The argument has a lot of validity.

When you add to the equation the low margin of error given to drivers, ie high penalties for slightly exeeding the speed limit, and the frequent changes in speed limits, we are heading to a situation of speed limits and enforcing reducing road safety as drivers are spending too much time looking for speed limit signs and monitoring their speed.

The fact that BMW withdrew from the Australian market their automatic speed limit notificaton system as it was too hard to determine the speed limit just shows the system in Australia is broken.

One point not mentioned in the article is the number of places where the only message conveyed by speed limit signs is "the people who set these limits and put up these signs are complete idiots".

The examples I have in mind are where the posted limit is actually too HIGH. For example - a 100 metre stretch of road, between a T-junction and a roundabout, with a limit of 60 (without the sign, it would be 50); for example - a tightly curved narrow climbing road - where it is hardly possible to do more than 30, with a sign increasing your limit from 50 to 60. Etc.

Good article David. This is a subject on which I hold a great deal of passion.

< Previous versions [of the National Road Safety Strategy] were largely responsible for such things as lower suburban speed limits, greater use of speed cameras, double demerit periods and school zones. The current one proposes lower speed limits, additional enforcement including point to point and in-car speed monitoring, and increased penalties.

Well… I think that the NRSS is way off-track with their approach!

Firstly, I totally disagree with school zone speed limits, implemented as a matter of course in front of every school in the country! In some instances, where a school is on a major road with an 80 or 100kmh speed limit past it, slower zones might be appropriate. But only in a few cases.

This is a terrible complication for drivers, which in my extensive driving travels around Australia, I have found just impossible to confidently deal with.

The trouble is; the school zone signs are there all the time but only apply for a couple of hours a day on certain days. So I find that the signs often don’t register, because you become conditioned to them not meaning anything the vast majority of the time.

Presumably authorities realise this and so we have big strips painted on the road, orange borders on speed limit signs, lit up speed signs and the like………… in some instances, but nothing of the sort in many others!

Sorry, but slow zones that apply for only a short period are DANGEROUS! Especially when you are required to reduce speed from 80 or 100 down to 40!!

Children around schools get put in a false sense of security that all traffic is moving slowly past them. But there is the very real chance of the occasional driver, quite inadvertently, going much faster.

continued

I also totally disagree with 50kmh limits in urban areas as the standard unless otherwise signed. This is another complication that drivers didn’t need.

We now have a complete mixture of 50 and 60kmh roads in most urban areas….. and nowhere near enough speed signs to make it clear which applies where. If you don’t see a sign in an urban area, you are supposed to assume that the speed limit is 50. But it could easily be 60 or more if you are on any road other than a minor suburban street. All other drivers around you know the speed limit, but because you have recently turned into the road and not yet encountered a sign, you don’t.

These different speed limits, plus a hopelessly inadequate amount of speed limit signage set up conflict situations, which can lead to tailgating and other risky impatient belligerent behaviour and cause road rage, and just generally be more dangerous than if we had never had 50kmh speed limits imposed upon us in built-up areas.

In short, I think that the management of road safety is really quite dismal.

And when this management regime hits you with a whopping great fine and loss of demerit points for exceeding the speed limit by a mere few kilometres an hour, regardless of whether it is perfectly safe to do so the particular conditions and circumstances, then I will yell; BLOODY SUBINTELLIGENT HYPOCRITES - you get our the management regime properly worked out, and then you might be in a position to really heavily clobber drivers who commit very minor offences!

If people drove to the determined speed limit, everybody would have a fair go. Trying to cross a road when people are not at the appropriate speed, makes judgement errors.
Most drivers seem to think 5 k's over is ok.
Responsible drivers drive to the limit.
Authorities will now take the opportunity to further lower the speed restrictions.

Australian Road Safety experts agree with their European peers who have greatly reduced the road death rate per 100,000 population in much of Europe And urban Australia needs follow and save the lives of around 800 people a year

Road traffic Injuries now pose a public health crisis that requires urgent action at at a national an international level. That is why the Director General of the WHO in 2004 said.
“ Too often, road safety is treated as a transportation issues. Not a public heath issue ... many countries spend far less effort into understanding and preventing road traffic Injuries than they do to understanding and preventing diseases that do less harm”

This view is soundly based on data from selected bicycle friendly EU countries which have the following 2010 road death rates per 100,000 population: , Sweden 3.0, Netherlands 3.7, Japan 4.3, and Germany 4.7, Denmark 4.5, Switzerland 4.5 France 6.1. Australia’s death rate is higher (6.2) . The data shows that Australia is not bicycle or pedestrian friendly country.

This why The European Parliament adopted a resolution in 2011 that “strongly recommends the `responsible authorities to introduce speed limits of 30 km/hr in all residential areas and on single lane roads in urban areas which have no separate cycle lanes “ This resolution is is part of a wide range of measures to halve Europe’s 31,000 annual road fatalities by 2020. (Kock Report 2011)
Europe is that a 30 kph limit on local roads and main roads are much safer for all non-motorised users, motorised wheelchairs and electric bicycles. It is very clear that on the basis of kilometres ridden by bicycle in the Netherlands is still safer even though no one is compelled by law to wear a bicycle helmet.

How to beat fines due to inadequate signage: http://is.gd/bad_signage . How to beat revenue-raising fines: http://t.co/oi7FLNrQ . Or how to get your money back 100 times over: http://is.gd/fine_payback .

'road death rates per 100,000 population'

Surely road death rates per 100,000 km driven is a more relevant statistic.

Why stop at 30km/h. We can have much fewer road deaths if we all drive 10Km/h.

Actually with no cars or cycles at all we could achieve zero deaths!

I will never be happy until we eliminate all risk from society.

I'm looking forward to a time when speed signs are written in bar codes, which is read by the inboard computer, which then regulates the speed in line with the speed limit, regardless of how hard the driver presses on the load pedal.
Roads are not race tracks!
Speed limits are often confusing, but are reportedly set with wet road/built up oil slick conditions, older cars and drivers, very young inexperienced drivers, and worn tyres in mind?
As a former emergency response worker, I've seen more than my share of road accidents, patently the result of overconfidence, drink/drugs or too much testosterone in inexperienced drivers.
Lets face it, the law is the law and ignorance is never considered an excuse for quite deliberately breaking it/them; and then pleading ignorance.
As a parent, I fully appreciate and applaud the slower speed zones around schools.
However, I believe these should be replaced with speed moderating curves and speed bumps; given the number of idiots, drink and drug affected drivers on the roads these days.
In a "race" between two drivers over around 200 klms, with the first exceeding all the visible speed limiting signs by around 10klms, and another, driving at 10klms under.
The slower driver arrived only around ten minutes behind the first driver, used far less fuel, less wear and tear on parts, brake pads etc, and was far less uptight than the first driver, who seemed in a hell of a hurry, to get to heaven.
It's not too big an ask, to ask drivers to leave in enough time, [10-15 minutes,] to reach their destination, without ever speeding or risking theirs and the lives of other road users, or entirely innocent children.
One cannot legislate against stupid idiots, or indeed prevent them from expressing purely subjective or absurd asinine opinions?
Rhrosty.

Some speed limits are clearly too low in a lot of conditions, but the dilemma faced by those setting the limits is that they need to come up with a general limit which lowers risk to an acceptable standard in the *worst* conditions – for example when there is heavy traffic and fog, and a mix of cars and trucks with drivers of varying skill levels – but which is still a reasonable speed of travel in good conditions. I think that all things considered the way speed limits are set in this country is pretty sensible. 40k zones in schools for instance: great idea. Do you realise how much longer it takes to do an emergency stop from 60ks than from 40, on that one occasion in your life when a kid walks out in front of you?

One thing that could improve is the ability of the police to apply discretion in situations where a driver is speeding but clearly not doing anything dangerous – and to decide not to impose a fine. In Sydney the police are usually pretty good about this (mainly I suspect because there are too few police for the amount of road users). However I suppose the sticking point here is that, given the typical level of education of the average police officer, the concept of their being trusted to apply discretion doesn’t really hold water.

Meanwhile, what speeding drivers need to realise is that they are making the road more dangerous for everyone else, because unless you keep your gaze glued to the rearview mirror (difficult when you’re going forwards) there is a tendency for speeding cars to suddenly end up in places where you don’t expect them to be. Just because 38% of drivers admit to speeding doesn’t mean they don’t realise it’s wrong. Driving too fast is just dumb, infantile, and narcissistic. Why should the convenience of those sorts of people be the determinant of something as important as road safety?

Something tells me you’re not going to get very far with this…

When we go to school we learn basic skills like reading writing and maths, because we need them to maintain a living standard and to participate in society.

We also need to learn to drive, and to use the roads, but virtually nothing is done about this.

The quaint idea that imposing punishments for infringement of arbitrary rules makes the roads safer is bolstered by “statistics”.

If I were put in charge of producing the nonsense that is presented as statistics, I could produce a far different picture; one which presented the true situation.

Driving on a clear day down a good stretch of road at the speed limit reminds one that the limits are set by public servants sitting in an office, with no idea of the circumstances which will prevail at the time and circumstances of your driving.

You are the best judge of the appropriate speed, in the prevailing conditions, and if you had received appropriate education you would have an appreciation of the manner in which your actions affect other road users.

The only people active in pressing for road rules are the people in organisations, and individuals, pushing for restrictions on motorists.

The NRMA should represent motorists, as that is basic to its formation, but it does not. I remember when it backed the AGW fraud by acting against its own members interests on “environmental” grounds. There is no competing body of which I am aware, so I am still a member.

The fines and point system are a travesty, but they do not seem to have reached the tipping point where people are forced to rebel. They are nevertheless the cause of continual unjustifiable injustice and tragedy.

There are many issues with regards to speed limits.

Firstly, I can buy an old car, register it and do 110 on the highway, yet be just as legal as the modern day car. That's ridiculous!

Secondly, if authorities policed slow drivers, especially in The righ lane,fewer accidents would happen, due from frustration.

Then there is the issue of slow limits.

It's my understanding, that to be booked for going too slow in the 100 zone (QLD), the low limit is 17 KM per hour.

This limit was originally set to deter ag vehicles.

Th ethe thing tha puzzles me is the numbe of radars/cameras YOU DON'T SEE. 40 zones, where 60 in a 40 zone is like doing 150 in 100 zone. And the authorities say they are not revenue raising.

Finally, speed cameras.

Reason the don't have them at roadworks, is because the sites have to firs be approved, which, by the time that happens, the RW are generally completed.

BTW, if all police vehicles traveled with their lights flashing, this would be the best deterrent available, but then the revenues would fall.

Ps, there should be a law that keeps slow drivers, say under 80% of the limit off the roads during peak hours. Trucks excluded.

...I agree 100% with Rhosty who opines the lack of technology available to a driver, which would alert them to a change in road speeds indicated by out-dated dinosaur signage.

...In an era of advanced automotive technology which gives the motorist such applications as satellite navigation; cruise control; hands-free telephone communication; reversing cameras: self-cleaning water repelling, glare-free windshield glass; High technology suspension and sophisticated computerised engine control and more, the motorist remains saddled with “plonker”, antiquated and unforgiving speed restriction signage.

...How simple would be a technology which communicates directly from the speed restriction sign to a computerised receiver in a vehicle, which alarms the motorist to variations in speed limits?

Come on Rehctub, that is garbage, & you know it. My main car is a 35 years old sports car, & it is a damn sight safer than these box on wheels, front drive, new white goods cars, most are driving today.

More than that, in the 60s I regularly drove one of those type of old cars, on cross ply tyres, on narrow tree lined roads, averaging over 80 MPH, [something over 130Km/H] which was legal in those days.

I & most of my acquaintances regularly did this between Sydney, & both Melbourne & Brisbane, in about 9 hours. Guess what! We didn't have accidents either. With our mindless speed limits today, I'm much more likely to fall asleep through boredom, & run off the road.

Cunningham's gap is a prime example of bureaucratic stupidity. Where once we cruised up it at 100Km/H, comfortable in 5Th gear, they reduced the limit to 70, then 60. Now we grind our way up it in third, at these ridiculously low speeds, or have our auto hunting from second to top & back again, wasting heaps of fuel.

The local RACQ bloke tells me he is towing many more cars out of the scrub these days, & more trucks are having brake faioure, overheating, trying to go so slow for so long.

Houellebecq, that's simple, stay home! But don't order home delivery, as that endangers lives of others.

Rhrosty and Sam, if your theory were correct, the liability of accidents would not be altered, meaning, the conditions and other contributing factors would not be taken into account to determine who is at fault and at what percentage.

You see when there is a serious accident,resulting in death, the coroner takes all contributing factors into account, condition of vehicles, road conditions, etc etc, as you can be found part to blame if you are doing the speed limit on a rainy day for instance.

As for limiting vehicle speeds, this has been considered before, however, one often needs a burst of speed to avoid an accident, which is not possible with a limiter, this is why it wasn't adopted.

Leo Lane, governments, rather than doing something positive, have introduced this crazy 100 hour thing, whereby many of our non qualified instructors are now grand parents, as it is usually they who have the time to spare.

As for training, all video games that have a steering wheel should be banned, as they give useres, mainly kids, faulse confidence.

The solution to the 100 hour fiasco is ten one hour lessons, with a qualified instructor, the. You have a hex style debt to pay back.

What government forget is that for a learner to do 100 hours, a licensed driver has to be available, often for more hours due to one way trips.

Utter craziness!

Has been, I hear you, but you look after your sports car and, a 71 model XA ford sedan/wagon, in poor condition with a dodgy road worthy is no sports car and this is more the example I was referring to.

Simp,y because it is registered, it is allowed to be driven at max speed limits and that's crazy.

I have had three 911's, the oldest being a 74 model. It would still out perform and out run any modern day V8, but it was well maintained.

As for your past driving, I was there myself and know exactly what you mean. 160 to 220 K was not unusual, but I never have had an accident, but I did learn to drive in a bomb in the forestry, that needed to be driven, not a modern day, drive it's self car that most learn in today.

We learned how to handle a car that was out of control, whereas most young ones today have no idea what to do in a slide/spin, other than to jam on the brakes and hope for the best.

I agree with you all the way Rhrosty, except for school zones.

I originally thought that they were a reasonable idea. But having experienced great difficulty with them, I now see the folly.

So many of them are reductions from 50 to 40. Well….is that really necessary??

Then at the other end of the spectrum, we have some which are 100 to 40, which is ludicrous and actually quite dangerous.

Every school zone NEEDS lit-up flashing speed signs that get turned on only when the zone applies, so that they are unmissable to all drivers. We need to get rid of just about all the other signage and markings on the road, which actually desensitise drivers to school zones, because they are there all the time while the school zone slow speed only applies a very small part of the time. We also need to get rid of a lot of the pedantic school zones.

Speed moderating curves and bumps could be appropriate in smaller streets, which would mean that you’d have fulltime slower zones in front of schools. But this is impractical on highways or main roads.

Yes, there is merit in many school zone slower speed limits. But it just needs to be done a WHOLE lot better than it currently is.

While I do decry inappropriate speed limits here and there, especially ridiculous 50kmh zones on a flat broad straight highway, extending well beyond the urban and side-street limits in some small towns, there are much bigger problems with speed limits:

1 The most extraordinarily poor amount of speed limit signage! Very often, you turn into a road and don’t encounter a speed sign for a long distance. There is often a very long distance between speed signs. If you are travelling through many speed zones, you can easily lose track of what zone you are in after a while.

2. Fuzzy policing! The police won’t tell us exactly what they are policing! They say that there is some leeway but won’t tell us what it is. I think this is despicable. We need to know exactly what the effective speed limit is, especially given that the cruising speed and the effective speed limit are usually pretty much the same thing!

3. If you drive a few kmh below the speed limit, to make sure that you don’t ever inadvertently exceed it, which is what everyone should be doing, you actually become a hazard! Everyone else is travelling right on or a bit above the speed limit, and there are many very impatient drivers who have no time for a vehicle that is going 5 or 10kmh slower in front of them. You get tailgated, dangerously overtaken and shown various forms of contempt!

continued

4. The powerlessness of the public to assist in policing. I’ve tested this out with a number of complaints in various states around the country over about a fifteen year period, only bothering to go to the cops with quite serious complaints, re: chronic tailgating and other stupid antics that are broadly related to speed limits and peoples’ abject lack of regard for them. THE COPS JUST DON’T WANT TO KNOW!! This is a HUGE flaw in the management of speed limits and of road safety overall. The public needs to be empowered to assist in the policing effort.

5. Temporary slow zones at roadworks have just totally got out of control! I have witnessed this all across the country. People just treat them as a vague indication to slow down a bit. If you observe these speed limits right from the start all the way through to the end of the zone, you really do find yourself at stark odds with the traffic flow!

And so on.

In short, the whole speed limit and road safety caboodle is extremely poorly administered, IMHO.

It's not compulsory to drive over the speed limit, so why revenue raising. Police drive with flashing lights, does that mean if you think you are not being watched it's alright to break the law.
Why not drive to the road rules and everybody will get a fair go.
It's time fines were set at a realistic amount , instead of pocket money. You can go to court and argue why you were breaking to road rules.
It's time the police got tough. Injuries and death cause billions a year.
Serial offenders, life time bans, as uneducationable.

579, if were not revenue raising, why then are there no speed traps in most main streets, where traffic and people share the roads?

Surely, 60 in a 40slow shared zone is more a risk than 115 on an open highway 100 zone.

Also, why are speed traps often placed on slight down hill runs?

Which ever way you look at it, there is a lot of revenue raising goimg on.

The sad truth is that without road accidents, we would have far less jobs, and without offenders, the likes of health, education etc would have to be slashed to pay for roads.

Which of these would you slash?, or, as usual, would you simply ask the big end of town to pay more?

Another reality is that the percentage of accidents per trips is minuscule.

Sorry Luddy, got to disagree with you on the speed bumps. Have a chat to an ambulance driver, or fire fighter for that matter, & I'm sure you will change your mind.

Traffic calmer curves are in the same boat, & are perhaps worse really. When an acreage sub-development went in between us & the main road, they widened the bitumen on our road to just wide enough for 2 small trucks to pass without putting wheels into the dirt. Hooray.

Then the bl00dy idiot bureaucrats made them build pretend roundabouts with 60mm high, 200mm round markers, where ever they ran side roads.

Not only were these fool things too small for a horse float, or a truck to get round, they were upsetting the horses when we had to bump over them.

Then the hoons found them. I believe the record for getting through these things, [on our 60Km/H road], without hitting any of the top hats was at 86KM/H when a horse owner, & a near by house owner combined to jack hammer them off the road, & stop their little game. As you can imagine, requests for the removal of the things to our fool council had met no assistance.

Yet again our bureaucrats who demanded these things had refused to accept that their unintended consequences were worse than any problem they saw.

So if you want a motorkhana track in your street, just add little roundabouts.

<< Sorry Luddy, got to disagree with you on the speed bumps. Have a chat to an ambulance driver, or fire fighter for that matter, & I'm sure you will change your mind. >>

Haz, I’m only thinking of them as being appropriate on minor suburban roads where the speed limit is 50 and we want it to be lowered to 40 in front of schools. So, gentle speed bumps and curves, which are more visual signals to slow down than anything else.

I take it then that you agree with everything else I have said in my previous five posts on this thread?

Luddy, The public needs to be empowered to assist in the policing effort.

The problem is, any offense committed, or more so, issued with an infringement, is only ever an alleged offense, which, by the very nature of the law, is challengeable in a court of law.

Any lawyer worth his salt would simply have any such case thrown out, siting substantial evidence as the police were not there, and it is for this reason (my opinion) that the police put it into the too hard basket.

Many people get frustrated by the amount of police resources seemingly wasted at RBT' s and alike, but it's for the same reason, as the offense, even drink driving, is only an allegation until either the fine is paid, or the case is contested in court.

As for road works, these limits should only apply when there is actually work being performed, as this is what causes the most frustration here.

I drove from Miles yesterday and about 15 km of the highway outside Dalby was only one lane, with a detour for the other lane. Less than 1 km was actually being worked on.

I don't see the point in having 15km with reduced speed limit for the whole time.

Wether you think it appropriate or not that is not your call, car picking up speed going down hill, all cars are supposed to be fitted with brakes.
A few k's over may as well be 100k's over.
I have no sympathy for people getting booked with cameras.
People who speed up as soon as a derestriction sign appears in the distance, need to be policed more.
All suburban traffic needs to be 40 ks' regardless of where it is.
Some roads designated 100 k's are not capable of it, most notably in QLD, and some should be closed.
Unless you get that a little bit over is not ok, you will continue to fill govt; revenue.
Death caused by driving over the limit should be murder.

<<The problem is, any offense committed… is only ever an alleged offense, which, by the very nature of the law, is challengeable in a court of law. >>

Rehctub, the police will tell us that if a complaint is made, they have to act on it! Is this just total lie or what? Because it sure as hell isn’t so when it comes to road safety!

But you see signs all over the place imploring us to report hazards on the highway, report littering, report smoky vehicles, report suspicious activity as part of neighbourhood watch, etc, etc….. but oh noooo, don’t you dare report a dangerous, illegal or offensive driver!!

I really couldn’t be more disgusted with my experiences with the police regarding this stuff.

Yes, such complaints would generally be a matter of hearsay without hard evidence. But if the police were to have a complaint booking system so that they could match complaints about the same vehicle or driver, then they could certainly act. If they received multiple independent complaints, then that would amount to pretty strong evidence.

Hey, when it comes to littering or loitering or all manner of other stuff, there is often no hard evidence either. But that doesn’t stop the cops from acting!

One of the biggest problems with speeding and road safety in general is that offenders generally feel that the thin blue line is very thin indeed and that the chances of getting caught in any particular instance are very small.

Well, if we could change that and make the chance of them getting busted large enough to make all but the stupidest morons pull their ugly heads in, then we’d practically have the whole road safety issue dealt with.

And the way to do that is to empower the public to report stuff, and to take hard evidence if they can…. which can pretty easily be done in many instances with your mobile phone, VCR, camera, Ipod, etc! A few photos, a bit of moving footage or audio recording, and Bob’s your bloomin uncle!

Ludwig wrote: "A few photos, a bit of moving footage or audio recording, and Bob’s your bloomin uncle!"

He isn't, and he won't be, because unless the offence is detected by an automatic device or a cop on the beat, it costs the State more to prosecute the offender than the State can hope to recover by way of fines. And it is the unwritten policy of all State and Territory governments that traffic policing is a profit centre, not a cost centre.

Alan Parker •OAM

Bicyclists and pedestrians are safer on urban roads in five EU countries per100,000 population. Non motorised road users are much less safe in most US. and Australia urban areas but there are exceptions. The best thing that US bicyclists and pedestrians have going for them of all ages have going for them 47 states is a 25 Mile/Hr limit (33 km/hr) on residential streets that are not main roads. There are also 16 US cities with much lower death rates for cyclists, pedestrians and other road users per 100,000 population . In Australia much progress has been made in Canberra, Adelaide, Melbourne, Perth and some provincial cities.

In the area of Speed limits and their enforcement Australalia and US urban areas their a serious public health problem because road safety is percieved as a motorised transport problem for 40 years. However, in Europe it is as a public health
problem. This is why fatality risk has been reduced by more than 40%. In 2010, the Netherlands 3.7 and Sweden 3.0 deaths per 100.000 persons (IRTAD 2011). and Australia at 6.23 that much as 800 deaths a year than it should be

In the Netherlands cyclists’ are much safer, Since 1970 the reduction in road fatalities has benefited all age groups but the most impressive reduction has concerned young bicyclists (the age group 0 to 14) for which fatalities decreased by 95%, from 459 in 1970 to 23 in 2008 (IRTAD 2011). 70% of Dutch local urban roads have a 30 Km/hr speed limit and the police take a tougher approach to unsafe drivers. . Since 1970, the reduction in child deaths (0 to 14) from 459 to 23 in 2008 was impressive, decreasing by 95%. For the elderly of 65+ years deaths reduced from 648 in 1970 to 187 in 2009 (IRTAD 2011).. Also on main roads with bicycle lanes the speed limit is 50 km/hr.

IRTAD (2011) Annual report 2010,International Road Traffic and Accident Database by International Traffic Safety Data and Analysis Group www.Iirtad .net.

Do be quiet there PEST, you're only encouraging the buggers. Keep up this sort of thing, & they will start to believe bicycle riding is a safe activity, & the place will be swarming with the damn things.

Haven't you noticed that cars are becoming softer, plastic bumpers & the like, but bikes aren't. You only have to run over a couple of the damn things, & you're likely to have scratches all over your nice car. Do you realise the damn things aren't registered, no number plates so how the hell can we report them for riding on the roads we have paid for, I ask you?

So do be careful. It's bad enough now with all that paint wasted on painting bike paths on the road, that no one ever uses. Just think how bad things would become if people started using the things. I shudder at the thought.

Hasbeen I got an OAM for encouraging bicyclists a long time ago.

What about the 800 road deaths we could do without and and brown poo that hangs over Sydney and Melbourne. Thats also part EU Public health approach of the EU to road safety.
As Prince Charles once said " I like Australians but they are a coarse lot and there is nothing courser than an Australian petrol head.

Good for you PEST, did they give you a pat on the head too. If they did, it obviously wasn't hard enough.

I can't believe anyone could not detect my tongue so far out into my cheek, that I was almost biting it off in that post.

Mate you should grease your backside, & try to slip off into the next world, you're far too serious for this one. Seriously misguided too, it would seem. Do you live all your life by Charlies guide lines?

<< …it costs the State more to prosecute the offender than the State can hope to recover by way of fines. And it is the unwritten policy of all State and Territory governments that traffic policing is a profit centre, not a cost centre. >>

Well isn’t that a huge indictment of the whole road-safety regulation regime, if it is true, grputland!

My feeling is that there is some validity in what you say but that it is not a major reason as to why the police effectively discourage community policing, the recording of evidence, and even the making of any complaints at all about dangerous antics on our roads unless an accident has actually happened or damage has been incurred.

I think it comes down to plain old slackarseness, quite frankly!!

I sense that the cops want a bit of variety in their job and don’t want to pursue boring old road safety complaints! They seem to be willing to pursue complaints about any other little thing, regardless of the triviality or lack of prosects of getting a conviction.

I can give you couple of personal examples if you like.

Power steering has made telling a car where you want to go a whole lot easier, especially for the weaker sex.
How often do you see a car crossing into the other lane when a car goes around a corner. or cars cutting corners. Is this to do with faults in the cars we drive, or is it lazy driving.
Car parks are just another place to drive as hard as you can go.
I am all in favor of speed cams; and there should be many more of them.
Those who flaut the law, will make sure speed cams; are around for a long time to come.
Number plate recognition is the best innovation thats been around for a long time. Unpaid fines of 30 & 40 thousand $ being found.
When we come to the conclusion that speeding drivers are driving the push for more and more speed cams, we will be beginning to see the light.

Thanks for that 509 speeding drivers do create the demand more speed cameras. However please note that lower sped limits are the way to go.

If only VicRoads, NSW RTA had  sent their engineers to the Netherlands 20 years ago to see the many options for using rail line and road reserves, access paths along canal and rivers,and parks, to create continuous bikeways. If only they had ridden bicycles along residential streets which have a 30 Km/Hour speed limit and  bike lanes on roads with a mandatory 50 Km/Hr speed limit . They also would have made small land acquisitions to create short cuts in the residential street network to link up other bicycle routes. They
would have seen Freeways which are designed to integrated with the national bikeway network. Indeed, Freeway and major road bridges separate bikeways and walkways.

Yes it can be done. Been there and for a month documented it from the saddle with hundreds of photos and interviews with Dutch planners in 12 cities. I also the way the Dutch police had brought the speedsters Into line and their great care they take in monitoring child cyclists behaviour.

Think about it when  medical researchers find better ways of keeping people alive they learn from other countries by going there to see and study . What do Australian road engineers do, they sit on their buts  and fail to learn about world best practice driving motor vehicles . What a pleasure it would have been for VicRoads engineers to experience world best practice by ride bikes in the netherlands in an around their delightful city’s. And at night enjoying themselves by drinking the many boutique Dutch and Belgium beers in car free the city squares surrounded by ancient buildings. My advocacy efforts shown below make the above very clear : 

&#149;Parker, Alan A (2001). “Making Walking and Cycling Safer: Lessons for Australia from the Netherlands Experience”, 24th Australian Transport Research Forum.

Some problems with speed cameras:

1. The authorities won’t tell us exactly what speed they are policing, which is utterly disgusting, given that the cruising speed is very close to the speed limit, often actually slightly above the official speed limit on the highways, which means your room to move between rolling with the flow and getting booked is tiny!

2. The penalties are too big! Surely we should have more of a sliding scale, so that if you fall just over the bookable limit, you don’t get clobbered with a huge fine.

3. Normal drivers, who just slip over the limit, make up the majority of captors. Idiots who substantially speed are in the tiny minority.

4. No account is paid to how much a person drives, how many speed cameras they pass with no problem, how safely you were driving for the road and the conditions at the time you were stung, how familiar or otherwise you might be with the particular road or region or how good your past record is. If you get caught out, you are deemed to be a very bad person, end of story.

5. This whole setup thus works strongly to alienate average drivers.

6. The policing of speed is so damn haphazard. Many areas have terribly inadequate speed limit signage. Surely, if we are going to be stung with big fines and demerit points, then we need a vastly improved level of signage, so that people are less likely to accidentally speed because they think they are in a different speed zone than what they are.

continued

7. Speed camera address only one aspect of road safety. They do nothing to prevent tailgating, dangerous overtaking, and other belligerent driving, which you often incur if you travel even slightly under the accepted cruising speed. There is NOT a holistic approach to the policing of road safety.

8. While speed cameras are useful safety mechanisms, they are also lucrative revenue-raising devices. This biases their usage enormously. There is a strong revenue-generating motivation for lucrative cameras to be left alone. But if a camera is pinging lots of people, it is surely a big indication that the speed limit is inappropriate or not sufficiently well signed at that particular site, and should be adjusted accordingly.

9. Meanwhile, when you sit on the speed limit on the open road, you still get subjected to speeders coming up rapidly behind and then sitting far too close. And we can’t do anything about it, because the police are not receptive to complaints of this sort. The public is thus rendered impotent in assisting with road-safety policing.

continued

The whole business is enormously frustrating.

I travel all over the country. Those who know me will attest that I am a very conservative driver. I hate tailgating and belligerent driving. I hate not knowing what the speed limit is, which happens very frequently. I want to roll with the flow, which is the safest speed to do, but which puts me dangerously close to the bookable limit most of the time.

I went for over 20 years without losing a demerit point despite being a prolific driver. I’ve tried to do my bit by making complaints about seriously bad driving that I have been subjected to. I’ve developed a very keen interest in road safety.

I want there to be a good policing regime, I want to support the police.

I pass fixed and mobile speed cameras all the time….but I cannot avoid occasionally exceeding the speed limit or the speed that I want to travel at – it just gets away and I suddenly find that I am doing 5 or rarely 10kmh faster than I want to be doing – only for a few seconds at a time, because I am so frequently watching my speed and still driving perfectly safely and conservatively for the road and conditions….and then…bang…you’re compelled to fork out for a very substantial fine.

There is something severely wrong with that. As far as I’m concerned, it really does amount legalised extortion.

Ludwig you are just whinging about the speed limit problem.

I suggest you start thinking how to solve the problem. In urban areas the EU road safety planning agencies found solutions in many countries which has reduced road fatalities for all road users of all ages including young pedestrian bike and the elderly not allowed to drive a car on medical advice. Ludwig should always consider that because, someday before you die you will need to cross roads on foot or in a wheel chair.

I wrote a book in 1974 "Safe Cycling" which was advocating a 40 Km/hr speed limit on urban residential streets and have lobbying for that ever since and still am. In Geelong (Corio) it was done as part of the Geelong Bikelan. It still works well today as it does in many suburbs in Australia. Particularly in Unley a suburb of Adelaide and in Sydney 4 lane feeder roads with parking lanes and bikelanes side by side allowed the road to have two motor vehicle lanes only with a 40 km/hr limit. It needed a few pedestrian refuges cut into the parking lanes.

Very impressive result, however Sydney still has along way to go but its is trying hard despite the opposition of petrol headed whingers.

<< I suggest you start thinking how to solve the problem. >>

PEST, have you read all my posts on this thread?

We can solve the problem by:

Having adequate speed limit signage, instead of utterly inadequate signage that just leaves you so often not knowing or not being sure of what speed zone you are in!

We particularly need speed signs just past intersections so that when you turn into a road you know what the speed limit is, instead of often not knowing for a long distance until you encounter a sign.

Ideally we should have speed limit signs (erect signs of numbers painted on the road, or perhaps a colour-coded line along the side of the road) on all sides of every intersection. But it would be huge improvement if we just had this at all major intersections.

I find it absolutely amazing that this isn’t considered to be a fundamental and mandatory part of road engineering, construction and maintenance! Crikey, every other sort of sign and line marking on the roads seems to be done to death, while speed limit signage sits in absolutely stark contrast!

Empower the public to make complaints about speeding and the dangerous antics of those who bully you when you are going too slow for them even though you are sitting on or close to the speed limit, and to gather evidence to corroborate these complaints.

It is of fundamental importance that the very thin blue line is considerably thickened! And the best way to do this is not with thousands more police, but by involving the public, with just the same sort of principle as with neighbourhood watch or community anti-littering campaigns. I really find the lack of facilitation of community involvement in the policing of road safety to be utterly disgraceful.

More suggested solutions tomorrow.

Good on you for working on the facilitation of cycling and the maximisation of a safe and harmonious relationship between drivers, riders and pedestrians. Great stuff.

Hi Ludwig,
I agree that it is of fundamental importance that the very thin blue line is considerably thickened by involved citizen action. That how the speed reduction scheme in Unley an suburb of Adelaide over many years and the state government is encouraging that in the rest of Adelaide. There is on road signage and traffic management measures are provide good back up.
If you send me an email I will sent you some photos and an article.

alanparker@labyrinth.net.au

PEST, I would certainly like the article and photos that you have offered, but I've tried the email address you provided and the one from your website and they have both bounced!! ( :>|

David Leyonhjelm’s 85 percentile agreement rate is good in theory, but impossible to implement in practice, if it means having a period of no speed limit on each section of road in order to determine it!

What are we to have – new signs all over the place that indicate a section of road has no speed limit for two weeks, or whatever....with a constant procession of different roads getting short-term speed-limit-free zones?!?!

We can’t determine it in any other way!

So the 85% percentile still has to be an educated guess determined by bureaucrats or road engineers. Respect for speed limits can thus not really be improved by its use.

The only thing that we can do about respect for speed limits is for the authorities to be open to public concerns and make adjustments where needed. In my experience even this just doesn’t happen at all!

A couple of years ago I took a set of concerns about speed limit signs around Townsville to the council and Main Roads Dept. I followed it up a couple of times with comments on the Main Roads website, which purports to seek and facilitate your feedback! Not one of them has been changed, and yet every one is clearly in need of improvement, and very simple improvement at that, either in the placement of signs or the speed limit itself.

They didn’t disagree with me regarding most of them (~10 in total), but seemed to take the attitude that they will not be moved to make changes by a mere conscientious member of the public! This was just another example of the public being powerless to assist in the management of road safety.

So, further to my suggested solutions to dealing with speed limits, we need proper facilitation of public feedback and suggestions…and to act on them!

Authorities have to realise that the cruising speed and the speed limit are very close and that it is very easy for people to slip inadvertently over the bookable limit. So we need a strongly sliding scale of infringements….

continued

….instead of a bloody big stick for those who get caught just exceeding the limit!

This is of major importance. Something like 90% of those who get stung with dirty great fines and demerit points are only exceeding the cruising speed by a very small amount.

And for goodness sake, given that the cruising speed and effective speed limit are so close together, the authorities surely MUST TELL US EXACTLY WHAT SPEED THEY ARE POLICING in each case.

The authorities need to realise that the safest speed for any individual vehicle in traffic is to roll with the flow, and that a driver who sits back and does 5 or 8kmh under while everyone else is doing ~5 over is actually creating a hazard, by fraying the patience of other drivers, many of which have got absolutely stuff-all patience to start with!. They need to understand that there are many of people who would be happy to keep their speed down a bit but feel that it is safer to roll with the flow or don’t like getting tailgated and shown contempt by other road users, or both!

There would be a great deal more respect for the whole business if we had a much stronger sliding scale of penalties. If there was only a minimal fine for exceeding the bookable limit by up to 5kmh, then we would all pretty quickly feel that revenue-raising is indeed not the primary motive. But as it stands at the moment, it does appear to be the primary motive…. and that really doesn’t go down well at all in engendering respect for the authorities and road rules.

And finally, we need to know that the policing of speed sits within an effective holistic regulatory regime for all road rules and aspects of road safety. Currently it DOESN’T! Not by a long way. It seriously offends me and no doubt many people when they get severely stung for very minor speeding infringements while frequently witnessing dangerous driving practices that don’t get policed, and don’t get dealt with if you make a complaint!

Persons doing 5 or 8 under and those doing 5 over a causing a great danger. Yes doing 5 over is against the law and you rightly get fined for it.
The policeable speed limit is what the appropriate restriction sign says. And no speeding before reaching the derestriction sign.
Speed signs are not hard to read it's just some people, don't believe what they say. Which part do you not understand.