Waka kotahi says new road safety cameras that track a cars speed over a length of road are way more effective at reducing crashes than fixed spot speed cameras. The so called point to point cameras average a vehicles speed over the journey between two cameras. They're being installed along stretches of six roads that are considered high risk crash areas in the Auckland region. The cameras will be tested for about about three months and data will be gathered before they're used for enforcement and tickets start being issued. Waka Kotahi's head of regulatory strategic programmes, Tara MacMillan, explains in more detail how the new cameras work.

It looks like instead of pinging carelessness, we will soon be keeping people to the speed limit.

With the reducing of speed limits being pulled, at least this will give another way to reduce the impact of crashes.

Unlike the comment on reddit saying this won’t reduce crashes, I’m going to point out that it’s not designed to. Road to zero is about recognising crashes will happen, this move is about reducing the damage when crashes inevitably occur.

  • gardner@lemmy.nzEnglish
    74·
    1 year ago

    From a privacy perspective, I don’t like this. From a road safety perspective, it sounds like it might not be as effective as they claim:

    And Ministry of Transport research from 2017 found 85 per cent of the road toll occurred below the speed limit.

    Matthew-Wilson said speed cameras, even the new point-to-point cameras, would not lower the road toll.

    He said speed alone was a factor in just 15 per cent of fatal crashes, adding there is a minority of people who would speed no matter what, and they were the ones who were involved in speed-related crashes.

    “Speed cameras seem like a magic solution, but they’re not: they alienate ordinary motorists without affecting the behaviour of the tiny minority who cause most fatal crashes,” he said.

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/103868986/new-speed-cameras-wont-stop-the-idiots-risk-privacy

    • deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz
      61·
      1 year ago

      A collision at a lower speed is less severe: simple as that.

      A less severe collision lowers the chance of a fatality and lowers the severity of other injuries.

      Arguing that an imperfect (or partially effective) measure shouldn’t be implemented is disingenuous.

    • Dave@lemmy.nzOPM
      4·
      1 year ago

      That ignores that they are specifically targetting the highest risk roads, which would likely increase the likelihood of being in that 15%.

      • liv@lemmy.nz
        4·
        1 year ago

        15% is 1 in 6.

        Seems like a 1 in 6 reduction would be a great thing.

    • liv@lemmy.nz
      31·
      1 year ago

      I don’t really understand this Matthew-Wilson guy’s argument:

      “Speed cameras seem like a magic solution, but they’re not: they alienate ordinary motorists without affecting the behaviour of the tiny minority who cause most fatal crashes,” he said. “The sad fact is: the idiots who cause most fatal accidents tend to ignore speed limits anyway.” A 2009 AA analysis of fatal accidents found these crashes were caused by “people who don’t care about any kind of rules. These are men who speed, drink, don’t wear safety belts, have no valid licence or WoF – who are basically renegades.”

      And then he says

      Matthew-Wilson said he favoured speed advisory signs, which simply show motorists what speed they’re doing, without issuing a ticket.

      “The fact is, most drivers will slow down if you remind them that they’re going too fast.”

      So he’s saying people obey road signs, and speeding is only really done by these special outlaw people who dgaf about anything we do so there’s no point in even trying?

      I kind of wonder what he’s basing this theory on.

      He cites that study from 16 years ago but if they are able to categorize these people then surely catching them and taking them off the roads would be a good idea?