Speeding fines in the ACT?

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Interestingly, the instructors said you’re actually very unlikely to steer to avoid an obstacle at any decent speed. Instead, you’re actually more likely to follow it with your eyes, your hands will keep pace and you’ll steer _into_ it, a familiar situation for anybody who’s followed a roo across the road from left to right by turning the wheel in the same direction. Seems this is why you see cars ploughed into lonely trees and light poles – unable to take your eyes off the obstacle you so desperately want to miss, you hit it.

I strongly disagree!

Who follows a roo as it jumps across the road, who in their right mind steers ‘towards’ the accident? Unable to take my eyes off the lonely tree, I ploughed into it!

If something jumps out or pops up in front of me on the road, I steer away from it, it’s just instinctive. I did this just the other day when a fool decided to brake heavily for no reason, a quick jerk of the wheel and I was around him. Now, why wasn’t I transfixed by his quality tail light arrangement and plough on into him?

I remember once, on the way from Brisbane to Darwin, at night I had a wallaby jump out in front of me, there was a car coming towards me so I couldn’t swerve to the right without causing a head on so went to the left and just clipped the little bugger and the poor car coming towards me ran straight into it as he hopped into his lane. Now why didn’t I swerve to the right and follow the wallaby’s direction of travel and die in a head on accident in 1990? I’ll tell you why, because it was night time, I knew the wildlife would be active, I knew there was a car coming towards me and I had, subcontiously, prepared myself for just such an eventuality to occur.

I do this without thinking as I’m sure a lot of other people do. It doesn’t take effort, you just do it, like you don’t have to tell your legs to walk, they just do it, so everything you are saying is just alien to me so forgive me if I don’t subscribe to it.

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Interestingly, the instructors said you’re actually very unlikely to steer to avoid an obstacle at any decent speed. Instead, you’re actually more likely to follow it with your eyes, your hands will keep pace and you’ll steer _into_ it, a familiar situation for anybody who’s followed a roo across the road from left to right by turning the wheel in the same direction. Seems this is why you see cars ploughed into lonely trees and light poles – unable to take your eyes off the obstacle you so desperately want to miss, you hit it.

That is interesting.

There’s been a couple of times years ago when driving a non-ABS car where I had to avoid something at speed and locked the wheels completely, but turned the steering wheel and then released the brakes and managed to miss it, although the success of this was probably more down to having enough room around the car than anything else.

It would be good for all drivers to do a similar course to yours, just to get an appreciation of how long it can really take to pull up a car.

colourful sydney racing identity said :

Mr Gillespie said :

Heard the latest? They’re going ahead with the point-to-point speed cameras here in the ACT regardless of the problems in Victoria. The greedy pigs in the ACT Government here are confident they won’t get the clock sync errors Victoria did. Money, money, money. Cash cows I tellya. I’d say revenue-raising from so-called “speeding fines” are an addiction governments suffer from, and I can’t see such an addiction being shaken off soon, at least as far as the ACT Government is concerned……

It really is quite simple; if you don’t want to pay a speeding fine, don’t speed. They are not “so called speeding fines” they are simply speeding fines.

I think it is great that it is used as a revenue raiser by the ACT – much better than raising rates or bus fares

*sigh*

Mr Gillespie said :

Heard the latest? They’re going ahead with the point-to-point speed cameras here in the ACT regardless of the problems in Victoria. The greedy pigs in the ACT Government here are confident they won’t get the clock sync errors Victoria did. Money, money, money. Cash cows I tellya. I’d say revenue-raising from so-called “speeding fines” are an addiction governments suffer from, and I can’t see such an addiction being shaken off soon, at least as far as the ACT Government is concerned……

It really is quite simple; if you don’t want to pay a speeding fine, don’t speed. They are not “so called speeding fines” they are simply speeding fines.

I think it is great that it is used as a revenue raiser by the ACT – much better than raising rates or bus fares

Woody – when you did this training did anyone try to work out how far away an object had to be (at, say 60km/h) before it could be avoided?

The general figures we were given for straight line hard breaking (for clear, dry conditions in a medium sedan with ABS, driver reaction time 1 second) were half the speed limit: 30m in a 60 zone, 25m in a 50 zone, 20m in a 40 zone. These figures were given with a strong caution that they were pretty much optimal (and rounded); in practice, you’ll likely do worse – road surface, tyre wear, distracted, probably doing a few km over the limit, slower reaction time. This ‘50%’ rule also only hold at these relatively low speeds (for example, at 80km/h your distance to stop is 50m / 60%; at 90km/h it’s 60m / 66%; at 100km/h it’s 70m / 70%). The importance of road surface and vehicle size was driven home at a different course with RAV4s on the wet and on dirt – it was dead cones every time at speeds we could manage in the Protons on dry bitumen.

With a 1 second reaction time, it would be impossible to avoid an obstacle closer than 15m at 50/60 km/h – that’s the distance you cover during the 1 second, so you’re pretty much guaranteed to hit it at full speed just as you start to brake or steer. This drops to 10m (?) at 40 km/h.

At some point beyond this (once your speed is quite low), you’ll be able to ’95 brake’ (almost to the floor), ease to transfer control back to the steering wheel (the amount you ease equals the amount you transfer – 50% brake = 50% at the wheel), steer to avoid, then reapply the brakes. After an afternoon of practice we were getting better at it, and I actually used the technique about a week after the course to avoid a prang in Barton, but in the real world after months without application? *shrug* Hence the warning to drive under the assumption that in real life, you’ll simply plant your foot and pray to the ABS gods.

Interestingly, the instructors said you’re actually very unlikely to steer to avoid an obstacle at any decent speed. Instead, you’re actually more likely to follow it with your eyes, your hands will keep pace and you’ll steer _into_ it, a familiar situation for anybody who’s followed a roo across the road from left to right by turning the wheel in the same direction. Seems this is why you see cars ploughed into lonely trees and light poles – unable to take your eyes off the obstacle you so desperately want to miss, you hit it.

Hmmm…we only need to get all the cars off the roads for a month or two to see the Government break itself when the speed camera money dries up…..but how do we do that?

I’m putting my faith in a spate of bridge collapses, flash flooding and heightened levels of Magpie attacks to leave us all cowering in our loungerooms, peering out the windows from behind heavy curtains at our cars that lie forlornly in the driveway, leaving only roaming packs of kamikazi cyclists to control the roads with their own brand of rules, lead by a man only known as ‘CRK’, that is until one day, a bloke in a big old Falcon dares to hit the rubber road to strike the iron roadworthy, loudly exclaiming,

“Captain RAAF, he knows who I am!!!”

They’re going ahead with the point-to-point speed cameras here in the ACT regardless of the problems in Victoria.

Love to hear what kind of pathetic ’emergency’ excuse you come up with for being busted by these, because the whining you came up with for red light and speed cameras was epic.

“Well, it was raining, and then the light was yellow…um…and then…and then, a TERRORIST was in the back set of my car, and he pointed a gun at my head, and he FORCED me to speed, and that’s why we shouldn’t have point to point cameras, your Worhipfulness. Not that I care, because the law doesn’t apply to me anyway. In conclusion, it’s…it’s the vibe, it’s Mabo, it’s…it’s the vibe.”

Heard the latest? They’re going ahead with the point-to-point speed cameras here in the ACT regardless of the problems in Victoria. The greedy pigs in the ACT Government here are confident they won’t get the clock sync errors Victoria did. Money, money, money. Cash cows I tellya. I’d say revenue-raising from so-called “speeding fines” are an addiction governments suffer from, and I can’t see such an addiction being shaken off soon, at least as far as the ACT Government is concerned……

How about that one on the Federal Highway at Watson.
“Welcome to Canberra. Thanks for coming to our fair city. Now here’s your speeding ticket”.

Captain RAAF said :

… the 90% crowd, which I aint in!…

Sorry Captain, your comments have well and truly demonstrated that you’re in the 95%+ of drivers who genuinely believe that they’re better than the average driver. So when you’re in traffic, almost all of those drivers are, in fact, just like you.

Pork Hunt said :

When I was in uniform it used to stand for Rarely Airborne After Five…

Touche Sir.

When I was in uniform it used to stand for Rarely Airborne After Five…

I know they don’t understand, Captain. It’s OK.

Like the time that my ex demanded of a certain (German) vehicle maunfacturer that they tell her how to disable the ABS in her newly acquired vehicle. Her reason? She could pull it up quicker in an emergency braking situation sans ABS than with. Once they complied (just pull fuse number x, madam), she regularly demonstrated the ability (under controlled conditions) while engaged in driving skills practice (yeah . . . our idea of a great day out once a month).

Then there was the time a group of us headed into the depths of a forest (in a state a long way away from here) to practice braking from 160 km/hr on gravel (a skill useful in sports such as rallying). After a bit of faffing around at a variety of locations, we decided to give it a go on some tarmac and take some measurements of those results as well (rally cars are equipped with VERY accurate DME: Captain will know what that acronym stands for).

Guess what? We discovered that all of us (mostly top state and national level comopetitors at the time) could pull up pretty quickly on tarmac, but we could all still pull up in a shorter distance on gravel. Outcome: while travelling at 160 km/hr on gravel, I would have my navvie give me a ‘100 metre’ call ONLY for all instructions. None of this countdown from 300 metres nonsense. Even then, I’d be thinking, “pauseonetwo . . . HIT ‘EM”.

Did I forget to mention that the ex was a multi-times state ladies rally champion? Oh yeah . . . I did, ’til just then.

Scan and Plan, Captain, Scan and Plan . . . spot on.

Damn. My z-score was meant to be 1.654.

Either way it is incredibly unlikely that CaptRAAF falls outside 1.654 standard deviations above the mean, in terms of anything.

Captain RAAF said :

It’s easy for people like WMC to generalise and say “you’ll do this, and statistics say that etc etc’ but those stats are based on the 90% crowd, which I aint in!

Wanna talk statistics?

Statistically speaking, it is incredibly unlikely that CaptRAAF falls outside 1.28 standard deviations from the mean, in terms of anything.

We are all average, including Capt RAAF.

Looks like Capt Round Australia After F@cks has got you all going again…….

Erg0 said :

If only 10% of drivers are actually competent then we probably shouldn’t be encouraging people to drive faster. The fact that a lot of people do it anyway actually helps to support point #2 more than anything.

Leaving aside the assertion that only 10% of drivers are competent (whatever that really means), it would be interesting to study whether improving driver skills and performance changes the rate of accidents causing injury or death, and the level to which any change occurred.

As to the question of swerving, a lot depends on how quickly you are traveling and how ‘hard’ you try to swerve. Generally, the faster you are traveling the more gently you need to turn the steering wheel to maintain control, although the faster you are going the less steering input is needed to change the position of the vehicle relative to the object in the way. When I was taught to drive, the idea was to brake if you had time, but to get off the brakes and not hit the throttle when swerving, but to roll smoothly onto the throttle to stabilise the vehicle when swerving back. Also, you didn’t want to swerve wildly, but rather ‘just enough’, to help maintain control. Of course, we now have ABS, which great especially in the wet, but braking hard (even with ABS) reduces the ability of the turning wheels to maintain traction.

In Woody’s example above, the vehicle is traveling at 60km/h, and hence traveling at 16.7 metres per second. At 91km/h, the vehicle is traveling at 25.3 metres per second. The 0.7 reaction time is pretty generous, I think, with 1 full second being closer to ‘normal’. Woody – when you did this training did anyone try to work out how far away an object had to be (at, say 60km/h) before it could be avoided?

trix said :

Woody, you’ve omitted the point that Superman — sorry, our noble Captain — is not hitting the brakes while he’s doing his creative manoeuvring. It’s all full speed ahead with the foot on the accelerator.

Of course, he’s managed to omit the point about what happens when he tries this wonderful technique on a REAL road, not a racing track where he drives his boy’s toy, and there are multiple lanes of traffic, street furniture and various objects at the side of the road, and the ONCOMING TRAFFIC.

Two words, Situational Awareness.

I have it.

If you know what’s going on around you all the time, and drive fully aware that most other road users are incompetant bumbling fools out to kill you, then yes, you will always place yourself in situations where you can make your escape.

In slow moving traffic, it’s best to try and blend in so the noddies don’t recognise that you actually can drive a car. I try and avoid eye contact in these situations as it only provokes them to try and ram me but once on the move, the only indication they get that I am even on the road is as I sweep past them but by then it’s too late.

Unlike most women and contributors to this topic it seems, I actually watch the road 1-200 metres in front of me so I am ready for just about anything, even little kiddies chasing balls onto 3 lane highways and kamikaze wombats lurking behind combi vans.

As I said earlier, the rules we have now are so 90% of the population don’t off themselves on the roads in accidents because we need their tax dollars. The poor 10% who can actually drive just have to tough it out and, due to the fact that we can actually operate an automobile, get frustrated when policy and people expect us to act and drive as poorly as they do.

It’s easy for people like WMC to generalise and say “you’ll do this, and statistics say that etc etc’ but those stats are based on the 90% crowd, which I aint in!

So while you measuring the 14 metres to the POI, I’m driving around the problem because I saw it a hundred metres ago and planned accordingly. Don’t go painting me with your sheeple brush, I am not in your group.

Erg0 said :

I think you’re giving Cappy too much credit by assuming that he actually has a point beyond “get off my lawn!”

See if you can spot the logical inconsistency here, though:
1. Speed limits are based on the lowest common denominator, and should be raised to a level that competent drivers can manage.
2. 90% of drivers are biblically stupid and incapable of doing something as simple as stopping in a straight line.

If only 10% of drivers are actually competent then we probably shouldn’t be encouraging people to drive faster. The fact that a lot of people do it anyway actually helps to support point #2 more than anything.

haha, I am struggling with that one, I’m no expert but I thought with modern ABS brakes the best way to stop is jump on the brakes as hard as you can.

Captain RAAF said :

Seriously, what moron just hits the brakes and does nothing else? I’ll tell you who, the lowest common denominator that is the reason for this countries ridiculously low speed limits that were designed in the 1950’s for cars with drum brakes all round and had no seat belts…I think a bit has changed since then…..

Me, if a roo/wombat/dog runs out in front of me there is no way Im going to swerve risking a larger accident, especially at 100km/h with oncoming traffic.

A child would be different however but I have never had the misforturne to have one run out in front of me.

Woody, you’ve omitted the point that Superman — sorry, our noble Captain — is not hitting the brakes while he’s doing his creative manoeuvring. It’s all full speed ahead with the foot on the accelerator.

Of course, he’s managed to omit the point about what happens when he tries this wonderful technique on a REAL road, not a racing track where he drives his boy’s toy, and there are multiple lanes of traffic, street furniture and various objects at the side of the road, and the ONCOMING TRAFFIC.

Congratulations Capt RAAF – I never thought I would see the day where I’d agree with WMC.

Ugh :/

I think you’re giving Cappy too much credit by assuming that he actually has a point beyond “get off my lawn!”

See if you can spot the logical inconsistency here, though:
1. Speed limits are based on the lowest common denominator, and should be raised to a level that competent drivers can manage.
2. 90% of drivers are biblically stupid and incapable of doing something as simple as stopping in a straight line.

If only 10% of drivers are actually competent then we probably shouldn’t be encouraging people to drive faster. The fact that a lot of people do it anyway actually helps to support point #2 more than anything.

Erg0 said :

I’m shocked to learn that our road laws are designed with 90% of drivers in mind.

Given that 80% of drivers speed I’m not sure they are, I think this is part of Capt RAAF’s point.

If a sharp turn of the wheel will just make you avoid the collision

Except it won’t. I know the laws of physics are inconvenient for somebody like you, accustomed as you are to having super powers, but guess what really happens when you give a ‘sharp turn of the wheel’ while you’ve got your foot planted on the brake? Nothing. You keep on sliding. Got ABS? Really got your sh*t together and remember to pump, then ease while you turn, then reapply? Congrats – now you’ll hit your target sideways.

At training, none of us – not even the instructors – could avoid a collision with controlled braking/steering within 10m at anything over 60 km/h, and we knew where the obstacle was and had a pretty good idea when the ‘brake now’ horn would sound. Why? Because a good reaction time is 0.7 seconds, and you just travelled 11m before your foot even hits the brake. But I totally believe you could do it at 91, because you’re a winner. Even though you’d travelled 18m (more likely 27, but I’ll assume you have psychic powers and knew you had to brake in the near future) before you touched the brake or turned the wheel – passing through that mark still doing 91 km/h – your magic fairy sparkles would get you through. Or you can join the real world, where if you can’t avoid it with hard braking in a straight line, you’re going to hit it.

But lets say your amazing turning technique works. Now you’ve crashed into the car in the lane next to you instead, or a pole, or a tree. Or you come to a stop, only to get t-boned by the mere mortal driving behind you or a lane over. Even if you get out without crashing, you’ve just created havoc behind you, and you can bet they won’t be so lucky. There just aren’t that many places to go when you’re in an urban 80 zone.

floored it and swerved. Served me well for years

Make up your mind – do you brake and swerve or ‘power out’? (Clue: both answers are bullsh*t, and I laugh at them – as I do at your capacity to believe that you are both (a) an excellent driver and (b) somebody who has repeatedly found himself in situations where you thought either option was necessary.)

I’m shocked to learn that our road laws are designed with 90% of drivers in mind.

creative_canberran said :

fluey said :

creative_canberran said :

Normal fine in ACT for exceeding limit by 15km/h or less is $157 and 1 point. Further, you receive 20pu (criminal penalty units).

In NSW, they charge $211 for this and by court order can increase that to over $2000, so the ACT is actually quite soft.

1 pu = $110
so 20 pu = $2200

ACT and NSW are pretty on par from my view.

Also, a court can only increase the penalty if the offender opposes the fine and it goes to court. If you pay the infringement notice, the court can’t just decide to make you pay more.

Where did you get 1pu from? It’s 20pu for a <15 offence. Go read the legislation.

ACT and NSW are not pretty on par, again, go look something up for a change.

Court can increase it if challenged, yes, hence the potential maximum fine is higher in NSW than in ACT.

Ignorant!

PU = penalty unit

As of October last year, the Legislation Act amended the value of 1 x PU to $110. Therefore, a penalty of 20 PU will be 20 x 1 PU = $2200.

Sorry if I didn’t make this clearer in my original post – I’m a RiotACT newbie afterall 🙂

According to http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/rulesregulations/penalties/speeding.html, the maximum court penalty in NSW is also $2200. This comparison was how I figured the ACT and NSW were pretty much on par.

toriness said :

Mr Gillespie said :

Tooks, it is revenue-raising if the limit is exceeded by only a slight amount and you still get fined.

If you want me to apply an arbitrary figure in this case, doing 100 in an 80 zone is speeding, but 91 is a bit of a grey area.

what a load of rubbish. what, you expect the laws to articulate along the lines of what you’re saying “if you speed over X amount by Y amount, we won’t fine you, but if it’s Z amount over that’s DEFINITELY against the law and we’ll fine you”. get at the back of the line with the rest of the excuse-makers, mr gillespie.

So, what you’re saying is, no matter what, what the law says goes. End of. Never mind the circumstances, like if you’re stuck in a single-lane road, or trying to overtake a very slow moving vehicle, etc. etc.

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

According to my advanced driving trainers, pretty much everybody, including people who’ve been trained to do differently.

Ask your ‘advanced driver training’ mates how effective leaving your foot on the go pedal is in contrast to hitting the picks and closing your eyes while you think of England!

As I alluded to earlier, hitting the brakes and hoping you will stop in time is the simplest tactic available to the majority of simpletons on the roads, therefore the most widely utilised and over represented. No wonder your mates see it so often, it’s because most collisions involve at least one, and in many cases two, biblically stupid individuals, which make up a good 90% of road users.

If a sharp turn of the wheel will just make you avoid the collision who cares about 14 metres, stopping time blah blah blah.

I drive rare and desirable cars and my first instinct is to avoid the collision, I’ve even hit the picks, realised I aint going to stop and then floored it and swerved. Served me well for years.

Admittedly, I learned this the hard way when as a 20 year old I put a beautiful GT falcon into a Suzuki Sierra by just jumping on the stop pedal and hoping for the best…fail. Since then, it’s save the car at all costs and as I said, it works but you have to program yourself to make evasive driving your first instinctive reaction.

Brakes are the easy way out.

OpenYourMind said :

I get so sick of that ‘it’s just revenue raising’ argument. It is so Sunday Telegraph.
The amount of money raised by speed cameras and speeding fines is relatively miniscule compared to Government spending on a huge variety of safety measures including road safety education, road improvement, accident cause investigation, policing, you name it. The cost of road safety is far more than the so called ‘revenue raisers’ will ever make.

And that’s before you take road trauma into account. A while back, Canberra Times reported that the cost of road trauma exceeded all vehicle related ‘revenue’ including excise, stamp duty, registration etc.

It’s $1bn a year, hardly insignificant.

I hate it when these useless figures keep getting trotted out, so what if it means the car uses an extra 14 m to come to a stop?

A lot, if you’re car (or wrose, the pedestrian) within that 14m. Are you really that dense? I thought it was some dumb mucho act.

Why don’t we all just travel at 50kph in a 60 zone

You mean like we do in all the old 60 zones that are now 50 zones? I wonder why they were changed? Hmmm…let me think…

that way we’ll have stopped the car before we even get out of bed

Oh, nice one. Slippery slope. The logical fallacy of champions. Champion losers.

Seriously, what moron just hits the brakes and does nothing else?

According to my advanced driving trainers, pretty much everybody, including people who’ve been trained to do differently. But you’re the Iceman, aren’t you fly boy? Everything would slow down to bullet time like The Matrix, and you’d defy the laws of physics. Forget the vectors – they’d mean nothing to you as you magically manouvre a full tonne of metal around an obstacle at the last split second with your brakes on full and almost zero control at the wheel.

Idiot.

jake555 said :

I know, I know, it’s been done to death, but “Let Me Google That For You”
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=act+speed+camera+fine

That link doesn’t tell you anything about “normal” fines for different speeds caught by speed cameras (but i like the “let me goggle that for you”)

Holden Caulfield said :

Putting cameras in a location where accidents are a genuine problem would be a nice start.

I’d be extraordinarily surprised if there is any evidence to suggest accidents have been an ongoing problem where that particular camera is positioned.

To be fair, the intersection crossing over the Barton to Curran Drive can have its moments. So why not stick the camera before Canberra-bound traffic gets to the Curran Drive intersection? Even better, you could stick it before the Kuringa Drive turn off, as well.

Putting the speed camera after two possible/known areas of concern is either revenue raising or shutting the gate after the horse has bolted, take your pick.

The parkway was a very popular spot for late-night high-speed drag races before the gov put in two sets of fixed speed cameras in each direction. Totally justified.

Alternatively, if idiots pay a voluntary tax that our government can spend on things like Floriade and public art (and I personally pay less for it) then I’m all for “revenue-raising speed cameras”

Bunch of tossers. Someone’s enquiring about a particular speeding fine, on behalf of someone else – and the best advice half the people have come up with is “don’t speed and you won’t get fined”. Wow – so helpful!

Please – what other pearls do you have to offer?

Don’t drink beer and you won’t get drunk?

Don’t have sex and you won’t get pregnant?

Don’t eat deep fried mars bars and you won’t get high cholesterol??

How hard can it be, pay attention while driving, don’t speed and you have nothing to worry about. If you get booked by a fixed camera, red light camera or mobile speed van, it proves you don’t pay attention while driving and are a danger on the road.

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

91 in an 80 zone is bugger-all, it’s just revenue-raising and that’s that.

91 in an 80 zone is an extra 10m to stop (dry road, car with ABS). Wet road? That’ll be an extra 14m. If you don’t think it sounds like much, stand in front of your car then pace it out. Have a guess what speed you’re doing when you pass through the point at which you would’ve come to a complete stop had you been doing 80.

I hate it when these useless figures keep getting trotted out, so what if it means the car uses an extra 14 m to come to a stop? Why don’t we all just travel at 50kph in a 60 zone, that way we’ll have stopped before we hit the brakes or better still, 30 kph, that way we’ll have stopped the car before we even get out of bed!

What about drivers actually undertaking emergency braking that also involves steering around the obstacle? Just riding that car into the impact is what nervous nellies, old people and women do, I’m for dropping the hammer and driving around that little child chasing their ball onto the road, all while downing a Cheeseburger and texting on my phone.

Seriously, what moron just hits the brakes and does nothing else? I’ll tell you who, the lowest common denominator that is the reason for this countries ridiculously low speed limits that were designed in the 1950’s for cars with drum brakes all round and had no seat belts…I think a bit has changed since then…..

“Fines are like a drug. The easy money from fines corrupts the psychology of government. It degrades the relationship between government and society. It encourages our institutions to erode civil liberties, since government income based on fines depends on imposing control and limiting our options to avoid committing ‘crimes’, unlike taxes which, though they distort behaviour, can benefit from making sure that people have options to generate (taxable) wealth. “

fluey said :

creative_canberran said :

Normal fine in ACT for exceeding limit by 15km/h or less is $157 and 1 point. Further, you receive 20pu (criminal penalty units).

In NSW, they charge $211 for this and by court order can increase that to over $2000, so the ACT is actually quite soft.

1 pu = $110
so 20 pu = $2200

ACT and NSW are pretty on par from my view.

Also, a court can only increase the penalty if the offender opposes the fine and it goes to court. If you pay the infringement notice, the court can’t just decide to make you pay more.

Where did you get 1pu from? It’s 20pu for a <15 offence. Go read the legislation.

ACT and NSW are not pretty on par, again, go look something up for a change.

Court can increase it if challenged, yes, hence the potential maximum fine is higher in NSW than in ACT.

Ignorant!

Your friend should use the excuse “Traffic was light” I hear it works wonders.

My favourite speeding fine, if you have to have a favourite, was when I was pulled over by a policeman wielding a radar gun on a Sunday.

The conversation was along the lines of:

Policeman: “Do you know how fast you were going?”

Me: “Not really, officer. My concentration may not have been on the speedometer”

Policeman: (Shows me the reading on the radar gun) “You were traveling at 37 km/h!”

Me: “That fast, eh? That’s within a school zone speed limit. Is there a problem?”

Policeman: “Yes, the posted speed limit here is 20 km/h”

Me: “That much, eh?”

Policeman: “Yes.”

Me: “Look, I’m sorry about this. The place has lots of adults about, so I thought a less than school zone speed would have been acceptable”

Long pause, followed by being handed a writing pad.

Policeman: “Please sign here…….”

So I copped the fine, exceeding the posted speed limit by more than 15 km/h, but less than 30 km/h, and two or three points, I can’t remember.

Where was this you ask? The thoroughfare past the front door of the Canberra Airport terminal. This was some years ago.

I am pleased to see nothing has changed. Pay attention while driving. That is all it takes.

Mr Gillespie said :

Tooks, it is revenue-raising if the limit is exceeded by only a slight amount and you still get fined.

If you want me to apply an arbitrary figure in this case, doing 100 in an 80 zone is speeding, but 91 is a bit of a grey area.

It’s voluntary revenue raising. If you don’t want to assist with the revenue, don’t speed ….. Pretty simple really

creative_canberran said :

In NSW, they charge $211 for this and by court order can increase that to over $2000, so the ACT is actually quite soft.

Wow – I copped a speeding ticket in NSW about 5 years ago (exceed by less than 15km/h), and got 1 point and $75.

I get so sick of that ‘it’s just revenue raising’ argument. It is so Sunday Telegraph.
The amount of money raised by speed cameras and speeding fines is relatively miniscule compared to Government spending on a huge variety of safety measures including road safety education, road improvement, accident cause investigation, policing, you name it. The cost of road safety is far more than the so called ‘revenue raisers’ will ever make.

And that’s before you take road trauma into account. A while back, Canberra Times reported that the cost of road trauma exceeded all vehicle related ‘revenue’ including excise, stamp duty, registration etc.

Tooks said :

Mr Gillespie said :

91 in an 80 zone is bugger-all, it’s just revenue-raising and that’s that.

So what speed isn’t just revenue raising? Please share. 93? 94? 100?

Putting cameras in a location where accidents are a genuine problem would be a nice start.

I’d be extraordinarily surprised if there is any evidence to suggest accidents have been an ongoing problem where that particular camera is positioned.

To be fair, the intersection crossing over the Barton to Curran Drive can have its moments. So why not stick the camera before Canberra-bound traffic gets to the Curran Drive intersection? Even better, you could stick it before the Kuringa Drive turn off, as well.

Putting the speed camera after two possible/known areas of concern is either revenue raising or shutting the gate after the horse has bolted, take your pick.

Mr Gillespie said :

Tooks, it is revenue-raising if the limit is exceeded by only a slight amount and you still get fined.

If you want me to apply an arbitrary figure in this case, doing 100 in an 80 zone is speeding, but 91 is a bit of a grey area.

what a load of rubbish. what, you expect the laws to articulate along the lines of what you’re saying “if you speed over X amount by Y amount, we won’t fine you, but if it’s Z amount over that’s DEFINITELY against the law and we’ll fine you”. get at the back of the line with the rest of the excuse-makers, mr gillespie.

91 in an 80 zone is bugger-all, it’s just revenue-raising and that’s that.

91 in an 80 zone is an extra 10m to stop (dry road, car with ABS). Wet road? That’ll be an extra 14m. If you don’t think it sounds like much, stand in front of your car then pace it out. Have a guess what speed you’re doing when you pass through the point at which you would’ve come to a complete stop had you been doing 80.

creative_canberran said :

Normal fine in ACT for exceeding limit by 15km/h or less is $157 and 1 point. Further, you receive 20pu (criminal penalty units).

In NSW, they charge $211 for this and by court order can increase that to over $2000, so the ACT is actually quite soft.

1 pu = $110
so 20 pu = $2200

ACT and NSW are pretty on par from my view.

Also, a court can only increase the penalty if the offender opposes the fine and it goes to court. If you pay the infringement notice, the court can’t just decide to make you pay more.

creative_canberran said :

……”The risk of causing death or injury in an urban 60 km/h zone increases rapidly with relatively small increases in speed. The accident risk at 65 km/h is about twice the risk at 60 km/h. At 70 km/h, the accident risk is more than four times the risk than at 60 km/h”

Source: NSW RTA/NRMA

In fine conditions where everything is going normally, there may be bugger all difference practically between 80 and 91. It’s the 1% of the time where something unexpected happens (kangeroo on road, car enters from side street…) where that small difference in speed will help make the difference between stopping in time, stopping slow enough for crumple zones to work and not stopping and crushing a family driving home.

You better check your speedo for accuracy, and keep an eagle eye on your speedo then.

I know, I know, it’s been done to death, but “Let Me Google That For You”
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=act+speed+camera+fine

Normal fine in ACT for exceeding limit by 15km/h or less is $157 and 1 point. Further, you receive 20pu (criminal penalty units).

In NSW, they charge $211 for this and by court order can increase that to over $2000, so the ACT is actually quite soft.

Fines increase substantially if the vehicle is medium of heavy rigid, commercial and so on. Serious late penalties apply to, over $500 for commercial vehicle owners.

Mr Gillespie said :

91 in an 80 zone is bugger-all, it’s just revenue-raising and that’s that.

“The risk of causing death or injury in an urban 60 km/h zone increases rapidly with relatively small increases in speed. The accident risk at 65 km/h is about twice the risk at 60 km/h. At 70 km/h, the accident risk is more than four times the risk than at 60 km/h”

Source: NSW RTA/NRMA

In fine conditions where everything is going normally, there may be bugger all difference practically between 80 and 91. It’s the 1% of the time where something unexpected happens (kangeroo on road, car enters from side street…) where that small difference in speed will help make the difference between stopping in time, stopping slow enough for crumple zones to work and not stopping and crushing a family driving home.

Tooks, it is revenue-raising if the limit is exceeded by only a slight amount and you still get fined.

If you want me to apply an arbitrary figure in this case, doing 100 in an 80 zone is speeding, but 91 is a bit of a grey area.

Mr Gillespie said :

91 in an 80 zone is bugger-all, it’s just revenue-raising and that’s that.

So what speed isn’t just revenue raising? Please share. 93? 94? 100?

Almost certainly the car is business rego, and thus the fine is much higher. Of course, we can use this to put a dollar value on demerit points…

91 in an 80 zone is bugger-all, it’s just revenue-raising and that’s that.

Isn’t that a permanent speed camera that comes with big giant warning signs that there is a speed camera ahead?

As far as I’m concerned, anyone speeding through one of those deserves whatever they get.

to fine someone for driving too fast – yes

double demerit doesn’t change the amount the fine is, just the number of points. This is higher than what I understand the personal fine to be, so as Sgt B said maybe it is high for another reason?

I got caught in my company car in what I ignorantly thought was a 100km/h zone doing precisely that speed, which turned out to be 20km/h over the limit. The fine was just over $1000 when sent, and reduced to two hundred and something when I confessed to the crime, so something in the seven hundreds sounds a bit much for a lesser crime (if the vehicle is privately owned).

Mistakes aside, speeding fines are optional in the ACT. If you would prefer not to get one, you are permitted to drive at or below the signposted limit. After a recent driving trip to Queensland, I can only assume this is not the case in all states…

Seems rather inconsequential whether it’s normal or not. It must be paid, so pay it.

Is her vehicle registered in a business name? If so I believe the $$ fine is 5 times the amount unless a driver is nominated.

The business may choose to pay the large fines on a regular basis instead of having the drivers licence suspended of the CEO who regularly drives the vehicle.

But speed cameras are not about revenue.