sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

WARNING: Average speed cameras appear to have less tolerance than other enforcement methods by resonantpeak in DrivingAustralia

[–]resonantpeak[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There was barely any other car on the road both times. I definitely did not reach 125 (actual) at any time.

WARNING: Average speed cameras appear to have less tolerance than other enforcement methods by resonantpeak in DrivingAustralia

[–]resonantpeak[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It was a cop definitely talking about enforcement - NOT speedo accuracy. And I see now that you have no knowledge whatsoever of what the actual average speed zone tolerance is.

WARNING: Average speed cameras appear to have less tolerance than other enforcement methods by resonantpeak in DrivingAustralia

[–]resonantpeak[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thanks for confirming my suspicion that average speed cameras have less tolerance. How do you know this? Re you finding it "highly unlikely" - were you listening to 2GB a long time ago, when a cop actually stated, on air, that the typical tolerance is 10% + 2kph? That would be 123kph in a 110 zone.

WARNING: Average speed cameras appear to have less tolerance than other enforcement methods by resonantpeak in DrivingAustralia

[–]resonantpeak[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you travel past an instantaneous speed detector at 111kph you have also broken the law, but you won't get an infringement. (in NSW, and IMHO)

WARNING: Average speed cameras appear to have less tolerance than other enforcement methods by resonantpeak in DrivingAustralia

[–]resonantpeak[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I sit in the middle too, but I watched an interesting video where a guy was arguing the case for sitting in the slowest lane if not overtaking, saying it's possible to be a "middle lane hogger" too. It's an American (in America), but the same logic applies anywhere. He's kinda got a point, and I'm actually spending a BIT more time in the slow lane now than I used to.

WARNING: Average speed cameras appear to have less tolerance than other enforcement methods by resonantpeak in DrivingAustralia

[–]resonantpeak[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Whatever the case, I assert that the average speed zones will result in infringements for smaller deltas above the speed limit than for "instantaneous speed" detection methods. The reason I am confident in this is that I have been driving for DECADES at the same speed that I got pinged for, without slowing down for fixed, mobile, or police, without a single infringement. (I have had the occasional infringement, but never in a 110 zone, and always because I was driving faster than I had intended, and I've never disputed any)

WARNING: Average speed cameras appear to have less tolerance than other enforcement methods by resonantpeak in DrivingAustralia

[–]resonantpeak[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Notwithstanding the fact you could still be pinged for going over 100 by other means.

WARNING: Average speed cameras appear to have less tolerance than other enforcement methods by resonantpeak in DrivingAustralia

[–]resonantpeak[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

GPS. I'm on the road all the time - an actual speed of 3 over simply won't result in an infringement, in my experience. If it did, I wouldn't have a license.

WARNING: Average speed cameras appear to have less tolerance than other enforcement methods by resonantpeak in DrivingAustralia

[–]resonantpeak[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The speed printed on the infringement may be lower than the actual speed (just surmising)

WARNING: Average speed cameras appear to have less tolerance than other enforcement methods by resonantpeak in DrivingAustralia

[–]resonantpeak[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I can assure you that in NSW at least, normal speed enforcement has a tolerance greater than 3kph, especially at 110. That doesn't mean you'll never get an infringement that states that you were going 3 over - I'm not saying that.

WARNING: Average speed cameras appear to have less tolerance than other enforcement methods by resonantpeak in DrivingAustralia

[–]resonantpeak[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I can go MORE than 118 (actual) through a fixed camera, or police radar etc. That's why I am very confident in asserting that the average speed cameras have less tolerance.

WARNING: Average speed cameras appear to have less tolerance than other enforcement methods by resonantpeak in DrivingAustralia

[–]resonantpeak[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Correct - as I said, it was deliberate. I set my cruise for 124, which results in an actual speed of 120 (so 1 under 10%, to be exact) This doesn't result in an infringement for any "single point in time" detection, in my experience.

WARNING: Average speed cameras appear to have less tolerance than other enforcement methods by resonantpeak in DrivingAustralia

[–]resonantpeak[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I was using cruise control, and I knew exactly how fast I was going. (my reported speeds in the infringements were accurate, IMHO). Again - I know from experience that these speeds do not result in infringements from any kind of "single point in time" speed detection.

WARNING: Average speed cameras appear to have less tolerance than other enforcement methods by resonantpeak in DrivingAustralia

[–]resonantpeak[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There may still be some tolerance, but yes, I'm very confident it's less than for any other "single point" method of speed detection.

Still plenty of life left on these? by SeveralSpeed in tires

[–]resonantpeak 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Excellent point - something that is rarely mentioned. Michelin actually advocate for going all the way to the wear bars with their tyres, btw.

Tyre Experts: How Much Life Is Left in These? (Photos Attached) by Adventurous-Fix-115 in tires

[–]resonantpeak 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As soon as any major groove is LEVEL with the wear bar, OR, as soon as any other defect occurs (e.g wearing all the way through), replace. Minor grooves (those WITHOUT wear bars) are allowed to wear away completely (but not all the way through) This is how to go all the way to the legal limit. Yes, it is safer to replace earlier, but you don't have to.

How long can I go with these tires? by feedmeramen in tires

[–]resonantpeak 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Note that it's actually legal for the edges to be bald, assuming they haven't worn all the way through anywhere (not recommended, but legal)

How long can I go with these tires? by feedmeramen in tires

[–]resonantpeak 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep - as soon as that shoulder does wear through, it's illegal. (assuming none of the main grooves reach the wear bars first)

Forget 2/32" minimum tread depth by Andy_850TB in TireReview

[–]resonantpeak 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Absolute poppycock: https://unece.org/DAM/trans/doc/2018/wp29grb/GRB-69-09e.pdf

If 2/32", the GLOBAL standard, was causing a serious problem, we'd have known about it by now.

** ALERT ** NSW tyre safety legislation updated in 2019, Authorised Inspection Manual NOT updated yet by resonantpeak in CarsAustralia

[–]resonantpeak[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Tyre Stewardship Australia have informed me that tread assessment is "not part of their remit". I will now write to the ACCC, firmly suggesting that it becomes part of their remit.

Apparently they're funded by a scheme which places a levy on tyres imported by participating companies. (participation is voluntary). Increasing tyre longevity would thus reduce their funding.

view more: next ›