Speed cameras - have motorists given up?

Comment

You'd be forgiven for thinking the number of complaints in the media about Victoria's draconian speed camera policies would prompt thousands to attend a state-wide protest rally. Yet such an event held on Sunday (October 29) in the centre of Melbourne drew no more than a dozen protesters. Indeed, at one stage, it looked as though police officers and Yarra Trams officials would outnumber protesters.

The most significant aspect of the protest (Ed: aside for the lack of people!) was the average age of the protesters -- closer to 60 than 16. There was not a single baseball cap worn backwards in sight.

The spokesman for the informally organized group was retired school teacher, Vince Matthews. This very conservative group made the point that they were not against speed limits nor the use of speed cameras but the entrapment that their current use in Victoria represents.

According to Matthews, the Victorian government estimates that it will be issuing 1,381,700 speeding fines in 2006 when there are only 3,500,000 licensed drivers in the state. VicRoads (the state government's road authority) has compiled data that reveals that 85 per cent of Victorian motorists or 2,975,000 drivers already travel less than 5km/h above the limit in most speed zones.

To be able to issue fines to more than double those motorists who are not complying with the state's speed limits, the Victorian government is engaged in an unreasonable enforcement campaign says Matthews.

The protestor's central argument is that until July 1, 2006, the Federal Government's Australian Design Rules required speedometers to measure speed within a tolerance level of plus or minus 10 per cent. Because the Victorian government insists on booking motorists well inside this margin, the argument is that Victorian motorists are being booked for breaking a speed limit by a margin that can't be measured by a device as required and approved by law.

To quote the protesters: "It is simply not reasonable to equip a motorist with an inaccurate speedometer, inadequately inform them of this and then rigidly apply penalties."

The fact that the state's roadworthy checks (required when transferring or re-registering a vehicle) only check that the odometer is working and the presence of a km/h speedometer scale was cited as further evidence.

The group then highlighted the number of politicians caught under this regime including the highly publicised recent infringement of state Police Minister, Mr Tim Holding. The group claimed that even with the potential for political embarrassment, it is clear that politicians, despite their best efforts and intentions, cannot comply under these margins.

The state's opposition Liberal Party in the lead-up to the November 25 state election has claimed it will bring speed enforcement back to the same ten per cent tolerance level as applied to speedometers. However, this proposal has been discredited by government representatives as the Liberals "going soft on speeding".

Matthews also targeted the cynical exploitation of one-off crashes (not always generated by excessive speed) to tighten up speed camera margins and punish the 85 per cent of Victorian motorists who were law-abiding.

He then noted that the accuracy of the speed detection devices in use throughout Victoria had an error level of two to three per cent and it was this level that was discounted on speed camera fines, not the tolerance level applied to speedometers.

The group proceeded to demonstrate the time required by a motorist to constantly maintain a speedometer needle reading within three km/h of the legal limit then quantified the distance travelled while the driver was not looking at the road.

In a variation of the state's "Wipe off 5 km/h" campaign, the rally pointed out the extent that stopping distances are affected by drivers constantly watching the speedo and not the road. Figures were then produced showing that a motorist travelling at the speed limit but constantly watching the speedometer to ensure compliance within such small margins was more likely to have a serious collision than a driver travelling just above the speed limit who was watching the road.

Matthews pointed out that varying heights of drivers could introduce the same variation in speed readings as the Victorian government was enforcing. Depending on the angle at which the needle was viewed against the dial, speedo readings for the same speed could vary by the amount Victorian motorists were being booked.

The group's stance on this matter was clear cut: "Motorists should not be fined for speeds of only 3km/h over the posted limit -- this is impractical, unreasonable and unfairly penalises motorists who are rightly paying more attention to the road than to their speedo."

The rally then questioned the payment of bonuses to private speed camera operators for increasing speeding fine revenue instead of rewarding them for a higher compliance by Victorians to speed limits. Under the current bonus system, Matthews claimed as more Victorians comply, this increases the pressure to tighten tolerance levels and to trap motorists in downhill situations.

Matthews is not alone in suggesting this when other groups have already suggested that the confusing and often inconsistent setting of speed limits are a symptom of the same financial pressures.

The group concluded by handing out sheets explaining what motorists could do if they were fined within 10 per cent of the speed limit which included writing and objecting to the fine, lodging a protest while paying the fine or taking the matter to court. 

Victorian speed camera enforcement has been dogged by controversy in recent years and is very different to those Australian states that highlight the presence of cameras in high accident zones. The Victorian system depends heavily on roving mobile cameras and fixed cameras operated by four private operators.

One of the first reports of concern was the high-roller lifestyle of an executive of a struggling private speed camera company. It was then revealed that foreign business interests were being invited to invest in contracts to enforce Victorian speed limits.

Although this was averted, the Victorian speed camera system was then seriously discredited after it was revealed that vital maintenance and accuracy checking procedures were so compromised that such a foreign operator could operate with little accountability.

After a Datsun 120Y was booked at a speed that it was physically unable to reach, it was only national media pressure that finally forced the Victorian government to take the case seriously, though not before thousands more motorists were booked or lost their licences under the points system.

This move ultimately forced a major component of the speed camera system to be shut down and locked the Victorian government into a refund and compensation program the government calculated at $19.7 million (Opposition estimates placing it closer to $26 million).

Since then, there have been several high-profile cases where a private operator has set up speed cameras to book motorists at speeds below the speed limit as posted for that location.

Although subsequent investigations suggested that these were genuine operator errors, they revealed that speed camera operators were being tripped by the same inconsistencies in speed limits as the drivers they were photographing. The difficulty that drivers encountered while drawing attention to these errors also raised the level of concern when drivers once again had to rely on the media to expose them.

The activation of speed cameras along the new and exceptionally safe main Melbourne-Geelong freeway then generated further controversy. The government used irrelevant 1994 accident data from the dangerous road that it replaced to justify the almost blanket enforcement of speed limits lower than normal for this type of road.

There are also growing fears that the increasing dependence on speed camera enforcement is masking a lack of police patrols and prompting an increase in anti-social behaviour on roads not covered by speed cameras. Reports that police are under budgetary pressure to shut down patrols and after hours attendances are fuelling those concerns.

Several high profile media commentators have suggested that ongoing breaches are serious enough to warrant an expert tribunal to examine the total speed enforcement process where a motorist considers that an alleged speed infringement is wrong and is prepared to pay a refundable fee for an investigation.

They argue that the scale of spurious speed readings already generated under the Victorian system demonstrates that the court system cannot be an adequate safeguard and justice should not be dependent on media interest.

Although these issues have generated outrage as they have occurred, it would be too easy for both sides of the political divide to conclude from the attendance at Sunday's rally, that Victoria motorists are indifferent to the failings of the current system.

Sunday's protest group directed drivers to the www.fightfines.info website or contact speedcamerajustice@yahoo.com.au