speeding offences

[mark david]

It's a bit strange me starting this thread as I don't even drive.

However I am really peed off by the underhanded way the police over here go around hiding in bushes with speed cameras, I dont have a lot of sympathy for persistent offenders but in my opinion this practice does little or nothing to promote road safety. It is purely a revenue generating machine for the government.

I have lived most of my life In England and when speed cameras were introduced the practice was much the same with them being hidden away and painted in drab colour so they couldnt be seen until you witnessed 2 ominous flashes in your rear view mirror. A public outcry resulted in them being painted in bright coloured paint and the placement of warning signs so you got the idea and slowed down if necessary.

Surely the main priorty should be deterring speeding, promoting safety and not collecting revenue and dishing out demerit points.

[shedbound]

Underhanded is an understatement, a little off topic, but my wife got done for $400+ for talking on a mobile phone in a Mc Donald's car park(stationary) just because the engine was running.:((

[Master Splinter]

If you think that's bad...in the US, cities with red light cameras were reducing the timing on the amber light to increase red light ticket numbers - http://time.com/3505994/red-light-camera-problems-tickets/

[mark david]

That's really unfair :hellno:must be the same morons that hide in the bushes? I am sure their time could be better spent doing other things! like collecting all the litter in there.


Underhanded is an understatement, a little off topic, but my wife got done for $400+ for talking on a mobile phone in a Mc Donald's car park(stationary) just because the engine was running.:((

[mark david]

Must have been the brainwave of some pencil-pusher to boost the Mayor's re-election camapaign fund.


If you think that's bad...in the US, cities with red light cameras were reducing the timing on the amber light to increase red light ticket numbers - http://time.com/3505994/red-light-camera-problems-tickets/

[shedbound]

we were going to contest it, but apparently a car must not only be stationary but in park and engine off according to law.

[WesP]

As my bussiness I do lots of driving every day with my van. And can only confirm your observations.
Of course if you do the right thing on the road (not speeding etc) you don't need to worry. But the very way they operate the speedeing cameras eg.hiding themselves in the bushes or even behind the trees got nothing to do with the road safety. It's just the easy way to make some money. How and what for do they spend the extra revenue is another story but I doubt that it goes towards the safety of the road users.
Unfortunatelly cops adjusted their practises to the profit driven societies they suppose to serve.

[BobL]

Sorry but I have ZERO sympathy for mobile phone users in cars no matter where they are.

One such user ran head on into me on a university campus, I was doing 10kph, he was doing about 50kph while texting and looking down.
Totalled both cars!
I got a few scratches and bruises other driver broke his collar bone.
I had just had my car serviced and front wheels aligned and was due to go in holidays for two weeks - instead of this I had to sort out this $hyte and look for another car. I was without a car for 6 weeks while this was sorted.
Other driver not insured on an out of date OS licence, kept sending me SMSes denying it was his fault and trying to convince me not to report the accident to the police because it was a private road - which it wasn't.
Fortunately other driver admitted fault in front of Uni security staff who always use a radio microphone that records everything back to base. I was able to get a written transcript of what was said and pass it onto my insurance company.

Now when I pull up at lights and see other drivers using their mobile I glare at them for longer than would be socially acceptable. It's interesting to see how many put their phones down.

[mark david]

I remember about 20 years ago my brother in England got T-boned at a traffic intresection by a guy who ran a red light, He refused to admit responsibility and my brothers insurance went up to £1000 a year.
I dont know whether a phone was involved

I also lost a cousin many years before that, who was killed in a hit-and-run on a pedestrian crossing.


Sorry but I have ZERO sympathy for mobile phone users in cars no matter where they are.

One such user ran head on into me on a university campus, I was doing 10kph, he was doing about 50kph while texting and looking down.
Totalled both cars!
I got a few scratches and bruises other driver broke his collar bone.
I had just had my car serviced and front wheels aligned and was due to go in holidays for two weeks - instead of this I had to sort out this $hyte and look for another car. I was without a car for 6 weeks while this was sorted.
Other driver not insured on an out of date OS licence, kept sending me SMSes denying it was his fault and trying to convince me not to report the accident to the police because it was a private road - which it wasn't.
Fortunately other driver admitted fault in front of Uni security staff who always use a radio microphone that records everything back to base. I was able to get a written transcript of what was said and pass it onto my insurance company.

Now when I pull up at lights and see other drivers using their mobile I glare at them for longer than would be socially acceptable. It's interesting to see how many put their phones down.

[Evanism]

I remember about 20 years ago my brother in England got T-boned at a traffic intresection by a guy who ran a red light, He refused to admit responsibility and my brothers insurance went up to £1000 a year.

I've been curious about this too. I had a car stolen for a joy ride and trashing and my insurance went up. The perps were caught. I asked both the cops and insurance company whether I could civilly sue the perps each year for their enforced cost increase to me.

Absolute silence.

Personally, I would like to see the at-fault person also pay for any and all costs literally forever.

[Opelblues2]

Mobile phones and driving

Can I stop on the side of the road to use my mobile phone?Yes so long as you park legally.
What does ‘park legally’ mean?To stop and stay in an area where there is no prohibition on stopping or parking. It is recommended that you secure the vehicle by applying parking brakes; put the automatic transmission into ‘park’ and turn off the ignition.


Speed related social costsSpeed crashes cost the community in the form of:


hospital and health care costs
lost productivity in the workplace
the cost of using emergency services.

Speeding has significant costs to the community each year. Speed related fatalities and hospitalised casualties in Queensland have an estimated social cost of $283 million each year†‡.
†Based on road crash data from 2008–2012.
*Doecke, S., & Kloeden, C.N. (2014). The accuracy of determining speeding directly from mass crash data and using the NSW Centre for Road Safety method. Journal of the Australasian College of Road Safety, 25(1), 35–41.
‡Social cost figures are provided in 2013 dollar value using the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics 2006 social cost estimates.

from the Queensland department of transport and main roads web site

[doug3030]

However I am really peed off by the underhanded way the police over here go around hiding in bushes with speed cameras, I dont have a lot of sympathy for persistent offenders but in my opinion this practice does little or nothing to promote road safety. It is purely a revenue generating machine for the government.

Well how about this aspect of it then? There are certain tolerances in the accuracy of a vehicle's speedo that are allowed by law. Naturally they arent spot on, and cannot be expected to be. Things like tyre wear and inflation can affect the accuracy of your speedo reading.

I can only assume that there is a degree of tolerance in the calibration of the speed guns as well as some inaccuracy inherent in the distance and angle they are from the target vehicle.

In my car, when I am doing 100 km/hr as measured by the GPS, which is more accurate than the speedo, the speedo reads 96 km/hr. Apparently this degree of inaccuracy is allowable under federal law.

So if I did not have a GPS and did not know this, every time I was driving past a speed camera at 100 km/hr by the speedo, I would actually be doing somewhere in the vicinity of 104 km/hr in reality.

In Victoria the tolerance for booking motorists for speeding is to allow 3 km/hr so I would be booked for doing 101 km/hr (104 - 3) alleged speed in a 100 km/hr zone. Federal law is supposed to take precedence over State law but apparently not when it is cutting into their revenue raising activities.

Speed cameras are all about revenue raising and nothing else. Speeding is nowhere near as dangerous as tailgating and tailgating causes far more accidents, So why don't the police target tailgating? Because it is harder to produce the evidence and make a conviction stick. Purely and simply, they would be utilizing more resources and spending more money for a lower financial return for their political masters.

A speed camera records the speed and the infringement notice is posted out. They target drink drivers for the same reason: they can easily obtain a blood alcohol reading that cannot be disputed. The motorists who are really causing the problems, tailgaters and those failing to give right of way and other dangerous driving practices are not worth chasing from a revenue raising perspective. (Before anyone gets the wrong idea I am not condoning speeding or drink driving, just pointing out that they are targeted far more than the others because the evidence is a figure spat out by a machine, not a case of an officer having to testify that in his opinion the motorist did something illegal.)

Remember the slogan "Speed Cameras Save Lives". Can anyone give me the name of ONE person whose life was saved by a speed camera?

Cheers

Doug

[Sturdee]

Federal law is supposed to take precedence over State law

Doug

Doug, it only takes precedence in the areas that the federal constitution gives them that authority or where states have voluntary ceded specific power to them.

Whilst the feds may have power over design rules the states retain their power over road laws and their enforcement.

Peter.

[mark david]

Well Doug I suppose you could be standing next to a speed camera and a vehicle crashes into it, maybe thats what they mean.

Although lets face it, speeding is the least of our problems, we make a big point of drink related incidents but how do you explain that most accincidents are caused by people who are stone cold sober what the hell is their excuse ?




Remember the slogan "Speed Cameras Save Lives". Can anyone give me the name of ONE person whose life was saved by a speed camera?

Cheers

Doug

[cava]

Underhanded is an understatement, a little off topic, but my wife got done for $400+ for talking on a mobile phone in a Mc Donald's car park(stationary) just because the engine was running.:((
Correct me if I am wrong, however isn't McDonalds private property?

I know in other instances, the police can't book a vehicle for any road worthy offenses on private property.

[artme]

I have no tolerance for Phone use while driving!! None at all!!!

I have no tolerance for tailgaters, particularly truck drivers who sit so close that you cannot see their number plate.

"Speed Cameras Used in this Area to Save Lives"". BS!!! Should read "Speed Cameras Used In This Area to Collect Revenue."

I am always amazed by the placement of signs. A place where higher speed is viable has a lower speed limit. Why? I ask myself.

Am I a cynic ora realist?

[Master Splinter]

Remember when limits used to be 40, 60 and 80 around town?

Now it's 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 or even 90, making it so much harder to drive at the right speed if you're looking at the road, and not continually for speed signposts.

So if you're in Canberra, cursing at a red Subaru in front of you that's doing 50 or 60 in an 80 zone, that's me, cuz' I just don't give a f@@k* anymore!

*firetruck.

[Chris Parks]

In my car, when I am doing 100 km/hr as measured by the GPS, which is more accurate than the speedo, the speedo reads 96 km/hr. Apparently this degree of inaccuracy is allowable under federal law.


Cheers

Doug

Doug, by the law your car is defective so don't tell the copper that one if you get caught for speeding as he is likely to get very interested and write on more pieces of paper which you won't like. ADR's specify that the speedo must read fast and by no more than 10% and if wheels or tyres are changed this must be allowed for but no one does. BTW GPS speed can be out and lag badly depending on the number of satellites it is seeing. I have seen a difference of 7KPH on our race kart at speeds up to 200KPH which has both and the GPS has a way better resolution than a phone GPS.

[BobL]

Remember when limits used to be 40, 60 and 80 around town? .

The only wholesale speed changes I remember are when 35 MPH became 60 kph, most 40s became 70, 50 became 80, 55 became 90, 60 - 100, and 65 - 110.
The only one of these that was a "speed reduction" was 45 going to 70 although in some areas it went to 80.

The one thing that folks forget is that traffic density has gone up in some areas significantly so it's appropriate that some speeds are reduced. A couple of decades back a change in a major route started doubled the amount of traffic to/from a local Uni that passed thru our suburb so I was really glad the 50 limit was brought in around our side streets as there were too many idiots starting to do 70 and 80 through these streets. Since then the size of that uni has doubled so the traffic is now a crawl during rush hour anyway.

The other one that gets me going is the number of kids being driven to/from school - more traffic on the streets that don't need to be there

Twice a week I have about 2km drive through a speed bumped 40k zone and given how narrow and crowded the streets are in terms of cars and pedestrians and the fact that my van doesn't like speed bumps I my take is 30 is more appropriate so that is what I do. No one has tooted me in 18 months and if its peak hour its less than 20 anyway so its sort of pointless worrying about doing 40 or 60.

[Pearo]

Sorry but I have ZERO sympathy for mobile phone users in cars no matter where they are.

I am with you on this one Bob. There have been studies done in the UK and the US that show texting and driving is as dangerous as mid level drink driving. As a motorcycle rider I tend to 'ride ahead of the bike', ie I look at traffic well ahead of me so I can ride in a defensive manner, and you can pick drivers that are talking and texting on their mobile phone a mile away because the look like they are drunk. I have had on 2 occasions people drift into my lane because they were to busy playing with their phone. I think if it has been shown to be as dangerous as drink driving, then the police should have the power to take your licence away for doing it.


Well how about this aspect of it then? There are certain tolerances in the accuracy of a vehicle's speedo that are allowed by law. Naturally they arent spot on, and cannot be expected to be. Things like tyre wear and inflation can affect the accuracy of your speedo reading.

The Australian Design Rules say -10% +0% for speedo accuracy if I remember correctly. All modern motor vehicles seem to show the speed with a -10% error. You can see this when comparing with a good GPS.

[BobL]

Judging by the numbers of people I still see using mobiles, especially at traffic lights, I think fines for mobile phone use are not very effective. Given that "convenience" is a premium commodity these days, maybe mobiles should be confiscated for something like 4 weeks, or a similar period, just long enough forth offender to be really inconvenienced, like I was when that mobile user ran into my car!

I'd like to see the offending users mobile placed under the owners cars tyre and then be required to drive over it and go back and pick up the pieces and see if that makes a difference.
Ah!, . . . . . . . but that doesn't raise any money does it :)

[RoyG]

That's really unfair :hellno:must be the same morons that hide in the bushes? I am sure their time could be better spent doing other things! like collecting all the litter in there.

I decided yesterday to go a different route for my daily exercise walk. Along the way, I happened to walk past a favourite Police Speed Camera Van site. The site is out in the open and any speed camera van parked there can be easily seen from a good distance down the road in either direction. I don't have a complaint against the Police practice of regularly placing a speed camera at this site as a deterrent, as this bit of road has claimed a few lives in the last few years, and I know the local Ambos, Fireies, and SES are sick of attending fatal accidents on that particular stretch of the road.

However, what really me off when I walked past that Speed Camera Van site yesterday was the amount of litter just in the position where that speed camera van regularly parks. I walked about 2 km of that road before turning off to head home, and the rest of the roadside is pretty clean. But that speed camera van site is filthy - soft drink cans, fag ends by the hundred, drink cartons, chip packets, and heaps more (judging by the waste they discard, the Cops are obviously healthy eaters).

I ended up taking some photos of the litter mess and emailing it to the local Council's "Dob in a litterer" email address. The local Council issues hefty fines (up to $1000 for the worst individual offences, and much more for businesses) for littering, so it'll be interesting to see if they do anything about the mess left by the Speed Camera Van operators.

I'd love to see a Council officer issuing the Speed Camera Van Operator with a Littering Ticket :-)

Roy

[shedbound]

Correct me if I am wrong, however isn't McDonalds private property?

I know in other instances, the police can't book a vehicle for any road worthy offenses on private property.

I thought along the same lines, but the wife spoke to a lawyer and the advice was not to contest it, as we wouldn't win. So we just begrudgingly paid the money and I think 3? demerit points,
What stinks is that SHMBO drove out of the drivethrough, pulled into a car park when the phone rang and to sort out food for the kids. She knew the poilce were there, she pulled up next to them, whilst they ate their lunch.
(And NO I dont condone feeding Maccas to kids)lol

[RoyG]

I thought along the same lines, but the wife spoke to a lawyer and the advice was not to contest it, as we wouldn't win. So we just begrudgingly paid the money and I think 3? demerit points,
What stinks is that SHMBO drove out of the drivethrough, pulled into a car park when the phone rang and to sort out food for the kids. She knew the poilce were there, she pulled up next to them, whilst they ate their lunch.
(And NO I dont condone feeding Maccas to kids)lol

Not sure about other states, but in Queensland a business or organisation that has a road network or extensive parking on their private property, can authorise the relevant local council, and the state government to have legal authority over the road network and parking on their private property. This results in the Council's Parking Inspectors being able to issue parking fines on that private property, and it enables the Police to issue a speeding fine, or other traffic infringement notice on private property. As an example, I've seen Logan City Council parking inspectors issuing tickets in Ikea Springwood in their private carpark. I've also seen a cop with a hand held speed gun in the15kph speed limit area at Ikea.

Another place is the Wesley Private Hospital in Brisbane - there's a sign that says that "Queensland road traffic laws apply on all private roads in the hospital precincts" and the sign goes on to say that "Qld Police and Brisbane City Council Parking Inspectors patrol the hospital's roads and on street parking".

So, the moral of the story .... don't assume you can't be booked for a traffic or parking offence if you are on private property ... in some places in Qld at least.

Roy

[smidsy]

Being a habitual speeder and having worked in the speed & redlight camera section of a police department I know both sides - at one point I was one of only 3 people in WA qualified to evaluate red light camera film.
I believe that camera's should be hidden, there is no deterrant value when a driver can see a camera from 800 metres away, slow down as they pass the camera and then boot it - the deterrant value comes when people drive to the speed limit ALL the time because behind that tree, that fence, that bus stop could be a camera.
But having said that, I know there is revenue raising rationale used in camera location selection, and I know that (in WA at least) the camera revenue figures given to the public are less than 50% of the real figure.

That said, the whole fine system is antiquated and long due for overhaul.
For starters fines should be income based for fairness, when I was up in Townsville I got a $300 fine, but with what I was earning the cash was an incovenience and I was more concerned about points. However when I was down here and got a $120 no push bike helmet fine (by a bitch sargeant who wrote me up while admitting that kids can't be fined) it really hurt - after rent I had about $170 left each fortnight.
So fines need to be income based, you get a fine, you take in several pay slips and they work out the fine - easy enough to do at a post office.

The other major change that is needed is that speeding needs to be based on risk - I can do +10 on the freeway in light traffic and there is zero risk, but do the same +10 in a school zone at 3pm, the risk is much much greater risk yet the same penalty applies for both offences.
Main roads asses every road to apply a speed limit so why not use the same assessment to apply a risk rating based on road condition and other factors like pedestrian traffic - or even have fines based on % over the limit, +10 on the freeway is 10% over, but +10 in a school zone is 25% over.

The fact is that most road rules are based on 40 year old standards when cars weighed a lot more, had drum brakes and handled like a half sunk ship.

[BobL]

For starters fines should be income based for fairness, when I was up in Townsville I got a $300 fine, but with what I was earning the cash was an incovenience and I was more concerned about points. However when I was down here and got a $120 no push bike helmet fine (by a bitch sargeant who wrote me up while admitting that kids can't be fined) it really hurt - after rent I had about $170 left each fortnight.
So fines need to be income based, you get a fine, you take in several pay slips and they work out the fine - easy enough to do at a post office. .

While in principle I agree what you will find is that the really high fliers in the 7 figure annual expenditure category, will be able to present fully legal pay slips that show they earn MUCH less than this. These people have very low incomes that are taxed. Everything is squirrelled away in trusts, etc and their "stuff" is paid for by someone else.

[Toymaker Len]

While in principle I agree what you will find is that the really high fliers in the 7 figure annual expenditure category, will be able to present fully legal pay slips that show they earn MUCH less than this. These people have very low incomes that are taxed. Everything is squirrelled away in trusts, etc and their "stuff" is paid for by someone else.
That is a good point. Maybe fines should be indexed to the value of the car?
Also a good point that cameras should be hidden because we want people to stick with the limit ALL the time not just when they think they will be caught.

[mark david]

Are we suppoosed to spend more time looking at the spedometer than what's on the road?
speeding is dangerous and causes accidents there is no doubting that but other bad driving practices must cause far more accidents.

The simple fact is that it is easy for the authorities to catch us and fine us for speeding more so than any other kind of infringements and it pays them very well to do so.

I doubt that much of the generated revenue is re spent promoting on trying to enhace road safety which shows complete double standards by the authorities.

I am not going to convinced that traffic cameras save lives until every cent of the revenue put back into road safety promotion.And what chance is there of that?

[A Duke]

Remember when limits used to be 40, 60 and 80 around town?

Now it's 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 or even 90, making it so much harder to drive at the right speed if you're looking at the road, and not continually for speed signposts.

So if you're in Canberra, cursing at a red Subaru in front of you that's doing 50 or 60 in an 80 zone, that's me, cuz' I just don't give a f@@k* anymore!

*firetruck.Hi,
That is the only way because even if you are doing 100 KPH in a 80 zone, half the dick heads on our roads will still be cursing you for slowing them up.
Regards

[rrich]

we were going to contest it, but apparently a car must not only be stationary but in park and engine off according to law.

How do the police get away with enforcing the vehicle code on private property, e.g. a car park?

[shedbound]

Maybe they should invent a short range signal scrambler and install one in every car, so when the ignition is on the phone cannot receive a signal. if you are behind the wheel, I dunno. Imagine the outrage.:doh:

[doug3030]

Ah!, . . . . . . . but that doesn't raise any money does it :)

:2tsup: :2tsup: :2tsup:

[BobL]

Maybe they should invent a short range signal scrambler and install one in every car, so when the ignition is on the phone cannot receive a signal. if you are behind the wheel, I dunno. Imagine the outrage.:doh:

Oh the HORROR!

Unfortunately that would prevent other people in the car from using a mobile. Might not be a bad thing either.

[DavidG]

When I get in my car the mobile is taken over by the car bluetooth system.
The mobile is useless as no sound comes out of it.

Just need to press a button on the steering wheel and tell the system
who I want to call. :U

[Sturdee]

So, the moral of the story .... don't assume you can't be booked for a traffic or parking offence if you are on private property ... in some places in Qld at least.

Roy


How do the police get away with enforcing the vehicle code on private property, e.g. a car park?

This (http://www.caradvice.com.au/58779/road-rules-its-time-take-some-lessons-australia/) may be of interest as it describes what a road is, including those on private property, and how the road traffic laws applies to them.

Interesting reading as this is in addition to car parking enforcements that can be made with councils.

Peter.

[Toymaker Len]

[QUOTE=mark david;1849975]Are we suppoosed to spend more time looking at the spedometer than what's on the road?
speeding is dangerous and causes accidents there is no doubting that but other bad driving practices must cause far more accidents.

I know at a glance what speed I am doing and could pretty well sit on 60 or 80 or100 or 110 without changing for hours at a time and not have to look at the speedo but that is just experience.
I was a persistent offender most of my Forty years driving. I just considered speeding fines a cost of doing business. Then one year I lost all my points and had to go do the "Traffic Offenders" program to avoid losing my licence. Well that really opened my eyes to what a selfish bastard I had been even without having any accidents. For example did you know that for every person killed on the road another thirty are permanently disabled? No? Well after I had sat through lectures by highway patrol cops, ambulance officers, accident and emergency trauma surgeons, rehabilitation physios, road and traffic engineers. Seen many films on actual road accidents. Heard survivors of road accidents describing what happened to them. Heard the stories from families who had been woken in the middle of the night to be told that their seventeen year old was dead or that their twenty two year old was fighting for his life and would be a paraplegic ... After all that I woke up a bit and realised that it is not that hard to just stick to the speed limit. And even though I am a much better driver than average and have a much better car, just like all the other idiots who speed I still manage to stick to the limit and the great thing is that it is easy. Just slow down turn the music up and have a nice day. There are no excuses for speeding and all this complaint is just whining selfish cr*p

[ian]

nice story but ....

the underlying message I take away from the "speed kills" "Don't speed" campaigns is

99 km/h in a 100 zone is perfectly safe, and you won't ever crash, or if you do you won't be seriously hurt.

101 km/h in a 100 zone and you're driving like a moron, and when you crash, which you will inevitably do, you'll be dead

give me a break, the energy to be dissipated in a crash at 101 km/h is 4% greater than at 99 km/h -- at either speed you will be seriously injured if not dead

Statistically, 70 km/h is about the limit for surviving a crash without life threatening injuries



BUT the big unknown in all the crash stats, is that the cops get to determine the "cause of a crash"
if you run off the road or crash head-on on a straight piece of rural road, around 50% of the time the cops will code the crash as being "fatigue related", the other 50% will be coded "speed related" -- as the injury severity increases, the tendency to code the crash as "speed related" increases.
but if you crash on a curve, the cops will almost invariably code the crash as "speed related"

over the years I've done a lot of work in relation to highway crashes and apart from making a road more forgiving (e.g. sealed shoulders), the most effective measures in reducing the numbers of crashes seems to be those directed at increasing a driver's level of alertness.

[AlexS]

...I can only assume that there is a degree of tolerance in the calibration of the speed guns as well as some inaccuracy inherent in the distance and angle they are from the target vehicle.

In my car, when I am doing 100 km/hr as measured by the GPS, which is more accurate than the speedo, the speedo reads 96 km/hr. Apparently this degree of inaccuracy is allowable under federal law.

So if I did not have a GPS and did not know this, every time I was driving past a speed camera at 100 km/hr by the speedo, I would actually be doing somewhere in the vicinity of 104 km/hr in reality.

In Victoria the tolerance for booking motorists for speeding is to allow 3 km/hr so I would be booked for doing 101 km/hr (104 - 3) alleged speed in a 100 km/hr zone. Federal law is supposed to take precedence over State law but apparently not when it is cutting into their revenue raising activities.




Cheers

Doug
Firstly, the allowed tolerance on speedos, I believe, allows them to over-read, but not under-read, i.e, if you are doing 100, your speedo may read, say, 104, but not 96. Car manufacturers always have their speedos set to over read so they can't be blamed by someone who is booked for speeding. Since you know your speedo is inaccurate, you have no excuse.
There is a tolerance on the speed cameras. I can't remember offhand what it is, but it's set in the relevant Australian Standard, as are the requirements for testing.


...Remember the slogan "Speed Cameras Save Lives". Can anyone give me the name of ONE person whose life was saved by a speed camera?
Have you stopped beating your wife?
That's just as stupid a question. However, most of us can give you the names of plenty of people who've been killed by drivers speeding or talking on mobile phones, or both.

Bottom line, do the crime, pay the fine, and quit bellyaching.

[TermiMonster]

Booking someone for talking on a mobile phone whilst stopped in a carpark is pure BS, but some cops are a**h***s. But then, so are some of all of us, (or even all of us sometimes (except me and you, of course) ).
Not much you can do about it.
TM

[Big Shed]

When I get in my car the mobile is taken over by the car bluetooth system.
The mobile is useless as no sound comes out of it.

Just need to press a button on the steering wheel and tell the system
who I want to call. :U

Same here, phone goes through the radio via Bluetooth in the Colorado, have a Bury handsfree thingo in the Commodore.

With the cheap options for handsfree these days I really don't know why people risk a fine by using the phone.

As for texting in the car, if you're doing that you deserve everything you get, don't blame the cops, your choice.

[shedbound]

Booking someone for talking on a mobile phone whilst stopped in a carpark is pure BS, but some cops are a**h***s. But then, so are some of all of us, (or even all of us sometimes (except me and you, of course) ).
Not much you can do about it.
TM

I agree
SWMBO wasn't aware she was in the wrong, I wouldn't have thought so either.

[DavidG]

If you read the rules for ACT:

If you are "stopped" then you can get booked.
If you are "parked" then it is ok.

The rules for the difference between stopped and parked are vague.

[doug3030]

Bottom line, do the crime, pay the fine, and quit bellyaching.

Firstly, there was no crime, and therefore no fine to pay and all I have done is put forward scenarios. Where do you get bellyaching out of that?


Firstly, the allowed tolerance on speedos, I believe, allows them to over-read, but not under-read, i.e, if you are doing 100, your speedo may read, say, 104, but not 96. Car manufacturers always have their speedos set to over read so they can't be blamed by someone who is booked for speeding. Since you know your speedo is inaccurate, you have no excuse.
There is a tolerance on the speed cameras. I can't remember offhand what it is, but it's set in the relevant Australian Standard, as are the requirements for testing.

Well I must be the unlucky one. Since I have owned GPS I have owned three vehicles - EVERY ONE of which had a speedo that read lower than the actual speed being travelled. All had standar sized wheels and tyres and no modifications that could affect the speedo reading. I have used the GPS in the daughter's car as well and it read just a little over the speed. A hire car read quite a bit over when I had it once but a friend's car I borrowed when I was in Queensland also read under the speed compared to the GPS.

So four out of six cars I have used my GPS in are defective? Maybe I have been unluckybut that does give me the impression that not all speedos read over, probably far from it.



That's just as stupid a question. However, most of us can give you the names of plenty of people who've been killed by drivers speeding or talking on mobile phones, or both.

I take it you were referring to naming people whose life has been saved by a speed camera. I can name people who have been killed or injured on the roads too - so where were the speed cameras that were supposed to save them? As you said yourself, we all know plenty of people who have become part of the road toll and how could this be if speed cameras were effective? The question was designed to make people think, and your thoughts on the question go a long way towards proving that speed cmeras are not effective. Well not for saving lives anyway. Just for revenue raising.

Cheers

Doug

[Chris Parks]

WA police and mobile phone offenders.....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8a249J9KYY

Note near the end the woman using a mobile phone and the bike sitting next to he with red and blues flashing.

I was a professional driver for many years and I don't care whether it is hand held or hands free, both are dangerous. Next time after you get off a hands free call try and remember what happened while you are on the phone and I bet you can't remember any of it. When I worked that out unless I could pull over the phone (hands free) did not get answered.

[A Duke]

Hi doug 3030,
Has it occurred to you that may be it it your GPS that is telling porkies and not all those speedos?
Regards

[doug3030]

Hi doug 3030,
Has it occurred to you that may be it it your GPS that is telling porkies and not all those speedos?
Regards

car 1 - gps number 1
car 2 - gps number 1 and number 2 - readings exactly the same
Car 3 - gps number 2 and 3 - readings exactly the same

The way I have measured the speed by GPS leaves little scope for error. All three vehicles have cruise control. measurement was made on a straight flat road with cruise control set for at least 2 minutes to allow for the setting to stabilize.

It is no surprise that under those conditions there is no difference between the gps readings, assuming you know how a GPS works.

Cheers

Doug

[A Duke]

Hi Doug,
Thanks for the answer, I Was not clear that you had used more than one GPS.
No I do not really know how a GPS works I usually know where I am going and have not needed one yet.
Regards

[Chris Parks]

How many satellites did you get and what was the GPS, a phone? if it was a phone it only has a resolution of 1 or 2hz a second and that is hit and miss for accuracy. The loggers we use work at 10hz a second and I do not trust the accuracy at all, huge lag at all times against a physical speed sensor. We know it's inaccurate because the difference between the two speeds shown varies at the same physical speed, if it were the same each time then I would question it.

[smidsy]

What gets me about the phone laws is that it's illegal to use a phone while driving, but I can smoke or scoff a burger while driving and talking to a passenger - carrying on a conversation with one hand off the wheel, the same as if I was on the phone.
If I get in a situation where I need both hands for the wheel I would drop the phone without a second thought - but I'm going to have second, third and fourth thoughts about where I drop a cig or a burger.
And before you all flame me I am pointing this out, I dont use my phone when driving, I usually have the radio too loud to hear it, but rarely answer the silly thing when it does ring whether I'm driving or not.

As for speedo accuracy, I just found the ADR's and for 2006 & beyond they state speedo's cannot read low but can read high - cars & trucks +6kph, mopeds +4kph and motorbikes +8kph.
My 04 BA Falcon is thus outside the rules, when I have the GPS on the speedo reads about 8k less than the GPS.

[Big Shed]

The thing that I can't understand about the mobile phone laws is that you can't talk on your mobile but how many taxis, trucks and caravans (dare I say police cars!) have a 2 way radio of some type and they are happily using these all day every day?

If we are going to be consistent (heaven forbid) then the use of those should be banned as well.

[BobL]

What gets me about the phone laws is that it's illegal to use a phone while driving, but I can smoke or scoff a burger while driving and talking to a passenger - carrying on a conversation with one hand off the wheel, the same as if I was on the phone.
If I get in a situation where I need both hands for the wheel I would drop the phone without a second thought - but I'm going to have second, third and fourth thoughts about where I drop a cig or a burger.

Unless you train yourself to drop it, you probably won't drop it. anyway by the time you drop it, it might be too late.

It was interesting to see that the guy that ran into me did not drop his phone and tried to get out of my way at the last minute still holding his mobile. He even got out of his car still holding it.

[doug3030]

How many satellites did you get and what was the GPS, a phone? if it was a phone it only has a resolution of 1 or 2hz a second and that is hit and miss for accuracy. The loggers we use work at 10hz a second and I do not trust the accuracy at all, huge lag at all times against a physical speed sensor. We know it's inaccurate because the difference between the two speeds shown varies at the same physical speed, if it were the same each time then I would question it.

The speed is calculated continuously by the GPS several times a second. The speed it displays is a moving average of the speeds measured over a predetermined time. This is done so that the displays a little bit more steady and does not change with every reading the GPS measures. The longer the timeframe of the moving average the longer the "lag" period in displaying a change of speed. If the physical speed sensor is displaying realtime then this is why you are experiencing the lag on the GPS display.

When I have made comparisons between the speedo and the displayed speed on the GPS, the car has been in cruise control on a flat straight road with the GPS display reading the same figure for quite a while, thus neutralising the effects of the lag caused by the moving average. It was not a phone that I used and I would have to switch to a different screen to see the number of satellites, and I am not going to do that at 100km/hr.


As for speedo accuracy, I just found the ADR's and for 2006 & beyond they state speedo's cannot read low but can read high - cars & trucks +6kph, mopeds +4kph and motorbikes +8kph.
My 04 BA Falcon is thus outside the rules, when I have the GPS on the speedo reads about 8k less than the GPS.

My last three cars mentioned above that all have speedos reading low were 1998, 2002 and 2003 and thus not covered by this rule either, but there are still a hell of a lot of cars out there that are completely legal whose drivers can be booked for innocently trusting the accuracy of their speedo.

Cheers

Doug

[FenceFurniture]

The thing that I can't understand about the mobile phone laws is that you can't talk on your mobile but how many taxis, trucks and caravans (dare I say police cars!) have a 2 way radio of some type and they are happily using these all day every day?

If we are going to be consistent (heaven forbid) then the use of those should be banned as well.It was explained to me by a copper, sometime in the 90s, that the NSW offence was "not having two hands on the wheel" when I asked about the legalilty of the CB radio usage - so yes, that is illegal as well here. That may have changed or been reworded, I don't know.

Police are exempt from that in just the same way that they can do an otherwise illegal u-Turn to chase a car.

Heh, heh. However, outside Sutherland Courts one day (again in the 90s) a copper pulled up and parked, and he was on his phone all that time. I waited until he got out and said "I just got booked for that the other day" and to my surprise he said "Ok,OK, you got me, I shouldn't have been doing it. We've just been on a drug bust" and he held up a bag of an odd green looking herb (which I of course didn't recognise). Perhaps that was before they were made exempt from the law (for the phone thing :;)?

[mark david]

Watch the beginning of the movie Wolf Creek 2:minigun::piggy::piggy:

[doug3030]

The speed is calculated continuously by the GPS several times a second. The speed it displays is a moving average of the speeds measured over a predetermined time. This is done so that the displays a little bit more steady and does not change with every reading the GPS measures. The longer the timeframe of the moving average the longer the "lag" period in displaying a change of speed. If the physical speed sensor is displaying realtime then this is why you are experiencing the lag on the GPS display.

I just thought that I might elaborate a bit more on how the GPS works in this regard in case anyone is interested.

When a GPS works out your location it could be off by several metres. As I said earlier, the unit calculates your speed several times a second. Now given that it is not reading your exact location each time, say you are travelling at 10 metres per second (36 km/hr).

The GPS makes say 10 readings in the first second all finding your position within 2 metres of accuracy. Lets say they are:

8 metres/sec
9.5 metres/sec
11 metres/sec
10.8 metres/sec
8.7 metres/sec
12 metres/sec
10.5 metres/sec
9 metres/sec
9.2 metres/sec
11.3 metres/sec

If the GPS did not work on a moving average, the displayed speed would be flicking between 28.8 and 43.2 km/hr so often that you could not read it and the data would be of little use anyway. If the display is programmed to show a moving average of the speeds calculated over the last second it will display 36.0 km/hr, because it has averaged out its own inaccuracies of measurements (this is of course simplified), there are often higher or lower biases in the data collected.

It is therefore a juggling act to make the timeframe of the moving average long enough to give a satisfactory reading but not so long as to produce too much lag.

Most GPS users would have experienced coming to a stop at a red light and looking at the GPS for the distance to the next turn and seeing that the car is still supposedly traveling at say 8 km/hr, then 4 km/hr then finally 0 km/hr as the moving average finally catches up with reality. This is why you see that.

When you drive under an overpass or bridge, the GPS will miss several signals from the satellites, which can mess up the moving average, so it often happens that as you emerge from under the bridge and the satellite signals are again being received, the GPS misinterprets the data by thinking that you have traveled further than you really have in the time elapsed and momentarily displays a high reading for your speed.

Many people, particularly those with knowledge of conventional navigation, believe that the GPS determines your position by measuring the direction to the satellites (like performing a resection) but this is not the case. The GPS actually works on calculating the distance from the satellites by calculating the time elapsed from the transmission of the signal until it is received. The satellites are geo-stationary and their locations are programmed into the calculations the GPS makes. It determines your location by finding the only point on the surface of the earth that is the required distance from a minimum of three measurements from different satellites rather than a direction to them.

My GPS goes stupid in the Melbourne CBD because the signals reflect off the glass sides of the highrise buildings, causing it to receive conflicting data, such as the same signal from the same satellite received a split second later than another identical signal, as one or more signals has reflected off a building.

All of the above is a very simplistic version of how it works. If anyone wants to elaborate, feel free, but I do not want to make it any more confusing than it already is.

Cheers

Doug

[Chris Parks]

The speed is calculated continuously by the GPS several times a second.

Cheers

Doug

Yes, ours is 10 times per second, the average GPS used in cars is about 2 times per second at best. We have experimented with twenty times a second but it gave no better results so it was ditched. Everyone gets hung up on GPS accuracy and I am far from an expert, more of an observer and serious user for sport purposes over the last six or seven years. We use it for lap times as well but again it never gives the same results as a physical transponder, close but never the same. If it were as accurate as some would want to believe the F1 teams of this world would use it and they don't.

[doug3030]

...Remember the slogan "Speed Cameras Save Lives". Can anyone give me the name of ONE person whose life was saved by a speed camera?




That's just as stupid a question. However, most of us can give you the names of plenty of people who've been killed by drivers speeding or talking on mobile phones, or both.



It looks like I am not alone with my thinking

www.caradvice.com.au/332771/are-speed-cameras-killing-us-the-stats-say-yes/ (http://www.caradvice.com.au/332771/are-speed-cameras-killing-us-the-stats-say-yes/)

Are speed cameras killing us? The stats say yes
Read more at http://www.caradvice.com.au/332771/are-speed-cameras-killing-us-the-stats-say-yes/#uBRx7iUDf3s9RHv8.99

To quote a couple of relevant paragraphs:

[QUOTE]The unfortunate reality of speed camera-biased enforcement can be demonstrated with the tragic death of pedestrian Anthony Parsons and husband and wife Savva and Ismini Menelaou, who were passengers in a Ford Falcon struck at the intersection of Warrigal and Dandenong roads in Oakleigh, Victoria last year.
Brazilian national Nei Lima DaCosta was high on ice and drove through one fixed speed camera at 30km/h over the speed limit minutes before careering through the intersection of Warrigal and Dandenong roads at 120km/h (40km/h over the speed limit) through another speed and red light camera. He killed three innocent people. These two cameras did nothing to help save the lives of three innocent people.

and


Those people that use the idiom “don’t speed and you won’t get caught” simply don’t understand the reality of driving safely. If I had the preference of watching the road or my speedometer, I know which one I would choose.

The statistics presented in the article clearly show that the only thing that the presence of speed cameras have changed is the amount of revenue the government gets.

Have a read of the article and the comments that follow. Note how quickly anyone who suggests that speed cameras are effective in lowering the road toll are shot to pieces. They are revenue raising - pure and simple.

Cheers

Doug

EDIT: or have a look at this: http://aca.ninemsn.com.au/article/8954478/drivers-fined-for-low-level-speeding

[BobL]

Have a read of the article and the comments that follow. Note how quickly anyone who suggests that speed cameras are effective in lowering the road toll are shot to pieces. They are revenue raising - pure and simple.

I had a read, a pretty shallow analysis in my view. The claim that camera actually cause deaths is fanciful and typical of the sorts of analysis done by reporters these days. Take a couple of stats and makes all sorts of claims. Increasing hospital length stays could be saying more about the over servicing that typically happens in the health system more than it does about car accidents.

The sorts of people I would take more notice of in this area are a professional motor vehicle accident data analysts. I happened to know couple of people that work in this field, these people have higher degrees in Mathematics, statistics and public health.and they have been working in this area for more than 20 years. Their view is that untangling road accident statistics and causes is very difficult and coming up with meaningful relationships is even harder - given the numbers of variables involves puts it in the "Global warming" category of toughness or maybe even harder.

The relationships involved between motor vehicle accident deaths and injuries are neither simple and most definitely "non-linear" and often counter intuitive - just because something goes up or down doesn't mean that something goes up/down in proportion. There's a fair bit of estimating (yes guessing) involved with all this but the last people I would leave the guessing to are average joe's including reporters.

Personally I don't really care if it's just a revenue raising exercise.
If we have to tax someone then speeders are OMHO as good a target as most and maybe even better than most other taxes i.e. you pay for the privilege.
If the choice is to raise income tax, or raise GST, then I would favour a rise in speeding fines.

I do agree with a couple of things in that article at the end where he talks about stopping more people for drug detection and better driver education. One piece of education that needs to come through is that drivers need to realise that a motor vehicle is not a piece of mobile private property and neither is the space around their vehicle.

[BobL]

OK - I'll play reporter with accident stats.

If speed cameras cause accidents/deaths then the states with the greatest number of cameras per capita/vehicle/km etc should have the highest deaths per capita/vehicle/km etc.

Now I haven't personally seen the data . . . . . hang on that's not what a reporter would say.

Ahemmm . . .. the data clearly shows that the states with the most cameras per capita/vehicle/km etc have the lowest deaths per capita/vehicle/km etc.

Well, this is the excuse the WA government are using to get more cameras.

Personally I just think we have more bogans and hoons per capita/vehicle/km etc :)

[doug3030]

If the choice is to raise income tax, or raise GST, then I would favour a rise in speeding fines.

Thanks for your considered opinion Bob.

I just found this online, It is the Victorian version but I doubt the others are much different: file:///C:/Users/Doug/Desktop/VicPol-Mobile-Digital-Speed-Camera-Policy.pdf

Have a look at this bit on page 4:


Where possible, sites in both metropolitan areas and regional locations should be definedby the closest intersecting streets on either side of the site with the entire length of a sitebeing kept to a minimum. In rural areas the site length should be no greater than 5kilometres. Speed zone signs should not be used to define a site boundary. This will makeit easier for motorists to determine (when referring to the infringement notice) where thealleged offence occurred.

WT?, they want you to pay the fine for speeding but they are doing everything they can to conceal from you exactly where it happened?

then add in this:


Criteria 5
Careful background evaluation of each site shall be conducted for any sources of reflectionlocated in or near the radar beam position including;
a) The possibility of vehicles entering or leaving intersections, or travelling along service roads;
b) Pole mounted electricity supply transformers;
c) Mobile road safety camera set-ups should not include sites where there are train lines whichare obscured by dense foliage – such that the MRSCO is unable to determine whether a trainis present at the time a target vehicle is detected:d) Tram and train lines: Other than (c) above, the MRSCO must indicate on the Incident Log ofthe Camera Operator’s Set-up notes the times that any images are taken where a tram or trainis within the area of the beam;
Note: Where this occurrence is frequent, the site maybe deemed as permanentlyunsuitable or in the case of trains, restricted to operate on the opposite side of the roadway(where the train lines would be behind the speed camera)
e) Metal signs - house sale / auction signs and similar;
f) Centre strip traffic signs such as No U Turn, No Right / Left Turn, Keep Left, posted speedlimit signs and large advisory cross street signs;
g) Armco road barriers or chevron signing;
h) Metal bus stop shelters, public telephone booths, Australia Post letterboxes;
i) Sheet metal garage doors, fences, factory walls and fencing structures which comprise ofclosely spaced (10cm or less) vertical metal bars.
j) Brick/Masonry StructuresThese structures are divided into two parts;ƒ Masonry structures that are over one metre in height and;ƒ Very tall masonry structures such as factory walls.

If they not only will tell you exactly where the infringement allegedly occurred but also are deliberately conspiring to hide this information, how can you check up that they have complied with the rules?

And then there is this:


Criteria 4

A site shall not be on or near an overpass, or facing any elevated adjacent road (entry orexit ramp) that may carry traffic through or near the radar beam area.

Last year in September I was booked for doing 101 km/hr in a 100 km/hr zone for a cost of $185 and one demerit point and the location was given as "Westgate Freeway, vicinity of Palmers Rd OVERPASS".

Had I read this manual at the time I would have challenged it. Tell me that is not blatant revenue raising and nothing else.

Cheers

Doug

EDIT: I forgot to mention that when I was booked fo r101 in a 100 zone my "LEGAL: speedo for a pre-2006 vehicle would have been reading 97 - 98 km/hr.

[doug3030]

Then have a look at this:

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/unclear-photos-from-two-fixed-speed-cameras-on-south-eastern-freeway-see-drivers-off-in-a-flash-and-avoiding-fines/story-fni6uo1m-1227172250212

Look at teh caption on the photo:


Unreliable photos from fixed speed cameras are costing the state hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost revenue.

Does it say unreliable speed cameras result in more accidents and deaths? No? Would have it said that if it was the case? I think yes. The only story there was the loss of government revenue.

[Homeleigh]

Speedos are not allowed to read over. They can read up to 10% under. If your speedo is showing 100 and the GPS a higher speed then I suggest you do not have the specified tyres fitted or there have been other modifications to the vehicle.

Any are thatis open to and used by cars is a highway under the Act. McDonald's and like places fit that criteria.

In Victoria fines go to consolidated revenue. None goes to the police department.

[BobL]

EDIT: I forgot to mention that when I was booked fo r101 in a 100 zone my "LEGAL: speedo for a pre-2006 vehicle would have been reading 97 - 98 km/hr.

Yeah but - no but - yeah but, . . . . . . you just like like a trouble makes so we'll throw the book at ya!

[doug3030]

Speedos are not allowed to read over. They can read up to 10% under. If your speedo is showing 100 and the GPS a higher speed then I suggest you do not have the specified tyres fitted or there have been other modifications to the vehicle.

If you had bothered to read the thread before replying you would see that that matter has already been adequately covered and the legislation saying that speedos must read under was introduced in 2006. This is a 2003 vehicle we are talking about. If you want to jump in half way at least read the background.

As previously stated, my wheels and tyres are standard and no other relevant modifications have been made to the vehicle.


As for speedo accuracy, I just found the ADR's and for 2006 & beyond they state speedo's cannot read low but can read high - cars & trucks +6kph, mopeds +4kph and motorbikes +8kph.
My 04 BA Falcon is thus outside the rules, when I have the GPS on the speedo reads about 8k less than the GPS.


My last three cars mentioned above that all have speedos reading low were 1998, 2002 and 2003 and thus not covered by this rule either, but there are still a hell of a lot of cars out there that are completely legal whose drivers can be booked for innocently trusting the accuracy of their speedo.

Doug

[Pearo]

I got booked a few years back on the motorcycle. Bruce highway, somewhere south of Bundy vicinty. I knew I was speeding, keen to get home, was doing 120kph on the bike speedo. GPS was reading 114kph. Got booked doing 114kph. GPS was a Garmin Montana. Same GPS has also been speed matched to those portable speed signs you find at roadworks sometimes.

I trust my GPS now!!

Anyway, speeding kills apparently, so dont do it.

[Ari2]

Mark David, what have you started...this could easily be the elephant in the forum:o

[BobL]

While some things mentioned here seem a bit harsh, given what else goes on in the rest of Australia and the world my sympathies for speeders is low on my "sympathy priority list"

My experience with folks who constantly complain about being caught for speeding is that they are usually "boundary pushers"
The half dozen times they have been caught pales into insignificance compared to the 100's or 1000's of time they have been speeding.
These folks should think about it in terms of the whacks you got from your dad, and when you complained and said "I didn't do it" and then he said "Well that one is for the other times that I didn't catch you"

Yes I have been pinged for speeding (twice in 40+ years of driving) once I was doing 90 in a 70 and the young copper "liked my old BMW MC" and let me off with a warning, and the other time was about 5 years back and it was for doing 52 in a 40 roadworks area, right outside the main Perth cop shop in East Perth, I was daydreaming and shoulda paid more at attention -entirely my fault.

[mark david]

You might be right, aren't I naughty:D

Don't even get me started on the terrible freeway safety barriers! but thats another story (will save that one for later)


Mark David, what have you started...this could easily be the elephant in the forum:o

[FenceFurniture]

There seems to be a new culture of even +1 over the limit will result in an infringement. Apparently the mobile RTA (non-cop) cameras are set to this in NSW. I think I previously stated that I had been informed by those who know that cameras were set to +10% +4, meaning that in a 60 zone you wouldn't be pinged until you hit 70 (60+6+4), and a 100 zone it would be 115. I have always though this was too generous, btw.

If this is the new culture (anything over) then a few things need to happen for fairness of the system:


A publicity campaign to say anything over will get you a ticket (because I believe it's pretty widely known that there has always been leeway)
An adjustment to the penalties, commensurate with the differences in braking distances. That is, there'd be bugger all difference in braking distance between 100 and 101 (Bob?), and probably only slightly more for 102-103. The point being that (say) the difference in braking distance is 2 metres (100/101). You may say "AHA! that 2 metres is the difference between hitting something or not". Well, yeeeeahhh, but I reckon hitting something at 1kph or less isn't going to do much (if any) damage - even to flesh. We need to be sensible about this.
The penalties should no longer be for 10-14, 15-25 over the limit or whatever they are, but should be based on strictly percentages. Reasoning here is that 60 in a 40 zone is a helluva lot more dangerous than 130 in a 100 zone (usually a motorway). 60/40 is 50% more speed and therefore MUCH more braking distance. 130/110 is only 18% more speed by comparison but gets the same fine and points. Furthermore, braking, and particularly emergency braking is very rarely required on a motorway, whereas in close traffic I always have my very well trained left foot hovering over the brake (no contact - no constant irritating brake lights) so that the reaction/delay time is absolutely minimised. I drive an auto.
I think to be fair, anything less than 5 over should not attract demerit points. ANYONE can drift over the limit by a tad under the various circumstances a driver has to cope with. There are more important things to look out for than a miserable +1 speed. I would argue that to maintain the speed precisely one would have to have the car in cruise control, and even then it will still go over under regular circumstances, plus the fact that not all car have CC. You would have to be constantly looking at the speedo, and as I say, that would be to a large safety detriment.


I wonder if I can work out a simple % system? Let's call it $10 for every 1% over the limit.
In a 40 zone: 41 gets you a $30 fine, no points, 45 gets you a $130 fine plus point(s), 60 (a common one I'll bet) gets you a $500 fine
In a 60 zone: 61 gets you a $20 fine, no points, 65 gets you a $90 fine plus point(s), 80 gets you a $330 fine
In a 80 zone: 81 gets you a $20 fine, no points, 85 gets you a $70 fine plus point(s), 100 gets you a $250 fine
In a 100 zone: 101 gets you a $10 fine, no points, 105 gets you a $50 fine plus point(s), 120 gets you a $200 fine

Well, that kinda appears to work roughly how the braking distance differences might work, and certainly brings a commensurate penalty for +20 in a 40 zone compared to a 100 zone.

Without the above, then this new era of "+1 and you're done" can ONLY seem to be revenue raising. Fair's fair.

[BobL]

There's a big misconception about speed limits. They are the maximum speed for a vehicle in good working order, with a moderate load, in good weather conditions, good visibility (i.e. not at night) and moderate traffic (fortunately in high traffic the speeds slow down naturally).

This means in most situations vehicles cars should probably only doing 5 to 10 k BELOW the speed limit. This obsession to be travelling at or 1 or two ks below the speed limit AT ALL TIMES is what we should be cracking on the head.

There has to be a line in the sand so I have no problem with picking people up that "drifted over the limit" even for 1 km an hour if the traffic conditions warrant it
If you are the kind of person that drifts +/- 5 km then you should sit at 5ks under the limit and you won't get pinged.

What I do have issue with is that the penalties for going slightly over should probably be reasonable and the stop used as an educational opportunity.

[FenceFurniture]

Largely agreed Bob, but Cameras (or their operators) don't take traffic conditions into consideration, or day/night.

I actually do sit a few kph under the limit to minimise drifting over as much as possible, but there are times when downhill + prevailing other priorities can result in drifting over. Edit: Around my local very hilly area I always have the (auto) transmission in second gear - needed for uphill, and acts as a brake downhill - there's almost no flat ground up here. end edit. I do pay quite a lot of attention to the speedo (or GPS) and as soon as I see a drift over I correct it. I guess that also needs to be taken into account - "how long was the infringement occurring for?". If it's just for a few seconds then no action should be taken as it is obvious the driver took corrective action. In NSW I know that this has been the case - in court I have heard coppers saying that they monitored it for so and so seconds and it was steady/increasing/decreasing. That to me indicated that if it was decreasing then that would be taken into account.

As far as getting the general population to usually drive at 5-10 below - I just can't see that happening. I've got a sneaking feeling that the logic behind the speed limits as they are set, plus the historic leeway factor, means that they really want us to stay less than 10kph over the limit. In other words, areas signed as 60 have been deemed "safe" at 70. If that is the case, in what seems to be the new regime of "+1 and you're done" the limits need to be set at the deemed safe limit and an intensive campaign of public awareness and education undertaken, and book anyone for going over by +1. No problem with that.

I mean, raising awareness is not a hard thing to do - a simple mailout to all drivers - they know where each and every one of us live.

That is all said based upon saving lives, and not raising revenue, of course. Far too often I've seen mobile cameras and radar guns set up at "gimme" locations where there are plenty of more dangerous places nearby to be speeding. For example, when I lived in the Southern Highlands there was a favourite spot on the motorway that was manned probably twice per week. I never saw a radar set up anywhere else in the highlands, and there are plenty of treacherous roads there (a truck became a fireball just this morning).

If they really were serious about saving lives, and being seen not to be raising revenue,then mobile cameras and radar traps would spring up in different locations all the time, not the same old "gimme" spots that are nowhere near as dangerous as other places.

I should think that saved lives and injuries would be far more cost effective than the revenue raised......

[rustynail]

My daughter got pulled up the other day, the officer advised her she was sitting right on the speed limit.
Why?

[FenceFurniture]

My daughter got pulled up the other day, the officer advised her she was sitting right on the speed limit.
Why?:shrug: Did he also tell her what gear she was in?

[Wrongwayfirst]

:shrug: Did he also tell her what gear she was in?
Maybe it was the "gear" she was in which prompted the police officer to pull her over.:B:B

[ian]

As far as getting the general population to usually drive at 5-10 below - I just can't see that happening. I've got a sneaking feeling that the logic behind the speed limits as they are set, plus the historic leeway factor, means that they really want us to stay less than 10kph over the limit. In other words, areas signed as 60 have been deemed "safe" at 70. If that is the case, in what seems to be the new regime of "+1 and you're done" the limits need to be set at the deemed safe limit and an intensive campaign of public awareness and education undertaken, and book anyone for going over by +1. No problem with that.Historically road design was based on the expected 85 percentile speed -- i.e. the speed BELOW which 85% of people were expected to travel.
Design criteria contain some measure of forgiveness for people travelling above the 85 percentile speed -- which doesn't mean that 140km/h on a 100km/h design is catered for.

More recently, in NSW at least, the trend has been to select a design speed that is 10km/h ABOVE the intended speed limit -- to provide a "margin of safety". (BTW I don't agree with this philosophy -- but this is not the forum to air my objections.)

Speed limits tend to be based on the length of a section of road, the spacing of driveways into adjoining property, the speed limit on adjacent sections, how busy the section of road is, the number and spacing of intersections, and what is a reasonable maximum speed for the distances typically travelled by Australian drivers -- there's more but those will do for now.

Just be glad you don't live in Sweden.
There their "Vision Zero" is based on a maximum speed of 70km/h on any road without a central median barrier and 30km/h in areas used by pedestrians.
On that basis it would take 8 or 9 hours to drive from Melbourne to Mildura and over 11 hours to get from Dubbo to Broken Hill.

Implementation of something similar in AUS would have a major impact on rural communities

[rustynail]

Maybe it was the "gear" she was in which prompted the police officer to pull her over.:B:B
Yeah, we were suspicious that was the reason. I think the serve she gave him would have settled him down a bit.

[pmcgee]

We have had a "Drop 5(kph)" campaign over here in WA for a while ... it sickens me.

Alleging 5kph is a useful change in speed was someone's thought bubble, ... and then the advertising to try to promote and justify it.

As a commercial (night-time) driver for 25years, I'd rather see people looking out their windscreens than down at their speedo, regardless of their (reasonable) speed.

Rather than obsess about whether they were 1km over the limit, I'd rather they
- left more room to the next car
- observed the traffic at intersections 50m before they got there
- checked for traffic at the lights before moving, regardless of the light going green
- learnt how to read the 'body language' of other cars
- etc

There's a lot of looking and being aware that needs to be done while driving.
I think focussing on speed is a poor proxy for competent driving.

Cheers,
Paul

[doug3030]

I think focussing on speed is a poor proxy for competent driving.

From a road safety point of view that is a definite - but it will not transfer half a billion dollars a year from our collective pockets to the government coffers.

Cheers

Doug

[BobL]

RE:There's a lot of looking and being aware that needs to be done while driving.
I agree Paul, driver attention to their surroundings is very ordinary.

It's instructive to watch a drivers eyes and head to determine how aware they are of their surroundings.
Most drivers have a sort of fixed head position with a vacant glazed look which goes even glassier if they're talking even on a hands free mobile,
For instance, about the only time most drivers use mirrors is when reversing, overtaking, or changing lanes (although disturbingly I've noticed a bit less of this lately) so mostly they haven't got a clue who or what is behind them.

When I did my driver instructors cert, for the first week we were re-taught to drive by a bloke who was a police driver instructor from the UK.
We were taught using what was called "roving eyes" and verbally describing what you were looking at
This was a constant shifting of attention/focus, switching randomly between all mirrors, left and right sides of the vehicle, close, medium and far distance ahead of the vehicles, and the vehicle dashboard to report our speed and any other vehicle parameters that might have changed.
Far distant checks, Mirrors and dash checks had to be glances, with more time spent on L/R and medium/close distance checks.
While training we also had to say what all the road signs we passed were. Special attention was to be paid to road conditions, pedestrians and bicycles etc.
We were scored on number of relevant descriptions per minute and these varied according to traffic conditions.

Initially this is very difficult to do and even harder to keep up for more than about 10 minutes let alone a couple of hours, but eventually it becomes automatic although, unless regularly practiced, like most things it fades in time . I can still do it if I concentrate, but that's the point - very few drivers are really consciously concentrating on what they're doing and drive in a semi-zombi mode and this is cause of many problems. "The reason for the accident your Honour was I just didn't see . . . . . . . ", should really be " . . .. was I driving in zombie mode"

What I want to know is if it is good enough for UK cops to use this why isn't it a mandatory part of driver training for everyone?

[FenceFurniture]

What I want to know is if it is good enough for UK cops to use this why isn't it a mandatory part of driver training for everyone?Indeed. As should so-called "advanced driving skills". They should be normal driving skills. The only down side of that is that P-Platers will think they are even more invincible.

I'd like to have a dollar for every time a driver has impatiently gone around me to get ahead at speed when I have slowed down a tad about 100 metres from a currently red light. This means that the lights were green by the time I got there - I've not had to use the brakes, and used less petrol in simply (more or less) maintaining my speed (I may have slowed by 10-15 kph for a short while by merely releasing the accelerator).

The other driver is of course stationary at the lights as I cruise past, and so the cycle begins all over again......

Less petrol, less brakewear, less stress, AND more time to observe what's going on around me.

If I'm (say) 200-300 metres away from a light that is green then I usually assume that it will be red by the time I get there at my current speed. If I slow down a bit the chances are that it might be in the next phase of green upon my arrival. Therefore by slowing down for a bit I have overall increased the speed of my journey. No rocket science involved.

Boggles the mind how many people are in a hurry to stop at a red light.

[A Duke]

Acceleration. That which enables you to have a longer rest at the next red light.

[Opelblues2]

Nothing worse for a heavy truck driver than the car driver that coasts to a set of lights or starts to brake 100 - 200mt from the traffic lights, you have 4 or 6 gears to change I have a total of 16. As for speeding I don't because I can't. governed engine, drive line. as well I can't see the reason to exceed the posted limit for the section of road. IE From Mackay to Nebo at 10 km over the posted limit will only save you 6min. from Mackay to Rocky at 10km over the posted limit will only save you 36min. this is with a clear run, no traffic works or slow drivers. IS IT WORTH IT !!!

[FenceFurniture]

Nothing worse for a heavy truck driver than the car driver that coasts to a set of lights or starts to brake 100 - 200mt from the traffic lights, you have 4 or 6 gears to change I have a total of 16. Well all these things have to be done with current conditions and traffic in mind of course, but surely the principle is even more relevant when so many gear changes are involved? Knock off a little speed and go back a gear or two or even three has got to be better than stopping and then going back up through 16 gears. Maybe I'm missing something but I can't see how the size of the vehicle or number of gears changes the basic premise - delay getting there and by the time you do get there you don't have to stop - just cruise on through.

[doug3030]

Well all these things have to be done with current conditions and traffic in mind of course, but surely the principle is even more relevant when so many gear changes are involved? Knock off a little speed and go back a gear or two or even three has got to be better than stopping and then going back up through 16 gears. Maybe I'm missing something but I can't see how the size of the vehicle or number of gears changes the basic premise - delay getting there and by the time you do get there you don't have to stop - just cruise on through.

But what about the people who are behind you who may not need to stop? How about the scenario where there is a right turn lane and the right turn arrow is green but the cars behind you cannot reach the right turn lane in time to go around because you are cruising along slowly in front of them because you don't want to come to a complete stop? I bet they would be cursing you. Same thing with a "turn left anytime with care" lane.

That type of driving causes far more inconvenience to other road users than what you perceive it saves you.

Cheers

Doug

[FenceFurniture]

I repeat:

Well all these things have to be done with current conditions and traffic in mind of course,


And...

it is no different to what Bob was saying about the speed limit. Nobody is compelled to drive at the limit, so me slowing down a tad is no different to another person travelling at that lower speed consistently. In other words, if it's that important for a car behind to get to the lights quicker then they can go around. If it's a single lane road - well nobody is a mind reader and knows what the intentions of the car behind are.

Having said that, if they have a right blinker on, and I can see that it will inconvenience them that I'll do what I can to minimise that, but I won't go hugely out of my way. I'll accommodate what is feasible at the time.

[FenceFurniture]

That type of driving causes far more inconvenience to other road users than what you perceive it saves you.Actually Doug, the kind of driving that you are perceiving there describes a mate of mine to a tee. He-could-not-care-less about other drivers, and is obsessed about fuel economy. He'll ease off the accelerator before the crest of a hill so that he just craaaawwwls over the crest (out of gear of course) and then coasts down the hill. If it's a big hill he will then zip past all the people he has just held up (because they have gone around him in frustration) and then hold them up on the next hill.

A giant PITA on the road. His methods are fallacious in many ways - he just doesn't understand thee concept of dropping back a gear at the base of an uphill (where the revs are up) and easing off the accelerator. Far more fuel efficient than squeezing the accelerator down to get the maximum out of top gear until the engine is labouring and then changing down halfway up the hill. He's just got a mindset that staying in the highest gear (regardless of accel pedal depression) must be more fuel efficient. Same thing with driving out of gear - must be more efficient, regardless of how dangerous that can be, and how totally unprepared he is to take evasive action (we have to drive allowing for the other dickhead - defensive driving). Until reasonably established otherwise, I assume the other drivers around me could be incompetent.

These days, with him, I usually insist that I drive. It's too embarrassing and frustrating being his passenger. And I'm saving him fuel over his dopey methods.....

[doug3030]

Actually Doug, the kind of driving that you are perceiving there describes a mate of mine to a tee. He-could-not-care-less about other drivers....

Sounds like my ex-brother-in-law. I had my niece, his daughter (primary school age) in my car once and the conversation went something like this:


Niece: You drive up to the red lights and stop. Dad slows down and tries to avoid stopping. Dad says that makes him a better driver than you.

Me: Really? Well I think I am a better driver than your dad.

Niece: Why?

Me: For exactly the same reason.

Niece: What?

Me: Well, next time your dad slows down like that for a red light, have a look at the drivers who go past and turn off to the left or right. See if they are mouthing insults at your dad. He is slowing them down, they might not have to slow down if he drove sensibly.

(a few weeks later)

Niece: Uncle Doug, you were right. The other drivers are always giving dad dirty looks.


The Brother-in-law was absolutely obsessed with not coming to a complete halt at lights and really did annoy people, but he could not see what a problem it was for others. I was in his car once when someone else did the same thing to him when he wanted to turn on the green arrow. He cursed and swore at this driver and said they should not even be on the roads. It never occurred to him that they were doing the same thing as he does.

Cheers

Doug

[FenceFurniture]

The Brother-in-law was absolutely obsessed with not coming to a complete halt at lightsYeah, so am I to an extent.....

.....but without this bit:

and really did annoy people

[BobL]

Here's something few people know about.

Lets say the speed limit on a freeway is 100 and the traffic density is high but not yet grid locked .

What is the optimum speed for the roads to transfer the maximum number of cars ?
It turns out that if everyone sticks between 70 and 80 this will result in the shortest average time on the road.

For medium-high traffic density it's 80-90.
The speed limit only really results in a minimum time trip for medium to light traffic density.

The reason is that slower traffic results in less surging (fast - slow - stop) and cars being able to safely keep closer together.

The lane switchers and tailgaters that insist on trying to do the speed limit in higher traffic densities only slow things down not just for everyone else but for them as well.

This is major real reason for variable traffic speeds in places like Europe.

Interestingly this was being discussed today on Radio National's Future tense.

[FenceFurniture]

The reason is that slower traffic results in less surging (fast - slow - stop) and cars being able to safely keep closer together.

The lane switchers and tailgaters that insist on trying to do the speed limit in higher traffic densities only slow things down not just for everyone else but for them as well.That makes absolutely perfect sense Bob - there is no point in trying to travel at very much more than the average speed of the entire journey. I've often wished (and said) that people should drive with ant mentality, particularly when it comes to merging - one from the left, one from the right, with everybody reducing their speed beforehand to the speed they will need after the merge. When was the last time anyone saw a traffic jam or pile up on an ant trail? Err, without the aid of insecticide. :;

But no, what we get is the fwits that drive up as far as they can in the lane that's ending, thinking that because they're 4 car lengths further up they've made REAL PROGRESS, when all they have done is forced other people to stop upon their insistence - and slowed their stupid selves down as a result..

Whenever I see traffic entering from the left (particularly on a motorway), and I'm in the left lane, I immediately switch to the right lane if possible. It's just sense - I don't have to slow down and neither do those that are entering.

Sorry if we are getting a little off track Mark (OP), but it's all pretty relevant I guess.

Going back to my red light strategy for a moment: I remember one one night coming home from afternoon shift (so about 11 pm or so) from Sydney CBD in the mid 1970s. I was getting an absurdly good run with green lights which is quite miraculous in Sydney at any time of the clock. It became a game for me, so I decided to see how far I could go without actually stopping. In the end it was about 20km. Perhaps this was when I started developing my slow down in advance technique. :U

[doug3030]

What is the optimum speed for the roads to transfer the maximum number of cars ?
It turns out that if everyone sticks between 70 and 80 this will result in the shortest average time on the road.

Are we talking about transferring the maximum number of cars or about an individual car reaching its destination in the shortest possible time?

Lets look at optimum speed to transfer the maximum number of cars first. Lets make a huge assumption that everyone is following the accepted guidelines of leaving 2 seconds travelling time between their vehicle and the one in front of them. to make the maths simple lets assume that the distance is measured from the centre of the car to avoid complicating the equation by the length of the vehicle.

Based on that assumption, it does not matter how fast they are going, the road will allow passage for the same number of cars per hour.
Taking it a stage further and allowing for the vehicles to have length, then obviously, the faster the vehicle goes, the less time it takes to travel its own length, so the faster they are travelling the more vehicles will be able to traverse a given length of road. One point for travelling faster.

Now for the shortest average time on the road: Its a no-brainer isn't it? The faster you can go the sooner you get there. We hear people say "It took a while to get here because the traffic was bad" have you ever heard someone say "It took a while to get here but the road was actually transferring the optimum number of cars". I have never heard anyone say that or even care about that. I do not know any traffic engineers or town planners.

If people are travelling in a 100km/hr zone and doing 70 or 80 instead of 100 surely it is because that stretch of road will not support that volume of traffic travelling at the posted speed limit. We get this on a daily basis in Melbourne, and I am sure in most other large/capital cities. Saying that you will get there faster by sitting on 80 instead of 100 is just government spin doctoring. The solution is to upgrade the roads, not to lie to the people. Not all of us are stupid.

Cheers

Doug

[FenceFurniture]

Not all of us are stupid.Well ExKEEyuse me - speak for yourself. :D

[doug3030]

Well ExKEEyuse me - speak for yourself. :D

Well if you cannot identify with NOT being stupid its not my fault :D :D :D :2tsup::2tsup: :2tsup::2tsup:

(note excessive use of smilies. If I add many more the board will reject the post.)

Cheers

Doug

[ian]

I do not know any traffic engineers ...
Cheers

DougHello Doug

Now you do :)

[doug3030]

Hello Doug

Now you do :)

Hi Ian, I certainly hope you are better than the one who does the work for our local council or you won't be getting any invites to my barbeques either :D :D :D

Cheers

Doug

[pmcgee]

I say employing some people to do *this* would be a reasonable use of speeding $$s


https://vimeo.com/122888442

[doug3030]

I say employing some people to do *this* would be a reasonable use of speeding $$s


https://vimeo.com/122888442

I do not have a motor cycle but I have actually done similar things to people who richly deserve it. If we can get some funding I would apply for the job. :2tsup:

Cheers

Doug

[FenceFurniture]

Hello Doug

Now you do :)Ah, well just the man then Ian. Rather than keep going OT, perhaps you can help me here (http://www.woodworkforums.com/showthread.php?t=193545&p=1852512).

[BobL]

If people are travelling in a 100km/hr zone and doing 70 or 80 instead of 100 surely it is because that stretch of road will not support that volume of traffic travelling at the posted speed limit. We get this on a daily basis in Melbourne, and I am sure in most other large/capital cities. Saying that you will get there faster by sitting on 80 instead of 100 is just government spin doctoring. The solution is to upgrade the roads, not to lie to the people. Not all of us are stupid.

Yes it is about volume of traffic and we all experience that but it's more subtle than just the road not being big enough. In the US they tried to cope with congestion by just adding more lanes to the freeways and they found it did not help much. To get the traffic to travel at the speed limit during peak periods would require 10 -15 lanes which has its own problems not to mention the cost so there has to be a smarter way.

It is definitely not easy to explain but I'll give it a try. If you try to sit on 100 along with a substantial proportion of the other inconsiderate drivers who also insist (it's the goddam right after all) to sit on 100 the pack will indeed end up moving at 70. If everyone was to not do more than 80 then the average pack speed will indeed be more than 70. A single inconsiderate driver may indeed be able to average significantly more than this provided the other inconsiderate divers don't join that driver in attempting to travel at the speed limit. As soon as enough inconsiderate drivers start doing this the pack speed will drop as week as the individual drivers speed will also drop.

This has nothing to do with government spin doctors. Its a classic optimisation problem in mathematics. These mathematicians are paid big bucks to determine the optimum speed and sequence of all sorts of processes, computer programs, timetables, loading shipping containers, sequences of digging up ores, assembly of manufactured goods, traffic flow etc. They save businesses and governments billions of dollars a year. Modern society would collapse if these guys did not do their stuff. If you think this is peanuts and common sense just try reading the technical reports they put out - most of us are unlikely to even understand the paragraph let alone the text. Heres a link to a study of increasing average freeway on ramp speeds http://www.me.berkeley.edu/~horowitz/Publications_files/Papers_numbered/Journal/Lu_VSL_CRM_TRR_2011.pdf

Some of these problem was tackled many years ago. It's a failure of governments to implement their recommendations which has lead to greater congestion than necessary. Look at how long it took to automate traffic lights for major minor road intersections to give a time priority to the major road and that one was common sense.

The lower speed does indeed sound stupid but it has been demonstrated in places like Germany where they usually have unlimited speed limits on freeways. They installed variable speed limits on some sections of their autobahns near major cities and by imposing a speed limit of 130 or 80 or whatever they got more cars through per hour than they did when it was all open speed limit. If anything the spin doctoring centred around too high a traffic density making it too dangerous for open speed limits in the situations but the traffic engineers were more interested in getting more cars through.

Here is another one that has been studied in great detail. When two major freeways meet at higher traffic density, vehicle merging can be a nightmare. The degree of congestion is largely controlled by the drivers that insist on doing the speed limit. This leads to massive stop start driving and the inevitable Crawl. If the speed limits are dropped by 20 kph more cars get through in the least possible time. This is now commonly used in European freeway junctions.

[FenceFurniture]

Its a classic optimisation problem in mathematics.And the ants have had it nailed for millions of years, god bless 'em.

I'm not going anywhere near that link of yours Bob - it'll fry my brain and I'm just off to beddiebyes.