This is UTTERLY DISGUSTING!

Yes the law should be the law. There should ultimately be NO leeway on speed limits.

But in order to achieve any reduction in the leeway, a major publicity campaign is absolutely NEEDED BEFORE police introduce it, so that the whole community is aware of it.

Otherwise, thousands of INNOCENT people, who are driving at a few ks over the speed limit, which they have been allowed to do for years... with the consent of the police, will suddenly get a bloody big fine, a loss of demerit points and rightly a very bad impression of our law enforcers!

It was surely mandatory that the whole Queensland community be told when something like this was going to happen…..BEFORE it happened, in such a manner that practically everyone got the message.

It is just completely DISGUSTING that the police won’t tell us what the leeway is, and hence what the real speed limit is. Why do they hide this bit of vital information from us??

When we are travelling on the highway, or on practically any road, we are sitting on or mostly a bit over the speed limit. The cruising speed IS the speed limit, or a bit over!! It’s the speed practically everyone does! So we need to know exactly what the leeway is that the police are allowing!!

And for goodness sake, if this is going to change, we need to know in no uncertain manner … BEFORE we start getting book for it!!

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/lowering-tolerance-margins-on-speeding-offences-nets-queensland-police-8m-in-extra-revenue/story-fnihsr9v-1226746339957

In complete agreement except that the speed limit ought to be higher, and if the various Governments arefair dinkum then there need to be many more patrol cars on the road but if the Governments did that then the roads would be safer but revenue would drop and, lets face it, speed limits are about money not safety.

Yep our speed limits are ridiculous. They should be set at the median speed of the traffic in any area.

The stupidity of tight tolerances makes people concentrate on the instruments, rather than the road. This is quite dangerous. The engines in my old Triumph sports cars are loud enough for me to get a pretty good idea of my speed by ear, but the Toyotas Cressidas we drove as family cars for years almost completely insulated the driver from the outside world.

Unless you concentrated closely on the speedo it was very easy to find yourself doing 120Km/h. On a long boring country run, it only took a slight down hill to be in booking territory. I had to fit one of those speed warning buzzer things to avoid bookings, & allow me to concentrate on the road, as I should.

Another advantage of my older cars is their speedo set up. Manufacturers fitted very optimistic speedos in earlier times. Every one I have owned has been reading 109 to 110 Km/H, when the car was traveling at 100. You know this fact, & you could drive on the rev counter, knowing 3000RPM was 100.5 Km/H road speed, but you don't.

When you see 110 on the speedo, your foot comes off the accelerator a little, with out any cerebral input, it's a conditioned response in our over regulated world. That response helps keep your licence points free.

I have no doubt speed kills but too that our police, in every state, are collectors of cash for the government.
We once got the few extra because police said/thought it was easy to just be a little over without intending to be.
Nothing has changed that remains true.

I guess I have always thought that if a speed limit is 60km per hour, then I can only drive up to 60km on that area of road.
Maybe that is only true here in WA?

One won't get a speeding fine if one remains under or at the speed limit.
it's not rocket science really...

I guess I have always thought that if a speed limit is 60km per hour, then I can only drive up to 60km on that area of road.
Suseonline,
Now that you're right you say you're guessing ? I agree with you on the speed you can legally or rather without fear of a fine drive. I also agree with hasbeen re being isolated from the sound of the engine. I recently hired a little Hyundai Getz & because it just a tiny little car I didn't think of actually being capable of speeding. Imagine my surprise when I glanced at the speedo on the open road & the needle was 125. I was on a country road with Kangaroo & Cattle warning signs every 50 metres & they took away all my concentration on the speed. It really is just too easy with these little cars to get into serious trouble both with the Law & actual handling.

"One won't get a speeding fine if one remains under or at the speed limit.
it's not rocket science really..." How true.
Suse, I have been driving most days for over 40 years, must have clocked up 400 to 500,000km. I'm no great shakes when it comes to driving, no better than average. In that 40 odd years I have not received as much as a parking fine. Nor have I ever had an accident, of any kind, well I can put that down to good luck but not getting booked I put down to keeping within the law.
I "see" people paying fines and some have a fist full, a young girl got booked 3 days in a row for parking, the rub is she parked in the same spot each day. Amazingly she whinged about how unfair it was she got the tickets. Many people whinge when they have to pay these fines, they get no comment from me. If you hit your head with a hammer once it might be bad luck, but if you do it 3 times in a row, well what can you say about such a fool

Some years ago I thought that the police and their political masters had their hearts in the right place and were sincerely policing road rules and road safety as well as they reasonably could.

I thought that those who accused the police of being revenue-raisers above all else were just unlawful drivers who had been copped for speeding and were expressing sour grapes.

Well…how wrong I was!

The police really do seem to concentrate on a small number of things that generate revenue, and let various other significant road rules and safety issues just go unattended, to the point where accepted practice becomes very different to the actual law.

This business of fining thousands of people for infringing a lower leeway without having told the general public about it beforehand is just about as despicable and as blatantly revenue-raising as you can get.

This extra 8million$ apparently comes from drivers who were driving below the previous threshhold but above the new one. So that means that they were driving only a little bit above the official speed limit but below the REAL LIFE speed limit as they understood it to be at the time, which was previously acceptable to the police, and which the police had effectively told the public that it was ok to do!

So this enormous amount of extra revenue apparently doesn’t include any drivers who were exceeding the old threshhold!

The police have turned into absolute parasites on this occasion. The person who is responsible for this decision, the minister and the premier should all be absolutely hounded over this issue.

As for the individual police involved in this, I guess they were just doing what they were told to do by their superiors. But they are nonetheless complicit.

For any one that always observes the law, did you know that it was a fineable offence to cross the unbroken line on the left hand side of the road except to turn or stop?

Slow vehicles' drivers who pulled over the line where there was plenty of room to do so, so as to let other vehicles past, and then drew back onto the traffic lane without stopping were, on occasions, booked.

On of the last to be fined, before the idiotic law was repealed, was a farmer in New England who was pulling a horse float on the New England Highway. When a line of cars caught up to him on a steep hill he pulled over to let them pass and the last vehicle was a police car; the farmer pulled back into the traffic lane and it cost him (IIRC) $427.
This stupidity came about because the law, quite correctly, made it an offence to cross the unbroken centre lines but because the left hand delineating line was unbroken it got lumped in with the centre lines.

In France, at about the same time, they painted lines along the right hand side of their roads but they painted a standard broken line thus being not only more just but also saving half the paint.

Trouble is, Is Mise, most of us just don’t know what the law is, once we get away from the really obvious stuff.

We could go and study up on it…. but what is written in law and what is policed and hence practiced in the real world, are two quite different things.

Understanding what is written in law hardly helps at all! You’ve got to understand what the police will accept and not accept… and that is just bloody unknowable!!

As it concerns driving and road safety, the discrepancy really has blown right out!

Roadworks zones are amazing examples of this. Legally-binding temporary slower speed limit signs are used. But normal practice is to only observe them as a rough indication to slow down a little bit, at least until you get to the actual work area, if not right through the whole zone.

It constantly really riles me when I go through roadworks zones, to see traffic well back behind me which has been sticking close to the speed limit, suddenly come right up behind, when I am only just loosely slowing down towards the slower speed limit myself!

And then once you have passed the actual work sight, the temporary slow 40 or 60kmh zone continues for a long distance, in most cases, which is just blitheringly stupid and which NO ONE observes and which really is the most hopeless contradiction between the letter of the law and everyday practice!

Then there are overtaking lanes, which really are speed-limit-free and tailgating-rife bloody dangerous places on our highways!

There is SO much more that our police, bureaucrats and politicians should be doing about road safety. But it seems that there isn’t much revenue-raising potential in it, so it just doesn’t happen!

Whenever I have advocated speed governors on vehicles some mutts jump up & down against the idea. They want safety but they also want speed, go figure.
I think it also has a lot to do with driving schools. There are some pretty bad drivers on our roads with some pretty bad mentality.

Ludwig,
You might be pleased to know that in QLD now there is no allowance for speeding any more and yes revenue is up greatly.

But that is the intention.

It is a Surrogate tax in place because it can be collected from those who choose to disobey the law. Just like excise on tobacco just because people choose to ignore health warnings.

Personally, and I am lobbying for it, I believe that wherever there are street traffic lights there should also be traffic cameras.

I believe before the stupid drivers wake up and start complying with the law we can pay off all government debts.

You also have to understand that in QLD the police service in a collection of 28 private companies operating under the mantle of government legislation. As such there is a "bottom line" of budget constraints and profits needed to compliment the business.

This is why there are limited numbers of police on the streets and unmanned stations etc.

Paul1405 "a young girl got booked 3 days in a row for parking"

I believe she should be fined $5000 her car confiscated and crushed in her sight and banned from driving for ten years. Only when penalties fit the crimes will people start to respond.

I am afraid the road safety comes a long last in the road revenue game but then so does criminal sanctions when it comes to criminal acts.

If anyone wants to see 'road safety' in action in NSW then take a trip on the Gwydir Highway from Glen Innes to Grafton, the road abounds in bends and a number of them have a broken single line down the centre on blind corners and on either side of car concealing dips.
There are apparently legal passing places where only an utter fool would attempt such a manoeuvre if he/she knows the road but where those that don't could be led into real danger.

There is a trap for the unwary on the New England Highway south of Glen Innes at Stonehenge; a long straight with broken centre line that appears to be a very safe place to overtake, until a car rises out of concealment in the hidden dip.

Makes one appreciate good brakes!

Individual,

"Whenever I have advocated speed governors on vehicles some mutts jump up & down against the idea. They want safety but they also want speed, go figure."

If you ever hear the blaring of air horns behind you on a steep down hill and see a runaway truck bearing down on you, believe me you won't want any speed limiting device. If the road is narrow and there is nowhere to pull off, speed and acceleration are the only things that will save you.

Is Mise,
what's the truckie going to do, run over you ? If his brakes are failing then he'll definitely make it clear to you. But, if his brakes are good he'll slow down.

Individual,

His horns are blaring and, as I said, he is bearing down on you.

The first thing that would enter my head was that his brakes had failed and to avoid the inevitable collision the only thing to do is to get the hell out of his way and on a narrow road the only way is to make all possible haste unimpeded by any speed governing devices.

Is Mise,
Ah I see, so if you were heading uphill towards him on a single lane road & his brakes were failing then a faster car would get you out ? Are you that good driving backwards ?
It's like trying to be 101% safe, it can't be. That's why there is a word in every language called accident. We can only generalise when it comes to driving, flying, floating whatever. There will always be a situation that is unforseen. Slowing down is simply a precaution with less risk. Most fast drivers don't actually arrive that much sooner with the exception that they probably pi$$ed off a lot of other drivers on the way.

Well I did mean that we were both going down hill and in the same direction!
However if I was going uphill and he was coming down and was using all the road then with my not speed limited car I'd apply right lock, all the power that I could muster and do a 180 degree spin then accelerate as fast as possible, hopefully out of harms way.

I held a CAMS licence for some years.

Well I did mean that we were both going down hill and in the same direction!
is Mise,
well that would be nice but reality isn't that ideal. Anyhow, I trailed off the real subject which is fine collecting in an indecent manner.
As for Ludwig's "And for goodness sake, if this is going to change, we need to know in no uncertain manner" I can only support his call.
I find the need to concentrate on my driving is being hijacked by having to concentrate on the idiotic amount of varying speed signs. I mean 50/60/80/40/100/60 etc all within a mere mile or so is nothing short of insane

<< It is a Surrogate tax in place because it can be collected from those who choose to disobey the law. >>

Yes chrisgaff1000 it is certainly a surrogate tax. Or perhaps a scumbag tax would be a better name!

But it hasn’t been imposed on people who have chosen to break the law! It has been imposed on those who have chosen to OBSERVE the law!

The law has effectively been a bit different to what is actually written in law. The speed limit law has effectively been a few kmh over. The police have TRAINED us to observe this law!

This is what practically every good normal conservative driver does. This ‘few ks over’ law has been the accepted real-life law. The technical law, as enshrined in legislation, has NEVER actually applied!

So the police have suddenly started punishing people for doing exactly what they have trained them to do.

It is indeed a SCUMBAG tax!! And those who are perpetrating it on good law-abiding citizens are absolute scumbags. Sorry but there are no two ways about that!

continued

<< Personally, and I am lobbying for it >>

Chrisgaff, I presume you are lobbying for the law to actually be the law and for everyone to strictly observe it.

Fair enough. But it needs to be done properly.

When accepted practice gets out of whack with the letter of the law, there absolutely MUST be a major publicity campaign to inform the public of impending changes to the policing regime, BEFORE the police start pinging people!

I’d like to see the Newman government really tighten up all road rules. Indeed, they should look at all laws across the whole of society, and strive to eliminate the discrepancies between the official law and general practice in relation to all sorts of things.

But crikey, they have GOT to do it carefully and respectfully, so that this of incredibly disgusting bullsh!t about real-world law-abiding people being ripped off and offended in their many thousands doesn’t happen again!

Quite frankly, this is society parasitising itself! I see it as a really dangerous precedent!

It is surely very strongly producing a very bad impression of the police in the general community. We don’t need that. We need to have respect for our law-enforcers and to be able to trust them to do the right thing. I’d say that that has been dangerously fractured here.

<< I find the need to concentrate on my driving is being hijacked by having to concentrate on the idiotic amount of varying speed signs. I mean 50/60/80/40/100/60 etc all within a mere mile or so is nothing short of insane >>

Ah but Indi, we need several changes of speed limit in relatively short distances a lot of the time.

Just imagine if we didn’t have this. If we only had one speed limit zone in situations like this, the lowest speed limit would apply to the whole distance! This would be totally inappropriate and would rile people more than the frequently changing speed limits, wouldn’t it?

Imagine if it was 40kmh for the whole of the stretch where most of it could reasonably be 60, 80 or even 100.

We need to have speed limits that fit with the nature of the road and all other relevant factors, and to NOT have speed limits that are patently too low in some places because they are part of a longer speed zone in which the low speed limit is really only appropriate for a very small part of it.

So I’d go for the opposite to what you desire: more speed limit zones with more changes of speed limit.

The worst aspect of all this is the incredible paucity of speed limit signs!

We need abundant speed signs, including very regular reminder signs so that we can always know what speed zone we are in!

So often you turn into a road and don’t encounter a speed sign for a long distance. You are just left to guess the bloody speed limit!

And so much of the time, you encounter one speed sign at the start of a particular speed zone and then no more signs for a long distance. You often lose confidence of the speed zone you are in and are left wondering whether you have missed a sign.

It’s a really infuriating aspect of driving!

continued

I vocalise every speed sign I pass, whether I’m by myself or with other people in the car when I’m driving, no matter how oddly they look at me! I have done this for years. I find it really helps.

I started doing this because I became enormously frustrated with my inability to always know what speed zone I was in. And jeez, if you think you are in a zone that is 20kmh higher than it actually is, and you are doing the normal 2 or 3 ks over, then you are wide open to copping a fine for doing more 20kmh over the speed limit, which is no small punch in the head!

It is extraordinary that our main roads get line-markings, reflectors on the road, reflectors on posts off the side of the road and all manner of road signs as a fundamental part of their construction. Except… the speed limit signs are practically always extremely thin on the ground, if not entirely absent!

About a decade ago, a section of the Bruce Hwy was completely rebuilt south of Tully. Its construction included 100kmh speed limit signs just past each little side road in both directions and at regular intervals of about ?3km on sections where there were no side roads.

This is the way it should always be, as a fundamental requirement of the road construction job. And yet in my abundant travels all around the country, I have never seen anything else like it.

Ludwig,
Unfortunately the real culprit is the 'art of semantics' or its application.
Police and the common law operate under a shroud of indifference known as "reasonability" or what is reasonable under the circumstances which in turn is defined by circumstance.
Until we have laws and regulations that tell us exactly what we can do there will be no change.\All laws in Australia relate to what we cannot do.