Buckleys because the Government cannot survive without the revenue. And can anyone tell the class how much of it goes into roads, driver training, education, etc.?
It is soooo much easier to promote the speed kills and ignore the real reasons.
New game
- Thread starter BayView
- Start date
Buckleys because the Government cannot survive without the revenue. And can anyone tell the class how much of it goes into roads, driver training, education, etc.?
It is soooo much easier to promote the speed kills and ignore the real reasons.
Sounds true enough to the motto I heard somehwere "near enough for government work" to me.
Don't they try to make them inconspicous as well, so sometimes you don't see them... I hear that a lot.
In that case, how would they prevent accidents wherever they might be placed ? If so many dont see them till after they've passed them
I don't know about WA but around my place they alway put them in the same places. Many are in spots where they know they'll get catch more people because the road is such that people tend to go over the limit albeit safely.
I don't see the point of putting a camera in a spot thats very safe - wide road, good visbility, excellent safety history - when the other end of the street experiences road rage and near misses frequently.
A police presence there would catch the reckless drivers and those that can't drive to conditions. Some of those caught may well think twice of speeding through that same road again, especially if they use the road a lot and don't want to keep getting fines and points.
As it stands responsible and good drivers driving to conditions, are getting pinged, while the idiots are putting lives (mainly children) at risk at the unsafe end.
Then you have nothing to worry about
. You could even get peeved off if you were driving safely and got a ticket, while the 'cornflake packet licence' idiot driving next to you while under the limit didn't get picked up for his atrocious driving.Jaycee there are so many bad drivers on the road that don't speed, but don't get picked up either. We should be pinging them but as it stands our resourses are concentrated on the speeding driver because that is where the money is.
Btw, almost mentioned the slow driver that causes traffic jams on the whinge thread but didn't
.
I don't disagree with this assessment, but the easy way to avoid paying this 'tax' is simply not to speed.
A good driver and safe will be aware of what's happening on the road around them. This includes being aware of when the speed limit changes and responding to this appropriately.
Speed cameras could be put to better use but instead they're often used for revenue raising. Speed limits could be better planned for genuine public safety. This does not excuse breaking the speed limit.
It was a bit of a stab in the dark replying to your post.
To be honest, I wasn't sure what you meant. I still don't understand what you're trying to say
.Agree, never mind.
It was a bit of a stab in the dark replying to your post.
To be honest, I wasn't sure what you meant. I still don't understand what you're trying to say
Agree, never mind.
Most people see themselves as great drivers and safer than the idiots.
Somehow, with all the idiots aonthe roads, and all the idiotic acts, i find that hard to actually beleive
I think that one of the biggest gripes as that in some places the speed limits are too low. If most drivers find themselves doing 70 Km in a 60 Km zone because its a wide open street than perhaps 70 is the safe speed limit. If there were cars parked on both sides of a narrow street, then most careful drivers would struggle to do over 40Km even when the limit might be 50. Instead we are taught to drive just under the speed limit.
I agree with several posters that a lot of license holders cant drive. I'm not going to say that farmers make better drivers, however having driven on rough roads, dirt, gravel, mud, wet grass and spent enough time driving sideways I can say that sort of experience does make you a safer driver. If everyone had to complete a defensive driving course before recieving a drivers license then I believe there would be less accidents on our roads. What about having to complete the course to get off your P's?
I agree with several posters that a lot of license holders cant drive. I'm not going to say that farmers make better drivers, however having driven on rough roads, dirt, gravel, mud, wet grass and spent enough time driving sideways I can say that sort of experience does make you a safer driver. If everyone had to complete a defensive driving course before recieving a drivers license then I believe there would be less accidents on our roads. What about having to complete the course to get off your P's?
My attitude is fine.
I haven't had a speeding fine since the middle 1980's and I used to work in an ICU, my wife is a theatre nurse, so I know the consequences of speeding. No-one is annoyed by speeding drivers more than me.
Speeding is only one of many factors causing accidents on our roads. Many are due to fatigue, and many are due to dangerous driving and carelessness. There are far more people injured on our roads each year from people falling asleep at the wheel than there are from drivers doing 70km/h down a straight stretch of wide open road with no houses or people within plain sight.
And don't get me started on repeat offending drunk drivers, and people affected by drugs.
These speed camera locations - and the one I specifically refer to in my post, are a blatant money grabbing exercise in most cases.
When was the last time you saw a speeding camera set up 20 metres from a school crossing - like they should be?
As I explained in the post; the camera is in a spot where traveling at 70km's is not going to endanger pretty much anyone, and the circumstances around the area where this occurs is such that anyone driving down that stretch of road would not even notice a slight increase in their speed. Most people have a pretty good idea of when their speed "feels" too fast in a given area and adjust to a degree.
The chances of a pedestrian being hit where they put this camera (and there are a few others I could mention) is virtually zero, and I reckon the stats on whether a pedestrian has been hit on this stretch of road over the last 50 years would be zero.
You will argue it is because of the camera or speed limit that the stat is so good, but given that they nett hundreds maybe thousands of drivers here every year, I'd say no.
The speed limit is - in this case - ridiculous, and you can ask almost anyone in our area if they agree and they will.
Last edited:
I have always said that all drivers should have to pass an advanced driver's training course as part of their learner's permit to get P plates, and I also believe than anyone over the age of 70 should be made to resit their driving test each year.
I know a few older drivers who travel too slowly - under the speed limit on freeways and main roads...they think they are being safe, but their larger variation in speed from the general traffic flow is actually causing a dangerous situation.
I don't. I reckon the vast majority of the modern cars being manufactured today are capable of speeds far in excess of what they need to be.
Monaros capable of 250 km/h. Lambo's and Ferrari's capable of 300+ km/h. The guys that buy these cars haven't bought them so they can potter along at 50 km/h thru the vast majority of suburban streets and 60 and 70 km/h down the majority of the major roads.
The frustration derives from being in 2nd gear, when they have paid for 6 in the gearbox but simply cannot use them lawfully in most streets.
I've heard some people say they like the fast burst of acceleration that can see them safely overtake someone on a 110 km/h stretch by quickly zipping past at 130 km/h momentarily......but seriously, how often does that happen ?? This does not explain why every new car can do at least 160 km/h, with the vast majority having speedos etched up to 200+ km/h.
In my opinion, the manufacturers are pumping out vehicles way way way too powerful and fast for the posted limits. Huge V8 modern cars are simply a machine with the in-built potential to do a hell of a lot of damage. Look at th epopularity of shows like Top Gear. 0 to 100 km/h in 4.8 seconds...wacko, not much chop if the posted limit is 60 km/h. I say reduce the potential oof the modern cars and you'll see a dramatic drop in fatal accidents.
this is one of my bug bears, living i an area with a lot of older drivers.
many travel at 30-40km on 60km roads - spend 5 minutes getting thru a small roundabout - weave all over the place - brake then indicate to turn left while sitting in the right hand side of the lane ... i could go on. it is their inability to think quickly and react safely when a situation occurs that is a real danger.
technically they are the safest bunch (least accidents), but that is only because so many of them don't travel long distances, crawl at a snail pace and are so obviously shocking drivers that the rest of us take extra care around them.
gosh - i remember my grandmother telling my gramps to slow down ... when he was going 70 in a single lane 100km zone. drove the other drivers to dangerous attempts totry and pass them.
Not sure about other states, but here in SA the majority of road deaths - over 75% - happen on country roads. Yet the vast majority of South Australians live in suburban areas. The SA govt continue bleats about speeding, but they won't do anything about some of the sub-standard, narrow, poorly lit country roads.
Why? Well, the cynic in me say that fixing roads costs money, but a speed camera on a straight piece of metropolitan road raises money. Too often around here speed cameras are used to raise revenue, not as a 'life-saving' technique.
Why? Well, the cynic in me say that fixing roads costs money, but a speed camera on a straight piece of metropolitan road raises money. Too often around here speed cameras are used to raise revenue, not as a 'life-saving' technique.
Just a reminder, that speeding fines are voluntary.
Had a younger cousin, who is a bit of a hoon himself, show me an iPhone app, called trapster. Shows locations of police, cameras etc.
Had a younger cousin, who is a bit of a hoon himself, show me an iPhone app, called trapster. Shows locations of police, cameras etc.
I agree totally that if you don't want to get done by speeding cameras don't speed (or be aware of where they are, and be very careful when and where you are over the limit), However I just wish the Government would admit to the fact that they are simply revenue raisers so that we can all move on!
I think all speeders would be less frustrated if there was a digital sign 50 metres on from the camera which says 'thank you for your $200 donation to x(SAPOL, x hospital etc.) Drive-by charity!
Yes i'm sure they're raking in lots of fines so i don't know why they haven't installed a permanent camera fixed to a pole which would increase revenue.
A guy in a bar told me off duty cops get these job as o'time to snooze in the back or eat donuts and get paid $47 an hr. I don't know if it's true but the salary would likely be more than $200 a day. A fixed camera would pay itself.
I've seen fixed speed cameras in NSW, not sure if they're common around Oz. In the UK they're called Gatsos and the locals set fire to them and post photos and descriptions, it's quite popular. I think it'd be easier to spraypaint the camera lens but i think they want them destroyed. I don't condone the pics or comments found here. http://www.speedcam.co.uk/gatso2.htm
This page is probably the highlight of the entire site. To my knowledge this is the largest collection of wrecked Gatsos on the internet, and its growing rapidly. So long as these cameras are robbing motorists of their cash they will continue to be destroyed.
I don't know about the other states, but most (90%+) of the speedos I see nowadays are unmanned parked car set ups. I can see how this is more effective than fixed post as soon as the general area gets used to slowing in that particular area they can move on. Not exactly chewing up tax resources (comments about Police OT eating doughnuts and sleeping in the back).
Meh, do the crime, pay the fine. Haven't been caught yet speeding, only do so in those 'stupid' areas, but thankfully I haven't seen a cop around those parts - well except for the one who did a U turn going 70km/hr to try catch me speeding on a scooter going 60km/hr in a 40 zone (40km on 1km stretch of road, no construction, crews have just left the signs up for the last three months for when they decide to do work?!!?). Nethertheless, I could slow the scooter before he could ping me.
Meh, do the crime, pay the fine. Haven't been caught yet speeding, only do so in those 'stupid' areas, but thankfully I haven't seen a cop around those parts - well except for the one who did a U turn going 70km/hr to try catch me speeding on a scooter going 60km/hr in a 40 zone (40km on 1km stretch of road, no construction, crews have just left the signs up for the last three months for when they decide to do work?!!?). Nethertheless, I could slow the scooter before he could ping me.
