Mazda Enters Speed Camera Debate

[mcnews]

Written by one of the professional road safety expert nong in a white room no doubt in order to justify something a government wants to do, in return said nong gets next round of grant funding and the gravy train continues....

[aussiblue]

No; someone analysing the cold hard stats as you can do too, using the raw ABS cause of death data. I don't like it anymore than you, but the cold hard facts are that about half the motorcycle fatal accidents are single vehicle and drugs and alcohol play a disproportionate role in motorcycle accidents perhaps because it is harder to ride a car than drive a car effectively while drugged or drunk with impaired balance skills and if you get it wrong on a bike it is more likely to be fatal than in a car. No; it doesn't mean that bikers are all drunks and druggies just that those bikies that are, are more likely to get themselves killed. To try and claims cars cause 80% of motorcycles accident fatalities is just BS and burying the head in the sand over the true causes isn't going to help stop it happening.

[aussiblue]

Getting back to the OP don't most good experienced drivers driving their own cars know how fast they are going (or at least if they are speeding) without looking at the speedo or at least maintain their target speed once having got there with a couple of quick glances at the speedo?

[aussiblue]

You have to suspect the Mazda man was recently pinged and sour grapes was a factor .

[new2ford]

You are looking at your speedo here far more than, say, driving in Europe (my experience) because of the unrelenting threat here of being radared even at a few km/h over. It's simply not an issue in most European countries I've driven in.

It certainly introduces a stress factor to driving here that I find I don't experience in Europe where you can focus more broadly on the general driving environment. I know it's hard to quantify, but I've been driving for ever 40 years and I'm very aware of it. It's even different from my early driving years here in Australia before all this came in. I can understand perfectly what he's getting at.

And I don't think it's related to road safety, cars have got better - that's a significant factor in the reduced toll. But I think many drivers have got worse due to excessive nannying (they've lost the ability and skill to think for themselves) and new distractions like electronic devices.

[aussiblue]

I have also been driving for over 40 years and I agree that you didn't have to worry so much about speed when I started driving. It was in the era when there were still open speed limits in WA (but I always doubted the wisdom of those open limits being on the worse roads- generally poorly maintained single lane gravel or quartz bush tracks with roos jumping out of the bushes and log truck appearing in around the next blind karri forest bend).

The cops in those days were only just getting access to radar or similar technology and many still relied mainly on the amphometer or simply following you and clocking your speed. Local Government also employed most traffic cops, usually only one and the grapevine told you where he was operating each day so you knew where to be extra careful. The Oz road toll has decreased over time in terms of Km driven with safer roads and safer cars but road accidents get much more media attention than they used to and with TV the images are more graphic.

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by cro142

How the original poster suggest such rubbish.

I am a very safe driver because I never exceed the speed limit, as everybody knows that "every K over is a killer".

I am so happy that my government knows how to keep me safe.
I have had it drummed into me over many years that all I have to worry about is not to exceed the speed limit in order to be safe. This means I don't have to worry about developing any other skills, or thinking about any other ways to keep my driving safe.

If this means focussing only on clock watching, then so be it. At least I know I will be safe on the roads.

Well put...and that right there is, shamefully, exactly the reasoning an awful lot of drivers use. "If I never drink drive and don't speed, I'll never have an accident...sweet! I can just sit back and steer and not worry too much about anything else"...

[bangm001]

Revenue Raising...........

[b0son]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

Getting back to the OP don't most good experienced drivers driving their own cars know how fast they are going (or at least if they are speeding) without looking at the speedo or at least maintain their target speed once having got there with a couple of quick glances at the speedo?

Within 5-10kph, yes. To the nearest 1kph, as the lawmakers would expect us to? Of course not.

[BENT_8]

Well if speed camera's aren't the answer what is?

Keep in mind any alternative must be able to be implemented immediately with instant effectiveness so as not to raise the road toll unnecessarily.
Something that EVERY motorist, will adhere to instantly.


Lets hear them...

[csv8]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Well if speed camera's aren't the answer what is?

Keep in mind any alternative must be able to be implemented immediately with instant effectiveness so as not to raise the road toll unnecessarily.
Something that EVERY motorist, will adhere to instantly.


Lets hear them...

Education ...speed cameras are the easy way out...

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by csv8

Education ...speed cameras are the easy way out...

Educate who?

The 10 million drivers already out there?

Who educates them and in what time frame?

Remember, if we switch the camera's off tonight, the alternative has to work tomorrow.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Well if speed camera's aren't the answer what is?

Keep in mind any alternative must be able to be implemented immediately with instant effectiveness so as not to raise the road toll unnecessarily.
Something that EVERY motorist, will adhere to instantly.


Lets hear them...

raise the speed limit, let the natural flow of traffic dictate the limit.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by burnz

raise the speed limit, let the natural flow of traffic dictate the limit.

Serious answers please, all this will do is raise the average speed of drivers on the roads, it will not stop speeders from wanting to be in front of the queue, it just means they will be speeding faster than they are currently.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Serious answers please, all this will do is raise the average speed of drivers on the roads, it will not stop speeders from wanting to be in front of the queue, it just means they will be speeding faster than they are currently.

you've got to be kidding with your save the children rant!
so how many do 100kph in peak hour on an expressway?
you like most short change people because govco told you.

fact is most drivers will only do 120~130kph as proven in NT.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by burnz

you've got to be kidding with your save the children rant!
so how many do 100kph in peak hour on an expressway?
you a like most short change people because govco told you.

No, come on, no need to get all personal, no ones ranting except you.

Your problem is that you don't have an alternative that can effectively solve the problem, so you try to shift the focus to me.

Tell us how allowing 80% of the driving population to travel faster will stop 20% from getting caught for speeding.

Originally Posted by burnz

fact is most drivers will only do 120~130kph as proven in NT.

And were talking ALL drivers here, MOST do the right thing anyway.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

No, come on, no need to get all personal, no ones ranting except you.

Your problem is that you do have an alternative that can effectively solve the problem.

Tell us how allowing 80% of the driving population to travel faster will stop 20% from getting caught for speeding.



And were talking ALL drivers here, MOST do the right thing anyway.

were not talking doing the right thing, just reducing the road toll. raise it simple
it not hard to police unsafe driving, they done it before they can do it again.

[noflac52]

[QUOTE=aussiblue;5121823]That is simply not true. See for example http://arsrpe.acrs.org.au/pdf/Bambac...0Australia.pdf


Also see ABS causes of death stats that give similar current figures. http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@....4?OpenDocument

And no I am not vilifying motorcyclist as discussed previously http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthread.php?t=11396459 just correcting a false claim; indeed some might think claiming 80% of motorcycle deaths are caused by car drivers is vilifying car drivers.[/QUOT

Sorry that should have read 80% of motorcycle deaths where cars are involved the fault is the driver of the car according to RMS safety messages broadcast on TV in NSW.

Its still quite a telling statistic!

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by burnz

it not hard to police unsafe driving, they done it before they can do it again.

Policing hey.

Can you tell me, roughly, the ratio of motorists to patrolling cars, even in your local area...

Now, with that in mind, who's going to pay for the extra police and vehicles required to do that job, factoring in the loss of revenue from switching off the camera's.

See, its easy to say switch them off, they are revenue raisers, but you have to have some educated and funded alternative and im all ears at the moment.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by burnz

were not talking doing the right thing, just reducing the road toll. raise it simple

So raising the speed limit will lower the road toll.

Can you show evidence of this and can you guarantee beyond reasonable doubt that it wont do the opposite.
You cant just make sweeping statements without something to support it.

Remember, peoples lives are at stake, who's going to put their hand up if all of a sudden the toll starts to rise.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Policing hey.

Can you tell me, roughly, the ratio of motorists to patrolling cars, even in your local area...

Now, with that in mind, who's going to pay for the extra police and vehicles required to do that job, factoring in the loss of revenue from switching off the camera's.

See, its easy to say switch them off, they are revenue raisers, but you have to have some educated and funded alternative and im all ears at the moment.

is this about saving lives?
or are you going to regurgitate what govco told you!
2000 lives per year for the money is an acceptable loss in the eye of the gov, when become unpalatable then thing will change.
how much money is enough for the gov? a mill? a bill? a trill?
or is it simply bloated with deadheads in non functional departments..

[Davehoos]

police cars-patrolling- local council pays NSW police to patrol minor roads, I passed 2 vehicles on the way home-one having just added to the coffers.

they have in this area data on some way on just about everthing, just a case of employing that data.

Local council added up that over enforcement reduce road maintenance cost. They placed road counters in that they are required to obtain road funding and found they could identify wieights and speeds against time so they could employ police to reduce road speed or road damage.

Local mines treated the local streets as a race track, and the tourist in the next council. Locals had a bit of pain at first.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by burnz

is this about saving lives?
or are you going to regurgitate what govco told you!
2000 lives per year for the money is an acceptable loss in the eye of the gov, when become unpalatable then thing will change.
how much money is enough for the gov? a mill? a bill? a trill?
or is it simply bloated with deadheads in non functional departments..

Then show us a proven alternative and proof that the alternative is better.

You cant blame the Government for earning fine revenue, it is a voluntary tax.
No one is FORCED to pay it, it is what it is.

Its not Govco spin, it is reality.

I'll tell you a story.
last fortnight I was talking to a mate of a mate and the subject turned to the legalities of fines.
His argument is that a speed camera cant present to court so a motorist cant confront their accuser.
That in itself might give an insight into his mentality.
At this point I told him I would listen to his spiel so long as he answered one question for me at the end, he agreed.
he then went on for an hour telling me why speed camera's serve no other purpose other than revenue raising.

At the end I asked him what an alternative was as I have asked here.

He became aggressive, tried to twist the argument around, got up and changed his kid, took a **** down the back and in the end changed the subject.
I never got my answer, nor did I expect to...

For the record this bloke drives a slammed 400hp WZ Stato and thinks he can have his mortgage absolved with a printed certificate claiming to be his own currency.

Some people are out of touch...

[Davehoos]

So raising the speed limit will lower the road toll.

How do you feel to be proven right BUT-
Wont increase the road toll either--stats back this up.

Best way to reduce the road toll is to destroy peoples living standards--FACT.

Speed limits are to reduce fuel used by the total economy and the reduction of GDP. The cost of time lost during extended travelling cant be reclaimed by reduction of travel times.

I don't believe it but it must be so because national policy is based on this and the cost of road based injuries.

If you want to drive fast for happiness--you cant.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Then show us a proven alternative and proof that the alternative is better.

You cant blame the Government for earning fine revenue, it is a voluntary tax.
No one is FORCED to pay it, it is what it is.

Its not Govco spin, it is reality.

I'll tell you a story.
last fortnight I was talking to a mate of a mate and the subject turned to the legalities of fines.
His argument is that a speed camera cant present to court so a motorist cant confront their accuser.
That in itself might give an insight into his mentality.
At this point I told him I would listen to his spiel so long as he answered one question for me at the end, he agreed.
he then went on for an hour telling me why speed camera's serve no other purpose other than revenue raising.

At the end I asked him what an alternative was as I have asked here.

He became aggressive, tried to twist the argument around, got up and changed his kid, took a **** down the back and in the end changed the subject.
I never got my answer, nor did I expect to...

For the record this bloke drives a slammed 400hp WZ Stato and thinks he can have his mortgage absolved with a printed certificate claiming to be his own currency.

Some people are out of touch...

people scream black and blue about welfare cheats but we can elect them.

gov invent/causes a problem, enrage the masses then creates a fine for the fix.
yet none see's this, man has eye's but he cannot see..

raising the speed limit will it reduce death tolls? yes I think so.

less frustration, more concentration, less aggression, less time on road.
even raise the limit for truck, get them in unloaded before peak hour.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by Davehoos

How do you feel to be proven right BUT-
Wont increase the road toll either--stats back this up.

Can you provide the stats please.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Then show us a proven alternative and proof that the alternative is better.

leave the camera's as they are, but mandate 10% leeway, and if you get done, the reading on the gun/camera is what you are charged with, no knocking off a couple of km's etc.

increase the fines for over by 15km/h +

this will no doubt result in those who will always add that 10% to the speed limit everywhere they go, but chances are they will contribute much more to the police budget in the long term.

less than 10kkm/h over to be a minor fine and 1 point. hopefully this would result in more people being less paranoid about watching the speedo and concentrate more on driving.

these ideas are not new. they are simple pretty much how the system used to work before minority groups with agendas started getting listened to.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by burnz

people scream black and blue about welfare cheats but we can elect them.

gov invent/causes a problem, enrage the masses then creates a fine for the fix.
yet none see's this, man has eye's but he cannot see..

raising the speed limit will it reduce death tolls? yes I think so.

less frustration, more concentration, less aggression, less time on road.
even raise the limit for truck, get them in unloaded before peak hour.

You THINK so...

That would make a great argument to those left to grieve... 'sorry for the loss of your loved one, I thought it would be a good idea'

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by prydey

leave the camera's as they are, but mandate 10% leeway, and if you get done, the reading on the gun/camera is what you are charged with, no knocking off a couple of km's etc.

increase the fines for over by 15km/h +

this will no doubt result in those who will always add that 10% to the speed limit everywhere they go, but chances are they will contribute much more to the police budget in the long term.

less than 10kkm/h over to be a minor fine and 1 point. hopefully this would result in more people being less paranoid about watching the speedo and concentrate more on driving.

these ideas are not new. they are simple pretty much how the system used to work before minority groups with agendas started getting listened to.

So by that you are suggesting that speed camera's do have a place in speed deterrence, you just believe the threshold should be raised, yes?

[burnz]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

You THINK so...

That would make a great argument to those left to grieve... 'sorry for the loss of your loved one, I thought it would be a good idea'

you cannot prove the speeding kill, because it doesn't.
govco own stats from 2011~2012 showed "not one" person died from speeding.

fatigue, boredom, lack of concentration is what kills...