nitrotiger
" lets play like the tigers of old ! "
Bugger me....at the rate this is flamin goin.where were headed i reckon is me gettin a flamin speeding ticket for WALKING ALONG THE SOUTH GIPPY HIGHWAY at this rate........ :-\ :-X 
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Revenue grabbers
- Thread starter Rosy
- Start date
They certainly are revenue grabbers.
As others have said the tolerance is too low in terms of 63 or 64 in a 60 zone.
Australian Design Rules for car speedometers apparently state that the speedo of a car when it leaves the factory must not be more than 10 percent inaccurate.
As the law used to be, I think there was a 10% allowance on the particular speed you were doing, ie not more than 66 in in a 60 zone. Cameras weren't as prevalent then but people copped it on the chin and paid up because the 10% tolerance seemed 'fair'.
But now there is a zero tolerance rule. Yet the ADR's for speedo's remain the same.
Surely someone will successfully argue this in court one day.
Of course people will argue that it is a drivers responsibility to have their speedo checked and callibrated. To that I would say, my speedo conforms with ADR rules. If you have a zero tolerance policy which conflicts with these laws then you should either a) lobby for a change of the current ADR's as they relate to car speedo's, or b) Subsidise the cost of every motorist who wishes to have their speedo checked and callibrated. Even every time they change their wheels, or their tyres wear, or are changed for new ones.
This will ensure that your zero tolerance policy is indeed 'fair' and may go some way to reducing the scepticism that these cameras are, in fact, part of an overall accident reduction program.
Oh yeah and by the way, try spending some of the loot on road improvements and new roads that we can drive on for free.
Just on that subject for sec...Why is that when we design and build, or improve all of these major roads that we don't have something like a monorail running alongside them? Makes sense to me.
Make people pay for that to a private company instead and then the roads can stay free.
As others have said the tolerance is too low in terms of 63 or 64 in a 60 zone.
Australian Design Rules for car speedometers apparently state that the speedo of a car when it leaves the factory must not be more than 10 percent inaccurate.
As the law used to be, I think there was a 10% allowance on the particular speed you were doing, ie not more than 66 in in a 60 zone. Cameras weren't as prevalent then but people copped it on the chin and paid up because the 10% tolerance seemed 'fair'.
But now there is a zero tolerance rule. Yet the ADR's for speedo's remain the same.
Surely someone will successfully argue this in court one day.
Of course people will argue that it is a drivers responsibility to have their speedo checked and callibrated. To that I would say, my speedo conforms with ADR rules. If you have a zero tolerance policy which conflicts with these laws then you should either a) lobby for a change of the current ADR's as they relate to car speedo's, or b) Subsidise the cost of every motorist who wishes to have their speedo checked and callibrated. Even every time they change their wheels, or their tyres wear, or are changed for new ones.
This will ensure that your zero tolerance policy is indeed 'fair' and may go some way to reducing the scepticism that these cameras are, in fact, part of an overall accident reduction program.
Oh yeah and by the way, try spending some of the loot on road improvements and new roads that we can drive on for free.
Just on that subject for sec...Why is that when we design and build, or improve all of these major roads that we don't have something like a monorail running alongside them? Makes sense to me.
Make people pay for that to a private company instead and then the roads can stay free.
or any polie at thatmb64 said:Anythings possible with Bracks.nitrotiger said:Bugger me....at the rate this is flamin goin.where were headed i reckon is me gettin a flamin speeding ticket for WALKING ALONG THE SOUTH GIPPY HIGHWAY at this rate........ :-\ :-X
I just got home from work, looked in the mail and found a speed fine I copped when driving to Jells Park on Family Day.
Bloody a-holes.
Bloody a-holes.
the golden said:
That's true to a point. But I remember peter batchelor saying the very same thing 'if you don't speed you won't get fined' .This was about a week before it was found that a few cameras were faulty and people WERE getting fined when they WEREN'T speeding. I have no problem with cameras placed on dangerous stretches of road, after all, the government does call them speed safety cameras.
Personally, I would rather a more visible police presence on the road. The few times I have been caught speeding, I took more notice when I was pulled over by a cop than when I got a fine in the mail, 2-3 weeks AFTER the alleged incidents.
Legends ... Faulty camera's are a completely seperate issue & I tend to agree with you.
But for Vic Roads workers to for instance have to place the new fixed position camera's on the Westgate in the middle of the night because they were getting attacked by people during the day (This did actually happen) ... That is seriously ridiculous & shows a real ignorance and selfishness on the part of our attitudes.
Soemtimes I wonder about the people who complain that the camera's are nothing but revenue raising devices and how they would feel if their parents, partner or children were killed by a speeding car... Would their attitudes change then?
There is also a simple answer to the speedometer being potentially wrong - Drive a few k's under the limit. It's not the governments fault you bought a car that gives you incorrect information. At the end of the day, going 2-3 km's an hour slower is not going to get you to your destination much later than you otherwise would have been.
But for Vic Roads workers to for instance have to place the new fixed position camera's on the Westgate in the middle of the night because they were getting attacked by people during the day (This did actually happen) ... That is seriously ridiculous & shows a real ignorance and selfishness on the part of our attitudes.
Soemtimes I wonder about the people who complain that the camera's are nothing but revenue raising devices and how they would feel if their parents, partner or children were killed by a speeding car... Would their attitudes change then?
There is also a simple answer to the speedometer being potentially wrong - Drive a few k's under the limit. It's not the governments fault you bought a car that gives you incorrect information. At the end of the day, going 2-3 km's an hour slower is not going to get you to your destination much later than you otherwise would have been.
Meltiger, faulty cameras wasn't a separate issue in this case. The quote was don't speed and you won't get booked. People weren't speeding and were being fined. The governmet refused to believe that cameras were faulty and it must be the drivers fault. Only when the media did tests on the cars did the government concede there was a problem.meltiger said:
I agree with you that a few drivers need to correct their attitude with regards to the vicroads workers. Some people shouldn't be on the roads.
I do complain about about the cameras being mainly revenue raisers. I haven't received a fine in about 3 years (not saying I don't speed, although I try not to, just that I haven't been caught) and I did have a couple of friends who were killed in car accidents. My attitude still is there should be more cops on the road and cameras placed in high risk zones. There are more cameras out there than ever before yet the road toll is comparable to previous years.
In regards to the speedos, as Tigerdog stated, they are manufactured and calibrated to Australian standards with a tolerance of @ 10%. So in Victoria that means nothing. You may be on 60kph (assume that's the limit) and be booked for speeding without knowing you are speeding.
I may be cynical, but I noticed when revenue was down from fines, the government took to lowering speed limits on a lot of roads, increasing the chance of being fined on what is now a 40kph or 50 kph road when it was 60k. If 60 was so dangerous before why did it take so long to change the limits?
I'm not having a go at you meltiger and totally agree that measures should be taken to lower the number of accidents. It's just I get frustrated with this government and their spin. Where does the fines collected go? Consolidated revenue. If the government were fair dinkum, all the money collected from speeding fines would go to makes roads safer, education etc.
My rant for the day ;D
Legends of 1980 said:
Sorry mate, I should have explained myself better, my fault. The faulty camera's issue is completely seperate to the point I was making. & yes I certainly do agree the government should have listened earlier although I can understand their reluctance to beleive given people constantly whinge about the camera's, even when they themselves are in the wrong. Initially, I probably was sceptical too until it became a flood of people claiming that they weren't speeding.
Legends of 1980 said:
"I'm a leadfoot" would be a prime example of someone who shouldn't be on the roads.
Legends of 1980 said:
The solution is to slow down. If you know your car's speedo is not 100% accurate, but you drive ON the limit regardless, is it the government's fault that you broke the law and got fined? What on earth has happened to personal responsibility in this country?
Legends of 1980 said:
This is a possibility. Of course you could just be over reacting too
Legends of 1980 said:
In all reality, all monies taken from fine of all sorts go into consolidated revenue, where it is spent is up to the government to justify at election time.
Legends of 1980 said:
Just on this, what we are saying is it is OK to go 50 over the limit then for example, so long as it's not in a high risk area?
Speeding is speeding, people know the laws and willfully flout them. It's their own stupid fault if they get caught.
Speeding fines/Loss of license does work. My younger brother lost his license a month before getting off his p's because he wouldn't obey the speed limits ... Now he has it back, he never speeds because he doesn't want to lose his license again.
Meltiger, I think you're referring to me when you say 'I'm a leadfoot' shouldn't be on the roads. I should say I'm a mostly reformed leadfoot. I love going fast and fast cars, but its unsafe and we shouldn't do it on public roads. I'm older and wiser and now understand and appreciate that. I have had one very minor prang in my 19 years of driving, and that was when I was 19. However, these new cars and 4 lane roads, geez sometimes you just find yourself doing 130. I'm not saying thats OK, I'm not saying I shouldn't be fined, but I'm a defensive attentive driver, and sometimes you speed in spite of yourself.
But you're entitled to your opinion. I agree with the 'no speed no fine' motto, as I said earlier.
But you're entitled to your opinion. I agree with the 'no speed no fine' motto, as I said earlier.
I'm not condoning speeding in any way. I would be interested though in knowing how many cameras are in low risk areas, compared to areas where accidents occur regularly. The title of the thread is 'Revenue grabbers'meltiger said:
I think you are missing my point on this one. If car speedos are manufactured to Australian standards, and every state and territory, except Victoria, takes this into account, then to me, yes, this is a money grabbing excercise. The reason for the tolerance is for a variety of reasons, one of which is the wear and use of tyres. Are car manufacturers expected to install different speedos for Victoria. What about interstate drivers?meltiger said:
I understand your point about driving on the limit instead of under. However, if you look at the TAC ads (a government department) about wiping off 5, it shows wiping off 5, say from 65 to 60 in a 60 zone. So the government itself is saying it's ok to drive ON the speed limit, but when you do we may fine you.
Just for peoples info, the few times I've been caught by cameras, I've been caught doing 4-5 km over the limit. Just bringing out any vested interest in this debate
All I want is transparency and honesty from the government. A big ask I know
meltiger said:
Have been in that position Mel and it only reinforces my wish to see a physical police presence on the highway. They slow a lot of people down immediately rather than a hidden camera slowing a few down weeks later when they receive their ticket.
We'll just have to agree to disagree rosy, I reckon an unseen threat that could be anywhere is a greater dterrent, but both should be used.
It never ceases to amaze me how, in spite of all these campaigns, people still do 80ks in built up areas where there are kids around. I always do my best to stay under 60, but anytime I see there are people and especially kids around I'll slow right down to 40 and even slower. I know I sound like an old codger but when I see young blokes screaming along in a WRX or somehing when a kid could easily step out on the road, it really makes me angry.
It never ceases to amaze me how, in spite of all these campaigns, people still do 80ks in built up areas where there are kids around. I always do my best to stay under 60, but anytime I see there are people and especially kids around I'll slow right down to 40 and even slower. I know I sound like an old codger but when I see young blokes screaming along in a WRX or somehing when a kid could easily step out on the road, it really makes me angry.
tigersnake said:
TS, absoloutely spot on, and yeah I was referring to you ;-) But will concede if you're reformed
A visible police prescence that Rosy is suggesting means people will slow down WHEN they see a copper
olice: but will speed when they don't.Using my brother as the example - He keeps his speed under at all times now, so as to avoid a fine. If he knew when and where he would get caught, he would still speed.
Legends of 1980 said:
It is mate, & the complaint was about hidden camera's, not the 10% tolerance argument.
At the end of the day, the hidden camera's may be there for money raising reasons, but if you don't break the law you won't suffer from it.
I seriously don't understand drivers sometimes.
meltiger said:A visible police prescence that Rosy is suggesting means people will slow down WHEN they see a copper
Disagree Mel. ;D
I'm only referring to the area I know about so won't comment on others. People weren't game to speed on this highway because it was so heavily policed. They didn't slow down "WHEN” they saw a cop car they drove with the speed limit in mind because they knew they'd be lurking somewhere.
I don't think an old-timer reading a paper in his 4wd has the same preventative powers.
<
Video Games: violence and addiction?
|
Another day in America & and another Africian American murdered by a cop.
>
