NZTA speed cameras

[SaferRides]

Not sure if this link to the Herald will work?

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/nzta-to-put-new-speed-cameras-in-trailers-and-suvs-starting-in-auckland/QL3UPEOYTJHRDK6FCK66IZUGJU/


Sent from my SM-S938B using Tapatalk

[FLUB]

Those trailers look good and I'm sure they can be "repurposed" [emoji6]

Sent from my Pixel 8 using Tapatalk

[MarkW]

Those trailers look good and I'm sure they can be "repurposed" [emoji6]

Sent from my Pixel 8 using Tapatalk

Or "accidentally bumped" off line so that they are facing the bushes on the side of the road.

[pete376403]

Or "accidentally bumped" off line so that they are facing the bushes on the side of the road.

Or just set on fire ("gatsoed" with a few old tyres). So the idea of having them unattended won't last too long. If NZTA want to play this way, then naturally opponents will similarly escalate.

[SaferRides]

I struggle to see the logic in this now that fixed cameras are signposted. Are speed cameras meant to reduce speeds or catch speeding drivers?

I followed a car past the fixed camera south of Kaiwaka on SH1. He was doing about 85, then slowed down to 75 before the camera. So I overtook him at 100!

Sent from my SM-S938B using Tapatalk

[F5 Dave]

Slow down Rossi:msn-wink:

[rastuscat]

I struggle to see the logic in this now that fixed cameras are signposted. Are speed cameras meant to reduce speeds or catch speeding drivers?

I followed a car past the fixed camera south of Kaiwaka on SH1. He was doing about 85, then slowed down to 75 before the camera. So I overtook him at 100!

Sent from my SM-S938B using Tapatalk

When cameras were introduced in 1993 I was present at the meeting where sites were discussed for the Auckland City area. Sites were selected on a black-spot basis i.e. where crashes had built up a history of happening. Those sites were signposted, and the cameras had to be operated in those sites. Mobile GPS wasn't a thing back then, so the site was always "such-and-such road between such-and-such point and such-and-such point" . That way, when a pic was taken, the location was known. Some sites were quite long, some quite short.

Over time, it became known that as long as you weren't in one of those sites, you didn't have to trouble yourself about slowing down. In fact, it almost had the opposite effect, as most roads in NZ weren't speed camera sites.

Some people who got snapped defended their tickets on the basis that there was no sign, so the ticket shouldn't count. No mention of the fact that they had exceeded the speed limit. This is a point I'll cover again later. Any number of signs ended up decorating student flats, along with the collection of stop signs, give way signs and ducks crossing signs.

Fast forward 30 or so years, and now NZTA is taking the cameras away from Police, and an external contractor is taking the photos. NZTA will still issue the tickets, but the photos are being taken by an external contractor. Google "Acusensus" if you want to know who. And the government has announced that fixed cameras will be signposted, but that mobile cameras won't.

I don't have inside info these days like I did back when, but I'd be surprised if the equipment in the trailers or vehicles hasn't got a military grade GPS which can tell us exactly where the photo was taken. Thus the restriction of having to be within a specific site is no longer applicable. The fixed cameras are, um, fixed, so won't be moving. It's going to be easy to signpost them, they don't move.

But the mobile operations are able to be used anywhere. If it is decided that they will be only used in specific locations, it's to make people feel better. It'll be to prevent the whines about "awwww, it's not fair". There's still a belief that speed cameras should only be used in black spots, regardless of how much of a populist red herring that actually is.

Thing is, most serious and fatal crashes happen where no crash has happened before. They are random. Yes, there are some places where the coincidences align, but there are many many more places where no such crash has happened before. For those places with high crash issues, infrastructure changes are indicated.

Speed causes some crashes. But its often not the primary causitive factor, most often. However, if stuff goes wrong for any reason at all, the speed at which it goes wrong determines the outcome.

Those who advocate for higher speeds often tell us that the real problems are awful drivers and awful roads. In the next breath they suggest that we should increase speed limits, without realising that what thet are saying is that we shoulkd let awful drivers go faster on awful roads.

This all plays to deterrence theory. In terms of risk, you can target

High risk individuals
High risk locations
High risk behaviours

If you target individuals, you may prevent those individuals from coming to grief, but it doesn't do much for anyone else.
If you target locations when you only have so many resources, you can only be in so many places. It's not actually that practical in terms of geographical spread.
But if you target specific behaviours, it has a broader effect long term.

It's the behaviours that are the problem. Crashes happen in a vast multitude of locations. If those crashes happened at lower speeds, they would be less serious.

Sure, it'd be great if less crashes happened because roads are awesome and drivers are all competent. But until that happens, keeping speeds down is one of the levers that can be applied.

Ironically, those who slow from 85 to 75 in 100 kmh areas wouldn't slow down if they didn't know the camera was there. So hiding the cameras would solve that problem. But I'm sure that not what we want.

The overall summary here is that as long as you don't exceed speed limits (and I propose that this is a good idea for a range of reasons) the presence of cameras just doesn't matter, signposted or not.

[R650R]

Those trailers look good and I'm sure they can be "repurposed" [emoji6]

Sent from my Pixel 8 using Tapatalk

British version looks slightly different


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZ80-LGhI0I

[rastuscat]

[QUOTE=R650R;1131236617]British version looks slightly different



Bloke who made that had me until he carped on about revenue generating. As if it causes people to use their phone, speed up, or take their seatbelt off.

[R650R]

[QUOTE=R650R;1131236617]British version looks slightly different



Bloke who made that had me until he carped on about revenue generating. As if it causes people to use their phone, speed up, or take their seatbelt off.

He’s normally pretty sensible in his rants, a bit Jeremy Clarkson he’s prob just catering to audience in populist manner. He’s bit late to the party if worried about surveillance in UK, only China out does them.

[SaferRides]

Rastuscat, I agree with some of your lengthy reply but not all. The reason people slow down when they pass a speed camera sign, or see a police car with flashing lights on the road shoulder is because they don't know what speed they are travelling at. I see it all of the time on the Waikato Expressway. So the chances of them driving at safe speeds are very remote until they actually know how fast they are going.

Getting a ticket for speeding in a place where they don't even know what speed they are doing will just piss them off.



Sent from my SM-S938B using Tapatalk

[rastuscat]

Getting a ticket for speeding in a place where they don't even know what speed they are doing will just piss them off.

Sent from my SM-S938B using Tapatalk

I guess it'll cause them to focus a bit more on their speed for at least a while. Isn't that the point?

[F5 Dave]

Approaching Petone going south it is common for me to overtake a car and then as we go into the 80kph for them to repass me.
Then as we approach the corner to swap again.

[nerrrd]

Same on the Auckland motorway, slowing down for the 80kph areas can be a dangerous manoeuvre.

And in the CBD, sticking to the 30kph limit makes me a rolling obstacle for most cyclists and scooter riders.

35 extra cameras seems like a drop in a very large bucket.

[rastuscat]

35 extra cameras seems like a drop in a very large bucket.

The previous government had a plan to increase the number of cameras to around 800. New government, new plan.

[BMWST?]

I guess it'll cause them to focus a bit more on their speed for at least a while. Isn't that the point?
There are so many different speed sign posted now that often, I am not 100 percent sure what the speed limit is! Time was it was 50,80 or 100,vast majority 50 or 100. Now it can be 50,60,70 ,80 and 100 and a few 110s

[SaferRides]

There are so many different speed sign posted now that often, I am not 100 percent sure what the speed limit is! Time was it was 50,80 or 100,vast majority 50 or 100. Now it can be 50,60,70 ,80 and 100 and a few 110sAnd the 90 limit at the start of SH2 south of Auckland...



Sent from my SM-S938B using Tapatalk

[nerrrd]

Signage in general is pretty sparse, if you miss the first one that's it, often you won't get another warning until it goes back up.

But I guess there's a cost factor involved there too.

[rastuscat]

There are so many different speed sign posted now that often, I am not 100 percent sure what the speed limit is! Time was it was 50,80 or 100,vast majority 50 or 100. Now it can be 50,60,70 ,80 and 100 and a few 110s

Back in the day there were 50 and 100, with the occasional variation. People complained that on many 50 roads it was too slow, and occasionally that 100 was too fast in the 100s.

So councils and NZTA introduced speed limit variations to better reflect actual roading environments. Often they didn't make sense, but there was a basis for each variation.

Now people complain about variation.

[SaferRides]

Back in the day there were 50 and 100, with the occasional variation. People complained that on many 50 roads it was too slow, and occasionally that 100 was too fast in the 100s..
And 70, which was what 40 mph became, for those of us old enough to remember.

Now we have everything from 30 to 110. In the North Waikato, I could probably plan a route that includes all 9 limits within a one hour ride.


Sent from my SM-S938B using Tapatalk

[F5 Dave]

Yeah I think the variation at least makes me believe that they've thought about it.
As my post above demonstrates, some people are never going to pay much attention and will drive "too slow" and "too fast" on the same stretch of road.

[pritch]

In Britain speed was rated the seventh highest cause of accidents. Seventh was considered artificially high because many accidents are attended by general duties cops who don't have specialist traffic training. Driving habits there are probably not dissimilar to here so we might wonder what could be done about the six causal factors higher up the list than speed. If the police even know what they are. They give the impression that they don't look much past speed and alcohol.

[rastuscat]

In Britain speed was rated the seventh highest cause of accidents. Seventh was considered artificially high because many accidents are attended by general duties cops who don't have specialist traffic training. Driving habits there are probably not dissimilar to here so we might wonder what could be done about the six causal factors higher up the list than speed. If the police even know what they are. They give the impression that they don't look much past speed and alcohol.

The hidden-in-plain-sight fact though is that regardless of the causative factor, the laws of physics dictate that more speed is worse than less speed in the event of a crash.

Sure, speed causes some crashes. But it is a major determinant factor in the outcome of every crash.

Says the guy with a 160hp bike.

[jellywrestler]

They give the impression that they don't look much past speed and alcohol.

they don't, simple fact is they don't want to issue tickets that can be challenged in court, as they don't like spending their time there when people defend them. A judge will believe a speed infringement because it's done with a machine and a sworn in police officer. I beleive we should have cameras in all cop cars and they can record people doing silly shit, then get back on the beat as the case has evidence and is no longer their problem and cover all untidy road behaviours and actually get shit driving sorted. Cell phone use is rife, how hard can that be to police, if i can see five people in one line of traffic on their phones why can't they? Put a small sign on a traffic light reminding people it's not legal when the car is running, their kids will see it and ask questions, ,that will have some impact etc etc.
When is the last time anybody in nz got a ticket for following too close? that's a huge factor in compounding crashes.

[R650R]

they don't, simple fact is they don't want to issue tickets that can be challenged in court, as they don't like spending their time there when people defend them. A judge will believe a speed infringement because it's done with a machine and a sworn in police officer. I beleive we should have cameras in all cop cars and they can record people doing silly shit, then get back on the beat as the case has evidence and is no longer their problem and cover all untidy road behaviours and actually get shit driving sorted. Cell phone use is rife, how hard can that be to police, if i can see five people in one line of traffic on their phones why can't they? Put a small sign on a traffic light reminding people it's not legal when the car is running, their kids will see it and ask questions, ,that will have some impact etc etc.
When is the last time anybody in nz got a ticket for following too close? that's a huge factor in compounding crashes.

Don’t worry the technocratic dictatorship is coming soon, that technology exists we just haven’t bought it yet. And things are progressing so fast we should enjoy our current freedoms. Soon via a combination of tax and insurance costs private vehicle ownership will be prohibitively expensive. You’ll take a bus or self driving uber of some kind.
As private vehicle ownership declines insurance revenues will decline rapidly, those who still have vehicles will sadly be picking up the tab.

Following distance is over-rated in that we get too upset about something outside our control.Ive been struck three times from behind, two were at safe distance but not paying any attention, the third was rushing to beat a orange to red light and didnt know how to behave around a turning heavy vehicle.So I’m always aware of what’s around me but I take a Zen like spirit to anyone too close and concentrate on what’s in front.
Good following distances are much safer but we shouldn’t let ourselves be distracted from what’s in front.

[R650R]

I rate fatigue as prob highest cause of crashes followed closely by poor decision making.

So whose up for documenting their work hours and rest time like truck drivers do and then having a mandatory 10hr time during each 24hrs where your not allowed to drive. And then just imagine come the weekend sorry wife and kids we can’t drive up to coromandel beach bach I’ve worked too many hours this week at work.
And then if you did have time for that journey how about being detained for 20mins for a random roadside WOF level mechanical check. How about some fines and demerit points either way that for failing to fill logbook in correctly.

I think you all would rather just take chances with speed ticket

[jellywrestler]

There are so many different speed sign posted now that often, I am not 100 percent sure what the speed limit is! Time was it was 50,80 or 100,vast majority 50 or 100. Now it can be 50,60,70 ,80 and 100 and a few 110s

you don't get out much, 40 and 30 are not uncommon now too

[jellywrestler]

Following distance is over-rated in that we get too upset about something outside our control.Ive been struck three times from behind, two were at safe distance but not paying any attention, the third was rushing to beat a orange to red light and didnt know how to behave around a turning heavy vehicle.So I’m always aware of what’s around me but I take a Zen like spirit to anyone too close and concentrate on what’s in front.
Good following distances are much safer but we shouldn’t let ourselves be distracted from what’s in front.

did a decnt chucnk of the south island last week lewis pass etc and three vehicles packed in tight was the biggest issue on several occasions to hinder passing, they just sat in a road train, either way that's just one thing they could actually police, get people actually aware of their own poor driving

[nerrrd]

you don't get out much, 40 and 30 are not uncommon now too

My usual morning run of speed limits in order in Auckland: 50, 60, 50, 30, 40, 30, 40, 80, 50, 40*, 50, 40*, 50, 40*, 50, 30. And that’s over a 20km distance.

* school zones.

[sugilite]

When is the last time anybody in nz got a ticket for following too close? that's a huge factor in compounding crashes.

UK has tailgating detection in some of their "Ai" cameras. So they should not be too far away getting them here too.

https://inshur.com/en-gb/blog/ai-speed-cameras-what-drivers-need-to-know

[Laava]

I often sit behind people doing 70 on their way into town and then when they get to town and the lower posted speeds, they just keep going 70. So to start with they are holding me up and then they just disappear in town.

[rastuscat]

UK has tailgating detection in some of their "Ai" cameras. So they should not be too far away getting them here too.

https://inshur.com/en-gb/blog/ai-speed-cameras-what-drivers-need-to-know

The sooner following too close is added via AI cameras the better.

[jellywrestler]

The sooner following too close is added via AI cameras the better.

hahaha, they can't even pick up cell phone useage one of the biggest threats out there

[jellywrestler]

I often sit behind people doing 70 on their way into town and then when they get to town and the lower posted speeds, they just keep going 70. So to start with they are holding me up and then they just disappear in town.

thank them for flushing out the cops in town then

[sugilite]

The sooner following too close is added via AI cameras the better.

For sure. I'm with Jellywrestler too on the cracking down on cell phone use.

[rastuscat]

For sure. I'm with Jellywrestler too on the cracking down on cell phone use.

The cameras that Acusensus use are capable of seatbelt, cellphone, speed, following distance and even impaired driving detection.

But we are so far behind the world in terms of implementation, it'll take decades for us to have the nouse to use that technology.

And we'll all sit on the interweb and moan about big brother watching.

[R650R]

My usual morning run of speed limits in order in Auckland: 50, 60, 50, 30, 40, 30, 40, 80, 50, 40*, 50, 40*, 50, 40*, 50, 30. And that’s over a 20km distance.

* school zones.

Last time I was in Wellywood I decided to go to Lyell bay I think for a morning coffee and breakfast then cut through lower suburbs across to western coast for explore about.
BIG mistake the whole area around airport peninsula and to cafe was a minefield of 30/40 zones, speed bumps and just really sucked compared to ten years earlier when I did same cafe.
To top it off the cafe brekky was well disappointing compared to previous standard and a large coffee was served in a freakin tall glass instead of mug.
But at least the bike didn’t catch fire, big night out day before and I forgot to close fuel cap after filling!!! Spent half morning g just thinking the old girl was running rich.

[R650R]

did a decnt chucnk of the south island last week lewis pass etc and three vehicles packed in tight was the biggest issue on several occasions to hinder passing, they just sat in a road train, either way that's just one thing they could actually police, get people actually aware of their own poor driving

Yep that’s a pet peeve of mine the number of missed overtake opportunities because there won’t be a safe gap to pull into. It prob contributes to a fair few head on crashes where people don’t comprehend the end problem. And it’s prob impossible to collect data on to justify an education campaign and then blaming the “innocent bystanders” never goes down well.

[SaferRides]

Yep that’s a pet peeve of mine the number of missed overtake opportunities because there won’t be a safe gap to pull into. It prob contributes to a fair few head on crashes where people don’t comprehend the end problem. And it’s prob impossible to collect data on to justify an education campaign and then blaming the “innocent bystanders” never goes down well.It's never really an issue on the bike, but can be a real pain when driving. What annoys me on the bike is bikers hugging the centre line who don't look in their mirrors.

If I'm in a line and not overtaking, I leave a big gap. Makes everyone's life easier.

Sent from my SM-S938B using Tapatalk

[rastuscat]

If I'm in a line and not overtaking, I leave a big gap. Makes everyone's life easier.

Once the decision is made not to overtake, life just gets easier, more relaxed and enjoyable if you leave at least the legal following distance, or more.

[jellywrestler]

And we'll all sit on the interweb and moan about big brother watching.

people moan about every little thing, don't put that in the way. What happened to a policeman standing at point spotting cell phone users, and another pulling them over? Is that beyond them now?

[F5 Dave]

They could pick up non seat belt use at same time. They use multiple for speeding often.
But yeah.

[BMWST?]

you don't get out much, 40 and 30 are not uncommon now too
you have further illustrated the point nicely Thankyou

[pritch]

hahaha, they can't even pick up cell phone useage one of the biggest threats out there

Yeah but there seem to be serious questions as to the detail provided by the cameras. People in Australia are complaining they got a ticket but weren't using a phone. It seems anything in your hand tends to be identified as a phone.. IIRC an old bloke got a ticket and was fined despite not even owning a phone. That only got resolved after it was featured on TV.

[nerrrd]

I doubt anything but 100% AI monitoring will make much difference to compliance anyway, plus meaningful fines.

Maybe whatever they set up for congestion charging (if that is still happening) could be leveraged to cover traffic offences as well.

Self driving cars will make it all academic in the long run, but still not convinced the economics will stack up for those if just left to the market.

[rastuscat]

The thing with cellphone offences is that they are the tip of the iceberg of distracted driving. The law we have was written in 2008, introduced in 2009. Before smart phones. Before Android Auto and Apple Carplay.

I'm looking at buying a new car at the moment, and the salesmen all want to tell me about how big, powerful and useful the touch screens in their latest models are.

Take the Ranger and Everest. The touch screen is huge, and you can't even turn the heater up without using it.

Mazda appears to be bucking the trend by using a non-touch screen, controlled by a knob down by the centre console. I'm on board with that, as it's nowhere near as distracting as a touch screen.

I'd be willing to bet a lot of crashes are due to distraction by things other than a mobile phone. Cars are being built to distract these days.

I recall attending crashes back in the 80s where drivers were busy ejecting the cassette to flip it over, failed to take a bend etc. Or using a dial to find a radio station.

I like tech, but it's getting out of hand in new cars.

[R650R]

Legislation also needs updating to include smart watches. Had trainee driver who I wondered why he was so obsessed with checking time then realised he’s wearing a smart watch.

Who thought it was great idea to create a device with even smaller print than a phone?

[nerrrd]

I like tech, but it's getting out of hand in new cars.

I've heard of systems which beep if the driver takes their eyes off the road for more than a second when underway – regulate that so it's really loud and can't be disabled?

I'm amazed touchscreens are so common, would have thought responsible manufacturers might push back on that (unless for passengers).

[F5 Dave]

The thing with cellphone offences is that they are the tip of the iceberg of distracted driving. The law we have was written in 2008, introduced in 2009. Before smart phones. Before Android Auto and Apple Carplay.

I'm looking at buying a new car at the moment, and the salesmen all want to tell me about how big, powerful and useful the touch screens in their latest models are.

Take the Ranger and Everest. The touch screen is huge, and you can't even turn the heater up without using it.

Mazda appears to be bucking the trend by using a non-touch screen, controlled by a knob down by the centre console. I'm on board with that, as it's nowhere near as distracting as a touch screen.

I'd be willing to bet a lot of crashes are due to distraction by things other than a mobile phone. Cars are being built to distract these days.

I recall attending crashes back in the 80s where drivers were busy ejecting the cassette to flip it over, failed to take a bend etc. Or using a dial to find a radio station.

I like tech, but it's getting out of hand in new cars.

Do you realise you have used the Whataboutism argument?

Surely there's lots of distraction in a car, but something that you have to hold in one hand and interact with someone, or worse, type something is important enough to try tackle as a safety low hanging fruit?

[pritch]

My car is old tech. It has a touch screen but the stereo settings are to my liking now so I don't adjust that. The GPS presumably only contains maps of Japan if any. My phone can be connected wirelessly to the radio but only for telephone calls. Not interested.

There is though an old iPhone connected to the stereo by wire. Most apps on the phone have been deleted, there is no SIM card, but the phone contains music. The thought has occurred that while I can legally change a CD or a station on the radio, changing a song on the phone could potentially bring a fine. That would appear to be the downside of using a phone as a juke box. If my journey is going to take longer than a CD I set the phone to shufflle.

[rastuscat]

A fatal crash happened killing 2 people a couple of years back at Saltwater Creek. Driver crossed the centreline when handing a milkshake to a passenger.

And we still have an out of date law.

[jellywrestler]

The thing with cellphone offences is that they are the tip of the iceberg of distracted driving. The law we have was written in 2008, introduced in 2009. Before smart phones. Before Android Auto and Apple Carplay.

I'm looking at buying a new car at the moment, and the salesmen all want to tell me about how big, powerful and useful the touch screens in their latest models are.

Take the Ranger and Everest. The touch screen is huge, and you can't even turn the heater up without using it.

Mazda appears to be bucking the trend by using a non-touch screen, controlled by a knob down by the centre console. I'm on board with that, as it's nowhere near as distracting as a touch screen.

I'd be willing to bet a lot of crashes are due to distraction by things other than a mobile phone. Cars are being built to distract these days.

I recall attending crashes back in the 80s where drivers were busy ejecting the cassette to flip it over, failed to take a bend etc. Or using a dial to find a radio station.

I like tech, but it's getting out of hand in new cars.

yip, did renatl last week top of south island only way to search radio was touchscreen, the hand control searched pre set stations, at night i chucked something over the screen as it was way way too bright, i guess there was a dimmer but i couldn't find it.

Either way my query is about sell phone use and you have tried to steer away from that subject repeatedly, first by saying everyone will moan, and now this stuff, seems you are like the coppers and given up?

[rastuscat]

yip, did renatl last week top of south island only way to search radio was touchscreen, the hand control searched pre set stations, at night i chucked something over the screen as it was way way too bright, i guess there was a dimmer but i couldn't find it.

Either way my query is about sell phone use and you have tried to steer away from that subject repeatedly, first by saying everyone will moan, and now this stuff, seems you are like the coppers and given up?

Nope, I still think more needs to be done to discourage cellphone use while driving.

People often quote the fines in Queensland being $1000. Well, has that stopped people from using their phones? Nope.

Before we go down the track of making huge fines the answer, perhaps we need to ask "but does it solve the problem?" because it hasn't anywhere in the world yet.

Cellphone cameras are a good start, it's the increased chance of being caught that is a far greater deterrent than higher fines.

You could make the fine $10000 but if nobody thinks they'll get caught, it won't change much.

[pritch]

They could make the fine $1,000 but there's a significant portion of the populace don't pay fines.

[jellywrestler]

Nope, I still think more needs to be done to discourage cellphone use while driving.

People often quote the fines in Queensland being $1000. Well, has that stopped people from using their phones? Nope.

Before we go down the track of making huge fines the answer, perhaps we need to ask "but does it solve the problem?" because it hasn't anywhere in the world yet.

Cellphone cameras are a good start, it's the increased chance of being caught that is a far greater deterrent than higher fines.

You could make the fine $10000 but if nobody thinks they'll get caught, it won't change much.

:corn:
so last year when that mufti cop dressed up as a window washer it caused a hell of a stink, since then i've not seen any enforcement of a similar nature on my local bridge, did the cops actully listen to the whiners and quit doing this sort of policing or what?
it doesn't matter how much the fines are if they are not being administered it's almost irrelevant

[rastuscat]

:
it doesn't matter how much the fines are if they are not being administered it's almost irrelevant

Those little mini-ops are called spot-n-stops. For a prosecution to be successful, the offence has to be detected, the car needs to be stopped, the driver identified, and the ticket written. Separating out the detection (the spotter) and the identifications (stoppers) means that two cops have to go to court to prove the offence. The one who saw the offence, and the one who can ID the driver.

What saves spot-n-stops is that most people accept the ticket, and just pay the fine. Normally because they accept that they got caught. yes, I know, not everyone is innocent.

Deterrence is a product of 3 concepts

Relevant penalty, which has some impact on the offender
Detection close to the offence being committed
The offence being prosecuted in a prompt manner.


You are right, if an offence is unlikely to be prosecuted, the penalty is pretty irrelevant.

The system lost some impact when the cops stopped writing tickets on the spot. A ticket received some days later in the post loses some of the impact of an agent of the state handing you a ticket on the spot. Camera tickets also have this problem.

Just putting fines up, as many suggest, is pointless. And if you put them up too high, it'll have the effect of people just not bothering to pay.

The real impact will come from increasing the perception of the risk of detection, and making it hurt straight away.

[Racing Dave]

[QUOTE=rastuscat;1131236811
I'd be willing to bet a lot of crashes are due to distraction by things other than a mobile phone. [/QUOTE]

I watched a video on FB a day or two ago, where a bike rider on Danseys Pass Road (the sealed part in the north) came across a Moto Guzzi upside down in the grass. That rider declared that he was checking his GPS at the time. Given that he crashed on the RH side of the road, he was jolly fortunate no one was coming towards him.

[jellywrestler]

The one who saw the offence, and the one who can ID the driver.

.

A body cam is a pretty simple thing these days, and the investment can be proved to save dollars easily.

[jellywrestler]

I watched a video on FB a day or two ago, where a bike rider on Danseys Pass Road (the sealed part in the north) came across a Moto Guzzi upside down in the grass. That rider declared that he was checking his GPS at the time. Given that he crashed on the RH side of the road, he was jolly fortunate no one was coming towards him.

moto guzzi riders are still on old cell phones mostly, he was lying about having technology like GPS's

[rastuscat]

A body cam is a pretty simple thing these days, and the investment can be proved to save dollars easily.

Body cams come with their own challenges. Data management is the main one.

The footage needs to be stored regardless of evidential value, as you never know when something filmed might become relevant.

[F5 Dave]

A fatal crash happened killing 2 people a couple of years back at Saltwater Creek. Driver crossed the centreline when handing a milkshake to a passenger.

And we still have an out of date law.
. . . Whataboutism again. <_<

Look over there.

[jellywrestler]

Body cams come with their own challenges. Data management is the main one.

The footage needs to be stored regardless of evidential value, as you never know when something filmed might become relevant.

more excuses.

[SaferRides]

I watched a video on FB a day or two ago, where a bike rider on Danseys Pass Road (the sealed part in the north) came across a Moto Guzzi upside down in the grass. That rider declared that he was checking his GPS at the time. Given that he crashed on the RH side of the road, he was jolly fortunate no one was coming towards him.Occasionally I am tempted to fit a cellphone holder to the bike, but I haven't given in yet. In fact, one of the things I enjoy about riding is not being distracted by the phone.

Sent from my SM-S938B using Tapatalk

[sugilite]

The cameras that Acusensus use are capable of seatbelt, cellphone, speed, following distance and even impaired driving detection.

But we are so far behind the world in terms of implementation, it'll take decades for us to have the nouse to use that technology.

And we'll all sit on the interweb and moan about big brother watching.

I'm fine with all those offense types being monitored and enforced by the police.
Where my trust gets strained is when government departments like IRD have been nabbed selling our information. Robust rules need to be in place that this stuff is just used to enforce infringements - that's it.

What really gets my dander up is foreign owned systems like the Auror ANPR Network: A privately operated network that more and more provides police and other mystery groups with access to over 5,000 cameras, primarily in retail and commercial areas, for vehicle tracking and crime detection and just being fucking nosey. This has me seriously considering flip plates, not because I want to avoid tickets, and I've not had one of those for 9 years, but rather no bastard needs to know where I am 24 hours a day. I'm not a fan of people saying "well if you are not committing a crime, you have nothing to worry about". I say to these people "So you would not mind me checking your letterbox every day to make sure your mail is correctly addressed to you - because as long as it is, you should not have a problem with me doing that?".
Just because this surveillance system is largely out of sight, does not in any way mitigate the assault on our privacy - IMO.

As an aside, I would like to say I fully acknowledge you are no longer a police officer, and even when you were, you were not responsible for bad or controversial policy - maybe some others here may want to consider the same.
Cheers.

[R650R]

I'm fine with all those offense types being monitored and enforced by the police.
Where my trust gets strained is when government departments like IRD have been nabbed selling our information. Robust rules need to be in place that this stuff is just used to enforce infringements - that's it.

What really gets my dander up is foreign owned systems like the Auror ANPR Network: A privately operated network that more and more provides police and other mystery groups with access to over 5,000 cameras, primarily in retail and commercial areas, for vehicle tracking and crime detection and just being fucking nosey. This has me seriously considering flip plates, not because I want to avoid tickets, and I've not had one of those for 9 years, but rather no bastard needs to know where I am 24 hours a day. I'm not a fan of people saying "well if you are not committing a crime, you have nothing to worry about". I say to these people "So you would not mind me checking your letterbox every day to make sure your mail is correctly addressed to you - because as long as it is, you should not have a problem with me doing that?".
Just because this surveillance system is largely out of sight, does not in any way mitigate the assault on our privacy - IMO.

As an aside, I would like to say I fully acknowledge you are no longer a police officer, and even when you were, you were not responsible for bad or controversial policy - maybe some others here may want to consider the same.
Cheers.

Unless you don’t own a modern smartphone it’s too late already. Google has your various IP addresses and knows who you are and where you are pinging off cell networks and wifi routers.And then there’s your employers data servers depending on where they are hosted.
And with the advent of AI the system prob knows better than you what you will do tomorrow…
An ex worked in a govt dept and they had systems in place that detected people accessing information not relevant to their job. And that was before technology advances we have now, it’s not something to lose any sleep over.

[sugilite]

Unless you don’t own a modern smartphone it’s too late already. Google has your various IP addresses and knows who you are and where you are pinging off cell networks and wifi routers.And then there’s your employers data servers depending on where they are hosted.
And with the advent of AI the system prob knows better than you what you will do tomorrow…
An ex worked in a govt dept and they had systems in place that detected people accessing information not relevant to their job. And that was before technology advances we have now, it’s not something to lose any sleep over.

Naturally, yes you are correct, but for me at least, there is one big difference. I've known about cell phones tracking you for many, many years. So Every time I turn it on, I know I'm basically "opting in" to being tracked and this is one of the "costs" of using the tech. So it is still my choice. What is not my choice is these overseas and NZ based fuckers tracking me through this Aurora (and other) surveillance systems. I do not get the choice of opting in, yet alone out. That is what grinds my gears. They should have no rights to track me without my implicit consent. And this and the previous governments that let this situation to come to be, are the same clowns that want us to trust them with our personal information and not fuck us over with it in ways it should of never been used in the first place. :mad: