Just what we always wanted. - Page 3

SEZ213 · 13-07-2010, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DAVO_XR

Ok mate, you're right. They should just keep introducing speed cameras and lowering limits until it reaches zero. Bit strange though that its actually been climbing? Im sure theres a logical reason for that though. The fact remains, cars on the road have been passed by the ADR applicable for them. How can the government make the allowable tolerance lower than the instrument is calibrated to? I actually deal with this everyday with as said before, scales. Its totally up to the customer if they want it more accurate than the law allows, and some do, and thats fine, but the law cant just say "you're allowed 3 divisions, but its 2 out, so I'm going to fine you". It really just makes no sense. Bring back the 10% rule.
And its called natural selection mate, crap is going to happen, people weren't meant to drive cars. How can you say be concious of whats going on around us, if we are spending 99% of the time glued to the speedo? You sound like a Labor voter, are you?

Nah mate, not a labour voter, I'm just not prepared to justify people's stupidity any longer...

The thing is, if you have one person claiming ADR, everyone's going to claim ADR, even when they were actually speeding, and thus, once again, we accept people's complete disregard for the law, so stuff it, no more one rule for him and one rule for another - now they're putting us all in the one basket - and to be brutally honest, the only people you can thank for that, is the tools that decide they are above the law in the first place.

Natural selection as you call it, seems to take innocent victims in its' path, or is that just bad luck?

MAD · 13-07-2010, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sezzy

Get your car calibrated, don't get your car calibrated, either way, it's a moot point - it's been done already...

You do realise that if there actually was somewhere to get it calibrated, and it is found to be within 10%, it will be sent out the door with a nice big smilie-face, or a big green tick? whichever you prefer.

Going by your logic, anyone that owns an an older car should go an have it calibrated so that it meets the current emission ADR's.

Let's look at another hypothetical example, obvioulsy my 130km/h one wasnt good enough for you.
I have my cruise set at 98km/h (shown on my speedo) but I am actually travelling at 106km/h. Now Monash uni tell us that every 5km/h over doubles the chance of an accident. I am completely oblivious to the fact I am actually speeding and drive past a mobile speed camera. No flash occurs but I am actually having a fine processed in my name. Now I still have no idea this has happened and I am still travelling along at a crash-chance-doubling 105km/h, even though my speedo says 98km/h.
Now why wouldnt they want to inform me that I am actually endangering myself and my family, by driving at 5km/h over the speed limit?

Honestly, I am at a complete loss as to how the Vic gov is still able to have this 3km/h tolerance when it basically goes against a federal standard.
Newer cars I understand, because the updated ADR states that the speedo must be within 10%, but must NOT read under its actual speed. My guess is this is why we have so many rolling road blocks of people doing 95km/h in the right lane on the freeway.

Brazen · 13-07-2010, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAD

Road toll
Current 171, this time last year 162
I guess all those extra speed cameras they have installed in Vic are doing a great job.

How is there not a mass media outcry over this?

I will stand by my opinion that this obsession with speed enforcement is killing people. Forcing people to drive way below their capabilities causes people to zone out, have accidents, not pay attention and crash. Instead legislating against human behaivour why dont they account for it?

Perhaps they should realise that people are more dangerous when they are trundling along not paying attention to the road, staring at the speedo.

What I dont undertand is that people who defend the speed enforcement do not ever acknowledge the rising road toll, it seems their standard response is 'if you dont speed, you wont get caught' .....sigh, its almost as if the road toll dosnt matter, just do what the government says!

burnz · 13-07-2010, 12:40 PM

it's not about the money, just ask maquarie bank..
their interested in our safety..

ltd · 13-07-2010, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sezzy

Nah mate, not a labour voter, I'm just not prepared to justify people's stupidity any longer...

The thing is, if you have one person claiming ADR, everyone's going to claim ADR, even when they were actually speeding, and thus, once again, we accept people's complete disregard for the law, so stuff it, no more one rule for him and one rule for another - now they're putting us all in the one basket - and to be brutally honest, the only people you can thank for that, is the tools that decide they are above the law in the first place.

Natural selection as you call it, seems to take innocent victims in its' path, or is that just bad luck?

Sezzy, you have missed the point completely.
It could be you that thinks you're doing the speed limit when in fact, you are over and going to be fined. Get it?
Arguing for the sake of it makes you out to be a troll and nothing more. Face it, you are in the minority here and your self proclaimations of perfection managing your speed are both peurile and dumb.

If you love the nanny state directives and hate anything that actually goes the speed limit then maybe you would feel more at home at http://www.my_camry_gives_me_a_chubby.com.au

SEZ213 · 13-07-2010, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAD

You do realise that if there actually was somewhere to get it calibrated, and it is found to be within 10%, it will be sent out the door with a nice big smilie-face, or a big green tick? whichever you prefer.

Going by your logic, anyone that owns an an older car should go an have it calibrated so that it meets the current emission ADR's.

Let's look at another hypothetical example, obvioulsy my 130km/h one wasnt good enough for you.
I have my cruise set at 98km/h (shown on my speedo) but I am actually travelling at 106km/h. Now Monash uni tell us that every 5km/h over doubles the chance of an accident. I am completely oblivious to the fact I am actually speeding and drive past a mobile speed camera. No flash occurs but I am actually having a fine processed in my name. Now I still have no idea this has happened and I am still travelling along at a crash-chance-doubling 105km/h, even though my speedo says 98km/h.
Now why wouldnt they want to inform me that I am actually endangering myself and my family, by driving at 5km/h over the speed limit?

Honestly, I am at a complete loss as to how the Vic gov is still able to have this 3km/h tolerance when it basically goes against a federal standard.
Newer cars I understand, because the updated ADR states that the speedo must be within 10%, but must NOT read under its actual speed. My guess is this is why we have so many rolling road blocks of people doing 95km/h in the right lane on the freeway.

Righto, I'm pretty sure they have them in Vic as well - there's illuminated signs on the sides of the road, indicating 'slow down' with the speed limit - these light up if your speed is over their allocated speed allowed. When you drive past them (and I'm pretty sure they're everywhere), see what happens. If it lights up, and you're ademant you're doing the speed limit, then there's the need for calibration.

Drive a 4x4 and put larger wheels on it - the recommendation is that you get your speedo recalibrated to take into consideration the change in dynamics of your vehicle, why should it be any different for a sedan?

Perhaps you should read the following, so it's very clear in everyone's mind, what could be deemed an 'excusable offence'

http://www.trafficlaw.com.au/speedos.html

It's actually quite interesting, and highlights that 'ignorance' is not a valid excuse.

There is some thought that s.109 of the constitution will cover you in the case of a differing between state and federal laws:

'109. When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid. '

BUT - the ADR isn't a commonwealth law, and therefore not valid grounds for any kind of dispute to s.109 (no legal inconsistency at all).

As per the discussion on ADR (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roa...ign/index.aspx)

'The First Edition ADRs were distributed for discussion purposes. However, they were not adopted as a legally binding set of standards under either national or state/territory law.'

Little bit of food for thought...

ltd · 13-07-2010, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sezzy

'109. When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid. '

BUT - the ADR isn't a commonwealth law, and therefore not valid grounds for any kind of dispute to s.109 (no legal inconsistency at all).

As per the discussion on ADR (http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roa...ign/index.aspx)

'The First Edition ADRs were distributed for discussion purposes. However, they were not adopted as a legally binding set of standards under either national or state/territory law.'

Little bit of food for thought...

Nope, try again.
Look how many cases have been successfully argued and won on this basis.
In fact, Have a look at Dennis Mirallis and his track record of setting precedent in this and other similar matters.

SEZ213 · 13-07-2010, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ltd

Nope, try again.
Look how many cases have been successfully argued and won on this basis.
In fact, Have a look at Dennis Mirallis and his track record of setting precedent in this and other similar matters.

Of course he has a precedent, he's lining his pockets instead...either way the money is exiting out of your hand...

There are quite a few instances whereby this man has simply said that if you have a clean driving record of 10+ years, you can also ask for leniency.

There are several stipulations to Mr. Miralis' work - and a series of non-exemption issues...

MAD · 13-07-2010, 01:25 PM

Do you think those speed checks (which last time I went through one wasnt working) would hold any weight in court? They are in no way an accurate speed measurement. It would be like using a nightclub breathalyser to decide whether you're ok to drive.

Have you got a link or info regarding ADR's not being Commonwealth Law?

Second edition ADR's came out in 1963, Third edition were active from 1988.
The latest update to the third edition was in 2005. I imagine this is when the speedometer accuracy tolerance was changed from +-10% to +10% only. Among other things of course. (like updated vehicle safety standards)

SEZ213 · 13-07-2010, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAD

Do you think those speed checks (which last time I went through one wasnt working) would hold any weight in court? They are in no way an accurate speed measurement. It would be like using a nightclub breathalyser to decide whether you're ok to drive.

Have you got a link or info regarding ADR's not being Commonwealth Law?

Second edition ADR's came out in 1963, Third edition were active from 1988.
The latest update to the third edition was in 2005. I imagine this is when the speedometer accuracy tolerance was changed from +-10% to +10% only. Among other things of course. (like updated vehicle safety standards)

third ADR can be found here...

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roa...dr_online.aspx

and here is the actual third edition ADR summary for passenger vehicles.

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roa...March_2010.pdf

SEZ213 · 13-07-2010, 01:43 PM

In addition to that - here is the commonwealth ruling on it.

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrument1.nsf/0/3E2C9248B201A54FCA25716700806A2F/$file/ADR+18-03+%5BFINAL+FRLI%5D.pdf

In reading this, I couldn't actually find any indication of plus or minus 10%...

Section 5.3 on page 13 is interesting though, as it only seems to suggest 4km, not 10%.

vztrt · 13-07-2010, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LTDHO

If you speed, then you kill. Ha ha

This reminds me of those lame speeding ad's they played during the V8's yesterday..

Oh well, the rich get richer as always.

Thought NSW gov was broke.....would explain the need for the revenue

MAD · 13-07-2010, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sezzy

In addition to that - here is the commonwealth ruling on it.

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrument1.nsf/0/3E2C9248B201A54FCA25716700806A2F/$file/ADR+18-03+%5BFINAL+FRLI%5D.pdf

In reading this, I couldn't actually find any indication of plus or minus 10%...

Section 5.3 on page 13 is interesting though, as it only seems to suggest 4km, not 10%.

Turns out I'll have to salt my hat to give it some flavour...

The +10% is in ADR 18/01 and 18/02 which applies to vehicles made after 1/1/93 and 1/7/95 Respectively.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ADR18/01 and ADR18/02 Section 18.5.1.1.2

indicate the actual vehicle speed, for all speeds above 40km/h, to an accuracy of +10%

Cars made after 1/7/2006 must meet this new standard

Quote:

Originally Posted by ADR18/03 Section 5.3

The indicated speed shall not be less than the true speed of the vehicle. At the test speeds in paragraph 5.2.5. above, there shall be the following relationship between speed displayed (V1) and true speed (V2)
0 <= (V1-V2) <= 0.1*V2 + 4km/h

Test speeds for passenger vehicles with a top speed of greater than 150km/h are 40, 80 and 120 km/h.

0.1*40 + 4 = 8km/h (or 20%)
0.1*80 + 4 = 12km/h (or 15%)
0.1*120 + 4 = 16km/h (or 13.3%)

And for those of you with a car made after 1/7/1988

Quote:

Originally Posted by ADR18/00 Section 18.5.1.1.2

indicate the actual vehicle speed, for all speeds above 40km/h, to an accuracy of +or- 10%

TheInterceptor · 13-07-2010, 04:54 PM

Ladies and Gents!
Introducing the only get-rich-quick scheme that works in the entire world!

Invest in your own Terrisafecam or Terrisafecam co. today!

Or become a politition...by the looks of it, you wont need much at all to get in..

MAD · 13-07-2010, 04:56 PM

Since I cant eidt my above post any more, I need to add this....

It seems there are some mistakes with the latest incarnations of ADR 18/00, /01 & /02. (I knew I had read once before that my car fell into the +-10% allowance)

These three documents have all been revised in 2006, and I must have missed it before when I read it.

ADR 18/00 allows +-10%
ADR 18/01 allows +10%
ADR 18/02 allows +-10%

Someone has stuffed up.
I dare say that ADR18/01 is supposed to also read +-10%.

So with this, I am back to my original stance, that my car can be speeding whilst being 100% legal as per the required ADR.

SEZ213 · 13-07-2010, 05:00 PM

I hope you haven't eaten your hat yet!

What about ADR 18/03?

It's annex suggests the following:

In the case of vehicles of categories M and N:
0 ≤ (V1 – V2) ≤ 0.1 V2 + 6 km/h;

The whole layout of the ADR is confusing to say the least, I think I'll just stick with my previous theory on not speeding.
:P

MAD · 13-07-2010, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sezzy

I hope you haven't eaten your hat yet!

What about ADR 18/03?

It's annex suggests the following:

In the case of vehicles of categories M and N:
0 ≤ (V1 – V2) ≤ 0.1 V2 + 6 km/h;

The whole layout of the ADR is confusing to say the least, I think I'll just stick with my previous theory on not speeding.
:P

Thankfully I wasnt wearing one, and was going to wait till I got home from work.

That extra bit of info (that there is not mention of) just means that cars can be slower again compared to what the speedo is saying.

This is how bad it could be and still be acceptable by the ADR.

indicated - actual
40 - 30
80 - 66
120 - 102

I think this is dangerous. That sort of speed difference can cause major chaos.

SEZ213 · 13-07-2010, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAD

Thankfully I wasnt wearing one, and was going to wait till I got home from work.

That extra bit of info (that there is not mention of) just means that cars can be slower again compared to what the speedo is saying.

This is how bad it could be and still be acceptable by the ADR.

indicated - actual
40 - 30
80 - 66
120 - 102

I think this is dangerous. That sort of speed difference can cause major chaos.

In saying that, the only vehicles that will be affected by the ADR section (and possibly able to use this defence if fined), are those built between '88 & '93? If I read your earlier post correctly.

But I agree completely, under the speed limit causes frustrations to drivers, particularly when it's up to 18km's under the speed limit.

Ego T · 13-07-2010, 07:05 PM

There is only one reason they man these vehicles.... If they didn't have a person in them there would be a molitov cocktail thru the window in under 5 minutes.

iliov · 13-07-2010, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by snappy

I hope the ball joints fail

lmaooo repped!!

EL8TED · 13-07-2010, 07:55 PM

"cut the road toll" - HAH! more people are hooning, speeding and dying on the roads than ever before ..unless every car in the world is fitted with a GPS speed limiter this problem will never be solved and we will just keep going in circles! How many speeding fines are posted out and the people continue to drive around and build up a collection of unpaid fines .. how about putting that money into making new laws allowing the police to arrest and throw these people in jail. i bet they'd pay their fines and change their ways after a few months, years with hardened criminals.

vztrt · 13-07-2010, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EL8TED

"cut the road toll" - HAH! more people are hooning, speeding and dying on the roads than ever before ..

No they're not, its the same % (except for dying) as its always been but the media sensationalise it and then the sheep believe it so the Government can bring in tougher laws.
As for dying its much much less then it use to be. Why? Cause the cars are so much safer then they ever were. Seatbelts have done a huge job.

Fixing the roads, making the cars safer will reduce make it safer then speedo watching and revenue making.

FG XR · 13-07-2010, 09:11 PM

These are still marked aka POLICE of the front doors....

BTW anyone notice they are parked in a NO STANDING area.... should fine them!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTP 290

Ummm, this may sound a bit stupid but are you all complaining about mobile speed cameras??

Queensland have had them for many years.

Stop ya bloody crying ya bunch of girls.

Pic taken yesterday 11/7/2010 @ 1:45pm

mongoloid · 14-07-2010, 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coyote V8

These are still marked aka POLICE of the front doors....

BTW anyone notice they are parked in a NO STANDING area.... should fine them!!!

Actually the arrow on the sign is pointing left so they are ok...

I was about 8% thru writing a big diatribe about the subject but I'll just say one sentence.

The balance between the skill to safely operate a motor vehicle and the training received to operate a motor vehicle are drastically out of whack.

Addressing this should be priority #1

MAD · 14-07-2010, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sezzy

In saying that, the only vehicles that will be affected by the ADR section (and possibly able to use this defence if fined), are those built between '88 & '93? If I read your earlier post correctly.

But I agree completely, under the speed limit causes frustrations to drivers, particularly when it's up to 18km's under the speed limit.

No, it would be cars built from 1988 to 2006.
I cant find anything about the regulations before that.

2006 is when the new complicated, up to 18km/h below the speed limit, formula was brought in. The rest before that were +-10%.

GS608 · 14-07-2010, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTP 290

Ummm, this may sound a bit stupid but are you all complaining about mobile speed cameras??

Queensland have had them for many years.

Stop ya bloody crying ya bunch of girls.

Pic taken yesterday 11/7/2010 @ 1:45pm

Lucky for us those Patrols (and Pajeros) only take pics through the front window (notice no flash on the back? its on the bullbar)

The merc vans take it out the back window.

None of this multi lane multi direction bull lol

aualright · 14-07-2010, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave289

julia needs the 900 back that kev gave to every tom dick and harry so we can keep the polies wages topped up nice and high, not to mention there massive lifetime pensions,where else do you think the money is going to come from,kev spent everything in the bank. 4 kay over is a drift ,evrybody knows this sort of thing increases the road toll as they now need to watch the speedo constantly instead of watching the actual road, sorry I have not read threw the thread but just wanted to give my 2 cents worth of frustration with this sort of crap,absolute stupidity at its best and these are the tools running this country.you cant thank everybody who thought australia needed a change and voted out a perfect pm like little johnny to put a tool like krudd at the helm. the current polies dont resemble anything in the way of a leader,once again thanks to the tools that voted this tool in,hope your all happy with the crap will now cop and theres going to be a lot more where that came from.

Perhaps you should post at tories.com.

****

aualright · 14-07-2010, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 9lives

who wants to group buy a "dodgey person" to go and fire bomb them..... twenty from each person should get it done????LOL

I realise you are taking the p%&s, but there must be some concerns regarding the safety of these 'officers'. Especially if they are deemed to be positioned unfairly.

****