justify speed cameras

[Bud Bud]

Originally Posted by photn

here it is. this should work!

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

Thanks for that, a long and informative read it was but it also seemed like a bit of political waffle to me as well!

While I commend the initiative, it was still hard to see where the lives would be saved out side of the normal and expected responsibilities of Government departments and vehicle manufactures improvements such as improved roads (page 7), black spot programs (page 8) and improved vehicle design (page 10).

SA‘s Governments answer to black spots by their own admission is to regularly patrol them with speed cameras. I would have thought that it would be better to just improve the road instead!

This very document still fails to explain something simple like the correlation between more speed cameras and road deaths vs. a greater Police presence vs. road deaths. Don’t get me wrong, something has to be done, but I really am left with even less faith on any Governments ability to define revenue raising over saving lives.

On another thing, we keep getting pounded by TV advertising and also a mention in this link that, if 60 k/ph is just so much more dangerous to drive compared to 50 k p/h (page 3), then why do we drive at 60 k/ph anywhere in a built up area at all?

Surely it would make good sense according to the Governments own research for there to be a flat 50 k ph/ across the board instead of trying to marry them together in situation that seems to only serve to be more confusing to drivers now.

BTW this not intended to belittle your view, but I still find it hard to take with people still dying while Governments seem to profit. After all we already pay huge petrol taxes and the GST is just rapeing the economy on a scale far greater that the Howard Government had planned, yet we still struggle to get something simple like the roads that we have already paid for.

[sfr rob]

man.... i agree with alot of people here.
Being a professional driver, and being on the roads EVERY day, its amazing to see how many speed cameras (Mobile, & stationary cameras) are popping up, and all in locations where there is no obvious benifit to road safety.

I cant stand the stupid things, and i CAN NOT Justify having them on our roads.

[T_Terror]

Originally Posted by photn

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.

Thats just crap. Where are the figures that showed kids were being mauled outside school because cars were "speeding" at 50kmh, and where is the research that showed a 10kmh drop in speed will make a significant impact on that figure?

Everyone knows that the biggest hazard in a school zone is kids jumping out from behind cars, I applaud the flashing lights and warning initiative but i dont buy that "saving the children" was the real reason behind the laws introduction.

[photn]

Originally Posted by T_Terror

Thats just crap. Where are the figures that showed kids were being mauled outside school because cars were "speeding" at 50kmh, and where is the research that showed a 10kmh drop in speed will make a significant impact on that figure?

Everyone knows that the biggest hazard in a school zone is kids jumping out from behind cars, I applaud the flashing lights and warning initiative but i dont buy that "saving the children" was the real reason behind the laws introduction.

okay next time your in a school zone do 60 or 50 and when a kid jumps out in front of you and you kill them because you could not stop in time or your reaction speed was too slow, you come and tell my why a slower speed around school zones isnt neccessary. and believe it or not totally up to you i had to research and mine data for 2 years worth of Fatal crash records, read each one and find ones that related to school children being killed at crossing, abd believe you me that these initiatives where put in place to reduce kids being killed.

of course every one knows that the biggest hazard is kids jumping out, but what do you want the parents and teachers to do about it, put the kids on a leash. kids are educated as well and they SHOULD know better, but for all the little kids who dont understand and do jump out what do you suppose we do. the government took the initiative and introduced laws.

think about it, if your child jumped out from behind a car and it was doing 40 and managed to stop in time and not kill your child, im sure your view would be changed.

but hey if you think that we should do 50 or 60 through school zones, hey lets all start doing it and see how many more die!

im sure it will be far less :

[T_Terror]

Originally Posted by photn

okay next time your in a school zone do 60 or 50 and when a kid jumps out in front of you and you kill them because you could not stop in time or your reaction speed was too slow, you come and tell my why a slower speed around school zones isnt neccessary. and believe it or not totally up to you i had to research and mine data for 2 years worth of Fatal crash records, read each one and find ones that related to school children being killed at crossing, abd believe you me that these initiatives where put in place to reduce kids being killed.

of course every one knows that the biggest hazard is kids jumping out, but what do you want the parents and teachers to do about it, put the kids on a leash. kids are educated as well and they SHOULD know better, but for all the little kids who dont understand and do jump out what do you suppose we do. the government took the initiative and introduced laws.

think about it, if your child jumped out from behind a car and it was doing 40 and managed to stop in time and not kill your child, im sure your view would be changed.

but hey if you think that we should do 50 or 60 through school zones, hey lets all start doing it and see how many more die!

im sure it will be far less :

If you could point me towards those statistics that showed a large number of kids were getting killed next to their schools then you will have converted one die-hard disbeliever.

Truth be told, i actually slowed down to 40 and even less even before the new laws were put in. I disagree with the blanket ruling of 40kmh anywhere near any school as its not practical and isnt followed by 90%+ road users causing road rage and other problems for those who do.

Im not advocating speeding through school areas, im just trying to figure out what pointed towards the governments decision.
Dont take it personally, youre just the first person ive met who is involved with this process and i believe that you worked hard to come up with this solution even though i dont agree with it.

[WhiteKnight]

Originally Posted by photn

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
Read my bleat in context.
What I was saying is there are flashing lights being installed at some school zones TO INDICATE the change in speed zone so that there is NO error in the interpretation of the TIME (try looking at your watch on a motor bike whilst observing traffic and other road obstacles) BUT in my example I was saying that there should be a visual KEY to show which speed limit is in force. I realise the signs are there to advise speed limits but we also need to know what time it is to know the prevailing speed limit (ie 60km or 40km per hour)at the time.
Also using your example of Sophie (for whom I have the deepest respect) I assume that you know that the first time she was hurt she was not on the road but in class room.
If you read reports I hope you read the whole report not just the key words

[photn]

there isnt much else the government could of done apart from build barracades around the school. the best option that was viable to all school zones was reduce the speed limit and make the public aware of the risks. the stats can be had from the rta website on the 2004 and previous statements.

i slow down to 30 and i am seriously aware of what might happen when in a school zone. it i cause traffic then so what. id rather casue traffic than take a childs life.

for those people who cause road rage and other problems they do not deserve to be on the road. police also tend to patrol school areas sometimes to catch these d1cks.

[photn]

Originally Posted by WhiteKnight

Photn
Read my bleat in context.
What I was saying is there are flashing lights being installed at some school zones TO INDICATE the change in speed zone so that there is NO error in the interpretation of the TIME (try looking at your watch on a motor bike whilst observing traffic and other road obstacles) BUT in my example I was saying that there should be a visual KEY to show which speed limit is in force. I realise the signs are there to advise speed limits but we also need to know what time it is to know the prevailing speed limit (ie 60km or 40km per hour)at the time.
Also using your example of Sophie (for whom I have the deepest respect) I assume that you know that the first time she was hurt she was not on the road but in class room.
If you read reports I hope you read the whole report not just the key words

some schools have flags that they put up when the hours of the 40 zone are operable. some also have lollie pop people. many schools have some visual device or another. some are just harder to see than others.

i read every report and i have to process it. my job is hard some times especially when you read a report of you mate being mowed down at an intersection 4 months after we graduated from school.
i read every report thouroghly. some accidents are just stupid but some and most could have been avoided.

[majin_andrew]

I can see why they wantt to stop stupid speeding, as in intentional idiot speeding is definately dangerous. But it is frustrating when sensible drivers who accidently go above the speed limit get a ticket or worse, because they were paying attention to the road and not their speedo. Also it is wrong when they have a radar gun at an overtaking lane - that is dangerous.

[Silver Ghia]

Originally Posted by Bud Bud

Thanks for that, a long and informative read it was but it also seemed like a bit of political waffle to me as well!

While I commend the initiative, it was still hard to see where the lives would be saved out side of the normal and expected responsibilities of Government departments and vehicle manufactures improvements such as improved roads (page 7), black spot programs (page 8) and improved vehicle design (page 10).

The '2010' document as far as I can see does not even mention what I believe is the number one killer - driver inattention. That is not concentrating on the job of driving, driving outside the limitations of the driver/car in the conditions faced, being distracted by other things such as younger drivers with their mates in the car, mobile phones, not looking properly, etc etc.

It seems that speed is the main killer. Therefore to be completely safe, lets stay at home.

[photn]

Originally Posted by Silver Ghia

The '2010' document as far as I can see does not even mention what I believe is the number one killer - driver inattention. That is not concentrating on the job of driving, driving outside the limitations of the driver/car in the conditions faced, being distracted by other things such as younger drivers with their mates in the car, mobile phones, not looking properly, etc etc.

It seems that speed is the main killer. Therefore to be completely safe, lets stay at home.

the 2010 document is being updated at the moment with all the new strategies and programs that have been implemented and also going to be implemented.

or how about dont speed.

[Tles]

Maybe the best way of saving lives on the road is to put people into cars that have some chance of avoiding a crash in the first place and god forbid they do, some chance of surviving with occupants intact. Even the Manufacturers are hugely disappointed by the take up rates on Safety packages most buyers would rather a spoiler it seems. Perhaps the TAC and the Governments should reassess where the best places are to spend your taxes. Remove the Stampduty and GST on ABS, ESP, Traction Control, Tyres and brakes, Reversing & blindspot sensors and cameras, Roadworthy checks for Rego and driver when buying a new car. Then this technology can filter down through the ranges and or be available as an affordable package. My personal opinion is that the powers that be couldn't spend the forfeited tax in any way that would improve safety better.

[LTDHO]

Originally Posted by photn

or how about dont speed.

Why?
There is no justifed reason not to.

[photn]

Originally Posted by LTDHO

Why?
There is no justifed reason not to.

apart from getting caught by a speed camera, loosing points and a fine. of course no reason.

[RG]

Originally Posted by photn

apart from getting caught by a speed camera, loosing points and a fine. of course no reason.

He said no JUSTIFIED reason, just because they are justified in your opinion doesn't make it so. Not having a go at you but just because you see something in a paticular way doesn't neccesarily make you correct.

[05MkIIFutura]

Originally Posted by RedXR8220

He said no JUSTIFIED reason, just because they are justified in your opinion doesn't make it so. Not having a go at you but just because you see something in a paticular way doesn't neccesarily make you correct.

Justfication: something that shows an action to be reasonable or necessary;

I believe getting caught by a speed camera, losing points, coping a speeding fine but most importantly KILLING someone is a perfectly good justification

The following is some info from the RTA, you have probably seen it a million times, but it spells out the TRUTH in regards to your car and the laws of physics which CANNOT be denied.


In a 60 km/h speed limit area, the risk of involvement in a casualty crash doubles with each 5 km/h increase in travelling speed above 60 km/h.

There are three reasons that small reductions in speed make such a large difference to risk.

1. Small differences in speeds mean differences both in time to collision and ability to avoid a crash.
Even if a vehicle cannot be stopped in the available distance, the collision can still sometimes be avoided. When a driver is speeding there is less time for both that driver and any other road user (either a pedestrian or another driver) to:
> Recognise danger
> Decide on an evasive action (brake, swerve)
> Complete the evasive action
> Furthermore, a vehicle travelling at a higher speed is more difficult to manoeuvre.

2. Small differences in vehicle speeds, before braking begins, can result in large differences in impact speeds.
The diagram below shows the relationship between speed, stopping distance and impact speed. This example illustrates how impact speed can differ between two cars with only a 10 km/h difference in travelling speeds:

...consider two cars travelling side by side at a given instant, one car travelling at 50 km/h and the other overtaking at 60 km/h. Suppose that a child runs onto the road at a point just beyond that at which the car travelling at 50 km/h can stop. The other car will still be travelling at 44 km/h at that point2.

3. Even small differences in impact speed make a large difference to the probability of serious injury.
The reason for this difference is that the force of the crash varies with the square of the impact speed. For example, a 70 km/h collision has about twice the force of a 50 km/h collision.

.

[RG]

All well and good if you choose to believe everything that a government agency tells you, do you believe everything that the government says? Also in regards to that nice little graph with stopping distances on it, that would be nice if EVERY car on the road had exactly the same braking capabilities, which obviously they don't. I know for sure that my ABS equipped XR can out brake my non ABS EL which in turn could out brake a 70's Kingswood. It's kind of like that old Vicroads ad where the two AU falcons that brake from the same spot hit the side of a truck, one doing 60 the other 65. The one doing 65 apparently hits at 32km/h and the one doing 60 hits at only 5km/h. That was all well and good until Monash University (I think) put that to the test and found that neither would have actually hit.

[photn]

Originally Posted by RedXR8220

All well and good if you choose to believe everything that a government agency tells you, do you believe everything that the government says?

i dont mean to be rude, but why dont you try it. and see the results you get?

[Casper]

I think this has gone way off track now.
Inappropriae speed is dangerous. This actually includes speeds UNDER the posted limits in some cases (who would do 100kph in a massive rain shower in peak hour??).
This is the point that some people are trying to get across. The government and speed camera's cant take anything else into account except speed and this is not enough. More so the tolerances given in Victoria are un-sustainable and geared towards revenue.
Camera's have their place (I'm all for red light camera's) however the use of them now is becoming a clear and obvious revenue grab and has almost no basis in facts for road safety.

[RG]

Originally Posted by photn

i dont mean to be rude, but why dont you try it. and see the results you get?

Try what and see the results on what?

[Casper]

Originally Posted by RedXR8220

Try what and see the results on what?

I think he means the brake tests.
Stupid thing is Russellw has already done it all and its here on the site. http://www.fordforums.com.au/vbporta...article&id=220

Just for fun though.. a BA XR8 was consistantly pullung up from 60kph in around 15 metres and from 80kph in around 32metres. Even factoring in reaction time the government numbers are so off the ball they must have been done with a horse and cart.

[RG]

Originally Posted by Casper

I think he means the brake tests.
Stupid thing is Russellw has already done it all and its here on the site. http://www.fordforums.com.au/vbporta...article&id=220

Just for fun though.. a BA XR8 was consistantly pullung up from 60kph in around 15 metres and from 80kph in around 32metres. Even factoring in reaction time the government numbers are so off the ball they must have been done with a horse and cart.

Ah I see, been there done that. Just ask the little girl that ran out in front of me a couple of weeks ago how quick a car can pull up. And no I wasn't speeding but if I had left my parents a second earier or was doing 65 do you really think a camera that is hidden would save her?

[LTDHO]

Originally Posted by RedXR8220

He said no JUSTIFIED reason, just because they are justified in your opinion doesn't make it so. Not having a go at you but just because you see something in a paticular way doesn't neccesarily make you correct.

Yes Red I said Justified.

Originally Posted by 05MkIIFutura

Justfication: something that shows an action to be reasonable or necessary;

I believe getting caught by a speed camera, losing points, coping a speeding fine but most importantly KILLING someone is a perfectly good justification

The following is some info from the RTA, you have probably seen it a million times, but it spells out the TRUTH in regards to your car and the laws of physics which CANNOT be denied.

Killing someone will only occure is a person is to ignore the dangers of a rapid moving mass and stepp out infront of it. These injuries are not the cause of speed, they are the cause of the person. Due to these inconsiderate persons the vehicles are restricted.

There is two sides to this and only one is harshly treated, the other still ollows people to walk infront of cars.

[joolz]

Back in March 2001 driving through Geelong on the Princess Fwy i hit a pedestrian. Now i wasnt speeding infact doing 65 in a 70 zone. The pedestrian jay walked across this very busy fwy and i couldnt see him as there was a truck on my right. He hit the drivers side corner on the hiace van i was driving and was flung out to the side of the van. Now if i was going say 60 im sure he would have been killed as he would have gone right under the van. Im not condoning speeding but in some cases pedestrians have alot to answer for. Its easy for the Goverment bodies to blame the drivers but there are more factors to accidents than speed. The tolerance of just 3km/h is rediculous, to me thats just more revenue that can be raised and not really targeting safety and still car manufactures are allowed a 10% tolerance on speedo's. Also now ive found on freeways that all can s have cars doing 95, 97, and say 99km/h and thats frustrating if you have to change lanes to exit the fwy as you are basically blocked in. Ive seen in some cases cars almost miss the exit and collide with the barriers in an act of risk taking to get off the fwy. Before the tolerance change people werent so worried about doing only 2-3 ks over the limit. On another occasion on the way back from Stawell in western vic on the western hwy i noticed a speed camera as i was about to overtake a caravan. Now it was placed about 50 etres after the overtaking lane started. To me that again is revenue raising and nothing to do with safety.

[MITCHAY]

Originally Posted by LTDHO

Killing someone will only occure is a person is to ignore the dangers of a rapid moving mass and stepp out infront of it. These injuries are not the cause of speed, they are the cause of the person. Due to these inconsiderate persons the vehicles are restricted.

Yep and yet driver seems to fall victim to the blame. The only exception where the driver is to blame I can think of is if the driver was drunk or was driving dangerously .

If anyone steps out in front of me, I will promptly be sending them the bill to fix my car.

If a person wants to stop, they just stop. Car wants to stop, brakes have to be slammed on and forces need to act. That simple.

Yes little kids have not much idea, and that is why we have 40km/h zones, crossings etc.

[photn]

Originally Posted by LTDHO

Yes Red I said Justified.

Killing someone will only occure is a person is to ignore the dangers of a rapid moving mass and stepp out infront of it. These injuries are not the cause of speed, they are the cause of the person. Due to these inconsiderate persons the vehicles are restricted.

There is two sides to this and only one is harshly treated, the other still ollows people to walk infront of cars.

agreed the injuries/deaths are due to the people stepping out and being hit. but its almost imposible to monitor and police people like this. the government cant just say its too hard to police it so lets do nothing. they have done something weather its enough or not is another matter. but at least some affirmative action is being taken by the govenrment.