Perspective on States and fine revenue.

[Auslandau]

You want to discuss it like an adult without the condescending statements and questions, go for it but I have answered thoroughly enough and yes, over it really.

If you ask do I condone 65 in a 60 zone? Yes I do in a way ........ as it is not worth the amount of fine and the hysteria surrounding it and is not the most disastrous or dangerous thing on the roads these days. There are times when it would be dangerous and times when it would be relatively safe. Where I have put my point across consistently and for many pages ...... It is more about the lower tolerance that speed camera's operate at IN VIC (2-3 k's over ... even at 80's) and the amount of money they make .... as per the title of the thread compared to other road habits than cause way more incidents than just a few K's over.

Replace those 6 cop cars with 6 cameras and your license is cactus ...... all in one day! Go figure. And was refereing to others through the thread ...... but if the shoe fits?

Not my show .... I am just involved in the discussion and unlike yourself, keeping ridiculous questions from the thread.

[GCRXR6]

So, hand up all of those who have been done for 1,2,3,4 or 5 k's over. The media statements by the pollies did indeed work as intended ... it got people speaking of speed fines and the need to pay more atention. If that has made drivers more aware, more acountable ... good. If it just saves one life .... just one, or even reduced the injury to one ... just one. Bloody fantastic.

[MAD]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Well I guess if 60km/hr in 2001 was the benchmark for surviving an accident then 80 may well quadruple your risks.
Having said that though, roads, for the majority, are zoned in accordance with condition/location/surroundings.
A road with a posted limit of 80, whilst above the 60k safety net, would not be posted as such unless it was considered safe to do so subject to environmental conditions and driver ability.
There are plenty of people on the road who shouldn't venture above 80, just go for a drive in the sticks on a long weekend its not hard to find them.

Obviously there are examples where the arbitrary limit doesn't suit the conditions and you are free to lobby the appropriate dept. to get change.
Complaining on Ford Forums wont get it done, there hasn't really been overwhelming support for any of the concerns.

The report simply says "the risk of involvement in a casualty crash increases exponentially, doubling with each 5 km/h increase in travel speeds above 60 km/h"
Absolutely no mention of prevailing speed zone or anything other than what is stated in simple writing.

Eg. wherever the gov has put higher speed zones, they have allowed us to travel at an increased risk of being in a fatal accident.

So back to the statistics, and how they can be manipulated. Since this is about being involved in a fatal accident, the stats would have to be based on the number of cars travelling vs the number of fatalities per day. I think that would be well below 1:1000. If there was one death per thousand cars per day, we wouldn't have a population problem.

The figures are minuscule, but they play it up with words like "double" and we're supposed to buy in to it.

[xxx000]

Speed cameras help address one of drivers behaviour
Some truck cameras address tailgating
police cars address multiple behaviours but can't be everywhere or 24/7
It's an imperfect world and always will be. Deal with it, driving is a privilege and whining about not being allowed to travel as fast as you'd like w/out consequences is frankly unreasonable

[jmack]

the prblem with the reduced tolerance is that it mostly nabs the person who trys to do the right thing but occasionaly slips over the limit(concentrating on what every other dik on the road is doing and what the new speed of the next 100m of road is ).most of these accidents that get reported are unlicenced,unregistered,unroadworthy,underage,stol en,drunk,drug,thay didnt care about any of those laws so why would they care about the speed limit,no easier to hit the person trying to do the right thing as they will just pay the fine ,there is no money in the people from the other group just have to look at most of them

[lucas2]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Personally, I would rather eyeball a kid 1m in front of my bonnet after slowing from 60, than help scrape them off the road if I was doing 65+ and couldn't stop.
You?

Originally Posted by BENT_8

I did 600k's today with cruise set at 115 in a 110 zone

hmm

[Matty4]

Originally Posted by xxx000

...whining about not being allowed to travel as fast as you'd like w/out consequences is frankly unreasonable

I haven't read one single statement in this whole thread where someone is whining about not being able to travel as fast as they like, quite the opposite, in fact.
This is about the reductions in tolerances of cameras and the excessive revenue they generate. We are not dumb (people in general).

It appears that almost every one on here that is very vocal about staying under the limit at all times, also seem to admit driving over the limit on occasions too (even if "accidently")!! Quite obviously you don't really believe the rhetoric and mantra preached by these agencies (and yourselves, for that matter) otherwise you'd be the perfect candidate for the next Police Commissioner, TAC CEO, etc etc.

How many times have you noticed that you inadvertently crept over the posted limit, adjusted your speed back to remain under the limit, and then thought to yourself, "What I just did was really wrong and deserve to be punished for my crime?
Also, where is the victim in this crime?

Can anyone really state categorically that they deserved such a punishment for inadvertently creeping over the posted limit for a few seconds?

[jmack]

Originally Posted by Matty4

otherwise you'd be the perfect candidate for the next Police Commissioner, TAC ?

not in victoria cause even ours got booked 2 years after the fact ,then said lucky he did otherwise he could have killed someone.what a tool ,fine came 2 years after the offence

[5.8]

Originally Posted by jmack

not in victoria cause even ours got booked 2 years after the fact ,then said lucky he did otherwise he could have killed someone.what a tool ,fine came 2 years after the offence

It wasn't the commissioner, it was Ken Lay, the Deputy Commissioner of Road Safety in Victoria and he got booked in October 2009 before making it public in January 2010.

But hey, don't let the truth get in the way of a good story

[GasoLane]

And to tie in Mr Plod getting booked and 'not revenue raising'...........

Yeah it's old, but what the hell.....

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/no-...-1225948559778

[noflac52]

[QUOTE=BENT_8;4937085]Totally correct, in fact the cost to the community for injuries would easily outweigh the cost of a fatality when you consider initial medical expenses and rehab. QUOTE]

Using this logic and the focus on money and not road safety it would seem that no speed limits is the order of the day to ensure that most accidents are fatal to all involved to save the community lots of money!

Originally Posted by BENT_8

It doesn't say you WILL be involved in an accident at 65, it says that your chances of being unlucky double.
When shown as a % it doesn't seem much, but if every second motorist doubled their likelihood of an accident it would be quite significant in real life statistics.

Using this set of statistics it is logical that sitting in a parked vehicle your chances of an accident are nearly zero and when you start moving you would be increasing the likelihood of an accident into the 90 to 100% range but it doesn't work that way does it. There are so many other factors involved in every evolution and vehicle movement on the roads that the simplified statistics of doubling your chance of an accident for every 5 k's over an arbitrarily set limit is just silly

Originally Posted by xxx000

The naysayers are focusing, read fixated, on fatalities. There are plenty of types of crashes to consider minor to major that may include injuries some very serious.
Crashes are a huge cost to the community and measures to slow drivers to speeds under the limit help reduce this cost burden and road trauma.

As the bulk of crashes already happen at or under the speed limit it wouldn't make any significant difference to the cost to the community.

Here again is a post more focussed on money rather than recommending actual policies that will make significant differences such as a focus on overall driver behaviour, attitude and skill levels'

With regard to the way a government collects money from the general population a previous poster asked the question, how else would the government be able to get the amount of money they need, raise taxes?

The answer to that is yes!

It is a much more honest way to either get elected or get voted out than the current system of fleecing motorists with the largely deceitful mantra of road safety.

Even if they were honest and stated the truth "that we cannot afford to live and prosper with the amount of taxes collected at this time" and said we are going to charge every motorist an equal amount to boost the coffers by the $1.6 billion that they expect to reap from fines it would be a better outcome in the long run because road safety would be able to be looked at with no bias and be effective in a pure sense rather than be tarnished the way it is at present.

Peoples lives and well being should never be linked to how much money we can make out of them in a free society such as ours!

[tweeked]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Go and check out the data from the 'Wipe Off 5' campaign of 01. http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rc...5GAcMYb5QzjSaw


It has a graph in the case study which represents the different impact speeds in relation to vehicle speeds.
For an obstacle detected 45mtrs ahead, an increase of 5-10k's over 60k will increase impact speed by up to 47k's due to reaction time and required stopping distance.
The graph on the previous page of this thread clearly indicates that the overwhelming majority of speeders caught fit the above description.

Tolerances must be relevant to the speed limit, 10% at 100 would seem acceptable on a country road, 10% at 60, as shown above, would be extremely dangerous in the city or a suburban street.
There is a reason why speed cameras are plastered all over metropolitan areas and arterial roads, it is because these are the places where the greatest risk of incident occurs due to increased levels of auto and pedestrian traffic

Wether we like it or not, there must be a cut off point at which a fine is issued.

Would love to see a study about different reaction times between those people watching the road or watching the speedo - but they will never do one on that - doesn't suit their purpose.

But then, you guys all say you can drive under the speed limit without taking your eyes off the road. Lets not ask for a study now on accidents due to frustration caused by people 10 k's under the limit all day...... Oh the things that can be solved by a simple, sensible allowance........

[noflac52]

I've just done some maths on the statistics of crashing using the figures already put up in the thread and if my maths is correct my chances of a crash at 120kph are 8.192% which means that I have a 91.808% chance of not crashing. Not bad odds even at that speed!

Now if I bring into the equation that I have extensive racing experience and extensive experience driving emergency vehicles in the real world plus advanced driving qualification it means that when it is averaged out that the bulk of drivers on our roads don't have this training and some are completely hopeless that should put me in a category where I have zero % or even less chance of having an accident ever! Statistically speaking of course.

This is the opposite use of the same statistics that are used to say that for every 5k's over 60klm your chance of having an accident doubles.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by MAD

The report simply says "the risk of involvement in a casualty crash increases exponentially, doubling with each 5 km/h increase in travel speeds above 60 km/h"
Absolutely no mention of prevailing speed zone or anything other than what is stated in simple writing.

No, before that line it says...metro area.

The majority of metro areas are 25, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 zones,

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by lucas2

hmm

Have you read all my posts?
I clearly stated that +10% on a country roads with 100=110 zones is within reason and that tolerances should be relative to the posted speed.
The biggest issue with speeding is low level speeding in metro areas, not country roads.

115 in a 110 zone on SA roads is within the legal tolerances and I was treated as such

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by Matty4

I haven't read one single statement in this whole thread where someone is whining about not being able to travel as fast as they like, quite the opposite, in fact.
This is about the reductions in tolerances of cameras and the excessive revenue they generate. We are not dumb (people in general).

It appears that almost every one on here that is very vocal about staying under the limit at all times, also seem to admit driving over the limit on occasions too (even if "accidently")!! Quite obviously you don't really believe the rhetoric and mantra preached by these agencies (and yourselves, for that matter) otherwise you'd be the perfect candidate for the next Police Commissioner, TAC CEO, etc etc.

How many times have you noticed that you inadvertently crept over the posted limit, adjusted your speed back to remain under the limit, and then thought to yourself, "What I just did was really wrong and deserve to be punished for my crime?
Also, where is the victim in this crime?

Can anyone really state categorically that they deserved such a punishment for inadvertently creeping over the posted limit for a few seconds?

See, you have completely missed the point.
I'm not saying stay below the limit because that's what I do, because I don't always.
What i'm saying is that IF you creep over and get caught, suck it up. You know what the limit is, its posted, and it allows you a margin for error, so if you get caught bad luck.
Wether you accept the 'Wipe off 5" campaign as propaganda or subscribe to it, a vehicle travelling 5+k's quicker than the equivalent vehicle will take longer to stop and will exert greater force on any object than the slower vehicle...Fact!

There are a few new cameras out my way, I watched them being installed so I know they are there.
If by some chance it gets me it isn't the cameras fault, the governments fault or even my instructors fault.
Its mine, for being a twat and forgetting its there.

Where's the problem, honestly?

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by noflac52

I've just done some maths on the statistics of crashing using the figures already put up in the thread and if my maths is correct my chances of a crash at 120kph are 8.192% which means that I have a 91.808% chance of not crashing. Not bad odds even at that speed!

Now if I bring into the equation that I have extensive racing experience and extensive experience driving emergency vehicles in the real world plus advanced driving qualification it means that when it is averaged out that the bulk of drivers on our roads don't have this training and some are completely hopeless that should put me in a category where I have zero % or even less chance of having an accident ever! Statistically speaking of course.

This is the opposite use of the same statistics that are used to say that for every 5k's over 60klm your chance of having an accident doubles.

Yes, I would like to think that you would be amongst the safest drivers on the road.
All of those merits reduce your likelihood of being involved in an at fault accident.

[MAD]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

No, before that line it says...metro area.

The majority of metro areas are 25, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 zones,

What is your point?

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by MAD

What is your point?

When I raise my hand and extend my finger...

Moving on....

[MAD]

That's what I thought.

[noflac52]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Yes, I would like to think that you would be amongst the safest drivers on the road.
All of those merits reduce your likelihood of being involved in an at fault accident.

It also decreases my likely hood of being in an accident that may be caused by others, acts of god, bad weather, poor visibility etc.

I'm glad you agree with the concept that increased driver education makes safer drivers but the point isn't about how safe a driver I am its about statistics that say every driver increases their likely hood of crashing to double what it was when they were travelling 5kph slower.

Its just plain wrong and road safety and fining drivers is based around this flawed concept.

I used the statistics that are being discussed here in a way that is quite ludicrous to demonstrate that they can and are used to tell any story one wants to.

Mark Twain once said "there are lies, damn lies and statistics'.

[Bill M]

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/200...d-camera-data/

An interesting read and a creatively altered road sign.