“…I would suggest that instead of 'community policing', what is needed is integrity and perception at the political level…”

Forrest we need both!

There certainly is a glaring lack of will amongst our political leaders to properly address road safety and policing policy. I’ve always thought that revenue-raising came a distant second to genuine attempts to improve road safety. But I’m not so sure any more. In fact I’m pretty sure that it isn’t the case.

Check this out: http://www.caradvice.com.au/11828/police-agree-speed-cameras-are-for-revenue-raising/

The lack of will amongst politicians is reflected in the lack of interest in the general community. Despite the consequences of road trauma being huge for a considerable fraction of the population and despite road fatalities being in the news all the time, the community lets politicians get away with doing nothing of any significance to improve the situation.

While this thread has received a reasonable response, some of my past road-safety threads on this forum – and there have been quite a few – have flopped. I take this as a strong indication that even amongst the caring portion of our population, as represented by OLO posters, there is scant little interest….and much less interest in the wider community.

Of course it is not a one-way street, and if politicians were to promote the cause of road safety, they’d engender a lot of community support….and maybe some significant improvements could be implemented.

And as I said earlier in this thread, the police and government would get their revenue-raising fix if they facilitated community policing. The two could work together very nicely!

Continued

The proposal is for introduction of 'tailgating CAMERAS'. That is, the AUTOMATED issue of infringement notices that are intended to be largely dealt with by the payment of a fine, rather than an appearance in court with any associated possibility of dismissal of the charge.

It would seem almost inevitable that such proposed 'tailgating cameras' would be statically, but not exactly roadside, mounted, as most existing 'speed cameras' are. More likely they will need to be mounted more directly ABOVE the traffic, so as to more unequivocally record the distance between vehicles simultaneously with the speeds thereof. Somewhat like the gantry mounted 'checking speed and fatigue' cameras used to police heavy vehicle mandatory driver rest breaks and overall point-to-point speed. Needless to say, they would also function as 'speed cameras' recording the infringement of any driver exceeding the limit in that particular place, whether or not tailgating is involved.

(Note I said 'driver', not just vehicle. It is a potentially important distinction to which I may return, in what may require to be a series of posts, in order to properly make a potentially very relevant point.)

What's the betting two things will concurrently occur if (when?) these cameras are introduced: the 'tailgating cameras' will not be accompanied by roadside signage as to their presence as presently occurs with 'speed cameras'; and the loss of points that presently accompanies the uncontested settlement of a speeding infringement by way of payment of a fine will be reduced!

Double whammy for the Treasury! Unwary drivers slightly exceeding the speed limit will incur more fines via 'tailgating cameras' without accumulating a disqualification 'too quickly'. Wary drivers who had been slightly exceeding the speed limit will apply the brakes for no reason that is apparent to other traffic following at stream speed. The vehicles behind the wary driver will close up where they had not otherwise been doing so. Bingo! One or many of them immediately get done for 'tailgating' because their spacing, relative to their speed, is suddenly 'too close'. Some justice that would be!

Getting the picture.

TBC

Continued

Getting the picture is what its all about.

With the gantry or overpass mounted devices, the camera is looking straight in through the windscreen of the approaching vehicle. The by-law-untinted windscreen, through which a photograph of the DRIVER's face may be recorded in most circumstances. Remember that.

As Belly has said in this post ( http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3026#71068 )to the 'Privacy, Security on the web' topic with respect to government instrumentalities, "......, white wash is the only tool they use.
truth reason add up to nothing, self protection rules." So too I think it is with respect to the existing speed cameras that a major defect related to the legalities of issuing fines to the relevant DRIVER committing each infringement has come to be recognised, but the politico-bureaucracy does not want to openly acknowledge it to the community they are supposed to represent and serve.

When the existing roadSIDE speed cameras record an infringement, they seldom get a good enough picture with which the offending driver could be unequivocally identified. The infringement notice is sent to the registered owner of the vehicle in question, who is required to admit to or contest the infringement as if it were their own act, or to nominate who the other person was that may have been driving their vehicle at the time.

Problem!

A very large proportion of vehicles are driven regularly by persons who are in a spousal relationship with the registered owner. A long established principle of our British legal and constitutional heritage has it that a spouse may not be compelled under the law to testify against their partner. Should this privilege become widely understood within the community, and be exploited when appropriately 'lawyered up', the existing speed cameras would become useless in raising revenue from all vehicle owners in spousal relationships.

Without a clear picture of the driver at the time of the infringement, the so-called 'law enforcement' authorities are stymied by this over-ruling safeguard within our constitutional monarchical system, the right to claim spousal privilege.

TBC

Ludwig,

It is the evidence gathering is the the real Mutaburrasaurus in the room. Photo evidence like you describe is considered by the courts to be potentially suspect. Timing and context are often unprovable.
In the yob example given how are you going to prove in court the sequence? time stamps can be set. Also if you're forced of the road a photo may not save you from a kicking. There are other problems too.
In the example I gave in another post my car was between the culprits (on foot) and me.
Perhaps you should consider this tale as an idea of what's out there.
My two boys were beaten up at the beach,defending their younger sister and a girl friend who was being monstered in front of many witnesses. The police were called and they failed to take investigate thoroughly.
Three perps two were under 18 (well know to the police) and a 26 yo ish name unknown but a known drug dealer all three were over 1.9 and played footy considerably larger than my two the eldest was 16.

The three just disappeared. 18 mths later one was charged as a minor no offense recorded he had hassled my youngest at the station (caught on camera) but his brief threw up the smoke screen and was given police caution. 3 years after that the second was arrested for Domestic Violence. Because he too was a minor at the time by 3 days it wasn't worth the effort. Both boys had histories of violence and drugs and had been expelled from 2 high schools.
Would you be prepared to risk that from maybe (multiple) car loads of yobs? I'd have to think about it CAREFULLY. The car being stolen etc

I think Ludwig's idea of 'community policing' is fraught - for Forrest's inimitably expressed reasons and also for those that examinator's brought up. Indeed, I think that Ludwig would probably find that incidents where he is tailgated would decrease markedly in frequency if he stopped pissing other drivers off by acting like a wannabe cop and trying to force others to conform to his interpretation of the road rules.

I've driven up and down the Bruce 'highway' between Brisbane and Cairns more times than I can remember, and while I've seen some really stupid driving I've never been tailgated. That's because I make it easy for vehicles that are travelling at an average faster speed than me to get past. In the case of tailgating, I really think it's that simple.

Examinator, what do you think can be done to improve road safety? Or should we just learn to live it as it is?

Your points while worth considering are entirely negative. I put it to you that we really do have to work towards improving the situation, and that the advantages in what I propose far outweigh the potential disadvantages.

“Photo evidence like you describe is considered by the courts to be potentially suspect.”

Not if it is gathered properly, and provided to the police straight off the memory card very soon after an event, before there has been any chance of manipulation.

“Timing and context are often unprovable.”

The vast majority of the time these parameters wouldn’t be a problem, with something as straightforward as tailgating. It is not hard for those inclined to gather this sort of data to quickly know how to take photos in the most effective manner. And I can’t imagine that there would be much opportunity for unscrupulous people to doctor them.

I’d suggest that it would be very easy for the police to detect a fraud and very difficult for a perpetrator to have confidence that they could get away with any such fraud.

Of course the police and courts have to be aware of the possibility of the fraudulent use of such equipment and in what ways it could be done.

But quite frankly, I can’t see any significant problems in line with the things that you are worried about. Ok so there is bound to be some sort of complications, but we’ve got to compare this with the advantages.

The simple idea of using a cam recorder, still camera, mobile phone camera, etc has surely got to be a good one, not least because just about everybody already has this sort of equipment.

This means that there is the potential for a massive improvement in road safety very quickly and with little expense incurred by the police, government or taxpayer other than publicity and promotion and a few extra staff.