You poor Victorians!

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by HYPOG6

1000 a year in the 60's/70's against 300 a year now considering the population growth is a massive amount.

It is actually hard to fathom. In those days it is a suprise that the news at 6pm didn't go for an hour just to deal with the fatalities for the day...

Amazing figures.

You'll find the biggest drop in the road toll was from the introduction of having to wear your seat belt. You'll find as the cars get safer and roads are safer (removal of blind spots, barriers for sharp bends) the road toll will reduce or stay the same with more poeple on our roads.

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by new2ford

The problem with speed limit conditioning Big Trev is that it takes attention away from concentrating on driving in drivers less skilled than yourself.

Not all all, as I have been trained properly and I used to train others the same way, maybe that is why I have an air of arrogance about me when it comes to the driving task, I have been trained by the best and have passed that training on to hundreds of others. :

[Trevor 57]

Interesting facts here:


Crash location data

Rural roads are over represented in road fatalities; and historically, have accounted for, over half of all road fatalities, while only 28% of the population lives in rural Victoria.

In 2008 however, rural Victoria recorded its lowest ever road toll, representing 45% of deaths in Victoria.
Location Killed (2008)
Melbourne 166
Rural Victoria 137
Unknown 0
Total 303

http://www.tacsafety.com.au/jsp/cont...ll&pageID=1519

[Trevor 57]

Another good link

http://www.monash.edu.au/pubs/monmag...oll-graph.html

[Outbackjack]

We all know its about the money, so dont pay. Get your hands on the aussie speeding fines info and get out of it.

edit.... is already been posted.

[zdcol71]

Originally Posted by Professor Farnsworth

the irony is the last time i heard, ADR allowed for 10% inaccuracy either way. So at 100 indicated you could be doing anywhere from 90 to 110km/h. Yet the legal tolerance is 3km/h which at 100km/h is 3%, not 10% like the ADR's approve. IRONY? yes, yes it is. Hypocrisy? that's more appropriate, but what can ya do. But yes most of the time they over read. Not sure if that rule still aplies either.

So the point is here, .... this is a perfect example of what to do if you are not happy wth current legislation. ADR legislation says one thing, coppers say something else(and we all know it's not the coppers who say something else),a prosecutor states something against you in a court of law..(that prosecutor is invariably a copper), a copper who has to take time off work to persue his agenda,(if he gets it wrong ,it's a shift he's lost) in front of a beak who is not neccessarily favourable to the cop, if he hasn't got it spot on, he risks being just as severely reprimanded for getting the charge wrong as you would be if he actually got it right!!.Revenue raising isn't all one way traffic with no recourse to challenge if you feel it is all too "why me"!!!

[Trevor 57]

Prof is wrong with his info on 10% either way. He admitted as much in a later post.

[zdcol71]

Originally Posted by Big Trev

Prof is wrong with his info on 10% either way. He admitted as much in a later post.

So trev, the point is I am on your side 100%!!
I am unconvinced that there is any need to be upset about being fined, caught out , or otherwise punished for something you do wrong, unless you really believe it is unjust and you have a legitimate avenue to question the unfairness of what you have been pinged for

[4Vman]

Im glad the internet wasn't around in the early 70's... Imagine the uproar and hundreds of hate threads from people complaining about their freedoms being impinged upon and how stupid it is when seat belts were made compulsory........

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Im glad the internet wasn't around in the early 70's... Imagine the uproar and hundreds of hate threads from people complaining about their freedoms being impinged upon and how stupid it is when seat belts were made compulsory........

One of my workmates remembers complaining about it being compulsory to carry his license on him while driving, also when seatbelts became mandatory.

[Trevor 57]

I was around in the times, paper base drivers licence that had to sent away to get any endorsements added to them.

I lost heaps of mates to motor vehicle crashes in the late 60's early 70's.

My father was the only policeman on Phillip Island from 1962 to 1974 when a Sargeant joined him there, we lived at the Police Station, and I vividly remember my father going to car crashes where good mates of mine and my brothers were killed in car crashes.

The day I went for my licence, 10 Feb 1975, it was a Monday, during the licence test, I drove arond town for a bit, then off to the Ampol Service Station in the main street of Cowes where the policeman who was taking me for my licence showed me a car in which a number of people had died on the Staurday night before. That was my education into driving safely, I vividly remember the car, the damage, the blood and the smell, all during my licence test.

[GT290]

Originally Posted by Big Trev

I was around in the times, paper base drivers licence that had to sent away to get any endorsements added to them.

I lost heaps of mates to motor vehicle crashes in the late 60's early 70's.

My father was the only policeman on Phillip Island from 1962 to 1974 when a Sargeant joined him there, we lived at the Police Station, and I vividly remember my father going to car crashes where good mates of mine and my brothers were killed in car crashes.

The day I went for my licence, 10 Feb 1975, it was a Monday, during the licence test, I drove arond town for a bit, then off to the Ampol Service Station in the main street of Cowes where the policeman who was taking me for my licence showed me a car in which a number of people had died on the Staurday night before. That was my education into driving safely, I vividly remember the car, the damage, the blood and the smell, all during my licence test.

Hey, thanks for sharing that mate. It reinforces the need for this type of thing to be shown to young would be drivers. It should be shown from a young age untill they get the picture firmly embossed onto their impressionable minds.

[TheZHLANE]

drop 5

[JC]

Originally Posted by [Tonko]

Doubt it, i tried on the old mans behalf.
Apparently he was doing 120 in a 90 zone in a 35 y.o landcruiser towing 2 tonne of furniture. No fines in 30 years... They just say pay it or else.

120 in a 90 zone is not low range speeding - it's excessive speeding and nearly loss of license stuff in Vic.

[JC]

Originally Posted by Big Trev

You have to understand how it works here, the infringement notice said 106, it was most likely they got her at 111 by HER speedo, allowing for the 5% inaccuracy (slow) all speedo's have - hmmm, 111 (by the speedo) in a 100 zone.

More like 111 in a 105 by the speedo zone. You can't apply the 5% only to one side of the equation. So same as 106 in 100 zone.

In the ACT, fixed and mobile cameras and radar are set to speed limit +10% +1. You do speed + 10%, you may get booked, but add 1, and you WILL get booked. Only time you'll get done for say 2 or 3 km/h over is if the walloper is having a bad day, or you are being stupid, or you are driving over the speed limit in fog or other bad weather conditions.

ACT's road toll is one of the lowest per capita in Australia. Interestingly, more ACT people die on interstate roads than actually in the ACT - probably too busy looking at the speedo worried about getting fined in less lenient states to see the traffic and what's happening in front of them.

[JC]

Originally Posted by DJL351

I take it you've never seen a speedo run fast then?

What if she was doing 99 in a 100 zone, but the speedo is out 10% the other way.....
That would see the road speed being close to 109 - more than enough to get busted by fixed cameras in most states.

If your speedo reads low (ie actual speed is more than what the speedo says), then the car doesn't comply with ADRs and you either make allowance for it, or get it fixed so it reads right. No excuse really. Our Terry is around 3km/h over at 100, due to 2+ tyre size we are currently running, but we know that, se we sit on 100 in most states except vic, where we sit on 95 by the speedo.

My other car (the AU) is actually doing 97 when the speedo says 100 (as measured by GPS), so I sit on 105, knowing that even in the "Go slow, it will save your life rubbish" state (Vic) I'm safe from being booked (because I'm really travelling at 102 or thereabouts).

With 20+ (nearly 25 - I hate getting old!) years of driving, and no speeding fines since 1994, I figure if they pull me over and book me for 2 over, I'll wear it, or write in. If I get done by a speed camera at the same speed, I will definitely write in.

Remember, speed does not kill (though the sudden stop from 100 might). Inappropriate speed may contribute to losing control of a car, and ultimately death, but in and of itself, speed does not kill, it is simply distance over time and any time you move, you have some sort of speed.

[JC]

Originally Posted by Professor Farnsworth

looked like straight out state bashing to me which i've always detested. (ala the whole sydney v melbourne thing). Anyway i think you'll find the majority of users here are from victoria anyway, so prepare for a verbal barrage if you choose that path.

What a sweeping statement that is. The mods may all be from Vic (as far as I know), but with 30,000 or whatever members, I'd almost say that Vics may be in the minority, not the majority; ie I reckon there would be more non-Victorian members than Victorian members (wonder if anyone can verify this, just for interest's sake). I'm Victorian by birth, but would never live there due to the draconian road laws. I miss the footy but!

And what's all the hoo hah about state bashing; we wouldn't be Aussies if we didn't cut down the tall poppy's, argue with the righteous, and take the P-word out of each other! Take a chill pill - or perhaps a Melbourne bitter is more to your liking?.

[GT290]

Originally Posted by STANI

drop 5

Sorry mate but I hate that rediclouse add saying that. Drop five and survive. Its bull, Ive said it bafor and I will say it again, manners, common curtosy and all the good old values that seem to have been thrown out the window would go along way to making the roads safer.

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by JC

More like 111 in a 105 by the speedo zone. You can't apply the 5% only to one side of the equation. So same as 106 in 100 zone.

In the ACT, fixed and mobile cameras and radar are set to speed limit +10% +1. You do speed + 10%, you may get booked, but add 1, and you WILL get booked. Only time you'll get done for say 2 or 3 km/h over is if the walloper is having a bad day, or you are being stupid, or you are driving over the speed limit in fog or other bad weather conditions.

ACT's road toll is one of the lowest per capita in Australia. Interestingly, more ACT people die on interstate roads than actually in the ACT - probably too busy looking at the speedo worried about getting fined in less lenient states to see the traffic and what's happening in front of them.

That is fantastic in Canberra, but Victoria is NOT Canberra, here the cameras are set to get 3 kilomteres over the speed limit, no if, no buts.

This topic is about Victoria, if you want to discuss USA, Europe, Canberra, then start another thread.

[SVD]

Originally Posted by Big Trev

That is fantastic in Canberra, but Victoria is NOT Canberra, here the cameras are set to get 3 kilomteres over the speed limit, no if, no buts.

This topic is about Victoria, if you want to discuss USA, Europe, Canberra, then start another thread.

but how is 3 km's a world ending event! 5-10km's i can understand but 3?! it is getting to the point where it will be if you are on the limit you are speeding! At 100km's 3 will not make a difference, not one shred of difference, it'll have an impact at <50-60 so i can understand, but at >60 those 3km's will not change squat diddly.

by having camera's set at less then 5km over 60 is just revenue raising, clear and simple. Hands up everyone, who has been on a freeway, when you look down you are doing 95/100 then you look back 1-2minutes later and your on 105-110 at such high speeds on freeways the change in speed is so nominal you just don't notice.

besides with stationary camera's being well known position wise thanks to GPS units any one with 1/4 of a brain who wants to speed can speed in between those two points and with the lack of police on the roads will get away with it, and possibly crash or more then likely survive their 3km over the limit terrorist attack on society

[SVD]

Originally Posted by Big Trev

That is fantastic in Canberra, but Victoria is NOT Canberra, here the cameras are set to get 3 kilomteres over the speed limit, no if, no buts.

This topic is about Victoria, if you want to discuss USA, Europe, Canberra, then start another thread.

exactly, if Victoria was Canberra the government here would be broke :

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by SVD

but how is 3 km's a world ending event! 5-10km's i can understand but 3?! it is getting to the point where it will be if you are on the limit you are speeding! At 100km's 3 will not make a difference, not one shred of difference, it'll have an impact at <50-60 so i can understand, but at >60 those 3km's will not change squat diddly.

by having camera's set at less then 5km over 60 is just revenue raising, clear and simple. Hands up everyone, who has been on a freeway, when you look down you are doing 95/100 then you look back 1-2minutes later and your on 105-110 at such high speeds on freeways the change in speed is so nominal you just don't notice.

It has a huge impact





on the Governments bootom line (which I confess I have not contributed to in over 15 years, in fact I can't remember the last, I reckon if I can do it, others must be able too, mind you I have been lucky)

Originally Posted by SVD

Besides with stationary camera's being well known position wise thanks to GPS units any one with 1/4 of a brain who wants to speed can speed in between those two points and with the lack of police on the roads will get away with it, and possibly crash or more then likely survive their 3km over the limit terrorist attack on society

There are point to point speed detection devices on the Hume Highway from Broadford in the North to Craigieburn (in the South).

These devices pick up people who slow down for the cameras, then speed up to the next camera, this device measures time over distance, and it works, a mate of mine has been booked by it.

[JC]

Originally Posted by Big Trev

That is fantastic in Canberra, but Victoria is NOT Canberra, here the cameras are set to get 3 kilomteres over the speed limit, no if, no buts.

This topic is about Victoria, if you want to discuss USA, Europe, Canberra, then start another thread.

The point is, that Canberra is Not Victoria, and I was offering a comparison for how the speed limits are policed here, and how that, on the face of it, affects the road toll etc. Of course, if you are only interested in keeping your 3km/h tolerance (actually, 2km/h tolerance - at 3 you're booked), then don't ever look outside your own state for examples of what works elsewhere.

[SVD]

Originally Posted by Big Trev

There are point to point speed detection devices on the Hume Highway from Broadford in the North to Craigieburn (in the South).

These devices pick up people who slow down for the cameras, then speed up to the next camera, this device measures time over distance, and it works, a mate of mine has been booked by it.

yeh but are they every where other stationary camera's are? and they can be gotten around, take a few side streets etc... and bam, gone.

[JC]

Originally Posted by SVD

yeh but are they every where other stationary camera's are? and they can be gotten around, take a few side streets etc... and bam, gone.

How do you "take a few side streets" on a highway? And if you could, and actually did that, what would be the point of speeding in the first place, if you're prepared to take the slower side streets? You need to rethink your logic a bit.

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by JC

The point is, that Canberra is Not Victoria, and I was offering a comparison for how the speed limits are policed here, and how that, on the face of it, affects the road toll etc. Of course, if you are only interested in keeping your 3km/h tolerance (actually, 2km/h tolerance - at 3 you're booked), then don't ever look outside your own state for examples of what works elsewhere.

Looking outside is pointless as the Victorian Government is sticking with this (for the time being) so looking elsewhere is pointless.

Also pointless is you post, as we had speed limits based on 10% but the Government did away with them.

I can't see a change of Government going back to 10% either, the revenue is too great.

As I have also said, it doesn't affect me as I don't speed.

The police in cars allow 10%, it is the fixed camera's and the camera cars that are set at 3km/h

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by SVD

yeh but are they every where other stationary camera's are? and they can be gotten around, take a few side streets etc... and bam, gone.

Yes you can take side streets, through Broadford, Kilmore, Wallan, down the old Hume Highway - then arrive at your destination 20 minutes after you would have if you sat on the limit on the "Freeway".

And it is good to see you being so law conscious - LOL

[SVD]

Originally Posted by JC

How do you "take a few side streets" on a highway? And if you could, and actually did that, what would be the point of speeding in the first place, if you're prepared to take the slower side streets? You need to rethink your logic a bit.

no its not the point im getting at, firstly im in tasmania so it doesn't affect me, secondly the point im trying to raise is, IF people wanted to speed there are always ways to get around the camera's point to point or otherwise. since when did everyone speed to get to places faster?

[TattooedXF]

Originally Posted by SVD

IF people wanted to speed there are always ways to get around the camera's point to point or otherwise. since when did everyone speed to get to places faster?

I do the long haul up and down the eastern seaboard and us truckies have to put up with the point to point camera's or "saftey cams" and yes there is ways around them ... a looooooooong way. I know down there on the approach to Melb this could be a lot easier but the boys in blue and the RTA set up the highway Pt 2 Pt Cams so if you want to go around them it takes you a long way out of your way ....

IMO that if ya gonna do that, you have a few screws loose ......

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by TattooedXF

I do the long haul up and down the eastern seaboard and us truckies have to put up with the point to point camera's or "saftey cams" and yes there is ways around them ... a looooooooong way. I know down there on the approach to Melb this could be a lot easier but the boys in blue and the RTA set up the highway Pt 2 Pt Cams so if you want to go around them it takes you a long way out of your way ....

IMO that if ya gonna do that, you have a few screws loose ......

Why would anyone want to go around them? surely it isnt that hard to just set the cruise control at a speed that keeps you out of harms way...
FAR less stressful not worrying about getting booked too...