Let the market decide, abolish all speed limits, or even speed recommendations.

But lets let the insurance companies decide what to do next, that is, let them impose speed limits on the people they cover, after all, that is just sound commercial sense.

But lets take it further and make those who cause accidents also meet the 'market rate' of what they have done, personally. Add to that an increase in the prosecution of people who cause deaths, injury or damage whilst driving.

So, let people drive in whatever way they want, just hold them fully responsible for what they do. If they kill someone whilst driving then impose the full manslaughter penalty, a maximum in most states of 18 years or so. If they injure someone impose the same penalty as if they had caused the injury with a gun or a sledgehammer.

If they cause damage, then hit them with the full penalty for malicious damage.

Yes, lets abolish speed limits and make drivers simply pay for what they do.

Wheels, that's too bad, but not surprising unfortunately- we seem to operate under an astoundingly dumb and short-sighted administration and engineers that would make many another country weep.

Dougthebear
You know, it's funny that you say that because I would guess that market forces ARE deciding the speed limits in Sydney at the moment (Lane Cove road is living proof- the speed limit suddenly drops from an 80 zone to a 60- even though the 60 zone has even LESS reasons to be slow, because that section happens to be over the Lane Cove Tunnel, which they have been trying to force people to pay to use).

But to compare a democratic method where the rules everyone must adhere to are decided by the public, vs an anarchist libertarian system (The system Sydney is currently running under, by large) with no rules at all, is to compare the two opposite ends of a spectrum!

And I must say, a democratic method of road-regulation is certainly looking more desirable than trusting the three biggest parties in NSW with our speed limits, I can tell you.

So, let's hope all those interested in getting back to a reasonable approach to speeding laws, will vote 1, Outdoor Recreation Party in the NSW election on March 26th! We need people like David L. in NSW Parliament to get some common sense back into the debate.

There's more to the road toll other than being dead. If you do end up dead it doesn't cost the state any thing like it does to have a person maimed for life.
The amount of kids injured in 40 km speed zones is dramatic.
Billions of dollars a year is spent because of road trauma, being dead is the cheaper option.
So don't violate someone else's road space and save the state billions.
If you are intent on being dead well keep it to your-self.

579, I'm sorry to say but simply making your posts more dramatic and mentioning death a lot more isn't going to magically change our minds- actually making some points- or even attempting to answer some of ours, would.

For example- you casually threw in the point about kids being run over by vehicles going 40kmh- which raises three things:
1- that the issue was most likely a matter of children being struck by passing traffic in proximity to a school zone during school hours
2- that obeying the speed limit and driving very slow DID NOT PREVENT INJURY, and the cause of injury was something else unrelated to speed.
3- That a speed limit so low is dangerous, what do you PROPOSE?
10km hour speed limits? Ban cars?
Neither would be practical to get around in a city like Sydney- a point you conveniently continue to avoid.

Actually King, many drivers ignore school zones and continue as if they have every right to do whatever sped they want and consider children to be speed humps to be simply avoided if possible. Selfish drivers who think that 1 minute's delay is worth more than a child's life

What gets me about these kind of discussions is the constant call that 'the government' is getting all this money out of otherwise 'law abiding' people.

Well I hate to have to inform all of those who have this view, but the money that is paid in speeding, and other traffic, fines does not go into the pockets of those people who we elect to form our governments.

It goes into revenue that is used for the purpose that our elected governments choose it to go into. To benefit the population at large.

The next thing that you will be saying is that the government gets rich from our paying taxes, that is, those of us who do and are not rich enough to have tax avoidance schemes that is.

Well, those taxes are not stowed in the fat wallets of our politicians either.

But okay. Let us abolish speeding fines, and introduce some other way to manage our (yes, OUR!) roads. If we abolish speed fines then the government will have no reason to impose speed limits to collect money from all those wonderfully considerate motorists.

Okay, no speed fines, so no speed limits? (I think not) So perhaps we impose imprisonment for speeding: one day in prison for every k over the speed limit? What about flogging? One stroke for every K perhaps? At least the government would not be accused of profiting from motorists.

And as I have said, treat road crimes the same as crimes committed not on the roads. Instead of 12 months community service for neglegent driving occaisioning death - from street racing - (yes, I have seen that as the sentence, 12 months of weekends for a life) we should imprison all those wonderful drivers who kill people for 20 years.