No evidence to suggest lowering the speeding tolerance will do anything but raise rev

[csv8]

Margaret Wenham
The Courier-Mail
January 01, 2014 12:00Am


IT was nice of the police to cancel Jake Cassidy's $146 fine after The Courier-Mail contacted them about his speeding ticket for going 1km/h over the speed limit.

It was also reported yesterday he was offered an apology too. Lovely.

Amazing how a little bit of media scrutiny can sometimes right a wrong - regulatory overreach or, in this case, copper overkill.

But this little event raises some significant issues that are worth chewing over.

Just how far are the police prepared to go to prosecute their lower speed tolerances, the exact threshold/s of which is or are apparently top secret police business and we're not allowed to know?

Because surely this for-our-eyes-only, non-road rule is open to arbitrary application.

You might get pinged, like Cassidy was, for going one or two kms over the limit. I might get away with going three or four kms over.

It's all in the eye of the speed camera beholder who, if he or she were feeling a little peevish on any given day, could scatter tickets like confetti to all and sundry or perhaps just to those whose jib he or she didn't like the cut of.

And just how necessary is this tightened speed squeeze anyway?

Of course every road death is a tragedy and of course all reasonable measures aimed at minimising road deaths need to be taken.

But I wonder whether police and our law makers are listening to what the statistics are telling us.

According to data in the WHO's Global Status Report on Road Safety 2013, which used 2010 information from 182 countries, it seems Australia now has one of the lowest rates of road deaths in the world, certainly the Western, developed world.
The process is less than objective as a speed camera holder who is feeling a little peevish could scatter tickets like confetti.

In that report, which puts the rate at 6.1 per 100,000 population, we're 14th after first world countries such as a handful of Scandinavian nations, Japan, the Netherlands, Germany - where the red line's the speed limit on autobahns - and the UK.

The most recent road death data here puts the rate even lower - 5.2 per 100,000 population as at November 2013.

We've certainly come a long way since 1975 when the rate was more than five times what it is now at 26.6.

While there's no room for complacency or grounds for relaxing road rules, I wonder about the need for wielding bigger and bigger sledgehammers to crack what is actually a shrinking nut.

Looked at in this light, it's difficult to banish the spectre of revenue raising looming behind Police Commissioner Ian Stewart while he's talking tough about speeding.

The spectre is fed by the absence of evidence that lowering the tolerance threshold by one, two, three, or four kilometres - or whatever it is - will produce tangible road safety results, not just increases in the number of drivers hit with penalties and a $20 million revenue bonanza for police.

I don't know what the general level of goodwill toward police is but things like the Cassidy episode certainly aren't going to bolster it and I doubt this lucrative tinkering with tolerance thresholds will either.

Rather than tightening existing regulations that will see good, safe drivers who might occasionally drift a few kms over the limit being punished for no evidenced-based reason, I'd rather see a strong and determined push for better driver training and education.

Every day, particularly during my peak hour commute to and from work, I dodge more dangerously incompetent drivers than I do overt speedsters.

Margaret Wenham is a Courier-Mail section editor
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/o...-1226792741000

[munners]

Originally Posted by csv8

Every day, particularly during my peak hour commute to and from work, I dodge more dangerously incompetent drivers than I do overt speedsters.

Exactly

Munners

[MAD]

I think it's good that QLD is pushing it to the limits like this.
VIC has been slowly chipping away at it so people become accustomed to it.
The way QLD are going about it will increase the scrutiny ten fold and maybe, just maybe, we'll see some sensible changes brought about by the backlash laid upon them.

[Itsme]

Again another topic about speed limits & revenue raising which will cause more arguments on this forum, any how easy to avoid just sit a couple k's belowe speed limit & you won't get pinged but you will have the *** hole speedsters up your **** wanting your blood for being slow. lol

[EVLKNEVL]

Originally Posted by trublu

Again another topic about speed limits & revenue raising which will cause more arguments on this forum, any how easy to avoid just sit a couple k's belowe speed limit & you won't get pinged but you will have the *** hole speedsters up your **** wanting your blood for being slow. lol

If a subject has the potential to cause arguments, should it not be discussed?

In order to have an argument, there must be at least 2 opposing views on a subject. So far in this thread, the posts appear to be mostly harmonious. Where do you think the final ingredient will come from?

[xxx000]

Originally Posted by EVLKNEVL

If a subject has the potential to cause arguments, should it not be discussed?

In order to have an argument, there must be at least 2 opposing views on a subject. So far in this thread, the posts appear to be mostly harmonious. Where do you think the final ingredient will come from?

Possibly a discussion but repetitive threads and posts of hearsay on the same or similar topics lead to arguments
These threads are always anti police/govt or similar with simplistic answers and responses to what is a complex issue

[EVLKNEVL]

Originally Posted by xxx000

Possibly a discussion but repetitive threads and posts of hearsay on the same or similar topics lead to arguments
These threads are always anti police/govt or similar with simplistic answers and responses to what is a complex issue

So why do you feel the need to contribute to these threads, or even read them? Are you trying to change people's minds on the subject? How successful an endeavour do you think that will be?

Here's an example of a 'simplistic response to what is a complex issue': "Don't speed and you won't have a problem, simple."

Here's a link to a site which may help you. It doesn't address the specific issue of lowering tolerances and keeping them a secret, and I'm not posting it to try to change your stance on this issue. But it may provide you with some insight into the reasons behind many Australians' perspective on speed cameras and their effectiveness.

http://www.aussiespeedingfines.com/p...e-Cameras.html

I would hate to think that forum members who disagree with this side of the discussion would purposely spark arguments and conflict in order to get these threads closed. Would be much more prudent to just stop reading them.

[noflac52]

Originally Posted by xxx000

Possibly a discussion but repetitive threads and posts of hearsay on the same or similar topics lead to arguments
These threads are always anti police/govt or similar with simplistic answers and responses to what is a complex issue

These threads are not anti police. They just convey the frustration of a large body of the population against the govt policies that the police are chartered to uphold whether they agree with them or not.

They are anti govt in regard to these policies and with good reason! That is not an excuse to stop threads such as these though. This is the starting point to eventually getting the policies changed to suit what the people of the country want. The country belongs to its population not a small minority of people who have managed to get themselves elected, or small minded bureaucrats who persist in pushing radical points of view.

Originally Posted by xxx000

You're obviously against the reductions so show us the stats and proof to justify your argument

Here you go again! Your first post to the thread and you are asking someone to prove what they say.

That in itself isn't a bad thing because if they do it gives more credence to the debate, but because of your persistent mantra to other posters I have challenged you before on this subject to actually say something of substance yourself and back it up with some small speck of evidence. So far Nothing!!!!

You called the articles written by two retired police officers in wheels magazine about a similar subject "bull....".

They are two people with their full identities exposed for all to scrutinise. They are out there backing up what they say with full exposure including photographs of themselves!

That is so easy to say while you remain anonymous to all!

Who are people to believe? Them or yourself with your posts full of innuendoes and assumptions, calling others statements hearsay with nothing to back up "your" posts?

Again I challenge you to actually add some substance to the debate to give your point of view some credibility!!

[tweeked]

Originally Posted by xxx000

These threads are always anti police/govt or similar with simplistic answers and responses to what is a complex issue

And your responses are always the same old - "goverment and the way police are interpreting laws have to be beyond question"

we have heard it - you can leave those with free will to discuss it without trying to stifle debate with the same "police bashing" retort, it is very old now.

[aussie muscle]

Originally Posted by trublu

Again another topic about speed limits & revenue raising which will cause more arguments on this forum, any how easy to avoid just sit a couple k's belowe speed limit & you won't get pinged but you will have the *** hole speedsters up your **** wanting your blood for being slow. lol

even a computer (cruise control) will go at least 10k over the set limit in undulating terrain. what chance do humans have?

[MAD]

Show the stats of how these two tolerance reductions, and thousands of fines actually did anything to reduce trauma.

[xxx000]

Originally Posted by MAD

Show the stats of how these two tolerance reductions, and thousands of fines actually did anything to reduce trauma.

You're obviously against the reductions so show us the stats and proof to justify your argument

[FGX-351]

Originally Posted by xxx000

You're obviously against the reductions so show us the stats and proof to justify your argument

^^^ This is ridiculous for obvious reasons.

[xxx000]

Originally Posted by The-ShowStoPPa

^^^ This is ridiculous for obvious reasons.

I agree but suspect for different reasons

[dragons90]

Originally Posted by The-ShowStoPPa

^^^ This is ridiculous for obvious reasons.

Common Law guilty until proven innocent.

[MAD]

Originally Posted by xxx000

You're obviously against the reductions so show us the stats and proof to justify your argument

When there is that many people breaking the law in such a short time frame, it's pretty obvious that the law should be looked at, not the people.

[dragons90]

Hopefully there's enough of a uproar that these crap rule get thrown out and not everyone just excepting them like we live in a dictatorship.

[deesun]

Originally Posted by dragons90

Hopefully there's enough of a uproar that these crap rule get thrown out and not everyone just excepting them like we live in a dictatorship.

That wont happen, they are making too much money.

[Blue Roo]

Remember Fellas "every K over the limit is a Killer". If this was the case, I would have been dead years ago doing 61 in a 60 zone.
What a load of B.S., for being fined doing 61 in a 60 zone . This is nothing more than good old revenue raising in its finest form.

[Bill M]

As for changes or a backlash don't hold your breath.
In Victoria the current Govt. was very vocal in opposition to the then Govt in power on the issue of speed cameras, revenue etc.
As soon as they were voted in they did precisely the same thing!
The same tired cliches over and over again.

There is an industry that has been built on the revenue "safety" camera push and the Govt. cannot afford to lose this revenue stream
Safe motoring for 2014 and don't give the b@#$%^ds any more $$$!

[Loosecannon]

If they were serious about cars speeding they would speed limit cars, and say gps technology to change limits from say 60 to 80 zones etc etc, they have the stuff to do it nowadays.. Trucks are limited,...if they were serious and interested in saving life's ........ But they can't make any coin if that was in place

No.... I'm not for speed limited cars... Just saying

[xxx000]

That link is to a site that's anti speed and red light cameras
so I assume you are anti red light cameras too?

[EVLKNEVL]

Originally Posted by xxx000

That link is to a site that's anti speed and red light cameras
so I assume you are anti red light cameras too?

Assuming things about people is a bit foolish.

[xxx000]

Hilarious
so you half believe that article then?

[EVLKNEVL]

Originally Posted by xxx000

Hilarious
so you half believe that article then?

That would be another foolish assumption

I'm not sure exactly why you care so much what I or anyone else believes, or why you are trying to coax an argumentative comment from me, but I can confirm for you that you've been unsuccessful. If there is some underlying reason for provoking fellow forum members that isn't immediately clear, perhaps you'd like to explain that to us so we can move on and get back on topic. Thanks.

[cobramania]

I feel for you interstate guys, & can only base my comments on NSW, but I think our Government may be getting the hint about speeding & revenue raising?

In 2013 there were 339 road deaths in NSW, the lowest in recorded history (since 1908), equating to around the 5 in 100,000 population mark, the highest was in 1970 when it was 28.9 per 100,000 population.

339 is still 339 too many, but no one will ever stop all of them. I don't know yet what the breakdown of causes were, but I don't think speed was an overwhelming cause?

This holiday period I haven't seen one speeding advertisement yet in NSW, they've all been about fatigue, & the "Don't trust your tied self" campaign or the Plan B drink driving & drug driving campaign, http://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov....gns/index.html.
Which I must say has been a pleasant relief from the speed 1k over, & you'll die mantra, from previous years.

This fatigue campaign revolves around it being one of the 3 big killers on NSW roads, & whilst they hint at speeding as one, I have a feeling the big 3 are, fatigue, inattention (playing with/talking on phone, playing with the radio, etc, or just plain boredom leading to & coming from fatigue), & drink/drug driving (still, this important message isn't getting through).

From official NSW figures, speeding is a factor in 40% of all fatal crashes, being a factor & being the cause are 2 different things, the latter I think would be much lower?

Drink driving in NSW resulted in 27 percent of road deaths & fatigue was a higher cause, I can't find any inattention figures.

[turbodewd]

Lets say one thing conclusively, the number of vehicle faults causing accidents must be tiny. The vast majority are pilot error (whether fatigued, drunk, careless, risk-taking).

I do like how the state govts in recent times have been cracking down on bad truckers, there is a high proportion of dodgy drivers of trucks out there.

[BadMax]

Originally Posted by xxx000

You're obviously against the reductions so show us the stats and proof to justify your argument

The same can be argued for showing us the statistics on the direct impact the reduction of speeding tolerances has had on road trauma. It simply can't be proven.

But using some logic, yes logic. It is more than fair and reasonable to presume road trauma and deaths have been circumvented using technology. No, not speed camera technology but motor vehicle technology.
I don't doubt even you as Pro-TAC, Pro-Police state, Pro-Goverment and advocate of tougher speeding laws can see that technology shift in the last 10 years has made a significant change to road deaths.

The only way of proving this is by contacting every insurance company and asking for their data in regards to motor vehicle claims over the last 10-15 years. Collate this information and pin it against road deaths.

Now unless you personally are prepared to undertake this venture, you have about as much weight in this argument as the rest of us. You can even quote MUARC figures if you like and also claim them to be an independent research facility who is also funded by the Government...

Originally Posted by xxx000

These threads are always anti police/govt or similar with simplistic answers and responses to what is a complex issue

Please enlighten us to your opinion on this complex issue, using the independent data you must have at hand to disprove many of us.

Yes, I am Anti-Police. Why? Because they are no longer there doing what they did 30 years ago or more. Handing out fines is not going to change the community for the better.

Now lets look at what the Police and Government don't want us to see. Homicide, rape, robbery, theft, abduction have all increased in 2013. great going VicPol! Obviously fighting crime doesn't pay!

http://www.police.vic.gov.au/content...Media_ID=72176

[Spurious]

We/you all know it's revenue raising so enough of the threads already!

[M&Ms]

IMO its the hwy patrol who are the biggest hoons out there. They wait for someone to come down the freeway at 130 and BAM! Pull chase at 180+. Give them Holden Cruzes and watch half the force resign overnight. I hardly consider them Police to be honest, and many general duties coppers i've spoken to over the years think little of them as well.

I challenge the government to switch off all speed cameras, and stop **** enforcement of speeding, for 6 months, and prove that it has made an iota of difference to the road toll. Wouldn't be surprised if we actually had LESS crashes!

What a backward nanny state......