Food For Thought. A long read. Worth it!!

[Outbackjack]

Bill Tuckey | January 09, 2008

IT took just five hours for the first road carnage newspaper headline to appear at the start of the 2007 Christmas-New Year holiday period.

South Australian police operating a random breath testing station. Picture: Brenton Edwards
A man was killed when a stolen car crashed at an intersection during a chase in Melbourne at 5am on December 20.
And so it began: the parade of news presenters, police using words such as slaughter and issuing pleas to slow down, and graphic images of mangled wreckage, sobbing relatives and friends, and flowers laid at crash sites.

Properly analysed, road death toll figures demonstrate there is an extraordinary lack of debate about the real reasons behind fatalities and injuries in crashes. An examination of the figures shows that with all the speed and red light cameras, anti-alcohol measures, vehicle safety, improvements, road upgrades, street lighting and big spending on creative advertising over the past five years, the death toll has largely plateaued. Over that period total national vehicle registrations (adjusted for deregistered vehicles) have risen from 13.162 million (10.365 million of them passenger vehicles) to just over 14.8 million (11.51 million passenger vehicles). During 2007, an average of 9200 new (and safer) vehicles came on to the roads every month.

Data shows Australia has been very good at reducing road trauma. The death ratio per 100,000 population has been about the same for the past five years. Injury totals have declined significantly because of vehicle impact performance, faster paramedic response and more effective medical intervention. As a result, holiday road trauma does not justify the alarmist treatment it gets or the authorities' shock-horror rhetoric.

Figures from the federal Australian Transport Safety Bureau show that for several years state authorities have set the Christmas-New Year holiday period at 13 days (in Victoria in 2007 it began at midnight on December 20 and ended at midnight on January4). In 2006, the last full year for which ATSB figures are available, 62 people died: drivers, passengers, motorcyclists, cyclists and pedestrians. That represented an average of 4.7deaths a day. The same figures show that for the entire year, deaths averaged 4.38 a day and the most lethal weekly period year-long is Friday to Sunday, when there is an average of 5.4 deaths a day. For the five days of Easter 2007, there were an average of five deaths a day.

It shows during holiday periods roads are no more dangerous than on the average weekday, and certainly safer than during normal weekends. And this is despite the diluting holiday logistics of extra distances covered, heavier traffic, bigger passenger loads, unroadworthy vehicles, drivers not used to distance driving, greater stress, more distractions and increased alcohol consumption.

Of 1000 drivers stopped for random breath-testing, two or less per 1000 tested positive (over .05) and 65 per cent of those tested between .05 and .08, according to Australia's data bank of driver blood-alcohol content, now the longest-running and most detail-rich in the world. A three-week blitz by Victorian police in the first three weeks of December2007, yielded 989 positives out of 192,000 tests: a little less than 2per cent.

All ordinary fatal crashes (can there be such a thing?) are attended by local police, not an elite crash investigation unit. So the death of a lone driver on a straight country road against a tree, in the absence of any obvious evidence of alcohol, drugs, another vehicle or braking marks, leads police to tick the box marked speed. Never mind that it could be caused by 30,000km-old windscreen wiper blades crazing the windscreen, bald tyres, scored brake discs, no seatbelts or even a huntsman spider falling into the driver's lap from a sun visor.

Excessive speed is a simple reason commonly cited to explain a very complex problem. There is no single reason for a crash. Every crash is the result of a series of tumblers falling in the wrong sequence. Multiple-death crashes are extremely rare occurrences. However, no official will admit that factors such as vehicle roadworthiness, road engineering or maintenance, weather, or even untimely text messaging could be significant factors.

US National Health and Traffic Safety Administration researchers produced a survey of fatal crash data that found excessive speed to be a small or negligible factor. It blamed driver inattention, "failure to see", and loss of control as by far the commonest causes.

When 50 people died in the 1997-98 Victorian Christmas-New Year holiday period (which began that year on December 18), the government convened an immediate road safety summit. After meeting for one hour, the participants announced an extension of the zero blood-alcohol limit to the first three years of a licence and the suspension of the licence of any driver exceeding a speed limit by 20km/h. Their perspicacity was reinforced by a senior police officer, who used the much-run television footage of a red Falcon wagon that had been parked that holiday under a Hume Highway overpass and whose four sleeping occupants had been decapitated by a semitrailer, to demand compulsory five-hour rest stops for drivers and, further, the mandatory use of crash helmets for all passengers.

About the same time the NSW Stay Safe Committee recommended that as most deaths happened on two-lane country roads, all overtaking on such roads should be banned in the state. Common sense prevailed in that case. In November 2004, Victorian premier Steve Bracks called for car speedometers to be capped at 130km/h. The motor industry considered it the stupidest idea ever suggested.

In 2002, Victoria followed New Zealand and Britain and painted a number of police road patrol cars in garish colour schemes. Police responded by hiding them in scrub and behind buildings to set up speed traps. (I watched a thick scrub set-up on the Princes Highway book almost 100 bike riders in 90 minutes as they returned north from the Australian Grand Prix on Phillip Island).

And so the road safety lie has been embedded, preying on road users' perceptions that if they don't drink and drive, or exceed the speed limit, they will be safe from the depredations of crazed drivers.

It reinforces the common feeling that if an act is made illegal, it will fix things. However, people will always ignore what they perceive as bad or unenforceable laws: tailgating, failure to keep left, the use of mobile phones and (in some states) the suspension of dangly objects from the rear vision mirror.

Several surveys have confirmed more than 30 per cent of drivers continue to drive while disqualified. Speed cameras can't stop that.

Yet, even as state governments project traffic infringement revenue into annual budgets, they continue to insist that fixed and mobile cameras - euphemistically called safety cameras - are located in black-spot zones and not used for revenue raising.

In 2005, NSW, which posts signs warning of fixed speed cameras, issued about 550,000 traffic infringement notices. Victoria - with fewer drivers, far less road surface mileage, and no such signposting - sent out 1.07 million; 82 per cent of those were for speeds less than 15km/h over the limit. Apart from a relative handful of cameras policing 40km/h school speed zones, the vast majority are placed on roads with high traffic volumes.

In May 2005, the South Australian Government announced it would spend $35.6 million of its road safety budget of $60 million on 50 new red light intersection cameras, adding to the 12 existing cameras that in their first year of operation in 2004 generated $11 million in revenue. Yet the Government's official figures showed that over the previous eight years, disobeying traffic lights had caused only 1.34per cent of fatal crashes.

Victoria Police runs almost 300 fixed speed and red light cameras, estimating that about three million vehicles are tabbed every month. Yet so far Victoria Police and its enforcement partners, VicRoads and the Traffic Accident Commission, have refused to reveal any detail of the infringements from the new average speed traps set on both three-lane sides of the Hume Highway early in 2007. These set-ups measure average speeds up to 72km/h into and out of Melbourne, issuing fines for speeds averaging more than 3km/h over the limit over distances as short as 3km. There are no notices warning hapless interstate drivers.

Emphasis in all Australian states has shifted from surveillance and visual deterrence to speed measurement, as if this is the main crash factor apart from alcohol.

The overemphasis on speed as a factor justifies government investment in ever more sophisticated technology to trap more vehicle users; in fact, government polling shows this gives voters a nice warm feeling because the authorities are seen to be doing something. Thus, as mobile road patrols vanish, we are losing the ability to check on the use of phones, suspended licences, outstanding warrants, underage drivers, the wearing of seat restraints, lane discipline, tailgating, unroadworthy vehicles and the rest.

No longer do police sit and watch for those rolling through stop signs, as they did in the 1970s, nor can they lurk at railway level crossings to stop the growing incidence of vehicle-train crashes. They can't. They simply don't have the manpower, or are diverted to more revenue-worthy pursuits.

There are calls for more transparency and more rational debate on new ways to lower road trauma, apart from the standard techniques of more disinformation to justify more technology and greater punishment.

The all-states Australian Transport Council created by the Howard government in 2000 as part of a road safety strategy set a target to cut road deaths by 40 per cent by 2010.

On New Year's Eve, Australian Automobile Association chief executive Mike Harris told The Australian: "Unless something serious is done, we've got no chance of reaching that 2010 target. In terms of the national road safety strategy target, we're actually going backwards when you look at the statistics."

And, based on the statistics, that "something serious" could well be understanding that the huge emphasis on speeding and drink driving may even be counterproductive. Anecdotal evidence suggests that 95 per cent of people don't exceed speed limits and even fewer drink and drive. So their belief is that if they avoid those offences, they don't have to pay much more attention to being safe or driving carefully.

Bill Tuckey is the former motoring editor of BRW and former editor of Wheels magazine.

[deesun]

Items like these should be cut and pasted into everyones email and sent to everyone in their address book. And no not with a promise that something fantastic will show if it is sent to more than 5 or 10 people. I know I will be. :

[RPO83]

Thanks for posting this outbackjack. Tuckey raises valid points that are backed up with evidence without the spin but what a total shame this issue does not get the full attention it deserves by State Governments.

I hope everyone reads the Steve Bracks part of the article though. It really leaves me clueless as to why this ex Labor Premier is heading up the automotive industry review.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by RPO83

Thanks for posting this outbackjack. Tuckey raises valid points that are backed up with evidence without the spin but what a total shame this issue does not get the full attention it deserves by State Governments.

I hope everyone reads the Steve Bracks part of the article though. It really leaves me clueless as to why this ex Labor Premier is heading up the automotive industry review.

Which valid points?

The one that implies the lower rate of tickets issued by NSW than Vic indicates its all revenue raising and not safety? Yeah, no spin there. It actually indicates the absence of warnings result in guilty parties being penalised as per the law, while NSW drivers slow for the camera and continue to speed once out of its range. It could indicate there should not be any warnings signs anywhere. Yet even in NSW, despite warning signs theres still a bucket load of tickets issued, and Victorians seem well aware of the cameras in that state, and the propensity to hide them meaning they could be lurking anywhere yet 1.07 million tickets were issued, wow, talk about an idiot tax.

Or the 'point' whereby poor hapless tourists arent warned? Umm, the speed limit is posted, clearly they are warned not to speed. Are they warned not to steal? Yet you'd expect them to know that anyway.

Or the one that tries to suggest holidays arent more dangerous as the stats show less deaths than normal weekends. However it ignores the possible beneficial effects of double demerits and other initiatives applied by governments.

Or the one that suggests safer cars mean speed isnt the menace its made out to be. However, that fails to take account of the deaths at 60km/h in old stats that no longer result in deaths in the airbagged newer stats at 60 km/h. However, there are no airbags on pedestrians, motorcyclists or cyclists who frequent the same 60 zones. Two Falcons head on at 120, the steering wheel pillow wont help you.

Right from the start, the 'reporter' flies into a misconception. The police dont restart their jobs, or the reality of road trauma on Jan 1, stats do, the official count is started there, but for police it makes no difference if its the 31st of Dec or Jan 1st, and the holiday period spans Christmas and New Years.

No no, theres no bias there.

[GT-E]

As usual the "if you do not speed you have no problem" brigade are already on to this.
The article is meant to point out that SPEEDING is NOT the MAJOR CAUSE of DEATH on our ROADS. Their SOLE purpose of speed cameras is to generate revenue.
If government's were even remotely interested in saving lives on the roads, they would put effort into driver skills training and ensuring that cars are safe.
This is blatantly evident in NSW where you can have your car confiscated for chirping the tyres, but you can be an unlicensed, uninsured, drugged up and drunk driver and you will only get a fine.
Our state governments are only interested in MONEY and see speeding as the ultimate cash cow, They can say they are trying to save us by booking xxx,xxx speeders per year and this is the best way to reduce the road toll.
For all the brain washed, speed conditioned drivers on this forum, WAKE UP and see what is really causing problems. Driving above the posted limit does not result in instant death, although you will not believe me and instead believe the ads on TV.

[Mont5.0]

Originally Posted by ZapXR6T

As usual the "if you do not speed you have no problem" brigade are already on to this.
The article is meant to point out that SPEEDING is NOT the MAJOR CAUSE of DEATH on our ROADS. Their SOLE purpose of speed cameras is to generate revenue.
If government's were even remotely interested in saving lives on the roads, they would put effort into driver skills training and ensuring that cars are safe.
This is blatantly evident in NSW where you can have your car confiscated for chirping the tyres, but you can be an unlicensed, uninsured, drugged up and drunk driver and you will only get a fine.
Our state governments are only interested in MONEY and see speeding as the ultimate cash cow, They can say they are trying to save us by booking xxx,xxx speeders per year and this is the best way to reduce the road toll.
For all the brain washed, speed conditioned drivers on this forum, WAKE UP and see what is really causing problems. Driving above the posted limit does not result in instant death, although you will not believe me and instead believe the ads on TV.

I agree.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by ZapXR6T

If government's were even remotely interested in saving lives on the roads, they would put effort into driver skills training and ensuring that cars are safe.

the skills needed to gain a licence now are no different to what they were 15yrs ago when i got mine. if anything they are even stricter on a few things. 2 different types of 'p's etc. longer time on 'p's and so on. however the training i received stood me in pretty good stead. i don't think you can blame lack of training for the young uns behaviour these days.

also what more do they need to do 'to ensure cars are safe'? my first car was a mini and then a dato 200b. these days P platers are jumping straight into cars with airbags and abs. the sale of new cars is also increasing year by year and they now come with more acronyms than most professors. abs, ebd, srs, esc, etc etc. if it only has 2 airbags its a pov pack.

[troppo]

Thank you for posting that Outbackjack...if we had the option to flag threads or give stars, this would get one from me.

[OLDFORDNUT]

Originally Posted by fmc351

Which valid points?

The one that implies the lower rate of tickets issued by NSW than Vic indicates its all revenue raising and not safety? Yeah, no spin there. It actually indicates the absence of warnings result in guilty parties being penalised as per the law, while NSW drivers slow for the camera and continue to speed once out of its range. It could indicate there should not be any warnings signs anywhere. Yet even in NSW, despite warning signs theres still a bucket load of tickets issued, and Victorians seem well aware of the cameras in that state, and the propensity to hide them meaning they could be lurking anywhere yet 1.07 million tickets were issued, wow, talk about an idiot tax.

Or the 'point' whereby poor hapless tourists arent warned? Umm, the speed limit is posted, clearly they are warned not to speed. Are they warned not to steal? Yet you'd expect them to know that anyway.

Or the one that tries to suggest holidays arent more dangerous as the stats show less deaths than normal weekends. However it ignores the possible beneficial effects of double demerits and other initiatives applied by governments.

Or the one that suggests safer cars mean speed isnt the menace its made out to be. However, that fails to take account of the deaths at 60km/h in old stats that no longer result in deaths in the airbagged newer stats at 60 km/h. However, there are no airbags on pedestrians, motorcyclists or cyclists who frequent the same 60 zones. Two Falcons head on at 120, the steering wheel pillow wont help you.

Right from the start, the 'reporter' flies into a misconception. The police dont restart their jobs, or the reality of road trauma on Jan 1, stats do, the official count is started there, but for police it makes no difference if its the 31st of Dec or Jan 1st, and the holiday period spans Christmas and New Years.

No no, theres no bias there.

some of your counter points are fair enough,BUT
tell me this ,
if we have at least double the amount of cars on the road every day than 15 years ago,why do we have less road deaths than back then yet still have to get our wallets picked by state and federal governments and told we are bad drivers when the evidence is quite clear we are in fact much better drivers than 15 years ago ,and accidents over 80kmh by both cars are not saved by airbags,you had a much better chance in an old holden or ford at hiway speeds,just look at whats left of two vehicles after a smash on the Hiway,
do you think an air bag or crumple zone will help you when car is left less than 2 feet tall and 6feet long in these crash's,
get real

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by nicholas

some of your counter points are fair enough,BUT
tell me this ,
if we have at least double the amount of cars on the road every day than 15 years ago,why do we have less road deaths than back then

Very simple... the cars today are FAR safer to be involved in a crash in than 15 years ago, the number of collisions has not dropped though... its just the car safety that prevents more deaths..

[GT-E]

Just because some states have a longer P plate duration and needing more hours on the Lerners, does not make us better drivers.
The onus is still on the person learning to ensure they are being taught right.
If your parents are useless drivers and they are teaching you to drive, do you think you will be correctly taught ?
Bad habbits, road rage and lazyness is very evident in most drivers and it is an inhereted trait handed down from driver to driver.
There is also no vehicle control practice such as skid control, wet weather and high speed requirements. They might have 79-90km/h limits on L and P plates, but who teaches them what can happen if it all goes wrong ?
I think we should all do knowladge tests every 5 years and also driving tests. This will mean that you know what the rules are with new technologies like roundabouts and no stopping signs (j/k)
I would also like to see accurate evaluation as to the actual cause of an accident. I have read several articles that state that 10% of single car single person fatalities are suicide.
As for car safety, I would rather be in my Typhoon in a headon crash on the highway than an old car as the crumple zone is designed to reduce the forces experienced by the body. While an old car may look alright after a 100km/h head on, the person in side is torn apart due to the forces.

[leadfoot]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Very simple... the cars today are FAR safer to be involved in a crash in than 15 years ago, the number of collisions has not dropped though... its just the car safety that prevents more deaths..

True...and I also think that cars are too easy to drive nowadays and with the amount of controls/buttons/switches sat navs etc leads to inattention,which, IMO is the leading cause of crashes.

[andrewr]

Do you know what gets me? I saw the % stats of what caused road deaths in WA. 35% of the deaths were cuased by the occupent not wearing a seatbelt. I find that hard to comprehend, but it does make me wonder why the focus on speed when you could reduce the road toll 35% by getting everyone to buckle up.

In WA a large % of deaths also happens outside the metro area, yet the focus is on urban speeding as its easier to catch people.

I hate sppeding fines, I think they are revenue raising but the simple fact is don't speed don't cop a fine. Its not like they're asking you to drive stupidly slow, most of the speed limits are reasonable, though it does suck if you are a bit tired after work and concentrating on the road, but not so much on your speed..

[TwistedEL]

Andrew - I hate speed traps as much as the next guy, but here in WA we have it very good. Our fines are lower. We don't incur any demerits until we are more than 10km/h over. In NSW you will get 3 points straight off the bat.
We have 8% tolerance, meaning you have to be doing more than 108 in a 100 zone before you'll get fined. In Victoria it's a straight 3km/h - imagine being pulled over for doing 113 in a 110 zone!

In WA they have to put signs out in front of the camera now to alert oncoming drivers (even though they normally obscure them somehow), also WA is the only state to allow radar detectors to be used.

[leadfoot]

These are interesting stats.To me it would seem that decent driver training would eliminate much of this

RACQ have published the latest road death causes stats in QLD, these were compiled by Qld Transport.
1. Alcohol / Drugs 36%
2. Disobey traffic rules 29% (not including speeding or drink driving)
3. Inattention 26%
4. Inexperience 17%
5. Speed 16%
6. Fatigue 13%
7. Other 11%
8. Age 11%
9. Rain / wet road 5%
10. Negligence 5%
11. Road conditions 4%
12. other driving conditions 4%
13. Vehicle defects 1%
14. No street lighting 1%

[[Tonko]]

Originally Posted by TwistedEL

In Victoria it's a straight 3km/h - imagine being pulled over for doing 113 in a 110 zone!

I got pulled up last week for 63 in a 60 zone, less than 50m from the sign (goes from 80 to 60) Im just glad he put the wrong date on the fine. :

[nugget378]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Very simple... the cars today are FAR safer to be involved in a crash in than 15 years ago, the number of collisions has not dropped though... its just the car safety that prevents more deaths..

Of course it would'nt drop with so many more cars on the road,but have collisions grown in line with the growing vehicle fleet?
The road death stats show that despite the larger vehicle numbers on our roads death rates have actually been falling for many many years per km travelled/cars on the road or how ever you want to slice it.

This to me shows that this speeding hysteria is not warranted and is not there to adress the road toll,depite what we are told,I may be a cynic, but only a blind man could deny these facts..

[troppo]

Originally Posted by leadfoot

These are interesting stats.To me it would seem that decent driver training would eliminate much of this

RACQ have published the latest road death causes stats in QLD, these were compiled by Qld Transport.
1. Alcohol / Drugs 36%
2. Disobey traffic rules 29% (not including speeding or drink driving)
3. Inattention 26%
4. Inexperience 17%
5. Speed 16%
6. Fatigue 13%
7. Other 11%
8. Age 11%
9. Rain / wet road 5%
10. Negligence 5%
11. Road conditions 4%
12. other driving conditions 4%
13. Vehicle defects 1%
14. No street lighting 1%

Interesting too that the first four alone account for over 100% of deaths...
It's safe to assume then, that some fatal accidents get more than one box ticked as a cause, I have a hunch nearly all of those involving speed would be among the multiple ticks.

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by fmc351

Which valid points?

I was hoping some one would play the devils advocate and come up with a good counter arguement but alas I was wrong.



| [/url] |

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by leadfoot

These are interesting stats.To me it would seem that decent driver training would eliminate much of this

RACQ have published the latest road death causes stats in QLD, these were compiled by Qld Transport.
1. Alcohol / Drugs 36%
2. Disobey traffic rules 29% (not including speeding or drink driving)
3. Inattention 26%
4. Inexperience 17%
5. Speed 16%
6. Fatigue 13%
7. Other 11%
8. Age 11%
9. Rain / wet road 5%
10. Negligence 5%
11. Road conditions 4%
12. other driving conditions 4%
13. Vehicle defects 1%
14. No street lighting 1%

Lets look at them one by one and see which ones driver training would eliminate (IMO).

1. Alcohol / Drugs 36% NUP..
2. Disobey traffic rules 29% (not including speeding or drink driving) NUP.
3. Inattention 26% NUP
4. Inexperience 17% Maybe
5. Speed 16% NUP
6. Fatigue 13% NUP
7. Other 11% Who knows?
8. Age 11% NO
9. Rain / wet road 5% Maybe
10. Negligence 5% NO
11. Road conditions 4% Maybe
12. other driving conditions 4% ???
13. Vehicle defects 1% NO
14. No street lighting 1% NO

I Can't see how driver training (which i might ad is readily avaliable to anyone at any time) would make much of a difference (if any) to those stats.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by auslandau

I was hoping some one would play the devils advocate and come up with a good counter argument but alas I was wrong.

Is that the best you can manage?

Maybe you should step away from the keyboard and let an adult play for a while.

[Falc'man]

I know that article is pure BS because its implying that politicians tell lies

Originally Posted by fmc351

Which valid points?

The one that implies the lower rate of tickets issued by NSW than Vic indicates its all revenue raising and not safety? Yeah, no spin there. It actually indicates the absence of warnings result in guilty parties being penalised as per the law, while NSW drivers slow for the camera and continue to speed once out of its range. It could indicate there should not be any warnings signs anywhere. Yet even in NSW, despite warning signs theres still a bucket load of tickets issued, and Victorians seem well aware of the cameras in that state, and the propensity to hide them meaning they could be lurking anywhere yet 1.07 million tickets were issued, wow, talk about an idiot tax.

Or the 'point' whereby poor hapless tourists arent warned? Umm, the speed limit is posted, clearly they are warned not to speed. Are they warned not to steal? Yet you'd expect them to know that anyway.

Or the one that tries to suggest holidays arent more dangerous as the stats show less deaths than normal weekends. However it ignores the possible beneficial effects of double demerits and other initiatives applied by governments.

Or the one that suggests safer cars mean speed isnt the menace its made out to be. However, that fails to take account of the deaths at 60km/h in old stats that no longer result in deaths in the airbagged newer stats at 60 km/h. However, there are no airbags on pedestrians, motorcyclists or cyclists who frequent the same 60 zones. Two Falcons head on at 120, the steering wheel pillow wont help you.

Right from the start, the 'reporter' flies into a misconception. The police dont restart their jobs, or the reality of road trauma on Jan 1, stats do, the official count is started there, but for police it makes no difference if its the 31st of Dec or Jan 1st, and the holiday period spans Christmas and New Years.

No no, theres no bias there.

You have no idea what the issue is... come drive in Sydney or even worse
Melbourne and I'm certain you would receive more tickets in a week of driving
than you would in a lifetime's driving in Queensland.

Yes, people shouldn't steal, the government doesn't like competition.

[Keepleft]

fmc351 wrote: -

while NSW drivers slow for the camera and continue to speed once out of its range.

In NSW to date, our fixed speed camera warning system installs each unit as close as practicable to an *immediate vicinity* known to have a 'crash history' *for whatever reason*.

Simply, the system is *not* intended as the means to enforce general speed limits - everywhere.

The system is designed to invoke 'caution and adjustment' in approaching drivers *to that vicinity*, we do this by posting three warning signs on approach and these signs have varying dimesnions. (I have them here).

Those who fail to see the signs are driving without paying due attention, and inattentive drivers are dangerous at any speed it is said, let alone a speed above the speed-limit.

It could indicate there should not be any warnings signs anywhere.

No, then we'd not protect the immediate vicinity and folk would continue along at speed, when per above, we'd like the to pay 'particular attention' to the stretch.

You are assuming our system is Victorian, our approach is nothing like that in regards these cameras.

Yet even in NSW, despite warning signs theres still a bucket load of tickets issued.

Which shows inattention and complacency are a real on-road danger.

You remind me of Harold Scruby, he often calls for the removal of speed camera warning signs, and like you doesn't understand - what exactly the system actually is - nor what is does. We want folk to slow down in the vicinity that is all, remove the signs and folk will fall prey to unforseen circumstance, such that resulted in the system placement in the first instance.

A former NRMA CEO - Rob Carter, like you and Scruby additionally wanted more fixed speed cameras for the F3, naturally this was refused and the dope is no longer with the NRMA.

Despite Victorian academic advocacy to date, I do *not* expect our three warning signs to be removed since that would be a retrograde step, and politically speaking would mean the end of the existing government in this state.

Do we have a 'problem' with speed? Yes in my view - generally speaking we go too fast in built-up areas. (Yet are slow on high speed, high standard roads).

Some people here are in excited favour of 'point to point' cameras, whilst I can live with them, they utterly fail to enforce 'appropriate speed' at vital lengths of road, such as done by the NSW fixed speed camera system.

Regardless, you might be pleased to know that I expect our rural default speed limit to reduce by 10-20km/h in due course.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by Keepleft

fmc351 wrote: -
In NSW to date, our fixed speed camera warning system installs each unit as close as practicable to an *immediate vicinity* known to have a 'crash history' *for whatever reason*.

Simply, the system is *not* intended as the means to enforce general speed limits - everywhere.

The system is designed to invoke 'caution and adjustment' in approaching drivers *to that vicinity*, we do this by posting three warning signs on approach and these signs have varying dimesnions. (I have them here).

Those who fail to see the signs are driving without paying due attention, and inattentive drivers are dangerous at any speed it is said, let alone a speed above the speed-limit.

No, then we'd not protect the immediate vicinity and folk would continue along at speed, when per above, we'd like the to pay 'particular attention' to the stretch.

So why not flashing lights to bring back the attention of the ones who fail to see the signs. If what you claim were true, you would have flashing lights. You have the signs because consecutive NSW governments are gutless, nothing more.

The system as you describe it does nothing at all to motivate attention at all times, as is clear by the tickets issued despite 3 warning signs. A much more intelligent approach which has the potential to deter speeding, while encouraging attention at all times, is to not warn other than letting the public know they are everywhere, not simply in that spot. Sooner or later, the idiot tax in Victoria will lose its revenue as fools wake up. How long will it take the idiots to work it out? Well it reminds me of an episode of the Simpsons where Lisa pitted Bart against a hampster. Who knows? "Victoria, the hampster state".

Originally Posted by Keepleft

You remind me of Harold Scruby, he often calls for the removal of speed camera warning signs, and like you doesn't understand - what exactly the system actually is - nor what is does. We want folk to slow down in the vicinity that is all, remove the signs and folk will fall prey to unforseen circumstance, such that resulted in the system placement in the first instance.

A former NRMA CEO - Rob Carter, like you and Scruby additionally wanted more fixed speed cameras for the F3, naturally this was refused and the dope is no longer with the NRMA.

Despite Victorian academic advocacy to date, I do *not* expect our three warning signs to be removed since that would be a retrograde step, and politically speaking would mean the end of the existing government in this state.

Do we have a 'problem' with speed? Yes in my view - generally speaking we go too fast in built-up areas. (Yet are slow on high speed, high standard roads).

Some people here are in excited favour of 'point to point' cameras, whilst I can live with them, they utterly fail to enforce 'appropriate speed' at vital lengths of road, such as done by the NSW fixed speed camera system.

Regardless, you might be pleased to know that I expect our rural default speed limit to reduce by 10-20km/h in due course.

The law states a speed limit everywhere, not simply where the cameras are. Road trauma isnt restricted to black spots, it occurs anywhere thus the focus should be anywhere, that is not achieved by marking the cameras position, let alone doing it 3 times. Obviously there is benefit in the immediate vicinity of the black spot with warning signs, and that has its merits. But that is what? a 10 meter stretch of road? Driving into a few Northern NSW towns (where I used to live, some family still do) its not hard to notice with monotonous regularity the number of drivers braking for the nicely signed camera area, and pulling away again as they speed through town, where the kids actually are.

If you can be fined anywhere, if the camera may or may not be on the exact stretch of road youre on, its clear youre an idiot taxpayer if you get fined. And at least 1.07 million times Victorians demonstrated why it is not the smart state as a populous.

I didnt ask for the removal of signs, I merely suggested an alternative interpretation of the 'facts' given in the article. The whole article is a misrepresentation of 'facts', no different to the reports and articles saying we need to keep all roads to no more than 100 or 110. Yet here people are supporting with fervour the exact same breach of logic. This is the same folk who point out the stupidity of those who try to impose stricter speed limits.

And no, I wouldnt be pleased to see the default change from 100 to anything lower. If any road needs to be lower, let them sign post the lower limit for each stretch that requires it leaving the default where it is. There is a point where the benefits of reasonable speeds for convenience outweigh the varying potential costs due to said limits.

[OLDFORDNUT]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

Very simple... the cars today are FAR safer to be involved in a crash in than 15 years ago, the number of collisions has not dropped though... its just the car safety that prevents more deaths..

.
thats rubbish if we are talking Hi-Way speeds where most road deaths occur,there is just nothing left of these cars made after the 80's,
how can an air bag help you when you and the air bag are smeared 6 inches thick across the jagged metal and road,
the cars today are much safer in a slow speed(less than 70kmh) accident,

[Elks]

Originally Posted by Outbackjack

Bill Tuckey |

Victoria Police runs almost 300 fixed speed and red light cameras, estimating that about three million vehicles are tabbed every month.

And the road toll barely changes.

You guys are harsh. How could you question the Victorian governments motives when They have statistics like this to back them...

[BlackLS]

Originally Posted by nicholas

.
thats rubbish if we are talking Hi-Way speeds where most road deaths occur,there is just nothing left of these cars made after the 80's,
how can an air bag help you when you and the air bag are smeared 6 inches thick across the jagged metal and road,
the cars today are much safer in a slow speed(less than 70kmh) accident,

In a 80km/h crash Id rather have the car crumple up to my feet instead of have the car stay in one piece and my body take the full 80-0km/h stop by itself.

Also keep in mind newer cars stop and handle a LOT better than older cars.

[Keepleft]

KL - The system is designed to invoke 'caution and adjustment' in approaching drivers *to that vicinity*, we do this by posting three warning signs on approach and these signs have varying dimesnions. (I have them here).
fmc351 wrote -

So why not flashing lights to bring back the attention of the ones who fail to see the signs.

The signs size varies according to speed-limit, the higher the limit the larger the sign. The signs are sufficient and for most zones are spaced 100 metres apart. We have four sizes:-
Size A - 1860 x 780 used up to 70km/h.
Size B - 2240 x 940 used in 60-80km/h.
Size C - 3730 - 1560 used in 80-100km/h zones.
Size D - 4355 x 1880 used for speeds above 110km/h and for overhead signs as applied for all limits/derestriction.

* Sign D will also apply to R4-12 'End Speed Limit' zones. Here, the rural default applies, this is not the derestriction sign btw.

If what you claim were true, you would have flashing lights. You have the signs because consecutive NSW governments are gutless, nothing more.

No, remember that unlike VIC, NSW warns folk with three large warning signs per above, effectively urging those 'paying attention' to proceed - 'carefully' et al *for the given area*.

The system as you describe it does nothing at all to motivate attention at all times, as is clear by the tickets issued despite 3 warning signs.

A large DROP compared to the VIC like revenue raisers, sure, which means by most account the system works at catching those not paying 'particular' attention *where they so need*, because to date, we try to place the devices as close as possible to spots with a known crash history.

A much more intelligent approach which has the potential to deter speeding, while encouraging attention at all times, is to not warn other than letting the public know they are everywhere, not simply in that spot.

We have police for that 'general deterence', and 'point to point' systems and stationary RTA funded vehicles. The fixed speed camera system, to date however - is set for 'specific spots' where we have a crash 'history' and outcome. You are confusing 'general exceed speed-limit deterrence' with our system, again for the 26,000 time set for specific spots, sire.

Sooner or later, the idiot tax in Victoria will lose its revenue as fools wake up.

Locals mebbe as they get to know the sting points of such unsigned fixed systems, but tourists will always keep the $ flowing.

The law states a speed limit everywhere, not simply where the cameras are.

And the NSW fixed speed camera system targets inattentive driving at point of operation using 'speed' as the methodology of doing so, afterall, an inattentive driver is dangerous at any speed, let alone doing so at above a speed-limit *on these chosen, more critical - lengths*. Goes round and round, doesn't it?! We are targetting *specific lengths of road* fmc, not the general applicable speed-limit. In any case, the system also 'reminds' folk of the prevailing speed-limit because our three warning signs portray the speed-limit by signalling in R4-1 speed-limit sign 'look', the applied limit!

It is a great system. If we remove the signs we will not get these inattentive drivers under notice.

Road trauma isnt restricted to black spots, it occurs anywhere thus the focus should be anywhere, that is not achieved by marking the cameras position, let alone doing it 3 times.

Which is why we have highway patrol and point to point cameras and RTA funded stationary vehicles. Again, we do have some stretches WITH a crash history (and various outcomes in that) THAT ARE - SPECIFICALLY TARGETTED by this system. We then warn ALL whom pay attention to that fact.

Obviously there is benefit in the immediate vicinity of the black spot with warning signs, and that has its merits.

Nice, so now you see merit! Welcome to NSW.


But that is what? a 10 meter stretch of road?
Nope! We warn up to 400 ahead with the first sign, then 300, 200, then the camera position - in 110km/h zones. "The Site" itself is located near as practicable to THE SCENE we enforce. That a scene, to some, may seem odd or as a purely revenue-stream chosen one, is not so.

That would change IF NSW ever went down the VIC path. For road safety benfit and political realities, *we will not*, unlike VIC, people here, whilst apathetic are nowhere near as tolerant of being ripped off. Many committees and letters to Ministers from the public and some Councils see it so.

Driving into a few Northern NSW towns (where I used to live, some family still do) its not hard to notice with monotonous regularity the number of drivers braking for the nicely signed camera area, and pulling away again as they speed through town, where the kids actually are.

If 'where the kids' and little old ladies/men, shopping vipers et are, have a particular length of road with a crash history, then be assured 'the locale' will sneak into our system.

If a length of road has the system AND the length of road is later widened, AND IF as a result of that 'upgrading' process RTA see a drop-off of the crash and outcome rate, below that realised after the camera install, then such camera will/would be re-located elsewhere. Additional 'sites' are set for expansion. But realistically, 'speed' is not the core problem.

If you can be fined anywhere, if the camera may or may not be on the exact stretch of road youre on, its clear youre an idiot taxpayer if you get fined.

Sure exceeding the speed-limit is a voluntary tax, it *would* help IF the tax threshold, sometimes, was not so 'low'.

And at least 1.07 million times Victorians demonstrated why it is not the smart state as a populous.

And a sign that perhaps that some limits are too low. As one German researcher stated some time ago "we go too fast in built-up areas and too slow on freeways".

I didnt ask for the removal of signs, I merely suggested an alternative interpretation of the 'facts' given in the article. The whole article is a misrepresentation of 'facts', no different to the reports and articles saying we need to keep all roads to no more than 100 or 110.

I have misrepresented nothing, but have highlighted 'why' the NSW fixed speed camera system is so, even one or two fixed speed camera employees know not this.

And no, I wouldnt be pleased to see the default change from 100 to anything lower. If any road needs to be lower, let them sign post the lower limit for each stretch that requires it leaving the default where it is. There is a point where the benefits of reasonable speeds for convenience outweigh the varying potential costs due to said limits.

In fact, it is far CHEAPER to reduce the 'default' and SIGNPOST INDIVIDUAL roads with higher limits, as the ones that qualify so, are fewer in number and distance than the majority, such as National Park and State Forrest or the hundreds of thousands of kilometres of dirt lanes that the defaults apply.

Most folk don't fully comprehend exactly 'what' a rural default is. They know how it applies owing Rule 25 et al, but 'why it is so' - 'no'. The rural default/s we have in Australia are lunatic in my view, and yet I am one politcally, (as are key speed managers) who supports speed derestriction for 'certain lengths' of NSW highways, and posted speed-limits up to 130km/h - AFTER "certain changes" are first realised. Change must first happen is my view.

I'll remind that prior to July 1979 NSW rural default was 80km/h, albiet as a prima facie. 100km/h was chosen more for political expediency that road safety, done - after removal of the 80km/h prima facie derestriction, *to reduce voter backlash*. Folk also drive 'better' as well, were far less aggressive. Only time has seen engineering and road improvement reduce that toll by any meaningful level.

These things *will* happen in this state in time. Perhaps you are happy with the current limits, that is another issue. My response here was to hint at to 'why' the NSW fixed camera system is as is, and it *is* unique in the world. The only folk who can departmentally direct that this 'change', is NSW Tresury & AG's Dept, and it is safe to say NO NSW government would change that, for it would mean a certain nail in the coffin, and rightly so.

Enforcement additional;- HWP often check speed soon after fixed camera sites to catch folk so speeding up, done just to keep a cap on things. RTA also fund wagons with cameras, here the sign is placed after the event!

It works as well as it can and our toll outcome proves it so.

You would be severely mistaken if you think I don't recognise we have 'speed' as a problem, or are soft on issues of idiot speeds and behaviour, but adjusting our fixed camera system will not fix any of 'that'.

NSW is not Victoria, and *will* stay such.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by Keepleft

No, remember that unlike VIC, NSW warns folk with three large warning signs per above, effectively urging those 'paying attention' to proceed - 'carefully' et al *for the given area*.

Youre deluded.

If the sole intention was to prevent accidents at the black spot as you suggest, then the inattentive driver needs to be made attentive, not simply fined.

Originally Posted by Keepleft

We have police for that 'general deterence', and 'point to point' systems and stationary RTA funded vehicles. The fixed speed camera system, to date however - is set for 'specific spots' where we have a crash 'history' and outcome. You are confusing 'general exceed speed-limit deterrence' with our system, again for the 26,000 time set for specific spots, sire.

Try reading, Im aware of what the state claims. I see holes in their argument, like the inattentive driver being ignored as a problem and instead merely fined.
Such a stance seems counter intuitive to the stated purpose when one flashing blue light over just one sign would be more effective and cheaper than 3 signs. Oh, and all signs could be the same size then making each signs cost lower too.

Originally Posted by Keepleft

And the NSW fixed speed camera system targets inattentive driving at point of operation using 'speed' as the methodology of doing so, afterall, an inattentive driver is dangerous at any speed, let alone doing so at above a speed-limit *on these chosen, more critical - lengths*.

How the hell does that solve the black spot? Slow cars down, good, that helps. The inattentive driver still plows on through, potentially making said black spot what now? Black.

Originally Posted by Keepleft

Goes round and round, doesn't it?! We are targetting *specific lengths of road* fmc, not the general applicable speed-limit. In any case, the system also 'reminds' folk of the prevailing speed-limit because our three warning signs portray the speed-limit by signalling in R4-1 speed-limit sign 'look', the applied limit!

It is a great system. If we remove the signs we will not get these inattentive drivers under notice.

How does removing the signs change the situation for the inattentive driver? Clearly it doesnt, he still gets fined exactly the same as if the signs he missed were there. However, if the signs dont exist the attentive driver being attentive is encouraged to assume cameras are everywhere, thus keeping to signed limits more often, improving all black spots, not just that one.

It does go in circles.

Originally Posted by Keepleft

Which is why we have highway patrol and point to point cameras and RTA funded stationary vehicles. Again, we do have some stretches WITH a crash history (and various outcomes in that) THAT ARE - SPECIFICALLY TARGETTED by this system. We then warn ALL whom pay attention to that fact.

While ignoring your stated purpose of improving the black spot by not alerting the inattentive driver. Yep, sounds like NSW to me.

Originally Posted by Keepleft

Nope! We warn up to 400 ahead with the first sign, then 300, 200, then the camera position - in 110km/h zones. "The Site" itself is located near as practicable to THE SCENE we enforce. That a scene, to some, may seem odd or as a purely revenue-stream chosen one, is not so.

Does the camera cover that entire stretch of 400 metres, or just the very small area in front of the camera? Its rhetorical, I know the answer.

Originally Posted by Keepleft

That would change IF NSW ever went down the VIC path. For road safety benfit and political realities, *we will not*, unlike VIC, people here, whilst apathetic are nowhere near as tolerant of being ripped off. Many committees and letters to Ministers from the public and some Councils see it so.

As I said, gutless.

Originally Posted by Keepleft

And a sign that perhaps that some limits are too low. As one German researcher stated some time ago "we go too fast in built-up areas and too slow on freeways".

Theres a lot of theft in this country too, maybe theft laws are too harsh. Interesting logic.

Originally Posted by Keepleft

These things *will* happen in this state in time. Perhaps you are happy with the current limits, that is another issue.

No, given the road structure at the moment, given the mentality of drivers to add 10 to the limit as the 'tolerance' gives them that leeway in their opinion, the speed limit is as high as it can be.

I would think there are roads in Aus outside NT that could carry a 130 limit, and would like to see drivers set an example to allow governments to trust them to do so after making adequate changes to the structure of those roads.

As Ive said in other threads, the amount of speeding motorists has an impact on keeping the limits down. They hardly encourage a raising of the limit. A couple of Qld governments have clearly stated that when 110 was introduced, then removed from certain sections of the Bruce Hwy as a result of drivers abusing that trust. The government made it clear, they would not reintroduce 110 until Qlders showed they could actually do 110, not 120.

Originally Posted by Keepleft

Enforcement additional;- HWP often check speed soon after fixed camera sites to catch folk so speeding up, done just to keep a cap on things. RTA also fund wagons with cameras, here the sign is placed after the event!

Good, do both, thats what I meant when I stated I see merit in highlighting black spots.


I can see the benefit of cameras.
I see the benefit if signage.
i see the benefit of stealth.
I can see the benefit of visible police presence.
I can see the benefit of no cameras to drivers who want to go fast.
I can see the benefit of exclusively using marked Hwy patrol cars, and making them run the lights all the time, for both drivers who want to avoid getting pinged, and for the presence factor.

We need more Police. Police cost money. Governments are strapped for cash. Everyone hates paying taxes. Cameras free existing stretched Police resources to police crimes. Cameras provide revenue as long as tools are stupid enough to volunteer that revenue. That revenue is used for state services, like Police, thus allowing higher road presence and increased criminal Policing. If people wake up and stem the flow of revenue, the problem of speed is minimised and that need for increased road presence is reduced. In the end, I have no drama with cameras, both marked for black spots and stealth for the idiot tax. The more the merrier. Why more? Go back to the bold text at the start of this paragraph and find out.

What I do have a drama with, is governments who fail to make the best use of the revenue by failing to aim it where its most needed, I just dont have an issue with the revenue itself.