Bang!

[hamiltonau]

Hasn't accepted yet.... Frowny face

oy, i will add you

[email protected]

thought i was camera proof until i gunned it through an orange on the westlnk the other night and 'flash-flash' ...going to have to research those ghost plates, pretty sure it was the speed not the red light.

[fatz]

leeway and tolerance

two seperate things

the article makes a point of pretending they are the same

never let the truth get it the way of a good story

[smart_one]

Unless your speedo starts eating the gear drive, you don't need to calibrate them, this is why they have to be between 0 and 10% over read at any time for any configuration of tyre approved by the manufacturer.

Most cars over read by at least 3% on brand new tyres. Oh and new to worn out tyres will alter reading by approx 0.5%...

That doesn't help Import drivers or older cars.

[Cassbo]

That doesn't help Import drivers or older cars.

Perhaps not, but if a speedo becomes more inaccurate over time shouldn't recalibration be part of routine maintainance? I guess it's much like adjusdting headlights, something very important that everyone overlooks as it isn't regulated.

At the end of the day, it's up to the road user to obey the rules. If you get caught breaking those rules and your only excuse is "lol, soz my speedo is out" it is very likely you will end up with a speeding fine AND a defect

[jrm]

SMH states that the ADRs specify a 10% margin for error either way, yet the actual ADRs say that the margin for error only applies that the car is always going equal to or less than the speed displayed on the speedo...

I wonder what else in that article is incorrect?

TL;DR - Sensationalist journalism

Because the ADR changed in 2006 - and ADRs aren't retrospective. So vehicles produced before 2006 happily comply with the old ADR and the new ADR does not apply to them.

The old pre-2006 ADR stated (loosely) +-10% accuracy at speeds above 40kph (I beleive), the new ADR changes that. However, how many cars are on the road that were build pre-2006? The new rules essentially disallow under-reading, and permit over-reading by up to 4kmh + 10% (there's a formula involved, I believe someone has already posted this).

The other thing to consider is all the other factors that will impact speedometer readings -

+ tyre wear

+ tyre pressure

+ vehicle load

And that ignores more human factors like many speedos only displaying increments of 5kph, or particularly sized/shaped speedometer needles.

Unfortunately, the politicians really don't give a damn - it's all about revenue raising, not facts or 'real world'.

[MaTBoY]

The question is: Can Libs repeal this? Or because it's the RTA, will it be untouchable?

rta reports directly to state govt, the rta is far from untouchable, even if today/tonight says so.

[GTR-N1]

It'll be interesting see if as a consequence of <1km/hr tolerance, the stats of rear-enders goes up.

And they probably don't do a count of those anyway.

Rear-enders are probably already on the rise - not just from wet roads which has always been the case, but from texting.

[fatz]

rear ender stats are readlily available

[MBS206]

It'll be interesting see if as a consequence of <1km/hr tolerance, the stats of rear-enders goes up.

And they probably don't do a count of those anyway.

Rear-enders are probably already on the rise - not just from wet roads which has always been the case, but from texting.

Funny you mention this...

P Platers have the STRICTEST laws in regards to speeding on them... Yet they're the lowest cause of rear end accidents... So by that fact alone, it should technically reduce...