Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Politics

Sponsored by Chamberlains - complete legal services for business

Canberras disgraceful drink drivers contribute less to the road toll

By johnboy - 2 January 2009 32

The ABC brings word that road deaths in the ACT were stable in 2008 and drug and booze related deaths are particularly passe.

    “Fourteen people died on ACT roads in 2008, the same number as in 2007.

    While drug and alcohol related fatalities dropped in 2008, the number of elderly drivers killed on Canberra roads increased dramatically.

    Nearly half of the 14 deaths were people 75-years-old or over.”

This despite senior police and politicians fulminating all Christmas about how “disgraceful” the drink driving rate has been?

It’s also worth noting with the wrinklies that they’re much less likely to get in an accident, but much more likely to die when they do get in a crash. The NSW approach of taking their licences away is particularly cruel because it forces them into cars as passengers with drivers at the wheel who are more likely to crash (thereby killing them).

There comes a point when a person is on so many drugs to maintain life that blaming their fatality on a road accident is a bit silly.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments
32 Responses to
Canberras disgraceful drink drivers contribute less to the road toll
1
Danman 10:03 am
02 Jan 09
#

Just clarify, if you will, that last line JB

Reason I ask is that I am a fully licensed and fairly sedate driver.

At the same time, I take 6 prescribed pills nightly to maintain my life.

I can not see the link.

Report this comment

2
ant 10:14 am
02 Jan 09
#

There’s a story in the SMH today (Heckler) about an oldie being deprived of his licence after the compulsory test. The writer is pretty angry about it. I must say, I see them puddling about on the road and feel they’re much easier to cope with than the road-raging idiots (male and female) that are increasingly in evidence. I’d much rather they leave the confused oldies on the road and get a LOT tougher with aggrssive drivers. It doesn’t take einstein to work out who is the real problem on the roads.

Report this comment

3
TAD 10:18 am
02 Jan 09
#

In some way you are correct but mostly JB you are talking out of your arse.

I think you will find that the elderly are more likely to have an accident per km of driving but the stats are skewed by the far less distances that the elderly do drive. I remember some research a few years ago that had the elderly something like 4 or 7 times more likely to have an accident per km of driving than the general population. (Forgive me for not being able to recall the exact specifics or provide a link.)

Due to my role (which JB can email me to clarify but I won’t post here) I am very familiar with the road fatalities this year. I think age did play a factor in the deaths but not in the way you are saying. (eg it wouldn’t have taken much for them to die do to age related poor health). The injuries were definately life threatening to anybody of any age, but I believe the age was more a factor in each accident occuring in the first place. (not giving way and being t-boned, a few were pedestrians walking into traffic etc)

Having said that the stats don’t reflect the few who should of died but didn’t for reasons of good health care, luck and good previous health which all combined to give them the best shot of surviving.

Previous high years have been mainly thanks to the motorcyle community. I guess the Joel Mason’s of the world have been lucky or fewer this year.

Report this comment

4
TAD 10:25 am
02 Jan 09
#

I couldn’t find the link still but p9 of this report has a graph which shows that per Km driver the over 75s are only second to the under 24s for crashes.

http://casr.adelaide.edu.au/publications/researchreports/CASR015.pdf

2.3.5 Summary
The preceding sections have shown that older drivers (aged over 64) were involved in
relatively few crashes compared with younger drivers (aged under 65), and also had lower
crash rates than younger drivers after adjusting for differences between the specified age
groups in terms of population, and the number of licence holders. After adjusting for
differences in the amount of driving done by each of the age groups, it was found that crash
rates were reasonably constant for those aged between 25 and 74. Higher crash rates were
found only for those drivers under the age of 25 and over the age of 74. When crash rates
per licensed driver were analysed in terms of crash injury severity, it was found that older
drivers were over-represented in crashes resulting in fatal injuries.

Report this comment

5
ant 10:33 am
02 Jan 09
#

Does that mean they’re having more crashes, or taht they are more frail so any crashes they have injure them more severely (killing them)? Oldies, I mean.

Report this comment

6
johnboy 11:05 am
02 Jan 09
#

I’m not sure km driven is the best stat to use when, as a group, they’re driving very low kms.

That the oldies are in less crashes than other groups while leading the table for deaths in crashes says to me their frail health is tipping the scales against them.

Having said that bad backs makes head checks infrequent (if done at all), in turn that does make them very dangerous to others.

Report this comment

7
sepi 12:34 pm
02 Jan 09
#

Maybe we should make them wear O plates, for Oldies, so we can watch out for them failing to give way.

Report this comment

8
ant 1:46 pm
02 Jan 09
#

Those convex mirrors stuck on the side mirrors can help with seeing more stuff beside you, and I wonder if a curved rear vision inside mirror might help as well?

Report this comment

9
Lenient 2:01 pm
02 Jan 09
#

AMP would have solved this problem of the older driver. They had wonderful policies for getting grey off the road.

Report this comment

10
astrojax 2:09 pm
02 Jan 09
#

sounds like natural selection in action – bless ol’ darwin, eh?

Report this comment

11
TAD 7:49 pm
02 Jan 09
#

“Natural selection” Astrojax?

Yes without those pesky crashes, they would all be having more babies.

Report this comment

12
Aeek 12:36 am
03 Jan 09
#

Collateral damage rather than natural selection.
They’re going to die soon enough, its who they happen to take out first.

Report this comment

13
Ozi 2:11 am
03 Jan 09
#

TAD: don’t use logic against the poor fool. And who knows, over 75y/o ovaries still work, right?

As for the original post, there are some good points but mainly it misses the point. There will be a record number of drink driving offences detected this year, and that may in fact have assisted the drop in drug and alcohol fatalities. The Remove All Impaired Drivers (RAID) campaign does work, and does it’s job well.

ACT Policing removed an awful lot of impaired drivers through drink driving detection this year, and like TAD I have some personal knowledge of this. However, all those drivers who would otherwise have driven home pissed ended up going to a station, being summonsed/charged, and getting home some other way. And all the other people who saw Police conducting various blitzes on drink drivers hopefully thought twice before the next time they thought about getting in a car pissed.

~Ozi.

Report this comment

14
VYBerlinaV8_the_one_ 7:35 am
03 Jan 09
#

I think the highly visible nature of the blitzes is what really works. When you drive around and SEE the cops doing their thing, I think you’re more likely to say “hey they’re everywhere, need to be really careful”.

And FWIW, I think removing impaired drivers is a top idea.

Report this comment

15
shauno 4:11 pm
03 Jan 09
#

Well anyway 14 deaths isnt much so lets just get over this obsession with the road toll. How many people died of natural causes in 2008?

Report this comment

1 2 3

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2016 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.

Search across the site