NSW Speed Cameras

So now the government has decided to remove some of the speed cameras,
claiming they were nn longer needed.

I'm in a quandry. I thought the entire rationale behind fining people
for speeding was based on the assertion that exceeding the speed limit
is a traffic offence.

By removing cameras, the governement seems to be saying "we are no
longer interested whether or not motorists exceed the set speed limit
in the areas where these cameras used to be.

Very confusing...

Perhaps someone here can explain the Government's reasoning to me.


=================

Onya bike

Gerry

 

I would rather attempt to explain women.

N/

 

I guess now's not the time to suggest the women are less fsked up ?

 

They've basically turned them all into mobile cameras.

ie: Buy the new car mounted camera that can OCR and look up rego plates
on anything that can go past, and for each mobile one of those, switch
off a speed camera to resounding applause.

They've merely moved the problem, and increased the overall level of
surveillance.

 

It's quite simple, really.

The fixed cameras in some locations have ceased to be as lucrative as
they used to be.

Remove them - (get a bit of kudos) - install mobile cameras that will
earn a lot more. Profit.

- soakes

 

Fair comment. Women are less fscked up than the NSW Gummint,

N/

 

Are you merely proposing a cynical hypothetical or are you suggesting
that this is what they're doing?

I know in Victoria they have vehicle mounted systems which can do that
sort of thing, but it's not in every car. I think they probably only
have one or two of them. A van with an external camera placed on the
road facing the approaching traffic, and further down the road 3 or 4
highway patrol cars ready to pounce. They were set up near my house a
few days ago. They processing power of the system must be pretty good
because they were in an 80kph zone and they were stopping vehicles less
than 200 metres from the point at which they check them. They don't
have speed detection equipment attached though. It's merely an OCR
system which reads the plates of approaching vehicles, then checks
whether the registration is current or has expired, and checks whether
the registered owner of the vehicle has licence which is current or
expired. I think they also check the registered owner records for
people with unpaid fines and outstanding warrants as well.

They were doing very good business the other day. The first time I
drove past they had 3 cars parked on the side of the road with number
plates removed. When i came back past about an hour later the 4 pursuit
cars each had a customer.

Given the current price of regos, insurance and licence renewals I'm all
for them nabbing people who haven't coughed up like the rest of us. The
only downside to them is that people who are legitimately driving cars
owned by people with suspended licences will be getting pulled over for
licence checks a bit more regularly than normal.

Nev..

 

If they recover enough stolen vehicles it might lower insurance costs too.

 

You need to step back a bit and consider why we have laws at all. Though
there have been some clear counter-examples in the past, the general
rationale for the existence of laws is that they deter people from doing
things that cause unreasonable disadvantage to others. Laws are not
meant to be imposed merely because they can be.

But laws can be a bit of a blunt instrument if strictly enforced. In
many cases it's sufficient to have the law present, but to enforce it
only when transgression is causing real harm. Apart from anything else,
there are too many laws for anyone but lawyers to know about, and most
people conduct themselves based on common-sense. For the most part, that
results in lawful conduct, and where the conduct isn't actually lawful,
it's reasonably harmless. Strict enforcement all of the time would
represent an unreasonable intrusion into people's lives.

Speed cameras are clearly instrusive - a bit like being watched
constantly by a policeman lest one should transgress some law. The
instrusion was justified in certain places on the grounds that speeding
motorists were causing accidents.

Since it's clear from the behaviour of the fine revenue that after speed
cameras are installed the degree of speeding drops, if the speeding is
causing accidents, then the accident rate should drop.

The auditor's report was a bit sparse on actual data, but it appears
that in some places the accident rate didn't drop or even rose. The
implication was that the accidents at those places were not in fact
being caused by speeding. That undermines the justification for the
intrusion represented by speed cameras.

It also suggests that the RTA should go back to those places and try to
understand what is really causing the accidents.

Although the speed cameras were turned off at the direction of a
minister, the decision was a political one. So you should be asking "can
someone explain the politician's reasoning to me". The answer to that
question is always the same - the politician believes it will win votes.

Sylvia.

 

That used to be the rationale, these days it's been extended to laws
that deter people from doing things that run counter to (some) other
people's strongly held views on how people 'should' behave and to laws
where the disadvantage isn't just to people but to animals and even plants.




G-S

 

I'm suggesting they're being removed as a more effective but less known
source of the same information and more is installed. They're only
making a deal of the cameras being removed.

I don't believe that every fixed camera will be replaced - but the newer
ones are at least twice as effective at revenue raising ("fairer"
revenue, admittedly).

 

Much more succinct than my explanation.