It’s good to hear that the state has moved to a velocity-based taxation system, but I’m concerned that this might not be sustainable in the long term. Just as when taxation was based on income, tax-avoiders made a point of keeping their “taxable income” as low as possible, present velocity-based taxpayers may well start cheating the system by keeping to the posted speed limits.
That would destroy this fantastic development, quick-smart. The only solution is for the government to rapidly expand its Stupidly Low Posted Speed Limits program, its brilliant method of ensuring an infinite source of infringement tickets. This policy, which involves constantly reducing the rate at which drivers may travel ever further below what is necessary merely to keep the roads reasonably safe, has made some spectacular strides forward in the past decade.
But it can, and must, go further. If drivers actually start abiding by 50kph limits on long, straight, open suburban streets with good visibility – drop it to 40. If they obey 40 – drop it to 30. Hell, if we reduce it all the way to below walking speed, people will get rid of their cars and walk. Meaning that, in addition to reducing deaths on our roads to nothing, we’ll have made a huge blow in the fight against air pollution, climate change and oil dependency.
Of course, the economy would collapse because no-one would be able to get anywhere – but surely that’s a small price to pay for an incredible end to all road trauma. I’m certainly willing to give up the convenience of modern transport in exchange for absolute safety on the roads I wouldn’t use any more. Aren’t you?
I feel your pain.
This insanity has even hit the NT. No longer can we drive at 200km/h on the highway. 130 only. 130! I can walk faster than that.
But it gets worse. Creeping ‘southenisation’ has struck. There’s this new fangled idea called ‘red light cameras’. Apparently you’ll get booked for going through a red traffic light.
How utterly un-Territorian.
Meh…if people driving too fast means more money for the coffers it means less tax for people like me who stick to the speed limit. Not something I really get passionate about.
Yes, but it would also seriously compromise the capacity of our already over compromised public transport services!
“hello sir, the mysterious machine said you were committing a crime. That’ll be $175 please.
no, you can’t see the machine.
no, i can’t tell you how it works.
no, you cannot dispute its accuracy.
this is a serious offence. if you do it 5/10 more times we may take it further”
Have to disagree with you on this one, Jeremy.
Yes, speeding cameras result in net revenue for the government. Are you saying that :
(a) The speed limit should be raised, resulting in a loss in revenue and (possibly) an increase in the road toll?
(b) A reduction in the use of cameras, resulting in a loss in revenue and (possibly) and increase in the road toll?
If you are choosing either (a) or (b), which taxes should be increased or expenditure reduced to address the shortfall?
I must admit, I consider the current speed limits perfectly reasonable, and have no trouble travelling under them. I do consider that changes in speed limit on some roads (eg. Western Ring) should be, perhaps, better managed but that is an administration criticism and not an opposition to the principle of speedy cameras.
Similiarly, karl, are you saying that we should do away with speedy cameras, or that there should be greater transparency?
“Meh…if people driving too fast means more money for the coffers it means less tax for people like me who stick to the speed limit. Not something I really get passionate about.”
I’m just sick of the LIES that it’s all about safety, I’m sick of the Govt taking the credit for safety whilst ignoring the fact that it’s car manufacturers who have implemented the changes that have improved road safety.
A camera is not a deterrent to speeding, (just look at how much money they’re making) a visible police presence IS a deterrent, thing is cops cost money and cameras make money.
Our so-called Labor govt raise too much revenue via pokies and speeding fines.
Couldn’t agree with you more RobJ..
“(a) The speed limit should be raised, resulting in a loss in revenue and (possibly) an increase in the road toll?”
He’s saying that the govt is lowering speed limits to increase revenue, it has bugger all to do with safety, I’ve NEVER seen an accident on Footscray Road, I use it daily, they’ve dropped the limit on the 4 lane stretch by 10 Kms, There was NO SAFETY issue there!
“(possibly) an increase in the road toll?”
Yeah ‘possibly’, got any evidence? I hear this all the time whilst other comparable nations with higher speed limits and less draconian speeding law enforcement seem to have a much lower road toll. Better roads? Better drivers? Either way it blows apart the govt’s constant demonising of driving a couple of ks over the limit. “Wipe of five, save lives”….. Bullshit!
“I must admit, I consider the current speed limits perfectly reasonable, and have no trouble travelling under them.”
Bully for you, I’d rather just not issue licences to people who lack the skill to drive AT the speed limit. I guess that’s half the problem though, too many unskilled drivers have a licence (This will improve with the newer better approach to learning to drive, something the govt should actually be praised for.)
Firstly, i used the word possibly, because I argue with evidence when i wish to make a point.
RobJ – ever heard of the principle that an anecdote does not constitute evidence?
I have no doubt whatsoever that revenue is part of the consideration when assessing speed limit policy (including the use of speed cameras). So what? Even if you think it is purely revenue raising / taxation, it would have to qualify (along with the cigarette tax) as the easiest to avoid tax of all time! Just obey the speed limit and you’re laughing!
You also make an apparent argument that you need to drive ‘at’ (sorry, ‘AT’) the speed limit in order to have a licence. What??
And when you speak of ‘wipe off five’, I can tell you that I was struck by a car travelling 70 km/hr and suffered numerous broken bones, head injuries and ligament damage. The comparison if the vehicle was travelling at 60 km/h is enormous.
Please provide a link to the statistics on the other countries with ‘higher speed limits / less draconian law enforcement / much lower speed toll’. I am genuinely interested in any comparison.
“RobJ – ever heard of the principle that an anecdote does not constitute evidence?”
Kind of my point…
“You also make an apparent argument that you need to drive ‘at’ (sorry, ‘AT’) the speed limit in order to have a licence. What??”
Actually I said “people who lack the skill to drive AT the speed limit.”
Nice try at misrepresenting what i wrote even though i used PLAIN ENGLISH!
There are licenced drivers on our roads who I consider to be not up to the task, do you disagree?
“Please provide a link to the statistics on the other countries with ‘higher speed limits / less draconian law enforcement / much lower speed toll’”
UK & Germany spring to mind, look up the stats yourself (I have already, though not for at least 12 months)
“And when you speak of ‘wipe off five’, I can tell you that I was struck by a car travelling 70 km/hr and suffered numerous broken bones, head injuries and ligament damage. The comparison if the vehicle was travelling at 60 km/h is enormous.”
What were you saying about anecdotes and evidence??? LOL. And WTF has your scenario got to do with wiping off five.
The Wipe of 5 campaign is bullshit unless of course the govt is admitting that every mandated speed limit is five ks too much.
I don’t understand the’ ‘Plain English’ meaning of what you said.
Your statement was ” I’d rather just not issue licences to people who lack the skill to drive AT the speed limit”. The only possible conclusion I can draw from this comment is that you consider people who don’t demonstrate a particular level of ability to drive at the mandated speed limit shouldn’t be allowed to have driver’s licences.
I think that belief is unadulterated rubbish. The necessary qualifier to possess a licence is an ability to drive safely. It is true that this includes the necessary ability to maintain a certain speed for traffic flow purposes, but for you to say that this speed is the ACTUAL speed limit, rather than a speed comfortable level BELOW the speed limit is breathtaking.
I have no intention of researching statistics to demonstrate the truth or otherwise of YOUR assertion regarding other countries. Absent further information, your comment can be dismissed.
My story regarding my own injuries was not offered as sweeping evidence of anything. I simply related it to confirm that, in certain circumstances, the speed of a motor vehicle is relevant to injuiries caused to those struck during a collision, whether pedestrians or others. The linkage between that example at the benefit of travelling at a (slightly) reduced speed is clear.
Any speed limit is going to be, to a degree, an educated guess and compromise between various competing interests.
You still haven’t stated whether you consider speed limits should be higher and / or there should be fewer cameras. If either of those, how should the shortfall in revenue be addressed?
how should the shortfall in revenue be addressed?
I guess if everybody stopped speeding then technically we could do away with speed cameras and their maintenance costs, the police/contracted personnel who operate/supervise them, the bureacrats who administer speeding fines distribution and collection, and maybe some highway patrol cars.
Governments who prescribe to the economic rationalist theory, over time have shown themselves willing to make cuts to services to offset drops in revenue. I’m not sure what the point of this argument is.
“The only possible conclusion I can draw from this comment is that you consider people who don’t demonstrate a particular level of ability to drive at the mandated speed limit shouldn’t be allowed to have driver’s licences.”
You assume, that’s your problem, you are reading between the lines. Why couldn’t you just draw a conclusion on exactly what I wrote rather than paraphrase what I wrote?
“I think that belief is unadulterated rubbish.”
Yeah, but you are basing your belief on a poor assumption!
“for you to say that this speed is the ACTUAL speed limit, rather than a speed comfortable level BELOW the speed limit is breathtaking.”
That’s why I never said it!
“I have no intention of researching statistics to demonstrate the truth or otherwise of YOUR assertion regarding other countries. Absent further information, your comment can be dismissed.”
Doesn’t matter, it seems you have difficulty understanding plain English, bog standard per capita stats may make your head explode. Regardless:
http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/statistics/stats-multicountry-percapita-2004.htm
(I concede that the road toll was only marginally higher than Germany in 04 but was significantly higher than the UK)
“. If either of those, how should the shortfall in revenue be addressed?”
Sorry, why should I be thinking of ways that our elected reps raise revenue, this doesn’t disbar me from expressing an opinion but you know, I post to please:
The Vic Govt could stop wasting so much money for a kick off; MiKey – Paying stupid amounts of money to private operators of public transport, stop wasting water rather than building a $4B desal plant…. I could go on and on and on!
“I’m not sure what the point of this argument is.”
It’s futile, and it’s such an easy question to answer since our politicians are such a pack of wasteful, lying pricks.
A physical police presence would be available if the government were really, truly concerned about our safety. They aren’t they are concerned with re-election so they can keep their snouts in the trough!
A visible police presence on the roads is IMO the most effective way of getting people to do the speed limit. As soon as a cop car comes into sight just watch for the brake lights instantly come on on the cars around you. The other thing I’ve taken to doing is to flash highbeam at speeding cars coming in the other direction, like you do when you know there’s cops or a camera around. Again, watch in your rear-view mirror at the brake lights that come on instantly.
I drive the same way to work every single day, I know where every single red light and speed camera is, I can spot a privateer on the side of the road a zillion miles away, the unmarked cop car is a silver commodore. Everyone else therefore they speed where they wont get caught!
Visible Police presence is the solution.
“I’ve taken to doing is to flash highbeam at speeding cars coming in the other direction”
This is a good thing IMO, I know of people who have been bollocked by cops for doing this, just goes to show, it’s all about revenue and has BUGGER ALL to do with safety, after all flashing your lights has the desired effect of slowing people down. Problem being the desired effect is to make as much money as possible. Why anyone would believe a politician ever is beyond me.
Should read:
“Everyone else knows this therefore they speed where they wont get caught!
Tax everyone who drives slowly, it would make things much more amusing.
yeah I think this is a bullshit argument jeremy. All of the professionals agree that lowering the speed limit saves lives. No random idjit on a website is going to convince me otherwise, not when all professionals agree on this point. And for those of us who don’t speed, we’re smiling.
BUT, I do agree that the semi-random changes in speed limits as you drive along a road, from 50 through to 90 km/h, sometimes seems deliberately designed to confuse/entrap.
Still, it’s still not very hard to avoid speeding. Just like pokies taxes.
No, Wilful, you misunderstand me. I think we need to be EXTRA safe. We should reduce the speed limit to 10kph where accidents are nearly impossible.
Anyone who wants it faster than that must not care about saving lives.
Actually Jeremy, I’ll settle for stopping at 30kph. That’s the speed at which the fatality rate from most collisions between vehicles and pedestrians drops to virtually zero. (Whereas at 60kph it’s close to 100%, and between 30kph and 60kph it goes pretty much in proportion.)
I’m yet to hear anyone make a sensible case that there’s a net social benefit from driving at more than 40kph in a local residential street that carries no through traffic. I can grudgingly accept that 60-80kph limits are appropriate on arterial roads, but come on, the world won’t come to an end if the last kilometre of your trip has to be done 10kph slower.
I also happen to think those frequently-changing speed limits around schools are dumb. But what alternative will actually make people happier? If you don’t have a reduced speed limit at all, you have an unsafe situation for kids and parents every drop-off and pick-up time. On the other hand, if you do the simple solution and just have a section of road with a consistent reduced limit, the motoring lobby jumps up and down saying they’re unfairly being made to slow down even when they’re not within a stone’s throw of the school and even at times when there’s no school kids around. So you get the current situation where speed limits are micro-managed to make the slowest zone as short as possible, and the limits vary by time of day and whether it’s a school day or not. It’s a confusing mess, but they did try the non-confusing way initially and got shot down.
Incidentally, there’s also a fascinating story in the Victorian road toll statistics. For the entire 11-year period between 1992 and 2002, the annual road toll was 400, give or take at most 10 per cent. Then in 2003 it suddenly dropped to 330, and since then has remained at that figure, give or take 5 per cent. So the road toll has actually held steady for a very long time, with the sole exception of a step change in 2003. And the only relevant factor I can identify to explain that sudden drop is that 2003 was the start of the Wipe Off 5 campaign. In particular, it was when the police scrapped the automatic 10kph tolerance on speed limits and enforced a 3% tolerance instead.
This whole argument, that the government is motivated by revenue raising when enforcing speed limits, relies on the assumption that speeding fines are actually an effective and significant source of revenue. The Victorian Government got $400 in revenue from traffic fines last year, out of over $12 billion in State taxation revenue (plus $18 billion in Commonwealth grants). Traffic fines raised only one-tenth as much revenue as stamp duty and land tax, one-tenth as much as payroll tax, one-quarter as much as gambling taxes, one-third as much as insurance duties, and one-third the income from car registration fees and duties. The government actually earns more money through the piddling interest on its public account balance than it gets from traffic fines. And I don’t know what proportion of that $400 million actually came from speeding fines, as distinct from fines for drink-driving and all the other offences. In any case, the government also had to spend $220 million last year processing and enforcing infringement notices. Somehow, it just doesn’t strike me as a terribly effective way to raise revenue.
cars go to fast..and they are death traps pure and simple..at speed their function as transport ends and they become a twisted way to fulfill our collective death wish…
lets properly reinforce the shell and build them with much much smaller engines….
“lets properly reinforce the shell and build them with much much smaller engines….”
Which is exactly what would happen if safety was more regarded than revenue by the powers that be.
The fact that revenue from cameras is rising is another indication of their lack of effectiveness. getting a fine a month after the fact is not a deterrent! the act was already committed.
“I also happen to think those frequently-changing speed limits around schools are dumb.”
Have you noticed how often there ISN’T a mobile speed camera outside of school? Sometimes the cops have a blitz at the beginning of term for the MEDIA but otherwise they realise that there’s bugger all revenue to be raised outside of a school considering that this is an instance where the vast majority of motorists obey the speed limit.
“Somehow, it just doesn’t strike me as a terribly effective way to raise revenue.”
Errrrm, govts rarely do anything right and are very often totally dishonest, they call lies ‘spin’ to try and make their dishonesty more palatable.
“And I don’t know what proportion of that $400 million actually came from speeding fines,”
Maybe you should read the linked article – FYI it was 100%. Really, read the article!
Also why do cops get upset when motorists warn others of a speed camera by flashing their lights? Surely if the safety aspect was more important than the revenue (to the govt) these motorists would be getting praised by the cops, not bollocked!
Tony Morton: I used to work next door to a high school and across the road from a children’s hospital on a busy 2 lane one way residential street. It’s made even more busy because parking for the hospital is inadequate resulting in street parking and drivers having to circle for ages to get a park.
It used to be 60km/h (except for those times for the school zone), and there were heaps of pedestrian injuries with road crossings. The council dropped the speed to 50km/h – people still got injured. They installed a dedicated crossing with traffic lights and pedestrians (sometimes children) still got injured trying to cross the road – sometimes people were hit using the crossing when the traffic lights were red! It wasn’t until the speed limit got dropped to 40km/h 2 years ago that there was a marked drop in pedestrian injuries.
I do think there’s merit in reducing the speed limit in dense residential or commercial areas that have a lot of foot traffic – around schools and hospitals in particular. It has certainly lowered the pedestrian injuries around my old workplace.
“This whole argument, that the government is motivated by revenue raising when enforcing speed limits, relies on the assumption that speeding fines are actually an effective and significant source of revenue. The Victorian Government got $400 in revenue from traffic fines last year, out of over $12 billion in State taxation revenue (plus $18 billion in Commonwealth grants). Traffic fines raised only one-tenth as much revenue as stamp duty and land tax, one-tenth as much as payroll tax, one-quarter as much as gambling taxes, one-third as much as insurance duties, and one-third the income from car registration fees and duties. The government actually earns more money through the piddling interest on its public account balance than it gets from traffic fines. And I don’t know what proportion of that $400 million actually came from speeding fines, as distinct from fines for drink-driving and all the other offences. In any case, the government also had to spend $220 million last year processing and enforcing infringement notices. Somehow, it just doesn’t strike me as a terribly effective way to raise revenue.”
it would be nice if the government was only collecting $400m from fines. unfortunately the true figure is closer to $1.5 billion:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/secret-document-reveals-15b-speed-camera-fine-bonanza/story-e6frf7kx-1111116288439
its a cash cow, lets not beat around the bush.. if the goverment was serious about speeding they would remove the monetary fine and triple the demerit points
“if the goverment was serious about speeding they would remove the monetary fine and triple the demerit points”
Hear hear, that reminds me, we are advised that talking on the phone whilst driving is the equivalent to drink driving, I happen to agree so I’m mystified as to why the penalties are so light, in fact I don’t even think there is any penalty if one is using hands free?
“Maybe you should read the linked article – FYI it was 100%. Really, read the article!”
Actually, I read the Budget papers, which is where the article got the figure from. The $400 million is for “Traffic camera and on the spot fines”. As I understand things, police issue on-the-spot fines for a lot of offences other than speeding. The Age is putting their own rather simplistic interpretation on the figure.
As for the Herald Sun with its $1.5 billion fantasy number, that seems to have been based on misrepresenting a four-year forecast as an annual figure.
And yes, it probably would help promote road safety if more people lost their licence for speeding. What’s equally certain though is that the government would be crucified at the next election. The state just can’t afford to ban dangerous drivers until there’s another way to get them to work.
“The state just can’t afford to ban dangerous drivers until there’s another way to get them to work.”
I’ve said earlier, historically it’s been too easy to get a licence. This is an area that’s improving, ie giving kids lot’s of practice before even being able to sit their tests.
“And yes, it probably would help promote road safety if more people lost their licence for speeding.”
A police presence would be better but as i’ve pointed out this costs money and doesn’t generate revenue.
But I pay my taxes, I demand a visible police presence! You hear that Brumby? Not that I’d ever vote Labor anyway…
If the problem is dodgy speed limits, get that fixed. But I have no problem with people who break the law and risk my life being fined for it.
Seriously, guys. Don’t speed = don’t get a fine. Not that hard.
If you want to argue that speed limits are too low/inconsistent/not related to safety, go right ahead. But that’s an entirely separate issue from ‘revenue raising’.
There’s no doubt that some roads have inappropriate speed limits. Setting a wide, busy road at 50 km/h is ridiculous; having Victoria St in Richmond at 60 is equally ridiculous. But as far as I’m concerned, when there are pedestrians around I’d much prefer speed limits to be on the slower side. Anyone who’s seen a pedestrian hit by a car knows how devastating it can be, even at relatively ‘slow’ speeds. Not to mention the fact that having the speed limit 10km/h faster will generally not have an appreciable effect on travel times.
However, RobJ, you’re quite right to raise the issue of driver training. I’ve lived in Germany where getting your license is genuinely seen as a privilege not a right, and involves some pretty intense training. The result? Some of the most sensible, courteous, safe driving I have ever seen, even on speed unlimited autobahns. Though I note that even there, their standard speed limit in villages is 30km/h.
“But that’s an entirely separate issue from ‘revenue raising’.”
I cite Footscray Road, a safe road as far as I know having it’s speed reduced from 80 to 70 on a four lane section that hasn’t changed. Why would they do this? Queensway too, 70 to 60 (My Brother in Law got pinged) I rarely get to go 30 there???? Then you can see new signs that haven’t been revealed yet! Why not, if the speed limit is currently too high why the delay?
What perturbs me is that politicians deny that it has anything to do with revenue raising and people believe them? call me a cynic but I’d back my view any day of the week, my cynicism should be expected considering our politicians love to ‘spin’ and make promises that they have no intention of keeping.
If it has nothing to do with revenue then why do cops get pissed off if we warn other motorists by flashing their lights?
I personally think that those who buy the line from the pollies are being naive, and the argument that it doesn’t make much revenue doesn’t carry much weight either, politicians routinely mess things up!
“:Seriously, guys. Don’t speed = don’t get a fine. Not that hard.”
It’s not an issue for me, I have probably one demerit point on my licence (ie I have 11 to go) the issue for me is politicians insulting my intelligence.
If I want to speed, and I admit I do like to ride my motorbike quickly on occasion I’ll pick my road, good conditions, low traffic no fixed cameras and because good visibility is mandatory before I choose to thrash my bike I can spot a mobile camera from miles away.
“I cite Footscray Road, a safe road as far as I know having it’s speed reduced from 80 to 70 on a four lane section that hasn’t changed. Why would they do this? Queensway too, 70 to 60 (My Brother in Law got pinged) I rarely get to go 30 there????”
You actually partly answered the question right there. These are roads that have seen a big increase in traffic levels since the limits were set. Research does suggest that having a large spread between the maximum speed and the average speed of traffic on a road increases the trauma risk – hence the tendency to reduce speed limits on urban roads with heavy traffic. There’s also a more stringent policy these days of having speed limits set according to consistent locational and engineering criteria, which hadn’t been consistently applied in the past.
“If it has nothing to do with revenue then why do cops get pissed off if we warn other motorists by flashing their lights?”
Simply because it allows unlawful behaviour to flourish undetected. The purpose of speed cameras is not to reduce drivers’ speeds at a few specific locations – it’s to promote and enforce compliance with speed limits across the board. Imagine if there were a website that drunk drivers could use to locate and avoid booze buses – do you really think the cops would have no reason to shut it down other than the prospect of losing fine revenue?
“I personally think that those who buy the line from the pollies are being naive, and the argument that it doesn’t make much revenue doesn’t carry much weight either, politicians routinely mess things up!”
My own view is that given all the flak that governments cop in regard to speed cameras, and given that there are so many other ways to raise revenue, it makes no sense for politicians to deliberately toughen speed enforcement measures if the main justification is really just to raise a bit of extra revenue.
Meanwhile there’s all the evidence from the safety researchers pointing to speed enforcement (and in particular, hidden speed cameras) as the single most effective measure in reducing road deaths and injuries over the last three decades.
On the whole, I’m inclined to take the Victorian Road Safety Strategy at its word: speed limits are being reviewed, and compliance with speed limits more rigorously enforced, because doing so is expected to make the roads safer. End of story.
“You actually partly answered the question right there. These are roads that have seen a big increase in traffic levels since the limits were set.”
I’ll take what you’re saying here at face value it appears that you know more than me I will state though that Footscray Road has been improved recently, they removed the stupid level crossing.
“Simply because it allows unlawful behaviour to flourish undetected.”
It slows people down, isn’t that what they (police, govt) claim they want us to do?
“Imagine if there were a website that drunk drivers could use to locate and avoid booze buses ”
I think this is a separate issue, after all our GPSs and Melways list camera locations, clearly the law has no problem with this. Isn’t drink driving a criminal offence as opposed to a civil offence hence deemed more serious? (I’m asking because I don’t know)
“, it makes no sense for politicians”
Sorry, you’ll have to excuse my cynicism, to me it makes no sense tipping billions into a desal plant before trying other, cheaper, better methods of harvesting and not wasting water. I would contend that politicians do all sorts of things that don’t make sense.
“Meanwhile there’s all the evidence from the safety researchers pointing to speed enforcement (and in particular, hidden speed cameras) as the single most effective measure in reducing road deaths and injuries over the last three decades.”
I hear this, and it may indeed be true, however three decades?
-Better brakes with:
-ABS
-Air Bags
-Better seat belts
-Better designed cars (crumple zones)
-Better designed roads.
-recognition of and improvement of blackspots (they (govt) deserve credit for this)
-Motor drops rather than ends up on your lap.
Deaths? better prospects of survival due to advancements in medical science/technology.
I think they’re giving themselves too much credit (there’s a surprise!).
“End of story.”
For you maybe, how about more demerit points?
Vic Govt told us motorcyclists that we’d be safer if we paid $50 bucks extra on our rego, it was to last for three years, it’s still here seven(?) years later, they spend the money on expensive horrific adverts, rather than replacing those horrible cable barriers that are a nightmare for riders (they are rolling them out at an increasing rate?) As a lobby group we reject the govts claims suggesting that maybe the govt could give us a discount on our expensive safety gear.
Recently the Vic Govt have been telling us that we need front number plates for our safety, this is bullshit, fact is they won’t have to upgrade their cameras to take photo’s in both directions. Anyway they dropped the idea because it is technically impossible (various reasons) but whilst they were pimping the idea they were reminding us that some 3 000 motorcyclists didn’t get pinged because they had no front plate, they neglected to advise that 100 000+ car motorists didn’t get pinged because their plates were unreadable.
I don’t believe the Govt, why would I when I’m rather familiar with their bullshit?
Tony Morton FTW here.
Pingback: In the last five years, 154 road deaths “involved” people with ginger hair. BAN GINGERS FROM OUR ROADS! « An Onymous Lefty
“End of story.”
Not quite:
“Top cop was pressured to ignore faulty speed cameras to protect revenue”
here:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/top-cop-was-pressured-to-ignore-faulty-speed-cameras-to-protect-revenue/story-e6frf7jo-1225871298411
And, on a similar note:
“Off-duty policeman ‘clocked at 160 km/h’ “
from the article:
Deputy Commissioner Lay said the man’s motorcycle was not seized at the time, and he was investigating why that had not occurred.
“Normally we would take it straight away. There are some reasons why we wouldn’t. I just need to understand why that didn’t occur,” he said.”
Because…..he’s a cop stupid!!!! They aren’t subjected to the same rules as the rest of us, or rather there are just too many examples that prove the rule.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/offduty-policeman-clocked-at-160-kmh-20100526-wbwd.html