Ask the Cop - Speeding on the M7

[ausmaniac]

I received an e-mail recently stating that they intend using time calculations from the entry and exit points on the M7 to calculate the average speed travelled by that vehicle and then issue a fine.

IMHO I wouldn't think this would be acceptable proof in court considering the trials and tribulations that are gone through by police to prove that equipment is properly calibtrateed when questioned in court.

Your thoughts?

[Shounak]

They've been thinking about setting this up for ages.. I think they were testing it on trucks.. Also as a way to make sure they take their rests and things..

But thinking about it, it makes perfect sense.. There's really no way around it.. If you travel 100km (and the limit is 100km/h) in 30 minutes, then how else can you explain it?

I'm sure if you had a genuine excuse though, then the courts would hear it..

[holden#1]

very interesting idea. similar to the safety cams for the truckies on the new england highway etc.

I spose it would stop young blokes trying out high speed cruising in their bmw's and stuff, besides that, its not going to be very effective on your occasional speeder.

I myself would'nt think equipment calibration etc should be too much of an issue... only a percentage of the population would take their fine to court anyhow.

This might be very controversial, but I believe coppers should be able to put invisible speed cameras anywhere, anyplace, anytime. this would initially be thought of as revenue raising, but the long term effect would be less speeding.

We may argue the point of speed limits till the cows come home, but the line has to be drawn somewhere...(i.e there has to be a set limit)

[greenfoam]

The main roads in Australia should all be hot mix and all two lanes in each direction and seperated in the middle, fast lane should be 130 and slow lane should be 110. But instead as soon as you are 200 kms outside a major city we have rough horrible fat stoned roads with holes and bumps all over them, which is even more dangerous than speeding, esp when its raining. The roads around South West Victoria, even some main highways are worse than alot of fire tracks in the forest

[VSTrev]

From what i have heard this timed idea between two cameras is true.

On the F3 (Sydney to Newcastle) they have installed 2 cameras at Mt White 800m apart (I measured it). They are North bound in the 90 section just before it goes back to 110. This 90 section is soon to become variable speed limit too.

Anyway, i have also heard that cars will be timed between the two cameras to determine if they are speeding.

On the whole speed camera/revenue raiser issue i strongly believe that all speed cameras should be banned. In fact lets not stop there, lets have some common sence speed limits out there.

I am about to have my licence suspended for 3 months for speeding so perhaps you shouldn't listen to me anyway.

[Demons1964]

We've already got the timed units here in Victoria on the Hume. I think it's a great idea. Instead of catching someone who has a momentary lapse of concentration and nudges 105km/h in a 100km/h zone as they pass a stationary camera, this method targets the drivers who speed for continuous periods of time. These are the exactly the sort of people that need to change their driving habits.

[Tasmaniak]

I completly agree with Demons here. It's not going to catch the 105ers it going to knock the 120+ers off of their perch.

[sts71]

I agree with 12volt agreeing with Demon,

so many times as I drive both the M5 and M7 six days a week I see so many people sorry guys but esp P-Platers, take their chances with speeding.

Sure theres is better safer cars on the roads now with better gripping tyre technology brakes and handling and suspension, it only takes a momentary distraction to take a fun ride to total disaster.
The comment about the occassional lapse and nudging a speed camera I admit to have on occassion done that to get around someone doing something stupid like driving all over the road or doing 50 in a 110 zone. But anyway, sure there is a lot of revenue raising going on but seriously do you really want to be driving on roads that are not policed in some way?

Steve

[helly]

Yeah it exists already in every state with regards to Heavy Vehicles Only, and there are a lot of ways around it which most truckies have figured out over the years.

At the moment it is enforced in regards to fatigue management and not direclty related to speed. The hardware and software is capable and always has been in identifying averahe speeds which is by far a better indicator of a speeder than me standing with a lidar/radar on the side of the road and nabbing someone for a short burst of adrenaline.

There is no real issue in regards to calibration as it is simple mathematics which relies on the difference between the time you pass one camera until the time you pass another. And unless we are talking distances of less than 50 meters, you can get accurate results by doing this with a stop watch, and doing the maths in your head.

You can't argue an average speed...

[VSTrev]

Sorry guys if i miss lead you with my post.

Steve,
We definatly need "policing" on our roads. However, Fixed Speed cameras and even these timed check points is not what i call policing. We need actual police out on our roads catching the idiots out there that are cousing crashes and deaths on a daily basis. Just about every day i see something stupid happen on our roads and think "i wish i was a cop".

Being an M7 driver Steve you would know what a really nice road it is. Its a beautiful smooth as hot mix surface, nice wide duel lanes and well sign posted with good exit and entrey points. The speed limit is 100. Which to me feels really slow. One because it is really smooth and two because just about every one else on it is doing 130.
My point is don't you think a road such as the m7 would be completly safe with a speed limit of 150.

as another example of how speed cameras arn't solving any issues on our roads...
Recently i was booked by cop with a lidar on the old pacific hwy just before the hawkesbury river bridge. For those of you who don't know this is the old stretch of hwy between Gosford and Sydney which has become a nice quiet road that runs through the bush that seperates Sydney from the Central Coast. This road is now mainly used by Bike and Car entheusiests who enjoy a nice drive.
Anyway, i was just going for a nice drive, not concentrating on my speed but not "hooning" either. I was just enjoying a relaxing drive. I came up a hill over a crest down the other side onto a short flat straight, when out from the bushes just on the next corner a cop steps out in front of me.
So basically due to the rediculously low speed limit set on this road, i was done for 96 in a 60 zone which as we all know is over 30 over the speed limit which means automatic 3 month suspension. Keep in mind when this was the major road between Sydney and Newcastle the speed limit was 100.
So there was nothing dangerous about what i was doing, in fact it is probably safer as i was concentrated more on my driving and less on my speedo.
While i was waiting for the cop to remember how to write out a ticket only 1 car went down the road (like i said it is a very quiet road). He was driving a new XR falcon and unlike myself, he was hooning and yes, he also got done. I estemate he was probably doing at least 150.
So i got my ticket and went straight back onto the F3 where i encountered a number a stupid idiots doing stupid and dangerous things. The worst one was towards the sydney end of the freeway, where, in the 80 zone, a car doing around 100, crossed three lanes of traffic to mount a concrete island to get onto an exit ramp. Many cars needed to swerve and brake to miss this car both on the freeway and on the exit ramp (i was one of them) and by some miracle he managed to keep control of the car, and not hit anyone.

Now please tell me, who is the more dangerous driver?

This is why i am so passionate about this subject. and why i believe we need more police patroling our raods and less revenue raising tactics.

Sorry to Steve if i seemed to have pointed you out specificlly, it wasn't intentional. Just attempting to express my point of view.

[Nobody Actually]

you do have a good point, we do have a LOT of ********s on the road, doing some really stupid things. now i've done some dumb things, i'll be the first to admit. But we have people doing things like those in the post of VSTrev up here in queensland and probably everywhere else too.

some thing needs to be done.

[gocommygo]

yeh, my town is shocking. hoons goddamn everywhere, defectable cars, unlicnensed unregoed uninsured drivers, rarely any cop patrols (mainly at nite on places noone goes :|) like my mate sits on 100+ in 60 zones, NEVER bin caught, drunk drivers, rarely get caught... wtf?

[Keepleft]

The main roads in Australia should all be hot mix and all two lanes in each direction

That can NEVER happen, we could never ever ever ever afford it.

and seperated in the middle,

Agreed, median barrier must be mandatory on freeway/motorway category roads, AND - NO U-Turn bays.

fast lane should be 130 and slow lane should be 110.

ABSOLUTELY NOT. The speed-limit or speed derestriction is irrelevant, WHAT MATTERS is "lane discipline" to keep-left NOT middle. Australia is contracturally bound with 99% of all other nations in road use uniformity.

See page 93, Pdf 2.92mb:
http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/licensing/...uh_english.pdf

But instead as soon as you are 200 kms outside a major city we have rough horrible fat stoned roads with holes and bumps all over them, which is even more dangerous than speeding, esp when its raining. The roads around South West Victoria, even some main highways are worse than alot of fire tracks in the forest

AND where unsigned, the rural default applies, which at 100km/h in most jurisdictions - is too fast for the type of road that it, the rural default serves, my view is that the rural default be 80km/h. REM this allows higher POSTED (or speed derestriction) for given recognised safer LENGTHS of roadway.

Whilst DEMONS highlights the 120kmh'ers on the VIC hume, it is a designated 'freeway', it is not freeway quality by current road standard however, intersections *must* be replaced with interchanges with left of road exits and entries.


VSTrev - We are going to increase the 90km/h speed limit as currently applied to the particular stretch to 100km/h, BUT this limit will be reduced in wet.

I expect this to start about April - June or July. EDIT, update August 2006:
http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety...peedlimit.html

[helly]

VSTrev, you make a really good and valid point...

I really don't like fixed speed camera's myself, as all they do is make drivers slow down at a specific point and then basically anyone that wants to speed will just put the foot down as soon as they pass the damn thing. Doesn't really achieve much.

The whole average spped idea is much better, but of course its still not perfect.

More cops is absolutely a great idea. There is nothing better than having intervention in an offence. Ie, Joe Bloggs is speeding and now he is not because the cops have him stopped. There have been lots of studies that suggest that when people are stopped by police for speeding regardless of whether they get a ticket or a caution they slow down for up to two weeks. This seems to be the world wide average.

People that get caught by cameras have been shown to react in a less positive way sometimes coninuing to speed or actually driving more recklessly. The other issue is that a speed camera doesn't pull you up and give you a lecture and make you sulk. And it definately doesn't stop you.

My belief from experience is that highly visible mobile patrols on the highways and main roads causes road users to obey the rules more effectively than any other method. Becasue there is that fear that the cops can actually do things, right there and then. People are less worried about something comming the mail in a months time.

Speed camera's are just credit cards for car's. The mentality for some is "hey I'll speed, just invoice me."

More cops, less paper work, more cars fitted with In Car Video = 95% guilty pleas... The video doesn't lie people!

[gocommygo]

i wanna see cops riding round in hotted up commies catching hoons

[Keepleft]

helly wrote - VSTrev, you make a really good and valid point...

I really don't like fixed speed camera's myself, as all they do is make drivers slow down at a specific point and then basically anyone that wants to speed will just put the foot down as soon as they pass the damn thing. Doesn't really achieve much.

The cameras, were placed at recognised crash spots. The NSW system of using THREE warning signs on approach, in fact - is intended to catch INATTENTIVE DRIVERS using 'speed' as the method of doing so.

In a 100km/h plus zone, the first sign is placed 100 metres away, the second another 100, the third another 100. In effect, the first sign you see is 400 metres before the camera proper. A driver who gets a fine in such a zone is arguably dangerous at any speed, let alone 110km /h or greater.

be assured MANY STILL get caught.

Not paying attention you see . . .

QLD is adopting FIXED speed cameras a la NSW AND they will be signing them a la NSW practice. This is appropriate.

At the moment some 80% of crashes occure BELOW the speed limit, but 'speed' is a factor in many of them (hence the term 'speed related'), but is NOT the only factor as crashes by nature are multifactoral in nature.

In fact I attended a crash tonight, a girl was changing radio stations and crashed off the road to the right. Not paying attention you see. Came close to hitting a power pole but landed in a swampy bit of scrub, moderate bonnet damage, she in shock.

[VSTrev]

Keepleft...

You are obviously quite knowledgable in these matters...

Tell me, What is the point of two individual speed cameras placed only 800m apart on the F3 freeway.

hmmmm, My guess would be revenue raising.
There is no other explanation. One camera would be more then enough to catch speeding cars at Mt White, Two cameras that close together is not dealing with any safety issues, it is clearly revenue raising.

In fact, it would make more sense to place one of them northbound and one of them southbound, but both of them northbound is rediculous.

Its not fair to your average driver to fine them twice for the same offense in less then 50 seconds.

I know, why don't we put a speed camera, on every road in australia, every 800m. This would surly fix australias debt fairly quickly, yet i doubt any roads would get fixed any quicker, or any more lives be saved. (probably be less cars on the road though, or perhaps that is what the government wants.)

Also, i am also against the variable speed limit which as you said, is now coming to the F3 and is already on the M7 and probably other locations. Drivers do not need to be TOLD that the road is wet. Idiots out there see these numbers in red circles and crealy it is safe to drive at that speed. We don't need a mythical number telling us that its safe to drive at a certain speed because its not. Drivers need to make decisions based on the conditions to determin what is safe. Strangly enough since Mt White has been reduece to 90 the road toll in that area has not reduced. And i'm guessing this trend is not going to change with variable speed limits. All this will achieve is more people getting fined and more money for Mr Government. Funilly enough, this veriable speed limit is going to affect the commuters who use and rely on this read on a daily basis. As an ex commuter i know. You get to know the road, you remember where pot holes are, where strange pumps are, and where the cops sits. You also remember where the speed limit changes are. If these speed limits change without warning it is going to affect the people that rely on this road the most.

Just another quick question...
Seeing as these speed cameras are rolling in massive amounts of revenue, where is this money going? its not going back to the police or we would see more patrols on our roads. Its not going back into our roads as our roads are still pumpy and full of potholes. So where is it going?

[Keepleft]

VSTrev wrote - Keepleft...
You are obviously quite knowledgable in these matters...

I am what RTA call a motorist's advocate, I deal worldwide, write tutorial texts, nag treasuries for money etc and so on.

Tell me, What is the point of two individual speed cameras placed only 800m apart on the F3 freeway.

Re-check that measure. The cameras are intended to enforce the wet weather speed limit, BUT you have reminded me to check up on a legal matter. You will recall the Spit Bridge episode, see further below?:-))

My guess would be revenue raising. There is no other explanation. One camera would be more then enough to catch speeding cars at Mt White, Two cameras that close together is not dealing with any safety issues, it is clearly revenue raising.

The overhead system, both directions, at Mt White forms part of the Safe T Cam network, this was relocated from Wyong you might recall. It is unrelated to the other cameras in the 90km/h - soon to be 100km/h - in dry zone.

In fact, it would make more sense to place one of them northbound and one of them southbound, but both of them northbound is rediculous.

Southbound in the 90km/h zone has an issue in relation to the lack of POWER. Literally a couple of hundred thousand to achieve at a minimum.

Its not fair to your average driver to fine them twice for the same offense in less then 50 seconds.

AND the court agrees:-)

Also, i am also against the variable speed limit which as you said, is now coming to the F3 and is already on the M7 and probably other locations. Drivers do not need to be TOLD that the road is wet. Idiots out there see these numbers in red circles and crealy it is safe to drive at that speed.

I am in sympathy with you here, France has a 130km/h motorway limit that reduces to 110km/h in the wet, yet its per capita toll is many times worse than neighbour Germany. In heavy fog like conditions in Germany on autobahn - an automatic 50km/h limit applies.

The F6 use to flash in heavy fog "Slow down, limit 70km/h, which was of course utterly stupid, but anyhow.

We don't need a mythical number telling us that its safe to drive at a certain speed because its not. Drivers need to make decisions based on the conditions to determine what is safe. Strangley enough since Mt White has been reduece to 90 the road toll in that area has not reduced. And i'm guessing this trend is not going to change with variable speed limits. All this will achieve is more people getting fined and more money for Mr Government.

Although the dry limit is raised to 100km/h . . . In strict engineering terms, the section between Hawkesbury River bridge and the top of Jolls, is engineered for 80km/h. 'Sight distance is not optimal-the curves (delinneation)', but as you know its just this stretch.

Funilly enough, this veriable speed limit is going to affect the commuters who use and rely on this read on a daily basis. As an ex commuter i know. You get to know the road, you remember where pot holes are, where strange pumps are, and where the cops sits. You also remember where the speed limit changes are. If these speed limits change without warning it is going to affect the people that rely on this road the most.

Rem - the limit, rather 'hazard' - is signalled by VMS along the lines 'wet weather alert, etc' AND the overhead gantry will show the applicable limit.

Update: August 2006
http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety...peedlimit.html

REM it is the Feds that desire greater use of VMS nationally, mind you they would support 130km/h on some roads. I do not, NOT until the U-turn bays are removed AND the medians are FULLY barriered.

Just another quick question...
Seeing as these speed cameras are rolling in massive amounts of revenue, where is this money going? its not going back to the police or we would see more patrols on our roads. Its not going back into our roads as our roads are still pumpy and full of potholes. So where is it going?

"Consolidated revenue", generally. This now becomes a party political issue, and you will note an election in 2007.

[helly]

The cameras, were placed at recognised crash spots. The NSW system of using THREE warning signs on approach, in fact - is intended to catch INATTENTIVE DRIVERS using 'speed' as the method of doing so.

In a 100km/h plus zone, the first sign is placed 100 metres away, the second another 100, the third another 100. In effect, the first sign you see is 400 metres before the camera proper. A driver who gets a fine in such a zone is arguably dangerous at any speed, let alone 110km /h or greater.

be assured MANY STILL get caught.

Not paying attention you see . . .

I agree with what you are saying. But I deal with the public every day and I can tell you that innatentive drivers start paying more attention after direct intervention, by being stopped, not being photo-shop'd.

And how do you think police catch drivers when using a check speed, I mean come on if you keep speeding with a HWY car right up your date for 300 metres then you are definelty not paying attention.

We catch innatentive drivers, and criminals too.

[Keepleft]

I agree with what you are saying. But I deal with the public every day and I can tell you that innatentive drivers start paying more attention after direct intervention, by being stopped, not being photo-shop'd.

Sure, and I have no dispute with any of this... The fixed camera issue has helped see a reduction in real terms of serving HWP that had been falling since 1980.


And how do you think police catch driver when using a check speed, I mean come on if you keep speeding with HWY car right up you date for 300 metres then you are definelty not paying attention.

We catch innatentive drivers, and criminals too.

AND this is where state politics come into play, not enough this or that, or as one of your collegues said to me of your employment - "NSW Police Farce".

Police numbers is one of the major issues politically. I for one Helly want our Highway Patrol markings back the way they were before you joined, literally screaming "HIGHWAY PATROL" across the bootlid etc.

This state is in deep financial trouble.

On speed limits I am seriously working way on a rural default 80km/h limit, the way it use to be back in 1978, but then as a 'prima facie' restriction and signalled by derestriction sign. My proposal however is for an 'absolute'.

That said, some roads will be posted with higher absolute limits, and 'derestriction' for a length of road is quite possible in the far mid West, and will remain on our books in Standard for the future, should we ever wish to so utilise it.

[VSTrev]

keepleft...

ok, from what you said in your last post perhaps i should stop arguing with you and try and support you in some way. It looks like you might be on our side.

I can't agree with speed cameras though. Not at all. They were broght in to fix a problem which was the number of crashes and deaths on our roads. They havn't achieved this. in fact crashes and deaths continue to rise yet we keep seeing more and more speed cameras and the trand isn't changing. We all know the reasons why.

If speed cameras were working, if crashes and deaths were being reduced then i would support them, but thay are not.

What i am trying to say (obviously not very well) is there needs to be more driver education. The motor bike licence is a good example. You have to complete a number of practical exercises based on how to handle and control the bike before you can get your licence.

To get a car licence all you need to know is the road rules, and prove you can stay under the speed limit and perform a reverse park. A similar education program should be brought in where everyone is taught how to drive a car. How to handle and control a car in all conditions.

When i went for my licence (7 years ago), to get Ls you did a computer test all about road rules. Then to get your ps you had a practical test where you had to perform certain things like, staying under the speed limit, perform a u tern, use indicators correctly, and a reverser park. None of this has anything to do with car control. it has everything to do with road rules. I know it has changes slightly but only to the extent of a log book and another computer test.

I believe advanced driver training couses should be mandatory. having done a defensive driving course i think it was one of the best things i ever did. and you shouldn't be able to get your Ps without having past one.

[Keepleft]

VSTrev wrote: - keepleft...
ok, from what you said in your last post perhaps i should stop arguing with you and try and support you in some way. It looks like you might be on our side.

I can work with both sides here:-)

What i am trying to say (obviously not very well) is there needs to be more driver education.

Sure, but such a program (below) *must* be capable of being implemented in ALL towns and cities, fairly. You will note QLD, VIC going to 120 log book hours, NSW will likely go to 100 hours, though I'd like to see 120. It is the young we wish to keep a close eye on for those first two critical years. The NSW log book will be re-worked.

To get a car licence all you need to know is the road rules, and prove you can stay under the speed limit and perform a reverse park. A similar education program should be brought in where everyone is taught how to drive a car. How to handle and control a car in all conditions.

When i went for my licence (7 years ago), to get Ls you did a computer test all about road rules. Then to get your ps you had a practical test where you had to perform certain things like, staying under the speed limit, perform a u tern, use indicators correctly, and a reverser park. None of this has anything to do with car control. it has everything to do with road rules. I know it has changes slightly but only to the extent of a log book and another computer test.

Take the RTA link for the latest Road Users' Handbook, note the many rule changes and defensive driving texts. . . See also page 82-3. Things R A changin'.

I believe advanced driver training couses should be mandatory. having done a defensive driving course i think it was one of the best things i ever did. and you shouldn't be able to get your Ps without having past one.

Not 'advanced' but 'defensive', yes. There is a difference. The trial of a National Driver Training Scheme is about to begin with pupils from NSW and VIC soon to be organised, this runs over three years, and is 'defensive' in nature. The program will weed out 'cowboys' who will then be targetted for additional or rather remedial action/s. 'Road craft', such as emergency braking will be involved etc and so on. Stay tuned, the program has been under development for just over two years. It is EU in source, and adapted for AUS.

[Joes_meat]

These point-to-point speed camera are very stupid.

If you pass the first camera knowing that your average speed must note be higher than the speed limit what are you going to spend 95% of your attention doing?

Watching the speedo.

Doesn't sound very safe to me.

It'll probably also make a lot of people drive well under the speed limit.

[Keepleft]

These point-to-point speed camera are very stupid.

If you pass the first camera knowing that your average speed must note be higher than the speed limit what are you going to spend 95% of your attention doing?

Watching the speedo.

Doesn't sound very safe to me.

It'll probably also make a lot of people drive well under the speed limit.

Yes, a perverse form of 'quite' road rage, where the person is so 'peeved' at the action that he or she deliberately behaves 'slow', tempting that some will (and they will) overtake, even dangerously and otherwise takes that enjoyment in bunching traffic up. Happens a lot actually.

I recall one bloke reporting to Staysafe a few years ago, that after having been booked on the harbour bridge in SYD that he now 'enjoys' sitting just below the limit to deliberately annoy people. I can understand his angst, but sheesh. .. .

Anyhow, I am NOT happy with their implementation (point2point) on the Pacific Highway - newly upgraded to both dual carriageway and freeway status sections. You can thank North Coast sitting female labour MP's in particular for this. See NSW Parliamentary hansard online.

[VSTrev]

"Things R A Changing", that's good to hear keepleft.

But i am not sure it is just the "cowboys" we need to watch out for. I recon if i was put through that sort of test i would be put in the cowboy section. I have a fascination of cars and speed, and i love driving. That must make me a cowboy. right.

The people i worry about are the arrogant, or the naieve.
Eg, I have a friend, he thinks he is the next Schmacher. he can't drive, he is hopeless. He has written off 3 cars in 6 years yet due to the circumstances of these accidents he still has his licence and a 65% no claim bonus on his insurane. I hav no idea why or how. He told me that during his last accident he was making a left hand turn, he spotted a car that was exiting the street he was entering and for whatever reason he paniced. He froze. He admitted it. he did not attempt to avoid the aaccident in anyway, instead he froze, closed his eyes and bang.

These are the people we need to get off the roads. The people that can't drive. education would help, practice would be even better. However its hard to put people in these sort of situations in order for them to get more practice. and hey, to get back to the main topic, speed cameras would not have taken his photo during this accident. he was under the speed limit. Must of been safe to take that corner at that speed. obviously the speed sign says so. This is where the whole speed kills issue falls apart.

Idiots kill, lack of education kills, speed is only a contributor!