REPORT: Fixed speed cameras not effective

[AWD Chaser]

About time an official pointed this out:

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=175137

Signposted speed cameras may actually make roads more dangerous, according to experts.

Road safety advisor Ray Shuey told ninemsn that speed cameras have a positive local influence but signposting them could make other areas of the road network more hazardous.

The warning follows the revelation of a 25 percent dip in speeding fines in NSW since a trial of mobile speed cameras in unmarked police vehicles was abandoned in 2004.
"If you analyse the traffic flows near overt speed cameras along the Hume Highway on the NSW side, you'll see that many motorists break before the camera zone and accelerate afterwards," he said.

"It does reduce crashes in this location but then you have to consider the collision displacement effect – has this strategy really reduced crash rates?"

Mr Shuey, a former Victorian assistant police commissioner, cited a 2003 study showing that accident blackspots in the United Kingdom monitored by overt speed cameras reported a 30 percent reduction in collisions.

However, the overall road fatality rate in the UK rose by two percent that year. His concerns are shared by Professor Jack McLean, director of the Centre for Automotive Safety Research at Adelaide University.

"The best parallel I can draw with fixed speed cameras whose locations are revealed is with random breath-testing," he said.

"Random breath-testing would not be nearly as effective if it was only conducted in the same set and advertised locations.

"Drink-driving is dangerous wherever you do it and so is speeding."

A policy of concealing all speed cameras is opposed by the NSW Council for Civil Liberties, with council vice-president David Bernie claiming that speed cameras warning signs generally affect driver behaviour positively.

"That achieves the result of slowing people down where they should rather than being a revenue-raising exercise," he said.

"So if you're talking about reducing speeding and lowering the death toll, then we'd have to say that advertising speed cameras is the way to go."

A campaign against speed camera warning signs has been waged by Pedestrian Council of Australia chairman Harold Scruby.

He sites a Monash University Accident Research Centre study that suggests a combination of hidden speed cameras and a high-profile awareness campaign can reduce the road toll.

Victoria boasts Australia's lowest per-capita road toll of 6.6 deaths per 100,000 people while employing a hidden camera only policy, compared to the NSW rate of 7.6.

Mr Shuey puts the effect of speed camera warning signs in simpler terms: "You'd only get a dill caught speeding in those locations, but they'll take a risk elsewhere."

[xbgs351]

Victoria boasts Australia's lowest per-capita road toll of 6.6 deaths per 100,000 people while employing a hidden camera only policy, compared to the NSW rate of 7.6.

Considering the difference in the quality of roads between Victoria and New South Wales, why does that statistic not come as a surprise? Attributing the per-capita road toll difference between Victoria and New South Wales to differences in speed camera policy is sure drawing a long bow.

And also the less land mass Victorians have to cover...

[mcflux]

Data is so easy to manipulate. For example that statement for Vic vs NSW, ignoring all other possible factors which may contribute to or reduce road deaths.

[AUIII XR8 MAN]

Originally Posted by BlackLS

And also the less land mass Victorians have to cover...

and more people live N.S.W.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by AUIII XR8 MAN

and more people live N.S.W.

"per-capita"

[Wally]

I haven't bothered investigating, but does the avareage road toll increase or decrease over, say the Xmas period? I know there are less cars on the road and more coppers. I doubt there are more drink drivers than an average Friday evening.

Is the holiday road toll heaviest in rural areas and is the police presence distributed on the basis of urban versus rural toll or just on population clusters with a higher policing in relatively lower per capita accident instance?

I suspect there is a hugely disproportionate amount of holiday infringement notices to the traffic volume too, which begs the question why only in holiday periods?

[nobbystang]

Originally Posted by Wally

I know there are less cars on the road and more coppers. I doubt there are more drink drivers than an average Friday evening.

Around here there is alot more traffic over xmas. Driving to Nelson Bay there would be at least twice as much traffic as we'd normally encounter. Its the same back home in Eastern Victoria, the olds said this year they've never seen so much traffic pass through town.

Seems to me that there are too many variables to just point the finger at just one and say this is why.

[Wally]

I take it they are rural areas? Was there a correspondingly higher ratio of police presence porportionate to the increased traffic flow?

[chief]

Why does Harold Scruby poke his nose into everything. Why cant he stick his nose into a hornets nest or something.

[jimmy_c]

Its amazing too see they are complaing only because revenue is down.

Simple guys the propaganda campaign has worn off. And people are simply slowing down. The govt has created this holywood type senario. and we keep falling for it.

Speeding and road deaths are not all that signifigant. They only seem like this because of the media beet up.

[Keepleft]

NSW faces an election next year, the government is resisting moves to remove the 3 x fixed warning signs on approach to our fixed speed cameras.

Ray Shuey the Victorian should take note, as should Harold of NSW;

What our NSW warning signs achieve is to target INATTENTIVE driving, using 'speed' as the methodology of doing so.

Those not paying attention to the road around them are dangerous at any speed, fail to see one of these large signs and your simply not paying full attention. Remove the signs and you instantly lose that ability.

NSW faces an election next year, and both Minister Watkins and NRMA have yesterday opposed Harold Scruby's new campaign of privatising speed camera enforcement, a la Victoria, highlighting that the road authority knows best where to locate fixed speed cameras 'than some private company', as close as practicable to dangerous spots and lengths of road.

We shall see where the NSW Liberal party rests shortly.

I remain 'curious' as to Harolds championing for privatised speed camera enforcement.

[RAREV8]

I will continue to rely on my GPS updates to inform me of cameras...it matters not whether they are hidden or not. Whilst iIdo not condone speeding or and form of reckless driving, I refuse to endange other road users by constantly having my eyes on the speedometer rather than on the road ahead and my surrounding peripherals.

[merlin]

Victoria's traffic is not nearly as heavy as NSW's, and we also have far more kilometres of roadways (particularly open country ones). So the per-capita comparison is not really relevant.

Hidden camera's simply divert ones attention from the road to the speedometre.

[Bill_R]

Originally Posted by scottishxc

... I refuse to endange other road users by constantly having my eyes on the speedometer rather than on the road ahead and my surrounding peripherals.

That's a definite hassle.

[lowriding]

Originally Posted by merlin

Victoria's traffic is not nearly as heavy as NSW's, and we also have far more kilometres of roadways (particularly open country ones). So the per-capita comparison is not really relevant.

Hidden camera's simply divert ones attention from the road to the speedometre.

yes correct, but lets not let facts get in the way of a harold scruby story !

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by Keepleft

What our NSW warning signs achieve is to target INATTENTIVE driving, using 'speed' as the methodology of doing so.

Spot on. I suspect most of the people that get booked by fixed speed cameras in rural areas are actually suffering from fatigue.

[AUIII XR8 MAN]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

"per-capita"

The more that live in one area, the higher the chances of some thing happening.

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by AUIII XR8 MAN

The more that live in one area, the higher the chances of some thing happening.

And Victoria is more densley populated than New South Wales.

[AUIII XR8 MAN]

Originally Posted by xbgs351

And Victoria is more densley populated than New South Wales.

Ok more peolpe live N.S.W so their more chances of thing going wrong.

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by AUIII XR8 MAN

Ok more peolpe live N.S.W so their more chances of thing going wrong.

Per-Capita Definition: Average per person

[AUIII XR8 MAN]

Originally Posted by xbgs351

Per-Capita Definition: Average per person

The more you have, the higher the odds. Nothing to do with average.

[MITCHAY]

And they needed to enlist the help of an expert to know this _

Any ******* motorist can tell you they DON'T WORK!

[ltd]

Harold Scruby is like Germaine Greer; as engaging as a bucket of smashed crabs and constantly coming out with insidious remarks in order to remain relevent. I wonder where screw ball scrubie sits on speeding when it comes to overtaking? Would he prefer us to observe the limit and take three times as long on the wrong side of the road? I mean, his message is simple right, every K over is a killer; I drove from Melbourne to Sydney today and overtook cars on the single lane goat tracks of NSW and guess what, I had to speed up to avoid accidents. Luckily screwball wasn't in a bush with his camera as I would be an instant criminal.
Actually, when you think about it why is someone who is primarily concerned with pedestrians (ie the pedestrian council of Oz) so concerned about motorists, something that the cardigan wearing, camry driving moron wouldn't know about?
The whole idea of a pedestrian representative trying to stipulate how a cars domain works, where his expertise is for an area outside of the cars domain is ridiculous. It's sort of like wiping before you poop..... It don't make sense.

Speed Cameras are primarily a short term cash cow, and secondarily a form of proxy policing. They force your attention of the road and have caused as many accidents as they have allegedly prevented. My source for this info is as reliable as the official governmental ahem "studies" - after all, I plucked my source from the same air that they did. Studies in the UK have shown the removal of speed cameras does serve to reduce accidents and death rates.

[RIPGMH]

Better roads/driver training= costs $$
Speed cameras= makes $$

[fmc351]

Seriously, revenue raiser is becoming the most misused euphamism. If you need to keep your eyes on the speedo so much it effects your ability to focus on the road, maybe you should consider a taxi, driving is obviously a challenge.

Id agree with you on the issue of no allowance for speedo error, but their existence and no signage, bah. The reality is, you already know youre going to speed and dont want to get pinged. At least admit it.

[ED Classic]

Safer cars and properly designed roads/intersections are the best/only real thing that saves lives. Not every accident is as result of speed/drink driving as the police would have you beleive, infact probly less than 50% with human error accounting for 50+% alone. People speed now like they did 25 years ago and if you consider that the population has almost doubled in that time there would be atleast as many speeding now (the revenue of cameras prove this) so then why is the road toll lower now? Better roads/Cars/Intersections are the only reason.

[Panda]

Originally Posted by fmc351

If you need to keep your eyes on the speedo so much it effects your ability to focus on the road, maybe you should consider a taxi, driving is obviously a challenge

I don't know, any distraction is still a distraction.

If you take your eyes off the road to check your speed, answer the mobile, grab a drink / feed, change the radio station, talk to the kids in the back seat.....in short ANYTHING, you are not paying attention to the road. The road is where you need to be looking, that's where the dangerous stuff is.

Instead of driving to an arbitary speed limit, we should all be driving to the conditions that can affect our safety -
- road surface / quality
- traffic density
- weather conditions
- wildlife
- vehicle condition

We've all heard the stories of 'this bloke' who stuck to the 100km/h speed limit in torrential rain or heavy fog. If he were driving to the conditions he would have slowed down a bit, allowed a greater seperation between him and the preceding car etc etc..

It's what I remember about the Northern Territory cruise in 2005, just drive to the conditions. It was such a relief to be allowed to THINK about what the safe speed was, not have to READ what somebody elses opinion of safe speed was. Nobody stuck to any set speed, it varied constantly as the conditions varied. Sure, everyone gave it a blast to 200+, but once we got that out of our systems everyone settled back down to a realistic speed. The cruise went so smoothly, everyone was relaxed (no frustration) and wide awake (no fatigue)

There is so much more to driving safely than sticking to the speed limit.

Panda

[Bill M]

Just to play devil's advocate with speedcameras they do make you more aware of what is going on around you. You become familar with the vehicles used as camera cars and their locations. I was host to country rellies recently and they were amazed at the detail I could recall per cars and cameras by just being observant, which I think is a natural part of good driving. Anyhow, back to detesting revenue driven road safety campaigns...

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by AUIII XR8 MAN

The more you have, the higher the odds. Nothing to do with average.

That's not true.

In 2006 144 people died on Melbourne roads compared to 193 on rural Victorian roads. 3.2 million people live in Melbourne compared to 1.3 million who live in rural Victoria. So deaths per-capita in Melbourne are only 30% of what is seen in rural Victoria.