NationStates Jolt Archive

I got a letter in the mail this morning from Queensland Transport. Since I accumulated 6 points within a year, they graciously give me the choice between a "good behaviour period" for one year, in which I can't get caught again, or 3 months suspension.

Not only that, but they also earned $300 from me in that year, which oughta make both QLD Transport and the cops happy (I reckon they get commission for the money they take off people).

Now, I think it's fairly obvious what I think about speed limits and their enforcement. I think they miss the point (see here (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8282%28198909%2979%3A4%3C932%3ASVETCO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-2&origin=repec)).

But what do you think?

Speed limits should be assigned according to the road quality rather than just an arbitrary number; simply put, some roads just aren't engineered for high speeds, and so they should have a limit equal to a safe level for traveling on the road. If a road is better constructed or engineered for high speeds, the limit should adjust accordingly.

Not to mention they do make money for the police force. Better to take it from speeders than make me pay more in taxes.

I think you broke the law, you have to pay the penalty. I'm surprised they gave you the option. That was very civilized of them.

If a road is better constructed or engineered for high speeds, the limit should adjust accordingly.
By that token, would a Ferrari (which arguably is safer at speeds than, say, a 20 year old Datsun) have a higher speed limit?

I think you broke the law, you have to pay the penalty. I'm surprised they gave you the option. That was very civilized of them.
Not all laws are necessary, or just...

But what do you think?

I think you might just possibly be a bad driver.

My advice is to not get pulled over again. Get a faster car and outrun the cops.

Speed limits should be assigned according to the road quality rather than just an arbitrary number; simply put, some roads just aren't engineered for high speeds, and so they should have a limit equal to a safe level for traveling on the road. If a road is better constructed or engineered for high speeds, the limit should adjust accordingly.

Not to mention they do make money for the police force. Better to take it from speeders than make me pay more in taxes.

They certainly should be assigned based on the road. Where are they assigned arbitrarily? I can recall some highways in the US had two limits, one for the day and one for the night (that was the lower limit). The signs were painted with reflective material so that when you were driving in the dark with headlights, you saw the night-time limit.

I'm convinced that most speeding tickets don't make the roads much safer. They just serve as a source of revenue for towns and states here in the US. In Hamilton township, a suburb of Trenton New Jersey, there is a road nearly as broad as a 4 lane highway, perfectly straight and level, that has a 25 mile per hour speed limit on it. Tell me that's not just a moneymaker for the local government.

Speed limits are necessary, really; humans can't be trusted to behave sensibly without limits. But some are more necessary than others; in a housing estate or village a 30mph limit is sensible, for instance.

What does annoy me is that the police seem to use speed cameras more as a way of making money than promoting road safety. For instance, a road near here used to be a 70mph limit dual-carriageway, until some kids (one of whom was half of a set of twins in my class at school) ran into a lorry that pulled out infront of them (trucks like doing that), and were killed. That side got made single-carriageway for much of its length, and the entire road was reduced to a 40mph limit.
Guess where the police camper-van regularly sits, collecting funds - I mean, promoting road safety?
That's right! Half a mile down the road from the junction, on the carriageway going in the opposite direction. Oh, yeah. And they wonder why people are cynical :rolleyes:

And before the "You're just bitter because you got caught"; nope. Never been caught for speeding. I did get a parking ticket once, which is why I think being a traffic warden should be a capital crime, but never speeding. So there.

By that token, would a Ferrari (which arguably is safer at speeds than, say, a 20 year old Datsun) have a higher speed limit?

I would say not, simply due to the difficulty of sorting out all of the factors that go in to such a metric; it would be incredibly expensive and time consuming to calibrate safe speeds for different vehicles. And, of course, there's the subjective factor of the quality of the driver themselves that could further affect the safe speed.

Now, if these kinds of factors could be included in the calculations, I would support it wholeheartedly. But the engineering-dependent speed limit is good because it establishes a definitely safe speed for effectively all street legal vehicles.

oops! I thought I picked the necessary but bad application poll option. oh well I fail at poll taking

Speed limits are necessary and does improve safty on the roads. The administration and enforcement of the rules does need improving though, because some local governments use speeding tickets as a source of income and that's not how it's supposed to be.

'course, a solution would be to lower the bar and suspend licences for smaller infractions - that would strengthen the perventive effect of speed limits, but would probably not be popular among motorists ;)

They certainly should be assigned based on the road. Where are they assigned arbitrarily? I can recall some highways in the US had two limits, one for the day and one for the night (that was the lower limit). The signs were painted with reflective material so that when you were driving in the dark with headlights, you saw the night-time limit.

I've seen that. It's also a good idea in the mountains and places where road conditions might vary during different times of the day.

I've had my share of lets say "investment" in Law Enforcement in my younger days, now I'm proud to say that they marked my license with "Safe Driver" and you bet the police notice it if they pull you over.

Yes, Speed Limits are necessary. However, I would say certain areas should be much more enforced than other areas that should be a bit more laxed.

Residential areas where there are plenty of children who play should be strictly enforced and an open mostly straight highway consisting of 6 lanes should be more laxed.

Just my 2 cents...

Speed limits are necessary, really; humans can't be trusted to behave sensibly without limits.

Except for Germans...and certain parts of Australia...

Speed limits are entirely unessessary even in heavily populated residential areas with schools, pedestrians, children playing etc.. The illegal act should be loosing control of your vehicle and crashing, not the speed with which you choose to operate your vehicle.

However, the penalty for causing an accident (non fatal) should be a life-time ban from driving. The penalty for causing a fatal accident should be death.

Speed limits are entirely unessessary even in heavily populated residential areas with schools, pedestrians, children playing etc.. The illegal act should be loosing control of your vehicle and crashing, not the speed with which you choose to operate your vehicle.

However, the penalty for causing an accident (non fatal) should be a life-time ban from driving. The penalty for causing a fatal accident should be death.

Not liking this one.

First of all, fault is difficult to determine, since it usually can be spread around. I don't want to lose my liscence because I had to hit the brakes and the yahoo behind me didn't see me or had a shorter braking distance or whatever.

Also, I would rather the guy who's 'pretty sure' he'll be fine barrelling through my neighborhood at a buck fifteen be prevented from doing that instead of punished for taking me and my hypothetical children out...

No sale.

Except for Germans...and certain parts of Australia...

On Autobahns (and the Ozzie equivalent, apparently), yes. There's not much you can do on a motorway to screw up too badly, despite travelling quite quickly, and most cars can't do more than 120mph anyway (the fastest I've ever driven was 95mph). I was referring to those areas where people would rather drive (and are able to drive) much more quickly than is sensible; villages, towns, cities; and where doing so is likely to cause more trouble than it's worth for Mr. Jones to get to work on time or Tim to impress his mates by handbrake-turning round the roundabout.

First of all, fault is difficult to determine, since it usually can be spread around. I don't want to lose my liscence because I had to hit the brakes and the yahoo behind me didn't see me or had a shorter braking distance or whatever.


I agree with you, but in the situation you described, you would not be considered at fault, at least not where I am. If someone hits you from behind, it's always considered their fault here, as far as I know.

i don't like them. i'm going to get arrested next time i set foot on jersey because i keep forgetting to phone up my parish hall about the fact that i can't make it to my hearing for a speeding charge i'm facing, which i got on boxing day, seeing as i live in another country. bah!

I agree with you, but in the situation you described, you would not be considered at fault, at least not where I am. If someone hits you from behind, it's always considered their fault here, as far as I know.

Yeah, it was kind of a shit example. Rear ending is always the rear-enders fault in California for purposes of law enforcement, but I believe insurance companies look at it a little bit more complexly. And frankly if fault means I can never drive again, I want it all examined closely...which in all reality is likely to result in us both losing our license.

But yeah, my example chewed.

I got a letter in the mail this morning from Queensland Transport. Since I accumulated 6 points within a year, they graciously give me the choice between a "good behaviour period" for one year, in which I can't get caught again, or 3 months suspension.

Not only that, but they also earned $300 from me in that year, which oughta make both QLD Transport and the cops happy (I reckon they get commission for the money they take off people).

Now, I think it's fairly obvious what I think about speed limits and their enforcement. I think they miss the point (see here (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8282%28198909%2979%3A4%3C932%3ASVETCO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-2&origin=repec)).

But what do you think?
6 points?
That's piss ant don't you have around 100 to burn?

I actually don't mind fines for speeding but sending you that type of notice, over 6 points is bizzare.

What can I say - the Autobahn is in your blood.

It should be like Wyoming, where the speed limit is "Whatever is considered to be safe at the time."

Speed limits are fine, but I agree with the idea that they should be enforced more strictly in residential areas than on highways.

My advice is to not get pulled over again. Get a faster car and outrun the cops.

Can't outrun that radio.

Speed limits are neccessary, but the way they're applied & enforced in most of Australia is ridiculous.

In Victoria, where I live, if you're caught at 3km/h over the speed limit (regardless of whether that limit is 40km/h or 110/kmh) you will be penalised & fined. The penaly points on your licence & fine are exactly the same. This is despite the fact that ADRs (Australian Design Regulations) allow for a +/- 10% manufacturing tolerance in your car's speedo reading.

Most of our highways have a limit of just 100km/h, despite many of them being flat, straight, carrying only light traffic loads and the consideration of the large distances between towns. That 100km/h limit is enthusiastically enforced too.

Speed limits are neccessary, but the way they're applied & enforced in most of Australia is ridiculous.

In Victoria, where I live, if you're caught at 3km/h over the speed limit (regardless of whether that limit is 40km/h or 110/kmh) you will be penalised & fined. The penaly points on your licence & fine are exactly the same. This is despite the fact that ADRs (Australian Design Regulations) allow for a +/- 10% manufacturing tolerance in your car's speedo reading.

Most of our highways have a limit of just 100km/h, despite many of them being flat, straight, carrying only light traffic loads and the consideration of the large distances between towns. That 100km/h limit is enthusiastically enforced too.

Good. What are you in such a hurry for?

Okay, 3 km over the limit is a bit much. You wouldn't get pulled over in the US for that, I wouldn't think.

What bugs and amuses me about speed limits is that 90% of drivers seem to consider them as minimum speed limits, not maximum speed limits. Granted that someone toodling along at 25 miles an hour on a highway is probably a menace to traffic, just because the signs say the limit is 65 mph that doesn't mean that you have to drive at least that fast. It really is quite ridiculous sometimes, doing the limit or slightly above and having assholes blaze past you as if you were standing still.

Good. What are you in such a hurry for?
Um, 100kph is only 62mph...

Um, 100kph is only 62mph...

Yeah, I know. Still, slow down, pay attention and hang up the damn phone! :D

I got a letter in the mail this morning from Queensland Transport. Since I accumulated 6 points within a year, they graciously give me the choice between a "good behaviour period" for one year, in which I can't get caught again, or 3 months suspension.

Not only that, but they also earned $300 from me in that year, which oughta make both QLD Transport and the cops happy (I reckon they get commission for the money they take off people).

Now, I think it's fairly obvious what I think about speed limits and their enforcement. I think they miss the point (see here (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8282%28198909%2979%3A4%3C932%3ASVETCO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-2&origin=repec)).

But what do you think?

I speed. I never get caught. I probably never will. Why not? Because I know what police in my part of the world look for.

Get to know your local constabulary. It helps. :)

Here are some general tips, though:

1) Some cars are cop magnets. If you're driving in a cop magnet, do so cautiously. If you are in any other kind of car, you have a wider range of safety.

2) Go with the flow. Almost. If there's a guy(especially if he's driving a cop magnet) speeding, you can probably speed along with him if you're going the same speed or less. :)

3) Don't hit your brakes. This is an 'oh, shit! Cop!' signal. take your foot off the gas and let yourself coast down. This makes it look like you were unintentionally or purposefully speeding and are correcting your speed yourself instead of slowing down because of the cop.

4) Be careful on unfamiliar roads or far from home. Cops in my neck of the woods are more likely to pull over people with plates from another state. They're more likely to give out tickets to people further from home, and are more likely to give warnings to people near home.

Follow these simple rules, and you will get few if any tickets. :)

Yeah, I know. Still, slow down, pay attention and hang up the damn phone! :D

I get your point, often a safe speed is actually below the speed limit, but the reverse can also be true.

I never use my mobile when I'm driving, a study here recently found that it's as dangerous as driving while intoxicated. I've also never had any sort of speeding, traffic, whatever ticket & I've been driving for 14 years.

I get your point, often a safe speed is actually below the speed limit, but the reverse can also be true.

I never use my mobile when I'm driving, a study here recently found that it's as dangerous as driving while intoxicated. I've also never had any sort of speeding, traffic, whatever ticket & I've been driving for 14 years.

There were some frightening stats published here recently, that 80% of the people polled said they do something else while driving, like talking on the phone, eating, putting on make-up, sending text messages :eek: and fixing their hair.

There were some frightening stats published here recently, that 80% of the people polled said they do something else while driving, like talking on the phone, eating, putting on make-up, sending text messages :eek: and fixing their hair.

My girlfriend used to text message while she was driving. She drove into the back of another car, fortunately at low speed. She doesn't do it any more.

My girlfriend used to text message while she was driving. She drove into the back of another car, fortunately at low speed. She doesn't do it any more.

Lucky girl that it was at a slow speed.

We often hear about drunk drivers causing mayhem on the roads, or even sober ones just driving like idiots and frequently there's a little note that says the person had his or her license suspended not just once but multiple times. Of course, there's no real way to keep someone out from behind the wheel, regardless of the status of his license, but it raises the question of whether an offender ought not be thrown in jail for a while on the thrid or fourth suspension.

Granted that someone toodling along at 25 miles an hour on a highway is probably a menace to traffic, just because the signs say the limit is 65 mph that doesn't mean that you have to drive at least that fast.
See, that's why I posted that study in the OP.

Every study and investigation will tell you the obvious thing: the risk of an accident is smallest if everyone is going at the same steady speed. The risk increases when you go faster than the flow of traffic, which we all know because our governments like to tell us.

The risk also increases when you go slower than the flow of traffic, which is what all these studies find, but which governments somehow never publish.

It's part of a phobia. When cars first started, people thought they were death machines. In some counties in the US they had rules (or wanted to push them through) that cars had to be accompanied by someone who walked in front and allerted everyone of the impending danger.

It's still the same today. Humans' irrational fear of the car still hasn't gone away, so politicians can always score cheap "save the children" points by going after people who drive "too fast", regardless of the actual statistics or effects.

So until they start punishing granny for going 15km/h under the speed limit, the whole system is a farce.

Also, I don't drink and drive, I don't even drive the day after I drank. I don't use my mobile in the car. I don't drive aggressively and I let people into my lane (much to the chagrin of the people behind me). In urban environments I know when I have to change lanes, which makes me get home faster than any amount of speeding. But in the semi-rural areas in which I deliver pizzas, here on Brisbane's outskirts, I drive as fast as the conditions allow me to do, which is generally 10 or 15km/h over the limit. If I'm alone in the car that is, I don't do it with passengers.

Due to my job I have by now driven more kilometers than most people my age. I'm certainly more confident with my car than my mother is, for example (who just flat-out refuses to drive into the city). The only crash I had (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=494811) was some housewife running into the back of my car, through no fault of my own.

It is these context things that the system doesn't measure either.

Can't outrun that radio.

Actually, you can. But you gotta be pretty fast. If they can't get cars ahead of you in time, then the radio won't help. Especially if your route is changeable.

It's harder to outrun the helicopter (unless for some dumbass reason you're using it as a pursuit vehicle hovering just above the other ones like in teh remake of Gone in 60 Seconds...but when it's up in the air and can keep an eye on you...

I don't know, once the aircraft are on you I don't know that there really is a way to get away...unless you ditch the car in a parking garage and hop into another one. And then if the garage has cameras...

There were some frightening stats published here recently, that 80% of the people polled said they do something else while driving, like talking on the phone, eating, putting on make-up, sending text messages :eek: and fixing their hair.
That's crazy!

Those 80% would not survive a regular 16:30 rush-(half-an)-hour here.