NSW Speeding Demerits to be Lowered

[btm]

Speeding demerits to be lowered

THE New South Wales Government says it will make an announcement "within days" about reducing demerit points for minor speeding offences.

In 2008 more than 60,000 motorists lost their licences across NSW, with the current system stripping drivers of three demerit points for exceeding a speed limit by less than 15km/h.

If 12 points are lost in a two-year period, a driver's licence is cancelled.
The majority of drivers who lost their licence in 2008 for speeding offences were P-platers, Roads Minister Michael Daley said on Fairfax Radio Network.

"The overwhelming majority are P-platers because we've got a zero tolerance for P-platers speeding, so I can't apologise for being tough on P-platers," he said.

"Some people want me to be tougher. I don't know how much tougher I can be. We want to send a message that there is no such thing as safe speeding because there isn't."

But Mr Daley acknowledged losing three demerit points for low range speeding was harsh.

"I still say losing three points for low range speeding - five, six or seven kilometres over the limit - is harsh. It's unfair. I'll be lowering that."


http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25092839-1702,00.html

[oneightoo]

it should be something like;

6 points - 45 and over
4 points - 35 -44
3 points - 20 - 43
2 points - 10 - 19
1 point - up to 10

actually i think a more fair way to give out demerit points for speeding would be based on a % over the limit..

example, if your on a highway and the limit is 110.. you're doing 125.. 15 over on the highway isnt as dangerous as say - 15 over in a 50 zone..

highway roads are built for high speed, residential zones are not..

meh, just a thought..

[btm]

182 for PM :D

[Shay]

in WA:

Displayed as
-Speed range
-Fine
-demerit points lost

Not more than 9 km/h
$75
0

More than 9 km/h but not more than 19km/h
$150
2

More than 19 km/h but not more than 29 km/h
$300
3

More than 29 km/h but not more than 40 km/h
$700
5

More than 40 km/h
$1,000
7

[Wraith]

Well at least in NSW it's over only a 2 year period before you begin with a clean slate again, in Vic. it's over a 3 year period, so much higher chance of points accumillation and licence loss over small offences :mad3:

[btm]

the NSW RTA website says over a 40 month period... strange

[Calibrated]

hopefully QLD follows suit. i lost my licence for minor speeds. 8 months of absolute torture. still got 2 1/2 months to go :(

anyway. on topic. this is awesome. South Africa is introducing a points system now. and look how its structured!



How will the points be allocated?

Every year each driver will be given the 12 points if you lose the 12 demerits in a year that is when you will be suspended. After receiving 3 suspensions from the traffic department, your licence WILL be cancelled. And if in a year a driver did not receive any suspensions, the following year, there would be an addition to the last years 12 points plus bonus points. This will be genuinely done to improve the driving behaviour that is occurring in South Africa, meaning we are slowly getting rid of all those bad drivers.




*

2 points will be deducted, if you are found with an unregistered car, you'll be left with 10 penalty scores which means a fine of R500. ($90)
*

2 points will be deducted if found not having your drivers licence with and you'll be getting a R250 fine. ($45)
*

1 point will be deducted if found not wearing a seatbelt and you'll be getting a fine of R250 ($45)
*

3 points will be deducted if found overloaded by 25% and you'll receive a fine of R1 250. ($200)
*

3 points will be deducted if you did not stop at a stop sign.

*

1 point will be deducted from your demerit if you are 21% to 30% over the speed limit and you will be getting a fine of R500 ($90)
*

2 demerit point will be given if you are 31% to 45% over the speed limit and you will be given a R750 fine. ($135)
*

No demerit will be deducted if you are speeding up to 20% over the speed limit but you will be presented with a fine of R250. ($45)
*

You will be fined R1 250 if you are doing 46% to 60% over the speed limit and 3 points from your demerit will be deducted. ($200)

4 demerit points will deducted, if you are doing more than 60% over a speed limit. The law is set to not fine you but let the court determine the fine.


i like that system :D drive like an idiot, get punished. but it doesnt try to ruin the lives of people who make small errors and/or have a run of bad luck

[Calibrated]

Well at least in NSW it's over only a 2 year period before you begin with a clean slate again, in Vic. it's over a 3 year period, so much higher chance of points accumillation and licence loss over small offences :mad3:
QLD is also 3 years. :mad:

[lithium]

finally common sense prevails
on a double demerit day you can lose half of your license for driving 66 in a 60 zone - which is ridiculous :rolleyes:

[Calibrated]

finally common sense prevails
on a double demerit day you can lose half of your license for driving 66 in a 60 zone - which is ridiculous :rolleyes:
do 21+ over twice in a 12 month period. licence gone. a bit worse in offence. but still bloody harsh. i would know.....

[Snotty]

do the crime, do the time

[Calibrated]

do the crime, do the time
nobody is perfect. incidentally, every single fine i have gotten, was from overtaking :mad2:

[oneightoo]

nobody is perfect. incidentally, every single fine i have gotten, was from overtaking :mad2:

do you do 21 over to over take?

[rjastra]

My friend was more cynical on the issue...

Since most fines are for 0-15kmh the less demerit points you lose for that infringement the MORE times you can be fined $$$$ before you lose your licence.

In other words the state government can make more money if more people retain their licence ;)

[Calibrated]

do you do 21 over to over take?

a) turbo cali. 190kw ATW. = 20kmh increase very quickly
b) on the highway. was 110, and i overtook as it changed to 100. so instead of being 12 over i was 22 over :(

yes. i made a few mistakes. didnt endanger any lives, no wreckless driving, no accidents. i dont go hooning around everywhere. yet i lose my licence for 8 months.

bad luck on my part i suppose. i know people that are always at the illegal racing, drive like ****tards everywhere, and somehow, they have never had a fine...

[Calibrated]

My friend was more cynical on the issue...

Since most fines are for 0-15kmh the less demerit points you lose for that infringement the MORE times you can be fined $$$$ before you lose your licence.

In other words the state government can make more money if more people retain their licence ;)
i would rather pay the fine (not that i will be making the same mistakes again). than lose my licence. its absolute torture. you lose your freedom completely.

[lithium]

bad luck on my part i suppose. i know people that are always at the illegal racing, drive like ****tards everywhere, and somehow, they have never had a fine...

their comeuppance is coming - i hope it is in the form of a fine/suspension and not crashing and biting off their own tongue, as a mates mate did while street racing...

[Neeko]

i would rather pay the fine (not that i will be making the same mistakes again). than lose my licence. its absolute torture. you lose your freedom completely.

+1 was horrible experience. Especially when your nice enough to let people drive your car with you as a passenger. Don't do this don't do that lol

[Calibrated]

+1 was horrible experience. Especially when your nice enough to let people drive your car with you as a passenger. Don't do this don't do that lol
do you know how much it sucked not to be driving the cali on the humble pie cruise. even worse on the euro cruise! i havent driven the cali for 3 months. havent driven the astra since the 12th of Dec!

[btm]

getting caught doing 21+ over twice in 1 year and i definitely reckon you need to lose your license...

but that's just my 2c

[Shay]

in double demerits do you get any taken off for a 0 demerit offence,
i.e. 1-9kmh over the limit, or just a double fine?

[Wraith]

My friend was more cynical on the issue...

Since most fines are for 0-15kmh the less demerit points you lose for that infringement the MORE times you can be fined $$$$ before you lose your licence.

In other words the state government can make more money if more people retain their licence ;)

Would not be surprised at all if this were the reason behind it :rolleyes:

[Neeko]

do you know how much it sucked not to be driving the cali on the humble pie cruise. even worse on the euro cruise! i havent driven the cali for 3 months. havent driven the astra since the 12th of Dec!

i can only imagine!! especially the pie cruise lol now imagine you buy rims for your car worth $1300 including tyres. You being the one that bought them you know exactly how careful you are keeping away from gutters and such. Now imagine 3 mags scratched to s**t house and none were your fault! :mad:

never again


in double demerits do you get any taken off for a 0 demerit offence,
i.e. 1-9kmh over the limit, or just a double fine?

i believe double demerit is only points, feel free to correct me if i'm wrong

[tomtom]

a) turbo cali. 190kw ATW. = 20kmh increase very quickly
b) on the highway. was 110, and i overtook as it changed to 100. so instead of being 12 over i was 22 over :(

yes. i made a few mistakes. didnt endanger any lives, no wreckless driving, no accidents. i dont go hooning around everywhere. yet i lose my licence for 8 months.


a) Suzuki Swift. 5kw, ATF = 30km/h increase in about 2 minutes down hill
b) Rolling down a hill at the speed I ride my bike down that road.
c) fine + suspension.

I thought it was heaps fair though tbh since I'm a P plater and should have less rights than other motorists.


"The overwhelming majority are P-platers because we've got a zero tolerance for P-platers speeding, so I can't apologise for being tough on P-platers," he said.And whys that? The argument that "P platers are less experienced", "P platers are more likely to speed" is completely irrational.

Lets forget that he just admitted at their high P plater suspension rate being driven by the fact that they target P platers (if they targetted eg: Blonde women, I'm sure that statistic would go up) - how does a person being a P plater, that is, someone who just got their license, make them more likely to commit a regulatory offense? Where is the connection? Would a person that has a very timid nature, doesnt care much about cars, just wants to go from A to B suddenly become wreckless and hoon everywhere if they become a P plater? Could you take an experienced and responsible driver for 25 years and degrade them to P plates and suddenly see them hooning it everywhere?

If you are GOING TO SPEED, you are GOING TO SPEED regardless of whether you are a P plater or a FULL license, and also regardless of what car you are driving.

I understand parents lobbying for more P plater laws to stop the tragedies we've seen over the years have their heart in the right place, but youre simply, DOING IT WRONG.

Sure they may be getting results, mind you I use the term "results" loosely, but they're doing it by targetting and discriminating a segment of society (ie: an age bracket). That's ****ing no good. I don't care if you say "statistics show that heaps of accidents are P plater involved" - thats ****ing great? Have you ever considered the % of P plater accidents vs the % of P platers? How does this shit even pass through the parliament?

"Ok, so our stats have shown that a big % of road accidents have P platers involved."

"Ok whats your solution?"

"I guess we could throw up some ad campaigns to bring public awareness to the reckless behaviouor of some P platers"

"Wouldn't that make people ... by association discriminate against ALL P platers?" *ref

"Yer yer of course. That's our objective. To oppress everyone under the age of 21 because if we make P platers all criminals and hoons, all teenager will also be seen as criminals and just dangerous people in general!" *ref

"That's BRILLIANT!"

"Driving is a privelige not a right. If a few bad eggs want to ruin it for everyone, lets not try and get the hoons specifically, it'll be far easier for us to just whip out an entire segment."

"Youre a genious. I want to make love with you"

I'll be on my full license this year though so my level of care in regards to this social in-just is just about gone :P

*Further reading:http://carsguide.news.com.au/pics/media_release_survey_12dec2006.pdf

[Shay]

agree completely.
full license JUNE 26th!

[glider]

A few things I want to say. It does not matter what vehicle the offence is done in, should the guy in the 1.4 corsa get a lesser offence than the guy in the twin turbo supra he was trying to race? (just a hypothetical)

They target P platers for good reason, they are not experienced enough. You may think yes I can handle the car fine.. ok thats all well and good, but what happens when you go around the next corner and there is a child on the road? in a split second do you know what to do? You might say no one could respond to that but I you'll find that older people are probably more cautious of things like that, whereas us younger folk dont even think about it til it happens...

Before anyone says it I probably wouldnt know how to handle that situation either however I have not had a single demerit point lost ever so because I follow one simple rule, I dont speed. I dont give a flying **** if someone is tailgaiting me, if they sit there long enough they'll get the rear foglights. Its your car dont let anyone else try and dictate to you how to drive it.

[mania]

Must say I'm pleased WA's laws have at least some sense in them - NSW is just bizarre. The P plater discrimination laws are clearly in place just so that politicians can say "zero tolerance" a lot on tv. The 6 points for 66kmh in a 60 zone example (dd)... in a country where speedos are only required to be +/- 10% accurate... is absurd.


actually i think a more fair way to give out demerit points for speeding would be based on a % over the limit..
I agree, but I think the system falls down a little in school zones. In SA school zones are 25kmh - double the speed limit just doing 50. Here there's a few school zones on 70 roads, nearly double if you're caught off guard. Perhaps some combination of % and kmh ;).

[tomtom]

A few things I want to say. It does not matter what vehicle the offence is done in, should the guy in the 1.4 corsa get a lesser offence than the guy in the twin turbo supra he was trying to race? (just a hypothetical)

I agree. And should the Full license get a lesser penalty to the P plater he was trying to race? That would pretty much be the NSW laws in a nut shell!

They target P platers for good reason, they are not experienced enough. You may think yes I can handle the car fine.. ok thats all well and good, but what happens when you go around the next corner and there is a child on the road? in a split second do you know what to do? You might say no one could respond to that but I you'll find that older people are probably more cautious of things like that, whereas us younger folk dont even think about it til it happens...

I'll have to disagree. Theres never a good reason to discriminate. If statistics showed that people of darker skin colour or lebanese descent were shown to be in more accidents, would it be with "good reason" to bring in laws that restricted those people? It is EXACTLY the same idea - 1 class/group of people being targeted - yet doing something like that would 'cause a lot of controversy and deemed WRONG.

Another example would be if statistics showed that WOMEN were in more accidents - would it be ok to give restrictions to WOMEN only? No. Feminists would have a field day.

Before anyone says it I probably wouldnt know how to handle that situation either however I have not had a single demerit point lost ever so because I follow one simple rule, I dont speed. I dont give a flying **** if someone is tailgaiting me, if they sit there long enough they'll get the rear foglights. Its your car dont let anyone else try and dictate to you how to drive it.

Good on ya :)

[tomtom]

In SA school zones are 25kmh - double the speed limit just doing 50.

That is completely ridiculous. I don't want to sound like an asshole but if youre a kid and you get hit by a car going 50/hr... it may or may not have been time to cash in your cheque and call it quits on life anyway becuase 3 major factors need to be present for you to get hit:

1. You some how don't see the car coming, at 50km/hr
2. The driver some how can't brake in time... speeding at you at 50km/hr.
3. You were lingering around on the ****ing open road (stupid).

My ignorance aside, sure there'd be a circumstance that both kid and driver wont be able to see each other nor have enough space to stop themselves. Eg:

Youre driving along a school zone next to parked cars. Kid suddenly lunges out because hes excited about god-knows what and decides to leap onto teh road. Yes. If that happened to me I would be thanking god that the limit was 25km/hr since an impact at that speed would have probably only delt minor damage to my car and broken few bones of the kid if any.

But thats the thing, most school zones in my area have fences or No Parking/No Stopping at anytime signs meaning that drivers and kids can see each other at all times. Doing that kind of thing saves lives, not making you crawl in your car.

I am all for protecting the children from harm - but to an extent. 50km/hr, I'm definitely happy to oblige, especially when thers a speed camera but 25km/hr is ludicrous.

There are better and more effective ways.

It's amazing how politicians seem to not live in the same world as us. Don't they have to do everyday normal people things too?

[lithium]

If that happened to me I would be thanking god that the limit was 25km/hr since an impact at that speed would have probably only delt minor damage to my car and broken few bones of the kid if any.

interesting order of importance there


There are better and more effective ways.

such as?

[mania]

interesting order of importance there. It's an unordered list :confused:


such as? Personally I'd say if you want to reduce the road toll, don't knee jerk, but actually look at what's causing accidents in individual school zones. Take note of when speed limits were introduced on the northern territory cannonball highways, along with the double demerits system, only to have the death toll reach a many year high that year. - drink driving was the leading statistic, with speed accounting for nought.

(On the side: did anyone read the "towards zero" plan proposed for WA? Among other things, they propose globally lowering speed limits by 10kmh (although they don't expect it to be done), saying it'll save x lives. This kind of logic irritates me though - it should be obvious to anyone that the closer you get to walking pace or outright driving ban, the more lives will be "saved". Sigh.)


It's amazing how politicians seem to not live in the same world as us. Don't they have to do everyday normal people things too?

Sounds like a good segue in to how the government is currently pushing filtering to ensure an M rating for the internet (extended to R18 where appropriate controls are in place to prevent minors from accessing).

That they think such a system is remotely possible is just more evidence that they're living in their own worlds..

[tomtom]

interesting order of importance there



such as?

No intended order. Just happened to type it out that way. If a person hit my car, obviously the most pressing concern would be that persons well being.

I pointed out those ways:

1. Don't allow parking on main walking strips next to schools (from real world observation, definitely effective)

2. Fencing to prevent kids from running onto the road.

Just so we're clear, I am 100% all for school zone speeds, but 25km/r is just stupid. Building a fence would be so much more effective than reducing the speeds to 25 which I could only imagine would cause congestion on other roads as people would avoid (I most certainly would) to take that road.


Sounds like a good segue in to how the government is currently pushing filtering to ensure an M rating for the internet (extended to R18 where appropriate controls are in place to prevent minors from accessing).

That they think such a system is remotely possible is just more evidence that they're living in their own worlds..

Thatd be amazing. I can't wait till porn becomes a commodity amongst teenage boys.

"Dude can you buy us some alcohol?"

"Dude can you buy us some porn?"

$$$

[gman]

They target P platers for good reason, they are not experienced enough. You may think yes I can handle the car fine.. ok thats all well and good, but what happens when you go around the next corner and there is a child on the road? in a split second do you know what to do? You might say no one could respond to that but I you'll find that older people are probably more cautious of things like that, whereas us younger folk dont even think about it til it happens...

I'll have to disagree. Theres never a good reason to discriminate. If statistics showed that people of darker skin colour or lebanese descent were shown to be in more accidents, would it be with "good reason" to bring in laws that restricted those people? It is EXACTLY the same idea - 1 class/group of people being targeted - yet doing something like that would 'cause a lot of controversy and deemed WRONG.

Another example would be if statistics showed that WOMEN were in more accidents - would it be ok to give restrictions to WOMEN only? No. Feminists would have a field day.

Tomtom, sorry but IMHO I think you're "WAY" off base there and have shown another example of political correctness gone insane.

You are right in so much as people should not discriminate, however, there is a INFINITE difference between racial, sexual & religious forms of "discrimination" as opposed to the example you are giving which are statistically based targeting of high risk individuals based soley on levels of experience.

Black, white, male, female, Catholic, Jewish, Chinese, Anglo-Saxon it does not matter!! If an individual has only been driving for a limited period of time they DO NOT have the skill set required to deal with the myriad of differing situations that can and DO occur on public roads due to the limited time available to them to learn such skills!

Targeting inexperienced "P" plate drivers (or any other method you wish to employ to identify those with limited experience in operating a motor vehicle) make sense and this is done REGARDLESS of race, religion, sex or other individual factors that may be a basis for discrimination. It is therefore NOT discrimination based on personal freedoms, it is identification based on definable risk factors to the general public.

They as "P" plate drivers have (by virtue of less experience) a general reduction in experience with the task at hand (operating a motor vehicle) and as a general rule of thumb (as some people do choose to obtain their licenses later in life) are usually younger individuals who have yet to "mature". Regardless of age however, inexperienced drivers as a general rule present a greater risk to the general public. As such they are targeted for monitoring.

If you are so incensed by the "ageist" policy directed at “P” plate drivers, why are you also not appalled by the sexist discrimination seen & enforced when it comes to payment of insurance premiums?

The public already sees and accepts exactly this forms of "ageist & sexist discrimination” such as you are espousing in the form of greatly increased insurance premiums for male drivers, especially young males, which they are forced to pay. These are usually considerably more than female drivers (regardless of age) specifically because definable statistics prove they (in particular young males) are more likely to be involved in vehicular accidents. For what ever reason, it is a fact of life.

What amuses me is how people always trumpet “segregation” or "individual identification" of a sections of a community in any form as discrimination. How can it be discrimination when it crosses all those boundaries that define discrimination?

On this basis should we also not “discriminate” against criminals that we label as “nare-do-wells” and that we choose to segregate them from the rest of the general populace because they are dangerous? Apply your argument to that same instance (of criminals) and you have the same answer. Criminals are incarcerated (as a point of law) regardless of race, sex or age.

Should we not incarcerate them based on this "discriminatory segregation" that society has placed on them that they are criminals and dangerous? Perhaps they should get themselves a lobby group and demonstrate for better rights under the Civil Liberties statutes??

FFS PLEASE!!! Political correctness where it’s warranted. Identifying inexperienced drivers by way of “P” plate in no way, shape or form constitutes discrimination…

[immenotu]

I actually think the zero tolerance for P platers is a good thing. Putting aside the cynical views (i.e. revenue raising etc.) it is training our younger drivers to drive at the speed limit.

The best way to learn anything is to do it repeatedly, so why should driving be any different. If P platers spend their first 12 months of solo driving doing the speed limit they will become accustomed to it and will be less likely to want to speed in the future.

I would imagine that most speeders on their open licence began speeding when on their P's, i doubt too many of them just magically started speeding later in life. If they were trained to do the speed limit while on their P's there is a good chance they will never start speeding.




That is completely ridiculous. I don't want to sound like an asshole but if youre a kid and you get hit by a car going 50/hr... it may or may not have been time to cash in your cheque and call it quits on life anyway becuase 3 major factors need to be present for you to get hit:

1. You some how don't see the car coming, at 50km/hr
2. The driver some how can't brake in time... speeding at you at 50km/hr.
3. You were lingering around on the ****ing open road (stupid).


If you are a kid your brain does not think about the car that might be coming along the road, it doesnt think to stop and look whats coming, or what might happen if they just run out, they are just interested in getting the ball that went onto the road so they can keep playing. Kids brains dont work like ours when it comes to danger.

As far as im concerned, school zones can be as slow as they want, its not worth risking the life of a child so you can get to your destination 30 seconds faster.

That wasnt aimed directly at you tomtom, you just happened to post that view of it. Its more aimed at anyone who complains about school zone speeds.

[gman]

It's an unordered list :confused:

Personally I'd say if you want to reduce the road toll, don't knee jerk, but actually look at what's causing accidents in individual school zones. Take note of when speed limits were introduced on the northern territory cannonball highways, along with the double demerits system, only to have the death toll reach a many year high that year. - drink driving was the leading statistic, with speed accounting for nought.

(On the side: did anyone read the "towards zero" plan proposed for WA? Among other things, they propose globally lowering speed limits by 10kmh (although they don't expect it to be done), saying it'll save x lives. This kind of logic irritates me though - it should be obvious to anyone that the closer you get to walking pace or outright driving ban, the more lives will be "saved". Sigh.)



Sounds like a good segue in to how the government is currently pushing filtering to ensure an M rating for the internet (extended to R18 where appropriate controls are in place to prevent minors from accessing).

That they think such a system is remotely possible is just more evidence that they're living in their own worlds..

I am amazed by road statistics and how they differ between home in Australian and here in Hong Kong.

Last year in HK, almost 19,000 people (yep, 19,000) were recorded as traffic fatalities. Could you imagine that in Oz??

So, what are the two (2) biggest "contributing factors" to accidents in Australia? And its not speed. Speed compounds the effects of the other influences by increasing impact forces. In order of importance:

1: Inexperience and poor driving training; and
2: Impairment through drugs such as alcohol etc

The reason speed is trumpeted as the devil incarnate is that:

1: It can generate revenue;
2: Is easy to police;
3: On a cost vs. reward ratio it generates revenue; and
4: It can be easily demonstrated through creative extrapolation of data (number of prosecutions vs. road deaths) as "being effective" despite these having little direct correlation.

Driver training is expensive. Police are already out in the public, you are just utilising an existing resource.

Speed has been listed as number 5 to 11 in various world wide reports, including those initiated by Governments, including the Australian Federal Government.

The US proved that lowering speed limits increased accident rates and increasing them from 55MPH to 65MPH decreased the number of accidents. There are numerous factors regarding human behavior that explains this as well as logistical reasons.

Australia has some of the worst driver training requirements in the world. No wonder the general populace has trouble keeping their cars on the road. Add to the the "10 foot tall and bulletproof" approach some sections of the community seem to have (I shall not name them for fear of being labeled discriminatory) and there is your single biggest contributor to accidents in Australia.

[gman]

As far as im concerned, school zones can be as slow as they want, its not worth risking the life of a child so you can get to your destination 30 seconds faster.

Exactly...School zones are important and should be used along side other methods of "public crowd control" such as fencing, no parking zones and dedicated crossings (over passes etc) for school children.

IMHO the Federal government should mandate councils fence main roads near schools and enforce no parking zones (on this point Tomtom I 100% agree with you). This way children are "encouraged" to stay off the road and cross where marked. No parked cars means that traffic should have a better view of the road ahead.

If the soccer mum in the Mosman Tractor has to park 10 minutes walk away, TOO BAD!!!

[mania]

Interesting read gman.


1: It can generate revenue;
2: Is easy to police;
3: On a cost vs. reward ratio it generates revenue; and
4: It can be easily demonstrated through creative extrapolation of data (number of prosecutions vs. road deaths) as "being effective" despite these having little direct correlation.

Along with those, I hold the belief that it also gives people the cushy subconscious feeling of the police doing what they perceive is their jobs. For a lot of people, seeing a speed camera is the main indication that the police are active in the state - they don't require more direct contact with the police. (Being that speeding would by far be the most common "crime" in this country). Somehow raises confidence in the government, whether or not what they are doing is saving lifes.

[glider]

As drivers, it is our job to look after kids, they don't think of the dangers around roads.

And tom tom, you can call me a hero for not speeding if you want, thats great. I like to think of myself as not trying to be a hero. If you must know, for an occupation I drive trucks, so I have to drive safely or I lose my job. period.

and to use racism as an argument for this is unjustified, it has no relevance as gman has pointed out

[Shay]

As drivers, it is our job to look after kids, they don't think of the dangers around roads.

And tom tom, you can call me a hero for not speeding if you want, thats great. I like to think of myself as not trying to be a hero. If you must know, for an occupation I drive trucks, so I have to drive safely or I lose my job. period.

and to use racism as an argument for this is unjustified, it has no relevance as gman has pointed out

haha not targeting you mate you sound a responsible driver, but being a truck driver by no means makes you a safe driver, the amount of times i see a road train with three trailers on the back doin 130- 140 with a newspaper or book in front of them amazes me. its insane. not sayin that speed limits are bad, but in the country i think it is safer to have an open speed limit, you sit on a dead straight road doin 110 for 3 hours your way moer likely to crash than doin a speed you set and being constantly vigilant, this is the case in the NT.

i think we need more driver training. follow the example of finland.

as you say ppl dont develope speeding habbits later rather than sooner. but how do you discourage this, im not goin to lie, i speed. not all the time but often. and i dont know why. and often by more than 10kmh. and i've only been flashed once and ironically it was in my dads 4x4 towing a trailer and i was over by 3kmh. got a $75 slap on the wrist. and i dont think it slowed me down.

majority of the population speed
how do you propose it be stopped.

[glider]

haha not targeting you mate you sound a responsible driver, but being a truck driver by no means makes you a safe driver, the amount of times i see a road train with three trailers on the back doin 130- 140 with a newspaper or book in front of them amazes me. its insane. not sayin that speed limits are bad, but in the country i think it is safer to have an open speed limit, you sit on a dead straight road doin 110 for 3 hours your way moer likely to crash than doin a speed you set and being constantly vigilant, this is the case in the NT.

i think we need more driver training. follow the example of finland.

as you say ppl dont develope speeding habbits later rather than sooner. but how do you discourage this, im not goin to lie, i speed. not all the time but often. and i dont know why. and often by more than 10kmh. and i've only been flashed once and ironically it was in my dads 4x4 towing a trailer and i was over by 3kmh. got a $75 slap on the wrist. and i dont think it slowed me down.

majority of the population speed
how do you propose it be stopped.

I actually agree with you on this, I'd like to think I'm a safe driver but at the end of the day, there's really no way for me to know is there?, I just don't speed because my occupation depends on me keeping my license.

Quite a while ago on top gear when James may was with mika hakkinen over in finland i think (i cant recall which country) they have an incredible testing driver training. I'll agree in comparision with that ours is too soft.

[poita]

i cant even be bothered reading through all this.
this is waaaaay off topic.

thread closed