NSW Premier: Speed Camera Review

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by prydey

i don't think you have exposed anybody. between the 2 of you, one seems to work in the practicle, and one in the theory.

theory is all well and good, but sometimes, in practice, things don't quite follow the same 'logic'.

.

be interesting if you could quote some specifics where you think getcko has got it right in practice and I have the "theory" wrong

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by sudszy

be interesting if you could quote some specifics where you think getcko has got it right in practice and I have the "theory" wrong

Prydey, I suggest you leave this alone, not in the spirit of the topic and it is time to get this back on topic before the padlock hits.

[prydey]

good advice gecko

[SEZ213]

I think we can all agree there are certain instances whereby it is impossible to stop at an amber light.

The question is, will Barry O'Farrell follow through to remove those that are proving to be 'cash cows' - and will the public be made aware of the results of the inquiry?

The man is brave, and has managed to win an election based on his honesty (a first for an MP), admittedly he didn't have to try very hard...but still.

Will his contract with the people blow up in his face when he realises exactly how much money these devices make? And where will that leave the budget? Will registrations be increased to make up for the 'shortfall' from something that was clearly in their budget to begin with?

(I know, it's slightly political, however, it seems relevant given the topic).

[prydey]

not sure on nsw financial status (probably broke like all the others) so revenue is addictive. the first politician to REMOVE any camera's will be an instant hero, but will also be responsible for creating a financial shortfall that will need to be filled some other way.

most new govts also blame the previous govt for the state of affairs the state is in and use it as an excuse to break a few promises. be interesting to see how this unfolds.

off topic, but i'd also like to see nsw state limit go back to 110 rather than 100. if nothing else, just gives the cars and trucks a bit of breathing space.

[TheInterceptor]

Well they can stop giving the useless beaurocrat's huge bonus's for one...then GovCo will be less broke.

I still believe O Farrel is up to somthing..

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Finding ben73, flappist, yourself in a thread complaining about govco conspiracies....just coincidental too?

Don't blame anyone else. The 'govco conspiracies' follow you because you bring it upon yourself with your posts being 100% one sided. If someone makes a good point that goes against your beliefs, you never back down.

I cannot believe you are still going on with that 80km/h in 20m crap. I already said I misread your post. Stop bringing it up. Its dead and gone. All references to it are pointless and prove nothing.

off topic, but i'd also like to see nsw state limit go back to 110 rather than 100. if nothing else, just gives the cars and trucks a bit of breathing space.

There are many 110 zones in NSW. And it better stay that way. I can think of a few roads that could safely be 120 or 130.

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by TheInterceptor

Well they can stop giving the useless beaurocrat's huge bonus's for one...then GovCo will be less broke.

I still believe O Farrel is up to somthing..

I dunno, I reckon he might surprise everyone, possibly. Ever the optimist, and if he makes things better for NSW, I'm happy - it's a big state to drive through on crappy roads.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Ben73

There are many 110 zones in NSW. And it better stay that way. I can think of a few roads that could safely be 120 or 130.

only divided highways right?? not sure, i don't live there. i travel through nsw (newell hwy) every year on route to brissie though and late 09 or early '10, the 110 zones were all cut back to 100.

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by prydey

only divided highways right?? not sure, i don't live there. i travel through nsw (newell hwy) every year on route to brissie though and late 09 or early '10, the 110 zones were all cut back to 100.

110 zones only seam to be divided roads that have on and off ramps.

All divided roads that have side roads are only 100.

The Pacific Highway from Newcastle to QLD is pathetic.
There are so many nice, new bits of road along the way that are only 100 when they could be 120.

[TheInterceptor]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

I dunno, I reckon he might surprise everyone, possibly. Ever the optimist, and if he makes things better for NSW, I'm happy - it's a big state to drive through on crappy roads.

For NSW's sake i hope he does.

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by prydey

not sure on nsw financial status (probably broke like all the others) so revenue is addictive. the first politician to REMOVE any camera's will be an instant hero, but will also be responsible for creating a financial shortfall that will need to be filled some other way.

most new govts also blame the previous govt for the state of affairs the state is in and use it as an excuse to break a few promises. be interesting to see how this unfolds.

off topic, but i'd also like to see nsw state limit go back to 110 rather than 100. if nothing else, just gives the cars and trucks a bit of breathing space.

According to the last article I just read, supposedly back in the black this year, and looking at a surplus...

There was a survey done by the NRMA a little while back stating the worst roads in the state by region, interesting read, as it covers quite a few of the majors heading out.

Originally Posted by TheInterceptor

For NSW's sake i hope he does.

I reckon they'll be alright, might be a good chance for some decent infrastructure to go ahead, and not just in the metro areas. I haven't driven the Newell for a couple years, but it was trash in places. And if he doesn't, he's already promised to boot himself. :P

[geckoGT]

Call me a cynic if you wish but I have reservations about what the result of this audit will be, I think the publics wish for a open and transparent audit will sorely left unanswered.

At the end of it, the determination will be that the cameras do work, they do contribute to road safety and at best a few of the lowest money earners will be removed (or redeployed).

The hidden cost will be that the government will then be able to claim "we reviewed all camera sites and have clear evidence they work". Thus this review could end up being the governments most powerful weapon for the continued use of these cameras.

Lets not forget, reviews and inquiry can be influenced by the origins of the funding and what the person who is paying the bills wants.

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Call me a cynic if you wish but I have reservations about what the result of this audit will be, I think the publics wish for a open and transparent audit will sorely left unanswered.

At the end of it, the determination will be that the cameras do work, they do contribute to road safety and at best a few of the lowest money earners will be removed (or redeployed).

The hidden cost will be that the government will then be able to claim "we reviewed all camera sites and have clear evidence they work". Thus this review could end up being the governments most powerful weapon for the continued use of these cameras.

Lets not forget, reviews and inquiry can be influenced by the origins of the funding and what the person who is paying the bills wants.

It'd all be available under FOI though wouldn't it?

There's on in Sydney that made $7 million in a year...combined with a 10k drop in speed limit when it was first installed...

I imagine such a task is very costly, and the result could be potentially damaging if the results are completely unbiased - I'm wondering if this 'independent review' will be handled properly?

I guess we'll find out in 12 weeks time if his intentions are true or not.

[geckoGT]

It'd all be available under FOI though wouldn't it?

Yes it would.

I imagine such a task is very costly, and the result could be potentially damaging if the results are completely unbiased - I'm wondering if this 'independent review' will be handled properly?

That is the big question.

There's on in Sydney that made $7 million in a year...combined with a 10k drop in speed limit when it was first installed...

Seems there are 7 million reasons why not at one site, money talks and that loss of revenue has to be replaced somehow.

[Ben73]

Even if the study shows speed cameras are nothing but cash cows. The cameras will not go anywhere. They are here for the long run.
I would wager my house on it if I had one.

[sudszy]

Interestingly, not living in NSW, I didn’t realise that they weren’t experiencing a reducing road toll like what is happening in VIC. Toll in NSW was lowest in 2008 but went up during 2009 and 2010

Interestingly, back in 2010, here was the request from the police minister.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/polic...0101-llrp.html

mobile cameras, were reintroduced july 2010 and perhaps just by coincidence we look at the short term figures since then we see a significant reduction in the toll: http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety...statistics.pdf
Of course I expect “motoring enthusiasts” will no doubt busy themselves on conjuring up a reason for that refutes any connection between the two, perhaps there isnt, but something to think about.
The new premier, hopefully is not altogether stupid and is only having this ‘audit’ to stop the noisy minority undermining the current efforts.

Certainly if he were to do something like remove cameras based on nothing but his personal opinion and bowing to whims, then when the toll rises steeply again his backside would be kicked from here to kingdom come, something I don’t think he really wants to entertain.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Interestingly, not living in NSW, I didn’t realise that they weren’t experiencing a reducing road toll like what is happening in VIC. Toll in NSW was lowest in 2008 but went up during 2009 and 2010

Interestingly, back in 2010, here was the request from the police minister.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/polic...0101-llrp.html

mobile cameras, were reintroduced july 2010 and perhaps just by coincidence we look at the short term figures since then we see a significant reduction in the toll: http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety...statistics.pdf
Of course I expect “motoring enthusiasts” will no doubt busy themselves on conjuring up a reason for that refutes any connection between the two, perhaps there isnt, but something to think about.
The new premier, hopefully is not altogether stupid and is only having this ‘audit’ to stop the noisy minority undermining the current efforts.

Certainly if he were to do something like remove cameras based on nothing but his personal opinion and bowing to whims, then when the toll rises steeply again his backside would be kicked from here to kingdom come, something I don’t think he really wants to entertain.

There is no way known you can attribute that reduction solely to the presence of speed cameras. The road toll every year goes through ups and downs, it is the way it is and 2010 could have been a high year, 2011 a low one, this has happened many years prior to the introduction of speed cameras. Standing up after just 12 months and saying it has saved 15 lives is a bit short sighted.

You sparked my interest so I did a little reading at the BITRE web site to see for myself. Just in you case are interested you can find the report to which a refer here @
http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications...DA_Feb2011.pdf


For example, when you look across all states for the same time period some interesting results can be seen. Yes NSW experienced a 14.7% reduction in the Mar 2010 - Feb 2011 year but WA For example, experienced a 18.4% increase for the same time period, did WA remove their speed cameras during that time period? No they did not so what caused that increase? Similarly NT and ACT both experienced increases in road toll of 28.6% and 13.3% respectively, again did those states decrease camera unit usage for that time period?

Also what was the changes in QLD, Vic, SA and Tas? Vic has had a steady increase in the use of speed cameras over the last few years but their modest 5.8% reduction in the same 12 months does not seem to speak too highly of their effectiveness when compared to NSW. Tas had a reduction of 42%, what was the cause of this and did they increase the usage of speed cameras? QLD went down 21%, yes they had the introduction of covert cameras but only a modest number of units in the major cities and we also had half the state flooded, hence decreased road movement for a number of months. SA went down 14.8%, a similar result to NSW but I do not remember any great increase in the use of speed cameras commented on here by our SA members.

What I find very interesting is when you increase the scope of the statistics at which you look from a yearly snap shot out to a 5 year trend. NSW and Vic have both had massive increases in speed camera usage over the last 5 years and both have had 4.2 and 4.3 % reduction in road toll, only a little better than the national average of 4%. QLD has seen an increase in speed camera usage with the introduction of covert cameras as well as a very limited application of fixed speed cameras. Interestingly unlike Vic, QLD still has an amount of tolerance in their camera activations meaning that 3 km/h over the limit in a 60 zone will not trigger the camera in QLD, but I am told it will in Vic. The result is that QLD has seen a decrease above the national average of 5.5%, is that because of the speed camera usage or is it also because we have some of the largest infrastructure growth rates in the country with the amount of new roads and better quality highways being built? Tas is another state that has seen a good decrease, in fact the best of all states at 7.9%, what was it that they did so right and what is their use of cameras in the last 5 years compared to the previous 5 years? Surely if they have increased the use of cameras at a similar rate to NSW and Vic, NSW and Vic should see a similar reduction in road toll, which they have not. Poor old WA is the only state to see a increase in the 5 year trend at 0.9%, yet they have large numbers of speed cameras (which I might add are much harder to spot being tripod mounted than QLD vehicle mounted units), what are they doing wrong?

As I scan down the page there is another interesting bit of information for the 2010 - 2011 year. On a national average looking at the deaths in each road group user there is a steady reduction in deaths for all users that are located in a vehicle and pedestrians, a good result. However there is a increase in deaths of motorcyclists at 2.9% and cyclists of 15.2%. Is that because these crazy cyclists, who are immune to speed cameras are flaunting the law and doing crazy speeds or is it because motorists, with eyes fixated on speedos are now not capable of seeing a cyclist?

Now lets look at the deployment of these camera units, they are most regularly deployed in 60-100 km/h zones, in urban areas and between the hours of 0500 hrs and 2200 hrs with more use on week days. At first glance this practice does seem to get the larger volume of traffic so surely they must have the greatest impact on road safety? I am sure few would argue that those conditions are also the best available to get a high number of infringements.

Now this is where it seems strange, if you look at the 2 years 2009-2011 and study the number of deaths by speed, day and time, the results get interesting. 30.1% of crashes occur in <60 km/h zones and 47.1% in >100 km/h zones yet the majority of speed cameras are in the 60-100 km/h zones where only 22.8% of fatal crashes occur. Could that be because that is the zone that creates the most revenue? So what about day of the week, 59.8% occur mon-fri and 40.2% on sat and sun, but there are 5 days during the week and only 2 on weekends so lets divide those figures by the respective number of days to get the real picture. That leaves us with 11.96% per week day and 20.1% per weekend day. So why if the speed cameras are such a life saver are they deployed more during the days with the lowest daily road toll yet there are less on the days with the highest road toll? Surely it should be the other way around or is that too much of a financial drain in costs to staff? Perhaps the revenue raised from the volume of infringements does not support it? The only figure that seems to be the right way around is in night compared to day with the majority of camera use during day time and most states do not use them past 2200 hrs but I would still challenge this practice, surely 41.3% of fatal crashes occurring at night is good reason to deploy these life saving devices through all hours of the night, not just up to 2200 hrs (the first 4 hours of this time period).

You will also note that I have not entered any of my observations made over the last 7 years as a paramedic because apparently in terms of road safety opinion, according to you, they account for nothing and give me no level of expertise or right to opinion.

By the way, a section of the news article you supplied that I find interesting.

Mr Hartley's briefing paper emerged following a freedom-of-information request from the road safety campaigner Harold Scruby, who was originally told by police they held no records on the history of mobile cameras in NSW because the documents had been ''culled''.

There is someone we all know and love, like he has an unbiased view point, he would pull any snap shot of statistics to pedal his own political agenda but constantly ignores any statistic that does not support his view.

My challenge to you is to provide any statistics or study that proves speed cameras do anything to reduce the road toll without influence from other factors including improvements in driver education, licensing standards, infrastructure quality/design or vehicle safety standards. I suspect you will not take up that challenge and will in fact ignore this whole post as you normally do for posts that refute your opinion.

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

You sparked my interest so I did a little reading at the BITRE web site to see for myself. Just in you case are interested you can find the report to which a refer here @
http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications...DA_Feb2011.pdf

A very lengthy (which is why i didn't quote it all) and i might add, terrific post geckoGT. Stuck to the facts as per the report.

It is quite clear that the cameras / resources are not being used in the hours and the days that the carnage is occuring. But instead the hours with highest traffic volumes.

I guess the biggest concern from the enquiry is the independance & direction it will take.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by phillyc

A very lengthy (which is why i didn't quote it all) and i might add, terrific post geckoGT. Stuck to the facts as per the report.

It is quite clear that the cameras / resources are not being used in the hours and the days that the carnage is occuring. But instead the hours with highest traffic volumes.

I guess the biggest concern from the enquiry is the independance & direction it will take.

Thanks, you should have seen the first draft, I had to cut it down. I guess it is a big topic to cover and limited space to do it in this forum.

You are right about the question of independence of the inquiry, that is where I think the biggest disappointment will come from but I hope I am wrong. You never know, we may be lucky and NSW may pave the way for other states after they come to the same conclusions that the UK did which resulted in the widespread removal of speed cameras over there.

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

You never know, we may be lucky and NSW may pave the way for other states after they come to the same conclusions that the UK did which resulted in the widespread removal of speed cameras over there.

if they do that, then they will just tax us in other places - they "will" get us

paying the tax is voluntary and most of the ones i go passed are very easy to see, so i don't have a problem with them

the only problem i have is
when told they are for saving lives, not revenue
and the red light/speed camera ones. i do not have a problem if someone running the red gets 2 fines and even 7-9 demerit points, but for reasons i have stated earlier i do not think they are very fair nor neccessarily safer




but as usual gecko, you have some very good points - common sense and real life experience; should be an unbeatable combination - unfortunately our governments are working hard to stop that from happening

[burnz]

in liverpool nsw the RTA was caught out big time for red light camera manipulation...

it was around two years ago at newbridge rd and stocton ave where the RTA shortend the amber light by 0.8 of a second,
but increased the delay for opposing side traffic for the green by 1 second..

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by gtxb67

if they do that, then they will just tax us in other places - they "will" get us

Never a truer word spoken, the new one is lurking in the future with the carbon tax, I dread where that is going to go.

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by burnz

in liverpool nsw the RTA was caught out big time for red light camera manipulation...

it was around two years ago at newbridge rd and stocton ave where the RTA shortend the amber light by 0.8 of a second,
but increased the delay for opposing side traffic for the green by 1 second..

while the margin can become so small, it will become unfair - depending on the original time frame, i would suggest that if that last .8 of a second was so critical, then the vehicle should have stopped anyway - or have been going slower. depending on all factors, i may not disagree on shortening the yellow

you will not get fined by a red light camera by going through on yellow - only on red

that being said, it is not fair to go too small on the yellow, but if it encourages people to stop instead of sailing through regardless, it can have a positive effect on attitudes and safety

[burnz]

Originally Posted by gtxb67

while the margin can become so small, it will become unfair - depending on the original time frame, i would suggest that if that last .8 of a second was so critical, then the vehicle should have stopped anyway - or have been going slower. depending on all factors, i may not disagree on shortening the yellow

you will not get fined by a red light camera by going through on yellow - only on red

that being said, it is not fair to go too small on the yellow, but if it encourages people to stop instead of sailing through regardless, it can have a positive effect on attitudes and safety

i should have mention that it a 70kph road...

that said when you become accustom to the regular timing wheather to poceed or to stop,(without the RTA throwing a curve ball)
mostly comes down to predicting the amber for the following car.

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by burnz

that said when you become accustom to the regular timing wheather to poceed or to stop, mostly comes down to predicting the amber for the following car.

very true - i do not know any real details about it (the time it used to be or is now), but the law does state you should stop if safe and most of us do not, so after one or two close calls, people should get the message

i guess like all things, it could be a useful tool for safety, but the powers that be will no doubt only be doing it for extra money

i am not totally against the concept if used properly

[burnz]

dunno if this works, but the licorice say a lot
http://maps.google.com.au/maps?hl=en...-8&sa=N&tab=wl
i guess not..

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

I suspect you will not take up that challenge and will in fact ignore this whole post as you normally do for posts that refute your opinion.

Easy fella, I threw up some numbers for discussion, not so you could make personal attacks, but glad it kept you busy looking up some numbers.

Not sure you about your appreciation of numbers though, your challenge is easily met just on that point:

Originally Posted by geckoGT

What I find very interesting is when you increase the scope of the statistics at which you look from a yearly snap shot out to a 5 year trend. NSW and Vic have both had massive increases in speed camera usage over the last 5 years and both have had 4.2 and 4.3 % reduction in road toll, only a little better than the national average of 4%..

You do realise that together NSW and VIC represent 57% of Australia's population, so the national average is very much dictated by what happens in those two states.

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Standing up after just 12 months and saying it has saved 15 lives is a bit short sighted

Who said that? love the strawman.

Originally Posted by geckoGT

surely 41.3% of fatal crashes occurring at night is good reason to deploy these life saving devices through all hours of the night, not just up to 2200 hrs (the first 4 hours of this time period).
.

Another strawman?: Let me check through....., cant see it that I claimed anywhere that speed cameras shouldnt be used at night time, I thought the fixed ones were? but for mobile operators, yep, bring it on great idea.

[Jim Goose]

its amazing how "statistics" can be made to sound great....

Hypothetical.... Major section of road has zero deaths for past 5yrs.
Speed Camera installed/ or mobile camera set up for next 5yrs.
Death toll remains at zero.....

Speed camera therefor was responsible for the "zero" fatalities of the road...

Marvelous!

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

its amazing how "statistics" can be made to sound great....

Hypothetical.... Major section of road has zero deaths for past 5yrs.
Speed Camera installed/ or mobile camera set up for next 5yrs.
Death toll remains at zero.....

Speed camera therefor was responsible for the "zero" fatalities of the road...

Marvelous!

or, one of the many roads around the country that resemble goat tracks, has a poor record for fatalities. road gets fixed, and coincidently, a camera is also placed there. fatalities drop. is it because the road is fixed or because a camera was placed there.

i think we all know what mr scruby sudszy would credit with the decrease in fatalities.

camera's are the saviour.