Did anyone else read the rest of the article? My favourite ideas include:

Enforcement of traffic laws intended to protect road users from themselves, while having no impact on innocent victims, should be low priority. That includes wearing seatbelts and motorcycle helmets

A five-year trial should be conducted in which the blood alcohol limit is increased to 0.08% for adult drivers

Offenders should be given the option of paying a fine without losing points, or losing points without a large fine

The revenue from traffic fines should be quarantined and used for something highly unpopular such as paying the salaries of politician

So a politician can enjoy a night out in the boozer, ride home on his motorcycle without a helmet and when he gets caught speeding, he simply pays a fine knowing that the money goes straight back into his pocket. Genius!

landyacht said...

Just a thought , why not try having an extra licence category.
" high speed driver"
....

Great idea different speeds for different people all on the same road.

The only reason European roads work at high speeds is that they have enough lanes for the different speeds people drive at.

Even then on an autoroute it is a nightmare if you are driving at 130 in the middle lane and you want to get in the left lane to pass. You take your life in your hands as the 160+ guys blast on through.

Slow drivers are like cholesterol. They block our major arteries and stop the flow of traffic/blood.
They also cause frustrated drivers to make dangerous passing maneuvres.
Slow drivers should be flushed out of the system and if that means fining them, then so be it.

Somehow I can’t see it happening because it would be expensive to monitor and not provide the steady flow of revenue that speed cameras supply.


If we compare Australia to a greater pool of nations, we are ranked 11th. Nations performing better than Australia (8 road deaths per 100,000 population in 2005) were:
Netherlands (4.6)
Norway (4.9)
Sweden (4.9)
Great Britain (5.5)
Switzerland (5.5)
Denmark (6.1)
Japan (6.2)
Iceland (6.3)
Germany (6.5)
Finland (7.2)

Here a Norwegian driving "fast"

Snarl, you're on nanny camera: a cynical lurk to drive us crazy
April 1, 2010

Comments 130

Don't Melbourne police have worse people to arrest than the formula one driver Lewis Hamilton? His "crime" was to smoke his tyres while doing a bit of a fishtail as he left the grand prix circuit at Albert Park.

A stiff talking-to might have been in order, or perhaps an offer he couldn't refuse - to appear in a road safety ad. But detaining him? Impounding his Mercedes C63? Charging him with "improper use of a motor vehicle" by "deliberately losing traction"? What a joke.

Hamilton is one of the safest, most skilled drivers in the world.

If we had more motorists with a fraction of his ability our roads would be safer than they are with all the cameras and rules and signs and speed limits and penalties dreamed up by car-hating bureaucrats and money-hungry politicians.

But Victoria took Hamilton's harmless Friday night show so seriously, the Roads Minister even called him a "dickhead" on radio.

So now, instead of a handful of onlookers seeing Hamilton's antics, the whole world knows, vastly increasing the number of copycat admirers, if that's the concern. You may as well arrest the entire cast of Top Gear. No wonder the homegrown driver Mark Webber came to Hamilton's defence this week, blasting Australia as a "nanny state".

''I think we've got to read an instruction book when we get out of bed - what we can do and what we can't do,'' he said. ''It's certainly changed since I left here. It pisses me off coming back here to be honest. It's a great country but we've got to be responsible for our actions and it's certainly a bloody nanny state when it comes to what we can do.''

NSW is almost as bad as Victoria. Despite all the promises last year from the Roads Minister, Michael Daly, of a new age of commonsense for drivers, it seems the lunatics are back in control of policy.

The latest attempt to hammer NSW's beleaguered drivers into submission is the introduction in July of mobile speed cameras operated by the Roads and Traffic Authority with the usual ruthless efficiency government instrumentalities reserve solely for revenue raising.

The Premier, Kristina Keneally, doesn't want us to be the wowser state, when it comes to acting on the sensible concerns of a coalition of health and emergency workers about drunken violence outside all-night pubs. But she's quite happy for us to be the nanny state with speed cameras. As one newspaper letter-writer, Joan Moss, of Malabar, wrote: ''Rolling out more speed cameras will only raise revenue from ordinary safe-driving mums and dads travelling a few kilometres over the speed limit … The real culprits - car thieves, drunk drivers, sections of irresponsible testosterone charged youths - most of whom have little or nothing to lose, are let loose with a bit of a reprimand from our legal system to do the same thing again and again."

We are heading into another double-demerit Easter in which driving 11km/h over the speed limit or not wearing a seatbelt will lose you six points a piece. Do both at once and you've lost your licence.

Yet, despite this punitive regime, and the growing number of speed cameras, the road toll is getting worse, not better, with a 25 per cent increase in fatalities last year.

The response of authorities is to do more of the same that hasn't been working. It's time for new thinking.

Replacing flesh-and-blood police in highly visible patrol cars with cameras has been a flop. The more draconian the speed limits, fines, penalties and the more ubiquitous the cameras, the worse the road toll. The 5 per cent of really dangerous drivers speed with impunity, knowing where the cameras are and adjusting their behaviour accordingly.

As Michael Lane, spokesman for the lobby group the National Motorists Association of Australia, points out, despite the increasingly harsh restrictions on drivers, the road toll has increased, especially in Victoria, the state with the most vigorous camera regime. ''So much for the alleged benefit of speed cameras.''

In Germany, where autobahns have no speed limits, the road toll has dropped significantly over 20 years. In NSW, the RTA keeps pushing its mantra of "speed kills", and when the road toll is going the wrong way, it just redoubles its efforts, like any good ideologue incapable of change. Yet the people who are the most dangerous on the roads are good at avoiding speed cameras, or working the system to avoid losing demerit points.

In December, the RTA even dropped the speed limit on the Newell Highway from 110km/h in places to 100km/h, prompting the NRMA's regional director, Graham Blight, to claim it was part of a hidden agenda to drop the limit across NSW to 90km/h. Driving so slowly would mean you would spend more time driving to your destination, thus increasing the likelihood of crashes caused by fatigue, not to mention boredom and inattention when you are forced to travel at a speed below comfort level.

Police have been largely cut out of traffic enforcement by technology and have lost any discretion to apply the sort of commonsense which makes our roads safe - the sort of discretion which would have given Lewis Hamilton a slap on the wrist rather than create an international incident.

In Queensland, the Police Union has openly scoffed at the latest rollout of speed cameras, saying: ''There has been a big increase in the money collected by speed cameras in recent years, but there has been little discernible positive impact on the road toll. It's time the focus moved more towards increasing traffic enforcement by officers … who are capable of detecting drink-driving, unlicensed or dangerous driving and unroadworthy vehicles.''

Amen to that.

Of course, as we get into our cars this Easter we need to take road safety seriously, especially on slippery roads. But driving safely means being competent behind the wheel, and paying attention to the road conditions, not making the speedometer your priority.

devinemiranda@hotmail.com

NotWal said...

NotWal said...

I dunno. You don't make much of an argument for speed.
Driving in Aus is, as you say, a lot safer than some other places in the world but it still kills 1 in every 80 odd Australians.

b]NotWal said...[/b]

I just rechecked that number for 2009 -
The crude death rate was 6.74/1000. i.e. 674/100,000
The road toll was 7.1/100,000
That is 1 in every 95 people who died was killed by a car or the like.

So yes, not 1 in every 80 people but 1 in every 95.

dude that's 1 in every 95 people that died.. or 1 in every 5,700 of the total population.. to put that in perspective smoking killed four times more people

I find it pretty crazy that the primary task of police now is traffic control - it's got more to do with expanding that bureaucracy through self-generated revenue creation then it does through providing protection.

If anything if you're a youngin the continued harrassment of the poolice and mounting fines which are improportional to their income and ability to pay may create antagonism toward society and engender the very element that they're meant to be protecting us from. May sound like a long shot but what level of respect do you think someone thats being harrassed for traffic infringemments is going to bestow on the cops when they're needed for real problems??

We don't need a knee jerk reaction, yes road deaths are a problem but that may be more to do with the mode of transport not the speeds. If you're so concerned about it take a bus - find out what the mortality rate is on public transport!!

If I could find a correlation between the price of petrol and road deaths who's up for me raising a tax on petrol Meeeeeee!!

Mad Devine said
"In Germany, where autobahns have no speed limits, the road toll has dropped significantly over 20 years. In NSW, the RTA keeps pushing its mantra of "speed kills", ......

In December, the RTA even dropped the speed limit on the Newell Highway from 110km/h in places to 100km/h, prompting the NRMA's regional director, Graham Blight, to claim it was part of a hidden agenda to drop the limit across NSW to 90km/h. Driving so slowly would mean you would spend more time driving to your destination, thus increasing the likelihood of crashes caused by fatigue, not to mention boredom and inattention when you are forced to travel at a speed below comfort level."

What Bulldust -
1. comparitive assesments (to other nations) are (at best) poor as the roads are not comparable -

2. If you use the logic of the last sentence, then accidents in built up traffic areas would be far higher than present levels, due to Ms Devines ordained "comfort level" (whatever that is) not being reached.

Whilst not being in favour of speed reduction on freeways in the NSW network - there is some justification for speed changes on some elements of the regional network where traffic volumes and ratios (i.e never designed for the volume of heavy vehicles using the roadway) have increased significantly - ie the Newell, Golden, New England - leading to degradation of the network as capital and maintainence expenditure remains (relatively) stagnant (personal view - not researched at time of writing)

My view is that many posters on this thread see the road as a fixed asset - unfortunatly they are not - not only do weather conditions change, but so does the road condition and hence, unfortunatly, speed limits have to take into account future usuage beyond when the asset was in good condition (which rod_ bunny referred to as the lowest common denominator) - hence the reduction by the RTA on the Newell
BT

I just like to go fast!

Ben 555 said...

Mad Devine said
"In Germany, where autobahns have no speed limits, the road toll has dropped significantly over 20 years. In NSW, the RTA keeps pushing its mantra of "speed kills", ......

In December, the RTA even dropped the speed limit on the Newell Highway from 110km/h in places to 100km/h, prompting the NRMA's regional director, Graham Blight, to claim it was part of a hidden agenda to drop the limit across NSW to 90km/h. Driving so slowly would mean you would spend more time driving to your destination, thus increasing the likelihood of crashes caused by fatigue, not to mention boredom and inattention when you are forced to travel at a speed below comfort level."

What Bulldust -
1. comparitive assesments (to other nations) are (at best) poor as the roads are not comparable -

2. If you use the logic of the last sentence, then accidents in built up traffic areas would be far higher than present levels, due to Ms Devines ordained "comfort level" (whatever that is) not being reached.

Whilst not being in favour of speed reduction on freeways in the NSW network - there is some justification for speed changes on some elements of the regional network where traffic volumes and ratios (i.e never designed for the volume of heavy vehicles using the roadway) have increased significantly - ie the Newell, Golden, New England - leading to degradation of the network as capital and maintainence expenditure remains (relatively) stagnant (personal view - not researched at time of writing)

My view is that many posters on this thread see the road as a fixed asset - unfortunatly they are not - not only do weather conditions change, but so does the road condition and hence, unfortunatly, speed limits have to take into account future usuage beyond when the asset was in good condition (which rod_ bunny referred to as the lowest common denominator) - hence the reduction by the RTA on the Newell
BT

So what you're saying, Ben, is that reducing speed limits is crap, they should fix the roads? I'm with you there! But that'd cost money. Easier for 'em to bump up the fines.

where in a nanny state

I rack up 60-70000km's each year I haven't had a speeding ticket in 15 years and I can assure you there are a hell of a lot of people behind the wheel who aren't switched on to whats going on around them and that's not just the people doddering along, that also includes those who think they are good enough to speed everywhere.

If motorists are that good and can be trusted to do the right thing

Then explain

Why we have over 100 people killed on the roads in WA each year
Why we have tens on thousands (or multiples thereof) each year with various serious injuries

If we were all gun drivers who drove as good as we thought then we wouldn't need all these rules as none of these accidents would happen.

The term "Car accident" is misleading, an accident is a branch falling from a tree onto a car, because 99.?% of car crashes are generally someones fault they are not accidents.

If you are aware of what is going on around you, radar traps are easy to spot, Laser traps 1-2km away are a bit harder.

If you don't want a ticket don't speed, you only have yourself to blame

Gorgo said...

doggie said...

where in a nanny state

Laws are made to cover these things because some people are too ignorant, stupid, selfish, etc etc to control their own behaviour.

This actually being my point about the lowest common denominator - raise the bar! Stop the ignorant stupid selfish etc from actually holding a drivers licence (gun licence, raise children, have dogs) in the first place - don't lower the bar to accommodate the f**kwits of this world to the detriment of the wider majority.

The drivers licence test is the LOWEST 'acceptable' point of which people can drive a vehicle on a public road - what motivation is there to be a better driver? None - just fines for stepping outside the line determined by and for... the people who should'nt be there in the first place!

The driver test is essentially 'can you pilot this thing without hitting anything else for the next 10 minutes' - no training in defensive driving - no training in collision avoidance - no training in handling a slide etc. Why? because these things are much harder to implement and cost money rather than putting a cash generating hidden radar on the side of the road.

Same reason the whole 'stop P platers in high powered cars' - can you get on a 1000cc motorbike on your Ps? Its already in place for one vehicle type - why cant it be extended to others? 'cause its too hard.

elmo: men under the age of 45 are TWICE as likely to die from suicide than from a motor vehicle accident.

I saw 2081 (short movie) yesterday and it reminded me of our government (both "parties").

FlySurfer said...

elmo: men under the age of 45 are TWICE as likely to die from suicide than from a motor vehicle accident.

An interesting argument yet not relevant though I will counter it fairly easily

But unless the person committing suicide has a couple of kilos of explosive strapped to themselves in a public place they aren't going to hurt any innocent bystanders (apart from their relatives).

Response typed left handed (not my good hand)

Now in response to your original post

Your one fender bender, so you were going slow, you weren't paying attention, you weren't looking where you were going and you crashed into a car, it could have very well been a mother pushing a pram, you would never have known because you were ferreting around on the floor (safely) because you were going slow. how safe was it YOU CRASHED INTO SOMETHING.

You lost your license doing 90kmh along a country road even with double demerits that still requires you to be at around 20 over the limit that puts you nears houses, houses mean kids, kids have less road sense than you do.

Your argument about nature and the speeds which some animals travel at is a f'ken free kick

Show me an animal on your list which has to control, slow down, change direction, <1500kg of extra moving vehicle, even an F1 car an driver can't beat the maneuverability and slowing capabilities of the worst of your list and you expect the average person in their average family hack to be better by the time they've realized there's a problem one of those animals would already be heading the other way.

FYI
I am no angel
I've lost my license before (my fault)
I've been done speeding Knowingly (again my fault)
I've been in 2 crashes,
*The first when I was 12 when a driver crossed over the wrong side of road and ran into a pack of 14 cyclists killing my trainer and seriously f'king up quite a few of my mates.
*The second was a head on collision with a drunk driver a couple of hundred meters away from both of our homes (he lived 2 streets over from me) when he didn't see me 50 m away and decided to turn in front of me.
Every year I have at least one incident where some Gumby runs me of the road.

Now you are supposed to be a rational thinking human being.
Don't blame others for your own incompetency behind the wheel, speed zones are clearly marked, you made the choice to speed, you made a choice to speed and then you bitch about losing your license, harden up princess go look in the mirror there's the person to blame for you losing your license.

japie said...



As Michael Lane, spokesman for the lobby group the National Motorists Association of Australia, points out, despite the increasingly harsh restrictions on drivers, the road toll has increased, especially in Victoria, the state with the most vigorous camera regime. ''So much for the alleged benefit of speed cameras.''

Just as a statistical point, saying things have increased in Australia doesn't always mean that they have...

From Wikipedia

The 2006 Australian census reported that Victoria had 4,932,422 people resident at the time of the census, an increase of 6.2% on the 1996 figure. The Australian Bureau of Statistics estimates that by June 2007 the state's population reached 5,205,200, and may well reach 7.2 million by 2050.

Aside from that, the statistic is WRONG because the number has gone DOWN

www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/publications/2009/pdf/rsr_04.pdf

Could everyone make a bit more effort when they post statistics?

And while your talking about statistics 1 in 95 deaths due to car accidents and 4 times more people die of smoking are such great things to quote, they have no relevance to anything.

A different number of people live, drive and smoke

of the 95 people who die, 1 is in a car accident, how many of the 95 drive ?

how many of the 1 are the driver ? how many of the 1 are passengers in motor vehicles ?

What percentage of people who have speed at some point have also crashed while speeding ?

What percentgae of people who have never sped, have crashed ?

Compare deaths in motor accidents per head of population is OK, so long as an exactly the same percentage of people in each country drive for exactly the same period of time.

I bet far more people take public transport in the Netherlands than they do in central Queensland.

If you are going to quote figures on this then this go google 'deaths per hour driven', not deaths per number of people who may or may not be actually driving.

Statistics, got to love them

The universe runs on probability not statictics. There is a big difference.

But in answer to the first question - yes you are stupid.
A) you watch Kochie and co. present gutter sensationalist journalism designed soley to maximise viewer ratings but causing you to react in a 'I am disgusted manner'
B) you reacted to it, so you got sucked in - I didn't ... ... bollocks just realised I did.