Speed Cameras. Coming soon to your town?

[Angela Harlem]

Speeding is foolish. Incredibly stupid, reckless behaviour.

 

[phillyfan26]

Speeding is foolish. Incredibly stupid, reckless behaviour.

This is much too simple of a statement, to be frank. Me doing 50 on a highway that is pointlessly 35 is endangering no one. In fact, doing the speed limit would often be more dangerous.

 

[Angela Harlem]

to be fair though, you aren't a driver.



Some of those figures do get exaggerated though.

That said, I think are rules are probably better from yours. I think here it should be 5ks over, warning or something, because I copped a point for being 4 ks over, but those seem pretty damn lenient.

And to be fair, Danny, you're a very inexperienced driver. You're in the statistically doomed group, mate. You drive a V6, too, don't you?

If only the world was the hyper-simplified, black and white, small picture, one-sided coin that you see it as, I guess that would be the case.

It reminds me of when the right-wingers in my country say things like, "If you're not doing anything wrong, then why do you care that the government taps your phones?" If you have to ask the question, you probably wouldn't understand the answer.

As far as cameras in Au working just fine, they don't. Sorry!

I believe Axver was referring to the concept of cameras being effective, actually. Everyone is quite aware of how machines can be faulty. Speed cameras are no exception. Also, further to your unecessarily snide remarks about the world being black and white, and Republicans and everything else you managed to slide in there, from an outsider's perspective it really is curious to observe other places getting so worked up over the whole issue. Maybe we have complacency because 'they've just always been there', or maybe we're not as paranoid? That last one is not an insult. I dunno. Folk in the US certainly do get very concerned about things which the average Australian and Kiwi wouldn't bat an eye over. God help you all if someone dare infringe on your rights to freedom in the name of safety. Guns, seatbelts, speeding cameras.. I'm sure there's more.

RIGHT! the law is the law, right or wrong. we should never question the system.

That's a really accurate response, given that you seemed to have misunderstood what Axver was saying.

But john, you have to realize that the government is always right, and if they decide that the speed limit on all roads should be 15mph, they have the right to do that and we shouldn't ever complain!

Oh, cydewaze, this isn't sarcasm! It's just annoying. You can do better than this, no?

 

[Angela Harlem]

This is much too simple of a statement, to be frank. Me doing 50 on a highway that is pointlessly 35 is endangering no one. In fact, doing the speed limit would often be more dangerous.

I think your counter is too simple. In what way would those speeds be dangerous?

I'll try and look for those results the NRMA have conducted over the years here on braking distances and speed effects on as little as 5km/h. I'm also struggling a little with your mile examples. I'm not at all familiar with just how fast a 15 mile difference in speed would be. I need a converter, also, lol.

 

[Angela Harlem]

They 'work fine' at revenue raising for the government.

Incidentally, why do you think the police have better expertise than the private citizen on adjudjing what driving too fast means?

I imagine when your job involves cleaning up the human debris from accidents you get to learn the effects of speed?

 

[phillyfan26]

I think your counter is too simple. In what way would those speeds be dangerous?

I'll try and look for those results the NRMA have conducted over the years here on breaking distances and speed effects on as little as 5km/h. I'm also struggling a little with your mile examples. I'm not at all familiar with just how fast a 15 mile difference in speed would be. I need a converter, also, lol.

In my example, there's a highway with a posted speed limit of 55 km/h for a 1.5 km long section, while the rest of the road is posted at about 72 km/h. On all sections, I (and most other drivers) will do about 80 km/h.

My other complaint about PA's driving laws: all roads but one have a maximum speed limit off 88 km/h, and the one that isn't is still only 104 km/h (the PA Turnpike). The idea that every road can be no faster than 88 km/h is absolutely absurd.

You've never seen a person going too slow, to the point where it endangers people? It happens all the time, even in cases where it has nothing to do with the posted speed limit.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Not sure what your highways are like physically, but 80km is a reasonable speed, I do agree. Our highways vary between 60-80, depending on the residential build up and shops or schools, etc. If there is any potential hazard, things do change. Your extra 5, 10, 15 km/h do greatly affect your stopping distance, your ability to react in time safely, and so on. We're all aware of how technical these things can get.

And I do agree that particularly slow drivers can pose their own hazard. On freeways here the limit is generally 110km/hr but L platers can only do 80, so they plod along in the slow lane pissing people off, causing them to recklessly merge in and out. Great variances in speeds are a problem, definitely.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Stopping Distance Tests - NRMA Insurance

The NRMA link I hope Danny reads!

 

[bigjohn2441]

speeding does not necessarily equal reckless

and sorry, i dont trust anything an insurance company says

 

[phillyfan26]

Not sure what your highways are like physically, but 80km is a reasonable speed, I do agree. Our highways vary between 60-80, depending on the residential build up and shops or schools, etc. If there is any potential hazard, things do change. Your extra 5, 10, 15 km/h do greatly affect your stopping distance, your ability to react in time safely, and so on. We're all aware of how technical these things can get.

And I do agree that particularly slow drivers can pose their own hazard. On freeways here the limit is generally 110km/hr but L platers can only do 80, so they plod along in the slow lane pissing people off, causing them to recklessly merge in and out. Great variances in speeds are a problem, definitely.

And that's the point. A limit around 110 km/h would be much more reasonable for our highways, not 88 km/h.

We're just way too low with our speed limits, which is why I don't want these cameras. I'd be ticketed for being reasonable.

 

[bigjohn2441]

go back to bed america, your government is in control. here, here is american gladiators, watch this, shut up.

 

[The Sad Punk]

110kmph is definitely ideal for highways.

I really haven't bothered reading through this thread, so I apologise if I'm either repeating a bunch of things, or not even talking about what's going on - but let me just dive in - I grew up in a rural Australian community where driving, and often drink/drug-driving, happens to be all the rage. And it has shown. I've known people who've been injured because of this, and I've known people, some close to me, who have died because of this. It isn't an issue of age, as some might assume - and often it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with intoxication. It simply happens. Hell, I'm sure I'm not the only one here who's seen such things happen so closely, and I couldn't bring up any statistics just this moment, but in my currently reckless, anecdote-loving state, I'm going to say that cameras are certainly a good idea, even if speed limits suck half the time. And fuck, if I get a ticket, then chances are I'd have deserved it. Only exception I can see here is in the long, long roads in the country, free of twists, turns and cars for miles, where the limit is 110km/ph, don't bust me here but I'll often go 130km/ph for a little while, since it's the extent that I think I can control an automobile.

Despite all this, I've seen the cameras work, and I'm glad they have. Will you trust me here? Probably not. But don't be thinking all Orwell here, speed cameras aren't as bad as you think.

 

[cydewaze]

I believe Axver was referring to the concept of cameras being effective, actually
That's a really accurate response, given that you seemed to have misunderstood what Axver was saying.

Sorry, my mind-reading isn't what it used to be. But even still, there's a big difference between concept and execution. Lots of things look good conceptually that don't cut it in the real world.

Oh, cydewaze, this isn't sarcasm! It's just annoying. You can do better than this, no?

Nope. With an IQ of 72, that's the best I can do, sorry!

 

[cydewaze]

And that's the point. A limit around 110 km/h would be much more reasonable for our highways, not 88 km/h.

We're just way too low with our speed limits, which is why I don't want these cameras. I'd be ticketed for being reasonable.

I'll tell you what cooks my goose.

What actually increases the rate of accidents isn't speed. It's the speed differential between vehicles. A road where all the cars are going 50mph OR all the cars are going 70mph is safer than a road where half of the cars are going 50 and the other half are going 70.

Traffic engineers are supposed to set speed limits based on what speed will get the lowest speed differential. If you raise the speed limit or lower it from that point, you increase the speed differential, and cause more accidents. This is because only some of the people will obey the lower limit, and only some of the people will take advantage of the higher limit.

So yes, there have been documented cases where lowering the limit increased the accident rate.

They could stop speeding tomorrow. All they have to do is set a reasonable speed limit on the roads, and have a zero tolerance policy with huge fines and license suspensions. They'll never do it though. There's no money in that sort of shit.

 

[HyperU2]

They could just make vehicles that don't go over 55.

 

[arw]

I just read the first page or two of this but I'll comment since AZ was mentioned. I live in Phoenix and there's a few cameras on my daily path. There are signs on the side of the road stating that in 1/4 of a mile there's a photo enforced traffic zone coming up. People immediately begin to slow down, drive the speed limit through the zone area, and then speed up again. I'm always amazed at the people that speed up again right away because at certain times of the day there's generally a speed trap waiting a few miles away. I've seen the camera go off a lot, which amazes me because just about everyone slows down. I can't figure out why the speeders think they can get away with passing everyone else and not get caught. The flash of the camera is fairly bright too. You can see it go off from either side of the road. It's pretty frightening when it goes off while you are driving in the zone. Even though I know it's not for me it still makes my heart jump a little. I'm a huge highway speeder, or used to be I guess, and I can say that it's definitely helped me to slow down.

 

[cydewaze]

They could just make vehicles that don't go over 55.

But in some states the speed limit is 75 and even 80.

Maybe they could fit cars with GPS units that read the speed wherever you are and don't let the car go faster than what the speed limit is. Listen to me! Now you've got ME talking like Big Brother!

 

[anitram]

They could stop speeding tomorrow. All they have to do is set a reasonable speed limit on the roads, and have a zero tolerance policy with huge fines and license suspensions. They'll never do it though. There's no money in that sort of shit.

I think all this talk of $ is really over simplistic.

It is also question of enforcement (is this the best allocation of resources?) and prosecution (should we burden the court system).

So the idea that this isn't done because there isn't money in that sort of shit really doesn't take into account the primary reasons for why it actually a) isn't done and b) shouldn't be done.

 

[phillyfan26]

go back to bed america, your government is in control. here, here is american gladiators, watch this, shut up.

You are free ... to do as we tell you. You are free ... to do as we tell you.

 

[cydewaze]

I think all this talk of $ is really over simplistic.

It is also question of enforcement (is this the best allocation of resources?) and prosecution (should we burden the court system).

So the idea that this isn't done because there isn't money in that sort of shit really doesn't take into account the primary reasons for why it actually a) isn't done and b) shouldn't be done.

In Maryland, they did a study of different types of speed deterrents, including cameras. These included things like speed bumps, traffic circles, islands, and other sorts of things. The cameras were the least effective. But they were the only ones that administered some sort of punitive fine. They were also the only ones with a strong lobbying effort behind them. So it's easy to assume that money was the deciding factor.

Personally, I think it's overly simplistic to just assume that the cameras will make the roads safer even though they only monitor a 5' section of road, only watch traffic in one direction (you need a second cam for the other direction), and in Maryland's case are being deployed on roads with no significant accident history.

I also think it would be a bit hypocritical of me, after castigating things like Bush's wiretapping and the assaults on our civil liberties by the "Patriot Act", to conveniently be fine with this particular assault because it was a democrat (for whom I voted) who pushed it through.

Several years ago we had a speed bump craze. They were slapping them on all the county's roads, everywhere. People were annoyed, but the officials promised that this would put an end to accidents, and slow everyone down, forever. They slowed some people down alright. Ambulances and fire trucks in particular. It never occurred to anyone that a 5-year-old kid with a spinal injury might not do so well when his ambulance was launched over a 6" tall speed bump that the driver didn't see because it was dark and raining.

Needless to say, the bumps weren't the end all, be all solution they were billed as. But we still blew millions of taxpayer dollars installing them, then millions more ripping half of them out. I don't think it's too much to ask for someone to actually put the brakes on (pun intended) before blowing another bazillion of our dollars on this latest "savior".

 

[anitram]

Personally, I think it's overly simplistic to just assume that the cameras will make the roads safer even though they only monitor a 5' section of road, only watch traffic in one direction (you need a second cam for the other direction), and in Maryland's case are being deployed on roads with no significant accident history.

I don't think that they do, either.

But I disagree that we could stop speeding tomorrow if we wanted to, because that's completely unrealistic for the reasons that I mentioned.

I don't oppose the cameras on grounds of privacy law (there are far more intrusive things that we are subject to on a daily basis); I object to their placement when the studies show them to be ineffective.

Ultimately though, it's an issue of almost no importance to me politically, so it's just not one that is on my radar.

 

[Angela Harlem]

speeding does not necessarily equal reckless

and sorry, i dont trust anything an insurance company says

Do you even know what the NRMA is? I'm guessing not. But they're an insurance company! They must be evil! Like the government! Bastards. All of them! And you're questioning the facts on their studies? Based on what? Oh look, nevermind. I don't really care. Your arguments are flawed and ignorant. Speed on, buddy. Just don't take any innocent person with you when you wrap yourself around a tree, eh?

 

[bigjohn2441]

wow, somebody cant take a joke

 

[Mr. V]

wow, somebody cant take a joke

Less a joke, more of an avoidance of a fair and accurate source. Nice dodge.

 

[bigjohn2441]

Less a joke, more of an avoidance of a fair and accurate source. Nice dodge.

anytime i have a next to a comment i made, it means i was most likely joking or kidding around.

just so you know.

i dont have to "dodge" anything on a message board.

 

[DrTeeth]

i dont have to "dodge" anything on a message board.

Too bad I didn't manage to "dodge" the speeding car that hit me last year. He was going 70 kph where he was allowed 50. He also thought he could decide for himself what was a safe speed on that road. I'm glad I got off as well as I did.

 

[Vincent Vega]

In Maryland, they did a study of different types of speed deterrents, including cameras. These included things like speed bumps, traffic circles, islands, and other sorts of things. The cameras were the least effective. But they were the only ones that administered some sort of punitive fine. They were also the only ones with a strong lobbying effort behind them. So it's easy to assume that money was the deciding factor.

Well, how should any of the other deterrents work on a highway?

I also think it would be a bit hypocritical of me, after castigating things like Bush's wiretapping and the assaults on our civil liberties by the "Patriot Act", to conveniently be fine with this particular assault because it was a democrat (for whom I voted) who pushed it through.

Given, the term hypocritical is not nearly as often used here than in the States, but I also don't see it hypocritical to judge things individually at all. Only because I'm a strong opponent of the things our Minister of the Interior wanted to push through over the last several years doesn't mean that now everything that's being used to enforce the law must be judged in the same way.
There's a big difference between a simple speed camera and the other things you are naming here. Should they start to advance these cameras then I would revalue the need for that.