Petition Against Speed Camera's

[yellow300zx]

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/remove...ht-cameras.html

Sign, spread the word to other forums and friends.

[Mr Eps]

no.

ps.

IBTL!

[mad082]

+1 for no. especially the fixed cameras. everyone knows where they are, they are common knowledge, so if you still get caught by them then stiff shit. and besides, for that short period of road where the speed camera is people will slow down.

as for red light cameras, i have no issue with them. while they might not save lives, they are catching people who are running lights and could possibly cause an accident. i've never run a red light, but i've almost been taken out by someone who did. unfortunately there was no camera at that set of lights so he didn't get caught.

[GTRPowa]

+1 for no. especially the fixed cameras. everyone knows where they are, they are common knowledge, so if you still get caught by them then stiff shit. and besides, for that short period of road where the speed camera is people will slow down.

But they do as they are designed, to slow people down. If nobody sped in the first place these cameras would be making $0 per year. Perhaps the best way for Australia to demote such technology is to not speed in the first place. Asking to remove said cameras simply implies you have an intent to speed.

When's the last time anyone heard of someone getting into a car accident as a result of passing through a speed camera?

When's the last time anyone heard of someone getting into a car accident as a result of excessive speed?

[mad082]

But they do as they are designed, to slow people down. If nobody sped in the first place these cameras would be making $0 per year. Perhaps the best way for Australia to demote such technology is to not speed in the first place. Asking to remove said cameras simply implies you have an intent to speed.

When's the last time anyone heard of someone getting into a car accident as a result of passing through a speed camera?

When's the last time anyone heard of someone getting into a car accident as a result of excessive speed?

exactly

[GTRPowa]

While trying to stay on topic, I think our focus should be on the excessive defecting of our cars. I agree with alot of the defects they are pinning us for, but recently read posts about stock BOV's getting pinged? I know that in the long run those defects will clear without ANY hassles, but they are still grinding everyone's gears, costs us money, all for something that can be fixed with a little education.

I don't actually know anybody who blatantly runs red lights. But the fact these cameras exist would suggest otherwise.

[GTRPowa]

a quick social commentary, terrible thread was started - i mean - what a fkn DUMB thread... much about as DUMB as this one was

then the resident SAU people tried to help... ie: me, and marc - who un-necessarilly made an insightful post to a thread which shouldn't even be made (much like this one... someone had insight into the matter - like marc - had positive insight, like - - WE - - had positive insight)

and then

OH HAI GUYS WHATS THIS A THREAD? HAHA I KNOW I"M GONNA START SHIT BY MAKING INFLAMMATORY COMMENTS

why is he going at marc as if he's disagreeing with him??? yet regurgitating everything he says??!?!

this guy is classic.

i like him.

Soz Marc, I thought you were saying +1 for no cameras, especially fixed ones. And if you read the rest from there, well it fits the opposite.

You are right, and I guess now you are backed up lol.

I just thought I should clarify this because the resident SAU community ie: Mr Eps, etc, seem to be quite alarmed about the whole misunderstanding, cheers.

And sorry if it seemed like I was having a go at you Marc, I was simply making a statement. Some people here are fragile in nature.

[yellow300zx]

While trying to stay on topic, I think our focus should be on the excessive defecting of our cars. I agree with alot of the defects they are pinning us for, but recently read posts about stock BOV's getting pinged? I know that in the long run those defects will clear without ANY hassles, but they are still grinding everyone's gears, costs us money, all for something that can be fixed with a little education.

I don't actually know anybody who blatantly runs red lights. But the fact these cameras exist would suggest otherwise.

I agree there completely, I'm always hearing the case of sports cars getting defected yet old shit boxes with 95% of the car rust or bad / failing brakes not getting a second look at cause they are too focused on us even when we are not doing ANYTHING but driving normally. Cops love to feel all high and mighty.

[Mr Eps]

ahhhhhh okay now i've finished kickboxing and am ready to enter the forray of SAU

ok - GTRPowa - again - there's NO animosity from to you - but please try to understand you literally turned my hair grey this afternoon!!!

i know what you're thinking "harr harr!!! mister eps made a funny joak!"

but seriously. you're lucky yesterday was payday, because i had to spend about 200 bucks worth of just for men hair dye so that i can be socially acceptable again. do you have any idea what it's like going thru the coles checkout with that much justformen and the girl behind the counter is like "so how's your day been" and i'm like "yeah okay" and she's pretending to not look at my hair which you turned gray BUTIKNOWSHE'SLOOKINGICANFEELHEREYESYAKNOW!!!!

=)

so yeah...

also, yellow300zx... we don't need a petition against speed cameras, that won't do anything. TRUST me on that one, speed cameras are here to stay... whether they save lives or revenue raise is not up to us to make that call - one thing we can all agree on.. is STOP SPEEDING. and they've done their job.

if we slow down and they're there to save lives - good on them

if we slow down and they're just revenue raisers - good on us.

one thing that remains a common factor is - don't speed... and you won't get flashed.

as for what GTRpowa said, i've never heard of stock BOV's getting pinged for defects, maybe years ago when the "modification" scene went out of hand, and it advanced to the point where police were unsure as to what's legal and illegal (really can you blame theM? they don't spend their days on car forums!

to the police's's's respect, they've actually cracked down on old bombs - a lot. at least they have here in WA and i think they're doing a good job.. HONESTLY i do.

as for us as "car enthusiasts" we all should now know that if police are cracking down on us, take the precautions to help their decision of whether or not to give you a defect ... that is... if your pod filter isn't braced. brace it. if your tyres have camber wear,. fix your camber, if your HIDs blind on coming drivers, maybe they weren't meant to be... if your suspension is too low to get over speed bumps... it can't be fun to drive... and is asking for trouble.

OP - you're a seldom poster, as is GTRPowa... but hopefully you already know this stuff...

as for threads like this - SAU can do without them... i have heard that police DO monitor certain car forums etc to see if people are discussing hoon activity and cruise maps etc - and threads like this one don't really help

(that said i doubt they monitor SAU... other forums would be more likely... not naming names though)

[Peter89]

i signed it. if such cameras were about safety they would have signs and be pained bright colours yet they aren't they are pained grey to be hidden to catch people. so instead of reducing the amount of speeding, it's just raising revenue from it. (i live in victoria, im not sure how other states operate such devices)

i'm not sure about you guys but i would rather someone didn't run a red light because they saw a camera instead of running the red light, crashing into me and getting a fine.

Edited July 6, 2010 by Peter89

[Mr Eps]

haha... peter the age old arguement to that is - it shouldn't matter if they're black green pink or metallic... if you don't speed. you won't get flashed... you don't get fined...

i guess also it created paranoia

so people think "i know not to speed here cos there's often speed cameras placed here"

if people slow down from fear in that "one stretch of road" then the cameras have done their job!

[Peter89]

it's naive to expect people not to speed or run red lights thus the system would be reducing the amount of people doing this instead of just fining people.

i would rather people slowed down for a CLEARLY visible camera then get a fine.

what's more important to you, revenue or safety?

because the current system has clearly failed, revenue is steadily increasing, if the current system was working then revenue would be decreasing.

[Mr Eps]

Peter if you don't like revenue then move to Somalia they have a GREAT tax system i hear

seriously though... it wouldn't raise THAT much revenue, it's more a deterrant! put it this way - if the state government actually relied on the revenue of speeding fines we would be a very un-developed nation...

i'm not going to argue or debate with you because you've raised valid points and so have i... let's just agree to disagree!

[iamhe77]

But they do as they are designed, to slow people down. If nobody sped in the first place these cameras would be making $0 per year. Perhaps the best way for Australia to demote such technology is to not speed in the first place. Asking to remove said cameras simply implies you have an intent to speed.

When's the last time anyone heard of someone getting into a car accident as a result of passing through a speed camera?

When's the last time anyone heard of someone getting into a car accident as a result of excessive speed?

In theory you are correct, but you are neglecting the fact that speed limits are being lowered all over the place and for BS reasons.

Example - no-one speeds through a 60kph limited housing estate which has cameras.... hmm no revenue and no accidents so what happens? Yep, 50kph limit is instituted. People adjust quickly so no more revenue (and still no accidents)... next thing you know the WHOLE ESTATE is a 40kph zone!

Unfortunately this can and does happen anywhere in Vic.

There is a road near my parents house that was a straight dirt road with a 100kph limit, had a bit of traffic, was always graded and had 1 accident (single car) in 20 years.

Once day, VicRoads decide that this road should be sealed... with a 80kph limit. Okay, whatever.

Then they start putting mobile speed cameras on this road, then the limit is dropped to 70.... then to 60... why? There is no more development on this road than there was when it was an 80 zone. Accidents? Nope.

Peter if you don't like revenue then move to Somalia they have a GREAT tax system i hear

seriously though... it wouldn't raise THAT much revenue, it's more a deterrant! put it this way - if the state government actually relied on the revenue of speeding fines we would be a very un-developed nation...

i'm not going to argue or debate with you because you've raised valid points and so have i... let's just agree to disagree!

Whoa! Blind man shooting at the world!

You may want to look up how much speed cameras raked in for the Vic Government last year... $430m+.... AND the road toll is higher than the year before, so how can someone say that speed cameras are a successful safety device?

Making it tougher to obtain and regular mandatory re-testing (say every 5 years) via advanced driving courses to keep a licence would be much more effective in lowering the road toll and making the roads safer.

Edited July 8, 2010 by iamhe77

[mad082]

i don't like people throwing around the revenue from speed cameras issue as it is pointless. if you get caught by a fixed camera that you go past all the time then you are plain stupid and i hope you do it often enough to lose your licence for a while to get you off the roads.

the best way to stop the use of speed camera's etc is to not speed. it's as simple as that. obey the road rules and you'll never have to worry about it and the governement won't be making money from it.

as for speed cameras being a safety device, they are. if you know where one is then you won't speed there, and if you aren't speeding then someone makes a mistake resulting in you having to take evasive action, at the lower speed you will be able to stop sooner, steer around them without understeer easier, or if there is an impact, the force will be lower than if there was no camera and you were doing 5kmh over the limit.

[FrangaR33]

i don't like people throwing around the revenue from speed cameras issue as it is pointless. if you get caught by a fixed camera that you go past all the time then you are plain stupid and i hope you do it often enough to lose your licence for a while to get you off the roads.

the best way to stop the use of speed camera's etc is to not speed. it's as simple as that. obey the road rules and you'll never have to worry about it and the governement won't be making money from it.

as for speed cameras being a safety device, they are. if you know where one is then you won't speed there, and if you aren't speeding then someone makes a mistake resulting in you having to take evasive action, at the lower speed you will be able to stop sooner, steer around them without understeer easier, or if there is an impact, the force will be lower than if there was no camera and you were doing 5kmh over the limit.

My problem with speed camera's is the fact that they can get you for doing less than 1-10km/h over the speed limit yet the ADR (Australian Design Rules) only dictate that your speedo be within 10% of a correct reading. So a car can register as doing 70km/h in a 70 zone but actually be doing 63km/h on a road with a speed camera and of course the driver doesnt want to get a fine so they drive at what they read as 65km/h which is actually more like 59km/h with a legal but still dodgy speedo which slows down traffic and screws things up for everyone.

Personally i'm not against speed camera's in principle, but we dont live in an ideal world where drivers know how to drive to a speed limit or indeed how to drive properly at all so all speed camera's do is create trouble. I think that speeding fines are great in principle too, many friends and relatives of mine have lost their licenses because of speeding and quite rightly too, I flat out refuse to even get into their cars.

The problem is the implementation first of all the current set up is retarded doing 130km/h in 110 zone is punished the same way as someone doing 60 in a 40km/h school zone, they arent even in the same league as each other in terms of endangering life. Also like I mentioned with a legal but still inaccurate speedo in a car doing 130km/h may only read as 117km/h which is what many people sit on when they are doing long distances like on the drive from Melbourne to Sydney. It should be a system that is based on the % you are over the speed limit and you should be given your 10% leway which is what the ADR requires anyway and then if you get caught speeding stiff shit.

And as far as red light camera's go i've nearly been collected by enough f**kers running red lights, if you run a red light you deserve what ever you get. I want a red light camera at every single intersection in Australia maybe then these f**king idiots will stop doing it or at the very least lose their license. In reality running a red light is much more dangerous than speeding yet for some weird reason is punished about the same.

Edited July 8, 2010 by FrangaR33

[MSTRshenanigans]

But they do as they are designed, to slow people down. If nobody sped in the first place these cameras would be making $0 per year. Perhaps the best way for Australia to demote such technology is to not speed in the first place. Asking to remove said cameras simply implies you have an intent to speed.

When's the last time anyone heard of someone getting into a car accident as a result of passing through a speed camera?

When's the last time anyone heard of someone getting into a car accident as a result of excessive speed?

Its not HUGELY common, but I have processed a few motor claims. Person realise they are about to reach camera, drops anchor to a stupidly slow speed, person behind hits them. Person behind is at fault clearly but imagine if that person swerved instead and hit a car in the lane beside them.

[ARTZ]

I copped a red light fine a while back, i was following a car as the light turned orange, i was in a small truck which doesnt pull up real quick, and we had plenty of time anyway ..

This noodle head in front hits the skids in the middle of the intersection for some unknown reason (i think he may have thought it was a 60 zone when it was 80 and he thought hed get speed fine), then he goes again, little truck doesnt take off that fast and i get done for red light...

I told them what happened and Attempted to contest it but was denied...

On a brighter note...

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

&">

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350" />

[Kinks]

My problem with speed camera's is the fact that they can get you for doing less than 1-10km/h over the speed limit yet the ADR (Australian Design Rules) only dictate that your speedo be within 10% of a correct reading. So a car can register as doing 70km/h in a 70 zone but actually be doing 63km/h on a road with a speed camera and of course the driver doesnt want to get a fine so they drive at what they read as 65km/h which is actually more like 59km/h with a legal but still dodgy speedo which slows down traffic and screws things up for everyone.

ADRs state that your speedo has to read between 0 (perfect) and +10% of the actual speed. Therefore if you are doing 60km/h the possible speedo reading is between 60km/h and 67km/h (rounding up). At no time is it possible for your speedo to register under the speed limit but you be doing more than the speed limit, so if they ping you for 61km/h then your speedo definitely said you were doing at least this speed.

However I think that expecting people to keep that close an eye on their instruments is unreasonable and some fair leeway given to not ping people for under 10km/h over. Most cops won't do this anyway, speed cameras.. well.. they're clearly marked so you should be conservative with your speed just in case.

[FrangaR33]

ADRs state that your speedo has to read between 0 (perfect) and +10% of the actual speed. Therefore if you are doing 60km/h the possible speedo reading is between 60km/h and 67km/h (rounding up). At no time is it possible for your speedo to register under the speed limit but you be doing more than the speed limit, so if they ping you for 61km/h then your speedo definitely said you were doing at least this speed.

However I think that expecting people to keep that close an eye on their instruments is unreasonable and some fair leeway given to not ping people for under 10km/h over. Most cops won't do this anyway, speed cameras.. well.. they're clearly marked so you should be conservative with your speed just in case.

Aha, I was unaware that the 10% was only for registering speeds above your actual speed in reality, thanks for clarifying that . That still creates problems because you constantly have people driving too slowly because their speedo is out anyway. I've had my car for 2 years now and I rountinely drive from Melbourne to Sydney which has those radar speed checker things at the start of the Hume hwy in Melbourne and my car has never been more than 1km/h out at 100km/h even though my car hasnt been serviced by a proper mechanic in 5+ years. So its really not that difficult to make sure your doing the right speed. Also having larger/smaller rims and tyres on your car can effect the reading on the speedo also and has to be calibrated to be correct which also creates problems for people.

Edited July 8, 2010 by FrangaR33