[rustynutz]

Road safety conference presentation in Australia urged officials to end the obsession with speed enforcement.

Road safety officials had their priorities challenged as they gathered at the Australian Institute of Traffic Planning and Management annual conference Thursday. Lex Stewart, the man responsible for road safety in the western region of New South Wales in the 1990s, presented data that suggests the industry's current obsession with speed enforcement is making roads less safe than they would otherwise be. In the past nine years, the fatality rate in NSW has stopped its long-term trend of decline and has leveled off. Over the same period, however, revenue generated from speeding tickets has increased 225 percent from $116 million to $263 million per year.

"In the 1960s we were far too lax and many drivers regarded it as a fundamental right to drive while very drunk," Stewart said. "However, in recent years has the pendulum swung too far the other way with ever-increasing 'big stick' punishments? Criminology tells us that the certainty of getting caught is a bigger deterrent than the hugeness of the punishment. Politicians choose to ignore that before elections and promise voters ever bigger punishments for all sorts of things, not only regarding road behavior. Of course, there is a role for penalties."

Stewart points out the data used to justify crackdowns on speeding are unreliable. Nearly 40 percent of incidents are labeled as "speed-related," even when the vehicle was traveling under the posted limit but in excess of what is reasonable for the given conditions. Stewart argued the typical accident report form encourages investigating police officers to designate the incident as "speed related."

"The police officer after valiantly directing traffic, working with ambulance officers to extricate bodies etc, then finally gets around to filling in the P4 Form," Stewart said. "Maybe a witness said the vehicles were in excess of the speed limit, but can they reliably tell the difference between a vehicle at 115km/h and one at 95km/h (under the 100 limit)? ...He or she looks at the mangled vehicles, the broken glass on the road, the skid marks etc, and wearily ticks the box 'Yes' to speeding. Thus, fundamental data on speeding is not accurate at its source, and I mean no criticism of police in saying that."

Stewart argued the effect of the enforcement mentality has been to force drivers to spend more time looking at their speedometer than looking at the road. Thanks to speed cameras, good drivers with long, accident-free histories often find themselves in danger of losing their drivers' licenses. Stewart argued the point system should be entirely replaced with a system where drivers start with 100 "merit points" and points are taken away based on scientific evidence of how dangerous the activity is, as measured by road trauma figures.

"Police be encouraged to have more frequent interactions with motorists to give cautions which have no dollar penalty but cost the motorist only one point," Stewart wrote. "Police can have more of an educational/warning role, and less (not zero) of a purely punitive role."

Stewart would also replace nearly all speed cameras with police officers.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/39/3923.asp

[Dazzler]

These high profile statements are interesting but usually don't result in a back flip  Too much money has been invested in the cameras 

[Shambles]

... based on scientific evidence of how dangerous the activity is, as measured by road trauma figures.

Amen. That's a good article - too easy to just say "his driving was rubbish"

[csirac2]

Finally. I stay inside the posted limits myself (I hate being in a hurry), but it takes a lot more than one number being smaller than another number to be safe on the road, Eg. thinking ahead, paying attention, sharing the road...

[eye30]

Stewart points out the data used to justify crackdowns on speeding are unreliable................


.................."Maybe a witness said the vehicles were in excess of the speed limit, but can they reliably tell the difference between a vehicle at 115km/h and one at 95km/h (under the 100 limit)? ...He or she looks at the mangled vehicles, the broken glass on the road, the skid marks etc, and wearily ticks the box 'Yes' to speeding. Thus, fundamental data on speeding is not accurate at its source, and I mean no criticism of police in saying that."

Ok so should ALL private cars be fitted with a "Black Box" so it records data such as speed so in an incident, whatever that may be, the data is readily available to the authority.
Similar to the tacho in HGV's

[Dazzler]

Finally. I stay inside the posted limits myself (I hate being in a hurry), but it takes a lot more than one number being smaller than another number to be safe on the road, Eg. thinking ahead, paying attention, sharing the road...

  You make a very good point 

[Phil №❶]

Ok so should ALL private cars be fitted with a "Black Box" so it records data such as speed so in an incident, whatever that may be, the data is readily available to the authority.
Similar to the tacho in HGV's

They already are, G forces, speed, braking and braking distance, are all presently recorded and (used for prosecution in the US of A.)

[Doggie 1]

You can't get away from the fact that the harder you hit something the more it hurts.

[Hati]

Just one thing about the "speed kills" bullshit: if it was true, Germany would be one VERY empty place...


The problem here is lack of driver education. Having obtained my licence in Europe, it was, and still is astonishing for me that anyone with a full licence can go and "teach" someone to drive, err steer the car. THAT is the biggest problem in Oz. Top that with driving "instructors" admitting openly that they only teach the student to pass the test on the known circuit and we have the disaster currently on the roads.


Everything else derives from these two facts of aussie motoring life.


While Dave is quite right about the the harder an object is hit, the bigger the hurt, an educated driver would have the foundation to realise that even the low speed limits we have  may be too much for the given condition, or on the other hand a perfectly maintained dual line each way road with no junctions could be travelled 20 to 30 km over the posted limit in ideal weather is safe to do, except for the strategically placed speed cameras... The list goes on.


Another claim for the bullshit list is the stopping distances. The ads with "extra 5 kmh causes this and that". So many factors influence breaking distances with modern cars that generalising like they do is simply idiocy. A Lambo will stop much quicker compared to a Corolla from the same speed. If you have your car full with people, will take longer to stop again...


Oh well, feel better now to get this off my chest 


Anyway, good to see that someone other than Skaife is starting to push another barrow, in the right direction. If only they would do something about driver education...

[Doggie 1]

I totally agree about driver eduaction. It should start in the schools, as I have said before, and never stop.
One issue I have with raising speed limits though is that we still have lots of old cars on the road and we still have the same, uneducated drivers on the roads.
Some people are capable of driving faster than others. I was taught to drive rapidly and safely, as others have been. Most haven't.
And as it is, as a nation we can't even merge properly. We can't even negotiate roundabouts properly. It is amazing to watch. I reckon that 95% of drivers do not know how to use a roundabout properly and do not know how to merge.
Watch how cars "trickle" on to the freeway at 80 km/h (speed limit 100 km/h), no indication, no checking mirrors. It is not the exception, it is the norm and never ceases to amaze me. They don't even look!
Same with roundabouts. 95% of drivers don't even indicate exits!
So well before any contemplation of raising speed limits, we must educate our drivers to cope and at present we are light years away from doing that.
To raise our speed limits without this would be an absolute disaster.
Australian drivers are some of the worst, most aggressive drivers in the world and I don't think it is about to change and it certainly won't change by merely raising a few speed limits.
Doing that would place more people in danger at the present point in time.

[Surferdude]

Absolutely agree with db08.
And German Autobahn standards of construction are not to be found anywhere in Australia.
I also doubt they have anything like the sub standard mechanical condition of our cars, nor the age of them.

[rustynutz]

While I agree to a certain extent with you, Dave, what does the age of the car have to do with it?
Cars have been capable of doing speeds way in excess of our current speed limits for a very long time and have been able to do them safely. What's really changed is that they are now supposedly safer in an accident.

Upping the speed limit doesn't mean that you HAVE to do that speed....

Research done in the US, I think has shown that the majority of drivers will only drive at a speed that they feel safe doing regardless of the actual posted limit.....

I've made mention elsewhere on this forum, our safetycrats don't even want drivers to learn advanced driving skills as they believe drivers will then be overconfident and so drive faster....

[Doggie 1]

While I agree to a certain extent with you, Dave, what does the age of the car have to do with it?
Cars have been capable of doing speeds way in excess of our current speed limits for a very long time and have been able to do them safely. What's really changed is that they are now supposedly safer in an accident.

Upping the speed limit doesn't mean that you HAVE to do that speed....

Research done in the US, I think has shown that the majority of drivers will only drive at a speed that they feel safe doing regardless of the actual posted limit.....

I've made mention elsewhere on this forum, our safetycrats don't even want drivers to learn advanced driving skills as they believe drivers will then be overconfident and so drive faster....

Newer cars are inherently safer. I'd rather do 120 km/h in a new Commodore than in a 1981 Toyota Corona, regardless of whether it is capable or not. Dynamically, newer cars are safer.

As for not having to do a posted speed limit, I take your point Rusty, but in Australia we know that most people travel at up to 10 km/h faster than the posted speed limit as a norm. If the speed limit is 90 km/h, the majority of cars will do 91-100, a few will do less and a few will do more.

I agree with your last comment. More basic and advanced driver education is the key and the attitude that it will make our roads less safe is ludicrous IMO.

The caveat to that, is probably males in the 17 to 21 age bracket where it may have that effect, but that is where penalties and policing come into it.

[i30niko]

Just one thing about the "speed kills" bullshit: if it was true, Germany would be one VERY empty place...


The problem here is lack of driver education. Having obtained my licence in Europe, it was, and still is astonishing for me that anyone with a full licence can go and "teach" someone to drive, err steer the car. THAT is the biggest problem in Oz. Top that with driving "instructors" admitting openly that they only teach the student to pass the test on the known circuit and we have the disaster currently on the roads.


Everything else derives from these two facts of aussie motoring life.


While Dave is quite right about the the harder an object is hit, the bigger the hurt, an educated driver would have the foundation to realise that even the low speed limits we have  may be too much for the given condition, or on the other hand a perfectly maintained dual line each way road with no junctions could be travelled 20 to 30 km over the posted limit in ideal weather is safe to do, except for the strategically placed speed cameras... The list goes on.


Another claim for the bullshit list is the stopping distances. The ads with "extra 5 kmh causes this and that". So many factors influence breaking distances with modern cars that generalising like they do is simply idiocy. A Lambo will stop much quicker compared to a Corolla from the same speed. If you have your car full with people, will take longer to stop again...


Oh well, feel better now to get this off my chest 


Anyway, good to see that someone other than Skaife is starting to push another barrow, in the right direction. If only they would do something about driver education...

Totally agree - Some of the Learners here and P platers have no idea how to drive.....ALso I have been surprised how a lot of people coming from overseas (generally from less developed countries) can get license in australia so quick just by having License in the country they came from!

I Remember when I arrived in Australia back in 2002 (I was only 12) and my mum did not have to give ANY KIND of driving test. She just walked into the Transport department showed her license and immediately received the Australian License. For the first year or so she drove on the wrong side of the road (coming from Europe) in more than one occasion.

And as you said - You get instructors getting paid a BIG some of money to let their students 'pass' on the first go!

European countries such as Germany are actually increasing speed limits and have found the there are LESS accidents on the roads.

Not to mention the drivers that drive on the RIGHT lane of the road doing 70km on an 80km zone when there is clearly signs saying KEEP LEFT UNLESS OVERTAKING. A lot of truck drivers are beginning to do that now, driving next to each other below the limit blocking 2 or sometimes 3 lanes.

In Australia traffic does not 'flow' for those many reasons. Frustration kicks in and the system has found out a way to exploit them (Speed cameras etc). They are not designed for our safety at all.

Australia is again years behind in any real innovation on our transportation system.

It is all about money making.....

[FatBoy]

Not to mention the drivers that drive on the RIGHT lane of the road doing 70km on an 80km zone when there is clearly signs saying KEEP LEFT UNLESS OVERTAKING. A lot of truck drivers are beginning to do that now, driving next to each other below the limit blocking 2 or sometimes 3 lanes.

Remember though, if the speed limit is 80km/h or less, and there ISN'T a sign saying KEEP LEFT UNLESS OVERTAKING, then you can drive in any lane.

In Tassie, I think that for most cars, indicators are an optional extra, and Tasmanians didn't take the option. Nor do they understand the concept of "merging".

[Dazzler]

In Tassie, I think that for most cars, indicators are an optional extra, and Tasmanians didn't take the option. Nor do they understand the concept of "merging".

  Gee that is a bit harsh Jamie... Even if it is true 

[FatBoy]

In Tassie, I think that for most cars, indicators are an optional extra, and Tasmanians didn't take the option. Nor do they understand the concept of "merging".

  Gee that is a bit harsh Jamie... Even if it is true 

I said "most", that excludes i30, i30cw, Terracan and Camry Hybrid drivers who frequent the best car forum on the net. 

[Dazzler]

  I thought you had seen me driving 

[csirac2]

I'm no civil engineer, but I am vaguely aware that there are many different methods of picking speed limits for roads. One that I've read about that seems to have a lot of good science behind it, is something called "rational speed limits" or 85th-percentile speed.

It's an evidence-based approach which uses observed behaviour and speeds on a piece of road which is actually in use. Analytical/modeling approaches are prone to giving answers that engineers wanted in the first place (garbage in, garbage out)...

So the traffic is monitored along a segment of road, and the 85th percentile (that is, the speed which 85% of cars did not exceed) becomes the new speed limit (there might be more to it perhaps, I can't recall). The assumption is that by picking a speed that most drivers are comfortable with, traffic will flow better and be more safe because the variance in speeds is reduced (less overtaking, lane changing, erratic behaviour, etc).

[rustynutz]

Newer cars are inherently safer. I'd rather do 120 km/h in a new Commodore than in a 1981 Toyota Corona, regardless of whether it is capable or not. Dynamically, newer cars are safer.

Geez, Dave...a 1981 Corona? That's not old, that's ancient, I was thinking maybe a 10 year old car, not a 30 year old sh*t heap.... 

As for not having to do a posted speed limit, I take your point Rusty, but in Australia we know that most people travel at up to 10 km/h faster than the posted speed limit as a norm. If the speed limit is 90 km/h, the majority of cars will do 91-100, a few will do less and a few will do more.

Actually, once upon a time I would've agreed with you but on my recent road trip I noticed the vast majority of drivers drove at or slightly below the posted limits....except of course through roadworks, where I was the only one that seemed to slow anywhere near the speed limit... 

[rustynutz]

I'm no civil engineer, but I am vaguely aware that there are many different methods of picking speed limits for roads. One that I've read about that seems to have a lot of good science behind it, is something called "rational speed limits" or 85th-percentile speed.

It's an evidence-based approach which uses observed behaviour and speeds on a piece of road which is actually in use. Analytical/modeling approaches are prone to giving answers that engineers wanted in the first place (garbage in, garbage out)...

So the traffic is monitored along a segment of road, and the 85th percentile (that is, the speed which 85% of cars did not exceed) becomes the new speed limit (there might be more to it perhaps, I can't recall). The assumption is that by picking a speed that most drivers are comfortable with, traffic will flow better and be more safe because the variance in speeds is reduced (less overtaking, lane changing, erratic behaviour, etc).

Our Safetycrats know all about this 85th Percentile but choose to ignore it when setting our speed limits.....

I guess there's less money to be made by setting speeds using that method....

[Doggie 1]

Actually, once upon a time I would've agreed with you but on my recent road trip I noticed the vast majority of drivers drove at or slightly below the posted limits....except of course through roadworks, where I was the only one that seemed to slow anywhere near the speed limit... 

Gee, speed cameras must be working then. 

[rustynutz]

They must be, but funnily enough drivers are still being killed......

[csirac2]

You're over-estimating the state governments. I'm pretty sure they could figure out a way to make a loss operating speed cameras...

[rustynutz]

That was in response to what? 

[csirac2]

People automatically assume speed cameras turn a massive profit for the government. I've yet to see any numbers on this.

[Hati]

People automatically assume speed cameras turn a massive profit for the government. I've yet to see any numbers on this.

In the Perth media (Tv and radio) they often quote figures generated by speed cameras. Usually in the millions. Keep your ears peeled and you may catch that bit of info too 


The ONLY time a speed camera is not a currency printer is when its presence is clearly posted before the device. Bit like police presence on the roads. Nobody speeds around a marked police car.

[rustynutz]

Not sure about the budget in Canberra but here in Victoria the Government has budgeted for $662.5 million in total fines, including $306 million from road-safety cameras, in 2012-13.

I'd say that was a massive profit....

[Doggie 1]

As previously stated, all revenue from speed cameras in W.A. goes straight into road safety, not consolidated revenue.
We will soon have point-to-point cameras to contend with too which average your speed over set distances. That'll be fun. 

[rustynutz]

Regardless of where the revenue ends up, it's still a massive profit!