NSW Speed Cameras

[RyanMK]

Come on. This is becoming ridiculous?
Nanny state much?

http://au.news.yahoo.com/latest/a/-/latest/10481420/mobile-cameras-target-low-range-speeding/

The New South Wales Government has defended its mobile speed cameras, after revelations motorists are being booked for exceeding the speed limit by as little as one kilometre an hour.

The Office of State Revenue says just over half the fines issues in the cameras' first year of operation were for speeds between one and 10 kilometres an hour over the limit.

Roads Minister Duncan Gay says the speed camera operators do not have the same discretion as police to ignore minor infringements.

"It's the thing that these are independent contractors. They're not law enforcement officers so they don't have the leeway that some police officers would have an ability to use," Mr Gay said.

The Minister says improved signage should provide plenty of warning for drivers to avoid fines.

[napkins1]

We are use to that in Victoria

[zedd82]

I think it is just revenue raising.

This is something the police should be doing not an outside company, after all it is a type of law enforcement. Fair enough it takes police off the beats, but from my experience in security a lot of them don't do anything except sit on their butts and do nothing.

And really it is the government that decides what the tolerance level is no one else.

[The X]

Come on. This is becoming ridiculous? Nanny state much?

If it's worth your time, contest the fine and reasonable magistrate will turf it out, as long as it was trivial like only a few k's over.
Quite easily could argue that we are not machines and it is not reasonable to expect humans to adhere to the exact speed without minor variations over and under limit. We are not robots/machines. Even the ADRs state that speedos should have variation allowances....
Even magistrates themselves would have to consider that they themselves would be just as guilty. Just takes someone with good enough ability to frame the argument that would be acceptable to magistrate.

[noo$h]

its pretty rediculous. theres difference between keeping the roads safe and revenue raising and something like this is clearly the latter. it just means more drivers will have to focus on their speedo instead of the road

[Gleno]

Definatly revenue raising there's no doubt about that.
I have seen some of these mobile cameras in some strange places where there has been little or no major accidents in that particular area. Best you can do is if u see the cameras slow down under the speed limit to be safe, then again were supposed to be keeping our eyes on the road in front of us, not looking at the side of the road looking for cameras. Sometimes a no win situation.

[noo$h]

how far ahead of you do the mobile cameras catch your speed from? i was under the impression that by the time ive seen it they've recorded my speed anyway

[aspir3]

The facts are speed cameras make drivers slow down and saves lives.

The fact we are discussing it just shows that they work.

[VRX_08]

It wouldn't be so bad either if they did not always sit in the 50 / 60 km/h zones in the suburbs and towns like they do in South Australia. You very rarely see them in the 80 - 110 km/h zones where people actually get killed.

In my opinion too they could catch more out on the rural roads / dual carriage ways with higher speed limits. I drive a 5km stretch of road in the outer Northern suburbs of Adelaide every day to work which is a divided road with two lanes in each direction and people fly past you when you sit on the 100km/h speed limit at 110 / 120km/h+ sometimes.

[bongo]

The facts are speed cameras make drivers slow down at the camera location but do not save lives.

The fact we are discussing it just shows that they don't work and are simply revenue collecting.