Perspective on States and fine revenue.

[tweeked]

Originally Posted by XB GS 351 Coupe

Mate you just keep saying the some thing but you are missing the point.

Re read the definition of LIMIT.

We all get that. Over and over.

You keep missing the main point though

What is more important - this "limit" or the SAFETY?

[Auslandau]

...... there needs to be common sense and discretion. And the ablosulte limit will only get worse, along with the fines and the amount of people who accidently venture into the criminal zone.

If 100% of people can drive safely with a slight variance ...... does that mean it is wrong or right?

Little bit like taxing breathing. Everyone does it/

[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.

[Auslandau]

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.

Yes ...... IT IS CALLED REVENUE

The 'Wipe off 5' really is a justification to simplify the reasonings for more cameras, higher fines and lower tolerances made easier by those who dont question it.

10% is 10% no matter what the figure is.

[MAD]

They say the risk doubles for every 5km/h above 60km/h.

Is that 0.00001%, to 0.00002%?
I'd like to see the actual data they used to come to those conclusions.

It all sounds like marketing to me, and proficient spin doctors can market anything to sound the way they want it to.


Thousands of people everyday exceed the limit by 5km/h, but where is the apocalyptic carnage?

[lucas2]

Originally Posted by MAD

They say the risk doubles for every 5km/h above 60km/h.

Is that 0.00001%, to 0.00002%?
I'd like to see the actual data they used to come to those conclusions.

It all sounds like marketing to me, and proficient spin doctors can market anything to sound the way they want it to.


Thousands of people everyday exceed the limit by 5km/h, but where is the apocalyptic carnage?

Iirc the risk of a fatal crash was like 0.002% @ 60km/h and 0.004% at 65km/h..so yes while it may double, the percentage change is not significant (p<0.05)

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by Auslandau

Yes ...... IT IS CALLED REVENUE

The 'Wipe off 5' really is a justification to simplify the reasonings for more cameras, higher fines and lower tolerances made easier by those who dont question it.
10% is 10% no matter what the figure is.

No, that's your interpretation of it and well supported by your perspective of the subject.

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?

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by MAD

They say the risk doubles for every 5km/h above 60km/h.

Is that 0.00001%, to 0.00002%?
I'd like to see the actual data they used to come to those conclusions.

It all sounds like marketing to me, and proficient spin doctors can market anything to sound the way they want it to.


Thousands of people everyday exceed the limit by 5km/h, but where is the apocalyptic carnage?

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.

[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.

[karj]

Speed Limit?

[MAD]

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.

Would it it actually or is that something you believe because that's what you're told?

If the above info from lucas2 is true, then driving at 100km/h, your chances of being involved in a fatal crash are increased by 0.512%.

What is the baseline percentage at 60km/h?


Every motorist more than doubles their risk every time they drive to work.
There wouldn't be many people that only travel in 60km/h zones or lower.

[BENT_8]

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.

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.

As I always say, its easy to say the road toll hasn't dropped in relation to the tightening of laws, the problem is that near misses/injuries aren't recorded and therefore the effectiveness isn't as evident.

If Joe blogs travels at 67k's in a 60 zone and kills someone we all hear about it and it is recorded.
If Joe Blogs does 60k's in the 60 zone, misses someone by a few mtrs we are none the wiser.
Now, if in the second scenario Joe blogs had received a speeding ticket a few weeks earlier and had then revised his driving habits, would the detection device have done its job?
It isn't documented and doesn't appear in any statistics, yet it is a real life scenario which plays out daily.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by MAD

Would it it actually or is that something you believe because that's what you're told?

If the above info from lucas2 is true, then driving at 100km/h, your chances of being involved in a fatal crash are increased by 0.512%.

What is the baseline percentage at 60km/h?


Every motorist more than doubles their risk every time they drive to work.
There wouldn't be many people that only travel in 60km/h zones or lower.

No, your risk likelihood would be the number of motorists on the road divided by the actual accidents on any given day.
If you were 1 of 1,000,000 people who drove to work on any given day and there were 1000 accidents your likelihood would be 1 in 1,000 or .001%.
It wouldn't double by simply driving, it becomes the figure once you take to the road.
It will increase once you introduce other factors, speed, concentration, fatigue, alcohol etc. etc.

[superyob]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

No, that's your interpretation of it and well supported by your perspective of the subject.

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?

I think I was roundly chastised for trying to make this exact point but you did express this beautifully...

[MAD]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

No, your risk likelihood would be the number of motorists on the road divided by the actual accidents on any given day.
If you were 1 of 1,000,000 people who drove to work on any given day and there were 1000 accidents your likelihood would be 1 in 1,000 or .001%.
It wouldn't double by simply driving, it becomes the figure once you take to the road.
It will increase once you introduce other factors, speed, concentration, fatigue, alcohol etc. etc.

The wording from TAC is that for every 5km/h over 60km/h (irrespective of posted zone) doubles your risk of being involved in a fatal accident.
Therefore, every single motorist is adding to their risk of involvement by driving to work in a speed zone higher than 60km/h.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by MAD

The wording from TAC is that for every 5km/h over 60km/h (irrespective of posted zone) doubles your risk of being involved in a fatal accident.
Therefore, every single motorist is adding to their risk of involvement by driving to work in a speed zone higher than 60km/h.

well it refers to metro area, so im guessing it is referring to high/medium density traffic and 60 or below speed zones.

I agree, It is open to interpretation but in the context of the article it is relevant to findings.

[BENT_8]

The reason I referred to that link is because of the graph posted on the previous page.
It clearly showed that the biggest speeding sector was in the 0-10k category.
In a metro environment, where the majority of fixed/mobile cameras are used, this would indicates that most detected speeds would be within 10k of 60.
This scenario is what underlines the need for such campaigns as 'Wipe off 5' and why low level speeding in metro areas is a real concern.

They don't put speed cameras on back streets, they put them where the greatest likelihood of enforcing speed compliance is possible, main roads and busy intersections.

C'mon, most camera's are either sign posted or hanging off an obvious looking Camry etc.
If you contribute your not paying attention.

If you travel the same roads regularly, work, school run, etc. and you possess any awareness of your surroundings you should be able to avoid fines even if you do occasionally creep over.

This is where it comes back to taking responsibility for your actions.
If one continuously gets caught to the point of making a public debate of it then I think one needs to look in the mirror.
Clearly one doesn't learn from ones mistakes.

[GCRXR6]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

No, that's your interpretation of it and well supported by your perspective of the subject.

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?

As a Paramedic, I would rather not treat that child for any injury, however, given a choice... I would give the child a better chance if the said vehicle was traveling at 60, rather than 66 (10% allowance which some argue for).

[GCRXR6]

The limit is the limit just as DUI limit is .05. Drive at .048 you're OK. Drive at .05 you get pinged. .055 ...."But occifer I woz only a little bit over...an..and I didn't kill anyone.."

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by GCRXR6

As a Paramedic, I would rather not treat that child for any injury, however, given a choice... I would give the child a better chance if the said vehicle was traveling at 60, rather than 66 (10% allowance which some argue for).

Hmm...Paramedic

Are you sure your qualified to comment on this subject???...lol

More than you would want to be im sure

All the strength in the world to ya fella, a wonderful job you guys do.

[MAD]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

well it refers to metro area, so im guessing it is referring to high/medium density traffic and 60 or below speed zones.

I agree, It is open to interpretation but in the context of the article it is relevant to findings.

Seems pretty straight forward to me. It's written in plain English.
If you drive at the limit in an 80km/h zone (say Princes Hwy) on the way to work, your risk is doubled 4 times.
God forbid you take a freeway.


Statistics can be twisted every which way from Sunday to mean whatever suits the agenda of the person trying to 'sell' it.



The mention of pedestrian safety in that report doesn't cover perhaps a campaign to re-train pedestrians on how to cross a road.... I reckon that would help a great deal to save a few pedestrian deaths.

This is the sort of stuff that gets left out because the focus is solely on the evil 'S' word.

[GCRXR6]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

Hmm...Paramedic

Are you sure your qualified to comment on this subject???...lol

More than you would want to be im sure

All the strength in the world to ya fella, a wonderful job you guys do.

Yeah Bent8 ....qualified to comment...had the pain of treating a kid I know...while his Mum was crying in my ear. Yeah he made it OK .... But, Ya never forget.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by MAD

Seems pretty straight forward to me. It's written in plain English.
If you drive at the limit in an 80km/h zone (say Princes Hwy) on the way to work, your risk is doubled 4 times.
God forbid you take a freeway.


Statistics can be twisted every which way from Sunday to mean whatever suits the agenda of the person trying to 'sell' it.



The mention of pedestrian safety in that report doesn't cover perhaps a campaign to re-train pedestrians on how to cross a road.... I reckon that would help a great deal to save a few pedestrian deaths.

This is the sort of stuff that gets left out because the focus is solely on the evil 'S' word.

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.

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by GCRXR6

The limit is the limit just as DUI limit is .05. Drive at .048 you're OK. Drive at .05 you get pinged. .055 ...."But occifer I woz only a little bit over...an..and I didn't kill anyone.."

Main difference being ..... Your choice to drive after a few drinks ...... as stated again and again ...... everyone can drive safely with a slight variation in speed. You do it I do it, my mum does is, the police do it and everyone else does it. You shouldnt police something just because it rakes in the money. I would like to see 0,0 DUI on the road.

Originally Posted by GCRXR6

As a Paramedic, I would rather not treat that child for any injury, however, given a choice... I would give the child a better chance if the said vehicle was traveling at 60, rather than 66 (10% allowance which some argue for).

Would it better for the car to be travelling at 60 then?

But it was a 50 zone!

OK, it would be better to hit the person doing 45 than 50 ..... but it happened in a 40 zone!

Drop the speed limit to 20 ....... and anyone doing 21 gets a jail term? There will still be accidents. 15?

Why was the kid on the road where cars belong and where were his parents? People belong on the footpath unless crossing when the road is clear .... Rule number 1

People run red lights 10 k's below the speed limit and can still cause carnage. You can pull out from a stop sign doing 5 kph and still do some damage.

Would be great to not have to treat any road trauma victims ..... but large moving objects, stopping suddenly, controlled by humans with varying conditions ,,,,, things go wrong.

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

No, that's your interpretation of it and well supported by your perspective of the subject.

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?

Read above and it really is quite an offensive question to ask. Really. No one wants to see anyone injured on the road.

There is just as much chance to hit someone doing 75 in an 80 and feel **** about it for ever as there is hitting someone at 65 in a 70 zone or 45 in a 50 .... etc and still feel **** about it.

I have put the discussion out there in the most logical way I can but you want to ask me that and expect what sort of answer?

Stuff it really. Those that think they are perfect on the roads can continue to be perfect in their own make beleive world. The fines can go up, speed limits down, tolerance lowered and more and more cameras on the road and everyone can continue just paying more and more in the interests of safety.

Meanwhile the real reasons are forgotten about because they are all too expensive and will cost.

I'm done. Thanks Bent 8 ...... done well

[GCRXR6]

Originally Posted by Auslandau

Main difference being ..... Your choice to drive after a few drinks ...... as stated again and again ...... everyone can drive safely with a slight variation in speed. You do it I do it, my mum does is, the police do it and everyone else does it. You shouldnt police something just because it rakes in the money. I would like to see 0,0 DUI on the road.



Would it better for the car to be travelling at 60 then?

But it was a 50 zone!

OK, it would be better to hit the person doing 45 than 50 ..... but it happened in a 40 zone!

Drop the speed limit to 20 ....... and anyone doing 21 gets a jail term? There will still be accidents. 15?

Why was the kid on the road where cars belong and where were his parents? People belong on the footpath unless crossing when the road is clear .... Rule number 1

People run red lights 10 k's below the speed limit and can still cause carnage. You can pull out from a stop sign doing 5 kph and still do some damage.

Would be great to not have to treat any road trauma victims ..... but large moving objects, stopping suddenly, controlled by humans with varying conditions ,,,,, things go wrong.

The point of speed limits is to allow the average driver time to respond accordingly to a situation. Where there is a heavily populated area, the speed limit is reduced to account for that. Ie built up areas, school zones etc. Speed limits aren't set to upset the ace drivers in our community ... Like some on here. They're set to avoid accidents where possible and reduce the consequence of that accident while still allowing for an orderly free flowing traffic.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by Auslandau

Would it better for the car to be travelling at 60 then?

But it was a 50 zone!

OK, it would be better to hit the person doing 45 than 50 ..... but it happened in a 40 zone!

Drop the speed limit to 20 ....... and anyone doing 21 gets a jail term? There will still be accidents. 15?

Why was the kid on the road where cars belong and where were his parents? People belong on the footpath unless crossing when the road is clear .... Rule number 1

People run red lights 10 k's below the speed limit and can still cause carnage. You can pull out from a stop sign doing 5 kph and still do some damage.

Would be great to not have to treat any road trauma victims ..... but large moving objects, stopping suddenly, controlled by humans with varying conditions ,,,,, things go wrong.

Hazard perception increases as speeds decline, chances are you wouldn't hit anyone at 40 as the ability to pre-empt the event is greater and reaction/braking distances are greatly reduced.

As for kids on the road, c'mon that's clutching at straws, kids cross the road all the time.
If you clean up a kid doing 65 you may well be morally right in possessing that piece of bitumen, but how's your conscience going to cope?

[Auslandau]

Yes.......I think everyone knows why there are speed zones ....... and yes ....... too many think they are ace drivers because they NEVER venture 1kph over the limit and are there fore the best and safest drivers out there.

You can continue now as I have had more than my say and feel like a broken record. I dont expect people to change their point of view but I just thought that some of my questions were answered. Anyway ..... had my 56 cents worth.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by Auslandau

Read above and it really is quite an offensive question to ask. Really. No one wants to see anyone injured on the road.

There is just as much chance to hit someone doing 75 in an 80 and feel **** about it for ever as there is hitting someone at 65 in a 70 zone or 45 in a 50 .... etc and still feel **** about it.

I have put the discussion out there in the most logical way I can but you want to ask me that and expect what sort of answer?

Stuff it really. Those that think they are perfect on the roads can continue to be perfect in their own make beleive world. The fines can go up, speed limits down, tolerance lowered and more and more cameras on the road and everyone can continue just paying more and more in the interests of safety.

Meanwhile the real reasons are forgotten about because they are all too expensive and will cost.

I'm done. Thanks Bent 8 ...... done well

What, so because the question leaves you in no mans land your packing up your bat and ball and going home?
The question was straight forward, either you condone 65 in a 60 zone knowing the possibilities, or you agree that being able to stop is paramount.
Your only issue is that the latter counter acts your argument and the former would make you look like a tool.

But if you don't want to answer that's fine too, its your show.

As for paying more and more, honestly, I don't know what circles you mix in, but no one I speak with has ever so much as raised the issue of fines and cameras and SA has the worst of the lot, never mind worry about the economic effect.
Its just not relevant, it doesn't happen often enough.
Its all just scare mongering and drum beating.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by Auslandau

Yes.......I think everyone knows why there are speed zones ....... and yes ....... too many think they are ace drivers because they NEVER venture 1kph over the limit and are there fore the best and safest drivers out there.

Who said anything about ACE drivers.
I've never claimed that I don't go over the limit, I just don't whinge when I get done, which is rarely anyway.
I did 600k's today with cruise set at 115 in a 110 zone and encountered half a dozen highway cars.
Didn't get pinched, and would have sucked it up if I did.
See, on the highway, with patrolling cars, its up to the officer.
But that's 6 coppers over 600k's, how many would it take to patrol every arterial road in peak traffic etc. to do away with cameras?
It couldn't be done, so we get cameras and they have a limit, its not that hard to live with.