speed-scamUnfortunately, I must again object to our local paper praising the government and its randomly applied taxes.
Sir, excises, fines, fees, levies, if it moves funds from your pocket to government revenue, it is a tax and has served government’s purpose.
Government employs a multitude of spruikers who can over and over tell the public that one particular tax is for their greatest benefit.
Unfortunately, too many people believe government spruikers.
That speed influences collisions is basic physics. If two cars are stationary there cannot be a collision.
Excessive speed can be a significant factor in about two per cent of collisions.
But if the speed camera system were set up to stop or catch drivers doing excessive speed, speed cameras would have been abandoned years ago as being uneconomical.
The money is in the scale of normal distribution (bell curve) around the posted speed limit.
When I passed my licence, there were three speed limits; 30mph in built up areas, 60mph on country roads and ‘derestricted’ on country highways.
That would never make enough money to justify the expense of the speed camera system.
Now we have 10km/h, 15, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100 and 110km/h.
We have changed from simple and easily understandable speed restrictions to a great little earner.
In March 2007, John King and I (I was his expert witness) won his case against a speed camera at the Heidelberg Court with costs.
Since then, more and more people have found that they can defend these cases and groups such as Aussie Speeding Fines have sprung up urging people to defend themselves and providing documents that can assist in their defence.
My personal view is that speed cameras are nationwide a billion dollar per year scam.
This scam only survives because not enough people challenge the allegation.
All I can say to Victorian motorists is ‘Keep up the good work and fight this scam’.
If you are worried about costs being awarded against you, challenge the ruling.
These cases are Criminal cases.
When was the last time a defendant in a criminal murder case was sentenced to life imprisonment and costs were then awarded against him?
Claus D. Salger, B. Bus. B. Ed. Dip. Tech. T, Cape Paterson.

Stand Alone has done its job

The Phillip Island Stand Alone campaign should quit while it’s ahead.
Much has been achieved, and those who have contributed to the success of the movement are to be congratulated.
Public opinion has been galvanised, commitments have been given for a swimming pool and a review, and Wonthaggi has at last got the message that the days of treating the Island as the cash cow are over.
We have a new council and a new CEO.
The chief planning officer has gone, along with the chief financial officer, so it’s a new ball game in 2014.
Phillip Island has four votes of seven on the council and has every opportunity to use them for the Island’s benefit.
Do we really need to spend several million dollars to create a new Shire of Phillip Island?
It’s Time; to quit while you’re ahead.
Roger Epworth, Grantville.