Is the anti speeding campaign counter productive

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by sudszy

I suppose you are going to say that their lethal driving has been and gone and they could have killed someone, well that happens when the cameras arent there too, dont see you carrying on about that.

If that speed camera was a cop car then the crash wouldn't of happened.

I am not one saying there should be NO law enforcement. Its just speed cameras are basically used as money raiser, Nothing more, nothing less.

A cop in place of the speed camera would of stopped the driver before they did crash... but it cost money to have the cop there maning the speed camera. Then if the cop goes and pulls someone over other cars may speed past where the cops was previously checking speed while the cop is not operating the camera. So that mean the government is losing money.

Modern speed cameras can catch 6 drivers speeding per second. That means it has the ability to make 1 thousand bucks per second. No cop could do that. Although you could say whenever a cop has someone pulled over its makes that area safer because everyone passing slows down, since they are below the speed limit you could say they are perfectly safe.... right???

Originally Posted by sudszy

Typically not, but a car leaving the road at 103km/h hitting a tree, yeh that can be ugly. Or the difference in stopping distance between 62 and 60 could be the difference in avoiding a 40 tonne truck that has done the wrong thing.

yeah but if you left the road at 99 and hit the tree it would be fine hey??? Obeying the speed limit is damn dangerous. Driving is a risk but its a risk we take everyday.

You see idiots doing the speed limit around bends in pouring rain in heavy traffic. They rarely get fined because they are doing the speed limit. But someone on a deserted freeway at 3am doing 120 will get fined instantly with no remorse even though is probably safer then the idiots in the wet.

[Bobman]

Originally Posted by sudszy

When vic abolished the 10% tolerance and went to the 3km/h margin there was an observed difference in the average speeds of vehicles, people slowed down.

Not completely accurate. Since 2002 (when 10% tolerances were abolished), what happened was more people were fined due to the lower tolerance and more people lost their licences. There wasn't that much reduction in average speeds and between 2002-2010, I was doing 50-60,000kms a year on Melbourne roads. What I noticed was more people stopped concentrating on the road.

Now with so much revenue now raised from speeding fines, I have not seen any improvement to road infrastructure. The roads are patched over, pot holes everywhere and nothing is being done about it. It's all about money, nothing else.

[dylancox]

Originally Posted by Ben73

If that speed camera was a cop car then the crash wouldn't of happened.

I am not one saying there should be NO law enforcement. Its just speed cameras are basically used as money raiser, Nothing more, nothing less.

A cop in place of the speed camera would of stopped the driver before they did crash... but it cost money to have the cop there maning the speed camera. Then if the cop goes and pulls someone over other cars may speed past where the cops was previously checking speed while the cop is not operating the camera. So that mean the government is losing money.

Modern speed cameras can catch 6 drivers speeding per second. That means it has the ability to make 1 thousand bucks per second. No cop could do that. Although you could say whenever a cop has someone pulled over its makes that area safer because everyone passing slows down, since they are below the speed limit you could say they are perfectly safe.... right???



yeah but if you left the road at 99 and hit the tree it would be fine hey??? Obeying the speed limit is damn dangerous. Driving is a risk but its a risk we take everyday.

You see idiots doing the speed limit around bends in pouring rain in heavy traffic. They rarely get fined because they are doing the speed limit. But someone on a deserted freeway at 3am doing 120 will get fined instantly with no remorse even though is probably safer then the idiots in the wet.

Speed limits and enforcement are a fact of life in metro and built up areas, and I can live with that. Speeding around town doesn't really give an advantage in point A to B travel anyway. However, patrolling dead straights of country road or interstate highway, either by cop or camera is totally irrelevant

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Ben73

Modern speed cameras can catch 6 drivers speeding per second. That means it has the ability to make 1 thousand bucks per second. No cop could do that.

Lots of behaviour modified, less taxes for those without a leadfoot, you could also add they work 24hrs a day and dont need donuts or coffee!

so what's the downside?

By the way, did you find out about all those other police strikes?http://www.fordforums.com.au/showpos...8&postcount=23

[Ben73]

Although there seams to be more speed cameras on highways then on city streets.

Out of the entire 4 Mobile speed cameras I have seen, 3 were on a straight highway where an extra 10km/h wouldn't be much more dangerous at all.

But hey those straight, deserted roads are where they money is for cameras $$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Lots of behaviour modified, less taxes for those without a leadfoot, you could also add they work 24hrs a day and dont need donuts or coffee!

so what's the downside?

You can read this entire thread and almost every post says what the problem with them is. Open you eyes.


Also they are paying some brain dead moron with no skills to sit in the camera car all day and do nothing at all.
What skill does it take to park a car on the side of the road and sit there twiddling your thumbs all day?
paying these people is wasted tax money. Their wage should go to an extra cop who would make more of a difference to road AND general safety.

[castellan]

I see a lot of people who just have to sit over the limit around town in the 60 zone driving bodge crappy unroadworthy cars blowing smoke and 4X4 are the worse for speeding and they have a just don't care attitude. and they just have to sit at the red lights longer.

At 60 KM/H the average persons reactions are classed as what? and that is if they are paying attention at the time.
But i am sure there are people who are switched on and have faster reactions as well as the ability to control a car.

But law is set for the lowest common denominator.

We could have 120 to 130 KM/H on the right hand lane on the M1 but we have to many stupid dopey drivers on the roads.

[UNR8D]

Fact is if creeping means your a dead man walking, or every K over is a Killer then we should be by rights expecting a road toll in the MILLIONS as thats how many get caught for speeding every year... this is a snapshot for just SYDNEY.

LOCATION, FINES ISSUED, REVENUE:
Cleveland St, Moore Park (eastbound) 8,135 $1,095,243
Cleveland St, Moore Park (westbound) 6,631 $848,778
Pacific Highway, Wahroonga (northbound) 4524 $590,872
Pacific Highway, Wahroonga (southbound) 3932 $493,417
M2 Motorway, North Epping (westbound) 3309 $514,105
Victoria Road, Ryde (eastbound) 3129 $521,972
Great Western Highway, Parramatta (westbound) 2932 $548,800
King Georges Road, Beverly Hills (southbound) 2849 $504,298
Lane Cove Tunnel, Lane Cove (eastbound) 2745 $473,480
Central Coast Highway, Bateau Bay (northbound) 2607 $488,046
Pacific Highway, Woodburn (northbound) 2546 $414,269
Princes Highway, Kogarah (southbound) 2346 $427,325
Botany Bay Road, Roseberry (southbound) 2154 $419,093
Woodville Road, Chester Hill (southbound) 2118 $393,815
Parramatta Road, Auburn (eastbound) 1953 $248,771
Spit Road, Mosman (southbound) 1729 $205,157
Hume Highway, Bankstown (westbound) 1709 $313,942
Pacific Highway, Woodburn (southbound) 1644 $266,561
Pacific Highway, Gateshead (southbound) 1599 $261,933
Parker Street, Kingswood (northbound) 1582 $344,341
Totals 60,173 $9,374,209

Time period July 1 2010-Nov 30
Taken from Sydney Herrold regarding speed camera infringements for 2010 period "thats not even a full year"

How someone can believe with any rational that creeping is directly linked to and is a major contributor to our road toll is just being ignorant.

Inattention is the biggest killer on the roads as I have shown in previous arguements/posts about this exact topic.

Speed is always used in an argument but in almost every case is out of context, speed is always going to be a contributing factor unless both vehicles/objects are doing 0 kmh in which case there will never be a collision, so regardless of the limit speed is always going to be and always has been a 'contributing' factor just some seem to manipulate the facts for a good argument that speed was the 'major and or only cause' which is utter crap.

[castellan]

Originally Posted by Ben73

You can read this entire thread and almost every post says what the problem with them is. Open you eyes.


Also they are paying some brain dead moron with no skills to sit in the camera car all day and do nothing at all.
What skill does it take to park a car on the side of the road and sit there twiddling your thumbs all day?
paying these people is wasted tax money. Their wage should go to an extra cop who would make more of a difference to road AND general safety.

HEY! we don't twiddle

[UNR8D]

2006 39
2007 40
2008 38
2009 44
2010 39

5 year
average 40

sudszy these are TAC's official figures, snapshot of 1 year supports your theory, 5 year snapshot shows the facts.

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by sudszy

By the way, did you find out about all those other police strikes?http://www.fordforums.com.au/showpos...8&postcount=23

By the way did you answer Flappist question http://www.fordforums.com.au/showpos...9&postcount=30

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by castellan

HEY! we don't twiddle

Well what do you exactly do?

If you really are a mobile speed camera operator I would love to hear all about it in detail.

I guess you should feel the need to justify your job since most people just think it's a waste of tax payers money.

[UNR8D]

Id have less issues dealing with the crap about general road safety if they were 'Highly Visible" and in known black spots, unlike the green territory hidden at the end of an overtaking lane coming into ballana 2 weeks ago.. people wonder whey the need the expensive lexen glass underhanded, revenue raising, scum of the earth acts like that demonstrate why.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by UNR8D

2006 39
2007 40
2008 38
2009 44
2010 39

5 year
average 40

sudszy these are TAC's official figures, snapshot of 1 year supports your theory, 5 year snapshot shows the facts.

official figures of what in particular?

[UNR8D]

how many ladies of the night you failed to seduce...

VIC road toll, you referred to it in post #29 when quoting how the road toll dropped when they introduced the 3 kmh tolerance.

I posted it to show that clearly it has nothing to do with the tolerance otherwise the trend would have remained at an all time low as you claim or had a downward trend... it dosent.

http://www.tacsafety.com.au/jsp/stat...erID=1&navID=1

If you want to check the source.

[Ben73]

http://www.roadsense.com.au/facts.html

The Northern Territory did not have speed limits on their major highways until mid 2007. They then introduced speed limits and speed limit enforcement. Here are the results.

Year - fatality

2002- 55

2003 -53

2004 - 35

2005 - 55

2006 - 44

2007 - 57

2008 - 75

Ummmmm well that's a bit awkward isn't it.

[gs1973]

I must agree with Flappist. Sudszy, why have you joined a Car enthusiasts forum to speak about nothing but Accidents and Speed Camera's? Everyone of your post's have been about these subjects? Pushing an Agenda I see All the best with it, but there is not too many here that will swallow your propaganda

[UNR8D]

Originally Posted by Ben73

http://www.roadsense.com.au/facts.html

^^beat me to it

[UNR8D]

And since you seem to be the fountain of knowledge (sudszy) and you 100% believe in the mantra that if you creep you die, may I ask as to why if they limits are there to protect us why are they set at the razors edge of adhesion as you so claim... I mean if 103 means I'm a dead man walking why is 100 'SAFE' ?

[Ben73]

Crucial Australian Parliamentary study claims 1.8%.

The evidence is in the 1994 "Queensland Government Parliamentary Travelsafe Committee study no 15", headed, “Speed cameras: should they be used in Queensland?”.

It is important to note that this document was created prior to the speed camera era which means it is not distorted by data from the subsequent use of speed cameras. The study was created by seven eminent Queensland politicians whose names would be familiar to most Australians, as well as a highly regarded research director.

The chairman of the study in his summary stated, "Members of Travelsafe Committee would expect me to give due credit and thanks to the Research Director of Travelsafe, Mr (name edited out by RS), for his valuable input into this and many previous reports to Parliament. He will be completing his secondment to the Committee after this report is presented to Parliament. He will be sorely missed for his absolute professionalism, his organisational ability, his dedication to the task at hand, his research methods, his incisive mind when applied to the information available and his pleasant personality".

This is a professional document and on page (ii) of the Chairman's summary he claims that only 1.8% (one point eight) of road crashes are caused "solely" by speed.

These are the actual words from the study."Fatal accidents, caused solely by speed, represent 1.8% of all accidents reported State-wide, but only 0.8% of all accidents in Brisbane."

The study still didn't state "above the speed limit", they stated, "solely" by speed so it could still be argued that their 1.8% also includes below the limit "speeding", police chases, criminal activity and more.

We have a copy of Travelsafe study no 15 on file.

Linky http://www.roadsense.com.au/misleadi...tml#twopercent

Originally Posted by UNR8D

And since you seem to be the fountain of knowledge (sudszy) and you 100% believe in the mantra that if you creep you die, may I ask as to why if they limits are there to protect us why are they set at the razors edge of adhesion as you so claim... I mean if 103 means I'm a dead man walking why is 100 'SAFE' ?

Exactly

I hate when people say "speed was a contributing factor in this crash". Damn straight it was. You are now as intelligent as a 5 year old. You have to be moving to crash. If no one was moving then there would be no crashes. Speed is a contributing factor in 100% of crashes.

[gs1973]

I'm afraid all we have here is a Government Troll.. I have been in the fire service for 10 years, and have seen plenty of fatal accidents. 90% are caused by negligent driving, ie Doing everything in the car except for driving the bloody thing. I know for a fact that Police statistics are 'massaged' to give the Government the propaganda they need to push this rubbish down people's throats. Don't expect it to change soon, to employ extra Police to do real Road safety will cost them more than they have.. State Governments are that poorly run now that Speed camera revenue is vital to keep them afloat. Meanwhile, Camry drivers with wheeltrims and not one bit of interest in learning how to drive properly, or even look up the road at what is happening ahead, are appeased that the 'Government' is looking after them. It is all beyond a Joke.

[prydey]

sudzy - have you got some data to show me the difference in braking distances between 60 and 62? or even 63, since vic has a 3km/h limit where suddenly you are risking your life.

you will never convince me that an extra few km/h suddenly makes me a menace to society, and a dead man walking. have a look at the stats for 'speed related deaths' in qld posted by Ben73. you'll probably find every state has similar figures. you can go to all the experts you want to talk about braking distances and speed limits and whatever other statistics you might want to manipulate, but the real world story can't be argued with.

[Romulus]

I believe this forum had a similar troll going back around 18 months ago, Flappist will remember the user name of this particular member. I wonder if sudzy is this same person?

[BradZ]

I also have a mate that cannot stay straight on the road, swerves everywhere. Its strange cause hes a capable driver, but whenever anything else grabs any bit of his attention, all over the road. Much more dangerous than 51km in a 50 zone.

[AussieAV]

Sudzy, you seem to enjoy hinding behind absolutes without qualifying their actual relevance and true impact on road safety, while accusing others of not backing up their opinions. Here is an example, which I'm willing to concede to, as long as you are willing to concede to mine.

Sudzy's absolute: travelling at 2km/h over the limit increases your risk of crashing.

AussieAV's absolute: looking away from the road and at your speedo increases your risk of crashing.

While both of these are technically true, and beyond debate, they are meaningless. While both are impossible to deny, I suggest that neither would have any significant effect on road toll figures (although personally I think stopping mine would be more beneficial then stopping yours).

People can make any number of statements that are technically true, but add nothing to a sensible debate of the topic.

Another pet hate of mine is the whole "speed was a factor" farce. It seems to me no-one can accurately define what criteria are needed for speed to be a factor. Technically speed is always a factor in every crash - it has to be, if neither car were moving (ie doing 0 km/h) there wouldn't be a crash !

Including figures in the speeding/road safety debate under the current definitions of speed being a factor are similarly meaningless because it comes down to an individual police officer's opinion as to whether either car was travelling to fast for the conditions. Commonsense would suggest that they would err on the side of caution, and attribute speed as at least a partial cause, more often than it actually is.

I would happily make a donation to any reputable body willing to research the actual number of road deaths caused by motorists exceeding the posted limit by 5% or less.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by UNR8D

how many ladies of the night you failed to seduce....

Easy stranger, you throw five numbers on a page and Im meant to know what on earth they refer to?

Originally Posted by UNR8D

I posted it to show that clearly it has nothing to do with the tolerance otherwise the trend would have remained at an all time low as you claim or had a downward trend... it dosent.

http://www.tacsafety.com.au/jsp/stat...erID=1&navID=1

If you want to check the source.

Figures of deaths just for this month over the last five years?, hardly shows the whole picture, and only back five years, but according to http://www.fordforums.com.au/showpos...3&postcount=32, the 10% tolerance was dropped in 2002, you need to look at the data around that time.

[UNR8D]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Easy stranger, you throw five numbers on a page and Im meant to know what on earth they refer to?




Figures of deaths just for this month over the last five years?, hardly shows the whole picture, and only back five years, but according to http://www.fordforums.com.au/showpos...3&postcount=32, the 10% tolerance was dropped in 2002, you need to look at the data around that time.

How about you show some stats to back your baseless theory... while your at it answer my other questions Ive asked of you previously.

Ive provided 5 years of the death toll now you want 9... like I said in my post, if they are the be all and end all the road toll should be tracking down, and ill reiterate if the 'Creeping' is causing so many deaths, why do we have millions fined and a death toll just nudging the thousand ever year (some years less)

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Ben73

http://www.roadsense.com.au/facts.html

The Northern Territory did not have speed limits on their major highways until mid 2007. They then introduced speed limits and speed limit enforcement. Here are the results.

Year - fatality

2002- 55

2003 -53

2004 - 35

2005 - 55

2006 - 44

2007 - 57

2008 - 75

Ummmmm well that's a bit awkward isn't it.

Ben, you have fallen prey to those cherry picking information again!
did you notice how 2009 is missing, very convenient, see: http://www.fordforums.com.au/showpos...9&postcount=25, where the same point was put forwards in another thread.

I suggest you check the source of all advice you get(Harry Brelsford from roadsense.com.au is just a punter that started a website to whinge about his speeding tickets, the whole website just has more of the same deceptions and mistruths that Ive outlined above.)

Do check stats very carefully(even if they are what you want to hear), why are they only looking at one month over several years or why have they left out a year etc.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by UNR8D

How about you show some stats to back your baseless theory... while your at it answer my other questions Ive asked of you previously.

)

why would I want to get into a discussion with someone demanding rudely that I do x, y and z and seems hell bent on insulting me.

no thankyou.

[UNR8D]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Ben, you have fallen prey to those cherry picking information again!
did you notice how 2009 is missing, very convenient, see: http://www.fordforums.com.au/showpos...9&postcount=25, where the same point was put forwards in another thread.

I suggest you check the source of all advice you get(Harry Brelsford from roadsense.com.au is just a punter that started a website to whinge about his speeding tickets, the whole website just has more of the same deceptions and mistruths that Ive outlined above.)

Do check stats very carefully(even if they are what you want to hear), why are they only looking at one month over several years or why have they left out a year etc.

take your own advise.