Man loses 33 demerit points in one go.

Both population and numbers of cars have increased significantly with deaths showing a significant reduction over the same period. Does the increase in deaths reported in the media for holidays actually result in a higher risk as the number of journeys and miles traveled will have also increased over the ‘normal’ . Is the death rate actually lower over holidays?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3toes

Both population and numbers of cars have increased significantly with deaths showing a significant reduction over the same period. Does the increase in deaths reported in the media for holidays actually result in a higher risk as the number of journeys and miles traveled will have also increased over the ‘normal’ . Is the death rate actually lower over holidays?

---

Thats something I have pondered although living near one of the busiest interstate routes there would seem to be more siren activity during holiday periods simply because more people are on the road.
I suspect that the answer is actually more complicated:
A short holiday period will encourage more people to depart straight after work making them tired and potentially more likely to have an accident
The same short period condenses the time window that people are on the road so the roads are busier.
The actual days that holidays fall on also influences this, for instance Christmas falling on a Saturday means that more people will try and travel Friday night.
Similarly Easter can be a 4 day break with weeks between it and Anzac Day or they can be in the same week as this year.
The news cycle also has an impact - if there is no news a moral panic about the road toll is good ratings material.

Regards,
Tote

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilipA

Here is another view.

I read a while ago that although many fewer people are actually killed in car accidents the number of serious injuries has increased greatly.
This has put great stress on hospitals and health services.

Which is cheaper for society as a whole ? That the Darwin Awards contestants get it over with and kill themselves or they spend their lives in and out of hospital at great expense to the community?

While I know that this is not a popular view , I would wear my seatbelt even if it were not compulsory, but there are many even now that do not. All those examples are from the past, but even without legislation in the USA seat belt use increased when it was not compulsory.

Most people don't know that seat belts and air bags only protect up to 60Kmh. Any accident on the highway where two cars collide head on at 100Kmh is potentially fatal.
Regards Philip A

---

Just been looking and the below is based on Victorian Stats only. Serious injuries requiring Hospital stays over 14 days is pretty much the same now as it was in 2000 according to TAC’s data, but stays below 14 days have increased around 20% in the same period. In Vic, all Hospitalisations due to car crashes was just under 8,500 last year, in comparison over 400,000 PER MONTH are admitted to Victorian Hospitals overall. Car accidents appear to account for a tiny percentage of hospitalisations, so saying this is ‘putting great stress’ on Hospitals is a bit of a stretch IMO according to the data I can find. There are hundreds of things that kill and injure more Aussies than cars, but they don’t get anywhere near the focus for some reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homestar

Yeah, fatalities and serious injuries were far higher 'back in the day' even though car numbers were dramatically lower. Car design has a lot to do with this but attitudes to wearing seat belts, etc are too.

---

Car design has had a bit to do with it, but not as much as some think. The major improvements have been in attitudes to driving and roads.

The only safety innovations that have made a visible impact by themselves on the statistics have been compulsory seat belt wearing and random breath tests. (And note that a large proportion of fatalities involve not wearing seat belts and somewhere between 25 and 50% of fatalities involve a driver under the influence of alcohol or drugs)

MUARC reports based on insurance company data showed no apparent correlation between safety ratings of cars and real life death/injury statistics, probably because the biggest variable is the driver.

To measure the effect of road build on accident rates, all that is necessary is to note the far greater accident rate on undivided roads against divided roads, despite the fact that the average divided road carries much higher traffic loads at higher speeds. It is reasonable to expect that other improvements to roads such as edge marking, curve improvements etc also reduce the road toll.

Worth noting that in NSW at least, the typical fatal accident involves a single vehicle leaving a rural two lane road and hitting a fixed object, usually a tree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homestar

Just been looking and the below is based on Victorian Stats only. Serious injuries requiring Hospital stays over 14 days is pretty much the same now as it was in 2000 according to TAC’s data, but stays below 14 days have increased around 20% in the same period. In Vic, all Hospitalisations due to car crashes was just under 8,500 last year, in comparison over 400,000 PER MONTH are admitted to Victorian Hospitals overall. Car accidents appear to account for a tiny percentage of hospitalisations, so saying this is ‘putting great stress’ on Hospitals is a bit of a stretch IMO according to the data I can find. There are hundreds of things that kill and injure more Aussies than cars, but they don’t get anywhere near the focus for some reason.

---

Yes. Suicide is a larger killer than road deaths in Australia, especially in rural areas (where, incidentally, road deaths are also higher than in cities).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

Yes. Suicide is a larger killer than road deaths in Australia, especially in rural areas (where, incidentally, road deaths are also higher than in cities).

---

Yep, and how much do we spend preventing that compared to car crashes. A tiny percentage I bet. 🙁

Bang on!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PhilipA

..........I would wear my seatbelt even if it were not compulsory, but there are many even now that do not. All those examples are from the past, but even without legislation in the USA seat belt use increased when it was not compulsory.

Most people don't know that seat belts and air bags only protect up to 60Kmh. Any accident on the highway where two cars collide head on at 100Kmh is potentially fatal.
Regards Philip A

---

Seat belts do help in a roll over, years ago a guy I worked with was killed when his car left the road, rolled and he broke his neck. So pro'ly a good idea to wear it even when not compulsory, such as 4wding off road.

My cars were fitted with seat belts, and I was wearing them, at least ten years before they became compulsory.

Worth noting that in NSW at least, the typical fatal accident involves a single vehicle leaving a rural two lane road and hitting a fixed object, usually a tree.[/QUOTE]


Side impact to a vehicle is still a big killer.
A 200-300mm encroachment into the side of a vehicle usually means that there has been at least 30% more on impact, so the occupant has taken the full force of the impact.

Cheers, Mick.