Gold Coast Speed Camera Racks up $12k an HOUR !!!

[300C-CRD]

If the local governments are truly honest about "fines aren't revenue raising". They should donate all speeding fines to Charities/bush fires victims/local hospitals.

[2fishingdogs]

Speeding is like a voluntary tax. If you speed, you must be prepare to pay. If not, don't speed. I beleive that the camera's are cash cows, but what can you do about it, I spose don't speed.

[cant]

its like some of the people who design cars, and us poor people try to work on them!

Some POLY sittin behind his desk or in the back of his TAX payer funded car being Chafeur driven with N,F,I, ROBS us blind, all cause some doo gooder says its a good idea in some spot (normally years too late and after the roads are upgraded) !

So do what i do, have fun where you can and give the camera the BIRD every time you go past ( could end up with a great pic),

Ohh and dont encourage the pricks DONT VOTE!

[mrbaxr6t]

geeze guys I can't believe this thread! you guys support joe average getting knicked doing 5 km/h over the speed limit right at the base of a hill on a freeway? cruise control lifts the speed 5 kmh on a steep enough hill. I don't get you guys yes if people are being tools and ripping down the road at 10kmh or more over the limit then this is a deliberate speeding offence but they don't focus on this demographic they set their stuff to nab everybody honest and dishonest. The public knows if you are going up hill you can scream up it with out fear and when you reach the top you slow and go 10kmh under down the other side, they do it round here all the time. Why you say? Because there is no speed cameras on an uphill road because people using cruise slow up climbing a hill by a couple km/h.

My beef isn't with the cameras or that they are being used, my beef is with their placement especially the mobile ones, always at the base of a steep hill. How many accidents have you heard of that occur at the base of a hill on a highway?

As for the camera in question - the road clearly has a high amount of traffic, more cars equals more smashes. I will go out on a limb here an say that a very small percentage of the cars that use that road actually get smashed on it, but due to the sheer volume of traffic the road is subject to more accidents than other less busy road. Making it a black spot. Black spots need to be determined as a percentage of accidents vs number of cars using the road. Not oh there was 12 accidents there in a month must be black spot. But lets just say 1,000,000 cars used the road in that month - 12 smashes isn't alot.

ALSO : mobile speed cameras are operated by a private company nowadays (in vic at least) - pinging more speeders is good for their bottom line

[hdj80]

Originally Posted by Pedro

One of those after news shows (9 or 7) did a story on this the other night when the Qld ratheads (sorry I meant Govt) announced they were placing another umpteen cameras around Brisbane. The Channel did a freedom of information search and found none of the upcoming new cameras were in Govt. declared "Black Spots" And the Minister (Judy Spence) looked into the camera and announced "this is not revenue raising". Yes Judy, we all came down in the last shower. Such contempt!

But we are so used to it we accept it Pedro. Conditioned by 10 years of Beattie's bullsh$t.

Perhaps they should just admit that it is a revenue stream. Let's just remember it may be police manning the vans and sending out the tickets but none of it has anything to do with police....its just seen as a better deterent to have all traffic enforcement linked with police, rather than Vic which has private contractors doing speed camera....which increases the revenue as they cost less than putting police in them on double time.

Getting tickets suck, but they are like death and taxes if you drive a fast car...inevitable

[flappist]

The hypocracy of this is incredible.

THEY say that travelling faster than a number THEY determine is dangerous.

THEY say that they put speed cameras in to punish those who do not do what THEY say.

THEY do this by sending a fine several weeks after this "dangerous" act, NOT by pulling the driver over as issuing on the spot and therefore.

So they do not slow the traffic down at this "dangerous" place, they just take money. In the business world this would be fraud.


If speed cameras were a safety device then there would be no fines as drivers would be aware that there was a dangerous place and they should slow down.

The mere fact that that so many fines are issued is compelling evidence that the whole speed camera concept is purely a revinue raising mechanism.

The wowsers on here rave on about "don't speed and you won't get fined". I suspect niavety and short term memory loss go hand in hand as the hundreds of thousands of Victorians who were wrongly fined a few years ago were not speeding AND the road toll was still just as bad. So many here have forgotten they WE not THEY are the ones responsible for society and WE should not just allow them to treat us like slaves.

The speed camera policy of many of our state is like almost everything else about them. EPIC FAILURE.

[EgoFG]

My problem is not really about fines, or revenue raising.
It is the created perception that low speed limits, and vigorour enforcement is the best way to improve safety.

It is the opposite, it creates an environment that encourages drivers to watch the speed, and speed signs, rather than the road conditions, and other road users !

[Bud Bud]

Originally Posted by flappist

The hypocracy of this is incredible.

THEY say that travelling faster than a number THEY determine is dangerous.

THEY say that they put speed cameras in to punish those who do not do what THEY say.

THEY do this by sending a fine several weeks after this "dangerous" act, NOT by pulling the driver over as issuing on the spot and therefore.

So they do not slow the traffic down at this "dangerous" place, they just take money. In the business world this would be fraud.


If speed cameras were a safety device then there would be no fines as drivers would be aware that there was a dangerous place and they should slow down.

The mere fact that that so many fines are issued is compelling evidence that the whole speed camera concept is purely a revinue raising mechanism.

The wowsers on here rave on about "don't speed and you won't get fined". I suspect niavety and short term memory loss go hand in hand as the hundreds of thousands of Victorians who were wrongly fined a few years ago were not speeding AND the road toll was still just as bad. So many here have forgotten they WE not THEY are the ones responsible for society and WE should not just allow them to treat us like slaves.

The speed camera policy of many of our state is like almost everything else about them. EPIC FAILURE.

As comic book guy might be tempted to say "best post ever"

well said!

[2fishingdogs]

Originally Posted by flappist

The hypocracy of this is incredible.

THEY say that travelling faster than a number THEY determine is dangerous.

THEY say that they put speed cameras in to punish those who do not do what THEY say.

THEY do this by sending a fine several weeks after this "dangerous" act, NOT by pulling the driver over as issuing on the spot and therefore.

So they do not slow the traffic down at this "dangerous" place, they just take money. In the business world this would be fraud.


If speed cameras were a safety device then there would be no fines as drivers would be aware that there was a dangerous place and they should slow down.

The mere fact that that so many fines are issued is compelling evidence that the whole speed camera concept is purely a revinue raising mechanism.

The wowsers on here rave on about "don't speed and you won't get fined". I suspect niavety and short term memory loss go hand in hand as the hundreds of thousands of Victorians who were wrongly fined a few years ago were not speeding AND the road toll was still just as bad. So many here have forgotten they WE not THEY are the ones responsible for society and WE should not just allow them to treat us like slaves.

The speed camera policy of many of our state is like almost everything else about them. EPIC FAILURE.

I'm anything but a wowser, but what can we do as a small group in the community that can see what is wrong. So how do you think we should get the attention of our elected member's to change? The government I beleive rely's on this money. With statements in the past that they expect income from fine's to increase at "set amount". Which would make it harder for them to change.
I agree that most of the places where they place cameras is wrong, they set a camera on Toongarra road in Leichhardt, Ipswich and it has been a black spot but has been fixed early last year, but you can guarantee that they set up there atleast once a week.
Who checks that the placements are right or wrong? The Government or their police force? The only way I can see that we can impact the cameras is not to be caught speeding. But then what would the government do for that money they will miss out on.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by 2fishingdogs

I'm anything but a wowser, but what can we do as a small group in the community that can see what is wrong. So how do you think we should get the attention of our elected member's to change? The government I beleive rely's on this money. With statements in the past that they expect income from fine's to increase at "set amount". Which would make it harder for them to change.
I agree that most of the places where they place cameras is wrong, they set a camera on Toongarra road in Leichhardt, Ipswich and it has been a black spot but has been fixed early last year, but you can guarantee that they set up there atleast once a week.
Who checks that the placements are right or wrong? The Government or their police force? The only way I can see that we can impact the cameras is not to be caught speeding. But then what would the government do for that money they will miss out on.

Not a hope with the incumbent but possible with the challenger. I will know a lot more after 7pm today.

[Springfield_Johny]

Originally Posted by EgoFG

My problem is not really about fines, or revenue raising.
It is the created perception that low speed limits, and vigorour enforcement is the best way to improve safety.

It is the opposite, it creates an environment that encourages drivers to watch the speed, and speed signs, rather than the road conditions, and other road users !

I'm not speed camera pro-active by any stretch

When I learnt to drive, I learnt to watch my speed and the road signs regardless if they were for speed, other traffic etc, it takes a fraction of a second to glance at your speedo and if you go somewhere you don’t look at road signs? Even those for directions if your in an unfamiliar area?

Everyone has a different perception of “the conditions” based on their own experience, some experience safe other experiences perhaps not so. Just because you got away with something once or twice doesn’t mean that its safe. Conditions change, gravel on the road that wasn’t there the day before, some spilt oil etc. So what I feel is a safe speed for “the conditions” perhaps is different for what someone else feels safe for “the conditions”. If everyone drove at what they felt was safe for “the conditions wouldn’t this just create anarchy?

Speed limits have to be placed for the majority of Drivers given most conditions so everyone can use the road with a minimum of fuss. I don’t want to share the road where someone feels they can drive at 160 because they felt “the conditions” were safe for them to do so

Originally Posted by flappist

The hypocracy of this is incredible.

THEY say that travelling faster than a number THEY determine is dangerous..

I mean no offence and I’m not making a personal attack, but what qualifies you or anyone to judge differently from the posted speed limit? Most of these are done with people who are qualified to do so. No I’m not qualified in case your wondering.
If someone has information that can change a posted speed limit why not take it to those responsible for changing it? I know this is probably hard to do because getting to those people is made difficult but this is probably because all they usually get complaints from Johny mullethaircut who feels that he’s a better driver than everybody else & should be able to drive how he likes.

Originally Posted by flappist

THEY do this by sending a fine several weeks after this "dangerous" act, NOT by pulling the driver over as issuing on the spot

This I agree with completely. Nothing works better than modifying the behaviour when it happens so the behaviour stops, not weeks afterwards.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by johnandjus

I'm not speed camera pro-active by any stretch

When I learnt to drive, I learnt to watch my speed and the road signs regardless if they were for speed, other traffic etc, it takes a fraction of a second to glance at your speedo and if you go somewhere you don’t look at road signs? Even those for directions if your in an unfamiliar area?

Originally Posted by johnandjus

Everyone has a different perception of “the conditions” based on their own experience, some experience safe other experiences perhaps not so. Just because you got away with something once or twice doesn’t mean that its safe. Conditions change, gravel on the road that wasn’t there the day before, some spilt oil etc. So what I feel is a safe speed for “the conditions” perhaps is different for what someone else feels safe for “the conditions”. If everyone drove at what they felt was safe for “the conditions wouldn’t this just create anarchy?

Well that was the system in NT up until 2 years ago and it worked well. Now there is a speed limit and the road toll almost doubled instantly. It also works well in other parts of the world. The biggest problem here is that we have too many people who could not function let alone drive if they were not told what to do constantly.

Originally Posted by j&j

Speed limits have to be placed for the majority of Drivers given most conditions so everyone can use the road with a minimum of fuss. I don’t want to share the road where someone feels they can drive at 160 because they felt “the conditions” were safe for them to do so

Would you rather share the road with people who rely blindly on signs and are more worried about speeding when they are overtaking than self preservation and end up in head on prangs because they were on the wron side of the road?

Originally Posted by j&j

I mean no offence and I’m not making a personal attack, but what qualifies you or anyone to judge differently from the posted speed limit? Most of these are done with people who are qualified to do so. No I’m not qualified in case your wondering.

My qualification is a drivers license. This license is supposed to denote that the licensee has sufficient skill to operate a motor vehicle and judge conditions by themselves. The same judgement that is used to determine that 100 in a 100 zone in fog is dangerous is that which can tell that a wide open freeway at 2am is not dangerous at 110 in the abovementioned 100 zone.
As soon as the word SPEEDING is mentioned the wowsers always rave about 200k/h in a school zone at 3PM. It is about hype and beat up in the true ACA manner.
Do you really thing that those who choose speed limits for any area have actually been there or sometimes actually drive at all? At a recent road safety conference on of the overpaid morons pointed out that many accidents happen while overtaking so it would improve the road toll if overtaking on single or dual lane roads was banned outright.

If you do not have the skills to judge whether the speed you are doing is safe then you should not be on the roads.

Originally Posted by j&j

If someone has information that can change a posted speed limit why not take it to those responsible for changing it?

Because it is political not logical and agenda, policy and revinue are far more important to the incumbents than safety.
The perfect example is hidden speed cameras. If the idea was to prevent travelling above a specific speed at a particular place wouldn't a huge sign with flashing lights and a couple of coppers be more effective though much less profitable.

Originally Posted by j&j

I know this is probably hard to do because getting to those people is made difficult but this is probably because all they usually get complaints from Johny mullethaircut who feels that he’s a better driver than everybody else & should be able to drive how he likes.

As opposed to complaints from Dr Fred Frootloop PhD who has not driven outside the university grounds since 1962? Or Sir Harold Scruby, Knight Defender of the Zebra Crossing, who just has a personal vendetta against drivers.

The botton line is:

Sometimes limits are appropriate, other times not. The reason for limits is safety not revinue raising and it is far more dangerous to have drivers more worried about exceeding a number and constantly watching their speedo that to watch the road, other vehicles and surroundings.

It is also very dangerous to push the idea that all crashes are speed related because stupid niave people will tend to believe that if they are under the magic number they cannot crash so they don't need to pay attention to the road.

You don't think that there are many people that stupid or niave? How do you think the people who push this propaganda got into power in the first place......

[hdj80]

Originally Posted by flappist

Well that was the system in NT up until 2 years ago and it worked well. Now there is a speed limit and the road toll almost doubled instantly. It also works well in other parts of the world. The biggest problem here is that we have too many people who could not function let alone drive if they were not told what to do constantly.

Would you rather share the road with people who rely blindly on signs and are more worried about speeding when they are overtaking than self preservation and end up in head on prangs because they were on the wron side of the road?

My qualification is a drivers license. This license is supposed to denote that the licensee has sufficient skill to operate a motor vehicle and judge conditions by themselves. The same judgement that is used to determine that 100 in a 100 zone in fog is dangerous is that which can tell that a wide open freeway at 2am is not dangerous at 110 in the abovementioned 100 zone.
As soon as the word SPEEDING is mentioned the wowsers always rave about 200k/h in a school zone at 3PM. It is about hype and beat up in the true ACA manner.
Do you really thing that those who choose speed limits for any area have actually been there or sometimes actually drive at all? At a recent road safety conference on of the overpaid morons pointed out that many accidents happen while overtaking so it would improve the road toll if overtaking on single or dual lane roads was banned outright.

If you do not have the skills to judge whether the speed you are doing is safe then you should not be on the roads.

Because it is political not logical and agenda, policy and revinue are far more important to the incumbents than safety.
The perfect example is hidden speed cameras. If the idea was to prevent travelling above a specific speed at a particular place wouldn't a huge sign with flashing lights and a couple of coppers be more effective though much less profitable.

As opposed to complaints from Dr Fred Frootloop PhD who has not driven outside the university grounds since 1962? Or Sir Harold Scruby, Knight Defender of the Zebra Crossing, who just has a personal vendetta against drivers.

The botton line is:

Sometimes limits are appropriate, other times not. The reason for limits is safety not revinue raising and it is far more dangerous to have drivers more worried about exceeding a number and constantly watching their speedo that to watch the road, other vehicles and surroundings.

It is also very dangerous to push the idea that all crashes are speed related because stupid niave people will tend to believe that if they are under the magic number they cannot crash so they don't need to pay attention to the road.

You don't think that there are many people that stupid or niave? How do you think the people who push this propaganda got into power in the first place......

Flappist old mate you are really pushing the limit of sane discussion here. Do you actually drive on the road???? As far as I can see about 85% of motorists are at there maximum skill level at 60kph let alone faster. Qld roads are attrocious and other than the M1 are not suitable to travelling much faster than 100kph with the 85% of people who stuggle to drive at slower speeds.

I'd like to think that a licence denoted equal skill, but with our less than rigourous licencing system people are taught no more than the bare essentials for car control.

Simple - rules are there for the majority, I do @ 40k km a year and feel well qualified to comment on just how limited the skill of the majority is. To find out - drive down the m1 from Bris to the coast and see how many vehicles have hit the barriers on either side of the road. 4 lanes of perfect roadway and people are still unable to keep it on the road.

I certainly agree that speed cameras have no deterrent value at the time of activation or by their placement, but where they work is when you have 2 pts left and realise that getting caught one more time will mean its bus time....then you become hypervigilant on the speed limit and your speedo. And the next blackspot you go through you will no doubt be doing the speed limit, not above it..or if you are you will be walking not too many weeks later.

I would also like to see where there has been one fatality where someone was overtaking and refusing to exceed the speed limit, rather than overtaking purely when unsafe to do so.

As far as I remember about vehicle control, you are supposed to constant scan the road ahead, the mirrors and your instruments as a continuous process, which means you should be updating your knowledge of fuel level, engine temp, SPEED, what's behind you, whats in front and what the speed limit is. Tweeking the stereo and yarping on phones is secondary....although from what I have seen on the roads plenty seem to think its the primary task.

Stats are pretty accurate on the fatal four, speed, fatigue, alcohol and seat belts. They do miss the overriding cause as it is impolite - STUPIDITY. Kills more reliably than any - usually because some stupid idiot is speeding, is p155ed or hasn't slept for a long time.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by hdj80

Flappist old mate you are really pushing the limit of sane discussion here. Do you actually drive on the road???? As far as I can see about 85% of motorists are at there maximum skill level at 60kph let alone faster. Qld roads are attrocious and other than the M1 are not suitable to travelling much faster than 100kph with the 85% of people who stuggle to drive at slower speeds.

I'd like to think that a licence denoted equal skill, but with our less than rigourous licencing system people are taught no more than the bare essentials for car control.

Simple - rules are there for the majority, I do @ 40k km a year and feel well qualified to comment on just how limited the skill of the majority is. To find out - drive down the m1 from Bris to the coast and see how many vehicles have hit the barriers on either side of the road. 4 lanes of perfect roadway and people are still unable to keep it on the road.

I certainly agree that speed cameras have no deterrent value at the time of activation or by their placement, but where they work is when you have 2 pts left and realise that getting caught one more time will mean its bus time....then you become hypervigilant on the speed limit and your speedo. And the next blackspot you go through you will no doubt be doing the speed limit, not above it..or if you are you will be walking not too many weeks later.

I would also like to see where there has been one fatality where someone was overtaking and refusing to exceed the speed limit, rather than overtaking purely when unsafe to do so.

As far as I remember about vehicle control, you are supposed to constant scan the road ahead, the mirrors and your instruments as a continuous process, which means you should be updating your knowledge of fuel level, engine temp, SPEED, what's behind you, whats in front and what the speed limit is. Tweeking the stereo and yarping on phones is secondary....although from what I have seen on the roads plenty seem to think its the primary task.

Stats are pretty accurate on the fatal four, speed, fatigue, alcohol and seat belts. They do miss the overriding cause as it is impolite - STUPIDITY. Kills more reliably than any - usually because some stupid idiot is speeding, is p155ed or hasn't slept for a long time.

Well I do actually drive on the road on the odd occaision. A fair bit over a million kilometres in Queensland over the last 33 years not just Brisbane to the Gold Coast.

If you want to see some prangs that have resulted then do a bit of actual research. There have been many many just on the Bruce Highway between Cooroy and Maryborough, between Howard and Childers, between Gin Gin and Miriamvale, between Marlborough and Sarina..... do you need any more?
I have personally seen one and just missed out on being involved just south of Cooroy before the freeway was built when an overtaking vehicle was crawling past a truck and just when it was about 3/4 of the way a car poped up comeing the other way and instead of accellerating it braked causing chaos behind it and send several vehicles including mine off the road. I was 4 or 5 cars behind it and fortunately have a spare 50m to slow down enough so I just drove off the shoulder and then back on.

You are quoting the party rhetoric so please explain how since the introduction of speed limits in rural NT the road toll has skyrocketed?

Fatigue is bt far the biggest killer and while the difference between 100 and 130km/h is a minute or two between Brisbane and the Gold Coast and it is an hour on a 400km sector between towns in the west.

This arguement can only be resolved by trying both options otherwise it is just academic and it will be very difficult to convince the academics to try the other side because it might prove the are WRONG and that can't happen.

I watched with amazement on the weekend when a group of academic "experts" tried to defend their position of fining a man $30,000 for cutting down bush he thought was a potential fire hazard only to have his house become the only one that was still standing in a tragedy that killed hundreds of people. After all it could not happen as "experts" are never wrong.

Sometimes those is power only show statistics that support their agenda and policy. Otherwise they might be wrong and they have far too much to lose for that to happen.....

[vanman_75]

did you see the two fatalities in the last 24 hrs near gympie ,they reduced the speed to 90 for around fifty kms .and the road toll is the same . they prefer to fine than fix a road that is quite good for rural standards ,but this is the main northern highway out of brisbane .

as the couple people questioned on the news said " how many more must die before they fix it "

i have no idea who controls this ,but they will keep fining you on them flats ,and scraping you off the bends ,with little regard or responsibility .

[hdj80]

Originally Posted by flappist

Well I do actually drive on the road on the odd occaision. A fair bit over a million kilometres in Queensland over the last 33 years not just Brisbane to the Gold Coast.

If you want to see some prangs that have resulted then do a bit of actual research. There have been many many just on the Bruce Highway between Cooroy and Maryborough, between Howard and Childers, between Gin Gin and Miriamvale, between Marlborough and Sarina..... do you need any more?
I have personally seen one and just missed out on being involved just south of Cooroy before the freeway was built when an overtaking vehicle was crawling past a truck and just when it was about 3/4 of the way a car poped up comeing the other way and instead of accellerating it braked causing chaos behind it and send several vehicles including mine off the road. I was 4 or 5 cars behind it and fortunately have a spare 50m to slow down enough so I just drove off the shoulder and then back on.

You are quoting the party rhetoric so please explain how since the introduction of speed limits in rural NT the road toll has skyrocketed?

Fatigue is by far the biggest killer and while the difference between 100 and 130km/h is a minute or two between Brisbane and the Gold Coast and it is an hour on a 400km sector between towns in the west.

This arguement can only be resolved by trying both options otherwise it is just academic and it will be very difficult to convince the academics to try the other side because it might prove the are WRONG and that can't happen.

I watched with amazement on the weekend when a group of academic "experts" tried to defend their position of fining a man $30,000 for cutting down bush he thought was a potential fire hazard only to have his house become the only one that was still standing in a tragedy that killed hundreds of people. After all it could not happen as "experts" are never wrong.

Sometimes those is power only show statistics that support their agenda and policy. Otherwise they might be wrong and they have far too much to lose for that to happen.....

I doubt there is much point in arguing with you...however never let it be said I didn't try to use reason _2:

I bow down to your great age and experience ... my M1 comments were there to highlight the fact that dheads can't drive on a thoroughfare not that its the only road I have ever seen.

So some idiot overtakes when its unsafe and causes an accident. Your argument alludes that what was going through their head was that they didn't want to exceed the speed limit? Is this fact or supposition.
There are loads of head ons...its a fact. I doubt any of them are causes other than driver judgement. Overtaking when there is insufficient room in a car that they thought could do it, or was insufficient powerful. Your earlier statements indicate that you think that head on are caused by people not wanting to exceed the speed limit. I call that what it is. Crapo - inexperience leading to poor judgement is what it is topped off by impatience brought about by inconsiderate drivers and poor road designs with insufficient safe overtaking zones.

You seem to refused to acknowledge the fact that the standard of driver education in Aust for motorists is below what is needed.

Towing the party line - how so? Cause I say we have crap driver education and that speed limits are sufficient given the standard of roads and driver ability in the majority!!!
Not sure what party that belongs to, but I want to be in it.

There are 4 E's of traffic management
Enforcement, Education, Engineering and Environment. Everyone seems focussed on Enforcement from you to the government. They because its visible and it is cost neutral/positive - what's your view...think you can drive faster safely? Think everyone can drive faster safely? Shoud only certain people be allowed to drive faster? Do you think all roads should have open speed limits like the NT?
My point is that the other 3 E's get lip service as they cost way too much to address properly.

And on the NT since you raised it not me -I'd love to see the results of any study on the increase in fatalities. But until someone does it (and its the NT so little chance of too much there I say) its only supposition.

I must say I enjoyed my one chance to peg my TD cruiser to the limiter a few years ago...165kph :

And on the increase in travelled distance in remote areas from increased speed - yep basic maths. However, if travelling from Brisbane to Mt Isa - will people say I am travelling x distance or x time? I know I tend to drive for a fixed time unless I have a specific objective in sight for the night. If so whether at 100 or 160 I would drive from 7am to 4pm say. Of course at faster speed the effects of fatigue are amplified.

See I knew you'd like the argument....

[flappist]

Originally Posted by hdj80

I doubt there is much point in arguing with you...however never let it be said I didn't try to use reason _2:

I bow down to your great age and experience ... my M1 comments were there to highlight the fact that dheads can't drive on a thoroughfare not that its the only road I have ever seen.

So some idiot overtakes when its unsafe and causes an accident. Your argument alludes that what was going through their head was that they didn't want to exceed the speed limit? Is this fact or supposition.
There are loads of head ons...its a fact. I doubt any of them are causes other than driver judgement. Overtaking when there is insufficient room in a car that they thought could do it, or was insufficient powerful. Your earlier statements indicate that you think that head on are caused by people not wanting to exceed the speed limit. I call that what it is. Crapo - inexperience leading to poor judgement is what it is topped off by impatience brought about by inconsiderate drivers and poor road designs with insufficient safe overtaking zones.

You seem to refused to acknowledge the fact that the standard of driver education in Aust for motorists is below what is needed.

Towing the party line - how so? Cause I say we have crap driver education and that speed limits are sufficient given the standard of roads and driver ability in the majority!!!
Not sure what party that belongs to, but I want to be in it.

There are 4 E's of traffic management
Enforcement, Education, Engineering and Environment. Everyone seems focussed on Enforcement from you to the government. They because its visible and it is cost neutral/positive - what's your view...think you can drive faster safely? Think everyone can drive faster safely? Shoud only certain people be allowed to drive faster? Do you think all roads should have open speed limits like the NT?
My point is that the other 3 E's get lip service as they cost way too much to address properly.

And on the NT since you raised it not me -I'd love to see the results of any study on the increase in fatalities. But until someone does it (and its the NT so little chance of too much there I say) its only supposition.

I must say I enjoyed my one chance to peg my TD cruiser to the limiter a few years ago...165kph :

And on the increase in travelled distance in remote areas from increased speed - yep basic maths. However, if travelling from Brisbane to Mt Isa - will people say I am travelling x distance or x time? I know I tend to drive for a fixed time unless I have a specific objective in sight for the night. If so whether at 100 or 160 I would drive from 7am to 4pm say. Of course at faster speed the effects of fatigue are amplified.

See I knew you'd like the argument....

So with all this logic and sense why are speed cameras that do not slow people down (or there would be no tickets issued) proliferated all over the state rather than actually doing something that will according to your arguement solve the problem and save lives?

[hdj80]

Originally Posted by flappist

So with all this logic and sense why are speed cameras that do not slow people down (or there would be no tickets issued) proliferated all over the state rather than actually doing something that will according to your arguement solve the problem and save lives?

Cause not once have I said that speed cameras do any such thing. You are misquoting me or your comprehension of what I have previously written is extemely poor. Reread and see where I said that enforcement is the answer.
My point is that the other 3 E's get lip service as they cost way too much to address properly.

I say that we have low speed limits because as a rule we have society of poorly trained drivers operating on poor roads over long distances....if you disagree feel free to say so. If not we probably have more common ground than you think.

At present I think I can drive faster more safely that most average road users becuase of experience and some training and when my dad was my age so could he...but be damned if I want him doing 130kph anywhere near me now!!

I have already reiterated the reason I see enforcement as the number 1 strategy used by government. I have also indicated I don't see it as the way to reduce road crashes as it is a 4 pronged task. I don't like speed cameras any more than the next person. I certainly don't believe they have the same impact as a marked HP car writing out a ticket on the side of the road and I'd be equally as sure that governments prefer the revenue stream from cameras.

Fair call for why we have speed limits set for the lowest common denominator?

[geckoGT]

First off I agree with the comments previously that it is rough someone getting fined for 5km over the limit on the reverse side of a hill. Now to put this into perspective of the subject of this thread, it is irrelevant. QLD speed cameras trigger at greater than 10km over the limit (14km/h). So each of these drivers was considerably over the limit and not just 5km/h.

Also QLD speed cameras are operated by police, not privately.

Flappist, we are talking about a metro street here, how is the middle of the NT relevant? I am sure that fatigue is not as much of an issue here. Also an awful lot of the accidents I attend do involve one or more vehicles travelling at speeds that are greater than the limit. Am I qualified to comment here? Yes I am because I think I would have been to a few more prangs than the average person, including more than one fatality. Actually I probably go to more prangs in a month than the average person in 33 years of driving. But then again I may be just a naive wowser.

So anything that slows people down is worthwhile. Speed cameras do not only work because they are signed and you know where they are, they work because they could be anywhere. This causes most intelligent people to slow down just in case. Are we suggesting here that we should advertise the location of booze buses so that there are no drunks in that location (and the drunks can drive around it)?

[flappist]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

First off I agree with the comments previously that it is rough someone getting fined for 5km over the limit on the reverse side of a hill. Now to put this into perspective of the subject of this thread, it is irrelevant. QLD speed cameras trigger at greater than 10km over the limit (14km/h). So each of these drivers was considerably over the limit and not just 5km/h.

Also QLD speed cameras are operated by police, not privately.

Flappist, we are talking about a metro street here, how is the middle of the NT relevant? I am sure that fatigue is not as much of an issue here. Also an awful lot of the accidents I attend do involve one or more vehicles travelling at speeds that are greater than the limit. Am I qualified to comment here? Yes I am because I think I would have been to a few more prangs than the average person, including more than one fatality. Actually I probably go to more prangs in a month than the average person in 33 years of driving. But then again I may be just a naive wowser.

So anything that slows people down is worthwhile. Speed cameras do not only work because they are signed and you know where they are, they work because they could be anywhere. This causes most intelligent people to slow down just in case. Are we suggesting here that we should advertise the location of booze buses so that there are no drunks in that location (and the drunks can drive around it)?

No, booze busses actually remove drunk people from the road, they do not take a pic of them and let them keep driving possibly killing people and then send them a fine in the mail that they can choose to pay 5 times the amount and keep their licenses.

If hidden speed cameras worked there would not be any fines would there?

If the purpose of hidden speed cameras is to slow drivers then they are an abject failure.

If, on the other hand, their actual purpose is to raise money then they are a success.

You are an ambo. You see lots of prangs. If the cause of these is speed then how can you support a methodology that has clearly failed to actually slow people down,
If the cause of these is not speed then how can you support a methodology that is just a tax frauduantly disguised as a safety program.

Last question. The new 90km/h zone of the Bruce from Cooroy to Bells Bridge that was going to save lives by being heavily enforced by cameras (and it is, I travel it a LOT) has claimed yet more lives at almost exactly the same rate as when it was 100 and not heavily enforced.

Got to be speed...... even though the original findings were speed was not an issue....

Of course if speed cameras are not the solution, how do you make tired cameras, unskilled driver cameras or unroadworthy cameras?

The spice must flow......

[EgoFG]

Originally Posted by johnandjus

I'm not speed camera pro-active by any stretch

When I learnt to drive, I learnt to watch my speed and the road signs regardless if they were for speed, other traffic etc, it takes a fraction of a second to glance at your speedo and if you go somewhere you don’t look at road signs? Even those for directions if your in an unfamiliar area?

Everyone has a different perception of “the conditions” based on their own experience, some experience safe other experiences perhaps not so. Just because you got away with something once or twice doesn’t mean that its safe. Conditions change, gravel on the road that wasn’t there the day before, some spilt oil etc. So what I feel is a safe speed for “the conditions” perhaps is different for what someone else feels safe for “the conditions”. If everyone drove at what they felt was safe for “the conditions wouldn’t this just create anarchy?

Speed limits have to be placed for the majority of Drivers given most conditions so everyone can use the road with a minimum of fuss. I don’t want to share the road where someone feels they can drive at 160 because they felt “the conditions” were safe for them to do so

When I learnt to drive there were three speed limits 60, 100, 110.
These speed limits were easily understood - "in town", "out of town", "highway".
It was my responsibility, and skill to adjust down when circumstances dictated, or as advised by the advisory signs.
I could drive at any of those speeds without checking my speeedo.
When I saw a policeman I could dive past without slowing as I knew what the speed limit was, and how fast I was going.
If I missed at any time, a police officer would have a chat to me and explain things, and I would then contribute to his paycheck - this was infrequent.

I learned to read the road and environment, and follow the advisory signs at dangerous spots.

Now a driver needs to look for
1) the frequent speed limit changes (every day I go through a 100metre stretch with four speed zones - three at any given time)
2) the invisible enforcement
3) 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100 and 110 speed limits - these speed limits have no easy definition, and so take more attention then just what the sheer number of them dictate.

Drivers have now learnt to look for speed limit signs as the answer to all driving situations.

The result is
drivers that can limit their speed to 40km/h in a school zone, but not notice school children
drivers that can limit their speed to 50km/h where signposted, but not be aware of a car that failed to give way to them
drivers that can limit their speed to 60km/h where signposted, but not give way to a person crossing the street at a corner
drivers that can limit their speed to 70km/h where signposted, but not indicate their exit on a roundabout
drivers that can can limit their speed to 80 km/h on a relatively open road, but do not switch the lights on when visibility is poor
drivers that can limit their speed to 90km/h where signposted, but not indicate a lane change
drivers that can limit their speed to 100km/h where signposted, but realise that a crosswind can effect there course
drivers that can can limit their speed to 110 km/h on a highway, but do not keep in the left lane.

My comment is that the prolifferation of arbitrary speed limits, and the vigorous enforcement of them creates an environment where people value one rule over another, and over awareness of the environment in which they are driving.

Not all of us will notice the effect of this ourselves, but look around you - we have a lot of bad drivers that obey only the speed limits.

Please do not mistake my passion on the subject for a personal attack.

[geckoGT]

No, booze busses actually remove drunk people from the road, they do not take a pic of them and let them keep driving possibly killing people and then send them a fine in the mail that they can choose to pay 5 times the amount and keep their licenses.

So you are saying that the only way the booze busses work is they catch those that are driving under the influence. This would mean that in order to achieve a reduction in alcohol related incidents, they would have to remove the licenses of those offenders. According to your statement there is no element of deterrent in the policy. I assure you the random breath testing has not had the success it has by removing all those that drink and drive from our roads. It has succeeded because people are aware that if they do drink and drive, there is a high probability that they will be caught, therefore they no longer take the risk. So therefore it is not the number of people they catch that is the only reason for their success, it is also the deterrent effect of the presence of this system. The speed cameras do achieve a similar deterrent effect, not just dishing out fines.

For proof of this concept look at some of the locations that have been previously mentioned throughout this thread. Kelvin Grove rd got hammered with cameras and raked in lots of fines initially. Now due to the number and frequency of cameras there, people no longer speed and the number of fines issued in that area is considerably lower. Beenleigh-Redland Bay rd used to be an area that everyone did 80 in 60 zone; there was a blitz of cameras over a period of 6mths, lots of fines issued. Now we only occasionally see a camera there but people still generally sit a lot closer to the speed limit due to there knowledge there could be a camera there. Mt Cotton Rd is exactly the same as this, frequent cameras have changed public habits to now keeping to a more suitable speed for the area. If you wish I can name a multitude of other locations but I would suggest that you can see my point.

Look at it from another point of view. I know a person who has racked up a few considerable fines and ended up on a good behaviour agreement through point accumulation (I am not going to disclose who, no need to). That person has now done the 12 months good behaviour (some time ago) but no longer speeds as they have said "There could be a camera and I do not want to go through that again".

I have also noted that with the steady increase in the number of speed cameras, the number of accidents resulting in significant trauma have gone down during the daylight and evening hours. Now all the fatalities I attend seem to occur after approximately 11pm and before about 5am. What is interesting in my view, that time period is also the time period speed cameras do not operate.

It would appear to me that in all the situations I have pointed out, it is not the physical presence of the camera that is the deterrent, more the potential of one. I would say it has worked.

If hidden speed cameras worked there would not be any fines would there?

I would say that it is more of a case of a combination of both covert and overt cameras being more effective. Let’s face it, QLD cameras are not that well hidden. If you can not see a Toyota Landcruiser or a Mercedes Vito parked on the side of the rd, you probably should not be driving without getting your vision checked. I would also suggest that you are driving at a speed that is excessive for the conditions.

If the purpose of hidden speed cameras is to slow drivers then they are an abject failure.

A comment that seems to be based on an over simplified view of the topic, refer to my examples above.

If, on the other hand, their actual purpose is to raise money then they are a success.

If revenue is raised by those sites because people can not follow simple laws, so what. It is a simple process; if you don't want to pay, do not speed. If everyone stuck to the rules, the revenue would dry up. Like has been said, it is a user pays system.

You are an ambo. You see lots of prangs. If the cause of these is speed then how can you support a methodology that has clearly failed to actually slow people down?
If the cause of these is not speed then how can you support a methodology that is just a tax frauduantly disguised as a safety program.

Yes I am a Paramedic and this is what I have seen. I have seen the public in general slow down, which results in accidents at a much slower speed with significantly less damage to person and property. The net result of this is lower severity of injuries and fewer numbers of casualties, which decreases the load considerably on the public health system.

A good example of this is the fixed cameras at the M1 and Story Bridge. Now I work in the sth side of brissy and I used to frequently go to prangs both on the Story Bridge and the M1 between the Marshall Rd onramp and Stanley st. Those two sections of roads were hell as there are a lot of merge lanes (we all know QLD'ers can not merge) as well as being very traffic volume sensitive. Since the installation some time ago, I have not been to a single prang in those areas. Now obviously I do not have hard data supporting this observation. Let’s just say it is an interesting observation of someone in the front line.

Last question. The new 90km/h zone of the Bruce from Cooroy to Bells Bridge that was going to save lives by being heavily enforced by cameras (and it is, I travel it a LOT) has claimed yet more lives at almost exactly the same rate as when it was 100 and not heavily enforced.

Got to be speed...... even though the original findings were speed was not an issue....

As I have previously stated, the OP was not referring to a speed cameras in a highway location. Having said that I agree with you that the answer to lowering the road toll in highway and rural locations is not lowering the speed limits and lots of cameras. It is in reduction of fatigue, appropriate speed limits for the area and increased quality of the roads. I am actually an advocate of increasing the speed limit in suitable areas in order to reduce travel times and therefore fatigue. Now obviously this is a complex thing to do with a lot of factors to be considered, well beyond the scope of this discussion but I would be happy to "chew the fat" with you over this some time.

Of course if speed cameras are not the solution, how do you make tired cameras, unskilled driver cameras or unroadworthy cameras?

Let it be understood I am not an advocate of speed cameras being the golden answer to an old problem. I just believe they do have a place as part of a multi pronged approach to the issue of road safety. Just as the cause of the poor road safety we have is not the result of one problem, but a number of problems. Therefore you can not address a multitude of problems with just one solution.

The result is
drivers that can limit their speed to 40km/h in a school zone, but not notice school children
drivers that can limit their speed to 50km/h where signposted, but not be aware of a car that failed to give way to them
drivers that can limit their speed to 60km/h where signposted, but not give way to a person crossing the street at a corner
drivers that can limit their speed to 70km/h where signposted, but not indicate their exit on a roundabout
drivers that can can limit their speed to 80 km/h on a relatively open road, but do not switch the lights on when visibility is poor
drivers that can limit their speed to 90km/h where signposted, but not indicate a lane change
drivers that can limit their speed to 100km/h where signposted, but realise that a crosswind can effect there course
drivers that can can limit their speed to 110 km/h on a highway, but do not keep in the left lane.

How on earth do you justify that you can adequately scan and notice all those hazards that you have mentioned without noticing the dirty great speed sign? Do you suggest that the average person can not notice these things, check speedo and consider all the other elements a responsible driver must do? If that is the case I would suggest that same person is incapable of judging what a safe speed is for the conditions.

[CADSKY]

Originally Posted by csv8

The figures show that the state's second-busiest camera, on the Pacific Motorway at Daisy Hill, caught drivers at a rate of 51 motorists an hour.

cant believe thats the seconds busiest camera in QLD!! right around the corner from my old house. i lived there for over a year an saw it almost every day. never got done by it once the whole time i live there.

honestly you would think if a camera was in the same spot almost every day, you wouldnt speed around that corner?? shows just how thick people are.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

So you are saying that the only way the booze busses work is they catch those that are driving under the influence. This would mean that in order to achieve a reduction in alcohol related incidents, they would have to remove the licenses of those offenders. According to your statement there is no element of deterrent in the policy. I assure you the random breath testing has not had the success it has by removing all those that drink and drive from our roads. It has succeeded because people are aware that if they do drink and drive, there is a high probability that they will be caught, therefore they no longer take the risk. So therefore it is not the number of people they catch that is the only reason for their success, it is also the deterrent effect of the presence of this system. The speed cameras do achieve a similar deterrent effect, not just dishing out fines.

No the booze bus actually removes drunk drivers then and there in the same way that a copper on the side of the road gives a driver a ticket then and there so they KNOW they were doing the wrong thing and if not recalcritant will probably slow down. Getting a ticket in the mail 3 weeks later saying you were speeding somewhere that you may not even remember driving through did not have any effect on your driving at the time.

Originally Posted by the lakeside lawn mowing service

A good example of this is the fixed cameras at the M1 and Story Bridge. Now I work in the sth side of brissy and I used to frequently go to prangs both on the Story Bridge and the M1 between the Marshall Rd onramp and Stanley st. Those two sections of roads were hell as there are a lot of merge lanes (we all know QLD'ers can not merge) as well as being very traffic volume sensitive. Since the installation some time ago, I have not been to a single prang in those areas. Now obviously I do not have hard data supporting this observation. Let’s just say it is an interesting observation of someone in the front line.

You mean the bloody big "There is a speed camera here, slow down" signs caused people to slow down and not have accidents?

Isn't that a better result than to have a fatal accident and then 3 weeks later get a covert speed camera fine in the mail of you and your passengers 30 seconds before the accident so that you can have a nice picture of the people in your car who died?

When the Gatsos were first used they were super obvious and people saw them and slowed down. Now, quite often, they are hidden.

What effect does this have? People will drive slow all the time just in case? You are kidding? Most people don't even look right and left when a light turns green or in the rear view mirrors before overtaking.

What is on Home and Away tonight, how much is rum at the bottle-o, do I need milk, the a-hole at work, the cute {insert prevered gender here on the footpath ALL take precedent over do I have enough petrol, am I going to fast, are my tyres at the right pressure, am following too close, am I in the correct lane.
Do you really thing that the majority of cars sitting in the right lane by themselves are there on purpose or because the driver is thinking about something else?
You come up behind them and then (20 mins later) they realise that the should be in the left lane and move over.

The people who are driving are people.......

NSW has excellent billboards on the freeways denoting "keep left" and "speeding" and bloody big "speed camera, the limit is 80, we will book you, 50m, we are serious, slow down ok, FLASH, all right smartarse the pic is in the mail" sequences.

We need them here especially on the M1, F3, A1, A3 and basicly every 4 lane road in QLD.

Originally Posted by the gun loony in the pretty pink ute

As I have previously stated, the OP was not referring to a speed cameras in a highway location. Having said that I agree with you that the answer to lowering the road toll in highway and rural locations is not lowering the speed limits and lots of cameras. It is in reduction of fatigue, appropriate speed limits for the area and increased quality of the roads. I am actually an advocate of increasing the speed limit in suitable areas in order to reduce travel times and therefore fatigue. Now obviously this is a complex thing to do with a lot of factors to be considered, well beyond the scope of this discussion but I would be happy to "chew the fat" with you over this some time.

Yep and if memory serves it is your shout

[BlackLS]

New speed cameras being put up around NSW are being painted a bright yellow or orange. A good move I say, as well as the +3 signs warning we get.

[geckoGT]

No the booze bus actually removes drunk drivers then and there in the same way that a copper on the side of the road gives a driver a ticket then and there so they KNOW they were doing the wrong thing and if not recalcritant will probably slow down. Getting a ticket in the mail 3 weeks later saying you were speeding somewhere that you may not even remember driving through did not have any effect on your driving at the time.Many on here have criticised government efforts on raod toll reduction and their efforts being misguided and insufficient.

The other option for monitoring vehicle speeds, the cop sitting there with a radar gun, pulls over one car for speeding. While he is doing this he has 30 other drivers drive past over the speed limit thinking "cool he can't get me, he is busy". Yeah that is so effective too.

Looking at qld roads, I have found this interesting statistic.

trends in road toll against trends in vehicle registrations since 1972. While fatalities were 44% lower by 2003, vehicle registrations were 216% higher.

This is a fact that I found in the report reviewing the road traffic crashes in QLD for 2003.

For full details
http://www.transport.qld.gov.au/reso...rt_2003_V2.pdf

Now before you all start carrying on, of course there were improvements in other factors such as reduction in BAC to 0.05, RBT, road condition, driver education, better vehicle safety etc. But you have to admit that the better policing of speed limits has to have contributed to this reduction in road tolls within QLD.

If you disagree, find some hard stats that prove otherwise. As for the efforts done so far not doing anything and it being purely a "revenue raising" exercise, seems unlikely when you look at fact and not just opinion of the lay person.

[vanman_75]

How on earth do you justify that you can adequately scan and notice all those hazards that you have mentioned without noticing the dirty great speed sign? Do you suggest that the average person can not notice these things, check speedo and consider all the other elements a responsible driver must do? If that is the case I would suggest that same person is incapable of judging what a safe speed is for the conditions.
_____________

you just answered your whole argument ,yep they cant make good decisions ,all they had to do is pass a very poor driving test .not removing the cancer ends far worse.speed cameras slow down observant people if marked ,not marking a hidden camera in a government recognized black spot ( unknown to the offending driver ) will result in said accident .... hidden camera failed objective .

put the camera man in a car and have him drive around, stop the accident before you have to come and save the life ...oh not enough money in that ,system doesnt work if you havent notice and they wont change while all the coin keeps rolling in call me cynical but im yet to see it from their way .

[vanman_75]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

The other option for monitoring vehicle speeds, the cop sitting there with a radar gun, pulls over one car for speeding. While he is doing this he has 30 other drivers drive past over the speed limit thinking "cool he can't get me, he is busy". Yeah that is so effective too.

If you disagree, find some hard stats that prove otherwise. As for the efforts done so far not doing anything and it being purely a "revenue raising" exercise, seems unlikely when you look at fact and not just opinion of the lay person.

nobody said we dont need more police to fix the lack of the numbers pulled over .

they bank on it increasing which it has every year since first introduced ,so good in fact they keep putting more and more in with forecast increased income ,if that ain't revenue raising what is ?

[geckoGT]

The Courier-Mail can reveal the "rat run" on a Gold Coast street caught 90 motorists an hour last year – almost double the strike rate of the next busiest camera.

For a hand held site to keep up with the volume of offences it would take 8 officers on the scene, any less than that and you have motorists exceeding the limit but not recieving penalties for their offences. So we can pay one operator his $50k salary, or 8 officers their $400k of combined salary. Which is more cost effective to the tax payer, you do the math. Not to mention they all need extra vehicles, speed guns etc.

I do agree that a cop in a car is a much better option from a law enforcement perspective, that is one thing that we all agree on I am sure. I just disagree with this notion that a speed camera does nothing to improve road safety and is only for revenue raising.

[Auslandau]

Agree ..... It would take umpteen cops on that site to rake in that amount of revenue ..... OR one police car to sit there every second or third day which would stop people from speeding, even if no fines were distributed. Woops .... no money in that. Safer for all but no revenue :(

the cop sitting there with a radar gun, pulls over one car for speeding. While he is doing this he has 30 other drivers drive past over the speed limit thinking "cool he can't get me, he is busy". Yeah that is so effective too.

I do agree that a cop in a car is a much better option from a law enforcement perspective, that is one thing that we all agree on I am sure.

Confused now .... which line are you taking if the first quote was obvious sarcasm?



| [/url] |