Just Commodores Forum Community

It takes just a moment to join our fantastic community

Register

QLD Gets fixed speeding cameras......

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by Cobez, Dec 13, 2007.

  1. Keepleft

    Keepleft Mot Adv-NSW

    Messages:
    73
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2005
    Location:
    Lake Macquarie
    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'.
     
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2007
    bradcad likes this.
  2. commsirac

    commsirac Banned

    Messages:
    1,183
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2007
    Members Ride:
    vx
    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.
     
  3. Keepleft

    Keepleft Mot Adv-NSW

    Messages:
    73
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2005
    Location:
    Lake Macquarie
     
  4. Spaced

    Spaced New Member

    Messages:
    671
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2006
    Members Ride:
    1997 VS Commodore Exec
    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.
     
  5. commsirac

    commsirac Banned

    Messages:
    1,183
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2007
    Members Ride:
    vx
     
  6. commsirac

    commsirac Banned

    Messages:
    1,183
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2007
    Members Ride:
    vx
    I always chuckle at people who believe the speed limits are for everyone else and not themselves because they are a good driver.
    They always have a firm idea of how exactly how fast they should be able to drive based on their intricate knowledge and experience.
    Its always amusing to ask them how many metres does their car need to stop from 40km/h, 50km/h............140km/h, how long they reckon their reaction time is and reaction distances for those speeds and what the wet weather distances would be for all of those..........and whether they would like to go and stand out on the road in front of their car while someone tries to achieve their guesses. Its amusing, because they typically have no idea on how well their car can stop.......but can tell you adamantly that the speed limit should be 65km/h whatever....go figure.
    Setting speed limits based on the behaviour of the average/median/85% percentile's behaviour is obviously flawed for these reasons.
     
  7. J_D

    J_D New Member

    Messages:
    352
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2006
    Location:
    Ipswich. QLD
    Members Ride:
    VN S1 and VS V8 Statesman

    Just shows how stupid the general population is getting. The speed limits we operate under are the same limits that applied when cars had drum brakes all round and leaf springs. Now with discs all round, ABS, radial tyres, stability control, etc doing those same limits are hard for some people to even be competent enough to reach and doing 5km/h over them is seen as the act of a murderer. We dont need more speed cameras we need more patrol cars on the roads catching actual dangerous behavior like tailgating, failing to indicate, driving without due care and attention, hooning etc and better education of drivers. The fact that they actually catch people with fixed speed cameras in NSW with THREE warning signs before them just shows how many people are driving around blissfully unaware of there surroundings.

    Unfortunately we wont get more police on the roads while everyone continues to be roped in by the speed kills above all else philosophy. When was the last time you saw a public education campaign against any of the above offences I mentioned. It is in the best interests of the state governments to push the speed kills line for two reasons the first being the most obvious which is it means everyone is very compliant with allowing more speed cameras for increased revenue but the less obvious reason is it also makes it look like the governent is doing something about the road toll everytime they introduce a new speed camera. The speed cameras are a one off expense and make money whereas actual enforcement and proper road safety initiatives are a recurring expense and dont make money so it is in the governments best interest to make sure everyone is bombarded with the speed kills philosophy.

    Dont get me wrong speed does kill, but the concentration on this above all else other than drink driving is detrimental actual road safety.
     
  8. Morton

    Morton For external use only

    Messages:
    4,097
    Likes Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Joined:
    May 20, 2006
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Members Ride:
    Fairstar the Funship
    Actually, I don't believe the speed cameras are an expense at all. As far as I am aware, they are established and mantained by a private company, which takes a share of the fine revenue as payment.
     
  9. Cobez

    Cobez LS-EXUAL

    Messages:
    3,095
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2007
    Members Ride:
    2004 S2 VY SS Ute


    He wasn't saying you WILL kill someone, but merely making the point that there is a higher CHANCE of you killing or severely injuring someone. It wasn't a dig at your driving and braking experience either. Sure you take into account your driving style, your cars condition, your brake condition, weather etc etc, but you haven't been put through every scenario that would cause you to lock the brakes up (or stop suddenly if you have ABS).

    Eg's: grandma pulls out in front of you, L plater pulls out in front of you, 4 year old runs out in front of you, basketball rolls out on road and 10 year old runs after it, dog or cat bolts in front of your car, car coming the opposite way decides to kick sideways and veers out of control.

    Now take all those scenarios, mix them with fog, wet roads, dirt roads, dusty roads, frosty / iced roads, dry roads etc etc etc.

    Your doing 20km over in any of those scenarios plus many more, in any of those conditions mixed, who knows what could happen.

    Basically the limits we have now, are generally set at a safe driving speed that is safe for those particular roads / streets etc that they are set on. In the first place if "they" didn't have a clue about what a safe driving speed for a particular street / backstreet / main road was, they wouldn't have put them in place and people would be doing all kinds of speeds everywhere, and i'm almost certain the death and serious injury rate would be alot higher.
     
  10. Cobez

    Cobez LS-EXUAL

    Messages:
    3,095
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2007
    Members Ride:
    2004 S2 VY SS Ute


    And the government makes back the money they spend on those cameras in fines.

    Ala THE CASTLE: "DAD, RADAR *slows down* WHAT DID THAT COST? SEVENTY BUCKS. JUST PAID FOR ITSELF".


    :p;)
     
  11. J_D

    J_D New Member

    Messages:
    352
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2006
    Location:
    Ipswich. QLD
    Members Ride:
    VN S1 and VS V8 Statesman
    A sane driver (which we dont see many of these days because of the singular focus on speed) wouldnt be going fast in those circumstances where this is possible. Speed limits are important but saying that doing 5 or 10 over in ANY circumstance is dangerous is plain wrong. If I have a clear road infront of me with no traffic, no cars on the side of the road and no pedestrians why is doing 5 or 10 over a major deal?


    You are aware that doing UNDER the speed limit in these conditions can also be unsafe and you can be fined for it?
    Well you could be if the police were there to penalise bad driving behaviour. Instead of the govt just putting a speed camera up and trying to say they are big on road safety.

    Ive seen idiots in their 4WDS doing 100km/h on a major highway in TORRENTIAL rain and hail where the rest of the traffic (including me) could only manage 40km/h because of aquaplaining and lack of visibility. But they are safe drivers because they arent going over the speed limit, yeah right.

    EDIT: Oh and by the way a crash in the above mentioned circumstances would be classified as a speeding related death even though the vehicles involved werent exceeding the posted speed limit. But we dont put any effort into catching these people because they are doing the speed limit.
     
  12. Garth

    Garth Your guess is as good as mine...... Staff Member

    Messages:
    2,662
    Likes Received:
    67
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2002
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Members Ride:
    100 series Toyota Landcruiser V8 monster
    ive seen where they have put, or are going to put the new fixed speed cammeras in qld
    im all for it, those spots are naturious black spots in qld roads, with people alway's speeding on these sections, id like to say that not many people are speeding on these streches of roads, but id be lying if i said that.

    in brisbane the laws have been relaxed for way to long when it comes to speeding, and im all for these new cammeras. i know i will get done by one of these cammeras one day, i know the one on the story bridge will be a nasty one as it gets people who are comming down a on-ramp, and thnat will be the one that gets me for sure.

    so basicaly im all for these things, they are in good spots, if they safe atleast one person's life then in my eye's they are doing their job.
     
  13. Cobez

    Cobez LS-EXUAL

    Messages:
    3,095
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2007
    Members Ride:
    2004 S2 VY SS Ute


    I have honestly never heard of that happening down here in Victoria....... Give an example of how in say for example, driving 5-10km under the limit more dangerous in the wet?

    And the big deal with doing 10km over, is the fact that if a kid darts out of nowhere or falls out of a overhanging tree (extreme i know), there is going to be a shorter stationary distance between the nose of your car and say, the kid again for an example.

    I mean sure the kid wouldn't be in great condition if he fell out of an overhanging tree and hit the the road, but i suppose it's better than being ran over by a car AS WELL lol.
     
  14. Morton

    Morton For external use only

    Messages:
    4,097
    Likes Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Joined:
    May 20, 2006
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Members Ride:
    Fairstar the Funship
    lmao cobez, you come up with the WORST examples ^^ :D
     
  15. commsirac

    commsirac Banned

    Messages:
    1,183
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2007
    Members Ride:
    vx
    Yes, our speed limits have been posted keeping worse case scenarios in mind, and so far, older vehicles, tradesman vans on with their load rated tyres.....are all still allowed. So yes many vehicles are safer than others, just be content in the knowledge that if you do have one of these safer vehicles that you now enjoy higher levels of safety, rather than stupidly argue that the speed limit for your vehicle should be raised to achieve the same relative safety of these older vehicles etc. It would be rather preposterous to have different limits for every vehicle on the road and then cross referencing for tyres fitted etc......

    Perhaps you are unaware, however, the difference between stopping distances of vehicles at speeds of <60km/h from 30 years ago(yes discs were standard on holdens then) arent terribly different to what is achievable today. The determining factor is still how much grip between tyre and road which will determine the deacceleration rate of the vehicle. 0.7g to 0.9g is typical of dry weather variation depending on tyres.

    What definitely hasnt changed is the reaction time of humans.....the average time it takes a human to get the brakes engaged from the time they see a crisis is 1 second! (A lot) , so the reaction distance at 60km/h is ~16.6m, and would be 33.2m for 120km/h etc
    Reaction distance makes up typically half of the stopping dist from speeds of <60km/h
    ie for "older car" 60km/h: react dist = 16.6m ( car stops in 19.8m@0.7g) Total = ~36m
    newcar at 65 km/h: react dist = 18.0m (car stops in 20.4m@0.8g) total = ~38m

    Based on that, hopefully you can see there is no justification for increasing limits just because they are old.

    Certainly, I think there is good argument for some different limits for some vehicles, heavy vehicles in particular. 25+ tonne trucks thundering around the suburbs needling 60km/h are dangerous, especially when they only have to be able to meet a regulation of 0.2g in braking performance. So 50km/h for trucks and 90km/h on main country roads.....fine with me. Our road maintenance costs would halve in no time.


    Victoria has been running some, the "smart arsed over confident driver" and also the ones on fatigue which are a big killer also.
    The leading single cause of collisions and death in Australia continues to be speed in excess of the posted limit and/or under the influence of alcohol . That doesnt mean the majority are caused by this though, its just the most common.....why not throw the most effort in this area.

    I agree, and it would make sense that police in patrol cars concentrate on these facets and leave speeding in the main to the cameras.

    Ive seen idiots in their 4WDS doing 100km/h on a major highway in TORRENTIAL rain and hail where the rest of the traffic (including me) could only manage 40km/h because of aquaplaNing and lack of visibility. But they are safe drivers because they arent going over the speed limit, yeah right.
    Ive seen idiots in 4wd and they were driving safely:whistling

    Unless we have speed signs that automatically change whenever it rains etc, then this is going to always be a problem.......but it doesnt justify not having speed cameras.
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2007

Share This Page