Examinator, I found your comments very hard to get my head around!

You say; “the law is there to protect the innocent”.

But then you say you “have no time for the traps mentality argument”

Well, the “traps mentality” is all about regulation, in order to make sure that the law is adhered to, in order to protect the innocent.

How would you have the law enforced?

“Ludwig as for where are the hundreds of others?”

Huh? Are you asking where I would have the hundreds of other fixed cameras placed that I reckon we should have?

At dangerous intersections, straight stretches of road, school zones, roadworks zones, and in every other situation on our roads, so that drivers get the message that there are a lot of cameras out there and that they could be anywhere and that they’d better just stay within the speed limit ALL the time!

As far as funding goes; they would ultimately fund themselves, wouldn’t they? Rather than launching into a massive initial expenditure to set up cameras across the state, it could be done progressively as revenue is generated. Either way, just so long as we get some real action happening on road safety.

At any rate, funding ain’t the issue here. The significant reduction of death and injury is the issue. And with a premier who has indicated that she desires to take whatever action is necessary, very early in a political term, and with a public that would be largely sympathetic to that sentiment, it befuddles me as to why six cameras could possibly be deemed significant when hundreds could so easily be installed.

“I'm surprised that you of all people hasn't thought this through.”

Aw phoowey xammy. Of course it would cost a lot to set up these things. But they generate revenue. And the whole business would generate jobs and maybe free up the police a bit to start addressing other road safety issues a bit more effectively. And of course, less people would die on our roads! Whichever way you look at it, it makes eminent sense.

Ludwig,
The argument against speeding traps is illogical. People are required to abide by speed limits (period) it isn't a conditional (at the discretion of the motorist). You can but you wear the fines etc.

There is a clear relationship between speed and road accidents. While we mightn't always understand or agree with their placement as in bang for bucks.

The problem with the political system is that government's are sensitive about reelection and if something like a butterfly species can change a seat in outer Melb and much needed extensions to a highway can change a government or aging fisher persons due to minor fishing bans in parts of the bay can change in your SEQ bayside seats (self indulgent curmudgeons). For a Govt to allocating 10's of millions on unpopular cameras would be electoral suicide.

I can see the headlines now 'think of the special interest claims' being neglected so the govt can fund the cameras and the extra manpower etc run them 'Big government burdens' etc.The infrastructure is enormous...well it is in Victoria.

Bligh's softly softly approach makes sense to me.

As I said before I don't give a rats if some Darwin awards candidate chooses to remove themselves from the gene pool that's their right. On odd occasions I am moved to make some nominees. My problem is the poor law abiding citizens these self destructive people take out along the way (like I say the innocent).

Ludwig what I'm on about is the wider picture....even the revenue goes to pay for state costs.
I suggested can you imagine the fuss that would go on if Premier diverted money or levied an extra tax. As it is there are far too many things in Qld today that needs money without taking away from other uses.

Again the link is clear between speed and road accidents. It's a bit like daylight saving it makes sense but the 'but it will fade my curtains' brigade simply can't see beyond their own self interest.

PS wheres my pickys of the red kite pups? Please? :-)

Examinator, further to my last post regarding costs: we need to consider the enormous cost, both to the economy and to peoples’ quality of life caused by road accidents. This expense is absolutely enormous, and well and truly enough to justify the cost of implementing a thousand fixed cameras.

You wrote; “People are required to abide by speed limits (period) it isn't a conditional (at the discretion of the motorist).”

Unfortunately, people are not required to abide by the law. It IS a matter of discretion. And a very large portion of the populace will choose to not abide by the law, a lot of the time, depending on the particular law in question, the attitudes to enforcement and the chances of getting caught.

Obviously, as far as speed and other road-safety factors are concerned, a significant fraction of drivers cannot be relied on to obey the law as a matter of principle and will drive in a more risky manner than they should if they think that there is very little chance of being caught.

Greatly increasing fixed speed cameras, along with various other measures, is supposed to increase the likelihood of being caught to the point where the vast majority of would-be idiot drivers feel that the risk of infringing the law is too great to chance it on a regular basis.

Effective enforcement is all-important.

You’ve made some other interesting comments which I’ll respond to later.

Meanwhile, check out these red goshawk photos. Sorry, I didn’t manage to get a photo of the parents and youngn on the nest that I mentioned in another thread.

http://www.knowledgerush.com/wiki_image/d/d3/Red_Goshawk.jpg

http://images.google.com/images?q=red%20goshawk&rls=com.microsoft:en-au:IE-Address&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7ADBF&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi

Ludwig.
Au contraire,
They are required to hence the fines etc.
The fact they don't is another issue and one I dearly wish we could find and implement a workable solution.

The amount of police that would be need is beyond any state budget
Outside of big brother and or social engineering which is are no nos I can't see how to manage what is a real conundrum.

To many "rights" not enough "responsibility" in my eyes on every thing from insurance to global warming.
In essence I tend to believe the headline but it is a start.

Re birdies I haven't seen any decent pictures of either and I would dearly like to. Maybe next time. Keep me in mind thanks pal.

Examinator, further comments on your previous post:

Again I see a contradiction in your statements, this time between:

“The argument against speeding traps is illogical”

and

“There is a clear relationship between speed and road accidents.”

I’ll respond by repeating part of a previous post: Well, the “traps mentality” is all about regulation, in order to make sure that the law is adhered to, in order to protect the innocent. How would you have the law enforced?

“For a Govt to allocating 10's of millions on unpopular cameras would be electoral suicide.”

No. For a government to announce that they are going to genuinely attempt to reduce road carnage by way of greatly improving the regulation of speed, in conjunction with much better speed limit signage, the expense of which would amount to a small fraction of the current economic losses due to road accidents caused by speeding, and which would generate a mob of new jobs, and which could free up police to start pursuing some of the other neglected dangerous practices related to road safety, such as tailgating, would not be electoral suicide.

There are apparently vastly more fixed speed cameras in NSW. Well, the government or governments that implemented them didn’t commit political suicide as a result.

If Anna Bligh continues to spout hard rhetoric such as; “I am determined to take whatever action we can to reduce this carnage”, and then proceeds to piss-fart around the edges of the issue without doing anything of any consequence, then she’d be risking losing the votes of a lot of people.

“Bligh's softly softly approach makes sense to me.”

If it was a softly softly little bit at a time approach, then I wouldn’t be too worried. But there’s no indication of that, and every indication of little itty bitty tinkerings without ever doing anything substantial.

There’s still more to respond too. Continued tomorrow.

“Ludwig what I'm on about is the wider picture....even the revenue goes to pay for state costs.”

Examinator, as revenue increases from new cameras, a good part of it should be put into the erection of more cameras, along with much better speed limit signage. This process would accelerate, as funding from these cameras would continue to increase pretty well proportionally to the number of new cameras, until the number of cameras out there starts to really make a difference in terms of driver-behaviour.

There doesn’t have to be any diversion of funding from other very needy sectors.

“Again the link is clear between speed and road accidents.”

Absolutely! And yet your whole premise seems to be against us doing anything meaningful to address this road-safety issue!