23 September 2010

Here come the point to point cameras

23 September 2010 | johnboy

[First filed: Sep 21, 2010 @ 10:01]

I get a little confused about dates sometimes. But I’ve checked the calendar and it confirms today is indeed Tuesday 21 September 2010.

So I’m not quite sure what it means when TAMS says this on its website:

On Thursday 21 September 2010 the ACT Government announced that the ACT’s first point-to-point speed cameras would be installed on Hindmarsh Drive, to be operational by mid next year.

The forward design study is available and says the cameras are also good for:

That last might have perked some of you up. Here’s what the study has to say on mass surveillance:

P2P systems have the potential to provide data for mass surveillance applications. This application is distinguished from the Non-traffic Related Offences application described above as it is not based on the use of hotlists to define vehicles of interest. Rather it stores data (either vehicle registration and timestamp, or vehicle registration, image, and timestamp) for all vehicles passing the camera and makes it available for future interrogation.

Maybe we just have to get used to them watching our every move?

UPDATE: Mr Stanhope has now put up a media release wherein he explains why this is good for us:

“The ACT will be one of the first jurisdictions to use a network of point-to-point road safety cameras in an urban area. Ultimately, the cameras will monitor stretches of roads, entry and exit points to roads, and check for unregistered, stolen or other vehicles of interest to police using number plate recognition technology.

“The cameras are part of a suite of ACT Government measures designed to challenge the culture of speeding on Canberra’s roads, reduce road trauma and save lives.”

Join the conversation

193

All Comments

All Comments
Website Comments
Facebook Comments

LatestOldest

Jethro9:18 pm 13 Oct 10

bjnetzone said :

farnarkler said :

Oh and TAMS please, please, please set up a point to point camera on Ellenbrough St in Kaleen. You’ll make $millions.

And pretty much anywhere in Gungahlin…

William Hovell Drive could do with a few.

bjnetzone6:37 pm 13 Oct 10

farnarkler said :

Oh and TAMS please, please, please set up a point to point camera on Ellenbrough St in Kaleen. You’ll make $millions.

And pretty much anywhere in Gungahlin…

shadow boxer6:07 pm 13 Oct 10

Deary me, it’s like the internet version of someones head exploding. Wouldn’t it have been easier just to write i’m sorry I did misrepresent your post and have been caught out. Now I will try and adress your points in a a sane and rational manner.

georgesgenitals4:35 pm 13 Oct 10

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Relax mate!

I’m not the one who took three attempts to say the same thing – badly.

Smile for the cameras! I know I do.

I smile because I’m not getting caught!

The three attempts thing is quite interesting. I wrote post 186, but it didn’t appear in ‘awaiting moderation mode’, so I rewrote it from memory when the page refreshed. The third post (yay I’m a three post nutbag) was because I got a giggle from your rant.

Jungle Jim4:34 pm 13 Oct 10

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Smile for the cameras! I know I do.

As I hope we all do. 🙂

Woody Mann-Caruso4:05 pm 13 Oct 10

You really do honestly think you’re better than everyone else, don’t you?

Just about.

Relax mate!

I’m not the one who took three attempts to say the same thing – badly.

Smile for the cameras! I know I do.

georgesgenitals2:37 pm 13 Oct 10

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

More fines, more revenue, more research showing it reduces costly crashes, more idiots whining that it isn’t fair they were only shows three enormous white signs warning them about the camera ahead. Boo f*ckin’ hoo, my heart bleeds. Oh wait, no it doesn’t – because I’ve got what I want, and get more of it every day, and the roads are safer than ever. Ha ha!

Most of us just slow down for the cameras. It’s not like we don’t know where they are (those speed vans can be spotted miles away).

Relax mate!

georgesgenitals2:29 pm 13 Oct 10

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Maybe george can tell you how many more cars we need – he doesn’t know how many there are now, and is on the record as saying he doesn’t care, but I think there’s good scope for you two to bond.

I stated that I thought it would be a good idea to use speed camera revenue to fund additional marked police cars (in response to the question that has arisen before of ‘how do you pay for them’). I said this becuase people generally curtail stupidity around marked police cars.

But thanks for another Woody-bomb to brighten a rainy afternoon.

georgesgenitals2:24 pm 13 Oct 10

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

< More police? Maybe george can tell you how many more cars we need – he doesn't know how many there are now, and is on the record as saying he doesn't care, but I think there's good scope for you two to bond.

My point, made previously, was that I thought we could use revenue generated from speed cameras to fund additional police police on our roads. The post had nothing to do with 'how many do we need', but rather expressed the view that people behave better behind the wheel when there's a visible police presence.

But thanks for another great Woody-bomb.

Jungle Jim2:19 pm 13 Oct 10

The above ‘on topic’ statement should have ended with “and this deserves punishment, whether by fine or other”

Woody Mann-Caruso1:46 pm 13 Oct 10

totally misrepresent what I said

Let’s look at what you did say using quotes then, shall we?

I can count four of our young people who have been killed in the surrounding region in the last couple of weeks and no amount of speed cameras will stop that while the vast majority believe the current limits to slow.

Let’s begin by laying out your claims and the links between them:

– people die on the roads
– they died despite the presence of speed cameras
– you totally reckon everyone else totally reckons we should be allowed to go faster

What’s the take home message from this mismash, mr boxer? You neglect the possibility that there are people who would have died had there been no speed cameras. There’s plenty of research linked to in my many, many, many other posts on the subject that shows a clear and undeniable link between reductions in crashes, injuries and deaths and the introduction of speed cameras. You also neglect thepossibility that more cameras could have prevented these deaths. Further, you make an unstated but clearly implied postulation that, as speed cameras haven’t prevented all deaths, they must be ineffective. If you’d like to print a contrary view, and go on the record that speed cameras are effective, by all means, do so. It’d kinda make your first claim here look – well, retarded, to be frank.

As for the last bit, some advice: the next time you find yourself postulating based on ‘the majority believe’, think twice. What are the odds that the majority comprises the 50 per cent of people with above average intelligence and only a handful of idiots? Rather than ‘belief’, try ‘evidence’ from ‘experts’. See below – what evidence do you have that your eminently ‘reasonable’ limits would improve road safety? (The answer is ‘f*ck all’ – you ‘just reckon’).

What gem of wisdom did you have for us next?

A revised strategy centred around, reasonable limits, bigger points, better trasing, increasing the driving age and better, divided roads might have saved at least one of those lives.

I’ll have to admit I have no idea what ‘trasing’ is. Tracing? Training? Tasering? You’ll need to elaborate.

So, you open by claiming we need a revised strategy centred around:

– reasonable limits – what’s reasonable? Use an 80 zone as an example. What should it be? 85? 90? 95? 100? What evidence do you have that this new limit would reduce deaths, rather than simply resulting in fewer people breaking the law (or even that this latter case would even occur, given that differences in interstate limits show people will break whatever the limit is, even if it’s higher than back home?)

– bigger points – do you mean even greater penalties for speeding? But fines and points are already handled by – wait for it – speed cameras. You know, the same speed cameras you reckon don’t work, and no number of them will further reduce fatalities? How do you propose we detect people breaking these new limits? More police? Maybe george can tell you how many more cars we need – he doesn’t know how many there are now, and is on the record as saying he doesn’t care, but I think there’s good scope for you two to bond. By the way – why do you want penalties anyway? If you think we need more penalties, then that means you think speeding is dangerous – but then you’d have to be for speed cameras that catch and punish speeders. If you think speeding isn’t dangerous, then wouldn’t you want fewer penalties? What’s the big deal, right?

– increasing the driving age – because poor Mully was a teenaged P-plater. What’s that? He was 23? Well, what age do you propose we let people drive, then? 25? 30? Spit it out.

– divided roads – you mean like the one Mully died on?

But all that’s academic, because our existing road strategy is already centred on engineering and education as well as enforcement. You have read it, haven’t you?

In closing – give up. People like you have been ranting and whining for years, and guess what? The world looks more and more like I want it to every day, and less and less like you want. More speed cameras. New and better camera technology. More fines, more revenue, more research showing it reduces costly crashes, more idiots whining that it isn’t fair they were only shows three enormous white signs warning them about the camera ahead. Boo f*ckin’ hoo, my heart bleeds. Oh wait, no it doesn’t – because I’ve got what I want, and get more of it every day, and the roads are safer than ever. Ha ha!

Bane3:08 pm 05 Oct 10

Grail said :

Bane said :

And you just said that it’s only “about slowing people who are speeding down” when you also suggested to me that I lower my speed from being ON the speed limit to a safe margin BELOW the speed limit just for the sake of the camera

It’s quite clear to me that Gerry-built’s points are simple: (a) most drivers can gauge their speed to about 5km/h of the speedo reading, (b) the cameras will ping you for doing over the posted limit, (c) if you can’t gauge your speed to within 5km/h of the limit, aim to drive slower than the limit.

You really need to ride around at the posted speed limits for a while until you become used to the feel of your bike when you are doing a sensible speed, and stop blaming car drivers for all your problems. If you can’t tell that you are doing a safe speed (and by safe, I include “safe from arbitrary law enforcement” right next to “a speed at which you are unlikely to become involved in a single vehicle accident”), you might want to consider taking music lessons. Then start to recognise the notes your bike plays (or even the temper it displays) when you’re riding at certain speeds. This is totally separate to your opinion of speed cameras.

If you need to keep looking at your speedo every five seconds to ensure you’re not speeding, you’re not a safe road user. The posted speed limit is the limit. There are no rules in Canberra about obstructing traffic by going too slow.

I know I’m going to regret dragging myself back into this pleasant little thread…but today, work is slow and your post annoys me in some ways, so here we go!

-In one post, Gerry said he was NOT talking about a margin of ~5kph when saying one could “feel” their speed, then in another post, he said the opposite. He can’t even quite figure out what his point is, so I’m surprised that you can

-Where exactly did I “blame car drivers for all my problems”?? I don’t recall mentioning car drivers at all. Sounds like you just have something against motorcyclists. Of course, I could have pointed out the countless times where constant scrutiny of the road (instead of my speedo) has saved me from being killed or seriously injured by a car driver who didn’t bother to check their blind spot before pulling out or changing lanes, and how little most of them seem to care that their moments of inattention have almost cost my life…but I didn’t

-Regarding music lessons… Ignoring for a moment that you don’t need music lessons to identify different sounds/frequencies/tempers/timbres etc, I don’t need my existing experience as either a rider or a musician to point out that this would be fraught with inaccuracies. Apart from the fact that the same speed will sound different while using different gears in different conditions, as I was trying to point out to Gerry, the speed camera won’t care if you “felt” that you were doing 58kph when you were actually doing 64kph in a 60kph zone, for eg.

To make this perfectly clear, just like everyone else, I CAN “feel” the approximate speed I am doing, but NOT to the degree of accuracy that would make me confident of avoiding a fine. If there are any superhumans here who feel otherwise about themselves, more power to you!

-I admit I have not checked this, but I would think that driving too much below the speed limit could be classed as negligent driving at the very least in certain situations. I could be wrong; it might be the case that driving at 5kph is perfectly legal since it’s below the limit…and if that’s the case, pray you don’t get stuck behind me on my bicycle on, say, the single-lane section of 80kph Athllon Drive. Or, so as not to ignite the anti-cyclist vitriol as well, how about I just cruise along there at 20kph on the motorbike?

I will slow down from the speed limit for a rush hour. And for adverse weather conditions. And for roadside accidents. And for high-risk areas like when driving past a finishing football game on a main road, to account for extra drunken foot traffic. And for any other legitimate reason. But I do not appreciate having to purposely travel slower than necessary just because there’s a camera in the vicinity. Some of you think I should do so, and that is where we shall just have to agree to disagree…

georgesgenitals7:04 pm 01 Oct 10

buzz819 said :

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Oh God, it’s george with his ‘common sense’ again. Let’s dance like we do every other time you trot out this chestnut, george:

– how many marked cars are required to act as a deterrent?
– how many marked cars are there now?
– why do you think more cars are a better deterrent than fewer, or an unknown number of cars?
– what evidence do you have that the current mix of cars and cameras is less than optimal?
– why do you think marked cars are a better deterrent than unmarked?
– why is it that you’re never able to answer these questions but you’re still convinced you’re on to a winner?

Please try to come up with something more original than another ‘I just said that to troll Woody’ backpedal – it’s gone beyond tiresome, through pathetic and into “maybe he’s really mentally retarded and I should cut him some slack?” territory.

Well, a lot of other people have said on here that more marked Police cars would lower the amount of people speeding. Like quite a few people, I think you just don’t like georgesgenitals…

They are right too. The other day I was driving down Barry Drive, I looked around and wondered why all of a sudden so many people were; indicating, driving the speed limit, not changing lanes every three seconds, not on their phones and were actually concentrating on the road, then all of a sudden I saw a marked Police car in the middle of the pack… It show’s that it does work.

I reckon we need one marked car per main street, just to drive up and down it and pull people over for breaking the law.

BUT then you have the problem of the amount of people breaking the law and getting caught declining, because they don’t want to get caught. As a direct result the amount of money made from infringement notices also decreases.

What does the government do? It says to the Police “See no big problem here, we’re spending too much money for no return, go about your business, go put up some signs saying breaking the law is bad, yes that will work.” Then the cars get taken off the road again and people start breaking the law again.

People can whinge and whine all day about the government, about the roads, about the speed limits, about the camera’s, courts, Police, what ever – At the end of the day these things are going to remain the same, what’s the point of having a coronary over something that a) is not really going to impact your life in a huge way b) your not going to be able to change, even if it did hugely change your life.

Canberra is the place that keeps electing Mr Stanhope, as a result we have to keep living by his rules.

Here’s a question for you all:
If you know where the speed camera’s are, and you follow the speed limit anyway, why are you upset that the government is putting up these camera’s? (I don’t want to hear about the road safety campaign -the law says don’t speed, kind of like, don’t kill people, break into their houses, bash people, rape people and look at child pornography, you wont do any of that, so why speed?)

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Oh God, it’s george with his ‘common sense’ again. Let’s dance like we do every other time you trot out this chestnut, george:

– how many marked cars are required to act as a deterrent?
– how many marked cars are there now?
– why do you think more cars are a better deterrent than fewer, or an unknown number of cars?
– what evidence do you have that the current mix of cars and cameras is less than optimal?
– why do you think marked cars are a better deterrent than unmarked?
– why is it that you’re never able to answer these questions but you’re still convinced you’re on to a winner?

Please try to come up with something more original than another ‘I just said that to troll Woody’ backpedal – it’s gone beyond tiresome, through pathetic and into “maybe he’s really mentally retarded and I should cut him some slack?” territory.

It’s obvious you don’t like me, and don’t expect me to jump through your hoops. However, this is a better response than the pathetic personal attacks you often make.

My point has always been that cameras aren’t a great way to genuinely improve road user behaviour, and that experience suggests that marked police presence causes people to be a lot more careful. Of course, this opinion is not based on analysis of real data, and is not pretending to be. I deliberately suggested using speed camera revenue to fund additional marked police, because I think many people are cynical about speed cameras (despite their being some data linking their use to lower deaths), and this would be a good way to convince people (voters, that is), that their safety was actually being considered within a sensible context.

“why is it that you’re never able to answer these questions but you’re still convinced you’re on to a winner?”

Please link the thread(s) where you asked this list of questions to me previously.

buzz8199:24 pm 28 Sep 10

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Oh God, it’s george with his ‘common sense’ again. Let’s dance like we do every other time you trot out this chestnut, george:

– how many marked cars are required to act as a deterrent?
– how many marked cars are there now?
– why do you think more cars are a better deterrent than fewer, or an unknown number of cars?
– what evidence do you have that the current mix of cars and cameras is less than optimal?
– why do you think marked cars are a better deterrent than unmarked?
– why is it that you’re never able to answer these questions but you’re still convinced you’re on to a winner?

Please try to come up with something more original than another ‘I just said that to troll Woody’ backpedal – it’s gone beyond tiresome, through pathetic and into “maybe he’s really mentally retarded and I should cut him some slack?” territory.

Well, a lot of other people have said on here that more marked Police cars would lower the amount of people speeding. Like quite a few people, I think you just don’t like georgesgenitals…

They are right too. The other day I was driving down Barry Drive, I looked around and wondered why all of a sudden so many people were; indicating, driving the speed limit, not changing lanes every three seconds, not on their phones and were actually concentrating on the road, then all of a sudden I saw a marked Police car in the middle of the pack… It show’s that it does work.

I reckon we need one marked car per main street, just to drive up and down it and pull people over for breaking the law.

BUT then you have the problem of the amount of people breaking the law and getting caught declining, because they don’t want to get caught. As a direct result the amount of money made from infringement notices also decreases.

What does the government do? It says to the Police “See no big problem here, we’re spending too much money for no return, go about your business, go put up some signs saying breaking the law is bad, yes that will work.” Then the cars get taken off the road again and people start breaking the law again.

People can whinge and whine all day about the government, about the roads, about the speed limits, about the camera’s, courts, Police, what ever – At the end of the day these things are going to remain the same, what’s the point of having a coronary over something that a) is not really going to impact your life in a huge way b) your not going to be able to change, even if it did hugely change your life.

Canberra is the place that keeps electing Mr Stanhope, as a result we have to keep living by his rules.

Here’s a question for you all:
If you know where the speed camera’s are, and you follow the speed limit anyway, why are you upset that the government is putting up these camera’s? (I don’t want to hear about the road safety campaign -the law says don’t speed, kind of like, don’t kill people, break into their houses, bash people, rape people and look at child pornography, you wont do any of that, so why speed?)

Gerry-Built9:43 am 26 Sep 10

Bane said :

That’s where I got that from.

Again… how is that a contradiction? I clearly spelled out that in my posts, I used ‘Speeding’ to indicate the driver was aware of the excessive speed they were intentionally doing, whilst I believe most drivers know, within 5kmh, the speed they are traveling at. If you are not one of these, I maintain that you are in the minority – though I would happily stand corrected if anyone else wants to argue that point.

Bane said :

you can’t not be “sure if that makes you ‘extra special'” while also claiming “Of course, I AM a very good driver”.

You’ll also note the sarcasm from the emoticon… feeding directly into the “of course, I’m a good driver” posts on RA (which someone had already mentioned)… I actually think I’m average at driving… no hoon, but no Sunday Driver either…

Bane said :

it’s only “about slowing people who are speeding down” when you also suggested to me that I lower my speed from being ON the speed limit to a safe margin BELOW the speed limit just for the sake of the camera

…the suggestion was if you cannot tell if you are speeding, you should slow so you know you are not exceeding the limit. You suggested you can’t judge if you are just over the limit – so I offered a reasonable suggestion. If you can’t judge “the limit”, drive so you know you are not exceeding it – at least THAT isn’t against the Law.

Bane said :

Anyway, my opinion on p2p cameras hasn’t changed, and more than likely won’t, and this is going to start going around in circles

I’m not trying to change your mind. I’m offering an opinion partially in contradiction to yours.

I’m not immune to speeding – I have had 3 speeding fines (two well under 15kmh, one in the second range for 20 over) in my 15+ years of driving – but I have never tried to argue them. I accept responsibility for my actions – which seemed such a relief to the Officers that pulled me over on those occasions.

I still maintain people *know* when they are speeding… and most drivers know when they are at about the appropriate speed (which a quick look at the speedo will confirm). Whilst some drivers might get pinged on P2P for ~5kmh, it is more than likely going to be the exception rather than the rule… Remember, overall, that the posted speed limit – as, as the name suggests… a “limit”…

Skidbladnir2:25 pm 22 Sep 10

Mathman said :

It is questionable that a photo would be sufficient evidence to prosecute a driver of an unregistered car if it did not positively identify them.

No really, it is.
The photo is evidence that the car was being driven unregistered, that much is treated as a given.
AFP on receiving the photo and output of RAPID generate a notification of the fine ($550?) and serve it to the last registered person at the last known mailing address for the vehicle as previously registered.
Either the person served was the driver, or they weren’t.

If they weren’t, then they can stat-dec the blame onto somebody who was.
If they were the driver, their options beyond paying the fine are pretty limited.

Driving an unregistered registrable vehicle is illegal.
(Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Act 1999 Section 18: Prohibition on using unregistered registrable vehicles or vehicles with suspended registration. (1) A person must not use an unregistered registrable vehicle, or a vehicle with suspended registration, on a road or road related area. Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.)
A served person’s only legitimate option is either use one of the few exceptions allowed (Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Regulation 2000 – driving it for purposes of agriculture, to a designated place under cover note, etc), or dispute any liability by pleading there is no degree of intention to commit the crime, mostly by claiming your ignorance as a defense to willfulness if your misunderstanding occurred in good-faith since the law was too complicated to easily comply with.

If your arguments differ from the grounds used by the AFP, it ends up in court, and the fine can be jacked up to $2200 for wasting everybody’s time if the court finds against you.

Basically, being served with the fine, and not having a valid rego certificate (with nobody else willing to accept blame) wrecks any real possibility of argument, since RAPID has provided evidence that the vehicle was being driven on a public road at a given time & place.

(Source: Had this same discussion not yesterday with someone here at work, who is about to pay the $2200 fine. They did afterall, drive a car on a public road without CTP and put everyone at risk, and doesn’t intend to do it again.)

View more conversations

Featured Businesses

Developments

Ginninderry

A sustainable community of international significance in the Capital Region.

Find out more

Electricians

True Connection Electrical

Since 2014, True Connection Electrical have been servicing residential and small commercial clients with reliable, trustworthy and top-quality electrical work.

Find out more