Random Ramblings

3 weeks ago I sent an email off to the Qld Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR).  This was to inform the department about my observations about the point-to-point speed camera on the Bruce Highway. An initial response said that it had been passed to the team responsible for Speed Cameras and a response would be received by 2nd June.

A response was received on 31st May…

The proximity of the camera site to the Johnston Road exit was considered when looking at the location for the first camera. In Queensland, there is a requirement to meet strict site selection guidelines in relation to the location of our camera sites. Some of the key considerations in relation to the placement of fixed speed cameras are a demonstrated history of speed related crashes, and a location where the use of other enforcement methods is difficult or unsafe. While the camera is located close to the Johnston Road exit, as drivers are required to slow down to 60 km/h for the off ramp it is unlikely they will gain a time advantage through this behaviour. When the point-to-point camera system becomes operational driver behaviour will be monitored.

Even beside the fact the relative ease of avoiding detection (the driver I witnessed didn’t slow down to 60km/h as was “required”), in my opinion it wouldn’t matter whether the camera was placed a few hundred metres either side of the interchange in order to be a little more efficient.  I doubt that there have been more “speed related crashes” under the bridge than at any point in the stretch leading up to the exit or past it.  As for where another enforcement method is difficult or unsafe, it doesn’t seem as though this is a place where a mobile speed camera couldn’t be used.

I’m yet to be convinced that the Government has fully thought this through and didn’t rush out and put these cameras in place in order to “look” as though they are doing something. I know what you’re thinking .. no surprises there.

Say what you want about speed cameras and whether they are actually effective or just around for revenue raising, but along with the news about the Clem7 speed cameras recently, I’ve noticed first hand a way to get around one of the other new camera sets.

DISCLAIMER: I do not condone speeding in any way, shape or form. If you do speed, you deserve to be caught before you hurt somebody else.

One of the newly talked about camera systems that is expected to reduce the number of deaths on Queensland roads is the “point-to-point” camera set up on the Bruce Highway on the way to Caloundra.  The premise is that the cameras will measure the average speed over approximately 13km of highway (the current limit is 110km/h) and if the average speed is over, you will be booked.  They also work in the same way as a regular speed camera, so if you are over the limit as you pass either camera, you’ll be booked as normal.

The problem with this is the first camera is set up under a bridge at the Johnston Road/Wild Horse Mountain exit.  The only way to be detected and therefore start this measurement is to travel on the highway under this bridge.  Those joining the highway after this point won’t have the average speed measurement taken, since the first camera can’t detect your start time.  Fair enough, the second camera can’t possibly know when you joined the highway so it can’t work out the time it took you to travel the distance it’s recording.

Theoretically you could exit at this point and re-enter the highway and speed all you want and so long as you don’t hit the second camera over the limit, you’re home and hosed!  I’ll admit this thought didn’t enter my mind until I saw someone doing exactly what I described over the weekend.  The driver was even speeding all the way up the off-ramp and back down the on-ramp.

To be truly effective, shouldn’t both cameras be in a position to detect all possible infringements? Was there any consideration to this raised or is it just a half-baked attempt at putting in some new revenue raising kit to look like the government is getting serious?  With the revelation today of the Clem7 cameras not being tested adequately I seem to think that the second point is ringing true.

Note: I am emailing the Transport and Main Roads (TMR) department with my concerns, and will update this post if and when I get a response. (Update @18.05: Response received from TMR – It has been passed on to the ‘relevant area’ within the department for consideration and they are to reply to me directly by 02.06)

Update @07.06 – response from TMR received and my thoughts are here.

Over the past few days I have been gathering quotes to do a PC rollover.  Amongst this I had a discussion with one of the rep’s about the use of wide-screen monitors, specifically in a business/corporate environment.

Now I get the attraction for a home user, with many PCs acting as a media centre, thus the call for wide screens to watch DVDs and other visual media.  I’ve had a wide-screen on the past 2 notebooks and am in the process of purchasing some new wide-screens for my PCs.

However, I don’t see the point in having a wide-screen monitor sitting on an office desk.  There are going to be no wide-screen formatted media being shown on these monitors, and the software we use on them has been developed for standard aspect monitors, thus the use of a wide-screen monitor would seem redundant.

What also troubles me is that wide-screen monitors are usually cheaper than the equivalent “size” standard screen.  While I do get that it does take time for business to catch up to the consumer, just think of the number of corporates using Windows Vista, I don’t see why people who prefer standard screens should have to pay a premium over the wide-screens.

The next time we do a rollover, chances are standard screens will be long and buried and thus I thought long and hard about it, but I have had to accept wide-screen monitors in this order. The equivalent size is around $40 more expensive for a standard screen, which is not much but in an order of 50 it’s the cost of a PC in savings.  But I’m still uneasy about the whole thing.