Red light experience - venting

[Sanx]

So where do speeding tickets for those regular collectors on KB come into it????

Speeding isn't generally dangerous. Running red lights nearly always is.

But the posts about keeping (or failing to keep) left do illustrate something; that traffic cops only apply the laws that a) they find easy and b) the ones that suit the wills of their political masters.

As demonstrated by the reversal of the year on year fall in the road toll that neatly co-incided with the government's rapid focus on speeding to the near exclusion of everything else, current policing policy does not make the roads more safe. The figures actually suggest that current policing policy is a factor in making them worse. The Police's role is to ensure the roads are safe for all to use. ("Safer communities for all", I think is the motto.) They're demonstrably failing.

But the Policy's bloody good for the consolidated fund.

[FJRider]

Speeding isn't generally dangerous. Running red lights nearly always is.

But the posts about keeping (or failing to keep) left do illustrate something; that traffic cops only apply the laws that a) they find easy and b) the ones that suit the wills of their political masters.

As demonstrated by the reversal of the year on year fall in the road toll that neatly co-incided with the government's rapid focus on speeding to the near exclusion of everything else, current policing policy does not make the roads more safe. The figures actually suggest that current policing policy is a factor in making them worse. The Police's role is to ensure the roads are safe for all to use. ("Safer communities for all", I think is the motto.) They're demonstrably failing.

But the Policy's bloody good for the consolidated fund.

The safety of speed depends on many factors, vehicle suitability... location suitability...skill level of driver/rider...number of idiots already on the road...and weather. PLUS probably a few I haven't thought of/mentioned.
When ALL factors can be met... ALL the time, speed limits may be increased. But as long as there are those that don't, won't, can't, speed...it WONT.

The cops will most likely "apply" the enforcement to what they believe to be the more dangerous law breaking that they see. If cops believe that you are a "danger" to other road users...expect a chat. DON'T get abusive...they do have discretionary powers, and do use them. THIS depends on how big a danger/mouth you were.

Statistics prove what the statistician wants to "prove". Believe what you choose, but don't spout them as fact.

The Consolidated Fund thanks you for your kind donation...Please feel free to donate AGAIN.

[swbarnett]

When ALL factors can be met... ALL the time, speed limits may be increased.

Are you suggesting that "ALL factors can be met... ALL the time" when travelling at the speed limit?

But as long as there are those that don't, won't, can't, speed...it WONT.

There are those that are unsafe at any speed. Should we all have our right to drive removed completely?

[FJRider]

Are you suggesting that "ALL factors can be met... ALL the time" when travelling at the speed limit?


There are those that are unsafe at any speed. Should we all have our right to drive removed completely?

Roads such as MOTORWAYS could (theoretically) be suitable for increase in speed limits. As long as alternitive roads are available for those that can't,won't. or don't travel at posted speed limits. But I would expect even bigger fines for breaking those new limits. And tougher rules on who can use these higher limit areas.

RIGHT TO DRIVE ??????? Driving is a privilege we must earn, by proving we are capable on driving on the road safely. Those that PROVE, or have been proven (in court) they are incapable of doing this safely, this privilege is removed. THAT IS LAW NOW !!!

[Patrick]

This assumes that the law is fair and reasonable.

Whether it is or not is a personal judgement. If enough people object to a law and practice civil disobedience then there just might be a chance of the law being changed to something that is more reasonable. Unfortunately this seldom works when those directly affected by an unreasonable law are in a decided minority.

People know the rules...

Every day there is civil disobedience and objections.... you should see the tickets that pass over my desk EVERY day..... some are whinging disobedient lawbreakers I tells ya....

[swbarnett]

Roads such as MOTORWAYS could (theoretically) be suitable for increase in speed limits. As long as alternitive roads are available for those that can't,won't. or don't travel at posted speed limits. But I would expect even bigger fines for breaking those new limits. And tougher rules on who can use these higher limit areas.

You still haven't answered my question. You asserted that speed limits were where they are because there not all the factors required to travel faster safely were met all the time. It this not is also true at (or even under) the speed limit?

RIGHT TO DRIVE ??????? Driving is a privilege we must earn, by proving we are capable on driving on the road safely. Those that PROVE, or have been proven (in court) they are incapable of doing this safely, this privilege is removed. THAT IS LAW NOW !!!

Right or Privilege? Depends how you look at it. I've seen arguments both ways and I still can't decide which way I think it is. That aside the question still stands - do you think that nobody should be allowed to drive just because some are incapable of doing it safely? This seems to be what you are saying about driving above the posted speed limit.

[swbarnett]

People know the rules...

The law is not set in concrete. If it was we'd still be running under a feudal system (or worse). Laws change when enough people believe the current law is unjust and have the ability to change the political will.

Every day there is civil disobedience and objections.... you should see the tickets that pass over my desk EVERY day..... some are whinging disobedient lawbreakers I tells ya....

"whinging disobedient lawbreakers" make for some interesting historical figures - Martin Luther King and Ghandi spring to mind. When the time is right change happens. Until then the injustice and political hypocrisy continues.

[Patrick]

The law is not set in concrete. If it was we'd still be running under a feudal system (or worse). Laws change when enough people believe the current law is unjust and have the ability to change the political will.


"whinging disobedient lawbreakers" make for some interesting historical figures - Martin Luther King and Ghandi spring to mind. When the time is right change happens. Until then the injustice and political hypocrisy continues.

Martin Luther KING and Ghandi didn't study the road code and sped?

My god... what is the world coming to... we are all doomed...

[sunhuntin]

I dont trust taxi-drivers at ALL on the road. Unexpected behaviour is the norm and anything that'll cut two seconds off the journey is to be expected!

Bike cops on the other hand... well. Never had a run in with one of those before, and considering i've passed a few while lanesplitting carefully I guess I should only hold a good opinion of them!

agreed. only taxi drivers i trust are either in front of me or parked and not likely to move, and even them i watch like a hawk.

glad to know at least one has to give away part of his "earnings" for a change. jerk off. wish the cops up here would sit on lights. had a red holden in front of us today halfway in the left turning lane and half in the cycle lane. i could see no indicator [we were going straight through] and lo and behold, the fucker cuts us off and goes straight through.

[swbarnett]

Martin Luther KING and Ghandi didn't study the road code and sped?

My god... what is the world coming to... we are all doomed...

The issue may be considerably more minor but the principle is the same.

[sinfull]

People know the rules...

Every day there is civil disobedience and objections.... you should see the tickets that pass over my desk EVERY day..... some are whinging disobedient lawbreakers I tells ya....

Desk ??? What the hell are you doing at a desk (unless yr processing)
You should be on a bike Patrick ???

[MarkH]

now im wondering do i bother wrighting in explaning my case or next time the situation arises put all ancours on and cause a accdent to stop for a amber.
not looking for stupid/negative remarks here
this is a bit of venting am not pised at all cops just this tosa
to all the good cops who are out there cary on the good work

A few years back I got pulled over for running an orange light. The light had not changed to red by the time I exited the intersection. I was ticketed for "failing to comply with a traffic signal", but the notice that came in the mail said I "failed to stop for a red light" - WTF? So I wrote in and explained about the difference between the ticket issued and the infringement notice sent out, added that I didn't stop because I didn't think I could do so safely and that the light never changed to red before I was through the intersection. They wrote back to tell me to forget about it, the matter was dropped.

I can't see how it would hurt to write in to explain that in your assessment at the time you didn't believe you could stop safely due to being to close to the intersection when the light changed. They will either let you off or reply saying "sorry, but you have to pay up". It's gotta be worth the trouble to send a letter in.

[Clifford]

Great sport....a taxi driver, a Ford AND a red light runner all at the same time. Pity they took away hanging.

[FJRider]

not all the factors required to travel faster safely were met all the time. It this not is also true at (or even under) the speed limit?

Right or Privilege? Depends how you look at it. I've seen arguments both ways and I still can't decide which way I think it is. That aside the question still stands - do you think that nobody should be allowed to drive just because some are incapable of doing it safely? This seems to be what you are saying about driving above the posted speed limit.

Correct that conditions to ACHIEVE the speed limit can NOT always be met safely. To exceed the speed limit in those circumstances is dangerous driving. Meaning heavier penaltys than just exceeding the posted speed limit. I have known friends on bikes getting charged for dangerous driving on a very winding road (on a bike) by an over zealous "enforcer". It went to court... Judge dissmissed the charge as the cop ADMITTED the bike stayed on the correct side of the road, and did not exceed the posted speed limit. He also held a current racing licence which helped sway the judge.

Nobody (general public) is allowed to drive over the limit, because some are not capable of doing it SAFELY... slightly different.
Having reached the legal age to attain a driving licence, you have the right to apply to sit a licence test... Having passed ALL the legal requirements FIRST (age,eyesight,medical status,court rulings prohibiting etc). You may THEN begin to proceed through the process to gain a full licence.
Even the drivers of emergency services vehicles, are under strict guidlines to exceed the speed limit. And can (have) been held accountable... even when things DON'T / DIDN'T turn to shit.

[Patrick]

Desk ??? What the hell are you doing at a desk (unless yr processing)
You should be on a bike Patrick ???

Been desk bound at work for the last year... sounds kinky, but far from it... sadly....

Should be on a bike? Waaaaayyyy too wet down here of late. Would have been OK if my diving wet suit handn't shrunk so much... damn ...

But hey, spring is upon us...