[NSW] Mobile Speed Camera Appropriate Location

mooney on 23/08/2025 - 12:37

I’ve noticed a significant increase recently in the use of mobile speed cameras in nsw (Sydney north shore) I don’t really speed so no big issue.

However I’ve noticed that near where I live there is a mobile speed camera pretty much every week. It’s situated towards the bottom of quite a steep hill, and in a place where pretty much no pedestrians ever cross.

I’ve lived here over 15 years and there’s never been an accident in this location.

As the hill is steep, I’ve noticed I need to be vigilant to not accidentally go over the speed limit. Which makes me think this mobile setup is being used purely as a revenue maker, I can’t see how it’s any any way preventing crashes or reducing pedestrian risk.

So was wondering (I can’t find anything) are there rules that are supposed to be followed to identify a suitable location for speed traps? It’s starting to irrationally piss me off that they’re trying to catch people, not for purpose or reducing any risk but purely for sweet sweet fine revenue.

Automotive

Comments

  • freeb1e4me on 23/08/2025 - 12:52
    +2

    It’s starting to irrationally piss me off that they’re trying to catch people, not for purpose or reducing any risk but purely for sweet sweet fine revenue.

    Why not rationally piss you off?

    • mooney on 23/08/2025 - 13:56
      +10

      I guess irrationally because it doesn’t really impact my life in any way. But I’d love to tap on the car window and ask the person why they don’t setup in what I can understand to be higher risk locations with anything close to same frequency. .

        • mooney on 23/08/2025 - 15:58
          +3

          I didn’t do it. I would like to do it. I’m also a massive coward so that’s not gonna happen. :)

        • DazMon on 24/08/2025 - 08:41
          +4

          They're not police are they?
          Aren't they outsourced?

        • R4 on 25/08/2025 - 21:59

          They're not police

      • ATTS on 25/08/2025 - 11:54

        For mobile speed camera always wondered howcome sometimes there someone in the car but others there is nonone inside?

  • AndyC1 on 23/08/2025 - 13:11
    +1

    When I sued to work at Olympic park driving to and from their they never parked anywhere near spots where accidents occurred due to speeding as they would have to park is spots that only police could park. Instead they parked like you found at the bottom of an incline (no real hills near Strathfield) where in the 10 years I never seen any accidents or near misses. I have seen plenty of accidents and near misses due to speeding between Strathfield and OP, but never seen a speed camera. Seen camera's between OP and Rhodes where there are 2 lanes each way.

    • Ughhh on 23/08/2025 - 13:20
      -6

      where accidents occurred due to speeding

      What was/are the causes or contributing factors for speeding and thus accidents in that part of the road?

      • AndyC1 on 23/08/2025 - 14:47
        +4

        going faster that the sign posted speed limit on the signs.

  • perhaps on 23/08/2025 - 13:34
    +1

    Most ironic part is when they park in the freeway emergency lane. So much so for a "safety" camera

  • GordonD on 23/08/2025 - 13:40
    +6

    The usual criteria for siting speed cameras is where there's lots of crashes, ie safety, or lots of speeding, ie, revenue.

    The irony of siting something that is supposedly about safety where drivers drive fastest is risk homeostasis. Good drivers take the risk of driving faster where they think its safer, and slow down where they think its less safe. That is driving at an appropriate speed for the conditions, not just mindlessly obeying the speed limit. The people you want to catch are the ones who don't perceive risk properly, and don't slow down when/where the risk is higher, not the ones who speed up when the risk is lower.

    • Aureus on 24/08/2025 - 12:08
      +2

      Good drivers take the risk of driving faster where they think its safer, and slow down where they think its less safe.

      You realise that almost every driver who speeds thinks they are a "good" driver and they are making good decisions. Simple fact is speeding drivers make the road more dangerous.

    • Deals For Days on 25/08/2025 - 10:38
      +3

      The average driver is not good at assessing risk though. Everyone thinks they are and thinks they can judge speed appropriately but I don’t think there’s much evidence that’s true.

      Eg in populous/pedestrian heavy areas, plenty go 50 instead of 40. The issue is, for pedestrians the incremental risk of death and serious injury jump up by a huge amount at 40 kmph.

      So yeah drivers think they can assess risk well, i would say probably not true, because even if they are making a risk judgement often they’re thinking only about them and not others (eg what if a pedestrian steps out into road)

  • Fredfloresjr on 23/08/2025 - 14:23
    +8

    Gov’t needs more money to send overseas. So yeah.

    • SydneySpendthrift on 25/08/2025 - 09:02
      -2

      or funding the overseas here at home

    • Deals For Days on 25/08/2025 - 10:36
      +1

      All revenue from speeding fines goes back into road safety no? Pretty sure it’s been the case since forever

      • mccarthyp64 on 25/08/2025 - 17:21

        Yeah, like buying helicopters?

        • Deals For Days on 25/08/2025 - 18:50

          You think the police shouldn’t have helicopters to assist in ending high speed chases safely?

          I suppose we should give them push bikes instead of cars too

  • KangaDrew on 23/08/2025 - 15:00
    +7

    It’s starting to irrationally piss me off

    Being pissed off for obvious revenue raising isn't irrational - it's completely rational

  • haemolysis on 23/08/2025 - 15:42
    +4

    As the hill is steep, I’ve noticed I need to be vigilant to not accidentally go over the speed limit.

    This to me says exactly why it needs to be there. Drivers are generally not vigilant. It’s the exact place you would want to put a tool to force vigilance.

    • mooney on 23/08/2025 - 15:57
      +1

      Yes and no. Whilst I’m not saying it’s ok to speed, this location I would say is low risk. It’s a straight road, no twists or turns and the bottom of the hill leads to an uphill. It’s not very residential, people don’t cross here, and there’s been zero crashes in at least 15 years.

      Outside of generating revenue I’d expect there to be little argument for this to be so heavily monitored vs so many other locations nearby.

      I would like to see the speed monitoring moved to hi higher risk locations. I’d love to be able to query and challenge it with the local authorities. But I’ve no clue how to.

      • [Deactivated] on 25/08/2025 - 16:59
        -1

        That you think the authorities would listen is part of the problem.
        (the government is not your mate and not there to assist you directly - its supposedly for the greater good of everyone - dependent on who's in power, its role is there to:
        1. raise revenue in order to
        2. provide jobs for those who would otherwise be unemployable in any rational industry (in the form of government workers)

    • syousef on 24/08/2025 - 05:50
      +3

      It needs to be somewhere that there has never been an accident when there are blackspots all over the place? To me this says you just want to argue for the sake of arguing. Get drivers to be vigilant where people are actually dying!

      • haemolysis on 25/08/2025 - 11:08
        -1

        Not sure if you're aware, but cars move, actually. You stop people in low-risk areas, fine them, they change their habits, and then, they stop speeding in high risk areas.

        Sure, I like targeting of problem zones. But all speeding fines are helping keep us safe.

        • mooney on 25/08/2025 - 11:52

          Quite like this argument.. I think unpredictability of location would still be more effective overall. That said, as a result of the camera being present so frequently I am definitely more mindful of checking for it and double checking my speed. It has trained my behaviour… which makes me wish it was in a higher risk location for the same effect but with greater benefit.

        • syousef on 25/08/2025 - 18:56
          -1

          I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but sarcasm is a weak form of argument. Everything you say is true of a location which is a black spot, with the added benefit that you're actually targeting people who speed in areas which are an actual, not imagined, problem.

          But in any case speed limits aren't as effective as you think. This is an interesting take I don't agree with completely, but you can't ignore the facts presented.
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6LIYQRglnM

          Did you want to try having an actual argument or would you rather just continue with sarcasm and posturing? Your call.

          • haemolysis on 25/08/2025 - 23:18

            @syousef: You respond to my comment made in good faith with “you’re arguing for the sake of arguing” and yet you have a problem with being met with sarcasm?

            I agree with the general take of that video. “Traffic calming design” works, and works well. It is great. I want it on every residential and suburban street!

            But it doesn’t mean, “ergo speed limits and fines are pointless”. That’s just blatantly false. When speed cams got introduced, accidents dropped. Dramatically. They are extremely effective. We should be doing both.

            I mean, check page 3 here for a simple graph- you can see the drop as soon as speed cams rolled out:

            https://www.victoriawalks.org.au/Assets/Files/Safer-speeds-e…

            Almost all research shows this general trend. You really have to cherry pick HARD to find evidence to the contrary.

            • syousef on 27/08/2025 - 11:35
              -1

              @haemolysis: "Not sure if you're aware, but cars move, actually." Sounds like the start of any good faith argument to me. And what's the bet you completely ignored the video I posted before posting a link to your article and the unsubstantiated claim: "You really have to cherry pick HARD to find evidence to the contrary." That's quite a broad statement. A very difficult statement to back up unless you have a link to a metastudy or similar. Stop wasting my time.

        • tenpercent on 27/08/2025 - 11:43
          -1

          all speeding fines are helping keep us safe.

          So you are in effect arguing that 'all speeding is unsafe'. How so?

  • ihbh on 23/08/2025 - 16:32
    +1

    Am in the North Shore too. Pls name the road.

  • Aureus on 23/08/2025 - 19:14
    +6

    not for purpose or reducing any risk but purely for sweet sweet fine revenue.

    The risk is speeding. The "appropriate" location is anywhere they think they will catch people breaking the law. There is no law saying it is okay to speed if you are going down a hill.

    As someone who claims to not speed you should be happy they are making the roads safer.

    • bigmudcake on 23/08/2025 - 19:43
      -1

      All speed cameras are revenue raisers, since they make the roads safer, drivers are less likely to die, they then stay living on this earth longer and contribute more tax in their lifetime.

      For all the speed camera wingers out there, there are 2 undeniable facts.
      1. Speeding is the biggest contributing factor of deaths on our roads.
      2. Speeding is optional. No one forces you to speed. No speeding, no fine, no need to worry about them.

      • mattmel96 on 24/08/2025 - 07:57
        +11

        No, I would argue 'Not driving to the conditions and within your level of ability' are the biggest contributing factor to deaths on our roads. Add to that, we don't teach people to drive, rather to pass a test and then once you have passed, nothing until you hit your 70s.

        The number of people that don't have the skills to drive, yet somehow obtain a license is staggering.

      • prdreilly on 24/08/2025 - 15:55
        +8

        If you watch a few "Dashcams Australia" videos on YouTube it's pretty clear that stupidly is a much bigger cause of crashes and near misses than speeding.

        • mearkat7 on 24/08/2025 - 22:03

          This is spot on, it's all people being impatient and turning when they shouldn't, not knowing how to use a roundabout etc, being on their phone or just general lack of driving skill. But fixing it would require massive reform and actually providing proper driver education (and likely re-education) that they couldn't be bothered with it.

          Speeding can make an accident worse but is unlikely the cause in majority of accidents.

          EDIT: Ironically they recently lowered a speed limit on a road I drive regularly and it's resulted in more accidents, it's slowed the flow of the road resulting in less gaps meaning it's harder to turn onto/across lanes so people just do it anyway and cause accidents.

        • Ughhh on 25/08/2025 - 21:48
          +1

          Speed amplifies the consequences of the stupidity.

          Imagine if all those videos you watched were at higher speeds.

          Some here probably recognise their car on that channel.

          • prdreilly on 26/08/2025 - 01:19

            @Ughhh: My point is that the government have focused primarily on speed to reduce the roll toll but it hasn't worked. The road toll increased in many states in Australia last year.
            Why?
            Because, as seen on dashcams, speed cameras don't reduce the stupid actions of many drivers who crash, in many cases, while driving at the speed limit.
            To say it could be worse if they drove faster is basic physics but it could also be argued that if they drove faster and didn't do stupid things that would also reduce the road toll.
            My point is that the simplistic approach to safety (demonising speed / more speed cameras/ every k over is a killer etc) has failed to reduce the road toll. But it has been very financially lucrative so it's hard for governments to admit it hasn't worked.
            The issue of road safety is far more complex. Reducing stupidly is a lot harder to do than announcing more speed cameras and bigger fines. Driver attitudes, behaviour and skills have to be seriously addressed otherwise we'll continue to see the same results.

      • kiwimex on 25/08/2025 - 07:13

        Here's an undeniable fact as well, Speed cameras don't work….not fit for purpose. Our road toll continue to increase proving this fact.

    • tenpercent on 23/08/2025 - 19:43
      +7

      As someone who claims to not speed you should be happy they are making the roads safer.

      OP's argyment is that they are actually are not making the roads safer, and even if they are having some tiny minute marginal impact on 'road safety', their limited resources (paid for by the public) would be better allocated to actual trouble spots that are well known for speeding accidents to have a much more substantial impact on 'road safety'.

      • bigmudcake on 23/08/2025 - 19:48
        -4

        I dont believe OP's or yourself would have enough expert knowledge to decide how much safer a particular road would be with a speed camera setup.

      • mooney on 24/08/2025 - 00:53
        +2

        Exactly this. I don’t mind them being in this spot. But it is almost every bloody week vs selecting other spots. It’s definitely not maximising road safety.

        • bcarp on 24/08/2025 - 22:19
          +1

          It could be the same reason why RBTs are set up sometimes in mid-mornings. It's not about catching people. It's about visibility. It's about drivers thinking, "Oh, if they set up here & now, then they could set up in other areas too & I'd better be careful."

  • Stealtho on 23/08/2025 - 19:36

    Taken you 15 years to figure that out, ok

  • Stealtho on 23/08/2025 - 19:37
    -5

    Elbo needs more $$ for Hamaz

    Stealtho on 23/08/2025 - 19:37 (Collapsed - Offtopic. Show)
    • tenpercent on 23/08/2025 - 19:44

      Woah. I thought we were sending money to Isreal?

      • whyisave on 24/08/2025 - 20:12

        Isntreal

      • [Deactivated] on 25/08/2025 - 17:00
        -1

        nah albo policy is hommous for hammas

        • tenpercent on 25/08/2025 - 19:30
          +1

          Oh he did a backflip? I thought he was all "we stand with Ukraine / lgtqxyz / Isreal / Mass Immigration / Unaffordable Homes / Lisps"

          • [Deactivated] on 25/08/2025 - 21:29

            @tenpercent: Pretty sure Albo is willing to throw Australian tax payer money at any problem (foreign or domestic)

  • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 23/08/2025 - 19:40

    Yes there are rules. Mobile speed cameras are not police and are usually lowly paid drones. They get given "locations" but when there is a sweet, sweet hill decline maybe park 50m closer to it to catch people. If you get stung on a decline then challenge it.

    • miwahni on 23/08/2025 - 22:13
      +1

      I got caught once at the bottom of a hill on the Pacific Highway at Bulahdelah. Fair cop, I was over the speed limit. When I sent in my payment I added a note saying that this was how I learned that the car will exceed speed limit going down a hill even when cruise control is engaged. Police sent my cheque back to me with a warning to be more careful next time.
      To be clear, this was back in the mid-90s when cruise control wasn't as prevalent as it is now.

  • Ryanek on 23/08/2025 - 21:10

    If it was really just about raising revenue, they wouldnt place wanring signs before the speed camera.

    Seriously, if youre still getting caught, then youre not paying attention and you deserve it.

    • lost in transit on 23/08/2025 - 21:17
      +6

      I agree with you on that point BUT we don’t get warning signs in Victoria.
      Only on the occasional freeway…

      How about they put more Police on the roads and fine drivers for there erratic driving and bad habits.
      Also they should ramp up mobile fines while driving to 5k it’s just as rampant….I see it walking everyday …

      • OzzyOzbourne on 23/08/2025 - 22:55
        +4

        One method makes money, the other costs money. Both can be done in the name of safety. Guess which one they choose

        • [Deactivated] on 25/08/2025 - 17:02

          both cost money, the difference is profit.
          Changing driver's behaviour however is the real question, neither of which addresses the root cause.

      • Nebargains on 24/08/2025 - 21:29
        +1

        Yeah ridiculous in Victoria isn't it, they used to be obvious, always a particular model car, lights on, camera visible as, some tech on the bumper etc. Now days they are pretty hard to spot, the model car varies, the camera is hard to see and the windows tinted, it's well and truly disguised.

        You could argue it's catching people speeding etc but what's better? Slowing down people in the moment by having a very obvious speed camera and making people check their speed? Or fining people who get a fine in the mail 3 weeks later and can barely remember the incident?

        • ozb1ozb2ozb3 on 25/08/2025 - 11:06
          +1

          If someone is trying 'pretty hard to spot' speed cameras then they are doing it all wrong. instead pay attention to a thing called speedo in the car, ya'll be all right.

    • tenpercent on 24/08/2025 - 10:37

      The warning signs are placed there as a legal requirement. Not out of the goodness of their hearts and a quest for road safety.

      • Ryanek on 25/08/2025 - 14:34

        Yes but my point still stands, if it was just a money making exercise than the law wouldn't exist.

        • tenpercent on 27/08/2025 - 11:46

          The requirement to place the signs was due to pushback by citizens. But they did try to spin it as enhancing transparency and promoting safe driving behaviour.

  • OzzyOzbourne on 23/08/2025 - 22:54

    Iirc the rules in Victoria are.. Accident black spot, people complaining about speeding, or any other reasonable reason (generating money?)

  • Joey2scoops on 24/08/2025 - 07:41
    +2

    From a bigger picture perspective, the "randomness" of camera locations encourages broader compliance, similar to RBT.

    • tenpercent on 25/08/2025 - 07:27

      Source? Evidence?

      • gaosong2101 on 25/08/2025 - 21:41
        +1

        randomising the time and location of police road safety enforcement can have significant positive effects on the number of crashes reported and this effect has been shown to increase over time.

        — https://www.monash.edu/muarc/archive/our-publications/report…

        Mobile speed cameras are deployed in a limited number of locations with a small number of these being used frequently. This, along with decisions to limit the hours that mobile speed cameras operate, and to use multiple warning signs, have reduced the broad deterrence of speeding across the general network - the main policy objective of the mobile speed camera program.

        — https://www.audit.nsw.gov.au/our-work/reports/mobile-speed-c…

        In the case of mobile spot-speed cameras, the effect on speeds and crashes can extend well beyond the locations operated (Cameron and Delaney 2006, 2008; Wilson, Willis, Hendrikz, Le Brocque and Bellamy 2010). This is because, in Victoria, MSCs are operated covertly from unmarked standard vehicles without signage on the approaches and are relatively unpredictable, especially in urban areas. Other Australian States (e.g. Queensland and Western Australia) have achieved broad effects of their relatively-overt MSCs by operating them at many more sites than Victoria and randomly-scheduling site visits to increase unpredictability.

        — Max Cameron, Stuart Newstead. Increasing the effectiveness of mobile speed cameras on rural roads in Victoria based on crash reductions from operations in Queensland. Journal of Road Safety – Volume 32, Issue 2, 2021

        • tenpercent on 26/08/2025 - 11:15
          -1

          Now show me the evidence that compares the allegedly 'random' location selection approach with selection of locations that have a statistically significantly higher frequency of crashes involving speeding. Which has a bigger impact on 'road safety'? And which is a more efficient deployment of limited resources?

    • tenpercent on 26/08/2025 - 11:13

      The original post seems to suggest the camera location at the botton of a certain hill is not particularly random.

      there is a mobile speed camera pretty much every week. It’s situated towards the bottom of quite a steep hill,

  • backpaqer on 24/08/2025 - 09:04

    Get on your bicycle… Do laps… Smile and wave… Smile and wave

  • larryP11 on 24/08/2025 - 11:36

    Please state the said Location of this Mobile speed camera!

  • mikkeyg on 24/08/2025 - 12:29
    +1

    One thing I appreciate about the Victorian mobile camera locations is they come with a list of reasons for why they're in that location so you can verify that your irritation is valid.

  • Sensiekatie on 24/08/2025 - 13:56

    They have been doing that sort of thing all my driving life. The funniest thing I ever heard though was when an Inspector (the people who enforce workplace health and safety standards in this state - do random inspections of workplaces and issues hefty fines for non-compliance ) - so this lady passed a speed camera in what she considered to be an unsafe location. So she stopped and asked to see their paperwork: risk assessment especially and all the other things that are needed before setting up. They had not done a risk assessment and couldn't produce the other documents either. So she moved them on. I found it interesting that this had been set up without following procedure and the law. I have heard people challenge tickets since then because of the camera being parked illegally.

    Would be nice to have the power to ask the question when you see a dicey location. Perhaps there is a phone number to report dangerous positioning of these things.

    We have a little trailer thing that is parked at the crest of a hill near us for periods regularly and then they have this very high and long bar with cameras attached for each direction. It looks very top heavy and unsafe. Wouldn't be surprised if it would be considered unsafe.

    • ccrap on 24/08/2025 - 23:05
      -1

      That trailer thing is most likely mobile phone and/or seat belt detection cameras. Looks unstable but is not, except maybe in very high wind, in that case its going down down faster than a Coles advert.

  • ThithLord on 25/08/2025 - 08:45
    -1

    That's really unfair that they're targeting drivers whom aren't paying attention to their speed, OP. Really unfair. They should devise a way, somehow, to only target drivers who intentionally speed. Because that makes sense.

    • mooney on 25/08/2025 - 11:48

      Dammit, and there was me thinking the purpose of implementing speed checks should be to try to improve safety, which was my entire point.

  • V2L on 25/08/2025 - 10:00
    +1

    you are overthinking this. the cameras are located to maximise revenue. that's not to say it's not your own fault if you get caught by one. such is life, move on and don't speed

  • mungas on 25/08/2025 - 11:57
    +1

    Is this on Yanko/Comenara? haha

    • mooney on 25/08/2025 - 15:21

      Yeap, sure is…

  • imurgod on 25/08/2025 - 16:31

    Good. Stick speed cameras everywhere.
    Just don't speed. It really isn't hard not to break the law.

    • mooney on 25/08/2025 - 16:57
      +1

      Who is this reply aimed at? I cant really see anyone complaining about the concept of speed cameras.. more that the execution could be better to improve safety, not to reduce usage. Or did you just want to make some noise..?

      • imurgod on 25/08/2025 - 17:29

        Pretty ironic comment to make, given your OP.

  • mooney on 25/08/2025 - 17:57
    -1

    Gotcha. You don’t know how to read properly.

    • michaelTito on 26/08/2025 - 02:31

      Was this reply aimed at me?

  • Ughhh on 25/08/2025 - 21:54

    I would get home much faster if there were zero speed cameras, so I vote for no cameras too.

    • michaelTito on 26/08/2025 - 02:31

      You can only call it home if you actually own the house.

  • DMFD on 26/08/2025 - 13:19

    You spelled "revenue raiser" wrong.
    They work better for red light/speed cameras.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join