From the cops
Dec 2nd 2001, 4:08 am
#1
Just Joined
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7
If I may, a person is a "murderer" if they have an intention to kill another person and they carry that act out. Speeding drivers who kill people are NEVER charged or convicted of murder without that intention either being first present or subsequently proved by a court. It is a critical element of the act of murder. Drivers who kill are more likely being criminally negligent or careless.
I am not defending this bloke, in fact as a Highway Patrol officer, I spend my time battling his ilk. He seems to defend speeding, (like many drivers), without realising that his actions have the very real potential to result in the deaths of others. Having routinely witnessed the deaths of my fellow Australians Adrian, I invite you to accompany me to comfort the parents of the victim, the next time I present a death message. Speeding Kills.
BTW, you are lucky you were not caught in my state, it would have cosy you a lot more.
I am not defending this bloke, in fact as a Highway Patrol officer, I spend my time battling his ilk. He seems to defend speeding, (like many drivers), without realising that his actions have the very real potential to result in the deaths of others. Having routinely witnessed the deaths of my fellow Australians Adrian, I invite you to accompany me to comfort the parents of the victim, the next time I present a death message. Speeding Kills.
BTW, you are lucky you were not caught in my state, it would have cosy you a lot more.
Dec 2nd 2001, 5:04 am
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
In the future, it may be less confusing for readers of the group if you were to reply
to the original message. That way people know you are referring to a discussion about
"Speeding in Queensland."
Also, I think your vocation puts you in a rather biased place in terms of commenting
on speeding. Drinking also kills, but as with anything else, it's a matter of degree
and situation. Without knowing the specifics of Adrian's situation, none of us really
knows whether he was driving carelessly or not.
By the way, I did decide to pay off my ticket so that the next time I'm in Oz I don't
have to worry about that pesky arrest warrant!
Jeff
spud
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
to the original message. That way people know you are referring to a discussion about
"Speeding in Queensland."
Also, I think your vocation puts you in a rather biased place in terms of commenting
on speeding. Drinking also kills, but as with anything else, it's a matter of degree
and situation. Without knowing the specifics of Adrian's situation, none of us really
knows whether he was driving carelessly or not.
By the way, I did decide to pay off my ticket so that the next time I'm in Oz I don't
have to worry about that pesky arrest warrant!
Jeff
spud
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Dec 2nd 2001, 8:01 am
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
>
>
>
>
IIRC, Adrian was booked for driving at 95kmh in a 60 zone. I think most people, even
habitual speeders, would consider this to be somewhat excessive.
Daniel
--
Daniel Bowen, Melbourne, Australia [email protected] Guide to Australia:
http://www.toxiccustard.com/australia/
>
>
>
IIRC, Adrian was booked for driving at 95kmh in a 60 zone. I think most people, even
habitual speeders, would consider this to be somewhat excessive.
Daniel
--
Daniel Bowen, Melbourne, Australia [email protected] Guide to Australia:
http://www.toxiccustard.com/australia/
Dec 2nd 2001, 8:25 am
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
Daniel Bowen wrote in message ...
>
>
That depends on making the assumption that, because some bureaucrat put a 60 sign up
on that particular stretch of road, that 60 is indeed driving at a "reasonable" level
of risk on that road.
In GENERAL, I would agree though that for MOST 60 km/hr zones, 95 would likely be
dangerous.
I'd like to hear from spud if it's any easier telling the relatives of a fatality
about the incident if the crash occurred doing 80 in a 100 zone?? I'd guess not. My
objection to the current speeding campaign in Queensland ("Every k over is a
killer"), is the suggestion that if you drive at or below the signposted limit, you
are NOT a killer, and CAN NOT be.
This is obviously NOT the case. In fact, one of the scariest driving situations I've
ever been in, I was doing 30 in a 100 zone. (And I'm one of those self-confessed,
habitual speeders!!). The reason for going so slowly on a country road was DENSE fog.
I could not see far enough to do any more than 30. Nevertheless, numerous morons
decided they could zip past me, probably doing about 80 -100, within the speed
limit!! In my mind, the behaviour of these idiots was **far, far** more dangerous
than doing 132 on the Gateway motorway in clear driving conditions and light traffic
(the circumstances of my photograph a few weeks ago!).
Regards,
Michael
>
>
That depends on making the assumption that, because some bureaucrat put a 60 sign up
on that particular stretch of road, that 60 is indeed driving at a "reasonable" level
of risk on that road.
In GENERAL, I would agree though that for MOST 60 km/hr zones, 95 would likely be
dangerous.
I'd like to hear from spud if it's any easier telling the relatives of a fatality
about the incident if the crash occurred doing 80 in a 100 zone?? I'd guess not. My
objection to the current speeding campaign in Queensland ("Every k over is a
killer"), is the suggestion that if you drive at or below the signposted limit, you
are NOT a killer, and CAN NOT be.
This is obviously NOT the case. In fact, one of the scariest driving situations I've
ever been in, I was doing 30 in a 100 zone. (And I'm one of those self-confessed,
habitual speeders!!). The reason for going so slowly on a country road was DENSE fog.
I could not see far enough to do any more than 30. Nevertheless, numerous morons
decided they could zip past me, probably doing about 80 -100, within the speed
limit!! In my mind, the behaviour of these idiots was **far, far** more dangerous
than doing 132 on the Gateway motorway in clear driving conditions and light traffic
(the circumstances of my photograph a few weeks ago!).
Regards,
Michael
Dec 2nd 2001, 9:26 am
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Michael, 132kph is excessive anywhere!! But on the Gateway -cop it sweet - I'd say!!
--
Paul O'Brien [email protected]
>
>
>
[usenetquote2]> >IIRC, Adrian was booked for driving at 95kmh in a 60 zone. I think most people,[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >even habitual speeders, would consider this to be somewhat excessive.[/usenetquote2]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Paul O'Brien [email protected]
>
>
>
[usenetquote2]> >IIRC, Adrian was booked for driving at 95kmh in a 60 zone. I think most people,[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >even habitual speeders, would consider this to be somewhat excessive.[/usenetquote2]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Dec 2nd 2001, 9:52 am
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
Paul O'Brien wrote in message ...
>
>
>
>
That is, of course, in your opinion.
There are plenty of countries around the world that have legislated speed limits of
120 km/hr, 130 km/hr or higher on motorways. This includes some countries in Europe,
that have similar safety standards (in general) to Australia. Yet, (perhaps
surprisingly to you), the transport departments in these countries have assessed the
risks, and deemed 130 km/hr to be an acceptable risk on properly maintained motorways
(such as the Gateway).
Why is it that Australia (NT excepted) is so anal retentive about speeding, when
Australian drivers are amongst the *slowest* drivers I've encountered anywhere? There
are many dangerous errors I observe on Australian roads, that have the potential to
kill - speeding in school zones (see, I'm not blind to the risk of speeding!!) and
changing lanes without checking for traffic to name just two.
Why is that I never hear an ad about dangerous lane changes, or the police ticketing
someone for dangerous lane changes? I see the offending behaviour happening at least
weekly, just driving around town, and have been almost side swiped, and almost run
off the road by such nitwits more than once.
All I hear about is speeding, (even drink driving campaigns seem to have ended), and
in Queensland the latest lame tag line is "Every k over is a killer". As I described
before, I think this is a very poor statement, and is even misleading. Too bad the
Trade Practices act probably doesn't apply here, or we could do the Transport
department for misleading advertising.
Just to clarify, I'm not complaining about the fine I received for speeding. I knew I
was driving faster than the signposted limit, so if the Police decide to photograph
my car, then so be it. What annoys me is the whole attitude to speeding as the
(sole??) killer, which is an untenable position, logically.
Drive safely! And check those mirrors!
Michael
>
>
>
>
That is, of course, in your opinion.
There are plenty of countries around the world that have legislated speed limits of
120 km/hr, 130 km/hr or higher on motorways. This includes some countries in Europe,
that have similar safety standards (in general) to Australia. Yet, (perhaps
surprisingly to you), the transport departments in these countries have assessed the
risks, and deemed 130 km/hr to be an acceptable risk on properly maintained motorways
(such as the Gateway).
Why is it that Australia (NT excepted) is so anal retentive about speeding, when
Australian drivers are amongst the *slowest* drivers I've encountered anywhere? There
are many dangerous errors I observe on Australian roads, that have the potential to
kill - speeding in school zones (see, I'm not blind to the risk of speeding!!) and
changing lanes without checking for traffic to name just two.
Why is that I never hear an ad about dangerous lane changes, or the police ticketing
someone for dangerous lane changes? I see the offending behaviour happening at least
weekly, just driving around town, and have been almost side swiped, and almost run
off the road by such nitwits more than once.
All I hear about is speeding, (even drink driving campaigns seem to have ended), and
in Queensland the latest lame tag line is "Every k over is a killer". As I described
before, I think this is a very poor statement, and is even misleading. Too bad the
Trade Practices act probably doesn't apply here, or we could do the Transport
department for misleading advertising.
Just to clarify, I'm not complaining about the fine I received for speeding. I knew I
was driving faster than the signposted limit, so if the Police decide to photograph
my car, then so be it. What annoys me is the whole attitude to speeding as the
(sole??) killer, which is an untenable position, logically.
Drive safely! And check those mirrors!
Michael
Dec 2nd 2001, 10:49 am
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
>
[usenetquote2]> >IIRC, Adrian was booked for driving at 95kmh in a 60 zone. I think most people,[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >even habitual speeders, would consider this to be somewhat excessive.[/usenetquote2]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
60 is generally a limit set in built-up areas. Keeping this in mind, in a 60 zone,
other road users (eg those turning out, pedestrians crossing, etc) would expect
drivers to be doing around 60. If they don't happen to notice someone coming
barrelling down the road at 95... well, the reaction/stopping distances involved
would indeed make it a dangerous situation.
Daniel
--
Daniel Bowen, Melbourne, Australia [email protected] http://www.danielbowen.com/
[usenetquote2]> >IIRC, Adrian was booked for driving at 95kmh in a 60 zone. I think most people,[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >even habitual speeders, would consider this to be somewhat excessive.[/usenetquote2]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
60 is generally a limit set in built-up areas. Keeping this in mind, in a 60 zone,
other road users (eg those turning out, pedestrians crossing, etc) would expect
drivers to be doing around 60. If they don't happen to notice someone coming
barrelling down the road at 95... well, the reaction/stopping distances involved
would indeed make it a dangerous situation.
Daniel
--
Daniel Bowen, Melbourne, Australia [email protected] http://www.danielbowen.com/
Dec 2nd 2001, 11:37 am
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
>
No it's not. It's illegal almost anywhere, but there are combinations of road, car,
driver and conditions under which it's quite a safe speed.
--
Craig
No it's not. It's illegal almost anywhere, but there are combinations of road, car,
driver and conditions under which it's quite a safe speed.
--
Craig
Dec 2nd 2001, 8:53 pm
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
Daniel Bowen wrote in message ...
[usenetquote2]>> Daniel Bowen wrote in message ...[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>> >IIRC, Adrian was booked for driving at 95kmh in a 60 zone. I think most people,[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>> >even habitual speeders, would consider this to be somewhat excessive.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>>[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>> That depends on making the assumption that, because some bureaucrat put a 60 sign[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>> up on that particular stretch of road, that 60 is indeed driving at a "reasonable"[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>> level of risk on that road.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>>[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>> In GENERAL, I would agree though that for MOST 60 km/hr zones, 95 would likely be[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>> dangerous.[/usenetquote2]
>
>
60
>
>
>
reaction/stopping
>
Looks like we agree on this - in general.
My point is, that just because it was a 60 zone, doesn't *necessarily* mean it's a
heavily built up area, with lots of kids running around. For example, near where I
live, there's a motorway exit ramp, that has the 60 sign quite near the top of the
ramp, but the ramp continues for half a kilometer, with NO intersections, NO
pedestrians (EVER!), straight road, etc. You'll find that most drivers will roll down
this ramp, at speeds significantly in excess of 60, which is perfectly safe, and
being a motorway exit ramp, it is expected by those in the area.
This is only ONE example, I'm sure there are others where the signpost says 60, but
where the risk is minimal, even if driving at 80, or (possibly)
95. I'm reluctant to judge people without knowing all the facts of the
specific case.
Regards,
Michael
[usenetquote2]>> Daniel Bowen wrote in message ...[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>> >IIRC, Adrian was booked for driving at 95kmh in a 60 zone. I think most people,[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>> >even habitual speeders, would consider this to be somewhat excessive.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>>[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>> That depends on making the assumption that, because some bureaucrat put a 60 sign[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>> up on that particular stretch of road, that 60 is indeed driving at a "reasonable"[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>> level of risk on that road.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>>[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>> In GENERAL, I would agree though that for MOST 60 km/hr zones, 95 would likely be[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]>> dangerous.[/usenetquote2]
>
>
60
>
>
>
reaction/stopping
>
Looks like we agree on this - in general.
My point is, that just because it was a 60 zone, doesn't *necessarily* mean it's a
heavily built up area, with lots of kids running around. For example, near where I
live, there's a motorway exit ramp, that has the 60 sign quite near the top of the
ramp, but the ramp continues for half a kilometer, with NO intersections, NO
pedestrians (EVER!), straight road, etc. You'll find that most drivers will roll down
this ramp, at speeds significantly in excess of 60, which is perfectly safe, and
being a motorway exit ramp, it is expected by those in the area.
This is only ONE example, I'm sure there are others where the signpost says 60, but
where the risk is minimal, even if driving at 80, or (possibly)
95. I'm reluctant to judge people without knowing all the facts of the
specific case.
Regards,
Michael
Dec 2nd 2001, 10:01 pm
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well in Perth the speed is now 50km an hour in built up areas all in the interests of
keeping Death off the roads, and I think it is all bullshit.
Over the past few years there have been 2or 3 police killed in the course of duty
when their patrol cars have skidded off the road and slammed into trees or electric
poles. These guys are supposed to be well trained officers capable of handling a high
speed pursuit car. What a laugh. Cowboys in Blue uniforms.
The crashes I refer to are all single car crashes involving no other vehicle, so it
was all driver error, no good blaming the road, the car or the tyres as an excuse it
is the guy behind the wheel.
Their deaths have also helped to convince the government that 50km an hour is the
most reasonable speed to drive around town, why dont we get back to the days of a
bloke carrying a Red Flag in front of every vehicle.
Regards
Gordon.
keeping Death off the roads, and I think it is all bullshit.
Over the past few years there have been 2or 3 police killed in the course of duty
when their patrol cars have skidded off the road and slammed into trees or electric
poles. These guys are supposed to be well trained officers capable of handling a high
speed pursuit car. What a laugh. Cowboys in Blue uniforms.
The crashes I refer to are all single car crashes involving no other vehicle, so it
was all driver error, no good blaming the road, the car or the tyres as an excuse it
is the guy behind the wheel.
Their deaths have also helped to convince the government that 50km an hour is the
most reasonable speed to drive around town, why dont we get back to the days of a
bloke carrying a Red Flag in front of every vehicle.
Regards
Gordon.
Dec 2nd 2001, 10:33 pm
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
>
>
>
>
>
In fact, this was the reason the judge gave in Penrith District Court a few weeks
back for sentencing someone to around 3 years prison for doing 100 in an 80 zone,
when the ensuing accident resulted in death.
Dave
>
>
>
>
In fact, this was the reason the judge gave in Penrith District Court a few weeks
back for sentencing someone to around 3 years prison for doing 100 in an 80 zone,
when the ensuing accident resulted in death.
Dave
Dec 3rd 2001, 2:53 am
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
"Daniel Bowen" <[email protected]>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
By the way in Western Australia the speedlimit in builtup areas has just (from
1/12/01) been reduced to 50 kph, as it is in most European countries.
Gerrit
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
By the way in Western Australia the speedlimit in builtup areas has just (from
1/12/01) been reduced to 50 kph, as it is in most European countries.
Gerrit
Dec 3rd 2001, 7:13 am
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
We've had the 50km zones in Brisbane for a couple of years now, and actually, I agree
with it - the sticky point is in defining "local area" roads, versus "through
traffic" roads. In local area neighbourhoods, you get kids playing on the street,
etc. Not a good idea to speed.
However, this should only apply to streets in local neighbourhoods, so that if you're
travelling across town, you won't be driving on these roads. In Brisbane, southside
anyway, they've done a reasonably good job of this, and there are 60, 70 or 80 km/hr
major roads almost everywhere you need to go. Credit where it's due..
Now in Sydney, it's a different matter....
Regards,
Michael
Gordon
>
>
>
>
of
>
trees or
>
capable of
>
>
>
vehicle,
>
as
>
>
>
is
>
>
>
>
>
>
with it - the sticky point is in defining "local area" roads, versus "through
traffic" roads. In local area neighbourhoods, you get kids playing on the street,
etc. Not a good idea to speed.
However, this should only apply to streets in local neighbourhoods, so that if you're
travelling across town, you won't be driving on these roads. In Brisbane, southside
anyway, they've done a reasonably good job of this, and there are 60, 70 or 80 km/hr
major roads almost everywhere you need to go. Credit where it's due..
Now in Sydney, it's a different matter....
Regards,
Michael
Gordon
>
>
>
>
of
>
trees or
>
capable of
>
>
>
vehicle,
>
as
>
>
>
is
>
>
>
>
>
>
Dec 3rd 2001, 8:13 am
#14
Guest
Posts: n/a
>
>
>
get
>
Same goes for Victoria. 50 unless signed otherwise. Just about all main roads are
signed as 60 or above.
I too agree with this. It's not just the lower limit that's important, it's getting
people into a different frame of mind, driving on local sidestreets versus main
roads. The hazards on each are different.
Daniel
--
Daniel Bowen, Melbourne, Australia [email protected] Melbourne public transport
FAQ http://www.custard.net.au/melbtrans/
>
>
get
>
Same goes for Victoria. 50 unless signed otherwise. Just about all main roads are
signed as 60 or above.
I too agree with this. It's not just the lower limit that's important, it's getting
people into a different frame of mind, driving on local sidestreets versus main
roads. The hazards on each are different.
Daniel
--
Daniel Bowen, Melbourne, Australia [email protected] Melbourne public transport
FAQ http://www.custard.net.au/melbtrans/
Dec 11th 2001, 5:38 am
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
>
No, it's not.
There are plenty of freeways in Australia built to standards such that a speed limit
of 130-140 km/h would be quite reasonable. Unfortunately, our governments like making
money out of fines so much that they will probably never put such speed limits on
those freeways.
Unfortunately, most of the issues that they dish up in the "speed kills" campaigns
are actually examples of stupidity, not speed, but our bureaucrats decided long ago
that simplicity and collecting lots of fines were the way to go.
Face it: If the message they are trying to imply about speed were actually true,
Germany would lose half its population every year on the autobahn.
--
Craig Macbride <[email protected]> http://www.nyx.net/~cmacbrid "Computer
games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be
running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to
repetitive electronic music." - Ross Allen, Nintendo, 1989
No, it's not.
There are plenty of freeways in Australia built to standards such that a speed limit
of 130-140 km/h would be quite reasonable. Unfortunately, our governments like making
money out of fines so much that they will probably never put such speed limits on
those freeways.
Unfortunately, most of the issues that they dish up in the "speed kills" campaigns
are actually examples of stupidity, not speed, but our bureaucrats decided long ago
that simplicity and collecting lots of fines were the way to go.
Face it: If the message they are trying to imply about speed were actually true,
Germany would lose half its population every year on the autobahn.
--
Craig Macbride <[email protected]> http://www.nyx.net/~cmacbrid "Computer
games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be
running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to
repetitive electronic music." - Ross Allen, Nintendo, 1989