22 June 2010

Canberra drivers - how can we save lives?

| squashee
Join the conversation
81

When will governments act on road safety rather than revenue raising? So far this year the road toll in the ACT has reached fifteen. How many of these fatal accidents have occurred on the main roads where the white vans are always sitting? Why do the authorities always choose the easy target of the drivers going a few kilometres over the limit on the straight safe roads, rather than target the crazy drivers doing stupid things in the city and around school zones. Whenever driving in Canberra, you hardly ever go a few minutes without being tailgated, cut off or almost hit by inattentive or aggressive drivers.

People out drinking in Canberra also know that it is much easier and quicker to simply drive home over the limit as they know there is almost zero risk of being caught by a Random Breath Test unit. When they take into account the wait for taxis, the cost of taxis and the lack of public transport, driving is the preferred option.

The other issue is the crazy speed limits on Canberra and surrounding districts roads. There are plenty of 80km/h roads in Canberra which should have at least 100km/h speed limits and in surrounding districts there are plenty which should be over 100km/h.

Last week the former V8 champion and team owner Mark Skaife was in the news being blasted for daring to say that Australia’s roads are good enough to handle speeds of 140km/h. He was also saying that Australia’s driver training is insufficient and with better road maintenance and safer cars, we can handle doing 140 on the highways.

Finally, motorcycle deaths appear to be abnormally high in the ACT. Of course there will always be some motorcycle deaths attributed to motorcyclists being at fault through excessive speed or dangerous riding, but other drivers often put safe motorcyclists in danger through not paying attention and being aggressive.

When will someone in power have the guts to do something useful to save lives?

Join the conversation

81
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

Erg0 said :

I’ve always felt like the cops don’t have enough of a visible presence on ACT roads to really create a disincentive to drive like an idiot. I guess speed cameras and RBTs provide better bang for buck than just driving around all day hoping to see someone doing an illegal u-turn or talking on a mobile phone, but I’ve definitely got the impression that there’s little to no enforcement of the road rules beyond the white vans and the odd handheld radar. This is probably an incorrect impression, but allowing this perception to exist is a major problem.

Agreed! not enough police around to “Police” our roads and suburbs

More speed cameras, more on road cycling, more revenue and less commonsense. Seems to be working so far this year!

Canberra has the best roads in Australia and the worst drivers!

If anyone wants to save lives try not tailgating on Commonwealth Avenue (right near the ‘do not tailgate’ sign cleverly erected by our astute local council (oops…”Government”). I always take it as flattery that other people find the back of my car so attractive they want to move forward for a closer look (lol).

georgesgenitals2:25 pm 29 Jun 10

BarNone said :

Canberra drivers really are the worst in Australia. The above posts prove it. You’ll get in the right lane just to slow someone down? Who elected you to the Police force?
I was stuck behind someone coming up the coast road just yesterday. Doing 60km/h in a 100 zone.
I passed them – just – at 115 km/h, because they had sped up to 110 km/h when there was a passing lane
First corner, they disappeared from my rear mirror.
This is not an isolated incident; it happens regularly, and five times yesterday.
Too many shiny bums, not enough involvement, and gutless magistrates.

A very Canberran behaviour. Lane discpline is my chief gripe with driving in Canberra.

For young drivers perhaps link eligibility for driver licence and rego to a good behaviour report from school. Won’t stop the baddies, but may make others think about their conduct and duty to others, in school and the wider community. No good behaviour report = no chance of a licence or wheels until age 21 or whatever, and then only with a satisfactory police report.

Canberra drivers really are the worst in Australia. The above posts prove it. You’ll get in the right lane just to slow someone down? Who elected you to the Police force?
I was stuck behind someone coming up the coast road just yesterday. Doing 60km/h in a 100 zone.
I passed them – just – at 115 km/h, because they had sped up to 110 km/h when there was a passing lane
First corner, they disappeared from my rear mirror.
This is not an isolated incident; it happens regularly, and five times yesterday.
Too many shiny bums, not enough involvement, and gutless magistrates.

biinkythedoormat12:27 am 26 Jun 10

Randomise the police “cause of accident” checklist so speed isnt always at the top of the list. Speed is obviously pinged as a contributing factor in many accidents but if an accident occurs and the person was speeding it isnt necessarily the cause at all. We have cars that are not checked regularly, where major roads are built single lane, where 10 different speed zones exist in a few kilometres, where roadworks are everywhere and cheap patch filling now the norm, where road designers forgot about the roundabout and now stick sets of lights where traffic could freely flow hence patience gives out, where drivers still get in the right lane to turn 2 suburbs before they have to, where a p plater can pay a few bucks and show up for a few hours and get more points, oh, and loads of inattention. Fumbling with your iphone or blowing a tyre on a rut at 60kph can get you off the tar and dead just as easily as at 140kph. Airbags, traction control, ebd and crumple zones nothwithstanding.

Jim Jones said :

Spideydog said :

Jim Jones said :

Spideydog said :

Waaaaaaaaaaaah

You have just show cased your mentality to the Canberra region. Thanks, I could not have done it better myself 🙂

You’re good, you should be a waaaambulance driver!

Maybe I am, you have issue with Ambulance drivers now too …..

astrojax said :

now, everyone go back and read what sgt bungers said [#63]. strong truth.

Waaaaaaaah do I have to… its soooooo long !

Spideydog said :

Jim Jones said :

Spideydog said :

Waaaaaaaaaaaah

You have just show cased your mentality to the Canberra region. Thanks, I could not have done it better myself 🙂

You’re good, you should be a waaaambulance driver!

now, everyone go back and read what sgt bungers said [#63]. strong truth.

you and i, sir, seem to be a minority (maybe everyone should have advanced driver emergency vehicle training, ideally before graduating from ‘p’ plates)

Jim Jones said :

Spideydog said :

Waaaaaaaaaaaah

You have just show cased your mentality to the Canberra region. Thanks, I could not have done it better myself 🙂

Spideydog said :

Waaaaaaaaaaaah

Nark, you make a lot of assumptions for someone who demands so much evidence. If you read my comment you will see that it requires all three of your ‘vital ingredients’ of road, driver and vehicle. I even mentioned the word driver, but what else did you think I was talking about if not driving a vehicle on a road? If you want to get somewhere in a reasonable amount of time, how about you manage your time better and leave a few minutes earlier?

Your conversions from kilometres per hour to metres per second are correct. You are, however also correct in saying the remainder of your figures are assumptions. A commmonly accepted driver reaction time is around 1.5 seconds, anything below 1 second is purely optimistic. At 90 km/h, that blows your reaction distance out to about 37 metres even before before pad touches a disc. From this speed, a vehicle in good repair travelling on a level sealed bitumen surface in good condition will skid to a stop in about 45 metres at full braking, a little under your 48.8 metres. This distance will change propotionately when variables like gradient, braking efficiency and surface conditions are altered. The physics of this will not be any different between a Porche and a Mazda.

Now that you’re in the right mental frame of mind I’ll address your example:

Q. “Sure you could say the hoon would be able to pull up faster if they were doing 80km/h but if the visibility is 100m, then why not drive at a speed that allows you to pull up in 80m?”

A. 80m of energy loss during full braking requires a speed of about 120 km/h under the average road and vehicle conditions. A speed of 120km/h is equal to 33mps. At 33mps, a driver will not react to a perceived hazard for about 50 metres. Add that to your 80 metres of pulling up distance and the hoon is cactus. I could work out an impact speed for you but I couldn’t be bothered. Incidently, the same circumstances for a vehicle travelling at the reduced speed of 80 km/h would have the vehicle stopping at just under 70m which includes reaction time, saving the hoons fully sic front mounted intercooler.

I stand by my comment on vehicle roadworthyness (there’s that word again) but I omitted this is with regard to serious collisions. While I agree poor vehicle maintennance has the potential to largely contribute to serious collisions, your reply was speculative and begged ‘what if’ questions. Prove me wrong in this jurisdiction.

Is there really a problem here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

Accidents happen. People do stupid things that you can’t legislate against. Despite what you guys say Canberra’s hardly got the worst drivers in the world.

As someone who used to drive mainly in peak hour trafic and now mainly during the day I’m constantly amazed at flagrant breaches of the road laws and sheer bloody-minded behaviour, particularly by business vehicles. What makes me think that some of these bastards might also do with say, a tax audit?

Jim Jones said :

Nark said :

I don’t see much evidence being shown by you

Oh great, blind as well as stupid.

Isn’t this the same thing you were arguing about in “another” thread ?? Lets look up your favoured dictionary for the definition of hypocrite ….

Once again you show that when someone doesn’t tow your line, out comes the names and insults.

Nark said :

I don’t see much evidence being shown by you

Oh great, blind as well as stupid.

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

blah blah blah rant blah foam at mouth blah personal attack blah make stuff up blah rant blah rant

Maybe find somebody who can back up their claims with evidence and can avoid screaming CONSPIRACY within the first five posts next time?

I don’t see much evidence being shown by you. Only hints and statements without any links to the verified studies that you proclaim to exist. Maybe if you weren’t such a hyocrite, then you might make more sense.

You’ve shown you have no interest in making the road safer, you have not put forward any solutions other than lowering speed limits. Which makes you either a simpleton or a troll. Either way, you won’t hear from me again. I wish this place had an ignore function ‘coz it’d be getting used right now.

Punter said :

I’ll stand with WMC on this. Directed at NARK #52, If you look beyond the misplaced association between other countries and ours, Nark started to make sense hi-lighting the fact speed does not hold all the answers to road safety problems, and attitude and education has a large part to play. But NARK, against his own advice on good driving attitude, pushed ahead with the classic “it’s not speed that kills” routine. Humans weren’t designed to suddenly stop from high speeds. To finish off the quote, “It’s not speed that kills – it’s the sudden stop.”

My point is that speed is but one contributing factor. The Government does not seem to think that anything else contributes to accidents. There is no move to improve the condition of our roads, the condition of our vehicles nor the training that drivers get.

Speed is a risk that you must manage when you hop into a vehicle. If you remove it, sure you’ll be safe but you’re not getting anywhere. In order to get to a place in a reasonable amount of time, you take on the risk of adding speed to your vehicle. Sure you could drive 70km/h but wouldn’t 60km/h be safer? Well certainly 40km/h would be a bee’s dick safer. By then you’ve doubled your travelling time.

Punter said :

Your cicumstances may be you’re driving along and be suddenly confronted with a hazard for which you need to brake or risk collision. I’m sure all would agree the more speed you are able to lose before the collision, the beter off a driver and passengers would be. Having a good attitude toward road speed is a part of having a good attitude toward road safety. If you think higher road speeds should be acceptable, I sugest yours would be the simple mind behind the control of 1.5T of metal.

Sorry, but you seem to be missing the vital ingredients of driver, vehicle and road.

An alert driver might react in 0.5s whereas one not paying attention will take 1s. (Assumptions)
Let’s assume that the alert driver is driving at 90km/h whereas the other one is driving 80km/h.
At 90km/h, you travel 25m/s so the alert driver will travel 12.5m before hitting the anchors.
At 80km/h you travel 22.2m/s so driver B will travel 22.2m.

Factor in average braking distance 38.6m @ 80km/h and 48.8m @ 90km/h.

Driver A will stop in 61.3m whereas driver B will stop in 60.8m. A 50cm difference.

Obviously that’s a purely theoretical exercise full of (probably wrong) assumptions, but it gives you an idea that speed is but one factor.

Now, take the average high performance sports car. They will brake from 100km/h in roughly 40m (cars like the Porsches hit about 33m). So that hoon driving down the Monaro Hwy at 100km/h will pull up quicker than your average Mom or Pop despite them doing higher speeds.

*Now this is the important bit, please forget everything I just said, it was just to get you into a mental frame of mind for these next few paragraphs*
Sure you could say the hoon would be able to pull up faster if they were doing 80km/h but if the visibility is 100m, then why not drive at a speed that allows you to pull up in 80m? Why would you not want to get where you’re going a little faster if there’s virtually no extra risk?

This is why I say that speed is a risk that you manage. That stopping distance determines what is safe. The car, driver, road, speed, visibility, weather conditions all combine to determine that safe braking distance. This distance is different for every car, every driver, every road.

Lowering the speed will have an affect, but having a modern car with good brakes is just as vital. Then there’s driver attitude, how many are lulled into a sense of security in the belief that they are safe if they don’t speed, not paying attention will add say 2 car lengths to your reaction time at 80km/h.

To get a licence, why are you not forced to learn to handle the 1.5T piece of metal. How many drivers know how quickly their cars will pull up? How many have tested it and know the exact distance? How many drivers know the actual amount of extra braking that is required in wet weather (we all know that it’s more, but how much more in your actual car?).

What if something does jump out in front of your car and in order to avoid it, the car gets loose, how many know how to control the car? Why is it not compulsory as part of licencing that people learn these skills to protect their lives? Because if they don’t speed then it’ll never happen to them?

I’m sure some of you were thinking “well, at least I pay attention when I drive” but how many can pick the telltale wobble as a driver checks their mirrors and blindspot before changing lane? How many actively scan other cars around them for signs of potential failure? I can spot a car with bald tyres, can you?

Defensive driving is just not in the vocab of the Australian driver. Maybe the motorcyclists can because they are actually forced to learn defensive skills as part of their licencing but why are the drivers not forced to? Because they’re safer? But they can do so much more damage.

Don’t you think that all these factors should be addressed by the Government if they were serious about road safety? Or at least a little mention and some education? ANYTHING? Speed kills, yes. But so does terrible attitude and poor education. It’s not the be all and end all of road safety. It’s not a magical silver bullet.

Punter said :

Why would it be neccessary to change the rules regarding vehicle roadworthy checks. Has vehicle roadworthyness (if that’s a word) been an issue with road crashes anytime lately? While the mechanical condition of vehicles can be defective to the extent they have potential to contribute to collisions, it is rarely a factor. I think there is no fault with the current roadworthy system.

Now that you know that you travel 4 car lengths per second at 80km/h what do you think about cars that don’t have functioning brake lights?

What about cars with bald tyres or ones that leak oil onto the road? What about cars with deficient braking ability?

Education. Next time everyone is due to have their licence renewed in the ACT, they should be required to read then be quizzed on “Traffic” by Tom Vanderbilt.

All drivers need to realise the road is not a magic place where nothing will ever go wrong. As cruisey and laid back as it may feel at times whilst we’re driving, it is easy to forget that we’re undertaking the most dangerous and potentially fatal task of the day. It is when we feel laid back that we’re the most dangerous, more susceptible to taking risks.

If the motor vehicle was only just invented now, in this day and age of ultimate OH&S and liability, who honestly thinks it would be legal to have a situation where a 1+ tonne machine is allowed to operate at deadly speeds within centimetres of people standing on the edge of a road, with all the protection of a 15cm high bit of concrete. Yet this is normal practice, we don’t even think about it.

On the Kings Highway, in parts we’re travelling at 30 metres a second with our passenger side tyres less than a metre from dirt. Very, very little room for error… yet in the middle of the night, with large wild animals a mere stones throw from the side of the road, the majority of people will still operate their vehicle at 100km/h, screaming and cursing at anyone who is travelling at a more sensible 70-80km/h… overtaking them abruptly and dangerously whilst carrying on about how dangerous it is to travel slowly on a highway. Why is this normal practice? The answer is poor education. We are complacent when it comes to motor vehicles.

I refuse to travel faster than 40km/h in most of Canberra’s narrower residential streets. 50 is too fast. 40 is still 10km/h faster than the typical 30km/h maximum allowed in residential areas in much of Europe. I drive thinking that behind every car, every bush, every tree, wheelie bin, there could be a child I have not yet seen. Yet, I find I am a minority. However as a former Ambo, I’ve had the benefit of advanced driver training. Sitting in my living room I can hear vehicles passing my house at 70-80km/h plus… having come around a blind corner on a 50km/h residential street. If the kids next door happened to be on the road, they’re dead. No second chances. Simple as that. Dead because someone wanted to arrive at the next red light 20 seconds sooner. Many will say “the kids shouldn’t be on the road.” I find that offensive. It is a public, residential street. It is not just a road with driveways. It is not just for cars.

When we’re driving, we have to remember that we’re not out for a ride, we’re not just heading to work, not out for a cruise. We’re heading out to control a piece of machinery at a speed an in an environment where if the slightest thing goes wrong, the results could very easily be catastrophic.

Perhaps a psych test for all new drivers and at all licence renewals. If it is determined that a person is not genuinely scared of the fact that their actions behind the wheel could easily disable an innocent party for life, or kill them, then that person should not be awarded the privilege of driving.

And before anyone calls me a whinging tall poppy syndrome suffering NIMBY who doesn’t like people going faster than me… suggest a 130km/h speed limit on the few properly engineered motorways/freeways in Australia, I’ll be the first to put my hand up.

The easiest way to make Canberra a safer place to drive?

Give public servants free, yes FREE public transport, make their push bikes 100% tax deductible, get those wankers off the road and you will have 300,000 people who aren’t driving any more, problem solved.

I’ll stand with WMC on this. Directed at NARK #52, If you look beyond the misplaced association between other countries and ours, Nark started to make sense hi-lighting the fact speed does not hold all the answers to road safety problems, and attitude and education has a large part to play. But NARK, against his own advice on good driving attitude, pushed ahead with the classic “it’s not speed that kills” routine. Humans weren’t designed to suddenly stop from high speeds. To finish off the quote, “It’s not speed that kills – it’s the sudden stop.”

Your cicumstances may be you’re driving along and be suddenly confronted with a hazard for which you need to brake or risk collision. I’m sure all would agree the more speed you are able to lose before the collision, the beter off a driver and passengers would be. Having a good attitude toward road speed is a part of having a good attitude toward road safety. If you think higher road speeds should be acceptable, I sugest yours would be the simple mind behind the control of 1.5T of metal.

Why would it be neccessary to change the rules regarding vehicle roadworthy checks. Has vehicle roadworthyness (if that’s a word) been an issue with road crashes anytime lately? While the mechanical condition of vehicles can be defective to the extent they have potential to contribute to collisions, it is rarely a factor. I think there is no fault with the current roadworthy system.

Woody Mann-Caruso10:45 pm 23 Jun 10

And how timely: ‘Autobahn speed limits ‘not possible’ in Australia.

Sure, it says he’s a ‘professor’ at a ‘university’, but his professional opinion that ‘Australia has a very enlightened approach. The single most dramatic way of reducing the road toll is to moderate traffic speeds’ clearly marks him as some sort of government stooge. I’ll go back to getting my expert advice from the mouthbreathers at policespeedcameras.info.

You forgot one, westy:

too many tradies bitching to each other on their mobiles while driving.

canberra will always be a crap place to drive a car:
too many stupid signs and roadside art distracting you.
too many people that dont know to,or wont merge correctly.
too many arrogant road cyclists who think that the cycle lane is for commuters not them.
too many subaru drivers who think that they are the only one’s who should be able to go 10+.
cops that dont practice what they preach.
poorly co ordinated road works.
public servants should not be allowed on the roads until all the tradies have started work,and keep the pubes out of FYSHWICK!…you cant drive,so dont practice there,go to some empty school carpark or something!

Clown Killer8:23 pm 23 Jun 10

Hell Woody, that’s a lot of bile to vent on someone you don’t care a toss about.

I drive a bit. All over the place. Sometimes I speed. Mostly because it’s fun. I’ve never killed anyone. Do I get caught? Once – nearly ten years ago for a low range offence. It isn’t a big deal.

Do I give a shit about the pro’s and con’s of whether or not speed kills or if there’s a governmnet conspiracy, and whether speed cameras are simply revenue raising. Hell I don’t give a fcuk.

The majority of people dying on our roads aren’t speeding. But I bet they thought they were safe.

Woody Mann-Caruso7:04 pm 23 Jun 10

Ah, the beginning of the end. It always – always – comes down to this with you lamers.

First, the defence against imaginary arguments:

Either that or your simple brain can’t seem to comprehend that speed is not the be all and end all of traffic safety.

Nobody ever said anything like that. You’re the one claiming that German-style speed limits are a good idea. You don’t have one scrap of evidence to support your claim.

Next, the government conspiracy claims:

This is an Government in Australia, right? One which is pushing a “speed kills” campaign? Who’s “picking and choosing whatever ‘evidence’ suits”?

Yes, my learned friend, you’ve stumbled across the terrible secret that all across the developed world, governments of all political persuasions are conspiring with researchers in a range of fields – engineers, physicists, law enforcement, health professionals, economists – to keep speed limits artificially low. TEH CAKE IS A LIE.

Next, the distraction with irrelevant arguments while sidestepping direct questions:

You still haven’t addressed why road fatalities on the high speed freeways is so much less than other roads

Um – how about because they’re long, straight, and have less traffic? Still waiting for your analysis of whether German highways are safer than Australian highways, or how highways are relevant to urban 80 zones as per the OP. But wait, you can’t, because it’s time for the next phase – admitting that you don’t have any evidence because ‘it’s complicated’ and ‘there are too many factors’, without explaining why you hold a position in the absence of evidence (and a complete understanding of what regression analysis actually means):

There are far too many factors contributing to make such a comparison meaningful.

Aww, how inconvenient for you. Strange that the other side doesn’t have a shortage of evidence or find it complicated, isn’t it?

And finally, dumb, blind desperation:

Hi, please see this guy’s post

Ohhh, nice try. So close. Except those stats are quoted from a study that demonstrated such a causal link. Of course, the study was commission by TEH GUBMIT so you wouldn’t believe what it has to say.

Anyway, thanks for playing. You can go join chewie14 in the ‘couldn’t argue his way out of a wet paper bag if he p.ssed on it’ corner. Chewie14, meet nark. You can wipe each others’ drool. It’s a match made in heaven.

Ah Woody, Not once did I suggest that increasing the….

*makes blah, blah, blah sign with one hand and w*nker sign with the other*

I couldn’t care less what you have to say about anything, imaginary road boy. You have zero credibility on this issue. Zilch. Zip. Nada. You know, like the number of single-lane 100 zones in urban areas.

Look forward to meeting your next ‘challenger’ (as if) in the next speeding thread. Maybe find somebody who can back up their claims with evidence and can avoid screaming CONSPIRACY within the first five posts next time?

But at the end of the day physics will always win over statistics.

And Funky1, airbags and ABS are contingency plans for when the shit has already hit the fan.

Ah Woody,

Not once did I suggest that increasing the speed limit would increase safety. Here’s another link so you can get the point I was making.

http://www.aitpm.org.au/d6/Speed%20Essay%20JJ.pdf

With regards to your highway figures, of course lowering the speed limits will lower crash rates and fatalities. But once again your argument could be used to lower the speed limit to 0km/hr. The problem being that this would also lower the functionality of the road. How willing are people to accept more road fatalities and crashes for better road utility? I don’t know.

Here’s a report from a few years ago into economics of rural roads vs speed.

http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/49/Files/WP59_final.pdf

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

And because I’m thorough, here’s the results of the 2001 introduction of a 110km/h speed limit on the the Lasseter Highway from the Stuart Highway to Yulara:

Reduction in:

– deaths 37%
– serious injuries 44%
– total crashes 33%
– all injuries 40%
– overturned vehicles 38%
– run off road 27%

Hi, please see this guy’s post:

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Do you actually have a study demonstrating a statistically significant causal link between these two factors? Didn’t think so. Here’s your ‘anecdote is not the singular of data’ badge.

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

How do you think they improved safety on dangerous roads? In built-up areas? Or did the entire country imagine it when they dropped the speed limit on major roads from 110km/h to 90km/h?

Wow, 11 key points toward traffic safety easily distilled into a single 110km/h-90km/h speed change. Boy those Swedes are efficient.

Either that or your simple brain can’t seem to comprehend that speed is not the be all and end all of traffic safety.

Hmm… Which is more plausible.

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

What does the NT government have to say about speed? Here’s a quote: “FACTS – An increase in average vehicle speed from 100km/h to 110km/h can be expected to increase serious injury crashes by about 33% and fatal crashes by about 44%.”

This is an Government in Australia, right? One which is pushing a “speed kills” campaign?

Who’s “picking and choosing whatever ‘evidence’ suits”?

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

You still haven’t explained why, overall, Germany’s amazing cars, drivers and licensing arrangements don’t give it a better safety record than Australia, with our sh.t cars, sh.t drivers and sh.t licensing arrangements, even with their advanced technology and training and with the Autobahn dragging their overall death rates down.

There are far too many factors contributing to make such a comparison meaningful. A far more useful stat would be the improvements that are made over the years, which I’ve already shown. Germany is lowering its fatality rate per billion km at a greater rate than Australia. That’s a telling statistic.

You still haven’t addressed why road fatalities on the high speed freeways is so much less than other roads. If speed was the pure contributing factor to fatalities then shouldn’t this be the other way around?

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Come on, genius. Why aren’t German roads safer than Australian roads? Maybe you can find chewie14’s mystical road while you’re at it. Come back when you’ve got some real stats that allow us to make a meaningful comparison of both road systems, supported by sufficient regression analysis for us to focus on speed. You’d think after all these years it’d be easy to find, right? Gee, I wonder if there’s a reason for why it’s not, but there’s all this peer-reviewed research showing a direct causal link between increased speed and crashes, and this research is acted upon by experts in every developed nation…nah, they must all be wrong, and it’s all a government conspiracy, man.

The point you’re missing is that speed makes up only one part of the equation and it’s not even the most important part. It is a risk that you manage when you drive. Just like swimming out further to catch better surf brings with it more risk drowning or being eaten by a shark.

Driver attitudes and education pay a far more important role than speed. Would you be worried sitting in a car doing 180km/h on the Hume Hwy with Mark Webber driving?

The ACT doesn’t even have yearly roadworthy checks for cars and there are no requirements to sit tests every few years. Australia’s licensing scheme is simply attrocious. And the whole “speed kills and nothing else does” campaign is allowing more people to die than if the issue was attacked properly.

Your completely blinkered approach with not an actual suggestion on improving things (other than reducing the speed limit) is a bit disturbing. That someone as simple-minded as you is allowed to be in charge of a 1.5T piece of metal that might come near me one day is a scary thought.

Holden Caulfield3:47 pm 23 Jun 10

Jim Jones said :

…Sweden by and large has a lot more inclusive and community-minded way of looking at public policy (as opposed to the individual and atomistic assumptions of Australian policy). The cultural differences are by no means insignificant: the general attitude of Australian drivers is, by and large, quite isolated and self-centred: other drivers are seen as ‘the competition’ or obstacles, rather than other individuals who form an overarching community with common goals and purposes.

In amongst WMC’s cock-thumping this is actually a pretty good point IMO. Attitude plays a massive part in the ability (or not) for road users to co-exist successfully.

Ultimately, for some people, driving fast is enjoyable. Of course, public roads are not the place to drive recklessly. But, like the illicit drug issue, there are some people that will just never appreciate the enjoyment some people get from driving.

but … but … autobahn … AUTOBAAAAAAAAAHN!!!

[collapses into a corner whimpering]

Woody Mann-Caruso2:25 pm 23 Jun 10

And because I’m thorough, here’s the results of the 2001 introduction of a 110km/h speed limit on the the Lasseter Highway from the Stuart Highway to Yulara:

Reduction in:

– deaths 37%
– serious injuries 44%
– total crashes 33%
– all injuries 40%
– overturned vehicles 38%
– run off road 27%

Same drivers, just as drunk, still not wearing seat belts. I wonder what changed? And…what’s this? These findings align with research by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau? What an eerie coincidence! But Skaife, Germany, tailgaters, eating your own poop, whatever.

Woody Mann-Caruso2:16 pm 23 Jun 10

I don’t see a mention of speed in here, do you?

How do you think they improved safety on dangerous roads? In built-up areas? Or did the entire country imagine it when they dropped the speed limit on major roads from 110km/h to 90km/h?

Since the introduction of a speed limit in NT in 2007, the deaths have been higher each subsequent year.

Do you actually have a study demonstrating a statistically significant causal link between these two factors? Didn’t think so. Here’s your ‘anecdote is not the singular of data’ badge. Would you like some real information about the driving factors behind the NT road toll?

– you’re three times more likely to die on an NT road than in any other Australian jurisdiction, and you’re more likely to die there than in any other developed country

– almost half of all fatals in the NT involve a driver over the legal limit, and in more than half of cases, fatalities weren’t wearing available seatbelts

What does the NT government have to say about speed? Here’s a quote: “FACTS – An increase in average vehicle speed from 100km/h to 110km/h can be expected to increase serious injury crashes by about 33% and fatal crashes by about 44%.”

I trust you won’t try to raise the NT as an ‘argument’ again.

around the 3% mark (as I previously (badly) explained)

Still haven’t explained it. Shall I type more slowly? 3…per…cent…of…what? And which country are you talking about now? We’ve gone from ‘autobahns’ to ‘freeways’. Do you have a comparable stat for both countries supported by a decent regression analysis? If you want to compare highways, by all mean, let’s compare them. You seem to be trying to compare Autobahns – roads with very specific traffic and engineering arrangements that have no relevance whatsoever anything other than limited stertches of certain Australian freeways – with some sort of blanket view of the Australian road system.

Please address the two points above.

Done. You’ve got an unsubstantiated and now demolished anecdote about the NT – well done. Sorry – I forgot that you also looked up the word ‘autobahn’ on Wikipedia. You still haven’t explained why, overall, Germany’s amazing cars, drivers and licensing arrangements don’t give it a better safety record than Australia, with our sh.t cars, sh.t drivers and sh.t licensing arrangements, even with their advanced technology and training and with the Autobahn dragging their overall death rates down.

I like how you think that name calling makes your argument more pervasive. It reminds me of primary school.

The same school that didn’t teach you the difference between ‘pervasive’ and ‘persuasive’?

Come on, genius. Why aren’t German roads safer than Australian roads? Maybe you can find chewie14’s mystical road while you’re at it. Come back when you’ve got some real stats that allow us to make a meaningful comparison of both road systems, supported by sufficient regression analysis for us to focus on speed. You’d think after all these years it’d be easy to find, right? Gee, I wonder if there’s a reason for why it’s not, but there’s all this peer-reviewed research showing a direct causal link between increased speed and crashes, and this research is acted upon by experts in every developed nation…nah, they must all be wrong, and it’s all a government conspiracy, man.

Vexed said :

There is no simple solution to dissolve road accidents. At the end of the day, the nature of an accident is unintentional.

WRONG! well, strictly speaking, not, but let’s not call these ‘accidents’, but ‘collisions’. the nature of these ‘collisions’ is a lack of attention and road craft, often blinded by arrogance and lack of care/respect for other users, but it’s the same thing.

go to any collision you have been in, at fault or no, or any your friends/relatives have been in, and wind it back five or ten seconds and tell me honestly there was nothing that could have prevented the collision.

if every road user was attentive to the conditions and events around them, and respectful (of both other usuers and the motor traffic regulations) then there would be very few collisions.

but let’s not go taking any responsibility for ourselves shall we?

we really need to instil in all road users a better sense of this and make it a habit from day one of learning to drive; until we do, very little is going to change in terms of traffic ‘accidents’ statistics.

Let’s take William Hovell Rd:

Numerous reckless merging lanes littered across the city – Seen those little <1k strips on William Hovell that seem to serve no other purpose than to taunt drivers into accidents?

High-speed single lane roads with no grassy median inbetween? Ever tried driving on William Hovell on Friday night at 110kph in the passing lane?

And barely any major roads connecting the major neighborhoods? A shit road like Coppins Crossing is actually considered a viable route to work.

Dysfunctional roads = accidents. But no one wants to pay the taxes to fix things. Buckle up.

Nark said :

I don’t see a mention of speed in here, do you?

I’d imagine that it would be an integral part of points 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8.

Not that I disagree with your overarching point.

Sweden by and large has a lot more inclusive and community-minded way of looking at public policy (as opposed to the individual and atomistic assumptions of Australian policy). The cultural differences are by no means insignificant: the general attitude of Australian drivers is, by and large, quite isolated and self-centred: other drivers are seen as ‘the competition’ or obstacles, rather than other individuals who form an overarching community with common goals and purposes.

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

You’ve yet to explain why Germany’s wondrous system doesn’t have it seeing the same benefits as countries like Norway and Sweden with much tougher crackdowns on speed and drinking. If it’s so awesome, why don’t they have the best results in Europe? Why aren’t they even better than ours? If you’re serious about going for the safest road system, why aren’t you advocating for Swedish and Norwegian-style reforms? Simple questions, but I bet you won’t answer them, because you went to the Chewie14 School of Missing The F*cking Point.

OK, so here’s Sweden’s 11 points for improved road safety:
1. A focus on the most dangerous roads
2. Safer traffic in built-up areas
3. Emphasis on the responsibilities of road users
4. Safe bicycle traffic
5. Quality assurance in transport work
6. Winter tire requirement
7. Making better use of Swedish technology
8. Responsibilities of road transport system designers
9. Public responses to traffic violations
10. The role of voluntary organizations
11. Alternative forms of financing for new roads

I don’t see a mention of speed in here, do you? Funny that, you know why? Seriously? Try to see someone else’s point for once?

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

You’re the one with the claim – where’s your evidence? I’ve cited figures showing that in Australia, increasing the speed limit increases injuries, and that overseas, decreasing it results in fewer fatalities. What have you got, exactly? Can you even give a plausible logic for how licensing changes behaviour once you’ve got the piece of plastic in your wallet? “Well, I was going to get wasted and out my ute sideways round that corner, but when I remember I spent 120 hours in training instead of 80, why, suddenly I’m a changed person!”

Sorry, but I’ve cited figures as well, which you’ve completely ignored. I’ll quote them again here in case you missed them last time.

A 2005 study by the German Federal Interior Ministry (Bundesministerium des Innern) indicated that Autobahn sections with unrestricted speed have the same crash record as sections with speed limits.

Since the introduction of a speed limit in NT in 2007, the deaths have been higher each subsequent year.

If you look at the figures, road deaths on freeways usually hover around the 3% mark (as I previously (badly) explained). This is far lower than the total and yet where the highest speeds are. If speed kills, then wouldn’t you see far, far higher figures?
This whole notion of speed is for people who can’t grasp that accidents are caused by a multitude of factors which only attitude, being observant and car control can fix. And yet in this country, speed is the only thing that is being pushed. The fact that it’s a good money spinner couldn’t possibly have anything to do with it, could it? No?

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

picking and choosing whatever ‘evidence’ suits your pubescent, toxoplasma-fueled urges

That’d be great if you didn’t do the same thing. Please address the two points above.

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

F*ckingcrackheadwankersspasticpubescent

I like how you think that name calling makes your argument more pervasive. It reminds me of primary school.

Punter said :

Directed at NARK # 27 (great name!), In spite of your sarcasm, there is relevance between drivers dying in racing and drivers dying on the road, it’s speed.

The drivers on the race track have more safety controls in place to better protect them in the event of a crash which will almost always be at high speed. Only, unlike the race track, our roads aren’t open areas and don’t have tyre walls and gravel traps to wipe off the high speeds when we come off the road. Our roads do, however have lots of objects to collide with like trees and other vehicles travelling in the opposite direection or turning across our paths of driving.

Actually, driving fast on a track is far safer than the road. You have a consistent road surface, lots of run off, heaps of visibility and no other traffic.

The difference between being on the track and being in a race, however, is marked. The risks you take when trying to extract that 0.01s are a lot higher.

Speed does not kill. It’s a risk factor that has to be managed, just like the condition of the road, the weather, the amount of vision available, and the driver’s physical state. They all factor in how a certain stretch of road should be traversed.

Pommy bastard11:10 am 23 Jun 10

With regard to motorcycles, I have had three near collisions in the past year on my bike. EVERY single one of them, without fail, has been due to OLD drivers doing stupid things at low speed. My bike is bright red, it has permanent day riding lights on it, I wear a fluro jacket every time I’m out on it.

The last near collision I had was due to an old person STOPPING ON A ROUNDABOUT to let other drivers on!

Clown Killer11:00 am 23 Jun 10

The Northern Territory example, with respect to unlimited speeds on highways, is a bit of a two edged sword. I used to do a bit of driving in the Territory a few years back, both before the speed restrictions were introduced and after (and from recollection even after the restrictions were put in place there are still a couple of roads that are ‘unrestricted’).

My first observation is that whilst driving at 140km/h might have been an option, given the long distances between centres, fuel consumption was a significant factor in regulating speed. In a six-cylinder Falcon/Commodore you can pretty much see the fuel gauge dropping before your eyes with the cruise control set on 150km/h. The reality seemed to be that most drivers would sit around 120km/h anyway.

Another factor was wildlife. Sure Canberra gets it’s share of roo’s (which can be scary enough), but up there you also had to worry about buffalo, camels, cattle etc. but hell, even a paddymelon can do a remarkable amount of damage at 150.

Lastly, and this would probably apply more broadly across highways anywhere here in Australia, there’s the fact that many of out ‘freeways’ still intersect rural roads and property access roads. Is it really such a bright idea to allow people to scoot along at 140 when farmer Joe is going to pull out of the farm gate in his ute with a pile of hay bales on the back doing 40?

Woody Mann-Caruso10:05 am 23 Jun 10

I drive on the Autobahns daily

Hey! Your highly relevant direct observations aren’t welcome here. Who do you think you are to contradict established motoring forum dogma? Germany is a mystical fairy land where all the roads are perfect, all the cars are perfect and all the drivers are perfect. If we just jacked up our speed limits here we’d be as perfect as them (oh, yeah, stricter licensing provisions, but I’ve already got mine, and it wouldn’t retrospective, right? And I can still have a few beers before I hit the road? And my VN is still roadworthy?)

JTACT said :

ZERO TOLERANCE for blood alcohol level
1st offence – loss of licence (no suspension – LOSS!) for 12 months
2nd offence – loss of licence for 5 years
3rd offence – loss of licence for 10 years

why do we allow any level anyway ? why do we make allowances for alcohol ??

if people find it that hard NOT to have drink if they are going to drive then they need
help.

loss of licences seems pointless. Bare minimum once a licence is suspended the police/judge should be allowed to have an rego in the offenders name cancelled for the duration of the suspension. Then the plates confiscated. The car would then stand out to police if the offender continues to drive. If someone else like a spouse or family member drives the car they will need to transfer ownership into their name which will be additional costs on top of any fines already imposed.

I personally also think that for repeat offenders cars should be impounded and if they continue to drive unlicenced. Automatic jail time.

Directed at NARK # 27 (great name!), In spite of your sarcasm, there is relevance between drivers dying in racing and drivers dying on the road, it’s speed.

The drivers on the race track have more safety controls in place to better protect them in the event of a crash which will almost always be at high speed. Only, unlike the race track, our roads aren’t open areas and don’t have tyre walls and gravel traps to wipe off the high speeds when we come off the road. Our roads do, however have lots of objects to collide with like trees and other vehicles travelling in the opposite direection or turning across our paths of driving. I don’t recall reading any posts which suggested the speed limits be lowered, just not increased.

I think the biggest threat to road safety is drivers attitudes. If you have the wrong attitude, you’re more likely to put yourself and others at risk by the way you drive. This is the opposite for drivers with a good attitude, even if it is born of self righteousness. The attitudes of commentors like NARK and clp (thinks the road toll is acceptable) are only part of the problem and not the solution.

Funky1 said :

Postalgeek said :

+ 1 for 54-11

The best way to reduce dangerous driving is to remove airbags from steering wheels and replace them with metal spikes that come to a point two inches from the driver’s head.

And who gives a toss about what Mark Skaife thinks. Skaife is not famous for his intellect. Is there some dumbass theory that skilled drivers, like professional racing drivers, never write themselves off at high speed?

Think again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_racing_drivers_who_died_in_racing_crashes

It’s a long list.

If anyone actually saw the story on Skaife’s ideals, it was a holistic approach to road safety. Not just what the mainstream media picked up on – that he advocated
raising the speed limit around Australia.

He talked about the experience in Germany, with high quality highways (not the goat trails here that pass as main roads), later model safer cars (not the rust-boxes that still exist on our roads) and better driver education (not mum or dad taking you down the back suburb for a few laps around the car park), it is possible to reduce the number of deaths on the roads, especially amongst our younger drivers.

It actually made a fair bit of sense. Imagine of our young men (the highest category of recorded road deaths) actually drove cars with airbags, ABS and other safety equipment instead of 80’s model commodores or buzz-boxes with no suspension.

Driven in Germany???? I drive on the Autobahns daily, while here in Germany, and I can tell you, that drivers of cars that can drive at speeds higher than 140km/hr are inconsiderate, arrogant, f@*cking rude, pushy arschlocs (mostly). Most flash thier lights, ride up your bum at 140km/hr (the max speed I do feeling compfortable) when overtaking trucks (they have a 100km/hr limit), sit in the left hand lane with thier arm resting on the door. I do 130km/hr max, as that is what I am most compfy with, something that I reckon Canberra drivers don’t/can’t do, without considering increasing the speed limits for them. There are articles in the regional papers daily regarding fatals, and given the higher rate of older people here (Germany), there are also a high number of “falschfahrers” (drive on wrong side of autobahn), a dangerous concoction with the 140+ers. Added to that, most autobahns in Germany rarely allow for drivers to go at unlimited speeds, due to the constant roadworks, high volume traffic, accidents, or weather conditions. With all these factors considered, I believe Australia as well, would not be any better off with unlimited/raised speeds, as much as Germany isnt. As an end note, one has to consider the personal cost of running a vehicle at high speeds with the price of tyres, fuel, etc.

Woody Mann-Caruso10:09 pm 22 Jun 10

In 2000, the German figure was 11.3 whereas the Australian one was roughly 9.5. Who’s making the gains?

Both of us, it would seem. Germany may be making slightly faster gains thanks to the widespread use of ESC, but I’m sure we’ll open the gap once it’s more widely used here.

All of that it irrelevant, of course. Seriously, is the best you can do is to show that that used to be more behind? You’ve yet to explain why Germany’s wondrous system doesn’t have it seeing the same benefits as countries like Norway and Sweden with much tougher crackdowns on speed and drinking. If it’s so awesome, why don’t they have the best results in Europe? Why aren’t they even better than ours? If you’re serious about going for the safest road system, why aren’t you advocating for Swedish and Norwegian-style reforms? Simple questions, but I bet you won’t answer them, because you went to the Chewie14 School of Missing The F*cking Point.

BTW, the Autobahn figure is 3.0%

3% of what? 3% of people on the Autobahn die? 3% are involved in crashes? 3% involved in crashes die? What the hell are you talking about, exactly, crackhead?

Do you seriously think that lowering speed limits (especially on highways) is more effective than better education and stricter licencing?

You’re the one with the claim – where’s your evidence? I’ve cited figures showing that in Australia, increasing the speed limit increases injuries, and that overseas, decreasing it results in fewer fatalities. What have you got, exactly? Can you even give a plausible logic for how licensing changes behaviour once you’ve got the piece of plastic in your wallet? “Well, I was going to get wasted and out my ute sideways round that corner, but when I remember I spent 120 hours in training instead of 80, why, suddenly I’m a changed person!”

Look, I know you revhead wankers all get together on your spastic car web forums and it’s all terribly thrilling to have everybody agree with each other, picking and choosing whatever ‘evidence’ suits your pubescent, toxoplasma-fueled urges, feeling like you must be right because you all have the same answers, but guess what? You’re all wrong.

Say hi to the speed camera for me, and enjoy your stay in my wonderful country, where responsible policy makers like me delight in finding new ways to spend small amounts of taxpayers’ money to pull massive sums of money from your wallet and make you suffer. Oh, and something about road safety. But that’s icing on the cake.

Growling Ferret10:00 pm 22 Jun 10

Lets look at the 2010 road toll.

Multiple Motorcyclists getting hit at night at t intersections by car drivers that did not see them or did not judge what speed the bike was ‘really’ doing before pulling out
.
Other motorcyclists dropping it out at the cotter.

A carthief junkie hitting his dealer and killing 4.

and various others I can’t remember the details of.

How are the AFP meant to stop these accidents? Why should my civil liberties be eroded (the ability to enjoy a glass of wine over dinner, or a light beer an hour for 4 or 5 hours as designated driver) to stop dickheads killing themselves?

My old man called motorcyclists Temporary Australians when I was growing up. I believe he was spot on…

Nark said :

Postalgeek said :

Is there some dumbass theory that skilled drivers, like professional racing drivers, never write themselves off at high speed?

Think again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_racing_drivers_who_died_in_racing_crashes

It’s a long list.

Hmm… I can see the relevance between racing and heading down to the shops to pick up milk. It’s quite obvious that the risks are too similar to pick.

Sorry, you’ve lost me. You’ll have to explain where and when heading down to the shops to pick up milk came into this.

There is no simple solution to dissolve road accidents. At the end of the day, the nature of an accident is unintentional. Beside the obvious contributors to road accidents (drunk drivers, joy riders, mobile phone user etc), There are social issues surrounding attitudes of motorists.

The hardest problem to tackle is that some people have “me first” attitude when it comes to single lane forming, roundabouts and the concept of traffic congestion/dynamics. Drivers of ALL car makes shapes,sizes will cut each other off and manouvre their vehicles through traffic in a desperate attempt to get to thier destination 30 seconds earlier. So many times i have seen drivers young and old power past and cut me off(decreasing my safe braking distance) only to arrive at the next red light before me. People also get greedy at merging situations, some people are casual and will allow a car to merge in front of them, meanwhile a greedy driver will try to merge two or more cars in front causing a surge behind as everyone has to suddenly brake and disrupt the flow of traffic. Education is key here, people need to learn how traffic flows. When you are on a road, you are not the only motorist as you are sharing the roadway with everyone else. Arrogance on the road is what i am trying describe and it comes in many forms such as aggressive, complacent, careless and neglegent drivers. They are all equally dangerous and can cause accidents and maybe we can teach traffic dynamics as driver training aswell as advanced vehicle control in conjuction with my next suggestion.

Another issue is motoring enthusiasts competing with each other by showing off and just “having fun” with each other. Everyone needs to ackowledge that alot of people treat their cars as hobbies and therefore spend alot of time and money creating thier personal machine. There is a huge motor culture and my suggestion here would be to provide a controlled environment where people can take thier cars to the extreme (as many do) in a safe regulated skid pan, drag strip, track that is affordable for EVERYONE and available most days/nights a week. (not a bureaucratic cash grab). With the availabilty of such a facilty and motorists still choose to use public roads in such a manner, I would then agree to impose the harshest penalties.

What the state can do is fix the public transport system and address the reasons behind people choosing to drive drunk by providing practical solutions for people whether it be more buses, taxis or even dial-a-driver like service. Again, these must be affordable and available to EVERYONE!

Lets not choose to live in a bubble people! and seek education, understanding and middle ground on all issues! live and let live…

just because a white van is on the happy straight bits clocking you when you don’t, for some reason, think they should be, doesn’t mean they aren’t also out patrolling the back streets and watching you elsewhere. in any event, you should drive like they are… well, for that reason, and simply because you should drive lawfully and respectfully everywhere anyway, no..?

ffs, what a pointless self-aggrandising gripe of an op…

Speed kills. 40kph kills, 60kph kills, 100kph kills, 140kph kills.

It is dangerous driving a car, no matter what speed you are driving. In some cases lowering the speed limit will be safer, in some cases increasing the speed limit be safer.

If people actually used some common sense and actually watch and listen to what Mark Skaife says in its entirety they would realise what he is saying is absolutely correct.

Some roads, like sections of the Hume Hwy/Fwy can be safely driven at 130/140kph. Currently we have people with little driver training driving at 110kph, given the right training people can drive safely at those speeds, though a lot of people already do this anyway. If you take a look at the NT when they removed the unlimited speed limits and set a 110/120kph, fatalities increased by double figures.

Prohibiting parents from teaching their children to drive. The reason there are so many bad drivers on the road is because mummy and daddy have taught their children all their bad driving habits.

Compulsory advanced driver training, teach new drivers to drive well and give them the knowledge and ability to handle a car in all situations, not wrapping them up in a ball.

Get old cars off the road, you are far more likely to die in the cheap $1k cars which have a minus 5 crash test rating. Plus they’re bad for the environment etc etc.

Simplify speed limits, people spend too much time watching the speedo as the speed limits change multiple times within kms of each other on the same road.

On a side note, people in this town have problems with the give way rules, legally changing lanes and merging. Given that they haven’t created cameras for these things, I would say some sort of police presence on the roads would be beneficial.

Holden Caulfield8:23 pm 22 Jun 10

cranky said :

I am convinced that the major failing of motorists, leading to accidents and road deaths, is the lack of concentration on the task of driving.

You’re wrong, it is speed that causes accidents. I’ve seen the ads.

Honestly, there’s no point trying to discuss a better way to educate road users. It just ends up becoming a bunch of self-righteous wankers patting each other on the back.

RiotACT is not alone in this I might add, but it often provides a great example of the point. See also, any discussion on cyclists.

I am convinced that the major failing of motorists, leading to accidents and road deaths, is the lack of concentration on the task of driving.

Distractions are numerous, but I have no idea how to reach/teach/force drivers to pay full attention to the task of driving. I would bet hard money that the vast majority of accidents involving motorcycles on ACT roads recently are the result of a lack of concentration by motorists. Just not looking hard enough at the road/intersection they are entering.

Poor eyesight may be a major contributing factor.

georgesgenitals6:10 pm 22 Jun 10

fgzk said :

GG When the idiot steals your car you can watch him on google maps. Simple solution. Idiot.

So the cops watch it on the web, then turn up later to collect your car. But you don’t seriously think that the only time car thieves drive like dickheads is when being pursued by cops, do you?

Idiot.

Postalgeek said :

Is there some dumbass theory that skilled drivers, like professional racing drivers, never write themselves off at high speed?

Think again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_racing_drivers_who_died_in_racing_crashes

It’s a long list.

Hmm… I can see the relevance between racing and heading down to the shops to pick up milk. It’s quite obvious that the risks are too similar to pick.

luther_bendross said :

Personally, I am best friends with my cruise control, and if I’m doing 40km/h and you’re doing 80km/h in roadworks, I will indicate, check my mirrors and merge in front of you. Not so that you have to slam you brakes on, just so you can’t go any faster than 40.

Ah… Self-righteousness, it’s such a soothing balm.

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

The same Germany which, despite its quality highways, later model safer cars and better driver education has a higher death rate per 1 billion vehicle km travelled than Australia: 7.2 to our 6.5.

In 2000, the German figure was 11.3 whereas the Australian one was roughly 9.5. Who’s making the gains?

BTW, the Autobahn figure is 3.0%. Unlimited speed on good freeways is soooOOoo dangerous.

What say you to this, then?

A 2005 study by the German Federal Interior Ministry (Bundesministerium des Innern) indicated that Autobahn sections with unrestricted speed have the same crash record as sections with speed limits.

Since the introduction of a speed limit in NT in 2007, the deaths have been higher each subsequent year.

Do you seriously think that lowering speed limits (especially on highways) is more effective than better education and stricter licencing? Australians think it’s a right to have a car licence, they are not taught how dangerous driving is nor are they taught any level of car control. To get a licence you need to learn how to drive around the block and then parallel park?

And perhaps people should watch the story from Skaife before jumping to conclusions about his comments as well?
http://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunday-night/video/-/watch/20309503/

GG When the idiot steals your car you can watch him on google maps. Simple solution. Idiot.

A simpler solution will be when petrol reaches the $8 a litre.

Smaller, smarter cars based around technology. Larger more realistic implants for your penis. Everyone will be happy. Simple evolution.

Woody Mann-Caruso3:05 pm 22 Jun 10

He talked about the experience in Germany with high quality highways (not the goat trails here that pass as main roads), later model safer cars (not the rust-boxes that still exist on our roads) and better driver education (not mum or dad taking you down the back suburb for a few laps around the car park), it is possible to reduce the number of deaths on the roads, especially amongst our younger drivers.

The same Germany which, despite its quality highways, later model safer cars and better driver education has a higher death rate per 1 billion vehicle km travelled than Australia: 7.2 to our 6.5.

Can we please stop trotting out Germany as some sort of model for how roads should be run? If you’re fair dinkum about it you’ll raise somewhere like Sweden instead: just 5.1 deaths per billion vehicle km, and when it dropped its limit from 110km/h to 90km/h it saw a 21% drop in fatal crashes. Or do you not actually care about road safety at all – just whether you get busted and fined for speeding?

georgesgenitals2:29 pm 22 Jun 10

fgzk said :

GG “the problem is that plenty of people who drink and speed don’t have accidents. “

Really. I love this one because every pisshead I have know that drink drives has an accident. Check out the pissheads car. Body damage. I’ve seen a pisshead write off his car in the driveway. Very impressive. If there ever was a drug that guarantees an accident then its alcohol. Death may not be imminent, but panel damage is.

I know several people who drink and drive who have been doing this for years and have never had a problem. I don’t do it myself, or condone it, but these people are simply not scared of having an accident, or even of getting caught.

fgzk said :

If you want to control drivers then black box them. GPS, GSM technology with a breathalyser, if you must. This system will then send a ticket via sms to your email. You can pay via the internet. Any-time, anywhere. Sure it might make your 911s impotent and increase demand for penile implants. What it will do is make any kind of deviation from the law instantly billable. The technology is already here. Speeding fixed.

Cool. So now the idiot that steals the car is too scared to speed? Or does he still run from police and kill himself and others?

I know this is a really difficult and frustrating problem, but there isn’t a simple solution, and we need to think a bit more about it.

Jim Jones said :

Because if taxes were raised so that more police could be employed to enforce the road rules in the way that you want (or to provide driver training), you’d scream blue bloody murder about it.

Spot on!

GG “the problem is that plenty of people who drink and speed don’t have accidents. “

Really. I love this one because every pisshead I have know that drink drives has an accident. Check out the pissheads car. Body damage. I’ve seen a pisshead write off his car in the driveway. Very impressive. If there ever was a drug that guarantees an accident then its alcohol. Death may not be imminent, but panel damage is.

If you want to control drivers then black box them. GPS, GSM technology with a breathalyser, if you must. This system will then send a ticket via sms to your email. You can pay via the internet. Any-time, anywhere. Sure it might make your 911s impotent and increase demand for penile implants. What it will do is make any kind of deviation from the law instantly billable. The technology is already here. Speeding fixed.

But really, you will never stop risky behaviour on our roads when it is what sells cars. Big, fast, powerful, freedom machines.

Postalgeek said :

+ 1 for 54-11

The best way to reduce dangerous driving is to remove airbags from steering wheels and replace them with metal spikes that come to a point two inches from the driver’s head.

And who gives a toss about what Mark Skaife thinks. Skaife is not famous for his intellect. Is there some dumbass theory that skilled drivers, like professional racing drivers, never write themselves off at high speed?

Think again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_racing_drivers_who_died_in_racing_crashes

It’s a long list.

If anyone actually saw the story on Skaife’s ideals, it was a holistic approach to road safety. Not just what the mainstream media picked up on – that he advocated
raising the speed limit around Australia.

He talked about the experience in Germany, with high quality highways (not the goat trails here that pass as main roads), later model safer cars (not the rust-boxes that still exist on our roads) and better driver education (not mum or dad taking you down the back suburb for a few laps around the car park), it is possible to reduce the number of deaths on the roads, especially amongst our younger drivers.

It actually made a fair bit of sense. Imagine of our young men (the highest category of recorded road deaths) actually drove cars with airbags, ABS and other safety equipment instead of 80’s model commodores or buzz-boxes with no suspension.

+ 1 for 54-11

The best way to reduce dangerous driving is to remove airbags from steering wheels and replace them with metal spikes that come to a point two inches from the driver’s head.

And who gives a toss about what Mark Skaife thinks. Skaife is not famous for his intellect. Is there some dumbass theory that skilled drivers, like professional racing drivers, never write themselves off at high speed? Think again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_racing_drivers_who_died_in_racing_crashes

It’s a long list.

Because if taxes were raised so that more police could be employed to enforce the road rules in the way that you want (or to provide driver training), you’d scream blue bloody murder about it.

luther_bendross12:52 pm 22 Jun 10

Having lived in four of Australia’s main states/territories and having visited the other four, my vote is on the ACT’s drivers being, by far, the worst per capita. Why? Well there’s ridiculous signage (i.e. when there’s three lanes going 80km/h, then a sign tells us to “Form 2 Lanes” but doesn’t say which one ends), poor infrastructure (GDE, Glenloch), un-enforced roadwork zones, and a whole lot more. The kindergarten Government that is the ACTLA could stop it by installing lots of permanent, hidden speed cameras (around schools, roadworks zones, Northbourne, Anzac Ave, Limestone) and making the penalties obscenely expensive. There’s just not enough cops or money to do it. However, we can still all marvel at public artwork and Stanhope’s ridiculous arborthingy.

Personally, I am best friends with my cruise control, and if I’m doing 40km/h and you’re doing 80km/h in roadworks, I will indicate, check my mirrors and merge in front of you. Not so that you have to slam you brakes on, just so you can’t go any faster than 40.

ZERO TOLERANCE for blood alcohol level
1st offence – loss of licence (no suspension – LOSS!) for 12 months
2nd offence – loss of licence for 5 years
3rd offence – loss of licence for 10 years

why do we allow any level anyway ? why do we make allowances for alcohol ??

if people find it that hard NOT to have drink if they are going to drive then they need
help.

Genie said it best. When a person can be charged with PCA, found guilty, then get their licence given back the next day so they can drive to work, people will continue to drink and drive. People need to be accountable for their actions. But we all know this will continue to happen until one of the magistrates or their family gets killed by a drunk driver.

I think given the number of cars on the roads and the number of Kms travelled each years our road toll is acceptable. I think over the years safety campaigns – particularly compulsory seat belts and RBTs have significantly improved things (as well as car safety features).

Now if we could please divert as much attention to things like our suicide rate.

Woody Mann-Caruso12:40 pm 22 Jun 10

Aww, did oo get a widdle tickety wickety, sqwashee? Was it coz oo were dwiving too fast in an 80 zone? Are oo feewing a widdle bit picked on? Does oo fink creating a massive army of police cars at enormous public expense to do nothing but pull over tailgaters is the appropriate response to your utter inability to control your vehicle in a lawful manner?

Suck it up, snowflake.

ConanOfCooma12:27 pm 22 Jun 10

54-11 said :

I’m convinced that there is only one way to stop the carnage – remove all seatbelts, airbags and other protections from vehicles.

Then when dickheads do stupid things, it will hurt a wole lot more.

One of the problems we have created is complacency in drivers. Remember the Volvo drivers? They were so cacooned and felt so safe that they could just barrel along as if there was noone else in the world.

Well, we’re all like that now (except for those of us who ride motorbikes – we have so little protection we have to ride defensively). Why do people talk on mobiles? Other than the fact they’re dicks, they know that if things go wrong, they’ll still be OK.

Well, just remove the protection and let the pain run free.

Suffer the little children?

I’ve always felt like the cops don’t have enough of a visible presence on ACT roads to really create a disincentive to drive like an idiot. I guess speed cameras and RBTs provide better bang for buck than just driving around all day hoping to see someone doing an illegal u-turn or talking on a mobile phone, but I’ve definitely got the impression that there’s little to no enforcement of the road rules beyond the white vans and the odd handheld radar. This is probably an incorrect impression, but allowing this perception to exist is a major problem.

I’m convinced that there is only one way to stop the carnage – remove all seatbelts, airbags and other protections from vehicles.

Then when dickheads do stupid things, it will hurt a wole lot more.

One of the problems we have created is complacency in drivers. Remember the Volvo drivers? They were so cacooned and felt so safe that they could just barrel along as if there was noone else in the world.

Well, we’re all like that now (except for those of us who ride motorbikes – we have so little protection we have to ride defensively). Why do people talk on mobiles? Other than the fact they’re dicks, they know that if things go wrong, they’ll still be OK.

Well, just remove the protection and let the pain run free.

I dont think police need to target speeding and drunk drivers more.. I just think they need to make the penalties harsher.

The funniest and wrongest thing I’ve seen is watching all the people in court losing their licence over drink driving, then walking out to the carpark getting in their cars and driving straight past the cop shop. I personally think their cars should be impounded and/or the driver jailed for short amount of times depending on the severity of the offence.

Income test speeding fines. Someone who earns well over 100k per annum isn’t going to care about a $70 fine. Or say if someone already has received a number of fines, it increases say 10% with every one received.

I think tougher laws over more police needs to be enforced.

georgesgenitals10:11 am 22 Jun 10

fgzk said :

“People out drinking in Canberra also know that it is much easier and quicker to simply drive home over the limit “

Then I guess they will eventual know that its much easier and much qiucker to smash their car. Pissheads are so stupid.

Whilst I agree with you comment, the problem is that plenty of people who drink and speed don’t have accidents. Of course, the risk of accident is much higher (unacceptably higher, I would say), but like the recent thread on illegal drug taking, telling people who behave in a certain way that their death is imminent when they’ve behaved that way consistently with no problems does not a good solution make.

I don’t think there’s a simple answer to this.

ConanOfCooma10:07 am 22 Jun 10

The cops already target speeders and drink drivers. Just not effectively.

I’ve posted before that speeding alone doesn’t kill, it’s the bad drivers. That said, there is no definitve road side test for a bad driver. Unless the cops are in the traffic and can witness a bad driver, they can’t, and won’t do anything about it.

Out of all the States and cities I have driven in, Queensland, by far, has the MOST bad drivers. Canberra, I would have to say, has the WORST drivers. Mexicans don’t count, as their plastic rectangles are exactly that: Plastic rectangles. Sydney is actually getting better, even though the drivers are still all arseholes.

georgesgenitals9:55 am 22 Jun 10

I think the first thing to do is to look at the actual circumstances of accidents involving deaths and serious injuries. One of the most obvious cases is people who are obviously breaking the rules (eg the recent Fyshwick crash).

As for the more general accidents that occur, I think the usual comments apply.

I agree with most of what you said here.

However, this thread will turn to crap by people claiming that anyone who goes over 100kmh kills orphans and mutilates kittens.

UrbanAdventure.org9:45 am 22 Jun 10

I would like to see police target both speeding drivers and drink drivers. Like many, I’d like to be pretty sure that when I get on the road, that I’ve got a good chance of getting to my destination alive. I also feel a lot for the many people left behind after accidents like Mully’s muder spree on the roads some months ago.
Yet in the ten plus years that I have been living in the area, I’ve only ever been proactively pulled over once for a random breath test, and been directed into just 2 roadside breath tests plus driven past another 2. I could count the number of mobile speed checks I’ve driven past without having to resort to using more than the fingers on two hands.
I’d need a lot more hands to count the number of tail gaters, people using their mobile phones (lots of tradies doing that). I’ve regularly been overtaken by cars doing considerably above the 80 km speed limit over Hindmarsh Drive hill. Same for the Monero between Fyshwick and ADFA. Going through the road works on Kings Ave I always get overtaken in the 40 K zone, be it day or night. Lots of taxis doing that. Never had one beep at me but they sit so close that if I were to have an engine failure it would all be over for them.
To quote a friend from the USA, “No cop, no stop”. I know the police have a lot to do, and it seems there are never enough, and not enough funding. But tell that to those left behind to pick up the pieces after a car accident, even a non fatal one.

“People out drinking in Canberra also know that it is much easier and quicker to simply drive home over the limit “

Then I guess they will eventual know that its much easier and much qiucker to smash their car. Pissheads are so stupid.

Someone named ‘Squashee’ talking about road deaths and how road deaths could be reduced by increasing speed limits. Is this some sort of wind up?

Rawhide Kid No 29:37 am 22 Jun 10

“When will someone in power have the guts to do something useful to save lives?”

Should be, When will people be responsible for their own actions?

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.