Point-to-point cameras to target trucks

Submitted: Monday, May 04, 2009 at 15:26
ThreadID: 68511 Views:2807 Replies:8 FollowUps:11
This Thread has been Archived
Just in response to a "lively discussion" a few weeks ago here



"Point-to-point speed cameras will be introduced in NSW, but Roads Minister Michael Daley vows they'll only be used to target trucks and not cars.

The cameras will be installed on 20 stretches of road, covering distances as short as two kilometres and as long as 80km.

Mr Daley said heavy vehicles remained over-represented in fatal crashes. Speed was all too often the cause.

Heavy vehicles made up about 2.6 per cent of all vehicles on the road, yet were involved in almost 20 per cent of road fatalities, he said.

Mr Daley said a Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) survey of major freight routes in 2005 found 51 per cent of heavy vehicles exceeded the speed limit.

Nearly seven per cent of those exceeded the limit by more than 15km/h, it found.

"There's no place for cowboys on our roads, and this new technology will catch them out," Mr Daley said in a statement on Monday.

Point-to-point cameras calculate the time it takes a truck to drive between two points, thus determining if the vehicle was speeding over that stretch of road.

Mr Daley insists there is no plan to introduce the speed cameras to target cars in the future.

"I have no plans to introduce it for anything other than heavy vehicles," he told Macquarie Radio.

"Light vehicles are not under the same commercial imperatives that heavy vehicles are."

Mr Daley dismissed suggestions the point-to-point system is a form of revenue-raising, saying it will cost the government $5 million a year to operate, even after any revenue from fines.

He said the system would require some changes to legislation, and it was hoped that all 20 sites would be operational within two years.

An awareness campaign will be launched to inform truckies about the change. During an initial two-month period on each stretch of road covered by the cameras, drivers will get a warning letter instead of a fine."

Donks1

Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: garrycol - Monday, May 04, 2009 at 15:49

Monday, May 04, 2009 at 15:49
But these are already in trucks and have been in for years. I also understand that the timed speed cameras on the M7 are capturing cars now.

I do not have first hand information on either but that is what I have heard.

Garry
AnswerID: 363162

Follow Up By: Dunco (NSW) - Monday, May 04, 2009 at 16:12

Monday, May 04, 2009 at 16:12
That is a total Urban Myth !!!!

Do not believe it.
0
FollowupID: 630805

Follow Up By: Member - Graeme W (NSW) - Monday, May 04, 2009 at 16:14

Monday, May 04, 2009 at 16:14
Hi Garry,

The timed speed cameras on the M7 was a hoax.

M7 Hoax

"However, the secret speed fine system detailed in the hoax email does not exist," Ms Johnson said.

"Speed limits are enforced on the Westlink M7 through the normal policing measures that operate on all NSW roads

Graeme
Oodnadatta Track

Member
My Profile  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 630806

Reply By: Member - Oldbaz. NSW. - Monday, May 04, 2009 at 16:05

Monday, May 04, 2009 at 16:05
Hardly a new procedure. Point to point checks have been in force for years. To say that heavy vehicles are involved in 20% of fatal
accidents but only make up 2.6% of traffic is simplistic. How many
of those 20% are "at fault" to the heavy vehicle ? Our truckies
are treated as cash cows by govt. Look at the Reg charges !!!..
Why use such technology to only catch speeding heavy vehicles,
when it can be used on all speeding cases. Just another example
of govt slugging the heavy transport industry, in the long run we
all pay for it.........oldbaz.
AnswerID: 363166

Follow Up By: Dave(NSW) - Monday, May 04, 2009 at 16:29

Monday, May 04, 2009 at 16:29
I think this bloke is fishing,why bring up something that has been around for years. As oldbaz says out of the 20% about 3% are the fault of heavy vehicles .


GU RULES!!

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 630809

Follow Up By: Mad Cowz (VIC) - Monday, May 04, 2009 at 18:19

Monday, May 04, 2009 at 18:19
I think the measure is "simplistic" but for different reasons.
I imagine your average "heavy vehicle" would be covering a much greater distance than your average punter on the road thus having a greater exposure to the inherent risks of road travel. maybe they should look at the total distance travelled per accident as well as who is at fault before lumping truckies with all the blame.

concepts raised here might be difficult for some pollies to grasp and it is much easier to punish a minority.... (like 4wd owners)
Carpe Cerevisi

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 630825

Follow Up By: Madfisher - Monday, May 04, 2009 at 21:42

Monday, May 04, 2009 at 21:42
Quite right Baz, I was going out to the airport last week, and slowly pulled past a b double. The lights opp bathurst showground went orange. This lady screams up behind me then ducks back in front of the b double and hits the brakes for the lights. Poor truckie had the trailer locked up and managed to pull up two feet behind her. She had no idea what she had just done. The Truckie most likley wrecked a couple of tyres at least.
Cheers Pete
0
FollowupID: 630875

Follow Up By: Member - Doug T (NT) - Tuesday, May 05, 2009 at 02:11

Tuesday, May 05, 2009 at 02:11
Oldbaz
Good reply mate....
It's the Safety Cams that I think he might have read about.
Safe-T-Cam

300 heavy vehicle regulation inspectors.
42 cars fitted with in-car technology which allows inspectors to use risk based methodology to randomly stop and check heavy vehicles to ensure they are in compliance with RTA regulations.
7 heavy vehicle checking stations.
24 Safe-T-Cam sites across NSW.
170 roadside inspection areas.

HOW MUCH MORE DO THEY WANT.

.
still going strong with 836,179 K's

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 630904

Reply By: Member - Shane D (QLD) - Monday, May 04, 2009 at 16:44

Monday, May 04, 2009 at 16:44
Any one who has travelled on ANY major interstate route thru NSW would've travelled past a BIG sign saying safety cam ahead, and then travelled under a big gantry housing lots of cameras.
These have been in place for well over 10 years.
This post is OLD news
Shane
AnswerID: 363172

Reply By: OzTroopy - Monday, May 04, 2009 at 19:25

Monday, May 04, 2009 at 19:25
Was on the news again tonight .....

2kph over the limit and its revenue time.

If veh speedos are accepted as being inaccurate ... how is it that govt income eqpt is so perfect ????????????

Cars are not targetted by the cameras ... but can be .... pfffft ...

Interesting that govt has reduced rail service over the years ... requiring road freight ... and then makes a fortune out of the road freight which is making up for the govts lack of service.

Me ... a truck driver ... No ... just someone who would rather stop at rail crossings than dodge B-Doubles or bigger on main highways.

The extra time stuck out in the oncoming lane getting around these govt approved cash cow monsters is hardly a road safety initiative.

AnswerID: 363218

Follow Up By: RV Powerstream P/L - Monday, May 04, 2009 at 20:51

Monday, May 04, 2009 at 20:51
There has to something in as I was offered the special deal from TomTom of $39 odd dollars to have a Safety Camera Warning on the GPS.

Initially the deal was for European Countries but in the last week in April before the deal was to end it included Australia.

I spoke with other person and agreed that its value as safety cameras in Aus are not used as speed detection cameras in Aus was not warranted but now Im not so sure and the discount deal is finished.

Revenue by stealth will gradually include cars.
Ian
0
FollowupID: 630860

Reply By: vk1dx - Tuesday, May 05, 2009 at 06:34

Tuesday, May 05, 2009 at 06:34
Please bring it in for cars also.

The more people get booked for speeding, the less likely is it that there is a need for my registration/tax etc to be raised. So what if its revenue raising. Its the drivers choice to speed. And bikes are the worst offenders. Should double the fine for bikes.

I bet this will stir things up. Yey!!
AnswerID: 363284

Follow Up By: Gramps - Tuesday, May 05, 2009 at 08:43

Tuesday, May 05, 2009 at 08:43
"Its the drivers choice to speed"

Hang on. Do you expect drivers to take responsibility for their own actions?

Sorry, we can't have that. It's ALWAYS someone else's fault, revenue raising, truckie bashing, bike bashing etc. The excuses and conspiracy theories are endless. Just listen to the violins playing a few posts up from this. Poor, poor victimised truckies.

If you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen.

0
FollowupID: 630915

Reply By: vk1dx - Tuesday, May 05, 2009 at 09:05

Tuesday, May 05, 2009 at 09:05
I love it. Drivers take responsibility for their own actions. That's a new one. Since when Love it.

I don't think anyone after the baby boomers can even say that sentence.

Isn't it great to be able to hop in the car/truck and just drive off into the sunset and leave all this rubbish behind. No mobile phone. No emails. No nosey neighbors. No wingers. No do gooders etc etc etc.

God I love the bush.
AnswerID: 363296

Reply By: Honky - Tuesday, May 05, 2009 at 09:58

Tuesday, May 05, 2009 at 09:58
Its ok to say that speeding is speeding and its the law.
Just have a look at the Northern territory where reducing the speed limit has increase the death toll.
In some areas of of the County there should be an increase in speed limits say to 120 ( not for trucks) as it is fatigue that kills ( MHO)
If you do say its the law in regards to speeding than don't complain about other countries drug laws, death sentences, religion based laws, unfarness in sentencing as "It is the Law".

Honky


AnswerID: 363301

Follow Up By: vk1dx - Tuesday, May 05, 2009 at 10:26

Tuesday, May 05, 2009 at 10:26
Hi Honky

Are you absolutely sure that the reduced speed is the only reason that the death toll has increased.

Thats a pretty wild statement.

Sorry mate I cannot go along with you on this one.

For another thing I was not complaining about the speed limit. I was saying how UNSORRY (to coin a new word) I am about the poor little twits who always find an excuse for speeding and will not take responsibility for their own inept actions.
0
FollowupID: 630935

Follow Up By: OzTroopy - Tuesday, May 05, 2009 at 10:58

Tuesday, May 05, 2009 at 10:58
Speed limit reduced ..... Death toll goes up .....

What other factors have occurred to cause the rise in fatal accidents occurring ??? .... as a safety initiative one would think the other reasons would be made widely known so they could be avoided.

With the increasing amount of traffic on the roads ... some limits do need to be imposed .... but not at the expense of safely overtaking / fatigue from boredom etc.

Speeding is a glib political term anyway ... what are we talking about here ? ... travelling at a speed above the posted limit or dangerous driving ???
0
FollowupID: 630938

Follow Up By: vk1dx - Tuesday, May 05, 2009 at 11:13

Tuesday, May 05, 2009 at 11:13
Like I said "I was not complaining about the speed limit".

Nothing about dangerous driving, fatigue, or whether the speed limit was justified etc etc.

My point from my first post was that there isn't anything wrong with the enforcement of the law. If the law is wrong then so be it. It still stands. I am not qualified to judge that point. What did Christ say "Judge not etc".

I was making a point that; the more people get fined then the better it is for me. Maybe my rego fees and/or taxes may not go up. I love others to pay my bills for me. Don't you?

Cheers Phil

0
FollowupID: 630939

Reply By: Member - Beatit (QLD) - Tuesday, May 05, 2009 at 13:21

Tuesday, May 05, 2009 at 13:21
interesting and i was reflecting on all the reponses in that I haven't been fined for quite a while. Personally I think I'm getting smarter - can't say the same for the bride but that's another story!

I was wondering if it is just not a case of everyone getting smarter (with all the warnings and gadgets) and the response is for the enforcers to try and get a step ahead?

Never really felt all this is a safety issue and contrary to some thoughts here that an increased revenue from fines will probably not reduce my taxes. The old saying that the law is an ass always rings true to me and I take it that the next thing will be to reduce the speed even further to make sure that people just don't get too smart.

Kind regards
AnswerID: 363330

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (14)