The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The great speed camera rip-off > Comments

The great speed camera rip-off : Comments

By Mirko Bagaric, published 28/4/2006

More cameras and lower fines - that’s the solution to the speed camera scandal.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 12
  9. 13
  10. 14
  11. All
If safety were the real issue, then it would be simple to remove "points" from someone's licence. Caught speeding once, loose half your points - a warning if you like. Second time you loose your license for a lengthy period of time.

Remove money from the equation altogether.
Posted by Narcissist, Friday, 28 April 2006 12:46:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Unfortunately, whilst the argument is correct and it has been proven that there no regard for safety in our government's greed campaign, it misses a number of important factors.

For example, the three means of recording fines are extremely inaccurate. The Silver Eagle radar for instance can easily record speeds at in excess of 30 km/h of the speed the motorist is travelling. This means that police are able to pull an innocent motorist over allege that they were speeding at over 30km/h and rescind the innocent motorist's license. The motorist then needs to spend $30K in court costs (assuming he has reliable legal respresentation and expert witnesses). Otherwise, he may lose his job, family, social standing, etc.

We are not just talking about a $50 or $200 tax nor are we talking about something that you will not incur just because you don't speed.

For more information, please see http://www.roadsense.com.au and have a look in the fight for justice section.
Posted by B Josephs, Friday, 28 April 2006 1:40:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dr. Charlie Klauer, a senior research associate at the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, recently completed a study of 241 drivers covering over 2 million miles of travel. The study concluded that in over 80% of crashes, and near misses, the driver was distracted in the 3 seconds preceding the incident.

Other studies have shown that less than 3% of deaths and serious injuries on our roads are directly caused by travelling in excess of the posted speed limit.

When will politicians stop feeding from the public trough and address the issues that are killing people on our roads.

The firt thing to do is to remove all speed cameras from our roads because they are a major distraction - a cause or over 80% of crashes!

Then move on to reducing unnecessary signage. The could also enforce the laws against using a mobile phone while driving more actively and maybe put more police on our roads to catch dangerous drivers rather than persecute those who travel slightly over the limit.

Other studies have shown that the SAFEST drivers on our roads are those travelling in the 85-90 percentile. If a speed limit is set correctly, at the 85th percentile, then the safest drivers on our roads are those being targeted by speed cameras.

Sorry it's a bit disjointed but time is of the essence...
Posted by M3RBMW, Friday, 28 April 2006 1:58:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It doesn't help that the justification for the presence of speed cameras is based on flawed analysis of accident data. The RTA did a study into the effectiveness of speed cameras. Not surprisingly it concluded that "speed cameras save lives". But the study consisted of comparing before and after accident rates (fatal and non-fatal) for the places where speed cameras had been installed. Since they were usually installed after a single fatal accident, there was a built in bias towards finding a higher fatality rate before the camera was installed.

I shudder to think how much money was wasted on this flawed research.

Another factor that shows up strongly in accidents consists of road side obstacles such as power poles. Even where the primary collision is not with a road side obstacle, the secondary collision with one can have devestating consequences. If there's a road's authority campaign to get those removed, I must have missed it.

Sylvia.
Posted by Sylvia Else, Friday, 28 April 2006 2:02:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sylvia,

It's called Regression To The Mean.

In the UK a similar thing occurred for about 3 years until their Department for Transport conceded that the majority of the decrease was due to RTTM.

ie. the accident rate would have fallen by the same amount had a garden gnome been installed where the camera was installed.

"Garden Gnomes SAVE LIVES!".....
Posted by M3RBMW, Friday, 28 April 2006 2:25:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
M3RBMW

Ah, that UK research is probably what the RTA was referring to when I raised my concerns about this statistically flawed result.

They said:

"In relation to concern about the statistical accuracy of RTA reports on fixed speed cameras, the RTA regularly reviews its reporting practices and closely analyses independent research and findings.

With regards to the on-going evaluation of cameras' effectiveness, the
RTA is constantly monitoring the effectiveness of fixed speed cameras in terms of speed and crash reductions. Similar to overseas experience, fixed speed cameras are now considered an effective part of a speed management strategy."

You may guess that after that, I stopped trying to argue with them. I'm still watching out for opportunities to make this issue more widely known. Of course, I'm not arguing that the cameras are not beneficial, only that we don't know whether on balance they do more good than harm (distraction, etc), because the study told us nothing.

Sylvia.
Posted by Sylvia Else, Friday, 28 April 2006 3:41:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 12
  9. 13
  10. 14
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy