Vic Speed Camera locations
04-24-2006, 07:14 AM
#1
Hmmmmmm.........
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,564
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
4 Posts
Vic Speed Camera locations
OK I had to bring it up as no one else has...
For those that are unaware, the Victorian police today announced that in the interest of "public safety", and to prove their transperancy they had decided to release the list of all approved fixed and mobile speed "camera" sites.
The list can be found here http://www.justice.vic.gov.au/speedcameras
The document I was most interested in was the Mobile Cameras Policy Manual. On first glance I noticed that the document was labeled with this months date and on closer inspection its todays date (look at the file name in the URL). So to start with we have the "Sanitised" version.
Anyways, reading on the first few pages are interesting but nothing "Juicy" ;-) The first item that did catch my attention was 4.1 (you cant copy and paste as they have copy protected the document and its copyright breach anyway). This point says that as general rule, you shouldn't use the very expensive equipment in peak hour traffic because in general the high volume of traffic slows everyone down. Now I ask you, why the heck should that be a reason not to monitor traffic? Slow moving car + fast moving/stationary car = nasty impact.
Next item that caught my eye was 6.2. Summary of this is that a Mobile Camera site MUST have a significant documented history of serious and major injury collisions within the past 12 months. What was most interesting to me about this is that the incidents must have been injury causing to warrant any attention. Secondary to this, if a Traffic Management Unit Sergeant or above can document consistant driver behaviour posing a "significant risk of speed related collisions" then the location is a justified Camera site. I know of a few places where I would love to see the justifying documentation!
Next interesting one is item 12.1. This basically outlines that all camera sites must be approved in conjunction with the community. I have to say, there are 2 sites very close to where I live and I dont know one person that has heard anything about community involvement.
14.2 goes into the criteria that is used to approve a site. Again, it mostly revolves around accident statistics and complaints about sppeding.
15.3 is interesting as it backs u pthat urban myth about being able to be pinged going down a hill.
15.7 list a whole bunch of no no's for camera positioning....very interesting!
Thats about all that tickled my fancy so far.
What do you all think?
For those that are unaware, the Victorian police today announced that in the interest of "public safety", and to prove their transperancy they had decided to release the list of all approved fixed and mobile speed "camera" sites.
The list can be found here http://www.justice.vic.gov.au/speedcameras
The document I was most interested in was the Mobile Cameras Policy Manual. On first glance I noticed that the document was labeled with this months date and on closer inspection its todays date (look at the file name in the URL). So to start with we have the "Sanitised" version.
Anyways, reading on the first few pages are interesting but nothing "Juicy" ;-) The first item that did catch my attention was 4.1 (you cant copy and paste as they have copy protected the document and its copyright breach anyway). This point says that as general rule, you shouldn't use the very expensive equipment in peak hour traffic because in general the high volume of traffic slows everyone down. Now I ask you, why the heck should that be a reason not to monitor traffic? Slow moving car + fast moving/stationary car = nasty impact.
Next item that caught my eye was 6.2. Summary of this is that a Mobile Camera site MUST have a significant documented history of serious and major injury collisions within the past 12 months. What was most interesting to me about this is that the incidents must have been injury causing to warrant any attention. Secondary to this, if a Traffic Management Unit Sergeant or above can document consistant driver behaviour posing a "significant risk of speed related collisions" then the location is a justified Camera site. I know of a few places where I would love to see the justifying documentation!
Next interesting one is item 12.1. This basically outlines that all camera sites must be approved in conjunction with the community. I have to say, there are 2 sites very close to where I live and I dont know one person that has heard anything about community involvement.
14.2 goes into the criteria that is used to approve a site. Again, it mostly revolves around accident statistics and complaints about sppeding.
15.3 is interesting as it backs u pthat urban myth about being able to be pinged going down a hill.
15.7 list a whole bunch of no no's for camera positioning....very interesting!
Thats about all that tickled my fancy so far.
What do you all think?
Last edited by auzoom; 04-24-2006 at 07:17 AM.
04-24-2006, 08:04 AM
#2
Shootin' from the hip
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 7,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very interesting.
I was involved in a case once that included an issue about whether or not the posted speed limit in a particular street was appropriate. We had to get into the policy and guidelines used by the RTA to determine speed limits for a given stretch of road.
When I applied the same criteria to some posted speed limits on roads I know well, it was easy to see that there is often a huge disconnect between a reasonably expressed policy/rule/guideline and its implementation by local authorities with, shall we say, a different agenda.
I'm tipping exactly the same goes on with the use of speed cameras. The problem is that once you've been pinged it is no defence to say the camera should not have been there in the first place.
And you'll never get a camera moved if the cops want it there badly enough. For starters you have no cause of action under such guidelines and the best you can usually do is mount a community effort to shame the police into implementing the guidelines correctly. This usually falls over when a hardcore of "speed kills" do gooders (supported by some publicity hungry pollie or journo) refuse to back such moves or actively oppose them. Remember, there's a section of the community that would be only too happy to see all cars speed limited to 120km/h. And as our population ages, such conservative thinking will find more and more support.
Ah, depressing. Wonder what's going on in my happy thread?
I was involved in a case once that included an issue about whether or not the posted speed limit in a particular street was appropriate. We had to get into the policy and guidelines used by the RTA to determine speed limits for a given stretch of road.
When I applied the same criteria to some posted speed limits on roads I know well, it was easy to see that there is often a huge disconnect between a reasonably expressed policy/rule/guideline and its implementation by local authorities with, shall we say, a different agenda.
I'm tipping exactly the same goes on with the use of speed cameras. The problem is that once you've been pinged it is no defence to say the camera should not have been there in the first place.
And you'll never get a camera moved if the cops want it there badly enough. For starters you have no cause of action under such guidelines and the best you can usually do is mount a community effort to shame the police into implementing the guidelines correctly. This usually falls over when a hardcore of "speed kills" do gooders (supported by some publicity hungry pollie or journo) refuse to back such moves or actively oppose them. Remember, there's a section of the community that would be only too happy to see all cars speed limited to 120km/h. And as our population ages, such conservative thinking will find more and more support.
Ah, depressing. Wonder what's going on in my happy thread?
04-24-2006, 05:52 PM
#4
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by takahashi
I wonder if they are going to post of revenue generated from each camera 
BTW the Eastern Hwy/Middlebrough road one is on freeway or on the ramp?
BTW the Eastern Hwy/Middlebrough road one is on freeway or on the ramp?
04-24-2006, 07:28 PM
#6
New Member
Originally Posted by ILIV48
It's on the set of lights going over the bridge. (On the lights that are just past the city bound onramp entry. It's one of those dual speed/redlight camera's. I see people get pinned there every night.
Hey the mobile location is bullshit really. According to that: All the streets around me can have speed camera. What a joke!
04-24-2006, 08:14 PM
#7
Shootin' from the hip
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 7,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read somewhere that it's gotten so bad in the UK that a group of angry motorists (nutters?) is organised into a speed camera destruction guerilla squad.
They target a camera and when they judge there's least chance of getting caught they destroy it. They figure that if the authorities have to keep paying for replacements they might be more judicious about where they site them.
They target a camera and when they judge there's least chance of getting caught they destroy it. They figure that if the authorities have to keep paying for replacements they might be more judicious about where they site them.
04-24-2006, 09:23 PM
#9
Hmmmmmm.........
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,564
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
4 Posts
Originally Posted by takahashi
According to that: All the streets around me can have speed camera. What a joke!
Originally Posted by Revolver
I read somewhere that it's gotten so bad in the UK that a group of angry motorists (nutters?) is organised into a speed camera destruction guerilla squad.
04-24-2006, 09:38 PM
#10
New Member
Originally Posted by auzoom
I think they could be candidates yes, but there are not that many approved around your place.
Yes heard and seen videos of it being done, very silly if you ask me. doesnt discourage them to do anything except enforce more fines to pay for the repairs.
Yes heard and seen videos of it being done, very silly if you ask me. doesnt discourage them to do anything except enforce more fines to pay for the repairs.
It is always on the same spot though... the owners of the house would have known???
Apparently the owner of the house need to approve it first...
And I not agree damaging camera, it is not legal. Although I parked my car right in front of one once and come back an hour later.
04-24-2006, 10:04 PM
#11
Shootin' from the hip
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 7,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by auzoom
very silly if you ask me. doesnt discourage them to do anything except enforce more fines to pay for the repairs.
Still, it's an example of how a section of society reacts when we are over-regulated.
04-26-2006, 01:01 AM
#12
rev it up
I would be interested to see figures into actual causes of accidents.
Firstly, I believe that a large number of accidents is caused by drivers being distracted by everyday things such looking at street directories, mobile phones, signs, lack of knowledge of driving rules, etc
We also have a lot of idiots on the road who do silly and unexpected moves such as turning left from the right lane this could be because they are in a rush or in a bad mood.
The government is simply taking the easy route by using speed cameras to catch people committing a crime that can be measured. I believe that government is revenue raising by placing speed cameras in areas where they can catch the most amount of people. Fixed speed cameras or cameras with unmarked vehicles now shows how keen they are to catch people out.
If the government was serious about road accidents they should a greater visible presance on the road as the mere presance of the police tends to smarten people up.
I think it is a good idea to moniter lower speed limits on suburban streets where there are young kids around as they can do unpredictable things.
Anyway thet is my rant for the day.
skc
Firstly, I believe that a large number of accidents is caused by drivers being distracted by everyday things such looking at street directories, mobile phones, signs, lack of knowledge of driving rules, etc
We also have a lot of idiots on the road who do silly and unexpected moves such as turning left from the right lane this could be because they are in a rush or in a bad mood.
The government is simply taking the easy route by using speed cameras to catch people committing a crime that can be measured. I believe that government is revenue raising by placing speed cameras in areas where they can catch the most amount of people. Fixed speed cameras or cameras with unmarked vehicles now shows how keen they are to catch people out.
If the government was serious about road accidents they should a greater visible presance on the road as the mere presance of the police tends to smarten people up.
I think it is a good idea to moniter lower speed limits on suburban streets where there are young kids around as they can do unpredictable things.
Anyway thet is my rant for the day.
skc
04-26-2006, 02:40 AM
#13
Shootin' from the hip
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 7,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The present system is extremely unsophisticated.
If speed is considered to be a factor in any accident, it gets added to the speed kills stats, despite the fact that there may also have been other, more primary, causes of the accident.
I remember reading a report of a detailed study by one of the universities (SA from memory) into about 200 accidents where it was found that driver error other than speed was the primary cause of the accident. In other words, the presence of speeding behaviour was only incidental to the accident.
Too tired to expand at present but you get the idea. Stats are being skewed to suit the regulators or should I say revenue raisers.
If speed is considered to be a factor in any accident, it gets added to the speed kills stats, despite the fact that there may also have been other, more primary, causes of the accident.
I remember reading a report of a detailed study by one of the universities (SA from memory) into about 200 accidents where it was found that driver error other than speed was the primary cause of the accident. In other words, the presence of speeding behaviour was only incidental to the accident.
Too tired to expand at present but you get the idea. Stats are being skewed to suit the regulators or should I say revenue raisers.
04-27-2006, 12:41 AM
#14
Hmmmmmm.........
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 3,564
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
4 Posts
Personally, my belief is that if the goal is to avoid accidents then it should be a policy across not just camera but also and speed measuring/capture device.
I also hate that traffic management which is the responsibility of the government/council, is not addressed to avoid accidents. FOr example, we have a main road around where I live that is a 60kmh road. It is heavily policed by sometimes 2 mobile cameras that ping you for going 64 or above. This is a road that carries MASSIVE amounts of traffic, it constantly switches from 1 to 2 and back to 1 lane. There is also side streets that merge and so on. No I can pretty much guarantee that there have been very few incidents of acidents involving speed along this road, by there would have been hundreds of accident involving cars entering intersections dangerously purely because they have waited 10 minutes for an opportunity to cross a major road and gotten impatient. Yet there has been no works on that stretch of road in the 6 years I have lived here and probably hundreds of thousands of fines given out for vehicles doing 64 in the 60 zone.
OK thats my rant over with.
Andrew
I also hate that traffic management which is the responsibility of the government/council, is not addressed to avoid accidents. FOr example, we have a main road around where I live that is a 60kmh road. It is heavily policed by sometimes 2 mobile cameras that ping you for going 64 or above. This is a road that carries MASSIVE amounts of traffic, it constantly switches from 1 to 2 and back to 1 lane. There is also side streets that merge and so on. No I can pretty much guarantee that there have been very few incidents of acidents involving speed along this road, by there would have been hundreds of accident involving cars entering intersections dangerously purely because they have waited 10 minutes for an opportunity to cross a major road and gotten impatient. Yet there has been no works on that stretch of road in the 6 years I have lived here and probably hundreds of thousands of fines given out for vehicles doing 64 in the 60 zone.
OK thats my rant over with.
Andrew
04-27-2006, 12:51 AM
#15
Shifty Bastard.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia.
Posts: 4,835
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by takahashi
According to that: All the streets around me can have speed camera. What a joke!
It was out of commission with a smashed lens for three months last year.......
04-27-2006, 07:41 AM
#18
'06 Nats coolest car!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
04-27-2006, 06:06 PM
#21
Shootin' from the hip
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 7,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Hymee
Yep, seen it before. Just knock the c@nt over. Or get the bin truck around to empty it! Or just "put the wheelie bin away please, love!" LOL.
Cheers,
Hymee.
Cheers,
Hymee.
I just thought of the same three solutions...and in that order!
Scary. 
And who said the French were cheese eating surrender monkeys? At least they have the ***** to avoid being nannied to death.
04-27-2006, 06:08 PM
#22
Shootin' from the hip
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 7,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Gomez
Has anyone purchased and used that spray on numberplate stuff, PhotoBlocker?
Does it work? Half the cameras around nowadays don't flash anyway!
Does it work? Half the cameras around nowadays don't flash anyway!
(...and where do I get some?
).
04-27-2006, 06:57 PM
#23
Originally Posted by Revolver
Never heard of it. What is it supposed to do?
(...and where do I get some? ).
(...and where do I get some?
).Then there is the covers that only allow the plate to be read from a square on angle, so an oblique angled photograph won't show the plate.
Both solutions are surely illegal, but then again, so is speeding.
Cheers,
Hymee.
PS - I have a US colleague who was surprised about speed camera's... "What if I am photographed with my 'mistress' in the car with me, and then my wife see's the picture. (Hypotheticial of course!). That is an invasion of privacy..."
04-27-2006, 07:01 PM
#24
Registered User
Originally Posted by Hymee
..What if I am photographed with my 'mistress' in the car with me, and then my wife see's the picture. (Hypotheticial of course!). That is an invasion of privacy..."
04-27-2006, 07:19 PM
#25
Shifty Bastard.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia.
Posts: 4,835
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The US have a different system from what I understand. Their cameras (or some of them....) photograph the drivers face to provide positive ID of the driver.