Printable View
Mick, as you design roads for a living I am interested in what formula is used to determine advisory limits. Many times whilst driving on the open road (i.e. 100K limited) I have seen Attachment 127501 only to find that the bend can be safely negotiated at 100K. These advisory signs signs are just that "advice on a recommended speed/warning to negotiate a particular hazard" the trouble is you never know when the 80K bend sign means just that 80K no more.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gingermick
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikm
Nope, still thereQuote:
Originally Posted by jimbur
Gday John,
Mostly these come from the Road plannig and design manual, but the formula is E+F=V²/127R
Where E is pavement superelevation, F is side friction, V is car speed and R is radius of the curve. They are usually taken with conservative values of F (80km when it's a bit slippery) but you should still never really exceed them unless you know the road very well. Even then you probably shouldn't as it is sretting a bad example for your back seat drivers.
I fail to see what the "read the constitution" has to do with the lawful status of speed cameras.Quote:
Originally Posted by China
Firstly which constitution are you talking about, the commonwealth, or state constitution. If it is the commonwealth then it's a red herring as road laws are still a state matter and not a federal one.
If it is the state constitution then it is also irrelevant as the Victorian parliament made and can change the constitution at will and in fact regularly does so by passing legislation as required. The voters are not involved in this process.
Peter.
They have to comply with the relevant Australian standards, which cover calibration and frequency of testing. There are different standards for different types of device. If you want to challenge a speed camera reading, you can go to court and require that the police or whoever produce the traceability documents. Don't you think more people would do so and get off if they weren't traceable?Quote:
Originally Posted by China
China, I never said an either of my posts on this topic that speed limits are set by road engineers.Quote:
Originally Posted by China
What I said was, and I quote "Unless you are a qualified road engineer I suspect you are not really qualified or equipped to make the sorts of blanket generalisations that have been made about what sort of speed is safe on a particular road. "
However, speed limits are set in consultation with road engineers which to me is only logical. What constitutes a safe speed is governed primarily by the laws of physics and engineers are well equipped to apply the laws of physics to a surface.
Speed limits are determined by, set by and regulated by Vic Roads under the authority delegated to them by Parliament in Regulation 303(3) (a-h) of the Road Safety (Road Rules) Regulations 1999.
No matter how you may wish otherwise, speed cameras are legally accurate when they meet the requirements of Section 79 of the Road Safety Act and used in the prescribed manner as set out in Regulations 303, 308, 309 and 310 of the Road Safety (General) Regulations.
At no point do any of these regulations or sections say that there is any mandatory requirement from a legal standing point of view for the devices to be tested by an independent testing authority.
It is a little while since I saw a speed camera verification certificate, but I believe that they used to be and probably still are, tested verified and sealed by an outside service that holds the necessary technical qualifications and expertise.
You may wish that what you put forward should be the threshold to be met, but wishing it so does not make it the law.
Your suggestion to read the Constitution is not particularly helpful I have to say. I suspect that it is nothing more than a red herring thrown up on your part.
Yet again you seem to be content to make claims such as "Speed limits in this country are set by polititions, unlike just about any other country" without any attempt to substantiate these claims. Which politicians? What other Countries?
I do not think it unreasonable for you to make an attempt to lay out the basis for your claims, I have you and others the courtesy of explaining my views and reasoning.
I look forward to the time when you do the same.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by watson
Ooops. What a dill. Had it in my head that I was replying to a post immediately before but obviously should have looked a bit harder on previous pages. Thanks for spotting that, lads.Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ's Timber
Sturdee the Australian constitution overides all state constitutions , AlexS You are correct "they have to comply with the relevent Australian standards" the only problem is they don't
Ray the Road safety Act is irrelevent it has never been gazeted therefore is not binding "At no point do any of these regulations or sections say that there is any mandatory requirement from a legal standing point of view for the devices to be tested by an independent testing authority" again read the constitution, you may learn something I can assure it was not include as a red hearing. I have personaly attended meatings at which speed limits were determind by politions with no consultation whatsoever. Alexs the people who do challenge these alleged infringements in a properly constituted court (chap III Commonwealth Constitution Act "Forge V ASIC") do and are winning cases.
The case you cited has nothing to do with speed cameras - it's to do with Commonwealth powers and is a complete red herring.Quote:
Originally Posted by China
There may be occasional cases of people challenging convictions successfully - that's the way the law works - and in NSW an internal audit resulted in a number of prosecutions being cancelled, but don't you think that every solicitor around would challenge every time, and the newspapers would report their numerous successes?
Hate to be pedantic, but having read the federal constitution a number of times, but I don't think you are correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by China
The fact is that our federation came into being from the several colonies handing over only specific powers, and none of them were to do with road laws. Hence, despite the current efforts by the states to unify our road laws we still have different road laws.
Please tell us which section of the act states that it overides all state constitutions.
Peter.
Section 109
China,Quote:
Originally Posted by China
It is patently obvious to me that you are unwilling to provide any supporting line of reasoning or logic to the claims you are making. Or you are unable to do so.
What proof do you have that the Aust Standards are not met in the testing and validation process of speed cameras and other prescribed devices?
I speak from experience here when I tell you that a prosecution will not be pursued in the Courts here if the device used does not comply with the testing and validation standards set down in law as they are no longer prescribed devices for the Act and therefore do not allow the use of the data they provide as evidence of the speed of the vehicle. In my current role, I deal with these things on a daily basis in the Courts.
Acts of Parliament are not "gazetted" as you put it. Acts of Parliament receive Royal Assent in this country. Once they receive that Assent, they become law.
As for the Act not being binding, do you own a vehicle? Is it registered? Do you have a licence? If the answer is yes, then I suggest that you feel bound by the Act pretty well otherwise you wouldn't bother with such details like holding a licence, registering your car.
I have done you the courtesy of providing the exact parts of the relevant legislation I rely upon, the best you can do is "read the Constitution". Exactly which part are you referring to?
The New South Wales Supreme Court decision of ASIC v Forge relates to an appeal lodged by Forge and others over a Court decision that banned them from acting as company directors after breaching the Corporations Law. Absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the subject at hand. Seems much the same shade of similar fish as the Constitution one to me.........
I would point out that the "legal advice" that can often be found on various websites that may appear from time to time such as FightFines, Calendonia Australis and the like is no substitution for legal advice provided by a person actually qualified to provide legal advice. I am not suggesting that these sites have been the source for some of the claims that have been made, but it is certainly sounding familiar.
But again I invite you to produce some evidence that the people you claim "challenge these alleged infringements in a properly constituted Court and win" exist. I am not saying that people are never found not guilty of speeding charges, that happens on a regular basis.
I am talking about people who are found not guilty in cases where the evidence is derived from a speed camera. The only way to win such a case is to prove that the camera was not operated in accordance with the prescribed regulations or malfunctioned in some way. Getting up in Court and saying "Your Honour, the camera could not possibly have been operated correctly or it malfunctioned in some way because I never speed" is not proof.
Point out to me where any politician has the legal authority in any Act of Parliament to set a particular speed limit. Politicians may well promise to raise/lower speed limits but like the promises of many politicians, they are all too often just that. Promises.
Bit like your claims I suspect China.
Says "Australian Constitution - Section 109 - Inconsistency of lawsQuote:
Originally Posted by China
When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid."
Now show me the part of Commonwealth Law that relates to road laws. This section only applies where there is conflict between a Commonwealth and a State Act relating to the same subject sought to be regulated. There are no Commonwealth laws about speed limits. As a result, Section 109 of the Constitution does not come into effect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray153
:2tsup:
My view as well as the states never granted powers over road transport to the Commonwealth.
Peter.