How to beat fines due to inadequate signage: http://is.gd/bad_signage . How to beat revenue-raising fines: http://t.co/oi7FLNrQ . Or how to get your money back 100 times over: http://is.gd/fine_payback .

'road death rates per 100,000 population'

Surely road death rates per 100,000 km driven is a more relevant statistic.

Why stop at 30km/h. We can have much fewer road deaths if we all drive 10Km/h.

Actually with no cars or cycles at all we could achieve zero deaths!

I will never be happy until we eliminate all risk from society.

I'm looking forward to a time when speed signs are written in bar codes, which is read by the inboard computer, which then regulates the speed in line with the speed limit, regardless of how hard the driver presses on the load pedal.
Roads are not race tracks!
Speed limits are often confusing, but are reportedly set with wet road/built up oil slick conditions, older cars and drivers, very young inexperienced drivers, and worn tyres in mind?
As a former emergency response worker, I've seen more than my share of road accidents, patently the result of overconfidence, drink/drugs or too much testosterone in inexperienced drivers.
Lets face it, the law is the law and ignorance is never considered an excuse for quite deliberately breaking it/them; and then pleading ignorance.
As a parent, I fully appreciate and applaud the slower speed zones around schools.
However, I believe these should be replaced with speed moderating curves and speed bumps; given the number of idiots, drink and drug affected drivers on the roads these days.
In a "race" between two drivers over around 200 klms, with the first exceeding all the visible speed limiting signs by around 10klms, and another, driving at 10klms under.
The slower driver arrived only around ten minutes behind the first driver, used far less fuel, less wear and tear on parts, brake pads etc, and was far less uptight than the first driver, who seemed in a hell of a hurry, to get to heaven.
It's not too big an ask, to ask drivers to leave in enough time, [10-15 minutes,] to reach their destination, without ever speeding or risking theirs and the lives of other road users, or entirely innocent children.
One cannot legislate against stupid idiots, or indeed prevent them from expressing purely subjective or absurd asinine opinions?
Rhrosty.

Some speed limits are clearly too low in a lot of conditions, but the dilemma faced by those setting the limits is that they need to come up with a general limit which lowers risk to an acceptable standard in the *worst* conditions – for example when there is heavy traffic and fog, and a mix of cars and trucks with drivers of varying skill levels – but which is still a reasonable speed of travel in good conditions. I think that all things considered the way speed limits are set in this country is pretty sensible. 40k zones in schools for instance: great idea. Do you realise how much longer it takes to do an emergency stop from 60ks than from 40, on that one occasion in your life when a kid walks out in front of you?

One thing that could improve is the ability of the police to apply discretion in situations where a driver is speeding but clearly not doing anything dangerous – and to decide not to impose a fine. In Sydney the police are usually pretty good about this (mainly I suspect because there are too few police for the amount of road users). However I suppose the sticking point here is that, given the typical level of education of the average police officer, the concept of their being trusted to apply discretion doesn’t really hold water.

Meanwhile, what speeding drivers need to realise is that they are making the road more dangerous for everyone else, because unless you keep your gaze glued to the rearview mirror (difficult when you’re going forwards) there is a tendency for speeding cars to suddenly end up in places where you don’t expect them to be. Just because 38% of drivers admit to speeding doesn’t mean they don’t realise it’s wrong. Driving too fast is just dumb, infantile, and narcissistic. Why should the convenience of those sorts of people be the determinant of something as important as road safety?

Something tells me you’re not going to get very far with this…

When we go to school we learn basic skills like reading writing and maths, because we need them to maintain a living standard and to participate in society.

We also need to learn to drive, and to use the roads, but virtually nothing is done about this.

The quaint idea that imposing punishments for infringement of arbitrary rules makes the roads safer is bolstered by “statistics”.

If I were put in charge of producing the nonsense that is presented as statistics, I could produce a far different picture; one which presented the true situation.

Driving on a clear day down a good stretch of road at the speed limit reminds one that the limits are set by public servants sitting in an office, with no idea of the circumstances which will prevail at the time and circumstances of your driving.

You are the best judge of the appropriate speed, in the prevailing conditions, and if you had received appropriate education you would have an appreciation of the manner in which your actions affect other road users.

The only people active in pressing for road rules are the people in organisations, and individuals, pushing for restrictions on motorists.

The NRMA should represent motorists, as that is basic to its formation, but it does not. I remember when it backed the AGW fraud by acting against its own members interests on “environmental” grounds. There is no competing body of which I am aware, so I am still a member.

The fines and point system are a travesty, but they do not seem to have reached the tipping point where people are forced to rebel. They are nevertheless the cause of continual unjustifiable injustice and tragedy.

There are many issues with regards to speed limits.

Firstly, I can buy an old car, register it and do 110 on the highway, yet be just as legal as the modern day car. That's ridiculous!

Secondly, if authorities policed slow drivers, especially in The righ lane,fewer accidents would happen, due from frustration.

Then there is the issue of slow limits.

It's my understanding, that to be booked for going too slow in the 100 zone (QLD), the low limit is 17 KM per hour.

This limit was originally set to deter ag vehicles.

Th ethe thing tha puzzles me is the numbe of radars/cameras YOU DON'T SEE. 40 zones, where 60 in a 40 zone is like doing 150 in 100 zone. And the authorities say they are not revenue raising.

Finally, speed cameras.

Reason the don't have them at roadworks, is because the sites have to firs be approved, which, by the time that happens, the RW are generally completed.

BTW, if all police vehicles traveled with their lights flashing, this would be the best deterrent available, but then the revenues would fall.

Ps, there should be a law that keeps slow drivers, say under 80% of the limit off the roads during peak hours. Trucks excluded.