Xmas road toll inquiry to look beyond speed?

[FASTVP]

Originally posted by carlo
So if speed is the cause of 42% when are they going to open their damm eyes and look at the rest of the deaths and accidents. When are they going to see that its not the speed that kills, its the drivers inability to drive the car correctly. Speed is just the by product, if they driver knew what he/she was doing then they would not be doing unsafe speeds!!!!

I completely agree that speeding is not the cause of most accidents.
I think that perhaps there are a lot of drugged drivers out there that don't show up in the stats, as well as a lot of very tired drivers. Of course when they crash, they might have been doing 107kmh in a 100 zone. Hence it was speeding.

Consider this though:
If speed causes 42% of accidents, the remaining 58% may be broken down into:

Drunk 14%
Running stop light/sign 8%
Asleep 18%
Freak accident 3%
Stupidity 15%

...All of a sudden the speeding at 42% is a great problem.

I'm not saying that this is the case, but I bet thats how they would justify it.

[tandy ass]

Does anybody have a copy of the report Motor Magazine did on how corrupt the whole 'speed kills' system is? if I remember correctly, that they blame speed on accidents where they were going under the posted speed limit but too fast for the circumstances. Hence more of a reason for stricter enforcement.

[Crash Dummy]

Originally posted by Frogger
Actually, one of the best ways to solve the fatigue problem is to get rid of speed limits on the open highways & let people drive at a speed that they are comfortable with and safe at.

I totally agree with this. Normally when i do the Newcastle to Sydney run and back i just get bored and my mind drifts when sitting on the 100km/h i'm supost to do (I'm on my Green P's) Last time i did the run i did 130km/h only slowing down for speed camera's. Traffic was virtually non existant except for the pack i was stuck in at the start of the freeway. During this trip i didn't feel tired and my mind never wandered. I should also note this is as fast as i wanted to go, 130 felt like a good crusing speed.
Unfortually for me i won't be doing this anymore because of the new 130km/h and you instantly loose your liscence law.

*me grits teeth and awaits i'm a accident waiting to happen and i'm gonna kill someone flames*

[Captiva Fan]

Bozz - yes, by the RTA's definition, "causal factor" means that one of the vehicles involved was exceeding the speed limit, or was considered to be going too quickly for the conditions. That vehicle does not have to be at fault.

By the same definition, a car being white or silver is VERY dangerous, because white & silver cars have a very high involvement in accidents. Oh that's right, half the cars on the road are white or silver ...

[carlo]

Originally posted by Forg
carlo, don't fall for those lies.

[MR T] Im gonna beat up the foo the told me dem lies [/MR T]

Whilst I dont take the figures as gospel those figures are from the police forces own admission.

The problem is that cars today have higher limits, and when you get into trouble your generally in a tricker situation. I am sure that in the 1930 there was few high speed accidents, but now when every car will eventually get to 100kph the chances of a fatality is higher.

I just want better driver training.

[Captiva Fan]

Originally posted by carlo
Whilst I dont take the figures as gospel those figures are from the police forces own admission.

Oh no, they're real statistics; I'm not saying that the statistics aren't real. It's just that their meaning is misrepresented; they are pushed as showing that speeding is a cause of crashes & injury, when in fact they prove no such thing.

That's why I was rabbitting on aimlessly about white & silver cars. Because there are so many white & silver cars on the road, a lot of white & silver cars are involved in crashes; a lot more than black ones. So, using the same statistical analysis as for "speeding", you could say that driving a white or silver car is very dangerous, because more of them are involved in crashes - you could say that black is the safest colour. Of course, that's farcical because you haven't taken into account the percentage of white & silver cars on the road.

So, for the abovequoted figures to mean anything, the people doing the analysis have to quote the percentage of people "speeding" in the locations of those crashes. They don't do that; because it wouldn't prove what they're trying to push.


PS. Can't go past a Mr T impersonation ...

[demuire]

I totally agree with this. Normally when i do the Newcastle to Sydney run and back i just get bored and my mind drifts when sitting on the 100km/h i'm supost to do (I'm on my Green P's) Last time i did the run i did 130km/h only slowing down for speed camera's. Traffic was virtually non existant except for the pack i was stuck in at the start of the freeway. During this trip i didn't feel tired and my mind never wandered. I should also note this is as fast as i wanted to go, 130 felt like a good crusing speed.

Agreed. It depends on car, road conditions etc. When I was in Malaysia driving my mum's Satria GTi I did a few trips from Melaka - KL (about 2 hours at 110km/h) and driving at 110km/h in that car on that highway I can guarantee you is a recipe for falling asleep... I found doing about 130km/h to be a good cruising speed as well, and doing 180km/h (on the speed limiter) I'm sure there was no way I could fall asleep :p

Then again, in my dodgy Corolla here in Australia I wouldn't want to go past 110km/h on any highway... And I'm finding 100km/h to be a nice speed to cruise at.

[Kinks]

I believe they'll taken a token look at other factors and decide that no, speed is the most easily measurable and punishable factor and therefore must be the main cause of fatality on our roads.

(that was not a grammatical error).

[rowdytoot]

I saw this last night on TV and laughed... nice idea-- but it's going nowhere in reality... Kinks is 100 % on the money... (again :p)

over the chrimbo period ( double demerits and all) I saw a lady (middle aged) spin a stock VR commodore on a downhill hairpin just as you come into Gosford.. it was dampish, but not at all slippery really.. I'll bet if it was a fatality it would have been "speed" related.... of course the fact that ever other car sailed around the corner no problem in the same conditions doesn't mean that driver skill (or lack there of) was the causative factor..

meanwhile I spent the whole time unusually distracted while I was driving.... why? cos I was paranoid about being caught 'speeding' on open roads with light traffic... and getting slammed for it...

a relaxed 1 and a little hour trip to avoca beach normally turned into a watch the speed 1 and half hour trip which was not enjoyable... note also that I observed a lot of people on the F3 travelling majorly below the speed limit in 110 zones, and then speeding up in the 90 zones... -- now thats unsafe..... still there were a lot of people driving at 115 -120 most of the time,... so the double demerits ain't working too well even at reducing speeds... ( no suprise there,) and it aint' effective at the road toll either....
(but they'll probably link those two and say we need quadruple demerits, and 1 km/hr speed tolerances)

Rowds

[crx2gen]

Originally posted by EDXR6
Doesn't the Northern Territory still have no-limit highways? And they're "x-mas road toll" was lower than most other states from memory...

actually, NT has one of the worst records for road safety in proportion to population. which is the figure that really shows how "good" or "bad" the road toll is.

[Glenno]

Originally posted by carlo

37% of speeding drivers involved in serious casualty crashes, were males aged 17 to 25 years. This group holds only 8% of licences

I would think this group makes up the majoprity of "Active" drivers on the road though

[Captiva Fan]

Actually, in proportion to total distance travelled would be more indicative ... if you've got a lot of inner-city types who never drive, they skew the stats a lot such that a state looks safer.

I don't know how far your average Territorean drives compared to your average Victorian?

Silent Bob, even taking average distance travelled, and time spent on the road, 18-25's do show an unusually high number of crashes. It's an attitude thing. As an example, as a decrepit old 31yo, I definitely find traffic pissing me off a lot less than when I was driving to Uni, and traffic can't be lighter - so I'm less tempted to try & do something about it.
Having said that, I don't understand how discrimination laws work; how someone can pre-judge you because of what I did when I was your age.

[CyberianKnight]

Interesting Read

http://www.sense.bc.ca/research.htm

[Skanka]

did a trip from brissie to townsville (1400km i think) about 9 years ago in my old LH torana, drove through the night and the did the trip with only about 3 stops. Doing around 140kph (was bugger all speed cameras back then) with the windows down and a bit of play in the steering kept me awake and alert. Now I dose of on a 20min trip around town in my 98 magna.

Alot to be said for sound deadening, power steering and air conditioning.

[rowdytoot]

Forg-- I think we had a look at this before chrimbo---- per distance travelled, or per head of population the NT is worse.. BUT I would go so far as to state that I would imagine the majority of crashes are either DUI ( a huge issue up there) fatigue, or lack of driver ability-- ie.. misjudging distances when overtaking, or coming into a corner at 160 km/hr.... etc..

Rowds