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