Blatant Revenue raising

GE John that pix you have there brings back memories but i used sign post on a landrover in a trip to Aryes rock in 1972 and got all the way back to Port Augusta and fix it there at a mates place it was a lonely trip then kind regadrs Pat.

Fair enough, but it's only been open for a week. How can they claim that speeding is a recurring problem??

Now you were not suggesting that people don't speed on the Gateway Bridge are you :-))

KK

Mr Bitchi,

I think you will find that most new roads will have speed camera's when they open just to stop people picking up bad habits on new sections of road. When they opened the ICB a few years ago there was a speed camera there about every second day. Since then, rarely do you see a camera there.

...and at the end of the day it's up to you whether you get a speeding fine or not.

Rob, my point is that they are supposed to only place cameras where there is a known problem. That's what the law says. That's how they got the laws through parliament in the first place. Putting a camera on the ICB and Gateway in the first few days is in contravention of those rules. The fact that you rarely see a camera on the ICB now is a clear indication to me that there wasn't a problem in the first place..

And no I haven't been caught lately ;-)

My biggest beef is that the coppers/govt use speed cameras as the only method of road rules enforcement when more coppers in patrol cars would make the roads much safer. Cameras are used cause they're an easy way to collect revenue. Nothing more. Fixed cameras are an even bigger joke. Everyone knows where they are and slow down for them, then speed up again. What does that achieve? apart from catching the odd person who's unfamiliar with the area/ not paying attention? No way can you tell me that makes the roads safer.

Yeah I know what you mean. It is revenue raising but at the end of the day they're going to get that money out of us one way or another. it's Either take more money or reduce the services provided the state (health, education etc.)

I am guessing they use the cameras because these machines can take a photo every 2 seconds while a cop would take 10 minutes to process one infringment. So the cost of having the cop there, although ideal, is just too expensive and the fines would barely cover the costs. Perhaps it's a good thing that cops are released from dealing with traffic and get onto real crime.

I think Qlder's have slowed down since the introduction of speed camera's. Previously everyone would travel at 100km/h on the captain cook bridge and the expressway without any fear.

As for the placement of cameras on danger spots, I think it was only a politician's promise, not a law as such, and we all know what thats worth.

Cheers

In reference to speeding which this thread started with the answer is just above this entry. Quicker and less costly.

Up here they're still run by the coppers. There's been talk of privatising it but hasn't happened yet.

Polite clapping from the stalls :-)

Landy,

I enjoy your posts, your rants have the ability to canvas and explore more of the relevant points to consider than the normal pavlovian response

"Okay, so how do we enforce the road rules?"

Problem is a speed camera only detects speeding, not the other myriad infringements we see every day. The idiot on the mobile phone, the &^%&*% that carves everyone up swapping from lane to lane, the tailgater, the slow driver in the fast lane, etc etc.
Yes you do get more speed cameras / $ than police officers, and yes they can record more infringements / hour but this reliance just pushes home the message that the only offense the govt is worried about is speeding. They don't give a real toss about any other offense as it costs too much too enforce.


Maybe I wouldn't be so peeved if some of the revenue raised went to extra police patrols rather than just into the consolidated revenue black hole..

Well said Landy - I've got a healthy bit of respect for you and your well considered contributions to this site - ie. you seem to just blabber out the first thing that comes to mind (hence I couldn't help myself from calling you "Mr Landy" earlier!).

However, it doesn't mean I always agree with you! And I don't fully agree with your "User pays" comment for policing - there are some services which benefit the whole community whether or not we consiously use them:
I never drove across the Nullarbor (yet) - why should my taxes be used to maintain a seemingly endless stretch of road across some distant desert?
I'm still young and healthy (so far) - why should I be paying taxes to build hospitals, etc.?
I never phone or send mail to Birdsville - why should I be paying for those services to be provided 'way out there' (although I do enjoy the beef that comes from/thru the area!)?
Some things have to be paid for from the common coffers - while you may not be one of the people who makes a requirement for Police to be on the road, you certainly benefit from them being there.

I'd also venture to say that if there were no Police on the roads, sooner or later most of us would also fit into the category of those who broke (or at least "stretched") the road rules. While most of us are good law abiding citizens while the Police are watching, there would be many less law abiding citizens if the Police were to stop watching. The fact that most of us don't require their fining services may just show that they are doing what they are supposed to do, after all: prevention is better than the cure.

Nargun51…Thankyou!

Mr Bitchi

Unfortunately there are people who don’t abide by the road rules, whatever rule it might be. I’m sure politicians do care about other road rule infringements, and more police would help, but at what cost, the taxes we pay only go so far.

Tim C

I can live with the fact you don’t always agree with my views….. That is what makes a debate; reasoned argument is more important than necessarily agreeing and that is how I judge contributions to the discussions.

As far as user pays; keep the comment in the context it is offered. If you speed, you pay. The road rule is known and if you choose to break it you may be fined. If you don’t speed you will never be fined for speeding.

Certainly we need a police presence, and the whole community needs to pay for that; but if we need more police simply to issue speeding tickets because some road users won’t abide by the rules, than let’s have an efficient system that is cost effective versus the alternative. Funds can then be directed to community needs that might be more beneficial than providing an additional police presence to influence the driving habits of those who simply choose to not abide by the rules.

In terms of other services; we do need hospitals, mail services, roads, telephones and many other things that governments provide. These are subsidised by our taxes, but they aren’t necessarily free, so there is still an element of ‘user pays’.

The point of difference I am making is that there are many things money can be spent on; heaven forbid, one day you may need the services of a hospital, you may want to ring your mother on mother’s day from Birdsville, after you posted her a card from the infamous Birdsville Pub, and this might be on your way towards the road that crosses the Nullabour. But one thing is for certain, if you abide by the road rules, you will never be asked to contribute more to the coffers of the State Government than the taxes you already pay…..

We could ponder these and many related questions…but I’ll move on from this one having passed comment.

Cheers!

"if we need more police simply to issue speeding tickets because some road users won't abide by the rules, then let's have an efficient system that is cost effective versus the alternative"

I note that you have indicated you don't want to keep discussing this issue, but... Yes, I know government coffers are not limitless and agree wholeheartedly that the government should look for ways to make things more efficient and cost effective. However, to substitute police patrols for speed cameras results in addressing only one area of 'law breaking' - it does nothing for the those who drive dangerously even while not exceeding the posted speed limit. I have no problem with the government installing speed cameras if it helps, but it seems they have REPLACED (not supplemented) the important and necessary police presence on our roads. That worries me because speeding isn't the only offence that is dangerous.

No. 1 in the immediate short term (until everyone realises it's just another carboard cut-out)
No. 2 in the longer term (but not until you get the letter in the mail 4 weeks later)

10/10
cheers

Steve

You could probably class me as one of those posters you describe. And I hear where you are coming from, but to advance my point.

There are many jobs that implicit in the execution of the job you must abide by certain rules and protocols, often at times of high workload. Airline pilots and air traffic controllers are two that come to mind; there are many examples in industry through the use of machinery, the list would go on. And this is with good reason; the safety of others around you.

Professional road drivers are no different and shouldn’t be; awareness of all conditions and factors such as speed zones is a critical factor to the job, and I’m not suggesting that is an easy task to juggle all these responsibilities, to the contrary. But none-the-less it is important that rules and protocols are abided by and a key reason why some of us would never cut it as professional road drivers, or large machinery operators, pilots, or the like.

It would be mediocre to lower standards too make many jobs easier; better to ensure that those in these positions are trained to a high standard to meet the requirements expected…and your driving record tends to indicate that it can be done…..

Cheers….

Steve,

How fast are you driving when looking for an address ???

Gee mate, that argument is just so silly.

As silly as that reply?

I don't think so.

I agree with Steve.
It's basically Russian Roulette at times. The more time you spend on the road, the more chance of doing something wrong and being caught whether intentional or not.
I am not a professional driver but you have to feel sorry for those that are. We have the same amount of points to play with but in general our livelihoods may not be in as much risk due to the reliance of our license to our income. The professional spends most of their time on the roads we speak of and may be more familiar with the speed zones etc, but they also may come into contact with those areas that are dubiously signed to say the least.
Many times I am at a loss as to what exactly the speed limit for a given area is, possibly because of roadworks, or because a sign may have been missed through the many distractions we face whilst driving (most being outside the vehicle) or even the vehicle next to you blocking your view on a multi lane freeway.

Being pulled up by a human rather than a happy snap weeks later, gives you the opportunity to state your claim whilst it is clear in your memory and possibly even visible to the police attempting to charge you.

We are all human, and as a driver you don't have the support and training of Pilots and the like to fall back on, nor do you have the "idiots" all around you to contend with. The claim that Pilots, heavy vehicle operators etc. are a breed apart is ridiculous, they have different conditions and different training etc to deal with and usually not surrounded by complete morons that shouldn't be breeding. (that is my opinion of the general driving population).
I do admit I wouldn't want to be a traffic controller, but it's my choice and I am not trained to do it, but if I did choose to and I was trained, then I am sure I would be able to handle it, and the people you then deal with should also be likewise professionally trained and competent, unlike most road users.

Cam

I would have thought that was an argument against Steve's. Motor vehicles are serious bits of machinery, potentially lethal to drivers and others. Cam, you seem to be arguing for increasing the regulation of drivers. Professional drivers need to be just that, professional.

Cam

I'm not suggesting that anyone is a breed apart, but highlighting that inherent in many jobs is a need to operate under difficult conditions....professional truck drivers are no different.

Don't change rules simply to make it easier for people to comply, especially if there is good reason for the rules in the first place.

Cheers

Mfewster, I agree they are potentially lethal.
Maybe we should be tougher on training for all. I just think while we take our license for granted in general, there are those that live off theirs and the risk of losing theirs through accumulation of points through the "revenue raising" scheme rather than a purposeful violation to the rules is perhaps a reason to have variations to the "scheme" or the rules.
We should be hard on the blatant offenders and perhaps more lenient in the application and reason for the small offences. As was stated above, there is more tolerance in the ADR for speed error than in the law. So we can break the law without ever intending to, Professional or otherwise.

Landy,
I know that was not your suggestion but it could have been read that way a bit. I think the "good reason for rules" is probably the point of this thread. So I agree.
But revenue raising just for that sake is not a good reason. Saving lives and trauma is.

It seems most of us share a sensible approach to the laws but maybe not in it's execution.

Cheers Cam

Cam, you have got me thinking about it a bit more. I might be convinced that there is a case for giving pro road drivers more points to be demerited before losing the licence. It could depend on just what the points were accrued for. OK for example if accrued for a small margin above speed limit, but for major incidents, such as a seriously excessively over speed limit, I might be inclined to give a heavier points penalty on the grounds that a pro driver really should know better, especially if driving something big. But don't ask me about the fine details of what the legislation would look like, I can see some of the difficulties writing it would cause.

No problems....

Personally I think that professional truck drivers are subjected to undue pressures that stem from unreasonable scheduling. In itself, not a reason to break the speed rules, but is something I believe is slowly being addressed.

And I have empathy for the position that Steve, and other professionals when driving our roads.

There is merit in Mike's comments, but the issue will be that we might be sending a message it is okay to break the rules, a bit.

Good weekend to all

btw i have no speeding tickets in my 9 years

well said !!

Well done. That's essentially what I was dribbling about in much less words.!

Thanks, Mark and Camoco, for the approval.
Paul

Some more approval for you Ups and Downs. ...

Additionally - whilst I agree with other posts about abiding by rules ( Even tho travelling over the posted limit ican be very different to "speeding" ) ... Your post highlights the fact, that the job of of driving is now so overburdened with rules , that safe, simple driving no longer exists.

Whilst we older drivers may have gained our vehicle handling experience in easier times and added new rules to our repertoire as time went on ..... New, younger drivers are thrown into today's, bureaucratic maelstrom, of over regulation - in addition to, trying to learn the more important aspects of practical, safe,vehicle handling whilst sharing the road with other motorists.

And we label ALL of them as bad drivers ........... pfffffft

Your idea seems to work - in reverse - for BAC levels .....

0.05 for you .... 0.02 for him and 0.00 anybody else.

The rules are there to cater for drivers doing 100kph in a 50kph zone ... They can be charged as dangerous drivers and any number of other terms to ensure serious punishment.

The trouble is ... "speed" is the catchcry that fills govt coffers ...

I've read it five times and I still have no idea what you are trying to say.

Perhaps we should have a punctuation checker as well as a spell checker.

Getting harder to do Graham with the ever increasing amount of directions and traffic signs and speed cameras which by definition require more monitoring
and cross checking with your cars instruments.

You simply have less time to concentrate on safe driving.

Damm if I didn't do it myself the other day.

I'm rambling along below the 60k limit just watching the road all is good, then suddenly I came apon a sign , it said "end of 40km school zone" ,

What school zone ?

Damm the start sign was high and partly obscured and I didn't see it !

No its ok , its 9:32 just outside the time 40km applies.

Whew , I'm innocent !

Arr , maybe not , its the company car, and I seem to remember the clock was fast !

How can I check - tune the radio

3 seconds have past

I realize I'm not paying full attention to the road ........................

And If you were doing above 40km/h in a school zone on a pupil free day( which in NSW is the first day back after holidays) you would still be fined. Even though there are no kids at school.
How do I know this? A lady got pinged at our local school, which is on a through road in our little town. Pop 400 odd people. 30k's away from the nearest town.
10k's over.
Yet I have called the local area command many times about the trucks that use this road in school time and speed, and they never patrol it. Pupil free day and they turn up.
Buggered if I know.

A well know camera on the pacific H'way is the one at the bottom of ST Helena near Byron Bay.
The RTA put up See throw screens so you can admire the the view of the Byron Bay lighthouse, make it a 60km/p zone, and put up a camera.
Everybody is looking at the scenery and not their speed. Flash, your Pinged. Then the RTA wonder why they have Bullets fired at the screens.
Why don't they shoot the camera?

Robin, I agree school zones are sometimes difficult to manage.
I have a school age child, but before I did I didn't know where the schools were or what times they were in force.
I ranted locally about having the signs "active" when they needed to be, using flashing lights and the like and "inactive" when outside hours. Two reasons for this are:
1. Times. We know our actual clocks may vary, including the police clocks,and days and hours of operation etc.
2. Attention. Flashing lights bring our attention to the fact there is a school zone there and that it is in force.
There is so much going on around schools at times, that it is not easy to see where it starts and finishes and whether there is even one there.

I did notice recently on a trip that a school zone had flashing lights and in that instance it was the only reason I noticed the case, thankfully. Maybe someone listened to my rant.

Only a ratbag would willingly speed through a school zone when it is in use. Yet I am sure we have all done it, whether we knew or not. Like you Robin, I have come across the end of school zone signs before realising I was even in one, but that could have been from entering at obscure entries rather than the main roads. Also multiple schools in one area makes it hard due to different signage and allotted times. We have one here that is all day for one school and the school next door is split timing. Go figure.

Cheers Cam

Robin...I also agree (can you believe that!)

How many times do we drive, especially known routes, and hop out of the car and not able to actually remember the drive itself...our minds were elsewhere. Not to say we weren't paying attention, but possibly not as attentive, a point Graham is making.

And foreget mobile phones these days....what about those playig with Tom Toms and the like...

As for school zones, I think the authorities to need to do a lot more work in terms of hilighting with flashing lights that you are entering one. It is about safety after all...

A simple way to resolve the sign nonsense and variable speed zone foolishness.


1/. Paint the centreline a different colour and / or use matching cats eyes. (reflectors)

Red for school zones ... speed limit signage not required as colour denotes more attention required. 50kph minus increased attention level equals even less than 40kph speeds ..... I have found.

White for general roads 50kph

Yellow for 80klm

Blue for highway areas of 100klm+ ... Open roads are open roads obviously but the myriad of varing speed, city motorways could do with some standardisation.

2/. Get rid of pointless 70 & 90 zones and other oddball waste of money signage.

3/. and Im all for flashing lights at crossings ... school or otherwise.

Minimise the rules ..... make life simpler ... therefore making roads safer.

Wow, Oztroopy.
That is exactly the thought I have had for years. (well actually the side line but that has other problems. The centre line is the best one)
My wife argued that the colour challenged around us might have a problem with it. My argument is that many of us are colour correct and for that alone it would be worth while as it is an extra not a replacement.

I thought I was mad being the only person to have that idea but, thanks, I am not alone. I am all for simplicity.
As for changes to speed zones, they just repaint the line!!! I would still keep the signs for those that are colour challenged.

You've made my day:)

Cheers Cam

Hey Camoco ....

I dont know how relevant colour blindness is in reality.

I have a red/green deficiency .... The colour you lot all call red ... is what I call red ... doesnt matter a hoot what colour I see.

Proved it in the military when it was going to be an issue with a Mil drivers license.

One fallacy about colour blindness is also not recognising stop signs and lights ... Why ???? ... the RED "stop" light is always at the top and the RED "stop" signs are octagonal .... just another case of too many rules.

Some testing of a persons ability - with severe colour blindness - to correctly identify colour variations of paint on the road, would be expected if the traffic authorities did the job properly.

I'll wander into this trap!.

I can see where you are coming from but....
Remember the '70's song "Signs". That's getting to be what it is like on the roads. There are so many images straining for our attention that the important ones can easily be missed. And that is not from inattention.

I usually drive without the need to look at the speedo and usually find myself about where I expected to be. At least in my old patrol that is the case. The newer cars I drive don't have as much road feel as the older ones and some of that sensation is lost. Therefore it is easier to misjudge the speed you are doing. It's not an excuse but is made harder than the older cars.

I also drive a number of different cars that "feel" very different and give different feedback to speed. It takes a bit to get used to each time to do the speed scan removal bit but does come easier each time you drive them.

I will very much disagree with your "Multiple Signage; pretty coloured lines and flashing lights are bandaids which put the onus on the Government for things drivers should take responsibility for." Bit. We have too many distractions that the most important ones should be highlighted for the safety of our license and other road users, be them drivers or pedestrians. I don't disagree about the onus of responsibility though still should be the driver but those signs are additional aids for where safety is more important.

Maybe we should ban advertising so we can see the signs we are meant to see. Don't forget, if a truck is on your left and it blocks a sign on the side of the road you are meant to see (like a speed zone), does that mean you are happy to be breaking the law. Many signs are where we expect them to be, but many are not. In my example above many zone signs are also on the right, but if you are on a multilane motorway between two big vehicles, they can be missed entirely especially at 110km/h and you are the smallest vehicle and you are looking at directional signs because you don't know the area and there are gentle bends so that 100m is the visual horizon. Try traveling at a lower speed and see how dangerous that becomes.

I am not making excuses for poor driving, far from it, but it is harder than it was when we were younger and the penalties are more frequent (not for me but for some). In the old days, you only had to look out for the fuzz cars to know whether you would be pinged or not. Now they come in all shapes and snap you without knowing. Lets have a fair go and give us every chance we can of knowing when we are breaking the law. (laws change too and do we get notified??)

As far as murder goes, it is the intent to murder that deems it a murder otherwise it is manslaughter. Drivers generally don't go out with intent to kill. Even the stupid ones. I agree the threat of equal sentence would be a deterrent, but you cannot stop stupidity occurring until we stop the breeding.

My rant over too. (some of it is tongue in cheek for the serious people)

Cam

Nargun51

It sounds as though you ... like me ... are on the brakes when you spot a ball heading onto the road - because you "just know" a kid or dog is going to follow it.

Peripherel vision is used to notice things like that ... concentrating on signage first on one side of the road and then other ... changes your vision focus areas.

The "pretty coloured lines" would only be a colour change from the lines already in place .... and unless the govt sell advertising rights ... wont be jumbled up with Lost Dog signs on power poles, Discounted motel accomodation, Best burgers in town or anything else.

Road signage, where required - should be unhindered and instantly recognizable so it can be "catalogued" in the brain so the major concentration can be on watching for impending risks during the journey.