NSW Speed Cameras

Discussion in 'Australian Motorcycles' started by Diogenes, Jul 27, 2011.

  1. Diogenes

    Diogenes Guest

    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

    Diogenes, Jul 27, 2011
    1. Advertisements

  2. Diogenes

    Nigel Allen Guest

    I would rather attempt to explain women.

    Nigel Allen, Jul 28, 2011
    1. Advertisements

  3. Diogenes

    atec77 Guest

    I guess now's not the time to suggest the women are less fsked up ?
    atec77, Jul 28, 2011
  4. Diogenes

    Yeebok Guest

    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
    Yeebok, Jul 28, 2011
  5. 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
    Stephen Oakes, Jul 28, 2011
  6. Diogenes

    Nigel Allen Guest

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

    Nigel Allen, Jul 29, 2011
  7. Diogenes

    Nev.. Guest

    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.., Jul 29, 2011
  8. Diogenes

    DM Guest

    If they recover enough stolen vehicles it might lower insurance costs too.
    DM, Jul 29, 2011
  9. Diogenes

    Sylvia Else Guest

    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 Else, Jul 29, 2011
  10. Diogenes

    G-S Guest

    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, Jul 30, 2011
  11. Diogenes

    Yeebok Guest

    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).
    Yeebok, Jul 30, 2011
  12. Diogenes

    Yeebok Guest

    Much more succinct than my explanation.
    Yeebok, Jul 30, 2011
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.