Perspective on States and fine revenue.

[MAD]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

This is exactly right.

It wouldn't matter what the limit or what the tolerance, creepers creep.
If ya get caught suck it up.

Seriously, if you cant pick a camera car or fixed camera you deserve to be fined for stupidity.
Hell, don't even consider it as a fine, just thank the Govco for reminding you to be more aware of your surroundings and move on...lol

The higher tolerance would remove the constant taxing of everyday people slipping over the limit. Those they want to toe the line will still pay their dues.

Ideally all road limits would be set by the 85th percentile rule so most people would sit on, or just under, the set limits.

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

At what cost?

Who's paying the extra wages, vehicle costs, equipment costs?

Remember, the whole idea, if successful, would reduce revenue.

How do you reduce your income, whilst supporting an increase in expenditure?

Extra costs in one area reduces cost in other areas but I wont go into this as this can be another topic debate on government expenditures or better still government wastage of taxpayers money.

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by BENT_8

At what cost?

Who's paying the extra wages, vehicle costs, equipment costs?

Remember, the whole idea, if successful, would reduce revenue.

How do you reduce your income, whilst supporting an increase in expenditure?

On another note are you saying speed cameras were introduced to cut down on police costs & not safety related as intended, I do remember these were budgeted for on top of normal police budgets when introduced & it was said they would pay for themselves.
I think they have certainly exceeded that goal and are excellent money earners for the government.

[lucas2]

Originally Posted by XB GS 351 Coupe

We can not leave people up to their own devices to decide what speed to travel at as we would have mayhem,

Didn't the road toll initially increase in the NT when they introduced the 130 km/h limit?

[burnz]

Originally Posted by XB GS 351 Coupe

We can not leave people up to their own devices to decide what speed to travel at as we would have mayhem, so it is what it is, if you have trouble keeping below or on the speed limit may be you need to give yourself a bigger buffer zone, or take the risk and wear the consequences should you get unlucky

Shure you can, people have the ability to do things in unison.
you imply all hell will break loose people will do 300k on Parramatta rd.

no limit on NT roads, natural flow was 123~125kph...

[superyob]

The Northern Territory is populated by 5 people and their cats. The rules which they use in such a sparsely populated area could surely not apply to the highways of the east coast of Oz?

[noflac52]

Originally Posted by xxx000

Interesting as I spent a fair while as a qualified SRESB rescue operator yet find your side flawed

So what are you saying. You answered telephones?

As you invariably ask all other posters to prove their assertions I'll ask you to prove that what you say is correct rather than just you saying it is!


[QUOTE=superyob]

Originally Posted by noflac52

This response is absolute waffle, inane rubbish with absolutely no "evidence" that you invariably ask others for to back it up!


I did not give any evidence because I was not making any claims. You are familiar with the difference between questioning statements and making definite statements that claim to be absolute truth or fact? Judging by your reaction, you only saw what you wanted to see because you wanted to be outraged at those who have another point of view. You deny me the same 'freedoms' you and others are protesting about being taken from you... you can't have it both ways...

In answer to your first question. Yes! Now that we have that out of the way:-

You made many claims. When you try to refute what someone else says it is a natural course that you are claiming a different point of view. So it comes down to put up or shut up because opinions don't mean anything unless backed up with something solid. As I said before its just inane waffle unless there is some credible evidence to back it up.

I saw sensible discussion followed by seriously shallow counterpoints with nothing to back them up. If that was what I wanted to see and you have written the facts to back up your claims point me to them because I can't find them.

I find it amusing that you think that "I" can take away your freedom by typing on a forum. That's what the governments are doing! That's the whole point of the thread. They are slowly reducing the tolerances that we live by under a false premise.

I also find it amusing that you, can tell me I am outraged from wherever you are out there! Now that's a real gift! Are you going to follow up by telling me what I am thinking too?

[noflac52]

Originally Posted by superyob

The Northern Territory is populated by 5 people and their cats. The rules which they use in such a sparsely populated area could surely not apply to the highways of the east coast of Oz?

Why not?

You are doing it again. Making statements that have no credence unless you qualify why you believe this to be true.

[superyob]

[QUOTE=noflac52;4935649]So what are you saying. You answered telephones?

As you invariably ask all other posters to prove their assertions I'll ask you to prove that what you say is correct rather than just you saying it is!

Originally Posted by superyob

In answer to your first question. Yes! Now that we have that out of the way:-

You made many claims. When you try to refute what someone else says it is a natural course that you are claiming a different point of view. So it comes down to put up or shut up because opinions don't mean anything unless backed up with something solid. As I said before its just inane waffle unless there is some credible evidence to back it up.

I saw sensible discussion followed by seriously shallow counterpoints with nothing to back them up. If that was what I wanted to see and you have written the facts to back up your claims point me to them because I can't find them.

I find it amusing that you think that "I" can take away your freedom by typing on a forum. That's what the governments are doing! That's the whole point of the thread. They are slowly reducing the tolerances that we live by under a false premise.

I also find it amusing that you, can tell me I am outraged from wherever you are out there! Now that's a real gift! Are you going to follow up by telling me what I am thinking too?

You are NOT worthy of a cape swish!

[69XWGT]

A lot of people are missing the whole point of this argument.

It's got nothing to do with whether you voluntarily contribute or not.

The whole crux of the article was governments are using motorists as cash cows.
They have in the past and are on the lookout for new ways of increasing revenue and motorists are an easy target.

Don't believe me. The Numb nuts Newman government has just lowered the tolerance to increase revenue.
They have been having a blitz on utes, open boats and anything else that has an un-covered load whether it will fall/blow out or not it's still uncovered and you will be fined because of it.
They are also talking of contractors to man the speed cameras. Once again to increase revenue
Sister in law in Traffic up here has been told no more warnings.
If you pull some one over fine them. Although the officers will still issue warnings depending on what it's for or the attitude of the driver.

This isn't about the bullshit safety line, it's about our state governments trying to squeeze every cent they can out of us and you'd be dumb arsed fool to believe it wasn't

[xxx000]

change, it really panics people doesn't it

[xxx000]

[QUOTE=noflac52;4935649]So what are you saying. You answered telephones?

As you invariably ask all other posters to prove their assertions I'll ask you to prove that what you say is correct rather than just you saying it is!

Originally Posted by superyob

In answer to your first question. Yes! Now that we have that out of the way:-

You made many claims. When you try to refute what someone else says it is a natural course that you are claiming a different point of view. So it comes down to put up or shut up because opinions don't mean anything unless backed up with something solid. As I said before its just inane waffle unless there is some credible evidence to back it up.

I saw sensible discussion followed by seriously shallow counterpoints with nothing to back them up. If that was what I wanted to see and you have written the facts to back up your claims point me to them because I can't find them.

I find it amusing that you think that "I" can take away your freedom by typing on a forum. That's what the governments are doing! That's the whole point of the thread. They are slowly reducing the tolerances that we live by under a false premise.

I also find it amusing that you, can tell me I am outraged from wherever you are out there! Now that's a real gift! Are you going to follow up by telling me what I am thinking too?

my use of the correct terminology should tell you something

your apparent non-recognition of it tells me something about your qualification and experience

and you're gone anyway because as the man says...

You are NOT worthy of a cape swish!

[tweeked]

Originally Posted by xxx000

change, it really panics people doesn't it

Blind faith of the weak minded masses induces panic in me well before change

[XB GS 351 Coupe]

Originally Posted by MAD

The higher tolerance would remove the constant taxing of everyday people slipping over the limit. Those they want to toe the line will still pay their dues.

Ideally all road limits would be set by the 85th percentile rule so most people would sit on, or just under, the set limits.

But higher tolerances will simply mean that people will push the limits further and then still complain.

To me a speed LIMIT (that is the fastest you are supposed to travel in that area) is just that a LIMIT. Why do you need further tolerances??

So if the public were informed tomorrow that there is a 10km tolerance to speeding before a fine gets issued and now everyone will be driving 90 in a 80 zone 110 in a 100 etc etc, so then someone gets done for doing 91, and we will have more outrage on Ford Forums as what difference does 1km/hr make, it's all revenue raising, I got done for 1km/hr over I am such a victim how can I be expected to look at my speedo all the time etc etc

So why not accept the speed LIMIT as just that, and stay below it and you won't have to worry, but people for ever want to PUSH the LIMIT and then complain and scream revenue raising/I was safe/it was Sunday morning/ I was driving to church/there were 8 lanes/the sun was shining/my speedo is in MPH/I am a great driver/I have a great car/I can't be expected to lo0k out the window and control my speed at the same time/the cops hate me/I am being persecuted etc etc when they get done.

The tolerance in an 80 zone is already 80, the LIMIT is 80, so if you are doing 81 don't complain (not that I am suggesting anyone should get done for 81, but well the limit is 80) the tolerance is anything below 80.

[tweeked]

Originally Posted by XB GS 351 Coupe

But higher tolerances will simply mean that people will push the limits further and then still complain.

To me a speed LIMIT (that is the fastest you are supposed to travel in that area) is just that a LIMIT. Why do you need further tolerances??

So if the public were informed tomorrow that there is a 10km tolerance to speeding before a fine gets issued and now everyone will be driving 90 in a 80 zone 110 in a 100 etc etc, so then someone gets done for doing 91, and we will have more outrage on Ford Forums as what difference does 1km/hr make, it's all revenue raising, I got done for 1km/hr over I am such a victim how can I be expected to look at my speedo all the time etc etc

So why not accept the speed LIMIT as just that, and stay below it and you won't have to worry, but people for ever want to PUSH the LIMIT and then complain and scream revenue raising/I was safe/it was Sunday morning/ I was driving to church/there were 8 lanes/the sun was shining/my speedo is in MPH/I am a great driver/I have a great car/I can't be expected to lo0k out the window and control my speed at the same time/the cops hate me/I am being persecuted etc etc when they get done.

The tolerance in an 80 zone is already 80, the LIMIT is 80, so if you are doing 81 don't complain (not that I am suggesting anyone should get done for 81, but well the limit is 80) the tolerance is anything below 80.

So are you saying that you never look down at the speedo and realise that you crept up to 3 k's over heading down a slight incline, or on a road that "feels" slow (ie, a double land divided road with a service road that has a 60 limit)

Then ask yourself, do you belive that you where driving unsafely at that moment, or just a bit above an arbitrary limit.

Therein lies the difference between safety and revenue. Any speed limit should not be set right at the point that if you are a few k's over you are death and destruction on wheels.

Yes it is the limit, yes you can and do get fined for just a couple of k's over (in Vic at least) but is it about safety like they say?

[GT450]

XB GS 351 Coupe that makes wat too much sense for most on these forums. Apparently speed limits are there to be broken but just don't ask anyone to paya fine if it's only a teeny weeny bit over.
I know it's wrong to steal but if it's only a packet of smarties then maybe I shouldn't be charged . I remember when the road toll target was keep it below 1045 ( the previous years deaths ). This year the Vic toll currently is below 200 yet we have well over twice the population we had in the 70s and it's due to many things including reduced limits and obeying laws.
I want to see my children around with their children for many years to come and sticking to the limit is a small price to pay. It's only revenue raising when you get caught and obviously some on here do that more than others.
GT450

[XB GS 351 Coupe]

Originally Posted by tweeked

So are you saying that you never look down at the speedo and realise that you crept up to 3 k's over heading down a slight incline, or on a road that "feels" slow (ie, a double land divided road with a service road that has a 60 limit)

Then ask yourself, do you belive that you where driving unsafely at that moment, or just a bit above an arbitrary limit.

Therein lies the difference between safety and revenue. Any speed limit should not be set right at the point that if you are a few k's over you are death and destruction on wheels.

Yes it is the limit, yes you can and do get fined for just a couple of k's over (in Vic at least) but is it about safety like they say?

Never said any of the above, but what is it supposed to be then??? I have asked this question many times and have received no answers, we have already been provided with speed limits, what else do you need??? If you do not like the limits (and I am not saying I do, I would love to sit on 140-160 in my FPV cruising on interstate trips on multi lane Highways) then may be not drive, or move to another country or what ever.

It is called the SPEED LIMIT, not 'the speed you may travel above depending on time of day, number of lanes/terrain/type of speedo/type of vehicle/if you think you are a great driver/I had to look out the window/ etc etc'

Definition of LIMIT - a point or level beyond which something does not or may not extend or pass, the furthest extent of a range, a restriction on the size or amount of something permissible or possible.

Seems pretty simple, it is the LIMIT, no tolerance required, the tolerance is everything below the LIMIT. If you choose to sit very close to or on the limit, and you are incapable of controlling your vehicle to not stray over the limit then that is your choice/problem, as you have already been informed what the LIMIT is, it is your job as a license holder and driver to ensure you are able to do this task.

Just because I or anyone else may or may not occasionally stray above the limit does not change the fact that the limit exists.

And just to add I have had my share of tickets in the past and I used to drive a lot faster, I believe I drive safer now and stick to road rules (have made a conscious effort of this in the last 7 or so years and have not been fined or even pulled over since)

[tweeked]

It wasnt broken before. They allowed 10% (or thereabouts)

This was used in a discretionery manner by a Police officer. He observed if you were a idiot at 67, he would book you. If you were cruising safely - he didn't.

He was interested in safety!

Now we have efficient machines with no discretion. So by your method we should all just travel 5 k's slower so that we dont break the arbitray limit - which should have been set by the authorities below what is "Safe" as a safety measure (read 5-10 kph below what th actually safe speed is)

So we end up 10-15 kph below what the roads are safely capable of. Which causes a reduction in capacity, increase in frustration and economic costs.

Just because we take away a small allowance.

So that is my answer, but the question that all on the other side of the argument will not answer is WHY they took the allowance away?

DO you truly believe it was for safety, or revenue? Be honest now........

[blueoval]

Originally Posted by Auslandau

And you are the one that says that media are the sensationalists .......

Just a few points that are my opinion:
The tolerance is way too low.

The legislation is allowed on the premise that a couple of K's over is dangerous.

The legislation is allowed because of those with a "I do not speed so I wont get fined" perception

Those who say they do not speed are not telling the truth. No one can drive under the limit 100% of the time.

Those who have not had a speeding ticket are only lucky.

Those who have not had a speeding ticket are not better drivers.

The amount of fines collected because of extremely low tolerances is not stopping those who purposely speed.

The amount of time spent on the "Speed Kills" mantra is not in proportion to the real problems on the roads.

The real causes of road fatalities are not addressed properly as they cost money and do not raise money.

Those who are safer on the roads spend more time watching their surroundings and driving to the conditions rather than just ensuring they are under the posted speed limit.

It has been proven time and time again that police presence is the best form of deterrent.

The fines associated with a few K's over is not proportional to any other fines.

To hide under the pretence that is all to do with safety when nearly 2 BILLION dollars is collected because of more cameras with lower tolerances in areas that are proven to be non black spots or accident zones is wrong.

The amount collected will only increase, even if everyone tries to drive under the limit (not necessarily safely) as more technology and more cameras are introduced.

A bit of the above is my opinion while most is fact and common sense.

The best post in this thread. Sums up my thoughts exactly. Enough said really.

[noflac52]

[QUOTE=superyob;4935675]

Originally Posted by noflac52

So what are you saying. You answered telephones?

As you invariably ask all other posters to prove their assertions I'll ask you to prove that what you say is correct rather than just you saying it is!




You are NOT worthy of a cape swish!

[QUOTE=xxx000]

Originally Posted by noflac52

So what are you saying. You answered telephones?

As you invariably ask all other posters to prove their assertions I'll ask you to prove that what you say is correct rather than just you saying it is!




my use of the correct terminology should tell you something

your apparent non-recognition of it tells me something about your qualification and experience

and you're gone anyway because as the man says...

I'm still here! AND you are assuming that I don't understand terminology. It was my attempt at getting you to come up with something of substance.

FAIL!

Evasion and misdirection! There's something magical about that especially when you are wearing a cape.

Take a look at any public speaker and you will see that they establish some form of credibility if the audience doesn't already know them. Otherwise they run a real risk of not being heard.

All I've read so far is from both of you are attacks on posters who have backed up their assertions with substance.

Picking up spelling mistakes etc! "Misdirection!"

Questioning my experience and qualifications. "Evasion and misdirection"

All I'm attempting is to get some meaningful response to the subject of the thread out of you.

Come on fellas some meaningful input and lets debate the pros and cons of the govt fleecing motorists to finance running the country.

[Grunter]

Originally Posted by GT450

XB GS 351 Coupe that makes wat too much sense for most on these forums. Apparently speed limits are there to be broken but just don't ask anyone to paya fine if it's only a teeny weeny bit over.
I know it's wrong to steal but if it's only a packet of smarties then maybe I shouldn't be charged . I remember when the road toll target was keep it below 1045 ( the previous years deaths ). This year the Vic toll currently is below 200 yet we have well over twice the population we had in the 70s and it's due to many things including reduced limits and obeying laws.
I want to see my children around with their children for many years to come and sticking to the limit is a small price to pay. It's only revenue raising when you get caught and obviously some on here do that more than others.
GT450

Your missing the point (or don't understand it). Most get what XB GS 351 Coupe is saying, as he makes valid points even if I and others disagree with some of his reasoning.

Taking shots at others, just confirms what most on these forums would think of your comment and places you in the minority of members (a couple of whom have repeated joined you in this thread).
But you can feel comforted in that the majority at AFF, me included, have no sense.

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by GT450

XB GS 351 Coupe that makes wat too much sense for most on these forums. Apparently speed limits are there to be broken but just don't ask anyone to paya fine if it's only a teeny weeny bit over.
I know it's wrong to steal but if it's only a packet of smarties then maybe I shouldn't be charged . I remember when the road toll target was keep it below 1045 ( the previous years deaths ). This year the Vic toll currently is below 200 yet we have well over twice the population we had in the 70s and it's due to many things including reduced limits and obeying laws.
I want to see my children around with their children for many years to come and sticking to the limit is a small price to pay. It's only revenue raising when you get caught and obviously some on here do that more than others.
GT450

Stealing, as discussed before, is something you do on purpose. You see it, you take it, you know it is wrong and then make the choice to do it.

The toll since the 70's? Yep ..... they were shocking. But just remember if you can ...... I can as I am an old fart Grandpa ..... the cars that were driven and the roads that were driven on. Today you can put a new car into a tree at 60 k's and walk away. 40 years ago, put a car into a tree and you kissed it as you sailed passed through the windscreen. The biggest effect on road safety has been the massive improvements with cars and roads. MASSIVE

Also RBT's have had a good impact. Then the seat belt legislation followed by passenger and child protection. I remember driving around with no seat belts in the back! Most cars back then didn't even have rear belts and those in the front were lap belts only. That would account for most.

End of argument.

The road toll is there not to be broken .... CORRECT!!!!! It is the freaking tolerance that is wrong ...... (repeat, repeat) Everyone uses a SMALL tolerance to drive safely. It is required.

I would really love to know how much extra revenue vs decrease in road toll for every 1 k taken off the tolerance level. The government knows exactly. I promise you that 1 k would mean millions and despite not making ANY difference in the toll.

If those who think a few K's over warrants the fines, cameras saves lives and protects the children ..... you would be rapt of they:

Lowered the tolerance further to 1k over. Do 81 in an 80 zone and your gone.

Increase the amount of cameras, 20 fold.

Decrease ALL speed limits

Increase fines and double the demerit points

Confiscate cars doing 5 k's over

Progressively increase registration on older cars to the point where the rego is worth a few times more than the car.

Decrease police presence saving money and taking away discretion.

Camera's that are not catching enough motorists, lower the speed limit until the quota is achieved.

Really ...... that isn't far fetched what so ever. There is money to be made and "Speed Kills' is HUGE business these days and getting bigger. It will overtake other mainstream taxes soon and if it doesn't, it will be manipulated to do so. It is being done now under the guise of safety ...... and many just blindly follow because they think they don't venture a few k's over ... ever.

Bu the question I would still love to know is ...... How much extra revenue will be collected if the tolerance was dropped by another 1k, is it being considered and when will people wake up and realise it has gone too far?

Driving within a tolerance and driving above the speed limit intentionally and in a dangerous manner are 2 different things.

[lucas2]

Just saw this posted. Interesting...

[5.8]

Originally Posted by Auslandau

Stealing, as discussed before, is something you do on purpose. You see it, you take it, you know it is wrong and then make the choice to do it.

The toll since the 70's? Yep ..... they were shocking. But just remember if you can ...... I can as I am an old fart Grandpa ..... the cars that were driven and the roads that were driven on. Today you can put a new car into a tree at 60 k's and walk away. 40 years ago, put a car into a tree and you kissed it as you sailed passed through the windscreen. The biggest effect on road safety has been the massive improvements with cars and roads. MASSIVE

Also RBT's have had a good impact. Then the seat belt legislation followed by passenger and child protection. I remember driving around with no seat belts in the back! Most cars back then didn't even have rear belts and those in the front were lap belts only. That would account for most.

End of argument.

The road toll is there not to be broken .... CORRECT!!!!! It is the freaking tolerance that is wrong ...... (repeat, repeat) Everyone uses a SMALL tolerance to drive safely. It is required.

I would really love to know how much extra revenue vs decrease in road toll for every 1 k taken off the tolerance level. The government knows exactly. I promise you that 1 k would mean millions and despite not making ANY difference in the toll.

If those who think a few K's over warrants the fines, cameras saves lives and protects the children ..... you would be rapt of they:

Lowered the tolerance further to 1k over. Do 81 in an 80 zone and your gone.

Increase the amount of cameras, 20 fold.

Decrease ALL speed limits

Increase fines and double the demerit points

Confiscate cars doing 5 k's over

Progressively increase registration on older cars to the point where the rego is worth a few times more than the car.

Decrease police presence saving money and taking away discretion.

Camera's that are not catching enough motorists, lower the speed limit until the quota is achieved.

Really ...... that isn't far fetched what so ever. There is money to be made and "Speed Kills' is HUGE business these days and getting bigger. It will overtake other mainstream taxes soon and if it doesn't, it will be manipulated to do so. It is being done now under the guise of safety ...... and many just blindly follow because they think they don't venture a few k's over ... ever.

Bu the question I would still love to know is ...... How much extra revenue will be collected if the tolerance was dropped by another 1k, is it being considered and when will people wake up and realise it has gone too far?

Driving within a tolerance and driving above the speed limit intentionally and in a dangerous manner are 2 different things.

It doesn't really matter whether the tolerances are 10% or 2%. At the end of the day the difference between getting fined or not will be 1km. For example with a 10% tolerance in an 80 zone 88 doesn't get a ticket, 89 does. The closer drivers drive to or just over the speed limit, the greater the risk of exceeding it for whatever reason and the greater risk of receiving a fine. Numerous people have carried on about safety and unsafe driving etc and believe that because their speed was safe it is ok. An exceed speed fine is exactly that, exceeding the speed limit. At the end of the day there has to be a line in the sand where ever that may be and once crossed you are liable for a fine

[Auslandau]

Make it 1k then. Fit all cars with GPS and a slot for the credit card. Yes there needs to be a cut off point but do it with some common sense. A balance between safe driving and intentional speeding. When the powers that be can guarantee the 100% accuracy of speed cameras, lower tolerances will be implemented guaranteed

I am not against cameras as such but they are being used for evil instead of for goodness!

Do not use the cameras as a tax. As has been suggested from some that they need to or something else will be taxed in its place. This is admition on how they are being used.

To travel from 80 to 81 takes how long compared from 80 to 90? Is it worth the couple of hundred dollars? Will it reduce the toll because people are 1k over? How many people loose there lives in 60 zones because of traveling 1,2 or 3 k's over?

Some must know the answer if they believe the tolerance is correct?

[MAD]

Originally Posted by XB GS 351 Coupe

But higher tolerances will simply mean that people will push the limits further and then still complain.

To me a speed LIMIT (that is the fastest you are supposed to travel in that area) is just that a LIMIT. Why do you need further tolerances??

So if the public were informed tomorrow that there is a 10km tolerance to speeding before a fine gets issued and now everyone will be driving 90 in a 80 zone 110 in a 100 etc etc, so then someone gets done for doing 91, and we will have more outrage on Ford Forums as what difference does 1km/hr make, it's all revenue raising, I got done for 1km/hr over I am such a victim how can I be expected to look at my speedo all the time etc etc

So why not accept the speed LIMIT as just that, and stay below it and you won't have to worry, but people for ever want to PUSH the LIMIT and then complain and scream revenue raising/I was safe/it was Sunday morning/ I was driving to church/there were 8 lanes/the sun was shining/my speedo is in MPH/I am a great driver/I have a great car/I can't be expected to lo0k out the window and control my speed at the same time/the cops hate me/I am being persecuted etc etc when they get done.

The tolerance in an 80 zone is already 80, the LIMIT is 80, so if you are doing 81 don't complain (not that I am suggesting anyone should get done for 81, but well the limit is 80) the tolerance is anything below 80.

The point is not to raise it for fun, it's to stop the blatant cash grab from the everyday driver that is not a danger on the roads but merely slipped above the limit for a fraction of a second.

If the limits are set by the 85th percentile, the majority of people will NOT exceed the limit. In simple terms, using this rule, the road limits would basically be set by their 'comfort' (road quality and surroundings).

The people that will continue to pay their dues will be those that are purposely exceeding the posted limit.


I don't purposely speed, but I do 'speed' a lot. Depending on the road type, whenever I need to concentrate more on the surroundings I tend to creep over. In back streets I do the opposite though. If there's a ton of cars lining the street, or kids playing in a yard, or a party going on at a house. I nearly always slow to 40 and often slower again.

[XB GS 351 Coupe]

Originally Posted by Auslandau

To travel from 80 to 81 takes how long compared from 80 to 90? Is it worth the couple of hundred dollars? Will it reduce the toll because people are 1k over? How many people loose there lives in 60 zones because of traveling 1,2 or 3 k's over?

Some must know the answer if they believe the tolerance is correct?

Mate you just keep saying the some thing but you are missing the point.

Re read the definition of LIMIT.

So you are saying you want the limit to be something other than the limit?? So you want the government to say we have a limit of 60 but really that's only our pretend limit, feel free to go over that. Then what about the pretend limit, will there be a tolerance on that, because surly 2 or 3 km/hr over the new pretend limit will not kill you instantly will it??

So now we have a problem, we have a 60km limit that is not the limit so feel free to go over that so may be drive at 65 and you will be fine, now get caught at 66, now that is so unfair, surly 66 makes no difference over 65. So what will the pretend limit be now?? Let's make it 70, I now drive around 60-70 as I know the pretend limit is 70, and I happen to look out the windscreen and check my mirrors to pay attention to the road, all this on a four lane motorway with no other cars, on a Sunday morning in a mph car, and I also consider myself an extremely good and safe driver (even though I can't keep a constant speed while looking out the front windscreen) I do all this at 69, and wow to no surprise I stray to 71 and get done...surly this is revenue raising gone wild, that camera/cop is so unfair, how can I become a menace to society being just 1km over the pretend limit. Surly it makes no difference going 71 instead of 70, keeping in mind the stated limit is 60, that's the one you can feel free to go over, but the pretend limit is 70 so do we now need tolerance on the pretend limit? As surly we need to have more than 1km leeway......so where will it end??

So let's do something different, unusual or novel and use the actual limit as the limit, I know it sounds strange but it could just catch on, as the signs tell you what it is, no guess work required.

You already been told what the limit is, it can not be that hard to understand, it is now up to you as the driver to take what ever action necessary to keep below that limit. Again if unsure recheck definition of limit.

This also explains it quite well:

Originally Posted by 5.8

It doesn't really matter whether the tolerances are 10% or 2%. At the end of the day the difference between getting fined or not will be 1km. For example with a 10% tolerance in an 80 zone 88 doesn't get a ticket, 89 does. The closer drivers drive to or just over the speed limit, the greater the risk of exceeding it for whatever reason and the greater risk of receiving a fine. Numerous people have carried on about safety and unsafe driving etc and believe that because their speed was safe it is ok. An exceed speed fine is exactly that, exceeding the speed limit. At the end of the day there has to be a line in the sand where ever that may be and once crossed you are liable for a fine

This sums it up.

[lucas2]

Of course there needs to be a limit, and a limit is a limit. However, in my opinion many speed limits are arbitrary in nature and because of that debates like these continue, as the government continues to put speed cameras in areas where the actual speed limit is arbitrary and probably based on old or no supporting data. For example, the upgraded section of the Monash Freeway is a four lane, well built modern road, yet the speed limit is 80km/h; however, the highway to Ballarat is 110 km/h on a two lane road that is not in overly great condition.

[Tysonv48]

No your not getting the point, it's called a limit so by rights we can tavel to the maximum of that limit.
The issue is that there are too many factors influencing the speed, someone who reads 80 of there speedo could just as easily be traveling 83 in real life. Your obsessed with the 1k but there is a massive difference between that 1k being at 81 and that 1k being at 88.
The government is obviously aware of this as on freeways they have speed checking points so why would the tolerances on cameras be set low?
Traveling below the limit and safe driving are not synanomous as it has been said numerous times it is more important to watch the road then your speedo especially when your doing 100 and things can change quickly.

[Grunter]

The limit arguement would work if humans were 100% accurate. If I, or anyone, could 100% time maintain 5kph under the set speed, without creep up and down, at ALL times, no issue.

The speed detection equipment is calibrated, yet is still not 100% accurate, the vehicle allows for a tolerance less than the actual speed which is good yet no-one could say exactly how much less and I'm pretty sure I and most drivers are not 100% accurate all the time. So why not have a tolerance on speed limits?