Speed cameras to time your journey

[EDManual]

Most of the geelong highway ones shoot from the front.

So thats not going to hurt the motorbikes. Theres a few people getting around with just back plates in cars too. I may join them.

[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....

[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

[clontarf_x]

omg did anyone spot KeepLeft's little pimp?

look for "registration requirement"