Carney plead guilty to drunken burnouts in Goulburn

” think your return-on-investment for cutting down on their baleful influence is a hell of a lot higher than going after plonkers who fail to indicate. “

I have no problems with accepting that as an alternative opinion, but is there any real rationale to back it up? I would be disappointed if ‘provability’ was a major driver (no pun intended) to determining which law breaches to target.

I think the reason they pursue drink driving and speeding is that they are metrics that can be proven. I’d say it would be hard to make some charges that are at the officers discretion stand up in court (e.g. reckless/inattentive driving). Pursuing those kinds of charges would have a hell of a resource implication.

I’m not apologising for it – but I can see the rationale. Do you think if they had a “fatigue-o-meter” they wouldn’t be hammering tired drivers? Or a dickhead-o-meter, for that matter?

Besides, speeding and drink driving are two of the biggest contributors to fatal accidents there are. I think your return-on-investment for cutting down on their baleful influence is a hell of a lot higher than going after plonkers who fail to indicate.

I should point out, I’ve been pinged twice for not wearing a seat belt, so, yes, police are definately enforcing laws other than drink driving and speeding.

I have no problem with enforcing compliance with the law. My problem is that I see virtually zero efforts being directed towards anything other than speeding and drink driving, and I think this gives many a false sense of security, and impacts our prioritisation of safety measures.

On a more positive note, I see the ads for double demerit points including seatbelts, which are probably the most effective safety technology we have.

I guess I am against the whole fearmongering that is the anti-speeding campaign. I’m much more in favour of a more balanced approach.

It’s not just that you are more likely to crash while speeding. It is also that the crash is more likely to be fatal or really bad if you crash at high speed.

And really what do you gain – 5 minutes?

Being harsh on speeding helps create a culture where speeding is regarded as a really stupid thing to do. Kinda like drink driving. I know that the introduction of the .05 limit and the breathalyser was regarded by many at the time as a drastic violation of human rights – but it sure as hell cut the road toll.

Likewise with speeding. The same arguments are trotted out; “I’m a good driver – I can speed” and “Being a little bit over the limit is okay”. Replace speed with “have a few and drive” and you’ll see what I mean.

By all means we should come down harder on people driving carelessly and inattentively – but let’s keep coming down hard on speeding. You might think that a little bit of speeding is okay – but you can’t fight the harsh and immutable laws of physics.

No worries vg. Next time get I cut off by some moron at 98km/h in a 100 zone, with no indicator I’ll be sure to look at my speedo. After all, if my speed is 100 or less I MUST be safe! Frankly, this sort of rhetoric doesn’t achieve a thing.

If you drive at 50 over the speed limit, then yeah, you’re in a very high risk situation. No one is disputing that. And I don’t envy you having to visit fatal crashed. But perhaps if we removed some of the emotion, and got back to the facts, we would all be a bit better off.

I’d love to see you forward your argument regarding speed at the next fatal I go to. Try talking to an actual expert in actual accident investigation (like I do every day) instead of a net expert with an agenda.

Better still explain it to the parents of the kids that got killed on Hindmarsh Drive a few years ago when they lost it at Mach 10.

Generally agree with you VY – inattentive drivers trundling along at the speed limit can be just as dangerous.

oops – change ‘work’ to ‘amongst’. Don’t know what happened there!