Just received a fine for speeding on the return to Melbourne, on freeway in Broadford.
110 km/h zone, Detected 118km/h, adjusted to 115 km/h.
I was speeding, I don't dispute that, & I'm hoping to get out of it because of a clean record.
But, 5 km over in a 110 km zone!? I thought you had 10% leniency when it was over a 100 km/h zone? Can someone clarify the rules?
$201 is very expensive considering I was doing 5 km over on a freeway!
If you don't want the Government to fine offenders for speeding, what is your suggestion then?
No no… the idea is fine all speeding drivers - except me!
I think the OP already set this out:
10% leniency when it was over a 100 km/h zone
I'd personally think a standard 10% allowance would be reasonable.
Problem is that it becomes the defacto speed limit.
@tranter: From below, apparently in Vic it's:
A tolerance of 3km/h applies to limits under 100 (or 2km/h for fixed cameras).
A tolerance of 3% applies to limits equal to or over 100.
So… yes? But there is still a tolerance built in.
Nah, 5% could be regarded as slight inattentiveness but 10% is a bit much, I think. But it appears that OP was doing 118kph anyway, and they dropped it to 115kph, maybe to be “nice”?
I think 10% is the GST, not the speed limit leniency.
@grr1701: I think the odometer of the OP was showing 125 Km/H. Bad speculation is how you lose your money. Get TomTom which tells you your speed
I know a speedometer is allowed a variance of 10%. I dont think it applies to the speed regulations but worth a try if you wanted to challenge your fine. I live in NSW and I have left the cruise control on 110kmph past 100kmph fixed and mobile speed cameras without a fine. But Vic is more of a nanny state than nsw so who knows?
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2007C00025/e85eded2-…
18.5.1.1.2. indicate the actual vehicle speed, for all speeds above 40 km/h, to an accuracy of ± 10 percent
https://www.ombo.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/1126…
The Australian Design Rules only require speedometers to indicate speed to an accuracy of +/- 10% for all speeds in excess of 40km/h. In addition, the Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Regulation 1998 (NSW), Schedule 4, clause 41, requires that a motor vehicle speedometer ‘must indicate, when the vehicle is travelling at a speed in excess of 50 kilometres per hour, a speed that is not more than 10% less than the actual speed’. This means that many speedometers intrinsically may read an incorrect speed.
@itsdougie: Mine does way worse than that. 96kph on the speedo is 80kph in reality. 115kph on the speedo is really 100kph. Mitsubishi Australia seem to think that's not an issue though.
I never understood the benefit of satnav for everyday speed determination. I assume for the benefits of satnav to be realised you'd need to driving at constant speed on a straight and level road with clear open skies. It's sounds like a great way to "validate" your speedometer when cruising on an open highway, but I assume the latency would be too slow to adjust for those "Ah! Mobile camera! Ah I'm going 8km/hr over!" moments. I suppose the logs could be useful to prove reasonable innocence.
@itsdougie:
I recall, in an earlier discussion, it was said the Road Transport regulation allows for a speedo to read up to 10% higher than the actual speed (so speedo 99 if real 90); but 0% lower than actual speed. Otherwise anyone could contest a 10% margin.
@itsdougie: ADR 18 was changed on 1 July 2007 to a new standard that requires…
The speedo must not indicate a speed less than the vehicle’s true speed or a speed greater than the vehicle’s true speed by an amount more than 10 percent plus 4 km/h.
@itsdougie:ADR 18 was changed on 1 July 2007 to a new standard that requires… "The speedo must not indicate a speed less than the vehicle’s true speed or a speed greater than the vehicle’s true speed by an amount more than 10 percent plus 4 km/h."
@grr1701: That's the confidence interval to their speed radar (+-3km/hr), they take the lower limit, ensuring you have the lowest potential physical speed at the time recorded.
@coin saver:
For those struggling with the wording of
"The speedo must not indicate a speed less than the vehicle’s true speed or a speed greater than the vehicle’s true speed by an amount more than 10 percent plus 4 km/h."
(Actual) <= (Speedo) <= ((Actual*1.1)+4)
Examples:
Speedo | Actual Min - Max
40 | 32.72 - 40
60 | 50.91 - 60
80 | 69.09 - 80
100 | 87.27 - 100
110 | 96.36 - 110
So if you're speedo is saying 60, you could be going anywhere between 51 and 60.
For a speedo reading of 100, you could be anywhere between 87 and 100, and for a reading of 110 you could actually be going under 100km/h.
That's why some people are saying they've gone "110" through a 100 zone and not been booked - because they were quite possibly going < 100, or at the very least < 100 + whatever that states "allowable tolerance" is.
After doing some unscientific testing myself (OD5 speedo check, GPS speed), my speedo is ~+5%, which would put in smack bang in the middle of the allowed +10%(+4).
@HighAndDry: the tolerance is built in because although cameras are reguarly calibrated they are still not 100% accurate.
Nah - I think it’s about safety, not revenue raising. Safety in terms of speed being dangerous but also attentiveness. Attentive drivers don’t get speeding fines, inattentive ones do. It’s not luck that that plenty of people have driven 50 years without a speeding fine. They’re just better drivers.
We should start fining people who do 20 below on the overtaking lane.
Then let's see how many of those people can continue claiming they've never been fined.
Agreed. Wouldn’t change much. If you’re driving 10 under the speeding limit you’re also an inattentive driver.
@cameldownunder: If you merge on to a freeway at 80, you're a threat to safety and shouldn't be allowed to drive.
I purposely mentioned the overtaking lane because there can be legitimate reasons to drive below the speed limit.
There is very few legitimate reason to stay on the overtaking lane when not overtaking (and I assumed doing 20 below meant you are not overtaking.)
Also, no other country in the world puts as much emphasis on low-level speeding than Australia. I believe I have seen some report on that. They may have larger fines but they aren't as enforced as they are here.
If you’re driving 10 under the speeding limit you’re also an inattentive driver.
No. A speed limit is not a target speed, it's the maximum speed allowed.
@cameldownunder: This is categorically false.
Speed differential is the leading cause of collisions; fast or slow. Where speeding and 'slow driving' differs, however, is that a singular speeding driver does not alter the speed of other drivers, thus does not contribute to further speed differential (and thus further danger) beyond their own actions. Conversely, a slow driver forces everyone in their lane to match their speed, which then has the flow on effect of slowing down adjacent lanes as people are forced to change in order to get around the inconsiderate (or incapable) snail. All of a sudden, you have a multi-lane road where people a driving a mish-mash of speeds in the range between the marked speed and the speed that this person has selfishly decided to force their lane to conform to.
@tranter: The reason why it is called a 'speed limit' is to make it simple for the common folk. Just like how it is easier for the government to push the message of 'just cut sugar' from your diet to lose weight, rather than teaching the physiology and biochemistry associated with energy intake and expenditure whereby you would learn that you could do that, or you could eat a diet of almost 100% sugar and still lose weight, it is simply easier for the government to say that 'speed kills' rather than trying to get the 'average' person to understand it is speed differential.
Quote from Melbourne police officer on OzBargain:
https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/313150?page=4#comment-4789…
You see, the road sign it looks like a target. That's not a target it is the absolute maximum. Almost anything below is acceptable. If I remember correctly there is an offence for driving unreasonably with 1/4 of the maximum allowed speed.
Again, that's not a target it is a maximum limit. It's like saying to you, You have to run 2km from here to here. You can run as fast as possible, just get there. No pressure to the time limit. What are the chance of you running your lungs out as fast as you can ? Why do we do that in a car ? Take the car out of the equation.
I have also seen police officers who do not know the road rules.
Get us a quote from a rulebook and then we can start talking.
@tranter: My response to that standard comment is: what speed would a self-driving car do? That's the speed you should do too.
@CMH:
https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/safety-and-road-rules/road-r…
You must travel at or below the speed shown on speed limit signs.
You can go into the actual regulations if you like. Nowhere in there does it say the speed limit is a target speed.
I'm sorry but I don't know what road regulations have to do with your comment.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/16/tesla-all…
@Strahany: Speed differential is the leading cause of collisions;
Obviously ! Dough ! Especially if the speed of the car in front of you is slower than yours.
Stationary car in front, and car behind 10km/h -> CRASH
Car in front 40 km/h, car behind 60 km/h —> CRASH
is that a singular speeding driver does not alter the speed of other drivers
Correct, a singular speeding driver changes lanes like crazy, to maintain his current maximum allowed speed + 5% variance
@Strahany: Speed kills, and it's a fact
Our bodies can withstand only a certain amount of G-force, and breaking distance is depending ( indirectly via speed ) on ( negative ) acceleration.
So it makes a substantial difference if you hit a wall at 30km/h or 120km/h.
Throughput on road is higher on low speeds than on high speeds ( discussed ad absurdum )
Speed Limits are speed limits
All this means the road is a safer place with inconsiderate, incapable snails driving at 10-20km/h below speed than
Highly skilled, attentive, multiple speeding drivers considering the speed limit the minimum speed required to drive, after deduction of odometer variations, and speed camera calibration deviations.
What if you are overtaking someone driving at 30 under the speed limit and you are going 20 under the speed limit.
@Strahany:
This might apply to multi lane freeways, but you can’t really apply the same logic to 2 lane roads where a speeding driver can take a corner too fast and veer into the oncoming lane.
My mum has never had a ticket but can't drive for shit.
Really? I mean it could be luck. But if she drives a lot and never has had an accident it is more likely you don’t know what you’re talking about. I mean that literally - not as an insult. OTOH, if she’s crashes a lot, yeah, just luck.
No she can't drive for shit.
People like her don't get tickets or have accidents, just cause them.
My point was just because someone doesn't get fines doesn't mean they're good drivers.
And I think I'd know her abity better than you.
Skilled drivers/riders can often predict the behaviours of certain drivers and take action to prevent what could've easily been a collision.
Otherwise, as a motorcycle rider, I'd be dead many times over.
@Scab: (Assuming your mum isn't the type to cause accidents and flee from the scene) you're telling me that she has a spotless driving record, has been driving for 30ish years (at a guess). Now add in the stats (she will pay less for insurance than a man because statistically she is safer driver). Despite all this, your opinion is that she drives for shit.
@bobbified: Yeah - I once went thorough a red light and it was another driver's attentiveness that prevented an accident that was my fault.
Yeah because you seem to know her driving skill better than I do.
That's an incredible talent you have.
I rode motorbikes for decades and it teaches you to drive defensively.
But there are unpredictable idiots on the road.
@Scab: it appears AddNinja is attempting to discuss the facts. While you’re attempting to convince others that ur mum is a bad driver with none.
Yeah because armchair experts with psychic powers who have never seen her drive know better than me.
Unbelievable.
Here's a fact for you, I know her and you don't.
And here's another fact, I've seen her driving and you haven't.
So it appears I'm discussing facts and you're just making it up.
How's that for facts.
LOL 😂
Sounds like my grandfather.
I can't even remember how many cars he's rolled.
I can still vividly remember seeing him one time driving.
It all began on a lovely autumn day, I was with my brother standing at the drive way to the property, it was then that our young naive innocent eyes saw him, it, driving…
gleaming eye's piercing just above the steering wheel as he sped downhill swerving from the left lane to the centre and back… We cried "shit here he comes" and ran as fast as our legs could take us..
In short he drove like Scab's mum, like shit.
Living in the country he barely got any tickets.
There was a strict rule in our family that our grandfather was not to drive me nor my siblings anywhere.
Aunts and uncles didn't like him driving their kids either.
@Scab: haha actually you haven’t provided any facts about your Mum, only your opinion of her driving skills.
She may be a crap driver but you haven’t actually provided any examples of that…
For example, I don’t think my Mum is a great driver because she tailgates and I saw her go through a red once.
Really shouldn't have to, but here's a few.
Brand new car and she was driving in a double garage and hit the middle pillar.
Every wheel has gutter rash.
Doesn't put a blinker on because she says it will wear out the battery.
Took me to a Maccas drive thru and almost wiped out the menu board.
Did a u turn on a bend on a motorway exit.
@Scab:
That's nothing compared to my grandfather.
When driving downhill he turns the engine off to save fuel.
When approaching a turn to slow down he just places the other foot on the brakes, believes that if he takes his foot off the accelerator energy will be wasted.
His ute's brakes don't really work, needs to be changed to low gear and there's a block of wood that acts as the brakes.
He drove the ute through the Mt Barker suburbs.
I think it’s about safety, not revenue raising.
Then they'd fine drivers going around corners 60km/h in a 60 zone in the wet - driving to conditions is infinitely more important than blindly following a number that's often arbitrarily decided and doesn't reflect a safe speed.
Attentive drivers don’t get speeding fines, inattentive ones do. It’s not luck that that plenty of people have driven 50 years without a speeding fine. They’re just better drivers.
Better drivers? Lmao, they're sticklers for rules. They're also often the clowns who will be sitting in the overtaking lane 15km/h under the posted speed sign, and the type of people who drive the same speed on a road every day irrespective of road surface, visibility, traffic, etc.
Young guys with 5-10 years experience behind the wheel, a minor accident or two and several fines will believe against all reason that they are better drivers than conservative 65 year old drivers with a spotless driving record. They’re not. They are poor at driving. Or do you think insurers charge younger people more just from fun?
No sure why this get negs. It's a reasonable observation.
Surely you are being facetious. How can anyone with even a modicum of experience operating a vehicle think, for even a second, that the average slow driver is paying more attention to the road than the average speeder. The faster someone is going, the less margin for error in their reaction times, and therefore the greater attention required. More often than not, slow drivers are the elderly (who appear to lack the confidence to drive to the limit, and thus should get off the road as they would be a major hazard) or someone who is capable of driving, but are daydreaming.
Nah - I think it’s about safety, not revenue raising.
That's of course why all those Speed cameras sit within 50m of a speed zone change - because the conditions have obviously significantly changed - nothing to do with the drivers who haven't immediately slowed down contributing to the revenue.
That's not to mention the nice wide open roads (often with particularly slow limits) being peppered with cameras, but the built-up areas where accidents occur all the time are strangely free of Mr Plod.
Here's a crazy thought…you were speeding and you got fined for DOING SOMETHING WRONG.
♪ This is Victoria
♪ Don't catch you speeding' up
Hang on, how come your car didn't spontaneously combust resulting in immediate death of your self, all passengers and all around you?
you knew you would be fined if caught speeding, and you still went over the limit. Now you're complaining about getting fined?
You want to drive at whatever speed you like and you want to decide how much you get fined… Who do you think you are?
Who do you think you are?
Sounds like Tony Abbott to me…
Or Malcolm Turdball?
A merchant banker with a sense of entitlement.
Can’t afford the fines? Then you cannot afford to drive.
Or at least cannot afford to speed. I don't speed and I don't get speeding fines.
5km/h? we both know that it was at least 8km/h
plus, you cant go around speeding just because 'it wasnt busy' what kind of excuse is that.
Your well off enough to own an expensive bike so you're well off enough to pay the fine.
You know the law, you broke it and now you're crying victim
"not as easily convinced that my behaviour was that dangerous" hence the need for strict laws. I doubt you are a scientist, a car manufacturer, road or tyre designer or a crash scene investigator so how dare you to question what's safe and what's not.
I have no empathy with your financial loss.
Speed limit 110, does 118, speed limit 100, does 108… what's point of the speed limit? You will always get fined
To the OP:
Who do you think you are?
Running around speeding in cars
Collecting your jar of fines,
Tearing the road apart,
You're gonna cop a fine,
From the coppers beside the road,
So don't come crying to OZB,
Who do you think you are?
Write a letter to the Traffic Camera Office if it's your first offence. They'll let you off with a warning. See [Vic] Receive a Caution If You Have Received a Fine for Speeding 10kms over The Limit or Less
That's the plan. Haven't been fined in ages so…
if it's your first offence.
Suck it up princess, you get 0% leniency. Its a LIMIT… Anyway a poem.
A man once sped, every k over apparently another dead. Now the police tread, to fine his head. At home alone i rest in my bed.
Enjoy
That was beautiful man.
Here’s the story of a young man that speeds
A post to OzBargain that he pleads
‘Bout a speeding ticket he got
Knew he did it, that’s the plot
An MS Paint drawing won’t help with his needs…
If i was on my pc id have ms painted a speeding ticket rofl
With a few adjustments, that could be a great limerick.
Don't believe the hype!
I hope you don't mind but I'm getting this as a neck tattoo.
Always thought it was 3% leeway for Vic freeways
3% leeway
Op were allegedly clocked at 7.27% over the legal limit. It was then reduced to 4.54%.
A tolerance of 3km/h applies to limits under 100 (or 2km/h for fixed cameras).
A tolerance of 3% applies to limits equal to or over 100.
Pay up sucker.
10% leniency?! Wow, I thought it was just the 1-2% error margin for the cameras?
10% ???
I blame Gerry Harvey. lol
I blame Gerry Harvey. lol
I would have blamed Labor..
Diji1 would have blamed both Labor and Liberal ;)
That's all the lethargic and leaderless Liberals seem to be able to do.
I was doing 5 km over
Allegedly 8 km/h over the limit. They reduced to 5 km/h.
If detected is 118kmph then you must be doing 125kmph on your odo.
Exactly this. Detected at 118, given a few km as error margin, but the truth of it, Car speedos read fast, so OP would have been reading well over 120 in a 110 zone. Zero sympathy..
Don't be sorry here, pay fine this time and drive within limit or else you'll here in next few months to say sorry again.
Meh, I got done for 85 in an 80 zone. Pisses you off but revenue raising is what it is.