From: the fonz on
On Jun 19, 7:30 pm, D Walford <dwalf...(a)> wrote:

> The problem with that is speed is only one factor in the cause of
> crashes, you can exceed the speed limit safely by a big margin in some
> circumstances but driving at the speed limit can be dangerous in others.
> I don't know if there are any published figures but I'd be amazed if a
> lot of fatalities aren't occurring at or below the speed limit.

of course crashes occur for a range of reasons. but as long as speed
is a significant factor, and i have no doubt it is, then that's
justification for enforcing it.

> High speed crashes which result in fatalities make the TV news but they
> aren't the whole problem, if we somehow eliminated that type of crash
> involving young drivers, powerful cars and excessive speed we would
> still have many fatalities.

we'd have a lot less though, which is really the point

> The heavy enforcement seems to be failing because the numbers of those
> types of crashes is increasing, if targeted enforcement was working then
> they would be reducing.

again, if you look at the figures i provided, you can see that
fatalities have been falling. you will always get fluctuations, such
as when the economy lifts (people drive more) or a carload of
teenagers decides to drive at high speed into a tree.

> I don't think its possible to completely eliminate the idiot factor but
> education would at least show these people what the likely result of
> their idiocy might be so they might be less inclined to behave like idiots.

i agree. i think we should be stricter about this. we already do it
with drink drivers. if you're caught hooning or guilty of any other
serious offence, drivers should be put through education. but a lot of
people have proposed education as an alternative to enforcement -
sometimes for dubious (self interested) reasons, which i disagree
with. it should be in addition.
From: the fonz on
On Jun 20, 9:12 am, st3ph3nm <s...(a)> wrote:

> Yes, the news. The news is always going to sensationalise these big
> accidents.  Sad as they are, they're relatively uncommon compared to,
> say, collisions on country roads caused by fatigue (either head ons or
> single vehicles leaving the road).

there are still more deaths in low than high speed zones, although the
latter are over-represented as most traffic is in urban low speed
areas. i don't agree p-platers wiping themselves out on urban roads is
uncommon - i think it's sadly all too common.

> So why are we getting so hung up on 5kph infringements that
> specifically target the mum in her camry, rather than stupid behaviour
> aimed at the son?  Oh yeah, that'd be because it's more profitable to
> put a camera beside the road to the shops, than put more cops on the
> road.  And it's politically dangerous to make driver training,
> licencing and testing more stringent.

i agree 100%. we should make licensing harder. and you're right,
cameras are cost effective. but people say that as if it's laziness on
the part of govt not to put double the police on the roads. who would
pay for that though? the same people who complain about pollies
lifting taxes are the ones who demand more cops.

cameras are a clever idea and this comes from some one who used to
hate them with a passion. tax needs to be collected one way or
another, so it may as well be taken from people doing the wrong thing.
i just don't speed anymore, so i don't pay it. yet drive along
Alexandra Pde in Fitzroy with its barrage of cameras and you're almost
guaranteed to see one or two idiots set them off as they try to beat
the lights.

thanks guys, keep it up. i don't see a great need to sympathise with
those people. if someone can't stop themselves from setting the
cameras off in that situation - everyone knows they're there - then
i'd question their ability to drive.

the key point is whether it's those people who represent a higher
risk. i reckon they do. it's usually that guy who just has to get
ahead, who wants to speed up, cut you off then turn left in front you,
who inevitably gets caught by cameras. i don't have much sympathy.
From: Mr.T on

"D Walford" <dwalford(a)> wrote in message
> > The sad thing is that there was a road safety campaign decades ago that
> > "Courtesy is catching".
> > Unfortunately it never caught on!
> And sadly morons who tailgate for any reason are the worst offenders.

No, morons who believe they are never to blame are the worst offenders.

> > IF it did we may have been able to have road behaviour like Germany.
> Possibly but we also need Police willing to enforce all the rules and
> not just those relating to speed.



From: Mr.T on

"John_H" <john4721(a)> wrote in message
> Take out the road ragers first and then worry about the less than
> perfect drivers. :)

You attack BOTH parts of a problem if you really want to solve it.


From: Mr.T on

"atec7 7" <""atec77\"@"> wrote in message
> I find most tailgaters are young and over estimate the reflex time
> they leave braking hard in the ftruck usually generates a cure

I'm sure the crash repairers are happy with you, but you have no sympathy
from me for any inconvenience it causes to you in the process.
Simply ignoring them until you can safely let them past works just as well.