Mazda Enters Speed Camera Debate

[chizzy86]

BENT8

In 2004 Denmark increased the speed limit on freeways from 110 to 130 km/h.

And guess what. Road deaths continued to fall.

If you want the stats go to the Statistics Denmark site. Theres a queriable database and you can get all the stats to your hearts content.

Have you ever driven in Europe. I drove from Berlin to Hannover, Munich to Stuttgart, Stuttgart to Cologne and lots of the major roads, all in excess of 200km/h (and still got overtaken) and guess what, I didnt die!

[my_gxl]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Serious answers please, all this will do is raise the average speed of drivers on the roads, it will not stop speeders from wanting to be in front of the queue, it just means they will be speeding faster than they are currently.

Nothing wrong with his answer. Neither part directly relates to the op, but you get that on chat forums.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by burnz

you cannot prove the speeding kill, because it doesn't.
govco own stats from 2011~2012 showed "not one" person died from speeding.

fatigue, boredom, lack of concentration is what kills...

I don't have to 'prove' anything, the onus is on you to 'prove' otherwise

I asked the question and you still haven't given a straight answer.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

So by that you are suggesting that speed camera's do have a place in speed deterrence, you just believe the threshold should be raised, yes?

i'm not against camera's as a deterrent. there needs to be one. the fact that the majority of fines is for less than 10km/h over means that the wrong people are contributing too much to the coffers. accidental creeping should not be punished. roads aren't flat. attention can't be focused on speedo's all the time.

the main problem is people think they will be pinged for even the smallest amount over the limit. if you remove that threat then hopefully it would result in more attention on the road instead of the dash.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by chizzy86

BENT8

In 2004 Denmark increased the speed limit on freeways from 110 to 130 km/h.

Originally Posted by burnz

fatigue, boredom, lack of concentration is what kills...

given where camera's are placed, i would hazzard a guess that this is largely about urban areas, not highways.

that argument has been done to death as well and is for another thread.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

I don't have to 'prove' anything, the onus is on you to 'prove' otherwise

I asked the question and you still haven't given a straight answer.

knock your self out.
you do the sifting... http://www.bitre.gov.au/statistics/s..._database.aspx

[aussiblue]

Wont increase the road toll either--stats back this up.

Best way to reduce the road toll is to destroy peoples living standards--FACT.

Speed limits are to reduce fuel used by the total economy and the reduction of GDP. The cost of time lost during extended travelling cant be reclaimed by reduction of travel times.

No evidence exists to support some of these assertions. But in some cases there is evidence to the contrary.

a) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ted_death_rate shows that road fatalities increase in inverse to livings standards; countries high living standards have lower road fatality rates.

b) The relation between speed limits and fatalities is less clear cut: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...nticated=false
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...0145759900010X road fatality rates increase with increased speed limits. But there are counter arguments http://www.cato.org/publications/com...ed-doesnt-kill

This http://www.who.int/iris/handle/10665/78256 suggests that its about appropriate speed limits for appropriate roads. It also suggests it very much about the extent to which the limits are enforced (the more enforced the lower the fatality rates).

[my_gxl]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

I don't have to 'prove' anything, the onus is on you to 'prove' otherwise

Is this a court or something?

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by chizzy86

BENT8

In 2004 Denmark increased the speed limit on freeways from 110 to 130 km/h.

And guess what. Road deaths continued to fall.

If you want the stats go to the Statistics Denmark site. Theres a queriable database and you can get all the stats to your hearts content.

Have you ever driven in Europe. I drove from Berlin to Hannover, Munich to Stuttgart, Stuttgart to Cologne and lots of the major roads, all in excess of 200km/h (and still got overtaken) and guess what, I didnt die!

Thanks, I was waiting for this to come up.

You are quite right, driving in Europe is quite different to Australia and that difference comes from generational education and habits towards driving which have existed, been developed and encouraged for decades.
Education is a great idea and I believe should be taught from primary school.
But that's ok for the next generation, what about the millions already on the roads, using bad habits developed over even longer.

Someone said education, how long would it take to get through to everyone, can you get through to everyone and how many lives will be lost in the mean time.

The only way education can be exercised as a future benefit is if camera's and speed enforcement remain as silent reminders in the present.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by my_gxl

Is this a court or something?

No, so I don't have to prove anything either, however, I am not the one making the accusations, just looking for clarification.

[aussiblue]

.. as for the relationship between speed limits and GDP you would have to factor in the costs of building better roads and/or the costs of any increase in road accident related lost days, hospital costs, deaths etc

And there is this view:
http://www.economist.com/node/21556573 re planned speed limit increases in the UK

....higher speed limits are unlikely to drag the economy out of the slow lane. Drivers are already choosing cost savings over time. Raising the limit may not increase the number of cars that a motorway can carry, since stopping distances lengthen at high speed and cars are supposed to travel farther apart. And the change would not apply to lorries, a key part of the business network.

[my_gxl]

Survival of the Fittest.

We are killing ourselves slowly due to the dilution of strong genes.

[my_gxl]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

No, so I don't have to prove anything either, however, I am not the one making the accusations, just looking for clarification.

Please explain why he has to prove something, and you don't?

A bit hypocritical don't you think?

Accusations?

Conspiracy theories?

Damn evolution, its gone from helping fuel good genetics, to enabling forum threads to morph in obscure rants/opinions/.....I am waiting for aliens-they must know better.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by prydey

i'm not against camera's as a deterrent. there needs to be one. the fact that the majority of fines is for less than 10km/h over means that the wrong people are contributing too much to the coffers. accidental creeping should not be punished. roads aren't flat. attention can't be focused on speedo's all the time.

the main problem is people think they will be pinged for even the smallest amount over the limit. if you remove that threat then hopefully it would result in more attention on the road instead of the dash.

But if a 10% threshold was allowed the same argument would be had with different numbers.
In a 60 zone it would be 67 is only 1 over the lilit, 1k doesn't kill.
In a 80 zone it would be 89 is only 1 over the limit, 1 k doesn't kill.

If you raised the 60 zone to 80 the same people would say 89 is only 1k over the threshold and 1k doesn't kill, even though we are now 29 over the previous limit.

Where does it stop?

And it would happen, the same as it does now.

Some people just don't like rules, for them we have speed cameras.

[my_gxl]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

But if a 10% threshold was allowed the same argument would be had with different numbers.
In a 60 zone it would be 67 is only 1 over the lilit, 1k doesn't kill.
In a 80 zone it would be 89 is only 1 over the limit, 1 k doesn't kill.

If you raised the 60 zone to 80 the same people would say 89 is only 1k over the threshold and 1k doesn't kill, even though we are now 29 over the previous limit.

Where does it stop?

And it would happen, the same as it does now.

Some people just don't like rules, for them we have speed cameras.

Speeding and falling don't cause anything.

Stopping suddenly sucks though

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by my_gxl

Please explain why he has to prove something, and you don't?

A bit hypocritical don't you think?

Accusations?

Conspiracy theories?

Damn evolution, its gone from helping fuel good genetics, to enabling forum threads to morph in obscure rants/opinions/.....I am waiting for aliens-they must know better.

Not at all, I asked a question, which still hasn't been answered and all that I've read is the same stuff the bloke I spoke to the other night came up with, everything but a decisive answer.

See, no one can offer an alternative to speed cameras that can statistically better the current system and can be implemented to the entire population effectively in a realistic timeframe and economically viable given the loss of revenue.
If there is lets see it.

[aussiblue]

In 2004 Denmark increased the speed limit on freeways from 110 to 130 km/h.

And guess what. Road deaths continued to fall.

True and interesting. It hasn't always been the case http://whqlibdoc.who.int/whf/1985/vo...)_p246-247.pdf In 1985 the Danish evidence was that lower speed limits saved lives. Which perhaps says something about the advancing skills of Danish drivers, improved roads or safer cars. Or perhaps, as some pundits have suggested, post GFC European drivers have become much more cost conscious and drive slower to reduce fuel consumption regardless of any increased in speed limits. It will be interesting to see what happens if Europe returns to relative prosperity. Yes I know 2004 preceded the 2008 GFC

[my_gxl]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Not at all, I asked a question, which still hasn't been answered and all that I've read is the same stuff the bloke I spoke to the other night came up with, everything but a decisive answer.

See, no one can offer an alternative to speed cameras that can statistically better the current system and can be implemented to the entire population effectively in a realistic timeframe and economically viable given the loss of revenue.
If there is lets see it.

I did.

Stop saving everyone. That bloke Darwin had it sorted. Seriously

[aussiblue]

Stop saving everyone. That bloke Darwin had it sorted. Seriously

Unfortunately it's the innocent that often get killed and not always those idiots that cause the accidents and that we might want eradicate from the gene pool.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Well if speed camera's aren't the answer what is?

Keep in mind any alternative must be able to be implemented immediately with instant effectiveness so as not to raise the road toll unnecessarily.
Something that EVERY motorist, will adhere to instantly.
Lets hear them...

raise the speed limit.

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Not at all, I asked a question, which still hasn't been answered and all that I've read is the same stuff the bloke I spoke to the other night came up with, everything but a decisive answer.

See, no one can offer an alternative to speed cameras that can statistically better the current system and can be implemented to the entire population effectively in a realistic timeframe and economically viable given the loss of revenue.
If there is lets see it.

I believe I've answered the original question, and you retort a "serous answer"..
i'll say it again raise the speed limit.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

But if a 10% threshold was allowed the same argument would be had with different numbers.
In a 60 zone it would be 67 is only 1 over the lilit, 1k doesn't kill.
In a 80 zone it would be 89 is only 1 over the limit, 1 k doesn't kill.

If you raised the 60 zone to 80 the same people would say 89 is only 1k over the threshold and 1k doesn't kill, even though we are now 29 over the previous limit.

Where does it stop?

And it would happen, the same as it does now.

Some people just don't like rules, for them we have speed cameras.

a threshold removes most of the chance that the law abiding people will get pinged for 'creeping'. if you can't keep your car within 10% of the speed limit and still give most of your attention to looking where you are going and general awareness, then hand in your licence.

if you get done for doing 67, then suck it up.

speeding isn't a way to show you don't agree with the law. it really isn't all that difficult to do.

and for those who think i'm suggesting that obeying speed zones automatically results in a lower road toll, its not what i'm saying. i'm saying, regardless of what you think the limit should be, the number in the red circle is still the 'maximum' legal speed. if the conditions dictate you drive slower, then that is what you do.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by my_gxl

I did.

Stop saving everyone. That bloke Darwin had it sorted. Seriously

Hey, if you want the thread locked to avoid the inevitable, go right ahead.

Im comfortable knowing I've successfully negotiated Australia's roadways for 20 years, many of them in various work related roles, a few as a truck driver.
In that time I've acquired 3 speeding fines and every one of them was my fault.
I don't get paranoid around cameras, never rear ended anyone and get to most places in a reasonable time frame.
I don't see the problem and apart from on vehicle forums, never hear anyone else complain. Well, apart from the bloke the other night and something tells me his issues aren't speed related.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by burnz

.
i'll say it again raise the speed limit.

to what?

bear in mind speed camera's are mainly used in urban areas.

[dragons90]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Thanks, I was waiting for this to come up.

You are quite right, driving in Europe is quite different to Australia and that difference comes from generational education and habits towards driving which have existed, been developed and encouraged for decades.
Education is a great idea and I believe should be taught from primary school.
But that's ok for the next generation, what about the millions already on the roads, using bad habits developed over even longer.

Someone said education, how long would it take to get through to everyone, can you get through to everyone and how many lives will be lost in the mean time.

The only way education can be exercised as a future benefit is if camera's and speed enforcement remain as silent reminders in the present.

And what do we do about this, do we sit on our hands and say speeds the only cause of deaths, then in twenty years time when its brought up again say but they got better education or do we start training young driver now, which have the highest risk.

Ever noticed on the motorway when speed limits are set artificially low how much cars bunch up and travel at unsafe distances yet within a couple hundred meters when the speed limit goes back up traffic spreads back out to safe distances.

[aussiblue]

And somebody might even draw the conclusion it has something to do with high petrol prices in Denmark and their love cycling and increase fuel costs at the same time as increasing speed limits.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by prydey

a threshold removes most of the chance that the law abiding people will get pinged for 'creeping'. if you can't keep your car within 10% of the speed limit and still give most of your attention to looking where you are going and general awareness, then hand in your licence.

if you get done for doing 67, then suck it up.

speeding isn't a way to show you don't agree with the law. it really isn't all that difficult to do.

and for those who think i'm suggesting that obeying speed zones automatically results in a lower road toll, its not what i'm saying. i'm saying, regardless of what you think the limit should be, the number in the red circle is still the 'maximum' legal speed. if the conditions dictate you drive slower, then that is what you do.

Totally agreed.
And having received what I consider my share of speeding fines(3) and not had any for a decade, I can honestly say that, despite the lowering of tolerances and the influx of detection equipment, the only thing I can identify as the difference in my early driving years and the past 10 years is my driving behaviour.

Im no angel, I've done my crimes and paid my due's. But I learnt from the experience and don't make a habit of repeating them.

People talk about education, well I ask, how many times do you get pinged before you learn?
If a monetary penalty doesn't deter after a few times will any amount of 'education' change some driving habits.

Lets not forget, the same arguments about 1k over the threshold were bandied around before they were lowered, putting them back up wont slow people down.

Revenue derived would suggest not.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by burnz

I believe I've answered the original question, and you retort a "serous answer"..
i'll say it again raise the speed limit.

And I will dismiss it as unrealistic.

[aussiblue]

I think the speed limit is a bit of a red herring. The most agreed (by researchers), undeniable and irrefutable fact is that safer cars and safer roads save lives. We are making progress and improved car safety with more modern cars has seen a decline in the OZ road toll over time. But our big problem is our size, spread of population centres, urban sprawl and low population and therefore the disproportionate (to most other developed countries) cost of trying to improve our road network.

[my_gxl]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

And I will dismiss it as unrealistic.

Being dismissive of others input will have more thread locking effects.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by dragons90

And what do we do about this, do we sit on our hands and say speeds the only cause of deaths, then in twenty years time when its brought up again say but they got better education or do we start young driver now, which have the highest risk.

Ever noticed on the motorway when speed limits are set artificially low how much cars bunch up and travel at unsafe distances yet within a couple hundred meters when the speed limit goes back up traffic spreads back out to safe distances.

Lobby for education in primary school, when I was a kid we visited road safety schools and learnt about road safety from different perspectives.
Implement this in Schools and make it mandatory that you can only get a learners permit once you complete the units of competency.
It should be taught in the same manner as any Cert. course in TAFE etc.

Until that becomes mainstream, is accepted and evidence points to it influencing behaviour and attitude, the current system of voluntary taxes must remain as a deterrent.

There will always be accidents, it will never be zero, but without deterrence it could quite easily get worse.
That is something no one wants.