Aaron Goods, the 23 year old alleged vandaliser (is there such a word?) of speed camera's in various area's is appearing in court on charges of causing public property damage to said camera's.
Whilst I don't condone any damage to public (or private) property at any time, one must ask the question why is the damage bill so high? so far, it is reported Police have estimated they lost $250,000 in lost revenue from the out of action camera's, and the cost of each camera repair was $30,000! If I was Aaron Goods lawyer, I'd be asking for proof of the camera repairs, and why it is so damn expensive. You could buy a decent brand new car for the cost of one of these lens repairs. You can't tell me there isn't some fiddling going on with figures!
Someone is making one hell of a lot of profit on those lenses used in the camera's! I would expect the real lens is actually inside the camera housing, and the front rectangular "lens" is the toughened protector glass. How can toughened protector glass cost so much to supply and install? It begs the question that if it cost so much to repair these things, why are we spending the money in the first place if the supposed toughened lens is really no better than toughened window glass? Surely the manufacturers would have known these camera's would come under attack and would make spare parts affordable? But then again, it is often known that's where manufacturers make their money from - spare parts. Once you have a camera like this in position and in use, you're stuck using those spare parts even though you pay a mint for them. Maybe they could buy cheap Chinese protector lens somewhere at a fraction of the cost and just as good?
It's sad too that police had to bring up how much revenue they lost because of the out of action camera's. You'd think the first thing on their minds is the safety aspect to drivers, but apparently not. Damn, they won't hit their budget this month with the government! But of course, as a token afterthought, the police will bring up the safety issue of having camera's in place. They also don't bother to mention those people with an inclination to speed will always slow down when approaching intersections with speed camera's and then speed up again when they are through. I see it all the time on an intersection with a camera close to me, so one has to argue whether the camera's really do slow down drivers. I'm not a speeder so don't have to worry about it. But I AM a realist, and if camera's are not the answer and something else is, I'm all for looking at other options. Maybe options that don't generate revenue for the government? First offense: Loss of car for two weeks. Second offense: Loss of car for two months. Third offense: Loss of car for two years.
Fourth offense: car crushed?
My scenario doesn't generate money for the government but punishes the driver by losing the car for a set period. And lets face it, it you haven't learnt by the 4th time, you never will! If you're a family man and lose the family car because of your lead foot, you only have yourself to blame and if that causes hardship for the family, then it's sad, but tough luck. If the end result is that family men (or women) show more responsibility, and not speed, isn't that a good thing?
The thing that pisses the public off and makes it look like the government is using camera's to raise revenue, is that very fact.. they use camera's to raise revenue. My idea to simply take the car from the speeder makes the government coffers irrelevant and so they can't be accused of revenue raising. The car gets impounded no matter whose car it is, so if you have a friend who has an inclination to speed, don't lend them your car! You have a hire car? Better get ready to pay for that car whilst it's impounded!
At the end of the day, we need speed camera's. Some people simply cannot be trusted to "do the right thing" in society, as evidenced by all the speeding fines issued.It will always be a point of contention as to whether excessive speed plays a part in accidents. I have seen Main North Road, Prospect at 3am with virtually no cars around. I'm sure given this circumstance, it would be quite safe to do 80 or 90kmh on this road. But we have rules and as the rules stand, they have to be obeyed, or you suffer the consequence if caught.
Get Real
Update 24/5/2014:
On May 23rd, prosecutors amended court documents to say that the cost to repair the camera's was less than $30,000, whilst not giving an actual figure. It makes you wonder if they actually know the figure or they've just pulled a cost out of the air? I ask the question as to why they can't give an accurate figure? Maybe it cost $26,540 or $3,200 per camera, who's to know?. This is a damn court case and the prosecution should have the right information in the first place. This is how people get let off on "technicalities" because the prosecutors throw together a slap dash case and don't get their facts right. The overall cost of camera repair could make the difference as to whether Aaron Goods receives jail time or a significant fine.
Whilst I don't condone any damage to public (or private) property at any time, one must ask the question why is the damage bill so high? so far, it is reported Police have estimated they lost $250,000 in lost revenue from the out of action camera's, and the cost of each camera repair was $30,000! If I was Aaron Goods lawyer, I'd be asking for proof of the camera repairs, and why it is so damn expensive. You could buy a decent brand new car for the cost of one of these lens repairs. You can't tell me there isn't some fiddling going on with figures!
 |
| A damaged camera (picture care of News Limited) |
Someone is making one hell of a lot of profit on those lenses used in the camera's! I would expect the real lens is actually inside the camera housing, and the front rectangular "lens" is the toughened protector glass. How can toughened protector glass cost so much to supply and install? It begs the question that if it cost so much to repair these things, why are we spending the money in the first place if the supposed toughened lens is really no better than toughened window glass? Surely the manufacturers would have known these camera's would come under attack and would make spare parts affordable? But then again, it is often known that's where manufacturers make their money from - spare parts. Once you have a camera like this in position and in use, you're stuck using those spare parts even though you pay a mint for them. Maybe they could buy cheap Chinese protector lens somewhere at a fraction of the cost and just as good?
It's sad too that police had to bring up how much revenue they lost because of the out of action camera's. You'd think the first thing on their minds is the safety aspect to drivers, but apparently not. Damn, they won't hit their budget this month with the government! But of course, as a token afterthought, the police will bring up the safety issue of having camera's in place. They also don't bother to mention those people with an inclination to speed will always slow down when approaching intersections with speed camera's and then speed up again when they are through. I see it all the time on an intersection with a camera close to me, so one has to argue whether the camera's really do slow down drivers. I'm not a speeder so don't have to worry about it. But I AM a realist, and if camera's are not the answer and something else is, I'm all for looking at other options. Maybe options that don't generate revenue for the government? First offense: Loss of car for two weeks. Second offense: Loss of car for two months. Third offense: Loss of car for two years.
Fourth offense: car crushed?
My scenario doesn't generate money for the government but punishes the driver by losing the car for a set period. And lets face it, it you haven't learnt by the 4th time, you never will! If you're a family man and lose the family car because of your lead foot, you only have yourself to blame and if that causes hardship for the family, then it's sad, but tough luck. If the end result is that family men (or women) show more responsibility, and not speed, isn't that a good thing?
The thing that pisses the public off and makes it look like the government is using camera's to raise revenue, is that very fact.. they use camera's to raise revenue. My idea to simply take the car from the speeder makes the government coffers irrelevant and so they can't be accused of revenue raising. The car gets impounded no matter whose car it is, so if you have a friend who has an inclination to speed, don't lend them your car! You have a hire car? Better get ready to pay for that car whilst it's impounded!
At the end of the day, we need speed camera's. Some people simply cannot be trusted to "do the right thing" in society, as evidenced by all the speeding fines issued.It will always be a point of contention as to whether excessive speed plays a part in accidents. I have seen Main North Road, Prospect at 3am with virtually no cars around. I'm sure given this circumstance, it would be quite safe to do 80 or 90kmh on this road. But we have rules and as the rules stand, they have to be obeyed, or you suffer the consequence if caught.
Get Real
Update 24/5/2014:
On May 23rd, prosecutors amended court documents to say that the cost to repair the camera's was less than $30,000, whilst not giving an actual figure. It makes you wonder if they actually know the figure or they've just pulled a cost out of the air? I ask the question as to why they can't give an accurate figure? Maybe it cost $26,540 or $3,200 per camera, who's to know?. This is a damn court case and the prosecution should have the right information in the first place. This is how people get let off on "technicalities" because the prosecutors throw together a slap dash case and don't get their facts right. The overall cost of camera repair could make the difference as to whether Aaron Goods receives jail time or a significant fine.
No comments:
Post a Comment