Part of the deal offered by Anna Bligh, to the qld police, was to have moblie speed cameras manned by civilians, rather than trained poice officers.

In my view this is a good idear as it would allow for more officers on the beat, where they are needed.

Now the police have rejected this stating that this would simply make the case for 'revenue raising' stronger.

So, are you telling me that the fact that a trained police officer, that can't be clearly seen, is not revenue raising simply because he/she is in uniform.

You're kidding!

It's just taking away police overtime. Bligh is just spinning. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I believe speed camera 'duty' and policing road works etc are what they call 'specials', or over time. I don't believe these duties take cops away from the job because they are on their non-roster shifts.

What Bligh is doing is taking away police officers chance at overtime for making more money for themselves to up the pay rate for normal duties. In the end, police officers lose out.

StG, "In the end, police officers lose out."

You know, somehow I'm not overwhelmed with a sense of regret or sorrow for that point, since their overtime is one of the causes for our need for overtime. If they don't do it, I don't need to do it as often.

They want to have overtime taking our money from us? I'm happy for them to lose it. There's a parasitic quality about that scenario that I don't like as well...it's like they're on commission...they make extra dollars for no other purpose than making extra dollars for the government.

I got no problem with police earning overtime fighting crime and maintaining peace and order, but not revenue-raking. It doesn't sit well with me for some reason...revenue-raking is not their purpose for employment. That's the tax-man's role, not the policeman's role.

Imagine this scenario:

Police get taken off speed camera duty and are replaced by public servants.

The public immediately welcome this policy and, like rehctub, rejoice in the possibility that more police will actually be on the beat and more attention to minor crime which is often overlooked due to lack of resources.

That is the dream, the reality is very different.

The reality is it will be an excuse to cut the police budget arguing that as non-police personnel are now manning speed cameras we don't need as many police.

Come on people you know how it works.

MindlessCruelty,

You're joking?. Guess not. Don't speed and you won't need to do over time to pay the fines. Ain't rocket science. Love how it's their fault that they're there and you get fined. That's the most ridiculous thing I've read online this week. And that's saying something

rehctub,
You really do have the GU superficial reasoning.
- First you seem to be saying that because there is no cut in *fatalities* per capita therefore the law serves no useful purpose.
- Second you seem to be saying that speeding is ok or at least there should be no penalty for breaking the law.

Apart from the obvious "if you don't want a fine....don't speed".

It is a known fact that inability to handle speed and all consequences amplifies the number of accidents.

What you seem to fail to understand is that there are other factors that may have contributed to distort the figures.

- less deaths because of better technology.
- not all accidents result in death or catastrophic immediately obvious injuries.
- not all speed related non fatal accidents are reported.
- it can't be established that speed cameras don't work only that the imperfect stats don't SEEM to make a difference. What can't be established that without the cameras the number of the speed related *accidents* would rise.
Statistics show tendencies not absolutes thus one must be careful not to over interpret data.
Without cameras give the decreasing number of police per capita on patrol ....more speeders would be un touched.
Common sense shows that familiarity breeds indifference. Given that the young are most likely to have speed and skill issues with their driving. do you really want to take the risk of being wiped out by someone else?
If you think that's a fair deal I challenge you to counsel the survivors or family of victims.
One could argue that what we need is a cultural attitudinal change to speed etc.

What is your solution or are you happy with hope you or yours won't be the next victim.
There are a myriad of other reasons why speed cameras make sense most backed with reasonable science.

StG, I didn't say I blame them for being there at all. I said revenue-raking is not part of their job description. I have no problem with police patrolling the roads. But there's something distasteful about the only overtime available being that of revenue-raking.

And, duh! To slow down. But to which of the 50 changing speed limits in every 10 kilometres do you mean, occupied by people doing 70kph in 40kph zones and 40kph in 70 kph zones, and the like? The roads are virtually self-designed speed traps. With some picking an average speed and sticking to it in all speed zones, as it's too much for them to keep track of.

Our cars are more powerful, faster and yet safer, but we are driving slower, at varied speeds of increments not much faster than walking speed. We have motorways that we pay tolls for, that are car-parks when you need to use them most frequently...to and from work, just so that we can halve our fuel economy, and pay for the privilege.

Let me put it this way...if your fuel economy is halved, and 60% of the price of it is a tax, then by definition, the government has a 60% stake in the fuel business, but doesn't pay tax on it like the oil companies have to. It's a good business. But then consider how much that business is worth each year.

Then why would they...
A) want you to use less fuel? The more we use the more they make;
and,
B) why invest in alternate technologies that don't utilise a consumable fuel and therefore a taxable form of energy like solar, etc? You can't tax the sun and the wind, if you see my drift. You can tax the product that converts the energy, but not the energy consumed.

Do you see the conflict of interests there? How do you tax solar power, wind generation, etc? You can't tax it like petroleum oil or gas. An investment into these technologies is literally an investment into the loss of billions upon billions of dollars of revenues.

In NSW I would be pleased if civys got to man radar.
It took years of hard fighting to get the RTA to respect its own workers.
Victoria and south Aussie long ago enforced speed zones at roadworks.
NSW fought hard to try to avoid such laws, stating the RTA mantra *we must keep the traffic flowing*
Well average speed yes average in road construction sites is 70% over legal speed limit.
Letting road construction firms police a mobile radar and give the evidence to police for fines is the future.
After deaths at such sites double the penalty and points in them, every day is another request.

Belly attitudes towards road works might be improved if the limit's were applied when people were on the worksite and raised at other times. I've got quite a long stretch of road between me an my workplace which has been the subject of road works for almost 12 months now. I rarely travel it when workers are onsite yet the speed limit put in place to protect them applies all the time.

Perhaps it might confuse some to have limit's when workers were onsite and when they were not but we cope with short term changes to limit's so that does not seem to be the issue.

If those applying reduced speed limit's to protect workers did so with greater diligence others might be less cynical about those limits. I'd like to know that if I'm being asked to drive at a crawl to protect the safety of workers that there was actually a likelyhood that workers were actually being protected.

R0bert

examinator, I don't know where you came up with that lot from my post, but boy, you sure have an imagination.

At no stage have I said that speed cameras are a waste of time, however, what I do say is that the ploice have stepped on thier own dicks by saying that manning the cameras with civilians will result in revenue raising, but manning them with police wont.

Now, as for speeding, along with other forms of traffic infringments, look out if they all cease, as the void left from 'nil fines' will have to be stolen from some other budget to fix the roads.

A mate of mine just got caught doing 10K's over the limmit and was finned $660 as his car is a company vehicle. I have done this myself and paid $700. But, the government says that is not revenue raising, yet I, along with my mate have lost no points. Figure that one out!

The irony is, we need traffic offenders.

And robert, you took the words right out of my mouth.

Road work sites are a classic 'the boy who cried wolf' senario.

In fact, every one that has workers actually working at the time should be enforcing the law. But when idle, as many are, few care a less and who can blame them.

After all, if you do the limmit at roadworks you are likely to be 'tail gated' by some 19Yr old P-plater and nothing is ever done about that.

It's like an alarm at a shopping centre these days. They go off so often nobody cares a hoot, unless of cause there is smoke.

Now back to the toppic. What is the difference between an officer or a civilian manning a camera?

MindlessCruelty,

Been driving for nearly 20 years. Maybe had one ticket for speeding ... not that I can remember for sure. Been through plenty of varying zones in that time.

Speed cameras are largely a revenue-raising tool rather than a road-safety tool.

For as long as we have a ridiculous regime where…

the actual speed limit is not defined (the police will tell us that there is some leniency with the speed limit as signed),

you can very often find yourself not knowing or not being sure of what the friggin speed limit is on a road that you have just turned into or not seen a sign on for some distance

and we have so few speed cameras (mobile and fixed) as to allow a large portion of the populace to feel that the chances of being caught are minimal,

the regime is more revenue-raising than road-safety-effective.

So what we need is vastly more cameras to the extent that everyone feels that they must abide by the law or else they will very likely get busted.

These cameras should be operated by an organisation that is separate from the police.

Come on, let’s create a few hundred jobs by getting this speed camera program rolling, which will fund these new employees, provide money to massively improve speed limit signage, reduce speeding and increase road safety, and free up the cops so that they can more effectively deal with other aspects of road safety, especially the facilitation of a community policing system, whereby the average citizen is encouraged and facilitated to make complaints about illegal and dangerous driving.

'The irony is, we need traffic offenders.'

As we need poker machines.

I enjoy this carnival atmosphere used to generate money for our schools and hospitals and police. Trying your luck on the lotto and pokies, trying your luck on the streets.

Nobody likes taxes, but everyone loves gambling, moaning about speed cameras and gossiping about where they are and broadcasting on radio, flashing lights to warn each other. It creates much community spirit and us vs them camaraderie within the populace.

If people were really upset, they'd just not speed and stop gambling. That'd really put it up those governments. Then they'd have to raise taxes to fund our hospitals and schools. That'd be no fun.

Houellebecq

Could not have put it better myself.
High 5 me mate.

This topic is for moaning minnies.

The issues and the answers that I can clearly distil from this thread are:

Anna Bligh wants to use civilian operators on speed cameras.

1. Issue: Would civilian operators put police on the beat where they are needed?
No it cameras are babysat on overtime. Police are missing out on money with no more police on the beat.

2. Issue: Does the fact that police have rejected this simply make the case for 'revenue raising' stronger.

3. Issue: Is that the fact that a trained police officer, that can't be clearly seen, is not revenue raising simply because he/she is in uniform?

4. Issue: Should the police miss out on overtime because they are getting extra money just for making extra money for the government. The Tax Officers should do that.

5. Issue: Should people slow down to some limit at roadworks and does civilian operators of speed cameras relate to this? 70% of people go above roadworks limits.
Are the stats based on situations where there are no road workers at the roadworks?

6. Issue: What is the difference between an officer or a civilian manning a speed camera?

2, 3, 4, 6 seem unanswered

2. Perhaps. But perhaps also part of the reason they reject it is that more revenue raising will happen if the cameras are outsourced to profit making companies (as is the norm I believe with civilian operation of speed cameras) rather than someone on a salary albeit on overtime. The main reason police oppose it though is of course that they don’t want to lose money.

3. It can be revenue raising but it is likely to be the lesser of two evils. They at least think they are promoting safety and act accordingly. A civilian operator working for profit will act accordingly.

4. True that tax officers fulfil that role when taxation is overt but see 2 and 3 above.

6. See 2 and 3 above.

StG

You spot all the signs unlike two other contributors in here and countless others and you stick to the speed limits unlike 89% of people who speed “some of the time”. But have you considered that that having a high tolerance for being told to roll over on command for no reason might not be something everyone admires? Yep we all know that exceeding the speed limits results in the fines but is that the point?

Perhaps if the government made wearing red underwear mandatory you might wear it all the time quite proudly. But can you consider that many people might think it a tad silly and the law a joke and flout the law by wearing other types of underwear and complain about the law and the enforcement? If someone says that the more police crack down on red underwear the more they will get fined do you think they are blaming the police for their underwear choice?

Examinator,

You seem to be conflating exceeding the speed limit with driving too fast for the conditions and dangerous operation of a vehicle. Rehctub was only talking about speed camera fines for going above the speed limit.

” it can't be established that speed cameras don't work ...”

Take Queensland, where this all started (the thread), with the exception of the year after speed cameras were introduced and the current year (probably) speed related fatalities have shown a clear trend to increase for 13 years. Indeed 2009 had 50% more speed related fatalities than 1997 the year they were introduced. Are you sure? What have they brought down? Alcohol related fatalities?

I challenge you to counsel the survivors or family of victims. That will put you in a position where you get at least a small sample (better than nothing) of fatal crashes. You would find it quite enlightening to see just what speed related fatalities entail. I would be willing to wager that you won’t encounter any in the up to 15k above current limits in good weather conditions range that generate almost all speed camera tickets.

Position, position... a camera placed at a school crossing is a safety matter, the same camera in a 100 zone at the bottom of a hill is a revenue raising matter.
It would be easy to accurately measure the efficacy of road safety measures, in a way that takes into account geographical and population characteristics and uses a per-capita measurement rather than meaningless raw data. But they dont. And they wont.
I saw Victoria has about 400 or something cameras and Queensland has only about 50 or so. I doubt Victoria is 8 times as safe to drive in, and similarly I doubt its only 1/8 as safe to drive here.
There are plenty about here at the moment, but probably not taking any pictures unless it is a really radical speed, because we have a labor state Government run by the party leader who wants to help her mate in federal labor get in.
But yeah, put it in private hands so I can belt the bugger and smash his machine to pieces...

I have a good idea on how to deal with this problem

My manifesto:
https://sites.google.com/site/futureofaustralia/home

Click on link 'roads and transport'

Mjpb

I wonder if I can pick up on your comments after this thread had lain dormant for a few days….

You’ve made a series of good points. It is well worth discussing these in some detail.

Firstly, if a private company was to operate speed cameras and cut the police out of this activity for overtime, there would still be all manner of other ways in which the police could do overtime. So it would not be preventing them from overtime options, surely.

Secondly, how can such an activity be something that the cops largely do as an extra overtime activity? There’s something pretty weird about that. If it is going to be up to the police to do this, it needs to be a fundamental part of their work program and not an optional extra.

The big thing about this business is – if speed cameras are really successful in reducing speeding and thus reducing accidents, injuries and deaths, then how can the government or police or public possibly justify their current very limited use? Why aren’t they everywhere?

The cynical view is that if there were a whole lot more of them, they really would be effective and they would then not generate anywhere near as much revenue... or as big a profit margin after running costs are factored in!

I’ll leave it at that until I know whether you are still looking at this thread and wish to respond or not. Cheers.

(of course, comments from anyone else are most welcome)

Future of Australia

Welcome to OLO.

From your website:

<< …we will be targeting the wolves instead of trapping the herd >>

This is certainly what we should be striving to do. Speed cameras that catch out lots of drivers that are just doing a few ks over and are basically just rolling with the flow are NOT what we want.

<< Issuing fines to aggressive drivers is the nation’s best tax >>

The overall policing of aggressive, impatience and risky driving is really important. Tailgating is especially something that needs to be clamped down. It is traditionally something that is not or very rarely policed.

This is where it becomes very important that ordinary citizens be able to make complaints to the cops and have them properly acted on, rather than the current situation whereby the police effectively discourage people from making complaints unless an accident or seriously close call has occurred.

Thank you Ludwig,

In regards to the policing of aggressive drivers, I think the device mentioned could be of great assistance.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
'...A new all-in-one device will change motoring forever. It will be similar to a satellite navigation unit and is feasible at present.

Its functions will include:

-Speeding and traffic offence monitor
An audible warning will sound if the speed limit is exceeded, and a fine issued if the speeding persists. All speed cameras will be obsolete and much money will be saved.

-E-tag & All parking payments (street parking and parking lots)
No more council parking inspectors, parking fines or parking meters. Stopping for a few minutes on a street in the CBD will start the device's meter.
No more parking lot boom-gates or tickets, no more parking lot attendants. No more funneling of traffic in general.
No toll gateways or toll operators. As with E-tag, driving through a toll area will incur the charge.
All parking and toll fees will come on a single bill...'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Quoted from website:
https://sites.google.com/site/futureofaustralia/home

I think this system could also be used to police tailgating because the devices would be able to measure a motorists proximity to other vehicles through the GPS. Just like speeding however, a pattern of aggressive driving would be sought and an occasional breach would not incur a penalty.

Thanks for visiting my website and I hope you don't mind that I used your music in the title screen :)

Future of Australia

In theory your ideas have merit, but I don’t think it would be as easy as you envisage.

To get such a device that can do all those things developed, tested, approved and into every car, would be a major battle and would take a long time. To develop the system that can monitor all those millions of vehicles and pick up the infringements would be a huge undertaking. Then you have the issue of it all being very big-brotherish.

I’m not sure about the practicality of it all.

I think that we need something that is more of human-interface / personal-empowerment oriented.

One of the great problems with the policing of road safety is that the police feel they basically have to witness infringements themselves. They really don’t like dealing with complaints from the public about bad driving.

If the public were actually encouraged and facilitated in making complaints, with all the necessary information and safeguards against vexatious complaints, then we’d all be vastly better off.

In fact, I think that the police should be much more behind the desk following up on complaints generated from the public and less out there on the front line.

This sort of community policing is the key. When would-be d!ckhead drivers get it through their thick skulls that any person in the community can and very possibly will report them to the cops, with or without sufficient information for them to be charged, then they’ll pull their woolly heads in!

When every adult is perceived as a potential police officer with respect to the law, instead of just the very thin blue line that make themselves stand out like dogs balls at a couple hundred metres, then we’ll be getting somewhere.

Technological advances certainly have a role. But a basic level of empowerment for normal people to do their bit is at least as important and probably much more important.

BTW, I tried to leave a message on your website, but it confounded me and eventually my message evaporated before I could post it!

Hello Ludwig,

From a technological perspective its all possible at present, and simply a matter of combining existing technologies. The cost of the device itself would be relatively low at around the same cost as a good quality sat-nav device.

You're right that the cost of establishing the system would be high, but it would pay for itself in a very short period of time. The practicality is its biggest selling point in my opinion, like gathering all the small threads into one ultra-efficient mega-system

The implementation of a such a system is a natural evolution and unavoidable in the future. we could gain a comparative advantage and perhaps be able to sell intellectual rights to other nations by being the first to adopt it.

The concern over privacy would be the biggest challenge. I would try to explain that it's in the benefit of all law abiding citizens, and educate them that it's illogical to believe that the government has either the resources, the cause or the motivation to spy on its citizens.

In regards to the public being encouraged and facilitated in making complains, and the safeguards required, I suggested (in 'vice and crime' section) the following:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Reporting criminal activity

A new website will be created for reporting criminal activity. It will be called ‘dutiful citizen’ and will replace the ‘dob-in’ franchise (which has negative connotations).

It will be web-form based and include fields such as; name, address, phone number, LICENSE PLATE NUMBER, crime reported, etc. Each of these fields will be cross referenced across the database for any matches within any field. Matches will be investigated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Quoted from website:
https://sites.google.com/site/futureofaustralia/home

I have just now edited this section to include 'license plate number'.
The fact that only those who have been reported multiple times will be investigated works well as a safeguard.

Ill try to figure out what the issue is with the website. (and hopefully fix it.) Thank you.

This proposed devise, that measures and warns of all sorts of things, maybe it should also control the accelerator pedal and brakes. Instead of warning you about "tailgating" (translation, slow drivers hogging the overtaking lane), it simply would not allow it to happen.
There is also the issue of who will pay the $500 or something to install the thing? will there be a huge political will to basically end a lot of traffic fines? will this idea make people bored and complacent leading to more accidents?
Somebody told me that after the Northern Territory ended open speed limits and made the max 130k's, there were a swag of fatalities that week. It could be seen either way really, but I also reckon the new speed/red light cameras will cause a lot of accidents.

Unfortunately controlling the accelerator and brakes is impossible until technology improves, by which time cars will drive themselves, and put an end to all road laws forever.

Also limiting a vehicles maximum speed to the legal limit would make it unsafe because at times one must exceed the limit to prevent an accident.

The government will pay for the device and the citizen will pay for any replacement devices. compulsory like the rego sticker. Its a great investment when considering the cost of speed cameras for example, cost of policing, parking meters, and many other things that could be made extinct by this one device.

In regards to political will; the states are the ones who reap the benefits of traffic fines, but under this proposed system, the whole matter would be federalized. Regardless, they must do whats in the benefit of the people.

In regards to whether it would make people bored and complacent, we would have to look at a different issue altogether; is the current speed limit acceptable/beneficial. perhaps it will reduce accidents by removing distractions caused by the infinite number of road signs warning of cameras ahead and varying speed limits.

Future of Australia, all the necessary technology might now be possible, but that doesn’t mean that it can all be put together into a device that is always 100% reliable.

It would also need to be tamper-proof, not just from the average Joe but from alteration by devious technoheads who might be inclined to change settings so that they can do 10kmh faster than everyone else or park or travel on toll roads free of charge.

Unfortunately this type of idea is not something that can be easily improved once it has been initiated. It has to be complete right from the start. Once you’ve rolled out this Acme super-duper all-purpose accident-prevention driver’s-little-helper box-of-tricks doover, you wouldn’t be able to add new features or improve existing features or alter it at all apart from very minor improvements in componentry, for many years….because all the rules that it ‘polices’ have to apply equally to everyone. So we couldn’t have model A with certain features and then model B released two years later that changes the level of policing for certain rules or adds new items to the list of policed rules.

But as you say, the privacy issue would be the biggest hurdle. There would just be far too many people who would complain vigorously about this being another blow to our privacy for the idea to gain sufficient support to be developed.

I like your idea about developing a website for reporting criminal activity. This should be expanded to include road-safety complaints and should include facilities for uploading photos, video and audio recordings that constitute evidence. Along with it, there should be plenty of publicity imploring people to be responsible citizens and make complaints where illegal activities have been witnessed. There should be a section demonstrating how to gather the right sort of hard evidence and how to most effectively make a complaint.

But of course, there needs to be adequate police man-power behind the scenes to get complaints quickly and properly dealt with.

Hello Ludwig,

In regards to making it completely reliable and tamper-proof my thoughts were that it would simply be a matter for the right experts. Severe penalties, such as loss of license, could exist to deter from tampering with the device.

In regards to upgrading the device, It will basically be a matter of an automatic software update. It would have a mobile phone SIM card for the purpose of connecting to the internet wirelessly. A new device would not be necessary for between 3 and 5 years. In this regard it's just a computer amalgamated with a SAT-NAV device.

In regards to your suggestion of uploading photos, videos and audio recordings to the website for reporting criminal activity; I think its a great idea. My only concern is the following, many might be tempted to use this for their own benefit/in an attempt at vengeance; or place themselves at risk by deputizing themselves.

In regards to increasing police numbers I had the following idea
(which I think you will like)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
All infantry will be re-assigned to join the ranks of the police force on rotation. Every month they will alternate between police and military duties. When they are on police duty, they will be assigned to their hometown so they can spend time with friends and family. They remain at the ready if called upon by the army and the government does not spend on wages for the hire of new police.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Quoted from website:
https://sites.google.com/site/futureofaustralia/home

Future of Australia, you might be right about being able to circumvent the problems I envisage with this sort of technology.

Did you see ‘Visions of the Future’ with Professor Michio Kaku on ABC1 last night?

He was demonstrating a driverless car. Very interesting.

I’m all for developing technologies that make driving safer and that help uphold our rule of law. But in the meantime, I think that the empowerment of the general public to do their bit is of the utmost importance, rather than the public basically being treated as blind Freddies who are not supposed to do anything about rank and dangerous driving antics that they are subjected to or otherwise witness.

Regarding the uploading of photos, video and audio files as evidence of unlawful activities; it specifically couldn’t be used for purposes of vengeance (unless the person you wanted to be vengeful towards was an abject law-breaker) because the evidence would have to speak for itself. This sort of evidence would only be meaningful if it demonstrated illegal or dangerous driving.

As for people ’deputising’ themselves, I think that this could be a very good thing! If just a very small number of people really got into the spirit of gathering evidence and making complaints, as committed community police officers, it could make a huge difference. In fact, only a very small portion of the general populace would need to be involved in such a website in order for it to become a major deterrence factor and really cut down on aberrant driving behaviour.

I think that there is certainly some potential in involving the armed forces in everyday policing activities. It is something that should be explored.

Cheers

Gawd, Ludwig. What you're proposing sounds like a combination of I, Robot and 1984, with an unhealthy measure of the former East Germany thrown in. It won't work because Australians are culturally averse to dobbing each other in, and because we're thankfully a long way yet from perfecting the kinds of technology that future of australia envisages to the extent where it would be remotely workable.

Australia is already too much of a surveillance society. I can't believe the ease with which some people countenance further erosion of such personal freedoms that we still retain.

<< …with an unhealthy measure of the former East Germany thrown in. >>

Wow CJ, a tad overstated methinks. But yes there is a Big-Brotheristic aspect to all of this.

However, it is simply a matter of a small increase in restrictions upon us all in order to reduce the devastating restrictions experienced by relatively few people, via road trauma. So you could say that rather than increasing restrictions upon the average person, it would result in a fairer redistribution of restrictions.

Besides, it would just be making people stick to the rules. So it wouldn’t be increasing restrictions at all on law-abiding citizens, only on those who behave irresponsibly.

Australians don’t like to be seen as dobbers. This was driven home to me just recently on Graham Young’s thread when he was calling for help to moderate this forum.

I stated that if posters were just willing to hit the little red cross, that is present at the bottom of every post, whenever they think the rules have been infringed, there would soon be very few infringements indeed, because posters would come to realise that it is not just Graham and Susan and perhaps a couple of ‘dobbers’ regulating this site, but a large enough portion of the users to cover all threads and pick up practically infringements.

However, support from fellow posters on that thread for this simple premise was almost entirely absent!

But…. I think that this was largely due to people not wanting to be seen to be dobbers, but actually being happy to do it anonymously, if they encounter an offensive or otherwise illegal post.

As far as road safety is concerned, it would only take a very small portion of the general populace to be involved in order to effectively increase the policing effort five or ten or perhaps a hundred-fold!

So CJ, how would you go about improving road safety and the rule of law, or are you happy with it all as it is?

@CJ Morgan

<<It won't work because Australians are culturally averse to dobbing each other in>>

perhaps we have to shift our mentality from this into 'love thy neighbour' (and society). We shouldn't be dobbing out of hatred for one another, but out of the desire to help society. we could rename the 'dob-in' franchise to something more honorable like something revolving around the word 'duty'.

<<we're thankfully a long way yet from perfecting the kinds of technology that 'future of australia' envisages to the extent where it would be remotely workable. Australia is already too much of a surveillance society. I can't believe the ease with which some people countenance further erosion of such personal freedoms that we still retain.>>

I don't understand which personal freedoms have been eroded. The concept of fearing big brother (as far as I understand it) revolves around paranoid theories without validity. Who is this big brother exactly? Whats his name? He does not exist!

I do understand that a surveillance society can be psychologically damaging to many who are inclined towards paranoia, but the answer cannot be returning to the middle ages. Education is the only solution because regardless of what we want, progress will take us in that direction.

@Ludwig

I missed 'visions of the future' but will watch it tonight on the ABC website. Thanks for the heads up.

I agree with you to some extent about empowering people but for me the efficiency of the system takes precedence. In regards to the justice system I do advocate that the human element should be strengthened, by granting the judges more discretionary powers and simplifying the law as much as possible so that the loopholes are ironed out and become straight. Too many escape justice because of a completely irrelevant technicality.

Regards,
Sam (Future of Australia)

Ludwig,

You are correct. However the overtime issue is not that police need to get it from that source. It is simply that outsourcing speed cameras to profit making bodies won't free up police.

"The big thing about this business is – if speed cameras are really successful in reducing speeding and thus reducing accidents, injuries and deaths, then how can the government or police or public possibly justify their current very limited use? Why aren’t they everywhere?"

They get scaled up as the economic need increases. There is very little overlap with reducing deaths. Indeed in Queensland there was a 50% increase in speed related deaths between the year of their introduction 1997 and 2009 the most recently completed year.

Nevertheless in 2009 only about 2 in 10 fatality crashes were speed related. They have very limited potential for safety and are part of the emphasis on the easy to profit from herd rather than the truly dangerous driving. Most crash causes are all but ignored because targetting a small proportion of drivers isn't profitable.

It is hard not to take a cynical view for this and the reasons you gave.

Also, if police work requires the rationalisation that every driver is a potential killer who needs monitoring and that normal driving speeds aren't safe because they are above a number (based on limits from the 1940s) that some bureaucrat decided to put on a sign to cover all weather conditions why would they trust us to report dangerous drivers? You have ideas about safeguards but first the overly negative perception of the average person needs to be overcome.

Have you considered that if police weren't targetting the herd that their increased ability to catch the minority of people who are generally anti-social and are willing to endanger lives in the car would make the community input less important?

Sam why would Australian governments give up hundreds of millions of dollars by not targetting the herd and incur a large expense at the same time. Do you really believe that their goal is to improve safety?

@mjpb

I understand they're used to the income, but the power ultimately rests in our hands.

The income wouldn't disappear completely. Repeat offenders will still incur fines.

The large cost of implementation would be offset by the savings accrued by eliminating speed cameras, and efficiencies created within the traffic authority and police department.

Regards,
Sam (Future of Australia)
https://sites.google.com/site/futureofaustralia/