Society/Culture Top traffic cop gets pinged for speeding

[cancat]

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/de...ugh-country-town/story-e6frf7jo-1225819442669

80 in 70 zone

I'm luckier than a lot of Victorians who weren't. I'm still here to talk about it. Lots of people die in exactly those kinds of circumstances.

What a drama queen. As though going slightly over the limit puts you at immediate risk. What he couldn't say, because it would undermine the campaign, was that speed limits and speed camera positions are designed to penalise otherwise law abiding citizens - in order to maximise revenue. It's a tax.

 

[showdownhero]

Maybe thats not the only thing his pingin

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

PR stunt to reinforce the message.

'If it's good enough for Ken Lay to get pinged then it's good enough for everyone else.'

 

[cancat]

Overland has fessed up now.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/ch...t-10-years-twice/story-e6frf7jo-1225820155912

 

[Nardz]

if they can't practise what they preach - then perhaps they should rethink what they preach

 

[Mr Q]

if they can't practise what they preach - then perhaps they should rethink what they preach

They're not the law makers, only the law enforcers.

At least these guys don't whine and whinge when they get caught.

 

[Mr Q]

What a drama queen. As though going slightly over the limit puts you at immediate risk. What he couldn't say, because it would undermine the campaign, was that speed limits and speed camera positions are designed to penalise otherwise law abiding citizens - in order to maximise revenue. It's a tax.

The key word in there is "otherwise". If you break the law, and get caught, then you pay the penalty and shut the hell up. It's not like you don't get plenty of notice of what the speed limit is - you know those big black numbers in red circles they have all over the place right?

I've had a drivers licence for nearly 20 years, and have got exactly zero speeding fines in that period. None. Of course, these days I don't do a lot of driving, but at times in my life I've been in the car a lot, yet never picked up a fine (well not for that anyway). Guess I'm a tax evader then

 

[HarryTiger]

There's a statistic I'd like to see which I think would be quite revealing.

It's the ratio of camera to non-camera fines for both police and the general population.

You see when a policeman is pulled over by another policeman what he usually does is flashes his badge, or his Freddy, and he says "It's cool, I'm one of you" and he is then allowed to drive on with no offence recorded.

But with cameras the police can't do that so they cop the fine. (NPI)

That ratio should be the same for both populations if they are not letting each other off.

 

[Nardz]

The key word in there is "otherwise". If you break the law, and get caught, then you pay the penalty and shut the hell up. It's not like you don't get plenty of notice of what the speed limit is - you know those big black numbers in red circles they have all over the place right?

I've had a drivers licence for nearly 20 years, and have got exactly zero speeding fines in that period. None. Of course, these days I don't do a lot of driving, but at times in my life I've been in the car a lot, yet never picked up a fine (well not for that anyway). Guess I'm a tax evader then

you don't think that as tax paying law abiding citizens that we have the right to question the motive behind laws?


if anyone here truly believes that the motive behind speeding fines are 100% dedicated to safety, and only safety, then i have no problem with the law.

But we all know that revenue is a big part of that law - i'd say probably more than 50%. they use the safety spiel to cover up what they're really interested in.

 

[CAS79]

There's a statistic I'd like to see which I think would be quite revealing.

It's the ratio of camera to non-camera fines for both police and the general population.

You see when a policeman is pulled over by another policeman what he usually does is flashes his badge, or his Freddy, and he says "It's cool, I'm one of you" and he is then allowed to drive on with no offence recorded.

But with cameras the police can't do that so they cop the fine. (NPI)

That ratio should be the same for both populations if they are not letting each other off.

That does go on Harry but there is also a group within traffic management units who are kept away from the other cops these days... many a bad word spoken about them because they give no favors.

Average cops though on traffic duty are another story.

 

[Mr Q]

you don't think that as tax paying law abiding citizens that we have the right to question the motive behind laws?


if anyone here truly believes that the motive behind speeding fines are 100% dedicated to safety, and only safety, then i have no problem with the law.

But we all know that revenue is a big part of that law - i'd say probably more than 50%. they use the safety spiel to cover up what they're really interested in.

I believe it's about safety, yes. 100%.

The reality is that people complain about getting pinged breaking the law. Yes, if you're going 61 in a 60 zone, it's breaking the law. The only leeway that need be given is the accuracy of the equipment.

The idea behind fines is that hitting people in the hip pocket is one of the few ways that get through to people that as a behaviour, speeding is unacceptable. The line that's easiest to draw is that below the speed limit, you can't get fined, above it you can. It's black and white (as law should be).

I have no problem with speed cameras - hidden or otherwise. Unpredictable behaviour in the detection methods is the only way to discourage people from speeding. The simple fact is that if you don't speed, you won't get caught, and none of that revenue will come from you.

I have no time for anyone that flouts road rules - and even less time this week as on Monday morning I was about five meters from being run down by a driver who ran a stop sign at at least 60km/h, while on my bike. Luckily for me he hit a car directly in front of me (and even more luckily hit it far enough forward that no one was injured beyond a bit of bruising). If I'd been two seconds earlier - or the idiot two seconds later, I'd be in hospital - or worse.

When you get in a car, you're taking everyone's lives in your hands. I reckon you either obey the rules, or catch the bus. And if you get caught not doing so, even for a lack of concentration, then you pay the consequences without complaint.

Personally, even if traffic fines were revenue raising, I'd much rather that revenue was raised from fines on people breaking the law than letting them off and having to raise revenue elsewhere.

 

[Dont be a lemon]

Maybe thats not the only thing his pingin

'his'?

 

[cancat]

I believe it's about safety, yes. 100%.

The roads would be much safer if we halved all speeding limits. Do you agree with that? Then we could make them even safer by halving them again. Clearly there's a compromise to be had between safety and people getting to where they are going in a reasonable time. And the fact that it's an easy revenue source is going to sway the speed limits to levels that will more catch people - all in the name of safety.

Here's another question for you. If you were going just under the limit in wet conditions and I was going just over in dry conditions who would have the shorter stopping distance? I'll give you a clue - it's the one breaking the law.

And another. Suppose you were travelling down the road just under the limit in a 1999 Falcon and I was going just over in a 2009 Falcon. who would have the shorter stopping distance? I'll give you a clue - it's the one breaking the law.

I'm happy for you that you have never got a speeding fine. But most people have including some of the top policemen in our state.

It's a tax.

 

[Nardz]

I believe it's about safety, yes. 100%.

you are dead set kidding yourself if you believe that.

speed cameras are more often than not placed in traffic blackspots - they are often placed in straight wide roads - quite often at the bottom of the hill where they are not visible - or something to that effect.

If they were deadset about safety and did not care about the revenue then they would focus on high accident zones and make the speed camera clear and visible - so people slow down and accidents are avoided.

The idea behind fines is that hitting people in the hip pocket is one of the few ways that get through to people that as a behaviour, speeding is unacceptable. The line that's easiest to draw is that below the speed limit, you can't get fined, above it you can. It's black and white (as law should be).

so how about people who are struggling financially - who have mortgages to pay off and kids to feed on very low incomes - is it right to be making life even harder for these families because a guy does 64 in a 60 zone?

 

[showdownhero]

'his'?

... he's

 

[Rocket23]

I have always wondered why cars are allowed to go over 110km at all. Why arent they fitted with speed limiters? Especially for newer drivers. I know I will get the you can go as fast as you want in the outback excuse, but the fact is a car registered in Victoria should not be allowed to go above 110km.

If they were serious about safety this would happen.

 

[erpel9999]

lol at this quote

"The system has worked on this occasion. I wasn't concentrating and paid a penalty as a result.
"On this occasion I was very lucky - I didn't drift into a tree, I got snapped (by a speed camera).

I think he got his fatigue kills and speed kills messages mixed up, otherwise every road with a 70 kph limit is a deathtrap

 

[Nardz]

I have always wondered why cars are allowed to go over 110km at all. Why arent they fitted with speed limiters? Especially for newer drivers. I know I will get the you can go as fast as you want in the outback excuse, but the fact is a car registered in Victoria should not be allowed to go above 110km.

If they were serious about safety this would happen.

i see your point but the speed limit is 110 in certain highways etc.


there'd be a case for 120 though...

 

[Clay Davis]

The roads would be much safer if we halved all speeding limits. Do you agree with that? Then we could make them even safer by halving them again. Clearly there's a compromise to be had between safety and people getting to where they are going in a reasonable time. And the fact that it's an easy revenue source is going to sway the speed limits to levels that will more catch people - all in the name of safety.

Here's another question for you. If you were going just under the limit in wet conditions and I was going just over in dry conditions who would have the shorter stopping distance? I'll give you a clue - it's the one breaking the law.

And another. Suppose you were travelling down the road just under the limit in a 1999 Falcon and I was going just over in a 2009 Falcon. who would have the shorter stopping distance? I'll give you a clue - it's the one breaking the law.

I'm happy for you that you have never got a speeding fine. But most people have including some of the top policemen in our state.

It's a tax.

So fines should be given out depending on model of car and conditions? Or no fines at all?

 

[MrMeaner]

So fines should be given out depending on model of car and conditions? Or no fines at all?

Don't you see? Speed limits are just too arbitrary. Yesterday morning shows how safe we are in modern vehicles on dry roads. It's everyone else who is the problem.

 

[Mr Q]

so how about people who are struggling financially - who have mortgages to pay off and kids to feed on very low incomes - is it right to be making life even harder for these families because a guy does 64 in a 60 zone?

The only person making life harder here is the person speeding.

Laws are only useful if they're enforced - and if there's an actual penalty for disobeying them. People make all sorts of justifications for why they shouldn't be penalised for whatever they do... but the reality is there's a very, very simple black and white law that covers this - you are not permitted to exceed the speed limit. If you're stupid enough to do that, then you pay the penalty.

If you can't concentrate enough to keep your speed from going up over the limit, then (1) why do you think you should be allowed behind the wheel of a car and (2) why don't you just do 55 in the 60 zone so when you accidentally speed up, you're still not over the limit?

 

[Papa G]

The only person making life harder here is the person speeding.

Laws are only useful if they're enforced - and if there's an actual penalty for disobeying them. People make all sorts of justifications for why they shouldn't be penalised for whatever they do... but the reality is there's a very, very simple black and white law that covers this - you are not permitted to exceed the speed limit. If you're stupid enough to do that, then you pay the penalty.

If you can't concentrate enough to keep your speed from going up over the limit, then (1) why do you think you should be allowed behind the wheel of a car and (2) why don't you just do 55 in the 60 zone so when you accidentally speed up, you're still not over the limit?

I'd rather take my chances with a 55 year old Asian woman in a Datsun 120Y than be anywhere near you Pops. You sound like the kind of guy that causes accidents. Do you ring talkback radio much? Have you run for council? Do you aspire to be a parking inspector? If some swears at the footy do you tell the ground officials?

 

[bit_pattern]

I'd rather take my chances with a 55 year old Asian woman in a Datsun 120Y than be anywhere near you Pops.

Racist, sexist AND ageist! Trifecta!

 

[Nardz]

The only person making life harder here is the person speeding.

Laws are only useful if they're enforced - and if there's an actual penalty for disobeying them. People make all sorts of justifications for why they shouldn't be penalised for whatever they do... but the reality is there's a very, very simple black and white law that covers this - you are not permitted to exceed the speed limit. If you're stupid enough to do that, then you pay the penalty.

If you can't concentrate enough to keep your speed from going up over the limit, then (1) why do you think you should be allowed behind the wheel of a car and (2) why don't you just do 55 in the 60 zone so when you accidentally speed up, you're still not over the limit?

if you're doing 64 in a 60 zone you are not endangering yourself, or others, anymore so than if you were doing 59. don't let that wipe of 5 crap fool you...