"If you're not speeding, you have nothing to worry about..."

[Ben73]

I am not a fan of mobile speed cameras. I passed one in Newcastle a little while ago just as he was packing up for the day. 5 minutes later I am doing the speed limit(60) and the mobile speed camera car passes me at a decent rate of speed I'm assuming 70-75 in the 60 zone.
I emailed the RTA to inform them about their operators dangerous driving and how he could of killed someone, but never received a reply (surprise surprise)

I think I'd rather sit in the centrelink line instead of being a mobile speed camera 'operator'

[GREGL]

Originally Posted by steve.zissou

Ok, here are some hard academic facts for GOVCO and their mindless supporters that use childrens lives as a way to control and raise tax revenue (obviously this research wasn't a bodgy construct of the current state govts - who amazingly get the exact results from their research these days that justifies what they are doing):

"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation"

from:
http://casr.adelaide.edu.au/speed/vol-1.html
Results of Solomon (1964, p 16)
image

image

as you can see,
1) the lowest accident rates are for drivers going almost 10mph over the speed limit - not at the speed limit. wait - how could this be - oh thats right the govt doesn't tell the truth.

2)the safest speed is just over 65 mph during daylight hours - how could this be, driving faster causes more accident right ?

3) people going 10mph slower than the limit are more dangerous than those going 10mph over the limit!!!!!

I have printed this out and next time i get pulled over I will prove that by exceeding the speed limit I am actually less likely to have an accident.

BTW, this means that that all this propaganda about just 5km/h over is actually killing more people - think about it.

Night time statistics showed a relative reduction in correlation to pub closing (could not find car let alone open it ), daytime data shows 10 MPH under , lost all money on the punt time to go home . Can remember where left car managed to start it and get out of pub/bowls club without being nicked .
1964 through to the early 80's was a way different era and there is NO comparison to today .

[irish2]

Originally Posted by Alan D Segal

I'm not trying to be overly argumentative or defend the government here as I think there are some problems with speed enforcement in its current forms too, but if the tables above are from research done in 1964 that makes them almost 50 years old, and I'd say that crash rates etc. would probably have changed to some extent since then - just like the vehicles and the roads and the drivers and the amount of traffic for sure - it is very much a different world in a lot of ways IMHO.

Somehow the speed limits are still the same as 1964 too.

[EgoFG]

Originally Posted by prydey

i would rather be over cautious than drive with tunnel vision.

Sorry P - don't mean to pick on your post, but you said something interesting.

There was an earlier post that said roughly "I know where the speed cam is so I drive with my eyes fixed on the speedo."

My personal problem with speed limits is that it makes you watch the speed - ie tunnel vision.

We should be watching the roads, the cars with opening doors, the cars on side streets, the car in front, the car behind, The pedestrians ... not the speedo - especially around schools.

Enforcing safety with speed limits makes us worse drivers.

The infringements with the highest penalties should be the ones which involve awareness of and courtesy for other road users NOT an arbitrary number that needs to be correlated against a needle in your dash (and maybe the clock).

[MAD]

I remember a moment while driving around streets near my folks house, that I was currently driving well below the speed limit. Then I wondered how I was able to comfortably drive much faster in the same streets in my earlier years.
I started driving these streets at 60km/h and was totally comfortable, but now I would struggle to crack 40km/h.

What changed? Housing development. The number of properties that became 2+ unit sites dramatically increased the number of cars parked on the streets.

I don't watch my speedo at all while driving these streets due to the potential hazards, and I find myself slowing naturally.
But on the other side of the coin, there are some roads where I might notice potential hazards and take my attention away from the speedo, but I find my speed is increasing.
I dare say these are a perfect example of the 85th percentile.


But then there are some sections where I know I'm coming up to a speed camera so I check my speedo, and often find myself needing to brake for the person in front. One such location is where I was rear-ended a couple of years ago.

[SB076]

Ok haven't read the whole thread, so apologise if this has been bought up, but there is one other avenue that at least used to be available.

If you haven't been booked in the last three years, you can send in a letter acknowledging you were speeding, but as you have a good history and this ticket is a low range speeding fine and request a caution instead of a fine (you can or used to be able to do this every three years) the fine will be withdrawn and you will receive a letter, stating that yes you were speeding and you have been issued a caution.

Not saying its right, as you are admitting to doing something you didn't do, but it can save you the fine

[SB076]

Originally Posted by irish2

Somehow the speed limits are still the same as 1964 too.

Cant speak for all of Australia but around my area they are all lower (60 k's are not 50) 70k's are now 60 and 90k's are not 80k's and freeways that used to be 100k's are now down to 80 in areas

[MAD]

Originally Posted by SB076

Ok haven't read the whole thread, so apologise if this has been bought up, but there is one other avenue that at least used to be available.

If you haven't been booked in the last three years, you can send in a letter acknowledging you were speeding, but as you have a good history and this ticket is a low range speeding fine and request a caution instead of a fine (you can or used to be able to do this every three years) the fine will be withdrawn and you will receive a letter, stating that yes you were speeding and you have been issued a caution.

Not saying its right, as you are admitting to doing something you didn't do, but it can save you the fine

This is only the case for offences below 10km/h over.

[zilo]

Originally Posted by EgoFG

Sorry P - don't mean to pick on your post, but you said something interesting.

There was an earlier post that said roughly "I know where the speed cam is so I drive with my eyes fixed on the speedo."

My personal problem with speed limits is that it makes you watch the speed - ie tunnel vision.

We should be watching the roads, the cars with opening doors, the cars on side streets, the car in front, the car behind, The pedestrians ... not the speedo - especially around schools.

Enforcing safety with speed limits makes us worse drivers.

The infringements with the highest penalties should be the ones which involve awareness of and courtesy for other road users NOT an arbitrary number that needs to be correlated against a needle in your dash (and maybe the clock).

Our Merc 250 and Vito have a feature that fixes that little problem.

The cruise control has two modes...

First is just like any other cruise control...set the speed but car can overspeed on downward hills etc.

Second is set a speed and it simply acts as an engine limiter, regardless of the gear or throttle position it will not go over that speed.

Now isn't that a good idea?

[Kable72]

Originally Posted by zilo

Our Merc 250 and Vito have a feature that fixes that little problem.

The cruise control has two modes...

First is just like any other cruise control...set the speed but car can overspeed on downward hills etc.

Second is set a speed and it simply acts as an engine limiter, regardless of the gear or throttle position it will not go over that speed.

Now isn't that a good idea?

That can't be good for the engine if that was the case. I would have thought it would just apply brakes to keep it at that speed.

[Spurious]

Just read the OP's thread starter. In my opinion that plate photo is "unreadable" and therefore should be discarded with no infringement given, unless your image upload caused the grainy illegible image. To my knowledge ALL numbers and letters must be visible in order to prosecute. One number missing or not legible is enough to cast serious doubt. EXAMPLE: waiting to get my son from school on friday my son pointed out to me that there were 2 identical black Mazda 3's, identical to the point that only one number on one of the plates was different....Obviously sold by the same dealership & rego'd at almost the same time, maybe a day or two apart unless the dealership bought plates in bulk. WOW I say's! That could lead to confusion I reckon! I'd be fighting that one matey, deny all knowledge until the law can prove it was your vehicle.

[vanman_75]

I love that speed camera I can drive straight past it to the bottleo and not get pulled up .. it is a very lucrative camera 100 metres past the 60 sign , makes me wonder how many they " capture " that are still in the 70 zone ? Its there 6 out of seven days so wouldnt get to many locals but sure as heck get lots of people who have lifted the foot to get down to 60 but didn't hit the brakes to do it ..money spinner nothing else , I have never seen an accident there and probably never will ..really can't be a black spot !

[Iggle Piggle]

Originally Posted by vanman_75

I love that speed camera I can drive straight past it to the bottleo and not get pulled up .. it is a very lucrative camera 100 metres past the 60 sign , makes me wonder how many they " capture " that are still in the 70 zone ? Its there 6 out of seven days so wouldnt get to many locals but sure as heck get lots of people who have lifted the foot to get down to 60 but didn't hit the brakes to do it ..money spinner nothing else , I have never seen an accident there and probably never will ..really can't be a black spot !

From that description it does sound like a black spot of sorts - its a spot that helps them keep their books in the black

[prydey]

Originally Posted by FlivverFord

Just read the OP's thread starter. In my opinion that plate photo is "unreadable" and therefore should be discarded with no infringement given, unless your image upload caused the grainy illegible image. To my knowledge ALL numbers and letters must be visible in order to prosecute. One number missing or not legible is enough to cast serious doubt. EXAMPLE: waiting to get my son from school on friday my son pointed out to me that there were 2 identical black Mazda 3's, identical to the point that only one number on one of the plates was different....Obviously sold by the same dealership & rego'd at almost the same time, maybe a day or two apart unless the dealership bought plates in bulk. WOW I say's! That could lead to confusion I reckon! I'd be fighting that one matey, deny all knowledge until the law can prove it was your vehicle.

grab a phone or a camera, walk out to the nearest street, and take a photo of any car that drives past. now have a look at your photo. can you make out the number plate?? of course you can!! are you telling me that the speed camera technology isn't as good as an everyday phone camera or digital camera??? please.

[MAD]

The OP also mentions that they "use a clearer version for processing purposes".

They only send out a crappy quality photo. The high res one will be much better.