Petition Against Speed Camera's

[mad082]

Maybe you should look at the bigger picture...

http://camerafraud.wordpress.com/why/

won't do a thing here as america's laws are totally different to ours. i have actually seen a bit about this on tv. there are american politicians that are against the speed cameras because they claim them to be an invasion of privacy. one of the senators supporting the move is a dead set looney. i saw an interview with him on tv. he pretty much said that it was an invasion of privacy to get fined for breaking the law if you were caught by a camera, but if a police officer pulls you over for speeding it isn't an invasion of privacy.

I drive past these mobile speed camera cars with my finger out of the window, doing under the speed limit of course.

you do realise that you can get fined for having your arm out the window?

You do realize that they use tax payers money to purchase these so called safety cameras / speed cameras. Then they go on to ping people.

Enough of the argument that if you don't speed you don't get fined. Seriously, no one can say that they have ever sped or were speeding.

There are plenty of known black spots etc. BUT a camera does not solve the problem, it only masks the problem...

yes they buy them with taxpayers money, and then taxpayers breaking the law pay fines which then pay off the cost of the camera.

and what is the problem that speed cameras cause? you can't break the law without getting a fine? is that the problem they cause?

and while i will admit i have sped in the past and will speed in the future, i know full well that if i do and i get caught then i have no-one to blame but myself and i did so willingly. none of this bullshit of trying to pass the blame on to someone else or taking it out on the cops because they shouldn't be out there stopping people who break the law. some people have no respect for the road rules and get extremely upset when they get caught breaking the law.

[Jpower]

won't do a thing here as america's laws are totally different to ours. i have actually seen a bit about this on tv. there are american politicians that are against the speed cameras because they claim them to be an invasion of privacy. one of the senators supporting the move is a dead set looney. i saw an interview with him on tv. he pretty much said that it was an invasion of privacy to get fined for breaking the law if you were caught by a camera, but if a police officer pulls you over for speeding it isn't an invasion of privacy.

you do realise that you can get fined for having your arm out the window?

yes they buy them with taxpayers money, and then taxpayers breaking the law pay fines which then pay off the cost of the camera.

and what is the problem that speed cameras cause? you can't break the law without getting a fine? is that the problem they cause?

and while i will admit i have sped in the past and will speed in the future, i know full well that if i do and i get caught then i have no-one to blame but myself and i did so willingly. none of this bullshit of trying to pass the blame on to someone else or taking it out on the cops because they shouldn't be out there stopping people who break the law. some people have no respect for the road rules and get extremely upset when they get caught breaking the law.

Yes do the crime do the time... No complaints there.

However, the case of setting up more cameras to ping more people is not addressing the REAL issue of road safety at all. I am tired of the all the scare tactics with "speed kills". It is only a factor. Many cases it is usually due to the driver not driving suitably to the road conditions or just not using basic common sense. The core of it is education and re-education.

Those advanced driving courses only have benefits in my eyes. They should be compulsory. You can NEVER have enough skill with any vehicle.

Edited July 21, 2010 by Jpower

[xALmoN]

you do realise that you can get fined for having your arm out the window?

I didn't know that, i'll show them the finger with the windows closed then. Can't get fined for showing the finger to a civvie mobile speed trap can i? Or is that road rage now?

[mad082]

oh i totally agree with the notion that driver error causes more crashes than speed alone (although in the case of younger drivers speed is often the main factor as they have lost control of the car due to excess speed), however the argument of getting rid of speed cameras is a stupid one.

to be honest, i think that there aren't enough speed cameras around to effectively stop speeding. they are so few and far between that people get used to being able to speed. if every single road had speed cameras at regular intervals then there would be very little speeding as people would know that if they do speed they will definately get caught. this would then also reduce the amount of road rage a bit too because you wouldn't get the idiots who like to do 10kmh over the limit and get frustrated at the people who sit on the speed limit and then do stupid things to try and over take them.

[xALmoN]

I feel that it actually is very easy to just creep over the speed limit, for eg, moving at 110 in a 100kmh zone, this is normal, one doesn't look at the speedo all the time.

The +3km allowance does nothing but make people paranoid and keep looking at the speedo, i find myself glancing at the speedo more often than i should because i do not want to get fined and have points deducted. Seriously, 64kmh in a 60kmh zone was their detected speed, and alleged speed was 61kmh, really, oh wow, thats so dangerous!

That happened 1year back, and i've copped it on the chin and promptly paid the fine, but that doesn't mean i don't think its ridiculous.

Edited July 21, 2010 by xALmoN

[mad082]

generally speaking the cars speedo will read about 3 or 4km under (have to be made that way by law), provided you have the correct tyre size, etc, so you can generally sit dead on the limit with no worries at all.

as for creeping up to 110 while doing 100, i think it's one of those things. some people can sit on the limit better than others. i generally don't have much issue with creeping over the limit because i just seem to get used to the sound of the car at that speed so you can tell without looking at the speedo whether you are over or not. one day i was driving along and realised that i had taken off from an intersection and accelerated up to 60kmh and was sitting on 60 without having looked at the speedo. you just get used to how the car sounds and how fast the scenery goes past at certain speeds. however when i go down the coast where they have a lot more 50 and 70kmh zones then i have to pay a bit more attention to the speedo.

[mrsparkle]

Those advanced driving courses only have benefits in my eyes. They should be compulsory. You can NEVER have enough skill with any vehicle.

This i agree with 100%

mad082 it seems to me that you are unable to see other peoples point when they start attacking the use of speed cameras. They are suggesting that speed cameras dont save lives so the government should be focusing on something that does. It seems obvious to me at least that its all about the money. If they really wanted to stop accidents on our roads they would be persuing an alternative means and not just adding in some more speed cameras because more isnt the answer.

When police have said speed was a factor it doesnt mean speed was the main factor or the reason the accident occured. Therefore its fair to assume that if the driver had been speeding or not that the accident would have occured anyway. In my eyes greater skill and better vehicles is the best way to improve road safety.

[mad082]

you also have to remember that all money from fines goes into all the safety campaigns. so if they were to introduce any government funded or subsidized advanced driver programs, the funding would be coming from the revenue raised from speed cameras.

[Fantm1]

This i agree with 100%

mad082 it seems to me that you are unable to see other peoples point when they start attacking the use of speed cameras. They are suggesting that speed cameras dont save lives so the government should be focusing on something that does. It seems obvious to me at least that its all about the money. If they really wanted to stop accidents on our roads they would be persuing an alternative means and not just adding in some more speed cameras because more isnt the answer.

When police have said speed was a factor it doesnt mean speed was the main factor or the reason the accident occured. Therefore its fair to assume that if the driver had been speeding or not that the accident would have occured anyway. In my eyes greater skill and better vehicles is the best way to improve road safety.

Just to expand on that last statement about speed being a factor. That doesn't necessarily mean the speed limit was being broken. So my point is, if speeding under the speed limit (ie too fast for the conditions and or driver skill level) is a factor, what difference do speed cameras make if the majority of accidents/fatalities are actually under the speed limit. From info I have read, only a very small percentage of road deaths are above the speed limit and that includes police chases and suicides and drag races. Who in a car chase is going to slow for a speed camera. What do they do to help prevent deaths on our country roads from drowsiness and crossing the centreline and having head-ons. How about putting the strips that vibrate your car, on all road edges and centrelines not just some (in South Australia). They sure let you know when you veer offline. I reckon there would be more deaths there than from people who who break the speed limit to overtake a slow-poke or truck on a long safe stretch of road. Try working out the distance it takes to pass a truck doing 100k's if you stick to, depending where you are, the state limit of 110k's. It's over a kilometre depending on truck length and whatever gaps you have before and after the manouvre. Now if somebody does the same thing from the opposite direction, you have both started the manouvre at a distance apart of greater than 2k's and it could be up to 3k's. Who can see that far ahead? I certainly can't. I have heard of some cops turning blind eyes to certain speeds when overtaking because they are smart enough to see the stupidity in going "slow" in. Yet others set there traps on the long straight sections where it is safe to pass. Especially if it's a truck or slowpoke who holds you up on hills and bends. Cops even set up on the passing lanes. where if you didn't go a bit quicker only one car gets to overtake. And they never get the driver that speeds up on the overtaking section just so you can't pass him. I wish I had a dollar for every time that's been done to me. I was following a driver for ages who was sitting 5-10k's under the speed limit and when I started overtaking he sped up to 120k's. Therefore I ended up doing about 140 so I, and the car behind me, could get past. We just made it before the end of the overtaking section. I could have slowed down and been ticked off and then the driver coming up behind me who had also been held up by this guy would have been ticked off. I know the powers say being held up by 5-10kph is nothing but get caught going over the limit by 5-10kph and its something, and costs $$$$.

Not that I have an opinion or anything. Thats my little rant for now.

There are some interesting facts/figures out there and it seems to be similar for several countries (Aus USA England). Some people twist the figures however to justify their cause, and you can't argue because they may be partly right.