Proposed NSW Fines for 4Km/h over limit.
in [Aussie Drivers]
|
Prev: another holden recall
Next: NSW Speed Zoning Guidelines
From: the fonz on 11 Jul 2010 06:14 On Jul 11, 7:01 pm, Doug Jewell <a...(a)and.maybe.ill.tell.you> wrote: > 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. that's true, but it's also there to allow for measurement error. > Most people would consider it immoral that someone be fined > for doing something which they believed in good faith to be > legal. it's like swinging a samurai sword over someone's head and arguing you didn't mean to kill them when you took their head off, accidentally. you shouldn't have swung it anywhere near there in the first place. there's no law that says you need to drive at 60 km/h in a 60 zone. ignorance is traditionally not an excuse under the law, either. > > The lowering of speed limit tolerances does nothing to catch > the motorists who deliberately flaunt the law, i think it does. if some people know they can get away with 65, they drive at 65. > 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. again, you don't need keep your speed within 5 km/h. personally, i find it easy to stay within +/- 2km/h most of the time, with the occasional slight deviation. the odds of passing through a speed camera at that same moment when i deviated by more than 2 km/h are narrow - i'd suggest most people being caught were speeding for much more than just that short moment. the whole argument about inadvertent lapses in concentration is a stretch. i used to cop heaps of speeding fines, but not anymore. the simple reason is, i stopped speeding. i drive on the speed limit too and haven't been fined for years.
From: the fonz on 11 Jul 2010 06:21 On Jul 11, 6:49 pm, John_H <john4...(a)inbox.com> wrote: > > >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. i agree but i think we're saying the same thing. i'm sure i've received fines where they take 2 km/h off the reading for measurement error. that's still a tolerance - for measurement error, but there's an additional tolerance for general leniency. if that's 3 km/h, then you add the two together and would be able to be measured at 65 km/h without being fined. (which could be a true 63-67 if the radar is +/- 2km/h accuracy).
From: Toby on 11 Jul 2010 07:00 On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 20:04:22 +1000, Toby wrote: > 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? And Damo, you gone to LPG yet for that monster commute? -- Toby. Caveat Lector
From: John Tserkezis on 11 Jul 2010 07:07 Toby wrote: > Who says the software developer would need to be asked? > The point is - nobody knows, one way or the other. > .... right? > If you want to play, get it straight that SOFTWARE written by person or > persons unknown is regarded by GovCo in these parts as inviolate - declared > to be that way, in fact. And you and I can't get to see it to decide - one > way or another, no matter what. I don't think this is the case. From the few people I've spoken to, the quoted numbers are close enough to spot on to be spot on. The reported speed is the speed you were actually travelling at, give or take the quoted tolerance of the test gear (few percent? It's quite tight). There's none of this "quoted as 71 so you were actually doing 86 bullshit. It doesn't work like that. However, as it turns it there doesn't *need* to be any software fiddling - the system is rigged to not make it worth your while to fight it. An example in point with Victoria's reputed 3Km/h tolerance, you CAN indeed have the fine removed if you can prove your speed readout is within specification, but off by enough to warrant your innocent over speeding (because you followed your speedo in good faith). However, it's the "if you can prove" bit that's going to let you down. You have every legal right to have your speedo tested and submit the results to court, but that's going to cost you. Arguably more than the fine in question. In other words, you have lots of legal avenues to choose from and ALL of them are going to cost you. I'm guessing purely coincidently, the fine would be the least of the costs in this instance.
From: Toby on 11 Jul 2010 07:10
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 03:14:38 -0700 (PDT), the fonz wrote: > On Jul 11, 7:01�pm, Doug Jewell <a...(a)and.maybe.ill.tell.you> wrote: > >> 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. > > that's true, but it's also there to allow for measurement error. > >> Most people would consider it immoral that someone be fined >> for doing something which they believed in good faith to be >> legal. > > it's like swinging a samurai sword over someone's head and arguing you > didn't mean to kill them when you took their head off, accidentally. > you shouldn't have swung it anywhere near there in the first place. > there's no law that says you need to drive at 60 km/h in a 60 zone. > ignorance is traditionally not an excuse under the law, either. > Huh - using the loaded gun argument, converted to swing sword argument as a Moral argument? I'm speechless. Momentarily. >> >> The lowering of speed limit tolerances does nothing to catch >> the motorists who deliberately flaunt the law, > > i think it does. if some people know they can get away with 65, they > drive at 65. Sure - which is why the stupid arbitrary limit is NOT 65. > >> 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. > > again, you don't need keep your speed within 5 km/h. personally, i > find it easy to stay within +/- 2km/h most of the time, with the > occasional slight deviation. the odds of passing through a speed > camera at that same moment when i deviated by more than 2 km/h are > narrow - i'd suggest most people being caught were speeding for much > more than just that short moment. > > the whole argument about inadvertent lapses in concentration is a > stretch. i used to cop heaps of speeding fines, but not anymore. the > simple reason is, i stopped speeding. i drive on the speed limit too > and haven't been fined for years. There's also the gag where speedo error is allowable in manufacture (or compliance, for that matter) - has that changed? Last I heard - and I can't check the ADR's because I WON'T pay for something I've already paid for) - it was +4 -0. That -0 is interesting. I'm betting old but not quite bald tyres give the +4. I notice however, that the speedo watchers who don't have GPS are at least 4Kn'Hr slower than I am through the 100-110 traps and most everywhere else. 'Cause i drive on GPS speed in those risk-prone areas. You know - the deadly pieces of road with the known accident history, bad sight-lines rough surfaces etc - just like out brand new Gateway sections with the increased (breach of promise by Govco) toll. -- Toby. Caveat Lector |