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.