Perspective on States and fine revenue. - Page 3

BENT_8 · 12-11-2013, 09:53 PM

XB GS 351 Coupe is on the money here!

A couple of things...

The Government is a business, revenue is income.
A business will have projected growth figures, if the Government can predict an expectation of growth in the business of traffic infringements it would underline their value as an effective tool.

The Government needs income to survive, it receives it in many guises. Fines are one of them but they are optional.
Don't get caught and you wont contribute.

People always compare tightening laws with rising road tolls and question their effectiveness, yet no one can guarantee the toll wouldn't rise if laws were relaxed, remember, if a business can forecast growth it must have an expanding customer base...

My2c.

XR6TCraig · 12-11-2013, 10:00 PM

You are incorrect!

The government is not a business. Please look up definitions of what a business is and what a government is. They are not even close to the same thing!

The problem is that our governments are being run like businesses and some of the more gullible among us think that this is ok!

Franco Cozzo · 12-11-2013, 10:00 PM

eCigarettes are pretty much nicotine with a flavour added into it, comes in multiple strengths, I don't think they emit second hand "smoke" either, just a nice lolly smell.

It vapourises the nicotine liquid when you inhale.

superyob · 12-11-2013, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Auslandau

And you are the one that says that media are the sensationalists .......

Just a few points that are my opinion:
The tolerance is way too low.

The legislation is allowed on the premise that a couple of K's over is dangerous.

The legislation is allowed because of those with a "I do not speed so I wont get fined" perception

Those who say they do not speed are not telling the truth. No one can drive under the limit 100% of the time.

Those who have not had a speeding ticket are only lucky.

Those who have not had a speeding ticket are not better drivers.

The amount of fines collected because of extremely low tolerances is not stopping those who purposely speed.

The amount of time spent on the "Speed Kills" mantra is not in proportion to the real problems on the roads.

The real causes of road fatalities are not addressed properly as they cost money and do not raise money.

Those who are safer on the roads spend more time watching their surroundings and driving to the conditions rather than just ensuring they are under the posted speed limit.

It has been proven time and time again that police presence is the best form of deterrent.

The fines associated with a few K's over is not proportional to any other fines.

To hide under the pretence that is all to do with safety when nearly 2 BILLION dollars is collected because of more cameras with lower tolerances in areas that are proven to be non black spots or accident zones is wrong.

The amount collected will only increase, even if everyone tries to drive under the limit (not necessarily safely) as more technology and more cameras are introduced.

A bit of the above is my opinion while most is fact and common sense.

The whole lot is your opinion. There is no factual basis for any of your hearsay...

Auslandau · 12-11-2013, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by superyob

The whole lot is your opinion. There is no factual basis for any of your hearsay...

Really? None of it? Prove it if you must but not too concerned as I know what is fact. You dont have to believe it and not asking you to.

Trump · 12-11-2013, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENT_8

XB GS 351 Coupe is on the money here!

A couple of things...

The Government is a business, revenue is income.
A business will have projected growth figures, if the Government can predict an expectation of growth in the business of traffic infringements it would underline their value as an effective tool.

The Government needs income to survive, it receives it in many guises. Fines are one of them but they are optional.
Don't get caught and you wont contribute.

People always compare tightening laws with rising road tolls and question their effectiveness, yet no one can guarantee the toll wouldn't rise if laws were relaxed, remember, if a business can forecast growth it must have an expanding customer base...

My2c.

If government is indeed a business, its high time we shut it down and replaced it with something that is a government that serves the people. As the bloke I'm quoting below said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by XR6TCraig

You are incorrect!

The government is not a business. Please look up definitions of what a business is and what a government is. They are not even close to the same thing!

The problem is that our governments are being run like businesses and some of the more gullible among us think that this is ok!

government by definition is not a business. Running it as such contravenes pretty much all foundational legislative instruments, and begs the question, if its being run like a business, is it a business and who owns this business?

Quote:

Originally Posted by superyob

The whole lot is your opinion. There is no factual basis for any of your hearsay...

Auslandau has made one of the most accurate observations in the thread. Blinkered individuals such as yourself can't see past the government indoctrination.

superyob · 12-11-2013, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Auslandau

Really? None of it? Prove it if you must but not too concerned as I know what is fact. You dont have to believe it and not asking you to.

Just a few points that are my opinion:
The tolerance is way too low.
On what premise?

The legislation is allowed on the premise that a couple of K's over is dangerous.
A couple of ks over is dangerous if you kill/hurt someone.

The legislation is allowed because of those with a "I do not speed so I wont get fined" perception
This makes no sense at all

Those who say they do not speed are not telling the truth. No one can drive under the limit 100% of the time.
Why not?

Those who have not had a speeding ticket are only lucky.
My wife does not speed and funnily enough she has no speeding ticket – ever…

Those who have not had a speeding ticket are not better drivers.
Nobody is arguing this to be the case, but I bet they are safer drivers.

The amount of fines collected because of extremely low tolerances is not stopping those who purposely speed.
Evidence?

The amount of time spent on the "Speed Kills" mantra is not in proportion to the real problems on the roads.
I’m not sure what you see on TV or in the newspapers, but the endless footage of cars cut in half or wrapped around a telephone pole were not the result of people who were driving at the speed limit…

The real causes of road fatalities are not addressed properly as they cost money and do not raise money.
Seeing as you have made this claim, you obviously have the answer. Please enlighten us…

Those who are safer on the roads spend more time watching their surroundings and driving to the conditions rather than just ensuring they are under the posted speed limit.
Utter rot!!! If you are ensuring that you are on or under the limit, then in all probability, you are also driving to the conditions…

It has been proven time and time again that police presence is the best form of deterrent.
I don’t know if you are one of those who groan about the ‘Nanny State’, but many who are anti ‘revenue raising’ would not like this one…

The fines associated with a few K's over is not proportional to any other fines.
I don’t know what the fines are… That’s right, I don’t speed!

To hide under the pretence that is all to do with safety when nearly 2 BILLION dollars is collected because of more cameras with lower tolerances in areas that are proven to be non black spots or accident zones is wrong.
So we just have anything goes on our roads? What is a ‘proven to be non black spots or accident zone’? There are many areas where fatalities happen, not just in high crash areas…

The amount collected will only increase, even if everyone tries to drive under the limit (not necessarily safely) as more technology and more cameras are introduced.
How do you drive dangerously under the limit? Please don’t say by checking your speedo…

Keep in mind that I am not claiming to be the holder of absolute knowledge here in support of some 'truth' based on shaky ground...

Auslandau · 12-11-2013, 11:16 PM

UM .... Ok. If you think so. But I would way prefer to drive with people who are more attentive to what is happening around them than try and drive under a limit ..... which by the way ..... is impossible to do. That is actually a fact. And no, has nothing to do with being a full time speedo watcher but has more to do with being a safe driver.

"I dont speed" is so wrong. I catch myself sometimes driving at 63 instead of 60 and adjust accordingly if required and I actually do not purposely speed 99% of the time. And no .... I have most of my points intack. To say you dont speed is really a bit of a crock sorry. How many times have you looked at your speed and backed off slightly? Never? Really? Be honest now.

And nooooooo ..... sticking to the limit does not make one a safer or better driver. Not by a long shot. If that is ones belief, so be it, but please don't join me and other traffic on the road! I like to feel safe.

Getting pinged doing 85k's in an 80 zone, 7.30am on a Sunday morning, driving a MPH car, on a 4 lane freeway is not speeding ....... That was 6 years ago and not kosher. If you believe it is and I am a danger to society? Wont loose sleep over it.

xxx000 · 13-11-2013, 02:57 AM

your last point goes back to the flawed idea held by so many people that THEY are a good driver, good enough in fact that they should be shown greater leniency regarding speed limits. And so some of the regular excuses appear: time of day, day of the week, not far over the limit, good road conditions

Then the more obscure ones: it was the car's fault (speedo in mph)

Some others then make completely desperate claims: the govt is now called govco and therefore 'responsible' for them speeding. Govt needs more $ and is targeting them. They don't like the Premier so why should they comply with rules under him/her?
The govt should provide driver training

Just imagine for one moment if the limit had been 100 km/h instead of 80 km/h. I'd put money on you then travelling at 105km/h or greater in that zone and complaining still. The simple fact is that some drivers are in too much of a hurry, think they're great drivers and travel right at, and frequently above, the limit, deliberately.

There's a reluctance to admit personal responsibility and instead try to blame others. If there was a death penalty for speeding would anyone really travel at or close to the LIMIT? Of course not pretty much everybody would travel much slower and allow sufficient leeway so that they'd be well under what is called the LIMIT.

If people had the same attitude to drink driving as they do to speeding we'd find far more people caught for that with similar excuses: I was only a bit over, they set up RBT on a back street so that's unfair, the traffic was light so I wasn't a danger.
I think we all know and agree that drink driving is bad, dangerous and those caught doing it deserve punishment.
Why is speeding different and excuses so forthcoming?

burnz · 13-11-2013, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XB GS 351 Coupe

Well local radio is wrong because the matter still has to go to court on the 19th of December before a decision can be made.

Like I said not sure how they work and you failed to answer my question, are they legal to be smoked in hospitals, child care centres and restaurants?? I believe they are banned in many countries all together and some states of Australia. Not sure I want to be breathing in what ever comes out of them as a non smoker.

Interesting how reading the link clarifies what actually happened, he gave money to a 'Pan Handler' which is illegal in a lot of places including the place where the guy got fined. Without knowing the local laws may be the fine for handing money to a 'pan handler' is more than the littering ticket and the cop actually gave the guy a break (the lesser fine) but who knows, but there is obviously more to it like there always is.

Also no where in the article does it say he got fined $500, you need to learn to read things properly instead of skimming over them and making the rest up.

Panhandler - To approach strangers and beg for money -To approach and beg from (a stranger).

once again you evade the question.
the law was for passive smoking, a vaporiser is not smoking.

the yank was fined for littering, "not for panhandling".

new law to be introduced here: walking past a bus stop with a lit cigarette will yield a fine.

and now its illegal to protest against the gov "so-called bikies law".

Trump · 13-11-2013, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by superyob

Just a few points that are my opinion:
The tolerance is way too low.
On what premise?
On the premise that there does not exist a speedometer that will indicate the exact speed a car is traveling at (within 0.5km/h).

The legislation is allowed on the premise that a couple of K's over is dangerous.
A couple of ks over is dangerous if you kill/hurt someone.
If you hit someone at 60km/h rather than 62km/h, they will still be hurt and/or killed.

The legislation is allowed because of those with a "I do not speed so I wont get fined" perception
This makes no sense at all
It makes a lot of sense as the only indicator anyone has of the speed they are traveling at is an instrument with built in errors.

Those who say they do not speed are not telling the truth. No one can drive under the limit 100% of the time.
Why not?
Refer to above

Those who have not had a speeding ticket are only lucky.
My wife does not speed and funnily enough she has no speeding ticket – ever…
She rarely drives, drives well under posted limits or is indeed very lucky

Those who have not had a speeding ticket are not better drivers.
Nobody is arguing this to be the case, but I bet they are safer drivers.
Refer to above. If you consistently drive under the posted limit, you are not a safer driver, if anything, you are creating a situation on the roads that make it dangerous for other drivers that are driving to the conditions and the posted limit.

The amount of fines collected because of extremely low tolerances is not stopping those who purposely speed.
Evidence?
A projected doubling of revenue from fines to something like $640 million, thats the evidence.

The amount of time spent on the "Speed Kills" mantra is not in proportion to the real problems on the roads.
I’m not sure what you see on TV or in the newspapers, but the endless footage of cars cut in half or wrapped around a telephone pole were not the result of people who were driving at the speed limit…
What about poor quality roads, unsafe cars and inclement weather...

The real causes of road fatalities are not addressed properly as they cost money and do not raise money.
Seeing as you have made this claim, you obviously have the answer. Please enlighten us…
Better roads, better cars, better drivers.

Those who are safer on the roads spend more time watching their surroundings and driving to the conditions rather than just ensuring they are under the posted speed limit.
Utter rot!!! If you are ensuring that you are on or under the limit, then in all probability, you are also driving to the conditions…
Surely you can't be serious. To use today as the example, I was driving to the conditions (****ing down rain), I was in the left lane doing about 80km/h on the freeway, nowhere near the posted limit.

It has been proven time and time again that police presence is the best form of deterrent.
I don’t know if you are one of those who groan about the ‘Nanny State’, but many who are anti ‘revenue raising’ would not like this one…
If actual police men and women were engaged in keeping the public safe, they would not even bat an eyelid at those that have strayed over the posted limit. As it is, the police are revenue collectors.

The fines associated with a few K's over is not proportional to any other fines.
I don’t know what the fines are… That’s right, I don’t speed!
The financial penalties for speeding are arbitrarily set, I am yet to see any discourse from those in power that describe the logic and reasoning behind how they set the penalty structure.

To hide under the pretence that is all to do with safety when nearly 2 BILLION dollars is collected because of more cameras with lower tolerances in areas that are proven to be non black spots or accident zones is wrong.
So we just have anything goes on our roads? What is a ‘proven to be non black spots or accident zone’? There are many areas where fatalities happen, not just in high crash areas…
Cameras have been shown time and again (both here and overseas) that they don't do what they were intended to do: that is to stop accidents from happening.

The amount collected will only increase, even if everyone tries to drive under the limit (not necessarily safely) as more technology and more cameras are introduced.
How do you drive dangerously under the limit? Please don’t say by checking your speedo…
How have you not comprehended the simple fact that driving slower than the posted limit is NOT always safer. Unless adverse weather conditions or a poor quality road present themselves, driving slower is actually a road hazard to others.

Keep in mind that I am not claiming to be the holder of absolute knowledge here in support of some 'truth' based on shaky ground...

My retorts are in bold

Spurious · 13-11-2013, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XB GS 351 Coupe

Would probably not be a bad idea, but probably too hard to administer.

I guess a $300 fine to someone earning $400 per week would be a lot more devastating than the same fine for someone earning $3000 per week. But then again may be the person earning $400 lives at home with no expenses and just spends $400 on drugs and alcohol anyway, while the guy earning $3000, has a wife at home with 5 kids to feed and a huge mortgage and car loans to pay off, and is already struggling, so nothing is black and white.

On another point is there any point in fining people on welfare or those that have chosen the dole as a career choice?? As they are not actually paying the fine, they just head to Centrelink and pay it off at $2 per week using our tax money

But I guess thats another topic all together

What a knob....'ish opinion...!
Someone on welfare who has to pay a fine still has their lifestyle affected by it. Besides @$2 a week your being quite generous, most states have a minimum requirement amount if you want to pay off a fine in installments. Plus ANYONE can apply to pay off a fine in installments!

Spurious · 13-11-2013, 08:37 AM

LOL....Don't speed & you don't get fined.
It's the same theory as "compare the meerkat.com.au" ,it's "simple's" !!!

chevypower · 13-11-2013, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAD

Income tested fines then?

That implies that poorer people place higher value on a dollar than rich people do. Studies show the opposite is true (Green, 1996).

http://psych.wustl.edu/lengreen/publ...s%20(1996).pdf

Your idea doesn't punish people for speeding, it punishes people for being successful and making money.

MAD · 13-11-2013, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chevypower

That implies that poorer people place higher value on a dollar than rich people do. Studies show the opposite is true (Green, 1996).

http://psych.wustl.edu/lengreen/publ...s%20(1996).pdf

Your idea doesn't punish people for speeding, it punishes people for being successful and making money.

It was a tongue in cheek remark, but it would make the gov more money, so I'm surprised they haven't jumped on it.

MAD · 13-11-2013, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxx000

I think we all know and agree that drink driving is bad, dangerous and those caught doing it deserve punishment.
Why is speeding different and excuses so forthcoming?

One of these things is an impairment, the other is not.

xxx000 · 13-11-2013, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAD

One of these things is an impairment, the other is not.

speeding incrementally impairs your ability to stop not unlike alcohol does

you've no response to the other points in my post I see

XB GS 351 Coupe · 13-11-2013, 10:54 AM

This is hilarious.

Can't believe how many people here are unable to take responsibility for their own actions and inability to drive, just blows my mind.

The day I am unable to drive below the speed limit because I find it too difficult to look out the window, observe my surroundings and keep control of my right foot all at the same time keeping at or below a legal speed I will be handing my license in, as obviously I am no longer capable of driving a car. PS most cars have cruise control use it if you are struggling, if that does not help may be consider a bus as an alternative.

People actually posting up I got done doing 85 in a 80 zone, how unfair, it was a sunny day and 8 lane motorway etc etc, did you not know it was an 80 zone?? Where should the limit be then?? Did you observe a sign that said 80km'h unless its Sunday mornings with no traffic?? How are you so special that the rules do not apply to you?? The cut off has to be somewhere!! If there were no cars on the road how were you inattentive enough to your surroundings not to see the police car or camera that booked you?? What were you doing??

Everyone seems to be of the opinion that THEY are a great driver and should be shown leniency, when it's those same people claiming that they are unable to keep a legal speed (which is really easy to do) while watching what goes on around them, and use that as an excuse to speed.

My wife been driving for over 20 years and she drives a lot and she has no trouble doing so and has never received a fine, I have not had a fine for over 7 years since I decided to drive like a normal person, any fines received prior to that were well deserved. Never received a fine for not doing anything wrong either. There seems to be a lot of people on this forum who are unfairly targeted and persecuted by power hungry and evil police who have nothing better to do that target innocent forum members who have never done a thing wrong......wow I must be one of the lucky ones.

XB GS 351 Coupe · 13-11-2013, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlivverFord

What a knob....'ish opinion...!
Someone on welfare who has to pay a fine still has their lifestyle affected by it. Besides @$2 a week your being quite generous, most states have a minimum requirement amount if you want to pay off a fine in installments. Plus ANYONE can apply to pay off a fine in installments!

Well, they are not paying the fine though as they have no money that they have earned, it is not THEIR money, our tax money is paying the fine. As they take the fine to Centrelink and THEY pay for it.

Anyone can apply to pay off a fine, but unless you have no or very little income the request won't be granted.

XB GS 351 Coupe · 13-11-2013, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by burnz

once again you evade the question.
the law was for passive smoking, a vaporiser is not smoking.

What question am I avoiding???

You are the one avoiding answering a simple question I have now asked you three times. Are these e Cigarettes legal to be smoked in restaurants, child care centres, hospitals etc?? I am sure there is something that comes out of them that I don't want to breathe in. Are they subject to the same restrictions as normal cigarettes??

If they do not fit the smoking legislation, may be the legislation needs to be changed to include these, as I certainly don't want people around me smoking these things while I am out for dinner or waiting in a hospital waiting room.

Quote:

Originally Posted by burnz

the yank was fined for littering, "not for panhandling".

I also explained this in my post as well, you keep either not reading stuff or you read it and don't understand what you are reading, of course he was not fined for panhandling as that's not what he was doing, that's what the beggar was doing and it's illegal, it's also illegal to give money to these beggars.

You seem to read articles and completely miss the point of them, and you seem to not understand what they are saying, like the $500 fine which you thought the guy got for littering but that he never actually got as clearly stated in the article you linked (where it says he could have received a $500 fine), and the court case that the other guy supposedly lost but that has not even happened yet again as clearly written in the article you linked.

These articles are written in such a way to incite people who don't actually understand what they are reading and it's obviously worked, this is where urban legends come from of unfair police etc etc, when it sounds to me like to cop was probably giving the bloke a break and handing him the lesser ticket, like they will often do, and this probably occurred after some discussion between the cop and the person receiving the ticket.

MAD · 13-11-2013, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxx000

speeding incrementally impairs your ability to stop not unlike alcohol does

you've no response to the other points in my post I see

Got figures to back up that claim? (Eg. 0.05BAC = 5m extra @ 60km/h)

You had no other points to respond to, only rants.

superyob · 13-11-2013, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loud_Noises

My retorts are in bold

Who are you and why do I care if you retort in bold? I'm sure that Mr Auslandau, with whom I am having a civil, yet spirited discussion, can answer for himself and does not need your protection...

Trump · 13-11-2013, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by superyob

Who are you and why do I care if you retort in bold? I'm sure that Mr Auslandau, with whom I am having a civil, yet spirited discussion, can answer for himself and does not need your protection...

Oh I wasn't coming to the aid of Auslandau, your points were that flawed, they needed countering.

superyob · 13-11-2013, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Loud_Noises

Oh I wasn't coming to the aid of Auslandau, your points were that flawed, they needed countering.

I swish my cape at you...

chevypower · 13-11-2013, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAD

It was a tongue in cheek remark, but it would make the gov more money, so I'm surprised they haven't jumped on it.

Yeah though the idea doesn't make sense, I can still see it being popular among lower-income voters.

superyob · 13-11-2013, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Auslandau

UM .... Ok. If you think so. But I would way prefer to drive with people who are more attentive to what is happening around them than try and drive under a limit ..... which by the way ..... is impossible to do. That is actually a fact. And no, has nothing to do with being a full time speedo watcher but has more to do with being a safe driver.

"I dont speed" is so wrong. I catch myself sometimes driving at 63 instead of 60 and adjust accordingly if required and I actually do not purposely speed 99% of the time. And no .... I have most of my points intack. To say you dont speed is really a bit of a crock sorry. How many times have you looked at your speed and backed off slightly? Never? Really? Be honest now.

And nooooooo ..... sticking to the limit does not make one a safer or better driver. Not by a long shot. If that is ones belief, so be it, but please don't join me and other traffic on the road! I like to feel safe.

Getting pinged doing 85k's in an 80 zone, 7.30am on a Sunday morning, driving a MPH car, on a 4 lane freeway is not speeding ....... That was 6 years ago and not kosher. If you believe it is and I am a danger to society? Wont loose sleep over it.

Mr Auslandau, I have a confession to make. I didn't want to do this but seeing as you have dragged it out of me.... my last speeding fine was in 1993 in a mph ZD Fairlane. And yes I have not been exactly law abiding on the road since then but I have always been ready to accept fault/penalty if I was caught speeding... no matter how safe I think I am, the law is the law and it applies equally to everyone everywhere... unless they have money, power, influence, minor celebrity status, a good sob story etc. etc...

xxx000 · 13-11-2013, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by superyob

I swish my cape at you...

Best post yet in an all too seriously taken thread

noflac52 · 13-11-2013, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by superyob

Just a few points that are my opinion:
The tolerance is way too low.
On what premise?

The legislation is allowed on the premise that a couple of K's over is dangerous.
A couple of ks over is dangerous if you kill/hurt someone.

The legislation is allowed because of those with a "I do not speed so I wont get fined" perception
This makes no sense at all

Those who say they do not speed are not telling the truth. No one can drive under the limit 100% of the time.
Why not?

Those who have not had a speeding ticket are only lucky.
My wife does not speed and funnily enough she has no speeding ticket – ever…

Those who have not had a speeding ticket are not better drivers.
Nobody is arguing this to be the case, but I bet they are safer drivers.

The amount of fines collected because of extremely low tolerances is not stopping those who purposely speed.
Evidence?

The amount of time spent on the "Speed Kills" mantra is not in proportion to the real problems on the roads.
I’m not sure what you see on TV or in the newspapers, but the endless footage of cars cut in half or wrapped around a telephone pole were not the result of people who were driving at the speed limit…

The real causes of road fatalities are not addressed properly as they cost money and do not raise money.
Seeing as you have made this claim, you obviously have the answer. Please enlighten us…

Those who are safer on the roads spend more time watching their surroundings and driving to the conditions rather than just ensuring they are under the posted speed limit.
Utter rot!!! If you are ensuring that you are on or under the limit, then in all probability, you are also driving to the conditions…

It has been proven time and time again that police presence is the best form of deterrent.
I don’t know if you are one of those who groan about the ‘Nanny State’, but many who are anti ‘revenue raising’ would not like this one…

The fines associated with a few K's over is not proportional to any other fines.
I don’t know what the fines are… That’s right, I don’t speed!

To hide under the pretence that is all to do with safety when nearly 2 BILLION dollars is collected because of more cameras with lower tolerances in areas that are proven to be non black spots or accident zones is wrong.
So we just have anything goes on our roads? What is a ‘proven to be non black spots or accident zone’? There are many areas where fatalities happen, not just in high crash areas…

The amount collected will only increase, even if everyone tries to drive under the limit (not necessarily safely) as more technology and more cameras are introduced.
How do you drive dangerously under the limit? Please don’t say by checking your speedo…

Keep in mind that I am not claiming to be the holder of absolute knowledge here in support of some 'truth' based on shaky ground...

This response is absolute waffle, inane rubbish with absolutely no "evidence" that you invariably ask others for to back it up!

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxx000

your last point goes back to the flawed idea held by so many people that THEY are a good driver, good enough in fact that they should be shown greater leniency regarding speed limits. And so some of the regular excuses appear: time of day, day of the week, not far over the limit, good road conditions

Then the more obscure ones: it was the car's fault (speedo in mph)

Some others then make completely desperate claims: the govt is now called govco and therefore 'responsible' for them speeding. Govt needs more $ and is targeting them. They don't like the Premier so why should they comply with rules under him/her?
The govt should provide driver training

Just imagine for one moment if the limit had been 100 km/h instead of 80 km/h. I'd put money on you then travelling at 105km/h or greater in that zone and complaining still. The simple fact is that some drivers are in too much of a hurry, think they're great drivers and travel right at, and frequently above, the limit, deliberately.

There's a reluctance to admit personal responsibility and instead try to blame others. If there was a death penalty for speeding would anyone really travel at or close to the LIMIT? Of course not pretty much everybody would travel much slower and allow sufficient leeway so that they'd be well under what is called the LIMIT.

If people had the same attitude to drink driving as they do to speeding we'd find far more people caught for that with similar excuses: I was only a bit over, they set up RBT on a back street so that's unfair, the traffic was light so I wasn't a danger.
I think we all know and agree that drink driving is bad, dangerous and those caught doing it deserve punishment.
Why is speeding different and excuses so forthcoming?

All of this is rubbish too!

And to finish off you equate drunken driving with someone who is straying just over the speed limit whilst keeping their attention where it should be. On the road and surrounding environs.

I think that one wins the trophy !!!

I spent a long career, much of which involved accident rescue, and in my experience in this field I can say that just about every point you make is off target. Flawed!

The evidence you keep asking others for is all there if you care to look, Just keep in mind that one needs an open mind not be blinkered to the truth.

Auslandau, you are a better man than me being able to put forward intelligent factual statements time and time again and hitting the same brick wall every time!

I used to enjoy the debates about the traffic and roads and the way every thing is administered but now I find myself more often than not bypassing them because so much of it is illogical and denies all the facts that are so easy to find and have been put in many previous threads for all to see. It just turns into a senseless argument with no point to it! A waste of time.

MAD · 13-11-2013, 03:34 PM

Won't somebody please think of the children!

**GasoLane** · 13-11-2013, 04:13 PM

If you think speeding fines are too rough try driving a Truck.
Not only are our fines higher than car drivers for all road offences we get fined for really criminal things like 'travelling too close to another heavy vehicle approaching a Safe-T-Cam'.

I wore that one, and after paying my $1050 I asked a few RMS (formally the RTA) employees how far back was I supposed to be. The closest I got to an exact answer was 'about' 3 secs.

For those who are trying to get their post count up by telling the rest of us that if we be good we'll save money, I should mention that I drive about 19,000 k's a month and in the last 11 years I have been booked once for speeding.

And no, that's not from being good, just being careful