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] Mass Rally for Speed Tolerances, Sun Oct 29th

Discussion in 'VIC' started by ForumBot, Oct 7, 2006.

  1. Added to Calendar by: Lil

    On Sunday October 29th, a mass protest rally will be held in the city of Melbourne to demand at least 10km/h tolerance, before speeding fines are issued by speed camera's.
    Motorists should not be fined for speeds of only a few kilometers over the pos...

    ... more

    This is an automated posting of an Events Calendar entry.

  2. Why do people keep on repeating the furfy about ADRs having a plus or minus 10% tolerance for speeos. ADRs allow for a speedo to overstate your speed by a small margin but not to understate it.
    If your vehicle is compliant with the ADRs, and your speedo says you are not speeding, then you will not be 'inadvertantly' speeding.

    There are good reasons to oppose the silly tolerances currently in force for speed cameras, but if the promoters of this protest continue to rely on mistruths, then they expose themselves to accusations of ignorance and easy rebuttal.
  3. lil - that date you last posted was november the 5th?? error or has the date changed?
  4. Chuck a GPS on your bike and find out how your spedo reads, can be really interesting. My SRV250 is spot on till 95 then it starts to get a bit 'optimistic', 110 on the spedo is really 103. At least I know why people blast past me so much of the time.
  5. O.k. Moike, give us some better reasons. The more arguments we have against their policy, the more weight that's leant to our position.

    Cheers Scheff.
  6. It's Oct 29th .. I spoke to the organiser yesterday and received a flyer and email.
  7. thanks mouth. have they se4t a location? or is it on the steps of parliment house?
  8. Details are in the calendar entry, as per the first post.
  9. ADR 18/03 defines the current set of ruling ADR regulations for motor vehicles. It may be found here: http://rvcs-prodweb.dot.gov.au/files/ADR 1803.pdf

    Let's draw people's attention to Page 10, Section 5.3.

    What this is essentially saying is that at an actual 100kph, anything from an indicated 100 - 114kph is allowable, but anything displaying less than 100kph when the actual speed is 100kph, is not allowable under ADR.

    There was a time in the past when the +/-10% rule used to apply, but this has since been plugged by amendments to the ADR spec.

    I wholly agree that it is easily arguable that anything less than 10% in excess of a posted speed limit, but no less than 6kph in excess, is wholly reasonable on the basis that it is almost impossible to both monitor the road in a safe fashion and check the speedometer so frequently that a vehicle's speed does not drift above the posted speed limit by more than a few kph.

    It should be possible to argue that monitoring the road conditions is of more importance than being constantly distracted by having to look at the speedometer every 5 seconds to ensure compliance with the speed limit within 3kph as per the current legislation is sustained.

    Arguing on the basis of outdated legislation is going to fail miserably.
  10. Hi Stew,
    I think your maths is back to front.

    The first part of the formula;

    0<= v1-v2 says that the indicated speed must always be higher than the actual speed


    v1 = indicated speed = 100
    v2 = actual speed = 95


    v1-v2 = 5, which is greater than zero

    For the other side of the equation, the difference of the speeds must be less than 10% of the actual speed + 4 kph. So for the same example;

    0.1 v2 = 9.5 + 4 = 13.5


    v1 - v2 = 5 which is less than 13.5,

    So (if anyone is still reading this.... ;) )

    A speedo that shows 100kph when your are actually doing 95kph is ok.

    If you had a speed that showed 100 when you where doing say, 106 then you break the first part of the rule

    v1 = 100, v2 = 106

    0 <= v1 - v2

    0 <= 100 - 106

    0 <= -6 Doesn't work, so that speedo wouldn't meet the adrs.


  11. All cars up until the time the ADR's were changed had the +/-10% tolerance. The basis is valid.

    Vic greed scameras should at least have the same tolerance as the ADR's.
  12. although that 10% ADR stuff is wishy washy I think they need to get right to the point that it is just plain good sense and say we are sick of paying more attention to the speedo than the road ... bottom line top line....
  13. My maths is fine Mark. Read again. ;)
  14. Stew, where did I go wrong in my logic then ? (Please note I'm being friendly in this email and am not trying to be a smart arz.)

    The adr's would have to be dumber than I would have even imaginged that a speedo was allowed to show a speed under the actual speed. But then again :shock:


    Mark :? :grin: :? :grin: :?
  15. Mark, your logic is fine. So was mine. The quote that I asked you to read again, from me, was this one:

    I am saying the exact same thing you're saying. You set about to prove me wrong, presumably because you misread the above statement.

    Read that statement again, carefully, and let me know how either my maths is wrong, or where I ever said that a speedo indicating less than actual is allowable.

    I did not.

    Oh, and to be clear, I didn't think you were being a smart-arz, just as I'm not reacting with any anger here in case you think I am. I am just succinctly clarifying the point.
  16. +1 on the aforementioned statement... monitoring the road conditions is of far greater importance to me than checking my speedo every couple of seconds to keep within 3km/h of the speed limit!!

    I will be turning up in support of the rally if the above is the main point being argued...
  17. Hi everyone,

    Apologies in advance for the long post.

    My name is Steve, and while I am not officially organising this protest, I am speaking on the organiser's behalf. Thanks for your interest, and thank you also for raising a few issues here, in which respects we will take care to tread carefully regarding our contentions. We apologise for the apparent emphasis on the previous ADR regulations, as obviously the main point to be made is that the camera tolerances are simply unreasonable because they greatly overemphasise the importance of regulating one's speed as compared to simply watching the road. It unfairly penalises riders and drivers who ARE watching the road, because they are - ironically - doing the safe thing rather than the strictly "legal" thing. In this respect, the whole road safety message has gone way overboard and is well beyond rationalisation. To call it revenue raising is entirely justified, and the term "highway robbery" is probably not entirely unfair either.

    The main point we are making is that it is simply impractical and unreasonable to expect motorists to pay that much attention to their exact speed (even assuming, of course, that they do indeed have the means to so accurately judge their speed to begin with, which is a relevant yet relatively minor issue), because at that point it is realistically irrelevant, arguably even detrimental, to road safety.

    On the ADR note - whilst the current ADR (as linked to by Cathar) does indeed specify a totally different requirement for calibration/accuracy, it is important to note a few things:
    1. That particular ADR (18/03) applies only to vehicles manufactured from the second half of this year (1st July onwards).
    2. Previous ADRs had different requirements this one, 18/00, is the one that had the original +/- 10% rule. Subsequent iterations eg 18/02 which began in '93, had the no under-reading policy. Here is 18/00: http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Leg...tattachments/C15EA8E854DE7D22CA2571CD001FC137
    It applied, as far as we can tell, from cars built in 1988 until 1993. Since roadworthiness certificates do not actually require checking speedo calibration (only that they have a working odometer and display speed in km/h rather than mph), vehicles from before 1993 (of which there are plenty on the roads) are entirely within reason, allowed to have speedos that under-read by up to 10%. This is a legitimate claim, but as some of you guys have stated, it should not and will not be the central focus of this campaign/rally.
    3. ADRs are design and manufacturing rules - they cannot be instated retrospectively, especially when there are a large number of vehicles still on the road that were manufactured to different regulations at the time.

    Thank you to everyone who has expressed interest or given input for this rally, it is appreciated and your input has been and will be taken on board.

    If you would like a copy of our (now amended) flyer, please email us at speedcamerajustice AT yahoo.com.au. We would really appreciate the efforts of anyone who would like to email the flyer around, post it up in their workplace, tell their friends, photocopy a whole lot and hand them out, whatever - the snowball effect is extremely helpful and any efforts are greatly appreciated.


    Edit: thank you also to the site admin for publicising this - much appreciated.