I don't get the mentality of this trial (from a philosophical viewpoint):
1) They propose to eradicate speeding in order to eradicate speeding deaths (logical at first glance).
2) However this eradication 'solution' is very complex, very high cost and extremley freedom limiting. It would increase traffic congestion, pollution, take away time from peoples daily life, impact the economy ect. But maybe its worth it? lets dig some more...
3) Causes of death within Australia (source
ABS 2005 - most recent data I could find):
Road deaths in 2005 = 1,636
Total deaths in 2005 = 134,000.
Thus road deaths make up 1.2% of all deaths in Australia. Add to that that speeding deaths contribute to 40% of road deaths. Therefore 1636 deaths becomes 654 deaths in 2005 due to speeding. Now of those 654 speeding related deaths, 30% also involved alcohol giving us a final figure of 458 deaths due to speeding or 0.34% of all deaths in the year 2005.
Now they are proposing a high cost, freedom limiting "solution" to a problem that dosn't really seem to exist (0.34% of all deaths!). To me they are making a mountain out of a molehill.
4) From those same 2005 statistics cancer kills us the most (30%), followed by heart disease (18%) and diabetes caused 9% of all deaths. Yet we know that diet and exercise can help shield us from these causes - were is the call to ban junk food or make exercise compulsary? Were is the call to ban (gasp) people with a history of cancer from having children (shocking proposal but you get the jist)
5) Finally there were 2101 deaths from suicide in the year 2005 which is higher than the amount of all road deaths put together.
In Australia we seem to have this media fixation on road deaths and speed in particular in looking at the statistics I can't seem to find why. Nobody wants to lose a loved one on the road and no police officer wants to make that visit however you have to take a good hard look at the stats in this instance and ask the government why are they making such an issue out of speeding?