Go Tracey, ACA for the win

[flappist]

Originally Posted by ZA-289

As much as I agree that speed cameras suck, the Government have budgeted for the speed camera money and if they dont get it they will find it somewhere else, perhaps somewhere you can't avoid it, Speeding is a choice at the end of the day, you speed you cop it.

Yep and if all these battered wives did as they were told they would not get hit would they?

Here is an idea.....

Instead of constantly increasing the revinue required to run the government how about not wasting it on stupid projects and thousands of underworked public vegetables and manager vegetables and senior manager vegetables....

Set a budget for each group and any excess costs come out of their personal wages including employing outside contractors to finish all the jobs on time.

[Elks]

Originally Posted by jason71

Won't have to worry about speed cameras soon if the NSW RTA have their way:



LINK

These things keep being pushed, and not for the reasons of road saftey.

Saftey is just the sales pitch. For the Satelite tracker people who get these across the line it will be like winning lotto, $50 per annum for every car in the state, Ka Ching.

[MAD]

Originally Posted by ZA-289

As much as I agree that speed cameras suck, the Government have budgeted for the speed camera money and if they dont get it they will find it somewhere else, perhaps somewhere you can't avoid it, Speeding is a choice at the end of the day, you speed you cop it.

104 in a 100 zone is speeding? That's accidental and shouldn't be punished the way it is. I challenge anyone to prove that they have never crept above the set limit by an amount greater than that required to receive a ticket for 104.

Its been shown plenty of times, that older vehicles (pre 2004 iirc) have a speedo tolerance of + or - 10%. So you or I could be cruising along with cruise control set at an indicated 97 (to be safe cause we don't want to speed and kill children and pets), and bam, ticketed for doing 104 in a 100 zone.

But anyway the biggest issue is not the tickets themselves, its the lies that are fed to the public to keep these things operational.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Elks

These things keep being pushed, and not for the reasons of road saftey.

Saftey is just the sales pitch. For the Satelite tracker people who get these across the line it will be like winning lotto, $50 per annum for every car in the state, Ka Ching.

A few problems.

1) GPS jammers cost less than $20

No GPS reception means the gizmo is just completely lost. Having a "safety overide" of a low speed when recetpion is lost will have the same effect as below.

2) Localised GPS "movers" cost less than $5000

GPS movers are designed to stop GPS guided weapons from hitting a target.
With a GPS mover you can put a school zone into the middle of a freeway causing a massive pileup and multiple deaths as well as blocking it for hours.

Now who would do a thing like that....not terrorists....would they?

[billy302]

Police and media keep telling us speed kills.
5kmh is speed. It is travelling at 1.389metres per second
100Kmh is also speed. Travelling at 27.78metres per second.
Both are definitions of speed.
Speeding is the definition of travelling faster than the posted speed limit.
Why is it that many speed cameras are situated in places where there are or have been no recorded accidents, collisions or fatalities.
Collisions with objects are caused by in-attention and blatant disregard for your own or the safety of others, not speed.
I had an accident on a freeway travelling at 20Kmh in a 100Kmh zone (Peak hour traffic), when the guy behind me was not paying attention and ran into the back of my car not speeding.
Driver behaviour is the key not speed.
They show you the pictures of a high performance car reduced to rubbish and say speed was the cause of the accident.
The vehicle concerned broke every speed limit in the world. The driver had no intention of obeying any law or speed limit.
Fining people for 5 to 10Kmh over the speed limit is purely revenue raising. Put the cameras where they count. At intersections, fine people heavily for running red lights.
I have been fined for being 7Kmh over the speed limit on the new Perth to Bunbury highway on a weekday at 11.30am. The only things on the road were my car and the camera. There is no on or off ramp within 10Km of the spot. there are no intersections and it is a 2 lane divided road. There was no danger to anything not even low flying birds. That is revenue raising.

[irlewy86]

Originally Posted by flappist

Really?

Yeh, most involved in domestic violence can't see that what they are doing is wrong or could be compared to any other inappropriate activity either.

So what should it compared to.....

Bullying?

Extortion?

Blackmail?

Please note that there is a huge difference between illegal and wrong.

All of the concentration camps all over the world, the genocide of the Tasmanian Aborigine and slavery throughout the western world were perfectly legal under the law at the time and unsurprisingly anyone who stood against any of these thing was attacked mercilessly by the "righteous".

I just found it interesting that you shirked Goodwins Law and substituted the above more common models for negative comparison for the rarely used Domestic violence one.

But thats all

Lets return to the issue at hand, defeating "mobile poker machines"

[flappist]

Originally Posted by irlewy86

I just found it interesting that you shirked Goodwins Law and substituted the above more common models for negative comparison for the rarely used Domestic violence one.

But thats all

Lets return to the issue at hand, defeating "mobile poker machines"

Godwins law is not applicable as Hitler's regime actualy built the first of the non speed limited autobahns.

[irlewy86]

Originally Posted by flappist

Godwins law is not applicable as Hitler's regiem actualy built the first of the non speed limited autobahns.

Touché

[Road Games]

Originally Posted by flappist

Here is an idea.....

Instead of constantly increasing the revinue required to run the government how about not wasting it on stupid projects and thousands of underworked public vegetables and manager vegetables and senior manager vegetables....

Set a budget for each group and any excess costs come out of their personal wages including employing outside contractors to finish all the jobs on time.

What do you do besides sit behind a keyboard all day ?
Just curious .. that was pretty funny and accurate by the way ..

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by flappist

I can't believe I am supporting ACA

Forget December 12, 2012, this is Ford Forums 2010.

[Bobman]

Senior Victoria police members are more like politicians these days. Just look at that muppet Ken Lay.

Now with regards to the ACA police member claiming that 30% of fatalities are speed related (could be taken any way). What about the other 70%??? Surely tackling the 70% of road fatalities would bring the road toll down more.

This government and in some cases police force are not interested in reducing the road toll, but are more interested in political scoring and most importantly the money.

Oh and for anyone who says "voluntary tax" or "don't speed no fine" well that's all well and good but if the cameras are faulty (such as WRR, East Link & Hume) then what do you say about what?

[Ben73]

We all hear about the idiot in VL who has 6 passengers that drives on a country road at 2am in the rain at 200Km/h and wraps his car around a tree. How will a speed camera stop this? Nothing will ever, Idiots do that stuff. The only thing that had any chance of stopping him would be live police. How many of the people who wrap their car around a tree were snapped at a speed camera minutes before the crash? None. Because all these people do not do this stupid activity around cameras.
99% of drivers caught at a speed camera are probably doing 4-14 over the speed limit, many without noticing. And I bet 99% of those that were intentionally speeding do it all the time if the conditions are safe enough too.

Cops need to focus on stuff like tailgating, mobile phone usage, driving with high beam on around traffic, changing lanes without indicating, because I bet all these things cause more accidents then doing up to 10 over the limit.

I have been in 1 crash... the speed limit was 50, I was doing 30, and BAM.
I was doing 30 because I was distracted and looking at something... only for a second or 2, then I look back at the road ahead and there is a car turning in front of me, collision unavoidable.
If I was doing 50 or even more, I would of been looking at the road ahead and not off to the side, I would of seen this other car begin to turn in front of me, and I may have been able to stop, or swerve him.
I believe that going slow was a factor of that crash.

[04redxr8]

Originally Posted by Ben73

We all hear about the idiot in VL who has 6 passengers that drives on a country road at 2am in the rain at 200Km/h and wraps his car around a tree. How will a speed camera stop this? Nothing will ever, Idiots do that stuff. The only thing that had any chance of stopping him would be live police. How many of the people who wrap their car around a tree were snapped at a speed camera minutes before the crash? None. Because all these people do not do this stupid activity around cameras.
99% of drivers caught at a speed camera are probably doing 4-14 over the speed limit, many without noticing. And I bet 99% of those that were intentionally speeding do it all the time if the conditions are safe enough too.

Cops need to focus on stuff like tailgating, mobile phone usage, driving with high beam on around traffic, changing lanes without indicating, because I bet all these things cause more accidents then doing up to 10 over the limit.

I have been in 1 crash... the speed limit was 50, I was doing 30, and BAM.
I was doing 30 because I was distracted and looking at something... only for a second or 2, then I look back at the road ahead and there is a car turning in front of me, collision unavoidable.
If I was doing 50 or even more, I would of been looking at the road ahead and not off to the side, I would of seen this other car begin to turn in front of me, and I may have been able to stop, or swerve him.
I believe that going slow was a factor of that crash.

Speed was therefore the causing factor in your accident. That is how the figures are compiled. whether it is low speed, high speed, different speeds, it all gets the one reason. SPEED. Hence why the uniformed Pollie was squirming. He has had the Govco propaganda b.s. thrown back at him.

[Adamz Ghia]

I'd kindly ask for the comparisons between domestic violence and speed cameras to stop, anyone who has grown up in that environment will find it offensive.

Anyhow, the thing that bugs me the most is the lies we're fed. Fair dinkum, just tell us it's about the money. Treating the electorate like idiots is what cost Jeff Kennett his job and Brumby is heading the same way.

[bungarra]

Heres a question I have asked of a couple of coppers, a road safety person and a lawyer.
A car is doing 70 in a 60 zone and cop stops them with a radar reading. Driver stops and is fined/cautioned depending on the officer. Driver continues on his way more observant of the sepped limit, change the police officer for a speed camera and the driver continues on pass and cleans up a kid crossing the road.
Is the government, the police, and the camera operator liable for negligence because they failed to stop a speeding motorist? The best answer was from a senior copper who said "I would hate to see the outcome in the courts for all of us." Want does everyone else think?

Also today on a Perth talk back channel thay had an traffic inspector on, couldn't get through to ask him the above question, but another caller aksed him why since he told him months ago about a certain road in Perth being used at early hours like a race track he has not yet seen a copper or camera out at the times he told them. His reply is that e had emailed the local station about it. The local station is 24 hours and everyone speeds past it!!

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Adamz Ghia

I'd kindly ask for the comparisons between domestic violence and speed cameras to stop, anyone who has grown up in that environment will find it offensive.

Domestic violence was once a perfectly legal and condoned practice within our society.
The law in Australia was "A husband may beat his wife with a stick no thicker than his thumb". This is actually where the saying "rule of thumb" originated.

To the majority, the practice of domestic violence was not something they actually saw or experienced and as it was legal it must have been ok.

It was not until domestic violence was publicly compared to and exposed for what it really was, assault, sometimes grievous bodily harm or even rape that it became not legal or condoned.

Fortunately discussion of the subject was not stifled by those who were worried that those who had been assaulted or raped would be offended.

Paedophelia and incest were taboo subjects and were basically just ignored until someone finally said "enough".

Political correctness is the practice of restricting discussion and speech in the deluded belief that if something is a forbidden subject it will just go away.

Baa Baa rainbow sheep, no Christmas carols at schools, renaming of landmarks, Invasion Day (26 January) et al. are just some minor examples of this sort of insanity.

So, I for one, will ALWAYS use any and every metaphor or simile I can to clarify or convey a concept to those who may not completely understand a subject because while a subject is misunderstood then those who would use this misunderstanding for their benefit will continue to do so.

[Trek]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Speed camera's are part of the 4 week story cycle.. they also have "cosmetic surgery", "push up bras", "fake tans", "miracle diets", "hoons" and "dodgy tradesman" on the 4 week story rotation.....

Don't forget the supermarket/grocery stories... "how to save more", "new wonder food" etc.

[JG34JA]

Flappist, brilliant posts. Unrelenting and demanding logic, argued on behalf of our Liberty.

[mrbaxr6t]

this speed kills thing is complete crap I would wager many here have travelled in excess of the "save the children" limit of 100/110 or 130 in the NT (iirc) and all of you seem quite alive and quite vocal and passionate on an internet forum - what this indicates is traveling at whatever speed it was didn't kill any of you. I could get set theory out here (maths) but I dont think anybody wants that, my point is every person that has ever exceeded the speedlimit (irrespective of setting or vehicle) disproves the theory that speed kills. I would wager there would have to be hundreds of thousands at a minimum that have travelled faster than 130kmh and are quite alive, so if we believe what we are to be told you should be all dead, and as a direct result nobody is left to complain.

[MAD]

Originally Posted by mrbaxr6t

this speed kills thing is complete crap I would wager many here have travelled in excess of the "save the children" limit of 100/110 or 130 in the NT (iirc) and all of you seem quite alive and quite vocal and passionate on an internet forum - what this indicates is traveling at whatever speed it was didn't kill any of you. I could get set theory out here (maths) but I dont think anybody wants that, my point is every person that has ever exceeded the speedlimit (irrespective of setting or vehicle) disproves the theory that speed kills. I would wager there would have to be hundreds of thousands at a minimum that have travelled faster than 130kmh and are quite alive, so if we believe what we are to be told you should be all dead, and as a direct result nobody is left to complain.

And that is one of the big reasons why the 'message' doesnt get through.
Just about everybody has travelled above the limit and seen that nobody instantly died, so begins a slight disrespect (for lack of a better word atm) which grows and grows with each TV campaign they see because they see that it is all based on lies.

[Falc'man]

Originally Posted by vztrt

http://aca.ninemsn.com.au/investigat...camera-insider

Sorry to bump this but this is a good clip.
The interesting part is when they talk about drivers being distracted by focussing too much on the speedo and not the road.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by flappist

I like the bit where they showed how by constantly looking at your speedo you were over 10 times more likely to kill a pedestrian than by speeding AND HAD THE EVIDENCE TO BACK IT UP.

Ah, I was a part of a conversation regarding that little fact not too long ago on here where a certain person told me that he can accurately read his speedo with enough fine detail to measure to within a couple of km/h without taking his eyes off the road. Pity it is an anatomical impossibility, the structure of the human eye means it drops its visual acuity to less than 20% at just 15 degrees from the straight ahead.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Ah, I was a part of a conversation regarding that little fact not too long ago on here where a certain person told me that he can accurately read his speedo with enough fine detail to measure to within a couple of km/h without taking his eyes off the road. Pity it is an anatomical impossibility, the structure of the human eye means it drops its visual acuity to less than 20% at just 15 degrees from the straight ahead.

Regardless of whether or not its possible, every person who makes the statement that checking the speedo creates a danger on the road should have their licence taken from them. Checking the rearview, side mirror and then headcheck to overtake or change lanes require far more scrutiny, if the speedo is a challenge that merits such debate, then we have more serious issues to consider like whether or not a person should ever be able to change lanes.

I do not believe that anyone has been fined for 61 in a 60 zone. and its very easy to see more than 1 or 2 km over at a glance if you know where 60 is, a 3km tolerance is more than adequate to alleviate staring at the speedo. At 10% no-one has an excuse for being caught over the speed limit.

Disagree with the speed limits, stating speed cameras are revenue raisers, these are separate questions and in reference to many speed limits Id agree, and absolutely agree cameras are revenue raisers. But the argument that checking your speedo is somehow a dangerous act, is a daft strategy.

[2011G6E]

The other night on Today Tonight they had a thing as well on cameras. Of course they also wheeled out some self-rightious old idiot who claimed in 35 years of driving he "couldn't recall ever getting a ticket" and said the old chestnut that if you didn't speed you wouldn't get fined. Really Chuckles? You've never once in all that time drifted over the limit by a k or two? Because with zero tolerance machines and tiny allowances like 3kph over, it would only take a momentary lapse while you were driving and doing something silly like, oh, I don't know, watching the traffic instead of staring at your speedo, and you could easily drift over and not even know it.

[Rockape]

I feel the tide starting to turn on speed camera's.

[Falc'man]

Originally Posted by fmc351

Regardless of whether or not its possible, every person who makes the statement that checking the speedo creates a danger on the road should have their licence taken from them. Checking the rearview, side mirror and then headcheck to overtake or change lanes require far more scrutiny, if the speedo is a challenge that merits such debate, then we have more serious issues to consider like whether or not a person should ever be able to change lanes.

I do not believe that anyone has been fined for 61 in a 60 zone. and its very easy to see more than 1 or 2 km over at a glance if you know where 60 is, a 3km tolerance is more than adequate to alleviate staring at the speedo. At 10% no-one has an excuse for being caught over the speed limit.

Disagree with the speed limits, stating speed cameras are revenue raisers, these are separate questions and in reference to many speed limits Id agree, and absolutely agree cameras are revenue raisers. But the argument that checking your speedo is somehow a dangerous act, is a daft strategy.

Everyone will agree that driving "normally" means driving TO the conditions with FULL awareness to the surroundings etc. When this is done sensibly there is 50 times less risk of anything going wrong than having the worry and fear of staying within a limit. The point is people are more often penalised for ignoring the latter for sticking to the former.

It's not hard to creep over by 10% due to gradients, or due to change in speed limits, nor is it dangerous to do so if a driver's main intention is to keep safe and just get to his destination. I'm guessing over 95% of fines are unfairly dished out to those driving sensibly but haven't been beaten into having their eyes glued to the speedo. Cheers.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by Falc'man

Everyone will agree that driving "normally" means driving TO the conditions with FULL awareness to the surroundings etc. When this is done sensibly there is 50 times less risk of anything going wrong than having the worry and fear of staying within a limit. The point is people are more often penalised for ignoring the latter for sticking to the former.

It's not hard to creep over by 10% due to gradients, or due to change in speed limits, nor is it dangerous to do so if a driver's main intention is to keep safe and just get to his destination. I'm guessing over 95% of fines are unfairly dished out to those driving sensibly but haven't been beaten into having their eyes glued to the speedo. Cheers.

It may not be hard to creep over, but its not hard to avoid it either and theres no need to be glued to the speedo to do it. Most people who have the issue of not having time to check the speedo are tailgating, ie: no 2 second gap, more like 1 second, if that. Either that, or they are driving at the limit of their talent. There is no argument that holds water about checking speedo, unless there was absolutely no tolerance for error at all, ie: booked for 61 in a 60 and Ive never seen evidence of that fine. As I said, how do they mange to change lanes safely if they cant glance the speedo? Let alone be situationally aware of the vehicles around them. Its like saying you cant turn the wipers on while driving.

And before anyone starts, yeah Ill do 110 in a 100 zone sometimes (and I know Im doing it) and if I get a fine Ill just cop it on the chin. My mistake, no-one else to blame but myself. Same if I was completely unaware I was doing 10 over, I should be aware.

[bingoTE50]

No doubt in QLD we are going to see more and more cameras. The State Government knows they are just too good of a money making opportunity.
I pretty much agree with Flappist on this particular subject. I pretty much drive everywhere on cruise control these days and damn anyone behind me, sorry but I cannot afford the fine to accomodate you if you want to go faster. Yes you may subject me to road rage but we warned , I will feint with the right and hit you with the left.

[SB076]

Originally Posted by fmc351

It may not be hard to creep over, but its not hard to avoid it either and theres no need to be glued to the speedo to do it. Most people who have the issue of not having time to check the speedo are tailgating, ie: no 2 second gap, more like 1 second, if that. Either that, or they are driving at the limit of their talent. There is no argument that holds water about checking speedo, unless there was absolutely no tolerance for error at all, ie: booked for 61 in a 60 and Ive never seen evidence of that fine. As I said, how do they mange to change lanes safely if they cant glance the speedo? Let alone be situationally aware of the vehicles around them. Its like saying you cant turn the wipers on while driving.

And before anyone starts, yeah Ill do 110 in a 100 zone sometimes (and I know Im doing it) and if I get a fine Ill just cop it on the chin. My mistake, no-one else to blame but myself. Same if I was completely unaware I was doing 10 over, I should be aware.

Different states different rules, Vic no longer has the 10% tolerance (I dont beleive we have offically been advised what the new tolerance is, however I believe its 3k's)

[mrbaxr6t]

if we are to consider vehicle vs pedestrian accidents how many pedestrians do you see walking around with their umbilical chords in their ears with an ipod/iphone/idistraction pumping sound into their ears, deadening their senses and removing focus from dangers around them, such as cars but the fingers' always pointed at the motorist, last week I had one of these plugged in individuals decide to cross the road infront of my car, he didn't even look and when I ground to a halt and hurled abuse out the window of my car he told me to "pay attention to where I am driving XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX" I responded with "you should pay attention to where you are walking XXXXXXXXXXXXX"

If an adult runs into the path of a hungry lion and dies who's fault is it, apparently its the lions