Jayb, for some reason you have miss intermitted my post, perhaps it's my fault.

What I am saying is that just because a car can do 255km/hr, doesn't mean it will be driven at that speed.

What you are saying is that it would be better to take away that fast car, form law abiding drivers, simply because some dills can't help themselves.

This is what I mean when I say punish everyone.

I don't speed (excessively) nor do I drink myself stupid, but I object very much to lining up for a drink, only to be told that once I purchase a bottle of wine for my wife and daughter to share, I can't buy a beer for myself, all because a small percentage of dead beats can't control their booze.

It's wrong!

Ludwig, tailgating, reckless driving, burn outs, illegal passing, etc would all form evidence if captured on a cam Cordero or similar, however, speeding is a whole different issue as you need a calibrated speed monitor to prove that the comparison speed was accurate.

Another problem with speeding, is that you can't be booked for speeding, without a nominated speed, and as such if you are booked, and the alleged speed was guessed, you would have that thrown out of court.

Now while I agree with what you say, I am simply saying that the law is an ass sometimes and the cops would soon get sick of having their cases thrown out of court.

rehctub: What you are saying is that it would be better to take away that fast car, form law abiding drivers, simply because some dills can't help themselves.

That's not what I said at all. You are still playing the punishment game.

If the Maximum speed you can do on an open road anywhere in Australia is 130 kph then there is no need for a car that can do more than that speed to be allowed to be on Australian roads. I thought that was simple & easy enough to understand. If some law abiding driver wants to take their car over that speed then they ceases to be a Law Abiding Driver. don't they. Sheeech!

Excellent debate however Jayb is the only one that is on top of the point I was attempting to make.

Jayb last post nailed it in my opinion. Limiting the speed of a car that is driven by a law abiding individual does not limit that individual in any way. Law-abiding speeder is an oxymoron!

We have I would suggest two choices. Remove all speed limits or limit vehicles speed. The first would make the current situation a lot worse. As all individuals do not have the ability to control speed of their vehicles, either deliberately or inadvertently, the easiest option is to limit vehicle speed. The spin-off would be positive not just in safety but numerous areas.

Car manufactures are I believe culpable as they aid and abet the crime by producing the means. Julie Bishop a contributor to this forum clearly understands this as illustrated in my initial post. This is not aimed at Julie, she was merely a convenient vehicle (whose speed is limited no doubt by the party machine), nor is it a Blue, Red or Green issue but something all our law makers should address.

Below are a couple of links to current technology. Not the best or worst or the only so we don’t escalate the debate.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2006/10/7994/

http://www.howsafeisyourcar.com.au/Safety-Features/Safety-Features-List/Intelligent-Speed-Assist-ISA/

<< …tailgating, reckless driving, burn outs, illegal passing, etc would all form evidence if captured on a cam Cordero or similar, however, speeding is a whole different issue >>

Rehctub, speeding is not a whole different issue when you are sitting on the speed limit and some twat comes up rapidly behind you. That’s when speeding affects you directly. You can certainly record that on a camcorder.

I am pleased that you can see that tailgating, etc, can be dealt with by using a camcorder. So then, don’t you think that the police should be encouraging this sort of thing?

I can’t see that cases would get thrown out of court too often. For one thing, when an offender is shown the vid of their dangerous driving, they are not likely to take it to court too often.

It might create quite a burden on the police to deal with, for a little while. But once the system is established and the would-be wank*rs get the message that it is not just the thin blue line that can nab them, the number of complaints with camcorder evidence will drop right away…. and the roads will be a much safer place.

Producer, yes we should be exploring technological improvements. But all of that stuff is some distance off in the future and it is uncertain as to how well it could actually work, and at what expense.

Road safety could be greatly improved very quickly, if we could just get our politicians and police to encourage community involvement, instead of doing precisely the opposite of effectively disempowering the public to assist, which I really do find totally and utterly disgusting.

Ludwig, I'm am your side mate, but you must understand, that ANY speeding offense must be recorded using a calibrated speed registering device.

In fact, each and every day a speed trap/gun is used, it has to be calibrated, and cars are not calibrated.

There is no such thing as being issued with a speeding fine of about 150k's, which is essentially what the case would be if captured via video, using a non calibrated speedo as a benchmark.

Even small things like fitting a car with different profile tyres can make the speedo inaccurate, or as was the case for me once, when a transfer case was rebuilt, they installed the speedometer pin in the wrong slot, giving a faulse reading.

My speedo read 80, when I was actually doing 100.

Don't get me wrong, i hate rat bags on roads just as much as you so although I support your theory, it's only speeding that would cause the problem.

You must also remember that doing 100 in a 40 zone is extremely dangerous, in fact, far more dangerous than 150 in a 100 zone, so do we limit cars to 40?

Now as far as technology goes, fit the car with a recording device if you wish, so speeds can be checked, but don't limit the cars as some owners like to take their cars to private events which involve high speeds.

I used to take my cars to Lakeside, it was great and in fact my insurance company encouraged the idea.

It all comes back to the fact that people in cars kill others, not cars, so the answer lies in harsher penalties for offenders, including crushing of vehicles, but don't punish good behavior just to stop bad.

Responsible people deserve their rights to own an unrestricted car, for what ever reason they choose.

rehctub: You must also remember that doing 100 in a 40 zone is extremely dangerous, in fact, far more dangerous than 150 in a 100 zone, so do we limit cars to 40?

so do we limit cars to 40?

That comment is a bit over the top & way left of the mark. You know dam well that's not what anyone means. That comment is somewhat childish.