Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Australian Car Forums / General Car Topics (Australian group) / March 2008

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Ping Jeremy or Athol

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Diesel Damo - 06 Mar 2008 23:04 GMT
Or anyone who regularly drives the M2 or M7 in Sydney.

I got this suspect email yesterday. Just wondering if there's any
truth to it as I can't find anything on their website. Sounds like BS
to me.

----------------------------------------
>   New Legislation M5 & M7 Re Speeding Fines
>
>   M5 and the M7 are now equipped with Point to Point Speed Devices. On
>   entering the M7 the etag beeps and a camera takes a photo of your car
>   recording the exact time. On exiting the etag system beeps again
> another
>   camera at that point takes a photo of the car and the time. Then the
>   computer calculates the time it has taken you to
>   travel between the two points and calculates your speed. If you
>   completed the clocked journey too fast you are issued with a speeding
>   ticket.
>
>   At the present the speed limit is 100K.P.H. with a tolerance of 102
>   maximum. Over that and you are issued with a fine automatically.
> What a
>   shock some drivers are going to have when they use this roadway for a
>   week and get a weeks'  tickets BOTH WAYS. Of course your license will
>   also be recalled for 3 months. Now with the new legislation,
> fighting a
>   Speed Camera fine is almost impossible. You must prove the device is
>   faulty and if you are not a technician working on them, you have no
>   chance of beating the fine.
>
>   The Pacific Highway has a set and these are recognized by large steel
>   frames over the lanes with a speed camera and some distance up the
> road
>   is another large metal frame with a speed camera.
>
>   These new point to point systems are being put onto any expressway
> and
>   highway where vehicles are not able to exit between those points.
>
>   NOTE: School zone cameras are not speed tolerant. Anything over, even
>   41, is a fine.
>
>   Tammy Umasaran
>   Corporate & Admin Support
>   Ministry of Transport
>   Phone: 02- 9891 8941
>   Fax: 02- 9891 8999
----------------------------------------
Jeßus - 06 Mar 2008 23:40 GMT
Sounds like BS to me...

Firstly, there would've been plenty of discussion and mention in the
media if this was pending.

Secondly, what employee of the 'Ministry of Transport' in their right
mind would send such an email, along with personal views such as
"shock some drivers are going to have when they use this roadway for a
week and get a weeks'  tickets BOTH WAYS. Of course your license will
also be recalled for 3 months. Now with the new legislation,
fighting a Speed Camera fine is almost impossible."

Nope, it's fake... for now at least!

> Or anyone who regularly drives the M2 or M7 in Sydney.
>
[quoted text clipped - 44 lines]
>>   Fax: 02- 9891 8999
> ----------------------------------------
Mot Adv - 07 Mar 2008 00:42 GMT
> Sounds like BS to me...
Greetings Damo

Fake.  RTA don't discuss publically tolerances.  A similar email did the
runds a year or so ago.

J
Toby Ponsenby - 07 Mar 2008 07:04 GMT
On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 11:42:50 +1100, Mot Adv blathered on in :aus.cars
>> Sounds like BS to me...
> Greetings Damo
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> J

True enough, but the inventor of the piece is indeed a sayer of sooth:-)
Mot Adv - 07 Mar 2008 23:26 GMT
"Toby Ponsenby"
> True enough, but the inventor of the piece is indeed a sayer of sooth:-)
We motorised type people are tax banks.

F6 Fog vid - unrelated.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8FkLjK9KG4
the_dawggie - 08 Mar 2008 01:12 GMT
> "Toby Ponsenby"> True enough, but the inventor of the piece is indeed a sayer of sooth:-)
>
> We motorised type people are tax banks.
>
> F6 Fog vid - unrelated.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8FkLjK9KG4

Well that is the weirdest post I've seen all week.
Jeßus - 08 Mar 2008 02:55 GMT
> "Toby Ponsenby"
>> True enough, but the inventor of the piece is indeed a sayer of sooth:-)
> We motorised type people are tax banks.
>
> F6 Fog vid - unrelated.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8FkLjK9KG4

That fog is mild compared to how it can be on the F6.
Worst fog I've ever seen anywhere ever was on the F6 circa last October,
it was so bad it was almost time to pull off the road (if you could find
somewhere).

Signature

http://fun.drno.de/pics/english/rooftops.jpg

ReSiN8oR - 08 Mar 2008 06:15 GMT
>> "Toby Ponsenby"
>>> True enough, but the inventor of the piece is indeed a sayer of sooth:-)
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> it was so bad it was almost time to pull off the road (if you could find
> somewhere).

I was thinking the same thing. I've driven along in both directions day
and night in heavy fog. Times less than 20m visibility. Particularly
around Maddens Plains. At least at night you can see lighting making the
drive easier. I can still vaguely remember a massive pileup one foggy
day years ago. Many cars involved. Ring any one elses bell?
Mot Adv - 08 Mar 2008 08:32 GMT
"
>> F6 Fog vid - unrelated.
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8FkLjK9KG4

"ReSiN8oR" WROTE: -
I was thinking the same thing. I've driven along in both directions day
and night in heavy fog. Times less than 20m visibility. Particularly
around Maddens Plains. At least at night you can see lighting making the
drive easier. I can still vaguely remember a massive pileup one foggy
day years ago. Many cars involved. Ring any one elses bell?

Longish text follows aus.cars:-

NSW Legislative Assembly discussion leading to regulations allowing for the
use of hazard-warning lights on moving vehicles under hazardous weather
conditions causing reduced visibility. Adopted nationally, we now recognised
this as Australian Road Rule 221(e).  Please see commentary at the end of
discussion, advocacy for a mandatory rear fog lamp rule for MA, MB and MC
ADR categories, with a study for heavy vehicle implementation required.
220 ASSEMBLY 18 May, 1988

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Wednesday, 18 May, 1988

HAZARDOUS DRIVING CONDITIONS Page 52

Mr ZAMMIT (Strathfield) 15.521:

I bring to the notice of the Minister for Administrative Services and
Assistant Minister for Transport the dangerous situation encountered on the
roads by drivers of motor vehicles when fog blankets our countryside.
Honourable members have witnessed the beauty of fog as it tumbles among
mountains and through valleys, but have experienced also the feeling of
alarm that accompanies the sudden and unexpected loss of vision which
blanketing fog presents. Fog can be threatening. We may not see confidently
what is ahead of us, and there may be a nagging fear that some other driver,
foolish, or impatient or inattentive, will not slow down to a sensible
speed, and will overrun us, though we may be acting responsibly. These fears
are well founded. Serious collisions have occurred involving slow or
frequently- stopping vehicles, such as school buses. Numerous pile-ups have
occurred on our freeways, especially when fog has been encountered suddenly
by vehicles travelling at high speed. Some of our steepest and windiest
roads pass through areas that are subject to fog. In some cases the hazards
are compounded by slippery road surfaces.

In 1987 some seven fatal crashes involved investigating police reporting the
presence of fog or mist as a direct contributing factor. A further 452
accidents were directly attributed to poor visibility because of mist or
fog. Those accidents led to injuries and to vehicles being towed from the
scene. According to federal estimates these crashes cost the New South Wales
economy about $9 million a year. In my electorate, which includes the F4
Freeway from Concord through Parramatta to Westmead, in 1987 there were
three deaths, 11 people seriously wounded and 50 people injured in accidents
occasioned during periods of poor visibility, which may have involved fog or
mist.

272 ASSEMBLY 18 May, 1988 Page 53

On 19th January an article in the Daily Mirror referred to a spate of
multicar pile-ups resulting from poor visibility and high speed on the F6
Freeway. An accident on 17th January involving 12 cars resulted in nine
people being injured. It was pointed out that though expressways such as the
F4 and the F6 are among the safest roads in New South Wales, they can be a
potential death trap under conditions of fog or mist. Reference was made in
that article to a system used by the Californian Highway Patrol, known as
operation fogdown. It is said to involve police escorts for convoys of
vehicles, with a police car travelling in front and another at the rear of
the convoy. I am troubled by the suggestion that the police in New South
Wales were considering the introduction of that system, especially in light
of the present demands on police resources. I have been a member of the
Staysafe committee for the past three years and I do not recall the issue of
fog conditions being considered by it.

We cannot stop fog, nor can we locate all roads in areas where fog is
infrequent. We cannot rigidly control at1 drivers all the time, but we can
do more than has been done to encourage drivers to anticipate and to respond
sensibly to this hazard so as to improve the ease with which vehicles can be
seen in the fog. The Minister might wish to comment on this situation and
inform the House what steps the Government will take to alleviate the
horrendous road toll. Last night in the House I mentioned that the road toll
has risen 9 per cent over last year's figure. That rise has occurred in the
first five months of this year. Extended over a 12-month period it would
represent an increase in the road toll of 20 per cent. Such an increase is
unacceptable. I should like to hear of steps the Minister might take to
reduce the horrendous carnage on our roads.

Mr SINGLETON

Minister for Administrative Services and Assistant Minister for Transport

(Coffs Harbour) 15.571:

The honourable member for Strathfield has become well known in this House
and throughout the State for his interest in road safety matters. He is
interested also in other forms of transport and fought hard for a better
train service to the Bunvood area. During the past four years he has turned
a former Labor seat into a blue-ribbon Liberal seat and is to be
congratulated on the work he has done. He has become a man of the people in
his electorate. He is well known for his interest in transport issues, and
particularly road safety. He has represented consistently the interests of
his constituents in seeking improved road and rail services.

In the parliamentary sphere he has worked as chairman designate on the
Staysafe committee and has made a significant contribution to improving road
safety in New South Wales. His reference to statistics indicates his depth
of knowledge on road safety. I welcome his constructive comments in raising
this issue of the hazard of driving in fog. Driving in thick fog is one of
the worst experiences suffered by a driver. It is a frequent cause of
accidents in rural areas. In times of fog many roads become high risk areas
because of wet and slippery conditions and poor visibility.

Many country roads, such as the Great Western Highway through the Blue
Mountains, the Bulli-Sublime Point area of the F6 Freeway, and the
tablelands and the valleys of the State, are dangerous in foggy conditions.
This was shown to be the case in the recent multiple vehicle accident to
which the honourable member referred. Many motorists fail to drive
appropriately for the conditions prevailing and are unable to stop quickly
if an emergency arises. In these conditions drivers should be as responsible
as possible.

The previous Government ignored its responsibility to minimize the dangers
associated with driving in fog. Recently the Minister for Transport approved
changes in the regulations to the Motor Traffic Act to allow hazard -

273 18 May, 1988 ASSEMBLY Page 54

lights to be used during fog conditions. These regulations have been amended
on the recommendations of the Traffic Authority, the State Government agency
responsible for co-ordinating traffic management and road safety. Previously
motorists were prohibited from using hazard lights except where a vehicle
was stopped in a hazardous position. Yellow or orange flashing lights are
far more conspicuous than a steady beam from headlights or tail-lights. Now,
when driving in foggy conditions, motorists should turn on their hazard
lights, put their headlights on low beam and drive slowly. This will make
the vehicles more visible and will give other drivers sufficient time to
react to any emergency situation. Driving with hazard lights displayed under
any other circumstance will still, of course, be illegal.

MotAdv-Notes:

a) THE F6 suffered a multi-vehicle pileup exceeding 53 vehicles in fog south
of the then toll gates at the 'big dipper' at the time. NSW has had other
multi-vehicle pileups in fog, heavy rain and the like, numerically in the 9,
14 car range. Low visibility is a causing agent of end-result.

b) HAZARD warning lights at 12v/21watts are NOT as bright as low-beam
headlights (12v/60watts), or front fog lights (12v/55watts).

c) HAZARD warning lights used in this fashion are NOT intended to help you
see ahead as they are not low beam or front fog light in performance
characteristics.

d) THE hazard warning lights allowance, as adopted by NSW back then, now
nationally at ARR 221(e), was intended to act as defacto REAR FOG LAMPS.

e) THE NSW Authority of 1987/1988 would have been better advised to advocate
a change to what is now in 2008 - 'ADR 13, Part 8.5.1'. This stipulates;
Presence: Paragraph 6.11.1 of Appendix A (Rear fog lamps, page 45 of ADR13)
does not apply. The fitment of rear fog lamps is optional in this rule.

f) THE use of hazard warning lights in the manner allowed by ARR regulation
221(e) bears conflict with the United Nations 1968 Convention on Road
Traffic, Road Signs and Signals, Article 32, part 13.

END
Kev - 08 Mar 2008 11:55 GMT
>>> "Toby Ponsenby"
>>>> True enough, but the inventor of the piece is indeed a sayer of
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> drive easier. I can still vaguely remember a massive pileup one foggy
> day years ago. Many cars involved. Ring any one elses bell?

wait until there is a bush fire close by and the smoke mizes with the fog
you won't even see the front of your car

I came across this one night many years ago, towing a car on the
trailer, hit the fog at around 70-80kph and everything disappeared and
all I could see was a faint yellow glow from the headlights(couldn't
actually see any light beams cause I couldn't see the front of the car)

I had slowed to slower than walking pace and got a glimpse of the road
and I was on the wrong side, just as I steered left someone went past
going way too fast(probably only 20-30kph) for that sh.t
I crept along and after another 100 metres or so it cleared up

The last time I came across this same thing(at the nearly same place I
might add) was closer to a bridge, this time as I crept through I came
across some morons who had actually stopped, not off the side of the
road, but right in the middle, and there they were standing behind their
cars

Kev
Toby Ponsenby - 08 Mar 2008 12:47 GMT
On Sat, 08 Mar 2008 21:55:15 +1000, Kev blathered on in :aus.cars
>>>> "Toby Ponsenby"
>>>>> True enough, but the inventor of the piece is indeed a sayer of
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
>
> Kev

Yup - there's an entire subset of imbeciles out there who fervently believe
that the brakes of an oncoming vehicle will suddenly develop miraculous
properties IF they can get themselves between an object an oncoming vehicle
has to miss and that oncoming vehicle.
Athol - 08 Mar 2008 06:59 GMT
> I got this suspect email yesterday. Just wondering if there's any
> truth to it as I can't find anything on their website. Sounds like BS
> to me.

It's BS.  I've seen several variants to the theme.

>>   At the present the speed limit is 100K.P.H. with a tolerance of 102
>>   maximum. Over that and you are issued with a fine automatically.

This is wrong for starters.  The numbers that I've come across from not
only Shane and Spooky but also an official RTA representative who was asked
what the tolerance was by a local radio station indicate that the minimum
bookable speed in NSW is at least limit+10%+1km/h.  IIRC, the RTA official
stated the fixed cameras in NSW worked to limit+10%+4km/h as the starting
point for infringements.

>>   Speed Camera fine is almost impossible. You must prove the device is
>>   faulty and if you are not a technician working on them, you have no
>>   chance of beating the fine.

However, it is possible to fight a large number of identical infringements
over a short period and have it reduced to a single infringement of the
highest of the set.

>>   The Pacific Highway has a set and these are recognized by large steel
>>   frames over the lanes with a speed camera and some distance up the
>>   road is another large metal frame with a speed camera.

Not familiar with where these are on the Pacific Hwy.

>>   These new point to point systems are being put onto any expressway
>>   and highway where vehicles are not able to exit between those points.

The ones on the F3 were explained here by Jeremy some time ago.

First camera takes a photo of the limit showing on the first overhead
gantry when a vehicle is being photographed on the standard single camera
at the 2nd gantry.

IIRC, it's the faulty camera from the Spit Road debacle relocated...

>>   NOTE: School zone cameras are not speed tolerant. Anything over, even
>>   41, is a fine.

Complete and utter crap.  Absolute minimum for infringement is still
limit+10%+1km/h = 45km/h.

>>   Tammy Umasaran
>>   Corporate & Admin Support
>>   Ministry of Transport

This is quite funny for anyone who knows what the MoT does...

They license public vehicles - taxis, hire cars and buses.  Nothing to do
with speed cameras!

>>   Phone: 02- 9891 8941
>>   Fax: 02- 9891 8999

I wonder whose numbers these are...

Signature

Athol
<http://cust.idl.com.au/athol>   Linux Registered User # 254000
I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.

Feral Al - 08 Mar 2008 07:47 GMT
>>>   The Pacific Highway has a set and these are recognized by large steel
>>>   frames over the lanes with a speed camera and some distance up the
>>>   road is another large metal frame with a speed camera.
>
> Not familiar with where these are on the Pacific Hwy.

I see the southern ones quite often - Harwood Bridge -
supposedly for truck movement only.

>>>   Phone: 02- 9891 8941
>>>   Fax: 02- 9891 8999
>
> I wonder whose numbers these are...

Parramatta district, but number range does not exist according
to ACMA Numbering Plan.

Signature

Take Care.     ~~
Feral Al    ( @..@)
          (\- :-) -/)
        ((.>__oo__<.))
         ^^^   %  ^^^

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.