speeding fines

[Mr Q]

Originally posted by Saint4Life
BUT lol give me one reason why the police hide camera's on a down hill. Explain why its...

a. Hidden
b. On a down hill

A) Hidden:

Firstly, if people could see them miles in advance (and sometimes you can) they may be inclined to suddenly brake, causing danger to traffic behind them who may not have seen the speed camera.

Secondly, if you let people know about them too far in advance you'll not even catch the people who are doing excessive amounts over the speed limit. I don't think anyone here would argue that some drivers don't deserve to be caught.


B) on a down hill:

Consider this: If you are driving speed "X" on a piece of flat road, your stopping distance is "N" meters. So if you're doing "X" kmh down a hill when you reach the bottom of the hill your stopping distance on the resulting hill is still "N" meters (if you're still pointing down the slope then its N plus a bit). So please someone out there, anyone, tell me why it is safer to be speeding down a hill than on the flat.

If its not, then please tell me why speed cameras shouldn't be on down hill slopes?



On doing 4km over the limit, well if you think you're inclined to do that you *could* always pretend the speed limit is 55 instead of 60 (or whatever), then when you go 4km over the limit, you'll not be legally speeding. Make sure you stay in the left lane though when you do that...

Originally posted by Saint4Life
Crowaholic, moron's arnt just P platers. Why not many are. People just see to have this 'image' that they are. Im a shinning example of a good boy . No accident, not 1 speeding fine, not 1 pull over, nothing, and i've had it since the start of the year.

On "P" platers, I'd say that 90% of P platers are perfectly safe drivers, driving within the limit. However the other 10% are hoons driving at excessive speeds without anywhere near the experience needed to be even partially safe doing so. I was passed by a P-plater doing what I would estimate as 160kmh last night on the freeway in Perth, driving an old deathtrap. Pretty lethal combination (was also tailgating at times in an effort to get around the traffic doing the limit).

There are indeed other idiots on the road, however they are not quite as dangerous as they have a bit more experience to back up their bad driving.

As for your perfect record, I didn't pick up a fine (and it wasn't speeding) until I'd had my licence for five years, and that is to this day still the only fine I have ever received, so whoopty-****ing-doo, come back when you've had your licence long enough to talk.

 

[Saint4Life]

meh, long enough ok sure, no worries. P's last for 3 years, if i havent got 1 in three years, ill message u back. Plus my point is most P platers are GOOD drivers, not the WILD ones

still no need to "HIDE" camera's on a down hill, fine put them there, not hide and i do not believe its acceptable to get pinged for 4km/h over the speed limit on down hill.

 

[Docker_Brat]

Originally posted by Jars458
From what I understand red light cameras are only operate if you go over the strip on the front of the intersection about 1 to one and a half seconds AFTER it turns red.

That's the case in SA anyway.

It may not have been you therefore if you are sure it was Amber when you first went through it.

Works the same here as far as I know. If the light is amber when you hit the white line then you're OK.

 

[Santos L Helper]

Originally posted by Samos
Oh kettle, how are you? Yes I'm black too.

Good to see in this post you've not attempted to abuse anyone for their grammar. You really can't speak about 'stupid comments' as drilling someone for English over the internet is pretty high in studpidity.

What the **** are you talking about? You sir are a complete tool. Also, I'll let you in on a little secret. The internet is full of two different types of people............those who post stuff that is complete rubbish and based in idiocy, and those who tell you that you're an idiot.

Guess where you come in? It shouldn't be too hard champ.......just look at the majority of replies to your crap.

 

[Santos L Helper]

Originally posted by Saint4Life
mmm read above, see what happened :S
hmmm.

lol santo, isnt it on TV that speed limits are 40KM/H near a school on a street unless otherwise stated? MMM. Watch some tv might see it. Im not saying these limits are bad, they are quite good. Im talking bout having a big problems with camera's hidden down a hill. Not near schools.

Crowaholic, moron's arnt just P platers. Why not many are. People just see to have this 'image' that they are. Im a shinning example of a good boy . No accident, not 1 speeding fine, not 1 pull over, nothing, and i've had it since the start of the year. Every person also makes mistakes, no matter who you are. Just control your anger and its ok If you cant handle it that it makes you so angry, catch the bus.

You are an imbecile.

 

[Samos]

Mr. Q, you raise some good points, but again, that's what councils WANT you to think.

It's rare, and I don't think i've seen anyone speed down a hill (purposely). It's a weird concept.. drags, and road rage tend to take place on straighter surfaces.

What the point being made is, is that on a slope you tend to pick up those extra few k's. Believe me, i'm sure as you're a driver, you're well aware of when driving 60km/h it can feel like nothing, so those extra 3-4 k's do come into the equation. It's a dog act, and you've not been caught doing 3-4k's over the limit. You'll see the frustration as one day you will be caught off guard, and by the looks of it, you seem to show yourself as a weary and intelligent driver. That's the whole point of this, people like you, and I who will be pinged by these stupid little revenue making schemes.

Camera's are a necessity, don't get me wrong. Their positioning is also a necessity. Safety > Revenue.

For example; I've seen a camera positioned on a long road, with a hint of slope. The road is one of those of which are really wide & safe, but marked @ 60km/h. I'm sure as you're aware, on these types of roads you do tend to pick up those extra few K's unfortunately, sometimes without even noticing!

Point being, it should be hectic, and roads of havoc which could potentially cause damage, that need to be looked at. Not the wider variety of roads which are safer. It is definately visible that this particular road was definately trying to raise a few more bucks.

 

[Santos L Helper]

Originally posted by Samos
Mr. Q, you raise some good points, but again, that's what councils WANT you to think.

It's rare, and I don't think i've seen anyone speed down a hill (purposely). It's a weird concept.. drags, and road rage tend to take place on straighter surfaces.

What the point being made is, is that on a slope you tend to pick up those extra few k's. Believe me, i'm sure as you're a driver, you're well aware of when driving 60km/h it can feel like nothing, so those extra 3-4 k's do come into the equation. It's a dog act, and you've not been caught doing 3-4k's over the limit. You'll see the frustration as one day you will be caught off guard, and by the looks of it, you seem to show yourself as a weary and intelligent driver. That's the whole point of this, people like you, and I who will be pinged by these stupid little revenue making schemes.

Camera's are a necessity, don't get me wrong. Their positioning is also a necessity. Safety > Revenue.

For example; I've seen a camera positioned on a long road, with a hint of slope. The road is one of those of which are really wide & safe, but marked @ 60km/h. I'm sure as you're aware, on these types of roads you do tend to pick up those extra few K's unfortunately, sometimes without even noticing!

Point being, it should be hectic, and roads of havoc which could potentially cause damage, that need to be looked at. Not the wider variety of roads which are safer. It is definately visible that this particular road was definately trying to raise a few more bucks.

What's your opinion of someone being .01 over the limit for breath alcohol analysis? It's the same principle......just over the limit, but it also causes people to die.
So, do you feel that being 'over the limit' needs to be looked at too?

 

[Samos]

Originally posted by Santos L Helper
What the **** are you talking about? You sir are a complete tool. Also, I'll let you in on a little secret. The internet is full of two different types of people............those who post stuff that is complete rubbish and based in idiocy, and those who tell you that you're an idiot.

Guess where you come in? It shouldn't be too hard champ.......just look at the majority of replies to your crap.

Like this post above? Calling the kettle black, was what I was implying. You're obviously lacking in many departments to decipher it.

Yeah look at the majority of the replies? I'm not going to repeat myself, you only pick and choose what you want to read.

I usually post what is relevant to the topic. There are occasions which are exempt, as we have an abundance of toolkits as yourself.

"The internet is full of two different types of people............those who post stuff that is complete rubbish and based in idiocy, and those who tell you that you're an idiot."

Wow - where'd you pull this one from hero? Your posts have been utter rubbish in attacking others for their grammar, so I guess you fit into this little geek category you've made.

As I stated previously, you must lack in real life in those departments, so you seek refuge over the internet, on a forum, to abuse someone for their grammar. That is the ultimate in geek, and truly shows you're someone who has been deprived in some form.

You know what's funny, it's people like you that strive on arguments like these. The whole topic was based on speeding cameras, and you've taken it out of proportion, attacking others for their grammar. Pretty pathetic on your behalf.

How about from now on, stop making posts which are total crap. Keep on topic. If you have a problem with grammar, or anything else for that matter, which you need to speak to me, or anyone else about - i'd be glad to meet up and sort it out in person.

Keep your drivel off the forums.

 

[Samos]

Originally posted by Santos L Helper
What's your opinion of someone being .01 over the limit for breath alcohol analysis? It's the same principle......just over the limit, but it also causes people to die.
So, do you feel that being 'over the limit' needs to be looked at too?

Out of context.

Breathalisers is something I think is highly intelligent. I myself do not drink much, but I think the limits and conditions on drinking have been set pretty well.

3-4 k's is over the limit, and also driving under the speed limit can cause hassles too. Driving is always a measure of judgement, it also takes initiative.

You may be one of the safest drivers in the world, but we all make mistakes. I can almost guarentee there'd be a time where you've been 3-4 ks over the speed limit in a 60 zone for example. Does that make you a bad driver? No. Especially where the circumstances, such as a slope, come into play.

I hope you get pinged for going down a slope, only by 4 k's, where the camera was a total cnt and positioned NOT for your safety, but for you as a poor bastard to be caught and drained $125.

As I keep stating over and over, CAMERAS NEED TO BE POSITIONED FOR SAFETY, NOT FOR REVENUE.

Re-read the above post, i've already stated many of the points. I've described the road, and circumstances. I'm not going to repeat myself.


Edit: On the topic of alcohol, which is going astray a bit - I also think that it can be a difficult thing to determine. .05 is an estimation, and probably the safest limit for everyone - not everyone is the same though. I know people who could have many more drinks, and be just hitting .05.

On the other hand, some girls I know, can be conked out after 1 drink! So their estimation can be a bit skew. (the number of drinks that can be had)

Personally, when I'm driving, I don't, and won't be drinking, under any circumstances.

 

[Santos L Helper]

Originally posted by Samos
Out of context.

Breathalisers is something I think is highly intelligent. I myself do not drink much, but I think the limits and conditions on drinking have been set pretty well.

3-4 k's is over the limit, and also driving under the speed limit can cause hassles too. Driving is always a measure of judgement, it also takes initiative.

You may be one of the safest drivers in the world, but we all make mistakes. I can almost guarentee there'd be a time where you've been 3-4 ks over the speed limit in a 60 zone for example. Does that make you a bad driver? No. Especially where the circumstances, such as a slope, come into play.

I hope you get pinged for going down a slope, only by 4 k's, where the camera was a total cnt and positioned NOT for your safety, but for you as a poor bastard to be caught and drained $125.

As I keep stating over and over, CAMERAS NEED TO BE POSITIONED FOR SAFETY, NOT FOR REVENUE.

Re-read the above post, i've already stated many of the points. I've described the road, and circumstances. I'm not going to repeat myself.


Edit: On the topic of alcohol, which is going astray a bit - I also think that it can be a difficult thing to determine. .05 is an estimation, and probably the safest limit for everyone - not everyone is the same though. I know people who could have many more drinks, and be just hitting .05.

On the other hand, some girls I know, can be conked out after 1 drink! So their estimation can be a bit skew. (the number of drinks that can be had)

Personally, when I'm driving, I don't, and won't be drinking, under any circumstances.

It is NOT out of context to compare the two biggest killers of Australia's young people.
.05 is NOT an estimation, and to say so shows your low level of understanding. .05 is exact, whether you re female or male and no matter what body type. .05 is .05!
Why is being .01 over the limit any less a revenue maker than being 3-5 km/h over the limt? The amount of people caught speeding by camera's is very similar to that of drivers caught by RBT's. And I mean those who go through and those who are breaking the law.

 

[evade28]

Originally posted by Saint4Life
meh, long enough ok sure, no worries. P's last for 3 years, if i havent got 1 in three years, ill message u back. Plus my point is most P platers are GOOD drivers, not the WILD ones

im getting off my P's next month. 3 years of driving i only got pinged for the first time in july (like i said my dog was nearly dead and i was taking it to the vet!) and the other day for that BS 4k over.

OH and the other interesting (well its actually more ironic then interesting) thing about it is that there havent even been ANY crashes in that area for the last, oh FOUR YEARS at least, i dont know any further back then that.
isn't it lucky that they're keeping our roads safe, even the big wide ones that are already safe hey

 

[Samos]

Originally posted by Santos L Helper
It is NOT out of context to compare the two biggest killers of Australia's young people.
.05 is NOT an estimation, and to say so shows your low level of understanding. .05 is exact, whether you re female or male and no matter what body type. .05 is .05!
Why is being .01 over the limit any less a revenue maker than being 3-5 km/h over the limt? The amount of people caught speeding by camera's is very similar to that of drivers caught by RBT's. And I mean those who go through and those who are breaking the law.

I meant the number of drinks as an estimation, not the actual figure. I'm lacking sleep.

Ie; 4 drinks for one person can get you to .05, yet some I know who tested themselves get sloshed to it on 1.

There are too many variables, regardless, this was not the issue at hand I was looking at.

Got any statistics to back what you're saying?

 

[Samos]

Originally posted by Santos L Helper
It is NOT out of context to compare the two biggest killers of Australia's young people.

Yes, it is out of context.

My argument is not based on the biggest killers of Australia's young people.

RE READ WHAT I WROTE, and stop ignoring it.

I was talking about the principle and positioning of speed cameras you twit.

I am FOR them, I believe in what is the safest for our people. I also don't agree with drink driving.

Again, that is not my point, and you're skewing. What were my arguments based on?

Did i ever say speeding cameras are bad? Did I ever deny that speeding or drinking ARE not the 2 most detrimental causes to acidents?

Again, you seem to read what you want to read. Address the issue I put forth, and don't manipulate it into your own way of talking about the correlation of speeding vs. drinking.

Again, i'll reiterate, my argument is on speed cameras and their positioning. Re read my post, and put forth your arguments based on that. The way you twiddle and manipulate and stray off topic is useless. You make it seem like I dislike speeding cameras all together, and I condone reckless driving. You're very wrong.

 

[Saint4Life]

im an imbilsile? lol
ok. no worries mate, why dont we have a poll, or better yet, why do most people in australia believe camera's are for revenue? Oh thats right, their all imbilsiles too that no nothing. Sure mate.

 

[Docker_Brat]

Originally posted by Saint4Life
im an imbilsile?

You answered your own question right there.

 

[Blues4Life]

Originally posted by mantis
OH I apologise, of course most young kids drive cars at speeds between 200 & 220kmh, when he immediately pulled over, do you mean 500 metres down the road, because that's how long it would have taken him to stop at that speed.

Get a life, as I already told you moron I wasn't there. Yes I believe most young males (or females) with fast, powerful cars probably have driven 200km + before, it's why so many young P platers have so many accidents and why alot have those type of cars in the first place, to go fast.

Yes probably 500m to a km...I don't know but from what he told me he saw the cop, knew he was screwed and pulled over. We didn't sit around discussing distance, direction, altitude, weather, road condition etc.

 

[TheBloods]

Originally posted by Jars458
From what I understand red light cameras are only operate if you go over the strip on the front of the intersection about 1 to one and a half seconds AFTER it turns red.

That's the case in SA anyway.

It may not have been you therefore if you are sure it was Amber when you first went through it.

That's what I'm hoping is the case.

Red light cameras used to operate on a basis of they would flash randomly every few light changes, then I think they added the "trip" activation s you say above.

However, this was a combined red light/speed camera so the speed camera may have activated.

 

[Macca19]

Originally posted by Samos
What the point being made is, is that on a slope you tend to pick up those extra few k's. Believe me, i'm sure as you're a driver, you're well aware of when driving 60km/h it can feel like nothing, so those extra 3-4 k's do come into the equation. It's a dog act, and you've not been caught doing 3-4k's over the limit.

Dont cars have brake pedals these days? Surely its not that difficult to realise that if your coming up to a downhill slant/slope/hill then if you keep your foot on the accelator at the same level you have it at the time you hit the slope then you will go over the speed limit. Surely its not difficult to either put your foot on the brake lightly for...1 second to kill off those 3-4 km/h or to take your foot off the accelator slightly to stay at the same speed your going.

Its not brain surgery to avoid not speeding down a hill. Sure, i regularly go a bit faster down a hill....but im not gonna whinge and complain if i get caught by a speed camera in doing so. 4-5 km/h is fair enough gap for a speed camera to go off. The speed limit is 60. Not 64.

 

[Jars458]

Anyone who goes over 60 and gets done for it should just live with the consequences

The laws are there and everyone knows them.

The Revenue argument makes me laugh.

Most people apparantly don't want Government to collect any revenue and yet expect a high standard of Government services and faciliites.

you can't have it both ways.

Better to get revenue from those who are breaking the law, than in other ways from law abiding people.

Most speed cameras in 60 zones are set at 69 from what I know.

I have never had a speeding ticket in my life and I drive at 65-67 usually.

If I get caught however I know the risk I have been taking and will pay the fine.

Anyone who doesn't are just dead set whingers.

 

[Squeak]

Jars, I'm not sure if the 60 zone speed cameras being set at 69 are just in Adelaide, but in Melbourne there is a 3km/h tolerance, ie:

54 in a 50 zone - pinged
64 in a 60 zone - pinged
74 in a 70 zone - pinged
104 in a 100 zone - pinged

and so on.

 

[Rodion]

The answer is easy. If you see a 70km speed sign, imagine it says 65. Then if you creep over every now and then it won't matter. And for those morons who erroneously believe that it'll cause traffic disturbances, that's rubbish. It just means you'll reach then next red light 10 seconds later.

 

[Jars458]

Originally posted by Squeak
Jars, I'm not sure if the 60 zone speed cameras being set at 69 are just in Adelaide, but in Melbourne there is a 3km/h tolerance, ie:

54 in a 50 zone - pinged
64 in a 60 zone - pinged
74 in a 70 zone - pinged
104 in a 100 zone - pinged

and so on.

If that's the case you drive to teh conditions adn you will not get pinged.

Sometimes you may slip over the acceptable limit but more likely than not you will not go past a camera anyway.

Its basically about whether you are willing to take the risk of getting fined to get there a little bit quicker.

Either way - its your choice.

 

[Crowaholic]

Originally posted by Samos
Are you going to bring forth an argument as to where i'm an idiot, you **** rag?

You're not running the place, and never will, so don't flatter yourself.
I too, dislike morons on the roads but your suggestion is seriously flawed, obviously you lack intelligence of any form. Could you imagine your system being implemented? Anyone could dob in a driver, not for being a bad driver, but for their race. Ie; We'll dob this guy in because he's Indian! Sounds stupid? Yes, in actual fact, it is stupid. But there are many levels of stupidity in this society and of course, there'd be pricks who'd dob you in for no reason whatsoever.

Your suggestion is not so 'simple', as if it was, the system would have already been implemented, don't you think?

No. At the moment you can dob people in by calling the police line, I think they should give it a bigger profile and we can start weeding the scum off the roads. I for one am sick of having to use my horn and finger at least once a day at the speeding morons.

 

[Docker_Brat]

Originally posted by Jars458
Anyone who goes over 60 and gets done for it should just live with the consequences.

Exactly. It's amazing how so many people who get caught blame the cops, the government etc.

 

[TheBloods]

Originally posted by Jars458
Anyone who goes over 60 and gets done for it should just live with the consequences

It's not simply about breaking the speed limit, the thing that affects most people is when you get caught at a time when your speed has simply crept or spike above 60 for a very short period, however you drive nearly all the time at (or below) the speed limit. This happens to everyone and to be fined for a simple error is ridiculous. These types of occurences are not responsible for accidents and deaths. Rather, it is people who regularly drive above the speed limit and drive recklessly.