Right: Victorian police minister, Peter Ryan, was himself a "victim" of a speed camera early this year. Some months later, Mr Ryan asked the Auditor-General to review the performance of all types of speed detection cameras.
. Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Arguments against speed cameras
1. Speed is not a major component in accidents
Opponents of speed cameras claim that the importance of speeding as a contributory factor in road accidents has been exaggerated.
The lobby group RoadSense, which is opposed to the general introduction of speed cameras, notes a 1994 report produced by the Queensland Government Parliamentary Travelsafe Committee. The report is said to include the claim that 'Fatal accidents, caused solely by speed, represent 1.8% of all accidents reported State-wide, but only 0.8% of all accidents in Brisbane.'
RoadSense then condemned motorist associations across Australia for not opposing speed cameras on the basis of inadequate evidence that speed kills. RoadSense states, 'We have to question whether our motoring associations were looking out for their members interests when speed camera legislation was passed...We call on our motoring associations to question the data used for the justification of speed cameras.'
Another motorist lobby group, CarAdvice, also opposed to speed cameras, argues similarly that speed is not a significant contributory fact in road accidents. The group cites a 2006 United Kingdom Department for Transport study titled Road Casualties Great Britain. The report studied 145,798 road collisions over the previous year and stated that '"Exceeding speed limit" was attributed to 3 percent of cars involved in accidents.'
The United Kingdom Department for Transport study also stated, 'The most common factor is failure to look properly which contributed to 35 percent of accidents. Four of the six most frequently reported contributory factors involved driver or rider error or reaction.'
2. Speed cameras do not affect driver behaviour positively
It has been claimed that speed cameras have little or no positive influence on driver behaviour.
The lobby group CARR (Citizens Against Road Ripoffs), which opposes speed cameras has stated, 'Like police radar traps and unmarked police cars, these cameras are very obviously revenue raisers and do nothing whatsoever to make the roads safer. This is easy to prove by simple logic. Motorists do not get any indication when they are booked by fixed cameras.
The infringement notices can take anywhere from three weeks to two months to arrive. Therefore motorists have nothing to indicate that they should modify their driving practices for the often lengthy time between the actual infringement and the arrival of the infringement notices.'
CARR elaborated its position further, giving the following hypothetical example, 'A motorist who is booked driving over the limit by a speed camera may continue at that excessive speed, totally oblivious to the fact that he has been booked and may very well kill a number of people in an accident well before that infringement notice arrives to indicate that his behaviour was dangerous.'
A commentator emailing the Geelong Advertiser on February 8, 2011, shared this view. He stated, 'The key is to improve driver behaviour and ability to avoid collisions, not just fixate on penalising speed. With no immediate obvious connection between committing a driving offence and its punishment, the deterrent effect is virtually zero, as with "safety" cameras.'
The new Liberal Coalition government in Victoria also seems to hold the view that speed cameras would have a greater deterrent effect if motorists knew where they were. In February 2011, the Government began regularly publishing speed camera locations.
3. Speed cameras are often inaccurate
There have been a number of successful challenges to speed-camera-imposed fines which have contributed to the view that speed cameras are inaccurate.
In February 2011, a magistrate upheld Leading Sen-Constable Trevor Bergman's appeal against a $250 speeding fine, ruling that the senior constable was legally within the speed limit on the stretch of road where he was caught. (It needs to be noted that this case did not cast doubt on the accuracy of the speed camera that detected Sen-Constable Trevor; the issue was with the speed limit signage.)
In October, 2011, Policewoman Faye Pitman had a speed camera fine dismissed when a magistrate accepted her word and that of a passenger that she w as driving at 98km/h on EastLink when the camera snapped her at 106km/h.
The Herald Sun reporter writing on the Pitman case speculated that it would further undermine faith in the cameras and that, 'Unless there is a successful appeal against the word of Senior Constable Pitman and her witness, hundreds of speed camera fines are likely to be contested.'
Legal experts and police officers have also suggested that the Pitman case could lead to many others like it. One officer stated, 'This could open Pandora's Box for everyone else.'
Barrister Michael commented, 'It's a really great thing. Previously, it has been impossible for people to prove that they weren't speeding. It means there will be a floodgate opening of people challenging, and many, many more people and angry drivers questioning their fines.'
Another barrister, Theo Alexander, has said the decision would likely 'embolden many motorists who have been charged in similar circumstances to challenge their speeding fine'.
The Victorian Auditory General's report on the effectiveness of speed cameras released at the end of August, 2011, stated, 'Two major faults in the road safety camera system have raised doubts about the integrity of the program for some sections of the community and the media. Incorrect infringements from the Western Ring Road cameras in 2003 and the Hume point-to-point cameras in 2010 have been subject to significant public comment.'
4. Speed cameras are essentially a revenue-raising device for governments
There is a wide-spread belief that speed cameras are primarily intended as revenue-raisers for governments, rather than as a means of reducing the road toll. Some critics argue that the proof of this is that, in Victoria at least, the locations of speed cameras were not advertised.
There are those who claim that Victoria's relatively large number of speed cameras and the fines they generate are essentially a form of differential taxation on road users.
In an article published in The Herald Sun on November 24, 2010, the following claims were made, 'Victoria is the only state in Australia that does not put up signs to warn motorists they are approaching a fixed speed camera.
Mobile speed cameras in some Australian states also have warning signs. But Victorian motorists are not warned they are approaching a mobile speed camera.
Victoria has by far the highest cash penalties in Australia for speeding at less than 10km/h over the limit and Victorian motorists also pay the most for exceeding the speed limit by more than 10km/h but less than 15km/h.' The implication of these observations is that the Victorian Government was seeking to maximise the revenue-raising potential of these cameras.
In an article published in The Herald Sun on December 27, 2010, Ashley Gardiner stated, 'Only four of Victoria's 20 most dangerous accident black spots are monitored by speed cameras. Yet almost all of the most lucrative speed camera locations have been free of fatalities in the past five years.
Dangerous outer-suburban intersections are being ignored in favour of busy inner-city locations. The revelations have been seized on as proof that cameras are for revenue raising.'
The claim that speeding fines are primarily a revenue source for governments has been made overtly by Paul Murray, former editor of the West Australian. Mr Murray has stated, 'I have no compunction in calling speeding fines a form of taxation because any examination of how they work leads to that conclusion.
There is no victim other than the driver when you are snapped for doing something like 5kmh over the speed limit. So it is hard to see the fine as a punishment when there's been no offence against anyone.
The majority of speed camera fines are for low-speed offences. They are therefore such a small relative penalty as to be useless in changing behaviour. So, in my view at least, speeding penalties have more in common with a road use fee than a punishment. They are more of a tax than a fine.'
5. Speed cameras can cause accidents
There are those who claim that speed cameras can actually increase the risk of an accident.
A report was issued in August 2011 by the insurance company Liverpool Victoria (LV=) on a survey conducted among 1,532 of its members on the effects of speed cameras on driver behaviour.
The poll found 81 percent of drivers said they looked at their speedometers rather than the road when a camera came into view, the poll by insurance company LV= revealed. While five percent admitted to braking suddenly when in sight of speed cameras, risking rear-end shunts.
A further 31 percent claimed to have witnessed an accident, or a near-miss, as a result of drivers' erratic behaviour when faced with a camera. 46 percent of those surveyed believed that cameras diverted attention away from other areas of their driving, while 11 per cent believed cameras actually increased the risk of an accident.
The managing director of Liverpool Victoria, John O'Roarke, stated, 'The feedback from drivers is that while.,. [speed cameras] may reduce speed, they also appear to impair driving ability or, at the least, concentration on the road. As this report shows, some drivers behave erratically and, at worst, dangerously, around speed cameras.'
Brian Gregory, a spokesperson for the Association of British Drivers has claimed, 'No more than six per cent of accidents in this country are caused by speeding drivers...Most accidents are caused because drivers are unable to concentrate on the road because they are looking for cameras.'
The Australian lobby group CARR (Citizens Against Road Ripoffs) has also claimed, 'Speed cameras may even cause accidents because journey times are increased, causing drivers to become frustrated. Drivers may divert to less safe routes to avoid cameras and cameras can distract driver attention, and cause sudden braking.'