Push for tighter speed limits as Queensland's road toll soars
QUEENSLAND'S shocking January road toll has led to calls for the state's speed camera tolerance - the highest in the nation - to be lowered.
Road safety experts say the "unpublished" tolerance is so widely spoken about among drivers that they often ignore the posted limit and drive to a speed they know will not land them with a fine.
Police will not reveal how much leeway Queensland drivers are given for road safety reasons but The Courier-Mail understands it is more than any other state.
Queensland Police, who are responsible for setting the tolerance, have not ruled out a change.
In Victoria, motorists are given a widely publicised leeway of 3km/h before they are picked up by speed cameras, while in NSW, information released last year by the Office of State Revenue showed motorists were being fined for breaking the limit by as little as 1km/h.
The Tasmanian Government dropped its tolerance from 10km/h above the speed limit to an undisclosed figure in 2010, bringing in an extra $2 million in its first year.
Speed remains one of the key factors in dangerous crashes. A total of 24 people have been killed on the state's roads this year.
Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety research officer David Soole said he would support a drop in the tolerance level - but only after the community was convinced of the benefits.
"It would have to be a graduated approach. You couldn't just drop it to 3km/h overnight," he said.
Mr Soole said there were widely held views among drivers on the tolerance level
and this created a "de facto" speed limit where motorists drove as fast as they could while still evading a fine.
Citizens Against Road Slaughter spokeswoman Bobbie Henry said the threat of losing money or a driver's licence would slow down reckless drivers.
"Lowering the figure would reduce the toll because unfortunately, the more you give people, the more they'll take."
Superintendent Andy Morrow, of the State Traffic Support Branch, would not comment on the tolerance limit but said "nothing was set in stone".
"If sufficient compelling information was to hand that indicated an alternative strategy may be required or necessary then we would certainly examine that," he said.
"The big issue here is community safety and the saving of lives."
You don't need to be a member to add your comments to this article