Editorial: Lowering the road toll?

[vztrt]

http://theage.drive.com.au/motor-new...715-1hgxj.html

From the editor: Lowering the road toll?
Toby Hagon
July 16, 2011

It's that predictable time of the year when the media focuses on the school holiday road toll and police focus on trying to convince the public to slow down to save lives. ''Urging'' is a word the media latches on to and one that loses its impact the more you hear it.

Here's a news flash - most people killed on our roads are not hoons. I'd guess most of them had generally obeyed the rules and many more had stuck to the speed limit - authorities have no statistics on how many fatalities are caused by breaking the speed limit, only how many were travelling too fast for the conditions.

About 0.3 per cent of motorists tested are over the 0.05 blood alcohol limit, yet a quarter of the Victorian drivers killed were found to be over the limit. And about 16 per cent of fatalities are a result of fatigue.

Yet our holiday road-safety messages centre on those flouting the law - in particular, those breaking the speed limit.

As safety experts will attest, a crash into a tree at 105km/h is likely to be just as fatal as one at 100km/h.

How about some more down-to-earth suggestions that could affect all motorists; such as maximising your concentration, ensuring children don't distract you on that long drive and properly preparing yourself and your car for the big trip?

I'm not suggesting it is the silver bullet for saving lives on our roads, but it would have to be more effective than the predictable messages from police urging drivers to slow down.

TOBY HAGON, NATIONAL MOTORING EDITOR

[prydey]

good to see less and less people getting the wool pulled over their eyes. great article and pretty much sums up why people are sick of the continual focus on speed.

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by prydey

good to see less and less people getting the wool pulled over their eyes. great article and pretty much sums up why people are sick of the continual focus on speed.

+1

Despite many thinking it and saying nothing, this bloke has actually said something that makes sense, particularly with regard to the causation of an accident in the first place. The emphasis is place solely around speeding these days, and it doesn't appear to be the solution...I doubt it ever will.

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

+1

Despite many thinking it and saying nothing, this bloke has actually said something that makes sense, particularly with regard to the causation of an accident in the first place. The emphasis is place solely around speeding these days, and it doesn't appear to be the solution...I doubt it ever will.

I actually have real information from the WA Government (circa 2006) that demonstrates that the whole "speed, speeding and speeders" hysteria as a No. 1 cause of fatal crashes is a complete load of crap.

But of course when I challenged said bureaucrat about it, the predicable response of "oh, but speed may have been a factor in all of them!!1!". Well of course it would have been - had a vehicle not been engaged in forward motion, there would not have been a collision.

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by Road_Warrior

I actually have real information from the WA Government (circa 2006) that demonstrates that the whole "speed, speeding and speeders" hysteria as a No. 1 cause of fatal crashes is a complete load of crap.

But of course when I challenged said bureaucrat about it, the predicable response of "oh, but speed may have been a factor in all of them!!1!". Well of course it would have been - had a vehicle not been engaged in forward motion, there would not have been a collision.

I think we really need to move away from this 'speed may have been/was a factor' that keeps coming out. If the vehicle was travelling at over and above the posted speed limit, fine, then by all means go right ahead and say it. But if someone was doing 79 in an 80 zone in the rain and crashed - speed was not a factor...

I know someone will say you were driving too fast for the conditions...well, then why the hell is the speed limit 80 if I can't do 80 in ALL conditions...?

[Road_Warrior]

Here are the stats I was referring to. Taken from Parliament of Western Australia Hansard 16 October 2007:

(i) 2006 calendar year.
Cause No Proportion
Alcohol 45 7.9%
Alcohol/Drugs 6 1.0%
Alcohol/Speed 56 9.8%
Animals 10 1.7%
Careless 100 17.5%
Contravene TCL 2 0.3%
Drugs 4 0.7%
Fail to give way 55 9.6%
Fatigue 28 4.9%
Heart attack 2 0.3%
Inattention 75 13.1%
Inexperience 13 2.3%
Load shift 2 0.3%
Mechanical 2 0.3%
NULL 4 0.7%
Object through window 1 0.2%
Other medical 19 3.3%
Overtaking 23 4.0%
Person fell from Vehicle 4 0.7%
Reckless 21 3.7%
Road Condition 6 1.0%
Speed 68 11.9%
Stop sign 3 0.5%
Travel too close 2 0.3%
Turn in front 4 0.7%
Tyre blow out 9 1.6%
Visibility 4 0.7%
Weather Conditions 4 0.7%
Total 572 100.0%

Obviously its supposed to be in columns so I apologise for the lack of formatting.

[GTP owner]

How long until Sudzy has this thread shut down?

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by GTP owner

How long until Sudzy has this thread shut down?

I think that depends on how others respond, I cant control that.

I’m sorry guys, but a motoring writer’s opinion on speed limits? What special qualifications does Mr Hagon have or indeed what research has he done into topic? Yes, his opinion is surely of value if we want to know which 4wd has the best cup holders, but objectivity on speed?

You may care to look at this: http://abc.com.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3163310.htm
Whilst not Robinson Crusoe, Mr Hogan partakes significantly in the junkets(some to exotic overseas locations) put on by motoring manufacturers to get them to test and report favourably on their product. http://smh.drive.com.au/motor-news/f...623-13k2h.html
Oh, and of course manufacturers of exotic performance machines would love to see Australia have open speed limits all over the place, it makes having a car that will do 300km/h+ so much more meaningful and necessary.

Oh, but sudszy, this is just character assassination of Mr Hogan. Well, nothing so far other than some facts, but let’s look critically at what he has to say:

As safety experts will attest, a crash into a tree at 105km/h is likely to be just as fatal as one at 100km/h.

Well yes, but what conclusion is to be drawn from such expert testament?

This is evidence that we should:

1. Reduce speed limits to speeds where we can survive tree impacts

or

2. 105km/h is just as safe as 100km/h because you aren’t going to survive hitting a tree at 100km/h(causing a fatality) anyway. Which using the same logic 110, 120....150 km/h is just as safe as 100km/h

Yes, both totally unsatisfactory in logic and practicality
But Mr Hagon wants to go with number 2!

What we have do have here is a serious omission by Mr Hagon is that a 5km/h increase of speed increases the probability(doubles) of the vehicle leaving the road and hitting a tree, the one piece of data that can be verified.

From here , we also have:
http://smh.drive.com.au/roads-and-tr...710-104t2.html
"THE Roads and Traffic Authority is considering plans to reduce the amount of leeway given to speeding motorists to as low as 4 km/h, according to senior police"

Mr Hagon:
In other words, it is the sort of situation in which a speed camera or the threat of tighter tolerances will have zero impact.
After all, most people walk faster than that and round numbers aren't by nature inherently safer.


So 4km/h over the limit is safe because that’s the speed that people can walk at? but the collisions aren't happening at walking speed!

We can extend that to 40km/h because that’s as fast as a man can run.....yeh why not Mr Hagon

No, Mr Hagon is exaggerating the facts, they have been numerous campaigns aimed at dozy drivers etc.

[Road Games]

Originally Posted by sudszy

I think that depends on how others respond, I cant control that.

I’m sorry guys, but a motoring writer’s opinion on speed limits? What special qualifications does Mr Hagon have or indeed what research has he done into topic? Yes, his opinion is surely of value if we want to know which 4wd has the best cup holders, but objectivity on speed?

You may care to look at this: http://abc.com.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3163310.htm
Whilst not Robinson Crusoe, Mr Hogan partakes significantly in the junkets(some to exotic overseas locations) put on by motoring manufacturers to get them to test and report favourably on their product. http://smh.drive.com.au/motor-news/f...623-13k2h.html
Oh, and of course manufacturers of exotic performance machines would love to see Australia have open speed limits all over the place, it makes having a car that will do 300km/h+ so much more meaningful and necessary.

Oh, but sudszy, this is just character assassination of Mr Hogan. Well, nothing so far other than some facts, but let’s look critically at what he has to say:

As safety experts will attest, a crash into a tree at 105km/h is likely to be just as fatal as one at 100km/h.

Well yes, but what conclusion is to be drawn from such expert testament?

This is evidence that we should:

1. Reduce speed limits to speeds where we can survive tree impacts

or

2. 105km/h is just as safe as 100km/h because you aren’t going to survive hitting a tree at 100km/h(causing a fatality) anyway. Which using the same logic 110, 120....150 km/h is just as safe as 100km/h

Yes, both totally unsatisfactory in logic and practicality
But Mr Hagon wants to go with number 2!

What we have do have here is a serious omission by Mr Hagon is that a 5km/h increase of speed increases the probability(doubles) of the vehicle leaving the road and hitting a tree, the one piece of data that can be verified.

From here , we also have:
http://smh.drive.com.au/roads-and-tr...710-104t2.html
"THE Roads and Traffic Authority is considering plans to reduce the amount of leeway given to speeding motorists to as low as 4 km/h, according to senior police"

Mr Hagon:
In other words, it is the sort of situation in which a speed camera or the threat of tighter tolerances will have zero impact.
After all, most people walk faster than that and round numbers aren't by nature inherently safer.


So 4km/h over the limit is safe because that’s the speed that people can walk at? but the collisions aren't happening at walking speed!

We can extend that to 40km/h because that’s as fast as a man can run.....yeh why not Mr Hagon

No, Mr Hagon is exaggerating the facts, they have been numerous campaigns aimed at dozy drivers etc.

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by sudszy

I’m sorry guys, but a motoring writer’s opinion on speed limits? What special qualifications does Mr Hagon have

Why should we listen to your opinion on speed limits either?
You never revel anything about yourself, for all we know you could be a dole bludger who doesn't even have a car and you just post here to kill time.



Oh and in the last thread you claim you are not here to push your speed camera adgenda. But the only time your posts pop up is in threads like this.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Ben73

Why should we listen to your opinion on speed limits either?
.

No Ben, they are not my opinions, just the facts as presented to us by organisations such as the TAC, the research collated from not just data here but from around the world as well, they have basis unlike the rantings of people just "done over" for doing a couple of kays over etc..

Originally Posted by Ben73

Oh and in the last thread you claim you are not here to push your speed camera adgenda. But the only time your posts pop up is in threads like this.

One could say the same for some others too Ben. No I didnt start this thread, but to not say something when public safety is threatened with attitudes like Mr Hagon's, in the words of Edmund Burke........

[krzysiek]

Originally Posted by sudszy

No Ben, they are not my opinions, just the facts as presented to us by organisations such as the TAC, the research collated from not just data here but from around the world as well, they have basis unlike the rantings of people just "done over" for doing a couple of kays over etc..



One could say the same for some others too Ben. No I didnt start this thread, but to not say something when public safety is threatened with attitudes like Mr Hagon's, in the words of Edmund Burke........

You like to refer to "data" that supports the idea of "speed kills". Do you stop and think for a second that the data may just be biased or favoured in one direction, especially when you consider that there are big dollars floating around in the speed camera industry.

Secondly, I believe you have conveniently forgotten to look at the "data" provided on crash statistics from WA. Let's hope the data is not "too old" as it does date back to 2006/2007 (oh, how times have changed).

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by sudszy

One could say the same for some others too Ben. No I didnt start this thread, but to not say something when public safety is threatened with attitudes like Mr Hagon's, in the words of Edmund Burke........

You are right. There are others like you who only post in threads like this. But you seam to be the loudest of them all.


Ah and if you think 'public safety' is 'threatened' by Hagon's point.
They guy was suggesting other areas of road safety which we should focus on as well. So I don't know how you think public safety is threatened by someone who promoting road safety saying there is more to it then obeying a magic number.

I honestly think your view is more of a threat to public safety. You need to open your eyes wider. See then whole picture and not just the speed part of it.

[prydey]

Originally Posted by sudszy

No Ben, they are not my opinions, just the facts as presented to us by organisations such as the TAC, the research collated from not just data here but from around the world as well, they have basis unlike the rantings of people just "done over" for doing a couple of kays over etc..

so its impossible for organisations such as TAC to also have an agenda? who is funding them? you are very quick to dismiss the opinion of a motoring journo because apparently it would be counter productive for him to be negative about speeding, due to him testing exotic cars, but organisations that crank out statistics that agree with your point of view are unbiased facts.

it is impossible to know the speed of a car that has had an accident. sure, you can measure skid marks on older cars etc, or ask witnesses (bet they didn't have their pocket radar handy though) but its all just guess work. the only statistics they can measure is braking distances and then based on that make a lot of assumptions.

accidents where 'speeding' has been the cause are accidents where its clearly obvious the car has been going well beyond the posted limit. your everyday innercity bingle, it is impossible to tell how fast the cars were going at the time, so i fail to see how they can bandy about these statistics as though they would've had a 100% impact on the situation.

statistics can be made up to suit just about any argument you want.

mr hagan isn't saying forget about speeding drivers. he's saying perhaps the govt credibility would be a little better if they concentrated on many of the other factors as well, 2 of which are drugs and alcohol.

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by sudszy

I’m sorry guys, but a motoring writer’s opinion on speed limits? What special qualifications does Mr Hagon have or indeed what research has he done into topic? Yes, his opinion is surely of value if we want to know which 4wd has the best cup holders, but objectivity on speed?

Rightio then ........ Please read the above before you give another opinion on these matters and everytime these subjects pop up ...... just PLEASE remember what you have just written before you post again. You dismiss his opinion because he is just a motoring writer? And who are you to say this?

You have no right to belittle anyone elses opinion as no one here ... and Mr Hagon .... have stated anything other than an opinion and one that is their own ...........

You are quick to bag out anyone, quick to post a link to someone you agree with but anyone who has an opposing view or a link to another point of view, to you they are all BS artists or stupid or just plain wrong. Of course we allow debates and differing opinions but you need to accept that OTHERS HAVE OPINIONS AS WELL ..... so respect them and you might get a bit more coming your way.

Over it actually ..........

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by Auslandau

Rightio then ........ Please read the above before you give another opinion on these matters and everytime these subjects pop up ...... just PLEASE remember what you have just written before you post again. You have no right to belittle anyone elses opinion as no one here ... and Mr Hagon .... have stated anything other than an opinion and one that is their own ........... .

There seems to be some confusion that an opinion is something that can't be challenged?

It would appear that Mr Hagon's opinions were being considered strongly just because he was a motoring writer rather than just a "dole bludger".
I have outlined some to serious concerns as to why his opinions could be influenced(meaningful response to those would be interesting) and also have found fault in his reasoning as to why he thinks speed isnt a problem, certainly its not flattering for Mr Hagon, but thems are valid points not to be ignored when considering Mr Hagon's "opinions"

Originally Posted by Auslandau

You are quick to bag out anyone, quick to post a link to someone you agree with but anyone who has an opposing view ....

Sorry, mine is not a view, just reiteration of one simple fact that "opinions" cant change: increasing speed increases risk of collision.

Originally Posted by Auslandau

who has an opposing view or a link to another point of view, to you they are all BS artists or stupid or just plain wrong.........

Exactly, opposing views are worth nothing(ie there is no evidence that man has added to the co2 levels) when they are exposed by facts.

As for calling people bs artists,then wasnt that justified when Id exposed that person for lying.

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by sudszy

There seems to be some confusion that an opinion is something that can't be challenged?

It can be discussed, refuted, whatever but when an opinion is totally dismissed because ....

I’m sorry guys, but a motoring writer’s opinion on speed limits? What special qualifications does Mr Hagon have or indeed what research has he done into topic?

......... well it just shows what you think of everyone elses opinion. You are right .... just because.

[krzysiek]

Originally Posted by sudszy

This is evidence that we should:

1. Reduce speed limits to speeds where we can survive tree impacts

or

2. 105km/h is just as safe as 100km/h because you aren’t going to survive hitting a tree at 100km/h(causing a fatality) anyway. Which using the same logic 110, 120....150 km/h is just as safe as 100km/h

Yes, both totally unsatisfactory in logic and practicality
But Mr Hagon wants to go with number 2!

Quite clearly you are being a little ridiculous here.

People are ANGRY because they get pinged for doing 5 or 10 KM's over, at times where it would be/is completely safe to do so. I don't know how any sane person can go from deducing that 5KM's over the limit (105KM/h instead of 100KM/h) can be compared to 50KM's over the limit.

Didn't you notice that NO ONE here is in support of doing 50KM's over the limit because there is no where where this type of speed would ever really be safe on Aussie roads, whereas 5KM's (as mentioned in OP) is completely different.

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by krzysiek

Quite clearly you are being a little ridiculous here.

People are ANGRY because they get pinged for doing 5 or 10 KM's over, at times where it would be/is completely safe to do so. I don't know how any sane person can go from deducing that 5KM's over the limit (105KM/h instead of 100KM/h) can be compared to 50KM's over the limit.

Didn't you notice that NO ONE here is in support of doing 50KM's over the limit because there is no where where this type of speed would ever really be safe on Aussie roads, whereas 5KM's (as mentioned in OP) is completely different.

Its really irrelevant whether people here regard 5-10km/h over as still "completely safe", the stats show that when tolerances are lowered and average speeds are reduced by 5-10km/h then the collision rates drop,(not an opinion)

[WMD351]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Its really irrelevant whether people here regard 5-10km/h over as still "completely safe", the stats show that when tolerances are lowered and average speeds are reduced by 5-10km/h then the collision rates drop,(not an opinion)

This is not what the topic or Mr Hagon are about in the slightest!
All Mr Hagon is suggesting is that perhaps we should concentrate on some of the leading causes of fatalities rather than focusing on one of the lesser contributing factors.

[krzysiek]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Its really irrelevant whether people here regard 5-10km/h over as still "completely safe", the stats show that when tolerances are lowered and average speeds are reduced by 5-10km/h then the collision rates drop,(not an opinion)

You are a little irritating. Pointing back to your 5-10km/h collision rate drops.

Let me ask you. DID YOU DO THESE TESTS FOR YOURSELF?

Answer: No.

Who did then?

Answer: Someone OTHER THAN YOU.

So how the hell can you definitively prove that there is no bias going on in these tests, what so ever. Do you know how much the speed cameras are generating in revenue? Do you not consider that the whole link with speed/crashes/deaths could potentially be backed by money?

Anyway, let's not worry about the above part too much. I am not suggesting the statistics are all BS or whatnot, but in todays world when there is money involved, people should be skeptical... anyway, what I really want to ask is below.

Now let me ask you, did YOU read the facts presented on page 1 about the crash statistics in W.A. for 2006 calendar year? Don't go and give me any crap about it, no beating around the bush mate... just answer me, YES or NO?

If you are NOT prepared to look at both sides, then in my humble "opinion" (please tell me if within your opinion I am entitled to an opinion?) you are being naive.

If the Government was worried about saving lives, why are they concentrating on something that is at most a 25% contributor to these crashes (without exacting checking the percentages provided on page 1) when they could/should be targeting the other 75% that would OBVIOUSLY help save more lives on the road? .... I guess there is no definitive way of 'catching' people not concentrating well enough on the road, so they probably couldn't make much money from that, so why bother educating them to save lives

[grandpa_spec_F6]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Its really irrelevant whether people here regard 5-10km/h over as still "completely safe", the stats show that when tolerances are lowered and average speeds are reduced by 5-10km/h then the collision rates drop,(not an opinion)

The phrase "Numbers don't lie, people do" comes to mind.... I think a lot of the data gathered has been presented by people who know how to lie with statistics.

It's like magic, you show people the BIG ZOMG SHINEY and don't see him pull the prop from under the table

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by sudszy

Oh, and of course manufacturers of exotic performance machines would love to see Australia have open speed limits all over the place, it makes having a car that will do 300km/h+ so much more meaningful and necessary.

what a magnificent specimen of a strawman you have built
australia will never go back to open speed limits: there are too many professional students with nothing better to do but complain on forums and go to protest rallies; while the rest of the world is busy working
also, open speed limts means less chance of speeding fines too, so that ain't ever happening again

while your knowledge and unbiased opinion here is greatly appreciated i cannot help but think your work is completed. we have all not only learnt from you, but changed our opinions too and you should be commended for that. how about going on the harley davison forum or even go to a club house and preach to them about the safety of full face helmets, automatic headlights, front number plates, wire barriers on freeways and the like. i am sure all of those items make the road and it's users much safer than the alternative. so with our blessing, go on and do it. i am sure you do not have selective caring for the people of the world, so please go on - they need your help; i am sure they will not only be very appreciative, but welcome you with open arms

[sudszy]

Originally Posted by gtxb67

what a magnificent specimen of a strawman you have built
australia will never go back to open speed limits:

No, a Strawman is when you mount an argument against something you have implied someone has said.

I haven't mounted an argument claiming Hagon wants Australia turned into autobahns, just alerting people to the fact that his opinion on issues relating to speed and indeed his car reports has been compromised by his acceptance of junkets paid for by those looking to make inroads into the Australian market with exotic high speed cars, where the importers of such vehicles(those providing junkets to Mr Hagon) would be delighted to see speed limits increased.

Nicola Roxon as Health minister found herself in exactly the same leaky boat when it was revealed that she accepted invitations to special events (tennis etc) from tobacco companies, and she was rightfully pillered from post to post on the issue.

[gtxb67]

Originally Posted by sudszy

No, a Strawman is when you mount an argument against something you have implied someone has said.

I haven't mounted an argument claiming Hagon wants Australia turned into Autobahn's, just alerting people to the fact that his opinion on issues relating to speed and indeed his car reports has been compromised by his acceptance of junkets paid for by those looking to make inroads into the Australian market with exotic high speed cars.

so you were not building a strawman - you were just posting absolute rubbish about something that will never happen

either way, your argument wasn't made out of bricks, so it was either sticks or straw

[GTP owner]

Originally Posted by sudszy

I think that depends on how others respond, I cant control that.


As safety experts will attest, a crash into a tree at 105km/h is likely to be just as fatal as one at 100km/h.

Well yes, but what conclusion is to be drawn from such expert testament?

This is evidence that we should:

1. Reduce speed limits to speeds where we can survive tree impacts


What we have do have here is a serious omission by Mr Hagon is that a 5km/h increase of speed increases the probability(doubles) of the vehicle leaving the road and hitting a tree, the one piece of data that can be verified.

So 4km/h over the limit is safe because that’s the speed that people can walk at? but the collisions aren't happening at walking speed!

.

You start by blaming others for how they respond, yet you do not apply the same logic to yourself. As I said in the beginning...how long until you have this thread closed too.

I would add this comment though. Given your hatred for any excess over a nominal figure for a maximum speed, and you continually support this with supposed data (your "truth") that any amount over this is akin to running over little babies that might happen to be sleeping on the road, what if we reduced all speed limits to 40km/h? You like the notion that we should make it so we could all survive hitting the tree, which presumably means a 40km/h limit maximum. We would see a massive reduction in road deaths right? And the ordinary citizen would be left riding their bicycle because we would all lose our licences in the first week. And the economy would crumble, there would rioting in the streets, and traffic police would be bashed. So is this really the world you would like to see? If you squeeze people with rules, regulations with factoids to support your case (because this is what is good for the people), you lose the respect of those who you are there to serve.

Your move..

[MAD]

Simple answers, speed is easier to photo, and it makes money.
The gov is full of hypocrisy. If true to their word about road safety, $ figures would not come in to it.

[rayner22]

So inattention was a more significant cause than speeding.....










Probably people dozing off from reading sudszy's posts.....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I wonder how many accidents are caused by drivers being too concerned with watching the speedo rather than the road for fear of speed cameras?

[vztrt]

All I see from the WA list is mainly people not paying attention that causes the majority of deaths....but speed cameras don't really pick up on that...

[phillyc]

Originally Posted by vztrt

All I see from the WA list is mainly people not paying attention that causes the majority of deaths....but speed cameras don't really pick up on that...

That's right. Cameras can't and don't catch the biggest killers.

From the WA sample, Careless, Innattentive, Speeding, Alcohol affected, Lazy (Fail to give way / stop) and those that are tired are 75.2% of the road toll. Speed by itself was 11.9%.

Clearly, there is some really good gains to be had in improving peoples driving attitudes. But, right now it is just best to make millions from fines.

We need a wholistic approach.