QLD To Again Lower Speed Tolerances

[xxx000]

Originally Posted by MAD

As are most people with a common sense thought about what would actually help the road toll.

So is there then any reason why that same leniency you seek shouldn't therefore be extended to BAC readings, neg driving, red light cameras?

[MAD]

Originally Posted by xxx000

So is there then any reason why that same leniency you seek shouldn't therefore be extended to BAC readings, neg driving, red light cameras?

I think .05 is too high for some people. We should adopt a roadside test like the US.
The amber light is the leniancy.


I've answered yours, now you answer mine.
Did a speed camera stop that guy excessively speeding and driving through a red light killing 3 innocent people on Warrigul Rd in Melbourne just recently?

[xxx000]

Has anybody ever answered yes to such an absurd question/claim as you've put forward?

seems the anti speed camera/lower speed tolerance mob are happy campaigning against something that would obviously be more likely to affect them but want more emphasis on those things that they perceive they don't do.

Until people realise that they may not be as good a driver as they think nothing will change

[MAD]

Some people around here rant like they believe it to be so.

The want for an increase in leniency around speed related fines is a correlation with the want for a better education/training system that will re-introduce common sense and courtesy in to drivers on our roads. Removing the need to be punished the way that we are. (No matter the spin you put on it, you can not justify the number of fines for low level speeding.)

If the aim is to train/program people, all animal trainers know that punishment is not the best way to achieve the desired outcome.




Of course, none of this will make money, so what's the point in trying to get a common sense message across.

[2011G6E]

People don't generally want "increased leniency"...they just want an allowance made to realise we don't live in a perfect world.
We are using fallible machines with variable speed measuring equipment driven by humans holding a long pedal at one position to maintain more or less the same road speed while monitoring many different conditions around them. You have to allow for some variation...make that variation too low a tolerance, and you create derision and skepticism that it's all about revenue raising. Set it at a sensible level, and people will, mostly, do the right thing.
This is why cars used to have a 10% plus or minus before 2006. I don't know about you, but I would call a 2006 car a very modern and advanced piece of automotive engineering. There can't have been that big an advance in speedometer technology all of a sudden in the last few years that has suddenly made them infallible.

[XB GS 351 Coupe]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

We are using fallible machines with variable speed measuring equipment driven by humans holding a long pedal at one position to maintain more or less the same road speed while monitoring many different conditions around them. You have to allow for some variation ..]make that variation too low a tolerance, and you create derision and skepticism….

They have allowed for a huge variation, even in a 40 zone you have 0-40km variation to travel at, at 110km your variation is anything under the LIMIT, the LIMIT is by definition the thing you must stay UNDER and never go over hence it having the strange name of LIMIT (look it up its wired). So the idea would be to use anything under the LIMIT (which is the point one must never go above) as your tolerance. So don't drive not just over the LIMIT hoping for a variation, but stay UNDER, as the limit has been provided to you, so you know that the variation is anything UNDER the LIMIT.

It's very very basic common sense, really, I could not imagine it being any more simple, why complicate things by saying well we give you a limit of 60km, but really we will let you drive at 65km/hr, then someone gets done at 66, and they start screaming that they were only 1km over the imaginary limit so why should he get a fine for going 66 when his mate got away with going 65?? What difference will the 1km over 65 make, just not fair

So why not keep it simple and do something really un usual and make the limit the limit, I know it's strange but it could just work, because then everyone would know what the limit is as there are signs telling you every where already.

[XB GS 351 Coupe]

Originally Posted by MAD

Did a speed camera stop that guy excessively speeding and driving through a red light killing 3 innocent people on Warrigul Rd in Melbourne just recently?

Obviously not, but did leniency stop it???? Or would bigger tolerance have stopped it??

How do you count proactivity?? How can you count all the accidents that possibly did not happen because of the tighter approach??

May be if laws were even tighter the above driver you speak of would have lost his license earlier before he got to cause the above collision, may be if the cop did not give him a warning for going 5km over and ticketed him instead, just may be the 3 innocent people would still be alive.

We will never know I guess.

[MAD]

I'm not that old, but I still remember in my early days of driving that it was pretty much common knowledge that you COULD drive 10% faster if you were game to run the risk of slipping over the tolerance and copping a fine, or you could stick to the limit and be safe knowing you had some leeway to creep over the limit occasionally as naturally happens in every drive when you're watching things around you instead of focusing on the speedo.

[2011G6E]

Yes I think we all understand what a "speed limit" is. However, you should be able to sit ON that allowed limit and know that if you drift over or under you won't be penalised. If that sign says 100 or 110, I should be confidant that if I sit on 100 or 110, that I won't be fined for drifting over it slightly because of mechanical issues or simple geographic changes...such as setting your cruise control dead on the actual speed but your car speeding up slightly on a downhill stretch or accelerating up when a hill appears or something.

Yes, we know it's a "limit", but it's also the speed the authorities have deemed you are allowed to travel at.

Enforce "the limit" too strictly and you will have traffic held up because everyone will sit five to ten kph under just to be safe.

Good god what a difference in philosophies it was on the highways in Nevada...a 70mph limit but everyone sitting on 80 to 85, police cars quite happy to cruise along in the traffic as well at that speed, because what mattered more to them was behaviour while driving and keeping the traffic flowing freely, rather than a set number on a sign...

[MAD]

Originally Posted by XB GS 351 Coupe

Obviously not, but did leniency stop it???? Or would bigger tolerance have stopped it??

How do you count proactivity?? How can you count all the accidents that possibly did not happen because of the tighter approach??

May be if laws were even tighter the above driver you speak of would have lost his license earlier before he got to cause the above collision, may be if the cop did not give him a warning for going 5km over and ticketed him instead, just may be the 3 innocent people would still be alive.

We will never know I guess.

The key difference between the camera and the lenience is that one of them allows you to use your own judgement and one is a punishment.
If neither work, why choose the punishment?


In the above example the deaths will be counted as 'speed being a factor', but it was clearly the numpty on drugs behind the wheel.
If it couldn't have been stopped by a camera it shouldn't be used in the stats to justify more.

[joolz]

Well we keep letting them do it to us. Slowly but surely we the motorists are being punished far more than the crime commited.

How do we stop this like in the UK?

[DanielXR8]

Originally Posted by joolz

Well we keep letting them do it to us. Slowly but surely we the motorists are being punished far more than the crime commited.

How do we stop this like in the UK?

Whats more our Police are used to cynically apply the law for profit and not for protection of our community.

How then, can we complain if they take that cynicism and see their position as a way to make money for themselves as well? Why should we be surprised when they lose site of their role?

Their employer set the example.

[xxx000]

Originally Posted by MAD

I'm not that old, but I still remember in my early days of driving that it was pretty much common knowledge that you COULD drive 10% faster if you were game to run the risk of slipping over the tolerance and copping a fine, or you could stick to the limit and be safe knowing you had some leeway to creep over the limit occasionally as naturally happens in every drive when you're watching things around you instead of focusing on the speedo.

you do realise that to do up to that 10% over you also used the speedo to measure that?
all that authorities are asking for is for people to accept that the signs are the speed limit not one you mostly sit on but all too frequently exceed.

if it was a life sentence gaol penalty would you still sit on 60km/h in a 60 zone or would you travel consistently and considerably slower to ensure you never exceeded that limit?
many on here talk about govt. funded and provided driver education being needed. Well what is needed and required is a change of attitude by some drivers incl those on here towards compliance but all we hear from that group is excuses about speedos being inaccurate and it being basically impossible for them to remain under the speed limit at all times.
Their car has brakes and a selection of lower gears but what they refuse to accept is that they and only they, not the govt or police, are responsible if they get detected speeding

[xxx000]

Originally Posted by DanielXR8

Whats more our Police are used to cynically apply the law for profit and not for protection of our community.

How then, can we complain if they take that cynicism and see their position as a way to make money for themselves as well? Why should we be surprised when they lose site of their role?

Their employer set the example.

have you considered that you've lost sight of how minor an issue this really is and that perhaps you should hand in your licence if you have that much difficulty driving under the limit?

what do you suppose the HWP police should do on highways ? fine litterers?

[tweeked]

Originally Posted by xxx000

have you considered that you've lost sight of how minor an issue this really is and that perhaps you should hand in your licence if you have that much difficulty driving under the limit?

what do you suppose the HWP police should do on highways ? fine litterers?

umm, i think they should pull people over who are doing something dangerous. if 103 kph is dangerous, then the speeed limit should be 90, not 100. Then we can all concentrate on driving.

If no one is being dangerous, yeah, fine the litterers.

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by DanielXR8

Whats more our Police are used to cynically apply the law for profit and not for protection of our community.

Exactly...if anyone can explain to me how sending you a photo two weeks later is going to stop someone speeding now, I think people would be happier.

Remember the short-lived TV advert about speed cameras? It was pulled as everyone saw the gaping logic hole in the campaign. A guy is speeding...doing ten k's over I think, and goes through a hidden speed camera. The camera catches him, but he keeps speeding off into the distance. The picture fades out, then comes back and he's still speeding. He approaches a corner in the road, and drops a cassette tape as he tries to put it in. He leans over to pick it up and his car wanders wide in a corner, having a head on with another car coming the other way.
Then it shifts to a hospital bed some time later. The driver is in bed all bandaged up, and his tearful wife hands him a letter, angrily saying "This came in the mail", and he opens a camera speeding infringement. He starts crying and says "I'm sorry", and his wife angirly says "Tell that to his family!!".

Straight away people noticed problems. First, how much further along the road did he have the accident? It wasn't immediately after being snapped, so was it hours later and hundreds of kilometers away? Second: What if they didn't have cameras and the police had physically pulled him over and booked him? The accident would never have happened. Second, the accident itself...they are implying that a similar shattering head on crash at a legal 100kph would have resulted in no injuries and happy joy times for everyone involved, but because it was slightly over 100, people die.
It was quickly pulled and never seen again. People aren't stupid.

[xxx000]

Most, not all, people will slow down in the area of speed cameras

Those that don't slow down get fined and demerit points and if they repeat that behaviour they eventually lose their licence.

If the govt could afford thousands more HWP police and cars then we'd have complaints re an excessive focus on speeding offences.

The police can't control every drivers behaviour at all times, there's a degree of personal responsibility that drivers have.

Speed cameras are one of many tools used to try to control, correct and modify driver behaviour

[MAD]

Originally Posted by xxx000

Speed cameras are one of many tools used to try to control, correct and modify driver behaviour

Sounds good in theory but it's a steaming pile of you-know-what.

If it actually was the case, then introducing more cameras would not result in more revenue (as they BUDGET for each year, and with each new camera)

The BEST way to modify behaviour is with positive reinforcement. No two ways about it.
...and the BEST way to make money is under the guise of safety.



There are some new cameras that have just started sending fines on Citylink, and they're in an area that makes very little sense as most people are not even up to the speed limit (outbound), and most people are already slowing for the up-coming zone down-change (inbound).
****PREDICTION WARNING****
Within 6 months that section of road will be dropped from the current 100, down to 80, and those cameras will become very productive.

[joolz]

Originally Posted by xxx000

Most, not all, people will slow down in the area of speed cameras

Slow down to 100 from 103 (walking pace over the limit)
We are only human and to those that say they "never" speed are complete liars or use public transport. So we humans will always creep over the limit then glance at the speedo and correct. But speed cameras are placed (mostly hidden) at high revenue positions and not where accidents really happen as speed isnt the main factor.

[MAD]

Originally Posted by joolz

Slow down to 100 from 103 (walking pace over the limit)

More like slow from 75 to 65 (in 80 zone)
God it frustrates me when people suddenly hit the brakes hard when they realise they're near a camera.

[xxx000]

Originally Posted by MAD

More like slow from 75 to 65 (in 80 zone)
God it frustrates me when people suddenly hit the brakes hard when they realise they're near a camera.

you driving too close and not anticipating?

[MAD]

Originally Posted by xxx000

you driving too close and not anticipating?

Nice try.
That's not even remotely what frustrates me about it.
What frustrates me is seeing what people have been trained to do around speed cameras, and the flow-on effect to traffic that would have otherwise maintained a nice cruising speed along that stretch.

[joolz]

Originally Posted by MAD

Nice try.
the flow-on effect to traffic that would have otherwise maintained a nice cruising speed along that stretch.

Now isn’t this one of the reasons in the UK and other countries they are getting rid of cameras as they actually increase accidents when a speed camera is noticed by an over caucus driver.

[DanielXR8]

Originally Posted by xxx000

have you considered that you've lost sight of how minor an issue this really is and that perhaps you should hand in your licence if you have that much difficulty driving under the limit?

what do you suppose the HWP police should do on highways ? fine litterers?

I worked as a civi in a Police department. Most of the operational Police I spoke to considered speeding a non issue when looking at crime in the community and the needs they identified for their time. The public message however is never consistent with that. Catching crims and serving the community is not profitable.

Highway patrol officers are a deterrent as indeed are all uniformed officers when they are in our community. It is a role in itself and should not have to be justified by making money or on quantity of tickets issued. They are not a business, they are a public service.

That said, If you believe the majority of drivers aside from speeding are completely compliant with the law, then you are mistaken.

If over time Police numbers are not required in HWP work because driver behaviour and compliance has improved, those officers can be reassigned to where they are needed.

When states anticipate revenue raised by Police must increase to balance state treasury budgets, you have a problem. That is not the role of Police and you discredit them and the law when you do.

I don't believe using Police in this way is a minor issue, politicising them in the cynical way that we have in Australia is infact quite a serious issue.