View Full Version : our tax dollars hard at work..
spotted this on my way home, excuse the phone camera quality...
the boys in blue working hard to improve road safety... parked at the bottom of a nice little hill.
well done chaps. outstanding.
http://www.infctd.net/post/19012007013s.jpg
bthology
19-01-07, 04:32 PM
i dont get it
well, if youre doing 60 at the top of the hill, and you take your foot off and coast down, you end up doing 66-68 or so ... (i drive this road every day so i happen to have noticed). now this cruiser is located in a bit of a dip, the road rises on the other side. so to stay legal you actually would have to brake going down the hill, just so you can accelerate more to get up the other side. "normal" driving where you just mosey on down the hill and then cruise up the other side would probably see you reach revenue-raising speed.
Mitchamus
19-01-07, 04:41 PM
honour ave chelmer,
grandmas is just around the corner, know the area well!!!
if onlyt i had money to buy in victoria/laurell avenue
Yeh well the 'black spots' have moved to the bottom of hills lately. And look at that power pole right near to the edge of the road and all those trees, definately a dangerous location.
So you're complaining that cars speed up when they roll down hills and that's somehow unfair because you shouldn't have to control your speed with something so rediculous as the brakes? righhht.
Billzilla
19-01-07, 05:04 PM
So you're complaining that cars speed up when they roll down hills and that's somehow unfair because you shouldn't have to control your speed with something so rediculous as the brakes? righhht.
Yes it's entirely legal where the camera is placed, but not entirely moral as such.
That placement isn't going to make the road any safer, there's far more places that need attention.
It's miss-used resources that are at odds with the intent of improving road safety.
That's what Rusty is trying to say.
It always used to be illegal to put cameras at the bottom of hills.. when did that change?
marcus_h
19-01-07, 05:08 PM
Dont think it was ever actually illegal as such
Pol Pot
19-01-07, 05:33 PM
think that was a myth..
Any types of cameras that forces you to ride the brakes down a hill imho is dodgy.
Id imagine there would be heaps of pedestrian traffic there.
So you're complaining that cars speed up when they roll down hills and that's somehow unfair because you shouldn't have to control your speed with something so rediculous as the brakes? righhht.never sped ever? hypocrite much? :yup:
It's miss-used resources that are at odds with the intent of improving road safety.
That's what Rusty is trying to say.noooo.. im trying to say "fuXing c0pzors d@mmit!11" :)
It always used to be illegal to put cameras at the bottom of hills.. when did that change?
i thought i remembered reading that somewhere a long time ago too. i havent found it again though, so it has since declined into doubt, and a healthy disregard for police parked at the bottom of hills, of which i unfortunately see rather a lot.
It was definately law - there was even a distance they had to be *from* the bottom of any hill. Just as they are not supposed to have them within a certain distance (200m?) of a change of speed zone.
Maintaing the correct speed is a fundamental part of driving, I mean to say a slight incline is a dodgy place for a speed camera is ridiculous in the extreme, driving isnt that hard.
Granted the cameras should be in black spots but as long as the camera is set up correctly its upto the driver to maintain the correct speed, I mean there is not many roads out there that arent on a hil at some stage.
it doesnt look like a safe spot to park?? or a spot where youd usually see someone other than a speed camera!
The-Kid
19-01-07, 06:05 PM
But who learnt to drive riding the brakes...
In Sydney Henry Lawson Drive near the parks in the mornings
and arvos just off Woodville Rd. Along with having to brake sudden
because traffic has noticed the HWP car you battle the pot holes...
is this the second time you've ever seen a speed camera? they are always in dodgy locations
and on the subject of dodgy cameras, i saw a speed camera sign on the right hand side of the road but the van was four lanes away on the left hand side! was on petrie tce just past bad girls platinum
tandy ass
19-01-07, 06:55 PM
Maintaing the correct speed is a fundamental part of driving, I mean to say a slight incline is a dodgy place for a speed camera is ridiculous in the extreme, driving isnt that hard.
Well said. If everybody adhered to the safely set speed limit, there would be no more motor vehicle accidents. It is completely irrelevant whether it's 4am on a Tuesday morning, peak hour or peak hour during a hailstorm. Maintaining the legal speed will save lives
As already said, that is morally wrong putting it there - its a moral crime against people and the environment - to ride the brakes down a small hill, wearing the brakes, tyres and road then to use fossil fuels to bring the vehicle to the top of the next hill is a pathetic waste. Inertia and sensibility is what should be used, not revenue collecting scumbags parked in those sorts of locations.
I see it very regularly here in Melbourne - for the locals, a very frequent revenue collection point is on Reynolds Rd in Templestowe, just as you're going down the long steep hill, citybound, past the shopping centre with NO houses or driveways having access to the road, the tax officers are hiding behind the bus stop ready to nab people doing a few km over the limit...
willsy01
19-01-07, 07:01 PM
Surely the sign should be facing traffic as opposed to be side one?
MRMOPARMAN
19-01-07, 07:06 PM
send them pics into ACA. that should get some publicity and hopefully make civic compliance a little more careful where they park.... for a month atleast
ken2903
19-01-07, 07:27 PM
fucking get over it.
CussCuss
19-01-07, 07:58 PM
Dont think it was ever actually illegal as such
its true!!!
i read it on the internets
Phone camera quality, whilst driving? Thats 3 points ? ;)
I have officially become worlds slowest driver upon moving to Melb... I found a way to cheat the system... don't go 1km/h over the speed limit and they can't get you... :)m
Those roadside camera's are fucked.
I usually adhere to the speed limit pretty well, but you know what, sometimes I'm a little busy paying attention to the road and avoiding collisions with idiot drivers to be watching my speedo like a hawk, so may climb say 3-5kmh over the speed limit --- that' of course enough to get you done by one of those trusty roadside cameras.
Billzilla
19-01-07, 09:20 PM
FWIW, the ADR rules on how accurate a speedo has to be ->
18.5. SPEEDOMETERS AND ODOMETERS (ALL VEHICLES)
18.5.1. Speedometers
18.5.1.1. Unless otherwise 'Approved', every vehicle shall be fitted with a speedometer which shall:
18.5.1.1.1. indicate vehicle speed only in kilometres per hour and
18.5.1.1.2. indicate the actual vehicle speed, for all speeds above 40 km/h, to an accuracy of ± 10 percent
18.5.1.2. The speedometer shall be installed so that its indication is readily visible to the driver when seated in the normal driving position.
So if you can prove that you were doing the correct speed on your speedo, but the car was really going faster (within that 10%) then you are legal.
I hear that the ADR's are about to change though.
Its dodgey, but at least its a marked vehicle.
Also whats the speed tolerance they have up there? Here in Vic 3k's over and you can look forward to a fine. Here its more a money making machine than a deterent.
The Pupat
19-01-07, 09:42 PM
Its dodgey, but at least its a marked vehicle.
Also whats the speed tolerance they have up there? Here in Vic 3k's over and you can look forward to a fine. Here its more a money making machine than a deterent.
usually 10 percent.
Ohh and you act like this is a new thing Rusty :).
Speed Camera's around Queensland are getting easier to spot. Because it's always a stocko landcruiser (usually white with a black snorkel) parked where either you wouldn't expect a car to be parked or just plain parked illegally. Ohh and on a split carrigeway the camera is on the bullbar facing forward so you can see it a mile away and slow down.
Surely the sign should be facing traffic as opposed to be side one?
Not in Queensland, I believe they just have to have a sign out. I'm actually surprised they don't put them behind the car on left hand side so you can't see them fullstop.
I thought the air snorkles were illegal & a modification???
He is also "Not parking Paralel to the curb" (Wheels turned another fine)
thechuckster
19-01-07, 10:37 PM
i've seen them there (is just after the end of the Indro bridge) before. It isn't much of a hill when you think about it.
They've also sat on the downward slope of the next hill and further along Honour Ave on where its flat.
I can see why they've done it, as there's always a bit of traffic light racing up at the railway station, the traffic then has to merge into one lane to cross the bridge and just after that you loose the slower cars who turn left to go under the railway line ... so if you're going straight ahead you gun it after the left-hander as you've been held up by a Hyudai travelling at 43km/h across the bridge.
Rusty: they also do a regular RBT down below the bridge catching everyone driving up Oxley road going to Indro - is a popular spot to catch footballers and spectators who've ignore the no beer rules at the footy grounds up near Tennyson.
fucking get over it.go fuck yourself. after you get the fuck out of this thread.
Phone camera quality, whilst driving? Thats 3 points ? ;):) i actually came past in the opposite lane, then did a u-turn further up and came back and pulled over and took the pics. ive seen so many of the damned things in dodgy spots that i thought, im not doing anything right now, today ill stop and take a pic. to my considerable interest, while i was sitting there, a little flash light mounted on the corner of the front bumper went off several times in succession, spread out over about 30 seconds. the first few times there were cars in the vicinity, but after that it happened again with nothing nearby, and i could see someone clambering around inside the car, so either mr plod was triggering a front mounted camera to take photos of me (taking photos of him) or he was just testing the gear or something. i didnt even know they had a front mounted camera, just assumed the pics happen on the approach to the cruiser, from out their back window.
Ohh and you act like this is a new thing Rusty :).hell no, i know its not :) they seem to love this area. between here and the city is regularly festooned with cruisers parked just about everywhere you could (almost) fit one.
Rusty: they also do a regular RBT down below the bridge catching everyone driving up Oxley road going to Indro - is a popular spot to catch footballers and spectators who've ignore the no beer rules at the footy grounds up near Tennyson.yeah ive been stopped there plenty of times. thats totally fine with me. they can rbt til the cows come home, im all for it. its the bullshit revenue raising over petty, contrived situations like this that really boils my blood.
wazzabp
19-01-07, 11:27 PM
So whats the accident history of that location like to justify that camera sitting there?
The Pupat
19-01-07, 11:33 PM
So whats the accident history of that location like to justify that camera sitting there?
Someone had a fender bender in 1973.:yup:
FWIW, the ADR rules on how accurate a speedo has to be ->
18.5. SPEEDOMETERS AND ODOMETERS (ALL VEHICLES)
18.5.1. Speedometers
18.5.1.1. Unless otherwise 'Approved', every vehicle shall be fitted with a speedometer which shall:
18.5.1.1.1. indicate vehicle speed only in kilometres per hour and
18.5.1.1.2. indicate the actual vehicle speed, for all speeds above 40 km/h, to an accuracy of ± 10 percent
18.5.1.2. The speedometer shall be installed so that its indication is readily visible to the driver when seated in the normal driving position.
So if you can prove that you were doing the correct speed on your speedo, but the car was really going faster (within that 10%) then you are legal.
I hear that the ADR's are about to change though.
how will new ADR's effect cars already on the road given that in vic there is no room for error other then the 3km/h goodwilll taken off the indicated speed.
For instance, i'm doing 60km/h (as indicated on my speedo) but my vehicle is traveling at 66km/h. I get pinged by a camera, they deduct 3km/h but i'm still 3 over the limit.
In theory i'm not doing anything wrong, how will new ADR's counter this issue?
or am i missings something?
Billzilla
19-01-07, 11:52 PM
how will new ADR's effect cars already on the road given that in vic there is no room for error other then the 3km/h goodwilll taken off the indicated speed.
For instance, i'm doing 60km/h (as indicated on my speedo) but my vehicle is traveling at 66km/h. I get pinged by a camera, they deduct 3km/h but i'm still 3 over the limit.
In theory i'm not doing anything wrong, how will new ADR's counter this issue?
or am i missings something?
I can't see how the 3km/h thing can be upheld in court.
The ADR's define how accurate the speedo is, and if you are doing X speed then that's all you can do.
I would fight it for sure.
I would of thought anything that falls under the umbrella of the ADR (+-10km/h) would mean that you wouldn't get the fine but this is not the case.
the whole thing just multiplies with higer speed (obviously). Speed cameras could be 110% accurate for all i care but what the f*cks the point for us when i'm driving a ADR'd car with a bung speedo that will mean i get pinged every time i pass a camera.
I'd have to drive 10% under the limit everywhere i go..sh*t, everyone would.
It's the fkn pigs raking it on against a design flaw, personally, i think that's f*cked.
i'm a bit pissed and slightly angry :D
psssi98
20-01-07, 12:10 AM
Kelvin Grove Rd heading out of the City they like to park a 4WD radar on the footpath outside the KFC facing down a large hill (it's about 2/3rd's of the way down it). Pretty easy to spot but mega dodgy on such a big downhill.
Not allowed to park on the footpath, cop or not.
if they are obstructing pedestrians, mums with prams or disabled people then contact vicroads or the rta.
I came across a private (outsourced) speed camera parked on the footpath and n/strip. It forced people to walk onto the road or to cross the road. I pulled up next to him, tapped (loudly) on his window and told him to move along or I'll have one of my officers issue him a parking infringement. He pulled out a section of the road management act or some act (i can't remember) and it clearly stated that 1.5 metres width was to be kept as clearway for pedestrians.
He jumped in the drivers seat and hurried the f*ck out of there.
I detest these cameras, fair enough fining people doing 20 - 30 over the limit but petty infringements such as 3 - 5 over the limit is purely revenue raising.
Kelvin Grove Rd heading out of the City they like to park a 4WD radar on the footpath outside the KFC facing down a large hill (it's about 2/3rd's of the way down it). Pretty easy to spot but mega dodgy on such a big downhill.
That has to be the dodgiest spot of all, its on a big hill that means you have to ride the brakes all the way down just to stay under the limit.
I love it when they are there in peak hour and the traffic is crawling down the hill, such a good use of our precious police resources!
Oh and whoever spelt seems as "seams" its fucking wrong!!!! I've seen it so much on this board lately....what the fuck is with it!!!
ken2903
20-01-07, 09:37 AM
go fuck yourself. after you get the fuck out of this thread.
done and done.
back now and have my compasionate hat on now but i still think your a bit of a whinger. if your driving along and cant keep your car under the posted speed limit theres something wrong with you.
fair enough if you get done for 65 when your speedo hasn't left 60 i could understand someone getting the shits with that, but having a sook cause the camera is at the bottom of the hill and cars pick up speed going down hill?
and then turning around and coming back so you could take a photo to show everyone this blatent act of cuntery?
ok, i will admit it is a little sneaky to put them at the bottom of a hill, and they'd probably catch more people that way than if they were at the top of the hill, but if the people they catch are too busy to keep their car under the speed limit than they are too busy to be fucking driving and deserve a fine.
and if your worried about wearing out your brakes coming down the hill within the speed limit why not use your internet powers for good and start sending emails wherever you can to get the speed limit raised 8 or 10ks.
GreyBeard
20-01-07, 10:34 AM
... how will new ADR's counter this issue?
or am i missings something?
The new wording will be:
the speedometer shall be no less than the vehicles actual speed and no more than 10% above the actual speed
Billzilla
20-01-07, 10:37 AM
The new wording will be:
Ta, that's what I was looking for.
and as I understand it Bill, the ADR's just tell the vehicle manufacturer how they must build the car.. but even if the vehicle manufacturer built the car wrong and the speedo reads 20% under, it'd still be your fault if you got caught speeding, as its your responsibility to ensure you are doing the correct speed, and that extends to more than just looking at the speedo.
of course then you could bring up a seperate legal proceeding with the car manufacturer for selling you a dud car, but that wouldnt get you out of the speeding fine.
its stupid, but thats the way it works
if your driving along and cant keep your car under the posted speed limit theres something wrong with you....blah blahyoure missing the point. i dont get annoyed when i see a speed camera at the bottom of a hill, because i might have to brake past it. i get annoyed because i dont believe speed enforcement contributes very much at all to road safety - particularly on the open road / highway. it is way down the list of accident causes, yet there are white cruisers and motorbike cops with laser guns scattered all over the place. its just far too simplistic an approach to a complex problem, one that could have only been thought up by a) a very simple minded person or committee, or more likely, b) a person or committee who saw the potential money to be made, and came to the decision that it could be adequately politically justified by a smokescreen of speed kills propaganda and misinformation, in order to pursue it. i see your view as symptomatic of the non-thinking public element whose general apathy allows this scam to continue to be propagated upon the rest of us. there are many other things that should be prosecuted in preference to speeding, drivers who cannot maintain the speed limit, for example, who cause a line of drivers behind them to become frustrated and take risks. drivers who cannot maintain lane discipline and wander into other lanes, whether because theyre old, dozy or because they have a mobile phone clamped to their ear. young fuckwit kids (showing my age here?) who weave through the lanes on the motorway at 130kmh in their ford laser with bald tires and a fart can exhaust - dont book them for driving at 130, we all should be! book them for being a fucking idiot and driving dangerously, and improve young driver training. why arent we seeing better driver training? the community has asked for it, car companies have asked for it and even offered to contribute cash. but the govt would have to spend money for it to happen, when they can make a token gesture of taking money off someone doing +10kmh going down a hill. thats what annoys me.
Pol Pot
20-01-07, 11:21 AM
Agreed. Its a much more complicated problem than just shoving a speed camera there. if it was such a simple solution we'd have no road deaths, and we still do, and no it hasn't improved than much since the massive reductions over a decade ago. Since that time probably hundreds of damn 'initiatives' have been tried throughout Australia. Punishment only goes so far before it becomes an infringement on everyday people.
CussCuss
20-01-07, 12:41 PM
I can't see how the 3km/h thing can be upheld in court.
The ADR's define how accurate the speedo is, and if you are doing X speed then that's all you can do.
I would fight it for sure.
because the courts are going to believe you because you say you are doing 60 and doing any certified testing will cost less that a fine for 3km/h over....
the whole ADR thing should be a case where any reading should have 10% taken off it but i doubt they would do that.....
ken2903
20-01-07, 01:59 PM
youre missing the point. i dont get annoyed when i see a speed camera at the bottom of a hill, because i might have to brake past it. i get annoyed because i dont believe speed enforcement contributes very much at all to road safety - particularly on the open road / highway. it is way down the list of accident causes, yet there are white cruisers and motorbike cops with laser guns scattered all over the place. its just far too simplistic an approach to a complex problem, one that could have only been thought up by a) a very simple minded person or committee, or more likely, b) a person or committee who saw the potential money to be made, and came to the decision that it could be adequately politically justified by a smokescreen of speed kills propaganda and misinformation, in order to pursue it. i see your view as symptomatic of the non-thinking public element whose general apathy allows this scam to continue to be propagated upon the rest of us. there are many other things that should be prosecuted in preference to speeding, drivers who cannot maintain the speed limit, for example, who cause a line of drivers behind them to become frustrated and take risks. drivers who cannot maintain lane discipline and wander into other lanes, whether because theyre old, dozy or because they have a mobile phone clamped to their ear. young fuckwit kids (showing my age here?) who weave through the lanes on the motorway at 130kmh in their ford laser with bald tires and a fart can exhaust - dont book them for driving at 130, we all should be! book them for being a fucking idiot and driving dangerously, and improve young driver training. why arent we seeing better driver training? the community has asked for it, car companies have asked for it and even offered to contribute cash. but the govt would have to spend money for it to happen, when they can make a token gesture of taking money off someone doing +10kmh going down a hill. thats what annoys me.
i'm not naive enough to think speed cameras are saving peoples lives, i just dont think they are as bad an idea as everyone else does. i'm sick of people complaining about cameras and revenue raising and the government. obviously speed cameras aren't going to catch all the dickheads, and as you've pointed out there are plenty of ways for people to be dangerous idiots without necisarily speeding, i just dont see the point in going over the same ground again unless you've got something new to add.
i'm not some sort of saint that never creeps over the speed limit, far from it. ive got two speeding tickets in 8 years, one of which was a fixed camera. both times i was 7 k's over the limit but i didn't realise because i had other shit going on and wasn't paying attention. i doubt that 7 kph turned my car into a time bomb waiting to go off and kill innocent road users but my point is, if you cant handle something as simple as keeping your car under a set speed limit (even if it is below what most people would consider safe) then your either - not paying enough attention
- knowingly breaking the speed limit
neither of those is automaticaly going to make you have an accident and kill someone but whilever there are laws in place people should learn to respect them or at least pay the consequences. if you dont agree with the laws come up with an argument thats going to work (everyones had a go at this one and its obviously not working) and i'll vote for it.
cameras may not be saving lives but they're not killing people, just lightening their wallets when they are too occupied with something else to take notice of what they are doing when they're driving.
i agree with you to a point, people should be punished more often for all the other stupid things they do (lane disipline, fuckwit kids in general etc) but i dont think we should lose the speed cameras, they only catch the stupid/careless/reckless people.
as for the young driver training bit, i'm still on the fence about that one. personaly i dont think all the P plater accidents have as much to do with a lack of driving skill as their attitudes and i cant see how a few days on a skid pan is going to help with that. other than pushing the licencing age from 17 to 25 or 30 (which i'm not seriously advocating) i dont have an answer to this so i cant really comment.
clearly dangerous due to the railway...... all those train spotting wankers.
i'm not naive enough to think speed cameras are saving peoples lives, i just dont think they are as bad an idea as everyone else does.they bloody well are, because the govt is pushing this barrow (for the $) and neglecting the real issues that would make a difference. this is life-saving were talking about, and the govt has the absolute hypocritical hide to turn around and justify their greed-based bullshit policy with emotive style tv campagins that tug on the heart strings (look what happens when you speed, cue bad accident scene, thats why we have to take your money off you). fuck that! and fuck them for being so callous.
i'm sick of people complaining about cameras and revenue raising and the government.well you know what? fucking get over it! people complain, and rightfully so, because its a fucked up state of affairs which is costing lives. the more people talk about it, the sooner it will become a voting issue and the sooner it will get fixed. if youre going to talk about the issue, fair enough. but dont whine that you dont want to hear about it, because this NEEDS to be talked about, and NEEDS to be fixed ASAP.
as for the young driver training bit, i'm still on the fence about that one. personaly i dont think all the P plater accidents have as much to do with a lack of driving skill as their attitudes and i cant see how a few days on a skid pan is going to help with that.you cant teach people coordination and better judgement, that takes time and experience. but you can educate and improve attitudes to driving, which is where the improvements could, and definitely should be made.
ken2903
20-01-07, 02:52 PM
i just dont see the point in going over the same ground again unless you've got something new to add.
if you dont agree with the laws come up with an argument thats going to work (everyones had a go at this one and its obviously not working) and i'll vote for it.
having the same arguments with the same points is not working, talking about this over and over again without anything new to add isn't working.
i dont want anyone to die on the road or anywhere else but untill i can come up with something better than pics of a camera at the bottom of a hill i wont subject people to the same thing they've heard a thousand times. the whole speed camera thing is a fucking donkey and cart heading out to the desert, i'm not getting on that.
the current situation isn't working, if you had something new to add, even if i didn't 100% agree with it, i'd support you.
your gonna have to do better than - look at this fucking speed camera, the government are arseholes.
you seem to know more about this subject than me, and i'm not saying your an idiot cause i have a different opinion to you, but take a step back and have a look at how the "speed cameras are bad" argument is working out?
pointless defeatist ramblingsthanks for your contribution to this thread, its been substantial.
Billzilla
20-01-07, 03:20 PM
FWIW I may or may not have been driving around today in the unregistered Sprinter to get some stuff measured up on it.
I only do this because there's naff-all police on the road, only cameras, so if I don't speed therefore I am a safe driver and not doing anything at all wrong, so will not be picked up.
bthology
20-01-07, 03:41 PM
ahh didnt realize thats a speed camera,
we dont have 4wd speed cameras in Adelaide, unless someone can tell me otherwise
ken2903
20-01-07, 03:51 PM
thanks for your contribution to this thread, its been substantial.
oh no, thankyou for contributing this thread to the internet. its been a real eye opener and i'm sure all the gov fatcats will sit up and listen now.
its so hard these days to find somewhere to air my pointless defeatist ramblings, so cheers for that too
have a nice day and watch out for the speed cameras :)
that hill must be a mountain it's so big
if you cant stay at 60kph down that slight gradient you are a dumbshit.
stupid_cunt
20-01-07, 05:09 PM
FWIW I may or may not have been driving around today in the unregistered Sprinter to get some stuff measured up on it.
I only do this because there's naff-all police on the road, only cameras, so if I don't speed therefore I am a safe driver and not doing anything at all wrong, so will not be picked up.
how true is this. When i started driving in 95 there was a far greater police presence on the roads and you of worried about attemping the above but now i'd do it Hwy patrol presence has decreased significantly in my opinion.
Speed cameras are used as a substitute for real cops and they simply do not save lives as they are NEVER in a position where ppl speed excessively.
T0nyGTSt
20-01-07, 05:26 PM
well in the case of NSW, the choice has been made, fixed speed cameras are way better for public safety and revenue raising rather than actual police presence.
Anabolic
21-01-07, 06:14 AM
thanks for your contribution to this thread, its been substantial.
Oh, I see what you did there.
Well said. If everybody adhered to the safely set speed limit, there would be no more motor vehicle accidents. It is completely irrelevant whether it's 4am on a Tuesday morning, peak hour or peak hour during a hailstorm. Maintaining the legal speed will save lives
Now im new here so i dont know if thats sarcasm, ill assume so though.
I read this yesterday ( warning 32 pages long) it makes some goo points even though its clearly bias.
http://www.roadsense.com.au/members.html#_Toc112480825
tandy ass
21-01-07, 10:27 AM
Now im new here so i dont know if thats sarcasm, ill assume so though.
I read this yesterday ( warning 32 pages long) it makes some goo points even though its clearly bias.
http://www.roadsense.com.au/members.html#_Toc112480825
Welcome mate, yes it is sarcasm, PF has a tradition of using italics to indicate sarcasm, it's easy to bite if you aren't aware :)
BTW good link too!
Cheers
Welcome mate, yes it is sarcasm, PF has a tradition of using italics to indicate sarcasm, it's easy to bite if you aren't aware :)
BTW good link too!
Cheers
i just read through the pool room, ill be careful from now on :P
Because it's always a stocko landcruiser (usually white with a black snorkel) parked where either you wouldn't expect a car to be parked or just plain parked illegally.
I got a letter on my windscreen the other day from council because I had 2 wheels on the footpath and 2 on the road. Might photo copy it a few times and put it on the next pig truck I see parked on the footpath. Be pretty funny to walk up and put it under the wiper while dude is in the back. :)
Cal.
I recently purchased a vehicle which, unlike every other car I've owned, is utterly silent at all times - which means you have no accurate indication of your vehicle's speed unless you're staring at the speedometer. I'm having a real hard time driving around Brisbane knowing there's speed cameras and cops hiding behind bushes all over the place, and the only way I can avoid a fine is by keeping my eyeballs glued to the speedo at all times. IMO this is a pretty fucked-up state of affairs - shouldn't I be keeping my eyes on the road, watching for traffic and pedestrians and unexpected situations? But if I do that my speed will inevitably fluctuate by 5-10km/h without my knowledge and that can easily mean a substantial fine and 2-3 points off my licence, with the implication I'm an "unsafe" driver.
Yes a good driver can stick to the speed limit 100% of the time, but only by practicing poor driving techniques. If no-one can see a problem with this situation they haven't thought it through.
Now I'm off to install a pair of fart cannons on my Century.
excellent post norbie, except for the last bit :)
it's the world's way of keeping everything in balance norbie
poor cnuts from inala driving noisy old geminis always know when they're speeding, whilst the rich cnuts from ascot have no clue. to summarise, i think you're out of your depth
Billzilla
22-01-07, 08:44 PM
I recently purchased a vehicle which, unlike every other car I've owned, is utterly silent at all times - which means you have no accurate indication of your vehicle's speed unless you're staring at the speedometer. I'm having a real hard time driving around Brisbane knowing there's speed cameras and cops hiding behind bushes all over the place, and the only way I can avoid a fine is by keeping my eyeballs glued to the speedo at all times.
You mean it doesn't have a HUD?
What a poofter limo!
I got a letter on my windscreen the other day from council because I had 2 wheels on the footpath and 2 on the road. Might photo copy it a few times and put it on the next pig truck I see parked on the footpath. Be pretty funny to walk up and put it under the wiper while dude is in the back. :)
Cal.
Nice. You dont have to like the work or the politics, but leave that shit off here.
Nice. You dont have to like the work or the politics, but leave that shit off here.
You may not like it DCR, but the public's perception of the cops is incredibly bad. It may not be your fault either, but that doesn't change anything.
The number of speed cameras constantly increases, the road toll doesn't change. But yet, we keep getting more cameras and more ways of getting money out of generally sensible people. This forum is also littered with complaints of real criminal action and the response is always the same - "cops won't care, don't bother calling them". Until this changes, you're going to continue to get a bad rap.
You may not like it DCR, but the public's perception of the cops is incredibly bad. It may not be your fault either, but that doesn't change anything.
The number of speed cameras constantly increases, the road toll doesn't change. But yet, we keep getting more cameras and more ways of getting money out of generally sensible people. This forum is also littered with complaints of real criminal action and the response is always the same - "cops won't care, don't bother calling them". Until this changes, you're going to continue to get a bad rap.
So, its ok to use the word pig when referring to someone then? Like I said, vent all you like. Complain all you like.....but do it like an adult, not a 16yr old on holidays.
Personally, I think speed camera's are a great idea.
hcca if you had met Dave and/or other cops on the forum you would know that this stupidity frustrates them just the same as it does us.
I think that phrase is offensive as well. Being tarred with the same brush ftl.
I'm not having a go a DCR or his job - just that he should be thick-skinned enough to not arc up at such comments given his chosen profession.
I'm also not saying it's right - don't get me wrong :)
I've met good cops and bad cops - unfortunately the bad ones create a bad image for the entire force. The fact that speed cameras are operated by the police, despite the fact that it's the government's fault rather than their own, places them in a worse situation in the public point of view.
Pol Pot
23-01-07, 11:03 AM
I've always thought it's stupid having the cops (whether HWP or not) enforce traffic infringement as that leads to this negative opinion and it becomes hard for the public to differentiate just what the police' roll is.
If anything there should be a 'traffic enforcement' force which has no association with the police force, different uniforms, different vehicles, etc - which would be tied into DOT (well they do actually have DOT vehicles and officers, but taking this further). Therefore cops do "policing", or what people regard as traditional policing, and everything vehicle is handled by this other other unit.
That said, I doubt that would at all workable in practice, and many times random pull-overs do result in catching of 'real' crims with a stash of drugs in the boot, etc.
However, you only have to take in Victoria there is separation where private companies enforce the camera systems, and that just leads to corruption and other types of dodgies with cars parked on footpaths, true hidden camera vehicles, cameras installed but not fully tested, etc.
I recently purchased a vehicle which, unlike every other car I've owned, is utterly silent at all times - which means you have no accurate indication of your vehicle's speed unless you're staring at the speedometer. I'm having a real hard time driving around Brisbane knowing there's speed cameras and cops hiding behind bushes all over the place, and the only way I can avoid a fine is by keeping my eyeballs glued to the speedo at all times. IMO this is a pretty fucked-up state of affairs - shouldn't I be keeping my eyes on the road, watching for traffic and pedestrians and unexpected situations? But if I do that my speed will inevitably fluctuate by 5-10km/h without my knowledge and that can easily mean a substantial fine and 2-3 points off my licence, with the implication I'm an "unsafe" driver.
Yes a good driver can stick to the speed limit 100% of the time, but only by practicing poor driving techniques. If no-one can see a problem with this situation they haven't thought it through.
Fucking hell did you get your license off a cornflakes or rice crispies packet? You don't need your eyes glued to your speedo to keep a constant speed, you just need to regularly give it a quick glance. If you can't do that without being a hazard then let your missus do the driving.
^^^
with the amount of incorrect fines i would be watching more carefully too, i think its a bit of an exagerration though.
but yeah does anyone think the system is right out of chance? yeah i dont have anything against cops, only the system, i mean its there job to follow the laws put forward by the government, its not like they personally have a choice, and to be honest with all the anger motorists have because of this i can understand cops getting fed up and being ruthless..
when last i checked police server and protected, not sat and fined....
VDO for one have a programmable speed alert, sound like a good thing to have.
Cameras at the bottom of hills really suck though, unless the location is a real black spot.
stupid_cunt
23-01-07, 12:53 PM
So, its ok to use the word pig when referring to someone then? Like I said, vent all you like. Complain all you like.....but do it like an adult, not a 16yr old on holidays.
Personally, I think speed camera's are a great idea.
In this case will I ask a question of a police officer in an adult matter.
I know full well cops have to deal with fuckhead, assholes (swedes even) on a regular basis but why do HWY guys have to be such condesending assholes 100% of the time it seriously does them no favours.
I got done for no a right turn, cops came after me I pulled over and immediately handed over my licensee. From the start the guy was a cunt and asks if the address on the licensee is my current one, I say can I just check as I moved recently and I just want to be sure its the right one. Hey says, "Mate dont you even know your address" In a I'm a wanker voice.
He then says did you not see the 25 signs saying no right turn, I say no. He says what were you looking at, I say "The road". He says how long have had you licensee, I say 12 yrs he says Mate, dont you bother looking at the road signs, I say I've turned right there twice before today along with other cars and I honestly didnt see any signs, he grunts and says "mate I've checked and there all there. Continues to crap on about how he can't believe I've had my licensee this long and I dont look for road signs.
I went back the next day and there was ONE sign which said "Only" with an arrow to the left and I have taken pics and I will challenge it just to see if I have a case.
Anyway I was in a new car, wasnt rude, wasnt speeding and the right turn was not in anyway dangerous (it was only a temporary no right hand turn for an event) nor were there any other cars around (11.30pm at night) yet the guy feels the need to attempt to be-little me. Anyone with half a brain knows how to with people and sure if I was a prick and rude and not co-operating sure treat me accordingly but to be such a wanker with no cause is the exact reason why cops get called "Pigs".
I'm in no way having a go at yourself DCR as I've never meet or dealt with you but I suppose I thought I'd give this example (and I have many more) to show the general "public" experiences with the police, well the HWY patrol anyway.
Because the last 50 blokes they dealt with were tools?
Puff_Datto
23-01-07, 01:05 PM
spotted this on my way home, excuse the phone camera quality...
the boys in blue working hard to improve road safety... parked at the bottom of a nice little hill.
well done chaps. outstanding.
http://www.infctd.net/post/19012007013s.jpg
I just came home from driving Cairns to GoldCoast. Most long straights as far as you could see had a speed camera after (or near the middle) had a fucking camera in there...
Its daylight robbery
Stix Zadinia
23-01-07, 01:07 PM
yeah, imagine the cream of society you have to deal with on a daily basis? and the amount of hassle you get from everyone.
FWIW, the ADR rules on how accurate a speedo has to be ->
18.5. SPEEDOMETERS AND ODOMETERS (ALL VEHICLES)
18.5.1. Speedometers
18.5.1.1. Unless otherwise 'Approved', every vehicle shall be fitted with a speedometer which shall:
18.5.1.1.1. indicate vehicle speed only in kilometres per hour and
18.5.1.1.2. indicate the actual vehicle speed, for all speeds above 40 km/h, to an accuracy of ± 10 percent
18.5.1.2. The speedometer shall be installed so that its indication is readily visible to the driver when seated in the normal driving position.
So if you can prove that you were doing the correct speed on your speedo, but the car was really going faster (within that 10%) then you are legal.
I hear that the ADR's are about to change though.
Yep...got pulled over by cop for doing 107 in a 100 zone...said "i was doing 100 on my speedo" and he gave a "well I got you on a digital speedo...blah blah" to which i replied "I just have the normal one to go off" heehee
stupid_cunt
23-01-07, 01:11 PM
Because the last 50 blokes they dealt with were tools?
I'm afraid they won't fly with me. Muz we all have customers/clients per say and if you had 49 wankers do you automatically treat number 50 as such. I appreciate that when getting pulled/booked I'm not a customer but you see my point.
Treat people like fuckwits across the board and this bring niether short term or long term benefits. Anyway I am but one person, with one point of view but my mind is made up I'm afraid after too many un-necessary, bad experiences.
Because the last 50 blokes they dealt with were tools?
That makes it ok does it?
but to be such a wanker with no cause is the exact reason why cops get called "Pigs".
Why should cops be called pigs because of one. He may have been, 99% aren't.
Answer me this, have you ever been spoken to by a cop politely?
I along with the majority of cops treat people the way I/theywould want to be treated. Can help 1 or 2 bad eggs.Because the last 50 blokes they dealt with were tools?
That makes it ok does it?
No it doesnt. No excuse at all.
tremolo
23-01-07, 01:19 PM
I think the moron cops (NOT all cops, just the bad cops) deserve to be called pigs. They perform a vital public service funded by tax payers, who (should) trust and rely on them, but when they’re practising their stand-over tactics to feed their egos and address their insecurities on people who’ve committed minor road violations, they deserve to be kicked off the force. If a private company had people who acted like that, they’d have every right to fire them.
On that note, here’s my token bad cop story. Coming home at about 2am one night from a date (I scored for the record), I was driving through a deserted road in Mt Cotton. There’s only the occasional car, but they all manage to dip their high beams. One particular car was coming the other way and left his high beams on, so I flashed my lights at him to let them know. Of course, it was a marked police car which promptly did a near-suicidal U-turn and came screaming up my arse (with high beams still blazing). I set my cruise control about 5km/h below the speed limit and kept on driving. This guy was so far up my arse I could now no longer see his headlights. After about five minutes of this, he pulled me over. True to form, he was a cunt.
“Why do you think I pulled you over mate?”
“No idea. I wasn’t speeding, I’m sober, etc. Why did you pull me over?” (I was lying through my teeth, but I wanted him to admit that he pulled me over because I called him on his mistake)
“No, keep trying.”
“I seriously have no idea. RBT?”
“No, because you flashed your HIGH BEAMS at me!!!”
“Oh yeah, I did too. That’s because you had yours on and I wanted to let you know.”
“Yeah, well, what you did was dangerous – it could have caused a crash.”
“Yep, that’s why I flashed you – because your headlights nearly blinded me.” (VX Commodore headlights are pretty damn good)
“Yeah well you’re not the one who has to pick up body parts off the road!!!”
“That’s true, I really admire the Ambos for doing what they do.”
I was being a bit of a smart arse so he then asked for my license, took it back to his car and sat there for 15 minutes. When he finally came back, he kept at it, wasting my time.
To summarise, I concluded he was a cunt because he has a miserable life, a massive inadequacy complex and he became a traffic cop because he was bullied at school and it’s the only way anyone will listen to him.
Billzilla
23-01-07, 01:20 PM
Why should cops be called pigs because of one. He may have been, 99% aren't.
A parallel of that would be this forum.
Do the few wankers that may or may not be here dictate how the entire forum is perceived?
No.
(We all just ignore BigMuz and pretend he's not there) :)
On a similar theme, I'm sure there's some very good posters on Boostcruising and maybe Fast Fours, I just haven't been there to find out.
stupid_cunt
23-01-07, 01:22 PM
Why should cops be called pigs because of one. He may have been, 99% aren't.
Answer me this, have you ever been spoken to by a cop politely?
I along with the majority of cops treat people the way I/theywould want to be treated. Can help 1 or 2 bad eggs.
No it doesnt. No excuse at all.
Yep, the greater majority of NON HWY patrol guys are great and maybe I should have been more specific in my comments. But my point is that it my experience its not just one bad egg in HWY. Again, I only have experience to go on.
Yep, the greater majority of NON HWY patrol guys are great and maybe I should have been more specific in my comments. But my point is that it my experience its not just one bad egg in HWY. Again, I only have experience to go on.
So you have had a good expierence dealing with police, yes?
stupid_cunt
23-01-07, 01:29 PM
So you have had a good expierence dealing with police, yes?
I'll summarise my comments
NON HWY Patrol, never really had issue
HWY Patrol, every experience bad to the point where one incident involved a cop getting dismissed for his actions.
Lobster
23-01-07, 01:45 PM
Whenever I have been pulled over. I find that it is normally the younger ones that will try and treat you badly...
Every one of the more mature cops have treated me fairly.
That is not to say that good cops let you off and bad cops give you tickets. Because I have had good cops give me a ticket and bad cops not give me one.
:EDIT: I find that the best way to deal with a cop is to immediately ask them for their badge number before anyone says anything. And then to inform them that because you pay taxes, that you are paying their salary. Which basically makes you their boss. Also to mention donuts at some time too
itsnotagsr
23-01-07, 02:00 PM
I had a 10 minute discussion at 3am in the morning about the fact that Evos do have factory Recaros and Momo steering wheels. He prefaced his tirate with the words "I know about cars. I used to have an RX3!". I find that if you give them attitude, then you deserve attitude back. I try to be polite and rational. Sooner or later, they realise you're not swedish and let you go.
Just so we have a good cop story...I had the alternator die on the laser and killed the battery pretty quick right in the middle of a road.
Highway guy coming the other way pulls up quick to help me push it out of the way...along with a swede truck driver.
let me guess...picsorban?
MartyXF
23-01-07, 02:07 PM
The reason HWP give you shit is to test if you are a roid raging swede.
Pass the attitude test and you will only end up with the original ticket :)
p.s non HWP cops are in 99.5% of cases champions - they don't like it when HWP give them tickets / give them shit either :P
T0nyGTSt
23-01-07, 02:13 PM
The reason HWP give you shit is to test if you are a roid raging swede.
but surely if you're polite and look like a wasp or worse still, an asian, they'd cut you some slack???
I've only ever had one real cause for complaint in my dealings with police, generally when I've been pinged for something it's because I was actually doing something stupid, cops were polite, told me what I did wrong (which I already knew), gave me the ticket & moved on.
Cept for one bastard, a bike cop, I was in my old HZ sedan, well maintained, legally registered with chev, everything worked, tyres good etc. It had a small hornet scoop which was under the legal height limit & had nothing protruding into it - but it attracted the cops attention.
I was idling at a red light & the cop went through the intersection, spotted the car & did a u turn up onto the footpath, then rode along the footpath back to the intersection & back onto the road where he squeezed between my car & the car behind, when the lights went green he pulled me over.
Defected the car for a slight bit of fraying on the seat belt (& I mean slight), bald tyres (they weren't, close to markers but not there yet), & an imaginary hose missing from the charcoal canister (it wasn't). He spent a good 10 minutes microscopically inspecting the car trying to find defects & ended up making shit up.
Each defect on it's own would've been a cop station inspection, but 3 minor defects mean regency park - he went out of his way to put a perfectly legal, well maintained car off the road for no reason that I can think of other than him being a cunt.
It's actions like that that cause distrust, nowdays I'm likely to dash into sidestreets & get the fuck outa there if I even suspect a cop looks at my car.
Cheers
TK
MartyXF
23-01-07, 02:23 PM
but surely if you're polite and look like a wasp or worse still, an asian, they'd cut you some slack???
They do, thats why you only get the original ticket :)
This is boring, may I summarise?
Some people don't like cops and think everything they do is bad.
Some people appreciate them and think they are generally good blokes.
Never the twain shall meet.
no you cant.
i wanna tell stories :(
no you cant.
i wanna tell stories :(
The fact that you aren't in gaol and have a licence is proof positive that the HWP aren't too bad.
This is boring,
No, this argument gave me 4 pages and at least 30min of mild entertainment!
Fucking hell did you get your license off a cornflakes or rice crispies packet? You don't need your eyes glued to your speedo to keep a constant speed, you just need to regularly give it a quick glance. If you can't do that without being a hazard then let your missus do the driving.
Thanks for your considered, rational contribution to the discussion at hand.
Sure you can keep a reasonably constant speed without looking at the speedo all the time, but when the allowable margin is less than 5km/h and you're in a car specifically designed to insulate the occupants from all road noise/vibrations/whatever, there's no possible way you can do it with that much accuracy. I don't have a problem in my Supra, but in the Century it just can't be done - hence constantly taking my eyes off the road to check my speed. Anything which takes my attention off the road, even if it's only for a brief moment every 15-20 seconds, decreases my situational awareness. Most sensible people would agree this isn't an especially good thing in terms of road safety.
But at least I'm not exceeding the speed by 5km/h, so I should be safe as houses.
I still don't understand why you're whinging like a little bitch.
If you're doing 60km/h than its about 16.6 metres per second. It will take you about 1.5 to 2 seconds to react, depending on how you drive it might be a little bit less for those left foot 'brakers'.
I cannot see any problem with where that camera is positioned, it would appear to me that there is a footpath on the side of where the car is parked. Footpaths means pedestrians that I am sure at some stage would want to cross the road.
I can also see drive ways on the opposite side of the road, people are obviously going to be pulling in and out of them to get to and from home.
Now, back to the speeding part. If you're for example doing 70km/h which is close to 20 metres per second and someone pulls out or into their drive way without any notice than you've already travelled nearly 4 metres BEFORE you've hit the brakes. Add the distance you need to stop and you could potentially run up the backside of another car or even worse, injure a pedestrian thats trying to cross the road.
If you rear end a car in ANY situation than YOU'RE at fault!
You don't even know what the speed camera was set at but you still decided to go out of your way and in my opinion look like a fucking whinging bitch on the forum.
Congratulations, keep up the good work!
:w:
BTW, is this you?
http://images.ctv.ca/archives/CTVNews/img2/20061118/160X_ap_g20_bus_061118.jpg
fuck yeh , a fights a brewin'
*subscribes*
Now, back to the speeding part. If you're for example doing 70km/h which is close to 20 metres per second and someone pulls out or into their drive way without any notice than you've already travelled nearly 4 metres BEFORE you've hit the brakes. Add the distance you need to stop and you could potentially run up the backside of another car or even worse, injure a pedestrian thats trying to cross the road.
And if you drive at 35km/h, you've already travelled nearly 2 metres BEFORE you've hit the brakes. You could potentially run up the backside of another car and blah blah blah we're all going to die. OMG, change the speed limits quick!
The only logical conclusion when you use an argument like the above is to set the speed limit to zero. At any speed above that you can fabricate a scenario where that speed is dangerous and can result in injury, fatality or an outbreak of SARS. Does this really add anything useful to the debate? Sadly for you, no. Take your simplistic reasoning elsewhere.
Now here's something to get you thinking (for those still capable of independant thought): isn't it interesting how the roads with the highest average speeds have the lowest accident rates, and vice-versa? Doesn't this seem slightly at odds with the above "faster = dangerouser" mantra?
My reaction time has been tested and I am 0.2 of a second faster than average, so I drive at 72 km/hr and I am safer than anybody else is at 60.
If I get fined I am going to take things further.
Now here's something to get you thinking (for those still capable of independant thought): isn't it interesting how the roads with the highest average speeds have the lowest accident rates, and vice-versa? Doesn't this seem slightly at odds with the above "faster = dangerouser" mantra?
We talked about having no speed limits a while back. From the highway to the caravan park I just stayed at is a 28 km narrow but reasonably surfaced country road. Pretty long straights but very tight sections and some really good opening up corners with heaps of visibility. It has No speed limit signs, which really means 100, but not to me :D
The funny thing is, on the open bits, the average person would drive 80 to 90 kays. In the tight stuff they would get down to 50 or 60. Being a no speed limit road there are very few corner speed advisories, but people can work out the right speed to drive on their own.
Not me, I managed to average 140 in our 6 cylinder boat Fairlane- but I would have done that even if the limit was 60, so what possible benefit would a lower speed limit have had? 0 None Zip Nada.
PS Bold Underline beats bold italics every day.
I still don't understand why you're whinging like a little bitch.
If you're doing 60km/h than its about 16.6 metres per second. It will take you about 1.5 to 2 seconds to react, depending on how you drive it might be a little bit less for those left foot 'brakers'.
I cannot see any problem with where that camera is positioned, it would appear to me that there is a footpath on the side of where the car is parked. Footpaths means pedestrians that I am sure at some stage would want to cross the road.
I can also see drive ways on the opposite side of the road, people are obviously going to be pulling in and out of them to get to and from home.
Now, back to the speeding part. If you're for example doing 70km/h which is close to 20 metres per second and someone pulls out or into their drive way without any notice than you've already travelled nearly 4 metres BEFORE you've hit the brakes. Add the distance you need to stop and you could potentially run up the backside of another car or even worse, injure a pedestrian thats trying to cross the road.
If you rear end a car in ANY situation than YOU'RE at fault!
You don't even know what the speed camera was set at but you still decided to go out of your way and in my opinion look like a fucking whinging bitch on the forum.
Congratulations, keep up the good work!
:w:
BTW, is this you?
http://www.infctd.net/post/160X_ap_g20_bus_061118.jpg
i see youre a cop, so i guess i shouldnt be surprised that you decided to bless us with several fantastic traffic school cliches. great stuff. you didnt actually go on to make a point with any of it, but nevermind. as it happens, approaching that position in the photo i can see about 150-200m ahead which is plenty to avoid running afoul of stray cars, cats, kids and police radar.
i just have a strong moral objection to placing a revenue generating device at the bottom of the hill, a simple point which i thought i made abundently clear from my several posts on the subject. hill, radar. not really that hard to understand surely! however from the direct responses of a small pea-brained minority, including yourself, this would appear to be borderline transparent, apparently its much easier instead to meander off into a rant about whether myself or other people are able to maintain a certain speed or not, amongst other things. i can only offer, in future, the suggestion that you try and read the text rather than just looking at the pictures.
and save your condescending "there might be pedestrians here, there might be a car pulling out there" analysis, for someone who needs it. people might sit still for that sort of crap when youre holding someones licence and the lecturee is in fear of a ticket, but on here?.... go patronise someone else with your wisdom.
as for your efforts at maths, 16.6metres per second with 1.5-2 seconds reaction time and that somehow equals 4 metres? youre just a rare undiscovered talent arent you. im not going to bother with the rest of your rambling post, suffice to say youve come late into this thread and youre not gaining any ground.
and as for me being a fucking whining bitch, id like to mention that unlike many people on this forum, in all my encounters with police the officers in question have been 100% professional and courteous. youre the only exception to that so far... so in representing your chosen profession, keep up the good work.
Nice. You dont have to like the work or the politics, but leave that shit off here.
Take it easy, it was hardly meant to be offensive Dave. It is a fairly commonly used phase here and in the outside world. I can say without a doubt I've come across more pricks in the force than good blokes. In fact, good blokes = you, the bloke who gave me a ticket near Taree the Xmas before last and a female who pulled me over about 10 years ago. A lot of the rest could be better described as cunts than pigs.
Cal.
Now, back to the speeding part. If you're for example doing 70km/h which is close to 20 metres per second and someone pulls out or into their drive way without any notice than you've already travelled nearly 4 metres BEFORE you've hit the brakes. Add the distance you need to stop and you could potentially run up the backside of another car or even worse, injure a pedestrian thats trying to cross the road.
If you rear end a car in ANY situation than YOU'RE at fault!
This is a very poorly constructed argument. If you rear end a car, you were probably following too closely. Any driver in front of you usually can't brake significantly faster than you can (unless they have an Enzo and you have a Cortina), so if you are unable to react in time to stop, you were following too closely. Whether you were speeding or not makes no difference.
So what if i'm a cop? i am sure that my friends wouldnt give 2 shits if they saw a camera on the side of a road at the bottom of a hill and I sure as hell know they would turn around, take a photo and post it on the net!
as for your efforts at maths, 16.6metres per second with 1.5-2 seconds reaction time and that somehow equals 4 metres? youre just a rare undiscovered talent arent you. im not going to bother with the rest of your rambling post, suffice to say youve come late into this thread and youre not gaining any ground.
Re read what I wrote. I was comparing the speeds between 60 and 70km/h.
Rambling hey, I will say the same about you're reply. But if think that writing like that gives you an impression youre smart than go right ahead.
Admit you have no life and i'll leave it at that.
bigmuz,
your reaction time is quicker than aryton senna.
tremolo
23-01-07, 05:35 PM
RX20B: You are neither getting the point of the thread, nor doing the image of your profession any favours.
I do get the point of what he is saying but I do not agree with it.
Since when was I the spokes person of the police tremolo? I am expressing my opinion on what I think as a person, not as my occupation.
tremolo
23-01-07, 05:47 PM
The way you're expressing your opinion may just reaffirm people's beliefs that a certain proportion of Australian police officers are pricks.
Now, back to the speeding part. If you're for example doing 70km/h which is close to 20 metres per second and someone pulls out or into their drive way without any notice than you've already travelled nearly 4 metres BEFORE you've hit the brakes. Add the distance you need to stop and you could potentially run up the backside of another car or even worse, injure a pedestrian thats trying to cross the road.ok lets look at this bit specifically. 70kmh which is 19.4m/s give or take, 1.5-2 seconds reaction time thats between 29.1m and 38.8m travel before you hit the brakes, not 4. if you meant to say 4m is the difference between a 2 second delay braking at 60 and 70kmh then why didnt you fucking say that instead of the above.
im not doing my point of view (supposedly) any favours by correcting you but then i think that particular line of argument is largely irrelevant for the reasons others have pointed out.
policeman or not, youve come on here and expounded what is very much a knee-jerk reaction, quite fitting i guess because thats also what speed enforcement is.
If you rear end a car in ANY situation than YOU'RE at fault!
This proves yet again that you shouldn't believe anything you read on the Internet.
I work in the insurance industry - I have done so for a number of years in a number of capacities. It is quite common for claims to come up where the person who is rear-ended is at fault.
All it takes is an independent witness and/or an obvious accident scene. If the driver at the rear was driving in a reasonable manner and the actions of the vehicle in front caused the incident, then the blame falls squarely on the person who got rear ended.
Example 1:
I'm driving on a main road at 60km/h, when Chipper pulls out of Guido's mum's street right in front of me. Chipper drives off at only 10km/h as he is very tired after a wild night, and his Peugeot doesn't go any faster anyway.
While I am driving safely and within the law I am suddenly presented with a situation where I am closing on Chipper's car at 50km/h through no fault or oversight of my own. As I am an attentive driver, it takes me only 1 second to react to the situation, however with the distance provided I am unable to avoid the accident and run into Chipper's car.
Police interviews confirm the above situation. Excepting the fact that Chipper's Peugeot now looks better than it did before the accident, any damage caused is HIS fault.
Example 2:
Meanwhile, Tim510 has just left Chipper's mum's house. Tim510 is driving along a two lane road, when a set of lights ahead turn red. The smoky old 4WD in front of him doesn't get through the lights either, and Tim510 doesn't want to be stuck behind it.
Tim510 looks over his shoulder and notices that there's a big fuck-off 75,000lt Petrol tanker in the right hand lane. Doesn't matter though, as Tim can easily duck into the gap if he's quick.
Unfortunately the poor chap pulling $60k worth of explosive petroleum products doesn't quite have the stopping power of the Pulsar of Doom (TM). Tim510 darts into the gap as planned and coasts up to the set of lights, essentially halving the stopping distance of said Prime Mover.
Three square kilometres of town gets flattened by the explosion, however luckily noone is hurt and the independent witness in the smoky 4WD survives to recount the situation. Unfortunately Tim510's insurance company takes the hit because he caused the tanker to lose control.
But hey what would I know, I only deal with this stuff every day.
A lot of the rest could be better described as cunts than pigs.
It's often said that only a certain type of person becomes a copper... being a police officer is all about generalising and discriminating, with the full support of the law.
If I wasn't so completely disgusted by the bullshit that the Police force feeds us, and the poor conduct I've experienced and/or has been suffered by friends, then I'd almost be half inclined to consider it as a career path.
I've got plenty of ordinary situations I would tell you about, but let's not tarnish their shining reputation, shall we?
T0nyGTSt
23-01-07, 06:02 PM
the various opinions expressed by alleged law enforcement officers here does a disservice to their profession and to themselves personally
well done (cue golf clap)
guys, fwiw, can we have less police* bashing and more idiot* bashing.
(*open season in the single identified case where these are one and the same.)
thank you.
Billzilla
23-01-07, 06:12 PM
guys, fwiw, can we have less police* bashing and more idiot* bashing.
(*open season in the single identified case where these are one and the same.)
thank you.
The Mods support this proposal of giving the police less bashing and idiots more.
ok lets look at this bit specifically. 70kmh which is 19.4m/s give or take, 1.5-2 seconds reaction time thats between 29.1m and 38.8m travel before you hit the brakes, not 4. if you meant to say 4m is the difference between a 2 second delay braking at 60 and 70kmh then why didnt you fucking say that instead of the above.
im not doing my point of view (supposedly) any favours by correcting you but then i think that particular line of argument is largely irrelevant for the reasons others have pointed out.
policeman or not, youve come on here and expounded what is very much a knee-jerk reaction, quite fitting i guess because thats also what speed enforcement is.
I was comparing the difference between the two speeds in metres per second. Thanks for making that clearer.
If you don't speed than you do not have anything to worry about. It IS that simple, you cannot accuse the Government of revenue raising when you do not know why the camera car is there in the first place.
For all I know a number of people could have complained about car hoons speeding through that street at a specific time. Put a camera car there to PREVENT it from happening, bust the people that do it and keep the residents happy. Like I said, for all I know.
Shifty,
Example 1
Yeah, fair enough but I could say if you can make those observations than you must be pretty far behind the car and have enough time to stop and if he pulled out when you were that close to him than you wouldnt run into the rear of this car.
Example 2
A professional driver should know how long it takes to pull his truck up and drive to the conditions and prevent this from happening.
If you don't speed than you do not have anything to worry about. It IS that simple, you cannot accuse the Government of revenue raising when you do not know why the camera car is there in the first place.
For all I know a number of people could have complained about car hoons speeding through that street at a specific time. Put a camera car there to PREVENT it from happening, bust the people that do it and keep the residents happy. Like I said, for all I know.
Does that EVER happen? Aren't they usually just put where they make the most money? If THAT many people are "speeding" in a certain area ("hoons" aside), wouldn't you think that maybe the speed limit was set incorrectly? I certainly would.
Show me some unbiased stats that show that speed cameras have EVER saved lives and i'll think about actually caring about what the speed limit is, which I currently don't because i'd rather pay attention to the road.
Yes it DOES happen. HWP at The Rocks always get people drag racing on Hickson Road, they are there because people complain about loud exhausts and music.
I wouldn't think that it was set incorrectly I would think that people aren't paying attention.
tandy ass
23-01-07, 06:44 PM
If you don't speed than you do not have anything to worry about. It IS that simple, you cannot accuse the Government of revenue raising when you do not know why the camera car is there in the first place.
You would make a great priest. An excellent ability to believe bullshit and proud to share it with people who know better.
T0nyGTSt
23-01-07, 06:47 PM
i suppose swedes infesting the Rocks and the footage ending up on aca/tt has nothing to do with it
sure it happens - esp. on that quiet stretch of road in the photo
Oh, sorry guys. I didn't realise you are there 24/7 to really know what goes on.
The Mods support this proposal of giving the police less bashing and idiots more.
I agree.
Except for RX20B who is a knob and not like any of the cops that I would have thought would hang out on a performance car forum.
Shifty,
Example 1
Yeah, fair enough but I could say if you can make those observations than you must be pretty far behind the car and have enough time to stop and if he pulled out when you were that close to him than you wouldnt run into the rear of this car.
Example 2
A professional driver should know how long it takes to pull his truck up and drive to the conditions and prevent this from happening.
Example 1:
I don't follow anything you said after the 'but'... with all those details I was just setting the scene. Car pulled out, I was on the brakes in one second, still couldn't stop in time. Simple. No but. Simple.
Example 2:
You're an idiot. Read it again. In the scenario, the truck was stopping for the light that had gone red, and the car in the left lane ducked in front of him and therefore reduced the braking distance that this 'professional driver' had allowed. In a situation where you allow x metres to stop, and some tosspot jumps in to the middle of that gap from another lane at a much lower speed and slams on the brakes, and your stopping distance is therefore half of what you had safely allowed, THEN THAT IS NOT YOUR FAULT.
'Drive to the conditions'!?!?!!?!?!? Uneducated, brainwashed bullshit. Think it out again, you've just been fed a line that you've learned to regurgitate. Use your own brain, assuming it's not been disabled chemically or by means of an operation.
"Slid out cornering too fast in the rain" is affected by driving to the conditions. "Wanker cut me off" is NOT.
Aaaaaaaaargh this is a prime example of why we can't win with you people. We can have a completely clear statement and then you put it through the "I'm right and you're wrong"-o-meter and manage to convince yourself that our story is bullshit.
asuirthq037y tn40a7 wvbadsfg04
argh
xfjghno
end rant.
Don't bother mate.
By his reasoning we should travel at a speed where if a car crosses the centre line into our lane we are able to stop in time.
Forget about him.
By his reasoning we should travel at a speed where if a car crosses the centre line into our lane we are able to stop in time.
...and smack it into reverse to completely avoid an impact.
And of course the guy behind me should be following far enough back that I don't hit him while I'm reversing at 60km/h to avoid the guy on my side of the road.
Ya see, now you're getting it. It wasn't that hard was it?
bigmuz, whats the go with the chip on your shoulder?
Shifty,
So every truck driver drives to 100% of his trucks ability and does not allow for any error at all? A car that is probably no more than 4 metres long caused some catestrophic accident hey?
Me > you.
you're fucking doing it again.
jesus.
I am a staunch defender of police on this forum, and you are making that a difficult job. Maybe stop posting because you are coming off like someone who hasn't grasped the basics because they are so full of their own sense of authority.
I'm arguing a point that has nothing to do with you. If you don't like what I type either dont reply or ban me. Simple!
Maybe stop posting because you are coming off like someone who hasn't grasped the basics because they are so full of their own sense of authority.
RX20b
What part of this quote don't you fucking get? If ever there was some good advice on this forum for you, this is it. And taunting a mod to get banned is really mature of you also.
J
sure it happens - esp. on that quiet stretch of road in the photo
Tony, the stretch of road in the photo is quite a busy road. It is the major artirial road the the suburb of Chelmer from Oxly (Ipswich Motorway) to Indooroopilly (into the city).
http://sgp3whereismap.whereis.com.au/gns/sgpapi9-ZYF1ER-1169544224334.gif
The intersection you can see in the picture (Behind the Speed Camera Van) is Chelmer Street East. The van is facing south. It is a residential street with a train line on one side and houses/units on the other side. The suburb, and that area is mainly full of older people and young professionals.
The van is actually facing up hill so it is taking photos of vehicles travelling from behind from north to south (running uphill if you like) as well as anyone coming south to north.
The camera van is the red square. North is to the top of the photo.
http://www.dcr62.net/Chelmer.jpg
I was in traffic about 15 years ago and this was a black spot enforcement area then, before camera's.
Maybe this makes the picture a little better to understamd. I say understand, not agree with.
Shifty,
So every truck driver drives to 100% of his trucks ability and does not allow for any error at all? A car that is probably no more than 4 metres long caused some catestrophic accident hey?
THINK ABOUT IT.
As it is, an articulated vehicle of 70 tonnes is absolutely flat out stopping legally for an orange light. They really do have to be on the ball... if you have ummed and ahhed on a borderline light before while driving a car (we all have at some stage I'm sure) then try that with an extra 68T behind you and see how much stopping distance you have left by the time you take than half a second or so to process whether going or stopping is the right decision.
Then, stick some wanker in the middle of the stopping distance you thought you had.
The car does not spontaneously materialise right up at the stop line and take only 4 metres off the stopping distance. The car darts into the middle a gap of say 30 metres, at a speed lower than the truck, and gets straight on the brakes. It's a common complaint with the truckies I speak to (and that is the core of my role, dealing with heavy transport operations) and a lot of trucks now are actually starting to carry signs saying 'allow trucks extra stopping distance when changing lanes' with a little graphic to that effect, alongside the "do not overtake turning vehicle" signs.
Me > you.
This is not about who is better than who, it's about the fact that you're blind and I could say that black is black and you would no doubt say that it was white, or a darker shade of grey.
This ties back to my comment about a certain type of person becoming a police officer. It really is sad that you need to take on that type of role to pump up your ego and prove how much better you are than the rest of society. If you've got a problem with it then I've been hearing a lot of ads on the radio about painless nasal delivery treatments...
You're just cut off from reality and stuck in the "I'm right" bubble. I'm happy to say I'm wrong when I am and it's been pointed out... but mate you're as dumb as a box of hammers and completely oblivious of the fact.
You're ruining this thread by being sensible DCR. Cut it out.
In fact I'm ready to call bullshit on rx20b even being a cop.
Troll alert is on full power.
Billzilla
23-01-07, 07:58 PM
Well that's it, I'm never driving again it all sounds too dangerous.
I'm walking and I know I'm safe because Harold is looking after me.
THINK ABOUT IT.
As it is, an articulated vehicle of 70 tonnes is absolutely flat out stopping legally for an orange light. They really do have to be on the ball... if you have ummed and ahhed on a borderline light before while driving a car (we all have at some stage I'm sure) then try that with an extra 68T behind you and see how much stopping distance you have left by the time you take than half a second or so to process whether going or stopping is the right decision.
Then, stick some wanker in the middle of the stopping distance you thought you had.
The car does not spontaneously materialise right up at the stop line and take only 4 metres off the stopping distance. The car darts into the middle a gap of say 30 metres, at a speed lower than the truck, and gets straight on the brakes. It's a common complaint with the truckies I speak to (and that is the core of my role, dealing with heavy transport operations) and a lot of trucks now are actually starting to carry signs saying 'allow trucks extra stopping distance when changing lanes' with a little graphic to that effect, alongside the "do not overtake turning vehicle" signs.
This is not about who is better than who, it's about the fact that you're blind and I could say that black is black and you would no doubt say that it was white, or a darker shade of grey.
This ties back to my comment about a certain type of person becoming a police officer. It really is sad that you need to take on that type of role to pump up your ego and prove how much better you are than the rest of society. If you've got a problem with it then I've been hearing a lot of ads on the radio about painless nasal delivery treatments...
You're just cut off from reality and stuck in the "I'm right" bubble. I'm happy to say I'm wrong when I am and it's been pointed out... but mate you're as dumb as a box of hammers and completely oblivious of the fact.
I did think about it.
In the scenario you gave there were only 2 cars in front. I am sure a truck of all vehicles would have a better view of what is in front of them as they are much higher than an ordinary 'sedan'.
My point was, why was he driving to 100% of the trucks ability and did not take into consideration that one or both cars may change lanes? Ideally he would have been driving much less and would have been able to brake more or sound the horn!
Why are you failing to see this point that I have now raised for the second time?
It doesn't matter if its a mini or a road train as the same principle applies! If you drive to 100% of the cars ability than you should expect something negative to happen when a situation arrises.
John,
Thanks for your 2 cents, i'll put it in my bank account.
Do you really think I give a shit if I get banned? Look at my thread count, what 82 posts in 3 years? You must be kidding yourself if you think I care about being banned or not. I do not know anyone from this site and have no intention in meeting anyone let along speaking with any of them.
Am I late for the gangbang?????
No mate, you're just in time.
Do they even do psychological testing of people who want to be cops any more?
T0nyGTSt
23-01-07, 08:07 PM
Do they even do psychological testing of people who want to be cops any more?
i'd go as far as to say that certain characters here are definitely not representative of the police force in general.,,, here, QLD or NZ or anywhere
I had wondered if I had mistakenly wandered into offtopic.com because I am sure that we are all swayed by the "me > bigmuz" type arguments!!!111
Why yes I believe they do
MartyXF
23-01-07, 08:09 PM
He is not a cop.
I thought I had better post one of the pms I just received about our mate here after I suggested maybe he isn't a cop;
Oh he's a cop alright
AND THE WORLDS BIGGEST COCK
Mate, you'd better take a bit of a look at yourself and the impression you are making amongst your fellow police, and the wider community. You sound like a young bloke who is full of the first taste of authority. We all love it, don't get us wrong.
But you need to earn respect and authority, and the way you are going about things you will never ever get there.
PS You're never getting banned. That would be criminal.
I did think about it.
Sorry for the mental anguish.
In the scenario you gave there were only 2 cars in front. I am sure a truck of all vehicles would have a better view of what is in front of them as they are much higher than an ordinary 'sedan'.
Absolutely, a truck has a great view. He can see clearly that there's an empty lane in front of him, and two cars to his left. That's it.
My point was, why was he driving to 100% of the trucks ability and did not take into consideration that one or both cars may change lanes? Ideally he would have been driving much less and would have been able to brake more or sound the horn!
He was driving at the posted speed limit with a perfectly clear road ahead of him. The light goes orange and he makes the decision to stop as there is enough room to do so safely. You can take all reasonable precautions but at the end of the day if someone cuts you off you have no control over that. If what you are saying is the correct action, you would NEVER drive past another car EVER because there is that chance they could be a toss and change across in front of you. Not practical and can not be applied to a real life situation. Can you imagine the road system if you weren't allowed to drive past another car on a two-lane road?
You can dro pa few k's and cover your brakes when approaching intersections, stuff like that, but at the end of the day no matter how careful you are some numpty who is driving "safely" (because they're at the speed limit) can still be negligent or drive without due care, causing you an accident. That is not YOUR fault.
Why are you failing to see this point that I have now raised for the second time?
You're fighting a losing battle kiddo.
It doesn't matter if its a mini or a road train as the same principle applies! If you drive to 100% of the cars ability than you should expect something negative to happen when a situation arrises.
Going around in circles. Imaginary truck driver in said scenario got cut off by someone. It's not his fault the other guy is attempting to become a victim of natural selection.
womblesti
23-01-07, 08:21 PM
I did think about it.
I doubt it
It doesn't matter if its a mini or a road train as the same principle applies! If you drive to 100% of the cars ability than you should expect something negative to happen when a situation arrises.
See that's your problem, you're assuming that the total available stopping distance was 100% of the braking ability. Let's just assume that the trucky was using 70% of the braking ability to stop for a red light. If a car cuts in front and then slows dramatically as many half asleep 'normal' motorists do his braking distance may be halved, resulting in a crash.
If you are a member of the police force, your attitude is a good example of the 'holier than thou' few that unfortunately taints the general populations perceptions of the force.
Cheers
You're TOTALLY missing my point.
Of course he had no control over what the other driver did but if he wasn't driving to 100% of the trucks ability than he could have prevented it. It would appear to me that everyone drives to their fullest ability and has no room for error.
Then again, your situation was made up so you may as well continue making up excuses to try disprove my point.
I doubt it
See that's your problem, you're assuming that the total available stopping distance was 100% of the braking ability. Let's just assume that the trucky was using 70% of the braking ability to stop for a red light. If a car cuts in front and then slows dramatically as many half asleep 'normal' motorists do his braking distance may be halved, resulting in a crash.
If you are a member of the police force, your attitude is a good example of the 'holier than thou' few that unfortunately taints the general populations perceptions of the force.
Cheers
Thats right, I am assuming because he hasn't stated otherwise!
If he was driving at 70% and saw this than he would be apply to apply more brakes and maybe stop in time!
FMD!
Billzilla
23-01-07, 08:33 PM
Okay enough of the examples thanks guys, consider your point(s) made.
Move along.
Thats right, I am assuming because he hasn't stated otherwise!
If he was driving at 70% and saw this than he would be apply to apply more brakes and maybe stop in time!
FMD!
70% of what? Legal speed. So if you drive at 42 kays you are safe.
Is that how simple you think it is?
T0nyGTSt
23-01-07, 08:39 PM
arguing hypotheticals ftl
'oh, you didn't say that so I assumed this, so therefore ME > YOU'
top stuff
ken2903
23-01-07, 08:48 PM
this is fucking priceless.
Is this thread still going?
Braking ability, which is what i've stated in my previous post.
Just as well you jumped on the bandwagon while it wasnt full tonygtst.
tremolo
23-01-07, 09:01 PM
RX20B - if this bandwagon you speak of was travelling at 42.43m/s and it swerves in front of the truck doing 41.9mph next to a yellow car going 55km/h over the speed limit (which is 60km/h), which will stop first? And who's in the wrong? (assuming a 1.2sec reaction time at 70% maximum braking pressure with 4 tyres of unequal pressure). What charges would you recommend for the yellow car?
Please consult your police manual and advise.
I was gonna stay out of this but WTF.
If a truck takes 40m to stop from 80kmh at 100% braking capability and something jumps into that 40m it is gonna get hit whether the truck was braking at 70 or 100% prior to said intrusion. To say that you are in the wrong if you rear end a car in "ANY" situation is incorrect.
HTH
BTW, I will debate this not. As people know I'm a cop, whether I think it or not, people will take my comments as a cop not as a normal person.
Frankily, I've given up. Who gives a fuck. I drove 20% under the speed limit all day today and saw 4 near misses caused by me travelling below the speed limit. This after I got an offence this morning that happened when I was only travelling at 20kph, caused by someone else doing 5kph. Nothing will change the government's mind for two reasons: money and lack of benefit within the election period. Therefore the bullshit is spun and fed to the general public, who, lets face it are on the whole pretty fucking gullible.
I give up. People will die. As long as it's not me then to hell with it all. Speed kills. ra ra ra. Carry on.
[/bitterandtwisted]
But if a truck started to brake at 70% capacity to come to rest at say a stop line then if a car pulled out in front of him than he would be able to apply more brakes to stop sooner that the said stop line.
Agree?
But if a truck started to brake at 70% capacity to come to rest at say a stop line then if a car pulled out in front of him than he would be able to apply more brakes to stop sooner that the said stop line.
Agree?
how does the driver know it's at 70%? How does he know how much he has left? It's never taught or trained.
RX20B - if this bandwagon you speak of was travelling at 42.43m/s and it swerves in front of the truck doing 41.9mph next to a yellow car going 55km/h over the speed limit (which is 60km/h), which will stop first? And who's in the wrong? (assuming a 1.2sec reaction time at 70% maximum braking pressure with 4 tyres of unequal pressure). What charges would you recommend for the yellow car?
Please consult your police manual and advise.
Dangerous Driving.
According to what you've written none have been involved in an accident.
how does the driver know it's at 70%? How does he know how much he has left? It's never taught or trained.
So its gained with experience right?
So an experienced driver will know roughtly how much pressure to apply to the brake pedal to stop his vehicle in any distance?
So its gained with experience right?
So an experienced driver will know roughtly how much pressure to apply to the brake pedal to stop his vehicle in any distance?
what experience? if you've never locked the brakes up, you will never know what it takes to do so. Are you advocating people learning this by experience on a public road? naughty naughty! thats neg driving! :)
Yeah, thats right. Just assume with what I meant.
ken2903
23-01-07, 09:24 PM
BTW, I will debate this not. As people know I'm a cop, whether I think it or not, people will take my comments as a cop not as a normal person.
some people would but not everyone. i dont give a fuck what people do for a living.
So its gained with experience right?
Like a few professions.....
This is like a truck crash.....I can't help but post
Surely you're not suggesting.....probie? :lol:
Why?
A speed of over 55km/h would be dangerous to other traffic which may or may not be using the road at the time of the offence but would otherwise be expected to be on.
I'm off (for good!)
The truck driver is in the wrong.
L8er NWA
I just realised i'm wrong so i'm leaving (for good!)
The truck driver is in the wrong. Yes, my two braincells are fighting right now.
L8er NWA
Fixed.
Oh thank fuck that's over
70% blah blah 70% blah blah 70% blah blah
http://www.infctd.net/post/stfuyoumust.gif
RX20B - if this bandwagon you speak of was travelling at 42.43m/s and it swerves in front of the truck doing 41.9mph next to a yellow car going 55km/h over the speed limit (which is 60km/h), which will stop first? And who's in the wrong? (assuming a 1.2sec reaction time at 70% maximum braking pressure with 4 tyres of unequal pressure). What charges would you recommend for the yellow car?
Is it an african or european swallow?
Thanks for your considered, rational contribution to the discussion at hand.
Sure you can keep a reasonably constant speed without looking at the speedo all the time, but when the allowable margin is less than 5km/h and you're in a car specifically designed to insulate the occupants from all road noise/vibrations/whatever, there's no possible way you can do it with that much accuracy. I don't have a problem in my Supra, but in the Century it just can't be done - hence constantly taking my eyes off the road to check my speed. Anything which takes my attention off the road, even if it's only for a brief moment every 15-20 seconds, decreases my situational awareness. Most sensible people would agree this isn't an especially good thing in terms of road safety.
But at least I'm not exceeding the speed by 5km/h, so I should be safe as houses.
Do you regularly check your mirrors? It's no different. It's quite easy to keep your speed within a 5km/h tolerance with a quiet car. You simply need to be a bit lighter on the accelerator. So you've got the bare minimum to maintain speed once you do that it really isn't that hard and as a bonus you'll find your economy improves.
If you can't do it safely then you shouldn't be driving.
Rusty : That Yoda photochop is brilliant.
kwottr0
24-01-07, 05:31 AM
I'm off (for good!)
Not fair ! He broke before I even discovered this thread. :(
tandy ass
24-01-07, 05:35 AM
What's frightening is RX20B isn't even a Victorian tax collector and believes the vomit he spews.
Oh, BTW, the victorian revenue camera operations have been privatised. I've read many reports that the company operating the cameras (Tenix) receive bonuses based on how many extra photos they take above average.
They are also subject to large amounts of violent abuse from members of the public. Many of these clowns operating the greed camera's are completely unable to add up a monetary amount of their days work and how much pain and suffering it causes the public, let alone how much damage they're doing to road safety. The greed camera cars are now being outfitted with 360 degree video surveillance to catch anyone attempting to throw bricks/bits of metal/elephants at the cars and to record and prosecute any pedestrians who abuse the operators.
Suck shit to the operators - If they had half a clue they'd be in a real job, I associate these operators to a similar level of scum as car and house theives.
tandy ass
24-01-07, 05:37 AM
Do you regularly check your mirrors? It's no different. It's quite easy to keep your speed within a 5km/h tolerance with a quiet car. You simply need to be a bit lighter on the accelerator. So you've got the bare minimum to maintain speed once you do that it really isn't that hard and as a bonus you'll find your economy improves.
If you can't do it safely then you shouldn't be driving.
Rusty : That Yoda photochop is brilliant.
Ze answer me this:
Which is more important, checking your mirrors or your speed?
Ze answer me this:
Which is more important, checking your mirrors or your speed?
They are both important. It doesn't take long to do either and both should be regularly done. When you check your speed you should also check your other gauges and warning lights.
I haven't had a lot of experience driving (I'm a p-plater (albeit a 24 year old one)) but even i can do it , so i would expect that someone with far more experience could do it.
Thanks for the laugh fellas...
I'm off (for good!)
Fuck I'm all misty eyed. He did however add one more to the long list of wankers I've come across in the profession. People like him don't do the good ones any favours. It really is a shame for the others on PF.
Cal.
FWIW, the ADR rules on how accurate a speedo has to be ->
18.5. SPEEDOMETERS AND ODOMETERS (ALL VEHICLES)
18.5.1. Speedometers
18.5.1.1. Unless otherwise 'Approved', every vehicle shall be fitted with a speedometer which shall:
18.5.1.1.1. indicate vehicle speed only in kilometres per hour and
18.5.1.1.2. indicate the actual vehicle speed, for all speeds above 40 km/h, to an accuracy of ± 10 percent
18.5.1.2. The speedometer shall be installed so that its indication is readily visible to the driver when seated in the normal driving position.
So if you can prove that you were doing the correct speed on your speedo, but the car was really going faster (within that 10%) then you are legal.
I hear that the ADR's are about to change though.
I think they already have, during last year. They can read 10% over, but not under.
They are both important. It doesn't take long to do either and both should be regularly done. When you check your speed you should also check your other gauges and warning lights.
I haven't had a lot of experience driving (I'm a p-plater (albeit a 24 year old one)) but even i can do it , so i would expect that someone with far more experience could do it.
just what we need, another driver with their nose buried in the dashboard. the important shit is going on outside, sooner everyone realises that the better. being a p-plater probably explains the regurgitated nanny-state logic, being that its still fresh. i know i always check temp, fuel gauges and warning lights at least 10 times on every trip, NOT. flashing warning lights stand out, they dont require checking, what is far more important is to check your tire pressures regularly, and to do a test-brake when it rains (in an obstacle free zone) to calibrate your feel for available grip. that actually IS worthwhile.
It's quite easy to keep your speed within a 5km/h tolerance with a quiet car. You simply need to be a bit lighter on the accelerator. So you've got the bare minimum to maintain speed once you do that it really isn't that hard and as a bonus you'll find your economy improves.
Maybe you should come back when you actually know what you're talking about; it's pretty obvious you've never driven a car like mine which completely insulates you from the outside world. Thanks for your lecture on throttle control, but do you think I'm driving around in my 2 tonne barge with the throttle nailed all the time? Even with a steady throttle input your speed varies all the time, so constant adjustments are needed if you want to stay at exactly the same speed. How do you do this if there is no noise, no vibration, no nothing? Oh yeah, you have to look at the speedo.
I haven't had a lot of experience driving (I'm a p-plater (albeit a 24 year old one)) but even i can do it , so i would expect that someone with far more experience could do it.
For what it's worth, I've been driving for nearly 14 years and have likely done 10 times more kilometres on the road as you have. If you really think you possess some amazing skillz which I lack, think again. :rolleyes:
T0nyGTSt
24-01-07, 11:34 AM
For what it's worth, I've been driving for nearly 14 years and have likely done 10 times more kilometres on the road as you have. If you really think you possess some amazing skillz which I lack, think again.
haven't you heard? 24 y.o. P platers are the font of all knowledge.
You've heard of teenager P platers 'knowing everything'... well at 24 I reckon they go it down pat.
Not even worth the wasted electrons.
my aunty was a 40+ P plater. I still got her for shit wrong......
If I had the skills I'd make this truck simulation scenario for demonstration. Its amazing that someone like RX-20B can function day to day.
stupid_cunt
24-01-07, 02:07 PM
Its amazing that someone like RX-20B can function day to day.
Was just thinking that, in which case he'd go real well on boostloosing :knock:
tandy ass
24-01-07, 04:39 PM
They are both important. It doesn't take long to do either and both should be regularly done. When you check your speed you should also check your other gauges and warning lights.
I haven't had a lot of experience driving (I'm a p-plater (albeit a 24 year old one)) but even i can do it , so i would expect that someone with far more experience could do it.
Sorry, I dont think I made myself clear enough. I'll repeat with emphasis this time:
Which is more important, checking your mirrors or your speed?
Well anyway I'm spent, time to roll over and fall asleep.
Night fellas :D
Maybe you should come back when you actually know what you're talking about; it's pretty obvious you've never driven a car like mine which completely insulates you from the outside world. Thanks for your lecture on throttle control, but do you think I'm driving around in my 2 tonne barge with the throttle nailed all the time? Even with a steady throttle input your speed varies all the time, so constant adjustments are needed if you want to stay at exactly the same speed. How do you do this if there is no noise, no vibration, no nothing? Oh yeah, you have to look at the speedo.
How the fuck do you know which cars I've driven? I've driven quite a few quiet cars. My BMW is reasonably quiet especially with the airconditioning on. I've driven my old man's merc and my mums subaru (bloody electronic throttle). I even payed a bit more attention to my speedo today when driving home and funnily enough when I'm looking at the speedo I can still see the road through the windscreen. I don't agree with Victoria's speed tolerance but i have no problem with the rest of Australia's tolerance.
For what it's worth, I've been driving for nearly 14 years and have likely done 10 times more kilometres on the road as you have. If you really think you possess some amazing skillz which I lack, think again. :rolleyes:
Maybe you are just too lazy and too used to your old habits to be bothered changing? ever thought of that?
just what we need, another driver with their nose buried in the dashboard. the important shit is going on outside, sooner everyone realises that the better. being a p-plater probably explains the regurgitated nanny-state logic, being that its still fresh.
I pay a bloody lot of attention to whats happening around me because i know how many shitty drivers there are on the road. I know I'm not gods gift to driving I just wish a lot of people realised they weren't either.
i know i always check temp, fuel gauges and warning lights at least 10 times on every trip, NOT. flashing warning lights stand out, they dont require checking,
It doesn't take much to check them funnily enough i can still the the road when i check them and i pick the right time to do it. When i can clearly see ahead and I've got plenty of room around me so even if my attention is diverted for a second It's still not dangerous.
what is far more important is to check your tire pressures regularly, and to do a test-brake when it rains (in an obstacle free zone) to calibrate your feel for available grip. that actually IS worthwhile.
I do both regularly.
Sorry, I dont think I made myself clear enough. I'll repeat with emphasis this time:
Which is more important, checking your mirrors or your speed?
It's easily your mirrors. I'd rather cop a speeding fine than have an accident.
Which is more important, checking your mirrors or your speed?It's easily your mirrors. I'd rather cop a speeding fine than have an accident.i think that sums up the issue pretty well right there, whether you intended it to or not ..
Anabolic
25-01-07, 07:05 AM
I'd say a competent driver should be able to keep track of both to a degree where neither an accident, nor a speeding ticket would be an occurance.
How the fuck do you know which cars I've driven?
Your complete failure to grasp what I'm talking about was the first clue.
Maybe you are just too lazy and too used to your old habits to be bothered changing? ever thought of that?
Not really, because my habits HAVE changed out of necessity. I'm just saying I'm pissed off I have to do this, at the expense of good driving technique.
I pay a bloody lot of attention to whats happening around me because i know how many shitty drivers there are on the road.
Damn straight, which is why I'd like to spend more time looking out for them and less time checking my damn speed. :rolleyes:
It's easily your mirrors. I'd rather cop a speeding fine than have an accident.
This sentence seems strangely at odds with what you've been saying until now...
It's easily your mirrors. I'd rather cop a speeding fine than have an accident.
Ummm, doesn't that debunk your whole argument?
tinkerbell
25-01-07, 12:55 PM
I think they already have, during last year. They can read 10% over, but not under.
see signature... :yup:
Ummm, doesn't that debunk your whole argument?
I tend to agree that a 250 dollar fine is better than potentially killing someone, but the point is you are being punished for being safe ( if you were checking your mirrors instead of speed) sure its a very rare occurence, but if it were to happen it would suck a fat one...
maybe the rx20b guy should run for prime minister..
Perhaps HWY patrolcops would be more useful to the public if they spent their day washing road signs, glueing reflective markers to the road, painting white lines and fixing pot holes?
Or just cleaning windscreens for the general public? That'd be safer.
How come you guys have them doing biatch work and I get BBQ'ed for using the term "pig"? :huh:
Cal.
You can go wash a windscreen, Fuckwit!
* What part of that sentence is offensive????
** I, in no way, think that Cal is a Fuckwit. I used that as an example. I'd like to offer my deepest apologies to Cal if he takes it as a personal attack. I don't roll that way....
Hmmm, noticed a few car crash TV reports lately mentioning they were 'speed related'. Now WTF does that mean? Doublespeak misinformation from the police media unit regurgitated by the lazy media?
I'd say a competent driver should be able to keep track of both to a degree where neither an accident, nor a speeding ticket would be an occurance.
I agree and thats been my whole point.
Ummm, doesn't that debunk your whole argument?
If i was in a situation where i had the choice of checking my mirrors or my speedo , I'd check my mirrors but that is a very rare situation.
Not really, because my habits HAVE changed out of necessity. I'm just saying I'm pissed off I have to do this, at the expense of good driving technique.
You've got to be a joking a good driver is aware of whats around and what their gauges say. Can you look at your speedo and see out the front windscreen because i know i can?
I don't have the radio on purely because its a distraction and I like to hear whats going on around me.
T0nyGTSt
25-01-07, 07:04 PM
Hmmm, noticed a few car crash TV reports lately mentioning they were 'speed related'. Now WTF does that mean? Doublespeak misinformation from the police media unit regurgitated by the lazy media?
the car was moving therefore at speed, therefore the accident was 'speed related'
Bill Surewood
25-01-07, 09:19 PM
..:gay: rusty:gay: rusty:gay: .
:gay: :gay: :gay: :gay: :gay:
You've got to be a joking a good driver is aware of whats around and what their gauges say. Can you look at your speedo and see out the front windscreen because i know i can?
zomg really?? I bow before your superior driving skills then. :rolleyes:
Seriously though, this is a waste of time and I'm done.
You can go wash a windscreen, Fuckwit!
* What part of that sentence is offensive????
** I, in no way, think that Cal is a Fuckwit. I used that as an example. I'd like to offer my deepest apologies to Cal if he takes it as a personal attack. I don't roll that way....
Huh?
Cal.
Peter...
27-01-07, 12:23 PM
Ref the "all cops is cunts" attitude, I mustard mit, all the police I have dealt with who WEREN'T HWP were very nice people, and very helpful. HWP on the other hand have, without exception, been arseholes. I have, as such, resolved to not say a damn thing to the next HWP copper that pulls me over. Its not worth it.
As an aside, In my job I deal regularly with big business, Govt offices, TAFE etc, and the only one I used to dread was a certain TAFE campus, because one of the security guards there was an overbearing, authoritarian, lecturing jerkoff, who did his level damndest to make you feel stupid and unwanted. Went back there the other day, fearing the worst, when a different guard bowls up. Nice bloke, got to chatting, he showed me where my jobs were and happily escorted me around the place. Anyway, I found out that he didn't like cunto the stormtrooper either, it turns out no-one did, and that morning had been his last shift as he was leaving. Guess what he was leaving for? Because he wanted to be Highway Patrol...
I withdraw my comment previously.
Anyone that runs into the back of someone will always be at fault whilst they are driving behind them. (not taking into account T intersections)
You cannot issue the driver that got hit with any infringement to put them to blame.
That is all.
:)
---------------------------
Fuck... didn't you learn the first time ???
Pool room'd !!
vBulletin® v3.6.7, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.