New Nsw Car Hoon Laws . Grandma Policing .

[TheInterceptor]

Originally Posted by z80

In your video did you notice the cattle grid?

Probably why you have a speed limit there is the only reason i could think of.

Originally Posted by z80

was thinking exactly the same, it could even be east of Broken hill or south towards Mildura..

The danger with it is that there are stray wild 800kg cattle that stray onto that pristine open road...

Black angus are invisible at night.

Hello, there were many many grids on most of the roads out that way. Only wildlife i saw were a few emu's and crows, not one single cow. There are 4 other people who can back this up. I have heaps of footage across the whole trip and not once you see a single cow near.

At night, if i for some reason am out there driving, i would not be going all that fast.
In the daytime, out there, you can see for miles. At night, you cant see past your lights.

Also, not much roadkill out there at all which i found interesting. Out of the 2000kms odd we did in the outback, we saw no more than 10 MAX dead animals on the roadside. (From Port Augusta to the Alice to Kings canyon and Uluru)

There were more trashed cars on the sides than animals. (lots of Commodores funnily enough)

[lamborghinifan]

Originally Posted by 2011G6E

I'm sure it would...the kangaroos and other wildlife that seemingly appear out of nowhere despite your best efforts at being alert for them would give them the heebie jeebies and make them want to lower the limit out here even more...

I think the only reason they can get away with 130kph in the NT is that the whole Territory has less people living in it than a reasonable sized city down south. Out there it can be a real thrill to actually see another car coming towards you.

Not saying they're not out there at all, but most of the time... time and chance...
In the last month i've done about 7000 regional kms, between warnambool and proserpine. mixed night/day, Bruce, newell, hume, new england, warrego, leichardt, etc etc. nothing notable so far as animals. i'm not advocating a cruising speed of anything ridiculous (which 130 isn't) but as previously mentioned there's these things called road trains.... and the new "nanny laws" just don't factor these things in. there's a time and place for everything.

[Brent]

Same old issue with these blanket laws. The first casualty is context and common sense. As others have alluded to, 45kph over on a wet road in the 'burbs outside a school would be unforgiveable. Its a touch different on a deserted road in the middle of nowhere in clear conditions.

As to exactly where the threshold is set isn't really the point. I don't know about anyone else, but I can recall at least a few instances where I've more than nudged the limit when overtaking an 18 wheeler, or where there's been a conga line of slow vehicles trundling up the only overtaking lane for 30kms. Usually there's a bit of frenetic overtaking, limits are inevitably breached, then the traffic settles back into its groove again. If there was a cop with a laser gun at the top of the overtaking lane, quite a few cars would have been toast. Having the plates ripped from the car under those circumstances would be a touch harsh.

Its just another example of this country's absolute fixation with legislation. Whenever there's a problem, real or perceived, big or inconsequential........just roll out another new law.

[Fiesta_Man69]

The issue with these laws is the blanket: speed kills mantra.

It is used by the government to rip millions from Australians every year under the guise of 'safety.'

The problem is that on hundreds of occasions speed cameras have been proven to be wrong. In the past this 'just' cost motorists money and a few points (though contributing to the loss of licenses).

With these new laws motorists now have the potential to loose their cars (and the jobs that go with them). Until speed detection devices are proven to be infallible then such severe penalties as these shouldn't be introduced.

Considering how hidden many school zone signs are - the infamous Beverly Hills case in NSW where thousands were refunded after heavy media pressure because the speed camera/school zone sign was 'accidentally' hidden behind a shop awning, to mention but one case - then laws such as this will see the wrong people being hurt.

The solution? More highway patrol marked cars on the roads: actually pulling up boofheads for stupid driving - be it excessive speed, weaving in and out of traffic, holding up traffic in the fast lane - deliberately or otherwise - or just plain stupid driving (not to mention mobiles/makeup while driving): get these down first and implement proper speed trap devices that are proven to save lives before stealing cars off innocent motorists.

[XR6T0Y]

Here's for the original OP. Seeing as you don't 'condone' speeding, yet find it so hard to understand why everyone is against it, explain this to me



Tell me why they shouldn't have their plates taken from them. For this bloke it's to late, but others?

[ute83]

I think i understand now, 377 people that died on nsw roads were all killed by hoon speeders.

[BHDOGS]

interesting people complain about revenue raising but now many people here would be the first to complain about hire taxes for all these extra policeman running around thered just be a new thread police wasting money targeting modified drivers with high tax dollars the coppers cant win either way.

[Fiesta_Man69]

Originally Posted by BHDOGS

interesting people complain about revenue raising but now many people here would be the first to complain about hire taxes for all these extra policeman running around thered just be a new thread police wasting money targeting modified drivers with high tax dollars the coppers cant win either way.

The coppers can win: they can gain respect from the public by targeting drivers that are endangering the public, regardless of their age, sex, cultural background or the type of car they drive. They can stop acting like an arm of the tax department and target dangerous drivers regardless of the revenue they'll lose from not sitting on the side of a motorway behind bushes pinging motorists for being a few kays over the limit.

Speed doesn't kill: if it did Germany would have the highest road toll per capita in the world (it's one the lowest actually). Mind you many European countries have proper driver training courses instead of Australia's laughable system. Hmm, maybe driver skill has something to do with people dying on the road - hard to believe, even harder to raise money from....

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by Fiesta_Man69

The coppers can win: they can gain respect from the public by targeting drivers that are endangering the public, regardless of their age, sex, cultural background or the type of car they drive. They can stop acting like an arm of the tax department and target dangerous drivers regardless of the revenue they'll lose from not sitting on the side of a motorway behind bushes pinging motorists for being a few kays over the limit.

Speed doesn't kill: if it did Germany would have the highest road toll per capita in the world (it's one the lowest actually). Mind you many European countries have proper driver training courses instead of Australia's laughable system. Hmm, maybe driver skill has something to do with people dying on the road - hard to believe, even harder to raise money from....

So someone doing 100kmh in a 60zone in the suburbs isnt a danger?

How about 120kmh through a road works area which is limited to 40kmh?

Sorry to inform you but IT IS VERY FREAKING DANGEROUS... having worked in road works area for 8months I QUIT MY JOB because OF IDIOTS WHO THINK ITS FUNNY.

Too many times i had seen road workers jump out of the way of knobs who dont give a toss.... Too many near misses with backhoes, rollars, trucks etc because IDIOTS sped through at over 100kmh on the highway.

Driving is inherently dangerous because of POOR DRIVER ATTITUDE.
Our road network IS RUBBISH.... and the excuse "who is it hurting" if we are driving at night on an empty road is the most pathetic excuse I have heard of... At night how do you know its empty?

Can you see the drunk walking down the road?
What about that big rock on the road near someones farm house?
(how many times do you need to be remined about the LARGE amounts of vehicles that end up in peoples houses because some idiot lost it on a corner because he thought his driving skill was infallable and decided that 80kmh on a 40kmh bend was "fun"?)

The speed limit irresctive of weather or not YOU or I like it.. IS THERE.
Break the rules and suffer the consequences of your actions.

You want a higher speed limit?
Then go lobby the pollies and prove to them that us aussie drivers are a great bunch with fantastic driving skills.... and then ask them to spend billions to upgrade our highways to autobahn standards.... good luck

[XR6TCraig]

Originally Posted by XR6T0Y

Here's for the original OP. Seeing as you don't 'condone' speeding, yet find it so hard to understand why everyone is against it, explain this to me
image


Tell me why they shouldn't have their plates taken from them. For this bloke it's to late, but others?

That is a nicely written little piece of propoganda.
What a pity it lacks any real fact to it.
The number 1 killer on our roads isn't speed by the way!

[Fiesta_Man69]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

So someone doing 100kmh in a 60zone in the suburbs isnt a danger?

How about 120kmh through a road works area which is limited to 40kmh?

I clearly stated that driving like that is dangerous and should be policed by extra highway patrol vehicles. Anyone doing 100 in a 60 zone in suburbia should be banned from ever holding a license again.

Regarding roadworks: often these are very poorly signposted. Drivers are also very jaded because of the amount of times drivers are forced to slow to 40kmh when there is no road works going on. And, as I mentioned before, deliberate 'accidents' were made by the RTA to raise revenue in road work zones in the Lane Cove Tunnel. Under these new laws you would lose your car - guilty until proven innocent.

[Torment47]

[quote=flappist]Are you sure you are on the right forum?

I have for many many years done over 200km/h on roads in Australia even overtaking police cars once or twice.

200km/h on our roads? must be a good driver

As for overtaking cop cars, i don't think a cop is going to risk his life going 200km/h + to try and pull someone over....

[flappist]

[quote=Torment47]

Originally Posted by flappist

Are you sure you are on the right forum?

I have for many many years done over 200km/h on roads in Australia even overtaking police cars once or twice.

200km/h on our roads? must be a good driver

As for overtaking cop cars, i don't think a cop is going to risk his life going 200km/h + to try and pull someone over....

Or the police officer did not care as it was not illegal. Up until 2007 there were no limits in NT (up until 1979 there were none in NSW) and due to a legal loophole there were (and still are if you can find them although the last one I have driven on was about 2 years ago) areas in QLD with no limits.

You do realise that most of Australia is not in Sydney don't you?

Get out of the city, you may find that Australia not what you think it is and definitely not like the wowsers on here and in the media would have you believe.

[gtfpv]

200km/h on our roads? must be a good driver

As for overtaking cop cars, i don't think a cop is going to risk his life going 200km/h + to try and pull someone over....[/QUOTE]


your kidding right !!!!

[gtfpv]

come to sydney though and have a look at new imigrants , licencing tests. some of them drive like theyre in manilla , or indonesia .

[Torment47]

[quote=flappist]

Originally Posted by Torment47

Or the police officer did not care as it was not illegal. Up until 2007 there were no limits in NT (up until 1979 there were none in NSW) and due to a legal loophole there were (and still are if you can find them although the last one I have driven on was about 2 years ago) areas in QLD .

No, i did not know that, thanks for sharing it with me.

[BHDOGS]

The police enforce laws not personal opinions they do what there told if its chase a maniac doing 200 or sitting there with a speed camera the police don't act like anything the government dictates the policy's so crying bout the cops isnt gonna help u

[Fiesta_Man69]

Originally Posted by BHDOGS

The police enforce laws not personal opinions they do what there told if its chase a maniac doing 200 or sitting there with a speed camera the police don't act like anything the government dictates the policy's so crying bout the cops isnt gonna help u

Police also have the power to use discretion. When they choose not to use this is when the public's opinion of them sours severely.

Police are also instructed by Police Traffic Commanders where to police: again, sitting on a straight bit of highway pinging motorists for a few kays over isn't effective policing.

The only thing the government 'dictates' to police is the quota of motorists they are to book as a minimum each shift.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by BHDOGS

The police enforce laws not personal opinions they do what there told if its chase a maniac doing 200 or sitting there with a speed camera the police don't act like anything the government dictates the policy's so crying bout the cops isnt gonna help u

Police will only pursue a person for speeding if they are exceeding the speed limit.

If you are doing 90 in a 100 zone and over take a police car doing 80 you will not be chased as you are not speeding.

Likewise in an open zone, for those who are still in their teens or have never been outside of sydmelbris except in an aircraft there were places in Australia where until recently there were no speed limits, over taking a police car (or anything else) at 200km/h was not illegal. In saying that overtaking a car doing 40km/h at 200km/h would be dangerous and may draw those crabs but overtaking a car doing 160km/h at 200km/h was no big deal.

I do realise that there are some on here that are almost peeing their pants at the mere thought going faster than 110 but even today 130km/h is legal on the aterials in NT and with a bit of luck (//) will be back before Christmas.

And for those who scream that 200km/h or whatever on our roads is dangerous......how would you know unless you have done it or did you just read it somewhere or see it on "A Current Sunday Minutes"?

[RedHotGT]

Originally Posted by Fiesta_Man69

Police also have the power to use discretion. When they choose not to use this is when the public's opinion of them sours severely.

Police are also instructed by Police Traffic Commanders where to police: again, sitting on a straight bit of highway pinging motorists for a few kays over isn't effective policing.

The only thing the government 'dictates' to police is the quota of motorists they are to book as a minimum each shift.

Got that in writing somewhere? The figures for the 'quota'??

I've heard this one for years... though nobody has EVER been able to provide any sort of leaked 'document' or 'figures' stating this...

Given that we've had leaked information from every other government body/sector/department... isn't it amazing we've never had this leaked??

Almost like a conspiracy right???

Driving Culture is the biggest contributor to accidents on our roads... It's the mentality of 'I am the best driver in the world - so I'm gonna do this" that is the problem...

Most people drive with such a selfish attitude - it staggers me that they make it home sometimes....

I'm not the best driver in the world - never claimed to be - and never will (The Stig holds that title... jokes) But I am cafeful, cautious, and considerate on the road... because I understand that it's the most risky thing that I will do all day... And i'd quite like to make it home....... Wouldn't you?

[XR6T0Y]

I just find it funny that people on here saying "speeding doesn't kill".
It does, simple as that. I have been on the receiving end many a time, because people become too impatient with me doing the speed limit. I may only be on my greens, but isn't a plater doing the speed limit something you not hear of very often anymore?
Why are you'se so hell bent on trying to say that speeding is ok?

[MAD]

I've seen some new signs up on citylink in Melbourne... "if everybody speeds; Why are you overtaking them?"
To which I really want to respond with, "If speeding kills; Why am I, and the millions of other motorists that have been happy snapped, still alive?"

If speeding is a factor in 30% of crashes, then something else was a factor in the other 70%.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by foylema

Im sure the bank would love the gov to take my car that under finance lol

It's the same as writing off a car drunk, the debt stays with you and yes the governments are getting tough.
Life sucks when you make errors in judgement, imagine if you were stupid enough to go do it on purpose..

[RedHotGT]

Originally Posted by MAD

I've seen some new signs up on citylink in Melbourne... "if everybody speeds; Why are you overtaking them?"
To which I really want to respond with, "If speeding kills; Why am I, and the millions of other motorists that have been happy snapped, still alive?"

If speeding is a factor in 30% of crashes, then something else was a factor in the other 70%.

Wow - Really? I'm staggered - that's your attitude?

The speed limit is designed to be followed - because you've got a much higher chance of surviving and causing less damage if an incident/drama/situation arises that you need to react for...

EG: 40km/h speed zones.... Lets say a 7 year old kid wanders on to the road for whatever reason - at 40km/h you've got a much better chance of pulling up and a)not hitting the kid, or b)hitting the kid at a fairly low speed...
If you're tearing thru at the 60/70km/h speed (that it road usually is outside the school hours) then you've killed the kid... or hit them hard....

When something goes wrong - you've got a much better chance if you're within the limits...

Go and find your statistics - and tell me how many accidents are caused by people who are:
1) Driving within the speed limit or 2) Driving under the legal BAC
vs
1) Driving over the speed limit or 2) Driving over the legal BAC

Wonder who is more likely to have an accident.....

[XR6Naranja]

Just a little bit of my logic.

Newspapers. don't listen to them, isn't it obvious from everything that Newspapers HYPE everything...

45KM/h isn't all that much, you overtake a truck, you don't wanna stay next to him because he isn't doing the limit or near the limit and you are, you wanna pass him with minimal risk of being head on with another car.

Crushing/Repossessing cars, well crushing has never worked, it's done around the world, all it does is cost money, cause more problems, and frankly puts a country in debt in so many ways I can't be bothered to explain.

Repossessing, sure but on only TWO offences? what are you kidding me? how many times did it take for us to learn not to touch hot things or learn to walk? two very un-rightful offences is way too harsh, sure if they are rightful, aka 105 in a 60 zone, or 95 in a 60 zone, should never be doing those speeds, but 145 in a 100 zone for many reasons you can come up with, the speed camera will only tell one, you were speeding... Whether or not you were in more of a danger by not speeding.

Council, Government, Police all put these expensive advertisement campaigns, large advertisement boards, large banners, expensive cars, expensive equipment into place, all this stuff, they could AVOID all this by opening tracks all over Australia, closest drag track to me is 20 minutes away, it's an old airport, and it's only open on special events once a month, the next thing is in the Gold Coast... If we had tracks all over, within 30 minutes of each town, we wouldn't need all the stuff they pay for to try stop hoons, all people that love to drive fast in cars could go to tracks during the day, maybe even night and drive to their hearts content, they've had their ideas wrong from the beginning.

I also love all these things people bring up enforcing the speed limits, cars are killers FROM THE START, speed limits don't stop you from hitting or killing someone, and therefore you can't protect a speed limit by saying it's this because this is safe...

It's like a meat grinder has precautions, but just because they are there, doesn't mean you can't lose a finger to it, or an arm...

Also @loftie, as far as I've heard from those in the police force, those things are taught by mouth only, my mate said it is completely up to him if he decides to book someone for something, it is COMPLETELY up to him if he pulls someone over for being on the phone, they aren't put on a straight path and told DO THIS, they simply aren't.

I'll be honest, the top I'm in more crashes are caused by people aged 50-90, more to the later ages, because they simply are unable to drive properly, if I had a dash cam for all the things I've seen, I'd have a decent case to bring in some sort of test for them, that is more then just an eye test, sounds rough, but I've almost hit three oldies up the **** because they have pulled out when they shouldn't have, and one pulled over to the side of the road indicating, then almost instantly after stopping pulled back onto the road, this is how stats are exaggerated by media, it's not ALL hoons, it's only hoons that get shown..

If I remember correctly DUI and Tired Driving has been more cause of death in recent months in this area, so hoons are in the clear at the moment for the Northern Rivers..

[XR6TCraig]

Originally Posted by MAD

If speeding is a factor in 30% of crashes, then something else was a factor in the other 70%.

Remember also that speed is a factor because of someones subjective opinion. Its all about how data is interpreted and also what else can or cannot be proven. It is very hard to prove or quantify fatigue for example.

Proof of this is looking at how different countries factor in speed as a contribting factor in accident investigations. Australia has one of the highest incidences of speed as a contribuint factor. Now why would that be?

At the end of the day a speed limit is an arbitrary number put on a white sign with a red circle. Doing under the speed limit does not make you safer neccesarily. Nor will being under the speed limit gaurantee that speed is not a contribuing factor if you have a crash, if thats how the report writer interprets it and wants to write it up.

[MAD]

Originally Posted by loftie

Wow - Really? I'm staggered - that's your attitude?

The speed limit is designed to be followed - because you've got a much higher chance of surviving and causing less damage if an incident/drama/situation arises that you need to react for...

EG: 40km/h speed zones.... Lets say a 7 year old kid wanders on to the road for whatever reason - at 40km/h you've got a much better chance of pulling up and a)not hitting the kid, or b)hitting the kid at a fairly low speed...
If you're tearing thru at the 60/70km/h speed (that it road usually is outside the school hours) then you've killed the kid... or hit them hard....

When something goes wrong - you've got a much better chance if you're within the limits...

Go and find your statistics - and tell me how many accidents are caused by people who are:
1) Driving within the speed limit or 2) Driving under the legal BAC
vs
1) Driving over the speed limit or 2) Driving over the legal BAC

Wonder who is more likely to have an accident.....

It's not an attitude, it's an opinion. I don't agree with the marketing of 'speed kills' because it has become to simple, and is obviusoly over zealous because what they tell you is going to happen, simply doesn't happen.
There's one sign I do like, on a road near my place, that says "slowing down won't kill you". This is both factual, and positive. A much better message.

A speed limit is an arbitrary number put in place by a government that supposedly tells me how safe I am at that speed on that road. But a decade ago it was safe to travel at 60km/h? Why are safer cars limited to 40km/h? (Don't even get me started on 24hr 40km/h zones around schools that are fenced and locked after hours.)

Same goes for an example given earlier, safe traveling speed is limited to 110km/h in QLD, but somehow the road becomes magically safe enough to travel at 130km/h when you cross an invisible border in to NT.
Explain to me how the same road surface is safe 50m in one direction, but license-losing crazy-fast 50m the other way?

'Speed kills' is getting very long in the tooth. As are their reasons for placing cameras in 'black spots' (aka: Eastlink)
Find me a statistician so I can have them to crunch some numbers, on the basis of "twice as likely to have a crash at 5km/h over", using the number of fines handed out by fixed and mobile speed cameras. I'd like to know how many people should have died, then we can see if it is an accurate argument that your risk of having an accident are doubled at 5km/h over.
(which mind you, no-one has been able to tell me if that 5km/h 'over' is "over the posted speed limit", or "over the safe speed for the prevailing conditions"

Originally Posted by Craiginmackay

Remember also that speed is a factor because of someones subjective opinion. Its all about how data is interpreted and also what else can or cannot be proven. It is very hard to prove or quantify fatigue for example.

Proof of this is looking at how different countries factor in speed as a contribting factor in accident investigations. Australia has one of the highest incidences of speed as a contribuint factor. Now why would that be?

At the end of the day a speed limit is an arbitrary number put on a white sign with a red circle. Doing under the speed limit does not make you safer neccesarily. Nor will being under the speed limit gaurantee that speed is not a contribuing factor if you have a crash, if thats how the report writer interprets it and wants to write it up.

Exactly! Driving to the conditions is far more important than obeying a number on a pole.
I refuse to be one of those people that thinks I'm invincible if I obey the signs.

[Djrystofer]

Originally Posted by flappist

So what you are saying is if a rule is stupid you cannot force it to be changed you just have to follow it?

The limit has been "what you feel safe at" for much much longer than the paranoid "110 is too fast" and hopefully will be again soon at least in NT.

If something is wrong the constant media assault telling us it it is right does not actually make it right.....

I'm pretty sure doing 45kph over the limit all the time isn't going to make it magicly change.
Police are just going to book you & say 'any reason for doing that speed?'
Are you going to say to him 'Because I want them to change the speed limit'?

[XR6Naranja]

Exactly! Driving to the conditions is far more important than obeying a number on a pole.
I refuse to be one of those people that thinks I'm invincible if I obey the signs.

I'd just like to point out that I believe signs are both safe for wet and dry conditions, HOWEVER, if you use slippery tyres then the rules change, I have done I suppose experiments out on some country roads, put no one in danger and wasn't hooning, during the dry these roads are perfectly safe on the speed limit, during the wet I have not slid once doing the speed limit, so I'd like to think that speed limit signs in this area are based on both wet and dry conditions in my case.

Of course I don't do this all the time, it was just a simple test to see how safe is what they say it is..

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Djrystofer

I'm pretty sure doing 45kph over the limit all the time isn't going to make it magicly change.
Police are just going to book you & say 'any reason for doing that speed?'
Are you going to say to him 'Because I want them to change the speed limit'?

Go back and read the whole thread again, you have completely missed everything.