Vic traffic police told to target low-level speeding offenders

[Silver Ghia]

In todays Herald-Sun

Traffic police told to target low-level speeding offenders

VICTORIA'S top traffic cop has told police to start fining more motorists for low-level speeding offences.

Road Policing Command Assistant Commissioner Robert Hill said it was time to make travelling only a couple of kilometres above the speed limit as socially unacceptable as drink driving.

He said more traffic operations were planned for this year than last year and speed was the main focus.

"I expect there to be an increase number of low-level speeding infringements issued by our members in the future until the attitude is changed on our roads," Mr Hill told the Herald Sun.

"What we have said to our members is to focus on speed enforcement. The speed limits that are set at the maximum speed you can travel at, having regard to the road conditions.

"If we can reduce our mean speeds across the road network we will save lives, and this is all about saving lives.

"Whether you're 5km/h or 15km/h over, if you speed, you can expect to be stopped by police."

Mr Hill said the strong stance on low-level speeding was being taken because 15 deaths and 300 serious injuries could be prevented each year if drivers cut their average speed by just 1km/h.

He warned motorists to stop setting their own "de facto" speed limits, especially when setting cruise control.

"The evidence is very clear; speed is the absolute killer on our roads," Mr Hill said.

"The culture has shifted in respect of drink driving, it's now socially unacceptable for people to get behind the wheel of a motor car and drive while affected by alcohol, but the same cannot be said for *speeding.

"Across our community, people don't appreciate that low-level speeds can be just as dangerous as high-level speeding."

Drivers who exceed speed limit by less than 10km/h are fined $180 and cop one demerit point, while speeding over the limit between 10-15km/h will cost $289 and three demerit points.

During the past five years, 14 people have died and 352 people suffered serious injury during the Australia Day weekend.

Police will run the year's first major traffic operation to coincide with the public holiday break, with high focus on Melbourne, Geelong, Baw Baw, Benalla, Ballarat and the Mornington Peninsula.

I suppose speed is easier to target with less police resources required, than apprehending negligent or distracted drivers.

I think I see their logic now. The slower we all go, the consequences of a negligent or distracted driver causing a crash will be less.

And how can this be?

"Across our community, people don't appreciate that low-level speeds can be just as dangerous as high-level speeding."

[Trump]

The frog is starting to squirm a bit, he's feeling a bit warmer than usual, but he's not at the point where he realises he is beginning to cook...

[FGX-351]

Originally Posted by Loud_Noises

The frog is starting to squirm a bit, he's feeling a bit warmer than usual, but he's not at the point where he realises he is beginning to cook...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svpsLZDgFK4

[tranquilized]

The "facts and figures" they trot out to support their position are utterly ridiculous.

15 deaths can be prevented if everyone drives on average 1km/h hour slower?

Sure thing! Sounds plausible

Purely arbitrary numbers provided by the "scientists" at Monash who's only concern is their continued funding. It's easy enough to avoid fines by not speeding - I haven't had one in about 5 years. But its infuriating to think of all the lives lost on the roads, some of which would be preventable if the powers that be spread their efforts over more issues than people doing a few km/h over the limit. (the limit - another arbitrary number!)

[blk6t]

I suppose technically that's correct. The posted speed limit is the maximum speed at which you can drive...and yes there is a tendency to think it's ok to drive 85km/h in a 80km/h zone, just because, and yes you can drive past a cop and the majority won't care.

I'm waiting for the day when one day cars will have installed GPS systems and maps with every speed limit, automatically fining you when you go over the speed limit.

Also, I don't agree with this attitude, community relations with Police will burn even further!

[lucas2]

This is absolute garbage. I'd like to see the evidence behind his unsubstantiated claims. Like I've said in a previous thread, deaths on the road are tragic and we don't want that, but the percentage of fatalities are incredibly low at the moment in comparison to the amount of cars on the road. Driver education is key, unfortunately you can't always legislate against idiots.

Edit: In regards to the scientist at Monash, it becomes very easy for the government or anyone for that matter to pick, choose, and twist the results of the studies to suit one's own agenda. E.g. "Each fatality exhibited signs of fatigue, distraction and the car had bald tyres, the driver may have been traveling at 61 in a 60 zone", in this case they pick the possible rate of speed to highlight and not the other factors. It happens all the time when people review studies, and it's not a strong case to argue.

[XWGT]

I heard that interview this morning and this part was a cracker.

They had modelled data from last years crashes and determined 24% of those deaths "involved" speeding. (No root cause just involved)

So he went on to illustrate how they were going to target low level speeding etc but completely ignored how they were going to tackle the other 76% of causes of road deaths!

I was seriously annoyed MMM didn't pick up on this and take him to task on that.

If they put half as much effort into getting people with un roadworthy **** boxes, drug driving and blatant skill deficiencies and comprehension such as keep left, indicate, and don't tailgate we probably wouldn't have a road toll to talk about. Don't even worry about the 30+ drunk pedestrians who were counted in the road toll.

However automated revenue technology only really works for speed at the moment...so I guess that explains it. Too hard to target anything else meaningful as that would take man power and cost money.

[Bent8]

Originally Posted by XWGT

If they put half as much effort into getting people with un roadworthy **** boxes, drug driving and blatant skill deficiencies and comprehension such as keep left, indicate, and don't tailgate we probably wouldn't have a road toll to talk about. Don't even worry about the 30+ drunk pedestrians who were counted in the road toll.

However automated revenue technology only really works for speed at the moment...so I guess that explains it. Too hard to target anything else meaningful as that would take man power and cost money.

A few nights ago, I was driving behind a car that obviously had an impaired driver behind the wheel... weaving between lanes, no indicators and one of their tail lights was out.

I look to my right and there's a police car right next to me who could clearly see this car driving dangerously, yet they didn't even bother to pull him over because he wasn't speeding!

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by XWGT

I heard that interview this morning and this part was a cracker.

They had modelled data from last years crashes and determined 24% of those deaths "involved" speeding. (No root cause just involved).

If they put half as much effort into getting people with un roadworthy **** boxes, drug driving and blatant skill deficiencies and comprehension such as keep left, indicate, and don't tailgate we probably wouldn't have a road toll to talk about. Don't even worry about the 30+ drunk pedestrians who were counted in the road toll.

However automated revenue technology only really works for speed at the moment...so I guess that explains it. Too hard to target anything else meaningful as that would take man power and cost money.

This is what fires me up.....total incompetent fools running this place. Targeting lack of skill and respect for cars on the road is the only thing they should be increasing their efforts on.
When was the last time anyone saw police patrolling a roundabout......probably the highest area of incorrect and dangerous driving by miles over any other road feature.EVERY single time you drive on one someone mis indicates or falsely indicates. What a joke

[Silver Ghia]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

When was the last time anyone saw police patrolling a roundabout......probably the highest area of incorrect and dangerous driving by miles over any other road feature.EVERY single time you drive on one someone mis indicates or falsely indicates. What a joke

Cars are considered going too slow at roundabouts to have fatalities. Which is why they don't monitor roundabouts.

And the first thing about defensive driving at roundabouts, is not to look at indicators. Best to look at which way the cars are heading, by looking at where the front wheels are pointing.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by Silver Ghia

Cars are considered going too slow at roundabouts to have fatalities.

And therein is the problem. Safety initiatives targeted solely at fatalities do nothing to address general poor driving standards which eventually can turn into fatalities.

[iCat]

Why do the Australian Design Rules allow for a 10% margin on error for speedos in cars? If the Government was determined to keep us at or below the speed limit they would impose accurate manufacturing requirements, not a 10% leeway.

[Bent8]

We all know it's all about revenue raising but I'd like to chime in here...

Hundreds of cars are added to our roads every day yet the road infrastructure is not expanding to keep up with the increased traffic.

More cars, travelling slower (usually well below the speed limit) equals traffic conjestion which results in driver frustration and that can easily lead to an accident.

Based on this theory, cars that drive slower will still be involved in traffic accidents!

If even half of the driving public refused to pay these speeding tickets, I'm sure then the police would be forced to change their views on the effects of "low-level speeding".

[simon varley]

Originally Posted by iCat

Why do the Australian Design Rules allow for a 10% margin on error for speedos in cars? If the Government was determined to keep us at or below the speed limit they would impose accurate manufacturing requirements, not a 10% leeway.

in fact this is what happens. The allowable speedo error is +10% / -0% so they all over read not under read. When you drive at 60kmh in a 60kmh limit, you could be actually driving as slow as 54kmh (ish). Conversely you could drive at an indicated 66kmh and still not be speeding. Don't rely on this though as 10% is a maximum error and many cars are in fact more accurate than this.

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by simon varley

in fact this is what happens. The allowable speedo error is +10% / -0% so they all over read not under read. When you drive at 60kmh in a 60kmh limit, you could be actually driving as slow as 54kmh (ish). Conversely you could drive at an indicated 66kmh and still not be speeding. Don't rely on this though as 10% is a maximum error and many cars are in fact more accurate than this.

There is up to a 3% difference in speed reading based on new vs old tyres as the tyre wears down the rolling diameter changes.

JP

[xxx000]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

There is up to a 3% difference in speed reading based on new vs old tyres as the tyre wears down the rolling diameter changes.

JP

But your actual speed will still be lower than indicated so that's no excuse for speeding

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by xxx000

But your actual speed will still be lower than indicated so that's no excuse for speeding

yeah thats what im saying...It is imposible to have a 100% accurate spedo when connected mechanically to a variable such as wheel diameter. hence why manufacturers design spedometers to read high. to make allowances for the known and some unknown variables. To prevent consumers suing them for every speeding fine they get
My standard swift was 4-5% high compared against a GPS, with new tyres, with worn tyres it would be only 2-3% high based on the rule of thumb.

JP

[irish2]

Originally Posted by simon varley

in fact this is what happens. The allowable speedo error is +10% / -0% so they all over read not under read. When you drive at 60kmh in a 60kmh limit, you could be actually driving as slow as 54kmh (ish). Conversely you could drive at an indicated 66kmh and still not be speeding. Don't rely on this though as 10% is a maximum error and many cars are in fact more accurate than this.

The ADR was changed in 2006. Prior to 2006 it was +/-10%.

[falconnut]

Originally Posted by iCat

Why do the Australian Design Rules allow for a 10% margin on error for speedos in cars? If the Government was determined to keep us at or below the speed limit they would impose accurate manufacturing requirements, not a 10% leeway.

Yet QLD and NSW still fine for 1km/h over

speedos are not that accurate or are programmed with a
+5km/h over roughly 80km/h

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by iCat

Why do the Australian Design Rules allow for a 10% margin on error for speedos in cars? If the Government was determined to keep us at or below the speed limit they would impose accurate manufacturing requirements, not a 10% leeway.

They don't...not if your car was made after 2006. After then, it's allowed to be out, but MUST read fast so, technically, you can sit on an indicated 100 but actually be doing 95 or something.
Of course, that's only if you trust all the mechanical losses and changes as your car ages and the tyres wear.
Car speedometers simply aren't an accurate scientific instrument...they are a mass produced mechanical and electrical device that is "good enough"...that's why a leeway is built into them. No idea how the manufacturer can guarantee that it will ONLY read on the fast side...it's going to be plus or minus, no matter how good it is. Even the best, most expensive scientific measuring devices have a "plus or minus" margin noted, so why are car speedos treated any differently?

Cars made before 2006 have a "plus OR minus" leeway allowed under ADR's, but no one has ever actually been able to show if this is a suitable defence against a ludicrously small speeding offence under 10kph.

I know in our 1982 Celica when brand new tyres are fitted, the speedo is out because of the larger diameter new tyres. It's right now in the "sweet spot" where the tyres have worn to the point where the speedo is absolutely spot on at 100kph. As they wear though, it will start going the other way in accuracy. You notice this even more with 4x4 tyres with deep tread as they wear over their life.

[Starlightblue]

so if 15 lives where saved by all dropping 1klm/hour, we must have saved thousands of lives when the speed limits in the city went from 60klm to 50 klms

Do the math

[xxx000]

Originally Posted by Starlightblue

so if 15 lives where saved by all dropping 1klm/hour, we must have saved thousands of lives when the speed limits in the city went from 60klm to 50 klms

Do the math

1. not if people don't comply

2. it's maths

did you lot complain in the same manner using the same 'logic' on the intro of RBT? The same arguments put forward here could be said about RBT but we now agree it's intro was worthwhile, what's different about speeding?

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by xxx000

did you lot complain in the same manner using the same 'logic' on the intro of RBT? The same arguments put forward here could be said about RBT but we now agree it's intro was worthwhile, what's different about speeding?

Easiest question to answer ..... and a question that does not really need to be asked, but

1. You know you are drinking alcohol, then you make the decision to drive and do so intentionally.

2. Everyone, 100% of the driving population, including yourself, drive within a few k's under or over everyday and do so safely and unintentionally.

I would much rather share the road with someone doing 84 in an 80 zone who is observant to their surroundings, confident in what they are doing, know that I am there and keep up with the flow ..... rather than someone doing 78 in an 80 zone concentrating only on a limit in case, in an absolute split second, they are sitting on 81, with no thought of others around them and no confidence in what they are doing.

The mind set of these people to think they are great drivers ONLY because they try and stay under a limit are fooling themselves something chronic. Those who say they do not speed (1,2,4 over) are telling porkies!

[SPArKy_Dave]

If you have the patience.... watch some of this, and note the driver courtesy and impeccable lane discipline.

Note how each slower driver observes (from far away), that a faster driver is approaching in the adjacent lane, and applies their brakes.

(1.40-4.00 and 11.20-28.20) for the best sections of the clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1J2VygXuzDM

[Trump]

Originally Posted by SPArKy_Dave

If you have the patience.... watch some of this, and note the driver courtesy and impeccable lane discipline.

Note how each slower driver observes (from far away), that a faster driver is approaching in the adjacent lane, and applies their brakes.

(1.40-4.00 and 11.20-28.20) for the best sections of the clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1J2VygXuzDM

The courtesy is a cultural thing, Germans are intrinsically polite and courteous to one another, even on the roads. Here... despite appearances to the contrary, once we're on the road, its a case of every man for himself (or "plod will get me, so I'll go 20 under the limit in the right lane and stuff everyone else").

My god that diesel boat can move!

[Paull]

Originally Posted by SPArKy_Dave

If you have the patience.... watch some of this, and note the driver courtesy and impeccable lane discipline.

Note how each slower driver observes (from far away), that a faster driver is approaching in the adjacent lane, and applies their brakes.

(1.40-4.00 and 11.20-28.20) for the best sections of the clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1J2VygXuzDM

I'm amazed that 15 people didn't die in the making of this video, inclusive of the driver. I wonder if it has anything to do with;

1 - quality road (s)
2 - good quality & well maintained car (assumption here)
3 - attentive driving
4 - quality driver education (assumption here but is the norm in De)
5 - courtesy & good driving shown by other drivers

[new2ford]

Originally Posted by SPArKy_Dave

If you have the patience.... watch some of this, and note the driver courtesy and impeccable lane discipline.

Note how each slower driver observes (from far away), that a faster driver is approaching in the adjacent lane, and applies their brakes.

(1.40-4.00 and 11.20-28.20) for the best sections of the clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1J2VygXuzDM

SPArKy_Dave you bring back memories of living in Plzen two years ago. I hate driving in Australia with a vengeance, it's just horrible and infinitely worse than when I started driving 40 years ago before all this nannying started.

Road Policing Command Assistant Commissioner Robert Hill said it was time to make travelling only a couple of kilometres above the speed limit as socially unacceptable as drink driving.

So funny when compared to a statement recently made by the police head in Czech Republic where the motorway limit is 130. Recognising that people needed to make independent decisions when driving (such as safely passing a slow-moving block of traffic), he said the police wouldn't pull over a driver unless he was exceeding about 150. That's 20 km/h over!!! And only then if he or she was driving dangerously. I guess they have other methods of raising revenue in Czech Republic.

One feature you don't see over there is the big packs of vehicles dangerously close to each other, all moving at 100-110 because they're afraid of being pinged. Totally different in Europe where you're able to pass a slower vehicle quickly and get out of the way. The differential speed limit between trucks and cars is also a great safety bonus.

I reckon those big mobs of vehicles in Australia glued together at high speed are far more dangerous than the European driving environment of being spread out at a range of speeds (the slower ones being in the kerb lane of course).

[Bill M]

Originally Posted by xxx000

1. not if people don't comply

2. it's maths

did you lot complain in the same manner using the same 'logic' on the intro of RBT? The same arguments put forward here could be said about RBT but we now agree it's intro was worthwhile, what's different about speeding?

Road Policing Command Assistant Commissioner Robert Hill said it was time to make travelling only a couple of kilometres above the speed limit as socially unacceptable as drink driving.

A couple of kilometers is two, his words. This is a completely different scenario as there are many variables affecting speed at 62 km.

Comparing the two is simplistic.

[tweeked]

Originally Posted by xxx000

1. not if people don't comply

2. it's maths

did you lot complain in the same manner using the same 'logic' on the intro of RBT? The same arguments put forward here could be said about RBT but we now agree it's intro was worthwhile, what's different about speeding?

I really hope that you are not in charge of enforcing these laws.

Here is the difference - the RBT has a reasonable allowance for full license holders before prosecution - .05

1-2 kms is not reasonable. It is moronic.

[The Monty]

Originally Posted by tweeked

I really hope that you are not in charge of enforcing these laws.

Here is the difference - the RBT has a reasonable allowance for full license holders before prosecution - .05

1-2 kms is not reasonable. It is moronic.

Actually, to use your own theory you have just proposed, if it is 1-2km/h over, then you have the whole of the speed limit as a "reasonable allowance. Using your example,

.05 is the LIMIT, therefore drivers have anything up to 0.05 as "reasonable allowance"
Therefore
60km/h is the LIMIT, therefore drivers have anything UP TO 60km/h as "reasonable allowance"

Or if you are putting emphasis on the second part of your argument,
0.05 is the limit, therefore 0.51, and 0.52 are ok, as .01, or .02 is not reasonable.

Soooo, which one is it?