Speeding cameras' hidden agenda

[btm]

Speeding cameras' hidden agenda

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/speeding-cameras-hidden-agenda/2007/01/03/1167777155884.html

Jordan Baker Transport Reporter
January 4, 2007

SPEEDING fines have dropped by more than 200,000 in NSW over the past three years, but experts have raised questions about whether drivers are getting the message or just outsmarting cameras.

The figures, obtained under freedom-of-information legislation, prompted lobbyists to call on NSW to follow Victoria and introduce hidden cameras, with research showing they are a better deterrent.

Between 2003-04 and 2005-06, the number of fines generated by all forms of camera - police radar, LIDAR (light radar), fixed cameras and vehicle-mounted cameras - dropped from 847,348 to 627,139.

The biggest drop was among fixed cameras, operated by the Roads and Traffic Authority, which fell by 190,408 to 350,574 over the period. The number caught by police vehicle-mounted cameras grew from 43,003 to 63,378.

Police radar and LIDAR snared more high-range offenders: more than 1.2 per cent of their offenders were driving more than 45kmh over the limit, compared with fewer than 0.07 per cent of those caught by cameras.

NSW advertises speed cameras at sites known for accidents or speeding so drivers slow down. Victoria uses covert cameras, which are designed to make motorists wary of speeding all the time.

Max Cameron, principal research fellow at Monash University's Accident Research Centre, said drivers tended to learn where fixed cameras were located and slow down especially.

"That's one explanation for the fewer high-end speeders [caught by fixed or mounted vehicle speed cameras]," said Dr Cameron, who is a supporter of covert cameras after years of research.

"The fundamental thing about the covert cameras is there's a fear of being caught anywhere at any time … No state has been able to demonstrate the same success of Victoria."

The chairman of the Pedestrian Council of Australia, Harold Scruby, who obtained the data, said there was a term for the phenomenon of drivers slowing down at cameras: "site learning".

He called for NSW to follow Victoria's lead. "People know where the cameras are," he said. "They're only slowing down there. We need one generic sign - 'speed and red light cameras used through the state' - but not show where they are."

A Queensland study has shown overt cameras were effective in reducing speeds, but only for a relatively short distance.

The former head of the Australasian College of Road Safety, Professor Raphael Grzebieta, supports hidden cameras, saying they are an "essential component of the enforcement required to get people to slow down".

However, the NSW Police Traffic Services Commander, John Hartley, said that the drop in speeding fines showed motorists were getting the message about speeding.

"More and more are conforming to law," he said.

"This last Christmas period confirmed that. Less speeding offences were detected, but there was an increase in a number of other offences, such as a huge increase in random breath tests."

The Roads Minister, Eric Roozendaal, said that fixed speed cameras in NSW were well signposted and there were no plans to change the policy. "Speed cameras save lives - they are there to slow people down".

[blueraven]

www.beltronics.com :D: lol

[Mr T]

Illegal in NSW....

Any reduction in the road toll to acompany those great figures of 30% reduction in speeding???


I dare say not...!!!

[EL BURITO]

www.beltronics.com (http://www.beltronics.com) :D: lol
2nd that :p

[jsantos]

Yeah, i'm forced to ask.
Is victoria's "Success" a sucessfull reduction in speeding fines or people dieing?

[MatsHolden]

Reduction in road toll...

[MatsHolden]

www.beltronics.com (http://www.beltronics.com) :D: lol

lol, they're becoming outdated with the new technology available to the Police these days, particularly LIDAR. By the time a detector picks it up, it's too late you've already been got.

[jsantos]

Reduction in road toll...
Where is that coming from?

All i took out of the article was

"The fundamental thing about the covert cameras is there's a fear of being caught anywhere at any time … No state has been able to demonstrate the same success of Victoria."

So where is the road toll statistics which allow it to be said that when more people are caught less people die.?

Also, Where is NSW death toll rise to acompany the reduction in recorded speeding infringments?

I'm not saying you are wrong i just would honestly like to know about those numbers before i make my mind up as to if i should take the claims made by that article and those "researchers" seriously.

[Mr T]

The road toll hasn't dropped in over 10 years (in NSW)...still 600 people a year die in NSW every year dispite all their efforts...when will they learn what REALLY kills people on the roads.

[Blue_Dvl]

is it perhaps because victoria has a lot more cameras??

would have to agree that a reduction in road toll proves something is working but to place so much emphasis that it is speed cameras doing it and the reference to them as "road safety" devices still makes my blood boil.

But if the govt believe they work....... bring them on. Makes the day more interesting playing spot the camera :P

[nicecar]

www.beltronics.com :D: lol
Ka Narrowband 34.3Ghz :)

[Wraith]

There's a heap of electronic counter measures devices out there to defeat all manner of speed trap systems - ie: if you really want to go down that road and spend all the money and time required to acquire and fit it and then keep updating it, to keep up with the new speed trap technologies.

I looked into one laser jamming system which installs 'integrally' into the car and does it's thing with complete stealth and immunity from detection and would defeat any speed trap device out there ATM, just fire it up everytime you drive and it does the rest for you.......prob was cost and further cost down the track, when it would become obsolete and need to be replaced, although these days, with the severity of the punishment for speeding, it might very well be worth it :rolleyes:

Not that I'm trying to promote/encourage speeding, but over a 3 year period, it's not very hard to lose 12 demerit points from say being caught only 5-10km/h over the limit 3 or 4 times a year and that will result in a loss of your licence........

[nicecar]

Not that I'm trying to promote/encourage speeding, but over a 3 year period, it's not very hard to lose 12 demerit points from say being caught only 5-10km/h over the limit 3 or 4 times a year and that will result in a loss of your licence........

Yes, that annoys me, my uncles wife is an 60 year old lady who drives like Miss Daisy, she has been done for speeding twice, walking speed over the limit. Then you see idiots driving cms from the back of your car and staying in the right lane without overtaking

[Wraith]

Yes, there are a multitude of genuine circumstances in everyday driving conditions where you will have to exceed the speed limit by at least a little just to get through a particular situation........and there's a high probability you'll get done for doing so - yes it's sooooo annoying.

[imay]

The road toll hasn't dropped in over 10 years (in NSW)...still 600 people a year die in NSW every year dispite all their efforts...when will they learn what REALLY kills people on the roads.

Here, here.
Fix the roads with the revenue raised from speeding/traffic infringements and maybe, just maybe, then we will see a drop in road trauma.
Get serious about drug/drink drivers. Immediate loss of licence, immediate loss of vehicle, immediate fronting to a dedicate court system. Treat them like the potential killers they are.
Teach people of all ages how to drive, specially our new drivers. Re-test long-time licence holders and suspend their licence if they can't get it right first time!
Get the wrecks off the roads and make it mandatory that each and every driver carries (at a minimum) third part property insurance to protect other road users. If you can't afford to pay the insurance, you can't afford to be on the road.

I'm sure there's more . . .

[Wraith]

I couldn't agree more with the above comments, I second each one of those points.....

[Greggy]

Here, here.
Fix the roads with the revenue raised from speeding/traffic infringements and maybe, just maybe, then we will see a drop in road trauma.
Get serious about drug/drink drivers. Immediate loss of licence, immediate loss of vehicle, immediate fronting to a dedicate court system. Treat them like the potential killers they are.
Teach people of all ages how to drive, specially our new drivers. Re-test long-time licence holders and suspend their licence if they can't get it right first time!
Get the wrecks off the roads and make it mandatory that each and every driver carries (at a minimum) third part property insurance to protect other road users. If you can't afford to pay the insurance, you can't afford to be on the road.

I'm sure there's more . . .

We have simialr issues in the UK with drink / drugs and inexperienced drivers..

I totally agree with your statement about retests for long time holders - I think that should be mandatory after say 5 - 10 years.... driving as a whole has chanmged so much (all round the world) in the last 5 years - the number of cars has risen dramitically as with the number of fatals.....

In the UK they are trying thier best to make it more difficult for new drivers to gain their licenses - a theory and a practicle test - this has had an effect on the number of new drivers.. As with the way that penalty points have been worked out.......

I have been driving for a few years now and have come out iof the ;in experienced bracket, I can incur 12 penalty pioints before I have a ban....newbies have a two years as such probation period where they can only incur 6 points - exceed that and you are up for a retest which again is quite difficult to pass.

Some local police forces have also introduced alternatives to points - they will make you go thru 'driver rehab' - basically pay to go on a one day course that is designed to open your eyes top the dangers of (for example) speeding, dangerous driving etc.... and this seems to be welcomed and has been seen to be a good idea.

our court system also needs a kick up the backside where TWOC is concerned - they will haul the youths up in court and BAN them from driving......when they are 16 years and not legal to even drive...

They also like banning drivers who are court without insurance, MOT and NO LICENSE.,.......................what is the point !?!!?!

I'll get off of my soap boax now.......:D

[nicecar]

Hi Greggy,

I'm from the UK, been here 4 years. The good thing in the UK is that everyone needs insurance, my first car was an Astra 1986 L 1.2. The 0-60 (0-100kph) was 16 seconds! (think it had 50 BHP (approx 30KWs?) so slow and that was the most powerful car I could get without paying more that 800 pounds per year insurance ($2200 per year) - it only cost 2,200 pounds at the time.

In Oz, I see P platers and there 1st car has a V8 or turbo engine in. If I had had that power when I passed as a 17 year old young inexperienced driver I probably would have killed myself!!

[jsantos]

I am a P plater, and i have been driving my parents car which has a turbo, and am now buying my first car and it will have a turbo. I will be in less trouble if i push an SRI Turbo passed its limits then if i pushed a N\A Supra passed it's limits as the sri has all the electronics to bring me into line and a 5 Star N-Cap rating where as the Supra which is much cheaper to ensure would much more likley kill me. Btw when i first rang up the NRMA they said they wouldn't even cover me with insurance regardless of how much i was willing to pay. They scince changed their minds except i had to get my mum to start talking to them before they would take me seriously.

I really take offence to people telling me that turbo's and V8's are the problem with P Platers dieing, i've never even lost a point off my licence.
I also want to point out that 0-100 times arn't nessacarily equal to 0-unsafe times. Intead of turbo and V8 bans, maybe Death Trap bans, e.g 1980's corrola's and the like.

[Greggy]

I am a P plater, and i have been driving my parents car which has a turbo, and am now buying my first car and it will have a turbo. I will be in less trouble if i push an SRI Turbo passed its limits then if i pushed a N\A Supra passed it's limits as the sri has all the electronics to bring me into line and a 5 Star N-Cap rating where as the Supra which is much cheaper to ensure would much more likley kill me. Btw when i first rang up the NRMA they said they wouldn't even cover me with insurance regardless of how much i was willing to pay. They scince changed their minds except i had to get my mum to start talking to them before they would take me seriously.

I really take offence to people telling me that turbo's and V8's are the problem with P Platers dieing, i've never even lost a point off my licence.
I also want to point out that 0-100 times arn't nessacarily equal to 0-unsafe times. Intead of turbo and V8 bans, maybe Death Trap bans, e.g 1980's corrola's and the like.

I am (getting on a bit now) 35 and am only at a stage in life where I can now get away with a 'hot hatch' - not having the funds to have one let alone insure one was i was younger.....even that said, it will cost me about £500 GBP (£1250) NOW at my age..........

The biggest killer with young drivers 'glabally' is I think a mix of :-
Lack of experience and Bravado (too busy showing off) and excess speed....its no specifically the cars themselves (or condition of)....

I think alot of young driver deaths can so easily be avoided with a better set of driver exams and probation period (i think Aus has a good idea with the P plate scheme)

[jsantos]

I am (getting on a bit now) 35 and am only at a stage in life where I can now get away with a 'hot hatch' - not having the funds to have one let alone insure one was i was younger.....even that said, it will cost me about £500 GBP (£1250) NOW at my age..........

The biggest killer with young drivers 'glabally' is I think a mix of :-
Lack of experience and Bravado (too busy showing off) and excess speed....its no specifically the cars themselves (or condition of)....

I think alot of young driver deaths can so easily be avoided with a better set of driver exams and probation period (i think Aus has a good idea with the P plate scheme)


It's what you would call a good idea in theory, i guess in someways like communism unfortnatly we all know how that worked out. The P plate scheme sounds good it's rediculous, you drive for one year. Then pay $90 for a 15 minute test where it asks you to point out hazards, things like "touch the screen when it's safe to turn right" ummm maybe i'll do it when theres no cars coming? or "Touch the screen to Slow down when your speed is not suitable for the conditions" maybe when there is a corner?
Then after 15 minutes of questions like that i am entitles to 3 more points 10km an hour top end and for some reason i am now allowed to drive a manual? I think it could of worked if actually tested something useful.

You are correct in saying that Insurance is one of the bigger things standing in p platers way of driving faster cars. I just really wish that there was more recognition given that safer more well maintained cars(good tiers) actually do save lives. And that in-experience can only be changed by experience and attitudes won't change by an authority figure metaphorially yellling at a child.
I'll put it this way, if your kid want's to ride a bike and you know he is going to fall off it because he is just learning to, you don't tell him he can't ride the bike as he will at one stage anyway instead you buy him a helmet and pads and when he falls off he dosen't get as hurt. I think the human factor needs to be taken out of the equation or fatality and crash prevention.

[imay]

I am a P plater,

I really take offence to people telling me that turbo's and V8's are the problem

I accept your point . . . however, I still believe that INEXPERIENCE is the biggest problem on our roads. Inexperience of general car behaviour, inexperience of how to handle ANY car in an emergency, inexperience of how other road users are likely to react to a given situation, inexperience of allowing for other road users' inexperience, inexperience of being able to make rational judgements that could ultimately save or take lives . . . and the list goes on.
No, this doesn't just apply to P-platers, and I don't pretend that it does. This applies to long term licence holders also. However, the seemingly total disregard that many young/er drivers have for other road users is, in my view, a very disturbing trend which may have an effect towards accidents.
Restricting P-platers use of powerful cars is not the answer, but it's a start, surely! And our law-makers have to be seen to be making some sort of effort.
But again, this topic is in regards to speeding and the authorities making no effort to warn us of speed camera placements. Why should they? You speed, you get caught, you pay the penalty. Simple! Don't like paying the fines, don't speed. Even simpler! Surely even a P-plater can figure that one out. If not, they should even be on the road in the first place.

[jsantos]

Why should they? You speed, you get caught, you pay the penalty. Simple! Don't like paying the fines, don't speed. Even simpler! Surely even a P-plater can figure that one out. If not, they should even be on the road in the first place.

That is why, Secondary benefit means that any law which can be brought in and enforced through fines results in the governments secondary benefit.

What ends up happening is that whilst the law is no longer the most effective means of acheiveing the desired goal the amount of momentum behind it is so large that changing it becomes far to painful for the goverments to think about doing so instead they focus on other things which help to ease their political pressure.

I don't expect anything to change anytime soon. I think a good step would be federally removing the ability for state governments to prosper from road revenue. Any fine that is taken should not be allowed to leave the roads budget and should be used on things such as subsidising higher quality tiers and removing tax's on cars which acheive 5 star saftey ratings in order to give people a reason to buy a car that they wouldn't normally consider. Imagine if P platers had a choice of getting into a 5 star saftey base model Astra for the same price as a "Getz". In turn it would put pressure on manufacturers to stop spending as much money on engine r&d as saftey R&D because atm engines sell cars rather then saftey features. This would result in safer cars being produced cheaper in the long run with less slower power gains (if you really wanted to drop the amount of p power people have access to this is the ideal way to do it). So speed camera's would actually start saving lives as they would be responsible for helping people get into cars which minimise fatalities and have rubber which actually sticks to the road.

That is my solution to the probablem with the "speeding camera's hidden agenda"

[imay]

Hey, don't want to turn this into too much more of a rant . . . but . . .

Most speeding/traffic infringement fines are nothing more than a revenue raising exercise. I accept that. I also accept that revenue has to be raised from somewhere. But, this is a no-argument, basically because this is a revenue that I (currently) don't contribute to, so therefore don't really care how they go about raising it.
If motorists want to speed, therefore running the risk of copping a fine, so be it! Contribute towards the revenue raising and shut up.
I don't smoke, so therefore don't have a problem with the government taxing cigarettes.
I don't drink (much), so I don't contribute (much) to the alcohol tax.
I don't play the pokies/lotto, so don't contribute to the gambling tax.
Again, it's all taxes I simply don't pay, so why should I worry.

You speed, you get caught, you pay a tax. Simple. Who cares where they put the taxation monitoring devices and how they go about collecting it? There's this big dial that sits in front of you when you drive, that indicates how close you are to potentially contributing to this tax we are talking about. Look at it occassionally and drive sensibly and you will most likely be able to avoid paying into this fund.