From: Doug Jewell on
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
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
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
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
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?
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Prev: another holden recall
Next: NSW Speed Zoning Guidelines