[rustynutz]

Another option, if you prefer, is to PM me your email address and I can send it to you....of course you'll still need adobe reader to be able to read it.
Cheers  

i've tried twice now, it won't give it to me.

Try this link, Snowy........

 

[Surferdude]

BTW, I'm not sure how we got to be arguing the state of the road toll in NSW...

The reason I posted the file was to point out how figures get "fudged" by our Bureaucrats....As in, what they tell you isn't necessarily true...

i think it all started at reply #1 russ. 

Yeah. Russ posted the links to documentation to reinforce his arguments. I responded with an argument (suggestion ) that they were a little one-sided.
No problem with Russ. I like his style and his posts generate thought processes and responses which is what forums are all about, aren't they.
I love a good passionate debate.
Don't lets stop now. 

[rustynutz]

I'm glad someone appreciates the stuff I come out with at times...

Trev, just getting back to that file for a moment, did you finish reading it?

[Surferdude]

I'm glad someone appreciates the stuff I come out with at times...

Trev, just getting back to that file for a moment, did you finish reading it?

Not yet. Got a water tank coming. Grocery shopping today. A wall to paint where the tank is going under the eaves.
Oh! And the surf was up this morning.

But I will.

[rustynutz]

lol, no worries. Got some other stuff I'd be interested in getting your thoughts on too, sometime....

Water tank, hey....I used to build those things many moons ago, concrete ones though, I assume yours is plastic?

[Surferdude]

lol, no worries. Got some other stuff I'd be interested in getting your thoughts on too, sometime....

Water tank, hey....I used to build those things many moons ago, concrete ones though, I assume yours is plastic?

Yep. EGR 3000 Slimline.
Due tomorrow morning.

[Surferdude]

OK. Here's my take on the report. There's a lot to read here. The bold stuff is a quote. My comment follows in normal type. Unless you've read at least some of the original report (fro contextual purposes) this probably will be of no interest to you.

How Road Authorities Classify The Causes Of Road Trauma

Despite the ongoing use of such strategies, our road toll has been in a virtual stasis since 1997.
Updating to 2008 shows the trend has continued to improve.

It would seem that the potential of such strategies for the reduction of road trauma has reached its maximum. More of the same is not producing results.
As above, they are.

Drivers don’t crash as soon as they exceed a speed limit or ought to have been going a bit slower
This statement, whilst true, is a classic case of taking something out of context. The other thing that should be considered with it is whether or not, whatever caused them to crash when they did, could have been negated if they were travelling at a slower speed.

Crashes that do not meet these criteria are considered to be minor in nature and are not routinely investigated. Immediately, a valuable opportunity to discover the reasons for these crashes is lost under the above criteria because in “minor” crashes, both drivers and passengers could be easily interviewed. By interviewing drivers and witnesses involved in minor crashes, it would be relatively easy to discover what drivers were doing prior to their crash.
But these aren’t going to help us prevent the death causing accidents. Maybe if we had 5 times the police we could investigate them.

There is no magic fixed speed or inherent margin of increased speed above a prevailing speed limit that will cause a crash
True. BUT. And it’s a big BUT. Travelling slower gives you more time to see what’s going on around you and more time to react in a dangerous situation.

In these instructions, there is no mention of the need to discover why a crash happens. The instructions listed do not represent an investigation of cause but rather a simple process of recording observable information, the explanations given by drivers and ensuring that certain functions are carried out, such as breath testing and taking action against the driver deemed responsible. The key point to note about the routine police notebook documentation of crash.
I believe this is as it should be. The roads are closed long enough anyway after a fatal. The Traffic Accident Appreciation Squad is there for that reason and can take away all the collated information and assess it at length.

There is a section about the % of alcohol related crashes and whether or not the reported figures are accurate. I think they talk about 24% versus 19% (rounded). Who cares? That’s still pretty much one in five. Certainly an amount worth targeting for reduction.
Next he reports the figures of alcohol in injury (not fatal) crashes and it is considerably less but he focuses on the inaccuracy between two reported figures rather than the fact that alcohol is a factor in about one fifth as many injury crashes versus fatals. Surely that’s a significant fact worth pursuing?


It is very rare that you can say people were killed exactly because they were going fast. They were not killed because they were going fast; they were killed because they stopped suddenly and people cannot stop suddenly and live… …That is why it is not just about speed and fatigue. …While it is fair to say that one in three people were unbelted, two in three were belted but still died.
As referenced above, if you are driving more slowly when you crash, there will be less g-forces to contend with. And of those who were belted but still died, how much faster were they going than the ones who didn’t? I really think this is about reducing the risk of death or serious injury when human beings make human mistakes or bad judgements. II drove home from Toowoomba early one morning (about 3 am) to Brisbane after a rally and as I pulled into my driveway, realised I could only remember two sections of the drive. Going through Gatton and going over the Minden range. I realised I had been driving on auto pilot, seriously fatigued and there is no doubt in my mind I was unbelievably lucky not to have become a statistic that night. Ever since, if I get drowsy, I pull up.


It should be stressed at this point that the RTA clearly state that their criteria simply indicate whether “Speeding is considered to have been a contributing factor to a road crash”. The speed of a vehicle prior to impact is a factor to be considered in every crash. What crash investigators must do is to establish the speed at which a vehicle was travelling when reaching the possible point of perception of the hazard or circumstance that led to the crash. The investigator should then determine the range of possible alternatives that were available to the driver and what would have been possible at the stated speed, both from the earliest possible point of perception of the hazard and then from evidence of where the driver involved has reacted. There is of course in reality much more to consider in this process but the salient point here is that these types of investigation are quite complex and often prove inconclusive from a causal perspective, particularly in the case of fatalities. What often becomes apparent to an investigator is the lack of a clear reason for why an impact occurred, despite having information that indicates how the crash happened. The fact that a crash involved a significant impact does not automatically mean that the impact was caused by the speed of the vehicle
IMO everything in this paragraph supports the need to drive within the speed limit. It may not save you but it surely increases the odds in your favour.

Speeding is defined as travelling at a speed greater than that specified by the speed limit. However, speeding can also involve travelling too fast for the prevailing conditions, despite travelling under the posted speed limit. Such a definition makes it exceptionally easy to implicate “speed” as a factor in any crash, particularly when manipulating data in TADS
Again, the sort of thing which the TAAS would evaluate later. They have access to prevailing weather conditions from the BOM which will indicate rain, high wind, ice, snow etc to consider in relation to the on site reports and photos/video. Not something the on-site cops should be trying to second guess.

‘if the driver had been going slower, then the crash could have been avoided’. Such a statement could of course have relevance in almost every crash
Exactly what I’ve been saying but he uses this statement to argue something entirely different.

If we were to pursue the “slow down” argument to save lives to its logical end, we should abandon cars and all get around in a horse and buggy. This would most definitely result in a dramatic drop in road deaths.
Puuleease!

An “overuse” or harshness of braking and/or steering (typical in a panicked response where a driver’s concentration was lacking) can result in skidding, sliding and loss of control and more often results from driver inattention, inability and failure to respond in time to a hazard, rather than simply from speeding.
He’s overusing his argument and the more he uses it, the more he (IMO) makes a case for enforcing the speed limit. However, I do agree with better driver education. If it were up to me I’d have much more strict driver testing and periodical re-evaluations. As a result there’d be a significant number less drivers on the road which would reduce the costs associated with the road toll, reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and seriously damage the automotive industry (sales and repair) in this country. Not exactly results which can live in harmony.

OK. That’s enough.
I’m up to page 9 of 14. Not going any futher.

Trev

[2i30s]

BTW, I'm not sure how we got to be arguing the state of the road toll in NSW...

The reason I posted the file was to point out how figures get "fudged" by our Bureaucrats....As in, what they tell you isn't necessarily true...

i think it all started at reply #1 Russ. 

Yeah. Russ posted the links to documentation to reinforce his arguments. I responded with an argument (suggestion ) that they were a little one-sided.
No problem with Russ. I like his style and his posts generate thought processes and responses which is what forums are all about, aren't they.
I love a good passionate debate.
Don't lets stop now. 

i was just making an observation guys,not taking sides. everyone has a rite to speak their mind and have an opinion. 

[Ozbrum]

All this begs the question of our future drivers and our future road toll ..... It was said many years ago now that after the introduction of standard 'ABS breaking' and a 'drivers airbag' on the most popular of Aussie cars that when a driver was aware he/she was driving a car with such technical features their driving attitude changed to suit the vehicles they were driving ... they drove more carelessly or with a feeling of extreme and perhaps misguided safety.

From sometime next year in Aus: all new passenger vehicles sold here will have to have the full box & dice of safety gear on new cars sold, this may be the standard now in other country's  but I don't know.

My point being and I'm all in favour of the full safety package in every car (why should just the rich people survive?) BUT and it is a big but ... We'll create a new set a new breed if you like of drivers that will drive accordingly and feel they are invincible and only consider their survival chances and bugger everyone else .... Motorbikes and older cars ...... here we come 


 

[rustynutz]

It's late I know, Trev, but from having a quick read of your post, it comes across to me that you've basically just attempted to discredit everything he said...

Maybe I might see it differently in the cold light of day..... :-\

Just a couple of things I'll make mention of though....

Despite the ongoing use of such strategies, our road toll has been in a virtual stasis since 1997.
Updating to 2008 shows the trend has continued to improve.

It only continued to improve after 2003, so surely you need to look at what changed at that point? Like I made mention elsewhere, perhaps it's because there have been huge increases in car safety with many new cars achieving a 5 star rating and coming with such features as airbags, abs & esp?

It would seem that the potential of such strategies for the reduction of road trauma has reached its maximum. More of the same is not producing results.
As above, they are.

Seems you're assuming that the very same stategies that had plateaued for seven years had, for some unknown reason started to make a difference again. Logic would surely suggest that it may have been something else?



Anyhow, that's enough for now....I'll take a fresh look tomorrow...
Cheers 

[Surferdude]

It's late I know, Trev, but from having a quick read of your post, it comes across to me that you've basically just attempted to discredit everything he said... Sorry if it seemed like that. The point I was making (and belabouring, perhaps) was that all the facts and figures he was quoting to back up his argument (that speed and alcohol in particular ren't as big an issue as we have been led to believe) can be interpreted in the opposite way ie. to prove they are. I also took exception to his suggestion that the police at the accident scene don't do enough/ aren't trained well enough to allocate why the accident occured when in fact they aren't asked to do that. In serious accident, follow up investigation is required - and delivered.

Maybe I might see it differently in the cold light of day..... :-\

Just a couple of things I'll make mention of though....

Despite the ongoing use of such strategies, our road toll has been in a virtual stasis since 1997.
Updating to 2008 shows the trend has continued to improve.

It only continued to improve after 2003, so surely you need to look at what changed at that point? Like I made mention elsewhere, perhaps it's because there have been huge increases in car safety with many new cars achieving a 5 star rating and coming with such features as airbags, abs & esp? I agree that's a whole other topic and well worth some exploration on here for the benefit of all members and their families

It would seem that the potential of such strategies for the reduction of road trauma has reached its maximum. More of the same is not producing results.
As above, they are.

Seems you're assuming that the very same stategies that had plateaued for seven years had, for some unknown reason started to make a difference again. Logic would surely suggest that it may have been something else? Actually I have long held a theory on the variations in the road toll figures. Briefly it hinges around randomness and sheer bad luck. I quoted an example of my own personal luck above and can recall many more where I have simply been only a few centimetres away from becoming a statistic. I believe in the measures we are taking to manage road toll figures but just because we have a "bad" result in one holiday period doesn't mean they aren't working.



Anyhow, that's enough for now....I'll take a fresh look tomorrow...
Cheers 

[snowcherry]

Another option, if you prefer, is to PM me your email address and I can send it to you....of course you'll still need adobe reader to be able to read it.
Cheers  

i've tried twice now, it won't give it to me.

Try this link, Snowy........

 

"sorry, this type of document is not supported for viewing"

[rustynutz]

Hmmm...you must be the only one without Adobe Reader on your computer, snow...
It can be easily downloaded, but a better option for you may be THIS, it works just as well and is much smaller to download...

Cheers 

[rustynutz]

Ok, bear with me while I finish responding to Trev's comments.....

Crashes that do not meet these criteria are considered to be minor in nature and are not routinely investigated. Immediately, a valuable opportunity to discover the reasons for these crashes is lost under the above criteria because in “minor” crashes, both drivers and passengers could be easily interviewed. By interviewing drivers and witnesses involved in minor crashes, it would be relatively easy to discover what drivers were doing prior to their crash.
But these aren’t going to help us prevent the death causing accidents. Maybe if we had 5 times the police we could investigate them.

How could you possibly know that? A spate of minor accidents on a particular section of road could point to an issue that may very well result in a death down the track.

There is a section about the % of alcohol related crashes and whether or not the reported figures are accurate. I think they talk about 24% versus 19% (rounded). Who cares? That’s still pretty much one in five. Certainly an amount worth targeting for reduction.
Next he reports the figures of alcohol in injury (not fatal) crashes and it is considerably less but he focuses on the inaccuracy between two reported figures rather than the fact that alcohol is a factor in about one fifth as many injury crashes versus fatals. Surely that’s a significant fact worth pursuing?

Your response surprised me here, Trev as you had a go at the author re

The writer uses a subtle technique here in a number of his arguments. For instance, saying that fatalities in 2003 were "under 600". Which sounds a lot worse that "just over 500" or even "537".
Sort of like price ticketing items at $19,990 Drive Away which sounds so much better tha $20,000 Drive Away. The brain only hears the first couple of figures and thinks, "Oh! $19,000 is pretty good"

Now, aren't you sort of taking the same liberty? 24% vs 19% (actually 18.6%) is a fair bit different in anyone's language.

It should be stressed at this point that the RTA clearly state that their criteria simply indicate whether “Speeding is considered to have been a contributing factor to a road crash”. The speed of a vehicle prior to impact is a factor to be considered in every crash. What crash investigators must do is to establish the speed at which a vehicle was travelling when reaching the possible point of perception of the hazard or circumstance that led to the crash. The investigator should then determine the range of possible alternatives that were available to the driver and what would have been possible at the stated speed, both from the earliest possible point of perception of the hazard and then from evidence of where the driver involved has reacted. There is of course in reality much more to consider in this process but the salient point here is that these types of investigation are quite complex and often prove inconclusive from a causal perspective, particularly in the case of fatalities. What often becomes apparent to an investigator is the lack of a clear reason for why an impact occurred, despite having information that indicates how the crash happened. The fact that a crash involved a significant impact does not automatically mean that the impact was caused by the speed of the vehicle
IMO everything in this paragraph supports the need to drive within the speed limit. It may not save you but it surely increases the odds in your favour.

Looks like you've fallen for the safetycrat dribble like so many others..Our "speed limit" is not some "magical figure that, if never exceeded somehow increases the odds in our favour.

BTW, the 85th Percentile is the generally accepted method for setting "safe" speed limits world wide yet our safetycrats ignore this proven method and set ours at what is usually well below what they should be.

If we were to pursue the “slow down” argument to save lives to its logical end, we should abandon cars and all get around in a horse and buggy. This would most definitely result in a dramatic drop in road deaths.
Puuleease!

Sounds like a reasonable assumption under the circumstances.

An “overuse” or harshness of braking and/or steering (typical in a panicked response where a driver’s concentration was lacking) can result in skidding, sliding and loss of control and more often results from driver inattention, inability and failure to respond in time to a hazard, rather than simply from speeding.
He’s overusing his argument and the more he uses it, the more he (IMO) makes a case for enforcing the speed limit.

Do you think much of this lack of concentration could be a result of the speed limits...speed limits that are set artificially?


Trev, while I appreciate you giving me your 2 bobs worth on this, I've really been quite surprised with some of your comments and with what would appear to be attempts to discredit the author.
This bloke was a police officer and experienced much of what he's discussed first hand. Personally, I think it's commendable that he would want to improve the gathering of information that could increase our knowledge. And surely it's in everyone's interests to have detailed and especially accurate statistics instead of some of the blatantly skewed stuff that's out there at the moment...

Cheers 

[snowcherry]

Hmmm...you must be the only one without Adobe Reader on your computer, snow...
It can be easily downloaded, but a better option for you may be THIS, it works just as well and is much smaller to download...

Cheers 

but i already use FoxIt. 

[Ozbrum]

 This thread has become Veery complicated to follow 

[Surferdude]

Ok, bear with me while I finish responding to Trev's comments.....

Crashes that do not meet these criteria are considered to be minor in nature and are not routinely investigated. Immediately, a valuable opportunity to discover the reasons for these crashes is lost under the above criteria because in “minor” crashes, both drivers and passengers could be easily interviewed. By interviewing drivers and witnesses involved in minor crashes, it would be relatively easy to discover what drivers were doing prior to their crash.
But these aren’t going to help us prevent the death causing accidents. Maybe if we had 5 times the police we could investigate them.

How could you possibly know that? A spate of minor accidents on a particular section of road could point to an issue that may very well result in a death down the track. Exactly. Hence my qualifier that we need many more police if we are to do so. Otherwise we have to concentrate our resources in the area of greatest need.

There is a section about the % of alcohol related crashes and whether or not the reported figures are accurate. I think they talk about 24% versus 19% (rounded). Who cares? That’s still pretty much one in five. Certainly an amount worth targeting for reduction.
Next he reports the figures of alcohol in injury (not fatal) crashes and it is considerably less but he focuses on the inaccuracy between two reported figures rather than the fact that alcohol is a factor in about one fifth as many injury crashes versus fatals. Surely that’s a significant fact worth pursuing?

Your response surprised me here, Trev as you had a go at the author re

The writer uses a subtle technique here in a number of his arguments. For instance, saying that fatalities in 2003 were "under 600". Which sounds a lot worse that "just over 500" or even "537".
Sort of like price ticketing items at $19,990 Drive Away which sounds so much better tha $20,000 Drive Away. The brain only hears the first couple of figures and thinks, "Oh! $19,000 is pretty good"

Now, aren't you sort of taking the same liberty? 24% vs 19% (actually 18.6%) is a fair bit different in anyone's language.I DID say 19% (rounded) And the real reason for mentioning his figures was to point out the massive difference between deaths and injury in alcohol related accidents which the author seems to have ignored

It should be stressed at this point that the RTA clearly state that their criteria simply indicate whether “Speeding is considered to have been a contributing factor to a road crash”. The speed of a vehicle prior to impact is a factor to be considered in every crash. What crash investigators must do is to establish the speed at which a vehicle was travelling when reaching the possible point of perception of the hazard or circumstance that led to the crash. The investigator should then determine the range of possible alternatives that were available to the driver and what would have been possible at the stated speed, both from the earliest possible point of perception of the hazard and then from evidence of where the driver involved has reacted. There is of course in reality much more to consider in this process but the salient point here is that these types of investigation are quite complex and often prove inconclusive from a causal perspective, particularly in the case of fatalities. What often becomes apparent to an investigator is the lack of a clear reason for why an impact occurred, despite having information that indicates how the crash happened. The fact that a crash involved a significant impact does not automatically mean that the impact was caused by the speed of the vehicle
IMO everything in this paragraph supports the need to drive within the speed limit. It may not save you but it surely increases the odds in your favour.

Looks like you've fallen for the safetycrat dribble like so many others..Our "speed limit" is not some "magical figure that, if never exceeded somehow increases the odds in our favour. Haven't really fallen for anything. I'm basing my observations and beliefs on 45 years of driving which included 20 years of driving rallies and, more importantly, about 25 years of driving commercially

BTW, the 85th Percentile is the generally accepted method for setting "safe" speed limits world wide yet our safetycrats ignore this proven method and set ours at what is usually well below what they should be.I've had a quick look at the link you provided to this. I don't think much of it's bona fides

If we were to pursue the “slow down” argument to save lives to its logical end, we should abandon cars and all get around in a horse and buggy. This would most definitely result in a dramatic drop in road deaths.
Puuleease!

Sounds like a reasonable assumption under the circumstances. Or a ridiculous overexageration for effect.

An “overuse” or harshness of braking and/or steering (typical in a panicked response where a driver’s concentration was lacking) can result in skidding, sliding and loss of control and more often results from driver inattention, inability and failure to respond in time to a hazard, rather than simply from speeding.
He’s overusing his argument and the more he uses it, the more he (IMO) makes a case for enforcing the speed limit.

Do you think much of this lack of concentration could be a result of the speed limits...speed limits that are set artificially? Actually I'm pretty happy with our speed limits nationally.


Trev, while I appreciate you giving me your 2 bobs worth on this, I've really been quite surprised with some of your comments and with what would appear to be attempts to discredit the author. As I said in an earlier post, the author is entitled to use whatever facts and figures (and rhetoric) he wants to support his case. I respect that. What I don't like is people taking such a report as gospel without a balanced view.I'm not trying to discredit the author. I'm trying to offer a perspective.
This bloke was a police officer and experienced much of what he's discussed first hand. Personally, I think it's commendable that he would want to improve the gathering of information that could increase our knowledge. And surely it's in everyone's interests to have detailed and especially accurate statistics instead of some of the blatantly skewed stuff that's out there at the moment... See. That's the crux of it. I don't believe the "blatantly skewed" bit. I DO agree we need more statistics but I don't believe what we have is "blatantly skewed"

Cheers 

[rustynutz]

Hmmm...you must be the only one without Adobe Reader on your computer, snow...
It can be easily downloaded, but a better option for you may be THIS, it works just as well and is much smaller to download...

Cheers 

but i already use FoxIt. 

Have you tried right clicking on the file and selecting "open with" foxit?

[rustynutz]

This thread has become Veery complicated to follow 

Sorry about that, Ozbrum....

[Ozbrum]

This thread has become Veery complicated to follow 

Sorry about that, Ozbrum....

No worries at all .... Cheers 

[rustynutz]

Ozbrum, were you able to download the particular file we've been discussing?

[rustynutz]

Trev, thanks for going to the trouble of responding....I think.... :-\

[Surferdude]

Trev, thanks for going to the trouble of responding....I think.... :-\

Anytime. ???

And Merry Christmas to you.

[rustynutz]

And a merry xmas to you too, Trev....

That's the crux of it. I don't believe the "blatantly skewed" bit. I DO agree we need more statistics but I don't believe what we have is "blatantly skewed"

You might wanna check out this site, Trev....

http://www.aussiemotorists.com/braking/index.htm

[Ozbrum]

Ozbrum, were you able to download the particular file we've been discussing?

No I didn't even try Rusty ..... Not that it didn't interest me but I only have so much brain capacity to absorb analytical details like that and my computer skills well  my post was more an attempt at humour rather than a whinge ... I didn't mean to be a smarty 

 

[rustynutz]

All's good, Ozbrum....
You were right though, it is complicated. Shame I didn't start a new thread for all this....

Cheers 

PS, the actual report is quite an easy read really, it's just been made to sound complicated because of all the "gobbledegook" posted here...

[rustynutz]

Hmmm...you must be the only one without Adobe Reader on your computer, snow...
It can be easily downloaded, but a better option for you may be THIS, it works just as well and is much smaller to download...

Cheers 

but i already use FoxIt. 

Have you tried right clicking on the file and selecting "open with" foxit?

Any luck, Snowy? If not I'll make an effort and copy and paste the report if you're still keen to read it...Might not be for a day or 2 though... 

[Surferdude]

All's good, Ozbrum....
You were right though, it is complicated. Shame I didn't start a new thread for all this....

Cheers 

PS, the actual report is quite an easy read really, it's just been made to sound complicated because of all the "gobbledegook" posted here...

I think YGYHOYD. 

[rustynutz]

 Feel free to spell it out, Trev....

You might wanna check out this site...

http://www.aussiemotorists.com/braking/index.htm

The variation in braking distances presented is perplexing.