Qld flash for cash cameras

[Kieron]

Originally Posted by noflac52

Unrestrained occupants aren't the cause of accidents but that's not what the article says. It says that they are a major cause of fatalities. Which is correct! They are!

It still puts speeding at no three.

It's so easy to change statistics by changing one word to suit a particular viewpoint.

That's true, it's also easy to selectively read what was written and come to your own conclusion...

Lets leave unrestrained as the cause at 27.3% and take the other two figures I posted - 25.5% speed and 23.5% alcohol (these are in the QLD doc). That elevates speed to second but its STILL a major cause.

Then look at the 2015 NSW figures I posted for further proof that speed is a major cause of accidents. I'm sure if you looked at other states, a similar story would be told...

[Blue Shadow]

Originally Posted by Kieron

Obviously my figures were assumptions. They were used to highlight B0sons interpretation of the article.

However, it simple isn't BS. Here's the exact wording -

"According to the Queensland Government, speeding is one of the major causes of fatalities on Queensland"

Key words here are "one of the major", it doesn't say "the major".

Having said that, these figures are a little misleading, a quick read and you'd say speed is third, but unrestrained occupants aren't the cause of an accident and if you look further down the 2015 QLD document your quoting those figures from, you'll see they have the following for 2015 -

Involving drink drivers/riders - 23.5% (Drugs and inebriated pedestrians removed presumably)
Involving speeding drivers/riders - 25.5%

Check out the 2015 NSW report (PDF page 119) -
http://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov....hstats2015.pdf

Alcohol involved in crash - 1,064 people injured or killed.
speed involved in crash - 3,882 "

Out of interest, what do the pro 'revenue raiser' guys/girls think the money
is used for?

I think the revenue is used to fly politicians to the Gold Coast to buy a house

[b0son]

Originally Posted by Kieron

However, it simple isn't BS. Here's the exact wording -

"According to the Queensland Government, speeding is one of the major causes of fatalities on Queensland"

If they don't provide the % of drivers that are speeding according to the *LEGAL* definition of speeding, then the article *IS* BS as their key point is unsubstantiated.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by Kieron

Then look at the 2015 NSW figures I posted for further proof that speed is a major cause of accidents. I'm sure if you looked at other states, a similar story would be told...

You're mixing up cause and factor. The NSW data deals with speed as a factor, not as the cause.

[FGX-351]

There's a case coming up that will set a precedent for speed camera fines.
Media is sitting tight on this one and ready to pounce.

I can't go into further detail but will update this as info comes available.

[noflac52]

Speed involved in a crash = 3882 means absolutely nothing!

The only way to make this statement factual is to take the total number of crashes involving every vehicle in every crash for a year and use that as the total. Speed is involved in every crash simply because vehicles have to move to come in contact with each other.

The statement has no relevance to safety in its current form.

You may as well state that speed is involved in 3882 eggs being broken annually when they are dropped.

[amiers]

lets also remember in the speeding figures is the old chestnut " inappropriate speed for the situation ". So your not speeding but in the cops eyes you should have been going slower. so you come to a corner signed 40 and you crash, cops see dirt, water, ect on the road which you may or may not have seen. Cops say they should have been doing 30. Cause? speed, straight into the speeding statistics. I got that info straight from a ex cop.

[Kieron]

Originally Posted by noflac52

Speed involved in a crash = 3882 means absolutely nothing!

The only way to make this statement factual is to take the total number of crashes involving every vehicle in every crash for a year and use that as the total. Speed is involved in every crash simply because vehicles have to move to come in contact with each other.

The statement has no relevance to safety in its current form.

You may as well state that speed is involved in 3882 eggs being broken annually when they are dropped.

In the NSW doc I posted above, the definition of speed is on pdf page 11.

@b0son, my mistake, the wording should have been 'contributing factor' and if NSW report it as speeding, it removes distraction, fatigue etc.

Re the QLD article, it's obviously a cut down report so won't have the legal definition of speeding, it simply is not BS because it doesn't have that info.


I noticed nobody responded (except for Blue Shadows great post ) to my question re where the $$'s goes, presumably it's to line overpaid pollies and the Secret Policeman's annual ball? OR -
https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/saf...speed/cameras/

What's the answer if speed cameras are simply revenue raisers? should they all be removed? pretty sure that would then allow us all to finally speed in peace...

[blackf6]

Seen one of the new trailers parked on the side of the road today. Looked very prone to vandalism to me. Reflective tape all over. Really only visible from around 200 meters.

[ronwest]

Originally Posted by Kieron

What's the answer if speed cameras are simply revenue raisers?

IMO there's no "if" about it.

I'd warrant that I've driven more kms (3+ million) and been booked more (30+ times in my 50 years of driving) than the vast majority of people.

I've only ever been booked for speeding (no neg/dangerous/drunk etc driving). Never had an accident that was my fault (actually only ever had one when a car ran a red light in 1976). Never lost my licence, although in years gone by I took precautions against such an occurrence.

What's all that got to do with anything?

Well, I can honestly say that I've never been unjustly booked. I haven't always appreciated the ticket but it's been my choice to speed.
Afaic speed cameras, HP, etc, can do whatever they wish to catch people breaking the law (even though I figure that the hwy speed limit is too low).

What galls me about the whole deal is the LIE.

When it becomes obvious to even the most dimwitted that revenue is the name of the game and we (the voting public) demand a higher standard from our pollies, a simple "look, we need the revenue for hospitals, caring for the disabled, educating our kids, trips to the Gold Coast to unexpectedly buy a unit, etc" will do me.

A billion dollars is a pretty big lie.

edit: actually, it's not even the billion bucks. It's continually being taken for a fool that grinds my gears.

[noflac52]

Originally Posted by Kieron

In the NSW doc I posted above, the definition of speed is on pdf page 11.

@b0son, my mistake, the wording should have been 'contributing factor' and if NSW report it as speeding, it removes distraction, fatigue etc.

Re the QLD article, it's obviously a cut down report so won't have the legal definition of speeding, it simply is not BS because it doesn't have that info.


I noticed nobody responded (except for Blue Shadows great post ) to my question re where the $$'s goes, presumably it's to line overpaid pollies and the Secret Policeman's annual ball? OR -
https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/saf...speed/cameras/

What's the answer if speed cameras are simply revenue raisers? should they all be removed? pretty sure that would then allow us all to finally speed in peace...

Again all of those criteria are very subjective and subject to interpretation. I have personal experience where determining factors were hard to define so were put down in reports as speeding to save a lot of time and paperwork.

Statistics are only as good as the initial information allows them to be and are also subject to the interpretation that the compiler has and wants them to project.

Government have a vested financial interest in compiling statistics to support their assertions that this is effective road safety initiative.

A classic example of Government manipulating things to suit their views is the republic referendum. A republic that no-one wanted was concocted by government at the time and was the only one that the public were allowed to vote for. It was defeated but now if the subject comes up they state that we had a referendum for that and the public voted against it with out any mention that there was never a free vote for or against Australia becoming a republic without strings attached to the vote!

The same thing is done here with road safety statistics.

I didn't respond to the question about spending of revenue as it was a leading question as evidenced by the answers you provided yourself as being possibly representative of the respondents. You are wrong by the way. I don't think that there are many people on here that are that dumb.

It looks kind of stupid when you answer your own questions with what you think the respondents would say. A bit condescending I think.

[Blue Roo]

Originally Posted by Kieron

In the NSW doc I posted above, the definition of speed is on pdf page 11.

@b0son, my mistake, the wording should have been 'contributing factor' and if NSW report it as speeding, it removes distraction, fatigue etc.

Re the QLD article, it's obviously a cut down report so won't have the legal definition of speeding, it simply is not BS because it doesn't have that info.


I noticed nobody responded (except for Blue Shadows great post ) to my question re where the $$'s goes, presumably it's to line overpaid pollies and the Secret Policeman's annual ball? OR -
https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/saf...speed/cameras/

What's the answer if speed cameras are simply revenue raisers? should they all be removed? pretty sure that would then allow us all to finally speed in peace...

Ok. How about building better roads.

If you compare the Road Infrastructure in Australia with other countries like in Europe, The United Kingdom, America or even Canada. Australia's roads would has to be one of the worst in the world.
Have a look at Australia's National Highway (Highway 1) or any other major highway / road system and see how bad it really is. Especially the Bruce Highway in Queensland. Ask any Truckie. They will tell you.

Australia's Road Design and Traffic Management is out-dated and needs to be brought into the 21st Century.

I am amazed why State and Federal Governments are not serious enough in building a Super Highway Network (like the Autobahn in Germany) for traveling at High Speeds in state as well as Nation wide. This country has the room and space for this type of road infrastructure. The only problem with building this type of infrastructure would be cost and who would foot the bill.
If the State and Federal Governments use the Fuel Tax as it is should do. That is, using all the Fuel Tax on building and maintaining the road system. And not using or spending the Fuel Tax on other areas. We would and could have a better road system.

[malazn mafia]

Originally Posted by Blue Roo

Ok. How about building better roads.

If you compare the Road Infrastructure in Australia with other countries like in Europe, The United Kingdom, America or even Canada. Australia's roads would has to be one of the worst in the world.
Have a look at Australia's National Highway (Highway 1) or any other major highway / road system and see how bad it really is. Especially the Bruce Highway in Queensland. Ask any Truckie. They will tell you.

Australia's Road Design and Traffic Management is out-dated and needs to be brought into the 21st Century.

I am amazed why State and Federal Governments are not serious enough in building a Super Highway Network (like the Autobahn in Germany) for traveling at High Speeds in state as well as Nation wide. This country has the room and space for this type of road infrastructure. The only problem with building this type of infrastructure would be cost and who would foot the bill.
If the State and Federal Governments use the Fuel Tax as it is should do. That is, using all the Fuel Tax on building and maintaining the road system. And not using or spending the Fuel Tax on other areas. We would and could have a better road system.

The problem is that insignificant amount of people would be using the road system, to justify maintaining and building it, given Australia's humongous size. Germany is smaller than most of Australia's States and territories and the USA has more than 10x the number of people and hence number of cars getting around. The numbers don't stack up, unless we pay exorbitant tolls to use the Australia Autobahn if it ever did exist.

[Ansimp]

One of the problems around my neck of the woods ( rural SE Qld) is we have plenty of country roads with 100kph speed limits. Unfortunately as traffic increases the powers that be decide that the speed limit should be reduced even when the road is upgraded ( wider lanes and better surfacing). There is a new "satellite city" in our area ( 15 new families a week moving in ) and the majority of the drivers don't have country road experience so the speed limits are reducing by their skill sets. The best part of this new growth is the same old 20klm stretch of single lane road that I have been driving for the last 24 years is supposed to cope with all this increased traffic.
Wouldn't it be great if we could build the roads first to cope with the new development and population growth.

[XWGT]

To hold a driver’s licence is not a right - it is a privilege[/QUOTE]

Rubbish. I am the customer remember? The only reason government exists is to actually improve society and do my bidding!

I pay an enormous amount of tax. I want that spent of health care, education and roads.

I am happy to turn my licence in with every other taxpayer and sit at home until someone in authority realises that driving is a absolute critical factor to modern society and economy, and as a taxpayer I want safe fast and efficient transport be it private or public.

Now there is no question that we need to behave within an acceptable and agreed standard once driving, and those that cannot shall no longer be able to participate. However to suggest that gaining a licence is a privlidge is to suggest that elected government officials ares some magical new form of life that are removed from the people who actually appointed them in the first place.

[Kieron]

Originally Posted by noflac52

Again all of those criteria are very subjective and subject to interpretation. I have personal experience where determining factors were hard to define so were put down in reports as speeding to save a lot of time and paperwork.

Statistics are only as good as the initial information allows them to be and are also subject to the interpretation that the compiler has and wants them to project.

Government have a vested financial interest in compiling statistics to support their assertions that this is effective road safety initiative.

How exactly does this financial vested interest work?

A classic example of Government manipulating things to suit their views is the republic referendum. A republic that no-one wanted was concocted by government at the time and was the only one that the public were allowed to vote for. It was defeated but now if the subject comes up they state that we had a referendum for that and the public voted against it with out any mention that there was never a free vote for or against Australia becoming a republic without strings attached to the vote!

The same thing is done here with road safety statistics.

And this is backed fact or just your opinion?

I didn't respond to the question about spending of revenue as it was a leading question as evidenced by the answers you provided yourself as being possibly representative of the respondents. You are wrong by the way. I don't think that there are many people on here that are that dumb.

Do you know all the pro 'revenue raisers' thoughts or are you just guessing?

It looks kind of stupid when you answer your own questions with what you think the respondents would say. A bit condescending I think.

Think of it what you will, I don't really care. However, the reason why I answered my own question (with fact) is because some of you blokes effuse this 'revenue raising' line but don't provide any fact to back it. So yes, it was a leading question if you like and the fact that you saw it like that leads me to believe you knew your belief is flawed otherwise you could have come back at me to prove me wrong.

So, given that we now know that revenue raised from QLD's cameras is pumped into road safety awareness programs, accident rehab and black spots in QLD, is it still revenue raising?

[b0son]

Originally Posted by Kieron

How exactly does this financial vested interest work?

The revenue goes into consolidated revenue, so clearly, the government has a vested interest as there is no requirement to direct the proceeds to anything other than that which they wish to.

And this is backed fact or just your opinion?

When a notorious camera in Vic was found faulty, common sense says all fines after the last PROVEN instance of correct operation, should have been rescinded. This didn't happen. They still expected everyone to contest their fines individually despite there being no evidence that camera was operating correctly at the time. They did this knowing most would not given the requirement for a successful action would have required solicitors, expert witnesses etc to overturn.

You've well and truly drunk the cool aid, or you're trolling. Either way, I'm finding it difficult to see why anyone should treat your posts with anything other than contempt given they are either wilfully ignorant or just taking the ****.

[Tom Tucker]

Originally Posted by b0son

You've well and truly drunk the cool aid, or you're trolling. Either way, I'm finding it difficult to see why anyone should treat your posts with anything other than contempt given they are either wilfully ignorant or just taking the ****.

This gave me a solid chuckle haha

[noflac52]

Originally Posted by Kieron

How exactly does this financial vested interest work?



And this is backed fact or just your opinion?



Do you know all the pro 'revenue raisers' thoughts or are you just guessing?



Think of it what you will, I don't really care. However, the reason why I answered my own question (with fact) is because some of you blokes effuse this 'revenue raising' line but don't provide any fact to back it. So yes, it was a leading question if you like and the fact that you saw it like that leads me to believe you knew your belief is flawed otherwise you could have come back at me to prove me wrong.

So, given that we now know that revenue raised from QLD's cameras is pumped into road safety awareness programs, accident rehab and black spots in QLD, is it still revenue raising?

bOsun has answered all of your points adequately.

I have no reason at all to prove anything to you just because you ask. Believe what you like about me I don't care.

Everything you say is a fact because you say it is. Lol!

You are either trolling and wasting everyone's time with meaningless posts, a poor deluded private citizen that believes everything that the Government churns out for public consumption or a Government type with a similar vested interest