Thread: Road Safety or Revenue?

Would you also agree many areas are signposted significantly below a sensible/rational speed.

No
In the Vast majority of occasions the posted speed limit is there for a Very good reason.

Would you also agree the standard of driver training is abhorrent.

Yes

Would you also agree the tolerance on fines is too small - for example a 2-3km/h excursion above the limit is not solid grounds for a fine.

No.
Speed "Limits" are just that a LIMIT and Not a Target and if you are driving over the limit you have broken the law, End of story.
To say that well officer I was only doing 2/3 kph over the limit is like a woman saying that she is only a little bit pregnant.
What is so wrong with driving 3/3kph BELOW the speed limit??

Once the north Richmond bridge had opened on Saturday within a couple of hours a mobile speed camera car was spotted at Bilpin!

No through traffic as bells line of road is closed just past here for major reconstruction.

Disagree to a point Gav and Trout.
With constantly changing speed zones it's easy to be doing 80 in a 70 zone, etc. There isn't any discretion.
I'm in the road all the time around here and so know the various zones, but so often I see people blithely sailing on through a change in zone as they've missed the sign.
A common spot is the M1 between the Byron turnoff and the Mullum turnoff. The sued drops to 100 from 110, but you can pick the non locals as they continue to sail on through with their cruise set at 110-115km/h.

And then there's the blatant catching people out for not constant watching the speedo.. There is a long hill on one of the backroads here through Tintenbar, hot mix, well chambered, kerbed (to eliminate erosion) and wide.
All us locals ride the brakes all the way down as its an 80 zone, it's easy to hit 100-110 even when gearing down (I'm anyways I 4th I the Triton) but its straight and flattens at the bottom, you can see for about 2 km.
Often the Highway Patrol sit near the creek at the bottom, about 200m after it flattens on a side road pointing their guns straight up the hill, but you can't easily see them from the drive down.
It's not unsafe to do 100 down there, but the limit is 80 (used to be 100) and they position themselves there as it's easy money.

Constant watching the speedo rather than the road is not conducive to road safety IMO

Originally Posted by trout1105

Would you also agree many areas are signposted significantly below a sensible/rational speed.

No
In the Vast majority of occasions the posted speed limit is there for a Very good reason.

Would you also agree the standard of driver training is abhorrent.

Yes

Would you also agree the tolerance on fines is too small - for example a 2-3km/h excursion above the limit is not solid grounds for a fine.

No.
Speed "Limits" are just that a LIMIT and Not a Target and if you are driving over the limit you have broken the law, End of story.
To say that well officer I was only doing 2/3 kph over the limit is like a woman saying that she is only a little bit pregnant.
What is so wrong with driving 3/3kph BELOW the speed limit??

Actually disagree with the first assertion, I think most town and CBD speeds can be dropped to 40, they'd be far safer than 50 for pedestrians but often I find arbitrary 70 and 80 limits in the middle of no where and I'm going "why?"


Also, most people will abide by a law if they think it's reasonable, but if it's unreasonable they'll totally disregard it.

So using the NSW example of mobile cameras:

When signs were placed people slowed down and weren't booked, remove the signs and the fines increased 10 fold but so did motorists speeding past a device that is supposed to improve road safety..... Not whinging by the way, I've never been caught by one of these cameras but I have seen where they set up in Yass and I'd much prefer that people see the sign and slow to 50KM/h than speed and get a fine in the mail a couple of weeks later which is what is clearly happening judging by the revenue figures.

As a method of improving safety they are clearly not effective, as a revenue raiser, they are most excellent.

Regards,
Tote

Originally Posted by trout1105

What is so wrong with driving 3/3kph BELOW the speed limit??

congestion.

Originally Posted by Tombie

Agree.

Would you also agree many areas are signposted significantly below a sensible/rational speed. Yes, but that's not what we were talking about here - just on how to avoid the very voluntary tax that are speed cameras.

Would you also agree the standard of driver training is abhorrent. That goes without saying

Would you also agree the tolerance on fines is too small - for example a 2-3km/h excursion above the limit is not solid grounds for a fine. No - doesn't bother me - speedo and cruise control works for me - I drive 1,000KM per week - around the City and its freeways here without issue - have been for 20 years. Only time I got done was when they reduced the speed limit on the street from 60 to 50 and I forgot and was doing 60 - fair cop.

Originally Posted by 101RRS

But has been shown time and time again - even if you dont speed you still get fines. Has never happened to me in more than 20 years driving around Melbourne and Vic - and I do plenty more KM than most.

Originally Posted by Eevo

congestion. - Bollocks, that's just **** planning, not enough public transport and bad roads, has nothing to do with the speed the traffic is travelling at.

...

Bad roads is a lame claim though, same with public transportation.

Roads are better overall than previously, vehicles can cope with them better than previously.

Public transportation is a choice, and many won’t use it by choice purely from a convenience POV.
Many steadfastly refuse to use it.

As for cruise, yes in many cases it will prevent the issue although downhill and cresting hills can demonstrate tolerances which could result in a fine - and many people are uncomfortable using cruise in dense traffic.