Anti-speeding schemes need some acceleration

scubasteve says:

08:06am | 31/07/11

Its the old risk/return equation. If we reduced the speed limit to 8km/h on all roads you might reduce fatalities by 1. But every time we get in our cars we assume a risk and we are happy to wear it in order to get somewhere. As a person who drives a five star car,  doesn’t drink and drive, doesn’t travel on country roads, is over 25yrs old and is non-indiginous - I have virtually no chance of being killed today.

iansand says:

08:20am | 31/07/11

Depends on whether you or a loved one are the one.

Rocksteady says:

10:31am | 31/07/11

1 billion dollars divided by the population of Australia (23 million)  =  $43

So to you the value of 1 person’s life is not worth $43, and the sad thing is that most Australians today agree with you. Think about it.

Condor says:

04:02pm | 31/07/11

People with problems regarding speeding are admitting that the government has failed to provide adequate roads and licensing standards for the use to which they should be put.

We need better roads and better road tests. Quibbling about speeding is an admission of defeat and ineptitude.

stephen says:

04:53pm | 31/07/11

You are assuming that those killed on the roads are in some way culpable ; that those who die accept a part of the risk by driving.
Yet there are many who die and do not drive but walk or ride bicycles who do not accept your risk, but want legislated behaviour - if need be - to lessen their risk.
The ‘Laws of Diminishing Returns’ (and is it a Law, or only a convenient reason to do less ?) feeds into only a majority problem.
For the minority, like myself, it is your inconvenience - however annoying to you - that might save our lives.

LC says:

11:29am | 01/08/11

iansand, that makes little difference.

Whenever you get behind the wheel, you MUST accept that there is a risk that you may not make it home. If you cannot accept that, turn in your license and your keys.

Is it a tragedy? Yes, of course. But would it be any less of a tragedy if you or your family member dies any other way? Would it be less of a tragedy if they were stabbed after an run-in with a thief? Would it be less of a tragedy if they died of a heart attack? I doubt it. It’s easier to come to terms with this if you accept that death is inevitable, and is as much of a part of life as life itself.

Personally, I believe we’ve reached the peak when it comes to dealing with the road toll. Our cars are safer than the ones of 20 years ago by a very long shot, we have a more complete set of road laws than we did 30 years ago, and in some cases, tougher penalties for breaking them than 15 years ago, and the road toll is currently a fraction of what it was in ages past. But there comes a point where, like with all areas in humanity, there is always a chance that mistakes will be made, and unless you plan to ban cars outright (hehe good luck), there will always be a road toll, you cannot stop every single pisshead, hoon or junkie from taking the wheel and killing someone. You cannot legislate against stupidity. Furthermore all the work that’s been done by governments and the automotive industry to yield this result will be partly undone if governments keep this sort of frivolous enforcement up, as it will only cause loss of respect for the law amongst law-abiding drivers. And to repeat myself, if you cannot accept that there will ALWAYS be a chance of you being seriously injured or killed in an accident whenever you take the wheel, the best solution is probably for you to stop driving, and don’t leave your house for good measure (just because you walk everywhere does not mean you are guaranteed to not become a statistic).

But don’t listen to sense and reason, just keep swallowing the propaganda like the rest of the sheep.

(Wish I could wrote more, but I gotta get to back to work)

acotrel says:

03:31pm | 01/08/11

Perhaps ensuring that drivers are competent through advanced training courses, might reduce the road toll?  I wonder if the statistics related to car club members are significantly different to those of the rest of the population?

NigelC says:

10:33am | 31/07/11

Ah, there you go ... I thought that some of the other improvements such as active and passive safety systems in cars including brake distribution control, anti-lock brakes, electronic stability control, ‘passenger safety calls’, better tyre technology, improved roads, better signage, more street-lights and better designed safety barriers had played a significant role but apparently, cameras that are in no way involved with driving a vehicle are largely responsible.  We should put them on building sites too - save all those workplace accidents happening.

Jimbo says:

11:04am | 31/07/11

Do you have any evidence that the reduction in road toll is ‘thanks largely to speed cameras’, keeping in mind that correlation does not equal causation? During that time, roads have improved, as have cars - compare a car today with 6 or more airbags, ABS, stability and traction control, huge improvements in tyre technology etc, to one even 10 or 15 years ago. In one of my infrequent trips down to Victoria, I got a speeding fine in the mail for doing 2km/h over the limit on the Hume Highway. 2. If you or anyone else could explain how doing 112 in a 110 zone on a 4 lane highway with 800 metres visibility was worthy of a $149 fine I would love to hear it. I was on cruise control anyway; the only place my car ever exceeds the set speed on cruise control is at the bottom of a long hill. By all means penalise drivers who are well over the limit, but 2km/h is the width of a speedo needle. Fines such as this do little to convince drivers that they are anything other than a form of revenue raising. That I have never had a crash or any form of infringement notice in NSW or Qld (the two states I have lived in) makes this all the more galling.

Just as an aside, the assertion in the article that speed contributes to 34% is unclear and at odds with research from elsewhere. What is ‘speed’? Is it exceeding the posted limit, or is it driving at an excessive speed for the conditions, as determined by crash investigators? At best this is an extremely subjective measure.

The 2009 Reported Road Casualties Great Britain 2009: Annual Report claimed that “Exceeding the speed limit was reported as a factor in 5 per cent of accidents, but these accidents involved 17 per cent of fatalities. At least one of exceeding the speed limit and travelling too fast for the conditions was reported in 13 per cent of all accidents and these accidents accounted for 27 per cent of all fatalities.” (source: http://www2.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesgbar/rrcgb2009.html)

If you take both ‘exceeding the speed limit’ and ‘travelling too fast for the conditions’ , you still only have 13% of crashes - far lower than the Australian figure. Why are the causes of accidents in Britain so much different to Australia?

The British report also claimed this “Failed to look properly was again the most frequently reported contributory factor and was reported in 38 per cent of all accidents reported to the police in 2009. Four of the five most frequently reported contributory factors involved driver or rider error or reaction. For fatal accidents the most frequently reported contributory factor was loss of control, which was involved in 36 per cent of fatal accidents.”

Hence, why many, myself included, call for more police and less speed cameras. Police can address such forms of dangerous driving, in addition to policing speed, along with having the ability to exercise discretion when issuing fines.

KB says:

11:13am | 31/07/11

No, the road toll has been reduced dramatically (per capita) by seat belt legislation, vastly improved safety features (like airbags and crumple zones) in the vehicles and DUI legislation including the presence of a breath tester in every police car.

Have a crash in a modern Commodore and you are a fighting chance at almost any speed.  Compare this to a crash in a 70’s Kingswood, or even a VL Commodore..

iansand says:

02:00pm | 31/07/11

If the national road toll is 1500, 13% of that figure is 195 deaths.  That is 195 deaths caused by speeding.  I think cheap measures that put some cap on speeding are a good plan.

LC says:

01:53pm | 01/08/11

Iansand, that leaves a good 1305 accidents caused by factors other than speed. Is that any more acceptable to you?

But we shouldn’t worry, because those speed cameras can also catch people failing to obey give way and other road rules, red-light runners, fatigued drivers, drunk/drugged drivers and stop hoons in their tracks, right?

Right?

Oh wait, they can’t.

This is why we want a stronger and preferably visible police prescence on the roads rather than cameras. Not only can they reduce the figure of 195 fatalities because of speed, but they can do something about that whopping 1305 deaths due to other factors as well. Not only that, but if someone goes past a speed camera at 150, the most a speed camera can do is send them a fine a week or so after the event. A police patrol can stand a chance at stopping them and arresting the driver. Which one has more potential to save an innocent life or lives?

iansand says:

02:07pm | 01/08/11

The old “if we can’t fix everything fix nothing” fallacy.  It would be funny if they did not think it was a good argument.  I blame the schools.

LC says:

02:23pm | 01/08/11

No Ian, it’s not “if we can’t fix everything fix nothing”, if we had that attitude we’d have no road rules at all, they all on some level incovenience motorists, and we will NEVER be able to stop every pisshead, hoon or junkie from taking the wheel and killing someone.

It’s a “why just tackle one issue that causes deaths on the road with approach x, when we could tackle that and many others issues that cause deaths on the roads with approach y” attitude.

We believe that our main focus should be on a greater visible police prescence rather than just cameras, the reasons for which I had outlined around 20 minutes ago, and I am not repeating.

If you read our posts properly, you’d understand that. Please try again.

Andrew says:

05:42pm | 01/08/11

Actually, the reduction in road fatalities correlates very well with the rise in consumption of alcopops over the last 20 years.  So I suggest that to further reduce the road toll, we make the consumption of at least 2 vodka cruisers per day mandatory for the highest risk group - that being of the course the 18-25 year old drivers.  Absurd argument, isn’t it?  Unless of course you’ve got statistics showing that the road toll has NOT increased in those regions where speed cameras are not used?  If you’re looking at Qld (the only area I really know much about) that is certainly not true, fatalities have reduced almost uniformly across the entire state, whereas speed cameras were most certainly limited to the South-East for a long long time.  But hmm, alcopops certainly weren’t restricted to the SE

Speaking personally, the stupid speed cameras have almost caused a lot more accidents for me - I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve had to slam on the brakes on an almost empty freeway because some idiot ahead has spotted a speed camera and reduced their speed from 100 (the legal limit) to 70.  Not to mention the blinding flash of light when they actually go off - the first time I saw that it was rather distracting, to say the least.

acotrel says:

04:40am | 02/08/11

Speed cameras are simply a form of ‘negative reinforcement’.  Any animal trainer knows that a better result can be achieved by rewarding, when something is done well!  What good does a fine do when it arrives weeks after the crime?  By that time the circumstances etc. have long been forgotten.  It’s patently obvious that the government is intent on raising revenue with speed cameras.  Any effect on the road toll is merely incidental.  If the government was serious about reducung fatalities, they’d build drag strips for the kids, and teach them how to handle speed responsibly on a race circuit before letting them loose on public roads.

LC says:

10:07am | 01/09/11

Acotrel, the government does not need to build anything for them, they have far better things to spend taxpayer money on.

You’ve seen the cars these people drive. How much money do you think they put into them? They can get together with a few mates, pool thier money together, buy a plot of land in an industrial area build a racetrack and burnout pan themselves.

Lisa says:

10:28am | 31/07/11

@DigiDave: I completely agree. 

On a related note, my biggest gripe are the cars that chug along at 20km/h under the speed limit and then glare at me like I’m a hoon when I overtake them (without speeding).  I don’t want to speed, but I don’t want to dawdle either. 

If anyone out there does this, can you please explain why you would do 50 in a 70 zone?  (Noting that this is in perfect weather and on straight roads with barely any traffic, nowhere near a school zone). 

My general impression is that most people driving under the speed limit (in good weather when there’s no cars in front of them) do so because they:
- Have nowhere in particular to go
- Don’t work - therefore have no deadlines
- Want to be able to put their makeup on/eat/talk on their phone/send an SMS/read a book while they’re driving
- Are looking around at the scenery (and not watching the road)
- Don’t know how to drive: drive through red lights, use an indicator to drive straight ahead etc.
- Are drunk/stoned
- Weren’t paying attention so don’t know what the speed limit is
- All of the above.

Feel free to correct me, but I can’t see any safety benefits in driving 20km/h slower than the speed limit.  All of the above options (aside from having nowhere in particular to go and being unemployed) seem like bigger safety hazards than someone that’s doing 15km/h over the speed limit and paying attention to the road/traffic. 

I’d like to see police doing more to prevent accidents due to stupidity and carelessness - this includes driving unnecessarily slowly.

Rocksteady says:

10:46am | 31/07/11

Completely agree that improved car design has a massive impact which governments seem to think they deserve credit for.
For instance, how many cars had side curtain airbags in 2001 compared to 2011? Most people wouldn’t have heard of them except for luxury car buyers.

iansand says:

07:06pm | 31/07/11

Do you think improved car design was something that the car companies decided to do, or do you think design regulations have something to do with it?

L. says:

08:13am | 01/08/11

“Do you think improved car design was something that the car companies decided to do, or do you think design regulations have something to do with it? “

Nope… The innovations are all car makers ideas. There was no law or regulation which prompted Benz to develop ABS or pretentioning seat belts. Nor was there a law or regulation which prompted BOSCH to develop electronic stability systems. That was all market driven.

Rocksteady says:

12:32pm | 31/07/11

TL;DR - The ability to arbitrarily read 400 small posts but not a long one

Tom says:

12:45pm | 31/07/11

Yes, but all of what you are saying assumes that the speed limits are set reasonably. There have been cases of people dying in parking accidents (IIRC golfer Stuart Appleby’s wife was killed when squeezed between two cars), therefore the logical conclusion of your first point is to reduce the speed limit to zero. As this is clearly implausible, there has to be a tradeoff between safety, maximising the utility of the road to its users and taking into account human psychology.

Research conducted by the US Department of Transport into the effects of raising and lowering speed limits raised a few pertinent points:
“-Lowering speed limits by 5, 10, 15, or 20 mi/h (8, 16, 24, or 26 km/h) at the study sites had a minor effect on vehicle speeds. Posting lower speed limits does not decrease motorist’s speeds.
-Raising speed limits by 5, 10, or 15 mi/h (8, 16, or 25 km/h) at the rural and urban sites had a minor effect on vehicle speeds. In other words, an increase in the posted speed limit did not create a corresponding increase in vehicle speeds.
-The average change in any of the percentile speeds at the experimental sites was less than 1.5 mi/h (2.4 m/h), regardless of whether the speed limit was raised or lowered.
-Raising speed limits in the region of the 85th percentile speed has an extremely beneficial effect on drivers complying with the posted speed limits.
-Lowering speed limits in the 33rd percentile speed (the average percentile that speed were posted in this study) provides a noncompliance rate of approximately 67 percent.
-Lowering speed limits more than 5 mi/h (8 km/h) below the 85th percentile speed of traffic did not reduce accidents.
-The data collected during this study indicate that there are no benefits, either from a safety or operational point of view, from establishing speed limits less than the 85th percentile speed.”

(source: http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html; also see: http://www.ite.org/pdf/spd_limits.PDF)

Hence, it is all very well to say that ‘if you don’t want a fine, don’t speed. But this is overly simplistic - in Australia we have a ridiculous proliferation of speed limits, such that it is often hard to determine what the limits. Additionally, it assumes that the speed limit is reasonable. The main point of the US research was to show that setting limits above or below the 85th percentile level will have little impact on the speed of motorists, and won’t do anything to reduce accidents.

malohi says:

02:47pm | 31/07/11

If you actually read my points, you would know that for now, speed limits are set for the worst drivers in the worst vehicles.
So they do not have to be reasonable, as the reasonable driver would drive a reasonable car with reasonable ability.

Think johnny mc-p-plater with a car full of drunk mates in his automatic vn wagon driving with redbull in hand and stereo at full belt.
As long as it is legal for that level of car, passenger and driver to be on the road, the limits will seem to joe citizen “unreasonable”

But this is neither here nor there, ignorance of the law is no excuse in Aust. If you speed, it is your fault. If you are not observant enough to know the limit, too bad

Lisa says:

03:32pm | 31/07/11

“LOGICAL CONCLUSION = The speed limit must be set for the worst driver in the worst vehicle.”

So then to cater for the worst driver (the drunk bogan that’s not wearing their glasses) in the worst vehicle (a 1980s fixerupper that isn’t registered because it didn’t pass the inspection), the maximum speed limit should be 5km/hour?

LOGICAL CONCLUSION: Ban cars - make everyone walk everywhere.  All the “revenue raising” speed cameras will be gone, you’ll be able to walk faster than you can drive and the road toll will be 0.

Tom says:

04:44pm | 31/07/11

Yes Malohi, and if you read my points, you would realise that research suggests that setting limits above or below the 85th percentile is at odds with research on the matter - as suggested by the point that “Lowering speed limits more than 5 mi/h (8 km/h) below the 85th percentile speed of traffic did not reduce accidents.”

Additionally, your suggestion of lowering speed limits to the standard of the worst driver on the road is nonsensical - “Lowering speed limits in the 33rd percentile speed (the average percentile that speed were posted in this study) provides a noncompliance rate of approximately 67 percent.” and additionally - ” Posting lower speed limits does not decrease motorist’s speeds.”. I would contend that the safe speed for “johnny mc-p-plater with a car full of drunk mates in his automatic vn wagon driving with redbull in hand and stereo at full belt.” is zero. Obviously it is completely nonsensical for the speed limit to be zero for the vast majority of law abiding drivers.

tl;dr: lowering speed limits below the 85th percentile is counter - productive. You cannot lower the speed sufficiently to reduce the collision rate to zero without making the road basically useless as a means of transport.

Chris_D says:

07:49pm | 31/07/11

@malhoi-LOGICAL CONCLUSION=FAIL!

1.  FAIL. 
3.  There is no point 3.  FAIL.
4.  FAIL.  Google “German Autobahn”.  “According to the statistics collected by the International Traffic Safety Data and Analysis Group,[9] there were 2.2 road user fatalities per billion vehicle kilometers on German autobahns in 2008.”
5.  FAIL. We have speed limits for every class of vehicle.
6.  FAIL.  What would be the “one” speed limit?

I could go on, but I think I am just wasting bandwidth.

LC says:

02:15pm | 01/08/11

I think the safe speed for Johnny MC P-plater with four drunk mates in his car, a energy drink in his hand and the stereo at full bore or 10 kays, and Barry McBogan in his barely functioning (let alone roadworthy) 80s or early 90s commodore or falcon on his way back from a drink up at his local that your taxes paid for would be about the same, if not zero. Now lets see how many people would be happy to accept that speed limit on any road. You cannot forget that one of the key elements of a good law is it’s acceptable to the community.

I’d go as far as to argue that people like these two shouldn’t be anywhere near a car.

Bret says:

03:51pm | 01/08/11

Tom,

well done for bringing out the 85th percentile. I would love to see this rule applied to Australian roads and see the effect on fatalaties.
I would also love to see real driver training occur. Driving tests that require you to show your ability to control your vehicle in adverse situations in various conditions rather than reverse park and hill start. I guess then we would have to recalibrate the 85th percentile once we had a driving population that was appropriately trained.

LC` says:

07:31pm | 01/08/11

Dammit, typo:
“I think the safe speed for Johnny MC P-plater with four drunk mates in his car, a energy drink in his hand and the stereo at full bore or 10 kays,”
Should read:
“I think the safe speed for Johnny MC P-plater with four drunk mates in his car, a energy drink in his hand and the stereo at full bore is 0, or at most 10 kays,”

malohi says:

11:41am | 31/07/11

The only people getting speeding fines now are ones who do not respect the law.
The law says the LIMIT of the speed is 60, you are allowed to go less.
If you are so incapable of controlling your vehicle to keep it under a certain speed, you should not be driving.
If you are capable but do not, you are disrespecting the law.

Laws are not made to meet your biased opinions of fairness. You may not know why limits change in certain areas, but they do and there is a reason for it. Ignorance is no excuse.
There is only one person to blame if you get done speeding. Only an infant would blame another.

Diogenes says:

12:22pm | 31/07/11

Malohi,
I defy you, in a blind test to tell me if you are doing 55 60 or 65 kph.

I glance at the needle as part of my sweep of conditions that includes checking left side mirror, front windscreen half left to half right, right mirror, rear mirror and depending on traffic problably keep looking uot the front window more frequently - so I know whats going on around me - which is lowers my chance for a crash - sure the needle may creep a little over - but rather that than not register the idiot about to pull out in front of me from a side street , or the oncoming fool swerving into my lane

malohi says:

02:37pm | 31/07/11

I have never seen anyone receive a ticket for going 5 km/h over.
Speedos are calibrated to a margin of error to he under, so an unmodified car speedo will generally be under anyway. In qld anyway the lowest ticket you will ever see is 10km/h over, if you cannot keep your vehicle within this margin, as i said before you either should not have a licence due to ineptitude or you are recklesy or intentionally breaking the law and should be fined.

If you cannot drive under the limit how about you try to pretend the limit is 5km under and then your outstanding driving skills may be able to stay within the legal limit without having to drain all your attention.

As i said above don’t blame anyone else for your law breaking.

malohi says:

04:17pm | 31/07/11

Lisa, you are clearly oblivious to logic. Why would one consider a drunk not wearing glasses or an unroadworthy unregistred car when designing limits?
All the above are illegal and should not be on the road.

You take my words and fail spectacularly with them.
I intentionally ommitted the points I thought were so self evident that even a monkey would realise, such as motor vehicles being the most efficient and convenient method of travel we have. For better or worse road travel is a necessity of society.

Unfortunately this topic brings out the most ignorant in society. Don’t get me wrong, I completely empathise with the regular intelligent gentry being pissed off at speed limits. But you must realise that your psuedointellectual critique of the road rules only fuels the resolve of the worst drivers and gives them more justification to blame the system rather thabn themselves.

Jimbo says:

05:59pm | 31/07/11

Malohi, as I stated above, I have received a ticket in Victoria for doing 2km/h over on the Hume Highway. I was on cruise control, which I set at 110, and my car’s cruise control is pretty good at keeping a speed, so my guess is that it was at the bottom of a hill. From what I understand the Victorian speed camera tolerance is 1km/h, and it is 3km/h in NSW, although there were recently calls to reduce this to 1.

I would agree that anyone who can’t keep a car within 10km/h of a set speed shouldn’t be on the road, but 1 or 2 km/h tolerance is absurd.

Chris_D says:

08:13pm | 31/07/11

@malhoi; “Unfortunately this topic brings out the most ignorant in society.”
Irony, anyone?

malohi says:

04:59am | 01/08/11

Chris
The autobahn relates to one set of roads, it is a purpose built highway. The germans have speed limits in subirbia. Are you honestly disputing that if there were no speed restrictions the kill count would not skyrocket?

There are not separate speed limits for different types of vehicles and drivers.

The one speed limit is the gazetted speed limit for that stretch of road. Are you serious?

Basic interpretation skills FAIL

malohi says:

05:07am | 01/08/11

I call bs on your 2km ticket. The accuracy of the devices has increased to a greater tolerance recently, however the respective Police services have policies not to issue tickets within certain limits.

If your speedo is off it is your fault, you are responsible for maintainance of your vehicle. If you really think you have a case fight it with a mistake of fact defence.
Again, no one to blame but you. Seriously if everyone stopped blaming the system and start looking in the mirror we might have safer roads and you wouldn’t get tickets

Chris_D says:

08:39am | 01/08/11

@malohi; unfortunately people like you make the most noise, even though you are the one who appears to have no idea about the road rules.
“There are not separate speed limits for different types of vehicles and drivers.”  Umm, yes, there are.  Speed limited trucks is one example.  Do I need to provide others, or can you just accept you are wrong?

“The one speed limit is the gazetted speed limit for that stretch of road.”  Actually, you are wrong again.  A stretch of road may be “gazettted” for a certain speed, but it can have it’s speed limit increased/decreased along that stretch for any number of reasons ie roadworks, closed lane, accident etc.  So, “knowing” the speed limit does not mean it doesnt change, so there is not necessarily"one” speed limit for any “gazetted” stretch of road.

Quite simply, you like to make generalisations, pass them off as “malohi fact”, then criticise those who actually use common sense and have an understanding of roads and traffic.  The only thing I agree with you on is that people like you are the lowest common denominator in road safety, and I drive to suit the sort of dangers your blinkers create.

Jimbo says:

04:04pm | 01/08/11

Malohi, read this: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/victorias-traffic-speed-tolerance-levels-lowest-in-world/story-e6frf7kx-1225959685714.

Victoria has a 2km/h tolerance on fixed speed cameras, and yes, I did get the ticket. Again, this was along the Hume Highway. This has nothing to do with road safety and everything to do with revenue raising. This was the width of a speedo needle on what is surely one of the safest stretches of road in Australia, and as I said, I was on cruise control.

I fail to see how the roads will be made safer if everyone spends half the time checking their speedos to ensure they haven’t crept 2km/h over. Digones defied you to tell in a blind test if you were doing 55, 60 or 65 - I would further defy you to tell if you are doing 60 or 62 - let alone 110 or 112. I don’t have a problem with cameras in NSW which are well signposted, and have some tolerance - if you get caught at one of those, you deserve it. I do have a problem with the hidden cameras in Vic set at ridiculously low tolerance levels, which are pure revenue raisers.

LC says:

08:15pm | 01/08/11

Malohi, I have received a fine for doing 3 kays over.

Can you, in your infinite wisdom, tell me by exactly how much my chances of a fatal accident from traveling at 83 in a 80 zone is? My estimate is around about 0, but that’s just a guess.

You speedo is allowed to be out by +/- 10%, but you can be booked for doing +2%? Does that make sense to you?

Further more, WITHOUT looking at your speedo, can you tell the difference between your car doing 80 and your car doing 83?

Do they save lives by booking people for doing such low speeds? I sincerely doubt it. So the only logical conclusion I have is they are set that way to milk every dollar they can (ie: they are revenue raisers) Unless you can present some hard, reliable evidence that doing 3km/h over the limit in areas posted at 80 or above is HIGHLY dangerous, any attempt to say otherwise is spin, at best.

People doing 90-95 or above? Sure, book them, they deserve it. Whether the road could be limited at a higher speed is certainly debatable, but the law currently says if a zone is limited at 80km/h it does not mean do 90km/h. But to book people doing 1-3km/h over is a waste of time and resources, and only causes anger and resentment towards the law in the eyes of those drivers.

Shifter says:

03:22pm | 01/08/11

@neil - to be honest I wouldn’t care of the respective state governments came out and said that speed cameras were for revenue raising. The speed limits are set, you break the law, you pay a fine. It’s the bullshit misdirection that speed cameras save lives that annoys me.

It’s a pity no govt will have the balls to say this, as it’ll be an unpopular move.

LC says:

06:56pm | 02/08/11

Well, Shifter, I don’t have a problem with the general concept of speed cameras, but rather the way they are used (cough, abused, cough) in Australia, such as the ridiculously low tolerance (I challenge all of those who support this to see if they can tell the difference between their car doing 60 or 63 in a blind test) and the way that governments over the last decade think they are a perfectly acceptable replacement for a visible police presence on the road.

Chris_D says:

07:57pm | 31/07/11

If speed cameras are there to “slow us down to make the roads safer” why do they go to so much trouble hiding them to “catch” us, and the first thing we know about it is about 4 weeks later when we get a fine in the mail?  Hardly effective road traffic control is it?

James1 says:

10:02am | 01/08/11

Because by hiding them, it means you are uncertain as to where they are, and are thus more likely to be effectively coerced into obeying the law, should you require such coercion.

Chris_D says:

06:14pm | 01/08/11

@James1, I’ll assume you are just passing speculation, rather than presenting fact.  Please correct me if I am wrong.

LC says:

07:04pm | 02/08/11

@ Stig,
You know fixed cameras have a set tolerance of 2km/h right? How many of those are for <10% over the speed limit? Does booking people for going as low that really save lives? I’d be interested in hearing any study which supports this.

And for those doing >10% over the limit, wouldn’t a better solution be to have a police car pull them over and stop them straightaway and if applicable, impound the car and arrest the driver, rather than merely issue a fine a 1-3 weeks down the track? Especially the fools who weave through freeway traffic at 50km/h over the limit.

Al says:

09:14am | 01/08/11

If you’re annoyed by someone driving too slowly (20Km below the limit) then take down their plate number and report it to the police, they can be fined and prosecuted for traveling too slow as well. Its called obstructing traffic.
There are also leeways in the traffic laws that ALLOW a motorist to exceed the speed limit temporarily to overtake. Take it to court and you will win if that is the situation.

RyaN says:

11:08am | 01/08/11

@Al: I would but bicycles don’t have number plates!

The Stig says:

05:50pm | 01/08/11

I agree with you 100%.
The technology is there (just ask Germany) to build safe, high speed roads that are integrated so that a motor vehicle can travel from A to B quickly.
Have a look at the mess that is the Pacific Highway. One minute it’s a brand new four lane stretch with a speed limit of 80kph, the next it’s a single lane each way, full of potholes, no hard shouldered twisting piece of dangerous infrastructure with a 100kph limit, except when you arrive at a corner and the recommended speed is 60kph!
But politicians would rather spend money paving malls and putting up signs saying “shared zone.”
How does a pedestrian or cyclist contribute to the cost of maintaining and upgrading roads? They don’t. Increasing costs of labour and resources required to keep the roads usable far outweigh the cost of a few thousand cyclists and pedestrians not driving. By a LONG shot.
Maybe the introduction of a “PED (Pedal & Pedestrian) Tax” would be the answer. After all, Australia can never have too many taxes.

James1 says:

10:03am | 01/08/11

Indeed.  Keep in mind that it is a stupidity tax, and that it does not apply to most of us.

Chirs_D says:

06:18pm | 01/08/11

Sure, that is the simplified version, but it totally circumvents the argument of why we have speed cameras in the first place.  If we all agree it is revenue raising, then so be it, the Pollies/Traffic Cops/save-the-children campaigners should just say that.  End of story. But they don’t.

ibast says:

11:24am | 01/08/11

It’s more you should be able to do a reasonable speed and you should be able to drive to the conditions.  In NSW it’s not unusual to be driving on a road where the limit is 30km/h lower than what the road can be safely traversed.  It’s about this time you will come across a speed camera.

Draconian enforcement would be much more palatable if the limits were set reasonably.

What we’ve seen in NSW is the shutting down of 38 cameras.  The decision on which to shut down was based on the fact these weren’t effective because they weren’t raising much revenue.

An alternative approach would have been to look at the ones that were raising the most revenue and investigating why.  Inclusive in this review would be the question. “Is the limit at that point set too low?”.  Most of the time the answer would come back “Yes”.

ibast says:

01:02pm | 01/08/11

“If those dismantled cameras were generating revenue then they are obviously needed in that area.”

There’s a big gap in your logic.  It should have read, “if the speed limit is appropriate and they are generating revenue . . . .”.

I’ve come to the conclusion that our litigious society is causing the speed limit setters to ere on the slow side.  This produces a cycle where our expectations are lowered and limits need to be lowered further.

Cars are safer than they’ve ever been.  Roads are better, yet 98% of speed limits in NSW are inappropriately low.  We should be doing 140 between here and Canberra for example, but instead we are doing the same 100-110 we did when a lot of HQs were still on the road.

Craig of North Brisbahne says:

01:27pm | 01/08/11

Ah yes.  I’m sure the traffic and safety experts that determine appropriate speed limits aren’t quite as clever and on the pulse of the latest developments as you are, ibast.  Have you considered setting yourself up as a consultant to state government to let them know what the REAL safe speed limits are, and show all those do-gooder PhDs and ‘experts’ and the like the door?

LC says:

07:16pm | 02/08/11

Craig, if the speed limits HERE are appropriate (especially on interstate freeways), then why are the autobarns in Germany limited at 200, but yet they have the one of the lowest road tolls in the world? Shouldn’t they be among the highest?

I’m not saying the Hume should be 200, but there is NO REASON WHATSOEVER, particularly with the passive levels of safety in modern cars, that it couldn’t be 140-150.

Oh and are those experts the same experts who decided after a well publicized major crash on the South Eastern Freeway (I think) to reduce the limit from 110 to 100? Exactly what difference would that make?

Andrew says:

11:52am | 01/08/11

Your probably right Tom, and as i said, i don’t think safety or speed cameras have anything to do with safety either. Instead they are there to catch people speeding and fine them accordingly.

My point remains the same, don’t go over the speed limit and you will never have to worry about these cameras ever again.

Speeding is the process of travelling above the speed limits imposed, do that and you can expect to be fined. Don’t do that and you don’t have to worry about donating any of your hard earned cash to government agencies and can instead spend it as you see fit.

I just think that we should be honest and admit that speed cameras provide no solution to safety but play an enforcement role. So all the arguements about whether they actually contribute to safety or not is meaningless. It is not revenue raising but enforcing road rules. No speeding=no revenue.

Tom says:

12:37pm | 01/08/11

Andrew, I agree with “don’t speed” and would probably slow to ridiculously low speeds to protect my hard earned cash.

The problem comes where people have actually been slowing to the defined limit only for government to sneak in further reductions to cynically protect their revenues.

A further piece of entrapment by government was putting multiple variations to speed limits along a stretch of road when there were no obvious changes to road conditions. Drivers, responsibly keeping their eyes out for traffic hazards, could easily miss a sign and get booked. This was pure bastardry.

Al says:

11:35am | 01/08/11

Just a quick question, are the offences that police are guilty of that you have observed occured while the police car has its light and/or sirens going? If so it is most likely that they ARE permitted under law to do just that.
It is the other road users who must get out of the way when this occurs, and MANY people don’t.
The same rules apply to fire and ambulance personel.

Andrew says:

11:46am | 01/08/11

“The fact that they make so much revenue, after so many years in use, just proves that they do not work in slowing people down.”

It could also point to the intelligence levels of the drivers caught by them.

Chris_D says:

06:29pm | 01/08/11

@Arthur Kew,  you can be booked just as easily and it costs just as much going 5k’s over the limit in a 50km/h zone.  You don’t have to be “flying down the highway at the maximum” (which, by the way, is 100% legal) to accidentally go over the limit.

But I especially like the way it is Australia’s fault, for building a generation of “Me First” kids.

Kricket says:

06:57pm | 01/08/11

What he said!

I used to become infuriated and impatient every day in traffic, until one day I thought “What good is it by being angry?” And I just accept traffic now. I’m much happier.

Also every time someone is going too slow I think “They are probably tourists, looking for a street sign. I will try not to stress them out by beeping my horn or tailgating like an a$$hat.”

People are such a-holes on the road, I don’t see any reason to follow the ignorant pack.

Arthur Kew says:

12:00pm | 04/08/11

Stu says, “But here I am the horrible, evil speeder still alive.”

I would suggest you are the evil speeder LUCKY to be alive.. 10 hours every month ... saving that hour is all about you isn’t it? Not about the family in the car coming the other way, or the child crossing the road after jumping out of the bus…

Nope, your hour is where the importance is at.