QLD Gets fixed speeding cameras......

[Cobez]

Queensland gets fixed speed cameras - Yahoo!7 News



It's a good thing! I didn't know Queensland DIDN'T have them!

[Emackulation]

Nooooooo, o well, I suppose its time. Reading the article it says they have 5 signs waring motorists that the camera is there lol.

[Grennan]

Haha wish we had signs. We have the odd sign about, but alot of them are so run down you cant read them. Funny thing is they are usually extremely quick to fix the speed camera, but the sign that is almost ripped from the ground goes unfixed for years.

[Cobez]

Nooooooo, o well, I suppose its time. Reading the article it says they have 5 signs waring motorists that the camera is there lol.

Why is there any need to be slightly upset about it? You DO obey the speed limit all times DON'T you Mack? hahahaha You aren't a HOON are you?

[old_fella]

The ones in NSW usually have a fair few signs showing u they are coming up

[Emackulation]

Why is there any need to be slightly upset about it? You DO obey the speed limit all times DON'T you Mack? hahahaha You aren't a HOON are you?

Lets just say ive been known to stray over the limit on my way to Brisbane before.

[Morton]

People speeding? In brisbane? ... ... unheard of!

[stocky]

its obvious theyve only just starting putting them in because morton mentioned moving there

[Morton]

its obvious theyve only just starting putting them in because morton mentioned moving there

>.< ... ...

[f1tzy]

did you hear about the driver clocked in the camera testing doing 145 clicks on the approach to the story bridge which is a 60 zone

[Emackulation]

did you hear about the driver clocked in the camera testing doing 145 clicks on the approach to the story bridge which is a 60 zone

Nope, but I hope he got ****ed over badly.

[sircruisealotVS]

meh, id rather fixed cameras with signage warning you about them than sneaky cops...
seriously, qld coppers are very cunning when it comes to speed cameras...when i lived in nsw even a unmarked police car doing speed camera duties had to have signage down the road before the camera...not in qld, they put the sign pretty much at their feet and hide behind poles or bushes to try catch you, lol.
not that i speed much, sometimes on the motorway ill neak up 5-10k's over the limit but thats it.

[commsirac]

The sneakier the better, that way people will get the idea soon enough(after a few tickets in the mail.....or their mates bleating about it) that there, "could be a camera anywhere", with the only way of beating the cameras is to stay under the limit at all times.

[TheForgotten]

meh, id rather fixed cameras with signage warning you about them than sneaky cops...
seriously, qld coppers are very cunning when it comes to speed cameras...when i lived in nsw even a unmarked police car doing speed camera duties had to have signage down the road before the camera...not in qld, they put the sign pretty much at their feet and hide behind poles or bushes to try catch you, lol.
not that i speed much, sometimes on the motorway ill neak up 5-10k's over the limit but thats it.

up my way they go one better. they park the 4wd on the side of the highway in the middle of nowhere, and put the sign in long grass, you can only just see the top. nowhere does it say the sign must be readable from X metres, just it has to be there. i'm well known for speeding on the highway up here(15-20k over), but i know the road well enough to notice something suspicious about a car on the side of the road. in the end though, if i get caught, i get caught. i don't cry about it

[AttaBoy]

they don't even put up signs here!!

[Cobez]

The sneakier the better, that way people will get the idea soon enough(after a few tickets in the mail.....or their mates bleating about it) that there, "could be a camera anywhere", with the only way of beating the cameras is to stay under the limit at all times.

Totally agree there!

[Bravotwozero]

The sneakier the better, that way people will get the idea soon enough(after a few tickets in the mail.....or their mates bleating about it) that there, "could be a camera anywhere", with the only way of beating the cameras is to stay under the limit at all times.

When they increase all speed limits by about 20km/h I will gladly stay under them.

[minux]

The sneakier the better, that way people will get the idea soon enough(after a few tickets in the mail.....or their mates bleating about it) that there, "could be a camera anywhere", with the only way of beating the cameras is to stay under the limit at all times.

Couldn't agree more.

When they increase all speed limits by about 20km/h I will gladly stay under them.

Speed limits are the way they are because most of the general population struggle to do those speeds. Could you imagine the danger in doing 80 in a now 60 zone down suburban streets and then having granny may turn out in front of you? Your margin for stopping is now gone. How about doing 120 down a highway while 2 drivers are side by side doing 95 each. There is too much possible danger involved. Raising speed limits in some areas by 20 would be downright stupid. If you are doing these speeds already, i guess it won't be long before you kill someone as you will not be able to stop.

[Bravotwozero]

Couldn't agree more.



Speed limits are the way they are because most of the general population struggle to do those speeds. Could you imagine the danger in doing 80 in a now 60 zone down suburban streets and then having granny may turn out in front of you? Your margin for stopping is now gone. How about doing 120 down a highway while 2 drivers are side by side doing 95 each. There is too much possible danger involved. Raising speed limits in some areas by 20 would be downright stupid. If you are doing these speeds already, i guess it won't be long before you kill someone as you will not be able to stop.

I agree with the first part of your reply, however I chuckle at your notion that because I choose to exceed the legislated speed limit at times, I'm going to kill someone. I drive in a manner that I deem to be suitably safe taking into account several factors including but not limited to amount of traffic, my vehicle condition, weather & knowing my own limitations. Factoring in these things generally has me over the limit anywhere between 10 - 20 km/h.

I believe that I have enough experience to judge how to safely drive without being dictated to by some bureaucratic moron. (Last comment not directed at yourself.)

[minux]

I agree with the first part of your reply, however I chuckle at your notion that because I choose to exceed the legislated speed limit at times, I'm going to kill someone. I drive in a manner that I deem to be suitably safe taking into account several factors including but not limited to amount of traffic, my vehicle condition, weather & knowing my own limitations. Factoring in these things generally has me over the limit anywhere between 10 - 20 km/h.

I believe that I have enough experience to judge how to safely drive without being dictated to by some bureaucratic moron. (Last comment not directed at yourself.)

I am not saying you aren't capable, but you cannot predict when someone will do something stupid. It isn't you that is the concern, it i is the less experienced driver, or the child who darts from behind a van that you cannot see.

That is all i was trying to convey.

[Keepleft]

The sneakier the better, that way people will get the idea soon enough(after a few tickets in the mail.....or their mates bleating about it) that there, "could be a camera anywhere", with the only way of beating the cameras is to stay under the limit at all times.

Nope. That is pure revenue raising based on numerals on a sign, whilst employing 'social guilt' for both compliance and acceptance of the 'system'.

Its 'simple' and appeals to some character traits.

These automated systems reduce the need for operational highway patrol police, which in turn means other important 'driving behaviours' then go unchecked as the years roll on by, - poor lane discipline, aggressive driving and a whole multitude of general driving errors that creep in. The western world has seen this develop since the advent of fixed, 'single purpose' enforcement in relation to speed.

In NSW, we use three signs to warn you of fixed camera sites, the higher the applicable speed, the larger the sign. NSW has the best and fairest system in the world.

We do this because we generally try to have the fixed speed cameras near as practicable to lengths of road with a recognised crash history, be that fatal/injury etc in outcome. Here, we want folk to pay 'particular attention', so the signs are placed.

It is argued that if you miss the three large warning signs, each placed 100 metres apart on approach, in effect the first sign appearing 400 metres before the camera proper in 110km/h zones, that such a driver is not 'paying attention' and is inherently more dangerous 'at any speed', let alone at a speed above the speed-limit, than another driver who is paying attention and is not booked.

So, we use the cameras to catch inattentive drivers, albiet using speed as the means to do so.

Remove the warning signs, and the system loses that ability to target these core individuals, but also does enforce the 'applied speed limit' which will in all probability will not have been scientifically determined by either the 85th percentile method or even the Hall Matrix application in the first place! Many of our speed-limits are not. This is a secondary, seperate issue.

The fixed warning signs are reasonable and fair, and authorities STILL catch multitudes of the blissfully unaware, at each and every site at each day.

SPEED is overblown, BEHAVIOUR is where its at:-
If hypothetically, I removed overnight ALL speed limits, from both built-up areas and rural zones, I'd gurantee a no real change in statistical measure over a year compared to years preceeding, indeed - in many cases for highways and similar, you'd see a crash reduction as the bunching-up effect is reduced, with resultant less nervous tension, meaning more relaxed drivers and even less exposure to crashes as folk get to their destinations sooner (reduced exposure with an offset), with less fatigue and aggression. On-road behaviour and respect increses through 'necessity', so more use of the indicators, mirrors, concentration is realised.

Quite frankly, people don't need the state all that much. We do need the state to give us the road tools (craft/training/tuition) and the vehicle equipment we need (ADR-standards/required equipment etc) and highway patrols to enforce behaviour compliance of ALL driving rules.

Of course, I see people go too fast each and every day, these types will do so - speed limit or no speed limit, and will usually in the time and exposure equation, come to grief. Behaviour! Under a 'speed limit' environ, these folk have added 'adrenalin', this means danger, realised when they feel naughty for doing something that might not kill them -but is illegal eg 'speed', but don't want police attention, yet after having spotted police, they do the stupid and flee into the night, often crashing a short time later.

The reality is, the speed limit is the legal maximum at which you may drive, and if you exceed that - and are caught, you can consider it voluntary taxation, purely optional. Those delighted with this 'position', can take no victory when you realise that around 80% of crashes with cost outcome occure at or below the applicable speed limit.

I note, as expected, no real change (Oh dear - sorry, look, an INCREASE - shock horror) in road toll arising despite NT's new 'get tough' speed-limits which started January 1, 2007 for NT's rural zones, which were previously speed derestricted. (This mirrors Montana's experience, as expected).

So up to December 31, 2006 in the rural areas, *you* had to drive at a safe-speed of your choosing (driver onus), this meant 'comfort', rather than relying on random numerals fixed to an aluminium sign, or in legislated law.

The rural default in NT is now 110km/h (like WA) and posted 130km/h speed limits apply to key NT highways.

Police internet site

Speed limits have a place for certain, but their use is overdone and that leads to complacency and disrespect and compliance issues where limits are needed to be followed, and enforcement-of-them means other key driver errors, dangerous ones, remain virtually unchecked by the state.

This is why people drive like pigs, because they can, its the 'Australian systematic way'.

I can see BIG fine and demerit increases in NSW for certain driving offence behaviours (offences) over the next 2-3 years that go beyong mere 'speed', along with a larger freed-up highway patrol with increased focus beyond 'speed issues'.

[commsirac]

These automated systems reduce the need for operational highway patrol police, which in turn means other important 'driving behaviours' then go unchecked as the years roll on by, - poor lane discipline, aggressive driving and a whole multitude of general driving errors that creep in.

I can see BIG fine and demerit increases in NSW for certain driving offence behaviours (offences) over the next 2-3 years that go beyong mere 'speed', along with a larger freed-up highway patrol with increased focus beyond 'speed issues'.

Who says that having hidden speed cameras automatically has to result in less patrol cars on our roads? Who says that having speed cameras will automatically mean other behaviours go unchecked.
The amount of patrol cars on our road is basically determined by budget....more money.....we can have more patrols. Clearly if you are arguing speed cameras instead of patrol cars then your point is valid, speed cameras as you suggest should be there to compliment the patrol cars and have them freed up to look for other idiotic behaviours. Im not aware of the exact numbers, but im sure the revenue from one camera would keep at least a couple of extra patrol cars on the road per year.

[Keepleft]

[QUOTE=commsirac;670917]

Who says that having hidden speed cameras automatically has to result in less patrol cars on our roads?

I do and I am a NSW motorist's advocate. From England to the US, the same outcome has been realised.

Who says that having speed cameras will automatically mean other behaviours go unchecked.

Automated speed cameras means a *real* reduction in operational highway patrol numbers which in turn simply means these other offences go unchecked as evidenced by behaviour on the road today, heck can't even get fog lights right, but just don't exceed the speed-limit . . .

The amount of patrol cars on our road is basically determined by budget....more money.....we can have more patrols.

Money is 'saved' by having dedicated employeed highway patrol refocussed to genereal duties policing, at least, owing automated speed camera enforcement that is how treasury thinks.

Clearly if you are arguing speed cameras instead of patrol cars then your point is valid, speed cameras as you suggest should be there to compliment the patrol cars and have them freed up to look for other idiotic behaviours.

I am and I am quite correct. In the 1980's NSW had over 1,400 employed operational highway patrol, the numbers of highway patrol have decreased with the advent of automated speed cameras since 1994/5 to a level of 840 or so now, AND those numbers are forced by Patrol Commanders into general duties. See the NSW Police Association for more.

Im not aware of the exact numbers, but im sure the revenue from one camera would keep at least a couple of extra patrol cars on the road per year.

Nice theory and you would think logical, but off the the road is more the point.

[Spaced]

I think these new cameras are fair, they give you pre warning which you don't get with mobile cameras. I have a problem with Police parking in dangerous places e.g. pull up on the road and take up a lane to setup their camera. This is down right stupid and is more likely to cause a crash than prevent one. I drive five k's over most of the time, if I got busted I'd live with it.

When I lived in Sydney I could not get over the fixed camera setups down there with warnings for about 100m before a camera. Everytime I was in the car with someone they'd slow down for it drive past and speed up so I didn't see the point.

[commsirac]

[QUOTE=Keepleft;670957]

I do and I am a NSW motorist's advocate. From England to the US, the same outcome has been realised.


Automated speed cameras means a *real* reduction in operational highway patrol numbers which in turn simply means these other offences go unchecked as evidenced by behaviour on the road today, heck can't even get fog lights right, but just don't exceed the speed-limit . . .


.

What exactly is a NSW motorist's advocate. You haven't answered the questions I posed.
I'll ask again:

Who says that having hidden speed cameras automatically has to result in less patrol cars on our roads?

Who says that having speed cameras will automatically mean other behaviours go unchecked.

All you have given is that typically that anywhere speed cameras are introduced road patrols are reduced. This may well be fact, and how some governments operate.......but it doesnt have to be......does it? There doesnt appear to be any automatic link connecting the two.

If we had as many patrol cars as you deemed necessary, would you still believe there is something intrinisically wrong with hidden speed cameras.