Another speed camera rant, anyone had a Reminder Notice recently?

[swbarnett]

"If you read more carefully, you will see I was referring to" testing, not texting...

Apologies, I assumed it was a typo. Now I'm just confused.

Texting or talking, both are as bad as each other IMHO.... and as for those tests...

Anything that takes your eyes off the road is going to be a darn sight worse than just talking. After all, there seems to be a consensus that talking to a passenger is no big deal.

[Patrick]

Apologies, I assumed it was a typo. Now I'm just confused.

That was easy.....


Anything that takes your eyes off the road is going to be a darn sight worse than just talking. After all, there seems to be a consensus that talking to a passenger is no big deal.

But what if she has nice tits?

[geoffm]

[QUOTE=Banesto John;1570337]

The 85th percentile was the basis of the original speed camera settings. It is an internationally recognized standard. The way it was used was silly. Still, it's long gone.

Cameras snap a very small percentage, and they are the ones that moan the loudest. Ironically, they are the ones with the power to avoid being snapped, by slowing down.

Sick of tickets? Don't speed.

You are wrong.
They haven't published the profit-and-loss for speed cameras for a while, but a few years ago it was in the order of $30m income 10 years ago It may well be more, but it will do for now. There are around 2m (give or take a few - the numbers aren't on line) licensed drivers in NZ (and a heap of ones where the license is optional). 10 years ago, the same article said the average fine was around $90 - 10-15km over on other words, whish seems about right. That works out to be 300,000 tickets per year. Repeat offenders (like Patrick and other Menaces To Society) will mean some multiple kills, but it is still around 10% of the drivers get taxed each year.
Doesn't sound like a small percentage to me, especially since you consider the large number of people who have licenses but don't drive, or drive very little, and hence aren't really included in the sample population.
Geoff

[geoffm]

Further to the previous post:



of interest:
The average fine is $80 being 10-15km over - so hardly targeting th etop speeders here.
One camera is bringing in half a million dollars per year - a nice little earner.

and interestingly (if unsurprisingly)

"A list of Auckland blackspots produced by the LTSA does not appear to match the speed camera sites with the most serious accident areas" - so much for the promises made when they were introduced.

Most interestingly:
"The number of tickets issued through speed cameras peaked in 2003 when about 494,600 were issued but that dropped to 464,000 last year, worth roughly $40.8 million in fines."

So the tax ratio on licensed drivers is more like 20-25% - Definitely not a small percentage of drivers, and earnings are well up on the numbers I recall.
As an aside, IIRC, in the first year of operation, they brought in $27m, and had paid for themselves within 6 months or so, including all setup, capital and operational costs.

You may apologize to the KB community...
geoff

[Banesto John]

Wrong? Maybe. It depends on your perspective.

The number of people snapped is small compared to the number of people who drive past the cameras. Don't assume that every driver in NZ drives past a one camera once per year, as that skews your figures.

The cameras are able to count cars as well as take photos, so they know how many are snapped as a percentage of the total that go past. That's what I was talking about. The snapped total is a small percentage of those that went past.

It was originally going to be the top 15%, but it turned out to be far less than that.

That may be because most people drive around with their eyes open, and are able to see the cameras before they get snapped. Other people slow down because they see oncoming cars flashing headlights.

Anyway, spend your time arguing any figures you want, or slow down, and don't get snapped.

[swbarnett]

But what if she has nice tits?

Well, that's just a matter of discipline and goes to show how good you are at concentrating on your driving.

[swbarnett]

... slow down, and don't get snapped.

Imagine you're an avid golfer, you're just mad about it, you get all cranky if you haven't had your weekly round.

Now imagine that a couple of idiots that get too close behind other golfers teeing off and get seriously hurt by the back swing. Because of this a law is passed restricting the back swing to no more than horizontal.

You can still play but a lot of the fun has been taken out of the game.

How often do you think you'ld restrict your back swing to within the law? Even with random checks by the golfing police?

[Banesto John]

Yawn. Build a bridge. And get over it.

[swbarnett]

Yawn. Build a bridge. And get over it.

That's easy for you to say. You're not the one directly affected. Your normal behaviour is obviously within the law's tight constraints in the first place.

Speed laws do three things:

1. Gather revenue (whether intentional or not)

2. Penalise drivers for an action that is not even against the stated intent of the law

3. Divert attention from measures that might have a chance of reducing the road toll.

[scumdog]

That's easy for you to say. You're not the one directly affected. Your normal behaviour is obviously within the law's tight constraints in the first place.

Speed laws do three things:

1. Gather revenue (whether intentional or not)

2. Penalise drivers for an action that is not even against the stated intent of the law

3. Divert attention from measures that might have a chance of reducing the road toll.

As I've said in the past; the bottom line base of this 'speed limit' thing is: It's the Law.

Like it or lump it - that's the way it is, whether you see your pet-hate as 'revenue gathering' or not.

Break it if you feel like it and wear the penalty if caught.

If you don't like the law and the penalties? - rant on KB, it's bound to help, but at the end of the day YOU broke a law.

Us saintly ones probably have a different outlook to those 'contributing' to H.C.s coffers I guess.

About to go revenue gathering of a different sort - well I guess that's how HE will see it - after all, he only hit her once for goodness sake...

[Swoop]

We do not have better surfaces. New Zealand's roads, at least around Auckland, are goat tracks compared to the surfaces in most civilised countries. ...and generally do the cheapest nastiest job possible whenever it comes to road repair with scant regard for the quality of the surface. That's not engineering.

Tar snakes are the sign of a cheap road repair. Instead of doing the job properly, the kiwi "cheapo" attitude comes to the fore once again.

[swbarnett]

As I've said in the past; the bottom line base of this 'speed limit' thing is: It's the Law.

Like it or lump it - that's the way it is, whether you see your pet-hate as 'revenue gathering' or not.

Break it if you feel like it and wear the penalty if caught.

When all's said and done I have to agree with the above and I do wear it. However, this is only because I don't have the power to affect change of the type that is required to make our politicos see sense.

Whether or not any instruction is obeyed is governed by one or more of three factors:

1. Who is giving the instruction the amount of respect I have for them.

2. The amount of power they have to enforce the instruction.

3. Whether or not I agree with the reason given for the instruction.

This applies for any and all instructions, be they from a parent to a child, a boss to an employee or a government trying to control the population they're supposed to be serving.

In the case of speed limits 1. I do not respect the government, 2. They do not have the power (thankfully) to enforce the instruction 24x7 and 3. I do not agree that the law has anything to do with the stated reason.

If you don't like the law and the penalties? - rant on KB, it's bound to help, but at the end of the day YOU broke a law.

Yes, it does help. Maybe someone reading this will start to realise how much draconian pressure is being placed on us without our consent (and not just on the road).

Us saintly ones probably have a different outlook to those 'contributing' to H.C.s coffers I guess.

Never a truer word has been said. I envy you the fact that your outlook just happens to coincide with the law. This issue does boil down in the end to a personality clash.

About to go revenue gathering of a different sort - well I guess that's how HE will see it - after all, he only hit her once for goodness sake...

I assume you're talking about a domestic assault? I would hope the penalty is more than a fine?

[Banesto John]

How's the bridge building going? Not well, I surmise, from your continued insistence on self justification.

Glad I'm not as bitter as you about something I can't change.

On a lighter note,

[swbarnett]

How's the bridge building going? Not well, I surmise, from your continued insistence on self justification.

Glad I'm not as bitter as you about something I can't change.

On a lighter note,

To say that I can't change it is, I believe, a bit naive. I may not be able to convince you or others of your persuasion but you never can tell who reads these threads. My hope is that the silent readers will at least take away a balanced view instead of the largely unopposed "speed kills" rhetoric.

I will never get over being bullied when it is repetitive and unceasing. I will get on with my life at the same time, however, this issue is not my primary focus.

[Patrick]

[QUOTE=geoffm;1592926]

Repeat offenders (like Patrick and other Menaces To Society) will mean some multiple kills...

Huh? I haven't killed anyone... Menace to the dregs of society perhaps....