Axing speed cameras - result

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by sudszy

I dont have a problem with signed speed cameras, they have some effectiveness.

I think hidden/unsigned ones are far more effective in changing people's behaviour on all roads and at all times for the long term which is what we are after, not just for a couple of minutes on one particular stretch of road they travel on.

Abolish fines from the cameras?, as long as the driver receives some other form of incentive to moderate their behaviour. Double the demerit points, cancel licences for longer, whatever.

Dont see any problem with fining people though, it seems to work in changing behaviour(along with demerit points), whether its state or fed gov, if speedsters want to lighten the tax burden for those that do the right thing, fine with me.

You appear to be supporting a method of controlling behaviour through compliance and enforcement.

I subscribe to the theory that better quality vehicles and higher standards of driver training and education is the #1 method of reducing road fatalities and injuries.

The law of physics says that travelling at 0km/h guarantees absolutely that no fatalities can occur from vehicle collisions. Based on that why not ban motor vehicles to cull the road toll?

There is plenty of evidence to support both increasing speed limits and decreasing speed limits can save lives. There's lies, damn lies and statistics.

[AussieAV]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

I work in an area where I have to act on scientific advice and I am amazed at the philanthropic of some academics who choose for ethical and/or ability reasons to fully self fund very expensive research projects. Not all students are poor. Indeed, it is probably a sad reflection on our society that their is still some correlation between wealth and post graduate students attending the best recognised universities. Yes; the vast majority of student try and do source grants and other external funding but there is still some fully self funded or family funded research. Researchers are usually required to declare their funding sources and any potential or perceived conflicts of interest etc (see my last study quoted for example - Funding None.
Competing interests None declared)

Yeah, but how extensive are they. In post number 50, you quoted research to back up one of your points. It was a study that looked at 320 Queenslanders. Now no offense to Queenslanders, but the driving habits of 320 of them is hardly a fair sampling of a nation of over 20 million people.

[aussiblue]

There is plenty of evidence to support both increasing speed limits and decreasing speed limits can save lives

Please point me to any research or hard evidence that increasing speed limits saves lives. BTW I am open minded and ready to be proved wrong but I haven't so far been able to find anything that supports that assertion myself. It would certainly be interesting but if true likely a special case with exceptional circumstances (e.g .ambulances using dedicated emergency lanes).

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

Please point me to any research or hard evidence that increasing speed limits saves lives. BTW I am open minded and ready to be proved wrong but I haven't so far been able to find anything that supports that assertion myself. It would certainly be interesting but if true likely a special case with exceptional circumstances (e.g .ambulances using dedicated emergency lanes).

NTSB data, based on statistics compilied after speed limits were increased from 55MPH to 70 MPH on Highways in some US states. The insurance industry lobbied hardest against an increase in the speed limit citing statistics that the fatality and injury rate would increase; the exact opposite is what occured.

Google or Wiki is your friend if you want to find the links for the data.

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by F6 Concorde

NTSB data, based on statistics compilied after speed limits were increased from 55MPH to 70 MPH on Highways in some US states. The insurance industry lobbied hardest against an increase in the speed limit citing statistics that the fatality and injury rate would increase; the exact opposite is what occured.

Google or Wiki is your friend if you want to find the links for the data.

that might be ture on 8 line highways, or country roads , as i think it would . but ry doing that on 2 lane sydney highways in peak hour . or any time for that matter , i often cruise at 100 to 110 kms an hour very very often , but my average speed is 54 kkms an hour , on these statistics , sydneys speed could be lowered everywhere and probably have the same result .
2ndly our licencing system , and foreigners are a complete disgrace on the road , with only employed tax payers being penalised or punished ,.
i better chill and make this my last post in this thread .

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by gtfpv

2ndly our licencing system , and foreigners are a complete disgrace on the road , with only employed tax payers being penalised or punished

that is only part of the problem. (up unto 5 years ago and probably still the same now) if you held a license in another country for 3 years - no actual driving necessary - the day you got off the plane, you could theoretically pass your learners, hazard perception and driver's test on that day and be a fully licensed driver - no p plates; no nothing

my wife had less than 5 hours experience in the philippines, but had held her license for over 3 years. while she did get lessons (and she was more mature than a standard learner), she was on a full license with probably 20-30 hours experience of driving anywhere in the world

and when you consider the driving standards in some countries, that is simply too big a risk. having driven overseas i understand why some immigrants drive too fast or too slow with nothing much in between. their roads and ours are so different yet our governments choose to blame speed and not their policies - i guess speedsters will not get the public sympathy when they complain of discrimination though

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by gtxb67

that is only part of the problem. (up unto 5 years ago and probably still the same now) if you held a license in another country for 3 years - no actual driving necessary - the day you got off the plane, you could theoretically pass your learners, hazard perception and driver's test on that day and be a fully licensed driver - no p plates; no nothing

my wife had less than 5 hours experience in the philippines, but had held her license for over 3 years. while she did get lessons (and she was more mature than a standard learner), she was on a full license with probably 20-30 hours experience of driving anywhere in the world

and when you consider the driving standards in some countries, that is simply too big a risk. having driven overseas i understand why some immigrants drive too fast or too slow with nothing much in between. their roads and ours are so different yet our governments choose to blame speed and not their policies - i guess speedsters will not get the public sympathy when they complain of discrimination though

great post mate . on the other hand though , i want to be able to drive , in other countries if i go there , so it is a hard one . once you immigrate though , you should atleast be made to go to driving school , i dont know where that leaves tourists though .
at the end of the day though we are all stuck with extra dangers on our roads from this .

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by gtfpv

great post mate . on the other hand though , i want to be able to drive , in other countries if i go there , so it is a hard one . once you immigrate though , you should atleast be made to go to driving school , i dont know where that leaves tourists though

it is much too easy for anyone to get a license here - i guess the more that have one the more that can be fined

(i believe) my international driving permit for the philippines was only for 3 months. how someone can get a driving permit for any longer is beyond me. if you are in any country for longer you should have to pass some type of test - surely you have to prove that you can drive before they let you drive for more than 3 months

when you do get your learners here, they take your international license off you, obviously so if your australian one is cancelled, you cannot rely on your first one. surely though in todays age, they can let you keep your original one with a hole in the corner so the general public and the police know it is not valid and then, if you go back home steps can be taken to renew it there



i realise this is slightly off topic, but to me it has some relevance to road safety, which the thread is loosely based on

[aussiblue]

NTSB data, based on statistics compilied after speed limits were increased from 55MPH to 70 MPH on Highways in some US states. The insurance industry lobbied hardest against an increase in the speed limit citing statistics that the fatality and injury rate would increase; the exact opposite is what occured.

Yes; agreed but I found most research indicated it was often otherwise abd not that "black and white" and when there was a positive benefit from increased speed limits the reasons were often not directly speed related (eg: sometimes about redeployment of police resources).

The effects of the new 65 mile-per-hour speed limit on rural highway fatalities: A state-by-state analysis

Steven Garbera and John D. Grahamb a School of Urban and Public Affairs, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, U.S.A.

Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, U.S.A.

Received 1 June 1989. Available online 11 December 2002.

Abstract
This paper examines the effects of the new 65 mile-per-hour (mph) speed limit on U.S. rural highway fatality counts. Separate analyses are conducted for each of the 40 states that had adopted the new (higher) limit by mid-1988. Using monthly Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS) data from January 1976 through November 1988, time-series regression equations—including policy variables, seasonal variables, and surrogate exposure variables—are estimated for each state. The results suggest that the new laws have increased fatalities on both rural interstate and rural noninterstate highways in most states, but also that these effects differ substantially across the states. For rural interstate fatalities the estimates suggest a median (among the 40 states) effect of the increased speed limit of roughly 15% more fatalities; the median estimates for rural noninterstates suggest a 5% increase in fatalities due to the increased speed limits. Estimates such as those reported here should be revised as more information becomes available.

Changes in motor vehicle occupant fatalities after repeal of the national maximum speed limit

Charles M. Farmer, , Richard A. Retting and Adrian K. Lund

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 1005 North Glebe Road, Arlington, VA 22201, USA

Abstract
Trends in motor vehicle occupant deaths over 8 years were studied for 24 states that raised interstate speed limits and seven states that did not following the 1995 repeal of the US National Maximum Speed Limit. Fatalities on interstates increased 15% in the 24 states that raised speed limits. After accounting for changes in vehicle miles of travel, fatality rates were 17% higher following the speed limit increases. Similar increases were reported following the 1987 speed limit increases on rural interstates. Deaths on roads other than interstates were essentially unchanged.Changes in motor vehicle occupant fatalities after repeal of the national maximum speed limit

and where it did it was a for other reasons:

In 1987, most states raised the speed limit from 55 to 65 mph on portions of their rural interstate highways. There was intense debate about the increase, and numerous evaluations were conducted afterwards. These evaluations share a common problem: they only measure the local effects of the change. But the change must be judged by its system-wide effects. In particular, the new 65 mph limit allowed the state highway patrols to shift their resources from speed enforcement on the interstates to other safety activities and other highways—a shift many highway patrol chiefs had argued for. If the chiefs were correct, the new allocation of patrol resources should lead to a reduction in statewide fatality rates. Similarly, the chance to drive faster on the interstates should attract drivers away from other, more dangerous roads, again generating system-wide consequences. This study measures these changes and obtains surprising results. We find that the 65 mph limit reduced statewide fatality rates by 3.4% to 5.1%, holding constant the effects of long-term trend, driving exposure, seat belt laws, and economic factors.

[aussiblue]

This could go on forever and doubt we will never agree or persuade each other.

I think the fact is we would all like to go faster and be able to use more of our car's potential but economic, demographic and geographic circumstances unique to Australia make this a dream. We simply own too many cars per head, we are too spread out and we don't have the population that can support a car industry that can supply cheap cars. Therefore, we will tend to have cars with a older average age (generally less safe in terms of collision outcomes, braking distance, stability control etc.) and roads that are not (or are less) safe for very high speeds. The km of road per head make its uneconomical to built lots of km of road safe to drive at very high speed and we all cannot afford to buy several new cars every few years.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by F6 Concorde

NTSB data, based on statistics compilied after speed limits were increased from 55MPH to 70 MPH on Highways in some US states. The insurance industry lobbied hardest against an increase in the speed limit citing statistics that the fatality and injury rate would increase; the exact opposite is what occured.

Google or Wiki is your friend if you want to find the links for the data.

wouldnt hurt to get the whole story.

Typically where the limit was raised, all it did was legalise what was already happening there as the lower limits were not being policed or observed.

What also happens in one of those cases, ie Utah, was that the legalisation of the higher limit meant that more people were travelling at closer to the same speed, as previously there were some adhering to the limit of 55mph and those doing excess of 70mph on the same road. As most of you have researched, the lower the speed differential between vehicles, the less chance of incident and in the state of Utah there was insignificant change in the accident rate due to this.
I

Hopefully most people will not see that as a justification for higher speeds, just "same" speeds.

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Hopefully most people will not see that as a justification for higher speeds, just "same" speeds.

true, but wouldn't that also suggest that if everyone was doing 10 kph over the limit the roads are safer than half the traffic doing that and the other half the speed limit

in that case, speed cameras are not for safety are they, because by raising the limit and even then putting a camera with a 10% tolerance to catch the hoons, the roads would be much safer

but then there would be less revenue

back in the mid 90's both my father and step mum got pinged by the same camera - both 15 kph over the limit and 15 minutes apart in peak hour traffic. going by the same speed theory, everyone on that road was being safe, yet they all got pinged - safety or revenue

[AussieAV]

Just want to clarify something, I don't think that speed limits should be increased, nor do I have a problem with them being policed and enforced, so long as that policing/enforcing is fair and in line with the risk increase that offenders pose.

How to do this, don't know. Just know that the current system of a single pronged speed kills message with a zero tolerance enforcement approach causes a divisiveness between even sensible conscientious motorists and the road safety front. Silly thing is I don't think anyone here is anti-safety.

I'm going to risk trying an analogy here, although I've got a crap record of making them work so don't take it too literally.

It's a bit like the medical profession and antibiotics. For years after the advent of cheap antibiotics, doctors prescribed them immediately for any simple ailment without bothering to get to the root cause of people's illness and seeing if it was really the best solution. Figured no real down side as side-effects minimal, and in most cases made people better. Problem was over-prescription started making the bacterial strains they were designed to fight stronger and some became super-bugs, immune to conventional anti-biotic treatment.

Buy misusing and abusing an incredible medical breakthrough, they severely reduced its effectiveness and almost made it useless.

I think governments are doing the same with speed cameras. It's an attractive and easy "cure-all" because it also brings in a bucket load of money when used with a zero tolerance mentality. They've started ignoring all the other cures because they require more work and effort, and as a result they are making Joe Public immune to the Road Safety message (which they have effectively made a purely "speed kills" message).

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by gtxb67

true, but wouldn't that also suggest that if everyone was doing 10 kph over the limit the roads are safer than half the traffic doing that and the other half the speed limit

in that case, speed cameras are not for safety are they, because by raising the limit and even then putting a camera with a 10% tolerance to catch the hoons, the roads would be much safer

but then there would be less revenue

back in the mid 90's both my father and step mum got pinged by the same camera - both 15 kph over the limit and 15 minutes apart in peak hour traffic. going by the same speed theory, everyone on that road was being safe, yet they all got pinged - safety or revenue

Interesting point. Just imagine if speed limits were based using the 85th percentile method i.e. basing speed limit on a a speed at which most vehicles travel.

[gtxb67]

i do not have a problem with any of the road rules we have - except maybe speed cameras should have a 10% tolerance with slightly less of them and i do not like red light/speed cameras together
however i do believe in telling both sides of the story and the government in its wisdom only seems to tell us the side they want us to hear. the fact is they are for revenue. if they were for safety, the proceeds would be put back into road safety but of course they are not. they are budgeted for in the general budget but as always we are told lie after lie

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by gtxb67

true, but wouldn't that also suggest that if everyone was doing 10 kph over the limit the roads are safer than half the traffic doing that and the other half the speed limit

Based on that logic you could argue that 300km/h was safe, provided everyone did it.

yes, the roads are safer when the speed differential is low and the actual speed at which cars are travelling at is reduced. How low we make that limit is a compromise between safety, function and convenience.

The present limits have been arrived at through a long process of trial and error (up to the 1970s) and beyond that by , research investigation and design.

Despite the rumblings of many here, I dont think that the recommendations for the present limits were ever arrived at with making revenue for state governments in mind.

There will be no doubt people who will continue to cite stats "proving" that increasing speed makes the roads safer and those quoting those stats will be shown to be "cherry picking" the data to suit their beliefs, and it could continue for ever, Ill say goodnight on this one.

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Based on that logic you could argue that 300km/h was safe, provided everyone did it.

well that does depend on where it is, what cars they were driving and the skill of the driver, which seems to be something our government cannot understand. remember there are autobahn's in germany that have massive speeds and very little carnage

i have stated already that there is nothing wrong with our speed limits. going by your lack of disagreement with raising a speed limit in the us by 15 mph, mine was an example of how the "safety" of the same speed could be achieved with only a 10 kph increase. if a 15 mph increase made a road safer, then sure a 10 kph increase could too, couldn't it. it was not a suggestion, just an example but 300 kph: now that is just going too far

either way, i do not have $15,000,000 to do a study on it, so my theory will always be wrong - the government wins again