The Pacific, Cunningham and New England Highways are dotted with small areas to overtake, where the road has a short section of dual lanes so slower cars can be overtaken. These are small enough that one vehicle can be overtaken easily, and sometimes a second slower vehicle, but this is made more difficult if the slower vehicles speed up on these sections as they sometimes do. So you gun your car a bit more than usual, running the speed up to get past the vehicles, then once past you let the speed wash off, dropping the speedo to a couple of kilometres above the speed limit before clicking the cruise control to resume your journey. I did just this, and now have a seven hundred dollar fine for it.

In my case as I overtook the second car, a police car rose over the top of the hill at the same time. There was nothing for it, I was speeding, and I pulled over once I saw the police car put its indicator on. I am not a dangerous driver, but recognise that to overtake sometimes it is safer to overtake quickly, get ahead and let the speed drop down.

I am not a perpetual speeder, I dont fly along the highways at 140km/h, in actual fact, from five days of driving from Sydney to Brisbane out into the New England Ranges and back down to Sydney - numerous hours of driving, probably thirty or so - I have been over 120km/h probably 40 seconds in that whole time. So I was absolutely shocked when the speeding fine I got from the Queensland policeman outside of Warwick was seven hundred dollars. This does not fit the crime, nor is it indicative of my driving through NSW and Queensland.

The State Labor governments have manouvred themselves to neuter the Liberal Party's conservative "tough on crime" stance. As a result they often trump and gazump any Liberal posturing on crime by increasing the punitive measures to prove they are in fact, the party that is tough on crime. I am reminded of the scene in Mel Brooks' Spaceballs where Helmet and Sandourz argue over what speed the ship should go in a small inter-play of who has the most power, which eventually leads to a stupid outcome;

Sandurz: Prepare ship for light speed.

Helmet: No, no, no, light speed is too slow.

Sandurz: Light speed, too slow?

Helmet: Yes, we're gonna have to go right to ludicrous speed.

Sandurz: Ludicrous speed? Sir, we've never gone that fast before. I don't know if this ship can take it.

Helmet: What's the matter, Colonel Sandurz, chicken?

Sandurz: Prepare ship, prepare ship for ludicrous speed. Fasten all seat belts, seal all entrances and exits, close all shops in the mall, cancel the 3-ring circus, secure all animals in the zoo...

This is an analogy for how the Labor state governments argue with the Liberal opposition over "tough on crime" measures. The ones who wear it, are the people, in the same way as the crew in Spaceballs wore the stupid escalation to the point beyond reason.

Seven hundred dollars is too much of a fine for what is often an arbitrary enforcement of speeds. It is fiscally cruel, what if I was earning 35K Australian, and had a family of three and a mortgage to support. Such a large fine did not change my behaviour. Before I was fined, I would put the car a couple of kilometres above the speed limit and click the cruise control. After I was fined, I did exactly the same. I also still used the small overtaking areas to overtake slower vehicles. The punitive measures failed.

The seven hundred dollar fine is fiscally cruel, punitively unusual, it is unfair and ultimately unjust. The Queensland government need to reduce their fines for speeding and other traffic offences. Drop them to $100 each. Repeat offenders will be fiscally hurt, if that is the punitive intention, and those that get caught up in the arbitrary nature of traffic enforcement will be less likely to whinge about it for that price. For seven hundred dollars, Queensland will be seeing me again in their court system.

cam
More reading: Tags, Queensland, Fines
Cam Riley: South Sea Republic. Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic.

Comments
  • Arbitrary enforcement: along with unreasonably low limits are the main sources of my distrust of Johnny Law.  
  • avocadia . # .
    con:

    I\'m quite happy to see the limits stay at 100/110, and I am equally happy to see the fines stay at high levels.

    My own experience on both the Bruce and Pacific Highways last year firmed that opinion - nearly killed twice by people speeding. Its pretty simple for me. You - a generic you - have a better chance of killing me if you are doing 120 than if you are doing 110. If you fuck up, your take more time to brake to a halt.

    You didn\'t say how fast and in what zone you were, so I\'ve no idea if $700 is punitively unusual. But if you really were doing 140 kph, mate, you deserved the whack. Sorry, but I guess when you\'ve driven on the shoulder to avoid someone speeding in the other direction, you start to agree with the fines.

    Maybe first causes should be addressed. All the highways should be dual carriage all the way. Or at least the coastal ones should be. The Gwydir Highway might have some difficulty going dual carriageway :- )
  • cam . # .
    This is the problem with zero tolerance: and universal enforcement, I was in an overtaking lane, trying to get past a car infront of me who had been dipping and diving between 85 kph and 105kph. When we got to the little overtaking stretch he sped up. As I said in the article, I spent a total of approximately two minutes above 120kph in over five days of driving. I was not setting the cruise control to 140kph, I was over taking.

    Everywhere else, I was setting the cruise control, and doing just a touch above the speed limit. I have no problem with 100/110 either, but that wasnt what was being enforced in my case. They caught me at the absolute worst, and then fined me. No context, no clemency, no warning. Just a whopping fine. It was arbitrary enforcement.

    As you said, this wouldnt be an issue if these major roads were dual carriageways as there would be no head-ons, and people can go their own speed in their own lanes without doing mad miles every 5 kilometres or so.

    cam
  • cam . # .
    Fines at HIgh Levels: A high cost fine is for three reasons;

    • Punitive
    • Correctional
    • Inhibitive

    As to punitive, $700 is cruel, unusual, unfair and unjust. The punishment does not fit the crime, especially given the arbitrary nature of traffic offences and their enforcement.

    As to correctional, in the article I explained how it made no difference to my driving. Before the fine I set the cruise control at a level just above the speed limits, and I did so after receiving the fine. Is till overtook vehicles in the overtaking sections.

    As to inhibitive, firstly I didnt know they were so high. But would it have mattered, as I got caught when overtaking, not when driving on cruise control. I also overtook cars (as did other drivers) during the whole trip.

    It is a Helmet vs Sanderz fine, where Lib/Lab have elevated it in a show of \"tough on crime\" one-up-manship.

    cam
  • cam . # .
    Also didnt make it clear: This was in one of those areas where it becomes three lanes for about 500m or so. I didnt overtake on the Pacific or New England where it was two lanes as I reckon that is a quick way to get yourself killed.

    cam
  • avocadia . # .
    Speeding fines not arbitrary:

    Hardly an arbitrary law, trying to keep drivers to a speed limit. We know that a driver\'s reaction times are undermined when travelling at high speeds, it makes sense to limit the speeds travelled. There is balance of your rights against mine - you don\'t have the right to travel so fast you risk my life. Traffic accidents are not victimless when you hit someone else.

    My cynicism turns off on his topic; it\'s not a Helmet vs Sanderz fine, it is Bart Simpson vs Principal Skinner. When Bart takes the rap for Lisa stealing the text books, he acts cocky after Skinner gives him 400 days in detention until it hits 600 days. You said it yourself, you didn\'t care that you might get caught. And you wouldn\'t have changed your behaviour even if you had known how much the fine could be. So there you are, and the government says \"We\'ll fine you $200 if you speed\" and you say \"I don\'t care, I\'m still going to sit above the limit.\" They up it to $400, and you\'ll still speed. $700. Still speeding. What do we have to get to before you finally say \"Well maybe I\'ll just shut my mouth\"?

    When someone is travelling so fast they inhibit their ability to avoid changed conditions ahead of them, they are putting at risk the lives of everyone around them. Call me a lefty if you like, I seem to have got that a lot lately :- )

  • cam . # .
    Traffic Offences are enforced arbitrarily: After I got fined, I saw numerous instances of people doing exactly the same thing - without getting fined. To ram home the point they are arbitrary, I spent a grand total of about 60 seconds above 120kmh in a total of five days driving, or about thirty hours of actual driving.

    The miners got upset at Eureka because the taxes were not only punitively and fiscally cruel but also because they were enforced in an arbitrary manner. Our traffic laws are the same, which is why I am upset about it.

    I was not constantly speeding, I was overtaking, in a set aside dual lane overtaking area. This doesnt have anything to do with your rights - it is about excessive fines for arbitrary enforcement.

    cam
  • cam . # .
    I did not sit at the speed:

    You said it yourself, you didn\'t care that you might get caught. And you wouldn\'t have changed your behaviour even if you had known how much the fine could be. So there you are, and the government says \"We\'ll fine you $200 if you speed\" and you say \"I don\'t care, I\'m still going to sit above the limit.\" They up it to $400, and you\'ll still speed. $700. Still speeding. What do we have to get to before you finally say \"Well maybe I\'ll just shut my mouth\"?

    This is what happened, two cars are ahead of me on the Cunningham Highway. It is two lanes, except for small sections of dual lane (three lanes in total for the road) for small periods.

    The car, that was two cars infront, was dipping and diving between 85kph and 105kph. This was screwing up my cruise control settings, so I had a motive to get past him.

    Overtaking section comes, I pull into the overtaking lane (there is no traffic in this lane coming the other way as there are three lanes here, two in my direction, one opposite). I overtake the first car.

    I accellerate to 140kmh to get past the next car (which is the problem car) before the dual lanes in my direction runs out. He speeds up to 105kmh making it more difficult for me. I am alongside him, and doing 140kmh whent he copper breaches the hill.

    Now after I got past him I would have slowed down to 105kmh and set the cruise control again, as I did for the other 2500 kms I travelled that week. was not sitting on 140kmh. I was overtaking on a stretch of road that permitted overtaking safely without danger to oncoming traffic.

    I was speeding, ok I can cop that. My speed was excessive. I can accept that. I pulled off the road unbidden. I had no problem with being pulled over and being fined - until I saw the amount. That does not fit my infraction.

    I did not change my driving because this occurred only one other time in 2500 kms of driving. In faive days I was only put in this position one other time. This fined failed it. It is political escalation of tough on crime that leads to an unreasonable outcome - which the citizen wears.

    cam
  • avocadia . # .
    I didn\'t say sitting on one forty: You said that you had set your cruise control above the speed limit. Isn\'t that sitting above the limit?
  • cam . # .
    Good luck with your learners license: After you have gone through your red, green, purple, blue, magenta, grey, pumice P plates - we will see if you still have that view. Social norms trump state enforced rules; otherwise Victorians would not be seen in pink pants after midday, and cabbies would be carrying hay in their cars .

    cam
  • cam . # .
    Yes, but that was not what I was fined for: and I passed several cop cars when travelling a couple of kms consistently over the speed limit and they didnt care. OMFG - enforcement is arbitrary!

    cam
  • Wait a Minute: Are you saying you always, without fail, drive at or below the posted limit?  If so, you are a true rarity.

    On a recent 1500 km drive in Virginia, the posted limit was 105 for almost all of the trip - well really 65 mph :).  I set my cruise at 115.  Discounting 18 wheelers going up hill (who went past me on the downhill side), I must have only went past a half dozen cars going slower that I was.  I doubt Queensland is any different.

    On that same trip, I drove past a dozen Troopers working speed enforcement.  They didn\'t give me a second look.  I guess I wasn\'t breaking the law enough for them to bother with.  Talk about arbitrary enforcement.

    When the vast majority of the citizens regularly break a law, the citizens aren\'t the one who are wrong.