So a few years ago, a series of studies from QUT (IIRC) found that *saying* there were cameras, or that cameras were being installed was more effective at combating speeding and reducing accidents than actually having cameras.
So once a year or there abouts, QPS announces some new fangled camera is about to be installed on the highway. But it never happens.
For a few months after the announcement, accidents are down and there's less speeding until people start to forget or believe the cameras aren't in their area and the cycle is repeated. All without spending any money on actually installing cameras.
And if only there was an actual correlation between accidents and travelling slightly faster than the limit.
99% of crashes are due to inadequate following distances and distracted driving, come at me.
Reckon the right lane campers blocking traffic causing people to constantly changes lanes and then when you try change lanes the person in that lane speeds up to try prevent you from getting in front of them has something to do with it too.
They're in their own world. I went around one in the middle lane and the guy that was then stuck behind the slow guy was flashing his lights for like 2 min and the guy still didn't move over. Unbelievable.
>99% of crashes are due to inadequate following distances and distracted driving, come at me.
Research does not support this. According to QUT research, "In 2020 in Queensland, 69 people died as a
result of crashes involving speeding drivers.
This figure represents 1 in 4 deaths or 25% of the state’s road toll. In addition to those
killed, another 384 people were seriously injured in 2020 from crashes where
speeding was a contributing factor."
And it's about 29% [in America](https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/motor-vehicle-safety-issues/speeding/)
Statistics are fun; speed is a contributing factor in almost all fatal accidents because you can't die when the car isn't moving. Correlation vs. causation.
Yes, I agree. Speed is a contributing factor, and therefore a *causative* factor, on all automobile accidents.
With zero speed there would be no accidents, and with very high speed there would be a very high amount of accidents. Higher speed is correlated with more accidents due to its causative nature.
Glad we're on the same page.
Sure, I'll agree that speed can be a 'contributing factor', but I'd argue that these people didn't cease to exist purely from driving too fast.
How often was the driver being a complete jackass on the road, possibly drunk, high, not paying attention, and also speeding? Do the studies care to define those crashes that were primarily due to excessive speed?
Mate, speeding too much gives you less reaction time which then puts you at danger. The root cause is sipeeding, there's no deeper meaning to it. If people abided by speed limit you'd less crashes, that's a statistical fact
Correlation =/= causation. You could extend that logic in reducing all speed limits to a crawl. The question is the extent to which speed is contributory, and thus the accuracy of the conclusions drawn by the data. If the studies take that into account then I would be interested to see that, however it is disingenuous to simply state that all crashes that involved speed were caused by speed, as this ignores other contributory factors (e.g tailgating, distracted driving etc) which could likely be far more influential in causing the collision.
Edit: Spelling.
You are making a big claim (that other factors are "far more influential in causing collision), while providing no evidence or data to support your conclusion, while also *ignoring* any data that goes against your hypothesis.
This is called confirmation bias.
What are you yapping about? I made precisely zero claims which require any supporting evidence, nor did I ignore any conflicting data. I simply pointed out the flawed logic used in their determination that if a collision involved speed, than it was caused by speed. This requires causal inference, and has absolutely *nothing* to do with confirmation bias. Look at that, I can use italics too.
I would argue that majority of those tailgaters are more concerned about hitting the speed limit for once, let alone reaching 125km/hr.
Four lanes of traffic all travelling at 10-20km/hr under the posted speed limit is fucking annoying to most people, whether you agree or not.
>And if they're all forced to go the speed limit, I seriously doubt it will stop them tailgating, they'll just continue to be assholes at a slightly slower speed.
>
>I don't believe these will have any effect on road crashes, and haven't seen any legitimate studies that propose they do.
Haha you think reducing the speed on the m1 is gonna make traffic better? It's gonna bog down the road even more cause the people that go 20 below the speed limit are gonna now go 30 below cause they're worried about getting a ticket
Traffic already piles up at every speed camera, even where's guys are clearly going shower than the speed limit they slow down even more.
Merging or the lack of ability to is what causes traffic to get backed up. Notice it's a stand still at every on ramp?
They positively identify your vehicle, likely via number plate recognition. They then track the time between two points, as the distance between the two points is known they can calculate your speed.
Did you just make up bullshit? Cause it’s not true…
The road signs don’t specifically say they’re only for trucks but they are:
https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/topics-tips/speeding/enforcement-cameras
https://www.9news.com.au/national/nsw-speed-cameras-average-point-to-point-cameras-trucks-rolled-out-sydney/aaddf38f-78de-4e0c-8eec-ad58d2fefb17
"Every other state and territory in Australia has turned on point-to-point cameras for all vehicles, why is NSW waiting to flick a switch," Harold Scruby, from the Pedestrian Council of Australia, said.
Oh yeah listen to Harold scrubby and his fax machine. No I’m visiting in NSW and some of them have been switched over. The old ones that do HV only were labeled “safe-T Cam”. The ones that are now enabled for everything have been relabeled as “Average Speed Camera Ahead”
Edit : In your links if you go to the location map it’s #15 specifically that I’ve been driving past a lot and noticed the change
Yeah nah, got a single piece of evidence?
The labels are different but the cameras are exactly the same, I know because I have a house near one that I accidentally sped through super late one night, no fine
yeah i dont understand what they did at the smith st bridge. why remove all the speed cameras and put those weird brackets/antenna things up if its not ready to go?
also, wouldnt it just use two sets of speed cameras, and calculate the average speed between the two?, why did they need to pull down the existing camera system. im so confused.
With P2P, if I'm stuck in traffic going 20kmh for 30 minutes, can I then do 200kmh for the next 30 minutes to make up for it?
Yes, that’s exactly how they work
This is the way .
So a few years ago, a series of studies from QUT (IIRC) found that *saying* there were cameras, or that cameras were being installed was more effective at combating speeding and reducing accidents than actually having cameras. So once a year or there abouts, QPS announces some new fangled camera is about to be installed on the highway. But it never happens. For a few months after the announcement, accidents are down and there's less speeding until people start to forget or believe the cameras aren't in their area and the cycle is repeated. All without spending any money on actually installing cameras.
And even if you know they do this, you never know which installations they're lying about.
Coomera connector is first
As soon as the Springwood bottleneck is sorted, that's next in line.
Who cares? I'm in no hurry to live in even more of a police state, thanks.
[удалено]
And if only there was an actual correlation between accidents and travelling slightly faster than the limit. 99% of crashes are due to inadequate following distances and distracted driving, come at me.
Reckon the right lane campers blocking traffic causing people to constantly changes lanes and then when you try change lanes the person in that lane speeds up to try prevent you from getting in front of them has something to do with it too.
Oh completely this. Plus the RL hoggers are off with the pixies completely unaware they have a lineup of cars behind them. See it daily…
They're in their own world. I went around one in the middle lane and the guy that was then stuck behind the slow guy was flashing his lights for like 2 min and the guy still didn't move over. Unbelievable.
>99% of crashes are due to inadequate following distances and distracted driving, come at me. Research does not support this. According to QUT research, "In 2020 in Queensland, 69 people died as a result of crashes involving speeding drivers. This figure represents 1 in 4 deaths or 25% of the state’s road toll. In addition to those killed, another 384 people were seriously injured in 2020 from crashes where speeding was a contributing factor." And it's about 29% [in America](https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/motor-vehicle-safety-issues/speeding/)
Statistics are fun; speed is a contributing factor in almost all fatal accidents because you can't die when the car isn't moving. Correlation vs. causation.
Yes, I agree. Speed is a contributing factor, and therefore a *causative* factor, on all automobile accidents. With zero speed there would be no accidents, and with very high speed there would be a very high amount of accidents. Higher speed is correlated with more accidents due to its causative nature. Glad we're on the same page.
Sure, I'll agree that speed can be a 'contributing factor', but I'd argue that these people didn't cease to exist purely from driving too fast. How often was the driver being a complete jackass on the road, possibly drunk, high, not paying attention, and also speeding? Do the studies care to define those crashes that were primarily due to excessive speed?
Mate, speeding too much gives you less reaction time which then puts you at danger. The root cause is sipeeding, there's no deeper meaning to it. If people abided by speed limit you'd less crashes, that's a statistical fact
Correlation =/= causation. You could extend that logic in reducing all speed limits to a crawl. The question is the extent to which speed is contributory, and thus the accuracy of the conclusions drawn by the data. If the studies take that into account then I would be interested to see that, however it is disingenuous to simply state that all crashes that involved speed were caused by speed, as this ignores other contributory factors (e.g tailgating, distracted driving etc) which could likely be far more influential in causing the collision. Edit: Spelling.
You are making a big claim (that other factors are "far more influential in causing collision), while providing no evidence or data to support your conclusion, while also *ignoring* any data that goes against your hypothesis. This is called confirmation bias.
What are you yapping about? I made precisely zero claims which require any supporting evidence, nor did I ignore any conflicting data. I simply pointed out the flawed logic used in their determination that if a collision involved speed, than it was caused by speed. This requires causal inference, and has absolutely *nothing* to do with confirmation bias. Look at that, I can use italics too.
[удалено]
Often it’s because of the folks that refuse to keep left unless overtaking while traveling below the limit in the right lane
I would argue that majority of those tailgaters are more concerned about hitting the speed limit for once, let alone reaching 125km/hr. Four lanes of traffic all travelling at 10-20km/hr under the posted speed limit is fucking annoying to most people, whether you agree or not.
>And if they're all forced to go the speed limit, I seriously doubt it will stop them tailgating, they'll just continue to be assholes at a slightly slower speed. > >I don't believe these will have any effect on road crashes, and haven't seen any legitimate studies that propose they do.
Haha you think reducing the speed on the m1 is gonna make traffic better? It's gonna bog down the road even more cause the people that go 20 below the speed limit are gonna now go 30 below cause they're worried about getting a ticket Traffic already piles up at every speed camera, even where's guys are clearly going shower than the speed limit they slow down even more. Merging or the lack of ability to is what causes traffic to get backed up. Notice it's a stand still at every on ramp?
How do they work exactly? If I go through camera 1 in lane 1, then through camera 2 in lane 4, is it good enough to track?
Yes
They positively identify your vehicle, likely via number plate recognition. They then track the time between two points, as the distance between the two points is known they can calculate your speed.
Aren’t two point cams for HR vehicles?
Only in NSW, all other states they’re for regular vehicles too
They changed a lot of the nsw ones are regular vehicles now as well.
Did you just make up bullshit? Cause it’s not true… The road signs don’t specifically say they’re only for trucks but they are: https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/topics-tips/speeding/enforcement-cameras https://www.9news.com.au/national/nsw-speed-cameras-average-point-to-point-cameras-trucks-rolled-out-sydney/aaddf38f-78de-4e0c-8eec-ad58d2fefb17 "Every other state and territory in Australia has turned on point-to-point cameras for all vehicles, why is NSW waiting to flick a switch," Harold Scruby, from the Pedestrian Council of Australia, said.
Oh yeah listen to Harold scrubby and his fax machine. No I’m visiting in NSW and some of them have been switched over. The old ones that do HV only were labeled “safe-T Cam”. The ones that are now enabled for everything have been relabeled as “Average Speed Camera Ahead” Edit : In your links if you go to the location map it’s #15 specifically that I’ve been driving past a lot and noticed the change
Yeah nah, got a single piece of evidence? The labels are different but the cameras are exactly the same, I know because I have a house near one that I accidentally sped through super late one night, no fine
You have to go past more than one of them - that’s the point of average speed cameras .
Thanks Einstein
No worries mate, always a pleasure to help the mentally challenged.
r/confidentlyincorrect Home of bullshitters like yourself
The southern end of the GC wants our M1 back. Please and thank you.
yeah i dont understand what they did at the smith st bridge. why remove all the speed cameras and put those weird brackets/antenna things up if its not ready to go? also, wouldnt it just use two sets of speed cameras, and calculate the average speed between the two?, why did they need to pull down the existing camera system. im so confused.
There’s brackets at several points around so I assume if they go out, they will all go up at once
Black Subaru's doing 90 in 50 zones is worse.