Hi Valley Guy

I respect you picking the LDP - proving at least one person voted for it on purpose.

I came perilously close to losing my licence a few years ago - getting to within one point of the maximum. Yet, on each of the speeding tickets I had received, I was never driving over 50kph. (What a loser!)

Two of the tickets happened within 2 weeks of the introduction of the 40k daily periodic limit in front of schools, when hundreds of police lurked in school environs to trap drivers whose reflexes had not yet adjusted to the change. And, BTW, there was not a single child to be seen on either occasion.

The other two tickets happened on holiday at Byron Bay, where the temporary 30k limit signs at the roundabout roadworks were either stuck behind a row of bulldozers or had fallen over. Unluckily for me, it was a double-demerit Easter weekend.

However, the RTA came within one point of getting another dangerous driver off the road, even if she never drove over 50k!

The ask.com wiki on speed limits is an interesting read.

http://www.ask.com/wiki/Speed_limit?o=2802&qsrc=999&ad=doubleDown&an=apn&ap=ask.com

I have my suspicions that a significant portion of the "Every K over" policing has more to do with revenue raising than road safety but from what I've seen few roads, cars or drivers are built to deal with the speeds a fair number of people would like to drive at.

I also suspect that speed differential would make matters far worse, some doing 100km/h on a road with few lanes while others attempt to do 160km/h creates a significant hazard in itself.

I suspect that the perceived link between assorted fines and government revenue damages many peoples trust in the police and governments impartiality when it comes to setting and policing road rules. Killarney's examples being examples of the sort of nonsense policing that brings the police into disrepute.

R0bert

There is another use of the word 'speed': it is a street name for methamphetamine, a stimulant class drug.

There is a link between speed and the risk of accidents and injuries. The degree of correlation is disputed and there is some evidence that modestly higher speed enforcement would reduce the harm rate, but higher speed use certainly leads to more serious accidents and ultimately more of them.

And yet people still take speed. That raises an interesting question. When the law says one thing and most people have a different view, which should prevail? And perhaps more to the point, who should set the speed limits?

The people who currently set them are anonymous, unaccountable bureaucrats. Perhaps the most powerful people in Australia, they essentially decide how many people should die of drug use. Governments and ministers come and go, but they and their speed limits are always there.

This is massive bureaucratic overreach. It is the public, not bureaucrats, who ought to determine the trade-off between pleasure convenience and drug toll. There is even an internationally recognised method of achieving this, known as the 85th percentile formula. Briefly, it involves the temporary legalisation of speed while usage levels are monitored. At the conclusion of the period a limit is reimposed at or slightly above the level at which 85% of people take speed.

The method is based on the assumption that the large majority of drug users are reasonable and prudent, do not want to overdose, and wish to gain as much pleasure in the shortest possible time.

Evidence shows that those who use speed above limits based on the 85th percentile are far more likely to cause accidents. Enforcement directed at those users thus has a positive impact on public health while enjoying a high level of public support.

If the public becomes concerned about any increase in speed-related deaths or injuries, this can be expressed through periodic retesting of the 85th percentile.

Cheers,

Tony

I wonder why it is illegal to do 110 on a two lane highway where there is no other traffic but it is legal to do 100 on a single lane dirt road that has virtually no signposting?

There is always a risk assessment. That is what is the safest speed that can be legalised without impacting on convenience. So the question is should individuals make that call or governments?

I am having visions of a hoon with a hotted up car making a decision on how safe it might be for anyone travelling by road. While one might argue that such a person would drive unsafely and risk lives despite the speed limit, making the legal limit superfluous, I think that is too simplistic.

Even if this fictional hoon were to drive unsafely 50% of the time but slowing down in built up areas or where there are cameras, due to the risk of being caught his/her potential impact is already reduced.

I don't like speed limits and measures to be used as revenue raisers which is a different issue. No matter the measures applied eg.cameras, radars, all should all have safety at their core.

The system is by no means perfect. Although I admit a small attraction to the idea only because I wonder in an experiment whether the road toll would be different or even reduced. Maybe human beings choose to do the right thing most of the time without the need for governments. In this scenario I must say I am not sure the answer.