Councils Want to Use Speed Cameras!!!!!!

[csv8]

ROCKHAMPTON Regional councillor Glenda Mather has slammed a colleague's call for local government to be given speed camera enforcement powers, saying he has “lost the plot”.

Cr Greg Belz this week backed a suggestion to give council the ability to fine speeding motorists, made in the draft National Road Safety Strategy to be reviewed later this month.

Cr Belz told The Bully he believed it would help to reduce the number of speedsters on suburban streets.

But Cr Mather said she was tired of the responsibilities of State and Federal governments being passed down to local level.

“If the State Government cannot, or will not provide adequate resources for the police to monitor speedsters then Cr Belz should be encouraged to aim his criticisms at the state,” Cr Mather said.

“His ill-thought-out idea would only cause additional burden for ratepayers, when we already have enough evidence of the state devolving many of its responsibilities to local councils, causing unnecessary increases in rates and charges.”

She said council had enough difficulty in controlling the wandering dog problem as it was, and said to suggest it take on the speedsters as well was almost laughable.

“If Cr Belz is so concerned about road safety in suburbia, then why hasn't he brought the ‘hot spots' to the table for referral to the police for action?” Cr Mather asked.

“And if he has a complaint about the police not doing their job, has he referred that complaint to the police minister for action?”

She said the initiative would only lead to extra problems and more costs for an already overburdened council.

“To suggest a role of this nature be imposed on council staff, would mean additional legal training, additional equipment, installation and regular maintenance and calibrating, administration office, processing of offences, reports to council, and on it goes.”

“I would be very happy to work with Cr Belz in finding a solution to speedsters, but let's not keep burdening the ratepayers.”

Cr Belz said the most important thing was to approach the matter with an open mind and to listen to the thoughts of the community.

He said he had worked with council officers in his division to record traffic speeds and data and, where prudent, had referred this data to police.

“When I have brought matters to the attention of the police service they have acted promptly to undertake speed enforcement activities in the area,” Cr Belz said.

“Common sense says that police cannot be everywhere.”

My Comment : further proof they are nothing more than revenue rasiers.

[Road_Warrior]

Local government cannot be trusted to use speed cameras in an open and accountable manner. Nor can they be relied upon for procedural fairness when people want to appeal/object etc. There are too many variables, too many Councils, too many avenues to screw people over. Leave it at a state and territory level.

I would also suggest there are some constitutional impediments to this stupid idea.

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Local government cannot be trusted to use speed cameras in an open and accountable manner. Nor can they be relied upon for procedural fairness when people want to appeal/object etc. There are too many variables, too many Councils, too many avenues to screw people over. Leave it at a state and territory level.

I would also suggest there are some constitutional impediments to this stupid idea.

The impediement is that the council isnt recognised in the constitution... They tried a referendum about 16yrs ago? And it failed....
The "State" gives power to councils, however a council can NOT by law make a law which overrides the state or is more stringent then the sate.

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

The impediement is that the council isnt recognised in the constitution... They tried a referendum about 16yrs ago? And it failed....
The "State" gives power to councils, however a council can NOT by law make a law which overrides the state or is more stringent then the sate.

Correct. The 1988 referendum to recognise local government in the Commonwealth Constitution failed. Consequently the status quo remains and the States (and Territories) are free to legislate for those residual powers (like local government) as they see fit. Local governments cannot make a decision or enact a local law that conflicts with state law.

There is a renewed push from local government at the moment to have another referendum to amend the Constitution to recognise local government as our legitimate third tier of government. The premise behind this is so that local governments can access federal government funding directly instead of dealing with the state governments. Noble intent, but the rest of the ramifications could be quite difficult, particularly for ratepayers of a Council area where the Council is dysfunctional and needs to be sacked.

As you can tell, I know just a little bit about this subject...

[GTpilot]

If it stops them putting speed humps in back streets, then I'm all for it.

[bf 40turbo]

dont speed wont get caught simple as that really

[flappist]

Originally Posted by bf 40turbo

dont speed wont get caught simple as that really

Oh no, yet another expert.....

[bungarra]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Local government cannot be trusted to use speed cameras in an open and accountable manner. Nor can they be relied upon for procedural fairness when people want to appeal/object etc. There are too many variables, too many Councils, too many avenues to screw people over. Leave it at a state and territory level.

I would also suggest there are some constitutional impediments to this stupid idea.

The council Rangers in Wa at least are in state legislation as they have been since before th eWA police was formed. They local councils were resposnible for the old RTA in WA until the state government realised how much money was to be made then pushed the RTA into WAPOL.

They could use radar now. They is a law in WA council by laws for "Actions contrary to signage", $100 fine, that is what they were going to use here but the councillors on the three councils that were going to do that, backed down when the locals got upset!!

[bf 40turbo]

Originally Posted by flappist

Oh no, yet another expert.....

break it down for me then ????

[blownv8au]

this council is losing the plot, the sooner we get an election the better. The worst we have ever had a now they try this crap just a money grab.
They better fix all the bloody potholes first then they might get a few.

[chevypower]

I want to own speed cameras too, what a great way to make money. I would make the fines ridiculously high, and I would hide cameras everywhere. We all want money don't we? But they are not a good tool for road safety.

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Correct. The 1988 referendum to recognise local government in the Commonwealth Constitution failed. Consequently the status quo remains and the States (and Territories) are free to legislate for those residual powers (like local government) as they see fit. Local governments cannot make a decision or enact a local law that conflicts with state law.

There is a renewed push from local government at the moment to have another referendum to amend the Constitution to recognise local government as our legitimate third tier of government. The premise behind this is so that local governments can access federal government funding directly instead of dealing with the state governments. Noble intent, but the rest of the ramifications could be quite difficult, particularly for ratepayers of a Council area where the Council is dysfunctional and needs to be sacked.

As you can tell, I know just a little bit about this subject...

Glad to hear it!! Not to many people seem to know about the push being made by the local government association to get them recognised in the constitution. If another referendum is held i know which way i will be voting!

Councils already run rough shot with their residents (most of it bluffing their way as people get too scared with threats of court etc).

[sgt_doofey]

Sorry, but councils don't enforce the law, the police do. They shouldn't have access to speed cameras otherwise it's just a revenue raising exercise.

[bungarra]

Originally Posted by sgt_doofey

Sorry, but councils don't enforce the law, the police do. They shouldn't have access to speed cameras otherwise it's just a revenue raising exercise.

Hate to burst your bubble, but in WA Rangers are enshrined in legislation as Local Law Enforcement and enforce local laws and can be authorised to enforce state laws.

One council in WA has a very good track record working with WAPOL to the point that a number of officers have moved to the councils suburbs as the rangers will respond faster to an incident and secure it for police faster than the police will do on average.

[Seduce XR6]

Originally Posted by bf 40turbo

break it down for me then ????

How about I try

People like you say "Dont speed" like that is the answer to everything regarding speed cameras & then placement of them etc etc...

But its not

I am not a speeder, I used to be when I was young however now I am happy to sit on 60 on main town roads, OH BUT WAIT I cant as many town link roads in my area which used to be 80 & then 60 are now 50.

Ok sure I can try my best to sit on 50 which for so many years were 80 or 60 however it is hard to remember when your in a town you grew up in & driving on roads you have been driving on for 30 years.

Plus my car seems to like 60 much better than 50 as it seems to be hunting for gears or to put it another way is almost changed from a lower gear to the next higher one at 50 so revs are higher & it feels very touchy to the throttle & is very easy to gain 5 or 10 k's unless your watching the speedo all the time but I think its safer to watch the road.

If you match your car to the vehicles in front of you & watch the road they may be doing 60 & again you may get booked by some dam dopey council camera lol

If you roll a bit down a hill, OOPS OVER AGAIN!

Or if your in the right lane & need to get into the left but the only gap you can see is in front of the vehicle beside you so you tickle the throttle to get past so you can come across & oops another camera & your done once again for being a little over for a short time.

So maybe your solution is not so simple for many, if these cameras were in known blackspots or known hoon areas sure that is 1 thing however they are more often than not in areas where the road is straight, has dual lanes or more & even where you have a slight downhill.

It is all revenue raising pure & simple & for that reason I dont agree with them.

Set them to only detect people 10 or more k's over & maybe I would see some sense in them.

I mean the way it is going everyone will be in a KIA rio type of car & watching the speedo & not the road.

Rant over & out

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by bungarra

Hate to burst your bubble, but in WA Rangers are enshrined in legislation as Local Law Enforcement and enforce local laws and can be authorised to enforce state laws.

One council in WA has a very good track record working with WAPOL to the point that a number of officers have moved to the councils suburbs as the rangers will respond faster to an incident and secure it for police faster than the police will do on average.

No, they are not. Local government exercises the delegated authority of the Crown to conduct certain functions. As part of that delegation, the local government may appoint authorised persons to carry out those functions. Rangers and dog control is an example, however in the context of this argument, the authority to ping people for parking offences and obstructing traffic comes from the local law which in turn must be consistent with the Road Traffic Code an Road Traffic Act. The RTA does not give power to Rangers directly. Rangers are appointed by the local government as authorised persons for the purposes of discharging that delegated authority under legislation, just like Health Inspectors are appointed for certain things under the Health Act (seizing food, etc)

Simple version: the person is not the law; the local government is.

In any event, this idea is retarded.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Seduce XR6

If you roll a bit down a hill, OOPS OVER AGAIN!

If you are not paying sufficient attention to realise that you are going down hill or cant recognise a road going down hill, then either get some devices fitted to your car that tell you or stop driving.

It is interesting though how most people manage to prod the loud pedal down a bit further to maintain speed going uphill.

[bungarra]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

No, they are not. Local government exercises the delegated authority of the Crown to conduct certain functions. As part of that delegation, the local government may appoint authorised persons to carry out those functions. Rangers and dog control is an example, however in the context of this argument, the authority to ping people for parking offences and obstructing traffic comes from the local law which in turn must be consistent with the Road Traffic Code an Road Traffic Act. The RTA does not give power to Rangers directly. Rangers are appointed by the local government as authorised persons for the purposes of discharging that delegated authority under legislation, just like Health Inspectors are appointed for certain things under the Health Act (seizing food, etc)

Simple version: the person is not the law; the local government is.

In any event, this idea is retarded.

No more different than the Police are not the law, just the enforcers as they are authorised by the Commissioner of Police who is empowered by the Police Minister.

The police enact laws which are issued under legislation and yes councils do have the right to monitor speed as Melville City Council is in discussion with WAPOL in regards to training.

[rochey]

its bad enough dodging cops let along the council, i may as well park my car up, since i have no points to loose and. what about the clowns that **** even do the speed limit. where do they get sprung? i have been cought a couple times over taking them and the not even 2 min time sprung for 20k over, yet prier to getting stuck behind the slow @$@$, i was doing 5 to 10 k over,

[chevypower]

I remember going along the Monash freeway one time, everyone was driving perfectly fine, then going down in to the tunnel, the Mercedes in front of me slowed down, but started driving all over the lane. Clearly not watching the road. At least he was watching the speedo though, because that means he was being a safe driver.
Lived over here for about 4 years now, and no speed cameras, no L plates, P plates, no red light cameras, higher speed limits on the freeway. It's amazing, I am still alive, and everyone seems to drive pretty sensibly. I do think they need to do some things like Australia. Ban talking on a handheld phone while driving, because it obviously does impair driving. Also lower the BAC to 0.05 or even lower. But speed cameras, and having p plates (which just promotes stereotyping), is definitely not enhancing anything.

[302 XC]

How about the people who enforce laws
Enforce all the laws
Tailgating,sitting in the right lane whilst NOT overtaking
Go under the speed limit by X amount

We all speed one way or another,there are many reasons why
IF the government are so worried and speeding causes 100% of road deaths
(Which it DOESNT)
Then why can we still by new cars that can do double the legal road speed limit ???
IF it isnt a money grabbing excercise and the road death toll is the objective
(Again which it isnt)
Why arent new licence holders required to pass a devensive driving course as part of there licence criteria

[Seduce XR6]

Originally Posted by 302 XC

How about the people who enforce laws
Enforce all the laws
Tailgating,sitting in the right lane whilst NOT overtaking
Go under the speed limit by X amount

We all speed one way or another,there are many reasons why
IF the government are so worried and speeding causes 100% of road deaths
(Which it DOESNT)
Then why can we still by new cars that can do double the legal road speed limit ???
IF it isnt a money grabbing excercise and the road death toll is the objective
(Again which it isnt)
Why arent new licence holders required to pass a devensive driving course as part of there licence criteria

I salute you & your wise reply

[Seduce XR6]

Originally Posted by sudszy

If you are not paying sufficient attention to realise that you are going down hill or cant recognise a road going down hill, then either get some devices fitted to your car that tell you or stop driving.

It is interesting though how most people manage to prod the loud pedal down a bit further to maintain speed going uphill.

lol I never said I did not realize when I am driving down a hill but simply that it is easy for your speed to go up by a small amount unless your watching the speedo making sure you apply the brakes enough to stay at 50

Maybe for me in a sub conscious way I do think I should have to brake down a slight hill to stay at 50 as I don't see it unsafe if my speed increases to say 60

[bungarra]

Originally Posted by chevypower

Lived over here for about 4 years now, and no speed cameras, no L plates, P plates, no red light cameras, higher speed limits on the freeway. It's amazing, I am still alive, and everyone seems to drive pretty sensibly.

I just spoke to the guys at the Office for Road Safety and they think you are very lucky to be alive and recommend you immediately drop your speed by 5 and concentrate on your speedo, it will stop anything from happening to you!!

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

Correct. The 1988 referendum to recognise local government in the Commonwealth Constitution failed. Consequently the status quo remains and the States (and Territories) are free to legislate for those residual powers (like local government) as they see fit. Local governments cannot make a decision or enact a local law that conflicts with state law.

There is a renewed push from local government at the moment to have another referendum to amend the Constitution to recognise local government as our legitimate third tier of government.

And this new push will fail. Must.

[FalconXR6]

Originally Posted by bf 40turbo

dont speed wont get caught simple as that really

great post !

watch your speedo like a hawk and you wont get caught !

great advice...

although you may not notice the child who is about to run out on the road in front of you becuase you are keeping a close eye on your speed - at least your only doing 50 which means when you hit them, you limit the damage...

A-class post buddy ! A gold star AND an elephant stamp for you !

[04redxr8]

Originally Posted by sudszy

If you are not paying sufficient attention to realise that you are going down hill or cant recognise a road going down hill, then either get some devices fitted to your car that tell you or stop driving.

It is interesting though how most people manage to prod the loud pedal down a bit further to maintain speed going uphill.

You sir, are a Grade A Idiot. Every time a speed camera thread pops up, you always seem to chime in with your Government sponsored ill informed dont speed BS. Do you just believe the crap that is dished out by our penny pinching pollies, or have you driven a car in the past and seen what really happens on the roads?

Is focusing on your cars speedo, more important than focusing on the road? Let me remind you of this thread here http://fordforums.com.au/showthread.php?t=11329893. This is what can happen when people slow down below the speed limit. It can be just as fatal as going over the speed limit. Why don't you harp on about driving to slow for the conditions?

There is a freeway onramp not far from where I live (Mains Rd on ramp, for the Brisbanites). Every day, I go use this on ramp, I see the same thing. Despite this on ramp, being quite long, and the speed limit, progressing from 60 to 80 and then to 100, all before the freeway, everyday I see idiots that jump straight into 100km/h traffic, while doing 60!!! This is not only dangerous, but so damn stupid. I have seen so many near misses, it is alarming. Why don't you ever discuss these sort of things?

I do see Police patrols at that onramp from time to time. However, they are only there to Police the T3 traffic lane leading up to the freeway. What happens 200 metres up the road is of no concern to them.

You foolishly seem to believe that speeding, is the be all and end all of unsafe driving. Maybe you need to spend some time on the roads, and realise driver incompetance is the cause. 10km/h over the speed limit is not a death sentence.

Drive out into the country and take notice of the sort of roads that have a 100km/h speed limit on them. In the built up areas these roads would have flashing signs, bill boards and traffic controllers telling everyone to drive at 40 km/h.

The speed limits are not the problem. Dumbing down driving to allow Plebs such as yourself onto our roads is the problem.

Back OT. I still don't understand why councils should even exist, or have a fraction of the powers that they do. Its just another department that is run with no accountability, that we all have to support. If they where held accountable for their spending, then maybe they wouldn't need to get a hold of speed camera revenue.

We all know that council departments must spend their entire allowed budget, if they want the same for the following year. Thats where the biggest flaw in the system is. I say, make them apply for thier budgets yearly. If the figures don't add up, they should get zero.

[Franco Cozzo]

I hope they allow private companies to run speed cameras, I'd be in big time $$$.

Aren't some in another state owned by a bank?

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by 04redxr8

Is focusing on your cars speedo, more important than focusing on the road? Let me remind you of this thread here http://fordforums.com.au/showthread.php?t=11329893. This is what can happen when people slow down below the speed limit. It can be just as fatal as going over the speed limit

So far I dont remember advocating slowing down to pedestrian speedson freeways with heavy vehicle traffic bearing down, or blocking out the windscreen and just looking at the speedo, but you build your strawman anyway.


Some poor girl gets cleaned up on the freeway going "to slow", (dont think she was watching the speedo either) and suddenly that makes driving in excess of the speed limit okay and the all the moronic law breaking of every truck driver out there ok?

In the same thread you refer to, we have more idiots getting excited about a elderly pedestrian who gets it wrong and gets cleaned up by a truck. Not a word of sympathy for the elderly person or their family,zip, no just salivation on how they reckon that is further evidence that all truckers are misaligned as villians and are really saints?

get a grip.

Originally Posted by 04redxr8

Why don't you harp on about driving to slow for the conditions?

Not typically a cause of most collisions, and it hardly needs me to bring it towards anyone's attention around here when it happens.

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Not typically a cause of most collisions, and it hardly needs me to bring it towards anyone's attention around here when it happens.

And you think 10 over is a major CAUSE for collisions?

Most collisions I see are people pulling out and not looking properly.