THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN REMOVED AT THE REQUEST OF THE AUTHOR.
AUTHOR COMMENTS HAVE ALSO BEEN REMOVED.
ANY INFORMATION IDENTIFYING THE AUTHOR HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM OTHER COMMENTS.
Author Credits: [show_post_categories parent="no" parentcategory="writers" show = "category" hyperlink="yes"]
phill Parsons
June 4, 2005 at 03:01
Perhaps Rollins will also study the revenue streams from the Victorian experience. Have the lower limits increased the fines income. How has it affected court time and the costs asssociated with that.
Has there been an increase in total prisoner management costs due to an increase in imprisonment for speeding offences or is eveyone following the rules.
Penny to a pound on, if the Victorian government knows, they won’t tell. Its a beautiful circle, no data available to support or disprove any arguement. Therefore we are right — go away.
Indeed Rollins’ admission of his faded interest last time is one thing they depend upon.
Another speeding related figure may be the deaths of young drivers. Has the 80 limit reduced this in comparison to the total number of deaths. This must almost qualify as a long term study. Is there a change once the P plate period ends and they can drive at the speed limit.
Exceeding the limit, losing control and any resultant deaths and injuries only confirms that the human condition can influence us all and the law cannot protect us from ourselves even though some of its practitioners may believe that.
Rick pilkington
June 4, 2005 at 06:23
For Highway Robbery 101 we should focus on The WA story, a place where local vigilantes are fighting back by leaping out of the bushes and assaulting the speed cameras.
I defy my dear old granny to drive on Perth roads for 12 months and not recieve a speeding fine. The Police state does it best!
p.s. Mr. Rollins, make your stand if you feel you must. All I would ask of you is that you take care of the cyclist on the East Tamar highway you might quickly come up on when travelling at your 110 km/h or slightly higher.
Spare them a little patience and mercy if such a circumstance arises.
pat synge
June 5, 2005 at 05:14
I remember driving before maximum limits were introduced on open roads. It was a constant road rally with motorists jockeying for position and overtaking whenever possible. Often when it wasn’t! Driving at about 90mph(145km/h)on night I was left standing by something that overtook me – must have been doing at least 140mph (225km/h) Yeah,it was exciting back then!
Now we all cruise along at a boring 100km/h plus or minus. Even most trucks seem to manage that except on hills – then passing lanes usually sort things out. Driving is far less stressful and
certainly less dangerous with most major roads being safe at this speed.
Yes, if you exceed the limit you’re likely to cop a fine. And yes, it’s annoying. Especially when you were driving perfectly safely in the prevailing conditions. It sometimes seems just like revenue raising – and it probably is – but it reminds you that you can be caught anytime anywhere. We can avoid it however – just don’t speed. Simple. Boring.
200km at 100km/h takes 2hrs – at 120km/h it takes
20 minutes less. At 120km/h you’ve had to constantly accelerate/brake while passing other vehicles. More fuel – more stress and constantly on the lookout for overtaking opportunities. Yes, you’re more focussed and less bored, Geoff, but certainly more dangerous than if you were cruising along with all the other boring, law abiding drivers. Try listening to something interesting on the radio or enjoying music. Audio books are a good option for long trips and now iPod broadcasts allow you to select your radio listening for when it suits. Enjoy conversation or the view. Sing. Do a spot of Yoga. Maybe learn a new language!!
You talk about the arrogance and stupidity of Government, Geoff, but surely your insistance that you are right and that the speed limits are too low is no less arrogant and stupid. For sure, campaign to prevent the limit being lowered on the main arterial routes.
When the points accumulate and you lose your licence will you continue to drive? With no third party insurance?? Because you “refuse to be dictated to by Government on this issue”. Chill out and go with the flow. Leave a few minutes earlier – arrive a few minutes later. But arrive.
Pat Synge
http://www.buyselltrade.com.au
tasmanias free classified advertising website
Justa Bloke
June 5, 2005 at 12:26
By far the greatest number of serious accidents which involve speed are caused by drivers exceeding the existing limits. Decreasing the maximum limits will do nothing to change this. The idiot who drives at 140 kmh while not concentrating is breaking the law now. Changing the law will not affect the chances of him/her being caught.
All else being equal, the frequency and seriousness of accidents would remain the same. The only change would be in the number of offences and therefore the amount of revenue.
Does anyone seriously believe that this is not a totally cynical exercise?
Kent Holloway
June 6, 2005 at 03:20
No, it’s about the law.
Don’t speed and you won’t get booked.
Simple.
Bob Manton
June 6, 2005 at 05:42
Dear Sir,
We are about to be subjected to another round of nanny state speed restrictions. I have no objection to speed limits but I think that their purpose is misleading. They purport to be “In the interest of safety†when in fact they will do nothing towards that at all.
We already have a large range of speed limits so large that they are at times confusing.
Enter Margate for instance from the North and you progress from a 100 KMH down to 80KPH, 60KPH, 50KPH, and 40KPH and then reverse that order except for the 100KPH.
This is I suggest overkill.
The main problem is that none of these limits are properly policed. There is no police presence and very infrequent speed camera presence, never in the towns themselves.
I have been driving through the main street of Snug during school hours at 40KPH and been overtaken by a car obviously doing well over the limit. The same thing has happened to me in the town centre of Margate. There was no way that the pedestrians observing this would have been able to take any action.
I normally drive at or very close to the speed limit and find that within a short space of time I have a queue of cars behind me. The only way they could have done this is to speed. In a lot of cases they aggressively tailgate me in an attempt to coerce me to speed or pull over and let them carry on speeding.
The only effective deterrent would be to have permanent speed cameras at intervals along the highway and in the town centres.
The Government would probably say, “ there is not enough finance to accomplish this†but I am persuaded that the main reason is, speeding fines are a source of income and not an attempt at road safety.
If all of the “net profit: after costs of existing speed cameras was to be invested in more equipment and gradually installed over the states roads system there would be a drastic decrease in offences and increase in safety.
Creating new speed limits or extending the present ones can only be a means to increase the revenue recovered from the small number of culprits caught and will provide no deterrent to blatant offenders.
Leonard Colquhoun
August 3, 2005 at 14:03
Yes, Kent Holloway, it IS about the law — in the sense that people have every right to argue about silly laws, and knee-jerk nonsense like these deserve lambasting.
Mid-90s Victorian Premier John Cain Jnr did the same: dropped 110s down to 100s in a Pavlovian reaction to some fatals on the Princes Freeway West [Melbourne – Geelong]; later they were quietly re-instated, probably when the mobile tax machines were ready.
And another instance of legalised robbery: one poor bugger got a $100 fine plus court costs just for giving a “speed camera” a two-fingered salute [actually, he looked about late 20s, so it was more likely a one-finger job].
Yes, if the law is there, it generally has to be obeyed, but if it’s simply a piece of barely disguised taxation-without-representation, then it needs challenging.
Finally, when we in Germany in 1998, our host took us out driving on his country’s autobahns — we felt safer at 160 klicks on well engineered roads with skilful drivers all around us than at 60 klicks in some Australian locations.
Calum young
October 16, 2006 at 13:58
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS I AM STUDYING THIS PARTICULAR TOPIC IN SCIENCE THIS IS GREAT STUFF KEEP IT UP LADS