Proof QLD Speed Cameras are Revenue Raising..

[csv8]

THE Pacific Motorway at Tugun is Queensland's top money-making road, generating more than $1.35 million a month in speeding fines or more than $1800 an hour.

Statistics provided by the Queensland Police Service show mobile speed cameras on the motorway snapped almost 8000 offenders in March - more than any other location.

The next worst stretch for speeding was Gympie Rd at Kedron, where 5506 leadfoots were nabbed, followed by Old Cleveland Rd at Carina (5328) and the Gateway Motorway at Boondall (5243).

Rounding out the top five was Mount Gravatt-Capalaba Rd at Mount Gravatt, where 4820 motorists, or 155 drivers a day, were photographed in excess of the speed limit in March.

Altogether the five alleged black spots generated almost $5 million in speed camera fines across the month but in the same period, there was only one serious crash recorded at any of the sites.


A police officer broke his leg when he came off his motorcycle on Old Cleveland Rd at Carina on March 23.My comment ; that counts ??? a motorist didn't die. ?


The last fatal crash at any of the speeding hot spots was October 30, 2010 - also on Old Cleveland Rd (Coorparoo) - when a motorcyclist allegedly struck and killed a pedestrian. My comment ; again, that counts ??? a motorist didn't die. ?

Police determine speed camera locations based on a site's five-year crash history, with high-volume traffic areas generally being visited more often by cameras because of their greater number of crashes. Police Minister Neil Roberts said traffic flows, public complaints and other intelligence were also considered.

"The goal of speed enforcement - whether by fixed, covert, mobile or hand-held speed cameras - is to save lives by encouraging motorists to slow down," Mr Roberts said.

But RACQ external relations general manager Paul Turner said the peak motoring body wanted locations to be chosen on the basis of "more recent crash data".

"This would ensure that speed cameras are operated at locations with the highest potential to reduce crashes, and based on the most recent crash data available," Mr Turner said.

"Some sites have been approved a number of years ago."

Opposition police spokesman John-Paul Langbroek said it was obvious the "original reason for introducing speed cameras, which was safety, had been overtaken by the Labor Government's desperate need for cash".

"These are the sorts of things that should be analysed and scrutinised," he said.

"If the behaviour of motorists has been modified by the cameras, (the location) should be subject to review."

Mr Roberts said excessive speed contributed to about one quarter of deaths on Queensland roads each year and the message was simple.

"Drive at or below the speed limit and you will avoid a fine and quite possibly save your life," he said.

My comment : I have nothing against speed cameras..as long as used as originally intended..But time and time again, its shown not to be the case.
For FF members who keep saying " don't speed, you won't be fined" its not that simple..many factors come into play.

[Tobey]

Hmm, I'm not for them, but were these accidents that didnt happen whilst the cameras were in operation or before? If whilst in operation, wouldnt that prove they are working?

[FTE72]

There may be a death at the Boondall site one day.
They like to put it in the median strip getting southbounders during northbound peak hour, and makes the crawl twice as bad.
Pure Genius.

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by Tobey

Hmm, I'm not for them, but were these accidents that didnt happen whilst the cameras were in operation or before? If whilst in operation, wouldnt that prove they are working?

LOL exactly what I was thinking.

[ray38l]

The problem is is that their not reviewing previous camera locations. Fair enough there hasn't been many deaths since the camera went in, but is that the only contributing factor? Maybe there is less traffic on that stretch of road due to a new bypass. Maybe they improved the road.
Unfortunately once a camera is installed its there forever regardless of whether its still affective or needed.
This thread won't last long once sudszy finds it.

[csv8]

Why? doesn't Sudszy like honest opinions ??
Gateway Motorway..last fatal crash-Nov 11 2009 in nearby Nudgee.
Old Cleveland Rd. Carina..last fatal crash-Oct 30 2010.
Mt Gravatt-Capalaba Rd..Mt Gravatt..last fatal crash..NONE.
Pacific Motorway..Tugun..last fatal crash-June 23 2008.
Gympie Rd ,Kedron..last fatal crash..Jan 13 2009.
They are real accident spots!!!
Going on these figures, with QPols mantra "everyk over is a killer" Q road toll should be way past 2000 killed on our roads.
I cann't stand political BS to justify revenue raisi...don't get me started on the Carbon Tax..BS.

[2011G6E]

"There are no accidents there because the cameras are obviously stopping the accidents"

That's the exact same reasoning that can be used for those rediculous electronic "Shoo Roo" and little plastic whistle anti-kangaroo devices that have been repeatedly proven to do nothing in controlled tests.
People who swear by them say "I haven't hit a roo since I put it on!", but when you push and say "How many did you hit before?"..."well, none but you can't be too careful..."
I've been driving since 1982, and haven't hit a roo. had a few close calls, as have most people, but no hits. If I fitted one tomorrow, and continued on for another twenty-plus years and didn't hit a roo, what would I attribute that to? The expensive device, or just continued good luck?
If it's luck, then why spend lots of money just on the off-chance that it might do something?

As with cameras...why put them on stretches of road where there is no real history of serious accidents at great expense, then come along later and smugly say "Well there's been no accidents there".

The sad part is that it's logic that's hard to argue against, given that accidents are so impossible to predict.

[UNR8D]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

"There are no accidents there because the cameras are obviously stopping the accidents"

That's the exact same reasoning that can be used for those rediculous electronic "Shoo Roo" and little plastic whistle anti-kangaroo devices that have been repeatedly proven to do nothing in controlled tests.
People who swear by them say "I haven't hit a roo since I put it on!", but when you push and say "How many did you hit before?"..."well, none but you can't be too careful..."
I've been driving since 1982, and haven't hit a roo. had a few close calls, as have most people, but no hits. If I fitted one tomorrow, and continued on for another twenty-plus years and didn't hit a roo, what would I attribute that to? The expensive device, or just continued good luck?
If it's luck, then why spend lots of money just on the off-chance that it might do something?

As with cameras...why put them on stretches of road where there is no real history of serious accidents at great expense, then come along later and smugly say "Well there's been no accidents there".

The sad part is that it's logic that's hard to argue against, given that accidents are so impossible to predict.

Quoted for TRUTH!

[MAD]

Where's the crash 'history' for the cameras installed on Melbourne's Eatlink tollway? They were installed as it was being built.

[2011G6E]

It's not like you are measuring a repeatable, measureable phenomenon either. It isn't something that will happen on a regular enough basis...and even if it does at one particular spot, the absolute most you can say is that the road itself is probably to blame, not the drivers.

This is because of the simply vast differences between any given variables in the equation...old cars? New cars? Young drivers? Old drivers? Can they drive well in the wet, or dry, or hot, or cold conditions? How long have thye held thier licence? Is the car in good condition or bad? Are their tyres quality ones or cheap retreads? Do they have the stereo on or not? Are they alone or not?
The list could, literally, go on for pages.
If you asked a scientist to measure something like this, he would ask which are the fixed and which are the variable things involved. If the variables were just too, well, variable, then he would probably say that no truly accurate figures can be given. If you really pushed him for a result, then the only thing he would concentrate on is the fixed items that can be accurately assessed and measured. And that's the road...not the infinitely variable human drivers...

far easier to say "There's been a couple of accidents here...must be the drivers...let's put in cameras...that'll fix it without having to worry ourselves about driver training or actually pulling over drivers with a human police officer and checking thier licences, cars, and whether they've bee drinking or not...more profitable too..."

[irish2]

Originally Posted by Tobey

Hmm, I'm not for them, but were these accidents that didnt happen whilst the cameras were in operation or before? If whilst in operation, wouldnt that prove they are working?

No. The data proves there are lots of people caught speeding at these 5 locations. The accident list totaled 1 crash bY a police officer. Does that not then prove that speeding isn't as bigger threat as portrayed, or that the speed limits are too low?

[bingoTE50]

Waiting for usual protaganists on this one ......

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by csv8

THE Pacific Motorway at Tugun is Queensland's top money-making road, generating more than $1.35 million a month in speeding fines or more than $1800 an hour

You are right, this one in particular raises a lot of money, perhaps you can come up with another figure, like how much does it cost to keep your police force on the road per hour?

Originally Posted by csv8

For FF members who keep saying " don't speed, you won't be fined" its not that simple..many factors come into play.

Not that "dont speed, you won't be fined" has ever been my line, but yes it is that simple, you cant legitimately be fined if you dont speed, there are no other factors to consider,

Originally Posted by csv8

But RACQ external relations general manager Paul Turner said the peak motoring body wanted locations to be chosen on the basis of "more recent crash data".

"This would ensure that speed cameras are operated at locations with the highest potential to reduce crashes, and based on the most recent crash data available," Mr Turner said.

"Some sites have been approved a number of years ago."

It would make sense to install cameras in locations where there have been numerous collisions, however, many accident/fatality locations and crashes are once only locations, making decisions only based on previous history as the RACQ suggests is taking a reactive approach - closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

We do want our authorities to be pro-active,(not just waiting before someone is killed before enacting measures and or legislation etc) and actually monitor areas which can be predicted to find driver's doing the wrong thing in large numbers...(seeing how fast their cars go on new freeways etc).

The exact cause of every accident is not speed, but speed is one variable that we can monitor very easily and if the reality becomes that driver's can be detected speeding anywhere at any time, then we'll have less black spots to be mapping out.

Personally, Id like to see more cameras in the middle of obscure locations in the middle of the night, but realise there are only so many to go around.

[rancidpunx]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Not that "dont speed, you won't be fined" has ever been my line, but yes it is that simple, you cant legitimately be fined if you dont speed, there are no other factors to consider,

lol head in the sand there. Faulty incorrectly calibrated equipment has never pinged innocent do gooders.
Incorrect operation has never returned a huge speed and a fine been issued because of it.

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by rancidpunx

lol head in the sand there. Faulty incorrectly calibrated equipment has never pinged innocent do gooders.
Incorrect operation has never returned a huge speed and a fine been issued because of it.

Yes indeed...it's been said before (by me for one, but I've seen it repeatedly elsewhere), that the speed camera, Lidar, and hand held Radar are the only measuring instrument anywhere in the world which we are assured is absolutely, 100%, completely infallible and unfailingly accurate. Trust us...

I've worked with some extremely expensive and super-finely calibrated scientific equipment in various laboratories, but even the most expensive always comes with a calibration certificate with a "plus or minus" error allowance that must be factored in. Sometimes you'd be surprised how large that factor is. The best glass thermometers we used to get had a plus or minus of 0.02 degrees C, ordinary glass ones were up to half a degree, and even the electronic ones were usually plus or minus 0.02. The finer the error margin you had to allow for, the price would jump dramatically.

Are they honestly telling us that these speed measuring devices never ever ever register the wrong speed?

In a lab, you have carefully controlled conditions, with a set temperature usually and vibration isolated benches for finer measurements.
Given the varying elements and harsh conditions that a speed camera is exposed to, I'm surprised they manage to give the same reading twice...

...assuming they do...I mean, when a fine turns up two weeks later, who remembers exactly what they were doing at that moment? It's a bit like asking someone: "so what did you have for breakfast two weeks ago on tuesday, exaclty, down to the precise portion sizes?"...

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by rancidpunx

lol head in the sand there. Faulty incorrectly calibrated equipment has never pinged innocent do gooders.
Incorrect operation has never returned a huge speed and a fine been issued because of it.

Is that all you could find fault in, its not even the thrust of the thread, but really your comment misses the mark regardless

Here's what I wrote:
Not that "dont speed, you won't be fined" has ever been my line, but yes it is that simple, you cant legitimately be fined if you dont speed, there are no other factors to consider,

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Is that all you could find fault in, its not even the thrust of the thread, but really your comment misses the mark regardless

Here's what I wrote:
Not that "dont speed, you won't be fined" has ever been my line, but yes it is that simple, you cant legitimately be fined if you dont speed, there are no other factors to consider,

You can't indeed be "legitimately" fined. That's completely true. I actually totally agree with you...wow...

Now perhaps if the system was organised so people weren't guilty until they could somehow prove themselves innocent...we might have something.
My last "speeding" fine was by a cop by the roadside with Lidar. I pulled out of a park, turned onto the road, and I could see him step out down the road and wave me down. 72kph in a 60 zone, 140 meters from his position. Measured it out the next day, where I was parked was 140 meters from where he stood. Standing start to 72kph in zero meters...a Veyron's got nuthin on my old Kawasaki!
I knew I was in the right and he was wrong, wrote a statutory declaration saying my side of the story, drew a detailed map with measurements on it, and sent it in. Three months later, letter turns up..."We're right, you're wrong, pay up". Mates said "take it to court". What, couple of days off work, and still be told "pay up...plus costs".

People don't fight speeding fines for one simple reason...they know they will never be believed. this is also the reason people generally don't have any trust in the system...what sort of charge in law makes it so hard to mount a defence that people just take thier punishment like a good little citizen, as they know this is the easiest way out?

Speed cameras make it even harder..."but sir, we have a picture of you speeding...everyone can see it".
No you don't...you have a photo of my car or bike. The figures at the top may be right or wrong...who knows. Usually they're right, but no law in the nation should be set up on the assumption that someone is definately 100% guilty and they shouldn't even bother fighting it.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by irish2

No. The data proves there are lots of people caught speeding at these 5 locations. The accident list totaled 1 crash bY a police officer. Does that not then prove that speeding isn't as bigger threat as portrayed, or that the speed limits are too low?

Got it in one.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by irish2

No. The data proves there are lots of people caught speeding at these 5 locations. The accident list totaled 1 crash bY a police officer. Does that not then prove that speeding isn't as bigger threat as portrayed, or that the speed limits are too low?

Its about as sensible as saying that since no drunk drivers crashed their cars on the princess highway in the last year then we should allow drunk driving on that road, and only make it illegal where there have been crashes due to drunks losing control.

Whilst some will contest that drinking and speeding are two different things, in this context they are not, and there will be some that will drivel on about how they'd feel safer in a car with a speeding driver than a drunk driver(please dont bother)

Increasing speed increases your risk of incident, so does increases alcohol content. We have set lines in the sand for both.

[LOW_NL]

Whilst some will contest that drinking and speeding are two different things, in this context they are not, and there will be some that will drivel on about how they'd feel safer in a car with a speeding driver than a drunk driver(please dont bother)

Increasing speed increases your risk of incident, so does increases alcohol content. We have set lines in the sand for both.[/QUOTE]


well they are to different things, how come in Germany there freeways/highways/motorways have a open speed limit but they have less crashes on those stretches, i would much prefer to be in a car where somebody is 10kph over the limit rather than somebody that is 10 pints over the limit.
im not saying speeding is ok and do 200kph down the road but dam speeding is not even in the same category as a drunk driver, just my 2 cents, so here we go

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by LOW_NL

well they are to different things, how come in Germany there freeways/highways/motorways have a open speed limit but they have less crashes on those stretches,

Less crashes? fatalities per km, or per car travelled, compared to?
You ought to check the data, complete myth

Originally Posted by LOW_NL

i would much prefer to be in a car where somebody is 10kph over the........

as I suggested, completely irrelevant to the context. What is relevant, increasing speed and alcohol have a near exponential relationship in the risk of your chances of being involved in an incident.

[FGX-351]

In before Sudszy gets the thread closed! lol

[rancidpunx]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

You can't indeed be "legitimately" fined. That's completely true. I actually totally agree with you...wow...

Now perhaps if the system was organised so people weren't guilty until they could somehow prove themselves innocent...we might have something.
My last "speeding" fine was by a cop by the roadside with Lidar. I pulled out of a park, turned onto the road, and I could see him step out down the road and wave me down. 72kph in a 60 zone, 140 meters from his position. Measured it out the next day, where I was parked was 140 meters from where he stood. Standing start to 72kph in zero meters...a Veyron's got nuthin on my old Kawasaki!
I knew I was in the right and he was wrong, wrote a statutory declaration saying my side of the story, drew a detailed map with measurements on it, and sent it in. Three months later, letter turns up..."We're right, you're wrong, pay up". Mates said "take it to court". What, couple of days off work, and still be told "pay up...plus costs".

People don't fight speeding fines for one simple reason...they know they will never be believed. this is also the reason people generally don't have any trust in the system...what sort of charge in law makes it so hard to mount a defence that people just take thier punishment like a good little citizen, as they know this is the easiest way out?

Speed cameras make it even harder..."but sir, we have a picture of you speeding...everyone can see it".
No you don't...you have a photo of my car or bike. The figures at the top may be right or wrong...who knows. Usually they're right, but no law in the nation should be set up on the assumption that someone is definately 100% guilty and they shouldn't even bother fighting it.

lol I am glad somebody has an IQ of more that this cold morning temperature.

In the eyes of the boys in blue and of course the government, every fine is Legit. As G6E wrote above speeding or not you will get a fine. Taking it to court rarely yields a good out come for the accused. Either way you are out of pocket after taking time to defend yourself.

How about those poor people that get flashed by a red light camera as they move over for an emergency vehicle. Mostly they get the fine waived but they always have to cop the points.

As to the OP anyone who still believes that camera sites are selected within the criteria originally set out is mad. They set them up when they will reap the most money. I regularly pass a mobile unit on a straight downhill section in Brisbane and I could nearly put money on there never being a fatal accident there. Only accident Ive ever passed was about 2ks up the road with 2 cop cars rear ended.

[EgoFG]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Increasing speed increases your risk of incident

This has not been proven except in the extreme.

[Bundy]

What do you get when you combine speed cameras and politicians??

Firstly, no pics of pollies, they never move fast enough on anything and

Secondly, effectively would should be called a speeding TAX

[SEZ213]

Crash data is only as good as the person analysing it...

Cameras can and have been wrong...

Most of the roads in Brisbane are sub standard, particularly because it takes them six months to 'fix' something, and by that point, the first bit they've done needs repair...because the quality of workmanship is bollocks.

The scare campaigns and sly locations that the implement speed cameras leaves a lot to be desired.

The average Australian is NOT as stupid as suggested.

The propaganda and rhetoric DOESN'T get bought by those who are intelligent enough to make informed decisions about the legitimacy of these 'speed' cameras.

That'll just about do it I think...

[Ben73]

Of course speed cameras are set up in locations to bring in the most money.
I passed through an intersection almost everyday for over 15 years. I witnessed about 4 fender benders and 1 person hit by a car. (BTW the car was doing about 20km/h when it hit them) Recently a speed/red light camera was installed at this location.

Another intersection near my house I have been passing through almost everyday for 5 years. I have seen a few fender benders and about 3 major crashes with ambulance, police and fire all attending.

Now by simple observation you can probably figure out the latter seams to be more dangerous intersection.
But why is the first one the one with the new safety camera while the second one has had nothing changed about it during the past 5 years.

Originally Posted by sudszy

Increasing speed increases your risk of incident,

In some situations yes. But I bet you are more likely to be killed by doing 10km/h down the freeway then doing 110km/h.

[JG65TE]

They have 2 camera locations in my street. There has never been a fatal in my street ever. But like ya say, maybe its the cameras stopping the fatals........... I also have a rock out the front that keeps wild elephants away. Must work coz I have never seen a wild elephant in my street either... You QLD boys have nothing to worry about yet............ wait til they put em all over major arterials at 5 kays apart....... anyone wanna buy a rock ? lol

[2011G6E]

Last time I was down in Brissy I was driving north away from the city along the motorway, and somewhere near the "second hand house lot" on the highway (whereever that is...not really up on all the surrounding suburbs of Brisbane... ) my GPS said "Warning: safety camera ahead". I was puzzled as to what a "safety camera" was, then I saw my first fixed speed camera. Never seen one before in real life.

Now, this was a long, straight, wide, extremely well surfaced stretch of road. It was divided by concrete barriers, and the sides of the road were similarly blocked by concrete barriers. A head-on would be literally impossible there, and the worst would be a rub or fender bender against some moron who changed lanes without looking. I believe the speed limit was 1oo or 110 there.
I still have no idea why those cameras were there...

Conversely, I've driven in the depths of Brisbane on four lane roads just "keeping up with the traffic flow" at 70kph-plus on 60kph signed roads, worrying like hell I would get fined, but then sometimes noticing police cars in amongst the general traffic...I guess even they know it's safer to just let traffic flow when everyone seems to be getting along OK. Same as out western Queensland. We were near Winton doing 120 in the Landcruiser, and went to wave at the approaching four wheel drive, only at the last second realising it was a police fourbie...with the obvious little radar detector on the side gutter. Cops waved, kept on going...

"Time and place" is more important than "outright speed". Placing cameras in obviously safe areas like long straight stretches just makes it appear to the public to be revenue raising. Putting them in areas signed as known high-accident zones makes people say "well at least they're trying to do something" instead.
I've seen plenty of those "accident blackspot" signs in my travels...haven't actually ever seen a radar trap in those areas though...

[csv8]

Also from Courier Mail July 13. Queensland University of Technology senior law lecturer Alastair MacAdam said the operation of the fixed speed cameras in the tunnel amounted to "straight entrapment".

He said according to the QPS's traffic operational procedures manual, speed detection devices "should not be operated on the downgrade of a hill" or "on a road within 300m of a sign indicating any decrease in the prescribed speed limit".

"Exceptions exist if the road in question has a serious crash history, which I understand the tunnel does not," Mr MacAdam said.

"The cameras in the tunnel would appear not to comply with either of those conditions.
My comment :But they have them on the down grade sections of the Ipswich Motorway thru Annerley and Moorooka..never the upgrade sections.!!! mmmmmmmmm