Cops are tops for tackling road tol

[aussie muscle]

NRMA Issues Paper

Author: Daniel StantonDate: 15 November 2012

There is overwhelming community support for an increase in visible highway patrols - rather than more speed cameras - to tackle the state's growing road toll, according to an Issues Paper by NRMA Motoring & Services.

The NRMA Issues Paper, High Visibility Policing, included a survey of over 1,700 motorists. The survey found motorists believed drivers texting behind the wheel while they drive (77%) and drink driving (75%) were the biggest road safety issues on the state's roads. Using a mobile phone behind the wheel and drink driving can only be policed by highway patrols.

The survey also found 69 per cent of motorists believed the best way to tackle bad driver behaviour is through more visible highway patrols, with 10 per cent collectively identifying fixed, mobile and red/safety cameras.

The NRMA campaigned for a greater police presence on the state's roads in the lead-up to the 2011 NSW Election. The NRMA also successfully fought to get all revenue from fines redirected back into road safety, including the recruitment of more highway patrols.

Since 2011, the NSW Government has rolled-out an extra 50 highway patrol cars, taking the total to 520 vehicles. An additional 100 highway patrol officers are to be recruited by December this year.

The High Visibility Policing report highlighted the results of an enforcement operation conducted by Queensland Police across the outer suburbs of Brisbane. The operation involved police focusing on a much wider area than usual. It resulted in a 15 per cent reduction is fatal crashes.

If these results could be replicated across NSW it estimated that as many as 55 lives (2011 RMS road statistics) could be saved and $180 million could be saved in costs to the state's economy (NRMA Cost of Crashes Report 2012).

A similar trial by NSW Police also found that an increase in highway patrols on the roads resulted in a fall of police and emergency service response times to crashes from 18 minutes to six minutes.

NRMA President Wendy Machin said the public felt safer and drove with more caution and care when there were more police on the roads.

"Our Members consistently tell us, and the evidence consistently shows, that having more clearly marked, visible highway patrols on the roads at all times saves lives," Ms Machin said.

"The High Visibility Policing Issues Paper found 66 per cent of motorists believed getting an on-the-spot fine or a warning by a police officer had the biggest long-term impact on their driving behaviour, while only 13 per cent said cameras had the same effect.
"While fixed, mobile and red light/speed cameras have a role to play in keeping the roads safe it is clear that the community wants more police on our roads and we urge the NSW Government continue with an aggressive recruitment of more officers and more cars."

The High Visibility Policing Issues Paper also found that when there are more police about:

83% slow down
60% are more conscious about using their mobile phone; and
73% are more conscious about their driving behaviour.

source: http://www.mynrma.com.au/about/media...-road-toll.htm

[Kevxr8Leexr6]

Good read. and totally agree that police presence deters more than cameras. and police presence helps to limit crime in known areas of trouble as well. not new statistics but beatin the drum to the polies in election years is a good move

[XBROO]

I think there have been a few threads over the years on this topic, and most of the arguement went for police presence.

[saam]

On a popular radio station here in melbourne i heard on one of their commercials an add (paid by taxs payers) stating how speed cameras save lives......

Dont know which im more ****ed about, the waste of our money on an advertisement, or the blatant lie about the speed cameras....

Ohh, the powers at be .....

[supershifty]

Originally Posted by Kevxr8Leexr6

Good read. and totally agree that police presence deters more than cameras. and police presence helps to limit crime in known areas of trouble as well. not new statistics but beatin the drum to the polies in election years is a good move

^^^^ I couldn't agree more.

Trouble is more police presence costs money, more speed cameras makes money.

There was a good thread not so long ago where a member had compiled a rather extensive list of statistics (can't find it!) that reflected the rather poor effect cameras and double fines/points had on driver behaviour.

I'm not without sin when it comes to breaking the road rules, and fines are a definitely a deterrent. Seeing the boys on patrol gives me a reality check and keeps me mindful of what I'm doing.

Cheers!

Edit: I hate it when a patrol is behind me, even though I'm doing nothing wrong - I usually pull off the road and let them pass. Silly, yes, but it just makes me nervous.

[GT450]

[Dont know which im more ****ed about, the waste of our money on an advertisement, or the blatant lie about the speed cameras....

Ohh, the powers at be .....[/QUOTE]

I agree , if someone can explain to me how covert cameras, save lives I am all ears . They just make motorists more concerned with parked vehicles than the traffic around them and can I suggest may contribute to accidents that wouldn't otherwise have happened.
If it's not about revenue , paint them all dayglo orange and place them in actual danger spots , not areas where revenue is highest.The number of people on mobile phones that I see EVERY day is amazing, book them all and we wouldn't need speed cameras.
Bikes are best for this purpose , so get more out on the roads. Camera's do work but not the way they would have us believe.
GT450

[2011G6E]

There is an ancient saying that I have heard since I first started driving...and before that read in car magazines in the seventies...

"The only time you will see a line of cars on the highway all doing exactly the speed limit is when one of them is a police car..."

Truer words were ever spoken...

[XBROO]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

There is an ancient saying that I have heard since I first started driving...and before that read in car magazines in the seventies...

"The only time you will see a line of cars on the highway all doing exactly the speed limit is when one of them is a police car..."

Truer words were ever spoken...

Or these days inbetween point to point cameras.

[supershifty]

There was a police campaign about 20 years ago here in Brisbane where life size cardboard cutouts of a motorcycle cop sitting astride his bike, looking at you were placed before known problem intersections. I don't know whether it had any effect on accidents at the intersections, but they certainly got your attention!

[mik]

it`s gotta be a good thing to have more patrols on the road, camera`s do do sfa for driving behavior other than speed, and on some roads it would`nt surprise me if they actually contributed to accidents in some cases,
western ring road in melb is a perfect example, plenty of camera`s, lots of on and off ramps, poor line marking in some area`s, half the time your eye`s are on the speedo,
even if you do the right thing, often the traffic slows ............. you have to brake, then reset the cruise over and over again watching the speedo because you don`t want to get pinged for a few k`s over the limit, cars are under taking you / over taking you, you need to have eyes in your ***, paranoid speedo watching can`t be a good thing when you need to be watching the other traffic.
Even if you don`t use the cruise(hey that rhymes ) you still have to readjust you speed many times, again paranoid speedo watching.

[ford71V8]

A permanent camera was installed on a road close to home not long ago.

I noticed the other day that a second sign had been installed indicating that the camera is working for traffic coming from both ways now.

So the questions were put forward, Is the camera working harder or have they just installed a sign? I know I accidentally drove through maybe 10ks over and yet to receive a fine.
And so if that sign is slowing people down why not just throw signs about the place. It may not be bulletproof over time but you'll slow people down for a good period for next to no cost.
Of course they are not making any money but its not about the cash right? Its about saving lives and getting people to slow down

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by GT450

I agree , if someone can explain to me how covert cameras, save lives I am all ears . They just make motorists more concerned with parked vehicles than the traffic around them and can I suggest may contribute to accidents that wouldn't otherwise have happened.

I have never seen an accident near a speed camera

Originally Posted by GT450

If it's not about revenue , paint them all dayglo orange and place them in actual danger spots , not areas where revenue is highest.The number of people on mobile phones that I see EVERY day is amazing, book them all and we wouldn't need speed cameras.
Bikes are best for this purpose , so get more out on the roads. Camera's do work but not the way they would have us believe.
GT450

Umm, if the places they were put weren't areas where speeding is a regular occurance, they wouldnt be raising revenue would they...

Revenue is highest in the areas where speeding is at its greatest, this would make those places dangerous, yeah?

I will agree with mobile phones, they are a blight on society, but thats another thread entirely.

[GTMOND]

Speed cameras are more likely to cause accidents if you ask me. I was driving in a b/double sitting on my 100 klm/h limiter when the car in front saw the camera van and decelerated from 110 klm/h to about 80 as quick as they could scared the **** out off me . All in a 100 zone.

[irish2]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

There is an ancient saying that I have heard since I first started driving...and before that read in car magazines in the seventies...

"The only time you will see a line of cars on the highway all doing exactly the speed limit is when one of them is a police car..."

Truer words were ever spoken...

These days you are flat out getting people to even keep up to the speed limit on highways. I'm not talking about when they are crowded either.

[Nikked]

Good to see more visable presence on the road.


but, i dissagree that speed cameras are not an effective safety measure. Speed cameras are a cheap way to reduce speeding deaths in "black spots" (although, road upgrades are preferable).

If you get done buy a fixed speed camer in NSW, then you are a twit, as there is considerable signage before the camera.

[csv8]

Visible presence doesn't raise revenue!!!!

[aussie muscle]

Originally Posted by supershifty

I hate it when a patrol is behind me, even though I'm doing nothing wrong - I usually pull off the road and let them pass. Silly, yes, but it just makes me nervous.

stick to the limit, they usually get bored and overtake.

Originally Posted by BENT_8

I have never seen an accident near a speed camera.

no, but they do happen. especially with mobile camera vans.

[GT450]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

I have never seen an accident near a speed camera



Umm, if the places they were put weren't areas where speeding is a regular occurance, they wouldnt be raising revenue would they...

Revenue is highest in the areas where speeding is at its greatest, this would make those places dangerous, yeah?

I will agree with mobile phones, they are a blight on society, but thats another thread entirely.

You missed the point , they place them where they know the speed limits are set too low for the conditions and thus revenue is greater. Limits used to be set at the 85th percentile of users as a rule of thumb ( the speed 85 per cent of drivers would usually sit ). Now they set them much lower hence the revenue.
Speeding is only relevant to the posted signage on the road , that doesn't the posted sign necessarily right for that road. If you want people to slow down then a higher police presence will do it every time , a camera won't.
GT450

[LTDHO]

Originally Posted by saam

On a popular radio station here in melbourne i heard on one of their commercials an add (paid by taxs payers) stating how speed cameras save lives......

Dont know which im more ****ed about, the waste of our money on an advertisement, or the blatant lie about the speed cameras....

Ohh, the powers at be .....

You mean 'safety' cameras?

Originally Posted by csv8

Visible presence doesn't raise revenue!!!!

Exactly.

I don't know if I agree with the marked police cars that don't have roof lights...

I am all for more police cars on the roads. As long as they are actually looking for road law breakers, not just mofified cars.

[2011G6E]

These days you are flat out getting people to even keep up to the speed limit on highways. I'm not talking about when they are crowded either.

Oh I don't know...trucks don't seem to have any problem catching up to cars already doing about 115kph (by my GPS)...blindly took this over my shoulder with my phone while coming home from Rocky today...this is the one pic that turned out clear.


The old truckies cry of "Give us plenty of room because it takes us a lot longer distance to stop" should equally apply to them sitting right up someones clacker...

Oh, by the way, I ended up speeding up to "a faster speed", getting some distance on him, then pulling off and letting him go...which I believe is what the moron was trying to achieve..."100 speed limited" my little pink *#@&...

As for other vehicles out here, a few observations are easily made:
* Mine vehicles obviously have no speed limiters or back to base speed monitoring devices like our railway vehicles do...
* Friday evening and sunday arvo are dangerous...on one day you have masses of tired miners speeding home, on sunday, they're rushing back after leaving home late.
* Tiredness kills...no speed. Accidents out here aren't speed related, the skid marks leading off nearly every corner heading down to Rocky show where people simply fall asleep and drift off.

[GasoLane]

I remember reading years ago about a small town in the USA that trialled giving their officers the car to use as a regular 'company car'.

In other words they got to take it home after their shift ended, to go shopping, go to the football etc.

It seems that accidents, speeding incidents and crime in general decreased during the trial.

Unfortunately I don't know if it is still ongoing but I dare say that some number cruncher put a stop to it.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by GT450

You missed the point , they place them where they know the speed limits are set too low for the conditions and thus revenue is greater. Limits used to be set at the 85th percentile of users as a rule of thumb ( the speed 85 per cent of drivers would usually sit ). Now they set them much lower hence the revenue.
Speeding is only relevant to the posted signage on the road , that doesn't the posted sign necessarily right for that road. If you want people to slow down then a higher police presence will do it every time , a camera won't.
GT450

Neither of us are in a position to judge wether a posted limit is wrong for the area.
It is simply our job to comply and most do.
The ones raising the revenue and giving weight to needing a camera at any location are the people regularly ignoring the rules.

To claim that people only speed in areas where the limit is too low is wishful thinking.

[EgoFG]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Neither of us are in a position to judge wether a posted limit is wrong for the area.
It is simply our job to comply and most do.
The ones raising the revenue and giving weight to needing a camera at any location are the people regularly ignoring the rules.

To claim that people only speed in areas where the limit is too low is wishful thinking.

Where is that disagree button ?

IMHO the regular driver in an area is probably in the better position to have input into the correct speed limit than a bureaucrat is !
And the word Ignoring is incorrect.

[GT450]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Neither of us are in a position to judge wether a posted limit is wrong for the area.
It is simply our job to comply and most do.
The ones raising the revenue and giving weight to needing a camera at any location are the people regularly ignoring the rules.

To claim that people only speed in areas where the limit is too low is wishful thinking.

That's just B/S in so many ways .
GT450

[GT450]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Neither of us are in a position to judge wether a posted limit is wrong for the area.
It is simply our job to comply and most do.
The ones raising the revenue and giving weight to needing a camera at any location are the people regularly ignoring the rules.

To claim that people only speed in areas where the limit is too low is wishful thinking.

Baa Baa....That's just B/S in so many ways . I will settle for a patrol car pulling me up and giving me a ticket if I speed rather than having to scan every parked car that may contain a covert camera at least that waY I can keep my concentration on the limits and the road ahead.
GT450

[ford71V8]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Oh I don't know...trucks don't seem to have any problem catching up to cars already doing about 115kph (by my GPS)...blindly took this over my shoulder with my phone while coming home from Rocky today...this is the one pic that turned out clear.
image

The old truckies cry of "Give us plenty of room because it takes us a lot longer distance to stop" should equally apply to them sitting right up someones clacker...

Oh, by the way, I ended up speeding up to "a faster speed", getting some distance on him, then pulling off and letting him go...which I believe is what the moron was trying to achieve..."100 speed limited" my little pink *#@&...
...........

Do I spotto a KISS Army sticker?

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by GT450

Baa Baa....That's just B/S in so many ways . I will settle for a patrol car pulling me up and giving me a ticket if I speed rather than having to scan every parked car that may contain a covert camera at least that waY I can keep my concentration on the limits and the road ahead.
GT450

To be quite honest mate, i've never felt the need to scan every parked car for camera's.
They are more than obvious when they are being used, atleast in my area.

I've been driving for near on 20 years and in that time have only aquired 3 speeding fines, all three were issued by an officer with a radar.
2 were as a result of running late for a job interview, an hour apart, and i copped them both on the chin.
The other was so long ago i couldnt even tell you where or when it happened.

Never needed to fear camera's as i tend to be able to drive within the limit without any fear of being caught, its a natural ability for many to sit on or just below the limit without needing to continuously scan for camera's or their speedo.

I've been driving trucks in metro Adelaide for the last couple of years and have demonstrated to my employer that i can move more freight than any of his other drivers, faster and to date he has not recieved 1 fine despite my efficiency.
Truth is, speeding in metro area's is a waste of time as there is too much traffic and too many sets of lights to keep you in line, apart from that i pride myself on fluent driving to maintain my average speed and avoid the need to race off from lights or weave through traffic to get to my destination quicker.
You dont have to be a paranoid driver to survive todays roads, just smart.

The old line that speed camera's distract you is a cop out for people who dont want them in use.
If everyone was scanning for camera's they wouldn't be raising much revenue and the instances of accidents around them would be news by now.

Thats all i have on this subject.

[The Lone Ranger]

[QUOTE=BENT_8;4539870]I have never seen an accident near a speed camera



http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/p...-1226481481311

Sorry BENT, remembered seeing this a while back and couldn't resist

Darren

[Jim Goose]

[QUOTE=The Lone Ranger;4542130]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

I have never seen an accident near a speed camera



http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/p...-1226481481311

Sorry BENT, remembered seeing this a while back and couldn't resist

Darren

I think we went down this path when it occured... the accident didnt happen because of the speed camera.

[XBROO]

[QUOTE=Jim Goose;4542188]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I think we went down this path when it occured... the accident didnt happen because of the speed camera.

In a way it was, if it weren't there it wouldn't of been hit. 4:35am trying to get the poor Aussie battler, going to work.