So many more of us, so many less fatalities

Blen_Carmichael said :

IrishPete said :

Blen_Carmichael said :

Okay, let me spell it out. I think you’re a bush lawyer. I think you have an inflated opinion of your knowledge. I think you love dishing it out but you have a glass jaw. I think your judgement of police and criminal justice affairs is biased and highly questionable. I think you’re easily rattled. I think your emotional intelligence could do with a lot of improving.

Don’t like it? Sue me.

Though I laughed when I read this, I actually find it quite sad that you would think I would care what you think.

Apparently Confucious said something like: “The superior man is distressed by the limitations of his ability; he is not distressed by the fact that men do not recognize the ability that he has.”

Well don’t let me interrupt you, IP. As Churchill once said, “It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read a book of quotations.”

I am sure Churchill was right and it is. I wouldn’t know.

But what has this to do with road safety?

IP

IrishPete said :

Blen_Carmichael said :

Okay, let me spell it out. I think you’re a bush lawyer. I think you have an inflated opinion of your knowledge. I think you love dishing it out but you have a glass jaw. I think your judgement of police and criminal justice affairs is biased and highly questionable. I think you’re easily rattled. I think your emotional intelligence could do with a lot of improving.

Don’t like it? Sue me.

Though I laughed when I read this, I actually find it quite sad that you would think I would care what you think.

Apparently Confucious said something like: “The superior man is distressed by the limitations of his ability; he is not distressed by the fact that men do not recognize the ability that he has.”

Well don’t let me interrupt you, IP. As Churchill once said, “It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read a book of quotations.”

Deref said :

Could I appeal to posters to spell out things in full the first time they use them in a post? Of course that should have been obvious to me, but even so…

Sure, everything could be spelt out, that would be nice … but really – google “ESC”: The 4th result and the first that would seems to anyone to be at all relevant is the Wikipedia page for ESC. Even better, the first 8 results of a search for “car ESC” are all instructive. It’s a lot quicker than posting here, let alone waiting for the reply.

KB1971 said :

Deref said :

c_c™ said :

Now that ESC is becoming standard…

Please forgive my iggerunce. What’s ESC?

Electronic Stability Control.

D’oh. Yes. Thanks.

Could I appeal to posters to spell out things in full the first time they use them in a post? Of course that should have been obvious to me, but even so…

Blen_Carmichael said :

Okay, let me spell it out. I think you’re a bush lawyer. I think you have an inflated opinion of your knowledge. I think you love dishing it out but you have a glass jaw. I think your judgement of police and criminal justice affairs is biased and highly questionable. I think you’re easily rattled. I think your emotional intelligence could do with a lot of improving.

Don’t like it? Sue me.

Though I laughed when I read this, I actually find it quite sad that you would think I would care what you think.

Apparently Confucious said something like: “The superior man is distressed by the limitations of his ability; he is not distressed by the fact that men do not recognize the ability that he has.”

So back on topic (why DOES JB allow people to stray? there should be a “personal abuse” thread, a la Monty Python, where the sado-masochists can hang out ’til their hearts’ are content; I cam here for an argument, not abuse or being hit on the head), I think what everyone is asking for here is evidence-based policy, not police media releases.

IP

KB1971 said :

On the seat belt thing, I agree with your points on the law changes but I was talking about vehicle safety features, not law enforcement. There has been no other safety feature introduced to motor vehicles that has had the effect on saving lives than seat belts. I should have been more descriptive in my post.

Apologies for not properly reading your post – and it wasn’t even a long one, so I don’t have that excuse.

IrishPete said :

Blen_Carmichael said :

Goodness me, we’re a little bit defensive today, aren’t we? I merely asked you on what grounds the statement referred to constituted defamation, and I seem to have hit a nerve. I fully admit I have previously called you a bush lawyer in the past (and thank you ever so much for not suing me for that unjustified slur, guv’nor, I dips me lid, etc), but that was because of your laughable interpretation of s.109 of the Constitution.

My starting point for considering whether there would be a viable action in defamation would be the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) and relevant common law, but I understand litigants can sometimes go jurisdiction shopping (correct me if I’m wrong). I’m just wondering if there is perhaps some obscure bit of legislation that you know of – let’s call it, say, the Captains Flat Excitable Bush Lawyers Act 2013 – which defines defamation as any statement that questions the logic of Irish Pete the self-appointed polymath.

You asked a question, I answered.

My logic was not being questioned, I was being misquoted.

Polymath is perhaps an exaggeration (though I do have fingers in several pies), but I won’t threaten to sue you for a compliment.

IP

Okay, let me spell it out. I think you’re a bush lawyer. I think you have an inflated opinion of your knowledge. I think you love dishing it out but you have a glass jaw. I think your judgement of police and criminal justice affairs is biased and highly questionable. I think you’re easily rattled. I think your emotional intelligence could do with a lot of improving.

Don’t like it? Sue me.

Jono said :

KB1971 said :

Seat belts have been the single biggest safety advance since 1959. There was a massive decrease in road deaths when they were introduced.

Everything else that has led us to the modern motor car has been incremental.

If you crunch the numbers, that’s actually not correct. In the three biggest states (NSW, Qld and Vic) the pattern is actually remarkably consistent. In all three by far the biggest decreases in the road toll occurred in the years in and just after the introduction of speed cameras and the second biggest decreases occurred in the years in and just after the introduction of RBTs.

Despite the introduction of speed cameras and RBTs up to 10 years apart in these three states, the drops in the road toll coinciding with each are WAY outside the general downward trend due to improved car design etc which has been going on since the road tolls peaked in the mid 1970s.

Note that I’m not disagreeing about the effect of seat belts, but I think that the trouble with analysing their introduction are two fold. One is that the road toll was still trending upward when they were introduced, and secondly it was an incremental process – my memory is that existing cars without seat belts fitted were still legal for a number of years, the laws only applied to new cars (prepared to be corrected on that).

I know that our car at that time didn’t have rear seat belts fitted but was still legal.

A car built in an era without seat belts is still not required to have seat belts fitted. No vehicle safety feature that has been made mandatory has ever been applied in retrospect to vehicle built previously.

On the seat belt thing, I agree with your points on the law changes but I was talking about vehicle safety features, not law enforcement. There has been no other safety feature introduced to motor vehicles that has had the effect on saving lives than seat belts. I should have been more descriptive in my post.

I do have source info, just not at home…….

Blen_Carmichael said :

Goodness me, we’re a little bit defensive today, aren’t we? I merely asked you on what grounds the statement referred to constituted defamation, and I seem to have hit a nerve. I fully admit I have previously called you a bush lawyer in the past (and thank you ever so much for not suing me for that unjustified slur, guv’nor, I dips me lid, etc), but that was because of your laughable interpretation of s.109 of the Constitution.

My starting point for considering whether there would be a viable action in defamation would be the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) and relevant common law, but I understand litigants can sometimes go jurisdiction shopping (correct me if I’m wrong). I’m just wondering if there is perhaps some obscure bit of legislation that you know of – let’s call it, say, the Captains Flat Excitable Bush Lawyers Act 2013 – which defines defamation as any statement that questions the logic of Irish Pete the self-appointed polymath.

You asked a question, I answered.

My logic was not being questioned, I was being misquoted.

Polymath is perhaps an exaggeration (though I do have fingers in several pies), but I won’t threaten to sue you for a compliment.

IP

BelcoMan said :

A quick scan of previous posts by The Antichrist shows his speciality is not letting the facts get in the way of a good story whilst wrapping it up in a long-winded post. Obvious Troll is Obvious.

Sorry Irish Pete, I reckon you got sucked into it.

Thanks, I haven’t mastered the art of searching for previous posts by individuals.And people sometimes change their name too.

IP

KB1971 said :

Seat belts have been the single biggest safety advance since 1959. There was a massive decrease in road deaths when they were introduced.

Everything else that has led us to the modern motor car has been incremental.

If you crunch the numbers, that’s actually not correct. In the three biggest states (NSW, Qld and Vic) the pattern is actually remarkably consistent. In all three by far the biggest decreases in the road toll occurred in the years in and just after the introduction of speed cameras and the second biggest decreases occurred in the years in and just after the introduction of RBTs. Despite the introduction of speed cameras and RBTs up to 10 years apart in these three states, the drops in the road toll coinciding with each are WAY outside the general downward trend due to improved car design etc which has been going on since the road tolls peaked in the mid 1970s.

Note that I’m not disagreeing about the effect of seat belts, but I think that the trouble with analysing their introduction are two fold. One is that the road toll was still trending upward when they were introduced, and secondly it was an incremental process – my memory is that existing cars without seat belts fitted were still legal for a number of years, the laws only applied to new cars (prepared to be corrected on that). I know that our car at that time didn’t have rear seat belts fitted but was still legal.

IrishPete said :

Blen_Carmichael said :

And what “good grounds” would they be?

“Lastly – your assertion that the police are in any way responsible for any future increase in the road toll is entirely disingenous and quite frankly, despicable.”

I made no such assertion. Saying I did so is incorrect (some people might call it a “lie”). If it was an inaccurate compliment it would not be defamatory. If it was a neutral comment it would not be defamatory. However, the writer makes clear that it is meant to be defamatory by calling it “despicable”.

The fact it was made in writing, and the statement it misrepresents was also in writing, just makes it all the easier to prove.

Obviously I am not going to take court action based on on anonymous post on an internet forum, I am merely pointing out to the writer that they have gone too far with their accusations.

I look forward to your accusations of bush-lawyering, because they are entirely predictable, although your qualifications for making them are not at all clear.

IP

Goodness me, we’re a little bit defensive today, aren’t we? I merely asked you on what grounds the statement referred to constituted defamation, and I seem to have hit a nerve. I fully admit I have previously called you a bush lawyer in the past (and thank you ever so much for not suing me for that unjustified slur, guv’nor, I dips me lid, etc), but that was because of your laughable interpretation of s.109 of the Constitution.

My starting point for considering whether there would be a viable action in defamation would be the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) and relevant common law, but I understand litigants can sometimes go jurisdiction shopping (correct me if I’m wrong). I’m just wondering if there is perhaps some obscure bit of legislation that you know of – let’s call it, say, the Captains Flat Excitable Bush Lawyers Act 2013 – which defines defamation as any statement that questions the logic of Irish Pete the self-appointed polymath.

IrishPete said :

The Antichrist said :

IrishPete said :

Let’s see what he missed – improved safety standards in vehicles, speed limits (and average speeds through increased congestion) reducng gradually.

I doubt the reduction from 2012 to 2013 is statistically significant,or statistically robust, although the longer term trend possibly is so, especially when taken against rising population.

However, when there is inevitably an increase one year again, willl this policeman be around to say “yes, it’s partly the fault of the police, just like we took the partial credit when there was a decrease”? No, I didn’t think so. So excuse me for treating his statement with a big dose of salt.

Lets see what you missed.

Improved safety standards in vehicles ?? What evidence do you have to support this ? Its such a meaningless motherhood statement. Cars have ABS for years. Problem is, they also have had dickheads driving them for years as well.

Speed limits ?? Again – where is your evidence about this ? The problem with accidents where speed is a factor – is pretty obvious to me. You must have missed that bit….

You might doubt that the reduction is ‘statistically significant’ – but I would bet my house that the difference is absolutely significant to every Canberra family who didnt lose a family member this year due to a road accident.

Lastly – your assertion that the police are in any way responsible for any future increase in the road toll is entirely disingenous and quite frankly, despicable. Despite the best efforts of the local coppers, road users continue to die on local roads – road safety campaigns can and do have an effect on the road toll, but can never ensure that there are zero deaths – only responsible driving can achieve this.

Any suggestions otherwise – deserve a D9 bucket of salt.

Let me help you with your reading and comprehension.

Improved safety standards – if you don’t know what an air bag is, and can’t count them, if you don’t know about ESC, traction control, crumple zones, high-tech seatbelts, reversing cameras, constant four wheel drive, then you probably shouldn’t be driving. And ABS has not been standard on cars for very long, and ESC still isn’t mandatory for utes (I think). Go and read about tar rating for cars, and especially the European standards that tend to drag Australia’s standards along with them.

Statistical significance is a research term. If it’s not statistically significant it is probably random (or in the case of the ACT, the sample size may be too small). Turning this into an argument about the significance of a death to the deceased’s family is despicable. This discussion is about explaining the decrease, and if there even is a decrease. If it’s not statistically significant, then there wasn’t a decrease.

Speed limits are decreased as suburbs expand. What used to be 80 becomes 60 or 50. Some people comply with them. That brings down the average speed of traffic, which in turn reduces, or reduces the severity of, accidents. It may be a long bow to draw, which is why it was only one of many possible explanatons I gave.

I didn’t say any increase is the fault of the police. If you made that claim and put your name to it, I’d have good grounds for suing you for defamation. I pointed out that they love to take responsibility for decreases (in crashes, crime, whatever). The obvious and logical flip side to that is that they must be partly responsible for any increase. Their words, not mine. Otherwise they’re just lying. I don’t want lying coppers. Do you?

There seems to a new rash of posters on RiotACT who aren’t able to understand discussion or debate. Yeah, there was always trolls, and there were always people with extreme opinions. But it now seems like JohnBoy has been giving away free memberships with children’s breakfast cereal.

IP

A quick scan of previous posts by The Antichrist shows his speciality is not letting the facts get in the way of a good story whilst wrapping it up in a long-winded post. Obvious Troll is Obvious.

Sorry Irish Pete, I reckon you got sucked into it.

Blen_Carmichael said :

And what “good grounds” would they be?

“Lastly – your assertion that the police are in any way responsible for any future increase in the road toll is entirely disingenous and quite frankly, despicable.”

I made no such assertion. Saying I did so is incorrect (some people might call it a “lie”). If it was an inaccurate compliment it would not be defamatory. If it was a neutral comment it would not be defamatory. However, the writer makes clear that it is meant to be defamatory by calling it “despicable”.

The fact it was made in writing, and the statement it misrepresents was also in writing, just makes it all the easier to prove.

Obviously I am not going to take court action based on on anonymous post on an internet forum, I am merely pointing out to the writer that they have gone too far with their accusations.

I look forward to your accusations of bush-lawyering, because they are entirely predictable, although your qualifications for making them are not at all clear.

IP

IrishPete said :

The Antichrist said :

IrishPete said :

Let’s see what he missed – improved safety standards in vehicles, speed limits (and average speeds through increased congestion) reducng gradually.

I doubt the reduction from 2012 to 2013 is statistically significant,or statistically robust, although the longer term trend possibly is so, especially when taken against rising population.

However, when there is inevitably an increase one year again, willl this policeman be around to say “yes, it’s partly the fault of the police, just like we took the partial credit when there was a decrease”? No, I didn’t think so. So excuse me for treating his statement with a big dose of salt.

Lets see what you missed.

Improved safety standards in vehicles ?? What evidence do you have to support this ? Its such a meaningless motherhood statement. Cars have ABS for years. Problem is, they also have had dickheads driving them for years as well.

Speed limits ?? Again – where is your evidence about this ? The problem with accidents where speed is a factor – is pretty obvious to me. You must have missed that bit….

You might doubt that the reduction is ‘statistically significant’ – but I would bet my house that the difference is absolutely significant to every Canberra family who didnt lose a family member this year due to a road accident.

Lastly – your assertion that the police are in any way responsible for any future increase in the road toll is entirely disingenous and quite frankly, despicable. Despite the best efforts of the local coppers, road users continue to die on local roads – road safety campaigns can and do have an effect on the road toll, but can never ensure that there are zero deaths – only responsible driving can achieve this.

Any suggestions otherwise – deserve a D9 bucket of salt.

I didn’t say any increase is the fault of the police. If you made that claim and put your name to it, I’d have good grounds for suing you for defamation.

IP

And what “good grounds” would they be?

“tar rating” should be “star rating”.

IP

The Antichrist said :

IrishPete said :

Let’s see what he missed – improved safety standards in vehicles, speed limits (and average speeds through increased congestion) reducng gradually.

I doubt the reduction from 2012 to 2013 is statistically significant,or statistically robust, although the longer term trend possibly is so, especially when taken against rising population.

However, when there is inevitably an increase one year again, willl this policeman be around to say “yes, it’s partly the fault of the police, just like we took the partial credit when there was a decrease”? No, I didn’t think so. So excuse me for treating his statement with a big dose of salt.

Lets see what you missed.

Improved safety standards in vehicles ?? What evidence do you have to support this ? Its such a meaningless motherhood statement. Cars have ABS for years. Problem is, they also have had dickheads driving them for years as well.

Speed limits ?? Again – where is your evidence about this ? The problem with accidents where speed is a factor – is pretty obvious to me. You must have missed that bit….

You might doubt that the reduction is ‘statistically significant’ – but I would bet my house that the difference is absolutely significant to every Canberra family who didnt lose a family member this year due to a road accident.

Lastly – your assertion that the police are in any way responsible for any future increase in the road toll is entirely disingenous and quite frankly, despicable. Despite the best efforts of the local coppers, road users continue to die on local roads – road safety campaigns can and do have an effect on the road toll, but can never ensure that there are zero deaths – only responsible driving can achieve this.

Any suggestions otherwise – deserve a D9 bucket of salt.

Let me help you with your reading and comprehension.

Improved safety standards – if you don’t know what an air bag is, and can’t count them, if you don’t know about ESC, traction control, crumple zones, high-tech seatbelts, reversing cameras, constant four wheel drive, then you probably shouldn’t be driving. And ABS has not been standard on cars for very long, and ESC still isn’t mandatory for utes (I think). Go and read about tar rating for cars, and especially the European standards that tend to drag Australia’s standards along with them.

Statistical significance is a research term. If it’s not statistically significant it is probably random (or in the case of the ACT, the sample size may be too small). Turning this into an argument about the significance of a death to the deceased’s family is despicable. This discussion is about explaining the decrease, and if there even is a decrease. If it’s not statistically significant, then there wasn’t a decrease.

Speed limits are decreased as suburbs expand. What used to be 80 becomes 60 or 50. Some people comply with them. That brings down the average speed of traffic, which in turn reduces, or reduces the severity of, accidents. It may be a long bow to draw, which is why it was only one of many possible explanatons I gave.

I didn’t say any increase is the fault of the police. If you made that claim and put your name to it, I’d have good grounds for suing you for defamation. I pointed out that they love to take responsibility for decreases (in crashes, crime, whatever). The obvious and logical flip side to that is that they must be partly responsible for any increase. Their words, not mine. Otherwise they’re just lying. I don’t want lying coppers. Do you?

There seems to a new rash of posters on RiotACT who aren’t able to understand discussion or debate. Yeah, there was always trolls, and there were always people with extreme opinions. But it now seems like JohnBoy has been giving away free memberships with children’s breakfast cereal.

IP

The Antichrist said :

Improved safety standards in vehicles ?? What evidence do you have to support this ? Its such a meaningless motherhood statement. Cars have ABS for years. Problem is, they also have had dickheads driving them for years as well.

A mixture of changes to the ADR and market forces have seen the following over the past 20 years:

– Driver and front passenger airbags standard on passenger vehicles
– Improved crumple zones even on small cars
– Collapsible steering columns
– Designed to destruct engines
– Fuel shut off valves
– Anti-submarining floor pans and seat design
– Use of higher strength steel and cage technologies like Tridiom and Sate-T-Cell
– Whiplash reducing seat and headrest design
– Seatbelt pretentioners
– ABS now standard
– TC and ESC now common
– Side curtain and torso airbags now common
– Knee airbags
– Stronger auto glass
– Child car seat mounts original fitment in vehicles
– Manufacturers now aiming for and marketing vehicles on basis of achieving 5 Star ANCAP/EuroNCAP results, with most popular models in Australia now achieving 5 star ratings

Plus premium vehicles coming on to the market now with active vehicle and pedestrian collision avoidance technologies which are already staring to filter down into mid tier vehicles in the US and Australia.

IrishPete said :

Let’s see what he missed – improved safety standards in vehicles, speed limits (and average speeds through increased congestion) reducng gradually.

I doubt the reduction from 2012 to 2013 is statistically significant,or statistically robust, although the longer term trend possibly is so, especially when taken against rising population.

However, when there is inevitably an increase one year again, willl this policeman be around to say “yes, it’s partly the fault of the police, just like we took the partial credit when there was a decrease”? No, I didn’t think so. So excuse me for treating his statement with a big dose of salt.

Lets see what you missed.

Improved safety standards in vehicles ?? What evidence do you have to support this ? Its such a meaningless motherhood statement. Cars have ABS for years. Problem is, they also have had dickheads driving them for years as well.

Speed limits ?? Again – where is your evidence about this ? The problem with accidents where speed is a factor – is pretty obvious to me. You must have missed that bit….

You might doubt that the reduction is ‘statistically significant’ – but I would bet my house that the difference is absolutely significant to every Canberra family who didnt lose a family member this year due to a road accident.

Lastly – your assertion that the police are in any way responsible for any future increase in the road toll is entirely disingenous and quite frankly, despicable. Despite the best efforts of the local coppers, road users continue to die on local roads – road safety campaigns can and do have an effect on the road toll, but can never ensure that there are zero deaths – only responsible driving can achieve this.

Any suggestions otherwise – deserve a D9 bucket of salt.

agent_clone said :

KB1971 said :

MrBigEars said :

KB1971 said :

Interestingly, there now is a report on serious injury from 99-2011, this is a recent document and may answer johnboys question..

http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129544396

I’m not sure if it’s this one. I skimmed it, it said hospitalisation rate (x per 100 000) for “transport” showed no (discernible) trend over the time period.

Which is interesting because pretty well all safety advances in cars are for low speed accidents which were killing people unnecessarily. Side airbags are an example of this with your head so close to the B Pillar it is so easy to be killed at speeds of 30-40km/h, they have made a difference.

I have not had time to look at it today but I might when I get back to work.

The ABS seems to think there are more vehicles per 1000 people on the road since 2008. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/9309.0/ . I was unable to find the statistics for earlier than that. They are no doubt there but would require more effort to find.

They also think that deaths (I know we want accidents) per registered vehicle/popuation has been going down fairly steadily http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/1301.0~2012~Main%20Features~Accidents,%20injuries%20and%20fatalities~189

Yeah, you probably need to look at km driven. I own three registered motor vehicles, but can only drive one at a time. (At times I have owned more than that.)

IP

KB1971 said :

I actually think it takes away from drivers skills but I guess most people don’t learn car control before they get their licenses. That is the biggest flaw in the system.

A driver has to be aware they have such a system as ESC before they can start driving to try and take advantage of it.

Don’t underestimate the total ignorance of the average motorist.

I was doing a manufacturer supported/invited driver training session a few years back, where new or soon to be owners were invited out to Sutton to learn and experience how things like ESC and ABS work. Almost all of the participants had no idea what ABS or ESC were or what they are supposed to do.

I was staggered at how little people knew about the $60K+ machines they were purchasing. They didn’t look any futher than the badge it seemed.

So while I can see your point about ESC taking away from driver skills I still maintain you have to know it exists and what its function is before you can alter your driving style accordingly.

With that said, I’ve experienced ESC in controlled environments such as Sutton several times and on the skid pan the difference between ESC and no ESC is staggering. The systems are so quick and so effective at helping maintain control and mostly do this way beyond the comprehension and ability of pretty much all drivers.

Remember too that ESC works in conjunction with a car’s traction control system and seeing an ESC light activate on your dash display doesn’t necessrily mean the full ESC system is activating, it may *only* be the traction control.

In wet weather, in my experience, it’s not that hard to get the systems to activate. In my old neck of the woods in O’Connor there were a couple of roads off Macarthur Ave that had such poor grip that taking the corners even at very low speed would be enough to trigger ESC.

http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=AUD&to=USD&view=10Y

More likely the cost of new cars is inductive to the tend. When the aud is high the death toll goes down after like 1-2 year delay

KB1971 said :

MrBigEars said :

KB1971 said :

Interestingly, there now is a report on serious injury from 99-2011, this is a recent document and may answer johnboys question..

http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129544396

I’m not sure if it’s this one. I skimmed it, it said hospitalisation rate (x per 100 000) for “transport” showed no (discernible) trend over the time period.

Which is interesting because pretty well all safety advances in cars are for low speed accidents which were killing people unnecessarily. Side airbags are an example of this with your head so close to the B Pillar it is so easy to be killed at speeds of 30-40km/h, they have made a difference.

I have not had time to look at it today but I might when I get back to work.

The ABS seems to think there are more vehicles per 1000 people on the road since 2008. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/9309.0/ . I was unable to find the statistics for earlier than that. They are no doubt there but would require more effort to find.

They also think that deaths (I know we want accidents) per registered vehicle/popuation has been going down fairly steadily http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/1301.0~2012~Main%20Features~Accidents,%20injuries%20and%20fatalities~189

buzz819 said :

IrishPete said :

Let’s see what he missed – improved safety standards in vehicles, speed limits (and average speeds through increased congestion) reducng gradually.

I doubt the reduction from 2012 to 2013 is statistically significant,or statistically robust, although the longer term trend possibly is so, especially when taken against rising population.

However, when there is inevitably an increase one year again, willl this policeman be around to say “yes, it’s partly the fault of the police, just like we took the partial credit when there was a decrease”? No, I didn’t think so. So excuse me for treating his statement with a big dose of salt.

And of course, the crap driving by ACT drivers on NSW roads must get an honourable mention. Learn what those orange lights on your car’s corners are for. Learn how to drive around proper roundabouts with proper rules (not the idiotic rules of many ACT ones). And learn that the king’s Highway is not your personal racetrack to your holiday house.

IP

Like all you comments I take it with a grain of salt.

There is one reason and one reason only the road toll is so low, there were not as many multiple fatality collisions.

Increased vehicle safety standards, what rubbish? They didn’t help last year and the roads haven’t changed enough to say that is what did it.

Odd then that everyone else is agreeing with me. ou also have misunderstood my point – I put last year’s reduction down to the small numbers, natural fluctuations, and I was referring to the possibility of a much less dramatic downward trend over the decade or so for which figures were presented.

Of course there’s only a marginal difference in vehicle safety for cars built in 2012 compared to those built to 2013. But a car’s average life is about 10 years (I think, maybe longer). So each year a 10yo car is taken off the road and replaced with a brand new one, on average. That’s a significant improvement in safety given things like air bags, ESC, anti-lock brakes and even really passive safety like improved crumple zones.

It is one of the reasons many countries adopted the policy of a big allowance for ditching an old car and buying a new one – that and fuel economy/emissions and general retail support. But I think Godwin Gretch scotched that policy one for Australia. (I have no opinion on whether it was a good idea or not.)

I’ve also had a scan of the AIHW report and it does seem to say that the number of hospitalisations for transport accidents is stable.

But of course “transport” is broader than just cars, and NSW has seen a large increase in cyclist and motorbike fatalities last year (some, but not all, of which would have involved cars – but car safety features will probably not have much direct effect on motorbike and cyclist fatalities even for the proportion involving cars). I would also expect the crackdown on trucks to have a major effect, as they are hugely overrepresented in fatalities (not in the ACT, but nationally).

IP

KB1971 said :

Deref said :

c_c™ said :

Now that ESC is becoming standard…

Please forgive my iggerunce. What’s ESC?

Electronic Stability Control. Keeps the car stable by using the brakes to bring it back in line with little driver input.

I am in two minds about it. I have it on one car (a 4WD) and not on another (a Commodore). Yep, its awesome on the 4WD but it does lull you into a false sense of security. I can travel way faster on dirt roads than I could previously which can in turn make things worse when it eventually all goes wrong. When I drive my brother in laws 4WD without it things catch me out that don’t in my car because I am not used to it.

On wet tar roads? Worth every sent.

I actually think it takes away from drivers skills but I guess most people don’t learn car control before they get their licenses. That is the biggest flaw in the system.

On the road safey front, I don’t think we can get much safer. There is only so much a car manufacturer can do to protect the meat inside the can when it all goes wrong.

The presence of ESC shouldn’t be prompting a driver to drive any differently. It’s not there to enable faster speeds, and the threshold for its operation is in my experience very high. 99% of the time it’s not doing anything. It’s that 1% of the time when it makes the difference, and in 5 years of driving a car with ESC, I’ve triggered it only once, on loose gravel on the Mt Franklin Rd doing under the speed limit.

MrBigEars said :

KB1971 said :

Interestingly, there now is a report on serious injury from 99-2011, this is a recent document and may answer johnboys question..

http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129544396

I’m not sure if it’s this one. I skimmed it, it said hospitalisation rate (x per 100 000) for “transport” showed no (discernible) trend over the time period.

Which is interesting because pretty well all safety advances in cars are for low speed accidents which were killing people unnecessarily. Side airbags are an example of this with your head so close to the B Pillar it is so easy to be killed at speeds of 30-40km/h, they have made a difference.

I have not had time to look at it today but I might when I get back to work.

Deref said :

c_c™ said :

Now that ESC is becoming standard…

Please forgive my iggerunce. What’s ESC?

Electronic Stability Control. Keeps the car stable by using the brakes to bring it back in line with little driver input.

I am in two minds about it. I have it on one car (a 4WD) and not on another (a Commodore). Yep, its awesome on the 4WD but it does lull you into a false sense of security. I can travel way faster on dirt roads than I could previously which can in turn make things worse when it eventually all goes wrong. When I drive my brother in laws 4WD without it things catch me out that don’t in my car because I am not used to it.

On wet tar roads? Worth every sent.

I actually think it takes away from drivers skills but I guess most people don’t learn car control before they get their licenses. That is the biggest flaw in the system.

On the road safey front, I don’t think we can get much safer. There is only so much a car manufacturer can do to protect the meat inside the can when it all goes wrong.

KB1971 said :

Interestingly, there now is a report on serious injury from 99-2011, this is a recent document and may answer johnboys question..

http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129544396

I’m not sure if it’s this one. I skimmed it, it said hospitalisation rate (x per 100 000) for “transport” showed no (discernible) trend over the time period.

c_c™ said :

Now that ESC is becoming standard…

Please forgive my iggerunce. What’s ESC?

astrojax said :

montana said :

how many of those fatalities were cyclists?

probably a few of them – oh, at the time of the collision..?

don’t police record all instances of motor vehicle collisions that occasion injury? i am sure they used to be required to do so – where are these figures? as noted above, we also need to determine not just the number of deaths / injuries, but the number of instances of collision occasioning these (to account for multiple death / injury incidents).

of course, always going to be harder to also weed out from such figures deliberate acts of self harm, though necessary to look sensibly at the longitudinal impact of safety and awareness campaigns and measures.

The BITRE (part of the link I posted above) have certain statistics including cyclists, you will have to look for yourself though:

http://www.bitre.gov.au/statistics/safety/index.aspx

Interestingly, there now is a report on serious injury from 99-2011, this is a recent document and may answer johnboys question..

montana said :

how many of those fatalities were cyclists?

probably a few of them – oh, at the time of the collision..?

don’t police record all instances of motor vehicle collisions that occasion injury? i am sure they used to be required to do so – where are these figures? as noted above, we also need to determine not just the number of deaths / injuries, but the number of instances of collision occasioning these (to account for multiple death / injury incidents).

of course, always going to be harder to also weed out from such figures deliberate acts of self harm, though necessary to look sensibly at the longitudinal impact of safety and awareness campaigns and measures.

c_c™ said :

johnboy said :

Cars are much safer now, and ambulances can do more than scrape the meat off the road.

Says a lot that governments were to cowardly to mandate ESC in the ADR for cars, but are happy to revenue raise and brag about KPIs.
.

You really need to stick to subjects that you know something about, for this you have no idea.

It’s paramedics that scrape the bits off the road, not the ambulances. They’re usually just parked at the scene… 🙂

johnboy said :

Cars are much safer now, and ambulances can do more than scrape the meat off the road.

Those are the two big things, and when you look at which vehicle had the worse outcome for the occupants, it’s often the older one in news reports. Now that ESC is becoming standard, years overdue, it will be interesting to see a further effect no doubt on the road toll. Says a lot that governments were to cowardly to mandate ESC in the ADR for cars, but are happy to revenue raise and brag about KPIs.

I wonder what was the total number of collisions in the ACT and the number of collision injuries? Insurers should have some data on that and the Police aren’t bragging about it obviously, yet those figures would say more about road safety than fatalities.

how many of those fatalities were cyclists?

johnboy said :

Look fatalities are a bloody stupid KPI at the best of times.

Accidents requiring hospitalisation would be much more interesting and useful, even then the nature of our mendacious public service is such that would be dangerous as someone trying to make their numbers look good for bonus time would start conniving to deny hospital care.

Management by KPI is always awful.

One would think after crappy application of a KPI murdered thousands of British Sailors at the Battle of Jutland and nearly lost the whole First World War in an afternoon we’d have learnt something (Battle Cruisers based away from proper firing ranges were judging crews entirely on rate of fire which lead to unsafe practices such as jamming open anti flash doors from turrets to magazines which in turn lead to widespread tragedy when the enemy started shooting back)

The thing with that is no one really records those statistics. The biggest problem is that injuries, permanent or otherwise accrued in road accidents are extremely broad and often difficult to attribute to an accident. A death is cut and dried to a certain extent with the exception being health reasons such as heart attacks ect.

The other thing, there is no national database for road accidents. To gather any statistical evidence from all the hospitals and enforcement agencies around the country would be an insurmountable job.

The Department of Infrastructure has some good information on accident statistics and road safety in motor vehicles:
http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/

This is relatively good news – but has there been a commensurate reduction in non-fatal accidents? and is there analysis which casts light on the accident reduction benefits (or not) of measures such as the point-to-point speed cameras?

magiccar9 said :

“increased police patrols targeting traffic law enforcement…”

Cool, based on these comments I should expect to see more than 3 speed vans, 1 RBT station, and 2 patrol cars this year.

Just the same as the double demerit periods, they tout the increased presence on the roads, yet I fail to see a single marked (or even unmarked) car each time.

I certainly saw more cops to/from/in Sydney between Xmas and NYE than usual, last week.

“increased police patrols targeting traffic law enforcement…”

Cool, based on these comments I should expect to see more than 3 speed vans, 1 RBT station, and 2 patrol cars this year.

Just the same as the double demerit periods, they tout the increased presence on the roads, yet I fail to see a single marked (or even unmarked) car each time.

Seat belts have been the single biggest safety advance since 1959. There was a massive decrease in road deaths when they were introduced.

Everything else that has led us to the modern motor car has been incremental.

I say it every year, but the one thing that people like the coppers and pollies seem to conveniently forget is the size of the ACT makes it very hard to read anything meaningful into year by year road stats. Statistically the sample is so small that we can see major variations for no reason what so ever, 2005 for example, or indeed 2011 and 2013.

For example lets say there was one more accident last year that killed all 5 occupants of the car, and the road toll equalled the year before, all from 1 single accident. Heaven help us if we ever had a Kempsy style bus accident where 35 were killed in one single accident.

For such a small sample size what is more important is the trend over a number of years. That trend based on the figures from 2000 provided above seems to be flat to trending slightly down though. Another 20 years of figures would help even more to draw any conclusions. They then of course should be compared to the national figures to see if they are following them or varying.

WillowJim said :

“So many more of us, so fewer fatalities”

#pethate

“So many more of us, but fewer fatalities”

I doubt driver behaviour has changed one iota since, say, 2005. Improved safety features and roads would be the main factors.

IrishPete said :

Let’s see what he missed – improved safety standards in vehicles, speed limits (and average speeds through increased congestion) reducng gradually.

I doubt the reduction from 2012 to 2013 is statistically significant,or statistically robust, although the longer term trend possibly is so, especially when taken against rising population.

However, when there is inevitably an increase one year again, willl this policeman be around to say “yes, it’s partly the fault of the police, just like we took the partial credit when there was a decrease”? No, I didn’t think so. So excuse me for treating his statement with a big dose of salt.

And of course, the crap driving by ACT drivers on NSW roads must get an honourable mention. Learn what those orange lights on your car’s corners are for. Learn how to drive around proper roundabouts with proper rules (not the idiotic rules of many ACT ones). And learn that the king’s Highway is not your personal racetrack to your holiday house.

IP

Like all you comments I take it with a grain of salt.

There is one reason and one reason only the road toll is so low, there were not as many multiple fatality collisions.

Increased vehicle safety standards, what rubbish? They didn’t help last year and the roads haven’t changed enough to say that is what did it.

“So many more of us, so fewer fatalities”

#pethate

Yes, small sample size is a problem here, the difference is a couple of incidents which do or don’t happen.

However, isn’t the national total the lowest in 90 years?

Fatalities are one thing what about the number of accidents? People left with permanent injury and worst of all number of times someone parked badly.

Let’s see what he missed – improved safety standards in vehicles, speed limits (and average speeds through increased congestion) reducng gradually.

I doubt the reduction from 2012 to 2013 is statistically significant,or statistically robust, although the longer term trend possibly is so, especially when taken against rising population.

However, when there is inevitably an increase one year again, willl this policeman be around to say “yes, it’s partly the fault of the police, just like we took the partial credit when there was a decrease”? No, I didn’t think so. So excuse me for treating his statement with a big dose of salt.

And of course, the crap driving by ACT drivers on NSW roads must get an honourable mention. Learn what those orange lights on your car’s corners are for. Learn how to drive around proper roundabouts with proper rules (not the idiotic rules of many ACT ones). And learn that the king’s Highway is not your personal racetrack to your holiday house.

IP