Editorial: Lowering the road toll?

[vztrt]

http://theage.drive.com.au/motor-new...715-1hgxj.html

From the editor: Lowering the road toll?
Toby Hagon
July 16, 2011

It's that predictable time of the year when the media focuses on the school holiday road toll and police focus on trying to convince the public to slow down to save lives. ''Urging'' is a word the media latches on to and one that loses its impact the more you hear it.

Here's a news flash - most people killed on our roads are not hoons. I'd guess most of them had generally obeyed the rules and many more had stuck to the speed limit - authorities have no statistics on how many fatalities are caused by breaking the speed limit, only how many were travelling too fast for the conditions.

About 0.3 per cent of motorists tested are over the 0.05 blood alcohol limit, yet a quarter of the Victorian drivers killed were found to be over the limit. And about 16 per cent of fatalities are a result of fatigue.

Yet our holiday road-safety messages centre on those flouting the law - in particular, those breaking the speed limit.

As safety experts will attest, a crash into a tree at 105km/h is likely to be just as fatal as one at 100km/h.

How about some more down-to-earth suggestions that could affect all motorists; such as maximising your concentration, ensuring children don't distract you on that long drive and properly preparing yourself and your car for the big trip?

I'm not suggesting it is the silver bullet for saving lives on our roads, but it would have to be more effective than the predictable messages from police urging drivers to slow down.

TOBY HAGON, NATIONAL MOTORING EDITOR

[prydey]

good to see less and less people getting the wool pulled over their eyes. great article and pretty much sums up why people are sick of the continual focus on speed.

[GTP owner]

How long until Sudzy has this thread shut down?

[MAD]

Simple answers, speed is easier to photo, and it makes money.
The gov is full of hypocrisy. If true to their word about road safety, $ figures would not come in to it.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by GTP owner

How long until Sudzy has this thread shut down?

I think that depends on how others respond, I cant control that.

I’m sorry guys, but a motoring writer’s opinion on speed limits? What special qualifications does Mr Hagon have or indeed what research has he done into topic? Yes, his opinion is surely of value if we want to know which 4wd has the best cup holders, but objectivity on speed?

You may care to look at this: http://abc.com.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3163310.htm
Whilst not Robinson Crusoe, Mr Hogan partakes significantly in the junkets(some to exotic overseas locations) put on by motoring manufacturers to get them to test and report favourably on their product. http://smh.drive.com.au/motor-news/f...623-13k2h.html
Oh, and of course manufacturers of exotic performance machines would love to see Australia have open speed limits all over the place, it makes having a car that will do 300km/h+ so much more meaningful and necessary.

Oh, but sudszy, this is just character assassination of Mr Hogan. Well, nothing so far other than some facts, but let’s look critically at what he has to say:

As safety experts will attest, a crash into a tree at 105km/h is likely to be just as fatal as one at 100km/h.

Well yes, but what conclusion is to be drawn from such expert testament?

This is evidence that we should:

1. Reduce speed limits to speeds where we can survive tree impacts

or

2. 105km/h is just as safe as 100km/h because you aren’t going to survive hitting a tree at 100km/h(causing a fatality) anyway. Which using the same logic 110, 120....150 km/h is just as safe as 100km/h

Yes, both totally unsatisfactory in logic and practicality
But Mr Hagon wants to go with number 2!

What we have do have here is a serious omission by Mr Hagon is that a 5km/h increase of speed increases the probability(doubles) of the vehicle leaving the road and hitting a tree, the one piece of data that can be verified.

From here , we also have:
http://smh.drive.com.au/roads-and-tr...710-104t2.html
"THE Roads and Traffic Authority is considering plans to reduce the amount of leeway given to speeding motorists to as low as 4 km/h, according to senior police"

Mr Hagon:
In other words, it is the sort of situation in which a speed camera or the threat of tighter tolerances will have zero impact.
After all, most people walk faster than that and round numbers aren't by nature inherently safer.


So 4km/h over the limit is safe because that’s the speed that people can walk at? but the collisions aren't happening at walking speed!

We can extend that to 40km/h because that’s as fast as a man can run.....yeh why not Mr Hagon

No, Mr Hagon is exaggerating the facts, they have been numerous campaigns aimed at dozy drivers etc.

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by prydey

good to see less and less people getting the wool pulled over their eyes. great article and pretty much sums up why people are sick of the continual focus on speed.

+1

Despite many thinking it and saying nothing, this bloke has actually said something that makes sense, particularly with regard to the causation of an accident in the first place. The emphasis is place solely around speeding these days, and it doesn't appear to be the solution...I doubt it ever will.

[Road Games]

Originally Posted by sudszy

I think that depends on how others respond, I cant control that.

I’m sorry guys, but a motoring writer’s opinion on speed limits? What special qualifications does Mr Hagon have or indeed what research has he done into topic? Yes, his opinion is surely of value if we want to know which 4wd has the best cup holders, but objectivity on speed?

You may care to look at this: http://abc.com.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3163310.htm
Whilst not Robinson Crusoe, Mr Hogan partakes significantly in the junkets(some to exotic overseas locations) put on by motoring manufacturers to get them to test and report favourably on their product. http://smh.drive.com.au/motor-news/f...623-13k2h.html
Oh, and of course manufacturers of exotic performance machines would love to see Australia have open speed limits all over the place, it makes having a car that will do 300km/h+ so much more meaningful and necessary.

Oh, but sudszy, this is just character assassination of Mr Hogan. Well, nothing so far other than some facts, but let’s look critically at what he has to say:

As safety experts will attest, a crash into a tree at 105km/h is likely to be just as fatal as one at 100km/h.

Well yes, but what conclusion is to be drawn from such expert testament?

This is evidence that we should:

1. Reduce speed limits to speeds where we can survive tree impacts

or

2. 105km/h is just as safe as 100km/h because you aren’t going to survive hitting a tree at 100km/h(causing a fatality) anyway. Which using the same logic 110, 120....150 km/h is just as safe as 100km/h

Yes, both totally unsatisfactory in logic and practicality
But Mr Hagon wants to go with number 2!

What we have do have here is a serious omission by Mr Hagon is that a 5km/h increase of speed increases the probability(doubles) of the vehicle leaving the road and hitting a tree, the one piece of data that can be verified.

From here , we also have:
http://smh.drive.com.au/roads-and-tr...710-104t2.html
"THE Roads and Traffic Authority is considering plans to reduce the amount of leeway given to speeding motorists to as low as 4 km/h, according to senior police"

Mr Hagon:
In other words, it is the sort of situation in which a speed camera or the threat of tighter tolerances will have zero impact.
After all, most people walk faster than that and round numbers aren't by nature inherently safer.


So 4km/h over the limit is safe because that’s the speed that people can walk at? but the collisions aren't happening at walking speed!

We can extend that to 40km/h because that’s as fast as a man can run.....yeh why not Mr Hagon

No, Mr Hagon is exaggerating the facts, they have been numerous campaigns aimed at dozy drivers etc.

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by sudszy

I’m sorry guys, but a motoring writer’s opinion on speed limits? What special qualifications does Mr Hagon have

Why should we listen to your opinion on speed limits either?
You never revel anything about yourself, for all we know you could be a dole bludger who doesn't even have a car and you just post here to kill time.



Oh and in the last thread you claim you are not here to push your speed camera adgenda. But the only time your posts pop up is in threads like this.

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

+1

Despite many thinking it and saying nothing, this bloke has actually said something that makes sense, particularly with regard to the causation of an accident in the first place. The emphasis is place solely around speeding these days, and it doesn't appear to be the solution...I doubt it ever will.

I actually have real information from the WA Government (circa 2006) that demonstrates that the whole "speed, speeding and speeders" hysteria as a No. 1 cause of fatal crashes is a complete load of crap.

But of course when I challenged said bureaucrat about it, the predicable response of "oh, but speed may have been a factor in all of them!!1!". Well of course it would have been - had a vehicle not been engaged in forward motion, there would not have been a collision.

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

I actually have real information from the WA Government (circa 2006) that demonstrates that the whole "speed, speeding and speeders" hysteria as a No. 1 cause of fatal crashes is a complete load of crap.

But of course when I challenged said bureaucrat about it, the predicable response of "oh, but speed may have been a factor in all of them!!1!". Well of course it would have been - had a vehicle not been engaged in forward motion, there would not have been a collision.

I think we really need to move away from this 'speed may have been/was a factor' that keeps coming out. If the vehicle was travelling at over and above the posted speed limit, fine, then by all means go right ahead and say it. But if someone was doing 79 in an 80 zone in the rain and crashed - speed was not a factor...

I know someone will say you were driving too fast for the conditions...well, then why the hell is the speed limit 80 if I can't do 80 in ALL conditions...?

[Road_Warrior]

Here are the stats I was referring to. Taken from Parliament of Western Australia Hansard 16 October 2007:

(i) 2006 calendar year.
Cause No Proportion
Alcohol 45 7.9%
Alcohol/Drugs 6 1.0%
Alcohol/Speed 56 9.8%
Animals 10 1.7%
Careless 100 17.5%
Contravene TCL 2 0.3%
Drugs 4 0.7%
Fail to give way 55 9.6%
Fatigue 28 4.9%
Heart attack 2 0.3%
Inattention 75 13.1%
Inexperience 13 2.3%
Load shift 2 0.3%
Mechanical 2 0.3%
NULL 4 0.7%
Object through window 1 0.2%
Other medical 19 3.3%
Overtaking 23 4.0%
Person fell from Vehicle 4 0.7%
Reckless 21 3.7%
Road Condition 6 1.0%
Speed 68 11.9%
Stop sign 3 0.5%
Travel too close 2 0.3%
Turn in front 4 0.7%
Tyre blow out 9 1.6%
Visibility 4 0.7%
Weather Conditions 4 0.7%
Total 572 100.0%

Obviously its supposed to be in columns so I apologise for the lack of formatting.

[rayner22]

So inattention was a more significant cause than speeding.....










Probably people dozing off from reading sudszy's posts.....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I wonder how many accidents are caused by drivers being too concerned with watching the speedo rather than the road for fear of speed cameras?

[phillyc]

I put them in an excel file and sorted from highest to lowest.

(i) 2006 calendar year.
Cause No Proportion
Careless 100 17.50%
Inattention 75 13.10%
Speed 68 11.90%
Alcohol/Speed 56 9.80%
Fail to give way 55 9.60%
Alcohol 45 7.90%
Fatigue 28 4.90%
Overtaking 23 4.00%
Reckless 21 3.70%
Other medical 19 3.30%
Inexperience 13 2.30%
Animals 10 1.70%
Tyre blow out 9 1.60%
Alcohol/Drugs 6 1.00%
Road Condition 6 1.00%
Drugs 4 0.70%
NULL 4 0.70%
Visibility 4 0.70%
Person fell from Vehicle 4 0.70%
Turn in front 4 0.70%
Weather Conditions 4 0.70%
Stop sign 3 0.50%
Contravene 2 0.30%
Mechanical 2 0.30%
Heart attack 2 0.30%
Load shift 2 0.30%
Travel too close 2 0.30%
Object through window 1 0.20%
Total 572 100.00%

[vztrt]

All I see from the WA list is mainly people not paying attention that causes the majority of deaths....but speed cameras don't really pick up on that...

[phillyc]

Back to the OP, using Victoria as the basis with 25% of all deaths being alcohol related yet only 0.3% having alcohol in their system. Damn high percentage.

The WA sample from 2006 says 17.7% (if you include the Alcohol and Alcohol/Speeding groups).

Must admit, tyre blowout was much higher percentage than I expected.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Ben73

Why should we listen to your opinion on speed limits either?
.

No Ben, they are not my opinions, just the facts as presented to us by organisations such as the TAC, the research collated from not just data here but from around the world as well, they have basis unlike the rantings of people just "done over" for doing a couple of kays over etc..

Originally Posted by Ben73

Oh and in the last thread you claim you are not here to push your speed camera adgenda. But the only time your posts pop up is in threads like this.

One could say the same for some others too Ben. No I didnt start this thread, but to not say something when public safety is threatened with attitudes like Mr Hagon's, in the words of Edmund Burke........

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by vztrt

All I see from the WA list is mainly people not paying attention that causes the majority of deaths....but speed cameras don't really pick up on that...

That's right. Cameras can't and don't catch the biggest killers.

From the WA sample, Careless, Innattentive, Speeding, Alcohol affected, Lazy (Fail to give way / stop) and those that are tired are 75.2% of the road toll. Speed by itself was 11.9%.

Clearly, there is some really good gains to be had in improving peoples driving attitudes. But, right now it is just best to make millions from fines.

We need a wholistic approach.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by phillyc

Clearly, there is some really good gains to be had in improving peoples driving attitudes. But, right now it is just best to make millions from fines.

We need a wholistic approach.

Well from my personal experience in Vic (Camera Capital of Australia if not the world) driving attitude is lacking causing more problems then someone doing a couple over the speed limit.

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by phillyc

That's right. Cameras can't and don't catch the biggest killers.

From the WA sample, Careless, Innattentive, Speeding, Alcohol affected, Lazy (Fail to give way / stop) and those that are tired are 75.2% of the road toll. Speed by itself was 11.9%.

Clearly, there is some really good gains to be had in improving peoples driving attitudes. But, right now it is just best to make millions from fines.

We need a wholistic approach.

Agree wholeheartedly.

It seems there is not enough emphasis on attitudes...it's arguable that there ever has been...unless you count the constabulary being able to kick your rear end (which alas they aren't allowed to do anymore :()

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by sudszy

I’m sorry guys, but a motoring writer’s opinion on speed limits? What special qualifications does Mr Hagon have or indeed what research has he done into topic? Yes, his opinion is surely of value if we want to know which 4wd has the best cup holders, but objectivity on speed?

Rightio then ........ Please read the above before you give another opinion on these matters and everytime these subjects pop up ...... just PLEASE remember what you have just written before you post again. You dismiss his opinion because he is just a motoring writer? And who are you to say this?

You have no right to belittle anyone elses opinion as no one here ... and Mr Hagon .... have stated anything other than an opinion and one that is their own ...........

You are quick to bag out anyone, quick to post a link to someone you agree with but anyone who has an opposing view or a link to another point of view, to you they are all BS artists or stupid or just plain wrong. Of course we allow debates and differing opinions but you need to accept that OTHERS HAVE OPINIONS AS WELL ..... so respect them and you might get a bit more coming your way.

Over it actually ..........

[Polyal]

Daz I nearly spat my beer with the ani-gif..gold...sudzy you are unreal although I will agree his opinion has no more weighting than anyone elses.

Rubbish like this, carbon tax lies etc...I just wish we all would crack the poo's properly and stand up to it.

[rayner22]

^^^^^ Agree COMPLETELY with Auslandau.

Its gone from being annoying and repetitive rants to continually ruining by attacking other members and causing the closure of otherwise intelligent and communal discussion.

A little mutual respect goes a long way in life. If you want others to respect your opinion, let them freely voice theirs.

[Polyal]

Actually id love to know what Ford sudzy and that other guy, stadler or something actually own. Im yet to see them post anything in the show n shine sections....

[krzysiek]

Originally Posted by sudszy

No Ben, they are not my opinions, just the facts as presented to us by organisations such as the TAC, the research collated from not just data here but from around the world as well, they have basis unlike the rantings of people just "done over" for doing a couple of kays over etc..



One could say the same for some others too Ben. No I didnt start this thread, but to not say something when public safety is threatened with attitudes like Mr Hagon's, in the words of Edmund Burke........

You like to refer to "data" that supports the idea of "speed kills". Do you stop and think for a second that the data may just be biased or favoured in one direction, especially when you consider that there are big dollars floating around in the speed camera industry.

Secondly, I believe you have conveniently forgotten to look at the "data" provided on crash statistics from WA. Let's hope the data is not "too old" as it does date back to 2006/2007 (oh, how times have changed).

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Auslandau

Rightio then ........ Please read the above before you give another opinion on these matters and everytime these subjects pop up ...... just PLEASE remember what you have just written before you post again. You have no right to belittle anyone elses opinion as no one here ... and Mr Hagon .... have stated anything other than an opinion and one that is their own ........... .

There seems to be some confusion that an opinion is something that can't be challenged?

It would appear that Mr Hagon's opinions were being considered strongly just because he was a motoring writer rather than just a "dole bludger".
I have outlined some to serious concerns as to why his opinions could be influenced(meaningful response to those would be interesting) and also have found fault in his reasoning as to why he thinks speed isnt a problem, certainly its not flattering for Mr Hagon, but thems are valid points not to be ignored when considering Mr Hagon's "opinions"

Originally Posted by Auslandau

You are quick to bag out anyone, quick to post a link to someone you agree with but anyone who has an opposing view ....

Sorry, mine is not a view, just reiteration of one simple fact that "opinions" cant change: increasing speed increases risk of collision.

Originally Posted by Auslandau

who has an opposing view or a link to another point of view, to you they are all BS artists or stupid or just plain wrong.........

Exactly, opposing views are worth nothing(ie there is no evidence that man has added to the co2 levels) when they are exposed by facts.

As for calling people bs artists,then wasnt that justified when Id exposed that person for lying.

[krzysiek]

Originally Posted by sudszy

This is evidence that we should:

1. Reduce speed limits to speeds where we can survive tree impacts

or

2. 105km/h is just as safe as 100km/h because you aren’t going to survive hitting a tree at 100km/h(causing a fatality) anyway. Which using the same logic 110, 120....150 km/h is just as safe as 100km/h

Yes, both totally unsatisfactory in logic and practicality
But Mr Hagon wants to go with number 2!

Quite clearly you are being a little ridiculous here.

People are ANGRY because they get pinged for doing 5 or 10 KM's over, at times where it would be/is completely safe to do so. I don't know how any sane person can go from deducing that 5KM's over the limit (105KM/h instead of 100KM/h) can be compared to 50KM's over the limit.

Didn't you notice that NO ONE here is in support of doing 50KM's over the limit because there is no where where this type of speed would ever really be safe on Aussie roads, whereas 5KM's (as mentioned in OP) is completely different.

[grandpa_spec_F6]

Random question, being a car forum and all... but what do you drive?

I'm genuinely curious now.

Just to lighten the mood.... I found a profile pic:

[rayner22]

Sudszy, arguing with one of the senior mods isnt going to end well for you bud.


And you also called Ben73 a bs artist based on ONE past post about his speed alert activating which you never asked the circumstances behind. There are legal situations where someones speed alert will activate - as a few of us outlined in the other thread, but you chose to ignore those posts as they did not agree with or backup YOUR opinion.

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by sudszy

There seems to be some confusion that an opinion is something that can't be challenged?

It can be discussed, refuted, whatever but when an opinion is totally dismissed because ....

I’m sorry guys, but a motoring writer’s opinion on speed limits? What special qualifications does Mr Hagon have or indeed what research has he done into topic?

......... well it just shows what you think of everyone elses opinion. You are right .... just because.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by krzysiek

Quite clearly you are being a little ridiculous here.

People are ANGRY because they get pinged for doing 5 or 10 KM's over, at times where it would be/is completely safe to do so. I don't know how any sane person can go from deducing that 5KM's over the limit (105KM/h instead of 100KM/h) can be compared to 50KM's over the limit.

Didn't you notice that NO ONE here is in support of doing 50KM's over the limit because there is no where where this type of speed would ever really be safe on Aussie roads, whereas 5KM's (as mentioned in OP) is completely different.

Its really irrelevant whether people here regard 5-10km/h over as still "completely safe", the stats show that when tolerances are lowered and average speeds are reduced by 5-10km/h then the collision rates drop,(not an opinion)