It’s time to switch off the speed camera ‘cash machines’

[The Monty]

Originally Posted by Giant Cranium

If they get rid of them then how will they replace the money they net? We will all pay one way or another

And this way, only the stupid have to pay!

[XB GS 351 Coupe]

Who said you drive with your eyes closed and below the speed limit is OK??

I love how people dramatise stuff for their own agenda.

It's really is only people who break the law that have problems with laws, or speed cameras or Police. I have been driving for 30 years this year and have never had a single issue with speed cameras. Never payed a cent to them.

So why would I have a problem with them?? Only people who break the law AND are inattentive to the road get caught, anyone that even remotely pays attention will spot a speed camera well before they get to it.

So if you get caught, not only were you speeding, you were ALSO not paying attention to the road and hazards in plain view in front of you. If you can't spot a speed camera the size of a bus what hope would you have spotting a small child chasing a ball onto the road??

I drive a minimum of 200km per day and often up to 700km per day and on occasions even more, so I do spend a lot of time on the road.

[zilo]

I speed everytime I drive, I drive to the road conditions and my abilities.

I use GPS with fixed locations and a variety of other stuff to make it a sport for both of us.

Just a part of life, a tax on having fun....a bit like marriage really

[Trump]

Originally Posted by XB GS 351 Coupe

So why would I have a problem with them?? Only people who break the law AND are inattentive to the road get caught, anyone that even remotely pays attention will spot a speed camera well before they get to it.

The problem lies with the attitude of govco putting up a veneer of road safety masking a reality of revenue raising. They couldn't give a stuff about creating a safer road system for all via non punitive (and ultimately) financial means. The worst part about this "road safety" agenda is the incessant lying and outright fraud and extortion committed by govco by issuing and collecting on fines (via force at times via the vermin known as the sheriff's office).

[Cav]

To speed or not to speed - that is the question.

Personally I don't care if the govmint luvs the extra revenue. If they didn't get it from whinging drivers they would get the revenue they say they need from some other whingers.

The point is if you exceed the posted speed limit you have no defence, so just cop it sweet.

There is no way a politician will raise the speed limits. Let's say the Hume Freeway is raised to 130 kms/h. The next fatality will be all over the papers and they will blame the politicians who raised the limit.

The premise is simple - don't wanna pay speeding fines; then don't speed. It's quite easy. First off most car speedos show you going faster than you actual are. If you are sitting on 100km/h your actual speed is probably more closer to 95.

So just be like me. I sit on the posted limit according to my car's speedo, engage cruise control, turn up the volume of the country music; and disengage the brain. Because speed kills. This is what the govmint and medical experts have been ramming down our throats. So if I don't speed I won't get killed. Surely they are not lying.

Hey I just had a brainstorm.

Why not replace speed cameras with ones that detect foglight on during good weather?

I think the fine is $175 - they'd make a motza!

[XB GS 351 Coupe]

Originally Posted by Loud_Noises

The problem lies with the attitude of govco putting up a veneer of road safety masking a reality of revenue raising. They couldn't give a stuff about creating a safer road system for all via non punitive (and ultimately) financial means. The worst part about this "road safety" agenda is the incessant lying and outright fraud and extortion committed by govco by issuing and collecting on fines (via force at times via the vermin known as the sheriff's office).

So how does any of this affect your life unless YOU are the one breaking the law?? It has in 30 years of driving never affected me in any way. This has absolutely no bearing on your life unless your life involves breaking the law and not paying attention to the road and hazards in front of you??

What evidence do you have that the fines are not reducing road trauma??

What alternatives do you provide?? It is easy to criticise others having a go at attempting to fix a problem, but what have YOU done to resolve the issue?? What actions have YOU taken to come up with alternatives??

People that complain are generally the people unable or unwilling to take responsibility for their own actions.

[Harrison]

I do a fair bit of long distance driving.

Some of the most dangerous drivers on the road that I come across are the totally oblivious blithering idiots who drive well below the speed limit for miles on end, collecting a convoy of cars, trucks etc behind them, then when reaching an overtaking section, or a long straight with a clear view ahead and the appropriate broken centre lines they accelerate to the speed limit, creating immense frustration and blindly encouraging others to break the law to avoid being slowed down for another undetermined length of time.

They are often towing something but not always.

Speed cameras do nothing to discourage this inconsiderate and moronic behaviour.

[XB GS 351 Coupe]

Originally Posted by Harrison

Speed cameras do nothing to discourage this inconsiderate and idiotic behaviour.

They have never claimed that they do They don't address terrorism or domestic violence either, and neither do they make hamburgers of provide a free coffee, but that is not their purpose.

[EDManual]

I am also happy for them to stay, however not the AVERAGE speed cameras. The way I see it, is if someone has enough ability to drive fast, and notice speed cameras on the side of the roads or on bridges and slow down for them not to be caught then they are at least paying attention! What I DO NOT LIKE ARE REAL POLICE hiding where there is ABSOLUTELY NO MINUTE PROSPECT OF A CRASH WHATSOEVER. In my 20 years of driving, I have been caught once by a speed camera, when they were first installed on the monash coming into the tunnel. I have been caught perhaps 20 to 25 times by real police, been over my points limit 3 times! And NEVER have I been caught doing any speed where there was any danger to anyone.
Thats what I think. Cops catch the good drivers, cameras catch the a-b brain dead drivers.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by Cav

The point is if you exceed the posted speed limit you have no defence, so just cop it sweet.

Why make it easy for them?

[Harrison]

Originally Posted by XB GS 351 Coupe

They have never claimed that they do They don't address terrorism or domestic violence either, and neither do they make hamburgers of provide a free coffee, but that is not their purpose.

I was booked once for speeding on my P's in 1978. I have not had a speeding fine since.

I was pointing out that bad driving can actually encourage speeding and reckless driving, whether there are speed cameras in the vicinity or not.

Speed cameras can give drivers a false sense of security in the absence of what we really need, more cops on the road.

Another major problem is dodgy and illegal headlights. Drive at night on our rural highways at your own peril.

[ljf12]

In WA it is my understanding that all revenue raised from speed and red light cameras goes in to the Road Trauma Trust Account. I believe the account is used to fund safer roads, road safety education etc but I have read that a lot money in the fund is not being utilized. I guess that in WA we can't really have a go at the government for using cameras etc as a cashcow.

If the government wants to raise some easy cash just put cameras on stop signs.

In regards to a recent post regarding passing lanes I always slow down to allow people to pass quickly, maybe there should be a lower limit in the left lane (something else for people to ignore).

[Trump]

Originally Posted by XB GS 351 Coupe

So how does any of this affect your life unless YOU are the one breaking the law?? It has in 30 years of driving never affected me in any way. This has absolutely no bearing on your life unless your life involves breaking the law and not paying attention to the road and hazards in front of you??

It directly affects my daily life as I have to dodge rolling road hazards in the form of drivers whose gaze is fixated on their speedometers and not the road and the prevailing conditions. This is just on the drive to and from work, let alone all of the other driving I do during the course of the week.

Indirectly, but ultimately as important is the fact that no one alive today has asked the self appointed "authorities" (if they can't be voted in and out, they aren't working for the electorate) to provide such punitive measures and worse, enforce collection of tribute (which is what the fines are) by force.

What evidence do you have that the fines are not reducing road trauma??

The road toll has not moved beyond statistical deviation in many years, despite increased vehicle safety since the introduction of airbags as standard equipment in the mid 1990's.

What alternatives do you provide?? It is easy to criticise others having a go at attempting to fix a problem, but what have YOU done to resolve the issue?? What actions have YOU taken to come up with alternatives??

The alternative to punitive action is via extensive and thorough driver education, along with a marked improvement in the roads funded by the more than copious funds collected from fuel excise and registration fees. Goat tracks trying to be passed off as major metropolitan arterials won't cut it and Melbourne for example, has many such roads in disrepair and of poor design.

As for what I have or can do to fix a systemic problem... you tell me what one person can do against a system built from the ground up to ensure the money from low level speeding keeps flowing into the coffers unimpeded?

People that complain are generally the people unable or unwilling to take responsibility for their own actions.

Most of the people that complain are ones concerned about the ever increasing amounts of power unelected wannabe do-gooders seem to have handed to them by an unnaccountable bureaucracy.

You mention people taking responsibility for their own actions. Tell me something, how can this happen when govco has taken on the role of big brother with such an enthusiasm and fervor only seen in B-grade horror movies, that it has relegated the population to the level of naughty children in need of punishment for their perceived bad deeds...?

It can't.

People can begin to take responsibility for their actions only when they are truly free, thoroughly educated and versed in whatever activity they undertake and able to critically think and reason all without the spectre of the unseen hand threatening an almighty big metaphorical (and sometimes literal) smack. As it stands, the system is geared to have the populace uneducated, misinformed and ultimately living in fear of retribution from a cold bureaucracy hell bent on getting its pound of flesh.

[XB GS 351 Coupe]

Some valid point, but implementation would be a nightmare.

Personally I think many people should not be holding a license, they are way too easy to get, but on the other hand I don't really want it to be any harder as I also would have to jump the extra hoops.

[superyob]

Loud Noises, what is your definition of 'truly free' please?

[MAD]

I seem to remember a statement saying they would only be installed in locations of high risk, or previous crash history.

That was before Eastlink opened with it's brand new cameras turned in within a couple of weeks.

Also the new ones installed near Toorak Rd exit on Monash Fwy, just PRIOR to a speed change down, and now they're working on installing electronic speed signs from Chadstone up to that point.
I have never seen an accident in that location, and certainly haven't heard of any fatals.
But you know for damn sure that when the electronic speed is lowered to 80 from 100, they will net a lot of income!


I don't hate cameras, but I hate the BS behind them.
Everyone knows exactly what they are up to.

[aussiblue]

The road toll has not moved beyond statistical deviation in many years, despite increased vehicle safety since the introduction of airbags as standard equipment in the mid 1990's.

I think the term is "Standard Deviation"; in any event, it is very readily apparent that is not true by any measure. The statistics see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tralia_by_year show a significant and ongoing reduction in road fatalities both in gross total numbers and by population, miles driven and cars; despite the new problems of inattentive mobile phone users and crystal meths affected drivers.

The alternative to punitive action is via extensive and thorough driver education

It might be counter intuitive but with the most at risk group (18 to 25 year old males) some research has indicated that advanced driver training may simply make them more naively over confident in their skills and put them more at risk. I agree, and the research shows, that better roads reduces road deaths.

[aussiblue]

And we have had this debate before see http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthr...=speed+cameras

[Trump]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

And we have had this debate before see http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthr...=speed+cameras

And we will keep having this debate until people realise that govco is not working for and towards the best interests of the entire electorate. They are a self serving beast whose continued existence is dependant on people believing that they need govco in their lives.

[MAD]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

I think the term is "Standard Deviation"; in any event, it is very readily apparent that is not true by any measure. The statistics see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tralia_by_year show a significant and ongoing reduction in road fatalities both in gross total numbers and by population, miles driven and cars; despite the new problems of inattentive mobile phone users and crystal meths affected drivers.



It might be counter intuitive but with the most at risk group (18 to 25 year old males) some research has indicated that advanced driver training may simply make them more naively over confident in their skills and put them more at risk. I agree, and the research shows, that better roads reduces road deaths.

Deaths are not only affected (or caused) by speed.
Car quality, car safety, average age of fleet all play a big part in reducing death.

Statistics can be bent anyway which way you choose, depending on how you arrange the figures.
"speed as a factor" doesn't even mean "exceeding the speed limit"


I've previously made the link between training drivers and training dogs, and was shot down by one particular pro-speed camera loony, but I stand by it, and so does psychology. (how are we constantly told to train our children now?)
Positive reinforcement works, and punishing an animal long after the fact does not.
A letter 4 weeks after the event is nothing more than an invoice and does not 'train' the driver.


But the apathy kicks in and we realise that to do any proactive and productive will cost money, and therefore will never be taken seriously.


Defensive driver training is about teaching/exposing these at risk drivers to situations they may have previously been naive about.
The school of hard knocks is the best training method ever, unfortunately when it involves a car (not isolated to though) it will result in major injuries and deaths for some as those 'students' get taught their lessons.
A part of the aim of a defensive driving course is to remove the 'field study' aspect by teaching some consequences in a safe environment.

[aussiblue]

http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthr...cameras&page=2

So why hasn't the anti speed camera group been able to get some bent statistics to support their argument? Lots of emphatic assertion from the opposing group (and name calling i.e. "was shot down by one particular pro-speed camera loony" ) but no supporting independent peer reviewed evidence. The fact is the overwhelming evidence from research all over the world is that speed camera reduce road fatalities.

Personally I don't like speed cameras either but I accept the overwhelming evidence that they reduce road fatalities.

[Harrison]

If it is true that speed cameras save lives then radar detectors should also.

So why are they illegal ?


Just wondering...

[superyob]

Originally Posted by Loud_Noises

And we will keep having this debate until people realise that govco is not working for and towards the best interests of the entire electorate. They are a self serving beast whose continued existence is dependant on people believing that they need govco in their lives.

So how do we operate without 'govco'? Are you suggesting anarchy? (Not trying to be smart)

[MAD]

OK, that was a little personal, but that particular person really rubbed me the wrong way and just thinking about them raised my anger levels.



The reports used to make the claim that speed cameras save lives, do not actually make such statements.

The reports correlate some information based on some statistics such as 'speed as a factor', to which the conclusion is then drawn that speeding is bad and cameras will stop people dying.

As mentioned before, 'speed as a factor' does not mean exceeding the posted speed limit nor does it even mean it was the cause. It was simply one of the factors in the events of the death. Drugs, alcohol, fatigue all get a mention but 'speed' is singled out.
Never mind that the 'speed' alone possibly would not have caused the crash if the person were properly capable of controlling the vehicle.


Speed camera revenue is through the roof.
How can you keep a straight face and say that they are working and slowing people down if the $$ keep rolling in, and increasing each year?
Shouldn't that increase in fines, correlate to increased deaths?

[noflac52]

That's right, if speed camera revenue keeps increasing or even remaining static every year it means that many drivers are not keeping to the speed arbitrarily posted by the authorities as the safe limit.

So it stands to reason that travelling above the arbitrarily posted limits is not unsafe and likely to cause road fatalities because if this was true the offending drivers would be having accidents all the time and being killed on a regular basis so this in itself is evidence against how speed cameras save lives.

If a large number of highly trained drivers travelled in excess of the speed limits I don't think the road toll would rise to any degree but if a large number of poorly trained drivers travelled at the same speed it is likely that the accident rate would rise considerably.

In this context the argument is raised that the cameras saved those lives because the poorly trained drivers kept to the speed limit but this is a false conclusion because the whole aspect of training drivers better is left out of the equation so as to draw the conclusion that is required to make a case for cameras.

These are the kind of blinkered statistics that are used time and time again when authorities try to support the revenue raising from cameras!!

[Trump]

Originally Posted by superyob

So how do we operate without 'govco'? Are you suggesting anarchy? (Not trying to be smart)

I fully comprehend you're not being a smart alec

The world living without government or its corporate pretender is a concept the world will have to face one day. So yes, what I think is possible is a form of educated anarchy. But there is a problem, and a history lesson is required to explain it.

Had the Renaissance tracked all the way through the second millennium AD, the possibility that humankind would be far ahead of where we are now is a very real one. Greater knowledge, comprehension, reason and wisdom were the hallmarks of a populace undergoing emotional and intellectual evolution. With such evolution, a truly civilised society would be able create a society where there were no governmental institutions by virtue of the fact that members of such an evolved society would be completely equipped to live independant and interdependant lives with no requirement for external oversight, regulation and retribution.

However, today the situation isn't as illuminated and clear cut. The wider society isn't educated, they are indoctrinated. They were not taught, they were trained. Their learning was not of their own volition, it was under duress and the threat of violence from authorities. As a consequence, such a society by and large is unable to function without an organisation like government.

So even though my "educated anarchy" isn't currently possible, we need to be taking action and steps to get there.

[FPV+fteT3]

Originally Posted by Harrison

If it is true that speed cameras save lives then radar detectors should also.

So why are they illegal ?


Just wondering...

Radar detectors are a form of tax avoidance govco need you to pay your share.

[simon varley]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

Personally I don't like speed cameras either but I accept the overwhelming evidence that they reduce road fatalities.

what "overwhelming evidence" is this? I've certainly never seen any. For me, this would have to be a rigid analysis of the pre- and post camera accidents with no other confounding changes having taken place. GovCo to my knowledge have never published this and I doubt they even have this data.

Compounding this is also the effect of "Regression to the Mean"

Since the location of any speed camera is supposed to be determined by a "higher than average" number of accidents occurring, the supposed benefit of installing the camera is simply a statistical effect. The same "improvement" could be seen without doing anything.

[aussiblue]

The reports used to make the claim that speed cameras save lives, do not actually make such statements.

Really? Just looking at just one resnr finding as an example:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...01457514002577

Section control [point to point cameras] reduces all crashes by 30%, fatal crashes by 56%.
Speed cameras were found to reduce total crash numbers by about 20%. The effect declines with increasing distance from the camera location. Fatal crashes were found to be reduced by 51%, this result may however be affected by regression to the mean (RTM). Section control was found to have a greater crash reducing effect than speed cameras (−30% for total crash numbers and −56% for KSI crashes).

I think this sums it up nicely:
http://search.informit.com.au/docume...262;res=IELHEA

Speed - the biggest and most contested road killer

Journal of the Australasian College of Road Safety
Volume 25 Issue 1 (Mar 2014)

Mooren, Lori1; Grzebieta, Raphael2; Job, Soames3

Abstract: Speeding is arguably one of the most prevalent, if not the most prevalent, behavioural factor involved in fatal road crashes. However, the interventions to redress this continuing serious threat to public safety are amongst the most controversial done by governments in Australia. Media outcries of "revenue raising" when speed cameras are installed are deafening. This is despite the voluminous evidence that speed cameras save lives. In early 2012 there were a number of current affairs programs on commercial TV channels and web internet discussions that were blatantly anti-speed camera enforcement. Expert road safety researchers have attempted to present the facts and provide evidence-based opinions about the injury risks of speeding and the safety benefits of speed camera enforcement. Australian community surveys have indicated that the majority of people do understand that speeding is a road safety risk, and they support speed limits and speed enforcement. But broad public and media understanding of the issues are still confounded by misleading publicity and opinionated non-expert mass and social media discussions of views opposing speed enforcement and even views that disagree that speeding is a road trauma risk. This paper explores this phenomenon, discusses issues concerning mass and social media and suggests ways to address the problem.

[Trump]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

Really? Just looking at just one resnr finding as an example:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...01457514002577

This isn't a paper comprised of research and hard data, it is peer reviewed guesswork and statistical analysis.

63 effect estimates from 15 speed camera studies and five effect estimates from four section control studies were included in the analysis.

It is blatant guesswork based on yet more guesswork!

Originally Posted by aussiblue

I think this sums it up nicely:
http://search.informit.com.au/docume...262;res=IELHEA

This is at best an opinion piece, a commentary by a mouthpiece for the "road safety" lobby, whose funding is derived almost exclusively from the various roads corporations of the states. Hardly an objective study.