Campaign Against Road Ripoffs

[Graeme H]

It's debatable about speed cameras not working, I can only really talk about QLD, but one of the first in Brisbane was on the Southern side of the Story bridge, I once went through there at 70 K/ph and got passed by everything, including a Semi who would have been doing close to 100, it was I think the very first speed camera in Qld, probably about 20 years ago, practically no one speeds there anymore.
The big problem is some just don't care, we had a case here of a disqualified driver going before the Magistrate for the 9th time for unlicensed driving, also Drink Driving for the 9th time, only got 6 months, fully suspended after 2 weeks, had a history of 26 accidents, 3 of the offences were with in a 3 week periods so if you want him I will track him down and send him to you.
One of the letters to the Editor about this case suggest they should ban him for life, yeah that's gonna work.

So until you find a solution to a better driving standard, it's the only way we can really go

Germany still has unlimited speed limits, but there is movement against it
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/m ... peed-limit

Having driven in Germany quite a few times, I can tell you, there is no relaxing looking at the scenery there when you are on the Autobahn, exciting for about the first hour, bit after about 4 you want to get off.

and to bring it up to the big problem of the present
One of those Volkswagon Ads, No Comment

https://www.youtube.com/embed/JHixeIr_6 ... d_policy=3

[_BlackHawk_]

It still makes no sense to continue to do something that is ineffective because you can't think of anything better, unless there is an ulterior motive to what you're doing ie; milking more money from motorists.

That VW ad is actually quite good, unlike the 'wipe off 5 adverts' out here that are laughably flawed.

[_BlackHawk_]

An interesting study that indicates talking on a mobile phone does not increase your risk of an accident. Note, this is talking, not texting, watching a movie or surfing the internet.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 124058.htm

I'm sure that the laws surrounding mobile phone use in cars is draconian and designed in an attempt to make more honest drivers criminals. You can see it in the wording of the law as it's deemed illegal to use "any other function on a mobile phone". So I could be fined when I'm stationary at a red light and pick up my phone to look at the time (as I don't have a clock on my radio/cd player) to see if it's a school time, even though there is no risk of me causing an accident. P plate drivers being targeted is also wrong. They can't even use a phone hands free. There is no difference to talking to your passengers and talking to someone on the phone and besides which, it's a virtually unenforceable law because you'd have to be right along side the target car and their windows must be down for any cop to to able to identify a P plate driver talking on a hands free device, otherwise you could just be singing along to the radio!

[Night-Raptor]

I'll tell that to the next person I have to cut out of car they've wrapped around a tree while talking or texting shall I Brad? That the laws are in place to prevent this are Sorry Brad, the moment you describe a law which effectively reduces both the road toll and the number of people I have to extract from wrecked cars "Draconian" - you lose me. I'm not even going to get started on how often I've seen phones as the cause of accidents.

[_BlackHawk_]

What I'm doing is trying to cut through the rubbish that we are constantly bombarded with by police and government as while I'm sure there is a bit of truth in what's being said, I'm also sure it's being hyped up. Mobile phone use is targeted as it's a way to raise revenue, however, data suggests that it's not a major contributing factor to casualty accidents (using this as the 'road toll' is the buzzwords that harsher fines are sold to the public on). The MUARC conducted research of fatality accidents in Vic and NSW between 2000 and 2011 (a decade when mobile phones exploded) and found they were a contributing factor in just 0.9% of crashes. That's the same as changing a CD and less of a factor than passenger interaction (3.2%) and having an animal or insect inside the car (1.4%).

I also found figures for the TAC in NSW for the same period and again, despite probably almost all drivers owning a phone, out of the 50,000 accidents each year only around 50 were attributed to illegal hand held mobile phone use. That's 0.1%. 7 deaths were linked to the illegal use of mobile phones in that period (2000-2011).

Now, clearly, lots of people still use their phone while driving. You just have to drive around in peak hour to see it. So why has there not been a correlation in accidents and deaths directly linked to mobile phone use? Instead, road tolls and accidents have declined.

To bring this back to the original point of the thread, remember we're told how lethal using a phone is while driving, much like how lethal we are told doing just 5kph over the speed limit is. The police and government are targeting the wrong things if they are truly interested in road safety. It's virtually certain they concentrate on such things in order to produce more opportunities to fine people.

I've said it before and I will say it again. The biggest causes of accidents and fatalities on our roads are; alcohol, fatigue and inexperience.

[Night-Raptor]

You left out speed.

[_BlackHawk_]

You left out speed.

Speed doesn't kill. There is no known speed at which the human body fails to function. "Speed kills" is a simplistic catch phrase used in the propaganda that police engage in. Don't be sucked in by it. Doing inappropriate speeds for the conditions you are driving in causes accidents and fatalities. You need not be going over the posted limit to be doing an inappropriate speed for conditions either. You see if police said that it would destroy everything they have ever said about speeding being a killer on our roads.

Not even the police believe their own propaganda. In a survey conducted by the Herald Sun, out of 3459 Victorian police, only 207, or 6% strongly agreed that speed and red light cameras help save lives. 70% believed they are more about revenue raising than road safety.

[Night-Raptor]

I'm sorry Brad - are you genuinely claiming that speed is not a contributing factor,. a major one, to road accident \ trauma? Of course there is no speed at which the human body stops functioning - its the sudden stop. and the more sudden the stop - the more damage done.

Seriously - if you are claiming that speed is not a contributing factor to accidents, and that the damage caused to the human body in those accidents - then you've totally lost me. And the plot.

[_BlackHawk_]

I'm saying that inappropriate speed for the conditions you are driving in, contributes to accidents. However, there is ALWAYS an reason why a person is going the speed they are when they have an accident. That is the reason for the accident, not the velocity of the vehicle. That reason could be; they were drunk, they were fatigued or fell asleep, they were distracted, they were inexperienced, they made an error or it could even be as simple as being an idiot. You don't have to be in excess of the speed limit either, to be doing an inappropriate speed.

The reasons why people are doing inappropriate speeds should be what police target. Simply putting more speed cameras on the road and saying 'speed kills' does nothing at all to address the reasons why people have accidents. Not a damn thing.

[Night-Raptor]

I'm just biting my tongue......