Speed Camera Inquiry

[Pedro]

I recently received a copy of the Queensland ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE INQUIRY INTO THE ROAD SAFETY BENEFITS OF FIXED SPEED CAMERAS

http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/vie...pts/100806.pdf

In the first instance, Prof. Watson states: “A number of evaluations have demonstrated the crash reduction benefits of the Queensland speed camera program”

Within the following 47 pages of submissions from Watson and others, no evidence of any such evaluations is tabled. Instead it’s full of suppositions and collusion with the same old rhetoric handed out by the revenue enriched State Government

What a waste of time and money. One can safely assume the jobs of Watson and the other oxygen thieves present are safe.

[last fairlane]

When the govt built the south eastern freeway in 1970 how many people have died around the Juliette st turn off since then
Then they installed a camera as a safety device
Can any one tell me "Govt or otherwise"
how many people have died in that area
since the camera was installed and if it made any difference
if it did all well and good
but if it didnt make any difference
Then its just a money making device
the thats the whole box and dice
if it did show us the results
not go on about how cameras reduce deaths
show us how they do it
talk is cheap
proof is what we want
John
Cameras = Cash

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Pedro

I recently received a copy of the Queensland ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE INQUIRY INTO THE ROAD SAFETY BENEFITS OF FIXED SPEED CAMERAS

http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/vie...pts/100806.pdf

In the first instance, Prof. Watson states: “A number of evaluations have demonstrated the crash reduction benefits of the Queensland speed camera program”

Within the following 47 pages of submissions from Watson and others, no evidence of any such evaluations is tabled. Instead it’s full of suppositions and collusion with the same old rhetoric handed out by the revenue enriched State Government

What a waste of time and money. One can safely assume the jobs of Watson and the other oxygen thieves present are safe.

Was it the ROAD SAFETY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE or the ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE?

I know some of these people personally and the oxygen thief description is not inaccurate.

[Brazen]

About as credible as Monash University's "Road safety unit". Basically they keep getting government grants to verify the benefits of speed cameras so they can keep getting more government grants.

[mik]

i find this little passage interesting,

EDC—Inquiry into the Road Safety Benefits of Fixed Speed Cameras
CHAIR: Thank you. I apologise for being late this morning. We might go straight to questions.
Mrs MENKENS: Some submitters, including the NMAA, have identified that in 1997 speed was
identified as contributing to 51 fatalities and 14 per cent of the road toll and that this has increased, with
speed contributing to 75 fatalities and 22.5 per cent of the road toll in 2009. They claim that if automated
speed enforcement was effective the road toll would be significantly lower. Do you want to comment on
this?
Prof. Watson: Yes. This is actually a difficult question to answer, and I think we need to be cautious
in the way we do it. There are a few words of warning I would like to note. Firstly, focusing solely on fatal
crashes and fatalities arising from speed is only really the tip of the iceberg. We need to look at total
crashes. Secondly, without an in-depth study, it is very difficult to be definitive about the overall
effectiveness of our speed enforcement approach; particularly, for example, we do not know what would
have happened if we had not introduced speed cameras. In fact, the situation could have been worse.

a better conclusion one would think if it was policed rather than camered it more than likely would have been a better outcome.

[sarrge2001]

Originally Posted by mik

i find this little passage interesting,

EDC—Inquiry into the Road Safety Benefits of Fixed Speed Cameras
CHAIR: Thank you. I apologise for being late this morning. We might go straight to questions.
Mrs MENKENS: Some submitters, including the NMAA, have identified that in 1997 speed was
identified as contributing to 51 fatalities and 14 per cent of the road toll and that this has increased, with
speed contributing to 75 fatalities and 22.5 per cent of the road toll in 2009. They claim that if automated
speed enforcement was effective the road toll would be significantly lower. Do you want to comment on
this?
Prof. Watson: Yes. This is actually a difficult question to answer, so i'll just waffle on with suppositions and what-ifs that sound like they support my position without actually answering at all

Fixed

[mik]

i like your work Sarrge2001 .

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by Pedro

I recently received a copy of the Queensland ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE INQUIRY INTO THE ROAD SAFETY BENEFITS OF FIXED SPEED CAMERAS

http://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/vie...pts/100806.pdf

In the first instance, Prof. Watson states: “A number of evaluations have demonstrated the crash reduction benefits of the Queensland speed camera program”

Within the following 47 pages of submissions from Watson and others, no evidence of any such evaluations is tabled. Instead it’s full of suppositions and collusion with the same old rhetoric handed out by the revenue enriched State Government

What a waste of time and money. One can safely assume the jobs of Watson and the other oxygen thieves present are safe.

I put a submission into the "ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE" and one of several things I mentioned was that it was disturbing that they were looking at it from a revenue raising point. Hence the fact it was 'Economic" development not "Safety" and what they were in fact presiding over was death and carnage whilst justifying their own beings. I strongly believe that the best we could do is to train drivers, increase visible policing of all road rules and improve the quality of the roads. That was also mentioned in my submission.

[platinumXR]

Originally Posted by mik

a better conclusion one would think, if it was policed rather than camered it more than likely would have been a better outcome.

I think you would find this conclusion would be more productive all round. Police themselves would not refuse greater numbers to bolster their thin numbers due to lack of budget (mainly due to the fact it is spent on White Elephant cash-cows...so to speak)

Do not forget though; this is a minor (though none the less significant) contributing factor in all crashes. Alcohol not withstanding - inexperience, inatention and incompetence are far more relevant factors yet can no more be scientifically measured and policed than can herding cats...to coin a phrase.

Speed detection devices are (were) realistically intended to curb / reduce excessive speed and not the minor +3-5 km/h they are being used for at the moment.

I have no doubt that more police conducting patrols and speed detection taskings (therefore a bit more discretionary) are far more beneficiary but, as in the case now; purchasing 5x Territories, loading them up with camera gear and hiring a trained monkey is far cheaper than training a new police officer at approximately $55,000 - $65,000, add 1x new HWP car XR6T/XR8 or SS or F6 for Specialist Units such as Taipan in NSW + Superannuation + allowances etc., now times that by about 2 or 3 officers that are needed per 20 of the existing Local Area Commands of which there are about 70 something (this changes often)....

Revenue received as a result aside, which is cheaper and easier?

[Brazen]

If speed related fatalities have increased from 15% to 21.5% of all fatalaties then its obvious that Speed Cameras arnt working. There, end of inquiry.

The problem with these inquiries is that they are all chaired and staffed with people who have a well-known view or agenda. The government will select people which will give a favourable view or answer.

[grandpa_spec_F6]

Originally Posted by platinumXR

Revenue received as a result aside, which is cheaper and easier?

I think the bottom line here is which would be more effective long-term?

A continuing stream of cash flowing straight to "The Man" which we will never see or hear of again as 'transparency' in these matters is only clouded by vague descriptions such as 'better roads' or fancy terms such as 'strategic task enforcement projects' which can be deceptivly misleading.

OR

A better police presence, with trained, well paid officers (2.5% increase my left testicle!) that are commited to protecting the community at large.

[mik]

Originally Posted by platinumXR

I think you would find this conclusion would be more productive all round. Police themselves would not refuse greater numbers to bolster their thin numbers due to lack of budget (mainly due to the fact it is spent on White Elephant cash-cows...so to speak)

Do not forget though; this is a minor (though none the less significant) contributing factor in all crashes. Alcohol not withstanding - inexperience, inatention and incompetence are far more relevant factors yet can no more be scientifically measured and policed than can herding cats...to coin a phrase.

Speed detection devices are (were) realistically intended to curb / reduce excessive speed and not the minor +3-5 km/h they are being used for at the moment.

I have no doubt that more police conducting patrols and speed detection taskings (therefore a bit more discretionary) are far more beneficiary but, as in the case now; purchasing 5x Territories, loading them up with camera gear and hiring a trained monkey is far cheaper than training a new police officer at approximately $55,000 - $65,000, add 1x new HWP car XR6T/XR8 or SS or F6 for Specialist Units such as Taipan in NSW + Superannuation + allowances etc., now times that by about 2 or 3 officers that are needed per 20 of the existing Local Area Commands of which there are about 70 something (this changes often)....

Revenue received as a result aside, which is cheaper and easier?

true, but i wonder what the cost of one fatality is to TAC cost? etc etc, , i`d bet its a fair wack, excuse the pun.

[Scott]

Economic Development Committee is a bit of a giveaway to save everyone some reading...

To paraphrase "Speed Cameras are great..... lets find a way of making the public like them".

Assholes.

[AussieAV]

Always gets me when they quote figures saying speed was a contributing factor. What does this mean??

If a crash occurs in a 60 zone in dry conditions, bright sunshine with little traffic, and one of the cars was doing 63, do they include that as a crash where speed contributed??

Conversely, if same crash occurred during a torrential downpour in heavy traffic at night, but both cars are doing 60, is that classed as a "speed not contributing" crash??

Typical media can never be bothered to provide enough information to actually inform the public. Just quote some meaningless figures to try and get people fired up to boost ratings.

Figures can be made to back any argument.

Here is a hypothetical argument that makes as much sense as many arguments put forward by so-called road safety experts.

Over 99% of road accidents involve cars with tyres! Therefore tyres must cause over 99% of accidents. Get everyone to remove their tyres, run on the rims and we'll all be saved.

Even if you say 22.5% of fatal accidents involve speeding, what percentage of the driving population speed?? If say 30% do, then the statistics would actually mean speeding drivers are safer. NOT CONDONING SPEEDING, just saying that any figures they give are meaningless without being given additional context.

Simple answer seems to be that speed is one of the few road safety variables they can actually measure and police to a legal certainty, making it easy to fine people and prove the infraction in court if necessary.

Most of the rhetoric is just finding ways to justify why the only thing they focus on is speed, as they are addicted to the revenue it produces. Never once heard a report on what the causes of the other 77.5% of fatalities are, or what they are doing to stop them!

[sarrge2001]

It's the same as on the news the other night. Apparently the number of pedestrian fatalities in NSW is on the increase so our old mate Harold Scruby was up there banging about how this was an arguement to bring in 40kmh speed limits in residential areas.

I would have thought that increased numbers of pedestrians and vehicles on the road would cause an increase in numbers of pedestrian fatalities if the percentages remained the same.

What about arguing for increased funding for pedestrian crossings Harold, or training for pedestrians on how to cross the road?

I know it sounds off topic, but my point is that for these enquiries and lobby groups, it's all about finding the argument that supports the position they have taken, not about taking a position based on ALL the arguments.

WOFTAM

[Brazen]

Originally Posted by sarrge2001

It's the same as on the news the other night. Apparently the number of pedestrian fatalities in NSW is on the increase so our old mate Harold Scruby was up there banging about how this was an arguement to bring in 40kmh speed limits in residential areas.

I would have thought that increased numbers of pedestrians and vehicles on the road would cause an increase in numbers of pedestrian fatalities if the percentages remained the same.

What about arguing for increased funding for pedestrian crossings Harold, or training for pedestrians on how to cross the road?

I know it sounds off topic, but my point is that for these enquiries and lobby groups, it's all about finding the argument that supports the position they have taken, not about taking a position based on ALL the arguments.

WOFTAM

Considering that suburban speed limits have been decreasing and pedestrian accidents have been increasing, wouldnt that mean that speed limits should go up???

Kind of prove my point, for years I have been saying the less effort a task requires, the less concentration a person will put to it (kinda like the path of least resistance) , the slower you drive, the less you pay attention and the more likely you will have an accident. Which is my reason why pedestrian fatalities tripled in Melbourne when suburban speed limits went from 60 to 50.

[platinumXR]

Originally Posted by grandpa_spec_au

I think the bottom line here is which would be more effective long-term?

A continuing stream of cash flowing straight to "The Man" which we will never see or hear of again as 'transparency' in these matters is only clouded by vague descriptions such as 'better roads' or fancy terms such as 'strategic task enforcement projects' which can be deceptivly misleading.

OR

A better police presence, with trained, well paid officers (2.5% increase my left testicle!) that are commited to protecting the community at large.

Yes correct - we all know which is more effective, but alas...LAM's do what they can.

Having said that, I have no problem with more flashing lights and speed camera's (in an attempt to SLOW PEOPLE DOWN) posted at EVERY school zone where they are probably more relevant and necessary.

Kid's don't look before they run out from behind cars...speeding in a school zone is probably one of the worst thing a driver can do IMHO. And before you flame me - that is after the zoning is restructured so the you don't have 5 different speed zones within about 200-500 metre stretch of road that is....

[bungarra]

Given WA Politicians love affair with the mobile cash register and being the first to introduce the things, since 1997 Infringements and deaths have been on the increase.
From the Office Of Road Safety in WA
http://www.ors.wa.gov.au/ResearchFac...Australia.aspx

[ltd]

At the risk of offending anyone, can I just add that governments of all persuasions are addicted to the revenue generated from speed cameras. It is not in their interest to educate and reduce the number of accidents; if it was they wouldn't put forecasts of revenue especially increases in revenue in their annual budgets.
It has just simply grown into such a large income stream; sort of like pokies taxes, tobacco taxes etc. All these "bad" things come under the "sin taxes" whereby you do the wrong thing, the government will make you pay for it.

Speed cameras are by far the best in the business because they'll tax you for being inattentive for 0.1 of a second, and instead of consumer revolt expect you to thank them for saving lives. It truly is that cynical a farce.
The next concerted effort when people become familiar with the location is to throw out a plethora of speed limit variations designed to confuse. On one stretch of road in NSW there is 9 speed zones in 1.5 kilometres. It's ridiculous. I drive (sort of) for a living in a situation where mental faculties are often tested, but my environment is designed to make it easier. Compared to driving though? Man alive, it is more mentally draining driving to the rules in Sydney. Worst part is as soon as you make a slip up ie in the transition from a 70 zone to a 50 zone only indicated by a single sign partially obscured by a tree; the cash cops are out in force to make you pay.
It's not road safety, it's extortion.

[Franco Cozzo]

Another thing that annoys me about them is that when people realise their positions, they all drive like morons around them, today there was a mobile speed camera set up on my way home, and someone dropped from 100 to 60km/h to go past it, then sped back up to 100 again.

[InTrail]

Originally Posted by ltd

Worst part is as soon as you make a slip up ie in the transition from a 70 zone to a 50 zone only indicated by a single sign partially obscured by a tree; the cash cops are out in force to make you pay..

I work on the other side of the mic to you ltd and if we were to police the rules of the air as stringently as speed is, then I'd spend half my day filling in paperwork. Unless it creates an unsafe situation or is a blatent breach, then we'll usually just try to educate and remedy the immediate problem.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by InTrail

I work on the other side of the mic to you ltd and if we were to police the rules of the air as stringently as speed is, then I'd spend half my day filling in paperwork. Unless it creates an unsafe situation or is a blatent breach, then we'll usually just try to educate and remedy the immediate problem.

Bloody Air Services.....

Why can't you fix all those potholes in the air on finals.....

[Ben73]

New mobile speed cameras are defiantly cash grabbing exercise. Whenever a government official talks about them, the first thing they say is "Mobile speed cameras will bring in $175 Million extra next year..........oh but they are not for that, they are for safety"

REALLY? Then why don't they show crash statistic and PROVE it. If it was for safety the money intake would be irrelevant. Least they could do is put that 175 Million back into improving roads and drivers.
But I guess speeding is an easy target on the roads. Hell of a lot easier then paying to fix roads or educate drivers.

What's worse is "Safety Cameras" How do they make intersections safer??? A bunch of cars moving towards an intersection where everyone is looking at their speedo every 2 seconds to make sure they don't speed. I can see rear endings rising dramatically at these intersections.

Australia is pretty pathetic when it comes to driving and roads when you look at other countries. In a Massive country with a small population we are all crawling around at a very slow pace and no body cares about anyone else on the road or the laws. Because not indicating, driving in the right lane all the time, not looking when changing lanes and changing radios and 10 disk Cd stackers are all perfectly safe if you are doing the speed limit or less. Well that's what the government will have you believe.

Also I don't get why we can't do another 10-20 clicks at 2:30am. Being a shift work and driving as a part of my job I have been in the middle of the bush at 3am stuck on 100 on a perfectly straight road when I haven't seen another moving car... or living creature for the past 5Km's. Why?? If I was doing 120 instead of 100 I will get to my warm bed sooner, reducing fatigue. Plus I wont be bored staring at the endless line of trees waiting for the next low speed limit sign to pass.
But on these boring low speed limit roads I do often see cops... So I guess lll just keep doing 100 and hope that I don't fall asleep of boredom.

[VICFPV]

This revenue raising will keep going until people can standup say enough is enough.
Beat them at their own game so to speak. But it will take alot of effort to do it.
Set up a not for profit drivers association. Recurit members and sponsors.
Use the money to research the facts of these revenue raising locations. Publish results and lobby the state politians to comply.
This will give drivers a method to actually stand up against revenue raising. But it will also benefit all road users too. Things like better driver training better direction of road maintenance.
Until this happens will be at state coffers mercy. They wil just bleed us dry with traffic fines.

[AndrewR_AUII]

SA State budget:
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/i...-1225924932877

Other charges which will change include a $30 increase in the victims of crime levy, from about $30 now, which will raise $48.9 million over four years, and a substantial increase in expiation fines to raise $44.8 million over three years. Under these increases, fines which are currently less than $100 will increase by $20, while fines which are more than $100, understood to be the majority, will increase by $50.

If the purpose of fines was road safety...Why are they part of the State Budget
Going back to the principle of being pulled over is a good one, while there is a perception that they are revenue raisers, there is a lack of respect.

[InTrail]

Originally Posted by flappist

Bloody Air Services.....

Why can't you fix all those potholes in the air on finals.....

Hmmm, you know who is really to blame.....

[Ben73]

Seams like 90% of Australians think that it's revenue raising. We need to stand up for ourselves, it's only going to keep getting worse if we don't try to stop it. They will get away with what they can for as long as they can.

[Pedro]

Originally Posted by Ben73

Seams like 90% of Australians think that it's revenue raising. We need to stand up for ourselves, it's only going to keep getting worse if we don't try to stop it. They will get away with what they can for as long as they can.

Well the Poms had certainly taken direct action ... check this site http://www.speedcam.co.uk/gatso.htm

[bungarra]

Originally Posted by Pedro

Well the Poms had certainly taken direct action ... check this site http://www.speedcam.co.uk/gatso.htm

Also, some councils have taken them out all together in the UK as they proved they were not stopping road accidents.

[cargenie]

its all b/s. In my opinion they don't save lives at all