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

        • Architectonic on 28/04/2019 - 19:58

          "the civil engineers thought that building safer roads would help reduce the road toll."

          Really? Because Transportation engineers don't take any personal responsibility whatsoever when poor road design (particularly in regards to pedestrians and cyclists) leads to death.

    • trongy on 25/04/2019 - 10:17
      +1

      Last years stats were very low. 63 vs a five year average of 80. This years toll of 102 is well above the five year average.

      TAC stats are here

  • Mike88 on 24/04/2019 - 21:53
    +1

    I think the penalties are fine, they are there as a deterrent. It would be nice if they enforced slow driving laws more often though as this causes a lot of the congestion.

  • Hardlyworkin on 24/04/2019 - 22:02
    +1

    Which political party do you work for OP?

    • Other on 25/04/2019 - 15:20
      -2

      Any leader with a 'N' in their surname is a pedo.

  • spackbace on 24/04/2019 - 22:03
    +34

    Man why do I reply to these posts…?!

    This is the same person who said we should be paid out sick leave when we leave a job and who thought a charity lottery was rigged because of the names of the winners

    • pegaxs on 24/04/2019 - 23:47
      +8

      Why is that “lotteries are racist” thread not a meme?? Good lord, that was hilarious to read…

  • Godric on 24/04/2019 - 22:17
    +3

    $x, x$

    Please pick one, preferably the one used in AUS $x

    • holdenmg on 25/04/2019 - 01:58
      +3

      absolutely, otherwise next cash register will start going ching-ka and that just seems wrong…

  • burningrage on 24/04/2019 - 22:21
    +1

    Kudos for OP to tell it like it is.

  • p1 ama on 24/04/2019 - 22:23
    +56

    I've actually spent some significant time researching traffic accident data. I've previously worked with several researchers who are experts in the field of road safety. Either way, I think it's important that we actually begin with some of the facts about traffic accidents and what causes them.

    Here are 6 "fun facts" that you might not know about fatalities (with data collected from all fatal road incidents from 1987 to 2019). I've also tried to include some policy "suggestions" which you might not hear in the popular media and from our politicians. Remember that there are around 12,000 fatalities in total.

    1) Police and media love to demonise young people for their crash statistics despite there being little evidence for young people being more likely to be involved in a crash. It is actually the opposite, with the group accounting for the highest number of fatal accidents being 70 and over, responsible for 1815 fatal accidents over this period. The group 18 to 20 are only responsible for 1328, and 21 to 25 responsible for 1716. The second highest group is 30 to 39, with 1777. Therefore, a sensible policy proposal would actually be the retesting of older drivers once they reach a certain age to ensure that they are still medically fit for driving.

    2) Despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of road use occurs in metropolitan areas, around half of the fatal road accidents over this period are on rural roads. Therefore, it seems that driver fatigue, as well as unfamiliarity with rural roads (usually by urban drivers) are major causes of accidents that need to be addressed.

    3) The most common cause of a fatality is actually running off a straight road (responsible for 3057 deaths). This is followed by driving into oncoming traffic (responsible for 2069). Given that both of these types of accidents occur when drivers are fatigued and/or falling asleep at the wheel, it seems that the leading root cause of accidents is actually people driving when they should not be. It may also be due to drunk driving or otherwise. However, it is difficult to believe that driving 10 km/h over the speed limit will lead to someone running off a straight road or ending up on the other side of the road.

    4) Pedestrians form a large part of the road toll, with around 2,000 deaths involving a pedestrian. Note that this is far more than deaths resulting from overtaking (447), rear-ending a car travelling in the same direction (684), or even cars running off a curve (1538). Most of these pedestrian deaths are usually due to inattentive drivers, inattentive pedestrians and bad road design where it is impossible to see pedestrians before they being to cross a road. Having seen the way that some people cross the road and having seen the way some drivers are completely oblivious to their surroundings, I'm not surprised at this statistic. Laws need to back off people who do mostly harmless things (e.g. checking their phones at the lights, driving 5km/h over the speed limit…etc.) and be harsher on people who cause issues on the road. Driving into a pedestrian due to negligence is akin to manslaughter and should be treated as such. We tend to treat very serious traffic accidents as "just an accident" rather than people being mindfully ignorant about their responsibilities.

    5) Despite there being more traffic on the roads during weekdays, the two most likely days to be involved in a car crash are Saturday and Sunday. They both average around 2,000 whereas weekdays around 1,500. Again, this feeds into the story about inexperienced and/or distracted drivers being a major cause of death. The intuition about "weekend drivers" is also completely true. Being someone who drives around 70 - 80km every day (including weekends), I find that people are much worse drivers on weekends, with much more incompetence on the roads (an inability to change lanes, being clearly distracted, not being able to perform basic maneuvers…etc.) compared to weekdays where people are generally better drivers. The takeaway policy would be better driver education, better alternative means of transport and a change in the mindset of the population. By and large, people think that driving is a right, not a privilege. When I confronted a driver in a carpark who clearly could not park, her defense was "I haven't done anything wrong, so why should I not be allowed to drive", which I think is the wrong response, my response was "if I got nothing wrong on a test (by not answering any questions), should I be allowed to pass an exam?", we need to make sure people who are on the road are fit to drive. There needs to be programs to teach people how to drive. Alternative transport means (i.e. public transport) needs to exist so that less people are on the road.

    6) The most common crash times are between 4pm and 6pm, despite the rumours suggesting that it's much more dangerous to drive in the middle of the night. In fact, only a very small minority of accidents happen in the middle of the night. Yes, I agree that accidents in the night are over-represented (as there are less drivers at night), but I think again, that the times where you have the most incompetent drivers, you tend to have the most accidents.

    Apologies for the long message, but hope that everyone's learned something today :)

    Data: http://www.tac.vic.gov.au/road-safety/statistics/online-cras…

    • kahn on 24/04/2019 - 22:34
      +11

      I've actually spent some significant time watching youtube videos on DashcamOwnersAus and the two main culprits are bloody cyclists and tradies.

      • pegaxs on 24/04/2019 - 23:10
        +6

        (Fropanity) tradies… they make me cringe when I watch that channel. Nearly every (fropanity) video there is a heap of (fropanity) tradies driving like a complete (fropanity) morons… and don’t get me started on tradies on their (fropanity) phones!

      • [Deactivated] on 24/04/2019 - 23:20
        +2

        I love that channel. So many idiots on the road.

      • p1 ama on 24/04/2019 - 23:53
        +10

        This is the issue with cycling - it's faster than walking, but slower than driving. Therefore, do you consider cycling as a faster substitute for walking, or do you consider it a slower substitute for driving? The issue with cycling in Australia is that due to its vast distances and generally cycling unfriendly roads, it's usually the latter - cycling is by and large a substitute for driving, not for walking.

        When I spent time in Europe, the culture around cycling is very different because it's treated as a faster substitute for walking. Instead of walking for an hour, you could cycle in 15 mins instead. That's already a significant time saving and because you're not going too fast anyway, slowing down for a second isn't going to drastically make your journey slower. You're already pretty pleased that you're getting to your destination pretty quickly.

        In Australia, the issue is that you're trying to replace a 15 minute car ride with a 40 minute cycle. It's a significantly longer distance, all the while you're cycling on roads which are designed for cars, annoying car drivers and remembering that you could have just driven instead. Since you're cycling for such a long distance/time, every minute counts and every slowdown or inconvinence you face becomes a major hurdle for you to get to your destination on time.

        I respect the right of cyclists to cycle and I drive with care around them, but cycling is not a good means of transport in Australia and outside of the city centre, it's not possible to have cycling as a mainstream (and safe) transport option as they do in Europe or Asia because of the way our cities are set up.

        • sickre on 25/04/2019 - 19:25
          +1

          Cycling in Australia is treated as a sports activity, with the mandatory head protection, whereas everywhere else in the world (except other places with mandatory helmet laws) its treated as a method of transport.

          Mandatory helmet laws are a complete failure - they discourage people from riding, which dilutes the 'safety in numbers' effect cyclists in other countries enjoy.

          The best thing we can do for the environment, health, and congestion is to get more people out of cars and onto bikes.

          https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/11/02/nations-largest-cycli…

          • p1 ama on 26/04/2019 - 00:17

            @sickre:

            Cycling in Australia is treated as a sports activity, with the mandatory head protection, whereas everywhere else in the world (except other places with mandatory helmet laws) its treated as a method of transport.

            I think that's a bit of a stretch. Having compulsory helmets is no different from drivers having to wear seatbelts. It improves the safety and reduces the burden on society when someone is in an accident.

            Mandatory helmet laws are a complete failure - they discourage people from riding, which dilutes the 'safety in numbers' effect cyclists in other countries enjoy.

            It would be ridiculous to think that putting a helmet on will discourage people from riding. There are plenty of areas where cycling is common, e.g. heading to the inner suburbs of Melbourne. There's a lot of factors at play here including distances and design.

            The best thing we can do for the environment, health, and congestion is to get more people out of cars and onto bikes.

            I agree, but I think this is actually the root cause of the problem. Bikes are ultimately not a substitute for cars, they are a substitute for walking. The data on bikes:

            On firm, flat ground, a 70 kg (150 lb) person requires about 60 watts [5] to walk at 5 km/h (3.1 mph). That same person on a bicycle, on the same ground, with the same power output, can travel at 15 km/h (9.3 mph) using an ordinary bicycle,[6] so in these conditions the energy expenditure of cycling is one-third that of walking.

            So basically, cycling is around 3 times faster than walking. On the other hand, for cars that regularly go up to 60-80 km/h on suburban main roads, many more than 3x faster than bikes. In other words, cars are faster than bikes by more than bikes are faster than walking. Basically, the people who would benefit from bikes are people who need to walk for an hour, but can now get to their destination in 20 mins with a bike instead. If you drive for 15 mins at 60 km/h, that's 1 hour on a bike at 15 km/h. For most people, a 15 min drive is already a very short commute.

            Australian cities with their large suburbs are just not built for cycling the way that European cities are. When I was in Europe, I could walk everywhere I wanted to within an hour or a little above, a bike made that around 20 mins or a little above. That's why they're popular there - nothing to do with mandatory helmet laws.

            The answer to get cars off the road is actually better mass public transport, car pooling (which can easily halve the number of cars on the road), and moving single drivers to motorbikes instead (which are far more efficient than cars and have a much smaller effect on congestion).

            This all gets back to your original point, which is that cycling is a sport in Australia, not a form of commuting. I generally agree, there are some people who use cycling as a substitute for walking, but most are just doing it for the exercise or enjoyment of cycling.

            • corbz on 27/04/2019 - 21:58

              @p1 ama:

              It would be ridiculous to think that putting a helmet on will discourage people from riding.

              Nearly everywhere that helmets are promoted cycling participation has fallen.

              Source: https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1020.html

              Have you considered the health benefits to the population? "Cycling regularly to work (and, by extension, to school and on other regular journeys) has been shown to be the most effective thing an individual can do to improve health and increase longevity, and this applies even to people who are already active in sport and other physical activities"

              There's ~4.5 million people that work less than 10kms from home and 7.4 million (73% of employed over 15) less than 20kms. E-bike's can cut out any brutal climbs, assist up to 25km/h legally and add assistance while reducing road congestion and bringing outrageously good health benefits. They're outselling regular bikes in large cycling countries.

              Going to work that's less than 10kms away takes less than 25 minutes on one of those bikes. Cycling infrastructure needs reform to grow the health of our nation.

              there are some people who use cycling as a substitute for walking, but most are just doing it for the exercise or enjoyment of cycling

              Lets see the numbers for commuters on bikes cycling to work/shops vs recreation.

              Sources:
              https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/01/bike-country-n…
              https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/by%20Subject…

    • [Deactivated] on 24/04/2019 - 23:22

      it seems that the leading root cause of accidents is actually people driving when they should not be.

      This should be the tl;dr

    • srhardy on 25/04/2019 - 09:12

      will more safety and automation save drivers from themselves?

    • Lastchancetosee on 25/04/2019 - 09:13

      Thanks for this. Good to see some actual research rather than a pile of anecdotes.

      • highdealer on 26/04/2019 - 00:32
        +4

        Did you do the research yourself or did you just believe him because he said he did some research?

        From the very first point, it was a bunch of bull manure. 1815 is just the number of fatalities for people in this age group, not the number of people responsible for causing traffic accident or likely hood of people in this age group to be involve in an accident. All this number is saying, is that old people are more likely to die when involving in a traffic accident.

        Out of the 1815 people who got killed in a traffic accident in the 70+ age group, only 694 people (38% of fatalities) were driver ( and who know how many are at fault).

        Out of the 1716 fatalities in the age group of 21-25, a whopping 865 (50% of fatalities) were driver. This is not definite data saying that young driver cause a lot more accident than older people but you can see the correlation. Given that young people are much more resilient than old people, there should be even less fatalities when it come to young people involving in accident.

        This is how you get fake news, a bunch of information twisted and taken out of context.

        • wyrmy on 27/04/2019 - 19:25
          +1

          Yeah, but how many over 70s drive regularly almost every day and/or long distances in rural areas?
          Many in the 21-25 age will be driving very frequently for work/study/activities.

          Which might mean a driver over 70 is still a higher risk for every minute spent on the road.

        • p1 ama on 28/04/2019 - 22:25
          +1

          This is how you get fake news, a bunch of information twisted and taken out of context.

          Not really, the fact that I've posted some information and you've then gone and thought about it more deeply and pointed out flaws in what I've said and improved on what I've done is how science and research works. We become better at interpreting and understanding what we see the more we look at it and the more experience we have.

          I would have thought that this sort of open discourse and dialogue is what stops fake news, the fact that we're looking at the data and trying to work out what it's telling us rather than walking around with pitch forks saying "rah rah speed kills" or "rah rah revenue raising".

    • Other on 25/04/2019 - 10:23
      -1

      Beautiful post p1 ama. I give g0ld.

      I was travelling north end of Bruce highway (and what a s**t road it is). And I was thinking why they couldn't just put a green (what ever colour, though green is pretty Aussie) line in the middle of a lane and use a camera to make the tuck follow the green line (any input from driver would instantly disengage). Or another system such (additive in the paint for example).
      It wouldn't be that expensive to do, and we are ALREADY getting deaths from fatigue anyway, so even if it saves 1 life its worth it. Well perhaps not but I reckon if it stops about 50 deaths (per year) its probably worth it.

      Interest free loans (or at 3%) so truckies/mechanics could modify the trucks.

      • cashless on 26/04/2019 - 18:10

        Would be a better post if the stats weren’t total BS

    • apptrack on 25/04/2019 - 10:43

      What do you think of Martin Small, a South Australian road safety expert and Australasian College of Road Safety vice president?

      He seems to believe in the cutting speed limits and nothing else.

      He said “very few roads” were safe at speeds of 110km/h, and that a 10km/h speed cut on highways resulted in a casualty reduction of about 20 per cent.

      https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/wa/wa-government-to-conside…

      • Other on 25/04/2019 - 15:22

        Is that because the damage to the cars are more extensive at 10km?
        There are a lot of factors in this.

        • apptrack on 25/04/2019 - 16:39
          +2

          Possibly but he doesn't seem to focus on anything but reducing the limits instead of driver education etc.

          • Other on 26/04/2019 - 18:22

            @apptrack: Well its up to you to prove otherwise.

      • p1 ama on 25/04/2019 - 22:21
        +3

        What do you think of Martin Small, a South Australian road safety expert and Australasian College of Road Safety vice president?

        He's a political consultant. My opinion of them is that they're either paid to sprout their opinion (i.e. you just hire the guy who says what you want), or they're paid to sprout the opinion of the person hiring them.

        If you look at his background - https://au.linkedin.com/in/martinsmallconsulting, he has no qualifications in civil engineering, traffic management and/or quantitative research. All of his educational qualifications are in Arts/Business, specifically in Management.

        If you want to have a look at the quality of his work, here's a submission received in response to an enquiry - https://www.roadsafety.gov.au/nrss/files/0032-Martin-Small-C…

        Plain, not well researched, generally only opinions.

        He said “very few roads” were safe at speeds of 110km/h, and that a 10km/h speed cut on highways resulted in a casualty reduction of about 20 per cent.

        This statement is dubious at best - a 10km/h speed cut on highways happened in the same year as a 20% reduction in casualty rates. The road toll fluctuates year by year by huge amounts (far more than 20%), so he would need to show that the 20% reduction is 1) not just indicative of an overall downward trend, and 2) actually statistically significant.

        • apptrack on 26/04/2019 - 10:17
          +1

          He's being paid $370,000 by the WA government as a road safety advisor. Nothing compared to the potential speed camera revenue.

          • Other on 26/04/2019 - 18:25

            @apptrack: These organisations provide the political cover while speed cameras collect approx $1.1 Billion.

    • gromit on 25/04/2019 - 12:04
      +8

      Interesting but you do demonstrate the lies damn lies and statistics problem. You say young people aren't the problem and you do this by narrowly defining that to only 18-20 year olds and separately 21-25. I would say that group is one category and it makes up 1/4 of all road fatalities, that is by far and away the largest group. You then lump 70+ in one group and 30-39 in another making those groups sound worse by sheer volume. basically young drivers and old drivers are by far the worst unless you are going to twist the numbers like you have.

    • ozbjunkie on 25/04/2019 - 12:05

      Re pt 1. Do they really use raw totals within unequal age ranges, rather than calculate on a per capita basis?

      Seems weird.

      • gromit on 25/04/2019 - 12:39
        +2

        generally when they refer to young people that categorise that as under 25. That is just an example of someone twisting the numbers to make it look like they are not a problem. from memory current stats are that as an under 25 you are 50% more likely to be in a fatal car crash.

      • p1 ama on 25/04/2019 - 12:49
        -4

        Do they really use raw totals within unequal age ranges, rather than calculate on a per capita basis?

        That's the way the data is aggregated by the TAC, so I'm not purposefully trying to portray young or old drivers in a bad light. For the record, I fall into neither 18 - 25 or 70+, so I don't have any personal reason to defend one group over another.

        You are correct in saying that the data should be per capita, but we would need to know how many 18 - 20, 21 - 25, 70+…etc. drivers there are on the road. I'm not sure where that data can be collected.

        • ozbjunkie on 25/04/2019 - 23:22

          RMS would have licensed drivers by age category. But who knows if they are sharing that data. And of course it wouldn't account for the greater time spent on the road by some age groups.

          I guess random breath tests could be used as an approximate random sample of road hours per age group.

          I certainly wasn't suggesting you were being disingenuous, more just thinking over whether figures were valid and could be improved.

          • p1 ama on 26/04/2019 - 00:07

            @ozbjunkie:

            I certainly wasn't suggesting you were being disingenuous, more just thinking over whether figures were valid and could be improved.

            That's exactly what I'm hoping for. I'm not saying that my figures are presented in the best way, but at least we're now talking about numbers and how we best interpret them rather than talking about anecdotes or trying to scare each other. That's the way forward IMO.

            • highdealer on 26/04/2019 - 00:55
              +1

              @p1 ama: Not sure if you are being disingenuous or you just don't really understand the statistic you are talking about.

              The number you stated were the number of fatalities of people in each age group involving traffic accident, not the number of people responsible for causing traffic accident in each age group nor the likely hood of them being involve in a traffic accident (remember a traffic accident doesn't always involve fatalities, but serious injury and traumatise experience can be just as bad).

              Out of the 1815 people over the age of 70, only 694 people were actually driver. For the 21-24 age group, 865 out of 1716 people were driver. The data also only include the number of people who die (fatalities), not the number of people who are injured or severely impacted by the accident.

              Not only your figure wasn't represented in the best way, it was represented in the worst way possible when you make it sound like 1815 fatalities was cause (responsible) by people in the age of 70+.

              You are correct in saying that the data should be per capita, but we would need to know how many 18 - 20, 21 - 25, 70+…etc. drivers there are on the road. I'm not sure where that data can be collected.

              The information for license owner ship and age trend are there:

              https://bitre.gov.au/publications/2017/files/is_084.pdf

              https://chartingtransport.com/2015/03/09/trends-in-drivers-l…

              You simply didn't care to look. The number of driver on the road can be easily be calculated by multiplying the license% by the age demographic.

              • p1 ama on 28/04/2019 - 22:29

                @highdealer:

                Not sure if you are being disingenuous or you just don't really understand the statistic you are talking about.

                Honestly, why so cynical? What would I get out of being disingenuous? It's not like this forum is much more than a bit of banter and discussion. I really doubt any public policy is being made from ideas being thrown around here.

                Sad part is that I actually agree with what your criticisms of what I wrote, but you had to make it personal.

        • factor on 27/04/2019 - 21:32

          Odometer readings matched to the owner/primary driver age should allow normalisation of the death stats to quantity of driving per age band.

          In NSW, the odometer reading is recorded annually for cars over 5yrs old at the "pink slip" inspection.

          Similar data could be sampled from mechanics for newer vehicles - from 6/12 month scheduled service.

    • katykat on 25/04/2019 - 14:45

      Really good response. I'm in the public service also deal professionally with the ramifications of road accident fatalities. This is mostly anecdotal because I'm not an expert and road fatalities are just a small subset of my job, but I think the general public would be surprised by the amount of pedestrian and single vehicle fatalities that occur. They'd also be surprised by the disparity between rural and metro deaths and the marked differences in what tends to cause them.

      Personally, I support strict road laws and penalties. There is enough evidence that they aid in traffic safety. It's not a 100% fix, and is probably overrated as other multidisciplinary fixes are needed, but nothing ever is in a society. I think what people who get up in arms about "revenue raising" tend to forget are that roads, road safety and traffic infrastructure is incredibly expensive. If they want modern freeways, maintained roads and infrastructure upgrades then the money needs to come from somewhere. If that's from people who are speeding or driving in an unsafe manner, and fines encourage people to drive safely because there are real consequences (other than you know, dying or killing someone else) then that ultimately makes the roads safer and better for everyone.

      • p1 ama on 25/04/2019 - 17:52

        Personally, I support strict road laws and penalties.

        I'm tend to be from the camp that if you don't want to get fined, you don't do the "wrong thing", but I think it's important we make sure that road rules and their enforcement actually helps to achieve the end goal of what we wish to achieve. Trying to create safer roads is difficult - it requires education, better drivers, better decision making, a change in the attitude of drivers…etc. None of those things are easily achieved and/or policed.

        Ultimately, it's much easier to fine someone going at 65 km/h down a 60 km/h road. You could be a really safe driver - good skills, attentive, knowledgeable, but get fined $200+ (which is not a small amount for some people) for what is not really all that dangerous. This leaves a bitter taste in the mouths of many drivers and makes those who enforce traffic rules (and perhaps even road rules/regulations in general) feel like an enemy. This is actually counter-productive in my view.

    • Eeples on 25/04/2019 - 22:33
      +1

      There are so many holes in your 'fun facts' the 'facts' are a nonsense.

      For example you say, "highest number of fatal accidents being 70 and over, responsible for 1815 fatal accidents over this period."
      … but what you fail to drill down to is that 1079 of the 1815 of 70+ year olds fatalities were in fact passengers or pedestrians (ie. not THEIR bad driving).

      • bs0 on 26/04/2019 - 08:41

        Arguably, for similar crashes, older people are less likely to survive.

    • cashless on 26/04/2019 - 17:20
      +2

      the highest number of fatal accidents being 70 and over, responsible for 1815 fatal accidents over this period. The group 18 to 20 are only responsible for 1328, and 21 to 25 responsible for 1716. The second highest group is 30 to 39, with 1777. Therefore, a sensible policy proposal would actually be the retesting of older drivers once they reach a certain age to ensure that they are still medically fit for driving.

      For someone who has supposedly studied road accident statistics you have got a seriously bad maths problem.
      Example:
      Second highest group is 30 to 39 years old (a ten year spread) which is of course 2.5x bigger than the 18 to 20 year old group (a 4 year spread), so how can you possibly compare absolute fatality numbers with two dissimilar sized groups?
      Another example:
      What % of the population does "over 70" driving population represent? Is it a greater % than the 18 to 20 years old group?
      How big is the size of the 21 to 25 year old group (a 5 year spread)?

      It doesn't need a Mathnerd to see the total fail in your so called stats.
      And yes, I have learnt something today.
      There are lies, bigger lies and then your completely flawed statistics

    • Amour on 27/04/2019 - 07:30
      +1

      I’ve seen the stats broken down by fatality and age of car for NSW. I can’t recall the exact stats, but the majority of fatalities happened in cars over 10yrs of age (I think it was around 60-70%). Unfortunately a lot of young people can only afford old cars and even worse, some parents think their kids are safer in an older, more ‘solid’ cars. I figure one of the best presents I can give my kids is help them buy the safest car they can afford.

    • corbz on 27/04/2019 - 21:30
      +1

      despite there being little evidence for young people being more likely to be involved in a crash

      You're choosing to represent 'young people' with an age bracket of 3 years (18 to 20). Expanding our view of 'young people' to 18-25 (as viewed by the TAC and still 2 years short of the 30 to 39 age range) we get a road toll of 3044, blowing the 70+ group out of the water which you want to impose new laws on.

      That's the way the data is aggregated by the TAC, so I'm not purposefully trying to portray young or old drivers in a bad light

      You admit that you have no data about the per capita fatalities for each age group, and you're trying to propose new laws on the elderly from your 'findings' and then claim that you're not trying to portray anyone in a bad light? Lol

      Why don't you focus on male driver's instead? They represent nearly 80% of the fatalities in the 18 to 25 year old bracket, seems like you should have some re-education for men rather than the elderly.

      Laws need to back off people who do mostly harmless things e.g… driving 5km/h over the speed limit

      This is hilarious.

      Every 5km/h increase double's the risk of being in a serious car crash.

      Braking distance is proportional to the square of the speed of a car. A vehicle at 60km/h vs 65km/h is going to stop approximately 4.5 meters shorter than the other car with all other conditions the same. That can be the difference of no contact or a 1600kg impact on a pedestrian. You've stressed how vulnerable pedestrians are, yet you encourage relaxing laws on speeding which cause more than 4100 injuries each year in Australia.

      What's on the phone that can't wait or be achieved by using a hands free device that's legal? Do you think all of these driver's checking their phone's at the lights are not handling their devices while driving as well? A phone ringing in their lap where they left it after checking Instagram at the lights is a red hot way to run off the road or strike a pedestrian as you've shown is a major killer.

      Apologies for the long message, but hope that everyone's learned something today :)

      Sources:
      https://www.science.org.au/curious/technology-future/physics…
      http://www.tac.vic.gov.au/road-safety/statistics/summaries/y…
      http://www.tac.vic.gov.au/road-safety/statistics/online-cras…

  • Diji1 on 24/04/2019 - 22:49
    -1

    People keep voting in the Governments that are privatising everything and then complaining about it when the story for idiots that the politicians told turns out to be untrue.

    You'd think they'd learn by watching actions over the last 30 years that this has been occurring but they just keep voting and then complaining afterwards.

    • [Deactivated] on 24/04/2019 - 23:19
      +3

      How do the Greens propose to lower the road toll?

      • JIMB0 on 24/04/2019 - 23:43
        +7

        They'd just ban cars and make everyone cram onto public transport, ride a bike or walk.

      • [Deactivated] on 25/04/2019 - 00:30
        +1

        By stopping deforestation, closing coal power plants, stopping sales of combustion engine, implementing more laws on waste management…

        It's actually very effective. Essentially, the plan is to make the cost of living through the roof, reduce employment and overall GDP and destroy any potential for development.

        Can't have road deaths when there are no roads.

        (… just don't bring up dirt track death tolls)

        • [Deactivated] on 25/04/2019 - 00:32

          Can you please elaborate on dirt track death tolls

          • [Deactivated] on 25/04/2019 - 00:34
            +4

            @[Deactivated]: When you walk on a dirt track and a dirty hobo whacks you in the back of the head with a welfare funded crude club and makes away with whatever tradable currency you were carrying.

            Number #1 cause of dirt track deaths.

      • TheBooleanOne on 25/04/2019 - 16:34
        +1

        You're assuming diji will actually answer your question.

        His/her comment history clearly shows that they post sensationalist comments then runs off to find the next conversation, a bit Like a cat chasing a laser beam.

  • [Deactivated] on 24/04/2019 - 22:50
    +10

    Here’s a fact. Speed doesn’t kill. Bad driving does.

    • [Deactivated] on 24/04/2019 - 23:23
      +2

      And gambling is only irresponsible if you lose.

    • simonp86 on 25/04/2019 - 13:03
      -4

      Lol! Love it when people try to be clever with chestnuts like this. Here's another rhetorical device: "Guns don't kill people; people kill people"

      This isn't an argument dude; you're just 'begging the question'. What is your conclusion? That we shouldn't have speed limits? Should we not outlaw rocket launchers because they are only inanimate objects used by people? Yeah, no **** bad driving is the higher level 'distal' cause but that doesn't negate that speeding and/or other factors are proximate/immediate causes. Nor does it mean they shouldn't be penalised.

      I'm not in Victoria and not sure of the value in reducing the speed limit to 30km/hr but I can certainly see the value in low speed limits in extremely dense areas full of pedestrians. Whether its the ultimate 'cause' of the accident is irrelevant to the fact that a higher speed means greater kinetic energy and potential injuries to others.

      Also, this 'poll' is BS with the OP's loaded questions.

      • [Deactivated] on 25/04/2019 - 13:55
        +1

        Your gun analogy is stupid. So here are some facts. In Germany where there are unlimited sections of motorways, the road toll is 30% lower than Australia, despite them having weather conditions where ice and snow are on the roads, and serious heavy fog. These weather conditions would contribute to a significant spike in automobile accidents. The UK is the same. While they have 116kmh speed limits on motorways, these aren’t enforced (apart from signposted speed cameras and avg speed checks) until about 160kmh. Police don’t sit on motorways with radar guns out, they sit above motorways on overpasses, looking for dangerous drivers. The road toll in the UK is also 30% lower than here, despite more crowded roads, much higher speeds and much worse weather.

        • dbun1 on 25/04/2019 - 22:36
          +1

          Having driven in these countries, people are actually respectful of people driving faster than them and will pull over into the slower lane to give way.

          No such chance here.

          It’s this incompetent and selfish behaviour that contributes to accidents as it causes people to cut in and out of traffic or overtake illegally to get around the slow drivers.

          As a nation, drivers are not doing themselves any favours to gain the trust of law makers to consider removing restrictions. In fact, the rules cater to the lowest denominator and unfortunately as a society we are becoming stupider on the roads.

          • [Deactivated] on 25/04/2019 - 23:02
            +1

            @dbun1: Yep, I got brake tested by a guy who was driving at 75kmh in the fast lane the other day. He had a big gap on his left, didn’t change lanes, and when I flashed my headlights, the international symbol to change lanes, as a faster car is approaching, (after being stuck behind him for 3 or 4 kms), he brake checked me. When I got on my horn, he did it again.

      • p1 ama on 25/04/2019 - 17:55

        I can certainly see the value in low speed limits in extremely dense areas full of pedestrians. Whether its the ultimate 'cause' of the accident is irrelevant to the fact that a higher speed means greater kinetic energy and potential injuries to others.

        The common sense solution to this issue would be to separate pedestrians and cars. Failing that, the second best solution would be to teach people walking around to look for cars (and actually use their ears instead of listening to music) and people in cars to actually look out for people. I drive in the city a lot, I've seen near misses at <<< 30 km/h (sometimes as low as 10 - 15km/h) because of people's stupidity. Changing the speed limit to 30 km/h from 40km/h isn't going to make people better drivers or pedestrians.

    • Eeples on 25/04/2019 - 22:50

      I've got no evidence but I think when speeds between cars travelling on the same road is heaps different… then it is more likely accidents will happen.

  • pegaxs on 24/04/2019 - 22:55
    +1

    We have some of the harshes fines and restrictions in the world

    Hahaha… NSW laughs at your fines… Double demerits, biiiiiiitch! :D get on our level, scrubs.

    • spackbace on 24/04/2019 - 22:58
      -1

      Everything is more expensive in NSW 😂

      What's that, you can afford expensive housing? Awesome you'll be ok paying a higher fine 😂

      • pegaxs on 24/04/2019 - 23:06

        WA have some stupid pricing on fines… some things are really cheap, while other things that are inane are astronomical…

        In WA, go 45km/h over the speed limit and it’s $37 and a box of Tim Tams… wave to someone out the window, it’s 18 points, $507 and two rounds with a boxing kangaroo… (not actual examples, but close to it…)

        • spackbace on 24/04/2019 - 23:12

          Gotta make sure it's double coat Tim Tam's though otherwise they're not happy

        • p1 ama on 24/04/2019 - 23:56
          +1

          Not to mention that radar detectors are legal in WA. I might just move over to Perth after all.

  • garetz on 24/04/2019 - 23:24

    If you are fined instead of going to jail, then its always a means for revenue raising. The government cannot really do much in terms of preventative measures, the 2 most effective things they can do is send you to jail, or fine you, would you prefer to goto jail instead ? Cause im sure that can be arranged by an even more draconian government.

    • [Deactivated] on 24/04/2019 - 23:45
      +1

      My jail experience was mostly positive.

      • pegaxs on 24/04/2019 - 23:49

        How about your gaol experience?

        • [Deactivated] on 24/04/2019 - 23:53

          Let's not go there. That was not so pleasant. See spackbace comment below.

      • spackbace on 24/04/2019 - 23:49
        +6

        Username isnt applicable any more

    • p1 ama on 24/04/2019 - 23:58
      +1

      The government cannot really do much in terms of preventative measures, the 2 most effective things they can do is send you to jail, or fine you, would you prefer to goto jail instead ?

      The most effective preventative measure would be to educate people to drive, don't you think?

      • garetz on 25/04/2019 - 00:01
        +3

        Everyone who drives has a license, do they just give you that license for free ? What do you need to do to get a license, pretty sure education is part of that process.

        Yet there is still people who even though they have a license, and know all the rules, break those rules, hence fines. Education is a prerequisite but it definitely doesn't prevent stupidity.

        • p1 ama on 25/04/2019 - 00:22
          +1

          Everyone who drives has a license, do they just give you that license for free ?

          Yes, they pretty much do. In the case of some international drivers, they literally do without any test(s) on whether they can actually drive.

          What do you need to do to get a license, pretty sure education is part of that process.

          If you are under 21, you need to drive around for a certain number of hours. It keeps changing, but it's around 120 or something like that. This usually involves cruising around the freeway for hours on end with little educational value.

          If you are over 21, you can get your license just by sitting a test and showing someone that you can move a car around without hitting anything. Again, hardly the beacon of any education.

          Yet there is still people who even though they have a license, and know all the rules, break those rules, hence fines. Education is a prerequisite but it definitely doesn't prevent stupidity.

          You have to define what your goal is. If your goal is simply to get people to drive under a certain speed, then yes, just fine people until they do so. My point is that this is a meaningless goal - if the goal is about preventing deaths on roads and making roads safer, then you have to focus on other things apart from just enforcing menial road rules.

          The issue is one of honesty. If governments were honest about it and said that speed has little to do with road fatalities, but we like to enforce them anyway, then fine, at least they're upfront. But of course, then people would riot. So they do the tap dance. It's just like those who deny climate change, they can't go out and say that climate change is real, but they just don't care, so they resort to the tap dance.

        • Chewiebacca on 25/04/2019 - 00:51

          Idk about other states, but in Victoria the driving test is a joke. I remember discussing drivings tests with an uncle of mine who is a driving instructor in Stockholm, and the theory and practical testing was much more in-depth. There are multiple and extensive theoretical and practical tests, it was very common to fail many times, and if you are fined in the probationary period (first 2 years), your license is revoked and you need to resit the test to have it reinstated.

          Knowing how to press a few buttons and knobs in the car, stroll around for 20 mins, and execute a 3-point turn/parallel parking are evidently horribly insufficient.

          As a result, there are way too many incompetent drivers on our roads, and I don't believe police sitting on the side of the road with a 'safety' camera waiting for people to come around the corner 5km/h over the speed limit are helping at all.

          Increased police presence pulling unroadworthy cars off of the road would be a great start imo. I'm also all for mandatory repeat testing, doing the test once in your teens and passing by the skin of your teeth (I've seen it too many times) and never having to sit another test again in your life is a recipe for disaster. Mandatory repeat testing with a skill scoring system to establish future frequency, regardless of age, would go a long way.

          • Other on 25/04/2019 - 10:24
            +1

            @Chewiebacca: Most people die of fatigue, so doing what you want probably would Not have the effect you want.

      • simonp86 on 25/04/2019 - 13:28

        What exactly would that entail? You and others bash 'speeding' as irrelevant vis a vis 'education' as those they are mutually exclusive; and without really defining what you mean, or how efficient/economical it would be to implement. Driving training and testing here in QLD is certainly far more intensive and regulated that it used to be.

        I agree there are a multiple of issues that make for bad driving. I get enraged at poor lane discipline, inability to get up to speed and merge, and most of all the endless idiots (especially on the weekend) who cruise down the freeway touching their brakes every 10 seconds for no apparent reason. I'm also a cyclist and, while most drivers are courteous, I tire of the aggro and impatience of some - nearly all of which relates to wanting to get somewhere faster than those around them.

        I'm 32 and I've noticed far more drivers stick within the vicinity of 100km/hr on the hwy than used to (at least from what I remember as a kid). I've no doubt it's safer (certainly feels it) than it used to be; and I think a lot of it is due to the increased prevalence of speed cameras, gov campaigns, and higher penalties.

        I agree that a single minded focus (presumably detrimental to other areas of focus) on penalising minor speeding (circa 5kmh over) is indicative of misplaced resources/priorities. But I can also think that speeding in general often at least correlates to bad/aggressive/unfocused drivers, and accidents. So, while it's not a catch-all or a panacea, given the relative ease of detection& punishment compared to other aspects of bad driving, it makes sense that governments focus on it.

        • p1 ama on 25/04/2019 - 22:12

          What you're saying isn't an atypical opinion, but it's the reason why we have some of the most draconian road laws and enforcement in the world. Australia's roads are relatively safe. They're well built, visibility is generally good and other drivers (for the most part) tend to drive in a very boring (i.e. predictable) way. This means that as a driver, you can be a pretty bad and/or lazy driver and everything's fine. That is, until something goes wrong and you're in a crash and you have no idea what to do. Having spent a lot of time in many other areas of the world, if you drove with the attitude that people have in Australia, you would be dead. Literally.

          I actually have quite a few licenses - specifically motorbike and RPL (recreational pilot license). In attaining those licenses, not only did I have to go through a pretty rigorous education program, but we are specifically taught about how dangerous the world is and how a mistake can mean we die. Drivers tend to be pretty oblivious. Unsurprising because driving is actually relatively safe.

          It's really interesting, but when I talk to car drivers about how to make the road safer, it's always about other people. Get other people to be better drivers, stop other people from speeding…etc. It's never about what they can do to keep themselves safer. People don't drive defensively. Talk to a rider about staying safe and they'll tell you that you need to be alert when you ride, you need to pay attention to cars and you need to understand that everything can kill you. It's totally a different mindset.

          But I can also think that speeding in general often at least correlates to bad/aggressive/unfocused drivers, and accidents. So, while it's not a catch-all or a panacea, given the relative ease of detection& punishment compared to other aspects of bad driving, it makes sense that governments focus on it.

          The issue when you say this is that it's not backed up by any data. Why would you think that someone who is driving faster than an arbitrarily defined limit is somehow an unfocused driver? Most of the unfocused drivers I see tend to drive slower than everyone else whilst looking at their phones, sightseeing or doing their makeup.

          I think it's all an interesting discussion, but I think some perspective is nice. The number of people who die from traffic accidents is not a leading cause of death in Australia (see https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/by%20Subject…), so I do think that a lot of the resources used to fund traffic enforcement can be used for perhaps more fruitful things. Either way, regardless of how well you enforce road rules, there will always be idiots who wrap themselves around a tree.

    • [Deactivated] on 25/04/2019 - 00:38

      The government cannot really do much in terms of preventative measures

      Yes they can. Remove dangerous drivers that are already a directly significant road risk and also indirectly by causing other people to avoid them and cause a collision instead.

      Of course, they will lose the vote of this very mentally regressed and typically single issue voters.

  • singlemalt72 on 25/04/2019 - 00:03
    +12

    What a (profanity) stupid poll

    • [Deactivated] on 25/04/2019 - 00:10
      +4

      I agree. Where is the bikies option?

    • pegaxs on 25/04/2019 - 13:08

      I agree. I cannot vote on it because it's biased. I don't want to give any money to the government, but the laws need to be changed and the punishment has to be deterrent. The poll was obviously written by someone who is on the "iT's ReVeNuE RaiSiNg" meme bandwagon, as every answers is about it being about revenue, and not about improving safety.

  • [Deactivated] on 25/04/2019 - 00:26
    +1

    Mate, "too far" is too far in the rear view mirror, which by the way, I am afraid to peek into incase I'm not looking at my dash and creep a touch too fast.

    The correct way to drive in Victoria is eyes on the dash and look up occasionally so you don't run into a service station and cause a massive fireball that will incinerate women and children because that's a very hefty fine.

  • DogGunn on 25/04/2019 - 01:13
    +12

    That's a really stupid poll. Doesn't matter what you vote for, the OP has their opinion in each option.

  • Wystri Warrick on 25/04/2019 - 06:01
    +1

    Op did you get a speeding fine?…

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 25/04/2019 - 13:45

      No just read the paper saw the death toll was almost double

  • EightImmortals on 25/04/2019 - 07:23
    +2

    Yep, fines (taxes) and rules keep increasing and the road toll stays the same of increases. It is all a revenue grab. If they were interested in reducing the road toll there are plenty of other things they could be doing…but they aren't.

    These guys have the right idea.

    http://www.aussiespeedingfines.com/pages/2019-%252d-Current-…

    As we have detailed on our website for some 12 years now - http://aussiespeedingfines.com/downloads/Crash_Statistics.xl… - speed is only “a” factor – not even “the” factor – in just 5% of accidents! So, why the big push to reduce speed and reduce speeding???

    This article– https://driving.ca/volvo/features/feature-story/motor-mouth-… - was released after the EU announcement that we referred to in the previous section and it asks a very powerful question – “If speed really does kill, why is driving so much safer in Germany?” It is a very balanced, ‘middle of the road article’ but well worth a read because, even from that position, it makes it pretty clear what speed limits are really all about.

    Then, there are articles like this one - https://thewest.com.au/news/traffic/speed-up-to-save-lives-s… - where former F1 racing driver, Mark Webber explains why raising the speed limits could, in fact, make our roads safer and save lives. This, of course, mirrors exactly what we have been telling our Members for the last 12 years!

    In fact, he explains, almost word-for-word, the same thing that we do – if the speed limits weren’t so low, people wouldn’t try and use their mobile phones and, of course, the faster you drive, the more you concentrate – these are the things that will save lives on our roads, not just constantly reducing the speed limits.

    The remainder of the article confirms what we said earlier, that there has been a systematic reduction in speed limits across many major roads, purely in order to raise more revenue for the government.

    The same story is repeated in video format via this link - https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=815987235412741

    What the governments should be focussing more on is some of the true road safety initiatives that we have had outlined on our Vision for the Future page - http://www.aussiespeedingfines.com/pages/Vision-for-the-Futu… - for many years now.

    People need to be better educated when it comes to road safety and far more pro-active about the condition of their vehicles. If you look towards the end of the “Benefits of TPMS” section on this page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tire-pressure_monitoring_syste… - you will see that it states that; “The French Sécurité Routière, a road safety organization, estimates that 9% of all road accidents involving fatalities are attributable to tire under-inflation, and the German DEKRA, a product safety organization, estimated that 41% of accidents with physical injuries are linked to tire problems.”

    • singlemalt72 on 25/04/2019 - 19:05
      +1

      If speed really does kill, why is driving so much safer in Germany?
      You have to compare apples with apples, it's easy to say that "People in Germany drive at 200 plus and have less deaths" but you are not looking at the whole picture.

      Part of the development of the Autobahns was also a series of very high end trauma response hospitals with fast response helicopter retrieval teams that allow fast medical intervention for those (inevitable) crashes.

      To apply the same type of service in Australia would be cost prohibitive.

      Drive faster and you hit with more force, more force means higher chance of more serious consequence - this is very simple and absolute. Sure better roads/cars/training/attitude all go into the equation, but faster speed = greater chance of death/serious injury.

  • srhardy on 25/04/2019 - 09:12
    +3

    My brother just came back from a holiday in Japan where he told me,
    1) awesome roads with electronic tolls but you get tunnels everywhere
    2) no speed limits to speak of, everyone drives as per the road and conditions
    3) no police, no cameras, no fines unless you crash

    Everyone follows the rules, drives safe and he loved his campervan trip and to my surprise wants to go back for a longer driving holiday!

    • Other on 25/04/2019 - 10:26

      wow - leaving people to their own devices and not treating them like idiots?!

      What! But how would the sheep respond?!

      • Ughhh on 25/04/2019 - 11:27
        +6

        The culture and entitlement mentality is vastly different between Australia and Japan.

        If people choose to act like idiots, they will be treated as such.

        • Other on 25/04/2019 - 11:51

          Could part of that been the Government attitude towards people?

          That you treat people like idiots then they will act like idiots?

          • Ughhh on 25/04/2019 - 12:16
            +4

            @Other: Have you seen some of the post on the forums?

            If it weren't for the Gov/law enforcers stating the obvious, they would be dead. Modern laws are usually a reaction to society.

            People here love to be spoon fed and are oblivious to everything else.

            • Other on 25/04/2019 - 14:46
              +1

              @Ughhh:

              Modern laws are usually a reaction to society.

              Laws are nothing without adequate deterrent. If you don't fear the punishment why would you care?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join