Speed Limits, Speed Cameras, Vehicle "Accidents" and the law

    • Speed Limits, Speed Cameras, Vehicle "Accidents" and the law

      The other day, while I was driving, I noticed that the QLD Police were at it again- lowering speed limits needlessly and then installing speed cameras to catch out unaware drivers.

      I'll give just a few examples :-
      1. Deagon Deviation. Nice straightish road with gentle bends. It used to be 100km/h (the last time I drove it would have been February) however yesterday I noticed the limit has dropped to 90. No real reason, just the police f*cking us over.
      2. Hornibrook Bridge duplication- so we had this old crap 2.7km bridge, right? It had a slow limit of 60, which is OK. They built a new one and said the limit would be 80, which is fitting as it is wide and straight. Nope, it opened yesterday and the limit was 60.
      3. Moreton Dve- new, straight, wide access road to the airport. Nothing at all wrong with it. It's been slapped with a 90 speed sign and had a camera installed.

      Conveniently, this is also happening at the same time that "covert" and P2P cameras are being introduced:
      Covert: cameras hidden in cars that are left on the side of the road. Good way to get $$$ as people won't know they passed one.
      Point to Point (P2P): These are really annoying. They place one at one camera location, usually along a motorway or any road with no traffic lights, and place another several kilometers down the road. The police determine the minimum time it would legally take someone to travel the road (at the maximum limit). Each camera takes a log of all cars that go past and the time they did (they also function as normal speed cameras) and if a car arrives too quickly, the owner will be fined.

      They have been installed on two roads, one being a really long highway, and the other being an inner city tunnel. I agree with the placement of the camera in the tunnel, as that tunnel doesn't have any emergency stopping lanes and if you speed through and crash, your fate will be bad.

      I do agree with one decision though. The limit on the Gateway Mwy dropped too- thank god! It is an old arterial road that used to have roundabouts etc. They built overpasses over the roundabouts and declared it a motorway. Some of those curves are horrid at 100km/h :(. No matter there are so many accidents on it :nono:.

      I just don't understand why they are obsessed with stopping us from speeding. Why?
      YES, doing 130 in a 60 zone is completely idiotic and those people should be caught and I don't think speeding on any urban road or street should be tolerated at all.

      I do object to police officers standing at the bottom of hills and fining drivers for speeding. Especially when there is no allowable leeway for speeding.

      But why the motorways? Our maximum speed, 110km/h, which is only in force on certain roads, isn't that high at all. If someone had the ability to drive at 130km/h safely, then why not?

      The problem is, the police have been using this "speeding kills" copout for years. Yes, excessive speeding when someone doesn't have the experience, DOES kill. But stopping everyone from going at a reasonable speed on perfectly capable roads is silly.

      And people believe it.

      My mum knows a doctor who is so obsessed with this "speeding kills", that he doesn't ever go over 90km/h on a freeway, even if the limit is 100 or 110. I personally think this is a tad arrogant. What about the poor souls stuck behind? On a road with 2 lanes each way, all those cars are going to have to needlessly change into the fast lane, over take, and then change back, and when the slow poke car is stopping such a massive line of cars and making them all change, surely that is dangerous? Why not go with the flow?

      The media is just to blame. They go on and on about the death toll and how it is so "bad". Well perhaps if they had proper driver training systems, these deaths could be avoided? If people were properly taught to drive, then they could handle these dangerous systems better.

      That makes it all the more easier for the police to claim they need more speed cameras, drop speed limits, install speeding cameras and get some more $$$ into government coffers.

      I understand it is difficult for police when young drivers die, and the dreaded call/knock on the door is a terrible thing to do for a police officer, but perhaps if some of these drivers had better cars and better training, this might have been avoided?

      Why not learn, and teach new drivers and everyone to be able to drive fast, safely?
      Let's look at a few flaws with this system:
      1. There is no advanced driver training system, unless you buy it yourself, and it is not legally mandated.
      2. Highway experience is not mandatory.
      3. Experience in rain and fog is not mandatory.
      4. New drivers are taught by their parents, which is a big no-no as the parents teach the kids their own bad habits.
      5. New drivers get really crappy cars, because that's all they can afford. Why don't we do what the Germans did, and give people a rebate for buying good cars?

      Unexperienced drivers in bad dodgy cars is a recipe for disaster.

      At least Queensland doesn't have a maximum limit for Learner drivers. In NSW, you cannot drive more than 80km/h if you are a learner driver, or 90km/h if you are on your Ps! Once again, this is hiding your head in the sand and hiding from the problems, instead of getting people experienced and increasing our abilities to drive on roads.

      Finally, we need to get the infrastructure right. If the road is designed well, why not have a suitable speed limit? 130km/h comes to mind. Teach people how to use these roads, teach them safe tactics. But please, don't put your head in the sand, make the limit low, and act as if speeding is bad!

      I am not promoting speeding, I am just saying that if a road is designed to a good travelling speed, why can't we go at that speed?

      Wow I feel like I have just written one really big messy essay o.o I hope this makes sense.

      What are your opinions?

      ---------- Post added at 07:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:23 PM ----------

      Another note:-

      They should also endeavour to catch people who tailgate, cannot merge safely and are generally bad drivers. Heaps of people never stop at pedestrian crossings and they are never caught!

    • Re: Speed Limits, Speed Cameras, Vehicle "Accidents" and the law

      Increasing the number of speed cameras does not save lives, it only it only raises government revenue.

      I'd like to see simplified speed limit zones, as in one certain speed limit through towns and cities, and a seperate speed limit for highways and freeways so we don't have speed limit signs littered throughout the streets.
      [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    • Re: Speed Limits, Speed Cameras, Vehicle "Accidents" and the law

      If all it does is increase government revenue then America should jump on that bandwagon. I live in Southern California near Los Angeles and I see no cameras. I don't know whether to be happy that I don't have to worry about a fine or be upset because the government doesn't set up more cameras in an effort to raise more funds.

    • Re: Speed Limits, Speed Cameras, Vehicle "Accidents" and the law

      Aannddyy wrote:

      Increasing the number of speed cameras does not save lives, it only it only raises government revenue.

      I'd like to see simplified speed limit zones, as in one certain speed limit through towns and cities, and a seperate speed limit for highways and freeways so we don't have speed limit signs littered throughout the streets.


      Amen to that.

      I was on a road the other day near Redcliffe that had a 70 section that was only like 200m long! It went 60 > 70 > 50 > 70 > 80 > 60 > 80 > 70 > 60. It was so annoying.

      ---------- Post added at 08:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:35 PM ----------

      Z22H wrote:

      If all it does is increase government revenue then America should jump on that bandwagon. I live in Southern California near Los Angeles and I see no cameras. I don't know whether to be happy that I don't have to worry about a fine or be upset because the government doesn't set up more cameras in an effort to raise more funds.


      I'd be happy- your rights haven't been curbed in the aim of "safety". Safety is more than stopping someone from doing 105 in a 100 zone.

    • Re: Speed Limits, Speed Cameras, Vehicle "Accidents" and the law

      + 1 for advanced driving courses
      My guess would be easily 50% of young drivers would panic in an emergency situation and lock up and not expect what the car will do. I very much plan to do an advanced driving course when i purchase my next car and my next motorcycle not only does it improve your technique it really drums into you the skills you need to prevent some serious incidents occurring.

    • Re: Speed Limits, Speed Cameras, Vehicle "Accidents" and the law

      Z22H wrote:

      If all it does is increase government revenue then America should jump on that bandwagon. I live in Southern California near Los Angeles and I see no cameras. I don't know whether to be happy that I don't have to worry about a fine or be upset because the government doesn't set up more cameras in an effort to raise more funds.


      Arizona has 18 roads with speed cameras and is trying to introduce more. They say that it has reduced car accidents and fatalities on the roads with the cameras. I haven't looked into the data myself however.
      Without sensibility no object would be given to us, without understanding no object would be thought. Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind. ~Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason
      [CENTER]The greatest thing you'll ever learn
      Is just to Love
      And be Loved in return
      [/CENTER]

    • Re: Speed Limits, Speed Cameras, Vehicle "Accidents" and the law

      A neighboring town to mine recently put in "red light cameras" to ensure that people will not crossed the white line before making a right turn on red. If you as much as touch the line instead of stopping before it the giant flash bulb shines off and you get yourself a hefty 85$ ticket, every time. No warnings.

      They made at least $250,000 within the first month.

    • Re: Speed Limits, Speed Cameras, Vehicle "Accidents" and the law

      I live more or less in the countryside, so most speed limits are from 60 to 80 in most areas, except in town. Most people speed anyway, and the cops don't care unless you're exceeding the limit by at least 15km/h.
      [CENTER][SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

      [CENTER] "Say those little things that don't make anyone feel better"
      [/CENTER]
      [/CENTER]

    • Re: Speed Limits, Speed Cameras, Vehicle "Accidents" and the law

      OnEMesSduPKiD wrote:

      A neighboring town to mine recently put in "red light cameras" to ensure that people will not crossed the white line before making a right turn on red. If you as much as touch the line instead of stopping before it the giant flash bulb shines off and you get yourself a hefty 85$ ticket, every time. No warnings.

      They made at least $250,000 within the first month.


      As a non-car owner I get pissed off at the cars who push themselves across my cross-walk while I'm walking. Since its in the driving laws that you're not allowed to touch my white line while I'm walking I enjoy them getting that ticket for annoying me. :p
      Without sensibility no object would be given to us, without understanding no object would be thought. Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind. ~Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason
      [CENTER]The greatest thing you'll ever learn
      Is just to Love
      And be Loved in return
      [/CENTER]

    • Re: Speed Limits, Speed Cameras, Vehicle "Accidents" and the law

      Not to be racist but I hate when there are people that just walk into a 4 or 6 lane road and don't care at all about incoming traffic, they just expect people in the cars to stop or slow down for them. Oh and then sometimes they will just walk inconveniently slow the second before a light turns green and when it even tells them don't walk.

      Then there's the people that run the red lights at a 4 way intersection and they can't even tell if a car is coming since there's a building that blocks the vision until the last second.

    • Re: Speed Limits, Speed Cameras, Vehicle "Accidents" and the law

      I agree with the OP. People are way too uptight about speeding, and driving significantly less than the speed limit can also be dangerous.

      OnEMesSduPKiD wrote:

      A neighboring town to mine recently put in "red light cameras" to ensure that people will not crossed the white line before making a right turn on red. If you as much as touch the line instead of stopping before it the giant flash bulb shines off and you get yourself a hefty 85$ ticket, every time. No warnings.

      They made at least $250,000 within the first month.

      That's pretty hefty. I am with DeaExMachina on this one though, it's annoying when cars don't adhere to that law. I've had and seen a few close encounters where I have a walk light and someone is turning right on a red, and look left for oncoming traffic while they turn instead of looking right for pedestrians.

      Same with at 4-way stops - people totally see you as a pedestrian, and you start walking, then they just roll right through the intersection and look at you like you're stupid. :(

    • Re: Speed Limits, Speed Cameras, Vehicle "Accidents" and the law

      Mudkip wrote:

      Conveniently, this is also happening at the same time that "covert" and P2P cameras are being introduced:
      Covert: cameras hidden in cars that are left on the side of the road. Good way to get $$$ as people won't know they passed one.
      Point to Point (P2P): These are really annoying. They place one at one camera location, usually along a motorway or any road with no traffic lights, and place another several kilometers down the road. The police determine the minimum time it would legally take someone to travel the road (at the maximum limit). Each camera takes a log of all cars that go past and the time they did (they also function as normal speed cameras) and if a car arrives too quickly, the owner will be fined.

      When you say 'convert', do you literally mean that a driver going past is not notified as to their role? Because that's wrong. But if they are, then to be honest, it just strikes me that they're legitimate speed cameras on wheels.

      Mudkip wrote:

      But why the motorways? Our maximum speed, 110km/h, which is only in force on certain roads, isn't that high at all. If someone had the ability to drive at 130km/h safely, then why not?

      Why not indeed? But how do you decide who will be able to drive at 130km/h without an accident and who won't?

      Mudkip wrote:

      What about the poor souls stuck behind? On a road with 2 lanes each way, all those cars are going to have to needlessly change into the fast lane, over take, and then change back, and when the slow poke car is stopping such a massive line of cars and making them all change, surely that is dangerous? Why not go with the flow?

      You've just implied there that it's dangerous to overtake on two-lane roads. It obviously isn't. Surely the idea of a fast lane and a slow lane is to allow drivers to split into two groups of slower drivers and faster ones? I would rather think more of the 'poor souls' stuck behind a slow driver on a one-lane road.

      Aleksandr wrote:

      I thought the Australians and British like having so many cameras and safety precautions?

      No, in general we don't. But they give us something to complain about, which it seems we do like.

      DamnImGood wrote:

      As a driver, I get pissed off at the pedestrians who think just because they have the right of way (which is stupid)

      It's not stupid, because it ensures that drivers, being the physically heavier and more dangerous object, take all precautions to avoid accidents.
      Driving responsibly in an area with pedestrians, a driver should be able to avoid running them over anyway, (as you suggest, you've avoided it plenty of times before) barring freak incidents of gross pedestrian irresponsibility, in cases where the pedestrian must either have been mad, incurably stupid or suicidal, and so the driver would hopefully be deemed to be at less and/or no fault.
      It's their exposed bodies versus you in your big metal box in a matter of life and death. Just because a pedestrian has made a mistake doesn't mean they should die for it. Sound your horn, swear at them, make angry gestures... whatever, but if you had right of way you could easily be just a little more complacent with your pedals and at the end of it all there's a life lost.
      [CENTER]


      [RIGHT]Ta-ta
      [/RIGHT]
      [/CENTER]

    • Re: Speed Limits, Speed Cameras, Vehicle "Accidents" and the law

      DamnImGood wrote:

      That's exactly my point. Two tons of metal versus a human body. The car is going to win every time. On that fact alone I concede my right of way as a pedestrian and give it to the much more powerful machine. The road is the car's domain; it should be able to operate freely on it. A pedestrian should NEVER be on the road except for designated crosswalks with the appropriate signals activated. Only then should the right of way transfer from the car to the person. A pedestrian shouldn't be on the road anymore than a car on the sidewalk.

      Two years ago my mom and her friends went on a Mediterranean cruise. Two of their stops were Italy and Croatia. She told me several times in both countries she and her friends were nearly hit because there the car has the right of way and she was so used to being able to walk out and have cars yield instead of the other way around.

      Common sense, logic and self-preservation supersedes any laws or rights in my mind. I don't care if I have every right in the book, if there's a car coming towards me I'm not walking. You'd be surprised how many do. I've even seen women pushing their strollers through traffic even though there's an intersection 20 feet away. It's appalling and disgusting. It was getting so bad last year that police started taking down speed traps and instead nailing jaywalkers. They were running special pieces on the news nightly talking about the laws and who's at fault, etc. Perhaps it's just my area, but I've seen some really dumb stuff. I don't understand the thought process that goes through many pedestrians' heads. It never seems to occur to them that, "If I screw this up, I could die".

      I also never suggested that pedestrians deserved to die if they made a mistake. Though, with that said, I consider many pedestrian accidents to be candidates for the Darwin Awards.

      *Gallic shrug*
      Can't say I've personally seen much pedestrian irresponsibility from where I am, and we also have the pedestrian right of way, so I can only assume there's something else that contributes to what you seem to describe as some sort of irresponsibility epidemic, and that pedestrian right of way itself doesn't cause the problem alone.

      I agree that a person shouldn't be on the road any more than a car on the pavement, but of course, when either come off their designated areas, it's the car that almost always wins. And remember it's not just pedestrian irresponsibility that could find pedestrians on the road, sometimes they may find themselves there in the unpredictable world that is the urban environment. Giving pedestrians right of way, then, offers the most vulnerable urban users protection.
      [CENTER]


      [RIGHT]Ta-ta
      [/RIGHT]
      [/CENTER]

    • Re: Speed Limits, Speed Cameras, Vehicle "Accidents" and the law

      Esmo wrote:

      When you say 'convert', do you literally mean that a driver going past is not notified as to their role? Because that's wrong. But if they are, then to be honest, it just strikes me that they're legitimate speed cameras on wheels.

      You have no idea if they are a camera when you pass one; and the tolerance apparently is set to "0km/h". [That's what they publicly state]. Fining people for doing 62 in a 60 zone is silly.


      Why not indeed? But how do you decide who will be able to drive at 130km/h without an accident and who won't?

      Perhaps those who have had proper training?

      You've just implied there that it's dangerous to overtake on two-lane roads. It obviously isn't. Surely the idea of a fast lane and a slow lane is to allow drivers to split into two groups of slower drivers and faster ones? I would rather think more of the 'poor souls' stuck behind a slow driver on a one-lane road.


      It isn't for one car, but when you have a really big line of frustrated drivers and they all start changing, someone's going to have an accident.


      Another little gem in the paper today:
      Learner drivers can speed up to five times and still pass test
      Learner drivers can speed up to five times and still pass test | Courier Mail

      Are they insane?

      ---------- Post added at 07:50 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:42 AM ----------

      OnEMesSduPKiD wrote:

      A neighboring town to mine recently put in "red light cameras" to ensure that people will not crossed the white line before making a right turn on red. If you as much as touch the line instead of stopping before it the giant flash bulb shines off and you get yourself a hefty 85$ ticket, every time. No warnings.

      They made at least $250,000 within the first month.


      Isn't that a good thing? Stop people running red lights, which is very dangerous. If someone decides to turn at a red, and the traffic on the other side starts moving, either they'll directly hit OR the other cars will stop in time but someone might not stop quick enough and hit the car infront?

      ---------- Post added at 07:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:50 AM ----------

      DamnImGood wrote:

      Roads are long and go through many different areas. Generally speaking if it's a residential area the limit will be lowered. Same as if you were going through a school zone. The limits change depending on the area the road is in. It's not always black and white.


      I know that, but some of the sections were very short before the speed changed again, and it gets annoying and confusing trying to figure out what speed we're meant to be doing, especially if we miss a sign.

    • Re: Speed Limits, Speed Cameras, Vehicle "Accidents" and the law

      DamnImGood wrote:

      That's exactly my point. Two tons of metal versus a human body. The car is going to win every time. On that fact alone I concede my right of way as a pedestrian and give it to the much more powerful machine. The road is the car's domain; it should be able to operate freely on it. A pedestrian should NEVER be on the road except for designated crosswalks with the appropriate signals activated. Only then should the right of way transfer from the car to the person. A pedestrian shouldn't be on the road anymore than a car on the sidewalk.

      I thought the "right of way thing" only really applied to crossing intersections? If people are just randomly all over the road and not in the crosswalk, then that's illegal - they're jaywalking and therefore at fault. :confused:

    • Re: Speed Limits, Speed Cameras, Vehicle "Accidents" and the law

      Z22H wrote:

      If all it does is increase government revenue then America should jump on that bandwagon. I live in Southern California near Los Angeles and I see no cameras. I don't know whether to be happy that I don't have to worry about a fine or be upset because the government doesn't set up more cameras in an effort to raise more funds.

      Why the hell would you be upset about the government not taking more money from citizens?

      And the situation in QLD/northern NSW is fucking ridiculous. Think I got nabbed by one today where there was a 100 sign next to a camera that I think may have been 80. What a load of bullshit. Definately fighting it if I do get a fine.

    • Re: Speed Limits, Speed Cameras, Vehicle "Accidents" and the law

      The default limit would be 50km/h, but in a stream of traffic if you are unsure of the speed, slowing down to 50 when the real limit might be 70 isn't a good idea.

      I think it's just the culture of this area. Drivers here are bad, too. No courtesy or respect at all, illegal turns, changing lanes without signaling, etc. I have a good thing going here, but a sizable part of me is excited for when I eventually move.

      I even see cyclists without helmets. Doesn't make any sense to me.

      Pedestrians have a mind of their own when in one big mass- especially in the CBD. People walk across roads against red walk signs all the time, so the car limit is 40km/h to prevent collisions.

      Why the hell would you be upset about the government not taking more money from citizens?

      And the situation in QLD/northern NSW is fucking ridiculous. Think I got nabbed by one today where there was a 100 sign next to a camera that I think may have been 80. What a load of bullshit. Definately fighting it if I do get a fine.

      More tax I guess?

      Was it a mobile one or..?? I've heard stories of people who have seen a 100 sign (or other sign) in the distance, sped up in advance, and got a fine.