'Speeding Laws in NSW too harsh', says minister

[Fairlane]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...14/2419994.htm

Sounds right on to me, three points (six in double demerit weekends) is way too much for a minor speeding offence. Dont want this to turn into a political thread, but this sounds the first commonsense from a NSW roads minister in a long time.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Fairlane

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...14/2419994.htm

Sounds right on to me, three points (six in double demerit weekends) is way too much for a minor speeding offence. Dont want this to turn into a political thread, but this sounds the first commonsense from a NSW roads minister in a long time.

So there IS something you can say in public that will cause you more political grief within your party than admitting you are a paedophile.

Well that is the end of Mr Daley.......

[DJM83]

Just getting in before this thread starts a political fight/arguement. Make sure it doesnt otherwise it WILL be closed.
I have been a victim, well not a victim but have been fined by NSW police for doing rediculus speeds. Huge fine and loss of licence ensued (maximum fine), tought me a valuable lesson that stays with me today so i disagree.

[Citric GT]

Less than 15kmh over should be 1 point and a few hundred bucks I reckon.

[GT0132]

Yep I got 2 minor speeding tickets within 3 weeks of eachother in October 2007 on the same stretch of road by cop with a portable camera.

The speed limit on this stretch of road is 50 km/hr but dropped from the previous limit of 70km/h two months prior (I was doing 65)

Because one of those offences was on a labour weekend I got hit with 6 points and 3 for the other occasion, so I have a total of 9 points

At the time I got the first ticket in the mail I didn't realise I'd actually been caught twice.

If I get another infringement in 2 more years that's a 3 month loss of license.

Bit harsh

[JetBlack351]

there is one easy solution for every person in the hole world for this one. DON'T SPEED IN THE FIRST PLACE no matter what. I know almost everyone at some time in there life has. There are certain times that people do out of panic sometimes just late for something. I think the worst part about it is the fines. But it does teach lessons. i learnt my lesson luckily for me the copper was lenient otherwise i would have been up for a huge fine and loss of license. instead i got smaller fine and just points taken off.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by fairlaneghiaV8

there is one easy solution for every person in the hole world for this one. DON'T SPEED IN THE FIRST PLACE no matter what. I know almost everyone at some time in there life has. There are certain times that people do out of panic sometimes just late for something. I think the worst part about it is the fines. But it does teach lessons. i learnt my lesson luckily for me the copper was lenient otherwise i would have been up for a huge fine and loss of license. instead i got smaller fine and just points taken off.

Yep you will not get STDs if you never have sex.
You will not ever be hung over if you never drink.
You will not get the flu if you just sit in a sealed bubble all day.

It is interesting the number of people who just accept that because a group of academics say that something should be a law that it should be accecpted as axiom.

I remember when:
Smoking was good for you.
You were not drunk until you were 0.15.
Random breath testing was illegal.
Semi auto guns were for sale in K-Mart, no license required
The penalty for being gay was life in prision
The penalty for possession of cannibis was a mandatory 15 years jail
The penalty for opperation of a CB radio was 2 years
The penalty for possession of a television without a licence was 5 years
Aboriginals could not vote as they were not "people".

And I have personally met people who had Aboriginal/Kanaka slaves when they were children and one who once had a licence to shoot Aboriginals on Fraser Island.

Sometimes laws are just silly, unjust, agenda driven or just plain stupid but we are always told it is for our own good and some of us are stupid enough not to question it.

[guzzis3]

That, sir, was superb. Could not agree more.

[Daymoe]

Originally Posted by flappist

Yep you will not get STDs if you never have sex.
You will not ever be hung over if you never drink.
You will not get the flu if you just sit in a sealed bubble all day.

It is interesting the number of people who just accept that because a group of academics say that something should be a law that it should be accecpted as axiom.

I remember when:
Smoking was good for you.
You were not drunk until you were 0.15.
Random breath testing was illegal.
Semi auto guns were for sale in K-Mart, no license required
The penalty for being gay was life in prision
The penalty for possession of cannibis was a mandatory 15 years jail
The penalty for opperation of a CB radio was 2 years
The penalty for possession of a television without a licence was 5 years
Aboriginals could not vote as they were not "people".

And I have personally met people who had Aboriginal/Kanaka slaves when they were children and one who once had a licence to shoot Aboriginals on Fraser Island.

Sometimes laws are just silly, unjust, agenda driven or just plain stupid but we are always told it is for our own good and some of us are stupid enough not to question it.

Holy crap, you must be old!

[JG66ME]

Originally Posted by flappist

Yep you will not get STDs if you never have sex.
You will not ever be hung over if you never drink.
You will not get the flu if you just sit in a sealed bubble all day.

It is interesting the number of people who just accept that because a group of academics say that something should be a law that it should be accecpted as axiom.

I remember when:
Smoking was good for you.
You were not drunk until you were 0.15.
Random breath testing was illegal.
Semi auto guns were for sale in K-Mart, no license required
The penalty for being gay was life in prision
The penalty for possession of cannibis was a mandatory 15 years jail
The penalty for opperation of a CB radio was 2 years
The penalty for possession of a television without a licence was 5 years
Aboriginals could not vote as they were not "people".

And I have personally met people who had Aboriginal/Kanaka slaves when they were children and one who once had a licence to shoot Aboriginals on Fraser Island.

Sometimes laws are just silly, unjust, agenda driven or just plain stupid but we are always told it is for our own good and some of us are stupid enough not to question it.

The point here, correct me if I am wrong, is that then there where some very bad laws and the lesson is that not all laws are good, and bad laws continue to be made.

And yet people follow them to the letter.

[King Nothing]

I think it's clearly a distraction. The NSW gov is up to it's eyeballs in the proverbial due to the massively unpopular mini-budget. So to try and distract everyone they make an announcement that is positive for motorists yet doesn't cost them anything (no chance they will lower the fines).

[Keepleft]

NSW Road Minister, Daley, arrives to politics from the NRMA.

[XR6TCraig]

Originally Posted by JG66ME

The point here, correct me if I am wrong, is that then there where some very bad laws and the lesson is that not all laws are good, and bad laws continue to be made.

And yet people follow them to the letter.

Pretty sure that was the point that was being made! Of course there are always the sheep who follow willingly.

It seems a bit harsh that people can losed their licence (a big life changing event) because they were walking pace over the limit a couple of times on the wrong weekend, dont ya think?.

[irlewy86]

Originally Posted by flappist

And I have personally met people who had Aboriginal/Kanaka slaves when they were children and one who once had a licence to shoot Aboriginals on Fraser Island.

That was revoked in 1927 IIRC

[flappist]

Originally Posted by irlewy86

That was revoked in 1927 IIRC

Something like that but he still had the paperwork. This was over 30 years ago and he would have been at least 80 then.

The point is that laws, even those the public support at the time are not always all that appropriate.

[OLDFORDNUT]

Originally Posted by flappist

Yep you will not get STDs if you never have sex.
You will not ever be hung over if you never drink.
You will not get the flu if you just sit in a sealed bubble all day.

It is interesting the number of people who just accept that because a group of academics say that something should be a law that it should be accecpted as axiom.

I remember when:
Smoking was good for you.
You were not drunk until you were 0.15.
Random breath testing was illegal.
Semi auto guns were for sale in K-Mart, no license required
The penalty for being gay was life in prision
The penalty for possession of cannibis was a mandatory 15 years jail
The penalty for opperation of a CB radio was 2 years
The penalty for possession of a television without a licence was 5 years
Aboriginals could not vote as they were not "people".

And I have personally met people who had Aboriginal/Kanaka slaves when they were children and one who once had a licence to shoot Aboriginals on Fraser Island.

Sometimes laws are just silly, unjust, agenda driven or just plain stupid but we are always told it is for our own good and some of us are stupid enough not to question it.

This is the best quote ive read ever,you are 100% right , some comments from do-gooders in the past have left me wondering if they live in the real world,Governments in a few countries, know they can do whatever they like due to the mass's BLIND acceptance of LAW makers no matter how rediculous some Laws are.
The true Statistics if viewed over last 30 years tell you that we have less than half the deaths on our roads since the early 70's but with 4 times the cars on road which means we are actually much safer drivers (mostly due to better brakes and tyres)and drinking laws,so we should in fact be praised not fined for minor infractions ,this is not tollerated in other Countries,Australia has been conditioned to accept whatever some backroom penny pinchers come up with.

[Rodp]

I'd agree that 3 points for under 15 is a tad too harsh - used to be 1 point and IIRC, you'd get your points back after a year. Now it's 3 (?) years.

Last time I was pipped was 121 in a 110 zone at least 5 years ago, so it's not as if I've had speeding fines stacked up in the glove box but to lose half your licence on a double demerits day if you were pinged doing 78 in a 70 zone is over the top.

I'd prefer 1 point and 50% more of a fine, personally.

[Fev]

Originally Posted by Rodp

I'd agree that 3 points for under 15 is a tad too harsh - used to be 1 point and IIRC, you'd get your points back after a year. Now it's 3 (?) years.

Last time I was pipped was 121 in a 110 zone at least 5 years ago, so it's not as if I've had speeding fines stacked up in the glove box but to lose half your licence on a double demerits day if you were pinged doing 78 in a 70 zone is over the top.

I'd prefer 1 point and 50% more of a fine, personally.

same here..

fined twice for doing around 78 in a 70 zone, twice in one month. didnt know the camera's were there - yes im aware there are signs everywhere. anyway

$79 ticket.. but 3 points! so i've had 1 point for the last year..

[guzzis3]

I got my licence suspended in about 1988 in sidinee when they upped the points and went to 3 years. I just scraped in with 3 4 point offenses in the 36 months.

I actually don't object at all with them nailing you if your driving like an idiot. What I object to is being booked when I KNOW I was 20 km/hr under the limit, Qld's new plan to deploy totally unmarked speed cameras and pinging people for trivial technical breeches of ridiculously low speed limits just to raise revenue.

I like to believe the traffic act should be solely concerned with public safety, not politics and money. I don't accept it's current implementation pursues that goal. If you have facts or proof that indicate I'm wrong I'd genuinely like to hear about it. If you have a different opinion without a good case I'm unlikely to care.

Moderators: If this breeches just delete it, don't close the thread.

[tankclare]

I agree speeding laws are a bit too harsh especially on people who accidentally speed to miss an accident. I know alot of people would disagree but i think they can be a bit harsh on P-Platers and im not only saying that because I am one but a 0 allowance is a bit harsh. What about when overtaking etc sometimes you have to go a bit quicker.
Sure there are p platers out there that give us all a bad name but not everyone is a hoon that speeds and does burnouts.

When i got done for speeding and lost my license for 3 months it was just on dark when overtaking a car that was doing about 80km/h. I overtook on a straight after following the car for ages and a car came around the corner ahead and so i had to go over my 90 limit to get back on the right side of the road. Unmarked cop was in the dark in a persons gate to a property up the road a bit and got me with the gun as i was overtaking. Time i passed the cop i would have been doing no more then 90-95km/h. I ended up getting done for 124km/h which was a $243 fine and loss of license for 3 months. I am a month into my suspension and have 2 months to go. Get my license back on January 14th.

I accept my punishment and had no complaints about it but after thinking about it i thought it was a bit harsh. The police officer even seen the other cars coming but had nothing of it. He seemed like a nice bloke though and after some enquiries as to noise complaints about my car around a town i never go to he admitted it must be another car.

After sitting on the side of the road for about 5-10 minutes or more he returned from the unmarked and checked out all the underside of my car and my tyres etc. I thought i was gonna be gone for my exhaust because it is too loud but he said nothing about it and told me if he sees me on the road again with my tyres he would have to give me another 3 months. His exact words were (slight chuckle) "now i'm not stupid. I can tell those back tyres have been turned to get how they are". Safe to say i got new tyres the next week lol.

Overall he was a fairly nice bloke but yer i copped the law. But i still think some of the speeding laws are a bit too harsh while others arent harsh enough (crazy speeds like 200km/h etc)

[new2ford]

Inappropriate speed in the circumstances is the real safety issue, not mandated hypothetical speed limits. It's my understanding that most road accidents occur at or under the legal speed limit.

Exceeding a speed limit by more than 10-15 kph may be generally undesirable but not necessarily related to safety. Is that 'excessive' speed occurring in a congested area with high pedestrian and vehicle activity or is it on a wide open highway with a long clear view on a fine day? In the latter case it may not be excessive, in the former it will.

On the other hand, if the posted speed limit says "100" is it safe to drive drive 'up to' that limit (as very many do) if you are in blinding rain with cars all around you?

Common sense is the biggest casualty of 'road safety' rules.

Having said that, I don't feel much sympathy for somebody driving regularly in the city who accumulates 11 points - that indicates some degree of casualness in attitude to driving.

[MITCHAY]

NSW rules have always blown goat. You will cop 6 demerit points in NSW and only cop 2 points in ACT in a double demerit points period for exactly the same offence FFS!

We need consistency across the whole country, preferably modeled off the ACT system :

[FTe342]

I agree the points penalities are too harsh for minor offences and especially the double demerit system.

I think it be would be fairer to a degree if there were more tiers to the points system. Why should you lose 3 points for say 7kph over the same as someone doing 15 over? Or the same points for 20 over as someone doing 30 over. Its worse when you apply these comparisons to a double demerit scenario.

If a point was applied to each 5kph bracket for instance you would lose 2 points for between 6-10 over and 3 for 11-15 over. This would be more equitable and make the points penalty fit the crime speed. Especially on a double demerit weekend.

I haven't been booked for speeding for > 8 yrs (more 15kph over the limit on a freeway at 6.00am on a Sunday morning with not another car in sight except for the cop eating his Maccas hiding in the bushes) and have found the "need for speed" dimishes the more time I spend participating at motorsport events. You can either do this or drive at Camry at 80kph everywhere and still not get booked

[Pinch]

I don't necessarily agree. Maybe people could just slow down a bit.

For those who have trouble concentrating, $100 for a used TomTom plus $5 on line for a file of speed camera's and school zones and you are set. Set it to warn in zones and for overpeed and voila. As soon as you are a few k's over, you get a warning. Its not as if there are much HWP on the roads to get you randomly.

While I don't drive that much these days, only a few years ago (when you were much more likely to be pinged by a mobile HWP and not a static camera a TomTom can warn you of) I was doing 60,000k a year. I got done once in about 5 years, and that was because I pressed 'resume' on the cruise instead of 'set' at the lower speed than set. Didn't make that mistake again. My family have had a few fines, but they have learned and slowed down. Most of the people I know have never had a fine, especially in the last few years when most of it is camera detected - with three huge signs warning people beforehand.

We are all in a hurry and life is hectic. But getting somewhere quicker mostly involves driving smarter, not quicker. Anticipate the lane you need to be in, get a GPS or whatever and leave a few mins earlier. Unless you are crossing the Nullabor or up the Stuart Highway, the saving from speeding ranges between seconds to, at best - minutes.

Whilst for most of us speed limits are too low. Our roads are much the same as Euro roads with higher speed limits. Only there, people can drive. Here they can't so its not like we can advocate for higher speeds or anything. Speed doesn't kill, but it multiplies the end result of people stupid things - possibly to me and my family.

A no-win situation. Or we could make sure people can driver before they are licenced.

"Flame suit on".

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Pinch

I don't necessarily agree. Maybe people could just slow down a bit.

For those who have trouble concentrating, $100 for a used TomTom plus $5 on line for a file of speed camera's and school zones and you are set. Set it to warn in zones and for overpeed and voila. As soon as you are a few k's over, you get a warning. Its not as if there are much HWP on the roads to get you randomly.

While I don't drive that much these days, only a few years ago (when you were much more likely to be pinged by a mobile HWP and not a static camera a TomTom can warn you of) I was doing 60,000k a year. I got done once in about 5 years, and that was because I pressed 'resume' on the cruise instead of 'set' at the lower speed than set. Didn't make that mistake again. My family have had a few fines, but they have learned and slowed down. Most of the people I know have never had a fine, especially in the last few years when most of it is camera detected - with three huge signs warning people beforehand.

We are all in a hurry and life is hectic. But getting somewhere quicker mostly involves driving smarter, not quicker. Anticipate the lane you need to be in, get a GPS or whatever and leave a few mins earlier. Unless you are crossing the Nullabor or up the Stuart Highway, the saving from speeding ranges between seconds to, at best - minutes.

Whilst for most of us speed limits are too low. Our roads are much the same as Euro roads with higher speed limits. Only there, people can drive. Here they can't so its not like we can advocate for higher speeds or anything. Speed doesn't kill, but it multiplies the end result of people stupid things - possibly to me and my family.

A no-win situation. Or we could make sure people can driver before they are licenced.

"Flame suit on".

Yes the saving seconds is true in a simple model but life is not simple. Almost all of the "high speed" speeding I see (but never commit because I am perfect driver ) is to do with overtaking. If you are driving 200 or 300km, which for me is an average trip and you get stuck behind vehicles going between 60 and 80 then a 2-3 hour trip becomes a 4-5 hour trip and as there are only 8 work hours in a day this tends to be a problem.

Not all situations are the same, not everyone lives of drives in the same conditions or areas.

Have you every been stuck behind a "born leader". One who drives at 80 in the "dangerous single lane" 100 zone until they get to and "safe dual lane overtaking area" where they accellerate up to 100 before slowing down again at the "dangerous single lane". How do you get away from them without speeding?

Life is complicated.

[EgoFG]

I have a 'delicate' license situation (6 points) and have found it EXTREMELY frustrating, and detrimental to the safety of my driving to stick to ALL posted speed limits.

My first trip to Bathurst Via Bell since the race ... Guess what - a lower speed limit (generally) and yet a huge improvement.

The 60,70,80,90,100 k speed limits have been replaced with only 3: 60, 80, 100

Certainly made my job easier. Trouble is there is FAR too much 80 kmph

IMHO - Safe, aware driving is far more important than speed limits.

In the current climate we must obey spee limits in:
school zones, as a consequence we learn NOT to look out for school children
Mountains, as a consequence we do not learn to be observant of weather/fog/rain

Speed limits are convenient for the govt as they are enforceable, but they will ALWAYS MAKE US BAD DRIVERS.

Please see my previous soap box
http://www.fordforums.com.au/showpos...9&postcount=31

[guzzis3]

IMO, for what it's worth, is not the actual points system but the way the act is administered that I object to.

Police are forced, or encouraged, to book everyone for every infringment. I believe this is driven by a financial interest the state governments have in the fines. That is certainly percieved by many people.

I have long advocated the disconnection of the proceeds of fines from the state revenue. This could take many forms, like using all fines revenue to subsidise defensive/advanced and learner training programs. That would also create jobs. A more radical solution is instead of paying a fine at all you have to complete and pass a prescribed course delivered by an accreditied private supplier within a reasonable time frame, say 12 months. This would have a far greater benifit to the wayward driver, only penalise a driver identified as breaking the rules and remove all claims the state governments are doing this for the money.

I bet if it were implemented speeding fines would plummet though.

[guzzis3]

I've encountered them. I overtake, pull in in front of them and slow right down to let everyone else through. I love the colour their faces get.

[Pinch]

Flappist, agreed with your highlighting of the points I missed.

Yes I exceed the speed limit to overtake. Much better that I spend less time on the other side of the road. I slow back down straight after so time spent speeding in this regard is minimal. Most people will agree with that. Same with getting past the clown that can only do 100km/h in the overtaking lane. Again, time spent in excess of the speed limit is miniscule.

Most people get done speeding either through long-term complacency (fostered by the invisibility of the highway patrol) or though their entrenched driving style. Some people just don't concentrate.

I have not heard of anyone being caught for speeding in the two situations above, but would be happy to hear of examples. If I was caught in this manner I would fight it.

[guzzis3]

If your referring to people getting done for speeding in an overtaking lane to get past others, or speeding while overtaking I know plenty of people done that way. In fact years ago one of the favourite spots for radar traps was the end of an overtaking lane. Gotcha.

The police should have the power to book people for speeding, but they should only use that power if they are driving dangerously. In fact there should only be one charge, dangerous driving, and exceeding the speed limit should be just cause for that charge. Symantics I suppose, but it would re-enforce the point rather than merely the letter of the law.