52yo's Aston Martin impounded under antihoon

[Lukeyson]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

Rhonda can afford the best lawyers so the final outcome may be interesting.

exactly.... they will try the ol 'the car is designed to handle at those speeds' :

[troppo]

I can't comment on the safety of this situation because I'm not familiar with the location, but I have to agree with Keepleft in that driving @ 169km/h does not by itself warrant a dangerous driving charge.

I have done so myself on the NT highways during the open limit days and if done with due care in a properly maintained and capable car, I don't see a problem. I will concede that doing those sort of speeds anywhere near built up areas changes things significantly.

[fairmont1998]

Originally Posted by Laminge

KeepLeft, this time I think you have gone far too left.



If thats not dangerous driving then please change professions.

I have to agree with Gary here, our roads are not designed for that speed, unlike the roads in Europe you talk of.

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by Laminge

KeepLeft, this time I think you have gone far too left.

If thats not dangerous driving then please change professions.

LETS not become too politically correct here with this and similar stories. I see them all the time and I see the results in outcome, both at court and in particular when done by the 'dumb' - in medical. Much of the time the judicial outcomes are appropriate, in my view.

NOW, there was a time the prevailing speed limit was open ended (//) meaning derestricted in WA, so her detected speed *at point of operation* was once legal - and no one would have given a toss really, being part of the normal daily realities of life and all.

BUT manner and what not *could* be taken to be 'dangerous' under that old prima facie allowance, IF it was determined so by police.

BY account, we are dealing with one of the better lengths of road here, its certainly not the CBD and I'd venture to suggest 'the offence' would not have occured near a politically correct school zone either.

We should not *need* radar detectors btw, IF the speed management system was reasonable.

It's like the Roe Hwy extension. It's such a good piece of road, it's not heavily utilised (although with easter and everyone coming back from down south it probably was) and there is nothing around for miles... the traffic flows quite nicely at 120-130kmh and if you are doing 100 you are constantly being overtaken.

ONE year -a long time ago - 'Noddy', elected member for Socialist-left, advocated on the basis of 'road safety' and with NO evidence whatsoever supporting it; 'an arbritary rural default 100km/h maximum speed-limit' to replace aforesaid derestriction.

Heck, NT did this two years ago and to date, NT is running its 2008 road toll equal with its decade high 2007 road toll outcome. These speed-limits Bruce, sweet Jesus they are FANTASTIC! Duh.

MY view, without the FULL police detail, is that the lady is certainly guilty of exceeding the speed-limit, - rem *at point of operation*- a location which police will know well no doubt, BUT in all likelihood will not be guilty in a real world sense of dangerous driving/speed dangerous et al.

REM; - at what point is 'speed' for the given driver and car 'dangerous'? NO speed limit can tell you that, and reliance on speed limits in many a circumstance is simply costing lives. On the other hand speed limits are needed in built-up areas, and on many rural roads et al.

MAKE no mistake, IF this road in question bears a speed derestriction sign applicable to its length at the point of detection, AND NOT an R4-1 100km/h speed-limit sign instead, then by god it will be found, if her legal team are wise, that she will be not guilty of exceeding the speed limit either!

ONE thing we must understand is that not all drivers and vehicles at point of operation are the-same, and in optimised state at that. We are not all stoopid and we don't all drive clapped out Datsun 120Y's.

DON'T make mistake thinking I am easy on 'speed' either, particularly in 50km/h default residential zones. My personal response and desire in 'punitive actions against the road toll' would see *much* larger fines and demerits allocated (and additional actions), for what Australians (mistakenly) consider minor offences, such as not indicating.

POOR driving and reduced responsibility occure with greater frequency over time with flagrant violations of basic rules of the road, indeed systemically supported by what is virtually a single target, 'simplistic' and automated speed enforcement program.

WE are waaaay too soft with basic-fundamental traffic violations and are certainly too speed-centric on 'good roads', all of which after years of being under so - equals utter pig driver behaviour. Therefore come time, in NSW at least - I am certain, things *will* change.

QUITE frankly, I am sick and tired of criminilising otherwise safe driving, because either the statute or sign reads "100km/h". We must see a greater reliance once again on prima-facie limits for better roads.

AS these existing hoon type laws bite around the country, and that often have unforseen outcomes - including MP vehicle confiscations,- we should be seeing in time moves to restrict such to aggravated behaviours only and greater use of clamping instead.

[ELGT4me]

Keep left, you amaze me. Let,s say I am 18 years of age, been racing go karts since I was 14 (successfully& competently) I borrow Dads HSV/ FPV. I can drive well with in my limits @ 200 kph. I get caught doing this speed, now dads got money, what would my punishment be? Just because you are 52, loaded, gives you no right to flout the law. Has she ever done an advanced driver training course?

[atec77]

Originally Posted by SPK-250

Tell me... How does a 52yo woman speeding at 70 kmh over the limit relate to Hooning??

I doesn't
Now the big question was why was she still 2nd gear .

[Laminge]

Originally Posted by ELGT4me

Keep left, you amaze me. Let,s say I am 18 years of age, been racing go karts since I was 14 (successfully& competently) I borrow Dads HSV/ FPV. I can drive well with in my limits @ 200 kph. I get caught doing this speed, now dads got money, what would my punishment be? Just because you are 52, loaded, gives you no right to flout the law. Has she ever done an advanced driver training course?

Eeeeek

I dont understand where thats coming from at all.....


Keepleft - What is the stopping distance of car doing 70 and that of the speed she was reported at?

I agree with what your saying, but posted 70 zone is not a // limit.

Lets leave it at the fact that I do think her speed is bloody dangerous.

[mik]

In my opinion highway speed limits create many accidents on long distance stretches, i`m of the opinion more people die from being droned to sleep by a vehicle travelling at slow speed(100 k`s) with the cruise control on than responsible drivers cruising along at 150+k`s , how many of us has seen a perfect bit of highway with someone run off the road for no apparent reason, on the other hand there will always be a bloke out there that will give it a squirt on the highway lose it and wrap it around a tree regardless of the speed limit, if we had high speed limits and the speed was exceeded then by all means they could throw the book at the offender fine x10 or something, the ladys gettin shafted imo, : wheres the hooning.

[PHATXR8]

Originally Posted by BeStRaFe

i have one a radar and lidar detector...
im in nsw and i only ever use them offroad... i sware!

So these are Ok to still use in NSW despite the filth here having "radar- detector detectors"?

How do you manage to still use them without getting found?

[ELGT4me]

I sware too!! But I cannot spell.

[SeXC]

NOW, there was a time the prevailing speed limit was open ended (//) meaning derestricted in WA, so her detected speed *at point of operation* was once legal

When the speed sign says unrestricted in WA, it still means 110 kp/h

We have never, at least in the last 20 years, been allowed to exceed that in WA

[hanky]

Keep Left, I had to read that post a couple of times but you raise many valid points. The law has been concentrating too much on speed alone, and yet the road toll continues. It's too easy for the government to introduce lower speed limits and subsequently pocket more money in fines from motorists who although are "breaking the law" are not driving dangerously.
I don't know the environment in question here so it's hard to say if this woman was endangering lives.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by SeXC

When the speed sign says unrestricted in WA, it still means 110 kp/h

We have never, at least in the last 20 years, been allowed to exceed that in WA

No the (//) means unlimited everywhere in Australia. This is international law and is why the (//) signs in QLD have almost all been replaced with "End Speed Restriction Area" signs.

Various police services have fought and lost this battle on several occaisions and I am sure Keepleft will have details in his archives.

This is an old battle ad the sides are fairly entrenched and like most trench warfare nothing moves very quickly.

When I got my licence, drink driving was .08, random breath testing was illegal, there was no radar, half of Australia had no speed limts, semi auto rifles were sold over the counter at K-Mart, there was no light beer, no mobile phones with "dob a hoon" on speed dial and you could go basicly anywhere you wanted to and do anything you wanted to.

How the hell did the human race survive this...........

We look back at the Spanish Inquision and the Crucades or more recently Prohibition or The White Australia Policy and wonder what sort of stupidity caused them to think that they were doing the right thing and protecting the people.

I wonder how the political correctness of the late 20th/eatly 21st will be viewed it the future. I suspect we will be the butt of jokes and the source of material for many many satirical movies and mocumentaries.......

ROAD SAFETY IS NOT A PROFIT CENTRE........

[aussiblue]

The speed limit in WA for 40 years at least in so called unrestricted areas has been 110 kph or 65 mph and it is "black letter law" that is backed with a long history of successful prosecutions. The sign used to indicate this in WA is this:

which is referred to in the legislation as a "deristricted sign. These are usually on outback and isolated rural areas where the tracks and roads after that point will have no speed limit signs at all.

The legislation covering it, the Western Australian Road Traffic Code 2000, is very clear:

See http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/w...lt_speed_limit

or http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/statutes/swans.nsf


Reg 3:

"de-restriction sign" means a sign that indicates the end of a speed restriction, and replacing it with the default speed limit; "

Reg 11
' "default speed limit", for a vehicle —


(a) that is limited to a particular speed limit by these regulations that is slower than 110 km/h, means that slower speed limit; or


(b) that is not otherwise limited to a particular speed limit by these regulations, means a speed limit of 110 km/h; "

[aussiblue]

No the (//) means unlimited everywhere in Australia. This is international law and is why the (//) signs in QLD have almost all been replaced with "End Speed Restriction Area" signs.

Not an international law just an international convention [UN/ECE Conventions on uniform traffic controls (signs,signals and road markings) and laws] which even if the Commonweath has signed onto it cannot under the Constitution impose on the States.

[Daymoe]

Originally Posted by flappist

No the (//) means unlimited everywhere in Australia. This is international law and is why the (//) signs in QLD have almost all been replaced with "End Speed Restriction Area" signs.

Various police services have fought and lost this battle on several occaisions and I am sure Keepleft will have details in his archives.

This is an old battle ad the sides are fairly entrenched and like most trench warfare nothing moves very quickly.

When I got my licence, drink driving was .08, random breath testing was illegal, there was no radar, half of Australia had no speed limts, semi auto rifles were sold over the counter at K-Mart, there was no light beer, no mobile phones with "dob a hoon" on speed dial and you could go basicly anywhere you wanted to and do anything you wanted to.

How the hell did the human race survive this...........

We look back at the Spanish Inquision and the Crucades or more recently Prohibition or The White Australia Policy and wonder what sort of stupidity caused them to think that they were doing the right thing and protecting the people.

I wonder how the political correctness of the late 20th/eatly 21st will be viewed it the future. I suspect we will be the butt of jokes and the source of material for many many satirical movies and mocumentaries.......

ROAD SAFETY IS NOT A PROFIT CENTRE........

Holy ! Ill pay you to build me a time machine and take me back!

IMO i reckon they should bring back the no speed limit roads, seriously, a long stretch of highway and you are sitting there doing 110kmh, you could save so much time by going faster.

[TwistedEL]

I would say doing 170 in an area where everybody else is doing 100 - and expecting those around them to be travelling at similar speeds dangerous driving.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

Not an international law just an international convention [UN/ECE Conventions on uniform traffic controls (signs,signals and road markings) and laws] which even if the Commonweath has signed onto it cannot under the Constitution impose on the States.

Commonwealth and internatinal law has NEVER over ridden state law has it......

Gays is Tasmania? Dams in Tasmania? Heroin in NSW? Eutanasia?

Anyway it is irrelevent to this case unless it was a (//)

[aussiblue]

Commonwealth and international law has NEVER over ridden state law has it......

Commonwealth law has and does over-ride State laws where the Commonwealth has been given the power under the Constitution (eg foreign trade, customs, defence, post, immigration and navigation) or the states have agreed to give up powers to the Commonwealth (albeit 'blackmailed' into doing so on the basis of what share of tax revenues they might receive). And of course the Commonwealth has the most important and influential power of taxation.

After 38 years working in numerous Departments in the public service I also believe that in WA's case it is a good thing that the Commonwealth has limited powers. Canberra is very isolated from WA and as a result its bureaucracy has often proven less empathetic, efficient and efficient in dealing with local needs.

Also remember that, unlike most other Australian states WA was never part of NSW (everything east of 129 degrees east longitude was once part of NSW), and in 1890 was granted self government by Britain so the succession movement has never completely died here. Although I doubt few in WA now take the idea of succession very seriously this history, and the knowledge of the extent to which our resource industries contribute to GDP and taxation revenues, I think encourages many from WA to thumb their nose at the Commonwealth when the opportunity arises. :

[atec77]

Originally Posted by au3xr6

the posession of these items in nsw is an offence not just using them you are not allowed to have them in your possession ( even in a box under your bed).

Not quite that easy , I as a ham radio operator can and do own gear that works in this range , the law is a farce and easily challenged .

[Keepleft]

WA is removing its speed derestriction signage.

WA is NOT the legal nor intellectual property owner of the particular road traffic sign, and certainly has no right whatsoever to impose a different meaning to it other than that held by the world administrator.

As an advocate, I had respectfully made this clear to both WA Transport Ministers (sitting and past; Criddle), and agencies, since initial ARR implementation by the jurisdictions back in 1999. I stand by this.

Use of speed signage on road networks is governed by Australian Standard 1742.4, this is typically then adopted into state documents.

AS 1742.4 of 1999 'corrects' an earlier mid 80's version of same which mistakenly held the derestriction sign to represent 'rural default'.

The AS on the matter *MUST & WILL* represent the meaning held by the UN Convention on Road Traffic, 'Road Signs & Signals', and now does so once again.

The current AS 1742.4 of 1999 allows for the 'optional use' of the speed derestriction sign by State and Territory road authorites, to this meaning;

Speed derestriction sign (R4-2)
The Speed Derestriction sign shall be used where permitted by State or Territory regulations, at the end of a linear speed zone or a general urban speed limit to indicate that no speed limit applies to the road beyond the sign.

A WA Transport agency staffer was part of the Committee that helped correct the signs interpretation for Australia in the AS 1742.4 of 1999 edition.

NOW, we do accept that certain vehicle categories and particular license holders CAN remain speed-limited when they have passed a derestriction sign, examples are; heavy vehicles, L and P license holders.

The UN Convention is currently being 'worked', the meaning of the speed derestriction sign, catalogued in it as; (C,17a) has not changed, but articles will allow certain restrictions on road users, per above.

* The speed derestriction sign is used at the start point (eg at the end of pit straight Bathurst) of no-speed-limit motor racing events, for legal reasons.

It is UN desire for all states parties to both remember what it is they have contracted, and to comply with same. Problems can occure in administration as new public service employees join the more experienced ranks.

Issues here also relate to national metrology, and the 'under another law of this jurisdiction' term both come into play. One needs to study a Collins dictionary - 'de-restriction'.

The speed derestriction sign will only be used to signal that no absolute speed limit applies to a length of road, in the same practical manner-of-use as an R4-1 speed limit sign, OR if the jurisdiction does an old NT and removes a rural default 'limit' and then signals so by using the derestriction.

The sign will, in a couple of editions, be removed from WA's Drive Safe handbook.

The speed derestriction sign cannot be used to signal a 'prima facie' speed limit either.

NSW had this up to June 1978 where the derestriction signalled a prima facie 80km/h rural limit, you could exceed this IF it was safe to do so. That of course meant that most folk actioned by police for an offence at a speed above 80km/h,- effectively had the onus proof put on them that the offence/s - was/were - not 'dangerous'!!

In QLD the derestriction sign must not be used, its MUTCD highlights this and QLD Trans advised Councils they will not support them in court if a motorist exceeds 100km/h when they have passed a derestriction sign installed by a Council, and were then picked up for 'speeding'.

NSW removed back in 2004, the authority for Councils to use speed dererstriction signs. We will keep its allowance on the books as it were should we decide to derestrict (no limit) a length-of-road, or by gazette derestrict all rural roads west of XX etc. This would be the exception rather than the rule.

SA advise they have removed them.
TAS ditto.
VIC does not replace them.
NT has removed all.

At the end of the day, whilst it is accepted that state parliaments have the most effective legal power, and that is appropriate in my view (we are a nation of sovereign states), it is also appropriate that each state be free to set its own speed limits or derestriction allowance - as each sees fit, BUT each should, and in some cases must, - use uniform DEFAULT speed-limits, and certainly SIGNAGE used - must be uniform in meaning.

State Agencies;-
Every few years state employees need 'reminding' by parliament, that agency 'policy' is NOT necessarily enforceable law, and that *only* parliament can pass such. Each political party in power, or fresh in power, would do well to stamp that authority, as needed.

A statement made by ex PM Howard and in NSW by a previous Labour Regulation Review Committee head a few years back highlight this necessity.

Agency staff tend to become a little too comfortable with tenure. It is perhaps time for performance based contracts be reviewed, or allowed. Change is needed - nationwide, in most jurisdictions. 'Arrogance' is not native to mere MP's, it often festers in a parliaments agencies.

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by ELGT4me

Keep left, you amaze me. Let,s say I am 18 years of age, been racing go karts since I was 14 (successfully& competently) I borrow Dads HSV/ FPV. I can drive well with in my limits @ 200 kph. I get caught doing this speed, now dads got money, what would my punishment be? Just because you are 52, loaded, gives you no right to flout the law.

I was not going to answer this, but will seeing as I have a moment.

Whilst you are 18 and 'young', you will by way of 'license conditions' be restricted to a maximum particular speed, REGARDLESS if a speed-limit sign shows a higher speed limit on a length of road - than that specified on your license, OR if a speed derestriction sign is posted, here you *will* remain at your license category speed limit! Or IF you were driving a heavy vehicle because ARR 25 (3) comes into play. That is part of the requirement to obtain a full drivers license in Australia, and frankly, I think it (the system) is on the right path to more appropriate driver ed. People must be patient, change takes time.

The L, P1 and P2 stages typically show 80, 90 and 100km/h maximums. The issue as to these license category 'limits' and their necessity is another matter.

* If you can safely do 200km/h you will do so only on approved racing circuits. Your experience to date is not reflective of the majority of your peers and you need to remember that. Remember too that peer pressure, particularly by eff-wit passengers, plays a serious role in causing otherwise reasonable young persons to overstep the boundries of safety.

Has she ever done an advanced driver training course?

Don't know. I would be more interested if she had completed a defensive driver course!

We keep 'advanced driver courses' for those interested in professional motor racing, for security personnel, emergency services and defence, or for those otherwise interested.

I need not clarifty 'why'.

Our increasingly adopted graduated licensing system has some EU core program - it emphasis is on the defensive driver components.

[rapom1]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

Rhonda can afford the best lawyers so the final outcome may be interesting.

Indeed, 2nd most wealthy woman in WA I believe. Behind old Lang Hancock's daughter. Still measurable in the Billions$$ though.
I don't think she'll challenge it too hard, as what's the likely fine?? say $2000 and a short suspension from driving. Easier to cop it on the chin and give the cheauffer a bit more over time.