Kawasaki Sportsbike Riders Club - Australia - Online Forum

Just my 2 cents on speed cameras.
Revenue raises is all they are, from Geelong to Melbourne we have 4 fixed speed cameras. Every hoon knows were they are and they speed till they get to the camera, slow down then speed up after the camera. These are the people who do cause deaths on the roads.
For the average responsible one who does try and do the right thing does not usually need to take note were the cameras are, well you would think they woulnt have too, BUT these are the people who get caught for doing only a lousy 5-6ks over the speed limit. Is this fair?? the hoons get away with speeding and the honest driver who does tries and keeps the car under the speed limit and because they are only human, they might creep over the speed limit for a few seconds at the wrong time and gets done for speeding.It stinks.
I think keeping your eyes on the road is more important than the 5 ks over the speed limit, especially around schools.
But if your doing more than 10ks over, i think you just cop it sweet.

does a punishment have to be detrimental to the government in order to be accepted as fair? prisoners cost the taxpayers a hell of a lot of money. perhaps that's why we accept it as an adequate form of punishment. Why shouldn't we, yes that's right we, get a benefit from people breaking the law. Yes the government gets the money paid in fines. last time i checked, the government were an elected group of representatives charged with the responsibility of maintining certain things that none of us pay for ourselves. Without turning this into a misuse of funding argument, that money gets spent on the general population.

the old saying "it's only breaking the law if you get caught" is bullshit. it's always breaking the law. speed cameras aren't a safety device in the same way that seatbelts or air bags are, but make no mistake about it, they are a safety device. The idea is that if people were genuinely concerned about getting fined, they wouldn't speed full stop. hence they would no longer be breaking the law and hence make it safer for everyone. EVERYONE. You can't have certain exceptions for some people. it has to be consistent across the board. and it is. obey or don't obey the law, it's as simple as that.

ross79 wrote:So what you're saying diesel is that if someone gets hit in 100km/h zone by a car doing 100 the speed limit should be lowered

not at all. accidents do happen. and by obeying the law, you've most likely covered yourself. i absolutely concede that of late the drop in speed limits in some areas are inconvenient and frustrating, but who are we to say they shouldn't be lowered. i'm no expert, and i doubt you are either (please correct me if your occupation is in this area).

ross79 wrote:If YOU read what I said I was talking about long stretches of road where you can safely sit on a faster speed! eg: Bendigo to Mildura (with the exceptions of the towns in between)

I wasn't directing comments only at you, but if your conceited enough to see it that way then fine.
Long strethces of road only huh.
Are you qualified to make that judgement. Have you driven every type of vehicle (in every type of condition) that uses these roads? You post a limit of 130, and while many people in my vehicles will be quite safe travelling at these speeds, many will not. "But the gvt posted the limit at 130, so it must be safe to do so." old grannie smith is wrong, she get's severe brake shudder when she lightly presses her brake pedal, causing her to panic and lose control of the vehicle. Example only, the best i could thik up on the spot.
My point is, these limits are set for a reason. that is to make sure everyone on the road is travelling at a safe speed. it my be inadequate for some of us. bad luck, what's the alternative? sedans can travel at x speed, hatchbacks at y speed, trucks at z speed. how far do you go?
i'm getting off topic (and have probably been for a while).

If you speed, you knowingly broke the law.
just because you don't get caught on most occasions, doesn't mean you are entitled to do it always. no matter how you get caught, it doesn't change the fact that you were doing the wrong thing and you got busted.

look at it this way.
if speed cameras are nothing more than revenue raisers, why doesn't everyone rebel against the government. really stick it up em. let's see what happens when that revenue isn't coming in. how can we ensure this happens? don't speed. full stop. 100% of the time. that's the only way. cos while people continue to try to get away with it, people will continue to get caught. law of averages.

people that feel getting caught by a hidden camera are (IMO of course) are sayin "i didn't know you were trying to catch me, so i didn't get a chance to outsmart you and avoid get caught, so it's not fai. If you wanna catch me, you have to tell me so i know what's going on"

So yeah the Police are employing some questionable tatics in the Adelaide Hills but ask yourself why.

The Adelaide hills are a bike riders, and a drivers, paradise.
Roads in hilly areas generally have little to no run off area to get yourself out of some shit if you fuck a corner up. So instead of running wide and getting away with it you hit a car, barrier, cliff etc.

There are certain roads where guys will go and to runs and scary speeds all day. When i say scary speeds i am talking over 200 in 80 zones.
I bet there are roads like this all over Australia. But how many are 15 minutes drive from the centre of the city?

I read last year that the magority of motorcycle related deaths and accidents occur in these hills.
Its not the police's fault. They are just doing the job and enploying camera's where they have been told.
And for the record i am not a cop but i do respect that they are just doing there job. Sure some are cocks but you get that in all walks of life.

Polititians are the ones that look at the road toll and make the D to try and lower it.
RIGHT or WRONG they believe that speed cameras save lives. Cameras that are visual have not worked so they have moved onto something else.

this could go on forever but at the end i=of the day the public roads are not yours or anyone elses own racetrack as someone else said spend less on doing a trackday where it is safer and go as hard as you can. put yourself against a stopwatch and see how good u really are and you might get suprised theat your not that quick but just a dick who is willing to take more risk on the road than other people who want to make it home.unfortunately the reckless ones are the ones that have caused all of us to get scrutinised so heavily......shit i hope this made sense as im friggn tired dam shift work!!!

watevr wrote:this could go on forever but at the end i=of the day the public roads are not yours or anyone elses own racetrack as someone else said spend less on doing a trackday where it is safer and go as hard as you can. put yourself against a stopwatch and see how good u really are and you might get suprised theat your not that quick but just a dick who is willing to take more risk on the road than other people who want to make it home.unfortunately the reckless ones are the ones that have caused all of us to get scrutinised so heavily......shit i hope this made sense as im friggn tired dam shift work!!!

Very true Chris.

ok...
how about when a speed limit is lowered?
does that mean all the vehicles that safely traversed that section of road were being an irresponsible bunch of tools?
no, what it means is that some faceless entity has decided, based on statistics, that everyone has to go slower to make it safer.

all you prats who bow down as soon as the word 'safety' is mentioned need to wake up.
governments BUDGET according to projected revenue from speed cameras.

Thanks Grasshopper, they seem to have missed that point when I said;

And when some dumbarse drives off the side of a perfectly good road and into a river we lower the speed limit again. I resent that. There was nothing wrong with the road, or the 100k limit before.

about 3 pages ago.

sorry.
its just getting to me, all the sheep.

We have speed limits because you can not measure stupidity on the side of the road. You can however measure a vehicles speed. Those limits are arbitrary and based on a lot of conflicting influences. They are there so that the lowest common denominator in the least safe vehicle with the least assessable skill will make the journey and not kill/injure some other mug.

Unfortunately the line that enforcing speed limits with speed detection devices save lives is wrong. Australia's road toll has risen over the last 20 years. There are dips and there has been a slowing of the rise due to mandatory wearing of seatbelts and higher ADR standards for crash protection.

But the toll is rising, and will not go down. This has a lot more to do with the number of vehicle kilometers traveled and the average skill level of the drivers involved than the individual speed. Especially considering the fact that police attending an accident get to tick a box to say "Excessive speed was a factor in this accident." Nothing is reported about any of the things that make it excessive speed for those conditions. So it happens that speed is marked as a factor in accidents where the driver was traveling beyond the conditions and situation warranted; yet that driver is still below the arbitrary magic number.

There are problems with the speedo watching culture that the mantra is building. Mainly that those that watch a speedo because they do not want a fine for speeding are not looking where they are going. This is the lowest common denominator, these people have not nor likely will learn to judge speed from visual input. Nor will they learn to read a speedo with peripheral vision.

Other problems arise when local authorities set to many speed changes too close together. There was a local council in the UK that had its speed zoning overturned as unsafe by the courts for exactly that reason.

People will also behave far better and slow down when they see a police vehicle cruising along. This is far more effective at slowing people down (which is what they say they want); than a speed measuring device.

Often the choice of site for many speed detection devices is not a blackspot but a site that is more likely to see a raised speed for some other reason. Such as a 100 kmh zone between two 80 kmh zones with no other traffic impediments. Or at the bottom of a hill in a situation where there is no intersections etc. ie places where people who tend to just travel at the natural speed of the vehicle and situation get a fine.

The above points imply that speed detection devices are primarily, a revenue collection method. Especially considering the statement some years back from a physicist that he would like an isolated stationary radar as accurate as the police claim the handhelds are. Good thing the handhelds use averaged readings.

However, the use of small portable disguised devices could be used to good effect in places where the speed detection is needed; but regrettably not often practiced. Such as near schools, on rat running roads, and unfortunately for motorbike riders in the twisties.

If you dont like the culture of cotton wool that Australia is becoming and the continually lowering speed limits because of the absence of an idiot yardstick. Then start bothering your local MP. Its what they are for.

While I'd love to take the bike to a track... there is no decently sized track within 21/2 hrs. I'm not sure the local go kart track would let me take a 600 on it.

Lastly its a fact that most vehicles speedo's are inaccurate and the ADR's only require to within 10%. So if your speedo is reading 100 kmh, your likely doing something other than that. The only way to know how much yours is out, is to check against some other known accurate device. I recommend a GPS.

falx wrote:But the toll is rising, and will not go down.

You mean like this??

Grasshopper wrote:sorry.
its just getting to me, all the sheep.

thank fuck we have you to tell us how it is.
must be the years of experience that has led you to be oh so insightful.
GET OVER YOURSELF. YOU'RE NOT THAT SMART!

diesel wrote:

Grasshopper wrote:sorry.
its just getting to me, all the sheep.

thank fuck we have you to tell us how it is.
must be the years of experience that has led you to be oh so insightful.
GET OVER YOURSELF. YOU'RE NOT THAT SMART!

Funny how the "sheep" can except that in this world there are laws and if you break those laws and get caught there are consequences.

Or maybe the "sheep" know that bitching on a forum is not going to change a thing.

Go talk yourself silly and argue an argument that cannot be won This thread is boring. Off to look for a more amusing topic.

aardvark wrote:

falx wrote:But the toll is rising, and will not go down.

You mean like this??

That's great. When the speed limit is 0kph there will be no deaths !!

There are lots of factors on the x axis. Better brakes, technology, roads.

I accept that there are laws and that if I break them I will pay - 24 demerit points tells me that oh well, live and learn (yeah right )

javaman wrote: There are lots of factors on the x axis. Better brakes, technology, roads.

True, but the statement was made that the toll had been rising for the last 20 years, and clearly it hasn't been.

I think what we need to do is look at a common sense approach.

Country roads where we fly passed each other, normally within a couple of feet, should be limited to approx 100 km/h.

Multilane free ways and highways could possibly have limits of, say, 130km/h. Make the electronically variable, so that when it's raining, if there's been an accident or such, then it can be reducded accordingly.