I originally wrote this article in 2022, but it never made it past draft. I've decided to publish it now even though the amounts are woefully out of date, but I think the same situation may apply today.
Whilst helping a person who was in their 80s with their car insurance renewal, I started to wonder how much of a difference a person's age makes to their car insurance premium. I did a test and took 20 years off the person's age, effectively from 84 to 64. The car was a Mazda CX5 (2015).
Here's what I found.
Woolworths: $2,544.33
Age to 20 years less: $1,339.27
Woolworths drive less pay less: $1,701.69
Age to 20 years less: $895.73
AAMI: $1,108.75
Age to 20 years less: $732.53
RACV: $1747.02
Age to 20 years less: $1,072.83
As you can see the premium for being over 80 is considerable.
Kelvin Eldridge
I've seen the articles about a fuel truck driver who was cut off by another truck driver in NSW and was fined $1,636. The reason is they were caught by a Safety T-cam at a distance of about 15.99m from the truck in front.
At first glance it is really rough if someone cuts you off and you get a fine. However, if you inspect the video and Google maps, you have to wonder why the fine was dismissed. In fact, the headline for the article was "Common sense prevails – truck driver has $1636 fine overturned in court - Big Rigs".
https://youtube.com/watch?v=B1NLW1Awvkk&si=ehZqTBi3F37urDVe
If you check Google maps for this location (-33.54149394495143, 150.16565633916358) you'll see a few things.
The truck was exiting a 40km/h zone with an 80km/h zone coming up. Based on the video which appears to be slowed to half the speed, the truck may have been travelling around 60km/h and accelerating to return to 80km/h. The start of the video is about 245m from the intersection.
The truck in front enters the intersection when this truck was about 145m from the intersection.
According to the NSW government's site, it takes 44m at 40km/h and 90m at 60km/h for a double B truck to stop. That means there's plenty of time for this truck to stop if required.
Further, the location of the Safety T-cam where this truck was pinged 15.99m behind the truck that had cut out, is around 320m from where we can say the truck cutting out was clearly evident and had entered the main road. The intersection is about 173m from the Safety T-cam. That I would think is plenty of time for the trailing truck to have increased the gap between trucks to the required 60m.
Yes, it's a dog of an act to cut others off. It happens to all of us. But that's part of driving on the road.
For me this is a very interesting situation and shows you can be lucky by going to court.
As I said, if I'm missing something I'd like to know.
Kelvin
PS. I'm not fussed the driver of the truck had the fine overturned. In fact, it's their good luck. What interests me is to analyse the situation and learn by what happens to others on the road so I can be a better, more prepared driver. It is said around 18% of deaths on country roads involve trucks and that is disconcerting given the ratio of cars to trucks.
I find speed cameras interesting. This is the first time I've seen a fine for an average speed camera, so I thought I'd check it out.
. https://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/2779347
In the post by abbots the fine stated, allowed time 878s and their alleged time was 817s. The section of road was Forrest Hwy s/bound Lake Clifton. They were fined with doing 117km/h where the speed limit is 110km/h. Given the speed limit and the time allowed, this gives us the distance of 26.827 km.
You can find the Lake Clifton PTP camera located here.
https://www.speedcameralocations.com.au/wa/?lat=-32.8951349&lng=115.7137058
The end PTP camera is located in Binningup.
https://www.speedcameralocations.com.au/wa/?lat=-33.1338527&lng=115.7210756
According to Google Maps the distance between these two GPS locations is 26.9km. which shows a close correspondence.
If we then work out what speed the person would need to be going to cover 26.827km in 817s, we get 118.2km/h. It is interesting there's a variation of 1.2 km/h.
The first thing I found interesting was the time is second is what is used to determine if someone is speeding or not. That actually makes sense because the two variable figures that are easily available is the time at the first camera and the time at the second camera. The difference is the time taken to travel the known distance. From the known distance and the time taken their speed can be estimated.
It should also be kept in mind; from what I've read; the distance travelled between the two average speed cameras is the shortest distance. I imagine this to be the line that cuts across lanes on curved sections of the road. If people speed and stay roughly in the same lane and not cut across lanes to use the shortest distance, they're in fact being a slight allowance because the distance is long, so they would take longer to do the distance.
The second thing is if someone is caught driving at 117 km/h, if they needed to slow down for other cars, then their peak speed is going to be quite a bit higher.
When using cameras the government usually provides an allowance, first for error in their equipment and second an unstated tolerance. The tolerance for the equipment is usually 2 o3 km/h or above 100 km/h 2 or 3%. The unstated tolerance might be closer to 6 km/h.
What we can see here is the person was booked for doing 117 km/h on a 110 km/h road so we now know the unstated tolerance is less than 7 km/h. Anyone who still thinks there's a 10% tolerance is probably in for some financial pain.
As more people share their speeding fine stories. the unstated tolerance will become more obvious. Each person has their own driving preference. I use my GPS to let me know the speed and usually drive close to that speed, but ultimately, it is how comfortable I feel the car is for the conditions. Others drive using the speedometer and others tend to drive a little over the speed limit believing they won't get fined, whilst others simply don't seem to care, or don't realise they're speeding. Fines are a way for the government to encourage people to comply.
Fixed and portable average speed cameras usage is growing across Australia so information like this person's fine is good information to know. Hopefully you've found it interesting.
Kelvin
I find the information published on civic compliance, or in particular not compliance, to be particularly interesting. So that I am able find the information again where I wish to refer to the information I write short articles here and provided a link.
In this case the publication was about the Western Australia mobile safety camera trials. This differs from the east in that the mobile safety cameras used in Western Australia were mobile trailers that included speeding, average speeding, mobile phone and seat belt usage across a range of areas in WA. That gives a good cross section of usage and non-compliance statistics.
The summary of results link provides some very interesting results.
There were 384,400 non-compliance incidents out of 8 million vehicles detected, which is around 4.8% of people not complying with the law. That's a bit sad as it tells us that when we're out driving, one in twenty drivers are doing something they shouldn't being doing. The good thing is that 95% or drivers are doing the right thing, or at least the things the government has measured. Dangerous activities such as aggressive driving, dangerous overtaking, tailgating, cutting in too early, cutting out too late, and many other such deliberate or inadvertent activities, shows us there's a level of risk when we drive on the roads that really isn't acceptable but is often impossible to avoid.
Hopefully others will find the results as interesting as I jave.
Kelvin
This size of the supermarket fruit and veggie bags may seem like a strange thing to want to measure but stick with me. I reuse the plastic bags in small rubbish bins. In fact, the recently issued council FOGO bin goes mouldy if I just use the green compostable bag, and I really don't like mould. The FOGO bin has a wide opening meaning many plastic bags won't fit. And don't worry, I remove the plastic bag before putting the green bag and contents into the green waste bin and pop the plastic bag into the rubbish bin. The plastic bag is just to stop the moisture forming in the FOGO bin and the plastic bag does a good job.
Measurements
Measured when flat
Coles 24 cm x 42 cm
Woolworths 10 cm x 50.5 cm
Adli 9.5 cm x 49.5 cm
Measured the width of the opening
Aldi 37 cm
Woolworths 38 cm
Coles 35 cm
The length of the bag is important to compare with the length of the bin or the item you may place in the bag. For example, I often put shoes in the bag when travelling. For a bin though it needs to reach the bottom. My small rubbish bin is 30 cm high with a diameter of 22 cm, so all bags are suitable, but the Coles bag just fits.
Keep in mind the width of the opening of the bag needs to be compared to the circumference of a round bin, or the perimeter of the square or rectangular bin. Double the width of the opening and then compare this to the perimeter or circumference of the bin.
For example, our round bin has a diameter of 22 cm. That's a circumference of 2 x pi x 11 or roughly 69 cm. Double the opening of the Coles bag and you get 70 cm, which makes for a good fit. The Aldi and Woolworths bags are a more comfortable fit.
The FOGO bin is a weird shape with curved corners. That best way to measure the perimeter is to use a string which gave me 79 cm. We can half this, which is 39.5cm and compare this to the bag widths. In all cases the bags are not big enough, but they do stretch. The best bag for the FOGO bin is the Woolworths bag. The Coles bag won't fit at all. The Aldi bag is a very tight fit making it quite difficult to get off.
Now if you're not into measuring things, just get the three bags when you visit the supermarkets next and try each one for the bins you use.
Kelvin
Coles renewal
$1,839.90, Excess $1000
Coles online with 15% online discount
$1,953.40, Excess $800
$1,818.23, Excess $1,000
$1,429.82, Excess $1600
Changed age to 84 instead of 85 to see how age affected the premium.
$1,853.49, Excess $850
$1,889.98, Excess $800
Woolworths
$3,233.73, unlimited kilometres
$2,392.53, 8000km
Agreed value $21,000
Excess $800
$1,854.58 excess $1,500
$1,650.12 excess $2,000
AAMI
Up to 10,000km
$1,284.72, $900 excess
$50 online discount
Amount covered $21,100
$1,323,82, $845 excess
$1,074.74, $1,300 excess
RACV
$2,380.10, $825 excess
$2,004.31, $1,500 excess
GIO
$1,304.83, $950 excess
$1,021.56 $1,750 excess
Budget Direct
$1,448.68, Excess $800
50+ age
$1,371.70 less than 8,000km
$1,450.89, $18,800 agreed market value
A final thought is that Coles or Woolworths offer either discount or points for car insurance. You really should check if the value of the offer exceeds the difference with their higher premium. In our case the supermarket offer was less than the savings that could be had by moving to another insurance company.
Kelvin
Update: 29/09/2024
This year's (2024) renewal information. This year the easiest and what we considered the best option was to simply renew and existing AAMI policy. Unlike previous years, taking out a new policy was a couple of hundred dollars more expensive.
AAMI
$1,114.20, renewal
New policy
Save $50 first year
Image of car looks like GIO site
5,000-10,000km
$1,349.58
GIO
Up to 10,000km/year
Covered $17,100 can cover $12,825 and $22,230
$1,372.09, excess $950
$1,254.31, excess $1,150
$1,074.21, excess $1,750
$50 off your shop
15% off first year's premium
Tow bar/Tinted windows
10,000km
50+ age restriction
Low mileage
$1,519.17, $900 excess, market value
$1,622.36, Agreed value $16,725, excess $900
$1,413.06, $1,300 excess, Agreed value $16,725
For a long time, I resisted getting a SodaStream and I'll explain why shortly. However, if someone gives you one for a present, that changes things. Who doesn't love a present?
My reasoning was fairly simple. First the SodaStream unit costs money. Then there's flavouring at $7 a bottle that makes 9 litres. That's 78 cents a litre just for flavouring. I'd estimated from online research people were getting around 20-30 litres from a SodaStream cylinder. Exchange cylinders at $19 which means 63-95 cents per litre. So, with just the cost of the cylinder and flavouring the cost per litre I'd estimated to be $1.41 to $1.73 and that's not taking into account the cost of the SodaStream itself.
I decided now having become the owner of a SodaStream this would enable me to do some testing. The first cylinder that came with the SodaStream I used to determine how much gas to add to my drinks. I tend to be a light fizzer. The second bottle I recorded each time I refilled the bottles. So how did it go?
I have 500ml and 1L bottles. For 500ml bottles I'd pump for one second three times. For 1L bottles I'd pump for one second five times. At the end I had to use triple the number of pumps for about three 1L bottles and then the cylinder was done. Yes, I didn't use twice the number of pumps for 1L compared to 500ml. That's just how it worked out for me, for my tastes.
500ml bottles - 33 refills of 3 one second pumps
1L bottles - 16 refills of 5 one second pumps
Plus, at end of cylinder life about 3 1L bottles so equivalent of 5 one second pumps.
That's a total of 194 one second pumps. In terms of litres if I'd just used 1L bottles that would be approximately 39 litres and for 500ml bottles, that would be 32 litres.
The cost per litre for my usage works out at 49-59 cents per litre, or an average of 55 cents per litre. People who prefer more fizz will find the cost per litre greater.
Sadly, if you add the 55 cents to the 78 cents for the cost of flavouring ($1.33/L) that's more expensive than home brand drinks from Woolworths, Coles, or Aldi.
But wait, there's savings to be had.
First, I wait until the flavouring have been on half price specials and then stock up. That means the cost has been 39 cents/L, reducing the cost to 94 cents/L.
I've tried other brands of flavouring but haven't been a fan.
Cordial can make a good drink with the carbonated water. Aldi cordial is $2.69 a bottle and makes up 10 litres. That's 27 cents per litre for flavouring.
Getting creative with lemon and lime trees.
Yes, we all have someone we know that has a lemon tree, and sometimes a lime tree. Often people are happy to give away excess fruit.
I found dissolving a cup of sugar with a cup of lemon/line juice plus half a cup of water, produced a very nice syrup for flavouring. There are about 5 cups of sugar in a kg of sugar. A Coles 2kg bag of sugar costs $2.85 so the cost is 29 cents per litre. OK. Aldi cordial is cheaper than making your own. Didn't know that until now but isn't that the point of testing.
At say 30 cents per litre for cordial/syrup plus 55 cents per litre for gas, that's 85 cents per litre. Keep in mind, that's not taking into account the cost of the SodaStream
Comparing that to Coles home brand fizzy drinks at $1.20/1.25L less 10 cents refund on the bottle, that gives us 1.10/1.25 = 88 cents per litre. Slightly cheaper in Aldi.
So, in summary, if you use full price SodaStream flavouring it simply costs more to use a SodaStream for drinks than buying home brand drinks. Yes, the flavouring from SodaStream are name brands like Pepsi/Pepsi Max, but to me they're not the same as the bottled versions, so in effect I'd put them on par with the home brands. That's just how I see it, you may not.
Add the cost of the SodaStream appliance spread over say three years at my usage (about 30 cents/L) and it's costing more than home brand drinks. Also, I purchased additional bottles which don't come cheap. SodaKing bottles are cheaper and also work.
There is one advantage that is worth noting. Your groceries are lighter each week if you don't buy the pre-bottled drinks.
The bottom line. Drinks made using the SodaStream, from my testing, are more expensive than home brand bottles of fizzy drink. That's just the way it is.
Kelvin
NOTE: The full SodaStream cylinder weighed 1,168g. Empty cylinder weighed 744g. Weight of gas/contents 424g.
Update: 09/12/2004 Empty SodaStream cylinder 742g
Today I read this article about Australians dobbing in their fellow Australians for breaking the road rules and using dashcam footage and reporting the footage to police.
Aussie road users hit with more fines as drivers use dash cam to dob others in (yahoo.com)
I find this quite perplexing as those dobbing in others are likely to also be breaking the road rules quite a bit of the time whether they realise it or not. The dobbers should realise that if the matter goes to court, they may be required to give evidence, and their personal details could become available.
Common ways I see people every day breaking the road rules are: crossing single white lines, not stopping at a stop sign (rolling through it is not stopping), not stopping on amber when they could, driving over the white stop line, exceeding the speed limit whilst overtaking, etc., etc. We all see drivers every time we go out driving who break the road rules.
Don't get me wrong. I would dob in a driver if that driver caused harm to another person or their property. But it is easy to ramp people up, to get them angry at other drivers, to get them to dob in others. We need to remain tolerant and be considerate to others on the road. To have patience. Yes, others will drive in a manner that you're not happy with (those who cut in early when changing lanes, those who speed past at a zip merge making it dangerous), but you can only control what you do.
If everyone dobbed in everyone else who did something wrong on the road, it's only a matter of time before you get dobbed in. I'm thankful to those who have tolerated me when I've made mistakes.
For those interest Yahoo published the survey result and here's what it showed when I did the survey. Credit to Yahoo for the graphic.
It is interesting to see around a fifth of people answering the survey have dobbed in someone else. That's interesting and good to know about our fellow Australians.
www.SpeedCameraLocations.com.au
I often thought it was only a matter of time before the cameras used to monitor heaving vehicles would start to be used as point-to-point cameras to monitor speeding cars. The cynic would say it's a quick, cheap and easy way to increase fines and revenue for the state governments. The less cynically would say the more people that get fined the more people are likely to comply with the speed limits, thus increasing road safety.
The following article appeared on the News.com.au site today.
Across NSW there's quite a large number of routes where there's point-to-point cameras that by current legislation can only be used to monitor heavy vehicle traffic. It makes sense to extend this network of cameras to cover light vehicles. The hardware is already in place and only software needs to be changed, albeit at what would be a sizeable software contract.
The word trial is used and I have to say this misleads me. I think of a trial as meaning to test something out and if it doesn't achieve the results, to then cease the trail. I've come to understand that a trial when used by the government is more likely to mean, a testing phase followed by going live.
For example, if we use the stats provided in the article, we can instantly see the effect on the road toll will hardly be noticeable. Over a four-year period there were six deaths and 33 injuries on the two lengths of road nominated for the trial. Speed is considered a factor in 44% of road fatalities. That means each year, based on these figures we'd expect to see the road toll reduced by 6 deaths /4 year * 44% which is 0.66 of a person. We should keep in mind the injuries are also important and would equate to 3-4 per year. This is not a significant outcome in terms of road safety. In terms of revenue, that will be significant.
As this change permeates across Australia, as the heavy vehicle monitoring is Australia wide, I'll update the Speed Camera Locations site to also include the heavy vehicle point-to-point cameras as speed cameras.
When driving it is a good idea to use an app such as Waze (or my own Speed Limit Alerts web app) to help comply with the speed limit. It's easy to make a mistake, drive with the flow of the traffic, and get a fine for doing so. As cars are updated these features will be built into the cars, but for now, there's a few software tools that can help.
I often read people quoting there's a 10% tolerance before you'll get fined for speeding. This is a myth. The following is for the tolerance in fixed and mobile speed cameras which can be found in the following regulations document. The information here is for Victorians, but hopefully it also relates to the situation in other states.
https://content.legislation.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-06/19-88sra016-authorised.pdf
Division 3—Fixed digital road safety cameras
35 Testing of fixed digital RSC
(b) is satisfied that the speed calculation unit is
properly calibrated so that it indicates speed
readings within a limit of error not greater
than or less than 2 kilometres per hour or
2 per cent (whichever is greater) of the true
speeds.
Division 4—Mobile digital road safety cameras
38 Testing of mobile digital RSC
(b) is satisfied that the speed calculation unit is
properly calibrated so that it indicates speed
readings within a limit of error not greater
than or less than 3 kilometres per hour or
3 per cent (whichever is greater) of the true
speeds.
Division 5—Speed detectors
42 Testing of speed detectors
(b) is satisfied that the device is properly
calibrated so that it indicates the speed
readings within a limit of error not greater or
less than 2 km per hour of the true speeds.
We need to keep in mind, this is the tolerance the government allows in their own equipment. If the government's equipment is accurate, then for a fixed camera that means we'd get a tolerance of 2 km/h for roads with a speed limit up to 100km/h, and 2% for roads above 100km/h.
However, if their equipment is not accurate, then their equipment could record you as going up to 2km/h (or 2% for roads above 100km/h) faster than you're actually going or record you as going slower than you're actually going.
What's important to note is the legislation is for their equipment, not your equipment or the speed you're going.
For example, let's say the speed limit is 60km/h and you're travelling at 60km/h, but their equipment can read you as going anywhere between 58km/h to 62km/h. Let's say you were actually doing 61km/h. The detected speed could be 63km/h and your alleged speed would then be 61km/h. In theory you could get fined for driving at 61km/h. I've read if you took this to court you could lose. Whilst at this stage I have no evidence for Victoria, I'd suspect the government would not take you to court for such a low infraction. It doesn't look good for the government and it could cause the community to lose faith in the system. Both outcomes the government wouldn't want.
In terms of evidence for an additional tolerance however, we can see for South Australia, from the data they release for their SAPOL Expiations (think fines), for fixed and mobile speed cameras for a 60km/h speed zone, the alleged speed starts at 68km/h for fines. This indicates the South Australian government does have an additional tolerance and I suspect this would be true of other states as well. Although my instinct is that some states will have a tighter tolerance than SA. However, for speeding fines other than fixed or mobile speed cameras, (categorised as "other", which I suspect would be by police) the data does show the alleged speed can be as low as 64km/h.
Kelvin
