December 16, 2023
A Queensland MP has launched an E-Petition targeting the “flash for cash” unmanned speed cameras which have been the target of so much recent criticism in rural areas.
One Nation politician Steven Andrew, the Member for Mirani, posted the official petition on Thursday:
Queensland residents draws to the attention of the House that during one of the worst ‘cost of living’ crises in the state’s history, Queensland motorists were slugged almost a million dollars a day in speeding fines over the last financial year.
Collectively, the State’s Camera Detected Offence Program (CDOP) brought in a combined revenue approaching almost a billion dollars in 2022-23.
Your petitioners are of the view that revenue is being raised under the guise of road safety.
Your petitioners, therefore, request that the House call on the Minister to:
• Refund all fines – and reinstate points – issued by camera units positioned in contravention of 6.3.2 of the Police Traffic Manual;
• Cease the issuance of multiple fines on a single infringement notice;
• Adopt policy whereby no additional fines may be issued via the same camera unit, at same location, until alleged offender has been issued with a warning notice;
• Conduct full inquiry into the accuracy of these units, and their compliance with Queensland’s Human Rights Act;
• Cease deployment of these units in one location for periods longer than 3-4 days;
• Return a strong police presence to Queensland roads;
• Publicly release details of the commercial agreement between the Queensland Government and third-party operator, Acusensus – including the proportion of each fine Acusensus is entitled to receive under this agreement.
The mobile, roadside traffic cameras have attracted the ire of rural communities across Queensland, and this week the South Burnett Regional Council resolved to write to the State Government expressing concerns about the positioning of the units.
They have also been criticised by Member for Hill Shane Knuth (KAT) and Member for Burnett Stephen Bennett (LNP) after media reports of drivers being repeatedly slugged in rural areas at Malanda, in North Queensland; and Bororen, in Central Queensland.
According to reports to the ASX, Acusensus is anticipating a total revenue over its five-year contract with the Department of Transport and Main Roads to be about $31 million, including GST.
- External link: The Speeding Fines E-Petition
- Related article: Target Risk, Not Revenue: Councillor
The devices I have seen in the South Burnett have been in 60km/h or less zones.
The reasons for speed limits less than 60km/h are slow-moving pedestrians (whether aged or mobility impaired), kids on bikes or scooters, cars/motor bikes entering or exiting properties.
If you cannot slow down to the designated speed limit use cruise control (yes, buy a car with it if you need to or just a GPS that notifies you) or pay the fine.
Built-up areas, better known as our communities, ought to be safe. Ever notice that when a camera is in town the roads feel safer?
Travel at 100 or 110km/h once out of town, not in Haly Street.
Whilst ranting, the traffic flow blockers travelling at 90km/h or less on the highway ought to be booked the same as someone doing more than 10km over the limit.
Do the speed limit, not 15km/h over it or under it, watch the road ahead and keep everyone alive.
Imagine having to tell someone that their loved one isn’t coming home this Christmas.
Good! I read the horror story of the Malanda residents in the Guardian. One poor fellow was caught three times as he was actually turning into the nursing home to visit his wife! How on earth could he be going faster than 60!
No one knows how these things are calibrated, and even our cars’ speedos can be wrong.
I have taken to creeping around town at 45ks, much to the ire of more impatient drivers. I feel I want to get a sticker made up: “If you can afford another speeding fine, then feel free to overtake, because I can’t”.
It was only the one fine, but $300 is a big slug when you are on a low income.
Being on a trailer, and unmanned, these things can be left anywhere for a week at a time.
Frankly, I do agree with the story in that it’s a brilliant revenue raiser. I have nothing against genuine speeders being caught, such as those who whizz past at 130-plus while driving the back roads to Toowoomba, but those who don’t hit the right speed RIGHT on the 60 line into town, slowing down and are 64 for a couple of metres, or speeding up and are 64 for the same just before the line (it’s a natural human reaction to anticipate), oh COME ON.
Perhaps set the darn thing down further, (Dalby road site, opposite Ken Mills) for those who like to cruise in at 80 until they get to the Roundabout then slam on the brakes. NOT so it catches those who are only a couple of metres out. Same goes for Nanango.
I’m one for “do the crime, pay the fine” but this is TOO harsh.
I do not like sudden braking as it can cause the car behind to crash into your rear, if they aren’t paying attention (and most aren’t). I just take my foot off and ease down, and yes, sometimes it takes a few metres over the line to lose that extra 2ks.
How about concentrating on phone use? If these things just took pictures of drivers on their phone, or fiddling with their phone, I’d be betting there would be a lot more fines.
Taking your eyes off the road is a LOT more dangerous than keeping them on, but not being 2ks over.
Andrew, yes there should be a crackdown on speeding inside towns but these yellow trailers have been parked in liminal zones, apparently to deliberately catch drivers who are either in the process of slowing down on anticipating speeding up.
I’d like to know who is making this decision. Is it the police, TMR, or the private company that owns these trailers and who is being paid by the State Government?
Why are privatised traffic fines okay? (Or for that matter, privatised jails?). We all know what happens when State infrastructure and responsibilities are privatised. Profits for shareholders and poor service for residents.
On your second point. There is a simple solution when you’re feeling angry and annoyed when you’re stuck behind a “slow” driver doing 90km/h … it’s called “patience”.
100km/h is NOT compulsory. It is only the maximum speed allowed in perfect conditions. Many times, conditions are NOT perfect: the sun could be setting, blinding drivers; there could be wallabies about; potholes on the road; slippery conditions after rain.
Or maybe the driver isn’t feeling confident in an unknown area. Or perhaps is recovering from a recent traffic crash and hasn’t regained their full confidence. Or perhaps they’re not feeling 100 per cent well. Or maybe, they are driving an older vehicle and fear a mechanical failure if they push it too hard. Or maybe they are simply an older driver who recognises the fact their reflexes now are not what they were when they were 25.
You’re asking people to do 100km/h no matter what the circumstances. That’s just not fair, particularly in an area where there is no public transport, so no choice other than venturing out on to the highway.
Just be patient and understand that the extra five or 10 minutes spent on the highway is not worth risking a crash or apoplexy.
Most accidents are not caused by people speeding a few kilometres an hour over the limit but by slow drivers who frustrate those trying to keep to the limit and force them to have to overtake.
How about fining those going more than 10% below the speed limit!
“Most accidents are caused by slow drivers” … Do you think all those single vehicle accidents we read about are really caused by slow drivers, not by some drunken or drugged driver unable to take a corner because they’re speeding?
No one “forces” anyone to overtake. It’s your choice to put your life and the lives of your passengers at risk by overtaking. You could always prefer to practise a bit of patience but, hey, it’s your life, just don’t kill some innocent motorist in a totally avoidable head-on crash because you’re in such a rush to get somewhere when an extra five minutes wouldn’t matter anyway.
For those who say to just be patient with slow drivers. Please tell me, how long would you sit behind a person doing sixty or less in a hundred zone?
If you do not have enough confidence behind the wheel to be able to safely stick to the limit and overtake slow drivers then you should not be allowed on the roads.
In response to Max saying if you don’t have the confidence behind the wheel to drive at the speed limit …
There are people out there who are not allowed to drive at the maximum speed limit because they have had restrictions put on them because of health reasons. They are allowed to drive at only perhaps 80 in a 100 or 110km zone.
I know, as I have had that restriction put on my licence.
Personally I’ve found that the faster you drive, the more ?&%$#!@ idiots you come across on the road … so these days I tend to drive under the limit and have a much better time of things.
However, I do agree that these automated speed cameras seem to be more about revenue-raising than road safety, and I’d like to see the details about the contract DTMR inked with Acusensus.
For instance, does Acusensus get remuneration partly or fully based on the fines these cameras generate? Who decides where they’re placed? How accurate is their speed detection and can this be manipulated by Acusensus? And if the cameras are able to detect unregistered vehicles and “vehicles of interest” (which Acusensus’ website claims they can) are DTMR and the police sharing their data files with a private company? And if they are, what protections are in place to preserve privacy and ensure these files aren’t used elsewhere?
My experience is that whenever a government keeps something secret, it’s usually because it won’t withstand the light of public scrutiny, so DTMR’s secretiveness about this deal appears to be a genuine cause for concern.