Revenue Raising at its best

[P6LTD351]

Originally Posted by vztrt

Funny enough they can track your speed and ping you immediately yet not actually control the speed of your car??

Yes but I would respect a politician more if he/she comes out saying "no we will not actually control the speed of your car. It is a good revenue stream. IF YOU DON'T WANT TO PAY, DON'T SPEED." I'm a straight shooter. I much prefer if others are too. We know it's revenue raising. I don't see a problem with it being revenue raising. The only people who do, are the ones that keep on getting fines because they believe the law doesn't apply to them.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by eb2monty

Yes but I would respect a politician more if he/she comes out saying "no we will not actually control the speed of your car. It is a good revenue stream. IF YOU DON'T WANT TO PAY, DON'T SPEED." I'm a straight shooter. I much prefer if others are too. We know it's revenue raising. I don't see a problem with it being revenue raising. The only people who do, are the ones that keep on getting fines because they believe the law doesn't apply to them.

I don't get pinged and I have a problem with it.

[P6LTD351]

Originally Posted by vztrt

I don't get pinged and I have a problem with it.

Why is that?

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by eb2monty

We know it's revenue raising. I don't see a problem with it being revenue raising. The only people who do, are the ones that keep on getting fines because they believe the law doesn't apply to them.

No.

I have never been fined..... ever. I still Have a problem with stupid revenue raising cameras for many reasons.

Main reason is the government get all the brownie points for saving lives when they have done absolutely nothing.
'"We saved 20 people last year thanks to these new speed cameras"
Then all the idiots go "Oh this government is awesome, they are really looking out for my safety, well done to my heros."

They never show proof that speed cameras have a direct affect on the road toll, they just say "Studies show"
What studies!!!!

Plus there is so many other dangerous things that people do on the roads and get away with 99.9% of the time because there is no camera that can fine people for tailgating and not indicating... two very dangerous things among many others.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by eb2monty

Why is that?

Because I feel this idea of using a camera to save lives is an incorrect action. It has lowered the driving standards of people and made it more dangerous out there. Also the money raised is not used correctly.

[P6LTD351]

Originally Posted by Ben73

No.

I have never been fined..... ever. I still Have a problem with stupid revenue raising cameras for many reasons.

Main reason is the government get all the brownie points for saving lives when they have done absolutely nothing.
'"We saved 20 people last year thanks to these new speed cameras"
Then all the idiots go "Oh this government is awesome, they are really looking out for my safety, well done to my heros."

They never show proof that speed cameras have a direct affect on the road toll, they just say "Studies show"
What studies!!!!

Plus there is so many other dangerous things that people do on the roads and get away with 99.9% of the time because there is no camera that can fine people for tailgating and not indicating... two very dangerous things among many others.

You really think the Government get brownie points when we know they don't save lives?

I agree that speed cameras don't save lives. That's not the issue I raised. My issue is people whinging about them. It's very simple; don't speed, don't pay.

I agree that there are many other dangerous things that people do on roads that go unchecked. That doesn't really have anything to do with speed cameras. I do the right thing on the roads; partly because I'm tight and don't want to pay a fine, and partly because I respect people enough not to put their life in danger; and that I also respect authority - something sadly lacking these days. I do the right thing so it wouldn't bother me if there are cameras everywhere.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by eb2monty

Yes but I would respect a politician more if he/she comes out saying "no we will not actually control the speed of your car. It is a good revenue stream. IF YOU DON'T WANT TO PAY, DON'T SPEED." I'm a straight shooter. I much prefer if others are too. We know it's revenue raising. I don't see a problem with it being revenue raising. The only people who do, are the ones that keep on getting fines because they believe the law doesn't apply to them.

Yes a bit like ADRs really.

Maybe every car should be tested for full compliance with EVERY ADR including emissions, wheel sizes, suspension height etc. every year and any modded ones that do not comply removed from the road for ever......

Got be a good idea and save lives getting old junkers modded by "hoons" off the roads.

Could start with these ones:

The Fleet
1995 EF XR8 Manual Heritage Green, Factory Bodykit, Cruise and FTRs
1994 NCII Fairlane Ghia V8 Polynesian Green, all original including premium sound and CD stacker
1992 EBII Fairmont 4.0L Platinum, 2.5 inch stainless steel exhaust, superlows
1986 XF Fairmont Ghia 4.1L EFI Regency Red, with factory options: trip computer and premium sound and rear venetians

[ray38l]

Originally Posted by eb2monty

I agree that there are many other dangerous things that people do on roads that go unchecked. That doesn't really have anything to do with speed cameras.

that has everything to do with speed cameras. There are less cops on the road now since speed cameras started going in everywhere. Less cops= less chance of getting caught doing more dangerous things.
I admit i often speed. Most of the times i speed on the highway just after i have been through a fixed speed camera. I have never been caught speeding by a cop anywhere near a fixed camera. I wonder why that is?
show me someone who says they have never sped and i will show you a liar.

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by eb2monty

I agree that there are many other dangerous things that people do on roads that go unchecked. That doesn't really have anything to do with speed cameras. I do the right thing on the roads; partly because I'm tight and don't want to pay a fine, and partly because I respect people enough not to put their life in danger; and that I also respect authority - something sadly lacking these days. I do the right thing so it wouldn't bother me if there are cameras everywhere.

Yes it does. like someone else said.
Cameras are doing 'road safety' so they put less cops on the roads.

Anyway when It's 2:30am I am going home from a 11 hour shift (not uncommon in my industry) and I am driving on a deserted muliti lane highway with divided road, at 10 or so over the speed limit, whos life am I actually putting in danger? My own? Maybe but probably not since the 10km/h difference is not much at that speed. Might even be safer because I will get off the road quicker in which means reduces fatigue.

[P6LTD351]

Ha ha. Classic Flappist. I'll give ya that one.

[mik]

Originally Posted by Racecraft

I'd laugh if they set it up on rubbish day

yeah i was just thinking that

[mik]

Originally Posted by ray38l

that has everything to do with speed cameras. There are less cops on the road now since speed cameras started going in everywhere. Less cops= less chance of getting caught doing more dangerous things.
I admit i often speed. Most of the times i speed on the highway just after i have been through a fixed speed camera. I have never been caught speeding by a cop anywhere near a fixed camera. I wonder why that is?
show me someone who says they have never sped and i will show you a liar.

this is true, once upon a time you would get nicked for driving through a stop sign or not giving way, or weaving in and out of lanes, tail gating, or just general dangerouse driving, camera`s do nothing to curb these drivers behavior, more camera`s less police............. this very fact makes camera`s more dangerouse.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Ben73

. Might even be safer because I will get off the road quicker in which means reduces fatigue.

Feeling fatigued?, pull over, dont drive, there are no other options.

[barra265t]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Feeling fatigued?, pull over, dont drive, there are no other options.

No other options..? Don't want to potentially die young? don't drive, don't cross the street, just stay home? In life we all take risks, and ultimately one decides what is and what is not an acceptable risk to take. +10kmh on a deserted highway at 2.30am is certainly a more acceptable risk than storming through a red light to save time, for instance.

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by eb2monty

if you don't speed you don't have anything to worry about. There will be a time when it will all be satellite operated and you will be pinned via your GPS everytime you go over the limit. Once again, don't speed - nothing to worry about. BUT....our society likes to blame everything else except ourselves. Is it revenue raising? Hell yes. If I was in Government, I would come out and say "Yes it is revenue raising. But you know what? Don't speed and you won't get fined. If there are a couple of lives saved as a by product - all well and good - but primarily, we are revenue raising" That will get a lot more respect.

Absolutely;

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...289885456.html

Just like that hoon in the Datsun 120Y that was doing 158km/h!

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by barra265t

+10kmh on a deserted highway at 2.30am is certainly a more acceptable risk than storming through a red light to save time, for instance.

Geez, cant beat that logic, as long we dont go through red lights anything is acceptable, drive faster so I wont fall asleep before I get there?

The issue was about this person driving whilst fatigued, I dont care about why he is fatigued, how he is going to get home,that is his problem.

But driving on public roads(no the road wasnt closed to the public at 2.30am) that is all of our concerns.

Having just had a friend that was seriously injured when he was rammed from behind by a night shift driver that fell asleep on the way home going way and going way too fast to boot, I dont take and never have taken the issue of fatigue lightly.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by ray38l

show me someone who says they have never sped and i will show you a liar.

this


whilst i don't necessarily have an issue with speed camera, i do have issue with the ridiculously low tolerances they have now. setting them to trigger at only 1, 2 or 3 or even 5km/h over is just wrong.

prior to 2006 you could have car that was deemed LEGAL and yet the speedo only needed to be accurate to within 10% over or under reading. the owner of the vehicle is not obliged to have the speedo corrected if the vehicle is in original condition (unmodified).

[Reaper8]

when i lived in canberra all the spped camera's were in vans and were marked with warning signs before and after them (dont know if still are), anyway my mate snuck up behind one one night with screwdriver in hand and removed its back rego plate. went back to his car and put it onto it then went flyin past the speed camera about a dozen times before losing the plate on the way home.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by prydey

the owner of the vehicle is not obliged to have the speedo corrected if the vehicle is in original condition (unmodified).

Absolutely true, but you are obliged to pay the speeding fine

im sure we've been here before.

So its up to the owner to either keep 10% below what their speedo says or if they feel that is ridiculuously slow, get it checked out or calibrated in some way so they know what the true reading actually is.

Really though, it is just a red herring;

(i) actual instances of speedos that under-read by more than the current tolerances are very small, still the majority of pre 2006 speedos over read.

(ii) the number of drivers who have speedos that under-read and are not aware of it?(most soon realise that they seem to be going faster than the traffic around them and figure something might be out) is very small again, most forum members here will tell you exactly how much their speedo is out by.

(iii) the number of people wanting to press the 60km/h limit and being in category (i) and (ii) is by probability going to be very very very small

(iv) the court system currently allows you to challenge a fine based on this 10% speedo error, but you have to go to the trouble of having your speedos reading verified

Lets pretend that we have just a few people who fall into category (i), (ii) and (iii) and they get fined for speeding and they weren't.

What are the possible outcomes:

(i) They can appeal, (get their speedo checked), but its their expense? well too bad for not having some basic awareness of what is happening I say

or

cop it on the chin and conclude, my speedo is under reading, better go a bit slower or get it checked out.

Either way this very very very small number of people will either pay one or two speeding fines or challenge via the court system

If we go to the other alternative, allow a 10% tolerance?

That equals we will have a significant amount of people who will abuse the current limit and travel at 10% above it, along with that goes an increased number of accidents, property damage, serious injury and deaths.

But heh, is this going to stop people on this forum carrying on about the plight of the 0.001%, rather than take on the big picture, spose not.

[XR6Noir]

Another one successfully destroyed. Good work.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by XR6Noir

Another one successfully destroyed. Good work.

it was a "rubbish" thread from the start

[prydey]

sudszy - if my speedo reads 60 and my road speed is 62, i'm not exactly going to be flying through the traffic due to a huge discrepancy in speed, but if people like you get their way, that 2km/h will be enough to trigger the speed camera.

here's a tip, many drivers wouldn't have a clue that their speedo may not be accurate.

as for the big picture, maybe step back and view it for yourself. there is a big real world out there and all but 1 of us are living in it.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by prydey

sudszy - if my speedo reads 60 and my road speed is 62, i'm not exactly going to be flying through the traffic due to a huge discrepancy in speed, but if people like you get their way, that 2km/h will be enough to trigger the speed camera.

here's a tip, many drivers wouldn't have a clue that their speedo may not be accurate.

as for the big picture, maybe step back and view it for yourself. there is a big real world out there and all but 1 of us are living in it.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by prydey

here's a tip, many drivers wouldn't have a clue that their speedo may not be accurate.

.

as I said...., "But heh, is this going to stop people on this forum carrying on about the plight of the 0.001%, rather than take on the big picture, spose not."

[LTDHO]

Originally Posted by Rapid_Axe

Thoughts?

Welcome back from 2001, I hear fords next Falxon will bwe BA not AV!

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Geez, cant beat that logic, as long we dont go through red lights anything is acceptable, drive faster so I wont fall asleep before I get there?

The issue was about this person driving whilst fatigued, I dont care about why he is fatigued, how he is going to get home,that is his problem.

But driving on public roads(no the road wasnt closed to the public at 2.30am) that is all of our concerns.

Having just had a friend that was seriously injured when he was rammed from behind by a night shift driver that fell asleep on the way home going way and going way too fast to boot, I dont take and never have taken the issue of fatigue lightly.

The other day I drove on one of these back country roads for work purposes in the middle of the day. We passed about 10 cars in the space of 100kms.
That's 1 car every 10kms. I remind you that is during the day, the busy time.

How many cars do you think I would pass on the same road at 2am. 1? 2? 0? Pretty hard to run up that back of someone if you never come up behind anyone.
On these roads when approaching a oncoming vehicle in the middle of the night I always slow down to about 80 even though it's a 100 zone.
Why. Because I drive to the conditions and don't just obey an almost meaningless sign on the side of the road.

There is a big difference between feeling tired and worn out and about to fall asleep.

[aussie muscle]

Originally Posted by fairBA

why would some one throw away a perfectly good speed, sorry, SAFETY camera?

That was my first thought when i saw the picture above. i thought maybe someone pulled one down and threw it in the bin.

[xisled]

Easy problem to speed cameras is, do not speed and you will not pay the fine, as others have said. If no one got caught speeding by a camera then the government would not need the cameras. IMO even if the camera has caused 1 person to slow down and saved that persons life, the camera has worked.

End of the day even doing 1 k over the speed limit is still breaking the law, and if you do the crime you do the crime. I do not feel sorry for people who get booked by cameras even if they are only over by a few. Before anyone says anything, yes my driving record is not the best, but I do support the cameras.

The picture is funny. The cops in the first pic look like tehy have no idea what is going on. Funny how it takes a few of them for some small thing.

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by xisled

Easy problem to speed cameras is, do not speed and you will not pay the fine, as others have said. If no one got caught speeding by a camera then the government would not need the cameras. IMO even if the camera has caused 1 person to slow down and saved that persons life, the camera has worked.

End of the day even doing 1 k over the speed limit is still breaking the law, and if you do the crime you do the crime. I do not feel sorry for people who get booked by cameras even if they are only over by a few. Before anyone says anything, yes my driving record is not the best, but I do support the cameras.

The picture is funny. The cops in the first pic look like tehy have no idea what is going on. Funny how it takes a few of them for some small thing.

So you would prefer someone to look at their speedo every 5 seconds to stay under the limit. Or have them watching the road constantly and slip up to 5 over the limit every now and then.

I know I would prefer the person doing 5 over behind me then they person looking at their speedo every few seconds.

No point obeying the speed limit in an attempt to avoid accidents then not even see the person step out in front of you and hit them at 59 because you were to busy looking down at your speedo.

[xisled]

Originally Posted by Ben73

So you would prefer someone to look at their speedo every 5 seconds to stay under the limit. Or have them watching the road constantly and slip up to 5 over the limit every now and then.

I know I would prefer the person doing 5 over behind me then they person looking at their speedo every few seconds.

No point obeying the speed limit in an attempt to avoid accidents then not even see the person step out in front of you and hit them at 59 because you were to busy looking down at your speedo.

I do not think people looking at there speedo every 5 seconds is a huge issue. I have dealt with 100's of people who have had car accidents and not one has ever said to me, the reason I ran into the back of another person is that I was to busy looking at my speedo. A fair few people did mention they were distracted by the radio or something else in the car, but never the speedo. The most common reason why people run into the back of another persons car, is that the car in front slows down, or stops quick and the person behind does not react quick enough.