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.