By: news.judge
24/01/2009
1:53 pm Yahoo! Profile:
news.judge Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
First he introduces a clause into the Crimes Act 1900 to make cases of assaulting pregnant women punishable more heavily than normal assaults, now he wants to introduce speed cameras that have an increased chance of milking money in fines for the revenue coffers because
http://www.chiefminister.act.gov.au/media.php?v=76 89
This stinks of blatant entrapment to me, in desperation to get even more money out of us under the disguise of "road safety".
He seems to have a snowballing revenue-raising system going. Revenue raised from existing cameras and other speed traps go into building more and more sophisticated speed traps. |
|
By: madcowmess
25/01/2009
6:44 pm Yahoo! Profile:
madcowmess Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Society is too busy pointing the finger at corporate business greed to realise that governments are far more greedier than big business. |
|
By: madcowmess
25/01/2009
6:45 pm Yahoo! Profile:
madcowmess Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Actually, I think the greed of government puts Satan to shame. |
|
By: gornat96
26/01/2009
5:32 pm Yahoo! Profile:
gornat96 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Especialy when you look back at Rudds "culture of greed" speech and his "we all need to show restraint in regards to pay rises" speech then he turns around and gives his advisors a large bonus and his staffers a large pay rise like straight away. Money money money. |
|
By: aprilhud1232000
28/01/2009
1:57 pm Yahoo! Profile:
aprilhud1232000 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
First he introduces a clause into the Crimes Act 1900 to make cases of assaulting pregnant women punishable more heavily than normal assaults, now he wants to introduce speed cameras that have an increased chance of milking money in fines for the revenue coffers because
news.judge
************************* ************************* *******
news.judge: I would like to know why you have a problem with these two areas of policy; one IF anyone assaults a pregnant woman they also assault her baby; and
two if you drive within the Law then you have nothing to worry about whether there are speed cameras or not. |
|
By: madcowmess
28/01/2009
2:34 pm Yahoo! Profile:
madcowmess Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| The other problem about Stanhope answering to his bad attitude is that he ignores serious correspondence. |
|
By: madcowmess
28/01/2009
2:36 pm Yahoo! Profile:
madcowmess Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
if you drive within the Law then you have nothing to worry about whether there are speed cameras or not.<<<<<
While I agree with this, what about driving competence, all other road safety rules and who punishes the government for failing to maintain the infrastructure whereas private motorists are under threat of penalty to maintain their cars? |
|
By: madcowmess
28/01/2009
2:37 pm Yahoo! Profile:
madcowmess Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Oh, I see. The only identifiable road safety issue is the speed. Nothing else matters. |
|
By: aprilhud1232000
29/01/2009
7:57 am Yahoo! Profile:
aprilhud1232000 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Re:Stanhope has got a lot to answer for (PREVIEW)
if you drive within the Law then you have nothing to worry about whether there are speed cameras or not.<<<<<
While I agree with this, what about driving competence, all other road safety rules and who punishes the government for failing to maintain the infrastructure whereas private motorists are under threat of penalty to maintain their cars?
madcowmess
************************* ************************* ****
I would suspect that if someone drives within the Law; then all aspects mentioned about would also be adhered to. However, since you have considered this an issue I stand corrected. |
|
By: madcowmess
29/01/2009
1:41 pm Yahoo! Profile:
madcowmess Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Most people do drive very well. The thing is we tend not to notice this because drivers who get it right do not get in oour face. It is the poor drivers that get in our face that we notice. I believe education and a change of attitude from the authorities will sort out most of this leaving only deliberate dangerous driving to deal with.
Cheers and happy driving to you. |
|
By: news.judge
30/01/2009
12:37 pm Yahoo! Profile:
news.judge Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
news.judge: I would like to know why you have a problem with these two areas of policy; one IF anyone assaults a pregnant woman they also assault her baby; and
two if you drive within the Law then you have nothing to worry about whether there are speed cameras or not.
----------
1. There is no "baby". Stanhope little Crimes Act amendment was one of the most disgusting things he ever did with his legislative pen in the ACT
2. That's too convenient a revenue-raising ploy as speed limits are set drastically low and for what reason? in some areas, and speed zones don't have clear signage (80, 60 and 40 signs really close together) |
|
By: madcowmess
30/01/2009
9:39 pm Yahoo! Profile:
madcowmess Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| A good way to set speed limits is to calculate majority speeds for various roads and set the limit for us to travel at such speed plus a bit, accordingly. |
|
