(VIC) Suspicious New Camera Being Trialed and Observed Today

After NSW and with its money making potentials, it is only a matter of time this piece of contraption will come to Victoria.

5.40pm 06/12/2019, Blackburn Road bridge over Monash Freeway.

A lone man with a tripod. On it, a portrait like camera with the signature feature we professional drivers already know, the infra red sensor (Black rectangle attachment). Undoubtedly, this would be the new Mobile Phone Camera detector and the camera is surprisingly not that large (probably the height of an A4 paper).

Interestingly, I noticed there is already a call to add this mobile camera alert feature in Waze and since I trust all of us Ozbs are professional drivers (for those who drive) and do the right thing, we just need to be more careful so that innocent and innocuous call for job interview from an agent does not become a reason for the police/Govt to rub their hands in glee for pay increase.

Maximum alert and drivers help each others would save us all and ensure hard earn income to feed our families or fund our passion do not go to waste.

Just a PSA.

Regards

Zz

Comments

  • Thanks. Puts on tin foil hat.

  • Don’t be too discouraged. It could just be a device used to count vehicles, and identify where they enter and exit the network. Essentially tracking you to find your travel patterns

    • That's what mobile phones are for.
      Srsly the mrs got a message the other day before leaving for work telling her the best way to go for the conditions that day. The AI knows all.

      • Yes sir it also tracks known patterns like knowing when u go to work or drop kids off at sport etc and will advise what to expect… Aside from putting the data in a DB for later use/sale… What jjjarr is alluding to is data the roads authority gathers for road and traffic planning… Not just user data from googools… :)

    • I work in an industry that regularly collects traffic data, the description given does not sound like a data collection camera, which are never manned, they are put up for a few days then retrieved.

      Sounds a bit like a surveyor from the description, taking levels…

  • +22 votes

    Maximum alert and drivers help each others would save us all and ensure hard earn income to feed our families or fund our passion do not go to waste.

    Overly dramatic. Just buy a $4 car mobile holder off ebay?

      • +32 votes

        It's 2019. I don't need to touch my phone to answer a call or skip a song.

        • Exactly, just wear gloves so that when you answer your call or reply to text message you are technically just touching your glove and the glove is touching the phone.

          • @donga100: Thats an interesting concept. Taking the next step,,,

            Judge hangs you but makes you put on a mask first

            But he didnt hang you, he was just hanging up the mask. 😀🙏

            (I hope no one thinks I am serious!)

          • @donga100: Ha. Good luck arguing that in court. Definition of touch doesn't mention skin! Someone with a prosthetic arm could touch a smartphone…
            Touch;
            verb
            1. come into or be in contact with.
            2. handle in order to interfere with, alter, or otherwise affect.
            noun
            3. an act of touching someone or something.

        • Maybe that is true but it is still legal as far as the legislation is concerned.

          Better be aware of where the camera is and save having to argue if things do go wrong.

          • +36 votes

            @burningrage: I’m only negative towards stupidity. I don’t suffer fools, unfortunately, and this forum has its share of “using mobile phone whilst driving” idiots, or the tin foil hat wearing, “gOvErNmEnT BaD” conspiracy theorists.

            And I will choose to ignore this, because, as a law abiding road user, I don’t use my phone while I am driving, so it will have absolutely no affect on me and may make my drive just that little bit safer.

            But I will wait with much anticipation for the “I got booked by a mobile phone detection camera, how do I get out of it” threads to start popping up.

            • @pegaxs: I know how you feel. Some of the topics here can be quite odd at times.

              But there are many others who disagree and see the issue with this with reasonable degree of skepticism.

              For example, Govt/cops are very full frontal about this sort of thing eg: risk to other drivers, safety, etc etc and yet they are more than happy to have injection room in Richmond that are also posing real and documented safety risk to children, residents, primary schools, and commercial.

              This response of yours is actually much better so I thank you for your frankness and not getting personal like the earlier one about drama queen. I was just trying to be helpful.

              • @burningrage: Road safety cameras(of various discriprions) help to save lives, injecting rooms save lives. If you have a better method of saving lives then put this to your local MP or share it here so we can too.

                • @Hardlyworkin: I care about the lives of my fellow road users. I don't use my mobile phone when I'm driving. I support mobile phone detection cameras because I see people who use their phones while driving as being careless with my life.

                  Injecting rooms on the other hand? These are lives I'm not remotely interested in saving. A junkie dead is a favour to society. I object to my taxes being used to save junkie's lives.

                  • @freakatronic: Let's ignore the callousness for a second and unpack the 'injecting rooms are bad' bit. You do realise that injecting rooms keep used needles off the street, which means fewer stick injuries for the public? They also allow targeted interventions like promoting condoms or programs to help get people off drugs. I seriously hope that you and no one you know suffers from drug dependency, and you come to realise that vilifying addicts doesn't help anyone.

                    • @Strand0410: It's not about vilifying, what the hell. I just said they don't deserve any assistance in staying alive. Forget about rehab or treatment. Just put a bullet in all of them. Cheaper and it gets them where they want to go faster. Win:win. They hate their miserable existence right? They literally can't bear reality without chemical assistance. So give them what they want: removal from reality, but permanent. It's a good thing and they'll be better off. Geez, no need for the huff-puff sanctimony.

                      "I hope you never get addicted to drugs and blahblahblah." As if. I love life, even though it's a drudgerous grind most of the time. I contribute to society and take care of myself too. If I saw someone OD in the gutter I wouldn't cross the street to check if they're ok.

  • Don't use your mobile phone while driving. Problem solved?

    • Life is not black and white. As I said I trust Ozbs with their choice.

    • Better solution: don't drive

    • How else would OP take photo of man with tripod? :)

    • How about just don't break any laws? Including the ones that contradict the other ones, or the ones that haven't been written yet.

      Not that hard guys

      • Well some laws, the ones that limit your rights for example, probably ought to be ignored/broken.

        But this probably not one of them.

    • The question is does this include talking on your hands free phone? Current legislation says if it's in a fixed cradle then it's OK so how do these Chinese-style phone detector cameras work? If they ONLY detect people who are holding their phones WHILE the car is moving then I have no problems with them. If they detect ANY use (like pushing a button while stopped at the lights)or are used to breach a persons privacy by photographing other activities going on (drinking coffee, eating food etc) then we have a problem. I mean ffs they actually had to change a 'law' last week because people were getting fined for using their phone while pulled off the side of the road but still had the engine running (handy to keep the aircon on in this weather). In other words people were getting fined on a pedantic technicality for doing the right thing by pulling off the road. And then they are wanting to pull down all the warning signs when it has been shown that people slow down and don't use the phone when the signs are up. If the governments goal was to get people to slow down and not use the phone they would invest in more signs and not more spying gadgets. Obviously the goal is revenue raising. But anyone half awake would know that already.

      • And then they are wanting to pull down all the warning signs when it has been shown that people slow down and don't use the phone when the signs are up.

        Source? If that's true, that's (profanity) horrible, risking people's lives just to earn revenue…
        Which state?

        • Here you go. NSW for now.

          https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/motoring/nsw-t...

          "NRMA spokesman Peter Khoury said “we’re not fans” of the proposal, which would increase the $200 million a year already raised from speed cameras.

          “Revenue will go up, there’s no doubt about that,” he said, but added, “We don’t want it to be a discussion about revenue, we want it to be about what we can do to reduce this horrific road toll.”

          Mr Khoury pointed out that Victoria has no warning signs at all – either for fixed or mobile speed cameras – and the road toll in the state was up 33.5 per cent this year at 231 deaths so far.

          “The signs are important, they play an important educational role on our roads and the cameras then do the enforcement,” he said."

          As I said below, the signs are more effective than just cameras if the goal is to improve driver behaviour. If the goal is revenue raising then more cameras and less signs…which is what govcorp is doing. But that's the government mentality for a lot of things, not just road behaviour "More of a bad thing that doesn't work..must work eventually if we keep doing it, right?" :)

          • @EightImmortals: Thanks. I would have thought that if the signs are preventing people from speeding even for a little while, then they're potentially saving lives.

            Is the idea (saving those 54 lives that Monash estimated) that removing the signs are fining people will be a more long lasting deterrent and that it will make people slow down throughout the entire drive as opposed to just near the signs?

            That said, I think this is irrelevant data:

            Mr Khoury pointed out that Victoria has no warning signs at all – either for fixed or mobile speed cameras – and the road toll in the state was up 33.5 per cent this year at 231 deaths so far.

            These are separate points. It's not like we just removed the signs and then increased or deaths by 33% like they're trying to imply. Rather we never had signs, and we also increased or deaths by 33%.

            • @idonotknowwhy: Yeah the government line is that the fear of getting a fine in the mail three weeks after the event will deter people from speeding, texting etc. As you pointed out this approach is not working but it is boosting govt. coffers a great deal. In the article the NRMA recommend more police presence on the roads and we all know hoe one cop car can slow down a ton of other drivers. :) But as the exercise is to raise funds for an increasingly desperate govt. then that wont happen. Neither will any other idea that isn't bringing in money.

              • @EightImmortals: And some more info.

                everyone reading this e-mail update is more than aware that the current system of fines in this country is simply about revenue raising but, should there be any ‘newbies’ to these updates who still have their blinders on, the following article should clarify things pretty quickly:

                The title to our first article really spells it out pretty clearly - https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/fines-victoria-s...

                You’ll note that the heading doesn’t say that accidents have gone through the roof, fatalities have increased dramatically or, in fact, anything at all about ‘road safety’ – in fact, the whole point of the article is that the on-going Fines Victoria crisis is really only affecting the State’s bottom line!

                Now, the great news for all Victorian motorists, of course, is that the entire system of revenue raising in the State is in shambles and that is primarily due to the sheer number of people that are refusing to blindly ‘pay up’ and are challenging their fines and fight back against this corruption and blatant revenue raising, which is great to see.

                As the author simply puts it, “The software system used by Fines Victoria to collect court fines and infringements for parking, red-light camera and speeding offences does not work …” The article goes on to focus purely on how much ‘lost revenue’ the failed Fines Victoria system has cost, with some councils whinging about how much ‘good’ they could have done for the community if the fines system had, in fact, enabled them to continue fleecing completely innocent motorists of their hard earned money, simply to ‘prop up’ costly (and probably completely un-necessary) public projects that should have been budgeted and paid for with legitimately raised revenue instead of ill-gotten gains!

                This basic revenue raising premise is backed up by this article - http://www.seniordriveraus.com/victorians-still-being-gouged... - which clearly explains how Victorian motorists are being ‘gouged’ with speeding fines because the State government is “more addicted to the revenue they provide than ever before”.

                The article goes onto to mirror what we have been saying for well over a decade now – if more fines are being issued and cameras truly work the way the government claims they do, by causing motorist to slow down, then why is the road toll increasing, along with the amount of revenue being raised???

                It also mirrors the pretty obvious fact that we have been trying to get through to people for some time now – that if that many drivers are being fined for ‘exceeding the speed limit’ then the speed limit is clearly set too low!

                The closing line really does sum it all up perfectly – “The system is patently broken, but nothing is being done to fix it. Instead, speed limits continue to be reduced, fines continue to be increased, and people continue to die.”

                And then, as the final nail in the coffin, there’s this news story - http://www.3aw.com.au/we-dont-speed-new-data-shows-most-aust... - which explains that most Aussies actually already drive below the speed limit anyway so all the government claims about “speed kills” are completely incorrect because we’re essentially driving slower but the road toll continues to rise!

                • @EightImmortals:

                  that if that many drivers are being fined for ‘exceeding the speed limit’ then the speed limit is clearly set too low!

                  No it’s not. We drive too fast in most situations. We do so because we can get away with it. This creates a situation where people are too scared to walk or cycle, which promotes more car use and more traffic. Dropping speed limits in areas frequented by non motorised traffic create a safer and more pleasant environment.

                  On average we aren’t trained to drive properly enough at any higher speeds than our current limits on highways and freeways either.

  • The camera was beamed towards the outbound traffic and not towards exiting traffic.

    In any case the camera looks very similar to the picture Herald Sun had on NSW's version.

    This is the 2nd time I saw it being put there (previous one was either on Forsters or Blackburn - cant remember)

    I will certainly add it as Hidden Cops Alert in Waze next time I saw it.

    • I will certainly add it as Hidden Cops Alert in Waze next time I saw it.

      While you're driving you'll add it to Waze?

      • Not certainly adding into it. I am sure you know how Waze works if you can ask this question.

      • While you're driving you'll add it to Waze?

        Waze is a driver-aid app, so this is legal (probably - I'm not a lawyer)

        • Legal, to touch your phone and add it in while driving down the highway? Voice control sure, but my implication was inputting it in by keyboard ;)

          • @spackbace:

            Legal, to touch your phone and add it in while driving down the highway?

            I'm only familiar with NSW law. I understand the road rules are substantially the same between states, but some technicalities (such as this!) may differ…

            Yes, touching the phone to operate a driving aid is legal, as long as the phone is in a cradle.

            https://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/stayingsafe/mobileph...

            I haven't used Waze, but the Google Maps app makes it pretty easy to add cops to the map (2 presses)

  • How am I going to ozbargain while driving to work?

  • +28 votes

    Or, you know, you could just not use your phone while driving?

    • So many people just dont understand this concept. Its not that hard to follow with the help of today's technology. Purchase a carplay and have it fitted. For a lowcost solution, purchase the fm transmitter which you just plug onto the 12v socket. My newer VW has the carplay while I use the fm transmitter on my old subaru.

      Dont be too self-entitled and start considering everyone's safety. The mobile phone driving law is there for a reason.

  • The more phone use detecting cameras the better. Then we, as drivers , have a responsibility to never let them make a cent in revenue (by not using phones while driving)

    • BUT I'M A GREAT DRIVER AND IT'S EVERYONE ELSE THAT IS THE PROBLEM. WHY SHOULD I SUFFER!?!

      /s

    • Its not about revenue raising.
      People should not use thier phones whilst driving…PERIOD!

    • Today they’re mobile phone detection cameras.

      Tomorrow they’re tracking your driving habits.

      • And your point is?

        I’d we are going to get the road toll down to negligible numbers we will either need to mandate autonomous vehicles or massively increase driver monitoring (as much as I don’t particularly want either of those)

      • Umm lol..

        If you are that worried about people tracking your habits then maybe you shouldn't have a mobile phone, not take a step outside of your house, not have the internet. Build a bunker somewhere, not tell anyone about it and done.

        But to start of with why not start by not commenting on Ozbargain or maybe delete your account cause guess what your habits can be tracked here too.

        Kthx.

      • Yet the biggest irony is using your phone while driving is doing exactly that anyway.

        In that case better let the government know the habits rather than Google or whoever in the hope they can actually plan the road system better in future.

        It's like how paying a public transport fare isn't 100% about the money (ok ok, it's 99% of it…) but it is also meant to be about tracking routes and patronage.

  • Phone fiddlers want to pay extra taxes.
    Why should we not oblige them?? 🙂🙂

    • Apparently you're not held at gunpoint to use your phone while driving, but you are held at gunpoint to pay fines if caught.

      Therefore its ReVEnue RaISing omggg.

      • Fine for this, fine for that. Why? Prevent collisions. Collisions are dangerous

        Actual collision happens, no fines.

        As long as enforcement is making risk assessment and penalizing people at risk, whilst largely ignoring people so obviously at risk they're literally crashing, the policy is arbitrary.

        Moreover, they claim the fines are in the interest of safety. There are years where fines increase yet rate of collisions increase. Instead of discussing the possibility the fines are ineffective and the trend of reducing road collisions and severity may be affected by improved engineering, they take the opportunity to push fines higher.

        Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with fining people but it has to be proven it actually achieves the aim.

        • Well said. From what I figure so far, fines are ineffective for the purposes claimed (but great at raising taxes) while signs waning about speed cameras do a great job. As I said in another post, just put up more signs with the occasional real camera so people won't know which signs are 'live' so they will behave anyway. Lower speeds, lower rates of phone usage but not as much money scammed by the state so that's why they would never do it. Australia needs a yellow-movement like the Frenchy's have.

          • @EightImmortals:

            , just put up more signs with the occasional real camera so people won't know which signs are 'live' so they will behave anyway.

            Are people going to be fined from those real cameras?

            If yes: you're suggesting revenue raising?
            If no: then it's just an empty threat with no consequences.

            • @Ughhh: Sure they would. Yes it's still revenue raising but it is part of a bigger purpose ( to make the roads safer) and not an exercise is making money itself with no impact on the road toll.

              • @EightImmortals:

                no impact on the road toll.

                So the solution so it have more of the very thing you're complaining about that is useless…?

                • @Ughhh: Umm no, I said we should do LESS revenue raising and more of the tactics that seem to work. Why would you think otherwise?

                  • @EightImmortals: So you want more cameras put in place, only difference is they're fake and you're want to give dangerous drivers a cheaper fine… somehow this will solve the problem.

                    If you put more fake cameras around, are you going to let people know they're fake?
                    If not, people like you will just scream ReVeNue RaiSIng again.
                    If yes, you might as well put cardboard police/police cars around.

                    • @Ughhh: Did you even read what I wrote?
                      I didn't say anything about 'fake cameras', I said put up more signs and less actual cameras but move them around so the phone addicts don't know where they are. It's the signs that are having a positive impact on bad driving not the actual cameras.

        • To be honest, I don't like fines too. I could get to where I want in half the time if I didn't have to worry about losing money or license.

          But because I don't want to pay the stupid tax, I watch how I drive.

          You want to wait until someone is in the hospital to fine them? You want to be reactive instead of proactive to prevent/reduce chance of accident from happening in the first place?

          • @Ughhh: Reactive is okay.

            Allegedly reactive is not.

            If all it takes is a claim that it a fine will reduce bad things, it is simply too easy for there to be more and bigger fines.

            • @tshow: If you want to be reactive, ie. Acting after the accident has happened, then you're not really trying to prevent accidents from happening. That's not saving lives, that's just cashing in an unfortunate event.

              You want to do something to teach the dangerous driver after he killed a girl? A little late there mate. Wow

              • @Ughhh: You mean there hasn't been cases where people broke the law and caused a crash?

                You're trying to say that the only way to shape behaviour is deterence through penalty.

                I'm trying to say it is also a deterrant to penalize people who actually cause collisions.

                I don't disagree with your opinion but I believe that penalizing actual collisions should also be implemented and should be the primary penalty.

                Ie. Penalty as a deterrent should still exist but should be less than the penalty for causing a collision.

        • @tshow I have a saying for critcis like you.

          Whats the answer?

          Never criticise without offering a better more workable solution!

  • Vic should follow Qld and increase the fine to $1000.

    https://www.caradvice.com.au/811174/qld-phone-fines/

  • +2 votes

    Considering the company that developed them for NSW is based in Melbourne, they could just be field testing them for all you know

    https://www.acusensus.com/hire-us and https://www.acusensus.com/acusensus-headsup-jr-faq

    Wouldn't there need to be VIC legislation changes before they could use them in VIC?

  • At least it wasn't a stupid kid with a rock…

  • I thought we already had a trial on the Hume?

  • Lol meanwhile I'm scrolling through Spotify playlists on my 15" Tesla iPad permanently fixed to the dash. Take that NSW.

  • They don't need camera's to get you. They can jump out of the fricken bushes at the lights.

    https://imgur.com/hrnpMsQ