Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Skilled legal advice with
accessible & personal attention

The most lucrative speed cameras in Canberra are…

By johnboy 17 April 2013 36

red light camera

The magic of FOI presents a list of the red light and speed cameras in the ACT and how much money they’ve raked in.

Northbourne Avenue and Antill Street seems very popular.

Any highlights for you dear reader?

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
36 Responses to
The most lucrative speed cameras in Canberra are…
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
m00nee 4:59 pm 19 Apr 13

Skidbladnir said :

m00nee said :

In addition there is also:
…fluff…

That is -all- secondary.

Mine at least forms part of a specific economic model and basis for decisions.
Yours, not so much.

I disagree. Your questions all boil down to “Why place a speed/red light camera there?”. My question relates to “Why place a speed/red light camera there at all?”.

The FOI request shows that ‘x’ number of infringement notices to a value of ‘y’ were handed out during a certain period, yet the government show the value of the infringement notices as revenue (title of column 4), not potential revenue.

The purpose of the cameras are to raise money, but if the fines are not paid the cameras are not doing their job. The perfect example of this was in Adelaide recently, where a woman attended court over 156 traffic offences worth $85,000 accumulated over 7 years, who is now trying to pay this off by performing community service.

On the other hand a single marked police vehicle with an officer with a mobile speed camera will not catch as many people, but will have the effect of making most road users slow down for a longer period of time, as well as concentrate on their driving, instead of their phone, mp3’s, breakfast, make-up etc.

tim_c 10:26 am 19 Apr 13

Girt_Hindrance said :

I’m very happy for this idiot tax to continue, and I always enjoy the irony in the posts from people who want to see the justification for taxing them for breaking the law.

I’m not sure that it’s quite that simple….
Firstly, I’d like to preface my comments that I have no problem with the speed cameras (nor have I ever received a fine from any of them so I have no sores or grudges against them) – hey, imagine how much rates etc. would go up if the Gov’t didn’t have this source of revenue, and imagine how people would drive if there were no speed cameras!

While many seem to be saying they want justification for being taxed for breaking the law, they seem to be missing a vital link in voicing their concerns: that is, the Gov’t justifies the speed and red-light cameras by telling us they’re not installed for revenue, but for road safety (note the signage on Hindmarsh Dr referring, not to speed cameras or tax collectors, but to SAFETY cameras). Therefore, say such people, if the cameras are about safety, surely they should target areas where safety is an issue (ie. looking at crash history for that area, etc.).

I hope this clarifies…

Further, there is also a view that while the Gov’t should be maintaining a Police presence on our roads to enforce a whole range of misdemeanours at any time at any place, it seems that the Gov’t is focussing their efforts primarily on speeding because it’s cheaper and easier to install a fixed camera than to employ a team of Mr Plods to drive around and around – another case of jobs being replaced by machines (which in this case, only do a small part of the job and only in specific areas) – worse still, in many places where NIMBYs are especially active (eg. Flinders Way, McCulloch St and soon to be Streeton Dr), the jobs aren’t even being replaced by machines but indiscriminate inanimate great lumps and bumps (inverted pot-holes) – it’s so apt that Indonesians refer to them as “Sleeping Policemen” (with the implication that these bumps are like Policemen ‘sleeping on the job’ instead of doing what they should be doing).

Pitchka 10:12 am 19 Apr 13

Anyone who gets caught speeding by a fixed camera, in clear view, with sign posts clearly stating there is a camera ahead, deserves to get fined, as well as a punch to the ovaries..

Girt_Hindrance 9:39 am 19 Apr 13

patrick_keogh said :

I feel terrible about this. I have not been pulling my weight in terms of voluntary taxation. I just want to say a heartfelt thank you to all those who have taken one for the team.

+1

I’m very happy for this idiot tax to continue, and I always enjoy the irony in the posts from people who want to see the justification for taxing them for breaking the law.

Skidbladnir 9:13 am 19 Apr 13

m00nee said :

In addition there is also:
…fluff…

That is -all- secondary.

Mine at least forms part of a specific economic model and basis for decisions.
Yours, not so much.

Sandman 8:35 pm 18 Apr 13

I couldn’t care less about the possible safety aspect of speed cameras. It’s a stupidity tax, and I’m all for that. Don’t see why you’d remove a camera (no doubt at great cost) when it could just stay there and be the gift that keeps on giving.

m00nee 7:57 pm 18 Apr 13

Skidbladnir said :

A few things I’d want to also see before adding to existing uninformed comment.

1) ACT-specific individualised figures of taxpayer-funded\social costs relating to support for crash victims in three categories:
a) Fatal crash
b) Severe injury crash resulting in hospitalisation
c) Injury crash resulting in other medical treatment

2) Number of incidents at these sites in the above categories for years prior to installation of cameras, number of incidents at these sites in the above catgeories for years after camera installation. (Ideally, a seperate figure for numbers of incidents in these categories across all ACT roads for each of these periods also)

3) Road lengths of those roads on which cameras have been installed.

4) Cost of processing fines issued in relation to offences.

5) Combination of the above (and so-far-FOI-ed data) to determine net economic benefit through cost reduction, relating to the abov..

6) Pre-install and Post-install measures of average speed, number of cars travelling above signposted speed at the points installed, categorisation of speeds in excess of signposted limits.

IE: Let us calculate and determine the ACT-specific Benefit-Cost-Ratio, impact on traffic, and impact on driver behaviour, instead of calculating and criticising on a pure impact on ACT Govt revenue and “These cameras tick me off” basis.

In addition there is also

How many of the fines have been issued to vehicles where the government either cannot, or have abandoned attempts to collect eg, stolen or unregistered vehicles, unidentified plates, unlicensed owners, delinquent owners etc.

bundah 7:04 pm 18 Apr 13

@ Porker

That’s a bloody funny one and i can’t top that! I was thinking more along these lines,quite a clever contraption

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXiCca5nkhA

Pork Hunt 6:11 pm 18 Apr 13

bundah said :

p1 said :

My spray about $peed camera$:

I would support them if they could increase the numbers – and therefore the revenue – to the point where rego (including insurance) became free.

bundah said :

The newer red light/speed cameras apparently have infrared flashes so they’re invisible.

I have often wondered if a heated numberplate would emit enough infrared radiation so as to appear as a washed out blob of light in such a photo….

Ha no i think it would be far more effective to have a revolving numberplate.

The driver in Rivett http://the-riotact.com/a-special-parking-effort-from-rivett-images-of-canberra/101029 has tried this.
Believed to be an early prototype of a revolving number plate. To date has only achieved 180 deg on one occasion.

patrick_keogh 5:56 pm 18 Apr 13

I feel terrible about this. I have not been pulling my weight in terms of voluntary taxation. I just want to say a heartfelt thank you to all those who have taken one for the team.

smeeagain 5:00 pm 18 Apr 13

Interestingly, a road which has a high fatality rate (and signposted as such) and is several kilometres long with few traffic lights (but lots of intersections), doesn’t seem to be a contender for a speed camera.

I’m not mentioning the name of the road for fear that it will quickly be put on the list of where to put more traffic lights and speed cameras (though I’m sure there are plenty who can work it out from the details that I have provided)

Just an observation

Reprobate 4:38 pm 18 Apr 13

Skidbladnir said :

A few things I’d want to also see before adding to existing uninformed comment.

Sorry, you’re in the wrong place with that kind of attitude. 🙂

damien haas 4:24 pm 18 Apr 13

switch said :

Skidbladnir said :

IE: Let us calculate and determine the ACT-specific Benefit-Cost-Ratio, impact on traffic, and impact on driver behaviour, instead of calculating and criticising on a pure impact on ACT Govt revenue and “These cameras tick me off” basis.

Be cheaper to put in a few more speed cameras…

Im with skidbladinir here – there really needs to be a clear reason for speed cameras to be installed. if that reason is poor road engineering which is later rectified, remove the cameras.

When a gov dept decides to change the speed limit by 10km that needs to be explained. Canberra Ave out to Queanbeyan was dropped from 90 to 80 last year. i’m not sure why. What is the accident data that supported that decrease ?

Looking at the total number of incidents and fines that are issued based on camera snaps, wouldnt you expect the actual accident rate to be much higher? Its clear that the amount of fines issues is out of proportion to actual road accidents.

Im not opposed to speed cameras where there is a demonstrated problem they can solve, but id prefer to see cameras that detect poor driving and idiots on their mobile weaving in and out of lanes.

switch 3:46 pm 18 Apr 13

Skidbladnir said :

IE: Let us calculate and determine the ACT-specific Benefit-Cost-Ratio, impact on traffic, and impact on driver behaviour, instead of calculating and criticising on a pure impact on ACT Govt revenue and “These cameras tick me off” basis.

Be cheaper to put in a few more speed cameras…

Skidbladnir 2:51 pm 18 Apr 13

PS: Evidently I’m something of a data geek. Who’d have guessed? 😛

Skidbladnir 2:32 pm 18 Apr 13

A few things I’d want to also see before adding to existing uninformed comment.

1) ACT-specific individualised figures of taxpayer-funded\social costs relating to support for crash victims in three categories:
a) Fatal crash
b) Severe injury crash resulting in hospitalisation
c) Injury crash resulting in other medical treatment

2) Number of incidents at these sites in the above categories for years prior to installation of cameras, number of incidents at these sites in the above catgeories for years after camera installation. (Ideally, a seperate figure for numbers of incidents in these categories across all ACT roads for each of these periods also)

3) Road lengths of those roads on which cameras have been installed.

4) Cost of processing fines issued in relation to offences.

5) Combination of the above (and so-far-FOI-ed data) to determine net economic benefit through cost reduction, relating to the abov..

6) Pre-install and Post-install measures of average speed, number of cars travelling above signposted speed at the points installed, categorisation of speeds in excess of signposted limits.

IE: Let us calculate and determine the ACT-specific Benefit-Cost-Ratio, impact on traffic, and impact on driver behaviour, instead of calculating and criticising on a pure impact on ACT Govt revenue and “These cameras tick me off” basis.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site