They're Baaack, NSW Mobile Speed cameras that is. (more!)

[Gosling1]

I reckon a rocket-propelled grenade into a couple of these would see the *end* of mobile revenue-raisers pretty quickly !!

[seiko1]

I reckon a rocket-propelled grenade into a couple of these would see the *end* of mobile revenue-raisers pretty quickly !!

They're SAFETY CAMERA'S Gos

But a Thai Holiday could be on the cards
(Burma just over the Border)

[ZXR750]

.... Labor need cashola desperate for Kineally's hairdressing bills !!...

you would still do though, eh Hoffy ?

I would do her more now than before. It is only polite to return the favour, as she is doing us big time. And a reverse KUDA for Mrs Kineally.

[Supafrog]

I really just love the "You're speed has been checked" approach....

The signage should say "We've just issued you a fine"....

I thought there was a dictate that said there had to be a warning before any speed camera?

[seiko1]

I really just love the "You're speed has been checked" approach....

The signage should say "We've just issued you a fine"....

I thought there was a dictate that said there had to be a warning before any speed camera?

There used to be until they realised it was costing them revenue!
How do you expect them to make money if you know where the camera's are

[Supafrog]

arrrrrrrrrghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

This country is getting worse and worse .... Think i'll crawl up and go back to sleep under a rock.....

.. Someone wake me when the New World Order is over?

[seiko1]

arrrrrrrrrghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

This country is getting worse and worse .... Think i'll crawl up and go back to sleep under a rock.....

.. Someone wake me when the New World Order is over?

Just move to China or Nth Korea.....much more freedom.

and this...
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Techno ... chnology_0

or this...
http://www.roadsense.com.au/facts.html

my bottom lip is quivering Russ

[ty]

Or how about something novel like 'don't speed'?
Yes it's annoying, yes it's nannying, and shock-horror if you speed you'll get caught!

I don't really have the same level of problem you guys seem to have with the cameras themselves - you're almost turning into tin-foil-hat-hide-in-a-cave-they're-going-to-get-me people.
Yes they're revenue raising (duh!), yes they can be sneaky (why wouldn't they be?) - but so are and can the HWP.
The only problem I have with the speed cameras really is the lack of humanity - a cop can (and they do) choose to be lenient or take any contributing context into account - a camera won't.
But let's face it - when they took them off the road a few years back we all knew it was only a matter of time before they came back.

I do have a problem with the tolerances - but while they're holding hands they're still two separate issues.

One positive is that if there are more cameras around people will get used to them and hopefully get used to actually doing the speed limit through them instead of 15kph under just-in-case

I wasn't going to bother chiming in (and I'm sure there'll be some who'll tell me to therefore shut it), but this has been 4 pages of normal people turning into the lone gunmen, so I thought I'd add some (my perception of) reality.

[mike-s]

I think the biggest issue i have personally is they are going about the whole "road safety" thing quite arse about. People are taught how to pass a test, not how to drive effectively. There are a ridiculous quantity of bad drivers out there who will happily go 20km/h under the limit in double demerits (i figure 10 is fair, even if your one strike away from walking for 3 months & did that myself) through to the assholes who stick to the right lane in an 80 zone, don't indicate and change lanes, cannot merge to save their own skins or eat brekkie or do their makeup while in morning traffic. Seriously, how the hell is speeding such a high priority when there are so many other fucked driver behaviours out there? Oh that's right, it's the easiest to police and only takes one photo as evidence, job done.

If it was about safety we would see high visibility cameras like these two:
&
Rather than these:
, &

further more here is another contribution from myself to the middle finger to this poor-form "safety measure" (link).

[edit]Further thought, i think my sig-pic is looking more and more acurate as time progresses[/edit]

[seiko1]

The Original excuse for camera's Mike was that they would only be placed at blackspots
and would be HIGHLY visible to stop people dying in high accident zones.
Why there is a camera in my st everyday I just don't know...
There has never been an accident there at all

[ty]

So the contention is not the cameras themselves, but that the pollies are lying by using safety as an excuse for revenue raising off people who break the law.

I'm no boy scout when it comes to speeding, but I'll take it on the chin when caught - however I'm caught.
I don't really care what reasons the politicians put on it - it's all lies and half-truths.

You're doing a hell of a lot of research Mike, and keeping us informed - which is great.
But let's not get off track by focussing on the lies - that'll go on forever. Speed cameras are back - for whatever reason and, at least in the short term, their locations will be known.
Or change the track to be about lying pollies and vent and give yourselves heart attacks as you needlessly shock yourselves.

Seriously, how the hell is speeding such a high priority when there are so many other fucked driver behaviours out there? Oh that's right, it's the easiest to police and only takes one photo as evidence, job done.

Exactly, find a way to (reliably) automatically detect those infringements and they'll jump at it.
It's bang for the buck, and easiest to police - regardless of what they say - so it shouldn't be a surprise.

Seat-belt cameras exist - and catch out many an idiot, but other infringements are harder.
How many types of cameras would you support, regardles of whether the pollies were honest about the reasons or not? Sorry - that's digressing too.

[mike-s]

So the contention is not the cameras themselves, but that the pollies are lying by using safety as an excuse for revenue raising off people who break the law.

Correct, that is exactly where my beef is.

I'm no boy scout when it comes to speeding, but I'll take it on the chin when caught - however I'm caught.

I don't really care what reasons the politicians put on it - it's all lies and half-truths.

This comes back to the old joke, "how do you know a politician is lying? their mouth is open."

You're doing a hell of a lot of research Mike, and keeping us informed - which is great.
But let's not get off track by focussing on the lies - that'll go on forever. Speed cameras are back - for whatever reason and, at least in the short term, their locations will be known.
Or change the track to be about lying pollies and vent and give yourselves heart attacks as you needlessly shock yourselves.

Personally i am slightly disgusted about the twists and turns that are being taken, but i'm not stressing, i just figure "forewarned is forearmed" and am going to do my damndest to minimise my chances of being taken by these piece of shit cameras to do my bit at minimising their forecasted "extra revenue".

Seriously, how the hell is speeding such a high priority when there are so many other fucked driver behaviours out there? Oh that's right, it's the easiest to police and only takes one photo as evidence, job done.

Exactly, find a way to (reliably) automatically detect those infringements and they'll jump at it.
It's bang for the buck, and easiest to police - regardless of what they say - so it shouldn't be a surprise.
Seat-belt cameras exist - and catch out many an idiot, but other infringements are harder.
How many types of cameras would you support, regardles of whether the pollies were honest about the reasons or not? Sorry - that's digressing too.

My personal opinion is that there is NO substitute for actively policing the roads and being a visual deterrent to people being total twats out there, be it speeding or any of the other behaviours i outlined earlier (or worse). Another matter is the complacency that is rife with the state government, they've been incumbent for a long time, and i have a suspicion they think they are going to stay regardless of how badly they fuck over "Joe public", i hope they are sorely dissapointed come next state election.

The Original excuse for camera's Mike was that they would only be placed at blackspots

Oh yeah, i can see how that's worked out for them .

[hoffy]

The issue I have is the speed signage in some areas is ambiguios at best, on the road I live on the speed changes 3 times in less than 1 kilometre. This is deceitful conduct. The clarity of signage is deminishing in an attempt to trap motorists, this is wrong.

I dont have an issue catching speeding drivers, but when they invest in mobile cameras without improving signage and road conditions and continue the multiple speed changes on roads it is clear it is a grab for dollars.

To those that that say "well dont speed and you wont get caught" I would say improve signage and signposting of speed limits to enable us to be more aware of the speed limits on roads to at least give people a chance to do the right thing. This will almost certainly maintain more orderly roadways.

[Dustproof]

Anyone got designs for a Broadband Microwave Jammer.... that will fix the F$%^ things. although the RPG idea could fly too...... makes you think doesn't it.

Really though, write to your pollies. Stick it right up'em Get onto and support the MCC of NSW and get them to chase it up - you have a forum here with a few members and that qualifies for membership to the MCC

[Mattjin]

I am with you Ty in that if I am caught I will wear it. The old saying of dont do the crime comes to mind. But I wholeheartedly agree that there are much bigger issues on the road than speeding. Inappropriate speeding should be the issue. Is doing 140 on the freeway with nothing around dangerous? Mostly no. Is doing 70 in a 60 zone in peak hour with kids walking the street and trying to cross dangerous. More so IMO. So who is it that decides the speed limit anyway. Is 60 safe, maybe the correct safe speedo was calculated to have been 57 or 63.578, so why the rounding up or down. And if 63 was decided to be the correct speed should you be able to be fined for doing 62. It just gets me how they can be scientific about safety statistics when it suits them, yet starting the whole debate with inaccurate data.

What I would like to see is someone who has been pinned by a speedo camera and therefore not stoppped and told by an authority, and then 1km up the road causes an accident due to speeding. Of course I dont want to see the accident, but in that they should be able to sue the government for damages. Why, you ask? Because if the government has the power to fine for speeding but did nothing at all to try and stop you, they are liable. If they are not liable, then they should not be able to fine you. If the same driver was pulled over by one of our fine officers for the initial speeding offence, no doubt they would drive away and do the speed limit at least for a while, and most likely not cause that accident. Does that sound like fair idea? A police presence does far more to stop me speeding than a camera does. I bet everyone here does the speed limit when a police car is either in front, behind them or generally out on patrol. But normally you would be doing 10 over, slow down for the camera, then speed back up. And those that say they dont are either lying or full of crap.

The end result. Common sense will never prevail, and if we want something done about it the best way is to pressure the opposition government on your stance and use your vote wisely.