as if your rent mortgage petrol groceries werent rising hard enough
the govt needs more money
also i love the dbl demerits on repeat offenders
i would also think other states will want to 'get in line' with their fines so there's 'parity'
QLD Cops Turn up The Screws on Speeding, Seatbelts after July 1
tonyjzx on 18/05/2022 - 19:21
Comments
it's compulsory but have options
Not if a faulty speed camera flashes you and commo girl says niet!
I love voluntary taxes, I just opt out. Really glad others don't though.
Don't speed, don't break road rules… it might be hard, but this would further discourage people.
Yep, then they just lower the speed limit and make up other BS 'rules' to bolster their bottom line.
If they game the rules, we can also game the rules to not let them have their way.
to not let them have their way
PRECISELY !!
As the movie line said: "Don't give the a-hole the satisfaction"
It is not that hard.
I am amazed drivers are still caught NOT wearing seat-belts correctly or openly using their phones.
How hard could it be?@LFO: Yeah that surprises me too. Who doesn't wear a seat belt?
but I've been caught speeding cruising down a hill. Because I wasn't hitting my breaks hard, I did 68 in a 60 zone. I think that's very unfair personally. It's quite hard to stay under 60 at all times without constantly watching the speedo. We should actually be watching the road.
They are totally revenue raising with many of these fines. I completely understand crazy high fines for very high speed, but 1-10ks over?
There is very limited evidence that fines work as an effective deterrent of dangerous driving. The state makes hundreds of millions a year on fines and offence rates never really go down, neither do accidents or deaths.
Fine hikes are just extra taxation aimed at the working class. If they seriously believed financial fear will prevent dangerous driving, then why not make fines income-based? $1,000 fine is almost a weekly wage for most people. Maybe take a week's worth of the billionaires wage to even it out?
But of course they won't. Policies like this aren't designed to save lives. They're designed to collect as much money as possible with the least amount of resistance and controversy.
'It's just an expensive parking' - wealthy dude leaving his car under No Parking sign.
Is it even expensive? A day parking would cost you about $65 in Brisbane CBD and the fine is about $100.
When I saw these new fines, I thought "Damn, im really going to have to be way more careful from now on. I cant swallow that fine!"
At least you can pay it off slowly
@WhyAmICommenting: My financial situation at the end of the year will still be $500 worse just for doing 10km/hr over the limit. I've decided to be extra vigilent. I drive with google maps on to have a speed limit showing vs my current speed.
@NigelTufnel: cool thanks, ill have to check out waze. I hate having to stick in my destination to get that functionality
While I appreciate the sentiment about policy, the recommendation on fines is too simplistic.
For example once you reach a certain level of wealth, it all becomes assets. Rich people don't hold their wealth in cash; they hold it in property, stocks, bonds, ventures etc. Then the super rich hold them in trust funds, shell accounts which aren't even tied to their name legally. This is why you only ever see "estimated wealth" because you (and they) don't really know how much they have or make. How do you fine someone based on estimated wealth? It's not real cash in hand, it's not necessarily liquid either and some of them can be volatile.
At best, you would be punishing the aspirational working class - those who have cash in the bank saving for a home loan or with a rainy day fund because it's easy to see how much you could take from them.
Followup question: What would be a more "fair" way to equally punish people across socio economic backgrounds?
Then we can asset test as well, no different to the way these super rich people who have no actual (ie liquid) wealth still can't get Centrelink payments. If you own 3 houses and live on the harbour, it's pretty easy to estimate what you should be paying.
As for shell accounts and the like, we already have that problem with people avoiding taxes. We can clamp down in it to some degree but of course there will always be special cases that slip through the cracks. No law or policy is perfect, that doesn't mean we shouldn't do our best to enforce them.
Traffic fines don't need to be exactly proportionate to wealth. There should be brackets just like income tax. Point is, a billionaire shouldn't be paying a $300 fine. The current system is blatantly aimed at the working class only which is a far bigger problem than any of the potential cracks you mentioned.
The only reason we don't do it is because our lawmakers are rich. Why would they hold themselves accountable? Plus, they know rich people come in handy during election time.
It's a classic example of the fact that the government (not Liberal or Labor - the entite system!) is a rort. The government holds a monopoly on violence, theft, and murder. It's written in the system that you're supposed to lose if you're not part of their special group. No reason to trust them or give them any respect whatsoever. They do not work within your best interests.
@SlavOz: "No law or policy is perfect, that doesn't mean we shouldn't do our best to enforce them." - Agreed
"a billionaire shouldn't be paying a $300 fine" - Agreed
"The current system is blatantly aimed at the working class only" Disagreed - It treats everyone equally. It's because it treats everyone equally (by giving everyone the same $300 fine) that it disproportionately impacts the working class. Our stance is that fines should be equitable, not equal and that the punishment should feel/impact the same regardless of the person otherwise you're open to loopholes as above.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland…
Finland bases fines on declared incomes.
I dont know whether fines work or not but would I overspeed if the fine was lets say $10, yes I would!
They're designed to collect as much money as possible with the least amount of resistance and controversy.
Of course voluntary taxation or donating to the government has the least amount of resistance and controversy.
Would you prefer if the government raised revenue in a way that gives you a choice to pay or a mandatory collection where you have no say at all?
I would prefer they didn't raise revenue at all.
@SlavOz: You don't have to put yourself in the situation where you would be required to pay into that revenue at all.
Its completely optional and up to you to decide if you have to pay it or not.
Say what you want, but overwhelming majority of the motorists in QLD don't speed. However, that's already happening, so those who don't will continue to not speed.
Have you ever been on a highway? I don't speed and I am constantly overtaken. It feels like as soon as I get into the overtaking lane to get past a slow car there's someone inches behind me because they're doing 20ks over the limit.
In my experience speeding is extremely prevalent.
So the solution to fines not working is to make the fine more complex because it's probably too low for some people? Sure, let's raise it even more then until the speeding decreases.
SlavOz saying something we agree with?!! Which alternate universe is this?!
Does every Queenslander know "it is never legal to exceed the speed limit to overtake another vehicle"?
https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/rules/road/left
I'm sure we would still be unhappy to get fined for this!!!
Its clearly a case of using motorists for revenue raising
I am all for this. I wish more taxes were collected this way as it only hits people that are happy to provide the money. Voluntary taxes are the best
Yeah but when they are also raping us with normal taxes it doesnt fly so well….
How about they dont try so hard to catch people out by changing speed limits all the time and especially downhill speed limit changes and the camera is at the bottom of the hill. Not about saving lies, its purely another method of getting money off the population.
"They" obviously target areas where there is a higher likelihood of speeding. It makes sense.
Not really. It's not meant to be about speeding. It's meant to be about danger areas. They also plan it to try to catch people out which is not what it's meant to be about. And people who accidentally speed because it's downhill and they didn't realise the speed changes but will adjust it within a few seconds aren't the dangerous drivers.
@lonewolf: I get your frustration, but I actually doubt that the speed limits are intentionally changed on downhill sections of road purely on the basis of revenue.
As a driver, we should be aware that gravity alone will increase our vehicle's speed when travelling downhill. We should be able to manage that.
If there is a speed limit change, regardless if on a downhill road or not, we should notice this and manage our speed accordingly.I've posted a couple of times in this forum some data from RACV, showing that the majority of speeding fines (in Vic) are not for the 1-10km/hr over, but for much higher speeds, which suggests that speeding is intentional in the majority of cases.
@GG57: Actually they are, there has been many reports on this. Even some cops have admitted to also having quotas etc to hand out in speeding fines.
If you can’t control your speed when driving downhill, you deserve to get a fine.
It’s seriously not hard to drive the speed limit.
Regardless of the intentions behind speeding fines.
From a legal theory perspective, that is a very flawed argument. There is a threshold that you would tolerate, after which you would say the punishment is excessive. What if the fine for going 20km/h over the limit was $500,000 and 6 months imprisonment? Hey don't break the rules you don't go to jail. It is not a constructive approach to resolving the issue of people dying or getting injured from speeding.
What if the fine was capital punishment? Hey don't steal and you don't get your hand chopped off. Very shallow argument.
Waze App is your friend. Shows you speed limits, cameras, police, incidents, the lot.
Don't create an account and tailor settings to not save or track your data if concerned about privacy.
Does the Waze app do this when you're not in navigation. i.e. can you just have Waze open when you're driving around and it shows this stuff?
I know I could figure it out by downloading and trying, but this has always annoyed me about google maps. I know where I'm going, I don't need to set up the navigation, but I'd like the extra stuff.
Yep, you can just have Waze open but not providing directions and it'll still show you everything else.
Sweet. Thanks! Sounds like a winner.
Yes it certainly does. You do not need to set a destination, just have app open and it shows you moving around with everything but not sure if it beeps warnings in that case or just displays them on map.
Waze often does not give verbal warnings for fixed speed cameras. Does that happen to you too?
Can set it up to show the speed limit of the road you're currently on and even send an alert if you're over the limit
We even have these things on the side of the road that show us the speed limit. I find these helpful too.
I'd love if demerits was x4 and fines removed.
Or do we want the slav lottery where fines go into the pot for the drivers?
Hey that's how it works in Monopoly!
Or do we want the slav lottery where fines go into the pot for the drivers?
I like this idea. There is cheaper license renewal fees for clean records.
Once again it just allows rich people with private drivers to sneak around the rules.
Fines should be income or asset tested or nothing. Charging a single mother on Centrelink the same as a billionaire is just the government's way of trolling.
Everyone needs to troll once in a while.
Then the rich will find a way that show they're poor?
They already get around the concept of demerit points by registering a vehicle in a business/organisation name, paying 5 times the amount for an individual for an offence and of course they fail to nominate an individual as the driver . (for camera offences of course)
At least you can opt out of paying this inflation figure…..
even now i find myself using cruise around town… and my car only has dumb 'set speed' cruise
this just makes me use cruise more
Good…?
cruise is not designed to be used in urban areas
further its recommended by manfacturers NOT to use it except on highways
If it is not designed to be used in urban areas, then why can it be set down as low as 10 or 20km/h on some vehicles?
I have just read the owners manual for all 3 of my vehicles and none of them make this recommendation. The only recommendations they do make is don’t use it if the conditions are wet, if you are tired or there is excessive traffic around.
And I cannot see a reason to not use it, especially if you car has adaptive cruise control or even speed limiting as part of the cruise system and if the urban area has long, open roads. While I wouldn’t use it in the CBD type areas, there are plenty of long stretches of 50 and 60km/h areas around where I live that I 100% use my cruise control to keep the car at the speed limit because “cops”.
@pegaxs: Also it's not designed to be used in the wet.
Source: my partner. She says so. She heard that you aren't meant to use it in the wet. So, therefor ipso facto, don't use it in the rain
The only recommendations they do make is don’t use it if the conditions are wet
My recommendation came from the owners manuals. None of which said anything about only restricting cruise control usage to highways only.
use my cruise control to keep the car at the speed limit because “cops”.
Or, should that be, "…because of the speed limit"
Newer adaptive cruise control is fine to use in urban areas. Its great on highways of course, and best when the highways eventually turn into car parks. It just creeps forward automatically in the boring traffic jams.
And who a gives a shit?
Learn to drive within the law without requiring assistance?you gave enough of a shit to reply i guess
I reckon anything above 40kmph over the speed limit should see the car seized and crushed.
The people do not deserve the right to put me and my family in an unnecessary dangerous situation.
You have 30 minutes to move your cube.
Overtaking a dangerous driver at 140km/h+ on a clear, long, open stretch of highway is perfectly safe and puts no one in danger.
Is there a particular stretch of clear, long, open stretch of highway that you can think of?
Are you seriously implying you aren't aware of any such thing, ever, in the history of your driving? 🤔 Or is this a legitimate question because your driving experience ranges from 'none' to 'only drives in inner-city, perhaps some motorways'?
@StickMan: I've driven extremely long distances all across the country.
There is not one road, no matter how long and open it is, that does not have some potential danger. Unless you know of one.@GG57: …Rught. I mean, an overtaking lane, where the dividing line is double-line. Easy example.
Or, perhaps, a road that's elevated, straight for 20km, no shrubs anywhere, visibility 10km+. Such as Nullarbor, or NT.
Don't act like you're not aware of these things.
Unless of course the other car happens to suddenly wander out of its lane. Depending on the position of your car you would likely have sfa chance of avoiding impact
You have sfa chance of avoiding such a thing at any speed. Car park prangs happen at <walkingspeed.
Pulling over to the side of the road for 5 minutes and letting the dangerous driver disappear into the horizon is even safer for you.
Ah, yes, because there's plenty of places to pull over on shitty highways that barely (or if) have a shoulder, let alone parking bays.
Thanks for your contribution to general revenue - and enjoy the bus.
I thought you were the one that rode the short bus?
Getting caught 40kmph over in a construction zone is pretty easy if you're cruising on the highway, I hope you can put your money where your mouth is.
1-10km is $287, don't mind the 10. But 1!?
its discretion on the police officer but this is qld cops we are talking about
also people have been done for 62/63 km
when its a camera then may as well hit the driver
In other words they were doing 67 to 70 in reality :P
While I get the silliness of it (driving at 61 is not really any more dangerous than 60), it's about changing the mindset. Make it a known leeway of 3km/h and people will moan if they get booked at 4km/h rather than make use of that leeway properly. Having driven in the US, everyone drives over the speed limit all the time because you never get a ticket until you're going well over.
It should be the norm to drive slightly under the speed limit to give leeway up to the limit. That ensures you never get a ticket. But people seem to think that they need to drive at 60km/h right on the dot, all the time, when they well know they'll go above and under that if they try stick exactly to 60. So drive at 55 instead and be 30 seconds later to wherever you're going.
I can't see people who have to drive for a living (trucks, delivery services etc) being told by their bosses "hey here's an extra 30mins or 1hr extra on your run, drive under the speed limit"
On a highway set cruise control, done.
In the city, the chances to speed are pretty limited, just drive with the traffic speed unless traffic speed is too high.
I’m talking about the average joe, I’m not going to tell someone who drives a truck for a living how to do their job. The idea that you lose half and hour to and hour driving a few km/h slower shows the entire problem though, there’s simply no way you’d lose that much time.
@freefall101: If it's your choice to lose half an hour for the sake of complying with your overlords petulant diktats then that's your choice. When YOUR choices effect the people lined up behind you then you are being selfish and inconsiderate to other road users. If you can't (or wont) drive at the speed limit then get off the road before you cause more accidents.
@EightImmortals: As mentioned below, 10 hours at 95km/h would lose half an hour. I haven't done a drive like that in the last several years, if I did I'd probably lose far more than half an hour just being stuck in traffic or stopping for lunch.
Anyway, since apparently you have a reading issue, I'll highlight the bits you failed to read in my first two posts.
I don't drive at 95km in 100 zones anyway, as I said I USE CRUISE CONTROL. When I'm in the city I'll usually sit a couple of km/h under to avoid tickets but mostly I DRIVE WITH THE TRAFFIC.
That make it easier for you to understand? How often do you spend driving for 10 hours in a single run that this half an hour is the end of your existence? Or is it more you're 20 seconds late and have anger issues because someone is doing 98 and you want to do 102?
@freefall101: If you drive at 95 instead of 100km/h you will take an extra 30 minutes on a 10 hour drive.
@donga100: If you're driving without and stops and starts for 10 hours then put on your cruise control to somewhere near 98-100 and you shouldn't have a problem.
As I said above, I'm talking about the average Joe driving around, not someone doing commercial driving all day, nor some kind of strict guideline on how to drive all the time.
The wording is on purpose. Take QLD for example, where the minimum speeding offence is: "Less than 13km/h over the speed limit".
It HAS to be worded this way, otherwise you're implicitly changing the speed limit. If the wording was "6-13km/h over the speed limit", then you're effectively adding 5km/h to every speed limit - as there would be no way to legally fine you for going 5km/h over.
So, in theory, you can get a fine for 1km/h over, but in practice this does not happen.
They also need to take the accuracy of the equipment and the equipment setup into account. They will always need to take off a few k’s for any calibration or operation error sources - laser wandering over the bonnet, angle of the reading etc. If they set the rules up to say a fine is e.g. 3+ over, they’d still have to take a few k’s off their readings, bumping it up to be more like a reading of say 6 or 7 over before they’d have a fine that would stand up to scrutiny. By setting the official limit as 1+, they bring the threshold down to say 3 or 4 over the limit for a fine not to be easily contested based on inaccuracy.
My wife got done doing 62 in a 60. My Father in law was doing 44 in a 40.
If you have a look at the fines, they have a "detected speed" and then an "alleged speed". So both of them were probably doing another 4km/h-ish more than that.
Don’t agree with revenue raising with sneaky tactics especially on the sneaky roads where it goes 60-70-60 within a few hundred metres.
But I do agree on harder stances on hoons /intentional reckless driving.
As for seatbelts…come on - how hard is it to wear a seatbelt, properly?
come on - how hard is it to wear a seatbelt, properly?
I've always wondered about seatbelts. The argument against the fines is that they don't injure anyone but the offender, so the argument for the fine has to be the tax payer burden of injury/death from not wearing a seatbelt.
This raises the question, when do we start fining fat people? 🤔🤔
It’s voluntary