Home   >   Your Say Tuesday June 3, 2003    

    Your Say

The Bracks Government's crackdown on speeding motorists has resulted in a significant boost in revenue.

Is this merely revenue raising or a worthy attempt to limit road accidents? What do you think?

This topic is now closed - this is what you said.

Roll on improved public transport for Victoria, paid for by speed camera revenue and patronised by those who don't wish to participate in the pay and pay again system of private car ownership.

Mr Walker

The speed limits are completely arbitrary. As has been pointed out, anything over a walking pace can kill. That doesn't mean we should all walk everywhere! You can kill at 100kph just as easily as at 110kph.

As someone living in the country, I'd like to point something else out - making everyone drive 10, 15kph slower means considerable extra time on the road on long trips, increasing driver fatigue. Providing that drivers drive according to the conditions (ie, slow down around corners, in the wet etc), I would suggest it's better to get drivers to their destination and off the road quicker.

The driving conditions at the time the person is driving determine what's a safe speed - not a fixed speed sign, and certainly not a speed camera.

6 hours from melbourne by car

In response to the actual question raised by the article; YES it is revenue raising. But the interesting thing is that this article has inspired all these idiots into trying to justify their own law-breaking. Stick to the speed limit you morons!!

Mike D

There's nothing so self-righteous as a motorist who wants the chance to break the law and get away scot-free. So tell me folks, which part of the numbers 50, 60, 80, 100 and 110 don't you understand? Didn't your Grade Prep teacher do her job properly!?

Maybe Sesame Street could do a special episode for Victoria's drivers...
"Today's show is brought to you by the numbers 63 and 125 (dollars, that is)"

Speeding fines are VOLUNTARY taxes

The Bracks Government is definately revenue raising. Instead of watching the roads and motorists to avoid accident hazards such as sending reckless drivers to education facilities or simply removing their licences, repairing roads in a timely fashion so that it is safe to drive on them even whilst driving the speed limit, they are in turn focused on speeding. Yes speeding is illegal, however speeding on it's own, singled out as it is, is not a major contributor to accidents.

I feel that if the government is thoroughly concerned with road safety in Victoria thye would send out the expects examine the roads and more improtantly the motorists that are in it. I have been in a situation where what I wouls call a deranged motorist was driving in front of me looking for an accident. The only thing that save me from an accident was that was smart enough to keep me distance as he continued to slam his brakes on in front of me. It didn't matter that I was crawling at 30 km an hour behind the motorist, I still would've sustained as much front end damage as I would have if I was driving at the limit which was 60km/h. We must look towards the real contributor to accidents, and that is people themselves.


Michael Cartmel suggested "Speed cameras simply capture the number plate and speed of all vehicles that pass, and then the average speed for each vehicle is checked over say 5 readings. If a vehicle travels over the speed-limit on average then a fine is issued. An instant fine is issued if any single reading is 15kms over the limit. Wouldn't this be a fairer system?"

Then the government would have to spend on calculators. Then millions more on training them to use it.

Tolerence limit should be 10 percent and certain highways or freeways to travel interstate should be raise up to 120 to 130 kmh.


I like it when morons pay my taxes too. Just keep speeding you high filuted tossers, we need more cops where I live.

Suckers pay all the way

wow, the sppeders get stupider... it seems a common theme in the "i have a right to drive dangerously" camp that people driving under the speed limit "cause road rage" in other drivers. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but the only people causing the rage are those experiencing it. Calm down, breath deeply and DEAL WITH IT!

duncan cumming

Kent, you are a fool. The vast majority of Speedos are calibrated on the safe side, the rest need to be fixed - no one claims to have a zero tolerance sppedo. The cops give you 3k's, the car manufacturers give you about 4-5%. If you are speeding you should either know about by reading your instruments or you shouldn't have driver's licence.

Enough with the Cretins

Dear 'Try Thinking - It may help', if that's your real name your parents were very mean.

Don't despair at the apparent lack of brains in the Australian community. It is precisely this stupidity that allows those with average (by world standards) intelligence to prosper so well - Just imagine if everyone was smart - there'd be no poker machine, tobacco and speeding revenues - then us smarties would have to pay more tax to get the same level of service out of the government. That would suck.

I like it when the less intelligent people pay for my stuff

Hey 'Never been Fined', I don't care how many awards your car wins, if the speedo says your gowing slower than you actually are then take it up with the judges who give out the awards or get your instruments calibrated.

And to 'i hate 4WD's, I enjoy driving my 2 tonne, bull bar equipped behemoth 2-3 k's below the speed limit in 50 zones near speed cameras and watch all you impatient losers zoom past at $200 a pop.



To Try Thinking It May Help. I am one of those "whingers" & "wankers" who is complaining about it being pure revenue raising. But hey, I've never had a speeding fine my whole life. I try and stick to the speed limit and are just as disgusted at those people who drive 10kms and over the speed limit. The issue is that people doing just 3kms over are being booked. You cannot honestly say to me that you have never gone even a few km's over the speed limit just for a second or 2, especially going down a hill. Anyone who can say they have stuck to or below the speed limit every single moment - your are a saint and should be awarded a medal. But I have to ask. Do you ever actually watch the road or are your eyes glued to the speedo?

Tracey A

I think a lot of people confuse cause and consequences when talking about traffic accidents. The reality works like this:

First of all, the faster you travel, the likelier you are to have an accident, because the time windows that you have to react to changing circumstances is shorter. I think this is obvious, but it's not the main reason that we have speed limits. After all, travelling ten per cent faster only reduces your reaction window by 10%, which is not much.

The real reason that speeding is a problem is that the consequences of an accident increase much faster than your speed. This is largely a consequence of the kinetic energy of your car, which increases with the square of your speed; increase your speed by ten percent, and your kinetic energy increases by over twenty percent. Double your speed, and your kinetic energy increases four times.

Naturally, more energy equates to more damage in an accident. In fact, in certain types of accident (such as hitting a pedestrian), where the thing being hit is much smaller than your car, even a small increase in energy is enough to go from serious injury to death.

Now, I don't think any of this justifies the placing of speed cameras in anything other than high-risk locations; however, I do think that it justifies lower speed limits, especially in urban areas.

Incidentally, our urban speed limits are abnormally high by world standards as a result of metrication -- most states converted a 30 mp/h limit into a 60km/h limit. But 30 mp/h is only 48km/h. So dropping urban limits to 50km/h is really just a case of 'back to the future'.


Dear Mr 'Laws of Physics' Adrian Carson:
No, the queen hasn't been killed in a speeding car, but what about her daughter in law?
You and some of your fellow correspondents are rather inconsistent in your logic. You complain about revenue-raising, and in the next breath you are asking for government-sponsored driver education.
Pay for your own driving lessons and slow down!

The Fifth Wiggle

I am amazed at how many of those who have posted on here have bought into the guilt and fear that the Victorian government has perpetuated regarding the speeding issue. 100km/h versus 105km/h makes negligible difference in a collision.

If the Victorian government cared about road safety, it would do something about drink driving (think how many kms you drive, on average, between RBTs. for me, its about 15,000). It would do something about drivers driving under the influence of drugs. It would do something about driver education, and follow the lead of many other countries in requiring proper driver training, with accident avoidance. It would do something about the nonexistant crash barriers along the major highways. It would install red light cameras at every intersection in the state.

A speeding car doesn't kill. A car, moving at any speed above a brisk walking pace, kills whenever it hits something. In order to save lives, one must do whatever it can to AVOID cars hitting one another, and not just focus on the speed with which they do so. If you're going to lose control on a slippery road or a sharp corner at 105km/h, 100km/h will probably do you in, too.

Matt B

Speed doesn't cause accidents. Innapropriate speed certainly can. A speed camera is unable to analyse this subjectively.

Why not do this...

Michael Cartmel

We should all abide by the law, pay the fine if you break the law. But atleast let people know where the cameras are, it is obvious that this is all for money making. This is a very shallow method of revenue generating strategy from the Govt, where is the money being used anyway? It does hurt people's pockets, be abit more lenient and have some consideration.



Read the question.... it is not about the fine but if it is a revenue raiser or an accident limiter!!

The way bracksie, thwaitsie and pete (the bachelor) run it, it is a revenue raiser and does not influence accident prevention!!

Roy Edward

I have to say it - the only thing that will ever permanently reduce the road toll is DRIVER EDUCATION. It is simply too easy for people to get a driver's licence in Australia. You only have to take a look at people who race cars for a living to see the proof of my theory - if speed is such a problem, why don't more of these people die on the racetrack? The answer is simple: because they all have a level of skill which allows them to control the car at high speeds. Now I'm not advocating that everyone should go out and train to be a racing car driver and drive that fast, all I am saying is that if people are properly educated to drive a car in the first place, the natural flow-on effect from this will be a reduction in road fatalities/injuries. However, you will NEVER see this happen, because state governments (not just Vic, but all states) are making far too much money from collecting fines to want to educate the driving public.


I've never had a speeding fine which isn't through dumb luck....but why then do I hate the methods used, penalties applied & limits set for motorists? Because it's simply inexcusable, revenue raising, pollies in denial crap.

Ben D

Despite the death of my sister last year by a speeding ambulance which pushed her car off the road, I do not support the Brack's govt speed fines. Most deaths occur on minor roads but the speed cameras are pointed at freeways where income from fines is at maximum potential. Last Easter I drove my family past many speed cameras along the Geelong Highway on the way to the Great Ocean Road. However, once on the Great Ocean Road no cameras were to be seen. Many oncoming cars crossed the middle line by metres ! I correct myself. There was a speed camera just past the 50 km/hr speed limit sign to catch cars arriving at Lorne. The Brack's govt advert on TV given by an engineering professor from Monash is, I believe, very deceptive. I am an engineer too, and the facts given in the ad are very selective. If the braking had started a little earlier or a little later, the comparisons between damage for pre-braking speeds differing by 5 km/hr would have been far less dramatic. It is impossible to control speed within a couple of km/hr, particularly in hilly areas. Speedometers aren't that accurate. Drivers will have to spend more time watching speedometers than watching the road. Sooner or later there will be a test in court and the govt will have to eat egg. The only thing reasonable is to allow 10% tolerance or be honest and reduce speed limits by another 5-10 km/hr everywhere. The crackdown on speed is a con. It's tax and spend - what else would you expect from labour tomatoes.

Paul Clancy

Previous Page

your say

What you said!

US troops in Australia
Airport security
Computer games
Toxic colleagues
ABC bias
Noisy neighbours
Culture clash
Public transport
University system
Women in sport
Legalised cannabis
4WDs in the city
Dad's Army
House or child?

Sexism in the city?
Federal budget
Ugly Aussies?
Text appeal
The Logies
Fashion follies
State budget
Fat free?
What now for Hollingworth?
Online dating
Real-estate agents
Escape from Woomera
Speak for ourselves
Chat-up lines
Pill recall
Big Brother
Anzac Day
Feminism today
English at work
The SARS crisis
The forgotten parent?
Chequebook journalism
Is war ever justified?
Plastic surgery
Sex on TV
War -The outcome
Australia and the US
Egalitarian Australia

Sexiest politicians
Movie one-liners
Make us laugh
Terror attacks
Missile defence
Drugs in sport
Shane Warne's one-year ban
Human shields in Iraq
Car registration scams
Bank fees and loyalty schemes
Hardcore fashion
Police corruption
Executive payouts
Australia at the UN
Country football
Valentine's Day
Australia Day oath
Red Symons
Bali Attacks
Spending, not saving
Unreliable PCs
9:11 One year on
Criminals' rights
Western Bulldogs
The Snowy River
ABC bias claim
Asylum seekers

Sex worker zones
War with Iraq
Pauline Hanson
Democrats stand-off
Corporate excess
Dole penalties
Commonwealth Games
Democrats' crisis
Democrats' demise
Vigilante father's group
Country services
Iraq trade threat
Stock market plunge
Bad Bosses
Grand Final ticket prices
Sudden Impact
Footy, Soccer, Rugby
Sexist billboards
BHP picket
Mandatory detention
Interest rate rises
Victims of sex abuse
Telstra sale
Cathy's C'wealth Games
Monica Gould's adviser

Govt schools' failure
Nancy Crick
Beer prices
Ablett - Hall of Fame
Crime Stoppers
Medical insurance crisis
Asylum seekers
Bank profits
US Mideast policy
Stem cell research
Arafat's self-rule
Mideast. Is there hope?
The Pacific solution
Wayne Carey surfaces
Governor General
Bill Heffernan
Labor lost its way
Wayne Carey - what now
Wayne Carey's indiscretions
Parliamentary privilege
Bracks' performance
Woomera hunger strike