RTA report into fixed cameras.

[Ext User(athol)]

<http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/downloads/2005_05_speedcamera_evaluation.pdf>

Note that there is a statement on (i) that is, at best "misleading" and at
worst "blatantly false".

"If no viable alternative treatment is identified the site is then considered
as a fixed digital speed camera site."

So, according to them, the construction of missing link roads that have been
planned for decades is not "viable".

I'm not very impressed with the additional speed camera that's being installed
on the F3, either. It's apparently the faulty one from "The Spit", which is
being installed on the F3 northbound, in a location that was part of a recent
road upgrade. Are they now admitting that the road upgrade was inadequate, or
that the speed limit is now too low for the improved road?

--
Athol
<http://cust.idl.com.au/athol> Linux Registered User # 254000
The state of infrastructure in New South Wales is a disgrace.
I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.

[Ext User(FuTAnT)]

"athol" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:1129684422.92526@idlweb...
> <http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/downloads/2005_05_speedcamera_evaluation.pdf>
>
> Note that there is a statement on (i) that is, at best "misleading" and at
> worst "blatantly false".
>
> "If no viable alternative treatment is identified the site is then
> considered
> as a fixed digital speed camera site."
>
> So, according to them, the construction of missing link roads that have
> been
> planned for decades is not "viable".
>
> I'm not very impressed with the additional speed camera that's being
> installed
> on the F3, either. It's apparently the faulty one from "The Spit", which
> is
> being installed on the F3 northbound, in a location that was part of a
> recent
> road upgrade. Are they now admitting that the road upgrade was
> inadequate, or
> that the speed limit is now too low for the improved road?
>
> --
> Athol
> <http://cust.idl.com.au/athol> Linux Registered User # 254000
> The state of infrastructure in New South Wales is a disgrace.
> I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.

There was a great little write up from the Ed in last months Two Wheels
magazine. Essentially reguritating that the GovCo tells us that speed
cameras are for black spots only, and then the revenue is used to improve
the area and thus remove the black spot. Anyhoo, with the advent of the two
speed cameras in the cross city tunnel, does that mean they've built a brand
new road to be a black spot?

Quite simple logic really. It does point out a reoccuring flaw with the
governments ideas on speed camera placement.

Cam

[Ext User(Uncle Bully)]

> There was a great little write up from the Ed in last months Two Wheels
> magazine. Essentially reguritating that the GovCo tells us that speed
> cameras are for black spots only, and then the revenue is used to improve
> the area and thus remove the black spot. Anyhoo, with the advent of the
> two speed cameras in the cross city tunnel, does that mean they've built a
> brand new road to be a black spot?
>
> Quite simple logic really. It does point out a reoccuring flaw with the
> governments ideas on speed camera placement.

And how about the Harbour Tunnel?
I don't ever recall any fatalities there either, and it has what 2 or 3
cameras (including the new ED was new at the time too).
In fact the tunnel had a history of extremely high speeding with no major
accidents which is a great disproof of the speed kiils/speed camera
argument.

[Ext User(Stan Gifford)]

Uncle Bully wrote:

>>There was a great little write up from the Ed in last months Two Wheels
>>magazine. Essentially reguritating that the GovCo tells us that speed
>>cameras are for black spots only, and then the revenue is used to improve
>>the area and thus remove the black spot. Anyhoo, with the advent of the
>>two speed cameras in the cross city tunnel, does that mean they've built a
>>brand new road to be a black spot?
>>
>>Quite simple logic really. It does point out a reoccuring flaw with the
>>governments ideas on speed camera placement.
>
>
> And how about the Harbour Tunnel?
> I don't ever recall any fatalities there either, and it has what 2 or 3
> cameras (including the new ED was new at the time too).
> In fact the tunnel had a history of extremely high speeding with no major
> accidents which is a great disproof of the speed kiils/speed camera
> argument.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Actually I believe they say that they only put them at black spots. So
there are reasons an area is a black sport.... So do they fix those
reasons (camber/alignment etc) and if so - do they then remove the
camera because the area is now no longer a black sport. (Didn't think so...)

(The one on the spit bridge doesn't count!)

Stan

[Ext User(Allan A)]

"Stan Gifford" <stan_gifford@iinet.no.spam.please.iinet.net.au> wrote in
message news:43560765$0$27998$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

>>
> Actually I believe they say that they only put them at black spots. So
> there are reasons an area is a black sport.... So do they fix those
> reasons (camber/alignment etc) and if so - do they then remove the camera
> because the area is now no longer a black sport. (Didn't think so...)
>
> (The one on the spit bridge doesn't count!)
>
> Stan

We had a fixed speed/red light camera relocated recently (in Canberra)
because the crash stats were well down on the particular intersection. I
don't believe there were any physical improvements at the intersection, just
that the camera apparently effectively cut out the high speed and red light
running.

So of course the cynic might say that if the camera has made the difference
then leave it there and keep the intersection safe, but of coures the
revenue is also down so it was shifted to a more "productive" location.

Allan A

[Ext User(Pisshead Pete)]

Stan Gifford wrote:

> Uncle Bully wrote:
>
>>>There was a great little write up from the Ed in last months Two Wheels
>>>magazine. Essentially reguritating that the GovCo tells us that speed
>>>cameras are for black spots only, and then the revenue is used to improve
>>>the area and thus remove the black spot. Anyhoo, with the advent of the
>>>two speed cameras in the cross city tunnel, does that mean they've built
>>>a brand new road to be a black spot?
>>>
>>>Quite simple logic really. It does point out a reoccuring flaw with the
>>>governments ideas on speed camera placement.
>>
>>
>> And how about the Harbour Tunnel?
>> I don't ever recall any fatalities there either, and it has what 2 or 3
>> cameras (including the new ED was new at the time too).
>> In fact the tunnel had a history of extremely high speeding with no major
>> accidents which is a great disproof of the speed kiils/speed camera
>> argument.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Actually I believe they say that they only put them at black spots. So
> there are reasons an area is a black sport.... So do they fix those
> reasons (camber/alignment etc) and if so - do they then remove the
> camera because the area is now no longer a black sport. (Didn't think
> so...)

Tarcutta, Herons Creek and that one near Coffs strike me as a 'temporary'
fix to a black spot problem. How long has it been? Who needs to fix the
road when it's raking in millions!

--
Pete ....funny how they coincide with long straights and unbroken lines.
The journey IS the destination.

[Ext User(athol)]

Stan Gifford <stan_gifford@iinet.no.spam.please.iinet.net.au> wrote:

> Actually I believe they say that they only put them at black spots.

And locations where conventional enforcement is not possible (ie lots
of tunnels that have been built without breakdown lanes).

> So
> there are reasons an area is a black sport.... So do they fix those
> reasons (camber/alignment etc) and if so - do they then remove the
> camera because the area is now no longer a black sport. (Didn't think so...)

Of course not. In most cases, they won't spend the money to fix the
problem in the first place.

Almost every camera location in the Hunter is in a location that has
excessive traffic for the road as the primary problem. In most
cases, there is either a planned road link that will remove traffic
from that location or there is a need to build a road but the road
has not yet been planned. In one case (McAffery Drive), the road is
carrying traffic that is avoiding another overloaded road that is
also a camera location (Newcastle Rd). The primary solution to both
is one missing road link that has been planned for 50+ years... It
would take around 50% of the traffic away from the speed camera site
on Newcastle Rd, encouraging the other people who presently use
McAffery Drive to go back to using the main road.

> (The one on the spit bridge doesn't count!)

They didn't fix it, did they? They just removed a known faulty camera
(public embarrassment to gov) and replaced it with two others nearby.

--
Athol
<http://cust.idl.com.au/athol> Linux Registered User # 254000
The state of infrastructure in New South Wales is a disgrace.
I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.

[Ext User(athol)]

Pisshead Pete <farkoffyouidiots@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Tarcutta, Herons Creek and that one near Coffs strike me as a 'temporary'
> fix to a black spot problem. How long has it been? Who needs to fix the
> road when it's raking in millions!

One Liberal MLC (NSW state upper house member) is now aware of the arguement
that the installation of a camera on a faulty road is an admission that the
road is unsafe and hence an admission of liability on the part of the
government... Failure of the gov's duty of care... Potential for every
subsequent crash victim or their family to sue gov...

--
Athol
<http://cust.idl.com.au/athol> Linux Registered User # 254000
The state of infrastructure in New South Wales is a disgrace.
I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.

[Ext User(Bernd Felsche)]

"Allan A" <aaci@optusnet.com.au> writes:
>"Stan Gifford" wrote:

>> Actually I believe they say that they only put them at black
>> spots. So there are reasons an area is a black sport.... So do
>> they fix those reasons (camber/alignment etc) and if so - do they
>> then remove the camera because the area is now no longer a black
>> sport. (Didn't think so...)

>We had a fixed speed/red light camera relocated recently (in
>Canberra) because the crash stats were well down on the particular
>intersection. I don't believe there were any physical improvements
>at the intersection, just that the camera apparently effectively
>cut out the high speed and red light running.

>So of course the cynic might say that if the camera has made the
>difference then leave it there and keep the intersection safe, but
>of coures the revenue is also down so it was shifted to a more
>"productive" location.

The people who decide what is a black spot need to learn about the
statistical term called "regression to mean". Not knowing about it
leads to the common false premise that a high value above mean
(or some arbitrary value) requires "treatment"; being s speed camera.

A suitable, cheaper "treatment" is to place a garden gnome at the
side of the road where "above average" values are observed and
measure the benefit.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Economist \E*con"o*mist\, n.
X against HTML mail | One with a ready explanation as to why
/ \ and postings | his last prediction was so wrong

[Ext User(Shane)]

"Uncle Bully" <wakeupcall@optushome.com.au.Remove> wrote in message
news:435602d4$0$15165$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>
>> There was a great little write up from the Ed in last months Two Wheels
>> magazine. Essentially reguritating that the GovCo tells us that speed
>> cameras are for black spots only, and then the revenue is used to improve
>> the area and thus remove the black spot. Anyhoo, with the advent of the
>> two speed cameras in the cross city tunnel, does that mean they've built
>> a brand new road to be a black spot?
>>
>> Quite simple logic really. It does point out a reoccuring flaw with the
>> governments ideas on speed camera placement.
>
> And how about the Harbour Tunnel?
> I don't ever recall any fatalities there either, and it has what 2 or 3
> cameras (including the new ED was new at the time too).
> In fact the tunnel had a history of extremely high speeding with no major
> accidents which is a great disproof of the speed kiils/speed camera
> argument.

I think the tunnels in general are an exception to the rule. They are there
as a deterrent. Any high speed collisions in the tunnels is going to cause
absolute chaos. If it's a fatality or serious injury crash then the road may
be closed for anything up to six hours. As far as I know there hasn't been
any serious crashes of this kind in any of the tunnels? The forced adherence
to similar travel speeds by all drivers has paid off in this case I think.
The other thing to remember is.........it's impossible for police to check
speeds in the tunnels by any other means and we all know what occurred in
the first couple of weeks of the harbour tunnel opening.......world
land-speed records fell like doughnuts and coffee at lidar site at the end
of a drag strip.

[Ext User(Shane)]

"athol" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:1129766282.527450@idlweb...
> Pisshead Pete <farkoffyouidiots@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Tarcutta, Herons Creek and that one near Coffs strike me as a 'temporary'
>> fix to a black spot problem. How long has it been? Who needs to fix the
>> road when it's raking in millions!
>
> One Liberal MLC (NSW state upper house member) is now aware of the
> arguement
> that the installation of a camera on a faulty road is an admission that
> the
> road is unsafe and hence an admission of liability on the part of the
> government... Failure of the gov's duty of care... Potential for every
> subsequent crash victim or their family to sue gov...

Then the same argument could be had that sending out police patrols to the
area in question is also an admission of liability??? How about we just
consider it a *measure* in the interim?