Australian Police - Genuine Road Safety or Revenue Raising Publicity?

[andodge]

What are others thoughts on Australian Police and our road traffic laws? Over the top, preaching of safety to justify revenue raising or is there a genuine concern?

 

[Sabbath']

Your thread seems to be lacking a Poll.

 

[acarmody]

My question is why did you ask if the road rules are for revenue raising and then mention the police. The police don't create the law.

 

[Loaded Dice]

I believe many of the states fixed speed cameras are only revenue raisers, unfortunately the revenue they raise does not find its way back into making the roads safer, so is a moot point having them in the first place. Police however I am sure have better things to be doing, but at the end of their day just doing their job.

 

[smokem]

The sa govt are a bunch of rip off ####s!! You think they hit car drivers hard well check out how much a semmi driver gets hit for honest log book #### ups!! Its like 620 per mistake and points!! I nearly fell off my chair when i was shown the prices of fines at driving school

 

[Loaded Dice]

Don't drive into Vic then, $1k per booboo.

 

[Ghost]

My answer is revenue raising. Because if they had any brains the country wouldnt need toll roads our fines would have built the roads instead of the government

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Xparent Blue Tapatalk 2

 

[c2105026]

Revenue raising. Because....
1. Traffic fines are built into the budget for each state as a forecast. Interestingly it increases year on year (in NSW at least).
2. Speed cameras are ALWAYS near a hill and catch cars going down said hill (law says they have to be within 1.6km of blackspot - in NSW at least)
3. I have worked in the field of road safety and have seen actual accident databases. Only 5% (no, that is NOT a misprint!) of accidents in the study I did (which focused on cars running off the road and hitting trees etc.) of crashes involved a vehicle going faster than the posted speed limit.
4. The scientific study that suggests an 11th power of risk escalation (Kloeden et. al. 1997 - you know 'go 65 in a 60 zone double the risk of injury') was flawed by using improper collision modelling and insufficient baseline controls (examined this in final year thesis when I did civil engineering degree).

I have voted - however saying that mathematically the risk of speeding goes up as a 3rd-4th power relationship (using physics equations and calculus). This mathematical model assumes all things are equal, and speed is the only variable. However our road environment is a complex beast and few if any variables would remain constant from situation to situation.

Oh, BTW if you point out revenue raising to the cop who gives you the ticket you will only cause to piss him off - however, the ensuing results are entertaining....

 

[Troy711]

It's only revenue raising if you raise it for them.

 

[Calaber]

Revenue raising. Because....
1. Traffic fines are built into the budget for each state as a forecast. Interestingly it increases year on year (in NSW at least).
2. Speed cameras are ALWAYS near a hill and catch cars going down said hill (law says they have to be within 1.6km of blackspot - in NSW at least)
3. I have worked in the field of road safety and have seen actual accident databases. Only 5% (no, that is NOT a misprint!) of accidents in the study I did (which focused on cars running off the road and hitting trees etc.) of crashes involved a vehicle going faster than the posted speed limit.
4. The scientific study that suggests an 11th power of risk escalation (Kloeden et. al. 1997 - you know 'go 65 in a 60 zone double the risk of injury') was flawed by using improper collision modelling and insufficient baseline controls (examined this in final year thesis when I did civil engineering degree).

I have voted - however saying that mathematically the risk of speeding goes up as a 3rd-4th power relationship (using physics equations and calculus). This mathematical model assumes all things are equal, and speed is the only variable. However our road environment is a complex beast and few if any variables would remain constant from situation to situation.

Oh, BTW if you point out revenue raising to the cop who gives you the ticket you will only cause to piss him off - however, the ensuing results are entertaining....

It's funny how people blame the police for "revenue raising". They don't make the laws, they just enforce them. Sometimes, enforcing traffic laws pisses them off too, though I agree that there are morons in uniform who derive a perverse pleasure from booking people.

However, anybody who claims that police are just "revenue raising" have no concept of how state government finances work. The fact that state budgets include an increasing take from fines each year simply indicates the government's expectation that "x" number of dollars will be raised because people break traffic regs

.