Another speed cam gone ?!?!?

[Patrick Young]

I've not really being paying attention to newspapers/tv
in the past few days, however it appears another speed
cam has gone from the Spit. There is now only the one at
the top of the hill which I don't really have a problem
with because AFAIK it has not been involved in any
corrupt activities, and is placed in a sensible area.

There were technicians mucking about with it this
morning. Is this remaining cam going to cover both
sides of the road as the signs would suggest?

Is this 2nd removal some sort of admission by GovCo?

Perhaps they would like to donate the ill gotten
funds from the two removed cams towards Spit
Bridge improvements in order to ease their
conscience...

[David Springthorpe]

On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 12:09:11 +1000, Patrick Young
<patrick@hilux.ace.unsw.EDU.AU> announced to an awaiting world :

>
>I've not really being paying attention to newspapers/tv
>in the past few days, however it appears another speed
>cam has gone from the Spit. There is now only the one at
>the top of the hill which I don't really have a problem
>with because AFAIK it has not been involved in any
>corrupt activities, and is placed in a sensible area.
>
>There were technicians mucking about with it this
>morning. Is this remaining cam going to cover both
>sides of the road as the signs would suggest?
>
>Is this 2nd removal some sort of admission by GovCo?
>
>Perhaps they would like to donate the ill gotten
>funds from the two removed cams towards Spit
>Bridge improvements in order to ease their
>conscience...


Even since the removal of the first one, I've continued to run sub-60 all the
way from the bridge to beyond the camera on the flat on the Spit Junction
side.....

DS

[Mot Adv-NSW]

"Patrick Young" <patrick@hilux.ace.unsw.EDU.AU> wrote in message
news:d7j5er$lp$1@tomahawk.unsw.edu.au...
>
> I've not really being paying attention to newspapers/tv
> in the past few days, however it appears another speed
> cam has gone from the Spit. There is now only the one at
> the top of the hill which I don't really have a problem
> with because AFAIK it has not been involved in any
> corrupt activities, and is placed in a sensible area.
>
> There were technicians mucking about with it this
> morning. Is this remaining cam going to cover both
> sides of the road as the signs would suggest?

This would be logical, one can find out easily enough.

> Is this 2nd removal some sort of admission by GovCo?

The move follows a recent court case discussed here.


> Perhaps they would like to donate the ill gotten
> funds from the two removed cams towards Spit
> Bridge improvements in order to ease their
> conscience...

J.

[Uncle Bully]

"Patrick Young" <patrick@hilux.ace.unsw.EDU.AU> wrote in message
news:d7j5er$lp$1@tomahawk.unsw.edu.au...
>
> I've not really being paying attention to newspapers/tv
> in the past few days, however it appears another speed
> cam has gone from the Spit. There is now only the one at
> the top of the hill which I don't really have a problem
> with because AFAIK it has not been involved in any
> corrupt activities, and is placed in a sensible area.
>
> There were technicians mucking about with it this
> morning. Is this remaining cam going to cover both
> sides of the road as the signs would suggest?
>
> Is this 2nd removal some sort of admission by GovCo?
>
> Perhaps they would like to donate the ill gotten
> funds from the two removed cams towards Spit
> Bridge improvements in order to ease their
> conscience...

Not sure what the story is either but I noticed it gone this morning too.
I thought maybe I was dreaming but I double checked oon the way home and
sure enough it is gone.
By the RTA logic should there now be lots more crashes on this stretch of
road?

[Patrick Young]

Uncle Bully wrote:
> "Patrick Young" <patrick@hilux.ace.unsw.EDU.AU> wrote in message
> news:d7j5er$lp$1@tomahawk.unsw.edu.au...

>>I've not really being paying attention to newspapers/tv
>>in the past few days, however it appears another speed
>>cam has gone from the Spit. There is now only the one at

> Not sure what the story is either but I noticed it gone this morning too.
> I thought maybe I was dreaming but I double checked oon the way home and
> sure enough it is gone.

LOL! that's exactly what I needed to do too as I didn't believe it
either and needed to check on the way back.

> By the RTA logic should there now be lots more crashes on this stretch of
> road?

Absolutely.

Have since checked the local Manly Daily however not seen anything
about it.

This is _very_ weird indeed.

[Patrick Young]

Mot Adv-NSW wrote:

> "Patrick Young" <patrick@hilux.ace.unsw.EDU.AU> wrote in message
> news:d7j5er$lp$1@tomahawk.unsw.edu.au...

>>There were technicians mucking about with it this
>>morning. Is this remaining cam going to cover both
>>sides of the road as the signs would suggest?

> This would be logical, one can find out easily enough.

No thanks :-) No sign of road resurfacing yet. Although there
have always been patches in a line before the camera on the
other side of the road. The cam side was resurfaced IIRC
with the cam installation.

>>Is this 2nd removal some sort of admission by GovCo?

> The move follows a recent court case discussed here.

I don't understand what is going on ATM. The first
camera was removed a few weeks back making front page
news in the local newspaper twice (that camera is
known to me to have been corrupt when first installed).

The 2nd that has just now been removed was the focus
of recent complaints by bus drivers and other motorists.
Not a peep out of the local newspaper. It just simply
vanished without a trace this week along with it's
signs barring one sign coming *down* the Spit Hill.

Sorry, however this all seems _very_ "under the carpet"
and sus to me.

Off topic - the clock of the PC you posted this from
is way fast.

[jackbadger]

patrick@hilux.ace.unsw.EDU.AU> announced to an awaiting world :

>
>I've not really being paying attention to newspapers/tv
>in the past few days, however it appears another speed
>cam has gone from the Spit. There is now only the one at
>the top of the hill which I don't really have a problem
>with because AFAIK it has not been involved in any
>corrupt activities, and is placed in a sensible area.
>
>There were technicians mucking about with it this
>morning. Is this remaining cam going to cover both
>sides of the road as the signs would suggest?
>
>Is this 2nd removal some sort of admission by GovCo?
>
>Perhaps they would like to donate the ill gotten
>funds from the two removed cams towards Spit
>Bridge improvements in order to ease their
>conscience...

I forgot about this. The other day i was heading north and at the bottom
of the hill made a concious effort to be below the limit. Saw the camera
was gone and thought i must have been mistaken about which one was removed
(i thought only the middle was taken). Was pretty certain i was going
slightly over on the way down, so your post is quite a relief!!

[Patrick Young]

jackbadger wrote:
> patrick@hilux.ace.unsw.EDU.AU> announced to an awaiting world :
>
> >
> >I've not really being paying attention to newspapers/tv
> >in the past few days, however it appears another speed
> >cam has gone from the Spit. There is now only the one at
> >the top of the hill which I don't really have a problem
> >with because AFAIK it has not been involved in any
> >corrupt activities, and is placed in a sensible area.
> >
> >There were technicians mucking about with it this
> >morning. Is this remaining cam going to cover both
> >sides of the road as the signs would suggest?
> >
> >Is this 2nd removal some sort of admission by GovCo?
> >
> >Perhaps they would like to donate the ill gotten
> >funds from the two removed cams towards Spit
> >Bridge improvements in order to ease their
> >conscience...
>
> I forgot about this. The other day i was heading north and at the bottom
> of the hill made a concious effort to be below the limit. Saw the camera
> was gone and thought i must have been mistaken about which one was removed
> (i thought only the middle was taken). Was pretty certain i was going
> slightly over on the way down, so your post is quite a relief!!

To add to the confusion it is not clear if the middle and bottom ones
covered going down the hill as the signs suggested they did (I was never
game to try). In this regard your relief would only be "they don't do
going down" as the middle one would have still been there.

To add to the confusion again, the bottom one was taken out for the F3
on May 3rd (front page effort on the local newspaper). The middle one
only mysteriously went along with sign shuffling in the past few days
(it being the one that recently kicked up the stink with the bus
drivers).

None of this seems very Kosher to me. I seriously think there needs to
be a full investigation into all fines issued right back to the date
the first one at the bottom of the hill was installed. OTOH as I
realise the one at the bottom of the hill was the state's largest cash
cow, would be happy to see all fines collected from both put into
replacing the ancient piece of shite that is the Shite Bridge.

People don't have time for shite that opens and closes and blocks
traffic in this day and age. Especially with the costs involved
twice daily in the manual lane re-assignment.

[David Springthorpe]

On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 23:27:00 +1000, Patrick Young

>To add to the confusion again, the bottom one was taken out for the F3
>on May 3rd (front page effort on the local newspaper).

Yep, and you can read full text online at
http://www.manlydaily.com.au/common/story_page/0,7168,15486868%255E15721,00.html
or access above link (today) at http://www.manlydaily.com.au

DS
(Balgowlah)

[Diesel Damo]

> "The camera will be replaced with a newer model and placed
> further down the hill with work scheduled to start as early as today."

<tinfoil hat on>

Further down the hill, so the wrongfully pinged buses and trucks can no
longer claim they couldn't possibly be going that fast because they
were going up a hill =)

<tinfoil hat off>

[Patrick Young]

David Springthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 23:27:00 +1000, Patrick Young
>
> >To add to the confusion again, the bottom one was taken out for the F3
> >on May 3rd (front page effort on the local newspaper).
>
> Yep, and you can read full text online at
> http://www.manlydaily.com.au/common/story_page/0,7168,15486868%255E15721,00.html
> or access above link (today) at http://www.manlydaily.com.au
>
> DS
> (Balgowlah)

Howdy neighbour.

Ahhhh yes, just went and retrieved my copy from outside. That took
them a while to report.

[Patrick Young]

Diesel Damo wrote:
>>"The camera will be replaced with a newer model and placed
>>further down the hill with work scheduled to start as early as today."
>
>
> <tinfoil hat on>
>
> Further down the hill, so the wrongfully pinged buses and trucks can no
> longer claim they couldn't possibly be going that fast because they
> were going up a hill =)
>
> <tinfoil hat off>

Something like that. I'm quite frankly surprised at the hide
of them even _thinking_ they would put another cam on that stretch.

If they are that arrogant I'd also expect "issues" with a new
one. That will be strictly a 40 zone for me (and I might start
keeping a log book again).

[Toby Ponsenby]

On 2 Jun 2005 17:50:29 -0700, Diesel Damo wrote:

>> "The camera will be replaced with a newer model and placed
>> further down the hill with work scheduled to start as early as today."
>
> <tinfoil hat on>
>
> Further down the hill, so the wrongfully pinged buses and trucks can no
> longer claim they couldn't possibly be going that fast because they
> were going up a hill =)
>
> <tinfoil hat off>

Allow me.
The 'newer model' is the giveaway.
IMHO, that reeks of arse covering.

That means those nailed by the older one need to ASK for *both*
penalties to be dropped for *each* offence.

GovCo will NOT volunteer to do that - because put quite simply, GovCo
believes it can lie like a pig in shit to protect the revenue.
(Believe it or not, there's legal precedent for that caper).
I'd suggest the manly daily rag needs to enlisted as a focal point for
information gathering in the matter as well - given it's read by
(probably) vast number of victims of all the cameras.
Or never read again by anyone concerned about the matter if they don't
play.


How's the Corolla?
And the people who were involved.
--
Toby.
quidquid latine dictum
sit, altum viditur

[Diesel Damo]

Toby Ponsenby wrote:
> Allow me.

Always =)

> The 'newer model' is the giveaway.
> IMHO, that reeks of arse covering.

For sure. They may as well have said, "We all know the old one is
busted and wrongfully pinged people left right and centre, but this NEW
one is infallible - just like we told you about the first one when we
put it in."

> How's the Corolla?
> And the people who were involved.

Everyone's fine thanks. The missus will have to head off home early
though, otherwise it's going to be a VERY cold trip home without a rear
window. The 30km of dirt is going to be interesting...

[Toby Ponsenby]

On 2 Jun 2005 18:48:49 -0700, Diesel Damo wrote:

> Toby Ponsenby wrote:
>> Allow me.
>
> Always =)
>
>> The 'newer model' is the giveaway.
>> IMHO, that reeks of arse covering.
>
> For sure. They may as well have said, "We all know the old one is
> busted and wrongfully pinged people left right and centre, but this NEW
> one is infallible - just like we told you about the first one when we
> put it in."
>
>> How's the Corolla?
>> And the people who were involved.
>
> Everyone's fine thanks. The missus will have to head off home early
> though, otherwise it's going to be a VERY cold trip home without a rear
> window. The 30km of dirt is going to be interesting...

Suggest opening all windows if the dust has a shot at claiming the
interior of the car as it's own.
You could issue goggles to all and remove the windscreen, I suppose:-)
--
Toby.
quidquid latine dictum
sit, altum viditur

[Uncle Bully]

> To add to the confusion it is not clear if the middle and bottom ones
> covered going down the hill as the signs suggested they did (I was never
> game to try).

They didn't.
For one there were no sensors in the road. And secondly I'd get up to 120
down there when there was no traffic and I never got a ticket :)
(Today I got up to 100 going up the hill fo the first time in a decade :)))

[David Springthorpe]

On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 00:07:44 +1000, "Uncle Bully"
<wakeupcall@optushome.com.au.REMOVE> announced to an awaiting world :

>They didn't.
>For one there were no sensors in the road. And secondly I'd get up to 120
>down there when there was no traffic and I never got a ticket :)

Sounds like you're the kind of dangerous speeder they DO need to catch.....

DS

[ant]

Toby Ponsenby wrote:
> On 2 Jun 2005 18:48:49 -0700, Diesel Damo wrote:

>> Everyone's fine thanks. The missus will have to head off home early
>> though, otherwise it's going to be a VERY cold trip home without a
>> rear window. The 30km of dirt is going to be interesting...
>
> Suggest opening all windows if the dust has a shot at claiming the
> interior of the car as it's own.
> You could issue goggles to all and remove the windscreen, I suppose:-)

Reminds me of the time I did the Nerriga road with the tent off Vitey. WHAT
was I thinking?! argh.

[Uncle Bully]

"David Springthorpe" <david.springthorpeXXX@XXXidx.com.au> wrote in message
news:2c82a1he31dnta32430l1u4rdl6foqr2uh@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 00:07:44 +1000, "Uncle Bully"
> <wakeupcall@optushome.com.au.REMOVE> announced to an awaiting world :
>
> >They didn't.
> >For one there were no sensors in the road. And secondly I'd get up to 120
> >down there when there was no traffic and I never got a ticket :)
>
> Sounds like you're the kind of dangerous speeder they DO need to
> catch.....

17 years so far with no accidents. Perhaps you need to adjust your view of
what is and isn't dangerous.

[David Springthorpe]

On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 22:37:15 +1000, "Uncle Bully"
<wakeupcall@optushome.com.au.REMOVE> announced to an awaiting world :

>17 years so far with no accidents. Perhaps you need to adjust your view of
>what is and isn't dangerous.

120 on the motorway is not dangerous (conditions apply) - 120 on The Spit hill
is.....

DS