Traffic Laws in Melbourne Going Too Far?

Trying2SaveABuck on 24/04/2019 - 21:00
Last edited 25/04/2019 - 14:04 by 1 other user

Road toll is almost double last years in Victoria

We have some of the harshes fines and restrictions in the world but still a shocking number of road fatalities

I mean u get almost a 500$ fine and 4 points for looking at you phone at the traffic lights

Speeding fines are well over $250 these days for 5km over the limit

If it really was about safety then why are Parking fines are also outrages? Surely parking an extra 20min in a 2hr zone isn't going to kill anyone…..

Don't get me started on charging the city speed limit to 30km! When we have bad traffic as it is!

The death toll rises and revenue is going the same way? Is it time we loosened the laws improve and increase speed limits so the city moves a bit better!?

Clearly the current approach isn't working and it isn't really fair? More police with the power to take points and hand out smaller fines would be more effective then barely any cops and loads of cameras and parking inspectors…

Note - I have not been fined recently just noticed the toll is unfortunately really high and questioning if all the revenue raising was improving the safety of our roads….

Poll Options

422
We need to relax the laws - The road laws are more interested in revenue raising then road safety
16
The laws are fine - I'm happy to give money to the state government and let people die on the roads
76
The laws need to be harsh - give the government more money

Automotive

Comments

- - - p1 ama on 27/04/2019 - 22:01
      
      people would rather drive at the maximum and complain when they get fined for being slightly over
      
      "Driving too fast" in and of itself is not a reason to fine somebody, therefore, the rationale of the fine is that driving too fast is a cause of danger to other people, and therefore, it is a behaviour that should be deterred.
      
      If you accept this logic, then you have to be able to justify that someone driving at 64 km/h in a 60 km/h zone is actually a danger to other people. I'm smart enough to not get fined, but I shouldn't have to be looking up and down at my speedometer every minute I'm not on cruise control to make sure that I'm not drifting over the speed limit. It's a distraction, it takes my eyes off the road and it doesn't make anybody safer.
      
      There are behaviours I see on the road every day, people failing to speed up to merge, people sightseeing whilst driving, people checking petrol prices as they drive past, people having in depth conversations with their passenger and not paying attention to the road, idiots screaming down residential streets at 85 km/h, people looking back at their kids whilst driving, people changing lanes across solid lines because they realised they're going to make a wrong turn. The list goes on and on and on of things that are far more dangerous than someone going at 64 km/h in a 60 km/h zone.
      
      My view is that fines need to be much heavier for actions that are deliberate (i.e. most of the things I mentioned above, plus running red lights, using their phone, excessive speeding…etc.) and much less for things that are clearly minor and accidental. The fact that I've driven at around 5 km/h over the speed limit whilst cruising in front of a cop car and didn't get pulled over shows how relatively mundane it is. If you really think that cameras pinging people for going 5 km/h over is making the road safer, I think you've just drunk the cool-aid.
      - corbz on 28/04/2019 - 12:15
        
        @p1 ama:
        
        "Driving too fast" in and of itself is not a reason to fine somebody
        64 km/h in a 60 km/h zone is actually a danger to other people
        If you really think that cameras pinging people for going 5 km/h over is making the road safer, I think you've just drunk the cool-aid
        
        Your arrogant reckless driving behaviour is what leads to the road toll being so high. You're spewing out nothing but anecdotes that serve your justifications for speeding and reckless driving.
        
        I'm smart enough to not get fined
        
        But you're dumb enough to speed
        
        https://www.science.org.au/curious/technology-future/physics…
        
        p1 ama on 28/04/2019 - 13:01
        
        +1
        
        @corbz:
        
        Your arrogant reckless driving behaviour is what leads to the road toll being so high.
        
        So tell me, what percentage of the road toll is due to people driving at 5 km/h over the speed limit.
        
        You're spewing out nothing but anecdotes that serve your justifications for speeding and reckless driving.
        
        Not really, I studied physics at university, I full well understand the physical implications of driving faster. It's not hard, high school level at best.
        
        The issue here is not how likely you are to get in a crash, any muppet can tell you that if you drive faster, you're more likely to get in a crash, but what is the risk/return trade-off for driving faster (or allowing people to drive faster). There are a few points to consider:
        
        1) The probability of dying on the road is still ridiculously small. In 2018, 1,143 people were killed on the road. If you compare this to the number of people passing away from various other causes, it's almost insignificant. For example, in 2017, 3,128 people in Australia died from committing suicide. I don't see anywhere near the attention and/or funding towards suicide prevention as there is towards reducing the road toll.
        
        2) Looking at the data for road fatalities per 100,000 people, or per 100,000 motor vehicles, Australia's stands at 7.3 deaths per 100,000 motor vehicles per year. To compare statistics, Germany (known for fast driving) is at 6.8, the UK (known for pretty lax policing of speeding) is at 5.1 and Japan (again, known for pretty lax policing) is at 3.9. Many other European countries similarly low. Clearly then, it's not just a matter of speed, otherwise German drivers would be dropping like flies, don't you think?
        
        But you're dumb enough to speed
        
        Yes, typical high-horse stupidity. If you can bet your life on never having exceeded any speed limit whilst driving a car, then you can start taking cheap drive-by shots at other people.
        
        corbz on 28/04/2019 - 20:31
        
        @p1 ama:
        
        So tell me, what percentage of the road toll is due to people driving at 5 km/h over the speed limit.
        
        There's 4100 speed related road accidents every year.
        
        I studied physics at university.
        going at 65 km/h down a 60 km/h road….isn't really all that dangerous.
        you have to be able to justify that someone driving at 64 km/h in a 60 km/h zone is actually a danger to other people.
        
        A vehicle at 60km/h vs 65km/h is going to stop approximately 4.5 meters shorter than the other car with all other conditions the same. That can be the difference of no contact or a 1600kg impact on a pedestrian.
        
        I shouldn't have to be looking up and down at my speedometer every minute it doesn't make anybody safer
        
        Any logic behind not monitoring your speed? How is once a minute flashing your eyes at the speedo not making anybody safer? You going 5-10kms over the limit quadrupling your accident risk isn't making anybody safer. Do you think when merging you shouldn't check your mirrors? Head checks?
        
        The list goes on and on and on of things that are far more dangerous than someone going at 64 km/h in a 60 km/h zone
        
        Keep building straw-man arguments. Other things being more dangerous than speeding doesn't change the risks of speeding.
        
        I full well understand the physical implications of driving faster
        
        What are they?
        
        The issue here is not how likely you are to get in a crash, any muppet can tell you that if you drive faster, you're more likely to get in a crash, but what is the risk/return trade-off for driving faster (or allowing people to drive faster). There are a few points to consider:
        
        For example, in 2017, 3128 people in Australia died from committing suicide.
        
        How does attention towards suicide affect the risk/return trade off for driving over the speed limit? That's a false dichotomy. We're talking about what factors play into the road toll, not what other causes of death are out there.
        
        Australia's stands at 7.3 deaths per 100,000
        Germany (known for fast driving) is at 6.8
        Clearly then, it's not just a matter of speed, otherwise German drivers would be dropping like flies, don't you think?
        
        Yeah, they're known for high speed in their infrastructure built around handing those limits. You don't see them advocating to go 200km/h in school zones. German driver's license costs over $2000, after a minimum of 25-45 hours of professional instruction plus 12 hours of theory. Compare that to our education system and what our roads are built for. Why don't you advocate for better education and road infrastructure rather than exceeding the speed limits of our current system? That's significant in reducing the death per 100,000 by 0.5
        
        If you can bet your life on never having exceeded any speed limit
        
        I'm not advocating to speed over the limit where there's no cameras, 'let loose'. I'm not trying to misrepresent data sets by implicating that deaths in age groups are represented per capita rather than total amounts. I'm not using passenger deaths as a way to represent the abilities of drivers in age brackets.
        
        p1 ama on 28/04/2019 - 22:21
        
        +1
        
        @corbz:
        
        There's 4100 speed related road accidents every year.
        
        Yes, a "speed related" accident could mean anything from being 1 km/h over the limit to a muppet zipping down residential streets at 80 km/h. You're still missing my point, which is that driving 3 km/h over the speed limit is a pretty benign thing to get fined over $200 for.
        
        A vehicle at 60km/h vs 65km/h is going to stop approximately 4.5 meters shorter than the other car with all other conditions the same. That can be the difference of no contact or a 1600kg impact on a pedestrian.
        
        So by that logic why are we allowed to drive at 70 km/h on some roads, and 80 km/h on some roads and 100 km/h on other roads. Why not make all roads 40 km/h and we can always stop on time? There is always going to be some risk associated with driving, that is the risk we take to make our journey times shorter.
        
        How does attention towards suicide affect the risk/return trade off for driving over the speed limit? That's a false dichotomy. We're talking about what factors play into the road toll, not what other causes of death are out there.
        
        Driving, all things considered, is actually very low risk. I'm pointing out that there are many other risks we face that is far greater than dying on the road. Therefore, it puts into perspective of us arguing about the difference between going at 60 km/h and 65 km/h (which is negligible).
        
        Yeah, they're known for high speed in their infrastructure built around handing those limits.
        
        The quality of their roads are no different to Australian freeways. Their drivers are much better.
        
        You don't see them advocating to go 200km/h in school zones.
        
        Neither am I, nobody else is either, so no point with the strawman.
        
        German driver's license costs over $2000, after a minimum of 25-45 hours of professional instruction plus 12 hours of theory. Compare that to our education system and what our roads are built for.
        
        I have many times throughout this post pointed out that the problem is that Australian drivers are not as competent as many others and have pointed towards education and more stringent licensing as a solution.
        
        The sad part is that I think we actually fundamentally agree, but for some reason you seem more interested in attacking my points even when that makes you contradict yourself. I completely agree when you say:
        
        Why don't you advocate for better education and road infrastructure rather than exceeding the speed limits of our current system?
        
        I am advocating for these things. I've said time and time again on this thread in multiple posts that there are serious issues with the Australian licensing system where you can get a license with barely any knowledge about how to drive and that Australian drivers are seriously incompetent compared with drivers in many places around the world where I have driven extensively.
        
        For the record, I'm NOT advocating for exceeding our speed limits, I am merely saying that the resources poured into catching drivers at 5 km/h over the speed limit are much better served elsewhere (such as, developing a better driver training program), and that if we focused less on punishing drivers for very minor details and instead focus on making everyone better drivers, this would reduce the road toll AND make drivers happier.
        
        I never once said that anybody should drive at 5 km/h over the speed limit, just that the strict enforcement of speed limits is not really all that helpful to safety in the grand scheme.
        
        corbz on 29/04/2019 - 18:30
        
        @p1 ama:
        
        You're still missing my point, which is that driving 3 km/h over the speed limit is a pretty benign thing to get fined over $200 for.
        
        The speed limit is the maximum. No one is forcing the driver to sit on exactly 60. If they want to have a 3km/h leeway then they can cruise at 57 and it's safer, for all people on the road and no risk of fines.
        
        by that logic why are we allowed to drive at 70 km/h on some roads, and 80 km/h on some roads and 100 km/h on other roads. Why not make all roads 40 km/h and we can always stop on time?
        
        Intersections, run off distance, line of sight, shoulders, pedestrian access, traffic lights, blind corners, road surface etc.
        
        You need someone to explain the fundamental concept of different roads speed limits to you?
        
        My logic is that you're doubling your accident risk for 5kmh over the legal speed limit that's being enforced on that road. You keep saying that it's negligible. What makes it negligible? You want to use a slippery slope fallacy to dodge addressing the risk that happens when the speed limit is exceeded.
        
        Driving, all things considered, is actually very low risk.
        I'm pointing out that there are many other risks we face that is far greater than dying on the road. Therefore, it puts into perspective of us arguing about the difference between going at 60 km/h and 65 km/h (which is negligible).
        
        45% of deaths between 18-25 are attributed to driving, hardly low risk. Bringing suicide into this doesn't bring any perspective. Why don't you focus on behavioural changes that can be made in driving that would curb road toll and accidents. Speeding remains the leading behavioural factor in death and injuries on our roads contributing to about 40 per cent of road fatalities.
        
        There's 4100 speed related accidents a year, which exceeds your 'perspective shifting' suicide rate. If you believe that Australian driver's are so inexperienced and risky, why do you think that it's okay for them to double their risk of accident by going 5km/h over the limit?
        
        The quality of their roads are no different to Australian freeways.
        
        You completely ignored the infrastructure point of their purpose built roads for high speeds, which are only unrestricted in safely deemed area.
        
        you contradict yourself
        
        Examples?
        
        I shouldn't have to be looking up and down at my speedometer every minute it doesn't make anybody safer
        
        Going to address this?
        
        I think we agree on some points but disagree on others. My view is that your arguments are oozing logical fallacies and it's pointless at this stage to keep pointing them out.
        
        source:
        https://www.science.org.au/technology-future/physics-speedin…
        https://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/speeding/index.html
        
        kabammi on 29/04/2019 - 19:58
        
        @corbz: You can't state how many fatalities or injuries are caused by speed 5km/hr over the speed limit. The stats do not exist. That's why you keep dodging the question.
        
        Germany takes a much more measured approach to speed limits. We rely on, in this country, faar to much on modelling to provide us with 'facts' which the government relies on to support whatever agenda they have.
        
        The fact is, we all agree that speed kills.
        
        The fact is, speeding cars kill.
        
        Let's ban cars then.
        
        corbz on 29/04/2019 - 20:20
        
        @kabammi: I don’t know how that statistic, it’s not available.
        
        Great slippery slope fallacy.
        
        p1 ama on 29/04/2019 - 21:53
        
        @corbz:
        
        The speed limit is the maximum. No one is forcing the driver to sit on exactly 60. If they want to have a 3km/h leeway then they can cruise at 57 and it's safer, for all people on the road and no risk of fines.
        
        I think we're both getting worked up by the minute points now. The initial point I raised is whether we need to fine people for as minor violations as going 3 km/h over the speed limit.
        
        Without knowing your background and/or your experiences, I'd say that if you really think so, you need to see the world a bit more. Melbourne (and I say this as someone born and bred in Melbourne) is one of the most draconian places in terms of traffic enforcement because of the way their cameras are set up.
        
        In very few places around the world is tolerance as tight as in Melbourne, even in other parts of Australia. Here is a source: https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/motoring/on-th…
        
        It reads:
        
        Victoria is known for having a low tolerance for speeding and it is not uncommon for motorists to be fined if a speed camera catches them going over just 2km/h, or 3km/h if it is a mobile speed camera.
        
        This is clearly draconian because in other states:
        
        In NSW, while the exact speeding tolerance has not officially been stated, it is believed that drivers get a bit more leeway, which is where the idea of the 10 per cent rule evolved from.
        
        Then, in South Australia,
        
        Figures released by South Australia Police in 2017 shows that some motorists were able to go past speed cameras travelling as much as 7km/h over the limit without getting fined.
        
        So, to summarise, my point is that travelling 2 - 3 km/h over the speed limit is just ignored in other states and, you might not even believe it, but in most countries around the world, we would be laughing stock for even having this discussion.
        
        My logic is that you're doubling your accident risk for 5kmh over the legal speed limit that's being enforced on that road. You keep saying that it's negligible. What makes it negligible? You want to use a slippery slope fallacy to dodge addressing the risk that happens when the speed limit is exceeded.
        
        It's negligible because nobody else apart from people in Victoria even care. By your own admission, you can't even come up with any accidents for which such minor speeding was the causal factor.
        
        Speeding remains the leading behavioural factor in death and injuries on our roads contributing to about 40 per cent of road fatalities.
        
        Nobody is saying that we should not fine and/or discourage speeding. You've taken my argument out of context and taken it to the extreme. If someone is deliberately speeding and driving in an unsafe manner, sure, fine them. What causes many drivers to be bitter is the fact that you can be driving with care, attentively and safely and you'll get pinged for going 3 km/h over the speed limit. I don't know how much you drive, but you seem to have no grasp of how much 3 km/h actually is. You would not be able to tell if you were in a vehicle and it sped up by 3 km/h.
        
        There's 4100 speed related accidents a year, which exceeds your 'perspective shifting' suicide rate. If you believe that Australian driver's are so inexperienced and risky, why do you think that it's okay for them to double their risk of accident by going 5km/h over the limit?
        
        It doesn't double their risk of accident. You're so single minded about this issue that you're ignoring everything else. Silly really.
        
        I think we agree on some points but disagree on others. My view is that your arguments are oozing logical fallacies and it's pointless at this stage to keep pointing them out.
        
        Yes, and you've been saying nothing other than "rah rah 5 km/h over bad rah rah". I find it a little sad at this stage anyway, that, like I mention before, we are discussing a point that would make us the laughing stock of the civilised world. What to do with people who drive 3 km/h over the speed limit. It's like discussing what we should do with people who have bad breath. It's just a trivial issue in the scheme of other things.
        
        The reason why no action can ever be taken on this is because people (and I'm not singling out you) are so fixated on their vision of things that they forget that most people agree on 95% of things. We both agree on the need for a more stringent licensing program, better driver training, more education and defensive driving courses, safer infrastructure and better road design…etc. I might even be in favour of lower speed limits in some areas (and of course higher speed limits in others). We would probably even agree on heavier punishment for many violations of road rules. Don't you think it's sad that we're bickering about a really minor issue? If you can't see that it's really minor in the scheme of things (road safety), I think you're being myopic on purpose.
        
        corbz on 30/04/2019 - 01:49
        
        @p1 ama:
        
        I shouldn't have to be looking up and down at my speedometer every minute it doesn't make anybody safer
        
        Can you address what you meant by this? It got missed in your other replies.
        
        I'm going to try and cut out all of the hyperbole and false logic and see if we can understand each other a bit more.
        A good exercise is to try and understand the other person's viewpoint. These are the views I think you have, let me know if you disagree:
        
        The speeding laws in Victoria are too strict
        Drivers should be allowed to go over the speed limit to …X km/h? because you can in other states/countries
        Discussing speeding before suicide gets more attention is trivial
        Speeding 3km/h over the limit isn't any more dangerous than going the speed limit
        You shouldn't punish people for exceeding the speed limit if they didn't mean it
        Checking your speedometer once a minute isn't making anybody safer
        
        Again, avoiding hyperbole and fallacies is appreciated.
- Inshinshishimop on 27/04/2019 - 10:11
  
  Not everyone is deterred by fines. If you increased the fine for jay walking to $500 I bet people would still do it.
- [Deactivated] on 27/04/2019 - 11:21
  
  +1
  
  Punish bad driving, not minor transgressions, like every where else.
mirz on 27/04/2019 - 11:18

It’s just like everything else, population increasing but govts on all levels keeping their eyes and ignoring facts.
We need more police with more powers to look after crimes and traffic issues. May be a separate traffic police so they can’t steal police resources and 90% police force trying to control drunk/drugged/ over speeding drivers.
Councils have no greed limit. They just don’t know how to manage their funds effectively. Extreme parking fees and parking related fines won’t save them either. People are up to their eyeballs with council rates hikes already.
I agree a totally fresh approach is required to tackle our roads traffic situation before it would be too late.
littleDealFish on 27/04/2019 - 18:55

+1

Solution = better public transport, bikes, e-scooters etc Australia is still a long way from making this common place.

For example, Montreal, lived there for a year and it had an awsome bike system in the CBD and it was cheap and efficient - and this is a city that is blanketed in snow 6 months of the year and it is still able to turn enough profit.. Australian cities are perfect for this but the attitude towards making the infrastructure isn't there.

Obviously Australian cities are more sprawling and spread out, thus the public transport is also quite shitty, but the more units get squished together it just isn't feasible to have cars parking and running about the CBD.

I'd say they are using fines as a deterrent until the aforementioned solutions catch up.
plague69 on 28/04/2019 - 02:13

Never seen such loaded poll options haha. Well done Sir.

Oh yeah, Princess Hwy should have autobahn sections for unlimited speed (at least 200)
MrBillions on 29/04/2019 - 10:09

Melbourne is out of control with fines. It is as if they dont want you there.
So I just shop online or use uber eats
Danstar on 29/04/2019 - 10:36

The Death Toll is up (imo) because of more and more inexperienced drivers on the road, who are making experienced drivers frustrated and decide to pull stupid moves on the road.

Truck drivers who think they are F1 drivers, speeding, changing lanes like they're on a tuk tuk in Thailand.

Driving too and from work for a total of about 60kms a day, I probably see 1 out of 3 drivers looking at or literally have their phone in front of them on the steering wheel…

In my younger years I admit I probably used my phone more than I should, but as many people on here have already said and what I have learnt myself is. It can wait till you get till you get to your destination.
djones145 on 29/04/2019 - 10:51

feels like op just wants to create topics to get as many posts as possible (look at post history)

mate heres a few topics u can create
apple vs android which is best
left or right which do you prefer
red or black?
house or apartment
rent or buy
which of the banks are best
who are the best drivers (male or female)
Dr Prepper on 29/04/2019 - 12:43

Melbourne's poor public transport options result in more idiots on the roads.
- Danstar on 29/04/2019 - 12:47
  
  Incorrect imo. Most people just prefer driving in the comfort of their own car.
  
  Even if PT improved I still wouldn't use it
max900 on 29/04/2019 - 13:30

Need more traffic police on the road(cuz too many idiots) but relax the law regarding speed. Going 70km/h on 60km/h road is fine as long as it is safe to do so. Let people learn to drive to condition, not fixate their attention on the speedo trying to do the maximum while not getting a ticket to get home asap. Most of us are driving modern cars much more capable yet our speed limit is set decades ago.

Impatient, lack of experience, poor road engineering, road rages, aged drivers, distraction(eg, smart phones, kids) and drugs/alcohol are risks too. But nooooo!!!, speed kills, only speed kills.
Black Hole on 29/04/2019 - 13:52

I've spent more time now to scan for speed signs, camera, construction road block, and my speedometer that I concentrate less on safe driving. This really is pissing me off as it has became so stressful driving on the road nowadays.

Traffic Laws in Melbourne Going Too Far?

Poll Options

Comments

New Forum Topics