Fight Fines rally in melbourne

[EBII Fairmont]

This is the deal, I got this letter in the mail about a rally later this month to demand the 10% tolerance rule will come back in.

Thought some Melbournian people on here may be interseted. This is the link with the info http://www.fightfines.info/13.html.

[EA2BA]

LOL .... um yeah thats gunna work ..NOT.

[Kapn_Kiwi]

Originally Posted by EA2BA

LOL .... um yeah thats gunna work ..NOT.

Can't hurt...

[XA-Coupe]

Originally Posted by Kapn_Kiwi

Can't hurt...

I agree.. it beasts useless whining on internet forums. I expect all those so violently opposed to the way enforcement is conducted in vic to go there...

[MYVYSS]

Waits for Bracks to enforce a fine for public displays of sooking...

[Outbackjack]

Go for it guys!!! Good luck, we seem to be making the NT gov think twice about introducing speed limits onto our highways.

Let Furore Bracks know that the Australian citizen is HIS BOSS. He has forgoten this.......

[xe351]

i would go if i wasnt so far away

[XA-Coupe]

Originally Posted by MYVYSS

Waits for Bracks to enforce a fine for public displays of sooking...

Best we get our sooking happening now whilst we can :

[jabba]

Man you guys a getting screwed big time down in Vic.. You would have to be F.N stupid not to go to the rally... Send a message to Bracks, and it that does not work,, voet for some one else at election time..

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by Outbackjack

Go for it guys!!! Good luck, we seem to be making the NT gov think twice about introducing speed limits onto our highways.

Let Furore Bracks know that the Australian citizen is HIS BOSS. He has forgoten this.......

I've read that report, expected it fully as written, so therefore I note the usual mish-mash of imposed guilt, half truths and sheer bullshit, and the serious mis-application of root-cause, and of academic failing. I am frankly seriously embarrased by it being "Australian research", would never submit it in esteemed places overseas, such as at UN WP level.

CONTINUE to oppose this rubbish Jack. ANY proposed default speed limit should not, and *must not* apply on lengths of road where the (//) is used.

Yes, NT road users must now take their driving tasks more seriously, and yes, driver 'behavioural' infringements must increase in monetary and goal punitive terms.

You *know* they are nervous of a backlash when the proponents advocate a relatively 'high' default (110km/h) - to start things off, particularly WHEN you realise that in WA they are seriously looking at, and have not given up the idea of, - an 80-90km/h default.

Remember, a lowish rural default, is to cater for the majority of a jurisdictions low-grade rural road network, BUT ALSO ALLOWS for higher "POSTED" speed limits, AND for (//) - per a length-of-road basis, as outlined in AS 1742.4 of 1999. By all means adopt a default, but DON'T give up (//), a trade off if you like.

I do accept SOME of the proposals as advocate, but the speed limit maximum is simply not needed to dramatically improve things. Indeed, can reduce safety in the human behavioural responses, fatigue, nervous tension leading to other unwanted results, such as momentary inattention.

We are still not serious about the road toll, and it is clear the whole "industry" at national level requires a shake-up and finanancial auditing. I want to know "how" the likes of Scruby and the Pedestrian Council are funded, why and by whom, including full disclosure and publicity highlighting 'why RTA here in NSW have paid monies', how much and when and for what result.

Our jurisdictions are very, very generous at throwing your tax dollars around for BUGGER ALL NATIONAL 'POSITIVE' RESULT, yearly.

The Martin government should not proceed with this speed limit diatribe, and I'd urge all NT MP's to NOT FEEL ANY GUILT WHATSOEVER, in once again voting a clear NO. A few key fools will always wipe themselves out at triple digit speeds, BUT they do it WITH or WITHOUT speed limits.

ONLY operational police on the roads can target such characters, AND THEY DO represent less that 0.1% of the total driving population.

The NT publication, "The Road Users' Handbook" MUST upgrade its key practical 'safety' advice to that shown in NSW and WA. Too many 'no can do; no idea' type characters employed.

AND HOW DARE the "National Vehicle Standards" allow fitment to registered cars, of tyres bearing a speed-rating LESS than the cars top speed performance. This runs opposite to what ADR practices. Damned negligent fools! You can thank earlier 'southern' agency advocacy.

In relation to the Victorian issue; UNLESS people make the effort to back up any effort at resisting extreme Victorian punitive actions, then you will continue to be dumped on. Bracks will win this election, but they must still hear peoples reasonable voice. National Metrology IS an issue here, and the Vic Gov Co need to appreciate this.

[Disco1986]

nah you vics only need a 3%, you guys arnt good enough at driving to get anything better! That why you have the 100 zones!

[T_Terror]

ill be going for sure.

if you cant make the effort to get off ur *** and let the people who make these bs laws know whos boss, then you have no right to comlain about these issues.

[S3SR]

getting the tolerence will only allow more idiots to speed, you could probably also fight that doing 66 in a 60 zone is legal you all deserve a bullet
DONT SPEED DONT GET A FINE simple

[EBII Fairmont]

Originally Posted by T_Terror

ill be going for sure.

if you cant make the effort to get off ur *** and let the people who make these bs laws know whos boss, then you have no right to comlain about these issues.

I may trot down. I have an exam the following day at 9am :.

But it will be good to go back to the old ways of 10% tolerance.

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by FALCONSR

getting the tolerence will only allow more idiots to speed, you could probably also fight that doing 66 in a 60 zone is legal you all deserve a bullet
DONT SPEED DONT GET A FINE simple

I agree there IS a problem with 'speed', but it is more related to 'safe speed' than numbers appearing on a signpost. 80% of crashes occur below the speed limit. My advice is not to exceed the posted legal maximum, and regardless - ALWAYS drive at a safe speed!

IF a speed limit on a key arterial, or highway/freeway was set at the 85th percentile, AND reviewed every few years, we'd have fewer 'conflict' issues with traffic. Conflict, that has undesired outcome sometimes. This 'conflict' I refer does not relate to the 0.01% of high-enders who die regardless of limit or (//), rather to the general road user in typical everday crashes.

'Tolerance' enforcement is an issue and 3km/h is not on or warranted. ADR 18 was recently harmonised fully with UNECE requirement which will see over time far greater accuracy in speedometer reading.

The NSW process of reviewing the multitudes of speed restrictions with a view of reducing the number of them is underway, but is a long process that takes 'years'.

NB - I see NO scientific basis for a 110km/h limit on ANY highway. This is a 'political' speed limit in EVERY jurisdiction, and is not, generally - 'safety-based' on the 85th percentile, NOR in a world hamonisation sense; which arguably could see 130km/h in 10 - 25 years out for motorway category.

[XA-Coupe]

Originally Posted by Keepleft

I agree there IS a problem with 'speed', but it is more l related to 'safe speed' than numbers appearing on a signpost. 80% of crashes occur below the speed limit.

IF a speed limit on a key arterial, or highway/freeway was set at the 85th percentile, AND reviews every few years, we'd have fewer 'conflict' issues with traffic. Conflict, that has undesired outcome sometimes.

'Tolerance' enforcement is an issue and 3km/h is not on. ADR 18 was recently harmonised fully with UNECE requirement which will see over time far greater accuracy in speedometer reading.

The process of reviewing the multitudes of speed restrictions with a view of reducing the number of them is underway but is a long process that takes 'years'.

NB - I see NO scientific basis for a 110km/h limit on ANY highway. This is a political' speed limit in EVERY jurisdiction, and is not, generally 'safety-based' on the 85th percentile OR in a world hamonisation sense, which arguably could see 130km/h 10 - 25 years out for motorway category.

lol @ 85th percentile .. it's still hanging around like a dag on a sheeps butt.

anyway, this is about a chance to have your say ... not another thread about whats right or wrong

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by XA-Coupe

lol @ 85th percentile .. it's still hanging around like a dag on a sheeps butt.

anyway, this is about a chance to have your say ... not another thread about whats right or wrong

I am saying what is right and wrong.

85th percentile speed setting IS the primary legitimate method in the setting of speed limits, along with the Hall Matrix, and "social considerations":-) AND is increasingly recognised in the MUTCD's of QLD etc, and in the NSW "Speed Zoning Guidelines (under review) and so on. It is one of the reasons why Texas now posts 80mph (130km/h), like that or not!

[MITCHAY]

Originally Posted by FALCONSR

getting the tolerence will only allow more idiots to speed, you could probably also fight that doing 66 in a 60 zone is legal you all deserve a bullet
DONT SPEED DONT GET A FINE simple

You do realize that manufacturers are allowed +or- 10% accuracy for speedometers in their cars?

It is only fair therefore to allow a 10% tolerance for speeding infringements.

[XA-Coupe]

Originally Posted by Keepleft

I am saying what is right and wrong.

85th percentile speed setting IS the primary legitimate method in the setting of speed limits, along with the Hall Matrix, and "social considerations":-) AND is increasingly recognised in the MUTCD's of QLD etc, and in the NSW "Speed Zoning Guidelines (under review) and so on. It is one of the reasons why Texas now posts 80mph (130km/h), like that or not!

have a day or two of trouble accessing the forum for failing to heed the warning.
85th percentile is a myth.

[XA-Coupe]

if this degenerates into an argument i'll just close it.

[Tiga_EL]

At least well have at least 30 less threads about fines and how people can get out of em. so to all you whingers, go to the rally...

[GK]

It's wrong if the limit is 3% and the ADR allows for 10% speedo error!

What a joke!

GK

[Outbackjack]

Is it just me, or does there semm to be a bunch of dumb b4astards within our governments that are making dumb, ill informed, descisions on our behalf.....

My family yacht up north is truly looking like the place to be......

[Smoked]

Originally Posted by Disco1986

nah you vics only need a 3%, you guys arnt good enough at driving to get anything better! That why you have the 100 zones!

Very intelligent comment there. Come back and comment when you have a full licence and can really appreciate the unfairness we have to endure.

[XA-Coupe]

Originally Posted by Outbackjack

Is it just me, or does there semm to be a bunch of dumb b4astards within our governments that are making dumb, ill informed, descisions on our behalf.....

My family yacht up north is truly looking like the place to be......

some people just don't listen. Thread closed.