Police Wrap - 2 July

If that were the case, how the hell do racing drivers drive only a couple of metres apart at over 200km/h?

Turns out that racing drivers do have accidents too. Do you reckon they’d have more or less of them if they only went at 100km/h?

VYBerlinaV8_the_one_they_all_copy said :

This thread just goes to show how easily people are brainwashed. Accidents happen due to a wide range of causes, which can usually be summed up as ‘driver mistake’. How quick you’re going will affect the seriousness of an impact, if it occurs. Speeding, in isolation, does not cause accidents. If that were the case, how the hell do racing drivers drive only a couple of metres apart at over 200km/h?

Driver skill and attitude are the main issues, and no amount of revenue raising is going to change that.

Driver skill and attitude are major factors (which is linked to speeding, I might add), but in the crashes that involve excessive speed, if was not present, then the crash could have been avoided or at least minimised. So regardless what what spin people want to put on it, speed is a major factor. I could pretty much guarantee that if there were no speed limits and was left open slather, there would be a whole lot more carnage on the roads. And again, if you don’t break the law and speed, there is NO revenue. The power of revenue is squarely in the drivers hands.

Sorry bigred, being compassionate about reducing unnecessary road trauma on OUR roads and PTSD are two entirely different things, sorry to get your hopes up bud 😉

methinks spideydog has ptsd.

Let me add, though, that when you hear of P-Platers doing 40km/h over the limit on suburban streets, that is an accident waiting to happen. These people don’t have the brain capacity needed to assess risk properly.

This thread just goes to show how easily people are brainwashed. Accidents happen due to a wide range of causes, which can usually be summed up as ‘driver mistake’. How quick you’re going will affect the seriousness of an impact, if it occurs. Speeding, in isolation, does not cause accidents. If that were the case, how the hell do racing drivers drive only a couple of metres apart at over 200km/h?

Driver skill and attitude are the main issues, and no amount of revenue raising is going to change that.

45+ km/h over the speed limit would never be an accident, hence the hefty fine and loss of points associated. There are plenty of areas on our roads where if a driver is speeding another motorist may pull out in front of them causing a collision as they could only see a clear road when they pulled out. Is then speed or a fail to give way the primary cause of the accident?

dvaey said :

Regular vehicle roadworthy inspections, semi regular driver training (if its good enough to have refresher courses for first aid, why not driving?), etc. theres plenty of things that can be targetted rather than speeding, however theyre nowhere near as profitable.

Roadworthy inspection I agree with as long as it doesn’t get to a situation where service centres begin to profiteer from a compulsory system like the 3rd party insurance scheme (nil competition). In saying this, do you know how many deaths or crashes are caused by unroadworthy vehicles? Semi regular driving training …. hmmm, who is paying for this, the government or the licence holder and how often are you talking. Driver training in itself can be a double edged sword too, it had been shown in the past that drivers that did driver training courses got in more accidents, rather than reduced them because they had an attitude of driver superiority, ie “I am an advanced driver and can therefor take more risks”. Things have changed with the focus in driver training going to recognising driver attitude and it’s significant role in safe driving. The other thing with compulsory driver training, is that it too is open to profiteering.

shauno said :

The thing is the road safety campaign has been hijacked along time ago by
need to raise revenue just look at the ridiculous situation in Victoria now where you
can be booked for doing 101 in and 100 zone.

I agree. There needs to be some amount of tolerance. If that situation exists, it is ridiculous.

I can’t help wondering though whether or not the need to increase speeding fines is leveraged off the possibility that less and less people are in fact speeding. Treasury would be asked to make some fairly accurate predictions of expected revenue streams. If income starts dropping off in any area Govermemnt would need to look at what actions could be taken to keep the money coming in.

dvaey said :

In that situation, car design, road conditions, driver ability and driver focus were also involved.

If you are going to get pedantic, EVERY collision will NOT have one single factor that causes it and therefor everything needs to be targetted at the same time. In my scenario, speed was THE factor that caused the crash.

dvaey said :

Whether speed is significant to the number of accidents isnt really relevant to the rate with which the fines appear to be going up. People are still dying on our roads, just as much now as 10 years ago when the fines werent nearly as high. The road toll is the same, death and injury rates are the same ballpark, the only difference is the revenue raised is increasing.

That statement is incorrect. The population has gone up and the amount of people on the road has gone up significantly in 10 years. Comparatively, the rate is less than ten years ago, even if the number of deaths are the same.

Of course over the years fines are going to go up ….. doesn’t prices of everything go up over the years. Why wouldn’t fines. Over the years, wages increase, etc and as such, if the fines didn’t, the pain at the hip pocket would minimize and work against what a monetary fine is supposed to do, change driver behaviour ?? As I pointed out earlier, I have seen repeat offenders for the smaller fine offences, but not of the $1647 fine offence. That tends to suggest to me that higher the hip pocket pain, less chance of repeat offenders.

I’m sorry m8, but it’s a simple concept – don’t speed, nil revenue. Revenue raising is the fault of people that are caught, not the government. The same old mantra of some …. I got caught speeding, it’s not my fault (finger point) it’s the governments fault, they are just revenue raising. No speed, no revenue – SIMPLE. Besides, the money goes back to the people, one way or another in the form of better roads, fixing traffic blackspots, better schools, hospitals, etc.

The thing is the road safety campaign has been hijacked along time ago by
need to raise revenue just look at the ridiculous situation in Victoria now where you
can be booked for doing 101 in and 100 zone. And more then half the state now have driving records and they rake in a world record amount of fines.

When you drive in Victoria now its down right dangerous everybody has their eyes glued to the speedo and are constantly feathering the brakes. Its especially dangerous riding a bike as the concentration is taken off the road and you can more easily be taken out by a driver not paying attention.

And the disease spread to NT where they introduced open road speed limits and the road toll increased as a result. The figures are all there to see on the NT police web site. The whole reason the labor govt in NT introduced the speed limits was because of some grandstanding PC politics to be seen to be doing something about the road toll. But the facts where the majority or deaths where caused by fatigue drink driving and pedestrian deaths. But they ignored that and saw a way of getting some revenue they were missing out on. So now you have situation where people a driving along bored and falling asleep on empty outback roads looking at their speedos.

Sorry for double post, but..

Spideydog said :

At the end of the day, speeding can be policed. Inattention, for example is somewhat harder ?? Unless we want big brother in all our vehicle’s ??

Regular vehicle roadworthy inspections, semi regular driver training (if its good enough to have refresher courses for first aid, why not driving?), etc. theres plenty of things that can be targetted rather than speeding, however theyre nowhere near as profitable.

Spideydog said :

dvaey said :

How does speed cause an accident? Speed is a contributing factor, as are a million other things, car design, weather, road conditions, driver ability, driver focus, other vehicles, etc etc. Your bottom line started off right ‘Its not the cause of all road fatalities’, infact its not the cause by itself

Hmmm, let me think about that …. vehicle travelling too fast, attempts to negotiate a corner, under steers because it is GOING TO FAST, vehicle loses control = CRASH. Pretty good example of where speed IS the cause of an accident.

In that situation, car design, road conditions, driver ability and driver focus were also involved.

There are a plethora of incidents where speeding coupled with inattention will cause a crash, hence my comment that speeding alone is not the cause of all crashes (of course it isn’t …. sheesh) The fact of the matter is, if that person hadn’t been speeding, the collision probably would not have eventuated, or the damage would have been greatly reduced.

So, does this mean as RiotACT suggested earlier in the year that the government will target things like drivers having heart attacks to prevent accidents? Whether speed is significant to the number of accidents isnt really relevant to the rate with which the fines appear to be going up. People are still dying on our roads, just as much now as 10 years ago when the fines werent nearly as high. The road toll is the same, death and injury rates are the same ballpark, the only difference is the revenue raised is increasing.

If the government enforced better vehicle and driver standards, that would go further to enhancing safety, than just handing out or mailing out tickets to someone caught doing something theyd normally do everyday anyway and just happened to get caught doing.

CK. If that is true, that is still only one years findings. Did they also the release the finding’s of the causes of all the non-fatal accidents for that year? (I’m not saying what they would indicate either, but would be nice for a all round picture)

I’m no statistician and do not know the ratio of deaths directly related to speeding or not over the last 50 years, but I do know that speed DOES cause crashes, whether by itself or with another contributing factor/s.

At the end of the day, speeding can be policed. Inattention, for example is somewhat harder ?? Unless we want big brother in all our vehicle’s ??

It’s not a conspiracy issue Spideydog, and I have no doubt that investigating police have the ability to form any number of conclusions based on their experience – but in the end this just doesn’t seem to be borne out by the coroners findings.

I recall a couple of years ago – not last year, maybe the year before when the ACT recorded something like 22 or 23 road deaths and we’d been subjected to an endless stream of spin from the Government and AFP about how Canberrans were refusing to get the message on speed. Come March when – based on a comprehensive review of all of the Coroners findings for the previous year – it was reported that of the 22 or 23 deaths only four could be attributed to speed or where speed was considered to be a contributing factor.

Now I’m in no way suggesting that speed won’t be a factor in some road deaths. Nor do I believe that penalties are excessive or overly punitive and I certainly don’t believe that the speed limits in force are too low.

dvaey said :

How does speed cause an accident? Speed is a contributing factor, as are a million other things, car design, weather, road conditions, driver ability, driver focus, other vehicles, etc etc. Your bottom line started off right ‘Its not the cause of all road fatalities’, infact its not the cause by itself

Hmmm, let me think about that …. vehicle travelling too fast, attempts to negotiate a corner, under steers because it is GOING TO FAST, vehicle loses control = CRASH. Pretty good example of where speed IS the cause of an accident.

Speeding doesn’t just mean doing 80 in a 60 zone. It also means driver doing 80km/h on a corner that you can only do 40km/h on even thought the speed limit may be 80km/h.

And no, I’m not going to sit here and list all the various scenarios of where speeding does cause a collision. If you don’t believe it to be true, so be it, that is your prerogative.

There are a plethora of incidents where speeding coupled with inattention will cause a crash, hence my comment that speeding alone is not the cause of all crashes (of course it isn’t …. sheesh) The fact of the matter is, if that person hadn’t been speeding, the collision probably would not have eventuated, or the damage would have been greatly reduced.

Clown Killer said :

Have you had to attend a speed related fatality and/or witness the aftermath ?? Have you had to tell attend someones house at 3am and tell them that they have lost a loved one to a speed related fatality?

I don’t think that over-egging the argument really helps. The fatality and it’s aftermath as well as the notification of next of kin all happen well before the coroner determines whether or not the fatality was ‘speed related’. The ACT Coroner publishes the findings on what the cause of all fatal road crashes but you won’t often get politicians of police spin doctors fat-mouthing off about those findings.

Do you really think the investigating officers don’t have a good idea what has caused or at least been a contributing factor in a crash, fairly early on in the investigation ?? The argument is valid. Saying that no one knows what the cause was until a Coroner “determines” it is just plain stupid. It is like saying I know that 2+2=4, but I will await the determination from the umpire to see if he/she agrees the answer is 4.

Oh, right I forgot it is all a conspiracy.

Have you had to attend a speed related fatality and/or witness the aftermath ?? Have you had to tell attend someones house at 3am and tell them that they have lost a loved one to a speed related fatality?

I don’t think that over-egging the argument really helps. The fatality and it’s aftermath as well as the notification of next of kin all happen well before the coroner determines whether or not the fatality was ‘speed related’. The ACT Coroner publishes the findings on what the cause of all fatal road crashes but you won’t often get politicians of police spin doctors fat-mouthing off about those findings.

Spideydog said :

Have you had to attend a speed related fatality and/or witness the aftermath ?? Have you had to tell attend someones house at 3am and tell them that they have lost a loved one to a speed related fatality?

Thought not.

It’s not the cause of all road fatalities, but it is a PREVENTABLE road fatality.

How does speed cause an accident? Speed is a contributing factor, as are a million other things, car design, weather, road conditions, driver ability, driver focus, other vehicles, etc etc. Your bottom line started off right ‘Its not the cause of all road fatalities’, infact its not the cause by itself, especially when compared to the fine for unaccompanied learner. The thought of a 40-year driving veteran driving at 130 down the parkway doesnt scare me quite as much as an unaccompanied inexperienced driver travelling at 80 or 90 down the same road.

Dont keep jacking up the fine ($1647 for 49km/hr over is ridiculous), implement ways to change drivers behaviour.

How can someone get over $1600 for speeding, while the offence of unaccompanied learner attracts under $100 fine?

I have seen some repeat offenders for the lower speed offences, I have not seen any that received $1647 come again. Granted that is only by personal experience. My question is how do we get the lower speed offenders to get the message?

The problem is that the fine isnt equally spread across the community. Sending a pensioner a camera fine for accidently going 70 in a 60 zone, causes more pain and hardship than sending the same fine to a 20 year old whos parents paid for the car and will pay for the fines too. In one case it doesnt change any behaviour in the other case it basically ruins someones life for a few months until they can pay the cost.

If punishments involved actual work or time (such as community service orders), drivers would be more aware of their actions I believe, and it would punish everyone equally.

As for disqualification for 30+, sounds like a good time to go sit in one of those quiet 40km/hr speed zones and rake in the cash/licences. Sit there for a week and you could probably get 80% of the licences off the road. That way we can have suspended drivers driving instead of unaccompanied.

NSW has recently changed the fine system adding an extra tier. They also have mandatory disqualification of licence for anything over 30+.

I think school zones should be permanent double demerits.

dvaey said :

I still believe a fairer deterent would be community service orders. Dont keep jacking up the fine ($1647 for 49km/hr over is ridiculous), implement ways to change drivers behaviour. Unfortunately this idea would never fly as its not about making drivers more aware or safer, but about revenue plain and simple.

How can someone get over $1600 for speeding, while the offence of unaccompanied learner attracts under $100 fine?

I have seen some repeat offenders for the lower speed offences, I have not seen any that received $1647 come again. Granted that is only by personal experience. My question is how do we get the lower speed offenders to get the message?

shauno said :

Because speeding is evil don’t forget and the cause of all road tolls or so the govt propaganda machine has been telling us for years. While propping up the bottom line at the same time. What a cunning idea it was many years ago to come up with this fantastic revenue raising plan linking speed death and hysteria to revenue.

Have you had to attend a speed related fatality and/or witness the aftermath ?? Have you had to tell attend someones house at 3am and tell them that they have lost a loved one to a speed related fatality?

Thought not.

It’s not the cause of all road fatalities, but it is a PREVENTABLE road fatality.

A naive and insensitive thing to say, from someone that obviously has no idea what they are talking about.

The problem isn’t the speeding fine being too severe, it’s the unaccompanied learner fine being much too lenient.

Because speeding is evil don’t forget and the cause of all road tolls or so the govt propaganda machine has been telling us for years. While propping up the bottom line at the same time. What a cunning idea it was many years ago to come up with this fantastic revenue raising plan linking speed death and hysteria to revenue.

I still believe a fairer deterent would be community service orders. Dont keep jacking up the fine ($1647 for 49km/hr over is ridiculous), implement ways to change drivers behaviour. Unfortunately this idea would never fly as its not about making drivers more aware or safer, but about revenue plain and simple.

How can someone get over $1600 for speeding, while the offence of unaccompanied learner attracts under $100 fine?

Good to see officers out and about, but we still aren’t realistically targetting genuinely dangerous behaviour. I still get cut off at least a couple of times per week by people who just haven’t looked, and see constant tailgating, lack of indicating and poor vehicle control.

A good step, plod, just keep it coming.

You are a scary, scary person Calwell resident.

How dump are these MORONS. The cops have been telling the public since xmas that they are out there and until behaviour changes they will stay out there. I think its time for mandatory 1 week in the new beaut AMC for over the speed limit more than 20k and alleged over blood alchohol limit. I assume since ive never been to gaol much scarier and bigger deterrent than saying sorry to one of our soft judges.

wonder if they got anyone for those ridiculous fog lights being on.

$90 for an unaccompanied learner? I think I know a few parents who would rather cover the fine than ride shotgun with their kids!

I should think over $1700 in fines is quite enough to make a learner learn.

Slap on the wrist coming for the two youths.

And only a $90 fine for being a an unaccompanied learner. What a great system we have.