Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Ethics of Vic Police's Policies on Speeding

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by OutbreakMonkey, Sep 4, 2006.

  1. Recently a family member got pinched for 64kph in a 60 zone. He was issued with a $130 fine and lost a couple of points. This got me thinking to the often toated 'fact' that ADR requirements for speedometers are anything within +10% accuracy is legal.
    Well I did a bit of research and found the actual document. It's ADR1803 and the important bit from it is the following equation which governs whether a speedo is legal or not.

    0 ≤ V1 - V2 ≤ 0.1V2 + 6kph

    Where V1 is indicated speed and V2 is actual speed.
    So for the people that don't like math here is an example of a legal speedo.
    Indicated speed is 60kph, actual speed is 66kph.

    0 ≤ (66 - 60) ≤ 0.1 x 66 + 6kph
    0 ≤ 6 ≤ 12.6

    So this speedometer that reads 6kph more than actual speed is still legal!
    Yet if you were doing 66kph actual when your speedo reads 60kph, you would be fined.

    In my opinion this is a blatant ethical abuse by the Victorian Government.
    I plan on submitting this information to many media outlets and possibly speaking to a law firm about the possibility of a class action against the Victorian Police should enough interest from effected parties arise from media scrutiny.

    Feedback appreciated.
  2. You should also take a look at the public statements of the former Police minister, in which he stated that he understood that about 90% of speedos over-read and that if people were concerned that their speedo may be under-reading, they should travel at 10% under the legal limit, as indicated in their car (ie. if the limit is 60, you should travel at 54 by your speedo).
    What this means is that he has effectively warned you of the risk, and is therefore not liable for you taking the risk of being fined. Sorry, but I don't think you can win this one.
    (Not saying it's right and fair, BTW)
  3. Don't you just love tha BS rules...

    Arizona had a whole bunch of permanent speed cameras installed, they stopped the idea after almost all of them needed constant replacement and we costing way more $$ than they ever made from being shot apart... Maybe we shoulod take a leaf out of their book....
  4. I'm all for the enforcement of speeding (provided they don't neglect other rules like they have been) but there has to be some leeway. If we can't be exactly certain of the accuracy of our cars speedometers, how can we accurately keep to the limit?
  5. This has been used as a defence in court, both in NSW and in WA. It failed both times......dunno why, logic says it should be watertight, but alas, the law really is an ass. (no offence to ass's intended, and no ass was harmed in the making of this post).
  6. Ahh but see as far as the law's concerned you're not supposed to drive/ride as close as possible to the limit - it's the legal maximum you're allowed to travel at, not a recommendation of how fast you should go.
    Edit: Don't agree with the methods with which speeding is enforced but I reckon their reply is just going to be something along the lines of "..if your speedo's only 10% accurate then you should always travel at least 10% below the speed limit".
  7. Actually it wasn't the shootings that caused some of Arizona's cameras to go - it was the fact that they weren't making the money they thought they would :LOL:

    The UK is the place where cameras have really been attacked. There's an interesting series of bits and pieces on camera protests (all types, not just speed) at http://www.notbored.org/camera-protests.html

  8. Feh - can you imagine the chaos, not to say carnage, if a large number of people started doing 54 in all 60 zones, 72 in all 80s and 90 in all 100s, just to be sure?
  9. The only thing that'd be dangerous about that would be the cars still trying to drive at the speed limit. I remember seeing a UK report which found the most dangerous speed to travel at was anything that was more than (I think) 10% above or below the average speed of traffic. So doing 54 when everyone's doing 60 is dangerous - but so is doing 60 if everyone else is doing 54. That's why these Government campaigns encouraging everyone to slow down are stupid - unless everyone does it all at once it's only making the road more dangerous.
  10. When I got my driver's licence, the instructor actucally deducted 2 points because I was traveling at 55kph in a 60 zone. The conditions were ideal and traffic was light so he felt there was no reason to travel below the limit. I questioned it and he said that we are actually required to travel as close as possible to the limit (as long as we can do it safely) to avoid holding up trafic flow. :?

    He also added that he wasn't about to let anyone get their licence with a perfect score on his watch. Bastard. :? :LOL:
  11. It is a load of shite, if they wish to implement such stringent regulations they should pay the cost of retrofitting all calls with speedo's that are accurate enough.
  12. I know I've done 30kph in a 60 zone to deliberately antagonise a cop car (that was tailgating me) and never got booked for it :grin:. Though do sometimes wish there was a law against tractors doing 10-20kph in 100 zones :mad: .
  13. This report from Canada is one of the best on setting speed limits. It's a shame our legislators don't consider it...

    The Objectives were

    The primary objectives of the project were to examine speed limit setting procedures, and to
    collect and analyze road, traffic, and safety information to address the following questions.
    1. Are Ministry speed limits appropriate and consistent?
    2. Are there areas where the speed limit should be changed (raised or lowered)?
    3. Are there areas where the speed limit could be eliminated?

    Do you think number 3 would ever get on the menu here? :roll:

    The conclusion was that a lot of roads should have the limit raised to 110 or 120, some reduced to 90 and further study should be done into removing speed linits in remote areas.
  14. This blog post and its comments explore the issue a little too. (My mate Cam rather unkindly uses the Comennara as an example 'cos it was the site of my biggest stack!)
  16. I have it on good authority that they are easy to reprogram if there's no one around Martin :LOL:

    Not that any one here would dream of doing so...
  17. Radar guns and cameras have been legislated to be defined as "scientifically accurate devices" in Victoria, even though there is a mountain of evidence to suggest that they are far from accurate in many circumstances with a number of well documented cases that highlight their inaccuracy. The infamous Datsun 120Y clocked at a speed well in excess of the top speed of the vehicle being one recent incident.

    Multiple vehicles, sign-posts, fences, brick or stone walls, a larger vehicle even up to 1 kilometer behind a smaller vehicle, tram safety barricades, lamp posts, and so on can all cause a radar device to give a false reading.

    Speed cameras and radars also need to be recalibrated fairly regularly (daily, weekly, or monthly), but time and again we see instances where the govt. just hands over control to some private company to dodge the bullet when said company cuts costs and doesn't calibrate the cameras for years at a time.

    If you don't agree with a pack of faulty devices being run by a dodgy private company, and overseen by goverment who has legislated away reality and defines the faulty devices as scientifically accurate, and decide to take matters in your own hands to obscure your license plate to avoid receiving fines for a non-offense, then that too is an offense. In short, the govt. has decided that it's okay to force everyone to take their chances that some faulty camera isn't going to hit them up for some speeding offense.

    The govt. then has defined a speeding offense as being so severe, and applied a guilty until proven innocent mode of law to such offenses, and done its best to legislate away any possible chance of ever being found innocent, that people's lives can be severely disrupted through loss of license, all on the roll of the dice on whether or not some poorly maintained and uncalibrated speed camera operating in a world of obstacles known to evoke false readings happens to decide that your license is to be disqualified all for going about your business and abiding by the law at the time.

    Yes, there are people who speed and get picked up. That says nothing for the vast majority of law abiding drivers who don't speed, and yet must still be getting caught because the speed camera revenues keep on increasing, year and after year.

    The system is so crooked, that the govt. then legislates that the government mandated ADR specification for speedometer accuracy be over-ruled when it comes to deciding whether or not a speeding offense has taken place. The govt. will happily give you a vehicle with a govt. mandated ADR approved speedometer that if you adhere to speed limits according that that govt. mandated speedometer may still result in the govt. handing you a speeding fine, all the while saying that it's your responsibility to know the accuracy of your govt. ADR approved speedometer. The first you know about it is when a fine comes in the mail, as well possibly having to pay higher insurance premiums as a result. "Thank you very much for the donation, you dangerous speeding idiot!".

    The public knows the score better than the govt thinks, that it's all a huge revenue raising exercise, and the govt. and road safety bodies only fool themselves if they think that public opinion will be swayed by mass media campaigns and roadside signs claiming that cameras save lives.

    Just the other day I was riding down the Monash. Yeah, I spotted the uniformed officer in the unmarked police car discretely behind me in another lane who had been following me for the last 10kms. I could see him just waiting to pounce the moment that I went more than a few kph over the limit. I was following another car who kept on changing lanes in front of me without indicating. Did the officer pull up the driver for pulling dangerous road behavior that would collide with another vehicle because no indication was given? Nope. He was concerned about people who might be travelling a few kms over the limit when travelling safely with the flow of the traffic.

    Safety? My butt it's about safety.
  18. There was a bike cop coming in along Lygon St this morning whose behaviourwas a little erratic (to say the least)... . First off he ignored the two cars parked in the Clearwaywho were causing a serious bank up of traffic (no tickets on their windows either - I checked).

    When the traffic stopped at the Glenlyon Road lights just past Brunswick Road, he did a u-turn rode about 20 metres back did another u-turn and then came back up the tram lines riding through two safety zones (one had passengers waiting). No particular reason that I could see.

    Then he rode right up the tram lines outside the cemetery (the traffic was flowing quite freely so there was no need) through another safety zone. (there was no room to filter). Did another u-turn, rode back a 100 metres or so then u-turned again and merged back in at the front of the line (after going through the safety zone on the corner of Lygon and Princes St ) Then he took off very quickly from the lights...

    I caught up with him further down in Carlton. He was on the right hand side of the road facing the wrong direction booking a cyclist (the cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet so I assume that's why). Then he took off again, slotted in behind me for a while and roared off when I turned left into Victoria Parade. I saw him again a couple of minutes later turning right into Exhibition Street where he came up past the cars doing a hook turn and sat in front of them. Last I saw was him taking off changing lanes frequently to weave through the traffic up Exhibition Street - not an indicator in sight.

    Not a good example - especially going through the tram safety zones.... :roll:
  19. They are allowed to go through tram safety zones.
    Maybe he was looking for someone/thing in particular.
  20. Didn't look like it particularly, he looked to be just dithering around.

    While they are allowed to go through safety zones, they are not supposed to unless they have to. Especially when there's people in them.