NSW Premier: Speed Camera Review

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by flappist

a) STOP, as that is the INFLEXIBLE LAW therefore triggering a huge pile up possibly killing people (who may get a posthumous traffic offence in the mail to be paid out of their estate)

you must STOP - if a vehicle runs into you, it is their responsibility. it does not matter that you have been killed or your car is destroyed or you have serious whiplash or back problems - none of that matters; safety is what matters . . . not

[Jim Goose]

While i agree with red light cameras, some intersections are so big (6lanes etc) that the usual 3sec yellow light doesnt give you enough time to cross with out hitting the red at the other end.

Each "large" intersection really needs to have the yellow light time adjusted to suit the large distance and time it takes to cross safely under a yellow.

We have one intersection here in Townsville which spans some 60-80m. While your only crossing 4 lanes (two lanes either way) they are split by a 20m gap and the intersection is at such acute angle that crossing the intersection at 60kmh you will never make the other side in the 3secs..

There is no red light camera there thankfully...

[SteveJH]

Jim,

I was always under the impression that the red lights camera's only went off if you enter the intersection after the lights go red.

[Jim Goose]

Steve yes this is true, but (my failing?) memory recalls some talk years ago that the state governemnt wanted to remove that "allowance" and wanted the cameras to go off irrespective of when you entered the intersection.

I do believe it never passed(?), but when you consider that some states have a 3kmh "allowance" (soon to be zero tolerance) in regards to speed cameras, changes to red light cameras are soon to follow..

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by flappist

All these traffic flow experts......

Hypothetical situation: (one that I have been in more than one)

You are driving at the speed limit approaching a traffic light at the head of a line of vehicles that includes heavy vehicles, old vehicles, motorcycles etc. which may or may not be too close to each other.

Your vehicles is fitted with high performance brakes and tyres and can stop VERY quickly.

The light turns amber and you are capable of stopping before entering the intersection but it is probable that at least one the vehicles behind you can't.

Do you:

a) STOP, as that is the INFLEXIBLE LAW therefore triggering a huge pile up possibly killing people (who may get a posthumous traffic offence in the mail to be paid out of their estate)

b) CONTINUE ON, potentially getting your own ticket but leaving space on the front page of tomorrows paper for something other than a story of a huge traffic tragedy with a spin line from a troll rabbiting on about more speed cameras and tighter road laws......

You are not the only vehicle on the road and being concious of what is around you is a very important component of the skill set required to drive safely.

Looking at the rear view mirror and out the sides and windscreen is FAR more important than looking at the speedo.

Following road rules rigidly does NOT make you automatically safe as road rules are sometimes WRONG.......

Flappy, I like you, but these hypotheticals are getting more and more ridiculous, and are starting to sound like you also have your own agenda to push - the anti-political, anti-speed camera, anti-authority one.

I'll go through this step by step, just to avoid the flaming later when someone picks up a weak spot and runs with it.

Hypothetically, if I have a truck fair up my rear end when I'm heading into an intersection - we have a bigger problem that speed/red light cameras...idiots are being given licences. I would think that most truck drivers have at least half a brain and understand that in this kind of traffic (heavy) they need to be aware of what is going on around them - whilst this is not always the case, and in some instances, truck drivers are possibly just a heartbeat with a wicked ability to reverse a 40 tonne vehicle, I doubt this covers all of them.

Second to that, this inference is that every single person around you is an idiot, which they are not.

As far as looking in the side mirrors, rear view, etc, being more important - what happens, hypothetically, when you check these mirrors and run fair up the rear end of the car in front of you because they have had to brake for a pedestrian crossing? This hypothetical is just as ludicrous, because I have no doubts in my mind that when you drive, you pay attention.

If you have time to glance in your side mirrors, rear view mirrors, you have time to glance directly down from your line of sight to check your speedo...

In your hypothetical you suggest that I can stop, but they can't. If I can stop, then hypothetically speaking, with the exception of the heartbeat in the 40 tonne vehicle, everyone else can...if they 'couldn't' stop - they would have already been in front of me, because I'm doing the speed limit and hypothetically, they shouldn't be tailgaiting.

I am going to put this as nicely as possible, so the anti-political, anti-speed camera, anti-authority portion don't get offended. You're all jack of getting speeding fines, you're all jack of the government revenue collecting...the answer is so very, very simple...observe the posted speed limit, do it, religiously - if you aren't speeding - there is absolutely NO REVENUE TO BE MADE...

But if you do get caught speeding, don't use the 'revenue collectors are out to get me excuse', because it just doesn't fly...you are in control of that vehicle, which makes YOU responsible.

Yep, agree, road rules sometimes are wrong, but as I've said so many times before, just because they're wrong, or might be wrong...it doesn't give me an excuse to break it.

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

How about your driving an 11ton Mack (with a 9ton load on the back) along with a 9ton plant trailer and an 11ton roller and the light turns yellow?

My instructor recently told me "well done" for not jamming on the brakes at an intersection where clearly i wouldnt be able to stop safely. The light went red half way through the intersection.

The 3sec yellow does not give truckies ANY time to stop a vehicle in a safe manner.....

I can appreciate this, I really can, and I understand that there's tools out there who will deliberately overtake trucks and then pull in front of them, and put their foot on the brake, just so they're ahead in the queue. If it's not safe, it's not safe, simple - you have to go through.

My understanding is that if you're over your line prior to the red light, you have no issues. I seriously the doubt the government will take that away.

Originally Posted by gtxb67

you must STOP - if a vehicle runs into you, it is their responsibility. it does not matter that you have been killed or your car is destroyed or you have serious whiplash or back problems - none of that matters; safety is what matters . . . not

Once again, the words IF IT IS SAFE TO DO SO...you're trying to twist something to suit yourselves, and it makes you just as bad as those who push the 'speed cameras are good' agenda.

You are right though, the person behind you also has a responsibility, as do you. If you don't feel it's safe to stop, don't.

Logic says - Accountants tell us to minimise our tax, the government needs x amount of dollars to pay for things...so tell me, will you be happy to be taxed more if speed cameras are removed entirely? Will you be happy to be taxed more to get more police on the road, or will you all complain about that too?

At the end of the day, if you're not happy with the way the system is, do something about it, and I mean, REALLY do something about it.

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

Once again, the words IF IT IS SAFE TO DO SO

IF IT IS NOT SAFE TO DO SO - ie; come to a stop and your speed is (heaven forbid) 5-10k over the speed limit, what alternative do you have. you cannot slow down because you could be rear ended. so your only alternative is to take the fine - the yellow is there for a reason. to warn you the lights will change. you may proceed through it if it is not totally safe to stop - however with speed/red light cameras, you may now have to slow down, which may not be safe

Originally Posted by Sezzy

You are right though, the person behind you also has a responsibility, as do you. If you don't feel it's safe to stop, don't

them taking responsibility or even having it forced onto them is not going to help you if you have been injured, killed or just lost your car




To use a blanket approach that every person will be under the speed limit or have the presence of mind to know the exact distance they are from the lights is asinine to say the least

Originally Posted by Sezzy

...you're trying to twist something to suit yourselves, and it makes you just as bad as those who push the 'speed cameras are good' agenda

why not trying reading my posts - i have only ever suggested that speed cameras are for revenue not safety - and the only ones i have put down are speed/red light cameras. not speed cameras and not red light cameras

oh . . . and i have also suggested that people should take responsibility for their actions, not blame supposed role models they know nothing about

[Paxton]

Originally Posted by SteveJH

Jim,

I was always under the impression that the red lights camera's only went off if you enter the intersection after the lights go red.

Correct. The cameras (at least the old film based ones) take two photos, and you have to be in both of them for a fine to stick.

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by gtxb67

IF IT IS NOT SAFE TO DO SO - ie; come to a stop and your speed is (heaven forbid) 5-10k over the speed limit, what alternative do you have. you cannot slow down because you could be rear ended. so your only alternative is to take the fine - the yellow is there for a reason. to warn you the lights will change. you may proceed through it if it is not totally safe to stop - however with speed/red light cameras, you may now have to slow down, which may not be safe

And there's the flaming...right on time.

You clearly didn't read what I wrote - I said, if it is safe to do so, you must stop...I don't make the laws. If you're travelling 5-10k's over the limit already, it's clearly NOT safe to stop is it? The question I have is why are you doing up to 10k's over the limit approaching a set of lights? You are not an idiot, I know this, you usually have fantastic things to say (and I mean that in all seriousness), but approaching a set of traffic lights at 70k's instead of 60 is just asking for trouble.

Originally Posted by gtxb67

them taking responsibility or even having it forced onto them is not going to help you if you have been injured, killed or just lost your car

The government uses these same kinds of scare tactics with regard to speeding - it doesn't seem to be working, as so many people are continually getting booked. I guess I must conclude the general populace are slow learners.

Originally Posted by gtxb67

To use a blanket approach that every person will be under the speed limit or have the presence of mind to know the exact distance they are from the lights is asinine to say the least

I didn't actually say that, but way to go putting words into my mouth...

Originally Posted by gtxb67

why not trying reading my posts - i have only ever suggested that speed cameras are for revenue not safety - and the only ones i have put down are speed/red light cameras. not speed cameras and not red light cameras

Your suggestion is twisted - you think speed cameras are for revenue not safety, but you've never put down speed cameras? I'm sorry, but you just did.

Originally Posted by gtxb67

oh . . . and i have also suggested that people should take responsibility for their actions, not blame supposed role models they know nothing about

Yeah got that one, but that has nothing to do with this discussion...

As an aside - If these hypothetical persons are BEHIND ME, and I'm doing the speed limit (as Flappist said) - THEY AREN'T SPEEDING...

If the light has gone orange - and you don't feel it's safe to stop, DON'T...it's simple.

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

Your suggestion is twisted - you think speed cameras are for revenue not safety, but you've never put down speed cameras? I'm sorry, but you just did.

i did not put them down - i put down the spin doctors in the government and the people who claim they are for safety. try reading my posts, not just the last 3 days


as for the rest - you can have the last word, you obviously crave it

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Ben, if it were possible to stop from 80km/h in 20m then yes, according to the law you must, but its not possible in the "real world": so quite a silly strawman you have wasted your time constructing, perhaps re doing your learner's permit might have been a better idea given your ignorance of this law.

Not really a straw man, he has a point. I am against running amber lights more than the average person here, due to the amount of crashes I attend in that situation (albeit very late ambers, red on the way through).

Having said that, I can see that there are times that a car may be able to stop safely on the amber but due to other circumstances it is not safe to do so. A good example of this is a small modern hatch approaching a 6 lane intersection, comes up to the lights and they turn amber, the driver applies the brakes rather heavily but stops safely behind the line and without brake lock up (dry day time road conditions). This is the situation that Sudszy put forward as a safe stop and stopping mandatory, without reason or excuse to the contrary.

What the driver did not see was the B double that was driving too close, result was the B double hit the hatch and punted it across 6 lanes of road with the hatch coming to rest 30-40m away from where it started. Luckily the lady in the hatch, although shaken was not injured but her car was a write-off but if there had been rear seat passengers the story would have been very different. By the way, this was an actual crash that I attended, not a made up hypothetical and I have been to others like it.

Had she glanced in her rear view mirror before braking, she would have seen the truck so close and would be quite right to continue through the intersection as stopping would not have been safe to do so.

Yes that is not the way it should be, but that is sometimes the way it is, it is not a good time to argue right and wrong when you have 60t+ 1m from your rear bumper. Sometimes it is better to take the safe option and live to see another day.

As for the offence in this situation, I am sure any of the cops here would agree that had they observed this situation, and the lady continued through the lights rather than take the B double up the backside, they would see no offence on her behalf. I am sure they would go to town on the B double driver (which they did in the case of the example I gave). Added to that, in that situation if her rolling through did trigger a red light camera, the truck would also be in the picture. What better defence than one with photographic evidence?

Not that rolling through an amber will trigger a red light, please correct me if I am wrong but in QLD the camera does not activate until the lights are red and then it requires two separate camera shots with the car in frame (hence the double flash) for the offence to be applied. If they went through on the amber, it would only trigger one camera shot, no offence applicable.

Perhaps some need to get out from behind a desk and out in the real world a bit, statistics and opinion are not the be all, end all.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

Flappy, I like you, but these hypotheticals are getting more and more ridiculous, and are starting to sound like you also have your own agenda to push - the anti-political, anti-speed camera, anti-authority one.

I'll go through this step by step, just to avoid the flaming later when someone picks up a weak spot and runs with it.

Hypothetically, if I have a truck fair up my rear end when I'm heading into an intersection - we have a bigger problem that speed/red light cameras...idiots are being given licences. I would think that most truck drivers have at least half a brain and understand that in this kind of traffic (heavy) they need to be aware of what is going on around them - whilst this is not always the case, and in some instances, truck drivers are possibly just a heartbeat with a wicked ability to reverse a 40 tonne vehicle, I doubt this covers all of them.

Second to that, this inference is that every single person around you is an idiot, which they are not.

As far as looking in the side mirrors, rear view, etc, being more important - what happens, hypothetically, when you check these mirrors and run fair up the rear end of the car in front of you because they have had to brake for a pedestrian crossing? This hypothetical is just as ludicrous, because I have no doubts in my mind that when you drive, you pay attention.

If you have time to glance in your side mirrors, rear view mirrors, you have time to glance directly down from your line of sight to check your speedo...

In your hypothetical you suggest that I can stop, but they can't. If I can stop, then hypothetically speaking, with the exception of the heartbeat in the 40 tonne vehicle, everyone else can...if they 'couldn't' stop - they would have already been in front of me, because I'm doing the speed limit and hypothetically, they shouldn't be tailgaiting.

I am going to put this as nicely as possible, so the anti-political, anti-speed camera, anti-authority portion don't get offended. You're all jack of getting speeding fines, you're all jack of the government revenue collecting...the answer is so very, very simple...observe the posted speed limit, do it, religiously - if you aren't speeding - there is absolutely NO REVENUE TO BE MADE...

But if you do get caught speeding, don't use the 'revenue collectors are out to get me excuse', because it just doesn't fly...you are in control of that vehicle, which makes YOU responsible.

Yep, agree, road rules sometimes are wrong, but as I've said so many times before, just because they're wrong, or might be wrong...it doesn't give me an excuse to break it.



I can appreciate this, I really can, and I understand that there's tools out there who will deliberately overtake trucks and then pull in front of them, and put their foot on the brake, just so they're ahead in the queue. If it's not safe, it's not safe, simple - you have to go through.

My understanding is that if you're over your line prior to the red light, you have no issues. I seriously the doubt the government will take that away.



Once again, the words IF IT IS SAFE TO DO SO...you're trying to twist something to suit yourselves, and it makes you just as bad as those who push the 'speed cameras are good' agenda.

You are right though, the person behind you also has a responsibility, as do you. If you don't feel it's safe to stop, don't.

Logic says - Accountants tell us to minimise our tax, the government needs x amount of dollars to pay for things...so tell me, will you be happy to be taxed more if speed cameras are removed entirely? Will you be happy to be taxed more to get more police on the road, or will you all complain about that too?

At the end of the day, if you're not happy with the way the system is, do something about it, and I mean, REALLY do something about it.

Just to make it quick and simple.

The amber light scenario happens to me on a reasonably regular basis at for example:

Gympie, near the old Pineapple and just past Tramcars.
Nambour, near Maccas, near RSL and near BP.

Basicly most places where there is flowing heavy traffic and lights in the middle of long down hill runs or around blind corners.

As far as the speed thing, wander up the Bruce Highway and try to get past all the idiots travelling at 80-90 in the 100 zone holding up lines of trucks until they get to a dual lane section where they immediately speed up to 100 before slowing down at the other end.

This is not uncommon as can be confirmed by anyone who regularly travels on regional highways.

So what do you do?

NEVER exceed 100 stay in the middle of a mess of frustrated drivers all close to each other taking far longer than you need to to get anywhere or jump around the idiot at 120km/h and then continue on away from the bunch at 100km/h?

One of these is legal but EXTREMELY dangerous the other is not.

It is rather hard to have a head on crash or be in a multi car pileup if you are not near anyone.

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by flappist

Just to make it quick and simple.

The amber light scenario happens to me on a reasonably regular basis at for example:

Gympie, near the old Pineapple and just past Tramcars.
Nambour, near Maccas, near RSL and near BP.

Basicly most places where there is flowing heavy traffic and lights in the middle of long down hill runs or around blind corners.

As far as the speed thing, wander up the Bruce Highway and try to get past all the idiots travelling at 80-90 in the 100 zone holding up lines of trucks until they get to a dual lane section where they immediately speed up to 100 before slowing down at the other end.

This is not uncommon as can be confirmed by anyone who regularly travels on regional highways.

So what do you do?

NEVER exceed 100 stay in the middle of a mess of frustrated drivers all close to each other taking far longer than you need to to get anywhere or jump around the idiot at 120km/h and then continue on away from the bunch at 100km/h?

One of these is legal but EXTREMELY dangerous the other is not.

It is rather hard to have a head on crash or be in a multi car pileup if you are not near anyone.

Given the scenario you described, ie the downhill & blind corners, I'd probably do the same as you (I didn't get that from your first post, I'm sorry).

I travel the road between Gympie and Maryborough fairly frequently, I know the road you're talking about, I also know I've been run off the main section of the road because someone thought it was bright to try and overtake on a merge, into oncoming traffic. I follow those idiots as well, so we are on the same page, I don't dispute there aren't idiots on the road at all, but I do dispute that they're all idiots. I don't expect everyone to always abide by the law, I'd be kidding myself if I did, in certain situations, it's necessary (and safer as you pointed out) to get away from them.

Every scenario has a what if, there's no disputing that either, sometimes it's just someone pushing their luck, like the P plater this morning who didn't even attempt to brake for the red light, even though they had...plenty of time.

I'm not pro speed camera, I'm pro thinking. If there's a logical and rational reason for someone doing what they're doing, then so be it. If there isn't...they deserve a fine.

[ray38l]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

Given the scenario you described, ie the downhill & blind corners, I'd probably do the same as you (I didn't get that from your first post, I'm sorry).

I travel the road between Gympie and Maryborough fairly frequently, I know the road you're talking about, I also know I've been run off the main section of the road because someone thought it was bright to try and overtake on a merge, into oncoming traffic. I follow those idiots as well, so we are on the same page, I don't dispute there aren't idiots on the road at all, but I do dispute that they're all idiots. I don't expect everyone to always abide by the law, I'd be kidding myself if I did, in certain situations, it's necessary (and safer as you pointed out) to get away from them.

Every scenario has a what if, there's no disputing that either, sometimes it's just someone pushing their luck, like the P plater this morning who didn't even attempt to brake for the red light, even though they had...plenty of time.

I'm not pro speed camera, I'm pro thinking. If there's a logical and rational reason for someone doing what they're doing, then so be it. If there isn't...they deserve a fine.

the problem is red light, speed cameras and safety cameras don't have the ability to apply common sense they just take the photo and your guilty. On the other hand a police officer can actually see the situation and decide if it was wrong or not. Problem with that is cops are being replaced by cameras.

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by ray38l

the problem is red light, speed cameras and safety cameras don't have the ability to apply common sense they just take the photo and your guilty. On the other hand a police officer can actually see the situation and decide if it was wrong or not. Problem with that is cops are being replaced by cameras.

This...

That is the main reason I hate these revenue raising cameras

[prydey]

my brothers missus went through a red light camera intersection on the red, because she had her kids in the car and was being followed by a truck and in her opinion she thought it wasn't safe to stop, so she kept going. obviously she got a fine in the mail a week or so later and nothing you can do about it. you just have to pay and get on with it.

you can get into dangerous situations though if you start second guessing what the guy behind you will do or whether they have already seen the orange light or not. chances are, most heavy vehicles with drivers who are more than just steering wheel attendants, will have reacted to the light change before the car in front, due to their much higher seating position and much better view of the situation ahead of them.

i've read all the arguments regarding why you may need to enter an intersection after the lights have turned orange, but 9 times out of 10, when the lights go orange, people speed up to get through.

the little phrase 'if it is safe to do so' seems to be largely overlooked as well.

as an aside, did everyone notice our friend sudzy appeared again, in a thread about speed cameras. coincidence?

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by prydey

obviously she got a fine in the mail a week or so later and nothing you can do about it. you just have to pay and get on with it.

you can get into dangerous situations though if you start second guessing what the guy behind you will do or whether they have already seen the orange light or not

the little phrase 'if it is safe to do so' seems to be largely overlooked as well

these 3 points are what i dislike about red light/speed cameras. i respect your right to have a higher regard for them than myself, but to me "if it is safe to do so" is irrellevant in this context. the problem is as your sister in law found out, you can do the safer thing and be pinged for it. other people can put you in a position where you get the fine - even though you are doing everything you can to be safe. the fact is we need to drive safe and the laws need to be fair so that if we drive safely, we do not receive a penalty - it should work both ways, but our government and some others do not see it like that. they feel we should just pay even more for the priviledge of not walking

the fact you can be pinged for both red light and speeding creates the other problem - second guessing. once we have the second potential fine it suddenly contradicts the first. within reason if the lights go yellow, you should get out of the intersection as quick as you can. the speed camera makes sure that you must slow down, not a real problem in the overall picture, but another little thing to help create second guessing. realistically if you go through on the yellow, the only legal danger you can face is from someone turning right. obviously if someone is turning right we need to be aware that they are possibly going to turn in front of us and stop if it is safe to do so. either way, whether the lights have turned yellow or not, we need to be aware of them, so we can make other arrangements should they turn in front of us.

all of us should come to a stop if it is safe and possible to do so - how many actually do every time though. and then how many have different perceptions on what is safe to so so

[flappist]

Originally Posted by prydey

as an aside, did everyone notice our friend sudzy appeared again, in a thread about speed cameras. coincidence?

Yeh bit like Paris Hilton and paparazzi cameras.........

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by gtxb67

all of us should come to a stop if it is safe and possible to do so - how many actually do every time though. and then how many have different perceptions on what is safe to so so

I'll stick my hand up for the unpopular choice.

I like to think I'm always aware of my surroundings when I approach an intersection. I would negotiate at least 10 red light cameras and several hundred intersections on a weekday over the last 20 years in Sydney traffic. Could probably count on one hand how many times I've heard a screech behind me.. and not been hit.

In the last 10 years, I don't actually recall a time where my options were gun or anchor. Given that I spend a minimum of 60k on the road PA, I've seen the net gain of running a yellow.. sod all.

Am I an angel? Hell no. Though, in my travels I have seen more than my fair share of incidents that could have been avoided. When I take off from lights, I check left and right - not blindly assume that other road users respect traffic lights.. that alone has saved me more times than I care to count.

Experience certainly is key. My missus is going for her licence again and I'll point out bonehead maneuvers to her while I'm driving before they happen and she'll look at me in awe. It's all about reading your surroundings and reacting to them.

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by prydey

as an aside, did everyone notice our friend sudzy appeared again, in a thread about speed cameras. coincidence?

He clearly does not care about Fords, or cars. He is not an enthusiast.

He probably works for the governments revenue raising department ehermm sorry I mean road safety department.

I was told by a moderator that its none of my business and it does not have to reveal anything about itself if it doesn't want to.
So pretty much get used to seeing him/her/it pop up in any thread that has the word 'speed camera' in it.

I'm still very interested in knowing all about them, their experience and so on. I wonder if it's a Self appointed expert, or government troll.

[AWD Chaser]

Canberra have had them (combined Redlight/Speed Camera) since they introduced the first fixed speed camera YEARS ago (in the ACT).

I remember shortly after they were first switched on, how many skid marks there were at the intersection.

I do agree with the purpose of red light cameras, but hold the opinion that you should be able to get the fine waived you write away stating genuine reasoning (rain, heavy trailer, close following cars, etc).

In saying that though, I'm not a supporter of fixed speed cameras in un-needed areas (they should be in every school zone).

But how does a review/investigatoin of speed cameras judge one as un-needed? No accidents? Increase in accidents? High ticketing?

However, bare in mind that the state relies on income from speed cameras - so if they start switching them off, we (including the people that dont speed) will just end up getting taxed somewhere else...

Maybe they could install "Doof" cameras at every McDonalds car park and automatically hand out tickets for loud cars and stereos...

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Ben73

He clearly does not care about Fords, or cars. He is not an enthusiast.

He probably works for the governments revenue raising department ehermm sorry I mean road safety department.

I was told by a moderator that its none of my business and it does not have to reveal anything about itself if it doesn't want to.
So pretty much get used to seeing him/her/it pop up in any thread that has the word 'speed camera' in it.

I'm still very interested in knowing all about them, their experience and so on. I wonder if it's a Self appointed expert, or government troll.

Fair points but you will never find out who he/she is from him/her, that member has made that quite clear, make of that what you will.

[prydey]

there was an article (i posted the link in one of the old speed camera threads) that said that NSW were increasing the number of speed cameras by something like 3000 units. did this die with kinnealy (sp)? can't imagine there being a review to determine their credibility if they are still planning on bringing out thousands more units.

also, regarding police presence being a deterrant. a few weeks back i was travelling to work and due to me doing shiftwork, there was only 2 other cars on the road. one was a cop. the other car was in front of me, the cop was to my left. it was a 2 lane road. up ahead was an intersection. this intersection had what is commonly referred to as a 'drag lane' (a third lane that continues a short distance after the intersection). as we approached the lights turn red. at the last minute this other car, suddenly indicates and dives from the middle lane(the one nearest the median strip), straight over to this third lane, straight across the front of the police car. given that there were no other cars on the road, i thought it a bit strange, as this person would have had the front row anyway. i thought perhaps he realised at the last minute he needed to turn left. lights go green, and it seems this clown just wanted to increase the amount of 'drag options'. he takes off flat out. cop car takes off and i thought, 'this guys a goner', but no, the cop just trails him for a bit longer and then turns off. i guess the guy didn't really do anything wrong, although 'lane hopping' is technically illegal, and to do it right in front of a cop car is asking for it i would've thought. accelerating isn't illegal but i could be 100% sure he went beyond the 60km/h limit, but i guess no proof. what sort of numbskull tries to provoke the cops?

its a long story, and apologies as it has no real message, but some people just are who they are, regardless of camera's or police presence.

if i was a cop, i would've at least pulled him over. i've always said, if i was a cop, i'd probably be a pig. i wouldn't be hassling the speeders though. just the people driving like idiots and not following all the other just as important road rules.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Not really a straw man, he has a point.

He says: according to me people should jump on the brakes when doing 80km/h out 20m from an intersection which inferred I believed a car could pull up in that distance. Perhaps consult some definitions of strawman, it fits nicely. I realise you want to put me down because ive exposed you for not being the expert you want to be, but you'll need to do better than this.

Originally Posted by geckoGT

A good example of this is a small modern hatch approaching a 6 lane intersection, comes up to the lights and they turn amber, the driver applies the brakes rather heavily but stops safely behind the line and without brake lock up (dry day time road conditions). This is the situation that Sudszy put forward as a safe stop and stopping mandatory, without reason or excuse to the contrary.........

,

what does that mean, I think I qualified it when safe to do so and that if a truck was up your clacker then that is a good enough reason not to stop.

Originally Posted by sudszy

Drivers can argue their case that they were being tailgated by a truck for example, but arguing..... .

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Perhaps some need to get out from behind a desk and out in the real world a bit, statistics and opinion are not the be all, end all.

All you have highlighted with your little rant is that when approaching an intersection one should be know exactly what is behind you, as you should at all times, so when "**** happens" you know to perhaps not to jump on the brakes and get cleaned up by the juggernaut behind or can anticipate what you will be doing if the amber shows up when you get closer to the intesection, all part of driving a vehicle.

What you have also highlighted is is that having trucks go through intersections at the same speed as cars is a recipe for disaster, basically they should adjust their speed so that there stopping distance is comparable to cars that are going faster, if that means going through at 40km/h, (which would still put their stopping dist at near double that of a car doing 50km/h) so be it.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by prydey

as an aside, did everyone notice our friend sudzy appeared again, in a thread about speed cameras. coincidence?

Finding ben73, flappist, yourself in a thread complaining about govco conspiracies....just coincidental too?

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by sudszy

He says: according to me people should jump on the brakes when doing 80km/h out 20m from an intersection which inferred I believed a car could pull up in that distance. Perhaps consult some definitions of strawman, it fits nicely. I realise you want to put me down because ive exposed you for not being the expert you want to be, but you'll need to do better than this.

Thanks Harold, challenge accepted.

Originally Posted by sudszy

All you have highlighted with your little rant is that when approaching an intersection one should be know exactly what is behind you, as you should at all times, so when "**** happens" you know to perhaps not to jump on the brakes and get cleaned up by the juggernaut behind or can anticipate what you will be doing if the amber shows up when you get closer to the intesection, all part of driving a vehicle.

About the only time I am likely to agree with you. That is one of the things I am happy to highlight, a competent driver does a quick check of the rear vision mirror whenever they approach an area of the road when unexpected situations may occur, such as intersections. A competent driver also periodically checks the rear vision mirror on all other sections of road. To take it even further, a competent driver takes their foot off the accelerator, covers the brake pedal and is prepared for the unexpected when approaching all intersections, it is only after they have confirmed the intersection is clear that they proceed through the intersection, even on a green. Green does not mean go, it means proceed if it is safe to do so.

Now we just need a world full of competent drivers.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by sudszy

I realise you want to put me down because ive exposed you for not being the expert you want to be,

i don't think you have exposed anybody. between the 2 of you, one seems to work in the practicle, and one in the theory.

theory is all well and good, but sometimes, in practice, things don't quite follow the same 'logic'.

sudzy, there are a few who are targeting you, and i think you come on here trying to create a stir with your agenda, but i don't think gecko could ever be accused of targeting someone. perhaps when you read the comments people post, you shouldn't be so defensive or guilty of conscience, to think you are being targeted by everybody who doesn't agree with your 'theories'.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

A competent driver also periodically checks the rear vision mirror on all other sections of road. To take it even further, a competent driver takes their foot off the accelerator, covers the brake pedal and is prepared for the unexpected when approaching all intersections, it is only after they have confirmed the intersection is clear that they proceed through the intersection, even on a green. Green does not mean go, it means proceed if it is safe to do so.

Now we just need a world full of competent drivers.

this is how i was taught to drive, which was only 15-20 years ago. surely people are still taught these basics. possibly the govt's 'speed is the answer' push is partly responsible for eroding these basic skills. people are dulled into thinking that if they don't speed they are good drivers.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by prydey

i don't think you have exposed anybody. between the 2 of you, one seems to work in the practicle, and one in the theory.

theory is all well and good, but sometimes, in practice, things don't quite follow the same 'logic'.

sudzy, there are a few who are targeting you, and i think you come on here trying to create a stir with your agenda, but i don't think gecko could ever be accused of targeting someone. perhaps when you read the comments people post, you shouldn't be so defensive or guilty of conscience, to think you are being targeted by everybody who doesn't agree with your 'theories'.

Thanks Prydey.

Personally I would like Sudszy to keep to the present discussion, especially when you consider the previous discussion he is referring to is one where he believes he has me based on his interpretation of what I said, not what I actually said. Perhaps he should also learn to leave the personal attacks out of it, that way others would accept his posts with a better attitude.

News flash Sudszy, sometimes context gets lost in the printed word, as did in the thread to which you keep referring to constantly, time to move on.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by prydey

this is how i was taught to drive, which was only 15-20 years ago. surely people are still taught these basics. possibly the govt's 'speed is the answer' push is partly responsible for eroding these basic skills. people are dulled into thinking that if they don't speed they are good drivers.

Unfortunately it is the old story, what you are taught and what you do can be two different things.

Fortunately there are some good drivers out there, I see them everyday, we just need more of them.

[TheInterceptor]

Originally Posted by Rodp

If they were your only two options, clearly you're not driving to the conditions. You're caught in the wrong spot because you've put yourself in the wrong spot.

Yes thats right, but say you are tired and have lower reaction times or you get distracted by the kids in the back seat etc and you end up in that situation?

You're going home after a 12 hour workday, its 1am and youve had enough. Youd head home...you roll the window down and let to cool air in..you begin to relax...you approach a safety bs cam intersection and the light goes yellow. You are going 70kmph. You hesitate....welcome wrong spot.