Brisbane New Speed Cameras, lower tolerance level!!!!

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Why do you have to risk going over? that's a decision you've decided to make because you want to travel right on the limit all the time. If you want to do that, enable your speed alert device, yes the one you dont use because you dont like it going off all the time

Speed alert, a nice idea but functionally useless when you live in areas that have so many changes in speed limit that you would have to change its settings 8 times within 5 km of travel (such as in my area). One of our Mini's does not have it (2007 model), the previous model did. Our new one does have it but changing the settings is too much mucking around and too much of a distraction. Changing the settings on our previous Fords (BA's and BF's) was also too much of a distraction to do on the move, hence useless. I only set it on long trips when I am predominately in one speed zone such as on open highway.

Fitting a Heads Up Display such as on the new BMW's is a much better idea, cheap too considering it is just and LED readout of the speed set in the dash that reflects on the windscreen at the bottom of the drivers field of vision. Manufacturers could fit that at the same cost of fitting the worthless speed alert system. Then I would be more of a supporter of reduced tolerance for speeding infringements.

[UNR8D]

Originally Posted by sudszy

the stats show otherwise, so do panel shops that are closing down in vic.
and thinking people value them more than boorish bully people carrying on with the usual rhetoric of govco conspiracies on motoring forums.

If you didn’t make such idiotic statements, you might be a bit more credible.

I will never accept that a couple of K either way will make the difference, no I’m not talking 15+ k either way I’m talking about the general acceptance of 10% leeway.

As far as I can see and I have been involved over the past years with various road campaign's and road safety aspects, Govco seems to accept only part of the Experts advice. They spend millions to get Road Safety advice from overseas, bring in experts from all fields including industry leaders in new car safety innovation/road tec experts from all over Europe but then only take "snippets" of the advice given. Case in point regards to Speed where camera's were introduced in "known black spots" (also written in the legislation for qld at least") but have now spread to anywhere they can cash in on motorists, despite constant advice to raise speed zones on places like the M1 and reduce in other areas, all they do is reduce and then add extra patrols/camera's... see no reduction in the road toll so bring out harsher penalties same rhetoric we have had now going on 15 + years..... It’s a cash grab and nothing more, want to get serious about the road toll and reduce the number of crashes over all:

Driver Training and Retraining every 5-10 years.

Reduce the number of speed zones that litter the inner suburbs and have some logic to it all.

Be Blaintant when having cameras out and about, MAKE THEM VISIBLE they are meant to be in known black spots well PUT IT IN PEOPLES FACES rather being the deceitful "insert ford forums appropate euphemism here"

Average speed limit in countries around the world is 130, so far only NT has the same logic and even that is a bit flawed.

While on the topic of NT, its a perfect example where dictorian limits haven’t worked... implement them and the toll rises, have them unrestricted and have a significant drop in road toll... simple fact is, 85th percentile rule works, you would have very few (miniscule amount) who would abuse the open limit, most would set a comfortable 130-160km/h and cruise on which is what tended to happen when we had the freedom to think for ourselves.

just a thought.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by UNR8D

As far as I can see and I have been involved over the past years with various road campaign's and road safety aspects, Govco seems to accept only part of the Experts advice. .

So which experts have come in and told us to raise speed limits.

What research have you done? found every website that says speed cameras are a scam? you have done zilch

Originally Posted by UNR8D

While on the topic of NT, its a perfect example where dictorian limits haven’t worked... implement them and the toll rises, have them unrestricted and have a significant drop in road toll... simple fact is, 85th percentile rule works, you would have very few (miniscule amount) who would abuse the open limit, most would set a comfortable 130-160km/h and cruise on which is what tended to happen when we had the freedom to think for ourselves.

just a thought.

another one


One by one, they are exposed for pushing the same barrow of rubbish:
another one

http://www.fordforums.com.au/showpos...6&postcount=77

Originally Posted by UNR8D

85th percentile rule works, you would have very few (miniscule amount)
just a thought.

Fact is 85th percentile is just the lazy way of setting limits without really having engineers and experts look at how the road impacts on the surroundings. It relies on the behaviour of motorists that use the road, people here believe most of the people on our roads are morons so why have the wrongful majority setting the boundaries?

Case in point, why did we have to enact 40km/h zones outside schools, the 85 percentile logic falls over very sadly there.

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by sudszy

So which experts have come in and told us to raise speed limits.

What research have you done? found every website that says speed cameras are a scam? you have done zilch

another one

One by one, they are exposed for pushing the same barrow of rubbish:
another one

http://www.fordforums.com.au/showpos...6&postcount=77

Do you keep them on record handy so you can pull them up later? (I'm just curious, not having a go)...

I applaud the fact that you're so passionate about it, but it might be time to take a step back and relax.

The issue of speed/safety cameras is one that seems to get all people worked up on this forum, there are those who purport to know better than the current laws we have in place and there are those who purport to know better than those who know better...it goes round and round in circles.

Speed cameras alone will not solve the issues faced on the roads, but the combination of speed and inattention can be lethal, we are all aware of this. Let's face it, those who decide to speed and be careless are probably doing the world a favour, gene pool cleaning, etc., right? Wrong, they make it worse for the rest of us until we're confronted with so many rules and regulations that we can't move without a permit.

If the issue of inattention and carelessness in a 'lethal weapon' is not addressed, we may as well all walk, because the laws are only going to get tighter, until people start taking responsibility, and not just for the speed they're going - but for how they go about getting from A to B in the said 'lethal weapon' with no care or attention for others on the road...

The 1k over rhetoric doesn't do the government any favours if they are truly interested in lowering the road toll...applying the focus to speeding and not correct operation of a motor vehicle is the first mistake they have made. Sure, apparently it's easier to legislate speeding, you chuck up a few cameras, but the issue of driver inattention is not addressed. When you actually consider that Qld State govt were actually going to allow those going for the p's to 'fail to indicate' and speed during their licencing tests...it's pretty clear that the 'powers that be' don't seriously give a toss about lowering the road toll, it's about making money.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by sudszy

So which experts have come in and told us to raise speed limits.

What research have you done? found every website that says speed cameras are a scam? you have done zilch




another one


One by one, they are exposed for pushing the same barrow of rubbish:
another one

http://www.fordforums.com.au/showpos...6&postcount=77



Fact is 85th percentile is just the lazy way of setting limits without really having engineers and experts look at how the road impacts on the surroundings. It relies on the behaviour of motorists that use the road, people here believe most of the people on our roads are morons so why have the wrongful majority setting the boundaries?

Case in point, why did we have to enact 40km/h zones outside schools, the 85 percentile logic falls over very sadly there.

So if cameras are the answer, which they may be but at this point I am not convinced (but open to discussion on it without prejudice), why is it that the UK is seeing a big push to get rid of them? How many millions of pounds in equipment are they ripping out of the ground, I am sure they would not do that if they worked.

[TheSneakiness]

Originally Posted by sudszy

the stats show otherwise, so do panel shops that are closing down in vic.
and thinking people value them more than boorish bully people carrying on with the usual rhetoric of govco conspiracies on motoring forums.

So what made you fly in here on your pig and when in the blue hell did you decide that motoring enthusiasts wanted to hear your bullcrap?

You best remember that a friggin hell of alot of users here think that speed cameras not only are a waste of taxpayers money but are also there to line the pockets of the fools you decided to vote in.

I bet you're also of the opinion that carbon tax is desperately needed and that live cattle exports are wrong and cruel.

Take your pig and fly off. You'll be doing AFF a service by doing so.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

Do you keep them on record handy so you can pull them up later? (I'm just curious, not having a go)...

I applaud the fact that you're so passionate about it, but it might be time to take a step back and relax.

The issue of speed/safety cameras is one that seems to get all people worked up on this forum, there are those who purport to know better than the current laws we have in place and there are those who purport to know better than those who know better...it goes round and round in circles.

Speed cameras alone will not solve the issues faced on the roads, but the combination of speed and inattention can be lethal, we are all aware of this. Let's face it, those who decide to speed and be careless are probably doing the world a favour, gene pool cleaning, etc., right? Wrong, they make it worse for the rest of us until we're confronted with so many rules and regulations that we can't move without a permit.

If the issue of inattention and carelessness in a 'lethal weapon' is not addressed, we may as well all walk, because the laws are only going to get tighter, until people start taking responsibility, and not just for the speed they're going - but for how they go about getting from A to B in the said 'lethal weapon' with no care or attention for others on the road...

The 1k over rhetoric doesn't do the government any favours if they are truly interested in lowering the road toll...applying the focus to speeding and not correct operation of a motor vehicle is the first mistake they have made. Sure, apparently it's easier to legislate speeding, you chuck up a few cameras, but the issue of driver inattention is not addressed. When you actually consider that Qld State govt were actually going to allow those going for the p's to 'fail to indicate' and speed during their licencing tests...it's pretty clear that the 'powers that be' don't seriously give a toss about lowering the road toll, it's about making money.

Outstanding post, well done, I could not agree more.

Speed monitoring and law enforcement has its place but only in a coordinated effort against all the factors which contribute to vehicle crashes, there is no single magic bullet some would have us believe there is. Where is the effort on drunk/drugs, fatigue, inattention, driver competence, vehicle standards, road standards etc to complement this effort against speeding? When I see more evidence that these other factors are being supported more consistently with more than "flash in the pan" blitzes, my opinion will change.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

correct operation of a motor vehicle is the first mistake they have made. Sure, apparently it's easier to legislate speeding, you chuck up a few cameras, but the issue of driver inattention is not addressed. When you actually consider that Qld State govt were actually going to allow those going for the p's to 'fail to indicate' and speed during their licencing tests...it's pretty clear that the 'powers that be' don't seriously give a toss about lowering the road toll, it's about making money.

I dont think you can claim all of Australia's motoring authorities dont give a toss about safety based on what you've heard happening in just qld licence tests. I dont believe there has been any relaxing of standards in vic.

It is not as though been a campaign on driver inattention from the TAC over the years...dozy drivers die, looking out for motor cycles and many others, look em up on utube.

and no speeding is not the only cause of accidents but the logic from most respondents here, that 1kmh over is safe, 2kmh over is safe.....and then somewhere there is some magic line you cross that it becomes unsafe is bewildering.

It would appear for many who post in these threads it wouldnt matter what the tolerance was


If we made the tolerance 10km/h over, they'd be whinging about how the got done for doing 11km/h over being only 1 km/h over the tolerance and all the same rhetoric about what difference does 1km/h over make?

see the problem

[FTE72]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

If the issue of inattention and carelessness in a 'lethal weapon' is not addressed, we may as well all walk, because the laws are only going to get tighter, until people start taking responsibility, and not just for the speed they're going - but for how they go about getting from A to B in the said 'lethal weapon' with no care or attention for others on the road...

The 1k over rhetoric doesn't do the government any favours if they are truly interested in lowering the road toll...applying the focus to speeding and not correct operation of a motor vehicle is the first mistake they have made. Sure, apparently it's easier to legislate speeding, you chuck up a few cameras, but the issue of driver inattention is not addressed. When you actually consider that Qld State govt were actually going to allow those going for the p's to 'fail to indicate' and speed during their licencing tests...it's pretty clear that the 'powers that be' don't seriously give a toss about lowering the road toll, it's about making money.

I share the same perspective on the issue, great post.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

Do you keep them on record handy so you can pull them up later? (I'm just curious, not having a go)...

.

Search facility works well, but I will put the nt speed limits in my bookmarks, it wont be long before before someone tries it on again....some have tried it on twice, like UNR8D

[UNR8D]

Originally Posted by sudszy

i cant speak for qld but its not as though there hasnt been a campaign on driver inattention from the TAC over the years...dozy drivers die, looking out for motor cycles and many others

and no speeding is not the only cause of accidents but the logic from most respondents here, that 1kmh over is safe, 2kmh over is safe.....and then somewhere there is some magic line you cross that it becomes unsafe is bewildering.

It would appear for many who post in these threads it wouldnt matter what the tolerance was


If we made the tolerance 10km/h over, they'd be whinging about how the got done for doing 11km/h over being only 1 km/h over the tolerance and all the same rhetoric about what difference does 1km/h over make?

see the problem

Im awaiting for your evidance that 1km over is as you put it "unsafe" you prove to me that 101 in a 100 zone is the differance between life and death then and only then will you have any basis for the mindless approach you have.

I will make reference links tonight to my sources of information. I will request that you do the same in future when making your claims as well.. whats good for the goose is well.....

Your inability to see that in life there is black/white and grey is outstanding..

Take your own advice sudzy, when you start posting "factual" informaion backing your claims then some of us mite take you seriously, because the only thing you have proven is that your a very small minded closed eyed troll.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Rapid_Axe

You best remember that a friggin hell of alot of users here think that speed cameras not only are a waste of taxpayers money but are also there to line the pockets of the fools you decided to vote in..

So you are saying that you think that the average person here is so ignorant of how the tax system works that they believe pollies personally receive the revenue from speed cameras? I think that is what you are saying?

Originally Posted by Rapid_Axe

I bet you're also of the opinion that carbon tax is desperately needed.

Nope, but we need to find a good way of reducing/eliminating carbon emissions rather than pretending nothing is wrong.

Originally Posted by Rapid_Axe

I that live cattle exports are wrong and cruel.
.

The way live stock are exported doesnt sound like a pleasure cruise to me, buts its more the inhumane slaughter at the indonesian end that I have issues with, obviously ok with you though!

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by UNR8D

Im awaiting for your evidance that 1km over is as you put it "unsafe" you prove to me that 101 in a 100 zone is the differance between life and death then and only then will you have any basis for the mindless approach you have.

Never have said there are unsafe and safe speeds, that's your line.

Have only talked about the risk increase as speeds increase.
The stats are already out there 5km/h over doubles your risk......Ive forgotten if that's for 60 or 100km/h, but look it up for yourself, no time for fools now, gotta go.

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by sudszy

i cant speak for qld but its not as though there hasnt been a campaign on driver inattention from the TAC over the years...dozy drivers die, looking out for motor cycles and many others

and no speeding is not the only cause of accidents but the logic from most respondents here, that 1kmh over is safe, 2kmh over is safe.....and then somewhere there is some magic line you cross that it becomes unsafe is bewildering.

It would appear for many who post in these threads it wouldnt matter what the tolerance was


If we made the tolerance 10km/h over, they'd be whinging about how the got done for doing 11km/h over being only 1 km/h over the tolerance and all the same rhetoric about what difference does 1km/h over make?

see the problem

I understand that, I've too have said it previously, the leniency requests won't end, I've accepted that fact.

I grew up in Vic, I found the TAC ads to be very hard hitting, but it didn't stop almost a third of the kids I grew up with ending up wrapped around trees or through fences. They weren't watching TV or listening to radios, so the ad's never really had any impact on them.

I don't think an advertising campaign alone helps these issues, as much as proper driver education from the ground up - but that too has been discussed on so many occasions that it's not funny. If it were actually thought about appropriately by the governments, they could make quite a bit of coin (keeping in line with their current regime) by forcing a drivers licence retest every year AND a roadworthy every year, provide discounts for registrations and licencing should a driver be an exemplary driver.

In doing this (yes, there's an increased cost), they ensure the following:

a) Each and every driver is 'capable' behind the wheel of a car

b) A vehicle is roadworthy for at least a month, which is more than we can say at the moment.

These actions alone would actually give some credence to the governments suggestions that they actually care about the citizens of the country, and don't just see us all as cash cows.

There are flaws in this theory, I'm aware of that too - but at the moment, the general consensus from the public is that our respective governments are simply taking more and more revenue, and to be honest - I'm not liking the figures on where this 'consolidated revenue' is being spent...and I think there's probably a lot of others who are in the same boat. I guess people are getting a little sick of being treated like idiots by those who are put in their roles to 'look after Australian's'...

The arguments that have arisen are at times poorly worded, but if worded a little less emotively and a little more 'strategically', their arguments would be virtually impossible to argue against, even for an astute person such as yourself. (That's not a dig guys, so please don't take it that way, I can see what you're trying to say, you just need to fill some of the holes in your arguments, and they will be a lot stronger, and subsequently avoid those trying to pick holes in your arguments ).



I don't think the personal attacks and to-fro's do any of you any favours, and to be honest is starting to look more like a school yard, than adults having intelligent conversations.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

I understand that, I've too have said it previously, the leniency requests won't end, I've accepted that fact.

I grew up in Vic, I found the TAC ads to be very hard hitting, but it didn't stop almost a third of the kids I grew up with ending up wrapped around trees or through fences. They weren't watching TV or listening to radios, so the ad's never really had any impact on them.

I don't think an advertising campaign alone helps these issues, as much as proper driver education from the ground up - but that too has been discussed on so many occasions that it's not funny. If it were actually thought about appropriately by the governments, they could make quite a bit of coin (keeping in line with their current regime) by forcing a drivers licence retest every year AND a roadworthy every year, provide discounts for registrations and licencing should a driver be an exemplary driver.

In doing this (yes, there's an increased cost), they ensure the following:

a) Each and every driver is 'capable' behind the wheel of a car

b) A vehicle is roadworthy for at least a month, which is more than we can say at the moment.

These actions alone would actually give some credence to the governments suggestions that they actually care about the citizens of the country, and don't just see us all as cash cows.

There are flaws in this theory, I'm aware of that too - but at the moment, the general consensus from the public is that our respective governments are simply taking more and more revenue, and to be honest - I'm not liking the figures on where this 'consolidated revenue' is being spent...and I think there's probably a lot of others who are in the same boat. I guess people are getting a little sick of being treated like idiots by those who are put in their roles to 'look after Australian's'...

The arguments that have arisen are at times poorly worded, but if worded a little less emotively and a little more 'strategically', their arguments would be virtually impossible to argue against, even for an astute person such as yourself. (That's not a dig guys, so please don't take it that way, I can see what you're trying to say, you just need to fill some of the holes in your arguments, and they will be a lot stronger, and subsequently avoid those trying to pick holes in your arguments ).



I don't think the personal attacks and to-fro's do any of you any favours, and to be honest is starting to look more like a school yard, than adults having intelligent conversations.

Again

Only one thing to add, Sez for Prez!

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

I understand that, I've too have said it previously, the leniency requests won't end, I've accepted that fact.

I grew up in Vic, I found the TAC ads to be very hard hitting, but it didn't stop almost a third of the kids I grew up with ending up wrapped around trees or through fences. They weren't watching TV or listening to radios, so the ad's never really had any impact on them.

Perhaps not, but we dont really have any data for before or after these campaigns to judge their effectiveness, or indeed data where apples can be compared with apples.

I grew up in the southeast suburbs of Melbourne, hooning was just not part of the deal for all the people I grew up with, some had some nose/tail incidents in traffic, but as far as I know, no-one did anything that caused them to lose control of a car ending up backwards in a ditch, etc.

None of them had done any more than training than pass the driving test, which Im guessing all your friends managed to do also and would assume that skill level would have been equivalent.

Clearly to me, safe driving is all 99.9% attitude and 0.1% skill and clearly its the attitude that needs to be worked on.

Your friends obviously were capable of displaying the right behaviours in their driving test, but that went out the window for a third of them once they got their licence. Im sure pyschological tests exist right now to weed out these people, that's the direction I believe we also need to move in as well as coming down on these people when they muck up as well.

Originally Posted by Sezzy

by forcing a drivers licence retest every year AND a roadworthy every year, provide discounts for registrations and licencing should a driver be an exemplary driver.

Given that the people that have just got their licences make the most accident prone drivers there doesnt seem to be much logic in making everyone sit the test every year, clearly its not being able to pass the licence test that is the problem.
I have no problem though with retesting anyone(at any age) that scores any traffic violation! (incentive to drive within the law)


RWC, Ive no problems with having a roadworthy car, but paying $80 for someone to tick the boxes and confirm that every year, no thanks. You do realise that unroadworthy vehicles are seldom reported as being a factor in accidents?
Big fines for people driving around with bung lights, bald tyres and other defects.......bring them on!

[FPV+fteT3]

Originally Posted by sudszy

RWC, Ive no problems with having a roadworthy car, but paying $80 for someone to tick the boxes and confirm that every year, no thanks. You do realise that unroadworthy vehicles are seldom reported as being a factor in accidents?
Big fines for people driving around with bung lights, bald tyres and other defects.......bring them on!

So your not a fan of having to pay to get a roadworthy done every year which stops lots of POS from remaining on our roads, having to share a road with vehicles with defective brakes, steering is ok to you because we dont need a yearly RWC but you are in favour of Big fines for a blown brake light or a bit of rust in a non structural panel etc sometimes you amaze me.

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Perhaps not, but we dont really have any data for before or after these campaigns to judge their effectiveness, or indeed data where apples can be compared with apples.

I grew up in the southeast suburbs of Melbourne, hooning was just not part of the deal for all the people I grew up with, some had some nose/tail incidents in traffic, but as far as I know, no-one did anything that caused them to lose control of a car ending up backwards in a ditch, etc.

None of them had done any more than training than pass the driving test, which Im guessing all your friends managed to do also and would assume that skill level would have been equivalent.

Clearly to me, safe driving is all 99.9% attitude and 0.1% skill and clearly its the attitude that needs to be worked on.

Your friends obviously were capable of displaying the right behaviours in their driving test, but that went out the window for a third of them once they got their licence. Im sure pyschological tests exist right now to weed out these people, that's the direction I believe we also need to move in as well as coming down on these people when they muck up as well.

Strangely enough, the mates that died in these incidents actually had quite a long span of experience. One particular boy had been on motorbikes all his life, he was 19 when he died and had been on bikes since he was 3...Dexterity wise, they were miles above most - alcohol played a part in only a select few, and most incidents were single vehicle, male bravado was NOT at play in these accidents that took their lives...

Originally Posted by Sudzy

Given that the people that have just got their licences make the most accident prone drivers there doesnt seem to be much logic in making everyone sit the test every year, clearly its not being able to pass the licence test that is the problem.

I actually had a look at statistics on that, and those that are accident prone are not just those that have gotten their licence - the over-representation we saw for many years is not there the way it was, particularly fatality wise. Now that may be due to resilience of younger drivers, but the TAC stats pointed to some very interesting (albeit sad) outcomes. Even though the percentage has dropped, the five year average for the 30-39 and 70+ age groups are the highest, not the 18-20, and the only groups to have increased over 09/10 were the 21-25 and 26-29 groups, so those who have held a licence for more than 3 years. The rural areas are still very over-represented in these statistics...

source: http://www.tacsafety.com.au/jsp/stat...rID=1&navID=17

If the testing is not just made to be a 'standard' test, and is actually competency based, ergo more than just handbrake starts, three point turns and reverse parking - you might just find that the aptitude level of participants in these tests increases also. Let's face it, the standard driving lessons will tell you 'hands 10 to 2'...I personally think that's BS because it's uncomfortable for me, others swear by it. But that's not the kind of skill that you need behind the wheel - you need the right attitude to go with it...something that is greatly lacking in not only young drivers, but those who have become 'complacent'.

Originally Posted by Sudzy

I have no problem though with retesting anyone(at any age) that scores any traffic violation! (incentive to drive within the law)

RWC, Ive no problems with having a roadworthy car, but paying $80 for someone to tick the boxes and confirm that every year, no thanks. You do realise that unroadworthy vehicles are seldom reported as being a factor in accidents?
Big fines for people driving around with bung lights, bald tyres and other defects.......bring them on!

I think the roadworthy issue is more teaching social responsibility than anything else.

You yourself have an attitude that the increase of speed results in an increase in the possibility of an accident. I have the attitude that the unroadworthy vehicle beside me could actually lose that tyre that's shaking like a blender, and potentially endanger me...and I don't want to see that on the road. I don't think big fines are the solution, I think making sure that those who drive a vehicle know their 'RESPONSIBILITIES' is a much better alternative. If they have to complete a roadworthy every year, it ensures that tyres are changed, etc. - if they choose to remove them after the fact - well, then take their licence away from them, as social responsibility obviously isn't very high on their scale of importance - which IMO it should be...

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by FPV+fteT3

, having to share a road with vehicles with defective brakes, steering is ok to you because we dont need a yearly RWC .

So here is what I said:
"Big fines for people driving around with bung lights, bald tyres and other defects.......bring them on! "

Defective brakes and steering is covered by other defects!

Nothing wrong with "random" roadworthy inspections, randomly targetting the POS(with a backwards baseball cap midget at the wheel) that drive along with the lowered suspension, too loud exhaust, bypassed emission controls, dodgy tyres.....that all seemed to be ok at the time of the annual rwc inspection.
please appreciate anything that shows up in a random roadside inspection will warrant that a full inspection of the car should take place looking for other defects also, and perhaps the owner of that car can enjoy annual inspections at his expense for the next ten years(whatever car they own).
The message here is target those that get it wrong, not to put those that can do the right thing through inconvenience after inconvenience.

Ive been driving longer than most people here have been alive(sorry if Ive mentioned that before), if some had there way here, Id of have to take a driving test every year and had my car inspected every year to achieve what? Clearly there is nothing to gain in having the majority of careful and law abiding citizens doing that.....concentrate on those that do the wrong thing.

Yeh, blown headlight and cracked windscreen, chances are the car is driven by someone who just doenst care and is neglected, has to pass a full inspection after that.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by sudszy

and no speeding is not the only cause of accidents but the logic from most respondents here, that 1kmh over is safe, 2kmh over is safe.....and then somewhere there is some magic line you cross that it becomes unsafe is bewildering.

It would appear for many who post in these threads it wouldnt matter what the tolerance was


If we made the tolerance 10km/h over, they'd be whinging about how the got done for doing 11km/h over being only 1 km/h over the tolerance and all the same rhetoric about what difference does 1km/h over make?

see the problem

i do see the problem. i see a troll on a car enthusiast forum pushing an agenda that the bulk of people on here can see straight through. this seems to upset the troll so he bangs a bit louder on his drum.

why you continue to change the 'drift over occasionally' into intentionally driving at an increased speed amazes me but i assume its because it suits your argument better. there is a very large % of drivers out there that believe it or not, do not intend to speed in their day to day travels. the fact is that occasionally everyone will find themselves on the wrong side of the magic number on the sign at some point or other whilst driving. to suggest that every instance of this is intentional and that its asking for trouble.... well i guess you have your own strawman.

i still can't believe that you said if everyone did the speed limit or less, the road toll would drop. i really didn't think anyone was capable of buying that argument, and i still believe they probably aren't. i don't think you believe it. i think you are obiously connected in some way to the people that promote it. if you aren't mr scruby, i'm sure he's a good mate of yours.

thanks to fullnoise, here's an example of what we see on our roads everyday. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtHzaeTpYB0 not exactly full of speeding drivers now is it.

[Ben73]

Sudzsy, Read every thread you have posted in.

Look at the number of people who disagree with you verses the number of people who agree with you.

You will see that you are out numbered and will never change an opinion. So why bother?

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by sudszy

So here is what I said:
"Big fines for people driving around with bung lights, bald tyres and other defects.......bring them on! "

Defective brakes and steering is covered by other defects!

Nothing wrong with "random" roadworthy inspections, randomly targetting the POS(with a backwards baseball cap midget at the wheel) that drive along with the lowered suspension, too loud exhaust, bypassed emission controls, dodgy tyres.....that all seemed to be ok at the time of the annual rwc inspection.
please appreciate anything that shows up in a random roadside inspection will warrant that a full inspection of the car should take place looking for other defects also, and perhaps the owner of that car can enjoy annual inspections at his expense for the next ten years(whatever car they own).
The message here is target those that get it wrong, not to put those that can do the right thing through inconvenience after inconvenience.

Ive been driving longer than most people here have been alive(sorry if Ive mentioned that before), if some had there way here, Id of have to take a driving test every year and had my car inspected every year to achieve what? Clearly there is nothing to gain in having the majority of careful and law abiding citizens doing that.....concentrate on those that do the wrong thing.

Yeh, blown headlight and cracked windscreen, chances are the car is driven by someone who just doenst care and is neglected, has to pass a full inspection after that.

Because you have always refused to disclose what it is you do and where your expertise lies I am going to make an assumption based on the content of your previous posts and suggest that you do have some decision making input into road safety at some level. That assumption leads me to believe that some of the issues with road safety we are experiencing are due to the attitudes of people that have real effect on policy such as yourself.

An example of this is your post that I have quoted, you state that there is no need for annual roadworthy inspections (although some states disagree with you) and that the nation wide policy of random roadside inspections is sufficient to ensure all cars on the road are in fact road worthy. Well we have had that policy for a long time now and for the same amount of time it has been completely inadequate at ensuring all vehicles are road worthy.

I make that statement based on my observations during my 20+ years of driving, a considerable portion of which is as a professional driver as part of my employment and a lot of km's driven. I rarely see cars pulled over on the side of the road being inspected by state transport inspectors or police. The times that I do see a vehicle going through such an inspection it is normally from the demographic group to which you refer ("with a backwards baseball cap midget at the wheel"). Now yes stopping these vehicles and inspecting them is effective at controlling that group of road user (to a certain point), but they are not the only one driving defective vehicles. What of the middle aged male driving a magna at the posted speed limit that never does anything wrong but also does not have a scrap of tread on his tyres and belts showing on the inside edge of the fronts. What about the old guy driving the HT holden that he has owned since new, never breaks the law, always pays his rego but has so much rust in the lower ball joints on the front that when he turns into a drive way one snaps and he ends up stuck with the subframe dragging on the ground on that shopping centre driveway (that is a real occurrence that I saw). What about all those people that take their car in to get brakes done and their brake rotors end up on display in the workshop because they are worn down to the ventilation vanes (that level of wear is not a fast process, it is a sign of a long term unroadworthy car). Then there is the early 90's model sedan that has tail lights that are so faded by the sun that they are no longer red and amber, they are now white (bright and annoying) with virtually no colour difference between brake, indicators and reverse lights. On the subject of tail lights, what about the person that does not have a single globe working, that is a long history of "can't be stuffed" on behalf of the motorist. These are all situations that I have seen and many of them I see almost daily. If we had effective roadworthy inspections, surely I would not see those examples so regularly. Yes roadside inspections play a part but without the use of a hoist, the ability to at least remove the wheels and an inspector with mechanical expertise many faults that cause a vehicle to be unroadworthy will not be detected so their use is limited.

In my opinion we need a system of scheduled road worthy inspections. At the moment you can almost drive anything in QLD as long as you don't break any road laws, never attract the attention of the police and you never sell or buy a car. In my opinion that is not good enough, roadworthy inspections exist to ensure that all cars on the road are roadworthy, not just a tool to inconvenience young people with their stereos too loud, exhaust too loud or hat on backwards.

I find the comment you made that you have been driving longer than most of us have been alive interesting. In my experience and observations, one of the larger contributing demographics to the number of unroadworthy vehicles comes from your demographic. Yet this demographic is also the least likely to be a subject of a random roadworthy inspection, interesting to say the least. I wonder if the number of unroadworthy vehicles being driven by that demographic is a result of the fact that they are least likely to be inspected.

What I find difficult to understand is the policy makers constantly tell us that every K over is a killer and that if the placement of a speed camera saves one life it is worth it. Then the same policy makers tell us that the number of deaths as a result of unroadworthy cars is not sufficient to cause new policies to be implemented. Is it just me or do others see the contradiction there? In one statement just 1 life makes it worth it but on the other, 1 life is not enough value for policy change. So which is it, or is it just a case of one does not offer sufficient revenue to make it worth it?

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by prydey

iwhy you continue to change the 'drift over occasionally' into intentionally driving at an increased speed amazes me but i assume its because it suits your argument better. there is a very large % of drivers out there that believe it or not, do not intend to speed in their day to day travels. .

whether people deliberately drive over the limit or do it by accident doesnt change the physics of a collision.

If people make the DELIBERATE decision to sit right on the speed limit, what do they expect? they are going to "drift" over some of the time, can hardly say it was an accident, no more than kids play a cricket next to your house with a hard ball can claim it was accidental when the ball bounces the wrong way and takes out one of your windows, its an expected eventuality.

Govco isnt after the persons that occasionally exceed the speed limit for a few seconds they are after those that sit right on the edge of the present tolerances abusing the purpose it was put there, and my experience there are many of those, and most likely to be in a newer car. How else can we explain why we have all these relatively new cars with speedos that underead by 4-5km/h when its is an ADR that they must not underead by any amount.

so yes,those people sitting right on the edge of the present tolerances are twice as likely to be involved in collisions as those driving just under the limit, that is why "govco" is focussing on it.

It is unforunate that we have a large number of people here that dont want to look at the science/stats or comprehend it,(that extends to climate change and other areas) and its all too easy to fling out the "govco scam" every time govco makes a move that is for the long term benefit of society

Originally Posted by prydey

.

thanks to fullnoise, here's an example of what we see on our roads everyday. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtHzaeTpYB0 not exactly full of speeding drivers now is it.

goodluck to anyone that uses those roads to commute each day, personally I wouldnt, Id change jobs/where I live to avoid them.

I do notice that the idiotic behaviour wasnt solely confined to teenage girls driving small cars oblivious to the needs of big trucks, supposedly skilled truck drivers causing apparently just as much mayhem..

No argument from me, more active policing of these roads, or even action from the video footage.
Unfortunately removing cameras from intersections, or changing their tolerances (what the thread is about) doesnt translate to putting more police cars on the road, from a financial or even logical argument.

[SEZ213]

I'd like to add something further to this 'great debate'.

Currently our law makers are utilising 'behaviourist' techniques to ensure that we do the right thing on the road. For those who aren't aware of behaviourism, it basically means reinforcers and punishers. Now from what I can see of current legislation - we have plenty of punishers but very few positive reinforcers, but plenty of negative ones.

So what do we get if we do the right thing, at the moment, we get to keep our licence - I don't think that's enough, we pay for the privileged of having a licence to start with, so basically we're not getting anything...

If we do the wrong thing, we are punished, by having to pay once again. Not once in this scheme, do we get given money or discounts or anything to reward our 'good behaviour'...

It's okay to punish bad behaviour, but if you're not doing anything to reward good behaviour, you become a dictatorship, and that doesn't work in a so-called 'democracy' does it?

We are run by a fear system, it's the fear that we will lose our licence that drives us and motivates us, and that doesn't make for a happy environment, for anyone...

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

I'd like to add something further to this 'great debate'.

Currently our law makers are utilising 'behaviourist' techniques to ensure that we do the right thing on the road. For those who aren't aware of behaviourism, it basically means reinforcers and punishers. Now from what I can see of current legislation - we have plenty of punishers but very few positive reinforcers, but plenty of negative ones.

So what do we get if we do the right thing, at the moment, we get to keep our licence - I don't think that's enough, we pay for the privileged of having a licence to start with, so basically we're not getting anything...

If we do the wrong thing, we are punished, by having to pay once again. Not once in this scheme, do we get given money or discounts or anything to reward our 'good behaviour'...

It's okay to punish bad behaviour, but if you're not doing anything to reward good behaviour, you become a dictatorship, and that doesn't work in a so-called 'democracy' does it?

We are run by a fear system, it's the fear that we will lose our licence that drives us and motivates us, and that doesn't make for a happy environment, for anyone...

I really wish you would stop making sense, there is no place for that here.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

I'd like to add something further to this 'great debate'.

Currently our law makers are utilising 'behaviourist' techniques to ensure that we do the right thing on the road. For those who aren't aware of behaviourism, it basically means reinforcers and punishers. Now from what I can see of current legislation - we have plenty of punishers but very few positive reinforcers, but plenty of negative ones.

So what do we get if we do the right thing, at the moment, we get to keep our licence - I don't think that's enough, we pay for the privileged of having a licence to start with, so basically we're not getting anything...

If we do the wrong thing, we are punished, by having to pay once again. Not once in this scheme, do we get given money or discounts or anything to reward our 'good behaviour'...

It's okay to punish bad behaviour, but if you're not doing anything to reward good behaviour, you become a dictatorship, and that doesn't work in a so-called 'democracy' does it?

We are run by a fear system, it's the fear that we will lose our licence that drives us and motivates us, and that doesn't make for a happy environment, for anyone...

I agree, the only thing I want to know is what 'good behaviour' should they be pushing. The keep under the speed limit mentality is not the best thing as in some situations driving 95kph in a 100kph zone can be more dangerous then driving 110kph in the same zone.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by sudszy

goodluck to anyone that uses those roads to commute each day, personally I wouldnt, Id change jobs/where I live to avoid them.

It is not only truck drivers that have to live with those motorists on the road, we all do. we all have to drive on those roads and moving, changing jobs is not an option and nor should it be one we have to take. Outstanding that so many of these road users, trucks and cars alike did not break a speed limit so therefore they must be good drivers.

When are you ever going to admit we have a point? Speed is not the road safety silver bullet, there are other significant issues on our roads that get little to no Govco attention?

Actually, don't worry about that question, not that you will anyway. You never answer any question that does not fit in with your agenda. For an example look to my previous questions regarding vehicle roadworthiness and your subsequent lack of comment. Or perhaps my comments about the effectiveness of speed alerts in vehicles in the environment of ever changing speed limits, no comment from you on that one either.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Govco isnt after the persons that occasionally exceed the speed limit for a few seconds they are after those that sit right on the edge of the present tolerances abusing the purpose it was put there,

this is exactly my point. nowhere, in any discussions that we have had, have i ever argued concerning those who push the boundaries and add the so called tolerance to the speed zone.

unfortunately, speed camera's are unable to discriminate. if get pinged, it doesn't matter if it you were speeding for 5 seconds or 5 hours.

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by vztrt

I agree, the only thing I want to know is what 'good behaviour' should they be pushing. The keep under the speed limit mentality is not the best thing as in some situations driving 95kph in a 100kph zone can be more dangerous then driving 110kph in the same zone.

That's where it gets tricky, and I'm still throwing ideas around in my head as to how you would reward the good behaviour and what the good behaviour actually is. I had a discussion with my partner and asked him how to reward good behaviour and what the good behaviour is...and it's not easy.

Ideally, the behaviour that needs to be pushed is social responsibility, and an awareness of others who drive with us on the roads - but once again, that's in a idealistic world, and for that to happen, human nature has to change - not something I see happening any time soon. But in saying that, the behaviourist and constructivist theories are both used in the 'little kids world', with a great deal of success - the only reason they don't work in the 'adult world' is because there's no reward, and very rarely any consultation as to what happens - and therefore no incentive.

So we create an incentive - no demerit point accumulation - 10% reduction on your registration, two years without demerit point accumulation - 20% reduction on your registration. And not just demerit points taken into consideration, parking fines, the whole lot. You want to change the society and how it thinks but you want them to be in control of what they achieve. Speeding is a factor that will come into play, but I don't think it will have any great impact until those that are in control understand that their 'legislation' is creating a society that is dubious as to their 'real motives'. If the real concern is road safety, drop the fines and increase the demerit points.

The only thing you run into there is the usual outcry of 'it's not my fault that I got a demerit point' or 'but that's not fair that I have to pay full registration'.

We need to start taking responsibility for our own actions, personally the above excuses wouldn't fly with me...you did it - you deal with it. End of story. Make these judgments water tight so that going to court and 'appealing' (as seems to be the common thing these days) would be fruitless (obviously dependent on the fine) - nope, bugger it, your fault, accept it, deal with it and move on - perhaps you'll understand why you shouldn't have your mobile phone to your ear, be texting, changing lanes with no indicators, tailgating, etc.

It all requires a police presence...as well as an acceptance that you're a big boy/girl now, and you need to accept that sometimes it is YOUR FAULT.

The other question is do you remove the current fixed speed cameras and replace them with point to point and average out the speed over distance?

Do we use the current revenue from speed cameras to recruit more police officers, so the presence is there on the roads, so that 'leniency' may be applied in certain circumstances?

At the end of the day, the possibilities are endless - it just requires some tweaking...

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

I actually had a look at statistics on that, and those that are accident prone are not just those that have gotten their licence - the over-representation we saw for many years is not there the way it was, particularly fatality wise. Now that may be due to resilience of younger drivers, but the TAC stats pointed to some very interesting (albeit sad) outcomes. Even though the percentage has dropped, the five year average for the 30-39 and 70+ age groups are the highest, not the 18-20, and the only groups to have increased over 09/10 were the 21-25 and 26-29 groups, so those who have held a licence for more than 3 years. The rural areas are still very over-represented in these statistics...
source: http://www.tacsafety.com.au/jsp/stat...rID=1&navID=17

You can not interpet that from the stats you have looked at, that data only shows you the number of accidents per age group, not the percentage. No doubt they have that information buried somewhere, but comparing outright numbers on that data says nothing about which groups are more accident prone. Best to rely on the info they actually publish on the same site:

Despite a large reduction in Victoria's road toll since 1989, the 18 to 25 year age group remains vastly over-represented in road trauma statistics. In their first year of driving, young Victorians are almost four times more likely to be involved in a fatal or serious injury crash than more experienced drivers.
While 18 to 25 year olds represent around 14% of licenced drivers, they accounted for approximately 28% of all drivers killed on Victoria's roads.http://www.tacsafety.com.au/jsp/cont...ull&pageID=209

which of course confirms those that who have most recently received their licence are more likely to crash and in no way supports your claims that yearly licence testing will achieve anything.

Originally Posted by Sezzy

I'd like to add something further to this 'great debate'.

Currently our law makers are utilising 'behaviourist' techniques to ensure that we do the right thing on the road. For those who aren't aware of behaviourism, it basically means reinforcers and punishers. Now from what I can see of current legislation - we have plenty of punishers but very few positive reinforcers, but plenty of negative ones.

So what do we get if we do the right thing, at the moment, we get to keep our licence - I don't think that's enough, we pay for the privileged of having a licence to start with, so basically we're not getting anything...

If we do the wrong thing, we are punished, by having to pay once again. Not once in this scheme, do we get given money or discounts or anything to reward our 'good behaviour'...

It's okay to punish bad behaviour, but if you're not doing anything to reward good behaviour, you become a dictatorship, and that doesn't work in a so-called 'democracy' does it?

We are run by a fear system, it's the fear that we will lose our licence that drives us and motivates us, and that doesn't make for a happy environment, for anyone...

What do you suggest, gold stars for keeping within the speed limit given out by policeman saying “ have a nice day”.

Or by the same token, where’s my jelly bean?, I haven’t killed anyone today. Do people really need rewards to do the right thing?

This is supposedly the adult world, not afterschool care. Vic already offers a discount on licence renewal if you are point free, big whoop, not even worth half any road fine. What else can you do, make licence renewal cost a couple of grand and refund the difference at the end of the year if there are no infringements......at the end of the day what is the difference between that and giving out fines in the first place.

Originally Posted by geckoGT

It is not only truck drivers that have to live with those motorists on the road, we all do. we all have to drive on those roads and moving, changing jobs is not an option and nor should it be one we have to take.

Why isn’t changing jobs an option, are we committed for life for the same job?, Im not going to put my life on line for the sake of a job. If everyone has the same mindset, there will still be the same number of jobs to go around and we’d all be travelling only 10-15mins a day. Should the roads be that dangerous, no, but given that they are, Im not going to risk my neck for a job.

Originally Posted by geckoGT

.
Speed is not the road safety silver bullet, there are other significant issues on our roads that get little to no Govco attention?

Are you suggesting that I claim there are no other problems on the road?
the problem of speed deserves attention and would be negligent not to enforce it.

Originally Posted by geckoGT

. When are you ever going to admit we have a point?

No you do not have a point, that’s if the point is not enforcing speed limits just because there are also other causes as to why vehicles crash.

Originally Posted by geckoGT

.
. For an example look to my previous questions regarding vehicle roadworthiness and your subsequent lack of comment. Or perhaps my comments about the effectiveness of speed alerts in vehicles in the environment of ever changing speed limits, no comment from you on that one either.

Perhaps write paragraphs that aren’t 3000 words long and Ill try and read them, there was something about hr holdens with rusty ball joints? and people in my demographic driving them? You want me to respond to nonsense like that, yeh the roads are just full of crusty old people driving derelict hr holdens......not.

Speed alerts, just a suggestion for those that claim they cant maintain a constant speed by having a quick “blink” at the speedo every minute or so or believe the will be better off with Ray Charles at the wheel.
No they aren’t necessary, nor is a speedo in my opinion(but Im willing to let everyone have one just so they have less excuses), but you wanna harp on about how its all too much trouble for changing zones... the list of excuses for not being able to do something as drive below a certain speed is mind boggling

Your solution is we must all have a buck Rodgers heads up display.....we aren’t flying fighter planes trying to shoot targets at mach II, there is only really only one instrument that we need to pay any attention to to drive our cars safely..

Originally Posted by prydey

this is exactly my point. nowhere, in any discussions that we have had, have i ever argued concerning those who push the boundaries and add the so called tolerance to the speed zone.

unfortunately, speed camera's are unable to discriminate. if get pinged, it doesn't matter if it you were speeding for 5 seconds or 5 hours.

What a lot of hysteria, as Ive kindly pointed out before, you’ve got a better chance of winning the lottery than being pinned by a camera if you only exceed the speed limit for a few seconds in a hours driving. If you do get pinned, so what, you’ve exceeded the limit(as before the laws of physics in a crash are the same whether you are going faster by accident or deliberately), adopt a speed where you will never “accidently” drift over if you really have concerns.