A response was received on 31st May…

The proximity of the camera site to the Johnston Road exit was considered when looking at the location for the first camera. In Queensland, there is a requirement to meet strict site selection guidelines in relation to the location of our camera sites. Some of the key considerations in relation to the placement of fixed speed cameras are a demonstrated history of speed related crashes, and a location where the use of other enforcement methods is difficult or unsafe. While the camera is located close to the Johnston Road exit, as drivers are required to slow down to 60 km/h for the off ramp it is unlikely they will gain a time advantage through this behaviour. When the point-to-point camera system becomes operational driver behaviour will be monitored.

Even beside the fact the relative ease of avoiding detection (the driver I witnessed didn’t slow down to 60km/h as was “required”), in my opinion it wouldn’t matter whether the camera was placed a few hundred metres either side of the interchange in order to be a little more efficient.  I doubt that there have been more “speed related crashes” under the bridge than at any point in the stretch leading up to the exit or past it.  As for where another enforcement method is difficult or unsafe, it doesn’t seem as though this is a place where a mobile speed camera couldn’t be used.

I’m yet to be convinced that the Government has fully thought this through and didn’t rush out and put these cameras in place in order to “look” as though they are doing something. I know what you’re thinking .. no surprises there.

DISCLAIMER: I do not condone speeding in any way, shape or form. If you do speed, you deserve to be caught before you hurt somebody else.

One of the newly talked about camera systems that is expected to reduce the number of deaths on Queensland roads is the “point-to-point” camera set up on the Bruce Highway on the way to Caloundra.  The premise is that the cameras will measure the average speed over approximately 13km of highway (the current limit is 110km/h) and if the average speed is over, you will be booked.  They also work in the same way as a regular speed camera, so if you are over the limit as you pass either camera, you’ll be booked as normal.

The problem with this is the first camera is set up under a bridge at the Johnston Road/Wild Horse Mountain exit.  The only way to be detected and therefore start this measurement is to travel on the highway under this bridge.  Those joining the highway after this point won’t have the average speed measurement taken, since the first camera can’t detect your start time.  Fair enough, the second camera can’t possibly know when you joined the highway so it can’t work out the time it took you to travel the distance it’s recording.

Theoretically you could exit at this point and re-enter the highway and speed all you want and so long as you don’t hit the second camera over the limit, you’re home and hosed!  I’ll admit this thought didn’t enter my mind until I saw someone doing exactly what I described over the weekend.  The driver was even speeding all the way up the off-ramp and back down the on-ramp.

To be truly effective, shouldn’t both cameras be in a position to detect all possible infringements? Was there any consideration to this raised or is it just a half-baked attempt at putting in some new revenue raising kit to look like the government is getting serious?  With the revelation today of the Clem7 cameras not being tested adequately I seem to think that the second point is ringing true.

Note: I am emailing the Transport and Main Roads (TMR) department with my concerns, and will update this post if and when I get a response. (Update @18.05: Response received from TMR – It has been passed on to the ‘relevant area’ within the department for consideration and they are to reply to me directly by 02.06)

Update @07.06 – response from TMR received and my thoughts are here.

I participated in Movember last year, raising $240 (you can see the end result here), and have this year decided to do it all again, hoping to raise more than last year’s total.

The rule is simple, start clean shaven on 1st of November. Then all we’ve got to do is grow, grow, grow and put up with the ridicule or praise knowing that it is all in the name of helping other men-folk of the world.

And it is, considering around 1 in 8 men will experience depression in their lifetime, and close to 3000 men die of prostate cancer in Australia EACH YEAR. 3000 each year, and it’s increasing. That’s around the same amount of women dying of breast cancer, and how many breast cancer/pink/pink ribbon things do you see these days?

So, what it boils down to is this: I want you to sponsor me. Every little bit counts and I hope you see that it’s for a good cause. If you go to this magic little page, you can donate via that fantastic piece of plastic called your credit card, or via the ever so technologically advanced PayPal. (receipts are issued and apparantly anything over $2 is a tax deduction so it’s not all bad)

If you’re a fella and don’t mind getting pointed-and-laughed-at for a month, remembering it’s all for us guys (and let’s face it we gotta stick together), then I encourage you to join too.

You can also pay attention to this blog for progress shots, that I’ll try and upload at least once a week.

Edit 01.11.09 – see this post for progress shots, and totals of amounts raised.

But I’m noticing a worrying trend with the government whenever a concern is raised about the filter.  Rather than try to respond directly to the concern, the person involved will dodge the question and spin the same old rhetoric about the benefits of the policy.  There isn’t even the slightest hint of the person addressing the concern.  Senator Conroy is the worst offender and in question time he repeatedly runs out of time when spinning the same speech. However when a concern was raised by a constiuent within the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s own electorate (see letter to Mr Rudd here, and the response here) , the staffer alsofailed to respond directly to the concerns but at least they acknowledged them, saying “I am aware that the proposal for ISP filtering has has attracted some criticism from those, like yourself, who are concerned that it will lead to censorship of the internet.”  The letter then continues with 2 or so pages of the same old fluff we’ve all heard before.

My issue with the whole thing is that the government is supposed to be elected to govern by the people, for the people.  The ALP has stated that the filtering proposal was part of their platform for the election, and therefore since they were elected into government, they have a “mandate” to implement their policies. I’m not aware of the filtering policy being publicised much, if at all, so therefore, does the government really have such a mandate to implement their policy?  If the general public are raising concerns, then the government should, as part of their responsibility to act in the interests of the people in their electorate(s), address them and not await the results of a trial of such policy before commenting.  It’s such an obvious abuse of power, and it’s not what I want the government that I elected to represent me to continue doing.  It could be said that both sides do abuse this power, but in reality they should be listening to the people they have been elected to serve, and not push their own agenda, regardless of any such percieved mandate.