Speed camera increasing accidents....

[falconnut]

Finally NSW comes to their senses.

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by sudszy

NSW roads minister Duncan Gay has ordered that 38 speed cameras across the state be switched off immediately after an audit found that they were not improving road safety.

Mr Gay instructed the Roads and Traffic Authority to turn off the cameras after receiving a report from the state's auditor-general, Peter Achterstraat, this morning which identified the most hated cameras in NSW.
Advertisement: Story continues below

Mr Achterstraat's report found that "overall, speed cameras change driver behaviour and improve road safety" and concluded there was no evidence that they were simply cash cows for the government.

The report said that despite some increases in the cost of fines, revenue from speed cameras in 2010 was "basically the same" as in 2003 and the average number of speeding fines per camera fell after cameras were installed.

But Mr Gay said he had vowed before the election to rip out any cameras that were not effective.

“While this is encouraging, the audit also found that 38 of the existing 141 fixed speed camera locations had not reduced crashes," Mr Gay said.

“There has been community concern that some cameras are purely revenue raisers and this audit has allowed us to identify them and ensure they are removed."

Im a little confused here. We have this statement from the auditor general:

Mr Achterstraat's report found that "overall, speed cameras change driver behaviour and improve road safety" and concluded there was no evidence that they were simply cash cows for the government.

But this is followed up with

“While this is encouraging, the audit also found that 38 of the existing 141 fixed speed camera locations had not reduced crashes," Mr Gay said.

So Mr Gay has taken it upon himself to conclude that cameras only improve the safety of the roads that they are operated on? A very simplistic approach and doesnt take into account that the presence of cameras "anytime/anywhere" changes the attitude of many drivers into one where they respect the road rules all of the time.

But Mr Gay said he had vowed before the election to rip out any cameras that were not effective.

I hope Mr Gay's decision,( based on populist policy rather than expert advice), on this issue doesnt cost any lives, Im afraid it will. Just a guess but I anticipate they will find other sections of road to put the 38 cameras they ripped out!

Alright...one...why would an auditor general admit they weren't revenue raisers?
Two - the comment regarding revenue was not a direct quote, ergo the journalist has written that...unable to get a quote because the question wasn't answered perhaps?

Three - 38 cameras have been removed. An AUDIT has revealed this...not Mr. Gay personally. What on earth has 'populist policy' got to do with an audit...?

Have you read the auditors report?

While fixed speed cameras have a positive road safety impact overall, crash results vary for individual cameras. For some camera locations, the number of crashes did not reduce. This means that other road safety measures may be needed for these sites. RTA has identified 93 of 141 fixed speed camera locations as effective with a clear road safety benefit. It plans to review and relocate 38 of the remaining cameras. We support this, but think that crash analysis over a longer time period is needed before final decisions are made. This is because our crash analysis suggests that only 40 had statistically significant reductions.

http://www.audit.nsw.gov.au/publicat...ed_cameras.pdf - If anyone wants to read the full audit...

They budget for speed cameras, $281,300,000 last financial year...so tell me again how they aren't revenue raising if they actually hope that they can get over $281mill out of the NSW public? They noted that the public has suggested that if it's not for revenue raising, remove the fines - but the report indicates the following:

All of these suggestions would impact on the revenue to government and therefore on the level of services that government could fund. They would therefore have an adverse effect on law abiding citizens who do not speed.

http://www.osr.nsw.gov.au/lib/doc/st...l_v_budget.pdf

I'm not all for people roaring around at 100mph but I'm not going to sit here and say it's not revenue raising - because it is...and I've quoted why above. The suggestion is ridiculous...

Once again you dismiss training of drivers, believing that it will have no effect...well I'm curious how you know that? No-one has yet attempted it to know if it will be a positive - I can't see why more training wouldn't be...

[falconnut]

I dont think my brain can keep up haha

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

Alright...one...why would an auditor general admit they weren't revenue raisers?
Two - the comment regarding revenue was not a direct quote, ergo the journalist has written that...unable to get a quote because the question wasn't answered perhaps?

Three - 38 cameras have been removed. An AUDIT has revealed this...not Mr. Gay personally. What on earth has 'populist policy' got to do with an audit...?

Have you read the auditors report?


Once again you dismiss training of drivers, believing that it will have no effect...well I'm curious how you know that? No-one has yet attempted it to know if it will be a positive - I can't see why more training wouldn't be...

Yes, thanks for a link to the auditors report.

found the important bit:
"RTA proposes to review and relocate(not all good news for lead foots) the remaining 38 cameras".

It would appear that the conclusion of the report is that cameras are effective and they are here to stay.


Special training?, but what special training is needed to keep under the speed limit?

personally I think a couple of months without a car and a bit of walking, bike riding, public transport should be all the training they need


Anyways, this NSW policy seems to be a departure from the topic at hand.......Speed cameras increase accidents....perhaps people want to get back to the supporting evidence for that.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by DJM83

See below

Its clear sudszy have no interest in Fords or even cars for that matter, a simple browse through your posts points out this.
Most of the posts you have made are all in traffic oriented threads and have contributed nothing but to push your hidden blatantly obvious agendas. Its clear you couldnt care about what this forum is about, FORDS Im not the only one to notice the crap you are pushing, hence my statement on trying another forum that may be suitable to you.
Like
http://www.aussielegal.com.au/forum/...ics~FID~49.htm
http://www.theattorneysforum.com/traffic-law-forums/


I agree with this, i had this happen to me a few weeks ago with something that might have netted me a licence suspension. He pulled my over, i was nice to him agreed to his requests etc and agreed with what he said. Got nothing.

report sent

[DJM83]

Originally Posted by sudszy

report sent

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Special training?, but what special training is needed to keep under the speed limit?

But speeding isn't the only problem on the road. Bit of training would benefit everyone.

Originally Posted by TZENU

Sudzy do you have any interest in motor vehicles, specifically Fords?

I asked a similar question months ago. The reply from a 3rd party was it's none of my business.
What was I thinking asking about a car on a car forum. Silly me

Originally Posted by cobramania

There was an Ex-NSW Highway patrol officer on the radio this afternoon........................

Spot On. I agree with this 100%
Replace cameras with cops. It gives the impression of anywhere anytime.

[Falcon Coupe]

Originally Posted by sudszy

report sent

Report ignored, reap what you sow.

[GTP owner]

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

Report ignored, reap what you sow.

Funny bits in a speed camera thread! No way!

[GTP owner]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Special training?, but what special training is needed to keep under the speed limit?

personally I think a couple of months without a car and a bit of walking, bike riding, public transport should be all the training they need

Yep, if you don't speed you will not have an accident, right? No need to keep up with road rule changes, how to navigate a roundabout, understanding courtesy on the roads etc. Just don't exceed the set limit and all will be safe!

And what part of suburbia do you think we all live in? If I lose my car/licence I will lose my job, the kids will not get educated (can't get to school), I will not be paying any tax, and I will probably take up drinking...it's not like I could be done for DUI right? Ride a bike? Sure, 110km a day will take ..um all day. Public transport? Yeah good one! In the country it is almost non-existent.

And is speed a factor in crashes around here? Well, um, I guess so if you think driving on ice at 80km/h is safe. But just remember the limit is 100, so I should be able to do my 80 in safety and without worry for the kodak warriors.

You are a blinkered individual ....

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Yes, thanks for a link to the auditors report.

found the important bit:
"RTA proposes to review and relocate(not all good news for lead foots) the remaining 38 cameras".

It would appear that the conclusion of the report is that cameras are effective and they are here to stay.


Special training?, but what special training is needed to keep under the speed limit?

personally I think a couple of months without a car and a bit of walking, bike riding, public transport should be all the training they need


Anyways, this NSW policy seems to be a departure from the topic at hand.......Speed cameras increase accidents....perhaps people want to get back to the supporting evidence for that.

The important bit? What to back up your propaganda that speed kills? Good job troll...

It's not about 'special' training to keep under the limit, it's about training to acknowledge all road rules, or are you so hell bent on your 'speed kills' mantra that you fail to take into consideration the other causes for accidents...?

Perhaps you should get out more and see the real world...or start commenting in threads other than the 'speed is bad', revenue is okay...

And for the record, the NSW policy...is actually on topic - the speed cameras are causing more accidents in the UK, NSW is removing cameras from locales where they aren't reducing the amount of accidents...I can see the comparison...it might be hard for you though, given your one-eyed logic...

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

Report ignored, reap what you sow.

Funniest thing I've read all day...

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

- the speed cameras are causing more accidents in the UK,

Ah, back on topic, but evidence for your claim? 3 out of 282 cameras locations in Lancashire show a rise in incidents in past years, is that your evidence?

[delete94]

I think you must be a fisherman Sudszy. You cast out using this whole speed thing as bait and then see what you can reel in... which of course, is usually the rest of us on here, trying to make some sort of sense out of what you're saying. I think you just love to get peoples backs up and get a bite from us all, and yes, I’ll bite anyway.

I think that someone who tries to come across as an articulate, well informed person on the subject of road safety, but then only focus’s on one aspect of the whole road safety issue, really can’t be that serious about it in the first place. You seem to have looked at a lot of research, have lots of facts and figures, yet blatantly disregard all other aspects of road safety except speed.

In a previous thread you got closed, you were also having a go at another journo, Toby Hagon. He was simply saying there needs to be a lot more done in relation to road safety than just focusing on speed, which I guess was the first thing that got up your nose Sudszy. He was implying that driver attitudes need to change and I agree 100% with that. The plain stupid, dangerous and mostly illegal things I (and I think most others on here) see drivers do on the roads beggars belief. And as I’ve said before, many of these are things are extremely dangerous even if they are travelling at the posted speed limit. And you can say what you like Sudszy, speed cameras will never fix that type behaviour.

Do you actually drive Sudszy? Do you actually see what goes on out on the roads, or has all your experience been gained from behind a keyboard? I ask this because I seriously cannot believe that anyone who actually gets out on the roads could be so doggedly single minded that speed enforcement is the magic bullet to solve all the problems on our roads. Maybe you're one of those people that truly believe you're a safe driver simply because you don't speed. The fact that you probably break numerous other road rules is probably lost on you. In fact, the more I see of your comments, the more I think you’re actually a car hater.

Regardless though Sudszy, you can talk till you’re blue in the face about things like how doing 5k’s over the limit doubles my chances of having a collision. As far as I’m concerned it’s utter nonsense. When I drive, I’m very aware of my surroundings, including what my car is doing, as well as the cars behind and beside me and two or three cars in front of me. I don’t how you drive, but if doing 5k’s over the limit will double your chance of having a collision, then maybe you shouldn’t be on the road in the first place, or at least nowhere near me.

[prydey]

i'm just curious, if i drive below the limit, and have a crash and die, who do i write my complaint to?

[DJM83]

Originally Posted by prydey

i'm just curious, if i drive below the limit, and have a crash and die, who do i write my complaint to?

I see what you did there, and it will go largely unnoticed....

[delete94]

Originally Posted by kpcart

by the way the australian population, and especially the number of cars and drivers on the road is increasing, (as well as the population of arrogant drivers who like to drive at whatever speed they want). so ofcourse the road fatality statistics will increase.

To many people, getting a fine makes them think more when they drive and focus on not breaking rules, as they dont want another penalty.... BUT to the likes of people in this forum and especially "car enthusiats" it just brings out more hate against authority. whats wrong with people these days? you all hate authority, but when you are in serious trouble, whats the first number you call? 000 (until the next day, when you start complaining about how long they took to provide help to your obnoxious needs).

And as for you mate, I am a car enthusiast. And by virtue of that very fact, I have a very, very clear understanding of the consequences of what a vehicle can do, both to myself and to others, if not treated with respect.

You’re obviously not a car enthusiast, otherwise you wouldn’t be on here sprouting such idiotic drivel.

Oh, and as a “car enthusiast”, I, like I’m sure most others on here, actually have a healthy respect for the law. I actually don’t want to lose my license, because, as a “car enthusiast” I actually love to drive. Could drive for hours, 7 days a week and love every minute of it, unlike you I’m sure.

So don’t lump me into the same category as that minority who flout the law, cause most times they’re usually not “car enthusiasts”, but just idiots.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by delete94

I think you must be a fisherman Sudszy. You cast out ..........

Delete94, I have never claimed that speeding is the cause of all collisions and that keeping under the limit guarantees safe passage, thats just the "Strawmen" people have been attempting to to discredit me with.

I have no problem with addressing other areas that involve our safety on the road, attention/concentration/fatigue/decision making.
There seems to be an opinion here that these issues cant be addressed unless we get rid of speed cameras and/or they have no affect despite the details of the NSW auditor general report which says otherwise

Originally Posted by delete94

you were also having a go at another journo, Toby Hagon. He was simply saying there needs to be a lot more done in relation to road safety ......

No, he was not simply saying, there was another more sinister and dangerous message there, suggest you go back and read what I pointed out.

Originally Posted by delete94

Regardless though Sudszy, you can talk till you’re blue in the face about things like how doing 5k’s over the limit doubles my chances of having a collision. As far as I’m concerned it’s utter nonsense. When I drive, I’m very aware of my surroundings, including what my car is doing, as well as the cars behind and beside me and two or three cars in front of me. I don’t how you drive, but if doing 5k’s over the limit will double your chance of having a collision, then maybe you shouldn’t be on the road in the first place, or at least nowhere near me.

No, its not me talking, just passing on the research done both here and overseas. Yep, I accept Im twice as likely to crash doing 5km/h over the limit, just like everyone else(so perhaps my chances go from 1/100000 to 1/50000, still very small) (or perhaps its got more to do with the attitudes of people that choose to drive over the limit in the first place).

[XRGhia]

where's that padlock + a moderator gone?



edit: seriously though, if they want to remove camera's, sure.. let them do that, but it's not going to change much... there will still be accidents and all, so who cares?



this topic doesn't give enough reason for personal attacks either...

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by sudszy

I have no problem with addressing other areas that involve our safety on the road, attention/concentration/fatigue/decision making.

But you do...you indicate training will do nothing, but have no 'fact' to back that up...where is the 'statistics' and 'research' for that? If you can show me the research on proven instances where additional driver training has done nothing to curb the road toll, I'm all ears - but you can't - it doesn't exist...

Originally Posted by sudzy

There seems to be an opinion here that these issues cant be addressed unless we get rid of speed cameras and/or they have no affect despite the details of the NSW auditor general report which says otherwise

You think? Perhaps you need to learn to comprehend what other people are saying instead of getting on your soap box all the time...you might just see for the most part, most of us feel too much attention is placed on speeding, and not enough on general control of a vehicle...

[falconnut]

Originally Posted by DJM83

I see what you did there, and it will go largely unnoticed....

Its a shame sudszy gets noticed, lets just all ignore him ok

[MAD]

Originally Posted by sudszy

No, he was not simply saying, there was another more sinister and dangerous message there, suggest you go back and read what I pointed out.

That's a pretty long bow to draw that the entire point of the article was to entice dangerous driving. How many people do you really think would have picked that line out of that article and interpreted it in that manner? I only know of it because of you bringing it up.


I'll admit I haven't read, nor bothered to search for, the original research paper produced by the MUARC in regards to traveling at 5km/h above the limit doubles your chances of an accident.
Does anyone have a link to an electronic version of the document? Or will I have to take a day off work and head to the Monash library?

I don't agree with the media publicised findings at all, as it creates a dangerous mindset that as long as you drive at or below the speed limit, you will be safe. Judgement of the prevailing conditions are far more important, in my mind, than making sure I 100% adhere to the designated speed limit.
I sometimes drive at up to 15-20 below the signed limit. Eg on the way to work I often come across a situation where one lane moves a lot faster than the other. When on a two lane road with one lane banked up, would it be safe to fly past them all at the signed speed limit? It might be legal, but if someone decides to pull out to the 'fast' lane and doesnt check, or judge, properly it will likely end in a bad situation.
I remember a line from one of the instructors when I did my first defensive driving course, it was something along the lines of "It doesn't matter who's fault it is, a collision is going to hurt" The point being that you should avoid the incident altogether rather than just make sure you're in the 'right'.

[delete94]

Originally Posted by xrghiawagon

this topic doesn't give enough reason for personal attacks either...

Not sure if that was directed to me, but neither of my posts were intended to be a personal attack. If that’s how they came across, then my apologies to Sudszy and kpcart.

Sorry, just didn't appreciate being told I hate authority simply because I like cars, and that on a car forum no less. To me, that sounded like a personal attack, not just to myself, but to just about everyone on this forum.

[Benjamin Smith]

I like this whole anywhere, anytime ******** they are pushing with so many fixed speed camera's, more like "same place as last time".

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by MAD

I'll admit I haven't read, nor bothered to search for, the original research paper produced by the MUARC in regards to traveling at 5km/h above the limit doubles your chances of an accident.

it must be true, because otherwise neither the government or some aff members would tell us, would they

even if it is true, to me, it is irrelevant anyway. our chances of being in an accident are so low anyway. there are numerous times everyday, where my chances have doubled and even quadrupled and yet i have not had an accident in 24 years. doubling an almost tiny chance does not make the risk that much greater in relevant terms - it makes for a great story when pushing agendas though

[Auslandau]

........ Same time next week? Same Bat time, Same Bat channel.