Thread: Lowest road toll in 90 years - why?

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

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

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

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

........ 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

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 most of that caused by car drivers with their head under their armpits

cheers

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 ,,
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

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

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.

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