Speed cameras on passing lanes

**pritch** · 3rd January 2014, 12:49

Originally Posted by R650R

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** · 3rd January 2014, 13:30

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** · 3rd January 2014, 13:47

Originally Posted by pritch

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

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...

**bogan** · 3rd January 2014, 13:49

Originally Posted by scumdog

The ones that get the

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...

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

**scumdog** · 3rd January 2014, 14:19

Originally Posted by bogan

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

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

**haydes55** · 3rd January 2014, 15:33

Originally Posted by scumdog

The ones that get the

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...

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 (

: 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

ing.

**kevie** · 3rd January 2014, 16:55

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

hahahahhaahaha shesh

**Berries** · 3rd January 2014, 22:59

Originally Posted by haydes55

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** · 8th January 2014, 20:53

Originally Posted by haydes55

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** · 9th January 2014, 05:59

Originally Posted by scumdog

The ones that get the

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...

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** · 18th January 2014, 18:21

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** · 19th January 2014, 15:45

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.