I opened this thread because I have tried to inform people of things they should and should not do on the road; in a car or what-ever. Official bodies need to impliment strategies NOW instead of waiting for some no nothing beaurocrat to magically suggest what people have been screeming about for decades. I want to talk about the 4 things that make an accident on the road. They are - the car, the driver, the weather, the road. These things alone make an accident. What's even more important is the physcology of driving and what councils must look at when they attempt to fix a black spot [ or inadvertantly creat one by stupidity ]

Pepper, I think by far the main factors that make an accident are the driver and one factor that you didn’t mention; the police.

A lack of proper driver-training seems to be a much bigger factor than the car, the weather or the road. If drivers were properly trained, they would be able to handle just about any situation that the car, the weather or the road presented.

The rules of the road are just so goddam poorly policed. The police turn a blind eye to just about everything except speed and drink-driving. OK they tackle some other things some of the time, but in a very sporadic manner that really amounts to a piss-weak token effort. But overall, they allow drivers to get away with a lot of risky behaviour that they just shouldn’t get away with. Drivers are not held to account for their actions on the road!

I witness impatient and aggressive driving all the time. This is especially obvious on the Bruce Highway, where tailgaiting at 105kmh and dangerous overtaking are rife. The police just simply don’t deal with these things, or I should say, only deal with them if they result in an accident. You simply cannot get anywhere if you make a complaint about a driver’s dangerous antics unless it is extreme. ‘Normal’ tailgaiting and other impatient and aggressive driving – the sort of thing that causes many accidents - just gets the big blind eye from the police, both directly and by way of not fulfilling their responsibilities to deal with complaints.

Please see my copious comments on this whole subject at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=2877#20951

That's Oh so true. Todays drivers have to cope with so much and It appears that because of the accelerated life style, drivers expect all things to march boldly into the 21st century and they can have their brains in neutral. Doesn't work that way I'm afraid. The very first step is better driver education but authorities appear to think that a big stick works better than a carrot [ also gets more revenue]. But while authorities have seemingly deliberatly neglected to target this aspect for what ever reason, they have also compounded the situation by giving drivers an excuse for accidents that seem to be either an act of god or can be effectivly blamed on the other 3 factors. 'That pot hole caused my accident - sue the council" or 'My car had a blowout ' or 'This storm came over in a flash'. It's no good throughing total responsibility on the driver if authorities do nothing to help good drivers - poor roads, poor signage, no studies on why accidents happen dispite all care. All good drivers pay the price both for bad users AND crunbling infrastructure. I have had one accident in 40 odd years [ and that was an act of god ] but have had many a near miss - not because of idiots, I can avoid these, but because of stupid and culpable infrastructure - signs, lights, roads and it's these that can reduce the road toll more than pulling the hand full of idiots off the road. 5% of all drivers cause 90% of all accidents involving 2 or more vehicles BUT 90% of all accidents involving the single vihicle [ hitting a stationary object eg ] are caused by 90% of the conditions. wet roads, faulty or non existant signs, faulty vehicles, etc.

Pepper, I can’t see that infrastructure or road conditions amount to much of a hazard at all. After 31 years of prolific driving across the country, regularly in all sorts of conditions from highway to low-range 4WD, the overwhelming factors for me are driver stupidity and the extraordinarily inadequate policing regime.

This amounts to one overwhelming problem – woefully poorly trained drivers that are just not held accountable for their actions….until it is too late.

Pepper, you missed another factor that is an issue driving on country roads - animals. Yes, drivers should pay enough attention to avoid, but there are certain circumstances where it is impossible to avoid.

Ludwig I see your point. Basically, no matter what the condition of the road, the driver should adjust their driving to suit the road. Problem is, most dont, and if you are the lone driver on a busy road that DOES adjust their speed, then you inadvertenly create greater general danger from the idiots jostling to get past you. The roadworks at Parkes in NSW are a welcome upgrade to the road, but I have had dozens of near misses since they started the works, due simply to idiots. Eg, a B-double getting impatient and overtaking 4 cars at a time, on a blind bend. Needless to say, I bascially stopped my car as he went past me to make sure there was plenty of buffer zone in case something came around the corner. Some of the behaviour on the road is just scary.

sadly this debate has been high-jacked by our Politicans and
the many and various police forces that have taken it upon themselves to "control" drivers.
The comment made by one correspondent is typical of the level of national debate,"I was tail- gated on the Bruce Highway at 105 kph."
SO WHAT.Move over and let her go past,That is the answer to this problem.
On a more serious note.The current use of seven different interpretations of how to control traffic when approaching National Highway One is typical of the problem.
In some States a stop sign behind a hedge is used as in South Australia,A state where zero tolerance is Policed,and a reluctance of that state to introduce a sign such as used in the UK."STOP AT MAJOR ROAD, then A STOP SIGN.Rather logical but logic is never used in the national debate.
Sadly when I suggested this to a Senior Police Road Safety Officer the answer was Drivers should know our road rules,So next time you drive 18 kilometres to Mount Gambier from Victoria Read the S.A. Road rules.
Sadly last month a Victorian driver was killed after not noticing the sign hidden by the hedge.
He would have been alive if the Policeman I had spoken to had listened to logic.
The Police control of drivers in Australia would not be tolerated in any other civilised Country.
Australian Police have the worst reputation of any Police Forces in the world for lack of intelligent traffic control.
Drivers of Heavy Vehicles have been forced off the road for exceeding the 100 kph national speed limit, yet these vehicles travel some of the worlds quietest national highways.Most Interstate trucks could easily travel at 150kph and this would solve the number of drivers who fall asleep at 90kph.
Many modern cars travel at 200kph in perfect safety.
The tyrany of distance is what is holding back progress in Australia.

Ahhh, Ludwig, I thought the road toll would please you.
You know, population control etc, hi !

My main moan about drivers is the one where a car waiting to turn right
from the middle of the road stands there with the front wheels already
turned for the turn.

If someone runs into the back of them they will almost certainly be
killed because they will be shunted straight into oncoming traffic.
I tried without success to get the NRMA to take this up and get it made
an offence, but absolutely no interest.

Yes Bazz, I know of one such accident that happened where I live. The driver just survived, but all 4 passengers were killed. The car got shunted under a truck - even at town speeds thats a sure-fire way to get flattened.

Brock, I dont have a problem with having a higher speed limit in some areas, but the problem is that already people are not prepared to decrease their speed in situations where it is called for. If people were prepared to drive to the conditions, then there would be no problems with having higher speed limits.

Country Gal

You touched on one really significant point – drivers who do exercise caution and drive accordingly when under less than ideal conditions can effectively become a hazard, because most (or many) drivers continue driving in a manner not in keeping with the hazards and become impatient with those who do.

Similarly, if you respect the law at face value, especially speed limits on our highways, you constantly get barraged by drivers wanting to go a few ks faster.

And if you dare to go anywhere near the face value of temporary signage at roadworks until you are actually in the roadworks zone proper, then look out! Most drivers just can’t tolerate that at all!

This is where the policing regime is all-important. Drivers MUST know just exactly what the law effectively is (we sure as hell can’t rely on what is written in law or presented on roadsigns!) and they MUST be held accountable.

Yes animals on the road can be a very significant hazard. Many times I have been out on the wide open highway near dusk when there are roos on the roadverge or numerous roadkills on the road, and witnessed cars with no front-end protection just flying along as fast as they think they can get away with by law without giving this hazard any thought.

Oviously when there is any chance of roos or cattle being on the road or roadverge, one really does need to adapt their driving to be ready for quick stopping or aversive action. This means lowering their speed considerably and increasing following distance by quite a large margin if they are behind another vehicle.

This is basic safety-margin and risk-factor stuff that few drivers observe, and which should and could so easily be a fundamental part of driver-training.

Oviously that should have been “Obviously”!
.
“The comment made by one correspondent is typical of the level of national debate, ‘I was tail-gated on the Bruce Highway at 105 kph.’ SO WHAT.Move over and let her go past,That is the answer to this problem.’

My goodness Brock! What a wonderful solution. Just let the aggressive impatient risk-taking safety-UNconscious drivers have the road! And in so doing promulgate this sort of behaviour which would lead to increased risks for us all. Surely you can’t be serious.

“Rather logical but logic is never used in the national debate.”

Yes! And this is true of SOOOO many things with road safety…. simple logical things that could so easily be implemented, but just aren’t.

“Australian Police have the worst reputation of any Police Forces in the world for lack of intelligent traffic control.”

Well I don’t know about that but I wouldn’t be surprised. I’ve got to say though that the problems don’t just sit with police themselves, they sit with governments which don’t provide adequate resources for them to do the job, and with the general community which doesn’t insist that governments do this, and which largely gets hung up on the very notion of being more vigorously policed.

Hi Bazz. I’ll let your comment slide through to the keeper…. with a friendly grimace! (:>)
.
“I dont have a problem with having a higher speed limit in some areas, but the problem is that already people are not prepared to decrease their speed in situations where it is called for. If people were prepared to drive to the conditions, then there would be no problems with having higher speed limits.”

I fully agree Country Gal.

I've been driving now for more years than I care to remember and, if anything, the standard of driving has deteorated.
There are fewer accidents per 100,000 vehicles these days but I think that that can mainly be attributed to the better roads.
More stringent testing of drivers may be offered as another factor, but I remember when South Australia and Ireland didn't have driving licence tests.
One just went to the local Police sergeant in S.A. and to the Sergeant of the Civil Guard in Ireland (Ireland doesn't have a police force) and they gave you your licence, upon payment, and the sage advice to study the road rules and not to drive on busy roads until you felt confident. Both places introduced testing and those that passed now considered themselves persons who could drive a car. Didn't they have pieces of paper to prove it?

The road toll in both places went up.

Pet hates (there are others): Persons who drive on bright sunny days with their headlights on and particularly those who have their lights on high beam plus any other optional lights that shine to the front. These people are particularly annoying when driving behind one as the inside rear-view mirror has to be moved to 'night' setting to avoid the glare

Hi All... and to 'Is Mise'

I've been driving for 'round fifty + years, and as a former member of the NSW STP, I would have to say, one of the greatest components and causes of serious motor traffic accidents would have to be, driver attitude.
It never ceases to amaze me, the strange 'metamorphosis' that seems to take place when a reasonable, well adjusted adult gets behind the wheel of a motor vehicle? It's almost a declaration of war. Why this happens, I really don't know? What I do know is that when a NOK is required at the morgue, for a formal ID of a close family member, attitudes change...absolutely!
Cheers...sungwu

A significant number of Australians die, or are seriously injured, due to the criminally irresponsible driving of other road users. I don't see why I [or anyone else for that matter] should have to accept this as inevitable.

I agree with the use of speed traps, but believe that the degree of tolerance should match the accepted degree of speedo accuracy, and that this should be publicised. We all know that accepted tolerances are taken advantage of, but anyone who assumes that they can invariably drive at the upper tolerance level is likely to incur regular speeding penalties, and rightly so.

In regard to tailgating, particularly by large vehicles at high speed, this is seriously dangerous to the life of the occupants of the vehicle being tailgated, and I believe that the policing and penalties should reflect this seriousness.

I would like to see a number of assorted non-descript [official] vehicles on the road, travelling at 5Ks over the limit, for the purpose of booking every driver who overtook them. Extra penalties could also be incurred for tailgating, irresponsible overtaking, weaving, not signalling etc. The technology for recording this type of behaviour, to the satisfaction of a court, is most certainly available.

In WA, we have a system by which hoons, usually young, inexperienced drivers and often P platers, can have their vehicles impounded for 48 hours. This ridiculously inadequate so-called penalty appears to be regarded by the hoons as a badge of honour. For some of the obviously more potentially dangerous hoon activities, such as burn outs on busy blind corners etc [as evidenced by the tyre marks], I would suggest a 6 month impoundment period, with a realistic storage charge to get the vehicle back after 6 months.

cont

Talking of tyre marks, I'm not an expert on this, but I wonder if repeatedly doing burn outs etc would cause the tyres to wear unevenly in a typical pattern. If this is so, I believe that tyre outlets should be legally obliged to report clients to the police who replace tyres for this apparent reason. Obviously there are other reasons for uneven tyre wear, so this wouldn't be grounds for prosecution, but it may help to deter irresponsible drivers.

If P platers are caught doing serious things like, for instance, 20 Ks or more over the limit, it indicates to me that they should be back on L plates. And similarly, some drivers, including some older, experienced drivers, should be back on P plates. The shame factor would work very well here.

In our local paper this week, there's an account of a hit-and-run, leaving a pedestrian injured, after he was hit by a car doing burn outs. This, or worse, could easily happen to any of us.

Why not apply the same penalties to car owners as are applied to gun owners?
If a gun owner, in his own home, commits a minor breach of the law, his first offence, such as not securing his gun by keeping it out of his gun safe because he is going on a hunting trip at 5.00 am the next morning and he is caught, then he will lose his licence for 10 years and his guns will be confiscated. The guns may be worth thousands of dollars and if they are damaged while in polce hands there is no compensation. If he is found not guilty he may not get his firearms back; their return is solely at the Commissioner's discretion.

Contrast the above with the fate of a car owner who tests over the permissable alcohol limit after being in an accident in which no one is injured. Fine and 6 months suspension for a first offence or 12 months if he's really unlucky?

Which one was the greater danger to society?

Rex

“I agree with the use of speed traps, but believe that the degree of tolerance should match the accepted degree of speedo accuracy, and that this should be publicised.”

I support the use of speed traps or more accurately; speed regulation devices, mobile and stationary. But they must be used in a genuine effort to reduce overall speeding and not in a primarily revenue-raising manner, which certainly seems to be the case some of the time.

The accuracy of a speedometer should be fairly and squarely the responsibility of the owner / driver, as are all other aspects of vehicle roadworthiness and safety.

Speed limits should be policed at face value. There really is a fundamental problem when we see a certain speed on a sign but know that a speed limit a few ks higher actually applies. Let’s strive to align the law with general practice and with the policing regime.

If there are to be leeways on speed limits, then they need to be written into law and very importantly, need to be very well publicised so we all know exactly where we stand. This business of having some unstated leeway on speed limits that probably varies from place to place or between different police officers is just unacceptable slackness in the law and its regulation, and can easily lead to essentially innocent people being booked.

“I would like to see a number of assorted non-descript [official] vehicles on the road…”

Absolutely! The widespread use of unmarked police cars on our roads would surely greatly improve the situation. If every reasonably new car could potentially be a police vehicle in the eyes of would-be offenders, then a huge impact could be made on road safety.

There are a few out there now and have been for a long time (?in all states?). But not enough to put the wind up wonky drivers.

Speed limits should, at the least, bear some resemblance to reality. I live in a country town where the prevailing limit is 50 kph,) except for the highway where it is 60 kph), regardless of the condition of the roads or the density of the traffic.
In contrast Crystal St, Petersham (Sydney) carries a volume of traffic per day which most of our streets would not equal in a year (and I don't exagerate) the limit on Crystal Street is 60kph. It is narrower than 99% of our streets and the road surfaces are about the same. A few kilometres out of town there are winding dirt roads, so narrow that passing vehicles must pull over onto the verges to get past each other, yet the speed limit is 100 kph.
Any wonder that most locals travel over the 50 limit on the wide, deserted, well graded and tarred town roads?

They see observance of the town limit as being as unrealistic as the STOP signs at level crossings on disused rail lines where trains haven't run for thirty years, and yet drivers have been fined for disregarding these signs. There is one crossing where the rails are burried deeply beneath the road and the gates across the line can't be opened for trains because of bushes growing through them and the bottoms buried in road mtal, yet the stop signs are still in place.

The accuracy of speed measuring equipment has often been disputed but
seldom has the cars speedometer been discussed.
All anologue devices accuracy is quoted as a percentage of full scale
deflection. ie if your speedo has a full scale reading of 200 kmph
and the accuracy is one percent then any reading, say at fifty kmph
between 48 and 52 means 50 kmph and this would be supportable in a court
provided the court was prepared to recognise the laws of physics.
No court has ever been able to over rule those laws, but they do
sometimes pretend they dont exist.

I am not sure what accuracy is considered normal for car speedos but
I doubt they would be as good as 1 %, around 3% would be my guess.
That would mean anything +- 6kmph would be acceptable and should be
acceptable to a court. Of course additionally you must add to this
the percetage accuracy of the police radar etc, so if it was 1% then
the overall accuracy in dispute is 3 + 1 = 4 %.

Additionally Federal law requires that any measuring equipment used in
financial trabsactions, selling, weighbridge charges, fines etc must
have a valid calibration certificate.
If booked you are entitled to ask the copper for the certificate.
He probably will say ehh ! whats that ?
But they will have to produce it in court.
You would need to have a good reason to go to the expense however.

Speedo accuracy is very easy to determine with a GPS, which gives an accurate speed based on satellite location, so long as you can sit on a constant speed for a short distance. You can very easily and quickly note the accuracy of your speedo this way.

I do this all the time and have done for years – compare GPS speed with speedo speed in the various different vehicles that I drive.

So given that this is easy and given the basic premise that accuracy and roadworthiness of all aspects of a car should be the drivers/owners responsibility, it should be a requirement.

GPS units should be hirable at RACQ, NRMA, Dept of Transport, council offices, etc.

Let’s get away form this silly notion that is alright for drivers to have pretty highly inaccurate speedometers and that there should be a large degree of slackness in the law to allow for it!

Let’s try that last line again shall we…

Let’s get away FROM this silly notion that IT is alright for drivers…..

Fahhhhk!!

It should be the responsibility of drivers to err on the side of caution regarding any inaccuracy in their speedos. I would also argue that any inaccuracy in police speed-measuring devices should be thought of in the same way, for as long as the police are forthright with us about this inaccuracy. However, I’m sure that any inaccuracy these days in this equipment is trivial.

The point is that the principle of law needs to be upheld. And with a law such as speed limits, which are 100% crystal clear on the signs and in the zones represented by the signs, those values surely must be what is policed and observed by all road-users.

For some reason which I have yet to understand, practically everyone that I have encountered in this debate, on this forum and elsewhere, disagrees with this and thinks that leeways are ok and that traveling a few ks over the stated limit should be acceptable.

Well if it is to be ok, then the definition of speed limits needs to change in law. They need to be called speed zones and the actual limit needs to be defined and publicized widely. If 60 signs actually meant that you could do 65 or 70 or 10% over (66) or 5% over or whatever, then fine.

Ludwig has missed the point.
Calibration accuracy is not something that can be dismissed as
irrelevant in court. Accuracy and its calibration percentage is
fundamental and is the result of the laws of physics.

Laws cannot be written that ignore it.

Also it is a legal requirement. I underestand without having read it
myself that the speedo accuracy is defined in the Australian design rules.
If I am wrong and it is not defined then all fines should be refunded.
Any decisions based on speed are illogical and furthmore are unprovable.

I have discussed this with an inspector of the Highway patrol and this
is why there is an allowance, mainly because of the accuracy percentage
of their own equipment but also the accuracy of the cars speedo.
Without being told I suspect that they allow 1 ot 2 Kmph for their equipment and
2 or 3 Kmph for the speedo accuracy.
The cars indicated speed varies with tire pressure and wear.

In the field of measurement it is normal practice to make allowances for calibration accuracy.

Black Spots By Stupidity. (to get back to one point of the initial post)

Roundabouts.
Probably 99% of roundabouts have reverse camber. There are instances on record of trucks falling over on roundabouts at low speed, usually because the load shifted, the load being cattle. Now they are confined but they can only be crushed so much, they must, by law, be given a little room to move.

Why the reverse camber when, again 99%, of other road curves have positive camber?

Very simple...drainage. If you put positive camber on a roundabout then you must provide underground drains and they are costly both initially and for maintenance.

So what price safety?

For some reason we have adopted the practice of very small roundabouts.
These roundabouts have many accidents because the time to make a
decision on whether the other driver is in the roundabout before you is
just too short.

Any reasonable vehicle speed does not have a great deal of affect
on the time to make a decision.

“Ludwig has missed the point.”

Not at all Bazz.

The point is to maximize road safety (or find the right balance between a high level of safety and a relatively low level of inconvenience for drivers, or inefficiency in travelling on our roads).

As a fundamental part of this, we should be striving to make road-users accountable for their actions as far as is possible, with good driver-training, effective policing and responsible management of all safety aspects of the vehicle that a driver is in charge of.

Speedometer accuracy falls squarely within these principles.

I agree that there still has to be provision for some degree of inaccuracy. But it surely has to sit within another important principle - respect for the law as it is written, and not some vague approximation that is open to different interpretations by different enforcers, or subjective or discriminatory enforcement.

Governments and police should be very loudly publicizing that speed limits will be policed at face value after ? 1 July 07, and that everyone is advised to have the accuracy of their speedos checked, and that they should err on the side of caution and drive a few ks under at all times, and a few ks slower than that if they are not confident that their speedo is accurate.

Either this or do what is necessary in law to redefine the meaning of speed limit signs so that they indicate speed zones, where the enforceable speed limit is a few ks (5kmh, 10kmh, 5% or 10%) above what is stated on the signs... and very strongly advise people to drive a few ks below the effective speed limit.

As speedometer accuracy can vary with tyre wear and pressure, it should be a standard requirement for speedos to be checked at every service and whenever new tyres are fitted. Simple really!

Speedo inaccuracy should most definitely not be used as an excuse to accept fuzzy and inconsistent interpretations of speed limit laws.

Ludwig,
It's all very well to say that the law should be observed but there are many laws that are downright stupid or are so obscure that no one, save the unlucky few who have been booked, ever know of their existance.
Would you blame the drivers who ignore the stop signs that I mentioned above?
How about those that cross the unbroken line on the left of the kerbside carriageway, should they be prosecuted for doing so?
Particularly when their action may have been to enable drivers of faster cars to pass? Thus cutting down on frustration, stress etc and thereby contributing to overall road safety.

Is Mise

There are indeed many laws that need reform. So let’s strive to reform them instead of just accepting that they are on the books, to be ignored or applied sporadically. This extends to speed limits, which are inappropriately high or low in some instances.

Many laws by their very nature are not black and white and have to be open to a degree of interpretation. But this should not an excuse for treating black and white clear-cut laws such as speed limits in a fuzzy nature.

Similarly, stop signs are hard and fast pieces of law. However I would argue that there are very few instances where stop signs are needed. Give way signs would suffice. There should be no need to come to a stop if you don’t have to in order to safely give way. Of course instances such as you mention in your post of 16/3 where redundant signs exist, should be remedied by the removal of the sign, and certainly not by way of just ignoring the sign. Simple.

A strict law-enforcement regime would need to be accompanied by extensive law reform so that silly situations such as not being able to legally cross the solid white line in order to overtake a vehicle turning right don’t exist.

Ludwig,

The stop signs at the railway level crossings have been reported so many times that people simply got sick of the futility of the exercise. In a couple of cases someone simply removed the signs and threw them on the railway line.

The crossing of the unbroken left hand line is law simply because the law on crossing the unbroken centre line applies to it as well. Why? Because it is an unbroken line. Simple to the point of stupidity.
People unknowingly break the law every day by moving across the line to let other vehicles past. They do it as a matter of courtesy, then one day they extend the same courtesy to a Polce Car and get booked.

Maybe the Government needs the revenue, maybe the Constable got a knock back that morning? Who knows?
It is a stupid interpretation of the law and if those in power gave a damn about things it could be changed simply by ordering those who paint the lines to paint a broken line on the kerb side of the lane.

On of the most stupid of all the road-safety slogans is "Speed Kills"
Because, as I posted above, deserted, houseless 50 kph streets on the edges of towns where the locals regularly do 10, 20 and 30 kph over the posted limits are proof that the slogan is misleading at best and fatuous at worst.

I totally agree Is Mise.

If the signs were not removed after someone, anyone, notified the relevant authority, then someone is being highly irresponsible. If the police book people when it is patently obvious that the signs should no longer be there, then they are being totally irresponsible.

A strict law-enforcement regime must be accompanied by a basic duty of care and responsibility from the relevant authorities.

‘Speed kills’ is indeed a stupid simplistic slogan. So is ‘Every k over is a killer’. Especially when the same governments that push this also allow us to do a few ks over the stated limit!

There is so much slackness and duplicity involved, from all parties; the public, police, government, Dept of Transport, NRMA, RACQ, etc.

I most strongly support the RACQ, but quite frankly even they are not doing anywhere near enough to hammer home the problems, and solutions.

No, Ludwig, as I said, you just can't ignore the laws in relation to
measurement standards whether you are the police or the courts.
The laws relating to measurement are Federal law and as such prempt
any state law on speed measurement. Where charges are made, such as in
fines the accuracy of devices used to measure speed is proscribed.

This is why some fines for speeding have been overturned.

Bazz, if there is provision in law for much larger error margins than what should exist or be tolerated in speed detection devices and speedometers today, then the law needs to be brought up to date.

And I reiterate; no matter what error margins might be tolerated, this should not be used as an excuse for leeways on speed limits. These error margins should result in strong recommendations from the authorities that drivers drive UNDER the speed limit to an extent sufficient to allow for them.

There cannot be any excuse for an imprecise interpretation of black and white laws with specific crystal clear cut-off points between what is legal and illegal.

I can’t see how you can gloss over this point while at the same time upholding the point of legal error margins in speed-measuring devices. That doesn’t make sense.