Councils Want to Use Speed Cameras!!!!!!

[csv8]

ROCKHAMPTON Regional councillor Glenda Mather has slammed a colleague's call for local government to be given speed camera enforcement powers, saying he has “lost the plot”.

Cr Greg Belz this week backed a suggestion to give council the ability to fine speeding motorists, made in the draft National Road Safety Strategy to be reviewed later this month.

Cr Belz told The Bully he believed it would help to reduce the number of speedsters on suburban streets.

But Cr Mather said she was tired of the responsibilities of State and Federal governments being passed down to local level.

“If the State Government cannot, or will not provide adequate resources for the police to monitor speedsters then Cr Belz should be encouraged to aim his criticisms at the state,” Cr Mather said.

“His ill-thought-out idea would only cause additional burden for ratepayers, when we already have enough evidence of the state devolving many of its responsibilities to local councils, causing unnecessary increases in rates and charges.”

She said council had enough difficulty in controlling the wandering dog problem as it was, and said to suggest it take on the speedsters as well was almost laughable.

“If Cr Belz is so concerned about road safety in suburbia, then why hasn't he brought the ‘hot spots' to the table for referral to the police for action?” Cr Mather asked.

“And if he has a complaint about the police not doing their job, has he referred that complaint to the police minister for action?”

She said the initiative would only lead to extra problems and more costs for an already overburdened council.

“To suggest a role of this nature be imposed on council staff, would mean additional legal training, additional equipment, installation and regular maintenance and calibrating, administration office, processing of offences, reports to council, and on it goes.”

“I would be very happy to work with Cr Belz in finding a solution to speedsters, but let's not keep burdening the ratepayers.”

Cr Belz said the most important thing was to approach the matter with an open mind and to listen to the thoughts of the community.

He said he had worked with council officers in his division to record traffic speeds and data and, where prudent, had referred this data to police.

“When I have brought matters to the attention of the police service they have acted promptly to undertake speed enforcement activities in the area,” Cr Belz said.

“Common sense says that police cannot be everywhere.”

My Comment : further proof they are nothing more than revenue rasiers.

[Road_Warrior]

Local government cannot be trusted to use speed cameras in an open and accountable manner. Nor can they be relied upon for procedural fairness when people want to appeal/object etc. There are too many variables, too many Councils, too many avenues to screw people over. Leave it at a state and territory level.

I would also suggest there are some constitutional impediments to this stupid idea.

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Local government cannot be trusted to use speed cameras in an open and accountable manner. Nor can they be relied upon for procedural fairness when people want to appeal/object etc. There are too many variables, too many Councils, too many avenues to screw people over. Leave it at a state and territory level.

I would also suggest there are some constitutional impediments to this stupid idea.

The impediement is that the council isnt recognised in the constitution... They tried a referendum about 16yrs ago? And it failed....
The "State" gives power to councils, however a council can NOT by law make a law which overrides the state or is more stringent then the sate.

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

The impediement is that the council isnt recognised in the constitution... They tried a referendum about 16yrs ago? And it failed....
The "State" gives power to councils, however a council can NOT by law make a law which overrides the state or is more stringent then the sate.

Correct. The 1988 referendum to recognise local government in the Commonwealth Constitution failed. Consequently the status quo remains and the States (and Territories) are free to legislate for those residual powers (like local government) as they see fit. Local governments cannot make a decision or enact a local law that conflicts with state law.

There is a renewed push from local government at the moment to have another referendum to amend the Constitution to recognise local government as our legitimate third tier of government. The premise behind this is so that local governments can access federal government funding directly instead of dealing with the state governments. Noble intent, but the rest of the ramifications could be quite difficult, particularly for ratepayers of a Council area where the Council is dysfunctional and needs to be sacked.

As you can tell, I know just a little bit about this subject...

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Correct. The 1988 referendum to recognise local government in the Commonwealth Constitution failed. Consequently the status quo remains and the States (and Territories) are free to legislate for those residual powers (like local government) as they see fit. Local governments cannot make a decision or enact a local law that conflicts with state law.

There is a renewed push from local government at the moment to have another referendum to amend the Constitution to recognise local government as our legitimate third tier of government. The premise behind this is so that local governments can access federal government funding directly instead of dealing with the state governments. Noble intent, but the rest of the ramifications could be quite difficult, particularly for ratepayers of a Council area where the Council is dysfunctional and needs to be sacked.

As you can tell, I know just a little bit about this subject...

Glad to hear it!! Not to many people seem to know about the push being made by the local government association to get them recognised in the constitution. If another referendum is held i know which way i will be voting!

Councils already run rough shot with their residents (most of it bluffing their way as people get too scared with threats of court etc).

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Correct. The 1988 referendum to recognise local government in the Commonwealth Constitution failed. Consequently the status quo remains and the States (and Territories) are free to legislate for those residual powers (like local government) as they see fit. Local governments cannot make a decision or enact a local law that conflicts with state law.

There is a renewed push from local government at the moment to have another referendum to amend the Constitution to recognise local government as our legitimate third tier of government.

And this new push will fail. Must.

[SB076]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Correct. The 1988 referendum to recognise local government in the Commonwealth Constitution failed. Consequently the status quo remains and the States (and Territories) are free to legislate for those residual powers (like local government) as they see fit. Local governments cannot make a decision or enact a local law that conflicts with state law.

There is a renewed push from local government at the moment to have another referendum to amend the Constitution to recognise local government as our legitimate third tier of government. The premise behind this is so that local governments can access federal government funding directly instead of dealing with the state governments. Noble intent, but the rest of the ramifications could be quite difficult, particularly for ratepayers of a Council area where the Council is dysfunctional and needs to be sacked.

As you can tell, I know just a little bit about this subject...

Councils need less power not more, personally I think we are over governed as it is.

As for cameras they are there for revenue purposes only. If they were genuine they would rip them all out put them in know black spot/high danger areas and sign post them to slow drivers down. As opposed to the current method of placement which is a location that will generate the highest dollar return.

[aussie muscle]

Originally Posted by SB076

Councils need less power not more, personally I think we are over governed as it is.

so why not get rid of the entire state government instead? we need a local governing body, and much of state's jobs could (and often are) done by federal.

[bungarra]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Local government cannot be trusted to use speed cameras in an open and accountable manner. Nor can they be relied upon for procedural fairness when people want to appeal/object etc. There are too many variables, too many Councils, too many avenues to screw people over. Leave it at a state and territory level.

I would also suggest there are some constitutional impediments to this stupid idea.

The council Rangers in Wa at least are in state legislation as they have been since before th eWA police was formed. They local councils were resposnible for the old RTA in WA until the state government realised how much money was to be made then pushed the RTA into WAPOL.

They could use radar now. They is a law in WA council by laws for "Actions contrary to signage", $100 fine, that is what they were going to use here but the councillors on the three councils that were going to do that, backed down when the locals got upset!!

[GTpilot]

If it stops them putting speed humps in back streets, then I'm all for it.

[bf 40turbo]

dont speed wont get caught simple as that really

[flappist]

Originally Posted by bf 40turbo

dont speed wont get caught simple as that really

Oh no, yet another expert.....

[bf 40turbo]

Originally Posted by flappist

Oh no, yet another expert.....

break it down for me then ????

[blownv8au]

this council is losing the plot, the sooner we get an election the better. The worst we have ever had a now they try this crap just a money grab.
They better fix all the bloody potholes first then they might get a few.

[Seduce XR6]

Originally Posted by bf 40turbo

break it down for me then ????

How about I try

People like you say "Dont speed" like that is the answer to everything regarding speed cameras & then placement of them etc etc...

But its not

I am not a speeder, I used to be when I was young however now I am happy to sit on 60 on main town roads, OH BUT WAIT I cant as many town link roads in my area which used to be 80 & then 60 are now 50.

Ok sure I can try my best to sit on 50 which for so many years were 80 or 60 however it is hard to remember when your in a town you grew up in & driving on roads you have been driving on for 30 years.

Plus my car seems to like 60 much better than 50 as it seems to be hunting for gears or to put it another way is almost changed from a lower gear to the next higher one at 50 so revs are higher & it feels very touchy to the throttle & is very easy to gain 5 or 10 k's unless your watching the speedo all the time but I think its safer to watch the road.

If you match your car to the vehicles in front of you & watch the road they may be doing 60 & again you may get booked by some dam dopey council camera lol

If you roll a bit down a hill, OOPS OVER AGAIN!

Or if your in the right lane & need to get into the left but the only gap you can see is in front of the vehicle beside you so you tickle the throttle to get past so you can come across & oops another camera & your done once again for being a little over for a short time.

So maybe your solution is not so simple for many, if these cameras were in known blackspots or known hoon areas sure that is 1 thing however they are more often than not in areas where the road is straight, has dual lanes or more & even where you have a slight downhill.

It is all revenue raising pure & simple & for that reason I dont agree with them.

Set them to only detect people 10 or more k's over & maybe I would see some sense in them.

I mean the way it is going everyone will be in a KIA rio type of car & watching the speedo & not the road.

Rant over & out

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Seduce XR6

If you roll a bit down a hill, OOPS OVER AGAIN!

If you are not paying sufficient attention to realise that you are going down hill or cant recognise a road going down hill, then either get some devices fitted to your car that tell you or stop driving.

It is interesting though how most people manage to prod the loud pedal down a bit further to maintain speed going uphill.

[FalconXR6]

Originally Posted by bf 40turbo

dont speed wont get caught simple as that really

great post !

watch your speedo like a hawk and you wont get caught !

great advice...

although you may not notice the child who is about to run out on the road in front of you becuase you are keeping a close eye on your speed - at least your only doing 50 which means when you hit them, you limit the damage...

A-class post buddy ! A gold star AND an elephant stamp for you !

[bf 40turbo]

Originally Posted by FalconXR6

great post !

watch your speedo like a hawk and you wont get caught !

great advice...

although you may not notice the child who is about to run out on the road in front of you becuase you are keeping a close eye on your speed - at least your only doing 50 which means when you hit them, you limit the damage...

A-class post buddy ! A gold star AND an elephant stamp for you !

how do you not suffocate at night ?? seriously if maintaining a steady speed is so hard maybe driving isnt your thing hey, dunno how you passed your test? stick too the push bike in future if you are having too much trouble

big yellow stack hat licence to you buddy !

[Seduce XR6]

Originally Posted by bf 40turbo

how do you not suffocate at night ?? seriously if maintaining a steady speed is so hard maybe driving isnt your thing hey, dunno how you passed your test? stick too the push bike in future if you are having too much trouble

big yellow stack hat licence to you buddy !

[FalconXR6]

Originally Posted by bf 40turbo

how do you not suffocate at night ?? seriously if maintaining a steady speed is so hard maybe driving isnt your thing hey, dunno how you passed your test? stick too the push bike in future if you are having too much trouble

big yellow stack hat licence to you buddy !

and if strictly maintaining a steady speed is so important to you that it seems to be the be all and end all of your arguement, maybe driving isn't for YOU !

tell me this; posted speed limit says "80" (let's say that this section of road had a previous speed limit of 100 for the previous 30 years). For some reason you are THE worlds best driver and can maintain a speed of exactly 72km while travelling over inclines and declines.
The reason you are travelling at 72km is so that you allow for the 10% tolerance built into speedometers as per ADR's so that you don't get caught travelling over the posted speed limit of 80 because you believe that maintaining a constant speed is critical to not being caught speeding as speeding is clearly unsafe.
As a result of your safe driving, there are 8 cars following you, with more approaching - all congested.
What do YOU do in this situation ?

I would appreciate your honest, serious answer please.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by FalconXR6

and if strictly maintaining a steady speed is so important to you that it seems to be the be all and end all of your arguement, maybe driving isn't for YOU !

tell me this; posted speed limit says "80" (let's say that this section of road had a previous speed limit of 100 for the previous 30 years). For some reason you are THE worlds best driver and can maintain a speed of exactly 72km while travelling over inclines and declines.
The reason you are travelling at 72km is so that you allow for the 10% tolerance built into speedometers as per ADR's so that you don't get caught travelling over the posted speed limit of 80 because you believe that maintaining a constant speed is critical to not being caught speeding as speeding is clearly unsafe.
As a result of your safe driving, there are 8 cars following you, with more approaching - all congested.
What do YOU do in this situation ?

I would appreciate your honest, serious answer please.

10% tolerance "built into speedos" as per adrs, no.
The regulation is they are not allowed to overead by more than 10%, not that they have to be out by 10%! the chances of a speedo on a bf overeading by 10%, multiplied by a very conscious law abiding person not realising it........close to zero Id of thought.

and what is your argument? that the drivers following at 72km/h wont be able to get past and therefore will then perform suicidal overtaking maneouvres?

Surely all you are not suggesting that there are people out there that are incapable of driving at 10% below the posted limit even when they know that there is all these thousands of vehicles with speedos that overead by 10%, your argument surely should be to remove these impatient sods?(we can test for that sort of underdeveloped brain very easily), but hangon, the road was once rated to 100km/h, should be plenty of opportunity even for these suicidal maniacs to overtake at 80km/h.

[Brendo_GSUte]

Originally Posted by FalconXR6

and if strictly maintaining a steady speed is so important to you that it seems to be the be all and end all of your arguement, maybe driving isn't for YOU !

tell me this; posted speed limit says "80" (let's say that this section of road had a previous speed limit of 100 for the previous 30 years). For some reason you are THE worlds best driver and can maintain a speed of exactly 72km while travelling over inclines and declines.
The reason you are travelling at 72km is so that you allow for the 10% tolerance built into speedometers as per ADR's so that you don't get caught travelling over the posted speed limit of 80 because you believe that maintaining a constant speed is critical to not being caught speeding as speeding is clearly unsafe.
As a result of your safe driving, there are 8 cars following you, with more approaching - all congested.
What do YOU do in this situation ?

I would appreciate your honest, serious answer please.

Ive been reading this between you two and "bf 40turbo" has the point of if its the speed limit its the bottom line. while breakable its a rule and there so order is maintained if it wasnt you would have people doing 100- 80km/hr round schools and cities etc. Sorry to sound dramatic but it would happen and you know some teen out in mum and dads car would do it.

I think your distain for lowerig of speed limits from previously high vaules to lower comes from the fact that as CBD's and citys grow the traffic around them gets denser and there fore collision probability goes up so the easiest solution is to slow things down. Also people are more inclined to sue so they have a good defense if they show fore thought in a certain situation.

I think what bf 40 is trying to get at is if you choose to speed dont whine when u get caught... or jump to sue next oppertunity.

[bf 40turbo]

Originally Posted by FalconXR6

and if strictly maintaining a steady speed is so important to you that it seems to be the be all and end all of your arguement, maybe driving isn't for YOU !

tell me this; posted speed limit says "80" (let's say that this section of road had a previous speed limit of 100 for the previous 30 years). For some reason you are THE worlds best driver and can maintain a speed of exactly 72km while travelling over inclines and declines.
The reason you are travelling at 72km is so that you allow for the 10% tolerance built into speedometers as per ADR's so that you don't get caught travelling over the posted speed limit of 80 because you believe that maintaining a constant speed is critical to not being caught speeding as speeding is clearly unsafe.
As a result of your safe driving, there are 8 cars following you, with more approaching - all congested.
What do YOU do in this situation ?

I would appreciate your honest, serious answer please.

if i was the worlds best driver i would have my speedo calibrated to be accurate and wouldnt need to drive at 72 id be driving at 80 holding nobody up in the process with all the money i save on speeding fines i can easily afford this

if people behind me are running late i would suggest that they leave earlier and plan their journey a little better to avoid delays

is that a serious enough response for you ??

[chevypower]

I want to own speed cameras too, what a great way to make money. I would make the fines ridiculously high, and I would hide cameras everywhere. We all want money don't we? But they are not a good tool for road safety.

[sgt_doofey]

Sorry, but councils don't enforce the law, the police do. They shouldn't have access to speed cameras otherwise it's just a revenue raising exercise.

[bungarra]

Originally Posted by sgt_doofey

Sorry, but councils don't enforce the law, the police do. They shouldn't have access to speed cameras otherwise it's just a revenue raising exercise.

Hate to burst your bubble, but in WA Rangers are enshrined in legislation as Local Law Enforcement and enforce local laws and can be authorised to enforce state laws.

One council in WA has a very good track record working with WAPOL to the point that a number of officers have moved to the councils suburbs as the rangers will respond faster to an incident and secure it for police faster than the police will do on average.

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by bungarra

Hate to burst your bubble, but in WA Rangers are enshrined in legislation as Local Law Enforcement and enforce local laws and can be authorised to enforce state laws.

One council in WA has a very good track record working with WAPOL to the point that a number of officers have moved to the councils suburbs as the rangers will respond faster to an incident and secure it for police faster than the police will do on average.

No, they are not. Local government exercises the delegated authority of the Crown to conduct certain functions. As part of that delegation, the local government may appoint authorised persons to carry out those functions. Rangers and dog control is an example, however in the context of this argument, the authority to ping people for parking offences and obstructing traffic comes from the local law which in turn must be consistent with the Road Traffic Code an Road Traffic Act. The RTA does not give power to Rangers directly. Rangers are appointed by the local government as authorised persons for the purposes of discharging that delegated authority under legislation, just like Health Inspectors are appointed for certain things under the Health Act (seizing food, etc)

Simple version: the person is not the law; the local government is.

In any event, this idea is retarded.

[bungarra]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

No, they are not. Local government exercises the delegated authority of the Crown to conduct certain functions. As part of that delegation, the local government may appoint authorised persons to carry out those functions. Rangers and dog control is an example, however in the context of this argument, the authority to ping people for parking offences and obstructing traffic comes from the local law which in turn must be consistent with the Road Traffic Code an Road Traffic Act. The RTA does not give power to Rangers directly. Rangers are appointed by the local government as authorised persons for the purposes of discharging that delegated authority under legislation, just like Health Inspectors are appointed for certain things under the Health Act (seizing food, etc)

Simple version: the person is not the law; the local government is.

In any event, this idea is retarded.

No more different than the Police are not the law, just the enforcers as they are authorised by the Commissioner of Police who is empowered by the Police Minister.

The police enact laws which are issued under legislation and yes councils do have the right to monitor speed as Melville City Council is in discussion with WAPOL in regards to training.

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by bungarra

The police enact laws which are issued under legislation and yes councils do have the right to monitor speed as Melville City Council is in discussion with WAPOL in regards to training.

The Police don't enact anything! As much as we'd all like to be cynical and say otherwise, we don't live in a Police State. Parliament passes Bills which then receive the Royal Assent of the Governor to become an enactment of the State.

By rights anyone can "monitor" speed as some Councils put those large roadside electronic sign boards out that tell you what your speed is, however they have no authority under law to enforce speed limits and in my view, never should.

As mentioned earlier, this push by the Australian Local Government Association for Constitutional recognition must fail. The whole premise of making it easier for Councils to access funding directly from the Commonwealth and cutting out the State "middlemen" is just a smokescreen for the real agenda, which is that Councils do not want State governments to keep "interfering" in their affairs by conducting amalgamations and sackings. However this little agenda is not in the public interest.

If anyone is interested, I will keep posting updates here as this sordid little scheme progresses.

[rochey]

its bad enough dodging cops let along the council, i may as well park my car up, since i have no points to loose and. what about the clowns that **** even do the speed limit. where do they get sprung? i have been cought a couple times over taking them and the not even 2 min time sprung for 20k over, yet prier to getting stuck behind the slow @$@$, i was doing 5 to 10 k over,