speed cameras

I received the following request in the mail. Please take a couple of
seconds to complete the poll.

Peter



Dear fellow pedallers,

In the interests of balance and a fair go for all road users, a few of
us on Sydney Cyclist are encouraging fellow cyclists to take part in a
"poll" about speed cameras on the National Motorists Association of
Australia (NMAA, not to be confused with NRMA) website. See:
http://www.sydneycyclist.com/forum/t...-speed-cameras

The NMAA is an "organisation" focussed on promoting higher vehicle
speeds and fewer restrictions on cars all over Australia.

I would appreciate it if you could take a few seconds right now to vote
for the third option in the poll -- "speed cameras are a useful tool for
road safety". You can go to the poll via the Sydney Cyclist site or
directly at http://www.aussiemotorists.com/ and look at the right hand
side of the page near the top.

Thanks and happy riding,

Neil

In aus.bicycle on 30 Jun 2010 02:51:34 GMT
Peter wrote:

I would appreciate it if you could take a few seconds right now to vote
for the third option in the poll -- "speed cameras are a useful tool for
road safety". You can go to the poll via the Sydney Cyclist site or
directly at http://www.aussiemotorists.com/ and look at the right hand
side of the page near the top.


And vote no.

Why? BEcause they are a very poor tool for road safety.

They put the focus on arbitrary limits instead of people thinking
about what they are doing and driving to conditions and with sense.

They are focused on because they are cheap, raise revenue, and are set
and forget.

I also note that Vic uses them a lot, has very low tolerances, and
doesn't seem to be having a lower number of crashes per miles driven
or vehicles registered.

Speed isn't the point for cyclists. Brain in gear drivers who have
been educated about how to behave around bikes, with solid enforcement
of road rules like passing distance and give way and indicating are
the point for cyclists.

Sure, inappropriate speed is a problem. Speed cameras don't fix that.
Passing me 2 feet away at 60 in a 60 zone is a problem and speed
cameras don't fix that.

Don't let the government get away with saying speed cameras are the
solution to anything but government debt, because if you say "they are
a tool" the government will say "they are the only tool".

Which they are doing right bloody now.

Zebee

On Jun 30, 11:28*am, Zebee Johnstone wrote:
In aus.bicycle on 30 Jun 2010 02:51:34 GMT

Peter wrote:

I would appreciate it if you could take a few seconds right now to vote
for the third option in the poll -- "speed cameras are a useful tool for
road safety". You can go to the poll via the Sydney Cyclist site or
directly athttp://www.aussiemotorists.com/and look at the right hand
side of the page near the top.

And vote no.

Why? *BEcause they are a very poor tool for road safety.

They put the focus on arbitrary limits instead of people thinking
about what they are doing and driving to conditions and with sense.

They are focused on because they are cheap, raise revenue, and are set
and forget.

I also note that Vic uses them a lot, has very low tolerances, and
doesn't seem to be having a lower number of crashes per miles driven
or vehicles registered.

Speed isn't the point for cyclists. *Brain in gear drivers who have
been educated about how to behave around bikes, with solid enforcement
of road rules like passing distance and give way and indicating are
the point for cyclists.

Sure, inappropriate speed is a problem. *Speed cameras don't fix that.
Passing me 2 feet away at 60 in a 60 zone is a problem and speed
cameras don't fix that.

Don't let the government get away with saying speed cameras are the
solution to anything but government debt, because if you say "they are
a tool" the government will say "they are the only tool".

Which they are doing right bloody now.

I'm with Zebee on this. Speed cameras don't fix anything except the
Government budget.

Theo

On Jun 30, 1:47*pm, theo wrote:
On Jun 30, 11:28*am, Zebee Johnstone wrote:



In aus.bicycle on 30 Jun 2010 02:51:34 GMT

Peter wrote:

I would appreciate it if you could take a few seconds right now to vote
for the third option in the poll -- "speed cameras are a useful tool for
road safety". You can go to the poll via the Sydney Cyclist site or
directly athttp://www.aussiemotorists.com/andlook at the right hand
side of the page near the top.

And vote no.

Why? *BEcause they are a very poor tool for road safety.

They put the focus on arbitrary limits instead of people thinking
about what they are doing and driving to conditions and with sense.

They are focused on because they are cheap, raise revenue, and are set
and forget.

I also note that Vic uses them a lot, has very low tolerances, and
doesn't seem to be having a lower number of crashes per miles driven
or vehicles registered.

Speed isn't the point for cyclists. *Brain in gear drivers who have
been educated about how to behave around bikes, with solid enforcement
of road rules like passing distance and give way and indicating are
the point for cyclists.

Sure, inappropriate speed is a problem. *Speed cameras don't fix that..
Passing me 2 feet away at 60 in a 60 zone is a problem and speed
cameras don't fix that.

Don't let the government get away with saying speed cameras are the
solution to anything but government debt, because if you say "they are
a tool" the government will say "they are the only tool".

Which they are doing right bloody now.

I'm with Zebee on this. Speed cameras don't fix anything except the
Government budget.

Theo

But they must, the ads told me so.

No, I lie. They do nothing. How does a camera stop someone texting
while driving, how does it stop them driving drunk, or sleepy, how
does a camera stop people driving to close to other users. How does a
camera make people pay attention? Does a camera turn on my
indicators?

Tony F

On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 22:29:08 -0700, thefathippy wrote:


No, I lie. They do nothing.

Sick of the speeding traffic past your home, then wander down the street
and fasten a home made "warning speed camera ahead" sign fpor a few hours
and see what happens.

In aus.bicycle on Wed, 30 Jun 2010 15:57:51 +0000 (UTC)
terryc wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 22:29:08 -0700, thefathippy wrote:


No, I lie. They do nothing.

Sick of the speeding traffic past your home, then wander down the street
and fasten a home made "warning speed camera ahead" sign fpor a few hours
and see what happens.

One of the more interesting things I've found on the net is my council
(canterbury.nsw.gov.au) has their traffic committee minutes on the
web.

Reading those shows that people are bad at estimating speed and
equally bad at linking speed to crashes.

Every couple of months they discuss complaints from residents about
speeders and how dangerous the road is. They monitor speeds in the
area and check crash data. Most of the time the speeds are legal
(meaning around 50 kmh) and there have been no crashes in 5 years.

Where there is a speeding problem they act (hence all the speed humps
and roundabouts in Canterbury council area) but most of the time there
just isn't the data to support it.

Zebee

On 2010-06-30, Zebee Johnstone (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
In aus.bicycle on Wed, 30 Jun 2010 15:57:51 +0000 (UTC)
terryc wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 22:29:08 -0700, thefathippy wrote:


No, I lie. They do nothing.

Sick of the speeding traffic past your home, then wander down the street
and fasten a home made "warning speed camera ahead" sign fpor a few hours
and see what happens.

One of the more interesting things I've found on the net is my council
(canterbury.nsw.gov.au) has their traffic committee minutes on the
web.

Reading those shows that people are bad at estimating speed and
equally bad at linking speed to crashes.

Every couple of months they discuss complaints from residents about
speeders and how dangerous the road is. They monitor speeds in the
area and check crash data. Most of the time the speeds are legal
(meaning around 50 kmh) and there have been no crashes in 5 years.

Do they monitor it with big obvious radar speed signs? Or are the
detectors hidden? Because of course they will measure mostly people
doing the speed limit if there's a big sign saying "you are currently
doing... 51km/h".

I've never understood the point of fixed radars. Everyone knows they
only succeed in slowing traffic down in the line of sight of that
radar (eg, coming up Bells line of road, you don't have to limit
yourself to 60km/h until you get back onto the straight. The trail of
blue smoke I recently saw coming out of the ricer car's tires attests
to the fact that it's doing nothing for road safety to have a camera
well up into the straight). Sure, they may be useful around certain
black spots, but plenty of them seem to be on benign roads and are
sign posted so far in advance that only *really* stupid people could
possibly miss them.

Oh, and I strongly suspect it's not revenue raising. The state budget
is just how much again? And the fines are about $60M/year from
memory? Barely a drop in the bucket, and given the state of NSW
finances, not worth the trouble. More disturbingly, I suspect the
roads and traffic authority and ministers truly believe in what they
are doing. Which just means that their powers of deductive reasoning
are completely and sorely lacking.

"9 out of 10 speeding crashes occur on bends", well duh. And they
were probably even below the posted speed limit, just speeding in the
sense that they were going too fast for the conditions, as would
obviously be evident by the fact that their tires lost their grip on
the black grippy portion of the road.

--
TimC
"I picked my head up during an interval and saw an enormous ostrich
zigzagging in the road. I swung wide to get by - and just as I did he
started chasing me. These guys can motor. I had to sprint to drop
him." -- Tyler Hamilton

In aus.bicycle on Thu, 1 Jul 2010 14:02:18 +1000
TimC wrote:
On 2010-06-30, Zebee Johnstone (aka Bruce)
Reading those shows that people are bad at estimating speed and
equally bad at linking speed to crashes.

Every couple of months they discuss complaints from residents about
speeders and how dangerous the road is. They monitor speeds in the
area and check crash data. Most of the time the speeds are legal
(meaning around 50 kmh) and there have been no crashes in 5 years.

Do they monitor it with big obvious radar speed signs? Or are the
detectors hidden? Because of course they will measure mostly people
doing the speed limit if there's a big sign saying "you are currently
doing... 51km/h".

I don't know how they do it but as I have not seen any thing big and
in your face in the areas monitored I think they do it by amphetometer
or hand held or similar.


radar (eg, coming up Bells line of road, you don't have to limit
yourself to 60km/h until you get back onto the straight. The trail of
blue smoke I recently saw coming out of the ricer car's tires attests
to the fact that it's doing nothing for road safety to have a camera
well up into the straight). Sure, they may be useful around certain
black spots, but plenty of them seem to be on benign roads and are
sign posted so far in advance that only *really* stupid people could
possibly miss them.

And quite a few do apparently. Weird eh?

There are two problems with speed cameras as behavioural modifiers.
One is the disconnect in time between offence and notification, and
the other is the small chance of detection, even with unmarked
cameras.

Pretty much unmarked don't do the job because they aren't absolutely
everywhere, and marked do the job in the small area they cover.

WHereas a cruising cop car has a moving "do the right thing" field
which covers driving behaviour as well as speed. I'd be interested
if anyone's tried to work out how long the effect lasts, do drivers
stay good for a while in case the copper comes back?


memory? Barely a drop in the bucket, and given the state of NSW
finances, not worth the trouble. More disturbingly, I suspect the
roads and traffic authority and ministers truly believe in what they
are doing. Which just means that their powers of deductive reasoning
are completely and sorely lacking.

Yup. Although they aren't turning up their noses at the fines!
Anyone who has done any road safety work in NSW knows that the *only*
contributor to crashes the govt cares about is speed.


"9 out of 10 speeding crashes occur on bends", well duh. And they
were probably even below the posted speed limit, just speeding in the
sense that they were going too fast for the conditions, as would
obviously be evident by the fact that their tires lost their grip on
the black grippy portion of the road.

It's even worse if you are a motorcyclist. Because a bike can lose
traction because of road surface problems but will always assumed to
be speeding, especially if the rider isn't conscious to talk to the
copper and fits the profile (young, male...) they associate with
hoons.

Crashes that occur on bends can be fatigue or poor skill leading
to drifting across the line, or bad sightlines, or decreasing radius
bends leading to over centreline and headons and so on.

Zebee

On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 22:29:08 -0700, thefathippy wrote:

No, I lie. They do nothing.

They slow people at Valley Heights down to 78 for 100m.

--
Dave Hughes -
"Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results."
- Ben, ASR

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
In aus.bicycle on Thu, 1 Jul 2010 14:02:18 +1000
wrote:
On 2010-06-30, Zebee Johnstone (aka Bruce)
Reading those shows that people are bad at estimating speed and
equally bad at linking speed to crashes.

Every couple of months they discuss complaints from residents about
speeders and how dangerous the road is. They monitor speeds in the
area and check crash data. Most of the time the speeds are legal
(meaning around 50 kmh) and there have been no crashes in 5 years.

Do they monitor it with big obvious radar speed signs? Or are the
detectors hidden? Because of course they will measure mostly people
doing the speed limit if there's a big sign saying "you are currently
doing... 51km/h".

I don't know how they do it but as I have not seen any thing big and
in your face in the areas monitored I think they do it by amphetometer
or hand held or similar.


radar (eg, coming up Bells line of road, you don't have to limit
yourself to 60km/h until you get back onto the straight. The trail of
blue smoke I recently saw coming out of the ricer car's tires attests
to the fact that it's doing nothing for road safety to have a camera
well up into the straight). Sure, they may be useful around certain
black spots, but plenty of them seem to be on benign roads and are
sign posted so far in advance that only *really* stupid people could
possibly miss them.

And quite a few do apparently. Weird eh?

There are two problems with speed cameras as behavioural modifiers.
One is the disconnect in time between offence and notification, and
the other is the small chance of detection, even with unmarked
cameras.

Pretty much unmarked don't do the job because they aren't absolutely
everywhere, and marked do the job in the small area they cover.

WHereas a cruising cop car has a moving "do the right thing" field
which covers driving behaviour as well as speed. I'd be interested
if anyone's tried to work out how long the effect lasts, do drivers
stay good for a while in case the copper comes back?


memory? Barely a drop in the bucket, and given the state of NSW
finances, not worth the trouble. More disturbingly, I suspect the
roads and traffic authority and ministers truly believe in what they
are doing. Which just means that their powers of deductive reasoning
are completely and sorely lacking.

Yup. Although they aren't turning up their noses at the fines!
Anyone who has done any road safety work in NSW knows that the *only*
contributor to crashes the govt cares about is speed.


"9 out of 10 speeding crashes occur on bends", well duh. And they
were probably even below the posted speed limit, just speeding in the
sense that they were going too fast for the conditions, as would
obviously be evident by the fact that their tires lost their grip on
the black grippy portion of the road.

It's even worse if you are a motorcyclist. Because a bike can lose
traction because of road surface problems but will always assumed to
be speeding, especially if the rider isn't conscious to talk to the
copper and fits the profile (young, male...) they associate with
hoons.

Crashes that occur on bends can be fatigue or poor skill leading
to drifting across the line, or bad sightlines, or decreasing radius
bends leading to over centreline and headons and so on.

Zebee
Every time you see two strips of rubber across the road they are
measuring speed as well as traffic numbers
They are usually exactly one metre apart