QLD Police No Proof Speed Cameras Make us Safer on The Roads

[mik]

Originally Posted by 99AUXR

I was talking to an NZ police guy here who does all the crash investigations on fatalities and determines the cause etc etc at a car crash we towed recently. Was interesting as he said the majority of crashes he sees are to do with driver error and not with faults with the vehicle or road etc.

He then went on the say that speed isnt cause for the majority of the crashes and that if speed is involved it just amplifies the effects. He proceeded to say that he beleives the police speed campaigns are because they cannot police the other causes for the crashes as effectively e.g people falling asleep, being distracted. And the need to be seen to do something, also the words money grab were implied .

took the words right out of my mouth.

[2011G6E]

Only 8 higher than last year? Astoundingly good result I'd say. Well done.

How many extra drivers enter the driver pool each year? Be a hell of a lot more than "8", so the road toll has, statistically, gone down by a huge amount.
There have long been calls to list deaths not in simple raw numbers as we love to do in this country, but to list it as other countries do, by figures like deaths per hundred thousand drivers or something. That shows if there has been an increase or decrease very easily.

The annoying fact is we have the lowest road toll for 60 years. However, if you tell people this and they simply won't believe you...that can't be right...the roads are covered with maniacs...the police and government tells us so...the road toll is "soaring"...isn't it...?


I'd agree with the cop who said that speed is the easiest to police. How do you find out if someone is a bit over the drink drive limit, or has an unroadworthy car, or is fatigued, etc?

I mean to do that we'd have to go back to the old days of police actually pulling you over for a fine and a chat, instead of hiding in a van by the roadside taking photos...

[loony888]

cynical i know, but, they're waiting longer to decide whether their policy is effective because the day the statistics tip in their favour there will be a press conference and lots of pats on the back and political spin.
This will convince the wowsers who persist in hogging the right hand lane 15klms under the limit to continue doing it because they're saving the rest of us from ourselves.

Coppers need to be seen on the roads in marked cars, looking for unregistered vehicles, people on their phone, drunk/drug drivers etc. their presence will encourage safer driving without doing anything more, cameras can't do that for more than 100 feet.

But there's no cash in that....

60, tol=66
80, tol=87
100, tol=109 but for how much longer?.....

[GAFA]

If speed cameras were about saving life's, they would put them in marked brightly coloured vehicles so they are visible. rather than hiding them in silver or black vans, behind trees and poles.
When police talk about other issues they always say there will be a 'visible police force' to proctect us, yet with speed cameras it' the opposite.

I spend far more time looking at the speedo than I have ever done, therefore in total I'm spending more time looking inside than out. All it takes now is to be a needle width over the speed and I could get a ticket.

[Burnout]

If they wanted to reduce the speed of traffic generally, they would lower the general speed limit from 100 to 90 and then allow ten percent over before the fine kicks you.
This would allow traffic to proceed at the speed limit +10% and you would only be 'botty smacked' if you were one or more over.
But..... they're not fair dinkum are they????

And to say governments don't tell the public the tolerances is just crap, the Vic Govt told anyone listening years ago when they started this rubbish that you could expect a fine for 3% over.
What they chose is to create paranoia in the motorists mind and scare them into driving slower. Anyone who drives on the fringes of the larger centers in QLD, if they think about it, will tell you that since Stewart started this rubbish people have become more paranoid and are driving slower. To kick it all off send a couple of ambitious idiots in uniform out shortly after the announcement and book a couple of well known 'hoons' you been after for a while and slip them one for being one over. It's all over 'facie' n' 'twatter' in minutes. Then 'Tracy G' gets hold of it somehow and........

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

You know how it works, if you're driving around Melbourne's Northern burbs:

Green: Go
Yellow: Go faster
Red: Slow down, check first then go

And blacked out means slow down and be considerate.

Over the past week with lots of traffic lights being blacked out around town, I have to say traffic flow as been even better than normal at most intersections. I didn't even see any close calls or horns blasting at these blacked out lights. Most people can drive when they put their mind to it, but it seams they need to be thrown into a completely new situation to drive considerate and safely.

[jemijona]

Originally Posted by GAFA

If speed cameras were about saving life's, they would put them in marked brightly coloured vehicles so they are visible.

That would only slow cars down in that small area. By hiding them, people think that there is a camera anywhere, so they slow down everywhere.

I spend far more time looking at the speedo than I have ever done, therefore in total I'm spending more time looking inside than out. All it takes now is to be a needle width over the speed and I could get a ticket.

How accurate is your speedo? Showing a touch over could still be under the speed limit. If it is such a problem, maybe get a GPS and mount it near your forward vision with the speedo display active.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by jemijona

That would only slow cars down in that small area. By hiding them, people think that there is a camera anywhere, so they slow down everywhere.

But they're supposed to be setup in black spot areas, or se we are told. And if that is true, there should be a safety benefit to us to know that we are in such an area and slow down then and there.

[2011G6E]

There was a speed camera TV advert that was short lived...because even the most road-safety-conscious people spotted the massive flaw in the logic straight away.
A guy is cruising along a country highway doing 120, and gets flashed by a speed camera, and disappears off into the distance.
Then it fades out and comes back to him approaching a curve. He fumbles with a cassette and drops it. As he bends down to pick it up another car comes from the other way and he veers out in front of it. Cue generic sound of car crash.
Then it shows him bandaged up in a hospital bed. His wife angrily hands him an envelope, and as he opens it she says it's a speeding fine. He starts to sob and says he's sorry. His loving and sympathetic wife says angrily "Tell that to his wife and kids". Fade out.

Plot holes?
The first thing everyone noticed was the gap between being flashed and having the accident...did it happen two minutes later? An hour down the road? Later that day? How could the camera have stopped him? An old fashioned cop stop and harsh chat on the side of the road would mean he would have slowed down and not been at the place to have the accident...

Also, people noticed that the accident was caused by him swerving across in front of another car...two cars head on at 100kph each would be hardly better than one doing 100 and one doing 110 to 120...he should have kept his eyes on the road.


Speed doesn't kill...genuine road safety experts know this. The public however has had it drummed into them that "every K over is a killer", and that all you have to do is never speed and you'll never have an accident...a foolish outlook to have...

[csv8]

"SENIOR police bluffing about speed enforcement will be stranded if magistrates stick to the 10 per cent tolerance rule.

“There hasn’t been anyone in my court pinched for less than 10 per cent over the limit,” a senior magistrate said.


The unofficial 10 per cent rule protects drivers from revenue-raising fines such as for 65km/h in a 60km/h zone.

The 10,000-strong Queensland Police Union has recommended warnings for a minor speeding offence after five years of clean driving.

Unlike commissioned police who can be speed-blitz-happy, rank-and-file cops nominate drug-*affected drivers as motoring’s worst menace.

Suspected drivers have to lick on a lolly stick before roadside results are possible.

Police helicopters excel rounding up dangerous road hoons. But law-abiding drivers seldom see action against the likes of M1 tailgaters, erratic red P-platers, yellow-light maniacs, footpath cyclists or grey nomads towing caravans at 90km/h in 100 zones along the coast.

Police bosses infuriated the QPU when police escorts for wide loads and supervision for roadworks were quietly dropped from October.

“Dangerous at best and lethal at worst,” QPU advised, confirming suspicions that the police union and commissioned ranks are not close."
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/o...-1227320621690

[GAFA]

Originally Posted by jemijona

That would only slow cars down in that small area. By hiding them, people think that there is a camera anywhere, so they slow down everywhere.

How accurate is your speedo? Showing a touch over could still be under the speed limit. If it is such a problem, maybe get a GPS and mount it near your forward vision with the speedo display active.

People aren't slowing down everywhere because they are hidden. They only slow down when they see the camera and once past, speed back up.

Speedo's are accurate, one car less than 18 months old, one 6 yeas old. Needle width on both cars is equals about 2-3km, hence all it takes is a needle width and I could be 3 k's over.

Regarding your comment about mounting a GPS near your forward vision, well perhaps the speed cameras should be used to take photos of illegally mounted GPS's and mobile phone holders. As most of the cars I see on the road have them mounted illegally.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by b0son

if slowing down could have prevented the accident, speed is noted as a factor. a fraudulent misuse of the statistics. a long time ago, when the ATSB first started putting road crash data on the web, they were quite open about it. you could pull out all manner of stats... one of which was crashes CAUSED by EXCEEDING THE SPEED LIMIT. as a causative factor, speeding was somewhere in the 3-5% range of road fatalities. when some of us began posting these stats on car forums and newsgroups, it wasnt long before those stats were no longer available on the ATSB site .... coincidence?

guilty it was me, when I posted speed related year to date death rate equalled zero..
they still post the relevant data just hidden in some back server that randomly changes links.

[2011G6E]

I've often heard that "speed" can be attributed to any accident at all. As you said, if you could have slowed down and that would have made you avoid the accident, speed is the cause. Police have even said in the past that "speed" doesn't necessarily mean over the speed limit...you just have to have been going "too fast for the conditions". One "for instance" was an accident on a rainy day where you might have been going a perfectly legal 60kph, but they "estimate" that in those conditions you should have probably only been going 50 at most...bingo..."speed is a contributing factor".

There's a reason an Australian motoring journalist (was it Bill Tuckey?)once famously called it "The Great Road Safety Lie"...

[Express]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

I've often heard that "speed" can be attributed to any accident at all.
...you just have to have been going "too fast for the conditions".

If that’s the case then any accident of any type means you were driving too fast for the conditions even just doing my wife’s trick of clipping the side of the garage door as she feels the need to turn the wheel while reversing out.

If she slowed down enough I’d have time to go inside and make a cup of coffee before coming back to tell her to straighten the wheels up a bit.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by Express

If that’s the case then any accident of any type means you were driving too fast for the conditions even just doing my wife’s trick of clipping the side of the garage door as she feels the need to turn the wheel while reversing out.

If she slowed down enough I’d have time to go inside and make a cup of coffee before coming back to tell her to straighten the wheels up a bit.

I think all women do this, turn the wheel for no reason. before the car even moves..

only to try and correct it when its too late.

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by Express

If that’s the case then any accident of any type means you were driving too fast for the conditions even just doing my wife’s trick of clipping the side of the garage door as she feels the need to turn the wheel while reversing out.

If she slowed down enough I’d have time to go inside and make a cup of coffee before coming back to tell her to straighten the wheels up a bit.

Probably yes it would.
But yes, "speed related accident" technically doesn't actually mean the speed you were doing, but rather if they consider the car was going "too fast for the conditions" at the time of the accident...and rack another one up into the stats for accidents caused by "speed"...

I don't know about cars, but I know that there have been many cases I have read of and personally heard about in the world of motorcyclists where a rider has come into a corner and had a single vehicle accident...sliding on a patch of loose gravel is a prime example...and is visited by cops investigating the accident (if police had been called to the accident) and handing the rider a hefty fine for "losing control of their vehicle" or "negligent driving".
Silly you, it's your fault for your psychic abilities failing and not being able to foresee the road surface changing suddenly in an out of sight place up ahead somewhere around a corner...

[Blue Roo]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Probably yes it would.
But yes, "speed related accident" technically doesn't actually mean the speed you were doing, but rather if they consider the car was going "too fast for the conditions" at the time of the accident...and rack another one up into the stats for accidents caused by "speed"...

I don't know about cars, but I know that there have been many cases I have read of and personally heard about in the world of motorcyclists where a rider has come into a corner and had a single vehicle accident...sliding on a patch of loose gravel is a prime example...and is visited by cops investigating the accident (if police had been called to the accident) and handing the rider a hefty fine for "losing control of their vehicle" or "negligent driving".
Silly you, it's your fault for your psychic abilities failing and not being able to foresee the road surface changing suddenly in an out of sight place up ahead somewhere around a corner...

A Quote from Jeremy Clarkson (who is god ) "Speed doesn't kill you. It's the sudden stop at the other end that dose."