Brisbane New Speed Cameras, lower tolerance level!!!!

[csv8]

BRISBANE'S nine analog fixed speed cameras could switch to digital over the next year as five new cameras are brought online, potentially boosting State Government revenue from the devices.

If trials are successful, the new technology could see the "tolerance figure'' the legal margin for error applied when policing speed limits slashed to a much smaller margin.

The current figure, the difference between the speed limit and the detection trigger on cameras and hand-held radars, was established in 2008.

Brisbane's nine fixed "wet-film'' speed cameras brought in more than $8 million during the past financial year.

The city's busiest camera was at Main St, Kangaroo Point, where more than 19,000 motorists were caught speeding.

Fixed cameras generated a small portion of the $70 million raised by speeding offences last financial year, but that share is expected to grow as police boost their arsenal.



The analog speed cameras contain 30m of film and can take up to 800 frames before needing to be replenished, usually three times a week.

Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety Queensland research officer David Soole said digital technology could help reduce the state's road toll, which climbed to 118 at the weekend three more than this time last year.

In 1998, the year speed cameras were introduced in Queensland, the annual road toll stayed below 300 for the first time since 1955.

"Improved technology in speed cameras is just going to enhance an already effective approach to managing speed,'' Mr Soole said.

State Traffic Support Branch Inspector Allan Hales said digital cameras would mostly use infrared technology, similar to the eight fixed cameras used in the Clem7 tunnel since last year, instead of white flash.

Because the cameras don't emit a blinding flash, they can photograph the driver's face, often without them realising.

Insp Hales said the new technology would allow police to monitor cameras remotely and cut down on the cost of processing fixed-camera film.

A statement from Police Commissioner Bob Atkinson did not address whether the "tolerance level'' now applied would change with the imminent switch to new technology.

"We believe in the principle that every kilometre over the speed limit is a killer,'' it said.

But Police Minister Neil Roberts said: "The speed limit is the limit and if you are going to go over it, you'll be fined.''

I have nothing against revenue cameras, when used as intended. But, when its blatant revenue raising ,I do....this is blatant revenue raising.
Eg: why are the revenue cameras never on the uphill section of the Ipswich Motorway ? but ALWAYS on the downhill section, in Moorooka and Annerly ????????????

[Ben73]

Here we go.

"Speed cameras suck"

"Nah they save lives"

"No they just raise money"

"Nah but the government said they saved lives, so its true"

"They are never in dangerous spots, only in safer spots where more people speed"

"Well so what, if they want to raise money let them"

"Greed Cameras are nothing but a scam"

"They are awesome, you are an idiot"

"Nah they suck"

"Nah they are awesome"


No one ever changes their opinion, and everyone ends up hating everyone else. All speed camera threads are the same.


I think speed cameras are used inappropriately and only set up to increase revenue by as much as possible.
If you don't agree with me, bad luck. That is my personal opinion. You wont change my opinion, so get over it.

Lowering the tolerance is just proving that they are trying to make more money.
Couple that with giving us more demerit points, but reducing the amount we loose when being fined, it just shows that they are trying to get us to keep our license for longer, and get many more minor fines. Why? To raise more money.

[No.6]

speed cameras in school zones = YES
red light cameras = YES

so called 'safety cameras' at intersections i dont agree with. I spend more time looking at the speedo than i do at the road in front of me scanning for unwary drivers at an intersection.

[Maggot]

Originally Posted by No.6

speed cameras in school zones = YES
red light cameras = YES

so called 'safety cameras' at intersections i dont agree with. I spend more time looking at the speedo than i do at the road in front of me scanning for unwary drivers at an intersection.

You should try driving around perth lately.. I think there's 10 dual purpose cameras along Leach highway alone.. possibly more.. many of our major roads (Canning HW, South St, Wanneroo Rd and the like) are getting the new camera at EVERY intersection.

I personally would rather see extra money on police than cameras but it's not going to happen.

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by No.6

speed cameras in school zones = YES
red light cameras = YES

so called 'safety cameras' at intersections i dont agree with. I spend more time looking at the speedo than i do at the road in front of me scanning for unwary drivers at an intersection.

Very true.

They only started installing these around Newcastle about a month ago. Now when approaching these intersections I look at my speed about 70 meters out. Then I look at my speed again as I am about to enter the intersection.

Not safe at all, But I am doing it so I don't get a fine. Because according to the government speed and red light is the only important thing at an intersection. If a car runs a red light just as a glance down at my speedo, or if a pedestrian runs out and I hit them. Oh well, governments fault. Hope no one dies.

Someone here will pull out of their *** that it only takes half a second to look at your speedo. Maybe true, but they should also know how many metres you will travel in half a second, and how much more damage will occur if your reaction is half a second later.

[2011G6E]

50kph: 13.8 meters per second.
60kph: 16.66 meters per second
80kph: 22.2 meters per second
100kph: 27.7 meters per second

Seeing as how it takes about two seconds for a normal human to react and hit the brake pedal, if you're cruising along at 50kph and someone steps out ten meters ahead of you, you've got them...chances are you won't even get your foot on the brake pedal in time, much less start to slow down.

If that happens while you are "taking only one single second" to glance quickly down at your speedo to make sure you don't go "one K over", it may well be that the first you know about the pedestrian is an almighty bang up front somewhere...

[Till_Lind]

Hah, I know that Kangaroo Point one. It's basically at the foot of a hill before you hit the bridge.

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by Till_Lind

Hah, I know that Kangaroo Point one. It's basically at the foot of a hill before you hit the bridge.

hill? where? I actually did some research on that one...interesting for a 'hill' how many were longer for more than 40k's over the limit...a few k's I can understand, but 40?

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by csv8

Eg: why are the revenue cameras never on the uphill section of the Ipswich Motorway ? but ALWAYS on the downhill section, in Moorooka and Annerly ????????????

Sorry to sound like a broken record, but gravity is hardly a new phenomenon but put people in charge of a car and suddenly they are unaware of it?

Dont know how steep these hills are you refer to, but am guessing they are steep enough for a car to pickup speed on the downhill sections.

Do you understand that a cars ability to reduce speed quickly does depend on the which way the road is sloping?
Do you understand that if the road is of sufficient slope that your car accelerates without any throttle input, then basically you have reduced your level of braking to that of a level wet road at the same speed.

and you want to have a cry about being pinged for actually speeding downhill , yes its as sensible as having a cry for getting caught speeding in the wet.

Oh, they should be more lenient because people dont realise they are speeding up going down hill.......all the more reason these people who are driving obliviously from their surroundings should be separated from their cash and their licence asap.

[Mitch_]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Sorry to sound like a broken record, but gravity is hardly a new phenomenon but put people in charge of a car and suddenly they are unaware of it?

Dont know how steep these hills are you refer to, but am guessing they are steep enough for a car to pickup speed on the downhill sections.

Do you understand that a cars ability to reduce speed quickly does depend on the which way the road is sloping?
Do you understand that if the road is of sufficient slope that your car accelerates without any throttle input, then basically you have reduced your level of braking to that of a level wet road at the same speed.

and you want to have a cry about being pinged for actually speeding downhill , yes its as sensible as having a cry for getting caught speeding in the wet.

Oh, they should be more lenient because people dont realise they are speeding up going down hill.......all the more reason these people who are driving obliviously from their surroundings should be separated from their cash and their licence asap.

[2011G6E]

When hand held radar first came in (yes, I remember...), the public were assured they would not be set up at the bottom of hills, as even if you back off and carefully watch your speed, your car will naturally start to speed up a bit, and if traffic conditions were heavy, you might not be staring at the speedo.
That philosophy seems to have gone out the window nowadays.

In fact, I seem to remember seeing the "guidelines" printed in a newspaper that said before setting up the radar trap the police had to ensure it wasn't at the bottom of a hill, test it in both directions to see if anything (trees, roadside structures, etc) interfered with it or gave false readings, test the radar gun with some sort of "tuning fork" that calibrated the device.
The general lack of doing this was used as a defense in a lot of speeding fine cases.
Yet we are expected to believe that, unlike any other scientific instrument in the world, the magical radar guns and laser guns and fixed speed cameras just work 100% perfectly 100% of the time...sure they do...

A head of traffic branch once said on the ABC radio that "it was up to people to ensure thier speedos were reading correctly", and to "simply" get the calbrated if they suspect they are wrong. Really. Simple. Does anyone know, off the top of thier head, who can calibrate your speedo? How much does it cost?

[my_gxl]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Does anyone know, off the top of thier head, who can calibrate your speedo? How much does it cost?

My car was an ex cop car, and had a speedo claibration sticker inside the door. However I also knew it was out since it had 18's put on since it had been used by the police.

The speedo was calibrated as part of my custom dyno tune.

Sorry I don't know the exact cost of just a speedo calibration, but any place with a dyno would be able to test it.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Mitch_

^^ this.

Originally Posted by csv8

If Police want motorists to take speeding seriously, the stop treating us like idiots!!!!!

and this

Originally Posted by Ben73

No one ever changes their opinion, and everyone ends up hating everyone else. All speed camera threads are the same.

and this.

[chevypower]

yeah it's safer to constantly watch the speedo. Stop looking at the road people, you could kill someone!

[grandpa_spec_F6]

There are signs and white markings all over the place that say "SPEED CAMERA AHEAD".... people need to open their effin eyes I reckon.

[xisled]

Come live in Victoria then you will be complaining about speed camera's. Most states of Australia are far behind Victoria with fixed camera's and mobile speed camera's. You can drive down the road and get done by a roadside camera and not even know until you get the fine 2 to 4 weeks later. Not many signs in Victoria for fixed camera's. It is simple do not speed and you will not get caught.

[Cúl-Báire]

I will try not to jump on the "it's revenue raising" band wagon, but the simplef acts are that speed cameras in many countries have been proven to be completely ineffective at managing driver speeds, or reducing the road tolls; so much so that they are being decommissioned and completely removed from service.

How the QLD government can suggest that it will achieve the opposite is ludicrous. A focus on better driver training, and much better enforcement of the basics such as drivers not indicating, drivers failing to keep left on multi lane roads,etc... is what will reduce the road toll.

I am a firm believer that the road toll means nothing, currently we considerably lower annual road toll than say 15, 20 years ago yet there has been a steady increase in traffic, and the number of people behind the wheel - like anything accidents will happen, it's those that happen needlessly that shouldn't.

[SEZ213]

It looks like I didn't miss the latest episode of Days of Our Lives...

There is always the argument that people don't take enough responsibility on the roads - and yet a select few here seem to believe that something as simple as 'looking at your speedo' is too hard - so if supposedly 'intelligent' people are making these suggestions, I'd really hate to see what the pillocks think of it...

Looking at your speedo is part of driving a vehicle...I'm still failing to understand what is so hard about it?

The continual 'oh we can't keep taking our eyes off the road to look at our speedo' is bollocks - you did it before speed cameras were put in place, why not after speed cameras are put in place. Or did you not bother to look at your speedo's before hand either?

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

It looks like I didn't miss the latest episode of Days of Our Lives...

There is always the argument that people don't take enough responsibility on the roads - and yet a select few here seem to believe that something as simple as 'looking at your speedo' is too hard - so if supposedly 'intelligent' people are making these suggestions, I'd really hate to see what the pillocks think of it...

Looking at your speedo is part of driving a vehicle...I'm still failing to understand what is so hard about it?

The continual 'oh we can't keep taking our eyes off the road to look at our speedo' is bollocks - you did it before speed cameras were put in place, why not after speed cameras are put in place. Or did you not bother to look at your speedo's before hand either?

Not as often probably. Having it drummed into you that one or two kilometers over the limit is "deadly" and will be fined, of course you will watch your speedo more often.

Also there is the little matter of police handing out "cautions" in the "bad old days". As little as 15 years ago, if a cop followed you and caught you doing maybe 10kph over the limit, he would pull you over, give you a revving, check over your vehicle, and let you off with a caution. No such thing anymore as far as I can see. Most people "caught" speeding nowadays are "caught" by a fixed camera or camera van trap and never actually see a policeman.
There is a great underestimation of the value of a sound telling-off by the side of the road by an angry cop, especially to younger drivers.

I would like to see a survey asking people if they think they look at thier speedo more now than they did in years past. It's hard to work out, but I would consider that in urban areas or places where I know there is usually a camera van that I look at my speedo more often and keep a close eye on it.

Studies overseas have shown that if you drop the speed limit altogether on a stretch of road, everyone ends up cruising along at a speed pretty much close to what the limit was...and I would bet they are safer as everyone is concentrating on the road instead of staring at thier speedo for fear of drifting one or two k's over.

Here's just one I quickly dug up:
http://www.usroads.com/journals/p/rmj/9709/rm970903.htm
What??? "It showed that compliance with speed limits was not necessarily an accurate measure of safety", and "The research suggests that lowering speed limits arbitrarily does not affect traffic safety. Speed limits and speed zones would be more effective if they were based on geometrics, traffic characteristics, and safety benefits rather than popular conceptions."
HERASY!!! BURN THE WITCH!!!!
Everyone knows that lowering speed limits MUST save lives!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Not as often probably. Having it drummed into you that one or two kilometers over the limit is "deadly" and will be fined, of course you will watch your speedo more often.

Also there is the little matter of police handing out "cautions" in the "bad old days". As little as 15 years ago, if a cop followed you and caught you doing maybe 10kph over the limit, he would pull you over, give you a revving, check over your vehicle, and let you off with a caution. No such thing anymore as far as I can see. Most people "caught" speeding nowadays are "caught" by a fixed camera or camera van trap and never actually see a policeman.
There is a great underestimation of the value of a sound telling-off by the side of the road by an angry cop, especially to younger drivers.

I would like to see a survey asking people if they think they look at thier speedo more now than they did in years past. It's hard to work out, but I would consider that in urban areas or places where I know there is usually a camera van that I look at my speedo more often and keep a close eye on it.

Studies overseas have shown that if you drop the speed limit altogether on a stretch of road, everyone ends up cruising along at a speed pretty much close to what the limit was...and I would bet they are safer as everyone is concentrating on the road instead of staring at thier speedo for fear of drifting one or two k's over.

Here's just one I quickly dug up:
http://www.usroads.com/journals/p/rmj/9709/rm970903.htm
What??? "It showed that compliance with speed limits was not necessarily an accurate measure of safety", and "The research suggests that lowering speed limits arbitrarily does not affect traffic safety. Speed limits and speed zones would be more effective if they were based on geometrics, traffic characteristics, and safety benefits rather than popular conceptions."
HERASY!!! BURN THE WITCH!!!!
Everyone knows that lowering speed limits MUST save lives!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pity you didnt read the whole report properly:
Since the test results were different for road sections with different speed limits and zones, the researchers tried controls to measure any differences in the crash data. They performed analyses of variance (ANOVAs) and found that the speed limit effect was insignificant, but the type of zone was significant, especially in daytime crashes.

it is very clear this data was for urban, fringe and rural freeways in michigan.....that's all it is relevant to.


Speed Statistics urban-55 fringe-55 rural-65
average 59 mph 63 mph 74 mph
85th percentile speed 65 mph 69 mph 74 mph
percent exceeding speed limit 62% 89% 63%
percent >=10 mph over limit 15% 25% 9%

this is akin to the claim that the accident rate in the US didnt increase when they changed the limits back from 55 to 65 mph, therefore speed has no bearing on safety. The simple fact was that the speed limits weren't being enforced and changing the signs had basically no affect on the speed people were driving at, hence the accident rate didnt change.

[No.6]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

It looks like I didn't miss the latest episode of Days of Our Lives...

There is always the argument that people don't take enough responsibility on the roads - and yet a select few here seem to believe that something as simple as 'looking at your speedo' is too hard - so if supposedly 'intelligent' people are making these suggestions, I'd really hate to see what the pillocks think of it...

Looking at your speedo is part of driving a vehicle...I'm still failing to understand what is so hard about it?

The continual 'oh we can't keep taking our eyes off the road to look at our speedo' is bollocks - you did it before speed cameras were put in place, why not after speed cameras are put in place. Or did you not bother to look at your speedo's before hand either?

My issue is with safety cameras at intersections. Fixed speed cameras on a stretch of road is fine by me, but having to watch my speed, traffic light changes, scanning blind spots, rear view mirror, oncoming traffic, cars turning right from oncoming traffic, unwary drivers not noticing a red light with a potential to t bone me, cars merging from the left lane if its a turn left only lane or an upcoming merge lane, cars merging right if the car in the right lane is turning right but has to wait for clear oncoming traffic...etc...all seems a bit much when all i want to do is get to the other side of an intersection.

Sure, it only takes a second or two to look at your speedo, but thats a second or two less that you have to scan an intersection. I've seen a few instances where a driver has suddenly slammed on their brakes when a light has changed to yellow from fear of being fined.

A red light camera is all you need at intersections. Hell ill even go as far to say that ALL traffic lights need red light cameras.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by No.6

My issue is with safety cameras at intersections. Fixed speed cameras on a stretch of road is fine by me, but having to watch my speed, traffic light changes, scanning blind spots, rear view mirror, oncoming traffic, cars turning right from oncoming traffic, unwary drivers not noticing a red light with a potential to t bone me, cars merging from the left lane if its a turn left only lane or an upcoming merge lane, cars merging right if the car in the right lane is turning right but has to wait for clear oncoming traffic...etc...all seems a bit much when all i want to do is get to the other side of an intersection.

Sure, it only takes a second or two to look at your speedo, but thats a second or two less that you have to scan an intersection. I've seen a few instances where a driver has suddenly slammed on their brakes when a light has changed to yellow from fear of being fined.

A red light camera is all you need at intersections. Hell ill even go as far to say that ALL traffic lights need red light cameras.

It's easy, just drive a little under the speed limit and that way you don't have to check your speed...
Most drivers routinely do all of the checks you mentioned above day in day out...
If it all to hard, maybe take the bus instead....

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by jpd80

It's easy, just drive a little under the speed limit and that way you don't have to check your speed...
Most drivers routinely do all of the checks you mentioned above day in day out...
If it all to hard, maybe take the bus instead....

But that's just it...the limit is 60, you should be free to do 60, and the system should allow for a drift of a kilometer or two over or under, to keep traffic flowing at 60. On most cars speedometers one kilometer per hour is less than the width of the needle, so even the most careful speedo-watchers will drift over by a little without even realising it. Why should they be punished for this?
Ask the normal person in the street and they will say that at the very least five k's over should be about the limit of tolerance...any less than that and it's pure revenue raising. This is linked to studies showing that left to thier own devices drivers mainly drive at a sensible speed for the conditions. Sooner or later you have to accept that the vast majority of drivers do the right thing, and shouldn't be punished for attempting to do the right thing and failing by a tiny margin. The small minority can be easily targetted not by hidden faceless cameras, but by an increased police presence on the roads.

Hang on...that sounds far too much like common sense...we'll have none of that thank you very much...

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

But that's just it...the limit is 60, you should be free to do 60, and the system should allow for a drift of a kilometer or two over or under, to keep traffic flowing at 60. On most cars speedometers one kilometer per hour is less than the width of the needle, so even the most careful speedo-watchers will drift over by a little without even realising it. Why should they be punished for this?

One phrase will cover all of this - MAXIMUM speed limit. 60 IS NOT the MINIMUM...and never has been...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not agreeing with the being pinged for 1km over 60, but they want leniency to 65, and then they will want leniency to 70...Where does the 'leniency' end and 'taking responsibility' for your actions start??

There are many who want people in other areas to take responsibility for their actions - why should this case be any different?

It's starting to seem like there are a few who are trying to insult the intelligence of other forum members by suggesting they're good drivers, yet they can't keep their vehicle at a steady speed...

I'm well aware the ability doesn't automatically make you a good driver, but it should damn well be part of it - it's called throttle control which is a 'skill' that should be learnt, particularly if you aren't able to do it...

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by jpd80

It's easy, just drive a little under the speed limit and that way you don't have to check your speed...
Most drivers routinely do all of the checks you mentioned above day in day out...
If it all to hard, maybe take the bus instead....

No one is saying it's hard. But wouldn't it be better to focus on the road for as long as possible and focus on the inside of your vehicle as little as possible. You know for SAFETY reasons. The government loves road safety and at a high risk location(intersections) most people go through at a reasonable speed anyway.
If they want a speed camera at an intersection, it should only be active on a yellow or red.
You know to stop people putting their foot down to beat the light. Those people are more dangerous then someone passing through a green at 5km/h over while watching where they are going.



Having said all that I will just say I love speed cameras. They are the best road safety tool. Nothing can top them. No need for police to keep a look out for bad drivers when a camera can check for the worst drivers on the road.
Cameras are gods gift to road safety. I agree with all the speed camera fans here.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Ben73

No one is saying it's hard. But wouldn't it be better to focus on the road for as long as possible and focus on the inside of your vehicle as little as possible. You know for SAFETY reasons. are gods gift to road safety. I agree with all the speed camera fans here.

so best thing to do in your opinion Ben would be to remove speedos from cars so drivers could keep their eyes on the road a few fractions of a second a longer every minute or so. Best remove those pesky mirrors too and rip out all the other dash instruments, out with the sound system too.
speed limits, no need, as long as you dont blink it will be far safer to be going at any speed you feel like.

Beats me how you ever knew how fast you are going when you claim its too unsafe to look at the speedo , but you keep reporting here how you reckon 130km/h on the highway is safe at 2am in the morning, my head is spinning on how you actually knew how fast you are going.


It really is the most child like logic Ive encountered in a long time.

yes driving through an intersection is a dangerous thing and one's concentration should be switched on here. Certainly its not the time to be playing with the sound system, checking the oil pressure whatever, or even checking the speedo.

That's something you do every minute or so , in the time it takes to blink!
if you dont think you can maintain more or less the same speed for a minute at a time, perhaps get a multistage speed alert fitted to your car.....or take the bus.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Ben73

Having said all that I will just say I love speed cameras. They are the best road safety tool. Nothing can top them. No need for police to keep a look out for bad drivers when a camera can check for the worst drivers on the road.
Cameras are gods gift to road safety. I agree with all the speed camera fans here.

you and me both. speed camera's save lives. the evidence is so clear. can't believe people still argue against them.

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by Ben73

Having said all that I will just say I love speed cameras. They are the best road safety tool. Nothing can top them. No need for police to keep a look out for bad drivers when a camera can check for the worst drivers on the road.
Cameras are gods gift to road safety. I agree with all the speed camera fans here.

Oh definately...as my nephew in the dog squad says, when he was a constable starting out, he had to sit in the back of the van, and every time the camera went off, he'd look up, wonder which car it was, and also wonder a few other things, like "wonder why he was speeding?"
Is the driver:
* Drunk?
* Under the influence of drugs?
* Stolen car?
* Unroadworthy car?
* Unregistered car?
* Got a boot full of dope?
* Got warrents out against him?
etc, etc, etc...all things that "in the old days" when there was a highly visible police presence actually physically pulling people over, would have been caught and the offender removed from the road straight away, instead of letting him go on his merry way and get a photo a couple of weeks later.

Much safer, I certainly agree!

[csv8]

Queensland has "Every K Over is a Killer" going on QLD Police logic, I hit someone at 60km/hr, I won't kill them, but hit them at 61km/hr, I will ???????
Police have to stop taking us motorists as idiots. If Police want motorists to take speeding seriously, the stop treating us like idiots!!!!!

[Cúl-Báire]

Originally Posted by csv8

Queensland has "Every K Over is a Killer" going on QLD Police logic, I hit someone at 60km/hr, I won't kill them, but hit them at 61km/hr, I will ??????? Police have to stop taking us motorists as idiots. If Police want motorists to take speeding seriously, the stop treating us like idiots!!!!!

I honestly don't think it's the police that think we are theidiots; it’s the government; pushing their agenda onto us though advertising,and law enforcement. The police have a job to do which is upholding the lawscreated by the forementioned government.