bensyd

The tolerance on fixed speed cameras in Victoria is 2 km/h. For mobile it is 3 km/h or 3%.

Someone caught doing 65km/h (as the Vic police minister was) will get a fine for travelling at an "alleged" speed of 63 km/h. Punitive speeding laws like that tell me the government either sees a fat cash cow that it can milk or that, as a nation, we are so completely unable to operate a motor vehicle safely that we need the government to watch us like a hawk, lest we hurt ourselves.

Either way it's pathetic.

BadgerBoi

Travel in excess of the limit, wrap yourself around a light pole and die or end up a vegetable for the rest of your life, fine, go for it, I really couldn't care, just make sure you're self-funded.

Take a bystander with you, as often happens, then that's a different matter. It's not just "ourselves" that get hurt, is it.

None of which relates, of course, to foreigners who come to Australia, knowingly break the law then whine when they get caught - ie the premise of this thread.

bensyd

There's a difference between speeding and dangerous driving. @:-)

Despite our draconian speeding laws we don't have a fantastic road safety record.

I don't understand the fascination with speed limits that we have in this country. But I feel so much safer knowing all those reckless hoons are getting their comeuppance for doing 65 in a 60 zone, or 115 in a 110 zone.

turtlemichael

I also have been done a couple of times over the years on that same road. I had to pay up. So should you. Did you notice the makeshift crosses on the side of the road? Kids and adults on bikes, and pedestrians, have been killed by speeding drivers along that highway. Pay up and take it as a lesson.

Christopher

I'm not a fan of the constant changes in speed limit, of which – as you say – the main road over the Blue Mountains is an egregious example, but it's common in Australia and also in the UK. It seems to me it has two problems:

• It encourages the idea that the speed limit is the speed at which one ought to be travelling (i.e. no less, I mean – I'm not talking about people who want to exceed the limit), whereas drivers ought to be encouraged to use their judgement and, if necessary, travel at a lower speed, depending on road and weather conditions, amount of traffic, and so on. Because we now have a situation where the speed limit is reduced almost every time there's a slightly tricky bend or a brow of hill to be negotiated, drivers are discouraged from using their judgement.
• It fosters "driving by the speedometer", whereby drivers spend more time than they ought to checking what speed their doing and less time than they ought to actually watching the road.

The UK used to have, essentially, three speed limits with very rare exceptions - 30 (mph) for built-up areas, 60 for non-built-up areas, and 70 for motorways and rural dual carriageways. Now there are multiple speed limits, and a young son of a friend of mine counted 12 changes of limit in a 10-mile trip the other week. This strikes me as simply ridiculous, to be honest.

Christopher

No doubt true, but it's also true that most people aren't going to be bothered to challenge something like that in court, simply because they'll think (with good reason) that it's more trouble than it's worth. I guess too that the authorities know this.

BadgerBoi

^

bensyd

And that is the thrust of my argument. There are plenty of times of when the road conditions suggest a slower speed than posted limit. People are like sheep and they assume that the speed limit means that's the speed that is safe. On a clear day with a dry road and no traffic, I will get a ticket for travelling at 125 in a 110 zone but on a wet day with poor visibility in and heavy traffic I won't get one for travelling at 110 in a 110 zone. And that excludes the condition and age of the vehicle.

You don't encourage sensible driving by treating drivers like children.

BadgerBoi

DELETED

bensyd

Don't worry chief. If I was on a "wacky mission", I wouldn't be wasting my time on here.

BadgerBoi

I'm not worried in the least, "chief".
(Plonk)

bensyd

Great.

Christopher

Exactly. But I suppose the constant changing of speed limit along country roads is an example of what some of the popular press likes to call "the nanny state".

thadocta

To some extent, and there are only two examples of this in the Blue Mountains, from Penrith to Lithgow, a distance of about 90km, the speed limit are: 110, 90, 70 (nanny state, local MP had an accident here, so lowered from 90 to 70), 80, 60, 80, 60, 80, 60 (roadworks), 70, 60 (roadworks), 80, 70 (nanny state, too many people not driving to the conditions), 60, 80, 60, 80, 60, 80, 60, 40 (roadworks), 60, 90, 80, 90, 70, 60. TOO many spped limit changes for such a length of highway.

The non-roadworks 60's are all in residential/shopping strips, so the high pedestrian level is the rationale for the lower speed limit, but the rest is just nanny state.

The only reason I can claim my good traffic record is that, as a past holder of a pilot's licence, I have developped a "scan" and I maintain good situational awareness, meaning I am always looking for signage and so on, but this won't help tourists or those new to an area with a sudden speed limit change.

Dave

Christopher

Well, I wouldn't count roadworks, and neither would I count reduced speed limits for where the road goes through a built-up area (the fact that the main route from Sydney to the west of the state goes through the middle of suburban areas and along main shopping streets of towns is a separate point... further west still one has to drive through Bathurst and then the middle of Orange, which can have some bad traffic jams – in addition, this makes life more unpleasant for the people that live there, though to be fair an Orange by-pass is being built).

However, why do we have 70, 80, and 90? (I accept that 110 is different because, presumably, that's on the road that leads off the F4 past Penrith.) It's all too much, imho.