Police Wrap – 2 July

johnboy 3 July 2009 41

1. Joint RTA/Police bust:

    ACT Policing officers this morning (Friday, July 3) issued 80 Traffic infringement Notices (TINs), mostly for speeding offences, during an operation aimed at safe winter driving.

    From 6am today police operated laser speed detection on Barry Drive, Caswell Drive, Belconnen Way and the Gungahlin Drive extension in the Belconnen area, then later at Springvale Drive in Hawker, on Monaro Crescent in Red Hill and within the speed-restricted roadworks on Yamba Drive, in Phillip.

    Police were also joined by RTA vehicle inspectors.

    The highest speed detected this morning was 129 km/h in an 80 km/h zone on Caswell Drive. The driver who committed this offence was an unaccompanied learner. This offence attracted a fine of $1647, plus a further $90 for being an unaccompanied learner.

    On Belconnen Way, another driver was detected at 103 km/h in a 60 km/h zone.

    RTA inspectors issued 20 defect notices, mostly for inoperable/faulty lights and tyres with insufficient tread.

2. Thuggies collared:

    Two male youths will appear in the ACT Childrens Court this morning (Friday, July 3) on charges related to an aggravated robbery in Griffith on July 1.

    Police arrested the two youths after performing a traffic stop on a white Holden Commodore on Canberra Ave, Kingston around 10.27pm last night (July 2).

    Police will allege that the youths, both from Canberra’s southern suburbs, aided and abetted an aggravated robbery on three teenage males walking home from Manuka on Captain Cook Crescent around midnight on July 1.

    It will be alleged that the pair were among others who were in two vehicles which stopped on Captain Cook Crescent, where the three teenage victims were threatened, and had their wallets and mobile phones stolen.

    The two youths, one aged 16 and the other 17 years, were held in the Regional Watch House last night and will appear in court today.


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
41 Responses to Police Wrap – 2 July
Filter
Order
cranky cranky 3:57 pm 05 Jul 09

Constant reference is made to the lack of indicating as a factor in poor driving displayed by ACT motorists.

I seldom find that the lack of indication is a problem, the move usually being ‘signalled’ by a driver positioning the vehicle for the move prior to when an indicator is required.

The nonsense of indicating when merging is bureaucracy gone mad. Where else is the vehicle going but straight ahead, into the narrower carriageway? And the vehicle in front has priority! Does it really add to the information the following driver requires to realise that the vehicle in front is going to move into his path?

More a molehill, not a mountain, in road safety terms.

Spideydog Spideydog 3:23 pm 05 Jul 09

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

SpideyDog – I think we may not be as far from each other’s opinion as we think. My arguments are not that we simply remove all speed limits, but rather that we take a much more balanced approach to safety.

Agreed.

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

Specifically, I would like to see more marked police on the road who target drivers behaving badly, including failing to indicate, tailgating, and stopping those who aren’t in clear and obvious control of their vehicle. I would like to see much better driving training requirements prior to attempting a license test that is much more focussed on car control (as opposed to whether you can putt around the suburbs at 70km/h).

Unfortunately that is a double edged sword my friend. Marked cars are good because the community see the police in action and when they are asked in the policing survey’s “do you see police” they can answer yes. The downside (to catching traffic offenders) is that people tend not to commit traffic offences with a marked Police vehicle in the midst and drive on their best behaviour. Some offences do require an amount of observation to prove the offence, as such you may see a driver initially committing an offence, but they quickly see the police vehicle and “poof” behaviour changes – tailgating is a classic example. The upside is of course, driver behaviour is changed (for however long the police vehicle is present anyways 😉 without necessarily having to enforce.

Unmarked vehicles are great for catching traffic offences ie, tailgating, fail to indicate, driver behaviour. The downside is that the public don’t see the police in action (until they see it pull a vehicle over) and unfortunately forms the public opinion “they obviously aren’t doing anything” which is false.

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

Good luck out there!

Thanks m8. I do appreciate your comments and opinion, even when we don’t necessarily agree on everything 😉

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy 2:54 pm 05 Jul 09

SpideyDog – I think we may not be as far from each other’s opinion as we think. My arguments are not that we simply remove all speed limits, but rather that we take a much more balanced approach to safety.

Specifically, I would like to see more marked police on the road who target drivers behaving badly, including failing to indicate, tailgating, and stopping those who aren’t in clear and obvious control of their vehicle. I would like to see much better driving training requirements prior to attempting a license test that is much more focussed on car control (as opposed to whether you can putt around the suburbs at 70km/h).

As far as my previous comment about NT goes, I am deadly serious. Out there are all manner of dangers, especially at night. Coupled with sensible policing, I’d suggest that road at unlimited speed is considerably safer than our coast road.

Finally, your comment about speeding and stopping distances… that’s fine, but it fails to take into account driver reaction time, which can be trained for significant improvement. Better reaction times make much more of a difference (proportionally) than speed. Remember the ad on tv with the 2 falcons, 1 at 65 and 1 at 60, and the one doing 65 hits the truck? Improve the reaction time by only half a second and neither hit the truck!

All this said, I think I’m done with this debate. My opinion is simply that making drivers more responsible for their actions is more conducive to safe roads than fanatically enforced speed limits. Of course it’s harder, and doesn’t raise as much revenue. But it should still be seen as a higher goal.

Good luck out there!

Spideydog Spideydog 1:51 pm 05 Jul 09

bigred said :

Spidey

Start with No speed limits = more carnage,then compulsory driver training = profiteering for starters.

So are you suggesting that no speed limits on Canberra suburban roads will not equate into more carnage? And you call me irrational ?? Are you also suggesting that there is NO WAY that if compulsory driver training was introduced for ALL driver’s, there would be no chance of profiteering? The amount of 3rd party insurance in our ACT registrations would be whole lot less if there competition? Why wouldn’t it be different for other compulsory requirements, ie driver training …. For the record, I did not say that compulsory driver training would mean profiteering, I said it could leave it open to profiteering. There is a difference.

I think they are perfectly reasonable arguments? Are they irrational to you, merely because it differs from your opinion? I would argue, that is being irrational.

Spideydog Spideydog 1:43 pm 05 Jul 09

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

Of course speed is a factor. I also asserted that in post #27. But it’s NOT a cause in itself. People don’t crash BECAUSE they speed.

I do not mean to assert that by doing x amount of speed (by itself) you are just going to spin off the road and crash. If I have given that impression, I apologise. However, I do not stand back from the fact that speeding needs to be enforced and can be a major contributor to crashes. Whether it be going to fast on a particular windy/curved section of road, going to fast in a built up area to allow sufficient stopping distance or collision avoidance time, if a hazard presents itself.

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

SpideyDog, you assert that if there was no speed limit, there’d be carnage. But in NT they limited the main highway to 130km/h which had previously been unlimited, and fatalities increased! What’s needed is greater driver responsibility, which includes skill and attitude.

You cannot be serious in comparing a middle of nowhere, straight desert highway with suburban Canberra roads in regard to nil speed limits. I am not even going to delve into that, it is ridiculous. But let me clarify, driver attitude is by far more important than skill (skill is required, of course), but attitude cannot be taught. If your magic bullet is to take focus away from speed enforcement and put it squarely on “greater driver responsibility, which includes skill and attitude” What would your program include ?? (I am serious, I am interested to hear your thoughts). I do agree with you that alot of drivers need a far better attitude, mixed with a little more skill.

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

The current approach to road safety is to imply that you are ‘safe’ if you drive below the speed limit. Which is bollocks. And that is what I object to.

That is not what I get out of the road safety messages at all ….. What I get is that speeding greatly increases your stopping distance. Speeding greatly reduces your chances of collision avoidance or minimisation etc etc. Oh, and if you speed you will get fined and lose points on your licence. Not for a second have I thought because of the road safety messages “If I do 60ks in a 60 zone, NOTHING is going to happen, I am completely safe. I wouldn’t be a defensive driver then, would I ??

bigred bigred 9:52 am 05 Jul 09

Spidey

Start with No speed limits = more carnage,then compulsory driver training = profiteering for starters.

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy 8:20 am 05 Jul 09

Of course speed is a factor. I also asserted that in post #27. But it’s NOT a cause in itself. People don’t crash BECAUSE they speed.

SpideyDog, you assert that if there was no speed limit, there’d be carnage. But in NT they limited the main highway to 130km/h which had previously been unlimited, and fatalities increased! What’s needed is greater driver responsibility, which includes skill and attitude.

The current approach to road safety is to imply that you are ‘safe’ if you drive below the speed limit. Which is bollocks. And that is what I object to.

Spideydog Spideydog 11:38 pm 04 Jul 09

bigred said :

Well calm down there spidey ol buddy and make some rational argument, rather then giving a homily.

Tell me what argument I have used that is “irrational”.

Spideydog Spideydog 11:37 pm 04 Jul 09

caf said :

If that were the case, how the hell do racing drivers drive only a couple of metres apart at over 200km/h?

Turns out that racing drivers do have accidents too. Do you reckon they’d have more or less of them if they only went at 100km/h?

If a roo jumped out onto the course, yeah. Got far better chance of stopping or avoiding the roo doing 100 instead of 200. Speed is a factor.

Besides, a race track with race conditions is a stupid comparision as it is in a pretty controlled environment.

bigred bigred 11:31 pm 04 Jul 09

Well calm down there spidey ol buddy and make some rational argument, rather then giving a homily.

caf caf 11:04 pm 04 Jul 09

If that were the case, how the hell do racing drivers drive only a couple of metres apart at over 200km/h?

Turns out that racing drivers do have accidents too. Do you reckon they’d have more or less of them if they only went at 100km/h?

Spideydog Spideydog 10:41 pm 04 Jul 09

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

This thread just goes to show how easily people are brainwashed. Accidents happen due to a wide range of causes, which can usually be summed up as ‘driver mistake’. How quick you’re going will affect the seriousness of an impact, if it occurs. Speeding, in isolation, does not cause accidents. If that were the case, how the hell do racing drivers drive only a couple of metres apart at over 200km/h?

Driver skill and attitude are the main issues, and no amount of revenue raising is going to change that.

Driver skill and attitude are major factors (which is linked to speeding, I might add), but in the crashes that involve excessive speed, if was not present, then the crash could have been avoided or at least minimised. So regardless what what spin people want to put on it, speed is a major factor. I could pretty much guarantee that if there were no speed limits and was left open slather, there would be a whole lot more carnage on the roads. And again, if you don’t break the law and speed, there is NO revenue. The power of revenue is squarely in the drivers hands.

Sorry bigred, being compassionate about reducing unnecessary road trauma on OUR roads and PTSD are two entirely different things, sorry to get your hopes up bud 😉

bigred bigred 10:19 pm 04 Jul 09

methinks spideydog has ptsd.

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy 9:56 pm 04 Jul 09

Let me add, though, that when you hear of P-Platers doing 40km/h over the limit on suburban streets, that is an accident waiting to happen. These people don’t have the brain capacity needed to assess risk properly.

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy 9:55 pm 04 Jul 09

This thread just goes to show how easily people are brainwashed. Accidents happen due to a wide range of causes, which can usually be summed up as ‘driver mistake’. How quick you’re going will affect the seriousness of an impact, if it occurs. Speeding, in isolation, does not cause accidents. If that were the case, how the hell do racing drivers drive only a couple of metres apart at over 200km/h?

Driver skill and attitude are the main issues, and no amount of revenue raising is going to change that.

Special G Special G 8:18 pm 04 Jul 09

45+ km/h over the speed limit would never be an accident, hence the hefty fine and loss of points associated. There are plenty of areas on our roads where if a driver is speeding another motorist may pull out in front of them causing a collision as they could only see a clear road when they pulled out. Is then speed or a fail to give way the primary cause of the accident?

Spideydog Spideydog 3:40 pm 04 Jul 09

dvaey said :

Regular vehicle roadworthy inspections, semi regular driver training (if its good enough to have refresher courses for first aid, why not driving?), etc. theres plenty of things that can be targetted rather than speeding, however theyre nowhere near as profitable.

Roadworthy inspection I agree with as long as it doesn’t get to a situation where service centres begin to profiteer from a compulsory system like the 3rd party insurance scheme (nil competition). In saying this, do you know how many deaths or crashes are caused by unroadworthy vehicles? Semi regular driving training …. hmmm, who is paying for this, the government or the licence holder and how often are you talking. Driver training in itself can be a double edged sword too, it had been shown in the past that drivers that did driver training courses got in more accidents, rather than reduced them because they had an attitude of driver superiority, ie “I am an advanced driver and can therefor take more risks”. Things have changed with the focus in driver training going to recognising driver attitude and it’s significant role in safe driving. The other thing with compulsory driver training, is that it too is open to profiteering.

shauno said :

The thing is the road safety campaign has been hijacked along time ago by
need to raise revenue just look at the ridiculous situation in Victoria now where you
can be booked for doing 101 in and 100 zone.

I agree. There needs to be some amount of tolerance. If that situation exists, it is ridiculous.

Clown Killer Clown Killer 3:31 pm 04 Jul 09

I can’t help wondering though whether or not the need to increase speeding fines is leveraged off the possibility that less and less people are in fact speeding. Treasury would be asked to make some fairly accurate predictions of expected revenue streams. If income starts dropping off in any area Govermemnt would need to look at what actions could be taken to keep the money coming in.

Spideydog Spideydog 3:23 pm 04 Jul 09

dvaey said :

In that situation, car design, road conditions, driver ability and driver focus were also involved.

If you are going to get pedantic, EVERY collision will NOT have one single factor that causes it and therefor everything needs to be targetted at the same time. In my scenario, speed was THE factor that caused the crash.

dvaey said :

Whether speed is significant to the number of accidents isnt really relevant to the rate with which the fines appear to be going up. People are still dying on our roads, just as much now as 10 years ago when the fines werent nearly as high. The road toll is the same, death and injury rates are the same ballpark, the only difference is the revenue raised is increasing.

That statement is incorrect. The population has gone up and the amount of people on the road has gone up significantly in 10 years. Comparatively, the rate is less than ten years ago, even if the number of deaths are the same.

Of course over the years fines are going to go up ….. doesn’t prices of everything go up over the years. Why wouldn’t fines. Over the years, wages increase, etc and as such, if the fines didn’t, the pain at the hip pocket would minimize and work against what a monetary fine is supposed to do, change driver behaviour ?? As I pointed out earlier, I have seen repeat offenders for the smaller fine offences, but not of the $1647 fine offence. That tends to suggest to me that higher the hip pocket pain, less chance of repeat offenders.

I’m sorry m8, but it’s a simple concept – don’t speed, nil revenue. Revenue raising is the fault of people that are caught, not the government. The same old mantra of some …. I got caught speeding, it’s not my fault (finger point) it’s the governments fault, they are just revenue raising. No speed, no revenue – SIMPLE. Besides, the money goes back to the people, one way or another in the form of better roads, fixing traffic blackspots, better schools, hospitals, etc.

shauno shauno 3:04 pm 04 Jul 09

The thing is the road safety campaign has been hijacked along time ago by
need to raise revenue just look at the ridiculous situation in Victoria now where you
can be booked for doing 101 in and 100 zone. And more then half the state now have driving records and they rake in a world record amount of fines.

When you drive in Victoria now its down right dangerous everybody has their eyes glued to the speedo and are constantly feathering the brakes. Its especially dangerous riding a bike as the concentration is taken off the road and you can more easily be taken out by a driver not paying attention.

And the disease spread to NT where they introduced open road speed limits and the road toll increased as a result. The figures are all there to see on the NT police web site. The whole reason the labor govt in NT introduced the speed limits was because of some grandstanding PC politics to be seen to be doing something about the road toll. But the facts where the majority or deaths where caused by fatigue drink driving and pedestrian deaths. But they ignored that and saw a way of getting some revenue they were missing out on. So now you have situation where people a driving along bored and falling asleep on empty outback roads looking at their speedos.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site