, DUI, using mobiles, etc).

If the claim is for “revenue raising”, why are those figures not included ? are cameras detecting more speeding that then correlates with accidents ? theoretically these well known sites should have revenue approaching zero, given slow down and speed up behaviors.

Personally I like these cameras, as it means I can merge with traffic or change lanes (to make room for merging traffic) on the parkway.

Unfortunately the camera’s don’t actually catch the perpetual speeders as they simply slow down for 10 seconds then continue on again at 20+ over the limit, hence point to point.

When NSW Liberals swept to power (2011), Barry O’Farrell removed 30-something “revenue raising” speed cameras.

This month (June 2012), his Roads Minister (Duncan Gay) introduced 40+ mobile speed camera vehicles, and 100+ red light cameras. Of course the word is this is for saving lives, not for revenue. And the (now) opposition Labor calls it a cash grab.

I think this is pretty much what the ACT Liberals are proposing. Just come out and say it:

“Overall, accidents have increased by 40 per cent at fixed speed camera sites, while revenue continues to rise in the millions of dollars,”; “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.”, “While fixed speed cameras may have a place, they cannot be robustly deployed like mobile speed cameras.”

just means: we will perform an audit, replace fixed speed cameras with even more mobile ones, and install some current fixed ones in different places.

Which may be fine. Just don’t make it sound like: “Speed cameras, we removes them”.

gasman said :

There are lies, there are damned lies and then there are statistics.

I just had to sit down and actually examine the data that Coe presents, as it boggled my mind that accidents would increase with the installation of speed cameras.

As a scientific study, this set of data would not get past the first step of peer review. It would be laughed out of the room.

Firstly, there is no control group. Every scientific study needs a valid control – something to compare data to. It is a longitudinal study – ie looking at trends over time. It does not, and cannot compare the rates of accidents with and without cameras at the same time and under the same road conditions. It is entirely possible (and quite likely) that without the speed cameras, the accident rate would have increased even further.

Secondly, there are so may possible confounders. Most importantly, the amount of traffic on those roads has not been discussed. As traffic rises, accidents rise much more than proportionally. Congestion creates a higher incidence of accidents. The absolute amount of accidents does not mean much – the accident rate per car or per car.km travelled would be far more relevant.

The location of these accident have not been shown. Do they mean accidents along the entire stretch of the road (most of which is not enforced by speed cameras), or just that bit near the speed cameras?

Thirdly, the word “accident” has not been defined. Is it possible that there has been a rise in minor collisions (usually not speed-related) but fatal or injury-causing accidents (usually speed related) have decreased?

This set of data is absolutely useless and it is not valid to draw any meaningful conclusions from it. It is shameful that a politician is doing so to score points.

I think bad science is par for the course when politicians talk about speed cameras.

Its similar to the way the government used accident rates on the whole of Hindmarsh drive to justify the P2P cameras, completely ignoring the fact that most of the accidents occured at intersections that were never going to be included in the P2P stretch of road.

Gungahlin Al said :

Correlation does not equal causation.

Unless you’re lobbying to install the cameras, right?

gasman said :

There are lies, there are damned lies and then there are statistics.

I just had to sit down and actually examine the data that Coe presents, as it boggled my mind that accidents would increase with the installation of speed cameras.

As a scientific study, this set of data would not get past the first step of peer review. It would be laughed out of the room.

Firstly, there is no control group. Every scientific study needs a valid control – something to compare data to. It is a longitudinal study – ie looking at trends over time. It does not, and cannot compare the rates of accidents with and without cameras at the same time and under the same road conditions. It is entirely possible (and quite likely) that without the speed cameras, the accident rate would have increased even further.

Secondly, there are so may possible confounders. Most importantly, the amount of traffic on those roads has not been discussed. As traffic rises, accidents rise much more than proportionally. Congestion creates a higher incidence of accidents. The absolute amount of accidents does not mean much – the accident rate per car or per car.km travelled would be far more relevant.

The location of these accident have not been shown. Do they mean accidents along the entire stretch of the road (most of which is not enforced by speed cameras), or just that bit near the speed cameras?

Thirdly, the word “accident” has not been defined. Is it possible that there has been a rise in minor collisions (usually not speed-related) but fatal or injury-causing accidents (usually speed related) have decreased?

This set of data is absolutely useless and it is not valid to draw any meaningful conclusions from it. It is shameful that a politician is doing so to score points.

I’m not denying the validity of the points you make, but I doubt the ACT government used proper research methods when they were scrounging for stats to justify installing the cameras in the first place.

Gungahlin Al11:14 am 25 Jun 12

Correlation does not equal causation.
But let’s not let proof get in the way of a beat-up in the name of some “free ink” with some lazy journos.

There are lies, there are damned lies and then there are statistics.

I just had to sit down and actually examine the data that Coe presents, as it boggled my mind that accidents would increase with the installation of speed cameras.

As a scientific study, this set of data would not get past the first step of peer review. It would be laughed out of the room.

Firstly, there is no control group. Every scientific study needs a valid control – something to compare data to. It is a longitudinal study – ie looking at trends over time. It does not, and cannot compare the rates of accidents with and without cameras at the same time and under the same road conditions. It is entirely possible (and quite likely) that without the speed cameras, the accident rate would have increased even further.

Secondly, there are so may possible confounders. Most importantly, the amount of traffic on those roads has not been discussed. As traffic rises, accidents rise much more than proportionally. Congestion creates a higher incidence of accidents. The absolute amount of accidents does not mean much – the accident rate per car or per car.km travelled would be far more relevant.

The location of these accident have not been shown. Do they mean accidents along the entire stretch of the road (most of which is not enforced by speed cameras), or just that bit near the speed cameras?

Thirdly, the word “accident” has not been defined. Is it possible that there has been a rise in minor collisions (usually not speed-related) but fatal or injury-causing accidents (usually speed related) have decreased?

This set of data is absolutely useless and it is not valid to draw any meaningful conclusions from it. It is shameful that a politician is doing so to score points.

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

But if the stats ALCO states are true, that would increase accidents at schools. We don’t want that.

Also, I eagerly await the release from the Canberra Liberals that say they plan to reduce the number of accidents by 40 per cent, by removing speed cameras.

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

I agree in part. I reckon they should have point to point speed camera at every school zone. I assume they’re fairly easily adjustable or programmable to monitor the 40 zone during weekdays 0800 – 1600 and 60 at all other times.

While Mr Coe talks about accident rates, he only refers to accident occurences.

For this to be truly accurate, Mr Coe would have to analyse how many cars are travelling that section of road each day, and use that to work out the rate of accidents.

Traffic volumes change over time, and a figure of accidents per thousand vehicles would be the only way you could compare year on year data.

Who knows, it may make his point even more strongly, but one would hope for elected officials to be more aware of how rates and statistics work.

I wanted to vote in the poll, but I think the two options presented are pretty pointless in relation to the article and neither of them apply to me.

I agree with Mr Coe on this 100%. I’d love to know why the hell it took him so long to figure this out – presumably he realised just in time for the upcoming election. Unfortunately for him (or me, depending on how you look at it) I don’t believe that he would actually do anything about the issue were he elected to government.

The money the govt spent on the point to point speed cameras on Hindmarsh Drive could have been used more wisely to install speed and red light cameras at Hindmarsh Dalrymple and Hindmarsh Jerrabombera where numerous accidents involving fatalities have occurred over the years!

Felix the Cat9:53 am 25 Jun 12

As if Liberals would get rid of them if they were in power…AC is just taking a leaf out of Tony Abbott’s book and bagging out opposition policy just for the sake of it, and without coming up with any alternatives or solutions themselves.

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.