"Speed Cameras" are about to get better, or worse?

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

I have no idea, but here is a thought for you. Out of all the fatal accidents that I have been to (there have been quite a few), not one involved all vehicles travelling below the speed limit.

In fact my last fatal that I attended was two nights ago and involved two cars drag racing across both lanes and having a head on with another car in a 60 zone. End result, one dead and 3 serious injuries. Previous to that, 18 year old lost it at an estimated 130km/hr in a 60 zone and hit a tree, end result was driver dead and passenger with serious abdominal and head injuries. Need I go on?

As for the 5km/hr idea, there needs to be a line that the law uses. If the law said 5km/hr was ok, people would assume another 5 wouldn't hurt, just as if the law said 10 was ok people would assume another 5 is ok then too.

Bingo:

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Hey, here's a theory that im sure will upset a few: you could probably argue the reason speed cameras havent reduced the road toll is because people keep ignoring them and speeding, the overwhelming evidance is there judging by the amount of people who keep getting caught!!!

It would be interesting to see the road toll if you got every single person to drive under the limit for a whole month.....

[Daymoe]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Bingo:

They should have some sort of GPS system fitted to the car's ECU or something that will speed limit the car to the max speed limit of the road you are travelling on, bingo, lower road toll, no need for cameras and no revenue going to the government!

Everyone wins! (Except the government).

[snappy]

Originally Posted by 90sFTW

They should have some sort of GPS system fitted to the car's ECU or something that will speed limit the car to the max speed limit of the road you are travelling on, bingo, lower road toll, no need for cameras and no revenue going to the government!

Everyone wins! (Except the government).

Until you die because you unable to overtake in time or avoid somthing else. not the answer there

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by 90sFTW

They should have some sort of GPS system fitted to the car's ECU or something that will speed limit the car to the max speed limit of the road you are travelling on, bingo, lower road toll, no need for cameras and no revenue going to the government!

Everyone wins! (Except the government).

I thought the human race was a bit more intelligent than needing such devices to do the right thing. What next, an ipod with a recycling "breathe in, breathe out" recording to remind us all to breathe.

[Daymoe]

Originally Posted by snappy84

Until you die because you unable to overtake in time or avoid somthing else. not the answer there

Doesn't the law state even when overtaking you aren't supposed to exceed the speed limit? If you're all travelling at 100km/h who needs to overtake? Assume the person is going at 80km/h in front you'll be able to overtake by staying on 100km/h right? Just don't be a retard and try overtake when a car is coming toward you.

Originally Posted by geckoGT

I thought the human race was a bit more intelligent than needing such devices to do the right thing. What next, an ipod with a recycling "breathe in, breathe out" recording to remind us all to breathe.

Obviously some of us aren't because how many accidents have you been to that hasn't involved one party speeding? Remember you just stated it before.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by 90sFTW

They should have some sort of GPS system fitted to the car's ECU or something that will speed limit the car to the max speed limit of the road you are travelling on, bingo, lower road toll, no need for cameras and no revenue going to the government!

Everyone wins! (Except the government).

We could just wheel clamp everyone too. Still, seems an over-reaction.

[balthazarr]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

...
In fact my last fatal that I attended was two nights ago and involved two cars drag racing across both lanes and having a head on with another car in a 60 zone. End result, one dead and 3 serious injuries. Previous to that, 18 year old lost it at an estimated 130km/hr in a 60 zone and hit a tree, end result was driver dead and passenger with serious abdominal and head injuries. Need I go on?

There's a bit of a difference between someone getting done for, let's say, 106 in a 100 zone, and travelling at 130 in a 60 zone.

If there was a police car patrolling the above areas, would the cars be drag racing? Likely not. If there had been a speed camera in the area - so what?

The fixed cameras don't prevent this sort of (stupid) behaviour. And, I'd argue, the same applies for the mobile cameras.

As for the 5km/hr idea, there needs to be a line that the law uses. If the law said 5km/hr was ok, people would assume another 5 wouldn't hurt, just as if the law said 10 was ok people would assume another 5 is ok then too.

Yes, there needs to be a line. The law does not say that even 0.5km/h over is okay... but they allow a tolerance to account for the inherent tolerance of the detection device, human error, etc.

My argument is the tolerance is too low, and is set at a level that I consider favours revenue raising, over any supposed safety benefits.

IMHO far too much emphasis is placed on "speeding" and far too little on actually teaching people to drive before giving them a licence. It's far too easy to get a licence, and too easy to keep one.

The TAC have ads about 'wiping off 5' and drink driving - where are the ads about other stupid and, I'd argue, far more dangerous behaviour than doing 4km/h over the limit - tailgating, changing lanes without checking your blind spot or indicating, etc.?

[snappy]

Doesn't the law state even when overtaking you aren't supposed to exceed the speed limit? If you're all travelling at 100km/h who needs to overtake? Assume the person is going at 80km/h in front you'll be able to overtake by staying on 100km/h right? Just don't be a retard and try overtake when a car is coming toward you.

what happends if you are a retard . Or maybe you did not notice the car

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by Geez Louise

Don't Speed...don't get caught! Simple really! If you speed..cop the fine and be done with it...no use cryin..do the crime..pay the fine!

While it is simple and at least the tolerances are reasonable in NSW, speed cameras error. Speedos error. You can get pinged (particularly in Vic) when your speedo reads that you are on the correct speed limit.

While I should have done it long ago, I took my 14000km newish car out today with the GPS to judge what sort of error my speedo has. 60kph on my GPS read 63 on my speedo. If I'm pinged fairly then I'll cop it sweet. Had the speedo read 60 when I was doing 63, it would be a fine trap if I were to drive it in Vic. The ADR specifies a 10% error, so should the law makers.

[Daymoe]

Originally Posted by snappy84

what happends if you are a retard . Or maybe you did not notice the car

Then you should have looked properly, or slow down and go back behind the other car you were overtaking (Assuming he doesn't brake and keeps going).

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by fmc351

Its been over and over and over in these forums a thousand times.

The speedo is not permitted to read lower, that is the speedo can read say 98 when doing 93, but not 98 when doing 103.

In simpler terms, speedos must exaggerate speed, not underestimate them.

Must does not equate to does. My BA XR8 speedo according to my GPS read lower than my actual speed. 2kph at 100. Stock rims and tyres at 36psi.

[fmc351]

ADR 18/06 for those who care to look... http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache...n&ct=clnk&cd=1



Id be checking the GPS, or look for something effecting the speedo.

[Daymoe]

Originally Posted by fmc351

Should have kept reading the thread. The ADR does no such thing. Google ADR 18/06, go to s5.3 and ye shall find it for yourself.

Or use this link if you prefer... http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache...n&ct=clnk&cd=1

The ADR specifies an error tolerance, but forbids underestimation. That is, factory speedos can only exaggerate speeds.

Id be checking the GPS, or look for something effecting the speedo.

Why not make them 100% accurate and that's the end of that?

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by 90sFTW

Why not make them 100% accurate and that's the end of that?

Umm, possibly because absolute perfection is impossible in measuring devices. Note, I said absolute perfection.

However, the added cost of even a more accurate device will not be something youd want to pay for. As long as they dont read under, I dont see the problem with speedo errors. You get what you pay for.

What brand tension wrench do you own? Most people dont want to fork out $800 for a tension wrench, instead they buy the $60 jobbie from Bursons or whatever.

[Daymoe]

Originally Posted by fmc351

Umm, possibly because absolute perfection is impossible in measuring devices. Note, I said absolute perfection.

However, the added cost of even a more accurate device will not be something youd want to pay for. As long as they dont read under, I dont see the problem with speedo errors. You get what you pay for.

What brand tension wrench do you own? Most people dont want to fork out $800 for a tension wrench, instead they buy the $60 jobbie from Bursons or whatever.

Well not absolute perfection, but say a tiny bit out, probably another $500 or something (added onto RRP of each car) to improve on what they have at the moment.

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

I thought the human race was a bit more intelligent ...............

So did I but then I read this thread

Originally Posted by geckoGT

In fact my last fatal that I attended was two nights ago and involved two cars drag racing across both lanes and having a head on with another car in a 60 zone. End result, one dead and 3 serious injuries. Previous to that, 18 year old lost it at an estimated 130km/hr in a 60 zone and hit a tree, end result was driver dead and passenger with serious abdominal and head injuries. Need I go on..........?

130 in a 60 ...... yep that would do it. Thought everyone was on about doing 65 in a 60 zone ..... I think there may be a difference in attitude/arguement there ..........

Bloody hell ...... cant help myself! :



| [/url] |

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by 90sFTW

Well not absolute perfection, but say a tiny bit out, probably another $500 or something to improve on what they have at the moment.

Id hesitate a guess, the setup required to manufacture average speedos, and highly accurate ones are vastly different. The difference would be more like, Ford v Mercedes. You get what you pay for. Have you priced a new manufacturers speedo as they are now? I havent, but I doubt its cheap.


It seems to me you misunderstand the concept, the speedo on say one 2007 Magna, will read differently to another 07 Magna etc. The speedo doesnt have to read over, it just cant read under. The process to make speedos at affordable prices given the car they are designed for, results in variations in output. The ADR specifies a range they must fall within, while stating the upper limit is actual speed.

[geckoGT]

There's a bit of a difference between someone getting done for, let's say, 106 in a 100 zone, and travelling at 130 in a 60 zone.

It was just an example, from memory, of the conditions of the last two fatal accidents I have attended. If I went back further I could have recalled the accident that resulted in a paraplegic, vehicle into an armco barrier at "just above highway speed". Police on scene agreed that he was not way over, as did witnesses that said he was passing on the right lane but not at a crazy speed. My point was and still is that I have not been to a fatal that all vehicles were below the speed limit, the degree that they are over is irrelevant.

If there was a police car patrolling the above areas, would the cars be drag racing? Likely not. If there had been a speed camera in the area - so what?

It would help in the case of the drag racing cars as then the police would know the identity of the third car, it left the scene without stopping. I am not sure if the police have identified it but I doubt it.

The fixed cameras don't prevent this sort of (stupid) behaviour. And, I'd argue, the same applies for the mobile cameras

Agreed completely as can be seen in my earlier post

I have always been against speed cameras as they have negated the need for extra police in order tocatch speeders. A cop is better than a camera every time as the cop with a radar can also handle unsafe driving, defective vehicles and respond to other crimes if required, a camera can't.

My argument is the tolerance is too low, and is set at a level that I consider favours revenue raising, over any supposed safety benefits.

How so, their tolerance is adequate for variations in their equipment, not variations in driver intentions or attention. The point of a speed limit is to give a clearly defined speed limit for an area that is safe in most conditions. If a motorist decides to travel at 100km/h in a 100 zone and take the risk they may nudge over going down a hill or have an inaccurate speedo, too bad because the law is the law. In terms of tolerances affecting revenue, the reduction of the offence by 3km/h actually can only reduce the revenue. For example, a motorist is travelling at 112 in a 100 zone, 12km over the limit equates to a larger fine than 9km over.

IMHO far too much emphasis is placed on "speeding" and far too little on actually teaching people to drive before giving them a licence. It's far too easy to get a licence, and too easy to keep one.

I agree completely, so many of the accidents I go to could be avoided if people were more aware of defensive driving techniques. Defensive driving courses should be mandatory for every motorist and it should also be compulsory to do a refresher course every 10 yrs. If I had to estimate the single largest cause of accidents that I have attended, it would be driver inattention, 3 time more than speeding.

In fact, the vast majority of all accidents that I go to occur at below the speed limit (in heavy traffic) but all the fatals have involved excessive speed, end of story. In reference to what level of speed over the limit is ok in consideration of the likelihood of fatalities, irrelevant. Laws are not designed about what speed is likely to kill, just what is appropriate for the conditions and allow the average driver to have enough ability to react to a sitation and maintain control of a car.

Consider it this way, a car hitting a barrier at 110 in a 100 zone may not kill the occupants, a motorcycle may be a different story. So do we have different limits for different vehicles because although in one type that speed won't kill you but in another it will?

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by auslandau

So did I but then I read this thread



130 in a 60 ...... yep that would do it. Thought everyone was on about doing 65 in a 60 zone ..... I think there may be a difference in attitude/arguement there ..........

Bloody hell ...... cant help myself! :

Fair enough but a motorcycle into brick fence at 65km/hr in a 60 zone will probably result in death, as will a car into a large tree at 101km/h in a 100 zone. My point is still the likelihood of death at 5km/hr over the limit is irrelevant.

It seems to me you misunderstand the concept, the speedo on say one 2007 Magna, will read differently to another 07 Magna etc. The speedo doesnt have to read over, it just cant read under. The process to make speedos at affordable prices given the car they are designed for, results in variations in output. The ADR specifies a range they must fall within, while stating the upper limit is actual speed.

The manufacturers are not required to manufacture speedos that allow you to accurately run right on the speed limit, just to indicate when you are over the limit or when you are way under and therefore hindering traffic flow.

Anyway, that is enough of my view on this. Before trying to pick faults in what I have said, consider this. I proabably deal with the results of traffic accidents more often than 99.999% of forum members, probably more than the police officers here because there are generally more cops on the road than paramedics and many accidents do not have police attendance (based on my observations in the Brisbane area, can't speak for other states), I would personally average half a dozen accidents in a run of 4 shifts. Therefore I probably have a vague idea of what cases death in motor vehicle accidents.

[Darkr]

Originally Posted by PFdesign

At least it's not illegal to drive with a balaclava on yet!

My mate had his house raided becasue they thought he was a terrorist when he did this on the way to a costume party....

Someone called the police as they felt 'threatened'... sigh.

Edit: Just to add to the speeding debate, yes I agree if you get caught, wear it don't argue with the police, they are doing the job, you are in the wrong, deal with it.

But on the other hand, the way speed is delt with in this country is rediculous, it's a crime only second to murder though realistic statistics show that it is no where near as bad as a cause of accidents as lack of driver skill and concentration. It's really really really over played.

The national party (?I think?) in the recent WA election's promise wanted to abolish speed camera's due to speed being such a low cause of accedent, citing an unrealeased police document. But noooo that would lose them too much money!

Cars get safer, speed limits come down. : More idiots?

[woteva]

Not many of you seem to realise that these cameras are intended to snap ALL motorists, not just those over the limit.

[balthazarr]

Originally Posted by woteva

Not many of you seem to realise that these cameras are intended to snap ALL motorists, not just those over the limit.

Actually, they're not snapping at all, but rather providing real-time video feed. As I said in an earlier post, it's a slippery slope... people take privacy for granted and make very little complaint when it's gradually stripped away.

It may be an extreme example, but look at Europe pre-WWII. The Nazis used nationality info from government census data to target 'criminals' for their work and extermination camps.

The amount of data available for each person today is far, far greater. Your spending habits, movements, even your telephone conversations (just look at the recent US wire tapping) - all this data and more is out there.

[needaXYGT]

Actually, they're not snapping at all, but rather providing real-time video feed. As I said in an earlier post, it's a slippery slope... people take privacy for granted and make very little complaint when it's gradually stripped away.

I'm not sure how as a society, we've allowed things to get this far down the slippery slope towards mass surveillance. Who amongst us here asked for speed camera's or the insideous spread of CCTV? I bet no-one did. We seem to be sleep walking into an age of increased surveillance and we're allowing the pollies and the bureucrats to get away with it.

Don't Speed...don't get caught! Simple really! If you speed..cop the fine and be done with it...no use cryin..do the crime..pay the fine!

I find this sort of attitude the most frustrating of all. Pathetic actually. Not one politician has come up with an original idea in twenty years regards road safety. Not one. It's too easy for them (and the senior traffic cops) to keep chanting the words 'speed' and 'drink driving'. This attitude of just paying the fine regardless, constantly let's them off the hook. When I get a speed camera fine in the mail, two words spring to mind. The first one is 'rip' and the second one is 'off'. Big time. Road safety message? None.
Our state politicians might clasp their hand to their chest and cross their heart and hope to die honestly believing, or at least hoping they can pull off that impression whilst trying to keep a straight face, that it's all about protecting ourselves from ourselves in the name of road safety. But it's not.
Every year in the budget papers, and I mean every year, there's always an increase in the revenue expected to be raked in from speed camera's and traffic fines. We've been asleep at the wheel.

[tex]

To the pillars of society, those that keep humanity from unravelling through their advocacy of the so called voluntary tax support - known as speed limit adherence - rather than the notion of driving appropriately and comensorate to the prevailing conditions, I take my hat off to you all.


Especially to your unblemished driving records.
You're all my heros.

Lets not get hung up on the audacity of this revinue pool, lets just put all those sub 10 kmph infringers into the death on wheels category where they belong.

And to all those (incl me) that contribute from time to time to this voluntary tax scheme - may you all be hung from the highest gantry available. Antisocialists you are.

[MITCHAY]

Originally Posted by tex

To the pillars of society, those that keep humanity from unravelling through their advocacy of the so called voluntary tax support - known as speed limit adherence - rather than the notion of driving appropriately and comensorate to the prevailing conditions, I take my hat off to you all.


Especially to your unblemished driving records.
You're all my heros.

Lets not get hung up on the audacity of this revinue pool, lets just put all those sub 10 kmph infringers into the death on wheels category where they belong.

And to all those (incl me) that contribute from time to time to this voluntary tax scheme - may you all be hung from the highest gantry available. Antisocialists you are.

X 100

[Daymoe]

Originally Posted by tex

To the pillars of society, those that keep humanity from unravelling through their advocacy of the so called voluntary tax support - known as speed limit adherence - rather than the notion of driving appropriately and comensorate to the prevailing conditions, I take my hat off to you all.


Especially to your unblemished driving records.
You're all my heros.

Lets not get hung up on the audacity of this revinue pool, lets just put all those sub 10 kmph infringers into the death on wheels category where they belong.

And to all those (incl me) that contribute from time to time to this voluntary tax scheme - may you all be hung from the highest gantry available. Antisocialists you are.

Did you ace year 12 English?

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by tex

To the pillars of society, those that keep humanity from unravelling through their advocacy of the so called voluntary tax support - known as speed limit adherence - rather than the notion of driving appropriately and comensorate to the prevailing conditions, I take my hat off to you all.


Especially to your unblemished driving records.
You're all my heros.

Lets not get hung up on the audacity of this revinue pool, lets just put all those sub 10 kmph infringers into the death on wheels category where they belong.

And to all those (incl me) that contribute from time to time to this voluntary tax scheme - may you all be hung from the highest gantry available. Antisocialists you are.

Ive got to say i find rants like yours rather amusing..
You speak of 2 separate issues, yet you confuse both as being one and the same.
The validity and merit of speed camera's is one topic, all on its own, the ability (or lack there of) for people to obey posted speed limits and avoid being penalised is another, yet you (and many others) seem to lump them together?
Its a bit like walking into and banging your head on a wall and complaining about where the wall was placed as well as the pain said banging caused, then continuing to keep banging into the same wall over and over again, because you don't believe the wall should be there......

[tex]

Glad I can be of some amusement to you 4v man, better that, than be of annoyance I suppose.

Must say, a lot of your posts amuse the the hell out of me to.

I look forward to continuing an apparent two way happiness we bestow upon one another.

Tex

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by tex

To the pillars of society, those that keep humanity from unravelling through their advocacy of the so called voluntary tax support - known as speed limit adherence - rather than the notion of driving appropriately and comensorate to the prevailing conditions, I take my hat off to you all.

Especially to your unblemished driving records.
You're all my heros.

Noone claimed to be unblemished. I admit my mistakes, pay the price, and move on. The alternative is to find nonsense excuses for ineptitude and whinge about getting caught, much like the stuff youve typed below.

Originally Posted by tex

Lets not get hung up on the audacity of this revinue pool, lets just put all those sub 10 kmph infringers into the death on wheels category where they belong.

Not speeding not speeding not speeding / speeding.

You see the line, thats the point where the fine kicks in. Its bloody simple.
Noone said youre death on wheels for <10km, otherwise licence cancellation would be the call, or jail. If you've stuffed up, you pay the fine and move on.

Originally Posted by tex

And to all those (incl me) that contribute from time to time to this voluntary tax scheme - may you all be hung from the highest gantry available. Antisocialists you are.

No, just suck up the fine and stop crying about it like a sook. Noone likes being fined, others just accept they themselves are to blame for the event.

Originally Posted by needaXYGT

I find this sort of attitude the most frustrating of all. Pathetic actually. Not one politician has come up with an original idea in twenty years regards road safety. Not one. It's too easy for them (and the senior traffic cops) to keep chanting the words 'speed' and 'drink driving'. This attitude of just paying the fine regardless, constantly let's them off the hook. When I get a speed camera fine in the mail, two words spring to mind. The first one is 'rip' and the second one is 'off'. Big time. Road safety message? None.
Our state politicians might clasp their hand to their chest and cross their heart and hope to die honestly believing, or at least hoping they can pull off that impression whilst trying to keep a straight face, that it's all about protecting ourselves from ourselves in the name of road safety. But it's not.
Every year in the budget papers, and I mean every year, there's always an increase in the revenue expected to be raked in from speed camera's and traffic fines. We've been asleep at the wheel.

Except thats not what she said. Read 4v mans post above, it covers it.

The fine exists, if you were speeding, pay the fine, thats what she said. It couldnt be simpler than the English its written in.



The first words that should pop into your head on opening a fine, "that was dumb".

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Ive got to say i find rants like yours rather amusing..
You speak of 2 separate issues, yet you confuse both as being one and the same.
The validity and merit of speed camera's is one topic, all on its own, the ability (or lack there of) for people to obey posted speed limits and avoid being penalised is another, yet you (and many others) seem to lump them together?
Its a bit like walking into and banging your head on a wall and complaining about where the wall was placed as well as the pain said banging caused, then continuing to keep banging into the same wall over and over again, because you don't believe the wall should be there......

You mean the wall should be there?