Oh my poor head. There’s sooooooo much to respond to here!!

Well, I’ll do my best to keep it all in chronological sequence.

Quiggley, you wrote;

“I don't for a minute want to see any of the funds directed away from creating better roads, better roads mean safer roads.”

As I previously alluded to, I don’t think better roads necessarily means safer roads. What about the very big need for vastly improved driver behaviour, via both better training and policing? Is this not the overwhelmingly important thing that we need to work on in the whole road-safety arena?

I’d love to see huge expenditure put into both improving roads and improving drivers. But I don’t think we can do both to the necessary extent, without robbing other very needy sectors of funding.

Of course we should maintain roads, and keep up the best standard of signage. But hugely expensive upgrades to our highways I consider to be a low priority expenditure.

“….I also strongly believe that it is up to the individual to educate themselves.”

But most people (or a large proportion at least) don’t educate themselves to anywhere near a satisfactory standard of understanding and appreciation for risk factors, safety margins, defensive driving, basic car maintenance, first aid, etc. Even after years on the roads and after an accident or two, most people don’t get the full picture.

continued

“I think a license is a privilege not a right.”

Absolutely!! And it should be hard-earned… and easily lost if you do the wrong thing that endangers others’ safety.

“I noticed that you often put ‘better driver-training and better policing’ together. I'm not sure exactly why.”

This is surprising. They fit together perfectly, I would have thought. Doesn’t a much-improved road-safety regime encompass both, well and truly? How much of an improvement would we get if we only worked one of these sectors?

“…we don't make them and we can't refuse to enforce them if we happen to disagree with them.”

Really?? One of my major gripes has been the blind-eye of attitude of police to all sorts of infringements. It’s as obvious as anything that the police are not obligated to police ANY particular law. They have the complete discretion not to.

“…not one of them was caused by someone doing 3 or even 20Km/H over the speed limit.”

I don’t know how you can say this! Speed was no doubt a factor in many of the cases you investigated. And not just obvious grossly excessive speed. Besides, where does this view sit with the road safety message; ‘every k over is a killer?’, which is virtually the slogan of the road-safety police in Qld (or across the country?)

"This is surprising. They fit together perfectly, I would have thought. Doesn’t a much-improved road-safety regime encompass both, well and truly? How much of an improvement would we get if we only worked one of these sectors?"

Hell no. The ideal situation with regards to ANY such widespread issue, is maximum WILLING ADHERENCE of the general public to the law, with minimum enforcement, and enforcement ONLY as a last resort. For example, most people realise that you shouldn't murder other people. Hence why it's safe to walk around without a bulletproof vest. Over-policing creates quite literally a fascist state. The political ideologies may be entirely different but the outcome for the citizens is the same.

"I don’t know how you can say this! Speed was no doubt a factor in many of the cases you investigated. And not just obvious grossly excessive speed. Besides, where does this view sit with the road safety message; ‘every k over is a killer?’, which is virtually the slogan of the road-safety police in Qld (or across the country?) "

I like how you just outright ignore the experience and input of someone who clearly has had THE most relevant experiences and information that anyone could possibly possess, just because reality doesn't support with your opinion. Your argumentative logic is fundamentally and fatally flawed; how can you try and use an ad campaign to justify reality? You should be wondering why the ad campaigns don't line up with reality, not the other way around!

In response to; "I don’t know how you can say this! Speed ... this view sit with the road safety message; ‘every k over is a killer?’, ... slogan of the road-safety ...?"

I happen to totally disagree with the current road safety messages that the RTA and government on this point. I think it's wrong because of what I said before about speed as a factor in fatal and serious injury accidents. As for whether or not you believe what I say on this topic is up to you. But answer me this, what experience do you have in this particular field that you call upon in the formulation of your opinions? Remember also that I do not just draw on my experience, but also upon others who have even more experience than I in this field. For some strange reason we all have the same opinion.

I've been consulted by the RTA on some of their TV adverts. My function was to explain and add some authenticity to their scenarios, especially with regards to the way crash scene were depicted on TV. This was a total waste of time because whilst they wanted to make it realistic, they were also constrained by the medium of TV and what could be packed into a short commercial. I can tell you now, and I dare say some of the others who have experience in vehicle dynamics, that the way some collisions are depicted on TV are not realistic. But basically you have to remember that a commercial campaign has to be simple, direct and attention grabbing to be effective. This unfortunately is not always compatible with accuracy and certainly does not allow for in-depth discussion on what is a very complex issue.

Con'd.

The restraints of this forum make it difficult to fully discus this issue.

“I don’t know how you can say this! Speed was no doubt a factor in many of the cases you investigated. And not just obvious grossly excessive speed. Besides, where does this view sit with the road safety message; ‘every k over is a killer?’, which is virtually the slogan of the road-safety police in Qld (or across the country?)”

I can’t believe that you would use such an unrealistic slogan as an attempt to argue with Quiggly’s experience. I concur with previous comments from people with policing and engineering expertise including:

“I like how you just outright ignore the experience and input of someone who clearly has had THE most relevant experiences and information that anyone could possibly possess, just because reality doesn't support with your opinion.”

“I happen to totally disagree with the current road safety messages that the RTA and government on this point.”

I would add something I witnessed. It was bluntly suggested to Mary Sheehan from CARS-Q by an engineer at a talk that one can't take that slogan seriously and she was invited to disagree (or the panel generally were posed the question and she responded). Neither she nor any other speakers defended its accuracy. They simply said that the slogan was good because it got people thinking about the issues or words to that effect.

Transport Departments have a lot to answer for putting nonsense like that on TV. People think that because the slogan is nonsense entire road safety campaigns are nonsense. It undermines the credibility of law enforcement and results in resentment among some elements directed toward people tasked with enforcing laws.

Quiggley

“So, no I don't agree with issuing tickets to someone caught doing 3 Km/H over the limit.”

What do you consider to be a reasonable leeway? Is the 10% leeway sufficient or, given your comment; “not one of them was caused by someone doing 3 or even 20Km/H over the speed limit.”, would you like to see 20%, or a flat 20kmh, or more?

“ 'if there is a leeway people will use it', you are quite right, they will. But if they do and they get caught they also know exactly why they are getting the ticket…”

I don’t get it. Following my expression of the problems with people abusing the 10kmh leeway on the highway, you still think that it is fair and reasonable to have a large leeway. That just doesn’t make sense to me.

Besides, people simply DON’T get booked for it. If they did, it wouldn’t be a leeway, and most people would very quickly come to realise that.

“You use the analogy of drugs when referring to speeding…”

No, not me. I don’t where this has come from.