Traffic Laws in Melbourne Going Too Far?

Trying2SaveABuck on 24/04/2019 - 21:00
Last edited 25/04/2019 - 14:04 by 1 other user

Road toll is almost double last years in Victoria

We have some of the harshes fines and restrictions in the world but still a shocking number of road fatalities

I mean u get almost a 500$ fine and 4 points for looking at you phone at the traffic lights

Speeding fines are well over $250 these days for 5km over the limit

If it really was about safety then why are Parking fines are also outrages? Surely parking an extra 20min in a 2hr zone isn't going to kill anyone…..

Don't get me started on charging the city speed limit to 30km! When we have bad traffic as it is!

The death toll rises and revenue is going the same way? Is it time we loosened the laws improve and increase speed limits so the city moves a bit better!?

Clearly the current approach isn't working and it isn't really fair? More police with the power to take points and hand out smaller fines would be more effective then barely any cops and loads of cameras and parking inspectors…

Note - I have not been fined recently just noticed the toll is unfortunately really high and questioning if all the revenue raising was improving the safety of our roads….

Poll Options

  • 422
    We need to relax the laws - The road laws are more interested in revenue raising then road safety
  • 16
    The laws are fine - I'm happy to give money to the state government and let people die on the roads
  • 76
    The laws need to be harsh - give the government more money
Automotive

Comments

  • chumlee on 24/04/2019 - 21:23
    +5

    As the population increases so much, the road toll is bound to increase as well

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 24/04/2019 - 21:28
      +32

      Toll in past 12 months has increased by 85%

      Population has increase by 2.1%

      …….

      On top of that loads of cities in the world that have a way lower toll with a much higher population…

      • pegaxs on 24/04/2019 - 23:02
        +2

        Cars are getting safer, but the road toll keeps increasing… something is causing it. More people driving older shitboxs?

        Maybe it’s a socioeconomic thing? As the standard of living is decreasing, added to the increase in population, people are sacrificing safety for affordability?

        • [Deactivated] on 25/04/2019 - 04:51
          +21

          Actually, road toll is lower now that it was in 1936 despite triple population.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_i…

          Suicide stats on the other hand are through the roof….

            • pegaxs on 25/04/2019 - 08:33
              +48

              @Scrooge McDuck: As someone that help out and spends a lot time at the local school, I get to see what the “school zone” is all about. And I can tell you, it does not need to exist… but not for the reason you mention.

              It doesn’t need to exist, because there is no point when the arseholes that drive near the school have zero respect for the road rules in this zone. It’s like the area may as well not exist.

              The entitlement of the “mummies” driving there just blows my mind every morning. Park where they want, drive how they want at what ever speed they want. It’s like the schools zone area does not exist.

              And before ya’ll get triggered, 90% of the morning and afternoon drivers are women. They are horrible people. They are rude, abrasive and self entitled. The men that drive there seem to have a lot more respect for the road rules and tend to be more careful.

              And it’s not a kids fault that an adult is the arsehole. This isn’t Darwinism working. I fail to see how an adult driving like an arsehole and killing a kid is even remotely related to natural selection.

              Also note, this is indicative of my experience at my school, your school and/or area may be different.

              • kyle on 25/04/2019 - 09:14

                @pegaxs: I think the natural selection refers to a kid running onto the road randomly and got hit by someone driving normally.

                • pegaxs on 25/04/2019 - 09:24
                  +2

                  @kyle: I know what it was referring to, but I fail to see how this is natural selection. The road rules around schools are designed to take into account that kids are under-trained/inexperienced when it comes to dealing with traffic. But I fail to see how it is the kids deserve it if a driver is breaking the law or not.

                  Dealing with traffic is a learned skill in humans, it is not a natural trait that is passed on genetically. They have to be taught how to use roads and how to be safe around cars. It's not a natural instinct that can be bred into them…

                  It would be all "Stupid kids, let Darwinism sort them out" up until their own kid got hit by an arsehole driver not obeying the rules in a school zone.

                  • kyle on 25/04/2019 - 09:28
                    +1

                    @pegaxs: But a driver breaking the law will do that whether it's a school zone or not. So it's better for the parents to train their kids of school age.

                  • Scrooge McDuck on 25/04/2019 - 11:47
                    -6

                    @pegaxs:

                    Dealing with traffic is a learned skill in humans, it is not a natural trait that is passed on genetically.

                    Pretty sure several aspects of intelligence which determine a child's aptitude at being aware of their surroundings can be inherited.

                    But natural selection doesn't just select fit genes but memes too — information that is passed along, as in the case of parenting. That's why some cultures have thrived and others have dived. Suicide cults, for example, don't tend to be particularly enduring.

                    • pegaxs on 25/04/2019 - 13:00
                      +5

                      @Scrooge McDuck: So what you're saying, Scrooge, is that only the kids that are naturally already good around cars and roads deserve to be alive? Or only the kids that have parents that have trained them correctly deserve to live?

                      So the smart kids, the potential doctors, scientists and engineers that have lucked out having dumb parents, they need to be Darwin'd out because of lack of parental training/supervision?

                      Sorry if I don't sit around, reading/watching the news and hear of children being hurt or killed as pedestrians and think "Well, at least there is one less idiot in the gene pool."

                      The only idiots in the gene pool that need to be Darwin'd are the ones that have no respect for their own or other peoples children. Children are not the idiots here, the parents are.

                      • Scrooge McDuck on 25/04/2019 - 13:12
                        -1

                        @pegaxs: No one deserves anything. Life isn't fair. Some are born more fit than others. Some are useless, some are a burden, some have severe defects, some don't make it to birth and the astronomical majority aren't even conceived.

              • Other on 25/04/2019 - 10:03

                @pegaxs: Upvoted because you got the Darwin awards in your reply.

              • acoma on 25/04/2019 - 11:30

                @pegaxs: Downvoted for the use of ya'll.

                • pegaxs on 25/04/2019 - 13:01
                  +1

                  @acoma: Sorry. My bad. It was a typo. What I meant to type was y'all.

              • DiscoJango on 25/04/2019 - 17:09
                +3

                @pegaxs: was driving thru a school zone one morning, doing 40kph, all of a sudden a WOMAN (yes i said it) in a humongous toyota landcruiser (not the smaller prado) came flying up out of nowhere, and started tailgating me the entire way.

                this is a long stretch of road, and she wasnt in my mirror earlier, which means she had to be FLYING down the road to catchup to me, im talking 80kph +

                i just continued driving at the limit, in fact, i slowed down to piss her off even more. im doing this (driving slow) for YOUR kids, which she had in her car!

                • pegaxs on 25/04/2019 - 17:21
                  +2

                  @DiscoJango:

                  im doing this for YOUR kids, which she had in her car!

                  My kids were in her car??? If you knew my kids, you would feel sorry for her! :D

                  But yes, I get what you mean. I see a lot of people trying to do the right thing and trying to make it safe for everyone. Some days I just feel like, what's the point of school zones if no one gives a crap.

                  Or you know, we could just scrap the school zones and, as some suggested, let "natural selection" sort the problem out… Problem is, the ones that need "selection" are the ones guiding big metal boxes around…

                • Daabido on 27/04/2019 - 16:46

                  @DiscoJango: If you think this woman is a regular traveller of that road, let the Police know and they will make that school zone a priority.

            • Okayy on 25/04/2019 - 12:23
              +3

              @Scrooge McDuck: Yes people should look both ways before crossing even when it’s their right.

            • brendanm on 25/04/2019 - 13:28
              +1

              @Scrooge McDuck: They could at least put them only in schools that actually have kids walking to them or parents parking out the front. I drive through one school zone for a private school miles from anything, and the place has a 1km long driveway. There is literally no danger to children but still we need to drop 30kms of the speed limit, as the cops like to sit there randomly.

              • DiscoJango on 25/04/2019 - 17:51

                @brendanm: i drove thru a 40kph school zone on a main road, for 8 years and never once saw a kid. it literally just gridlocks morning traffic. you see the regulars who catch on after a while that there isnt actually a school/kids anywhere close, and continue to drive through it at regular speeds.

          • goingDHfast on 28/04/2019 - 17:22
            +1

            @[Deactivated]: Where is the increased funding for mental health and suicide prevention? Why do the TAC get so much funding when the deaths on our roads per capita are on a massive long term downtrend?

      • trapper on 26/04/2019 - 13:02

        2.1% of very bad drivers? lol

      • cloudy on 28/04/2019 - 09:37
        +1

        Has tolls really increase 85% in the last 12m?

        Can you please show me the source? I’d love to see

  • SydStrand on 24/04/2019 - 21:37
    +96

    I mean u get almost a 500$ fine and 4 points for looking at you phone at the traffic lights

    I've been almost run off the road by drivers on their phones. It's stupid and dangerous. And doing it at the lights isn't any less selfish. They miss the green and either too slow (someone behind gets cut off by a red), or they fang it to make up the difference. Your phone can wait.

      • zonra on 24/04/2019 - 21:41
        +56

        The phone can wait.
        /thread

        • desert eagle on 26/04/2019 - 12:12
          -3

          +1, but the internet rules state you cannot '/thread' your own comment.

      • Some Human on 25/04/2019 - 08:50
        +13

        Please give us a few examples of things that simply couldn’t wait until you’ve finished drviing to be looked at. Genuinely would like to know.

        • Other on 25/04/2019 - 10:04
          +5

          Latest kimmy kardash vidz

        • magic8ballgag on 25/04/2019 - 10:42
          +15

          OzBargain deals.

          • wyrmy on 25/04/2019 - 14:28
            +30

            @burningrage: All those examples can be handled with bluetooth handsfree which existed more than 10 years ago.
            Its not illegal to take calls via handsfree.

            Also not illegal to make calls if you can do it without touching the phone.

            • burningrage on 25/04/2019 - 15:06
              -5

              @wyrmy: Of course that is true but I am merely responding to Super Kami Dende's specific question about the kind of circumstances where you cannot or should not wait to pick up calls while on road

              • OnAWhimTwo on 25/04/2019 - 15:28
                +1

                @burningrage: So how do you tell the difference between a call that's a legitimate emergency and "Oh honey do you mind picking up some milk on your way to the mortuary".

                • burningrage on 25/04/2019 - 16:03
                  +2

                  @OnAWhimTwo: I am not making judgment about using mobile phone in vehicles. I believe most people are adults and understand the pros and cons of this issue.

                  What I am simply saying is things are not that clear cut and linear and the question given was "give examples on how phones cant wait".

                  I am merely given examples of that.

                  There is no point going into specifics as I trust most people are adults and mature enough to make that decision so questions like differentiating between grocery call and time sensitive calls are absurd and quite frankly, typical absolutism attitude.

                  • OnAWhimTwo on 25/04/2019 - 18:41

                    @burningrage: Until the call is answered there is no way to know if the call is important or not.

                    Being a mature adult or not has nothing to do with it. You can't make a judgement call in a void.

            • burningrage on 25/04/2019 - 15:09

              @wyrmy: btw there is talk to ban this too if not mistaken

            • Eeples on 25/04/2019 - 22:47

              @wyrmy: I think even handsfree is illegal for P platers (in NSW).

              • wyrmy on 26/04/2019 - 09:09

                @Eeples: Aw dang, yer right. Looks like the law changed end of 2016.

          • Some Human on 25/04/2019 - 16:25
            +4

            @burningrage: And you can’t just…I don’t know…pull over to answer them?

            • burningrage on 25/04/2019 - 18:00

              @Some Human: A bit hard if you were on Monash Freeway and had to abruptly pull over. At times unsafe others like what some people tend to say "It can wait mate" but as you can see life is not that linear as some may suggest in this forum

              These were the times when I didnt really want to install suction cup phone holder coz they tend to fall unexpectedly (being suction cup) but in the end, I cant afford to miss these sort of calls given the nature of my employment.

              • Some Human on 26/04/2019 - 13:25
                +2

                @burningrage: So if one of your loved ones was injured or killed by a motorist using their phone while driving, and the motorist told you they had to use the phone while driving or they might lose money, opportunities or a few minutes of their time, you would be like, “yeah, no worries mate I completely understand. Totally worth putting others at risk if it means you save time/money.”
                Is that an accurate?

          • greater mimic on 25/04/2019 - 19:35
            +1

            @burningrage: Can't you just pull over and pick up the call?

          • [Deactivated] on 27/04/2019 - 07:09
            +1

            @burningrage: Why the 5 negs? He answered the specific asked question clearly.
            Was he perceived as lying? Well, I gave an extra neg, cause hangin' posse verdicts are usually right.

            • wyrmy on 27/04/2019 - 14:23

              @[Deactivated]: The focus of the conversation was really about looking and interacting with phones, so no not really answering the specific question.
              Taking calls didn't really come into it (because hands-free and also less of a issue compared to taking eyes and hands off the road)

        • cloudy on 28/04/2019 - 10:22

          Dying family member in hospital with only moments to live and driving to hospital but not knowing exactly the best roads to take, start car drive in general direction until red light and open google maps.

      • SydStrand on 25/04/2019 - 12:42
        +9

        Even if you're not in motion, you're still distracted and ignoring road conditions changing around you. Maybe a motorcyclist just lane filtered into your blind spot, but you missed it in your mirrors. Or you missed a new hazard, a pedestrian. You also don't know how long you have left at the light since timing is always different and now your eyes are on your phone.

        Exactly what is so important that you can't resist the urge to pick up your phone?

        • Trying2SaveABuck on 25/04/2019 - 13:31
          -1

          That's fair but you get less harshly punished for running a red light which I'd argue is way more dangerous…

          I think it is 300 and 3 points…

          • D6C1 on 25/04/2019 - 13:46
            -1

            @Trying2SaveABuck:

            That's fair but you get less harshly punished for running a red light which I'd argue is way more dangerous…

            I think it is 300 and 3 points…

            True. More people with mobile phones, therefore higher revenue opportunity. Not about safety.

            • Trying2SaveABuck on 25/04/2019 - 13:49
              -7

              @D6C1: Thank you for some sense too many idiots post comments about why it is good for us to get ripped off in a system that makes no sense?

              Laws are to protect people not make $$$ for the government to waste on helicopter ride and other BS

              • zonra on 25/04/2019 - 16:15
                +7

                @Trying2SaveABuck: You do realise you can just, you know, not touch the phone while driving right?
                Maybe it doesn't make sense to you, and I quote

                a system that makes no sense

                but most of us prefer not to share roads with people who have eyes glued on their phone instead of forward, and I think it's incredibly selfish to put yourself, your passengers and other road users at risk simply because you can't wait to check that facebook/instagram notification.
                The fine is well justified for total disregard of safety for others, and apparently not harsh enough as I still see people on the phone while driving every single day.
                There are no excuse whatsoever.
                "Well what if it was an emergency?"
                Then pull over before creating one yourself.

                • Trying2SaveABuck on 25/04/2019 - 16:56

                  @zonra: Just to clear this up

                  Not saying touching your phone isnt bad but how is it worse then running a red?

                  • zonra on 25/04/2019 - 17:57
                    +2

                    @Trying2SaveABuck: My opinion would be because there are more people think it’s more acceptable, and less dangerous to use a phone while driving compared to running a red (as evidenced by our conversation here).
                    I think both carry the same risk of causing serious accidents: distracted drivers (texting) crossing into incoming lane are not unheard of, same with mounting the kerb and hitting pedestrians with you eyes locked on the phone.
                    The biggest issue here is that people know that they are taking a risk by running a red, but either don’t know or don’t want to admit they are taking a risk by using phones while driving, and the fines aim to address that.
                    Disclosure: I’m not a law maker nor do I do anything related to law or policing.
                    My opinion on the matter is based purely on what I observe during my daily commute and numerous close-calls on the roads.

                    • trapper on 26/04/2019 - 13:06

                      @zonra: It is far less dangerous to use a phone in a stationary vehicle compared to running a red light though.

                      • SydStrand on 27/04/2019 - 01:07
                        +1

                        @trapper: Fines and demerits aren't solely calculated by danger. The state makes those calls based on a variety of factors which includes projected revenue, education, and risk assessment.

                        Texting while driving is a far more serious public health hazard than running red lights because of how prevalent and normalised it is. Normal people don't need the fear of crushing punitive fines to not run reds, because it's common sense; but they do need to learn that texting in the car is dangerous and illegal. Fines are an effective means of discouraging that.

                        • trapper on 29/04/2019 - 12:31

                          @SydStrand:

                          Fines and demerits aren't solely calculated by danger.

                          I didn't say they were. This thread is about using a phone in a stationary vehicle, which is of course much safer than running red lights.

                          I was reading in the news this morning that UK police say it is illegal to touch your phone to pay via apple pay in McDonalds drive through, they will be issuing a £200 fine if you do.

                          That is ridiculous and the same no exceptions rules apply here in Australia.

                          • SydStrand on 30/04/2019 - 00:04

                            @trapper: It's safer, but how many people run red lights vs use their phone in a stationary vehicle? I'd argue the latter is a greater public health hazard because of how accepted it is, and how easily it can turn into texting in a moving vehicle. Now, if the question is 'what should carry the heavier penalty,' that's determined by other factors like public messaging; it's the reason why we have double demerits for speeding on public holidays, even though it's theoretically just as dangerous as speeding every other day.

                            I agree the Macca's story is ridiculous. It's obviously a case of the law not evolving to account for mobile payments. I hope it changes, because it isn't the same as texting at a red: there are no changing road conditions in a drive thru, you're not on a public road, and similar precedents have already been set by reaching for wallet, change, etc.

                            • trapper on 30/04/2019 - 11:52

                              @SydStrand: This is what happens when you make silly laws that weren't properly thought through. It doesn't make sense to the public because it actually doesn't make sense.

      • minklet on 26/04/2019 - 11:16
        +1

        Get off your phone you incompetent

    • Mike88 on 24/04/2019 - 21:40
      +28

      It’s so annoying to miss a light cycle because the person at the front of the queue can’t pay attention.

      • Scrooge McDuck on 25/04/2019 - 05:14

        It might be a good idea to preemptively bip your horn as soon as a light changes to green to wake them up.

        • kyle on 25/04/2019 - 09:16

          I can see when someone is not looking ahead through their rear view mirror. So my hand is ready on the horn.

          • Scrooge McDuck on 25/04/2019 - 11:50
            +5

            @kyle: Often the culprit is a few vehicles ahead and no one in between takes the initiative.

            • kyle on 25/04/2019 - 11:59
              +1

              @Scrooge McDuck: I'm usually the one taking the initiative even if I'm one or two cars behind. I give the non moving car 3 seconds.

              • Scrooge McDuck on 25/04/2019 - 12:05

                @kyle: But one often can't see through 5 vehicles, especially when some are SUVs.

                • kyle on 25/04/2019 - 12:22

                  @Scrooge McDuck: I still honk if it's a right turning lane and I can't see cars turning.

                  • Name on 25/04/2019 - 21:15
                    +4

                    @kyle: Someone honked at me on the weekend that was a few cars back.

                    I was at front of queue and turning left. Their is a hedge right up against the road blocking view of the corner from about 1 car back.

                    A pedestrian was crossing the road and I was stopped waiting for them to clear. Person few cars back was just being a douche.

        • OnAWhimTwo on 25/04/2019 - 15:30

          There's a fine for this, ;)

        • Eeples on 26/04/2019 - 10:03

          That would be illegal and an offence.

      • Okayy on 25/04/2019 - 12:25

        It sucks isn’t?

      • SydStrand on 25/04/2019 - 12:45

        It's very annoying when you know exactly why, because you can see them leaning and turning their head to sneakily look at a phone in the passenger seat.

    • dbun1 on 25/04/2019 - 12:38
      +1

      Not to mention the number of rear end accidents I’ve seen because some retard was looking at their phone, saw traffic moving in the corner of their eye and starts going without realising the car in front of them hasn’t moved.

      Such a pointless accident for what?!? A FB or Instagram post/like

    • Apple96 on 29/04/2019 - 14:00
      +1

      This, as someone who often rides a bike THIS. If you are behind the wheel of car, with a key in the ignition you should not touch your phone, I've almost been hit by drivers swerving due to their phone. Nothing on your phone is more important than paying attention while driving. That text from your wife is not worth someone else's life.

  • spackbace on 24/04/2019 - 21:42
    +5

    Speeding fines are well over $250 these days for 5km over the limit

    Internet says $201 and 1 point?

    Still double WA's fine for the same offence

    • Wystri Warrick on 25/04/2019 - 06:00
      +5

      Internet says $201 and 1 point?

      Alternative facts!

    • apptrack on 25/04/2019 - 10:33
      +1

      At least WA has a 8 km/h tolerance. VIC is 3 km/h.

  • Trying2SaveABuck on 24/04/2019 - 21:43

    This is still happening? Cameras aren't fixing this more police would?

  • Ughhh on 24/04/2019 - 21:48
    +16

    Aren't parking fines usually issued by the council rather than police? Unless it's obstructing traffic like parking in the middle on the road. I would say it's got more to do with fairness than safety.

    Fines are pointless if they're too cheap, they're meant to be harsh so law and consequences are taken more seriously.

    Apart from money/fines and jail time, how else could society control those who break the law? You can't beat them up or chop their leg off.

    • Scrooge McDuck on 25/04/2019 - 05:28

      Apart from money/fines and jail time, how else could society control those who break the law?

      Ship them to a far away island in the Sun…

      • D6C1 on 25/04/2019 - 13:48
        +1

        Ship them to a far away island in the Sun…

        England did that. Now that island is called Australia.

    • kyle on 25/04/2019 - 09:17
      +4

      Caning. Should be applied to those parked in clearways.

      • Other on 25/04/2019 - 10:06

        If we get a woman to do it, the men will pay even more!

      • Swanson approved on 26/04/2019 - 10:02

        Seconded, I travel through an area where people constantly ignore the clearway at 7:30 am just to run and get their morning Latte.

        I can almost certainly tell this has happened when I am stuck in a massive banked up queue almost a Km away, and voila as you approach the area, there is somebody selfishly parked in a clearway zone. This is inner east Melbourne where council is supposed to be savage in dishing out fines and towing away such offenders

        • kyle on 26/04/2019 - 10:15

          If I drive a tank I would crash into them. Or maybe get some rotten eggs ready to throw at their cars.

    • KMeister on 25/04/2019 - 12:49
      1. Educating people- driver distraction and lack of know-how is a major reason
        2 Generational change towards safe road use should be started and emphasized from school level, university and at work
      2. Mandatory re-evaluation for all drivers at least in every 5 years- people pick up bad habits. Unless they were evaluated, people will not even bother to address them
      3. Annual vehicle safety checkup (in Vic once you have a Roadworthy Certificate unless you transfer your vehicle, no one is forced a check on their vehicle's safety.
      • Ughhh on 25/04/2019 - 13:08
        1. People are already educated in order to obtain a learner and P license. There's always ads on TV about those.
          So there should be an extra subject in High school about driving? Treat it like an essential life skill like maths and English? Driving is very much experienced based, reading 100s of text books wont make you a great driver. It's also based on common sense and common courtesy. You can't change peoples brain capability.

        2 & 3 I agree with. But thats all under the assumption that people break the laws because they didn't know but they really care. Many who break the law know what they did, but thought it was worth the risk or just dont care.

        If people want to be shit and selfish, educating them what they already know but don't care won't change anything.

        • KMeister on 25/04/2019 - 13:27

          Textbooks and subjects are not the only way to educate a person. Society functions under the premise of 'people are generally good' which is true.
          Unless you have faith in your fellow beings, might as well camp out there and start prepping for an apocalypse, anyway I rest my case.

        • brendanm on 25/04/2019 - 13:31
          +1

          Driver education is absolutely terrible. People don't know the simplest rules about zip merging. Vast majority don't understand that putting your indicator on for a while, doesn't mean you can now come across into the other lane.

          • Ughhh on 25/04/2019 - 13:50

            @brendanm: Agreed with zip merging. I've seen so many people stop in the middle of traffic, trying to be a nice citizen, giving way to each other while oblivious to the traffic behind. Should these nice drivers be punished for causing a hazard or applauded for being nice?

            Vast majority don't understand that putting your indicator on for a while, doesn't mean you can now come across into the other lane.

            You would think that's common sense. I mean, the definition of "indicate / indicator", its basic English.

            Perhaps people need to be educated on being proactive rather than reactive ie. looking ahead and surroundings, identifying possible hazards and risk (including own actions). But aren't those skills one should have in life anyway ie. at work, walking to shops etc?

            • brendanm on 25/04/2019 - 17:10

              @Ughhh: Have you not noticed that common sense isn't so common? Just look at some of the posts on these forums, I'm surprised some people can breathe on their own.

              People also severely lack the life skills you mention sadly.

  • [Deactivated] on 24/04/2019 - 21:50
    +6

    Wasn't last years stats (in Victoria) amazingly low?? so to compare them to last year only does look scary.

    Roads deaths have dropped dramatically since a peak in the 70s. Maybe this is just the way it is and can't be improved any further under current technology.

    Technology can't fix stupid.

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 24/04/2019 - 21:57
      +1

      They were happy to jump up and down and say the laws were the reason for that low pendulum swings both ways…

      • Other on 25/04/2019 - 10:11
        +1

        More likely technology (and the slow phase out of cars without seatbelts & airbags) rather than being threatened by big brother.

        Its almost hilarious when the Police say they want 0 road deaths.

        • abuch47 on 25/04/2019 - 15:16
          +2

          Not really hilarious because our 24/7 trash news cycle asks for this.

          It's on the news every night with a footage of where the biggest crash of the day happened and then tally the numbers that look advertise well and repeat the next day (insert immediate sad to happy segue) heres how you can save money on washing powder.

      • trongy on 25/04/2019 - 10:13
        +7

        I had a lecturer at uni many years ago who was part of an interdisciplinary group that was working on ideas to reduce the road toll. His summary was that:

        • the civil engineers thought that building safer roads would help reduce the road toll.
        • the mechanical engineers thought that building safer cars would help reduce the road toll.
        • the psychologists thought that stronger advertising was required to convince people to drive more safely and help reduce the road toll.
        • the law enforcement types thought that stronger road laws would help reduce the road toll
        • the education professionals thought that more thorough driver training would help reduce the road toll

        and so on. Each profession had its bias, but each had something to contribte

        It's a multi-dimensional problem that does not have one-dimensional solution, but that doesn't mean that road laws have no effect no the road toll either.

        • Musing Outloud on 26/04/2019 - 12:17
          +1

          Agree. But those in power are lawyers, so we get stronger road laws as that adds to revenue. All other solutions spend revenue.

        • DerpFactory on 28/04/2019 - 19:54

          Funny that none of these relate to increasing the fine amount nor adding more cameras, which seems to be the only thing they're doing.

          Why don't they just look at what works in other countries? Fine's obviously don't work at all. It's far too easy to go 4km over the limit, especially since they removed the extortion rule.

          My solution would be to make people do community service instead of paying a fine. Not only does it help the community, but it doesn't disproportionately penalize people for making small mistakes. E.g People on lower incomes have to pay the same fine as billionaires, to which the fine is considered small change.
          This would deter more people IMO and not have such negative side effects.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join