Vic set to cancel a years worth of Western Ring Road Fines

[Doug]

As shown on the news tonight, Victoria is set to cancel at least a years worth of Western Ring Road Fixed Camera Fines. City Link and Geelong Road fixed cameras are not included in this. This is expected to cost the government a rather large amount of money.

Nine News Segment.wmv (http://www.mytired.net/Collection/MT04_9N_SpeedCameras4.wmv) 2.1Mb

[Ghia351]

As shown on the news tonight, Victoria is set to cancel at least a years worth of Western Ring Road Fixed Camera Fines. City Link and Geelong Road fixed cameras are not included in this. This is expected to cost the government a rather large amount of money.

Nine News Segment.wmv (http://www.mytired.net/Collection/MT04_9N_SpeedCameras4.wmv) 2.1Mb

Seems the Western Ring Road fixed speed cameras were not maintained (meaning: calibrated) through 2003 and the supplying company (Poltech http://www.poltech.com.au/ went into liquidation just before all this first blew up publically...read into this what you may...

[dean]

That puts the state govt right in the shit. I beleive the police and transport ministers should step down. What a monumental stuff up. Will all the back-flips and budget blowouts on major projects, this would have to be one of the most incompetent state govt's to date. :mad:

[VXTIMMY]

this would have to be one of the most incompetent state govt's to date. :mad:

Second only to mr Carr's

[Bumfluff]

Second only to mr Carr's

DANG! BEAT ME TO IT! :D

[clixanup]

That puts the state govt right in the shit. I beleive the police and transport ministers should step down. What a monumental stuff up. Will all the back-flips and budget blowouts on major projects, this would have to be one of the most incompetent state govt's to date. :mad:

Personally, I'm happy to see a government that is admitting that it's wrong.

At least Bracks has the balls to do that.

Jeff made mistakes too, but he never admitted fault.

[Speedy Gonzales]

What about those who paid thier fines or lost their jobs as a result?

[Doug]

What about those who paid their fines or lost their jobs as a result?

Fines will be re-paid. (I wonder if they will include interest?)

The government lawyers are apparently working out how they can minimise the liability they have to those who suffered consequences like loss of license. I'm guessing they will dump that on Poltech, which will destroy whats left of the company and ensure people won't see anything like a fair remuneration.

[snapper05]

I spend a few weeks in Melbourne every year and your police down there are nothing short of nazi's. I once saw someone getting pulled over by an innocent looking, unmarked VX wagon. We pulled alongside and there's a GENIII badge on it and theres red and blue lights set up in it! I thought our cops up here (Qld) were 'over zealous' when it came to catching speedsters, but Vic puts us to shame! Oh and sucked in Bracks...arrogant pr!ck.

[V8BRUTE]

Thats what you get when you put a school teacher into govern the state :rolleyes:

This is one of the funniest things I have heard this week, I just feel sorry for the poor buggers that have been shafted by fines and points, looks like we better vote the Liberals back in to clean up the mess once again :bash:

He wasn't universally loved by all but I reckon Jeff was the best thing that ever happened to Vic in the last 15-20 years, the Labour jokers the worst :D

[BossV8]

On the radio the other day there were a fair few people who rang in saying they had lost their license due to ring rd camera's, and subsequently lost their jobs also. You'd reckon they'd be pluggin for compo too, loss of earnings for example

The thing i always wonder...even if the cameras are tested to be working effective electronic equipment will always have errors at some point, and may not be known when. Just think our pc's and machines have errors sometimes, it seems very untrustworthy to have unmanned on the roads

[nikola]

What about those who paid thier fines or lost their jobs as a result?

You guy's think I'll be paid back for this? I lost my licence for 12 months back in March last year for doing 170kmh on the Ring Road. And I lost my job as a result.

I'm thinking because of my speed they might not.

[Drizzt]

You guy's think I'll be paid back for this? I lost my licence for 12 months back in March last year for doing 170kmh on the Ring Road. And I lost my job as a result.

I'm thinking because of my speed they might not.

Depends on how much out the cameras are or were. You could have a case though.


Drizzt

[clixanup]

He wasn't universally loved by all but I reckon Jeff was the best thing that ever happened to Vic in the last 15-20 years, the Labour jokers the worst :D

You're forgetting that there's a Liberal govt in power Federally, and they'll do everything in their power to make any Labour states look bad.

You're just buying their crap.

[clixanup]

You guy's think I'll be paid back for this? I lost my licence for 12 months back in March last year for doing 170kmh on the Ring Road. And I lost my job as a result.

What kind of person does 170 on a public road which is signposted at 100 when it is well known that there are several permanent speed cameras on that road?

IMO, you got what you deserved. Cop it sweet.

[SSbaby]

The VIC labour government is having a whinge on TV, complaining about how the Federal government is not distributing funds proportionate to the amount of tax contributed by each state...yadi yadi ya... yet the Federal government agreed to give Victoria additional funds for construction of the Scoresby bypass, provided no tolls were introduced.

The VIC government, in their wisdom, is committed to tolling the Scoresby bypass AND wants Victorians to help their cause by bombarding Howard with letters, asking for additional funding. It isn't exactly a sound way of balancing the state's budget if that's how they hope to bridge the shortfall from the drop is revenues from speed camera related infringements. Bracks is screwing motorists with or without cameras.

[dean]

That has cost the Vic govt $13.7m in repayed fines and another $6m in compensation for loss of license. No two guesses on who will end up paying for that.

[clixanup]

Bracks is screwing motorists with or without cameras.

From today's Age:

"But Victorian Premier Steve Bracks said the freeway would be built with tolls and Mr Costello knew it.

He said the federal government was playing politics with the funding to make it an issue at the next federal poll.

"This is just pure politicking by the federal treasurer who knows this is going to be financed by tolls," Mr Bracks told reporters.

"The expressions of interest have gone out. It doesn't require that money."

Mr Bracks said Victoria was shortchanged on roads funding by 15 to 20 per cent, and the state would seek to have the $445 million allocated to other roads projects such as the Geelong bypass, the Pakenham bypass and the Calder Freeway.

"We deserve a better share of road funding in Victoria," he said."

Sounds like the Fed. govt is playing with the Vic govt to make them look incomptetent.

Ahh Politics - don't you just love it?

[SSbaby]

Sounds like the Fed. govt is playing with the Vic govt to make them look incomptetent.

Ahh Politics - don't you just love it?

What's that, a Labour government going broke...Ahh politics!

[tickford2001]

The VIC labour government is having a whinge on TV, complaining about how the Federal government is not distributing funds proportionate to the amount of tax contributed by each state...yadi yadi ya... yet the Federal government agreed to give Victoria additional funds for construction of the Scoresby bypass, provided no tolls were introduced.

The VIC government, in their wisdom, is committed to tolling the Scoresby bypass AND wants Victorians to help their cause by bombarding Howard with letters, asking for additional funding. It isn't exactly a sound way of balancing the state's budget if that's how they hope to bridge the shortfall from the drop is revenues from speed camera related infringements. Bracks is screwing motorists with or without cameras.

pretty much sums it up...

cant wait to get a chance to vote bracksy out :rolleyes:

[Drizzt]

Yes well our esteemed :rolleyes: premier toured my workplace this morning and I made an effort to not be at work lest I tell him what was really on my mind.


Drizzt

[clixanup]

What's that, a Labour government going broke...Ahh politics!

How quickly we forget.

Which Victorian government made most of its money by privatising public assets?

Which Victorian government privatised parts of a public freeway (the Tullamarine) and then enforced agreements to toll the damned thing?

And on a Federal level:

Who said "I promise there will be NO GST..." in 1996?

[Speedy Gonzales]

What kind of person does 170 on a public road which is signposted at 100 when it is well known that there are several permanent speed cameras on that road?

IMO, you got what you deserved. Cop it sweet.

Wasnt a Datsun 120Y clocked at 150-160 on the Ring Rd? That was the incident that sparked it all. So whats to say this person didnt get a false reading either?

More than likely you will get your license back, your fine refunded, and points cleared, but I think a large sum of money is entitled for lost income.

I listened on 3AW morning and noted how Bracky didnt answer Neils when probed about ppl with cases such as the Datto above.

Bracksy didnt answer, he sidestepped and proceeded to pass the buck, and say an investigation will be held, what a waste of even more time and effort. We the public already know why.

The Gov, Police and VicRds should be publically hung drawn and quartered, they are the 1s who have been telling us all along that the system is perfect, when obviously it isnt, never will be, and errors will always occur.

As far as Im concerned, Bracks your the 1 who runs the State, its your responsibility, no passing the buck or excuses, you didnt listen to the Vic public about the short comings of speed cameras and never believed the public.

With regards to compo, how do you compensate someone who has lost their $35k job and is still unemployed, doing work for the dole or working in a role which pays less due to someone elses mistake? 2 grand is that it? Pfft :mad:

Some bloke lost his license, has 2 kids and wife to feed, mortgage and bills, do you think he will still drive? HELL YEAH, its called looking after your family Bracksy, you say that you are committed to looking after our families, when really, you have not delivered.

I and many other Victorians will enjoy your exit from office come the election.

[clixanup]

Wasnt a Datsun 120Y clocked at 150-160 on the Ring Rd? That was the incident that sparked it all. So whats to say this person didnt get a false reading either?

He said he was doing 170.

[Ghia351]

He said he was doing 170.

It was actally female and they took her "rocket" to a race track last year, while crossing live to the Neil Mitchell (morning) program on 3AW and maxed it out at under 150km/hr which sparked the whole investigation eventually. Heard the same lady again on 3AW this morning where she said her original fine was contested with the proof of the race track and it was withdrawn.

[Ghia351]

How quickly we forget.

Which Victorian government made most of its money by privatising public assets?

Which Victorian government privatised parts of a public freeway (the Tullamarine) and then enforced agreements to toll the damned thing?

And on a Federal level:

Who said "I promise there will be NO GST..." in 1996?

Can I also add..signed commercial contracts (Tollway) that had no public re-course and even included clauses with compensation should any other transport infrastructure be built to compete with the tollway, automatic toll increases every quarter, removal/closure/restriction of side roads forcing traffic onto tollway or face horrendace delays zig-zagging your way north... no tolling of motor-cycles, no off peak rates, no heavy use discounts...it goes on and on...

On a Fed level.. core promises & non-core promises (wtf) , No GST, overseas training of dock workers and then handing Patricks a huge windful resulting in them buying any transport system worth owning, Tampa/children overboard, WMD and now tax breaks that really help less then 30% of Australian population, I actually benefit on this one whereas parents who are self-funded retirees suffer once again.....

[snapper05]

He said he was doing 170.

Perhaps he should have said he was caught 'allegedly' doing 170. :lol: I'm no lawyer, but goddamn, never ADMIT speeding!

[large]

It is obvious that Bracks detests eastern suburbs people who are on the whole Liberal voters.
This is the man who has back flipped on almost every decision he has made. He generally wont make a decision and pays big bucks for an inquiry to make a decision for him. He forfeited $420 million on the eastern, didn't take 70 million the federal government offered for the MCG refurbishment so he could pay off his union mates and then cries poor for no funding.

The federal government offered $420 miilion in a signed agreement with Bracks for a no toll freeway for the scoresby portion then a 50/50 split on the rest of the project so in fact he has probably forfeited close to $1 billion dollars in federal funding.

He has already spent the $400 million Kennett put aside for the scoresby freeway and handed his northern suburbs electorates the funds.

The Bloke is an absolute imbisile and I am embarresed every time he speaks to know this prick is representing our state.

Every thing he has touched has turned to shit with huge blow outs and giving his mates high profile jobs.

Vote him out and Farck him off.

[clixanup]

Every thing he has touched has turned to shit with huge blow outs and giving his mates high profile jobs.

And of course, Jeff never did any of that, right? :rolleyes:

[clixanup]

Can I also add..signed commercial contracts (Tollway) that had no public re-course and even included clauses with compensation should any other transport infrastructure be built to compete with the tollway, automatic toll increases every quarter, removal/closure/restriction of side roads forcing traffic onto tollway or face horrendace delays zig-zagging your way north... no tolling of motor-cycles, no off peak rates, no heavy use discounts...it goes on and on...

Jeff did all that because he knew that his government was on borrowed time, and he wanted to make the incoming government look incompetent - which (by reading this forum alone) he seems to have been successful at.


On a Fed level.. core promises & non-core promises (wtf) , No GST, overseas training of dock workers and then handing Patricks a huge windful resulting in them buying any transport system worth owning, Tampa/children overboard, WMD and now tax breaks that really help less then 30% of Australian population, I actually benefit on this one whereas parents who are self-funded retirees suffer once again.....

Great huh? There's more too. Have a look at the "baby bonus" and see who gets the main benefit from that.

As a person who deals with small/medium business owners daily, I can tell you that most of them want to tell Howard exactly where to stick his friggin' GST.

[nikola]

What kind of person does 170 on a public road which is signposted at 100 when it is well known that there are several permanent speed cameras on that road?

IMO, you got what you deserved. Cop it sweet.

And you never speed right? I suppose you're absolutely distraught by hearing about such speeds. Yes, I'm sure you drive your Clubsport Camry style everywhere you go so you can brag about the great fuel economy you get.

Besides, I wasn't travelling at 170kmh.

[clixanup]

And you never speed right? I suppose you're absolutely distraught by hearing about such speeds. Yes, I'm sure you drive your Clubsport Camry style everywhere you go so you can brag about the great fuel economy you get.

Besides, I wasn't travelling at 170kmh.

1. I don't drive a Clubsport. I have a Calais V8.

2. I try not to speed on public roads. Yes, I am distraught about hearing about such high speeds on public roads. Someone was killed on the Western Ring Road yesterday due to speed. I have to use that road everyday. There are 2 to 3 accidents per month which happen on it due to speed and stupidity.

3. You said " I got booked for doing 170..."

BTW - My fuel economy ain't half bad. :cool:

[nikola]

1. I don't drive a Clubsport. I have a Calais V8.

2. I try not to speed on public roads. Yes, I am distraught about hearing about such high speeds on public roads. Someone was killed on the Western Ring Road yesterday due to speed. I have to use that road everyday. There are 2 to 3 accidents per month which happen on it due to speed and stupidity.

3. You said " I got booked for doing 170..."

BTW - My fuel economy ain't half bad. :cool:

Well if you have a grudge against people driving at such speeds then you have a grudge against pretty much everyone on this site because I'm almost certain that everyone would have extended their car to such speeds at least once in their lifetime.

PS: If I was going to speed on the Ring road I wouldn't do it with traffic around me. That's just plain stupid. Well it's stupid speeding on the Ring road but you get my drift.

[large]

And of course, Jeff never did any of that, right? :rolleyes:

Geez Bracksy has almost got over blaming Jeff for everything but it seems you haven't recovered yet and still want to blame him for everything.

So does that mean I can go back and blame Kirner and co.

We have seen nothing but incopetence from this government.
If you can highlight some good things he has done that would be good cause I ain't seen one good thing to date.

Oh yes thats right he stopped the judges getting pay rises......ooops no he back flipped and now the get more.
Signed an agreement for a No tolls freeway..............oops back flip again.
JUst one thing right would be nice and then we can way them up against the bad things and see where we are.

[clixanup]

JUst one thing right would be nice and then we can way them up against the bad things and see where we are.

Here's one for starters:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/11/11/1036308631160.html

And here's another:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/11/12/1037080729869.html

[clixanup]

Well if you have a grudge against people driving at such speeds then you have a grudge against pretty much everyone on this site because I'm almost certain that everyone would have extended their car to such speeds at least once in their lifetime.

Mate, most people on here will tell you that there's a time and place for it - at the track.

[nikola]

Mate, most people on here will tell you that there's a time and place for it - at the track.

And I agree with that but the reality is that not everyone lives up to what they claim. Especially people with fast cars.

[Heli]

Here's one for starters:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/11/11/1036308631160.html

And here's another:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/11/12/1037080729869.html


Oh, spare me. Age quotes from 2002, with Bracks pre election promises about Health and Police, yet to be fulfilled. Oh, sorry, was that the nurses that just had an industrial dispute? Oh, and aren't most of the Police stations promised the same as those that Jeff left money to build? What, they are 3 years behind schedule? What, there are insufficient Police members to staff the 24 hour stations, because there are more on sick leave, long service leave, stress leave, etc., than are on duty.

You've made your point, Clixo, you're a dyed in the wool Labour voter. Get over it :rolleyes:



Now, back to the fiasco over the speed cameras ;) Why was the Citylink given a clean bill of health, when (IIRC) a Linfox truck was booked at Warp Factor 6 through the Burnley Tunnel, just prior to the Gummint finally accepting that something might be wrong with their precious cash cow???

[large]

Here's one for starters:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/11/11/1036308631160.html

And here's another:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/11/12/1037080729869.html



You should check your facts before posting this crap. The facts are the promises and the reality is they aren't fulfilled. Which year? 2002 please.

Back on topic, the whole speed camera issue is farsical. When questioned on 3aw with neil mitchell he had no idea if there was ever any maintenance contracts in the initial purchase of the cameras or whether any callobration had taken place as well in the last 18 months. This clearly indicates the cameras were solely used as a cash cow rather than a serious road safety device.

[SSbaby]

Back on topic, the whole speed camera issue is farsical. When questioned on 3aw with neil mitchell he had no idea if there was ever any maintenance contracts in the initial purchase of the cameras or whether any callobration had taken place as well in the last 18 months. This clearly indicates the cameras were solely used as a cash cow rather than a serious road safety device.

I wonder if the cameras on the Ring Rd suddenly stopped 'working' (i.e. failed to book motorists) would it take the government 18 months to check their operation? Seriously, joking!

[Ghia351]

As a person who deals with small/medium business owners daily, I can tell you that most of them want to tell Howard exactly where to stick his friggin' GST.

That wouldn't be up his "Kyber Pass" by any chance?

[Heli]

(snip) Have a look at the "baby bonus" and see who gets the main benefit from that.

As a person who deals with small/medium business owners daily, I can tell you that most of them want to tell Howard exactly where to stick his friggin' GST.

While we're putting the genie back in the bottle, two more rejoinders:

1) As a small business owner, I reckon GST is fine. Quarterly I repay the gov't an interest free loan: that's better than the bank can do for me :D

2) Benefits from the Fed budget? Funny how not many remember what the "low/middle" income tax level was when Labor were last driving the ship. It's now 30%: remind me, was it 36% or 37% when Howard took over? Business rates, remind me how much that has come down?

[clixanup]

While we're putting the genie back in the bottle, two more rejoinders:

1) As a small business owner, I reckon GST is fine. Quarterly I repay the gov't an interest free loan: that's better than the bank can do for me :D

2) Benefits from the Fed budget? Funny how not many remember what the "low/middle" income tax level was when Labor were last driving the ship. It's now 30%: remind me, was it 36% or 37% when Howard took over? Business rates, remind me how much that has come down?

OK, so the average Joe has $10 more in his pocket weekly due to tax cuts - but it's costing him $20 more to feed his family each week. Under which system is he better off?

As a small business owner, you should be upset that your depreciation rates have been reduced and that you've lost the benefits you used to get from dividend imputation. You can't use business losses to offset other income anymore. Companies, partnerships and trusts are now being treated similarly to individuals for tax purposes. The benefits of income splitting are now negligible. In fact, income splitting is now illegal for some contractors. As a small business owner, things have never been worse for you (from a tax perspective that is). You're not looking at the big picture. You're concentrating on details.

If John Howard's government is so generous with tax cuts, then how come they're making more money than any Federal government in history? They're making changes which the average person doesn't see or care about, but which end up costing them (the general public) more.

Sorry if all this is O/T.

[Heli]

OK, so the average Joe has $10 more in his pocket weekly due to tax cuts - but it's costing him $20 more to feed his family each week. Under which system is he better off?

As a small business owner, you should be upset that your depreciation rates have been reduced and that you've lost the benefits you used to get from dividend imputation. You can't use business losses to offset other income anymore. Companies, partnerships and trusts are now being treated similarly to individuals for tax purposes. The benefits of income splitting are now negligible. In fact, income splitting is now illegal for some contractors. As a small business owner, things have never been worse for you (from a tax perspective that is). You're not looking at the big picture. You're concentrating on details.

If John Howard's government is so generous with tax cuts, then how come they're making more money than any Federal government in history? They're making changes which the average person doesn't see or care about, but which end up costing them (the general public) more.

Sorry if all this is O/T.

Staying just a bit OT,

Q1 So a tax cut isn't justified, because the cost of living has gone up. Huh????

Q2 My depreciation rates haven't affected any of my assets (6 aircraft, property, vehicles, office cr@p) enough to be an issue. My accountant hasn't any problems with any of my Trusts, nor have I any problem with any of the issues you note. My big picture remains complete, but my operations interstate don't have to worry about some of the "details" that I get from Bracks' and his government (I operate in Queensland, NSW and Adelaide, main base Melbourne, before you ask).

Q3 All governments, Federal and State (and Territory) are making more. Bracket creep isn't restricted to Federal issues, but Bracks' decision to link all charges, fines, penalties, etc etc to the CPI is a ripper :rolleyes: That really helps everyone, doesn't it :lol:

[clixanup]

Q1 So a tax cut isn't justified, because the cost of living has gone up. Huh????

It isn't just an increase in the cost of living. Its a TAX. Things cost 10% more than they used to (on top of CPI) because of GST. Plain and simple.


Q2 My depreciation rates haven't affected any of my assets (6 aircraft, property, vehicles, office cr@p) enough to be an issue.

The effective life of cars purchased from 1st July 2002 (assuming you don't run a fleet of taxis/hire cars) has been pushed out to 8 years. On a $35K car, this equates to roughly $400 per car out of your hip-pocket in taxes due to the reduction in your depreciation claim.

Before I continue, its only fair to warn you that you're arguing with a tax professional. This discussion has become totally irrelevant to the topic at hand, so if you wish to continue it, please do so via PM.

[Heli]

It isn't just an increase in the cost of living. Its a TAX. Things cost 10% more than they used to (on top of CPI) because of GST. Plain and simple.

(snip)

Before I continue, its only fair to warn you that you're arguing with a tax professional. This discussion has become totally irrelevant to the topic at hand, so if you wish to continue it, please do so via PM.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

After you put up eleven posts slagging anything non Labour, you want me to go to PM's :rolleyes: And you're a tax professional: so what, I'm currently sueing my last taxation "company", so don't expect that to go down with me, thanks all the same. Threads have their own life, until the moderator decides otherwise.

If you want to raise anything OT, think before you post. Blatant party politicals don't wash it, and deserve to be corrected. I don't care for the errors on both sides of the house, but neither do I accept your inaccurate defending the indefencible.

Oh, and the GST replaced how many other taxes, many of which were up to 22.5%? How did that put up costs 10%, plain & simple?

[large]

Pre G.s.t. my industry had a 22% wholesale sales tax now it has a 10% gst. If you really have a tax background then you may well have been locked up in a labor cupboard for too long.

I think people are only asking for you to look at facts rather than use anti-Liberal sceptisism in all of your posts. I think your tv has 5 channnels on it.
ABC
ABC
ABC
ABC
ABC
ABC

Theres a trick one for the taxation expert.

[Ghia351]

Oh, and the GST replaced how many other taxes, many of which were up to 22.5%? How did that put up costs 10%, plain & simple?

Simple really, all services were previously untaxed and now have a 10% GST added so there is an instant price hike. As a manufacturer of goods I used to purchase sales tax exempt and then charge to (non-exempt) customers a 22% wholesale sales tax. More importantly, as the manufacturer of these products I set the wholesale price and therefore set the tax to be charged to customers and passed on to the government every month. And a 22% wholesale tax vs a 10% GST made bugger all price movement in my industry. And now we have GST charged on top of other taxes, such as petrol levies/duties, Stamp duties etc... The GST has also given bas###d slow payers an excuse for their late payments.."Oh, sorry I paid my BAS last week and am low on cash..can you wait 2 more weeks..?" And has the black economy gone away ( a big political push to sell the GST) ... no way, it's made it easier to calculate the "cash-no-invoice" price vs the "pay by cheque/can't hide it" price.

[Ghia351]

Pre G.s.t. my industry had a 22% wholesale sales tax now it has a 10% gst. A 22% wholesale price vs 10% GST on final retail has very little difference as previously wholesale prices could be "fixed" more easily by the manufacturer.

[clixanup]

Oh, and the GST replaced how many other taxes, many of which were up to 22.5%?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Now THAT is funny.

[clixanup]

And you're a tax professional: so what, I'm currently sueing my last taxation "company", so don't expect that to go down with me, thanks all the same.

I don't profess to know everything about tax. I never said I was an expert. However, I was just giving you fair warning that I have a few more resources to hand. I'm happy to argue with you, but, that's beside the point.

The point is this: Yes, less tax gets taken out of your pay-packet, but everything costs 10% more. Depreciation rates have been reduced - I illustrated how much that could cost you, but you chose to ignore it. Business losses are no longer deductible against other income, income splitting is now illegal in certain circumstances, if you earn more than $50K you must have private health cover or face an extra 1% Medicare. All these things add up. They add up to much more than the marginal rate reductions you're so wrapt with. Wake up. Its costing you more.

How long before the Federal government in all its wisdom demolishes the benefits of negative gearing? I can tell you that they're looking at that really hard at the moment. Ask your accountant and see if he/she doesn't tell you to make hay while the sun shines.

Anyhow, thats all OK. We've got lower marginal rates. :rolleyes:

[clixanup]

Pre G.s.t. my industry had a 22% wholesale sales tax now it has a 10% gst. If you really have a tax background then you may well have been locked up in a labor cupboard for too long.

OK, what about petrol? Why is there still govt levies on that? Everyone knows that more than half the price of petrol goes to the government. Not just the one eleventh that makes up the GST portion. How many taxes do you honestly believe that the GST has replaced? What costs less under the GST than it did pre-GST? Give me one example, I beg you.


I think people are only asking for you to look at facts rather than use anti-Liberal sceptisism in all of your posts. I think your tv has 5 channnels on it.
ABC
ABC
ABC
ABC
ABC
ABC

Theres a trick one for the taxation expert.

That's more than 10%.

BTW - I never said I was an expert. Nobody knows everything about anything. There is always something new to learn.

[clixanup]

Oh, and the GST replaced how many other taxes, many of which were up to 22.5%?

While we're on the subject, how long do you think it'll be before the GST rate increases?

What have other countries experienced? Look at England for a good one.

[large]

While we're on the subject, how long do you think it'll be before the GST rate increases?

What have other countries experienced? Look at England for a good one.

You should know that GST can only be raised on aggreeance of all state governments. I think you will find that all state governments in Australia except one are labor governments. If the gst goes up then who is to blame.......Labor!

You are not looking at the whole picture when forming your arguement.
Every cent of gst collected is paid to state goverments. The federal government takes not 1 cent of it. If these funds are used correctly by our labor state government we have no problems. Unfortunately almosty every project started in Victoria has a major blow out in cost and huge amounts of extra costing in commitees to make decisions for Bracks. He is flawed with making decisions then back flipping.
Jeff was not perfect but had to fix huge debt left behind. He made decisions that were not liked by all but fixed our huge debt that was left over from Cain/Kirner days. You cant fix those problems without making hard decisions.
Bracks has the funds thanks to the GST and good management from jeff yet after 6 years we have not seen any benefit from his government at all only major blunders. If he worked in private enterprise he would have been sacked years ago.

[clixanup]

You should know that GST can only be raised on aggreeance of all state governments. I think you will find that all state governments in Australia except one are labor governments. If the gst goes up then who is to blame.......Labor!

Two questions:

Who controls which state gets how much?

How much of Victoria's share of the GST goes to other states?

I agree that Victoria's debts needed to be paid out, but Jeff went about it the wrong way. Privatisation is good up to a point, but can lead to incidents like the Longford disaster. I believe that certain types of public assets such as roads and prisons should remain the govt's responsibility.

[Heli]

:rolleyes:

Where to start?

Going back, as a "Tax professional" (your words), or was that "I don't profess to know everything about tax. I never said I was an expert" :D Which is it? We know you're a one eyed Labour nut, but we'll forgive you that if you'll accept there are some faults ;)

Now, the state allocation of GST is controlled by the Grants Commission. Established in 1933, it is tasked to assess claims made by the States. Google will help you find it and how it works :) How much of Victoria's GST is returned to Victoria? More than NSW's share, less than Qld, less than WA. That's the thing about our Commonwealth, we understand that the remote areas need the assistance of the wealthier elements of our nation (the cities & the wealthier states). This isn't a wicked plot by the current Federal government, it applies regardless of the party in power. Bracks (and Howard) wasting our money on political advertising doesn't change any of that.

Clix, your tunnel vision on GST is just that: tunnel vision. Others have pointed out to you that the GST replaced a plethora of taxes, some as high as 22.5%, and spread the tax base more equally and equitably. If you can't accept that....your loss. The States had also agreed to reduce/abolish stamp duty taxes in return for the GST allocation entirely to the States. The allocation has happened, but not much sign of even a decent reduction in Stamp Duty, let alone winding up of the same.

Increasing GST? Well, it has been set up so that the rate can only vary with the agreement of all State Governments, plus the Federal Government. I'll bet a farthing to Threadneedle Street that if Latham gets into the Lodge, we will see GST go up to meet spending requirements: my best guess is within 18 months, but it will certainly happen within the first 2 years. And you can quote me on that! (yes, I worked in Threadneedle Street in a previous life ;) ).

Finally, your comments on depreciation and pay packets. I honestly have NOT had cause for concern, but then my aircraft depreciation rate hasn't changed, and I don't keep my cars more than two years. Some are leased, some are bought cash, all are much > $55k. Salary benefits are fine, etc etc. Oh, and nearly all white goods/electrical goods have dropped under the GST, since you were asking for an example :D

ps how on earth do you associate the Longford plant blow up with Jeff???? Further OT, I was with him when it happened...... ;)

[Ghia351]

Every cent of gst collected is paid to state goverments. The federal government takes not 1 cent of it.

Not quite true, it won't be until 2007 that the full "receipts" are granted back to the states, and in Vic's case we raise 25% of GDP, have 25% of the population and DON"T get back 25% from the Feds. I find it hugely ironic that QLD crows about being the state for business when it couldn't hope to offer any business advantages if it received a closer portion to what it actually collected within its borders. In Qld'ers case, call us Mexicans but if it wasn't for Vic & NSW subsidising the rest of the country QLD's only advantage would be the weather because their taxes would be higher on all state controlled levies/taxes. Don't worry I still love the place, just for 2 weeks every year. :stick:

[SSbaby]

I'm a VIC thru 'n' thru but my take on why states like QLD and NSW would get a disproportionate amount back is that those states have literally a lot more territory and more people tend to live in far-flung regional areas in their respective states, than they do in Vic.

Case in point: a road costs more to build in QLD than in VIC because it usually covers more distance. The land contours in QLD and NSW are also vastly different to flatter Victoria.

By comparison, Victoria is a more developed state and therefore more self-sufficient. :D

Am I making sense? :confused:

[clixanup]

Going back, as a "Tax professional" (your words), or was that "I don't profess to know everything about tax. I never said I was an expert" :D Which is it?

I work in tax, as a practitioner. I know a fair bit, but would say that I'm far from an expert. As tax agents go, I live in the shadow of Ray Regan.


We know you're a one eyed Labour nut, but we'll forgive you that if you'll accept there are some faults ;)

You need to re-read my posts. I haven't said anything pro-Labour since you stomped on me. Most things I've said since have been anti-government in general.


Clix, your tunnel vision on GST is just that: tunnel vision. Others have pointed out to you that the GST replaced a plethora of taxes, some as high as 22.5%, and spread the tax base more equally and equitably. If you can't accept that....your loss. The States had also agreed to reduce/abolish stamp duty taxes in return for the GST allocation entirely to the States. The allocation has happened, but not much sign of even a decent reduction in Stamp Duty, let alone winding up of the same.

So that benefits us how? Now we have to pay GST AND stamp duty, which was the point I was making. The fact that a "plethora" of taxes was replaced by the GST hasn't benefited many people at all, with many people worse off for the change.

Call it tunnel vision, but it doesn't take much to work out how much worse off people are - especially those in small business. Most have problems just paying the costs of compliance, let alone the GST itself. That's the experience I've had with quite a number of clients. Some have no problems, but they are the exception to the rule.


I'll bet a farthing to Threadneedle Street that if Latham gets into the Lodge, we will see GST go up to meet spending requirements:

Personally, I don't see Latho getting in. Then again, nor do I see Napthine getting in as Vic's premier. Anyway, as you said earlier, that's party politics.... and besides, I'm probably wrong on both counts.


Finally, your comments on depreciation and pay packets. I honestly have NOT had cause for concern, but then my aircraft depreciation rate hasn't changed, and I don't keep my cars more than two years.

OK. I get the picture. The minimum (based on a $55K car) $1000 per year worse off you are from the reduction in your depreciation claim (on your car alone) is nothing to you. Say no more. I understand. You aren't affected, so everyone else must be fine too.


Oh, and nearly all white goods/electrical goods have dropped under the GST, since you were asking for an example :D

How often in one's lifetime does one buy a Fridge? Great benefit, that.


ps how on earth do you associate the Longford plant blow up with Jeff???? Further OT, I was with him when it happened...... ;)

I didn't link it to Jeff. If you actually read the post, I linked it to PRIVATISATION. The disaster occured due to non-maintenance of parts of the plant due to cost cutting by the new owner - as was well publicised in the media at the time.

[Heli]

Bottom first: Longford Gas Plant has been owned and operated by Esso Australia since it was built in 1969. Absolutely nothing to do with privatisation. Read the report, it was blamed on poor maintenance and safety standards by Esso, plus a lack of oversight by Workcover.

GST is 10%, previous taxes were up to 22.5%. This is obviously never going to sink in, neither is the fact that Stamp Duty (a State income) was around pre GST, and hasn't changed (much) despite the States committing to it's reduction as a trade off for GST income.

Fridges? Yes, and electrical goods, and probably a few others I can't look up. I'm quite sure that you, me and most of the others here have purchased one or two DVD players, computers, VCR's, TV's, microwaves, MP3's, etc etc which are now GST'd at 10%, instead of 22.5%. But, hey, what's a saving of 12.5% tax, eh? :rolleyes:

Cars: since this is a car forum ;) I find my HSV's depreciate more than the resale value, so I'm up for capital gains if the depreciation rate is too high. Hence it is more realistic, and less of a pain on changeover time, than when the depreciation rate is too high.

Now, my two pet dogs are getting to understand GST nearly as well as you, after all these posts :lol: I'd better get back to earning a crust, and enjoying the benefits of the System. Life's too short to get bothered over trivialities :cool: :D

[clixanup]

Cars: since this is a car forum ;) I find my HSV's depreciate more than the resale value, so I'm up for capital gains if the depreciation rate is too high.

That sentence tells me how much you really understand the system.

:rolleyes:

[Heli]

I sell a car for more than it's worth on the books, and I pay tax on the "profit". I'm willing to learn, what have I misunderstood?

[Ghia351]

Maybe we can end the tax debate, Liberal vs Labour, throw in the more appropriate Ford vs Holden, Skaife vs Ingal and I think we have everything covered.....I just want the Hawks (AFL) to play with more passion...that's all...and my daughter to sleep in to 6.45am on the weekend.

[SSbaby]

Maybe we can end the tax debate, Liberal vs Labour, throw in the more appropriate Ford vs Holden, Skaife vs Ingal and I think we have everything covered.....I just want the Hawks (AFL) to play with more passion...that's all...and my daughter to sleep in to 6.45am on the weekend.

How dare you? We haven't started on religion yet! :lol:

[F6 Hoon]

OK, so the average Joe has $10 more in his pocket weekly due to tax cuts - but it's costing him $20 more to feed his family each week. Under which system is he better off?

As a small business owner, you should be upset that your depreciation rates have been reduced and that you've lost the benefits you used to get from dividend imputation. You can't use business losses to offset other income anymore. Companies, partnerships and trusts are now being treated similarly to individuals for tax purposes. The benefits of income splitting are now negligible. In fact, income splitting is now illegal for some contractors. As a small business owner, things have never been worse for you (from a tax perspective that is). You're not looking at the big picture. You're concentrating on details.

If John Howard's government is so generous with tax cuts, then how come they're making more money than any Federal government in history? They're making changes which the average person doesn't see or care about, but which end up costing them (the general public) more.

Sorry if all this is O/T.

Mate, you're damn right.

The Fed Government collects more revenue than it ever expected from GST. As an example, with excise on fuel being a percentage, not a fixed rate, it's no wonder the goverment doesn't want to do anything about the soaring cost of fuel. The higher the fuel costs the more revenue received.

It's no wonder the Fed government is able to make such large election promises. My opinion - Costello can stick his tax cut up his arse and put the money into the health system. Pull the troops out of Iraq (as the US and UK might be doing soon as they realise it's going to be another Vietnam war) and use the money to reduce HECS fees.

[Devil CV8]

I'd be happy if little johnny gave us back the 10c a litre special excise they chucked on when oil prices dropped (after the first gulf war I think it was, too long ago, but I remember the government of the day getting all panicky about a big drop in fuel prices.)

[Ghia351]

How dare you? We haven't started on religion yet! :lol:

How dare you, AFL is our religion.

Really O/T, but funny anyway,

Anyone remember the story about a notice board outside a Hawthorn church in the 70's which asked "What would you do if God came to Hawthorn?" and someone scribbled underneath "Move Hudson to Half-forward" (sorry for the non-AFL fans) or those that can't remember the 70's.

[SSbaby]

How dare you, AFL is our religion.


Now you're trying to alienate the bum-sniffers, north of the border. That's totally irresponsible of you Ghia. :lol:

Is there anything else of national importance that we haven't covered in this thread? :bash:

[seldo]

Hey Clixanup, I reckon you badly need a wheel-alignment ole buddy. You are pulling hard to the left all the time. :stick: ;)

[Evil LS1]

Let me guess Clixanup your are either a cop or a relative of a cop. Your goody twoshoe clap trap doesn't wash around here. We all know that every state government in this country couldn't giving a flying f*ck about road saftey. It's amazing how the anti speed zealots hold up one or two cases of morons drivng too fast and then extrapolate that every one that speeds is a sociopath.

The road toll has stagnated since the anti-car draconian legislations were introduced 10 years ago. A dozen reports in this country and worldwide have all shown speed is a factor in less than 10% of accidents. Drivers in this country are on the whole imbeciles and yet we let any dickhead on the road after passing a purile driving test.

I despised Kennett and I despise Bob Carr and Bracks is proving what a greedy stupid little man he is. He is a joke as is Carr and we can only hope they both get the :flipoff: at the nest election.

[SSbaby]

Let me guess Clixanup your are either a cop or a relative of a cop. Your goody twoshoe clap trap doesn't wash around here. We all know that every state government in this country couldn't giving a flying f*ck about road saftey. It's amazing how the anti speed zealots hold up one or two cases of morons drivng too fast and then extrapolate that every one that speeds is a sociopath.

The road toll has stagnated since the anti-car draconian legislations were introduced 10 years ago. A dozen reports in this country and worldwide have all shown speed is a factor in less than 10% of accidents. Drivers in this country are on the whole imbeciles and yet we let any dickhead on the road after passing a purile driving test.

I despised Kennett and I despise Bob Carr and Bracks is proving what a greedy stupid little man he is. He is a joke as is Carr and we can only hope they both get the :flipoff: at the nest election.

Now tell us what you really think, Evil. :lol:

All jokes and political allegiances aside, Evil has hit the crux of the issue(s) facing motorists. Is it any wonder society despises politicians when they are treating us like children and distorting truths to suit their every argument?

[clixanup]

Let me guess Clixanup your are either a cop or a relative of a cop. Your goody twoshoe clap trap doesn't wash around here. We all know that every state government in this country couldn't giving a flying f*ck about road saftey. It's amazing how the anti speed zealots hold up one or two cases of morons drivng too fast and then extrapolate that every one that speeds is a sociopath.

Hey - I agree with you for the most part. I've been busted a couple of times for going 10 to 20 ks over. Yes, it pisses me off. But how can anyone claim that 70 ks over is justifiable? I try to drive sensibly, but do make mistakes. There are enough d!ckheads on the road, without my contribution. 70ks over is not a mistake nor momentary lapse of concentration.

To answer your question, no I'm not a cop. And neither do I have any cop relatives.


A dozen reports in this country and worldwide have all shown speed is a factor in less than 10% of accidents. Drivers in this country are on the whole imbeciles and yet we let any dickhead on the road after passing a purile driving test.

Where can I find one of these reports? I'd like to see it for myself. I've lost count of the number of accidents I've seen or heard about in which speed was the major contributing factor. You are right. Driving tests need to be made harder. Licenses need to become a privilege instead of a right.

[SSbaby]

Where can I find one of these reports? I'd like to see it for myself. I've lost count of the number of accidents I've seen or heard about in which speed was the major contributing factor. You are right. Driving tests need to be made harder. Licenses need to become a privilege instead of a right.

It's fact...you can pickup any copy of Wheels mag and read what most of us have known since speed cameras were introduced.

You will also know that Italy are increasing their speed limits to increase alertness while driving and so too are a lot of states in the US. Why? Because very few accidents are as a result of speed ONLY.

If speed was a killer, how is it that Germans continue to drive at 250km/h and speed limits are not enforced in the NT? Surely they don't make safer cars in the NT!!!

[Ghia351]

If speed was a killer, how is it that Germans continue to drive at 250km/h and speed limits are not enforced in the NT? Surely they don't make safer cars in the NT!!!

If I could read German I could understand better but from what I guess-timate German driver education & licence testing is far more rigorous, you are actually taught how to drive a car and not just pass a road test.

Lack of population/density would be a big part of lower accident rates in NT..what is it per capita for eg. Paraphrasing from an aviation doco I saw once, speed doesn't kill its the sudden stop. My own thoughts are why is it aviation accidents are all thoroughly examined and the results publically available and yet I feel we don't get the same level of detail for car related accidents (fatalities/injures included) so that cause/effect, full environmental conditions, mechanical conditions, driver experience..etc.. are also released so that we can better judge where to focus all safety/education campaigns.

Speed cameras are an obviously easy and relatively inexpensive method to control our speeding but they DON"T improve driver standards. Throw in compulsary road worthys to remove the mobile death traps, add a serious driver education campaign beginning in high school and we might start to get somewhere.

[clixanup]

It's fact...you can pickup any copy of Wheels mag and read what most of us have known since speed cameras were introduced.

You will also know that Italy are increasing their speed limits to increase alertness while driving and so too are a lot of states in the US. Why? Because very few accidents are as a result of speed ONLY.

If speed was a killer, how is it that Germans continue to drive at 250km/h and speed limits are not enforced in the NT? Surely they don't make safer cars in the NT!!!

That is another issue entirely. I'm asking for proof that speed isn't a factor in the majority of fatal accidents. I'm not saying that its the sole factor, but IMO, would be a factor in most of 'em none the less. Sure, it might be combined with drunkenness or stupidity, but it is still there.

I am also in favour of increased speed limits - but only if it is also mandated that trucks and heavy vehicles are to stay in the left lane as is the case in Europe. Another consideration is that European roads are generally wider and much better quality than ours. Especially the German autobahns.

[SSbaby]

That is another issue entirely. I'm asking for proof that speed isn't a factor in the majority of fatal accidents. I'm not saying that its the sole factor, but IMO, would be a factor in most of 'em none the less. Sure, it might be combined with drunkenness or stupidity, but it is still there.


How about you show me evidence where travelling 2-3km/h over the limit has caused fatalaties? :D

[clixanup]

How about you show me evidence where travelling 2-3km/h over the limit has caused fatalaties? :D

Mate, wasn't the convo about doing 70 over?

[SSbaby]

Mate, wasn't the convo about doing 70 over?

No, with respect ;), you claimed (like the state governments claim) that speeding, irrespective of whether 3km/h over (a bookable offence) or 70 km/h over, has caused fatalities. I am asking for proof that driving at 3km/h over the limit, as people are being punished for, is causing fatalities.

[clixanup]

No, with respect ;), you claimed (like the state governments claim) that speeding, irrespective of whether 3km/h over (a bookable offence) or 70 km/h over, has caused fatalities. I am asking for proof that driving at 3km/h over the limit, as people are being punished for, is causing fatalities.

Hey - don't put words into my mouth. What I said was:


I'm asking for proof that speed isn't a factor in the majority of fatal accidents. I'm not saying that its the sole factor, but IMO, would be a factor in most of 'em none the less. Sure, it might be combined with drunkenness or stupidity, but it is still there.

What is so hard to understand about that?

Want a translation?

Speed is almost always a factor in fatal accidents.

How do you get "driving at 63km/h causes fatalities" from that?

I challenge you to read back through this thread, and quote where I said what you're telling me I said.

[SSbaby]

Not putting words into anyone's mouth. Rather than trying to stubbornly claim a victory in your argument (which contains holes) against mainstream opinion here, that speed kills, how about you provide us with factual details that the states continually refuse to provide us with to back their claims?

You seem to align yourself with certain state government political party (i.e. Bracksy's :D ) and seem comfortable supporting the notion that the government is doing the right thing by motorists by punishing those who continue to travel at 3km/h over the limit. The state government argues that fatalities are down as a result of drivers slowing down. I want to see evidence of this without anyone blurring the facts.

Again, show me the facts - 3km/h over causes road fatalities. I bet you can't? :D

BTW, how many of the road fatalities are as a result of fatigue and therefore, headons but are counted as speed related?

[clixanup]

Not putting words into anyone's mouth.

Yes you are. I haven't said most of the crap you're putting into my mouth. You just want to argue.


Rather than trying to stubbornly claim a victory in your argument (which contains holes) against mainstream opinion here, that speed kills, how about you provide us with factual details that the states continually refuse to provide us with to back their claims?

A person died on the Western Ring road last week due to speed. Is that proof enough? FWIW - it was more than 3ks over.


You ... seem comfortable supporting the notion that the government is doing the right thing by motorists by punishing those who continue to travel at 3km/h over the limit.

Do I? Where have I said anything of the sort? Please quote me.

How about this:


Hey - I agree with you for the most part. I've been busted a couple of times for going 10 to 20 ks over. Yes, it pisses me off.

Can you read?


The state government argues that fatalities are down as a result of drivers slowing down. I want to see evidence of this without anyone blurring the facts.

Well, bully for the state government. I've never said that I agree with them on this point.


Again, show me the facts - 3km/h over causes road fatalities. I bet you can't? :D

I never said I could... :confused:

[clixanup]

BTW, how many of the road fatalities are as a result of fatigue and therefore, headons but are counted as speed related?

I don't know. Do you have the statistics?

[SSbaby]

I'm asking for proof that speed isn't a factor in the majority of fatal accidents. I'm not saying that its the sole factor, but IMO, would be a factor in most of 'em none the less.

I'll make it easier for you. ;)

Seen, heard (from TAC ads and state government propaganda?).

Now show me facts on how you've come to the conclusion that speed was the major contributing factor.

Then show me how much of the fatalities are due to the following:

Fatigue
Under the influence of drugs
Under the influence of alcohol
head on collsions
traffic light accidents

etc...

as distinct from speed (which is defined as travelling at 3km/h or over the limit)
:cheers:

[The Griff]

Speed is a factor in every crash, fatal or otherwise. If the vehicles are not moving, they will not crash. What I think we all agree on is that excessive speed for the conditions can be a factor in crashes, but not the only one. Inattention, boredom, fatigue, bad habits, poor skill, inexperience, alcohol, drugs, distractions and the odd mechanical failure are also factors. In most crashes it would be a combination of factors.

Speed cameras will only photograph a driver who is going over the speed limit which, IMO does not relate to any of the above factors. They do not prevent crashes except if placed on a stretch of road where excessive speed which is also over the speed limit (as excessive speed can also be below the speed limit) has proven to be the major cause of car crashes.

Also remember that you do not have to be 'speeding' to have a bad accident. Laurie Spark from Holden has said that you are unlikely to survive hitting a solid object at 80kph. Being T-boned in the drivers door at 60kph would IMO be fatal.

Our politicians are only focussed on (so called) road safety measures that are punishment based and that raise revenue. Unfortunately, since this approach has been in place, the road toll has remained pretty much static. Also remember that the number of fatalities is also related to factors not controlled by driver, the two most common being dry weather (always fewer crashes in dry weather) and petrol prices (usually few crashes when petrol prices are very high, like now, as people drive less). Given the current dry conditions in Eastern Australia and the high cost of fuel at the moment, the road toll is likely to be down this year.

How to get the politicians to examine road safety beyond speed, fatigue and alcohol is the big question.

[clixanup]

Seen, heard (from TAC ads and state government propaganda?).

Mate, since moving to the northern suburbs almost 18 months ago, I've had to use the Western Ring road on a daily basis. In that time, I've seen (with my own two eyes) no fewer than 5 fatal accidents in which at least one car was on its side or upside down. These are not head-ons because the road is divided all the way. What sort of speed does one need to be doing to flip a car on a near-straight road?

There are 2 to 3 accidents on that road per month. Thankfully, most of these are non-fatal. Of the fatal ones I've seen, the car is almost never on its four wheels. What does that tell you?


as distinct from speed (which is defined as travelling at 3km/h or over the limit)

:lol: Maybe in your dictionary, but not mine.

That's where you're getting confused. I'm talking about the morons who come flying past me while I'm doing the limit or a bit over.

Despite the fact that I've been using the Western Ring road for almost 18 months, I've never been booked on it. When the traffic permits, I set the cruise to 110 and still don't get booked. Unless my speedo is way out, I reckon you'd have to do more than 110 to be booked on that particular road, so I don't know where you get this 3km/h figure from.

[SSbaby]

But isn't the government contributing to road accidents/fatalities with its current speed laws? I mean, if you're restricting traffic to drive at near identical speeds (< 3km/h), you are essentially aiding traffic congestion, and if making it harder to overtake, whilst driving at legal speeds.

Congestion = more accidents.

[SSbaby]

Mate, since moving to the northern suburbs almost 18 months ago, I've had to use the Western Ring road on a daily basis. In that time, I've seen (with my own two eyes) no fewer than 5 fatal accidents in which at least one car was on its side or upside down. These are not head-ons because the road is divided all the way. What sort of speed does one need to be doing to flip a car on a near-straight road?

There are 2 to 3 accidents on that road per month. Thankfully, most of these are non-fatal. Of the fatal ones I've seen, the car is almost never on its four wheels. What does that tell you?


Careful, you're making an assumption here. I've seen trucks overturned on the Ring road as well...you don't have to speed to end up upside down.

Your argument is exactly what's wrong with the system and the message preached to us by politicians. If we stop the BS and start addressing the REAL issues behind speed and road safety, there would be greater levels of trust in our community.



:lol: Maybe in your dictionary, but not mine.


You're right there. It's the limit at which the government can fine you for breaking the law for travelling above the posted limit. A moot point anyway.


...so I don't know where you get this 3km/h figure from.

I guess what I'm saying here is that the government is using speed as a way justifying its use of more speed cameras and therefore increased revenue.

You mention that you regualarly travel at 110km/h on the Ring rd. If ever somebody sideswipes you while you are travelling at that speed and causes either of you to roll...the statistic will go down as being attributed to speed as the major reason for the crash, instead of inattentiveness on the part of the other driver.

[The Griff]

But isn't the government contributing to road accidents/fatalities with it's current speed laws? I mean, if you're restricting traffic to drive at near identical speeds (< 3km/h), you are essentially aiding traffic congestion, and if making it harder to overtake, whilst driving at legal speeds.

Congestion = more accidents.

Agree with you on that one. Last time I was in Vic it was obvious that all the cars drive together on the freeway (Hume from border to Melbourne) in bunches as no one is game to do even 1kph over the limit. A group of 20 cars all driving nose to tail, a clear stretch for 500 metres then another group of 20 cars. I hated it so drove at about 5-10kph over the limit to avoid the congestion. I was lucky and didn't get a ticket.

[Doug]

asking for proof that speed isn't a factor in the majority of fatal accidents.

There must be a dozen threads on the topic of speed and accidents on this forum. The statistics on speed and its contribution to the road toll needs to be viewed with a healthy dose of scepticism.

For one - the term speed is hopelessly generic. Speed will be classified as a contributing factor almost always. To have an impact occur indicates one or both parties were travelling too fast to avoid the accident given the prevailing conditions. Neither party has to break the speed limit for speed to be a factor in an accident.

For example, the law (at least in Victoria) suggests any motorists should only enter an intersection when safe to do so. If you are t-boned by a car running a red light while you are doing 40 in a 60 zone, you are still partially at fault. You entered the intersection too fast to avoid the accident.

The statistics we see on the news really can't be trusted to reflect the reality of what is happening. As Andrew Lang aptly said (and I quote again), "Too often we use statistics as a drunken man uses a lamp post - more for support than illumination."

Ghia351 comment regards plane accidents is an excellent one. (Although there are and have been suggestions regards CASA's behaviour in such matters....) The fact is we are rarely told the exact details of how a car accident really occurred. Kind of makes it hard to learn from others mistakes....

[large]

Want some interesting facts on road safety and speeding have a look at this. Some great reading.
www.roadsense.com.au

[clixanup]

Great link large - it'll keep me busy at work tomorrow.....

[SSbaby]

Originally Posted by clixanup
What kind of person does 170 on a public road which is signposted at 100 when it is well known that there are several permanent speed cameras on that road?

IMO, you got what you deserved. Cop it sweet.

I like the following definition of speed ... I guess it gives good meaning to those who argue that anyone who drives 170km/h is "more guilty of speeding" than the driver who sets his cruise control at 110km/h...

"Speeding" - exactly what do you mean?

We often hear media reports or people referring to a "speeding" motorist. Rightly or wrongly this normally creates an image that the driver or rider was exceeding the speed limit.

A person or vehicle could also be "speeding" to victory in a race - which creates a more positive image.

Perhaps it's time for political correctness here.

When somebody refers to a "speeding" motorist or motorcyclist ask them, do they mean that:

A vehicle was actually exceeding the speed limit?
It is their opinion that a vehicle was going too fast?
Do they mean something else?
Lets get it right. When somebody next uses the word "speeding", ask them - "exactly what do you mean?"

________

Speed does not kill.

What I want to know is exactly at what speed does speed kill us.

The fact is speed itself does not kill. Colliding with another object or vehicle travelling at a different speed or in a different direction kills.

In this politically correct era, lets get it straight on such an important issue as road safety, lets insist that the authorities get it right. We need to insist that they and the media stop using the term "speed kills". Speed does not kill, collisions kill.

If speed alone killed, then anybody who flew on a passenger jet at 800 km/h would not survive. Anybody who flew on a Concorde would not have a chance, what about the guys who flew to the moon or regularly go into space at over 40,000 km/h?

Speed therefore clearly does not kill.

When an extremely important control system that effects the safety of every road user is based on something that is not 100% sound then they cannot hope to arrive at the correct solutions.

Any Politician or Government employee trying to convince us that speed kills has not thought it through for themselves, is blindly following their advisors recommendations or purposely wants to mislead us.

If they seriously want to focus on safety then focus on the correct aspect - avoiding collisions, mainly with other vehicles.

If the authorities were serious about safety they would spend the money used for their speed kills TV commercials to educate people to drive on the left on the highway and reduce collisions through speed differential. They could educate people to be more aware when driving at 60 km/h or 80 km/h through intersection. It's not hard.

I suppose a "collisions kill" campaign would not scare many people and there is no money in it for the State Governments. How would they fine hundreds of thousands of road users? They could fine people who are too slow in the right hand lane - that would actually reduce the road toll but there would not be much money in it. A speed kills campaign is far more profitable.

The fact is speed is not what it is made out to be. Plain bad driving is the cause of most accidents, and travelling at inappropriate speeds for the conditions is bad driving. The problem is the State Governments do virtually nothing to improve general driving standards or driver education. They do a lot to rake in millions of dollars by fining decent law abiding citizens.

Lets get it right - Speed does not kill. Collisions kill, bad driving kills.

[clixanup]

I like the following definition of speed ... I guess it gives good meaning to those who argue that anyone who drives 170km/h is "more guilty of speeding" than the driver who sets his cruise control at 110km/h...

:lol: I guess I asked for that.

Take it in context, though.


When the traffic permits, I set the cruise to 110...

I think you missed that.

I can tell you that it doesn't happen very often on the Ring road.

[SSbaby]

I guess I asked for that.

Take it in context, though.

I think you missed that.

I can tell you that it doesn't happen very often on the Ring road.

I am putting it into context...how do you know that the person you criticised for driving 170km/h was not driving safely at that speed, exercising due care within the limits of his vehicle, his driving ability, the road conditions and other road users, even though he was caught speeding. He could own a CAMs licence and might have had extensive driver training for all you know, yet you think he deserves to lose his licence. How is that less acceptable than your blatant ignorance for the road rules in which you were also exceeding the speed limit? If he reached 170km/h then I'd say there's a fair chance that the traffic had allowed him the opportunity to drive at that speed (to use your logic).

[clixanup]

I am putting it into context...how do you know that the person you criticised for driving 170km/h was not driving safely at that speed, exercising due care within the limits of his vehicle, his driving ability, the road conditions and other road users, even though he was caught speeding. He could own a CAMs licence and might have had extensive driver training for all you know, yet you think he deserves to lose his licence. How is that less acceptable than your blatant ignorance for the road rules in which you were also exceeding the speed limit? If he reached 170km/h then I'd say there's a fair chance that the traffic had allowed him the opportunity to drive at that speed (to use your logic).

The law tolerates 110 in a 100 zone. You need to be doing more than that to be booked.

I accept your point about the whole CAMS license thing - but what would be the chances of that? Even if it was the case, given that he/she has regular access to high powered cars and race tracks, why would they need/want to do it on a public road and risk losing their license?

I'd think that at 170, the chances of killing someone are far higher, despite the CAMS license. No license is going to save you from the stupidity of others. We know our own limits, but what do we know about anyone else's skills or deficiencies? It all comes back to what Ghia351 said about our driver education being inadequate.

[SSbaby]

The law tolerates 110 in a 100 zone. You need to be doing more than that to be booked.

Really, since when...the camera fiasco? Motorists have been booked doing 3km/h (indicated speed as opposed to true speed - 66 - 3 = 63 km/h)


I accept your point about the whole CAMS license thing - but what would be the chances of that? Even if it was the case, given that he/she has regular access to high powered cars and race tracks, why would they need/want to do it on a public road and risk losing their license?.

Well, he lived to tell the tale, and proved that driving at a speed of 170 km/h it is possible to do safely if the conditions are favourable, the roads are suitable and the driver knows his own limits and that of his car while also exercising due care for other road users.


I'd think that at 170, the chances of killing someone are far higher, despite the CAMS license.

You seem to be harping back on the notion that speed kills. The chances are only greater if the driver is speeding excessively without full control of his vehicle or his ability to read the road conditons and road hazards and drive accordingly.


No license is going to save you from the stupidity of others. We know our own limits, but what do we know about anyone else's skills or deficiencies? It all comes back to what Ghia351 said about our driver education being inadequate.

Stupidity? Only if you're tallking about drivers who drive recklessly. Surely you're not implying that just because one speeds, they are simply stupid? Don't forget, you driving at 110km/h where the limit is sign-posted as 100km/h are also knowingly breaking the law. Is that stupid too?

[seldo]

Really, since when...the camera fiasco? Motorists have been booked doing 3km/h (indicated speed as opposed to true speed - 66 - 3 = 63 km/h)



Well, he lived to tell the tale, and proved that driving at a speed of 170 km/h it is possible to do safely if the conditions are favourable, the roads are suitable and the driver knows his own limits and that of his car while also exercising due care for other road users.



You seem to be harping back on the notion that speed kills. The chances are only greater if the driver is speeding excessively without full control of his vehicle or his ability to read the road conditons and road hazards and drive accordingly.



Stupidity? Only if you're tallking about drivers who drive recklessly. Surely you're not implying that just because one speeds, they are simply stupid? Don't forget, you driving at 110km/h where the limit is sign-posted as 100km/h are also knowingly breaking the law. Is that stupid too?

Even though I reckon Clixanup suffers from terrible monocular vision with his political leanings I gotta support him on this one.
170kph on the ring road is far more dangerous than say on the road to Alice. And it is a big, big difference to 110kph. And even if he was CAMS licenced, which I doubt, the risk is far greater due to the greater volume and quality of traffic and other driver skills which are inevitably present in a metropolitan situation. I held an International standard CAMS licence for 20 years, and yes, I'd call it stupid behaviour, and I'm not being superior about it - I've also done just as stupid things over the years, but that doesn't make it any smarter. Cop it sweet and be grateful it didn't end in tears. :burnout: :driving:
Cheers
Seldo

[SSbaby]

Even though I reckon Clixanup suffers from terrible monocular vision with his political leanings I gotta support him on this one.
170kph on the ring road is far more dangerous than say on the road to Alice. And it is a big, big difference to 110kph. And even if he was CAMS licenced, which I doubt, the risk is far greater due to the greater volume and quality of traffic and other driver skills which are inevitably present in a metropolitan situation. I held an International standard CAMS licence for 20 years, and yes, I'd call it stupid behaviour, and I'm not being superior about it - I've also done just as stupid things over the years, but that doesn't make it any smarter. Cop it sweet and be grateful it didn't end in tears. :burnout: :driving:
Cheers
Seldo

Normally, I'd agree but driving at night with little or no traffic, changes the scenario slightly doesn't it. Don't get me wrong, I don't condone speeding especially if the offender is a bogan in a turbo VL out of his depths...

I recall Peter Brock once got caught doing over 150km/h on a public road. You'd have to ask whether someone of that calibre deserved to have his licence suspended (for 3 months I think?). Would you question his abilities behind the wheel or the danger he posed to other road users?

What I am advocating is a total overhaul of the speed/safety/driver training system. I believe that there should be more reasonable speed laws reintroduced and speed limits adjusted e.g. 130km/h on the Hume Hwy. It seems ludicrous that we have 100km/h sign posted on a perfectly safe stretch of road on the Ring Rd (where numerous cameras are catching speedsters) and the same speed on the Great Ocean Rd where driving at those speeds on some stretches is potentially fatal. Again, look at what Italy is doing to improve road safety and its approach to actively minimise the road toll.
:cheers:

[clixanup]

Really, since when...the camera fiasco? Motorists have been booked doing 3km/h (indicated speed as opposed to true speed - 66 - 3 = 63 km/h)

I've done 110 through speed traps on the Ring road a few times and not been sent a fine. That's my experience. All during the period in which the cameras were supposedly catching dogs walking past at 6km/h.


Well, he lived to tell the tale, and proved that driving at a speed of 170 km/h it is possible to do safely if the conditions are favourable, the roads are suitable and the driver knows his own limits and that of his car while also exercising due care for other road users.

Yes. I suppose so. He lived to tell the tale. The rest is pure assumption on your part. I've yet to see a "speeder" (for want of a better word) on the Ring road who does exercise due care for others. Many a time I've had to slow down to avoid being collected by a d!ckhead who is weaving in and out of peak hour traffic at 125 to 130. If that's due care, I'd hate to see what isn't.


You seem to be harping back on the notion that speed kills. The chances are only greater if the driver is speeding excessively without full control of his vehicle or his ability to read the road conditons and road hazards and drive accordingly.

And how do you know what's going on in anyone else's car? You are making the dangerous assumption that everyone is always in full control of their car and that they know their car's limits. Most people wouldn't even know their own personal limits - let alone their car's....


Stupidity? Only if you're tallking about drivers who drive recklessly.

Yes. That's what I mean. Let's say you're tootling along in the right lane doing 170 in full control of your vehicle. Some moron pulls out in front of you having mis-judged your speed. Where do you go? Off onto the grass? What happens next? Basically, the Western Ring road wasn't properly designed for that kind of speed. If it was, it'd be 4 or 5 lanes each way.


Surely you're not implying that just because one speeds, they are simply stupid?

Nope. The reference to stupidity was in relation to the lack of driver education. The fact that we have "road-rage" incidents is testament to the lack of a common understanding of how to drive according to the situation.


Don't forget, you driving at 110km/h where the limit is sign-posted as 100km/h are also knowingly breaking the law. Is that stupid too?

110km/h is within the tolerance allowed by the law - in my own experience at least. Driving at any speed beyond that which is safe, given the situation, is stupid. But then that's just my opinion. You don't have to agree.

[clixanup]

Normally, I'd agree but driving at night with little or no traffic, changes the scenario slightly doesn't it. Don't get me wrong, I don't condone speeding especially if the offender is a bogan in a turbo VL out of his depths...

Hello..... I live in the northern suburbs. 7 out of 10 cars on the road up here is a "fooly shik" VL w/monster tach & turbo badge.


I recall Peter Brock once got caught doing over 150km/h on a public road. You'd have to ask whether someone of that calibre deserved to have his licence suspended (for 3 months I think?). Would you question his abilities behind the wheel or the danger he posed to other road users?

I'm a big fan of PB, but I think he'd be doing himself a dis-service if he didn't accept the penalty. His driving skills would give him a far greater advantage than most other people, but that still wouldn't stop the copy cats, "Brocky can do it, why can't I?" (I could say something about Jeff here, but I'll bite my tongue.) :hide:


What I am advocating is a total overhaul of the speed/safety/driver training system.

I appreciate where you're coming from, but German and Italian roads can hardly be compared to our goat-tracks. Perhaps driver education should be the starting point, maybe followed by improvements to infrastructure? The WRR should be minimum 4 lanes each way, with one lane dedicated to trucks and heavy vehicles. IMO, the number of accidents on that road would be halved if these things were done. Add some good driver training into the mix and you'll get an even better result.

Now, we've just got to get a government willing to spend the money and we're set....

[SSbaby]

You don't have to agree.

I think that we do agree for the most part RE: the issues discussed. ;)

It's just that I took the opportunity to argue against the blanket statement that "speed kills" or speed is the major cause of road fatalities, which is what the government wants us to believe, to justify their investment in speed camera technology.

We all drive performance cars and want to be able to enjoy them. Contrary to some beliefs, some roads are safe enough to travel at 'high speed' but the driving habits of others preclude this potentially unsafe practice.

If we all had driver training and billiard table smooth roads, I dare say the speed limits would mirror those of some countries in Europe and states in the US. I just wish that speed cameras were used to save lives, not just for revenue raising.

[muzza]

Well this topic gets us all cranked up doesn't it! ;)

IMHO (as has prob been said) speed per se doesn't kill - innapropriate speed (depending upon conditions) can cause a crash. Of course the driver(s) need to select their speed to suit, and to do that they need training AND experience. Something the Gov't seems unwilling to address seriously.

Yep, it pisses me, off the whole concept of potentially being caught for a pissy 3kmh over the limit when you drive to work every day in peak hour and EVERYONE speeds - 70 in 60 etc etc. Which begs the Q - if it's sooooo dangerous, why isn't our road toll double, triple etc.

I call it LCD thinking. The morons who decide to hammer speeding to the exclusion of all the other dumb/stupid/dangerous driver behaviour frame the rules to suit the Lowest Common Denominator - ie: treat all the drivers like dickheads/sheep/idiots. "Tell 'em "Speed Kills" and be harsh because the LCD driver needs no extra room to do something stupid". This also breeds the "I'm safe 'cos I dont speed" mentality of people who believe they are immune to danger because they are under the limit.

I'd love to see a correlation between speeding fines and crashes for individual drivers - because I bet there isn't one, ie: all the people getting caught speeding don't actually contribute in any significant way to crashes or fatalities. Time to vote the idiots out people.

OK now I've had a spleen vent :soap: I feel better!

[SSbaby]

Nice post muzza. :D

LCD ...elderly people driving 70km/h on the freeway in the right lane. Speed kills? Hmmm

[clixanup]

Time to vote the idiots out people.

Do you honestly believe that a new government will change things?

Doesn't matter who it is, I can't see things changing....