Thread: Qld Govt Making Hay.....

Originally Posted by Brian Hjelm

Try Morven-Augathella-Tambo-Blackall-Barcaldine-Longreach-Winton just for a start. How about Oakey-Dalby-Chinchilla-Roma-Charleville, and Warwick-Boggabilla. And, over the border, most of the length of the Newell Highway

Try it in a truck, I'm sure the paver arrived on the job before the grader or roller

Have a go at Mt. Garnett-Georgetown, rough, single lane bitumin; same speed limit

Originally Posted by Ian

What was dangerous & foolhardy was the moronic 30% who passed me on double lines!

on the money there.... so many do it now it is an every day experience..

i had some absolute noddy zoom past me in an f250 today doing 130 kph + on a double line marked road... shear impatience as i was doing in excess of 105 but under 110...

it has happened to me at least 3 times in the 24 hours i have been back in qld, bribie island road madness.

Originally Posted by Ian

Try it in a truck,

Sure have, and more times than in a car or 4WD, from the late 1950's to now.

Originally Posted by Ian

I have just driven Cairns/Brisbane & return (sorry I missed you Ron) at 90-100kph on the open road. I was overtaken by over 30 vehicles (lost count after that) travelling at 120-130. I do not believe that speed in itself was particularly more dangerous than my speed. What was dangerous & foolhardy was the moronic 30% who passed me on double lines! I'll have more to say on this in another thread.

Speed and alcohol go hand in hand, speed cameras are revenue raisers & do nothing to stop drink drivers. At least the more labour intensive speed reduction methods can catch the real danger on our roads, instead of mearly taking a photo & posting a fine.

These are excellent points. Speed is actually not dangerous. It's how you speed. Overtaking someone doing 80 in a 100 zone at the speedlimit..in the pouring rain is not illegal. However it's likely that its a very silly thing to do....

If I had my way I would change the way speed limits were determined in the old days (basically you look at the average speed of the traffic..there is more but its a story). I would then not really enforce it per se. However I'd give the police far more power to book people doing dangerous stuff. Dangerous driving would replace the standard speeding.

Basically if someone was driving well and travelling at speed they would be ok. If someone was being stupid they would be booked even if they were under the limit. That basically doesn't happen at the moment.

Anyway, that wouldn't pay the bills so it's never going to happen.

While reluctant to reopen this can of worms this was too interesting not to pass on. It proves my theory that the current road safety initiatives are just a way to make money while you do noting about the problem.

Making everyon drive slower doesn't automatically make everyone safer.

Call to scrap Northern Territory speed limits


December 28, 2007 01:06pm
THE Northern Territory government is being called on to scrap open road speed limits it adopted this year, after recording the worst road toll in a decade.

Despite introducing a 130km/h limit for the region's four main highways - the Stuart, Arnhem, Barkly and Victoria - and establishing a demerit point system, road fatalities in 2007 have climbed to climbed to 57.

The toll is up from 44 in the same period last year and 35 in 2004.

A damning report released last year found NT roads had a death rate three times higher than the rest of Australia on a per capita basis, with one person dying and nine seriously injured every week.

The findings prompted the government to put an end to a tradition whereby NT drivers were among the few left in the world - and the only ones in Australia - who could freely decide their speed on the open roads.

But the opposition Country Liberal Party (CLP) today said it was time for new NT Chief Minister Paul Henderson to reverse the controversial changes.

``Now the evidence is in,'' CLP transport spokeswoman Fay Miller said in a statement.

''(Mr) Henderson has the option of correcting a mistake of his predecessor and get rid of the open road speed limit.''

Ms Miller said data suggested that drink drivers and people failing to wear seat belts were the main reason for road fatalities - and not speed.

``The opposition was highly sceptical that Territory Labor's attack on our way of life would have a positive impact on the road toll,'' she said.

``It is a great shame that one of the qualities that made the Territory unique has been sacrificed without an obvious benefit.

``Making such a far-reaching change to the character of the Territory on a hunch was reckless policy making.''

Ms Miller said demerit points - introduced in most Australian states in 1969 - would also prove to be equally useless in curbing the road toll.

Just a couple of points to add to this thread:-

1. A couple of days ago NSW announced that the road toll for 2007 was the lowest since WW2. So something must be working, although I do not think it is lower speed limits or speed cameras. My guess is mainly better roads plus continuing pressure on drink-driving, and to some extent social disapproval of bad driving.

2. The number of drink drivers in NSW over the holiday period caught in random breath tests is the lowest ever, despite a 30% increase in tests (I was tested twice over the period), with well under 1% being over the limit. Yet around 30% of dead drivers are over the limit. This strongly suggests that a tiny minority is responsible for a large proportion of fatal accidents - and not because they are speeding. (They may be speeding, but that is not the primary cause of the accident).

John

Originally Posted by JDNSW

Just a couple of points to add to this thread:-

1. A couple of days ago NSW announced that the road toll for 2007 was the lowest since WW2. So something must be working, although I do not think it is lower speed limits or speed cameras. My guess is mainly better roads plus continuing pressure on drink-driving, and to some extent social disapproval of bad driving.

2. The number of drink drivers in NSW over the holiday period caught in random breath tests is the lowest ever, despite a 30% increase in tests (I was tested twice over the period), with well under 1% being over the limit. Yet around 30% of dead drivers are over the limit. This strongly suggests that a tiny minority is responsible for a large proportion of fatal accidents - and not because they are speeding. (They may be speeding, but that is not the primary cause of the accident).

John

QLD changed the way they report crashes a few years ago (the same time they introduced speed cameras) so that all causes count equally. IE car crashed at bend. So, driver was smashed drunk... tick. Hard to argue that if they hadn't been going slower it might not have happened... speed gets a tick. Speed and alcohol are the two primary causes. Example two. Driver falls asleep and crashes into a tree on a long straight. Fatige tick. Speed tick.

So, as you can see this method doesn't give any special weighting to the fact that in example 1 the driver was smahed, and in example 2 the driver was asleep. In addition to this it doesn't differentiate between excessive speed and travelling above the posted limit..which are often different things.

Anyway, by doing all this they now claim that speed is a contributor in 27.2% percent of crashes. Figures that indicate primary causes are not recorded or published.

Before this statistical re-alignment QLD Trasnport said that speed was a sole contributor in 4% of crashes and a contributor in 12%/ So, we need to book lots of people and make lots of money. I mean save lives.

Originally Posted by Captain_Rightfoot

QLD changed the way they report crashes a few years ago (the same time they introduced speed cameras) so that all causes count equally. IE car crashed at bend. So, driver was smashed drunk... tick. Hard to argue that if they hadn't been going slower it might not have happened... speed gets a tick. Speed and alcohol are the two primary causes. Example two. Driver falls asleep and crashes into a tree on a long straight. Fatige tick. Speed tick.

So, as you can see this method doesn't give any special weighting to the fact that in example 1 the driver was smahed, and in example 2 the driver was asleep. In addition to this it doesn't differentiate between excessive speed and travelling above the posted limit..which are often different things.

Anyway, by doing all this they now claim that speed is a contributor in 27.2% percent of crashes. Figures that indicate primary causes are not recorded or published.

Before this statistical re-alignment QLD Trasnport said that speed was a sole contributor in 4% of crashes and a contributor in 12%/ So, we need to book lots of people and make lots of money. I mean save lives.

In fact, as can be seen by reading any documented aircraft accident report (these are almost always done properly - unlike car accidents, and are much more accessible) any real life accident does not have a single cause, but has to have a number of causes, and removing any one of these factors would have prevented the accident.

Just taking your example 1 - at a minimum, the factors would include the fact that the driver was drunk, and the fact that the bend was there, plus probably a lot of others that are not obvious, including the driver's previous record (and what efforts had been made to rehabilitate him), the signposting of the curve, the safety fencing if any, the road surface, the speed the driver was doing, and so on - certainly the primary cause was his drinking, but one factor an investigator could latch on to is whether the effort at reducing speeding would be better spent on reducing drink driving or improving road alignment. But this appears not to happen with road accidents, certainly not in as formal and public a manner as happens with aviation accidents.

John