Fixed cameras. Surely not a backlash on the way..?

[Vicko]

The unhappiest snap for safe drivers
By Peter McKay
The Sydney Morning Herald
Friday March 22 2002

When Drive began publishing, there were no fixed speed cameras in Sydney. By the end of this year there will be more than 100. Peter McKay explores the safety issues.
Last weekend, police nabbed a 23-year-old P-plate driver who was travelling at 152kmh in a 60 zone on the NSW South Coast.

His blood alcohol level was 0.165. The police patrol that pulled him over might have averted a tragedy – he could have killed himself or someone else.

But the potential for tragedy would have been greater if his high-velocity run had triggered a fixed speed camera, rather than attracting police attention.

His speeding fine would have arrived automatically, there would have been no drink-driving charge. But he could have been dead.

Examples such as this fuel the debate about whether fixed speed cameras are a legitimate means of reducing the road toll.


advertisement

advertisement
The NSW Roads and Traffic Authority is pushing ahead with plans to almost double the number of these cameras across the state to 103 from the present 53.

There is no doubt fixed speed cameras have a place at genuine black spots. But are state governments hammering the simplistic Speed Kills message in order to justify speed traps?

Last year NSW speed cameras collected $52 million, destined for consolidated revenue rather than directly into improving our roads.

Data released this week from Victoria's Monash University showed that 58 percent of vehicle driver and passenger fatalities occur in rural areas, but only 31 percent of vehicle travel is undertaken in those areas. Yet there are more speed cameras in metropolitan areas than country areas.

Critics who suggest speed cameras are a fiscal rather than a safety measure point out that in Victoria, also dotted with fixed speed cameras, the road toll has risen.

The RTA's figures show that at 20 of the existing 53 permanent sites, speed cameras have reduced crashes by an average of 27 percent.

Critics such as the Mayor of Mosman, Jim Reid, blame increased crashes on drivers who jump on the brakes when they see the camera, and then accelerate away when they are clear. Anecdotal evidence suggests drivers also spend more time checking the speedometer than previously.

In NSW, the RTA has erected warning signs at permanent speed camera locations. The RTA says any motorist who misses the massive reflective signs cannot be concentrating in the first place.

The RTA's Victorian counterpart hides the cameras, occasionally mounting them on unmarked, often second-hand cars parked in suburban streets.

In enforcement terms, there is debate about whether it is better for a speeding motorist to be stopped by police and effectively given a wake-up call on the spot or to have him speed blithely home to receive a speed-camera fine weeks later.

There is a further question: whether the cameras catch chronic speeders or drivers who are merely keeping with the flow of traffic. Anecdotal evidence suggests the former group knows where the cameras are and adjusts speed accordingly.

The abiding danger on our roads comes from unlicensed drivers, who figure in a disproportionately high number of fatal crashes and for whom a speed camera is scant deterrent – they have nothing to lose.

The Monash study showed that, in fatal country crashes, drivers are more likely to be over the blood alcohol limit and are less likely than city drivers to wear a seat belt.

Speed cameras are no deterrent to these problems. Education and a strong police presence are the only solutions.

Developing a training and testing regime that ensures every new driver is skilled in all aspects of controlling a vehicle is not simple or cheap.

Yet no government seems prepared to take the political risk of making it more difficult to get a licence, knowing it won't see the results in its term in office. Rather than ensuring drivers have the skills, governments focus on punishing them with hefty fines.

Eleven new Sydney camera locations:

* Blaxland Rd, Ryde
* Pennant Hills Rd, Carlingford
* Castle Hill Rd, West Pennant Hills
* Fairfield St, Fairfield East
* Pacific Highway, New Italy
* Pacific Highway, Hungry Head
* Bruxner Highway, Alstonville
* New England Highway, Tenterfield
* New England Highway, Ben Lomond
* Northern Distributor, Corrimal (north and south bound)

[RUN18T]

like I always say - black spray paint and a bit of will power should do the trick 2am in the morning as well...

lovely!!

[AC3888]

I think most of U guys agree that speeding does not kill, but its incompetent drivers that do.

City drivers, particularly, are brought up driving upto 90km/h on nice toll motorways with three lanes either way, with concrete barrier dividing the roads, and wide shoulders BUT when they HEAD out for their once a year holiday, they encounter 100km/h semi-course roads with oncoming traffic on the right, and lots of bush on the left with no shoulder, and thus this is where incompetencies come into play. This is what KILLS on our roads during holiday periods, and thus the RTA have come up with the idea of DOUBLE demerit... STUPID i tell you.

BUt for the cameras, there are purely designed to raise revenue!!!! surely, people slow down in camera zones, so thats why the statistics show that speeding decreases in that zone....

as for cameras, put them in proper places such as School 40km/h Zones... to catch all those mums n dads who still driver 60km/h..... and being unaware of the limits is NO EXCUSE to speeding in dangerous situations.

[Beavis]

Speed is a causal factor in accidents - noone is denying that - but what the percentage of accidents where speed is the major, contributing factor is.. I couldn't tell you. What I do know, though, is that the blanket policy of "driver education" that they claim the Speed Kills system is doesn't work, and is probably doing more harm than good. If your average Joe thinks that driving is nothing more than doing the speed limit religiously (regardless of whether that's too fast OR too slow for the conditions), then you're going to have an increasing number of accidents ever year.

Just recently, there was some publicity here over the death of a young (P-plate) driver. I can't remember the details, sadly, but he was driving at the speed limit on a road on the out-skirts of Perth (I think around Leach Hwy/Stock Rd, for us Perthies) and collided with a truck head-on, killing him instantly. He wasn't drunk, or high, or speeding - he was some family's son, and now he is dead. He is dead because there wasn't a road sign that indicated another lane of traffic was merging, and the Main Roads Department knew about this.

They'd known for more than a year, yet had done nothing about it. And now, a young man is killed in something that was probably completely preventable. I don't know the guy involved, or his family, or anything - all I know is, his death could have been prevented, and his death had nothing to do with speed. Maybe he should have noticed the road conditions, maybe not - but at the end of the day, all our governments (state and federal) seem to be focussing on are two things: speed kills, and drink-drive-bloody-idiot. Nobody doubts the importance of these messages, but the problem is that these aren't the only messages.

[AC3888]

I think most incompetent and unfit drivers believe that if they stick to the limits and do not drink, then they will never cause any accidents to them or others. BUt this is falsely UNTRUE. Good drivers not only drive for the conditions, but drive safely, at the own competent level, realising what other road users are there, realising what roads they are on, and what time of day.... simply not causing danger to them or themselves.

bad drivers who dont drive and dont drink often drive below the speed limit, or often will attempt to overtake U on the left when u drive on the limit, or take racing lines when turning corners without realising that they are going to slowly and blocking your way....................... these are just some examples... speed cameras are not the way to go

[bahaimus]

I sent an email to our state transport minister on the issue of driver training and speeding etc and received a reply back from one of his PR lackies.

It alluded to the fact that the reason they don't introduce increased driver training is that they believe it will make people OVERconfident on the roads and therefore will not have served a purpose. Better to send them out underskilled I guess...

I don't know about you guys, but my official driver training consisted of 3 driving school lessons in which I was taught the techniques I would be tested on and my test echoed these techniques. Passed first go.

Now in both of these environments I never drove in the rain, I never drove on the highway and I never drove at night. And I sure as shit didn't drive in all three circumstances at the same time. Yet I was released onto the roads with a nice new laminated license.

Fortunately for me, I had been taught to drive by my dad and he made me do all of those things and taught me a lot more than I would otherwise have known.

I hope I don't encounter someone who hasn't had that benefit in the same conditions.......

[Captiva Fan]

There was discussion of road safety in terms of something else in the Herald last week. Don't remember what it was, but I wrote in to request they run a story about the whole speed camera farce.

I suspect it was myself and quite a few others ... I'd like to hope that I may've made a small difference at least (although I didn't think that particular story was all that well researched; they didn't get as feral as I would've with the rubbery statistical justifications the RTA use).

[bahaimus]

You've got to love statistics and the manipulation of fact that they allow.

I've heard that 89% of statistcs are made up on the spot....

:D:D:D:D

[Captiva Fan]

Originally posted by Chris
Speed is a causal factor in accidents - noone is denying that - but what the percentage of accidents where speed is the major, contributing factor is.. I couldn't tell you. . [/B]

They did a study in the UK fairly recently, it was about 4% over there. The numbers ae most certainly not available here, for obvious reasons.

Talk to anyone that's been to the UK recently, and they drive faster than us. They also have fewer crashes per driver.

[Guido]

Bahaimus, 18% of people know that!!!

Good to see the media writing articles other then propaganda.

[gtst4]

In relation to bahaimus's story, a guy who used to work here (he's retired now) taught his sons to drive. This included sending them on courses at DECA, which they passed comfortably. Approaching the time for their tests, he booked them in for professional lessons.

When he mentioned the stuff they had done at DECA, the response was along the lines of :
"don't care about DECA. We simply teach them how to get a licence".

Well, fornicate me into a state of extinction.

This is the whole problem - the majority are simply taught how to get a licence. They have absolutely no idea how to drive a car.

Our little government lackie who spouts "it will only make them OVER confident" has obviously never done an advanced or defensive driving course, otherwise they would understand that not just driving skills, but driving attitude is taught.

[AzzurrA]

when i did my compulsory 3 driving lessons (i actually did 6, 'cause i'd never driven a manual and i wanted a manual license) I had been driving an auto for 6 months before i took lessons, and when i took the lessons, i mentioned this to the instructor, and he nearly had a heart attack and told me to forget everything my dad had ever taught me about driving 'coz it had no direct relevance to the TEST... how farking ghey is that?

[VC V8]

If you reckon we've got it bad check out these pommies. http://www.pistonheads.com/speed/cameras.htm
thats what we've got to look forward to if something isn't done soon.
Looks like the RACV or NRMA are useless, they're too busy selling insurance etc. So apart from mounting a political campaign which "motorist representitve clubs" have little interest in. I can only suggest we go hire some demolition saws and get to work. Any other Ideas. and don't say a a current affair they're perpetrators of this supposed safety crap.

[daz]

[/b]When Drive began publishing, there were no fixed speed cameras in Sydney. By the end of this year there will be more than 100. Peter McKay explores the safety issues.
Last weekend, police nabbed a 23-year-old P-plate driver who was travelling at 152kmh in a 60 zone on the NSW South Coast.

His blood alcohol level was 0.165. The police patrol that pulled him over might have averted a tragedy – he could have killed himself or someone else.

But the potential for tragedy would have been greater if his high-velocity run had triggered a fixed speed camera, rather than attracting police attention.

His speeding fine would have arrived automatically, there would have been no drink-driving charge. But he could have been dead.

Examples such as this fuel the debate about whether fixed speed cameras are a legitimate means of reducing the road toll.[/b]

I have never seen this argument written in a better way! I won't usually whinge over speed traps where the police actually hide behind a telegraph pole with a laser gun, and I can't see that speed cameras will make any significant contribution to reducing the road toll.

[Jim]

Theres SO many examples. Yes some young kids will become overconfident with driver training, if the message is NOT hammered in as PART of that training.

Some years ago when I was living in Newcastle studying GingerBeering I was driving a clapped out '63 Morris 1100 I got given for nix (hey, it was cheaper than driving my 302 GXL Fairmont up and down the freeway!). One day on my way to TAFE it had been raining for about an hour, so the road was really slimy, not having had enough rain yet to wash the oil off the road, so it was slipperier than just a normal wet road.

I was driving along Maitland Rd doing more or less the 80kph speed limit, with a 4 yo (at the time) Camry maybe 100m behind me. No big deal, nothing scary and we were the only cars anywhere near us at the time.

I turned left onto Industrial Dr doing maybe 70-75kph like I do evvery day (it's a lovely big sweeping corner into 2 lanes, lights were red for everyone else so the road was all mine!).

Not realising just HOW slippery it was that day, on the little 145/12 crossplys, the back slid out. I had been competing actively in motorsport such as club level khanacross, motorkhana, supersprints and rallies for maybe 3 years, so I used what I had learnet. I countersteered slightly and squeezed on a little power (front wheel drive) and feathered it doorifto style through the corner, I didnt even leave my lane. Nothing more exciting than saying to myself "Gee, slippery today...".

However, the camry behind me piloted by a late 30's lady, presumably with many more road years experience than me encountered the same problem, obviously in cattle mode following me into the corner. The back stepped out slightly.

Well folks, she SHIT herself, hung onto the wheel without turning it either way, and wedged on the brakes. (Incredibly, this is actually in the RTA handbook!!! ).

The net result was she did THREE 360°'s and buried the car backwards into the earth bank. I saw the whole thing in my mirror as I was slowing down to be able to reverse up to help her. (OK, OK, I was slowing down because I was killing myself laughing!! was a spectacular sight!).

No major damage done other than a tailpipe jammed with mud and her shattered nerves.

So now we get to analyse what happened. I'm in a near 40 year old car with crossplys, cack shocks, 35kw of power and no power assisted brakes, she's in a 4 yo car with 30 years of technological advancement. We were both under the speed limit, sober and not fatigued. The speed was not excessive for that corner even in the rain. The only reason it was extra greasy was because of the previous dry spell and then a short period of ran. (why isnt THAT in the %^$@ handbook????).

So the speed was obviously too great for the conditions, but as the condition was almost unreadable, that left my safety down to my driving skill. Guess what, I had no probs due to my active club racing skills learnt in a relatively safe environment.

The lady lost even though she did everything the RTA lists to do and has a shiny licence stating so.

I propose that the number of overconfident drivers will never outweigh the lives of the average Joe Driver saved by training AND PRACTICE!


Now back in the days of no real riding tests for motorbike licences or capacity restrictions, NSW alone was losing riders aged under 25 at the rate of 250 A YEAR! After the rider training system was implemented it went down to LESS than 10 deaths of under 25 riders! No-one can possibly argue against driver training and not be either 100% ignorant or an outright bastard liar.


Sorry about the rant! *climbs down off soapbox*