Safe Speed Forums

Canterbury drivers are attacking speed-camera vans and abusing the operators.


Police have made several arrests this year after vandalism and attacks on speed-camera vans.

In one attack, an enraged driver caused thousands of dollars of damage by smashing the van and camera.

Speed-camera operators are also reporting abuse and having objects thrown at them.

The aggression has forced police to boost security on the vans to protect camera operators and their equipment.

Canterbury road-policing manager Inspector Derek Erasmus said speed cameras appeared to touch a raw nerve with many motorists.

"All sorts of people try all sorts of measures to stop them. People seem to have a particular bugbear about them," he said.

AdvertisementAdvertisementMost concern was the threat to the camera operators, who were often alone in the vans.

"We have arrested people in the Canterbury district this year for attacking vans. It's when they start attacking our operators that it is a big concern," Erasmus said.

No operators had been physically attacked but they had had objects thrown at them and there had been cases of intimidation.

Camera operators had police radios but most were non-sworn police who had no power to arrest, he said.

Police have begun increasing security on the vans, adding a layer of glazing, protection bars and mesh on the windows.

Erasmus said permanent cameras were also vandalised in Christchurch.

"We get camera sites regularly vandalised. It is definitely more of a problem in the North Island," he said.

One Christchurch speed-camera operator, who declined to be named, said it was a few who were lashing out at the vans.

"The odd motorist will come back and vent their anger. Now and again it goes further than that," he said.

Having eggs, bottles and cans thrown at the van was common.

However, after working in the van for 10 years, he had had to call for police help only twice.

"If we feel threatened, we usually drive off. If we stay there, we are asking for trouble," he said.

There are five speed-camera operators in Canterbury.

coming out about speed being resposible for only 5% of accidents

"We get camera sites regularly vandalised. It is definitely more of a problem in the North Island," he said

No no no. Speed is a possible contributing factor in 5% of accidents; certainly not a cause of these accidents. Sorry to knit-pick

"Speed" is a primary contributing factor in about 25-35% of accidents (depending which stats you look at). The differences are in "excessive" or "inappropriate".

By definition, those which are excessive are also inappropriate.

However, it stands to reason that if an accident occured and the primary contributing factor was found to be exceeding the speed limit, then that speed is by definition inappropriate!

No, no, no. This is completely wrong.

"Speed" is a primary contributing factor in about 25-35% of accidents (depending which stats you look at). The differences are in "excessive" or "inappropriate".

By definition, those which are excessive are also inappropriate.

No, no, no. This is completely wrong.

"Speed" is a primary contributing factor in about 25-35% of accidents (depending which stats you look at). The differences are in "excessive" or "inappropriate".

By definition, those which are excessive are also inappropriate.

No, no, no, no. Speed is at best only a symptom and never the primary cause. If you're going too fast for the situation, something else has gone wrong - either you've lost (or never had) concentration, you've failed to anticipate - you're in the wrong frame of mind even! Whatever, some other factor has caused you to go too fast and that other factor is the primary cause. Address those primary causes and speed will automatically fall into place.

caused you to go too fast

So given the above tenets, and recognising that it is NOT possible to measure the things on your list, it is only possible to measure the outcome ...

OF COURSE it's possible to measure the things on the list.

You just need to test and psychologically profile a statistically representative sample of drivers. The same process would be used to identify the biggest shortfalls (by comparing the average to an idealised driver) and then we know exactly what we need to work on, and we have the means to measure the results.

Road safety policy should be all about the quality of the average driver. (Because engineering takes care of itself (almost) and enforcement is informed by policy.)

so you favour continuous monitoring of the driver? Some kind of headset they have to wear, perhaps, connected to a transmitter. Or perhaps it could connect to the engine management and only allow full power when concentration, anticipation, state of mind and "something else" are all optimum?

It is not possible to measure those things in a practical manner to cover the situational adjustments or variations, you are talking about an offline measure which only applies at optimum times.

No. I'm talking about measuring the statistical average driver as a system component. Because actually, that's what matters.

Sure there will be an error range. But the average driver is so far out of calibration that those sorts of errors are totally insignificant.

We DON'T need continuous monitoring because all the behaviours are statistically predictable (as is usual with vast systems).

I think you would agree that 99% of accidents are caused by average drivers doing things that are not average (no-one, or at least very few people, routinely set out to drive unsafely). That is why your approach is wrong.