Why don't we just call speeding fines what they are - Travellers Tax

[gPhonque]

Originally posted by RIPPER_46
You are in a catch 22 situation here. Dont speed but if you are in the out back like I am if say you want to go to port hedland. 990kms the difference bettween doing 130 and 110 can be over an hour. An hour I hear you say not much but it is the difference between daylight and dark a lot of the time. Believe me it is far more dangerous at night than in the day. Also fatigue comes into it 8 hours driving is less fatigueing than 9 hours.

I agree.

(why a catch 22? Am I missing something? )

 

[Mr Q]

Originally posted by RIPPER_46
That is bull****. where I am I will travel to Perth at 120-130KPH in the daylight but 70-80 at night. This emphasis on speed is going the wrong way about it. You cannot convince me that it is not safer to go from here to Newman at 150 on a 32 foot wide bitumen road (in the daylight) than it is to go from here to Wiluna at 110 (not speeding) on a dirt road. I recently was in the NT and travelled to Katherine from Darwin. We were doing 150kmh quite safely IMO and passed a few PPL and a couple passed us. The big difference when compared to WA was that it started raining and EVERYBODY slowed down to 90kph. Compare this to the freeways in Perth and no one would slow down as they have had SPEED LIMITS drummed into their brains and as far as they are concerned if the speed limit is 110 then that is what they will do.

For a start don't get the impression that just because I live in Perth now that I haven't lived outside the city in the past (I used to live in Karratha), so I have experience driving on the sorts of highways you are talking about.

1) without a speed limit people will drive at 150kph night and day. I agree, at night or when its raining on the highway people should drive at lower speeds.

2) Anyone doing the Meeka-Wiluna road at 110kph any time is a lunatic. Gravel roads should always have a limit of 80-90 IMO.

3) The freeway in Perth does run notably slower in wet weather than in dry. There are lunatics who drive at 120kph, but they'd do that anyway. I believe the freeway in Perth is a good example of somewhere to install variable speed limit signs.

 

[Mr Q]

Originally posted by RIPPER_46
BTW the NT has open speed limits but you can still get done for "Unsafe speeding" which is the way it should be Australia wide.

Until the end of June this year the NT had 25 road deaths compared to WA's 96 (ie 26%). However since the population of the NT is about 10% that of WA, that would indicate that the NT roads are actually less safe.

 

[Ripper]

Originally posted by Mr Q
Until the end of June this year the NT had 25 road deaths compared to WA's 96 (ie 26%). However since the population of the NT is about 10% that of WA, that would indicate that the NT roads are actually less safe.

It could also indicate a lot of PPL killed in the back of utes.

 

[Generalissimo]

The trouble with the speed limits is that people think that if they see a 70kph sign, they have a God-given right to do 70 and if they accidentally do 75 then so what? WRONG! When you see a speed limit, that is the absolute maximum speed that you can legally get away with. If it says 70, do 65. I do, and I have never had a speeding ticket or really been late for anything.

 

[GhostofJimJess]

Originally posted by Generalissimo
The trouble with the speed limits is that people think that if they see a 70kph sign, they have a God-given right to do 70 and if they accidentally do 75 then so what? WRONG! When you see a speed limit, that is the absolute maximum speed that you can legally get away with. If it says 70, do 65. I do, and I have never had a speeding ticket or really been late for anything.

In a nutshell.

 

[Former]

Originally posted by Generalissimo
The trouble with the speed limits is that people think that if they see a 70kph sign, they have a God-given right to do 70 and if they accidentally do 75 then so what? WRONG! When you see a speed limit, that is the absolute maximum speed that you can legally get away with. If it says 70, do 65. I do, and I have never had a speeding ticket or really been late for anything.

Yeah but you are probably always that idiot holding up the flow of traffic...

While driving your speed can fluctuate without you realising it. 70 can become 65 can become 75 in a very short time. If you are driving under the limit for no good reason you will almost always be disrupting traffic flow and are in danger of causing accidents and bottlenecks.

If you are tearing along at 70 or 80 in a sixty zone you are obviously flouting the limit. But fluctuating above and below the speed limit by up to 10% is perfectly acceptable if you are driving in good conditions. It is a normal part of driving. Except if you are in a state where the cops are just instruments of the taxation department.

 

[Generalissimo]

Originally posted by Appleyard
Yeah but you are probably always that idiot holding up the flow of traffic...

I take great satisfaction in holding up idiots who expect me to break the law for their convenience. No sensible person has ever complained about my driving.

While driving your speed can fluctuate without you realising it. 70 can become 65 can become 75 in a very short time. If you are driving under the limit for no good reason you will almost always be disrupting traffic flow and are in danger of causing accidents and bottlenecks.

Not so. If I were doing 30 in a 60 zone maybe.

But fluctuating above and below the speed limit by up to 10% is perfectly acceptable if you are driving in good conditions.

No, it's not. If you're doing 10% over the limit, do you know how much longer it'll take you to stop, if you have to break suddenly? 21% longer. You've seen the ads on TV, and seen how many metres that extra stopping time can add.

Except if you live in a state where the cops are just instruments of the taxation department.

That's utter rubbish, and you know it. If the cops were just there to raise revenue, do you think they'd hang around the highways and be content to catch the odd speeding motorist? Not on your life. They'd be out in force at the local supermarket car park where every second person decides the road rules are like cancer (things they read about but never think will actually happen to them), and just does what they want. They'd get twice as much money.

Do you know why the cops patrol the streets and highways instead? It's because if you break the law in a supermarket car park, nobody gets hurt. If you do the same on a highway people get KILLED. That's right, KILLED. That is why the government is trying to discourage speeding, and people like you whine and bitch and make excuses for your illegal and unsafe behaviour. You honestly have no idea how utterly wrong you are, do you?

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by Appleyard
It is almost impossible not to exceed the limit at some stage without endangering your life through keeping your eye on the speedo 80% of the time.

No it isn't. There's no law to say you have to drive at the spped limit. Drive 5 k's under.

Cruise Control helps too.

Speed limits are necessary, but on a quiet road on a Sunday afternoon 5 k's over for 100 metres is nothing.

Until you lose control and hit a tree. It can happen. 5'ks over can kill.

Base corruption and revenue raising. The cops are a joke down to the last stoned, drunken constable.

My my we are bitter over one little ticket. The cops are no different to any other job, some good, some bad.

Bit like internet bulletin board moderators.

 

[gPhonque]

Originally posted by Dave
Until you lose control and hit a tree. It can happen. 5'ks over can kill.

Oh come on Dave....you sound like a TAC ad.

Looking at your speedo for a couple of seconds can kill just as easily.

I generally drive a little under the limit, but I do creep up above it occasionally, and I'm sure you do too.

Being booked for it is absolutely ridiculous.

I'm finding myself concentrating more on my speedo than I am on the road these days.

How on Earth that leads to safer driving you tell me.

Cruise Control helps too.

Yes it does - on freeways, highways etc....

But that's not the issue.

It's the police sitting at the bottom of hills booking people for creeping 5kph over the limit in a 60 zone that is the issue here. It does absolutely nothing to make the roads safer (which is supposed to be the point, correct me if I'm wrong), and in fact the entire attitude of "if you accidentally creep a tiny bit over the limit, we'll book you" is imo leading to people concentrating more on keeping their license than they are on the road.

 

[evade28]

Originally posted by Dave
Until you lose control and hit a tree. It can happen. 5'ks over can kill.

hmmm. interesting. do you think being exactly on the limit will stop you from losing control? chances are if youre going to lose it you will whether you are going the speed limit, or 5k's over it.

it is possible to lose control while doing the speed limit you know. and chances of losing it while a measley 5 ks over are hardly different.

like that stupid 'wipe off 5' ad shows that one car hits at 32ks and one hits at 5 ks, well if youre going 32ks you could easily swerve around the back of that truck instead of going straight into it.

 

[Jars458]

Originally posted by NMWBloods
and


Strange mix of comments there. /B]

How so???

The police it seems set their radars at 70kmh

However if I were to get caught speeding I would cop it and not whinge about it.

 

[Jars458]

Originally posted by Appleyard
Except if you are in a state where the cops are just instruments of the taxation department.

Cops have nothing to do with the tax deprtmant

fees fines and charges are not taxation

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by gPhonque
Oh come on Dave....you sound like a TAC ad.

Where's my cheque?

Looking at your speedo for a couple of seconds can kill just as easily.

The slower you go the quicker you stop. You don't need to look away that often IMO.

I generally drive a little under the limit, but I do creep up above it occasionally, and I'm sure you do too.

I do, but I know that if I do that I could get pinged. That's life. You speed, you pay.

Being booked for it is absolutely ridiculous.

No it isn't. There has to be a point at which you get fined else there's no point in speed limits and we'd have carnage on our roads. You believe that the current situation is silly but the facts don't agree with this. The dop in the road toll since the change in the way the limits are policed proves this.

I'm finding myself concentrating more on my speedo than I am on the road these days.

How on Earth that leads to safer driving you tell me.

If you need to look at the speedo that often there's something wrong IMO.

Yes it does - on freeways, highways etc....

But that's not the issue.

It's the police sitting at the bottom of hills booking people for creeping 5kph over the limit in a 60 zone that is the issue here.

Which is rare in my experience.

It does absolutely nothing to make the roads safer (which is supposed to be the point, correct me if I'm wrong), and in fact the entire attitude of "if you accidentally creep a tiny bit over the limit, we'll book you" is imo leading to people concentrating more on keeping their license than they are on the road.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here.

 

[Dave]

Originally posted by evade28
hmmm. interesting. do you think being exactly on the limit will stop you from losing control?

Not always, however the limits on roads are set according to the conditions and how safe it is to travel at that speed.

chances are if youre going to lose it you will whether you are going the speed limit, or 5k's over it.

If that were the case we'd have an epidemic of crashes occuring where people were driving at the limit, not over it.

it is possible to lose control while doing the speed limit you know.

I know, that's why I don't always drive at the limit either.

and chances of losing it while a measley 5 ks over are hardly different.

Next you'll be telling us mobile phones and drink driving aren't dangerous.

like that stupid 'wipe off 5' ad shows that one car hits at 32ks and one hits at 5 ks, well if youre going 32ks you could easily swerve around the back of that truck instead of going straight into it.

If you can. What do you do if there is oncoming traffic on the other side of the road and trees on the lhs? You know, like most surburban roads. Good night gracie.

You want to speed, go ahead. But dont whine like a bitch when you get fined because that's a risk you take.

 

[evade28]

Originally posted by Dave

The slower you go the quicker you stop.

yeh but usually the only time you stop is when youve crashed into something.

Originally posted by Dave
Next you'll be telling us mobile phones and drink driving aren't dangerous.

err no. actually from personal experiences regarding drink driving (and no i wasnt driving OR in the car) its about the most stupid thing you could do in a car. what i saw/experienced was actually quite devastating.

If you can. What do you do if there is oncoming traffic on the other side of the road and trees on the lhs? You know, like most surburban roads. Good night gracie.

yes true, well i was thinking about the particular scenario shown in the tv ad. AND BTW you would instinctively swerve to miss it anyway regardless of whats on the other side of the road. that is a fact. which is why the front passenger seat is the most dangerous place to be sitting in a car.

You want to speed, go ahead. But dont whine like a bitch when you get fined because that's a risk you take.

well i dont usually speed but i was once and i got caught and no i wasnt whinging, i speed i pay the fine. its that simple.