NSW to introduce camera to catch drivers using mobiles

[trailgumby]

I've saved them some trouble.

[BJL]

I hope they do something similar in Victoria.

Tonight as I was leaving the local shopping mall, a car was parked opposite the doors (there's a pedestrian 'crossing' here which ends at this parking spot ironically enough. Because cramming as many car parking spaces in as possible is infinitely more important than providing pedestrians a safe route through the car park ). I watch the idiot reversing really slow, then slowly tries to straighten the car up to drive off but then stops and sits on the pedestrian crossing. The reason he was really slow and struggling to maneuver his vehicle might have something to do with the fact that he was trying to do it one handed.

There are NO points for guessing what was in his other hand.

He was sitting on the crossing and I wanted to cross the road so I yelled at him to stop using the phone and try driving. I mean, the car was parked only a short time beforehand. Surely he could have used his phone WHILE THE CAR WAS PARKED. But no, that's not good enough. He just HAD to use it whilst trying to drive at the same time just to show us how good he isn't at multitasking.

[duncanm]

Overcomplicated.
Real cops (or even civilians, if using camera evidence) are better than dumb robot cameras. A real person can apply judgement on whether it was a justified action (eg getting past a B-Double).

xacry

[duncanm]

I've saved them some trouble.

eerily similar to my incident on the M2 - except at about 40km/h.

[Kronos]

The lack of immediacy and low cost of fines is the issue. Beside which point, the idea that a camera van is an accident prevention system is quite simply fascicle. That a person drives through a speed camera zone lets say doing 120km/hr doesn't mean that they didn't slam into a poll 5 seconds later. In this case the camera van has done nothing to stop the accident happening or reduce the road toll. If (hopefully) the person survives they receive a letter in the mail about a month later and there is nothing to connect the fine with the penalty psychologically which is an entire waste of time.

What we need is higher speed limits (as in Europe, on average at least 130km/hr), better driver training, better roads, and more actual police on the road rather than sitting in the back of a van as camera operators doing nothing to stop the crime. Only then will we see a reduction in road deaths in Australia.

The notion that speed kills is false, it never has been the speed that has been the issue, its the stopping part that kills along with drivers who aren't trained to drive at speed properly and the lack of road quality overall in Australia. Any other logic is false.

[bychosis]

The lack of immediacy and low cost of fines is the issue. Beside which point, the idea that a camera van is an accident prevention system is quite simply fascicle. That a person drives through a speed camera zone lets say doing 120km/hr doesn't mean that they didn't slam into a poll 5 seconds later. In this case the camera van has done nothing to stop the accident happening or reduce the road toll. If (hopefully) the person survives they receive a letter in the mail about a month later and there is nothing to connect the fine with the penalty psychologically which is an entire waste of time.

It does have a deterrent factor though. There might be a camera van ahead, so I’ll drive within the law type deterrent.

What we need is higher speed limits (as in Europe, on average at least 130km/hr), better driver training, better roads, and more actual police on the road rather than sitting in the back of a van as camera operators doing nothing to stop the crime. Only then will we see a reduction in road deaths in Australia.

We need lower limits in urban areas, not higher and increasing the limits on highways without better driver training will only make things worse for those drivers among us that don’t have the skill nor attitude to drive at the current limits.

[g-boaf]

The lack of immediacy and low cost of fines is the issue. Beside which point, the idea that a camera van is an accident prevention system is quite simply fascicle. That a person drives through a speed camera zone lets say doing 120km/hr doesn't mean that they didn't slam into a poll 5 seconds later. In this case the camera van has done nothing to stop the accident happening or reduce the road toll. If (hopefully) the person survives they receive a letter in the mail about a month later and there is nothing to connect the fine with the penalty psychologically which is an entire waste of time.

What we need is higher speed limits (as in Europe, on average at least 130km/hr), better driver training, better roads, and more actual police on the road rather than sitting in the back of a van as camera operators doing nothing to stop the crime. Only then will we see a reduction in road deaths in Australia.

The notion that speed kills is false, it never has been the speed that has been the issue, its the stopping part that kills along with drivers who aren't trained to drive at speed properly and the lack of road quality overall in Australia. Any other logic is false.

Europe actually has 30km/h speed limits in a lot of places. And 100km/h zones on many motorways, even autobahns. The speed limits in Europe aren't always higher, that's a myth. There are also those electronic warning signs telling you that you are going faster than 30km/h and exactly what your speed is.

It is also common in Europe to find cameras hidden in the back of vans (particularly those VW Caddy vans with the windowed back sections), or indeed just ordinary old speed cameras. They are everywhere. And another thing that is enforced is sticking in correct lanes.

Don't believe me though, go over there yourself and you'll see it.

I'd like to see 30km/h zones rolled out in suburban areas and streets, that would be a good change.

[find_bruce]

I'd like to see 30km/h zones rolled out in suburban areas and streets, that would be a good change.

Indeed it would - about the only positive thing to come from Drunken's time impersonating a minister for roads is reducing the speed limit in the CBD to 40 kmh

[Kronos]

The lack of immediacy and low cost of fines is the issue. Beside which point, the idea that a camera van is an accident prevention system is quite simply fascicle. That a person drives through a speed camera zone lets say doing 120km/hr doesn't mean that they didn't slam into a poll 5 seconds later. In this case the camera van has done nothing to stop the accident happening or reduce the road toll. If (hopefully) the person survives they receive a letter in the mail about a month later and there is nothing to connect the fine with the penalty psychologically which is an entire waste of time.

What we need is higher speed limits (as in Europe, on average at least 130km/hr), better driver training, better roads, and more actual police on the road rather than sitting in the back of a van as camera operators doing nothing to stop the crime. Only then will we see a reduction in road deaths in Australia.

The notion that speed kills is false, it never has been the speed that has been the issue, its the stopping part that kills along with drivers who aren't trained to drive at speed properly and the lack of road quality overall in Australia. Any other logic is false.

Europe actually has 30km/h speed limits in a lot of places. And 100km/h zones on many motorways, even autobahns. The speed limits in Europe aren't always higher, that's a myth. There are also those electronic warning signs telling you that you are going faster than 30km/h and exactly what your speed is.

It is also common in Europe to find cameras hidden in the back of vans (particularly those VW Caddy vans with the windowed back sections), or indeed just ordinary old speed cameras. They are everywhere. And another thing that is enforced is sticking in correct lanes.

Don't believe me though, go over there yourself and you'll see it.

I'd like to see 30km/h zones rolled out in suburban areas and streets, that would be a good change.

I've been over there and your post doesn't make sense. As a rule of thumb the autostrada/autobahn has higher overall limits. 40km/hr in zones where it is nescessary is perfectly applicable to the situation. If we begin to treat everyone like mushrooms in the dark and continue to lower speed limits then you are going to continue to get exactly the opposite of what you're hoping for. More dangerous and inept people on the road who are unfamiliar with and incapable of knowing what to do at speed.

You don't win the battle with road tolls and death by continuing to restrict and take away things, in fact pretty much everywhere where prohibitions have occurred you tend to make the situation worse. You win the battle by having safer roads, better driver training, and speed limits that actually represent the conditions and safety of the roads that you are driving on.

I will also reiterate you don't win the battle on road tolls and death by having people in vans catching drivers doing 5km/hr over the limit going down hill. You create people who watch their speedometre more than they have their eyes on the road. The only types of cameras that are beneficial to road safety are those that are obviously signed in blackspots on the road where you want drivers to drive at a specific speed. Aside from that the only way you are going to deter people who are actually speeding at the time is by putting more police on the road that stop offenders at the time.

Any search into studies of any animal where you have a delayed punishment/reward will show you that the animal in question no longer knows what the punishment/reward is about. The fact that you serve a notice a month later doesn't create the effect of inhibition that you are trying to achieve and is largely a waste of time for those who are going to speed.

At the end of the day you win the battle and reduce road deaths by having better trained and more educated drivers. You don't win it by restricting what they can and cannot do on the road. You also win the battle by policing the roads, you don't take the lazy option of having more unmarked camera vans. What we actually need and even the police union in Queensland took notice of this recently is less hidden camera vans. I will go further by saying we need more police on the road actively patrolling and watching what people are doing rather than sitting in the back of camera vans as camera operators doing nothing. It even makes me wonder what the operators of those vans are thinking while they are helpless to actually stopping a person that may well cause an accident at the time.

Link provided into the thoughts of the Queensland Police union as below.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... ed-cameras

[Thoglette]

The fact that you serve a notice a month later doesn't create the effect of inhibition that you are trying to achieve and is largely a waste of time for those who are going to speed.

Most people are slightly smarter than Pavlov's dogs.

That the speed limit is treated as a bare minimum by a large proportion of drivers is due to the almost complete lack of enforcement.

The size of the fines is currently about as relevant as a Lotto win. Because getting caught happens about as often.

A decent enforcement regime would return speeding fines to their previous position as "a stupidity tax". I've said it before and I'll say it again: IVMS is practical across the .au fleet.

Anyone who's worked on a large project site knows that it works pretty damn well and is very cheap compared to the cost of the vehicles

At the end of the day you win the battle and reduce road deaths by having better trained and more educated drivers.

Training is about the second lowest level of the risk reduction pyramid.

If you really want reduce road deaths you first remove the risk or substitute it: that is reduce the number of km driven. Get people living near whether they work. And get people and freight off the roads and onto other modes of transportation.

In particular we need to reduce the km driven by heavy freight vehicles; remove the serial offenders and the incompetent (do I really need a cite for this one?). Both are over represented in the statistics.

Reducing vehicle speeds (and thus impact energy) is critical to reducing deaths, particularly among non-MV road users (and near-road users) as most non-MV deaths are the result of MV driver behaviour. (interestingly, perhaps also M/Cycle deaths)

You don't win it by restricting what they can and cannot do on the road.

Pardon?

E.g. The current debate on heavy truck accidents has focused on exactly this: the rules around what they can and can't do (and what they are and aren't paid for).

Or are you seriously arguing that drink driving should be allowed and texting permitted because we can't "win it"?

[bychosis]

Given the number of reports of drink drivers in the media I suspect we cannot win it. At least we are coming a close second though, where the numbers are low enough that it is still deemed newsworthy on occasion.

[Thoglette]

Given the number of reports of drink drivers in the media I suspect we cannot win it. At least we are coming a close second though, where the numbers are low enough that it is still deemed newsworthy on occasion.

Unfortunately, DUI has suffered the same loss of focus as speeding as police have been drawn back to "other matters".

However the social message has mostly been won: the young folk of today would be horrified if they were to visit a '70s suburban pub at closing time. Yes, there's the odd patch of IDGAF but as you say, it's almost newsworthy. Like drunk pilots

I once worked for a contractor where everyone, from the project manager down to the cleaner, was breath tested every day. This included any visiting dignitaries and client staff in attendance. It was interesting to watch the crew self-regulate and co-regulate on any "night out" before a work day - and these were construction workers, not nuns.

[Kronos]

The fact that you serve a notice a month later doesn't create the effect of inhibition that you are trying to achieve and is largely a waste of time for those who are going to speed.

Most people are slightly smarter than Pavlov's dogs.

But we're not talking about Pavolv's dog. Surely if you had any training in any scientific field, in my case social "science" if you will call it a "science" you would understand the issues with regard to the timing and the reward/punishment. You want to reinforce the issue by having more police on the road to enforce the law. My issue you're missing the point entirely of is actually one of having more police on the road and less van operators. I see fines regularly enforced, I don' know what world you're living in but you might be wrong about that one and then you can also have your day watching people shuffle in and out of court to see how many times fines are upheld if you're bored enough not to believe me. Just because you don't see fines issued and enforced does not mean that they aren't. This is where a bit of science that N≠1 might be handy to understand. To return to the other point do some actual research into the time between punishment and response and you will see that my point is valid.

That the speed limit is treated as a bare minimum by a large proportion of drivers is due to the almost complete lack of enforcement. The size of the fines is currently about as relevant as a Lotto win. Because getting caught happens about as often.

As to the speed limit, I suspect there is more logic in the minds of people who speed, and to be honest, if you go out and follow the flow of conversation a logical response that almost inevitably always pops up is that people don't want to be treated like cretins.

A decent enforcement regime would return speeding fines to their previous position as "a stupidity tax". I've said it before and I'll say it again: IVMS is practical across the .au fleet.

You have a very negative outlook on life if that's all you can muster up is that it's a stupidity tax. It's a reinforcement of the lowest common denominator. You may be the lowest common denominator and have no problem being he lowest common denominator. Meanwhile you haven't addressed my point about the rest of the world or the fact that there lowest common denominator is much higher respectively than ours.

At the end of the day you win the battle and reduce road deaths by having better trained and more educated drivers.

Training is about the second lowest level of the risk reduction pyramid.

I did also say you reduce road risk by having safer roads, more policing (including better social policies towards attitude and steeper requirements and regulations of drivers), you seemed to only cherry pick the answers to respond to that suited you. This is a case of myopia at its finest. You might also want to consider that some people have opinions that are not your own and look at the logic rather than picking a soap box to stand on.

If you really want reduce road deaths you first remove the risk or substitute it: that is reduce the number of km driven. Get people living near whether they work. And get people and freight off the roads and onto other modes of transportation.

In particular we need to reduce the km driven by heavy freight vehicles; remove the serial offenders and the incompetent (do I really need a cite for this one?). Both are over represented in the statistics.

This includes better POLICING of new and existing regulations including the creation of policies with regard to speeding that are little less unintelligible than the ones we have that all speed kills. Like the ones that if I go 1km/hr over the speed limit my wheel nuts will fall off my left wheel, my axle will sheer off, my fuel tank will explode, I will run into a tree and kill myself and my body will be incinerated. You expect the vast majority of the population to believe that tripe?

Reducing vehicle speeds (and thus impact energy) is critical to reducing deaths, particularly among non-MV road users (and near-road users) as most non-MV deaths are the result of MV driver behaviour. (interestingly, perhaps also M/Cycle deaths)

Maybe you don't reduce the speed in the first place and teach people how to stop properly so they don't have the accident, but that concept is too difficult to understand. Maybe if we actually went back to having police on the road, and better policies towards this all rather than treating people like lowest common denominator cretins we would make a real dent in road deaths. Maybe if we could talk about higher common denominator people like most of Europe and why it is safer to drive over there than it is here we might spark up some conversations rather than obfuscation.

You don't win it by restricting what they can and cannot do on the road. No battle has ever been won by prohibition.

and I will reiterate the point no battle has ever been won directly as the result of prohibition.Its also far easier to do your job than it is to do mine in policy analysis and see that the current policy of all speed killing has not worked and will not work. Not now, or in the future. On top of that it is also far easier to call someone stupid and walk away from the conversation about "stupidity taxes" than it is to see that I might have a very good point.

[Strawburger]

Joint this conversation late, in adding additional info on the original topic, I have been told these new cameras can pick up a lot of different offences, not just mobile use. It uses heat data rather than traditional vision.

[RobertL]

It was interesting to watch the crew self-regulate and co-regulate on any "night out" before a work day - and these were construction workers, not nuns.

"Ten 10s before ten".

I'm not in that industry, but I have in-laws and friends who are, and that's what they quote to me. You can have up to 10, 10-ounce beers before 10.00pm and you will pass the breath test at work the next day.

[RobertL]

The other thing about IVMS that I learned the other day is that you can voluntarily have one fitted to your car in the UK in return for lower insurance premiums.

I haven't heard of that in Australia.

[find_bruce]

"Ten 10s before ten".

I'm not in that industry, but I have in-laws and friends who are, and that's what they quote to me. You can have up to 10, 10-ounce beers before 10.00pm and you will pass the breath test at work the next day.

Nice little memory device, that contains 3 important elements - limit total alcohol intake, drink a standard size glass & time after last consumption. Downside is that BAC is not that simple - depends on when you start drinking, when you start work, what you are drinking - some craft beers are well over 5% alcohol, your gender, your weight, what you have eaten, how hydrated you are, whether you are Chris Froome

I could go on, but you get the idea

[RobertL]

"Ten 10s before ten".

I'm not in that industry, but I have in-laws and friends who are, and that's what they quote to me. You can have up to 10, 10-ounce beers before 10.00pm and you will pass the breath test at work the next day.

Nice little memory device, that contains 3 important elements - limit total alcohol intake, drink a standard size glass & time after last consumption. Downside is that BAC is not that simple - depends on when you start drinking, when you start work, what you are drinking - some craft beers are well over 5% alcohol, your gender, your weight, what you have eaten, how hydrated you are, whether you are Chris Froome

I could go on, but you get the idea

I agree entirely.