We're all in this together!

[prodigyrf]

The nub of what you wanted to know about your partnership with your Gummint on the road-
http://www.dpti.sa.gov.au/towardszerotogether/safer_speeds/average_speed_safety_camera

And there's no doubt average speed removes any argument or confusion over snapshot speed-
http://www.drive.com.au/motor-news/the-truth-about-speed-cameras-20140903-10awi1.html

[KingBilly]

Won't worry me.  It is a "stupid" tax for all the "stupids" who speed.  Let them pay.  I am happy not to.  Set my cruise control to the GPS speed limit and listen to some tunes.  Happy days.

KB

[DaveR]

Having just drove the other day with a GPS for the 1st time,  how much faith can I put in the HEMA HN7 for speed accuracy?

They have had the travel time thingy in NSW for a long time, Heavy Vehicles only, just a matter of time for it to include everyone.

[Steffo1]

They've been on the Bruce H'way for a few years now, around Wild Horse Mountain to Caloundra turnoff. Don't see the issue with them really. 200 kph for 5-6 klms & pull over for a cuppa before the next camera!

[edz]

Not sure on the Heema Dave, but had to use the Navman on a trip back from Fraser once due to a broken speedo cable..
Checked  against the speedo when fixed  [ the Navman was 1kph less ] at 100 kph than the speedo indicated..

[KingBilly]

Having just drove the other day with a GPS for the 1st time,  how much faith can I put in the HEMA HN7 for speed accuracy?

They have had the travel time thingy in NSW for a long time, Heavy Vehicles only, just a matter of time for it to include everyone.

Dave, by Australian Standards a vehicle's speedo can be up to 10% inaccurate but it must always be in your favour.  For instance on my Dmax the speedo is about 7% optimistic, so when the speedo shows 100, the GPS shows 93.  By Aust Standards it can never be the other way around.

As for GPS accuracy, I have driven several vehicles whose speedos have been tested and certified to NATA standards. Over many thousands of kilometers, the speed difference between the known, certified speedo and the el-cheapo GPS sitting on the dash has never been more than one (1) kilomtere per hour.  Use your GPS with confidence, but not your speedo.

KB

[Terry W4]

I have a similar experience. When my car speedo shows 100 the Navman shows 94.  I drive on the highway according to the Navman.  When I had a Honda I asked them to check the speedo and they said under reading by about 5% and to rely on the GPS. More accurate.

[Rumpig]

Having just drove the other day with a GPS for the 1st time,  how much faith can I put in the HEMA HN7 for speed accuracy?

They have had the travel time thingy in NSW for a long time, Heavy Vehicles only, just a matter of time for it to include everyone.

My HEMA reads exactly the same as my speedo in my Crusier does and i've been through plenty of cameras and yet to get a ticket. The same HEMA used in the wifes sedan reads slightly slower then the speedo does in her car, i reckon it's because her speedo is set just slightly under the correct speed (HEMA reads about 107 -108 when doing 110kph in wifes sedan).

[Bird]

Dave, by Australian Standards a vehicle's speedo can be up to 10% inaccurate but it must always be in your favour.

Not in Victoria it doesn't...

[KingBilly]

Not in Victoria it doesn't...

I said Australian Standards.  I didn't get into the murky area of speed camera tolerances set by the different states.

KB

[Bird]

I said Australian Standards.  I didn't get into the murky area of speed camera tolerances set by the different states.

KB

yea, agree. its bullshi+

[dazzler]

yea, agree. its bullshi+

Is it?

The floor is yours sir.  Make your argument......

[DaveR]

Well, I like that idea of having faith in the GPS.
In the 110 zone, my 94 model LC, I have always done the 110 on the spedo and sailed by most folk. Now on the the GPS I see that what is shown on my spedo as 110 is 108 on the gps.
I had figured it to be the other way, especially now I have the 33's.

An old mate said to me when they built the new 4 lane road from Beenleigh to smith street (he worked on the job) they pre wired it for cameras on the over passes. So I recon it will be here soon.

[KingBilly]

One there already at the Logan Motorway.  More will come.

But what you have to watch out for is the portable ones on the south bound lanes.  Not in cars but on tripods behind the barriers.  You won't know about it until the ticket arrives in the mail.  Cameras apparantly cannot keep up with the number of speedsters.

KB

[DaveR]

Wish they could take pics of the dills on the phone......
Or who stay in the right lane

[KingBilly]

Oh yeah, I'm hearing you mate 

KB

[paull]

Yes, vehicle speedo's can (and indeed must) be out by a factor. I know it used to be 10% years ago but that might have changed. As others have said, the tolerance is always negative, i.e. your actual speed should always be less than equal to the speed shown on the dash. That's not an Australian rule. As far as I know it's a global rule, or at least it's been that way in Europe for decades as well.

Part of the reason is that it is also impossible for any speedo that is not measured via GPS to be accurate for long periods of time. If the speed is measured by the revolutions of the car wheel then the speed shown on the dash will be be dependent upon tyre wear. A new set of decent AT tyres will will have 14-15mm of tread depth. Just say for sake of argument you run them until they have 3mm of tread left. That's 12mm of tread less, or roughly 0.5" difference in the radius of they tyre. That is equivalent of a changing from a 33" tyre to a 32" tyre, or around 3% difference. As the tyre wears the wheel effectively gets smaller but the axle speed (governed by the engine speed and gearing) will remain the same. Your actual road speed will therefore get less and less as the tyre wears but your speedo will still be reading the same amount if it is driven by wheel/axle rotations. The 10% variance in speedo accuracy has to cover this tolerance as well. 

[Garfish]

Pre 2006 Aust standard was + - 10% above 40 k/ hr. Anything 2007 and on must be safe but within 10% + 4 km so in a new car travelling at 100 k an hour real speed the speedometer must read between 100 & 114


Sent from my fingers via my brain

[KingBilly]

Pre 2006 Aust standard was + - 10% above 40 k/ hr. Anything 2007 and on must be safe but within 10% + 4 km so in a new car travelling at 100 k an hour real speed the speedometer must read between 100 & 114


Sent from my fingers via my brain

For more detail, refer to the RACQ article at http://www.racq.com.au/cars-and-driving/safety-on-the-road/driving-safely/speedo-accuracy

Speedo regulations in Australia

Before 1 July 2006

For vehicles manufactured before July 2006:
An accuracy of +/- 10 percent of the vehicle’s true speed is needed when a vehicle is travelling above 40km/h. This means if a vehicle is travelling at a true speed of 100km/h, the speedo is allowed to indicate a reading between 90km/h and 110km/h.

An odometer accuracy of +/- 4 percent is also a requirement.

After 1 July 2006

From 1 July 2006 all newly introduced models of a vehicle available on the market must comply with the following requirements:

The speedo must not indicate a speed less than the vehicle’s true speed or a speed greater than the vehicle’s true speed by an amount more than 10 percent plus 4 km/h.

The speedo must always read 'safe', meaning the vehicle's true speed must not be higher than the speed indicated by the speedo. So if a vehicle travelling at a true speed of 100km/h, the speedo must read between 100km/h and 114km/h.

Another way of looking at this is if the speedo indicates a speed of 100km/h, the vehicle's true speed must be between 87.3 km/h and 100km/h.

There is now no requirement to have an odometer.

From 1 July 2007
All newly manufactured vehicles (excluding mopeds) must comply with these rules.

Hope this resolves the arguement

KB

[chester ver2.0]

I love in NSW they actually warn you with signs there is a camera then they still moan when they get done

[bobnrob]

I love in NSW they actually warn you with signs there is a camera then they still moan when they get done

Yep, if the camera's were about revenue raising...they'd remove the signs 

[gronk]

Yep, if the camera's were about revenue raising...they'd remove the signs 

Some rule says they have to display a sign....although sometimes by the time you see the sign, it's too late !!

If it WASN'T about revenue raising, they'd have them at black spots or danger areas...not on a straight section of road ( or at the bottom of a hill ) that hasn't seen an accident for 10 yrs !!

Everyone knows it's revenue raising for fixed or mobile cameras and if you speed it's your own fault ( been done a couple of times myself ), but don't try and tell me speeding is unsafe.......might be illegal, but 90% of the time it's not unsafe.

[dazzler]

Gronk. The idea behind speed cameras is they deter speeding by taking the decision as to whether or not it is 'safe' to speed out of the hands of the motorist. Whether or not what you are doing is safe is irrelevant. You are not being fined for driving in an unsafe or dangerous manner simply that you have chosen to exceed the mandated speed limit.

It truly is that simple and their introduction has saved lives. Same as RBT.

Cheers.

[Robbo]

Yes, I agree. The speed limits are set for a reason and that is to try and make our roads safer for us all to travel on and if we are caught exceeding these limits then we only have ourselves to blame. I do. however, wish more was being done to address what I consider to be more important issues such as the standard of many of the drivers out there who drive in a dangerous manner, run red lights, tailgate, fail to indicate when changing lanes  and continue to use cellphones etc. If the money collected from speed cameras etc. was used to put more patrol cars on the roads to address these issues I'm sure the results would be worth it.

[gronk]

Gronk. The idea behind speed cameras is they deter speeding by taking the decision as to whether or not it is 'safe' to speed out of the hands of the motorist. Whether or not what you are doing is safe is irrelevant. You are not being fined for driving in an unsafe or dangerous manner simply that you have chosen to exceed the mandated speed limit.

It truly is that simple and their introduction has saved lives. Same as RBT.

Cheers.

I agree, but not the last comment.

No data at all to substantiate the comment about saving lives....RBT is a good thing, but it only deters some people, not the die hard drinker.

Been exposed as untrue the statement about speed being a factor in most fatal car crashes ( that's excessive speed ), but it makes the stats look good.

But I agree that there are some on the road that shouldn't be driving anywhere near the speed limit..