My theory for speed cameras; Part 2!

[XDV800]

Alright then. Somehow speed cameras have been judged to be perfectly acceptable by lawmakers. They are positioned at or near blackspots to curb the rising road toll they told us. Rubbish. That is simply untrue nowadays, they are a revenue raising tactic. The road toll is the lowest it has been for over 30 years, yet these things keep rolling out.

Now what I reckon is that these things are here to stay, regardless if they are quite frankly, used in an unjust manner.

So what i propose is that they be moved away from our major highways and byways and into............................the suburbs!

Thats right, i've been thinking about this subject of councils setting up cash registers on every neighborhood street. After outrightly thinking it was lunacy, i've come to the conclusion It's not such a bad idea.

Lets face it, the suburbs are a maze of narrow, twisty streets and lanes and drives, that are simply not the place to be travelling at high speed. Our families and friends reside here, and our children play and go to and fro on these streets.
So why are these streets not POLICED by speed cameras? 40, 50, 60, 70 km/h zones. These are basically shared zones between pedestrians and vehicles.

I live on a street that is a major thoroughfare to access the eastern side of my suburb, it is signed 50 km/h and after my place the street smoothly arcs to the right 90 degrees then continues on for another 800m or so.
Not a day goes by when I notice, and it's pretty obvious, that users of this street are travelling at more than the signed limit, WAY more. Some young blokes in turboed and V8 powered beasts even find it a thrill to stand on it down my street and take that bend at ridiculous speeds, in excess of 100 at times. Some thrillseekers even drift the entire bend, i kid you not!

My street should have a speed camera. It is only a matter of time before one of these morons crashes into a pedestrian on the footpath, or a house, which is often the case in neighborhoods. Here is where there is too much at stake when it all goes wrong.

Put them in the suburbs, BUT take them off the highways.

I highly doubt that speed is a major contributor to road accidents out on the open road. Blackspots are places that have high incident rates because of defects in the design of intersections or badly paved sections or some such problem that leads drivers to stuff up, that can be upgraded to eliminate this.
We should be able to travel at our own discretion out here where there are such long distances to travel, and glancing at the speedo every 30- seconds on an 800klm journey is a bloody ridiculous expectation.
Speed cameras are an injustice outside of built up areas and if they are to be used at all, they should be implemented where it counts.
Slow it down in the streets, let it ride on freeway!

Oh and councils can get stuffed, this is policing and should never be undertaken by anyone but the police service. Councils already pay their leaders more than state leaders, that is all they will do with the revenue.

Discuss...

[P6LTD351]

I will say that theory Part 2 is much better than theory Part 1.

I agree with some of your points here; in particular about the suburbs.

[munners]

Originally Posted by yzfr101

Some young blokes in turboed and V8 powered beasts even find it a thrill to stand on it down my street and take that bend at ridiculous speeds, in excess of 100 at times. Some thrillseekers even drift the entire bend, i kid you not!

Have you raised this with local police, council etc? We had a similar situation when i lived in Sydney and the police we're really helpfull. It took a few months of regular patrols but the continual Police presence eventually got the hoons to stop or atleast move somewhere else.

Munners

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by munners

Have you raised this with local police, council etc? We had a similar situation when i lived in Sydney and the police we're really helpfull. It took a few months of regular patrols but the continual Police presence eventually got the hoons to stop or atleast move somewhere else.

Munners

That doesn't help...not where I live anyway. I live directly across the road from a neighbourhood watch house. The policeman actually lives in the house - they're doing 85 by the time they hit my place, and a good 95 by the time they hit the top of the hill. There's school kids there, but it seems to not matter to them...and the copper does sweet FA.

[Jim Goose]

Well done...!

Ok have on a number of occasions made this point about speed cameras.
If those people who select the location of them TRUELY think its about safety, then why are speed cameras NOT put into suburbs?

I have NEVER seen them located in the burbs and why?
Simply because there isnt a justifiable amount of traffic (lack of revenue) to put one in a suburb.

On a regular basis while driving in my suburb (or even at home) I see a majority of cars speeding well above the speed limit (50kmh).
On numerous occasions i have estimated speed at being in excess of 80kmh and despite the fact there are stop signs a plenty in the area, I have seen a large percentage of cars not only speeding, but driving through these stop signs at high speed.

In my area there is what one would call a "major" carrier of most of the traffic. However this road doesnt have centerline markings so its not considered a major road. It does however have numerous bus stops.
It is about 2km long and has 7 intersections all with stop signs.

Yet speeding is very common along this road, but nothing is ever done about it.

I dont however support the idea of councils operating speed cameras.
I still believe this should be a state run thing as local councils are NOT responsible for state law enforcement, in fact they cant be as they arent recognised in the Australian constitution.

Putting fixed cameras in the suburbs only means people will just use alternative routes, so mobile cameras are the only option.

But, having said that, I still believe a bigger Police presence on the road is what is needed, however I cant see it being justified that they be put in a suburb with low traffic flow to set up a radar gun, hence back to a mobile speed camera.

[AWD Chaser]

Some young blokes in turboed and V8 powered beasts even find it a thrill to stand on it down my street and take that bend at ridiculous speeds, in excess of 100 at times.

Are you saying only young blokes speed on that street, and somehow old blokes obey the speed limit 100% of the time?

Dont single out a minority with no proof - Im sure there are older blokes that do this too...

I dont disagree with your point to move speed cameras into suburbs... but what about the alternative:

Have more police patrol the suburbs, every day, and not focusing on just one street - you dont even have to give them a car - they can walk or cycle the beat!

This would not only curb speeding, but reduce other crimes too!

[XDV800]

Originally Posted by AWD Chaser

Are you saying only young blokes speed on that street, and somehow old blokes obey the speed limit 100% of the time?

Dont single out a minority with no proof - Im sure there are older blokes that do this too...

Pretty much yeah i am. With my very own eyes i can judge that the guys (I've even singled out males from females) that do this would be no older than 30. I'm sure plenty of older folks do silly stuff too, i know i do.

[AWD Chaser]

Originally Posted by yzfr101

Pretty much yeah i am. With my very own eyes i can judge that the guys (I've even singled out males from females) that do this would be no older than 30. I'm sure plenty of older folks do silly stuff too, i know i do.

Fair enough... I think I misjudged your meaning of Young - My interpretation of young is below 21...

If you can single them out, why not take regular video footage and send it to your council and local police...

Police may patrol your street more and council may install speed reducing road objects (Chicanes, Speed Bumps, etc) if you ask...

You could always errect a "fake" speed camera (maybe even with a strobe flash) on your own front lawn if you think it would help...

Have you tried going to your local member?

I guess what im saying is that there are alot of other alternate other then speed cameras...

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by yzfr101

So what i propose is that they be moved away from our major highways and byways and into............................the suburbs!

But you see that would make sense and make roads safer. Speed cameras are not meant for road safety, they are only for money making. That is why the cameras are put on long straights on highways. That is the area more people are likely to break the limit.

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by Ben73

But you see that would make sense and make roads safer. Speed cameras are not meant for road safety, they are only for money making. That is why the cameras are put on long straights on highways. That is the area more people are likely to break the limit.

You need to correct your last statement.... people are likely to break the speed limit anywhere and they do!
Its just that highways and major roads provide the speed camera with MORE people (cars) then any suburban street would.

[flappist]

Here is a question.

If a camera is making large amounts of money yet there are no accidents at that place does this imply that the speed limit has been set too low?

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by flappist

Here is a question.

If a camera is making large amounts of money yet there are no accidents at that place does this imply that the speed limit has been set too low?

Yes.

But I would love to see some people now argue that this is not true.

[WMD351]

Originally Posted by flappist

Here is a question.

If a camera is making large amounts of money yet there are no accidents at that place does this imply that the speed limit has been set too low?

It implies that there are a lot of people out there who are either ignorant, incompetent, arrogently defiant, or a combination of all three...... hang on, are we talking about the people getting fined or the people setting the limits?

[P6LTD351]

Originally Posted by Ben73

Yes.

But I would love to see some people now argue that this is not true.

Very easy to argue.

So, in my suburban street, let's say there is a speed camera there making lots of money and no accidents. Do we all of a sudden raise the speed limit? How about around a school zone - camera makes heaps of money and there are no accidents there; shall we raise the speed limit? Roadworks? No accidents there, camera making heaps of money. Silly argument. But a good try.

[Linkachu]

Originally Posted by eb2monty

Very easy to argue.

So, in my suburban street, let's say there is a speed camera there making lots of money and no accidents. Do we all of a sudden raise the speed limit? How about around a school zone - camera makes heaps of money and there are no accidents there; shall we raise the speed limit? Roadworks? No accidents there, camera making heaps of money. Silly argument. But a good try.

In the right circumstance it would be justifiable, you're just making it look like a bad idea by using bad examples.

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by Linkachu

In the right circumstance it would be justifiable, you're just making it look like a bad idea by using bad examples.

Exactly.


No one said it was limited to a subrban area.
I could probably name a couple of freeways and highways that could do with a slight boost in speed limit.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by eb2monty

Very easy to argue.

So, in my suburban street, let's say there is a speed camera there making lots of money and no accidents. Do we all of a sudden raise the speed limit? How about around a school zone - camera makes heaps of money and there are no accidents there; shall we raise the speed limit? Roadworks? No accidents there, camera making heaps of money. Silly argument. But a good try.

No you are the one in denial.

If the camera is making lots of money THEN THE CARS ARE ALREADY TRAVELLING AT THE FASTER SPEED.

If no accidents then the limit must be too low.

I believe that federal government should take all camera fines from the states and use the money to build roads in every other state except the one in which the fine was issued.

Then it will not be a cash cow as the ones with the cameras don't get any of the money.

Of course as it is about safety and not money the states will not care.....will they?

[P6LTD351]

Originally Posted by flappist

If the camera is making lots of money THEN THE CARS ARE ALREADY TRAVELLING AT THE FASTER SPEED.

If no accidents then the limit must be too low.

That is a flawed statement though. So just because there are no accidents at the higher speed, we should raise the speed limit? As I said, by chance, there are no accidents at a school zone for a period of time with many speeders going through there, is it justifiable to raise the limit?

[P6LTD351]

Originally Posted by Linkachu

In the right circumstance it would be justifiable, you're just making it look like a bad idea by using bad examples.

You may see them as bad examples but are they wrong?

In debating, you use whatever example you can to break down the argument. Doesn't matter if the other person thinks it is bad, just needs to be logical.

Flappist, you are a very intelligent and witty poster, and when first reading your post, I thought - that's a good one. But it doesn't mean the argument can't be broken down or is flawed.

[Ben73]

School limits should not be raised.

[P6LTD351]

BTW, I'll make it clear: I admit that speed cameras are REVENUE RAISERS!!!! I am not in denial. I just try not to speed and know it's my fault if I do.

[P6LTD351]

Originally Posted by Ben73

School limits should be raised.

Have you got children?

[Ben73]

Re read it. I made an error.

[P6LTD351]

Originally Posted by Ben73

Re read it. I made an error.

All good

[flappist]

Originally Posted by eb2monty

You may see them as bad examples but are they wrong?

In debating, you use whatever example you can to break down the argument. Doesn't matter if the other person thinks it is bad, just needs to be logical.

Flappist, you are a very intelligent and witty poster, and when first reading your post, I thought - that's a good one. But it doesn't mean the argument can't be broken down or is flawed.

The argument is simple.

Theory is theory, practice is practice.

When practice does not agree with theory it is NEVER practice that is wrong.

Using the "school zone" (a place that NEVER has speed cameras due to "political issues") as an example is just spin doctoring.
The ocean should have a fence around it just to prevent drowning. Oh no stupid idea, oceans don't need fences. But if fences were removed from pools kids will drown. Pools and the ocean are EXACTLY the same thing a lump of water with land around the edges aren't they?

The majority of speed cameras, particularly the most profitable ones are in VERY safe places.

This is for two reasons:

1) maximum financial return
2) enormous backlash if there ever was a fatal accident in front of a camera as it did not prevent it happening so is therefore a flawed methodology.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by flappist

No you are the one in denial.

If the camera is making lots of money THEN THE CARS ARE ALREADY TRAVELLING AT THE FASTER SPEED.

If no accidents then the limit must be too low.

I believe that federal government should take all camera fines from the states and use the money to build roads in every other state except the one in which the fine was issued.

Then it will not be a cash cow as the ones with the cameras don't get any of the money.

Of course as it is about safety and not money the states will not care.....will they?

Same old, same old.... its not about whether that stretch of road is safe at that speed, Im sure we could argue any stretch of road can be traversed at twice the current speed limit, its about reducing carnage on our roads to an acceptable level. Yes, the probability of incident is small even when people speed, and there will still be collisions at or below the speed limit, but the chances when above the speed limit on a overall population level rise considerably.


No doubt we'll have another simpleton telling us how they exceeded the speed limit by 1km/h without crashing and burning, therefore speed limits/cameras are nonsense.

Were school children run over outside every school before they decided to reduce the limit to 40km/h outside schools, or did they just reduce the limit to 40km/h outside schools where kiddies had been skittled? Perhaps if you can answer that then perhaps you can see the futility of your argument.

[zdcol71]

Originally Posted by flappist

Here is a question.

If a camera is making large amounts of money yet there are no accidents at that place does this imply that the speed limit has been set too low?

It implies to me that until this issue (speed limits v revenue raising) is actually taken on board by sufficent enough numbers as to actually do something about,(I'm guessing a whole lot more than some pundits on a car enthusiasts forum), then things will stay as they are.
It also implies that if so many people are being caught breaking the law, and the (accident, crash, incident) numbers indicate that speed is not a justification for having a speed camera in place , then the speed limit is not the issue. The argument from many here is speed is just a minor part of any equation to do with road statistics, rightly so. The issue seems to be, who determines this speed limit, and more importantly, who will argue against these posted limits, and who is concered enough to do something about it.
That also implies to me that the vast majority of the population may just think that the laws that we have in place may have some semblance of acceptability. Or does that make the uneducated masses ignorant of the concept of the lowest common denominator (yes, I know I have used that twice now)

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by flappist

No you are the one in denial.

If the camera is making lots of money THEN THE CARS ARE ALREADY TRAVELLING AT THE FASTER SPEED.

If no accidents then the limit must be too low.

I believe that federal government should take all camera fines from the states and use the money to build roads in every other state except the one in which the fine was issued.

Then it will not be a cash cow as the ones with the cameras don't get any of the money.

Of course as it is about safety and not money the states will not care.....will they?

How do you come out with that theory, because there's no accidents, the speed limit is too low...?

So we raise the limit and wait for the accidents?

So where there are accidents in 40 zones, the speed limit should be lowered? All metropolitan areas should have a speed limit of 5 to work on the same theory as you have? Camera or no camera, there have been accidents in metro areas and 40 zones - the limit should be lowered...?

Let's face it, there are people that inhabit this country that can barely tie their shoelaces, letalone drive a car, and yet they share the same roads as us...who in their right mind would suggest raising the speed limit based on that knowledge?

Yes, they're there for revenue - we all know this, voluntary taxation, blah blah blah, whatever.

I'll go back to my street, it's marked as a 50km zone, suburban, you know the deal. In the time I've lived here, there have been no accidents. There is no camera, and yet people are doing anywhere up to 95k's past my house...should the speed limit be increased because there's been no accidents...HELL no...I have enough trouble getting out of my driveway as it is. Camera or no camera, people are going to speed.

A probably more plausible suggestion would be to not have fixed limits, but fluctuating ones - if it's foggy, the speed limit is dropped, if there is an accident ahead, the speed limit is dropped to allow the accident to clear, conversely, if it's a sunny day, or the road is not crammed with people, up the limit from 100 to 110, more than do-able - it would show a more dedicated approach to 'safety' and the proper flow of traffic. Will the government ever do that? Probably not.

Originally Posted by Linkachu

In the right circumstance it would be justifiable, you're just making it look like a bad idea by using bad examples.

In the right circumstances, yes - but what exactly are the right circumstances? Particularly when we stop thinking about 'I could do it' and start to think about 'Could 'they' (ie other road users) do it?' In a lot of these cases, you'll find the answer is no.

[madmatty]

[QUOTE=flappist]The argument is simple.

Theory is theory, practice is practice.

When practice does not agree with theory it is NEVER practice that is wrong.

Using the "school zone" (a place that NEVER has speed cameras due to "political issues") as an example is just spin doctoring.
The ocean should have a fence around it just to prevent drowning. Oh no stupid idea, oceans don't need fences. But if fences were removed from pools kids will drown. Pools and the ocean are EXACTLY the same thing a lump of water with land around the edges aren't they?

The majority of speed cameras, particularly the most profitable ones are in VERY safe places.


NSW has two fixed speed cameras in school zones one in gymea and one in kogarah .they were on a trial about three years ago and are two of the most proffitable in aus.so i'd say the trial was succesful.they are still operational but they dont get as many as they used to because most people know and slow down appropiatly.
This is for two reasons:

1) maximum financial return
2) enormous backlash if there ever was a fatal accident in front of a camera as it did not prevent it happening so is therefore a flawed methodology.[/QUOTENSW has two fixed speed cameras in school zones one in gymea and one in kogarah .they were on a trial about three years ago and are two of the most proffitable in aus.so i'd say the trial was succesful.they are still operational but they dont get as many as they used to because most people know and slow down appropiatly.
This is for two reasons:

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

How do you come out with that theory, because there's no accidents, the speed limit is too low...?

So we raise the limit and wait for the accidents?

So where there are accidents in 40 zones, the speed limit should be lowered? All metropolitan areas should have a speed limit of 5 to work on the same theory as you have? Camera or no camera, there have been accidents in metro areas - the limit should be lowered...?

Let's face it, there are people that inhabit this country that can barely tie their shoelaces, letalone drive a car, and yet they share the same roads as us...who in their right mind would suggest raising the speed limit based on that knowledge?

Yes, they're there for revenue - we all know this, voluntary taxation, blah blah blah, whatever.

I'll go back to my street, it's marked as a 50km zone, suburban, you know the deal. In the time I've lived here, there have been no accidents. There is no camera, and yet people are doing anywhere up to 95k's past my house...should the speed limit be increased because there's been no accidents...HELL no...I have enough trouble getting out of my driveway as it is. Camera or no camera, people are going to speed.

A probably more plausible suggestion would be to not have fixed limits, but fluctuating ones - if it's foggy, the speed limit is dropped, if there is an accident ahead, the speed limit is dropped to allow the accident to clear, conversely, if it's a sunny day, or the road is not crammed with people, up the limit from 100 to 110, more than do-able - it would show a more dedicated approach to 'safety' and the proper flow of traffic. Will the government ever do that? Probably not.



In the right circumstances, yes - but what exactly are the right circumstances? Particularly when we stop thinking about 'I could do it' and start to think about 'Could 'they' (ie other road users) do it?' In a lot of these cases, you'll find the answer is no.

Well I will try to make it clearer.

IF, for example, the speed limit on a section of freeway is 100km/h
AND there is a speed camera that issues 1000 fines a day for 110-120km/h
AND there is no accident history whatsoever
THEN the road must be safe at 110-120km/h
THEREFORE the limit is too low.

The cars are already doing 110-120 and must have been doing so for a long time or else there would be no camera history.

It is common practice for a road that shows repetitive accidents over a period of time to have its speed limit reduced.
e.g. junt on the Bruce; Cooroy-Curra, Gin Gin-Kolan River, Ipswich Rd, parts of the gateway arterial etc. 90km/h zones

One point though, if you are not capable of controlling your vehicle safely at 120km/h on an open road then either you, your car or both you and your car should not be allowed to on the road.......