Thread: Hide your rego no?

You mention speed limits and everything goes into overdrive

I have lots opinions on it and I believe the NT government is hiding behind statistics that are incorrectly represented.

But lets face anyone driving a series Landy, County or even a Defender isn't worried about speed are we!

Sppeding fines are just a business until every cent that is raised go's into public education, our roads and safety initiatives. Until then it is a croc and pays for our governments extravagance. Same as fuel excise.

In Qld the fines go straight back into road works and we still have the worst roads. BTW did anyone see the yearly stats recently for road deaths. The only year (Qld) where they were reduced on the year before was the year cameras were introduced. I'll let you figure that one out yourselves. 324 and counting this year. A little bit better than 674 from memory in about 1974. I believe the populations gone up a little bit since then aswell.

Look at the stats for the early 60's and correct for population, no. of licenced drivers, no. of registered vehicles, and k's driven annually. The 60's were truly horrific in comparison with today. I believe seat belts, collapsible steering columns, better brakes and tyres, the almost total elimination of high level intoxicated driving, better emergency medicine, and dramatically better roads have made motoring much, much, safer. Ergo, we should be able to have increased highway speed limits.

Originally Posted by Mick-Kelly

In Qld the fines go straight back into road works and we still have the worst roads. BTW did anyone see the yearly stats recently for road deaths. The only year (Qld) where they were reduced on the year before was the year cameras were introduced. I'll let you figure that one out yourselves. 324 and counting this year. A little bit better than 674 from memory in about 1974. I believe the populations gone up a little bit since then aswell.

Yes, the population has increased.

Cars are MASSIVELY safer though. Indeed, people that don't have a $$ interest suggest that is what has kept things down as long as they have. You should note that in the years around the introduction of cameras in QLD airbags were rapidly increasing penetration in the fleet.

Mick, yes the $$ from the cameras go back into road works and education. But, apart from spin justifying "speed kills" the totals are very vague and it's unknown whether they have increased at all. In fact, the money that they used to chip in from con rev can be used elsewhere as it is now paid for by the TCO.

All.. I really don't mean to be totally anti speed enforcement... I'll say again that I think it's an important thing when used in context with a balanced strategy. At the moment it's not. This may surprise you but I pretty much stay within the limit and have only been booked twice. The last time was 10 years ago.

I used to note every time I have my speed checked. I stopped this year in July when I passed 25 times. It's probably closer to 50 now. This year I have been RBT'd once. Last year it was twice, and I wasn't RBT'd at all between 02 and 04. Considering I get checked on average at least 50 times a year it is simply beyond me how the affirmative "speed kills" people can argue it's in context. It really is.

I wouldn't be making this argument if yearly I got my speed tested 5 times, was rbt'd 20 times, and my following distance and general road behaviour was checked daily. I'd be happy if they gave me a new rules book every 5 years when I get a new licence, but no I have to pay for it.

I do have inside knowledge and it's about the money. They spend a lot of tax payers money producing spin to justify it which could be educating people about things that would save far more lives and that annoys me no end. I might have been able to ring my Dad and have a chat to but I can't. I'll try my best to stay out of this now

call me ignorant - does being 'speed checked' equate to you passing a speed camera?

slightly different take - smokers don't like paying the extra tax every year for cigarettes that is used to pay for their lung cancer treatment, but does the general populous react - no...

I assume nobody will argue that for any given speed zone, anyone well outside this target value (higher or lower) will be at greater risk of an accident...

so why not "charge" those people caught well outside the normal range for a proportion of the overall damage caused? works for me... user pays just like cigarettes

what defines a 'normal speed' - thats another arguement all together!

I for one wouldn't drive LONG DISTANCE at 140+km/hr on any Aussie roads - most roads are not up to it, never mind the car or the driver... low population density means less revenues available for each km of road built - you only have to look at the quality of Victorian roads compared to those north of the border - like chaulk and cheese