Comment by thelittleone | Hacker News Reader

Comment by thelittleone | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Australian who left Australia years ago. One thing bothers me when I go back to visit is the absurd number of speeding cameras. Never seen anything like it elsewhere on my travels. Whilst the government argues its reducing fatalities, investigative reports in the past suggested their impact was negligible. In Victoria and Queensland alone, the government nets over A$1B a year.

Always feels the government is riding the public far too much. The government is arrogant and corrupt.

Also the recent issue with Qantas Chairman's Lounge. A privilege tier that is invite only, and gets exclusive lounge and upgrades ahead of the most loyal paying customers, reserved for people of influence, including the Prime Minister. Qantas had prevented competition from flying routes to Australia to keep their margins high. I wonder how that anti-competitive practice went without issue? I guess because all politicians and people of material influence are getting free upgrades on the backs off those high margins and actual paying customers.

> In Victoria and Queensland alone, the government nets over A$1B a year. Always feels the government is riding the public far too much. The government is arrogant and corrupt.

If speeding cameras were being used to track and spy on people then that would be a serious problem, but if they're just being very effective at catching speeders, that seems fine? Speeding is a major safety problem, and one of the main problems with speeding is that enforcement is so sparse, drivers are tempted to speed knowing that they usually get away with it.

The other major problem with traffic cameras is that they often shorten the duration of the yellow light at the same time.

That is specifically something that has happened in certain US cities, not in Australia.

Traffic cameras should be used to figure out why people are doing what they're doing at a given intersection. A lot of the time they can be used to figure that out, and eliminate the need for them.

Like I feel like the standard for traffic cameras is they should be temporary installations used in an investigation to figure out why so many people speed or run red lights or something. And yep, they do eventually figure out interesting tricks.

This one's dumb, but an observation I noticed lately is lots of intersections will change to all red and then light the pedestrian walk light before they change the car light to green. Why? Probably to lower the amount of people crossing the street getting hit by someone turning right in their car. Neat trick.

> Why? Probably to lower the amount of people crossing the street getting hit by someone turning right in their car. Neat trick.

That is exactly the reason, you can find plenty of studies on it!

And then these studies start producing consistent revenue (>1B a year) and they can't afford to turn them off, whatever the impact on the public.

These things in isolation, to me, can seem minor, but when combined, it feels a little like death by a thousand cuts.

Having a 5 second delay between the crosswalk light and the street light doesn't increase revenue, especially because in America, free right turns are ignored by red light cameras, and the light timing change is purely about preventing accidents for cars taking right turns.

Well, if they find a remedy for why so many people are breaking the law and they aren't breaking the law anymore, the camera can be moved somewhere else. Or, the people who are still getting nailed by the camera are more likely to deserve the ticket.

No actually, the town I went to college in installed cameras at 3 intersections and was able to get rid of them at 2 after figuring out solutions.

And honestly, a LOT of red light runs are stupid silly ones where, for example, the green left turn arrow lights up first! Then the person next to them goes without realizing that straight traffic has a red light. i see that all the time.

The 'dumb' part was me being surprised by it :) I forgot to point that out lol.

As a pedestrian that “walk before green” light is super rad. What I imagine it is targeting is letting pedestrians “win” and get into the street where they are more visible so they don’t get ran over by people making left or right turns into them. If you let the cars light “win” then people will immediately turn right and “cut off” the pedestrian.

Dunno, just a guess. My city started doing this pattern a few years ago and I am very curious about the research backing it up. It does make me feel “safer” crossing streets at busy intersections. But I’d be curious what the actual rationale says about it.

I should add here that the 'dumb' was my observation and being surprised by it. :)

> Speeding is a major safety problem

Fines are even more lucrative relative to the extent that speeding is actually a problem.

Then your complaint is with the penalty, not the enforcement.

No, it's with both. Enforcement should be relative to the problem.

Taking into account the distances in Australia, I've never understood why the speed limit is so low.

Australia has an average "top speed" of 100km/h (110km/h in certain states) - whereas many other countries, with varying degrees of better or worse infrastructure, have average "top speed" of 130km/h - and yet have similar traffic fatalities.

Turkey: 130km/h (and fairly poor infrastructure compared to europe): 6.7 fatalities per 100k France: 130km/h (most people drive at ~145 on highways - only 1 point if you hit a radar) - 5 fatalities per 100k Australia: 100km/h - 4.5 fatalities per 100k

It can't just be speed, otherwise other 'similar' countries would be orders of magnitude above Australia.

> It can't just be speed, otherwise other 'similar' countries would be orders of magnitude above Australia.

It's not just speed.

The standards of driving in Australia is terrible. There's an aggressive attitude, tail gating, no lane discipline, if someone is going way under the speed limit, you come to an overtaking lane, go to over take they'll speed up as "you are not passing me" etc. If you watch "Dash Cam Owners Australia" on YouTube half the incidents are avoidable but because "It's my right of way" or "I'm in the right" the driver will drive straight in to the incident rather than give way and avoid ignoring being “dead right” is still dead.

I've driven/ridden in countries with terrible roads, no real rules, and to the average person looks like chaos but it seems to just work. The difference is non of these countries are aggressive drivers.

When I moved to Australia I used to think the low national speed limits were silly. Now I think it'd be carnage if they are increased given the Australian driving standards.

I just spent a few weeks in the US. I assure you that Australia is fine.

There is some kind of trope that goes “my $location has the shittiest drivers in the world”. The actual reality is all drivers suck everywhere in the world. Except me and you of course. We are obviously above average. (And there is some urban lore floating around that says “most” people surveyed report they are “above average” drivers)

I also think the same formula holds for shipping companies, cellphone carriers, and airlines. All airlines suck, all cellphone providers suck and all shipping companies suck too. Oh and banks too.

> The actual reality is all drivers suck everywhere in the world.

Some countries require much more training, have higher standards of vehicle maintenance, and have other cultural differences.

Did you know [1] that Germany, land of unlimited-speed-limit autobahns, has 3.7 road deaths per 100,000 inhabitants and 4.2 deaths per billion vehicle-km?

While the USA has 12.9 road deaths per 100,000 inhabitants and 6.9 deaths per billion vehicle-km?

Australia, with 4.5 road deaths per 100,000 inhabitants and 4.9 deaths per billion vehicle-km is in between.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-r...

Except I’ve driven extensively around the world and I’m not an Australian only being in Australia for the past few years.

I’ve driven the world most dangerous roads that’s my thing. Often you wouldn’t even call them roads.

I felt more safe on a goat track with a coach coming the other way and sheer drop at the side of the road or highway with cows in the middle of the road and chaos traffic than Australia. Even 150mph down the Autobahn felt safer than 110kmh on an Australian highway.

Every car journey in Australia I play a game, spot the potential accident ahead as someone nearly crashes or does something stupid.

Watch dash cam owners Australia, half of it’s avoidable but the driver drives straight in to it rather than defensively avoid putting themselves in a dangerous situation

It’s absolutely an attitude/cultural issue. They have a lengthy process to get a license however I notice there’s a preference of parents teaching their bad habits vs professional driver training.

12 per 100K in the US.

I wouldn't say Australia is fine but it is almost in a different ballpark. The frustrating thing here, in the US, is the ambivalence.

> The standards of driving in Australia is terrible.

I think this is common in many places where a significant portion of the population lives in low density areas (eg: American, Australian and Canadian suburbs.) Outside of major city centers it is very difficult to live without a car, so states and provinces choose to set a very low bar for acquiring and keeping a driver's license.

Out in the bush, where the distances are truly stupid (like 200km to the next anything) the care for and policing of the speeding limit is much less, if present at all. The speed limit there probably won't affect traffic fatalities that much, as the density of vehicles is very low. So surely the speed limit may as well be higher.

Out in the bush the risk is hitting animals, and the roads are narrow.

The speed limit is already 130km/h in Northern Territory anyway.

Speed cameras have been privatised in NSW, and the rumour is that the private operator is now the one deciding how many of them to install and where to put them. So, forget about all pretence of them being for road safety, they're putting in more of them purely to make money!

Do you think speed cameras don't make people speed less, and hence roads safer? I don't really understand your point here about a private operator wanting to maximise profit here.

Putting cameras in places where people are likely to speed so you can get more money would be directly correlated with being most impactful at reducing speeding. Another free market win in my mind.

In some countries, to increase public support for speed cameras, they are only installed in areas with an established history of speed-related accidents. For example, downhill sections in winding country lanes with poor visibility. The cameras are very, very clearly signposted - and project success is measured by issuing fewer tickets, as that means fewer people are speeding. So you might also install clearer signage and other traffic calming measures at the same time.

On the other hand, if your aim is to maximise revenue, then project success means issuing as many tickets as possible. Installing clear speed limit signage? More profitable if we don't. Making the cameras clearly visible, so people can slow down in good time? More profitable if we don't. And if there's a wide, safe freeway with great visibility and no history of accidents? Well, that's going to be a profitable place for cameras, as people will feel safe going fast.

Don't speed and you don't get tickets. Really not that complicated mate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com