Last week, on the Gwydir Highway, as I was proceeding towards Grafton I started to get warning headlight flashes to let me know that there was, as it turned out, a stationary camera car ahead.

The car was positioned in a sharp dip so that one was on it very quickly. The mandatory small signs announcing its presence were facing the wrong way, but that was probably just carelessness.

Twice today, approaching different locations on the New England H'way, I was warned of the presence of a stationary police car ahead.

Should motorists tip off other drivers about these traps?

Should motorists tip off other drivers about these traps?

Sure, as a scout that counts towards your daily good deed!

While the police may be doing their duty - you should do yours.

The police are targeting cars doing anything over the limit even by one km/h The only safe speed limit is one under, so do the right thing. You will never catch me warning other drivers, they deserve to be caught.

You will never catch me warning other drivers, they deserve to be caught, says 579. Why am I not surprised. Authority must be obeyed, typical of those who wish to be our masters.

These traps are simply revenue raising, & quite disgusting. The only one we have had recently in our district was similarly in a deep dip, with no side roads, or driveways.

After a bit of roadwork, making the road safer, the speed limit was suddenly reduced from 100 to 900 was suddenly, for absolutely no reason.

A neighbor, a lady who would never knowingly speed, was booked both going to town, & returning. She had not seen the new speed sign. Another was caught because his old auto had built up a little speed on the down hill run to the camera. This is obviously why the sight is chosen.

The same police car, well marked, driving up & down the road would do more to slow speeding drivers, than any number of fines received, in the mail, days later.

I have not had occasion to flash a warning of police tax collectors, but on our country roads, use it regularly to warn of danger ahead.

This is usually cattle or horses out on the road, but increasingly it is for tree branches on the road. The ridiculous increase in trees allowed to grow on the side of main roads is a disgrace. The growing number of crosses on the roadside attest the danger of this.

It is yet another stupidity fostered by our greenie "mates". Every time the council does the right thing, getting rid of trees large enough to kill, we get a rash of the same dozen or so fools writing to the papers complaining.

After a large dead branch from such a tree caused a serious accident, when it went through a car windscreen, it still took a major effort by the district association to get the council to remove the thing.

<< Should motorists tip off other drivers about these traps? >>

Yes Is Mise, even though it is illegal to do so.

Two reasons:

It slows people down, even if just for a short stretch.

And it reduces the revenue extorted off of us by downright unscrupulous and despicable authorities, which won’t tell us exactly what speed (leeway on the speed limit) they are actually policing!!

Given the cruising speed and the real-world speed limit are practically the same out there on the open road, we absolutely need to know what the actual speed limit is.

As far as I’m concerned, if the authorities won’t tell us exactly what they are policing, then they are acting very unscrupulously indeed. I mean, how on earth can they police a law without defining exactly what that law is!?!

What an extraordinary concept!

The trouble is that if a driver wished to observe the law in the strict sense and keep his speed to that shown on the speed signs, or heaven forbid, 5kmh slower so that he doesn’t inadvertently exceed the speed limit, then he is driving differently to just about everyone else on the road, and indeed becomes a hazard, as there are many drivers out there who are just completely intolerant of anyone going even slightly slower in front of them than what they want to go!

By not telling us the real-world speed limit (official speed limit plus leeway), the cops are promulgating this schism between the strict law-abiding driver and the normal driver, and making it much harder for those who want to strictly observe the law.

<< The police are targeting cars doing anything over the limit even by one km/h >>

Eh? No they’re not 579.

<< The only safe speed limit is one under, so do the right thing. >>

Er… no. The safest speed is to roll with the flow.

<< You will never catch me warning other drivers, they deserve to be caught. >>

If they are flagrantly ignoring the speed limit, then yes they deserve to be caught. If they are doing a few ks over, then NO, they don’t deserve to be caught.

If the police were to tell us just exactly what they are policing, then if you do 1kmh over that speed, you deserve to be caught. But within the FUZZY leeway, you really should not be busted unless you are doing 11ks over…. which is the way it was for many years in Queensland.

The only people who whinge about speed traps are those that speed.
We have to have road rules.
No one is forcing anyone to drive.

If the naughty speeding motorists give more revenue to the Government, which can be hopefully used for some good purpose, then I'm happy with that.

I don't know about lesser states but here in SA, a driver can be pinged for driving in the right-hand lane if the left-hand lane is empty: you are supposed to pull over into the left-hand lane when you can. At least sometimes, when there is a blitz, or when revenue is short.

So, should one flash one's lights at an on-coming driver in her/his right-hand lane, when his/her left-hand lane is empty, and if we reasonably assume that a nearby authority may be just back there a bit waiting to penalise her/him ?

[name withheld to avoid persecution]

Ludwig you must get it into your head that the speed limit means the speed limit, there is no lee way at all, and there is no such thing as going with the flo. Which part of a speed limit don,t you understand.

Hi 579,

Perhaps you're right, we should always obey whoever is in authority :)

But maybe, no, not always. Surely that's a lesson that we should have learnt from the heroes of the Enlightenment ?

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Hasbeen,

<<It is yet another stupidity fostered by our greenie "mates".>>

Not stupidity - guilt feelings!

You see, those trees are natives and so are aboriginal people.

Those who (rightly so) feel guilty for invading and mistreating the aboriginal natives, but won't face up to the offended people directly, try to compensate instead those other natives whom they can look in the face and even talk to - of the plant kingdom. They believe that this way they make up for their former misdeeds and help the aboriginal natives - but do they?

.....Should motorists tip off other drivers about these traps?

Most definitely otherwise it supports the theory of revenue raising. Because after all, the law makers suggest all they're doing is trying to stop motorists from speeding.

Another point to note is that it is not illegal to advise oncoming motorists of a speed traps presence, it is only illegal to use high beam during the day.

You are not supposed to be in the right hand lane for no reason.
It is illegal to pass another vehicle on the left hand side, unless they are in a lane that is assigned for that lane.

'afternoon all...

Personally, I don't see any real harm in alerting other drivers to the fact that Radar has been detected in close proximity. After all, aren't our political masters constantly entreating upon us all, the necessity to curb driver behaviour. By lessening speed, calming traffic and all the other little platitudes they have carefully stored within their vocabulary ?

Is it not true that any government (outwardly) would prefer to superintend and reduce the carnage caused by some of these awful vehicular tragedies, by use of encouragement and by a police presence, rather than punitively ?

Of course there's very few of us who don't believe there's a certain amount of revenue raising involved in all this traffic interdiction too ?

I don't think there'd be too many of us who would be bold enough to overtake a Highway Patrol Vehicle, when driving at the posted limit, on any dual carriageway ? I recall us being told at the academy, the benefits of a police presence, particularly on our Hwys. I reckon in many instances the uniform 'presence' does seem to be a positive benefit in most cases. Even in and around these major shopping malls and precincts ?

Sadly though, these days there are certain ethnic groups where a police uniform merely exacerbates the situation, and induces them into taking even a greater degree of violence ! I will freely admit, I'd not wish to wear a uniform in certain parts of Sydney now ?

o sung wo, it is my understand that it is legal to alert drivers of a hazard, such as a trap, it's only illegal if you use high beam. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Hi there REHCTUB...Been awhile ah my friend ? Anyway, you're really testing my knowledge now ? Essentially, there's no specific offence in NSW in drawing another's attention to the presence of a Radar device ? I should hasten to add, I've been out of uniform for yonks !

Where the offence is disclosed, is in the manner in which you do so ? Preparatory citation might include; 'Without lawful excuse' flashing you high beam, excessive sounding of your horn, waving frantically out the window of your M/V - citation might be; failing to exercise proper control over a motor vehicle. Something along those lines anyway. Sorry my friend, please don't take my word for it ? I've not done GD's since the mid 1970's therefore my memory is very rusty. I'm sorry.

In the long, wasteful days of the Anna Blight Labor government in Queensland, when the Treasury coffers were strained by spending, the useless affirmative action minister for police Judy Spence thundered against motorists who 'condoned speeding' by 'illegally flashing lights' and set Queensland's finest against these errant drivers.

At the same time it bears mentioning that around the same time Premier Anna Bligh, Judy Spence's leader, sooled Gold Coast police onto Sweet Young Things (SWTs) who dared to sun their boobs on the balconies of Main Beach's high rises. Anna must have had very keen eye sight because spotting some titties on the umpteenth floor of a highrise and behind balustrades is quite a feat.

Anyhow, the offence relating to warning other motorists of cops hiding in the bushes with radar (as opposed to using the same bushes to scan highrise balconies with powerful binoculars to find naughty nipples) is actually that of using high beam. Before anyone goes off the planet, you can use high beam, but not within 200m of an approaching vehicle.

The reality is this, if Plod nicks you for a flash, either of high beam lights or a naughty nipple, you have the option of a court defence which you will probably win with a half-decent lawyer. However it will cost you court appearances and possibly $10,000 for your lawyer. If the beak is having an off day you will be up for the fine plus your lawyer. Go before the beak and the fine is multiplied.

Like the motorist who recently left his (parked) car window down slightly in the record temps, Queensland police do make the supreme effort to apprehend motorists who 'offend'. In fairness I should add that the REAL police - those who are trying to collar criminals - have a poor opinion of their over-zealous traffic cop colleagues who nit-pick to harass ordinary citizens, and lose the cooperation of the public that is vital to REAL police work. Not something that Labor's authoritarian old trout Anna Bligh and Judy Spence ever understood though, and some 'men' are like them. :(

We find everywhere in nature that animals - mammals and birds that live in groups, have some kind of a warning system where individuals inform the rest of the group about the presence of predators.

Whether the predator's presence is justified or otherwise, is a separate issue: as far as the potential victims are concerned, their solidarity is important regardless.

So the issue of rightness or wrongness of speed limits and the enforcement thereof, should be dealt with in another discussion - and indeed we just had one recently!
(http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15912)

The fact is that police is out there to catch us. Why they hunt us and whether or not they succeed is irrelevant here because this topic is not about them but about what WE do about it. When I signal to other drivers that there's danger ahead, I show them that I care and I show them that I'm even willing to take a risk for them. Similarly, when others signal to me, I appreciate that they too care about me: even if I'm well under the speed limit (as I almost always am), that's very nice to know!

Another benefit of letting others know of the presence of predators, is that we can then all drive there really slowly, as a way of frustrating the police, sticking our tongues out at them, telling them "you won't catch me alive - go elsewhere!".

My grandmother died after a man tried to snatch her purse.
He didn't succeed: she fought him off and kept her purse, but at the time she didn't realise that in the process she had a heart attack, of which she died a month later.

While police may save some lives by preventing some road accidents, has any research been made about the number of drivers receiving heart attacks, strokes, high blood pressure and other health troubles as a result of the shock of encountering (or even passing by) the police; or receiving the notices in the mail? Or has there been a research on the effect of their shock and emotional impact on their families?

I didn't know that, Ludwig.

>>Yes Is Mise, [motorists should tip off other drivers] even though it is illegal to do so<<

What would the charge be?

In Queensland the charge would be use of high beam within 200 metres of an approaching vehicle. [fine, 20 penalty units]

http://www.support.transport.qld.gov.au/qt/LTASinfo.nsf/ReferenceLookup/Part%2013_Qld%20Road%20Rules.pdf/$file/Part%2013_Qld%20Road%20Rules.pdf

see 21B

It would be the same elsewhere in Oz.

Defend if you have the time, a lawyer and deep pockets.

Penalty units,

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/new-legislation-allows-queensland-treasurer-to-increase-cost-of-penalty-point/story-fnihsrf2-1226763412211

579,

"You are not supposed to be in the right hand lane for no reason.
It is illegal to pass another vehicle on the left hand side, unless they are in a lane that is assigned for that lane."

If the right hand lane is empty and there is no one about to overtake me, then I drive in the right hand passing lane if I'm in the country, because that puts a full lane width between me and any 'roos, wallabys, deer or cattle that happen to be lurking by the roadside just waiting for a chance to rush out in front of a motor vehicle.

From the Catalyst programme on ABC,

"TRANSCRIPT
Narration: Every night there are thousands of horrific accidents on our roads, a huge number of hit and run fatalities. The victims are our native animals. All too often, they end up as roadkill. One estimate has the annual road kill toll at nearly quarter of a million deaths in NSW alone. Dr Daniel Ramp wants to stop the carnage. He’s bringing science to the rescue of our native animals. He’s turned road kill into research. And Dan is up against a major problem: our wildlife has a fatal attraction.

Dr Daniel Ramp: Kangaroos and other species are actually attracted to the sides of roads where they can get water from rain or moisture. So it's not just a question of these animals crossing the road to get from A to B, but actually they are drawn to roads."[and fresh grass from verge mowing]
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s861563.htm

So I M the other way of looking at it is that that's 250,000 less Roos to destroy farmers crops. Even more if you consider most of those killed on our roads are of breeding age and therefore no longer breed.

It's a catch 22, we provide food and water on tap, and they breed like flys.

<< Ludwig you must get it into your head that the speed limit means the speed limit >>

NO IT DOESN’T, 579!

There IS a leeway! You won’t get busted for doing 101 in a 100kmh zone!

You ARE a hazard if you strictly obey the speed limit, and especially so in roadworks zones …. and at the change of speed zones.

Crikey 579, how much driving do you do?

I’ve been out there on the open road and through urban areas all over the country over the last few years.

I started to use up my extensive long-service leave in about 2005 with road trips all over the country. Then I took a redundancy package in late 2011 and I’ve been on the road much more than I’ve been at home since then.

I live in Townsville, but I’m currently near Queanbeyan, sleeping in my car tonight as I do most nights.

I experience the stuff that I write about every day and have done so for a long time now.

So… in the real world, the speed limit does NOT mean the speed limit! What the signs say, what is policed and what is general practice, are quite different things.

Ludwig, "So… in the real world, the speed limit does NOT mean the speed limit! What the signs say, what is policed and what is general practice, are quite different things"

Rapacious government will see the limit being the exact limit as technology improves. It is becoming a game of gotcha and 'ka-ching' as the cash register sounds as more indirect taxes are collected by government.

Brisbane has multiple speed cameras in relatively short tunnels and other units are springing up like mushrooms. It is becoming common for motorists to ride brakes down slopes. Never a good practice and energy wasting as well, but there is radar at the bottom of hills. For example, many are caught with hand-held speed cameras on the descent of a short sharp hill overpass leading from Brisbane cbd to western 'burbs via Coronation Drive.

<< I didn't know that, Ludwig.

>>Yes Is Mise, [motorists should tip off other drivers] even though it is illegal to do so<<

What would the charge be? >>

Hello Pericles, old mate!

It is illegal to use you headlights for any purpose other than what they are designed for – night driving, or fog. So I was informed by a police officer in the Lismore police station.

Interesting thing happened in Brisbane. I drove along a stretch of road past a speed trap. Then drove back along that stretch a while later in tandem with a work mate in front of me. I flashed my lights at him as he seemed to be going too fast into this trap. Indeed he was. Cop pulled us both over. Booked him and gave me a stern lecture about flashing my lights.

So one can assume that it is indeed illegal to flash your lights…. If the cops actually know the law that is!

rehctub,

What we are not told about is all the damage to cars that hitting fair sized animals causes, and remember if one swerves to avoid an animal one may be charged.
I know one local girl who swerved to avoid a 'roo, missed the 'roo but went off the road and wrecked her car; to add insult to her slight injuries she was fined for negligent driving.

Driving a truck with a large bull bar is one answer to the menace.

Ludwig, you say using your headlights for any purpose other than at night/fog.

How then do you explain all these vehicles driving on highways now with their lights on during the day as a safety measure, a measure that is in fact encouraged by law makers.

Are they all breaking the law?

I will stick with my belief that it's not illegal to flash so long as you don't use high beam because I am actually assuring police in their efforts to slow speeding motorists down.

After all, is that not their intention? To slow people down.

<< Ludwig, you say using your headlights for any purpose other than at night/fog. >>

Rehctub, that is what I was emphatically told by an officer at the Lismore police station.

Yes it sits in stark contrast to the message that implores us to have our headlights on all the time, day or night.

So, what is the strict legal situation? I don’t know. It probably wouldn’t be hard to look up… but what’s the point if the police are going to assert and police something different!

I was confronted by absurd tailgating and other antics on the road, which I reported firstly at the Casino police station and then at the Lismore police station a couple of years ago.

I went to the Lismore station because the Casino police just completely didn’t want to know about it.

The cop in Lismore was hardly any better and only very reluctantly agreed to let me make a statement. As soon as I said that I had flashed my headlights at the mongrel tailgater after he eventually overtook, he practically flew off the handle at me and refused to proceed with the statement.

This experience, along with several others over the years has led me to conclude that you just completely can’t guess what sort of response you might get from the police, and that you are better off NEVER ever having ANYTHING to do with them if at all possible!

Some states ask you to drive with headlights on low beam, possibly SA and WA
And never drive with fog lights on without fog. New cars are equipped with driving lights for daytime use they are LED's. The only lights that flash are blinkers or hazard lights, anything else is taboo.

The police action in fining for just one km over the speed limit is
challengeable.
If your speedo has a top calibration mark of 200Km/hr and the accuracy
is stated to be 1% then any speed between say 58 and 62 km/hr is legal.
Likewise any speed between 98 and 102 km/hr is legal.

You see, instruments are calibrated as a percentage of full scale deflection.
Now, I have not been able to ascertain what the Australian design rules
actually specify.
Likewise, the instrument used by the police has a similar accuracy
specification and if charged you should ask for the calibration
certificate and check the accuracy of the instrument and if the
if the calibration date is within specs.
The full scale deflection of the police instrument could be 300 or
500 km/hr, who knows, the court procecutor would have to supply that info.
So if FSD was 500km/hr and accuracy was .5% then any speed between
97.5km/hr and 102.5 km/hr is legal.
Remember errors would have to be assumed to be additive in your favour.
So anything between 95.5 and 104.5 km/hr indicated on the
police instrument would be legal.
This is why there has always been a tolerance level.
There is also the matter of tyre pressure.

Under the Federal Weights and Measures laws any monetary charge made
using a measuring device has to comply with the calibration equirements
so a certificate has to be available on demand.
Same applies in the local green grocers.

If you speed you are breaking the law
If you flash you lights you are breaking the law
Ironically you can stand on the side of the road holding a warning sign and that is not illegal.
I think both of the above deserve the full wrath of the law and Yes there is a lot of legitimate revenue to be made for government while they are at it.

Surely, as speeding is breaking the law and it is the duty of citizens to uphold the law then said citizens should not speed and they should encourage others to similarly uphold the law.

I maintain that it is also a citizen's duty to stop others from breaking the law, if possible, therefore warning fellow motorists to slow down is part of our civic duties.

It is the traffic authorities statement that there will be no tolerance
that is the problem.
There just is a tolerance built in as soon as you use measuring
instruments and the law and the courts CANNOT change that.

<< Surely, as speeding is breaking the law and it is the duty of citizens to uphold the law then said citizens should not speed and they should encourage others to similarly uphold the law. >>

Yes but there is the law and there is the law! One is the official law and the other is the real-world law. If you observe the official road rules and expect others to do the same and get angry when they don’t, then you’ll run into conflict all the time.

If you observe the real-world laws, you’ll find more peace of mind, and you’ll be driving in a safer manner.

Just noticed on the ABC News that a section of the Stuart Highway in the NT has had all speed limits removed, once you pass the De-restricted sign the limit is how fast your car will go.

Note that the sign is a black bar diagonally across a white disc.

The same sign is used in NSW and DOES NOT mean that the limit is greater than 100kph.

So, if you come across one of these signs don't get carried away.

<< It is the traffic authorities statement that there will be no tolerance that is the problem. >>

Bazz, where does this come from? Which traffic authority has made this statement?

I’ve never heard anything in the media about there being no tolerance.

Ludwig, it was the minister in NSW stating that it would be the policy.
It got quite heavy coverage at the time.
The threat was if you drove at 61km/hr you would be booked.
Whether you would be booked at 60.5 km/hr was never stated.

Anyone whoever calibrated a measuring instrument would have scoffed at the statement.

Is Mise, it was only a few years back that the NT speed limit was declared to be 130 on the open road where there was previously no speed limit.

Now they are trialling changing it back again:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-01/speed-limits-shelved-for-nt-highway-sports-cars/5232388

Pretty dumb if you ask me. Surely 130kmh is fast enough!

Bazz, I live in QLD but I’ve been driving in NSW over the last four weeks, in areas of high police presence and speed-limit regulation (the Sydney – Newcastle area and the coast up to Tweed Heads).

I listen to the ABC radio news a fair bit…. and I’ve heard nothing about a zero-tolerance approach to speed limits.

And my observations of how people drive, wherever I go, indicates that there is nothing of the sort happening.

I appreciate your concern about calibration and error margins, but I think that by far the biggest issue here is the RANK MISMANAGEMENT of the policing of speed limits!

We absolutely need to be told just what is being policed!

What is the leeway?? ?? ?? If there is no leeway, then the message needs to be very loudly and widely expressed so that everyone, not just in NSW but in the whole country, knows what is going on.... and knows it BEFORE a zero-tolerance policing regime starts!

Ludwig, I can't put a date on it, it was some time ago, perhaps one
or two years ago.
Perhaps it never got enforced if the Police realised how impossible it is.
However if their instrument shows 60.01 km/hr then they can book you
because you have exceeded (their) speed limit.
I believe there have been challenges on accuracy but about the wrong
conditions of operation, not instrumental accuracy.
The difficulty is the instruments are considered to be a "scientific instrument"
and its accuracy cannot be challenged. Well I have news for them.
The calibration certificate will say otherwise.

Anyway they have to comply with Commonwealth law as a monetary charge
is involved.