Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Daily flights from Canberra
to Singapore and the world

The spread of the mobile speed cameras

By johnboy 2 February 2011 66

Chiefly Stanhope is informing us that he’s throwing the mobile speed camera net ever wider:

Road safety will be further improved through an increase to the number of sites where Canberra’s mobile speed cameras can operate from, Chief Minister and Minister for Territory and Municipal Services, Jon Stanhope, said today.

“Improving road safety is a major focus of this Government and expanding the number of mobile speed camera sites will help make our roads a safer place,” Mr Stanhope said.

“This move follows input from members of the community who have raised concerns about speeding on certain roads. As a result, the Government has assessed sections of 67 roads of which 61 new sections of road have been assessed as suitable for mobile speed camera operation.

“These additional locations bring the total number to 177 and will allow us to use the five mobile speed cameras in a greater variety of strategic to address road safety concerns.”

I feel safer already! Do you?


What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
66 Responses to
The spread of the mobile speed cameras
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
buzz819 3:33 pm 27 Sep 11

freeus said :

I saw a mobile van speed camera with hazard lights on this morning at Hindmarsh Dr near MuggaLane and I was wondering what this hazard lights for? Are they taking speed with the hazard lights on? Can someone educate me?

Every time I see them with their hazard lights on, they are either setting up or getting ready to leave.

But you never know, maybe it was a disgruntled worker who didn’t feel like catching anyone speeding today?

Solidarity 3:30 pm 27 Sep 11

They have those lights on when they’re packing or setting up.

Fine to blaze by them when they’re on.

freeus 3:20 pm 27 Sep 11

I saw a mobile van speed camera with hazard lights on this morning at Hindmarsh Dr near MuggaLane and I was wondering what this hazard lights for? Are they taking speed with the hazard lights on? Can someone educate me?

dvaey 4:40 pm 04 Feb 11

Keijidosha said :

Mr Gillespie said :

it’s the mobile speed camera vans that have a habit of lurking around corners and over hills that are the problem. As soon as you see one, you have to slam on your brakes and PRAY for the next God knows how long you never get a ticket.

If you have to slam on your brakes at the sight of a mobile camera van then you clearly have a habit of travelling faster than the posted speed limit. I’m not in touch with the big man upstairs, but I reckon he’d have better things to do than answer the prayers of speeding motorists.

Just because someone in the ACT is worried about being pinged by a speed camera, it means as you say they sometimes travel faster than the posted speed limit. That doesnt mean that person travels at an unsafe speed, only that theyre travelling faster than a speed which is above a speed someone decided once was a safe speed in some certain condition once long ago, or because they didnt even look at the road condition and left it under a general speed limit instead.

My one and only fine from a camera was travelling down Spofforth St at 59km/hr, almost 10 years ago, but thats because (like most drivers I suspect) I now drive below the speed limit and in areas I know speed cameras are likely to be, I generally watch my speedo more than the road. But, if Jon thinks that makes everyone safer, taking their eyes off the road to watch their speedo and protect their wallet, then good for him.

georgesgenitals 4:00 pm 04 Feb 11

shadow boxer said :

I think it’s fairly well known the ACT vans have a very short range, as I understand it they also need to hold the car for 3 seconds making jumping on the brakes hard when you see them a very effective way of avoiding a fine.

Absolutely.

shadow boxer 2:50 pm 04 Feb 11

I think it’s fairly well known the ACT vans have a very short range, as I understand it they also need to hold the car for 3 seconds making jumping on the brakes hard when you see them a very effective way of avoiding a fine.

Mr Gillespie 2:44 pm 04 Feb 11

Tooks said :

BTW, having spoken to someone who actually operates speed vans, I can guarantee you’d be very surprised at the range they are effective at. I won’t give you the figures he gave me, but I’ll say that the van will be well in view before you get pinged.

I’d love to be able to drive at what ever speed I like, as I consider myself a pretty good driver. I do believe they are more about raising revenue than anything else, BUT, having said all that, if people want to donate money to government revenue, then I don’t mind.

If you want an indicator on the stupidity of people, then look at the revenue raised by FIXED speed cameras in the last two years: 7 million last year and 11 million the year before. In my opinion, it is a voluntary (yep, Mr Gillespie, voluntary) tax which is easily avoided. It is a tax not only on speeding, but also on poor observational skills/situational awareness.

Excuse me, but it’s not “donating money”.

Now…..

Let me paste 2 dictionary definitions of 2 words that are misused again and again, in debates (not just on RiotACT but any public forum) about speed enforcement.

1. VOLUNTARY — a word used to describe the allegedly non-compulsory “tax” speeding etc. fines are referred to as.

voluntary |?v?l?nt(?)ri|
adjective
done, given, or acting of one’s own free will : we are funded by voluntary contributions.
• working, done, or maintained without payment : a voluntary helper.
• supported by contributions rather than taxes or fees : voluntary hospitals.
• Physiology under the conscious control of the brain.
• Law (of a conveyance or disposition) made without return in money or other consideration.

……this means if you do make a mistake and get caught making a mistake and are issued with a fine, “VOLUNTARY” means you only have to pay the fine on YOUR OWN FREE WILL. The notice on the back of the ticket says you have 28 days to pay up or take it to court and risk paying further “voluntary” taxes in court costs etc. in other words, COERCION. That’s not “voluntary”.

(and I have heard the “don’t speed in the first place” argument many times before, so I wouldn’t bother with that argument)

Therefore Tooks, you have fallen into the trap of incorrectly using the word “voluntary”, again.

2. DONATE — a word used to describe the payment of said fines, as in “donating” to the Government with the fines issued if caught speeding.

My dictionary says…..

donate |d?(?)?ne?t|
verb [ trans. ]
give (money or goods) for a good cause, for example to a charity : the proceeds will be donated to an AIDS awareness charity. See note at give .
• allow the removal of (blood or an organ) from one’s body for transplantation, transfusion, or other use.

So, does that mean giving your money to the ACT Government for its own unspecified pleasure, is a “good cause”. Are donations compulsory? because I seem to remember the uproar over the Federal Government’s proposed flood tax (forcing people to hand over money), in contrast to flood appeal donations, which people choose to give under no coercion.

By the way, what do you mean by “having spoken to someone who actually operates speed vans, I can guarantee you’d be very surprised at the range they are effective at. I won’t give you the figures he gave me”? Just what do you mean by “I won’t give you the figures”? Does that mean you forgot to take note of the figures, had a convenient memory loss, or is it a secret between mates deviously hidden from the rest of us so as not to give the game away?

merlin bodega 2:27 pm 04 Feb 11

Huh? So speed cameras make roads safer?

Its when people are actually breaking the law that they work isn’t it. More spurious revenue raising at the bottom of long hills is probably all we are going to see on this occasion.

Any cameras on the actual dangerous places where people have died? There’s a place near the Barton Highway roundabout on Gundaroo Road where the crosses keep piling up I can recommend.

Tooks 2:14 pm 04 Feb 11

BTW, having spoken to someone who actually operates speed vans, I can guarantee you’d be very surprised at the range they are effective at. I won’t give you the figures he gave me, but I’ll say that the van will be well in view before you get pinged.

I’d love to be able to drive at what ever speed I like, as I consider myself a pretty good driver. I do believe they are more about raising revenue than anything else, BUT, having said all that, if people want to donate money to government revenue, then I don’t mind.

If you want an indicator on the stupidity of people, then look at the revenue raised by FIXED speed cameras in the last two years: 7 million last year and 11 million the year before. In my opinion, it is a voluntary (yep, Mr Gillespie, voluntary) tax which is easily avoided. It is a tax not only on speeding, but also on poor observational skills/situational awareness.

shadow boxer 1:51 pm 04 Feb 11

Let me try to explain to the “don’t speed and you wont get booked” simpletons why people object to speed cameras.

Driving, since it was invented is inherently a dangerous activity, we all know that, that said, society has agreed to accept a certain amount of risk in return for the convenience of cars. The question is what is a reasonable amount of risk to a reasonable person. In the old days they would sit at the road and measure the speed reasonable people went past at and set the speed limit at the 80th percentile (I think thats the term). Everyone was happy.

Since then two things have happened, a road safety industry has arisen that regales us with withering observations like if we lower the speed limit everyone will be safer (we already knew that), the trouble is since these people need to justify their highly paid consultancies they are never satisfied. At the same time Governments have realised that an extra $1bn a year in tax can be raised under the cover of “road safety”, now that they are addicted they are also never satisfied.

As 80-85% of people now speed regulalry it appears speeds have been pushed down to the 20th percentile leaving the vast majority of reasonable drivers unable to drive at what they believe is a reasonable speed. When this happens and people believe the law is an ass it becomes a mockery of itself and fails to attract any respect, particularly amongst our impressionable young who now see picking up points as part of the game and tap each other on the back with a “bad luck mate”.

The government and road safety folks would be far more credible without the penny pinching 65km/h fines and just concentrating on driver training, environmental improvements and stringent punishment of truly reckless behaviour.

The installation of point to point cameras on a brand new accident free stretch of the Gungahlin drive extension is a good example of how wrong we have got it. I think most reasonable people would see 100-110 kmh as a reasonable speed on two lane divided road with long brand new slip roads for merging traffic.

Tooks 11:42 am 04 Feb 11

Mr Gillespie said :

bigfeet said :

……….Once again not “everyone” is guessing whether they have pinged. Only those who are breaking the law.

And the only people who are “required” to pay are those who are breaking the law.

Like I said earlier…there are many ways to attempt to get the law changed if you don’t like it…continually deliberately breaking that law is not one of them.

This is not about “breaking the law”. This is about the way the law is enforced.

What I am saying, it is wrong to say it is “voluntary” when you are REQUIRED to pay the fine, even for “breaking the law” by the narrowest of margins.

Why keep people guessing as to whether they broke the law until weeks and weeks later, instead of letting them know straight away???

For God sake, come down hard on EXTREME speedsters, instead of making $150 here, $150 there, for the countless numbers of low-range speeding “offences” so many law-abiding citizens are guilty of every day!

If it costs money to take people to court instead of cutting down trees printing out infringement notices — so be it. It’s the price you pay for world-class safety standards.

How many times have you been pinged by a speed camera, Mr Gillespie? My guess is many times. You sound like one of these head-up-the-arse drivers with poor observational skills. These speed vans are not hidden; they are in full view of anyone who is actually watching what they’re doing. If you choose to speed at more than 10% over the speed limit past a speed camera, and you do it multiple times, then you are a slow learner.

Mr Gillespie 11:35 am 04 Feb 11

Lin said :

“keeping everyone guessing as to whether they have pinged.”

Hahahahahahahaha!

That sentence just totally demonstrates how speed cameras do have an effect on drivers! The government should use this in their campaign!

So, what you’re saying is, it’s OK to not know whether you have been booked by one of those vans? Yeah, nice one!

Mr Gillespie 11:33 am 04 Feb 11

Ozi said :

……And if you can’t afford a $150 speed limit, don’t speed. I know people can creep over when not paying attention: you won’t get pinged for just a couple over the speed limit! There are margins of error given by Police and speed vans. Also, the posted speed limit is the MAXIMUM you should be doing on that stretch of road. Nothing preventing you from doing 75 in an 80km zone, allowing your unskilled self an extra 5km margin before you even REACH let alone exceed the speed limit.

That depends on whether you’re on a single lane roads, people getting in the way or you’re getting in the way etc.

There are a whole lot of other factors, a lot of shades of grey. It’s not a simple matter of oh, I’m doing 80 so there’s no risk to life or limb but if I’m doing 86, it’s a serious risk of a fatal crash.

We could…..argue about this all day, or just agree to disagree.

No amount of arguing is going to change my opinion that speed camera vans do no benefit to anyone but Mr Stanhope etc who pockets the cash.

No amount of putdowns about how “stupid” I am supposed to be is going to change my opinion that too much emphasis is placed on watching that naughty speedometer needle rather than watching the road. I am tired of ignorant fools that defend the government’s constant stance about speeding just because it is merely “breaking the law”.

I have not once supported hoons who race through Canberra streets at 200km/h

Lin 10:39 am 04 Feb 11

“keeping everyone guessing as to whether they have pinged.”

Hahahahahahahaha!

That sentence just totally demonstrates how speed cameras do have an effect on drivers! The government should use this in their campaign!

bigfeet 6:56 am 04 Feb 11

Mr Gillespie said :

This is not about “breaking the law”. This is about the way the law is enforced.

What I am saying, it is wrong to say it is “voluntary” when you are REQUIRED to pay the fine, even for “breaking the law” by the narrowest of margins.[/quote

Oh OK, now I get it. You shold not be penalised for breaking the law as long as you only break it a little bit.

Would it be alright if I go out an shoplift (but just a little bit) this afternoon? How about I come around and stab you (just a little bit), would that be OK.?

I need some guidance as to which laws are fine to break (by a little bit), and you are obviously an expert in this.

You are either breaking the law, or you are not. Its like pregnancy, you cannot be “a little bit” pregnant.

Ozi 12:31 am 04 Feb 11

Mr Gillespie said :

boring bit, and then:

For God sake, come down hard on EXTREME speedsters, instead of making $150 here, $150 there, for the countless numbers of low-range speeding “offences” so many law-abiding citizens are guilty of every day!

If it costs money to take people to court instead of cutting down trees printing out infringement notices — so be it. It’s the price you pay for world-class safety standards.

Yeah, because taking someone to court doesn’t use paper.

And if you can’t afford a $150 speed limit, don’t speed. I know people can creep over when not paying attention: you won’t get pinged for just a couple over the speed limit! There are margins of error given by Police and speed vans. Also, the posted speed limit is the MAXIMUM you should be doing on that stretch of road. Nothing preventing you from doing 75 in an 80km zone, allowing your unskilled self an extra 5km margin before you even REACH let alone exceed the speed limit.

Mr Gillespie 12:12 am 04 Feb 11

bigfeet said :

……….Once again not “everyone” is guessing whether they have pinged. Only those who are breaking the law.

And the only people who are “required” to pay are those who are breaking the law.

Like I said earlier…there are many ways to attempt to get the law changed if you don’t like it…continually deliberately breaking that law is not one of them.

This is not about “breaking the law”. This is about the way the law is enforced.

What I am saying, it is wrong to say it is “voluntary” when you are REQUIRED to pay the fine, even for “breaking the law” by the narrowest of margins.

Why keep people guessing as to whether they broke the law until weeks and weeks later, instead of letting them know straight away???

For God sake, come down hard on EXTREME speedsters, instead of making $150 here, $150 there, for the countless numbers of low-range speeding “offences” so many law-abiding citizens are guilty of every day!

If it costs money to take people to court instead of cutting down trees printing out infringement notices — so be it. It’s the price you pay for world-class safety standards.

LSWCHP 10:54 pm 03 Feb 11

p1 said :

Jim Jones said :

Rollersk8r said :

they have probably done by an infantisamallyª small amount.

ª – I am aware that this isn’t really a word.

Surprisingly close though. The word you’re looking for is infinitesimal (roughly, “infinitely small”). The Calculus of infinitesimals was developed by Gottfried Leibniz and Isaac Newton in the 1600’s.

Ah…first year pure mathematics at the ANU in 1981…those were the days.

LSWCHP 10:44 pm 03 Feb 11

Skidbladnir said :

… since somebody in TAMS forwent(1) doing actual research, in favour of greater revenue.

(1): Its a word, mofo.

Forwent? Skidbladnir, my hat is off to you. We truly are not worthy. 🙂

And apart from my admiration of your vocabulary, I have to say I agree with you.

My scariest road moments have been caused by people approaching from the rear who are going *way* faster than the traffic flow. I rode a Kwacka GPZ750 when I was young and foolish, and it’s only now that I understand how lucky I was not to be killed as I casually blipped the bike through gaps in the traffic. As a result of an accident that took a year out of my life (fgzk, I need you here to make fun of me at this point) I’ve lived and learned.

Watch your mirrors for people coming up fast from behind. It really helps avoid the big bangs.

bigfeet 7:45 pm 03 Feb 11

Mr Gillespie said :

[
What you’re saying is, it’s OK to sit by the road behind a bush or over a hill in a nice white van with very small warning signs very close to the vehicle keeping everyone guessing as to whether they have pinged. Is that it?…….

May I remind you that “voluntary” means you are NOT REQUIRED to pay up (and don’t argue back by saying “don’t speed then” because that sounds to me like a convenient cop-out defending Stanhope’s speed-camera arrogance).

Once again not “everyone” is guessing whether they have pinged. Only those who are breaking the law.

And the only people who are “required” to pay are those who are breaking the law.

Like I said earlier…there are many ways to attempt to get the law changed if you don’t like it…continually deliberately breaking that law is not one of them.

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