All drivers ‘SPIED ON’
Transport Minister investigates raft of measures in bid to cut horrific road toll.
Cameras at two points on risky roads would snap all vehicles, not just those speeding
If drivers get to the second camera too quickly, they’ll be pinged
Critics claim it’s a revenue grab, and the cameras could spy on motorists
The idea was dropped two years ago by the previous Government but is back on the table
Roadside cameras that snap vehicles at two points along the same stretch of road to calculate if they have been speeding, may be used on New Zealand roads.
The idea was dropped two years ago by the previous Government and there are concerns the cameras will be a revenue-grabbing tool, and could be used to spy on motorists.
But Associate Transport Minister Julie Anne Genter has sought advice from the Ministry of Transport on a raft of measures to reduce speed on dangerous roads, including point-topoint cameras, or section control.
They include simplifying the process for creating bylaws for speeding, mandatory devices on heavy vehicles to stop cyclists and cars sliding underneath in crashes, and allowing cyclists to ride on the pavement in some circumstances.
Genter said the cameras had proved “extremely successful” in Australia, the UK and Europe.
“We are currently considering how they can be rolled out in a fair and effective way here in New Zealand.”
Genter said work was still being done on where the cameras might be installed and their cost.
“Obviously we want to target the highest-risk corridors because we want to reduce our horrific and increasing rates of deaths and serious injuries on the road.”
The cameras photograph every vehicle entering a specified stretch of road, such as an accident black-spot, then again at the end. The average speed is calculated by dividing the distance travelled by the time to get there. If it is higher than the speed limit, an infringement notice is issued.
“They’re no different to the type of safety cameras that are currently used. It’s just that it gives a more accurate reading of average speed in a particular area rather than just a snapshot in one place,” Genter said.
The previous National Government, which promoted the cameras in its Safer Journeys 2010-2020 road safety strategy, considered them at Cabinet level in 2016 but did not implement them.
National’s associate transport spokesman, Brett Hudson, was against them “for a host of reasons”.
“They’ll give you a snapshot but it tells you absolutely nothing about the driver’s behaviour in between. The public would simply perceive that it is all about revenuegrabbing.”
Genter rejected suggestion.
“Yes, revenue is a result of us having infringement fines, but arguably the best-case scenario is that people stop travelling at unsafe speeds and we have fewer serious injuries and deaths.”
Hudson also suggested the cameras could be used to spy on motorists, because they took images of all vehicles — instead of just those speeding — at a particular place.
“We will be surveilling New Zealand citizens. I think people should feel a bit uncomfortable about that.”
Mark Stockdale, the Automobile Association’s regulations spokesman, said informing the public about the that use of the cameras was key acceptance of the technology.
“What the AA would like to see is policy work in relation to cameras so that motorists can see the reason why point-to-point cameras are being proposed or installed.”
Stockdale said the public would also have to be convinced that the cameras were the right investment to improve road safety.
“Are there other technologies that could be invested in that might be more effective?”
A study this year by the International Transport Forum — the OECD’s international transport think-tank — said section control seemed very effective at reducing speed but noted a study on Italian motorways that effectiveness decreased over time.
Inspector Peter McKennie, police road policing operations manager, declined to comment.
● to
Editorial: Flash speed idea, p26