“In Victoria there is no discretion when it comes to speeding”

I thought there was a 3kmh leeway.

“….drivers must spend more of their time watching their speedo's trying to adhere strictly to the law…”

No, I don’t think so. In Queensland there is a 10kmh leeway on the highway, and just about everywhere it seems. Everyone has just accepted that the speed limit is 10kmh higher than the signs say it is… and the cruising speed for a large portion of drivers has become about 109 in a 100k zone.

So we still have the issue of having to carefully watch the speedo… or of doing a few ks less and incurring the wrath of drivers behind you for going too slow, even though you might still be sitting on or a bit over the official limit!

“…rather than paying attention to the road conditions and the actions of the motorists around them.”

I paid specific attention to this point on a long highway trip last week, after it was mentioned on another thread. I found that I could perfectly easily monitor my speed once every couple of seconds without it detracting from my concentration on driving.

In fact, if you are concentrating on keeping your speed below the limit you ARE concentrating on your driving.

Besides, if such a tiny distraction is of concern, to the extent that you think it significantly increases the risk of mishap, then I would suggest that you are clearly doing something wrong with your driving and need to slow down or pull back from the vehicle in front of you or get off the road until the heavy rain stops, or whatever is needed to reduce the apparent high-risk factors.

“Rule of law, no common sense.”

Huh?

Brock, I totally agree that the law-makers need a good boot up the backside, due to too many silly laws or laws that are too broadly circumscribed and thus inhibit people in ways that they shouldn’t!

Traffic lights that work totally against their own purpose of facilitating traffic flow, which they often do in light traffic conditions, are one example. In my town, many years ago, we had traffic lights that used to go into orange flashing mode in times of low traffic volume. I think we need to bring that back.

Stop signs are a similar example. They should be replaced in just about every instance with give-way signs.

Speed limit law also needs widespread reform, as is due to happen in the Northern Territory.

But I totally disagree with leeways on speed limits, or a fuzzy interpretation of them by police. They comprise one type of law that can and should be absolutely black and white, and that means being policed at face value.

“If a road train can travel at 100 kph why can't a small car travel at one hundred and fifty kilometers an hour.”

That’s probably ok in principle, although I’d say 150 is too much. The NT is due to introduce a maximum speed limit of 130, which is probably still on the high side. I would go for 120.

It’s all about making the law match common sense, and then upholding the rule of law with an efficient, effective, fair and consistent policing regime.

“Speed infringement is perhaps the best example of a law that should be open to much on-the-spot discretion.”

Lionel, I’ll have to disagree.

I think it is extremely difficult for a police officer to tell who might be inadvertently just exceeding the limit and who is a serial pusher of the limit. Discretion cannot be implemented evenly and fairly in this instance, so the same rule needs to apply to all.

Ok, so with an improved policing regime, those who inadvertently exceed the limit are going to get the raw end of the prawn for a while. But the whole community will pretty quickly get the message that it is foolish to sit right up close to the limit, and the overall cruising speed will drop back away from the policeable limit.

“Many speed limits are more or less arbitrary and very often are posted well below the speed that a stretch of road and the vast majority of drivers could safely handle.”

Yes. So in many instances there is good cause for them to be revised upwards. In other cases they need to be adjusted downwards. For example, I am surprised at many relatively narrow winding roads in WA that have 110kmh limits.

Arbitrary or inappropriate speed limits in some places are no reason for a slack or inconsistent regulatory approach to speeding.

“….stringent enforcement of speed limits has led to a detrimental effect on driver behaviour…”

Really? How you figure that?

WA is currently having a terrible year for fatal road accidents, many of them involving young and/or inexperienced drivers. The known circumstances/evidence of the crashes frequently positively identifies dangerously high speed as being either the cause or the main contributory cause.. Obviously this has to be addressed. We can't have a variety of different speed limits for experience/inexperience, type and/or condition of car and all the other suggested discretionary options, so we're all on the end of it. But I do agree that a reasonable tolerance should be allowed in accordance with the legally accepted tolerance on speedo accuracy.

I've been on the wrong end of a police cover up, after a "mate" of the local cops crashed into my car and then tried to drive off. [Details posted on another thread.]

An extremely senior WA detective was recently stood down because of his alleged involvement in a botched murder prosecution some time ago, which saw a now pardoned man jailed for many years. But only a few years ago, this officer allegedly inappropriately interfered in a situation after his own father was involved in a serious road crash. Makes you think, doesn't it?

In regard to beach nudity. Video available at University of Sydney Library:

"From neck-to-knee to nude: the story of the Aussie Cossie and the beach bathing bans. Written and directed by Albie Thoms; historian, Peter Spearritt; fashion commentator, Alexandra Joel. Sydney: Albie Thoms Productions, c1985.
FISHER AV 177.4/3"

This excellent documentary expresses the sentiment that every improvement on Australia's beaches has been won by open civil disobedience. So if we wait for the religious/polititical control freaks to act sensibly on this issue, then we'll probably wait for ever, won't we?

And I could tell Kenneth Wenzel, based on my own successful experience, how to get acquitted on that ridiculous charge. In fact, the authorities would probably just quietly drop the case, rather than risk opening the Pandora's Box which would ensue if he did as I would suggest.

Rex, regarding a “reasonable tolerance” on speed limits;

Firstly, I would suggest that the rule of law is a very important, and that we should always be striving to make sure that what is written in law is what applies. So, where a speed limit is stated to be 60, it should be 60, not 63 as it appears to be in Victoria, or 66 as it appears to be in states that uphold a 10% error margin, or 70 as it appears to be in Qld or some unstated fuzzy interpretation that is up to the whim of the cops.

We all need to know exactly where we stand with the law, as far as is possible. There is no excuse for fuzzy interpretations, or for interpretations that are different to the clear meaning of black and white laws, such as speed limits.

If our illustrious governments would just come right and tell us that a 60 sign actually means a 60 zone where the speed limit is 66, or 70, then fine…if they have the power to do that as the law is currently written.

Secondly, why aren’t speedometers the responsibility of the driver or owner of the vehicle, just as all other aspects of roadworthiness are?

If a driver doesn’t know the accuracy of their speedo then they’d better damn well reduce their speed accordingly…. and determine its accuracy as soon as possible….which is very easy to do with a GPS. Inaccuracy in speedos should not be an excuse for slackness in the policing of speed limits.

Thirdly, when there are leeways, many if not most people just simply drive that much faster, and sit right up close to the new effective limit, for as long as the policing regime allows them to do it, and to slip over the policeable limit by a little bit with still hardly any chance of getting sprung.

So, I say a resounding NO to leeways or tolerances on speed limits. And a resounding YES to upholding the rule of law at face value.

Ludvig,

First a note: I am not a lawyer; I just have an interest in law, and I've extensively researched the law on nudity because of my involvement with the now defunct Naturist Lifestyle Party.

Regarding the nudity in non-public areas issue. Part of the problem in pointing you to the relevant law is that things are lawful unless there is a law making them unlawful.

In QLD, some of the relevant law is to be found in the Summary Offences Act. Section 6 is about public nuisances, and is phrased so that an offence is committed if the impugned behaviour affects the enjoyment by a person in a public place. So the issue as far as nudity is concerned is whether the nudity is visible from a public place, whether or not the behaviour occurs in a public place.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/soa2005189/s6.html

The narrower wilful exposure offence is framed similarly.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/soa2005189/s9.html

Note that "public place" is defined in the dictionary at the end of the act as "a place that is open to or used by the public, whether or not on payment of a fee," so your position in a hotel is less certain. If you're visible from part of the hotel that is used by other visitors, then that is probably a public place within the meaning of the act.

You asked about more overtly obscene acts. This is covered by the Criminal Code Act.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/cc189994/s227.html

If you're not visible from a public place, then there has to be an intent to insult or offend another person.

The word "nude" does not appear anywhere in either QLD statutes or regulations. The words "naked" and "breast" do appear, but not in contexts which criminalised the conduct of the person who is naked, or the owner of the breast.

Sylvia.