speeding offences

[doug3030]

Then have a look at this:

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/s...-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

[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

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

[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?

Did he also tell her what gear she was in?

[Wrongwayfirst]

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.

[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