Qld revenue camersa tolerance to drop to 3 kph

[Pedro]

Just had it from a reliable source with an ear in the Qld Govt. that the tolerance in revenue cameras is going to drop to 3 kph from December1.
Palerchuck (or is that palerspew) has to finance all those "give me a vote" promises she's been making of late.

[Trevor 57]

Welcome to Victoria, we have had that for years

They allow 3k's over the limit, so if your vehicle is standard it will most likely have a 5% error built in it, meaning that if the your speedo is reading 100 k/mh then in fact you are only doing 95, which mean for the average punter they would have to be doing 108 or more (by their speedo) to cop a fine (in a 100k zone of course - LOL) - just saying

[b0son]

Originally Posted by Trevor 57

Welcome to Victoria, we have had that for years

And why was it introduced? Because of falling camera revenue due to better speed compliance.

Wasn't there talk of a 1kph tolerance in Vic?

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by Trevor 57

Welcome to Victoria, we have had that for years

They allow 3k's over the limit, so if your vehicle is standard it will most likely have a 5% error built in it, meaning that if the your speedo is reading 100 k/mh then in fact you are only doing 95, which mean for the average punter they would have to be doing 108 or more (by their speedo) to cop a fine (in a 100k zone of course - LOL) - just saying

Love that you casually assume your speedo reads fast.

Up until 2006 the ADR's stated a cars speedo could read 10% plus OR minus. Since 2006 they are supposed to read fast so, allegedly, always safe as you say. But do you trust your licence on it?
If my pre-2006 car is booked for doing less than 10% over the limit, I should have a firm legal basis to just say to the cop "Here is the rego saying my car was built before 2006...I'm not paying", and that should be the end of it. Your car is calibrated to the standard of the day. No one books cars from the 1950's for not having seat belts, or cars made before 1976 for not having anti-pollution gear....they simply weren't fitted from the factory, but they met the standards at the time they were built. Why is the speedometer any different?

"Buy a GPS". Why should I have to? My car is factory fitted with a speed measuring device, and that should be all I have to worry about looking at. I had a cop once say to me it's up to you to make sure your vehicle is accurate, so "simply" go and get the speedo recalibrated. I asked him where would do this, and he had no idea. I rang the local VDO shop and asked them, and after some hesitation said they might be able to do it, but you would want to be sitting down when you got the price.

Tyre wear, tyre size, mechanical wear along the line from wheel to speedo, tyre pressures...there are a dozen reasons your speedo could be wrong.

Three KPH on most modern speedos is a needle width, your speed can vary more than that just driving along normally and trying to be legal.

And don't come with this crap about "if you can't judge your speed you shouldn't be driving" or "I can tell exactly how fast my car is going without looking at the speedo".
Sure you can. Even a world class racing driver wouldn't know to within a couple of k's either way exactly how fast they're going.


But then we all know it's far safer to be staring at your speedo than looking at the road...

[XB GS 351 Coupe]

All those driver who openly admit to having to stare at the speedo to maintain a legal road speed should really consider public transport for the safety of other road users.

Normal drivers can do this by simply scanning their instruments which you should be doing every few seconds, along with your mirrors, then scanning the road in front of you.

That way you can maintain a legal road speed and probably spot any cameras a few hundred metres before you get to them.

Like I have always said, the only people that get caught by these cameras are the ones speeding AND not paying attention to the road, a bad combination IMO.

[2011G6E]

You can scan your speedo and see you're "about" a certain speed. But with the ludicrously tiny tolerance, you have to check often and carefully to make sure you're not going over.

None of which answers my question...if you have a pre-2006 car your car was made to a different set of tolerances. Why can they force you to try to obey a tighter tolerance than your car is capable of...?

[Road Games]

Originally Posted by XB GS 351 Coupe

All those driver who openly admit to having to stare at the speedo to maintain a legal road speed should really consider public transport for the safety of other road users.

Normal drivers can do this by simply scanning their instruments which you should be doing every few seconds, along with your mirrors, then scanning the road in front of you.

That way you can maintain a legal road speed and probably spot any cameras a few hundred metres before you get to them.

Like I have always said, the only people that get caught by these cameras are the ones speeding AND not paying attention to the road, a bad combination IMO.

Far out you have delusional ideas you love sharing, ever had cruise control activated while travelling downhill ?

No hills or up and down rd's around your neck of the woods , never seen popo at the bottom of any of them obviously ?

We need a double facepalm emoticon for all of your one eyed posts !

[Revolver]

Originally Posted by XB GS 351 Coupe

All those driver who openly admit to having to stare at the speedo to maintain a legal road speed should really consider public transport for the safety of other road users.

Normal drivers can do this by simply scanning their instruments which you should be doing every few seconds, along with your mirrors, then scanning the road in front of you.

That way you can maintain a legal road speed and probably spot any cameras a few hundred metres before you get to them.

Like I have always said, the only people that get caught by these cameras are the ones speeding AND not paying attention to the road, a bad combination IMO.

No.

My last ticket I got snapped for 63 in a 40 school zone.

Now in my experience on that stretch of road the 40 zone had always started at the next set of lights. It even has the solar powered light up flashing speed zone sign at those lights. About 100m prior to that, there is another set of lights. Just after this where the camera was. As I went past the camera on my bike. I looked at the camera and thought "62ks. Well if they get me for 2 over fair enough. But why is the camera there, why isn't it (as I was braking I to the school zone after the second set of lights) up here?"

Thought nothing of it.

Then I got a letter telling me I was 23 over. 63 in a school zone. I literally stood there with my mouth open cartoon style for almost a minute. Then yelled out "No that's wrong, the school zone starts AFTER that set of lights. It's a 60 zone there."

I then walked over to my computer and reviewed my helmet camera footage of that day. Sure enough I was in a school zone.

Determined to make sure I wasn't crazy I went back to the last time I was on that road. It wasn't a school zone then. That was 3 weeks prior. And every piece of footage prior to that still showed no school zone where I had been snapped. The footage showed on that day, a non-light up sign placed just after the first set of lights placed not that far from another road sign. It took me a minute to find it on footage and pause it to confirm that sign was there.

Was it my fault? While the argument could be made for Yes, I say no. (Shocker huh)

As a motorbike rider you learn to keep you learn to read your surroundings. I will NEVER speed in a school zone. It's only a matter of time before you collect a child or ironically, get snapped. Or both. Especially on a bike, I do not have the stability to brake and or take evasive action the way a car does.

I know that piece of road well. And I took my local knowledge of the road and area speed limit at face value. And it was wrong.

While I could of argued the point in court with my video footage, being that the sign is not in the best view of oncoming traffic, and the last time I had travelled that road it was not a school zone, I don't have the money to back it.

And no doubt the 3 questions asked would have been.

Was that you on the bike that day?

And we're you doing 63 kms an hour?

And was it a school zone on that day?

All 3 items are a yes.

"So you were speeding and were caught."

"Guilty. Dismissed"

Was I paying attention? Yes. I saw the camera, my speed, traffic lights and light up school sign ahead of me. I was also scanning for possible anomalies (children, cars and car doors opening, people walking dogs that could get free and run across the road - it's a popular pooch walking thoroughfare, etc). But was caught out by a change of circumstances.

[BENT_8]

Originally Posted by Revolver

No.

My last ticket I got snapped for 63 in a 40 school zone.

Now in my experience on that stretch of road the 40 zone had always started at the next set of lights. It even has the solar powered light up flashing speed zone sign at those lights. About 100m prior to that, there is another set of lights. Just after this where the camera was. As I went past the camera on my bike. I looked at the camera and thought "62ks. Well if they get me for 2 over fair enough. But why is the camera there, why isn't it (as I was braking I to the school zone after the second set of lights) up here?"

Thought nothing of it.

Then I got a letter telling me I was 23 over. 63 in a school zone. I literally stood there with my mouth open cartoon style for almost a minute. Then yelled out "No that's wrong, the school zone starts AFTER that set of lights. It's a 60 zone there."

I then walked over to my computer and reviewed my helmet camera footage of that day. Sure enough I was in a school zone.

Determined to make sure I wasn't crazy I went back to the last time I was on that road. It wasn't a school zone then. That was 3 weeks prior. And every piece of footage prior to that still showed no school zone where I had been snapped. The footage showed on that day, a non-light up sign placed just after the first set of lights placed not that far from another road sign. It took me a minute to find it on footage and pause it to confirm that sign was there.

Was it my fault? While the argument could be made for Yes, I say no. (Shocker huh)

As a motorbike rider you learn to keep you learn to read your surroundings. I will NEVER speed in a school zone. It's only a matter of time before you collect a child or ironically, get snapped. Or both. Especially on a bike, I do not have the stability to brake and or take evasive action the way a car does.

I know that piece of road well. And I took my local knowledge of the road and area speed limit at face value. And it was wrong.

While I could of argued the point in court with my video footage, being that the sign is not in the best view of oncoming traffic, and the last time I had travelled that road it was not a school zone, I don't have the money to back it.

And no doubt the 3 questions asked would have been.

Was that you on the bike that day?

And we're you doing 63 kms an hour?

And was it a school zone on that day?

All 3 items are a yes.

"So you were speeding and were caught."

"Guilty. Dismissed"

Was I paying attention? Yes. I saw the camera, my speed, traffic lights and light up school sign ahead of me. I was also scanning for possible anomalies (children, cars and car doors opening, people walking dogs that could get free and run across the road - it's a popular pooch walking thoroughfare, etc). But was caught out by a change of circumstances.

Only once though, i would assume...

[Shonky.]

Originally Posted by XB GS 351 Coupe

All those driver who openly admit to having to stare at the speedo to maintain a legal road speed should really consider public transport for the safety of other road users.

Normal drivers can do this by simply scanning their instruments which you should be doing every few seconds, along with your mirrors, then scanning the road in front of you.

That way you can maintain a legal road speed and probably spot any cameras a few hundred metres before you get to them.

Like I have always said, the only people that get caught by these cameras are the ones speeding AND not paying attention to the road, a bad combination IMO.

why don't you try thinking for yourself instead of drinking the state government tax revenue cool-aid

I'm sure you're not as dim as you seem when you regurgitate the propaganda

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

Love that you casually assume your speedo reads fast.

Up until 2006 the ADR's stated a cars speedo could read 10% plus OR minus. Since 2006 they are supposed to read fast so, allegedly, always safe as you say. But do you trust your licence on it?
If my pre-2006 car is booked for doing less than 10% over the limit, I should have a firm legal basis to just say to the cop "Here is the rego saying my car was built before 2006...I'm not paying", and that should be the end of it. Your car is calibrated to the standard of the day. No one books cars from the 1950's for not having seat belts, or cars made before 1976 for not having anti-pollution gear....they simply weren't fitted from the factory, but they met the standards at the time they were built. Why is the speedometer any different?

"Buy a GPS". Why should I have to? My car is factory fitted with a speed measuring device, and that should be all I have to worry about looking at. I had a cop once say to me it's up to you to make sure your vehicle is accurate, so "simply" go and get the speedo recalibrated. I asked him where would do this, and he had no idea. I rang the local VDO shop and asked them, and after some hesitation said they might be able to do it, but you would want to be sitting down when you got the price.

Tyre wear, tyre size, mechanical wear along the line from wheel to speedo, tyre pressures...there are a dozen reasons your speedo could be wrong.

Three KPH on most modern speedos is a needle width, your speed can vary more than that just driving along normally and trying to be legal.

And don't come with this crap about "if you can't judge your speed you shouldn't be driving" or "I can tell exactly how fast my car is going without looking at the speedo".
Sure you can. Even a world class racing driver wouldn't know to within a couple of k's either way exactly how fast they're going.


But then we all know it's far safer to be staring at your speedo than looking at the road...

I must be an exception to the rule because I can't remember that last time I got a fine for speeding (or anything for that matter)

And I can't remember the last time I crashed into someone coz I was looking at my speedo and not that road, in fact I can't remember the last time I ran into anyone full stop

And in fact I reckon I might be in the majority, not the whinging minority

[new2ford]

Originally Posted by Trevor 57

I must be an exception to the rule because I can't remember that last time I got a fine for speeding (or anything for that matter)

And I can't remember the last time I crashed into someone coz I was looking at my speedo and not that road, in fact I can't remember the last time I ran into anyone full stop

Are you one of those annoying people then who drive 10-15 km/h below the speed limit because that's what you have to do to stay below without constantly checking the speedo, given that a vehicle will gain momentum on a downslope and lose it on an up (even cruise control doesn't always control that)?

That sort of variation is quite natural and harmless in driving but when you know there's something like a 3 km/h tolerance you have to spend a lot more time looking at the speedo and accelerating and braking if you want to stay near the limit to cover that country journey in a reasonable time.

I hope you at least have the courtesy to pull over occasionally to allow the tailback behind you to pass

I've only been driving for nearly 45 years in three different continents so I may not know much, but I do know how much better and more relaxed it is driving in those overseas jurisdictions where they don't have such an*l fixation on pursuit of revenue .. er, sorry, "road safety".

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by new2ford

Are you one of those annoying people then who drive 10-15 km/h below the speed limit because that's what you have to do to stay below without constantly checking the speedo, given that a vehicle will gain momentum on a downslope and lose it on an up (even cruise control doesn't always control that)?

NO!!!!!!!!

I sit on the speed limit, unless there are prevailing conditions that would prevent me doing that. Cruise is my friend

[BENT_8]

BREAKING NEWS!!!!!

'SPEED AND SAFETY CAMERA'S ARE PURE GOVCO REVENUE RAISERS'

There, i said it.
Now, anyone considering the above as an excuse to whinge about the consequences of their poor driving habits will have to face the reality that, yes, it is Govco's way of stealing your hard earned, and you fell for it.

Sucked in.

[mike_nofx]

Originally Posted by Trevor 57

Welcome to Victoria, we have had that for years

They allow 3k's over the limit, so if your vehicle is standard it will most likely have a 5% error built in it, meaning that if the your speedo is reading 100 k/mh then in fact you are only doing 95, which mean for the average punter they would have to be doing 108 or more (by their speedo) to cop a fine (in a 100k zone of course - LOL) - just saying

Problem is, through a 100kmh speed camera, most do 90kmh, meaning an actual 85kmh or so. Annoying. I'll sit with the needle bang on the speed limit through the camera - then increase it to 10 over as soon as im past it.

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by mike_nofx

Problem is, through a 100kmh speed camera, most do 90kmh, meaning an actual 85kmh or so. Annoying. I'll sit with the needle bang on the speed limit through the camera - then increase it to 10 over as soon as im past it.

Be careful doing that on the Hume Highway in Victoria because there is about 6-8 cameras strategically placed as point to point speed camera's to catch people just like you

Originally Posted by The Beast

I'm no saint and have had my fair share of fines over the past 30 40 years, but I have certainly mellowed in my age and generally stick to the limit now. I drive a car that is more than capable of doing well in excess of the limits on freeways but I choose to stick to the limit (in the left lane) and watch the world go by me with their mobile phones in hand!

Sounds just like me, I used to drive trucks for a living

[mike_nofx]

Originally Posted by Trevor 57

Be careful doing that on the Hume Highway in Victoria because there is about 6-8 cameras strategically placed as point to point speed camera's to catch people just like you


Sounds just like me, I used to drive trucks for a living

Haha yeah I know, I'm usually very cautious on roads and areas I don't know.

There is a few point to point cameras local to me, but they are only targetting trucks and not light vehicles. I dread the day they become cameras for all vehicles. Kinda stupid for trucks though, they do 40kmh uphill, then do 130kmh downhill and by the end their speed averages below the 100kmh anyway.

[KobiXR6T]

What a thread. Not like anyone couldn't seen where it was coming from, or where it was headed.

We all know that it is 100% revenue raising, but at the same time as others have stated, it is entirely personal choice if you want to exceed the limits or not; however ridiculous they have become.

I've been living in the same area and driving the same roads for the last 15 or so years. They are a good mix of roads, but overall this is what I have seen.

1. Roads have been poorly maintained and degraded during that time. Pot hole patching as temp fixes, and new sections of road is very poor quality (not level, rippled corners, etc).

2. Overtaking lanes have become shorter. Instead of allowing more opportunity to pass slower moving vehicles, the merge is marked around the 3/4 mark with the rest being a pullover area/safety margin. This is OK as it gives vehicles a buffer to work with when poor decisions have been made, but still heavily relies on the judgement of both drivers to reduce impacts.

3. Speed limits have decreased. In an attempt to reduce the severity and frequency of crashes the limits have been brought down. Areas that were a hundred zone with roundabouts and recommended 40-50 signage now enforce 80,60, down to 40. A whole section of range road that used to be 80 has been stepped down first to two sections of 80, and 60 (which was comfortable cruising in good conditions), which has now been brought to 60 all the way.

4. Active patrols seem to be less prominent in that you very rarely see an officer driving and pulling people over for a word. Speed cameras, and covert ops (single officers, cars out of sight, hiding in bushes). Almost a daily occurrence.

I used to be one of those drivers who used to like to push the 10-20km over the limit given conditions allowed, but through the combination of all the above driving has become a mindless act of watching the speedo and dragging the brakes. The locations and positions that are enforced are often on overtake zones and downhill runs, and the latest approach is to hide and shoot back at cars so in many cases the driver is entirely unaware that they have even done anything until several weeks later when the pic arrives.

I'm all for policing dangerous driving, but when you need to physically slow the vehicle through a clear section of road (and hold up the natural flow), and then deal with police hiding in the bush in these positions it really leaves no doubt at all what their job has become. It's possible many doing the work feel the same as well.

The other interesting point is that any time it rains after a dry spell you can almost sit and watch the cars come off the road, even when driving at or below the new reduced signed limits. There doesn't seem to be any notable reduction in the quantity of incidents that have occurred.

Also see a lot of the phenomenon with drivers who see an overtake area and put the boot in. Either they're dulled out of their mind and driving in autopilot, or have some kind of ego to protect. Never the less, its not even worth putting the boot in to get around them now. The risk of having a photo taken and coughing up the $$$ isn't worth the little amount of time you save... so if you look at how it's changed my driving you could say that the governments approach is working. Tightening the tolerances is probably the solution to keeping the income rolling in as others fall into line.

[NAK302]

good call, i was a bit worried Queensland would end up broke after the mining boom. oh wait...

[csv8]

Acting Assistant Commissioner Mike Keating said some motorists who drive over the speed limit did not receive fines because of the speed tolerance, but he would not reveal what the tolerance levels were.

He said tolerances have been adjusted three times in the past two years to decrease the risk of injury and death in road crashes.

"What the tolerance program is trying to do, it is trying to encourage people to slow down and stick to the speed limit," he said.

"We believe there will be a road safety outcome as a result of that.

"But we're not going to publicise the tolerance level because that would create a de facto speed limit."

"Assistant Commissioner Keating said no jurisdiction in Australia, or to his knowledge anywhere in the world, published or spoke publicly about what the limits of the actual limits of their tolerance were.

"In setting our adjustments we've used a range of criteria. We have to compensate and adjust in terms of technology that we use, we always have to have an adjustment understanding in relation to the accuracy of speedometers and we also have to act in fairness to the community," he said.

"We use those three criteria in measuring and reaching our levels and we've applied a standard so it's not the same for each area. But I'm not going to go into any more detail than that."

He said the tolerance level could go to zero if that was what police wanted."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-2...police/6413652

[Falcon SXR8]

Originally Posted by csv8

He said tolerances have been adjusted three times in the past two years to decrease the risk of injury and death in road crashes.

"We believe there will be a road safety outcome as a result of that.

How these guys say this with a straight face is beyond me.

[cro142]

This sort of regulation only serves to increase a drivers' distraction while spending more time "clock watching".

It is counterproductive for road safety, but very productive for revenue.

[mik]

Originally Posted by cro142

This sort of regulation only serves to increase a drivers' distraction while spending more time "clock watching".

It is counterproductive for road safety, but very productive for revenue.

i certainly believe there is a good element of truth in that , its not feasible to use cruise all the time, and even then around the burbs with speed zones changing all the time ..... if you do you spend more time resetting your cruise and looking down at the speedo , where is the happy medium ???

[simon varley]

Originally Posted by csv8

Acting Assistant Commissioner Mike Keating said some bollocks......

and

"Assistant Commissioner Keating said no jurisdiction in Australia, or to his knowledge anywhere in the world, published or spoke publicly about what the limits of the actual limits of their tolerance were.

well, he obviously hasn't looked very hard

from Cambridgeshire UK http://www.cambs-police.co.uk/roadsa...afer-roads.pdf

[Silver Ghia]

Originally Posted by simon varley

well, he obviously hasn't looked very hard

from Cambridgeshire UK http://www.cambs-police.co.uk/roadsa...afer-roads.pdf

And their tolerances appear to be far more realistic, around 10%.

[new2ford]

A couple of years ago the police chief in Czech Republic was quoted in the news as saying that they tolerated speeds up to about 20 km/h over the 130 km/h motorway limit provided drivers were driving safely for the conditions. Must try to locate the reference again.

Much more common sense-based over there.

And you're not constantly checking the speedo and jumping out of your pants every time you see a police car.

[XB GS 351 Coupe]

Sounds like some interesting laws overseas, so how do you then know if you are going to get fined and who decides what is driving to conditions?? Leaves everything wide open to interpretation and argument.

So why have a speed limit then?? May be just let people decide their own speed and then if a cop randomly decides that your speed is too fast for the conditions then he will hand you a fine.


May be then you can take said fine to court and argue that the speed was correct for conditions.

How does the cop know who is driving?? I don't want my father in law on the road he is a menace at any speed, so him driving down the motorway at 80km/hr would be too fast but the same motorway with me in a new AMG Merc may be fine at 180km/hr.

[carwant.com.au]

Victoria has had low tolerance for years. It's just frustrated drivers further so much that most spend more time looking at their speedo instead of the road!

No evidence whatsoever that this has helped the road toll....

[Trevor 57]

Originally Posted by carwant.com.au

Victoria has had low tolerance for years. It's just frustrated drivers further so much that most spend more time looking at their speedo instead of the road!

you have evidence of this of course?

Originally Posted by carwant.com.au

No evidence whatsoever that this has helped the road toll....

and you have evidence to back up your claim?

[paule11]

Done for 68kph in a 60zone believe camera vans are set at 67 kph