Speed cameras (again) some interesting stats

Archives of Posts to the NZ MX5 List back in 2004
Locked
EricW
See my 5 and raise you.
See my 5 and raise you.
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Whangaparaoa

Speed cameras (again) some interesting stats

Post by EricW » Wed Nov 17, 2004 7:44 am

Ann recently managed to drive PURLEE through a speed camera, at 91 in an 80
zone at Silverdale, just north of Auckland. Having noticed a couple of glaring
errors in the notice we subsequently received from the Police, I took these up
with them and received a reply which, as usual, totally ignored the points I
had made but spouted the line that it is all about road safety etc. This area
is apparently a speed "blackspot"

However, they did enclose a copy of the "Camera Deployment Record" which
produced some very interesting statistics if analysed properly.

The camera was on site for exactly five hours (to the minute)

During that time it was passed by 5784 vehicles, (one every three seconds)

4743 vehicles were below the limit (82.31%)

1041 vehicles were in excess of the limit by 1 km/h or more (17.69%)

The 85% Percentile speed (that which 85% were at or under) was 81 kmh

Only 74 vehicles were >10kmh over the limit by 1 km/h or more (1.26%)

In other words, about 98% of vehicles were within the limits which the Police
find tolerable. The probability is that 75% of the others were with 2-3 kmh of
the tolerance, as that is the general level of infringement nationally (and
this lines up when one extends the 85% Percentile speed).

AND THIS IS A SPEED BLACKSPOT??? One has to ask if this was the best use of
Police time right then! If this is an average camera deployment then the whole
speed camera thing is a bit suspect to say the least.

So consider the result achieved.

Contribution to road safety = Nil

Accidents Prevented = Nil

Contribution to Public Respect for the Police/Law = Nil

Contribution to Government Revenue = At least $5920.00 or $1184.00 per hour.
(74 infringements at at least $80 each).

Now, I must, in fairness, agree that Ann was within the top 1.26% of the
fastest drivers through there that day. As such, despite the legally
unenforceable information served on her by the Police, she will be paying the
fee.

But one is also forced to say that, if something sounds like revenue
collecting, looks like revenue collecting and smells like revenue collecting,
them most reasonable people would be forced to conclude that it probably is
revenue collecting. What do you think?

Eric

dscotland

Speed cameras (again) some interesting stats

Post by dscotland » Wed Nov 17, 2004 8:22 am

I heard a cop say the other day, "it's not revenue collecting, it's
donation collecting. If you don't want to donate money, you don't have
to. Just don't speed"

However I agree that some of the camera placements look to getting the
biggest bucks rather than increasing safety.


"Eric & Ann West" <ericwest@internet.co.nz>
Sent by: e-admin@mx5club.org.nz
17/11/2004 07:44 a.m.
Please respond to
MX5List<mx5list@mx5club.org.nz>


To
"MX5List" <mx5list@mx5club.org.nz>
cc

Subject
Speed cameras (again) some interesting stats


Ann recently managed to drive PURLEE through a speed camera, at 91 in an
80 zone at Silverdale, just north of Auckland. Having noticed a couple of
glaring errors in the notice we subsequently received from the Police, I
took these up with them and received a reply which, as usual, totally
ignored the points I had made but spouted the line that it is all about
road safety etc. This area is apparently a speed "blackspot"

However, they did enclose a copy of the "Camera Deployment Record" which
produced some very interesting statistics if analysed properly.

The camera was on site for exactly five hours (to the minute)

During that time it was passed by 5784 vehicles, (one every three
seconds)

4743 vehicles were below the limit (82.31%)

1041 vehicles were in excess of the limit by 1 km/h or more (17.69%)

The 85% Percentile speed (that which 85% were at or under) was 81 kmh

Only 74 vehicles were >10kmh over the limit by 1 km/h or more (1.26%)

In other words, about 98% of vehicles were within the limits which the
Police find tolerable. The probability is that 75% of the others were
with 2-3 kmh of the tolerance, as that is the general level of
infringement nationally (and this lines up when one extends the 85%
Percentile speed).

AND THIS IS A SPEED BLACKSPOT??? One has to ask if this was the best use
of Police time right then! If this is an average camera deployment then
the whole speed camera thing is a bit suspect to say the least.

So consider the result achieved.

Contribution to road safety = Nil

Accidents Prevented = Nil

Contribution to Public Respect for the Police/Law = Nil

Contribution to Government Revenue = At least $5920.00 or $1184.00 per
hour. (74 infringements at at least $80 each).

Now, I must, in fairness, agree that Ann was within the top 1.26% of the
fastest drivers through there that day. As such, despite the
legally unenforceable information served on her by the Police, she will be
paying the fee.

But one is also forced to say that, if something sounds like revenue
collecting, looks like revenue collecting and smells like revenue
collecting, them most reasonable people would be forced to conclude that
it probably is revenue collecting. What do you think?

Eric

Simon Lord
See my 5 and raise you.
See my 5 and raise you.
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 1:09 pm
Location: Albany

Speed cameras (again) some interesting stats

Post by Simon Lord » Wed Nov 17, 2004 8:43 am

Very interesting stats, thanks. Don't see why you are paying it if there are a
couple of glaring errors in the notice, though.

That location is at the bottom of a hill from both directions - always a
popular spot with the police paparazzi. The real problem, of course, is the
poor road design of the junctions which means they have reduced the speed from
the 100kph it should logically be by that point (and kept it all the way to
the motorway). As they develop Silverdale in time-honoured 'build the cheapest
box we can and stick loud signage on it' Kiwi fashion there will eventually be
traffic lights there, no doubt.

This will have the added benefit of slowing down the traffic even further and
irritating people who have chosen to come off the motorway at Silverdale once
the tolls are slapped on to the Silverdale - Puhoi section - thereby
increasing usage of the toll road and increasing the 'take'. As a thought: if
the road is a toll road and you have to pay to drive on it, is it therefore
not a public road? If it is not a public road, do national speed limits apply?
Perhaps they could increase the usage - and thus the take - further by
increasing the speed limit to a sensible, say, "130kph or as appropriate to
conditions, whichever is the lower."

Or am I being simplistic?


Simon
97 SR Ltd (sparkle green)
Email: simon@franchise.co.nz

John Forsyth

Speed cameras (again) some interesting stats

Post by John Forsyth » Wed Nov 17, 2004 9:29 am

Eric,

Most people know speed cameras contribute nothing to road safety, but the
LTSA and the Government simply wait for the younger generation who have been
brain washed to become the majority. It works, remember Chairman Mao. Don't
forget the Police are now no longer independent of politicians, with
targeted spending they must also toe the current PC line.

__________________________________
john forsyth, BCG191 (silver, like a bullet)

<snip>

But one is also forced to say that, if something sounds like revenue
collecting, looks like revenue collecting and smells like revenue
collecting, them most reasonable people would be forced to conclude that it
probably is revenue collecting. What do you think?

<snip>

EricW
See my 5 and raise you.
See my 5 and raise you.
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Whangaparaoa

Speed cameras (again) some interesting stats

Post by EricW » Wed Nov 17, 2004 5:10 pm

Actually Simon, you raise a good point. The current definition of a road
includes the phrase "Any place to which the public have access whether or not
as of right". Now, in fact you do not have access to a toll road, there is a
toll plaza, and you are only granted access if you pay the toll, it may also
be the property of the lessee who is empowered to operate the road, and
therefore may be private property.

Look out for some interesting case law!

(BTW. I hate people who use technicalities to get off what was plainly an
offence, goes back to my old MOT days I suppose. Ann was over the limit, she
should pay the fee, simple as that really)

Regards

Eric

Biff

Speed cameras (again) some interesting stats

Post by Biff » Wed Nov 17, 2004 6:13 pm

I agree.

If the notice is incorrect you don't have to pay the fine, go to court, its
simple.

Screw them, I use to be one of those "always help a cop, you never know when
you'll need one" types until my house got broken into.

I called on a Monday morning after arriving home from a weekend away, got
told "don't touch anything" we will have someone there by
Wednesday!!!

That's after they ascertained that nothing REALY valuable was stolen, and oh
yea, no firearms.

Wednesday, you gotta be kidding?

Nope, very busy!


So on Tuesday I'm coming down state highway 1 near the Hamner turn off,
about 45 min out of Christchurch, and low and behold, 6 cop cars and about 8
cops, and they were doing a warrant and rego check!


What about my home?


Arrived Thursday, sorry, we finger printed you will have to clean up, and no
they didn't catch anyone..ever!


No more Mr Nice guy here, part of their job is to get the paperwork right,
if they cant, don't pay, I know of 2 people who were told they would have to
pay, they then wrote back asking when the court date would be, they intended
to challenge the fine, guess what, their notice was reviewed, no fine.

Cheers

Biff

ZOOM1N


_____

From: e-admin@mx5club.org.nz [mailto:e-admin@mx5club.org.nz] On Behalf Of
Eric & Ann West
Sent: Wednesday, 17 November 2004 7:45 a.m.
To: MX5List
Subject: Speed cameras (again) some interesting stats


Ann recently managed to drive PURLEE through a speed camera, at 91 in an 80
zone at Silverdale, just north of Auckland. Having noticed a couple of
glaring errors in the notice we subsequently received from the Police, I
took these up with them and received a reply which, as usual, totally
ignored the points I had made but spouted the line that it is all about road
safety etc. This area is apparently a speed "blackspot"


However, they did enclose a copy of the "Camera Deployment Record" which
produced some very interesting statistics if analysed properly.


The camera was on site for exactly five hours (to the minute)


During that time it was passed by 5784 vehicles, (one every three seconds)


4743 vehicles were below the limit (82.31%)


1041 vehicles were in excess of the limit by 1 km/h or more (17.69%)


The 85% Percentile speed (that which 85% were at or under) was 81 kmh


Only 74 vehicles were >10kmh over the limit by 1 km/h or more (1.26%)


In other words, about 98% of vehicles were within the limits which the
Police find tolerable. The probability is that 75% of the others were with
2-3 kmh of the tolerance, as that is the general level of infringement
nationally (and this lines up when one extends the 85% Percentile speed).


AND THIS IS A SPEED BLACKSPOT??? One has to ask if this was the best use of
Police time right then! If this is an average camera deployment then the
whole speed camera thing is a bit suspect to say the least.


So consider the result achieved.


Contribution to road safety = Nil


Accidents Prevented = Nil


Contribution to Public Respect for the Police/Law = Nil


Contribution to Government Revenue = At least $5920.00 or $1184.00 per hour.
(74 infringements at at least $80 each).


Now, I must, in fairness, agree that Ann was within the top 1.26% of the
fastest drivers through there that day. As such, despite the legally
unenforceable information served on her by the Police, she will be paying
the fee.


But one is also forced to say that, if something sounds like revenue
collecting, looks like revenue collecting and smells like revenue
collecting, them most reasonable people would be forced to conclude that it
probably is revenue collecting. What do you think?


Eric

johnw11
Tentative sideways sliding....
Tentative sideways sliding....
Posts: 48
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 12:31 am
Location: Wellington

Speed cameras (again) some interesting stats

Post by johnw11 » Wed Nov 17, 2004 8:37 pm

Eric

I was talking to a cop the other day and he said with cameras you will always
be issued a ticket saying you were "nn"1 kmh, so with a ticket for 91kmh this
means Ann was doing between 91 and 100kmh, if the ticket was for 101km then
you are doing between 101 and 110kmh.

Regards


John
John

White 94 NA 1800cc

EricW
See my 5 and raise you.
See my 5 and raise you.
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Whangaparaoa

Speed cameras (again) some interesting stats

Post by EricW » Thu Nov 18, 2004 7:18 am

No sorry, can't agree, I have only had two in 14 years of camera operation,
one on a Saturday morning, and the other on the next Saturday morning, same
place, same time of day (you would have thought I would have learned the first
time) one for 111 and the next for 112 on the Northern Motorway.

The fine steps, as I understand it, are in 3 km/h bites, but the camera will
always report the indicated speed.

Even back in my Traffic Officer days, operating the TR6 microwaves, we had
fines which stepped up in about 4 km/h bites and recorded the speed to 1 km/h.
The difference was that the ticket used to indicate a "speed not less
than..." which meant that we had some discretion. We could, for instance,
make an allowance for conditions and state a speed of not less than 65 when in
fact he was doing 70. This effectively gave a driver a discount over a driver
doing the same speed in bad conditions.

Regards

Eric

ross campbell

Speed cameras (again) some interesting stats

Post by ross campbell » Thu Nov 18, 2004 1:07 pm

Hi; Does anyone have or read the new guidelines re hiding as they operate
a laser gun hidden behind a powerpole outside my place.I talked to them
about this and the operater said he was not obscured but wouldnt elaborate
on operating placement.Ross

John Forsyth

Speed cameras (again) some interesting stats

Post by John Forsyth » Thu Nov 18, 2004 2:29 pm

Ross,

It's "anything goes".
Two weeks ago in Pukekohe an officer had his motorcycle parked out of sight,
and was standing behind a "wheely bin" with a hand held detector.
Must have been low on quota.

___________________________________________________
john forsyth, BCG191 (silver, like an X43 but somewhat slower)

EricW
See my 5 and raise you.
See my 5 and raise you.
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Whangaparaoa

Speed cameras (again) some interesting stats

Post by EricW » Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:28 pm

That sounds like a good idea, you might even get the bloke from the van in for
coffee, a little Cascara mixed in would give him a most moving experience!

With a cafe named like that I guess you would have your staff dressed in black
plastic raincoats as well.

Regards

Eric

Lou Girardin

Speed cameras (again) some interesting stats

Post by Lou Girardin » Sat Nov 20, 2004 5:08 am

Out of curiousity, has anyone here been surveyed by the LTSA on their
attitudes to 'road safety'?
The last survey included 12.5% of the respondants who didn't have licences.
Lou

johnw11
Tentative sideways sliding....
Tentative sideways sliding....
Posts: 48
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 12:31 am
Location: Wellington

Speed cameras (again) some interesting stats

Post by johnw11 » Sat Nov 20, 2004 2:58 pm

Eric,

Well it just goes to show you cannot trust these traffic police :-)). My
friend was snapped at 101, towing a trailer. When we were drinking a BBQ last
weekend this copper, a friend of 17 years to my friend (is that confusing)
made the comment that he could have been doing 110 due to how the the speeds
were reported. Maybe he was just trying to make him feel better.

Regards

John
John

White 94 NA 1800cc

Locked

Return to “2004”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests