OzTennis

Yeah, they also apply more common sense when you are a nice looking woman but not when you are from an ethnic minority or young etc. My point - the law should be applied fairly and equally to all which by definition means rigidly sticking to the rules. Personally I don't see anything wrong with zero tolerance. You know where you stand - don't exceed the limit and you haven't got a problem. Strictly speaking it isn't zero tolerance in Victoria anyway - you won't get a ticket for 1K over but 3K or more over is another matter and the camera flashes.

OzTennis

MrsDagboy

Maybe the guy who wrapped himself, his g/friend & his Nissan 300 ZX around the powerpole outside our house 2 hrs ago should have thought twice about what speed he was doing coming around the corner.

2 hrs to be cut out of the car, I wish they would hurry up & finish & drag the bloody thing away, I want to go to bed .

cols

Sorry to butt in, but this winds me up. Rigidly enforcing the law won't stop racism or other prejudices. If a cop is racist, they will always be racist. We need responsible law enforcers that exercise discretion by assessing the context of each and every situation. The law cannot take into account every possible situation, so it is an essential part of the role of a police officer to apply discretion and ensure that the law is applied appropriately to the benefit of the community. Alternatively, you could sit down for the next 2000 years and write a rule book that addesses every possible set of circumstances.

If we prosecuted someone to the full degree for evey law that was broken, regardless of the circumstances, imagine the problems it would cause. In many cases a warning or other measure does more good than a fine or jail. Punishment often does not address the causes behind a crime. Look at cases where zero tolerance has been applied and how it has affected low income (often ethnic) social classes - does it cure the crime problems or does it fill our jails and give them no chance of getting out of their situation?

To the issue of speeding. When speed is listed as a contributing factor behind an accident, it does not mean that the speed limit was neccessarily exceeded. It means that a driver was driving at an innappropriate speed for the conditions. By leaving this bit of information out, many governments have used statistics to make the public think that all these accidents are being caused by people exceeding the speed limit, when in actual fact the majority were caused by other factors.

You could approach a corner too fast or not reduce your speed in icy conditions and have an accident, whilst you are still well below the speed limit. No amount of speed limit enforcement will reduce these problems and studies have shown that excessively low speed limits and strict enforcement actually increase the chances of these sort of accidents happening (due to complacency, lower concentration and boredom).

Most drivers (contrary to what the police and government portray) are relatively sane, practice common sense, do care about their own lives and others, and would drive at an appropriate speed for the conditions. Fining these people for slightly exceeding the speed limit in good conditions is daft and i'm not suprised people view it as revenue raising.

Way too much emphasis is being put on speeding. To really address the problem of road deaths, the other major contributing factors need to be addressed in proportion eg.

Poor driver education on how to avoid accidents and drive safely.
Ambiguous road rules (eg. lane discipline)
Poor policing of other road rules.
Badly maintained unsafe roads (especially in Australia).
Poor signage - and lack of driver aids.
Low standards for car maintenance and inspection.
Bull bars.
Power poles on sides of road. So many deaths are caused by a car colliding with power poles or crossing the median strip. Underground cabling and barriers would reduce this dramatically.
Drive down almost any Sydney road, and look at the sides of the roads, there are poles everywhere, right next to the kerb. If you got a nudge and left the road, you'll probably hit one of these and chances are it will come out on top.

Unfortunately, none of these raise money or win votes....

PaulDClark

I drive 25-30 thousand miles a year, and have done so for the last five years. I normally cruise at motorway speeds of 90-95mph when it is safe to do so, I try to stick to speed limits when off the motorways. Even so according to my trip computer my average speed these days has dropped from around 55mph to 48mph over the last two years simply due to the appalling traffic congestion found in the UK.

It is not speed that kills on the motorways, its bad driving. I was rammed off the M1 by a Hungarian lorry driver at 50mph a couple of years ago, by some miracle I span through four lanes of heavy traffic without hitting anything. Almost every day you will see accidents exactly like this one.

I see tailgating, rubbernecking, swerving in and out of traffic, lane wandering and inappropriate speed EVERY DAY. On Monday I was driving up the Detling hill after the famous Jades Crossing at the limit of 50mph. Up the hill I almost smacked into a car doing no more than 5mph, it was only my ABS and experience that saved the situation. Speeding is merely an easy thing to prove, and thereby fine. Technically the lady in question was not breaking any law, but had the potential to kill not only herself but me too.

Megalania

Reading between the lines I estimated your age to be 33 - 35. Then I looked at your profile.

PaulDClark

Aye 35 in a couple of weeks. Is it that easy to tell?

Megalania

Not too young to believe nothing will happen and not too old that you prefer nothing to happen.