Printable View
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?
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by doug3030
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Splinter
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BobL
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by doug3030
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 :)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by mark david
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
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,Quote:
Originally Posted by cava
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by shedbound
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
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by smidsy
That is a good point. Maybe fines should be indexed to the value of the car?Quote:
Originally Posted by BobL
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.
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?
Hi,Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Splinter
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
How do the police get away with enforcing the vehicle code on private property, e.g. a car park?Quote:
Originally Posted by shedbound