That suggests the enforcement is neither too harsh or that revenue is the objective. 99,999 out of 100,000 drivers passing a speed camera don’t get fined.

Yet they issue millions of fines every year.

It might dawn on you that in a single year, a driver drives on many roads on many days.

http://www.fightfines.org/wiki/index.php?title=Does_the_Victorian_Government_anticipate_a_change_in_driver_behaviour%3F

Yes, obviously any copper who supports road safety cameras is excactly like a jack-booted SS soldier, or trench-coated Gestapo thug, or possibly just an agent of the KGB or Stasi…

Yeah, that whole “zero tolerance” mentality really sucks when you get on the wrong side of it.

I agree, there are degrees of wrongness, and the degree is important… but try explaining that to a cop on the side of the road.

Part of what they put up was a bunch of those flat-top part speed hump, part crossings to slow traffic and let people cross. I have no problem with these in the middle of a shopping center. However, one of those flat-toppers was on the BYPASS road that goes AROUND the shopping center. This is where all the trucks go, and other through traffic, so now every big truck must slow down and bump-bump over this stupid thing.

Because people started using that crossing, they went back and put up iron fences along the sides to prevent people from crossing at the place where the traffic has to slow down. So how are pedestrians supposed to cross? Well they could try using the overpass pedestrian bridge THAT HAS BEEN THERE MORE THAN 30 YEARS AND NEVER HAD ANYTHING WRONG WITH IT IN THE FIRST PLACE!

That’s right, there was absolutely no need to make any changes to that particular bit of road… they just couldn’t help themselves.

I’m only getting started with the local idiocy.

* INCONSISTENCY *

We have cross roads leading onto major roads where the dotted line (i.e. the point where cars are supposed to wait for a gap) can be arbitrarily forward or backward by several meters (on some streets you have to wait well back, on others you apparently are supposed to push out more).

We have random traffic islands that are unrelated to any intersection and serve no conceivable purpose. They look a bit like they might be intended as a place for pedestrians to cross, except that someone in their great wisdom has filled the middle of these things with meter tall tufty grass to prevent anyone walking over that, and to reduce visibility for anyone walking nearby.

* VISIBILITY *

We have a roundabout where the whole approach to the roundabout also has thick, tall plants designed to reduce visibility, and a curving approach at that just in case you thought you might get a straight glance along the road (and each approach is a new and creative curve).

They recently put a zebra crossing between the two driveways of a petrol station, and under a big shady tree so pedestrians don’t get sunburn when they are halfway across. At night, the light for this crossing is conveniently situated behind said tree, to ensure you are crossing at the darkest place possible.

So if it is all well and good to put me under thread of fines and loss of licence for my supposedly dangerous driving — how about the same rules for the people designing our roads? Whoever made these decisions is in no position to tell me what is safe and what is not, because they clearly have NFI.

Are speed cameras located where most accidents occur as a result of speed?

The statistics work like this: police have a bit of a look to see if anything obvious is wrong (bad brakes, etc) and usually they have no idea what caused the crash. Then if there are skid marks on the road, it must have been speed, because the driver tried to stop but failed. If there are no skid marks, it must have been driver fatigue.

No surprise that the two biggest statistical killers are speed and driver fatigue. Because those are the default answers when no other easy answer comes to mind.

The fact the modern cars are programmed not to leave skid marks might start to click at some stage.

We all know, “there’s no such thing as safe speeding” but one day there’s no such thing as being safe over 80kph, the day after there’s no such thing as being safe over 70kph. Go figure.

Anyhow, motorists have more important things to do than keeping their eyes glues to the speedo all the time. Watching the road for example.

As far as “law and order” is concerned, I would rather see raised speed limits and less, if not zero speed cameras. Extra coppers would be useful but rather than them harassing me on the road, they could be, for example, concluding the investigation into Thomo or the AWU.

I would also like to see the legal profession more interested in punishment and public safety than the rights of the criminal. Remove and/or punish those judges and parole board members who leave the public at an unnecessary risk.

Jupes, in an ideal world the police would devote the vast bulk of their time and resources to targeting the most dangerous criminals, and would devote little time and effort to levying fines for trivial legal violations or harassing regular citizens or pursuing victimless crimes etc. But we don’t live in an ideal world. And people need to think through the possible unintended consequences of the policies they advocate in such an imperfect world.

Anyone who demands more police on the street, votes for politicians who promise more police and more “law and order”, but then whines and bitches when they get a fine for some minor violation is an idiot who cannot think through the consequences of that which they demand. Of course, most people are gullible sheep who are easily manipulated through base emotions like fear, greed and prejudice, and are incapable of thinking things through or operating through basic principles. All you have to do is make the right noises, lay out the bait, and round them up. Most people are craven and short-sighted enough that they will accept creeping authoritarianism if they think others are more likely to be the victims than themselves.

Of course many people support the idea of having more police around, because they like the idea that the cops will be there if something happens or they are a victim of a crime. But they don’t think through whether they also want the police to be there every time they drift slightly over the speed limit, or every time there is just a bored cop on the beat who decides he doesn’t like the look of you. Police cannot be everywhere, or prevent every harm. And nor would you really want them to be everywhere. But those who worship Big Brother and Safety are too dim to understand the consequences of the policies they advocate in the real world, as opposed to the la-la-land they live in where some benevolent incorruptible authority protects them and solves all their problems.