Speeding fine

[silentC]

No need for apology! I can give as good as I get but am still happy to have a laugh about it later

I'm also very grumpy on Monday mornings. :mad:

[HappyHammer]

No worries Hammer but you need to do some homework first.

Study these numbers

50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 110.

What about the wrinkly limit 40-30-40-30-40-30, might be difficult to fit on a sign

Do I pass?

HH.

[Dan_574]

well ross it was the way you were having a go at the person who booked you that they are on some sought of quota, wanting to rise through the ranks etc that I took offence at.
Lets look at your situation as you state in your first post you were booked at 81ks which if qld is like here you were probably doing 83(i will stand corrected if so) at 81ks your doing 22.5 metres per second. you say the copper was 1 or 2 seconds in when you were booked now if the copper is sitting there watching he has a 1 or 2 second time to react another 1 or 2 seconds to get your speed then another 1 or 2 seconds to put the gun down and then another 1 or 2 seconds to intercept you so here is 4 to 8 seconds that you have been travelling at 81 which equates to between 90 to 180 metres, these were rough estimates and in all probability it would be longer, thus increasing your distance, now if you look at from your view if you rounded a corner 1 or 2 second reaction time, you haven't even passed the sign yet, apply brakes which would have given you enough time to wipe off 20ks before seeing mr plod.
now no copper in there right mind would sit right on the change in speed zone because we all know that that if it was to be contested at court we would loose especially if you say that it just sprang out at you. Qld would be no different either in the way roadworks are set up in that it should have a set of speed signs then a repeater set 100m or so in front of the first set.
If he was using a laser or lidar which Im sure he would, (if it was a radar and there were other cars around they would cause interference) it should have the distance that you were checked at.
Here in vic police policy(not the law) states that we shouldnt sit within 100 metres of a speed sign(there are exceptions) this is due to fairness.
Most people who get booked and then think about it, start to believe that they were hard done by, if he was that close to the change in speed zone take it to court and Im sure you would have a good chance of getting off, in all likely hood you would have been at least 100 metres into the zone when checked. You said in your first post that you were 100m OR SO from the speed change then it later changes to 2 seconds which is only 65m, your stories already changed.

[Sturdee]

Get real................... Doesn’t some spirited, human aspect of your intellects advise you that you’re being pendantically and condescendingly sanctimonious when you know full well that a lot of what I said is right.

Why don't you get REAL.

You were speeding before you got to the speed reduction sign and failed to slow down at all. Then you get pinged and whinge about revenue raising.

What if someone walked onto that road and you hit it. You probably would have killed such person. No doubt you think that is also being pendantic and a condescending sanctimonious point of view. But it happens.:mad:

Personally I think that the police should be tougher than they are and have at least 4 times as many speed traps on our roads until drivers learn that speed kills and that road rules are there to be obeyed by all, especially truck drivers.

Last year I sat on a jury where we saw first hand the carnage that speed brought about in a collission that would not have happened if the law had been obeyed. An innocent passenger in the other car killed and that driver suffered permanent brain damage as well as the offending driver and his passenger mate.

We found him guilty and he got 4 1/2 years but two families were and still are totally devastated.

So don't tell me I'm pendantic and condescending or sanctimonious or that you are making sense, for you are not. :mad: You are just a speeder that got caught, and IMO still got of lightly.

Peter.

[DanP]

I'm not going to bother with the "you were speeding" etc. I'm going to specifically address the coments on camera's, seatbelts and revenue raising. Let me say firstly that I don't like the way in which speed cameras are used in Victoria.

In 1970, compulsory wearing of seatbelts was introduced. The Road toll was 1061. In 1971 the road toll was 140 less. Coincidence?

In 1976, the road toll was 938 when random breath testing was introduced respectively. Over the next four years, the road toll dropped by nearly 300. Coincidence?

In 80, 81 and 82 Radar, Booze buses and Red light cameras were introduced. By 1988, 65 less lives were lost. Coincidence?

In 1989 the road toll was 777 ( a bad year). Speed camera's were introduced and in 1990, the road toll was a staggering 229 less than 1989 and has steadily decreased ever since. Coincidence?

Speeding is a causal factor in 26% of fatal crashes in Victoria.

Less than 1% of infringements issued by police (as opposed to 78% for cameras) are for 0 - 9 km/h above the speed limit.

Dan

[dazzler]

Hey Ross

Can you do us a favour. Tomorrow ring the copper who booked you, his number and name should be on the fine. Ask him politely how far into the zone you were.

The spiel he would give on the ticket (or machine) should be something like;

LASER: Speed was checked at 81km/h at a distance of xxx metres. Stationed xxxm nth of x.

RADAR: Speed was checked over x metres for x secs and seen to be 82km/h. Location x metres from x.

(different methods for different states.)

This is done so that plod can later state exactly where he was if the matter proceeds to court.

If he was using a laser he should have recorded the distance he was from you and a fixed object. If he was using a radar then as Dan says the check would have been over a certain time/distance. He will know and should tell you, unless there is something he has to worry about .

It would be interesting to know. If he has checked you as you say he has then you have every right to complain as I doubt very much if he is using it within guidelines and if so he needs to be councelled big time.

And if this is the case then you need to at the very least write to his supervisor and have the matter reviewed.

Ask if there is a minimum distance that you can be booked coming into a speed change area. There is no reason why he wouldnt tell you and if he wont speak to his supervisor.

I dont think anyones been overly harsh on you. You asked the question and, just like at the local, got told by some.

I do disagree totally with some of your thoughts on it being impossible to break the law. I have taught over 2500 coppers to drive and I can assure you that sitting next to them they manage it otherwise no licence would be forthcoming. Just takes commitment to the task at hand.

And the sad thing is, over the years that i was involved in Accident Investigations, it was multiples of little mistakes/lack of concentration that caused a lot of fatal accidents.

IE : Just a little bit over the limit and a little lack of concentration/stupidity and poor timing that caused lots of major collisions.

Cant wait to hear what plod said

[dazzler]

I'm not going to bother with the "you were speeding" etc. I'm going to specifically address the coments on camera's, seatbelts and revenue raising. Let me say firstly that I don't like the way in which speed cameras are used in Victoria.

In 1970, compulsory wearing of seatbelts was introduced. The Road toll was 1061. In 1971 the road toll was 140 less. Coincidence?

In 1976, the road toll was 938 when random breath testing was introduced. Over the next four years, the road toll dropped by nearly 300. Coincidence?

In 80, 81 and 82 Radar, Booze buses and Red light cameras were introduced. By 1988, 65 less lives were lost. Coincidence?

In 1989 the road toll was 777 ( a bad year). Speed camera's were introduced and in 1990, the road toll was a staggering 229 less than 1989 and has steadily decreased ever since. Coincidence?

Speeding is a causal factor in 26% of fatal crashes in Victoria.

Less than 1% of infringements issued by police (as opposed to 78% for cameras) are for 0 - 9 km/h above the speed limit.

Dan

Nah, just revenue raisin!

Spot on Danp. I went back through the ACT records for fatals a few years ago and it showed a greater than half the reduction of fatalities when seat belts were made compulsory.

I have given out seven 0-9k infringements. All for overtaking me and saying they thought I had to give them 15 to 20k before booking......


cheers

dazzler

[echnidna]

I have given out seven 0-9k infringements. All for overtaking me and saying they thought I had to give them 15 to 20k before booking......

They deserved a ticket for stupidity

[Schtoo]

Sounds like idiot tax...

[shep]

In 1970, compulsory wearing of seatbelts was introduced. The Road toll was 1061. In 1971 the road toll was 140 less. Coincidence?

In 1976, the road toll was 938 when random breath testing was introduced respectively. Over the next four years, the road toll dropped by nearly 300. Coincidence?

In 80, 81 and 82 Radar, Booze buses and Red light cameras were introduced. By 1988, 65 less lives were lost. Coincidence?

In 1989 the road toll was 777 ( a bad year). Speed camera's were introduced and in 1990, the road toll was a staggering 229 less than 1989 and has steadily decreased ever since. Coincidence?

Speeding is a causal factor in 26% of fatal crashes in Victoria.

Less than 1% of infringements issued by police (as opposed to 78% for cameras) are for 0 - 9 km/h above the speed limit.

Dan

gday
i wonder what the death toll would be if people were tought to control a car rather then point it in the right direction. as for speeding if it was so dangerious no drivers would be left alive in the N.T (no speed limit on open roads) i have just spent 6 years living in NSW and was stunned at how people drove i honestly felt safer riding at over 250kph in the territory.
cheers shep

[Rossluck]

I want to apologise to any police officers who may have been offended by anything I’ve written here. I know you have a tough job and I didn’t mean to unite you all under the “revenue collecting” tag.

[ernknot]

You got busted, pay the penalty and move on. At least learn from this and slow down, you save fuel as well.

[namtrak]

I want to apologise to any police officers who may have been offended by anything I’ve written here. I know you have a tough job and I didn’t mean to unite you all under the “revenue collecting” tag.

I got a $300 fine a few months ago (two weeks before christmas to be exact) for covering my license plate. I had a towball on which partially covered the plate (check out Subaru Foresters they are walking/driving fine bombs). I was a tad upset and let the officer at the time know exactly I thought. I do landscaping during the day and use the trailer all day, I was just dropping SWMBO off at work. As I let a steady stream of invective off at the officer, I was duly warned by SWMBO that police are now armed - I calmed down somewhat!! Anyway I sent off a letter to everyone I could think of - Infringement Board, Police Monister, ARB Management etc etc. Still had to pay the fine, but after a few weeks I had a pang of guilt that, whilst I was peeved at this officer I still could have effected his employment in someway - so I subsequently sent off an apology. At the end of the day - I figured he was only doing his job.

CHeers

[jmk89]

My 2c.

I am glad that our forum members who are also police officers seem to take a sensible view of speeding - ie they are really after the guys who are just way over and dangerous. That's been my experience over the last almost 30 years of driving. On 110 roads I know that I am sometimes over by 5-10kph, but rarely if ever more. So far, I haven't been fined.

My greater concern is the one that has been mentioned already - people plodding along in the RH lane (and plodding includes at the speed limit, because every driver knows that even if that is the legal limit, a large percentage of drivers will be exceeding it). The consequence of this is that the lair who is determined to drive at 20-30 kph over the limit will overtake on the left (a practice known in the UK as "undertaking" - quite appropriate, I think). This is a very dangerous manoeuvre. In the UK and the rest of Europe, the practice on 3 lane motorways is o/s lane for those who don't want to do more than 20 less than speed limit, everyone else in the middle lane and only in the inside lane if you are overtaking. If you plod along (even breaking the speed limit) in the inside lane, others will flash you and police will book you - not for the speed but for not moving to the correct lane. And you lose your licence for undertaking.

When I returned to Oz after several years in Europe with this set of rules, I got terrified on freeways where some idiot would be at 115k in the inside lane and wasn't able to pass me and didn't have the balls to fall in behind me and so some hoon would blast past at 140 on my left and then cut across us both. (Now I see if I can slow considerably to try to get the guy on my right to move into my lane - but this worries me because no-one is as good at judging the speeds of cars behind as those in front).

I am not saying not to deal with speeding (I think that generally the NSW and Vic police (where I normally drive) have it about right). But there is other behaviour which is more dangerous caused by not allowing traffic to move through at its preferred rates which should also be focussed on.

So, my request is that we pull over to the left if not overtaking. Then at least the idiots who want to really speed might not get into blind spots and cause real damage to others by undertaking (which should be prohibited). If they really speed, book them for that as well. But make sure that there is a lane inside you for overtaking unless you are actually doing that manoeuvre yourself.

Here endeth the rant

[Flowboy]

Hi,

While its not directly related, I'd like to offer another incidence of "Revenue raising."

Before I start, I was guilty as charged and paid the fine accordingly. Also, I too believe that the Police work extremely hard. There like Pilots, your glad their there when you need them, but can't understand why they earn so much when the plane is cruising.
Anyway, a couple months back I checked the mail to see I had a letter from the EPA. On opening it, I was informed I owed them $125.00 for "placing a gigarette butt on te pavement.
Further, someone had seen me and was prepared to go to court to testify. If I wanted to dispute the fine, I had to provide a Stat Dec to say I wasn't driving or the car wasn't there.
Guilty until proven innocent, trapped by lurking Vigilantes who may or may not have other issues apart from littering. Its the guilty till ptovenb innocent thing that bothers me most.

Regards

Rob