Vic traffic police told to target low-level speeding offenders

[Silver Ghia]

In todays Herald-Sun

Traffic police told to target low-level speeding offenders

VICTORIA'S top traffic cop has told police to start fining more motorists for low-level speeding offences.

Road Policing Command Assistant Commissioner Robert Hill said it was time to make travelling only a couple of kilometres above the speed limit as socially unacceptable as drink driving.

He said more traffic operations were planned for this year than last year and speed was the main focus.

"I expect there to be an increase number of low-level speeding infringements issued by our members in the future until the attitude is changed on our roads," Mr Hill told the Herald Sun.

"What we have said to our members is to focus on speed enforcement. The speed limits that are set at the maximum speed you can travel at, having regard to the road conditions.

"If we can reduce our mean speeds across the road network we will save lives, and this is all about saving lives.

"Whether you're 5km/h or 15km/h over, if you speed, you can expect to be stopped by police."

Mr Hill said the strong stance on low-level speeding was being taken because 15 deaths and 300 serious injuries could be prevented each year if drivers cut their average speed by just 1km/h.

He warned motorists to stop setting their own "de facto" speed limits, especially when setting cruise control.

"The evidence is very clear; speed is the absolute killer on our roads," Mr Hill said.

"The culture has shifted in respect of drink driving, it's now socially unacceptable for people to get behind the wheel of a motor car and drive while affected by alcohol, but the same cannot be said for *speeding.

"Across our community, people don't appreciate that low-level speeds can be just as dangerous as high-level speeding."

Drivers who exceed speed limit by less than 10km/h are fined $180 and cop one demerit point, while speeding over the limit between 10-15km/h will cost $289 and three demerit points.

During the past five years, 14 people have died and 352 people suffered serious injury during the Australia Day weekend.

Police will run the year's first major traffic operation to coincide with the public holiday break, with high focus on Melbourne, Geelong, Baw Baw, Benalla, Ballarat and the Mornington Peninsula.

I suppose speed is easier to target with less police resources required, than apprehending negligent or distracted drivers.

I think I see their logic now. The slower we all go, the consequences of a negligent or distracted driver causing a crash will be less.

And how can this be?

"Across our community, people don't appreciate that low-level speeds can be just as dangerous as high-level speeding."

[Trump]

The frog is starting to squirm a bit, he's feeling a bit warmer than usual, but he's not at the point where he realises he is beginning to cook...

[tranquilized]

The "facts and figures" they trot out to support their position are utterly ridiculous.

15 deaths can be prevented if everyone drives on average 1km/h hour slower?

Sure thing! Sounds plausible

Purely arbitrary numbers provided by the "scientists" at Monash who's only concern is their continued funding. It's easy enough to avoid fines by not speeding - I haven't had one in about 5 years. But its infuriating to think of all the lives lost on the roads, some of which would be preventable if the powers that be spread their efforts over more issues than people doing a few km/h over the limit. (the limit - another arbitrary number!)

[lucas2]

This is absolute garbage. I'd like to see the evidence behind his unsubstantiated claims. Like I've said in a previous thread, deaths on the road are tragic and we don't want that, but the percentage of fatalities are incredibly low at the moment in comparison to the amount of cars on the road. Driver education is key, unfortunately you can't always legislate against idiots.

Edit: In regards to the scientist at Monash, it becomes very easy for the government or anyone for that matter to pick, choose, and twist the results of the studies to suit one's own agenda. E.g. "Each fatality exhibited signs of fatigue, distraction and the car had bald tyres, the driver may have been traveling at 61 in a 60 zone", in this case they pick the possible rate of speed to highlight and not the other factors. It happens all the time when people review studies, and it's not a strong case to argue.

[blk6t]

I suppose technically that's correct. The posted speed limit is the maximum speed at which you can drive...and yes there is a tendency to think it's ok to drive 85km/h in a 80km/h zone, just because, and yes you can drive past a cop and the majority won't care.

I'm waiting for the day when one day cars will have installed GPS systems and maps with every speed limit, automatically fining you when you go over the speed limit.

Also, I don't agree with this attitude, community relations with Police will burn even further!

[XWGT]

I heard that interview this morning and this part was a cracker.

They had modelled data from last years crashes and determined 24% of those deaths "involved" speeding. (No root cause just involved)

So he went on to illustrate how they were going to target low level speeding etc but completely ignored how they were going to tackle the other 76% of causes of road deaths!

I was seriously annoyed MMM didn't pick up on this and take him to task on that.

If they put half as much effort into getting people with un roadworthy **** boxes, drug driving and blatant skill deficiencies and comprehension such as keep left, indicate, and don't tailgate we probably wouldn't have a road toll to talk about. Don't even worry about the 30+ drunk pedestrians who were counted in the road toll.

However automated revenue technology only really works for speed at the moment...so I guess that explains it. Too hard to target anything else meaningful as that would take man power and cost money.

[iCat]

Why do the Australian Design Rules allow for a 10% margin on error for speedos in cars? If the Government was determined to keep us at or below the speed limit they would impose accurate manufacturing requirements, not a 10% leeway.

[Bent8]

We all know it's all about revenue raising but I'd like to chime in here...

Hundreds of cars are added to our roads every day yet the road infrastructure is not expanding to keep up with the increased traffic.

More cars, travelling slower (usually well below the speed limit) equals traffic conjestion which results in driver frustration and that can easily lead to an accident.

Based on this theory, cars that drive slower will still be involved in traffic accidents!

If even half of the driving public refused to pay these speeding tickets, I'm sure then the police would be forced to change their views on the effects of "low-level speeding".

[Bent8]

Originally Posted by XWGT

If they put half as much effort into getting people with un roadworthy **** boxes, drug driving and blatant skill deficiencies and comprehension such as keep left, indicate, and don't tailgate we probably wouldn't have a road toll to talk about. Don't even worry about the 30+ drunk pedestrians who were counted in the road toll.

However automated revenue technology only really works for speed at the moment...so I guess that explains it. Too hard to target anything else meaningful as that would take man power and cost money.

A few nights ago, I was driving behind a car that obviously had an impaired driver behind the wheel... weaving between lanes, no indicators and one of their tail lights was out.

I look to my right and there's a police car right next to me who could clearly see this car driving dangerously, yet they didn't even bother to pull him over because he wasn't speeding!

[Starlightblue]

so if 15 lives where saved by all dropping 1klm/hour, we must have saved thousands of lives when the speed limits in the city went from 60klm to 50 klms

Do the math

[FGX-351]

Originally Posted by Loud_Noises

The frog is starting to squirm a bit, he's feeling a bit warmer than usual, but he's not at the point where he realises he is beginning to cook...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svpsLZDgFK4

[FGX-351]

I'm flying to Melbourne tomorrow for the weekend to play in a sporting competition & i'm going to br driving.

Was already going to be on my guard when driving but now i'm really going to have to be paying attention. :S

[xxx000]

Originally Posted by Starlightblue

so if 15 lives where saved by all dropping 1klm/hour, we must have saved thousands of lives when the speed limits in the city went from 60klm to 50 klms

Do the math

1. not if people don't comply

2. it's maths

did you lot complain in the same manner using the same 'logic' on the intro of RBT? The same arguments put forward here could be said about RBT but we now agree it's intro was worthwhile, what's different about speeding?

[blueoval]

The only attitude adjustment that's required here is the vic government.

They are playing people for fools with this cockameme bull crap.

This is moving ever so closer to a 'new world order' arrangement.

[mburnz236]

Looks like they don't remove outliers when they do their statistics. They should get people who know what they're doing. (but then they wouldn't have any 'facts' to prove it's not about revenue aye...)

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by blueoval

The only attitude adjustment that's required here is the vic government.

They are playing people for fools with this cockameme bull crap.

This is moving ever so closer to a 'new world order' arrangement.

yet the vast majority blindly follow on with not much more than ranting ont he internet
Why, when most of us now possess greater freedom than almost any preceding generation has enjoyed – freedom from tyranny, freedom from slavery, freedom from hunger – do we act as if we don’t?...

Why do we tolerate a politics that offers no effective choice? That operates largely at the behest of millionaire funders, corporate power and a bullying media? Why, in an age in which people are no longer tortured and executed for criticising those in power, have we failed to create viable alternatives?...

Though there are a few wonderful exceptions, on the whole protest is muted and alternatives are shrugged away without examination. How did we acquire this superhuman passivity? (Monbiot 2014)

Stand up and be counted or keep hiding in your hole quietly.

JP

[Bearman]

Assistand Commissioner Robert Hill answers his phone:

"Hello Robert, Napthine here"
"Hi Mr Premier, what can we do for you?"
"We need more revenue. Can you squeeze more out of motorists?"
"Ummmm.... We could always book more motorists for momentarily drifting slightly over the speed limit."
"Yes, of course. Thanks Robert, that is such easy money for us."
"Don't mention it Mr Premier. We can always get more cameras out and fiddle with speed limits to plant a few more landmines for the stooges....oops...COUGH...motorists."
"Excellent Robert. By the way, don't forget to blame all accidents on speed regardless of any other factors."
"No problem Mr Premier, consider it done. Goodbye."

And with that we are screwed!!

[TyLeR3397]

Take that head traffic cop for a drive in a car with a modified speedo, so that it says 60kph, when you're really doing 62, then ask him if he feels safe.

..then tell him the speedo is modified...

[Parfrey]

Mr Hill said the strong stance on low-level speeding was being taken because 15 deaths and 300 serious injuries could be prevented each year if drivers cut their average speed by just 1km/h.

WOW! I cannot believe anyone is stupid enough to believe this crap! Once again making excuses for the thousands of dollars worth of fines they're about to hand out.
Also, 'cutting their average speed by 1kmh' means I can do 50kmh over the limit half of the way home... as long as my Average lowers by 1kmh I'll save lives! Yay!

How long is it going to take for the public to realise where this is heading??

[simon varley]

Originally Posted by iCat

Why do the Australian Design Rules allow for a 10% margin on error for speedos in cars? If the Government was determined to keep us at or below the speed limit they would impose accurate manufacturing requirements, not a 10% leeway.

in fact this is what happens. The allowable speedo error is +10% / -0% so they all over read not under read. When you drive at 60kmh in a 60kmh limit, you could be actually driving as slow as 54kmh (ish). Conversely you could drive at an indicated 66kmh and still not be speeding. Don't rely on this though as 10% is a maximum error and many cars are in fact more accurate than this.

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by simon varley

in fact this is what happens. The allowable speedo error is +10% / -0% so they all over read not under read. When you drive at 60kmh in a 60kmh limit, you could be actually driving as slow as 54kmh (ish). Conversely you could drive at an indicated 66kmh and still not be speeding. Don't rely on this though as 10% is a maximum error and many cars are in fact more accurate than this.

There is up to a 3% difference in speed reading based on new vs old tyres as the tyre wears down the rolling diameter changes.

JP

[xxx000]

Originally Posted by jpblue1000

There is up to a 3% difference in speed reading based on new vs old tyres as the tyre wears down the rolling diameter changes.

JP

But your actual speed will still be lower than indicated so that's no excuse for speeding

[uranium_death]

I Read today that despite 3,000 more speeding fines being handed out since November, deaths were lower...

I'm gonna avoid all this crap, and just hitchhike.

http://theage.drive.com.au/motor-new...122-3196e.html

[Fordman]

It's a joke, worry about the people who are actually endangering lives. Revenue raising at its finest.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by The-ShowStoPPa

I'm flying to Melbourne tomorrow for the weekend to play in a sporting competition & i'm going to br driving.

Was already going to be on my guard when driving but now i'm really going to have to be paying attention. :S

Wear a beige cardigan, hire a camry, put a bowlers hat on the parcel shelf and drive 10 under the limit in the right lane.

This is how you become invisible to the police.

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by xxx000

But your actual speed will still be lower than indicated so that's no excuse for speeding

yeah thats what im saying...It is imposible to have a 100% accurate spedo when connected mechanically to a variable such as wheel diameter. hence why manufacturers design spedometers to read high. to make allowances for the known and some unknown variables. To prevent consumers suing them for every speeding fine they get
My standard swift was 4-5% high compared against a GPS, with new tyres, with worn tyres it would be only 2-3% high based on the rule of thumb.

JP

[xxx000]

it'll read higher with worn tyres so your %'s should be swapped over

[falconnut]

Originally Posted by iCat

Why do the Australian Design Rules allow for a 10% margin on error for speedos in cars? If the Government was determined to keep us at or below the speed limit they would impose accurate manufacturing requirements, not a 10% leeway.

Yet QLD and NSW still fine for 1km/h over

speedos are not that accurate or are programmed with a
+5km/h over roughly 80km/h

[joolz]

Funny that his artice pops up now. Was talking with my cousin thats a TOG around 12 months ago. He said back then soon they will be pushing TOG to pull over drivers even doing 3km over the limit. The new era of TOG will have no tolerance drummed into them in regards to speed. My cousin is old school (almost 25 years in the force) He still give descretion. But im sure big brother will take that away very soon.
So what if I was doing the speed limit on a National Hwy I come across a driver 30km/h under the limit. Will that also be deadly as im 30 km/h over that cars limit... I know i will have plenty of time to react but to say just 1km/h over the posted limit can kill. Cmon do they take us for complete fools....

[joolz]

Sorry I forgot to add that my cousin will hopefully be out of the force one this zero tolerance is forced on him. TOG travel solo and he isnt prepared to be assalted by a driver for such a trivial offence..