Old unmarked vans to be converted to covert speed cameras

[Nexus]

13% combined tolerance? are you talking about - I'm compring tolerances side by side. Yes, most speedos indicate high, we all kno that, and that's why the fellow who bought the new car got pinged- because he assumed his did as well and it didn't as much as he thought it did.

Day 1 driving my MPS in brisbane I was amazed at how fast everyone else was driving. It was incongruent, but being a toowoomba resident I thought maybe that's just how fast everyone drives there.

I found I was a significant hazard to other drivers due to travelling 10K slower than they were in certain circumstace. By the end of the day after a few uncomfortable traffic moments I realized I was a hazard because my speedo was lying to me by a significant margin.

My point is this. Presenting instrumentation with +/-10% tolerance to actual speed permitted and then demanding 3% tolerance to actual from the driver adds to driver inattention by distracting. Can't pesume the speed on the speedo is actual speed so you're constantly recalculating and then in a braking situation I have found I brake to a slower than other people (to their surprise sometimes because when braking and viewing the speedo, the first impulse is to brake to the indicated speed, not the actual speed. The brain discards the speedo recalculation routines in these circumstances. I have witnessed this be a safety issue that tricks other drivers because my speedo is less accurate than others on the road.

At the end of the day, if 3% tolerance fines come in, I will be taking my vehicle in and reporting the instrument console as unacceptably inaccurate, . One WA user did this and had his speedo recalibrated.

If I'm going to be snapped by cameras with 3% tolerance then it is reasonable and appropriate for me to demand 3% tolerance from my instrumentation.

If you think about it you will also realize that constantly having to be aware of the speedo error is an attention drain on the driver and there is an obvious safety benefit to removing that from the equation.

If the gov is happy to bring in 3% cameras they should also be happy to mandate 3% matching speedo tolerance from manufacturers by ADR.

---------- Post added at 04:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:56 PM ----------

[/COLOR]Another thing
instead of thinking that speed is not the cause of crashing into a tree and all this won't lower the road toll (which I mostly agree with) think of this, no matter how good you are, or think you are or how good your car is, there are some things you can't control. What if a child runs across the road?
That 10km/h could be all the difference between life and death

I might drive a bit quick on the open roads, but only on my own, never in a urban area or anywhere where my actions could hurt another

drive 10K slower is a good idea? Right, I'll explain that to all the people who fail to recognise this as a good idea and to whom I am a hazard. If I did that believing that my speedo was accurate, I'd be rear-ended for sure. I'd be 80K in a100 zone. See why I am pushing the speedo accuracy angle?

In defensive driving, I was taught that if you aren't comfortable at 90% of the speed limit, get off the road. Following that line of thought, the the only place that 10K slower is appropriate is in 90-110 zones.

10K too fast in the wrong circumstances can certainly bring you to grief - nirvandan will testify to that, but isn't that a function of you're judgement as a driver, and not really anything to do with the speed limit unless you are over it?

And so we come to the swept-under-the-rug issue of driver training....

[bd581]

I didn't say to drive 10kays under the limit, I'm talking about those that push the boundries of tolerance and errors to go as fast as they think they legally can.
For some reason, no matter what, whatever the speed limit is, people tend to drive about 10 kays above that, I know I do. I'm sure if the speed limit was moved to 120km/h people will travel at 130 and so on and so on
my complant nexus was with your comment of innocent people traveling at the speed limit according to their speedo being booked. It should not happen.
I'm sure speedos are made like that deliberately in am attempt to slow people down, but most are too smart for that and drive that extra bit faster

but back to the topic, it won't happen anyway. This idea is put up all the time, ends up with arguments everywhere and no further action is taken
there are a lot of issues on the roads, speeding is only 1 of them, and I think only a minor problem
police have tried everything to stop people speeding, nothing has worked, time to put more focus on other issues
1. Driver attitudes
2. Road quality
3. Driver education

and I put those in order of importance. There is no point teaching how to control a slide for example when the road is the likely cause of the slide and if you teach a 17yr old how to control a slide, what do you think he will do?
Show off to all his mates. This is where attitude needs to be worked on

[Jmac]

instead of thinking that speed is not the cause of crashing into a tree and all this won't lower the road toll (which I mostly agree with) think of this, no matter how good you are, or think you are or how good your car is, there are some things you can't control. What if a child runs across the road?
That 10km/h could be all the difference between life and death

I might drive a bit quick on the open roads, but only on my own, never in a urban area or anywhere where my actions could hurt another

Children rarely live on the side of a motorway, no matter what the speed limit is or how its enforced I dont believe anything is going to change.. unless the max speed is 40 and all the cars are covered in nerf.

I cannot imagine these being in quiet suburban streets, more like on the side of higher traffic roads.

as for your second statement, does it not contradict your first?

As far as I am concerned its over regulation.

I dont think that most 'accidents' are due to speed, more due to poor decisions.

[TD]

One thing I liked about the US motorways was the fact they had a minimum speed limit also...

There have been some great points made in this thread

[duglet]

Its actually been proven if they raised the speed limit....ppl wouldnt speed.

So if the speed limit was 120 as you say....you will find most ppl would do around 115/120.

I will find the US study...its already on this forum.

Happy Motoring
duglet

[Nexus]

my complant nexus was with your comment of innocent people traveling at the speed limit according to their speedo being booked. It should not happen...

but back to the topic, it won't happen anyway. This idea is put up all the time, ends up with arguments everywhere and no further action is taken
there are a lot of issues on the roads, speeding is only 1 of them, and I think only a minor problem
police have tried everything to stop people speeding, nothing has worked, time to put more focus on other issues
1. Driver attitudes
2. Road quality
3. Driver education

and I put those in order of importance. There is no point teaching how to control a slide for example when the road is the likely cause of the slide and if you teach a 17yr old how to control a slide, what do you think he will do?
Show off to all his mates. This is where attitude needs to be worked on

BD851 : I see where your issue is with my comment, and what I was suggesting is that the new car owner can be travelling at what he believes is the speed limit and easily be +3 and therefore ticketable if he is presuming a speedo error - as you admit everyone does, and then everyone pushes it another 10K (apparently - I don't; I won't have a problem because +3 would be my max error)

My suggestion is that he is not yet knowledgable of the speedo error and so believing himself to be going slower than his actual speed, is ticketed.

The speedo display is not what dictates whether he is speeding or not, and this is where I take issue with you perspective and reiterate speedo accuracy as a consideration.

If a speedo says 110 and doing 100 actual and it's a 100 zone THAT IS A INNOCENT LAW ABIDING MOTORIST. Your suggestion, subliminal, not overt, and perhaps not intentional, but there none the less is that the person travelling at 110Km/h indicated, but 100 actual is somehow not law abiding because his inaccurate speedo tells him he is faster than the posted limit and faster than his actual speed.

It is your actual speed, not your indicated speed by which you are measured and ticketed if deemed warranted.

As a motoring public, we are gobsmackingly stupid if we do not demand instrumentation that measures _for_ us that is at least as accurate as what is used to measure us.

It is fundamentally absurd to suggest anything otherwise is appropriate. You are law abiding according to your actual speed, and as for "law abiding according to your speedo", well that has been observed to be just as great a hazard as 10K over when you have a +10% error on your dial. I would estimate it a greater hazard.

Look through the previous comments. You are actually reinforcing my point, though, thanks for that.

Following on from that :
1. Driver attitudes
2. Road quality
3. Driver education

Absolutely. And yes, the 17 year old (Autralian) is going to be a problem if taught and trained in a inappropriate order.

Having said that, have you had a look at sweden/norway/_finland_ for an example? Kids are trained and vehicle control is fundamental. They don't have that problem because there is a fundamentally different societal attitude, I expect.

[Nirvandan]

Where do you guys get the time to write this 1000 word essays

sorry

[bd581]

I think you have read a bit too much into what I said about the speedo inaccuratcy
what I tried to get across in simple terms is that if you are in a 100km/h zone travelling at an indicated 100km/h you should not run the risk of being fined if you can hold a relatively steady pace.
I'll use my speedo error as an example so please don't use these numbers as an exact example for all cars
At an indicated 100km/h I'm travelling at an actual 91km/h. So if at indicated 100 I have about 12 speedo indicated km/h to play with before I risk a fine (allowing 3km/h police tollerance)
now for those who don't know about their speedo error, that should be more than enough leeway, and they should never get cought speeding
this is why I believe speedos are incorrect, and it's done on purpose. Police cars actually have their speedos recallibrated, so errors are known about by manufactures and the government. Yet nothing is done about it
now when I'm travelling I'm well aware of the error so travel at an indicated 110. Leaving me only a 3km/h margin for error

the point about the US minimum speed limits is a good one, and should be imposed here asap
I believe frustration is a major cause of crashes or at least dangerous driving.
On the road I mentioned before that my friends sister died on, there is 1 designated overtaking lane in 70km of road, and it's probably 500m long, the rest of the road is up and down so not many safe places to overtake unless you own a quick car.
Get cought behind a slow car or a truck and your stuck, you end up doing something unsafe to get past
the road between orange and Bathurst used to be a death trap, but the local parliment rep came up with the idea of having a designated overtaking lane every 5km. Road toll went down instantly
it's ideas like that, that saves lives

[TD]

the road between orange and Bathurst used to be a death trap, but the local parliment rep came up with the idea of having a designated overtaking lane every 5km. Road toll went down instantly
it's ideas like that, that saves lives

That was a crap bit of road before the overtaking lanes, way too many people trying to get around slower vehicles and coming to grief...

[tigamica350]

Very interesting points from all.

As far as I am concerned, if you speed and get caught, take the hit. I have done it on many occasions as a young tacker and whilst I probably bitched about it then and there, the fact is I was over the posted speed limit. (No matter what my vast experience at the time may have thought about the speed limit and how fast it should be)

If you get caught you are more than likely doing it intentionally. It's not like they secretly post the speed limit. If they increased the speed limit of an area from say 80 - 90 I reckon most people who do the old i'll just do 85 will now do 95. It's human nature.

We all know nowadays that the ADR's allow for the "intentional error", that's a sneaky way of trying to keep people from speeding over the posted limit (and giving a particular manufacturer a bad name for speeding cars) whatever it may be. There can be no excuse (unless it's at the bottom of a very steep hill and you've run out of brakes!)

* In urban roads with a 60 km/h speed limit, the risk of involvement in a serious injury crash has been found to double with each increase of 5 kph above the speed limit (The National Road Safety Strategy: 2001-2010 Australian Transport Council).
* The risk of being involved in a crash increases with the speed a vehicle is being driven because there is less time to react, less control of the vehicle and the distance needed to stop is longer.
* The higher the speed a vehicle is travelling when it hits a pedestrian the greater the chance of a fatality occurring.
* The impact on a person in a crash at 60 km/h is equivalent to falling from a four storey building, while the impact at 100km/h equals falling from a 12 storey building.
* In general, speed-related crashes are greater on weekends (both holiday and non-holiday).

The ONLY thing that slows people down is POLICE PRESENCE be it a car, a bike or even a cardboard cutout (or an accident on the other side of the road, bloody rubber neckers). Everyday I travel 80klm down the F3 to Sydney and I rarely see a police car, which I think is a bit crazy since it's probably increasingly one of the busiest roads into Sydney. I have traveled alot around the country and it's the same story everywhere, unless there is a blitz on.

But if the F3 is like that where are all the police????

I can tell you, they are understaffed and overworked (because of all the f#@Kwits who waste police resources and time with petty crime), but the gov't solution is to police from a distance or using remote things like cameras because they are cheaper in the short term.

I say NO to sneaky hidden cameras, increase the presence of police on our roads.