Road Toll Keeps Going up While Police Are Busy Barking up The Wrong Tree

RSmith on 20/05/2023 - 10:40
Last edited 23/05/2023 - 14:20 by 1 other user

Another blitz by police…

https://www.drive.com.au/news/police-targeting-speeding-driv…

Like many others in the past. I don't understand why the road toll keeps going up and after every crash leading to a fatality, police regurgitate the same lines…

Speeding was a factor.

A recent crash where a BMW ran a red light and hit a Honda leading to fatalities, the first line from police was… Speeding was a factor, and the second part of their statement was also the fact that the driver of BMW failed to obey the road signs.

https://www.9news.com.au/national/two-killed-in-crash-at-cau…

Speed is easy to measure hence easy to punish the drivers. How someone drives is hard to quantify. Last week I saw a man doing 70 on the eastern freeway. He wasn't speeding, but it was certainly dangerous driving.

If police had a more visible presence, there is actually a possibility of road toll going down. But what we have is an undue emphasis on speed whilst overlooking the other factors leading to road fatalities.

/Rant over.

General Discussion

Comments

  • spackbace on 20/05/2023 - 10:45
    +30

    https://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/ongoing/road_deaths_au…

    In 2022, there were 1,194 road crash deaths. This is an increase of 5.8 per cent from 2021. Over the decade national fatalities have remained largely flat.

    Fatality rates per population declined over the decade by a total of 10.4 per cent (from 5.1 to 4.6). The largest reductions in this rate were in New South Wales (down 20.1 per cent) and in South Australia (down 33.5 per cent).

    You were saying?

    • TEER3X on 20/05/2023 - 10:47
      +43

      OP copped a speeding ticket in the mail

      • RSmith on 20/05/2023 - 10:49
        +15

        Nope. Haven't had one in 25 years of driving. Take that.

      • spackbace on 20/05/2023 - 10:49
        +22

        Don't quote The Guardian as facts… I've presented the facts

          • spackbace on 20/05/2023 - 10:51
            +29

            @RSmith: I clearly presented you with a graph showing 10yr results, which shows the actual picture

            Not some comparison of 1yr vs another, but shows what's trending and guess what? It's trending down

              • spackbace on 20/05/2023 - 10:55
                +34

                @RSmith: If you want to look like you have no idea what you're ranting about then go ahead :)

                Getting "old man yells at cloud" vibes here. Happy to rant, yet not happy when stats show your argument is wrong

                  • spackbace on 20/05/2023 - 10:58
                    +18

                    @RSmith: What rise? Over 10yrs, the numbers have reduced per population.

                    There was a drop over 2020/2021, which makes sense if you think about it…

                    • RSmith on 20/05/2023 - 10:58
                      -3

                      @spackbace:

                      There was a drop over 2020/2021, which makes sense if you think about it…

                      I wonder why…

                      • hawkshead on 21/05/2023 - 20:43
                        +6

                        @RSmith: Is it possible private news company has an interest in finding any story no matter how skewed to generate interest and catch the eye of a reader?

                        • Antikythera on 23/05/2023 - 18:11
                          +3

                          @hawkshead: " private news company has an interest in finding any story no matter how skewed"

                          my brother was a police officer in the accident investigation squad.
                          A Current Affair came to do a story.

                          He spent a whole day driving around with a reporter and film crew.
                          He gave explanations of dangerous drivers and other risky situations.
                          At one point they asked him if women drivers caused more accidents.
                          He gave them a detailed answer talking about statistics etc suggesting men were involved in more fatal accidents.

                          They spent ten minutes with another officer in the unit. They asked him about women drivers.
                          He laughed and said "maybe!"

                          The story on the show was a beat up about women drivers. The only showed 30 seconds of footage from the day filming. it was the other officer.

                    • Binchicken22 on 21/05/2023 - 20:31

                      @spackbace: We probably need a better indicator than just "per population" to make an accurate judgement.

                      Maybe more people take public transport now too, so the overall numbers of hours Australians drive is less, I don't know, just spitballing.

              • end255 on 23/05/2023 - 18:55

                @RSmith: Where is it?

        • Shoocat on 20/05/2023 - 10:50
          +6

          Both facts can be true - it can have gone up over the last year but declined over the last decade.

          • spackbace on 20/05/2023 - 10:51
            +7

            @Shoocat: Of course, but cherry-picking one to go against the other isn't a very smart debate

        • lostgoat on 21/05/2023 - 11:39

          Yeah 1 time I agree with you .

      • SBOB on 20/05/2023 - 10:51
        +10

        You mean…in that year/s post significant lockdown and travel restrictions, road related incidents are up
        Shocked I tell you….shocked.

      • freefall101 on 20/05/2023 - 16:15
        +1

        Breakdown what is written here.

        6% over last year - meaningless because 2021 had less traffic on the road.
        Significantly higher than before the Covid pandemic is technically true, but only if you cherrypick 2018 as your year it's higher than. The article provides no data on what this actually means, they state it as fact without any kind of justification.
        Worse than long-term safety targets is because the target was to reduce deaths by 50% in 2030. We are not on track to hit that is because deaths are going down but not fast enough.

        Nowhere does it say that road deaths are, in general, rising. The journalist here has decide to write that road deaths are a horrible problem when really, it's getting better but not as quickly as we'd like.

        • dave999 on 22/05/2023 - 09:16

          Death are reducing slowly, but targeting speeding doesn't seem productive use of resources and clearly is not really working.

          Some other areas that would be better to target:
          - Only 1/3 of people live in rural areas but 2/3 of fatalities are in rural areas
          - The fatality rate for 17-20 is 12.5 times that of drivers aged 45- 49 for each km driven
          - Pedestrian deaths are on the rise

          https://www.officeofroadsafety.gov.au/data-hub/fatalities-da…
          https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/migrat…
          https://research.qut.edu.au/carrsq/wp-content/uploads/sites/…

          • freefall101 on 22/05/2023 - 09:31
            +2

            @dave999:

            Death are reducing slowly, but targeting speeding doesn't seem productive use of resources and clearly is not really working.

            That deaths are reducing at all as population grows seems to suggest it's clearly working, just not as well as we'd like.

            Only 1/3 of people live in rural areas but 2/3 of fatalities are in rural areas

            That's because rural areas tend to have much higher speed limits, longer roads and much lower levels of policing. It's a bit harder to die doing 50km/h in the city than 110km/h on the freeway.

            This would be meaningful if rural people died per km at a higher rate, but all this suggests is people speed more in quiet areas.

            • The fatality rate for 17-20 is 12.5 times that of drivers aged 45- 49 for each km driven

            The risk of serious crash involvement is 12.5 times, death is 6.7 times.

            This is why the states are pushing for higher and higher requirements for young drivers, because experience matters. But what's the solution here that we could spend money on that we aren't?

            Pedestrian deaths are on the rise

            Only if you ignore the whole covid thing that meant people drove less. Pedestrian deaths are lower than 2019.

            • dave999 on 22/05/2023 - 09:51
              +1

              @freefall101: Not sure what your point is - I was just showing where the death are actually happening because it is actually the deaths that should be minimised and targeted. Deaths rates are clearly not evenly spread over demographics. Probably resources should be target more directly at the demographics that contribute to the most deaths.
              There is only a certain number of dollars and time spent on reducing the road toll each year. It seems that a large proportion is spent on targeting speeding. The question is, is that the most productive use of resources or if they used the resources differently would there be better outcomes?
              The fact is that the majority of news articles are about speeding and not about rural or 17-20 year old deaths is my point.

              • freefall101 on 22/05/2023 - 10:47

                @dave999:

                The fact is that the majority of news articles are about speeding and not about rural or 17-20 year old deaths is my point.

                Because speeding on rural roads and speeding 17-20 year olds is what causes deaths. It's not like rural roads or being 18 themselves are the cause, it's just where people speed more.

                Same reason they target drink driving and distracted driving so heavily, you're focused on the demographic and not the cause. The cause is what kills people, not the demographic.

                • dave999 on 22/05/2023 - 11:03
                  +1

                  @freefall101: I'm sorry, that is just ridiculous nit picking, just like your previous comments which I didn't bother to dissect to correct you.

                  What you are saying is the person driving the car is not the cause of the accident, it is what that person is doing caused the accident. They are the same person.

                  "Because speeding on rural roads and speeding 17-20 year olds is what causes deaths" - this comment is fundamentally the problem, is it actually speeding is the reason for the high death toll or is fatigue, alcohol, drugs, lack of attention, lack of skill playing a bigger part. The obsession with speed at the expense of anything else is not productive.

                  Besides everyone already knows they are going to be targeting speeding - they always have and always will. Perhaps they should get some other messages out a bit more often.

                  • freefall101 on 22/05/2023 - 12:11

                    @dave999: It's not ridiculous nit picking, you were saying we should focus on rural roads and young drivers, I'm pointing out that it's a complete waste to time to do so.

                    If all you were trying to say is we shouldn't focus on speeding, why not say that? And why ask me for the details instead of just finding them? This feels like stabbing around in the dark just to be pedantic about speeding when it's still a primary contributor to road deaths.

                    Besides everyone already knows they are going to be targeting speeding - they always have and always will. Perhaps they should get some other messages out a bit more often.

                    Finish this sentence for me. If you drink and drive you're a - . If you didn't know that driving under the influence was illegal then I don't know how to help you. Booze buses are everywhere, drink driving campaigns are everywhere.

                    I dunno how you missed the news about mobile phone cameras. Fatigue driving signs are everywhere and campaigns have been endless (I still remember those shock ads from the 90s of someone drifting off and plowing into a truck. They worked, too, fatigue used to be a more common cause of death than it is now).

                    Thirty-two per cent of road fatalities in Australia have speeding as a contributing factor, closely followed by alcohol. Speeding is also just easier to target, so why not go after the low hanging fruit?

          • SpendLess on 22/05/2023 - 10:37
            +1

            @dave999: sounds like we need to raise the driving age to 45

            • jackspratt on 22/05/2023 - 11:20

              @SpendLess: And then - according to one pundit on here - re-test them every 6 months.

          • Krankite on 23/05/2023 - 12:04

            @dave999: you left out that under 20s have the same corrected risk as over 80s but your not wrong about targeting speeding not being the best solution

    • SBOB on 20/05/2023 - 10:50
      +2

      But it's clearly just nanny state revenue raising, as drivers are clearly forced to exceed simple road rules.
      Right :/

      • RSmith on 20/05/2023 - 10:52

        I haven't mentioned anything about revenue raising. But if you say so, I am open to believing it.

    • bobbified on 20/05/2023 - 12:00
      +1

      I agree that the fatality rates have gone down based on the population, number of cars and the amount of driving.

      My problem is, whenever the politicians need an excuse to increase the number of speed cameras, fines or whatever, they use the 'simple' figure (as per OP) to highlight their points. Especially in their "towards zero" crap that they keep spewing.

      Whenever someone needs to "prove" that the 'road safety' strategies are working, they rely on the figures based on population or kms driven per whatever (as per your article).

      Can't (well, shouldn't) have it both ways!

      • hawkshead on 21/05/2023 - 20:45

        no information to back this but is it possible that these programs have resulted in an actual decrease in fatalities however unpopular they may be with drivers and thats why they are implemented?

    • Bren20 on 21/05/2023 - 12:45
      +4

      Some other interesting stats from the BITRE report.

      • 20% of vehicle fatalities weren't wearing a seatbelt
      • 20% of vehicle fatalities include a drink driver
      • 15% include an unlicensed driver
      • Lord Fart Bucket on 22/05/2023 - 14:50
        +1

        What percentage fell in all 3 categories?

      • juki on 23/05/2023 - 08:15

        people still dont wear seatbelts ?!!

        • NigelTufnel on 24/05/2023 - 13:49
          +1

          Not when you're drunk and unlicensed!

    • random101 on 22/05/2023 - 06:54

      Per population of cat owners?

      Does this account for new technologies of cars?

      Does it account for congestion?

      Speeding and unsafe driving are not the same thing

    • shutuptakemymoney101 on 23/05/2023 - 21:31

      Safer roads, safer cars, less people on the road due to WFH - Surely the reduction can't all be down to getting a ticket in the mail a month after the event?

  • pharkurnell on 20/05/2023 - 10:54
    +26

    More and more cars on the road with drivers who are in a rush to get nowhere, and are only taught how to pass their test not how to drive.
    Also plenty of people comin from overseas with dodgy licenses who are not tested when they get here to prove they can drive.

    Shit road conditions add to it…

    all makes sense to me.

    • RSmith on 20/05/2023 - 10:55

      Thanks for a sensible answer.

      • GrueHunter on 21/05/2023 - 13:04
        +24

        Today I learned the meaning of the word ‘sensible’ has changed to mean ‘agrees with me because also can’t read basic statistics’

    • spackbace on 20/05/2023 - 10:56
      +5

      Except over the last 10yrs, road toll per population has decreased. Actual total number of deaths nationally has stayed around the same

      So maybe there's something to be said about what's being put in place, and/or safety features on new cars

      • barge-in hunter on 20/05/2023 - 12:12

        Agreed. I imagine a lot of fatalities are caused by fatigue or inattentive driving - lane departure warnings, traffic sign/light recognition and aeb may not prevent these accidents, but reduce the impacts of an accident enough for drivers to survive

        To bridge the gap between these two opinions, we need stats around the total number of accidents by year, overlayed by the fatal ones. Unfortunately it’s something that even law enforcement groups wouldn’t have. Maybe insurance companies?

        • tomfool on 22/05/2023 - 09:37
          +1

          A better statistic would likely be number of road accidents now vs 10 years ago. Car safety would play a significant role in the reduced number of fatalities on the roads. Even a reduction in the number of accidents could be put down to new features on new model cars. Speed may be a factor but not to the extent they like to say.

      • Binchicken22 on 21/05/2023 - 20:33
        +1

        Yeah probably more to your second point, looking at a crash test of a car 20 years ago to now, the road toll should be about 1/8th with all else remaining the same!

      • hawkshead on 21/05/2023 - 20:47

        It's almost like the unpopular amongst people who don't want to get a fine for speeding or carrying their mobile phone or drinking and driving programs to reduce these things have made our roads safer? as if they were implemented by some group of people who thought about how to do that?

        • dave999 on 22/05/2023 - 09:33
          -1

          Or maybe the road toll isn't really dropping and people are asking questions whether the current focus is not working at there would be more productive use of resources to reduce the road toll than decades of hammering on about speeding. It is highly debatable that the focus on speeding has achieved much at all. The fatality rate has only improved slowly. It could be argued that cars being a lot safer in both crash survivability and crash avoidance, blackspots have been removed and other factors have contributed the majority of the improvement.
          I'm not advocating speeding or reduction in fines and penalties at all - but surely there are more significant issues than just targeting speeding.

      • Antikythera on 23/05/2023 - 18:14

        road toll is only still high because population has increased?

        so you saying its all these immigrants that cant drive?

        edit: oh shit I was making a joke and then i see all these racist (profanity) with similar comments.

    • jm7 on 20/05/2023 - 11:16
      +3

      A friend's husband has been driving here on an overseas licence for 10 years. Doesn't want to get a local one because he knows he won't be able to pass the test. He's even shown his overseas licence to police recently and they didn't bat an eyelid.

      • reactor-au on 21/05/2023 - 08:16
        +1

        At least NSW is cracking down on that somewhat
        https://www.drive.com.au/news/nsw-cracks-down-on-foreign-vis…

        • jm7 on 21/05/2023 - 09:03

          Hopefully other states follow suit. My friend's husband is from Mauritius though.

      • rumblytangara on 21/05/2023 - 20:30

        Might be in a spot if trouble if he has an accident and insurance gets involved.

        • jm7 on 22/05/2023 - 15:12

          Funny you say this… He had an accident last year, provided his Mauritian licence to his insurer and received the pay out.

    • hawkshead on 21/05/2023 - 20:45
      +5

      I feel like blame the immigrants is a pretty low hanging fruit.

      • Boogerman on 22/05/2023 - 06:40

        After immigrants it’s poor people

      • jm7 on 22/05/2023 - 15:19
        +3

        I think it's more about ensuring everyone knows what the road rules are, particularly when Australian road rules differ from other countries and you can even pay a corrupt official for a licence in some countries. There's also the issue of unlimited demerit points for overseas licence holders which allows people with many infringements to continue driving.
        It's pretty concerning that people aren't transferring their licences to local ones because they are unable to pass the driving test. If you are unable to pass the test, you shouldn't be on the road putting other people at risk.

  • Ughhh on 20/05/2023 - 11:12
    +1

    If the BMW crashed into the Honda at 50kmph, would it have been a fatality or maybe just injuries?

    Education and awareness is definitely needed. But it's hard to control ie. Make sure everyone uses what they learn. I'm pretty sure everyone knows smoking increases chance of cancer, but we still get new smokers. What other driver variables can be controlled?

    If police had a more visible presence

    LOL I can sense blood boiling from certain users here upon reading your suggestion.

    • DashCam AKA Rolts on 20/05/2023 - 14:57

      If the BMW crashed into the Honda at 50kmph was there an indication?

      • jackary on 20/05/2023 - 19:14
        +6

        BMW

        indication

        no

      • Ughhh on 21/05/2023 - 13:44

        The indication of an idiot is there in either situation.
        You cant stop or eradicate idiots, but you can implement controls to reduce the impact of idiots.

    • hawkshead on 21/05/2023 - 20:48

      I feel like smoking has gone down significantly.

      • Gdsamp on 22/05/2023 - 13:46

        It will go up if the incoming vape ban is effective

  • shaybisc on 20/05/2023 - 11:24
    +7

    Humans are incompetent. It is amazing that anybody survives with only painted lines to separate them from oncoming traffic.

    • doctordv8 on 20/05/2023 - 12:18

      Painted lines and Faith…although given the stupidity of many drivers…Luck is in there too.
      Still boils down to 100% Compliance of the Road Rules….. which bring us back to the Centre White Line…Thou shalt not cross!!!

  • [Deactivated] on 20/05/2023 - 11:28
    +35

    Can confirm that if both cars weren't moving, they wouldn't hit each other. So speed was definitely a factor.

    • SanguinarySeraph on 21/05/2023 - 22:41
      +2

      This is what irritates me every time I read ‘speed was a factor’. It’s a non statement.

      It’s impossible for objects to collide with zero speed.

      • the4thzodiac on 22/05/2023 - 18:01

        You gotta be clearer.

        Are we talking about elastic or non-elastic collisions?

  • pegaxs on 20/05/2023 - 12:07
    +10

    Government is too worried about holding a committee on if they want to install noise generators in EV's or not. Not the fact that the biggest issue is shit drivers not how much noise the car makes.

    There needs to be harsher learner driving testing in place and stop giving licenses to people who are "yeah, well, near enough" and start re-testing every 10 years and after 50, every 5 years.

    After stepping out onto a school pedestrian crossing yesterday in front of a car doing 60~70km/h in a school zone and being abused by the driver because they had to stop for me shows that an attitude change is what is needed. Police are addicted to speeding tickets because they are easy to police and an easy scapegoat, when what they need to be doing is policing other areas of the road rules. There are 400+ rules in the legislation and only about 5 of them ever seem to be policed.

    • GordonD on 20/05/2023 - 13:32
      +10

      There needs to be harsher learner driving testing in place and stop giving licenses to people who are "yeah, well, near enough" and start re-testing every 10 years and after 50, every 5 years.

      This is an example of why its pointless to hold a discussion on road safety on an internet forum. Because people who know nothing about road safety are convinced their opinions must be true.

      Road safety is a field in which a lot of research has been done. One of the areas that has been researched is the factors behind road deaths. It was discovered a long long time ago that it isn't a lack of skills that causes the sorts of serious crashes that result in deaths, it is people deliberately taking risks. And, perversely, the ones who do that are the ones who are convinced they are the most skilled. It was decades ago they looked at three groups, those will only minimal skills, those with a reasonable amount of skills, and those who had developed a lot of skills before they were handed a licence. And the group who were subsequently the most likely to kill themselves or someone else were the last of those three. Because serious road crashes are overwhelming committed because of over-confidence resulting in risk taking - pushing things to the limit because they were sure they could get away with it - not lack of skills.

      start re-testing every 10 years and after 50, every 5 years

      The serious crash rate by age us a U-shaped curve. For young people the risk is high. Once people get even 20, and especially when they get past 25, the likelihood they'll have a serious crash has reduced by an order of magnitude. There is simply no point in wasting the huge amount of resources that would be required to keep retesting them and keep retesting them. And when they get past 70 they rarely kill anyone else, if they have a crash and someone dies it'll be them themselves, because they are fragile. They aren't a risk to anyone else. And if you take their licence away because their vision and their reflexes aren't what they used to be, they actually die earlier through loss of social connections.

      That said, I've been arguing to my state's licencing authorities that licence renewal time would be a good opportunity to give a knowledge test asking about recent rule chances to pick up cognitive and knowledge problems.

      • pegaxs on 20/05/2023 - 20:13
        +11

        it isn't a lack of skills that causes the sorts of serious crashes that result in deaths, it is people deliberately taking risks.

        What's another way to say this? "People driving beyond their capabilities/thinking they can driver better than what they actually can…"

        What's something that can cause a person to have a higher valued opinion of their driving skills vs the reality of their shit driving skills? Being given a license when they shouldn't have been given one. One of the biggest reasons for giving everyone a license, regardless of how bad they are, is because "revenue". These shit drivers then go on to pay for their license, go out and buy a car, pay stamp duty, pay rego, pay insurance, pay GST, pay fuel excise, etc and inevitably, get booked for driving like the shit drivers they are. Bad drivers are good for the state's bottom line.

        start re-testing every 10 years and after 50, every 5 years.

        This forum is a living testament to the amount of clueless drivers there are out there that got their license back in 1978 by driving past a copper at the police station. Road rules are ever evolving each year, and you cant tell me that the boomer that got their license from the back of a weetbix box doesn't need a refresher after 40+ years? You cant tell me that some old biddy, operating on 1972 knowledge, hell, 1994 knowledge, is a safe driver. All this "give way to the right" and "right of way" 1980's road rules bullshit that comes up here every accident/fine post is mind numbing.

        There is simply no point in wasting the huge amount of resources that would be required to keep retesting them…

        It's every 10 years… not every 12 months. In NSW, we are forced to have our cars checked every 12 months, but you dont want to re-test drivers once every 10 years? Go to renew your license, here, while you wait, sit down and do this quick 30~40 question knowledge test… Fail that and it's off to the full driver's test for you…

        My point is, there is a massive skill shortage with most drivers. A large majority are inept at best, but the government wants to focus on bullshit instead of focusing on things that would improve driver skills. If you do a drivers course, you get a discount on rego/license renewal, this would be more helpful than "Let's put a noise maker on every EV because of the 0.001% of pedestrians that are blind…"

        Unfortunately, there is no easy fix for the entitlement so many drivers seem to exude in great quantities nor for the Dunning Kruger sufferers that somehow got past their license test. They are the things we need to fix.

        Also, I didn't entertain your "deaths" rant, because it's not something I mentioned.

        My point was that there needs to be stricter testing, re-testing and police need to enforce ALL the road rules, not just the ones that make them the most money. "Speeding" is not the big killer they make it out to be, it's a scapegoat to push an agenda, "skill" or lack there of, is the biggest killer on our roads. Lack of skill, knowledge and a lack of patience, not someone doing 104 in a 100km/h zone.

      • danyool on 21/05/2023 - 23:28

        licence renewal time would be a good opportunity to give a knowledge test asking about recent rule chances to pick up cognitive and knowledge problems

        QLD has entered the chat

    • jackspratt on 21/05/2023 - 17:43
      -4

      After stepping out onto a school pedestrian crossing yesterday in front of a car doing 60~70km/h in a school zone …..

      Why would you be dopey enough to do something like that?

      Hopefully you show better judgement when you are behind the wheel.

    • Minimum chips on 22/05/2023 - 20:59

      There are 400+ rules in the legislation and only about 5 of them ever seem to be policed.

      Overall this has such an impact on driver behaviour. When there is no real penalty for driving with headlights off at night, running red lights, changing lanes without indicating - when the police aren't on the roads to stop obviously intoxicated drivers - it creates a road culture where people feel like they can just do what they want.

      That isn't to say police should ignore speeding or pretending they have the manpower to be on every road all the time. But some indication these rules matter would be amazing.

  • GordonD on 20/05/2023 - 14:50
    +4

    There's a saying in road safety that engineers want policies that work, bureaucrats want ones that are easy to administer, and politicians want ones that get their name onto the front pages. It didn't take being involved in road safety for long to see which policies fitted into which category. And to see that some policies are based on good solid science, others are based on what looks like scientific research, but is actually twisting the facts to get the result that will get the desired result, and in the case of some no-one cares whether it actually works.

    The original .08 BAC was based on good science. Lowering it to .05 wasn't. And double demerits on long weekends was a case of no-one caring whether it worked and was fair, it got headlines.

    Speed limit enforcement works when it is directed at serious speeding, because it catches the scofflaws. The ones that don't think the law applies to them, or should. Who think they can hoon around taking whatever risks they like that are fun. Unfortunately the flaw in the idea is that because they don't think the law applies to them they don't stop doing it when they are caught and lose their licences. Speed limit enforcement with tight enforcement margins simply doesn't work. Except as revenue generation. Visible speed enforcement works because people behave better when they think they're being watched. That's the benefit of Victoria police loudly announcing a blitz on speeding. And if they don't actually do it, and aren't seen doing it, and can't announce lots of people booked, they won't be believed the next time they say they are going to do it.

    • xylarr on 21/05/2023 - 12:47

      What about road works - 40km/h.
      Currently in Sydney, on the western side of the ANZAC bridge is a bunch of roadworks - and it's 40km/h through there. The "normal" speed through there is either 60 or 70 depending on the precise location.
      Pretty much no-one is doing 40km/h - even with workmen there.
      I wonder if the police should just set up a speed trap there - they'd get a 90% hit rate at least 10km/h over the limit, sometimes 20 or even 30.

      /rant_over

  • Chris Topher on 20/05/2023 - 19:08
    +2

    Kids etc. in stolen cars while high on drugs etc. are the cause of more collisions causing injury and deaths than you will see in the news.

    Red lights, green lights, stop signs, give way signs all equal zero compliance by those that don't care or have nothing to lose.

    • hawkshead on 21/05/2023 - 20:50
      +1

      so far we've had blame immigrants, now blame youth. this thread is going really well.

      • fusion17 on 22/05/2023 - 14:02

        I blame the area I live in - south west Sydney

      • pharkurnell on 22/05/2023 - 18:33

        truth hurts sometimes..

    • SpainKing on 22/05/2023 - 12:26

      Any road accident (save for extremely unique cases reported for the novelty) is going to be more prevalent than what the news reports. They're not going to report every accident that happens or it would take up all their programming time

    • bobbified on 21/05/2023 - 01:58
      +1

      Inside a car is probably the safest place to be…

      Unless the car is on fire…. 🤷‍♂️

      • spackbace on 21/05/2023 - 10:07

        It's still fine

    • GordonD on 21/05/2023 - 12:26
      +2

      Of those killed by autos, nearly two thirds are pedestrians

      That's total and complete nonsense!

      The figure for Australia, for example, is that just under 1 in 2 are drivers, about 1 in 6 are passengers, about 1 in 5 are motorcyclists, one in 30 are pedal cyclists, and about 1 in 8 are pedestrians.

  • garddn on 21/05/2023 - 07:42
    +8

    The continuous fascination of a zero road toll is ludicrous when we keep adding hundreds of thousands of people and tens of thousands of cars to our roads each year.

  • lost in transit on 21/05/2023 - 08:20
    +6

    I’ve been saying this for YEARS now, You just don’t see coppers pulling over vehicles anymore.
    We all believe where great drivers but we pick up bad habits.
    I believe they’ve relied heavily on using mobile speed cameras for a couple of kms over they’ve become drunk on the Revenue.

    A blitz here and there doesn’t work for the rest of the year…

  • Ryk on 21/05/2023 - 09:06
    +2

    If police had a more visible presence

    blame lazy politicians, cheap technology, and revenue.
    Speed cameras raise revenue but do little for the roll toll. They are not observing traffic even 5m from the sensors. A police car, stationary or patrolling, has a more significantly beneficial impact on traffic behaviour along an entire stretch of road but costs more than a camera. You could literally do burnouts in front of a red light/speed camera and not get a fine.

    A dual red light & speed camera was installed 18 months ago along a stretch of road a few kms from my place, previously it was a regular spot for the highway patrol, I would see them at least monthly, sometimes almost weekly. In the past 18 months I have not seen a single patrol car.

    • GordonD on 21/05/2023 - 12:32

      A police car, stationary or patrolling, has a more significantly beneficial impact on traffic behaviour

      This is something the road safety community is well aware of. Random breath testing works because people get stopped, because even if they don't get stopped they see it operating, and because their friends tell them they got caught by it.

    • Leadfoot6 on 22/05/2023 - 22:46

      When it is raining just watch out for the visible presence of the Highway Patrol…..NOT.
      When the roads are wet is the ideal time to encourage drivers to slow down a bit.
      It NEVER happens.
      Why?
      Because MOST people DO actually slow down a bit when it is wet.
      Watch the revenue plummet on a wet day.
      That would be a VERY interesting statistic to see published.
      Fines on wet days v. dry days.
      It will, of course, never happen.

  • Pedro123 on 21/05/2023 - 09:25

    ahh..

    DUI
    meth driving
    drug cocktail driving
    text checking and phone use driving - distraction driving
    general driver impatience levels are up
    'I have a fast and powerful vehicle (spent big money on it ) , dont wanna be caught in this bumper to bumper grind ..'
    tv news and media reports very seldom mention (real) causes although these are sometimes totally obvious .

  • 2esc on 21/05/2023 - 09:29
    +4

    Everyone seems to be in a huge rush. I dont mean just speeding people dont drive to the conditions they dont slow down for the rain or fog. In built up areas they dont give parked cars a bit of room (people could step out from between the cars).

    Lets triple all demerit points all the time.
    Or make the fines based on your income.
    Double the loss of licence duration.
    Caught driving while suspension maybe a bit of jail time or loss of car.
    Dont blame the cops blame people.

    The vast majority of the public drive too quick for the conditions. If your reading this there's a good chance you drive faster than you need too.

    Theres heaps out there that think they are good drivers. If you think your a good driver the truth is your not as good as you think.

    • Jolakot on 22/05/2023 - 18:29

      I've never understood why fines aren't already a percentage of income. Seems like an easy way for the government to collect more revenue without putting in any effort or facing any real backlash

      • tomfool on 23/05/2023 - 10:44

        Most likely because the very wealthy use trusts for their income so they would end up paying less then the casual worker.

        • Jolakot on 23/05/2023 - 16:30

          The government has never cared about the very wealthy dodging fines and taxes, why would that be any different here? Hell, in 2019 I paid more in taxes than Exxon Mobil and Virgin combined, if the 0.01% can't be touched then I'll be satisfied with just the 1% paying proportional fines

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join