It's NOT revenue raising. Thats why the Vic. Gov. Is now back in the black as the news last night stated from the increase in FINES.
Sent from my GT-N8020 using AULRO mobile app
Printable View
It's NOT revenue raising. Thats why the Vic. Gov. Is now back in the black as the news last night stated from the increase in FINES.
Sent from my GT-N8020 using AULRO mobile app
Poor old me... poor old me... I copped a fine for breaking the law:mad:
Double speeding fines, no even better, triple ALL fines:p
The government has to, and WILL, get funds from somewhere. If taxes are increased you have no choice but you do have a choice whether you wear a speeding fine.
Simple really. Don't break the law.;)
Gotta love the Herald - 4 out of the 5 pictures on that 'news' story show police members performing laser speed checks, not mobile speed camera cars. ****ing retards.....
Unfortunately real life experiences with these things show that you don't have to be speeding to get a fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by bacicat
I feel your pain Gary.Quote:
Originally Posted by garrycol
IMHO its nothing more than a revinue raising exersize. Sure we can all not speed and avoid the camera fines but whats stopping the tosser who just got his photo taken from continuing to speed afterwards and take out your wife and kids. Its not law enforcment unless they are pulled up chatted to and given a fine on the spot.
Pinched from another Forum
Some ideas:
on the border of NSW and Vic
"warning, you are entering the nanny state - as long as you are doing exactly the speedlimit, you can do make up and play with your phone all you want because cameras cant see that"
or next to a wipe off 5 add in vic
"US department of transport study No. FHWA-RD-92-084 found :
*accidents at sites where speed limits were lowered increased by 5.4 precent
*accidents at sites where speed limits were raised decreased by 6.7 percent."
in 2011-12 NSW raised $89 million from Speed cameras.
In 2011-12 Victoria raised $250 million dollars from speed cameras
Speeding is the cause of less than 7% of accidents but represents 86% of traffic fines
its is statisticaly more dangerous to drive 10% below the speed limit that 10% over the limit (quote stats)
dfendr:...Thank You, at least we have some FACTS here.
A prior poster mentioned "attitude"...SPOT ON.
I've been driving for over 50 yrs, love my cars, love my V8s, love U.S. Muscle Cars & love my V8 Supercars, and I used to LOVE my driving, but not any more.
Attitude, that is the real issue, not speeding. Sure, I like plenty of power under my right foot, but simply because the speed limit is 100kph, does not mean I want to travel at that speed all the time, I might want to travel at 80KPH (not on a freeway), on a Country Road, up in the Mallee etc, plenty of stuff to see up there, so I might be doing 80ks. So, what do I do if someone comes up behind me?...Well, I MOVE OVER, let the guy go. but how many do that for me?....NOT MANY.
I was going down the Ocean Rd a few years ago in our GTO, speed limit 80ks, traffic doing 35/40ks,....WHY?....a ratbag in a BRAND NEW LANDCRUISER holding up around 15 cars, took me around 3 or 4 gos to get to him, gave him the finger when I finally got past him...didn't even see me,.....too busy eating something & talking to his passengers. If I'd have seen him at my next stop, he would've copped an earful.
So yeah, if someone wants to pass me, I Let 'em. But, NO-ONE is going to tell me that I should not be allowed to do more than 100ks in the Bush if I want to, if the conditions are safe. But just so ya get the meaasge,...I DO NOT (go over 100ks).
For goodness sake, in the late sixties, families were travelling to Qld (from Vic) on their holidays, & they'd be sitting on 70MPH, perhaps going to 80 to overtake?.....Geez, if ya did that now ya'd be arrested.
Like I said, if this latest "stunt" is simply about safety of the camera operator, then sure, take the camera off the road, BUT PUT A SIGN UP. Will they?...Yeah right.
Cheers, Pickles.
If I may return briefly to those NT fatality figures; while I have no doubt that the NT is worse than the states and ACT, I wonder if it is fair to quote deaths per 100,000 population.
Could it be that the NT figures are made to look a little worse than they really are because more people in the NT need to use vehicles to travel because the public transport options that exist in other places aren't available?
Could it also be that NT drivers routinely need to undertake longer journeys than drivers in other places, so they are exposed to the risk of an accident for much longer?
Would a comparison of the number of deaths per 100,000 kms make the NT look a bit better than the number of deaths per 100,000 population?
anyone who cant see this as revenue raising should lose their licence.
Just announced on ABC TV - the NT is planning to reintroduce unlimited speed zones on the Stuart Highway. The first is to be a 200km section north of Alice Springs as a trial and if successful further sections.
When the NT had unlimited speed zones over 7 years ago a report that I read said that few fatal accidents on the Stuart were cause by high speed but animal strikes, locals sleeping on the road and getting run over and overloaded utes with unrestrained locals in the back rolling over.
Looks like common sense might be catching.