No it doesn't because those been educated and trained would be made to pay the full cost of that activity....and then all on KB would whinge about the cost of education and training they have to do to get a bike licence and how they have been riding for years and never had a crash and are so very very safe, and its always someone elses fault.
Because plenty of people were gathering many thousands of $ worth of fines that they couldn't afford to pay, so the courts had to keep writing off a shitload of fines. If someone is unemployed and gets $10,000 of fines, but only has $2,000 worth of assets then they have no way of paying that money back.
2 answers:
1. reduce the price and increase the number of 'sales' (in this case the sale is enforced of course) and you generate more revenue. That is the explanation...
2. it certainly can't be all about road safety. Check the University of Adelaide's "Traveling Speed and the Risk of Crash Involvement" upon which most of VicRoads' argument for lower speed limits and the use of speed cameras is based - which rationale has been lifted lock stock and barrel by NZ Govt. (You can find a copy online easily - the 'RARU' report.
Over three quarters of the crashes (table 4.4 in the report) used to justify the need for speed cameras was caused by a road user turning in front of or across the oncoming vehicle. Not caused by allegedly excessive speed on a clear road...
I thought elections were decided by angry posts on social media. - F5 Dave
my business partner got done 71 in a 50 last week. He not happy "but i was in a stream of traffic all doing that speed": its a section of road that is four lanes and separated by median: it should be 60 but of course the revenue generated would be less.
I thought elections were decided by angry posts on social media. - F5 Dave
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks