Proposed NSW Fines for 4Km/h over limit.
in [Aussie Drivers]
|
Prev: another holden recall
Next: NSW Speed Zoning Guidelines
From: John_H on 11 Jul 2010 04:49 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. 63 would've been the indicated speed. If the tolerance is 2kph in a 60 zone it means you don't get booked for a reading of 62... the 2kph doesn't get deducted from the reading. The accuracy of the measurement is a separate issue to the tolerance on the posted limit, and would typically be much smaller. -- John H
From: Doug Jewell on 11 Jul 2010 05:01 the fonz wrote: > 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. Aye, but the populace don't have access to calibrated instruments. In the past, the tolerance has been there to allow for the fact that a motorist who honestly believes they are driving at the speed limit, may in fact be slightly over. As the OP quotes, there are numerous factors that effect how accurately a driver can determine their speed. Most people would consider it immoral that someone be fined for doing something which they believed in good faith to be legal. The lowering of speed limit tolerances does nothing to catch the motorists who deliberately flaunt the law, it simply starts to catch the motorists who think they are doing the right thing and who may accidentally and temporarily stray very slightly over the limit (and remember that it is nigh on impossible to keep your speed accurate to within 5km/hr without constantly watching the speedo) or whose instruments are not accurate enough to record the speed variation. -- What is the difference between a duck?
From: Diesel Damo on 11 Jul 2010 05:35 On Jul 11, 10:02 am, Brad <goog...(a)vk2qq.com> wrote: > I am driving on a good behaviour bond at the moment. I hear ya. I'm on probation until the end of October, and I will apparently get 10 years in the electric chair if anything goes wrong. Magistrate went for the angle of "what's wrong with you? why are you such a bad driver?" because of the handful of small-to-medium speeding offences I've had over the past 3 years. She even took it back 10 years so she could include my juicy 129 in an 80 zone (that was 100 zone the previous week) in order to paint the picture that all my minor offences are just small spawns of my true intent to speed by large amounts. Apparently the fact that I do 2,200km a week should not be a factor when comparing me to her driving record of 5 years of driving to the shops and back. So, anyone know if this new (in)tolerance affects ACT too?
From: Feral on 11 Jul 2010 05:51 Diesel Damo wrote: > On Jul 11, 10:02 am, Brad<goog...(a)vk2qq.com> wrote: > >> I am driving on a good behaviour bond at the moment. > > I hear ya. I'm on probation until the end of October, and I will > apparently get 10 years in the electric chair if anything goes wrong. > Magistrate went for the angle of "what's wrong with you? why are you > such a bad driver?" because of the handful of small-to-medium speeding > offences I've had over the past 3 years. She even took it back 10 > years so she could include my juicy 129 in an 80 zone (that was 100 > zone the previous week) in order to paint the picture that all my > minor offences are just small spawns of my true intent to speed by > large amounts. > > Apparently the fact that I do 2,200km a week should not be a factor > when comparing me to her driving record of 5 years of driving to the > shops and back. > > So, anyone know if this new (in)tolerance affects ACT too? I hope so. -- Take Care. ~~ Feral Al ( @..@) (\- :-P -/) ((.>__oo__<.)) ^^^ % ^^^
From: Toby on 11 Jul 2010 06:04
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 02:35:58 -0700 (PDT), Diesel Damo wrote: > On Jul 11, 10:02�am, Brad <goog...(a)vk2qq.com> wrote: > >> I am driving on a good behaviour bond at the moment. > > I hear ya. I'm on probation until the end of October, and I will > apparently get 10 years in the electric chair if anything goes wrong. > Magistrate went for the angle of "what's wrong with you? why are you > such a bad driver?" because of the handful of small-to-medium speeding > offences I've had over the past 3 years. She even took it back 10 > years so she could include my juicy 129 in an 80 zone (that was 100 > zone the previous week) in order to paint the picture that all my > minor offences are just small spawns of my true intent to speed by > large amounts. > > Apparently the fact that I do 2,200km a week should not be a factor > when comparing me to her driving record of 5 years of driving to the > shops and back. > > So, anyone know if this new (in)tolerance affects ACT too? As a matter of interest, was it the beak that pulled on the 10 year gag, or the prosecution. if it was the beak, you'd probably have decent grounds to ream it if you had the inclination. If it was the police - I guess all you can do is remember it fondly. But of course it's an ill wind that....well, you'll know who to look for first - come the revolution:-) And my bet is that didn't take into account your virtual pro-driver role in terms of where you work, and live. it's probably 2500 Kms a week in what is arguably one of the most heavily policed environments on the planet - they did well to ignore that. Why did you let the fucks get away with that? -- Toby. Caveat Lector |