Speeding Fine - to High Beam or Not?

lakes_8 on 26/08/2019 - 21:57
Last edited 27/08/2019 - 08:38 by 1 other user

Sunday night (approx. 10pm) driving through a 40km/h shopping strip main road which is slightly downhill. Notice a highway patrol parked on the side of the road on my side looking for speeding cars coming the opposite way (uphill). Saw a P-plater turn the corner and knew from the instant I saw them they would not be driving 40km/h, uphill on a Sunday night.

Look into my rear view mirror and the sirens are on. Clearly revenue raising given the time of day and the place they were trying to catch people.

Should I have high-beamed to let the driver know there was a cop there? Do you usually alert other drivers?

Automotive

Comments

  • twobit on 26/08/2019 - 21:59
    +85

    If the cop can see you high beam, I believe there is a fine for that too?

    • elgrande on 26/08/2019 - 22:00
      +3

      Yes, that is true. Would be more obvious at night too.

      • blergmonkeys on 27/08/2019 - 18:03
        +7

        Can’t you just say that you accidentally hit the high beams? How can they prove the intent?

        • whooah1979 on 27/08/2019 - 18:15
          +10

          The issuing officer doesn’t have to. They issue the penalty notice and it is then up to the driver to dispute it.

        • FutureTech on 28/08/2019 - 09:54
          +2

          Also intention is not a deciding factor in determining whether you're guilty for a traffic infringement or not - you can "accidentally" speed and still have to cop the fine

          • blergmonkeys on 28/08/2019 - 10:39
            +5

            @FutureTech: Yes but that is specifically written into law. Flashing your headlights because you meant to wash the windshield is hardly an offense.

    • Entheogen on 28/08/2019 - 15:10

      If you directly admit to it, yes.
      But what is most likely is you didn't even realise you high beamed.

    • R-Man on 28/08/2019 - 17:08

      What road rule or law has been broken

      • jfcee on 30/08/2019 - 12:05

        https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/regulation/2014/75…

        (1) The driver of a vehicle must not use the vehicle’s headlights on high-beam, or allow the vehicle’s headlights to be used on high-beam, if the driver is driving:
        (a) less than 200 metres behind a vehicle travelling in the same direction as the driver, or
        (b) less than 200 metres from an oncoming vehicle.
        Maximum penalty: 20 penalty units.

        P.S. I probably would still do it for warning another car

        • R-Man on 30/08/2019 - 15:20

          Ok thanks! I was thinking there's some kind of "driver must not warn other drivers" law

    • meatgasm on 28/08/2019 - 18:12
      +1

      "I thought I saw a dog that was about to dart across the street, officer"

    • TheCutter on 30/08/2019 - 21:05
      +1

      I always flash fellow motorists - its saved me once or twice
      f$$k the police

      • chumlee on 04/09/2019 - 20:35

        I've seen you on crime stoppers wanted for flashing. Sex crimes police want to speak with you

  • HardlyCharly on 26/08/2019 - 22:00
    +33

    Help other people speed? No.

    • brad1-8tsi on 27/08/2019 - 08:13
      +57

      Surely it would help them slow down?

      • Ryanek on 27/08/2019 - 09:06
        +18

        You mean help them avoid responsibility.

        • brad1-8tsi on 27/08/2019 - 09:24
          +59

          No.
          Even the government and police say that one of the purposes of clearly visible speed cameras with warning signs, marked police cars parked in prominent spots and prominently sign written mobile speed cameras is to get motorists to slow down immediately and not 2 weeks later when the fine arrives. Having commuted 90km/day along the M5 for 9 years, I'd agree that when the HWP was parked in a prominent spot (and there were usually 3 cars out every day) the traffic slowdown was noticeable.

          If flashing your lights at an oncoming motorist achieves the same outcome of slowing them down, isn't that desirable? If they choose to ignore a highbeam flash then they get further encouragement to slowdown via a fine.

          I often flash oncoming motorists if they look like they are going too fast for the conditions (even if there is no police presence) or if there is a potential hazard in their direction of travel.

          • Ryanek on 27/08/2019 - 09:28
            +3

            @brad1-8tsi:

            If flashing your lights at an oncoming motorist achieves the same outcome of slowing them down, isn't that desirable

            I disagree. When you get a fine it shows that speeding has consequences.

            A P-Plater gets caught speeding, they now have less points and are less likely to speed.

            Which is the better outcome here?

            • HighAndDry on 27/08/2019 - 09:33
              +24

              @Ryanek: But high beaming them makes them not speed. It's the same as "speed camera ahead" signs imo.

              • funnysht on 28/08/2019 - 11:43
                +2

                @HighAndDry: It's a short term solution.
                Do you remember the last time you speed and slowed down because of a sign or high beam
                Or do you remember the last time you speed got fined $$$?

                I think the latter

                • HighAndDry on 28/08/2019 - 12:07

                  @funnysht: I remember the last time I slowed down because of a "Speed camera ahead" sign. But no, before that I definitely slowed down for high beams. Haven't gotten a speeding ticket in about… 5-10 years? Can't actually remember the last time, since you're asking.

            • brad1-8tsi on 27/08/2019 - 09:35
              +52

              @Ryanek: The outcome you are after is that the driver slows down. That's the problem and there are various ways to fix it.

              flash lights.
              Driver slows down.
              Passes HWP and thinks "I dodged a bullet there. I should be more careful with my speed as the police can be anywhere."

              I've been there myself.

              Learning life's lessons doesn't have to involve being beaten over the head every time you stuff up.

                • brad1-8tsi on 27/08/2019 - 10:11
                  +16

                  @whooah1979: The only way? Is that why you don't speed? Because you accumulated enough demerit points to lose your licence?

                    • Euphemistic on 27/08/2019 - 11:53
                      +7

                      @whooah1979:

                      @brad1-8tsi: They won’t be driving legally for three months. It’s safer for the rest of us.

                      Are you sure? There’s a fair few in the news and on highway patrol etc that once suspended have nothing to lose so do the opposite.

                    • smartazz104 on 28/08/2019 - 07:22
                      +1

                      @whooah1979:

                      They won’t be driving legally for three months. It’s safer for the rest of us.

                      Yes because a lack of a license has stopped people driving before.

              • whooah1979 on 27/08/2019 - 10:12
                +1

                @brad1-8tsi:

                Passes HWP and thinks "I dodged a bullet there. I should be more careful with my speed as the police can be anywhere."

                These motorists may revert to speeding the second they pass a HWP or a mobile speed camera just like they do with fixed ones.

                • brad1-8tsi on 27/08/2019 - 10:15
                  +2

                  @whooah1979: They may… or they may not.

                  So you have never exceeded the speed limit in your whole time with a licence? (you do have a licence?) Or broken any other road rule that could incur a fine and demerit points?

                • bmerigan on 27/08/2019 - 16:12
                  -2

                  @whooah1979: Ha you'll love me.
                  My automatic reaction once I've passed a camera is to speed even if I wasn't before. I hate them with a passion.

              • Ryanek on 27/08/2019 - 10:15

                @brad1-8tsi: I have a daughter. I am not opposed to her getting a speeding ticket and fine to teach her a life lesson.

                • brad1-8tsi on 27/08/2019 - 10:18
                  +14

                  @Ryanek: I have 2 daughters with licences too. I'm not opposed to them getting a fine if they do wrong but I'm also not opposed to them learning to do the right thing by other methods of education. There isn't always one answer or path to follow.

                • Blitzfx on 27/08/2019 - 15:49
                  +1

                  @Ryanek: Because it's so much better to let them continue speeding and deal with the consequences after the fact rather than take preventative measures to avoid a road accident / fatality.

                  Constant reminders being fed to you one way or another slowly teaches people a culture of safe driving. Not allow them to continue speeding, kill someone, then get fined. That's literally too late.

                  • crentist on 27/08/2019 - 15:59

                    @Blitzfx: Better to teach them to handle a vehicle and be aware of their surroundings so that they aren't consistently on the precipice of a fatal accident like you apparently are

                    That way they can make a good judgement about how to drive safely that considers more than just a number on a sign

                    • Blitzfx on 27/08/2019 - 17:58
                      +2

                      @crentist:

                      Better to teach them to handle a vehicle and be aware of their surroundings so that they aren't consistently on the precipice of a fatal accident like you apparently are

                      Sounds like you were triggered. Projecting much? Where was it that implied I drive "on the precipice of a fatal accident" lol

                      Besides, that is what the 100+ hours of L's are for, then continued reminders of the road rules after.

                      • crentist on 27/08/2019 - 18:29
                        +1

                        @Blitzfx:

                        Where was it that implied I drive "on the precipice of a fatal accident" lol

                        It seemed to be implied when I misread who you were replying to and thought you were taking the usual oversimplified "speeding is evil and must be punished as harshly as possible" stance.
                        Where people act as if 61km/h is a massacre waiting to happen

                        oops

                    • Forleix on 27/08/2019 - 18:31
                      -1

                      @crentist: Don't you learn how to drive safely and be aware of your surroundings etc. before getting your license? I certainly don't learn how to drive by trial and error according to how many times I get pulled over or how many fines I get.

                      You learn all that before you hit the road. Sounds more like you have a driving etiquette issue, or rather a driving culture issue, like doing 10-over the limit on the interstate

                      • crentist on 27/08/2019 - 18:48

                        @Forleix: Yea my bad, I thought they were responding to a different post. Damn reading comprehension.

                        My point was supposed to be that overpolicing rules removes the onus to think for yourself.
                        Implying that someone who believes the "speed kills" mantra would lose control of their vehicle if they hit the limit.

                    • bobs burgers on 28/08/2019 - 20:36

                      @crentist: Wrong post

                    • bobs burgers on 28/08/2019 - 20:40
                      +1

                      @crentist: Sorry I can only give you one up vote.

                      Considering making several hundred accounts to give a few more up votes tho.

                      Geez people make driving out as if it is one of life's most difficult things to get your head around.

                      If the lowest common denominator on the road was half aware of their surroundings, drove to the conditions and thought about their driving we could probably enjoy higher speed limits and less deaths/injuries.

                      Instead we are punished because of the few that can't concentrate/distracted/impaired drivers that consider everything else is more important at the time then driving a 2 tonne steel mass.

                • gguu on 28/08/2019 - 17:13
                  -1

                  @Ryanek: Do you always delegate your parenting to government bodies? Ever tried teaching your daughter yourself?

              • callum9999 on 28/08/2019 - 17:52
                +1

                @brad1-8tsi: I don't believe for a second that you forgot that the police occasionally check your speed and needed to be reminded with a high beam flash.

                Speeding isn't a "stuff up" - it's a deliberate act by someone who doesn't respect the law (coming from someone who does occasionally speed - so no judgement). If you can't tell whether you're speeding or not, or are not aware that you shouldn't be doing it, then you have no business being on the road.

            • kiwimex on 27/08/2019 - 18:58
              +1

              @Ryanek: But they may still speed in the two weeks it takes to receive the fine! Fines do absolutely nothing to kerb speed, road accidents or deaths. Put Patrol cars with flashing light s and signs everywhere and people will slow down.

            • itstuan on 28/08/2019 - 09:25

              @Ryanek: I agree, only until you get a consequence, you won't likely to change your behaviour. I should know.
              Warning others coming from good will, but it only help them avoid consequence at the time. Not in a long haul.
              If we want to take this further, think about when you hit a pedestrian while speeding.

          • cameldownunder on 28/08/2019 - 10:58
            +2

            @brad1-8tsi: From personal experience, $275 fine and 6 demerit points down is WAY MORE efficient to deter me from speeding again.

            • brad1-8tsi on 28/08/2019 - 11:04

              @cameldownunder: I find it deters me in 9 year increments ;-p

              for 6 points the $ value seems low.

          • secondstory on 28/08/2019 - 15:25
            +1

            @brad1-8tsi:

            is to get motorists to slow down immediately and not just 2 weeks later when the fine arrives

            FTFY They actually want both..

    • Kamsi on 27/08/2019 - 23:03
      +4

      Help other people not contribute for revenue raising.

      • Milkywayss on 28/08/2019 - 18:06
        +4

        If the government can raise their revenue from people who are speeding rather than taxing me more I'm all for it

    • Ahbal on 28/08/2019 - 09:41
      +1

      But they would slow down….isnt that what the cops supposedly want?

      • secondstory on 28/08/2019 - 15:21
        +4

        I feel like they want you to drive safely all of the time. Not just briefly when a driver is made aware of a camera.

        Cameras can't be everywhere and having to pay a fine might make someone think twice when speeding or take more care to watch their speed in the first place. The feeling that your fellow driving mates have your back essentially enables one to speed with more confidence more often without such fears… Which seems to be the opposite of what they want to achieve if you ask me.

      • callum9999 on 28/08/2019 - 17:53

        It is what they want, and it's exactly what happens when you receive a fine and points (usually - some people are idiots of course).

  • Quantumcat on 26/08/2019 - 22:03
    +31

    I always alert others

    If there's a cop car on the other side of the road it might not be revenue raising but could be stopped for another reason, and sticking out in the road. People will want to know to slow down and watch out. I would do the same if there was a kangaroo on the road or a large branch etc.

    • DangerNoodle on 27/08/2019 - 18:16
      +4

      I just dip my low beams on and off. No point flashing your high beams to save someone else from a fine just to cop one yourself.

  • Ughhh on 26/08/2019 - 22:15
    +5

    Is it still revenue raising if P-plater hit a someone shortly after a turn? Or maybe its only revenue raising if no one gets hurts? Reactive vs proactive.

    • [Deactivated] on 26/08/2019 - 23:00
      +31

      It's revenue raising because we barely penalize people in collisions. In Europe, a collision triggers an investigation into the driver, ie. Speeding, drug/alcohol, condition of vehicle…

      In Australia, it isn't mandatory to report a collision. Somehow, it is more dangerous to be doing something that increases the risk of collision than an actual collision.

      Someone with an insurance history of constantly getting into collisions can still have an unblemished driving record as far as enforcement is concerned.

      • Ughhh on 26/08/2019 - 23:31
        -8

        Somehow, it is more dangerous to be doing something that increases the risk of collision than an actual collision.

        Perhaps there would be less actual collisions if they were prevented from happening in first place?

        What's the point in teaching an idiot a lesson when they've killed a family and is lying in a coffin? A bit too late don't you think?

        • [Deactivated] on 26/08/2019 - 23:35
          +13

          What's the point in fining someone who is potentially dangerous and then letting someone who is proven dangerous back on the road?

          Of course your hypothetical scenario and conclusion is true but that is already the case where a collision resulting in a death triggers an investigation but how about all the other times when it doesn't?

          Ps. There's nothing wrong with fining wrong doers. There is something wrong when the fines apply to wrong doers who may potentially be in a collision but not penalizing those who are in a collision. If the intent of the penalty is to punish dangerous driving then it stands to reason that you'd first punish those who are demonstrably dangerous. It is the inconsistency in the application that casts doubt on the intent of this "preventative" reasoning for issuing monetary fines.

          • Ughhh on 26/08/2019 - 23:49
            -1

            @[Deactivated]:

            What's the point in fining someone who is potentially dangerous and then letting someone who is proven dangerous back on the road?

            The potentially dangerous driver can't turn into a proven dangerous driver down the road?
            If the cops weren't on the roads, then the proven dangerous driver would definitely get away with being the potentially dangerous driver.

            but how about all the other times when it doesn't?

            A guy didn't check his blind spot when changing lanes, resulting in a collision- how much police resources and investigation would you recommend? Insurance excess or court rulings is a punishment too. Of course nothing is perfect, we're not living in a controlled bubble.

            • [Deactivated] on 27/08/2019 - 00:00
              +4

              @Ughhh:

              A guy didn't check his blind spot when changing lanes, resulting in a collision- how much police resources and investigation would you recommend?

              At least that the driver isn't under the influence, the vehicle is safe for operation, license… This takes 10 minutes.

              The man hours spent to prevent an actual accident is far more. Of course, the argument is one is reactionary and the other is preventative but equally valid is if the consequence of a collision is more severe, that would also serve as prevention.

              Insurance excess or court rulings is a punishment too.

              You're confusing punishment with consequence.

              You don't think someone who doesn't check their blind spot is more dangerous than someone speeding? Especially one who is already involved in an accident for not checking their blind spot? You know that you can run someone off the road and potentially cause a fatality if you do not check your blind spot.

              Edit

              If the cops weren't on the roads, then the proven dangerous driver would definitely get away with being the potentially dangerous driver.

              What? @.@

              • Ughhh on 27/08/2019 - 00:22
                -5

                @[Deactivated]: And if that guy was obviously not under the influence? Want the cop to come launch an investigation on something very obvious? What if I knocked over neighbours garden bin wen my car, should I call the police?

                So you're happy to let a guy speed and fly around corners UNTIL he hits someone? Only then a fine/punishment is warranted.

                No one who get into an accident thought they were going to ie. Not intentional, otherwise it'll basically be murder. Regrets wont change what happened.

                Perhaps people shouldn't bother preparing for flu season, they should only worry about it when it actually hits?

                A punishment can be a consequence, as a consequence can be punishments.

                • [Deactivated] on 27/08/2019 - 00:28
                  +5

                  @Ughhh:

                  So you're happy to let a guy speed and fly around corners UNTIL he hits someone? Only then a fine/punishment is warranted.

                  Read here.

                  There's nothing wrong with fining wrong doers. There is something wrong when the fines apply to wrong doers who may potentially be in a collision but not penalizing those who are in a collision.

                  I've got nothing wrong with issuing fines as long as it is applied consistently. The issue isn't the fines. The issue is the selective and arbitrary way in which fines are issued.

                  A punishment can be a consequence, as a consequence can be punishments.

                  No they're not interchangeable. A punishment is something imposed onto a party by another party who is not in any way invested.

                  A consequence does not require two parties.

                  An insurer charging an excess isn't punishing the driver, it is a fee attached to a contract which involved risk management. It has nothing to do with punishment.

                  They are two distinctly different concepts and if you're going to conflate the two, there's no point debating further.

                  • Ughhh on 27/08/2019 - 00:33
                    -5

                    @[Deactivated]: I would love to speed through your neighbourhpod one day. Remember, I'm only potentially dangerous, not proven, so no point wasting time dobbing me in 😉

                    • [Deactivated] on 27/08/2019 - 00:36
                      +4

                      @Ughhh: You missed the point again.

                      No where did I mention that speeders aren't doing the wrong thing and shouldn't be fined.

                      I'd quote the conversation but it is all recorded above.

                      The penalty should be as applicable (if not more so) to someone proven to be dangerous as someone who is considered risky.

                      • Ughhh on 27/08/2019 - 00:43
                        -1

                        @[Deactivated]:

                        What's the point in fining someone who is potentially dangerous and then letting someone who is proven dangerous back on the road?

                        I think you've missed my point.

                        If revenue raising was as bad as you say, wouldn't cops want to attend every scene and fine everyone? Instead of telling you to call your insurance?

                        • [Deactivated] on 27/08/2019 - 00:48
                          +5

                          @Ughhh:

                          If revenue raising was as bad as you say, wouldn't cops want to attend every scene and fine everyone? Instead of telling you to call your insurance?

                          It's easier to sit at the bottom of a hill issuing fines for slightly over the speed than to travel out and attend a collision.

                          Revenue/time, it is more beneficial.

                          Hence why I am accusing it of being revenue raising. It isn't done in the interest of prevention, even though it is a prevention and rightfully so. Again, this is important as I'm not saying speeding fines shouldn't exist, but I'm saying it should be secondary to actually attending collisions at the expense of convenience and revenue.

                          The concept of the fine is the threat of punishment. Whether the cop continues to sit at the bottom of the hill or not makes barely a difference as the risk of receiving the fine is the deterrant, however, choosing to camp a site to issue fines over attending a collision is removing punishment for a deed done.

                • Miss B on 28/08/2019 - 19:45
                  +4

                  @Ughhh: I struggle to understand how you can miss tshow's point after they clearly explained it a few times.

                  I also believe that if you knock over your neighbour's bin while driving you shouldn't be driving. It's a stationary object and you are clearly not watching where you are driving, so it could just as easily be a person.

                  I also have no issue with fines, they're extremely easy to avoid by following the road rules.

                  • Ughhh on 28/08/2019 - 20:05

                    @Miss B: Proactive vs reactive. Thats all, if people struggle to understand, I can't help.

                    • Miss B on 28/08/2019 - 20:14

                      @Ughhh: Both are proactive in that someone's past driving record is indicative of their future driving performance. Say someone knocks over a wheelie bin and thinks it's no biggie, then they're not going to be more careful next time when it's the neighbour's kid that they don't see.

                • Harold Halfprice on 28/08/2019 - 21:13

                  @Ughhh:

                  So you're happy to let a guy speed and fly around corners UNTIL he hits someone? Only then a fine/punishment is warranted.

                  Except we hand out $207 fines for going 3km/h over the limit.

                  Your argument might make sense if they were targeting drivers speeding excessively, but they're not. I'm on the road a lot during the day. Most of the time when I see HWP or cameras on the side of the road, it's in the morning or the afternoon when people are commuting and there's traffic on the road.

                  They're making most of their money through petty fines.

                  • Ughhh on 28/08/2019 - 22:26
                    -1

                    @Harold Halfprice: I guess it's a miracle that I've never been pulled over or gotten a fine in my years and years of driving. I've driven 65kmph next to a cop car in a 60 zone.

                    Honestly, if I could choose, I'd choose no cops hiding with cameras and that they would only appear in accidents. It would cut my travel time in half.

              • Ughhh on 27/08/2019 - 00:28
                -1

                @[Deactivated]:

                You don't think someone who doesn't check their blind spot is more dangerous than someone speeding? Especially one who is already involved in an accident for not checking their blind spot?

                I never said or made such comparison. I never mentioned said guys driving history. Don't put words in my mouth.

                In simpler terms, a proven dangerous driver can reoffend, thus be a potentially dangerous driver, unless you plan on Locking that person up forever the first time round. Who's going to catch and stop that reoffender?

                • [Deactivated] on 27/08/2019 - 00:33
                  +2

                  @Ughhh:

                  In simpler terms, a proven dangerous driver can reoffend, thus be a potentially dangerous driver, unless you plan on Locking that person up forever the first time round. Who's going to catch and stop that reoffender?

                  Of course they can. So can someone who was fined for speeding.

                  Both should be fined but only one does.

                  Can you agree that there's an inconsistency there?

                  • Ughhh on 27/08/2019 - 00:38
                    -1

                    @[Deactivated]: Yes, both should be fined, but Shit happens. Unless it was outright stupid and or intentional ie. You don't accidentally go 100 in a 60 zone.

                    Would you fire or give an official warning if your staff makes a silly mistake?

                    • [Deactivated] on 27/08/2019 - 00:40
                      +1

                      @Ughhh: If my staff is behaving in a way that exposes them to the possibility of outcome X vs a staff that has caused outcome X, absolutely the warning/dismissal is applicable for the latter if it is applicable to the former.

                      Shit doesn't just happen. That's the whole concept of issuing fines! To prevent shit from happening!

                      • Ughhh on 27/08/2019 - 00:48
                        -1

                        @[Deactivated]:

                        That's the whole concept of issuing fines! To prevent shit from happening!

                        Yes!!!! Thank you! You finally got the point.
                        "shit" being accidents, so to prevent accidents from happening. Can't prevent something that has already happened.

                        • [Deactivated] on 27/08/2019 - 00:51

                          @Ughhh:

                          Can't prevent something that has already happened.

                          The event is not limited to a single incidence. You can prevent something from reoccurring, and it would be markedly more effective to penalize someone who has demonstrated negligence that has caused said event from occuring in the first place.

                          Ps. It isn't "accidents". It is collisions. There's an important distinction. An accident implies it is unforseen. A collision is predictable. Someone breaking the law/rules may or may not be involved in a collision. Someone in a collision has collided. Someone has broken the law/rules.

                          • brad1-8tsi on 27/08/2019 - 08:16
                            +3

                            @[Deactivated]: You aint gunna win tshow.

                            speed kills, speed kills, speed kills. There is no other reason for death on our roads.

                            • [Deactivated] on 27/08/2019 - 10:23
                              +5

                              @brad1-8tsi: No but it helped me work out why I think it is revenue raising. I was never quite a able to put a finger on the exact reason but I think I've nailed it.

                              Firstly, I don't think speeding fines are bad, I've never thought so. I just think they're cherry picked as the fine to give, not because it will have the biggest impact in preventing collisions (and therefore trauma), it is the one to pick for raising revenue.

                              Fines are not an accident preventer, neither should it be (bear with me here before negging). The law is the preventative measure against collisions, the fine is a deterant from breaking the law (seemingly semantics but an important distinction).

                              A collision (on public road) is a scenario where someone has categorically breached a rule/law. The approach our police take where a collision is almost irrelevant to them means that the actual consequence of breaking the law and breaking the law itself is not important nor punishable.

                              It is the favouring of policing actions that may be breaching the law/rules vs penalizing those who have already breached the law/rules that is the issue.

                              (… some people cannot seem to wrap their heads around the fact that a fine can have desirable outcomes and be sinister in intent/execution at the same time. These people have to categorise it as one or the other.)

                              • brad1-8tsi on 27/08/2019 - 10:41
                                +3

                                @[Deactivated]: Sorry, I was being sarcastic as I'm constantly amazed that people think the only cause of accidents is speed and the only way to slow people down is to fine them.

                                Your reasoning quite interesting as I hadn't considered that aspect before.

                                I find the whole "speed kills" mantra in Australia quite bizarre as I've driven "very quickly" in France, Germany, Czech Republic, Austria, the USA and the UK where there is a much more liberal attitude to speed in both the posted limit and how far the police will tolerate you exceeding that limit and under what traffic, weather, road and other conditions this is acceptable.

                                They also seem to realise that while speed might sometimes be a factor in crashes there are other associated causes of accidents that should be addressed through training, infrastructure improvements and other methods related to the hierarchy of controls (elimination, substitution, engineering controls etc). Giving a fine is one of the lowest levels of control (administration).

                                • [Deactivated] on 27/08/2019 - 11:37
                                  +2

                                  @brad1-8tsi: In Germany and neighbouring countries, the mantra is if they can fine you for speeding but they generally won't if it isn't clearly over (not the BS I know you were going 5 over 100).

                                  If you are in a collision where the damage is clearly disproportionate to the speed limit, you've got a whole lot of pain coming your way.

                                  It is the same reasoning they (and even we) apply to all other risky behavior. We don't issue fines for aggressive personalities but if a physical altercation breaks out, the full extent of the law bears down.

                              • Bargainbeth on 29/08/2019 - 01:28
                                +1

                                @[Deactivated]: Interesting perspective. I agree with you on the fact that police don't often fine people for negligent driving that causes a collision.

                                Perhaps they don't target people for this as it may be contested in court and eat up a lot of court time/government resources/prosecutor time and resources too.

                                Perhaps it's because they are already deterred enough by the cost of having to pay excess, higher premiums, and potentially the fixing of their own car, if they haven't got comprehensive. So in this sense, coppers are happy to let someone else do the deterring for them.

                                Or, as @bmerigan said- this is much better addressed by retraining/re-educating (which I don't think they're doing either).

                                On a side note, someone I know had a near fatal accident, falling around a bend. They got a ~$450 fine for negligent driving, which I thought was quite unfair, given that they were on their learners, and that navigating a turn on a bike can be quite tough for beginners. (a 2 day motorcycle course is all you really have to practise before getting your license).

                            • InfiniteRegression on 28/08/2019 - 08:12

                              @brad1-8tsi: using mobile phone while driving…

        • bmerigan on 27/08/2019 - 16:16
          +4

          Fining doesn't prevent poor driving.

          Teaching driving skills would be better. Improving roads would be better.

          There's no logical reason why a sports car driver should be fined 100s of dollars for going 10 km/h faster than a 45 tonne truck.

          • Ughhh on 27/08/2019 - 18:04

            @bmerigan:

            Teaching driving skills would be better. Improving roads would be better.

            Yes, please give those tailgaters, speeders weaving in and out of traffic a lecture. I'm sure they had no idea they were being dangerous.

            BTW there's a difference between acceleration vs speed, what you referred to was acceleration. A 45 ton truck can still speed, but can't accelerate like a regular car.

            • bmerigan on 27/08/2019 - 20:29
              +2

              @Ughhh: It seems you missed my point entirely. My point is a car can stop much quicker than a truck.

          • whooah1979 on 27/08/2019 - 18:23

            @bmerigan: Better roads cost money. Let those that can’t stop speeding pay for it.

          • nakahanap on 31/08/2019 - 19:28

            @bmerigan: Agreed. Better driving skills, to me, is far more important than fining people for being 3km over the limit. And no, I am not advocating for speeding. I find the orange “advised speed” signs quite helpful in supplementing my knowledge of the driving conditions and my driving reflects my own judgment of what is safe.

            I’ve always been thankful to the person who taught me to drive for taking me out in different conditions in many different places. Those practical skills have helped me to drive safely far more than anything else.

            As a newbie driver, the importance of these was brought home to me by an incident where friends and I were driving on a country road. The road surface was bad. I knew how to handle my car and how to handle the conditions. One of my friends was less skillful and lives with what happened as a result (driver and 1passenger not injured, 2 with extremely bad injuries …1 of which with brain damage). Speed was not considered a factor in the accident.

      • whooah1979 on 27/08/2019 - 08:01
        +2

        Motorists that speed and get fined have only themselves to blame.

        • brad1-8tsi on 27/08/2019 - 10:42
          +3

          I don't think that any of us said that if you speed and get fined that it is someone elses fault.

          • whooah1979 on 27/08/2019 - 11:06
            +1

            @brad1-8tsi:

            Clearly revenue raising given the time of day and the place they were trying to catch people.

            People like op is blaming it on revenue raising.

            Break the rules, pay the fine.

            • [Deactivated] on 27/08/2019 - 11:40
              +2

              @whooah1979: I don't think they're disputing the rules being broken. They're not assigning blame for breaking the rules.

              They're saying that police resources are being spent to scrutinize this misbehaviour over others as this one has significant financial incentive whereas solving/preventing something else such as burglaries requires more effort and does not generate the same level of revenue.

            • bmerigan on 27/08/2019 - 16:18
              +1

              @whooah1979: If there wasn't a cost involved then maybe we wouldn't think it was all about the revenue.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join