speeding offences

It's a bit strange me starting this thread as I don't even drive.

However I am really peed off by the underhanded way the police over here go around hiding in bushes with speed cameras, I dont have a lot of sympathy for persistent offenders but in my opinion this practice does little or nothing to promote road safety. It is purely a revenue generating machine for the government.

I have lived most of my life In England and when speed cameras were introduced the practice was much the same with them being hidden away and painted in drab colour so they couldnt be seen until you witnessed 2 ominous flashes in your rear view mirror. A public outcry resulted in them being painted in bright coloured paint and the placement of warning signs so you got the idea and slowed down if necessary.

Surely the main priorty should be deterring speeding, promoting safety and not collecting revenue and dishing out demerit points.

Underhanded is an understatement, a little off topic, but my wife got done for $400+ for talking on a mobile phone in a Mc Donald's car park(stationary) just because the engine was running.:((

If you think that's bad...in the US, cities with red light cameras were reducing the timing on the amber light to increase red light ticket numbers - http://time.com/3505994/red-light-ca...blems-tickets/

That's really unfair :hellno:must be the same morons that hide in the bushes? I am sure their time could be better spent doing other things! like collecting all the litter in there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shedbound

Underhanded is an understatement, a little off topic, but my wife got done for $400+ for talking on a mobile phone in a Mc Donald's car park(stationary) just because the engine was running.:((

---

Must have been the brainwave of some pencil-pusher to boost the Mayor's re-election camapaign fund.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master Splinter

If you think that's bad...in the US, cities with red light cameras were reducing the timing on the amber light to increase red light ticket numbers - http://time.com/3505994/red-light-ca...blems-tickets/

---

we were going to contest it, but apparently a car must not only be stationary but in park and engine off according to law.

As my bussiness I do lots of driving every day with my van. And can only confirm your observations.
Of course if you do the right thing on the road (not speeding etc) you don't need to worry. But the very way they operate the speedeing cameras eg.hiding themselves in the bushes or even behind the trees got nothing to do with the road safety. It's just the easy way to make some money. How and what for do they spend the extra revenue is another story but I doubt that it goes towards the safety of the road users.
Unfortunatelly cops adjusted their practises to the profit driven societies they suppose to serve.

Sorry but I have ZERO sympathy for mobile phone users in cars no matter where they are.

One such user ran head on into me on a university campus, I was doing 10kph, he was doing about 50kph while texting and looking down.
Totalled both cars!
I got a few scratches and bruises other driver broke his collar bone.
I had just had my car serviced and front wheels aligned and was due to go in holidays for two weeks - instead of this I had to sort out this $hyte and look for another car. I was without a car for 6 weeks while this was sorted.
Other driver not insured on an out of date OS licence, kept sending me SMSes denying it was his fault and trying to convince me not to report the accident to the police because it was a private road - which it wasn't.
Fortunately other driver admitted fault in front of Uni security staff who always use a radio microphone that records everything back to base. I was able to get a written transcript of what was said and pass it onto my insurance company.

Now when I pull up at lights and see other drivers using their mobile I glare at them for longer than would be socially acceptable. It's interesting to see how many put their phones down.

I remember about 20 years ago my brother in England got T-boned at a traffic intresection by a guy who ran a red light, He refused to admit responsibility and my brothers insurance went up to £1000 a year.
I dont know whether a phone was involved

I also lost a cousin many years before that, who was killed in a hit-and-run on a pedestrian crossing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

Sorry but I have ZERO sympathy for mobile phone users in cars no matter where they are.

One such user ran head on into me on a university campus, I was doing 10kph, he was doing about 50kph while texting and looking down.
Totalled both cars!
I got a few scratches and bruises other driver broke his collar bone.
I had just had my car serviced and front wheels aligned and was due to go in holidays for two weeks - instead of this I had to sort out this $hyte and look for another car. I was without a car for 6 weeks while this was sorted.
Other driver not insured on an out of date OS licence, kept sending me SMSes denying it was his fault and trying to convince me not to report the accident to the police because it was a private road - which it wasn't.
Fortunately other driver admitted fault in front of Uni security staff who always use a radio microphone that records everything back to base. I was able to get a written transcript of what was said and pass it onto my insurance company.

Now when I pull up at lights and see other drivers using their mobile I glare at them for longer than would be socially acceptable. It's interesting to see how many put their phones down.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mark david

I remember about 20 years ago my brother in England got T-boned at a traffic intresection by a guy who ran a red light, He refused to admit responsibility and my brothers insurance went up to £1000 a year.

---

I've been curious about this too. I had a car stolen for a joy ride and trashing and my insurance went up. The perps were caught. I asked both the cops and insurance company whether I could civilly sue the perps each year for their enforced cost increase to me.

Absolute silence.

Personally, I would like to see the at-fault person also pay for any and all costs literally forever.

Mobile phones and driving

Can I stop on the side of the road to use my mobile phone?

Yes so long as you park legally.
What does ‘park legally’ mean?

To stop and stay in an area where there is no prohibition on stopping or parking. It is recommended that you secure the vehicle by applying parking brakes; put the automatic transmission into ‘park’ and turn off the ignition.


Speed related social costs

Speed crashes cost the community in the form of:

• hospital and health care costs
• lost productivity in the workplace
• the cost of using emergency services.

Speeding has significant costs to the community each year. Speed related fatalities and hospitalised casualties in Queensland have an estimated social cost of $283 million each year^†‡.
^†Based on road crash data from 2008–2012.
*Doecke, S., & Kloeden, C.N. (2014). The accuracy of determining speeding directly from mass crash data and using the NSW Centre for Road Safety method. Journal of the Australasian College of Road Safety, 25(1), 35–41.
^‡Social cost figures are provided in 2013 dollar value using the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics 2006 social cost estimates.

from the Queensland department of transport and main roads web site

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mark david

However I am really peed off by the underhanded way the police over here go around hiding in bushes with speed cameras, I dont have a lot of sympathy for persistent offenders but in my opinion this practice does little or nothing to promote road safety. It is purely a revenue generating machine for the government.

---

Well how about this aspect of it then? There are certain tolerances in the accuracy of a vehicle's speedo that are allowed by law. Naturally they arent spot on, and cannot be expected to be. Things like tyre wear and inflation can affect the accuracy of your speedo reading.

I can only assume that there is a degree of tolerance in the calibration of the speed guns as well as some inaccuracy inherent in the distance and angle they are from the target vehicle.

In my car, when I am doing 100 km/hr as measured by the GPS, which is more accurate than the speedo, the speedo reads 96 km/hr. Apparently this degree of inaccuracy is allowable under federal law.

So if I did not have a GPS and did not know this, every time I was driving past a speed camera at 100 km/hr by the speedo, I would actually be doing somewhere in the vicinity of 104 km/hr in reality.

In Victoria the tolerance for booking motorists for speeding is to allow 3 km/hr so I would be booked for doing 101 km/hr (104 - 3) alleged speed in a 100 km/hr zone. Federal law is supposed to take precedence over State law but apparently not when it is cutting into their revenue raising activities.

Speed cameras are all about revenue raising and nothing else. Speeding is nowhere near as dangerous as tailgating and tailgating causes far more accidents, So why don't the police target tailgating? Because it is harder to produce the evidence and make a conviction stick. Purely and simply, they would be utilizing more resources and spending more money for a lower financial return for their political masters.

A speed camera records the speed and the infringement notice is posted out. They target drink drivers for the same reason: they can easily obtain a blood alcohol reading that cannot be disputed. The motorists who are really causing the problems, tailgaters and those failing to give right of way and other dangerous driving practices are not worth chasing from a revenue raising perspective. (Before anyone gets the wrong idea I am not condoning speeding or drink driving, just pointing out that they are targeted far more than the others because the evidence is a figure spat out by a machine, not a case of an officer having to testify that in his opinion the motorist did something illegal.)

Remember the slogan "Speed Cameras Save Lives". Can anyone give me the name of ONE person whose life was saved by a speed camera?

Cheers

Doug

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doug3030

Federal law is supposed to take precedence over State law

Doug

---

Doug, it only takes precedence in the areas that the federal constitution gives them that authority or where states have voluntary ceded specific power to them.

Whilst the feds may have power over design rules the states retain their power over road laws and their enforcement.

Peter.

Well Doug I suppose you could be standing next to a speed camera and a vehicle crashes into it, maybe thats what they mean.

Although lets face it, speeding is the least of our problems, we make a big point of drink related incidents but how do you explain that most accincidents are caused by people who are stone cold sober what the hell is their excuse ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doug3030

Remember the slogan "Speed Cameras Save Lives". Can anyone give me the name of ONE person whose life was saved by a speed camera?

Cheers

Doug

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shedbound

Underhanded is an understatement, a little off topic, but my wife got done for $400+ for talking on a mobile phone in a Mc Donald's car park(stationary) just because the engine was running.:((

---

Correct me if I am wrong, however isn't McDonalds private property?

I know in other instances, the police can't book a vehicle for any road worthy offenses on private property.