QLD 1KM over Only Applies in the 60km speed zone!!!!!

[noosacuda]

Oh-but-it-is-not-revenue-rai$ing-at-all. Trust us, we're the Government and are concerned for your safety......

[TRAU BLAU]

Just got a $146 fine for doing 50 at a sudden road-works 40 speed zone.Must be special mobile cameras for the the construction jobs.

[Franco Cozzo]

My Focus C/C works as low as 40km/h, so I use it in school zones, construction zones etc rather than trying to maintain a slow speed so I don't get booked.

The speedo on the Focus seems to be out, but it differs depending on the speed, at 60km/h indicated its actually 58 on the camera GPS, at 100km/h indicated its 94 on the camera GPS.

[2011G6E]

Too many people still have the mistaken idea that if they put cruise control on, the car simply will not, can not, will never, go over the figure you have it set on. I know several places between here and Rocky where the cruise will, according to the GPS, let the car run five kph or so over the limit I have set. All it takes is a hill followed by a drop in the road...the car has sped up to maintain speed up the hill, and yes, it reacts going downhill, but usually not quickly enough.
This isn't just our new Triton...the G6E used to do it too, and the Landcruiser before that. It's simple geography combined with the limitations of cruise control and the fact that it doesn't apply the brakes to keep the car speed down on a hill.

One kph is just stupid...even if you set your cruise to, say, 58kph, then all it takes is a down grade in the road and I just about guarantee that you'll go over the limit...maybe by 1kph, but that's enough now.

And speed zones...the sign says 60, 80, 100, whatever...that should be the speed I should be allowed to sit on...not "up to" that speed...it says "100". Yes, that's the limit, but it's the speed I am allowed to sit on.


Older cars are an interesting point...anything built before what was it, 2006?, is allowed by ADR's to have 10% plus or minus on it's speedo. Luckily my '82 Celica reads fast, so a genuine 100kph shows as 105 on the speedo, according to the GPS. Doesn't this mean there should be two "tolerances" shown by cops? One for cars built before, and one for cars built after, the ADR's changed?

The Plod says it's up to you to "use all methods possible to ensure your speedo is correct".
No. It. Isn't.
I buy a large expensive machine, with a gauge that indicates, apparently, the speed that vehicle is moving. I should be able to trust that the manufacturer has got it at least mostly right and rely solely on that gauge...I shouldn't be obligated to go and buy a GPS just to "double check". This is why allowances were there in the first place.

Oh...and anyone who thinks GPS is 100% absolutely accurate might be in for a surprise if they did a bit of reading...

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

if they did a bit of reading...

Well if you actually read the thread you would have seen that the 1k over is not over 60, its over the existing tolerance, so that could be 63+1, 64+1 etc.
So your 58+ a downhill creep over 5k will still be within the tolerance

As for your uphill/downhill cruise control scenario, you are quite correct, however, this must indicate that both your G6E and Cruiser are POS, as when I mentioned my VRX doing that, this was the information I was given.

[Ben73]

So 60 is the most common limit to break, and they want to make that the one with lower tolerances? lol pathetic.
So 40 school zones are safer place to break the limit slightly?

If the tolorance was really too high, they would reduce it at all limits, not just the one to make them the most money.

[MAD]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Older cars are an interesting point...anything built before what was it, 2006?, is allowed by ADR's to have 10% plus or minus on it's speedo. Luckily my '82 Celica reads fast, so a genuine 100kph shows as 105 on the speedo, according to the GPS. Doesn't this mean there should be two "tolerances" shown by cops? One for cars built before, and one for cars built after, the ADR's changed?

The Plod says it's up to you to "use all methods possible to ensure your speedo is correct".
No. It. Isn't.
I buy a large expensive machine, with a gauge that indicates, apparently, the speed that vehicle is moving. I should be able to trust that the manufacturer has got it at least mostly right and rely solely on that gauge...I shouldn't be obligated to go and buy a GPS just to "double check". This is why allowances were there in the first place.

Beating a dead horse here. I've been over this so many times.

There's another line that says something like, "you do not need to intentionally break the law to be guilty". Not those words but something to that effect.
This makes sense for things like; not knowing what speed zone you are in; not knowing what time of day it is for school zones.
But when the ability to abide by a law is directly linked to the accuracy of the supplied measuring device, it's a load of BS.


Apparently we should all simply learn our car's accuracy and make our own adjustments, or spend more money on gadgets to make the investment slightly more accurate.

It can't be that hard to remember that it's accurate at 60, 4kph over at 70, 2kph over at 80, and 7kph over at 100. [/sarccasm]
Needle gauges don't have the same accuracy over the range. Mine does something similar to this compared to the car's digital readout. I can't remember the exact amounts, but it is not the same discrepancy over the whole dial. I haven't tested accuracy above 110 though.

[FGII-XR6]

the only problem I see here is the inaccuracy caused by tyre wear and pressure . anyone pinged for 2 Ks over will win if they take it to court with a defence of " my speedo said 60 the speedo must be out but may still within the 10% allowed by the ADRs . bear in mind ADRs are a federal not state law and as such trump the state law in court

[MAD]

When your tyres wear down the speed shown will be higher than actual, so that won't be an excuse. Same if your tyre pressures are down.

Also, ADR's do not stand up as evidence. I don't know the full explanation of it, but they are not accepted as 'law' like that. But the car manufacturers 'must' meet them when building a car.
This is why it's a big steaming pile.

[FGII-XR6]

Originally Posted by MAD

When your tyres wear down the speed shown will be higher than actual, so that won't be an excuse. Same if your tyre pressures are down.

Also, ADR's do not stand up as evidence. I don't know the full explanation of it, but they are not accepted as 'law' like that. But the car manufacturers 'must' meet them when building a car.
This is why it's a big steaming pile.

ADRs have been used as a defence but the Driver must claim the were led to believe they were within the limit by a faulty speedo and the offence must be within the tolerance allowed for the vehicle they were driving. With cars made in the last few years the ADRs state the indicated speed has an allowable tolerance of 10%over the actual speed but must not read under the actual speed of the vehicle. with older cars the ADRs state the speedo must be accurate to plus or minus 10%

[MAD]

The ADR for vehicles built after 2006 is not 10% only, it's 10% +6km/h for a passenger vehicle.

I'm not sure about ADR's as defence in other states, but in VIC it's a different story.


There's some really good info on this page.
http://www.trafficlaw.com.au/speedos.html

[TRAU BLAU]

Originally Posted by westy73

I thought when we were driving a car the idea was to be alert. More constant gazing at the speedo especially in hilly areas means more time spent not watching the road. I for one would still prefer to be done over the speed limit if I can watch the road for any hazards.
I think bureaucrats need a limit to the amount of stupidity they are allowed to enforce on us plebs.

I entirely agree.Speed signs that come & go[road-works etc]are a real worry.Prior to recently receiving a fine for exceeding a 40k limit I thought I saw a worker pointing a radar gun at me hidden behind construction gear.Going uphill in me ol' wagon on the Kuranda range road,concentrating on keeping left from the sweeping semi's & negotiating bends I've got to forget all that & just watch closely for temporary speed-signs & my speedometer!Also traffic infringements[fines etc]should be sent to the vehicle registration address & not the residential address if their mail is sent there!

[TRAU BLAU]

Originally Posted by steve.zissou

do you guys know how slow 1kmh is.

FFS stephen hawkings could run faster than 1kmh.

Hows this for an idea, becuase the speed limit was 60 kmph 30 years ago when cars had drum breaks and cross ply tyres and no crumple zones - well now they have all this extra stuff why dont they leave the speed limit at 60 and give every one a 10% buffer as opposed to making the speed limit 65km/ph which is what they should do becuase the cars are all safer

or if they really wanted to be d!^cks about why dont they drop the limit down to 55 and have a 10% buffer - oh that right because that wouldnt fit their "bendover and take it" financial model.

I have full points, havnt had an accident in 15 years and actually pay attention and drive to conditions - which may entail driving 30 kms over the speed limit in certain places.

the only concession i give there bs artists is that if you are paying attention to the road, you should be able to see even a well hidden speed camera (hence my full points)

I would like to see the statistics on percentages of accident caused by going 2 km over the limit (I dare say none)

Yes,that's the trouble with the LAW!The people who do the right thing[usually,& always when it's safe to do so]tend to get "shafted" or penalised along with the hoons & idiots.I s'pose it boils down to the "can't live with 'em can't live without em' saying.

[MAD]

I found another interesting read regarding speeding, concentration, and ADR's in the mix.

http://www.adrawa.com.au/Speedometer%20Accuracy.pdf

[KobiXR6T]

What a bump!

Covert operations here all the time. Hiding in bushes etc, but the number 1 place seems to be leading up or during overtake lanes and even better on downhills, in 60km/h zones.

Nice windy road, 60km/h speed limit, around a corner into an overtake that runs maybe 300M at best and the service hiding in the bushes before the next corner. What hope do you have of even passing a car that came around the 1st corner doing sub 50. This morning knowing this place is a hot spot I had the slower car in front pull left to allow me to pass. Trying to balance passing the vehicle and not exceeding the speedlimit is a challenge. You also can't tell if the dark clothed officer is in the rainforest until at least half way down the overtake (which they were). Their car is well out of sight.

So is the threshold/tolerance for a 60zone still 69km?

[Storme93]

The heading for this is entirely wrong, the speed limit is down 1km/h from the old tolerance as a few people have stated, having worked on a few camera cars through work I know that as of now the tolerance for a 60km/h zone in QLD is 66km/h, lucky to be able to work on it and memorise all of the tolerences as they are all different for varying speed limit areas

[blackf6]

Well, let the cat out of the bag. What is the tolerances over the entire speed zones bud?

[MercurySilver]

Originally Posted by xxx000

like they say people need to treat all posted speed limits as that, the limit, and not as the speed to travel at.
it really isn't that hard to deal with and adjust to surely?
If all limits were raised by 10kmh I'd expect some would still complain when they got caught still doing a few km/h over the new limit

are you one of those people thats does 40kmh in a 60 zone and 80 to 90 in a 100kmh zone?


this one kmh over is a joke
we all know it
theres about 5 things that could effect the car by a couple of kmh

so we are all to do ten under the limit now??

[Storme93]

Originally Posted by DeJaVu GT

Well, let the cat out of the bag. What is the tolerances over the entire speed zones bud?

All in KM/H
40 = 45
50 = 55
60 = 66
70 = 76
80 = 87
90 = 98
100 = 109
110 = 110

These are the tolerances for fixed camera cars, I have no idea if the same applies for patrol cars and 24hr cameras

You're all lucky I am a generous man

[Storme93]

Oh and I meant 120 in a 110 zone haha

[TRAU BLAU]

$200 fine for 1km over.Happy Christmas from the traffic cops!

[CyberWasp]

Some how in some way, in the near future a car company is going to get sued because someone will get booked with their cruise control on, set at the legal speed limit, driving down a hill or something.

[GCRXR6]

Originally Posted by MercurySilver

are you one of those people thats does 40kmh in a 60 zone and 80 to 90 in a 100kmh zone?


this one kmh over is a joke
we all know it
theres about 5 things that could effect the car by a couple of kmh

so we are all to do ten under the limit now??

So...what's your problem Merc...can't get used to the idea that a speed limit is just that.."A limit". There is absolutely no rule, written nor implied, that states that you must travel at the limit. You can drive at what ever speed you like, as long as you don't exceed that limit. You can, of course attract attention if you travel and an unreasonably slow speed. So xxxOOO has the right to travel at 90 in a 100 k zone if he or she dam well chooses to do so.
Oh yeah...in case you wonder..I choose to travel at the limit....when safe to do so.

[noflac52]

The problem with travelling at 10 to 20 klm under the limit is, that apart from being pigheadedness just because its legal to do so, it introduces major speed disparity between vehicles on the same piece of roadway which has been proven on many occasions to create a much higher danger level and higher chance of accident than many vehicles travelling at the same speed regardless if it is on the limit under the limit or above the limit.

The thing about travelling at the limit when it is safe to do so is that nearly all the time it is actually safe to do so. So when conditions are right and drivers continually drive slowly regardless of conditions they impart a level of impatience in the other, majority of drivers who wish to sit on the limit. This creates a higher danger level which is totally unnecessary and the slow driver is the sole reason for this situation arising.

As you said it is completely legal to sit 20klm under the limit but it is also just as legal to sit on the limit so why do these drivers continually hold the traffic to ransom just because its legal. The bottom line is that if you want to go slow you are not in a hurry so why not pull over and stop to let any build up of traffic past?

[GCRXR6]

Mmm nofalc, There are some errors in your beliefs. 10 or 20klm under is definitely not a danger to a vehicle approaching from behind, if the approaching driver is alert and making correct assessment. True, a driver choosing to travel slower should definately make efforts, when safe, to allow following traffic pass....a heck of a lot don't. A driver travelling slower can not impart a level of impatience on another...impatience is a response initiated and controlled by an individual. We can't blame others for our own response. I'm not so sure that some one travelling under the limit is being pigheaded. There may be one of many reasons for travelling slower.

[TRAU BLAU]

Conforming is the name of the game.We've all gotta accelerate at the same speed,cruise at he same speed etc.Big Brother watching every move.

[noflac52]

Speed disparity creating a higher level of danger is not a belief. It is a fact!

A 10 to 20 klm difference in speed for vehicles approaching from behind is creating a higher level of danger than vehicles travelling at the same speed. Another fact!

Vehicles travelling at the same speed in the same direction behind each other cannot come in contact. Vehicles travelling at different speeds can. This is not a belief that I alone have it is plain physics.

I notice that you include "if the approaching driver is alert and making the correct assessment" to quantify your statement. This does not change the physics involved with speed disparity one little bit. In fact it emphasises what I am saying.

Impatience is an emotional response to a given situation and as we are emotional beings emotions have to be factored into what we do, in this case "driving" and the emotional response is a direct reaction to another persons actions and is very common on the roads so it stands to reason that if you remove the trigger you remove the response and the higher level of danger created.

I fully understand that there are many reasons to be travelling slowly but there are many drivers who travel too slowly for no fathomable reason at all and almost none of these will let faster moving traffic past.

The draconian speed laws are now contributing to this because as stated by previous posters that they travel slowly because they are concerned about being booked for inadvertently travelling a little above the speed limit. This is creating more speed disparity between vehicles and adding to the level of impatience of other drivers thus increasing danger levels.

Add to this that the danger level increases exponentially whenever an overtaking vehicle has to cross to the other side of the road it stands to reason that if you remove a large number of vehicles travelling slowly for no good reason you remove a large portion of the danger involved during a road trip.

[GCRXR6]

Originally Posted by noflac52

Speed disparity creating a higher level of danger is not a belief. It is a fact!

A 10 to 20 klm difference in speed for vehicles approaching from behind is creating a higher level of danger than vehicles travelling at the same speed. Another fact!

Vehicles travelling at the same speed in the same direction behind each other cannot come in contact. Vehicles travelling at different speeds can. This is not a belief that I alone have it is plain physics.

I notice that you include "if the approaching driver is alert and making the correct assessment" to quantify your statement. This does not change the physics involved with speed disparity one little bit. In fact it emphasises what I am saying.

Impatience is an emotional response to a given situation and as we are emotional beings emotions have to be factored into what we do, in this case "driving" and the emotional response is a direct reaction to another persons actions and is very common on the roads so it stands to reason that if you remove the trigger you remove the response and the higher level of danger created.

I fully understand that there are many reasons to be travelling slowly but there are many drivers who travel too slowly for no fathomable reason at all and almost none of these will let faster moving traffic past.

The draconian speed laws are now contributing to this because as stated by previous posters that they travel slowly because they are concerned about being booked for inadvertently travelling a little above the speed limit. This is creating more speed disparity between vehicles and adding to the level of impatience of other drivers thus increasing danger levels.

Add to this that the danger level increases exponentially whenever an overtaking vehicle has to cross to the other side of the road it stands to reason that if you remove a large number of vehicles travelling slowly for no good reason you remove a large portion of the danger involved during a road trip.

OH boy. Don't keep clutching at straws....you'll run out of them.

[noflac52]

You are showing the naivety of someone who has never worked in the field of road safety/cause and effect of accidents etc. and a degree of condescension.

You are tending to make yourself look a bit foolish!

Enough said.

[Chopped]

Police have booked people in Qld for travelng too slowly in 110 zones.
I have heard of one case where the person was doing 70 and got booked.