Lowest road toll in 90 years - why?

[DiscoMick]

Road deaths down in NSW, cyclists at risk | SBS News (http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/01/01/road-deaths-down-nsw-cyclists-risk)

I see NSW and Victoria have both recorded the lowest road toll in 90 years. No doubt the police will be saying thats because of the tough line on alcohol and speeding, and that's certainly a factor, but what other factors might also be important and how do we judge their relative importance?
For example, building safer cars must mean more people are surviving crashes. And replacing winding one-lane goat tracks with decent divided motorways has been shown many times to dramatically reduce the number of crashes.
We just drove from Brisbane to Lismore and then Sydney and back to Lismore. The change made by the motorway sections of the Pacific Highway is remarkable in cutting collisions and fatigue.
I would like to see more emphasis on driver education, specifically on keeping a safe distance behind vehicles, on safe lane-changing and on mixing safely with other vehicles. I also think that slow-moving drivers on motorways should be warned to travel closer to the average speed of other vehicles.
I also think the driver training scheme needs to be altered as I'm not convinced the log book system is effective - and I've been out with a number of young drivers, so I have some first-hand experience. I would like to see learners do a proper training course, with both classroom learning and real-life training in controlling vehicles for safety. This is the system we use in other fields of learning, so why not driving?
Anyway, enough from me - what do you think?

[ugu80]

You left out the medical factor. You are simply far more likely to survive serious injury now than 20 years ago.

[DiscoMick]

Yes, that's quite true.

Sent from my GT-P5210 using AULRO mobile app

[bee utey]

The ubiquity of mobile phones and the steady increase in mobile coverage also cuts the critical response time to the scene of a crash.

[Mick_Marsh]

Don't forget with the demise of Holden, in a few years the Commodore will be a collectable classic if not already. The potential road toll statistics kept them home in the garage.
Anyone want to invest in mine? I'll drop the price to $1.2 mil.

[drivesafe]

Hi DiscoMick and a factor that is never shown is the actual amount of miles being travelled in a given year.

With the huge jump in the cost of fuel, and other effects, what are the total mileage travelled figures for each year and how would these figures factor in to helping reduce the death toll?

I can only speak for my local area but the traffic has been way down on what it usually is.

Two weeks ago I went for a drive to Warwick and back and same thing, none of us could get over how light the traffic was.

[grey_ghost]

I think that there are multiple factors -

Newer cars are safer (abs, air bags, crumple zones, side intrusion bars, disc brakes, safer tyres, seat belts, stability control systems, etc)

More reliable cars that don't break down as often - or as badly as old ones. Anybody that has driven a car with a single brake circuit that has failed can attest to that!

Better roads - most freeways have dividers in them compared to back in the 70's when raods like the Hume Highway didn't. Plus a lot of freeways by-pass towns so less of a chance of collecting those pesky pedestrians! How many dirt roads are there now (in suburban areas) compared to years ago? Not many I would guess.

Speed cameras - before you say it, NO I don't think that speed cameras save lives. But I do think that a by product of speed cameras is that some people just don't bother speeding anymore as there is a higher risk of getting caught. Physics don't lie - the faster you go, the harder you hit..!

Booze Buses - I think that years ago it was fairly common to drink and drive "if you drink and drive you are a bloody idiot, if you don't spill any you are a bloody legend". I don't think people think the same about this now...

More police / un-marked cars? I drive on the Hume freeway every day and have seen such a varied amount of un-marked cars, it amazes me.. It's not just un-marked commodores anymore - I have seen utes, 4WDs, bmw, mazda, etc - not worth speeding anymore! Not that I ever did - :wasntme:

Higher fines for traffic offences? So people are more careful? Not sure about this one but when times are tough, you can't afford to pay any stupid fines and thus might drive more carefully?

More education? The government is constantly bombarding us with messages about safe driving - some of it must sink in!

I don't think that one particular aspect has done it - more various factors combined. I do think that safer cars are a large factor - people will always crash though.

Anyway - that's my 2 cents worth.

[Bushie]

I would think that one of the biggest factor would have to be road conditions, years ago it would not be unheard of for ~15 people to die on the stretch of Hwy 1 from Calga to Ourimbah over a long weekend, that's now been replaced with divided motorway.

Just think, what ever the reason since 1978 when NSW peaked at 1384 deaths there's 1000s of people that were able to enjoy Christmas with their families.

1908 120 killed 7.64/100000 pop.
1972 1309 killed 28.95/100000 pop
2009 460 killed 6.48/100000 pop

http://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/downloads/fatality_rate_1908_to_2009.pdf


Martyn

[Bigbjorn]

I think the two greatest factors are mandatory fitting and wearing of seat belts and the big change in community attitude towards drink driving.

This latter required a major change to the social life of a nation. Before the breathalyser and particularly random testing, much of the driving population thought you had to be pretty drunk before you couldn't drive a motor car. Indeed, I once heard a Sergeant of police say just that in public. There were howls of outrage when a limit of 0.08 was applied. "That's not drunk. That's just 6 or 8 pots, barely a drink." Then came 0.05 which caused stunned disbelief "What, 4 pots of mid-strength. What bunch of wowsers think that is drunk."

A not long retired Inspector of Police who is a customer of mine,(he makes model engines) told me that when he was a young copper and the breathalyser was new it was common to test drivers who were well over 0.15. Stations would boast about their drunkest customer, 0.028 and 0.035 and still able to walk and talk, maybe not very well but enough to think they could drive. He says this is now rare and high level drink driving like this has almost disappeared except amongst the dedicated drunks of this world who will never change. I know that in my very social youth we would regularly sink 12 or 15 schooners, drive home, and think nothing of it.

[JDNSW]

I think the two major factors are

1) road conditions - not just the freeways, although the improvement these make is overwhelming, they only represent a tiny proportion of roads, but all the little ongoing improvements - some local ones are, for example, sealing of more stretches of main road, meaning fewer collisions in dust, along with this goes better curves and fewer run-offs on corners, turning lanes in places notorious for fatal accidents, even edge marking and increasingly rumble strips to wake drivers up.

2) As suggested, the mileage travelled.

Some things I don't think are very significant are car safety features - these tend to go along with other features that insulate the driver from road conditions and encourage driving too fast for the conditions. I am not sure the average fleet age is lower than it was before 2008, probably higher as people get a lot more cautious about debt.

It is, as I have pointed out elsewhere, notable that matching statistics for random breath tests with blood tests for drivers in fatal accidents suggests that alcohol is THE major cause of road deaths. The other notable factor that is not reflected in road deaths is the use of mobile phones - despite the vast increase in possession of these and almost certainly use while driving in the last ten or fifteen years, deaths continue to decrease.

John

[vnx205]

Some of the reasons given would certainly explain a long term improvement, but not necessarily why last year was better than the one immediately before.

[stallie]

Some of the reasons given would certainly explain a long term improvement, but not necessarily why last year was better than the one immediately before.

Statistical noise. When there are random variables, you will always get small variations in an overall trend. There is no exact reason.

Like when we have the coldest day in xxx years, people start bleating on about the end of global warming, ignoring the overall trend.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

I think the two major factors are

1) road conditions - not just the freeways, although the improvement these make is overwhelming, they only represent a tiny proportion of roads, but all the little ongoing improvements - some local ones are, for example, sealing of more stretches of main road, meaning fewer collisions in dust, along with this goes better curves and fewer run-offs on corners, turning lanes in places notorious for fatal accidents, even edge marking and increasingly rumble strips to wake drivers up.

2) As suggested, the mileage travelled.

Some things I don't think are very significant are car safety features - these tend to go along with other features that insulate the driver from road conditions and encourage driving too fast for the conditions. I am not sure the average fleet age is lower than it was before 2008, probably higher as people get a lot more cautious about debt.

It is, as I have pointed out elsewhere, notable that matching statistics for random breath tests with blood tests for drivers in fatal accidents suggests that alcohol is THE major cause of road deaths. The other notable factor that is not reflected in road deaths is the use of mobile phones - despite the vast increase in possession of these and almost certainly use while driving in the last ten or fifteen years, deaths continue to decrease.

JohnJohn

I can only agree with you on the better roads and freeways.

While individuals may be doing less KM, there are many more cars and people on the road today than there were in 1978 so the chances for two or more vehicles to crash should be proportionally greater.

As for the safety of cars not being a cause of reducing fatalaties, I can not disagree with you more. Progressive crumple zones taking the G forces away from the human occupants is a significant improvement as are air-bags. The other safety devices such as seat belts and head hests were in place in 1978, but the proportion of cars older than 10 years without the safety devices in 1978 and today where even cars older than 10 years are likely to have many safety device must play a significant part on the fatality rates.

Diana

[Bigbjorn]

John

I can only agree with you on the better roads and freeways.

While individuals may be doing less KM, there are many more cars and people on the road today than there were in 1978 so the chances for two or more vehicles to crash should be proportionally greater.

As for the safety of cars not being a cause of reducing fatalaties, I can not disagree with you more. Progressive crumple zones taking the G forces away from the human occupants is a significant improvement as are air-bags. The other safety devices such as seat belts and head hests were in place in 1978, but the proportion of cars older than 10 years without the safety devices in 1978 and today where even cars older than 10 years are likely to have many safety device must play a significant part on the fatality rates.

Diana

Diana, my recollection of the statistics is that the highest road tolls were in the early 1960's. and started to decrease dramatically from then with the beginnings of seat belt installation, radial ply tyres, better brakes, all steel bodies. There were still many cars from the 20's through 50's still in daily use, sloppy steering, very poor mechanical brakes, repeatedly retreaded cross ply tyres, wood frame bodies, and to cap it off, inexperienced drivers. During the "baby boom" was a period of prosperity when families who prewar could never have afforded a house and a car acquired them. Ratty old cars, new drivers, poor roads, and a drinking culture. Ruthless enforcement of the drink driving laws in Qld. commenced in the late 50's with magistrates Pearce and Kearney suspending driver's licences even though it was not clear if they had the legal power to do so. The breathalyser came along about 1968 and was the key to totally changing community attitudes. Stiff fines and long suspensions and later cancellations made people think.

[Tote]

I reckon the timing of holidays during the week has an impact too. This year there were significant traffic issues the weekend after Christmas. It seems that people stayed home for Christmas and then departed for their holidays potentially in a more rested state. Similarly having NYE in the middle of the week reduced the number of people prepared to do road trips for that event too.
Regards,
Tote

[bee utey]

Some of the reasons given would certainly explain a long term improvement, but not necessarily why last year was better than the one immediately before.
For that I tend to blame the year's weather. A return to drier conditions reduces the number of days where loonies charge through the tempest blindly. Makes all the difference. Road toll tied to the annual rainfall?
Weather related death. (http://www.news.com.au/national/western-australia/tourist-dies-on-cyclone-flooded-road-as-exchristine-sweeps-inland/story-fnii5thn-1226792999559)

[JDNSW]

John

I can only agree with you on the better roads and freeways.

While individuals may be doing less KM, there are many more cars and people on the road today than there were in 1978 so the chances for two or more vehicles to crash should be proportionally greater.

As for the safety of cars not being a cause of reducing fatalaties, I can not disagree with you more. Progressive crumple zones taking the G forces away from the human occupants is a significant improvement as are air-bags. The other safety devices such as seat belts and head hests were in place in 1978, but the proportion of cars older than 10 years without the safety devices in 1978 and today where even cars older than 10 years are likely to have many safety device must play a significant part on the fatality rates.

Diana

The major improvements in safety of cars was seat belts and simple structural improvements such as antiburst locks and collapsible steering columns. Progressive crumple zones are, in my view, less significant - they date to the 1950s in some cars (e.g. Citroen, Mercedes). More significant is the improvements in brakes, steering and tyres, although, again, some were very good back to the sixties and even fifties. Another factor since then is that increased general prosperity has meant that on average vehicles are much better maintained, especially tyres - I remember from my childhood that tyres showing canvas down the centre of the tread were quite normal.

But my contention is not that these improvements are ineffective, but they came alongside improvements that insulate the driver from road conditions to an extent that counteracts the effects of the improvements, helped by the vastly increased power/weight ratios that apply to all classes of vehicles in the last forty years, so that many more vehicles are driven close to the edge of their safeety envelopethan used to be the case.

Airbags add relatively little to the protection of a correctly fitted seat belt in most cases - without the reluctance of Americans to wear seat belts they would never have been invented!

perhaps worth noting that MUARC research into insurance company data struggles to find any correlation between vehicle equipment/ safety ratings and accident, injury or fatality rates.
John

[Kev the Fridgy]

Some interesting comments here that's for sure and IMO most of the comments as to why the road toll is lower are most likely plausible. When it's all said and done a lower road toll is always a good thing, zero deaths would be awesome don't you think?


One thing that I would like to see are the comparison rates year compared to last for the total number of accidents, possibly impacts over say 30Km/H or Technical right off of vehicle, the point I am getting to is that yes there are a multitude of reasons as to why the toll is lower BUT if accidents of a certain nature that in previous years would have resulted in deaths have not decreased then we haven't fixed the problem of irresponsible driving, we have just added better features to protect the body inside.


Don't get me wrong, a lower toll is a good thing but safer driving would achieve a better result.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

The major improvements in safety of cars was seat belts and simple structural improvements such as antiburst locks and collapsible steering columns. Progressive crumple zones are, in my view, less significant - they date to the 1950s in some cars (e.g. Citroen, Mercedes). ....

Airbags add relatively little to the protection of a correctly fitted seat belt in most cases - without the reluctance of Americans to wear seat belts they would never have been invented!

perhaps worth noting that MUARC research into insurance company data struggles to find any correlation between vehicle equipment/ safety ratings and accident, injury or fatality rates.
JohnJohn

We are going to have to agree to disagree. Some of your points <removed> are very valid but many, IMHO, are not. Seatbelts while invented in the 1950s were not standard fittings till the mid 1960s. A huge proportion of cars on the road in the 1970s were Australian built vehicles with very low occupant protection, even with belts, particularly lap only belts, a lot of the energy dissipation was still within the human occupants.

In 1978 a significant proportion if not majority were older vehicles with poor energy dissipation. In 2013 most of the old bangers still have crumple zones etc.

What I would like to see is comparative statistics on the incidence of crashes in both periods and the prevalence, incidence and types of injuries within those crashes, then we can determine more accurately our various discussion perspectives. (no I'm not going to research that information tonight.)

[lyonsy]

newer safer cars have now mostly replaced all the old death traps on the road esp the 80's cars
you only have to see he video's of crash tests of old big cars like a disco 1 into something like a mid size people mover and the disco coming off worse to show how far things have come,
cars are now stronger then they have ever been imo they have there throw away sections but the cabin its self is like having a rollcage these days.
add airbags everywhere
and if you drive an old car then a new car the brakes are so much more touchey and ready to pull ya up then old cars ever have been, when ya switch not unusual to throw ya self into the screan on first application

[isuzurover]

...old big cars like a disco 1 ...


:D:D:D:D:D

Sorry had to laugh at that. You must have a strange definition of both old and big.

JD's comments are supported by real world crash data from both Australia and the UK (and likely many others).
Most real world crashes are low(er) speed and not into immovable objects. UK data showed the defender as equal top. Real world data generally shows larger cars being safer.

[V8Ian]

I'd say inertia reel seat belts have made an impact, now most people are wearing an optimally adjusted belt.

[Tank]

The ubiquity of mobile phones and the steady increase in mobile coverage also cuts the critical response time to the scene of a crash.
That's ironic, because the biggest cause of road fatalities is inattention, mostly down to mobile phone use while driving, Regards Frank

[JDNSW]

That's ironic, because the biggest cause of road fatalities is inattention, mostly down to mobile phone use while driving, Regards Frank

While I agree with the cause being inattention, putting it down to mobile phones does not make sense - twenty years ago they were rare - today there are more than there are drivers, and despite the law they are very widely used by drivers - and in the last twenty years the road toll has gone steadily down, not up as has to be the case if mobile phones were the the biggest cause. Also, data from the USA where only some states ban mobile use shows no correlation between the accident or fatality rate trends and legal use of phones (of course this could be because the law is widely ignored, but there is still the accident trends going in the opposite direction to the number of phones in use!).

But I agree it is ironic, if only because they are so widely demonised, even if this is not really justified.

[JDNSW]

John

We are going to have to agree to disagree.

I think one of our areas of disagreement is that you are tending to look at the survivability of an accident, where I am looking at the overall result, which includes the probability of the accident happening in the first place. And my point is that some of the changes to modern cars do not reduce, but rather increase the probability of accidents. A large part of this is the insulation of the driver from the road conditions produced by better handling, better noise suppression etc, but part of it is that some of the "safety" features actually increase probability of accidents - one of the things that strikes me immediately stepping from the County or 2a to almost any modern sedan is the comparatively poor forward vision, with a very thick 'A' pillar right where I need to look for traffic at intersections.

Certainly modern cars are much more survivable - I saw the results of a truly spectacular accident fairly recently near here - a Commodore failed to negotiate a slight bend coming up from a bridge at the end of a long straight, left the road, struck a railway telegraph pole about two metres above the ground while travelling sideways, breaking it in two and pulling it out of the ground, struck the ground nose first, and turned end over end, shedding various bits before coming to a stop right way up. The driver walked away. According to an RTA employee I was talking to, who was first on the scene, having been passed about a kilometre earlier, the car was travelling well in excess of 120kph, probably about 160. And he described the driver as 'drunk as a lord'. Worth noting that as far as I could find out the accident was not reported to police for a couple of days, so the driver probably got away with it, although it would be interesting to hear what he told his insurer!

Now if we compare this with the situation in 1978, if a similar accident happened, it would quite clearly have been a fatality. But it would not have happened like that - for a start, the car being driven almost certainly could not have gone as fast. And even if it had been able to, it would not have been doing so on the then winding gravel road, and single lane low level bridge - and if he had tried, the accident would have been a lot closer to the pub than the 40km he managed since closing time. Most likely would have come off the first bend out of town a relatively low speed.

John

[3toes]

newer safer cars have now mostly replaced all the old death traps on the road esp the 80's cars
you only have to see he video's of crash tests of old big cars like a disco 1 into something like a mid size people mover and the disco coming off worse to show how far things have come,
cars are now stronger then they have ever been imo they have there throw away sections but the cabin its self is like having a rollcage these days.
add airbags everywhere
and if you drive an old car then a new car the brakes are so much more touchey and ready to pull ya up then old cars ever have been, when ya switch not unusual to throw ya self into the screan on first application

Way back in the seventies when I was in primary school the local Police station was our neighbour. There was always a line up of crashed cars on the fence line between the school and police station. As kids we used to look these cars over and decide which was the coolest. Was an interesting exercise as most of them were brands which were not common on the roads. Many were exotic to us European brands not many boring Falcons, Valiants or Holdens. Most of them were small cars at a time when larger family cars were the norm. Was only many years later found out that these were all cars we had been arguing over were where someone had died in the crash!

[Fatso]

What ever the reason , sadly did not apply in WA , 5 dead over the same period .
NSW with a pop of around 7mil had 7 deaths according to the news, so 5 deaths in WA with a pop of 2 & a bit mil is a worry .

[ugu80]

A large part of this is the insulation of the driver from the road conditions produced by better handling, better noise suppression etc, but part of it is that some of the "safety" features actually increase probability of accidents

Good point, I remember a debate, many years ago and still on today, about compulsory protective clothing for motorcycle riders. An academic survey (probably USA but not sure) was quoted that indicated protective clothing gave a sense of security leading to more risky riding behaviour where 'street' clothing lent to survival mode ("If I fall off it will really hurt") and a lower accident rate, although greater and more serious injury if a crash does occur, although 'protective clothing' probably included helmets if it was a US paper.

[Pickles2]

Lower "Fatalities" has to be a good thing for whatever reason, most (all?) of which have been covered here.
But, what about the number of collisions?...Would they have shown a similar decrease?...I don't think so. And what about the number of people injured, some very seriously..now para/quadraplegics etc & others that would have been a "Fatality", but now, because of lots of reasons, are not? Would they have shown a similar decrease, again I don't think so.
Pickles.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

I think one of our areas of disagreement is that you are tending to look at the survivability of an accident, where I am looking at the overall result, which includes the probability of the accident happening in the first place. ...

... JohnHi John

Except that this thread is about the road toll, i.e. fatalities. Irrespective of the incidence of crashes and the reasons that vehicles crash, the reduction of fatality statistics are due in the main to divided roads AND improved occupant protection.

If we were talking about crash statistics then everything you say is valid.

Diana

BTW: I don't use the terminology "accidents" very few vehicle incidents are unpreventable i.e. without human factors. Almost universally at least one human did some action where the incident was predictable in the prevaling conditions. The term "crash" better reflects these incidents without assuming it was unpreventable (an accident).

[Bigbjorn]

John

I can only agree with you on the better roads and freeways.

While individuals may be doing less KM, there are many more cars and people on the road today than there were in 1978 so the chances for two or more vehicles to crash should be proportionally greater.

As for the safety of cars not being a cause of reducing fatalaties, I can not disagree with you more. Progressive crumple zones taking the G forces away from the human occupants is a significant improvement as are air-bags. The other safety devices such as seat belts and head hests were in place in 1978, but the proportion of cars older than 10 years without the safety devices in 1978 and today where even cars older than 10 years are likely to have many safety device must play a significant part on the fatality rates.

Diana

Diana, seat belts (lap/sash) became mandatory fittings to the front seats in 1969, wholesale cost on a Holden $9. My memory of the rise in accessory fitting of seat belts was that this started to become popular from about 1963. The then new ADR's required more belts in 1970 or 1971 followed by heater/demisters, head restraints at the same time. Collapsible steering columns were another great lifesaver. The old rigid columns were oft described as "a spear aimed at the driver's heart". Queensland made wearing of belts mandatory in 1971. On New Year's Day in 1971 police were pulling over drivers to advise them that they now had to wear their seat belt. A friend who had been enjoying a very social new year was pulled over in Surfer's Paradise for this purpose. The officer was so concentrated on giving the seat belt message that he failed to notice that Shorty was as drunk as a skunk.

John, you are on target about bald tyres back then. If a tyre could hold air it would be used. If a tyre was worn right through then often a sleeve would be inserted and the process continued. Imagine a 1920's car with two wheel brakes and bald tyres all around. There were still plenty of them in use in the 50's. A friend was repairing something on the back axle of his 1926 Chev. Capitol and dropped it off the stack of bricks used as a stand. The damage done reduced it to a one wheel contracting brake. He just kept driving it.

[DiscoMick]

I still think the major factors would be improved roads, safer cars, fewer drunk drivers and improved ambulance and hospital services keeping people alive. Traffic density has increased significantly, but fatality rates have gone down.
One thing I'm not convinced about is the police emphasis on speed, as I doubt speed as such is a major factor in a majority of accidents. Inapropriate speed for the conditions would be another matter, as there are times when the posted speed limit is still too fast for the conditions.
Demography of drivers would be another matter. We know that young males aged 17-21 are the highest-risk group. Lets suppose, for the sake of argument, that 1% of the population, mostly young males, are so determined to drive recklessly, possibly because it flatters their egos, that no matter what road safety campaigns are run, they will be ignored, in the same way that some people still commit crimes no matter how tough the penalties are (as was shown in England around the time of the First Fleet when you could be jailed for stealing a loaf of bread or a hankie). Now, if some of those reckless 1% kill themselves that would put up the fatality rate in that year, but then that person is gone from the following year. The flipside is, of course, that there is another group of 17 year olds taking to the roads and another 1% or so of reckless drivers.
So, demographically, if most people are driving more safely, but 1% are still being reckless, then we simultaneously have fewer fatalities and a continuing group of reckless drivers. So, the real key is how to get the 1% to mature more rapidly and act more responsibly. Ideas, anyone?
Sent from my GT-P5210 using AULRO mobile app

[JDNSW]

Hi John

Except that this thread is about the road toll, i.e. fatalities. Irrespective of the incidence of crashes and the reasons that vehicles crash, the reduction of fatality statistics are due in the main to divided roads AND improved occupant protection.

If we were talking about crash statistics then everything you say is valid.

My point is that when talking about fatalities, this is a function of both the probability of an accident and the probability of survival when it happens. Both factors are at work, but I have not seen any attempt to separate them when talking about overall fatality rates. Another point worth thinking about is that rates are now so low (at least per kilometre) and the curve so flat, that statistical noise is likely to mean trends are difficult to see, especially when, for example, comparing this Christmas with last Christmas, but even when talking about the whole year, especially for the smaller states and territories.

Diana

BTW: I don't use the terminology "accidents" very few vehicle incidents are unpreventable i.e. without human factors. Almost universally at least one human did some action where the incident was predictable in the prevaling conditions. The term "crash" better reflects these incidents without assuming it was unpreventable (an accident).

We've been over this one before. The term "accident" in normal English does not (just) mean "unpredictable" - its more normal meaning is to mean "unintended", and this sense of the word is quite applicable to the vast majority of road "accidents", except perhaps for the unknown number of "suicide by motor vehicle", which may not actually be that small a number, since suicide is a more frequent cause of death than road trauma.

Attempts to redefine the meaning of words are rarely successful, perhaps in particular where the attempt is to restrict the meaning. On the other hand, meanings change over time without anyone trying!

John

[JDNSW]

........ We know that young males aged 17-21 are the highest-risk group.......

If you look at the statistics, rather than looking at the age and sex of the drivers involved in fatal accidents, the other figure is that 25-50% of them are above 0.05%BAC. Compare this with the proportion of drivers found above this limit in random breath test campaigns (often not random, but targetted to where drunk drivers would be expected) which typically finds way under 1%, often below 0.1% of drivers tested. I suggest your 1% may in fact be too high a figure.

In my view this is where the problem lies. Of course, quite often this same cohort is 17-25, male, speeding, perhaps unlicenced (having been caught before), and generally behaving like an idiot.

John

[UncleHo]

I read Ugu80's comment about motorcyclists clothing, I have ridden M'cycles since the 60's and there is no way that I would go out my gate without the following, Jeans,calf length leather boots,shirt & leather jacket also leather gloves,irrespective to how hot or cold it is, I have seen what happens when someone steps/falls off,and believe me a ripped leather jacket and jeans are a lot better than a Blood Shirt :( many years ago a friend's brother came off his bike in Manly Sydney, he had his girlfriend (now wife) on the back, she was wearing shorts and a bikini top,what a blood covered mess she was,had difficulty feeding their kids when they started a family.

Yes, I have stepped/dropped my bike a couple of times over the years and destroyed 2 leather jackets 3 sets of gloves and a near new pair of leather touring pants :mad: most of that caused by car drivers with their head under their armpits

cheers

[Chops]

Personnaly, I would credit the toll with with a major speed decline.
I do a few miles up and down the Hume, and I think our truckies here will agree, people just dont seem to be going as fast as they did,, it even seems noticable in the last twelve months.

I've had my Defer now 2 years, but when I had the V8's, I'd set cruise 10-15klms higher than the speed limit, and it was nothing to have a heap of cars either doing similar, or trying to keep with you,, (I'm guessing they figured I'd get caught first, so they'd be safe,,).
These days, even in the Defer, rarely am I passed by other vehicles,,, and I'm sitting on the speed limit :eek:,,
It just seems as if no one wants to go fast anymore. Wether its because of the cost of fines or they're becomming responsible,, who knows. But they're slower now, thats for sure.

When I was picked up the other week with the broken turbo hose, talking to the tow truck driver, he said that with all the safety gear in cars now a days, there are much fewer "compound" type injuries as compared with 20 years ago. So, in old times, people had massive skin breaking type injuries, whereas today, theres very few. This is due to all the airbags in vehicles now. This seems to do the job in low speed accidents, but in high speed,, the body just cant withstand the forces at work.

I agree with John about newer cars and going faster than one should because you do feel safer.
I came out of a Toy75 ute which at the time handled ok, and then went into the D1. The D1 handled so much better, and this made you feel safer and inadvertantly drive faster. The unfortunate thing about going faster, is that they dont really make "you, the driver" any better a driver. The corner just arrives quicker :eek:

[JDNSW]

Personnaly, I would credit the toll with with a major speed decline.
I do a few miles up and down the Hume, and I think our truckies here will agree, people just dont seem to be going as fast as they did,, it even seems noticable in the last twelve months.

This may reduce the number of accidents on the Hume - but the Hume, indeed all freeways, contributes only a tiny proportion of total fatalities. I can't be too dogmatic, but I think that the typical city fatality is an intersection accident, and the typical country one is a car either crossing to the wrong side and head on to oncoming traffic, or leaving the road and hitting an immovable object, usually a tree.

.......This seems to do the job in low speed accidents, but in high speed,, the body just cant withstand the forces at work.

Many fatal accidents are not survivable regardless of safety equipment - if a car hits a tree or the front of a B-Double at 120km/h, it does not matter how many airbags it has. But if it is only doing 60, then it becomes survivable thanks to the passenger cage, airbags and seat belts. And as your tow truck driver notes, if it is a lot slower, or does not hit squarely, then the airbags and forgiving interior means a lot less blood, and often no injuries at all.

I agree with John about newer cars and going faster than one should because you do feel safer.
I came out of a Toy75 ute which at the time handled ok, and then went into the D1. The D1 handled so much better, and this made you feel safer and inadvertantly drive faster. The unfortunate thing about going faster, is that they dont really make "you, the driver" any better a driver. The corner just arrives quicker :eek:

Round here, I have not noted driving is significantly slower than a few years ago - if I travel at the speed limit, probably 90% of traffic passes me about 10-20kph faster. Pretty much the same as it was when I moved here twenty years ago.

John

[Bigbjorn]

One thing I'm not convinced about is the police emphasis on speed, as I doubt speed as such is a major factor in a majority of accidents. Inapropriate speed for the conditions would be another matter, as there are times when the posted speed limit is still too fast for the conditions.


When police, bureaucrats and politicians blather on about "speeding" they are on about exceeding the arbitrarily set speed limits, not excessive speed in the prevailing circumstances. Our speed limits need adjusting, mostly upwards. They have not changed since 1960 other than to metric measure. In 1960 our limits were changed from 30 to 40 mph in built up areas and from 50 to 60 mph outside. The 40 mph limit was taken down to 35 after a few months. Since then there have been no changes other than virtually direct conversion to metric measure and a few miles of motorway lifted to 110 kph from 100. There have been exponential improvements in vehicles and roads since then and speed limits should reflect these vast improvements. Most highways now are wide enough and sufficiently well surfaced to run 120 kph. Many urban arterial roads should be lifted to 80 kph. Good lightly trafficked roads in less populated regions could become unrestricted. It worked in the Northern Territory.

[Jeff]

To cover something not already discussed, whenever I go anywhere in the last three or so years, the roads are so crowded that people don't get up to enough speed to cause serious injury, and people are so busy beeping their horn or giving the finger to other drivers/riders/pedestrians they don't have time to get up to speed.

On the same note, where I live on the Northern Beaches, it seems like nobody went away on holidays this Christmas, either because of costs, fuel etc, or the timing of the public holidays. The place is crowded like no previous year.

Jeff

:rocket:

[Lotz-A-Landies]

We've been over this one before. The term "accident" in normal English does not (just) mean "unpredictable" - its more normal meaning is to mean "unintended", and this sense of the word is quite applicable to the vast majority of road "accidents", except perhaps for the unknown number of "suicide by motor vehicle", which may not actually be that small a number, since suicide is a more frequent cause of death than road trauma.

Attempts to redefine the meaning of words are rarely successful, perhaps in particular where the attempt is to restrict the meaning. On the other hand, meanings change over time without anyone trying!

JohnNext time you undertake a postgraduate degree in trauma or a short certification course in trauma like the EMST# or TNCC* or MIMMS% then you can justify your terminology with them. Personally I will continue to use the terminology of a trauma professional.

# Emergency Management of Surgical Trauma
* Trauma Nursing Core Course
% Major Incident Medical Management & Support

[JDNSW]

Next time you undertake a postgraduate degree in trauma or a short certification course in trauma like the EMST# or TNCC* or MIMMS% then you can justify your terminology with them. Personally I will continue to use the terminology of a trauma professional.

# Emergency Management of Surgical Trauma
* Trauma Nursing Core Course
% Major Incident Medical Management & Support

I now understand that you are using (or rather not using) the term in a restricted professional sense. This is perfectly valid, and similar word use is common in all professions. However, trying to extend the restricted professional meaning of a word to the general community is unlikely to succeed, and insisting on it when talking to the wider community is more likely to foster misunderstanding than understanding.

John

[isuzurover]

Next time you undertake a postgraduate degree in trauma or a short certification course in trauma like the EMST# or TNCC* or MIMMS% then you can justify your terminology with them. Personally I will continue to use the terminology of a trauma professional.

# Emergency Management of Surgical Trauma
* Trauma Nursing Core Course
% Major Incident Medical Management & Support

:angel:

The same terminology is used in HSE/OHS, due to a (questionable) philosophy that all "incidents" (accidents) are preventable.

Any lecturer who knows what they are talking about will tell you that incident and accident have the same meaning and can be used interchangably.

[JDNSW]

:angel:

The same terminology is used in HSE/OHS, due to a (questionable) philosophy that all "incidents" (accidents) are preventable.
.........

While the philosophy is questionable, it is not a bad way of minimising 'incidents' by making the a priori assumption that all accidents are preventable. In fact they probably are - but not if it is necessary to do any useful work. What is needed is to balance the probability of an adverse event against the costs of preventing it, which hopefully is what is done in practice, although this philosophy does tend to mandate ridiculous results!

But your comment on 'accident' and 'incident' being semantically the same reminds me that in another professional area, aviation safety. they have separate, legal, meanings - an accident is where damage or injury occurs, an incident is where it could have occurred due to a non-standard occurrence such as a loss of separation or an engine failure etc.

But in talking to the general public, trying to maintain the distinction is a waste of effort, as can be seen by many of the media reports on aviation 'incidents'!

John

John

[POD]

I still find it both intriguing and frustrating (as one involved in trauma care) that the effect of medical trauma systems in reducing the road toll is completely ignored by the media, and consequently by the public.
The Melbourne 'Age' yesterday filled pages 1, 2 and 3 with stories on the record low number of road deaths; they highlighted the over-representation of elderly drivers among those killed, making the obvious (to them) conclusion that older drivers are causing a record number of accidents and we need to look at ways of getting them off the road! I think that most people who work in emergency services can testify that it is not elderly drivers who cause serious accidents- it is overwhelmingly young people (yes, everyone will have a story about the scary older driver). Old people simply do not survive their injuries, whereas young people do.

[ugu80]

I still find it both intriguing and frustrating (as one involved in trauma care) that the effect of medical trauma systems in reducing the road toll is completely ignored by the media, and consequently by the public.
The Melbourne 'Age' yesterday filled pages 1, 2 and 3 with stories on the record low number of road deaths; they highlighted the over-representation of elderly drivers among those killed, making the obvious (to them) conclusion that older drivers are causing a record number of accidents and we need to look at ways of getting them off the road! I think that most people who work in emergency services can testify that it is not elderly drivers who cause serious accidents- it is overwhelmingly young people (yes, everyone will have a story about the scary older driver). Old people simply do not survive their injuries, whereas young people do.
You may now revert to post No. 2 of this thread and add your thanks.
As to elderly drivers having increased accident rates no comment has been made that we have an ageing population, ergo, older average driver age, more older drivers on the road therefore increased incidents of older drivers in accidents. A per capita comparison of drivers over a certain age would be a more accurate assessment of older drivers accident rates.

Disclaimer: Only posted due to me about to enter the 'older driver' statistics.

[clubagreenie]

To look at Diana and Johns discussion of what constitutes an accident, in the eyes of the law (and as a sufferer of it I can comment) there is no such thing. Everything is preventable and there is always someone to blame.

Take my case, as a driver with no medical history of blackouts or seizures I still should have foreseen the potential for the event and ticked the box on my license application (that I have a history of them) and so I wouldn't have been driving or at least would have had to be medically cleared to drive when I blacked out and ran off the road.

Oh you hit someone, that's neg driving. Didn't tick the box saying you have a history of something that's never occurred, that's fraud.

[Treads]

To look at Diana and Johns discussion of what constitutes an accident, in the eyes of the law (and as a sufferer of it I can comment) there is no such thing. Everything is preventable and there is always someone to blame.

Yes, in our reports we call them 'Collisions' or 'incidents', not 'accidents'.

[PeterM]

I deliberately modify my language to use collision or incident myself as a true accident is exceptionally rare. Normally someone has screwed up.

I'm one of those people who like to see the devil in the detail for these things. As POD quite rightly pointed out, advances in trauma care have increased survival rates markedly. This kind of influence was demonstrated in wars as Korea and Vietnam saw the advent of medevac choppers and significant improvements in mortality rates.

The improved passive safety measures in vehicles and improved vehicle design has also lessened injury numbers and severity in crashes.

So, I'd like to see data that draws out the numbers of collisions per registered vehicle numbers; mortality and injury rates as a function of the number of collisions and then factor in on top of all that the distances that we drive.

The end result would be something along the lines that for every km that people drive the incidence of death or injury on the road is 'x' compared to 'y' from 'w' number of years ago.

That'd give us some rather interesting figures and a true measure of the relative risk. The number of factors that contribute to that relative risk are many and varied.

[JDNSW]

I deliberately modify my language to use collision or incident myself as a true accident is exceptionally rare. Normally someone has screwed up.

In ordinary English, accident simply means something unintended. Are you saying that most incidents are intentional? It is interesting to compare the analysis of aviation accidents with the above "Normally someone has screwed up". In aviation it has long been recognised that accidents do not have a single "cause", but are the result of the interaction of multiple factors, and investigation is aimed (in most countries) at preventing future accidents rather than blaming someone, a significant difference to the analysis of road accidents. The relative safety of the two modes of transport may suggest which is the more effective model.

I'm one of those people who like to see the devil in the detail for these things. As POD quite rightly pointed out, advances in trauma care have increased survival rates markedly. This kind of influence was demonstrated in wars as Korea and Vietnam saw the advent of medevac choppers and significant improvements in mortality rates.

The improved passive safety measures in vehicles and improved vehicle design has also lessened injury numbers and severity in crashes.

So, I'd like to see data that draws out the numbers of collisions per registered vehicle numbers; mortality and injury rates as a function of the number of collisions and then factor in on top of all that the distances that we drive.

I think some of this information is available from the bureau of statistics. The key figures are probably accidents per kilometre (no good handle on this seeing we do not have to log and report every kilometre driven, or minor accidents, - per registered vehicle is a very approximate substitute, but takes no notice of changes in vehicle use due, for example to people avoiding car use due to increased petrol prices, but is probably the best we have), and deaths per accident, probably fairly accurate.

The end result would be something along the lines that for every km that people drive the incidence of death or injury on the road is 'x' compared to 'y' from 'w' number of years ago.

In my view the major change is in road conditions and in driver attitudes, rather than improvements in vehicle safety - and this result will not distinguish the two effects.

That'd give us some rather interesting figures and a true measure of the relative risk. The number of factors that contribute to that relative risk are many and varied.

Probably the best data, albeit incomplete, is the information held by insurance companies on claims. MUARC has done some work on these, but much more could be done.

John

[lyonsy]

Prob a bit late but I would think that a 2ton vechile is what most consider a large vehicle.
Yes a 90s disco would still be safer then a excell
Do a serch of the 5th gear vids and look for discovery crash test where they crash a disco into a renult md size people mover and see the results.
Most real world crashes are low speed most deaths are not from low speed.

[UncleHo]

Aah! yes, the English crash test by a European vehicle manufacturer to showcase their current line of people mover against a possibly rusty M.O.T. failure Discovery 1, Remembering that in the UK they salt their roads against snow,and the life expectancy of the average car is below 10 years, I would wonder how long that said people mover will last ??

[ScottW]

It annoys me how quickly the government is to whip out the yearly road toll, along with the whole 'speed kills' spiel and associated revenue raising agenda, yet the number of deaths by suicide in this country is still not being addressed.

Higher numbers, very preventable, but no $$$ to be made, so no care by the government.

Sorry for the rant.

[UncleHo]

Campbell's Safety plan +1kph and you are gone :mad: and cable driven speedos have a 10% error factor :( will be interesting when one of those goes to court,just hope the media are there.

[DiscoMick]

Yes, they can make money from fining people for speeding, but there's no money in suicide.

Sent from my GT-P5210 using AULRO mobile app

[UncleHo]

It doesn't get votes.

[gusthedog]

Lowest road toll in 90 years -why?

Because less people died :wasntme:

[DiscoMick]

Speedos have to read faster than the actual speed by law or the vehicle is unroadworthy so, as long as you set the cruise control on the speed limit, you know you're actually doing less than the speed limit.

Re. the comment about votes and speeding, you have to wonder if that is really true. There must be an awful lot of people out there who have been annoyed by being booked for minor speeding, say 5-10 km/h over the limit. However, many people have yet to make the connection between their being booked and who they voted for at the last state elections, since state governments control road rules. You have to wonder what would happen if motoring orgnizations got some balls and ran a campaign against government harassment of motorists - for example, if they attacked the idea that people can be fined for going 1km/h over the speed limit. In England, there was a big motorists' backlash against speed cameras and a lot of them were removed a while back, I recall. Unfortunately, it's unlikely to happen as the motoring organizations are run by people who are afraid to do anything which could have them acused of being irresponsible.

Imagine what would happen if the motoring organizations backed a campaign to have every mnotorist refuse to pay any speeding fine for going up to 5km/h over the speed limit, on the grounds that road conditions constantly vary and its inevitable that everyone will occasionally slip over the limit by a small amount, so booking them for that is harassment and not really about road safety.
The number of unpaid fines for doing up to 5km/h over the limit would skyrocket into the hundreds of thousands within a few months. What are governments going to do? The amounts owing would quickly rise as payment deadlines passed. Are state governments going to arrest everyone with one of those unpaid fines? Really? Imagine the TV news crews lapping it up as average people got dragged away in paddy wagons for not paying a fine for being 5km/h over the limit. Imagine the government politicians getting nervous about alienating all those voters.
There comes a point when a bad law is worse than no law at all. There also comes a time when people are entitled to resist bad laws. Have we reached that point yet?

Sent from my GT-P5210 using AULRO mobile app

[Mick_Marsh]

Yes, they can make money from fining people for speeding, but there's no money in suicide.

Sent from my GT-P5210 using AULRO mobile app
Why not? They should fine them. Repeat offenders should get jail time.

Campbell's Safety plan +1kph and you are gone :angry: and cable driven speedos have a 10% error factor :( will be interesting when one of those goes to court,just hope the media are there.
+3kph was introduced in Vic. The sky didn't fall in but the civil compliance industry does collect a lot of indirect taxes for the government.

[V8Ian]

Why not? They should fine them. repeat offenders should get jail time.

That would require a change of legislation, Mick. Whilst suicide is a crime, the attempt of suicide is not. :confused:
I wonder what the penalty for suicide is, I don't think anybody has been prosecuted for it recently.

[ScottW]

+3kph was introduced in Vic. The sky didn't fall in but the civil compliance industry does collect a lot of indirect taxes for the government.

Yes, but the QLD government are keen on making the entire state into criminals at the moment with their over the top new laws.

No Cookies | The Courier-Mail (http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/townsville-man-fined-146-for-doing-1kmh-over-speed-limit/story-fnihsrf2-1226792203056)

As far as speedo accuracy, up until July 2006 this rule specified an accuracy of +/- 10 percent of the vehicle’s true speed when the vehicle was travelling above 40km/h.

So any car built before July 2006 is now unroadworthy? My wife's old Suzuki Jimny read 2-3% under. That was a 2002 vehicle with full electronic speedo, no cable. Basically the QLD government gives no regard for ADR's or common sense. It's all $$$. (and bikies)

[Mick_Marsh]

That would require a change of legislation, Mick. Whilst suicide is a crime, the attempt of suicide is not. :confused:
I wonder what the penalty for suicide is, I don't think anybody has been prosecuted for it recently.
Doesn't change my suggestion. Do the crime, do the time.

[Mick_Marsh]

Yes, but the QLD government are keen on making the entire state into criminals at the moment with their over the top new laws.

No Cookies | The Courier-Mail (http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/townsville-man-fined-146-for-doing-1kmh-over-speed-limit/story-fnihsrf2-1226792203056)

As far as speedo accuracy, up until July 2006 this rule specified an accuracy of +/- 10 percent of the vehicle’s true speed when the vehicle was travelling above 40km/h.

So any car built before July 2006 is now unroadworthy? My wife's old Suzuki Jimny read 2-3% under. That was a 2002 vehicle with full electronic speedo, no cable. Basically the QLD government gives no regard for ADR's or common sense. It's all $$$. (and bikies)
I agree with your sentiment. The year of manufacture dictates which ADR's are applied. It's a pity the year of manufacture don't dictate which road rules are applied.

[vnx205]

Lowest road toll in 90 years -why?

Because less people died :wasntme:

Not quite.

Strictly speaking, it is because fewer people died. :D


http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/less-or-fewer
Use fewer if you’re referring to people or things in the plural (e.g. houses, newspapers, dogs, students, children). For example:

People these days are buying fewer newspapers.
Fewer students are opting to study science-related subjects.
Fewer than thirty children each year develop the disease.

Use less when you’re referring to something that can’t be counted or doesn’t have a plural (e.g. money, air, time, music, rain). For example:

It’s a better job but they pay you less money.
People want to spend less time in traffic jams.
Ironically, when I’m on tour, I listen to less music.

[DiscoMick]

Yep, its fewer with countables (houses, cars etc) and less with the uncountable (air, water etc). End of grammer rave.


Sent from my GT-P5210 using AULRO mobile app

[UncleHo]

You will probably find that Newmann is busy collecting money so he can pay back those that bankrolled his election campaign ;)

[DiscoMick]

Yes, particularly since Clive Palmer stopped funding the LNP because they wouldn't give him a monopoly on the railway line to his and several other coal mines.

Sent from my GT-P5210 using AULRO mobile app

[gusthedog]

Not quite.

Strictly speaking, it is because fewer people died. :D


http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/less-or-fewer
Use fewer if you’re referring to people or things in the plural (e.g. houses, newspapers, dogs, students, children). For example:

People these days are buying fewer newspapers.
Fewer students are opting to study science-related subjects.
Fewer than thirty children each year develop the disease.

Use less when you’re referring to something that can’t be counted or doesn’t have a plural (e.g. money, air, time, music, rain). For example:

It’s a better job but they pay you less money.
People want to spend less time in traffic jams.
Ironically, when I’m on tour, I listen to less music.

My apologies for using incorrect grammar discomick and vnx205 :TakeABow: I was unaware my response would be offensive in that way. I was trying to be offensive in other ways and I will endeavor to use appropriate grammar when making lame jokes in the future :D

[Lotz-A-Landies]

<snip>
Imagine what would happen if the motoring organizations backed a campaign to have every mnotorist refuse to pay any speeding fine for going up to 5km/h over the speed limit, on the grounds that road conditions constantly vary and its inevitable that everyone will occasionally slip over the limit by a small amount, so booking them for that is harassment and not really about road safety.
The number of unpaid fines for doing up to 5km/h over the limit would skyrocket into the hundreds of thousands within a few months. What are governments going to do? The amounts owing would quickly rise as payment deadlines passed. Are state governments going to arrest everyone with one of those unpaid fines? Really?
<snip>Actually in NSW not paying a fine (even a parking fine) gets your registration cancelled, you then end up with driving an unregistered and uninsured vehicle. A massively more costly exercise than the fine for less than 10KM over the posted limit.

[ScottW]

Same in Qld, not paying a fine (including council fines such as a parking fine or dog not on a leash) gets your licence suspended, meaning you are then driving unlicensed and uninsured for something that may not even be related to driving.

[isuzurover]

Prob a bit late but I would think that a 2ton vechile is what most consider a large vehicle.
Yes a 90s disco would still be safer then a excell
Do a serch of the 5th gear vids and look for discovery crash test where they crash a disco into a renult md size people mover and see the results.
Most real world crashes are low speed most deaths are not from low speed.

Disco 1 is 1905 kg and about the same size as a VW golf (LxW).

Looks safer than most to me...
IIHS Crash Test 1995, 1996, 1997 Land Rover Discovery - YouTube
More deformation of the cabin than a D3/4, but about the same as a D2.

Most deaths are from people driving drunk or tired. The correlation between death and vehicle crashworthiness is tenuous in real data.

[Tote]

Personnaly, I would credit the toll with with a major speed decline.
I do a few miles up and down the Hume, and I think our truckies here will agree, people just dont seem to be going as fast as they did,, it even seems noticable in the last twelve months.

I've had my Defer now 2 years, but when I had the V8's, I'd set cruise 10-15klms higher than the speed limit, and it was nothing to have a heap of cars either doing similar, or trying to keep with you,, (I'm guessing they figured I'd get caught first, so they'd be safe,,).
These days, even in the Defer, rarely am I passed by other vehicles,,, and I'm sitting on the speed limit :eek:,,
It just seems as if no one wants to go fast anymore. Wether its because of the cost of fines or they're becomming responsible,, who knows. But they're slower now, thats for sure.

When I was picked up the other week with the broken turbo hose, talking to the tow truck driver, he said that with all the safety gear in cars now a days, there are much fewer "compound" type injuries as compared with 20 years ago. So, in old times, people had massive skin breaking type injuries, whereas today, theres very few. This is due to all the airbags in vehicles now. This seems to do the job in low speed accidents, but in high speed,, the body just cant withstand the forces at work.

I agree with John about newer cars and going faster than one should because you do feel safer.
I came out of a Toy75 ute which at the time handled ok, and then went into the D1. The D1 handled so much better, and this made you feel safer and inadvertantly drive faster. The unfortunate thing about going faster, is that they dont really make "you, the driver" any better a driver. The corner just arrives quicker :eek:

I also spend a bit of time on the Hume, it's quite amazing the difference in driver behavior before and after the Federal Hwy joins. I'd agree with the statement that they are driving slower but not that they are any safer. All that happens now is the idiots with the blue and white plates sit side by side at 107 Km/h and scowl at anyone who dares to come up behind them in the fast lane.
The speed traveled seems to vary with the time of day as well with the slower drivers being on the roads at the times that you would expect those for who a trip to Sydney is a major undertaking. We went to Woolongong on the weekend and the traffic was much better behaved and flowed more smoothly on the return journey on Saturday afternoon than it did on the way up on Saturday morning.


Regards,
Tote

[Bigbjorn]

I would class a Discovery on physical size, not mass, as a sub-compact like a Camry. Full size cars are ones like top end Cadillac, Lincoln Town Car, Ford Crown Vic, big Benz's, Rollers, Bentleys and so on. Commodores, Falcons, Chrysler 300 are compact cars.

[Chops]

Actually in NSW not paying a fine (even a parking fine) gets your registration cancelled, you then end up with driving an unregistered and uninsured vehicle. A massively more costly exercise than the fine for less than 10KM over the posted limit.

Been there, done that,,, and I was fuming when I finally paid it,,, same as above, what right does a council have to essensually suspend your licence. Having said that, I can at least see the aligment of parking fines in the scheme of things.
I suspect something that most people are'nt aware of, is whilst you have 21/30 days (whatever it is) to get your car re-rego'd, once you do go to pay it, you then have to go through certain channels to pay the original fine,,, this can then hold you up depending on time/geography, which can then leave you having to get a Blue Slip for total "new" rego because your time is up. :mad:
As said,,, a much more costly exercise. :eek:


Same in Qld, not paying a fine (including council fines such as a parking fine or dog not on a leash) gets your licence suspended, meaning you are then driving unlicensed and uninsured for something that may not even be related to driving.

How can a council justify what is basicaly suspending your licence due to a fine for a dog??

[Chops]

I also spend a bit of time on the Hume, it's quite amazing the difference in driver behavior before and after the Federal Hwy joins. I'd agree with the statement that they are driving slower but not that they are any safer. All that happens now is the idiots with the blue and white plates sit side by side at 107 Km/h and scowl at anyone who dares to come up behind them in the fast lane.
The speed traveled seems to vary with the time of day as well with the slower drivers being on the roads at the times that you would expect those for who a trip to Sydney is a major undertaking. We went to Woolongong on the weekend and the traffic was much better behaved and flowed more smoothly on the return journey on Saturday afternoon than it did on the way up on Saturday morning.


Regards,
Tote

Some I have encounted in the last few months have been totally painful. Some will pull out to overtake a truck, but then wont actually pass, or take a ridiculasly long time to do it. Or as you say,, just cruise together at 105, and sometimes even less :mad:
I do miss my V8,,,

[newhue]

I'd say luck is as much a part of the lowest road toll in 90 years, as much as all the good points discussed in this thread.

Perhaps fewer young people living in the bush may have some baring. But they still stop at the local, sink several, and walk out with a box. I watched at least 4 do it just last week. I can testify country back roads are still as windy, pot holed, uneven, and with failing patched edging as they always have been.

I also watched from a good distance 4 cars tail gate each other for several hundred kilometres at 100km/h coming home yesterday. One roo, one tyre blow out, or the like and I was in for a good spectacle.

The little kings of our weird democratic and free society will brag they have achieved greatness with the road toll. But I'd say 50% luck.

[DiscoMick]

The fact that they suspend your licence for not paying some piddly little fine like 5km/h over the limit is just more proof that governments have been allowed to get away with excessive harassment of the poor old motorists, who have been treated like suckers and exploited umercifully. The fact that a huge number of drivers are currently unlicensed is mostly nothing to do with road safety, but is simply because people either won't, can't or aren't aware that they have fines to pay. There have been many cases of people not even receiving fines in the mail, maybe because they moved or their dog ate it, and not even knowing that their licences have been suspended. This has nothing to do with road safety, its simply another example of harassment, I reckon.
Americans fought a war to be free of British harassment. The miners at Eureka revolted against government atempts to impose a crippling mining tax on them. Edward Snowden fled to Russia to expose the way Americans, and all of us, are being spied on by our own governments. Wikileaks has exposed many other examples of how we the people are being lied to by our governments.
Does personal liberty mean nothing nowdays? When will we mushrooms finally get so fed up that we decide we're not going to take it any more?

Sent from my GT-P5210 using AULRO mobile app

[Mick_Marsh]

The fact that they suspend your licence for not paying some piddly little fine like 5km/h over the limit is just more proof that governments have been allowed to get away with excessive harassment of the poor old motorists, who have been treated like suckers and exploited umercifully. The fact that a huge number of drivers are currently unlicensed is mostly nothing to do with road safety, but is simply because people either won't, can't or aren't aware that they have fines to pay. There have been many cases of people not even receiving fines in the mail, maybe because they moved or their dog ate it, and not even knowing that their licences have been suspended. This has nothing to do with road safety, its simply another example of harassment, I reckon.
Americans fought a war to be free of British harassment. The miners at Eureka revolted against government atempts to impose a crippling mining tax on them. Edward Snowden fled to Russia to expose the way Americans, and all of us, are being spied on by our own governments. Wikileaks has exposed many other examples of how we the people are being lied to by our governments.
Does personal liberty mean nothing nowdays? When will we mushrooms finally get so fed up that we decide we're not going to take it any more?

Sent from my GT-P5210 using AULRO mobile app
Lead the revolution, brother.

The rest of us might wander along later.

[DiscoMick]

Ha! Yes, sounds a bit extreme on re-reading that, but it is how I feel, and I'm sure I'm not alone.

Sent from my GT-P5210 using AULRO mobile app

[UncleHo]

And Mick never even mentioned those law abiding interstate motorcyclists that were picked up in Surfers Paradise ;)

[DiscoMick]

DId the law-abiding interstate motorcyclists crash? Probably not in the figures.

Two interesting facts about 2013:

1. 2013 had the lowest road toll in 90 years in NSW and Victoria.

2. 2013 was the hottest year in Australia in 90 years, according to the official weather records.

Those who enjoy conspiracy theories ( or dodgy logic) might conclude that hot weather lowers the road toll, while cold weather causes more people to crash. Unlikely, I would think, but amusing.


Sent from my GT-P5210 using AULRO mobile app

[newhue]

The fact that they suspend your licence for not paying some piddly little fine like 5km/h over the limit is just more proof that governments have been allowed to get away with excessive harassment of the poor old motorists, who have been treated like suckers and exploited umercifully. The fact that a huge number of drivers are currently unlicensed is mostly nothing to do with road safety, but is simply because people either won't, can't or aren't aware that they have fines to pay. There have been many cases of people not even receiving fines in the mail, maybe because they moved or their dog ate it, and not even knowing that their licences have been suspended. This has nothing to do with road safety, its simply another example of harassment, I reckon.
Americans fought a war to be free of British harassment. The miners at Eureka revolted against government atempts to impose a crippling mining tax on them. Edward Snowden fled to Russia to expose the way Americans, and all of us, are being spied on by our own governments. Wikileaks has exposed many other examples of how we the people are being lied to by our governments.
Does personal liberty mean nothing nowdays? When will we mushrooms finally get so fed up that we decide we're not going to take it any more?

Sent from my GT-P5210 using AULRO mobile app

about time you got fired up. But watch out Adolf Newman and his henchmen are waiting and watching.

[DiscoMick]

Yes, I assume someone is reading this right now. No, that wasn't a joke - I really do assume that. If we mention the right words, the computers will trigger a response. After all, we now know that all communications which go through a satellite at any point are being monitored.

Just read a FB post about a bloke complaining he was fined $146 on the Logan Motorway for not keeping both feet on the footpegs of his motorcycle - apparently he stretched a leg to ward off cramp and a cop fined him. How ridiculous! TIme to revolt folks.

Sent from my GT-P5210 using AULRO mobile app

[newhue]

well best go talk to Clive perhaps. His the only bloke with money. And perhaps the only bloke willing to see things outside the usual two parties (Boofhead and Boso) way of thinking.

I can tell you, writing letters is a wast of time. Usually don't even respond.

[JDNSW]

DId the law-abiding interstate motorcyclists crash? Probably not in the figures.

Two interesting facts about 2013:

1. 2013 had the lowest road toll in 90 years in NSW and Victoria.

2. 2013 was the hottest year in Australia in 90 years, according to the official weather records.

Those who enjoy conspiracy theories ( or dodgy logic) might conclude that hot weather lowers the road toll, while cold weather causes more people to crash. Unlikely, I would think, but amusing.


Sent from my GT-P5210 using AULRO mobile app

Might actually be some substance in it - wet weather does result in more accidents, and wet weather is usually associated with cold weather.

John

[clubagreenie]

There's no money in suicide for the government because they haven't worked out how to use their collective data to work out who are the likely candidates and then take out insurance policies on them and collect.

I got a fine in the mail in Dec, photo was taken in March, hire car. They stuffed around that long that the fine penalties have trippled the original value. Now despite the fact that it wasn't passed to me until Dec apparently I'm still liable for the non payment penalties. We'll see about that in court.

[rfurzer]

Ugu80 said "You left out the medical factor. You are simply far more likely to survive serious injury now than 20 years ago. "

I reckon that we see fewer nasty "multi-splat" casualties than 10 or 15 years ago. Its not just that fewer traumas die- there aren't as many full stop.

They reckon that 80000 people are alive now who would have died if the rules (and society) changes we have seen since 1970 hadn't happened.

[Fatso]

The sad fact is that with to-days hi tech cars and better roads there really should not be any deaths on our roads other than those that are linked to mechanical failures or acts of god , I still say nearly all the carnage on our roads is the result of inconsiderate people who will not drive according to conditions or the laws of the road or just plain brain dead bogons . Sadly sometimes the innocent person doing the right thing is the one that pays the price .
Someone gets eaten by a shark and all hell breaks loose , a road death is about as news worthy as a root canal .