justify speed cameras

[joolz]

There certainly must be an election loomin in Victoria!! The cameras on the Western Ring Rd in the west of Melbourne have been removed, im not sure why but its a bit fishy 2 months before we go to the polls....

[Casper]

Originally Posted by joolz

There certainly must be an election loomin in Victoria!! The cameras on the Western Ring Rd in the west of Melbourne have been removed, im not sure why but its a bit fishy 2 months before we go to the polls....

Ring road camera's havent been opperational for 2 years. Since they snapped a 120Y doing some insane speed (that it physically couldnt do) and had to hand back all the money and points for EVERY SINGLE fine those camera's had ever issued.. for being faulty.

[bArNsY]

too bad all the people who lost their jobs because of that stuff up can't get their jobs back....C**ts

[MITCHAY]

Originally Posted by bArNsY

too bad all the people who lost their jobs because of that stuff up can't get their jobs back....C**ts

Could they sue for that? I would explore that. I remember that 120Y I think was on one of the current affairs programs. Got snapped doing like 160 or 180km/h. They took it to the track and proved it was not possible. Way to go!

[photn]

if you dont speed then you shouldnt have to worry about the speed cameras. so why complain. i agree some speed signs are ridiculus, but the leason is dont speed.! simple.

[RG]

Originally Posted by photn

if you dont speed then you shouldnt have to worry about the speed cameras. so why complain. i agree some speed signs are ridiculus, but the leason is dont speed.! simple.

Rather simplistic view. Speed cameras have no discretion, so even if you speed past one to avoid an accident you will still get picked up. What's more dangerous avoiding an accident or speeding?

[photn]

Originally Posted by RedXR8220

Rather simplistic view. Speed cameras have no discretion, so even if you speed past one to avoid an accident you will still get picked up. What's more dangerous avoiding an accident or speeding?

as arrogant as this may sound (which it isnt) can u explain to me why you would need to speed to avoid and accident. i cant think of any examples.

[05MkIIFutura]

Originally Posted by EL_661

Another that gets to me is; How people go around saying "*** speed cameras" and all that kinda jazz, saying how they are out to make money...Simple answer to your bitching, DONT SPEED. Simple, if you don't speed, then who cares about speed cameras?

I agree, but unfortunately we are a rare breed on these forums - most here happily admit they can drive at speeds faster than the "average" driver because they are capable of doing so safely.

[Bud Bud]

Originally Posted by photn

if you dont speed then you shouldnt have to worry about the speed cameras. so why complain. i agree some speed signs are ridiculus, but the leason is dont speed.! simple.

That would be great if it was as simple as that. People are still dying on our roads and the Governments solution is to implement more speed cameras in a campaign linked to saving those very same lives. You might not think you are being deceived, but I do.

[MITCHAY]

Well here is another take on it. I have heard that manufacturers speedos are allowed +or-10% tolerance. Therefore you could potentially be fined because of the way the car was made.

[bArNsY]

Originally Posted by photn

if you dont speed then you shouldnt have to worry about the speed cameras. so why complain. i agree some speed signs are ridiculus, but the leason is dont speed.! simple.

Like i stated above...if you don't speed and get fined by these unreliable cameras

your going to take it on the chin?

these errors cost more than money to the vehicle owners, it can cost people their employment or even their car (Datson 180B) impounded for doing 45 over the limit! If the car is destroyed....what then!

i agree poeple should abide by the law, but what if the law gets it wrong?

[05MkIIFutura]

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

Well here is another take on it. I have heard that manufacturers speedos are allowed +or-10% tolerance. Therefore you could potentially be fined because of the way the car was made.

But you will find all speedos read faster than what the car is actually travelling. Things such as changing wheel/tyre specs will chnage this

[RG]

Originally Posted by photn

as arrogant as this may sound (which it isnt) can u explain to me why you would need to speed to avoid and accident. i cant think of any examples.

Travelling down the freeway with a truck right behind you and a truck next to you, the truck next to you decides he is going to change lanes and doesn't see you. You know that if you jump on the brakes the truck behind you will hit you but you know that if you hit the gas you can make it. What do you do? This sort of thing happens 100's of times everyday, even more so if you ride a bike.

[05MkIIFutura]

The fundamental weakness of speed-at-point cameras is that it catches those people who are un-intentionally speeding by 5 or 10km/h, while those who are speeding on purpose will slow for the camera's. The fact that it catches these people and they only check at single points on a road means they are inneffective over the entire distance of a motorists trip

Thats why i agree with the new style, the time-over-distance speed cameras. These dont actually measure your speed at an single location, but will "time stamp" your rego number at certain points over a series of intervals. over the set of cameras, if you are deemed to have arrived at the next camera to quickly, you will be fined.

Victoria have currently got these set up on the Hume (hidden, i believe) and they have broken the trip from Melb to Wadonga into 5 sections, and your avg speed will be calculated from the time it took you to get to each point. This stops you from speeding, plain and simple. I use this freeway and will drive with cruise on 120km/h (actual speed 113km/h) and have never been fined.

I believe they will be implementing these onto the Pacific Hwy in NSW.

[photn]

Originally Posted by Bud Bud

That would be great if it was as simple as that. People are still dying on our roads and the Governments solution is to implement more speed cameras in a campaign linked to saving those very same lives. You might not think you are being deceived, but I do.

well your wrong on so man levels. the governments solution is not to implement more cameras believe it or not. ever heard of 2010. you read "2010" and you tell me the government is doing nothing to prevent people from dying on the roads.
http://whome.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafe...ads/rs2010.pdf

[RG]

Originally Posted by photn

well your wrong on so man levels. the governments solution is not to implement more cameras believe it or not. ever heard of 2010. you read "2010" and you tell me the government is doing nothing to prevent people from dying on the roads.
http://whome.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafe...ads/rs2010.pdf

Well that's all fine and good if you are in NSW but what about the rest of us.

[LTDHO]

I can't believe this tobic has begun again.

Speed cameras do more bad for the roads than good.
Speed cameras do fill the pockets of the government.

There is more to a fatality accident than speed, in most cases the vehicle speed did not contribute. More ofen than not the reasond for a death could have been prevented by an officer not a camera. But officers cost money not make money.

I would like to see the TAC with ad's on how to drive safer on TV in several languages. This will make the road safer.

[Silver Ghia]

Originally Posted by photn

as arrogant as this may sound (which it isnt) can u explain to me why you would need to speed to avoid and accident. i cant think of any examples.

Another example. Following a vehicle thats doing below the speed limit kilometer after kilometer in the country. You find a gap where its safe to overtake. Do you just speed up to the speed limit and take 10, 15 or more seconds in the opposite (wrong) lane to get past, or get past in the minimum time (say 3 seconds). I know which option I'll take, regardless of speeding fines. My life is worth more than a speeding fine.

I think its far too simplistic to say you never need to go over the speed limit. For instance how do you know how accurate your speedo is? I also know for a fact that not all speedos show faster than the actual car speed. The speedo check points along freeways are of little use, as most times they're not working, or show varying speeds when you havent changed the cruise control speed setting.

Every night I join the West Gate bridge at Todd road at the bottom of the bridge. I'm busy getting into the line of traffic trying to avoid hitting anyone,then when near the top where its a bit clearer, I find the usual 80 kmph limit has changed to 60 kmph, for no apparent reason. There is only one speed sign between the Todd Road entry and the near the top of the bridge after the first set of speed cameras, and that is where I'm concentrating on dodging traffic.

Also I find that truck drivers, being used to the roads they are travelling on, know exactly where the cameras are, and slow down only at these locations.

I totally agree with Casper, Mitchay Bud Bud and Smoked in what they say, and that Photn and 05Mk11Futura are far too simplistic. I also have to say (touch wood) I have never received a speeding camera infringement notice since speed cameras were introduced, but I realise the severe shortcomings of speed cameras actually being 'safety cameras'.

[WhiteKnight]

My gripe is about speed cameras in the Lake Macquarie (NSW) area - ONE especially in a school zone which has a variable speed limit based on time and/or if it is a school day or not.
I find it very "ironic" that the Government can afford to put in flashing lights at some non camera'd school zones to advise of the change of speed limit but the areas where they are guaranteed to make money (camera) they cannot afford to (or dont want to)for the "safety" of the students.
Not everyone knows the correct time , for various reasons, and due to school holidays falling at different times in different states not everyone knows if it is a school day or not.
If they can afford the camera surely the can afford flashing lights, or are they not installed so that they can catch even unsusspecting motorists who may even believe they are doing the correct speed limit. - OBVIOUS MONEY GRAB.

[Bud Bud]

Originally Posted by photn

well your wrong on so man levels. the governments solution is not to implement more cameras believe it or not. ever heard of 2010. you read "2010" and you tell me the government is doing nothing to prevent people from dying on the roads.
http://whome.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafe...ads/rs2010.pdf

Sorry link did not work, so I can’t comment on "2010". Again that is fine if that is the way you see it.

In SA we have a notorious stretch of road that links Adelaide with Victor Harbour. This road has been considered dangerous for decades and has only had minor upgrades over that time. This road is one of the most popular roads in SA for tourism and for speed cameras alike.

Every year people disproportionably die on this road while State and Federal Governments argue over whom is responsible for what. This road has been a political football during every election that I have voted in, meanwhile cameras are still quite happily snapping away with those little signs claiming they are saving our lives, while people are still dying on this same road. What am I wrong about?

I try not use this road these days unless I have to.

I do not just think I can speed anywhere or do anything I like when I like nor do I think I am a law to myself, quite the contrary in fact. I for one believe that there should be boundaries rules and regulations in place in any society.

What I can’t stand though is this ridiculous con that State Governments are actually using these things to save lives when the evidence is beginning to show that they really do more to raise revenue than to continue the once healthy down slide of fatalities of the past two decades. These lazy Governments have blood on their hands (however you can not see it through the fist full of dollars they call revenue) for not keeping that curve going.

BTW I have not had a single traffic infringement in the past five years nor have I had a single accident in my 25 years of driving and I rarely speed at all (too old and wise to worry about things like that) yet in Adelaide we have introduced more cameras including speed cameras that work in tandem with red light cameras over the same five year period. Our road toll has stagnated during this time.

Somebody has got it wrong!

[Rob]

The problem here in Victoria is the ridiculous tolerance levels.. 3kph? Please. Car manufacturers have openly and repeatedly admitted that they speedos have a tolerance of up to 10kph max either way. 10kph leeway is needed. ******* government.

[RG]

IIRC ADR's state that a cars speedo only needs to be within 10% of the vehicles actual speed. How the vic government thinks that bringing in this 3kph rule is a good safe idea is beyond me.

[Casper]

Originally Posted by RedXR8220

IIRC ADR's state that a cars speedo only needs to be within 10% of the vehicles actual speed. How the vic government thinks that bringing in this 3kph rule is a good safe idea is beyond me.

Revenue.. simple answer.

[bArNsY]

we need a bill of rights! it will solve so many problems!

[Rob]

Originally Posted by RedXR8220

IIRC ADR's state that a cars speedo only needs to be within 10% of the vehicles actual speed. How the vic government thinks that bringing in this 3kph rule is a good safe idea is beyond me.

exactly, 10% of 100kph... even our inept ministers must be capable of working that out.

[RG]

Originally Posted by Casper

Revenue.. simple answer.

It wouldn't hurt so much if the money raised from traffic infringements was actually put back into the roads that they came from, driver training and education or even into Public transport but sadly that isn't the case.

[Casper]

Well, I think the easiest way to get the point across is to wire up Peter Batchelors testicles to a 100w power supply set to go off if he go's 3kph over the speed limit. Then put him on the Hume freeway with a specific time limit to get to Wodonga (or he gets zapped once ever 3 seconds he's late). Make the time limit work out to an average of 98kph. Then put him in a 1987 XF falcon, the one with the stupid dash, and tell him to go for it.

I suspect his attitude to tolerances would have changed by the time he gets to Wodonga. I'd also suspect his undies will need changing too :

[[Tonko]]

Originally Posted by Casper

when was the last time you saw someone ticketed for jaywalking?

My mate 3 weeks ago, walking to his car at 3am on a friday morning...$200

[photn]

Originally Posted by WhiteKnight

I find it very "ironic" that the Government can afford to put in flashing lights at some non camera'd school zones to advise of the change of speed limit but the areas where they are guaranteed to make money (camera) they cannot afford to (or dont want to)for the "safety" of the students.

so your saying that the NSW government did nothing and implemented nothing when sophie was hit TWICE. i had to stay back till 8 every night and start at 730 every morning just to handle the work load from the ministers office in getting information about pedestrians being hit. the RTA and the government have implemented alot. the whole point the 40 school zone system has been implemented is for the safety of our kids. and maybee just maybee the whole point and reason there are flashing lights at some schools is becuase there has been high records of pedestrians being hit. the signs are for public awarness.

[photn]

Originally Posted by Bud Bud

Sorry link did not work,

here it is. this should work!

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety...ads/rs2010.pdf