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.