Mazda Enters Speed Camera Debate

[noflac52]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

All good points, but how do we fund it?

Lets be honest, the Government is only interested in lowering the national debt, anything that raises revenue is going to stay.
It is a tax, disguised as a fine. Another source by which they balance the books.
Remove that revenue source and they will look for something to make up the shortfall.
I'd rather the notion of an voluntary tax for those caught over the limit than a set tax imposed to ensure the shortfall is met, yourself?

A tax should be a tax it should not be described as anything other than a tax.

Governments should not be entertaining methods of deceitfully relieving people of money for any reason. If we all followed this trend the whole country would soon fall into an economic mess. Our governments should be totally against fleecing people.

This cash cow is going to dry up anyway in the future. At some point the motoring public will revolt against it and there may come a time when it becomes more and more punitive, where a concerted effort by concerned people will actually rally all drivers against it and there could be a national go slow. It would only take a short while for something like that to have a very big effect. Its been done before.

As for funding, education of all drivers, not just new ones would be very cost effective as the cost will be borne by the drivers themselves as it is now. The difference being that everyone would have to do it or stay on the basic licence which would have restrictions placed upon it.

Another scenario could be that the motorcycle component of the licence is compulsory.

This would have the effect of numerous people deciding for themselves that their skill levels weren't good enough to gain the licence and would not try to get one and numerous others would fail the tests, effectively removing low skilled drivers from our roads quickly. The billions of dollars saved through the lowering of the accident rate would assist in funding infrastructure. It would also make our public transport system much more profitable for the govt coffers.

Speed does not cause any collisions. The only thing speed can contribute to is impact. So the argument of speed is a hollow one and a road toll of near zero could be obtained tomorrow by stopping all driving at any time by everyone if speed is the nasty thing its made out to be. The people who rant on about it could have their zero road toll tomorrow if they were really serious about their convictions.
If speed is such a demon why isn't there a lot of campaigning for this. Ohh! that's right its a bit too inconvenient!

Every crash is due to a mistake by a driver or in a very small minority of cases mechanical failure and unforeseeable circumstances like trees falling, avalanches etc.

If its not enough evidence to train drivers better I don't know what is!

There is no one fix for our road system it has to be a multi facetted approach not what we have now.

[EgoFG]

Sorry to say this again

There are almost no accidents where speed is the only cause.
There are many accidents where another cause is the only cause.

Speed makes accidents worse, it does NOT generally cause them.

The Govt needs to focus on the real cause, not the most easily policed factor.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by BHDOGS

These threads do seem to repeat themselves alot on this forum ofcourse speed cameras are for revenue but what are you gonna do about it id suggest the best way is not to speed and contribute or perhaps write a letter to a government official who could care less anyway i await the next thread on this subject.

Exactly, and my point from the start.

Its no good ranting about the current system unless you have a well educated, fully thought out and funded alternative or you just come across as a whinger.

I was merely playing devils advocate and got exactly what I expected.
A lot of good will, but little more than sentiment and statistics which as most will admit can be manipulated to provide the desired result for the example.

nofalc mentions bringing in compulsory motorcycle licensing to help educate better, but does he know the waiting time to get a learners permit for a bike in SA?
When I sat mine it was a 3 month wait and I had to travel 250k to Port Pirie, from Adelaide to do it because the Adelaide training courses were even further backlogged.
Multiply that by every driver on the road.
How many motorcycles would DOT need to run the courses to cover every current and future motorist or is everyone supposed to own a motorcycle to get a license to drive a car.
If it was outsourced to private trainers the cost would be prohibitive to many and you'd just end up with more unlicensed drivers.

The sentiment is noble, but reality says it is a long way from being possible.
Especially if the desired effect is to lower revenue.

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Exactly, and my point from the start.

Its no good ranting about the current system unless you have a well educated, fully thought out and funded alternative or you just come across as a whinger.

I was merely playing devils advocate and got exactly what I expected.
A lot of good will, but little more than sentiment and statistics which as most will admit can be manipulated to provide the desired result for the example.

Problem is if an average person has an idea to help make roads safer which goes against the grain of low limits and speed cameras, what are they supposed to do with it?
Most people don't have the job title, contacts list or other skills to get the ball rolling on something as big as making the government change their views on something.
Even if a group of regular people and experts got together to convince the government to do something different, the government is always going to side with the experts that have the governments in best interests at heart.

Whinging on a forum might not change the world, but it can make you feel a little better anyway.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by Ben73

Problem is if an average person has an idea to help make roads safer which goes against the grain of low limits and speed cameras, what are they supposed to do with it?
Most people don't have the job title, contacts list or other skills to get the ball rolling on something as big as making the government change their views on something.
Even if a group of regular people and experts got together to convince the government to do something different, the government is always going to side with the experts that have the governments in best interests at heart.

Whinging on a forum might not change the world, but it can make you feel a little better anyway.

Does it, really?

Or does it just help complicate what is already a hectic enough existence.

Like I said before, these really are first world issues, and if every time you switch the ignition on you start to worry about contributing to speed camera revenue or feeling paranoid about watching the speedo then there is something else going on because its not how 99% of the population spend their commuting time.

The fella who I referred to earlier in the thread who went all anti Govco crusade on me is currently in a horns locked battle with Work Cover and has just walked away from a failed business venture with a hefty tax bill.

He is looking for something to vent at and because his release is his 400hp stato, anything that stops him from doing what he wants is in the cross hairs.
Enter speed camera's and Regency park.
Do you think he is a pioneer in this respect?

I don't believe too many anti camera people actually care about road tolls or road safety, for many its just about getting where they want when they want.

It is what it is, just sayin'.

And someone will reply with 'well you've said it'...lol

[pottery beige]

i parked the GT up for a rest

no more fines

winning at life

[burnz]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Does it, really?

Or does it just help complicate what is already a hectic enough existence.

Like I said before, these really are first world issues, and if every time you switch the ignition on you start to worry about contributing to speed camera revenue or feeling paranoid about watching the speedo then there is something else going on because its not how 99% of the population spend their commuting time.

The fella who I referred to earlier in the thread who went all anti Govco crusade on me is currently in a horns locked battle with Work Cover and has just walked away from a failed business venture with a hefty tax bill.

He is looking for something to vent at and because his release is his 400hp stato, anything that stops him from doing what he wants is in the cross hairs.
Enter speed camera's and Regency park.
Do you think he is a pioneer in this respect?

I don't believe too many anti camera people actually care about road tolls or road safety, for many its just about getting where they want when they want.

It is what it is, just sayin'.

And someone will reply with 'well you've said it'...lol

once again you falsely presume they save live's.
brainwashed!

And someone will reply with 'well you've said it'...

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by burnz

once again you falsely presume they save live's.
brainwashed!

Are you feeling alright?

Where does that line imply that I believe cameras save lives?

Im just saying that the 'motive' behind camera bashing is not always in the name of safety either.

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Does it, really?

I don't believe too many anti camera people actually care about road tolls or road safety, for many its just about getting where they want when they want.

It is what it is, just sayin'.

And someone will reply with 'well you've said it'...lol

Can't speak for anyone else, but personally I care for the road toll a lot.
I drive 50,000kms a year and about 15,000 of those are in the middle of the night on country roads.
There are fatal crashes on these roads couple of times a year. A majority of these crashes are caused by impatience, distraction and fatigue. It annoys me that these issues don't rate high on the radar for the government. Sure every now and then we hear the messages "don't text and drive" or "don't drive tired" but most of the time and money is put into speeding because it's easy and they can make money back on it.
Recently they made a new freeway for part of our journey. Our average speed and max speed has increased, but I feel much safer.

I hate inappropriate speed. But I don't want to be fined for doing a little bit over the limit at 2am with no traffic around. Or even during the day with light traffic.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Ben73

I hate inappropriate speed.

i'm sure everyone would love to be able to just drive every road at their own pace, but i'm sure you can imagine the chaos that would ensue.

[Davehoos]

It simple--you have to pass a test to drive a specialist vehicle but you don't have to pass a test to drive on higher skilled roads at higher speeds.
To get my lience 30 years ago I drove around a village block, and had the speeding lecture for the local police. To get my truck lience I did the minimum 8 hours of driving test that covered most forms of the road including hyway and Newcastle traffic.

now the next generation are doing 120 hours of learning to drive badly at reduced speeds from their parents--take note.

I lost my liecence twice-I took one early fine to court that was a dodgey -I was advised then it was driving tax by the legal advisors, I turned up at court to be lectured by a push bike rider and had my fine increased--I grew a beard then no more fines.

I don't believe too many anti camera people actually care about road tolls or road safety,

BENT 8
I have read your well constructed posts and are of the opinion you currently believe this.

My son is 4 and is currently learning how to drive my 7 year old daughter I hoping to teach patience and my 11 year old left and right. but they will go to a driving school before they get a liecence. and by the time they are able to legally drive I might have convinced myself that the campain money waisted on frightening people with hidden cameras was money well spent.

[johnydep]

Originally Posted by Ben73

Can't speak for anyone else, but personally I care for the road toll a lot.
I drive 50,000kms a year and about 15,000 of those are in the middle of the night on country roads.
There are fatal crashes on these roads couple of times a year. A majority of these crashes are caused by impatience, distraction and fatigue. It annoys me that these issues don't rate high on the radar for the government. Sure every now and then we hear the messages "don't text and drive" or "don't drive tired" but most of the time and money is put into speeding because it's easy and they can make money back on it.
Recently they made a new freeway for part of our journey. Our average speed and max speed has increased, but I feel much safer.

I hate inappropriate speed. But I don't want to be fined for doing a little bit over the limit at 2am with no traffic around. Or even during the day with light traffic.

Well said.

I recently received a speeding fine in the mail, it was from a return trip from Melbourne. Coming down through the Adelaide Hills on a straight stretch of road at 11:45pm on a clear and dry Sunday night - 110 in a 100 zone.

I might as well drive my first car I owned - 4 wheel drum brakes, no stability control , no ABS, no air bags, etc.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by johnydep

I recently received a speeding fine in the mail, it was from a return trip from Melbourne. Coming down through the Adelaide Hills on a straight stretch of road at 11:45pm on a clear and dry Sunday night - 110 in a 100 zone.

if only you believed in cruise control.... it would have saved your hip pocket.

[aussiblue]

once again you falsely presume they save live[']s.

You obviously don't want to know or believe it, but all the research shows they (speed cameras) do reduce road deaths and injuries even if their object is revenue raising. There is no objective peer reviewed research or data anywhere in the world I can find that demonstrates otherwise.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

You obviously don't want to know or believe, but all the research shows they (speed cameras) do reduce road deaths and injuries even if their object is revenue raising. There is no objective peer reviewed research or data that demonstrates otherwise.

actually I was reading one yesterday, from all places monash uni (VIC)
suffice to say your facts are wrong.

[aussiblue]

ice to say your facts are wrong.

Reference or URL please.

[Romulus]

Until speed limits are set according to the 85th percentile rule the RTA, Police, Governments et al will be able to say people are speeders and law breakers.

Speeding seems to be the only law broken by so many people which the government seems to accept by simply dishing out fines. Imaging 100,000 murders committed, would the government simply dish out fines? I don't think so.

[aussiblue]

actually I was reading one yesterday, from all places monash uni (VIC)
suffice to say your facts are wrong.

Did you means this dated 2005 Monash report http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC548724/

Which really just said improved evidence was needed.

Objectives To assess whether speed cameras reduce road traffic collisions and related casualties.

Design Systematic review.

Data sources Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, Social Science Citation Index, TRANSPORT database, ZETOC, the internet (including websites of road safety and motoring organisations), and contact with key individuals and organisations.

Main outcome measures Road traffic collisions, injuries, and deaths.

Inclusion criteria Controlled trials and observational studies assessing the impact of fixed or mobile speed cameras on any of the selected outcomes.

Results 14 observational studies met the inclusion criteria; no randomised controlled trials were found. Most studies were before-after studies without controls (n = 8). All but one of the studies showed effectiveness of cameras up to three years or less after their introduction; one study showed sustained longer term effects (4.6 years after introduction). Reductions in outcomes across studies ranged from 5% to 69% for collisions, 12% to 65% for injuries, and 17% to 71% for deaths in the immediate vicinity of camera sites. The reductions over wider geographical areas were of a similar order of magnitude.

Conclusions Existing research consistently shows that speed cameras are an effective intervention in reducing road traffic collisions and related casualties. The level of evidence is relatively poor, however, as most studies did not have satisfactory comparison groups or adequate control for potential confounders. Controlled introduction of speed cameras with careful data collection may offer improved evidence of their effectiveness in the future.

and, if so, you might want to look at some more current Monash findings:
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/18/1/1.short
http://search.informit.com.au/docume...809;res=IELHEA

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

Did you means this dated 2005 Monash report http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC548724/

Which really just said improved evidence was needed.


and, if so, you might want to look at some more current Monash findings:
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/18/1/1.short
http://search.informit.com.au/docume...809;res=IELHEA

Who funds Monash University? They're another mouthpiece for the government and Police.

[noflac52]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Exactly, and my point from the start.

Its no good ranting about the current system unless you have a well educated, fully thought out and funded alternative or you just come across as a whinger.

I was merely playing devils advocate and got exactly what I expected.
A lot of good will, but little more than sentiment and statistics which as most will admit can be manipulated to provide the desired result for the example.

nofalc mentions bringing in compulsory motorcycle licensing to help educate better, but does he know the waiting time to get a learners permit for a bike in SA?
When I sat mine it was a 3 month wait and I had to travel 250k to Port Pirie, from Adelaide to do it because the Adelaide training courses were even further backlogged.
Multiply that by every driver on the road.
How many motorcycles would DOT need to run the courses to cover every current and future motorist or is everyone supposed to own a motorcycle to get a license to drive a car.
If it was outsourced to private trainers the cost would be prohibitive to many and you'd just end up with more unlicensed drivers.

The sentiment is noble, but reality says it is a long way from being possible.
Especially if the desired effect is to lower revenue.

It is not sentiment from me it is concern. I'm not a sentimental type!

The desired effect is to allow us to go about our business with out harassment and to keep us safer on the roads. I never said it was to lower revenue.

The current waiting time is irrelevant. The idea is to put things in place to be able to train people, and what is wrong with creating a growth industry around driver training. Millions of Australians drive. The motorcycle is not the only training tool available to us. It is the concept of training that is the subject of my post. There are many other ways to achieve it.

The police will deal with unlicenced drivers as they always have and they will have more time to do it because they won't need to be nannies to the driving public anymore.

You seem to be back to wanting instant change again as you did at the beginning of the thread. That won't happen!

If you think that the data supplied to the thread by posters is just sentiment the whole country must run on sentiment not reality.

I don't know what you want but you come across as " its a bit too hard to do so lets do nothing."

Discussion is the start of any change and you are labelling everyone as a whinger because it suits whatever agenda you have because it is being discussed on a forum.
There are many forums in this country and many are discussing it. Just because you personally aren't hearing it doesn't mean it is not happening.

Your negativity on this forum may give you some insight as to why it isn't being discussed with you.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

Reference or URL please.

ill find it for you, I have a couple so far.
http://www.monash.edu.au/miri/resear...s/muarc242.pdf
http://www.monash.edu.au/miri/resear...s/muarc042.pdf

in one report the gov had limited the data to select intersection (6)
and zero open road data.

this ask's the question does speed cam save live?
http://www.tars.unsw.edu.au/news/201..._Mooren_PR.pdf

[aussiblue]

Who funds Monash University? They're another mouthpiece for the government and Police.

Peer review is all about independent research oversight and audit preventing research bias and if the distorted the results, given the data analysed is freely available, those opposed would soon be onto them and there reputation would be gone. I don't like speed cameras either, but I wont deny the evidence shows that any anything else used to enforce speed limits and other road safety rules saves lives. Without enforcement measures there would be anarchy on the roads.

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

Peer review is all about independent research oversight and audit preventing research bias and if the distorted the results, given the data analysed is freely available, those opposed would soon be onto them and there reputation would be gone. I don't like speed cameras either, but I wont deny the evidence shows that any anything else used to enforce speed limits and other road safety rules saves lives. Without enforcement measures there would be anarchy on the roads.

Driver education goes much further than enforcement. Many countries in the world are proof of this.

When many States in the US lifted the speed limits on highways from 55MPH to 80MPH (the 55mph limit was set during the oil crisis to reduce fuel consumption) the insurance companies cried foul and said the road toll would increase. NTSB figures showed the opposite; road fatalities dropped.

Closer to home, when the NT introduced a 130km/h speed limit the road toll increased not decreased.

I put it to you Monash data is very biased.

[aussiblue]

ill find it for you, I have a couple so far.
http://www.monash.edu.au/miri/resear...s/muarc242.pdf
http://www.monash.edu.au/miri/resear...s/muarc042.pdf
and zero open road data.

this ask's the question does speed cam save live?
http://www.tars.unsw.edu.au/news/201..._Mooren_PR.pdf

All three papers support the argument that speed cameras save lives and reduce injuries.

The 1st paper is about attitudes and perceptions to speed and speed cameras and the need to market them to get acceptance and credibility. It doesn't argue that speed cameras don't save lives.

Introduction
The use of automated speed enforcement technologies is now wide spread throughout many parts of the world and research has consistently demonstrated the positive road
safety benefits achieved through the use of these technologies. However, there is wide variation in the nature, extent of use and perceived acceptability of automated enforcement technology, particularly as the primary form of speed enforcement. Despite these differences controversies associated with the use of speed enforcement technology have arisen in each jurisdiction and some common elements across jurisdictions are evident.

Snip~~~~~

Drivers who reported being unconcerned by road crashes were also found to be more likely to oppose increased levels of enforcement or more severe penalties. The attitude of these
drivers to speed enforcement was also negative. These drivers were found to have received more penalty notices for speeding offences in the previous three years than other
drivers, were in favour higher speed limits, expected to encounter speed enforcement fairly often and were more likely to warn other drivers of speed enforcement ahead on the road. Those drivers expressing more positive views towards speed enforcement expressed contrasting views to those drivers discussed above. That is, they were more likely to accept current speed limits, did not expect to encounter speed enforcement frequently and were less likely to warn other drivers of speeds enforcement ahead on the road. Further, this group of drivers were unlikely to have received a penalty notice for a speeding offence in the previous three years

The second paper very clearly concludes speed cameras reduce casualties:

9.0 CONCLUSIONS
The introduction of the speed camera program and supporting publicity in Victoria has been associated with decreases in the frequency of reported casualty crashes which occur in low alcohol times of the week and also decreases in their injury severity. These decreases have been calculated as departures from expected values based on past trends and seasonal patterns, changes in unemployment rate, and using the comparable areas of NSW as a control. The magnitudes of these decreases have varied with the region of the State and nature of the program operated during different periods. The program appears to have had its greatest effects (in terms of the frequency of casualty crashes) on arterial roads in Melbourne and on 60 km/h roads in rural Victoria, where the majority of the speed camera operations have taken place within the respective Melbourne and country areas. This pattern of results provides further evidence that the observed effects relate to the speed camera program. The results of Phase 2 suggest that the reductions in the frequency of casualty crashes (in low alcohol hours) appeared to be linked with speed camera TINs issued to detected drivers, TAC road safety publicity in general and TAC speed related publicity (lower level of significance). Reductions in the injury severity of casualty crashes (in low alcohol
hours) appeared to be associated with speed camera TINs issued and hours of camera operation. On the basis of the analyses in this report, it is clear that the speed camera program (enforcement and supporting publicity) has been effective.

The third paper is about the very issue we are having here; the non acceptance of the truth of the data by non experts opposed to speed cameras.

Speeding is arguably one of the most prevalent, if not the most prevalent, behavioural factor involved in fatal road crashes. However, the interventions to redress this continuing serious threat to public safety are amongst the most controversial done by governments in Australia.
Media outcries of "revenue raising" when speed cameras are installed are deafening. This is
despite the voluminous evidence that speed cameras save lives. In early 2012 there were a
number of current affairs programs on commercial TV channels and web internet discussions that were blatantly anti-speed camera enforcement. Expert road safety researchers have attempted to present the facts and provide evidence-based opinions about the injury risks of speeding and the safety benefits of speed camera enforcement. Australian community surveys have indicated that the majority of people do understand that speeding is a road safety risk,and they support speed limits and speed enforcement. But broad public and media understanding of the issues are still confounded by misleading publicity and opinionated nonexpert mass and social media discussions of views opposing speed enforcement and even views that disagree that speeding is a road trauma risk. This paper explores this phenomenon,discusses issues concerning mass and social media and suggests ways to address the problem.

Conclusion
Perhaps we need to rethink the way in which we communicate anti-speed messages that takes into account the perceived benefits of reducing risky behaviour, similar to the Victorian Transport Accident Commission’s TV advertisement with Professor Ian Johnston of a car crashing into a truck (Slow Down: June 2003), where a small increase in speed over the limit is shown to have a detrimental effect in avoiding a serious crash. The road safety messages may be more effective if they can directly speak to this perception and make road risk, like speeding, less desirable or even stupid. It may also help road safety to personalise the story with specific victims of speeding crashes rather than reliance on broad statistics. Moreover, there has been a community debate on speed and speed enforcement raging for a number of years. The road safety community has been largely absent from this debate. Having a two-way conversation with the community is worthy of consideration. The social
media mechanisms and other tools are currently underutilised for communications between the road safety community and the general community. While, this form of communication can be time-consuming and resource intensive for use in a road safety campaign, dialogue communication is a mechanism for engaging people in a more positive way.

I would love to see some contrary evidence to the accepted fact that speed camera reduce road injuries and fatalities. All these papers say is that despite the overwhelming evidence that speed cameras save lives and reduce road accident injury rates, many drivers will not accept this and many non experts and others opposed to speed cameras, will argue against the facts and more needs to be done to educate people of the benefits of speed cameras nd win their acceptance.

[burnz]

my problem is that here's a couple of select stats from certain cams.

the other 1500+ cams suddenly have no data, from vic roads.

read your own links.

Abstract: A study conducted by researchers at Monash University Accident Research Centre (MUARC) has demonstrated the crash-reduction benefits of combining fixed digital speed and red light cameras. The study evaluated the crash effects of 87 fixed digital speed and red light (FDSRL) cameras and accompanying warning signs at 77 signalised intersections in Victoria over a ten-year period.

[aussiblue]

.my problem is that here's a couple of select stats from certain cams.

Supported by thousand of other research studies around the world with similar conclusions; how much proof is required in the absence of one skerrick of contrary scientific evidence?

[aussiblue]

..and in a statistical context a sufficient sample size from which to have confidence in the conclusions.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

Supported by thousand of other research studies around the world with similar conclusions; how much proof is required in the absence of one skerrick of contrary scientific evidence?

a simple question,, at an intersection...
is the red light cam saving live?
or is it the speed cam?

a red light cam would be just as effective, on its "own"

and were are the stats for open road cam that save lives?

[johnydep]

Originally Posted by prydey

if only you believed in cruise control.... it would have saved your hip pocket.

Where did I say I don't believe in cruise control??

FYI cruise control was on, most of the road was 110, there were no other cars on that section of road & it was down hill.

Out of interest; does your cruise control apply the brakes? What do you think of the NT's road speed rules? Have you driven in Europe?

[aussiblue]

is the red light cam saving live?
or is it the speed cam?

a red light cam would be just as effective, on its "own"

No; all the research says without effective enforcement, and awareness that there will be enforcement, all the other stuff including red lights will not work. There are many countries where drivers ignore traffic lights and pedestrian crossing (albeit for a number of reasons that may or may include lack of effective enforcement). Try crossing in front of traffic at a pedestrian crossing in Manila.