"Speed Cameras" are about to get better, or worse?

[snappy]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

This is the bit i just don't understand.. put all the "fair" or "justification" stuff to one side, speed camera fines are a voluntary tax, nobody is forced to contribute, ive driven for over 20 years, over 600000 k's in mostly performance V8 vehicles, but ive only been booked once, so nobody will ever convince me they're unavoidable.

Yes they are avoidable . But the issue is at a 3km tolerence watch your gps if you have set your car to cruise control to 100kmph and wait till the slightst down hill angle and watch that gps click over to 104kmph cruise control does not apply the brakes and don't say the are not setup near these downhill slopes because i can name 3 in 20ks of me . Also when i had my tray fitted i lost cruise control so there for i just did not want to risk taking the highway because it is so simple to go over 3kmph especially with a analog speedo.
And for a camera's purpose to provide us with safer roads has people that are doing 100kmph slam on the brakes go through at 90-95kmph when the get 100 feet of one is not safe at all.
Yes the avoidable but so is a punch does not mean it should not have been thrown in the first place.

[Geez Louise]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Yep.. obeying speed limits is no different to obeying any other road law, tailgating, running red lights, failing to indicate, its about concentration and diligence....
I'll bet anything you care to wager if speed camera infringements dropped dramatically over a sustained period they'd disappear due to running costs exceeding revenue, the challenge is to drive by the rules people!!!

And how hard is that??? I have not been written up or copped a speeding fine in ages (although I will admit to speeding on occassion) This debate still comes back to my original point...do the crime...pay the fine!! Enough said already!

[300C-CRD]

If speed kills, most of the German motorists should be dead by now, Northern Territory should have no motorists left before they introduced the speed limit. In fact I welcome the surveillance cameras at all highway, not to penalise speeding vehicles in a safe driving condition but catch those who drive dangerously, such as tailgating, changing lanes without care to other road users and car racers. No doubt with surveillance cameras at all highway, it will definitely reduce crimes. Another cash machine was stolen this week, the police have no idea who done it. The machine was pulled out by a 4WD before it was loaded onto the vehicle and got away clean. Only problem with this is that we all loose our privacy, in a way I don't mind if those criminals and dangerous drivers are kept off our roads.

[philstoj]

The speed camera operators are running a business, and like all businesse,s they are out to make money, not loose money...

Im sure if they had a slow month they will make it up no problem at all, by whatever means possible!

Didnt the labour govt in victoria raise the expected earnings of what they expect to get from all the road tax camera's?
Their projected earning's were 400 odd million for this financial year, up a ridiculous amount from last year?
How do they expect to collect all that extra money that they have budgeted for?

I wonder how many of the people fined actually did do the crime?

They have conditioned us to accept the fuel and grocery prices, and they have also conditioned us to accept these fines aswell, like bills, bust another added household expense, but bin breality will bit bring down the road toll, definatly not...

Its good to see these business's doing well with plenty of support from the govt's yet all the other good australian companies are getting shafted..

By the way, i havent contributed any money to them as i havent had a fine in 14 yrs.

[Daymoe]

I haven't had a fine in my uh, nearly a year of driving in 2 days haha, but I've accidentally sped once, 60 through a 50 zone while talking to my driving instructor.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by Russell

Actually in Victoria it is technically robbery as the 3km/h rule is in direct contradiction to the national ADR stating a vehicles speedometer must only be within 10% of the actual speed traveled.

Its been over and over and over in these forums a thousand times.

The speedo is not permitted to read lower, that is the speedo can read say 98 when doing 93, but not 98 when doing 103.

ADR 18/03 - Instrumentation
5.3 The speed indicated shall not be less than the true speed of the vehicle. .....

Thats for vehicles made from 2006. You can look for older ones if you like, but Im pretty sure the bold part has been true for eons.


In simpler terms, speedos must exaggerate speed, not underestimate them.

[geckoGT]

All these people bragging about how long it has been since they were last booked, hope you have not all jinxed yourself. There could be a lot of egg on a lot of faces in the next couple of days.

As for the 3km over, get a fine, so unfair sentiment that seems to exist. The speed limit is just that, the upper limit. Just because you are in a 100 zone does not mean that the law wants you doing 100, it just means that is the upper limit of what the law will tolerate. Maybe you should be doing an indicated 95km/hr, that way you have a couple of kays buffer to account for speedo inaccuracy, hills etc.

As for speedo inaccuracy, I drive a lot of different types of vehicles for work, all with my sat nav fitted, I have not driven one that is travelling faster than what the speedo shows. Most of them infact show a higher speed on the speedo than what the sat nav indicates. For example, at and indicated speed of 100km/hr I have already had a bit of a play with this and I have noticed the following on the sat nav.

Our Super Pursuit and old GT = 97
Mecedes Sprinter 316 ambulance = 95
Ford F350 ambulance = 96
Our Mini Cooper S = 99
VZ Commodore (ambulance single officer response vehicle) = 100 (they are full police spec including cluster, suspension, wheels and brakes.

Makes me wonder how many that are complaining that there speedo shows less than their actual speed have changed tyre size or drive ratios?

Anyway, I agree, if you are busted speeding, suck it up and don't cry, you know the law. If you know you weren't speeding, take it to court.

[4Vman]

This 3kph "rule" is a bit miss-understood it seems, if you get detected at 110, they reduce the alleged speed by 3k's to 107... so you're booked at 107.
If you get done doing "allegedly" 107 in a 100 zone you were probably doing 113 shown on the car's speedo....
Every car ive driven has shown higher on the speedo than reality.

[snappy]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

This 3kph "rule" is a bit miss-understood it seems, if you get detected at 110, they reduce the alleged speed by 3k's to 107... so you're booked at 107.
If you get done doing "allegedly" 107 in a 100 zone you were probably doing 112....

in vic if you are doing 103kmph that a fine for you.

[Geez Louise]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

This 3kph "rule" is a bit miss-understood it seems, if you get detected at 110, they reduce the alleged speed by 3k's to 107... so you're booked at 107.
If you get done doing "allegedly" 107 in a 100 zone you were probably doing 112....

I concur! And as I said earlier...do the crime...
This debate is going no where...wanna be angry? Take your foot off the pedal!

[balthazarr]

Originally Posted by fmc351

Its been over and over and over in these forums a thousand times.

The speedo is not permitted to read lower, that is the speedo can read say 98 when doing 93, but not 98 when doing 103.
...
In simpler terms, speedos must exaggerate speed, not underestimate them.

My gripe is the 3km/h tolerance... Yes, speedos are supposed to overestimate - but do they?

How often are speedos recalibrated? How much effect does change in tyre pressure, ambient temp etc. have on the reading?

3km/h is way too low a tolerance.

If the cameras were really about safety, and reducing "carnage" on our roads... they'd have police patrolling - for everything, not just speeding.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by snappy84

in vic if you are doing 103kmph that a fine for you.

Wrong, in Vic if you're doing 103 you WONT get booked.

[snappy]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Wrong, in Vic if you're doing 103 you WONT get booked.

Try it do on the princess hwy

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by snappy84

Try it do on the princess hwy

To get booked (alleged) for doing 103 it would mean you were detected doing 106, which as others have said probably means on average you're showing about 108 - 109 on your speedo!!!!
If you get detected doing 103 it means they'd have to book you for doing 100...??? which as we all know is the legal limit. So you're wrong..

[balthazarr]

From the Victoria Police Traffic Camera Office - Mobile Speed Camera Policy & Operations Manual, Feb 2007 (My emphasis):

"Every road considered for evaluation as a mobile speed camera site MUST have a documented history of serious and major injury collisions within the previous 2 years; or be the subject of a validated written complaint of excessive speeds, resulting in a written assessment by a TMU Sergeant or above indicating that driver behaviour demonstrates a significant risk of speed-related collisions."

Hmmm... how many speed cameras have you seen set up on straight, flat stretches of multi-lane highway... you know, clear deathtraps, with multiple collisions.

and

"To maintain community confidence in the mobile speed camera initiative, it is important for the operational use of the device to be seen as fair and reasonable. Under no circumstances are camera vehicles, tripods or portable flash units (when used) to be disguised by signs, logos, breakdown of vehicle (eg. boot open or spare wheel / jack visible etc), tree branches, lamp posts, rubbish bins or any other covert means."

Again, how many cameras have you seen that are deliberately concealed, or placed directly behind a speed sign, or any number of other situations that are not 'fair and reasonable'.

[snappy]

on the pricess they drop the allowence to 2kph you need to be doing 105kph

[Geez Louise]

Well then...DON't SPEED!!! It really is quite simple! Police are doing their job...be a good citizen and DONT SPEED!! It is not a warning put there for fun! I can not believe this thread...

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by snappy84

on the pricess they drop the allowence to 2kph you need to be doing 105kph

Ok, i'll take your word for it, so you agree you wont get booked for doing 103 then? so the threshhold is 105? and as others have said, probably an indicated speed in car of about 107?

[balthazarr]

Originally Posted by Geez Louise

Well then...DON't SPEED!!! It really is quite simple! Police are doing their job...be a good citizen and DONT SPEED!! It is not a warning put there for fun! I can not believe this thread...

I don't considering doing 103 in a 100 zone "speeding"... certainly not something that should cost me a couple of hundred dollars worth of fine. (What is the fine these days?)

For the record, I've received one speeding fine - many moons ago as a younger driver.

[4Vman]

EDIT:

forget it, im wasting my breath....

[snappy]

Ill agree with that. For the record i have not had a fine for 5 years . But i used to enjoy driving now i fear driving beacause i spend more time looking at my speedo than the road it's only going to get worse if people continue to have the attitude there good . THEY HAVE NOT DECREASED THE ROAD TOLL IN ANY STATE the evidense is there.

I don't think speeding is aceptable in any way . But this is clearly not the way for safer driving thats the arguement.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by snappy84

Ill agree with that. For the record i have not had a fine for 5 years . But i used to enjoy driving now i fear driving beacause i spend more time looking at myspeedo than the road it's only going to get worse if people continue to have the attitude there good . THEY HAVE NOT DECREASED THE ROAD TOLL IN ANY STATE theevidense is there.

No probs, im glad we've cleared up the "booked doing 3K over" myth.

Hey, here's a theory that im sure will upset a few: you could probably argue the reason speed cameras havent reduced the road toll is because people keep ignoring them and speeding, the overwhelming evidance is there judging by the amount of people who keep getting caught!!!

It would be interesting to see the road toll if you got every single person to drive under the limit for a whole month.....

[vanman_75]

maybe we should all speed till there are no licenses left, and they will have no one to fine . that will teach em !!! ., amagine public transport trying to take us all to work . i dodge em and mostly travel 10 -20 over and pay any time they catch me ,dont care never will .

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by balthazarr

My gripe is the 3km/h tolerance... Yes, speedos are supposed to overestimate - but do they?

How often are speedos recalibrated? How much effect does change in tyre pressure, ambient temp etc. have on the reading?

3km/h is way too low a tolerance.

If the cameras were really about safety, and reducing "carnage" on our roads... they'd have police patrolling - for everything, not just speeding.

If the speedo is factory fitted, all and any vehicle mods comply with the law, yep, they overestimate.

Tyres pressures and temperature are covered in the ADR re: the testing of speedos for approva in the sections just prior to the one I quoted. The testing procedure for speedos is using the factory tyres at factory pressures on a 23C day, +/- 5C.

On the road in your car, tyre pressure is youre responsibility. If your tyre is under inflated, the speedo should read even lower. If youre over inflated, thats your fault. Same as recalibration if youre concerned about it.

Do I recalibrate mine? Nope. But I might if i got a fine and didnt think I was speeding. Short of any other explanation, like wrong tyres etc.


All but one argument against speed cameras and the like are stupid. The only valid argument, is the accuracy of the cameras speed detector. Im not saying the devices are inaccurate, Im merely saying if they are, then theres a valid argument.

I somewhat relate to the 3km over being a tad tight, but its better than 0 over. I think 10 is way to generous though, but am grateful just the same.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by balthazarr

My gripe is the 3km/h tolerance... Yes, speedos are supposed to overestimate - but do they?

How often are speedos recalibrated? How much effect does change in tyre pressure, ambient temp etc. have on the reading?

3km/h is way too low a tolerance.

If the cameras were really about safety, and reducing "carnage" on our roads... they'd have police patrolling - for everything, not just speeding.

There has to be a clear line in the sand when it comes to enforcing laws, if not then the law becomes a large grey area and difficult to enforce. It is the drivers responsibility to know the speed limit and ensure they do not exceed it, therefore it is the drivers responsibility to allow for tyre pressure differences, wear and tear on vehicle instruments, tail winds, hills, phases of the moon and any other condition you can think of.

As has been said, the 3km/h is not to allow for variations in your speedo, according to ADR there shoudn't be one that will lead to you unknowingly speeding. I am under the impression it is to allow for variations in the camera reading, drops the infringement to a level that is in your favour to cut out defence based on manufacturer guarantee of accuracy.

[4Vman]

I wonder how many people have altered the wheel/tyre combo and subsequent rolling diameter on their car without giving consideration to the effect it has on your speedo??? food for thought for some?

[snappy]

I my opinion the road toll keeps growing because so does the amount of cars on the road .
More cars bigger the odds of accidents. How many fatal or minor accidents have happend on freeways from doing 5kph over .

[balthazarr]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

EDIT:

forget it, im wasting my breath....

You're not wasting your breath... I believe the rule you are referring to only applies to speed detection from a moving vehicle.

From: http://www.theage.com.au/news/nation...29.html?page=2 -
"Camera tolerance to stay

Mr Holding rejected a call from State Opposition leader Robert Doyle to replace a current 3 km/h tolerance on speed cameras with a 10 per cent tolerance."

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by balthazarr

You're not wasting your breath... I believe the rule you are referring to only applies to speed detection from a moving vehicle.

From: http://www.theage.com.au/news/nation...29.html?page=2 -
"Camera tolerance to stay

Mr Holding rejected a call from State Opposition leader Robert Doyle to replace a current 3 km/h tolerance on speed cameras with a 10 per cent tolerance."

It used to be 10% plus 2 for fixed cameras (and moving too i think) in vic under Jeff....

If you got detected doing 70, they dropped 2 off and booked you for 68 in a 60 zone....
70 detected was the trigger point in a 60 zone.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by snappy84

I my opinion the road toll keeps growing because so does the amount of cars on the road .
More cars bigger the odds of accidents. How many fatal or minor accidents have happend on freeways from doing 5kph over .

I have no idea, but here is a thought for you. Out of all the fatal accidents that I have been to (there have been quite a few), not one involved all vehicles travelling below the speed limit.

In fact my last fatal that I attended was two nights ago and involved two cars drag racing across both lanes and having a head on with another car in a 60 zone. End result, one dead and 3 serious injuries. Previous to that, 18 year old lost it at an estimated 130km/hr in a 60 zone and hit a tree, end result was driver dead and passenger with serious abdominal and head injuries. Need I go on?

As for the 5km/hr idea, there needs to be a line that the law uses. If the law said 5km/hr was ok, people would assume another 5 wouldn't hurt, just as if the law said 10 was ok people would assume another 5 is ok then too.