REPORT: Fixed speed cameras not effective

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by Panda

I don't know, any distraction is still a distraction.

If you take your eyes off the road to check your speed, answer the mobile, grab a drink / feed, change the radio station, talk to the kids in the back seat.....in short ANYTHING, you are not paying attention to the road. The road is where you need to be looking, that's where the dangerous stuff is.
I know exactly where my speedo is, i know exactly where the 60 70 80 100 are, I need only glance at it, its marginally longer than blinking. Those other scenarios are covered by your obligation on the road. Nice straw man though.
Instead of driving to an arbitary speed limit, we should all be driving to the conditions that can affect our safety -
- road surface / quality
- traffic density
- weather conditions
- wildlife
- vehicle condition
This is all very dandy. If we dont have limits, you choose what you drive at given your conditions, interesting concept, you like anarchy? Do you trust everyone youve ever known to make that decision? Because that would be the scenario. I dont. A limit is set because it must be, there are too many variables without regulation (every individual on the road is making their own decision). Ive met people who I wouldnt trust to own a pet, let alone determine their limits. I understand it on NT open roads, but not the busy highways linking other capitals. Im not saying 130 wouldnt be better, but thats not the point, the camera would just click at 130 then, and we'd discussing that line in the sand. Imagine the guy/lady who is running late, despite the rain, they push that little bit, because they can. That is where they determined their limit to be. How would you enforce a breach, how would you determine it, an accident is the catalyst for fines? Despite bing a sad event, thats their problem, and if they kill themselves thats just bad luck. But what about the family they kill, who determined the speed at an appropriate level?
We've all heard the stories of 'this bloke' who stuck to the 100km/h speed limit in torrential rain or heavy fog. If he were driving to the conditions he would have slowed down a bit, allowed a greater seperation between him and the preceding car etc etc..

This is the guy who will drive much quicker if allowed to, despite limited ability, or he wont change at all. I drive at the limit, yet in the heavy Qld rain, I slow down. He is also the guy who in heavy traffic accelerates close behind the car in front and jumps on his brakes late, causing the imbecile behind him to do the same, chain reactions. I however, just let them pull away from me and move along at a steady pace, then slow if need be, any car behind me has plenty of warning. I also watch cars several ahead of the one directly in front, so I know I need to slow before the car in front touches his brake, Im already slowing down before he even realises he needs to. That happens all the time. So the 'speed conditioning' theory isnt universal. Its just an explanation of certain individuals behavior. Ive said it before and Ill say it again, its not simply education, or enforcement, thats part of a package, the key is attitude adjustment.

It's what I remember about the Northern Territory cruise in 2005, just drive to the conditions. It was such a relief to be allowed to THINK about what the safe speed was, not have to READ what somebody elses opinion of safe speed was. Nobody stuck to any set speed, it varied constantly as the conditions varied. Sure, everyone gave it a blast to 200+, but once we got that out of our systems everyone settled back down to a realistic speed. The cruise went so smoothly, everyone was relaxed (no frustration) and wide awake (no fatigue) Sounds like a nice cruise.

There is so much more to driving safely than sticking to the speed limit. No argument. But it is a central variable of it.

Panda

.......

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by fmc351

I know exactly where my speedo is, i know exactly where the 60 70 80 100 are, I need only glance at it, its marginally longer than blinking. Those other scenarios are covered by your obligation on the road. Nice straw man though.

Ever driven an XB? The km/h readings are displayed in a small sizes at 40, 80, 120, 160, 200 and there are tiny little unlabled markers at 20, 60, 100, 140, 180. In addition the needle is wide enough to obscure the readings and markers.

I know where the speedo is in my XB, but it takes a sustained look at the speedo to get a good enough idea of what speed I'm doing in order to avoid being caught with the low tolerances to speeding found in Victoria.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by xbgs351

That's not true.

In 2006 144 people died on Melbourne roads compared to 193 on rural Victorian roads. 3.2 million people live in Melbourne compared to 1.3 million who live in rural Victoria. So deaths per-capita in Melbourne are only 30% of what is seen in rural Victoria.

And it is VERY important to note that no Melbourne people ever leave the city and drive in rural areas. Likewise rural and interstate drivers never go to the city.

Check the number of 4 door vehicles involved in crashes. I think you will find that they are far more dangerous than 2 door vehicles.
Have you checked the type of petrol used? I wonder if Caltex is safer than BP?
How about registered address of the vehicle? Are city cars safer than rural cars?

Lies, damned lies and statistics......

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by flappist

And it is VERY important to note that no Melbourne people ever leave the city and drive in rural areas. Likewise rural and interstate drivers never go to the city.

The argument of AUIII XR8 MAN was that the more people you have the more accidents there are. So it doesn't matter where the driver and/or passengers are from, but where the fatality occured. So where the accidents happening somewhere that there are more people such as Melbourne or somewhere with less people such as country Victoria?

Typically around 3/4 of those killed on country Victorian roads are country people. I don't know the statistics for Melbourne.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by xbgs351

Ever driven an XB? The km/h readings are displayed in a small sizes at 40, 80, 120, 160, 200 and there are tiny little unlabled markers at 20, 60, 100, 140, 180. In addition the needle is wide enough to obscure the readings and markers.

I know where the speedo is in my XB, but it takes a sustained look at the speedo to get a good enough idea of what speed I'm doing in order to avoid being caught with the low tolerances to speeding found in Victoria.

Im happy to sit between 95 and 100 in a 100 zone, the width of the needle wont effect me that much. Its not like you lose much time at 95. If we both ran for an hour, you dead on 100 all the time, and me averaging around 97 when we got an hour away Id be less than 4km behind you. Ill be there before you could make coffee, Ill have white with two. I can feel if I creep over 100, if Im not trying to sit dead on it. Its when 100 is your minimum that 105 becomes unnoticeable without looking. Isnt there mph readings though? You could just sit a hairs width above 60mph in a 100kmh zone. That would be easy to see at a glance. By the way, Id be careful with that sort of argument, the likely response will be removal of older cars, or mandatory fitment of aftermarket gauges. It wont be 'yeah youre right, lets dump the limit or grant a 10 km/h leeway'.

I did say I agree with the dispute over zero speedo error allowance. Thats just wrong, considering none are accurate, and there is no requirement for manufacturers to make em so. This is the only argument against zero tolerance that could work.

[Panda]

Originally Posted by fmc351

I know exactly where my speedo is, i know exactly where the 60 70 80 100 are, I need only glance at it, its marginally longer than blinking. Those other scenarios are covered by your obligation on the road. Nice straw man though.

I more than glance at it. 3km/h is a very small tolerance, and it's even smaller on the speedo.

I don't know what "nice straw man" means.

Originally Posted by fmc351

If we dont have limits, you choose what you drive at given your conditions, interesting concept, you like anarchy?

Actually, some experiments with raising speed limits have shown that it doesn't necessarily increase the average speed that motorists travel at.

Originally Posted by fmc351

Do you trust everyone youve ever known to make that decision

Hell no, some people I know should be shot rather than let them behind the wheel.

Originally Posted by fmc351

A limit is set because it must be, there are too many variables without regulation (every individual on the road is making their own decision)

Most people are law abiding, sensible people who wish to get to their destination alive. They make decisions based on this wish. We have 'dumbed down' the roads to allow for the idiots.

Originally Posted by fmc351

I've met people who I wouldnt trust to own a pet, let alone determine their limits

It is these people who should be targeted.

Originally Posted by fmc351

I understand it on NT open roads, but not the busy highways linking other capitals. Im not saying 130 wouldnt be better, but thats not the point, the camera would just click at 130 then, and we'd discussing that line in the sand

Actually, I would rather do higher speeds on the Bruce Highway than the Stuart Highway.

Originally Posted by fmc351

Imagine the guy/lady who is running late, despite the rain, they push that little bit, because they can. That is where they determined their limit to be

Again, target these people.

Originally Posted by fmc351

This is the guy who will drive much quicker if allowed to, despite limited ability, or he wont change at all. I drive at the limit, yet in the heavy Qld rain, I slow down. He is also the guy who in heavy traffic accelerates close behind the car in front and jumps on his brakes late, causing the imbecile behind him to do the same, chain reactions. I however, just let them pull away from me and move along at a steady pace, then slow if need be, any car behind me has plenty of warning. I also watch cars several ahead of the one directly in front, so I know I need to slow before the car in front touches his brake, Im already slowing down before he even realises he needs to. That happens all the time. So the 'speed conditioning' theory isnt universal. Its just an explanation of certain individuals behavior. Ive said it before and Ill say it again, its not simply education, or enforcement, thats part of a package, the key is attitude adjustment.

I think your style of driving is far safer than this hypothetical guy. It almost sounds as though you have had some extra training / advanced driving course. Is this the case?

Originally Posted by flappist

Lies, damned lies and statistics......

They are a wonderful thing aren't they?

Panda

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by fmc351

Im happy to sit between 95 and 100 in a 100 zone, the width of the needle wont effect me that much. Its not like you lose much time at 95. If we both ran for an hour, you dead on 100 all the time, and me averaging around 97 when we got an hour away Id be less than 4km behind you. Ill be there before you could make coffee, Ill have white with two. I can feel if I creep over 100, if Im not trying to sit dead on it. Its when 100 is your minimum that 105 becomes unnoticeable without looking. Isnt there mph readings though? You could just sit a hairs width above 60mph in a 100kmh zone. That would be easy to see at a glance. By the way, Id be careful with that sort of argument, the likely response will be removal of older cars, or mandatory fitment of aftermarket gauges. It wont be 'yeah youre right, lets dump the limit or grant a 10 km/h leeway'.

I did say I agree with the dispute over zero speedo error allowance. Thats just wrong, considering none are accurate, and there is no requirement for manufacturers to make em so. This is the only argument against zero tolerance that could work.

I used to run with Craig Mottram, and even he couldn't run at 100 km/h ;)

When I'm driving in NSW, I'm usually driving for around 5 or 6 hours and much of that has a 110 speed limit, so I could probably finish dinner before you arrive.

Yes there are mph readings and they are rather prominent. They go up in 20's. So your looking at 32, 64, 97, 129, 161, 193 & 225 km/h.

[ltd]

Actually even the modern day cruise control cannot keep a car constantly at between 95-100. If you sit on the speed limit always then I pray that I never see you, as you'd be spending all your time with your eyes on the dash board.
Whilst you may argue that it's easy to see, try driving in the day when there is a lot of glare. Not everyone drives a brand new ford or a car with a perfectly designed speedo, and not everyone should be subjected to fiscal punishment for going 3% over the speed limit either. I drive a 2004 S500 which has the ultra backlit speedometer and quite frankly, whilst negotiating Sydneys traffic I do not always look at the speedo every 10 or so seconds that would be required to keep the vehicles speed in check.

Furthermore, roads such as those going down to the spit bridge in Sydney that had 3 speed cameras positioned on them did nothing other than to increase consolidated revenue for the state as well as dramatically increase nose to tail accidents. FMC, I fly for a living and quite frankly, even when flying IFR I cannot be focussed on one instrument alone. When flying VFR I hardly look at my instruments at all and if that means I am doing 240 knots as opposed to 245 knots in a cruise climb as I trim the aircraft then frankly who gives a tinkers cuss? In the case of aviation being able to multitask and handle numerous loads of information is crucial to the safety of the aircraft and its passengers. Did you know I actually have to talk on a radio whilst performing many of these tasks? In NSW, that's another No No.

Frankly keeping the speed limits the same or in cases lowering them has enabled governments and councils to avoid regular maintenance and road improvements saving billions.
Finally, using NSW police as a guide, budget cuts have ensured that there is a lack of police available to patrol traffic and the highways meaning that proxy policing is seen as the fix, epecially when the proxy policeman is not being paid by the hour.