My theory for speed cameras; Part 2!

[Jim Goose]

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.......

Unfortunately there are a lot of drivers who arent capable of driving safely at any given speed, yet they hold licences.

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by flappist

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.......

Firstly, of those 1000 people that get caught, how many people have actually passed that camera? That argument works fine, if you only have 1000 cars going passed the camera, not so well if you have 25000. It's all about ratio in that instance, and I highly doubt all person's passing said speed camera are actually speeding.

Your 'one point', isn't valid. The speed limit is 100, whether you like it or not. These people have passed their driver's licence and have just as much right as you to be on the road.

The theory is that the limits are set at the 85th percentile. So realistically, we could go 115 in a 100 zone and still be safe? As long as that sign says 100, that's what 'most' people will do.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

Firstly, of those 1000 people that get caught, how many people have actually passed that camera? That argument works fine, if you only have 1000 cars going passed the camera, not so well if you have 25000. It's all about ratio in that instance, and I highly doubt all person's passing said speed camera are actually speeding.

Your 'one point', isn't valid. The speed limit is 100, whether you like it or not. These people have passed their driver's licence and have just as much right as you to be on the road.

The theory is that the limits are set at the 85th percentile. So realistically, we could go 115 in a 100 zone and still be safe? As long as that sign says 100, that's what 'most' people will do.

So of the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of cars that have driven on the above 90 zones only a tiny number have had accidents so the limit should not have been reduced?

Unfortunately too many people with licenses cannot make a decision and must be told what to do at all times. If the sign says 100 then do 100 whether is is snowing or sunny.

It would be nice if every year everyone had to reset their license and the test was held on a closed track and included emergency situations.

Driving schools teach how to pass a test NOT how to drive......

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by flappist

So of the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of cars that have driven on the above 90 zones only a tiny number have had accidents so the limit should not have been reduced?

Unfortunately too many people with licenses cannot make a decision and must be told what to do at all times. If the sign says 100 then do 100 whether is is snowing or sunny.

It would be nice if every year everyone had to reset their license and the test was held on a closed track and included emergency situations.

Driving schools teach how to pass a test NOT how to drive......

You're twisting my words Flappy!

The speed camera's aren't located on those 90km roads, and those roads are 90km because of the high incidence of accidents. You were talking about cameras...and I answered that in that instance it's about ratio. So what is the ratio for speed cameras? I tried to find it, but alas, no luck.

It's not a matter of not making a decision for yourself, for them it's about following the law. A big difference. I can make a decision for myself, and my decision is to do 100...sure I could probably go faster in these areas, but I don't. If it's snowing, I slow down (though not very relevant in Qld).

And yes, it would be nice if everyone had to resit every year. I don't disagree with that at all.

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

Firstly, of those 1000 people that get caught, how many people have actually passed that camera? That argument works fine, if you only have 1000 cars going passed the camera, not so well if you have 25000. It's all about ratio in that instance, and I highly doubt all person's passing said speed camera are actually speeding.

Nothing to say that if the other 24000 cars sped past that some would crash.


I believe more and more people are caught speeding each year, but road toll is generally going down each year.

So more speeding, but less deaths.... that is probably because there is more to road saferty then just obeying a number on a sign.

Its not all about speeding. But its the only thing I ever hear about road safety.

Originally Posted by Sezzy

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.

That is the way to go, but it will never happen.

Then some people well whinge when they get a fine and say "Oh the limit changes to much"
Some people would prefer to drive around brain dead obeying the limit all the time rather then driving to the conditions. Because you know driving to the conditions may take some brain power, and some people don't want to do that.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

You're twisting my words Flappy!

The speed camera's aren't located on those 90km roads, and those roads are 90km because of the high incidence of accidents. You were talking about cameras...and I answered that in that instance it's about ratio. So what is the ratio for speed cameras? I tried to find it, but alas, no luck.

It's not a matter of not making a decision for yourself, for them it's about following the law. A big difference. I can make a decision for myself, and my decision is to do 100...sure I could probably go faster in these areas, but I don't. If it's snowing, I slow down (though not very relevant in Qld).

And yes, it would be nice if everyone had to resit every year. I don't disagree with that at all.

Really?

90km/h zones speed cameras.
Near Nudgee Rd
Each of the overhead signs (about 10 odd) from cooroy to curra
Kolan end of the Gin Gin zone.
(these are just the ones I know about)

As far as ratio, 25000 cars a day or over 1000 cars an hour (assuming 24hr which it would not be) or about a car every 3-4 seconds.

Yep that is one of the rural highways.....on NOT.

One problem with debating this is that many have a very tiny view of driving in Australia. If you live in a city then you see short distances and lots of cars.
If you are a suburbanite then school zones and shopping centres are your natural habitat.
On the other hand in the mulga and drive 20, 30, 40, 50,000 or more km per year almost all on open roads then your view is different again.

No one set of rules suits all situations and unfortunately taxation it the only tool available and the tools controlling the tool all live in the city.

Speed cameras are road tax.
Alcopop tax, yeh that stopped binge drinking in its tracks.
Carbon tax.......yeh right.
Water tax.....yep they have one ready but unfortunately the floods stuffed that up for a couple of years but it is coming.
Cigarettes and gambling.....why does every idea that will actually work get discredited....oh thats right...tax.

So it will go on for ever and if there was a slow down then the limits would be lowered to keep the money flow up.

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by flappist

Really?

90km/h zones speed cameras.
Near Nudgee Rd
Each of the overhead signs (about 10 odd) from cooroy to curra
Kolan end of the Gin Gin zone.
(these are just the ones I know about)

As far as ratio, 25000 cars a day or over 1000 cars an hour (assuming 24hr which it would not be) or about a car every 3-4 seconds.

Yep that is one of the rural highways.....on NOT.

One problem with debating this is that many have a very tiny view of driving in Australia. If you live in a city then you see short distances and lots of cars.
If you are a suburbanite then school zones and shopping centres are your natural habitat.
On the other hand in the mulga and drive 20, 30, 40, 50,000 or more km per year almost all on open roads then your view is different again.

No one set of rules suits all situations and unfortunately taxation it the only tool available and the tools controlling the tool all live in the city.

Speed cameras are road tax.
Alcopop tax, yeh that stopped binge drinking in its tracks.
Carbon tax.......yeh right.
Water tax.....yep they have one ready but unfortunately the floods stuffed that up for a couple of years but it is coming.
Cigarettes and gambling.....why does every idea that will actually work get discredited....oh thats right...tax.

So it will go on for ever and if there was a slow down then the limits would be lowered to keep the money flow up.

There's speed camera's on those overhead signs? Are you sure? The other half's never been booked going through there...and he goes a 'little over' the limit every time we go through there? You're talking between the sunny coast and gympie? Or are there other's that I'm missing?

The 25000 was just a number I pulled out of my head, I don't know if that's anywhere near accurate for how many would go through there...that's kind of what I was asking. Do you know? I am genuinely interested, as I'm not sure it's as simple as any of us might think.

[Bent8]

Okay, here's another view...

The Govt comes out and says, "the road toll is too high so we are going to lower the speed limits in selected areas"

Now, with hundreds of additional motorists being added to our roads daily and with most drivers driving well below the speed limit to avoid getting flashed, what do you think the outcome will be?...

More cars driving at a REDUCED speed limit will mean a DRASTIC increase in traffic on our roads, which can only lead to an increase in road rage and finally MORE traffic accidents!

And what happens then?...the Govt will argue once again they need to reduce speed limits to cut the road toll.

Either the people in our Govt are extremely stupid or just very clever economists with a good understanding of social engineering!

[irish2]

Originally Posted by Bent8

Either the people in our Govt are extremely stupid or just very clever economists with a good understanding of social engineering!

I believe it to be the latter. People are sheep, and the Govco just break us down overtime so that we continue sprouting what has been shoved down our throats by Govco. "Speed kills".

[kpcart]

i teach music at schools, and when i approach school zones i slow down to the WA 40km/h limit, i find about 50% of other cars around me also slow down to 40, about 25% to between 50 and 60 and 25% do over 60 or whatever the approaching speed was into the school zone (they are usually doing more then the approach speed also - so about 70kmh) and a few even overtake in school zone. while there is only a tiny chance the extra speed will kill someone, i think it shows the lack of respect in this country for road rules, people drive at whatever speed they want and then complain about revenue raising when they get caught. it also shows a lack of respect for safety, even if the extra speed isnt that much more dangerous, at least it shows you care, and if we all actually cared then the road trauma in australia would be lower, and there would be less road rage. what does it hurt you to go slower and not antagonise other road users? what does it hurt you to pull over if you are tired? what does it hurt you fools to drive the speed limit, thats what you signed on a contract that you would do when you got your drivers licence. i dont know if it is just australia, but i find australian drivers very arrogant and brake so many rules, THEY JUST DO NOT CARE. especially WA drivers, i have heard many foreigners claim WA drivers are the worst in the world, no one is patient, no one wants to give way, they all cut each other off, they all speed, and they all hate the police. i call for the government to do more revenue raising, there is plenty of money to be made from idiots. the more revenue raising they do from speeding maniacs, there will be less need to increase taxes, but why not, tax the idiots double too. The biggest lack of respect i see from drivers is the claim that they can not control their car to sit at a certain speed, this is something you learn in your driving lessons. its a bad excuse, if you cant control the speed, catch public transport.
cant wait to hear the response from people that speed and hate authority and hide under the one thing they can hide under, revenue raising, a thing that only exists because of their attitude on the road.

[geckoGT]

I have no real problems with the existence of speed cameras, they are a tool in the enforcement of the road laws and in the right circumstances they add to law enforcement, no one can deny that. The big question is what are the right circumstances and are they deployed efficiently? The answer I believe is no on a number of factors but I have said those all before so I am not going to waste my time.

I am however against the concept of lowering the tolerance of excessive speed from say 5 km/h over the posted limit down to 1-2 km/h over the limit before infringements are issued. I believe this very low tolerance does not make large gains in catching habitual speeders and instead catches those that inadvertently drift over the limit. Instead I would like to see a tolerance of 5 km/h over the limit before an infringement is issued but after that double all the fines and also double the demerit points. That in my opinion would take the focus off the person that has just drifted a bit high on that down hill section and put the focus back on the person that consistently travels 5-10 km/h over the limit.

There are a number of people here that have stated clearly that speed limits lead to people driving to a sign rather than driving to the conditions. A fair point and I can see where that is coming from. I have one question for those people though, if those limits did not exist and it was purely up to the driver to calculate a safe speed for the conditions,what guarantee is there that the vast majority of road users would select a safe speed and crash incidents would decrease?

There are also many here that have openly stated that due to the better condition of their car and the higher driving skills they possess through both experience and advanced courses, that they are safer at 10-20 km/h over the limit than others at the speed limit. I find this concept very interesting and I would love to explore it a little. I see that this statement in many cases could in fact be true but see a weakness in it. Who is it that has deemed the vehicle condition and driver skill to be of a high enough standard to allow the higher speed?

So far it seems to be a self perceived competency, or is that over confidence, I can not tell the difference? That is the question that I would love to find out an answer for. With that thought in mind, I have two friends that run their own advanced driver training company, both are police driver training instructors and both are ambulance driver training instructors, quite credible abilities I am sure everyone will agree. I am contemplating getting them to donate a bit of their time and put some people to the test.

The test will be quite simple, no advanced skid pan work as this incurs a lot of cost, just an hour of driving in a variety of road conditions in clear daytime hours. The theory is said drivers of advanced skills should be able to pass the exercise with flying colours, if they can't then perhaps their perceived abilities are not suitable for higher speeds. Of course if I was to get this off the ground, the identity of the participants will remain anonymous and expressions of interest would be via pm only. Of course the results would be discussed on a dedicated thread here but no identities will be given.

My question of you all is if I can get the interest from the instructors, who would be interested in participating? My intent is to make it no cost to you and I have no doubt that everyone would learn something from the day.

I will be interested in how much interest I get.

[GT69]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

I have no real problems with the existence of speed cameras, they are a tool in the enforcement of the road laws and in the right circumstances they add to law enforcement, no one can deny that. The big question is what are the right circumstances and are they deployed efficiently? The answer I believe is no on a number of factors but I have said those all before so I am not going to waste my time.

I am however against the concept of lowering the tolerance of excessive speed from say 5 km/h over the posted limit down to 1-2 km/h over the limit before infringements are issued. I believe this very low tolerance does not make large gains in catching habitual speeders and instead catches those that inadvertently drift over the limit. Instead I would like to see a tolerance of 5 km/h over the limit before an infringement is issued but after that double all the fines and also double the demerit points. That in my opinion would take the focus off the person that has just drifted a bit high on that down hill section and put the focus back on the person that consistently travels 5-10 km/h over the limit.

There are a number of people here that have stated clearly that speed limits lead to people driving to a sign rather than driving to the conditions. A fair point and I can see where that is coming from. I have one question for those people though, if those limits did not exist and it was purely up to the driver to calculate a safe speed for the conditions,what guarantee is there that the vast majority of road users would select a safe speed and crash incidents would decrease?

There are also many here that have openly stated that due to the better condition of their car and the higher driving skills they possess through both experience and advanced courses, that they are safer at 10-20 km/h over the limit than others at the speed limit. I find this concept very interesting and I would love to explore it a little. I see that this statement in many cases could in fact be true but see a weakness in it. Who is it that has deemed the vehicle condition and driver skill to be of a high enough standard to allow the higher speed?

So far it seems to be a self perceived competency, or is that over confidence, I can not tell the difference? That is the question that I would love to find out an answer for. With that thought in mind, I have two friends that run their own advanced driver training company, both are police driver training instructors and both are ambulance driver training instructors, quite credible abilities I am sure everyone will agree. I am contemplating getting them to donate a bit of their time and put some people to the test.

The test will be quite simple, no advanced skid pan work as this incurs a lot of cost, just an hour of driving in a variety of road conditions in clear daytime hours. The theory is said drivers of advanced skills should be able to pass the exercise with flying colours, if they can't then perhaps their perceived abilities are not suitable for higher speeds. Of course if I was to get this off the ground, the identity of the participants will remain anonymous and expressions of interest would be via pm only. Of course the results would be discussed on a dedicated thread here but no identities will be given.

My question of you all is if I can get the interest from the instructors, who would be interested in participating? My intent is to make it no cost to you and I have no doubt that everyone would learn something from the day.

I will be interested in how much interest I get.

Sounds like fun. I'd definately give it a go.

[geckoGT]

To keep the expressions of interest anonymous (mainly because I think the results would be quite embarrassing to many), lets keep them to pm.

In order to keep the current thread on topic, I will start a new thread discussing the concept.

[Ben73]

I don't think there is many people here who completely hate speed cameras and want them all gone.

Most people seam to have a problem with the ever lowering tolerances and the use of them in places where they know they will catch lots of people doing slightly over the limit but not necessarily any more deadly.


I was going to type out much more, but there is no point.

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

I have no real problems with the existence of speed cameras, they are a tool in the enforcement of the road laws and in the right circumstances they add to law enforcement, no one can deny that. The big question is what are the right circumstances and are they deployed efficiently? The answer I believe is no on a number of factors but I have said those all before so I am not going to waste my time.

I am however against the concept of lowering the tolerance of excessive speed from say 5 km/h over the posted limit down to 1-2 km/h over the limit before infringements are issued. I believe this very low tolerance does not make large gains in catching habitual speeders and instead catches those that inadvertently drift over the limit. Instead I would like to see a tolerance of 5 km/h over the limit before an infringement is issued but after that double all the fines and also double the demerit points. That in my opinion would take the focus off the person that has just drifted a bit high on that down hill section and put the focus back on the person that consistently travels 5-10 km/h over the limit.

There are a number of people here that have stated clearly that speed limits lead to people driving to a sign rather than driving to the conditions. A fair point and I can see where that is coming from. I have one question for those people though, if those limits did not exist and it was purely up to the driver to calculate a safe speed for the conditions,what guarantee is there that the vast majority of road users would select a safe speed and crash incidents would decrease?

There are also many here that have openly stated that due to the better condition of their car and the higher driving skills they possess through both experience and advanced courses, that they are safer at 10-20 km/h over the limit than others at the speed limit. I find this concept very interesting and I would love to explore it a little. I see that this statement in many cases could in fact be true but see a weakness in it. Who is it that has deemed the vehicle condition and driver skill to be of a high enough standard to allow the higher speed?

So far it seems to be a self perceived competency, or is that over confidence, I can not tell the difference? That is the question that I would love to find out an answer for. With that thought in mind, I have two friends that run their own advanced driver training company, both are police driver training instructors and both are ambulance driver training instructors, quite credible abilities I am sure everyone will agree. I am contemplating getting them to donate a bit of their time and put some people to the test.

The test will be quite simple, no advanced skid pan work as this incurs a lot of cost, just an hour of driving in a variety of road conditions in clear daytime hours. The theory is said drivers of advanced skills should be able to pass the exercise with flying colours, if they can't then perhaps their perceived abilities are not suitable for higher speeds. Of course if I was to get this off the ground, the identity of the participants will remain anonymous and expressions of interest would be via pm only. Of course the results would be discussed on a dedicated thread here but no identities will be given.

My question of you all is if I can get the interest from the instructors, who would be interested in participating? My intent is to make it no cost to you and I have no doubt that everyone would learn something from the day.

I will be interested in how much interest I get.

As usual Gecko...gold...

And in particular, this.

So far it seems to be a self perceived competency, or is that over confidence, I can not tell the difference? That is the question that I would love to find out an answer for.

[xisled]

Originally Posted by yzfr101

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...

In Melbourne there are portable road side cameras, that sit in suburban streets, already.