- Joined
- 22 June 2008
- Posts
- 561
- Reactions
- 0
While your at it you can let them know that we see through their excuse for the change from 10% to 3km tolerance for speed traps. If they truly wanted to lower the speed of drivers to save lives they would have simply drop the limits(ie from 110km to 100km). Instead what they did was to lower the tolerance to a level that is below the accuracy of most vehicles odometer tolerance, not to mention within the usual variations in cruise control fluctuations over undulating roads. The effect of this is that more time is spent looking at the odometer and hence less time watching the road.I am off to chat to a couple of Pollies, armed with this site/thread.
If they had have simply dropped the speed limit and kept the tolerance level at 10% the net effect would be a real reduction in speed with a realistic tolerance level with people spending more time(than currently) watching the road...........but to their detriment there would be no real increase in revenue due to ridiculously low tolerance levels.
I'm not saying I'd like to see a further reduction in speed limits, I believe such a move would not have the effect of lowering the number of deaths and serious injury on the roads.
Simply put the change does not stop those who constantly exceed the speed limit by 20,30,40+km who endanger others and cause the most serious injury and loss of life..........all it does is increase revenue at the expense of those who who may be over by between 3km and 10%, which virtually every good driver does due to undulating roads, accelerator control fluctuations and even while using cruise control.
We're not idiots, we see straight through their decision. They had two options to reduce marginal speeding, they chose the option that would net them higher revenue.
cheers