Speed cameras to time your journey

[whippet_zetec]

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/...703316765.html

talk about taking the fun out of driving......

[CarBroker]

If the speed limits were more sensible, it wouldn't be an issue. Maybe they should increase them every year indexed to the CPI :hihi:
I was on the Geelong freeway again the other day, and that should be 110 (at least), not 100.

[Dave_au]

The article just says they have updated the truck safety cams to a level that would allow for policing of cars as well - doesn't say that they will do it.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by Dave_au

The article just says they have updated the truck safety cams to a level that would allow for policing of cars as well - doesn't say that they will do it.

The RTA (NSW) has been doing this since the inception of Safe-T-Cams, they just haven't told anyone due to public outcry (read, votes).

Next time you follow a car under one of these in NSW look up at the right of the camera's and see if you can see the red flash.....smile!

[Mechan1k]

They have been trying to do it for years now ... but haven't had the legislation passed for it. The Safe-T-Cam system isn't the most reliable of systems. I used to work on it when I was working for the RTA (outsourced to Fujitsu at the time).

In essense it's a great system ... but cost of equipment and failure rate was high ... when it worked it was great though ... the quality of the photos taken was amazing (also the quality at night as well ... the infrared cameras picked up everything.) Even with lights off it could pick up trucks perfectly ... and they have been using OCR on the numberplates since 1999.

The quality of the photos was that good you could read the entries on the driver's log book sitting open on his dashboard.

But as I said the RTA have been trying to find ways of getting cars as well as trucks ... but picking them up was harder than picking up tracks with the sensors at the time.

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by Mechan1k

They have been trying to do it for years now ... but haven't had the legislation passed for it. The Safe-T-Cam system isn't the most reliable of systems. I used to work on it when I was working for the RTA (outsourced to Fujitsu at the time).

In essense it's a great system ... but cost of equipment and failure rate was high ... when it worked it was great though ... the quality of the photos taken was amazing (also the quality at night as well ... the infrared cameras picked up everything.) Even with lights off it could pick up trucks perfectly ... and they have been using OCR on the numberplates since 1999.

The quality of the photos was that good you could read the entries on the driver's log book sitting open on his dashboard.

But as I said the RTA have been trying to find ways of getting cars as well as trucks ... but picking them up was harder than picking up tracks with the sensors at the time.

The NSW Safe-T-Cam system was first introduced prior to 1995. It can and does target cars, even motorcycles, this is the case when the system detects unregistered vehicles. People have complained to the The NSW Privacy Commissioner about having received 'warning notices' asking the owner to give good reason as to 'why' their car or motor bike was recognised as being driven unregistered past the site, and that to do so was an offence etc and so on.

Issues here too of personal privacy, not all people want to be seen photographed with their lovers,- where the spouse might open the letter.

The Commissioner received the complaints primarily because GovCo said at the time that the system ONLY targetted 'trucks'.

South Australia has passed legislation allowing the NSW system AND DATA MATCHING leglislation which will be used between the two jurisdictions. I expect the South Australian Safe-TCam system implementation to hasten up.

The Wyong F3 Safe-T-Cam has been removed and relocated at Mt White near the weigh station.

The Safe-T-Cam system remains a seperate mechanisim to the new point to point speed cameras now - and to be installed on the newly upgraded to dual carriageway status sections - Pacific Highway. A cursory search and read of Hansard will tell you NSW Labour North Coast electorate women MP's in particular favour the new camera system to keep driver's at a 'safe' 100km/h. The point to point system is somewhat effective at combatting GPS based Road Angel type devices.

ZETEC - It would take sheer STATE political guts to raise a limit beyond 110km/h on any Australian freeway/motorway. An intercity freeway would be the most likely candidate as we appreciate, this WILL NOT happen with existing resident State governments.

Where that limit was to be raised, it'd likely be only up to 120km/h, we are a very conservative lot, not politically speaking. Raising the 110km/h freeway/motorway limit to 120km/h would bring us in line with China which recently (Mid 2005) increased its expressway limit from 110km/h to 120km/h.

As a NSW Motorist's Advocate, I'd NOT support raising a freeway limit until median barrier installation is complete on identified stretches, that the penalty for doing a U-Turn on a freeway is raised to the order of $900 and 6 demerit points (an existing $220 fine), and until NSW adopts the UNECE warning triangle as a registration requirement.

We have advocated hard for NSW to toughen up Not Keep Left Multi-Lane penalty, this offence now attracts 3 demerit points as of mid 2005. Lane discipline and road user behaviour is critical in speed allowance and safety. NSW has removed the automatatic 1 month suspension for exceeding 130km/h in a 110km/h zone. A normal speeding infringment and points penalty applies. This one month suspension should NEVER had eventuated.

In dealing with speed we must be prepared, we are not yet. The ADR's ensure that a tyres 'speed rating' must match the performance potential of the car, thank you UN and Europe for that, HOWEVER the National Vehicle Standards applicable for vehicles after ADR Compliance, allow the use of tyres with a speed rating less than the cars potential, an issue NT has, I support the NT.

The 130km/h (80mph) limit often espoused even by myself, mirrors that of the Continental EU for motorway and one or two US States. Sure locations such as Hungary look at 150km/h, Italy has 160km/h for 3-lane sections and Austria studies the same, my view is that speed derestriction is arguably safer, sometimes, meaning it must to be managed and enforced appropriately.

In a freeway speed review discussion 5 years ago with RTA, we looked at the potential of raising the F3 limit from 110km/h to 120km/h applicable north of the Gosford Interchange to Minmi. Even derestriction (///) was and remains a possibility here in NSW where I have had the 2005 edition of the 'Road Users Handbook' mention the sign by its Australian Standard 1742.4 of 1999 title, as opposed to the old brief statement made in earlier versions of the handbook; 'the sign showing a circle with a diagonal line means that there will be no more speed limit signs and that 100km/h applies beyond the sign'.

The sign HAD to be named appropriately so candidate and experienced driver's knew its title properly (refer speed derestriction in a Collins). Beyond the Australian Standard for the sign (an R4-2), the 'ownership' of the sign is held in a United Nations Convention contracted by Australia in 1949, here catalogued as C,17(a) - 'End of All Prohibitions Imposed On Moving Vehicles'.

It's eventual use is optional for all States, BUT if so used it must be used according to the instruction held by the Australian Standard AND UN Convention. All States are remving the signs and Councils MUST NOT place them, Both QLD Transport and NSW's Speed Zoning Guidlines prohibit Councils from doing so. Northern NSW has a few, these are to be removed or allowed to die a natural death. The replacment is the Australian Standard R4-12 'End Speed Limit' sign, this signals the end of a previous 'posted' or built-up area 50km/h speed limit and the start point of the jurisdictions 'rural default' speed limit. This sign replaces the old derestriction and is only to be used where the road has quality and safety issues beyond it, so driver beware.

[Dave_au]

Originally Posted by Keepleft

The NSW Safe-T-Cam system was first introduced prior to 1995. It can and does target cars, even motorcycles

Safe-T-Cams take video/images of the front of the vehicle - it can't target motor bikes because Motor Bikes don't have front numberplates.

[superpursuit83]

Should not be a problem, I drive fast normally but my average Kmh is only 45

At least thats what trip comp says

[Mechan1k]

Originally Posted by superpursuit83

Should not be a problem, I drive fast normally but my average Kmh is only 45

At least thats what trip comp says

But the Safe-t-cam system is on the freeway ... you will keep a constant speed going (unless you stop along the way ... but if you go past 2 points and continue driving ... it will calculate your average speed on the time and distance taken ... and if you do pick up your speed for a bit ... and drop back for the safe-t-cam ... you can (if it comes into force) be done for speeding over the average calculated for that road.

An example is between Marulan and Bargo (south of Sydney) ... and I usually like to sit around the 120-125km/h mark ... if i go quicker through part of the journey ... i could be in danger of being done for speeding

[Thunder]

How's this for a speed camera photo!


Well, atleast the cars owner can say he WAS flying!

[SB076]

Originally Posted by Thunder

How's this for a speed camera photo!


Well, atleast the cars owner can say he WAS flying!

That is incredible.

As for more speed cameras and what not, I am getting pretty tired of speed being constantly blamed for accidents, speed limits are dropping, but the death toll remains the same. It takes the fun out of driving, constantly watching the speedo wondering if there is a camera waiting for you to do 3k's over, or maybe the speed limit changes and catches you out. As for a change in government I dont think that will help as the liberals (in vic anyway) have already stated that camera operators should be working more overtime to improve road safety.

[Paxton]

I believe the F3, is about to bring this system online, in the 90 zone going north, they have two speed cameras, and only one with sensors about 5 Kms apart. I sat on about 95, and prayed that I didn't get picked up. I have watched the Safe-T-Cam with awe for years. I knew that it picked up speeding truckies, and also monitors their hours (Simon, can you clarify this?), however I had no idea that it was under consideration for cars too. Scary stuff with the miles I do. Another question, is it able to monitor the provisional Plates on cars? I had two ricer Green P drivers speed past me, and I was sitting on 120 Km/h.

[Tote]

Originally Posted by Mechan1k

But the Safe-t-cam system is on the freeway ... you will keep a constant speed going (unless you stop along the way ... but if you go past 2 points and continue driving ... it will calculate your average speed on the time and distance taken ... and if you do pick up your speed for a bit ... and drop back for the safe-t-cam ... you can (if it comes into force) be done for speeding over the average calculated for that road.

An example is between Marulan and Bargo (south of Sydney) ... and I usually like to sit around the 120-125km/h mark ... if i go quicker through part of the journey ... i could be in danger of being done for speeding

Where are the cameras at Marulan? unless you're going through the weighbridge.
Regards,
Tote

[The Monty]

Originally posted by superpursuit83:

Should not be a problem, I drive fast normally but my average Kmh is only 45

At least thats what trip comp says

Hahaha. Im safe as well then.

[TheSneakiness]

I think they actually have that up here already.

There's parts of the Bruce that have what look like fixed speed cameras pointed down at the road, but don't actually take pictures.

If it was a fixed speed camera, I would've probably already lost my licence.

Although it could also be a monitor to see how traffic is flowing...

[klawsterfobik]

Observed Speed: 133.4 mph = 216kph!

unreal!

[Redrum]

I notice that the cameras on Princess Freeway to Geelong are mounted on overpasses. Are these point to point cameras and if so, why not just avoid them by turning off freeway and coming straight back on..........

I have seen cameras so far Hoppers Crossing Overpass, Point Wilson Overpass and Lara Overpass. I heard there would be 8 cameras, anyone know where the other two will be? :eclipsee_

[Trevor 57]

No, they just advise speed, nothing else. there was some rubbish around a while that said they were hooked to police cars - rubbish

[zetec]

Good old Victoria.

Just stop for a 5 minute smoke in between cameras and continue on at 130km/h.

Sounds like an even better way of slowing people down. I reduces the need for people to slow down at all over the entire trip, just add a nice half hour lunch break and continue on at 130km/h, technically meaning you're now far more "dangerous" as you're speeding the whole time. Average stays nice and low.

Keeping it simple and not including acceleration/deceleration, roadworks, stopping for fuel and any other delays which we will assume for the purpose of this trip will be more or less the same regardless of speed... the following can occur.

120km/h average
8.333333333 hrs with no 30 minute lunch break
9.09 hrs with a 45 minute lunch break

110km/h average
9.090909091 with no lunch break


So if you Drive at 120km/h average speed, yet stop for a 45 minute lunch break, you average the same over all trip time of 9.09 hours as if you drive non-stop at 110km/h. This camera thus has no effect on slowing you down in this case and can actually encourage you to speed more and take a longer lunch thus both aspects of the trip are potentially less boring. Quicker driving, less time on the actualy road and a longer, more enjoyable lunch. I'm all for it.

If they wanted to do anything about the rampant eveil society wrecking speeding that kills people they'd cough up, build dual carriageway highways from Brisbane to Melbourne non stop and increase the limit to 130km/h. Then if I get done at 140km/h you can throw me in jail for all I care. It's not my 120km/h I worry about, it's the Camry at 105km/h that concerns me because I know he hasn't looked in his mirrors since reversing it out of the Dealership 10 years ago when he bought it...

[Walkinshaw]

Originally Posted by zetec

Good old Victoria.

Just stop for a 5 minute smoke in between cameras and continue on at 130km/h.

Sounds like an even better way of slowing people down. I reduces the need for people to slow down at all over the entire trip, just add a nice half hour lunch break and continue on at 130km/h, technically meaning you're now far more "dangerous" as you're speeding the whole time. Average stays nice and low.

Keeping it simple and not including acceleration/deceleration, roadworks, stopping for fuel and any other delays which we will assume for the purpose of this trip will be more or less the same regardless of speed... the following can occur.

120km/h average
8.333333333 hrs with no 30 minute lunch break
9.09 hrs with a 45 minute lunch break

110km/h average
9.090909091 with no lunch break

I know what is safer. 9hrs straight driving or having a lunch break!

[Panda]

I read of a trial in Sweden or somewhere like that which used a GPS which was linked to a speed limiter in the car. (Tried looking it up in my archive of magazines but can't find it just now)

Basically, the GPS knew which road you were driving on, and the 'black box' knew the applicable speed limit. The program then set the cars speed limiter to the appropriate value and it was then impossible to exceed the posted speed limit.

I mean, if speeding kills and that is the reason we have speed cameras, mobile radar, hand-held radar, hand-held laser and now Point-To-Point cameras, surely if the car could no longer exceed the posted speed limit we would reduce the death toll dramatically! Isn't that what it's meant to be about?

I believe that this system should be reccomended to the various Transport Authorities throughout Australia. Not because I think it should be considered, but because it would surely be rejected (probably with a 'it would cost too much money to implement' excuse) but the truth is that it would cost them too much money in lost revenue, and prove that speed does not kill. (It only serves as a convenient excuse to make money)

Panda

BTW - from memory, there was no appreciable drop in the death toll in the Sweeden trial!

[merlin]

I read about this on the RTA website last year. At the time I also wrote the RTA a nice email: Anyway here's what I wrote and their responce back (dated 17/1/05).


Dear xxx

I chose the subject heading "road safety" but I doubt this falls
under it - perhaps "revenue raising" would have been more appropriate.

I am talking about the story on your website about Point to Point speed cameras. It states that these may be introduced next year - well i would like to suggest that these would increase accidents rather than reduce accidents.

How do you propose motorists watch their Speedo for long sections of road (up to 35km long in the trial) whilst still watching the road - as a motorcyclist I am pretty scared about how anyone will be looking out for me. All it will result in is everyone driving 10 kays under the limit which will cause even more traffic congestion which has seemed to have gotten much worse this year.

The RTA needs to end its fixation on speed camera's and speed as the only cause of accidents and provide better quality, safer roads and better driver training.

In the year 2004 how is the M4 motorway speed limit 90km h in sections? - this is a 3 lane freeway in a developed nation - and now you want to add point to point cameras on it when it is already too slow.

Fixed speed cameras don’t bother me - they have a place at blackspots, but these point to point cameras are taking it too far, to big brother levels. Thank you for your time.

Yours Sincerley
Mr xxxx



The RTA's responce:


Dear Mr xxxx

Thank you for your email to the Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) regarding speed-related road safety issues.

Excessive speed is the primary contributing factor to death and injury on NSW roads. It is a factor in Almost 40% of fatal crashes and 16% of injury crashes. There is strong scientific evidence from a wide variety of credible sources that exceeding the posted speed limit does increase the risk of injury or death.

With the demonstrated success in crash reduction from the use of fixed digital speed cameras, the Government has recently announced the trial of new point-to-point speed camera technology. Point-to-point speed cameras have the potential to significantly reduce the number of road crashes and fatalities by enforcing the minimum travel time that vehicles can travel over a specific distance. The trial locations have been selected on the basis of their poor crash and fatality history. The trial will be evaluated and if successful, similar point-to-point speed cameras may be introduced on other major routes. The claim that point-to-point speed cameras would represent "revenue raising" needs to be seen in the context of the cost of speeding to the community-aside from the tragic cost in human lives and suffering, speed-related crashes cost the community around $1.2 billion a year in hospital bills, lost earnings and other costs.

Factors considered in the establishment of speed limits include roadside development, road condition, crash history and the presence of vulnerable road users. The RTA has made extensive efforts to ensure that speed zones accurately reflect the safety factors impinging on given lengths of road. Speed limits prescribe the allowable maximum speed limit and, as it is an offence to travel at a higher speed, they enable offenders to be identified and prosecuted. This is required whether speed detection technology is present, or not. Regular checking of the vehicle's speedometer is necessary to ensure that travelling speeds are appropriate to the prevailing conditions and road environment, at all times. It is a fundamental part of the driving task and not something that can be regarded as a distraction.

You are reminded that it is not necessary to drive at the speed limit. It is suggested that when conditions permit, you travel a little under the speed limit, and allow yourself a margin for variation. Then when you next check the speedometer you will be unlikely to have increased to a speed in excess of the speed limit, and be at risk of receiving a speeding infringement. In addition, many newer cars are equipped with speed minders and cruise controls--it may be possible to get them on motorcycles too--and such devices are also available as an 'after-market' accessory.

Reducing the number of drivers speeding will continue to be a primary focus of the NSW Government. I trust this information is of assistance.

Thank you for your interest in road safety, and safe riding.

Yours sincerely
RTA Road Safety Strategy



Hmmm....

[Abacus]

I imagine these things will come in soon, its kind of inevitable.

Raising the speed limit is a vexed problem. I hold the view that on a good double carrriageway, 110km/h is way too slow and dangerous.

For one thing, its as boring as blazes and can send you too sleep, whereas a higher limit would naturally cause you to concentrate more and stay alert.

Secondly, if a higher limit was practicable, it would also reduce the amount of time drivers spend on the road, and hence the available time-fram for a prang. Driving from Melbourne to Sydney, for instance, a 20km/hour higher average speed would knock about 1 hour 20 minutes of the trip.

On the other hand, the overall driving ability of the population has to be considered. One would hope that most contributors to this forum could easily handle a 130/140kmh open road limit. But when I see the antics that some other drivers on the road get up to, I would be terrified to be sharing the road with THEM if they were travelling at that speed.

Drive from Brisbane to the Gold Coast on the spanking new freeway any day of the week, and you'll se what I mean. Unsignalled lane changes abound, and some of those guys are unsafe at ANY speed.

[Valknutr]

just to hijack a bit, what good is a safety triangle gonna do when someone is doing 130km/h and doesnt notice it til its to late, i think bugger all. But they have this system is England now i think or something very similar

[megsy]

Upping the speed limit is all in all a good concept, although it may cause problems with other vehicles that are 100 speed limited I.E prime movers, semi trailers and b- doubles and above on other states. if you or any other car, theoretically, reaches a 150 limit, you generally accellerate to what you think is suitable for the conditions, up to the limit. although because these big vehicles can only go up to a 100 kph they will be a hazard to other quicker motorists.

the other problem that i can see is the on/off ramp accelleration speeds, someone coming onto the freeway at 80kph (reccomended speed) is going to get a huge shock as someone flys past them coming out of nowhere at 150.

all in all this huge speed limit will have more problems than its worth. a speed limit of 115 or 120 would be far more acceptable and will definatly have more chance of being put into legislation that some redical 150 kph speed limit.

[eb91xr6]

autobarn no speed limit one lane for trucks, people don't have to drive the speed limit. in the wet do you do 110km/h on the corners like you do on the dry

[BOSS 540]

I remember the cops tried something similar in NSW a few years back from a plane which timed your vehicle between 2 points and radioed to a waiting car to book you. Needless to say it was too expensive and a dismal failure. The new point to point as mentioned already works with trucks and just needs to be adapted to cars. The money grabbing RTA still have it under consideration, we can only hope that political/public pressure wont see it eventuate. IMO it just comes down to how much money can be made from it, fortunately with the NSW fixed speed camera signs we have only the unwary, too stupid or drivers going too fast to slow down in time being caught and the RTA know it. This 'only temporarily' speeding past 1 point/ camera is described by the RTA as being unfair?. Dont believe point to point is the "fairer way" to catch evil speedsters, its all propaganda bullsh-t!.

[chevypower]

Safe T Cams hey? I think there is a pun in that name - Safe...isnt that what banks use to store lots and lots of money in?

[Falcon Coupe]

Originally Posted by chevypower

Safe T Cams hey? I think there is a pun in that name - Safe...isnt that what banks use to store lots and lots of money in?

That's it in a nutshell, anyone who thinks these cameras are there for anything other than money needs therapy, every time i see speed cameras people slow down on the way past then speed up again once past, they are nothing but easy revenue for for Mr Greed (Steve Bracks).
Safety cameras will be no different, they are a Draconian idea, big brother is out of control in this country and all he does is take money, the road toll gets worse.

[Iphido]

Im sure this will eventually happen. Safe-t-cams are already installed. It is merely a upgrade.

Im sure RTA would love to get their grubby little hands on the revenue stream from every freeway/motorway in NSW effectively turning them all into one big continuous speed camera.

You can see where this is going.. With in 5 years infringement notices will look something like this:

Dear Citizen LBP-430,
You have been captured speeding at 112.33 kmph along the F3 via the safety-cam-system. The fine is $1000 and 3 points. We have also recorded you driving for 2 hrs 3 minutes and 38 seconds continuously and the fine for this is $300 and 2 points. Safe-t-cam also detected your vechical defective with a front parker light out. This inclures a $500 fine and you must have your vechical checked at a RTA enforcement station with in 6 hours. You have also been detected travelling at a peak speed of 118 kmph via triangulation of your mobile phone this incures a instant loss of licence.

Although you are able to elect a court date, the RTA will proceed with this by charging you with terrorisim. By trying to circumvent the governments primary revenue stream and trying to destabilise and undermine the policies of this government. The ministry of truth will hand out extreme justice for those citizens who choose such a evil path.

Ministry of Roads and terrorisim

Big fan of derestricted roads. But I doubt Australia has enough talented drivers to use them. Certainly derestricted roads IMHO should be kept away from major cities because of the mass of untalented drivers their. Derestricted roads don't work that well in heavy traffic situations either.

For derestricted roads:
-Variable limit signs From derestricted to restricted. For issues such as accidents, bad weather and heavy traffic
-Minor upgrade of roads, barriers, break down areas, lighting, accident responce, etc.
-Better ADRs for vechicals including reflective triangles
-stability control to be standard on all new vechicals
-a improvement in the average state fleet age
-eliminiation of Retreads
-Improvement of keep left laws for cars and trucks

In germany trucks are limited to 90kmph and on derestricted roads average auto traffic is ~200 kmph. This proves no problems (but trucks MUST STAY LEFT).

Look at say the new S-class. With in 15 years cars will effectively drive themselves. I find it hard to belive that all this progress and speed limits are *WORSE* than they were 30 years ago yet infinately more enforced.