SA Footy

Jimmy_041 wrote:Earth shattering news......only got 99 more to catch up to Tom K

GWW wrote:

Jimmy_041 wrote:Earth shattering news......only got 99 more to catch up to Tom K

Speed Dangerous is a fairly serious offence, its not a simple case of going 15 or so k's over the limit.

Psyber wrote:It is illegal, and, therefore, as an endorsed candidate, he should be more careful of the image he portrays, but I doubt it is a big deal locally.
Over that way, given an empty road, I'd bet a lot of his potential constituents would do the same fairly often, and therefore it won't affect his chances.
A friend's 84 year old mother, from Kimba, got picked up at that speed in her old Mercedes a few years ago.

While I am careful to never speed in the metropolitan area, or township regions, I have been nabbed a few times on empty country roads.
I peaked at over that while passing a couple of caravans between Melbourne and Adelaide early this year, on a road that was otherwise empty.
100K in Victoria, and 110K in SA, is ludicrously slow on an empty country road - a product of "Nanny state" thinking, and assumptions of driving incompetence..

mick wrote:

Psyber wrote:It is illegal, and, therefore, as an endorsed candidate, he should be more careful of the image he portrays, but I doubt it is a big deal locally.
Over that way, given an empty road, I'd bet a lot of his potential constituents would do the same fairly often, and therefore it won't affect his chances.
A friend's 84 year old mother, from Kimba, got picked up at that speed in her old Mercedes a few years ago.

While I am careful to never speed in the metropolitan area, or township regions, I have been nabbed a few times on empty country roads.
I peaked at over that while passing a couple of caravans between Melbourne and Adelaide early this year, on a road that was otherwise empty.
100K in Victoria, and 110K in SA, is ludicrously slow on an empty country road - a product of "Nanny state" thinking, and assumptions of driving incompetence..

When I was taught to drive, it was a no brainer to spend as little time on the wrong side of the road when passing. In the country if I have to pass a truck or caravan I'm not going to spend 20-30 seconds doing it by dutifully sticking to 110km/h, surely it is better to pass in 10-15 seconds by accelerating to around 140 kmh then dropping back to 110 when safely past to do otherwise is dangerous IMHO. I believe that the intention of the nanny state is to have no overtaking and to use the police for revenue raising. I've been driving for 38 years I've had one speeding fine 20 years ago near Hay at 11.30pm doing 120kmh, the copper was almost apologetic but his rather nasty female partner was insistent.

Martin was a high-profile Labor candidate in 2004 when he won his Upper House seat.
But he was thrown out of the Parliamentary Labor Party three years later after voting against laws to speed up the assessment of Gunns' proposed pulp mill in Tasmania's north.

MP facing three child porn charges

ABC
October 30, 2009, 6:03 pm

Tasmanian Upper House MP Terry Martin is facing child pornography charges.

The independent member for Elwick in Hobart is facing one charge of producing child exploitation material and two of downloading pictures of children under the age of 18 engaged in sexual acts.

It is alleged that on or about September 10, the 51-year-old politician took photographs of a naked 12-year-old girl performing a sex act.

Martin's lawyer told the Hobart Magistrates Court this afternoon his client would be pleading not guilty to all charges.

Martin has been granted bail to reappear in the Supreme Court next February for a committal hearing on the first charge.

Martin was a high-profile Labor candidate in 2004 when he won his Upper House seat.

But he was thrown out of the Parliamentary Labor Party three years later after voting against laws to speed up the assessment of Gunns' proposed pulp mill in Tasmania's north.

The 51-year-old has Parkinson's disease and is currently writing a book on political scandals.

Psyber wrote:

GWW wrote:

Jimmy_041 wrote:Earth shattering news......only got 99 more to catch up to Tom K

Speed Dangerous is a fairly serious offence, its not a simple case of going 15 or so k's over the limit.

It is treated very seriously, and that is justified in many circumstances - but not all.
In SA last time I checked I think the trigger was 40K over the limit. In Victoria it was 35K.
40K above the legal limit on the Anzac Highway is vastly different from on an empty country road without another car in sight.
I'd dispute that an arbitrary figure defined by only by being a certain amount above the legal limit is a valid determiner.
There are situations where I drive under the legal limit, or over it, depending on the actual conditions.

While I accept that speed limits have to be based on the average driver, in an average car, in an average state of repair, I think "dangerous" is really another issue.
When I went up on "Speed Dangerous" many years ago, I was driving a Porsche 930 Turbo, in top condition, and I had track experience of driving around 250 Kph.
I was not convicted, but those arguments would not have saved me from the arbitrariness of the Law - another tack was needed.

redandblack wrote: You have my utmost sympathy over that charge, Psyber. I propose a new law to deal with your predicament:
"The Road Traffic Dangerous Driving (Psyber Exception) Amendment Act 2009

Lazarus wrote:While we're at it, drugs are only dangerous when they are used irresponsibly. Upper class people such as myself know how to use them recreationally without abusing them.
How about a Controlled Substances (Lazarus Exemption) Amendment Act?

Psyber wrote:

redandblack wrote: You have my utmost sympathy over that charge, Psyber. I propose a new law to deal with your predicament:
"The Road Traffic Dangerous Driving (Psyber Exception) Amendment Act 2009

No sympathy needed - I was not convicted.

I have not objection to paying the fines if I decide to take the risk, and speed where I think it is reasonably safe to do so.
It is defining driving as "dangerous" only because of an arbitrary figure above the limit I object to.
As I said, 40K over a 60K limit on the hardly ever empty Anzac Highway is a fair bit different from 40K over a 110K limit on an empty country road.
That is, both in terms of situation and percentage excess, and without taking the condition of the vehicle or the driver into account.
[20 K over the 60K limit on South Rd may be even more dangerous.]

However, just in case, if you have the connections to get the exception act through for me I'd consider making a donation to appropriate welfare funds.
Getting a Barrister to Mt Barker to avoid a conviction and save my licence was a little expensive - though not as much as the fine would have been.

redandblack wrote: I think you may have missed the point that Lazarus and I were making, Psyber, but not to worry.
I think I could get the amendment to the Act through OK, though. I'll nominate as my appropriate welfare fund the little known, but very desërving charity
"The friends of redandblack Benevolent Fund"

Psyber wrote: Perhaps I did.
I wondered if you thought I was thinking I should be above the law, but I thought it was obvious I wasn't saying that, just that the law should be a bit more rationally framed for all of us.

Gozu wrote:

Psyber wrote: Perhaps I did.
I wondered if you thought I was thinking I should be above the law, but I thought it was obvious I wasn't saying that, just that the law should be a bit more rationally framed for all of us.

Especially Liberal Party politicians.

Psyber wrote:

redandblack wrote: I think you may have missed the point that Lazarus and I were making, Psyber, but not to worry.
I think I could get the amendment to the Act through OK, though. I'll nominate as my appropriate welfare fund the little known, but very desërving charity
"The friends of redandblack Benevolent Fund"

Perhaps I did.
I wondered if you thought I was thinking I should be above the law, but I thought it was obvious I wasn't saying that, just that the law should be a bit more rationally framed for all of us.

Lazarus wrote:

Psyber wrote:

redandblack wrote: I think you may have missed the point that Lazarus and I were making, Psyber, but not to worry.
I think I could get the amendment to the Act through OK, though. I'll nominate as my appropriate welfare fund the little known, but very desërving charity
"The friends of redandblack Benevolent Fund"

Perhaps I did.
I wondered if you thought I was thinking I should be above the law, but I thought it was obvious I wasn't saying that, just that the law should be a bit more rationally framed for all of us.

If you actually meant for the law to be framed more rationally for everyone, what relevance did your track experience in a Porsche at 250kph have?