Perspective on States and fine revenue.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by XB GS 351 Coupe

What question am I avoiding???

You are the one avoiding answering a simple question I have now asked you three times. Are these e Cigarettes legal to be smoked in restaurants, child care centres, hospitals etc?? I am sure there is something that comes out of them that I don't want to breathe in. Are they subject to the same restrictions as normal cigarettes??

If they do not fit the smoking legislation, may be the legislation needs to be changed to include these, as I certainly don't want people around me smoking these things while I am out for dinner or waiting in a hospital waiting room.


I also explained this in my post as well, you keep either not reading stuff or you read it and don't understand what you are reading, of course he was not fined for panhandling as that's not what he was doing, that's what the beggar was doing and it's illegal, it's also illegal to give money to these beggars.

You seem to read articles and completely miss the point of them, and you seem to not understand what they are saying, like the $500 fine which you thought the guy got for littering but that he never actually got as clearly stated in the article you linked (where it says he could have received a $500 fine), and the court case that the other guy supposedly lost but that has not even happened yet again as clearly written in the article you linked.

These articles are written in such a way to incite people who don't actually understand what they are reading and it's obviously worked, this is where urban legends come from of unfair police etc etc, when it sounds to me like to cop was probably giving the bloke a break and handing him the lesser ticket, like they will often do, and this probably occurred after some discussion between the cop and the person receiving the ticket.

he was open air NOT indoors, and they use vaporiser in hospitals!

it is not illegal to give someone money, it is not illegal to drop your money.
forget the panhandler that's not the issue "money hit the floor" (littering)

[chevypower]

Originally Posted by MAD

Won't somebody please think of the children!

I know parents need to get their kids to school on time without getting a fine. That way they can spend more money on raising their kids too. Good thinking!

[XB GS 351 Coupe]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

I wore that one, and after paying my $1050 I asked a few RMS (formally the RTA) employees how far back was I supposed to be. The closest I got to an exact answer was 'about' 3 secs.

I also hold a truck license, and any truckie will tell you that the distance between vehicles in the above situation is 60 meters for vehicles over 7.5 meters in length, 200 meters for road trains.

Seriously, you are a truck driver and do not know your basic regulations on how to do your job???

That would be like a doctor being stumped by a cut finger or common cold

Originally Posted by burnz

he was open air NOT indoors, and they use vaporiser in hospitals!

it is not illegal to give someone money, it is not illegal to drop your money.
forget the panhandler that's not the issue "money hit the floor" (littering)

Seriously you do not really read what is written or you simply do not understand it, without being there with you I can't tell which one it is.

I have explained this to you twice now, and it's also written and explained in the articles you linked as supporting evidence for your argument. As the article states it is illegal to give a beggar money, it even explains the law that applies, I have also twice now explained the most likely reason for issuing the fine which by the way was not $500 like you suggested.

Here is the quote directly from the article YOU liked:
QUOTE:Now, Fox 8 notes that Ohio does have a law that prohibits panhandling and giving money to panhandlers near a highway or street (including a berm, shoulder, treelawn or sidewalk).

It is also illegal to smoke on railway platforms, nothing to do with open air, it's a public place where people do not want to be smoked out, if e cigarettes are considered to be smoking then that is that, but may be we should wait for the matter to go to court on the 19th to see what happens.

If you still don't understand may be read here, it's pretty straight forward:

http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/tobacco...d-Stations.pdf

[XR6TCraig]

Originally Posted by XB GS 351 Coupe

I also hold a truck license, and any truckie will tell you that the distance between vehicles in the above situation is 60 meters for vehicles over 7.5 meters in length, 200 meters for road trains.

Seriously, you are a truck driver and do not know your basic regulations on how to do your job???

That would be like a doctor being stumped by a cut finger or common cold

Is there anything you aren't a smart arsed expert on?

He never said he didn't know that answer to the question, only that he asked the question of the employees in the department that issued the fine and couldn't get an accurate response.

Unsubscribing to this thread now as I cant stand the self righteous attitude of this mental giant!

[XB GS 351 Coupe]

Originally Posted by XR6TCraig

Is there anything you aren't a smart arsed expert on?

He never said he didn't know that answer to the question, only that he asked the question of the employees in the department that issued the fine and couldn't get an accurate response.

Unsubscribing to this thread now as I cant stand the self righteous attitude of this mental giant!

Well I hold a NSW truck license so I know the rules associated with driving a truck, how is that self righteous?? Pretty much any truck driver I know knows this basic stuff. I guess it's all about being educated and knowing how to read and understand what you are reading. Not hard really.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by XB GS 351 Coupe

I also hold a truck license, and any truckie will tell you that the distance between vehicles in the above situation is 60 meters for vehicles over 7.5 meters in length, 200 meters for road trains.

Seriously, you are a truck driver and do not know your basic regulations on how to do your job???

That would be like a doctor being stumped by a cut finger or common cold

I know lots of people that also hold a Truck license but haven't driven one since their old Bedford broke. Perhaps you should cut back on the red cordial!

I did not say how far the distance needed to be on the open road. I am talking about the distance approaching a Safe-T-Cam.
BIG difference, especially when the camera involved was in an 80kmh zone

I also mentioned that RTA inspectors I spoke to were not sure of the distance either, are you saying that they don't know their job as well?

So please don't try to tell me how to do my job. I don't tell you how to sweep your floors!

[XB GS 351 Coupe]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

I know lots of people that also hold a Truck license but haven't driven one since their old Bedford broke. Perhaps you should cut back on the red cordial!

I did not say how far the distance needed to be on the open road. I am talking about the distance approaching a Safe-T-Cam.
BIG difference, especially when the camera involved was in an 80kmh zone

I also mentioned that RTA inspectors I spoke to were not sure of the distance either, are you saying that they don't know their job as well?

So please don't try to tell me how to do my job. I don't tell you how to sweep your floors!

YOU are the one that said you drive 19000km every month driving a truck, so I am assuming this is what you do for a living, so you are not some bloke that holds a truck license from years ago are you???

Don't have red cordial, mineral water is as far as it goes for me.

Speed zone makes no difference, and yes that is the distance approaching a safety cam.

Found this for you:

http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/heavyvehic...tailgating.pdf

[xxx000]

Originally Posted by noflac52

This response is absolute waffle, inane rubbish with absolutely no "evidence" that you invariably ask others for to back it up!




All of this is rubbish too!

And to finish off you equate drunken driving with someone who is straying just over the speed limit whilst keeping their attention where it should be. On the road and surrounding environs.

I think that one wins the trophy !!!

I spent a long career, much of which involved accident rescue, and in my experience in this field I can say that just about every point you make is off target. Flawed!

The evidence you keep asking others for is all there if you care to look, Just keep in mind that one needs an open mind not be blinkered to the truth.

Auslandau, you are a better man than me being able to put forward intelligent factual statements time and time again and hitting the same brick wall every time!

I used to enjoy the debates about the traffic and roads and the way every thing is administered but now I find myself more often than not bypassing them because so much of it is illogical and denies all the facts that are so easy to find and have been put in many previous threads for all to see. It just turns into a senseless argument with no point to it! A waste of time.

Interesting as I spent a fair while as a qualified SRESB rescue operator yet find your side flawed

[xxx000]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

I know lots of people that also hold a Truck license but haven't driven one since their old Bedford broke. Perhaps you should cut back on the red cordial!

I did not say how far the distance needed to be on the open road. I am talking about the distance approaching a Safe-T-Cam.
BIG difference, especially when the camera involved was in an 80kmh zone

I also mentioned that RTA inspectors I spoke to were not sure of the distance either, are you saying that they don't know their job as well?

So please don't try to tell me how to do my job. I don't tell you how to sweep your floors!

The RMS inspectors are heavy vehicle examiners not road rule experts

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by XB GS 351 Coupe

Speed zone makes no difference, and yes that is the distance approaching a safety cam.



http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/heavyvehic...tailgating.pdf

Speed zone does make a difference, read the link you posted.

If you know the exact distance to leave between trucks at a Safe-T-Cam site could you please let the RTA/RMS know because you seem to know a lot more than the people that I've spoken to.

If you found it perhaps you should read it....

Rule 127 of
the Road Rules 2008 requires that except when
travelling on a multi-lane road or in a built up area,
a long vehicle (7.5 metres or longer) must maintain
a minimum distance of 60 metres behind another
long vehicle.

You will also note that I was fined $1050 yet The penalty for breaching Rule 127 is $2,200.
So quite obviously the people looking at the photograph knew that I was in a built up area where the tailgating rule does not apply otherwise I would have been fined the full amount.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by xxx000

The RMS inspectors are heavy vehicle examiners not road rule experts

I didn't mention roadside inspectors (although I did talk to them) I also sent emails along with a few phone calls to the RMS offices in Parramatta.

[XB GS 351 Coupe]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

Speed zone does make a difference, read the link you posted.

If you know the exact distance to leave between trucks at a Safe-T-Cam site could you please let the RTA/RMS know because you seem to know a lot more than the people that I've spoken to.

If you found it perhaps you should read it....

Rule 127 of
the Road Rules 2008 requires that except when
travelling on a multi-lane road or in a built up area,
a long vehicle (7.5 metres or longer) must maintain
a minimum distance of 60 metres behind another
long vehicle.

You will also note that I was fined $1050 yet The penalty for breaching Rule 127 is $2,200.
So quite obviously the people looking at the photograph knew that I was in a built up area where the tailgating rule does not apply otherwise I would have been fined the full amount.

The link does not mention speed zones anywhere.

It does mention build up areas or multi lane roads not speed zones.

[XY Chaser]

Wow. Quite a spirited debate. XXX000 and XB GS 351 Coupe both have made and are still making considered arguments. I must say I agree with them. With the Australian Road Rules 2008 Rule 127 - $2200 is the maximum fine should the matter go to Court and your found guilty by a magistrate. The fine of $1050 is the Infringement Notice Penalty.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by XB GS 351 Coupe

The link does not mention speed zones anywhere.

It does mention build up areas or multi lane roads not speed zones.

so the fine was issued on a gray area where no one have any real answers.

[superyob]

[QUOTE=noflac52;4934767]This response is absolute waffle, inane rubbish with absolutely no "evidence" that you invariably ask others for to back it up!


I did not give any evidence because I was not making any claims. You are familiar with the difference between questioning statements and making definite statements that claim to be absolute truth or fact? Judging by your reaction, you only saw what you wanted to see because you wanted to be outraged at those who have another point of view. You deny me the same 'freedoms' you and others are protesting about being taken from you... you can't have it both ways...

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by XB GS 351 Coupe

This is hilarious.

Can't believe how many people here are unable to take responsibility for their own actions and inability to drive, just blows my mind.

The day I am unable to drive below the speed limit because I find it too difficult to look out the window, observe my surroundings and keep control of my right foot all at the same time keeping at or below a legal speed I will be handing my license in, as obviously I am no longer capable of driving a car. PS most cars have cruise control use it if you are struggling, if that does not help may be consider a bus as an alternative.

People actually posting up I got done doing 85 in a 80 zone, how unfair, it was a sunny day and 8 lane motorway etc etc, did you not know it was an 80 zone?? Where should the limit be then?? Did you observe a sign that said 80km'h unless its Sunday mornings with no traffic?? How are you so special that the rules do not apply to you?? The cut off has to be somewhere!! If there were no cars on the road how were you inattentive enough to your surroundings not to see the police car or camera that booked you?? What were you doing??

Everyone seems to be of the opinion that THEY are a great driver and should be shown leniency, when it's those same people claiming that they are unable to keep a legal speed (which is really easy to do) while watching what goes on around them, and use that as an excuse to speed.

My wife been driving for over 20 years and she drives a lot and she has no trouble doing so and has never received a fine, I have not had a fine for over 7 years since I decided to drive like a normal person, any fines received prior to that were well deserved. Never received a fine for not doing anything wrong either. There seems to be a lot of people on this forum who are unfairly targeted and persecuted by power hungry and evil police who have nothing better to do that target innocent forum members who have never done a thing wrong......wow I must be one of the lucky ones.

Think you better hand in your license adn enjoy the bus .....

I told that little ditty knowing the response of course .... and you didn't disappoint

No one is saying that they don't take responsibility for their own actions, again putting words in others mouths as nothing has been said that someone else it to blame for their actions.

The main point I make is the lack of tolerance of margin based on the FACT that all people 'speed' which is dependent on conditions and what others around them are doing ..... and do so safely every day of the year. In fact millions a week manage to do this extremely safely. The amount of accidents every day compared to how many cars are on the road at any one time, and how many K's are driven does not even equate to a number without putting a few zeros before the decimal point.

Most people are good drivers. (believe it or not) Attentive and go with the flow without any issues. You or any one else are no better than most out there. Even them with a few tickets.

Please get a stop watch and see the time it takes from 80 to 85 k's. 1 Second? Less than a second? Just to educate you a little cos you enjoy doing this to others, it takes a split second to go over the limit, it would take a super human being to be able to maintain safely a speed that is 100% at or below the posted speed limit 100% of the time. And just to reiterate, do not be fooled that to be safe on the roads, all it takes is to stay under the limit. "I don't speed so I am a good driver" is really embarrassing.

It is common sense.

There needs to be tolerance for speed camera's! People NEED to drive within the speed limit but safely BUT with a leeway each side.

NOW ...... Let me know how my actions I stipulated was dangerous exactly?
I did not speed intentionally
I knew the camera was there
I did not adjust my speed before or after passing the camera
I did not adjust my driving habits 2 weeks after the fine arrived in the mail
If there was a police presents I would not have adjusted my speed &
I would not have been given a second look by the police.
MPH speedo relevance? It comes back to tolerance. While I will err on the side of caution, the increments between 80 & 85 KPH on a MPH speedo is in mm's. The difference IS insignificant. The increase risk is absolutely minimal and does diminish with less traffic, better conditions, better roads, etc.
It is revenue over safety & common sense in the guise of safety. It is an easy target supported by the few who think they are perfect drivers, delusional to the fact that by only keeping under a speed limit will keep them perfectly safe.

If speed kills, why is doing 75 in an 80 zone just SO much better than doing 75 in a 70 zone where you are instantly branded as criminal? How about concentrating on driving safely RATHER than driving just to avoid a ticket?

So .... why was the speed limit decreased to 80 ks on the freeway and then cameras set up with a 3 k tolerance in an area that is not known as a black spot? Why can I do 100k's on Westall Rd anytime of the day compared to 80k's on a Sunday morning on the Monash?

Do I take responsibility for my actions? Of course I do. Did I accept the fine? Yes I did and paid it, but not happily. Did I change my behavior after the event a few weeks later? No. Did the experience have a positive effect as it should have? No.

To carry on and say that "I don't speed and neither does my Mrs." really is kidding themselves. My Mrs hasn't had a speeding fine either but she 'floats' around the limit within a reasonable amount of variance as you NEED to do so when driving safely. Even just to merge on a freeway you need to adjust your speed to mingle. You have to agree that it is safer to INCREASE your speed to merge in many cases. Nothing worse and heart stopping for the person in front to brake when entering a freeway but I suppose death comes instantly if you hit 103!

Its really really really about common sense. It is a bad law with no consideration to common sense. Many speed zones do not make sense and placement of many camera;s do not make sense. Just because these tolerances are set in place does not mean they should be. Things do need to change and governments should NOT be made reliant on fines. Let them find some other to way to tax but don't lie and say it is for safety reasons only. AND no, it is not the same as 0.06 reading. No one can say " I accidently got drunk ........ " Everyone does not drive with an alcohol reading but everyone does drive within a few K's over or under a posted limit safely. If anyone denies this, they are not paying attention very well are they!

Here is everyone's chance to change my mind that its not just about revenue rather than the safety aspect? Why should a fine of $200 ish be the outcome of what I did? Why is it not proportional to all other fines or criminal offences? Go on .... educate me

[xxx000]

Wheels mag could have driven drunk all the way to Melbourne instead of allegedly speeding at 130 km/h some of the way.

If they did, made it and didn't get killed or injured on the way does that make drink driving safe or even ok?

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by xxx000

Wheels mag could have driven drunk all the way to Melbourne instead of allegedly speeding at 130 km/h some of the way.

If they did, made it and didn't get killed or injured on the way does that make drink driving safe or even ok?

........ really not helping the 'for' argument much are you?

No one has said that excessive and intentional speeding is great and to draw that comparison is grabbing some mighty big straws. The reason they did that was for other reasons and I believe was not done intelligently BUT at least it brought the issue to the table again. No one is also saying that drink driving is a good thing, or texting or talking with a phone under your ear etc.

[xxx000]

........ really not helping the 'for' argument much are you?

for what?? sorry but you really need to explain yourself better

and

If there was a police presents I would not have adjusted my speed

it's presence, no gifts are provided or expected

several have stated in threads that nobody got killed or injured and added emoticons ( not unlike you have actually)

The inference therefore in their posts seems to be that speeding isn't bad or dangerous

[burnz]

Originally Posted by xxx000

The inference therefore in their posts seems to be that speeding isn't bad or dangerous

love this line...
zero have died from it, govco invent a problem then introduce a fine to fix non existent problem.

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by xxx000

for what?? sorry but you really need to explain yourself better

Sorry I wrote it in code. Didnt mean too. Just saying, the comparison above, in regards to the discussion and what I and others have been rambling on about is, IMO, weird?

Originally Posted by xxx000

and it's presence, no gifts are provided or expected

DAMN ...... do I get a speeding fine for writing too fast and accidentally making a critical mistake in grammar? I am sure there are still other grammatical errors you could see as there are a few I noticed

Originally Posted by xxx000

several have stated in threads that nobody got killed or injured and added emoticons ( not unlike you have actually)

And? ...... Is that better?

Originally Posted by xxx000

The inference therefore in their posts seems to be that speeding isn't bad or dangerous

Just to reiterate ... I know .... it gets monotonous ...... I would say most here is saying that unintentional small drift over the limit CAN be done safely and not worth the amount of attention it gets from camera's and the amount of fine associated with it and is something that is done by everyone (99% would admit it anyway). Intentional speeding is something very different.

[GREGL]

There are some people on here who would endorse speed limiters for cars , going by their attitude . So a new ADR is created to limit a 110 any registered vehicle the maximum limit on any state hwy . Then and only then would the dogooders feel safe in the knowledge that when (not if ) they are involved in an accident they won't die because they will be hit by a car not breaking the limit , driven by another competent fully trained driver who has followed the mantra . I am not speeding therefor I am safe .
Someone mentioned a F250 pulling out from a side street . That is what you should be jumping up and down about , They weren't speeding yet day in day out DANGEROUS AND LIFE THREATENING manoeuvres like this occur . NO police presence has enabled this sort of behaviour to thrive and NO speed camera is going to stop it .

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by Loud_Noises

If government is indeed a business, its high time we shut it down and replaced it with something that is a government that serves the people. As the bloke I'm quoting below said:



government by definition is not a business. Running it as such contravenes pretty much all foundational legislative instruments, and begs the question, if its being run like a business, is it a business and who owns this business?



Auslandau has made one of the most accurate observations in the thread. Blinkered individuals such as yourself can't see past the government indoctrination.

The Government is a service provider, they are in the business of providing for the needs of its citizens.
These needs come at a price and to achieve that goal they need income/revenue.
Enter income tax, business tax, rates, fines, levies for this, levies for that and on and on.

Why should a worker hand over a % of their income to the government?
What does the Government do to deserve it?

When funds dry up services pay.

The Government may not have a fancy sign hanging out the front like Harvey Norman, but they most certainly conduct business as a business.
Is it right, maybe not. But what do you do, honestly?

You ask who runs the business, the very people we as a nation voted for.
So what do you do, put up with it for a few years until the next mob launch a successful takeover bid...C'mon, they're all as bad as each other.

Or

You can nag your local polli', or better still, stand up and launch a political party to represent your rights...oh, that's right someone did and how is that working out?

Just get along and live life, these are first world problems.

[XB GS 351 Coupe]

Originally Posted by Auslandau

Think you better hand in your license adn enjoy the bus .....

I told that little ditty knowing the response of course .... and you didn't disappoint

No one is saying that they don't take responsibility for their own actions, again putting words in others mouths as nothing has been said that someone else it to blame for their actions.

The main point I make is the lack of tolerance of margin based on the FACT that all people 'speed' which is dependent on conditions and what others around them are doing ..... and do so safely every day of the year. In fact millions a week manage to do this extremely safely. The amount of accidents every day compared to how many cars are on the road at any one time, and how many K's are driven does not even equate to a number without putting a few zeros before the decimal point.

Most people are good drivers. (believe it or not) Attentive and go with the flow without any issues. You or any one else are no better than most out there. Even them with a few tickets.

Please get a stop watch and see the time it takes from 80 to 85 k's. 1 Second? Less than a second? Just to educate you a little cos you enjoy doing this to others, it takes a split second to go over the limit, it would take a super human being to be able to maintain safely a speed that is 100% at or below the posted speed limit 100% of the time. And just to reiterate, do not be fooled that to be safe on the roads, all it takes is to stay under the limit. "I don't speed so I am a good driver" is really embarrassing.

It is common sense.

There needs to be tolerance for speed camera's! People NEED to drive within the speed limit but safely BUT with a leeway each side.

NOW ...... Let me know how my actions I stipulated was dangerous exactly?
I did not speed intentionally
I knew the camera was there
I did not adjust my speed before or after passing the camera
I did not adjust my driving habits 2 weeks after the fine arrived in the mail
If there was a police presents I would not have adjusted my speed &
I would not have been given a second look by the police.
MPH speedo relevance? It comes back to tolerance. While I will err on the side of caution, the increments between 80 & 85 KPH on a MPH speedo is in mm's. The difference IS insignificant. The increase risk is absolutely minimal and does diminish with less traffic, better conditions, better roads, etc.
It is revenue over safety & common sense in the guise of safety. It is an easy target supported by the few who think they are perfect drivers, delusional to the fact that by only keeping under a speed limit will keep them perfectly safe.

If speed kills, why is doing 75 in an 80 zone just SO much better than doing 75 in a 70 zone where you are instantly branded as criminal? How about concentrating on driving safely RATHER than driving just to avoid a ticket?

So .... why was the speed limit decreased to 80 ks on the freeway and then cameras set up with a 3 k tolerance in an area that is not known as a black spot? Why can I do 100k's on Westall Rd anytime of the day compared to 80k's on a Sunday morning on the Monash?

Do I take responsibility for my actions? Of course I do. Did I accept the fine? Yes I did and paid it, but not happily. Did I change my behavior after the event a few weeks later? No. Did the experience have a positive effect as it should have? No.

To carry on and say that "I don't speed and neither does my Mrs." really is kidding themselves. My Mrs hasn't had a speeding fine either but she 'floats' around the limit within a reasonable amount of variance as you NEED to do so when driving safely. Even just to merge on a freeway you need to adjust your speed to mingle. You have to agree that it is safer to INCREASE your speed to merge in many cases. Nothing worse and heart stopping for the person in front to brake when entering a freeway but I suppose death comes instantly if you hit 103!

Its really really really about common sense. It is a bad law with no consideration to common sense. Many speed zones do not make sense and placement of many camera;s do not make sense. Just because these tolerances are set in place does not mean they should be. Things do need to change and governments should NOT be made reliant on fines. Let them find some other to way to tax but don't lie and say it is for safety reasons only. AND no, it is not the same as 0.06 reading. No one can say " I accidently got drunk ........ " Everyone does not drive with an alcohol reading but everyone does drive within a few K's over or under a posted limit safely. If anyone denies this, they are not paying attention very well are they!

Here is everyone's chance to change my mind that its not just about revenue rather than the safety aspect? Why should a fine of $200 ish be the outcome of what I did? Why is it not proportional to all other fines or criminal offences? Go on .... educate me

You make some good point, and I tend to agree with some of them, however what are the alternatives??

What should the limits be set at?? So if a fine for 85 in an 80 is unreasonable where should the cut off be??? 86, 87, 88, 89, 90...may be 95??? What would be reasonable?? Lets say for arguments sake we have a cut off of 90, what if someone does 91, what difference does 1km/hr make?? Why should the person doing 90 in a 80 get away while the poor persecuted victim doing 91 gets a fine???

See what I am getting at??? The limit has to be SOMETHING, so if its 80, it might as well be 80 and if it's 100 it might as well be 100, keeps things simple, I know most (not all) highway cops won't even glance at you unless you are going at least 10% over the posted limit., so lets say 88 in an 80 or 110 in a 100 will get you some attention in most cases. Then there is the attitude test, a lot of people tend to talk themselves into tickets on the roadside simply with their attitude. To be honest I have had more warnings issued than actual tickets.

Has nothing to do with the silly thing every one brings up about dying as soon as you break the limit, but the limit has to be something....do you agree??

We can not leave people up to their own devices to decide what speed to travel at as we would have mayhem, so it is what it is, if you have trouble keeping below or on the speed limit may be you need to give yourself a bigger buffer zone, or take the risk and wear the consequences should you get unlucky

[BHDOGS]

Dont worry old clive palmers got your back the billionaire fighting for the little guy? hahaha yeh right

[superyob]

I heard something interesting the other day and someone may be able to verify this. Car manufacturers apparently calibrate their speedos to read faster than what the car is travelling at with a tolerance of 5 to 7 kph at 100. I don't know how true this is but it would probably explain why I am constantly passed by other traffic, presumably with more accurate GPS systems in them? Apparently they measure speed as well? Keep in mind that as your wheel diameter becomes smaller with wear, you will also slow up slightly in relation to your indicated speed...

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by XB GS 351 Coupe

You make some good point, and I tend to agree with some of them, however what are the alternatives??

What should the limits be set at?? So if a fine for 85 in an 80 is unreasonable where should the cut off be??? 86, 87, 88, 89, 90...may be 95??? What would be reasonable?? Lets say for arguments sake we have a cut off of 90, what if someone does 91, what difference does 1km/hr make?? Why should the person doing 90 in a 80 get away while the poor persecuted victim doing 91 gets a fine???

See what I am getting at??? The limit has to be SOMETHING, so if its 80, it might as well be 80 and if it's 100 it might as well be 100, keeps things simple, I know most (not all) highway cops won't even glance at you unless you are going at least 10% over the posted limit., so lets say 88 in an 80 or 110 in a 100 will get you some attention in most cases. Then there is the attitude test, a lot of people tend to talk themselves into tickets on the roadside simply with their attitude. To be honest I have had more warnings issued than actual tickets.

Has nothing to do with the silly thing every one brings up about dying as soon as you break the limit, but the limit has to be something....do you agree??

We can not leave people up to their own devices to decide what speed to travel at as we would have mayhem, so it is what it is, if you have trouble keeping below or on the speed limit may be you need to give yourself a bigger buffer zone, or take the risk and wear the consequences should you get unlucky

This is exactly right.

It wouldn't matter what the limit or what the tolerance, creepers creep.
If ya get caught suck it up.

Seriously, if you cant pick a camera car or fixed camera you deserve to be fined for stupidity.
Hell, don't even consider it as a fine, just thank the Govco for reminding you to be more aware of your surroundings and move on...lol

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by XB GS 351 Coupe

You make some good point, and I tend to agree with some of them, however what are the alternatives??

What should the limits be set at?? So if a fine for 85 in an 80 is unreasonable where should the cut off be??? 86, 87, 88, 89, 90...may be 95??? What would be reasonable?? Lets say for arguments sake we have a cut off of 90, what if someone does 91, what difference does 1km/hr make?? Why should the person doing 90 in a 80 get away while the poor persecuted victim doing 91 gets a fine???

See what I am getting at??? The limit has to be SOMETHING, so if its 80, it might as well be 80 and if it's 100 it might as well be 100, keeps things simple, I know most (not all) highway cops won't even glance at you unless you are going at least 10% over the posted limit., so lets say 88 in an 80 or 110 in a 100 will get you some attention in most cases. Then there is the attitude test, a lot of people tend to talk themselves into tickets on the roadside simply with their attitude. To be honest I have had more warnings issued than actual tickets.

Has nothing to do with the silly thing every one brings up about dying as soon as you break the limit, but the limit has to be something....do you agree??

We can not leave people up to their own devices to decide what speed to travel at as we would have mayhem, so it is what it is, if you have trouble keeping below or on the speed limit may be you need to give yourself a bigger buffer zone, or take the risk and wear the consequences should you get unlucky

I think you answered people gripes, pull out the speed cameras & put more police presence on the roads then surely some common sense would come back to speeding & fines given out by the police as this use to happen before speed cameras were invented.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by trublu

I think you answered people gripes, pull out the speed cameras & put more police presence on the roads then surely some common sense would come back to speeding & fines given out by the police as this use to happen before speed cameras were invented.

At what cost?

Who's paying the extra wages, vehicle costs, equipment costs?

Remember, the whole idea, if successful, would reduce revenue.

How do you reduce your income, whilst supporting an increase in expenditure?

[superyob]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

At what cost?

Who's paying the extra wages, vehicle costs, equipment costs?

Remember, the whole idea, if successful, would reduce revenue.

How do you reduce your income, whilst supporting an increase in expenditure?

Increase taxes?