Prev: another holden recall
Next: NSW Speed Zoning Guidelines
From: Doug Jewell on 11 Jul 2010 00:11 John Tserkezis wrote: > Now that we can live in Victoria even though we're sitting in NSW, > where else is left? Is planet Splong still an option? > The bastards have dropped the threshold in QLD too. When they dropped the threshold they were very tightlipped about what the new threshold was, but like in NSW they emphasised that anything over the limit was breaking the law. Former boss who is still a good friend, showed me a camera ticket his wife got recently for 63 in a 60 zone. It is not about road safety in any way shape or form, it is a motorist tax, pure and simple. -- What is the difference between a duck?
From: Toby on 11 Jul 2010 03:13 On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 10:58:30 +1000, Dingo wrote: > On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 10:42:52 +1000, D Walford > <dwalford(a)internode.on.net> wrote: > >>On 11/07/2010 9:58 AM, Toby wrote: >>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 09:49:43 +1000, John Tserkezis wrote: >>> >>>> An RTA spokeswoman said: "The RTA does not discuss enforcement >>>> thresholds on road safety grounds." >>>> >>>> But she did not deny the hardline approach was being considered. >>>> >>>> "Research has shown that even travelling a few kilometres above the >>>> limit increases the risk of a crash. Drivers are reminded they should >>>> always drive within the speed limit and could be fined for speeding by >>>> even 1 km/h over the limit." >>> >>> = Fuckwit. >> >>Yep and a thieving revenue raiser as well. >>Good on the NSW cops for opposing it, no Vic cops would have the balls >>to make such comments. > > The NSW RTA has long been a law unto itself populated with unelected > bureaucrats who pass these laws with apparently no effective and > moderating ministerial control. Which makes them "regulations". Permanent heads - read police commissioners, can change regulations at will. It's the act that you go to court to fight about. not the regulations. -- Toby. Caveat Lector
From: the fonz on 11 Jul 2010 03:53 On Jul 11, 2:11 pm, Doug Jewell <a...(a)and.maybe.ill.tell.you> wrote: > Former > boss who is still a good friend, showed me a camera ticket > his wife got recently for 63 in a 60 zone. that means she was probably doing 65 or 66 before the tolerance was applied.
From: the fonz on 11 Jul 2010 04:00 On Jul 11, 5:13 pm, Toby <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote: > > The NSW RTA has long been a law unto itself populated with unelected > > bureaucrats who pass these laws with apparently no effective and > > moderating ministerial control. > > Which makes them "regulations". Permanent heads - read police > commissioners, can change regulations at will. > It's the act that you go to court to fight about. not the regulations. the law actually says that the speed limit is 60 km/h. it's up to the cops/RTA to prove someone was exceeding it - they don't rely on any regulations for that. the tolerance just strengthens their argument in court if a driver challenges a fine on the basis of measurement inaccuracy. if they fined you for doing a measured 61 km/h, you could easily argue that with the traditional 2 km/h tolerance, you may have been doing 59 km/h. a reasonable magistrate may throw out the fine, in that case.
From: Doug Jewell on 11 Jul 2010 04:47
the fonz wrote: > On Jul 11, 2:11 pm, Doug Jewell <a...(a)and.maybe.ill.tell.you> wrote: > >> Former >> boss who is still a good friend, showed me a camera ticket >> his wife got recently for 63 in a 60 zone. > > that means she was probably doing 65 or 66 before the tolerance was > applied. The Qld ones don't subtract a tolerance. From what I've seen in other states, if the camera records 66 they book you for 63 as you imply. In QLD the photo has the radar readout in the top right corner, and you are booked for what it reads. The radar is considered infallible. I'm yet to hear of a ticket for less than 3 over, but prior to them reducing the tolerance i hadn't seen any for less than 10% over. -- What is the difference between a duck? |