Triumph Rat Motorcycle Forums banner
1 - 20 of 30 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
120 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I live in a police state, the penalties in Western Australia
are purely for raising revenue. Try 30 to 39kmh over the limit (~19 to 24mph) $1000 as of 2007. More than 39Kmh is an automatic license disqualification for a period of 6 months plus the grand.
1 km over the limit will get you a penalty.

39 multinova (speed cameras) that are moved around all day, seven are rear facing to capture motorcyclists speeding.

2004-05 raised over $33 million dollars revenue from speeding infringements in a city of a population of ~ 1.4 million people.
We also have a points system, 12 points that last 3 years - easy to lose your license here.

The state government claim that these draconian penalties are to reduce traffic accidents from speeding, we haven't had one year yet that I know off that the road toll has decreased.

Anyone else live in a place like this?
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
7,805 Posts
Here`s some food for thought, which, I`m sure will p1ss a lot of people off. I`m not a 'born again biker' I`ve been riding for 27 years and spent 10 years working full time as a motorcycle courier in London, doing 60-80,000 miles a year. There are a few of you on this forum who have ridden with me and know what I am capable of on a bike. So consider this..
You`re out there on your S3 and all the young hoons are tearing around in their V8 vk commodores and ea falcons, at whatever speed they like, jumping red lights etc. Is this the kind of environment you want to be riding your S3 in? We NEED the speed limits to be enforced otherwise it would be anarchy on the roads. All the f***wits in cars are dangerous enough to bikes at the speed limit, god knows what it would be like if they had carte blanche to drive at whatever speed they liked. Here`s the truth, dude, 90% of males think that they are an above average rider/driver. 50% of them are mistaken. This 50% are the ones that get caught by the speed cameras. The remaining 40% are the ones who are paying attention to their surroundings and can spot the cameras or the ones that are sensible enough not to speed in high risk areas. These are the riders/drivers that ARE above average. Whether you like or not, cameras only punish the inattentive speeder and these are the ones who are dangerous. If you can`t spot a speed camera, you aren`t a good enough rider to be exceeding the speed limit.

I love riding and I love riding fast. I`m very comfortable doing what I do, where I do it so, MORE SPEED CAMERAS PLEASE! Let`s make the roads safer for good motorcyclists and slow the not quite so good motorcyclists down until they know what they`re doing.

[ This message was edited by: welshrob on 2006-12-17 08:09 ]
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
3,030 Posts
On 2006-12-17 08:06, welshrob wrote:
90% of males think that they are an above average rider/driver. 50% of them are mistaken. This 50% are the ones that get caught by the speed cameras. The remaining 40% are the ones who are paying attention to their surroundings and can spot the cameras or the ones that are sensible enough not to speed in high risk areas.
Your point does not quite apply at least here in Finland because a) the speed cameras cannot be spotted as they can be in a moving car/van, in a car parked on the side of the road as well as in a permanent post hidden well in the bushes and b) the cameras in here are not where there is most risk (eg. schools nearby, high amount of accidents etc), but rather they are placed where most revenue can be collected. These being on an overtaking lane at a low traffic rural road, on a deserted motorway at night etc.

The penalties over here are also quite ridiculous. Go over 20% over the limit and you are guaranteed to lose your licence for months without any consideration if you need your licence for work. Also the fines in here are calculated based on yearly taxed income without any top limit on the possible fine. For example a member of the board at Nokia got a fine of 116000eur for doing 75km/h in a 50km/h zone on his motorcycle. No accident or other mayhem done. Just speeding.
:hammer:

[ This message was edited by: Martin_R on 2006-12-17 08:36 ]
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,972 Posts
On 2006-12-17 08:06, welshrob wrote:
Here`s some food for thought, which, I`m sure will p1ss a lot of people off. I`m not a 'born again biker' I`ve been riding for 27 years and spent 10 years working full time as a motorcycle courier in London, doing 60-80,000 miles a year. There are a few of you on this forum who have ridden with me and know what I am capable of on a bike. So consider this..
You`re out there on your S3 and all the young hoons are tearing around in their V8 vk commodores and ea falcons, at whatever speed they like, jumping red lights etc. Is this the kind of environment you want to be riding your S3 in? We NEED the speed limits to be enforced otherwise it would be anarchy on the roads. All the f***wits in cars are dangerous enough to bikes at the speed limit, god knows what it would be like if they had carte blanche to drive at whatever speed they liked. Here`s the truth, dude, 90% of males think that they are an above average rider/driver. 50% of them are mistaken. This 50% are the ones that get caught by the speed cameras. The remaining 40% are the ones who are paying attention to their surroundings and can spot the cameras or the ones that are sensible enough not to speed in high risk areas. These are the riders/drivers that ARE above average. Whether you like or not, cameras only punish the inattentive speeder and these are the ones who are dangerous. If you can`t spot a speed camera, you aren`t a good enough rider to be exceeding the speed limit.

I love riding and I love riding fast. I`m very comfortable doing what I do, where I do it so, MORE SPEED CAMERAS PLEASE! Let`s make the roads safer for good motorcyclists and slow the not quite so good motorcyclists down until they know what they`re doing.
:bs:

There are numerous reports and studies that say the opposite. here is just one.


From the start of 2005 all road traffic accidents had their contributory factors recorded by the police. This allowed the Department for Transport for the first time to compile comprehensive data on the causes of accidents. The results show that 5% of all accidents are attributed to exceeding the speed limit. This is pretty much what Speedcameras.org and other road safety campaigns had been saying for years, but the authorities continued to pump an overwhelmingly disproportionate amount of resources into trying to prevent just 5% of all accidents. Meanwhile, any attempts to prevent 95% of accidents maintained an exceedingly low profile.

The report reveals that speed cameras are totally ineffective at preventing the vast majority of accidents. Exceeding the speed limit was attributed to only 3% of cars involved in accidents. 97% of car crashes have nothing to do with breaking the speed limit.

The total number of fatalities on the road decreased marginally (1%) in 2005 to 3,201. Given that there are 2 million motorists prosecuted for speeding each year it begs the question - if speed cameras are the answer to saving lives, how come the 5000 speed cameras and 2 million annual prosecutions haven?t produced a significant drop in fatalities?

Accidents on motorways, the fastest of all road types, account for just 4% of accidents. This shows that travelling at higher speeds is not in itself dangerous ? far from it. It means that roads engineered to take faster moving traffic have an excellent safety record. Perhaps the answer to reducing accidents can be found in better road engineering on other types of roads.

The top contributory factors for accidents in 2005 were:

Failed to look properly: 32%
Bad behaviour or inexperience: 25%
Misjudged other drivers speed/path: 18%
Poor turn/manoeuvre: 15%
Going too fast for conditions: 12%
Loss of control: 14%
Vision affected: 10%
Slippery road: 10%
Following too close: 7%
Sudden braking: 7%
Disobeyed traffic signal or stop sign: 6%
Impaired by alcohol: 5%
Exceeding speed limit: 5%
Road layout: 3%
Vehicle defects: 2%

The DfT report also revealed that 8 times more male than female drivers involved in accidents were reported as exceeding the speed limit, and 4 times more male than female drivers involved in accidents were reported as going too fast for the conditions. Perhaps that helps to explain the popularity of female-only insurance companies!

So what can be done to help significantly reduce accidents? Instead of the government trying to reduce accidents caused by lesser factors (such as exceeding the speed limit (5%)), if they made a valiant effort to reduce accidents caused by greater factors like failing to look properly (32%) then many tens of thousands of accidents could be prevented. This could be accomplished through better driver education for example.

Unless someone invents a camera that can take photos of drivers failing to look properly it?s fair to conclude that there?s a limit on the number of accidents that could be prevented by the use of speed cameras and resources need to be moved into other areas that can help prevent the 95% of accidents that have nothing to do with exceeding the speed limit.

Information sourced in part or in full from: Department for Transport
Our comment: Will they learn from their own research and move
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,312 Posts
Trumpy1050, not to be a wise @ss, but when was the last time you went to a city council meeting. Governing bodies will do what they pease, when they please, until outspoken citizens call them on their BS.

I'm not saying that you alone are going to get rid of speed cameras, but being part of the discussion yields a lot more influence than not.

Capt.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
157 Posts
Limey :gpst:

The number one reason will always be failing to look/paying attention.

I bet that number will go up until they ban cellphone use. I almost had a dude in a dually run me off the road yesterday while I was returning from Cycle Gear...you guessed it, he was on phone and writing stuff down......diipshiite

[ This message was edited by: TheGuvnor on 2006-12-17 09:04 ]
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,590 Posts
On 2006-12-17 08:55, Limey wrote:
On 2006-12-17 08:06, welshrob wrote:
Here`s some food for thought, which, I`m sure will p1ss a lot of people off. I`m not a 'born again biker' I`ve been riding for 27 years and spent 10 years working full time as a motorcycle courier in London, doing 60-80,000 miles a year. There are a few of you on this forum who have ridden with me and know what I am capable of on a bike. So consider this..
You`re out there on your S3 and all the young hoons are tearing around in their V8 vk commodores and ea falcons, at whatever speed they like, jumping red lights etc. Is this the kind of environment you want to be riding your S3 in? We NEED the speed limits to be enforced otherwise it would be anarchy on the roads. All the f***wits in cars are dangerous enough to bikes at the speed limit, god knows what it would be like if they had carte blanche to drive at whatever speed they liked. Here`s the truth, dude, 90% of males think that they are an above average rider/driver. 50% of them are mistaken. This 50% are the ones that get caught by the speed cameras. The remaining 40% are the ones who are paying attention to their surroundings and can spot the cameras or the ones that are sensible enough not to speed in high risk areas. These are the riders/drivers that ARE above average. Whether you like or not, cameras only punish the inattentive speeder and these are the ones who are dangerous. If you can`t spot a speed camera, you aren`t a good enough rider to be exceeding the speed limit.

I love riding and I love riding fast. I`m very comfortable doing what I do, where I do it so, MORE SPEED CAMERAS PLEASE! Let`s make the roads safer for good motorcyclists and slow the not quite so good motorcyclists down until they know what they`re doing.
:bs:

There are numerous reports and studies that say the opposite. here is just one.


From the start of 2005 all road traffic accidents had their contributory factors recorded by the police. This allowed the Department for Transport for the first time to compile comprehensive data on the causes of accidents. The results show that 5% of all accidents are attributed to exceeding the speed limit. This is pretty much what Speedcameras.org and other road safety campaigns had been saying for years, but the authorities continued to pump an overwhelmingly disproportionate amount of resources into trying to prevent just 5% of all accidents. Meanwhile, any attempts to prevent 95% of accidents maintained an exceedingly low profile.

The report reveals that speed cameras are totally ineffective at preventing the vast majority of accidents. Exceeding the speed limit was attributed to only 3% of cars involved in accidents. 97% of car crashes have nothing to do with breaking the speed limit.

The total number of fatalities on the road decreased marginally (1%) in 2005 to 3,201. Given that there are 2 million motorists prosecuted for speeding each year it begs the question - if speed cameras are the answer to saving lives, how come the 5000 speed cameras and 2 million annual prosecutions haven?t produced a significant drop in fatalities?

Accidents on motorways, the fastest of all road types, account for just 4% of accidents. This shows that travelling at higher speeds is not in itself dangerous ? far from it. It means that roads engineered to take faster moving traffic have an excellent safety record. Perhaps the answer to reducing accidents can be found in better road engineering on other types of roads.

The top contributory factors for accidents in 2005 were:

Failed to look properly: 32%
Bad behaviour or inexperience: 25%
Misjudged other drivers speed/path: 18%
Poor turn/manoeuvre: 15%
Going too fast for conditions: 12%
Loss of control: 14%
Vision affected: 10%
Slippery road: 10%
Following too close: 7%
Sudden braking: 7%
Disobeyed traffic signal or stop sign: 6%
Impaired by alcohol: 5%
Exceeding speed limit: 5%
Road layout: 3%
Vehicle defects: 2%

The DfT report also revealed that 8 times more male than female drivers involved in accidents were reported as exceeding the speed limit, and 4 times more male than female drivers involved in accidents were reported as going too fast for the conditions. Perhaps that helps to explain the popularity of female-only insurance companies!

So what can be done to help significantly reduce accidents? Instead of the government trying to reduce accidents caused by lesser factors (such as exceeding the speed limit (5%)), if they made a valiant effort to reduce accidents caused by greater factors like failing to look properly (32%) then many tens of thousands of accidents could be prevented. This could be accomplished through better driver education for example.

Unless someone invents a camera that can take photos of drivers failing to look properly it?s fair to conclude that there?s a limit on the number of accidents that could be prevented by the use of speed cameras and resources need to be moved into other areas that can help prevent the 95% of accidents that have nothing to do with exceeding the speed limit.

Information sourced in part or in full from: Department for Transport
Our comment: Will they learn from their own research and move
Where is this report from? England?? Need to know to send to State trooper to help my argument as to revenue vs. safety. They do it for the MONEY!!
 

· Registered
Joined
·
337 Posts
Yep! Doesn't hold water! Yes driving fast is a upcharge for getting in an accident,but with that said so is the fargin cager that outnumber us 50:1 who are using there cell phones,putting on lipstick and mascara,or just generaly vegging out! For the most part on a motorcycle you cannot be spacing out, You have to be constantly vigiliant with the second thought that every car truck or van is out to KILL you. Now the cops around here consider a citation for a motorcycle as a badge of honor or another notch in there proverbial Glock! There are some realy cool cops around here that know you are just playin around and seem to look the other way. I did a 150 mph run where I know I met a hwp head on and he did not turn around for the chase. Whatever his reason he knew I was cookin and let me go. Speed does kill but so do lame, uncaring and stupid cagers...sean...
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
5,105 Posts
Limey, Mark Twain once told us there are three types of falsehoods: lies, damned lies, and statistics. You've presented us with one great load of statistics to support your view.

The problem is, to look at that list and say "speeding" (meaning: the only thing we wrote him up for was exceeding posted limits) only accounts for 5% of accidents is to totally ignore the full meaning of the other categories. It's an excessively narrow, purely semantic trick.

"Following too closely" and "sudden braking"--more often than not, the outcome of speeding. "Too fast for conditions"--simply means speeding, whether or not in excess of a posted limit. "Loss of control"--many causes, but the majority of time further aggravated by the speed at which the person is traveling. "Misjudged other driver's speed/path"--very often means assuming the other guy was driving at or under the limit when he wasn't. "Bad behavior or inexperience"--a catch-all category, but very often involves excessive speed too.

So, "5%" is very misleading indeed. Depending how one chooses to sort the raw data behind statistics like these, one could as well argue a third or more of all accidents involve excessive speed.

I happen to agree with Trumpy's description of the new penalties as draconian, but I'm not inclined to say they're entirely unjustified if the previous penalties didn't do the job. That's because I also see Welshrob's points!

Folks like to say "oh he died doing what he loved best." I wouldn't mind them saying that about me if my heart simply stops after I've ridden into some magnificent landscape or another. But the prospect of being rear-ended or T-boned by some speeding moron is NOT what I love best!
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,972 Posts
On 2006-12-17 15:10, Diego wrote:
Limey, Mark Twain once told us there are three types of falsehoods: lies, damned lies, and statistics. You've presented us with one great load of statistics to support your view.

The problem is, to look at that list and say "speeding" (meaning: the only thing we wrote him up for was exceeding posted limits) only accounts for 5% of accidents is to totally ignore the full meaning of the other categories. It's an excessively narrow, purely semantic trick.

"Following too closely" and "sudden braking"--more often than not, the outcome of speeding. "Too fast for conditions"--simply means speeding, whether or not in excess of a posted limit. "Loss of control"--many causes, but the majority of time further aggravated by the speed at which the person is traveling. "Misjudged other driver's speed/path"--very often means assuming the other guy was driving at or under the limit when he wasn't. "Bad behavior or inexperience"--a catch-all category, but very often involves excessive speed too.

So, "5%" is very misleading indeed. Depending how one chooses to sort the raw data behind statistics like these, one could as well argue a third or more of all accidents involve excessive speed.

I happen to agree with Trumpy's description of the new penalties as draconian, but I'm not inclined to say they're entirely unjustified if the previous penalties didn't do the job. That's because I also see Welshrob's points!

Folks like to say "oh he died doing what he loved best." I wouldn't mind them saying that about me if my heart simply stops after I've ridden into some magnificent landscape or another. But the prospect of being rear-ended or T-boned by some speeding moron is NOT what I love best!
:bs:

Again, as welshrob did, you are just inserting opinion where facts should be. Mark twain would be proud you made his point.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
7,805 Posts
Good points by all, especially Limey, no arguments from me, it actually supports what I`m saying. 32% of accidents caused by failing to look properly. Failing to look properly = inattentive driver.
Inattentive driver = doesn`t see the speed cameras.

I can`t believe everyone is missing the obvious on this one, the dft report is accurate but it`s also compiled in a country where speeding is heavily enforced. The UK has more speed cameras per head of population than anywhere in the world. Speeding does not form a high percentage of the cause of major accidents because it is already effectively controlled.

Next time you`re out on your bike, have a good look at some of the other road users around you. Take a look at some of the slack jawed mouth breathers in cars and pick up trucks that are on the road and say to yourself "Do I really want that moron barreling up behind me at 100mph whilst I`m stopped at a set of lights? Do I really want people like this speeding down a road that my children might be crossing?" The law can`t be selective. It`s not "Hey, I should be allowed to speed, because I`ve got an S3 and I think I`m pretty f*****g cool, but not all those other idiots in cars, they`re dangerous they`re the ones that need to slow down." Everyone who is anti speed camera thinks they should be allowed to speed and get away with it, without thinking of the broader implications of what happens when all the other idiots on the road get to do it as well. Anyone who`s ever had a speeding ticket always says the same thing "I didn`t see..." The cop, the camera etc. Just the same as every car that knocks a biker off "I didn`t see..."
I will say it again, if you are sensible enough about speeding, where you do it and keeping your wits about you when you do it, you`ll get away with it.

In the last couple of years in the UK and Australia and I`d be surprised if it wasn`t the same in the USA and other countries too, the number of 'bike only' accidents has gone ballistic. In Australia it`s become higher than the number of 'car hitting bike' accidents. Anyone want to take a guess as to the common denominator in all these accidents? Do you think they were all burbling along at the speed limit and suddenly just fell off?


I don`t agree with hiding them in bins etc. but because of the high number of motorcycle fatalities on the Oxley in the last year, I can`t say I`m greatly surprised to see that pic.

[ This message was edited by: welshrob on 2006-12-17 16:21 ]
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,972 Posts
I still don't equate having speed cameras reduces accidents. There is absolutely no evidence of this.

Do you think being an attentive driver is one that is looking for speed cameras. This is the reason speed cameras have been blamed for the increase in accidents at certain locations. They are purely revenue generators.

One of the main reasons for the increase in motorcycle accidents is the sharp increase in ownership. more motorcycles on the road...more accidents.



A UK motorcycle accident study.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
157 Posts
On 2006-12-17 16:48, Limey wrote:
I still don't equate having speed cameras reduces accidents. There is absolutely no evidence of this.

Do you think being an attentive driver is one that is looking for speed cameras. This is the reason speed cameras have been blamed for the increase in accidents at certain locations. They are purely revenue generators.

One of the main reasons for the increase in motorcycle accidents is the sharp increase in ownership. more motorcycles on the road...more accidents.



A UK motorcycle accident study.
And less shiite heads wearing their buckets!!
 

· Registered
Joined
·
120 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
The point I was trying to make with this post is that to much time is spent collecting revenue from Hidden cameras. Years ago before speed cameras became so popular you saw cops on the road and people behaved (somewhat), now you do not see no where near as many cops and the young hoons in the turbo supras and Nissan skylines are everywhere without a copper in sight, sure they get pinged by cameras but they are a danger to the riders and other drivers on the road.
In Australia we have a total ban on using mobile phones without a handsfree kit when driving, but sure enough as there are no cops around people abuse this, you can see them weaving or driving to slow, worst case is teens texting while driving.

So point is, more cops on the road (visibility) not more cameras on the road (revenue). You can still ride hard when there are cops on the road you just need to pick your time versus getting sprung by sneakly hidden revenue cameras.

Oh and before anyone may want to point out the argument that these police are now doing real police work, crimes have increased exponentially in the same time period and for police callouts it can be a couple of hours unless it is life threatening, you have to tell the police there is a gun or knife involved otherwise you can hurry up and wait.

Just my distorted view of things.
 

· Banned
Joined
·
798 Posts
This is no solution to the bigger issues, but to get your own personal fix, do a track day per month. In the long run it's a lot cheaper than getting your jollies on the roadway. No tickets handed out, you do have to behave but only to a higher-more agreeable set of rules, but hey, let's act like adult humans. I find that I have absolutely no need to speed (well, not really fast anyway) anymore. I get all I need on the track. Now I just focus on being better while street riding. Actually being courteous, heads up, smooth, etc. etc. Traffic is so freakin bad anyway, it's hard to speed anywhere. But I can go from 0 - 40 mph faster than that Carrera sitting next to with the lawyer in it. And so I speed cook up to the legal limit or thereabouts and shut it down.

Here's an annoying thing I like to do. I like pulling up to a guy in a Carrera or some other sports car that is a convertible and shifting down a gear or two and running high rpm in the lane right next to him while matching his speed. That S3 engine sounds so right even at 30 mph if you got some revs going. And you know its peesing off the cager cause he cant hear Yanni and Kenny G on his Bose speakers.

kjazz

[ This message was edited by: kwajazz on 2006-12-17 21:32 ]
 
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top