Speed Camera Destroyed

[FalconXR6]

Originally Posted by balthazarr

Not only does it take more effort... catching criminals is a revenue sink hole.
Catching motorists doing 3km/h over the limit not only takes NO effort once the camera is installed, it is a revenue bonanza.... hmm.. I wonder why they keep putting in more cameras?

I think the real issue, as has already been picked up on earlier in the thread, this new camera design is more accurate... so they're acknowledging existing cameras may not be accurate - yet the government (in particular Vic, with their 3km/h "tolerance") is happy to collect hundreds of millions of dollars per annum.... there should be outrage.

It's a tough one.
Although they claim these new camera's are more accurate, how can people proove existing camera's are not accurate and are, in fact, booking you for something you didn't do without a costly session in court?

[balthazarr]

Originally Posted by FalconXR6

It's a tough one.
Although they claim these new camera's are more accurate, how can people proove existing camera's are not accurate and are, in fact, booking you for something you didn't do without a costly session in court?

It's a lost cause, in my opinion. Unless the case is a blatantly obvious one - think I remember a story a few years ago... a Datsun I think it was, supposedly clocked on the Western Ring Rd doing 180 something... the woman won the case because she proved her car couldn't even get to that speed... and that sparked the whole investigation, and turning the cameras off etc.

And it is for this exact reason that the courts will never allow a borderline case to go in favour of the defendant (despite the concept of innocent until proven guilty)... it will bring the entire house of cards crashing down, with the government having to switch off/disable cameras, refund fines, etc. etc.

[Rob's 76 Effy]

Originally Posted by balthazarr

It's a lost cause, in my opinion. Unless the case is a blatantly obvious one - think I remember a story a few years ago... a Datsun I think it was, supposedly clocked on the Western Ring Rd doing 180 something... the woman won the case because she proved her car couldn't even get to that speed... and that sparked the whole investigation, and turning the cameras off etc.

Yeah i remember that one it was a Datsun 120y, they gave it to some expert to flog it on a race track. One of the current affair programs covered it.

[gtxb67]

is the more accurate thing, not just the fact that they can get any car no matter what lane. i do not believe that they are suggesting that all of the old cameras were not functioning properly. sure some were, but i have never been pinged for what i have not done

in the early days, if two cars were in the photo and one was speeding - both were let off. i am sure that if travelling beside a truck for instance and you are hidden from the car with the camera installed, you would not have been caught. maybe the accuracy suggestion is that they have more ways to catch the individual who is speeding now



still, we all know the rules before we go out so there is no point in complaining about them. it would be nicer if they put the revenue into road safety but that will never happen. if you do not speed, you do not pay. unfortunately i have been known to be less smart than others and roll the dice more than i should. fortunately most are so easy to see i haven't lost many times at all

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by gtxb67

still, we all know the rules before we go out so there is no point in complaining about them ..............

Gary, I think thats the problem .... no one really complains about them in Vic. Everyone accepts what is being drummed into them that a momentary lapse, speedo wise, no matter how much is being concentrated on the road at front and sides, from above and below, an extremely minimal oversight speed wise is bad ...... mmmkay! Most winge and wine about their existence but then go 'Oh well ..... baaahh"

21,000 in one month on Eastlink ... 80% under Wellington road. 85% LESS than 110. No accidents with in 15 km's of it each way since its been open. Is this a black spot and who is it saving? Catch the twits going 115 or what ever but just be realistic on what a 'safety camera' is suppose to acheive.

OH I forgot to add ..... that was about $3,500,000 in fines by one camera in one month. Do you think they want to remove it? No because its saving lives .... those 21,000 people apparently didnt crash and burn doing 108k/h because they had a fine sent to them 2 weeks after the event so ..... phew!



| [/url] |

[gtxb67]

i have never suggested that they are not revenue raisers. i could accept them more if the revenue went into road safety

the fact is they are there. we all knew about them being on eastlink and yet so many still got pinged. they are a part of our life whether they are fair or not. they are another obstacle that we must navigate around/past - just like a child running out in front of the car or a drunk stumbling into your path. at least with speed cameras we know pretty much where they are


i do not necessary like them, but i blame myself when i get pinged, not the government

i believe they help contribute to road trauma because we know where they are and therefore drive past them slowly. with less police presence, some go absolutely crazy as soon as they are out of the speed camera zone. this may sound crazy, but why else does there seem to be so many more stupid, single vehicle accidents or dual vehicle accidents when both cars are headed the same way over the last couple of years


once again, i do not like them, but if i am caught - i am the stupid one

[XRQTR]

With regard to destruction of cameras aren't they after all "public property"??

We are "the public" therefore they belong to us, and like anything we own and don't like we get rid of it.

I really don't see a problem nor any reason for the government regarding prosecution.


As to the speeding, sure ye it's our responsibilty, and guess what even the government helps us to guage our speed with the "handy speed display signs" at selected locations around major Vic highways.These include Geelong in the Melbourne bound lanes, Wollert/Beveradge in the Sydney bound lanes, Gisborne - Melb bound, Ballan - Ballarat bound, Albury - Melb bound and maybe a few more I don't know of or forgot............. Oh wait these often show your detected speed at or around 3-4km/h less than what your speedo might be reading, hmm I wonder who they are helping if people think there speedos are showing 100 but they are only doing 96 according to an accurate government supplied device.

That's why so many people get caught doing only 2-3k's over, because everyone thinks there speedos are showing up to 4k's more than the actual speed so they bump it up to compensate.

Chew over that one for a little while

[mikestp]

This is very good news,
more of this and we will be on a level playing field

[ebxr8240]

In Europe if there's a black spot.. They go all out to fix the road and anything that might cause another crash..
There is almost a Royal commission in every major accident ...
Also other things like certain tyres are only allowed to be fitted on cars there, in the BMW hand book it says what tyres must be fitted to be legal..
But there's sfa money to be made going down that route..

[Bobman]

Now we've got these pathetic campaigns about "We'll catch you before someone gets hurt". Ah, yeah right. With WHAT police resources? Hardly any on the road anyway.

Funny how we have more cameras than ever in Victoria, yet the road toll has about 20 more deaths then at this time last year.

They sure work eh.

[balthazarr]

Originally Posted by Bobman

...
They sure work eh.

I'm sure they do work... to raise revenue.

I wouldn't have such a problem with the cameras if they had a decent tolerance... say 10-15%, but of course, that wouldn't be safe now, would it?

[Daymoe]

Originally Posted by XRQTR

With regard to destruction of cameras aren't they after all "public property"??

We are "the public" therefore they belong to us, and like anything we own and don't like we get rid of it.

I really don't see a problem nor any reason for the government regarding prosecution.


As to the speeding, sure ye it's our responsibilty, and guess what even the government helps us to guage our speed with the "handy speed display signs" at selected locations around major Vic highways.These include Geelong in the Melbourne bound lanes, Wollert/Beveradge in the Sydney bound lanes, Gisborne - Melb bound, Ballan - Ballarat bound, Albury - Melb bound and maybe a few more I don't know of or forgot............. Oh wait these often show your detected speed at or around 3-4km/h less than what your speedo might be reading, hmm I wonder who they are helping if people think there speedos are showing 100 but they are only doing 96 according to an accurate government supplied device.

That's why so many people get caught doing only 2-3k's over, because everyone thinks there speedos are showing up to 4k's more than the actual speed so they bump it up to compensate.

Chew over that one for a little while

Not to mention I can't get the Gisborne - Melbourne one to show up a reading AT ALL for either of my parents cars.

[dom_105]

Looks like a "heartless vandal" has struck again, because I don't think that pole was there when I drove past tonight.

[Outbackjack]

Something to ponder about speed camera's, demerit points, etc, etc, etc.

Current road toll as at 29-11-08..... 71

The road toll for the Northern Territory for 2008 to 29 November is now 71,

The road toll for the Northern Territory for 2007 to 29 November was 45,

The road toll for the Northern Territory for 2006 to 29 November was 37.

Open Speed Limits = 37,
130k Speed Limit = 70!

2006 was the last year of derestricted highways.

Go figure.... :

[ltd_on20s]

Originally Posted by Outbackjack

Something to ponder about speed camera's, demerit points, etc, etc, etc.

Current road toll as at 29-11-08..... 71

The road toll for the Northern Territory for 2008 to 29 November is now 71,

The road toll for the Northern Territory for 2007 to 29 November was 45,

The road toll for the Northern Territory for 2006 to 29 November was 37.

Open Speed Limits = 37,
130k Speed Limit = 70!

2006 was the last year of derestricted highways.

Go figure.... :

so why doesnt someone use this as proof that lowering the speed limit has actually killed more people?
doesnt that actually prove negligence on the governments behalf? surely?

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by ltd_on20s

so why doesnt someone use this as proof that lowering the speed limit has actually killed more people?
doesnt that actually prove negligence on the governments behalf? surely?

How on earth has lowering the speed limit killed more people????

[azaxr8]

Going slower is safer to the government, But going at a speed slower then open reduces awareness, Longer distances travelling and higher risk of fatigue.!

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by azaxr8

Going slower is safer to the government, But going at a speed slower then open reduces awareness, Longer distances travelling and higher risk of fatigue.!

Isnt it driver responsibility to pull over if you're fatigued?
What if those extra people killed were travelling well above the legal limit??
Then there goes that theory...
Unless you knew the reasons behind the fatalities your'e drawing a very long bow to suggest the slower speed is more dangerous...

[Rob's 76 Effy]

So the figure quoted include passengers as well, so that could inflate the figures

Every 2hr's
Stop-Revive-Survive

[burnz]

i have nothing to say
http://www.speedcam.co.uk/gatso2.htm

[eb_5litre]

Comment removed.

[predator_230]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

How on earth has lowering the speed limit killed more people????

They had less fatalities before the Government capped open speed limits, It ain't rocket science to figure that out.
So basically they've gone ahead and made it "Safer" on the roads by putting in a 130k limit, of course this has proven to be safer how exactly? By increasing the road toll? Kinda like fixing something that didn't need fixing don't you think? Tools...........

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Isnt it driver responsibility to pull over if you're fatigued?
What if those extra people killed were travelling well above the legal limit??
Then there goes that theory...
Unless you knew the reasons behind the fatalities your'e drawing a very long bow to suggest the slower speed is more dangerous...

But if it was the other way around and the figures were down after the speed restrictions, who would be spurting that the restrictions are a great success? Answer is more restrictions becaue they then worked.

The higher the figure though the more restrictions and higher the fines because it then appears the g'ment is doing the right thing ........ If the figures ever go down .... more restrictions and higher fines because they are working. Win win for the g'ments. Its a great tax and the bean counters are jumping with excitement ..... thats all it is and if anyone beleives otherwise ..... you've been had.



| [/url] |

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by predator_230

They had less fatalities before the Government capped open speed limits, It ain't rocket science to figure that out.
So basically they've gone ahead and made it "Safer" on the roads by putting in a 130k limit, of course this has proven to be safer how exactly? By increasing the road toll? Kinda like fixing something that didn't need fixing don't you think? Tools...........

The point im making is the 2 might be totally mutually exclusive events though...
Dont just assume one is causing the other, like i said earlier, what if those extra lives were lost while they were doing over 130kph...?. What if they were on short destination trips???

[predator_230]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

The point im making is the 2 might be totally mutually exclusive events though...
Dont just assume one is causing the other, like i said earlier, what if those extra lives were lost while they were doing over 130kph...?. What if they were on short destination trips???

Doing over 130k's is something they never had to worry about in the first place right up until the government capped the open speed limit which is the point im trying to make.
Anyway as Auslandau wrote, its a win win for the government which ever way they look at it.

[tex]

Hi 4V - how are ya mate?

Was going to wade into this and have a(nother) tussle with you, but I can't be bothered atm.

I'll check back tomorrow and see how things have progressed, and if the thread needs an injection of debate - you'll hear from me...

tex

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by tex

Hi 4V - how are ya mate?

Was going to wade into this and have a(nother) tussle with you, but I can't be bothered atm.

I'll check back tomorrow and see how things have progressed, and if the thread needs an injection of debate - you'll hear from me...

tex

Go on! you know you want to!!!

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by predator_230

Doing over 130k's is something they never had to worry about in the first place right up until the government capped the open speed limit which is the point im trying to make.
Anyway as Auslandau wrote, its a win win for the government which ever way they look at it.

What you're trying to say is FATIGUE on a long trip extended by speed limitation is what killed the "extra" people.. all im saying is i havent seen anything to support that idea... e.g: what % of those "extra deaths" were fatigue related? if any?
Im not even going to begin to buy into the whole govt/fund raising debate which is a totally seperate issue...

[dom_105]

Obviously there is a possibility that it is just a statistical anomaly, but if that is ruled out you will have the Government handing out it's cooked figures supporting the restrictions, the Opposition handing out it's cooked figures to go against the restriction, and life goes on.

[FPV+fteT3]

Instead of lowering speed limits in this country where there are vast distances to cover why don't the gov't take a look at europe and in particular germany and build roads that are safe to travel on at 150-200 klicks? If you could cover 300km in just 1.5 hrs you wouldn't get fatigued. dunno about you but at 200 klicks I'm not really interested in what cd is in and infact very much focused on what I'm doing, infact less likely to de destracted by anything and have an accident. I have driven in the territory and can see the value in unrestricted speeds on their country hwy's why dawdle along at 100 when your car is capable of so much more and the time on the road is less because of higher speeds reducing the risk of fatigue related accidents and accidents caused by being distracted. Bring on the autobarn I say.