PDA

View Full Version : Define Revenue Raising



Blue_Dvl
13th November 2006, 06:39 PM
Hey guys. Its a hot topic amongst victorians so just thought i would post the question..... What do you consider revenue raising??

I think hidden speed cameras with no signage is blatant revenue raising, as it fails to slow traffic.... just issue tickets.

Radars, and mobile "clearly visible" speed camera's i believe do contribute to road safety

mods plz delete if this thread is deemed inappropriate

oneightoo
13th November 2006, 07:49 PM
i dont have a problem with hidden speed camera's.. if your speeding your speeding, i dont think the 'oh come on, play fair' excuse is a valid one.. if you wanna speed, be prepared to pay the consequences..

digifish
13th November 2006, 08:28 PM
i dont have a problem with hidden speed camera's.. if your speeding your speeding, i dont think the 'oh come on, play fair' excuse is a valid one.. if you wanna speed, be prepared to pay the consequences..

Agreed. Look at it this way, it's a speed tax. This is one tax that you can easily avoid :)

digifish

Blue_Dvl
13th November 2006, 08:39 PM
yeah but do people actually learn from fines??? if its from a camera its possible to nominate family members as drivers to share points..... to some ppl Money is no object.

I personally find the uncertainty of a TMU highway car around the next corner more of a deterant.

oneightoo
13th November 2006, 08:45 PM
if i got hit by a hidden camera, hell yeah i'd think again before speeding.. seeing a camera up ahead gives you time to slow down, you can speed the instant you pass it, a hidden one on the other hand, well you just dont know where they are.. once bitten twice shy..

Blue_Dvl
13th November 2006, 08:52 PM
fair enough. But wouldnt it only slow down motorists that find out by word of mouth (which spreads like the plague) that know its there. As stated to a lot of ppl the money doesnt mean JS

oneightoo
13th November 2006, 09:03 PM
yeah thats true, to a lot of people the fine doesnt deter them, but then again a fixed speed camera prolly wouldnt either, so it really wouldnt make a difference to them..

with the hidden ones, if they get moved around often, that would cancel any major effect of word of mouth.. i dont know how long they stay in a spot for tho, do you know if they are permament?

cyclonic
13th November 2006, 09:27 PM
I have no problem with speed cameras being used in accident black spots or in heavily built up areas requiring sustained control of speeds (ie schools).

I do agree with the comment about it being a speed tax though.

low astra
13th November 2006, 09:36 PM
yeh if its open road where your not gonna hurt anyone or there is a slim chance ( lets face it there is always a chance even on racetracks ) then its revenue raising,

however if its on the approach to a school/hospital/shopping center anything where there are pedestrains or high traffic flow especaily of a unpredictabel natuer then i believe there should be a fixxed hidden camera, if your speeding around kids then u deserve to loose more than your licence however in my opinion

Vectracious
13th November 2006, 10:58 PM
Have all the hidden speed camera's you want - I really dont care, what gets me though (and what is blatant revenue rasing by our wonderful government - onya Bracksy you c*nt) is the stupid 3km/h tolerance - this is of course when ADR's stipulate that speedos can by up to 10% inaccurate (last I heard anyway)....

so if my ADR compliant speedometer is out - I get pinged by the cops - tough titties for me.

Also, 3km/h is fairly easy to exceed if you are doing less important things in the car like, say, watching for other traffic, errant pedestrians or pets, motorbikes, push bikes, kids chasing after balls, etc etc - guess I just have to drive around with my eyes glued to the speedo and nothing else....

PaulyJ
13th November 2006, 11:18 PM
Have all the hidden speed camera's you want - I really dont care, what gets me though (and what is blatant revenue rasing by our wonderful government - onya Bracksy you c*nt) is the stupid 3km/h tolerance - this is of course when ADR's stipulate that speedos can by up to 10% inaccurate (last I heard anyway)....

so if my ADR compliant speedometer is out - I get pinged by the cops - tough titties for me.

Also, 3km/h is fairly easy to exceed if you are doing less important things in the car like, say, watching for other traffic, errant pedestrians or pets, motorbikes, push bikes, kids chasing after balls, etc etc - guess I just have to drive around with my eyes glued to the speedo and nothing else....

I agree that the 3km/h tolerancy is a bit on the :wtf: side
As you said, speedo's can be upto 10% out. If instead of a 3km/h tolerance, they did a 8% tolerance, that would be fair for all parties involved.

Vectracious
13th November 2006, 11:56 PM
Who knows, and how do we know that the Liberals are going to change anything either.....

For the first time in my life, I actually live in a marginal seat, so my vote could actually matter - I don't think I'll be donkey voting this election ballot...

However, I do know what party I WON'T be voting for.

EL BURITO
14th November 2006, 03:46 AM
conisder wat happand in Canida, speed cameras were deemed to be revenue raisers and as such were removed.

Misguidedangel
14th November 2006, 09:11 AM
yeh if its open road where your not gonna hurt anyone or there is a slim chance ( lets face it there is always a chance even on racetracks ) then its revenue raising,

however if its on the approach to a school/hospital/shopping center anything where there are pedestrains or high traffic flow especaily of a unpredictabel natuer then i believe there should be a fixxed hidden camera, if your speeding around kids then u deserve to loose more than your licence however in my opinion


What makes it any different on an open road? They're not trying to slow us down just to protect other drivers on the road, they're doing it to stop drivers from writing themselves/their family/their friends off when they speed round a bend and lose it into a tree.

They've tried to stop the idea in NSW of revenue raising by dropping the 0-15km/h fine from $130 and 2 points, to $77 and 3 points. Honestly I'd rather pay more money and lose less points, considering i make more money in no time and only have a certain number of points that I can lose till i lose my ability to drive.

fishman_71
14th November 2006, 09:37 AM
Revenue raising is any camera not painted fluorescent anything with big flashing neon signs in front saying speed camera 300meters or something similar.

It also includes the lowering of speedlimits on a suburban street with no signage to that affect. Then putting the new speed sign directly behind tree branches so it is unreadable, then putting a camera on that road in the week following (that's where i got done for doing 54km/h - the corsa b had just got into 3rd - nice one steve...)

Oh yeah, it also includes lowering the delta to 3km/h in flagrant disregard for the national design rules for speedo's....

If I think of any more I'll add them

JohnBu
14th November 2006, 09:55 AM
i got done the other day 106kmh in a 100 zone..

c'mon, 9pm at night,

revenue raising at its finest.. its got nothing to do with safety.

I could have been doing 140kmh and it still would have been safe..

you dont see europeans dying on the road every km each time they reach, 150, 180, 200 do you... of course on the freeways only.

Bracks- you wont be getting my vote 25 Nov- then again you never have you fat lying (unt. "eastlink wont be tolled"

imay
14th November 2006, 11:32 AM
i dont have a problem with hidden speed camera's.. if your speeding your speeding, i dont think the 'oh come on, play fair' excuse is a valid one.. if you wanna speed, be prepared to pay the consequences..

Agree 100%. This is a tax, no other way to describe it. But until I am making regular contributions I don't have a problem of how they go about getting it.

And, if I do get caught . . . that helps make up for the times I have been over the speed limit and haven't been caught!

Do the crime . . . pay the fine!

Wraith
14th November 2006, 12:03 PM
I agree with most you ie: it is DEFINITELY a government revenue raiser :mad: first and foremost and road safety measure second........

I'm sure they (government bodies) drool and rub their hands together when counting the millions of $$$ they make annually with this - hence the continual addition of more and more speed traps everywhere !!!

Now seeing that we are all aware of this and that it is totally out of anyones control (bar the powers that be) to do anything about it, best thing to do is in fact not speed, I know that this is easier said than done often on a typical day on a typical street/road/hwy, and as many have said, the thresh-hold limit of a mere 3km/h over the limit is truly ridiculous :mad: and setting up speed traps on down hill slopes, where you have to maintain brakes to stay under the limit is truly an act of bastardry :mad:

As for people who don't care because money don't matter, what about the accumilation of demerit points ?? they will eventually blow their licence anyway - once again - not easy I know, but best to 'try' and not speed, it's something I keep silently reminding myself of everytime I drive, don't wanna give Braksy or anyone else any of my hard earned money for nothing ;)