2 February 2011

The spread of the mobile speed cameras

| johnboy
Join the conversation
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?

Join the conversation

66
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

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?

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

Fine to blaze by them when they’re on.

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?

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.

georgesgenitals4:00 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 boxer2:50 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 Gillespie2:44 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 bodega2:27 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.

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 boxer1:51 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.

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 Gillespie11:35 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 Gillespie11:33 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

“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!

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.

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 Gillespie12:12 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.

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.

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.

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.

People, people . . . can we try and find some consensus here? I mean, for instance . . .

“I have full control over my car at 250kph . . . brigade”

I can’t speak for any of the other posters here but, you know what? I actually do have control over my car at that speed. Well . . . one of my cars at least. The one that I use specifically for that purpose in controlled circumstances. But, at least the vehicle control skills acquired from doing so (and from successfully negotiating the wriggly bits in between stretches allowing that sort of pace) translate directly to everyday road driving.

In day to day driving? You’d be hard pressed to pick me from the crowd. I’m Hector the Safety cat in a beige cardigan (unless I assess the need exists to switch into offensive driving mode for the purposes of ensuring my safety). Still, I haven’t been pinged for speeding in, woh, well over 20 years.

Do speed cameras save lives? No . . . no they don’t it seems. There’s been some recent comparative study conducted looking at the figures from Qld, NSW and Vic of speed camera numbers vs collisions vs fatalaties blah blah and there’s no evidence from that suggesting their benefit extends beyond that of coffers filling.

And as for the “easy . . . don’t speed” argument. (sigh) C’mon. As pointed out elsewhere it is factors like speed difference and traffic density that seems to have a greater bearing on collision incidence. I am troubled, too, by the attendent subtext of that mantra, “Hmmm . . . speed bad, mkay?”

The way I look at it is similar to the Keith Code philosophy in motorcycle racing terms of having a $10 budget to do a lap of a circuit. If you’re spending $8-00 just operating the machine, that $2-00 left over ain’t gonna get you to the chequered flag first. If you’re only spending -50c on operation and road placement, then you’re a better chance to be up the pointy end.

Similarly, when you’re tootling along the Tuggers parkway at 100, if that speed is approaching the limits of your capabilities and experience(easy . . . don’t speed), then you ought to be pinged if you end up doing 115, ‘cos, clearly, at 100 you’re spending $9-80 of your $10-00 budget. If, however, you would be comfortable tootling down the Tuggers parkway at 160 k if it was single lane, gravel, with river red gums — big ones — lining the road side only a meter off the edge, in the rain, in an appropraitely maintained vehicle (as I would be; providing most of you aren’t on it at the same time or coming towards me), then, clearly, for me, doing 100 there this afternoon is barely taxing me at all. I therefore spend my -50c driving and the other $9-50 looking out for the true idiots on the road.

And part of that budget allocation is looking out for the gatso cash register on a stick or the stand-out-like-doggies-things Vito. The problem is thus. I can do (and have recently done) Kempsy to Pheasants Nest in 4 hours 10 minutes . . . do the math. That’s a 110km/h average. Was it dangerous? Not for me given the conditions and the vehicle. Did it imperil others? Nope . . . not at all. Did I get pinged? Nope. Nearly did at one point, but instinct informed me of the race cam equipped patrol car on one descent and I hopped out of the throttle. But, to those of the white knuckes and skills challanged at 100k brigade (easy . . . don’t speed), who aren’t able to control their vehicle at 200 plus, or who have a red P affixed near their rear number plate . . . oh yes, to them . . . it would be bloody dangerous indeed. But they, too, know when to back off to avoid being pinged.

That’s the missing factor here, kiddies. And it’s the thing that’s usually lost in these debates.

Jim Jones said :

Mysteryman said :

Trad_and_Anon said :

Speed cameras prevented a lot of accidents over the past years – like that idiot who took out his girlfriend and friend near Fyshwick when pursued by police; or the moron who killed that young woman in civic and who has just again been done for various forms of criminality.
I keep to the speed limit but what about the tailgating young P platers, males and females and the cretins driving Holden utes and various vans – where are the speed cameras then?
Some people go over the limit through inattention or simple error. The police should be focusing on poor driving.
The new cameras are just revenue raising.

Exactly. Speed cameras don’t make for safer roads. They make money, and they help the government to perpetuate the illusion of being proactive in regards to road safety.

Let’s go through this really slowly.

Which do you think is safer:

(a) going really fast
(b) not going really fast

Let’s go through THIS slowly.

1) The government has admitted that speed cameras aren’t changing the culture of ACT drivers. Statistics also back this up, and show that fatalities have not lowered since their introduction. The NRMA has also gone on record as suggesting that speed cameras do not work in changing long term driver behaviour, and many studies conducted internationally confirm this. Yet our government continues to put more time and money into a program that isn’t working.

2) Speed is only ONE of many factors involved in road safety. A large number of accidents (and fatalities) are not related to speed. This is evident when looking through the ABS stats on this issue. Cameras do nothing to deter other behaviours which are just as bad, and often worse, than speeding (such as mobile phone use and drink driving).

3) Speeding related fatalities in the ACT are often the result of extreme speed, like 40 or 50km/h over the posted limit. The incident with good old Mully is a prime example. Speed cameras are in no way effective in deterring that sort of behaviour.

Speeding is unwise, and can be very dangerous. But speed cameras are not making the roads safer.

Mr Gillespie said :

Tooks said :

………….Can I respond to your post by quoting a certain low-brow movie:

“…what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”

So, let me get this straight……

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?

Or are you saying speed cameras now catch people doing really dangerous things like using mobile phones while driving, drink-driving, driving defective vehicles, etc. etc.

…..and I am an “idiot” who has “mental health issues” Yeah, real smart comeback line!

I am an “idiot” for defending the right not to be extorted (oh sorry, forced to pay a “voluntary levy” “idiot tax”) for very minor infractions of sometimes very lowly-set speed limits??? 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).

Gotta be a troll. No-one is this stupid.

Mr Gillespie2:47 pm 03 Feb 11

Tooks said :

………….Can I respond to your post by quoting a certain low-brow movie:

“…what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”

So, let me get this straight……

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?

Or are you saying speed cameras now catch people doing really dangerous things like using mobile phones while driving, drink-driving, driving defective vehicles, etc. etc.

…..and I am an “idiot” who has “mental health issues” Yeah, real smart comeback line!

I am an “idiot” for defending the right not to be extorted (oh sorry, forced to pay a “voluntary levy” “idiot tax”) for very minor infractions of sometimes very lowly-set speed limits??? 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).

Mr Gillespie, even though the revenue that may have been – totally unfairly – collected from you probably paid for the paving of my street, I hope to never see you and your car anywhere near it. Or anyone else in the “I have full control over my car at 250kph, only bad drivers should follow speed limits” or “I am a better driver drunk than sober” class.

Jim Jones said :

Rollersk8r said :

The point is we are being told they make us safe when they clearly do not.

Who, precisely, is telling you that?

My feeling is that speed cameras probably do make the roads safer. A little. In very specific spots (directly in front of the van). But we already have vans. They are already a deterrent and punishment for speeding. I would be happy if they were allowed to use them on any and every road in the ACT (especially school zones).

But we have now had yet another round of news about how the government is improving road safety. Which, by lengthening the list of places cameras can operate, they have probably done by an infantisamallyª small amount.

It is hardly surprising that people get a little cynical about the actions of the government when they use this as some media time about how they are making us safe, in a manner which conveniently also turns a profit.

There is no magic solution to roads being safer, but reporting on a situation which has been in place for ages and is being tweaked the tiniest bit is not a road safety measure.

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

Mysteryman said :

Trad_and_Anon said :

Speed cameras prevented a lot of accidents over the past years – like that idiot who took out his girlfriend and friend near Fyshwick when pursued by police; or the moron who killed that young woman in civic and who has just again been done for various forms of criminality.
I keep to the speed limit but what about the tailgating young P platers, males and females and the cretins driving Holden utes and various vans – where are the speed cameras then?
Some people go over the limit through inattention or simple error. The police should be focusing on poor driving.
The new cameras are just revenue raising.

Exactly. Speed cameras don’t make for safer roads. They make money, and they help the government to perpetuate the illusion of being proactive in regards to road safety.

Let’s go through this really slowly.

Which do you think is safer:

(a) going really fast
(b) not going really fast

Thoroughly Smashed11:57 am 03 Feb 11

Mr Gillespie said :

la mente torbida said :

If you don’t speed, it’s not an issue.

That convenient copout doesn’t hold water I’m afraid.

You seem to have forgotten to explain why.

And then you go on about speeding fines being coercion! I was having a bad day until now.

Trad_and_Anon said :

Speed cameras prevented a lot of accidents over the past years – like that idiot who took out his girlfriend and friend near Fyshwick when pursued by police; or the moron who killed that young woman in civic and who has just again been done for various forms of criminality.
I keep to the speed limit but what about the tailgating young P platers, males and females and the cretins driving Holden utes and various vans – where are the speed cameras then?
Some people go over the limit through inattention or simple error. The police should be focusing on poor driving.
The new cameras are just revenue raising.

Exactly. Speed cameras don’t make for safer roads. They make money, and they help the government to perpetuate the illusion of being proactive in regards to road safety.

Tooks said :

Jim Jones said :

Rollersk8r said :

The point is we are being told they make us safe when they clearly do not.

Who, precisely, is telling you that?

You know. “They”.

Aaaaah, ‘Them’.

Because it certainly couldn’t be ‘the gummint’, could it? The same government that runs continual advertising campaigns against drink driving, driving while tired, using a mobile phone while driving, drug driving, etc. ad nauseum.

Jim Jones said :

Rollersk8r said :

The point is we are being told they make us safe when they clearly do not.

Who, precisely, is telling you that?

You know. “They”.

Rollersk8r said :

The point is we are being told they make us safe when they clearly do not.

Who, precisely, is telling you that?

So sick of hearing that if you don’t speed you don’t get fined. In my case it happens to be true – have never had a fine. But that is not the point.

The point is we are being told they make us safe when they clearly do not.

Now, when you are the only car on the road, on a dry, clear day, on a dual lane road – and you’re doing 87 in an 80 zone, is this safe? Yes, I think it’s fairly safe.

But, on the other hand, if you’re one of the countless young (and not so young) pricks doing well over 100kmh on inner-suburban streets, where my kids play, is this safe?? Absolutely not – but a speed camera will never ever catch this behaviour.

screaming banshee10:02 am 03 Feb 11

I’m curious, how would the revenue whingers feel if instead of handing out fines your vehicle was confiscated for a month?

Mr Gillespie you have proved across a spectrum of issues that you require a mental health assessment, please seek help.

Mr Gillespie said :

la mente torbida said :

If you don’t speed, it’s not an issue.

That convenient copout doesn’t hold water I’m afraid.

Next…….

Tooks said :

Of course they’re going to keep increasing the numbers of mobile speed cameras. As long as dimwits keep speeding through them and volunteering their hard-earned to the Govt, they’d be stupid not to.

If you are caught by a speed camera, then you’re driving with your head up your arse. To me, that’s more of a concern than the speeding itself.

Dimwits who do just a few ks over and “volunteer” (correction — COERCED) into giving to the government in fines.

You are driving your head up your arse by condoning the use of these devices.

Next………….

Braddon Boy said :

Think of it as an idiot tax. If you get caught speeding by cameras, you must be an idiot. Therefore you should pay more tax.

For too long my taxes have gone to support stupid people through public liability and everything being dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. Or lately, building homes on flood plains that my government then pays for. It’s about time they gave something back.

The speed cameras also serve a secondary purpose. You can tell who these idiots are!!! Because they are the ones that complain the loudest. They don’t seem to realise that the more that other people pay to the government, especially for consolidated revenue, means more services for them for no additional cost.

** I’m not saying that all people who live on flood plains get caught by speed cameras. Nor am I saying that all those who get caught by speed cameras live on flood plains. What I am saying is, both groups are idiots. Therefore for the sake of the argument they are all tared with the same brush.

Yeah, “idiot tax” now when was the last time I heard that excuse for these revenue-raising machines.

The idiots are the ones who really believe speed cameras reduce the road toll.

Sure enough you’d have to be a mug to speed through a fixed speed camera site well-advertised with signage (THAT is an “idiot tax”), but 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.

Also come to think of it, why is it the first sign that you have been photographed by those mobile vans is weeks later when it finally arrives in the mail??? Hm???

Can I respond to your post by quoting a certain low-brow movie:

“…what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”

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.

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.

Truly epic fail!!!

Mr Gillespie said :

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.

No you don’t. You only have to do this if you are breaking the law.

Don’t like the law? That’s fine. Why not try to have it changed then, there are many lawful ways to do this: Form a lobby group, hold rallies, petetion politicians, get yourself elected to the Legislative Assembly, or vote for a party that has the same views as you.

Breaking the law just because you don’t think it is relevant and then whinging about it when you have to pay the penalty for your own deliberate actions just proves that this is only a tax on idiots.

Mr Gillespie said :

Sure enough you’d have to be a mug to speed through a fixed speed camera site well-advertised with signage (THAT is an “idiot tax”), but 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.

Also come to think of it, why is it the first sign that you have been photographed by those mobile vans is weeks later when it finally arrives in the mail??? Hm???

Are you kidding me?! Three pertinant points here:

(1) If you aren’t speeding you don’t have to “slam on your brakes” because you aren’t speeding. Pretty self explanatory that one, in fact the logic is unfaultable. Also, if you are praying to various deities out of fear of a speeding ticket, why not save your pretty, sensitive soul all this stress by not speeding in the first place?! Not only will your blood pressure drop, but you will stop spamming some poor god/allah/buddah/golden statue with your whingeing.

(2) Canberran mobile camera vans are huge, white Mercedes Vito vans. With signs on top. Advertising they are speed vans. They are, hands down, the most laughable excuses for speed cameras I have seen in the 3 different states I have resided. In Melbourne, they will use unmarked, older cars, or hide in driveways, or put p-plates on the cars; in short, they do anything they like to catch you. Canberra has it pretty good!

(3) The first sign you were caught by a speeding van in Canberra is not the ticket in the mail. It is the fact that you have a double digit IQ and when you look at your speedo as you go past a van it is more than the speed limit.

I agree that speeding fines from fixed and mobile cameras are an idiot tax. I heartily support this tax continuing. Should there be more cops on the road? Yes. Likewise, there should be less whinging Canberrans who have no idea how good they have it, and how freaking easy it is to avoid getting a ticket.

Trad_and_Anon12:31 am 03 Feb 11

Speed cameras prevented a lot of accidents over the past years – like that idiot who took out his girlfriend and friend near Fyshwick when pursued by police; or the moron who killed that young woman in civic and who has just again been done for various forms of criminality.
I keep to the speed limit but what about the tailgating young P platers, males and females and the cretins driving Holden utes and various vans – where are the speed cameras then?
Some people go over the limit through inattention or simple error. The police should be focusing on poor driving.
The new cameras are just revenue raising.

Trad_and_Anon12:22 am 03 Feb 11

Speed cameras prevented a lot of accidents over the past years – like that idiot who took out his girlfriend and friend near Fyshwick when pursued by police; or the moron who killed that young woman in civic and who has just again been done for various forms of criminality.
I keep to the speed limit but what about the tailgating young P platers, males and females and the cretins driving Holden utes and various vans – where are the speed cameras then?
Some people go over the limit through inattention or simple error. The police should be focusing on poor driving.
The new cameras are just revenue raising.

Mr Gillespie9:39 pm 02 Feb 11

la mente torbida said :

If you don’t speed, it’s not an issue.

That convenient copout doesn’t hold water I’m afraid.

Next…….

Tooks said :

Of course they’re going to keep increasing the numbers of mobile speed cameras. As long as dimwits keep speeding through them and volunteering their hard-earned to the Govt, they’d be stupid not to.

If you are caught by a speed camera, then you’re driving with your head up your arse. To me, that’s more of a concern than the speeding itself.

Dimwits who do just a few ks over and “volunteer” (correction — COERCED) into giving to the government in fines.

You are driving your head up your arse by condoning the use of these devices.

Next………….

Braddon Boy said :

Think of it as an idiot tax. If you get caught speeding by cameras, you must be an idiot. Therefore you should pay more tax.

For too long my taxes have gone to support stupid people through public liability and everything being dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. Or lately, building homes on flood plains that my government then pays for. It’s about time they gave something back.

The speed cameras also serve a secondary purpose. You can tell who these idiots are!!! Because they are the ones that complain the loudest. They don’t seem to realise that the more that other people pay to the government, especially for consolidated revenue, means more services for them for no additional cost.

** I’m not saying that all people who live on flood plains get caught by speed cameras. Nor am I saying that all those who get caught by speed cameras live on flood plains. What I am saying is, both groups are idiots. Therefore for the sake of the argument they are all tared with the same brush.

Yeah, “idiot tax” now when was the last time I heard that excuse for these revenue-raising machines.

The idiots are the ones who really believe speed cameras reduce the road toll.

Sure enough you’d have to be a mug to speed through a fixed speed camera site well-advertised with signage (THAT is an “idiot tax”), but 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.

Also come to think of it, why is it the first sign that you have been photographed by those mobile vans is weeks later when it finally arrives in the mail??? Hm???

Mysteryman said :

You won’t make anything safer with more speed cameras. Stop lying to us.

They aren’t adding cameras, just places they can set them up. It means they are spreading them thinner.

la mente torbida said :

If you don’t speed, it’s not an issue.

That is the most stupid comment I always hear when cameras are mentioned. What a load of bullshit!! Would it not be better to put more police patrols on the road and catch motorist for other offences besides speeding? If everyone is like me we can do what ever we like on the road EXCEPT speed past a mobile camera.

But….once they stop collecting enough “extra tax” via speed cameras, they’ll lower the speed limits again…so we’ll all be driving around at 40km/h on roads built for 100km/h because of lycra wearing idiots who think they are stronger than cars.

For the record, the last speeding fine I got was in 2001 and I was let off by writing a nice letter.

shadow boxer7:28 pm 02 Feb 11

#sigh#, are people really that simple ?

I think the lowest common demoninator certainly came out in the last few posts

If the Government is serious about road safety, why don’t we see point to point speed cameras in school, with a normal speed camera in the middle? Why don’t we red light & speed cameras at every controlled intersection in the ACT?

I have noticed that the location on that list include locations where the Police use to hide & catch culprits. The Police will have to work out a way to nab 20 drivers an hour with one car if they won’t to stay on traffic duties.

they are not increasing the number of cameras, just the locations.

not sure how this will help road safety. it means that a camera will less often be in a location where it may “help” road safety.

Speeding is not the only, or biggest problem.

CRK was in court recently for trying to out run police in a stolen car (again, how many times?), he hit a car with a Mum and 2 children.

Jon, as well as “Drink drive die in a ditch” signs what about some signs that in the ACT we let repeat car thieves and chase fools out and we are at risk of them killing us.

georgesgenitals5:22 pm 02 Feb 11

Of course it’s an idiot tax. Now, if we could just use them for road safety as well, we’d be sorted.

As much as I hate to defend anyone caught speeding you may remember the pointless policy flowchart which defines the ACT Road Safety development strategy.

One of its three points of washing-machine is a conclusion,”lower speeds are more forgiving of human error”, since somebody in TAMS forwent(1) doing actual research, in favour of greater revenue.

The ACT could calculate road safety using the US & German highway methodolgy, but we’d immediately lose Federal Transport & roads funding.

Australian researchers, Fildes, Rumbold, and Leening (1991)…found a trend of increasing crash involvement for speeds above the mean speed [of traffi]c in both rural and urban conditions – similar to the correlations reported in the early studies.
It is important to note that the researchers emphasized speed variance, rather than absolute speed, as the primary culprit in the incidence of crashes; speed variation is defined as a vehicle’s deviation from the mean speed of free-flowing traffic.

Crash risk was greatest for vehicles traveling more than two standard deviation above the mean speed. As illustrated in figure 2, the likelihood of being involved in a crash was extremely flat, with little difference in crash risk for vehicles traveling within +/-15 mi/h (25 km/h) of the mean speed of traffic. Even excluding turning crashes, the crash risk for vehicles traveling much faster or slower (than this band) was six times the average rate.

Also, this nice picture from synthesis of A. Cirillo, “Interstate System Accident Research Study II, Interim Report II,” Public Roads, Vol. 35, No. 3, August 1968
and
D. Solomon, “Accidents on Main Rural Highways Related to Speed, Driver, and Vehicle,” Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, July 1964 (Reprinted 1974).

In which you’re actually safest speeding slightly compared to the rest of traffic.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/98154/images/fig1.gif

Summary
There is evidence that crash risk is lowest near the average speed of traffic and increases for vehicles traveling much faster or slower than average… risk of being involved in an injury crash is lowest for vehicles that travel near the median speed of traffic…
Source: Synthesis of Safety Research Related to Speed and Speed Limits (United States Department of Transportation – Federal Highway Administration, Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center, Virgina)

(1): Its a word, mofo.

It doesn’t even list how they came to the conclusion that all those areas are speed camera worthy.

I would like to see evidence on what research was completed?

I hate this place.

Are all vans operational, or are some just ornamental? I’ve had many “oh sh*t” moments when passing a speed van, but have never been pinged by one…

It’s all a bit depressingly obvious isn’t it – much as Braddon Boy suggests.

I’d be open to an argument that there may be too many different speed zones in the ACT (50, 60, 70, 80 and 100 k I know of, but there may be more I’ve missed) – possibly some danger that you spend too much time looking at the speedo and too little on the actual road – might be case for simplifying things a bit, but there is absolutely no case for any sympathy towards anyone dim enough to get caught by this very open system…

Bring on the extra revenue. Maybe we could use some of it to establish a decent public transport system?

Indeed, it is basically a penalty for lack of situational awareness. My annoyance has more to do with the likelihood of getting stuck behind morons who sit 10km/h under the limit at all times because they’re terrified of getting a fine. The net effect on my own driving will be pretty minimal.

colourful sydney racing identity3:19 pm 02 Feb 11

la mente torbida said :

If you don’t speed, it’s not an issue.

Tooks said :

Of course they’re going to keep increasing the numbers of mobile speed cameras. As long as dimwits keep speeding through them and volunteering their hard-earned to the Govt, they’d be stupid not to.

If you are caught by a speed camera, then you’re driving with your head up your arse. To me, that’s more of a concern than the speeding itself.

exactly.

Think of it as an idiot tax. If you get caught speeding by cameras, you must be an idiot. Therefore you should pay more tax.

For too long my taxes have gone to support stupid people through public liability and everything being dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. Or lately, building homes on flood plains that my government then pays for. It’s about time they gave something back.

The speed cameras also serve a secondary purpose. You can tell who these idiots are!!! Because they are the ones that complain the loudest. They don’t seem to realise that the more that other people pay to the government, especially for consolidated revenue, means more services for them for no additional cost.

** I’m not saying that all people who live on flood plains get caught by speed cameras. Nor am I saying that all those who get caught by speed cameras live on flood plains. What I am saying is, both groups are idiots. Therefore for the sake of the argument they are all tared with the same brush.

Thoroughly Smashed2:32 pm 02 Feb 11

Tooks said :

Of course they’re going to keep increasing the numbers of mobile speed cameras. As long as dimwits keep speeding through them and volunteering their hard-earned to the Govt, they’d be stupid not to.

If you are caught by a speed camera, then you’re driving with your head up your arse. To me, that’s more of a concern than the speeding itself.

Hear, hear to the last 2 comments!

I wish they would use those cameras more in 50kph residential streets. I don’t care that much if someone wants to go 200kph on the highway, but if they speed through our local streets where kids and pets get a false sense of security, I start foaming at the mouth.

Of course they’re going to keep increasing the numbers of mobile speed cameras. As long as dimwits keep speeding through them and volunteering their hard-earned to the Govt, they’d be stupid not to.

If you are caught by a speed camera, then you’re driving with your head up your arse. To me, that’s more of a concern than the speeding itself.

la mente torbida12:22 pm 02 Feb 11

If you don’t speed, it’s not an issue.

“REVENUE will be further INCREASED 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.”

Call it what it is, Stanhopeless. You won’t make anything safer with more speed cameras. Stop lying to us.

…and sadly it now includes two streets from my regular rat run, neither of which I’ve ever seen an accident on in 500+ trips. Still, must get everyone under that magic number!

a what? “in a greater variety of strategic to address road safety concerns”

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.