Speed cameras on passing lanes

[kevie]

seen a couple comments on this topic on other threads ... but ..... have a thread running on facebook regarding it. and seems to me the practice is only prevalent in the Waikato.

i was told they arent allowed on passing lanes, but the police seniors I have spoken to just reply "They are there in the interests of road safety and reducing speed"

my reply was very similar ... no wait ... was the same as our reply to Nick smith at the BIKEOI >>>> "BULLSHIT!!"

I have sent the following mail to the police to guage their opinion on 1/ the practice of speed cameras on passing lanes and 2/ the practice of them 'hiding' .

Letter to the NZ Police 02-January-2014
A question no-one will reply to without beating around the bush:
What is the policy on speed cameras on passing lanes??
I was told by a Highway officer that they are not permitted within 250 metres of a passing lane, but your police in Hamilton only reply with "speed cameras are located in the interests of road safety"
Your website only says "A speed camera must not be deployed within 250 (two hundred and fifty) metres of the finish of any passing lane." no mention of the policy regarding actually being ON the passing lane, although many of them would be placed closer than 250 metres from either the start or finish of the lane.
I don't have issues with speed cameras, BUT I do have real issues with speed cameras ON passing lanes, I drive a truck and trailer unit and we take a LOT or road to get past us and the quicker the cars do it the safer for them as they are alongside us for a lesser time,but often see oncoming cars warning of the cameras/cop up ahead, (don't voice comment on this in your reply, we all know its illegal, but we all know its a regular practice) so .... on the passing lane the cars don't pass (as a result of the speed camera on the lane) this causes driver frustration and then after the lane they are attempting to pass me at places that are a greater risk resulting in me seeing some very near misses.
I believe the practice of passing lane camera cars should be banned and ceased.
They DO NOT contribute to safety in those locations and are only perceived as gathering revenue and therefore results in degrading peoples opinion of the police who already have serious problems with public opinion and respect!!!
So far it only appears to be a practice in the Waikato area, I have voiced comments on this topic on social media and no-one seems to say that it happens in other regions.

Two other points to note needing your comment is:
1/the practice of them parking on vehicle entrances, one farmer commented to me that several times he has been on his tractor pulling a trailer and had to stop, blocking the lane to get the camera van to move so he can get into his property ... again ... a serious safety breach by the camera.... they should NOT be parked in vehicle entrances.... we aren't !!
2/ Visibility of the camera, they hide behind tree lines, signs etc and the motorist is 'upon them' before they see the camera car, not a safety breach but it is a moral one and I think a police policy breach as well and doesn't add to the opinion of policing.
I appreciate (from what i can gather) the police don't gain revenue from these cameras, but they do cop the flack and diminished opinion of the police from them, after all, you are the ones administrating these cameras so at the end of the day, responsible for their behaviour.

Please reply with the Police policy/regulation on this practice ... (are they permitted to be there or not)
and what is the policy on them being behind trees signs etc and NOT visible until the traffic is right on the camera.
Also what is being done about stopping these practices in the future.

NOTE : I have a couple forum discussions running on this topic on the net and this email and resulting reply WILL be reposted on these forums, a point to note ... the respondents opinions of the practice(s) and the resulting opinion of the NZ Police is unfortunately not a good one..... the onus is on YOU to be seen to be doing the best for the community and doing the right thing as many times the perception is "A rule for the police and a rule for everyone else", the public don't object to speedsters and dangerous drivers being penalized, BUT they do have issues with what is seen as entrapment and practices that are seen as nothing more than revenue gathering.

Thank you, awaiting your reply

[skinman]

good luck
I went to hamiton a couple of days ago & the cameras I saw were in areas where the motorway was 4 laned & straight, probaby the safest piece of road you will drive on. No cameras in the 50 or 70 zones where the morons who do 80 on the open road continue to do 80 through the towns. making the roads safer...yea right

[BigAl]

Be interesting to see what response you get if any, as we all know the cameras are solely for revenue which is the reason for the 4k tolerance drop.

[R650R]

Congratulations, you just got yourself put on the no fly list... The reply will be "We note your concerns... camera policy is available at... from time to time due to operational needs cameras may operate outside these guidelines..."

I have no problem with them being on passing lanes, principley because it will nab those slow tossers who speed up to 120 when they get there.
I've seen them park on the HB passing lanes at Titiokoura and close to the Dillons hill, Elands and Te Haroto ones also. There always in the same spots so no big deal.
As for hiding that's nothing new when it comes to cops and traffic enforcement, really I don't see the point in complaining.
Enjoy the going while its good, cause its really going to suck big time when GPS and ANPR systems become widespread which cant be too far away...

[slofox]

I hate being on the wrong side of the road. It feels wrong and I prefer to be there for as short a time as possible.

So when I pass, I get by with as little fucking around as possible. Which means that at times, I exceed the posted limit. For what is usually a couple of seconds.

Whilst this might involve me in financial inconvenience, I figure that if that is the cost of keeping my arse intact, then so be it.

Better a fee than a ruptured knee...or worse.

This is the case no matter what kind of vehicle I am on/in.

So sue me already.

[pritch]

I hate being on the wrong side of the road. It feels wrong and I prefer to be there for as short a time as possible.



I have books here that state this is the safest way and I agree. After all it is called the wrong side of the road for a reason. The books also mention, however, that the local constabulary are unlikely to be interested in this explanation.

[R650R]

I have books here that state this is the safest way and I agree. After all it is called the wrong side of the road for a reason. The books also mention, however, that the local constabulary are unlikely to be interested in this explanation.

I agree with the both of you and might even practise that myself on private roads, but listening to talkback (that great bastion of reasoned discussion and enlightenment) the other day with the speed tolerance thing...
Apparently a lot of our nasty headons happen because of this. Most high power cars and bikes its easy to squirt past at 140 to pick a random number on a shorter than desirable bit of straight road, but the trouble is when someone else like you is coming the otherway over the rise at 140 also, you have a closing speed of 280 and that clear road disappears fast...
I think the real dangerous thing about passing in NZ is our silly yellow lines, often the rob you of momentum in a place you could have safely passed, then in spots where it isn't safe to pass people do, thinking its 'safe' as there's no yellow line telling them not to...

[James Deuce]

I heard on the news yesterday that the next big improvement for road safety wil be with sensor technology in cars. I think there will be a mass revolution if we are forced to spend thousands of dollars on safety technology which is only going to cost thousands more if it craps out.
No there won't. Right thinking people will accept it and anyone who objects will be lumped in with an anti-social or criminal element of society (beneficiaries for example).

[Berries]

I heard on the news yesterday that the next big improvement for road safety wil be with sensor technology in cars. I think there will be a mass revolution if we are forced to spend thousands of dollars on safety technology which is only going to cost thousands more if it craps out.
Get a bike.

[Akzle]

I heard on the news yesterday that the next big improvement for road safety wil be with sensor technology in cars. I think there will be a mass revolution if we are forced to spend thousands of dollars on safety technology which is only going to cost thousands more if it craps out.

you kidding? Kiwis are too passive and stupid to revolt. Look at how much shit they eat right now, from the thrones in the eebhive.
No, the worst theyll do is write a letter asking their betters if its *really* ok that they plebs are treated like shit.
And theyll moan about it on internet forums.

That oughta keep the morons occupied while jews keep going to the bank.
But hey, thanks for your concern, citizen, your feelings are important to us...

[R650R]

I heard on the news yesterday that the next big improvement for road safety wil be with sensor technology in cars. I think there will be a mass revolution if we are forced to spend thousands of dollars on safety technology which is only going to cost thousands more if it craps out.

It wont cost thousands more as the manufacturers will all be required by govt mandate to install it as OEM equipment. A generic mass produced GPS and always on Cell device implanted in the ECU will be an insignificant cost. It's already here anyway.
It started with certain trucking companies having an 0800 number linked to their insurer to get a discount, now some of them are using fulltime electronic surveillance of driver behaviour to get further 'discounts'. How ever soon everyone wants the 'discount' and before you know it the govt has made it mandatory. With the tap n go NFC in credit cards and cellphones taking off I forsee your drivers licence becoming an app loaded onto your cellphone which you will be required by law to carry at all times. On the plus side traffic cops will be made redundant and their jobs will be off shored to India where some data analyst on minimum sweatshop wage will issue you a ticket. The most annoying thing of all is you wont be able to hang up on those telemarketers straight away as that foreign voice just might be 'law enforcement' telling you that you only have 15 demerit points left!
No one will revolt or protest as the changes all happen one at a time and on que the media will label anyone that complains a nutbar, rentamob or conspiracy theorist. Try unplugging from the grid and you'll be labelled a terrorist and subject to even greater scrutiny... Reckon we're less than ten years away from this, kinda makes the 4km tolerance look like a sweet deal!

[Scuba_Steve]

seen a couple comments on this topic on other threads ... but ..... have a thread running on facebook regarding it. and seems to me the practice is only prevalent in the Waikato.


Na they do it here too, got 1 cunt that likes to sit on the one passing lane it is impossible to "legally" pass a vehicle doing 80km/h or a truck on


Is entrapment lawful by the authorities in NZ because if it is we are stuffed.

Not lawful but when has the law ever bothered NZ's biggest criminal gang? They're constantly breaking criminal law so I can't see entrapment bothering them much



I have no problem with them being on passing lanes, principley because it will nab those slow tossers who speed up to 120 when they get there.
...
Enjoy the going while its good, cause its really going to suck big time when GPS and ANPR systems become widespread which cant be too far away...

You should have a problem with it, it doesn't "nab those slow tossers who speed upto 120" it nabs you when you try & pass them, the "tossers" are safe from extortion.
We would enjoy the good if there was good to enjoy, the good's gone, we're at the bad & the ugly's soon to come

[haydes55]

Am I legally allowed to park my van directly behind a speed camera?

[Bald Eagle]

Am I legally allowed to park my van directly behind a speed camera?

As long as there aren't no parking lines or no stopping signs, go for it.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

[Tazz]

Have seen one of the Blenheim or Picton cops doing this a couple of times over the last 2 years on the overtaking bay just outside of Spring Creek.
Camera is just the next annoying step unfortunately (although I wouldn't mind if they set it up to get those bastards that speed up to 120+ in the left hand lane so you can't pass then slow back down to 85-90km/h after :mad:)

[pritch]

Apparently a lot of our nasty headons happen because of this. .

On the basis of precisely nothing I think the opposite is the case. People passing at the minimum possible speed. The "experts" won't like that explanation though because it proves they are wrong.

[haydes55]

Heading south in my work van toward Taumarunui I got stuck in a queue of cars following a placemakers ute loaded with insulation (it was blocking his rearward view but wouldn't weight enough to justify his crawling pace). Said ute was travelling at max 80km/h and slowed for every corner, I was about 5 cars back for easily 15 minutes without a single overtaking opportunity. The first straight I came across, no one else started to overtake so I had my run up already and was going 120km/h on the wrong side of the road, just as I got past the ute there was a speed camera van on the other side of the road behind a bush. I drove past a speed camera van at 120km/h in the wrong lane and never got a ticket. You think they allow for excess overtaking speed or was it not calibrated for me going the opposite direction to where it was aiming?

[scumdog]

On the basis of precisely nothing I think the opposite is the case. People passing at the minimum possible speed. The "experts" won't like that explanation though because it proves they are wrong.

The ones that get the :facepalm: from me are the ones 'passing at the minimum possible speed' for most of the passing lane - then realise they won't get past that last car unless they put their foot down as the passing lane is ending very shortly - so they plant boot, hoik their speed up to 120kph+ and STILL end up on the wrong side of the yellow line (or at best straddling it) as they get past that last car.


And still hadn't realised that a massive series of convoys are choking up the road ahead anyway...:rolleyes:

[bogan]

The ones that get the :facepalm: from me are the ones 'passing at the minimum possible speed' for most of the passing lane - then realise they won't get past that last car unless they put their foot down as the passing lane is ending very shortly - so they plant boot, hoik their speed up to 120kph+ and STILL end up on the wrong side of the yellow line (or at best straddling it) as they get past that last car.


And still hadn't realised that a massive series of convoys are choking up the road ahead anyway...:rolleyes:

So what you're saying is a lower speed tolerance actually increases the speed and danger... interesting :sherlock:

[scumdog]

So what you're saying is a lower speed tolerance actually increases the speed and danger... interesting :sherlock:

No, I'm saying fuck-witted drivers increase their speed and danger - always have done, always will.:(

[haydes55]

The ones that get the :facepalm: from me are the ones 'passing at the minimum possible speed' for most of the passing lane - then realise they won't get past that last car unless they put their foot down as the passing lane is ending very shortly - so they plant boot, hoik their speed up to 120kph+ and STILL end up on the wrong side of the yellow line (or at best straddling it) as they get past that last car.





And still hadn't realised that a massive series of convoys are choking up the road ahead anyway...:rolleyes:










That exact scenario happens all the time, I try stick to exactly 100km/h on the open road, some cars cruise at 90km/h for ages and hold me up. So I overtake at 100km/h. Usually takes the entire passing lane to overtake one car. When I do this sometimes a car behind me will sneak past the slow car as well.

The only way to prevent drivers cutting over the line at stupid speeds us either better driver training ( :killingme: as if that will ever happen, that's too much common sense for the NZ police/government) or to allow overtaking vehicles to speed up to enact an overtake as quickly as safety allows. Going 120km/h won't make my van implode and kill a woman with a baby. But it might save a carload of IHC kids who stole their care givers MPV from crossing the yellow line into oncoming traffic, and prevent you :facepalm: ing.

[kevie]

LMAO got a reply from the police today ...... it said ".......... we are all on holiday until the 6th"

hahahahhaahaha shesh

[Berries]

Am I legally allowed to park my van directly behind a speed camera?
If the van is legally parked and you would be as well what's the problem? They are covert cameras so how is a driver to know what is in the back of the vehicle in front?

Bring it down to Dunedin and park on the motorway like the camera van does and I am sure you will get told to move it. Something to do with parking being banned on a motorway due to the hazard it causes and risk of a high speed collision with a stationary object. Not sure how a mufti car or camera van magically circumvents being a hazard at the side of the road but hey, it's not me sitting inside it waiting to get shunted in to a bridge pier. Talk about unsafe work practices.

[R650R]

Am I legally allowed to park my van directly behind a speed camera?

Actually today for those that know SH5 well, there was a camera van in usual spot approaching Elands northbound, west side of road. And just behind him is a four wheel truck broken down the grill up. Probably pinged a fair few motorists with that one...

[TimeOut]

The ones that get the :facepalm: from me are the ones 'passing at the minimum possible speed' for most of the passing lane - then realise they won't get past that last car unless they put their foot down as the passing lane is ending very shortly - so they plant boot, hoik their speed up to 120kph+ and STILL end up on the wrong side of the yellow line (or at best straddling it) as they get past that last car.


And still hadn't realised that a massive series of convoys are choking up the road ahead anyway...:rolleyes:

Or the ones that'll get 3/4 of the way down the passing lane before deciding to pass and doing the same thing

[kevie]

Received a reply from the police, sort of what I expected ......
*************************************************
Thank you for your question regarding speed cameras and passing lane

We do not have a policy position on cameras and passing lanes. We do not place cameras within 250 metres of the end of passing lanes however.

Speed camera placement is based on crash risk, particularly crashes where speed has been a causative or contributing factor. If there is a speed related crash problem on a roadway that happens to be marked into passing lanes that location is valid as a camera site under our current policy.

I hope this gives you the definitive answer you seek.

Regards

Mark Stables
Inspector
Road Policing Support
************************************************** ******

As an ex Customer Logistics worker I'm not overly tolerant of half-pie excuses and justifications and not dealing with the issues at hand so my email back was as follows>>>>

************************************************** *******
Thanks for the 'lack of information' reply ....... It doesn't deal with the views I have on the cameras on passing lanes .... that they create a crash potential , not on the passing lane where people can pass safer but transfers the potential hazard a bit further down the road to less safe areas..... I don't believe they should be WITHIN 250 metres of ANY PART of a passing lane including on the other side of the road of the lanes.

As mentioned I am NOT anti speed cameras, I just don't feel, (as a truck driver where the highway is my workplace), that the camera positioned on a passing lane, is contributing to a workplace health and safety situation, after all ..... isn't it our job under OSH to ensure our workplace is safe for others and ourselves and alert/report those things we see that are a hazard situation/potential??

If you really do use the 'speed causative/attributable to a crash' theory why aren't the cameras on winding bits of road and rural areas where the speeds of vehicles v's road conditions cause them to lose control and crash?? or on road works where the road crews are at risk from the speeds of the traffic ignoring the temporary speed restrictions?
Instead they always appear to be on safer strait stretches of road where crashes are less and the risks also less. At bottoms of hills where it is often normal for traffic speeds to momentarily increase. These are questions many in NZ have and contribute to the theory that they are nothing more than revenue gatherers and nothing to do with dealing with the issues of speed and road safety, You have to admit that theory is rife in NZ and does nothing for your image or respect for the police.

I honestly think you guys should be seen to be doing the right thing, and one of them is to get the cameras OFF the passing lanes so traffic flows can 'sort themselves out' in a safe(er) environment. But at same time ..... I don't expect you to budge on what appears to be a very lucrative money making practice.

Thank you for taking the time to reply to my concerns as a road user and as a worker that sees a potential hazard in my workplace.

************************************************** ****

LMAO I really really don't believe they will reconsider their stance ...... after all ...... it is a real money spinner for the government and its the police that cop the flack for the way they are used and the police DO NOT receive the revenue from the cameras ... that goes into the government coffers.

[BAD DAD]

While I would normally applaud the police for their efforts to control crime and its damage to victims I feel strongly that their adherence to using speed cameras in the way they are currently used and then claiming that it is an effort to promote safer driving on our roads is seriously flawed. A single split-second digital photo in no way records wether an event was dangerous, careless or justified. Sure it fines owners of vehicles that exceeded a particular speed limit in a particular moment, but that is absolutely not necessarliy catching or fining someone who caused or contributed to sometimes serious breaches of road safety.

[rastuscat]

Um, okay, where would you like them put (he asked, waiting for the all too obvious reply)

[Coldrider]

Um, okay, where would you like them put (he asked, waiting for the all too obvious reply)I want them to be placed where they are at present, as none have ever caught me.

[rastuscat]

I want them to be placed where they are at present, as none have ever caught me.

Guess that's better than having them shoved up my ****

[rastuscat]

I want them to be placed where they are at present, as none have ever caught me.

Interesting. So what do you complain about, if it's not speed cameras?

[Coldrider]

Interesting. So what do you complain about, if it's not speed cameras?Haven't complained about the 4 k tolerance either.

[Scuba_Steve]

Um, okay, where would you like them put (he asked, waiting for the all too obvious reply)

What's the objective? Is it like current, $$$ at the expense of safety, or are we actually wanting to improve safety for once? (I know, I know, extremely unlikely)