Look out! speed cams are back - Melb to Geelong freeway

Look out! speed cams are back
January 13, 2006

speed cameras on the Melbourne to Geelong freeway are to be switched on
after a
two-year delay.

Eight cameras — four in each direction — will capture speeding cars on the
freeway from the end of this month.

Police Minister Tim Holding said yesterday that 20 people had been
killed in
accidents on the 75-kilometre stretch of road since 1994. "This has been a
dangerous stretch of road."

During testing of the cameras in the first week of January, 577 vehicles
were
detected travelling more than 25 km/h over the limit. One car was detected
doing 207 km/h. On New Year's Day another was detected at 178 km/h.

"That's excessive speeding," Mr Holding said. "That's people who pose a
very
real road safety risk.

"We want those people to change their driving behaviour, slow down and heed
this message before the cameras are switched on."

Assistant Commissioner (Traffic) Noel Ashby said awareness of cameras
slowed
motorists down.

"Drivers instinctively slow down when they see a speed camera in place,
which
is a reaction that can save lives," he said.

The cameras got off to a bad start last month when someone used a
high-powered
gun to blast two of them. The cameras were badly damaged.

It was another instalment in a troubled speed camera saga. In 2004, the
Government was forced to reimburse $26 million in fines to motorists and
compensate 1500 who lost licences after faults were found with speed
cameras on
the Western Ring Road.

The Geelong road cameras were originally expected to be in operation by
January
2004.

Mr Holding said concerns about dysfunctional cameras had not caused the
delay.
However, he said the new cameras would be maintained stringently.

"The Government has made sure that there is appropriate second image speed
verification in place so that we can make absolutely sure that motorists
who
receive an infringement were actually speeding," he said.

"We have made absolutely sure that the technology is performing
appropriately
and that the maintenance program is in place to support those cameras.

"These cameras will perform accurately and will make sure that every
speeding
driver who is infringed was speeding at the time the infringement was
issued.

"These cameras are not here to raise revenue for the Government. They
are here
to make drivers drive within the speed limit, to drive safely. That's
what we
want these cameras to do."

But Opposition transport spokesman Terry Mulder criticised the new cameras,
saying the road was chosen as a grab for revenue.

"The road is one of the safest in the state … they are targeting traffic
volumes," he said.

 

Bummers wote:

Yep, 20 people in 11 years, that would be a horror stretch of road that
would....

Vic's road toll in 1 year tends to be in the several hundred (300 ~ 400
per year meaning much more than 3000 ~ 4000 in the same 11 year time
period).

However, over 500 cars were detected in 1 week speeding, so that means
well over 66,000 speeding offences in the same time period...

I'll leave you to do the maths on the % not even alluding to the fact
that of the 20 people killed, there are bound to be several other
causation factors in those accidents.

Tell me again how it's not about the money....

P

 

Why do we / them use deaths as the measure of road safety, surely fatal
crashes or total crashes is a more reliable figure, ie, if 1 fatal crash
involving a mini van kills 5 people, surely its better than 5 fatal
crashes killing 1 person in each.

Mick Chester

 

774 ABC Melbourne afternoon presenter Glen Bartholomew yesterday took
phone calls after talking with Mr Plod, who refused to comment on the
effectiveness of "safety" cameras. One of the callers was, I think[1], a
former safety officer with VicRoads. He argued strongly against the
speed cameras as a means of reducing the road toll, and that
fixed-location cameras were not a replacement for police on the Geelong
road, which anywhere else in the world would be speed-rated at 130kmh.
Can't find a transcript on the ABC website, so you'll just have to trust
me on this one.
- sanbar

 

Of course it's about the money.

Too good an opportunity to miss...

 

Placebo Boy wrote:

The irony is that if speed cameras were actually effective (ie stopped
people speeding) they would raise no money.

 

Don't have to trust you... I was listening ;-)


G-S

 

They're not motorcycle friendly front-on cameras are they?
That'd be nice!

Bummers

 

You make an interesting point. The number of deaths is relatively
immaterial (in the context of the numbers game, rather than the real
personal tragedy). One bus crash can make the figures look a lot worse
than 20 single car accidents. I don't have accesss to any statistics
for that stretch of road, but I would be willing to bet a few of the
accidents were multi vehicle, or single vehicle with multiple
fatalities.

Which only serves to emphasise the absolute silliness of it all. The
number of accidents is such a miniscule percentage compared to the
potential revenue raised. Surely this effort would be more effectively
directed elsewhere.

If 'they' really wanted to do something about it, they would spend
money and engage in training and enforcement, rather than sitting back,
collecting money and pontificating about speed.

The minister for road silliness in the NT was recently bragging about
how a speed reduction on the road to Ayers rock had halved the road
toll. What he failed to mention was that the numbers went from 2 to 1.
Whilst mathematically, that is indeed 50%, in terms of the road use,
is is so far within the 'noise' band as to be statistically valueless.
After all, one single accident with 5 fatalities could just have easily
blown his figures out to 250%, and I bet he wouldn't have been crowing
then, just pontificating about irresponsible hoons...

Incidentally, With the NT having just introduced 50k speed zones
throughout urban Darwin, it is interesting to note that last years
figures are amongst the worst on record...

P

P

 

Pardon?

Would you like to explain how one is better than the other?

On that logic, next think you know, actuaries will be out sabotaging
tourist buses.

regards,
CrazyCam

 

When used as a measure of 'how bad a road is', number of deaths is a
bad measure because 20 single vehicle accidents says a lot more about
the state of that road than a single bus accident which kills 20
people.

Number and type of accident is far more meaningful. Also, many
accidents caused by bad roads do not result in fatalities, so that
again would be significantly more useful as a measure of 'road quality'
or 'danger' than simply quoting the number of deaths.

Particularly when, in this case, the number of deaths quoted was over
an apparently arbitrary and long time period.

P

 

If the Goverment was serious about saving lives when it comes to speed,
They'd impliment better driver training & speed limit all vehicals to
100kmh! But that'd be silly, They screem about trying to save lives with
speed cameras, When in reality those screems are just a cover for lives
that are concidered expendable in the name off revenue raising.

Aido.

 

Perhaps it won't be too much of a big deal in the longer term anyway. I read
where one reason for the delay in setting them operative again, is that 2
were taken out by a competent marksman.
No doubt said person is a bit chuffed by their achievement... time will tell
Rockit

 

If the people were _really_ pissed off about speed cameras, they'd just
not speed thru them.

regards,
CrazyCam

 

I'm not _really_ pissed off about speed cameras, I'm really pissed off
about being told that more and more are being installed 'to save lives'
when the facts don't support the claim.

If speeding is the genuine safety issue it is claimed, there are better
and more effective ways of dealing with it.

If it is being used as a blatant tax on the stupid, then why not just
say so. "If you are silly enough to speed on public roads, we will tax
you until you stop". That at least is being honest...

P

 

For "silly enough to speed on public roads" read "silly enough to speed
when you know a speed camera is in that area" since I understand that in
Victoria you don't get the warnings you do in NSW.

In NSW, read "silly enough not to pay attention to road signs". I have
been caught.

 

Don't try this at home ...

V-sign driver is banned
By Auslan Cramb, The Telegraph
(Filed: 11/01/2006)
A motorist who made V-signs at a police speed camera has been convicted
of dangerous driving and banned for a year.

http://tinyurl.com/9wan9

- sanbar

 

No warning? Sure there's a warning. It's about 1.8 metres high, 1.4
metres wide and almost 5 metres long and more often than not it's parked
illegally. How much more warning do you need ?

Silly enough not to pay attention to road signs really only cuts it as a
reasonable excuse if there's 1 sign, probably means you were preoccupied
with something if you miss two signs. Missing 3 signs, isn't "not
paying attention". The penalties are probably too light for that
offence, even if you lose your licence.

Nev..
'04 CBR1100XX

 

Crash stats are publicly available from Vic Roads website,
http://crashstat1.roads.vic.gov.au/crashstats/crash.htm

 

A couple of years ago the City of Victoria Park (WA) issued a fine to an
illegally parked Camera Van. The Police dept asked them to withdraw it. They
said how could they fine people for parking illegaly and then not book those
that did it knowingly and deliberately, flouting the law. The fine stuck.

Theo