Top cop nabbed

[outback_ute]

Originally Posted by GT Falcon

It failed. By keeping his speeding infringement secret in an attempt to not undermine his road safety messages they failed in their approach. People died on the road.

/Snip

You're argument is about as rediculous as the "cost of inaction is greater than the cost of action" trash spewed out by our PM in his case for AGW action. Lies.

No he is arguing that you can't say what effect on the road safety campaign it would have had if the speeding fine had been made public in late November or early December. People dying on the road does not mean the campaign did not work - nothing will ever prevent all accidents, so it is disingenuous to use that argument.

Personally I don't have any reason to doubt him. I heard him explain it in a radio interview and it is understandable why he did what he did, he even said he knew he would be hammered when it was eventually made public but was willing to wear that rather than risk distracting from the holiday road safety message. Don't forget that he wrote the article in the paper, it was not "uncovered".

He also said that although he was eligible to have the ticket downgraded to a warning due to his clean driving record, he did not seek that due to his position. Yes he 'shouldn't' speed, but he is human after all.

It is arguable what effect it may have had if they came out on the front foot and did and ad along the lines of "they caught me, they will catch you". Perhaps they could use that for the next campaign.

I think some of the problem is the language he has used has been over the top, as if he wants to avoid any criticism that he takes it seriously, but in doing so he has taken it too far. Eg the "I can't remember it, so I must have been tired/not concentrating" - given that he didn't intend to speed there was no conscious action to remember! Not to mention that driving through Tooboorac is not something that sticks in your mind.... (no offence to any residents!).

Then the whole "lucky I didn't crash and die" - I'd say that paying no attention to the speedo, he drove at a speed he was comfortable with, it was hardly an 'excessive' speed. Perhaps an illustration that speed limits in Vic are often on the low side of what is 'safe' or what most people would drive at.

I've driven through Tooboorac plenty of times, and I would say you actually have to consciously stick to the 70 limit - it is not 'natural'.

It is a pretty small town, not much more than a 'dot on the map', and I'd be surprised if there were 100 people in the town. There is a 70km/h speed limit for roughly 1.5km through the town, but the thing is that on one side of the road there is a service road for the few houses and the pub and cafe are set a long way back. On the other side there is a hillside with a handful of rough driveways (being generous) to half a dozen or so houses on very large allotments. It is barely "built-up".

There is frequently a speed camera set up on the southbound side of the road and if you miss that you are either not concentrating or not looking - both applied to Ken Lay.

[Romulus]

The advertising campaign paid for by tax payers about 'wiping 5', and Ken Lay's excuse to withold his infringement from the public is disingenuous. Whether or not the public know about his infringement is irrelevent; the message from the TAC doesn't reduce the road toll. He knows it, he is being disingenuous. That he carries on like a quivering fool after the fact simply exacerbates the lie.

[jcxr]

Originally Posted by outback_ute

No he is arguing that you can't say what effect on the road safety campaign it would have had if the speeding fine had been made public in late November or early December. People dying on the road does not mean the campaign did not work - nothing will ever prevent all accidents, so it is disingenuous to use that argument.

Personally I don't have any reason to doubt him. I heard him explain it in a radio interview and it is understandable why he did what he did, he even said he knew he would be hammered when it was eventually made public but was willing to wear that rather than risk distracting from the holiday road safety message. Don't forget that he wrote the article in the paper, it was not "uncovered".

He also said that although he was eligible to have the ticket downgraded to a warning due to his clean driving record, he did not seek that due to his position. Yes he 'shouldn't' speed, but he is human after all.

It is arguable what effect it may have had if they came out on the front foot and did and ad along the lines of "they caught me, they will catch you". Perhaps they could use that for the next campaign.

I think some of the problem is the language he has used has been over the top, as if he wants to avoid any criticism that he takes it seriously, but in doing so he has taken it too far. Eg the "I can't remember it, so I must have been tired/not concentrating" - given that he didn't intend to speed there was no conscious action to remember! Not to mention that driving through Tooboorac is not something that sticks in your mind.... (no offence to any residents!).

Then the whole "lucky I didn't crash and die" - I'd say that paying no attention to the speedo, he drove at a speed he was comfortable with, it was hardly an 'excessive' speed. Perhaps an illustration that speed limits in Vic are often on the low side of what is 'safe' or what most people would drive at.

I've driven through Tooboorac plenty of times, and I would say you actually have to consciously stick to the 70 limit - it is not 'natural'.

It is a pretty small town, not much more than a 'dot on the map', and I'd be surprised if there were 100 people in the town. There is a 70km/h speed limit for roughly 1.5km through the town, but the thing is that on one side of the road there is a service road for the few houses and the pub and cafe are set a long way back. On the other side there is a hillside with a handful of rough driveways (being generous) to half a dozen or so houses on very large allotments. It is barely "built-up".

There is frequently a speed camera set up on the southbound side of the road and if you miss that you are either not concentrating or not looking - both applied to Ken Lay.

The township is on a down hill run heading towards Heathcote, and is its easy to be over the limit coming into town, and REAL easy if you are towing a race car or something. The other way, its a little on an incline, so I really think that you should really be on your guard on the approach side heading to Kilmore. Ken has had a really snivelling [spl] reply from this whole thing and we havent heard much about this really. Is their reply, just let it to let it run its course?

[balthazarr]

If his driving record is as clean as he claims, why didn't/hasn't he requested a formal warning? :

[outback_ute]

Originally Posted by GT Falcon

Whether or not the public know about his infringement is irrelevent;

I thought it was the issue here - whether he revealed it straight away or sat on it until after Christmas.

Originally Posted by GT Falcon

the message from the TAC doesn't reduce the road toll.

Completely separate issue.

Incidentally recent road toll figures 2007 - 332, 2008 - 303, 2009 - 295. Despite that I agree with you, speed is not the critical factor in most fatal crashes but rather alcohol, fatigue, not wearing seatbelts, etc. I think they need to move the focus away from just road deaths to serious injury and get into better, more informative ads to educate drivers in what they should be doing on the road instead of treating drivers as idiots with over-simplistic messages. And driver training of course. Getting into bashing head against brick wall territory here.

jc yes heading south there is a small rise after the intersection with the road from Seymour (70km/h limit commences on north side of the intersection), but it doesn't do a lot to slow you from 100. We haven't heard much about it because there is now tennis on etc, the media have moved on, it drops past the first 5 pages of the paper, they stop running letters to the editor and it is forgotten about.

balthazarr he said that he didn't think it would be appropriate for someone in his position to make use of that provision. Plus I think the $ and points aren't the end of the world for him really. (it is only when they start to stack up that you worry about it!)

[Trendseeker]

He's supposed to be a role model, and the punishment for role models usually far exceeds the penalty handed out to punters.

When a High Court judge told a lie to avoid a speeding fine, he was sent to jail.

When a Rugby League player urinated on a wall, he was handed a $10,000 fine.

When the public face of a speeding campaign gets caught speeding, he should get more that a slap on the wrist. His excuses were poor to say the least.

What a coincidence that he waited until the Haiti earthquake hit the news before he announced his indiscretion. How convenient that the story ended up on page 18 of the newspaper.

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by outback_ute

I thought it was the issue here - whether he revealed it straight away or sat on it until after Christmas.

My mistake. What I meant to say was whether or not it was revealed before of after the Christmas break would have no effect on the road toll. His reasoning for the delay in revealing his infringement is a furfy.

Originally Posted by outback_ute

Completely separate issue.

Incidentally recent road toll figures 2007 - 332, 2008 - 303, 2009 - 295. Despite that I agree with you, speed is not the critical factor in most fatal crashes but rather alcohol, fatigue, not wearing seatbelts, etc. I think they need to move the focus away from just road deaths to serious injury and get into better, more informative ads to educate drivers in what they should be doing on the road instead of treating drivers as idiots with over-simplistic messages. And driver training of course. Getting into bashing head against brick wall territory here.

Agree with you here. Where the government has been successful in reducing the road toll with the introduction of random breath testing.

[balthazarr]

Originally Posted by outback_ute

...
balthazarr he said that he didn't think it would be appropriate for someone in his position to make use of that provision. Plus I think the $ and points aren't the end of the world for him really. (it is only when they start to stack up that you worry about it!)

My comment was a little tongue-in-cheek, but having another think about it, why would it be inappropriate to use such a provision?

The basic premise of our system of governance is the paramountcy of the rule of law - the law applies equally to everyone.

The law allows a discretion to give drivers with a good record a warning in place of fines/demerit points. Clearly, if his record is as clean as he says, he would qualify.

Politically, of course, it would be suicide.

Switching tacks - it's great that the road toll has been steadily reducing from its high in the '70s. But it irritates me that the governments (particularly in recent times) are using this fact to "prove" that their "safety cameras" are working to reduce the road toll.

There are so many factors contributing to the reduction in the road toll - improved car design (DSC, Air bags, crumple zones, etc.), improved road design, increased focus on drink & drug driving, speed, etc.

Speed is one factor. To credit the reduction in the road toll to the 'safety cameras' is simplistic and disingenuous and using it to blanket roads with these cameras is BS.

If it was really about safety, we'd have a higher police presence - Victoria currently has the lowest police presence of any state in Australia.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/fe...0128-n1pu.html