Proposed NSW Fines for 4Km/h over limit.
in [Aussie Drivers]
|
Prev: another holden recall
Next: NSW Speed Zoning Guidelines
From: D Walford on 11 Jul 2010 18:57 On 12/07/2010 8:32 AM, John_H wrote: > the fonz wrote: >> 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). > > The accuracy of the measuring equipment (when correctly used) ought be > considerably better than that, and certainly within +/- 1kph. I'm > basing that on experience with both Doppler radar and DGPS. Even > autonomous GPS (eg sat nav) is better than +/-1 at a *steady speed*... > lag errors on a changing speed are due to the relatively slow sampling > times (when compared to commercial equipment). In any case the > detection equipment will hold the highest reading obtained (which > doesn't constitute an error). > > Tolerances of 10% and greater have long been the norm. In Q they vary > according to location (which we're not supposed to know). There are > certainly places where you're very unlikely to be booked at the first > level of fine (up to 12kph over the limit) by either a camera or > mobile radar. That's to say if the reading's 113 you might be booked > for 113, but you're unlikely to be booked for 112. > > I've only had two speeding fines in the last thirty years but both got > the speed as near as damnit to spot on (I knew my speedo error in both > instances). > > Other states might do it differently (ie deduct a tolerance from the > reading) but I'd seriously doubt it in the absence of any concrete > evidence. > A camera speeding fine in Vic has 2 speeds listed, "detected speed" and "alleged speed" with the alleged speed always 3kph lower than the detected speed and the fine is based on the lower number. I haven't managed to get one for at least 7yrs but my wife has had 2 in the last couple of years, prior to tolerances being tightened she didn't get a single fine in almost 40yrs driving so the bastards have achieved their goal of collecting speed tax from even the most careful law abiding drivers. Daryl
From: Feral on 11 Jul 2010 19:03 D Walford wrote: > collecting speed tax from even the most careful law > abiding drivers. Too funny Daz. :-) She was exceeding the limit by enough to get pinged. -- Take Care. ~~ Feral Al ( @..@) (\- :-P -/) ((.>__oo__<.)) ^^^ % ^^^
From: John_H on 11 Jul 2010 20:04 D Walford wrote: >On 12/07/2010 8:32 AM, John_H wrote: >> >> Other states might do it differently (ie deduct a tolerance from the >> reading) but I'd seriously doubt it in the absence of any concrete >> evidence. >> >A camera speeding fine in Vic has 2 speeds listed, "detected speed" and >"alleged speed" with the alleged speed always 3kph lower than the >detected speed and the fine is based on the lower number. Suffice that they list both... which isn't the same thing as automatically deducting the 3kph tolerance from the actual reading. It makes sense to do it the way they do when the tolerance on the speed limit is set low (as in Vic). The alternative would be having fines contested on a whole range of technicalities, the majority of which would lie within the 3kph tolerance. The system as it currently applies is clearly aimed at maximising the revenue from fines, under the pretext of safety. The tolerance is there to cover their arses in court. As I've said here before, if the citizenry feels that the tolerances are unfair the easiest way to stuff up the system is to drive 10kph _under_ the posted limits, particularly on busy urban roads. The infrastructure needed to cope with congestion mostly isn't there and the result would be chaos. Oh, and make sure you generously apply the two second rule as well!... How many vehicles can pass a particular point in a given time is what it's all about. :) -- John H
From: Diesel Damo on 11 Jul 2010 23:18 On Jul 11, 7:56 pm, Toby <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote: > As a matter of interest, was it the beak that pulled on the 10 year gag, of > the prosecution. if it was the beak, you'd probably have decent grounds to > ream it if you had the inclination. No it was the magistrate herself. It was just her, me and a representative from the local police. Maj did most of the talking. > 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? If you're talking about Goulburn, then yeah, I steer clear of that giant police trap these days. I've found a "back way" home now. It adds another 20km, but you barely feel the difference because a) it's only another 10%, and (b) it's such a nice, stress-free drive. As far as letting them get away with it goes, by the time it had gotten to this stage, I was already copping a huge "fine" by missing a day's work. If I argued about anything, all that would've happened is Maj would have set a new court date to talk about that, and I would've lost another day's pay. I know they count on people weighing it up like I did (so people will just bend over and take it), but such was my financial position at the time.
From: Diesel Damo on 11 Jul 2010 23:23
On Jul 11, 9:00 pm, Toby <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote: > And Damo, you gone to LPG yet for that monster commute? No, still on diesel for a couple of reasons relating to overall running costs. Main thing is I still need something with tree-climbing abilities, and to find something like that already fitted with an LPG setup is pretty rare. I've asked around about converting my current tractor to it's historically-equivalent SI engine (with a view to running it on gas) and apparently it's such a headache that no-one wants to take it on. |