Mazda Enters Speed Camera Debate

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by my_gxl

Being dismissive of others input will have more thread locking effects.

Well it should be dismissed, raising speed limits wont reduce the need for speed cameras, it will just push up the average speed of every motorist.
Not only would this higher speed limit be pushed by those who will anyway, but the increased speeds would make inevitable accidents worse from a damage/injury perspective.

[dragons90]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

I think the speed limit is a bit of a red herring. The most agreed (by researchers), undeniable and irrefutable fact is that safer cars and safer roads save lives. We are making progress and improved car safety with more modern cars has seen a decline in the OZ road toll over time. But our big problem is our size, spread of population centres, urban sprawl and low population and therefore the disproportionate (to most other developed countries) cost of trying to improve our road network.

It wouldn't be as much of a red herring if speed limits where set based on what the road was designed to handle, not have brand new motorways and highways set at 80kph when you can do 100kph on a single lane road where you have to drive on the dirt for oncoming cars.

[cro142]

The age old argument about whether speed cameras and police patrols are used for revenue raising rather than road safety is EASY to settle.

If fines were removed from the system for say, 7 years, and let the points system do it's job, then we would see what the major reason for zealous speed management might be.

Without the financial incentive, it may be that our current zealous management of drivers doing 5 to 8kmh over the limit may fade.

Then we may have a sensible approach to speed management with a reasonable 10% leeway. This would still stop the over-the-top speedsters, But stop the distracting clock watching by generally law-abiding drivers.

Let's try it !!!

[prydey]

i guess we could also argue that lowering urban limits gives the car safety systems a bigger chance of keeping you alive.

depending on your agenda, anyone could argue any point they want just about.

in this instance, car safety deserves some of the credit for the falling road toll, but there also needs to be a deterrent in place to control the speeds.

populations are increasing, road traffic is increasing, so what may have worked once may need to be reworked.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by cro142

The age old argument about whether speed cameras and police patrols are used for revenue raising rather than road safety is EASY to settle.

If fines were removed from the system for say, 7 years, and let the points system do it's job, then we would see what the major reason for zealous speed management might be.

Without the financial incentive, it may be that our current zealous management of drivers doing 5 to 8kmh over the limit may fade.

Then we may have a sensible approach to speed management with a reasonable 10% leeway. This would still stop the over-the-top speedsters, But stop the distracting clock watching by generally law-abiding drivers.

Let's try it !!!

And if it all goes wrong would you be happy for one of your loved ones to be represented by a statistic against...

[my_gxl]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Well it should be dismissed, raising speed limits wont reduce the need for speed cameras, it will just push up the average speed of every motorist.
Not only would this higher speed limit be pushed by those who will anyway, but the increased speeds would make inevitable accidents worse from a damage/injury perspective.

I hate to remind you that you are not the only person on here (or in the country/world etc etc). You are no better (and I am not saying worse either) than anyone else. You personally don't get to make that decision.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by prydey

i guess we could also argue that lowering urban limits gives the car safety systems a bigger chance of keeping you alive.

depending on your agenda, anyone could argue any point they want just about.

in this instance, car safety deserves some of the credit for the falling road toll, but there also needs to be a deterrent in place to control the speeds.

populations are increasing, road traffic is increasing, so what may have worked once may need to be reworked.

Well this makes sense, the faster an object is moving the longer it takes to stop.
One statistic which cant be measured is near misses.
Its one thing to say speed cameras don't save lives and point to a number, but how many people haven't been killed because of them?

That cannot be measured.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by my_gxl

I hate to remind you that you are not the only person on here (or in the country/world etc etc). You are no better (and I am not saying worse either) than anyone else. You personally don't get to make that decision.

Yes I do, from my perspective.

Wether you buy into it is up to you, but I don't have to subscribe.
Its there to be read, it hasn't been censored, make of it what you will, I don't believe it is an acceptable answer given the criteria of the question asked and so I dismiss it.
If there is evidence that supports raising speed limits in Australia, on current Australian roads will lower the road toll I will be glad to read it.

[my_gxl]

This is better than TV tonight....

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by my_gxl

This is better than TV tonight....

And so it should be, it is an important subject, especially for me as my eldest is about to go for his 'l's.

It needs to be viewed from both perspectives, but too often on car forums it just becomes a camera bash.

My question was designed to draw out intelligent argument for the alternative.
It was never about an agenda, but about getting people to think about the alternative with an open mind.

It goes deeper than just raising speed limits and letting Darwin sort the wheat.

[dragons90]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Yes I do, from my perspective.

Wether you buy into it is up to you, but I don't have to subscribe.
Its there to be read, it hasn't been censored, make of it what you will, I don't believe it is an acceptable answer given the criteria of the question asked and so I dismiss it.
If there is evidence that supports raising speed limits in Australia, on current Australian roads will lower the road toll I will be glad to read it.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-0...panded/5376402
8 months and you'll have it, but going by the fact there looking to expand it means it must be going well.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by dragons90

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-0...panded/5376402
8 months and you'll have it, but going by the fact there looking to expand it means it must be going well.

Lol, its in the middle of nowhere man.
Backpackers, Road trains and natives, no ones in a hurry anyway.

If that's it, well.....

[burnz]

Originally Posted by cro142

The age old argument about whether speed cameras and police patrols are used for revenue raising rather than road safety is EASY to settle.

If fines were removed from the system for say, 7 years, and let the points system do it's job, then we would see what the major reason for zealous speed management might be.

Without the financial incentive, it may be that our current zealous management of drivers doing 5 to 8kmh over the limit may fade.

Then we may have a sensible approach to speed management with a reasonable 10% leeway. This would still stop the over-the-top speedsters, But stop the distracting clock watching by generally law-abiding drivers.

Let's try it !!!

speed cams cost everybody not just the speeders, but agree remove the money and see what happen.

oh and about costing everybody,,,

I cant remember if it was a paper or Q & A on abc that Michael Kay, I think
that was he's name saying minor accident are up 6,000% due to speed cam brake checking (not exact words)
hence the jist is that insurance premiums have risen..

[my_gxl]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

And so it should be, it is an important subject, especially for me as my eldest is about to go for his 'l's.

It needs to be viewed from both perspectives, but too often on car forums it just becomes a camera bash.

My question was designed to draw out intelligent argument for the alternative.
It was never about an agenda, but about getting people to think about the alternative with an open mind.

It goes deeper than just raising speed limits and letting Darwin sort the wheat.

And so is land rights for gay whales.

Your eldest will be fine under your expert guidance.

No limits in the NT were great when I lived up there.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by my_gxl

Your eldest will be fine under your expert guidance.

Oh, you've made me blush, how sweet...

[dragons90]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Lol, its in the middle of nowhere man.

If that's it, well.....

It meets your criteria "in Australia, on current Australian roads"

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by burnz

speed cams cost everybody not just the speeders, but agree remove the money and see what happen.

oh and about costing everybody,,,

I cant remember if it was a paper or Q & A on abc that Michael Kay, I think
that was he's name saying minor accident are up 6,000% due to speed cam brake checking (not exact words)
hence the jist is that insurance premiums have risen..

Interesting, I always believed the guilty party in a rear ender was the following car, and all this time it was the speed cameras fault, go figure.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by dragons90

It meets your criteria "in Australia, on current Australian roads"

Cool, so at the current rate of roll out and the estimated time it will take to get every road in Australia up to scratch, we should start seeing speed cameras at the local scrap metal joint in 20..

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

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.

Aside from this being a ridiculous question (NOTHING can be done instantly) I've often thought instead of punishing motorists, they could try rewarding them.

Something like renewing licences annually, like the car's registration/insurance, and if no offences or accidents were recorded in the previous year the Driver would get a reduction in Licence, Rego or Insurance charges.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

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

Why? The pro-camera bandwagon have never proven their case.... the majority of pro-enforcement statistics are either full of errors or faulty conclusions, or downright fraudulent misrepresentation.

No one is FORCED to pay it, it is what it is.

By arbitrarily setting low limits, then directing the majority of enforcement at these areas, they target drivers who are not being unsafe (a HWP officer has said exactly this ... that 95% of people he pulled over were not doing anything unsafe, it was simply a technical infringement). The sheer volume of drivers booked for low range infringements is proof of this. When a law targets the majority of the population, the problem is with the law.

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

You've been given alternatives.. You dismissed them. The debating equivalent of putting a pot on your head and hitting it with a wooden spoon.

Increased police presence works. Raising speed limits on *some* stretches, works. Its been proven elsewhere in the world (google it if you can be bothered). Setting limits appropriately, with an aim to having traffic flow smoothly, works. Our road system is a mess. Limits change every few hundred meters, poorly signposted, no one knows what speed to travel, etc. Poorly set limits aren't followed by the majority, you end up with a range of speeds and its the speed differentials that tend to have the biggest bearing on crash risk.

If we're not going to get rid of cameras, then set appropriate camera tolerances, and put them *in* locations where speed is a *causative* factor, not simply some distance where speed was a contributor (even if not a significant one).

[burnz]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Interesting, I always believed the guilty party in a rear ender was the following car, and all this time it was the speed cameras fault, go figure.

how many times have you driven the same road with same cars going to work and they all tap the brake at the same cam that's been their for uptime years? it's not a far stretch to see it actually happening..

or drivers falsely blame the cam's or nrma needs an excuse to raise.
take your pick.

[Bill M]

Originally Posted by b0son

Why? The pro-camera bandwagon have never proven their case.... the majority of pro-enforcement statistics are either full of errors or faulty conclusions, or downright fraudulent misrepresentation.



By arbitrarily setting low limits, then directing the majority of enforcement at these areas, they target drivers who are not being unsafe (a HWP officer has said exactly this ... that 95% of people he pulled over were not doing anything unsafe, it was simply a technical infringement). The sheer volume of drivers booked for low range infringements is proof of this. When a law targets the majority of the population, the problem is with the law.



You've been given alternatives.. You dismissed them. The debating equivalent of putting a pot on your head and hitting it with a wooden spoon.

Increased police presence works. Raising speed limits on *some* stretches, works. Its been proven elsewhere in the world (google it if you can be bothered). Setting limits appropriately, with an aim to having traffic flow smoothly, works. Our road system is a mess. Limits change every few hundred meters, poorly signposted, no one knows what speed to travel, etc. Poorly set limits aren't followed by the majority, you end up with a range of speeds and its the speed differentials that tend to have the biggest bearing on crash risk.

If we're not going to get rid of cameras, then set appropriate camera tolerances, and put them *in* locations where speed is a *causative* factor, not simply some distance where speed was a contributor (even if not a significant one).

I think you have summed it up nicely.
Thank you.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

Aside from this being a ridiculous question (NOTHING can be done instantly) I've often thought instead of punishing motorists, they could try rewarding them.

Something like renewing licences annually, like the car's registration/insurance, and if no offences or accidents were recorded in the previous year the Driver would get a reduction in Licence, Rego or Insurance charges.

Your right, nothing can be done instantly, which is why removing speed cameras and implementing an alternative isn't as easy as what many in these threads make it out to be.
You've provided the answer without realising it.

This is why using education to manipulate attitude is of much greater importance than say doing an advanced driver course.
Sure, the advanced driver course will get you out of trouble, but better driving habits by all will see you avoiding the situation in the first place be it through increased awareness or competent basic operation.

But that doesn't help the 10million drivers out there already, changing their attitudes will be near on impossible and that is a factor worth considering.

As for rewarding drivers, I have long said that the driver should be insured, not the vehicle and that you pay a premium depending on the vehicles you drive with a excess relevant to it also.

That way if I have a clean record I get rewarded for it and am covered no matter what I drive.

[dragons90]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Cool, so at the current rate of roll out and the estimated time it will take to get every road in Australia up to scratch, we should start seeing speed cameras at the local scrap metal joint in 20..

Yes but we do have roads suitable for higher speeds be it 130, 110 or even 100 on motorway that currently have lower limits. The current emphasis on speed being the only killer stop those limits happening. When the NT started that trial there were minority groups saying it would be a bloodbath, yet even though this happen there's been no deaths. http://www.drive.com.au/motor-news/l...201-31trz.html

Even with higher limits there will still be a need for limit enforcement (cameras and hwy patrol) but based on 85th percentile rules people will be less likely to speed on motorways and enforcement would be best suited for build up areas shared with pedestrians, cyclists and roadwork's.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by b0son

Why? The pro-camera bandwagon have never proven their case.... the majority of pro-enforcement statistics are either full of errors or faulty conclusions, or downright fraudulent misrepresentation.

They aren't asking for change

Originally Posted by b0son

By arbitrarily setting low limits, then directing the majority of enforcement at these areas, they target drivers who are not being unsafe (a HWP officer has said exactly this ... that 95% of people he pulled over were not doing anything unsafe, it was simply a technical infringement). The sheer volume of drivers booked for low range infringements is proof of this. When a law targets the majority of the population, the problem is with the law.

This law hasn't targeted me.

Originally Posted by b0son

You've been given alternatives.. You dismissed them. The debating equivalent of putting a pot on your head and hitting it with a wooden spoon.

Increased police presence works. Raising speed limits on *some* stretches, works. Its been proven elsewhere in the world (google it if you can be bothered). Setting limits appropriately, with an aim to having traffic flow smoothly, works. Our road system is a mess. Limits change every few hundred meters, poorly signposted, no one knows what speed to travel, etc. Poorly set limits aren't followed by the majority, you end up with a range of speeds and its the speed differentials that tend to have the biggest bearing on crash risk.

If we're not going to get rid of cameras, then set appropriate camera tolerances, and put them *in* locations where speed is a *causative* factor, not simply some distance where speed was a contributor (even if not a significant one).

So lobby for change, better still, vote in someone who will represent you...

Oh, they tried that...

[irish2]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Your right, nothing can be done instantly, which is why removing speed cameras and implementing an alternative isn't as easy as what many in these threads make it out to be.
You've provided the answer without realising it.

This is why using education to manipulate attitude is of much greater importance than say doing an advanced driver course.
Sure, the advanced driver course will get you out of trouble, but better driving habits by all will see you avoiding the situation in the first place be it through increased awareness or competent basic operation.

But that doesn't help the 10million drivers out there already, changing their attitudes will be near on impossible and that is a factor worth considering.

As for rewarding drivers, I have long said that the driver should be insured, not the vehicle and that you pay a premium depending on the vehicles you drive with a excess relevant to it also.

That way if I have a clean record I get rewarded for it and am covered no matter what I drive.

I think you need to go and drive in another first world nation, and travel along with the traffic, that is commonly over the speed limit by enough to lose your licence instantly here. You will notice the roads are no better. The people pay more attention, and stuff flows well. Even in cities that have populations approaching half of the total population of Australia.

[dragons90]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Sure, the advanced driver course will get you out of trouble, but better driving habits by all will see you avoiding the situation in the first place be it through increased awareness or competent basic operation.

Defensive driver courses are more suited.

[csv8]

Might be assisted with enforcement strategies translated: speed cameras. Stats can be twisted to tell a story the Government want.

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

They aren't asking for change

.

So basically you are saying laws and rules or the way they are enforced shouldn't have to prove themselves to be working as times move on? That's just the way it is and bad luck if it doesn't make a difference.

"Lets bring in low speed limits, zero tolerance and speed cameras to reduce road crashes. We can't prove it works yet because it's never been tried here before, but we are sure it will"

10 years later
"So are the low limits, zero tolerance and speed cameras savings lives?"
"Oh we don't have to prove anything since we don't want anything to change"
Great logic there.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

They aren't asking for change

They change fines/penalties/enforcement standards all the time, with no evidence.

In any case, evidence: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...accidents.html

This law hasn't targeted me.

So it doesn't become a problem until it affects you. Great. You either lack imagination, or are selfish.

So lobby for change, better still, vote in someone who will represent you...

The next step is not to lobby, its civil disobedience (ie. camera vandalism). Its started happening OS. Its a matter of time before it happens here.