aca exposition of speed cameras exposed

sudszy · 27-09-2011, 07:34 AM

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/tra...s/s3326211.htm

Russ · 27-09-2011, 08:03 AM

This thread is going to open a can of worms at both ends

Anyway everyone knows that speed cameras are not cash cows, this is what a cash cow looks like

EDManual · 27-09-2011, 08:39 AM

I don't really mind them, as I never get caught by them as I slow down near parked cars (and you should too anyway).

What I dont like is the speed cameras that are hidden behind bridges on freeways. No one car say a freeway camera has saved a life surely? (mostly its not the locals that are caught)

One advantage to safety I see from speed cameras is it keeps you looking around for them (and so may see other things to slow down for too)? Thats all. But thats only good if you do speed as you look at the roads harder for traps. If you dont speed you are going to be looking at your speedo, in which case its not safer to have them.

flappist · 27-09-2011, 08:46 AM

Peer review is one of my favourite expressions.

If a P plater puts spinners and neons on his shopping trolley and someone suggests that it is not such a good look all he has to do is go to the maccas carpark and ask several other P platers who drive shopping trolleys with spinners and neons and if they all agree that it looks fully hektic then his peers have reviewed them and the MUST be a good look as they are now "peer reviewed".

**SSD-85** · 27-09-2011, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

Peer review is one of my favourite expressions.

If a P plater puts spinners and neons on his shopping trolley and someone suggests that it is not such a good look all he has to do is go to the maccas carpark and ask several other P platers who drive shopping trolleys with spinners and neons and if they all agree that it looks fully hektic then his peers have reviewed them and the MUST be a good look as they are now "peer reviewed".

This is why particular demographics love ACA.....

SEZ213 · 27-09-2011, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

Peer review is one of my favourite expressions.

If a P plater puts spinners and neons on his shopping trolley and someone suggests that it is not such a good look all he has to do is go to the maccas carpark and ask several other P platers who drive shopping trolleys with spinners and neons and if they all agree that it looks fully hektic then his peers have reviewed them and the MUST be a good look as they are now "peer reviewed".

That is golden!

The good thing is, given that not everyone thinks the same way, for those peer reviewed articles for the affirmative, you can generally find the same amount of peer reviewed articles for the negative...

steve.zissou · 27-09-2011, 09:54 AM

there are different issues here.

Speed cameras are one issue and the fines the govt get from them are another.

If speed cameras save lives, how about the govt send offenders on a one day driving education course at the Govt's exspense and not fine them. This is fairer becasue you are giving up a days work (effects a lawyer erning 500k the same as a shelf packer earning 30k). And as the govt will be paying for the course, it will only apply it in a reasonable manner.

The issue is the money. Should I be able to follow around any body I like with a speed camera and fine them and keep the money myself every time they speed - of course not - but it would save lives (Politicians would be first on my list).

To be honest, its the same with the carbon tax. Any sollution to a problem that is supposably solved by giving someone/thing money should be met with extreme skeptasism.

Although I do like the idea of implementing a penalty system for politicians , so every time they stuff up and cost us the tax payers more money, they should pay a fine. Oh and and how about drug/Alcohol testing politicians, and having pay structures linked to performance and the same super and tax laws as are applied to the rest of us.

Ben73 · 28-09-2011, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve.zissou

To be honest, its the same with the carbon tax. Any sollution to a problem that is supposably solved by giving someone/thing money should be met with extreme skeptasism.

Although I do like the idea of implementing a penalty system for politicians , so every time they stuff up and cost us the tax payers more money, they should pay a fine. Oh and and how about drug/Alcohol testing politicians, and having pay structures linked to performance and the same super and tax laws as are applied to the rest of us.

That's true.
if the government finds a problem, all the do is look for ways to make money off it.

If Cameras really did change driver behavior, wouldn't the amount of income from cameras drop each year and no one would be fined more then once?

prydey · 28-09-2011, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben73

If Cameras really did change driver behavior, wouldn't the amount of income from cameras drop each year and no one would be fined more then once?

oh come now, no room for that sort of logic.

if the cameras aren't working, it just means there isn't enough of them.

joolz · 29-09-2011, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prydey

oh come now, no room for that sort of logic.

if the cameras aren't working, it just means there isn't enough of them.

Or just reduce the speed limit further...

gtxb67 · 28-09-2011, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben73

If Cameras really did change driver behavior, wouldn't the amount of income from cameras drop each year and no one would be fined more then once?

they have changed driver behaviour, but not in a good way

that is why everyone was under the limit when aca produced their excellent piece of journalism. if they did it 15 years ago everyone would have been over it. there will always be some who speed but now we have just as many who drive in a brain dead state, being only aware enough to watch the speedo - because accidents under the limit apparently don't hurt

mik · 27-09-2011, 02:33 PM

no doubt speed camera`s have some effect on drivers behavior in the camera area, but camera`s are really only useful in speed limit maintenance, they do nothing to deter other bad driving behavior , that could be curtailed by more patrol cars issuing warnings and giving out on the spotters, the fact that authorities rely more on camera`s than patrol cars is selling the public short imo.
you also have to wonder if camera`s can have a negative effect on drivers, causing them to watch the speedo more that the road in some instances as has been brought up on this forum many times,
especially on adjustable speed zones like the western ring road Melbourne, which is a decent bit of road but seems to have more than it`s share of crashes even with many speed camera`s.

Whitey-AMG · 27-09-2011, 02:47 PM

I reckon all revenue gained from speed cameras / parking fines should be used to offset the registration costs of all those that have a more modest driving history......some sort of credit system. 5 years with no offences ( speed / red light camera / parking etc etc ) - you get a 30% discount on your car rego every year. 10 years with no offences = 50% discount - 20 years or greater...........NO REGISTRATION FEE AT ALL......

The credit system resets iteself after 5 years. So if you have a good driving history for 10 years - but get pinned for a speeding offence - you basically go back to paying for your full rego cost again for 5 years before you go back onto the discount system.

So if you are a consistent offender - not only do you have to pay the fine - incur the demerit points - but you also end up paying more for your registration costs every year and subsidise those that have fewer driving offences..........basically - let the hoons and the persistent offenders pay for your rego.......LOL

flappist · 27-09-2011, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ESP

I reckon all revenue gained from speed cameras / parking fines should be used to offset the registration costs of all those that have a more modest driving history......some sort of credit system. 5 years with no offences ( speed / red light camera / parking etc etc ) - you get a 30% discount on your car rego every year. 10 years with no offences = 50% discount - 20 years or greater...........NO REGISTRATION FEE AT ALL......

The credit system resets iteself after 5 years. So if you have a good driving history for 10 years - but get pinned for a speeding offence - you basically go back to paying for your full rego cost again for 5 years before you go back onto the discount system.

So if you are a consistent offender - not only do you have to pay the fine - incur the demerit points - but you also end up paying more for your registration costs every year and subsidise those that have fewer driving offences..........basically - let the hoons and the persistent offenders pay for your rego.......LOL

So a driver who lives in outer woop woop and drives everywhere at 30km/h over the speed limit drunk gets free rego because there are no police out there whereas everyone in Victoria pays full rego all the time.

I reckon that rego should be based on population density. The bigger the city you live in the more you have to pay to offset the cost of all the traffic lights and multi-lane freeways etc........

Whitey-AMG · 27-09-2011, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

So a driver who lives in outer woop woop and drives everywhere at 30km/h over the speed limit drunk gets free rego because there are no police out there whereas everyone in Victoria pays full rego all the time.

I reckon that rego should be based on population density. The bigger the city you live in the more you have to pay to offset the cost of all the traffic lights and multi-lane freeways etc........

Yes that should be factored in. But that drunken hoon out woop woop way driving on a lonely stretch of unpatrolled highway is more than likely only going to kill himself in a single car collision. Out in the big smoke and the burbs that same hoon may end up taking out 3 other cars and end up in someone's kitchen after they have just left the road and crashed into your house. Also that stretch of road that was laid that cost x millions for just 30 people to drive on each year certainly wasn't paid for by the residents of woop woop. It's all relative in the end......

Basically most of us being greedy and selfish human beings need some sort of reward for good behavior and don't always respond to punitive measures in the right way , not to mention how desensitized we are to all these fines .

Solar panels are a Great example methinks. I wonder how many people whack em on their roofs because they wish to save the planet...lol. I reckon the fact that they may see a neutral invoice for their cpnsumption has more to do with it. Same with this. Reward people for the accepted indoctrinated behaviour that is expected and let human nature take over.

jpd80 · 27-09-2011, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

I reckon that rego should be based on population density.

Gee for a moment there i thought you meant density as in stupidity,
the more dense the population, the more they should pay...

silly me..

eaglem · 27-09-2011, 05:01 PM

Any institute such as the ABC, Monarch University etc which are government funded who devise surveys have to be viewed with suspicion on the results of their surveys as to how weighted the survey was to appease the government so as not to jeopardize their funding. It is highly unlikely that any of these institutes would create a survey that goes head to head with government propaganda for fear of reprisal.

If Speed Cameras did their jobs in making roads safer why has the Road Toll risen since their advent? Most of the revenue created by Speed Cameras comes from motorists doing 2 or 3 Kms over the limit which is less than the average error of a Speedometer.

Speed Cameras catch speeding vehicles after the event but do not prevent speeding. They do not show or report bad driving habits such as tailgating, failing to indicate when changing lanes, failing to give way etc. Only Police Patrols can stop this sort of road behaviour.

In effect as much as the RTA denies it, Speed Cameras are good for nothing more than collecting revenue for wasteful government bodies who will not spend the money to put more Police Patrols on the road.

drew`SEVNT5 · 27-09-2011, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flappist

I reckon that rego should be based on population density. The bigger the city you live in the more you have to pay to offset the cost of all the traffic lights and multi-lane freeways etc........

That is how it is in Victoria... The rego charge is the same no matter where you live, it is the TAC 3rd Party that goes High/Medium/Low by postcode...

RealChampionSup · 27-09-2011, 03:01 PM

Maybe the money could be used for this idea instead, So its not revenue raising/ cash cow

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iynzHWwJXaA

dimka100 · 27-09-2011, 05:11 PM

A Speed camera is a TOOL, and like every tool it must be evaluated in context … the issue with all these studies including these from other countries is the context varies a lot …
Let me give you an example:

If all the roads are 20Km/h, will speed cameras save lives? Will they reduce the road tool?

Now if all the roads are 200Km/h, will speed cameras save lives? Will they reduce the road tool?

The issue in Australia is not the speed cameras themselves, but it’s the ridicules speed limits we have on our roads! If we had speed limits similar to many European countries, speed cameras would be a NON-ISSUE.

eaglem · 27-09-2011, 05:34 PM

As Dimka100 says, some of the speed limits set are ridiculous and as an example I will site just one incidence. Until recently (in the northern suburbs of Perth) Alexander Drive from Hepburn Avenue to Gnangara Road was a narrow two lane road with crumbling shoulders with a speed limit of 90 kms per hour. The Main Roads made it a dual two lane perfect piece of roadway and reduced the speed limit to 70 kms per hour. How's that for commonsense? This is not a built up area and at the very least should have been left at 90 kms per hour.

The Police haunt that section now with radar guns knowing full well that drivers that used that piece of road for many years still have a tendency to let their speed creep up to 90 kms out of habit.

b0son · 28-09-2011, 09:37 PM

if it wasnt about the money, state governments would have no issue directing the proceeds of speed cameras directly into roads and road safety - none of them do.

there is research that shows stringent enforcement at the lower end (ie. <10kmh over the limit) wouldnt have significant impact on crash rates, yet one by one, the state governments are lowering camera tolerances.

why? to shoot more fish in the barrel.

Sizey · 28-09-2011, 09:53 PM

It all comes down to proper policing. Speeding is NOT the only thing that kills people on the roads. IMO the majority is innatention or stupidity. I say can the cameras and do it the old fashioned way with more patrol cars. Yes the outlay is more expensive for governments however it also Makes Police presence felt so people are less inclined to be morons.

It will also collect more revenue stream for the government because the officer as an individual can issue an expiation notice for a range of (and multiple at a time if you are being really dumb then have a defective vehicle, then may be intoxicated etc etc) whereas a camera can only issue for so many things at one (Eg. rego, speed red light etc.) and let some motorists slip through the cracks.

The system will never be perfect and I do not agree with the cameras and some of the disgusting positions they are put in or the lows that are stooped to to hide and comoflauge the camera. NOW THAT IS OUTRIGHT REVENUE RAISING!

graham7773 · 28-09-2011, 10:28 PM

eaglem, just a point I have to make. In the last 10 years, Australia has taken in 4.5 million new migrants. Could this 20% increase in the population have had anything to do with the rising road toll? Which has risen how much in the same period? Post script to the previous. I think there should be no fixed cameras, just patrol cars and more of them. By the way, I have not been booked in the past 23 years for anything. I do not sit 10k below the speed limit, just on or about it.

eaglem · 29-09-2011, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by graham7773

eaglem, just a point I have to make. In the last 10 years, Australia has taken in 4.5 million new migrants. Could this 20% increase in the population have had anything to do with the rising road toll? Which has risen how much in the same period? Post script to the previous. I think there should be no fixed cameras, just patrol cars and more of them. By the way, I have not been booked in the past 23 years for anything. I do not sit 10k below the speed limit, just on or about it.

Yes the law of averages says the more cars on the road the greater the road toll and a lot of these "New Migrants" had never driven cars before coming here and many, from my observation, show absolutely no road sense whatsoever so it makes me wonder if driver's licences aren't handed out far too easily.

gtxb67 · 29-09-2011, 06:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eaglem

Yes the law of averages says the more cars on the road the greater the road toll and a lot of these "New Migrants" had never driven cars before coming here and many, from my observation, show absolutely no road sense whatsoever so it makes me wonder if driver's licences aren't handed out far too easily.

there is nothing to wonder about - they are handed out much too easily
but it would be considered discrimination or some other horrible crime if new drivers were supposed to learn the local way
some new drivers can be a fully licensed driver after around 20-50 hours of experience - but aca nor the government will do anything to change that . . . not enough ratings or money involved I guess

eaglem · 29-09-2011, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gtxb67

there is nothing to wonder about - they are handed out much too easily
but it would be considered discrimination or some other horrible crime if new drivers were supposed to learn the local way
some new drivers can be a fully licensed driver after around 20-50 hours of experience - but aca nor the government will do anything to change that . . . not enough ratings or money involved I guess

Maybe we should create new Bumper Stickers "Political Correctness Kills!" to bring it to their attention.

burnz · 29-09-2011, 12:51 AM

if speed cam's are "not" for revenue, then the gov shouldn't have a problem giving
all moneys to the salvos, saint vinnies, bernardo's. they really save peoples lives, not pseudo one's..

CFOUR · 29-09-2011, 10:13 AM

The QLD chief of police outrightly said they where revenue raising tools.

monzie · 29-09-2011, 10:41 AM

One thing that never gets mentioned in the "speed cameras save lifes" debate is the huge strides made in vehicle design and occupent safety. I think the introduction of safety cells, multi air bag systems, braking, etc, etc would have had more effect on lowering the road toll than cameras. Driver attitude and behavior is a bigger problem to road safety.

cheers Pete