Page 3956 - Week 09 - Thursday, 25 August 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Motorists need to have confidence in the credibility of speed cameras and the quick removal of those found to have no safety benefit is a positive step forward.
During an inquiry into road safety benefits of fixed speed cameras undertaken by a Queensland parliamentary committee, the National Motorists Association said in their submission:
Speed cameras cannot reduce the incidence of any of the various factors contributing to road deaths other than speed. Thus the increasing incidence of deaths with speed as a contributing factor with the increased usage of speed cameras, whether mobile or fixed, clearly demonstrates their ineffectiveness in improving safety.
A little over one year ago, on 22 August, the Canberra Times published a story titled “Fixed speed cameras fail in task”. Of the nine fixed mid-block cameras in operation in the ACT that were looked at by the study, eight saw more accidents occur at the sites than before the cameras were in operation. When talking of the locations when the cameras were installed in May 2007, Mrs Dunne said:
These [new camera sites] are not recognised black spots, they are not particularly dangerous … It’s entirely about revenue, dressed up as if it’s road safety.
How right she was. These cameras raise approximately $7 million per year. Based on this example, I have concerns about the locations the ACT has chosen for point-to-point cameras. We must remember that we cannot just look at the number of accidents; we must also look at the overall traffic levels. For instance, a road with 10 accidents and 10,000 car movements is perhaps less dangerous than a road with only two accidents but just 1,000 car movements. There are lots of questions about the sites chosen, but this government seems unwilling to provide the evidence, especially through FOI.
We all know anecdotal evidence of motorists slamming on the brakes as they drive past speed cameras and then resume their original speed after passing the detection points. Obviously the government thinks that this anecdotal evidence is real and should be addressed by point-to-point cameras over a larger detection zone. However, there is nothing stopping someone driving fast before and after a zone and simply slowing down for the zone in question.
In fact, given it is an average speed, I imagine some people will go fast for parts of the speed detection zone, then slow down to get their average down. In fact, I predict that the final few hundred metres of any point-to-point system is going to see cars going very slowly, perhaps dangerously slowly. Perhaps even the side of the road will have cars parked or pulled over as someone who subconsciously crept over the speed limit or someone who deliberately sped pulls over to get their average below the system, to avoid the fine. While some members may laugh, I am sure this will happen.
If these point-to-point cameras are going to be the success the government claims they will be, I imagine we will not need to ever deploy mobile speed vans or police with radar to these locations. I think not. I imagine they will only be successful in raising revenue from unsuspecting Canberrans and visitors.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video