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.

VIC Really good resource for speeding fines

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by thetramp64, Oct 11, 2006.

  1. http://www.fightfines.info/5.4.html

    Disclaimer: Nothing on this site is Legal Advice, and if in doubt see a lawyer.

    Having said that imagine if everyone followed the advice and challenged speed cam fines,,,,,,,,,

    mmmm the pain that would cause the courts, the police, etc..... :p

  2. Lol, I might just have a quick read over this site - nice find !! :grin: :grin:
  3. Great resource. Don't vote for Bracskie!
    And lets get rid of that fat cow Police comissioner who passed all these bullshit laws!
  4. Say what?? Since when has Christine Nixon been a Member of Parliament and "passing laws"??
  5. Everyone who is issued with a fine for travelling within 10% of the speed limit should contest it with that defence.

    Unlikely the police will go to the trouble of producing the documents and certificates.

    Even if the cases are lost - any cop who has been dragged into court over a low-range speeding fine more than once, is likely not to bother fining people for 2k's over anymore. Viva la discretion.
  6. I realise it's probably not a very popular opinion on motoring forums, but why not, instead of saying "don't vote for XX government", just DON'T BREAK THE LAW.

    Revolutionary idea, I know, but you have nothing to complain about if you aren't driving/riding like a complete moron.

  7. KN - the issue is exactly the law.

    Besides just us knowing it is more dangerous to have worried people checking their speedo's every 3 seconds instead of watching the road, the enforcing of such low tolerances is unconstitutional.

    You don't get ripped off on fruit and veggies at Coles and Woollies because of equipment measuring standards which are legislated and controlled.

    You receive a full pay-check because timing devices are accurate and your boss can not accuse you of knocking off early etc.

    Accurate measures are what our economy and much of law is based on - in the olden days when I would swap you 3 kilos of meat for 8 kilos of corn and your youngest daughter[ :p ] fixing of weights for dishonest gain was an incredibly commonplace crime... and one of the first to be policed in organised communities.

    By all means - if speed cameras were perfectly certified and so were speedometers, there would be no argument. Anyone caught speeding WAS speeding, and the punishment is at the discretion of the court and change or exemption is a matter for government as selected by the people.

    However - this is not the case.

    There is the allowance for inaccuracy which is unfair in the application of the law, and the only reason it was allowed is because it makes people money.

    For THAT reason the constitution protects us against that... except in this case, because Vic state gov has yet to be properly stood up to.
  8. Easier said than done at times, unfortuntely though the law doesn't allow for judgement calls.

    Wait till you get your first high-powered sports bike :D
  9. +1

    Or even your first 250!
  10. Instead of us voting and choosing who we want to govern our state, how do you suppose it should happen? Should there be one designated government elector placed by either ancestry or ability to skull stawberry milk? Perhaps we should let potential leaders battle each other using military force to obtain office?

    Either way, I see your point that it would be very easy to blindly adhere to laws (even when that is not always possible) and (quite rightly) suffer the consequences of breaaking those laws.

    You know not to do it so ANY penaltiy is fair! Bow to the new world order! insubordination will not be tolerated. Relinquish your ideals and obey the true leader! :tantrum: :tantrum: :tantrum:

    :roll: :LOL:
  11. I'll address each of your responses in turn, beginning with ktulu, as he is the only one who bothered making a valid argument rather than barely intelligible nonsense... Plus, ktulu's name name references a metallica song, and as such, he is instantly superior to the rest of you :p

    Gotta say I agree with nearly everything you say. (Except the whole coles thing... i feel i DO get ripped off by them ;) )

    However. The issue is not that our government is the problem. I don't recall seeing any proposed legislation by the opposition stating they would remove speed cameras or indeed in any way change the current laws. Changing from labor to liberal to national to greens or family first will not solve the problem. The only way you will have the issue resolved is by being heard by whichever government is in power. So instead of whinging on a forum, do what your parents used to... write with a pen on some paper, and post it to your MP.

    My own personal stance on the bracks' government is that it does an alright job. If the choice is between having to drive at 50km/h and having our public school and education system f**cked over (jeff kennett come on down), I'm going to choose driving slower, over national stupidity.

    That said, our speed camera's ARE a revenue generating device - they are hidden, and placed in areas where motorists will be most likely to be speeding, rather than where accidents occur - such as near the bottom of large hills. In England speed cameras are not hidden. In fact they are painted bright yellow, in plain sight, and their locations are freely provided by the government on the internet - because (and this is the important part) they are actually trying to reduce accidents in those areas. We need a similar system. If in this situation you get booked for speeding by one of those cameras, you are without doubt, an idiot.

    It's true that your speedo may be out, that the camera or radar may be out - but nothing says you have to toe the line between legal and illegal speed 100% of the time! The argument that you "have to check your speedo every 3 seconds" is complete rubbish. If you can't maintain a constant speed in a vehicle, ride/drive a couple of k's slower until you develop the skill.

    So you can't always avoid speeding. Hell even I, from way up here on my mightiest of high-horses, have been fined for speeding. There is no excuse, I didn't see the speed limit change. Simple. So I got stung a couple of hundred for 12k's over. Do you all want to guess what I do now? (No prizes, sorry) That's right! I check my speed and the limit where I'm travelling, fairly frequently. If getting a fine makes me a safer driver, then so be it.

    "It's better to be late than dead on time" so the saying goes.

    Whipped - I agree that having a high powered bike with a twitchy throttle can contribute to a speeding problem, and yes jbot, with a 250, and a your L's (which I've just obtained) I can fully agree that learners sometimes have more important things to concentrate on than their exact speed - all the more reason to build up the required skills at a slightly slower speed that you're unlikely to break a law at if you go a bit faster for a couple of seconds. Your argument is not that you can't obey the law, it's that you don't want to.

    And finally seany - your attempted facetiousness strikes right at the heart of the problem. People like you spend their time whining about their government instead of trying to change it. And when someone offers the chance of a solution, you try to drown in it a torrent sarcasm and (I hesitate to use the word) "witticism". As I said above, the answer is not to get rid of "braxie" or depose john howard. The answer is to do something constructive that helps. As Ktulu rightly said: The government needs to stood up to - the question is, can you be bothered?

    In the manner of Jerry Springer, here is my final thought:
    Please don't misunderstand. I am not advocating the blind adherance to any law passed by any government. I am not saying that the current laws are correct, or that they cater for the wide range of circumstances which may lead to speeding. I do advocate fighting any fines you receive - this in itself will send a message to councils and governments that we aren't happy with the current situation and want it changed. What I am saying is that you cared enough, you would do something. That these problems can also be avoided by modifying your riding/driving habits. If you drive 2k's an hour under the speed limit, you may lose 30 seconds off your overall travel time over the course of a day, but you've immediately given yourself a margin for error, in which you will still be adhering to the legal limit.

    You all know the BAC limit is .05. So tell me, do you have "one last one" before you go home from the pub, knowing that you'll be pushing the limit, or do you say "no thanks, I'm driving/riding" and say your goodbyes?

    Your answer to this question will most likely dictate the following:
    If you're the person who has "one last one", you probably disagree with everything I've said here, and hate me profusely. If however you avoid that drink, you probably have enough sense to see that I'm not rambling like a madman, and that perhaps there is some logic to my words.

    I welcome your comments.

  12. thanks for the link thetramp64

    ]{ing Nothing - dooood, what a reply, you obviously have though about this! :LOL:

    i do agree however that sometimes, just sometimes a little over is fine :oops:
  13. If that's your conscious choice, then you need to accept the possible consequences - that's all.

    And sorry about the huge double post, every time i try to edit one the server times out....grrrr.
  14. This is a thread that encourages people to challenge the fines, thus stand up and do something about an unjust situation.

    At no point did your first post makes no mention of agreement with the idea of challenging the law and simply suggests you think we should accept and obey the law.
    Now you're saying that we should challenge the law. :? :? :?

    Which one is it? If you're sticking with "challenge the law" then we agree. If not, no harm done. :)

    I never drowned out an opportunity to challenge the law. I drowned out a voice telling me I should accept and obey the law (that being what you said). I never also said anyone should be voted out of office, but I will reserve my right to vote against the status quo if i so desire. :)

    Whether or not I spend too much time whinging is a personal issue and I'll thank you to mind your own business. Who's to say it's not medical? I've never had a speeding fine so I couldn't have that much to whinge about. I'd guess it's a genetic disorder or the like. :)

    If it interests you, I rarely have more than 1 drink on a night when I'm driving and never more than 2. Why? Simplely because driving under the influence is a proven danger. Driving at 3kph over a speed limit is not necesarily dangerous. Also, unlike drink driving, 3kph over the limit is easily done without knowledge of the driver because our speedos aren't that accurate. :)
  15. Seany - Challenge laws, yes, but you don't have to break them to do so. I never said in my initial post that you shouldn't try to bring about change, but IMHO if you knowingly break a law, you are quite simply an idiot, and should be punished for your stupidity if nothing else.
    Drink driving is not necessarily dangerous, and neither is speeding, they both depend on circumstance and the corresponding situation you are placed in, and your reaction to it.

    In my situation of receiving a fine, it has made me more conscious of my speed, because it hit me where it hurts... my wallet! I've also rolled a car, but to be honest the effect of that was somewhat dampened because I walked away (slightly shakey) without so much as a bruise or scratch.

    The point is, it's not that hard to modify your driving or riding to suit your environment, and really, what do you loose by travelling @ 48km/h in a 50 zone, or 97 in 100? If the possibility of having to pay lots of money doesn't deter you, then you can't complain when it happens. If you cared that much about being fined you would make sure, regardless of your situation that you did not "stray over" the limit.

    What do you think would happen if the cost of the fines was reduced? "Hey I can afford to speed, I go faster and IF I get caught it's only 10 bux! Bargain!"
    The whole point of it being a lot of money is because you won't want to pay it and are therefore less inclined to break the law, and more inclined to be careful and conscious of how you are travelling. Not paying attention to what you're doing in a vehicle travelling at high speeds means that one day your luck will run out and you'll cause yourself and probably others some serious harm. If the prospect of a $200 fine keeps you from that, then I'm all for it.

    Oh and I can't get the image of your "speedos" not being "accurate" out of my head :) ....so thanks for that....
  16. seany, realistically, who cares?
    if you break the law.......you break the law
    i see ]{n's point and basically at the end of the day he is dead right regardless of any kind of discussion.

    i consciously break the law in this respect everyday and accept whatever comes my way in relation to it.

    AFAIK there is no argument
  17. ....ad to ]{n's previous post that posted speed limits are governed by the "exchange of speed" between 2 vehicles passing each other in different directions.

    sure i might round 35 at 95 but wotif?

    i go 95 they go 60 that makes the exchange 155....the mind boggles
  18. Not to challenge you too much, but I think you are missing one other point. Some laws are intrinsically bad laws, and as such derserve disobeying or need to be changed.

    Some examples are the prohibition, segregation and a lot of the temperence inspired laws circa 1900s.

    The key point about laws is very simple. A good law has the support of the people and will be obeyed as it reflects what the society of the time wants. A bad law one that usually only reflects a narrow section of society or a narrow viewpoint won't. The other thing about bad law is usually it brings down the law makers.
    Arguably the speed cam laws are the latter and as such "the peasants are revolting"
  19. Possibly although I feel there is a place for civil disobedience at times. Nonetheless, it doesn't cout as civil disobedience if you believe you are obeying the law and are subsequently fined because you didn't have a speed mesuring device that was as accurate as the device used to enforce the law. In the absence of allowences for inconsistancy in the devices provided to us, a fine in that case is unfair.
    Agreed. However I would make a guess that the circumstances that make DD dangerous arrise more often than those that make 103 in a 100 zone equally as dangerous
    Good. You're a safer driver. I'm happy for you. :)
    It's no skin off my nose to slow down. Of course the fines can be avoided but it doesn't make the tactics any less unfair. Also, with people driving slower than the limit to be sure they are safe (10% would do it) you run the risk of holding up others leading to impatient road users taking risks to get past you. It's not your fault but there is a contribution (if only moral) if there is a resulting accident. :)
    All psychological research has shown us that the only factor in effective enforcement is the likelihood of being caught rather than the punishment. The amount of the fine is meaningless. If it's $10 or $100,000 it won't stop people speeding if they think they won't be caught. Police presence creates an awareness of enforcement and gives the perception that detection is likely, so would work better than fines. I think we'd be better of without the fines given we already have the demerit point system. If people are caught often enough they loose their licence. Seems like a fair punishment to me. :)

    You must be aware that I'm not talking about people clearly driving at excessive speeds. I'm only talking about speeds which our speedometers are unable to detect or display. I'd hradly accuse someone of being an idiot for knowingly speeding if it's 3kph over the limit. Especially since they don't know they're doing it. :)
    I'll send you pictures if you like. :wink: :LOL:
  20. True, but do you deserve to be punished for breaking a law you thought you were obeying, based on the device designed to measure speed (that meets legal standards) telling you that you are under the limit?
    That's the difference. It's a consious decision for you. Many Victorians every day make the consious decision to obey the law and get fined regardless. It makes sence they're getting shitty about it. :)