as if your rent mortgage petrol groceries werent rising hard enough
the govt needs more money
also i love the dbl demerits on repeat offenders
i would also think other states will want to 'get in line' with their fines so there's 'parity'
QLD Cops Turn up The Screws on Speeding, Seatbelts after July 1
tonyjzx on 18/05/2022 - 19:21
Comments
The AMA has been pushing for a sugar tax on junk food and drinks.
The tax would need to be focused just on the fatties though.
Healthy people who eat junk food and drinks in moderation and shouldn't be slugged by this.
The reality is seatbelt laws aren't good laws, they are just something people have come to accept because we accept bad lawmaking in this country with open arms.
It's all about safety, but Queensland's budget is based on increasing number of tickets being issued, so surely it's not about changing behaviour.
We should encourage proportionate fines. Clive Palmer will quickly leave Qld alone.
Problem with that is a rich person could pay an underling to take the fall for them
Then to plug this loophole, 1 year jail and proportionate fines for both of them for conspiracy to defraud the commonwealth.
The kicker? No jail/fine if you report the other person. Imagine a Clive-hater get asked to take the fall. The Clive-hater could report him.
Just because someone can extort/blackmail an underlying to do something does not make it legal.
Proportionate fines are stealing, unless there is an explicit reason for proportionality (ie: You illegally benefit proportionally somehow), one crime = one amount for all. If I choose to work harder than someone else I shouldn't be punished more.
It's almost like we should have a system where everyone starts with the same number of "dollars", or "points" if you will, and when you get to zero you loose your license.
Lots of people say that the fines in Australia aren't reasonable - i.e. they're just revenue raising. I tend to agree with this. Not because I think they are just issuing fines to raise money but rather, if the fine was really to deter an action it would be much more effective if it were demonstrably higher.
1-10kmh over the speed limit, sure $287 sucks but realistically, it's a very short term pain. Long term, people forget and continue speeding. If you 10x that fine, suddenly it makes people think. Similarly, removing people's license and ability to drive permanently should be easier and quicker. If they continue to drive after this, jail time.
you 10x that fine,
Mate I’m stressed enough as is during double demerit season let alone a 10x …
That's the point though. Driving is a privilege - don't be an idiot.
No, getting caught speeding is a tax on the poor.
the problem is there isnt an alternative
i would love to burn my car and use public transport
but if you leave no option and the punishment is punative
also $289 could be close to half a persons take home pay
it says a lot about this place when only one person can point out that these fines and all fines are an attack on the poor
@tonyjzx: Say you're a fringe left without saying you're a fringe left.
Your friend over there regularly vilifies Christians and religious folk btw, just so you know
A privilege?
srsly?
We pay for the roads, we pay for our cars and we pay for our fuel and insurances, taxed all the way along the line and some people actually believe driving on the roads is a 'privilege'? A 'privilege' deigned by whom? You precious government (that we also pay for)?
No wonder the world is in the state it's in with attitudes like like that around.
@EightImmortals: privilege
/ˈprɪvɪlɪdʒ/
noun
a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group.AKA - A group who have done the prerequisite training to get their license. This is why drunk drivers and repeat offenders lose their license, because it's not a right. I have a friend who has never been behind the wheel of a car, he isn't entitled to take my car for a spin, even if I told him he could.
@Sleeqb7: But he has the right to get his license and then drive on the roads if he chooses to.
You confusing his rights with his abilities.
Same with drunks and people like them who have lost their permission to drive on the roads because they have proven to be a danger to others.right to get his license
Which will give him the privilege of driving.
He could drive perfectly the moment he is behind the wheel, but he doesn't have the legal permission to be driving a motor vehicle. If driving was a right, he could get in any car at any time and drive it legally.lost their permission to drive
Because it's given permission, which literally makes it a privilege.
@Sleeqb7: "If driving was a right, he could get in any car at any time and drive it legally."
But not competently was my point. I know a few people who grew up in the country and were driving from a very young age before it was 'legal' for them to get a 'license'. They were perfectly competent and therefore had a 'right' to drive, they simply didn't have permission from the state.
Which is where I think we are clashing, I don't believe rights come from government and politicians, most people do. Again see the 'Worlds greatest superstition' to get a better idea of my POV on the subject.
Anyway, I'm off to the gym, I have the right to do that cos I paid my membership. :)
@EightImmortals: People from the bush driving illegally aren't entitled to do so, they're doing so outside of the bounds of the law. If it was a right, they would be entitled to do so, but they're not. I do all sorts of things I'm not entitled to do, that doesn't make them rights.
You saying that you have the right to go to the gym because you've paid for it demonstrates a cause and effect. Pay for gym, adhere to gym's code of conduct, right to attend gym granted. You have the privilege of using the gym because you've completed your obligation of payment and process.
Not paying for license, not adhering to road regulations, no right to drive. Thus, it too is a privilege.@Sleeqb7: Except the gym is a private enterprise owned by the people who own it who can make whatever rules the like and I am free to agree or not to agree. The 'country' is not (maybe?) a private enterprise it is owned by 'we the people' (at least theoretically) so we 'should' have the right to agree or disagree or at least have a say in the rules, we do not. And if we exercise our right to disagree we are punished in some way by the authority even though we have harmed or endangered no one.
…so we 'should' have the right to agree or disagree or at least have a say in the rules…
You do. Federally in a couple of days (if you haven't already exercised your right to vote, if eligible) or on a regular basis for State elections.
@GG57: Please explain?
Merely picking which gang gets to Lord it over us unaccountability for the next 3 years is hardly 'having a say in things'.
I've been to many elections over the years and not ONCE have I been asked to vote on any particular details and rules that I am encumbered with. (Except back in the 80's when we had a referendum about legitimising local government. We all voted "NO" but they enacted it anyway, unlawfully. Not ONCE have I had the opportunity to sack an elected person for not enacting things that were promised before they were elected or fro trying to enact things that no body asked for nor wanted.
My understanding is that a 'democracy' in 'majority rules' and not simply 'majority elects', now you could bring up all the nonsense about 'representative democracy' and other unicorns but again I have never seen a party political hack vote in the interests of their electorate if it goes against central party agendas. I'm also pretty sure that having 51% of the population dictate how the other 49% live their lives is fairly dodgy idea as well. (but that's a moot point for now due to the above observations)
…and not ONCE have I been asked to vote on any particular details and rules that I am encumbered with.
You seem to be quite passive in your rights to vote for whomever you want. Rather than sitting back waiting for someone to ask you personally what you think, have you ever approached candidates and raised your concerns with them?
Even if a different candidate wins in your electorate, you have the right to contact them (endlessly) about what concerns you and what you think they should do about it.
You certainly have the ability and right to "…sack an elected person…" at the next election. There seems to be a populist move just now to "sack" the LNP candidates in numerous electorates for the very reasons you cite.
Don't vote for "…party political hacks…" and that could eliminate that scenario; campaign against them, support someone who wants to represent the electorate, or even stand as a candidate yourself if you are up for it.IMO we are lucky to live in a democracy, but it isn't perfect. The more passive the majority are, the less likely anything will change.
@GG57: "have you ever approached candidates and raised your concerns with them?"
Many times over the years. 99% of the time I get a pre-written default response. One time the guy replied that a LOT of people had contacted him to vote a certain way on the issue, but we was voting the opposite because the 'party' told him to. One other guy has been good with his responses and open to meeting up IRL to chat about things though in the end there wasn't much he could do though I appreciated his efforts. My conclusion was that we need a policy to bring us closer to democracy as they have in Sweden for example.
"You certainly have the ability and right to "…sack an elected person…" at the next election."
Too late after the damage has been done.
"Don't vote for "…party political hacks…" and that could eliminate that scenario; campaign against them, support someone who wants to represent the electorate, or even stand as a candidate yourself if you are up for it."
Done all that over the years too. :)
"IMO we are lucky to live in a democracy, but it isn't perfect. The more passive the majority are, the less likely anything will change."
Yes, apathy and ignorance is at the core of my compliant in this regard. People constantly whine and complain for three years and then when they have the chance to change thing they just vote the same gang back in again. The government always wins the election.
@EightImmortals: We don't have a real democracy, that's true.
But if you give up and don't participate in the farce of voting, then those who don't see the world as you do will use the system against you.
Hence why it is 'your responsibility' to vote. It's a burden not a gift
@Sleeqb7: Anything is a privilege if you really want to get technical…
I mean we do jail people, so your basic freedom is even a 'privilege'.
They make the fine high, but still low enough that most people would rather pay it than take a day off work to fight it in court.
1-10kmh over the speed limit, sure $287 sucks but realistically, it's a very short term pain. Long term, people forget and continue speeding. If you 10x that fine, suddenly it makes people think. Similarly, removing people's license and ability to drive permanently should be easier and quicker. If they continue to drive after this, jail time.
Yes, because wasting tax dollars locking up people who drive 1km/h over the speed limit is a fantastic idea. The funny thing is that you are actually wrong in terms of what you're saying. There are mountains of evidence to show that increasing the severity of a penalty does less to deter than more comprehensive enforcement.
In other words, "more likely to get caught" is a better deterrent than "very big punishment". Either way, that's neither here nor there. I've always viewed speed enforcement in Australia as patently absurd. The issue with living in such a bubble is that most people have never ventured outside to see how the rest of the world does it. Even in the US, with all of its flaws, traffic enforcement is much more reasonable.
Even in China they are more reasonable in that context believe it or not. Was there a couple of years back, before the plandemic and most motorbike riders and pushbike riders were getting around just fine without wearing their helmets. Safety issues aside, it was there choice. There were rules against it but they were rarely enforced. I remarked to our tour guide that if you rode your pushy without a helmet on back home the cops would on you in a second.
were getting around just fine without wearing their helmets.
Not just China but Europe and, in general, the whole world.
Wearing a Styrofoam "protective" helmet to cycle around suburbia is an Australian thing only.
Back to fines, yes they are blatant revenue collecting exercises only but it is up to the drivers to "contribute" or not.
Once again, how hard could it be?@LFO: Sure, not that hard in terms of the driving stuff anyway, but as the other guy said, it's normal for your driving speed to waver around the speed limit so there needs to be a principle of reasonableness applied when dishing out fines, if not then it is blatant revenue raising.
it's normal for your driving speed to waver around the speed limit
That being the case then wavering around a bit lower than the speed limit will guarantee success.
The trick is to make those fines disappear because of no victims.
Government and cops will hate that and millions spent on sophisticated "catching" devices will have been wasted.
And that will be rewardingly humiliating for those deplorable revenue collectors. All those expenses for nothing.
I'll present the alternative, instead of larger fines why not smaller fines and more of them. Introduce a new fine for 5+ km with a lower burden of proof. This fine would be determined by a cheap automated camera with a low precision speed sensor setup to reliably determine 5+km (this may mean the actual setting is 10km's over or whathever) then roll these out on mass dishing out $50 fines with 1 demerit point.
The problem is believing that 1-10kmh over the speed limit is a fineable offence in the first place. If you do an action that doesn't harm someone, and isn't likely to harm someone, you should not be punished, which is more nuanced than "X number is bad but Y number is good"
I posted this here yesterday:
I know this post is specifically about Qld, but just noted this info from RACV today.
The most common traffic offence committed in Victoria is for speeding 15km to 25km over the legal speed limit. Speeding infringements over 15km but under 25km (over the limit) recorded a total of 170, 231 incidents between the 2018 and 2021 financial years, and were the most common type of road rule broken every single year. The second most common type of speeding offence recorded was for speeding between 10km and 15km over the limit (recorded 129,347 times).If the same applies for Qld, there would be a minority that are fined for only 1-10kmh over.
I'm saying it should not be a fineable offence fullstop unless an imminent danger can be proven, doesnt concern me what the statistics are. I don't want a government that can make a bunch of rules, "choose" to not enforce them and then when someone makes life difficult for them, start the pile-on.
Either you did something dangerous or you didn't.
@Scantu: Others in this forum have pointed out that if speeding in the 1-10kmph over is not enforced, then the speed limit is for all intents and purposes increased by that much.
The statistics show that the low range speeding is not the biggest problem, in that the majority of speeding detected is not in that range. There may be a minority of people who lose concentration and creep over the limit by a small amount, and get caught.
But the majority of those caught speeding exceed the limit by between 15-25km/hr. There is intent there.@GG57: I know, you're looking at the problem the wrong way though.
Government exists to prevent people harming eachother, it should otherwise stay out of the way. "Speed limits" exist as a proxy to actual damage. Speeding isn't a moral wrong, plowing into someone and damaging them is. Targeting "Speeding" as the central problem isn't the right approach, especially when it can't be proved there was no reasonable likelihood of damage.
But the majority of those caught speeding exceed the limit by between 15-25km/hr. There is intent there
Exactly, which is why I am more OK with camera enforcement, and larger fines for speeds in that range as it indicates a clear disregard for safety at that point.
Surely at least the seatbelt thing is pretty easy to avoid a fine with, if not both.
Second thoughts - the speeding fines do seem disproportionate. Especially the 1-10km over fines.
I'd be spewing if I was fined $287 for going 4 over. Realistically though they would deduct some kmhs from their measurements.
Yeah me too - it does seem over the top. There’s lots of places where I drive that it varies from 60-70-80 in various orders in quick succession. It would disrupt traffic flow if people are paranoid about going 1km over.
@morse: I might be in the minority here when I admit to speeding. Obviously not 30kmh+ but I do creep over the limit on normal roads and avoid braking when going into a crest with little traffic.
I'd rather people pay attention on the road. The 0.3 seconds could mean avoiding a collision. Not much worse than being stuck behind someone going 50 in a 70 zone.
@Caped Baldy: That's called casual speeding. I guess I do it too sometimes. Got a GPS in my car and if speedo's bang on 70 but GPS (real speeds) 73… well I might just follow my speedo speed for a bit.
@jaffar: The bigger problem is stopping. Not quite sure I agree that going 70 is four times more likely to be injured in a crash. Food for thought though.
The infrastructure for the Olympics needs to be paid for somehow.
Nanny state?
thats just a side effect and the justification
they want money, thats it
they got bills to pay and like any govt that's been too comfortable in their position without a competant opposition
They brought in QE back in 2020, there's no reason we should be paying tax at all at this point, except to keep us poor and dependant of course.
I don’t think ‘nanny state’ applies here, if anywhere. ‘Nanny state’ relies on the whole dignity of risk argument, that doesn’t apply when you can harm others. You can definitely harm others with speeding, and probably can with not wearing a seatbelt.
For speeding the argument should be more around where does the risk of harm lie (ie at what level of exceeding the speed limit), which makes sense on an individual level, but not on a population level.
You can definitely harm others with speeding, and probably can with not wearing a seatbelt.
LOL, highly unlikely.
Speeding and hitting a tree doesn't count as harming others.
Flying out of a vehicle doesn't either.Hiding and dressing up the revenue collection intention with unlikely and imaginary road safety does not help.
Be smart and follow the rules: under max speed and wear a seat belt. NOT BECAUSE it might be safe but because the entire QLD police force is out to get you.
Don't give the a-holes the satisfactionTrees aren’t the only thing people hit when speeding - people and other vehicles come to mind. Also it does harm if you injure yourself because paramedics have to come and deal with your battered body, the public pay for your rehab if you survive and if you can’t work afterwards the whole of society and likely your family suffers. The fines for low range do seem excessive, but this isn’t a ‘nanny state’ issue, ‘nanny state’ is the government interfering when it’s not their business to do so. It would seem road rules are well within the scope of government.
It would seem road rules are well within the scope of government.
Not really. Remember some countries allow unlimited speed.
Drinking at home until your liver burst into flames is not regulated.
Perhaps because they are already collecting revenue from taxes on alcohol.Why is driving different?
Also, instead of charging money (and then the revenue collection stigma) how about transitorily cancelling that rego and/or that drivers license instead. That will be convincing.
Also, instead of charging money (and then the revenue collection stigma) how about transitorily cancelling that rego and/or that drivers license instead. That will be convincing.
Don't they already do that for serial/serious offenders? Or are you suggesting it be for first time and low level offenders too? I can imagine people complaining about freedom and not being able to feed their family.
@Ughhh: Instead of taking money, suspend right to drive.
Feed the family with the fine not received, freely move (without a suspend vehicle/rego) anytime and everywhere. No speeding/phone/seat-belt.
Win win.@LFO: How long you want to suspend?
If they were already short on money, not fining them doesn't mean they have extra money to feed the family. You need income, inability to drive to work may impact their ability to earn an income. A bit extreme for low level offences.
A bit extreme for low level offences.
Any fines will probably exceed what they potentially make by traveling around.
Now the option is rather easy, don't get book, don't do any action for the regime to get you, to fine you.
Just be fair, the alternative is rather simple:
- drive under the speed limit
- wear seat belt as required,
- don't hold the phone whilst driving.
How hard that is?
Just be fair, the alternative is rather simple:
drive under the speed limit
wear seat belt as required,
don't hold the phone whilst driving.
How hard that is?Not at all. If everyone followed those rules, it wouldn't matter if the fine was $100000.
Speeding and hitting a tree doesn't count as harming others
The trauma for those that have to recover your body is worse than you think.
Can we get a more 'official' source than an imgur screenshot with no references??
Source: Billboards throughout QLD, multiple news sites, QLD Government website;
https://statements.qld.gov.au/statements/94934This should really not be new information to drivers living in QLD. It's been very well documented.
None of the 'official' PDF links on that page show anything about speeding brackets and matching fines. Only thing I can find is https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Safety/Driver-guide/Speeding/Spee… which has clearly different speeding backets (13km/h over versus the screenshot 10km/h) etc
I also don't live within 100km of a billboard, nor seen anything about it on any news sites, so it's not exactly 'well documented'…
The first sentence of the press release in my link talks about raising fines. Don't know how recently they released the specifics, but the notice that they were going up has been well known. The TMR link you provided is the current rules not the future rules.
Here are four links I found from a month ago after 30 seconds of searching RE the fines increasing;
https://www.carexpert.com.au/car-news/queensland-increases-f…
https://www.9news.com.au/national/queensland-road-users-to-b…
https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/traffic…
https://www.triplem.com.au/story/queensland-drivers-to-face-…
How does sending me a fine in the mail in a week slow me down the day I was doing a murderous 5 k's over the limit?
It induces a fear of the state into you so that next time you think of committing a heinous crime like that you might pause for consideration, you filthy criminal.
Dont worry bout the 20 people run over run off the road in the mean time.
More cops on the road would help… but that costs money. When I was a kid back in teh dark ages, you'd see 10+ cops a day… these days You'd struggle to see 1 a month… let alone long weekends when they have Blitz's - which Im certain is bullshit with no more cops on the road than normal.
YMMV :)
Ok so you are advocating for point to point speed cameras to be placed on each and every street and road?
How about more cops on the road
So we have enough police to enforce this garbage 1kmh over the limit cash grab, but they can't do anything about actual crime. Fantastic.
Same thing happened last year with the 'mask mandates' especially in Victoria. Mega busloads of coppas were there to hassle and assault all the mums and dads peacefully protesting but in the meantime, rape and murder.
majorslast.com
Why only speeding?
Why not increase the penalties for illegal parking or standing on clearways? Tradies with their utes and trucks seem to be perpetual offenders.
Their jobs are to build shit not to park illegally.
uh-huh, and you'll be the first one complaining when you can't get your stuff built because the tradie has nowhere to park.
@EightImmortals: I had my floors done recently. The tradies parked in the visitor parking.
What's got you so riled up?
@Caped Baldy: Same old stuff.
I absolutely loathe the myth of authority and the abuses committed by those in power in all contexts. My next pet peeve is people who blindly obey without using their own brains. Which is their choice of course but when they try to force that POV on others and seek to punish those who simply see things differently (without harming anyone else of course) then they are simply playing into that myth. I see the road rules as being there to keep everyone safe and to stop being crashing into others, a lot of people simply see those same rules as commands from on-high that must be obeyed to the letter.You'd think I'd be over it as this point in life but alas I'm not quite there yet for some reason.
those who simply see things differently (without harming anyone else of course)
This runs into issues when the people don't agree / understand / care that certain actions hurt or have the potential to hurt others. There was another poster saying that people who speed are only a risk to themselves from crashing into a tree, completely ignoring / forgetting / never realising all of the other people in danger of a speeding car
@DiscountForThee: A car doing 63kph isn't going to do that much more damage than one going 60kph. The problem with accidents is that it's usually not speed that causes it.
@EightImmortals: I personally don't agree with the 1-3kph fines, but there definitely needs to be a cutoff for what is acceptable
Just target tradies and 4WDs and revenue would go up heaps.
Constantly see them weaving in and out of traffic, tailgating and speeding.
And how many accidents have you witnessed?
If only there was a way to avoid paying these fines, surely some clever person could think of one ….
Throw out everything in the bonnet and interior then fred flintstone it. Now your car is classified as a trailer. There's fines for towing but no fines for driving a trailer.
It is not the cops that turn up the screws. It is a chook that has personality issues. I am ALL for road safety. But unreasonable enforcement is dividing society even more.
Offenders with no money got nothing to loose. Up in the North we have to sleep on our keys. Court rooms are full of bogans. They just steal another car and go drunk full boar over red lights. Worst of all is that an ever increasing group of people get thousands of dollars thrown back at them for the alcohol interlock. Facebook has banned me for exposing that thruth!
Done some commercial driving at night. Sorry no more. Every further brute force is met with opposites makeing night driving a true nightmare. Cop recycling is a growing result.
Many let their friends off the hook as they know the fines just destroy family lives.
And the rich just get their cars registered in a company in SA, pay 5 times the amount and NEVER lose a single point. Corruption anybody???So long as they apply this rule with some common sense then I am fine with it. I.e. <10% above the speed limit should not incur a fine due to the variance on car's speedomoter readings. If you get a fine for going slightly over and then get your car speedo tested and it is showing you are doing the limit when really it is over then who is to blame - the car manufacturer? If everyone is going to start driving extra slow to avoid these fines then shouldn't there also be fines for driving too slow and causing a hazard? This all stinks to the high heavens of revenue raising without any impact on road deaths and safety.
Car speedo's always read under from the manufacturer. So you always think you are going faster than you actually are, by 5-10 km/h on vehicle, how fast you're going etc.
Edit: typo - meant to say over.
ADR state that a speedo cannot read under at all.
New ADR 18 says speedos cannot indicate less that the true speed, and over-indication accuracy is limited to a maximum 10 per cent plus 4km/h. This means that at a true speed of 100 kilometres per hour the speedo can’t be displaying 99, or under, but it could be displaying up to 114.
You really are a crackpot.
I agree. People who think they can endanger lives based on what they call a personal decision are just selfish scum.
Glad we found some common ground.
I think they posted in the wrong browser tab from one of those anti mask or anti vax topics :P
So, just to check, @SlavOz do you actually believe that there shouldn't be speed limits?
The AMA has been pushing for a sugar tax on junk food and drinks.
I'm 100% for it if it goes towards farming subsides and/or cheaper milk, fruits and veggies. It's too tempting to buy a packet of bhuja snacks vs 1 apple at the same price.