Smile, you’re on candid revenue-raising camera

Tell It Like It Is says:

06:36am | 07/02/11

No, I haven’t noticed that around where I live. More’s the pity, as motorcyclists or cars which have been altered to make as much noise as possible with impunity speed up and down the street at any time of day or night. (Their speedy makes their already noisy vehicles noisier). But with the grossly indolent, irresponsible, slack RTA, that is the cross the community just has to bear.  In fact, the only thing the RTA seems to have done over the past few years is establish more and more not only free but UNLIMITED parking spaces for motorcyclists. That is, free garaging 24/7 in public spaces. Grossly discriminatory. I can only imagine that everyone who works (and I use that term VERY advisedly) for the RTA rides a noisy motorcycle which many older people, families cannot or would not do.

mary says:

07:58am | 07/02/11

Bad drivers, bad roads, bad situations, bad vehicles all can get you killed. Speed just gets people killed quicker.

Tim says:

08:14am | 07/02/11

No it’s not speed that kills, it’s the quick stop.

Justin says:

09:08am | 07/02/11

One of these days, all those motorcyclists with their oh so loud vehicles are gonna get organised and take in their cars for the day and you will soon see why incentives are given for them to ride. An extra few thousand cars on the road causing complete and utter traffic chaos.
Most of the motorcyclists I know who spend money on their exhausts for one reason, cause they get sick of idiots like you who are too busy watching the speedo while they change lanes leaving them to defend their lives against 2 ton of stupidity. Meanwhile, you’re completely oblivious to the guy you just almost killed and will tell everyone what a safe driver you are because you’ve never been fined.

ibast says:

09:27am | 07/02/11

Had one flash as I went through this morning.  It will be interesting to see what happens, because I checked me speed entering and after the flash, and it was pretty right.  If I get booked it will have to be something like 1km/h over.

Gregg says:

10:32am | 07/02/11

What’s with the k Erick or you just add that in for the KMH article?

But all that noise, traffic, cameras, hoons etc.
Sure makes getting out to the country to live all that much better and it’ll do a world of good for overcrowding and decentralisation folks if you follow but maybe we do not need to be more crowded out here.

But as to infrastructure generally, governments do not like higher taxes though I do not think local government has ever heard the phrase when it comes to rates and then then they are no different when it comes to fat cats for where money is spent and to being able to get value for money.
Seriously, I reckon you could have a Biggest Losers show for bureacrats alone.

Brad of Bentleigh says:

11:48am | 07/02/11

+1 for the exhaust noise on motorcycles. Making ones bike as loud as [legally] possible is a safety thing.
Car drivers often have trouble seeing bikes (despite the lights on, despite driving in signt of teir mirrors etc), and so adding some noise to the equation, absolutely helps in keeping riders safe.

The small amount of power increase one gets by having a modified exhaust… that too is welcome

Syl says:

01:01pm | 07/02/11

Tell it like it is

I am a motorcycle rider and ride to work in the CBD every day.  I do this because of the free parking available and running costs, I sure as hell dont do it for comfort or safety.  If every motorcycle rider suddenly decided to drive into town the ensuing traffic would be chaos, hence the incentives such as the earlier mentioned free parking.

I also have had my exhaust replaced with a louder one.  This is not to annoy people or to look cool.  This is because I am sick of nearly being killed 2-3 times a week by oblivious drivers who decide it is not necessary to check next to them before changing lanes, especially when slowing down for lights.  If they are unwilling to look for me Id at least have them hear me coming.  You may find this choice annoying and unnecessary, but Id rather annoy a few people and be alive than stay quiet and end up dead.

KH says:

09:29am | 07/02/11

From what I read recently, Baillieu has actually turned on more cameras…....all governments use them for revenue raising…...

Brad of Bentleigh says:

11:45am | 07/02/11

No KH, he’s been in for all of 5 minutes. A lot have come online recently, these were part of an expansion by Brumby et al.

Red Ted is workshopping the idea that they have in NSW (which wasn’t altruistic, but merely toi comply with NSW law) where they signpost all speed cameras, and (unlike NSW, but like the UK) paint them dayglo yellow.

So it seems though, that we’re all in agreement that they’re for revenue, and not safety. The safety argument can only hold water if you signpost them in advance… this will slow people down. Catching them in the act, “might” slow them down next time (if they remember), but by then, it’s too late, they’ve already been driving too fast. Horse bolted as it were…

braunman says:

10:09am | 08/02/11

@Brad of Bentleigh,

At the risk of sounding like a smartarse, all speed cameras already have warning signs connected with them. They’re called speed limits.

PaulB says:

06:42am | 07/02/11

You have no understanding whatsoever of what this is about do you John.  Just for starters, most states have shortened the margin between proscribed limit and detected speed.  In Victoria its less than the accepted design standard for speedo error.  This has NOTHING to do with questions of safety or “legality”, and never has.

Tell It Like It Is says:

06:43am | 07/02/11

I could not agree more.  I am continually baffled by this ongoing discussion about speed cameras.  To me it is incredibly easy. I never exceed the speed limit as I realise that they exist for the safety of everyone.  And they’re meant for every driver. It is not intended that those drivers whose appointments or deadlines or anything else in their pathetic lives are exempt from speeding restrictions. It’s really a no brainer, as they say.  Don’t speed and then it wouldn’t matter whether there were a speed camera every block. You shake the dice, you pay the price. Get it!

Tell It Like It Is says:

07:13am | 07/02/11

I get the feeling, Paul, you might be one of those people who are too important and/or too busy for any speed restrictions. You might be one of those “car enthusiasts” too. But this topic seems double -pronged at least. There is the philosophic one about revenue raising. Should this be occurring? Why not? Speeding is breaking the law so would you prefer a fine or a jail sentence… or what? Another issue is is whether this very pernicious state government spends the revenue wisely and for the benefit of the community and road safety….well, what do you expect?  But that doesn’t mean that speeding cameras and fines are wrong. Just the NSW state government.

Shane says:

03:12pm | 07/02/11

Well said John!  Call them speed cameras, call them revenue cameras, call them unfair, or whatever other name that makes you feel better.  I applaud them, and believe that they play an important role in reminding drivers of their obligation to stick to the speed limit at all times.

The resulting revenue is a tax on the stupid.  I’m extemely pleased that the government raises revenue in this way to pay for programs that would otherwise come out of my tax dollars.

LC says:

02:11pm | 24/08/11

John, Shane, Tell It Like It Is,

I challenge the three of you to, in a blind test, differetiate from going at the speed limit, and going 2km/h over the limit.

Don’t say that’s it’s ridiculous, [url=“http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/victorias-traffic-speed-tolerance-levels-lowest-in-world/story-e6frf7kx-1225959685714”]
that is exactly how things operate in Victoria.[/url] .

Why would this be? Is it really so dangerous to travel 2km/h over the limit that it warrants a $149 penalty? I would love to see any study which backs that up. Because there is no proof that it is, the only logical conclusion is that it’s for raising money. Three other things support such a theory:
- The way speed cameras are used in Victoria. Cameras hidden in trees, cameras hidden in bins, cameras less than a kilometre after a camera etc etc.
- Rapid changes in speed limits without adequate signage.
- Speed limits being too low, particularly on freeways. A four-lane each way freeway being limited at 80 is NOTHING SHORT of ridiculous, and is only put in place because they want to tempt people to speed. Urban freeway limits in most countries are 120km/h and interstate and regional freeways 140km/h, MINIMUM. Instead, we are still driving with the same limits we had when HQ Holdens ruled the roost, and in several cases, lower limits. It makes no sense, perticluarly when the best saftey feature the HQs had was a collapseable steering colum, and new cars have that and lots, lots more.

With that (and far better driver training than we had in the past) in mind, why are the speed limits going down? There’s no reason for this at all, unless it’s because the legislators think Australians are somehow stupider than people in the rest of the world.

Paul C says:

07:56am | 07/02/11

Jade, you are the reason we need more of these cameras.

TChong says:

08:19am | 07/02/11

Jade, speed cameras are Labor inventions?
Thats why Vics. new Liberal govt has immediately abolished them.
They have , havent they?

James1 says:

08:58am | 07/02/11

Speed cameras are basically a stupidity tax.  People like Jade are the targets of this tax.

KH says:

09:34am | 07/02/11

What?  You are (a) an idiot for speeding all over the place, so suffer if you get any fines, and (b) a fool if you think ‘labor’ governments are responsible for them - I think you will find that not only have they been around for years, they don’t seem to get any lower in numbers when a coalition government is in - there has been no change in Victoria - and Baillieu has gone mysteriously quiet on the whole issue.

Speed cameras have been around for a long time, through governments of all persuasions, and they have not decreased in number under either side, and both sides include the revenue in their budgets.

Jade says:

09:40am | 07/02/11

You know, when I do the speed limit, I spend more time watching my speedo and breaking than I do watching the road, I drive comfortably and safely at the speed I go, I am not driving beyond my level of experience (which causes accidents) and honestly, if I were to come off the road at 100kmph I am going to die, so what difference does the extra 10kmph make??

I have never been caught (touch wood) although have had many close calls, lucky I observe what is ahead and see them before they see me.

kyra says:

09:46am | 07/02/11

@James1. I agree, though what happens when the government ends up with a stupidy surplus, hmmm then again maybe we are already there.

buzz says:

10:18am | 07/02/11

Obviously Jade you are driving beyond your experience if you need to spend more time watching the speedo so as not to speed than the road in order to drive at the speed limit. It may not make a difference to you if you die doing 100 or 110kmh but I’m willing to bet it may make a difference to those you take out as collateral damage. For example, travelling a 100km with a reaction time of 0.5sec it will take you approx 48.2m to stop (variations depending on vehicle) at 110km (same reaction time) it will take 58.4 that ten metres can mean the difference between life and death for someone other than yourself.  That’s on a dry road by the way on a wet road it’s 62.1(100km) and 73.6(110km) It’s not about you it’s about other people on the road.

I was once discussing road safety with a guy i used to work with. he was a car enthusiast and said that during the day when it was raining he didn’t have his lights on because he could see fine. I pointed out that you have your lights on not so you can see better but so that people can see you. He’d said he’d never thought of it like that. It’s not about how safe or how good a driver you are it’s about others.

You may be able to drive safely at 110km but what happens if someone cuts you off or does something stupid and because you are speeding you don’t have time to stop or swerve?

James1 says:

10:44am | 07/02/11

Jade, the difference the extra ten km/h makes is around $176 the first time, apparently.

Kyra, when the government has a stupidity surplus, we all pay (as we are now).

Jade says:

10:56am | 07/02/11

I think some of you have misinterpreted what I wrote…. Labor love the speed camera’s because its easy money.  The more they can trick the public into believing they are making a difference the better, because it makes it seem like they are doing a good job, and justifies the need for more of these contraptions.

How is me receiving a ticket 3-6 weeks later going to deter me from speeding?

@ Buzz, I have to continuously check my speed at 100 because my car drives comfortably at 110.  I spend most of my time breaking to slow back down to the speed limit where as if I drive at 110 and am watching the road the entire time (also watching what other idiots are doing as well to avoid any accidents). 

I will continue to drive where I am comfortable, and if I die… then thats how I am suppose to go.  You will find most accidents are caused from inexperience, being intoxicated, getting distracted and not driving within the conditions on the road.

Richard says:

11:36am | 07/02/11

I support you Jade, I feel exactly the same way.

However after having my license suspended for 6 months due to losing so many points speeding between Brisbane and Toowoomba along the Warrego highway (by roving highway patrol cars travelling the other way and clocking me), I’ve had to really watch my speed since getting back behind the wheel.

And geez its annoying. I mean, what a nanny state we live in. In Germany, its perfectly fine to zoom along at whatever speed you want to on the highway. I am quite capable of safely driving at 130 or 140 km/h, but to keep it below 100km/h is such as waste of time and effort. I just wanna drive, man, just drive and push it and drive. Oh well, this is what life looks like when they take your liberties away one by one I guess.

KH says:

11:57am | 07/02/11

Richard - have you seen the roads in Germany?  The Autobahns are superior roads to the ones we have here, particularly those that link larger cities and towns.  Been on the Calder freeway in Melbourne lately?  A little rain and that road becomes treacherous in parts.

Most importantly, and more pertinently, Europeans actually know how to drive - they don’t change lanes every 2 minutes to gain a total of 3 metres and nearly take out other cars as they go, they don’t just go as fast as possible - they drive to the conditions,  they generally don’t tailgate,  and they know how to use indicators and don’t make sudden moves without warning - sadly, all of the above happen here all the time.  You can’t have a no speed limit road when you have idiots that insist on driving within 1 metre of your rear or suddenly moving in front of you without warning.  Too many idiots with licenses in this country…......

PD says:

12:11pm | 07/02/11

Do any of you have cruise control in your cars, and know how to use it? If so, whingeing that it’s too hard not to speed doesn’t cut it.

And what’s this ‘the fine arrives 6 weeks later’ nonsense? How does that make any difference?

DG says:

12:19pm | 07/02/11

It’s stories like Richards that are supposed to stop you from speeding. It is the threat of a loss of licence for your speeding offences.

Try doubling the number of cameras and halving your points - clearly it would no longer be about revenue. Would you be happier then?

If the answer is no, it seems that your real problem is the risk of being caught doing the wrong thing.

Of course, if you are going to drive illegally - short of shooting you or locking you up - there’s not a great deal that the community can do (police or otherwise) to make you comply with the law.

Paul C says:

03:48pm | 07/02/11

I suspect this Jade is some know it all 21 year old twit, who knows everything there is to know about life. People saying he drives at 110 k over, read his orginal post - it says “120km plus every day” - this guy is a real moron.  He is probably that person you see weaving in and out of traffic doing the right speed.  If he runs off the road and wipes himself out - who cares - lets just hope that no one else is involved.

Trev says:

04:03pm | 07/02/11

@Jade
I recently paid a very hefty fine for turning against a red arrow. Fair cop, I did it. I don’t blame the government, I don’t blame the police, I blame my own stupidity. I’m pleased that governments have these “antisocial behaviour” cameras and long may they stay.

Shifter says:

04:11pm | 07/02/11

@Richard - the lack of German highway speed limits is a partial fairy story. Approx 50% of the autobahnen are subject to local speed limits and conditional limits.

Either way, the only issue I have with speed cameras is the reference to safety. They’re there to raise revenue from people breaking road regulations which is fine by me, tax the idiots, just don’t blow smoke up my ass and tell me they are saving lives.

Jade says:

08:12pm | 07/02/11

@ Paul C…  for starters I am a female (girls spell Jade boys spell Jayde) not 21…actually a little older.  I drive 120km plus in distance every day and only go over the limit on the highways max 10km over the limit.  Know it all twit?? Don’t know about the twit, but I can be a bit of a know it all at times, I am the first to admit it.  Don’t really weave in and out of traffic unless I am stuck behind people doing under the speed limit, mostly just drive in the right hand lane.  See you can speed and do it safely.

@ Richard, I drive the Warrego every day, Hatton Vale to Wacol and back.  Police are always in the normal spots, Haigslea, Marburg, Blacksoil and I rarely (specially since the floods) ever see them on patrol any more.  However I always keep my eyes open

Scott Smoth says:

07:21am | 08/02/11

@ Jade
“mostly just drive in the right hand lane”
Maybe you should read the road rules again. Then say you are a good driver!

Jade says:

02:46pm | 08/02/11

Aaah you see Scott. I am always over taking people (trucks, those that go under the speed limit)... if I were to continuously move from one lane to the other I would be accused of lane hopping.

Martin says:

02:03am | 09/02/11

Jade your right on the money, qld is becoming like victoria full of revenue raising camera’s, they are NEVER placed in black spots, like the one on the sharp angel of the story bridge, unfortunetly the people that love them either love the revenue or buy the scaremongering government propaganda, in germany where the autobanhs have limits way beyond 200km/h and a population three times that of Australia there accident rate is far lower. Anything that diverts your eyes from the road should be outlawed and considering that rear end accidents according to current statistics have risen dramatically over the past 10 years can be directly contributed to the fact that people spend more time now diverting there eyes away from the road to check there speedo is exactly why this has been occuring. speed might kill but people that do not respect the power they have in there hands are the real problems on our roads, and increasing speed camera’s does not work it just helps create a slower more stressful driving experience, even one of europes top road engineers recently said that Australia’s speed limites were contributing to more accidents on certain roads and needs to be raised on many long haul roads. Whilst money is in the mix we will never have a road system that actually flows correctly no matter how many extra roads we build, my question to this is who are the peoploe responsible for designing, setting limits and installing camera’s, these are the individuals who should be placed in the spotlight.

john wright says:

07:11am | 07/02/11

Thanks for the expose, PaulB and Jade. How extraordinary that i never saw those connections. Off you go and toes hard down, Einsteins.

AFR says:

08:12am | 07/02/11

I understand that, but it’s getting to the stage where we are spending more time watching our speedo and looking out for the million speed limit changes along the same stretch of road, than we are actually concentrating on the task at hand - driving.

BK says:

08:16am | 07/02/11

A better way to stop people from speeding would be to raise speed limits.

Katie says:

08:36am | 07/02/11

When you get booked for going 63 rather than 60, but constantly see others driving past you at 70, 80kms or more, you start to see the problem. Actual problem areas where people do speed aren’t being addressed; camera’s are put in ‘fat’ areas - such as the city or the richer suburbs - where the governments and council feel people can spare the cash. They’re also hit with more expensive parking and are more likely to be given parking tickets. If that isn’t just revenue raising, what is?

kyra says:

10:01am | 07/02/11

It’s a speed limit not a target.
Katie, a speed camera would be catching those people doing 70 and 80 and unlike you would have copped a much larger fine and loss of points than you did.  for example in NSW
2010 Penalties for speeding in NSW

Less than 10 km/h over the limit: $84 + one point. (You)
11 to 20 km/h over the limit: $197 + three points.  (those doing 70 to 80)
21 to 30 km/h over the limit: $338 + four points.
31 to 45 km/h over the limit: $647 + five points and three months suspension.
More than 45 km/h over the limit: $1,744 + six points and six months suspension.
I’m not sure what state you are in though so this may not apply

n_dude says:

04:18pm | 07/02/11

You are correct, but there is never 100% compliance with the law. There is a point at which catching someone speeding is really going to deliver good outcomes to the community as opposed to allocating resources to actually lower the road toll like improving roads, better driver education, enforcement of drink driving laws, prosecuting cases. By resources I mean both manpower and dollars. Having a speed camera on an accident blackspot, with warnings may not fill the coffers with cash but will actually deliver better outcomes to the community than having one in a place where it is reasonably safe to go over the speed limit or where the cameras are hidden purely to capture the driver going over the speed limit no matter how much despite the fact they are driving safely. Moreover, how has extra speed cameras helped in lowering Victoria’s road toll? Not much you say?

malohi says:

09:52am | 07/02/11

Best post.

I had the fire in my belly to write a TL;DR manifesto. But as always, Cloud say’s it all. FF7 FTW!.

A Bob says:

10:53am | 07/02/11

Except when the cameras don’t work, as happened on the Western Ring Road and many thousands of refunds had to be issued.

I have no problems with the cameras if they were installed according the manufacturers standards. The radar is meant to get a general idea that someone is speeding, and then the cameras is supposed to take two shots a specific time distance apart. There are meant to markings on the road a fixed distance apart. The two photos showing how far the car has moved in the time interval between snaps is what the manufacturers say should be used to prove the actual speed. It’s pretty fool proof.

But, the government decided to dispense with the cost of the dual snaps, road markings and admin overheads of comparing photo’s and just went with the radar as the sole arbiter. The manufacturers when advised of this have been apalled.

It’s all about the money, safety is the excuse.

Cloud Strife says:

10:58am | 07/02/11

@malohi

Let’s mosey!

malohi says:

11:58am | 07/02/11

@ Cloud;

“No one [gets speeding tickets] because they want to. It’s like this train… nowhere to run except where the rails take it.”

Robbo says:

08:14am | 07/02/11

The same fines should then apply to those who drive at 20 below the speed limit.  If you are unable to drive at the designated speed limit (weather permitting of course) then you should not be on the road, plain and simple.    Why do we no longer see signs stating “Keep left unless overtaking”??  The police should be fining morons that sit in the right hand lane on freeways under the defined limit, they are a huge danger on the roads

DG says:

10:11am | 07/02/11

Robbo - false analogy.

Driving above the speed limit is a crime, driving below it is not. While slow drivers cause irritation, they are legally permitted to drive at that speed.

Persons driving below the speed limit in the left hand lane may be complying with the law especially if they are overtaking a vehicle that is travelling slower. Further, the Road Rules provide for the offence of traveling in the right hand lane of a multi-lane section of road with a speed limit greater than 80kph, unless overtaking. It doesn’t need to be signposted. And it applies to all persons (not just those traveling 20kph below the speed limit)

While I agree that it should be policed - it simply can not be policed as easily as speeding can be.

RobJ says:

12:04pm | 07/02/11

You realise that speedos aren’t accurate and the manufacturers has no obligation to make them accurate, you realsie that those overhead thingys to check your speed aren’t accurate and the Govt says we shouldn’t use them?

Kate says:

01:48pm | 07/02/11

Robbo - I do agree with you with regards to slow drivers. It is incredibly dangerous when someone’s doing 45km/h in a 60 zone - it disrupts the traffic flow and often causes people to change lanes unsafely to avoid them.

It’s hard to tell which is more annoying on a freeway - some hoon gunning it past you at 120 km/h, or some turtle plodding along doing 70km/h in the right lane!

Gerard says:

06:58pm | 08/02/11

“Its not complicated.  If you can’t match a speed sign to your vehicles speed, maybe you shouldn’t be driving.”

Maybe a better approach would be: If you can’t assess the conditions and drive at an appropriate speed you shouldn’t be driving.

Speed limits are unnecessary if licences are provided only to competent drivers who can exercise good judgement. So if (as governments claim) speed limits are necessary, then it follows that licencing schemes are not effective in ensuring that drivers are competent.

Of course governments also claim that the licencing system is about ensuring competence, not making profits. This is one of the most transparent examples of doublethink imaginable. Why does the public continue to tolerate this? Is everyone really that stupid?

LC says:

05:20pm | 24/08/11

So Mr Pod, can you in a blind test tell the difference between your car doing 60 and 62km/h, 70 and 72km/h or better yet, 110 and 112km/h? Because EVERY fixed speed camera in Victoria has a tolerance of 2km/h over the limit, the lowest tolerance in the world.

What’s that? No?

Then by you own standards you should not be on the road.

DG, depending on how slow you travel at, you can be fined for obstructing traffic. Especially on freeways.

LC says:

05:24pm | 24/08/11

Can you put a study or two on the table which state doing 2-3km/h over the posted limit is dangerous? Because guess what, speed cameras in Victoria will book you for doing that much over he limit.

Booking people exceeding the limit by 10-15km/h+ is fine. Booking people for a few ks over is not.

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

rufus says:

10:54am | 07/02/11

‘It’s not the speed that kills but the conditions which are woeful.’ - the excuse of every leadfoot-not my fault, ‘they’ should fix up the roads, be better drivers.

Tubesteak says:

12:33pm | 07/02/11

The lament of every cardigan and socks wearing Camry driver from the suburbs: don’t speed

BrewsterMac says:

01:11pm | 07/02/11

@tubesteak - I’ve no problem with you speeding, its playing your banjo while driving I object to

john says:

02:01pm | 07/02/11

@BrewsterMac Very funny, nice reply. I think you meant something like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ru365xvV0YQ&feature=related

Mirror says:

08:25am | 07/02/11

Don’t Speed.

Stephy says:

12:19pm | 07/02/11

That got a chuckle :D

iansand says:

09:04am | 07/02/11

So what you are saying is that speed is a significant factor in road deaths, but a measure to control speed should not be deployed.

James1 says:

09:44am | 07/02/11

Slow down Joseph.  Your radical plan is clearly going to cause people to arrive at their destinations minutes later than they would otherwise…

Gerard says:

07:53pm | 08/02/11

Fail-safe, no. 100% predictable, yes.

Anyone who’s thought about this for more than about 3 seconds can see where it will end up. However, for the benefit of the slow people:

If drivers stop speeding, fewer fines are issued. If fewer fines are issued, RTA profits are threatened. If RTA profits are threatened, they come up with new schemes to make more profits. The new schemes will involve lower speed limits (30 kmh residential & 90 kmh motorways maybe?), more confusing signage (just to make sure drivers have no idea what the local speed limit is) and more speed cameras. Then all the sheep will jump up and down and demand that the government do something about the ‘hoons’ driving at 95 kmh on the motorway and we will be subjected to even lower speed limits. Eventually it reaches the point where it is far quicker to get out and walk and we’ll all be wondering why the whole world is laughing at us (actually, I’m pretty sure that’s already happening).

DG says:

10:24am | 07/02/11

Andy -

You may well be right, but while speeding drivers continue to contribute to thee death toll they contaminate the data.

If people would stop speeding then it would be clear that the factor in accidents was the quality of the infrastructure - however, while people continue to break the rules we give the authorities an excuse.

If people stopped speeding where who are they going to blame?

Shane says:

12:03pm | 07/02/11

Majid, adults have the ability to manage both.
If you’re not able to manage something as mind-numbingly simple as driving and glancing at your speedo every so often, I suggest you stop driving.

Stephy says:

12:25pm | 07/02/11

Majid, generally seasoned drivers can feel the speed they’re going. I don’t have to look at my speedo often, but every time I do, I’m doing the limit - I can feel I am. More time looking at the road, while doing the speed limit. And not once have I got a ticket.

Or is this just me?

majid says:

09:13pm | 07/02/11

Shane & Stephy, you are both CHAMPS… I am really impressed while I am smiling!!! May be you should apply for a medal from the Police Department…

Markus says:

08:38am | 07/02/11

Irrelevant question.
Fast is not a synonym for irresponsible.

rufus says:

10:50am | 07/02/11

‘Fast is not a synonym for irresponsible’. So, why have speed limits? Is exceeding the speed limit responsible? Are you a better judge of a safe speed than those who set the limits? I suspect you think you are.

Markus says:

01:05pm | 07/02/11

“So, why have speed limits?”
You really need that answered? Because limiting speed is an easier (read: cheaper) way of attempting to lower fatality numbers in crashes that were a result of poor driving ability.

My issue with this approach is that it does nothing to address and reduce the number of incidents, only attempt to make them non-fatal.

My other issue is that these cameras are being installed under the premise that they will help reduce the number of serious road accidents, yet there is no evidence that their existence has had any effect on the number of fatal crashes (in some cases the number of accidents has even increased at the point of the speed camera since its installation).

I suspect you know absolutely nothing about what I think.

Jugg says:

01:37pm | 07/02/11

Markus,

Thanks for endangering the lives of other road users.  Let’s hope one day you learn to be responsible without loss of life or serious injury.

Markus says:

02:16pm | 07/02/11

Jugg,

Thanks for both failing to address either of my points, and suggesting that I have killed/am going to kill someone all within the space of three lines.

Let’s hope that someday you learn to think for yourself.

rufus says:

02:27pm | 07/02/11

Markus - Forget the cameras and let’s think about   speed limits generally. I summarise your approach here as: ‘I know I’m a great driver. Therefore, speed limits shouldn’t apply to me, but to all those other bad drivers, who the authorities are misguidedly trying to save the lives of’.

If I’ve misjudged you, you’ll agree that speed limits are necessary to reduce the road toll, and that there should be some enforcement of them. After all, careless speeding drivers put others at risk, not just themselves.

Now, let’s agree that many cameras are mere revenue-raisers. Choose to avoid being a revenue-provider. Use cruise control to obey speed limits and satellite navigators to warn of fixed speed cameras.

But don’t come up with some spurious argument to diss cameras, hoping that cameras will be removed and you can speed with impunity. Fat chance, anyway.

Problem solved?

Jugg says:

02:56pm | 07/02/11

@ Markus

‘learn to think’...says the irresponsible driver…

Markus says:

03:10pm | 07/02/11

A whole big bag of assumptions you’ve made there rufus, including that I have been a regular contributor to the speed camera revenue.

And of the following two arguments:
- Governments should focus on reducing the number of all road incidents as opposed to just attempting to make the total involve less that are fatal
- A system that was implemented solely on the premise that it would save lives, yet still has no evidence that it has done so (and some to the contrary), is an ineffective system.
Which was the spurious one?

FYI, I’ve actually never received a speeding fine in my life. I just don’t need to be the victim of an ineffective system to point out the fact that it is ineffective.

rufus says:

03:54pm | 07/02/11

Markus, I didn’t make any assumptions about speed limits and your superior attitude about your driving skills. You made that pretty clear yourself.

Actually,  there is plenty of statistical evidence supporting the effectiveness of speed limits in reducing road fatalities and injuries. It’s easy to find. I argue that speed limits are necessary and effective and the evidence supports it - so no ‘assumption’ from me there.

There is even some statistical evidence for the effectiveness of speed cameras in reducing road accidents, especially at ‘black spots’. I do agree however that they’re often about revenue raising.

So your claim of a lack of evidence is a spurious one, and can only be based on an assumption of your own.

Warren says:

09:15am | 07/02/11

Here we go ... another numpty pulling his facts out from where the sun don’t shine.

Performance Mufflers on road going cars? Unless you are racing at Eastern Creek maybe. The twits who install these idiot devices are the same one wrap their WRX’s around lamp posts & trees. F’wits.

Senile Driver says:

09:15am | 07/02/11

Can’t be much of a driver if you can’t overtake a senile pensioner driving at 40kph without going over the speed limit, I’d hand your licence in you don’t have the coordination skills to drive safely.

kyra says:

09:26am | 07/02/11

Actually if the senile pensioner was doing 40km in a 60km zone, you shouldn’t need to break the law to overtake them. If there isn’t enough space or you need to speed past 60 to overtake because of the road or oncomming traffic then it is not safe to overtake, brush up on your road rules, it is illegal to break the speed limit when overtaking.
Of course when you go to overtake some bastards speed up, life sux sometimes.

Tell It Like It Is says:

11:04am | 07/02/11

Thanks, “Warren”, for that technical clarification. No I don’t know anything about performance mufflers, “concerned citizen” (what an odd moniker you use for someone who sounds truly like an “all about me person”.) But I have a great deal of experience with dangerous motorcycle (and car) drivers.  I just believe in following the laws. And there are laws by the way about the amount of noise any vehicle can make but rarely enforced due to the renegade/ slack RTA and the DECC.  As far as road congestion is concerned, I can carry 4 other people in my car whereas you can only accommodate one passenger. And if it’s all about size (and I’m talking engines here, not about any other problem area for attention- seeking over-the-top-noisy vehicle drivers!) then smaller, less polluting cars should also get discounted or free parking. Finally, I do know a thing about physics so I won’t need to go through the exercise of blowing my nose through a straw. (I wonder if you’re one of those guys who always blows it on the footpath.) Further on physics, I’ve nursed enough brain dead patients who were victims of high speed injuries. So many writers here are absolutely correct. Speed DOESN’T -necessarily- kill. Very often it simply seriously damages people who end up virtual vegetables.  Finally, I suspect you wouldn’t get the point regardless of the time between the offense and receiving notification of the fine.

James1 says:

09:48am | 07/02/11

Not at all.  Your unsubstantiated supposition does not make anything redundant.  The simple fact is, as things stand, if you don’t speed, you won’t get fined.

LC says:

08:40pm | 24/08/11

@ James1

When you, in a blind test, can tell the difference between your car doing the limit and doing 2 or 3 kays over the limit come back. Because as far as the government is concerned that qualifies as speeding.

Furthermore, your speedo is legally allowed to be out by -/+10%, (it’s never going to be 100% spot on 100% of the time, tyre inflation levels can affect the readings it gives, for example), but you can still be booked for doing 1% or 2% over the limit? “Speed camera’s aren’t revenue raisers, they’re there to lives” my arse.

fairsfair says:

03:03pm | 07/02/11

it is just a shame that they don’t spend the revenue raised from the camera’s on the roads. I am all for them - the more deterrent there is to speed the better and if you drive around as though you could be fined at any moment and that keeps you on limit, I say great guns.

What really gives me the dirts though is the fact that the roads are so sh*t and this and car rego should mean that we have the best roads in the world. Where does the money go?

Rowdy says:

09:11am | 07/02/11

“No disassemble, Stephanie!!!”

Warren says:

09:03am | 07/02/11

Your car costs $270 per hour? Wow you must be rich.

kyra says:

09:30am | 07/02/11

@Grumpy, I’d say yes, you are the one in charge of the vehicle, btw it’s a speed limit not a target.

John says:

01:32pm | 07/02/11

@Warren, gone are the days the faster your car was- the richer you were.

These days its the faster or bigger your car is- the smaller your penis is.

Grumpy says:

02:07pm | 07/02/11

@ warren, i do alright…lol

@ the Kyra. im pointing out that cars can far exceed speed limits out of the factory. Not everyone is as responsible as you.

Cameras are good fines to get because you only lose one demerit, but if you get pulled over then you lose 3. :’( haha…just pay it and get over it and drive how you want. drunk stoned speeding, whatever. Let them take my car, ill just buy another one. Thats if they can catch me in their lizbef bomodores.

Grumpy says:

02:09pm | 07/02/11

mine must be tiny hey John…

A.K.A. says:

09:53am | 07/02/11

Oh, and “You were bad about 6 weeks ago, here’s a fine, don’t do it again” does nothing to slow speeding drivers down until WAY after the act has been committed.

hermano says:

02:08pm | 07/02/11

So you admit to speeding, then complain that you get booked for speeding.  There’s a disconnect here somewhere.

kyra says:

10:06am | 07/02/11

Facebook like

Syl says:

01:52pm | 07/02/11

I agree with everything up until this point

“Speed cameras are a cheap and effective way to control speeding.”

We seem to be fining more and more people each year.  I have not noticed the amount of speeders on the road decreasing and the numbers seem to support this.  It is not an effective way to control speeding at all.

Grumpy says:

02:13pm | 07/02/11

4 the faster you drive home drunk the quicker you get off the road.

Grumpy says:

02:23pm | 07/02/11

But you shouldn’t of been speeding. You admitted you were speeding, dont make excuses. Its the law, 3kmh or 20kmh, the law is the law.

The Badger says:

05:43pm | 07/02/11

Grumpy
You are right, we should have all been focusing on our speedometers instead of the car in front of us, the side streets and the traffic around us.
The law always needs some discretion Oh Grumpwan kenobi. That is why traffic cops are better than automated police enforcers like speed cameras.
I’m on a country road that has 100 km/h as the speed limit. I’m behind a dill (it might even be you) who is doing 80 km/h towing his caravan because all the grey nomads agree that is the most fuel efficient speed to tow their caravan at and god knows how the grumpy old codgers love to pass shit on and agree on things.
I can’t pass this codger safely until all of a sudden, low a behold a gap opens up on all the caravans coming in the other direction and it is finally safe for me to pass. I pull out and quickly accelerate to 110 km/h in an attempt to get by the codger before some one pops around the corner going in the opposite direction.
As I pull in in front of him and start to slow down, flash goes the camera and all of a sudden I’ve got a speeding ticket.

As Dickens once wrote:
“If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience.”

No cop would ever give you a ticket for doing 63 km/h in a 60 zone in a line of traffic. No cop would
There is more than 3 km/h variance from speedometer to speedometer.
Tomorrow when you wake up Grumpy,
Be sure to take your happy pill.

Ryan says:

10:03am | 07/02/11

@Ben C: I think you will find the local councils have initiated a campaign to get their police officers out there booking the mobile speed camera vans for illegal parking. There is a tiff that has been going on around the revenue and the fact that the local councils don’t get their share of the revenue raising.
http://express-advocate-gosford.whereilive.com.au/news/story/mobile-speed-camera-cars-may-cop-fines/

Jade says:

08:25pm | 07/02/11

@ Ben C… its easy to spot an unmarked police car.  They have extra (normally 2) antenna’s on the back windscreen, are normally lower, tinted windows, always drive with the windows up.  The antenna’s are a give away though.

Ben C says:

08:31am | 08/02/11

@ Jade

Haha, you must be experienced. I have noticed that the windows are a particularly dark tint, where do I get some of that?

@ Ryan

So the law got gazumped by the law. Oh well, that’s what you get for hiring civilians to do a policeman’s job…

James1 says:

09:45am | 07/02/11

Could it be that they are interested in both?  Raising money by fining stupid people is not such a terrible thing, is it?

Ryan says:

10:17am | 07/02/11

@James1:  Stupid people who intend to speed well above the speed limit, well they should be punished but taking money out of peoples pockets for a mistake that can be avoided by a GPS speed limiting device is low and immoral.
Similarly, lives could be saved if these devices are installed because all it would take is for police cars to be fitted with a device that tells the device to stop the car if someone decides to put lives at risk by trying to run from the police. Once again showing that the government is not fair dinkum about putting in place measures to safeguard the public from hoons.

James1 says:

10:46am | 07/02/11

Ryan,

I must say, I like the idea of the speed limiting devices.  How easy would they be to disable, compared to, say, a speed camera?

Ryan says:

02:35pm | 07/02/11

@James1: disabling the device would constitute breaking the law, just the same as removing a number plate and you already have overhead “check stations that can test whether the device is working etc.”. This is hardly an argument against such a device. Also if you are stealing a car and going to run from the cops, you are going to have to spend some time disabling the device before taking off so I guess carjacking is out of the question.

LC says:

06:28pm | 24/08/11

How very totalitarian of you Ryan.

The real serious speeders (hoon drag racers for example) will just get themselves one of these and fall off the map. Yes, it would likely constitute a breach of the law, but we’re talking about a group of people who, wait for it, WILLINGLY BREAK THE LAW. They probably do drive without registration plates, or in unregistered cars. They drive while drunk and probably even while high. They break P-plate laws all over the place, and they most definitely breach the speed limit. They treat other laws like mud so what would make this one so different? The solution is to confiscate and/or crush their cars and imprison recidivist and the most serious offenders. And James1 is right, these are FAR easier to disable than speed cameras. As for the overhead monitoring systems, what are they going to do, the crims would just take the registration plates off.

Meanwhile, those doing the right thing will object to such big brother tactics. Most adults despise being treated like children. Any political party who tries to introduce such a policy will end up in the history books. It allows governments to track the movements of private citizens, and help them to justify the introduction of other Orwellian and draconian measures, such as CCTV monitoring of private citizen’s homes.

But hey, if you feel that YOU cannot trust yourself to not speed, you can always beg the government to limit YOUR speed by GPS.

I love how people who use the “if you got nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about” fallacy. You treat the rights our ancestors paid with blood to win for us with utter contempt. If you wish to live like this, may I suggest a move to North Korea?

Look, I don’t like speed cameras either, but honestly what you want opens several new cans of worms and is WORSE than what we have today. People who wish for it on themselves, OK, but it NOT should be foisted on everyone whether they like it or not. And even then, they should not be government controlled or even government monitored. I’ll admit I see your point on carjacking though

Jade says:

11:02am | 07/02/11

Too true Steve!

Markus says:

10:34am | 07/02/11

“That is why people get fined for doing 106 in a 100 zone, makes a difference in you stopping distance and given the tailgating that occurs on all the major roads I’ve driven on the cameras are justified”

Would it not make more sense to fine people for tailgating then?

Kyra says:

11:48am | 07/02/11

Markus, people do get fined for tailgating, it is illegal. In Victoria
for long vehicles, tailgating is usually punished by an infringement notice, a $220 fine and the loss of one demerit point.

For other vehicles, the punishment is a $145 fine and one penalty point. The law says vehicles that are longer than 7½ metres must keep 60 metres between each other. It simply says a “safe distance” must be kept in other cases.
There are camera’s that do that to, but would need to conduct studies to justify the cost. I’m willing to bet were the camera’s to be installed we would be hearing protests from “Safe” people who tailgate “safely” just like we are hearing protests from people who “safely speed”

LC says:

07:19pm | 24/08/11

The differences in braking distances are from a difference of 30 km/h and 50km/h, not 6km/h. So that does not justify booking people doing 6km/h over the limit on the freeway, let alone 2 or 3. As for pedestrians crossing on the freeway, or even an 80km/h multi-lane highway, they are playing with fire to begin with (especially the former), and you know the old saying, if they keep doing so one day they’ll get “burned”. They have foot bridges and designated crossings for that. The law shouldn’t take over for common sense.

And I’ve never heard of anyone getting fined for tailgating, though I know you can be. Might have something to do with greater dependance on speed cameras rather than a greater police presence…

Justin says:

10:43am | 07/02/11

I can tell you right now that THEYbelieve it. I don’t, not for a second. I ride, but I have a stock exhaust, that is within the noise limits specified by the EPA and is whisper quiet compared to many I’ve heard. When I first started riding I rode a cruiser that did have relatively loud pipes, though not on a scale of those disgusting harley’s with their screaming eagles, and I came to one conclusion, either I get out of the way, or I die. No amount of coloured clothing or noisy exhaust is going to keep me safe from the idiots who truly and honestly believe they are safe drivers and the sole reason they give for believing this is because they’ve never received a speeding fine and thus must never break the law. Yet to watch them drive, they’re completely and totally unaware of their surroundings. Ignorance is bliss I suppose.

Big T says:

10:50am | 07/02/11

Bzzz wrong. I used to ride and got an exhaust so retarded car drivers would stop merging into me. Seemed to help tremendously.  Its not really rocket science.

Troy says:

10:56am | 07/02/11

or alternativley it could just frustrate you, cause fatigue and then an accident. Oh but then you would actually have to use your brain and think what causes collisions besides “speed”.

DG says:

12:02pm | 07/02/11

Troy -

I would suggest that a persons inability to concentrate, their uncontrollable frustrations and issues with fatigue are very good reasons for that person being deprived of the legal entitlement to drive.

The good news is that by refusing the person access to the roads these reckless individuals will be prevented from causing accidents (unless they demonstrate a reckless indifference to the law - in which case they should be locked up for the protection of law abiding citizens).

Gerard says:

08:00pm | 08/02/11

A better statement would be to paint over the cameras so they can’t take pictures. Not only stops the kleptomaniacs from making money, but actually costs them money to remove the paint. Make this a sustained and systematic campaign and maybe they’ll eventually give up.

DG says:

12:04pm | 07/02/11

I agree - if only people were already driving below the limit, the panic and heavy breaking would be completely unnecessary.

Duff says:

02:52pm | 07/02/11

@DG - nice thought, but somehow i can’t see the world changing and everyone driving under the posted limits for the fun of it.  Unless, of course, we legalize marijuana.  That might slow the traffic down a bit.  More fun than speed cameras.

fairsfair says:

03:48pm | 07/02/11

Agreed HPM. The hwy just south of Cairns has been reduced from 100km/hr to 80km/hr because of three fatal accidents in a short period of time. One was due to a heart attack at the wheel and sadly killed all occupants of two seperate vehicles, the second was drunk single vehicle and the third was a suicidal woman who drove into a fully laden semi at 140km/hr. Why the knee jerk reaction in response to three non speed related events? Admittedly there are no cameras installed, but does this not put even more pressure on police to monitor areas that they wouldn’t otherwise really have to. I think the reason is what other people have advised above - they have to be seen to be doing something. It is just a shame that there are idiots out there who profess to be the safest drivers in the world and therefore freely do 120km/hr because they think they have golden balls. They ruin it for the rest of us. They are not better, they are just run of the mill dickhe*ds. Old mate near your place probably professed to be a safe driver at those speeds. fail.

LC says:

02:22pm | 24/08/11

But the real point with low-range speeding what does it actually achieve.

How much lives does booking/pullling over people for doing 2-3km/h over the limit really save? Cite studies please. If it’s not saving any lives, is it really worth using police time/resources policing it?

People doing 10-15km/h over or more? Book them, that’s fine. But what is really achieved by booking people doing 2-3km/h?

Brewstermac says:

05:44pm | 07/02/11

Top comment, Mary wins