I have been active in trying to make people aware that there are many issues concerning the method of enforcement, zero tolerance on the speed limits, lowered speed limits is not safer. The inaccuracies of the devices involved etc.
For some of you, the simple answer is don’t speed.
What is the definition of speeding?
If we can all agree that exceeding the posted limit is speeding, then please answer why 90 per cent of fatal crashes occurred under the speed limit?
Why when the government has a report that says that red light cameras are useless (as a safety device), are they installing more?
Why did the House Majority Leader of the United States Congress (Dick Armey) denounce the use of cameras as nothing but a scam!!!!!
http://www.freedom.gov/auto/rlcreport.asp
Just for the benefit of those too lazy to go to the above website, here is just a snippet
“One can see the flaws more clearly when they are contrasted with the 1995 Australian Road Research Board report, one of the most comprehensive looks at the effect of red light cameras to date.
The report's conclusion is the most striking, particularly considering the American coverage of this issue: "There has been no demonstrated value of the RLC as an effective countermeasure" (page 1). And when one considers the study's methodology, one must also wonder why the same thoroughness is not found in Retting's American studies:
Comprehensive, ten-year study. The report examined accidents five years before and five years after the installation of red light cameras.
Objective. On pages 2-3, the report points out how prior Australian studies conveniently omitted crucial data that might have undermined any pro-red light camera conclusions.
Uses actual accident reports. Prior Australian studies merely used accident databases to generate results and statistics. All accidents in the database marked with certain codes were deemed to relate to red light running. Unfortunately, that method assumed the accidents were always properly coded. Of the 6,200 accident report forms examined, 960 (15 percent) were found to be unrelated to the intersections studied, despite their coding. For example, accidents at an adjacent McDonalds parking lot were coded as if they took place in the nearby intersection. This shows that conclusions based merely on accident codes can be significantly misleading.
Signal Timing Considered. Although ultimately unsuccessful, the study at least attempted to document any changes in signal timing that may have occurred during the study period:
Inquiries were made of VicRoads traffic signals group about the changes at signals and it seems that the historical records have been archived. From the data that was obtained for three intersections… it was apparent that a number of changes had taken place. These changes included… changes in phases as well as phase and cycle times and provisions for green arrows. The changes to the intersections were apparent, but the dates these changes took effect was not. For this reason the changes could not be related back to subsequent changes in accident frequency. Further investigation into signal changes would be worthwhile to explain some of the abrupt changes at individual RLC sites. (Page 9) “
Red Light Cameras and Rear-end Accidents
The Australian study goes on to conclude that red light cameras tend to cause rear-end accidents. "This study suggests that the installation of the RLC at these sites did not provide any reduction in accidents, rather there have been increases in rear end and adjacent approaches accidents on a before and after basis…" (Page 20). “
Why have a number of cities, states in the US and at least 2 provinces in Canada have now banned the use of these “safety devices” et al Red Light Camera and Speed Cameras?
Why is the Bracks Government commissioning 81 new combine RLC and speed cameras?
The real facts are, they do not prevent crashes-
they do not prevent drivers drinking, eating, putting on make up, using the mobile phone while trying negotiate round abouts, changing lanes, turning around to yell at the kids-dog-mother in-law, looking for the reflection of your shmick phat ride in the shop window, checking out the chick walking on the footpath in the short skirt to see whether she’s wearing anal floss, or the pedestrian that walks straight into traffic without looking, or the dick head that’s riding your bumper, the truck that dumped a load of diesel on the road from an overfull tank, the short cycled amber light at RLC controlled intersection or any one of hundreds of other factors that contribute to a crash.
Do some research for yourselves, go on the big wide web, go and find the Vic Roads report that says Red light Cameras are a waste of money for road safety – but a gold mine for cashed strapped state.
Got to the websites that point out the some 128 factors that effects the accuracy of the speed camera.
Things like power lines, set up, cosine error, atmospheric conditions, the weather etc, etc ,etc .
Find out how these devices are “independently“ calibrated and tested for accuracy and by whom.
Where is the real independent verification that they are actually accurate?
Once you have done real research and armed yourself with knowledge, you will then realize what Bracks, Haermeyer and Batchelor are saying and doing is illogical and fraudulent.
I will continue to "complain", until enough people are agitated to do something to get rid of mobile and fixed cash registers and find real solutions to the problems.
Endangered Species - Vic Drivers
Linear Mode
