Proof QLD Speed Cameras are Revenue Raising..

[csv8]

THE Pacific Motorway at Tugun is Queensland's top money-making road, generating more than $1.35 million a month in speeding fines or more than $1800 an hour.

Statistics provided by the Queensland Police Service show mobile speed cameras on the motorway snapped almost 8000 offenders in March - more than any other location.

The next worst stretch for speeding was Gympie Rd at Kedron, where 5506 leadfoots were nabbed, followed by Old Cleveland Rd at Carina (5328) and the Gateway Motorway at Boondall (5243).

Rounding out the top five was Mount Gravatt-Capalaba Rd at Mount Gravatt, where 4820 motorists, or 155 drivers a day, were photographed in excess of the speed limit in March.

Altogether the five alleged black spots generated almost $5 million in speed camera fines across the month but in the same period, there was only one serious crash recorded at any of the sites.


A police officer broke his leg when he came off his motorcycle on Old Cleveland Rd at Carina on March 23.My comment ; that counts ??? a motorist didn't die. ?


The last fatal crash at any of the speeding hot spots was October 30, 2010 - also on Old Cleveland Rd (Coorparoo) - when a motorcyclist allegedly struck and killed a pedestrian. My comment ; again, that counts ??? a motorist didn't die. ?

Police determine speed camera locations based on a site's five-year crash history, with high-volume traffic areas generally being visited more often by cameras because of their greater number of crashes. Police Minister Neil Roberts said traffic flows, public complaints and other intelligence were also considered.

"The goal of speed enforcement - whether by fixed, covert, mobile or hand-held speed cameras - is to save lives by encouraging motorists to slow down," Mr Roberts said.

But RACQ external relations general manager Paul Turner said the peak motoring body wanted locations to be chosen on the basis of "more recent crash data".

"This would ensure that speed cameras are operated at locations with the highest potential to reduce crashes, and based on the most recent crash data available," Mr Turner said.

"Some sites have been approved a number of years ago."

Opposition police spokesman John-Paul Langbroek said it was obvious the "original reason for introducing speed cameras, which was safety, had been overtaken by the Labor Government's desperate need for cash".

"These are the sorts of things that should be analysed and scrutinised," he said.

"If the behaviour of motorists has been modified by the cameras, (the location) should be subject to review."

Mr Roberts said excessive speed contributed to about one quarter of deaths on Queensland roads each year and the message was simple.

"Drive at or below the speed limit and you will avoid a fine and quite possibly save your life," he said.

My comment : I have nothing against speed cameras..as long as used as originally intended..But time and time again, its shown not to be the case.
For FF members who keep saying " don't speed, you won't be fined" its not that simple..many factors come into play.

[Tobey]

Hmm, I'm not for them, but were these accidents that didnt happen whilst the cameras were in operation or before? If whilst in operation, wouldnt that prove they are working?

[FTE72]

There may be a death at the Boondall site one day.
They like to put it in the median strip getting southbounders during northbound peak hour, and makes the crawl twice as bad.
Pure Genius.

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by Tobey

Hmm, I'm not for them, but were these accidents that didnt happen whilst the cameras were in operation or before? If whilst in operation, wouldnt that prove they are working?

LOL exactly what I was thinking.

[irish2]

Originally Posted by Tobey

Hmm, I'm not for them, but were these accidents that didnt happen whilst the cameras were in operation or before? If whilst in operation, wouldnt that prove they are working?

No. The data proves there are lots of people caught speeding at these 5 locations. The accident list totaled 1 crash bY a police officer. Does that not then prove that speeding isn't as bigger threat as portrayed, or that the speed limits are too low?

[Scott]

Originally Posted by irish2

No. The data proves there are lots of people caught speeding at these 5 locations. The accident list totaled 1 crash bY a police officer. Does that not then prove that speeding isn't as bigger threat as portrayed, or that the speed limits are too low?

Got it in one.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by irish2

No. The data proves there are lots of people caught speeding at these 5 locations. The accident list totaled 1 crash bY a police officer. Does that not then prove that speeding isn't as bigger threat as portrayed, or that the speed limits are too low?

Its about as sensible as saying that since no drunk drivers crashed their cars on the princess highway in the last year then we should allow drunk driving on that road, and only make it illegal where there have been crashes due to drunks losing control.

Whilst some will contest that drinking and speeding are two different things, in this context they are not, and there will be some that will drivel on about how they'd feel safer in a car with a speeding driver than a drunk driver(please dont bother)

Increasing speed increases your risk of incident, so does increases alcohol content. We have set lines in the sand for both.

[LOW_NL]

Whilst some will contest that drinking and speeding are two different things, in this context they are not, and there will be some that will drivel on about how they'd feel safer in a car with a speeding driver than a drunk driver(please dont bother)

Increasing speed increases your risk of incident, so does increases alcohol content. We have set lines in the sand for both.[/QUOTE]


well they are to different things, how come in Germany there freeways/highways/motorways have a open speed limit but they have less crashes on those stretches, i would much prefer to be in a car where somebody is 10kph over the limit rather than somebody that is 10 pints over the limit.
im not saying speeding is ok and do 200kph down the road but dam speeding is not even in the same category as a drunk driver, just my 2 cents, so here we go

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by LOW_NL

well they are to different things, how come in Germany there freeways/highways/motorways have a open speed limit but they have less crashes on those stretches,

Less crashes? fatalities per km, or per car travelled, compared to?
You ought to check the data, complete myth

Originally Posted by LOW_NL

i would much prefer to be in a car where somebody is 10kph over the........

as I suggested, completely irrelevant to the context. What is relevant, increasing speed and alcohol have a near exponential relationship in the risk of your chances of being involved in an incident.

[EgoFG]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Increasing speed increases your risk of incident

This has not been proven except in the extreme.

[Ben73]

Of course speed cameras are set up in locations to bring in the most money.
I passed through an intersection almost everyday for over 15 years. I witnessed about 4 fender benders and 1 person hit by a car. (BTW the car was doing about 20km/h when it hit them) Recently a speed/red light camera was installed at this location.

Another intersection near my house I have been passing through almost everyday for 5 years. I have seen a few fender benders and about 3 major crashes with ambulance, police and fire all attending.

Now by simple observation you can probably figure out the latter seams to be more dangerous intersection.
But why is the first one the one with the new safety camera while the second one has had nothing changed about it during the past 5 years.

Originally Posted by sudszy

Increasing speed increases your risk of incident,

In some situations yes. But I bet you are more likely to be killed by doing 10km/h down the freeway then doing 110km/h.

[irish2]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Its about as sensible as saying that since no drunk drivers crashed their cars on the princess highway in the last year then we should allow drunk driving on that road, and only make it illegal where there have been crashes due to drunks losing control.

Whilst some will contest that drinking and speeding are two different things, in this context they are not, and there will be some that will drivel on about how they'd feel safer in a car with a speeding driver than a drunk driver(please dont bother)

Increasing speed increases your risk of incident, so does increases alcohol content. We have set lines in the sand for both.

Nobody says that speeding does not increase your risk. Sometimes it is riskier to be doing the speed limit and nodding off in pure boredom as the K's tick by. Modern cars are much more detached from the outside world, so unless you are really watching your speedo you can easily drift 10-20k's over the limit.

The fact that the limit was set on that piece of road 60 years ago when cars had bicycle tyres and drum brakes should also be a point of concern. many Australians cover long distances on highways in their daily commute to work each day. Talking to many of my co-workers, most have drifted off to sleep at some time behind the wheel. I notice a lot of the old 'driver reviver' sites are no longer in operation. Most also agree that sitting 20k's over the limit on empty pieces of road with good visibility is great for their alertness.

[ray38l]

The problem is is that their not reviewing previous camera locations. Fair enough there hasn't been many deaths since the camera went in, but is that the only contributing factor? Maybe there is less traffic on that stretch of road due to a new bypass. Maybe they improved the road.
Unfortunately once a camera is installed its there forever regardless of whether its still affective or needed.
This thread won't last long once sudszy finds it.

[2011G6E]

"There are no accidents there because the cameras are obviously stopping the accidents"

That's the exact same reasoning that can be used for those rediculous electronic "Shoo Roo" and little plastic whistle anti-kangaroo devices that have been repeatedly proven to do nothing in controlled tests.
People who swear by them say "I haven't hit a roo since I put it on!", but when you push and say "How many did you hit before?"..."well, none but you can't be too careful..."
I've been driving since 1982, and haven't hit a roo. had a few close calls, as have most people, but no hits. If I fitted one tomorrow, and continued on for another twenty-plus years and didn't hit a roo, what would I attribute that to? The expensive device, or just continued good luck?
If it's luck, then why spend lots of money just on the off-chance that it might do something?

As with cameras...why put them on stretches of road where there is no real history of serious accidents at great expense, then come along later and smugly say "Well there's been no accidents there".

The sad part is that it's logic that's hard to argue against, given that accidents are so impossible to predict.

[UNR8D]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

"There are no accidents there because the cameras are obviously stopping the accidents"

That's the exact same reasoning that can be used for those rediculous electronic "Shoo Roo" and little plastic whistle anti-kangaroo devices that have been repeatedly proven to do nothing in controlled tests.
People who swear by them say "I haven't hit a roo since I put it on!", but when you push and say "How many did you hit before?"..."well, none but you can't be too careful..."
I've been driving since 1982, and haven't hit a roo. had a few close calls, as have most people, but no hits. If I fitted one tomorrow, and continued on for another twenty-plus years and didn't hit a roo, what would I attribute that to? The expensive device, or just continued good luck?
If it's luck, then why spend lots of money just on the off-chance that it might do something?

As with cameras...why put them on stretches of road where there is no real history of serious accidents at great expense, then come along later and smugly say "Well there's been no accidents there".

The sad part is that it's logic that's hard to argue against, given that accidents are so impossible to predict.

Quoted for TRUTH!

[csv8]

Why? doesn't Sudszy like honest opinions ??
Gateway Motorway..last fatal crash-Nov 11 2009 in nearby Nudgee.
Old Cleveland Rd. Carina..last fatal crash-Oct 30 2010.
Mt Gravatt-Capalaba Rd..Mt Gravatt..last fatal crash..NONE.
Pacific Motorway..Tugun..last fatal crash-June 23 2008.
Gympie Rd ,Kedron..last fatal crash..Jan 13 2009.
They are real accident spots!!!
Going on these figures, with QPols mantra "everyk over is a killer" Q road toll should be way past 2000 killed on our roads.
I cann't stand political BS to justify revenue raisi...don't get me started on the Carbon Tax..BS.

[MAD]

Where's the crash 'history' for the cameras installed on Melbourne's Eatlink tollway? They were installed as it was being built.

[2011G6E]

It's not like you are measuring a repeatable, measureable phenomenon either. It isn't something that will happen on a regular enough basis...and even if it does at one particular spot, the absolute most you can say is that the road itself is probably to blame, not the drivers.

This is because of the simply vast differences between any given variables in the equation...old cars? New cars? Young drivers? Old drivers? Can they drive well in the wet, or dry, or hot, or cold conditions? How long have thye held thier licence? Is the car in good condition or bad? Are their tyres quality ones or cheap retreads? Do they have the stereo on or not? Are they alone or not?
The list could, literally, go on for pages.
If you asked a scientist to measure something like this, he would ask which are the fixed and which are the variable things involved. If the variables were just too, well, variable, then he would probably say that no truly accurate figures can be given. If you really pushed him for a result, then the only thing he would concentrate on is the fixed items that can be accurately assessed and measured. And that's the road...not the infinitely variable human drivers...

far easier to say "There's been a couple of accidents here...must be the drivers...let's put in cameras...that'll fix it without having to worry ourselves about driver training or actually pulling over drivers with a human police officer and checking thier licences, cars, and whether they've bee drinking or not...more profitable too..."

[mytgxl]

Originally Posted by MAD

Where's the crash 'history' for the cameras installed on Melbourne's Eatlink tollway? They were installed as it was being built.

Well done end of argument for me ! That comment throws out all the BS about safety right on the spot! If everyone that got caught speeding took their case to court imagen how long it would take to be heard! Perhaps that is the answer to the problem, tie the courts up!

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by 1 bad ef

Well done end of argument for me ! That comment throws out all the BS about safety right on the spot! If everyone that got caught speeding took their case to court imagen how long it would take to be heard! Perhaps that is the answer to the problem, tie the courts up!

I did make comment on this limited view previously

Originally Posted by sudszy

It would make sense to install cameras in locations where there have been numerous collisions, however, many accident/fatality locations and crashes are once only locations, making decisions only based on previous history as the RACQ suggests is taking a reactive approach - closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

We do want our authorities to be pro-active,(not just waiting before someone is killed before enacting measures and or legislation etc) and actually monitor areas which can be predicted to find driver's doing the wrong thing in large numbers...(seeing how fast their cars go on new freeways etc).

So far no-one has made any attempt to refute the logic of this, want to have a go, other than "cameras are bs" or the personal insults route?

[prydey]

why is everyone so against speed cameras? don't speed, don't get caught, its very simple. drive at a speed where regardless of the terrain, you will never go beyond the limit. if nobody sped, there would be no crashes. everyone wins.

some people may not agree with the positioning of some camera's or radars but its all about creating a 'anytime, anywhere' attitude.

[mytgxl]

Originally Posted by prydey

why is everyone so against speed cameras? don't speed, don't get caught, its very simple. drive at a speed where regardless of the terrain, you will never go beyond the limit. if nobody sped, there would be no crashes. everyone wins.

some people may not agree with the positioning of some camera's or radars but its all about creating a 'anytime, anywhere' attitude.

Because they were brought in under the pretense of safety! & where does all the money go! into state revenue not into making the road more safer! With all the different speeds around you are constantly taking your eyes off the road & looking at the speedo, instead of looking at the road like you are supose to!

As for no more speeding no more crashes, I don`t think so ,as there will be somebody always falling asleep at the wheel, misjudging traffic conditions,taking eyes of the road ect.

A anytime, anywhere is not acheived by a standing speed camera but you put more police presents on the road & that will, & they will pull over other unsafe drivers that contribute to speed or wreckless driving or unroadworthy cars etc! which also cuts down on more accidents.
Then you cannot complain about revenue raising!

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by prydey

why is everyone so against speed cameras? don't speed, don't get caught, its very simple. drive at a speed where regardless of the terrain, you will never go beyond the limit. if nobody sped, there would be no crashes. everyone wins.

some people may not agree with the positioning of some camera's or radars but its all about creating a 'anytime, anywhere' attitude.

If nobody sped there would be no crashes???? LOL If you are being serious I feel sorry for you.

I have been involved in 2 crashes, neither were my fault and both were well below the posted speed limit.



Do you know what else could use the scare tactic of 'anywhere, anytime'.............. Regular police patrols.
But hey that would only benefit the community and the roads. We cant have that, we need to make money off speed cameras instead.

[EgoFG]

Originally Posted by sudszy

It would make sense to install cameras in locations where there have been numerous collisions, however, many accident/fatality locations and crashes are once only locations, making decisions only based on previous history as the RACQ suggests is taking a reactive approach - closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

We do want our authorities to be pro-active,(not just waiting before someone is killed before enacting measures and or legislation etc) and actually monitor areas which can be predicted to find driver's doing the wrong thing in large numbers...(seeing how fast their cars go on new freeways etc).

OK, someone had better accept the invite.

Well publicised speed cameras will slow down the traffic (often to 20% below the speed limit), stealth ones will not slow down someone who rarely uses the road.
They drive slower, but not more safely.

A visible police presence on the road will cause people to obey laws other than speeding, the reputation of a police presence will do that even better.
Very very few accidents are caused by speed - there is always another primary causal factor - which is usually against a law.

Lets enforce the laws that actually cause the accidents.

[GTP owner]

Originally Posted by sudszy

I did make comment on this limited view previously


So far no-one has made any attempt to refute the logic of this, want to have a go, other than "cameras are bs" or the personal insults route?

Easy enough to refute: If accidents/crashes are highly variable in location, how does a fixed camera go anywhere near remedying this?
And further, when you state that they are placed where large numbers of people are "speeding" (eg the tunnel example), you would have to correlate this with high numbers of crashes/injuries, otherwise the speed limit is arbitrarily too low. Hence the public perception that they are revenue raisers.

[ray38l]

Originally Posted by sudszy

I did make comment on this limited view previously


So far no-one has made any attempt to refute the logic of this, want to have a go, other than "cameras are bs" or the personal insults route?

because it is hard to refute. But it still doesn't make it right.
Maybe im a sceptic but it seems weird that they are being proactive about something that makes them money.
What about the highways that are unsafe? If they are so keen on trying to prevent accidents they would fix those roads. Oh but that would cost money. The only time governments start talking about fixing up dangerous roads is when people start making noise about it. Seems pretty reactive to me. There is no reason for a speed camera to be installed on a road that the public haven't even driven on yet.

[bingoTE50]

Waiting for usual protaganists on this one ......

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by csv8

THE Pacific Motorway at Tugun is Queensland's top money-making road, generating more than $1.35 million a month in speeding fines or more than $1800 an hour

You are right, this one in particular raises a lot of money, perhaps you can come up with another figure, like how much does it cost to keep your police force on the road per hour?

Originally Posted by csv8

For FF members who keep saying " don't speed, you won't be fined" its not that simple..many factors come into play.

Not that "dont speed, you won't be fined" has ever been my line, but yes it is that simple, you cant legitimately be fined if you dont speed, there are no other factors to consider,

Originally Posted by csv8

But RACQ external relations general manager Paul Turner said the peak motoring body wanted locations to be chosen on the basis of "more recent crash data".

"This would ensure that speed cameras are operated at locations with the highest potential to reduce crashes, and based on the most recent crash data available," Mr Turner said.

"Some sites have been approved a number of years ago."

It would make sense to install cameras in locations where there have been numerous collisions, however, many accident/fatality locations and crashes are once only locations, making decisions only based on previous history as the RACQ suggests is taking a reactive approach - closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

We do want our authorities to be pro-active,(not just waiting before someone is killed before enacting measures and or legislation etc) and actually monitor areas which can be predicted to find driver's doing the wrong thing in large numbers...(seeing how fast their cars go on new freeways etc).

The exact cause of every accident is not speed, but speed is one variable that we can monitor very easily and if the reality becomes that driver's can be detected speeding anywhere at any time, then we'll have less black spots to be mapping out.

Personally, Id like to see more cameras in the middle of obscure locations in the middle of the night, but realise there are only so many to go around.

[rancidpunx]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Not that "dont speed, you won't be fined" has ever been my line, but yes it is that simple, you cant legitimately be fined if you dont speed, there are no other factors to consider,

lol head in the sand there. Faulty incorrectly calibrated equipment has never pinged innocent do gooders.
Incorrect operation has never returned a huge speed and a fine been issued because of it.

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by rancidpunx

lol head in the sand there. Faulty incorrectly calibrated equipment has never pinged innocent do gooders.
Incorrect operation has never returned a huge speed and a fine been issued because of it.

Yes indeed...it's been said before (by me for one, but I've seen it repeatedly elsewhere), that the speed camera, Lidar, and hand held Radar are the only measuring instrument anywhere in the world which we are assured is absolutely, 100%, completely infallible and unfailingly accurate. Trust us...

I've worked with some extremely expensive and super-finely calibrated scientific equipment in various laboratories, but even the most expensive always comes with a calibration certificate with a "plus or minus" error allowance that must be factored in. Sometimes you'd be surprised how large that factor is. The best glass thermometers we used to get had a plus or minus of 0.02 degrees C, ordinary glass ones were up to half a degree, and even the electronic ones were usually plus or minus 0.02. The finer the error margin you had to allow for, the price would jump dramatically.

Are they honestly telling us that these speed measuring devices never ever ever register the wrong speed?

In a lab, you have carefully controlled conditions, with a set temperature usually and vibration isolated benches for finer measurements.
Given the varying elements and harsh conditions that a speed camera is exposed to, I'm surprised they manage to give the same reading twice...

...assuming they do...I mean, when a fine turns up two weeks later, who remembers exactly what they were doing at that moment? It's a bit like asking someone: "so what did you have for breakfast two weeks ago on tuesday, exaclty, down to the precise portion sizes?"...