(vic) channel 7 6:00 tonight

[4.9 EF Futura]

Ahhh, the time honoured debate of whether speed cameras save lives! Such fruitful conversation. Whether it's true or not is irrelivant. Completely.

Because here is where the playing field sits.

"They" have data that demonstrates a positive correlation between the use of speed cameras and the reduction in road deaths.

"You" have a bunch of emotive statements and claims that driver education and police visibility are the keys. No evidence.. not even remotely suggestive evidence.

And consider this.

You are given a licence to drive a vehicle in your state. Throughout the process of obtaining this licence, you are made aware that speed limits exist and you will be penalised if you caught exceeding these limits.

This is made very clear to you. It's a condition of obtaining the licence. By using that licence, and driving a vehicle on the road, you HAVE ACCEPTED THIS CONDITION.

It's oh so simple. It's against the law to speed. So dont do it. Its a priveledge to have a licence - NOT A RIGHT - so dont abuse it.

"oh.. but but but but... what about when they sit at the bottom of a hill???"

USE YOUR DAMN BRAKES TO SLOW THE CAR DOWN THEN!!!!!

The arguments against the use of speed cameras are academic at best, but moralistic most of the time. People dont seem to have a problem with the fact they're not allowed to speed... the grudge appears to be directed at the methods of detection??

Just stop f---ing around with the "principles" of the matter.

[TZENU]

Originally Posted by 4.9 EF Futura

Ahhh, the time honoured debate of whether speed cameras save lives! Such fruitful conversation. Whether it's true or not is irrelivant. Completely.

Because here is where the playing field sits.

"They" have data that demonstrates a positive correlation between the use of speed cameras and the reduction in road deaths.

"You" have a bunch of emotive statements and claims that driver education and police visibility are the keys. No evidence.. not even remotely suggestive evidence.

And consider this.

You are given a licence to drive a vehicle in your state. Throughout the process of obtaining this licence, you are made aware that speed limits exist and you will be penalised if you caught exceeding these limits.

This is made very clear to you. It's a condition of obtaining the licence. By using that licence, and driving a vehicle on the road, you HAVE ACCEPTED THIS CONDITION.

It's oh so simple. It's against the law to speed. So dont do it. Its a priveledge to have a licence - NOT A RIGHT - so dont abuse it.

"oh.. but but but but... what about when they sit at the bottom of a hill???"

USE YOUR DAMN BRAKES TO SLOW THE CAR DOWN THEN!!!!!

The arguments against the use of speed cameras are academic at best, but moralistic most of the time. People dont seem to have a problem with the fact they're not allowed to speed... the grudge appears to be directed at the methods of detection??

Just stop f---ing around with the "principles" of the matter.

No evidence hey?
http://www.roadsense.com.au/shortversion.html
i urge you to click on the links within this document
very interesting read

[[Tonko]]

Originally Posted by Bobman

Fairly funny, considering police cars speed even more so than the average citizen.

The amount of times you see a speeding police car (for no reason - yes I know what I'm talking about) is too high.

You get to work out their hiding spots, ie factory drive ways, park entrances etc etc, however on the up side, police *can* use discretion, camera operators deserve what they get, they know the rules and shouldn't be in the job in the first place.
Even if we don't speed, camera errors etc can often go un-noticed and do, unless a myriad of people complain, so you can still get caught and fined EVEN if your driving at the legal road limit.

So you condone violence against them?

[4.9 EF Futura]

Originally Posted by TZENU

No evidence hey?
http://www.roadsense.com.au/shortversion.html
i urge you to click on the links within this document
very interesting read

A very interesting read indeed. Appears to be focused on debunking statistics uded by the government. And crudely doing so, might i add.

However, i reiterate my main point.

It's against the law to speed. You know at the time you are issued with your driver's licence that a condition of that licence is to abide by all laws/statues... including speed limits.

The argument you put forward is a valid one, i dont deny it. But when the fact remains that its against the law to speed, what difference does it make if speed cameras are not saving the lives they claim to?

It's a completely different issue.

[TZENU]

Fair enough!

And yes at the end of the day speeding is illegal regardless of the excuse.

I suppose the only way you can fight against the deceptive use of camera's is during election day.. as xa coupe put it!
thats my 2 cents anyway

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by TZENU

Fair enough!

And yes at the end of the day speeding is illegal regardless of the excuse.

I suppose the only way you can fight against the deceptive use of camera's is during election day.. as xa coupe put it!
thats my 2 cents anyway

That's correct, argueing against a current legal position using moral opinion is pointless...

Yes everyone has a chance to voice their opinion come election time...
I however have much bigger issues to consider when casting my vote, to me its a trivial issue whether speed cameras are in use or not.. its certianly not going to sway my vote, 20 years of driving and only 1 speed camera infringement puts it into perspective for me.... i broke the law, i'll wear it.

[Hitman]

Originally Posted by XA-Coupe

Actually, the detected speed tolerance in Vic is still 10%, the alleged speed is the fetected speed less 3 kmh, so it's all entirely legal and within ADRs... just morally wrong.

So does this mean that 'in theory' I can't be booked for doing 107 in a 100 zone?

[WAXBFAR]

Sir, the radar detectors give VERY little warning against a WA K whatever camera.
They drive you insane with auto doors though.
The counrtry police are very adept in using their radar gear and also very little warning.
The only thing that works is a scrambler, I have been informed, but that is;get caught with one of them and a long forced holiday.

[Auslandau]

Dont speed and you wont get fined! Absolute ****! Try it some day, every minute you drive and tell me anyone can do it! Show me the difference between 80kPH & 83KPH. On my speedo its approximatly 2.5mm....and I can go from 80 to 83 in approximately 0.02 seconds! Just enough to get done.



| [/url] |

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by XA-Coupe

Actually, the detected speed tolerance in Vic is still 10%, the alleged speed is the fetected speed less 3 kmh, so it's all entirely legal and within ADRs... just morally wrong.

NOPE! I have a ticket 87KPH taken down to 84KMPH.......Thats not 10% of detected



| [/url] |

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by auslandau

Dont speed and you wont get fined! Absolute ****! Try it some day, every minute you drive and tell me anyone can do it! Show me the difference between 80kPH & 83KPH. On my speedo its approximatly 2.5mm....and I can go from 80 to 83 in approximately 0.02 seconds! Just enough to get done.

You wont get booked for doing 83 in an 80 zone, you'll get detected at 88 (10% over). They'll give you the benefit of the doubt and reduce the alleged speed by 3 to 85, but you would actually be detected at 88.
Trust me, It very easy to drive around all day without getting booked, ive only been booked by a camera once in over 5000,000 k's over 20 years, so its possible!

[Auslandau]

I have been booked once....to the posted figure above with 20 years of driving. Only been booked over Xmas with the wife getting one just before me in same spot.

Actually got done a couple of times 20 years ago by speed traps



| [/url] |

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by auslandau

NOPE! I have a ticket 87KPH taken down to 84KMPH.......Thats not 10% of detected

Actually i think you're right, its plus 7, not 10% anymore. so 67 in a 60 zone (11.6%) 77 in a 70 zone (10%) 87 in an 80 zone (8.75%) and 107 in a 100 zone (7%).

[Bobman]

Originally Posted by TonkoXR8

So you condone violence against them?

Yes, verbal violence, is that okay with you?

Do we see as much protection for taxi driver's that these camera operator's have? No, which is just wrong IMHO.

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by Bobman

Yes, verbal violence, is that okay with you?

Do we see as much protection for taxi driver's that these camera operator's have? No, which is just wrong IMHO.

Nobody deserves abuse, either physical or verbal while at work, these people are just paid to do a job. If people have issues with a speed camera operator or taxi driver just contact their employer, dont take matters into your own hands...

[GXL078]

Like everything, the morons will blame "the government" or their "sad childhood" or whatever and then screw the system for all they can, legal aid, compensation etc.

[Bobman]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Nobody deserves abuse, either physical or verbal while at work, these people are just paid to do a job. If people have issues with a speed camera operator or taxi driver just contact their employer, dont take matters into your own hands...

I think you missed the point, I agree to a certain extent that you shouldn't be abused at work, however if you choose a career which is synomous with anger from people, don't do it, simple.

The Government protects the operators because they are bringing revenue into the hands of the MP's. On the other hand, taxi driver's put up with *ALOT* more crap, on a similar (or even worse) par than police do, yet they are offered very little protection, which is not on.

Here's another pressing question.. In Victoria, due to low tolerances, if cameras are so good, why do police despatch operators or other police warn each other where cameras are (if they see or hear of one in a certain location)?

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by Bobman

I think you missed the point, I agree to a certain extent that you shouldn't be abused at work, however if you choose a career which is synomous with anger from people, don't do it, simple.

The Government protects the operators because they are bringing revenue into the hands of the MP's. On the other hand, taxi driver's put up with *ALOT* more crap, on a similar (or even worse) par than police do, yet they are offered very little protection, which is not on.

Come on.. are you serious? EVERY individual is entitled to a safe and abuse free work place, why should individuals be condemed or attacked because they perform a service that may impinge on your ability to brake the law? In the same way should the police be abused because they book a speeding motorist or stop a bank robbery because you happen to be a speeder or bank robber?
These people do not attack or abuse anyone when performing their role, they sit quietly and anonomously in their car out of sight, nor do they brake the law, they are told where and when to set their camera's up, and are instructed as to how to operate them, if you believe they're operating outside the boundaries of their role then simply contact the management group who control them, the operators are just innocent servants of their employer.

[Bobman]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Come on.. are you serious? EVERY individual is entitled to a safe and abuse free work place, why should individuals be condemed or attacked because they perform a service that may impinge on your ability to brake the law? In the same way should the police be abused because they book a speeding motorist or stop a bank robbery because you happen to be a speeder or bank robber?
These people do not attack or abuse anyone when performing their role, they sit quietly and anonomously in their car out of sight, nor do they brake the law, they are told where and when to set their camera's up, and are instructed as to how to operate them, if you believe they're operating outside the boundaries of their role then simply contact the management group who control them, the operators are just innocent servants of their employer.

You make good points and I do agree with what you are saying, however the point of the matter is, these cameras have been found to be faulty on many occassions, operator errors or setting the wrong speed has caused many people to lose their licence, which means they lose their job, sometimes even family problems etc all because of an error which they were unfairly booked for (even though they were NOT speeding) - the only way this was uncovered was that many people complained and contacted media, this thing is common place, hence people's mistrust in the camera system.

I condemn physical violence to anyone who is partaking in their job.

[Bucknaked]

It's entertaining to think that some people here believe it is ok to take your anger out on an employee of a company who has no say in speed limit's and what the law states. I work for a government agency and while no longer do i have to listen to the person on the end of the phone or the otherside of the counter verbally abuse me and threaten to kill me and my family, I do still hear it happen to our staff. Some people can't think past their problem and their own narrow little minds. Sure I could quit, but theres always another 10 blokes who would kill to do my job. And that is all it is. A job. Nothing more. I like to feed my family and pay my bills.

I love to get up every day and wonder what moron will try to beat the daylights out of me. Sometimes I agree with the gripe, but what can i do about it?