Quote:
Originally Posted by Kieron
In the NSW doc I posted above, the definition of speed is on pdf page 11.
@b0son, my mistake, the wording should have been 'contributing factor' and if NSW report it as speeding, it removes distraction, fatigue etc.
Re the QLD article, it's obviously a cut down report so won't have the legal definition of speeding, it simply is not BS because it doesn't have that info.
I noticed nobody responded (except for Blue Shadows great post  ) to my question re where the $$'s goes, presumably it's to line overpaid pollies and the Secret Policeman's annual ball? OR -
https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/saf...speed/cameras/
What's the answer if speed cameras are simply revenue raisers? should they all be removed? pretty sure that would then allow us all to finally speed in peace... |
Again all of those criteria are very subjective and subject to interpretation. I have personal experience where determining factors were hard to define so were put down in reports as speeding to save a lot of time and paperwork.
Statistics are only as good as the initial information allows them to be and are also subject to the interpretation that the compiler has and wants them to project.
Government have a vested financial interest in compiling statistics to support their assertions that this is effective road safety initiative.
A classic example of Government manipulating things to suit their views is the republic referendum. A republic that no-one wanted was concocted by government at the time and was the only one that the public were allowed to vote for. It was defeated but now if the subject comes up they state that we had a referendum for that and the public voted against it with out any mention that there was never a free vote for or against Australia becoming a republic without strings attached to the vote!
The same thing is done here with road safety statistics.
I didn't respond to the question about spending of revenue as it was a leading question as evidenced by the answers you provided yourself as being possibly representative of the respondents. You are wrong by the way. I don't think that there are many people on here that are that dumb.
It looks kind of stupid when you answer your own questions with what you think the respondents would say. A bit condescending I think.