| Author | Topic |
|---|
Location:
Wollongong
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
September 2003
|
|
Re: Revenue Raising (Part 2)
|
Thu, 02 October 2003 01:08
 
|
 |
"First in Oz"??
I thought Canberra already had some combo speed/redlight cameras in operation? Anyway, not good if you try and beat the orange light and get booked for speeding  .
|
|
|
Location:
Western Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Revenue Raising (Part 2)
|
Thu, 02 October 2003 01:10
|
|
Avoid a red light but get done by a speed camera  Looks like orange light no longer means boot it 
As long as the person behind me has good brakes when I hit the anchors...
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Revenue Raising (Part 2)
|
Thu, 02 October 2003 01:12
|
|
| whiteGZE wrote on Thu, 02 October 2003 09:10 |
As long as the person behind me has good brakes when I hit the anchors...
|
I don't think thats the problem, its whether or not they know how to use the brakes properly and whether or not they're paying attention in the first place. Thats the REAL problem. 
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: Revenue Raising (Part 2)
|
Thu, 02 October 2003 01:46
|
|
Hmmm. It sucks. But that article has got several facts wrong.
One: I dont know about Canberra, but I know for a fact that there are redlight/speed cameras in Tassie already. Have been there for years.
Two: It says that NSW drivers are hit with a $127 fine and 2 points off their license. The fine amount is right, but the points off your license is 3, just like in Victoria.
Dodgy.
|
|
|
Location:
Perth
Registered:
November 2002
|
|
Re: Revenue Raising (Part 2)
|
Thu, 02 October 2003 02:39
|
|
|
200 fine and three demerit points? ouchie. I got done for 7 over in a 70 zone here and got a 50 dollar fine and no demerits
|
|
|
Location:
Tasmania
Registered:
April 2003
|
|
Re: Revenue Raising (Part 2)
|
Thu, 02 October 2003 03:47
|
|
Tassie has had red light/speed cameras for a while now. Around 9 months to a year I think.
Interesting to see that Victoria has much higher speed camera "fines". The low fines for running stop signs and not wearing a seat belt are a reflection of the amount of revenue the government can make from these fines.
I had a bit of a discussion with one of old economics lecturers about speed cameras being a "user pays" form of taxation. I thought it could be classed as an inverse wealth tax ie if you are wealthy there is a higher probability that you will have a car that will either pull up really quickly, or have the grunt to get through the intersection quickly. Flame on!!!
The red light/speed cameras are scary because you are wary of the concentration and distance of the person behind you. There are a lot of tailgaters in Tassie, and we have the oldest fleet of cars in Aussie.
I have been hit in my Celica from behind whilst doing about 10 km/h and she was doing 60. The cop reckoned she was doing more, but there was no skid marks! Her "excuse was that she didn't see my brake lights. My tail lights were tested be the officer at the accident scene, and they worked fine... I get a stiff neck and left shoulder whenever it gets cold .
Justin
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Revenue Raising (Part 2)
|
Thu, 02 October 2003 06:34
|
|
in nsw it's 2 points for 70 in a 60 zone
we have increments of 15km/hr, vic has increments of 10 (i think?)
so I guess I cant complain too much.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Perth
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Revenue Raising (Part 2)
|
Thu, 02 October 2003 06:35
|
|
|
Shouldn't you be doing something?
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Revenue Raising (Part 2)
|
Thu, 02 October 2003 06:38
|
|
breaking speed cameras or having sex?
just spent all day at uni working out that I'm in deep shit.
having a bit of a relax before immersing myself up to my eyeballs in journal articles
|
|
|
Location:
Cabramatta, NSW
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Revenue Raising (Part 2)
|
Thu, 02 October 2003 06:53
|
|
I hear something, but it's definately not the sound of a thesis being written! 
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Revenue Raising (Part 2)
|
Thu, 02 October 2003 10:17
|
|
mmmm
just found I have 6 days to complete a draft of my entire thesis
that makes me rest so much easier
not
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: Revenue Raising (Part 2)
|
Thu, 02 October 2003 23:05
|
|
| draven wrote on Thu, 02 October 2003 16:34 |
in nsw it's 2 points for 70 in a 60 zone
we have increments of 15km/hr, vic has increments of 10 (i think?)
so I guess I cant complain too much.
|
Just last week I got booked for "15 and under" over the speed limit and it was 3 points.
|
|
|
Location:
Cabramatta, NSW
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Revenue Raising (Part 2)
|
Thu, 02 October 2003 23:15
|
|
I've never heard of the "and under" thing, I've always been booked for "and over".
Always "15 and over" too... Hmm....
"15 and over" is 3 points. Or it was every time I've been booked for it!
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: Revenue Raising (Part 2)
|
Thu, 02 October 2003 23:21
|
|
Hmmmmm. I dont know mate. I think it's under. Here's the story.
I was doing 18km over the speed limit. The officer told me that he would take the 3k's off and seeing as they go in 7.5km segments that it would only be $127 and 3 points, instead of $270.
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
Epping, Sydney
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
June 2003
|
|
Re: Revenue Raising (Part 2)
|
Fri, 03 October 2003 01:15
|
|
Hmph 
Hopefully they will pick that up, and I will only get two points deducted.
|
|
|
Location:
Perth
Registered:
November 2002
|
|
Re: Revenue Raising (Part 2)
|
Fri, 03 October 2003 02:21
|
|
Whats the deal with red light/speed camera's? Are they permanent speed camera's or do they only operate under orange? Cause if they are permanent and they bring them over here I'm shagged, cause along the highway its 100, then down to 80 for the intersections, but screwed if I'm dropping 20kph for 20 metres  Plus, usually going at 110/120, so that's 30 to 40 kph over the limit! Looks like I will start slowing down at intersections
|
|
|
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Revenue Raising (Part 2)
|
Mon, 06 October 2003 03:44
|
|
Just found this on the UK Blackbird site http://www.superblackbird.co.uk which tends to confirm what thinking people already know, yet do little about...
I quote:
"A rigorous analysis of Government-published figures undertaken by the Association of British Drivers shows that since 1993, the significant reduction in broad-based road safety education and police road traffic patrols - in favour of revenue-generating speed cameras - has been accompanied by the loss of over 5000 lives to date.
The figures show that as the numbers of speed cameras soared from 1993 onwards, the downward trend in road deaths that had existed for decades was almost completely lost. Had the former trend (a year on year 6% decrease in fatalities) continued, about 5500 people that have died on the roads in the last decade would be alive today.
It is now widely accepted that the switch from traditional traffic patrols to policing by camera has caused problems on the roads. Drivers who would normally be looking for potential hazards now have to split their attention and concentrate on spotting speed cameras and watching their speedometers. At the same time uninsured, drunk and dangerous drivers now enjoy a greatly reduced chance of being apprehended as traffic police are switched to other duties. Further evidence of this is provided by the steady reduction in those apprehended for careless, dangerous and drunken driving from 232,000 in 1990 to 144,000 in 2000, a decrease of 37% in absolute terms, and a decrease of over 45% when increased traffic is allowed for.
A spokesman said "The figures are even worse than we had expected. Regrettably, they are quite clear and undeniable. I wouldn't want to be running one of the so-called Safety Camera Partnerships when this gets out".
The partnerships operate both the familiar roadside cameras and the increasingly unpopular "Talivans". The partnerships, made up of police, magistrates, and local councils, have always sought to justify their actions by claiming to save lives. The usual basis for this claim is that in locations where cameras are installed, the number of accidents reduces in the period immediately following their installation. What the partnerships invariably fail to acknowledge is that they place cameras at locations where there have been unusually high numbers of accidents in the three year period preceding the camera installation, and where accident numbers would probably have reduced by a simple process of chance. This effect is extremely well understood and is known to statisticians as "regression to the mean" - the tendency for unusually high numbers of crashes to occur from time to time but not to be repeated year in and year out.
These fatality figures will be a body blow to the statistical chicanery of the camera partnerships, removing the central plank of their justification and exposing its real cost in human lives.
ABD Chairman, Brian Gregory commented "This makes me so sad and angry. We have been warning for years that speed cameras make the roads more dangerous. How many more will have to die before we return to traditional and proven road safety values based on skills, individual responsibility and consideration? This speed camera madness must end right now"
(Courtesy of http://www.bikersweb.co.uk )
As applicable here, as it is there.
|
|
|
