How Many Things It Misses

[Perry]

We all know how to tell when a politician is lying: their lips are moving.

Here's one labial movement that caught my eye, this morning . . .

The Government is considering new point-to-point cameras in its battle to reduce the road toll.
13 May 2018

Whenever new speed cameras were considered, there was opposition in relation to whether it would be a "revenue-grabbing exercise." But Genter said camera placement was all about preventing dangerous driving on high-risk stretches of roads, not about making money.

Anyone who believes that is naive, stupid or a gummint stooge.

Speed cameras are about government revenue, plain and simple.

Speed cameras are activated by vehicles exceeding a speed that's set inside the speed camera box. 50 or 100 kph being the most common settings.

I'm asking other forumites to contribute to and expand the list I've started. My intention is to demonstrate that speed cameras can only be revenue generating tools by virtue of the number of dangerous aspects of vehicle usage which speed cameras cannot detect.

Now, imagine a motor car travelling along a suburban road @ 50kph, past one of the said cash cameras. At that speed, it will not be 'snapped' by the speed camera. Below are a list of law-breaking things - all of which can lead to fatalities - that could be occurring that the speed camera cannot detect:

It was being driven by an unlicenced driver
It was being driven by an drunk driver
It was being driven by an driver whose licence is suspended
It was being driven by an driver whose licence has expired
It was being driven by a driver under the influence of drugs
The driver was a learner who had 1 mg of alcohol in her blood (not sure about that one)
It was a vehicle that was being driven dangerously
It was a vehicle that was being driven by a driver using a cell phone
It was a vehicle that was being driven without due care and attention
It was a vehicle that did not have a current warrant of fitness
It was a vehicle that did not have a current vehicle licence
It was a vehicle that had bald tyres
It was a vehicle that had more occupants than seat belts
It was a vehicle that had a driver or passenger[s] not wearing seat belts
It was a vehicle towing a trailer that did not have a current warrant of fitness
It was a vehicle towing a trailer that was not currently registered
It was a vehicle towing a trailer that had an over-weight, unsecured, over-length or unsafe load

I suspect there is a speeding limit at which point the police would (there and then) either detain the driver and impound the vehicle, or both. Say, 50kph over the posted speed limit. Anyone know about that?

Later, I'll consider a further list (or extension) that covers cameras set to 100kph on the open road.

[Nick G]

I almost killed my whole young family with some stupid driving once. There are many things I'm cynical about with the government but our efforts to reduce fatalities aren't one of them. I would hope that within 5 years we can add a sensor to cars that does a breath test for Alcohol before the car will move.

[Perry]

There are many things I'm cynical about with the government but our efforts to reduce fatalities aren't one of them.

No condemnation of trying to reduce road fatalities.

Just condemnation of gummint revenue gathering disguised as pseudo-road-safety efforts.

[Bob Kane]

It the govt wants to reduce the road toll and not make money then the penalty should not be a fine.
This would discourage speeding and unsafe driving while avoiding the ''revenue gathering'' accusation.

[Davo36]

Perry, yes it could be used for safety initially, but it would later be used for revenue gathering. 100%.

They have lied about this before. When speed cameras were first brought in, they said they would not conceal them. But a bit later they did...

So they have form for saying one thing and then doing another.

[klauster]

Road safety is very important, but not achieved by only discussions about speed. Road fatalities are a result of careless driving. For example take the slogan “Speed kills” – no, not speed, people kill. If you want to reduce fatalities, strive for responsible drivers.

Blaming other things than drivers like making roads responsible for accidents, think twice - the road code makes it clear to drive safely and control a motor vehicle at all times. Who can’t control a car, shouldn’t be on the road, including people who caused accidents by not having the hands at the steering wheel (playing with the radio, phone, etc)

Make liability insurance compulsory for all drivers, and give good drivers (no accident history) discount premiums and penalty premiums for drivers with accident records.

And in terms of speed, who ever drove more than 200km/h on the autobahn knows - speed is a tremendous achievement for reducing travel time and felt the urge to drive safely, concentrated and without distractions.

[klauster]

Well, you can extend the list by hundreds of reasons why accidents happened, but why making the life for responsible drivers miserable?
The bad guys on the road follow all a similar pattern, get them off the road with electronic checkpoints (number plate & face recognition, car registration and WOF checks) – or possibly not as more prisons are then needed.

[Perry]

You What?

J A Genter MP endorsed, perhaps?

Does anyone else see problems with these pix?

[Keys]

Ah. Yip. There is no yellow line prohibiting overtaking in these instances.

[email protected]

Have sent a wee word off to him.

Tell me MichaelNZ. Why would I bother to do that then? Hmmmm?

Sorry Mike.

On behalf of Hon Julie Anne Genter thank you for your email. We consider all correspondence important and appreciate you taking the time to write. Please note that Minister Genter receives a high volume of correspondence and a personal reply may take some weeks.

If your email falls outside of the Minister’s portfolio responsibilities, we may transfer it to the appropriate Ministerial office.

If you are inviting the Minister to attend an event you are organising, our office will be in touch shortly. If the matter is urgent, please feel free to contact Stuart Baker on 04 817 6582 or [email protected]

If your email expresses a personal view, it will be noted.

[flyernzl]

Make liability insurance compulsory for all drivers, and give good drivers (no accident history) discount premiums and penalty premiums for drivers with accident records.

So how do you make someone who is driving an unregistered and unwarrented car without a drivers licence take up liability insurance?

[donna]

It's revenue generation but hardly new. Aussie have been at it for years. In Victoria there are thousands of speed cameras and they have exceptional roading which costs millions in upkeep etc so the speeding fines pay for the wonderful roads that are ridiculously straight, wide, well lit, well sealed, and scream at you to go faster! Such a tease and I wonder what the revenue grab is annually esp. for visitors?

cheers,

Donna

[cube]

Make liability insurance compulsory for all drivers, and give good drivers (no accident history) discount premiums and penalty premiums for drivers with accident records.

So how do you make someone who is driving an unregistered and unwarrented car without a drivers licence take up liability insurance?

Not 'make liability insurance compulsory', but 'make liability compulsory' - facing with rescue, recovery, funeral, rehabilitation bills, might make people think twice. I do think that at-fault drivers in serious incidents (particularly repeat offenders) should lose ACC cover, too.

Although it reminds me an an anecdote out of a jurisdiction where such life-long liability is imposed - drivers were known to ensure that their injured victims weren't subject to a very long life, by running them down a few times for good measure. The penalty of causing death by dangerous driving was significantly less than life long payment for medical bills!

[Perry]

I think Cube strikes at the heart of the problem, being a sort-of variation on the implicit, nasty corporate welfare program where "costs are socialised" while the "profits are internalised."

Making people liable for the consequences of their actions happens rarely, these days. All part of the: nobody's fault, nobody's to blame stupidity mantras of our era. Another way of looking at it is that nobody's allowed to learn from their mistakes.

When the gummnit uses taxpayers funds to pay for the costs of people's stupidity, a large measure of people's freedom is taken away by said gummint, as a consequence. Just another unintended consequence.

[flyernzl]

The problem with what Cube proposes is that there are a considerable number of individuals within our society who simply stare the Law down.

With no assets and minimal income, they just stand there blankly as each penalty is handed down and then walk away to do nothing. Impose whatever penalties you like, they will simply ignore them.

We pass an ever increasing number of laws based on the supposition that people will obey them. However these sort of people do not, and have no intention of doing so. The outcome is that the law-abiding middle class, who have assets to cherish and incomes to protect, are subject to more and more intrusive restrictions while the low-lifes are entirely unaffected by whatever new statutes are enacted.

Apart from physically locking these people up, the justice system is powerless. You can impose any other penalty you like and they simply ignore it.

Generally they also corral some snotty-nosed brats of mixed parentage, so if you then refuse to assist these people in any of the ways suggested, the cries go up "You can't penalize those poor innocent children for the sins of their elders" and the TV cameras hover around. (It is also no longer acceptable to take those children away from them and house them elsewhere). In our society you simply cannot have damaged people starving in the gutters.

So these parasite on our society continue to live on taxpayer support while you and I are hounded in even more restrictive legislation.

[Keys]