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.