exactly right, a speed camera wont catch the guy next to you that cant stay in his own lane because he's fussing with the rear passengerOriginally Posted by RiCeY
cant catch the person with a reaction time 10times slower than normal because he's on the phone
Check out my VZ SS =D
Your mum's new boyfriend
I don't mind speed cameras, even if there was one at the end of my street, who cares? I'm not gonna' say I don't speed, pretty sure we've all gone over the limit at some stage, whether on purpose or by accident, but I do agree with the "just don't speed then" way of thinking. They do sometimes put them in weird spots where you think, wtf's a speed camera there for? And I do hate how they have them on the road, but they put the sign in front of the car so you can't see it, but again, shouldn't be speeding should we.
Sure, they don't detect bad drivers and there probably should be more police on the roads, but with the number of police in QLD that we have, which is pretty low at the moment, they can't be spread out everywhere, fining all the bad drivers.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|8|7|R|B|3|0|V|L|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Donating Member
So it's perfectly okay to smoke in a car, whilst talking to your passengers, but not talk on the phone? It's also okay to use a CB Radio whilst driving, but not a mobile phone?
What's the difference?
The RTA Handbook is.
Donating Member
Seeing as though your in NSW, I suggest you read this:
http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/registrati...ngtrailers.pdf
Bottom of page 4, under the headline 'The Driver'.
Now you are informed.
You can thank me later.
Exhaust Guru
In WA it's 100km/h max when towing a trailer.
While this is a continuance to an old thread, I will jump on the revenue band wagon.
In WA the cameras seem to be placed at locations where it is easier to exceed the limit, not at places where it is clearly dangerous to do so IE: roadworks.
I'll thank you now. It's changed since I last read the book.
Regardless, the rest of my statement stands.
NEEDS MORE POWER!
well I drive a truck and I use the 2 way when communicating with base. I think the difference is that I hold the mic in my hand relay info and take it away again and change gears with it in my hand al without missing any of the conversation because the the speaker is mounted in the cb and I can hear it loud and clear, there is no need for me to hold anything upto my ear continuosly to hear the conversation, also I can't send SMS/TXT's from my cb so I don't need to keep looking at the key pad to check which number/letter I need to push I can use it and concentrate on the whats happening on the road in front of me.
most phones come with handsfree and are bluetooth capable so you can use a mobile phone so long as you use it safely!
Nobody wants to play with me
its all to do with money $$$$
okey, first they need to fund the speed camera set up, and future maintenance and minor electricity costs, so, they should make you pay costs until all costs are evened out(in terms of infringements for speeding)
and after all is paid back to the government, than ...only fine you demerit points
the only deterrent is the points, accumulate too much points and you have no license!!
obvious revenue raising is obvious
its revenue raising they have moved on to unmarked speed camera vehicles now, u cant say this isnt for revenue raising cause it sure as shit is who agrees
Donati..Whoa Green
I don't agree. Your speeding you cop a fine.
You break the rules, you get punished. How is that not a straight-forward policy? I broke the rules as a kid, I got smacked. I broke the rules in school, I got detention. I break the rules at work, I get in trouble. What the hell makes you think the road is any different?
-Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
James Bovard, Civil Libertarian (1994)
-Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
P.J. O'Rourke, Civil Libertarian
-Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short Phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
Ronald Reagan (1986)
Banned
Well stop speeding and raising revenue for them, it isn't rocket science, but then again for some people on here it may be quite difficult to comprehend.
Growing Old Disgracefully
talking to a copper at an accident scene one day as a firefighter while waiting for the coroner to get there to recover the deceased ( the MVA was caused by speed believe it or not)..... i asked him about that. He said you can be charged for using ANYTHING if it affects the way you control your vehicle. The offence is "not maintain control of the vehicle" and you can be charged for it even by drinking a can of soft drink, using a CB, picking your nose, anything that may cause you to lose concentration or full control.
Makes sense to me.
Reviled did i live as evil i did deliveR
- UNDERSTEER is when you hit the wall with the front of the car.
- OVERSTEER is when you hit the wall with the rear.
- HORSEPOWER is how fast you hit the wall.
- TORQUE is how far you take the wall with you.
Who said i speed im saying its revenue raising because there going to a point of undercover speed cameras which is really sad
NEEDS MORE POWER!
I think the biggest issue is that the government keeps maintaining a lie when most normal people know about it! other than those with the "don't speed don't get fined"
calling them " safety cameras " when they are not keeping anybody safe. posting signs after the camera which say "speed cameras saves lives" and they don't!
I am all for actual police to pull any body over prove they were speeding e.g. radar or laser and book them on the spot.
happy to have fixed cameras in black spots and school zones
I have never complained about paying a speeding fine, I haven't had 1 for about 3yrs. touch wood! I'm not perfect But neither are YOU!
Nobody wants to play with me
I don't see how they help, slowing down for the camera than speed up again. What a waste of time. People get all weird about speed limits, 10 or 20 over, your car won't self destruct and most people are capable of driving faster. Slow speeds and more time on the road is the problem...
If the cameras were to stop speeding they would invest every cent then earning in more cameras. Eventually every piece of every road would have a camera and nobody would speed.
In the likes of hong kong they have red light cameras on every set of lights. Nobody runs them because they'll get caught.
Having a small amount of cameras is revenue gathering. They want you to think you can get away with it do you do it and get fined.
But in saying that you have two choices. Either speed and don't winge when you get caught or don't speed!
Your mum's new boyfriend
Even if police are just using cameras to raise revenue, people have already said, if you don't speed, they get no revenue, so if you're so against it, it's a win win to you.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|8|7|R|B|3|0|V|L|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Random
I have seen mobile speed cameras being used on the Tulla where it has four lanes each way, and it made me wonder how they decide which car was speeding if there is more than one car in the picture.
Is it possible the camera agency just guess, or always go for the car in the right hand lane? Does anyone know how they work it out? Seems to me there is a big chance for a mistake, especially as there is no guaranteeing which lane the fastest moving cars are going to be in!
Whoever said 'There is no substitute for cubes' had obviously never heard of Jet power
In nz anyway. They can't find you if there are multiple cars in the picture.
Even in 4 lanes it would be unusual for two cars to be side by side though
The doubt that exists is are they 100% accurate which I doubt they are.
This has been proven many times and the appeal process is so complex and designed so you can't win.The average Joe Public just gives up and pays the fine.
Another thing is why put cameras on roads where their is a high volume flow of traffic.
The majority of people caught wher found to be doing around 6 k's or so over the limit.Death defying speeds I think not.
Revenue raising for the government coffers yes.
I wouldnt put it past them to book whoever is in the picture.
if you get a fine, you could always request the date of last calibration
in my brothers case, the camera got him at 130 in an 80 zone, he drives like miss dasy - no way he could have done that speed; requested the calibration date, and it wasn't calibrated for so long so infringement was cleared..
in saying that, it doesn't matter if you're in the wrong or not, doesn't hurt to check when it was calibrated last, or perhaps even the operator set the camera to trigger at the wrong speed
This is just my opinion, feel free to hate or agree
I think the problem is out dated speed limits.
If you were to check the speed of 100 cars in a 60 zone and calculate the average speed, I would bet any amount of money the average speed would be around 65km. Why? Because people drive to suit the conditions. I've been on sections of road with a limit of 50 where I could have safely sat on 70. (Late at night, no one walking or driving on the road) And that's more often than not the roads the cops put speed cameras.
Also what's the go with speed limits being in lots of 10. Why aren't 5km/h lots introduced?
And another thing, Why is a fine for 10km/h over, the same in a 110 zone as a 50 zone? When 10km/h over in a 50zone is 20% over the limit but 10km/h over in a 110zone is 10% of the limit?
Faark these speed limits are retarded.
They were looking at reviewing the speed limits so that there are only 3 - 110km, 80km and 40km.
Of course, this would drastically reduce the revenue made from safety cameras and especially mobile safety cameras that sit in the zones where speeds changes drastically. Not to mention the extra workload the RTA would then have to endure re-sychronising lights - then again, they're not even synchronised now.
So I'm fairly certain this won't see discussion in pre-school, I mean parliament.
Posting Permissions
22Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
