Cameras Cut Crashes :(

Bah! Humbug!

Skip to: Content | Sidebar | Footer

Talk with (moderated) Minister

2 September, 2011 (13:11) | ccc | By: admin

Here’s the full transcript of the ‘open’ chat with Police Minister on theHun website today
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/eastlink-speed-cameras-are-accurate/story-fn7x8me2-1226127643189

Sadly the moderation and question replies were too slow and only a fraction of the posted questions made it online or were responded to by the GovInc.

Police Minister Peter Ryan takes your questions on Victoria’s speed and red light cameras (09/01/2011) 

Friday September 2, 2011
11:25  Good morning. Peter Ryan will be with us shortly. 
Friday September 2, 2011 11:25 
11:59  Peter Ryan: Midday folks. Welcome to all. And away we go. 
Friday September 2, 2011 11:59 Peter Ryan

12:00  [Comment From NB NB: ]
Is there a plan to increase the number of fixed speed cameras currently operating across Victoria? 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:00 NB
12:00  Peter Ryan: That is a matter I will discuss with police now that we have the report from the Auditor- General available to us. 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:00 Peter Ryan

12:01  [Comment From camerassavelives.com.au camerassavelives.com.au: ]
if road safety is the prime reason for so many cameras, why NO cameras on the Monash freeway, and NO cameras on the Eastern freeway 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:01 camerassavelives.com.au
12:02  Peter Ryan: It is a matter for police and the siting committee as to where the cameras are placed. As and when I receive submissions from them they will be considered. 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:02 Peter Ryan

More after the jump

12:03  [Comment From Peter Peter: ]
Minister Ryan – if we accept that speed cameras increase safety and awareness then why can we not have permanent ones in every School Zone? Every morning I see people recklessly speeding through these zones where our most pedestrian are. This seems a “no-brainer”. 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:03 Peter
12:04  Peter Ryan: As the Auditor-General’s report confirms cameras save lives and they change driver behaviour. Equally though the system is always a challenge to resource. I will continue to receive advice from police on any expansion of the existing arrangements. I do note your point. 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:04 Peter Ryan

12:05  [Comment From Rob Rob: ]
Simply show everybody the statistics (proof) that the introduction of speed cameras, and subsequent fines, have reduced road accidents/lives and there is no argument. Then we can move onto the arguement about the size of the fines…. 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:05 Rob
12:06  Peter Ryan: I strongly suggest you read the Auditor-General’s report which was tabled in the parliament yesterday. It is a comprehensive endorsement of cameras and it deals in detail with the issues you have raised. Go to the camerassavelives.vic.gov.au website and follow the links. 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:06 Peter Ryan

12:06  [Comment From Tony Ellis Tony Ellis: ]
Mr Ryan has mentioned front number plates for motorcycles – is he aware that this has been comprehensively rejected at a national and a state level as being virtually impossible to develop and possibly dangerous. They were removed because of the danger posed to riders and pedestrians. What consultation took place with those involved with motorcycle safety prior to his comments? 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:06 Tony Ellis
12:09  Peter Ryan: The AG report tabled yesterday highlights the fact that motorcyclists are 30 times more likely to be involved in accidents than other motorists. The second of the eight recommendations is directed to this issue and we will pursue it. Cameras do save lives and motorcyclists would be the beneficiaries if we can engage them in the same process that applies to other road users in the way cameras operate. 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:09 Peter Ryan

12:11  [Comment From Tim Tim: ]
Victoria has one of the highest speed limit compliance rates in the world. Why is our traffic accident rate not seeing the improvements elsewhere in the wold as more older cars are replaced by safer cars? 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:11 Tim
12:12  Peter Ryan: The trend we have established in Victoria is for a reduction in road fatalities and injuries. Probably only Scandanavia – with its vastly different driving conditions – is ahead of us. We intend to continue the trend. 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:12 Peter Ryan

12:13  [Comment From Guest Guest: ]
If they are not revenue raising why are mobile cameras set up in Queens Rd early am on ANZAC Day. 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:13 Guest
12:14  Peter Ryan: The whole idea with the cameras is to have them operating on a basis that people need always be aware of the prospect of their presence and that they accordingly drive within the speed limit. 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:14 Peter Ryan

12:15  [Comment From Paul Paul: ]
Hi Peter, do you think painting fixed speeding cameras located at traffic light intersections a bright color and sign posting them 500m in advance would increase safety for motorists and pedestrians? 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:15 Paul
12:16  Peter Ryan: The signage is already there to indicate the presence of the fixed cameras. We will give further consideration to issues of additional signage. 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:16 Peter Ryan

12:16  [Comment From Ben Stone Ben Stone: ]
If you expect us to believe that its not just about revenue raising, then why do you set up speed cameras at 6:30 AM where there are new work in progess signs in streets that do not carry pedestrians and no workers due on sight until 8:00AM 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:16 Ben Stone
12:16  Peter Ryan: The whole idea with the cameras is to have them operating on a basis that people need always be aware of the prospect of their presence and that they accordingly drive within the speed limit.
Friday September 2, 2011 12:16 Peter Ryan

12:17  [Comment From Andy Andy: ]
Hi Peter, Do you realise that despite the findings of the auditor generals report nobody is going to believe the claims. In the words of Mandy Rice-Davies “well they would say that wouldn’t they”? 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:17 Andy
12:17  Peter Ryan: I will pass on your wisdom to the Auditor -General of the State of Victoria, he being an entirely third party, utterly independent of the Victorian Parliament. 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:17 Peter Ryan

12:18  [Comment From Simon Simon: ]
If speed cameras are really about safety, why are they on the safest roads we have (freeways), when the time most accidents happen is peak hour when everyone can’t do the speed limit anyway! 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:18 Simon
12:20  Peter Ryan: I recommend you read the report by the AG. He deals specifically with this point at page xiii of the audit summary under the heading ‘Common Misconceptions.’ In fact, between 2006 and 2010, 122 people died on metropolitan roads when travelling within 100km zones which are typically freeways. 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:20 Peter Ryan
12:21  Peter Ryan: Progress Report! I will keep the answers short because there are many questions coming and many observations – positive and negative – being made. I’m afraid I will not get to every one. 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:21 Peter Ryan

12:21  [Comment From Peter Peter: ]
Your tune was different whilst in opposition. What is the actually revenue raised at present? With the possibility of additional cameras after the auditors report to be installed, what is the projected revenue? 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:21 Peter
12:22  Peter Ryan: I assure you my tune was precisely the same as now. On the money issues, the cameras generate about $230 million in fines and all of it goes into the Better Roads Fund. 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:22 Peter Ryan

12:22  [Comment From Guest Guest: ]
If Minister Ryan beleives speed camers are road safety intiatives and not revenue raisers, then why are they placed on divided hghways such as The Hume, Eastlink, Geelong and not permanently placed on secondary roadways such as Burwood Hwy, Frankston-Dandedong, Stud Rd ,Plenty Rd which carry large traffic volumes and far more dangerous in terms of intersections, side roads and more importantly, pedestrian traffic 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:22 Guest
12:22  Peter Ryan: The whole idea with the cameras is to have them operating on a basis that people need always be aware of the prospect of their presence and that they accordingly drive within the speed limit.
Friday September 2, 2011 12:22 Peter Ryan

12:23  [Comment From Joe Tomasello Joe Tomasello: ]
Can you please explain which technology has ACTUALLY saved more lives. Speed Cameras OR better CARS? Better breaks , handling and CArs in general including airbags have saved FAR MORE lives and better results of soft tissue injury than any speed camera ever could. STOP listening to idiotic reports made from bias and general support for cash grab and ACTUALLY start saving lives by A – Better Driving instruction and lessons. B – Putting POLICE the guys we pay taxes for BACK ON OUR ROADS. I voted for you and worked hard getting you guys back into power in Victoria , Dont turn into gillard and GO back on promises by introducing NEW MONEY SPINNERS at the publics cost. 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:23 Joe Tomasello
12:24  Peter Ryan: I strongly suggest you read the AG report. In addition I emphasise, as does the AG, that cameras are only an element of the basket of initiatives that are important in the pursuit of having better and safer cars and road systems as well as ensuring compliance with the law. 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:24 Peter Ryan

12:25  [Comment From Ahmed Ahmed: ]
Hey Peter. Question about red light cameras – at what stage does the camera activate when the traffic light turns red? Is it when the car crosses the thick white line that shouldn’t be crossed, or when it passes the intersection? 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:25 Ahmed
12:26  Peter Ryan: I strongly suggest you read the Auditor-General’s report which was tabled in the parliament yesterday. It is a comprehensive endorsement of cameras and it deals in detail with the issues you have raised. Go to the camerassavelives.vic.gov.au website and follow the links. 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:26 Peter Ryan

12:26  [Comment From Paul Paul: ]
The public have lost confidence in the government and beleive the “speed” cameras to be pure revenue raisers. Do you think the public perception would be changed if the fines went to charitys or rehabilitation organisations? Could there possibly be no monetry fine and some form of community service or should motorists have to undertake a seminar etc. I feel there could be many more proactive approaches instead of just hurting the hip pockets. If this approach is to continue the motorists will never take the police or government seriously. 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:26 Paul
12:27  Peter Ryan: I strongly suggest you read the Auditor-General’s report which was tabled in the parliament yesterday. It is a comprehensive endorsement of cameras and it deals in detail with the issues you have raised. Go to the camerassavelives.vic.gov.au website and follow the links. One of the recommendations, on your further point, is that we actively market the reality that cameras save lives and that will be carefully considered. 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:27 Peter Ryan

12:28  [Comment From Wiffa Wiffa: ]
As at 31st August 2011 the road toll is up .05% what rational can now be given to additional cameras and turning on the dodgy ones. What expertise has the Auditor General in the technical aspects. From whom did he receive his information those with a vested interest!!!!!!!!!! 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:28 Wiffa
12:28  Peter Ryan: I strongly suggest you read the Auditor-General’s report which was tabled in the parliament yesterday. It is a comprehensive endorsement of cameras and it deals in detail with the issues you have raised. Go to the camerassavelives.vic.gov.au website and follow the links. 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:28 Peter Ryan

12:28  [Comment From Tom Tom: ]
Peter, just weeks ago VicPol officers were running a wage dipute campaign to alert motorists to the presence of speed cameras so that they would slow down, thus putting pressure on the government by denying them revenue from fines. It was a blatant admission that A) a visible police presence is much more effective in getting motorists to slow down, and B) that the government relies on cameras for revenue generation. The motoring community were glad to finally see police publicly admit to what we all already know, that hidden speed cameras are not effective in slowing people down, but very effective at generating revenue for the government. And yet, VicPol have just turned around and supported the findings of the A-G’s report that effectively say covert speed cameras are God’s gift to road safety. Did you really think we would forget that quickly? Do not be so surprised that the motoring public have lost respect for VicPol when you treat us with such opportunism and contempt. 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:28 Tom
12:30  Peter Ryan: The AG’s report is a good read. and deals with the merits of the points you have raised on the operation of the system itself. On the question of the recent police activity you have identified, that occurred in the context of the current EBA negotiations and in no way reflected any police opinion contrary to the use of cameras. 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:30 Peter Ryan

12:30  [Comment From John John: ]
Why is there any consideration being given to Front Number Plates for motorcycles? Is it our fault as riders that technology has evolved whereby vehicles can now be photographed from the front. Why can’t the camera’s just be used from the rear? And where does this 30 times figure come from? From knowledge I have, it is based on very inaccurate statistics. 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:30 John
12:32  Peter Ryan: The AG’s report deals with the dangers to motorcylists in some detail and contains the analysis you seek. I strongly recommend you read the report which can be accessed by going to camerassavelives.vic.gov.au and following the links. 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:32 Peter Ryan

12:32  [Comment From Guest Guest: ]
How can we have error rate of 5kms most cars speedometers dpo not measure to that accuracy? so to catch people who speed to that level seems unfair. O am skeptical abou the accuracy of the machines to that level. 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:32 Guest
12:33  Peter Ryan: There are tolerance levels in the use of the cameras and as applied by police which accommodate your concern. The cameras themselves, as the AG report confirms, are subject to extensive and ongoing testing and are confirmed as being reliable. 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:33 Peter Ryan

12:34  [Comment From Brett Brett: ]
If speed is dangerous and speed cameras save lives, could please use this to explain how Germany manages to have a lower road toll than us, despite having 4x as many people as AUS in an area the size of NSW. Also be aware that the German autobahn, which has no blanket limit has the lowest death rate in Germany. Could you explain that please? 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:34 Brett
12:35  Peter Ryan: At page 17 of the AG’s report is the paragraph dealing with evaluations of international jurisdictions. The bottom line is that the analysis is both comprehensive and conclusive. Cameras save lives. 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:35 Peter Ryan

12:36  [Comment From Ross Ross: ]
Peter, Los Angles has just turned off all their fixed red light & speed cameras. Why are you looking to keep them & install more? Liberals & Nats advised us all that you would reduce reliance on speed camera taxes! 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:36 Ross
12:37  Peter Ryan: At page 17 of the AG’s report is the paragraph dealing with evaluations of international jurisdictions. The bottom line is that the analysis is both comprehensive and conclusive. Cameras save lives. The approach may be different in other jurisdictions but we have no doubt of its application in Victoria. 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:37 Peter Ryan

12:37  [Comment From chris chris: ]
What is the threshhold fine for exceeding the limit? A $153 fine for going 3km over the limit is simply not fair and has to be revenue raising 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:37 chris
12:39  Peter Ryan: If you are booked at 103 it means it is a net figure after the tolerances are taken into account. Since I do not know what tolerance levels the police apply I cannot tell you precisely how fast you were going. I can say though that it must have been four or five kilometres faster than 103. 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:39 Peter Ryan

12:39  [Comment From molly molly: ]
will you consider 40k blanket speed limits on all suburban roads? 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:39 molly
12:40  Peter Ryan: We will always consider what the relevant authorities recommend to us. That is not a recommendation before us. 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:40 Peter Ryan

12:40  [Comment From Frustrated Courier Frustrated Courier: ]
Hi Peter, can you tell me whatever happened to bringing back the 10% tolerance to be in line with the speedo manufacturing standards? You bagged Labour mercilessly on that in opposition and haven’t changed it. I’m close to losing my licence – if it was 10% tolerance like it used to be I would not have had one fine in the last 4 years! 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:40 Frustrated Courier
12:42  Peter Ryan: Ultimately we take advice from the police. The tolerance now under the regulations is 3km for a fixed camera and 2km for mobile cameras plus the tolerance from the police. In context it is a fair balance. 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:42 Peter Ryan

12:42  [Comment From Megan Fox Megan Fox: ]
Hey Peter. Can you inform us the total annual costs of running speed cameras, and then tell us the total annual revenue made from fines etc.. 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:42 Megan Fox
12:43  Peter Ryan: The approximate cost of running the system is $100 million. The approximate level of fines is $235 million. All the money raised goes to the Better Roads Fund. All the costs incurred are paid from the Budget. 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:43 Peter Ryan

12:43  [Comment From barney barney: ]
why not answer the questions? stop refering us to websites! 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:43 barney
12:44  Peter Ryan: Because if I try and take every point in detail I will not get through the questions. That is frustrating for everybody when reading the report will readily provide the extra detail. 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:44 Peter Ryan

12:44  [Comment From Guest Guest: ]
mr ryan you keep saying to read the report but its only going to toe the government line anyway 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:44 Guest
12:45  Peter Ryan: I will pass on your wisdom to the Auditor -General of the State of Victoria, he being an entirely third party, utterly independent of the Victorian Parliament. 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:45 Peter Ryan

12:45  [Comment From Bungle Bungle: ]
As a motorbike rider I find it incomprehensible as to the proposal to reintroduce front numberplates for bikes. Given that they were removed due to pedestrian injury concerns, the number of motorbike-related deaths has decreased year-on-year since 2005, and the number of motorbike registrations has increased significantly over the same period of time, do you really think this can be seen as anything other than a cash grab? 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:45 Bungle
12:46  Peter Ryan: The AG has made the recommendation. We are obliged to consider it and we will. That said we will not be doing anything which is going to increase the risks to motorcycle riders. 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:46 Peter Ryan

12:47  [Comment From JAM JAM: ]
U have just proved that speed cameras are there purely for revenue raising by not responding to my questions. 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:47 JAM
12:48  Peter Ryan: I will do you a deal. You read the report and then come back to me on my website. 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:48 Peter Ryan

12:48  [Comment From Fred Fred: ]
peter..Even if we read the report like you have asked..does that you will implement it’s recommendations or like all previous govs (Both Sides) cheery pick? 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:48 Fred
12:49  Peter Ryan: Of necessity we must consider this in conjunction with the police. We will do that and act accordingly. 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:49 Peter Ryan

12:52  [Comment From Ryan Ryan: ]
Mr Ryan what actually happens to the money rasie by speed cameras/red light cameras 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:52 Ryan
12:53  Peter Ryan: The amount equal to the fines is contributed to the Better Roads Fund and the totality of it is therefore spent on our roads. 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:53 Peter Ryan

12:53  [Comment From Bill Bill: ]
Why don’t people just stop driving so fast, they won’t get fined and they won’t cause so many accidents! 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:53 Bill
12:53  Peter Ryan: Agreed Bill. 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:53 Peter Ryan

12:54  [Comment From Hayden Hayden: ]
Hi Peter – Why didn’t the AG’s report review the underlying data being used to create the reports / studies? For instance, I understand the Monash Accident Research Centre report used was based on a study of one road in SA and somehow extrapolated out to all roads and speed limits, and that the ‘speed’ is included as a ‘contributing factor’ in the used statistics even when a vehicle is not speeding (ie. “too fast for conditions”). Also – why wasn’t the conflict of interest (and therefore credibility) of the Monash Accident Research Centre and its primary source of funding reviewed (ie. almost exclusively pro-speed camera studies)? Thanks. 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:54 Hayden
12:56  Peter Ryan: At page 17 orf the report it deals with consideration of the 35 evaluations from Australian and international jurisdictions associated with the reviews and evaluations of different systems. The findings are conclusive. Cameras save lives. 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:56 Peter Ryan

12:56  [Comment From Tracey Tracey: ]
Love u Peter! 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:56 Tracey
12:56  Peter Ryan: Like you too Tracey! 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:56 Peter Ryan

12:57  [Comment From stuart stuart: ]
how do we know this is really the minister and not some government spokesperson? 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:57 stuart
12:57  Peter Ryan: It is me Stuart. I absolutely assure you. 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:57 Peter Ryan
12:58  [Comment From camerassavelives.com.au camerassavelives.com.au: ]
Can we please publicly have the full scope of the report requested by the Gov to Vago? did u just ask them to review the easy questions and support your position or were the public really consulted? how many submissions (non gov or industry) were sent in? 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:58 camerassavelives.com.au
12:59  Peter Ryan: The report itself answers this at the outset. It was a complete performance audit conducted by the AG utterly independently of me or the government. The report itself is your best point of reference on this issue. 
Friday September 2, 2011 12:59 Peter Ryan

13:01  Peter Ryan: Folks I am sorry but the one hour has come and gone. I know it annoys many of you for me to say it, but I strongly recommend you read the report. It is published at camerassavelives.vic.gov.au. Thanks so much for everybody’s participation. It has been a very constructive exercise. Regards, Peter Ryan. 
Friday September 2, 2011 13:01 Peter Ryan
13:02  The host has disabled reader comments.
 

I openly offer all readers to continue this discussion on the forums at http://www.camerassavelives.com.au
Minister and Police are welcome to join in too. This short access to the Gov is very limiting to give true feedback on the ‘revenue raising’ stance of all road users.      
 
Here’s some of the many asked and mostly not published questions from Us at camerascutcrashes/camerassavelives

x
if road safety is the prime reason for so many cameras, why NO cameras on the Monash freeway, and NO cameras on the Eastern freeway

x
with the long delay by this government on commissioning the last round of simple upgrades of 20/32 sites, will we see the final precommissioned camera sites switched on as soon as the bank account is clear to receive the cash they will have pouring in?

x
the vago review looked down on the detailing of mobile locations on the Gov website. wasnt the prime reason for (over) listing the locations to make drivers aware of dangerous locations, over the pr stunt of getting them in the paper?

x
how can the 600 mobile locations be truthfully listed each week? it’s not possible with all the rostered hours weekly to cover those sites. can we have a more accurate table, or nothing at all?

x
wouldnt it be better for the GovInc to list all the blackspots with clear signage AS WELL as putting in ‘camera ahead’ signs? the signage you state just isnt uniform. some sites have signs and no cameras (high st and chapel st) but most have no signs and various cameras. with cameras put in dangerous spots, they should be highly visable and painted accordingly, just like the original MUARC advice. remeber Doyle rolled out the highly visable mobile camera cars as a policy?

x
looking around metro melb its clear to see there are many dead, unused locations. are these location no longer dangerous blackspots or are they not as high revenue producers? what changed at these sites to no longer require cameras? some camera sites have multiple cameras setup and still not be active? Barkers rd and Glenferrie Rd Hawthorn has 3 DEAD sites and a fourth 100 meters to the north

x
new camera sites located in varying 40k zones seem a simple money maker. warrigal rd homesglen has one unused wet film camera and 1 unfinished camera in a 8am-12midnight zone (strangely not inc sunday). too confusing. i bet this is one of the first new (upgraded) sites to go live as its in a valley below 2 downhill slopes.

x
why have various school zone limits and therefore easy picking for highway police? why not standardize the 3 limits? (40k all the time, variable 40 and 60k in 80 and above areas) why not just have a set 40k and mark the area with RED roadmarkings, lights and fixed signs, rather than spending the money on cameras? make the area totally safe, rather then send a random fine weeks later.

x
Can we please publicly have the full scope of the report requested by the Gov to Vago? did u just ask them to review the easy questions and support your position or were the public reqlly consulted? how many submissions (non gov or industry) were sent in?