Just to add fuel to the Government control debate.

Theo Bekkers wrote:
> Michael Bednarek wrote:
>> Speaking of speed; here's a different view, not often expressed:
>> (the paragraph starting with "In 2002" might bring some unpleasant
>> memories back for some).
>>
>> <http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23024712-28737,00.html>
>>
>> Lost in the rush
>> Bill Tuckey | January 09, 2008
>>
>> IT took just five hours for the first road carnage newspaper headline
>> to appear at the start of the 2007 Christmas-New Year holiday period.
>> A man was killed when a stolen car crashed at an intersection during
>> a chase in Melbourne at 5am on December 20.
>>
>> And so it began: the parade of news presenters, police using words
>> such as slaughter and issuing pleas to slow down, and graphic images
>> of mangled wreckage, sobbing relatives and friends, and flowers laid
>> at crash sites.
>
>> Figures from the federal Australian Transport Safety Bureau show that
>> for several years state authorities have set the Christmas-New Year
>> holiday period at 13 days (in Victoria in 2007 it began at midnight on
>> December 20 and ended at midnight on January4). In 2006, the last full
>> year for which ATSB figures are available, 62 people died: drivers,
>> passengers, motorcyclists, cyclists and pedestrians. That represented
>> an average of 4.7deaths a day. The same figures show that for the
>> entire year, deaths averaged 4.38 a day and the most lethal weekly
>> period year-long is Friday to Sunday, when there is an average of 5.4
>> deaths a day. For the five days of Easter 2007, there were an average
>> of five deaths a day.
>
> Spot on, I've been saying that for years. In WA, the Xmas 'carnage' over the
> last five years has been below the daily average.
>
> We doubled most of the fines and increased demerit points last year (OK we
> were pretty much the lowest) and we had a 15% increase in deaths. The
> solution? Double the fines again. ??

Obviously the people who didn't die last year NEED to be taught a lesson
if they don't die this year.

Nev..
'07 XB12X
 >> Stay informed about: Just to add fuel to the Government control debate. 

"Dale Porter" <daleaporter.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fm102q$286s$1@otis.netspace.net.au...
> http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23025498-661,00.html
>
> Cheers,
> Dale.
>

accept it


one day its going to happen but hopefully I have passed to the big bike
place in the sky before it does
 >> Stay informed about: Just to add fuel to the Government control debate. 

"Dale Porter" <daleaporter.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fm102q$286s$1@otis.netspace.net.au...
> http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23025498-661,00.html
>
I'm quite sure they'll use this sort of technology to record (and fine)
speeders: I really really doubt they use it to PREVENT speeders though!
(Except for maybe a handful of highly publicised example cases!)
--
Clem
 >> Stay informed about: Just to add fuel to the Government control debate. 

"Nev.." <idiot DeleteThis @mindless.com> wrote:
> CrazyCam wrote:
>> Well, in the event of this stuff being implemented widely, how much
>> income would state governments forgo from speed cameras?
>
> Nothing. They would reap a percentage of each unit sold in tax etc,
> possibly even retailing them through government owned corporations such as
> the RTA and Vicroads, so for every dollar they lost in speed camera
> revenue they would gain in tax/markup/etc on the purchase cost of the unit
> from every road user, whether they sped or not.
>
Naah; it's all a big con so we say "speed limiting is dangerous" and then
they can drop the "limiting" but keep the SAFETY-BASED speed-MONITORING
(with automatic ticketing).
How could you argue with such a safety initiative?
--
Clem
 >> Stay informed about: Just to add fuel to the Government control debate.