22 July 2010

THE CARNAGE MUST STOP!

| johnboy
Join the conversation
53

Jon Stanhope, perhaps smarting from his foolish Vision Zero immediately before a series of freak accidents blew out the road toll, is taking his angry voice to all of you.

Sure it starts as an “appeal”, and moves on with some initiatives which give the appearance of action such as punishing p-platers using cough syrup, point to point cameras, and some more roadworks.

But by the end it’s all your fault:

“‘I want to send a clear message to the community: the carnage must stop, and it starts and ends with our own actions. I urge all drivers to make a commitment to themselves, and their families, to drive safely, obey the road rules and help prevent any further deaths on our roads.”

If only these initiatives had been rolled out before Mully stole that car in Quangers, they totally would have stopped this kind of thing!

Join the conversation

53
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

I don’t have any more information on Canberra-specific fatalities than anyone else here, but anecdotally from a driver’s perspective I can say that I’ve seen far more potentially life-threatening car-to-car situations on Canberra roads in the year since I moved here than anywhere else I’ve lived in Australia …. and I struggle to think of any where I’d say speeding was the culprit.

Probably the worst situation I was in was at the approach to a 2-lane roundabout when the car to my left indicated and changed lanes simultaneously into the space which only existed in front of me due to my reflexive hard braking – if I had not done this he would have hit me. The driver in question appeared oblivious to the fact that anything dangerous had occurred while I pulled over at the first opportunity a little in shock. Apart from the fact that this occurred after an unbroken line on the road (hence no lane-changing should have been occurring anyway), the manner of that lane change was pretty much STANDARD in the driving culture of Canberra – and it was this, along with the complete lack of positional awareness that can very easily go along with it, that almost caused the accident. It is fairly STANDARD not to indicate here (and flipping on the indicator simultaneously with actually turning IS NOT INDICATING).

In a chicken-and-egg like situation, of course, the reason why people don’t indicate and change lanes safely is that it is also reasonably standard for other drivers to completely ignore indication or, worse, take it as a cue to actually SPEED UP to cut the driver off. Canberra is the only city I’ve seen where such an activity is actually pretty standard.

Canberra is also the only place in Australia where the following absurd sight is not all that unusual either:

3: the number of lanes on the road.
2: the number of cars on the road.
1: the number of metres between those two cars.

There are a number of other amusing driving quirks people notice when they visit the place. They appear to be a part of a highly individualistic and non-communicative driving culture…. and they’re dangerous.

Canberra roads seem, if anything, a lot safer. There are plenty of speed cameras already and speed limits don’t strike me as being particularly high. Possibly the Canberra driving culture is what happens when you take Australian drivers and make the roads sufficiently wide and easy … I don’t know, but it seems to me that the elephant in the room is not speeding or drink driving.

ML-585 said :

Tooks said :

ML-585 said :

Weren’t the 50 km/h speed limits supposed to reduce the number of crashes on ACT roads. What would the road toll be if the 50 km/h zones didn’t exist (and were 60 km/h instead)?

That’s right: EXACTLY THE SAME!

You said yourself that 50kmh limits were supposed to reduce the number of crashes on ACT roads (not the number of FATAL crashes). How do you know there haven’t been fewer crashes since the 50kmh limits came in?

Number of deaths, not number of crashes. My point is that lowering the speed limits hasn’t done much (or anything at all) to stop people dying on ACT Roads, despite what the politicians want you to believe. Although there is no way to prove it one way or the other.

If you meant number of deaths, then that’s what you should’ve said in the first place!

BTW, this is from the TAMS website:

During April/ May 2003 the ACT adopted a 50 km/h default speed limit. To enable this change the ACT modified signage and changed laws to allow for the new default limit. This means that if you don’t see a speed sign, it is 50 km/h.

The lower residential speed limit was in place for some time in many other parts of Australia and has led to a substantial reduction in road crashes and injuries in those areas.

In NSW, there was an overall decrease of 16% in crashes on roads where the 50 km/h speed limit was introduced. Much greater reductions were achieved in casualty crashes involving pedestrians, cyclists and older drivers, which fell by 60%, 40% and 33% respectively.

Tooks said :

ML-585 said :

Weren’t the 50 km/h speed limits supposed to reduce the number of crashes on ACT roads. What would the road toll be if the 50 km/h zones didn’t exist (and were 60 km/h instead)?

That’s right: EXACTLY THE SAME!

You said yourself that 50kmh limits were supposed to reduce the number of crashes on ACT roads (not the number of FATAL crashes). How do you know there haven’t been fewer crashes since the 50kmh limits came in?

Number of deaths, not number of crashes. My point is that lowering the speed limits hasn’t done much (or anything at all) to stop people dying on ACT Roads, despite what the politicians want you to believe. Although there is no way to prove it one way or the other.

Tooks said :

I don’t want to get too off topic here, but why was your friend arrested and taken to the watch house for blowing 0.02? Unless he was a repeat offender? Just curious.

The sums aren’t adding up here, and I suspect there is more to this story than is being presented.

dvaey said :

Actually, I drove him home from the club after he had the beer, we watched movies then he drove to his house, and was picked up along the way. I then picked him up from the police station after he was bailed. The magistrate said it was the lowest BAC that had ever been brought before her court (being ON the limit). So, nice try, but it wasnt a story ‘I was told’, I was a part of each step.

Sorry, I call BS. It is impossible to have a single beer and then watch 3 movies (4 hours) and still register, unless he drank rocket fuel.

dvaey said :

vg said :

One beer, 3 movies (so at least 5 hrs) then drove and got done for the 0.02 limit? I’m calling bollocks about the 1 beer and 5 hrs part. I bet this was a story you were told about what happened

Actually, I drove him home from the club after he had the beer, we watched movies then he drove to his house, and was picked up along the way. I then picked him up from the police station after he was bailed. The magistrate said it was the lowest BAC that had ever been brought before her court (being ON the limit). So, nice try, but it wasnt a story ‘I was told’, I was a part of each step.

I don’t want to get too off topic here, but why was your friend arrested and taken to the watch house for blowing 0.02? Unless he was a repeat offender? Just curious.

I’m wondering if here’s a link between all these road deaths in Canberra and the evil devil-worshipping acts that have been taking place on Mt Ainslie that Pastor Danny Nutjob keeps warning us about?

Oh, and we obviously we need more speed cameras too.

vg said :

One beer, 3 movies (so at least 5 hrs) then drove and got done for the 0.02 limit? I’m calling bollocks about the 1 beer and 5 hrs part. I bet this was a story you were told about what happened

Actually, I drove him home from the club after he had the beer, we watched movies then he drove to his house, and was picked up along the way. I then picked him up from the police station after he was bailed. The magistrate said it was the lowest BAC that had ever been brought before her court (being ON the limit). So, nice try, but it wasnt a story ‘I was told’, I was a part of each step.

The specifics of my story arent important anyway, my point is that a 0 BAC limit, will simply find those who werent guilty before, suddenly guilty of an offence. Seriously, how many incidents have been caused by P-platers who blew between 0.00 and 0.02? This is just another example of the government wanting to be seen to be tough on drivers while not actually achieving anything.

WonderfulWorld said :

I heard one of the accidents on the weekend was deemed to be suicide. Very unfortunate and sad.

I hope not – not a good method. I met a sad 21-year-old at a party in NZ years ago, a blond jock uber-rich kid who had tried to kill himself by running into a tree over a failed romance. He had the bad luck to survive, with a mashed up face, restored by top surgeons as far as possible, but he looked like one of the WWII “guineapigs”. He carried around a picture of the way he used to look, and was avoiding accepting the reality.

ML-585 said :

Weren’t the 50 km/h speed limits supposed to reduce the number of crashes on ACT roads. What would the road toll be if the 50 km/h zones didn’t exist (and were 60 km/h instead)?

That’s right: EXACTLY THE SAME!

You said yourself that 50kmh limits were supposed to reduce the number of crashes on ACT roads (not the number of FATAL crashes). How do you know there haven’t been fewer crashes since the 50kmh limits came in?

vg said :

“A friend many years ago, was caught after having one beer, watching 3 movies at a mates house then driving home, blowing 0.020. How long should someone wait after drinking before driving then?”

One beer, 3 movies (so at least 5 hrs) then drove and got done for the 0.02 limit? I’m calling bollocks about the 1 beer and 5 hrs part. I bet this was a story you were told about what happened

I’m with vg on that one, you’ve been BS’d too ….. it is impossible to have one beer (even if it was a long neck) then watch 3 movies and still blow 0.02.

I’m with Special G.

I am one of the many Canberrans who have been caught drink driving. Going to court and losing your license is not fun.

Drinking? Don’t drive. No problem.

Depends on what type and size of beer it was – Darwin stubby, middy of light, long neck full strength, super 40% home brew. Alcohol is metabolised by a healthy liver at approx 0.025 per hour.

It’s still very simple – if you plan on driving don’t drink.

“A friend many years ago, was caught after having one beer, watching 3 movies at a mates house then driving home, blowing 0.020. How long should someone wait after drinking before driving then?”

One beer, 3 movies (so at least 5 hrs) then drove and got done for the 0.02 limit? I’m calling bollocks about the 1 beer and 5 hrs part. I bet this was a story you were told about what happened

Very Busy said :

@34 and @35

Very simplistic views indeed, and @35 wrong I might add. Legislation does prevent individual acts of stupidity. Do you seriously think that if all the road rules were taken away that the road death toll would not rise?

Mully + (at least) one act of stupidity = 4 dead.

Which chapter and verse of the law book was supposed to prevent that one?

Special G said :

BAC of zero for P’s makes it clear that you can’t drive after drinking something

A friend many years ago, was caught after having one beer, watching 3 movies at a mates house then driving home, blowing 0.020. How long should someone wait after drinking before driving then?

The reason for having a .02 limit, is to allow for the fact that you might have a residual in your system from last night, or as mentioned you might have had a cherry ripe or used mouthwash before heading out in your car. Bringing the BAC to 0 means more people will be breaking the law, it wont do anything to promote safety.

Weren’t the 50 km/h speed limits supposed to reduce the number of crashes on ACT roads. What would the road toll be if the 50 km/h zones didn’t exist (and were 60 km/h instead)?

That’s right: EXACTLY THE SAME!

@34 and @35

Very simplistic views indeed, and @35 wrong I might add. Legislation does prevent individual acts of stupidity. Do you seriously think that if all the road rules were taken away that the road death toll would not rise?

Pork Hunt said :

You cannot legislate to prevent individual acts of stupidity.

Mr Pork you may just have it there

WonderfulWorld10:23 pm 23 Jul 10

buzz819 said :

WonderfulWorld said :

I heard one of the accidents on the weekend was deemed to be suicide. Very unfortunate and sad.

Wow, where did you hear that from? The gossip group? The They always know people? I think you will find that an investigation will take longer then 5 days…

From the Police actually. Sorry if it offends, jumps protocol.

You cannot legislate to prevent individual acts of stupidity.

Why can’t people realise, that no matter how much regulation, speed cameras, stupid schemes you impliment, large, heavy masses hurtling towards each other at high speeds will still kill people?

Thousands of cars doing hundreds of km’s a day, and only 12 people dying in a whole year (last year) is pretty amazing to me, acceptable.

If you don’t like it, don’t drive. Simple.

Holden Caulfield said :

amarooresident3 said :

What freak accidents? As far as I can tell every road death this year has been because someone was doing the wrong thing.

That’s a pretty naive statement.

i don’t agree: which bit is naive? if the drivers, both at fault and ‘innocent’, were able to review their driving for the five or ten seconds pre-collision i’m pretty sure i’d be happy to bet that they could – and probably should – have done something different which would have lead to the collision not occurring. if anything, this is an astute observation, far from naive.

Kath said :

I’m convinced that accidents are caused by those horrible community-service-announcement signs – e.g. the ones about how people DIE on ACT roads (a big win for local tourism) and the very confusing ‘Drive n text u b next’ (I initially thought it was some sort of ad for road information via text message, except that there wasn’t a phone number on it).

but it isn’t “u b”, it’s “ub” i always, and only, wonder just what is an ‘ub’? how does one ‘ub’? why do i do it next?

Rawhide Kid No 2 said :

“An accident is a specific, unidentifiable, unexpected, unusual and unintended external action which occurs in a particular time and place, with no apparent and deliberate cause but with marked effects. It implies a generally negative outcome which may have been avoided or prevented had circumstances leading up to the accident been recognized, and acted upon, prior to its occurrence.” (Wikipedia)

Therefore there is no such thing as an Accident. These (Crashes) are caused by people.

I think if you read this then you could equally argue there are accidents, because, the consequences are unintended, no deliberate cause, circumstances not recognised and acted upon prior etc – sorry, try again.

Vision Zero is a policy like NoWaste.
Aspirational.

We have a pretty good outcome currently, but it doesn’t prevent young people from doing what they do best: reject the messages of the older generation, and find out for themselves.
There really is a lower bound (with tolerance for random factors) on the number of road deaths we’re likely to see in a year.
Occasionally there will be unexpected or uncontrolled events that destroy any good work or the effects of an otherwise ‘lucky year’.

So long as cars are driven by humans there exists possibility for human errors or bad human behaviour.

Stanhope can rant all he likes and make some people feel guilty/bored, but he’ll be preaching to the choir, and like the Recycling plans of NoWaste it will just be ‘aspirational’ without massive government investment in a ‘Final Foot’ solution.

WonderfulWorld said :

I heard one of the accidents on the weekend was deemed to be suicide. Very unfortunate and sad.

Wow, where did you hear that from? The gossip group? The They always know people? I think you will find that an investigation will take longer then 5 days…

The cough syrup thing is a load of crap unless you are chugging the whole bottle. BAC of zero for P’s makes it clear that you can’t drive after drinking something I think should be the case across the board – remove the confusion – if you are under the influence at all don’t operate a motor vehicle.

Alcohol awareness program – sure offenders know they are breaking the law and probably don’t care either but why not try to educate people a little more.

Re-test drivers every 10 years I reckon. But then there are those drivers that would be “insulted” that their driving ability would be questioned every 10 years, or those that would just laugh it off as “no worries” I am a perfect driver anyway. In the end, I reckon there would be a large number of perfect drivers that would have egg on their face, maybe even me!

Woody Mann-Caruso9:48 pm 22 Jul 10

drivers need to continually take their eyes off the road to keep checking their speedo

Driving – you fail at it.

WonderfulWorld9:40 pm 22 Jul 10

I heard one of the accidents on the weekend was deemed to be suicide. Very unfortunate and sad.

I’ve said this before, and will continue to do so.

This very sad state of affairs is a direct result of the traffic policies of Stanhope and the traffic authorities.

An almost 100% reliance upon speed cameras as the sole traffic enforcement tool has unintended consequences that are obvious to anyone with more than a couple of brain cells.

The message that this sends to road users is that it’s OK to use your mobile, that it’s OK not to indicate, that it’s OK to use illegal driving lights that blind other road users, that it’s OK to pull out in front of other vehicles (specially motorbikes), and that you will never be caught.

However, stray a few Kms over the speed limit, and you’re public enemy number one. And one unintended consequence of this is that drivers need to continually take their eyes off the road to keep checking their speedo. Safety? No, the exact opposite.

Sure, “accidents” are caused by drivers, but driver behaviour is influenced by government policies.

Stanhopeless, stop relying on speed cameras for almost 100% enforcement and start doing something about all the other dickhead behaviours on the road. Perhaps start with 4WDs with driving lights on, dazzling every driver right in the eyes or directly in their rear vision mirrors. This one is easy because they can be spotted a mile away.

Rawhide Kid No 25:52 pm 22 Jul 10

“An accident is a specific, unidentifiable, unexpected, unusual and unintended external action which occurs in a particular time and place, with no apparent and deliberate cause but with marked effects. It implies a generally negative outcome which may have been avoided or prevented had circumstances leading up to the accident been recognized, and acted upon, prior to its occurrence.” (Wikipedia)

Therefore there is no such thing as an Accident. These (Crashes) are caused by people.

What a tool.

+1 Verybusy.

It’s interesting to note that people slow down during double demerit points. How bout we double the points now and double them again during holiday periods. They could always increase the fine too. People might think twice about breaking the road rules if they know it could cost them $500+.

Whilst I’m a fan to have more Police on the road, they can’t be everywhere 24/7 to prevent people from crashing.

Maybe people should have to sit a retest every time they renew their licence(every 5 years)?

Swaggie said :

Can all the speed camera supporters please explain how having speed cameras stops some idiot teens stealing a car on a Saturday night and going twice the speed limit down the Parkway endangering everyone’s life they come across?

Can you explain how penicillin cures cancer? It doesn’t? Must be useless, then.

I’m convinced that accidents are caused by those horrible community-service-announcement signs – e.g. the ones about how people DIE on ACT roads (a big win for local tourism) and the very confusing ‘Drive n text u b next’ (I initially thought it was some sort of ad for road information via text message, except that there wasn’t a phone number on it).

The best road safety device they could implement would be a large metal spike coming out of every steering wheel aimed at the drivers chest. Everyone would drive safely if we all had one of those

georgesgenitals3:50 pm 22 Jul 10

We need more marked Police patrols to encourage drivers into compliance with the road rules.

There’s no such thing as an ‘accident’, either. Just collisions.

Swaggie . . . +1 from me (and then some).

Holden Caulfield3:42 pm 22 Jul 10

amarooresident3 said :

What freak accidents? As far as I can tell every road death this year has been because someone was doing the wrong thing.

That’s a pretty naive statement.

Mechanical failure? Most accidents are still caused by the nut behind the wheel.

Thoroughly Smashed2:30 pm 22 Jul 10

Funky1 said :

amarooresident3 said :

What freak accidents? As far as I can tell every road death this year has been because someone was doing the wrong thing. A freak accident is when a meteorite hits you.

And the CM is right – at some point drivers have to take responsibility for their own behavior.

What about deaths due to mechanical failure (ie brakes failing or something similar)?

And that’s much more likely to be poor maintenance than freak chance.

Need (more?) full-time police patrols on our roads.

Can all the speed camera supporters please explain how having speed cameras stops some idiot teens stealing a car on a Saturday night and going twice the speed limit down the Parkway endangering everyone’s life they come across?

“L and P-plate drivers will face a zero blood-alcohol limit under the Government’s new anti drink-driving laws”
Big fail to Stanhope – A reduction in BAC from 0.02 to 0.00. How many fatalities have been attributed to L or P plate drivers with a BAC of between 0.00 and 0.02?

“Anyone charged with drink-driving will have to take part in alcohol awareness courses”
Big fail to Stanhope – Drink drivers are already aware of the law and are already aware of the fact that they drink and drive.

“tougher restrictions will apply to those seeking restricted licences.”
Thumbs up to Stanhope – But does this go far enough? Anyone who’s licence has been cancelled should not have any right to a restricted licence. Is it OK to put dangerous drivers on our streets just because they need to get to work?

“Canberra’s first ever point-to-point road safety cameras have been funded in this year’s Budget”
Fail – These revenue cameras will be great for the sections of roads that they monitor. The positive effect will only be limited to stretches of road without intersections which tend to be the safer roads anyway. Bad drivers will know where they are and drive accordingly. This wont make any difference to the vast majority of Canberras roads.

“some of our most accident-prone sites are being upgraded with the help of the Federal Government’s Black Spots program”
Thumbs up to the federal Govt.

Road safety campaigns are also being rolled out to remind Canberrans to drive safely and obey the road rules.”
Big fail to Stanhope – Hasn’t this already been tried with those expensive roadside signs? Don’t we already hear road safety messages after every fatal crash? (fairly often these days). Dangerous drivers wont change their behaviour because of a road safety campaign.

There is no mention of the one thing that will deter drivers from breaking the law. THE RISK OF A FINE FOR BREAKING THE LAW. People break the law because they can. PUT POLICE BACK ON THE STREETS. It will take several years to change diver behaviour back to how it was before speed cameras substituted police cars but the sooner it’s done the more lives we’ll save. We need 5 years of low tollerence policing 24/7 targeting ALL road rules. There might be an initial cost but over time the savings will pay for the extra police required.

Funky1 said :

amarooresident3 said :

What freak accidents? As far as I can tell every road death this year has been because someone was doing the wrong thing. A freak accident is when a meteorite hits you.

And the CM is right – at some point drivers have to take responsibility for their own behavior.

So you have reviewed every single road death this year?
What about deaths due to mechanical failure (ie brakes failing or something similar)? You know for a fact that this wasn’t a contributing factor in any of the deaths?

Amarooresident is correct. All have been fault of drivers. Mechanical failures are rare in collisions whether it includes injuries/death or no injuries.

I hope your not one of those people that tries to blame everything and everyone else before blaming yourself.

No doubt, we need more speed cameras.

+1

amarooresident3 said :

What freak accidents? As far as I can tell every road death this year has been because someone was doing the wrong thing. A freak accident is when a meteorite hits you.

And the CM is right – at some point drivers have to take responsibility for their own behavior.

So you have reviewed every single road death this year?
What about deaths due to mechanical failure (ie brakes failing or something similar)? You know for a fact that this wasn’t a contributing factor in any of the deaths?

Why don’t they try the NSw solution?
In NSW a few years ago, the Police announced they’d no longer publish the road toll figure.
See, problem solved!
Unfortunately, the newspapers kept counting and publishing the numbers.
Wicked journalists!

I suspect that the problem is more that Stanhope was attempting to promote the notion that the road toll could be entirely “fixed” by the authorities. Good to see him coming back round to reality.

It’s Stanhope’s fault that people die on the roads?

That’s a surprise.

amarooresident312:32 pm 22 Jul 10

What freak accidents? As far as I can tell every road death this year has been because someone was doing the wrong thing. A freak accident is when a meteorite hits you.

And the CM is right – at some point drivers have to take responsibility for their own behavior.

Inappropriate12:29 pm 22 Jul 10

The more legislation and policies rolled out against the stupid, the better!!!!!

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.