Boxing Day Special - Average Speed Cameras coming our way! [Archive]

javawocky

26th December 2010, 07:58

Looks like Cops are finally getting their dream come true!

"Police roading national manager Superintendent Paula Rose confirmed police were investigating setting up point-to-point cameras, which record the time a car takes to travel between two points on the open road." (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10696525)

I can't wait to see how many lives they save! :facepalm:

Owl

26th December 2010, 08:06

WTF:shit:

So any wrongdoing can be compensated with an extra long lunch break/ciggie stop etc:facepalm:

NZsarge

26th December 2010, 08:25

I fail to see this working with any kind of reliability but nothing is really surprising me that much when it comes to Traffic Police these days... Muppets...

ynot slow

26th December 2010, 08:46

Hell yeah that'll stop the crossing lane drivers,the bad passing manouvres right eh?

cold comfort

26th December 2010, 08:51

I am SO pleased i sold my road bike. What bullshit. Still the dogged persistence with revenue collecting lip service to road safety.

mashman

26th December 2010, 08:52

Those things were tried out in Scotland about 10 years ago... failed then too...

mrchips

26th December 2010, 08:55

Another good idea would be to remove indicators & mirrors from cars cos it seems no one uses em anymore !.

fliplid

26th December 2010, 09:01

Those things were tried out in Scotland about 10 years ago... failed then too...
...and on the Nottingham ring road, on the M6 when they had all the road works (when didn't they?!), and other motorways. :facepalm:

SMOKEU

26th December 2010, 09:08

"She said speed was the biggest killer on the roads."

No shit, if you're not moving you're unlikely to cause a crash.

bsasuper

26th December 2010, 09:48

Typical NZ popo, lets not do any research on what works/dos'nt, just spend huge amounts of tax payers $$$ on gadgets that have no effect, and when they realise it was a waste of time, no problem just ticket every moving violation doing +4k over and recoup the costs.:facepalm:

Buyasta

26th December 2010, 09:52

Hmmn, I'm not sure if they'll be doing the same setup here as in the UK, but it was mentioned on Top Gear many years back that these photograph the front of the vehicle, not the back, so they don't matter much if you're on a bike.

scumdog

26th December 2010, 10:15

Who cares???

I don't rate it as a 'road hazard' likely to cause me to bin/take me out.

Shadows

26th December 2010, 10:43

All hail to the back roads

MSTRS

26th December 2010, 10:57

red mermaid

26th December 2010, 11:40

Yeah, but according to KB Honda riders, Kawasaki riders, cage drivers, people from Dannevegas, a large percentage of bike riders, cyclists, and probably just about everyone else you care to mention are muppets so I guess they very accurately represent all NZers.

I fail to see this working with any kind of reliability but nothing is really surprising me that much when it comes to Traffic Police these days... Muppets...

miSTa

26th December 2010, 11:55

She said speed was the biggest killer on the roads.

"The faster you go the bigger the mess. Speed or going too fast for the conditions is a factor in 30 per cent of all fatal crashes.

:blink: What? So 70% of fatal crashes isn't speed? But speed is the biggest killer? Maybe it's the alcohol riddled mind playing tricks.

Swoop

26th December 2010, 12:15

:blink: What? So 70% of fatal crashes isn't speed? But speed is the biggest killer?
It is the sober kiwi drivers and their "driving skills" that should concern Ms Rose.
Unfortunately she believes her own propaganda that "speed kills". There is nothing surer than the fact that this is another revenue grab.

NZsarge

26th December 2010, 12:32

Yeah, but according to KB Honda riders, Kawasaki riders, cage drivers, people from Dannevegas, a large percentage of bike riders, cyclists, and probably just about everyone else you care to mention are muppets so I guess they very accurately represent all NZers.

Yeah.... I don't see what that's got to do with the subject matter at hand, distance based radar and how it won't work.

Berries

26th December 2010, 12:43

...and on the Nottingham ring road

They are still in use in Nottingham, and not just on the ring road.

scumdog

26th December 2010, 13:03

There is nothing surer than the fact that this is another revenue grab.

Hmm...well SOMEBODY must be paying this 'revenue' 'cos I ain't.

(Not since 1987 that is)

fliplid

26th December 2010, 14:09

(Not since 1987 that is)
Last ticket? :facepalm:

AllanB

26th December 2010, 15:47

Pretty sure that is how they worked out your speed with helicopters years back - two lines painted on the road and a cop with a stopwatch in the wirly-bird.

The same way they work out your speed at Bonneville - two lines and time covered between them gives the average speed.

John_H

26th December 2010, 16:00

Maybe it is a revenue grab, maybe resources could be spent elsewhere but at the end of the day all it is is enforcement of the law. I'm no angel, I don't ride at the speed limit but I can't hold it against the government for enforcing what I know and everyone else knows to be the speed limit. Maybe I'm being naive, it's just my opinion (probably unpopular), I don't like getting tickets any more than the next person but I accept that if I choose to break the law I may get caught by people trying to enforce it to the best ability.

TOTO

26th December 2010, 17:07

well at least all of our maths is going to get really good from doing all the average speed calculations

Squiggles

26th December 2010, 18:17

Harder to get pinged for a momentary slip up with them...

javawocky

27th December 2010, 09:03

Reckon there should just be at least one pub to stop at in the zone.
"The Faster You Go, The More you must Drink!" :drinkup:

breakaway

27th December 2010, 09:27

:blink: What? So 70% of fatal crashes isn't speed? But speed is the biggest killer? Maybe it's the alcohol riddled mind playing tricks.

Personally, I think middle aged balding men with small penis syndrome and/or mid life crisis in their SUVs or late model holdens are the biggest killer on the road. Nearly had a head on with one when he decided to overtake a car just before entering a 50 zone :facepalm:, and I was driving my car. Hate to think how this bloke treats bikes. Also, he had his wife riding shotgun and two children in the back.

And these type of people never get pulled over, because they don't stick out like dog balls like a boy racer would.

scumdog

27th December 2010, 10:45

Personally, I think middle aged balding men with small penis syndrome and/or mid life crisis in their SUVs or late model holdens are the biggest killer on the road. Nearly had a head on with one when he decided to overtake a car just before entering a 50 zone :facepalm:, and I was driving my car. Hate to think how this bloke treats bikes. Also, he had his wife riding shotgun and two children in the back.

And these type of people never get pulled over, because they don't stick out like dog balls like a boy racer would.

Driving as you have described would get anybody pulled over.

If at the time they get seen by a cop..:yes:

2wheeled Gasman

27th December 2010, 10:47

swbarnett

27th December 2010, 11:19

... I accept that if I choose to break the law I may get caught by people trying to enforce it to the best ability.
Agree 100%.

We have a catch 22 situation with our speed limit laws (among other laws). The problem is that speed limits exists "to improve public safety". Even if you accept that TPTB actually believe this and it's not a revenue grab, the law is based on "lies, damn lies and statistics" backed up by emotion. It is demonstrably evident that our speed limit laws do nothing to improve public safety. This leaves us in a situation whereby exceeding the speed limit where conditions allow in order to increase the "fun" factor of driving can leave you out of pocket and possibly without a license.

We then have two choices - 1. exercise our inalienable human right to enjoy life as we see fit while doing no harm to anyone* and accept the concequences when we get caught or 2. Stay within the law while we fight to have the laws changed.

Option 2 is a hard road indeed. It is almost impossible to affect change when you are fighting moralisers who run on nothing but emotion and won't even listen to a reasoned argument. It is, in effect, the same as trying to convince a deeply religous person that God does not exist. Even if you have irrefutable proof they will not accept the facts as presented.

This is why most, if not all, of those that disagree with the need for speed limits (or at least where they have been set) choose option 1. The chances of getting caught on any given ride are almost negligable and you don't suffer from the soul destroying stress of political activism.

* I'm talking about driving above the speed limit but still within the limits of the conditions, not hooning at 300k round a blind corner on the wrong side of the road past a primary school ejecting copious numbers of unpredictable infants.

Toaster

27th December 2010, 11:35

We then have two choices - 1. exercise our inalienable human right to enjoy life as we see fit while doing no harm to anyone* and accept the concequences when we get caught or 2. Stay within the law while we fight to have the laws changed.

See thats the thing, you dont have the right to do as you see fit.

Laws govern what ALL of us can and cannot do for the sake of the wider public good.

The fact that many ignore these laws, from burglary to dangerous driving, puts the rest of us in harms way.

Sadly often is the case that when some do as they choose because they think they have a right to, at some point it will hurt the innocent, including their own families.

SPman

27th December 2010, 12:37

See thats the thing, you dont have the right to do as you see fit. unless you are a politician

Laws govern what ALL of us can and cannot do for the assumed sake of the wider public good.

The fact that many ignore these laws, from burglary to dangerous driving, purportedly puts the rest of us in harms way.

Sadly often is the case that when some do as they choose because they think they have a right to, at some point it will hurt the innocent, including their own families.
The fact that a law exists, doesn't necessarily mean that it is for the wider good of the community, that it is fair, just or is of any use other than to enforce or protect a point of view or position of power.

scumdog

27th December 2010, 14:40

The fact that many ignore these laws, from burglary to dangerous driving, puts the rest of us in harms way.

Sadly often is the case that when some do as they choose because they think they have a right to, at some point it will hurt the innocent, including their own families.

Yup, for some it seems the laws of any sort are, most of the time, inconveniences that at times might cost them money.

Until it suits them to be outraged by being negatively affected by the actions of 'somebody else' doing exactly the same thing... :blink:

Bonez

27th December 2010, 15:14

"She said speed was the biggest killer on the roads."

No shit, if you're not moving you're unlikely to cause a crash.Try standing in the middle of a lane of traffic.

SMOKEU

27th December 2010, 16:18

Try standing in the middle of a lane of traffic.

If the vehicles aren't moving then a crash is unlikely.

skinman

27th December 2010, 16:36

Oh must be an Auckland motorway then.

swbarnett

27th December 2010, 18:42

See thats the thing, you dont have the right to do as you see fit.
Yes I do. I'm talking about the right to exist, to be who I am without hinderance as long as what I respect others right to do likewise.

I have spent the better part of the past 40 years thinking I was responsible for the lives everyone else on this planet simply because I was born. Believe me, this simply doesn't work. A great weight has been lifted from my shoulders since I stopped apologising for existing.

Laws govern what ALL of us can and cannot do for the sake of the wider public good.
If only that were true. In a perfect world I'd agree. However, we live in a flawed world where the laws are often flawed also. As long as someone acts in accordance with what I've said above I see no need for any law beyond their use as a guidline where it is not immediatly obvious how to act with respect for others in a given situation.

The fact that many ignore these laws, from burglary to dangerous driving, puts the rest of us in harms way.
If the law is an accurate guideline to the only respectful cause of action then yes. If the law points to only one possible respectful cause then maybe. If the law is just actually wrong then no.

Sadly often is the case that when some do as they choose because they think they have a right to, at some point it will hurt the innocent, including their own families.
If I do something simply because I think I have the right to irrespective of how it affects others then this is a very real possibility. However, if I am respectful of the rights of others then no harm done.

swbarnett

27th December 2010, 18:43

Try standing in the middle of a lane of traffic.
If the traffic is not moving, no problem. Without speed of at least one party you can't collide.

Swoop

28th December 2010, 14:56

Interesting.
If there is a danger area on a road, the "authorities" had the mandate of placing a speed camera there to alert the driver to the hazard (remember the mantra that "speed cameras will only be located at accident black spots" when they were introduced?).
The average-speed camera system has absolutely nothing to do with road safety. The "proposed" desert road location might have some individual dangerous corners, but to target an entire stretch of road is simple confirmation of another agenda... tax gathering.

Overseas usage of these systems confirms the same thing. Luckily we are many years behind and could benefit from their wisdom, but alas we will be forced to waste more taxpayers' money for the insane whims of retards with blue suits.

Laxi

28th December 2010, 15:49

Yes I do. I'm talking about the right to exist, to be who I am without hinderance as long as what I respect others right to do likewise.

yeah but laws are needed because not everybody has respect for others, ted bundy, the mansons, E.T.C, in their minds they wern't doing anything wrong, and the law just got in their way

Bald Eagle

28th December 2010, 16:05

This is definitely about safety not

Out of 55 fixed speed cameras in New Zealand, seven are on State Highways and 10 are on roads which had fatal crashes this year.

55 - 7 - 10 = 38 cameras in locations which are not state highways and which did not have fatal crashes so those 38 are either doing a real good job of stopping fatal crashes or an even better job of collecting revenue.

The top earning fixed camera was on State Highway 1 at Sanson, where more than 9800 tickets were issued in the first nine months of the year.
The next top three locations for tickets issued were mobile sites in Auckland - in Otahuhu, Birkenhead and Henderson - each responsible for about 5000 tickets. Otahuhu had one fatal crash.

MarkH

28th December 2010, 21:25

Harder to get pinged for a momentary slip up with them...

This is what I was thinking - a quick spurt of speed to overtake and then back to normal speed, on average you are doing fine. This would work out even better if you are held up by a slow bugger doing 80 through the corners, once it's safe to pass you can go pretty quick during overtaking and still average 100kph or less.

James Deuce

28th December 2010, 21:32

Speed Cameras are being pulled out en masse in the UK, including the average time ones, as they cost money to administer (despite figures to the contrary in NZ) and have NO effect on incident and fatality stats.

Having said that, NZers are such shit drivers that cameras probably do make money overall. They won't do anything to incident or fatality figures but they do make money so more will go in.

Little hint for you.

State Highways, 1, 2 and 5 are pretty heavily policed, both "real" police and via camera. Don't be a tit when you're on those roads and you'll be sweet.

Ocean1

28th December 2010, 21:46

average 100kph or less.

I believe systems in the UK can and do ping you for elapsed times greater than the theoretical "best time" from point to point. This, based on the theory that it's "unlikely" that you could manage that time and not speed at some point. I don't know what they consider unlikely but any law change that allows fudges like that is the thin end of a very dangerous wedge.

Speed Cameras are being pulled out en masse in the UK, including the average time ones, as they cost money to administer (despite figures to the contrary in NZ) and have NO effect on incident and fatality stats.

If by "administer" you mean replace every time they're destroyed then yes, they've become very administratively expensive. We must be bloody good buggers here eh?

FruitLooPs

28th December 2010, 22:15

The top earning fixed camera was on State Highway 1 at Sanson, where more than 9800 tickets were issued in the first nine months of the year

Bloody Sanson, my brother came back from overseas with his wife - took them up from CHCH to Taupo to see my Grandad in the cage. I drove the whole way, until Sanson stopped and let him take over .. get back from the trip to find a ticket waiting :facepalm: Worked it out with google maps he had been driving for all of a 2minutes before the ticket (on the way out of Sanson towards Taupo), so he paid :woohoo: What a prat though, I seem to recall a large straight between the end of the populated town and the 100KM sign (think it was 70 in a 50, he certainly wasn't doing that in the town proper).

He hasn't been done for speeding before or since, nor I.

AJ'

28th December 2010, 22:35

damn i was trying to find the "like" button:facepalm:

to much facebooking lately

Berries

28th December 2010, 23:33

Out of 55 fixed speed cameras in New Zealand, seven are on State Highways and 10 are on roads which had fatal crashes this year.
That can't be right. Four fixed cameras in Dunedin, three of them are on state highways.

The good thing about fixed cameras is you can generally ride between the detector loops so they aren't a problem (and they don't all have cameras in them anyway). And point to point cameras, as someone else said, are generally aimed at the front of the vehicle. So until we get frontal registration, which they have been discussing for years now, you are pretty safe unless you take the piss and shoot through with an average speed of 180km/h every other day.

vifferman

29th December 2010, 08:39

The top earning fixed camera was on State Highway 1 at Sanson, where more than 9800 tickets were issued in the first nine months of the year.
The next top three locations for tickets issued were mobile sites in Auckland - in Otahuhu, Birkenhead and Henderson - each responsible for about 5000 tickets. Otahuhu had one fatal crash.
I live near both the Birkenhead sites; both are at the bottom of a dip, with a rise either side, so are obviously aimed at catching people who allow their speed to creep over the limit. Admittedly, one is outside Northcote College, however during the hours when pupils are most likely to e at risk from traffic, the traffic is heavy enough that it is crawling.
Strange that the speed camera on East Coast Bays road wasn't mentioned in your quote - that was the country's biggest earner for a long time. Also one of the busier roads in NZ. Somewhere I read the accident stats for that - not exactly high.

A few weeks ago, I was awarded a prize for stupidity outside the police HQ. :facepalm:
The officer said he would've let me off if I was only 7 or 8 km/h over the limit, but "... speed is a major factor in most motorcycle crashes..."
That got me thinking, as I've had a few (crashes, not beers, although I've had a few of those too). In only one (where a cyclist turned in front of me without looking) was it possible that if I'd been going a bit slower that I may have avoided it. However, I was not speeding (nor was I in any of the other incidents), so that may be irrelevent. In fact, in three instances, I was at a standstill or close to it when I crashed.
Of course, my small statistical sample proves nothing, although I did learn heaps from each and every incident, so that's a Good Thing.

MSTRS

29th December 2010, 09:35

Has anyone figured out that 'average speed cameras' should actually cause speeds to climb? It is well known that, over a longish distance, the average speed of any given vehicle is likely to be some 20 - 25% less than the posted speed limit. If people are like me :innocent: they will work out that they can travel at 10-15% (or more) over the limit for some distance, and still be quids-in when it comes to the average speed. If such a camera system was installed to cover the entire length of the Desert Rd, this would definitely be the case. Hell - I could travel at XXXkph for 20kms, then stop for a picnic, before continuing on my journey to the other camera. At which point I'd be giving it the finger...
Would TPTB be stupid enough to place such cameras more than a couple of kms apart?

Swoop

29th December 2010, 11:08

Would TPTB be stupid enough to ...
We are talking about public servants' here.:blip:

Devil

29th December 2010, 11:47

The officer said he would've let me off if I was only 7 or 8 km/h over the limit, but "... speed is a major factor in most motorcycle crashes..."

Well factor and cause are two different things...
I bet sheep are a factor in most motorcycle accidents, because they're almost always within 50km of a sheep.

kinger

29th December 2010, 11:47

Driving as you have described would get anybody pulled over....If at the time they get seen by a cop..:yes:

If only that happened more SD.
The downside I saw in UK before we moved over, is that the reliance on cameras pretty much always resulted in Patrol officers being taken off traffic duty.
Not a great thought when the unlicenced/unqualified/false plated/drunk drivers realise this is happening.
I'd rather have a person with discretion to bollock me rather than a computer throwing me off the road.

Average speed cameras were a reasonable idea on the coned roadwork sections of UK major routes with workers between lines of traffic, but the Desert Road.....:facepalm:

avgas

29th December 2010, 12:23

$20 says I can get the highest score on it.

swbarnett

29th December 2010, 15:28

yeah but laws are needed because not everybody has respect for others, ted bundy, the mansons, E.T.C,
Unfortunately you are right. We do not live in a perfect world where we all treat each other with respect.

This does not, however, mean that all laws are fair and reasonable.

in their minds they wern't doing anything wrong, and the law just got in their way
The trick is that these people did not treat others with respect and consideration. I wonder how they would've reacted if someone tried to inact the same crime on them?

The trick is to act in such a way that if the situation were reversed you would have no problem with someone behaving in exactly the same manner.

scumdog

29th December 2010, 15:52

The trick is that these people did not treat others with respect and consideration. I wonder how they would've reacted if someone tried to inact the same crime on them?

The trick is to act in such a way that if the situation were reversed you would have no problem with someone behaving in exactly the same manner.

See my post #33 that says just about the same...!