Who the heck would vote "Yes"?

[p38arover]

See Poll Popup | Herald Sun (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/poll/1,,661-5038563,00.html)

I can't believe that some donkeys think it's a good idea to have double demerits (well, apart from the RTA and the pollies who we know are donkeys!).

[Lotz-A-Landies]

...I can't believe that some donkeys think it's a good idea to have double demerits .... It seems that 46% or respondents do believe the propaganda.

It most definately had an effect in the first holiday period when it was introduced but that transient effect has long since gone.

I wonder if they could try something radical, like say .... more visible Police presence on the roads!

Now that would be radical.

Diana

[p38arover]

I wonder if they could try something radical, like say .... more visible Police presence on the roads!

Now that would be radical.



...... in that it works.

[abaddonxi]

I dunno, it works on me. I'm usually pretty careful about sticking to the speed limit, but I do pay a lot more attention to it during double demerits.

Haven't had a prang yet.

[Rosscoe68]

don't see the big issue, don't speed and it wont matter if there's double demerit or not. seems pretty simple to me, although i did finish high school in the median grade so i guess there are some people out there that aren't so clever and can't work out the simplicity in that equation.

[p38arover]

The problem is that so many drivers are so scared of the double demerits that they annoy those of us who want to travel at the speed limit. The donkeys travel at up to 20 km/h below.

[mudmouse]

I remember one bloke had an A4 sheet of paper stuck to the centre console of that read 'Warning - double demerits all weekend'.... didn't stop him from doing 107 in the 80 zone. Bugger.

Nice bloke too.

In principal I don't agree with double bungers. If I were boss there'd be 60, 80, 120 speed zones and that's it. Kids would get taught road sense and driving in schools and using a mobile when driving would get the phone destroyed on the spot......and i'd open a mobile phone shop:p

There'd be other things but I'm not in the rant section. But at the end of the day it's easier and cheaper to punish after the fact than teach the right thing in the first place.


Matt.

[p38arover]

Elisabeth's new 2008 Forester (and her previous 2005 Forester) both indicate a poopteenth under 120km/h when doing 110km/h (as per the GPS). I note that when I sit at 110km/h on the speedo, many other cars are travelling at the same speed. I can only assume that my three GPS are wrong or that all the other cars have high reading speedos, too.

[Rosscoe68]

The problem is that so many drivers are so scared of the double demerits that they annoy those of us who want to travel at the speed limit. The donkeys travel at up to 20 km/h below.

i agree to a certain degree with this. but also see the flip side. If a "p" plater or any driver isn't confident on the road and is doing 10 or so k lower than the speed limit, how many drivers out there will be patient and sit a comfortable distance behind instead of riding up the arse? not too many.
same as people following me while i am towing a caravan. i guarantee you that my caravan is not safe to tow at 100klms/h gets a big sway up, yet soooo many ppl sit about 2 feet up the arse of it where i cant see them while i am doing 85 and therefore its still not safe. The problem is most people on the road don't give a rats arse about anyone else on the road until they get in there way and then they get annoyed about being held up a little by those that are trying to drive safely. you would not believe the amount of cars that overtake me on blind corners and over double white lines just so they can do that extra 15km/h. p.s. i am a consciencious tower and move over whenever i get a chance to let traffic past. but that still doesn't seem to be enough

[BigJon]

i agree to a certain degree with this. but also see the flip side. If a "p" plater or any driver isn't confident on the road and is doing 10 or so k lower than the speed limit, how many drivers out there will be patient and sit a comfortable distance behind instead of riding up the arse? not too many.
same as people following me while i am towing a caravan. i guarantee you that my caravan is not safe to tow at 100klms/h gets a big sway up, yet soooo many ppl sit about 2 feet up the arse of it where i cant see them while i am doing 85 and therefore its still not safe. The problem is most people on the road don't give a rats arse about anyone else on the road until they get in there way and then they get annoyed about being held up a little by those that are trying to drive safely. you would not believe the amount of cars that overtake me on blind corners and over double white lines just so they can do that extra 15km/h. p.s. i am a consciencious tower and move over whenever i get a chance to let traffic past. but that still doesn't seem to be enough

If a P plater isn't confident enough to drive at the speed limit on the open road, what are they doing there??

If you can't tow your caravan at 100 kph on the open road (I am talking reasonable straght roads) then there is something wrong with your setup.
My Dad is 70 years old and tows his big (dual axle) van at the speed limit quite safely.

[p38arover]

i agree to a certain degree with this. but also see the flip side. If a "p" plater or any driver isn't confident on the road and is doing 10 or so k lower than the speed limit,

On which planet do you live? :eek:

When was the last time you saw a P-plater driving at under the speed limit?

A red P-plate entitles the driver to travel at 20km/h over, a green P-plate means 40km/h over.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

I dunno, it works on me. I'm usually pretty careful about sticking to the speed limit, but I do pay a lot more attention to it during double demerits.

Haven't had a prang yet.Yes, but you are probably not one of the people who were having the prangs in the first place. If you look at the effect of "Double Demerits" on road statistics, there were definitely a dip on first one or two times after when it was introduced. However subsequent to those events the statistics have returned to the trend where they were before "Double Demerits". So what is most probably happening is those drivers who were not the problem in the first place and accidentally (or other) exceed the limit and get booked suffer the consequences for what now seems like a failed injury prevention strategy. While the problem drivers are still out there doing whatever it takes to kill themselves and others. IMHO.

A visible Police presence has been statistically proven to reduce the road toll, but that is cost negative so not favourable to Government revenue even if it does reduce the road toll.

Diana

[feral]

don't see the big issue, don't speed and it wont matter if there's double demerit or not. seems pretty simple to me, although i did finish high school in the median grade so i guess there are some people out there that aren't so clever and can't work out the simplicity in that equation.


Don't you just love a simplistic solution.:zzz:

Does it occur to anyone that you can be killed or seriously injured even though you were under the speed limit and doing the right thing. Guess what...you're still dead.

Also lets look at the recent changes to NSW traffic fines. Just so the politicians do not have a hostile electorate on their hands they have lowered the cost and modified the points.

It must have been very important to cut the road toll if a government decides to lower the threshold.

______________________

Lyndon.

Discovery Td5....Enjoy Responsibly.

[Rosscoe68]

If a P plater isn't confident enough to drive at the speed limit on the open road, what are they doing there??

If you can't tow your caravan at 100 kph on the open road (I am talking reasonable straght roads) then there is something wrong with your setup.
My Dad is 70 years old and tows his big (dual axle) van at the speed limit quite safely.

sooo, you were never a new driver on the road? and what of the people that grow up in the country where the roads are 100km/h? they shouldn't be allowed on the road without experience? where they gunna get it if not on the roads? and what of the p platers that are working in another suburb where they have to travel via highways ?

as for my carava you are right. yes, there is something wrong with it, its old, its only a single axle, and its near the max weight limit of a single axle and its shaped like a brick. unfortunately my old caravan is very un-aerodynamic, which means it moves around a lot in the wind. only for the fact i have sls on the rear of the disco that it isnt worse. but i am not finacial enough to replace it, so i will continue to travel my way around aus doing 85 klm/h and enjoying the scenery, and hopefully not be run off the road by some impatient so and so.

[Rosscoe68]

On what planet do you live? :eek:

When was the last time you saw a P-plater driving at under the speed limit?

A red P-plate entitles the driver to travel at 20km/h over, a green P-plate means 40km/h over.

heh, yes, i agree that a good majority of them seem to be of that mind, but i have seen quite a few responsible p platers, much as i have seen some responsible 4wd owners in the city centers, old lay drivers, caravan towers, truck drivers and any other minoroty group that seems to get persecuted.

[Rosscoe68]

Don't you just love a simplistic solution.:zzz:

Does it occur to anyone that you can be killed or seriously injured even though you were under the speed limit and doing the right thing. Guess what...you're still dead.

______________________

Lyndon.

Discovery Td5....Enjoy Responsibly.
sorry to go for a 3rd reply so quick.
but i will take my chances of avoiding an out of control car at 60k/h any day over trying to avoid a car that is speeding in the same area. i am a defensive driver, have been all of my 25 driving years, and guess what, only ever had 1 accident, and that was due to someone rear ending me in stop start traffic on the freeway. and guess what, he was going too fast for the conditions. very difficult to be defensive when you got nowhere to go. so yes, i understand you can get killed driving under the speed limit.
the only saving grace for those speeders that do have accidents is you are more likely to die in a high speed accident and not have to face up to it. thats harsh i know, but its how i feel

[Rosscoe68]

sorry, i realise i am getting off topic, i will stop ranting now, hehe

[werdan]

Double demerit points are great for insurance companies as it means that there will be more people driving without licences so therefore there will be fewer payouts required.

How's that for cynical?

[BigJon]

sooo, you were never a new driver on the road? and what of the people that grow up in the country where the roads are 100km/h?


Now that is a ridiculous comment.

Of course I was a new driver at some stage. But I wasn't a mobile road block. In fact I have never understood why learner drivers are limited to 80 kph (I assume they still are), but when you get your P plates you can do 100 kph. Surely it would be better to get experience with an instructor on board.

As far as growing up in the country is concerned, all the coutry people I know were all driving long before they were let loose on the roads, so were a lot more competent than "city" learners.

[dullbird]

red 'P' 90kph
Green 'P' 100khp
Full 110kph.

I agree in the UK you will fail your driving test if you are not confident at driving at 70mph (110kph) I cam here and was restricted to 90kph WTF!!!!

I think thats half the problem with the P platers IMHO they are only taught at low speeds and there for get let lose on the road and dont know how to handle the car or conditions at faster speeds

Idiotic way of teaching IMO.....and dont get me started on the test for the licensing. Past your test.....get your P's and to go for your greens pass a hazard perception test WTF is that all about!!! hows about learning about the hazards BEFORE letting people out on the road not after they have been on the road for a year!:lol2:

[feral]

sorry to go for a 3rd reply so quick.
but i will take my chances of avoiding an out of control car at 60k/h any day over trying to avoid a car that is speeding in the same area. i am a defensive driver, have been all of my 25 driving years, and guess what, only ever had 1 accident, and that was due to someone rear ending me in stop start traffic on the freeway. and guess what, he was going too fast for the conditions. very difficult to be defensive when you got nowhere to go. so yes, i understand you can get killed driving under the speed limit.
the only saving grace for those speeders that do have accidents is you are more likely to die in a high speed accident and not have to face up to it. thats harsh i know, but its how i feel


Ah....so we agree then? :BigThumb:


Just to expand the issue IMHO is that governments and their advertising enforces the point that if you are not speeding i.e. obey the law, you will be safe on the roads. That is just nonsense. What all governments should be doing is to create a culture of avoiding accidents full stop, not just avoiding the severity of an accident.

Unfortunately governments are not interested in the road toll e.g. hostile electorate/change fines & demerit points.....so there is no chance of any government introducing proper education/driving standards or even raising the bar to remove the lowest common denominator from our roads.

Governments are more interested in trying to lower the road toll through your hip pocket.

:cool:

_________________

Lyndon.

Discovery Td5.....Enjoy responsibly.

[Rosscoe68]

Unfortunately governments are not interested in the road toll e.g. hostile electorate/change fines & demerit points.....so there is no chance of any government introducing proper education/driving standards or even raising the bar to remove the lowest common denominator from our roads.

Governments are more interested in trying to lower the road toll through your hip pocket.

:cool:

_________________

Lyndon.

Discovery Td5.....Enjoy responsibly.

yeah and unfortunately we don't have a valid alternative to the 2 party system and therefore we just keep voting back in the same sort of govt we continually complain about :confused:

[BigJon]

red 'P' 90kph
Green 'P' 100khp
Full 110kph.




I did my initial driving in South Australia and unless things have changed it is different there.

No green "P" plates, only red ones. !00 kph restriction on P plates, full 110 kph where allowed. L plates restricted to 80 kph.

Basically they are saying if you can reverse park (driving test...) then you are safe to 100. If you are safe to 100 for a year or so then you are OK at 110 kph.

[Rosscoe68]

I have never understood why learner drivers are limited to 80 kph (I assume they still are), but when you get your P plates you can do 100 kph. Surely it would be better to get experience with an instructor on board.
As far as growing up in the country is concerned, all the coutry people I know were all driving long before they were let loose on the roads, so were a lot more competent than "city" learners.

agree with you on both counts there, but unfortunatley we live in the real world, not some imaginary world where everything is as we wish it was. the reality is that p platers are on our roads with not enough experience, so instead of complaining about the individual p platers, why not have a thought about why they are there without the neccesary driving skills. some of those guys and gals do the right thing by not driving over their ability at speed. sorry for you if you are held up by someone that wants to be driving safe, but at least you are both alive.

[Captain_Rightfoot]

There has been a lot of money spent on brainwashing here. It shows that if you control the media you control the people.

[p38arover]

sorry for you if you are held up by someone that wants to be driving safe, but at least you are both alive.

Getting held up by bloody caravan drivers is enough to cause road rage and dangerous driving.

[Rosscoe68]

Getting held up by bloody caravan drivers is enough to cause road rage and dangerous driving.

:p :p :p

[Captain_Rightfoot]

If you want to move road safety from a revenue opportunity to safety we need to come up with another business plan to get the money to Govt.

[Disco_owner]

Getting held up by bloody caravan drivers is enough to cause road rage and dangerous driving.


Now , come'on Ron , you need to stay Calm , 3 deeep Breaths...:D

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Getting held up by bloody caravan drivers is enough to cause road rage and dangerous driving.Only if they are driving Volvo station wagons and wearing a hat! :D :D :D

[BMKal]

Double demerit points are great for insurance companies as it means that there will be more people driving without licences so therefore there will be fewer payouts required.

How's that for cynical?

Might not be the case for much longer.

WA Police have just started conducting major blitzes and commenced siezing the vehicles driven by anyone who is driving on a cancelled licence. First go - vehicle impounded for 28 days and some pretty hefty costs to pay for towing, storage etc before you can get it back.

They've had a few teething problems with implementing the new policy, such as siezing one or two work vehicles that belong to the employer rather than the driver, but these are now being sorted out. They're talking about legislation to allow them to confiscate your own car, even if you were caught driving someone else's vehicle at the time.

About bloody time I say. The number of times that you hear on the news that someone been caught driving whilst on his 14th life suspension - either lock them up or crush their vehicles.

[frantic]

Speed kills has been proven to be a sham in countries/ states who do not have a vested interest ($$$$) in maintaining the scam.
I was reading an article about a place that introduced speed limits on it's previously open roads, set up speed cameras and gave the cops radar guns. GUESS what happened? The road toll went up BY 50%+ :o but as the brainwash had not gotten through to the investigators yet the deaths that had speed as the main cause went down.
Investigations have shown time and time again speed is either 3rd or 4th as the main killer , the most common one in this case was alchohol followed by either fatigue, unlicensed/enregistered, overloaded cars/no seatbelts( does not matter if your doing 80 with no belt in an old banger).
And yes as most off you will have guessed this is in our own backyard the NT! They introduced a speed limit on the previously open roads on jan1 2007 and since then the toll has risen from 46 in 2006 to 75 in 2008 . :confused:Would it be unfair to say more cops taking photos and sending letters instead off pulling over suspicious drivers who are drunk, or driving unregistered/unroadworhty/ overloaded cars?
Also a pilot study that was "swept under the rug" showed that on top off the 48% involved in accidents being alchohol affected there was also 29% under the influence of another drug(cannabis etc)
http://www.ntnews.com.au/article/2009/01/08/25901_ntnews.html

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/publications/2009/pdf/RDA_1208.pdf

[p38arover]

They've had a few teething problems with implementing the new policy, such as siezing one or two work vehicles that belong to the employer rather than the driver, but these are now being sorted out. They're talking about legislation to allow them to confiscate your own car, even if you were caught driving someone else's vehicle at the time.

Nope, if the person is driving another person's car, then that car should be seized. That way, people will be a little more circumspect abut who drives their cars.

This should apply especially to drunk drivers.

Re the last bit of your para above, what if the person doesn't own a car?

[abaddonxi]

Speed kills has been proven to be a sham in countries/ states who do not have a vested interest ($$$$) in maintaining the scam.
I was reading an article about a place that introduced speed limits on it's previously open roads, set up speed cameras and gave the cops radar guns. GUESS what happened? The road toll went up BY 50%+ :o but as the brainwash had not gotten through to the investigators yet the deaths that had speed as the main cause went down.
Investigations have shown time and time again speed is either 3rd or 4th as the main killer , the most common one in this case was alchohol followed by either fatigue, unlicensed/enregistered, overloaded cars/no seatbelts( does not matter if your doing 80 with no belt in an old banger).
And yes as most off you will have guessed this is in our own backyard the NT! They introduced a speed limit on the previously open roads on jan1 2007 and since then the toll has risen from 46 in 2006 to 75 in 2008 . :confused:Would it be unfair to say more cops taking photos and sending letters instead off pulling over suspicious drivers who are drunk, or driving unregistered/unroadworhty/ overloaded cars?


http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/publications/2009/pdf/RDA_1208.pdf

Interesting, but that report also shows that between 45 and 46% of those fatal crashes - around Australia - occurred in 100kmh speed zones, which makes me think speed might have a little to do with it.

I'd be interested to see statistics about other circumstances in NT road deaths including if any of those road deaths were affected by the enforcement of speed limits.

Bugger, table won't copy, it's on page 11.

[BMKal]

Nope, if the person is driving another person's car, then that car should be seized. That way, people will be a little more circumspect abut who drives their cars.

This should apply especially to drunk drivers.

Re the last bit of your para above, what if the person doesn't own a car?

The powers of "siezure" do not apply to people caught drunk driving Ron. The person first has to be proven guilty of a crime before they can sieze a vehicle, and at the time of catching someone drunk behind the wheel, they are charged with a crime, but yet to be found or proven guilty in a court of law. I know it sounds strange to some that they cannot sieze the vehicle of someone found drunk behind the wheel, but this goes back to the basis of our legal system - innocent until proven guilty. Once found guilty and licence cancelled, then if they are caught driving again, drunk or sober, the vehicle can be siezed.

As for siezing a vehicle owned by someone other than the driver caught without a licence - the problem with this is company or work vehicles. It is not reasonable for every employer to keep a daily check on the status of each employee's drivers' licence. You can lose your licence tomorrow, not tell your boss, then get caught driving a company vehicle the following day - and the employer loses a vehicle for 28 days and has to pay the costs of towing, storage and recovery. Not really a workable situation. This actually happened in the first "blitz" they had here - a jiffy van or similar was confiscated. Would have caused immense hardship for the franchisee who owned the vehicle had the authorities not immediately (well, within a day or two) realised the implications of the new laws, and allowed an exemption. The laws will be amended to allow for these cases.

[frantic]

Yes the point is you are just as DEAD at 110 hitting a tree in a 12 yr old falcodore as you are at 160 you just leave a better looking corpse. The reason they hit the tree/ pole/ cliff is usually fatigue( a drive that used to be x is increased by the reduced speed limit), driver skill/ lack of, alchohol, or other drugs, poor vehicle condition/ driver training , not driving to the conditions(fog, rain, roo's at night as longer on the road etc)etc
As for a caravan doing 80 k's all well and good for his safety but what about the frustration and increased fatigue to the rest of the road users stuck behind?:(

[Barra1]

The problem is that so many drivers are so scared of the double demerits that they annoy those of us who want to travel at the speed limit. The donkeys travel at up to 20 km/h below.

Well Ron a donkey travelling at 20 k's below the speed limit is better than the goose travelling 20 k's above the limit.;)

Travelling on the Hume Freeway I saw a Ferrari being done for speeding - mate, a fine to that bloke is nothing - losing double points will have (hopefully) a greater impact on that particular goose.:)

You turning hippie or something Ron:eek: Gee mate, you've been getting into the "establishment" of late. Not a bad thing mind - just wondering what's growing in the back-yard.:D

[JDNSW]

I would reiterate a couple of points mentioned in this thread.

1. In NSW (I think alone among states and territories) learners are not permitted to drive above 80, and red Ps above 90 (they dropped the restriction of trailers above 750kg to 80 about ten years ago). Given a state where the majority of state highways are two lane roads with limited passing opportunities, can you think of a better recipe for accidents or for teaching young drivers to ignore speed limits? (after a few tens of kilometres at his reduced speed limit with the bumper of a B-double a metre from his rear bumper, how many L or P drivers have the mental ability to stay at their limit?)

2. Although there are occasional blips, such as currently in a couple of states, road deaths in Australia are at record lows, so talk of a road safety crisis is simply media hype. There is no doubt that on average, driving is safer than it has ever been, mainly due to better roads, better attitudes towards driving and seat belts.

3. There is not the slightest doubt as to the main causes of road fatalities - according to very good statistical records, close to half of drivers involved in fatal accidents are above the legal alcohol limit. Compare this to the results of random breath tests, where it is rare for the percentage of drivers over the limit of those tested to come anywhere near 1%. This means that alcohol affected drivers are over represented in the fatality statistics by around a factor of fifty. That is, they are fifty times more likely to be involved in a fatal accident. No other contributory factor comes anywhere near this figure!

4. Data does not support mobile phone use as a danger - in the USA only some states ban mobile phone use while driving, but the trend in accident statistics over the period that mobile phones went from rare to almost universal is no different in the states with and without a ban. Even if we assume that everyone uses them just as much in those states where the ban exists, this does not explain that the trend is still down since mobile phones became common.

5. Looking at the disastrous day Tasmania had yesterday, I am reminded that one of my memories from driving around Tasmania is that local drivers very obviously regards double lines as purely advisory - and two of the accidents were head-on collisions!

John

[rmp]

...this does not explain that the trend is still down since mobile phones became common.

It does if other factors improving safety have outweighed any negative effects mobiles may have had. There are many studies that prove that mobile use has a negative effect on safety, specifically concentration and especially not hands-free simply being able to operate the controls, let alone texting.

[abaddonxi]

It does if other factors improving safety have outweighed any negative effects mobiles may have had. There are many studies that prove that mobile use has a negative effect on safety, specifically concentration and especially not hands-free simply being able to operate the controls, let alone texting.

As I mentioned somewhere, when I worked at the RTA they didn't collect statistics for crashes that weren't reported to the police, it could be that the statistical significance of mobile phones is only seen in crashes at under 10Kmh.

:D

[JDNSW]

It does if other factors improving safety have outweighed any negative effects mobiles may have had. There are many studies that prove that mobile use has a negative effect on safety, specifically concentration and especially not hands-free simply being able to operate the controls, let alone texting.

It seems that these academic studies are at odds with the fact that the empirical evidence shows that they do not, in real life, have a negative effect on safety - it would have to be a big stretch to assume that the amount of mobile phone use in those states that forbid it is just as high as in those that allow it (although if this is the case, the ban is obviously totally futile).

In my view the most likely reason for this is that mobile phone use is only one of a wide variety of distractions that can cause accidents, and drivers who allow mobile phone use to distract them from driving are the same ones that allow other activities to distract them, from changing the channel on the radio, to watching the speedo, to eating lunch, to dealing with the interkid warfare in the back seat. With the result that even without the mobile phone, those drivers have a similar accident anyway, and the ones who do not allow phone use to distract them do not. (In case you are wondering, no, I do not use a mobile phone while driving, and if you phone me while I am, do not expect an answer - ask my kids!)

John

[Ace]

Travelling on the Hume Freeway I saw a Ferrari being done for speeding - mate, a fine to that bloke is nothing - losing double points will have (hopefully) a greater impact on that particular goose.:)

and thats exactly why double demerit points are used and not double the fine. The thought of losing their licence scares more people than the thought of losing a couple of hundred bucks.

I do however agree with Ron about the clowns who when on double demerit weekends they sit below the speed limit because they are scared of being books, its ok to sit on 100km/hr in a 100 zone people, thats the speed limit. People do it when there is a Highway Patrol car in front of them, i regularly see a Highway car doing 90km/hr or 95km/hr with a train of cars sitting behind them not wanting to pass, if he is going below the speed limit and you can pass without exceeding it then its ok to go around.

[rmp]

It seems that these academic studies are at odds with the fact that the empirical evidence shows that they do not, in real life, have a negative effect on safety - it would have to be a big stretch to assume that the amount of mobile phone use in those states that forbid it is just as high as in those that allow it (although if this is the case, the ban is obviously totally futile).

In my view the most likely reason for this is that mobile phone use is only one of a wide variety of distractions that can cause accidents, and drivers who allow mobile phone use to distract them from driving are the same ones that allow other activities to distract them, from changing the channel on the radio, to watching the speedo, to eating lunch, to dealing with the interkid warfare in the back seat. With the result that even without the mobile phone, those drivers have a similar accident anyway, and the ones who do not allow phone use to distract them do not. (In case you are wondering, no, I do not use a mobile phone while driving, and if you phone me while I am, do not expect an answer - ask my kids!)

John

True that mobiles are just one distraction, but a distraction they are nevertheless. The academic studies are conclusive, and they make sense, so I don't see why they should be doubted, and comparing their results against the completely uncontrolled road safety stats is not in my view realistic. The problem is there are so many other unmeasured factors about road safety in general you cannot ascribe a statistical movement to any one factor, especially because as someone else said the authorities do not measure data in such a way as to draw the sort of conclusions we're after. I went into this during the bullbar debate.

For example, road deaths have decreased over the last 20 years. Why? Are we better at driving? Safer cars, and if so which features? Emphasis on speed? Drink? Road design? Probably and almost certainly all of the above, pick your factor to support your argument of the day. Yet we also need to factor in total number of cars on the road, and distance travelled per year as a nation. So many factors, which is why focused studies are important.

As you say, whether a ban is in place or not is somewhat academic. Depends on whether that law is enforced and whether people take notice of it. After all, there's a ban on speeding!

[feral]

The nonsense continues....

EXCLUSIVE: LEADFOOT motorists face a massive crackdown, with a phalanx of extra fixed and mobile speed cameras to be deployed within weeks.
In the biggest expansion of Victoria's speed-trap network since the late 1980s, 31 new fixed cameras will be erected and another 22 existing sites upgraded.

And mobile cameras will be snapping away for an extra 3000 hours a month a 50 per cent increase on current hours.

The blitz which police hope will drive the state's road toll below 300 is also expected to result in hundreds of thousands more fines and extra revenue of more than $48 million.

"It's going to be really, really aggressive," Deputy Commissioner Ken Lay said.

$50m Victoria speed camera blitz aimed to lower road carnage | Herald Sun (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25766718-661,00.html)



Ken Lay :zzz: .....another zealot who thinks you can control the road toll through the hip pocket.


_______________________

Lyndon.

Discovery Td5....Enjoy responsibly

[warren9981]

remember the speed LIMIT is just that. A maximum limit not the speed at which you must travel. Can be frustrating I know. I drive about 40-60K/kms a year. Learn to live with it. Take a few deep breaths and relax. Speed doesn't kill anyone, it's the impact at the end that kills. And usually being frustrated leads to higher risks being taken and more chance of having an incident.

[p38arover]

remember the speed LIMIT is just that. A maximum limit not the speed at which you must travel. Can be frustrating I know. I drive about 40-60K/kms a year. Learn to live with it. Take a few deep breaths and relax. Speed doesn't kill anyone, it's the impact at the end that kills. And usually being frustrated leads to higher risks being taken and more chance of having an incident.

I don't care if people travel at a lower speed. I do care when they deliberately drive in such a manner to prevent overtaking.

[feral]

mmmm......havn't read the whole thread, have we? :p

Its not the fines that concern me as I have not had one since the early 80's.

But I do not want is my family to be taken out by some twit who has paid many traffic infringements fines per year and still has the capacity to drive.

Sorry, but your position is simplistic and should be rejected outright. I'm all for increasing the driving standards of drivers.


_____________

Lyndon.

Discovery Td5.....Enjoy responsibly

[Captain_Rightfoot]

I do however agree with Ron about the clowns who when on double demerit weekends they sit below the speed limit because they are scared of being books, its ok to sit on 100km/hr in a 100 zone people, thats the speed limit. People do it when there is a Highway Patrol car in front of them, i regularly see a Highway car doing 90km/hr or 95km/hr with a train of cars sitting behind them not wanting to pass, if he is going below the speed limit and you can pass without exceeding it then its ok to go around.

Sorry mate, but you have too much faith in the technology. Speed cameras book people for travelling under the limit from time to time. I've seen it, and thousands of Victorians lost were fined and no doubt some lost their licence before the government acknowledged they were inaccurate and refunded peoples money and points. (http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/23/2384.asp)

I'm not saying they are wrong all the time- but it does happen. Unfortunately you get the fine weeks later and have virtually no means of defending yourself.

That's why I always slow when going past a camera. I'm sorry if it annoys other people but tough luck.

Earlier this year I was driving on a 60k piece of road and saw someone get flashed ahead of me by a mobile speed camera. I slowed, so did eveyone else. Next thing a guy in front of me gets flashed at 55k. :eek: So then I went past it at 40. I didn't get fined. Either it was set to an incorrect threshold speed or it was just reading badly. Either way all those people would have had the devils job defending it. :(

It's a monumental source of revenue, and one all states will be desperately chasing due to the GFC.

[It'sNotWorthComplaining!]

I don't think double demerit points are the answer.
I'm a big advocate for harsher penalties on certain driving offences, I don't believe though that fixed speed cameras and hidden camera cars on highways are the answer and the fact that spouses can trade there points via nominating another driver to get out of loosing their licences.
The behavior ( sometimes loutish) that occurs every day on the roads is totally unacceptable to the general driving community and down right dangerous. Policing can't be done sitting behind a fine processing desk mailing out fines collected via cameras etc.
There needs to be active policing with visible presence on the roads, and not just on public holidays. Police these days have become too complacent in their "turning a blind eye to the numerous vehicles in unroadworthy condition driving on our roads, and some lack of obeying traffic rules.
I think the police these days complain they are under resourced, Blah Blah, and the fact that paperwork is time consuming. Tough titty I say, if the law is not going to be carried out then rewrite the road law books if they are out dated. Omit the rule that says it's illegal to pass on solid broken lines. Turn a blind eye to the turning in front of traffic, dangerously making turns from the extreme left lane to the extreme right lane because they missed their turn at the last second. Change ADR rules about indicators on vehicles, most drivers don't want them any way. Remove the rule about drivers having their vision impaired by token, idols, etc dangling from thier rear vision mirrors, remove the requirement for road worthiness faults on wind screens, a crappy windscreen is just as impairing as the dangles form the mirrors, but one a blind eye is turned to. ( the old religious discrimination argument about workshipping idols)
Why have all these stupid rules?
If they are out of date and can't be enforced, then why have of them?
Take a look at some third world countries, it's a free for all as far as what you do on the roads, and we sit back and have a laugh and say how stupid they are in some of the antics.
We should make sure we Don't slip back to what they are doing.
Just because some one is given a licence these days, doesn't mean they CAN DRIVE
The roads appear to have become a "fun park" with little regards to the consequences that some drivers attitudes they display.
More active policing would help with the P plate hoon situations many of which cause death.
Many of you may disagree with me, but it's a fact if you are innocent then why the fear?
And the dob in a driver idea sometimes put forward, WHY should the general public do the policing, why should we be the vigilanties.
Get more visible police on the roads, they can find $$$ for everything else.
They complain about the cost that carnage imposes on the public, the inquests, the compensation, etc etc.
I've personally seen the tragic results of road carnage not once but twice. And when it happens to you it leaves a bitter taste in your mouth.
Self regulation on the roads, doesn't work. We need a big brother out there with a big stick to give us a knock on the head occasionally to say, that is not right.

I apologise for the Rant........ I just get sick of people complaining about getting pinged and how unfair it is, revenue raising blah blah.
WE live in a democratic society, with a lot of freedom and as a civilised society we have RULES. WE also have the freedom of choice to contribute to fine revenue or not.
But then "It'snotworthcomplaining!

[buzz66]

Speed is not the biggest road killer, but it's the easiest to Police.

#1 biggest killer is fatigue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You don't see the Fuzz actively trying to do something about that do you.
#2 biggest killer is poor road design.

Take a look at the Pacific Highway between Tweed and Sydney, it a
joke.

Most Drivers on the road shouldn't have a licence, they are just not switched on enough the drive a motor vehicle.

I reckon 90% of people can't even be bothered or don't even know how to indicate when going on a roundaout.

Double Demerit points would actually cause more accidents beacause of the increase in frustrated drivers taking more risks.

Take a look at the BIG picture it's right in front of you.

[p38arover]

I reckon 90% of people can't even be bothered or don't even know how to indicate when going on a roundaout.

Most don't even know the right of way rules on a roundabout.



Giving way

Slow down as you approach a roundabout. You must give way to traffic already on the roundabout if there is a risk of collision. Enter the roundabout when there is a safe gap in the traffic.


Many drivers apparently believe that if they are on the right and approaching a roundabout, they have right of way over someone who is already entering the roundabout on their left.

[Captain_Rightfoot]

Speed is not the biggest road killer, but it's the easiest to Police.

#1 biggest killer is fatigue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You don't see the Fuzz actively trying to do something about that do you.
#2 biggest killer is poor road design.


I don't entirely agree with you there. I think alcohol/drugs are the biggest killers. As JD has said, only a tiny % of people do it but they crash a lot - and big. You are right about the other 2.

I remember reading a safety paper from one of the US states. The summary was they had tried everything and had little success. However putting big concreted dividers (or other manners of separating people going opposite ways) was extremely effective.

[JDNSW]

...... However putting big concreted dividers (or other manners of separating people going opposite ways) was extremely effective.

You don't have to go to the US - just look at the accident statistics on Freeways compared to other roads - accident and death rates on freeways are way below any ordinary road, despite having higher speed limits and usually much heavier traffic.

John