Radar detector fines in NSW
Tim Archer
Hi all,
There's been a bit of discussion about fines for radar detectors here. In
the Sun-Herald today, there was an article about detectors where they
quoted the figures.
I forget the exact number, but it was a shade over $1000. $1036 perhaps.
The amount is the same for buying, selling, and using a detector or jammer.
This fine is too high - I think we should form one of those lobby groups,
maybe somthing like CRAP TURD (Concerned Residents Against Police
Terrorising by Use of Radar-detector Detectors). Any takers?
Tim
John Mackesy
I think the key to this issue is the visibility of the radar detector.
They're mostly made for markets other than Oz, where a catchy name and a
perception that it's there looking out through the windscreen are selling
points.
There's no technical reason IMHO why the device couldn't be cunningly and
invisibly (to the police, anyway) integrated into the vehicle design. I
wouldn't be surprised if it's already been done...
Look at it from the copper's point of view - he's just a copper, enforcing
laws made by politicians. He sees a radar detector, he's duty-bound to bust
you. But he's not into communications electronics, and what he doesn't see,
he's not going go looking for.
John Mackesy VK3XAO
Mini-Moke driver
Tim Archer <arch...@lab.eng.usyd.edu.au> wrote in article
<01bd559a$b2bd0ae0$14e1...@client-83.stpauls.usyd.edu.au>...
>
> Hi all,
>
> There's been a bit of discussion about fines for radar detectors here.
<snip>
Slinger
Tim Archer wrote
>
> Hi all,
>
> There's been a bit of discussion about fines for radar detectors here. In
> the Sun-Herald today, there was an article about detectors where they
> quoted the figures.
>
> I forget the exact number, but it was a shade over $1000. $1036 perhaps.
> The amount is the same for buying, selling, and using a detector or jammer.
It is $1036 now, it used to be $890 when they were first banned in NSW.
But there are NO points deducted, so if you are rich enough you can just
hand over the detector, pay the fine and then buy another one. Ad infinitum.
> This fine is too high - I think we should form one of those lobby groups,
> maybe somthing like CRAP TURD (Concerned Residents Against Police
> Terrorising by Use of Radar-detector Detectors). Any takers?
> Tim
I would prefer a more effective anti-radar device.
Like a bazooka. ;)
In a few years the cops will probably phase out radar and just use laser.
They claim the laser can't be detected until they hit the trigger, and then
you've only got 0.1 second before the speed is calculated.
The newer detectors will pick up laser too, and if the cops are zapping
a lot of cars up ahead you can pick them up. But if they are sneaky and
your number is up, they'll get you anyway. At least there is no such thing
as a laser detector detector !
I read that in Germany the cops must provide photo evidence of all radar/
laser offences, it is not sufficient evidence to convict based on the cops
word alone. Why shouldn't that be required here ?
Slinger
Brendan WALKER
In article <01bd5652$92c47ee0$LocalHost@slinger>,
Slinger <sli...@delete.bigpond.com> wrote:
[snip]
>In a few years the cops will probably phase out radar and just use laser.
>They claim the laser can't be detected until they hit the trigger, and then
>you've only got 0.1 second before the speed is calculated.
>The newer detectors will pick up laser too, and if the cops are zapping
>a lot of cars up ahead you can pick them up. But if they are sneaky and
>your number is up, they'll get you anyway. At least there is no such thing
>as a laser detector detector !
The other day I was driving up the F3 to Newcastle and saw a laser speed
trap on the freeway at Ourimbah, .... you know - where the speed limit
drops from 110 to 70 km/h due to road works .... where else would the
bastards sit??...
Anyway, as I crawled past the trap at ~70 km/h I noticed that the laser
unit was pointed directly at the oncoming traffic.... now, having had
a little experience with similar devices (albeit a bit more powerful :-)
I was wondering how safe this is??? For example - whether the laser is
in the visible spectrum or infra-red, a direct hit into your face would
have to potential to cause permanent eye-damage wouldn't it?? Even the
most weak laser pointing devices have this potential, and I reckon the
cops lasers are a bit more powerful than a pointer.....
Has anyone ever read or heard of any safety testing done w.r.t the use
of laser speed detection devices?? It seems to me that we are relying
solely on the coppers skill when using the device to avoid potential
eye damage and maybe a nasty crash!
What do ya reckon??
Regards,
--
Brendan Walker | The opinions expressed above are my own.
IASSF Project | Check out my home page:
GEC Marconi (Australia) | http://www2.one.net.au/~beej
James Gordon
Slinger wrote:
>I read that in Germany the cops must provide photo evidence of all radar/
>laser offences, it is not sufficient evidence to convict based on the cops
>word alone. Why shouldn't that be required here ?
Apparently the law here says that you are entitled to view the readout and
that if they have scrubbed it before you get a chance to read it, as would
probably happen about 99% of the time, then they have, technically, deleted
the proof. Therefore they cannot legally book you.
However, this is all theoretical (and possibly not even true), and I know of
only one bloke (a motorcyclist) who actually tried this and all he got for
his troubles, in addition to the ticket, were some extra nasty looks.
Tim Archer
Brendan WALKER <b...@vampire.iassf.easams.com.au> wrote
[snip - lasers]
> I was wondering how safe this is??? For example - whether the laser is
> in the visible spectrum or infra-red, a direct hit into your face would
> have to potential to cause permanent eye-damage wouldn't it?? Even the
> most weak laser pointing devices have this potential, and I reckon the
> cops lasers are a bit more powerful than a pointer.....
I looked right down the barrel of a laser speed gun once as it was "fired"
at me. It's incredibly unlikely that the beam was actually pointing at my
eyes, so I probably didn't get an eyeful of the laser, but I did see a blue
light come on in the device as he fired it.
The light was visible in dull light (late afternoon), but not bright by any
means. I actually doubt that I saw the speed-measuring laser beam -
possibly it was just a diagnostic light or something like that.
> Has anyone ever read or heard of any safety testing done w.r.t the use
> of laser speed detection devices?? It seems to me that we are relying
> solely on the coppers skill when using the device to avoid potential
> eye damage and maybe a nasty crash!
I suppose the wavelength is out of the visible spectrum, but that doesn't
mean it is necessarily safe to point in your eye. Interesting point.
BTW, the cop who pointed this thing at me seemed to be taking incredible
care with it - I stopped to watch him and have a chat with his mate. They
were doing a roaring trade too, with all those people doing 70 km/h on a 6
lane median-stripped road.
Tim
Forg
Tim Archer wrote:
>
> Brendan WALKER <b...@vampire.iassf.easams.com.au> wrote
>
> [snip - lasers]
>
> > I was wondering how safe this is??? For example - whether the laser is
> > in the visible spectrum or infra-red, a direct hit into your face would
> > have to potential to cause permanent eye-damage wouldn't it?? Even the
> > most weak laser pointing devices have this potential, and I reckon the
> > cops lasers are a bit more powerful than a pointer.....
>
> I looked right down the barrel of a laser speed gun once as it was "fired"
> at me. It's incredibly unlikely that the beam was actually pointing at my
> eyes, so I probably didn't get an eyeful of the laser, but I did see a blue
> light come on in the device as he fired it.
Don't know why it would have to be more powerful than a laser-pointer;
the laser-pointer must be picked-up by our weak eyes, but the laser gun
knows exactly what it's looking for.
I think if it was even anything near unsafe, the manufacturers & police
would have been sued out of all propotion in the USA, home of the law
suit.
--
Forg! -DUH#6=- (Y1)
"...
And he eats your head.
And then you're in the man from Mars.
You go out at night eating cars. You eat Cadillacs,
Lincolns Too. Mercuries and
Subaru.
And you don't stop..."
("Rapture", Blondie, Nineteen seventy-something)
"A cock is crouse on his ain flamin' midden."
Darren McElroy
Brendan WALKER wrote:
>
> The other day I was driving up the F3 to Newcastle and saw a laser speed
> trap on the freeway at Ourimbah, .... you know - where the speed limit
> drops from 110 to 70 km/h due to road works .... where else would the
> bastards sit??...
>
Good! As a person whose job entails working on the roads, I am glad that the
police are finally taking the efforts required to ensure the safety of fellow
road workers, and the motoring public in general.
So far this year I have seen 3 colleagues hit by passing cars, 1 killed, and
numerous close calls. The speed limits at road works are put in place for a
bloody good reason - Safety. If any driver gets booked in a road works zone,
he/she deserves everything he/she gets!!
--
Darren! -=DUH#15=- (Y1)
Member, Disgruntled Postal Workers of Australia
"Flame grilled Hyundai?...I'd like to see that!"
© Darren McElroy 1997
Darren McElroy
Slinger
Brendan WALKER wrote
>
> [snip]
> Anyway, as I crawled past the trap at ~70 km/h I noticed that the laser
> unit was pointed directly at the oncoming traffic.... now, having had
> a little experience with similar devices (albeit a bit more powerful :-)
> I was wondering how safe this is??? For example - whether the laser is
> in the visible spectrum or infra-red, a direct hit into your face would
> have to potential to cause permanent eye-damage wouldn't it?? Even the
> most weak laser pointing devices have this potential, and I reckon the
> cops lasers are a bit more powerful than a pointer.....
Depends on how well collimated the beam is, I suspect.
> Has anyone ever read or heard of any safety testing done w.r.t the use
> of laser speed detection devices?? It seems to me that we are relying
> solely on the coppers skill when using the device to avoid potential
> eye damage and maybe a nasty crash!
>
> What do ya reckon??
>
> Regards,
>
>
> --
> Brendan Walker
A few years ago I read about a police officer who contracted some
type of eye cancer, and he was sure it was due to the speed lasers
he used every day. I think the cop was from Germany. It seems
the lasers may be more dangerous to the cops than the public.
Maybe someone should contact the Police Union.......
Slinger
Rusty
> The speed limits at road works are put in place for a
>bloody good reason - Safety. If any driver gets booked in a road works zone,
>he/she deserves everything he/she gets!!
I agree totally. The last thing you want when you are trying to work is a
car to fly past at 120km/h, just a couple of meters away.
Next there will be complaints that the police are sitting at the start of
40km/h school zones!
Rusty
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Nick : Rusty
E-mail : Rust...@mindless.com
NO JUNK MAIL - Please do not send unsolicited email
If you do, be prepared for abuse! *8-)
Otherwise, drop me a line...
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"A chicken is just an egg's way of making more eggs"
"If at first you don't succeed, give up, no use being a damn fool"
===================================================================
dennis...@dwt.csiro.au
In article <6f71jr$3...@inferno.mpx.com.au>,
Got me off a ticket once. Cop showed me the readout on the mobile radar,
giving his speed and my speed. On his copy of the ticket (obtained through
FOI), he claimed to have used a hand held radar. On phoning his superior, the
case was dropped.
Dennis
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
dennis...@dwt.csiro.au
In article <6f6o6p$m...@vampire.iassf.easams.com.au>,
b...@iassf.easams.nospam.au wrote:
>
> In article <01bd5652$92c47ee0$LocalHost@slinger>,
> Slinger <sli...@delete.bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >In a few years the cops will probably phase out radar and just use laser.
> >They claim the laser can't be detected until they hit the trigger, and then
> >you've only got 0.1 second before the speed is calculated.
> >The newer detectors will pick up laser too, and if the cops are zapping
> >a lot of cars up ahead you can pick them up. But if they are sneaky and
> >your number is up, they'll get you anyway. At least there is no such thing
> >as a laser detector detector !
>
Doesn't need to be. In fact, you can quite legally jam the laser. There is no
law that makes restriction on devices that put out light (torches, spotlights
etc). So, you can quite easily make a radar jammer, and be quite legal about
it. There are laser jammers commercially available.
dennis...@dwt.csiro.au
In article <35176C33...@ozemail.com.au>,
Darren McElroy <dmce...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> Brendan WALKER wrote:
>
> >
> > The other day I was driving up the F3 to Newcastle and saw a laser speed
> > trap on the freeway at Ourimbah, .... you know - where the speed limit
> > drops from 110 to 70 km/h due to road works .... where else would the
> > bastards sit??...
> >
>
> Good! As a person whose job entails working on the roads, I am glad that the
> police are finally taking the efforts required to ensure the safety of
fellow
> road workers, and the motoring public in general.
>
> So far this year I have seen 3 colleagues hit by passing cars, 1 killed, and
> bloody good reason - Safety. If any driver gets booked in a road works zone,
> he/she deserves everything he/she gets!!
>
But what about when it is Sunday, there are no road workers in the
construction zone, and the only stationary object/people are cops using the
"road works limit" to their advantage by pinging a lot of drivers. It happened
on the South Eastern Freeway; I drove past, but fortunately was warned. Is
there any potential benefit to that one bar revenue raising?
Brendan WALKER
In article <35176C33...@ozemail.com.au>,
Darren McElroy <dmce...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>Brendan WALKER wrote:
>
>>
>> The other day I was driving up the F3 to Newcastle and saw a laser speed
>> trap on the freeway at Ourimbah, .... you know - where the speed limit
>> drops from 110 to 70 km/h due to road works .... where else would the
>> bastards sit??...
>Good! As a person whose job entails working on the roads, I am glad that the
>police are finally taking the efforts required to ensure the safety of fellow
>road workers, and the motoring public in general.
>So far this year I have seen 3 colleagues hit by passing cars, 1 killed, and
>numerous close calls. The speed limits at road works are put in place for a
>bloody good reason - Safety. If any driver gets booked in a road works zone,
>he/she deserves everything he/she gets!!
Except that the cops normally sit there in the *afternoon* hours after all
thew road-workers have gone home!!! Take a drive down the freeway to
Penrith sometime and check out the radar traps adjacent to deserted road
works there!
I'm all for protecting the safety of others on the roads, and road-works,
while an inconvenience to motorists are also a neccessity, and so I
don't mind slowing down when it is required to ensure a fellow human
beings safety.......
Tim Archer
dennis...@dwt.csiro.au wrote
> b...@iassf.easams.nospam.au wrote:
> Doesn't need to be. In fact, you can quite legally jam the laser.
> There is no law that makes restriction on devices that put out light
> (torches, spotlights etc). So, you can quite easily make a radar
> jammer, and be quite legal about it. There are laser jammers
> commercially available.
I don't know about this... isn't the frequency spectrum controlled by
federal government legislation?
Most frequencies are illegal to broadcast on without a licence, eg radio,
tv, microwave (mobile phone, satellite, airport radar)
AFAIK, some frequencies are illegal to broadcast on full stop. This
includes things like military frequencies, and frequency bands which
haven't been "released" yet.
Tim
Stephen Haddow
On Tue, 24 Mar 1998, Rusty wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Mar 1998 18:17:56 +1000, Darren McElroy
> <dmce...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > The speed limits at road works are put in place for a
> >bloody good reason - Safety. If any driver gets booked in a road works zone,
> >he/she deserves everything he/she gets!!
>
> I agree totally. The last thing you want when you are trying to work is a
> car to fly past at 120km/h, just a couple of meters away.
>
> Next there will be complaints that the police are sitting at the start of
> 40km/h school zones!
>
>
> Rusty
I don't know where you live but done in Newcastle there are cops
that already do that. Saw one book the person in front of me who was doing
about 60 in the school zone.
Steve
Darren McElroy
dennis...@dwt.csiro.au wrote:
>
<on discussing speed limits in roadworks>
>
> But what about when it is Sunday, there are no road workers in the
> construction zone, and the only stationary object/people are cops using the
> "road works limit" to their advantage by pinging a lot of drivers. It happened
> on the South Eastern Freeway; I drove past, but fortunately was warned. Is
> there any potential benefit to that one bar revenue raising?
>
educated guesses.
In the roadworks zone, is the road exactly as it would normally be, ie, no
machinery, lanes closed, 6 foot deep trenches to the side of traffic lanes with
only temporary barriers between cars & them?
If the roadworks zone 'in any way' alters the 'normal' layout of a particular
stretch of road, by government legislation, the speed limit *must* be lowered
for the safety of both roadworkers & motorists during actual working hours, and
for the safety of motorists outside those hours.
There have been numerous instances here of motorists being injured / killed in
roadworks zones, outside of normal working hours, simply because they ignored
the lowered limit & then found themselves in a situation made more dangerous
simply because the verge (part of the road beside the normal lanes where
vehicles normally pull up when broken down) was narrowed or non existant due to
said roadworks.
dennis...@dwt.csiro.au
In article <01bd57ad$63871dc0$14e1...@client-83.stpauls.usyd.edu.au>,
You missed the point. Laser uses optical or near optical frequencies. If you
tried to ban "broadcasting" in those frequencies, your common garden variety
campfire would be illegal, as it would be "broadcasting" in those frequencies.
dennis...@dwt.csiro.au
In article <3518E421...@ozemail.com.au>,
At this section, they were widening said road. There was no danger, no ditches
etc. There were marker cones to designate the area being worked on from that
of the normal roadway. The limit was 60km/h. There are currently far worse
sections that are being widened where the limit is 80km/h. Go figure!
Luke Spry
dennis...@dwt.csiro.au wrote:
>
> In article <01bd57ad$63871dc0$14e1...@client-83.stpauls.usyd.edu.au>,
> "Tim Archer" <arch...@lab.eng.usyd.edu.au> wrote:
> >
> >
> > dennis...@dwt.csiro.au wrote
> > > b...@iassf.easams.nospam.au wrote:
> >
> > > Doesn't need to be. In fact, you can quite legally jam the laser.
> > > There is no law that makes restriction on devices that put out light
> > > (torches, spotlights etc). So, you can quite easily make a radar
> > > jammer, and be quite legal about it. There are laser jammers
> > > commercially available.
> >
> > I don't know about this... isn't the frequency spectrum controlled by
> > federal government legislation?
> >
> > Most frequencies are illegal to broadcast on without a licence, eg radio,
> > tv, microwave (mobile phone, satellite, airport radar)
> >
> > AFAIK, some frequencies are illegal to broadcast on full stop. This
> > includes things like military frequencies, and frequency bands which
> > haven't been "released" yet.
> >
> > Tim
> >
>
> You missed the point. Laser uses optical or near optical frequencies. If you
> tried to ban "broadcasting" in those frequencies, your common garden variety
> campfire would be illegal, as it would be "broadcasting" in those frequencies.
>
> Dennis
True, they don't need to. They get around that another way.
Extract from ACT laws:
(1) A person shall not use, sell or offer for sale, or purchase, a
radar detecting device or a radar jamming device.
"radar detecting device" means a device designed or apparently designed
to be fitted to or carried in a motor vehicle for the purpose of
detecting electromagnetic radiations from an approved radar speed
measuring device;
"radar jamming device" means a device designed or apparently designed to
be fitted to or carried in a motor vehicle for the purpose of
interfering with the receiving by an approved radar speed measuring
device of reflected electromagnetic radiations;
Though, There are ways around this too....
Regards,
Luke
Dennis Jensen
In article <35199F5E...@interact.spamremove.net.au>,
Yep, except that radar does not operate at optical frequencies. As far as
laser jamming is concerned, even turning on your high beams results in a
greatly reduced detection range for the speed sensing system. So, by the
letter of a law that is broadened to incorporate optical or near optical
frequencies, headlights would become an issue.
Dennis
Dennis Jensen
Andrew Tune
Dennis Jensen wrote:
<snip>
> >"radar jamming device" means a device designed or apparently designed to
> >be fitted to or carried in a motor vehicle for the purpose of
> >interfering with the receiving by an approved radar speed measuring
> >device of reflected electromagnetic radiations;
> Yep, except that radar does not operate at optical frequencies. As far as
> laser jamming is concerned, even turning on your high beams results in a
> greatly reduced detection range for the speed sensing system. So, by the
> letter of a law that is broadened to incorporate optical or near optical
> frequencies, headlights would become an issue.
Not so sure about that... think about it. Do your headlights
"interfere with the receiving ... of reflected EMR"? I suspect not.
They may provide additional EMR, but the original reflected EMR's
still there.
Now the interpretation and processing of it... well that's another
matter.
Andrew.
--
Andrew Tune Technix Consulting Group
Andre...@technix.com.au Level 5, 695 Burke Rd
Phone: +61 3 9882 2333 Camberwell, 3124
Fax: +61 3 9882 4799 URL: http://www.technix.com.au
"What if there were no hypothetical situations?" - Jeff Sauder
Dennis Jensen
In article <3519F7...@technix.com.au>,
Andrew Tune <Andre...@technix.com.au> wrote:
>Dennis Jensen wrote:
><snip>
>> >"radar jamming device" means a device designed or apparently designed to
>> >be fitted to or carried in a motor vehicle for the purpose of
>> >interfering with the receiving by an approved radar speed measuring
>> >device of reflected electromagnetic radiations;
><snip>
>> Yep, except that radar does not operate at optical frequencies. As far as
>> laser jamming is concerned, even turning on your high beams results in a
>> greatly reduced detection range for the speed sensing system. So, by the
>> letter of a law that is broadened to incorporate optical or near optical
>> frequencies, headlights would become an issue.
>
>Not so sure about that... think about it. Do your headlights
>"interfere with the receiving ... of reflected EMR"? I suspect not.
>They may provide additional EMR, but the original reflected EMR's
>still there.
>
>Now the interpretation and processing of it... well that's another
>matter.
>
>Andrew.
Yep, the headlights are, in effect, a white noise active jammer. It interferes
with the receiving of the reflected signal by overloading it (which is
precisely what laser jammers do). Active radar jammers do the same thing, but
in radio frequencies, it is possible to legislate the broadcasting at those
frequencies.
Dennis
Andrew Tune
Dennis Jensen wrote:
> Yep, the headlights are, in effect, a white noise active jammer. It interferes
> with the receiving of the reflected signal by overloading it (which is
> precisely what laser jammers do). Active radar jammers do the same thing, but
> in radio frequencies, it is possible to legislate the broadcasting at those
> frequencies.
Dennis and I agreed in subsequent email correspondence that the
type of "jamming" we're talking about does not seem to fall foul
of the legislation, because of the wording used. In Dennis's words:
> Does it interfere with the reflected signal-no! Does it swamp that
> reflected signal-hell yes! The radar gun is receiving its reflected
> signal all right, it is just swamped by the "new" signal.
[Usual disclaimers: I speak for me only. I probably don't know what
I'm talking about - don't even _think_ I'm an expert. Hell - only my
kids think that! I'm not even a lawyer (and proud to say so!)]
Darren McElroy
dennis...@dwt.csiro.au wrote:
> At this section, they were widening said road. There was no danger, no ditches
> etc. There were marker cones to designate the area being worked on from that
> of the normal roadway. The limit was 60km/h. There are currently far worse
> sections that are being widened where the limit is 80km/h. Go figure!
>
Ok, My understanding of speed limits in relation to roadworks is that they are
put in place to tell motorists to slow down, things are not as they are normally
on this stretch of road. During the day there may be workers near the flow of
traffic, and outside of working hours there may be other hazards associated with
these works.
Generally (in Queensland anyway), wherever roadworks are, the speed is reduced
by 20km/h unless there is detours or other hazards. Usually 60km/h becomes
40km/h, 80km/h becomes 60, 100/110 becomes 80. In some circumstances 100 can be
reduced, in steps, to 60km/h
Pet...@_delete_mvt.ie
"Tim Archer" <arch...@lab.eng.usyd.edu.au> writes:
> I don't know about this... isn't the frequency spectrum controlled by
> federal government legislation?
>
> Most frequencies are illegal to broadcast on without a licence, eg radio,
> tv, microwave (mobile phone, satellite, airport radar)
>
> AFAIK, some frequencies are illegal to broadcast on full stop. This
> includes things like military frequencies, and frequency bands which
> haven't been "released" yet.
It is next to impossible to enforce legislative bans on emissions in
the visible electromagnetic spectrum. Otherwise, you'd have to issues
licences for every torch owner, every person who buys a box of matches
and every shop-owner who puts a light in their window.
I'm pretty sure this would apply to the near-IR too, which is where I
guess the laser speed checkers operate.
Having said that, I think you'd have to know what sort of modulation
the laser uses in order to jam it. Otherwise the modulation will
"shine" through any attempt to jam by simply broadcasting at random on
the appropriate frequency.
Ciao,
Peter K.
--
Peter J. Kootsookos Phone: +353 1 671 8177
MV Technology Ltd Fax: +353 1 671 8470
Unit 24, IDA Enterprise Centre #include <disclaimer.h>
Pearse Street, Dublin 2, IRELAND Email: PeterK@_delete_mvt.ie
Dion Mikkelsen
Darren McElroy <dmce...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in article
<351A23C5...@ozemail.com.au>...
>
> Ok, My understanding of speed limits in relation to roadworks is that
they are
> put in place to tell motorists to slow down, things are not as they are
normally
> on this stretch of road. During the day there may be workers near the
flow of
> traffic, and outside of working hours there may be other hazards
associated with
> these works.
Uhuh. I learnt that little rule the hardway. Driving from Mackay to
Rockhampton, about 9 pm at night and in a hurry home. Came across some
roadworks which I initially slowed down for, but in the end I thought "hell
... they're not out working tonight". So I sped back up to 100 km/h,
through various 80 km/h and 60 km/h zones (this was a long roadworks
stretch).
Then a 40 km/h sign came up. Did I slow down ? Nup. Flew over a massive
f**king hole in the road at 100 km/h. Loudest noise I've ever heard
eminate from under my car. Plus it totally screwed up my wheel alignment
..
So now I always slow down at night (but always slow down during the day
when people are working there).
--
Dion! -=DUH#12=- (Y1)
"13,990 flame away, no more to say."
"Save the whales. Collect the whole set."
Glen Rosie
Rusty (Rusty) wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Mar 1998 18:17:56 +1000, Darren McElroy
> <dmce...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> > The speed limits at road works are put in place for a
> >bloody good reason - Safety. If any driver gets booked in a road works zone,
> >he/she deserves everything he/she gets!!
>
> I agree totally. The last thing you want when you are trying to work is a
> car to fly past at 120km/h, just a couple of meters away.
>
> Next there will be complaints that the police are sitting at the start of
> 40km/h school zones!
>
> Rusty
Since when has a school zone been 40km/h??? Over here (SA) it's 25km/h and a lot
of people get booked, and for good reason. One of the few times I've ever got
really pissed off was when a guy was so close to my rear, beeping his horn and
waiving his fists in my rear view mirror, when passing a crowded kindergarten at
a 25km/h zone. I was not impressed by that wanker. It really troubled me to
drop to 10km/h after that ;-)
Glen