That paper is a bunch of assumptions applied to a situation , it isn't science .
Further, if you were familiar with even Monashs work in is area, they frequently point out that enforcement needs to be fluid and change so it's not predictable. A fixed camera is often associated with traffic slowing then speeding up, in the same way red light cameras as a highly visible enforcement tool, cause much earlier braking at sets of lights where they are setup, and a non effect at other sets of lights ( ok, maybe a small one)
An easy (and cheap) shot to make. Unlike your statement, that paper uses scientific principles (evidence to underpin assumptions and theories and references to relevant published literature) and Monash Uni Crash center publish their research in mainstream peer reviewed journals. That's how research works. They have form and credentials internationally in this space. You on the other hand have not provided one shred of evidence to support your theory, ie it is just assumption applied to an observation.
As it turns out I am relatively familiar with the Uni's work in this area, having been involved in their research (as a part of a study object cohort) into motorcycle rider behaviour, culture and its relationship to crash statistics. A fellow I went through Uni with (he did Engineering as opposed to me in Science) was also a senior researcher there for a while before he went to Europe to work and we had regular discussions on road related research up until he left.
Managing road user behaviour is complex. The solutions toolbox needs to recognize and account for that.
However I'll take evidenced based approach over self opinion based one any day. That said, properly designed evaluation is then important as proof of the pudding.
I agree with much of what you have said but
Where the pollies and government lose this argument is that when speed cameras were introduced (and when they increase the numbers of speed cameras) the justification has always been around 'safety/accidents/locate in known black spots...'.
Based on the argument above we are probably all aware of areas that have been known black spots for 10, 15+ years. And yet the majority of these appear to have had nothing done to increase safety other than have a camera and sign installed. Now if they are truly black spots and we are truly about road safety shouldn't there have been some road/traffic engineering done to increase safety? It is this lack of action beyond the easy install a camera and she will be right that makes people cynical.
Yes. Black spot management also requires a range of solutions. Some engineering (
http://investment.infrastructure.gov.au/funding/blackspots/nominate_black_spots.aspx), some social education (
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/t...s-for-crashes-in-victoria-20140528-394o9.html) and there does seem to be more than can be addressed in a timely manner.
As a motorcyclist, I have seen a number of motorcycle black spots addressed in my local and extended area. In the last 5 years we have had road widened, corners re radiused and surface improved, safety barriers installed (unfortunately some of those have been the cheap tensioned wire cable type), local community groups have been set up and run structured training rides through the area and of course the obligatory motorcycle statistic signs. The infrastructure improvements have made it better for sensible motorists and riders, but the nobs just went faster, so now the speed limit has been reduced (100->80 and 80-> 60), although the increasing number of cyclists making use of the wider and safer road probably influenced that as well. Overall there has been reduction in both motorcycle and cyclist statistics (despite increased volume), but because several things we done at the same time, its hard to attribute proportional cause and effect.
