Pissed Off Motorist Decides To Shoot Western Australian Speed Camera

I'm sure it's a thought that runs through many people's heads after getting a ticket from a fixed speed camera, but one Western Australian motorist was enraged enough to get a gun and shoot the speed camera recently installed at the Mitchell Freeway near the Karrinyup Road exit this week.

According to WA Today, police discovered the camera box full of bullet holes when they went to test the equipment. The camera itself was fine, although two glass panels on the box were broken and will need replacing.

Police are naturally calling for witnesses, although given the fact the camera in question nabbed 20,000 motorists in the first week it was installed, there's a good chance any potential witnesses are cheering the gun-toting driver on the inside.

[WA Today]

More Speed Camera Stories

Opinion: No Amount Of Gadgetry Will Help Aussie Drivers

There’s all sorts of cool gadgetry being attached to cars to make them safer for us to drive. None of them will make a single shred of difference to the average Aussie driver. If you think that’s not describing you — it almost certainly is. View »

Queensland Hiding Speed Cameras In The Back Of Utes

There’s plenty of dinner-table debate about the merits of speed cameras and whether or not they influence people’s driving or just rake in revenue for State governments. But Queensland’s decision to use these unmarked utes to photograph speeding drivers is likely to persuade many taxpayers that it’s more about the ching-ching than the saving of lives. View »

NSW Killing 3KPH Speed Camera Leeway For Extra Revenue

Anybody who has driven through NSW recently would recognise the signs of speed cameras popping up everywhere. Argued to be there in order to slow drivers down to prevent accidents, a recent move by the Government proves that they are, in fact, little more than digital revenue raisers. View »



    This guy is a national hero :)

      more people should do it (destruction of cameras) had enough.

        Ey wait up, I still want what's left in your wallet, if you're up for some more donations.

    But just ask the police.... it's all about road safety and not revenue raising.

      The existance of any form of fine is proof of revenue raising. If they were serious about increaing safety by preventing speeding etc, just issue demerit points. Once people loose their licence enough times, they'll get the message.

      In having said that, that's a whole different can of worms - which I don't agree with either.

        What honestly hurts people more - accruing magical demerit points or a whack in the wallet?

          Magical demerit points that magically cause you to lose your licence after you magically gain too many of them.

          An administration fee is one thing but anything on top of that is purely revenue driven.

            _If_ you magically gain too many of them. I'd be willing to bet anyone who has got between 1 and let's say 8 demerits right now is probably far more pained by the cash lost than the scoreboard.

            (wonder what the stats are on that? Be interesting to see how many points an 'average' driver has and what the spread is.)

          Well, actually not having a license from "accruing magical demerit points"can lead to job loss from delayed promotion, less deirable alternate duties, stress at home or with family/friends being unable to meet your responsibilties etc etc etc

          Been there, done that, learnt my lesson, never again. I didnt miss the money paid in fines thats for sure, and it didnt change my behaviour until i had to deal with the real consequence, not just the fines.

          @Rod - I lost my licence for 6 months, and scored $950 in fines over one weekend (long story for another time, haven't had a problem on the road since). I can honestly say that as a 18 year old unemployed kid at the time, coming up with the money to pay the fine was far less painful then being off the road for half a year.

          If offered fines or loss of licence, I'll take the fines any day thanks.

      I think fixed speed cameras are clearly revenue raising - they are an additional tax on stupid people.

      The ones that I have seen are all very clearly signed and provide sufficient warning. Even if you speed 99% of the time it doesn't take a genius to go "Oh, there is a speed camera on this road, I won't speed past it"

        Depends what state you're talking about. Fixed speed cameras in NSW have 3 large signs leading up to the camera, so they're reletively obvious (though it can become easy to get caught out if you regularly drive along that stretch of road).

        Tassie (and I believe Victoria too, at least as was the case when I drove down the Hume last) doesn't have any signage at all for speed cameras, fixed or mobile. Thankfully there isn't too many of them.

          Thanks for the info, I assumed that the laws regarding signage would be Australia wide.

          Easy, set cruise control to 100. It's actually that simple (except usually when I do that I'm one of the slower ones).

          Victoria is actually even worse because police don't even have to put the speed up anywhere near them. also I doubt they are any less prevalent than in NSW we seem to have them everywhere...

      It's not revenue Raising - it's a Voluntary Donation, the Camera does not force you to speed


        No one or any external force makes people drive like idiots. They do that all on their own.

          Driving like and idiot and speeding are not the same thing. Tell me, if it is OK for an 85 year-old man to drive his EH Holden on a particular road at 60 km/h, how is it any less safe for me to drive my late model sports cars at 65? My reactions will be considerably faster than the old mans and my car will stop in about half the distance. Speed limits are arbitrary and I would suggest that on 99% of occasions cameras catch people driving in a perfectly safe manner for the conditions.

            Excuses, excuses, excuses.

            Let me know how that excuse goes next time you're caught speeding like an idiot then.

              This comment has been deemed inappropriate and has been deleted.

            do all u guys also drink and drive to the conditions?

          If its not revenue raising please explain this to me. A road that has been a two lane carriageway in each diction, with median strip and parking bays for more than 30 years, has been 70 Kmph all that time, has had a set of speed and red-light cameras placed at traffic lights. Within days of the cameras going in, a new 60 kmph speed sign was placed just 50 meters before you approach the new cameras. What the hell is that???? Fucking bullshit speed cameras aren't for revenue raising. If they were, why are road death tolls on the rise even though we drive safer cars and while the average speed of the city motorist has dropped below 50kmph and now city councils want to drop speed limits to 40kmph and 30kmph. And fining people who are caught doing 3 kmph over the limit is not policing either. There are more dangerous things happing on our roads than 60% of the population straying over the limit inadvertently. Driving a car has people watching their speedo and not the road these days.

            The answer is in the parking bays. it appears 60km/h is the standard max speed limit for roads around parking bays... And the reason they decided to change it now? Simple... It's cheaper for the RTA to reassess the road only when putting the camera in, like 2 birds, one stone...

    ...But wouldn't the camera have taken a photo of him when it detected that the bullet was going over the speed limit? :P

      ^ This :)

      I think you've just worked out how to cheat the system... The trick is to drive faster!

    Quick Question: I recently got myself a ticket from a police officer, I tried to explain and show him that there is a sign further back starting the speed limit, he wouldn't here of it. I did go back after the ticket and took a video and pictures of the sign because I wish to contest it in court. Can the judge throw this out completely using the video and pictures that I am hoping to use?

      Not sure to be honest, it's probably worth doing anyway as the judge may side with you in that instance.. depends on the judge really.. if you had a blackbox in your car, you certainly could because then you could prove where you were when he booked you.

      Blackboxes aren't cheap but they aren't expensive either...

        The ticket is for 78Km/h in a 60Km/h zone and speed limit sign says 80. So the proof I was doing less the assigned 80 zone is there on the ticket but I'll contest it and see what happens. It's worth a go plus with the video and photo stuff I have, which is date stamped should give the judge a good think before he says yes or no.

          I don't see any reason why such evidence wouldn't be helpful - even if it isn't admissible, it certainly wouldn't hurt your case.

          Only advise I'd give, is make sure you're upfront about the material you have with whoever you speak with. It'd be a shame to have any evidence you might have dismissed because you didn't declare it properly.

          It's admissible and they likely won't contest it anyway.

          Police can't sit within 100m of a speed sign if it indicates a slower/faster speed.

    Why does the opinon link go to george takai?

      Ignore that, I clicked the view link that went to the article, and the George Takai bit is much better.

    So shooting bullets in public at a sign (designed to save lives) is heroic???? No the heroes are the people who forgo their egos and drive safetly.

      Shooting at a device used to ensure the safety of others is not on.

      A speed camera does not stop accidents, it is after the fact. It is like a policeman who fines you after you killed someone in front of them. Or like a barrier at the bottom of a hill, if you have reached it your already off the road and dead.

      speed cameras raise revenue and do not ensure a safer environment. shooting at one should be an artistic expression of one's dislike of being taken for a fool.

    This comment has been deemed inappropriate and has been deleted

    Why has it taken so long. One down several hundred to go. Get a life Martin, don't be another one of the sheep lapping up the government propaganda.

      Sorry. But you are the idiot. Have you seen someone die from speeding you moron.? Have you seen a child killed at a pedestrian crossing from a teenager doing over 100? I have. Please lap up some commonsense.

        Yes, because a speed camera would have saved the child......how? by jumping in the way i guess.

          This happens all the time but the fixed speed camera is fixed.

          It can't jump in the way.

      Further what is your problem with keeping below the speed limit??? having seen someone die directly from speeding. I dont understand how Im lapping the governments BS?? Perhaps you should lift your head up and stop lapping from yourself.

        Without meaning to sound insensitive (I'm sorry for what you witnessed and your loss), but speeding isn't what kills, stopping is.

        The problem is not enough people drive at a suitable speed for the conditions they're driving in, and do not have enough skill and experience to react sufficiently when things come unstuck.

        Driving along a straight road at 108km/h isn't what kills someone, failing to make the turn and hitting the brick wall at the end of it is what does it.

          Without meaning to be insensitive to your intelligence it is the destruction of the brain of the child you hit at 108kmh on the straight road that kills. Semantics is the last resort of idiocy losing a logical arguement. The Semiotics of a sign saying dont do over 100 obviously creates a signified of 'lets speed' for some - it is this idiocy that you seemingly support by the inferrance you have made.

            Obviously you're determined to resort to personal attacks - so I'll play your game and leave it at this:

            If the kid is stupid enough to be in the middle of a straight road they deserved to be hit and killed.

            Have a nice day.

              No. You started by implying that I dont understand the laws of physics. You apologised for something then raised a moot and irrelevant point seemingly to antagonise me. I was not connected to the child. I was merely WALKING past. The child was on a schoool crossing so your comment merely shows both your lack of empathy and your idiocy.

              Perhaps you could send your comments and arguements to the kangaroos, wallabies and dogs of australia that regularly jump on the road. Seemingly YOU know nothing of physics and stopping distances. Why did the kangaroo cross the road? To kill the speeding motorist and get rid of our idiotic gene pool.

                Martin, you're being deliberately obtuse. If a child stepped out just 10 meters in front of an oncoming car, whether the driver was doing the correct speed or below, will not have any relevance to he survival of the child. The only thing that will save the child, is if the car weren't there. More and more pedestrians are becoming death statistics on the road due to the fact that people just step out onto the road without a thought. Last month in Victoria, the numbers of pedestrians hit and killed by drivers doing nothing illegal. doubled on the previous year. Ergo, speed is only relevant to any single situation. I see drivers passing on the inside parking lanes of suburban roads. They may not be speeding, but not a camera in the world will deter that kind of behaviour. Only police presence on the road will deter ALL forms of illegal behaviour.

            so driving at 100 and hitting the kid is ok?

          Sure, but you need everyone to be exactly the same in terms of competency when driving, and you all need cars that are able to brake, make the turn and accelerate, and...you see, it works much better in Germany where the Autobahnen themselves were designed to remove this dependence.

          However, the lack of speed limits has led to one incidence:

            Sorry, incident.

            Nice try. However, that stretch of Autobahn has a 130kph limit. And if you bothered to read the article you linked to, you would have seen that it wasn't the lack of speed limit that caused the problem, but treacherous conditions, a low sun and people driving too closely together.

              Sigh. You make a point, and then some twit like the above pretends that he's more intelligent than you in a condescending tone.

              I said the Autobahnen are designed for speed. Australian roads are not specifically designed for 130 kilometres. For the Germans to put 130 kilometres on a road means they have a tolerance in case some cars are unable to achieve suitable conditions at the true maximum.

              Honestly, what is your problem?

                Our roads are better then most people think. The Eastern freeway is rated for 200kmph.

                just ask the cops who do it on there late at night.

            Anyone care to do the maths on how fast a child can run and how many KM/Hr under the speed limit you can be to still hit the child every time?

    Where's Max and the MFP when You need them?

    A speed camera on any flat, straight, open road is revenue raising. If a speed camera was only used to keep people safe they would all be signposted and clearly marked. If a speed camera is hidden, the speeding person will recieve the fine, pay it, and be on their way. If a camera is fluoro orange on the side of a road with signs saying "speed camera ahead", everybody would slow down for it.

    Case in point, speed cameras on the freeway between Geelong and Melbourne in Victoria. The road is wide, flat, straight and usually quite well maintained. There is no real reason why the speed limit cannot be 110, which it is on quite a few other, more dangerous roads. There are many cameras up under the bridges along this road. For an accident to occur here, speed would not be the cause (unless hugely excessive), the cause would most likely be fatigue.

    Compare this to a windy road with a history of accidents attributed to speed, of which there are many throughout the state, none of which have a speed camera along them. Put an obvious and sign posted camera on one of these roads and everyone will slow down for it.

      If all cameras are fluoro orange with signs before them, then it is easy for people to tell where they are. This in itself isn't a problem, the problem is that the people who speed would know this, and speed when they know there isn't a speed camera.

      Most people who drive, drive safely and under the speed limit. It is those who speed (or make up some poor excuse for it) that get caught by cameras. If there is unpredictability in the placement of cameras, speeders will (hopefully) be more cautious when driving, and stick to the speed limit.

      The problem with that argument is somewhat analogous to a shoplifter. A driver who believes that he is entitled to drive at 110 on a 100 road (not personally attacking anyone, just using the same numbers and talking of a hypothetical driver) believes no one will be hurt (that no one consisting of solely him) and thus believes that any law should be void in that area. Consequently, he also believes that various 60 roads should probably 70, and so forth. The point here is that he disregards the law, believing, correctly or not, that he has the better judgement.
      Perpetrator: driver, victim: potential others of surroundings

      Now, the shoplifter also walks into a supermarket and sees things that cost 10 dollars. Justifying in his mind that, as the supermarkets undoubtedly raise prices beyond sanity, he is entitled to free product, he either pockets products surreptitiously or (and yes, I've seen people do this, and it's still theft morally and legally, so please don't) takes a large bag of cherries to a self-checkout and declares to the computer that they are in fact very cheap apples. Here the person, using the same logic that they in fact know best and no one could possibly be harmed, undertakes an act of dubious morality at best.
      Perpetrator: thief, Victim: supermarket

      I'm not saying that anyone who thinks that way is essentially a thief, and I'm not making any personal attacks. However, it is possible that having a different set of morals for different situations suggests a lack of integrity on the individual's part.

        I see your point, and agree with you to an extent. Reckless driving putting others at risk is (put mildly) selfish. However all drivers see inconsiderate dangerous driving on a regular basis in a wide variety of ways that do not include speeding (there are of course, no shortage of instances that do include speeding too). Tail gating, illegal turns, pushing cars through gaps which really aren't wide enough and running red lights are all examples of this - though it could be argued that those who perpetrate such acts are likely to speed as well.

        However, it doesn’t necessarily go both ways. I’m proud to claim that I have never driven in such a way that I have knowingly put others at risk. I touched on before that I lost my licence for 6 months. I did so driving at 100km/h within a 60km/h zone. [Don’t flame yet].

        When I did so, it was in stretch of road leading into a closed industrial estate, there was no traffic and it was on an 800 metre straight stretch of good quality road with full width safety lanes either side of the road and barriers the whole length, no visibility impairments, and no intersections along its length. [Commence flaming].

        Did I put anyone at risk? Only myself. Was it safe? I still believe so. Was it illegal? Yes. Was there a mobile camera on that stretch of road waiting for motorbikes? Yes, unfortunately for me.

        I know I was speeding, but did so believing that the only person who was at risk was myself, and even then I calculated that any safety risk was low because the road was of a standard which could suit a much higher speed limit.

        Point I’m making is, yes some may have relaxed morals, others may believe they haven’t done anything morally wrong – it’s in the eye of the beholder, and when you're talking about morals there's no black and white approach that fits all.

          That is a MASSIVE and egotistical assumption that you are only putting YOURSELF at risk. Your death or hospitalisation also affects taxpayers. Not to mention YOUR family.

            Dude, I'd respond to you properly if you offered anything of worth in your comments. You haven't provided any common decency, logic, sources or worthwhile oppinion to the whole thread. Instead you've been bleating on about having seen some kid die (a fact I'm very skepical of considering the tone you've used in your multiple comments here), and flaming anyone whose oppinion differs from yours. I shouldn't expect much more from someone who has already had many of their comments deleted.

            Again, have a nice day :)

              Then why respond to me below? This is a valid statement. Further your claims to the validity of my experience remind me of how i mentioned that semantics were a last resort. seemingly I was wrong its calling me a liar.

                and to your response below i have added a post with newtons laws of motion - but seemingly it is awaiting moderation though my other post apologising did not.

                  ok – i will choose a childrens physics book. The Usborne illustrated dictionary of physics. Momentum . The MASS of an object multiplied by its velocity. Momentum = mv. Thus if your velocity increases so does your momentum. an impulse is your change in momentum. this is Force times time. Thus your velocity affects the impulse. Newtons third law states that forces always occur in equal and opposite directions.

              Actually Sam don't be so quick to jump the gun. Martin has offered plenty of worth in his response. Straight from the RTA's Driver Qualification Handbook (the one for NSW drivers to advance from green P's to a full license), we have:

              "Road crashes in Australia cost the community - including you - a lot of money every year. For example, the average cost of:
              * A fatal crash is about $1.7 million.
              * A serious injury crash (requiring hospital treatment) is $408,000.
              * A minor injury crash is $14,000.
              * A property damage only crash is worth about $6000."

              So don't be so arrogant to believe your speeding is only affecting you!

              And as to your previous comment about the kid being stupid enough to be in the middle of a straight road did it ever for one second enter your thick skull that the kid was in the process of crossing the road when the idiot driver was disobeying a set limit. The driver is an adult, supposedly in control of a fast moving deadly object, it was his duty to be driving at an acceptable speed to be able to avoid obstacles.

                Since you've actually taken the time and effort to read what I've written and put together a fair response, I'll happily respond.

                Of course there is potential consequences not only for myself if I crash - however that isn't any different for anything else in life. Unless I turn to hermitism (is that even a word) most things I do in my life have some form of impact on other people. However, what I did was a calculated risk. I believed what I did was reasonably safe, and that the odds are that I and my vehicle would remain unharmed. This was true. Despite previous events, I'm yet to claim on my insurance - and have never been responsible for a collision.

                As far as any potential drain I might have on the health system, I don't believe that's an issue to be put on me. The state and federal health system(s) has their own guidelines for what Medicare will and won't cover. I've never had to utilise it yet for any thing other than unprovoked illness as yet, but if you believe that people who have injured themselves due to "speed" contibuted collisions, then really you should be lobbying for these to be omitted from public health cover - as long as a service/inclusion as offered, there's going to be someone out there who utilizes it.

                As far as the kid and the road is concerned, crossing the road or not, walking in front of a car is not advisable. As a parent myself, both my wife and I have/are constantly drilling into road safety into our kids heads. Roads are the domain of cars. Locomotive drivers are responsible for trains weighing tens of thousands of tonnes, and are exponentially deadlier are you going to hold them responsible if someone get's hit crossing train tracks? Before you argue that it's not relevant, keep in mind that the discussion here relates to major artial roads and highways. When is it ever realistic to expect that a child crossing a dual-carriage way 80km/h zoned highway safe?

                I agree that lower speed zones are there for a reason (and speed limits in residential aren't what's being discussed here) - but to have the expectation that someone will be able to stop a car weighing between 1-2 tonnes within a few metres is nothing short of unrealistic (to put it mildly).

                If the kid was crossing on a pedestrian crossing then yes, the driver is at fault - but for failing to give way. The odds are very much that it doesn't matter if an unprotected pedestrian gets hit at 40km/h or 60km/h - the outcome is usually the same, it's the mess which is the primary variable.

    I've never quite understood why people hate speed cameras so much; I've never gotten a speeding ticket, despite having two on the main street outside the house. If the policeman sets it incorrectly, fair enough, but I've never had a problem with keeping the speed limit.

      Agreed, I've been done once, missed a speed sign and was over the limit.. But I was annoyed at myself, not at the speed trap.
      The only problem with speeding cameras is that there aren't enough of them!
      There are still too many times when I get unsafely overtaken by (usually) Commodores, going 15-20kph over the limit on metro roads.
      Bring on GPS tracking speed fines!

        Ha, it's always a dick in a commodore. Love it when they get caught.

    I read all this hating on speed cameras, yet I don't see one single alternative to stop people speeding... 40% of all road fatalities involve speeding

    Anyone have any real and achievable suggestions as to help reducing the road toll due to speeding?

      I mean 40% of all NSW road fatalities

        we do have speed cameras and yet we still have 40% death rate? .... maybe its not about speed cameras after all ? hmmmmmmmm

          Take a look at the UK (a country with a very long history of using revenue cameras) and the different crash rates in counties where speed cameras are and aren't used. Country Durham, with one mobile camera for the whole county, records drops in fatal accidents year after year. The neighbouring county of Northumberland, with more speed cameras than trees, sees increases year on year. In Oxfordshire, Berkshire and Buckinghamshire (three counties but a single regional police force), they recently turned speed cameras off, and witnessed the single largest fall in fatal accidents since records began.

          Perhaps - just sayin' - that people drive more safely when they're concentrating on the road, the conditions and what's going on around them, then staring at the speedometer constantly in case they stray fractionally over an arbitrary limit.

            Definitely agree with the end point there. I used to drive past a school zone speed camera on Merrylands Road all the time, and for that whole stretch my eyes were always down on my dashboard, paranoid as hell that I would creep up over 40, I find it a very hard speed to maintain. If there *were* any school kids that ran out onto the road while I was going past, I'm pretty sure my slowness wouldn't matter much at all, since I probably wouldn't know they were there until there was a thump from the front of my car.

      Really don't think much, do you? For a start, the NSW government doesn't claim that 40% of fatal accidents are caused by speeding. They say that speeding is a FACTOR in 40% of fatal accidents. Here - see for yourself: http://bit.ly/Ap2r5H

      And what does "a factor" mean? Well, governments don't explain it very well, because clarity and accuracy would show that the obsession with speed is simply revenue-raising. When Police accident investigators examine a serious accident, they try to work out what caused it. If the driver was high on meth, drunk as a skunk, sending a text to his dealer and doing 5kph over the limit, the Police would include "speeding" in the crash factors? Was the crash caused by speeding? Very unlikely. What the Police class as speeding is covered in page 14 of this document: http://bit.ly/xqHFyD. It's pretty broad. It covers travelling faster than the limit, travelling faster than a speed suitable for the conditions, instances where the Police suspect the vehicle was travellin faster than the limit (no evidence), or instances where the vehicle performed a manouver consistent with excessive speed, such as skidding on a bend. usefully, the published figures do not breakdown what 'types' of speeding are causal factors in crashes, or - as they do in the UK - break down different accident into major and minor.

      But essentially, there are two types of speeding: going faster than the often arbitrary posted limit and going faster than the conditions dictate. The former is not dangerous. The latter is always dangerous. But these two types don't necessarily go hand in hand. Doing 110kph on a nice straight road with a 100kph limit when it's dry, with little traffic and perfect visibility is probably not dangerous. Doing 99kph on the same road when it's freezing cold, wet and bathed in fog is absolutely dangerous. According to the law, only the first example is illegal. But should an accident occur, the Police would list the cause as speeding.

      Do you want to be on a road network where people are programmed to think that if they're driving under the speed limit, they're driving "safely" or would you prefer to be on a road network where people take conditions such as weather, traffic levels, road surface, etc. into account when setting their speed? Australia, New Zealand, the UK and other countries that have become obsessed with speeding are quickly becoming the former; places with lots of dumb drivers, completely unable to think for themselves. And accident rates reflect this. The only reason that fatality rates have dropped is because cars have gotten safer. It's nothing to do with enforcement at all, as comparisons of crash rates in counties in the UK demonstrates.

        So true.. thanks for that.

        One thing that I've seen to be the direct cause of a lot of accidents or near misses is people who drive in an unpredictable way. People who brake too soon, change lanes without indicating (or looking), people who generally do unpredictable things. Most people are fairly predictable, even the ones that might at first seem unpredictable become predictable as you get to know their braking and turning behaviour.. some people though, are just so unpredictable and keep changing their speed, their braking distances and so on...

        Things is, I agree with most of what you said and please note I said "involve speeding" not "caused by speeding"

        What I'm trying to find out is: what is an alternative?

        It's all good and well to bash the current system (flawed or not) but isn't it even better to offer an alternative? What is it that those other countries are doing to reduce road toll? You say they are turning off speed cameras and the road toll is dropping, sure, but I don't believe that they are directly related to each other, there must be something else they are doing to reduce the road toll that then makes them go "well we don't need these cameras anymore" and turn em off. If it's their driver education program, what is it that they're doing differently?

        There's a lot of things about our current enforcement that I don't agree with, but I also don't agree with just putting something down without offering an achievable alternative

          It has been echoed by many, including myself - that driver training needs to be of a higher standard. Australian roads were lucky to be as safe as they were 30-40 years ago, but were so mostly because of the low population density we have, meaning traffic was generally light and spread out.

          However over the last 20 years in particular the population of drivers has exploded, and roads are busier than ever. New rules and regulations have been placed on learner drivers over that time, but the requirement for actual training and education has remained the same the whole time.

          The result is we have a low standard of driver ability, it has resulted in a general attitude from many drivers that driving a car is a right, not a privilege without actually knowing what they're doing properly.

          Being a good driver isn't about being able to drive at 167km/h along highways, it's about knowing and understanding your vehicle's (and your own) abilities and limitations, along with the suitability for driving within a broad variety of conditions.

          It's a long road to recovery, but the first step is to make sure that new drivers are more capable than anyone before them.

            I also agree with what you're saying, but "driver education" and "driver training" are rather broad terms. Are we talking defensive driver courses, emergency braking courses, advanced driving technique courses etc? or are we talking more hours for Learners, more difficult licence tests, stricter requirements for drivers (ie elderly or physically/mentally impaired drivers) etc or combinations of the above?

            What has been done else where that has worked?

            Almost all people believe they are above average drivers...

              "...defensive driver courses, emergency braking courses, advanced driving technique courses etc..."

              To some degree, all of the above. Additional hours doesn't really make a difference, it just gives learners more time to soak up their parents' bad habits, and to develop their own new ones. There's a severe lack of professional driver training in Australia, and the vast majority of driving instructors are more focussed on how to reverse parallel park, or when to give way at an intersection to provide any advice on what to do if your car starts aquaplaning. The existence of “automatic vehicle only” licences is proof that some drivers really don’t have full familiarity with the vehicle they’re driving.

              I think there are enough restrictions on new drivers as it is. 120 hours driving experience is very much pushing feasibility, and with any unrestricted driver able to sign off on log books, cheating on your hours is too easy an alternative. Penalising them isn’t going to beat the rebellion out of them so they become safe drivers.

              I personally think the big problem in Australia really is driver attitude. One thing that gets forgotten when German autobahns get brought up, is driver attitude. The main reason why German roads work, is because the vast majority of drivers stay in the correct lane, give way properly, and have less of a selfish attitude to use of the road. The problem with the "Me first" mentality, is the worse it gets, the more it feeds itself. The difficult part is promoting the charge in attitude, and ensuring those who have the right approach don’t end up joining the rat race.

              I agree with your comment that almost all drivers believe they're above average - but the best drivers are the ones who know what they can't do, instead of what they can.

                ^ Yes attitude is a major factor. After recently driving through some parts of Europe, you can see the difference. Some highways have a speed limit of 140 (2 lanes in each direction) and EVERYONE stays in the right lane (unless overtaking off course). Now why is it so hard to stay on the left in Australia? Driving from Geelong to Melbourne (3 lanes in each direction) you constantly see a car in each lane, driving at the same speed as the one next to it, no way to overtake. How can you not tailgate?

            Is it not true, though, that rules are set in order to minimise the influence that individual competence has on road safety? A 40 kilometre zone in a school area allows for much greater error than 60 kilometres due to reaction time and stopping time. On a freeway, 100 kilometres an hour, coupled with the prescribed distance behind the car in front (I think the guide was 2 seconds) gives adequate time to respond to sudden changes on the road. Sure, some people may have very good response times and these people may be in sports cars with new tyres. However, someone who may not be as vigilant in their maintenance of the car, but with excellent driving ability who has simply neglected not to tailgate would be in danger, danger which would be increased by increased speed. It's all about risk margins; I have no doubt that freeways could be 110, but I highly doubt that all drivers (your point) and all cars (more my point) would still be as safe.

            Of course, you get those people driving at 120 down the Eastern freeway, cutting three lanes at once and thinking they're invincible. I wonder, were the limit 120, would they be driving at 140? The human condition to take the speed limit more as a guide rather than a rule, I wager, would lead to people exceeding the maximum safe speed for the road.

              "I personally think the big problem in Australia really is driver attitude. One thing that gets forgotten when German autobahns get brought up, is driver attitude. The main reason why German roads work, is because the vast majority of drivers stay in the correct lane, give way properly, and have less of a selfish attitude to use of the road."

              Couldn't agree more. I look aroudn me on the roads in Sydney and I see an awful lot of people speeding, cutting lanes constantly (not everyone of course!!) and generally having a bad/selfish attitude to driving in general.

              In China, sure.. it seems crazy at times but there are hardly any major road incidents because of people's attitudes. While spending time there over the last 3 years, I have seen only a very small handful of speeding drivers and "hoons".. a really, really small amount.. so small that they stick out as abnormal amongst the masses of people driving there.

              My friend came back from America last year with stories about how polite and orderly everyone over there drove. They were driving around there themselves. Hardly anyone was speeding, cutting lanes etc etc.. it's not at all like on TV shows/movies.. obviously to people in China and peopel in America, they might think that there are plenty of bad drivers but compared to here, from an Australian perspective, they are orderly and polite.

              And it really comes down to cultural attitudes.

                "I personally think the big problem in Australia really is driver attitude"

                "it really comes down to cultural attitudes"

                Hit the nail right on the head! Now the hardest part: How do we change this? How do we implement a driver training environment that encourages the right attitude towards safe and efficient driving? (I say efficient because if everyone drove around at 1km/h it would be pretty safe but not much point to it...)

                I recon if you can come up with an effective solution to this attitude problem, you could be a very rich person (not that money should be the reason to do it, but it could be a rather nice bi-product)

    Next headline "Pissed-off Criminal shoots witness to robbery".

    Comments to article include
    "wot a hero"
    "dirty squealer deserved everything he got"
    "yeah, plug him, see"
    "I only rob small amounts so it's OK"
    "fines for these crimes are all just fund-raising for the military-industrial patriachal lizard-overlord complex"

      thanks for nominating yourself for the "i dont get what everyone is talking about" award.

      you win!

    This was hilarious, they had 6 police officers at the speed camera checking it and whatnot, if someone had called 000 and reported a bashing/shooting/whatever they would have sent 2 cops. But nooooo, heaven forbid someone try and stop the governments revenue stream, send 6 cops.

      The government doesn't dispatch cops. We're not in Nineteen Eighty-Four.

        Never said the government dispatched cops. However police force is a government department. Your argument is void. Also I am very well aware there are more divisions of the WA police force, revenue raisers (TEG), detectives (real cops), wa police (mindless drones continuously being sued) etc etc.

          No, my argument is not void, whereas your counterargument is unrelated and still void. What I stated was that the government itself does not dispatch (send) policemen. The local police authority does. The fact that hospitals are funded by the government does not mean that the government dispatches a number of paramedics equal to the amount of money it may cost them.

      You are aware there are more departments and arms of the police service than you realise, right? Such as forensics, highway patrol, community services, K9 units, etc.

        "Apparently," he whispered, lest the spying caterpillars heard his utterance, "they all work for the reserve bank."

        Swing... and a miss.

          Where did you even get the number 6? It doesn't say that on this page, nor in the article, and if it were on the news, everyone knows more policemen is good for PR. This, combined with your reply, make me start to think you're trolling.

    It seems some people don't understand the laws of physics. If you speed please put your children in the car with you and point yourself at a cliff. This is an example of EVOLUTION of our species. A way to cull undesirable idiotic dna from the gene pool.

      Hey man don't be such an ass, just because you have an opinion doesn't mean you have to be all "kill your kids" and stuff, not cool.
      Apparently your further evolved than these people? No i'm fairly your just a tool with an attitude problem and the internet.

        I was merely pointing out that this debate had devolved into opinions that go against common rational thought and the generally accepted theorems of science. I was not literally calling for the death of anyones children.

          If you're going to quote "accepted science" then provide sources. If it's accepted, then that shouldn't be difficult.

            ok - i will choose a childrens physics book. The Usborne illustrated dictionary of physics. Momentum . The MASS of an object multiplied by its velocity. Momentum = mv. Thus if your velocity increases so does your momentum. an impulse is your change in momentum. this is Force times time. Thus your velocity affects the impulse. Newtons third law states that forces always occur in equal and opposite directions. Thus if object a exerts a force on object b, object b exerts an equal force on objecta. these forces do not cancel each other out. thus if your velocity increases so does your momentem. The velocity as such is transferred into momentum (newtons second law) which then is a force a (car) against force B (the child). The child force b then exerts an equal reaction onto the bonnet of the car. result an increase in velocity kills child more readily. Now i will get out another kids book and look up some 'science' on stopping distances.

              I do apologise if it seems im purposefully attacking people for the sake of attacking. it is not so.

                The irony being that you are calling me an idiot - yet seemingly saying i should be allowed to dictate my driving speed as I see fit.

                Umm... These laws of physics don't stop under 80km/h... They don't stop under 50km/h... Yes, if a car hits you, you are likely going to get hurt... A straight, wide road with posted 50km/h, doing an added 10km/h increases the chances of killing someone? I think not, as most causes of pedestrian death is wrong place, wrong time = luck.

      right martin, because kids are responsible for their parents eh?

      i think it is time you stopped breathing some of my air mate.

    He can shoot all the cameras he likes but he can't kill his own stupidity- which is the reason the camera got him in the first place.
    And to top it all off, he's a crap shot, didn't even manage to get the camera.

    Don't fool yourself. Speed thrills!

    Witnesses? even if was standing next time while he did I'd never come forward as a witness. this guy did what i've always wanted to do

      All jokes aside, I'd report the guy the moment he pulled out a gun on the street. It's likely the location (I've not read the source article) was not in the middle of the city.. but the point is, this guy owns a gun and is willing to take it out in public and shoot public property.. how much more of an incentive does he need to start shooting something else?

        yea, i dont think he wipped it out in public. He probaby drove to a location where he could see the camera, but was out of the way.

        the fact that there are no witnesses and no one reported the shooting demonstrates this.

    Speeding drivers are often frustrated by incompetent drivers unable to keep up with the legal speed limit, usually driving in the right hand lane. Pity the police don't pull these drivers over...

      They do. (or did)

      My grandfather was pulled over (many years ago now) for driving at an unsafe speed because he was going too slow. He is long dead, but it has been a point of arguement between my Nana and I for many years.

    Occupy speed cameras!

    Everyone is so smart on paper.
    If you care about your life, drive within your limits. If you care about others, drive with commonsense. If you care about your money be smart.

    Just shows the level of frustration people have. I would like to see people being smart and at the same time careful with their lives and others'

      Every other comment here can be deleted – this one hit the nail perfectly.

    Technology exsts that can ensure no one can speed and that it can be controlled at a road by road level. So they can choose to eliminate speeding as a factor in acccidents or they can raise a few billion dollars a year.

      This will not happen anytime soon because implenting technology to make this work costs every driver, while infringement fines only cost the offender.

      What government would increase tax (or raise car prices or registration costs) on all drivers when it only serves to prevent the speeders from getting fines?

    These things aren't safe! Most people slam on the anchors when they approach them... If you don't know the camera and aren't expecting the person infront of you to do that, it can be quite dangerous... They just cause more people to do stupid things... They put them in the wrong places (THEY SHOULD BE DIRECTLY AT THE BOTTOM OF Mt OUSLEY!)... People just speed until they can see it, slow down until they pass it - Useless... Not safe, not effective. Revenue raisers!

    This is an extraordinarily simple problem to solve.

    Mandatory, functional GPS speed detection in every vehicle or vehicle is unroadworthy.

    3 strikes rule. Big fines and lose license for some amount of time. Repeat loss of license offenders are locked up.

    Fact: Speeding kills, so measures that stop people from speeding is a good idea in my mind. Given the two options:
    1) Stop people from speeding,
    2) Stop people from speeding AND get some revenue from it,
    I don't see any reasons why the government/police will not chose 2).

    As someone said above, speeding fines are voluntary donation; you chose to speed, you donate the fine when you get caught. And so what if speed cameras are revenue raising? The extra money gives the government/police force (not sure who gets the money) more budget to make Australia a better/safer community.

    +1 to speed cameras

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now