23 June 2011

Speed Checks and Signage

| Greywolf20k
Join the conversation
155

Firstly can I say that I have huge respect for our men and woman in blue and they do a great job. Driving around today I noticed a police car doing speed checks about 100 metres from a speed sign from 80km to 60km and I started to wonder what the distance is for these checks to be done from a speed sign.

Is there a legislation that governs this and should people be slamming their breaks on as they pass these signs to adhere to the road rules? I am sure the officers that were doing the checks are aware of the laws but you never know.

Join the conversation

155
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

My driving instructor told me you had to be doing the speed limit when you get to the sign, and not afterward, so whether it’s 1 metre or 100, it’ still lawful. A Canberran driving actully FOLLOWING this rule is a different matter all together!

shadow boxer6:10 pm 27 Jun 11

Disinformation said :

shadow boxer said :

Wikipedia is your friend,

I knew what the term meant well over ten years ago. The idea was to see if the user knew what it was. It’s a bit lame to ask for a meaning on the Internet when you could just type the term into google. Realistically though, if the general brainpower of the average Internet users was slightly greater, it would kill a lot of online forums.. Why should people read an instruction manual, or search for an answer when they can go to a forum, type a question in and then wait for some patient fool to encourage their lack of self help by telling them what they want to know?

Well the op used it correctly so you would assume he did

Holden Caulfield5:18 pm 27 Jun 11

Postalgeek said :

1-Without knowing the intersection in question, generally the approaches to pedestrians crossings are unobscured so I wouldn’t immediately accept the assertion that the cyclist came out of ‘nowhere’

2- technically if you had hit the car in front of you you would have only had yourself to blame.

3-car drivers failing to slow for or even observe pedestrian crossings is more of a problem than cyclists riding across them.

The crossing near the O’Connor shops has parking spaces very close to it on the same side of the road as the shops. When driving along Macpherson St, towards Lyenham (shops on your right) cyclists and pedestrians can be obscured from view by parked cars next to All Bar Nun. They can be two or three steps on to the crossing before being visible. If a cyclist rode across quickly then they could easily surprise an oncoming motorist.

However, you’re right in point 3, though and it’s generally good practice to be extra vigilant and exercise more caution than usual when approaching this particular crossing (or any others like it).

Disinformation said :

if the general brainpower of the average Internet users was slightly greater, it would kill a lot of online forums..

Nooooo, say it isn’t so ……….

Disinformation4:51 pm 27 Jun 11

shadow boxer said :

Wikipedia is your friend,

I knew what the term meant well over ten years ago. The idea was to see if the user knew what it was. It’s a bit lame to ask for a meaning on the Internet when you could just type the term into google. Realistically though, if the general brainpower of the average Internet users was slightly greater, it would kill a lot of online forums.. Why should people read an instruction manual, or search for an answer when they can go to a forum, type a question in and then wait for some patient fool to encourage their lack of self help by telling them what they want to know?

Well, for those taking such an interest in my life, I only sold the car last year, and I do drive other people’s cars reasonably often.

(Actually, I’m lucky I double checked that last post, because I made a typo originally that referred to ‘feces’ rather than ‘faces’)…:)

I always thought a fascist was someone who discriminated based on faces.

shadow boxer10:15 am 27 Jun 11

Wikipedia is your friend, the meaning of the word has changed from the literal.

The word fascist is sometimes used to denigrate people, institutions, or groups that would not describe themselves as ideologically fascist, and that may not fall within the formal definition of the word. The Fascist party that developed in Italy in the 1920s rigidly enforced conservative values and behavior norms during the Mussolini regime. As a political epithet, fascist was subsequently used in an anti-authoritarian sense to emphasize the common ideology of governmental suppression of individual freedom, as shared by other groups on the extreme right. Eventually members of those right wing groups, and other sympathizers, began to broaden the use of fascist and confuse the meaning by applying the term to groups on the far left that strongly advocate behavior that promotes respect for those who deviate from perceived norms and/or advocate participation in the development of opportunities for oppressed people. It has also been applied to a broad range of people and groups, including people of many religious faiths, particularly fundamentalist groups. The individual, institution, or group(s) called fascist often find the use of the term in this way to be highly offensive and inappropriate.

In this sense, the word fascist is intended to mean “oppressive”, “intolerant”, “chauvinist”, “genocidal”, “dictatorial”, “racist”, or “aggressive” – all concepts that are allegedly inspired by the ideology of actual fascism, and pervasive through fascist states. One might accuse an inconveniently placed police roadblock as being a “fascist tactic” for its perceived oppression or interloping, or an overly authoritarian teacher as being “a total fascist”. Terms like Nazi and Hitlerite, are often used in similar contexts.

Henry82 said :

Classified said :

And also because (also by your own admission) you don’t own a car, hence I wouldn’t expect you to do much regular driving anymore.

It’s possible to drive regularly without owning a car. Also, you can still get pulled over for speeding on a bike.

Possible, but both are unlikely.

Mr Gillespie said :

http://www.theherald.com.au/blogs/jeff-corbett/speedchecking-intimidation/2200922.aspx

Read this. You might find this enlightening.

By the way, I had *NOTHING* to do with this article.

Enlightenment, lol Yup another bloke having a whinge because he got done speeding.

I do agree however that 3km/h tolerance is ridiculous.

Disinformation9:29 am 27 Jun 11

Mr Gillespie said :

Go back to Russia or whatever repressed country you’re from. This is a free country. Fascists aren’t welcome here.

Since 1998, I have questioned every person who has used the word “Fascist” to define what one actually is. Not one person has ever been able to tell me. This leads me to believe that it’s a gratuitously used word and although I can’t prove Mr Gillespie doesn’t know the definition of a fascist, I’m betting that he’ll come back with an amalgamation of what google can provide….

How about it, Mr Gillespie. What IS a facist?

What I get from this post is that the OP thinks the government is to relient on the penilties from traffic infringments, and needs and likes to maximise this revenue to plug budget holes (same for councils and parking meters / tickets) Just my thoughts

johnboy said :

I don’t get angry about enforcement, and that’s the difference.

I like to think my risk management (which means very rarely speeding as well) is why it’s been over a decade since my last ticket.

Exactly. I haven’t had a speeding ticket since 1995 (116 in 100 zone in NSW) and in that time I’ve travelled I don’t know how many hundreds of thousands of kilometres. I’ve owned high performance cars and motorbikes as well for a lot of that time. It’s your choice to speed so don’t complain if you get caught. Use a bit of nouse and it’s not difficult to avoid speeding tickets.

Classified said :

And also because (also by your own admission) you don’t own a car, hence I wouldn’t expect you to do much regular driving anymore.

It’s possible to drive regularly without owning a car. Also, you can still get pulled over for speeding on a bike.

LSWCHP said :

Classified said :

Mr Gillespie said :

The law against riding bikes across zebra crossings.

That’s one I’d like to see enforced. Especially at the bloody crossing in O’Connor.

Christ yes. I was motoring along in traffic yesterday when a dickhead on a bike flashed out of nowhere onto a pedestrian crossing, forcing the guy in front of me to emergency brake. I had to do likewise to avoid hitting him, which upset the hell out of my three sons as their books and computer games flew everywhere.

Dickhead cyclist blithely rode off into the distance without stopping, and apparently without being aware of how close he’d come to being turned into a red mess on the road.

Dickheads assume all shapes and forms, and cyclists who act in unpredictable ways do themselves no favors, but having said that:

1-Without knowing the intersection in question, generally the approaches to pedestrians crossings are unobscured so I wouldn’t immediately accept the assertion that the cyclist came out of ‘nowhere’

2- technically if you had hit the car in front of you you would have only had yourself to blame.

3-car drivers failing to slow for or even observe pedestrian crossings is more of a problem than cyclists riding across them.

LSWCHP said :

Christ yes. I was motoring along in traffic yesterday when a dickhead on a bike flashed out of nowhere onto a pedestrian crossing, forcing the guy in front of me to emergency brake. I had to do likewise to avoid hitting him, which upset the hell out of my three sons as their books and computer games flew everywhere.

Dickhead cyclist blithely rode off into the distance without stopping, and apparently without being aware of how close he’d come to being turned into a red mess on the road.

Hmm – dickhead cyclist, unquestionably.

But what about the dickhead drivers? The one in front was approaching a pedestrian crossing, being well aware in this town that there are stupid cyclists and stupid pedestrians likely to to appear on such a crossing without warning, but had to slam on the brakes when such a predictable event happened – and the one behind, also approaching the pedestrian crossing and had to slam on the brakes due to the same astonishing lack of road sense.

LSWCHP said :

Classified said :

Mr Gillespie said :

The law against riding bikes across zebra crossings.

That’s one I’d like to see enforced. Especially at the bloody crossing in O’Connor.

Christ yes. I was motoring along in traffic yesterday when a dickhead on a bike flashed out of nowhere onto a pedestrian crossing, forcing the guy in front of me to emergency brake. I had to do likewise to avoid hitting him, which upset the hell out of my three sons as their books and computer games flew everywhere.

Dickhead cyclist blithely rode off into the distance without stopping, and apparently without being aware of how close he’d come to being turned into a red mess on the road.

Not saying it’s cool for cyclist to cross pedestrian crossing without looking or slowing down, but isn’t there a sign advising you to drive 20kph? I virtually come to a stop there, not because of the cyclists, but because I once nearly hit a couple of joggers that I only saw when they were almost touching my bonnet. Stupid thick frame of my stupid Astra! I’ve had a few near misses at pedestrian crossings actually with pedestrians apparently materialising out of thin air, so I always slow down to less than 20, and look both ways at least twice before I drive on. Not much chance of having to do an emergency brake when you slow down that much…

johnboy said :

I don’t get angry about enforcement, and that’s the difference.

I like to think my risk management (which means very rarely speeding as well) is why it’s been over a decade since my last ticket.

And also because (also by your own admission) you don’t own a car, hence I wouldn’t expect you to do much regular driving anymore.

Classified said :

Mr Gillespie said :

The law against riding bikes across zebra crossings.

That’s one I’d like to see enforced. Especially at the bloody crossing in O’Connor.

Christ yes. I was motoring along in traffic yesterday when a dickhead on a bike flashed out of nowhere onto a pedestrian crossing, forcing the guy in front of me to emergency brake. I had to do likewise to avoid hitting him, which upset the hell out of my three sons as their books and computer games flew everywhere.

Dickhead cyclist blithely rode off into the distance without stopping, and apparently without being aware of how close he’d come to being turned into a red mess on the road.

Mr Gillespie8:07 pm 26 Jun 11

http://www.theherald.com.au/blogs/jeff-corbett/speedchecking-intimidation/2200922.aspx

Read this. You might find this enlightening.

By the way, I had *NOTHING* to do with this article.

I don’t get angry about enforcement, and that’s the difference.

I like to think my risk management (which means very rarely speeding as well) is why it’s been over a decade since my last ticket.

johnboy said :

Mr Gillespie said :

The coppers pointing these laser devices need to make themselves more visible instead of hiding around corners and behind bushes and other objects, so people don’t HAVE to slam on their brakes!!

Or you could drive at the posted speed limit. If that’s beyond you then frankly your situational awareness is so poor you should be removed from the road, not just fined.

You know you exceed the speed limit yourself from time to time JB! As do I. You’ve even posted about it!

The Traineediplomat said :

luther_bendross said :

Hidden speed cameras work and I support them, despite my fines.

On a semi-related note. In my current location, ticket inspectors for public transport (bus, tram etc), wait at the stop with bright yellow reflective vests. Funnily enough when a bus/tram pulls up to such a stop, a lot of people suddenly get off…and wait for the next bus/tram which is not a long wait. Even if the stop isn’t normally popular….it’s amazing how many travellers suddenly decide to get off there.

Very rarely they have ‘undercover’ (ie not bright yellow reflective vests) inspectors who catch and fine more people for not riding with a ticket/travel pass.

It’s a joke amongst people here that you can travel without validating tickets (ie illegally) because you know where the inspectors are and can suddenly validate the ticket before they board or choose to get off.

This is why I’m all for hidden, suprise or unexpected inspectors, cameras, police etc. You are more inclined to follow rules and regulations if you don’t know when you are going to be under scrutiny.

That said I’m also for big signs on fixed cameras as well. If you get caught by such a sign, then as has been mentioned many times, you can pay the ‘stupid tax’ (which I have been required to do!)

What kind of police state do you want to live in? Citizens shouldn’t be seen as The Enemy. It’s not all about catching every single person for every little crime they commit.

Mr Gillespie said :

Hidden speed cameras will only get vandalised, there would be public outrage, etc.

Plus it is pointless waiting days or even weeks before sending fines in the mail because one day you get this nasty letter saying YOU VIOLATED THE SPEED LIMIT ON , COUGH UP THIS FINE OR ELSE!!!!!, and you ask, what the fuck was I doing then?? It’s not the same as being told at the actual time you have actually broken the law.

I’ll actually agree with you on something there ….. to a certain degree. Still think cameras should be used at actual known blackspots and all school zones though.

As for your zebra crossing comment …… your either a pedestrian or a bike rider, which is it? If you want to be a bike rider, get off your bike and use the zebra (ie, pedestrian) crossing as a pedestrian.

Mr Gillespie said :

The law against riding bikes across zebra crossings.

That’s one I’d like to see enforced. Especially at the bloody crossing in O’Connor.

Mr Gillespie9:48 pm 25 Jun 11

bigfeet said :

……Tell us please, what other laws are beneath your magnificence?

The law against jaywalking.
The law against riding bikes across zebra crossings.

Mr Gillespie9:29 pm 25 Jun 11

Hidden speed cameras will only get vandalised, there would be public outrage, etc.

Plus it is pointless waiting days or even weeks before sending fines in the mail because one day you get this nasty letter saying YOU VIOLATED THE SPEED LIMIT ON , COUGH UP THIS FINE OR ELSE!!!!!, and you ask, what the fuck was I doing then?? It’s not the same as being told at the actual time you have actually broken the law.

The Traineediplomat7:40 pm 25 Jun 11

luther_bendross said :

Hidden speed cameras work and I support them, despite my fines.

On a semi-related note. In my current location, ticket inspectors for public transport (bus, tram etc), wait at the stop with bright yellow reflective vests. Funnily enough when a bus/tram pulls up to such a stop, a lot of people suddenly get off…and wait for the next bus/tram which is not a long wait. Even if the stop isn’t normally popular….it’s amazing how many travellers suddenly decide to get off there.

Very rarely they have ‘undercover’ (ie not bright yellow reflective vests) inspectors who catch and fine more people for not riding with a ticket/travel pass.

It’s a joke amongst people here that you can travel without validating tickets (ie illegally) because you know where the inspectors are and can suddenly validate the ticket before they board or choose to get off.

This is why I’m all for hidden, suprise or unexpected inspectors, cameras, police etc. You are more inclined to follow rules and regulations if you don’t know when you are going to be under scrutiny.

That said I’m also for big signs on fixed cameras as well. If you get caught by such a sign, then as has been mentioned many times, you can pay the ‘stupid tax’ (which I have been required to do!)

luther_bendross3:16 pm 25 Jun 11

Cheap said :

You guys have it all wrong – a speed camera is designed to get people to SLOW DOWN, not to book them for speeding. Why do you think they have so many signs up? Yes, people will just speed up again after the camera, but that’s better than having a camera hidden in a garbage bin that no one will slow down for at all.

I was living in Melbourne a few years back when their hidden speed cameras became numerous. One day in the mail I received three speeding fines from the same hidden camera. The fines were over a 2 day period, and they were all taken on the way to/from my workplace. From memory it cost me about $600 and eight points. I will never speed in Victoria again because you never know when you’re going to get pinged. Do 95km/h on the ringroad there and you’ll be overtaking traffic like you’re doing 130km/h. Hidden speed cameras work and I support them, despite my fines.

Mr Gillespie11:29 am 25 Jun 11

Cheap #124

That is what I meant earlier in the “Go back to Russia, fascists aren’t welcome here” comment earlier on in this thread.

You guys have it all wrong – a speed camera is designed to get people to SLOW DOWN, not to book them for speeding. Why do you think they have so many signs up? Yes, people will just speed up again after the camera, but that’s better than having a camera hidden in a garbage bin that no one will slow down for at all.

Hidden cameras will just fuel public anger and make people feel like they are living in a police state. We might as well just get telescreens installed in our living rooms and be done with it!

jayskette said :

If you’ve ever noticed that when you drive in the country, there are warnings that the speed zone will change when you approach a town. If you are doing the speed limit, eg 110 and then start decelerating as soon as you see the warning sign, by the time you reach the new zone (eg 60) you will BE at 60 without any slamming of the brakes. THE SAME THING MUST BE DONE FOR ANY NEW SPEED ZONE CHANGES. I am talking about Drake Brockman Drive. I do not recall any notices going out to the local residents when they decide to make a big chunk of the road 60 instead of 80. In the first week I witnessed 2 accidents because every single car slammed on their brakes when they see the new 60 sign… and around 20m further in they see the speed van. How is that fair OR safe to any motorist??

If it is inadequately signed, get onto canberra connect and let them know, they may actually do something about it ???

But in saying that, the “new” signs didn’t cause the collisions, it was firstly the drivers not paying attention to the displayed signs (unless horribly inadequate) and then the people behind them traveling too close behind, that caused the collisions. If someone slams their brakes on for whatever reasons (valid or not) you are meant to have sufficient space between vehicles to enable you to stop safely.

I would suggest the signs in the country are because you are going from 100 or 110 down to 60km/h and not 80 down to 60 as in suburban areas. But if the signage is not clear (as opposed to just being new), as I said before, get onto canberra connect.

Mr Gillespie said :

Have you ever watched those items on Today Tonight or A Current Affair about how speed cameras defraud people out of their money? Hm? I betcha you flick that OFF switch whenever you see something like that appearing on TV.

I really couldn’t be bothered reading all 4 pages in this ludicrously long post about a trivial topic, but hahahahaha! That was just such a classic. I love it!

I once got done for speeding twice in a month by the same red light/speed camera. The one on the corner of Northbourne Ave and Barry Drive. I think I got clocked going 72kph on one occasion.

I was quite shocked because I am one of those people who will try to stick to the speed limit fairly religiously. Then I realised I had the bad habit of speeding up when the light went orange when I was driving to and from work. I was always in a hurry back then and didn’t want to lose a minute by having to stop at the lights. And apparently I sped up more than I realised to make it through. But even though I was absolutely sure that I had only gone over the speed limit for a few metres – I actually braked as soon as I reached the other side of the intersection – a rule is a rule and I broke it. You can’t seriously expect the police to go examine everyone’s individual circumstances before they hand out fines? They’d have to hire a whole new team for that! Traffic rules were designed to be very black and white just for that purpose: to make it very easy to decide when they are broken and who is at fault..

It taught me a lesson and I will now never speed up when the light goes orange.

And how many people haven’t rear-ended cars and thought it was actually the other car’s fault because they hit the breaks for no apparent reason? I know I have. But because the rule regarding who’s at fault is so black and white, I realised that it was futile to argue about it, so I politely gave the other person my details, accepted the blame and MOVED ON!

This really is such a totally trivial topic. Why on earth would anyone get that frustrated by the speed limit being 10kph less than you think it should be?

Mr Gillespie said :

Bigfeet (115) No, what I am saying is, we do not need hidden speed cameras in rubbish bins or other inconspicuous objects. We do not need anymore sneaky tactics. Are you understanding me so far????

Oh…it appears I have misunderstood you. So it is just ‘covert’ speed enforcement that you object to is it?

So I suppose you would have no problem with the government installing a meter in everyone’s car which automatically prints out a ticket everytime you go over the limit. As long as it was clearly marked that this would happen and was not hidden, you would endorse it?

I didn’t think so. Your issue is not with covert speed detection…your issue is that you think you are superior to this particular law and it should not apply to you.

Tell us please, what other laws are beneath your magnificence?

@ Jayskette

I Used to live up that way, and i know the area you are talking about, IMO your correct, the sign is not all that clear, when i first moved in, it was already in place, and being new to the area, i was paying extra attention, so it was not an issue.

But i imagine that if you lived there in the change over time, and the road you were used to being 80 was suddenly 60, with such minimal signage, then yes, that could be an issue.

A “60 Ahead” sign would be a really good idea there!

#114 Whitworth Spanner – I agree that some speed limits are too low. Right or wrong, we all have our pet irritations but I personally wouldn’t speed anyway as a form of protest or defiance and if I was to get booked for speeding I would try to suck it up and wouldn’t blame it on revenue raising, victimisation (or some other conspiracy theory) by the police or Government.

Incidentally, I’ve noticed too that Kings Ave’s speed has dropped and I wondered if that was possibly where that cyclist was knocked off their bike recently and if that was the reason?

Mr Gillespie – no response to my question heh? I’m sorry but I’ve run out of ideas to try to help you. I hope that you don’t “run into” me or anyone I care about on the roads.

If you’ve ever noticed that when you drive in the country, there are warnings that the speed zone will change when you approach a town. If you are doing the speed limit, eg 110 and then start decelerating as soon as you see the warning sign, by the time you reach the new zone (eg 60) you will BE at 60 without any slamming of the brakes. THE SAME THING MUST BE DONE FOR ANY NEW SPEED ZONE CHANGES. I am talking about Drake Brockman Drive. I do not recall any notices going out to the local residents when they decide to make a big chunk of the road 60 instead of 80. In the first week I witnessed 2 accidents because every single car slammed on their brakes when they see the new 60 sign… and around 20m further in they see the speed van. How is that fair OR safe to any motorist??

Mr Gillespie said :

Have you ever watched those items on Today Tonight or A Current Affair about how speed cameras defraud people out of their money? Hm? I betcha you flick that OFF switch whenever you see something like that appearing on TV.

Yeah because everything you see on tv is true ….. most of the crap you see on TT or ACA is a load of sensationalised inaccurate garbage. They don’t even know the difference between a RADAR and LASER speed detection and they try to “educate”the public. Most of their stories are about static cameras anyways.

You talk about us being brainwashed by the government, but it seems you are being brainwashed by tv programs that aren’t there for the public, they are making stories they know the public will tune into with sensationalised dribble.

“unfair speeding fines” – Bah hahahahahahahahahaha – Don’t speed, don’t get fines …….

Yup, I’ve gone over the speed limit by a k or two at times, I’m human and not a robot. But I am yet to see or hear of 1 single person fined for being 1 or 2 k’s over.

Mr Gillespie11:05 pm 24 Jun 11

Bigfeet (115) No, what I am saying is, we do not need hidden speed cameras in rubbish bins or other inconspicuous objects. We do not need anymore sneaky tactics. Are you understanding me so far????

Mr Gillespie said :

Go back to Russia or whatever repressed country you’re from. This is a free country. Fascists aren’t welcome here.

So Gillespie, your interpretation of a ‘free country’ is one where it’s citizens are entitled to break any law that they personally disagree with and if the government tries to enforce those laws they are repressive fascists?

Whitworth Spanner8:57 pm 24 Jun 11

I’ll stick up for Gillespie.
Some speed limits are way too low. In recent times I have noticed that the speed limit on Kings Av, Parliament House bound has gone from 80 to 70 for no apparent reason.
WTF?
The nanny state protects us from nanny drivers?
Gillespie, you and I should organise a week of civil disobidience on certain low speed roads to raise awareness of low speed limits.
Never forget that civil disobedience brought down the Berlin Wall and with it, the CCCP.
Is anyone with us?

On the topic of road design, i was reading something recently from the Accident Research Facility at Monash University, about road design, specifically the idea of “Self Explanatory Roads”

This is the to do with how distance to roadside objects, curvature, road lean, angle, perceived height, surface quality, etc, etc. create a perceived ‘safe speed’ that limits what speed the driver feels comfortable doing. can be used on its own, or in conjunction with limits and enforcement.

Not sure if its a good idea here or not, or weather it would ever be implemented properly by any form of government (Find me ANY politician of today, that wont cut corners) but it was quite interesting, i will try and dig up the link if anyone is interested.

Mr Gillespie7:23 pm 24 Jun 11

00davist, your rantings about how it’s “my own fault” and how I “choose” to “speed” are getting rather boring. It is rubbish like that from ignorant and brain-dead tools like you that cause threads like this to drag on way longer than necessary, because you simply DO NOT UNDERSTAND the basic, PLAIN ENGLISH of what I am trying to say — instead twisting and distorting my words to suit yourselves and to justify your arrogant, sneaky revenue-raising tactics.

It sounds to me like you either work for the maggots that rake in the revenue, or can’t see past the strict letter of the law. Rules aren’t bent, go one over and the rule is broken. It is that black and white to you.

You don’t seem to care less about how many unfair speeding fines people, just so long as the money comes in to your so-called “voluntary” fund.

Have you ever watched those items on Today Tonight or A Current Affair about how speed cameras defraud people out of their money? Hm? I betcha you flick that OFF switch whenever you see something like that appearing on TV.

I must ask — have YOU ever copped a speeding ticket? Or are you so perfect you never drive a single km/h over the speed limit, cop or no cop, speed camera van or no speed camera van?

The Traineediplomat said :

Mr Gillespie said :

Go back to Russia or whatever repressed country you’re from. This is a free country. Fascists aren’t welcome here.

Yeah because they respect speed limits in Russia and “repressed” countries like that. Having lived in such places an ‘on the spot fine’ into the police man’s pocket is usually the voluntary tax that one pays….

LOL – at least the money here goes back to the people, not into the policeman’s spending fund 😉

The Traineediplomat5:28 pm 24 Jun 11

Mr Gillespie said :

Go back to Russia or whatever repressed country you’re from. This is a free country. Fascists aren’t welcome here.

Yeah because they respect speed limits in Russia and “repressed” countries like that. Having lived in such places an ‘on the spot fine’ into the police man’s pocket is usually the voluntary tax that one pays….

Mr Gillespie – This thread’s getting a bit long but I don’t think you have yet indicated how many tickets you have got and over what period of time (and I don’t mean the tickets that you seem to have on yourself over your driving ability). Is your silence a guilty conscience?

Agreed Spidey – I’ve got no issues with cameras when they’re demonstrably used to deter people from driving like d!ck-holes in black spots and school zones. That’s road safety.

As for “Mister Go-Back-To-Russia” – I think we’ve just got the final degree of proof that he is either a troll, or that some of us have been arguing with the mentally ill.

Ah Gillespie,

A free country does not allow you to break the law you idiot!

I see you still cant seem to work this one out, and, in the intrest of moving on, this will be the last post I will direct at you, and the last time I read a post from you (So please, don’t bother replying @ me)

Quite simply, if you find the fines such an issue, stick to the speed limit, it is not hard! (apparently an idiot such as myself can, so why cant you?)

If you do get booked for speeding, then that is your own fault, as you would not have copped the fine, if you had taken care not to speed, something that remains firmly in your control.

I suggest you try taking responsibility for your own actions, rather than looking for the nearest cop-out!
You have the power to avoid speeding fines, by choosing not to speed, if you chose otherwise, then that is your own choice, and you will be responsible for the outcome of that choice.

When you got your licence, you agreed to obey the laws of the roads, if you choose to break this agreement, not only are you liable for any consequential action, you are also, NOT, a law-abiding citizen, as you are intentionally breaking a law (and it is breaking the law, even when you don’t get caught!)

And next time you get a fine, please, think of me, and how many fines I DON’T get!

Anyway, that is it from me Mr. Gillespie, from here on, my comments are for the debate and discussion of others, and I will henceforth be overlooking your input, You have proven yourself soundly to be an immature, paranoid little hoon, who I can tell you now, I really do not have the time for!

The_Bulldog said :

Mt two cents – I’m aware the process regarding posted speed limits USED to be based on the following standards: Roads are engineered (surface grades, camber, width, storm-water) to be safe at particular speeds in particular environmental conditions. This indicative speed is examined by a team within ACT gov’t who assesses factors such as car and pedestrian traffic, and zoning (residential/commerical/industrial). From there the information will run through a risk-based model whereby a standard is applied and a speed limit is determined – which is inveitably considerably less than the road is engineered for (for obvious reasons). If Gillepsie is using comparable science to establish his “common-sense” appraisal of when speed limits are too low then I’ll eat my frickin’ hat.

It is staggering to think someone would actually believe that in the midst of this process, the recommendations regarding proposed speed limits are submitted to a team or person who will assess the likelihood of being able to entrap motorists for revenue purposes, and approve or deny a recommended speed limit. Seriously – WTF is on your weet-bix?

Whether you agree with the speed-limit or not – you’re a clown if you don’t abide by them, as you will only lighten your pockets and potentially endanger those road users who decide to do the right thing. This has nothing to do with the Government attacking our civil liberties – this is about the commom good.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like the thought of revenue raising under the guise of safety and law enforcement any more than Gillepsie does – and there are fixed speed cameras which can only make one wonder about the choice of placement and the actual risk posed by speeding in these areas (see Tuggeranong Parkway – but that’s only my opinion). Where I do differ (significantly) from Gillepsie is how I choose to handle it – and that is by obeying the law whether I agree with it or not, and protesting through safe means (i.e. writing to my local council member).

If you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen. Gillepsie – rather than driving have you thought about using a recumbent bicycle?

Very well said. I would contend that fixed speed cameras should only really be used at 2 locations:

1. Known black spots (actual blackspots mind you)
2. School zones.

In my opinion, speed cameras are only of use for a 500m stretch of road, thats why school zones are perfect.

Mr Gillespie3:56 pm 24 Jun 11

Thoroughly Smashed said :

Innovation said :

#95 00davist – I don’t think people should get advance warning of cameras

To be fair, the “advance warning” is that sign with the black number inside the red circle. There are lots of them around!

Yeah, and lots of speed cameras and cops with lasers, too!

Mr Gillespie3:55 pm 24 Jun 11

00davist said :

I must ask others opinions on the idea of ‘Advertising’ speed cameras.

As I said earlier, it seems a bit silly to me that public money is spent to install, maintain and operate speed camera’s of all forms, yet, money from the same source is also spent putting up whopping great signs, that have a tendency to make the speed cameras far less effective, as anyone speeding simply slows for the camera, then continues on speeding, once it is passed.

IMHO I would like to see them hidden, in bushes, disguised as bins, letter boxes, dumped cars, switch boxes, etc…

Maybe if the threat of getting caught speeding was allot more wide spread, and a lot harder to detect, people might just get it into there heads to slow down.

as i said before, I’m not perfect, and i realise it would mean I could get stung at the end of my own idea, however, that would be my own damn fault if it were to happen, and i would still think the idea worth it if it slows everyone down (myself included!)

Think about it, would you speed if that [Bin/Bush/Letterbox/Car/Cat/Sub-Station] up ahead could maybe be a cop?

Go back to Russia or whatever repressed country you’re from. This is a free country. Fascists aren’t welcome here.

Innovation

That is a good point, the bin idea comes from actually seeing this idea’s proto-type, a speed camera, hidden in a wheelie bin, it could be deployed anywhere easily, and blends into suburban locations well.

I wonder what might be a good way to inform drivers they have been checked, without it giving away the camera too soon (the signs on the vans tend to give it up way to soon)

Maybe 100m down the road?

And I think you make a good point with some of the roads you have mentioned, especially dual lane, dual carriageway freeways, 110 does not seem to reflect modern standards in road and car design. (Mind you, there is the proton jumbuck!)

Thoroughly Smashed3:34 pm 24 Jun 11

Innovation said :

#95 00davist – I don’t think people should get advance warning of cameras

To be fair, the “advance warning” is that sign with the black number inside the red circle. There are lots of them around!

Mt two cents – I’m aware the process regarding posted speed limits USED to be based on the following standards: Roads are engineered (surface grades, camber, width, storm-water) to be safe at particular speeds in particular environmental conditions. This indicative speed is examined by a team within ACT gov’t who assesses factors such as car and pedestrian traffic, and zoning (residential/commerical/industrial). From there the information will run through a risk-based model whereby a standard is applied and a speed limit is determined – which is inveitably considerably less than the road is engineered for (for obvious reasons). If Gillepsie is using comparable science to establish his “common-sense” appraisal of when speed limits are too low then I’ll eat my frickin’ hat.

It is staggering to think someone would actually believe that in the midst of this process, the recommendations regarding proposed speed limits are submitted to a team or person who will assess the likelihood of being able to entrap motorists for revenue purposes, and approve or deny a recommended speed limit. Seriously – WTF is on your weet-bix?

Whether you agree with the speed-limit or not – you’re a clown if you don’t abide by them, as you will only lighten your pockets and potentially endanger those road users who decide to do the right thing. This has nothing to do with the Government attacking our civil liberties – this is about the commom good.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like the thought of revenue raising under the guise of safety and law enforcement any more than Gillepsie does – and there are fixed speed cameras which can only make one wonder about the choice of placement and the actual risk posed by speeding in these areas (see Tuggeranong Parkway – but that’s only my opinion). Where I do differ (significantly) from Gillepsie is how I choose to handle it – and that is by obeying the law whether I agree with it or not, and protesting through safe means (i.e. writing to my local council member).

If you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen. Gillepsie – rather than driving have you thought about using a recumbent bicycle?

#95 00davist – I don’t think people should get advance warning of cameras (and the cameras should be able to be moved around to avoid predictability). However, I think drivers need to be informed that their speed has been checked, preferably even with a monitor that tells them their recorded speed, so that they remember where they might have been booked (and either learn from it or contest it). Also, if cameras are placed in bins etc, some people will quickly damage them in protest or mindless vandalism.

Areas I can think of where the speed limit could be increased are 90km/h on Yamba Drive (North of the Phillip roundabout), Adelaide Avenue (or perhaps 90 in the transit lane) and 120 (for some drivers – eg not P platers) on most stretches of dual lane highways (eg to Sydney and Melbourne).

shadow boxer said :

Spideydog said :

Mr Gillespie said :

WHY is “speeding” (aka “exceed posted speed limit” THE MOST COMMON OFFENCE people are pinged for). Have you ever thought about that? Have you ever thought about the fact that otherwise law-abiding citizens with clean records get done for speeding???

Speeding tickets don’t go on criminal records except if you contest it in court and lose AND the magistrate records a conviction against you. So your “clean record” argument is moot.

DONT SPEED, YOU DONT GET DONE FOR SPEEDING ….. simple really

Only if your depth of thought only goes that deep, if you think the current speeding policies and enforcement are working you need to have another look at the road toll.

People seem to forget it’s not just about fatalities, its about the collisions with injuries as well. So looking at the road toll is only one indicator. I would say that fatalities and collisions with injuries are nothing to years gone by and whilst in recent years it seems to be plateauing I would argue that with each year, with more cars on the road, if the toll (and collisions with injuries) doesn’t go up, it’s either a fluke, or something is being done right. I totally agree though, speeding is but one facet of road safety. Better vehicle’s, roads training, other offences, etc all need to be considered and improved.

shadow boxer2:52 pm 24 Jun 11

Spideydog said :

Mr Gillespie said :

WHY is “speeding” (aka “exceed posted speed limit” THE MOST COMMON OFFENCE people are pinged for). Have you ever thought about that? Have you ever thought about the fact that otherwise law-abiding citizens with clean records get done for speeding???

Speeding tickets don’t go on criminal records except if you contest it in court and lose AND the magistrate records a conviction against you. So your “clean record” argument is moot.

DONT SPEED, YOU DONT GET DONE FOR SPEEDING ….. simple really

Only if your depth of thought only goes that deep, if you think the current speeding policies and enforcement are working you need to have another look at the road toll.

I think we need to use more an approach used by traffic policing overseas, where the focus is on keeping traffic moving, and on compliance with good behaviours. Sure, some Canberrans drive at the speed limit, but there are an awful lot of non-speeding drivers who lane-hog, tail-gate, fail to give way, can’t merge and don’t use indicators.

I think speed cameras are a great idea for higher risk areas, such as schools, low visibility intersections, etc, but I think we need to be a bit more pragmatic about traffic flow on major roads and how we can improve overall safety and driving behaviours.

Shadow – it would take a fairly monumental re-design of Northbourne to allow for a speed limit increase to 90. While I’m not, in any way, qualified to decide or design roads and their rules, I would think;

1. The traffic lights would have to go
2. Slip lanes would be required to allow traffic to enter from left turns
3. Something would have to be designed to allow traffic to turn right off Northbourne after the lights are removed (overpass exits perhaps?!?)

None of these would be easy tasks and would cost the public purse very dearly for very little (if any) return – with the exception of pleasing a few speed-freaks. It’s too short a piece of road to bother with anything like this.

Also, keep in mind that Northbourne runs through the middle of the “CBD”. I don’t think there’s a city in the world that allows highway speeds to continue through city centres.

I must ask others opinions on the idea of ‘Advertising’ speed cameras.

As I said earlier, it seems a bit silly to me that public money is spent to install, maintain and operate speed camera’s of all forms, yet, money from the same source is also spent putting up whopping great signs, that have a tendency to make the speed cameras far less effective, as anyone speeding simply slows for the camera, then continues on speeding, once it is passed.

IMHO I would like to see them hidden, in bushes, disguised as bins, letter boxes, dumped cars, switch boxes, etc…

Maybe if the threat of getting caught speeding was allot more wide spread, and a lot harder to detect, people might just get it into there heads to slow down.

as i said before, I’m not perfect, and i realise it would mean I could get stung at the end of my own idea, however, that would be my own damn fault if it were to happen, and i would still think the idea worth it if it slows everyone down (myself included!)

Think about it, would you speed if that [Bin/Bush/Letterbox/Car/Cat/Sub-Station] up ahead could maybe be a cop?

Mr Gillespie said :

WHY is “speeding” (aka “exceed posted speed limit” THE MOST COMMON OFFENCE people are pinged for). Have you ever thought about that? Have you ever thought about the fact that otherwise law-abiding citizens with clean records get done for speeding???

Speeding tickets don’t go on criminal records except if you contest it in court and lose AND the magistrate records a conviction against you. So your “clean record” argument is moot.

DONT SPEED, YOU DONT GET DONE FOR SPEEDING ….. simple really

shadow boxer2:22 pm 24 Jun 11

yeh but the road can’t be all things to all people otherwise it would be a car park……but wait.

I think you wuld find once the traffic got moving the bank ups at Antill and places would clear, left hand turns like Morphett could stay

Mr Gillespie said :

Making people feel guilty, especially concerning people’s deaths, for everyday risks because every once in a billion an accident happens, makes you even more of an arsehole.?

So not only do you have flawed idea’s around speeding, you don’t know what “voluntary” means and now your math skills are severely lacking …… “once in a billion accident” …… and i’m the apparent arsehole that needs to think before speaking. I don’t normally speak for others, but many seem to agree, it appears that you are the one with dire need to think before spurting verbal diarrhea.

Here’s an idea, obey the law OR lobby government so they see your way and then return to 1970’s injury and fatality rates.

Two elements to good driving is skill and more importantly is attitude. Your apparent driving attitude is poor to say the least.

@ Jungle Jim

You raise a fair point, and these are the kind of things people qualified in this area take into account, if some of us were to decide the speed limit, with our lack of experience in this field, you might just have ended up backed up all the way to Hackett!

But i do still feel a review of a few of these roads would be usefull.

oh, and if you read it again, you will notice i refer to those who are ‘To Thick to Stop doing it’

If you toch an electric fence, and it zaps you, WHAT IN THE NAME OF GOD MAKES YOU THINK ITS A GOOD IDEA TO TOUCH IT AGAIN!!!!!! (Or is it the fences fault?)

You have been zapped, and now you are trying to tell us that its the fences fault, and that there is nothig stupid about touching it again, and again, and again…

shadow boxer said :

…replace the pedestrian crossings (especially that one near the Ambulance station) with a raised footbridge and return the speed limit to 90.

No way – I’d almost never get out of Morphett St of an afternoon then. Forcing all Dickson traffic to exit via Antill would be ridiculous too – the traffic already banks up down to the Motor Registry on Challis and half a mile down Antill in the afternoons.

Also, 90kmh along Northbourne is way too much. That being said, I would have preferred if it had remained at 70 instead of 60, but I assume that was done for safety reasons, rather than revenue as I rarely see speed traps on Northbourne between the fixed cameras at the Antill and London Crt lights..

Gillespie

1) When i say no one makes you speed, i mean that there is no one (i hope) sitting next to you, gun to your head, forcing you to speed, so therefore, if you speed, its your choice, your fault, your fine!

2) As i said, i have been booked, i was acelerating before the increase, it WAS stupid, i DID get booked, it IS my fault, and i DO take resposablity for that.

To the best of my ability, i abide the law, you do not, you are trying to justify breaking the law!

Disinformation2:01 pm 24 Jun 11

Mr Gillespie said :

THINK before opening that mouth of yours, Spideydog! Reckon you can possibly manage that???

Well, it hasn’t apparently stopped you yet, Mr Gillespie.

Just you keep paying those speeding fines. At some point, you’ll discover equilibrium. That’s the point where your desire to get caught flouting road rules is countered exactly by your desire to stop costing yourself money.

And yes, I’ll still find someone else being pulled up entertaining.
Moreso if I was convinced it was yourself.

Mr Gillespie1:59 pm 24 Jun 11

00davist said :

OH FFS!

Gillespie, it’s the most common offence due to the number of people too thick to work out if they stop doing it, they wont get fined!

NO BODY IS MAKING YOU SPEED, it is your choice, take some god damn responsibility for your own actions, and quit trying to tell us how your screw ups are everyone else’s fault!

Anyway, IMO, Anzac, Northbound & Vernon are all a bit slow, I would not go as far as to suggest they should all be 90, but that’s my opinion, and I don’t hold qualifications to make it anything more.

As far as I can tell, the roads themselves are more than built for it, as innovation suggested though, it really won’t be noticeable on northbourn till 2am on a Tuesday (Yes I am aware this is an exaggeration), However, I do agree they could be reviewed, especially with recent work to Anzac.

#83
00davist #83

1. So that means you and I and every other law-abiding citizen who has ever been pinged for speeding is TOO THICK to stop being a naughty little boy or get a smack on the bum.

2. Nobody “makes” me speed? You are twisting my words around, AGAIN. And you think I’M thick. My words don’t seem to get through to some people here, or they misunderstand and twist it into a JOKE.

Mr Gillespie – Has it occurred to you that you haven’t attracted even one supporter of your views on here? Even if you don’t end up being the “one in a billion”, curbing your attitude on the road might lead by example and end up influencing someone else who might otherwise have been the “one in a billion”?

I am curious though. How many speeding tickets have you picked up and over what period of time? You certainly sound like you have been singled out?

Thoroughly Smashed1:54 pm 24 Jun 11

shadow boxer said :

They are not suburban roads, they are multi lane main arteial thoroughfares which all possess perfectly good pedestrian crossing lights.

Oh, you’re serious! Now it’s even funnier.

Parkes Way and Hindmarsh Drive (except for the 60 zones through the suburbs and town centres, notice a pattern?) are examples of arterial roads. Also, if you want Northbourne Avenue and Anzac Parade to be 90, you’re going to have to remove all the signalised intersections.

OH FFS!

Gillespie, it’s the most common offence due to the number of people too thick to work out if they stop doing it, they wont get fined!

NO BODY IS MAKING YOU SPEED, it is your choice, take some god damn responsibility for your own actions, and quit trying to tell us how your screw ups are everyone else’s fault!

Anyway, IMO, Anzac, Northbound & Vernon are all a bit slow, I would not go as far as to suggest they should all be 90, but that’s my opinion, and I don’t hold qualifications to make it anything more.

As far as I can tell, the roads themselves are more than built for it, as innovation suggested though, it really won’t be noticeable on northbourn till 2am on a Tuesday (Yes I am aware this is an exaggeration), However, I do agree they could be reviewed, especially with recent work to Anzac.

shadow boxer1:44 pm 24 Jun 11

The problem with Northbourne ave is it still gets treated as a quiet suburban street terminating in Civic insted of a main arterial moving traffic through Civic.

We need to send the buses down a rebuilt Dickson/Braddon route, close all but one or two of the cross roads during peak hour, replace the pedestrian crossings (especially that one near the Ambulance station) with a raised footbridge and return the speed limit to 90.

#77shadow boxer – I am so sorry. I didn’t realise that you were serious! Perhaps you should start a separate thread and see if you can get some support and lobby etc (please don’t count me as a supporter though).

I hope it doesn’t take up too much of your time though. After all, how much time will you really save if you end up being successful (especially in the car park they call Northbourne Avenue)?

Mr Gillespie1:31 pm 24 Jun 11

Spideydog said :

Mr Gillespie said :

For all you know it could be someone who has committed a GENUINE crime, like outstanding warrants for drugs, armed robbery suspects, or whatever.

And there’s the clanger ….. the old “go after real criminals” chestnut. As far as I’m concerned, speeding as a contributing factor can kill and or injure people. Whether you count speeding or other traffic offences as “not real criminal offences” I see it as preventing injuries and potentially saving lives.

The families touched by these supposed “non GENUINE crime” would probably tend to disagree with you.

Making people feel guilty, especially concerning people’s deaths, for everyday risks because every once in a billion an accident happens, makes you even more of an arsehole.

Just think for a minute will you?

WHY is “speeding” (aka “exceed posted speed limit” THE MOST COMMON OFFENCE people are pinged for). Have you ever thought about that? Have you ever thought about the fact that otherwise law-abiding citizens with clean records get done for speeding???

THINK before opening that mouth of yours, Spideydog! Reckon you can possibly manage that???

You have to slow down prior to the sign and match the speed as you go past it.

Mr Gillespie said :

For all you know it could be someone who has committed a GENUINE crime, like outstanding warrants for drugs, armed robbery suspects, or whatever.

And there’s the clanger ….. the old “go after real criminals” chestnut. As far as I’m concerned, speeding as a contributing factor can kill and or injure people. Whether you count speeding or other traffic offences as “not real criminal offences” I see it as preventing injuries and potentially saving lives.

The families touched by these supposed “non GENUINE crime” would probably tend to disagree with you.

shadow boxer1:14 pm 24 Jun 11

shadow boxer said :

Interesting thta NSW is now starting to seek driver input on speed liits and will review the top 100, about time we got a voice against the road safety nazi’s.

I’ll kick it off

Anzac parade should be 90
Northbourne Ave should be 90
Vernon circle to Parliament House should be 100

Why only 90, does the idea of a three figure speed limit on suburban roads scare you?

They are not suburban roads, they are multi lane main arteial thoroughfares which all possess perfectly good pedestrian crossing lights.

Whether we should allow pedestrians across in peak hour or build bridges and tunnels is another matter.

Henry82 said :

WHile I agree with most of your post, I really hate it when people quote stopping distances.

I think you’re the second person to pick me up on this point 😛

These are NSW RTA numbers for the record, but yes i understand what you’re saying. Speed limits are created to be safe for the lowest common denominator. The same probably applies with certain laws, and stopping distances too (in terms of being roadworthy, and reaction time)

@ Watson

Exactly, i would find it hard to imagine there is anyone here who has not broken the speed limit, or forgotten a blinker, or an number of other offeces at some point behind the wheel.

Weather it is becase we didnt realise we were speeding becase we were not paying the attention we should have been, of becase sometimeswe are in a hurry, and that 80 zone looks good, so our self controll flies out the window, really does not matter, because at the end of the day, you agree to follow the road ruled when you take hold of your licence, and if you dont, no matter the excuse, its your own doing.

To put it simply, I have F****d it up pleanty of times, and it just means that i need to try harder to controll my impatience, and pay attention.

We are not saying we are perfect, we are simply advocating taking resposiblility for your own actions!

Mr Gillespie12:54 pm 24 Jun 11

Disinformation said :

Mr Gillespie, you’ve provided much evidence to my theory that some people assume that their stance on rejection of authority will be supported by popular opinion.
When voicing an opinion that combines your personal viewpoint on legality, public safety and your interpretation of it’s machinations, it pays to know your audience particularly well. The Internet is not as full of rebellious teenagers as you’d like to think, but the world is full of people who have the approved authority to forcefully dissuade you from continually doing what YOU feel is appropriate. Welcome to reality.
I fully accept that there are police with measuring devices who will check my speed against that which has been ordained to be appropriate for the circumstances. I accept that risk and adjust my behaviour accordingly. Conversely, when I change my behaviour, I also weigh up the risk. This ensures that there is a minimum chance of me being caught driving over the speed limit. Whether that be from 1kph over in a school zone, or 152 kph over the limit on the open road.

It’s a matter of aligning your perception of acceptable risk with anyone else that knows about it.
The instant that car is moving, you’ve taken a risk. If you can’t mitigate your risk, then you have the right to pay as many speeding fines as you deem appropriate. The thought of which provides me with almost as much entertainment as seeing flashing red and blue lights behind someone else’s car.

So when you see “the man” with the laser speed gun hiding in the bushes and slam your brakes on, it won’t worry me at all. I’ll be maintaining an appropriate safe braking distance plus an SAFD (Standard Allowance For D***heads)

Is it my “right” to pay as many speeding fines as what’s deemed appropriate? That’s like saying it’s your right to give up your freedoms when the Government takes them away for WHATEVER reason. You sure have a funny way of putting it.

Why does it give you so much “entertainment” seeing someone being pulled over by blue and red flashing lights? How do you know what he is being pulled over for? For all you know it could be someone who has committed a GENUINE crime, like outstanding warrants for drugs, armed robbery suspects, or whatever. How do you know???

Classified said :

I think the funniest part of all of this is the difference between how people say they drive and how they actually drive.

I agree. I admit I start to speed up before the 80 sign when I’m in a 60 zone. And I often only start slowing down when I’ve passed the 60 sign in the reverse situation (when I’m going downhill anyway).

However, if I get a speeding fine in those situations, I will pay it and not whinge about it and not make up conspiracy theories about revenue raising traps.

Mr Gillespie12:48 pm 24 Jun 11

Postalgeek said :

shadow boxer said :

Interesting thta NSW is now starting to seek driver input on speed liits and will review the top 100, about time we got a voice against the road safety nazi’s.

I’ll kick it off

Anzac parade should be 90
Northbourne Ave should be 90
Vernon circle to Parliament House should be 100

Yep, pedestrians have it far too easy trying to cross those avenues anyway. Personally I think school zones should be limited to 80 to weed out the slow ones.

Anzac Pde’s 60 limit is WAY TOO LOW, no doubt about it.

BUT

90ks is a bit high for Northbourne Ave
80 in school zones? You are making your otherwise good argument look stupid.

Hi Greywolf. Where abouts did you see this occurring?

Henry82 said :

Mr Gillespie said :

Oh, so doing 80ks in a 60 zone that is still 2 metres away makes me a DANGER on the roads.

yes, a speed limit is a limit. You can see the sign coming, there is no reason why you can’t be a defensive driver and prepare for the changing conditions. They put the speed limit there for a reason

80km takes 59m to stop, 60km takes 38m to stop. That’s a 20m difference.

WHile I agree with most of your post, I really hate it when people quote stopping distances. The stopping distance for the same driver will vary depending on the car, its brakes, its weight, the chassis design and the tyres (condition, compound, design) plus about a million other factors.

For example the emergency stop distance from 100km/h for my 4WD is roughly 15 metres longer than my dear old Mini (despite the Mini being built in the 70’s). This is because my Mini is lighter and has better brakes (I have upgraded them). In addition the tyres on the Mini are high performance road tyres with a soft compound. The tyres on the 4WD are all-terrain and have a harder compound, plus it weighs an extra tonne.

Further to this, my brother has the same 4WD but in a lower spec with different brakes and he has offroad tyres with a more aggressive pattern on them. His car stops about 5-10 metres after mine. BTW we only know the difference becuase we did a defensive driving course with my other brother and the instructor got us to have a go in each others cars to see the difference in the stopping distances adn how they handle differently. My other brother took one of my cars as he had just returned from overseas. The differences between cars is scary when you get to drive them one after the other.

@innovation, another exapmle of a good reason is for those who use (if they still do this, it might be banned now) re-tread tires, they are only rated up to 80km, so on a highway, you would be under, abnormally, but with good reason.

Mr Gillespie said :

I am talking about exceeding the limit by just one km/h.?

Where in the ACT will you be fined for being 1 km/h over the speed limit…… sensationalising much huh?

Mr Gillespie said :

I must ask — why the hell are you so determined to defend the Government’s right to “ENTRAP” people for driving a few ks over speed limits

Pure comedy gold 😉

#61 Shadow boxer. Good one – LOL

#64 00davist – Agreed. I try not to get too upset when other people are well under the speed limit but it would be courteous if they pulled over occasionally. (It would be safer for them too rather than someone behind getting impatient and trying to overtake them).

FYI – assuming I have the right road rules this time, ARR 125 effectively states that a person can drive slower than other vehicles provided it is not “abnormal”. Abnormal is not defined but the ARRs give an example of someone doing 60km/h in an 80k zone without good reason.

I have no idea what would be considered a good reason. I presume front end loaders etc which are not capable of higher speeds are OK. Learner drivers, P platers, older drivers or drivers with a permanent or temporary disability (which still allows them to drive) perhaps might be a good reason. Presumably older cars or cars which might be dangerous at higher speeds (eg if the wheels are out of balance) might be a good reason. Using your Kings Highway example, perhaps locals on rural properties (who have not yet atuned themselves to the speed of the road) might have good reason (I think I remember reading somehwere that most accidents occur within a few km’s of home). Perhaps having local knowledge of the road, or new road conditions or a prior bad experience on that stretch of road might be good reason.

My point is that we never know why the person in front is driving more slowly. We all get frustrated, and I’m not perfect, but I am constantly trying to take a breath and not judge them. I find that if I judge them I start to drive more aggressively so I try to pretend that the car is a front end loader and then I just pass when I can.

shadow boxer said :

Interesting thta NSW is now starting to seek driver input on speed liits and will review the top 100, about time we got a voice against the road safety nazi’s.

I’ll kick it off

Anzac parade should be 90
Northbourne Ave should be 90
Vernon circle to Parliament House should be 100

Yep, pedestrians have it far too easy trying to cross those avenues anyway. Personally I think school zones should be limited to 80 to weed out the slow ones.

Thoroughly Smashed10:56 am 24 Jun 11

shadow boxer said :

Interesting thta NSW is now starting to seek driver input on speed liits and will review the top 100, about time we got a voice against the road safety nazi’s.

I’ll kick it off

Anzac parade should be 90
Northbourne Ave should be 90
Vernon circle to Parliament House should be 100

Why only 90, does the idea of a three figure speed limit on suburban roads scare you?

@ Innovation, I agree, but may I add;

Your second point does have a flipside, it is irresponsible to drive to slow (Not accusing, just something that needs a mention) I drive on the kings highway 5 Days a week, and it is not uncommon to encounter someone doing 20, 30, or even 40 below the limit, on a clear, bright and dry day.

If some people are more comfortable at these speeds, maybe they could pull aside every now and then and let people through so as not to hold up the flow of traffic (In some countries this is the law)and it may be necessary for them to re-consider wether they are comfortable driving on high speed roads at all.

However, this does not imply that tailgating is the solution, it is important to maintain a 3 second gap from the car in front (you will find this figure in the NSW, ACT and Australian road rules, it was smaller at some point, but that is the current figure, it also pays to note it is a figure the insurance companies take into account when you make a claim)

Disinformation9:35 am 24 Jun 11

Mr Gillespie, you’ve provided much evidence to my theory that some people assume that their stance on rejection of authority will be supported by popular opinion.
When voicing an opinion that combines your personal viewpoint on legality, public safety and your interpretation of it’s machinations, it pays to know your audience particularly well. The Internet is not as full of rebellious teenagers as you’d like to think, but the world is full of people who have the approved authority to forcefully dissuade you from continually doing what YOU feel is appropriate. Welcome to reality.
I fully accept that there are police with measuring devices who will check my speed against that which has been ordained to be appropriate for the circumstances. I accept that risk and adjust my behaviour accordingly. Conversely, when I change my behaviour, I also weigh up the risk. This ensures that there is a minimum chance of me being caught driving over the speed limit. Whether that be from 1kph over in a school zone, or 152 kph over the limit on the open road.

It’s a matter of aligning your perception of acceptable risk with anyone else that knows about it.
The instant that car is moving, you’ve taken a risk. If you can’t mitigate your risk, then you have the right to pay as many speeding fines as you deem appropriate. The thought of which provides me with almost as much entertainment as seeing flashing red and blue lights behind someone else’s car.

So when you see “the man” with the laser speed gun hiding in the bushes and slam your brakes on, it won’t worry me at all. I’ll be maintaining an appropriate safe braking distance plus an SAFD (Standard Allowance For D***heads)

I think that most of the time, you are not going to get to your destination any faster by speeding. Why bother risking a fine or injuring yourself and/or others? You may find that you end up at your destination more relaxed as well.

shadow boxer8:22 am 24 Jun 11

Interesting thta NSW is now starting to seek driver input on speed liits and will review the top 100, about time we got a voice against the road safety nazi’s.

I’ll kick it off

Anzac parade should be 90
Northbourne Ave should be 90
Vernon circle to Parliament House should be 100

Based on the posts here, I think that many people are concerned for you and for those around you on the roads. My posts, and possibly others, were to try and shock you into seeing that there might be another point of view.

Many of us inadvertently slip over the speed limit by at least one or two k’s now and again and it depends on the speed limit as to how serious that is (eg in a 40k school zone it’s very serious).

However, I have three suggestions for you to consider:
1/ the speed limit is a “maximum speed limit” which should be driven at, or just below, in optimal conditions only (ie dry weather in good light and low traffic, pedestrians etc);
2/ if someone else chooses to drive under the speed limit, that is their choice and judgement of the conditions and their driving ability and it is not up to other drivers to try to hurry them along;
3/ if you don’t agree with a speed limit somewhere, don’t disregard it and speed anyway, do something “constructive” about it. Lobby for support, get a petition going, go on the radio, write to TAMS or the MLA etc. For example, lots of us hate 40km/h construction zones especially when workers don’t seem to be around but our choices are: to take a breath and accept that there might be a good reason that we don’t know about, make a constructive complaint, or (least desirably) speed and risk getting caught.

Mr Gillespie said :

why the hell are you so determined to defend the Government’s right to entrap people for driving a few ks over speed limits

lol entrapment. We better give the Ombudsman a call and get his finest team on the case.

No, pointing out immaturity is not immature, deciding you don’t agree with a rule, so your going to break it, is immature!

if you have an issue with a speed zone, find others who share your view, and petition for an increase, if enough people agree its to slow, they will review it.

Unless you have qualifications or experience in the field though, there is allot of points you may not be considering.

Although you may not believe it i DO believe some roads are to slow, and i have been involved in successful appeals of speed zones in the past (one such example was a road that had been widened, straightened and smoothed, but had not been reviewed to reflect this, it was raised 30km after we petitioned)

However it is NOT a sensible way of fighting against roads that are too slow, to simply say “I’ll do what i want” and then getting booked! No rules change, you give them more reason to police the area, and keep the speed down, and, you empty your pockets!

It’s not entrapment, if it was, then why are so many people able to do it right without any trouble!

As for being over one Km, they wont book you, there is a 3km buffer, and on top of that, discretion.

My point with the speed minus the sign = Zero was how easy it is to not speed!

Personally, my biggest issue is the damn warnings for fixed speed cameras, sure, make sure the speed limit is clear near them, but don’t tell people they are there, HIDE THEM!

Seriously, my tax dollars pay to fit a speed camera, then they pay for the sign that makes it ineffective as everyone speeding slows for the camera, then speeds back up.

Now, Mr Gillespie, as far as i can see, you don’t want to face the fact that speeding, even by a little, is something the driver controls, so i’m not going to waste my time continuing to bicker with you, just don’t whinge to me when you pay the fines that i find so easy to avoid.

I will say this though, i am not suggesting for a moment that i am above this, i have myself sped, and a few months ago, i was booked, only yards from the start of the 100km zone, coming to Canberra from Braidwood, i started to speed up before the 100 sign.

I am not saying that i am without fault and you are, the difference is, in my case, i can see that the only person at fault was me, if i had been more attentive to my own speed, and shown more self control in the lead up to the 100 sign, i would have avoided a fine, and loss of points.

My actions, My responsibly, My stupidity, and My voluntarily payment!

Now, to one of the other issues raised, yes, according to both the ACT road rules, and the Australian road rules, the speed zone starts at exactly the point of its first sign, and ends exactly at the point of the first sign of the next zone, and you can not exceed the limit at any point in that zone.

Therefore, you should slow down in time to have reached the signposted limit, by the time you draw level with the sign, and should not increase beyond that limit till after you have passed the start of a faster zone.

Mr Gillespie11:36 pm 23 Jun 11

Innovation said :

……Actually I hadn’t assumed that you can’t control your vehicle. I have assumed that you can’t control your emotions AND I have assumed that you won’t be in a position to react defensively if someone else can’t control their vehicle.

I hadn’t assumed that you contribute to a voluntary fund. I have asumed that your voluntary actions have the potential to contribute to an involuntary fund – for which I would be very grateful.

I haven’t assumed that you are unobservent. I have assumed that you are an idiot who is potentially psychotic and possbly also deliberately trying to bait RA contributors.

1. According to Johnboy, I “can’t control my vehicle” and therefore should hand in my licence.
2. I am not talking about MY actions. I am talking about the actions of the mugs armed with those laser devices, who you seem to love so much, are you one of them? Stop twisting my words.
3. I am not baiting RiotACT contributors, the baiting seems to be coming from them! The contributors in question seem hell-bent on shoving it down my throat that it is OK to ping everyone who dares exceed the speed limit even if it was just by one km/h. Even one km/h over is too dangerous so therefore I have to hand in my licence and contribute to this “voluntary” fund you seem to bait me by licking your lips for that dubiously obtained money.

A bit off topic but…

Henry82 said :

80km takes 59m to stop, 60km takes 38m to stop. That’s a 20m difference.

I dislike speeding and am constantly annoyed by the fools who do it (oh god, the amount of idiots I saw this morning…), but I feel a bit rubbed the wrong way when braking distance is mentioned. At the defensive driving course I attended a while back, my car stopped from 80kph at about the same distance that some of the crappy econo-boxes the teenage P-platers were driving managed from 60kph. If the government was serious it’d require cars to come with brakes more powerful than damp sponges…

Mr Gillespie11:25 pm 23 Jun 11

You are twisting my words around to suit yourselves. Added to that your putdowns comparing me to some little child making up “excuses” for being a naughty little boy or girl. That is what I call immature.

I must ask — why the hell are you so determined to defend the Government’s right to entrap people for driving a few ks over speed limits and the limits are NEVER, EVER set too low according to you. I am not talking about hooning around school zones at ridiculous speeds, I am talking about exceeding the limit by just one km/h (like your immature post about the speed zone sign minus the speedometer’s needle having to be ZERO).

Is that how you get your rocks off, by insulting others who you think are not as good as you? Hm?

Oh, and further, you are contributing to voluntarily funds, no matter how much you protest.

You have the power not to, just don’t speed, i manage this everyday, and apparently i’m an idiot!

So I’m fairly certain you can manage it if you choose to, if you choose not to, than that is your decision, you’re very own, Voluntary, decision 🙂

Mr Gillespie, if your that much smarter than me, then why are you the one paying the fines?

Mate, children make excuses when they misbehave, not fully grown adults, maybe it is you who needs to grow up.

Mr Gillespie said :

Innovation said :

……..And Mr Gillespie……… I don’t suppose you drive a silver commodore do you?

Assumptions, again….. :shrug:

for example…..

You ASSUME I am a dangerous hoon who “can’t control his vehicle” and therefore should hand in my licence
You ASSUME I contribute to a “voluntary fund”
You ASSUME I am “unobservant”

Wrong on all 3 counts, and that’s just the start.

Actually I hadn’t assumed that you can’t control your vehicle. I have assumed that you can’t control your emotions AND I have assumed that you won’t be in a position to react defensively if someone else can’t control their vehicle.

I hadn’t assumed that you contribute to a voluntary fund. I have asumed that your voluntary actions have the potential to contribute to an involuntary fund – for which I would be very grateful.

I haven’t assumed that you are unobservent. I have assumed that you are an idiot who is potentially psychotic and possbly also deliberately trying to bait RA contributors.

Mr Gillespie said :

Innovation said :

You ASSUME I am a dangerous hoon who “can’t control his vehicle” and therefore should hand in my licence
You ASSUME I contribute to a “voluntary fund”
You ASSUME I am “unobservant”

Your the one stating that the government uses trickery and designs roads and speed limits so motorists can’t help but break speed limits and therefore raising revenue. This eludes to me that obviously your caught all the time by this apparent trickery….. you provide us all with the assumptions by what you write. If you cant follow speed limits without being tricked by the government then yes you are unobservant and lack driving skill.

So, are you unable to follow speed limits, or do you choose not to follow the speed limits?

Mr Gillespie7:49 pm 23 Jun 11

Innovation said :

……..And Mr Gillespie……… I don’t suppose you drive a silver commodore do you?

Assumptions, again….. :shrug:

for example…..

You ASSUME I am a dangerous hoon who “can’t control his vehicle” and therefore should hand in my licence
You ASSUME I contribute to a “voluntary fund”
You ASSUME I am “unobservant”

Wrong on all 3 counts, and that’s just the start.

Mr Gillespie7:45 pm 23 Jun 11

Voluntary fund? Huh??? What voluntary fund?

I’m not contributing to ANY voluntary fund other than genuine charity!

Mr Gillespie said :

Special G #44

You don’t need to be a “road engineer” to work out that a long stretch of road away from a built-up area doesn’t require a 40km/h speed limit. And are these “road engineer” experts the same ones that put up an 80 sign, a 60 sign, and a 40 sign together in the space of less than 500m?? Gee, that’s smart!

Also, have any of these “road engineers” you refer to ever been stuck behind a car crawling along a single-lane road in the country doing 20k BELOW the speed limit???

and 00davist #45

Your perceived IQ, going by that post, seems a lot lower than mine, I mean “simple trick, look where the needle of the speedometer is pointing”. REALLY??? S***!!! I DIDN’T KNOW THAT!!!!

pfffffffftttttt…….. Grow up!!

I vote FOTW ……. this guy knows better than engineers, government and EVERYONE. lol

Keep contributing to the voluntary fund Mr Gillespie, I for one thank you.

Classified said :

Innovation said :

Just for your interest, I was doing around 45 in a 60 zone yesterday when a huge landcruiser stopped in a side street suddenly pulled out straight in front of me. If I’d been doing the speed limit I’d be typing this from hospital now.

In other words, a person failing to give way nearly caused an accident.

Of course, we should always be thankful for a lucky escape. Do you normally drive below the speed limit? I drive at a speed based on the visibility and road surface (so on narrow suburban roads will generally do well under 60km/h).

It was Novar St so it is in a suburb but it’s posted at 60. Personally I think 60 on that street is too fast. Too many driveways, intersections, shops, crossing cyclists and pedestrians. I tend to sit on about 50 but for some reason I was a bit slower that day (maybe it was wet or something because I remember skidding towards the edge of the road) and neither I or my partner are sure how both cars fitted in the same lane.

A bit off thread but after several near misses with cyclists on the cycle path that crosses that street I actually tried a couple of times to get a traffic island put in the middle but I haven’t had any success.

And Mr Gillespie……… I don’t suppose you drive a silver commodore do you?

Mr Gillespie7:16 pm 23 Jun 11

Special G #44

You don’t need to be a “road engineer” to work out that a long stretch of road away from a built-up area doesn’t require a 40km/h speed limit. And are these “road engineer” experts the same ones that put up an 80 sign, a 60 sign, and a 40 sign together in the space of less than 500m?? Gee, that’s smart!

Also, have any of these “road engineers” you refer to ever been stuck behind a car crawling along a single-lane road in the country doing 20k BELOW the speed limit???

and 00davist #45

Your perceived IQ, going by that post, seems a lot lower than mine, I mean “simple trick, look where the needle of the speedometer is pointing”. REALLY??? S***!!! I DIDN’T KNOW THAT!!!!

pfffffffftttttt…….. Grow up!!

@ Mr Gillespie.

Yep, it’s voluntary, if you want to volunteer some cash, keep driving as you are, if not, then heres a simple trick;

Take the number the needle is pointing too on your speedometer, deduct that from the number on those large signs they tend to put up next to roads (that’s the black-ish strip of asphalt you are driving on) if the number you get is greater than zero, YOU’RE DOING IT WRONG! For further help with this, grades 1 – 2 at primary school should suffice.

Seriously, if you don’t like the speed, write a damn letter, Rather than sitting here, trying to babble out excuses (yes, excuses) for you inability to follow the rules, this only makes you look like a fool!

Awaiting your reply happily, I imagine it will lower your perceived IQ even further!!!

Obviously Mr Gillespie disagrees with the road engineers who set the posted speed limit for certain areas and his ‘common’ sense is better. The thing about common sense is that it is so rare it’s almost a superpower. I can just see the defence in Court “your Honour, I used common sense and whoever set the speed limit was simply trying to catch me out and do some revenue raising.” sure why not, it is the ACT.

I know a lot of cops as well and I don’t know any of them who would bother hiding in order to catch people speeding. Just standing on the side of the road next to a marked Police car in a high vis vest is camouflage enough.

Mr Gillespie said :

Am I getting through to you yet???

No, because your speaking dribble. IT’S ALL A CONSPIRACY THEORY …… I’ll remove my tin foil hat now shall I !!!!!

ROFLMAO

Mr Gillespie5:45 pm 23 Jun 11

Spideydog said :

So you involuntarily speed do you …… You make the decision to speed, so yes it is a voluntary tax. I suggest you need to get to know what “voluntary” means. So if we are going to ignore low range speeding (because you can’t easily control the speed your doing apparently) then lets ignore low range drink driving as well. You don’t like the laws, talk to your local member.

If you cant control your speed, hand your licence into the nearest RTA or shopfront because your driving is obviously not up to a standard.

Your tirade is probably some of the most funny posts (saying it lightly) that I have seen on here for a long time. Thanks for the laughs 😉

So, I “involuntarily” speed ay? Well Spideydog, you are obviously missing the point. I didn’t expect you to understand, so I am hardly surprised……

THE POINT I AM MAKING IS (if you can possibly understand this), is:

Posted speed limits are often TOO LOW. I do not make the decisions about what speed limits are on lengths of road. Tell me how this isn’t engineered to catch people out and extort money by speeding fines!

This has got nothing to do with my ability to control a motor vehicle. This is another point you and Johnboy also seem to have a lot of difficulty understanding. (my guess is you and Johnboy are trying to sidetrack the issue)

I drive according to the conditions and what’s called COMMONSENSE. The problem is, speed limits are set much, much lower than what the conditions allow. Or haven’t you ever been in that situation? Hm??

Drink-driving alcohol limits and low-range drink-driving offences have got nothing to do with what I am trying to say here.

This is about posted speed limits on particular stretches of road which are set too low.

Am I getting through to you yet???

Mr Gillespie said :

Spideydog said :

…..Mr Gillespie, these laws have obviously been enacted to protect us from you. So we should have all speeding offences taken to court and clogging up the already stifled court system ……. Its pretty simple really, speeding offences are a voluntary tax if you will, don’t speed and don’t pay the tax !!!!! I for one enjoy having better roads and services courtesy of voluntary tax payers.

Duhhhhh, it’s not “VOLUNTARY” if you HAVE TO pay the fine or pay even heavier administrative costs or other extra penalties for fine defaulting. If you have trouble understanding this then maybe I need to explain to you what the word “voluntary” means!

If it clogs up the court system well that’s just TOO BLOODY BAD! Perhaps if you don’t want the courts being clogged, then some low-range speeding “offences” should be ignored, and speed limits made more reasonable and not so easily broken.

So you involuntarily speed do you …… You make the decision to speed, so yes it is a voluntary tax. I suggest you need to get to know what “voluntary” means. So if we are going to ignore low range speeding (because you can’t easily control the speed your doing apparently) then lets ignore low range drink driving as well. You don’t like the laws, talk to your local member.

If you cant control your speed, hand your licence into the nearest RTA or shopfront because your driving is obviously not up to a standard.

Your tirade is probably some of the most funny posts (saying it lightly) that I have seen on here for a long time. Thanks for the laughs 😉

Mr Gillespie4:54 pm 23 Jun 11

Spideydog said :

…..Mr Gillespie, these laws have obviously been enacted to protect us from you. So we should have all speeding offences taken to court and clogging up the already stifled court system ……. Its pretty simple really, speeding offences are a voluntary tax if you will, don’t speed and don’t pay the tax !!!!! I for one enjoy having better roads and services courtesy of voluntary tax payers.

Duhhhhh, it’s not “VOLUNTARY” if you HAVE TO pay the fine or pay even heavier administrative costs or other extra penalties for fine defaulting. If you have trouble understanding this then maybe I need to explain to you what the word “voluntary” means!

If it clogs up the court system well that’s just TOO BLOODY BAD! Perhaps if you don’t want the courts being clogged, then some low-range speeding “offences” should be ignored, and speed limits made more reasonable and not so easily broken.

troll-sniffer said :

Innovation said :

Just for your interest, I was doing around 45 in a 60 zone yesterday when a huge landcruiser stopped in a side street suddenly pulled out straight in front of me. If I’d been doing the speed limit I’d be typing this from hospital now.

No you wouldn’t. You’d have passed the point where the Landcruiser pulled out and he would have been behind you.

NEXT!

Nice presumption there, got the science to back that up? Of course this would be relative to where the other vehicle had pulled out in front of them too ……

Whilst I don’t advocate driving well under speed limits, I think the point the author was trying to make was by going at a slower speed, this had given them more reaction time and more stopping distance to avoid a collision, where as a small increase in speed can make a difference between having a collision and avoiding one or reducing the severity of it.

Mr Gillespie, these laws have obviously been enacted to protect us from you. So we should have all speeding offences taken to court and clogging up the already stifled court system ……. Its pretty simple really, speeding offences are a voluntary tax if you will, don’t speed and don’t pay the tax !!!!! I for one enjoy having better roads and services courtesy of voluntary tax payers.

Classified said :

Innovation said :

Just for your interest, I was doing around 45 in a 60 zone yesterday when a huge landcruiser stopped in a side street suddenly pulled out straight in front of me. If I’d been doing the speed limit I’d be typing this from hospital now.

In other words, a person failing to give way nearly caused an accident.

Of course, we should always be thankful for a lucky escape. Do you normally drive below the speed limit? I drive at a speed based on the visibility and road surface (so on narrow suburban roads will generally do well under 60km/h).

Good!
The speed limit on these streets is 50km/h.

troll-sniffer3:32 pm 23 Jun 11

Innovation said :

Just for your interest, I was doing around 45 in a 60 zone yesterday when a huge landcruiser stopped in a side street suddenly pulled out straight in front of me. If I’d been doing the speed limit I’d be typing this from hospital now.

No you wouldn’t. You’d have passed the point where the Landcruiser pulled out and he would have been behind you.

NEXT!

Innovation said :

Just for your interest, I was doing around 45 in a 60 zone yesterday when a huge landcruiser stopped in a side street suddenly pulled out straight in front of me. If I’d been doing the speed limit I’d be typing this from hospital now.

In other words, a person failing to give way nearly caused an accident.

Of course, we should always be thankful for a lucky escape. Do you normally drive below the speed limit? I drive at a speed based on the visibility and road surface (so on narrow suburban roads will generally do well under 60km/h).

colourful sydney racing identity2:32 pm 23 Jun 11

Innovation said :

Mr Gillespie … I reckon that you should keep on speeding.

Particularly on curvy mountain roads in wet weather.

Mr Gillespie – Assuming your posts are not a joke, I reckon that you should keep on speeding. If you get caught and pay the fine we might all benefit in some small way from lower increases in taxes. If you take it to court post the details on RA as I’m sure plenty of people will want to come and “support” you.

Just for your interest, I was doing around 45 in a 60 zone yesterday when a huge landcruiser stopped in a side street suddenly pulled out straight in front of me. If I’d been doing the speed limit I’d be typing this from hospital now.

No, you’d hit the car because you’re unobservant and demonstrably poor at anticipating road conditions by your own admissions.

Mr Gillespie1:30 pm 23 Jun 11

It depends on what you call “unable to drive to the speed limit”.

Are you saying if my speedo says I am doing 64 and the posted speed limit for that length of road is 60km/h, I am “unable to drive to the speed limit”?

If the car in front of me blows a tyre, would I hit that car if I was doing 60km/h, no? Would I hit that car if I was doing 64km/h?

Mostly it’s because people who are unable to drive to the speed limit are likely to be extremely dangerous in many other situations.

Car in front of you blows a tyre? Light turns red at a busy intersection? Traffic arrangements have changed since the last time you wandered through?

If you cant see a prominently displayed speed sign and adjust accordingly I have no faith in your ability to deal with other situations.

Mr Gillespie12:40 pm 23 Jun 11

Postalgeek said :

There’s only one person here using CAPITALS and multiple exclamation marks!!! You better go back on your meds.

And there are a lot of people who seem hell-bent on defending the rights of Government to make money under the guise of speed enforcement — I mean — has anyone ever stopped for a single second to think about why speeding is the most common “offence” people are booked for?? I mean it is so widespread the Government relies on it as part of their revenue stream, is it not???

My guess is a lot of people troll on Internet forums for the mere sake of trolling, because they enjoy putting people down and making them feel guilty, as accusing people of taking risks (however small and insignificant these risks are even if one km/h above the legal speed limit) especially with children who run out onto roads without warning — accusing people (with the slightest hint of evidence) of endangering the safety of children gives them some sort of perverse enjoyment. People like this seem to think claiming the higher moral ground makes them look better than the person they are arguing against regardless of how stupidly pedantic their argument is.

Thoroughly Smashed12:35 pm 23 Jun 11

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

If we are supposed to slow down to 60 while still in an 80 zone, what happens when we are going from a 60 zone into an 80? Are we allowed to speed up to 80 while still in the 60 zone, or is that speeding?

You’d be doing 80 in a 60 zone, wouldn’t you?

Holden Caulfield12:27 pm 23 Jun 11

ThatUniStudent said :

Mr Gillespie said :

johnboy said :

Mr Gillespie said :

Or you could drive at the posted speed limit. If that’s beyond you then frankly your situational awareness is so poor you should be removed from the road, not just fined.

Johnboy, doing 80 2 metres from a 60k sign is hardly the same as driving erratically while blind drunk 10 times the .05 limit, as your comment here seems to imply……:shakes head:

Actually, it is the same thing. It’s illegal. Well it is if it’s 2 metres past the 60 sign. Were you suggesting that one is less illegal than the other? That’s like saying one woman is less pregnant than the other. It’s a binary thing mate. It is either illegal or not illegal. There’s no grey area in between.

Well, all except the gray bit that is the fact a police officer can, in some instances, possibly like the one being discussed, exercise discretion and choose to give a warning, official or otherwise, and not issue a ticket at all.

I think the funniest part of all of this is the difference between how people say they drive and how they actually drive.

DarkLadyWolfMother11:55 am 23 Jun 11

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

If we are supposed to slow down to 60 while still in an 80 zone, what happens when we are going from a 60 zone into an 80? Are we allowed to speed up to 80 while still in the 60 zone, or is that speeding?

Yes, that’s speeding. A speed sign denotes the maximum speed allowed after that point. So you slow down before the sign when going from 80 to 60, and after the sign when going from 60 to 80.

Queen_of_the_Bun11:43 am 23 Jun 11

If we are supposed to slow down to 60 while still in an 80 zone, what happens when we are going from a 60 zone into an 80? Are we allowed to speed up to 80 while still in the 60 zone, or is that speeding?

Mr Gillespie said :

You guys need to RELAX geeezzz what is wrong with you.

DANGEROUS DRIVING is an idiot flying past at 180 (that’s ONE HUNDRED AND eighty) in a 60 zone, so PULL YOUR HEAD IN and stop being such panic merchants!!!

There’s only one person here using CAPITALS and multiple exclamation marks!!! You better go back on your meds.

Mr Gillespie said :

Oh, so doing 80ks in a 60 zone that is still 2 metres away makes me a DANGER on the roads.

yes, a speed limit is a limit. You can see the sign coming, there is no reason why you can’t be a defensive driver and prepare for the changing conditions. They put the speed limit there for a reason

80km takes 59m to stop, 60km takes 38m to stop. That’s a 20m difference.

ThatUniStudent11:35 am 23 Jun 11

Mr Gillespie said :

johnboy said :

Mr Gillespie said :

Or you could drive at the posted speed limit. If that’s beyond you then frankly your situational awareness is so poor you should be removed from the road, not just fined.

Johnboy, doing 80 2 metres from a 60k sign is hardly the same as driving erratically while blind drunk 10 times the .05 limit, as your comment here seems to imply……:shakes head:

Actually, it is the same thing. It’s illegal. Well it is if it’s 2 metres past the 60 sign. Were you suggesting that one is less illegal than the other? That’s like saying one woman is less pregnant than the other. It’s a binary thing mate. It is either illegal or not illegal. There’s no grey area in between.

troll-sniffer11:35 am 23 Jun 11

Keijidosha said :

It’s your responsibility to do the posted speed limit. If that means you have to slow down before the sign, so be it.

Years ago my mum got booked doing 45 in a school zone, pretty much just after passing the sign. Her claim that she was in the process of slowing down was no excuse.

A mate of mine who was often engaged in the practice of pointing a laser device at motorists said that generally they would not book motorists who were in the process of slowing down and who may still be a little over the limit as they pass the sign… but motorists who appeared to be situationally unaware, reckless, smart-alecky or any other abnormal behaviour would most likely be ticketed regardless. So, if you took your foot off as soon as the upcoming 60 sign came into view, and showed consistent deceleration down to a bit over 60 as you passed the sign, and continued to slow to 60 or below, your chances of getting stopped would be almost zero. If however you were seen to notice the 60 sign at the last moment, slow quickly and proceed past it at 65-70, you would be considered to be not in the spirit of the enforcement and probably be pulled over. My guess is the driver quoted here slowed late, and was not actually slowing down from 45 to under 40 when pinged. It’s amazing what aspects of a driver’s awareness and attitude show up within a caouple of seconds of being noted…

luther_bendross11:35 am 23 Jun 11

Mr Gillespie said :

Oh, so doing 80ks in a 60 zone that is still 2 metres away makes me a DANGER on the roads.

You guys need to RELAX geeezzz what is wrong with you.

DANGEROUS DRIVING is an idiot flying past at 180 (that’s ONE HUNDRED AND eighty) in a 60 zone, so PULL YOUR HEAD IN and stop being such panic merchants!!!

Thanks to your use of capitals, explanation of what 180 means and emphatic use of zeds and exclamation marks, you have convinced me that I can continue speeding, so long as someone else is speeding more than I. I’m gonna go to work like a m******f*****r from now on.

ThatUniStudent11:31 am 23 Jun 11

Mr Gillespie said :

The coppers pointing these laser devices need to make themselves more visible instead of hiding around corners and behind bushes and other objects, so people don’t HAVE to slam on their brakes!!

I do think that is the dumbest thing I have ever read on the Internet. All of us are now collectivity more stupider for having read that.
There’s no slamming involved, just drive at or below the speed limit at all times. Oh sure, we all drift a few kilometres over it, but seriously, how hard is it? Look at traffic, mirror check, speedo check, look at traffic, mirror check, speedo check. Plus you get visual and auditory cues from stuff going by and the sound of your engine. In my case I get my passengers to warn me if I’m doing over the limit. It rarely happens, but if I drift more than 5 over it’s their job to let me know. It is though, my responsibility to stick to the limit so, so far they’ve not had to let me know I’m over. I’ve also got a car that makes a lot of noise when it is at 100 so speeding has never been a factor for me.
I’m glad there are blues in the bushes to ensure my safety.

I wonder if the OP is referring to the speed trap set up on Barry Drive this morning, near the intersection of Boldrewood Street. If so, the officer was at least 500m after the 60 sign, in an area where drivers constantly ignore the reduced speed limit as they plough towards the city through the Clunies Ross Street intersection. The cars they had pulled over as I passed by were evidence of that.

I think using the radar gun is a great tactic, as Canberra drivers seem to be accustomed to spotting camera vans.

Mr Gillespie10:39 am 23 Jun 11

luther_bendross said :

Mr Gillespie said :

… rather than trying to do something productive like RBTs, catching defective cars with one headlight, bald tyres, idiots driving dangerously, fighting crime, etc.

Goddamn I hope you’re trolling. One would probably argue that people speeding amounts to “idiots driving dangerously”. Due to the use of the word “coppers”, I also couldn’t help but read your posts in the voice of Trent from Punchy.

Oh, so doing 80ks in a 60 zone that is still 2 metres away makes me a DANGER on the roads.

You guys need to RELAX geeezzz what is wrong with you.

DANGEROUS DRIVING is an idiot flying past at 180 (that’s ONE HUNDRED AND eighty) in a 60 zone, so PULL YOUR HEAD IN and stop being such panic merchants!!!

It’s only 20km, as soon as you see the sign ahead, take your foot of the accelerator, and the car will naturally slow down.

captainwhorebags said :

It’s your responsibility to do the posted speed limit.

(citation needed)

Mr Gillespie said :

it sounds a bit like you are defending the coppers who have nothing better to do than to catch people making mistakes

Police catching people breaking the law? who would have thought it!!!
Also, you can have your day in court if you want, the instructions are written on the ticket on how to go about it. Most people accept they were in fact speeding, (particularly if caught by a police officer) and want to move on with their lives.

Tooks said :

Chop71 said :

It’s the end of the month and revenue is down

The problem with conspiracy theories is that they’re usually bollocks.

I usually get way more fish than 1. Common ppl, you usually are jumping into the boat 🙂

Personally, what would worry me the most about Mr Gillespie’s driving that he may see a female newsreader and lose all focus on the road.

actually an inability to anticipate conditions as represented by a speed sign is no different to an inability to anticipate a child cycling onto the road.

You’re incompetent, dangerous, and best taken off the road if your comments are any guide.

If you were a competent drive the police actions described would not be a problem for you.

It’s not “a mistake” it’s just bad driving.

luther_bendross10:17 am 23 Jun 11

Mr Gillespie said :

… rather than trying to do something productive like RBTs, catching defective cars with one headlight, bald tyres, idiots driving dangerously, fighting crime, etc.

Goddamn I hope you’re trolling. One would probably argue that people speeding amounts to “idiots driving dangerously”. Due to the use of the word “coppers”, I also couldn’t help but read your posts in the voice of Trent from Punchy.

Mr Gillespie10:08 am 23 Jun 11

johnboy said :

Mr Gillespie said :

Or you could drive at the posted speed limit. If that’s beyond you then frankly your situational awareness is so poor you should be removed from the road, not just fined.

Johnboy, doing 80 2 metres from a 60k sign is hardly the same as driving erratically while blind drunk 10 times the .05 limit, as your comment here seems to imply……:shakes head:

Mr Gillespie10:05 am 23 Jun 11

I say to those telling us to slow down BEFORE the sign and preaching “it’s YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to adhere to the posted speed limit” it sounds a bit like you are defending the coppers who have nothing better to do than to catch people making mistakes and raking in revenue for the Government (I mean where else does the money for speeding fines go? If you catch me breaking the law, take me to court instead! or is that too expensive for the Government so it’s much cheaper to just hand out tickets, hm?) rather than trying to do something productive like RBTs, catching defective cars with one headlight, bald tyres, idiots driving dangerously, fighting crime, etc.

Mr Gillespie said :

The coppers pointing these laser devices need to make themselves more visible instead of hiding around corners and behind bushes and other objects, so people don’t HAVE to slam on their brakes!!

Or you could drive at the posted speed limit. If that’s beyond you then frankly your situational awareness is so poor you should be removed from the road, not just fined.

Mr Gillespie10:02 am 23 Jun 11

The coppers pointing these laser devices need to make themselves more visible instead of hiding around corners and behind bushes and other objects, so people don’t HAVE to slam on their brakes!!

Im fairly sure the laws for speed cameras state they have to be > 200m from a speed limit sign. Im not sure if this law applies to actual police officers, and even if it did they’d find some other law that says it doesnt apply to them. The police like to sit on Namatjira Dr heading out of Weston Ck too, to catch people who speed above 60 in the space between where the houses end and where the 80 sign starts, although Ive never seen a camera on that site.

Chop71 said :

It’s the end of the month and revenue is down

The problem with conspiracy theories is that they’re usually bollocks.

It’s the end of the month and revenue is down

Thoroughly Smashed9:21 am 23 Jun 11

Fairly simple; once you’re past the sign you should not be exceeding the speed indicated on the sign.

What is so hard about slowing to 60 before you get to the sign? I am pretty sure this is what the law says anyway. Seriously 100 metres before the sign, tak you foot of the accelerator and you will probably scrub off most of the 20km/h before you get to the sign before you need to put on your brakes and slow down the last little bit.

captainwhorebags9:05 am 23 Jun 11

It’s your responsibility to do the posted speed limit. If that means you have to slow down before the sign, so be it.

Years ago my mum got booked doing 45 in a school zone, pretty much just after passing the sign. Her claim that she was in the process of slowing down was no excuse.

1m past the sign is enough. No reason to slam the brakes on just adjust your speed accordingly before the sign.

The laser does an accurate distance measurement as well as the speed. Most will measure the distance from where they are to the speed sign then give people a little bit of space to correct their speed and catch anyone else inside the distance.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.