Speeding fine

Hey Ross

Can you do us a favour. Tomorrow ring the copper who booked you, his number and name should be on the fine. Ask him politely how far into the zone you were.

The spiel he would give on the ticket (or machine) should be something like;

LASER: Speed was checked at 81km/h at a distance of xxx metres. Stationed xxxm nth of x.

RADAR: Speed was checked over x metres for x secs and seen to be 82km/h. Location x metres from x.

(different methods for different states.)

This is done so that plod can later state exactly where he was if the matter proceeds to court.

If he was using a laser he should have recorded the distance he was from you and a fixed object. If he was using a radar then as Dan says the check would have been over a certain time/distance. He will know and should tell you, unless there is something he has to worry about:rolleyes: .

It would be interesting to know. If he has checked you as you say he has then you have every right to complain as I doubt very much if he is using it within guidelines and if so he needs to be councelled big time.

And if this is the case then you need to at the very least write to his supervisor and have the matter reviewed.

Ask if there is a minimum distance that you can be booked coming into a speed change area. There is no reason why he wouldnt tell you and if he wont speak to his supervisor.

I dont think anyones been overly harsh on you. You asked the question and, just like at the local, got told by some.

I do disagree totally with some of your thoughts on it being impossible to break the law. I have taught over 2500 coppers to drive and I can assure you that sitting next to them they manage it otherwise no licence would be forthcoming. Just takes commitment to the task at hand.

And the sad thing is, over the years that i was involved in Accident Investigations, it was multiples of little mistakes/lack of concentration that caused a lot of fatal accidents.

IE : Just a little bit over the limit and a little lack of concentration/stupidity and poor timing that caused lots of major collisions.

Cant wait to hear what plod said;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanP

I'm not going to bother with the "you were speeding" etc. I'm going to specifically address the coments on camera's, seatbelts and revenue raising. Let me say firstly that I don't like the way in which speed cameras are used in Victoria.

In 1970, compulsory wearing of seatbelts was introduced. The Road toll was 1061. In 1971 the road toll was 140 less. Coincidence?

In 1976, the road toll was 938 when random breath testing was introduced. Over the next four years, the road toll dropped by nearly 300. Coincidence?

In 80, 81 and 82 Radar, Booze buses and Red light cameras were introduced. By 1988, 65 less lives were lost. Coincidence?

In 1989 the road toll was 777 ( a bad year). Speed camera's were introduced and in 1990, the road toll was a staggering 229 less than 1989 and has steadily decreased ever since. Coincidence?

Speeding is a causal factor in 26% of fatal crashes in Victoria.

Less than 1% of infringements issued by police (as opposed to 78% for cameras) are for 0 - 9 km/h above the speed limit.

Dan

---

Nah, just revenue raisin!:rolleyes:

Spot on Danp. I went back through the ACT records for fatals a few years ago and it showed a greater than half the reduction of fatalities when seat belts were made compulsory.:D

I have given out seven 0-9k infringements. All for overtaking me and saying they thought I had to give them 15 to 20k before booking......:rolleyes:


cheers

dazzler

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dazzler

I have given out seven 0-9k infringements. All for overtaking me and saying they thought I had to give them 15 to 20k before booking......:rolleyes:

---

They deserved a ticket for stupidity:)

Sounds like idiot tax...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanP

In 1970, compulsory wearing of seatbelts was introduced. The Road toll was 1061. In 1971 the road toll was 140 less. Coincidence?

In 1976, the road toll was 938 when random breath testing was introduced respectively. Over the next four years, the road toll dropped by nearly 300. Coincidence?

In 80, 81 and 82 Radar, Booze buses and Red light cameras were introduced. By 1988, 65 less lives were lost. Coincidence?

In 1989 the road toll was 777 ( a bad year). Speed camera's were introduced and in 1990, the road toll was a staggering 229 less than 1989 and has steadily decreased ever since. Coincidence?

Speeding is a causal factor in 26% of fatal crashes in Victoria.

Less than 1% of infringements issued by police (as opposed to 78% for cameras) are for 0 - 9 km/h above the speed limit.

Dan

---

gday
i wonder what the death toll would be if people were tought to control a car rather then point it in the right direction. as for speeding if it was so dangerious no drivers would be left alive in the N.T (no speed limit on open roads) i have just spent 6 years living in NSW and was stunned at how people drove i honestly felt safer riding at over 250kph in the territory.
cheers shep

I want to apologise to any police officers who may have been offended by anything I’ve written here. I know you have a tough job and I didn’t mean to unite you all under the “revenue collecting” tag. :)

You got busted, pay the penalty and move on. At least learn from this and slow down, you save fuel as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rossluck

I want to apologise to any police officers who may have been offended by anything I’ve written here. I know you have a tough job and I didn’t mean to unite you all under the “revenue collecting” tag. :)

---

I got a $300 fine a few months ago (two weeks before christmas to be exact) for covering my license plate. I had a towball on which partially covered the plate (check out Subaru Foresters they are walking/driving fine bombs). I was a tad upset and let the officer at the time know exactly I thought. I do landscaping during the day and use the trailer all day, I was just dropping SWMBO off at work. As I let a steady stream of invective off at the officer, I was duly warned by SWMBO that police are now armed - I calmed down somewhat!! Anyway I sent off a letter to everyone I could think of - Infringement Board, Police Monister, ARB Management etc etc. Still had to pay the fine, but after a few weeks I had a pang of guilt that, whilst I was peeved at this officer I still could have effected his employment in someway - so I subsequently sent off an apology. At the end of the day - I figured he was only doing his job.

CHeers

My 2c.

I am glad that our forum members who are also police officers seem to take a sensible view of speeding - ie they are really after the guys who are just way over and dangerous. That's been my experience over the last almost 30 years of driving. On 110 roads I know that I am sometimes over by 5-10kph, but rarely if ever more. So far, I haven't been fined.

My greater concern is the one that has been mentioned already - people plodding along in the RH lane (and plodding includes at the speed limit, because every driver knows that even if that is the legal limit, a large percentage of drivers will be exceeding it). The consequence of this is that the lair who is determined to drive at 20-30 kph over the limit will overtake on the left (a practice known in the UK as "undertaking" - quite appropriate, I think). This is a very dangerous manoeuvre. In the UK and the rest of Europe, the practice on 3 lane motorways is o/s lane for those who don't want to do more than 20 less than speed limit, everyone else in the middle lane and only in the inside lane if you are overtaking. If you plod along (even breaking the speed limit) in the inside lane, others will flash you and police will book you - not for the speed but for not moving to the correct lane. And you lose your licence for undertaking.

When I returned to Oz after several years in Europe with this set of rules, I got terrified on freeways where some idiot would be at 115k in the inside lane and wasn't able to pass me and didn't have the balls to fall in behind me and so some hoon would blast past at 140 on my left and then cut across us both. (Now I see if I can slow considerably to try to get the guy on my right to move into my lane - but this worries me because no-one is as good at judging the speeds of cars behind as those in front).

I am not saying not to deal with speeding (I think that generally the NSW and Vic police (where I normally drive) have it about right). But there is other behaviour which is more dangerous caused by not allowing traffic to move through at its preferred rates which should also be focussed on.

So, my request is that we pull over to the left if not overtaking. Then at least the idiots who want to really speed might not get into blind spots and cause real damage to others by undertaking (which should be prohibited). If they really speed, book them for that as well. But make sure that there is a lane inside you for overtaking unless you are actually doing that manoeuvre yourself.

Here endeth the rant

Hi,

While its not directly related, I'd like to offer another incidence of "Revenue raising."

Before I start, I was guilty as charged and paid the fine accordingly. Also, I too believe that the Police work extremely hard. There like Pilots, your glad their there when you need them, but can't understand why they earn so much when the plane is cruising.
Anyway, a couple months back I checked the mail to see I had a letter from the EPA. On opening it, I was informed I owed them $125.00 for "placing a gigarette butt on te pavement.
Further, someone had seen me and was prepared to go to court to testify. If I wanted to dispute the fine, I had to provide a Stat Dec to say I wasn't driving or the car wasn't there.
Guilty until proven innocent, trapped by lurking Vigilantes who may or may not have other issues apart from littering. Its the guilty till ptovenb innocent thing that bothers me most.

Regards

Rob

Flow if I didnt do it I would gladly go to court over the epa issue. Thanks for the apology ross. Thanks JMK, Like dan said less than 1% get booked by police for less than 9ks over, I can honestly say that in the last 8 and half years I have never given a ticket for less than 9, there are too many fish in the barrel 18 plus and alot in the 25, 35, 45 and 55 over. Big speeds that do kill, my last fatal was a twenty something girl doing a right hand turn legally, didnt see or could be expected to see two idiots doing about 140 in the 80 zone, one of which t boned her and pushed her car 85metres up the road. Poor girl didnt stand a chance, so yes speed does kill as we all know, anything 40kmh or over in a t-bone collision is life threatening.
I like everyone else do speed and dont agree with how the cameras are used down here, but hey what do you do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rossluck

I want to apologise to any police officers who may have been offended by anything I’ve written here. I know you have a tough job and I didn’t mean to unite you all under the “revenue collecting” tag. :)

---

No apology needed. Thick skins and debate is good for all:D :D

Victoria has funny speeding laws , or have they changed.

A friend was busted doing 119km in 90 zone whilst towing a speedboat, in nsw last i remember you can't do more than 90km with trailers attached.


If he was done in nsw, he would have gotten a lot bigger fine than he did and possible lost his licence.... WHAT GIVES.:eek:


HJ0 Cheers

They are probably better drivers?

Quote:

---

in nsw last i remember you can't do more than 90km with trailers attached

---

That's a new one on me. Anyone confirm or deny?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentC

That's a new one on me. Anyone confirm or deny?

---

"There is no specific speed restriction while towing a trailer. However, the posted speed limits must not be exceeded.Always drive to the road,traffic and weather conditions. "

Source RTA;)

HH.

My dad (Senior Physics Teacher) always used to say "Speeding does not kill....Its the sudden stop that does it".

Anyway, I've been in a situation similar to Ross's where I was driving a 12t truck loaded with beehives. I came round a corner to see a lower speed zone sign and instead of hitting the brakes and potentially causing the load (8ton of live bees) to shift I slowly used the exhaust brakes. Fortunately there was no police to book me but the situation does exist. Especially in SE QLD there are some mongrel roads where you can come around a corner not having any idea what may be there.

Vehicle hitting into object, Head hitting dash etc, brain hitting inside of skull. Think Theres a 4th hit if your riding a motorcycle, or just plain unlucky.:eek:


HJ0 Cheers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentC

That's a new one on me. Anyone confirm or deny?

---

No trailer speed restrictions in nsw, so i'm wrong.:)

RTA says that law was changed 7-8 years ago, that was about the time i was in VIC.


HJO Cheers Think i need retesting :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HJ0

Think i need retesting :D

---

Why? Scared you're not human? Doesn't bother Zed :D

Richard

Just back in the office from the weekly 900k round trip north, and went through a beauty.

South of Gympie in a well patrolled and camera'd area, I came across a well signed temporary roadworks area with a sign which said 60kph. Mowing next two kilometres.

There was an 80 slow down area, and about a k into the zone the tractor slashing team were at work at least 40 metres from the road, there was no derestriction sign, and I was in a line of traffic travelling at a slowly increasing speed, of course mumbling again about this thread, and how the prickles never put an end sign on the zone.

About five k's later went through the camera "trap", probably not travelling fast enough to get booked, but over 60. About a hundred yards later, the end 60 sign! So now 2 k can be as far as 6 apparently!

And some don't think this is revenue raising? (NOTE: this is an area with a high fatal accident record, and is pretty much patrolled full time, I just can't see the circumstances above helping in any way to reduce that!)

Cheers,

P

Ahh, stop ya sooking. At least until you get a ticket, anyway :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentC

Ahh, stop ya sooking. At least until you get a ticket, anyway :p

---

Don't reckon I will, and if you go back to my first post, you'll see my very clear philosophy on that.

If I didn't see the thing while I was going 70 clicks or so, I deserve it. (I was concentrating on the flipping big truck thing in front wondering why his exhaust brakes werent working ! ;) )

Cheers,

P:D :D

Quote:

---

if you go back to my first post

---

We're on page 7 now, you can't expect me to remember back that far! And I can't be bothered to look. What's your stance again, are you for us or agin us? Hang on, I'll just get the nukes ready. Now, what's your answer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bitingmidge

Just back in the office from the weekly 900k round trip north, and went through a beauty.

South of Gympie in a well patrolled and camera'd area, I came across a well signed temporary roadworks area with a sign which said 60kph. Mowing next two kilometres.

There was an 80 slow down area, and about a k into the zone the tractor slashing team were at work at least 40 metres from the road, there was no derestriction sign, and I was in a line of traffic travelling at a slowly increasing speed, of course mumbling again about this thread, and how the prickles never put an end sign on the zone.

About five k's later went through the camera "trap", probably not travelling fast enough to get booked, but over 60. About a hundred yards later, the end 60 sign! So now 2 k can be as far as 6 apparently!

And some don't think this is revenue raising? (NOTE: this is an area with a high fatal accident record, and is pretty much patrolled full time, I just can't see the circumstances above helping in any way to reduce that!)

Cheers,

P

---

"But, the philosophy of speed cameras is sound. That being to decrease the incidence of speeding and compliance with speed restrictions. The idea being that you will never know where one is so wont take the chance. The anticipated outcome being that the median speed of all traffic on that section of road being within guidelines.

This also is to take away the drivers own initiative, good or bad, of setting a limit they are comfortable with that may be outside what the road engineers consider safe.

Thus when bitingmidge sees the camera in a roadworks when no roadworks are currently being undertaken has nothing to do with that fact but the fact that there was a sign dictating the speed cars should be travelling at. Unfair at a personal level, reasonable when viewed within the initiative, that being that if I exceed the posted limit then I may get caught, even when I think the odds are in my favour. "

What he said;)

dazzler

Two comments.

Come drive in WA. The police are arguing for a rise and, to put pressure on the government, are issuing cautions instead of infringements to common or garden speeders. They say it has cost the State a $million plus in just a week or so.

The last time I got done for speeding, 128 in a 110 zone, the police officer who pulled me over had obviously just had a pee. He had 6 inches of shirt hanging out of his open fly. My wife, sitting in the car, was wetting herself laughing and the officer got annoyed and ripped into me about "your attitude". I didn't tell the crabby sod about the uniform malfunction in the hope he would carry on like that for the rest of his shift.
I paid the fine, and learned a lesson. $200 worth, plus 3 demerits.

I was, until I retired last year, the Coroner in this district. Believe me, speed does kill.

It's not the speed, it's the sudden stop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dazzler

"But, the philosophy of speed cameras is sound. That being to decrease the incidence of speeding and compliance with speed restrictions. The idea being that you will never know where one is so wont take the chance.
What he said;)

---

No argument EXCEPT if I may clarify

SIGN: Mowing- 60 next 2 Kilometres. which of course may inadvertantly give the impression that the zone exists for 2 kilometres.

2 kilometres - NO SIGN (thinks... hmmmm I wonder if there's going to be a derestriction sign? Maybe not, we're in a hundred zone but we'll keep pottering along on our 800 k journey at 60 "just in case".)

5+ k's - speed camera. (thinks... I have no idea what the speed limit is, am I still in the 60 zone? I've passed the 2k mark, I've passed the mowing team. I'm doing well under 70, if I'm in a 100 zone they'll hate me!)

100 m or so further - end 60 (thinks... PRICKS!)

So, I have no challenge at all with the idea that one doesn't know where they are, again see my original post. I do have a challenge with the signage and the location, now apparently 2 kilometres means 5, or could it mean 100??

Of course the sign could have been interpreted 60 (forever) and Mowing (next 2k's), which I suppose is my downfall. I don't usually treat signage as a cryptic teaser!

I am actually one of those annoying people who slow down for areas like this, but I do think there's a point where the word "entrapment" comes in to play, and I reckon these heroes have found it!

Cheers,

P (probably unscathed)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bitingmidge

No argument EXCEPT if I may clarify

SIGN: Mowing- 60 next 2 Kilometres. which of course may inadvertantly give the impression that the zone exists for 2 kilometres.

2 kilometres - NO SIGN (thinks... hmmmm I wonder if there's going to be a derestriction sign? Maybe not, we're in a hundred zone but we'll keep pottering along on our 800 k journey at 60 "just in case".)

5+ k's - speed camera. (thinks... I have no idea what the speed limit is, am I still in the 60 zone? I've passed the 2k mark, I've passed the mowing team. I'm doing well under 70, if I'm in a 100 zone they'll hate me!)

100 m or so further - end 60 (thinks... PRICKS!)

So, I have no challenge at all with the idea that one doesn't know where they are, again see my original post. I do have a challenge with the signage and the location, now apparently 2 kilometres means 5, or could it mean 100??

Of course the sign could have been interpreted 60 (forever) and Mowing (next 2k's), which I suppose is my downfall. I don't usually treat signage as a cryptic teaser!

I am actually one of those annoying people who slow down for areas like this, but I do think there's a point where the word "entrapment" comes in to play, and I reckon these heroes have found it!

Cheers,

P (probably unscathed)

---

Good luck, BM, when you move from the general to the particular you're heading into dangerous ground. But I like what you said about the function of radar traps being that when you don't know where they are you won't take the chance. This has been theorised by Michel Foucault with his Panopticon theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panopticon

The idea is that the prison design allows all prisoners to be seen at any time from a central tower, no matter where they are in their cell, while the darkened windows of the tower prevent the prisoners seeing the guards. This means that the tower could be empty for days, but the prisoners still behave, not knowing ....

midge I agree cameras set up there are just rubbish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bitingmidge

SIGN: Mowing- 60 next 2 Kilometres.... 5+ k's - speed camera.... 100 m or so further - end 60 (thinks... PRICKS!)

Of course the sign could have been interpreted 60 (forever) and Mowing (next 2k's), which I suppose is my downfall. I don't usually treat signage as a cryptic teaser!

---

Midge,

Whilst I do not necessarily agree with the positioning of the speed camera, the mowing signs are advisory only and hold no legal power. The speed signs, however, are length of road signs and continue until the end of the road unless another sign states otherwise. So it really doesn't matter what is on the mowing sign, it is just advising you of a potential hazard. The 60 sign takes precedence.

Dan

Dan,

I agree with what you are saying, and if the signs had not been fixed to the same board, I would have no problem!

cheers,

P :D

My point is, all the other signs are irrelevant, from a legal standpoint. The only sign that has any power is the speed restriction sign. I can see your point, though.

Dan

I think the point here is that, legal standpoint or not, IT'S UNREASONABLE!

Cheers,

Mark

I wish I had a dollar for the amount of times I see roadworkers put those signs up without an end sign and the appropriate speed sign, I would be rich.

I think they should have an indication of how far the roadworks zone extends. I've found myself driving for kilometres at 60 only to eventually realise that I've either missed the end zone sign or there never was one. They should say "Roadworks speed zone next x kms" or something.

I think it's reasonable to assume that the speed zone related to the mowing 'zone' and I reckon a good lawyer would get you off if you got pinged. Especially as the only reason for the speed zone was to protect the workers and there was no inherent danger in travelling faster than the sign permitted. Evidentally the mowing sign was the only one they had and they made an arbitrary decision to make the speed zone wider than the mowing sign indicated.

Whether it was a deliberate attempt to catch people out or not you'll never know. Knowing the highway patrol, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if it was.