Someone else has started a thread complaining specifically about policing. I notice that there seems to be a big negative reaction to law enforcement - particularly traffic law at the moment. I have included 3 examples below. The first is an add for a rally against Victorian speed tolerances. The second is a newspaper giving advice on beating speed cameras. The third is a newspaper article where speed cameras are described as "as socially unacceptable as drinking and driving". Why do you suppose there is such a fuss at the moment?

Example 1

JOIN THE MASS RALLY AGAINST UNFAIR SPEED CAMERA TOLERANCES

October 29th 2006

On Sunday October 29th a mass protest rally will be held in Melbourne city centre to demand at least 10% tolerance, before speeding fines are issued by speed cameras.

11am, CNR SWANSTON & BOURKE ST

Motorists should not be fined for speeds of only 3 km/h over the posted limit – this is impractical, unreasonable and unfairly penalises motorists who are rightly paying more attention to the road than to their speedo. In addition, many vehicles were manufactured to Australian Design Rules only requiring a plus or minus 10% accuracy in their speedos.
Other states have more reasonable tolerances to allow for these factors.

HOW YOU CAN HELP:
1. Attend the protest rally.
2. Tell your friends and co-workers about the rally – the more publicity, the better. Email all your contacts about this protest and ask them to email theirs. Help it to snowball.
3. Involve everyone – this is a fight for fair treatment of all road users, whether they are motoring enthusiasts, commuters, truckies, pensioners or students. Photo-copy and distribute this.
4. Email us at the email address below to inform us that you will attend the protest and to receive further updates.

For more information, contact:
speedcamerajustice@yahoo.com.au

Example 2

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/13/1391.asp

10/16/2006
*UK: Easy Defense to Average Time Speed Cameras*
/A lane change is all it takes to defeat the latest UK speed camera
technology./

continued

SPECS camera UK motorists do not need to fear the latest in speed camera technology as government regulations have created a simple and effective countermeasure. A lane change will prevent the extremely lucrative SPECS cameras from calculating the average speed of a motorist between two or more cameras over the distance of up to 6.2 miles.

SPECS cameras are in use at 27 locations. Officials discourage use of
lane changing to avoid a ticket because it could create an accident.

Source: Drivers can avoid speeding tickets...by changing lanes
<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=410\539&in_page_id=1770&ct=5>
(Daily Mail (UK), 10/16/2006)

Example 3

http://www.motoring.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=3490536&fSectionId=751&fSetId=381

'Speed cameras as socially acceptable as drinking and driving'
[ See related stories <http://www.motoring.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=3490536&fSectionId=751&fSetId=38\
1#related>]

October 18, 2006

London, England – The Association of British Drivers (ABD) has reacted strongly to a newspaper story in which an ex-police officer and former camera partnership manager alleged that speed trap cameras were deliberately positioned to raise as much revenue as possible with no thought to road safety.

Etc.

"Road users have been victimised but road safety is the real victim," he said. "The number of people killed on British roads has been virtually the same since the start of officialdom's obsession with speed.

"This scandalous, red herring, revenue raiser approach must now be
abolished; this country must return to proven road safety principles

*'This is nothing but greedy empire building using greed cameras'*

"Speed enforcement by camera is now as socially acceptable as drink
driving."

What a lot of cry babies !

With the exception of the specific speedo tolerances, and where (of course, the cameras are faulty - and there are many), I think if you get caught speeding - you pay the damn penalty.

I live on the Great Western Highway in NSW, and I'm sick and tired of drivers disregarding the speed limits and threatening lives. If it's not the hoons on a Saturday night with a lethal mixture of hormaones, alcohol and petrol in their bloodstreams; it's the truckdrivers on uppers (who substitute their air-horns for brakes when approaching a red light).

NO - you speed, you pay. And then learn some road rules, some courtesy and share the road with everyone else.

“Why do you suppose there is such a fuss at the moment?”

Is there, any more than usual?

Anyway, I am appalled at this rally. I will send them a message via the email address you provided, notifying them of this forum and this topic. So let’s see if they are willing to justify their terrible stance on this public forum, where anyone and everyone can read their comments.

I have mixed feelings about some of your other examples.

Telling the public how to avoid speed cameras, other than to slow down and stay with in the limit, is scandalous and should be illegal.

But concerns about the policing of speed being primarily revenue-raising operations are real, especially when the rest of the road-safety laws are policed at a much lesser rate, if at all.

Good topic mjpb.

Of Course speed cameras are nothing more than revenue gatherers. Just look at the statistics. Qld road accidents have NOT reduced one iota either and I have a bag full of cases where the other motorist was screwed. In the 60's the roads were crap, the speed limit was open and the cars death traps YET the number of accidents / driver was way lower than today. I have been driving for 40 years and as a young lad I regularly sat on 104MPH in my dads fairlane 500 on the Ballarat freeway and I aint had an accident in those 40 years driving in 3 states with over a million killometers notched up. Explain that one.

Pepper, there are a heap of comments to be made in response to this….

Firstly, where were there open speed limits in the 60s?

Roads back then generally necessitated slower and more careful driving. I get really concerned about hundreds of millions of dollars being spent on massive road improvements in the name of safety, which often only to serve to facilitate speed and aggressive driving and reduce alertness, and not reduce accident rates.... and increase the severity of accidents.

You can hardly say that cars then were more of a death trap than they are today. What’s your rationale for this?

Similarly, you can hardly say that the number of accidents per driver was lower back then. The concept of a lower number of accidents per driver seems to be in direct contradiction with the notion that cars were more of a death trap.

Anyway, all of that is a bit beside the point.

The fact is that speed cameras are an essential tool in law-enforcement and the improvement of road safety. There should be vastly more of them. And they should be cryptic rather than obvious, let along with bloody warning signs.

BUT, this needs to be done in conjunction within an overall road safety policing regime which deals with all the other stuff as well.

THIS I belief is where we fall into problems; with the rather extraordinarily disparate policing of speed and blind-eye attitude of the police to all sorts of other infringements.

For as long as this discrepancy exists, the police and governments will be accused of revenue-raising priorities with their use of speed cameras.

I don’t agree that “speed cameras are nothing more than revenue gatherers.” But I do think that there is a large element of the revenue-raising motive in their use… and that they are often placed where maximum revenue can be generated, rather than where they would have the greatest deterrent effect on speeders.

The public only complain about the enforcement of unfair laws. It would be in the Police Force's interest to lobby the government against unfair laws as it turns the enforcers into the bad guys. Everyone is glad when a copper stops them having the compost beaten out of them but nobody likes being fined for something that wasnt hurting anyone or doing any damage. Everybody is glad when the police keep the peace on a Friday night but no-one likes it when the pigs stop people marching to express their civil rights. My advice is to the police - refuse to enforce unfair laws and the public wont hate you anymore.

Hi everyone. My name is Steve, and while I am not the official organiser of the speed camera tolerance rally, I am authorised to speak on the organiser's behalf.

If the critics of our rally would care to notice, we're not asking for an increase in speed limits. We're not promoting or condoning dangerous driving. We're not even asking for abolition of speed cameras. All we are asking for is a reasonable tolerance for the enforcement of speed limits, because as it stands, motorists are being unfairly (and realistically, illegally) penalised over absolutely ludicrous discrepancies between their speed and the posted speed limit.

Here's a few facts regarding speed laws and enforcement:
ADRs (Australian Design Rules) formerly required speedometers to have a PLUS OR MINUS 10% tolerance in their accuracy. That is to say, the speedo had to read anywhere between 10% under and 10% over the actual speed. Note the name of these rules: Australian DESIGN Rules - they cannot be applied retrospectively. However, over time they have been edited, and cars that come of the production line at the moment (the latest revision of speedo related ADRs only occurred as of July 1, 2006 [ADR 18/02]... so four months ago) must have speedos that read under the true vehicle speed. So if you buy, say a VE Commodore, you won't be inadvertently speeding if the speedo says you're under the limit. Which is handy for owners of such recent vehicles, but not specifically any use whatsoever for owners of older cars. Since there are no legal requirements for updating the accuracy of a speedometer (including to gain a roadworthy certificate - all a speedo has to do is read in km/h and operate to its specific ADRs, which again, cannot be retrospective as they are DESIGN rules), it is entirely unreasonable to somehow expect every single car's speedo to suddenly read much more accurately than its design envelope specified.

(cont'd)

The Victorian Government is currently enforcing a 3km/h speed tolerance - note that this is not a percentage of the speed limit. That means at 100km/h, despite the fact that you're quite probably driving a car that has a stated +/- 10% (thus 10km/h) accuracy, you can be penalised for being just 3km/h (3% at 100km/h) over the limit. Fair? Not quite.

Some other factors to consider, and this is before we leave the purely scientific realm and enter the practical and logical world:
- The difference between the upper and lower operating tyre pressures of most tyres accounts for approximately 3% difference in actual speed vs displayed speed.
- Difference between brand new tyres, and minimum legal tread is typically about 2% in terms of actual speed vs displayed speed
- Driver height alone (between 5'2" and 6'2") can account for ~2km/h of parallax error at the 9 o'clock position of the speedo (which is roughly where 50-60km/h is on most speedos)

So just in those factors alone, you're looking at a solid 5% error. And that's assuming that you can actually read a speedo to the nearest km/h from wherever you sit (I can't, and my speedo only goes to 160 so the spacing is large), and that there is no variance in the speedometer's actual measurement mechanism at the gearbox.

And now for the more pressing argument: the fact that watching the road is infinitely safer than watching your speedo at any speed where an impact can be potentially fatal (approximately 35km/h for most vehicles - sounds low, but most actual impact speeds are far lower than the vehicle's travelling speed due to braking effects). At 100km/h, spending a second to check your speedo (and if you believe you can do it, accurately, faster than that, try it 10 times in a row and get someone to time it - you'll be surprised how long it actually takes), you'll have traveled 27.8m.

(cont'd)
. Any recent model Commodore will stop from 100 (in the dry) in under 45 metres or so. Adding 10km/h to that makes it about 52 metres (both of these are plus reaction time). In either case, glancing at your speedo to make sure you're less than 3km/h over a 100km/h limit will add over 50% to your stopping distance, whereas being 10km/h over adds about 20%. These are facts, not speculation, and are not up for debate by any scientifically minded person.

Basically, we feel that motorists are being victimised for the failure of road laws to somehow prevent all deaths on the road (which statistically is never going to happen until we outlaw all modes of transport altogether, people even get killed in single-vehicle bicycle crashes). This, in addition to the easy enforcement and faux-pas "moral high ground" of fining people who are only a small amount over the posted speed limit (which, strangely, are only ever in 10km/h increments... strange eh, it's almost as though they are only approximate to begin with!), is entirely representative of a government whose sole aim with speed cameras is to raise huge amounts of revenune under the facade of being "safety conscious". As a personal note (and this is not a claim or demand of the protest rally), I feel that this is also indicative of the control-freak mentality that has seized so many people recently. Many people love telling other people what to do, and the holier-than-thou critics of supposed "speeding hoons" and "homicidal maniacs" et al are the very image of this. 99% of people who get fined for speeding aren't actually doing anything particularly dangerous, and one might point out that they may well have been IRRESPONSIBLY watching where they were going rather than watching their speedo or looking out for cameras.

(cont'd)

One only has to look at where speed cameras are actually placed to acknowledge that the apparent road safety claims are a farce. If they were serious about safety they would have less speed cameras along the Hume Highway and more attention paid to extremely dangerous intersections (such as the one near Donald where several people got killed recently).

I hope this has cleared up any misconceptions about our protest rally. Again, we are not asking for a free-for-all, just a fair go.

Cheers,
Steve

Very interesting Steve. Great to see this stuff expressed here.

Now where do I start?!

I’ll start with a summary.

The rule of law is of vital importance. In the case of speed limits, the signs are a 100% crystal clear; the LIMIT is the number displayed. 60 should mean 60kmh absolute maximum speed, end of story. Anything else amounts to duplicity in the rule of law and an erosion for respect of the law.

Most of what you say is fair and reasonable, but NONE of it should be used as an excuse to travel faster than the limit. People should be made aware of all these various error factors and travel at the necessary speed below the limit to account for them.

Perhaps a 60 sign should mean a 60kmh speed ZONE, where that actual limit might be 70 or 66 or whatever is deemed appropriate by the LAW MAKERS ….and not by the police, unless the lawmakers specifically give them the right to make that decision, and that decision is then universal across different speed zones and across the country!

The drivers/owners of older cars should make sure that they know the accuracy of their speedos, which is very easy to do with a GPS. Surely it is the responsibility of a driver to know how their speedometer is reading, in just the same way as it is their responsibility to have everything else in roadworthy condition. It’s not matter of getting expensive repairs to make it accurate, but rather just to know the error factor. Very important I would have thought.

In Victoria, the 3kmh-over absolute limit is very well publicised. So why hasn’t message got out that it is the driver’s responsibility to adjust his/her driving accordingly?

There does seem to be fault with the police and authorities here, pertaining to an incomplete approach to this issue. But the main fault must still lie with drivers, if they don’t think about the error factors, and adapt their driving accordingly.

Just another case of people wanting to be their own god and make up the rules themselves. Just not enough smacks as children I suspect.

Steve I very strongly believe that what you should be doing is calling for speed limits to be policed at face value. And for drivers to be aware of and take responsibility for all the error factors that may lead to their speedos reading lower than they should be.

Calling for a larger leeway in speed limits is just the wrong approach altogether.

It doesn’t make sense. You lay out all your arguments in a very logical manner. But you miss this most fundamental point.

Crikey, if people are not going to respect the law at face value, but at some fuzzy approximation, or what they think they can get away with, then we are in real trouble when it comes to road safety, equality on our roads and harmony (eg; absence of road rage and aggressive driving).

How do the people that you (or your organisation) are going to address at this rally reconcile the notion of not sitting strictly to speed limits with the notion of being expected to do all sorts of other things on the road in a totally proper and safe manner? Your message may well serve as reinforcement for them to do what they think they can get away with, with respect to all sorts of other things, regardless of the letter of the law.

To promote anything other than top-quality law enforcement and top-quality law-abidance is I think irresponsible.

“we're not asking for an increase in speed limits”

Well, essentially you are Peter.

The experience in Queensland, where the police don’t book anyone on the highway until they are doing at least 11kmh over the limit, is that most drivers sit a few ks over, in the full knowledge that they are over the limit. Many sit right on 10 ks over, including lots of truckies.

Long-haul truck-drivers have got the message loud and clear that they won’t get booked for 110 in a 100 k zone or 120 in a 110 k zone. They know exactly how accurate their speedos are, and they sit right on the maximum that they can get away with. This means that they are constantly coming up behind other traffic. Most of them follow too closely. And when you have large articulated trucks overtaking other traffic at a regular rate, you are bound to have problems.

We also just run into general problems between people who take it a little bit easy and keep their speed to 100 or a bit below and those who do a few ks over. There are an awful lot of people our there who get impatient real fast with drivers that are at all slower than them.

continued

woops, that should have read … ‘Well, essentially you are Steve.’

And worse still, many people who would drive at or under the speed limit, because they respect the law or because they don’t trust the police not to book them for going even a little bit over, or because they are not sure of accuracy of their speedos, are forced or strongly pressured to cruise at a few ks over, in order to better roll with the flow and be less subjected to tailgating and risky overtaking.

With a leeway, you effectively have two different speed limits – one for the law-abiding citizen and one for the irresponsible citizen who pushes the envelope as far as they can…. and there is no shortage of them around. The larger the leeway, the more pronounced this is, and the more conflict that is generated as a result.

So I have to strongly disagree with your push for a “reasonable tolerance” with speed limits, and I implore you to take an entirely different tack, as outlined in my previous posts today.

Ludwig, how do you do?

You ask, in retort to pepper's post, "where were there open speed limits in the 60s?"

A - pretty much all over the entirety of Australia, except within built-up areas which were a blanket 30 mph or sign posted as 50 mph, otherwise speeds were "de-restricted".

And...

"You can hardly say that cars then were more of a death trap than they are today. What’s your rationale for this?"

A - I can't explain pepper's rationale, but I can certainly understand why he would say such a thing. Here are some of the reasons -

Cars didn't have seat belts.
Cars mostly had 4 wheel drum brakes.
Seats didn't have head supports.
Dashboards were made of steel with little impact padding if any.
Windscreen wipers rarely did anything useful.
Few vehicles were equipped with windscreen demisters/heaters.
Tyre technology was almost non-existent, corners were always exciting.
Cars didn't have collapsable steering columns.
Cars didn't have any roll-over protection built into them.
Doors had no anti-intrusion structure.

And there's plenty more to prove the point.

Basically, back then cars were difficult to stop and didn't like going around corners. If you hit things, the vehicle's construction wasn't at all user friendly. The modern car must be, at a guess, 100% more safe than those old "death traps". But might I add, those old cars were a lot more fun, required much more strength and skill to drive well and had just so much more character and charm than today's "fantastic plastic". But those days are gone forever. Thankfully, some of those old cars have survived in caring hands.

Hi Gentleman this is my first post here.

I've read what has been said and I find very logical and sensible arguments over all.

It would be interesting to find out the back grounds of each poster here as that may indicate/explain your different views. I personally come from a Policing background (mainly traffic) so feel qualified to comment on this subject.

Whilst I agree that speed limits are there to be obeyed and there are strict guidelines that the NSW RTA have to use to determine the speed limit for each section of road, I also believe that many of them are unrealistic.

I have also found that the use of speed limits to a certain extent has been hijacked as a cost effective substitute for many of the wider ranging and vastly more expensive problems eg: driver education, upgrade of roads etc.

I think today's motor vehicles are vastly better than they use to be and the 'good' road are vastly safer than they use to be, yet we have maintained an artificially low speed limit in some areas, such as expressways. The reasoning for this is varied and very controversial. I am of the opinion that many drivers today are not capable of handling over a fraction of their vehicles' capabilities. I've found that most drivers over estimate their ability rather than under estimate it. This happens to varying degrees and what influences this is a whole topic in itself.

I don't believe that anyone should be given a ticket for exceeding the speed limit by 3Km/H. This to me is a joke and is quite rightly called revenue raising. I would defy anyone to tell me with any certainty that they can accurately estimate their speed to this degree (ie: without looking at their speedo), so to be enforcing at this speed is ridiculous.

I think I'll stop on now as I don't want this to be too long.

Thanks Maximus

Were open-road speeds really “derestricted” or was there a legal limit that just wasn’t signposted and rarely or never policed? As far as I was aware, the only truly legally limitless speed is and has ever been in NT.

In North Queensland there are quite a lot of signs that tell you the end a certain speed limit zone, or tell you that you have reached the limit of a built-up area, but don’t tell you what the actual speed limit is from there. The implication for those who are not familiar with Qld road law is that there is no limit. But it is always 100kmh on the open road if not signed.

I was mindful of the sorts of things you list regarding the relative ‘unsafeness’ of old cars. But I think they get countered somewhat by a quite different list of things, which make me wonder whether cars were indeed any less safe back then. (I wasn’t only thinking of the physical safety of the actual car, but also the way people use it that makes it unsafe) Things like….

Much more gadgetry in cars, which create more distractions

More cars on the road, which increase hazards

A highly inadequate policing regime, which has surely got to be worse than it was back then, and which means that the chances of getting caught for many if not most infringements is tiny…which in turn means that many people feel that they flagrantly flout the law

A highly inadequate driver-training system. It might not be worse than back then, but comprehensive driver-training is much more necessary today because there is so much more traffic, more hazards and more regulations, all of which has greatly complicated the whole deal.

etc

Gday Quiggley. Welcome to OLO.

My background in this subject…..

I’m a botanist, ecologist and geomorphologist who travels widely around the country. I’ve been a prolific driver for 30 years. Probably about 15 years ago started to become really concerned about road safety, unlawful behaviour and the terrible state of policing on our roads. This was a direct result of my experiences on the road and the realisation that there are enormous risks out there, and that you could be gone in the blink of an eye or have your life ruined if you aren’t careful…..especially if you travel as much as I do.

I agree that many speed limit zones are unrealistic. There really needs to be a good efficient review process. I have been successful in getting couple changed by lobbying my local council, but it wasn’t easy or quick. And other recommendations of mine went unheeded.

“I have also found that the use of speed limits to a certain extent has been hijacked as a cost effective substitute for many of the wider ranging and vastly more expensive problems eg: driver education, upgrade of roads etc.”

A substitute for driver education yes. But I just wish we could redirect most of the many millions of dollars spent on road upgrades into better driver-training and better policing.

“I am of the opinion that many drivers today are not capable of handling over a fraction of their vehicles' capabilities. I've found that most drivers over estimate their ability rather than under estimate it.”

Absolutely. And wouldn’t better driver-training and policing go a long way towards dealing with these phenomena?

“I don't believe that anyone should be given a ticket for exceeding the speed limit by 3Km/H.”

But what about my arguments against larger leeways and in favour of policing the law at face value? Isn’t the rule of law extremely important? Shouldn’t the onus be on drivers to make sure they drive under the limit to the extent necessary to account for the particular error margin in their speedometer and ability to read it accurately?

Quiggley,

"I don't believe that anyone should be given a ticket for exceeding the speed limit by 3Km/H. This to me is a joke and is quite rightly called revenue raising. I would defy anyone to tell me with any certainty that they can accurately estimate their speed to this degree (ie: without looking at their speedo), so to be enforcing at this speed is ridiculous."

Here here!

People couldn't estimate that in a million years. Likewise, a few years ago in a Queensland Police journal there was a comment about how quickly late model cars accelerate. Imagine how quickly someone could find themselves 3km/hr over the limit.

It is like issuing parking infringements if a car pauses on a no parking parking zone for half a second. Realistically many people who do the right thing, without the time or money to do exotic things with GPS, can't know with their speedo such a ridiculous pedantic distinction.

Common sense needs to be used. A sensible margin is no more a threat to the rule of law than failing to book people for spending half a second in a no parking zone.

Ludwig,

I notice that you go to the extreme to find out the margin and make it public then argue against the margin. If noone knew the margin they wouldn't be able to abuse the system. Plus anyone stupid enough to abuse a sensible margin by pushing the margin might find themselves in deep water due to a change of tyre pressure.

Further, at law someone with a microgram of dope in their pocket can't be found guilty due to a legal principle that the law isn't interested in trivialities. It would be fairer to punish someone who clearly has had illegal drugs in their possession than someone who inadvertently and insignificantly breaches a traffic law without any reasonable way of knowing that they have breached it.

Hi Ludwig,

"But I just wish we could redirect .... spent on road upgrades into better driver-training and better policing."

I don't for a minute want to see any of the funds directed away from creating better roads, better roads mean safer roads.

On the issue of driver education I think the government could do more, but I also strongly believe that it is up to the individual to educate themselves. We often complain that government is everywhere and intertwined in every aspect of our life and that's true, and the reason is that some, or in this case most, people can't be relied upon to do the right thing ie: seek further driver education.

Th motor car is taken for granted these days and the cost of driving one (I mean in human terms) is often seen as acceptable for the convenience (some might even say right) of having a car. Some also see it as a right to be given a drivers license. I'm sorry if I offend anyone, but I think a license is a privilege not a right. You need to show that you are capable to safely drive a car on our roads.

I noticed that you often put "better driver-training and better policing" together. I'm not sure exactly why. You have to remember that Police enforce the laws that the government enact, we don't make them and we can't refuse to enforce them if we happen to disagree with them. Don't get the message writer and the message conveyor confused, they are not one in the same.

"But what about my arguments against larger leeway ... the law at face value?"

I did 10 years in which I only investigated fatal and serious injury accidents (across the state) and not one of them was caused by someone doing 3 or even 20Km/H over the speed limit. They were all caused by alcohol, drugs, inattention, stupidity and gross excess of the speed limit or a combination of these.

So, no I don't agree with issuing tickets to someone caught doing 3 Km/H over the limit.

Mjpb

“I notice that you go to the extreme to find out the margin…”

Go to the extreme! What do you mean? Is there something wrong with wanting to know just what the leeway is, both in law and in practice?

“If noone knew the margin they wouldn't be able to abuse the system.”

Surely you are not suggesting that it is appropriate for us not to know!! Everyone has the inalienable right to know EXACTLY where they stand with the law and the police.

Anyway, the margin IS grossly abused, despite the reluctance of the police to tell us just what that margin is.

And, if people get the wrong impression about the margin, ie 10ks over instead 10% over, then they are open to getting booked for doing 70 in a 60 k zone for example, while thinking they are within the limits of the practical interpretation of the law.

In short, there surely can no be excuse for a deliberate withholding of information pertaining to how the law is policed, or even worse; a deliberately vague message from the police when there is nothing vague about how they actually police that set of laws… in other words, a lie from the police.

Part 2.

On your point of 'if there is a leeway people will use it', you are quite right, they will. But if they do and they get caught they also know exactly why they are getting the ticket, and whilst they may complaint at the time, they know what they have done is wrong. As for the example of truckies etc., well that's a totally different story and involves different offences.

You use the analogy of drugs when referring to speeding, well the law makers don't totally agree with you as there is now provisions for cautions for people caught in possession of small amounts of drugs (in fact we have no discresion, if certain critera apply, we 'must' given then a caution). I don't happen to agree with it, but again I don't make the law I enforce it. This is not meant to be a cop out either (no pun intended) it's just a fact.

I think the fundamental difference between us mjpb is my belief in a rigorous and precise interpretation of the law, versus your belief that is quite alright for the interpretation to be vague or to even quite deliberately be policed at some value other than what is presented in black and white in law and (in red and white) on roadsigns.

Correct me if I’m wrong here.

I reckon that if the law is not policed in a precise manner, a huge can of worms is opened up. All sorts of problems emerge, such as;

Abuse of the leeway (or imprecise interpretation of a particular law) by those who know or think they know what the margin for error, or for inaccuracy in equipment, etc.

Unequal abuse from different people, along with compliance from many, which leads to different people observing a spectrum of regulations instead of just one, as it pertains for example to a particular speed limit.

Conflict caused by this, including added risks by way of tailgating and risky overtaking….which amounts to an undoing (or a dilution) of the purpose of the speed limit, ie to make the driving environment safe.

Erosion of the respect for the law and in its place, a respect for what people think they can get away with.

Differential treatment by different law enforcers, in different places, or in the same place at different times, or towards different people driving under the same circumstances.

The potential for very strong feelings of resentment and a very strong dilution of respect for the police from people who feel that they got the raw end of the prawn over differential treatment.

And so on. You get my drift.

So let’s say NO to the concept of leeways, and start looking at the issue in a different way entirely. I’ll give my views on how to do this next time

Ludwig,

So why do you pick that offence when it is a safety law and 3% tolerance defeats the purpose as the enforcement doesn't relate to safety? (Note Quiggly's comments) Why aren't you jumping up and down about people not being booked for parking offences if they linger half a second or innumerable other ridiculously draconian possibilities that would have people complying with the letter of the law?

People are required to follow the letter of the law. If they start playing margins and slip up they know why. Police have to enforce the law in a sensible manner. Punishing someone who has no reasonable way of knowing that they technically breached the law is not sensible.

"Conflict caused by this, including added risks by way of tailgating and risky overtaking….which amounts to an undoing (or via dilution) of the purpose of the speed limit, ie to make the drivng environment safe."

A 3% margin dilutes the purpose as it isn't even sufficient to take into account things like tyre inflation changes. The purpose of the speed limit is supposed to be safety. Why not go fanatical on a parking law that is just about restricting parking?

"Erosion of the respect for the law ..."

To the point that they have protest rallies and cops describe their work as revenue raising? Think about it.

"The potential for very strong feelings of resentment and a very strong dilution of respect for the police ..."

To the point that public protest and police consider it revenue raising? Even one major political party in Victoria opposes the margin.

Let's say yes to leeways for offences that require no intention and could occur in a split second and be measured hundreds of metres down the road and do not promote the purpose of the law. Particularly if it could be detected before a well intentioned person has a chance to correct or even if they have no reasonable way of knowing.

Ludwig: the law is all about interpretation. That's why we have lawyers and precedents. Your concerns about differential treatment can be allayed as thus: the law can only be enforced UP TO the letter of the law. At no point may a citizen be punished beyond the letter of the law (hence right of appeal etc). The idea that ANYTHING should be enforced absolutely, point blank, is absolute lunacy, and it beggars belief.

In fact, if you agree to this, when I get the chance I'd be more than willing to come up and live with you for a month or so, and note, without exception, every single law you breach. Jaywalking, to the millimetre. Stopping more than a metre back from the line at the lights. Parking within a metre of another car. Keeping the trees at the front of your property back 3 metres off the footpath. Changing lanes without letting the indicator blink at least 5 times, before checking both mirrors then your blind spot. And every time you do something like that, I will fine you on the spot. But since it's such an educational experience for you, naturally you'll have no objection to me doing so. Because that's what you're effectively proposing for the rest of the entire nation.

The safety issue is well and truly beyond the practicality of reducing danger nowadays. Statistically, about 2000 people (actually less than that) are killed Australia wide each year. Population 20,000 means, on average, 1 in 10,000 chance of getting killed on the roads each year. Over a life expectancy of 80 years, this multiplies right up to... a whole 00.80% chance of getting killed in a car crash. Now I can't speak for you, but personally I'd be more worried about the other 99.2% spread of things that will eventually kill me.

By the way, I probably should mention that I am coming from an automotive engineering background, and am extremely aware of the ACTUAL physics, statistics and mechanics behind road safety, including the basics of road design itself. Not the "you are a mass murderer if you exceed the speed limit by even 1km/h because you are guaranteed to kill someone" scare tactics the governments use to justify themselves.

Ludwig: Here is another glaring contradiction in your argument:
"Surely you are not suggesting that it is appropriate for us not to know!! Everyone has the inalienable right to know EXACTLY where they stand with the law and the police."

Exactly! And they also have the right to act ANYWHERE up to the limit of the law AS THEY CAN BE REASONABLY EXPECTED TO PERCEIVE IT. Your car has a speedometer. The speedometer is accurate within its design envelope, and therefore renders the car legally roadworthy (in this respect at least). You should be able to travel AT THE SPEED LIMIT, as INDICATED on your legally roadworthy speedo (and arguably plus a small tolerance for the simple fact that you can't and shouldn't be watching your speedo every single second), without fear of punishment because one law contradicted another.

I can and am willing to go into huge amounts of detail about why exact enforcement of any rules - especially those which involve continuous variables (rather than discrete, yes/no/1/2/3 type variables) - is irrational and unreasonable. Unfortunately this forum software only lets me post 350 words at a time - is there any way I can link to a Word document or something?

Quiggley:
"I did 10 years in which I only investigated fatal and serious injury accidents (across the state) and not one of them was caused by someone doing 3 or even 20Km/H over the speed limit. They were all caused by alcohol, drugs, inattention, stupidity and gross excess of the speed limit or a combination of these."

Liar! All those serious and fatal crashes were caused by people sitting on 105 in 100 zones on dead straight country highways and you know it! hahaha yeah I think that pretty much says it all mate... specific experience with the actual causes behind fatalities, over a long period of time - could not have asked for input from someone more qualified than that.

A major problem with crash statistics is that they often just use correlation rather than actual cause to list as a "factor". For example, car was speeding and ran a red light, collects some other car - yes he was speeding, but running a red light was the cause. Had he run it at 40 or 60 or 100 the result would have been the same. By the same token, you could point out that every car involved in a fatal crash was PAINTED... therefore it's the paint that's killing everyone!

Hi Ludwig,

You make mention of the rigorous enforcement of the law. I can tell you now that there is no way you want the Police to do that. If we went to the letter of the law in regards to every Act, your life (and everyone else) would be hell. There are so many offences out there, some of which have been eluded to, that the average person commits each and every day (and lets just stick to traffic and not the 100 or so other Acts) that if enforced no person would feel safe leaving their home each day. If it weren't for discretion by Police this could be so.

I can guarantee you that if I spent an hour in the car with you and issued a ticket for each offense your committed, you wouldn't have a license at the end of that hour. I'm not being nasty or just picking on you, this would apply to nearly everyone. Just think of how many times in a day you actually exceed the speed limit (be honest), knowingly or not.

Discretion is not only necessary, but a very important part of Police work. Not everything is cut and dry, or black and white and to try and enforce the law to the letter would be impractical, unworkable and more important, intolerable.

Oh my poor head. There’s sooooooo much to respond to here!!

Well, I’ll do my best to keep it all in chronological sequence.

Quiggley, you wrote;

“I don't for a minute want to see any of the funds directed away from creating better roads, better roads mean safer roads.”

As I previously alluded to, I don’t think better roads necessarily means safer roads. What about the very big need for vastly improved driver behaviour, via both better training and policing? Is this not the overwhelmingly important thing that we need to work on in the whole road-safety arena?

I’d love to see huge expenditure put into both improving roads and improving drivers. But I don’t think we can do both to the necessary extent, without robbing other very needy sectors of funding.

Of course we should maintain roads, and keep up the best standard of signage. But hugely expensive upgrades to our highways I consider to be a low priority expenditure.

“….I also strongly believe that it is up to the individual to educate themselves.”

But most people (or a large proportion at least) don’t educate themselves to anywhere near a satisfactory standard of understanding and appreciation for risk factors, safety margins, defensive driving, basic car maintenance, first aid, etc. Even after years on the roads and after an accident or two, most people don’t get the full picture.

continued

“I think a license is a privilege not a right.”

Absolutely!! And it should be hard-earned… and easily lost if you do the wrong thing that endangers others’ safety.

“I noticed that you often put ‘better driver-training and better policing’ together. I'm not sure exactly why.”

This is surprising. They fit together perfectly, I would have thought. Doesn’t a much-improved road-safety regime encompass both, well and truly? How much of an improvement would we get if we only worked one of these sectors?

“…we don't make them and we can't refuse to enforce them if we happen to disagree with them.”

Really?? One of my major gripes has been the blind-eye of attitude of police to all sorts of infringements. It’s as obvious as anything that the police are not obligated to police ANY particular law. They have the complete discretion not to.

“…not one of them was caused by someone doing 3 or even 20Km/H over the speed limit.”

I don’t know how you can say this! Speed was no doubt a factor in many of the cases you investigated. And not just obvious grossly excessive speed. Besides, where does this view sit with the road safety message; ‘every k over is a killer?’, which is virtually the slogan of the road-safety police in Qld (or across the country?)

"This is surprising. They fit together perfectly, I would have thought. Doesn’t a much-improved road-safety regime encompass both, well and truly? How much of an improvement would we get if we only worked one of these sectors?"

Hell no. The ideal situation with regards to ANY such widespread issue, is maximum WILLING ADHERENCE of the general public to the law, with minimum enforcement, and enforcement ONLY as a last resort. For example, most people realise that you shouldn't murder other people. Hence why it's safe to walk around without a bulletproof vest. Over-policing creates quite literally a fascist state. The political ideologies may be entirely different but the outcome for the citizens is the same.

"I don’t know how you can say this! Speed was no doubt a factor in many of the cases you investigated. And not just obvious grossly excessive speed. Besides, where does this view sit with the road safety message; ‘every k over is a killer?’, which is virtually the slogan of the road-safety police in Qld (or across the country?) "

I like how you just outright ignore the experience and input of someone who clearly has had THE most relevant experiences and information that anyone could possibly possess, just because reality doesn't support with your opinion. Your argumentative logic is fundamentally and fatally flawed; how can you try and use an ad campaign to justify reality? You should be wondering why the ad campaigns don't line up with reality, not the other way around!

In response to; "I don’t know how you can say this! Speed ... this view sit with the road safety message; ‘every k over is a killer?’, ... slogan of the road-safety ...?"

I happen to totally disagree with the current road safety messages that the RTA and government on this point. I think it's wrong because of what I said before about speed as a factor in fatal and serious injury accidents. As for whether or not you believe what I say on this topic is up to you. But answer me this, what experience do you have in this particular field that you call upon in the formulation of your opinions? Remember also that I do not just draw on my experience, but also upon others who have even more experience than I in this field. For some strange reason we all have the same opinion.

I've been consulted by the RTA on some of their TV adverts. My function was to explain and add some authenticity to their scenarios, especially with regards to the way crash scene were depicted on TV. This was a total waste of time because whilst they wanted to make it realistic, they were also constrained by the medium of TV and what could be packed into a short commercial. I can tell you now, and I dare say some of the others who have experience in vehicle dynamics, that the way some collisions are depicted on TV are not realistic. But basically you have to remember that a commercial campaign has to be simple, direct and attention grabbing to be effective. This unfortunately is not always compatible with accuracy and certainly does not allow for in-depth discussion on what is a very complex issue.

Con'd.

The restraints of this forum make it difficult to fully discus this issue.

“I don’t know how you can say this! Speed was no doubt a factor in many of the cases you investigated. And not just obvious grossly excessive speed. Besides, where does this view sit with the road safety message; ‘every k over is a killer?’, which is virtually the slogan of the road-safety police in Qld (or across the country?)”

I can’t believe that you would use such an unrealistic slogan as an attempt to argue with Quiggly’s experience. I concur with previous comments from people with policing and engineering expertise including:

“I like how you just outright ignore the experience and input of someone who clearly has had THE most relevant experiences and information that anyone could possibly possess, just because reality doesn't support with your opinion.”

“I happen to totally disagree with the current road safety messages that the RTA and government on this point.”

I would add something I witnessed. It was bluntly suggested to Mary Sheehan from CARS-Q by an engineer at a talk that one can't take that slogan seriously and she was invited to disagree (or the panel generally were posed the question and she responded). Neither she nor any other speakers defended its accuracy. They simply said that the slogan was good because it got people thinking about the issues or words to that effect.

Transport Departments have a lot to answer for putting nonsense like that on TV. People think that because the slogan is nonsense entire road safety campaigns are nonsense. It undermines the credibility of law enforcement and results in resentment among some elements directed toward people tasked with enforcing laws.

Quiggley

“So, no I don't agree with issuing tickets to someone caught doing 3 Km/H over the limit.”

What do you consider to be a reasonable leeway? Is the 10% leeway sufficient or, given your comment; “not one of them was caused by someone doing 3 or even 20Km/H over the speed limit.”, would you like to see 20%, or a flat 20kmh, or more?

“ 'if there is a leeway people will use it', you are quite right, they will. But if they do and they get caught they also know exactly why they are getting the ticket…”

I don’t get it. Following my expression of the problems with people abusing the 10kmh leeway on the highway, you still think that it is fair and reasonable to have a large leeway. That just doesn’t make sense to me.

Besides, people simply DON’T get booked for it. If they did, it wouldn’t be a leeway, and most people would very quickly come to realise that.

“You use the analogy of drugs when referring to speeding…”

No, not me. I don’t where this has come from.

Four posts back I said;

“So let’s say NO to the concept of leeways, and start looking at the issue in a different way entirely. I’ll give my views on how to do this next time.”

Well, it is very simple. We call for a legislative modification to speed limit law to change the meaning of the signs from the hard and fast limit to a speed zone, with the actual speed limit at 10kmh over what the signs say. And we strongly recommend that people travel within the zone when cruising, preferably at the lower end of it, to make sure that they don’t inadvertently exceed the limit.

Then we implement all sorts of programs to tighten the whole business by way of getting everyone to have their speedos checked, and reduce error margins all round. And we police the limit strictly at face value.

So in essence, my position is not that much different to the other three correspondents here. The main difference is that the principle of law is being preserved….. and the vast majority of road-users travel at just about the same speed in any particular zone, instead of the ludicrous 15kmh or more difference that we now have between the speed of the cautious driver who drives just under the speed limit and the one that pushes the envelope.

This is really simple. The speed limit is legally raised by 10kmh universally in all speed zones. But in effect it is no different to the currently accepted limits in Qld and probably all states except Victoria.

Where it is inappropriate to raise the limit by that much, new signs would be needed to indicate a lower zone.

Mjpb, I don’t understand your first question (23 Oct).

“Why aren't you jumping up and down about people not being booked for parking offences….”

Why do you assume that I’m not?

In my town there is the most glaring contradiction; strictly policed parking regulations in town, and completely unpoliced regulations a short distance away, despite obvious signs and gross abuse on a daily basis. Bloody oath parking regulations… and the rest… should be policed AT FACE VALUE!

“People are required to follow the letter of the law.”

Now you’ve lost me again. This statement sits in stark contrast to your first paragraph, in which you were basically having a dig at me for draconian over-regulation. Yes of course people should be required to follow the letter of the law. So why are you arguing differently?

“Punishing someone who has no reasonable way of knowing that they technically breached the law is not sensible.”

And someone who exceeds the speed limit or parks illegally doesn’t know that they are in breach of the law??

“To the point that public protest and police consider it revenue raising?”

So the public and speedcamerajustice should address the revenue-raising allegation with vigour. And they should strive to change the law if they think it needs it. But there can simply be no excuse for lobbying for the law to be observed at some value other than its intent. And the intent with speed limits is crystal clear.

Mjpb, I appreciate some or all of your concerns. But they surely have to be addressed in a manner that upholds the respect for the law, strives to improve respect for the law if possible… and which certainly doesn’t deliberately work against it

“Ludwig: the law is all about interpretation.”

Steve, many laws are black and white. There is no “interpretation” needed other than for a police officer subjectively deciding that someone will get booked while someone else won’t for exactly the same infringement, or that the infringement won’t be deemed to be an infringement unless it is considered to be a whole lot more serious than the legal infringement.

I would have thought that someone in your position would be very concerned about unequal policing. Concern about unequal policing seems to me to fit well with your concerns about revenue raising and apparent inadvertent infringement of the law and the resultant ‘unfair’ penalties.

So, I reckon you should be pushing for the law to be as black and white as possible, and for it to be policed as effectively and evenly as possible.

The whole notion of a fuzzy leeway seems to be at odds with your concerns about unfair treatment of drivers.

Why do you think there are limits implemented in law, such as “keeping the trees at the front of your property back 3 metres off the footpath”?

Specifically to minimise the interpretation factor and make them as black and white as possible.

So all these laws get made…. and then only sporadically policed or promptly forgotten or never even known by citizens and law-enforcers alike! How crazy is that?

SURELY if a law is declared, it MUST be enforced… and evenly for everyone!

I find your argument here quite extraordinary. You are not questioning the minor laws that you mention, but you have a problem with them being enforced! Wow! We really do think in a fundamentally different way!

Surely if you think these laws are trivial you would lobby to get changed or abolished….. and certainly not just ignored or sporadically and subjectively policed!

Hi Ludwig (you appear to be a bit lonely at the moment). First a correction. You're right you didn't mention the drug/speed analogy, it was 'mjpb' who did.

You said: 'Well, it is very simple. We call for a legislative modification to speed limit ...' just simply wouldn't work. It would be more trouble than its worth eg: the cost and logistics of everyone getting their speedos checked/calibrated and or repaired would be not only a nightmare, but could work out expensive for some. How long would it take to do this? I'd suggest way too long, not to mention the legislative changes that may need to be implemented to make older vehicle comply with newer standards. What about educating the public of the change? There are so many factors that would need to be addressed.

There are rightly complaints now about the number of different speed zones and the frequency of their change, so to introduce a 'fuzzy' factor would only cause more confusion/problems. In my humble opinion it simply wouldn't be workable or sensible. Besides, the current systems works pretty well.

As for the parking issue, well I don't know about where you live, but in most cities and large towns the councils (via their Rangers) now have the responsibility of enforcing parking regulation. That's why the number of tickets issued has gone through the roof. The councils now get a portion of the money they raise through the issue of parking tickets.

Ludwig you say 'And someone who exceeds the speed limit .. doesn’t know that they are in breach of the law??' Don't confuse the two issues here. Did you give some serious thought to my question (which was more of a statement than a question I admit) about how many times 'you' would exceed the speed limit every day, even by a tad and only for a fraction of a second. I dare say you wouldn't be doing it intentionally or knowingly. I think you are being too pedantic in your implementation of the law. Don't ever become a Highway Patrol Officer because you would spend your life in court and end up being hung, drawn and quartered - the only question would be by who first, the public or your Boss (because you would get so many complaints and spend so much time at court you would hardly be on the road anymore).

And that brings me to another point. If we spend so much time policing this section of the Traffic Act it would be at the expense of the rest, which in some cases is far more important.

When I was in the Highway Patrol (4 years), I use to cop a bit of flack from my Boss for not giving out enough speeding tickets with the Radar. Talk about shooting ducks in a barrel. There were plenty of roads I could go to and get lots and lots of tickets for speeding, but strangely enough these roads didn't feature too highly in the area of numbers of collisions/death/injuries. I spent my time getting people for doing more dangerous activities, like dangerous driving, red lights, unregistered and uninsured, seatbelts, children unrestrained, unsafe loads etc. etc. All of which could have huge consequences in the event of an accident.

Don't get me wrong Ludwig, I'm not knocking your enthusiasm or your genuine intention to do the right thing, just your interpretation, assumptions and the practicality of your ideas.

Ludwig, do give my little test on 'your' speeding during a day some thought and report back will you.

I have no doubt that if you do it, on the day you do the test you will take extra precautions and concentrate extra hard on not speeding just to prove me wrong and maintain your point.

Remember, that on the day you decide to do it also note how much of your attention (extra) is taken up with watching your speed during the test and ask yourself; Could that attention have been better utilised watching the road instead of my speedo? At the times that I exceeded the speed limit, was it dangerous?

Finally, have you ever exceeded the speed limit inadvertently, or even deliberately to get around that annoying car/caravan/truck in front of you that is either holding you up or spraying your car with stones/water spray or dust? Was it dangerous doing it or was it more dangerous sitting behind them? Should you have been booked for it? How many times have you done it? If you had been booked for these instances, would you still have a license - remember only 12 points in 3 years?

Again, please don't think I'm having a go at you. Every day I have to prioritise my time when Policing. I simply can't do everything everyday. So some compromises have to be made and given my experience I honestly believe that enforcing the speed limit to the tolerance you suggest is simply impracticable and unfair, and my time could be better spent doing something else.

In response to speedcamerajustice (23 Oct)

“AS THEY CAN BE REASONABLY EXPECTED TO PERCEIVE IT.”

Well, it looks like this is the critical point Steve. I will maintain that the perception with speed limits is as black and white as you can get. There should be no chance of perceiving anything different to what the signs say.

My second post of 24 Oct explains how we can address your concerns while preserving the letter of the law, so that we don’t have to move into the very murky world of perceiving hard and fast laws in a soft and floppy manner.

“Liar”

Hells bells Steve! That’s a nasty retort…. and to someone who is very much on your side of the debate!! Wow!

You are representing an organisation on this forum. You’re not just speaking for yourself. This will be read far and wide, by many of the people to whom you are appealing. I would have thought that it is in your best interest to be polite and tactful at all times!

Yes “fatal crashes were caused by people sitting on 105 in 100 zones on dead straight country highways.”

And this is why I reckon we should redirect a large part of expenditure on new roads or major upgrades into driver training and policing.

.
Quiggley (23 Oct), you wrote;

“You make mention of the rigorous enforcement of the law. I can tell you now that there is no way you want the Police to do that.”

So you are happy with the schizophrenic approach to the law: we make laws….. and then they just get ignored or very unevenly enforced. Sorry, but I can’t accept that.

Yes, it would be a nightmare if police suddenly started enforcing every little thing. So we need to get back on track gently. We need to modify laws to make them practical and we need to educate the populace….and slowly improve the whole law-enforcement and law-abidance regime.

I am amazed that a police officer, or anyone, thinks that this schizo law regime is in any way defensible!

"So you are happy with the schizophrenic approach to the law: we make laws….. and then they just get ignored or very unevenly enforced. Sorry, but I can’t accept that."

Some would call it practical ...

"I am amazed that a police officer, or anyone, thinks that this schizo law regime is in any way defensible!"

Isn't it good that we have a public forum where you can discuss these ideas of yours and get feedback?

Ludwig, you still haven't answered my question about doing the little test of your own driving?

I could be wrong Ludwig, but I think 'speedcanerajustice's' comments you quote from the 23/10 were meant as a joke (at your expense) - at least that's the way I see them. I think you might be getting a bit serious about the whole thing (don't take this out of context either) and failing to see the Forrest for the trees as the saying goes.

Also you haven't told me what experience you have in this field and on which you rely to formulate your opinions.

Ludwig said: 'So you are happy with the schizophrenic approach to the law:' You have turned misinterpretation into an art form. Unless you want to pay for a Police Officer in every car and on every corner, all who have been brainwashed with exactly the same ideals, you will never, I repeat never, get totally consistent implementation of the law. Your ideals, whilst no doubt founded in sincerity and with all the best intentions, are simply unrealistic and unachievable given that we are talking about humans here, not programmable robots.

Ludwig said: '..and slowly improve the whole law-enforcement and law-abidance regime.' To say such a thing shows a high degree of naivety on your part. If everyone did the right thing to start with we wouldn't need laws and Police to enforce them, but we all that is not so.

You see I've heard all these arguments before, and I've found that most people who feel so strongly and passionate about them never listen to reason - especially from people with more experience on the topic, they just ignore it as it doesn't suit their arguement. They have all had little or no experience in the area and therefore have very little on which to base their opinions. If you can show me that you have at least as much if not more experience in this area than me, then I'll listen to you all day, but until then I don't think we will ever get anywhere.

"Hells bells Steve! That’s a nasty retort…. and to someone who is very much on your side of the debate!! Wow!

You are representing an organisation on this forum. You’re not just speaking for yourself. This will be read far and wide, by many of the people to whom you are appealing. I would have thought that it is in your best interest to be polite and tactful at all times!

Yes “fatal crashes were caused by people sitting on 105 in 100 zones on dead straight country highways.”

And this is why I reckon we should redirect a large part of expenditure on new roads or major upgrades into driver training and policing."

Wow. Just... wow. I never for a minute thought anyone, even you, would be able to misinterpret that one.

Anyway back to legal interpretation: the PERCEPTION of the law is that if your speedo says you're doing 60, you're doing 60. The reason for that is that it's compliant with the legal settings, and in a legal SENSE, if your speedo says that then you are doing that speed or close enough. However, the ACTUAL speed you're doing could be between 54 and 66. Your ideas of total enforcement and removal of discretion are absolutely insane, and the notion that there CAN be such uniformity is just ignorance at its very height, as Quiggley has said.

Where your mentality is totally screwed is that you are more concerned with the law, than the reasons BEHIND the law. Ideally we wouldn't even have speed limits, but obviously at some point that becomes unsafe. But to say that 60 is safe and 61 is not, or 100 is safe and 102 is not, or even grossly larger differences than that, as such an absolutist gesture is outright STUPID. As I have said and you have ignored, there are SO MANY VARIABLES, not least of which is the actual speedo itself.

"I find your argument here quite extraordinary. You are not questioning the minor laws that you mention, but you have a problem with them being enforced! Wow! We really do think in a fundamentally different way!"

You are totally missing the point: the reasoning BEHIND the laws should be enforced. A law on its own is just an official statement of that reason. The tree example shows exactly what I mean: it has to be kept 3m above the footpath for people's heads to clear it. If it's 2.9m high, who cares? It clears people's heads. If someone is doing 105 in a 100 zone and posing no real risk to anyone - which in reality is the case the VAST majority of the time - who cares? Why enforce a law when the reason behind it is being ignored?

Your obsession with equal treatment is just ignorant. It's totally impractical, unreasonable, and physically impossible. Nothing is absolute... for example, even a complete vacuum (ie outer space) has a pressure (like air pressure).

All I can say is that I'm damn glad Quiggley is the cop and not you.

Speedcamerajustice, you wrote on 24 Oct;

“Hell no. The ideal situation with regards to ANY such widespread issue, is maximum WILLING ADHERENCE of the general public to the law…”

Hell NO! If one thing is blatantly obvious, most people, or at least a large portion of the populace, will do what they can get away with. Hence the need for laws!

Unfortunately, we CANNOT have ‘willing’ adherence if we have minimal enforcement.

How obvious is it that MOST people exceed the speed limit by a few ks because they know can get away with it, despite knowing full well that it is technically illegal?

Gee, you really do need to rethink this one Steve.

“Over-policing creates quite literally a fascist state.”

Well it is becoming clear what degree of policing you consider to be over-policing – a very moderate degree of regulation indeed, apparently.

“how can you try and use an ad campaign to justify reality?”

It seems to me that you do make some odd assumptions. I think this ad campaign is absolutely wrong. But I don’t see the police objecting to it. So, for a police officer to condone a large leeway on speed limits, while not objecting to the absurdity of ‘every k over is a killer’ seemed totally contradictory. I am pleased that Guiggley has subsequently expressed disagreement with this ad campaign.

Quiggley (Oct 24)

“…what experience do you have in this particular field that you call upon in the formulation of your opinions?”

30 years driving in Australia. At least 15 years of real concern about road safety issues, during which time I have listened to the views of others on radio and TV, read a great deal, corresponded in writing and face to face with police, RACQ, Main Roads, Dept to Transport and local councils, and partaken in debates in letters to the editor and elsewhere on this forum.

But none of that should matter really. If I had no background, would I have any less right to be concerned about road safety and the rule of law?

Reached my word limit again. Bugger

Further response to Quiggley (Guiggley?!) from Oct 24…

I appreciate your concerns about some TV advertising.

.
Response to mjpb from Oct 24.

I am pleased that you also think poorly of this slogan. At least we are finding something to agree on here.

“I like how you just outright ignore the experience and input of someone who clearly has had THE most relevant experiences and information that anyone could possibly possess, just because reality doesn't support with your opinion.”

Please!! I am taking great heed of what Quiggley, you and Steve are saying….. and addressing it all in full.

“Neither she nor any other speakers defended its accuracy.”

Good. I have mentioned this slogan many times in letters to newspapers and in forums. No one has supported it. So how the hell does it remain in place then, with huge signs displaying it scattered around the countryside…. and with no apparent protest from the police??

It is another example of this schizo attitude we collectively have to the law.

“People think that because the slogan is nonsense entire road safety campaigns are nonsense. It undermines the credibility of law…”

YES, indeed!

.
Back to Quiggley (25 Oct) (I’ll catch up to you lot yet!)

“(you appear to be a bit lonely at the moment).”

O woe is poor ol’ Luddie! Where are all the sensible people? (:>). But three against one is hardly a significant sample size on which to gauge the views of society or of experts in the field!

“…just simply wouldn't work. It would be more trouble than its worth…”

Improving speedometer accuracy and driver awareness of error factors becomes a SECONDARY thing, if we can change the law to make the speed limit equal to the leeway that you three respondents seem to so dearly want!

“so to introduce a 'fuzzy' factor would only cause more confusion/problems.”

ABSOLUTELY. But you seem to think that I am promoting a fuzzy factor! Completely the opposite!! Crikey, I don’t know how to write things more clearly. But you seem to have completely missed my message.

Still in response to Quiggley of 25 Oct…

“Did you give some serious thought to my question…about how many times 'you' would exceed the speed limit every day…”

I have found this to be one of the most frustrating things about driving – monitoring your speed and keeping it from going over the limit.

I conducted a long experiment a couple of years ago. For several months I pulled over and stopped each time my speed slipped over the limit, and waited for ten seconds. Then if it happened again, I waited for 20 seconds and so on through the day. I found that no matter how hard I tried I couldn’t stop my speed from slipping over the confounded limit, unless I deliberately cruised at a speed well under.

While conducting this experiment I was mindful of doing a speed that was acceptable to most other drivers around me, which meant sitting right up there close to the limit (the policeable limit, not the official limit). Well, of course your speed is going to creep over now and then if you sit on or just under the limit!

Initially I tried it with the official speed limit. But of course this was about 10kmh slower than most other drivers, and led directly to increased tailgating and other displays of impatient behaviour.

So what’s the answer? I’ve already given it. Change the law so that the speed signs indicate speed zones rather than limits and increase speed limits by 10kmh. This would be promoted as a major concession to drivers in return for them being booked for going at all over the new limits. Part of the campaign would be to very strongly suggest that drivers cruise in the lower part of the zone, at least 5kmh under the limit. Of course some drivers will still find their speed creeping over. But they will be fair game for a fine.

I reckon that people will generally get used to it very quickly, and keep their cruising speed well away from the limit.

"Hell NO! If one thing is blatantly obvious, most people, or at least a large portion of the populace, will do what they can get away with. Hence the need for laws!

Unfortunately, we CANNOT have ‘willing’ adherence if we have minimal enforcement."

WTF? Willing adherence is REGARDLESS of the state of enforcement. I don't have people investigating me for murder every day "just to check", same goes for everyone else. Because people willingly adhere to the law, as it fits their own moral views. Ideally we wouldn't NEED enforcement, and that is the point I'm trying to make.

Your ridiculous obsession with clarifying everything to the point where it becomes black and white is simply ignorant of reality. There is no absolute. Risk doesn't just jump tenfold, out of nowhere, because you increased your speed by 1km/h (unless we're talking maybe 0km/h to 1km/h...). The reason there needs to be a tolerance on a STATED limit is because we don't KNOW how accurate the car's speedo is - if we did, we wouldn't need the tolerance at all. Therefore, simply bumping the stated limit to whatever the tolerance currently is, is not going to work because we still have the inaccuracy of not actually knowing EXACTLY how fast we're going. Then you're going to get people complaining that they have no way of being able to sit on or near the limit without potentially being over.

If you think people are just going to do whatever they can get away with, yes some may well, but your implication of treating everyone as guilty until proven innocent is contradictory to Australian law and general social sentiment. Everyone should be given the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. Besides that, it's entirely fair, because the same tolerance DOES apply to everyone. If people THINK they know how accurate their speedo is, and want to push their luck, then they'll run the risk of being fined. Big deal, once you're past a fair tolerance then you can't really complain. But if the stated limit was say 66 instead of 60, then you'd run into the issue again that the law is being enforced closer to its literal statement than people can accurately judge it.

"Well it is becoming clear what degree of policing you consider to be over-policing – a very moderate degree of regulation indeed, apparently."

Ideally we wouldn't need regulation AT ALL (obviously that's impractical however), and I am all for the absolute minimum of interference in my life from anyone else. That doesn't mean NO interference, I mean literally the minimum requirement. Having somebody else breathing down your neck ALL THE TIME is in direct contradiction to the personal freedoms democracy supposedly brings us. Rigid enforcement of any law, again, MUST be ignoring the purpose originally behind the laws, because you're simply treating obedience as the goal, rather than the purpose of the law (safety, honesty, whatever). Quiggley has alluded to this, and despite your claims, you HAVE ignored it.

Oh btw - people AREN'T getting killed sitting on 105 in 100 zones, just because of their speed. It's obvious by now that you don't actually know much at all about road and vehicle physics, or how roads are designed (believe it or not, they're designed to be safe at far higher speeds than the legal limit is set at - the Hume Hwy for example has minimal lateral accelerations or visual obstruction even at 160km/h).

Ludwig,

The slogan is obviously approved of by the government. Reality is that if any police officer publically objected to the slogan a minister would be straight onto the phone to their boss and they would not get a very friendly response from their boss. It shouldn’t be that way but I am aware of a similar incident so that is my expectation. I am glad to hear though that you are true to your convictions and have made the effort to oppose that slogan but don’t blame the police for inaction.

Can I clarify your attitude toward the laws. Are you saying that it is okay to punish someone if they neatly trim their trees to keep them 3m off the footpath and a gust of wind blows a few leaves so that they hang down breaching the law before the person notices and reacts? Given all the variables involved with speed and speedometers I want to clarify that.

“Hell NO! If one thing is blatantly obvious, most people, or at least a large portion of the populace, will do what they can get away with. Hence the need for laws!”

You are certainly cynical. I’m not denying that some deliberately flaunt laws but have you considered that those who do might think that it is safe to go faster rather than want to break the law? The murder example was used. I’ll try another one. Do you think if they raised the speed limit to 200kph all those people who currently could get booked at 3kph would break the new limit if they could get away with it?

If you have so much trouble sticking to the current speed limits what about raising it 10kph with an appropriate tolerance? Would that make it easier for you to comply? At the end of the day do you find the limits too low and you are using a roundabout approach to get them raised? The reason I ask is that your focus seems to be on speed limits not bushes near footpaths.

Quiggley

I assume that the rest of your questions of 25 Oct have been addressed by my last post.

So what do you think of my proposal, which as I say basically gives you what you want but also preserves the rule of law?

By the way, you might be interested in responding to some of the plethora of concerns I have expressed over the policing of road safety issues under ‘Putting the brakes on the road toll’ http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2877

.
Mjpb,

“Isn't it good that we have a public forum where you can discuss these ideas of yours and get feedback?”

You bet. And it is all the better to discuss issues with people with whom you disagree in a polite and respectful manner. I am thankful to the other three correspondents for that, especially given some of the substandard people on this forum, who seem to have no tolerance at all for people with different views.

.
Quiggley

“…I think 'speedcanerajustice's' comments you quote from the 23/10 were meant as a joke…”

Good. I’m pleased to hear it. But it certainly wasn’t apparent to me…and still isn’t, having just re-read it.

“You have turned misinterpretation into an art form.”

I would have said the same thing about you following some of your apparently diametrically opposite interpretations to my intended meanings, as I mentioned yesterday.

Alright, so we are having interpretation problems. Well, if we just stick at it, in the same polite manner, all will be sorted out.

Incidentally, I don’t know what I have misinterpreted here.

continued

“Unless you want to pay for a Police Officer in every car and on every corner, all who have been brainwashed with exactly the same ideals, you will never, I repeat never, get totally consistent implementation of the law.”

Of course we won’t get ‘perfection’. But we can, and should, move towards improving the situation, and certainly not do things which take us in the opposite direction, like calling for bigger leeways on laws.

There are all sorts of laws on the books that are not functioning in society as they are intended, or at all with many of them. So surely we have got to strive to reform all laws that need it and to improve the policing regime, and thus improve overall respect for the law.

As it concerns the issue at hand – speed cameras and speed limit law, it is very easy to both address tour concerns and adherence and respect for the law.

I agree with you that it would be much harder with many other laws, but this should not used as an excuse not to fix or strive to improve what we can.

Many laws are black and white, but many are open to interpretation. Well, the least we can do is to make the black and white ones truly black and white.

I hope you don’t think that there is anything naïve or impractical about that.

Still in response to Quiggley (25 Oct)

“Ludwig said: '.and slowly improve the whole law-enforcement and law-abidance regime.' To say such a thing shows a high degree of naivety on your part.”

Dear oh dear! I don’t believe this. So you are happy NOT to even attempt to improve law-enforcement and law-abidance?

“You see I've heard all these arguments before”

Well I haven’t. Despite years of this sort of debate, I’ve never come across a police officer that has been willing debate this sort of stuff… and I couldn’t have dreamed of encountering one that seems to show a low regard for the rule of law. [I mean no offence, but that is how I see it at present, notwithstanding the possibility of misinterpretation. In fact I'm very pleased that a police officer has entered this discussion].

“I've found that most people who feel so strongly and passionate about them never listen to reason”

You mistake not listening for holding true to one’s beliefs. I listen [read] and respond to just about everything that is put to me. Not many debaters do that. Most people only comment on the things that they most strongly disagree with.

If you have a look at other threads on this forum, you will see that no body concedes defeat to their line of argument! Everyone holds to their beliefs, or bales out sideways if the going gets too rough.

I don’t expect you or the others to concede too much at all. And from my perspective, I am indicating agreement [showing concession] with you whenever I come across it, with the specific intent of presenting the best balance that I can.

“If you can show me that you have at least as much if not more experience in this area than me, then I'll listen to you all day, but until then I don't think we will ever get anywhere.”

This is not good. We should all just respect each other’s views no matter what their background, and just debate the issues without worrying about their qualifications or experience

Ludwig: 'Many laws are black and white, but many are open to interpretation. ... make the black and white ones truly black and white.'

I must be getting old, tired or senile, maybe a bit of all three, but I need some clarification. Can you identify which laws, aspects of enforcement etc that concern you the most and put them in lets say point form. That will at least make it easier for me to address them. Just a couple at a time please.

Basically I don't really see a problem with the way laws are enforced at the moment (traffic laws that is). I don't think we can get to a higher degree of consistency than we are at this time.

Police are drawn from the community and as such to at least some extent are representative of the community in ideals, attitudes etc. That's not to say we don't change over time, I did. We are also fallible to everyday pressures. I could have had a good night, a good sleep and woken up this morning feeling great, or I could have had an argument with the wife, the kids kept me up all night and I get up feeling like you know what. These and other environmental factors effect how I will enforce the law, some will have a general affect, some will have a shot term effect on that day only. I might have attended a fatal that night where two kids were killed, then gone to their autopsies later that day, then on the way home I see a car in front of me with their two kids bouncing around on the back seat. There is a fair chance I'm going to pounced on the driver and not only give them a ticket, but also a piece of my mind. I'm not saying this is right, but it is reality. So given all the vagaries of human life and the different personalities involved, I fail to see how we can get much closer to a consistent level of Policing than we have at the moment.

“Your ideas of total enforcement and removal of discretion are absolutely insane, and the notion that there CAN be such uniformity is just ignorance at its very height”

Steve, I presume you have gained a more realistic perspective of my views since you wrote this.

The rest of your post is not worthy of comment.

From your next post;

“the reasoning BEHIND the laws should be enforced”.

Well of course! And where possible there have to be cut-off points, instead of fuzzy interpretations of what constitutes the motive of the particular law.

Steve, don’t you think that we should all be under the same rules? And that any particular rule should apply equally to all? Can’t you see that if we have fuzzy interpretations or leeways that are deliberately not elucidated, people are going to be copped for minor things in one instance and let off for more serious infringements in another instance?

EQUALITY!! And that means a standard observance of the law and an even standard of policing!

“Your obsession with equal treatment is just ignorant.”

Wonderful. I think you’re a lost cause mate.

Ludwig, I think you take some comments to the extreme and out of context. eg: that I'm not prepared to listen to you because you don't have the same experience as me. Why am I here discussing this with you then?

Yes, you and everyone else is entitled to their views and opinions. Experience in a particular field is important when debating an issue though. You seek consistency in enforcement, well my experience in the courts has taught me that experience is a particular area is very important. I've had Air-conditioning Engineers come up against me and try and say my interpretation of the crash was wrong, you can guess how successful they were.

What weight would my opinion carry in a debate on nuclear physics with a professor in that field when I had only a high school education and was an avid reader of New Science magazine. This is not meant as an analogy between you and I, just an extreme example of what I'm trying to get across. Sure I should have my say, and there is even a chance, a very slight one mind you, that I could be the next Professor Hawking, but the likelihood of me changing the Professor's opinions on nuclear physics is pretty slim and rightly so.

I'm quite happy to debate the issue with you or anyone else, but I'm starting to get the feeling that we are going around in circles. That's why I've asked you for specifics. Generalities by their very nature are too vague to answer specifically.

Don't try and throw at me the old, 'I don't expect you to concede etc'. My whole career, 24 years of it, has been in the listening, adjudicating and actioning of disputes, so I think it fair to say that I have a grasp of how to look at something objectively. I also think that I'm quite capable of admitting I'm wrong when I am. I think you might want to have a hard look at your opinions and ask yourself if after all these discussions with all these different people in the field of traffic that you have had, do you still have the same basic opinions that you always had? If you have then maybe you are the stubborn one and not the rest of us. If you have changed your opinions over time, then why can't you now?

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I do think your opinions on some of the issues are very naive and ignorant, and I mean that in the true sense of the words, not as an insult.

I haven't seen anything from you that would change my mind of how things are currently done. That's not to say I haven't been listening, that I'm not interested or that I'm too pig (no pun intended) headed to admit that I'm wrong. It's just that from my stand point, with the experiences I've had, the knowledge I have and the practical experience of trying to interpret, understand, enforce and explain the many, many laws and their changes over the years, leads me to believe, at this point in time, that there really is no better way of enforcing the road rules. Believe me, if I had thought of some I would certainly have said so. If someone can come up with a way to make my job easier, more effective and at the same time making me appear to be a nice guy, I'll jump at it.

Having said this, do put your specific ideas in point form if you wish and I'll see what we come up with.

Ludwig,

I went to the other forum and the first things that caught my eye were these comments:

“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.”

“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?”

“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.”

Considering what I just asked you about whether you wanted the speed limits raised and that you did not answer I would be interested to know what your answer is. If we had 120kph limits on freeways would you be less concerned with nitpicking on policing issues? In that situation would you turn to advocating driver training full time and stop insulting police? Would you be ok with leaving them 120 cf. raising further?

The following is the bit that impressed me. If you lost the pessimistic view of most people expressed in other posts and nitpicking you would be there.

”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.”

People going excessively slowly always complain to newspapers when they are booked yet they are almost as much of a hazard as those going excessively fast. People should try to keep speed differences down. The link below is from an overseas DoT that provides information cf. our DoT's dodgy slogans.

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/biz/trafficoperations/traffic/limits.htm

"Steve, don’t you think that we should all be under the same rules? And that any particular rule should apply equally to all? Can’t you see that if we have fuzzy interpretations or leeways that are deliberately not elucidated, people are going to be copped for minor things in one instance and let off for more serious infringements in another instance?"

Unsurprisingly, you've wilfully missed the point again. The fact is that there IS no absolute right or wrong here. We don't HAVE a method of determining exactly how fast we're going. Yes it would be great if we could apply fair judgement to every single person, but the fact is that everyone deals with different people (different cops/magistrates/whatever), that every situation is actually different. If you believe in a uniform response to a non-uniform input as a means of IMPROVING this situation then you are sorely mistaken. Because, in fact, that produces quite the opposite effect to the equality you so dearly crave.

And you know, when personal judgement is involved - and it always is, that's what driving is all about - there's always going to be a discrepancy between one person's views and another's. What you perceive as dangerous, to another may be perfectly safe, and vice versa. Preserving the letter of the law (and keeping in mind a stated tolerance IS actually part of the law anyway, so your "but but but the law has to be enforced precisely" argument is irrelevant in this context anyway) should be absolutely secondary to preserving its relevance and reasoning. The reason we have speed limits is because they are an approximate means of determining a reasonable compromise between covering distance and safety. They're not an absolute measure by any means, and to treat them as such is to disregard one's own obligation to be responsible for their own judgements as a driver.

"This is not good. We should all just respect each other’s views no matter what their background, and just debate the issues without worrying about their qualifications or experience."

Yeah, right. I refuse to respect anyone's views just because they have one - everyone has one - I choose whether to respect a person's views on the validity of their arguments and basis thereof. That most definitely includes experience. You wouldn't bother having this discussion with a 5 year old, what the hell would they know about law enforcement or vehicle safety?

"Wonderful. I think you’re a lost cause mate."
That's nice dear. Strangely enough, I don't see too many people jumping in to agree with you, and the one person here who has an absolute wealth of experience with both law enforcement AND specifically road safety issues, is disagreeing with you. Yet you refuse to listen to physics, you ignore (or deliberately misinterpret) logic, and you dismiss experience. One would wonder if you are actually a logical, rational human being at all, and perhaps question whether it is YOU who is the lost cause. I don't know anyone else who would continue to try and argue the point in the face of such overwhelming evidence to the contrary of your opinions.

“WTF? Willing adherence is REGARDLESS of the state of enforcement.”

Steve, you find my views completely incomprehensible and I find yours just as incomprehensible. I don’t think two people have ever been further apart on any issue!!

“I don't have people investigating me for murder every day "just to check", same goes for everyone else.”

What on earth are you on about here? You’ve lost me completely!

The simple fact is that people (or at least a significant portion of the populace) will just simply not obey laws, or any approximation to them, if they know they can get away with it or even if they think that there is a good chance that they will get away with it. This can’t be more obvious with all sorts of road rules.

This notion of willing adherence with minimal policing is just whacko!

“Ideally we wouldn't NEED enforcement”

Fine! In an ideal world. But completely impractical, idealistic and naïve in this world.

“Your ridiculous obsession with clarifying everything to the point where it becomes black and white is simply ignorant of reality.”

Your rejection of the notion that things should be as fair as possible for all of us is just unbelievable, as is your rejection of the notion that we should all know with as much clarity as possible where we stand with the law.

So you reject my idea of raising official speed limits by 10kmh. You would get your leeway and the law would be preserved at the same time. The public would get a big concession in return for the onus then being placed on them to make sure that their speedos are reading accurately or that they know the error margin or that they err well on the side or caution if they don’t know. An excellent compromise I would have thought. But no, it just gets another round of condemnation from you.

This really is beyond belief

“If you think people are just going to do whatever they can get away with, yes some may well”

Of course some will.

“but your implication of treating everyone as guilty until proven innocent”

Only those who break the law are guilty….. and you say I imply that everyone is treated as guilty! Where do these bizarre statements come from Steve??

“I am all for the absolute minimum of interference in my life from anyone else.”

That’s fine. But you’ve got to weigh it up against other things, such as safety on our roads, preventing people from being ripped off, making sure would-be crims stay would-bes or get their just deservings if they play up, etc.

We would NOT get an overall improvement in personal freedoms or democratic rights with a weaker law enforcement regime. Just the opposite.

In short, a strong system of law enforcement is needed across the board. For the average person strong law-enforcement would hardly further impinge on their daily freedoms at all, but would serve to improve their feelings of security and wellbeing.

I have to wonder why you seem so intent on there being a really low degree of police presence or visible law enforcement or however you would like put it.

“Having somebody else breathing down your neck ALL THE TIME is in direct contradiction to the personal freedoms democracy supposedly brings us.…”

Why do you say this? Am I advocating anything like this? What might you be doing to cause the police to constantly breathe down your neck if road-safety policing was improved?

The implication I’m reading in this is that you are one who would play up… or has stepped outside of the law, or the intent of the law, or beyond the leeway of the law and been copped for it. Even with the most vigorous law-enforcement system, the cops would only be breathing down your neck IF YOU PLAY UP!

“Rigid enforcement of any law, again, MUST be ignoring the purpose originally behind the laws…”

Uh oh, back to the really loopy stuff we go!

Mjpb

“Reality is that if any police officer publically objected…”

Agreed. But they can object through the appropriate internal channels, or on forums like this or anonymously to newspapers, and so on.

I think that if there was a considerable degree of objection, it would get out, even if the government or commissioner tried to suppress it.

“Can I clarify your attitude toward the laws.”

Certainly. Thanks for asking.

A law should be written in such a way as to allow people to be warned about things like 3m tree-trimming. Of course we don’t want a situation whereby people can be penalised for inadvertently violating the law. So as well as improvements in policing, many laws need redefining. I’ve made this point previously.

In your example, people would be given plenty of opportunity to clean up after a strong wind…. and this provision would be written into the law.

There also needs to be a good system of public education about these laws and readily available information about the nitty gritty detail. And of course the onus would then be on police and council officers to uphold this.

Conformity between policing and the law, that’s what I call for.

If you think more rigorous policing would be lead to silly fines, then it should be the laws that you are questioning, not the notion of an improved policing regime.

Please seek further clarification if this is not clear.

continued

mjpb, I’m having real problems in understanding the rest of your post. I hope I have addressed your concerns….

‘You are certainly cynical. I’m not denying that….”

You call me cynical but then you basically agree! There’s nothing cynical about it. It’s just a straightforward observation – people by and large respect what they can get away with rather than respecting the law, even when the law is patently obvious.

“….safe to go faster rather than want to break the law?”

How many people do you think feel it is safe to go faster than the law allows? Many, if not most. And how many of these people do you think have a good appreciation of risk factors and safety margins? Very few. So is their feeling of safety at speeds above the limit really justified?

Speed limit law has to err on the side of caution. What’s wrong with having to drive under the speed that we think is safe? Why shouldn’t speed limits take into account less than ideal conditions, drivers with lesser experience and skills and hazards of all sorts? Why shouldn’t they well and truly err on the side of caution? Is it possible to have a system whereby good experienced drivers are allowed to drive faster or whereby we can travel faster during a bright sunny day than at night or in the rain? Isn’t it important that we keep the whole business as simple as possible… and just have one speed limit on any particular stretch of road…. that is a bit under the preferred speed of most drivers in optimum conditions?

“At the end of the day do you find the limits too low and you are using a roundabout approach to get them raised?”

I presume I have answered that question here

Quiggley (27 Oct), I don’t know why you are getting angry. As far as I am concerned you and I are having a good debate here.

Mjpb

“Considering what I just asked you about whether you wanted the speed limits raised and that you did not answer…”

I obviously hadn’t reached your previous post when you wrote this. You might have noticed that I am responding to everything in sequence.

I have previously made my position perfectly clear on this very question anyway. So here we go again; Raising ALL speed limits by 10kmh would

1. effectively give you and Steve your beloved leeway,
2. keep the rule of law intact, which all three of you amazingly just don’t seem to see any importance in and
3. effectively not (or barely) raise speed limits anyway (outside of Victoria) because of the current leeway.

So, I could live with a 10kmh overall increase, IF it is policed at face value and drivers are implored to travel at the same speed most of them are travelling at now, which is a few ks under the policeable limit (the official speed limit +10kmh in most states) and the onus is placed fairly and squarely on drivers/owners to know the error margin in their speedos, and drive accordingly.

Where there are now 110kmh zones, they would be raised to 120. I reckon a lot of 100kmh zone could go to 120 too. But I also see lots of examples where I think the speed limit is too high, or would be too high with 10kmh added to it. So these would need to be changed to lower speed zones, with new signs.

“If we had 120kph limits on freeways would you be less concerned with nitpicking on policing issues?”

Nitpicking! Holy moses. Desiring the policing regime to match the law as best as we can manage is nitpicking is it?

continued

“In that situation would you turn to advocating driver training full time and stop insulting police?”

You seem to be missing a fair bit of what I am writing on this thread mjpb. I do absolutely advocate full-on driver-training and I absolutely advocate a good police force along with it. Insulting police? Show me where I have done this in this discussion please.

Is it really possible that after all this communication you grossly misunderstand my position? It seems like it might be.

"Would you be ok with leaving them 120 cf. raising further?"

I presume that has been answered.

You quote me;

”Pericles makes a very good point…….”

This impresses you. Great! So, as previously expressed, one of the biggest problems with leeways is that you get people travelling at different speeds, much moreso than if the speed limit was clear-cut. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=165#3140

“People going excessively slowly always complain to newspapers when they are booked yet they are almost as much of a hazard as those going excessively fast.”

Absolutely.

“People should try to keep speed differences down.”

ABSOLUTELY! And that means having one speed limit that everyone understands, instead of a leeway or fuzzy interpretation, which many truckies and other drivers will push to the limit, while many other drivers exercise a bit of caution, and others will observe the strict sense of the law and keep their speed to ~5 ks under the official limit…. which is about 15kmh slower than those who push the limit of the leeway!!

I feel as though we have found significant common ground here! I am now strongly inclined to think that our differences are pretty minimal, and due largely to misinterpretation of each other’s writings.

Now all need to understand is what you mean by this “nitpicking” business.

Thanks for the link.

Quiggley, I think I brushed over a couple of your posts. So I’ll go back and address them next.

Ludwig: Quiggley (27 Oct), I don’t know why you are getting angry. As far as I am concerned you and I are having a good debate here.'

Don't worry, I'm not getting angry or even agitated. It must the way I write - blunt and to the point? I can see why you might take it that way, but don't. I guess it's from all those years of cutting through the crap to get to the facts.

On your idea of Police speaking out more; a lot easier said than done. For one we are not allowed by legislation to voice an opinion on government of Police policies, not officially anyway. Whilst I don't always agree with it, we can't have the situation where if every Police Officer felt so inclined they could go to the media and voice their disapproval of government of Police policies. It would send a very disturbing message to the public if it was seen that even the Police themselves can't agree on Policing. If we feel that strongly we could always resign and then speak out I suppose - not very practicable though.

On your issue of raising the speed limits (generally) and throwing more responsibility onto the driver if they exceed the new speed limit (I think I'm getting this right) - I don't see how it is going to help or improve anything. As you say there will always be those who push the limit no matter what it is or how it is Policed - just as happens now.

There will always be a speed differentiation between those that do push the limit and those who do not or even chose to travel at below the limit. I don't see how this will change under you idea, it will all just happen at 10 (or so) Km/H higher.

I suppose at the end of the day is this really that big an issue to be spending so much time on it. Most people know that if the speed limit is 100 Km/H that they can be booked for anything over that. They may be confident that they can travel at up to lets say 110 Km/H in the 100 zone without the risk of getting booked - most of the time. What is wrong with this? I don't and haven't yet seen a problem with it.

There is sometimes a side benefit to people who chose to exceed the speed limit and it comes from the fact that they know they are speeding. Some of these people are probably paying more attention to the road ahead - keeping an eye out for Police etc - than the person who has put their cruise control on and is sitting back relaxing to some degree. Now don't take it that I'm saying everyone because I'm not.

Whilst doing radar duties I've often seen people who are well over the speed limit hit the brakes along way from us because they have seen us. Yet at the same time I've seen Mr and Mrs Kettle drive past and nearly have a heart attack when they finally noticed us. So in this example who possess the most danger to other road users? The guy speeding but very vigilant of the road ahead or the person doing the speed limit but whose mind is miles away from what they're doing?

I know from experience that when I've had to do high speed runs my attention is totally focused on what I'm doing at the time, not what I have to do when I get back to work, or pick up for dinner on the way home, or what I'm going to do tomorrow etc. I know this is an extreme, but it serves the point.

So I think more time should be spent on the issues that I know cause death and injury and not on the ones that are basically an annoyance. Again, it's all about prioritizing. I know that alcohol caused deaths, I know that drugs cause deaths, I know that stupid behaviour causes deaths and I know that excessive speed caused deaths. So why not put your efforts into these problem areas and not worry about the small things that very rarely, if every, cause deaths on our roads.

We don't live in an Utopian society where all is well with the world and there is enough for every-one's needs. We live is a world were there are more and more demands placed on fewer and fewer resources. So we must try to get the best bang for the buck, and that's what it comes down to, money.

We can't afford to do the level of driver education that would be ideal, we can't afford to upgrade every road at once to ideal, and we will never stop people acting like idiots behind the wheel. So lets do something what will have an effect on lives and not things that might just be an inconvenience.

Basically what I'm saying is take all that good intention you have and all that energy you have and redirect it into something that will make a difference to some-one's life, like save it.

Quiggley

“Don't worry, I'm not getting angry or even agitated.”

Thank goodness. I don’t want to upset people. But I know how difficult it is to find that balance in entertaining vigorous debate without causing offence.

Now back to your earlier posts…..

“Ludwig, I think you take some comments to the extreme and out of context.”

You can rest assured that I do my best to interpret them as I read them. I could say the same about you and mjpb, and as for Steve…well!!

This business of accurately presenting what you mean and accurately perceiving what others are trying to say appears to be a chronic problem with written debates. I see it all the time on this forum.

So I guess we just have to concentrate on asking the right questions in order to clarify each other’s views.

I fully appreciate your experience in this field, and I’m glad you are here on this forum. And I just want to be appreciated as being a lay person with respect to this subject, who is passionately concerned about road safety, who has come up against the ugly side of the police a few times and who strongly wishes to see a high standard of policing and of law abidance.

I think that many more ‘ordinary’ people should become embroiled in these issues, and I find it quite unfortunate that there are only four of us involved in this discussion. [I speak about this current discussion with a number of people, all but one of whom agree with my position. I wish they’d all jump in and contribute! (:<)]

I don’t think our discussion is starting to go around in circles, but there does seem to be a bit of repetition needed, in order to clarify stuff. I don’t know….maybe that means it is becoming circular!? Anyway, I’m gonna hang in here for a while yet.

BUT I might be offline for a day or three, coz I’m going bush, as all good botanists/ecologists/geomorphologists have got to do regularly….or else they’ll go completely bonkers!

OK, I’m back from the real world, right out in the feral backblocks of lower Cape York Peninsula, and back into the parallel (cyber)universe again.

Now, where was I? Oh yes….

Quiggley (27 Oct)

Your request for a point form list of my concerns is good.

1. Many laws on the books that are just bloody well ignored. If they are worth having, then how come they are not enforced? We need to bring law enforcement in line with the law. This has two components; improving the policing regime and redefining laws that are deemed not fit to be policed as they are currently written.

2. Respect for the rule of law. What sorts of a society do we have if this respect is not upheld? Of course perfection is not possible, but we should be striving for the highest standard that we can get.

3. Fairness for all. Fuzzy laws in combination with extremely broad police discretionary powers leave the situation wide open for subjective and highly unfair treatment. It would be lovely if we could rely on our police to use their discretionary powers wisely, but we just can’t. So three things have to happen; the laws need to tightly defined and policed, police discretionary powers need to be reigned right in, and the police need to be held accountable for their decisions in a much more rigorous manner.

4. Elimination of blatant hypocrisy. For example, the ‘every k over is a killer’ message, while several ks over is acceptable!! And, the recommendations from the police, RACQ, Dept of Transport, etc regarding driving behaviour, while no effort in the policing regime is made to get people to take up this driving behaviour. The complete lack of policing of tailgating and almost complete lack of policing of road-hoggery by slow drivers are a couple of examples.

5. Awareness that our roads are dangerous places, and that a high proportion of drivers drive in an unsafe manner when they think they can get away with it. Driver-training must be greatly improved. So does driver-accountability, which means a strong law-enforcement regime.

Quiggley, in further response to your post of 27 Oct;

“Basically I don't really see a problem with the way laws are enforced at the moment (traffic laws that is).”

Wow! I can just see so many ways of improving it, and I don’t just mean by police, I mean within the law itself, driver-training, empowering the community to act against dangerous driving, etc.

Look at what is happening in NT. Speed limits are being introduced throughout the Territory, as are red light cameras, a demerit point system and increased fines to bring them in line with the rest of the country. No longer will the Territory be a virtual lawless backwater as far as driving goes.

Why on earth can’t the rest of the country take a couple of very simple giant leaps forward as well, such as putting most police in unmarked cars, so that any reasonably new car on the road could potentially be a cop in the eyes of law-breakers. The blue line is so damn thin….and yet the cops make themselves stand out like dogs balls… and in so doing, make it patently obvious when they are not around.

Why can’t driver-training be greatly improved? How on earth can we accept people getting their licences with such a flimsy understanding of the hazards? This is the craziest aspect of all.

Why can’t the responsibility for speedometer accuracy be placed fairly and squarely with the driver?

Why can’t the law be upheld at face value? What is with this crazy attitude of accepting a law and then policing it at some quite different value?

In short, there are a hundred easy steps that we could take to improve the law and its enforcement regime.

“Police are drawn from the community…..”

I appreciate your sentiments in this long paragraph. But surely it is all the more reason why we have to be very careful with discretionary powers, and keep them to a minimum…..and in order to do that, keep the law and the policing thereof tightly defined and aligned respectively.

Speedcamerjustice

How did your rally go?

Steve, we’ve got fairly and squarely on each other’s goat, which really is unfortunate. What do you say we set the bad vibes aside and have another go at neutral logical debate?

(from 27 Oct) “The fact is that there IS no absolute right or wrong here.”

But there IS. The absolute right or wrong is defined by the law, with things such as speed limits, which have a crystal clear interpretation, with hard and fast cut-off points.

“We don't HAVE a method of determining exactly how fast we're going.”

We don’t have to have a precise method. But we do need to make it as good as possible, and to emphasise the need to err on the side of caution when we don’t know what the error factor is in our speed-measuring device.

“Yes it would be great if we could apply fair judgement to every single person, but the fact is that everyone deals with different people (different cops/magistrates/whatever), that every situation is actually different.”

Great! We agree with the principle of fair judgement for all. So given this, shouldn’t be striving to make it as fair as possible wherever possible, and certainly NOT just living with a high degree of unfairness in situations where it could easily be improved?

“If you believe in a uniform response to a non-uniform input as a means of IMPROVING this situation then you are sorely mistaken. Because, in fact, that produces quite the opposite effect to the equality you so dearly crave.”

I’m struggling to understand just what you mean by a uniform response to non-uniform input. Different situations need different responses, and as far as possible this should be written into the relevant laws.

I espouse a uniform interpretation and enforcement of any given law. Within that uniformity there could easily be a sliding scale of penalties depending on the severity of the infringement, as there is to some extent with speeding and other road rules.

Footnote: I’m doing my damnedest to interpret things as they are intended, as always.

Ludwig,

1. Many laws on the books that are just bloody well ignored...

It is simply impossible to Police every law, all the time and to the same extent. This is one reason why there is targeted campaigns. As for getting rid of 'old' outdated laws, there is a process which is done to do this, but as you can imagine it wouldn't feature too highly as most of the time they don't affect anyone and basically it is just cleaning up the books so to speak. As for bring law enforcement into line with the law you forget it is not the Police who make or interpret the law, we just enforce it. Our enforcement of the law is as a result of the courts interpretation of the law - which not always agrees with the intention of the law makers at the time they wrote it.

2. Respect for the rule of law.

Yep, but how is this to be achieved further? Don't you think that if some good ideas had been thought up to do it all better that it wouldn't have been done already? You seem to forget that 'good' people do generally respect and adhere to the law and the 'bad' people don't give a darn about adhering to it, so why in the world would they respect it.

3. Fairness for all.

As I've said before and I'm not being rude, but you really do live in a fanciful world. Lets just say all Police were instructed to show zero tolerance for every offence they saw. The public would be scared to say/do anything, Police would suffer even more resentment, the courts would be flooded with cases, need I go on? Then the clincher; One day I pull over a friend and let them off. How would anyone know that I did and how would you stop it? Your expectations are unrealistic.

Police are already the most accountable people on the face of this earth, how would you proposed to make us more accountable whilst still maintaining the very little morale that currently exists?

4. Elimination of blatant hypocrisy.

Politicians are a unique breed all of their own. Deep down I'm sure most of them want to do the best thing, but how can they if they don't get re-elected to follow through with their ideas? At the same time we only get what we pay for, we really don't pay our Politicians very much for what they are 'suppose' to do. As the old saying goes, pay peanuts get monkeys.

You cover a lot of ground in this one short paragraph. It is not the function of the Police to get/educate people to do more driving courses or show more manners on the road etc. That is a function of the RTA and alike. Also there are numerous examples of various 'independent' bodies like the NRMA, RACQ etc speaking out about government campaigns/enforcement being inappropriate, so they are doing a pretty good job as is.

The last point you make about lack of Policing in certain areas, tailgating etc, how do you know that it's not Policed? Because you saw it happen once or twice and nothing happened? Were there any Police around when you did? Do you know for a fact that they weren't going to or doing something more important at the time if they did see it and didn't take action? There are so many what ifs here. Maybe they had a bad day and didn't feel like it or maybe they were just plain old slack. Again another argument for consistency.

5. Awareness that our roads are dangerous places,

I agree they are dangerous places, but they are not dangerous per say. Just like guns don't kill people, people using guns kill people. I think that most people drive very safely when they see the Police around, both good and bad, then when the Police aren't around the bad ones go back to their bad ways and the good keep on doing the right thing.

Continued;

empowering the community to act against dangerous driving, etc.

There is nothing stopping the public now complaining to the Police about someone's driving. I'm more than happy to take action against someone doing something dangerous if a member of the public tells me, but and this is a very big BUT, as I didn't see the offence I can't do it alone. The member of the public has to be prepared to go to court if need be to prove the offence - and believe me, most can't be bothered. They are more than willing to complain about it and then whinge about me when I say I'm not doing anything about it because I didn't see it and they won't give me a statement and be a witness for it.

I think we've covered the other areas you mention.

It is long overdue that all the states and territories came into line with a single traffic act and when they do it can only be a good thing.

I totally agree with you on the unmarked cars. I've been advocating them for about 20 years now, but again the Politicians want high visibility - both to show that they are doing something and to prove that they are doing something. The fact that it is totally wrong makes no difference (see previous comment). When you ask most people what they want they will say more Police - I want to see them, walking/driving around.

Unfortunately there are very few and getting fewer unmarked cars on the road today. Just look at NSW - not only do we have marked cars, but they are now high visibility coloured cars too. No longer the white with Police all over them, now they are red, yellow, blue etc with Police all over them. They look more like toy cars than Police cars, it is a real joke. The only good argument I've heard for them is in the snow where white blends in too well and this causes a danger of not being seen when they need to be seen.

Ludwig you appear to be a very educated and intelligent man, but you approach things from a theoretical point of view and not a practical one. Theory is good and well and works in an ideal environment, but throw in a few dynamic factors (ie: the real world in which it has to be implemented) and your theory no longer (strictly) stands. In my 24 years I've seen this happen over and over again. People come up with theories and don't think about the practicalities. Yes, I've been called a dinosaur, draconian, set in my ways and all that - standard reply from such people.

There is a danger that someone in my position will be one or all of the above, but I don't think it's the case - but I could be wrong.

I've also found that most people like yourself are well intentioned and sincere, but the fatal floor that they have all ha was the actual hands on experience in the field. I think you said you are a Geologist or similar. You would know that what you learnt when you did your degree was not everything there was to learn about it and that you have probably learnt more and been better able to understand and implement what you learnt by your real world hands on experience. I dare say you might even have found some of what you learnt to not always be true in every case. It is the same on this topic. I wouldn't read a book and be an enthusiast on the topic and then think that I knew more about it than you. I've had to call on all manner of experts whilst doing crash investigation because they had expertise in areas I did not. So while I am a bit jaded by my experience, I also think that I am grounded enough to be able to separate the chaff from the wheat - on this topic at least.

But do keep up with your fight to improve things as it certainly won't do any harm. Good luck with it.

Gday Quiggley. Thanks for responding again.

Readers will have to refer back to your posts to see the full sentences to which I am responding here.

1.

“It is simply….”

It wouldn’t be impossible if we were determined to make all laws practical and develop a policing regime to match.

“This is one…..”

I disagree with targeted campaigns, because they specifically tell us what is NOT being targeted. In these campaigns, EVERY aspect of the rules of the road should be policed. I could say a lot more about this particular point, but not now.

“As for getting…..”

But these laws do affect people sometimes. Most of them are not completely redundant. It is about a lot more than just cleaning up the books.

“As for bring….”

It certainly IS the police who often interpret the law inasmuch as they have great discretionary powers. They certainly do NOT just enforce it.

“Our enforcement of….”

No! It certainly isn't just the result of a court’s interpretation. It’s got everything to do with the police force being too small for the overall task, and priorities and discretionary powers…..and misuse of priorities (ie often concentrating on the easy things) and I think quite serious misuse of discretionary powers in many instances.

2.

“Yep, but how….”

Well, it would certainly help if the police were being seen to be policing laws at face value and not ignoring a whole bunch of laws!

“Don't you think….”

No! There are MANY basic ideas that have been around for aeons that haven’t been implemented. The current moves in the Northern Territory are a shining example of basic good ideas that have been around forever are only just now being implemented.

“You seem to…..”

Most people aren’t really all that good at respecting the law. They will disobey the law if they think they can get away with it. Speed limits are a prime example of this. Only a small minority actually respect the law itself.

3.

“The public would….”

Why do you say this? Our laws aren’t all that restrictive. It’s a matter of us all….

Cont…

….knowing where we stand with the law, and of laws being reformed where necessary. You seem to be having a bet each way here – on one hand you say that the police just enforce the law, while on the other hand you say that its alright for them not to enforce the law if they see fit! It doesn’t add up.

“Then the clincher….”

Exactly! You could easily let someone off because they are a friend, or for any other reason that you see fit. This is precisely the sort of abuse of discretionary powers that I am up in arms about….. and that MUST be reigned in. What about the person who finds themselves on the wrong side of unfair discretion of this sort, AS I HAVE IN THE MOST BRAZEN MANNER when a police officer decided that he was going to protect a friend, no matter what.

How would anyone know you had done it? They wouldn’t. And therein lies a great deal of the problem; a lack of accountability of the police. People wouldn’t know, but they would suspect. And suspicion works powerfully to undermine respect. So surely it is in the police’s best interest, as well as the general community, to have as limited discretionary powers as we can reasonably implement, and to be as accountable as possible.

This is the clincher alright! How DARE police misuse their discretionary powers in this sort of a manner? I mean, the implications are huge. If they can do a friend a favour, with impunity, then they can very strongly discriminate against people in all sorts of ways.

“Police are already….. “

I very nearly called it quits when I read this. I’ve just finishing saying how unaccountable they are, AND SO HAVE YOU Quiggley, with your reference to how easily a police officer could let a friend off.

Don’t you think police morale would be boosted if we (as a society) worked hard to bring the policing regime in line with the law? Laws would be reformed. People would know exactly where they stand with the law….

…. and police (or at least to a much better extent than they do now). Police would be far less often accused of subjective or unfair discretion or of turning a blind eye… or of not turning a blind eye where they easily could have and usually do, etc. Its all very obvious to me that police morale would rise considerably along with this sort of reform.

4.

“The last point….”

I know it is not policed because I travel up and down the Bruce Highway regularly and see chronic tailgating all the time, with police cars just passing merrily on by. Also, police officers have told me that it doesn’t get policed.

The implication in your paragraph is that just because we don’t ever witness the police acting on tailgating and the like doesn’t mean that they don’t do it. Can you tell me categorically that they do police it, ever?

“Again another argument for consistency.”

What?? I’m the one here who is arguing for consistency!!

5.

“I agree they….”

They are not dangerous per se. Exactly! And with the right driver-training, the right laws and a good enforcement regime, they would be pretty damn safe. But they certainly aren’t at the moment.

“There is nothing….”

I have well and truly tested the complaint mechanism with respect to road issues. I made five complaints in about as many years, being only the worst of the worst cases. Four went absolutely nowhere, and one resulted in action being taken against the driver, but only after I put it in writing a week or so after the event. When I went to the nearest police station immediately after the incident, the officer was just simply not interested.

“It is long overdue…..”

Absolutely! Yahoo, big point of agreement!

“I totally agree on unmarked cars…..”

Wonderful!! I think you are the first person to agree on this point in all my debates on this broad subject. It was great to read your views on this.

cont….

Quiggley, after 30 years driving experience and about 15 years communicating with police, RACQ, etc, and writing on this subject, I think I have a very realistic view of what is needed AND what is practical to implement.

I do find it very strange that, despite your numerous criticisms of aspects of the overall road safety and law / law-enforcement, you seem to think that there is little chance of improvement or that the current regime is basically ok.

For example, your sentiments regarding unmarked cars seem to be in strong contrast with this view.

I’m sure we agree that a huge move forward could be made if we simply put police in unmarked cars, and perhaps on our streets in plain clothes as well. And I think a whole series of steps, which would be just as easy to implement, could vastly improve the whole deal.

There’s nothing naïve or idealistic about my whole perspective on this issue. It is all eminently implementable. All we need to do is convince the pollies. And in Queensland there have been really good signs this year that the pollies are interested and are working on some of the reforms that I have been suggesting for years.

--
It has been a very interesting discussion, and I thank you greatly for it.

cheers

As an addendum,

Quiggley you might be interested to read my dot points for the improvement of road safety, as expressed under ‘Putting the brakes on the road toll’, starting off with the one that we seem to have total agreement on. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=2877#26745

Perhaps you would like to continue our discussion on that thread.

Ludwig,

“You seem to forget that 'good' people do generally respect and adhere to the law and the 'bad' people don't give a darn about adhering to it, so why in the world would they respect it.”

"Most people aren’t really all that good at respecting the law. They will disobey the law if they think they can get away with it. Speed limits are a prime example of this. Only a small minority actually respect the law itself."

That is a good example of why people keep on pointing out the dangers of assuming you know more than someone who specializes in the area. Please take a look at:

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/biz/trafficoperations/traffic/limits.htm

You are particularly interested in speed limits. Most people drive at a reasonable speed not at some speed that gives them a special thrill for having broken the law. Your observations of people doing the wrong thing and the faulty conclusions you have reached do not correlate with the reality, The Washington Department of Transport refers to the research that clearly establishes that speed limits are most safely set at a level that most people would drive at anyway. The idea of people just trying to get away with something isn’t the point.

This is the reason that we don’t tell you that your approach to geology is faulty. You do what you do based on your knowledge and experience.

“I’m sure we agree that a huge move forward could be made if we simply put police in unmarked cars, and perhaps on our streets in plain clothes as well. ..”

Do you think that is realistic? What votes will politicians get for making it appear that there are less police on the streets and when more drivers whine about entrapment? You have a different image of politicians than I do.

Mjpb, you haven’t told me what you mean by “nitpicking”.

Neither have you pointed out where I have “insulted police”.

What do you think of my dot points (3 Nov) ?

“http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/biz/trafficoperations/traffic/limits.htm”

I read this site when you posted it previously.

“You are particularly interested in speed limits.”

No, not really. I’m interested in overall road safety, law and law-enforcement. We just seem to be discussing speed more than anything else because that’s where the centre of our disagreements seem to lie.

“Most people drive at a reasonable speed…”

What do you call reasonable? Most people don’t have an adequate appreciation of risk factors, or that erring on the side of caution, ie driving a bit below what they speed they would like to sit on, is probably a damn good idea. Just look at the situation in the Northern Territory, where many drivers sit on 150 kmh or higher on the open highway. How does this sit with the fact that NT has an accident rate THREE TIMES the national average?

The fact is some people will grossly abuse speed, and safety, if they can get away with it. And you don’t need a very high proportion of drivers to do it for it to be a very significant factor. Even if only 1% behaved like this, or 0.1%, you would still encounter it at a very regular rate. And I reckon a good 10% would fall in this category.

“The idea of people just trying to get away with something isn’t the point.”

The idea is to make it as safe and as fair as possible. And that includes keeping the fraction of drivers that just completely disrespect the law, and do what they feel they can get away with, under control.

continued

“ ‘I’m sure we agree that a huge move forward could be made if we simply put police in unmarked cars, and perhaps on our streets in plain clothes as well. ..’ “

Presumably you do agree with this in principle.

“Do you think that is realistic?”

Absolutely. Why wouldn’t it be? Sooner or later some pollie that is slightly more intelligent than the rest is going to see what a huge difference this could make. And when it is reflected in improved figures on driving infringements, accidents and fatalities, they will be vindicated, and the inevitable opposition from sections of the public will be put back in its place.

Crikey mjpb, if we are going to be defeatist about simple big steps like this, then we may as well just forget the whole deal, and accept that the law and safety regimes are just going to steadily get worse.

Speedcamerajustice

I take it from your lack of response that your rally didn’t go so well.

“http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/biz/trafficoperations/traffic/limits.htm”

I read this site when you posted it previously. You seemed to miss what they said about the speed most people choose to drive.

"“Most people drive at a reasonable speed…”

What do you call reasonable? Most people don’t have an adequate appreciation of risk factors, or that erring on the side of caution, ie driving a bit below what they speed they would like to sit on, is probably a damn good idea."

I believe traffic engineers determine the upper limit by measuring the speed 85% of the traffic moves at or below. Most people have severe limitations in driving skills but they can steer down the road and choose a reasonable speed. These basics are about all they can do.

"Just look at the situation in the Northern Territory, where many drivers sit on 150 kmh or higher on the open highway. How does this sit with the fact that NT has an accident rate THREE TIMES the national average?"

I think the expression is 'red herring'. In the NT there are almost as many tourists as residents so many people are trying to work out which side of the road to drive on. Then you have severe issues with drink driving and many remote areas and long highways. (It is a third of the surface area of Australia.) All things being equal a crash in remote area could cause a death when a similar crash near a city would never result in a death as medical attention is quickly available near cities. There are many reasons for the high accident rate on NT roads.

"The fact is some people will grossly abuse speed, and safety, if they can get away with it."

Absolutely. I was talking about most people not some people.

“Most people have severe limitations in driving skills but they can steer down the road and choose a reasonable speed.”

Yes. I would agree that a good portion of drivers do have “severe” limitations to their driving ability. Yes they can steer down the road without too much trouble. But they don’t need to choose a reasonable speed because the cruising speed is basically set in each speed zone. And thank goodness for that, as a large portion of both skilled and skills-challenged drivers would choose to go too fast.

“….so many people are trying to work out which side of the road to drive on.”

Hells bells! I don’t think tourist drivers are quite that bad, although some of them certainly appear to have no idea of Australian road rules or basic courtesy.

“There are many reasons for the high accident rate on NT roads.”

Yes and alcoholism, poor driving skills and poor vehicle roadworthiness, largely in indigenous communities, has a lot to do with it. Animals on the road and long boring flat straight roads are other factors. The open speed limit was an irresponsible added risk factor, which exacerbated the dangers of all these things.

The open highway speed limit in NT is now 130kmh with 110 on other rural roads unless otherwise signed. That is one big improvement.