Thread: new speed camera rules in Vic

Originally Posted by Barra1

The NT figures are very disproportionate and I wonder if the reason is deeper than the 130kph/single lane argument. Is it too sensitive to consider it a possibility that the cause is due to members of some communities driving with several people in the back of a ute, no seat belts in the front and basically some very "dodgy" vehicles. Coupled with dubious, if any, driver training, my suggestion becomes a distinct possibility. If this is the case, we (the general community) certainly have a lot of work to do in regard to education and training. Likewise, if, indeed, it is the case, the job needs to be done and done now. I must add my "suggestion" is not intended to offend anyone nor am I having a "go" at any section of the community. In fact, I am concerned that I may be correct and more concerned that if I am, the job to correct it may be too "hot" or hard for the relevant authorities to handle.

Your comments are accurate and only the extraordinarily ignorant would be offended.

Alcohol + overloaded/crowded, unrestrained occupants are the majority representation in the NT.
"Speed" as the masses understand it and the media promotes, is irrelevant as a crash at anything above 60 has proven fatal for the most part and I have attended plenty of fatalities involving less speed for the same above circumstances.

If you took a draconian approach with limiters etc, the idiots unrestrained and drinking would still kill themselves.

Tourist fatalities in these parts in most cases also involve not wearing seatbelts. I quote from one man who just lost his wife and sister in law.." They were enjoying the freedom of the outback and didn't like the restriction of the seatbelt"
Both died in an 80km rollover ejected that the others survived without a scratch.

Tom, the difference is that stupidity isn't a crime. Just think of how full the jails would be if it were.

Originally Posted by dfendr

Pinched from another Forum
Some ideas:

on the border of NSW and Vic
"warning, you are entering the nanny state - as long as you are doing exactly the speedlimit, you can do make up and play with your phone all you want because cameras cant see that"

or next to a wipe off 5 add in vic
"US department of transport study No. FHWA-RD-92-084 found :
*accidents at sites where speed limits were lowered increased by 5.4 precent
*accidents at sites where speed limits were raised decreased by 6.7 percent."

in 2011-12 NSW raised $89 million from Speed cameras.
In 2011-12 Victoria raised $250 million dollars from speed cameras

Speeding is the cause of less than 7% of accidents but represents 86% of traffic fines

its is statisticaly more dangerous to drive 10% below the speed limit that 10% over the limit (quote stats)

Where were these statistics published?

What ruin a good story with facts

Try here



Effects Of Raising And Lowering Speed limits

I've noticed several times that the reporting of road fatality statistics seems always to be tied directly to legislation and law enforcement (such as speed limits, cameras etc) whilst vehicle design always gets a secondary mention, but the advancements in medical trauma care are never cited as a factor. Victoria introduced a Sate Trauma System in 2001 which has increased survival rates for major trauma patients, i.e. people are now surviving injuries that would have proved fatal 20 years ago. This is obviously a completely separate contribution to the road-toll reduction from that made by speed limits, cameras and the like, as those things seek to reduce crashes, whilst we are talking about people who have already had a crash. This seems to me to be an obvious factor in the high N.T. death statistics, as advanced medical care is not available in a timely manner to those in remote areas.

Originally Posted by mikehzz

I've always thought them draconian in Vic but the numbers don't lie...

Road Safety - Australian Automobile Association

The figures for NT are relevant to the 130kph speed limit on single lane roads argument.

Ahhh no. If you actually look into the figures for the NT you will find the drink driving and fatigue are the major influences on road deaths there.

Originally Posted by Fatso

The more Speed cameras the better , i for one am sick and tide of speeding drivers , i stick to the speed limits and on a never ending bassis have speeders tailgating ("AT THE SPEED LIMIT") trying to intimidate into getting out of there way, espeacialy trucks ( so much for speed limitors on trucks ) , and if that does not work they try and overtake in an inapropriate section of road putting them stuped selves other drivers at risk .
We have a real problem with driver attitude in this country and for the safety of the majority of the good drivers these dicks need to be taken off the road by any means possible , Retrained and given a labotamy if required .

And attitudes such as yours here are right up there with the poor attitude of drivers. No one appoints anyone as the guardian of what is perceived to be safe. I'm tipping that you've never driven trucks or had you speedo checked for accuracy. Every heavy truck that I have ever driven (of which there have been many) with a speed limiter was accurate up to 103km/h, never more.

If you're travelling slower than others, move over and give them an opportunity to continue on their way. Do their choices effect you? Does it make one shred of difference to your day?

Here's a newsflash for you as well. Speed cameras do not save lives. All they do is change the relative injures in the collisions that will still occur. That even flies in the face of basic common sense. What's the best way to not burn your hand on a hot stove? Don't touch the thing in the first place. The road safety-crats would have you believe that wearing an oven mitt all the time is the solution.

Originally Posted by POD

I've noticed several times that the reporting of road fatality statistics seems always to be tied directly to legislation and law enforcement (such as speed limits, cameras etc) whilst vehicle design always gets a secondary mention, but the advancements in medical trauma care are never cited as a factor. Victoria introduced a Sate Trauma System in 2001 which has increased survival rates for major trauma patients, i.e. people are now surviving injuries that would have proved fatal 20 years ago. This is obviously a completely separate contribution to the road-toll reduction from that made by speed limits, cameras and the like, as those things seek to reduce crashes, whilst we are talking about people who have already had a crash. This seems to me to be an obvious factor in the high N.T. death statistics, as advanced medical care is not available in a timely manner to those in remote areas.

All good points but for the section I've put in bold. Those things are not in place to prevent crashes but to limit the energy in an impact. The road safety people are single-minded in their focus on slower impact = less energy = less death. The idea of actually preventing crashes is rather foreign.