Campaign Against Road Ripoffs

[Tony P]

The issue I have are people going at 20ks under the limit. That is more dangerous.

Agreed.....I find though that strategically placing a 6.0lt fuel-injected V8 SSV in their rear vision mirror can have the desired effect of moving them along a little .
TOR

Haha. A friend of mine has a "Keep left" with an arrow all written backwards that he keeps under his passenger sun shade. When he gets up behind a slow one in the right lane he puts the shade down so they can read it in their mirror. Works a treat.

[_BlackHawk_]

Speedos read under. So no excuse unless you've messed about with your car.

Not entirely correct. Under Australian Design Rule 18, until July 2006 speedo's had to be accurate to within +/- 10% of the vehicles true speed when over 40kph. After that, the new rule said indicated speed must not be under true speed by more than 10% plus 4kph. So an indicated speed of 100kph, your car could be doing anything between 87 and 100kph.

[_BlackHawk_]

Our roads are very good and you could safely lift the speed limit by 10-20kph without a problem.

BullSh*t, the roads are falling apart and I drive them everyday. You need a 4wd in most parts!

I don't know where you live, but in suburban Melbourne where I live, that is just not the case. I've also driven around the state a fair bit with work and I've not found any road that my V6 commodore couldn't safely negotiate. I remember when you could do 60 in suburban roads and it was and still is safe to do that. Many wide divided roads are down to 60 or 70 from 80, when 80 is and was, perfectly safe to do.

[Night-Raptor]

I'm staying right out of this because I've had to deal with the aftermath of people who thought that the speed limit was optional.... some things, once seen, can't be forgotten.

[_BlackHawk_]

I'm staying right out of this because I've had to deal with the aftermath of people who thought that the speed limit was optional.... some things, once seen, can't be forgotten.

I didn't say speed limits were optional, I said they are set too low. Those idiots who split cars in half around trees are not going 60 and clearly, have no regard for the posted limit no matter how low you want to set it. An example was near me when a car full of teenagers wrapped a commodore around a tree in Plenty Road and killed themselves. There were then calls to lower the speed limit from 80, but it wouldn't have mattered to them if the limit was 80 or 60, they were doing 140. Low speed limits only inconvenience those who are law abiding, not the fools.

[tor lives]

Low speed limits only inconvenience those who are law abiding, not the fools.

Yep.....I would agree with that statement whole-heartedly!!!.
Further to that, I recall at the height of the "super car" media/government scare campaign of the 1970s, Dick Johnson made a classic statement...."Ban low performance drivers not high performance cars". You have my vote on that Dick.
TOR

[Night-Raptor]

I'm staying right out of this because I've had to deal with the aftermath of people who thought that the speed limit was optional.... some things, once seen, can't be forgotten.

I didn't say speed limits were optional, I said they are set too low. Those idiots who split cars in half around trees are not going 60 and clearly, have no regard for the posted limit no matter how low you want to set it. An example was near me when a car full of teenagers wrapped a commodore around a tree in Plenty Road and killed themselves. There were then calls to lower the speed limit from 80, but it wouldn't have mattered to them if the limit was 80 or 60, they were doing 140. Low speed limits only inconvenience those who are law abiding, not the fools.

And two hours later Brad - the best friend of the driver was caught doing 170 on the ring road. His comment to the police was along the lines of - "But I'm a better driver then he was".

I recall that incident very well Brad - I know some of the Emergency Service crews who had to remove the bodies. Bottom line - the speed limit, set as it is, is there for a reason - stay under it, or get booked. Its pretty simple, and npothing you say will ever convince me that more speed, legal or otherwise, is a good thing.

[_BlackHawk_]

Your position on speed limits is exactly the flawed one that is leading to them being constantly lowered and lowered. I'll give you a hint; lowering speed limits does absolutely NOTHING to stop road deaths and speeding because as we've already agreed upon, idiots take no, zero, zilch, nada regard of the posted limit anyway.

When I talk about raising speed limits I'm not talking to limits like 170 on the Ring Road, but you could safely do 110 on it, not a problem at all (especially after the widening). The same with East Link. As I said, between 10 and 20kph without issue at all on all roads. We should also consolidate how many speed zones you have and get rid of the school zones. It's causing drivers to spend more time looking for constant speed limit changes and having their head in their speedo rather than keeping their eyes out the windscreen.

The facts are, many speed limits, set as they are, are too low in order to either produce a revenue raising speed trap or done so in the flawed and simplistic idea that lowering speed limits reduces road trauma. You will see the police bang on about speeding being the biggest killer on roads, but often what they don't say is there are other overriding factors (the driver was drunk, fell asleep or was not driving to conditions), they just pick speed because it's the one that gives them an excuse to get more cameras and raise more money. The biggest killers on our roads are; inattention, fatigue, inexperience and stupidity and a posted sign or speed camera does nothing to stop those.

Also, other things to keep in mind are the German Autobahns. They kinda screw up any argument that speed kills since there is no maximum limit posted on them. For a little closer to home, in 2007 they trialed speed limits in the NT for 4 highways that had previously not been restricted. With a limit of 130, fatalities increased in those 2 years.

[_BlackHawk_]

Also, I have a question for anyone who wants to try and answer it;

If speed camera's work in reducing speeding and dangerous driving, why are there still over 1.3 million people being issued a fine in Victoria each year?

[davecana]

Also, I have a question for anyone who wants to try and answer it;

If speed camera's work in reducing speeding and dangerous driving, why are there still over 1.3 million people being issued a fine in Victoria each year?

I agree that speed cameras do bugger all to reduce speeding, mainly because you don't get the notice that you were speeding until it arrives in the mail. But, as to why 1.3 million fines are issued, partly quoting you, "inattention, inexperience and stupidity".