I think that this post misrepresents the intention of the "Speed kills" slogan. As I understand it, the slogan has two separate meanings: firstly that speed is a contributing factor to some motor accidents (as acknowledged in the article, although minimised); secondly that if one is involved in an accident, the speed at which one is travelling is a very significant factor in the severity of the effects for all parties. By ignoring this second aspect of the slogan, I suggest that the overall argument is weakened considerably.

Well Linguist, while Mirko may be somewhat exaggerating his case, he is quite correct in stating that "speed kills" and other favoured government slogans tend to hide the true complexities of the causes of accidents. It is just that it is so much easier to both detect, with radar, laser or cameras, and to bray about it than it is to acknowledge that poor road design, insufficient driver training and assessment (and retraining and reassessment?) and variable conditions are major contributors to road trauma.

I strongly agree with Mirko that the fines, particularly for minor speeding offences, i.e. less than 10 km/h over the limit, far exceed what is reasonable in terms of culpability. By inflating the fines, governments leave themselves open to the justifiable criticism that they are more concerned with revenue raising than road safety. If they were genuinely committed to reducing road fatalities there would be far more investment in divided carriageways and re-testing of driver skills would not be delayed until a driver's 85th birthday.

Carpoint <http://carpoint.ninemsn.com.au> ran a series of articles last year on the manner in which governments were failing to deal with the full range of issues in road safety, while the Drive feature of the Sydney Morning Herald constantly raises the issue of poor policy by the RTA and the NSW government. I doubt other states would be any more enlightened; then again, considering Dilemma and his crew, maybe I'm being unkind to other state governments ;-)

I feel that Linguist is losing sight of one of the problems of our media-cluttered society, namely the boredom and disaffection created by monotonous repetition.
"Speed Kills" has become a cliche.
So have the lugubrious radio warnings from senior police traffic commanders before holiday periods.
The same thing is being said over, and over, and over, and over, and over.
(Getting a little bored with my well-meaning repetition?)
Slogans are of no use on their own except to brand a product or service.Unless they are used to trigger interest in further information, they run the risk of becoming mental wallpaper.
That is what is happening with "Speed Kills".
My reaction to this cliche is scornful disregard; speed only kills if the driver allows it to!
Any speed is safe, if it relates correctly to prevailing road and traffic conditions.

Speeding fines are just another form of voluntary taxation, like cigarette and alcohol taxes. I would presume that the number of speed cameras has been adjusted for maximum revenue collection, and what is wrong with that? If I were in control of the roads I would make things much more interesting with variable speed limits. Roads which people were used to travelling on at 70 Km/h would be suddenly have the speed limit reduced to 25 Km/h for an hour or so, and motorists caught would be fined $575 for exceeding the limit by 30 Km/h. In addition the speed limit signs would be made much smaller, as they are much too visible now. The 40 Km/h signs near schools are a great idea, as they apply during school days, without telling you what they are. As most motorists have no idea when school is in or out, it will catch almost everyone except members of the Teachers Federation. What no-one seems to realise is that state governments have to balance their budgets. How else are they going to do it without taxing me?

In my eyes speed kills, now not all speedsters kill everytime they speed but speed does kill as do drunk drivers. Why this diatribe about fining law breakers, they become criminals when they break the law. This law is for the protection of the many not just for revenue raising. Yet revenue is raised and every motorist knows that if they speed and are caught they will be fined. Frankly I would not allow the locations of speed cameras to be revealed to the public. Further more anyone who did disclose the location of any speed camera or booze bus should also be fined the same amount and face a jail sentence. Then I would at least double the fines so perhaps if enough revenue was raised by fining these uncaring slobs of road criminals the rest of us could get tax breaks. As well every time a motorist is caught speeding their licenses, both vehicle and driving, would be annulled on the spot and they would have to re-apply for both again.This would mean passing a driving test and having their vehicle completely checked for it being roadworthy.
Road safety should start with us drivers. numbat

Not only are the fines over the top, many of the speed limits are just ridicules.
For 12 years I drove to the Gold Coast, to work each day, through Canungra. In the 14 kilometers from Canungra, there was a nice road, with a 100 Km speed limit, & 10 permitted overtaking places. There were 3 places where I slowed to about 80 Km, in my old ute, with its truck tires, for the rest 120 Km would not have been unsafe, & I could easily pass the occasional slow farm truck, or tourist.
I now drive a new, powerful, 6 cylinder sedan, which should make overtaking easier, & safer, but no. All the dotted lines have been replaced with double lines, It apparently, is no longer safe, in my powerful sedan, to pass where I used to in my slow old ute.

A few cars ran off this road, tourists, not looking where they were going, & idiots, trying to set a land speed record, but it took a silly act to do so. To try to protect these idiots from themselves the speed limit was reduced to 80 Km. on one 4 Km section. The cops had a field day, with speeding fines, but the idiots still ran off the road.
The road was improved, but they still ran off it. A little over taking lane was added, no change.

Now they have reduced the limit to 70 Km, & reduced another 5 Km to 90 Km. At last, it must be safe. But no! The first time I drove there, after the new limit, a tow truck was extracting not one but 2 cars from the scenery. Only an act of stupidity could have got 2 cars there, so much for ultra low speed limits.

As I no longer have any respect for our road authorities, I treat their laws with the same respect

If safety were the real issue, then it would be simple to remove "points" from someone's licence. Caught speeding once, loose half your points - a warning if you like. Second time you loose your license for a lengthy period of time.

Remove money from the equation altogether.

Unfortunately, whilst the argument is correct and it has been proven that there no regard for safety in our government's greed campaign, it misses a number of important factors.

For example, the three means of recording fines are extremely inaccurate. The Silver Eagle radar for instance can easily record speeds at in excess of 30 km/h of the speed the motorist is travelling. This means that police are able to pull an innocent motorist over allege that they were speeding at over 30km/h and rescind the innocent motorist's license. The motorist then needs to spend $30K in court costs (assuming he has reliable legal respresentation and expert witnesses). Otherwise, he may lose his job, family, social standing, etc.

We are not just talking about a $50 or $200 tax nor are we talking about something that you will not incur just because you don't speed.

For more information, please see http://www.roadsense.com.au and have a look in the fight for justice section.

Dr. Charlie Klauer, a senior research associate at the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, recently completed a study of 241 drivers covering over 2 million miles of travel. The study concluded that in over 80% of crashes, and near misses, the driver was distracted in the 3 seconds preceding the incident.

Other studies have shown that less than 3% of deaths and serious injuries on our roads are directly caused by travelling in excess of the posted speed limit.

When will politicians stop feeding from the public trough and address the issues that are killing people on our roads.

The firt thing to do is to remove all speed cameras from our roads because they are a major distraction - a cause or over 80% of crashes!

Then move on to reducing unnecessary signage. The could also enforce the laws against using a mobile phone while driving more actively and maybe put more police on our roads to catch dangerous drivers rather than persecute those who travel slightly over the limit.

Other studies have shown that the SAFEST drivers on our roads are those travelling in the 85-90 percentile. If a speed limit is set correctly, at the 85th percentile, then the safest drivers on our roads are those being targeted by speed cameras.

Sorry it's a bit disjointed but time is of the essence...

It doesn't help that the justification for the presence of speed cameras is based on flawed analysis of accident data. The RTA did a study into the effectiveness of speed cameras. Not surprisingly it concluded that "speed cameras save lives". But the study consisted of comparing before and after accident rates (fatal and non-fatal) for the places where speed cameras had been installed. Since they were usually installed after a single fatal accident, there was a built in bias towards finding a higher fatality rate before the camera was installed.

I shudder to think how much money was wasted on this flawed research.

Another factor that shows up strongly in accidents consists of road side obstacles such as power poles. Even where the primary collision is not with a road side obstacle, the secondary collision with one can have devestating consequences. If there's a road's authority campaign to get those removed, I must have missed it.

Sylvia.

Sylvia,

It's called Regression To The Mean.

In the UK a similar thing occurred for about 3 years until their Department for Transport conceded that the majority of the decrease was due to RTTM.

ie. the accident rate would have fallen by the same amount had a garden gnome been installed where the camera was installed.

"Garden Gnomes SAVE LIVES!".....

M3RBMW

Ah, that UK research is probably what the RTA was referring to when I raised my concerns about this statistically flawed result.

They said:

"In relation to concern about the statistical accuracy of RTA reports on fixed speed cameras, the RTA regularly reviews its reporting practices and closely analyses independent research and findings.

With regards to the on-going evaluation of cameras' effectiveness, the
RTA is constantly monitoring the effectiveness of fixed speed cameras in terms of speed and crash reductions. Similar to overseas experience, fixed speed cameras are now considered an effective part of a speed management strategy."

You may guess that after that, I stopped trying to argue with them. I'm still watching out for opportunities to make this issue more widely known. Of course, I'm not arguing that the cameras are not beneficial, only that we don't know whether on balance they do more good than harm (distraction, etc), because the study told us nothing.

Sylvia.

Speed hurts (incrementally). But so is our antiquated road system.

I agree with Sylvia about poles. Why do we still have them? It is an eyesore and a definite killer.

If you add pot holes, poor lighting, different speed zones, doubtful road signs, bad drivers, poorly maintained cars, P-platers with supercharged flying machines, illiterate drivers, unsealed unmarked roads, roundabouts, trucks, mobile phones, etc…it is a miracle we don’t have 10 times more fatalities.

The reason speed fines are upward of $130 and not $50 as suggested is that many people simply won’t pay them.

Cameras are cheaper than cops, last longer, and are easier to replace.

I suggest camera technology should be upgraded; warnings issued first and then fine repeat offenders.

Mirko Bagaric writes;

“If governments took the time to inquire, they would see that world-wide empirical studies show that the greatest deterrent to wrongdoing is not the size of the penalty but the perceived risk of detection.”

“To the extent that people make a cost-benefit decision about committing crimes, they generally only weigh up the risk of being caught, not what will happen if they get caught.”

“The best way to reduce the incidence of crime and speeding, in particular, is to increase the perception in people’s minds that if they transgress they will be caught.”

Absolutely!! It is the policing regime that matters most! And the policing of road safety is nothing short of pathetic. The police concentrate on a few aspects such as speed and basically leave many significant aspects unpoliced.

Even the things that they do concentrate on receive ridiculously little attention, all-considered. (This is a criticism of government much moreso than of police)

Yes, speed detection devices should start multiplying at a rapid rate, as part of a critically needed gross improvement in policing. Then, once they have appeared on all main roads and lots of secondary and minor roads, we can consider reducing the size of fines. If fines were reduced from ~$200 to say $50 while the chances of being caught are still really small, a significant disincentive to observe speed limits would be created. Perhaps progressive reductions would be in order.

Some other major things have got to happen in conjunction with an improved enforcement regime.

Firstly, we have GOT to know where we stand with speed limits. Apparently Victorians know that their effective speed limit is 3ks over the stated limit. But in Queensland, the police and government deliberately keep it vague. They will tell us that there is some leeway and therefore that a few ks over is acceptable, but they won’t tell us what the margin is. It appears to be 10ks over in most instances, but you just can’t rely on that. This creates conflict between those who drive below the stated limit and those who believe that they can get away with 10ks over, which appears to be most drivers.

Secondly, we have GOT to be able to determine the speed limit quickly when we turn into a new road, and be reminded of it regularly. There are VASTLY too few speed limit signs, which creates an enormous degree of uncertainty when you are not intimately familiar with an area, and generates conflict between drivers who know the limit and those who either have to err on the side of caution by 10 or often 20kmh until they see a sign, or else roll with the flow, or make one’s own judgement according to the conditions, which can often mean doing a bookable speed. Why on earth can’t speed limit signs be painted on the road just past every corner, everywhere, as they are in some towns?

Thirdly, the authorities MUST start policing tailgating and other impatient, aggressive and intimidating driving, that people who drive even slightly under the cruising speed, let alone 5ks under the signed limit, eternally suffer.

Fourthly, make it clear whether or not speed limits are going to be policed during overtaking. We know that it is technically illegal to exceed the limit when overtaking, but it appears to go unpoliced.

In short, we need to tighten up the whole deal and eliminate uncertainty as best we can.

From the article that started this topic:

"For a moment's inattention we are slugged around 25 per cent to 40 per cent of the minimum wage (now approximately $475 a week). The “harm” caused by speeding does not equal between 10 to 18 hours of labour because nearly always there is no harm done by speeding."

For a moment's inattention you can run a red light, killing yourself, your passengers and the occupants of the other car, or run over a pedestrian, or run down a pushbike rider, or turn into the path of a motorcyclist. Part of the idea of trying to stop speeders is to try to get them concentrating ALL the time.

Not to mention the idea that speeding can bring into a driver's mind: that is, it is okay not to keep to the rules: so it is okay to try to run that red light, it is okay to drive when you are only a few points over the blood alcohol limit, it is okay not to signal a turn because you are too busy talking on the mobile, it is okay to drive a car that isn't roadworthy. It is okay to cut others off and tailgate.

The entire idea of safe driving is to not take risks: not take risks with speed, with inattention, with alcohol. Speeding is just a symptom of poor respect for others, of selfishness and an inability to accept responsibility.

The fines for speeding ARE too high - as far as I am concerned - two speeding offenses, or perhaps a total speed over the limnit of 20k/hr over no matter how many offenses, you should lose your licence, and the car that you were driving when the offence that lead to the loss of licence, no matter whose car it is. Add to that disqualification from owning a car for 10 years. If you cannot drive responsibily, you have lost the priviledge of car ownership.

Much ado about not much. I drive daily - city, country, heavy vehicles, cars, motorcycles, dirt tracks, freeways. Haven't been fined for decades. Yes, an occasional nudge over the limit, but it's rare. No, I'm not a hazard to other drivers. If they travel below the limits, no hazard is caused by my speed. Often my vehicles are incapable of even approaching the limit when loaded. Who better to contribute to state finances than those who flout state laws? I have witnessed the aftermath of too many fatal accidents where lower speed would have obviously saved lives and/or reduced serious injury to have any sympathy with this article at all. Speed doesn't kill in the same way that guns don't kill. They both contribute to unnecessary trauma and death, so they should be treated with much more respect.
The fines are almost entirely voluntary and are not the point. We should be focussing on more responsible behaviour for more obvious reasons.

Henery says:

>>Speed doesn't kill in the same way that guns don't kill. They both contribute to unnecessary trauma and death, so they should be treated with much more respect. <<

Guns primary use is to shoot at targets, damage things and injure/kill living creatures. I don't think we can say the same for cars which have other usefulness.

But I agree that if we treat both with respect and responsibility we will have less traumas and unecessary deaths.

Further if we apply the same standards for car drivers that we have for gun owners i.e. regular aptitude testing, safety checks and handling procedures, etc... we could all benefit from that.

Ludwig,

"Firstly, we have GOT to know where we stand with speed limits. Apparently Victorians know that their effective speed limit is 3ks over the stated limit. But in Queensland, the police and government deliberately keep it vague."

A cousin of mine is a member of the QLD police force and I asked him this exact question. The answer is: we have to be doing AT LEAST 10% over the speed limit before we can be booked. Much more fair and logical than Victoria's '3K's over the limit' rule, which doesn't take into account the limit of the zone they were speeding in.

I've observed that the most noise on this kind of issue is created by either very young people with little experience or very old people dissatisfied with the young.
People who drive slowly create frustration and encourage risky driving. people who drive too fast cause much grief. Surely theres a compromise. In North Queensland, the standard of driving is attrocious. Perhaps a transient population is partly to blame, The state of the roads is a big factor thats left to its own devices because theres no money in it. With the seasons we get, deterioration of road surfaces occurs more rapidly. In tropical areas, theres often a reversed camber for water to run off the road. People wearing hats is a huge problem. Selfish 4wd's are also problematic. Both subspecies of driver seem only able to locate the accelerator when overtaking opportunities arise, and have a fascination for using the right lane at lower speeds.
Theres no answer to road deaths, unfortunately they will continue as long as there are cars. Theres no doubt the magnitude of consequences is amplified by innapropriate speed. Fatigue, alcohol, seatbelts, phone use, road conditions, roadworthiness of vehicle, roadside obstacles and distractions (including revenue cameras), and even environmental factors all can be considered contributing factors to road accidents yet the lucrative ones are pursued with such zeal and accompanying advertising that it makes a mockery of such a serious issue.
There is no such thing as tailgating, if someone is driving right behind you, you are possibly driving too slowly- try allowing the person to pass or if your not in such a hurry, pull over for a second. By treating motorists as cash cows, motorists (like me) feel entitled to do pretty much what they want because its paid for.
Rego, petrol and fines are just running costs now. Murder and rape etc. can wait because government policy will dictate that revenue is far too important to miss out on. I look forward to a state election as theres no cameras for a few weeks.

All seeing voice of reason:

"There is no such thing as tailgating, if someone is driving right behind you, you are possibly driving too slowly- try allowing the person to pass or if your not in such a hurry, pull over for a second. "

eh, you mean when I have been doing right on the speed limit on a suburban road, and some moron insists on pulling in right behind me because he or she thinks that they have the right to (a) Intimidate me (b) exceed the speed limit by whatever they want because (c) their egos are too big for their intellect or (d) they think that the extra 30 seconds of their time that they will 'save' by speeding is potentially worth someone else's life - then I am not being tailgated?

I hope that one day you do tailgate me in that situation, because I will do what I normally do - slow down until you get the message and back off, then I will resume the legal safe speed. If you don't like it, you can always turn off the street and find another way.

Respect me, and I will respect you.

It is just like the mobile phones users who consider that unless they are taking with someone else constantly then something must be wrong.

No one's life is worth someone else's mobile phone call or similar selfish acts.

It does sound to me that some people are more concerned aboout whats going on behind them rather than in front.
Brake testing people is perhaps more dangerous than cars travelling at similar speeds in close proximity to one another, but I'm sure theres an answer for that.
Peoples ego's? so YOUR going to slow them down to teach them a lesson? Best advised to do your own thing and maintain a consistent course and speed, and not see oneself as the arbiter of traffic eregulations.
Please dont choose me to play silly buggers with me on the road, its dangerous and illegal.

Some years ago, I was tailgated in an intimidating way by a huge truck. I knew that my speedo was reasonably accurate, because I'd had it checked.

I was sitting on 80, which was the posted speed limit and also what I felt was reasonable for that particular road. The road was sealed, but fairly narrow, definitely no more than one lane each way. Many dips, crests and curves, no way to safely overtake. Soft sand both sides, no place to pull off. No other traffic in the vicinity.

The truck came up out of nowhere at God-knows-what speed and sat immediately behind me for several kilometres. I put on a bit of speed, but he stayed with me.

I phoned the police traffic branch when I got home and asked their advice. I was told to very gently slow down in such a situation and hope that the tailgater would get the message. And to keep on slowing down if necessary.

A litttle later, I was with my wife in her car and I was driving. A similar thing happened, but on a three lane each way highway. We were in the right hand lane because we were turning right at the next lights. On this occasion, I followed the advice of the traffic branch. The truck driver didn't get the message and I had to force him to stop. When we had to stop at the lights, the truck driver got out of his cab and ran up to hurl abuse at me. I told him that I had just followed police advice on how to deal with stupid ! like him and to get back in his ! truck. Which he was obviously very pleased to do!

I don't like going on like this, but when my life, or that of my family or friends is threatened, then I believe I have the moral right to do whatever is necessary.

And if anyone thinks I'm being overdramatic, how do they think that a speeding tailgater stops in an emergency without running all over the vehicle in front?

Hamlet, & Rex, I suggest you are playing a very STUPID game, trying to enforce your will on other motorists.
With our increasingly redicules speed limits, & road rules, road rage is becoming more prevalent, & much hotter.
In the situations you describe, it would take me less than a tenth of a second, to send you, & your car, backwards, through a fence. If you continue with your petulant behavior to other road users, you WILL find one with this ability, & the will to use it.
If you wish to enforce the road rules, join the police force.
As a horse man, I have towed horse floats thousands of kilometers, on highways, & byways, often at speeds considerably less than the average traffic flow.
I have never had any difficulty creating the opportunity for the faster traffic to pass, without delay.
Hasbee

“The entire idea of safe driving is to not take risks: not take risks with speed, with inattention, with alcohol. Speeding is just a symptom of poor respect for others, of selfishness and an inability to accept responsibility.”

You’ve got it Hamlet. But unfortunately without a very good policing regime most people will not get the message, until they have a serious accident. Driver-training should be greatly improved to concentrate on risk factors and safety margins, but even with the best training, in the absence of comprehensive policing, most (or many) people just won’t comply.

“The answer is: we have to be doing AT LEAST 10% over the speed limit before we can be booked”.

Jinx, I have been told the same thing by police officers. But I have also been told that police can book anyone for doing any speed over the limit if they wish. And I believe they do book people for doing less than 10ks over in 40k school zones…. sometimes. The uncertainty and duplicity stinks. There is absolutely no reason why the Qld Govt can’t tell us just exactly what the go is with speed limits.

“There is no such thing as tailgating”

Person with the really silly pseudonym, you have GOT to be kidding!! It sounds to me as though you have completely no idea about basic safety margins and risk factors and therefore DO NOT deserve to hold a drivers licence! I endorse Hamlet’s response and share his/her depth of feeling on the matter.

Rex, I have shared your experience with trucks tailgating on the highway. They know they can get away with 10ks over the limit, so they set their speed right on 110 in the 100 k zone, which means they are constantly coming up behind other traffic, and just intimidating to the max. Not all truckies but a large portion of them do this.

You received interesting advice from the police. I have received quite different advice regarding just the same thing – to maintain constant speed, don’t flash your brakelights or give other signals and pull off when you can if you feel too pressured, or on a different occasion, speed up regardless of the speed limit which is ok if you are feeling threatened! This second piece of was given to me in very firm fashion and reinforced by a second officer. But it was later completely condemned by other officers. The police clearly don’t have any idea. The Dept of Transport and the RACQ are no better.

What makes it worse is that you cannot report things like this to the police, because they are completely disinterested unless an accident has occurred, or perhaps when you are placed under a grave threat if you really push the point.. and tailgating is not considered to be a grave threat.

What it makes it much worse is that it just isn’t policed.

And what makes it worse still is that complete non-policing of this aspect of road safety, as with many others, effectively means that the police are condoning this behaviour and therefore essentially training drivers to do it.

Silly pseudonym, you wrote:

“It does sound to me that some people are more concerned aboout whats going on behind them rather than in front.”

For goodness sake, you really do need to do a basic driver-training course don’t you, let alone a detailed defensive driving course.

Are you suggesting that drivers should not be aware of what is happening behind them, and be sensitive to the infringement of safety margins therein? Or that they should just ignore wank.rs who impose themselves up their exhaust pipe?

Immediate action is in order when confronted with a tailgating idiot. Firstly, flashing your brakelights. If that fails, putting your arm out the window and waving them back and then gently slowing down in front of them and accelerating back to normal speed. If all of that fails, then you are perfectly entitled to decrease your speed to the point at which you feel is appropriate for the distance between your car and the turd behind you.

If you are subjected to dangerous antics, then you owe it to yourself and your passengers to slow down and reduce the risk. You are not obliged to pull off and let them have the road, although you can if you feel that that is the safest course of action.

“Best advised to do your own thing and maintain a consistent course and speed, and not see oneself as the arbiter of traffic eregulations.”

And just accept the ongoing heightened risk of the clot behind you running into you if you need to hit the brakes or even slow down unexpectedly. Brilliant advice.

“Please dont choose me to play silly buggers with me on the road, its dangerous and illegal.”

Please don’t play silly buggers by tailgating, or following more closely than a two-second gap between passing the same point as the vehicle in front of you under ideal conditions, and longer at night or on wet roads.

Tailgating or following too closely is dangerous. And it is illegal, as it demonstrates failure to show due care and courtesy to other road users.

Do you think my pseudonym is silly...compared to what?
Somehow I've become the voice of tailgating enthusiasts which is of course a great honour and privileage.
But I digress...No such thing as tailgating was a statement to highlight that the concept is a product of a drivers perception that a factor they cannot control i.e. the "tailgator" is a menace to them, and that by slowing down or flashing lights or even waving of arms will somehow restore law and order. The other week, there was this huge truck less than a carlength behing me and I was not dilly dallying. It surprised me a bit that he could keep up that well. This went for perhaps 30k's, each overtaking area I kept left and the truck chose not to overtake. It really isn't a drama to just keep doing your own thing...I'm sure you'l get the hang of it one day.
A defensive driving course might be a nice way to meet new people and have some fun, but I'll stick to speedway racing thanks.
The issue of speed cameras is dear to me also, they distract attention away from more important things. More should be done to repair roads and educate drivers (all of us!), and less reliance on speeding revenue.
Instead of getting wound up, people should smile and wave like simpletons. This solution actually works, believe me.

Speed does kill especailly when things go wrong. But the thing most people dont realise is that while big brother is watching he is doing so for big bucks.
He does not test speed cameras properly. He uses unacredited laboratories to do so. The should be accredited by NMI also known as the National Measurement Institute. They do not have any accreditation and also they do not do the tests as required and specified by the manufacturers. Result your mobile phone can set them of. Nearly same frequency. Are the tested for this? NO! Do they use the manufacturers specifications to test ? NO again... Are there any accredited speedometer testers in Australia ? No! you are all being called suckers... And youre letting them do it. Suggest you check these facts ...No one can legally use the evidence from speed cameras in court. They are using illegal means! How do I know? Look up Jerry Simaotas and speed cameras using Google. Also watch this space and Heidelberg court in last day of May. Im fighting my 64 KMPH fine.
Are you people going to stand up for your rights too. Its under the constitution. State laws are nullified if they conflict with federal laws. Weights and measures, is under federal law...The states, They do not have the jurisdiction to do their own testing nor change this basic law. A measure remains true and even state governments have to comply.... Yippeee!! Big brother had better learn to measure correctly... Traceability and compliance with the manufacturers tests is all I ask...

GET OVER IT EVERYONE IT’S VERY EASY IF YOU DON’T WANT TO PAY A FINE DON’T SPEED IT’S THAT EASY.

If everyone one drove below the speed limit then we would have less accidents that is unquestionable logic would it stop all accidents no, and guess what we a laws and penalties for those other causes of accidents to. People agreeing with this Author have never had a loved one taken away from them be a speeding motorist. They could even be under the stupid belief that they are good drivers and it wouldn’t happen to them.
I suspect that the author is a habitual speeder and is sick of getting speeding fines but rather then slow down he wishes to reduce the impact on his wallet rather then any impact with someone else.

Statistically, most accidents happen in shopping centre carparks and nobody is hurt. Losing a loved one to any cause is painful and tends to make opinions rather polarised towards the cause. Its everyones right to drive below the speed limit, sure. But really its not your business if some driver chooses to go faster. Yes, I know, it puts you in great danger and being the chosen one sent to strike the unroadworthy- its your divine duty to slow these infidels down. Thing is, you'd be in less danger if the offending vehicle was in front of you, surely.
Of course we're all experts at driving and its the rest of the world thats too fast/slow. As an amusing thought, I'm proud to be a bad driver. Why? because look at what groups consider themselves most competent...taxi drivers, spotty youths, urban commuters and housewives in 4wd's.
But back to the thread. If speed cameras are such an effective agent of achieving their stated aims (reducing speed), why is it an offense to flash other drivers as a warning? Why is it viable to have a patrol car patrolling a camera site catching flashers?
My rhetoric will be lost on some (there are none so blind as those that will not see), so to simplify, you see a camera- you slow down for a bit. You see someone flashing- you know theres a camera, but you dont know where, so you slow down for a longer period of time. I do wonder what taxes would go up if they knocked revenue cameras on the head. Would it be petrol or rego? Perhaps selling a government utility would ease the pain of lost revenue.
And who knows, in my next little rant I may even quote the Koran.
We'll see you on the road like we saw the night rider.
We remember the night rider and we know who you are!
(Kennedy/Miller, 1979)

Kenny,

unfortunately you are missing a rather BIG point.

The cameras are NOT always accurate. I was recently booked for doing 88 in an 80 zone (Melbourne) even though BOTH my speedo AND my GPS navigation system were showing that I was doing 80 (speedo registered 83 which is actually 80).

I am now faced with copping the fine or paying $1000's to defend the case in court. AND I AM ONLY ONE OF THOUSANDS who have been incorrectly fined.

Where is the fairness in that?

The SAFEST drivers on our roads are those that drive at a speed appropriate for the conditions, REMAIN alert, concentrate on their driving and avoid distractions.

Constantly watching the speedo and/or the side of the road for cameras is completely counter to driving safely yet I am now forced to do exactly that so that I can slow down to at least 10kph UNDER the limit to be certain of avoinding a fine!

ALL cameras should be scrapped and 1000's more police should be patrolling our roads looking for people driving dangerously or carelessly - and that is NOT determined simply by the speed they are travelling at.

Omnipotent voice,

I didn’t think you could indicate even more strongly that you don’t deserve to have a drivers licence!

You had a semi chronically tailgating you for 30km….. and you just put up with it! You made no attempt to signal your discontent, you did not pull off and let him pass and you did not slow right down so that he had to pass in one of the several overtaking lanes!

What sort of a driver are you?

You were submitting yourself to an ongoing heightened risk imposed by this tailgater, and imposed by yourself by letting the situation continue. Were there other people in the car? Were you grossly shirking your responsibility as the driver to not place your passengers under unnecessary risk?

What would have happened if you had needed to hit the brakes, for a roo on the road for instance? Or even if you had needed to slow down gently, unexpectedly, for a patch of pot-holed road for example? You would have worn the truck!

My mind boggles!

How can you call speed cameras a distraction? Are you suggesting that there shouldn’t be any and that drivers should be able to speed at will, in the same way that you seem to believe that tailgaters should be allowed to drive recklessly at will?

Roads should be well-maintained, but huge expense on road upgrades is a waste of money. This money should instead be spent on two things – comprehensive driver-training and a vastly improved policing regime.

“…people should smile and wave like simpletons. This solution actually works, believe me.”

Now it is very tempting to point out what you have just implied…. but I won’t.

OF COURSE people should strive to fix things that they feel are wrong, especially when their personal safety margins are threatened

The issue of speeding versus exceeding the speed limit is one which many motorists become quite heated about.

Speed limits are set by various authorities around Australia and once these limits are set people have a choice. That is to drive at or above those limits. If you drive above the limits then governments will certainly take advantage and use that as a tax collection method.

If we think the limits are too low we should focus on changing the limits, not screaming when we get fined for not complying with what society apparently has agreed is a sensible and safe limit.

If any of you have tried driving at the speed limit you will find angry queues behind you, or if on a dual lane road you will find yourself regularly the lone vehicle as the packs whizz past, until the next pack catches up.

It is hypocritical to exceed the set speed limit and then whinge about being fined. What other laws would you consider not complying with?

As to speed not killing, stupid statement. It does, regularly but clearly isn't the only cause of road deaths.

With so many calls for fairness, reasonableness, justice and so on in this thread, you would think we were talking about something that was susceptible to the application of logic.

But it is a tax, people. A means by which a government can raise revenue from the population while giving the impression of "doing the right thing".

Driving fast can be dangerous. So tax it. You know it makes sense.

There needs to be no rhyme or reason behind the speed itself. If there were, none of us would be allowed to drive at all.

If there are fewer accidents at 50kph than 60, and fewer again at 40, and so on down to zero accidents at zero kph, then it can be argued that any speed limit over zero kph is recklessly endangering the population.

Therefore we are always going to be talking about compromises, whichever number we pick.

So forget about relative speed levels, relative skills of drivers, relative dangers inherent in the time of day, time of year, climatic conditions, whether school is out or in. It is a tax designed to bring in a certain level of revenue.

If revenue levels decline for whatever reason, you may be sure that i) the limits will be lowered and ii) more cameras will be installed, until the revenue level once again rises to the desired level.

How will they justify this? Because (ah!) the previous "driver education plan" that produced the last "speed management system" was so clearly successful. QED.

You know it makes sense.

Pericles,

I am in total agreement with your sentiments and your post distilled one of my issues very well.

IMO most accidents are mainly caused through driver distraction / inattention.

If speed limits are set too low, drivers do not have enough stimulation to maintain concentration on the task at hand. This was not a very big problem until speed limits started being set by politicians / revenue raisers instead of scientists. The rule for setting a speed limit used to be the 85th %tile. ie the speed at which 85% of traffic would normally travel if no speed limit was in place. The rule now seems to be, "What speed limit do we need to apply to return a set amount of revenue" or "Someone has died and we need to be seen to be doing something so let's reduce the speed limit"

So many speed limits are now ridiculously low and this can actually lead to an increase in crashes as drivers become distracted more easily due to the low amount of concentration required to assess the situation.

For example, when I travel on the Hume in good weather and traffic is light I find myself getting drowsy very quickly. This is because at 110kph there is no need to concentrate because nothing changes. (Before someone says take a break, this could be 5 minutes into a trip first thing in the morning after a full nights sleep)

I feel much more comfortable travelling at speeds of around 140kph in these conditions. At that speed I find my concentration levels are much higher and my focus is on the road ahead, not which radio station / CD I would like to listen to. Obviously, if there is other traffic about I do NOT travel at that sort of speed, only when the road is clear and all other conditions are good.

Of course, motorists can speed too much. But perhaps the issue is not the "fixed" speed, but the conductions. Thirty kilometres per hour can be way too fast in a school zone during the day time.

On the other hand, I have been booked for speeding three times at 20-30 K over the limit, over thirty plus years: Twice at night, just as the limits changed and once during the day. All three times, I was the only car in the centre lane of a three lane road. Apart from the police, no one else was on the road. At different times. I was driving a Commodore SLE, a Nissan Skyline and a BMW 545i. With all cars, it was a pain watching the speedo instead of the road. I driven many miles/kilometres and have never had an accident.

When I was a member of a Community Service Club, we has police officer come and speak to us, wherein, he spke about the delay in reflex responses. His illustrative calculations were way-wrong, because he did not take into account that car in front also has to experience breaking time. The Police Force worked out the time it took the second car to reach the point, where the first brake lights went went on, by which time the first car would have progressed

I have been driving for twenty years alos, never had a ticket of any description, including no parking tickets.

I would like to know if there is anything that I am doing so wrong to contribute so little to government coffers.

Meanwhile, the only prangs that I have had, minor ones, were from drivers too close behind, even ay slow speed, knocking into my bumperbar, and one minor touch up from a car illegally overtaking - with me at the speed limit, who cut in front of me becuase his ego was too big for the suburban road we were on. He failed to stop of course.

I got his licence plate number, immediately went to the local cop shop to make a report, only to be told that the number plate was false. That didn't surprise me.

Funny that.

Hey there Ludwig,
At last I can reply...(limit exceeded, oops!).
You have a few questions that I'd like to answer. With regard to my licence, probably the same mechanisms that gave me one also gave one to you. Turn up at the motor registry, be polite, drive round the block and do a hillstart, its not that hard. The truck licence was about the same. Any idiot can get one, look around you (or not that far away).
Was there something that indicated other passengers in my car? and if there was, should I have gone into some kind of zealous trance and brake tested the truck or waved my arms around like a '57 gullwing door opening and closing? how would altering my course of action bring it up to your high standards, without making me look like a pillock?
My point is, I'm not that fussed about it. The truck does his(or her!) thing, and I do mine. He's not worried and neither am I. Of course I could distort it and say "he tried to KILL me" , but the truth is if it bothered me, I'd take off or take a break.
I hit about one kangaroo per year (average) and 95% of driving is at the maximum speed permitted. People that overtake then slow down are a nuisance (spotty youths, hat drivers, 4wd's),
but its important not to get too wound up.
Thusly, these emergencies you refer to are nothing new to me or trucky, and he/she can see over the top of a normal sized car.
Having no speed cameras would be just tickety boo, rather than anarchy, I'd advocate patrol cars, which can test for alcohol, seatbelts,roadworthiness, alertness, even legal ownership...
Cameras, at this stage cannot do these things.
Well you did kind of infer by not implying...smile like a simpleton, is great advice. One does not always feel inclined to smile or wave at other drivers. By forcing oneself do do so, it loses its natural appearance and looks a tad contrived, hence like a simpleton.

Speed cameras work but the penalty should be a percentage of the value of the offending vehicle.

A speed offence at a camera site indicates:

1. You were half asleep
2. You have so little regard for the law and the safety of other road users that you take the risk.

In both cases a heavy fine is justified to wake these people up.

As for the fine, based on my recent experiences along Sydney's M5 and M4, we should have a penalty as a percentage of the value of the offending vehicle. Every time I use these freeways I am road raged at least once whilst travelling at the speed limit. Nearly 100% of the time I am road raged or tailgated by type-'A'-personality king-of-the-road or queen-of-Australia offenders driving brand new or luxury cars. Its just a legalised form of class war on our roads. These people could care less that the stress caused in the aftermath of these episodes leads to confusion, that in heavy traffic conditions can cause accidents long-after-the-speeding-offender-has-passed. Since Michal Costa was roads minister this has become a regular occurrence.

The pinnacle of staying alive in the class wars on the M4, M5 was when a P-plater in a luxury Citroen road raged me at 130Kph down the M4 while I was overtaking slower cars. You just don't have time to see them coming!

A sliding scale fine would put an end to this pure and utter nonsense. It would be nice to put more police on the roads, but there aren't any since Bob-Carr decided we can double Sydney's population and save money by halving police numbers because everyone coming to Sydney now is so nice, law-abiding and labor-voting.

continuing ..

Continued ..

The reason we are having class war on our roads is because of Michael Costa and his 'Keep-Left-Unless-Speeding' directive issued in his brief stay as Roads-Minister. Just as the tartare sauce in that indelible Simpson's episode was the key to higher nuclear plant output, a change in this stupid ambiguous directive will halt willful-speeding and one upmanship on our roads. This directive was aimed at allowing truck drivers carte blanche to speed to their deadlines. But since then every druggie, party-animal and elitist in town has taken up the secret 'fight-for-your-right-to-speed' campaign.

We can never expect honesty from this Labor-State-Government but surely, for the sake of road safety we must force them to be honest about 'Keep-Left-Unless-Overtaking'. If you are doing the speed limit in the right lane then no one should have the right to tailgate or rage you and this must be made abundantly clear by this Labor Government by announcing a 'Keep-Left-Unless-Travelling-At-Speed-Limit' directive.

The life you save may be your own

A speed offence at a camera site indicates:

1. You were half asleep
2. You have so little regard for the law and the safety of other road users that you take the risk.

OR

3. The F$@ing camera is FAULTY and you were NOT SPEEDING.

Read back a few posts and amend your thinking.

CAMERAS are not all seeing infallible beings, they are FLAWED and they are a MENACE.

The ONLY way to reduce our road toll is to put MORE POLICE on the roads and REMOVE speed cameras.

Well Omnipotent voice, we sure do see things differently.

As far as I am concerned, anyone who recognises a heightened risk and just lets it continue to be imposed on them, when they could very easily get rid of it, is a half a dozen cylinders short of the full V8.

And someone who doesn’t recognise an obvious heightened risk such as being tailgated by a semi at 100kmh is just as crackers.

This is my greatest concern, even bigger than poor policing or poor driver-training (although intimately connected to both) – a significant portion of drivers not knowing or caring about safety margins and risk factors. If everyone respected the risks then there would be hardly any accidents, end of story.

As far as I am concerned, it is drivers like you who should be put off the road, until they are trained and can indicated that they understand and respect the risks in all aspects of driving.

Concerning the control of speed, SURELY the best way to go would be to have speed detection devices everywhere. I am in full agreement with Mirko Bagaric on this point. Then perhaps the police would be in a better position to concentrate on other aspects of road safety.

Regarding smiling like a simpleton – yes in some instances it is better to hold your patience and lets things go. But in many cases it is good to let your discontent be known. And by crikey, if you are being subjected to an ongoing increased risk, then for goodness sake let your discontent be known. Anything else would be irresponsible

KAEP

I share your disgust with 'Keep-Left-Unless-Overtaking'. It should indeed read 'Keep-Left-Unless-Travelling-At-Speed-Limit'

.
M3RBMW

Why do you think that mobile speed detection devices in police vehicles or in the hands of police officers are more reliable than unmanned roadside units?

We most definitely need more police on the roads, but we also need a number other things in order to improve the policing regime. One of those has definitely got to be a proliferation of speed-detection devices.

I am MUCH more concerned about inadequate speed limit signage than I am about the chances of a speed camera being faulty. Once you get away from the area that you are intimately familiar with, you have to travel on roads where you don’t know the speed limit because you haven’t encountered a sign since turning into that road, or you can’t confidently remember what the last sign was if you have been driving for a while through lots of changing speed limit zones. It is FAR too easy to inadvertently exceed the speed limit.

Then there is the issue of the cruising speed usually being just about the maximum that you can get away with. So there is effectively a very fine line between normal cruising speed and bookable speed, and it is virtually impossible to roll with the flow without occasionally exceeding that maximum allowable speed and thus risk getting booked. Even in Qld where we are apparently allowed to do 10ks over the stated limit, the same applies, because everyone then travels at ~8ks over.

And as previously mentioned, the OTHER huge gripe I have about the policing of speed is that we are not told what the leeway is on speed limits. Thus we are led to believe that it is 10ks, and that we won’t get booked until we are doing 11ks over….. but we don’t know if this always applies. This is nothing short of gross irresponsibility on behalf of the police and government. Tell us where we stand with speed limits, Mr Beatty or Mr Atkinson!

Broom broom Ludwig,
We do indeed see things differently, as I could have pointed out about five posts ago.
The talk about heightened risks is a product of your perceptions. Maybe someone who cant handle it or who's car isnt capable would see it this way but I dont fit that mould. The risky thing would be to do all the things some people do, like try and rev other drivers up in the vain hope that other drivers would follow such a directive to modify their driving style. I'm confident in my cars ability and that of my driving, because I know exactly when it will let go. I'm quite used to other competitors attempting to wall me, and being nudged quite abruptly which is unsporting to say the least. But we all know where the flag marshalls can and cant see, so you dont get mad you get even.
So you want me to train someone, yes? it will cost you.
I'd love to be taught by you, assuming you have some experience other than shopping etc.
Obesity is the biggest killer in Australia, yet there are no warnings on ice cream etc.
I'll quote some indian philosopher..."there is dishonesty in every mind that dictates that reality occur a specific way"
Which may or may not explain how you cant understand why I'm not concerned in the slightest by people travelling behind me.
Back to hanging faecal matter on revenue cameras...Are there disproportionately more accidents on the autobahn in Germany?
How can there be a road WITHOUT a speed limit when we are reliably informed that gore and carnage will result from 2 or 3 k's over? I think the answer is in the state of the road and the abilities of people used to driving at speed. Dont get me wrong, its killing the black forest and we dont need it here.
Still no answer why its so wrong to flash other drivers, it does slow people down.
Ha ha, 100k's is the speed limit, most trucks can achieve that. I said I was impressed.

Ludwig,

I do not for a single second assert that mobile speed detection is any better than fixed cameras, in fact they are probably less accurate.

My position is that the police should look at the situation and determine if the driver is driving in a manner that is inappropriate. The use of the speed detection could then be applied as a simple method of applying a penalty.

Just because the car is travelling over the speed limit does NOT mean they are unsafe, just as driving at the limit does not mean they are safe.

At the moment the police have little if any discretion and must book people for speeding whether they believe there is a risk or not. This policy MUST change to allow police officers more discretion. A warning given on the spot at the time of the "offence" is far more likely to improve the way the driver behaves than a fine in the mail 2-3 weeks later when they don't even remember the circumstances.

The whole speed camera programme is flawed and dangerous and if the politicians genuinely had any desire to address the road toll they would remove them and get back to the policing policies of old.

Before speed cameras the road toll was reducing at a fairly consistent rate but since the introduction of speed cameras in 1992 the toll has flat lined and in some cases actually started to increase. Obviously the current polices are NOT working - if it ain't broke don't fix it - but they did and they stuffed it up.

Omnipotent voice

You certainly are a perplexing individual.

“The talk about heightened risks is a product of your perceptions.”

If you perceive that travelling at 100kmh with a semi 2 metres off your bumper compared to travelling at 100kmh with no vehicles around you is not significantly more dangerous, then…wow!

That’s tooo whacky for me.

There is no point in continuing this discussion with you.

M3RBMW

Thanks for the clarification.

I appreciate your desire to have each situation assessed on its merits. But there are a few problems with this;

1. Different police officers have different judgements. Judgements range widely. Inequality results. What we are allowed to get away with in one town, we might get hauled up for in the next town. What we might be allowed to get away with on one route, say the daily trip to work, under the regular patrol of one officer, we might get busted for by a replacement officer.

2. Unfortunately, discretionary powers get abused. There is a very significant tendency for some police officers to book young males but let young females of or older drivers go, or to book out-of-towners and let the locals get away with the same thing, or to target specific individuals.

3. And perhaps most significantly of all, police discretionary powers can mean that they concentrate on a few easy things and don’t even try to deal with the majority of infringements

My very strong feeling is that police should have less discretionary powers and be held to account much more rigorously.

I think that the law, especially as it pertains to road safety, should be as simple and as black and white as possible. Speed limits should of course always err on the side of caution, which means that in many situations you could exceed the speed limit quite safely. However, if you do you should be booked, just so long as the speed limit is patently obvious.

So what if we are forced to travel at 10 or perhaps 20kmh slower than we think we could safely travel at? What is wrong with the whole set-up erring quite strongly on the side of caution? How about just enjoying the ride, in the knowledge that it will be a whole lot quicker and more comfortable than walking or cycling, quicker than a bus or train in most cases, and a whole lot cheaper than a taxi

Lugwig,

You must have missed one of my earlier posts.

The problem with forcing people to drive slower than is appropriate for the situation is that drivers tend to get distracted more easily and are more likely to become drowsy. Driving at a speed that is appropriate for the conditions will more likely result in the driver focusing on the job at hand and be less likely to become drowsy.

As I also said in an earlier post, over 80% of crashes and near misses occur within 3 seconds of the driver becoming distracted.

Now, which situation is better.

Potentially reduce crashes by a possible 80% (distracted drivers) and increase crashes by a possible 3% (crashes with the major cause of travelling above the speed limit) by allowing drivers to travel at an appropriate speed, which may be above the current speed limit

OR

Potentially increase crashes by a possible 80% (distracted drivers) and decrease crashes by a possible 3% (speeding) by forcing drivers to travel at a speed that is too slow to maintain concentration.

There is far more to this issue than just sitting back and enjoying the ride...

Yes, I'm a whacky and zany kind of guy.
The risks begin as soon as the journey starts, The trick is to minimise them. I never thought a simple trip from Innisfail to Cairns would turn into such an epic.
You'd not be comfortable with it and may react in a manner likely to cause inconvenience and frustration, in my opinion rude and dangerous. But you probably pay your rego too and are entitled to do as you see fit. Hasbeen seems like a sensible person, knows how to be courteous and lets faster traffic pass.
Thats great advice about sitting back and enjoying the journey, maybe you should be prime minister.
You were spot on about police discretion though, I couldnt agree more.
Seems a bit childish to make statements such as you did and declare the conversation over, another example of how you have a strong desire to control things outside your own space (like other drivers) and an inability to accept that just maybe there are better ways of dealing with things.
I love guessing games...my guess is that you are female, drive a hyundai, live at home with parents, 18-25, maybe live at Ryde or Epping.
5 guesses @20% each, be a sport and give the score.
I'll be a sport and admit I think I got a revenue camera fine today.

I for one like the idea of speeding fines. I care not where the police place their pesky little cameras be they stuck at the bottom of a hill., hidden in bushes or on the dash of an unmarked car.

I note the signage that abounds on our highways and byways telling me how fast the law says I can go - I usually take heed of this advice - even if I think my driving prowess and the road conditions tell me (rightly or wrongly) I can go faster;

The "Speed Kills" arguement is fallacious - who cares if there are other contributing factors - its only a bloody advertising hook.

If we ever construct freeways like they have in Germany for example in such a way that they can handle great speed we can go faster - right now we cant.

Fines high or low I really do not care - yes the Government takes in a lot of money from fines - so what! if you dont want to be fined or more perversely if you are motivated by a desire to resist all governments attempts at securing money no matter how legitimate the means - Dont Drive Faster Than the Law permits - Deny them the pleasure of your hard earned cash, then - take your arrogant assumptions about how well you can handle your high performance car, or what ever else veehickul you might drive - and slip them deep into your tail pipe.

M3RBMW

Maybe there is some sort of a trade-off between driving slowly and carefully and perhaps becoming a bit jaded and distracted, and driving fast and perhaps staying more alert.

But why would people stay more alert when driving faster? Directly because they have to be that much more careful! They recognise, mostly subconsciously, that there is an increased risk, which requires fuller attention.

It is a bit of a crazy argument to suggest that drivers are performing more safely because they are driving in a riskier manner, which is what you are inadvertently implying. Extrapolating this line of thinking: the safest drivers would be those who take the most risks, because they would also be the most alert.

SURELY it is preferable to maintain safety margins in the first instance, and concentrate on keeping them in place.

Your figures are highly problematic.

Firstly, we cannot assume that slower drivers cause the majority of distraction-related accidents.

Secondly, we have to be highly sceptical about distraction leading to 80% of accidents and speeding leading to 3%. The exact cause of many accidents is only an estimate, and is often a combination of factors.

In the vast majority of accidents are caused by a lack of respect for the risks and a lack of knowledge of the sorts and sizes of safety margins that should be observed in order to minimise risk. If there was such a category, we would probably find that 90%+ of all accidents would fall into it.

Ludwig,

If the increased speed instils a sense of reduced safety then the speed is inappropriate. I do NOT simply advocate driving as fast as possible, I advocate driving at a speed at which you are completely comfortable. For many that speed might be 140-150 on the Hume when conditions are clear. At those speeds I am 100% comfortable and I perceive no increase in risk. I am also far more alert because the task of driving now requires my attention (it ALWAYS requires my attention but when the speed is too low it is not required to the same level).

I have driven through Europe a couple of times and can honestly say that I felt comfortable driving at 250kph in Germany. I can also say that I was concentrating 100% on the job at hand. Not because of a significant increase in risk but because the drivers inputs have to be far more precise at those speeds and you have to be aware of what is happening a long way ahead.

When I approach slower traffic I always slow down to within 10-15kph of the speed of the other traffic until I have passed them because they represent a genuine increase in risk and so I reduce speed accordingly.

Once again I would like to reiterate that I do NOT advocate forcing everyone to drive faster, simply to allow them to drive at a speed that they find comfortable.

On the subject of voluntary taxes, on the way home tonight I noticed two vehicles 'flashed' as they went through the red light at a long established and well signposted red light camera.

The fact that people are willing to risk throwing money out of the car window, so to speak, only shows to me the mentality of many drivers, that is, they don't care that things like red lights are there both for safety and the convenience of other drivers.

I equate red light camers with speed cameras. They are both there to try to modify people's behaviour, in most cases they work, otherwise there would be virtually no one with 'gold' licences.

But for a select few, they always argue that there mnust have been something wrong with the camera when the fault is with their own driving.

The fact that so many people push through red lights when they have time, due to the amber light, to slow down and stop, is another problem. I don't think that there would be anyone reading this who hasn't had the situation of trying to turn right at traffic lights but facing difficulties due to selfish drivers not accepting the fact that the amber light is also there to let other traffic turn.

They also trade on the fact that not everyone will behave like they do, so when they have to turn right they expect people to let them.

The roads abound with selfish, moron drivers who think that the world only exists for them.

M3RBMW

I think there is a bunch of problems with your desire to do the ‘speed of comfort’.

It would mean that drivers would be doing all manner of different speeds, which really doesn’t work very well on a single-lane road where overtaking is difficult, or even on a double-lane road where the traffic is reasonably dense.

Those who would wish to drive fast would be forever flustered about slower drivers. For a large portion of drivers, this would lead directly to following too closely and overtaking when it is not fully safe to do so. In other words, it would lead to an increased risk for everybody concerned.

There is a great deal of merit in making all vehicles travel at about the same speed.

We would be placing the onus of care and the perceptions of risk firmly in the hands of drivers, with no mitigation by the law, which as Omnipotent voice has so eloquently demonstrated, is an absolute no-no, because many drivers simply don’t have a reasonable perception of the risks. You just need to listen to the number of hoons on our roads, especially every Friday and Saturday night, everywhere, in every town and suburb. Just imagine the situation if they were allowed to do their speed of comfort whenever they liked.

We simply MUST have speed limits, and those limits simply MUST be implemented well on the side of caution in ideal conditions, to take into account the less astute and less considerate drivers, and also the fact that it would be impractical to change speed limits in less than ideal conditions, eg at night, in rain or fog, etc.

Then, we simply MUST have adequate policing of those limits to the extent that the vast majority of drivers observe them.

Hold on, I’ll just pinch myself. Yes, you really are suggesting that we do away with speed limits altogether aren’t you. O dear. I don’t believe I am entertaining this line of discussion. That’s just crazy stuff!!

I could write many pages on this topic but it really is yesterday's problem. Modern computer technology is already advanced enough so that cheaply available hardware could prevent all accidents currently attributed to "driver error".
Cheap computers and communications hardware could save 99% of lives lost on the roads. Unfortunately for drivers such hardware would also cost politicians 100% of fine revenue, so it is unlikely to happen just yet.

On a related topic, I often hear complaints about how unfair speed camera are, but the numbers of these devices increase under Liberal and Labor govts. I vote for neither major party so I am not to blame.
If you don't like what they do STOP VOTING THEM IN.

Make a check list of everything you want them to do (eg drop speed cameras) and if any party does not meet your entire check list then DON'T VOTE FOR THEM.

Hey funksters,
I disagree with Hamlet on equating speed cameras and red light cameras. The other week, someone flashed me for a booze bus and it offended me. Some things like booze busses are for safety rather than revenue and should be respected. Yes I am a hoon, lets not muck around.
Red light cameras are for safety also, theres a story in that, I got one of them as well but I was in front so I reckon he triggered it. Oh well wear it on the chin. They are activated as you cross the line so little room for ambiguity there.
Booze busses are for the protection of innocent motorists, though I disagree with the antiquated and ambiguous drink driving laws. How many people know about riding a horse or using a ride-on mower on privately owned property?
Speed cameras take the cream off driving offences and ignore much more serious problems. A percentage of my concentration is spent on keeping watch for the b#s%t*ards, which is too much. Report a stolen car and see how long it takes for a result.
Wouldnt it be an awesome episode of the Bill if it showed the intricacies of hiding in the bushes, listening to the races etc. whilst waiting for some poor bugger in a hurry.
Go in peace and live wholesome existences fellow whingers.

Ludwig,

Can you please point out just where I have advocated the removal of all speed limits?

Speed limits are absolutely necessary in most situations, not all situations. (The open roads in the Northern Territory don't have any.) It is the enforcement and the setting of those speed limits that I am unhappy with.

Speed limits are often set ridiculously low and then often enforced with absolutely no discretion.

For most of the Hume highway speeds of 140-150 would be absolutely safe but as Australian drivers have not been allowed to travel at those speeds for at least 2 generations I would not advocate setting the limit that high. I would advocate a gradual increase in the speed limits to allow drivers to gain experience.

I would also advocate that exceeding the speed limit should only be used to book someone if the speed was inappropriate for the conditions and the only way that can happen is if a human being is the one doing the booking.

Speed limits will always be with us but why should a driver in Victoria be fined over $200 and lose 3 points for driving at 55kph past a school at 2am. Oh, of course, we don't want to run over the little darling that just set fire to it do we?

Last point, there is strong support for keeping all traffic at the same speed but there is equally strong support for driving at different speeds. I am for the latter because it helps me to keep alert making sure I know where all the cars around me are, including those approaching from behind.

Please read my comments as written and do not misrepresent them.

M3RBMW, your earlier reference to no-limit European roads reminds me of an experience I had in the very late eighties in Germany, just before the Wall came down, but when the East-West border had become more porous.

I was accustomed to sitting comfortably in the centre lane of the Autobahn at 190-200kph in my hired Passat, watching the BMWs and Porsches flash past me in the fast lane. But on this occasion the traffic slowed to a crawl every few kilometers, as every so often we came across a Trabi in the slow lane...

The slow lane was normally for those people who pottered along at 100-120kph, of course, and to meet a coal-burning Trabi doing its best at 50kph was very disruptive. Anyone else remember the distinctive smell as you passed one?

Much of the reason that German Autobahns are among the safest roads in the world is because if you are accustomed to drive at 200kph plus, you become a better driver than someone who is not. You are more alert, more aware of other traffic, and your reflexes are sharper as a result. And lane discipline is both exemplary and automatic - after the first couple of experiences of a Porsche bearing down upon you, lights ablaze, because you have tarried too long in the fast lane, you think much more carefully about the entire process of overtaking.

But the other major factor is of course the quality of the road itself - I can't think of a single road in NSW that is safe to drive on at anything approaching that speed.

M3RBMW

Reread your second last post and tell me how on earth I could NOT assume that you were advocating no speed limits.

150kmh on the Hume Hwy! Driving as fast as one feels comfortable wherever one sees fit to do so!

What would you expect me to have assumed?

“Speed limits are absolutely necessary in most situations”.

Of course they are. I am pleased that you agree.

Some speed limits are set low for the conditions, occasionally you might be able to say ridiculously low. But most of the time they are set at a level that reflects a reasonable degree of caution. Yes, this is often below the ‘ideal’ cruising speed in ideal conditions, but so it should be.

A speed of 140 –150kmh is ridiculous, even on the best roads. It is ridiculous because it would be too fast for many drivers who would not drive safely at such a speed, but would do it anyway if they could. 110 or perhaps 120 is as fast as we should be allowed to drive.

Advocating a gradual increase in speed limits would not allow new drivers to gain experience, before they felt compelled to drive at top speed. And new totally inexperienced drivers have the highest accident rate, all else being equal.

“I would also advocate that exceeding the speed limit should only be used to book someone if the speed was inappropriate for the conditions and the only way that can happen is if a human being is the one doing the booking.”

Continued

I absolutely disagree. We MUST all be under the same rules. That’s the purpose of speed limits. How on earth can you advocate exceeding the speed limit without doing away with the speed limit?? It sounds awfully like you have no respect for the law. While you may advocate driving as fast as one is comfortable with, you have got to be completely overstepping the mark in saying that drivers should be allowed to exceed the speed limit if they think it is safe to do so.

Again, after your comments on this, I ask, how can I not assume that you do in fact want to abolish speed limits?

You seem to be confusing two very different things – an opinion that speed limits are set too low a lot of the time, which may have some merit, and an opinion that we should be allowed to do whatever speed we feel comfortable with regardless of speed limits, which has absolutely no merit at all.

Please don’t accuse me of misrepresenting your comments. I am doing my best to interpret them at face value and address them accordingly.

Pericles makes a very good point. If everyone is driving at about the same speed, it is relatively safe, even if it is fast. But when you have vehicles travelling at all different speeds, you have a considerably increased risk. If you then increase the maximum allowable speed by a lot while not forcing the slower drivers to drive a lot faster, you have a dangerous situation.

Again, there is lot of merit in having all vehicles doing about the same speed, and I therefore strongly disagree with you M3RBMW regarding your desire for vehicles to be able to drive on the same roads at very different speeds.

If this is what you think I said, Ludwig, I'm losing my touch.

>>Pericles makes a very good point. If everyone is driving at about the same speed, it is relatively safe<<

On the Autobahn, there are usually three lanes travelling at vastly different speeds. Overtaking is accomplished only after a very careful evaluation of i) your own speed ii) the speed of the car you are overtaking and iii) the distance and speed of any traffic in the lane you will be using to overtake. When "everyone is driving at about the same speed" there are far fewer overtaking manoeuvres, and the disciplines involved get little exercise.

>>A speed of 140 –150kmh is ridiculous, even on the best roads. It is ridiculous because it would be too fast for many drivers who would not drive safely at such a speed, but would do it anyway if they could. 110 or perhaps 120 is as fast as we should be allowed to drive.<<

This is simply saying that we should legislate against the capable majority in order to protect the ineptitude of the few. People who cannot drive safely at 150kph are not obliged to do so simply because the sign says they can. On the Autobahn you do not see people driving as fast as their cars will go, simply because they are allowed to. Having been trusted with the choice of speed, rather than having a speed imposed upon them, they choose to drive within their capabilities.

I know we are heading closer to your world of "protect everyone from the possibility they may be stupid" every day, but just bear in mind what I said before about the logic of the speed limit.

"If there are fewer accidents at 50kph than 60, and fewer again at 40, and so on down to zero accidents at zero kph, then it can be argued that any speed limit over zero kph is recklessly endangering the population."

And where there is no logic, you will inevitably find that common sense disappears, leaving prejudice and vested interests to fight it out.

Well Pericles, you do surprise me.

Your message was crystal clear –

“The slow lane was normally for those people who pottered along at 100-120kph, of course, and to meet a coal-burning Trabi doing its best at 50kph was very disruptive.”

Vehicles doing very different speeds on the same road cause problems!

On the autobahn, “When ‘everyone is driving at about the same speed’ there are far fewer overtaking manoeuvres….”

Exactly. And that has got to be whole lot safer than a lot of overtaking manoeuvres, doesn’t it?

“Overtaking is accomplished only after a very careful evaluation of i) your own speed ii) the speed of the car you are overtaking and iii) the distance and speed of any traffic in the lane you will be using to overtake.”

Yes! And can you assert that every driver has got the skills to do all of those things all of the time in a safe manner? Of course not. The less overtaking manoeuvres the better. And the more constant the speed for all vehicles, the less the need for overtaking. A small portion of drivers only need to get it a little bit wrong a little bit of the time for there to be a very significant safety issue.

“On the Autobahn you do not see people driving as fast as their cars will go, simply because they are allowed to. Having been trusted with the choice of speed, rather than having a speed imposed upon them, they choose to drive within their capabilities.”

They choose to drive within what they feel are their capabilities. While they feel capable to drive at that speed, and probably are in ideal circumstances, how capable are they of handling hazardous situations?

The autobahn is very different to single-lane Australian highways.

Australian drivers are pathetically poorly trained or qualified to drive. How do you think they would stack up on our highways if we suddenly lifted the speed limit to 150?

Please spare us the silly stuff about zero kmh being the safest speed. Of course there is balance between an efficient speed and safety

OK I see your problem - you are assuming that I am in favour of increasing the speed limit on single-lane highways. Which I am not, I am only pointing out that speed, per se, has little relevance to road safety.

The quality of the road is a factor, which I did point out in an earlier post.

And I agree with you completely that the skill of the driver is all important. If all you do is potter along at 70, you will never be in a position to know how to control your car in an emergency. Apart from anything else, the last thing you expect at 70 is an emergency. Which is probably why so many people get wiped out through accidents that "aren't their fault" - they were complacently buzzing away, listening to a Whitney Houston track and chatting to the kids in the back.

But you will also have to admit the logic, if not the practicality, of the zero speed, zero accident argument. Because it is this argument that shows up the people who decide on the limit and the fines as being the hypocrites they are.

Ludwig,

I agree 100% with you on one point. Australian driver education is nothing short of pathetic.

This is precisely the reason I advocate the gradual increase in speed limits. What I did not add was that as well as increasing speed limits a whole raft of other issues should be addressed, including driver education.

I advocate a huge increase in the police presence on our roads with a strong emphasis on genuinely poor driving rather than exceeding an arbitrary speed limit.

You seem to think that differing speeds is dangerous and yet some of the safest roads (deaths per billion kilometres travelled) are the German Autobahns. The Northern Territory has an incredibly low road toll and yet the SINGLE lane road from central Australia to Darwin does not have a speed limit (from the border).

Why is it that on a road that in every respect is 100% identical, it suddenly becomes dangerous to exceed 100kph once you cross an invisible line? or suddenly becomes safe to drive in excess of 100kph?

Speed limits should be about setting an appropriate limit for average conditions and should be treated as such. When conditions are worse than average we are expected to slow down, but cannot be booked for staying at the limit, so why shouldn't we be able to go a little faster when conditions are better than average?

Simple answer really.... Revenue

Pericles, speed is a very significant factor in road safety, in combination with other things, most notably driver-skills.

There is a strong correlation between those who speed and those who don’t fully understand or appreciate the risks, as I have said. Those who do understand these things are far less inclined to put themselves under added risk in the first place. Hence, they are far less inclined to speed.

Those who are most inclined to speed are young males with next to no understanding of the risks.

Driver-skills, and a training regime to make sure they have those skills, comprise a huge part of the road-safety issue.

Yes the quality of the roads is a factor in determining speed limits, and accidents. But top-quality highways are prone to similar accident rates, compared to the number of vehicles, as many unsealed backroads. Again, driver-training and skills are all-important, in being able to judge the right sort of driving for the conditions. The conditions, eg road quality, are secondary.

“If all you do is potter along at 70, you will never be in a position to know how to control your car in an emergency. Apart from anything else, the last thing you expect at 70 is an emergency. Which is probably why so many people get wiped out through accidents that "aren't their fault" - they were complacently buzzing away, listening to a Whitney Houston track and chatting to the kids in the back.”

If you “potter” along at a sensible reserved speed, you have MUCH less chance of finding yourself in an emergency. Obviously, if you are out there driving close to your limit, in such a manner that you feel you need to be tuned right in to your driving, then you are likely to be putting yourself at a considerably increased risk. If you are going at a reserved speed and you do encounter an emergency situation, you have more time to react and more ability to avoid the crunch than if you are hooting along. This seems like really basic eminently sensible logic to me.

"If you “potter” along at a sensible reserved speed, you have MUCH less chance of finding yourself in an emergency. Obviously, if you are out there driving close to your limit, in such a manner that you feel you need to be tuned right in to your driving, then you are likely to be putting yourself at a considerably increased risk. If you are going at a reserved speed and you do encounter an emergency situation, you have more time to react and more ability to avoid the crunch than if you are hooting along. This seems like really basic eminently sensible logic to me."

People who drive faster usually concentrate on their driving and the road ahead, much more so than the dozy driver driving at 100kph in a long line of cars all travelling at the same speed. They also tend to look much further ahead.

Since there is less distraction and their vision is further ahead, the faster driver is actually at a much less risk of a crash because they will take action much earlier.

A faster driver is often a safer driver and contrary to your belief may have more time to react than the slower driver.

I have seen it happen so many times. In fact a friend was driving on a highway at 100kph along with a long line of other cars when he noticed the brake lights on a car some 20-30 cars distant. He slowed immediately only to watch a multi car pileup unfold in front of his eyes as each driver ahead, reacting to the brake lights directly in front of them, had less and less time to react. Ho stopped completely safely in awe of the 5 cars piled up in front of him.

If your focus is far ahead, which is usually the case with faster drivers, you are more likely to take avoiding action before the situation becomes critical.

M3RBMW

[in response to your first post today]

We agree on a couple of key points – piss-poor driver training and skills, and a much greater police presence and overall policing regime. Good.

“The Northern Territory has an incredibly low road toll and yet the SINGLE lane road from central Australia to Darwin does not have a speed limit (from the border).”

I wouldn’t call any road toll “incredibly low”. The low accident rate on that road has got everything to do with the low traffic volume and abundant overtaking opportunities.

“Why is it that on a road that in every respect is 100% identical, it suddenly becomes dangerous to exceed 100kph once you cross an invisible line? or suddenly becomes safe to drive in excess of 100kph?”

I agree that the inconsistency is silly. The same rules should apply across the country. On straight, flat, top-quality highways, with low traffic volume, you could argue that the speed limit could be perhaps 150, although I would say no more than 120. But the concept of no speed limit at all is just crazy, because it encourages the idiot element to just give it all their vehicle has got, regardless of safety.

I wonder how the road toll on the Stuart and Barkly Highways compares to the number of vehicles that use them? What fraction of accidents have been caused by a speed of over 110kmh, or have had such a speed as a contributing factor? We don’t know, but I would guess that it would be considerable. So we simply cannot say that the absence of a speed limit has had no significant consequences.

“Speed limits should be about setting an appropriate limit for average conditions………so why shouldn't we be able to go a little faster when conditions are better than average?”

In an ideal world, I could agree. But how on earth would you implement it? Afterall, it would need to be well-policed, and fairly for all, or it would be abused by the very large idiot factor.

“People who drive faster usually concentrate on their driving and the road ahead, much more so than the dozy driver driving at 100kph in a long line of cars all travelling at the same speed.”

No I can’t agree. People who drive faster tend to be the impatient ones, who don’t have a lot of time for other road-users and as I have said before, are not adequately aware of the risks. As a passenger, as a driver observing the behaviour of tailgating drivers behind me and as a driver in the slow lane on dual carriageways, I have seen plenty of examples where faster drivers are not particularly focussed on their driving.

I don’t know how you can consider slower drivers to be “dozy” or poorly focussed. I don’t think there is any correlation with poor concentration and slower driving. If there is a correlation, it is negative. That is, I think that faster drivers tend to be the less focussed ones or at least proportionally less well focussed than they need to be, given that they need to be more alert when driving faster.

“If your focus is far ahead, which is usually the case with faster drivers, you are more likely to take avoiding action before the situation becomes critical.”

Again, I cannot see that faster drivers have a longer-distance focus. Just the opposite seems true in my experience – faster drivers tend to follow too closely and not be prepared to stop quickly, and that is a very strong indication of a short focus.

I think we will just have to agree to strongly disagree on this issue.

You might be interested to take up discussion on various other aspects of road safety that I have commented on under http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2877.

Cheers

Unfortunately we are probably talking about different situations and hence the void between us.

In general I am talking about highway driving, not suburban driving. I would tend to agree that often the faster drivers on suburban roads tend to tailgate.

I am a fast driver, always have been and always will be, and I make no apology for that.

I drive fast only when the road is clear and conditions allow. I do NOT tailgate and I always look far ahead. This usually means I change lanes regularly, as I see my current lane become more congested than another lane, but it does not mean I weave all over the place continually.

Most of the people I know who are fast drivers, drive in a very similar manner to me and most fast drivers I have spoken to, but not observed, tell a similar tale. So my observations may well be tarnished by the way those around me, and whom I am in contact with, operate their vehicles.

I have also spent a lot of time on the safespeed.co.uk forum and have read a lot of research on the matter, so I believe my views are not unreasonable.

I would recommend a visit to the aforementioned web site and would be interested in your views after reading some of the research available through that site.

[Deleted for flaming]

[Deleted for flaming. Poster suspended.]

[Deleted for flaming. Commenter suspended.]

[Deleted and poster suspended for flaming]

From: http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/409af98/kaneshiro/factskaneshiro.html#speedlimits

"In 1987, the U.S. Congress amended a 1974 law limiting the National Maximum Speed Limit to 55 mph by allowing states to raise the speed limit to 65 on rural interstates. Most states chose to do so and, predictably, death tolls on those roads went up by over 30 percent in 1989."

On the psychology of speeding and anti-social behaviour.

http://www.psychologymatters.org/roadrage.html

A comment what your car says about you.

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/auto/20021204a.asp

Effects of Speed Cameras on Fatalities: From an EDU site and not a motorist’s lobby group.

http://www.hunews.huji.ac.il/articles.asp?cat=6&artID=617

From the Australian Bureau of Statistics:

Improved enforcement technology

”Enforcement technology, such as speed cameras, has made a major impact since being introduced in the late 1980s, first in Victoria and later in most other jurisdictions. Other innovations include laser based speed measuring devices and red light cameras.”

http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/dc057c1016e548b4ca256c470025ff88/9afd4e13d7da281fca2569de0028b40c!OpenDocument

Rebuttal of an article by Dr Alan Buckingham, in which Dr Buckingham claimed that speed is not a problem.

http://www.cis.org.au/policy/summer03-04/polsumm0304-8.htm

“Scientific basis for the strategic directions of the safety camera program in Victoria”

http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/muarc202.html

England & Scotland Speed Camera News

http://www.policespeedcameras.info/uk_news.html#m-way

"Motorist Pauline Caley, 42, said: "The speedcams make things more dangerous, not safer. You have to slow down really quickly from 70mph to 40mph and motorists slam on their brakes at the last moment.""

(Comment – if motorists had been driving at the speed limit all along they would not have ‘needed’ to slow down suddenly – which really begs that speed limits be enforced over the entire length of that road)

Hamlet,

Interesting sources but:

Raising of the speed limit in the USA from 55mph to 65mph resulted in a drop in the road toll. “Of course, from 1974 to 1983, the fatality rate dropped from 3.5 to 2.6 (deaths/million vehicle miles), and today, after the increase of limits to 65 in 1987, and the increase in ACTUAL speeds everywhere, the fatality rate is 1.7. Half of what it was in 1974!”
http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/lyingwsc.html

I suppose the next link is supposed to say something about me but unfortunately you have it all wrong, as usual. I own a BMW M3R for the simple reason that I love to compete in performance events and have always done so. As I got older I could afford a better car but once I found the current car in 1995 I have not felt the need to change because as far as I am concerned it meets every performance requirement I have. I actually driver a Subaru as my daily commuter…

Effects of speed cameras – 33% is simply a lie. - 2002 was worse than 1998. The long established fatality rate reduction has almost stalled (6.81% pa average from 1978 to 1993, and 0.42% pa from 1999 to 2001.(figures from the Department for Transport (DFT).

From the Australian Bureau of Statistics: Sure – from 2001. try 2006 http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/46d1bc47ac9d0c7bca256c470025ff87/4A814725D2E88920CA2570DE0019B47F?opendocument The reduction in deaths on our roads has all but stalled.

Dr Alan Buckingham – In another article from the same site they seem to support his findings. http://www.cis.org.au/Exechigh/Eh2003/EH16003.htm

Monash is largely government funded and their research reflects the fact that they need to support the government to keep the funding.

Did you actually read the rest of the article? They reduce the speed limit to 50 causing an increase in crashes

Speed Camera Revenue Raising
The Police and RTA state that Speed Kills and that is the reason for all the Speed Cameras.
Well, lets look at the situation.
A motorist goes through a Speed Camera and gets zapped for 20k over the limit and will get an infringement in a few weeks time.
However after the Motorist goes through the Speed Camera Location he is allowed to proceed on his or her trip to their destination.
If the Motorist then has a crash and causes injury or death or a serious accident, Who is to blame?
The RTA and the Police will say, the Motorist!
Hey hang on, the RTA and the Police allowed that motorist to continue driving after commiting a Traffic Offence.
The RTA and Police are equally to blame because they allowed the accident or injury to happen.
Lets face the facts.
More Police Cars on the road to pull up speeding motorist and fine them on the spot or take their licence from them or in the worst case, they could maybe take the car off the road.
Anyone who believes that the Revenue Raised is going to prevent accidents and save lives must still think that the Earth is Flat.
If you do get a Speed Fine and you believe you are not Guilty then take the matter to Court and make them prove beyond reasonable doubt that you in fact were exceeding the speed limit.
Paying your speed fine without a fight is the same as giving your wallet to a robber without a fight.
Thats it!

I appreciate your argument silver77, but let’s consider it a bit further;

I would argue that there are nowhere near enough speed cameras around.

For most drivers, it comes down to the perceived risk. The risk of being busted for speeding is generally very small, except on certain well-regulated roads, so there is a strong inclination for many to speed.

It is physically impossible to have police everywhere, focussing on speed. So unmanned devices are definitely the way to go. I reckon there should be vastly more of them. And of course we cannot escape there being a lag time between being caught out by a camera and being compelled to pay up.

There are a number of associated issues;

For one, speed limits have to be much more clearly and frequently signed, so that there can be no doubt about what speed zone you are in.

I have mentioned many other associated issues in numerous posts under ‘Putting the brakes on the road toll’. http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2877. I would love to hear your comments on anything mentioned there.

Speed camera revenue should be put directly into multiplying the number of cameras and speed signage. I would also like to see a much higher presence of police on our roads, but mostly in unmarked cars, so that in the eyes of drivers any reasonably new car could potentially be a police vehicle. If those measures were taken, we would very soon have the speed factor under control.

Any state that cuts off compensation for motor accident victims,then spends the money on Footy clubs and Grand Final Dinners is morally corrupt.
TAC advertisments that do not have any logic.
The car travelling at 55kph,instead of 60kph does not injure the child so much.
If the child had been trained in JUDO,perhaps she would not even receive such an injury,even at 70 kph.
The argument goes why was the car travelling down the street in the first place,if the driver had used public transport there would be no accident.
Speed does not kill,this is proved by the number of deaths on the very fast trains that travel in Asia and Europe.If speed killed nobody would travel by plane.
I have travelled in Norway a country controlled by women where their are no fast roads and 30kph is a common speed limit.Even with these feminine speeds their are still just as many injuries,as Sweden and Germany the home of high speed.
As Mark Webber noted Australia is the only population in the world that suffer from such tight control on the roads.
The Australian penal colony mentality still exists.
The eight Australian governments love it all the way to the bank.

Speed cameras are fault ridden, inept and illegal in Australia ... learn why here .. www.howtodot.com

Alright joyboy, so what’s the answer then?

Completely abandon speed cameras?

Or……

Strive to see that they are accurate, legal under all interpretations of the law, and used effectively where speeding is a problem?