NSW Premier: Speed Camera Review

[Jim Goose]

One could even ask this question.... How do they (those in power) know where an accident is going to occur?

Since a camera is always all about lowering road fatalities, when they place a camera on a road are they predicting that that particular location there are going to be fatal accidents?

As an example, there is a major road near where i live that used to be a favourite spot for mobile speed camera. Now this section of road is straight (approx 7 or 8km). The usual location for the mobile camera had no traffic lights within a 2km distance either side of the camera. No fatal accidents in 20yrs within the area.

There was however lots of speeding cars....

Clearly having a camera there wasnt about reducing the road toll, but reducing speeding cars along that straight.

Again, please sudzy explain to us all how a speed camera reduces the road toll? Accidents are RANDOM events. They can happen driving down your local suburban road or on a major freeway. No one can predict where an accident will occur. You can by looking at a poorly constructed intersection (which happens a lot!) say that this intersection increases the risk of an accident because of poor design. What would be the best way to reduce the chances of an accident there?
1) Put a sign up saying "Dangerous intersection"
2) Put up a speed camera
3) redesign the intersection to ruduce the chances of an accident occuring
(remember OH@S rules in your workplace? THE BEST WAY TO REDUCE AN DANGEROUS EVENT IS TO REMOVE THE DANGER, Wearing PPE is the LAST RESORT!)

What would you do at your work place if there was a danger of an accident?
Put up a Camera?
Or remove the danger?

[flappist]

Originally Posted by prydey

or, one of the many roads around the country that resemble goat tracks, has a poor record for fatalities. road gets fixed, and coincidently, a camera is also placed there. fatalities drop. is it because the road is fixed or because a camera was placed there.

i think we all know what mr scruby sudszy would credit with the decrease in fatalities.

camera's are the saviour.

It is very unfair calling sudszy scruby......

Harold Scruby is an obnoxious little pest who runs a web site and private club laughingly called a "council" with all his details including experience, employment history, education and contact details publicly published.
He truly believes he is the self appointed road safety messiah, one of God's chosen elite, and if only the world would listen to his gospel he would be their personal saviour and lead from the darkness in the light of eternal transport nirvana and will not accept any fact that contradicts his dogma as even being plausible let alone proven.
Although he is a known pest and his radical zealotry ignored by almost all intelligent people he has the courage to publicly stand up for his convictions and is not a frightened little keyboard warrior bully who hides behind the anonymity of the internet.

sudszy, on the other hand, refuses to give out any details whatsoever.....

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by flappist

It is very unfair calling sudszy scruby......

Harold Scruby is an obnoxious little pest who runs a web site and private club laughingly called a "council" with all his details including experience, employment history, education and contact details publicly published.
He truly believes he is the self appointed road safety messiah, one of God's chosen elite, and if only the world would listen to his gospel he would be their personal saviour and lead from the darkness in the light of eternal transport nirvana and will not accept any fact that contradicts his dogma as even being plausible let alone proven.
Although he is a known pest and his radical zealotry ignored by almost all intelligent people he has the courage to publicly stand up for his convictions and is not a frightened little keyboard warrior bully who hides behind the anonymity of the internet.

sudszy, on the other hand, refuses to give out any details whatsoever.....

Guys, that's not what this discussion is about...it really is none of our business, can we just move on?


Jim, I reckon you're on the money - changing the design is the smartest thing to do, but not in the eyes of those who hold the wallet. Change of design costs how much (knowing that government budgets blow out of proportion like it's nobodies business) as opposed to putting in a camera? I'm not agreeing with it, but I keep seeing the words, 'cost effective' in lots of Government articles (particularly Qld). The assumption then becomes that it's cheaper to put in a camera, than to address the real issue of the intersection/road. They put in a camera, it makes them more money - and therefore is 'cost effective' in their eyes.

Once again, not agreeing with it, just a perspective on the purse strings that control it.

[Jim Goose]

Of course its cost effective, a camera doesnt eat or sleep.... doesnt need to be paid, doesnt go on strike, doesnt talk back.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by sudszyInterestingly, not living in NSW, I didn’t realise that they weren’t experiencing a reducing road toll like what is happening in VIC. Toll in NSW was lowest in 2008 but went up during 2009 and 2010

Interestingly, back in 2010, here was the request from the police minister.
[url

http://www.smh.com.au/national/polic...0101-llrp.html[/url]

mobile cameras, were reintroduced july 2010 and perhaps just by coincidence we look at the short term figures since then we see a significant reduction in the toll: http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety...statistics.pdf
Of course I expect “motoring enthusiasts” will no doubt busy themselves on conjuring up a reason for that refutes any connection between the two, perhaps there isnt, but something to think about.
The new premier, hopefully is not altogether stupid and is only having this ‘audit’ to stop the noisy minority undermining the current efforts.

Certainly if he were to do something like remove cameras based on nothing but his personal opinion and bowing to whims, then when the toll rises steeply again his backside would be kicked from here to kingdom come, something I don’t think he really wants to entertain.

Originally Posted by sudszy

Who said that? love the strawman.

You did!

Originally Posted by sudszy

Easy fella, I threw up some numbers for discussion, not so you could make personal attacks, but glad it kept you busy looking up some numbers.

Not sure you about your appreciation of numbers though, your challenge is easily met just on that point:

There were personal attacks against you in my post, only Scruby but he deserves it. The reason for my comment about your lack of reply is because that is what you have done on many previous occasions, you never acknowledge a good point. Also I am not sure how exactly you have met my challenge.

Originally Posted by sudszy

You do realise that together NSW and VIC represent 57% of Australia's population, so the national average is very much dictated by what happens in those two states.

Thanks for pointing out the obvious.

How does your point there explain how the 2 states with the largest increase in speed camera use over the last 12 months have had some of the most mediocre reductions in road toll over that same time period, yet other states have had a much better reduction.

Originally Posted by sudszy

Another strawman?: Let me check through....., cant see it that I claimed anywhere that speed cameras shouldnt be used at night time, I thought the fixed ones were? but for mobile operators, yep, bring it on great idea

How on earth is that a strawman?

I am all for speed camera use between 2200 hrs and 0600 hrs (the time period my anecdotal experience tells me the worst crashes happen).

That is if they actually reduce the road toll and are not a revenue raising exercise. The government deploying these "life saving" devices between those hours would go some way to convince me they are not just revenue raising.

Think of it this way, with very light traffic, very few infringements and high overheads (staff penalty rates, security etc), this would make them very costly, but it is not about revenue so what is the issue with that? Every single life saved is worth it right?

Originally Posted by geckoGT

My challenge to you is to provide any statistics or study that proves speed cameras do anything to reduce the road toll without influence from other factors including improvements in driver education, licensing standards, infrastructure quality/design or vehicle safety standards.

How are you going on that one, any result yet?

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Of course its cost effective, a camera doesnt eat or sleep.... doesnt need to be paid, doesnt go on strike, doesnt talk back.

And spits out money for very little work of real value, it only enforces one law of the road.

Redesign of an intersection on the other hand cost millions of dollars and gives back nothing except the decreased work load on emergency services and Police major crash investigation on the odd occasions.

Millions of dollars cost or millions of dollars gained, which one does the government take?

Easy, the one that gives income and the illusion of caring about safety.

If you want true safety at an intersection, forget the camera, put a marked cop car with a radar gun and you will see a reduction, very few crashes happen in front of a cop car. The problem is that costs money and does not generate too much of a return.

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

And spits out money for very little work of real value, it only enforces one law of the road.

Redesign of an intersection on the other hand cost millions of dollars and gives back nothing except the decreased work load on emergency services and Police major crash investigation on the odd occasions.

Millions of dollars cost or millions of dollars gained, which one does the government take?

Easy, the one that gives income and the illusion of caring about safety.

If you want true safety at an intersection, forget the camera, put a marked cop car with a radar gun and you will see a reduction, very few crashes happen in front of a cop car. The problem is that costs money and does not generate too much of a return.

So the question is, how do you convince a government that it's in their best interest to open their piggy banks and change an intersection that is clearly not up to scratch?

The complaint is that we don't have enough police as it is, and emergency services are stretched as well (I don't know the validity of this, nor am I disputing it - I just haven't seen any articles on it), so the cost to the public will be there anyway, whether they spend it on physical people resources or fixing the intersection.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

So the question is, how do you convince a government that it's in their best interest to open their piggy banks and change an intersection that is clearly not up to scratch?

The complaint is that we don't have enough police as it is, and emergency services are stretched as well (I don't know the validity of this, nor am I disputing it - I just haven't seen any articles on it), so the cost to the public will be there anyway, whether they spend it on physical people resources or fixing the intersection.

The cost of the stretched emergency services never outweighs the cost of redesigning an intersection, even a small one. Besides, it involves a different department and different budget, police, ambulance and fire will not spend their budget to benefit main roads and vice versa.

As for the stretching of emergency services, you have no idea.

[Ben73]

Every day I hear that ad on the radio that says "8 out of 10 speeding deaths occur on bends"

I have never seen a camera mobile or fixed on a bend

Go figure.

[Ben73]

Wanna slow drivers? Get the stupid cameras out of these territory camera cars. Throw them in the bin and make they driver drive around all day randomly giving a quick flash of his high beam. People will think there I'd a cop or camera ahead and slow down.

Having said that, there is more to road safety then just obeying the limit.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Ben73

Every day I hear that ad on the radio that says "8 out of 10 speeding deaths occur on bends"

I have never seen a camera mobile or fixed on a bend

Go figure.

Ben, from what Ive read its a technical issue with the camera, cars have to be going towards and away from it in a straight line, but if the problem is beat, then sure put em on bends.

In regard to only having cameras in locations where there have been previous incidents or just on bends for example? the idea is to have people controlling their speed at all times, they will do that if they think they can be snapped anywhere at any time and then we stop the creation of new "black spots".

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Ben73

Wanna slow drivers? Get the stupid cameras out of these territory camera cars. Throw them in the bin and make they driver drive around all day randomly giving a quick flash of his high beam. People will think there I'd a cop or camera ahead and slow down.

Yes, its amazing how you will see some slowdown when some accidentally activate their flashers while moving their indicator stalk, not a bad idea Ben, but it needs to be backed up with the occasional reality that we have actually have real cameras around, just like the billboards that have had some success with police cars painted on them.

Originally Posted by Ben73

Having said that, there is more to road safety then just obeying the limit.

I dont think there is anyone walking the planet that has said otherwise, but the logic that not strictly enforcing speed limits will enhance road safety is a little scary.

[burnz]

those terrys from the bank have to make money for the gov.

totaly unrelated: hon bob carr former prem of nsw appointed to mac bank..
allso unrelated: hon ian west current deputy chair of staysafe still works for mac bank..

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Ben73

Having said that, there is more to road safety then just obeying the limit.

Originally Posted by sudszy

I dont think there is anyone walking the planet that has said otherwise,

controlling speed = no new black spots? seems to contradict your above statement.

Originally Posted by sudszy

the idea is to have people controlling their speed at all times, they will do that if they think they can be snapped anywhere at any time and then we stop the creation of new "black spots".

there is only one person contributing to this forum who believes that if all the speed is controlled, the accidents and fatalities will decrease.

i don't see anyone saying speeding is ok. i do see people that use the roads a lot saying this direction of zero tolerance is unrealistic though. the only thing it will do is increase revenue.

this belief that if you stay below the magical number painted on the sign, then you are a safe driver is beyond belief.

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Yes, its amazing how you will see some slowdown when some accidentally activate their flashers while moving their indicator stalk, not a bad idea Ben, but it needs to be backed up with the occasional reality that we have actually have real cameras around, just like the billboards that have had some success with police cars painted on them.



I dont think there is anyone walking the planet that has said otherwise, but the logic that not strictly enforcing speed limits will enhance road safety is a little scary.

Yeah but the cameras would have to be cops with a hand held radar gun. These are one for of speed enforcement I support. As long as it is done correctly.

If people knew how to drive properly and roads were in better condition an extra 5 or 10 kays in light traffic would be nothing dangerous.

Yesterday I drove 200kms on roads that varied quite a bit. There were no speed signs but instead signs that said stuff like "no speed advisory signs. Drive to condition." some points I was doing 25kmh around hairpin bends with loose dirt on the road, other places like long wide straights I was doing 110. I used common sense and my driving experience to drive to the conditions and I was fine. If everyone drove to the conditions then there would be less crashes. Many people crash because they are obeying the speed limit but not taking in to account the conditions. It's all about education.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Yes, its amazing how you will see some slowdown when some accidentally activate their flashers while moving their indicator stalk, not a bad idea Ben, but it needs to be backed up with the occasional reality that we have actually have real cameras around, just like the billboards that have had some success with police cars painted on them.

I dont think there is anyone walking the planet that has said otherwise, but the logic that not strictly enforcing speed limits will enhance road safety is a little scary.

I think that is where you misunderstand the sentiment around here, yes there are a few that seem to believe that you can do warp factor nine if you are in the right car, in the right conditions and jupiter is aligned with mars.

The rest of us agree with enforcing limits and do see it as a form of safety promotion if it is done in the right manner, we just feel that speed cameras is not the most effective manner. .

The issues arise when the speed cameras are set to low, 1-2 km/h over is not reasonable, it should be nothing less that the allowable variation of vehicle speedometers. Having such a fine tolerance set draws to much driver attention to the speedo and away from the road.

The other issue with speed cameras that many people find it distasteful that the government constantly tells us they only go into black spots and they are for road safety. Then you look at where both fixed and mobile speed cameras are fitted. I have travelled across WA, NSW, QLD, ACT, VIC, SA and NT since speed cameras are in operation and I have noticed some disturbing truths regarding this. The speed cameras are constantly not deployed aimed up a hill where it will get the people that are habitual speeders, they are aimed at vehicles coming down a hill so that they get all those nasty motorists that drift over the limit. To me this is not about road safety, that combined with a low tolerance set on the camera is about revenue raising. I would be happy to hear someone give me clear evidence that on the straight bit of road, down a hill, in clear conditions and in a 100 km/h zone, how the 103 km/h speed that the camera flashes at is a dangerous speed. Put that camera on a true dangerous section of road such as before a bend and I am all for it but not where they generally are now. I also do not believe that the government currently deploys cameras in a manner that truly supports road safety. My impression in QLD is they deploy the cameras in order to get volume of infringements and not in areas that will give a tangible increase in road safety, as I outlined before.

The general consensus around here is that speed cameras are not the effective road safety tool that the governments will have us believe. Yes it is an effective tool to catch the speeders and there is an element of "anywhere, anytime" that does work. Having said that, the camera only watches for speed, nothing else. The camera does not observe the b double following too close, the unroadworthy car, the lane changing dangerously, the guy on the mobile phone, the unrestrained kids jumping around the car, the car with no tail lights, the car with no headlights etc etc etc. I think you see my point.

The only way to detect all those offences and a long list more is a cop on the road and able to respond. Personally I would prefer to see a combination of marked and unmarked police cars running hand held radar operations than speed cameras. I higher density of such speed traps will still give the desired "anywhere, anytime" but offers not only speed detection but detection of other offences.

The current reliance on speed cameras has given the public the impression that if you speed you will get a fine, that is true. Public impression can be a double edged sword, it can have the effect you wanted and an effect you don't. I remember before speed cameras you used to often see a cop on the road with the radar gun out, now with cameras being the primary tool you hardly ever see a cop with a gun doing speed traps. The result is the public see less cops on the road patrolling traffic and therefore the sentiment is you can get away with almost anything as long as you do it under the speed limit.

In my opinion, the government should crack down on speeding, where it has a greater effect on road safety. It should also be done in a way that is better aligned with ADR's for vehicle design and function. For example, I have a BF Typhoon with the ZF auto, the speedo shows 100 km/h at a true speed of 98 km/h. My car is fitted with cruise control which I use regularly on the highway and this cruise control system is fitted with speed control that will drop down a gear if necessary when going down hill etc. The problem is there is no advice at what speed this down shift occurs and the uninformed motorist may not be aware that it does not down shift until the car is approaching an indicated 8 km/h (actual of 6 km/h) above the set speed which under current proposed reduced tolerance policy would result in a fine. Now yes they should be monitoring their speed and I do, but I can see the situation a motorist trying to do the right thing can get caught out. Has the government caught a habitual speeder and menace to society in this instance, maybe not. That menace to society is the one that knows where the camera is located or where the favorite spots are, slows down for them and then puts the foot down again.

I also believe that if the government wants to keep pushing the speed issue, then make improvements elsewhere that support those efforts. Vehicle Heads Up Display (HUD) give a digital speed indicator on the windscreen and I have found it is not distracting and is actually quite useful. They give the driver much better opportunity to monitor their speed more effectively without taking their eyes off the road ahead which is where their vision should be. If speed is so important, why are these not mandatory? Brake lights are important, so are indicators etc and these items are mandatory. Speed is apparently more important yet effective devices like these are not mandatory and nor is it mandatory to have more reliable accuracy designed into the speedo.

I can see where the public distaste for speed cameras comes from and believe the government has a lot of work to do in both making speed monitoring and law enforcement both more accepted in public opinion and more effective in road safety efforts. Across all states their efforts are currently severely lacking on both counts.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

The issues arise when the speed cameras are set to low, 1-2 km/h over is not reasonable, it should be nothing less that the allowable variation of vehicle speedometers. Having such a fine tolerance set draws to much driver attention to the speedo and away from the road.

The issue in this thread isnt whether its a 1-2km/h tolerance but a review of all issues with the deployment of cameras in general?

Anyway, I think we have been there before, there are no stickers on anyone's speedo telling them how accurate they are, but who have you asked the average person in the street whether they think the reading on the dial gives them the exact speed to the nearest km/h, cmon only a frigging idiot would think that in a 25 year old car.

The sensible thing to do would be to go 10% below the limit if you are in a car that old, until you are certain as to how the reading relates to the real speed. People doing 10% lower than the speed limit would cause speed discrepancy flow problems? well it would be less a problem than we have now where some people actually drive 10% below the limit(taking the 60km/h limit for what it means) and some drive 10% above because they know they can get away with it!

People here who therefore whinge about going 10% slower than they could be could always get their correct speed reading established, not too hard in this day and age.

Oh but the expense for the poor aussie battler driving their twenty five year old POS I hear the forum scream?, ffs, there were similar screams from the "enthusiasts" when they made fitting seat belts compulsory too, safer motoring doesnt always come for nothing.

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Having such a fine tolerance set draws to much driver attention to the speedo and away from the road.

So it keeps being said on this forum, but evidence that people are having accidents based on this claim is non existent.

Is looking in your three rear view mirrors every 20 secs or so been deemed to be distracting and causing accidents, how could just a peripheral glance at a speedo that is right in front of you so distracting, yes, its nonsense.

Originally Posted by geckoGT

. The speed cameras are constantly not deployed aimed up a hill where it will get the people that are habitual speeders, they are aimed at vehicles coming down a hill so that they get all those nasty motorists that drift over the limit. .

You do understand that even a 5% gradient will increase the stopping dist of a car by 10%(the effect gets exponentially worse when it gets steeper), and you want to allow the cars to be going faster when going downhill?

Thats about as absurd as allowing 5km/h higher speeds when it is raining!
If people are so unaware of their surroundings that they cant recognise a slope that causes their car to speed up, then the quicker they are put off the road the better.

Originally Posted by geckoGT

I can see where the public distaste for speed cameras comes from and believe the government has a lot of work to do in both making speed monitoring and law enforcement both more accepted in public opinion and more effective in road safety efforts. Across all states their efforts are currently severely lacking on both counts.

Public distaste, media beatup! my experience is its just a very vocal minority, typically getting a good run on shows like ACA and TT, where they stick a camera in the face of someone who will say what is good for the ratings. They also think its good giving us stories on those poor people that get fined by Govco parking in no parking zones etc!

[prydey]

i fail to see how making people paranoid about speeding (govt proclaiming zero tolerance) can make them safer drivers. anybody who gets out from behind their desk, and drives a motor vehicle instead of a pushbike, will see the decline in driving standards on our road.

sudszy - a member on here (full noise) has posted a few video's from his dash mounted camera in his truck, of what he deals with on a daily basis. perhaps you should look them up and watch because it clearly shows the poor quality of driving that is out there. not much speeding though so clearly they are good drivers.

why do speed limits get changed? and i mean increased? one road here in sa went from 60 to 70. there was no other changes to the road. had i done 70, whilst it was 60, you would say i was on death row. now it is legal to do 70. how is that different, except that a magical sign on the side of the road tells me i can.

out of interest, what do you set your 'speed alert' to? and do you hear it chime?

[Jim Goose]

People here who therefore whinge about going 10% slower than they could be could always get their correct speed reading established, not too hard in this day and age.

Oh but the expense for the poor aussie battler driving their twenty five year old POS I hear the forum scream?, ffs, there were similar screams from the "enthusiasts" when they made fitting seat belts compulsory too, safer motoring doesnt always come for nothing.

dear oh dear sudszy... true colours showing.
in case you missed it here, this is a ford car forum, where a LOT of members own 25yr old POS...

The law DOESNT REQUIRE car owners to calibrate their speedos... wake up to yourself.

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by prydey

why do speed limits get changed? and i mean increased? one road here in sa went from 60 to 70. there was no other changes to the road. had i done 70, whilst it was 60, you would say i was on death row. now it is legal to do 70. how is that different, except that a magical sign on the side of the road tells me i can.

That's it
Some people see a speed sign and immediately think it is 100% correct.

I know many places where the speed signs are too fast or too slow for the given road.


Ok yes it may possibly take 10% longer to stop on a 5% gradient. I don't know how true that is, But once you get out of the middle of big cities like Sydney and Melbourne how often do you have to jump on the brakes and come to a screaming holt? Not as often as in the middle of cities where you have lots of people in a small area, walking, driving, and doing everything on the roads.

I have never once seen a speed camera on a busy street with people walking everywhere. But I have seen many speed cameras on quite country roads where there is very light traffic.

The road I drove on today was very quite, we probably passed 10-12 oncoming cars in about 100kms and did not see a single pedestrian the entire time.
What was the chances that we had to come to a complete stop to avoid hitting something? Sure it could happen, but the chance of happening is very small.
Plus in a brand new car with decent brakes we could of stopped much quicker then an old farmer in his 20y.o land crusier.

So basically in the middle of the city that 10% extra stopping distance could make a big difference, but on a quite country road it's nothing to worry much about.

[F6_Ute]

Having done the daily commute in Sydney traffic for a number of years and also spent a couple years driving delivery trucks for a living also in Sydney, time & time again I see drivers slow down from around 10kph above the speed limit to 5kph below as they approach a fixed camera only to speed up again over the limit once they're past it - with the exception of those installed in school zones, fixed cameras are not the answer. The best way, as has been mentioned here before, is to put more cops out there in more places and generate a "anywhere, anytime" culture where drivers habitually obey the rules and don't speed.

As for speed control vs accident prevention, I'm not so sure - yes speed is most certainly an issue when there is a crash, but preventing the crash in the first place should be the focus. Having seen my fair share of accidents, with the exception of those where someone has broken a traffic law, every other accident I can recall without exception is the result of the driver behind travelling too close to the car in front - it's these fools who think by driving up the backside of the car in front think they're going to magically get to where they're going faster who are the most dangerous & irresponsible drivers on our roads.

Sadly it's a difficult thing to police, but I have no doubt if manditory gaps between moving vehicles could be enforced it would have a marked impact on reducing the crash/accident rates on our roads making it safer for everyone.

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by F6_Ute

Sadly it's a difficult thing to police, but I have no doubt if manditory gaps between moving vehicles could be enforced it would have a marked impact on reducing the crash/accident rates on our roads making it safer for everyone.

I was of the impression they could enforce this?

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

I was of the impression they could enforce this?

Not with a camera, so therefore it rarely gets policed.

[G6E Turbo 2]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

One could even ask this question.... How do they (those in power) know where an accident is going to occur?

Since a camera is always all about lowering road fatalities, when they place a camera on a road are they predicting that that particular location there are going to be fatal accidents?

As an example, there is a major road near where i live that used to be a favourite spot for mobile speed camera. Now this section of road is straight (approx 7 or 8km). The usual location for the mobile camera had no traffic lights within a 2km distance either side of the camera. No fatal accidents in 20yrs within the area.

There was however lots of speeding cars....

Clearly having a camera there wasnt about reducing the road toll, but reducing speeding cars along that straight.

Again, please sudzy explain to us all how a speed camera reduces the road toll? Accidents are RANDOM events. They can happen driving down your local suburban road or on a major freeway. No one can predict where an accident will occur. You can by looking at a poorly constructed intersection (which happens a lot!) say that this intersection increases the risk of an accident because of poor design. What would be the best way to reduce the chances of an accident there?
1) Put a sign up saying "Dangerous intersection"
2) Put up a speed camera
3) redesign the intersection to ruduce the chances of an accident occuring
(remember OH@S rules in your workplace? THE BEST WAY TO REDUCE AN DANGEROUS EVENT IS TO REMOVE THE DANGER, Wearing PPE is the LAST RESORT!)

What would you do at your work place if there was a danger of an accident?
Put up a Camera?
Or remove the danger?

LOL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am loving this post

Want a Job at the RTA ?????

Bloody speed cameras

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by Ben73

Not with a camera, so therefore it rarely gets policed.

Ha, cynical bugger aren't cha...?

There are still cops on the road - no, not nearly enough, but they are there - and they can and will book people.

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Anyway, I think we have been there before, there are no stickers on anyone's speedo telling them how accurate they are, but who have you asked the average person in the street whether they think the reading on the dial gives them the exact speed to the nearest km/h, cmon only a frigging idiot would think that in a 25 year old car.

I sat in a Boxter today, would have been around 5 years old. I defy anyone to maintain a 0 tolerance speed based on this speedo. Compare it to an FPV speedo which at least gives you a fighting chance and allows you to configure for a digital readout as well.

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

Ha, cynical bugger aren't cha...?

There are still cops on the road - no, not nearly enough, but they are there - and they can and will book people.

Can you imagine if they found an easy and cost affect way to police tailgaters from the back of a Ford Territory.
The people in charge of 'road safety' would be on TV trying to get the public to agree to the cameras by saying something like
"Tailgating is a major factor in 50% of crashes and will not tolerated, these new tailgating cameras will save 10 lives in the first 6 months"

I'm not saying tailgating is safe, but I have never once heard someone like a road safety minister talking about how dangerous it is on TV or in a newspaper article.
They only talk about speeding and sometimes drink driving. Pretty much the 2 easiest laws to enforce.

Get more cops on the road and improve safety in all aspects, not just speed.

Also train people properly and give them more knowledge.

I have been the passenger in a few cars where the driver was following a car by about 1 second. When I made a comment about it they said. "Nah this is not very close, I could stop in time if need be"

I always leave safe gaps in traffic, especially when some idiot is tailgating me. Its frustrating because you forever have ******* cutting in front of you just because you leave enough room to fit a car. They think its a reserved space for them. Then I have to slow down even more to create another safe gap.

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by Ben73

Can you imagine if they found an easy and cost affect way to police tailgaters from the back of a Ford Territory

from what i have heard, they have cameras on the autobahn to check distances. they do not seem to mind the speed so much, but they clamp down on the more dangerous things. i guess that these would not generate as much income as speed cameras, so that is why they have not done it yet

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by sudszy

The issue in this thread isnt whether its a 1-2km/h tolerance but a review of all issues with the deployment of cameras in general?

Anyway, I think we have been there before, there are no stickers on anyone's speedo telling them how accurate they are, but who have you asked the average person in the street whether they think the reading on the dial gives them the exact speed to the nearest km/h, cmon only a frigging idiot would think that in a 25 year old car.

The sensible thing to do would be to go 10% below the limit if you are in a car that old, until you are certain as to how the reading relates to the real speed. People doing 10% lower than the speed limit would cause speed discrepancy flow problems? well it would be less a problem than we have now where some people actually drive 10% below the limit(taking the 60km/h limit for what it means) and some drive 10% above because they know they can get away with it!

Show me where I referred to 25 year old cars, you can't because I did not. I was referring to a 5 year old car which is 2 km/h out at 100, my 4 year old Mini is 4 km/h out at 100. I have a work colleague, not a car enthusiast by any stretch of the imagination that owns a Hyundai Santa Fe, he was booked for 9 km/h by a speed camera in a 100 zone. He swore that he was not speeding as he is very careful about it. We checked his speedo using a GPS unit and his speedo is in fact showing 10 km/h less than his actual road speed. The vehicle is salary packaged, well serviced and only 3 years old. He is still fighting with Hyundai to have it fixed, they claim it is within tolerances. Perhaps you need to talk to the general public more, many have no idea that speedos are not accurate, tyre condition and tyre pressure can affect speedo readings.

So it keeps being said on this forum, but evidence that people are having accidents based on this claim is non existent.

Much like any form of clear evidence that speed cameras have ever done anything to improve road safety?

Is looking in your three rear view mirrors every 20 secs or so been deemed to be distracting and causing accidents, how could just a peripheral glance at a speedo that is right in front of you so distracting, yes, its nonsense.

2 seconds in each mirror every 20 seconds is at least 12 seconds every minute, plus a 2 second speed check every 20 seconds as well, there is another 4 seconds. That is 16 seconds every minute with eyes off the road, or at 100 km/h it is 444.448m out of every 1666m that your eyes are not on the road. Now do you do the speed check immediately after the mirror check? If so that is 8 seconds of no eyes on the road, at 60 km/h (the speed at which there may be driveways, intersections and kids etc) that is 133.3336m covered. A lot can happen in that distance, the more people are scared they will drift over the limit the more they will look at the speedo, each 2 second glance results in 33.333m covered.

You do understand that even a 5% gradient will increase the stopping dist of a car by 10%(the effect gets exponentially worse when it gets steeper), and you want to allow the cars to be going faster when going downhill?

Thanks for that, I had no idea! So a responsible motorist is driving along at just below the speed limit (80 km/h) and starts on a 5 degree downward slope (which is actually quite a downhill). He feels the car speed up so he checks his speed and touches the brake, 2 seconds eyes off the road. Foot comes off the brake and the car picks up pace again, eyes down for 2 secs and he touches the brake. This process occurs the third time so his eyes are off the road and on the speedo a third time. The only problem with this speedo check is before it there was a car waiting to turn right through the intersection 100 m ahead, while he was checking the speedo he missed seeing the fool turn in front of him. Now because his eyes were off the road, he has travelled 44.444m closer before he sees it, add another 1/2 second reaction time and he is now 11.111m closer. The total is now 55.555m closer before the brakes are applied. The braking distance of the average car at 80 km/h is about 54m. Now if the distance is a full 100m before he looks down at the speedo, it is a crash but only a light touch, make the distance 50m that he looks down at and you have a serious crash with one car getting t boned at near on 80 km/h because he only sees the car 5m before he hits it.

Please do not try to tell me that intersection can not occur, it is 500m up the road from my house. Also don't try and tell me that the presence of fear of speed cameras can not exist, it does. I am tipping within 5 years there will be a redlight/speed camera at that particular intersection so people are likely to go though the intersection looking at their speedos, they already do as there is often a speed camera (mobile) just after that iintersection.

Thats about as absurd as allowing 5km/h higher speeds when it is raining!
If people are so unaware of their surroundings that they cant recognise a slope that causes their car to speed up, then the quicker they are put off the road the better.

That perception of the vehicle speeding up is what leads to more looking at the speedo, leading to the problem I have outlined.

I notice you have still not provided any evidence that speed cameras improve safety, when are you going to admit you can't? I also notice you have not mentioned my reference to HUD, do you ever have anything positive to say?

Public distaste, media beatup! my experience is its just a very vocal minority, typically getting a good run on shows like ACA and TT, where they stick a camera in the face of someone who will say what is good for the ratings. They also think its good giving us stories on those poor people that get fined by Govco parking in no parking zones etc!

Then you need to get out more and talk to real people. One of the pleasures in my job is that I get to talk to people every day. I rarely meet anyone that likes the idea of reduced speed tolerance on speed cameras, and these are people from all shapes, sizes and ages. It is amazing what people talk about whilst ramped for 3 hrs in an ambulance. By the way, I do not watch ACA, TT or listen to the radio so how would I know?

[Ben73]

We need Rep points back for posts like the one above by Gecko.