It is reported that due to the upcoming NT Election Professor Brian Fildes of the Monash University Accident Research Centre is pushing for a mandatory maximum speed limit of 100kph (and even lower) throughout the NT!

The reason being given is that the road toll this year is 37 (15 more than last year!)

This country abounds in "experts" who "profess" to know all the answers!.....If these people would use a little commonsense they would accept that:
a) There are many more vehicles travelling these roads, thus increasing the odds of an accident occurring!
b) Most of the accidents are attributable to drivers, mainly tourists (terrorists), falling asleep at the wheel due to the excellent condition of the roads, as compared to other States across Australia!...(maybe with the exception of WA!)
c) Some accidents are a direct result of the blow-out of over-inflated tyres, which is a due to ignorance in tyre pressure maintenance and the extreme road surface temperatures!.....this is known Territory-wide as the "Banglop" principle!

If these "experts" were to spend some time in the NT travelling these roads, they would, or should realise that a higher speed limit than the rest of the country, is needed to travel the long distances between centres!

Hitting a tree at 100kph makes little differance than hitting it at 130kph!.....the ultimate result is likely to be the same!

I live in the NT.
The main problem with bad driving is most definitely NOT the tourists here. Just about any local police officer will tell you that.

The problem is a Territory that's awash with drunken, incompetent, irresponsible "NT" drivers. There's a MASSIVE drink/drug culture in the NT; a visit to any Darwin/Alice Springs nightspot will confirm this to anyone who wishes to actually open their eyes.
NT drivers are the worst in Australia, with tailgating, high speed, playing "chicken", drunkenness, car overloading, poor car maintenance and overall social irresponsibility. Money is overflowing here, jobs are plentiful and easy to get and the personal wealth is spent on booze, booze and more booze.

Don't blame the tourists. Put the blame where it belongs........NT registered drivers. The worst drivers in the world!

Until recently there was "no" speed limit on the Stuart Highway. It's now 130 k's. Many NT drivers are waaaaaaay too incompetent to drive faster than that. Urban speed limits are much the same as anywhere else in Australia.

Whatever you do up there in the NT,don't become a nanny state like NSW.We are over regulated to the eyeballs here and it is retarding our economy and quality of life.

Generally speaking I'm not a fan of unnecessary regulation. When it comes to road safety it must be remembered we are directly dealing with peoples' right to stay alive. I don't want to be killed or injured by someone who resents road rules. For the "road", strict and thorough regulation is a necessity.

The difference between driving in a confined urban area at 60 kph and 80 kph can EASILY mean the difference between life and death. In school zones, the difference between 40 kph and 60 kph can also easily mean the difference between life and death.

The same applies when you're on the NT Stuart Highway; the skill required to control a car at 100 kph is much less than at 130 kph; the skill levels required at 130 kph are much less than at 170 kph. The trouble is that there's many NT drivers who are terrible, irresponsible drivers who thoroughly believe they can efficiently handle ANY speed under ANY conditions. There's also an equally large number of NT drivers who couldn't care less anyway and believe they should be able to do as they wish on the roads.

Sometimes strict and enforced regulation is absolutely necessary, especially when peoples' lives are on the line. Just look at the huge number of lives saved by the compulsion to wear seat belts and motorcycle helmets.

philips, you make it sound like the speed limit is the least of NT's problems. If so, I'd agree. Speed limits do have an effect, but not huge. Other places have unlimited speed roads - Germany for example. Germany's accident rates are much the same as Australia's. NZ, which has speed limits just like us, has much higher accident rates.

If they addressed the other problems you mention they would have a bigger effect on accident rates, and probably fix a whole pile of other problems as well.

if anything there should be a more felxible system for driving faster than we currently allow. These reactions by banning all speeding in a knee jerk fashion are terrible. Dangerous driving should be the focus.

philips:
I would be cavalier enough to say that I have spent more time driving on the roads in the NT than you have spent eating hot dinners, and accordingly I stand by what I originally said!
I strongly suspect that although you may be living in the NT, you are NOT a born and bred Territorian! I also suspect that you are one of the many "ferals" who have invaded from places south and now seem intent on whining and complaining about the drivers and the NT way of life in general ( there are many of your ilk invading the northern states wanting to change things for the "better"!) If I am right, then I would suggest that you vote with your feet and return whence you originated and let the Territorians get on with their lives in the fashion that they are used to!

While I am on a roll, I might mention that I have driven from the Centre to every border around the NT and can say that if the standard of roads in general in the rest of the country were as good as the NT`s, then we might see a significant reduction in the National road toll!

I'm born and raised in the NT. I've spent 7 years away in the USA in the 70's; the rest of my time I've been here in the Top End. I'm 82 years old and I've been driving here since I was 22 years old.

Not "all" Territorians are defensive rednecks who are suspicious of outsiders (the "go home" mentality). The Territory now has a much more cosmopolitan population who have intelligence, insight, a "world" perspective. It's no longer the end of the Earth.

There's still however a percentage of "old style" Territorians here. The alcoholic, hard drinking, black hating, irresponsible, bad driving Territorian "still" exists, even in this modern age. They are a dying breed, but still numerous nonetheless, and basically only mix with each other. But times are changing, and the territory is advancing, despite it's problems and bad Southern press.

"Some" roads are superb here; the Stuart Highway for example. "Some" roads are terrible, just terrible.

Cuphandle,

"The reason being given is that the road toll this year is 37 (15 more than last year!)"

The DoTs that fund all his research or the governmental officials on MUARC's board are probably screaming at him to do so. If the road toll at 37 is 15 more than last year then a huge reduction can be expected next year with no intervention at all due to regression to the mean. His funding masters wants the limits introduced NOW and for MUARC to do an "independent" study showing that they worked by quantifying the huge reduction after the speed limit change. It could be a pinup for states speeding fine promotion.

How about:

e) The NT is about a third of Australia and well spread out. People's prospects of surviving a crash diminish rapidly. Life and death can easily be determined by how quickly emergency services get to a victim. An injury on a Melbourne freeway that would be survived will be fatal in a remote region of NT.
f) The NT has a significant "invisible' population being tourists so their road toll compared to population is inflated. From memory there are almost as many tourists as residents.

"If these "experts" were to spend some time in the NT travelling these roads, they would, or should realise that a higher speed limit than the rest of the country, is needed to travel the long distances between centres"

Without falling asleep at the wheel. Less boredom and getting to a location significantly faster. In a hypothetical 130k drive Driver A goes 100km in an hour at 100kph. Driver B at 130kph completes the journey in an hour. Later Driver B falls asleep in bed while Driver A falls asleep at the wheel.

Steel,

"Dangerous driving should be the focus."

Here here. But most people don't do it so the profit potential is limited. Lowering the enforcement bar considerably is much more lucrative even if a higher proportion of dangerous drivers slip through the net because enforcement measures aren't tailored to catch them.

“For the ‘road’, strict and thorough regulation is a necessity.”

Absolutely philips.

What should be done in NT?

1. Bring the policing regime into line with the law. The police allow drivers to do a few kmh over the limit. They don’t book highway drivers unless they are doing at least 11kmh over in Queensland and presumably in NT also. So let’s formalise this. Redefine existing speed limits so that they indicate a speed zone where the limit is 10kmh higher than the signs say. So a 100kmh speed limit sign will effectively mean a 100kmh speed zone with a speed limit is 110.

2. Place the onus fairly and squarely on drivers to know the accuracy of their speedometer, which can be easily determined with a GPS.

3. Then for goodness sake, make sure that the law…with all road rules, not just speed limits… is policed at face value and that there is no blind-eye policing when it come to road safety.

4. In order to do this, there needs to be a huge increase in the numbers of police. So how about the NT government utilising some of the Territory’s huge wealth…and exercising its duty of care to the community, to be able to travel safely on public roads…and get cracking on developing an effective police force?!

5. There need to be stationary speed cameras everywhere. Speed camera boxes should be popping up left right and centre. It doesn’t matter if only 5% of them actually have cameras in them. It’s the deterrence factor that counts most. Cameras should be positioned in pairs, with each facing in the opposite direction, and with each camera being within the field of view of the other one. This would just about eliminate vandalism!

continued

6. The police should be in unmarked cars! If this was the case, then practically every half-decent-looking car could be a potential police vehicle, in the minds of those who would break the law.

7. The number of random drug and alcohol tests should be greatly increased.

8. There should be a major education and awareness plan to accompany all of this, with special attention being placed on the most serious issues.

Exactly the same things should apply across the country, so that every state and territory is under just the same set of rules and the same level of enforcement.

I agree with Professor Brian Fildes that the 130kmh speed limit on the open road in NT is too high http://abc.com.au/news/stories/2008/07/19/2308445.htm. It should be 120…as it essentially is with the accepted leeway within 110kmh zones around the country.

The Territory absolutely does NOT need a blanket 100kmh speed limit, accompanied by no change in the policing regime. What it desperately needs is a vast improvement in policing.

Ludwig, your comment is like a sarcastic parody of a police commissioner or adminstrator whose eyes are gleaming at all the extra funding and taxes coming his way with the deceit he is giving politicians.

Perhaps some combination of your proposals would reduce costs, but punitive fines for speeding are a complete nonsense. Some people don't deserve to be driving over the speed limit, for a combination of reasons and they could be prosecuted and fined. But others should be able (with increased responsibility of course). We live in a huge country and the speed limits should reflect this reality. I'm not saying a blanket increase that applies even to idiots. I'm saying there must be something that allows capable drivers to do whatever is reasonable for them to do (and current rules are _not_ reasonable).

When there is a profit incentive, police can do all sorts of things to deceive politicians into giving them more money. Threats of increased crime by not doing their job properly ("lets increase the crime rate since polticians aren't listening"), to bribes of increased revenue (always seemingly the best option for politicans and bureacrats).

“…punitive fines for speeding are a complete nonsense.”

Steel, how could we possibly have a non-punitive system without it just being open slather? A regime of punishment, along with effective policing and education, is surely mandatory.

Surely a non-punitive system would mean no speed limits….and no policing of fools who push the envelope.

"Steel, how could we possibly have a non-punitive system without it just being open slather? A regime of punishment, along with effective policing and education, is surely mandatory."

Ludwig,

The way I understood it was like this:

“…(the current system of) punitive fines for speeding are a complete nonsense.”

"Surely a non-punitive system would mean no speed limits….and no policing of fools who push the envelope."

If I may be at liberty to play devil's advocate...you could have speed limits with a reward system instead of a punitive system or you could have speed limits as guides in a non-punitive system.

Having said that you can also have a punitive system with no speed limits and policing of fools who push the envelope. If speed limits were abolished overnight dangerous driving charges would still be available.

A highly pertinent "fact" that's often not understood by most drivers, is that speed kills.

By "speed", I'm not necessarily talking about "high" speed. For example, the difference between driving at 40kph in a school zone, and 60kph, is the difference between the LIFE AND DEATH of a child, under certain circumstances. It takes MUCH longer to slow down and stop at 60kph than at 40kph.

If a motorist is driving at 70kph instead of 60kph on a road, the difference between stopping distance is VERY marked indeed.

Many drivers don't understand these things, or don't care. They are VERY important facts.

If everyone kept within speed limits and adjusted their driving to prevailing conditions, MANY, MANY more lives will be saved. By "prevailing conditions" I'm not just referring to the weather or road conditions: For example, let's say someone in front of you is driving at 40kph in an 80kph speed zone; the irresponsible driver gets annoyed, impatient, honks the horn, tailgates and tries to get through at the earliest opportunity......that's dangerous and really, really DUMB driving. A good driver keeps a reasonable distance, doesn't get angry and passes when a safe opportunity presents itself....now "that's" driving safely within the prevailing conditions.

I left one very important thing off my list of what should be done to improve road safety in NT, and around the country:

9. Encourage and facilitate community policing. The general public needs to feel empowered to do something about dangerous drivers. The police need to facilitate the complaints process and launch an education program on how best to gather evidence and make complaints. If this was done, the overall policing regime could be very greatly improved.

For the relatively small number of extra police that it would take to facilitate an efficient complaints system, there would a very large number of extra active eyes out there on our roads that could do something very tangible about reducing road safety hazards. The overall policing regime could thus be improved ten-fold or perhaps a hundred-fold. The deterrence factor would be huge, if potential law-breakers realised that any member of the community could very easily make a complaint and that the complaint would be acted upon.

Currently, ordinary members of the community are effectively discouraged from making complaints unless an accident has happened or a very serious dangerous incident has occurred. Thus, the normal dangerous practices of tailgating, dangerous overtaking, blatant speeding, etc effectively go unpoliced or policed to a tiny extent compared to the potential policing efficiency.

And I’ll add a tenth point:

Make sure that the speed limit is always obvious. Currently, the number of speed limit signs is vastly inadequate. It is very easy to lose track of the speed zone you are in. You can’t remember what the last sign was that you saw or you miss a sign, or very often you turn into a road and you just don’t encounter a sign for some distance, and you just have to guess the speed limit.

phillips, I've been through school zones with nary a child in sight and I would have been punished unnecessarily if i were speeding.

When I was a child I used to cross major roads at major intersections by myself as did HUNDREDS and THOUSANDS of other children. What is happening is the replacement of parenting with stupid rules and punishments, by nanny-types who want government to coddle everyone.

Eventually we will be living in a country in which adults are second class citizens...we are already on our way there in many respects which is an extremely repugnant situation

Hey all,

To philips, I don't know how long you have resided here in the NT, but most of what you wrote has prompted this reply.

Define an NT driver?
The NT has grown massively since I arrived in 1980, and the influx of "southerners" have all brought their bad habits with them. So yes we can blame the "terrorists/grey nomad" for the majority of incidents that have resulted in the massive toll.

I do however agree that the level of highway patrols is virtually non existant, I'll also add to that, the state of advisory signage is way past dangerous.

As a rural dweller, I really don't care as to how the "city slickers" monitor their drivers, but they should STAY within the Metro areas. Out on the highway is a different world all together, where experience with the many hazards and a REAL KNOWLEDGE OF ROAD RULES are number one.

We need to get the dangers like Roof Mounted Spotlights, mirror less towing, mal adjusted headlights, light less trailers, overloaded roof racks, dirty signage etc, etc, fixed NOW!

All we hear from the powers that be, is SPEED & DRINK.

NT

“If I may be at liberty to play devil's advocate...you could have speed limits with a reward system instead of a punitive system or you could have speed limits as guides in a non-punitive system.”

Mjpb, if we had a reward system for driving safely and no punishment for driving recklessly, there would be a whole lot of drivers who would drive recklessly. There are an awful lot of abject hoons for whom the thrill of the moment is far more important than safety issues. There are also many non-hoons who would be willing to drive faster than the recommended speed. There would also be many people who would prefer to drive within that speed level, but who would realise that with a lot of much faster vehicles about, it would be safer to drive a fair bit faster and roll with the flow. Indeed, the small minority that stayed at or below that speed would become a hazard!

But I agree, there should be a reward system for good driving: a carrot and stick approach.

A few years ago I was busted for doing 92kmh in an 80k zone, having just missed the 80kmh sign when coming out of a 100k zone, and thinking that I was well within the limit. I wrote to the police, expressing my record of about 22 years without the loss of a demerit point, despite being a prolific driver. Of course it counted for nothing.

I remain utterly disgusted that a good driving record doesn’t mean a bloody thing to the cops. And I doubt that it would have carried any weight if I’d taken the matter to court.

“…you can also have a punitive system with no speed limits and policing of fools who push the envelope.”

Possibly. But the ‘envelope’ would be very ill-defined. So what one person…or one police officer…might think was acceptable, another wouldn’t.

I detest uneven policing. We need to strive to make the policing regime and hence the law and clear as possible for everyone. And this means having speed limits that everyone must abide by.

Hey eyeball, welcome to OLO.

“All we hear from the powers that be, is SPEED & DRINK.”

Yep. Isn’t it pathetic. There is so much more to road safety……that could so easily be dealt with if the will was there.

And even speed and drink are so really damnly poorly dealt with.

I’d be interested in your comments on my ten points of action as listed above.

You might also be interested in my passionate expression of road safety concerns (141 posts on the same thread!) on this subject, starting at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=2877#20951

"Mjpb, if we had a reward system for driving safely and no punishment for driving recklessly, there would be a whole lot of drivers who would drive recklessly...But I agree, there should be a reward system for good driving: a carrot and stick approach."

Well some drivers anyway. I agree with the carrot and stick approach not a carrot only. I was just playing devil's advocate on the possibilities.

"...And I doubt that it would have carried any weight if I’d taken the matter to court."

The court is only empowered to consider whether or not you did it if police proceed so yes.

"Possibly. But the ‘envelope’ would be very ill-defined. So what one person…or one police officer…might think was acceptable, another wouldn’t."

I suspect most people would have a fair idea. It would be up to courts and precedents that they set or any legislative definition at the end of the day.

"I detest uneven policing."

You have made that abundantly clear over the years. I don't think you miss any related threads.

"There are also many non-hoons who would be willing to drive faster than the recommended speed. There would also be many people who would prefer to drive within that speed level, but who would realise that with a lot of much faster vehicles about, it would be safer to drive a fair bit faster and roll with the flow. Indeed, the small minority that stayed at or below that speed would become a hazard!"

You seem to have some concept of the physics of moving objects. So have you heard about the 85th percentile and would you support raising speed limits accordingly so that less people exceed the limit and it makes sense to enforce them more rigidly?

http://web.archive.org/web/20011220132706/http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/fossc/trafficoperations/rules.htm

Regarding "speed".

One very important thing to be aware of is that "speed", as defined by authorities and responsible drivers (and anyone who has even a modicum of safety awareness), does NOT mean the same thing as "going fast".

A driver is "speeding" if going at 70kph in a 40kph school zone in Alice Springs. A driver is not speeding if going at 130kph in the designated 130kph areas on the Stuart Highway.

It's a fact of life, "speeding" is BAD driving, and it's only right that great emphasis be placed on eradicating it. "Speeding" kills and injures people.

"Speeding" also has a direct relationship with "prevailing conditions". For example, in good weather conditions going at 130kph in a 130kph zone is not speeding, however, going at 100kph in the same zone in atrocious weather conditions can easily be "speeding".

“So have you heard about the 85th percentile…”

Yes mj. But I wonder just how applicable it is in Australia? Who actually sets speed limits? And on what basis? I’m sure there are very few situations where the actual 85th percentile speed is calculated directly from the traffic flow! Speed limits are set by people who may not even give this a thought, but who just make judgements based entirely upon eyeballing the setting.

“…would you support raising speed limits accordingly so that less people exceed the limit and it makes sense to enforce them more rigidly?”

Yes! As I stated above on this thread (on 21 July, under point 1), I think that a reasonable trade-off would be to allow all speed limit signs to actually indicate speed zones where the limit is 10kmh higher than what is stated on the signs, as a concession to drivers in exchange for community acceptance of much more rigorous policing and zero tolerance of those who exceed the new higher limits.

Much more rigorous policing would be multifaceted, with many more police on the roads, stationary speed detector devices and cameras all over the place and the boxes that these sit in just absolutely everywhere!...and the community encouraged to do their bit by way of the facilitation of complaints.

Ludwig,

"Yes mj. But I wonder just how applicable it is in Australia? Who actually sets speed limits? And on what basis? I’m sure there are very few situations where the actual 85th percentile speed is calculated directly from the traffic flow! Speed limits are set ..."

I agree with what you say and I'd add that sometimes people living in an area just ask their local politician to set a speed limit at a certain level and it happens. So much for scientifically matching the speed limits with the road! I used to have a link which gave an example but it would take me many hours to hunt it down. Still I believe it is applicable in one sense. It is desirable. Roads are roads. Drivers are drivers. Safety is safety. When speed limits are set too far from the 85th percentile you get more crashes.

“… I think that a reasonable trade-off would be to allow all speed limit signs to actually indicate speed zones where the limit is 10kmh higher than what is stated on the signs, as a concession to drivers in exchange for community acceptance of much more rigorous policing and zero tolerance of those who exceed the new higher limits."

That reminds me of an American example where speed limits were being raised to the 85th percentile and some grumpy police officer who wasn't aware of the research hadn't approved and had been all set to rigidly enforce and book everyone (expecting them to go above the new limits too). He was delightfully suprised by the compliance. I can probably locate that article if you are interested.

"Much more rigorous policing would be multifaceted, with many more police on the roads, stationary speed detector devices and cameras all over the place ..."

If the speed limits were set so as to maximise safety and compliance the existing resources would go much further because the baddies would be the only ones breaking the law but I'm open to more cameras in that situation.

The thing about all the "extra" policing you're talking about is that at least one of two things must happen for this to occur:

(1)Current policing must be taken away from areas like rapes, break and enters, assaults, white collar crime etc etc in order to staff "road" policing. The community wouldn't tolerate this, and any government that attempted this on the massive scale required would very quickly be an "EX" government..

(2)Police numbers and equipment must be radically increased. The cost for this would inevitably come from reduced spending on education, hospitals and the various other infrastructure for which governments are responsible. Also, NO government, that wishes to "stay" in government, would tolerate implementing a large taxation increase to cover the massive costs.

Police resources here in the NT are currently absolutely streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetched to the maximum. Just to get one extra police office into a station requires massive effort and planning.

“He was delightfully suprised by the compliance. I can probably locate that article if you are interested.”

Yes please mj. That sounds quite useful.

Ludwig,

I owe you an apology. I have looked extensively. It used to be linked to a webpage about 2000. It is not presently linked there. I looked at the archive of the page and for some reason it was only spidered once ever in 2003 (bizarre!). I checked all the links on the 2003 version but the link must have been removed by that time. I have googled for an older version of the website at a different URL (which I can't remember) without success. I would never be able to google the article I described and it might no longer exist outside of archives which of course won't google. If I could find the URL I could locate the archive but all reasonable effort has been fruitless. I thought it would be as simple as going to website and finding the correct link. I was wrong.

Sorry.

Ludwig, I can't understand your obsession with increasing police forces in this area (along with all the other needless expenses), unless it comes with a system that I suggested earlier and which mjpb understood. Why increase the punitive rubbish at the expense of real crimes and thefts and so on...it doesnt make ANY sense, except to someone who is obsessed with and believes in a rigid heirarchy whereby citizens are treated like children (all citizens, no matter how lawful and capable). I find that mentality horrible and it's one that is prevalent in Australia.

Thanks mj. No worries.

.
Steel

“unless it comes with a system that I suggested earlier…”

I’ve looked back over your posts and I’m not sure what you are referring to.

Can you please elaborate on your ‘more flexible’ system.

Can I also re-ask the question I posed to you on 21 July;

“…how could we possibly have a non-punitive system without it just being open slather? A regime of punishment, along with effective policing and education, is surely mandatory.

Surely a non-punitive system would mean no speed limits….and no policing of fools who push the envelope."

mjpb already answered that question: I did not say there should be an absence of punitive punishment at all....I meant that the vast majority of them are unnecessary, unwarranted and 'criminal'

Well Steel, that gives me some insight into one of the three points that I was seeking further info on in my last post.

You are a hard person to debate with. It is proving to be a chore to just find out where you are coming from before I can even start to agree with or debate your position.

hey all,

To me, holding a driving license shows ones intent to abide BY THE ROAD RULES. The basic laws are being ignored by a large percentage of the population in every State in Aust that I have encountered.

Back to the NT...
I agree that life in the major centres within the NT has declined to a "USA" style atmosphere, and requires a lot of policing. But in our case we have the "scaleys" that monitor heavy vehicles throughout the NT. heres the bit I like.......
They have no power to monitor other vehicles!

How lame it that?
We are supposed to have our "highway patrol" back again, I have only ever seen them seemingly taking errands from centres to centre, ignoring dangerous infringements along the way.

I am forced to think that no-one is interested or cares enough to actually act. Most would also have the attitude of a license being a right! Not the earned privelege that it WAS!

NT

Philips

“Current policing must be taken away from areas like rapes, …”

I wouldn’t want to see any police taken away from other very needy areas. I want to see the policing effort increased across the board, not just for road safety.

“Police numbers and equipment must be radically increased. The cost for this would inevitably come from reduced spending on education, …”

I don’t think that the increase would need to be particularly large…for road safety that is. For all police duties across society, yes it would.

There should be no need to divert costs from anywhere else. The enormous wealth that is flowing into this country from the sale of our one-off non-renewable primary resources should be well and truly adequate to provide for world’s best police service, and hence the best quality of life and level of security in the world!

The fact that this almighty wealth generation is not leading to very rapid increases in quality of life for all Australian citizens (and is rapidly taking us away from sustainability and towards an enormous economic and social catastrophe) is the ultimate indictment of our federal government….and state governments.

As for road safety, it would only require a relatively small increase in police numbers if the education, community empowerment and deterrence regimes were greatly boosted as per my suggestions on this thread on 21 & 22 July.

“Currently police resource are indeed “absolutely streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetched”. And I fear that NTeyeball is right in that there appears to be a whole lot of turning-a-blind-eye by police and an abject lack of concern about efficient policing, from the police, pollies or mainstream society.

I apologise Ludwig about my 'vagueness'. However mjpb seemed to know what I was talking about. Anyway. the point is, speeding rules and infringements are used on normal, law-abiding citizens far, far too often. Police resources should target and pursue actual dangerous driving (in cases admittedly, this can be speeding), not punitive speeding however. But despite Australia being a massive country, extraordinarily so, in fact, there is no recognition of this in law-making or maximum speed rules. Same with vehicle technology. This MUST CHANGE. I'm sick of seeing fellow motorists being treated like criminals for minor or safe speeding, while the police waste their time and resources bitching about things like this rather than punishing drivers that drive dangerously, or poor drivers that frequently go unpunished because of the lack of correct focus. This situation MUST and WILL change.

Thanks Steel

“…speeding rules and infringements are used on normal, law-abiding citizens far, far too often.”

How would we confidently separate generally law-abiding citizens from the ratbags, in order to only be able to target the ratbags?

We can’t. We need to treat everyone the same and put everyone under the same rules.

But I agree; the amount of police effort that goes into speed and drink/drug-driving detection is way out of proportion with other just-as-dangerous or more-immediately-dangerous behaviours. But this is only because the latter is practically non-existent, with the former being woefully inadequate.

I wish to goodness that the police would act on tailgating, dangerous overtaking and slow road-hog driving on our highways, and young idiot hoons that so obviously drive in a reckless manner on our urban streets…..and act on complaints about these things. But they just don’t…..or perhaps extremely rarely if they encounter an extreme case! I think that this is a disgustingly terrible inadequacy of our police and of our rule of law, and of the effort to improve road safety.

The focus of police is far too narrow. We agree on that. But I’ll maintain that speed limits need to be policed evenly, which means that people who are driving safely but just a little above the legal limit will get booked. So be it. There has to be a cut off that is obvious to everyone and that applies to all.

But I think that speed limits should be generally 10kmh higher in just about all situations as I stated above on this thread, as a concession to drivers in lieu of a stricter, more evenly applied and much more effective policing regime.

Whether "some" people here care to admit it or not, speed and drink driving are "THE" major killers on our roads. You can deny it till the cows come home, but denial doesn't alter it. It's vital that the emphasis on resources be directed towards these 2 "KILLERS".

AGAIN, I remind people that "speed" does NOT necessarily mean "going fast". You can be "speeding" at 60kph, or less, depending on prevailing conditions and other factors. There is NO SUCH THING as "safe" speeding.

AGAIN,I remind people that even a 10kph increase in speed GREATLY increases the stopping distance for a car. Most drivers, in their abysmal ignorance of speed knowledge and consequences, are blissfully unaware of stopping distances at various speeds and the resulting massive death and injury consequences resulting from going too fast in relation to limits and prevailing conditions.

To most people, a 10 or 20 kph speed increase (from any initial base speed) seems rather inconsequential. This false "belief" is the result of utter ignorance of the mathematics and science of speed. It's "amateurs" offering "uniformed" "opinion".

And guess what? "Of course" nothing will change their "opinion". Their freedom to behave as "they" think is appropriate on the roads is what is uppermost in their minds. It's becomes a matter of "freedom and rights" to them.......just "ideology". A "logical" approach to road safety based on fact, not "opinion", eludes them.

Philips

Speed and drink-driving appear to be the major killers, largely because that is how the stats are calculated. Are there even categories for accidents caused by bad overtaking, tailgating or slow road-hog driving?

Most accidents are caused by drivers who are impatient and have a terrible lack of respect for safety margins and error factors and who drive in a manner that reduces the safety margins right down close to the minimum and which heightens the chances of a small error or misjudgement leading to an accident.

This is why the policing of all indications of impatient and risky driving is very important, and why I am so critical of the police for not doing so, especially tailgating, which mobile units could so easily deal with when cruising our highways.

Let’s face it; most people who speed are also rotten drivers when it comes to tailgating and other behaviours that demonstrate impatience and unnecessary risk.

I’d say that it is vital that police resources get directed at all aspects of impatience and indicators of a lack of respect for risk factors, and not just at the two most obvious manifestations of these; speed and drink-driving.

.
Yes a 10kmh increase in speed makes a big difference to stopping distance and to a driver’s ability to avoid a hazard that suddenly appears in front of them.

So then, why do the police allow for a significant leeway on speed limits? There is obviously a 10kmh leeway in 100kmh zones of Queensland highways, and this appears to be the same throughout urban areas in 50, 60 and 80k zones.

How can the cops and government possibly tell us that ‘every k over is a killer’….and then proceed to let everyone do a few ks over?? ?? ??

Talk about woolly policing!! !!

I advocate an increase of 10kmh in just about all speed zones (in return for a vastly improved policing regime) because that is basically what we have now anyway – a 10kmh leeway.

Ludwig, I agree with most of what you say.

You ask, "why do police allow leeway on speed limits?". For safety reasons, that's why. If all police were always totally strict to within 1kph, then when every driver gets even slightly close to the speed limit they'll be looking at the speedometer more than the road......."not" safe at all. Now, your suggestion of a 10kph leeway solves this problem *BUT* I notice you ADD the 10kph to current limits, instead of decreasing current limits by 10 kph and *THEN* adding the 10kph leeway (which is my preferred option). That mere 10kph reduction will, over the years, save many, many lives.

For every single kph reduction in the "urban" limits, lives are saved (simply because of the mathematics of speed/distance/stopping time). Currently, the population is prepared to accept "certain" speed points.........the trade off being the deaths and injuries to motorists. We are prepared to see people die, to a certain number, so we can have our freedom to get from point A to point B at a particular speed. That's the way we have decided to live as a society on the roads.

Now, "some" people are NOT happy with that. These people are prepared to trade MORE deaths for their freedom to go from point A to point B *FASTER*. They see "their" rights as paramount.

Ludwig, "bad overtaking, tailgating and slow road-hog driving" are ALL "speed" related examples.

For example, did you know that it can take 2.5 kilometres to overtake a road train that's doing 100kph. That takes a lot of skill and control at "high speed".

When tailgating, if you smash into the driver in front of you, then you are going "too fast" in relation to the distance between the 2 cars.

If you encounter a slow road-hog, the correct and safe procedure is to reduce your "speed", keep at a safe distance, then increase your "speed" when it's safe to do so while overtaking. Blaming a road hog for someone else's impatience and bad reactions exonerates bad driving.......when we have a slow road hog combined with an impatient , reactive passing motorist, we have **TWO** very bad drivers.

"Speed" is a major killer on our roads. Having insight into "prevailing driving conditions", and adjusting speed accordingly, makes for a MUCH more mature and responsible driver.

Things like tailgating is not too bad and at normal speeds is not really dangerous except when there is a mismatch in vehicle sizes (ie a truck tailgating a car becomes very dangerous). Similarly overtaking in close proximity to other vehicles is safe (except in cases for example, when ignorant people with poor judgement cut in front of trucks and expecting them to have equivalent braking ability).

I think examples of dangerous driving are: Speeding when you are not capable of handling those speeds (some people in suitable vehicles are very capable and even safer than many ordinary drivers going at normal speeds). More importantly is the danger when speeding with: pedestrians/cyclists present nearby (in many cases they never are present though); in poor weather conditions; in blind situations, or while drunk or taking drugs (I consider speeding with DUI extremely dangerous at the peak of danger, in fact), though I do not consider DUI at ultra-low speeds dangerous unless you are an idiot. A key factor is that people who incorrectly overvalue or misjudge their own driving skills and road handling abilities of their vehicles.

This is what I do _not_ think is dangerous at all, but which currently is and criminalises and hurts many Australians: General speeding and high speeds; doing maneuvers ordinary drivers perceive to be hard and difficult (but which is in reality easy for more skilled drivers); DUI while taking precautions and going well below the limit; speeding when no pedestrians are present; Going through red lights when you are the only driver.

Phillips,

“Whether "some" people here care to admit it or not, speed and drink driving are "THE" major killers on our roads.”

Not in any normal and reasonable understanding of the term speed. Speed only qualifies if you argue things like you do with tailgating etc. which is pretty close to saying speed is involved because a crash requires at least 1 car to be moving. Normally only DoTs making oodles from speeding fine money go that broad.

“AGAIN, I remind people that "speed" does NOT necessarily mean "going fast".”

So why use such a irrelevantly broad definition when we are talking about speed limits?

“There is NO SUCH THING as "safe" speeding.”
Just like there is no such thing as a safe speed. If something is moving there is a potential crash. Plus the faster things move the harder they crash so (ignoring more relevant issues)you could improve safety if they reintroduced the flag man but that is not practical in modern society.

However there are speeds which coordinate with other moving objects better and account for the driving environment better. Research shows people crash less when they drive close to such speeds and that setting speed limits close to them reduces the dispersal of speeds and accidents. That is important and relevant to speed limits. Your foray into a broad definition of speeding to rationalize what would otherwise be complete demagoguery does not have the same relevance in this discussion.

CONT

”AGAIN,I remind people that even a 10kph increase in speed GREATLY increases the stopping distance for a car.”

A. We spend much more time with moving traffic that we need to coordinate with then stopping for the sudden intrusion. The relationship between speed and safety is curvilinear not linear as you are implying.
B. Those uncommon sudden intrusions are most often a pedestrian that we swerve past rather than aim for and panic brake like on those TV commercials.
C. The next most common sudden intrusion is a car and whether you are more likely to hit it because you are faster or less likely to hit it because you are faster just depends on where you are relative to it at the time of the intrusion.

Just for fun could you specify how much it increases the stopping distances.

“ Most drivers, in their abysmal ignorance of speed knowledge and consequences, are blissfully unaware of stopping distances at various speeds and the resulting massive death and injury consequences resulting from going too fast in relation to limits and prevailing conditions.”

Driver skill training could be extremely beneficial. Nevertheless research consistently shows that most drivers have this basic skill as the speed at which most drivers travel if freely choosing a speed is close to the optimal speed for the conditions. Further research consistently shows that people slow down in particular areas that are unusually hazardous (as measured by accident history) then they do in other areas in close proximity. This all confirms that basic skill. When sober people in a roadworthy vehicle do the wrong thing with speed they usually know. The proviso I would add is situations of fog or heavy rain seem to test people more.

”To most people, a 10 or 20 kph speed increase (from any initial base speed) seems rather inconsequential. This false "belief" is the result of utter ignorance of the mathematics and science of speed. It's "amateurs" offering "uniformed" "opinion".”

Get off your high horse that mathematics and physics has a context that is more compelling.

“ ‘why do police allow leeway on speed limits?’. For safety reasons, that's why. If all police were always totally strict to within 1kph, then when every driver gets even slightly close to the speed limit they'll be looking at the speedometer more than the road.......’not’ safe at all.”

Philips, you are saying that it is safer to do a few ks over, or to be allowed to do a few ks over. This seems to run strongly counter to the message presented in you previous post;

“AGAIN,I remind people that even a 10kph increase in speed GREATLY increases the stopping distance for a car.”

In my experience in both urban and highway situations, there are an awful lot of drivers that push the limit of what they think they can get away with (10kmh over the stated limit) and who would have to be constantly monitoring their speedos. Indeed, that is what I find myself doing on the highway in particular. That is, doing the fastest speed that I can get away with when there is traffic behind in order to roll with the flow…which means a constant monitoring of the speedo (or using cruise control if the vehicle I’m driving has it).

So a 10kmh leeway doesn’t solve the problem of the need for constant speedo monitoring or the added risk that it might create.

continued

“…bad overtaking, tailgating and slow road-hog driving" are ALL "speed" related examples.”

Speed-related yes. But it makes no sense for all of these different manifestations of bad driving to be lumped under the one category of speed (if this is the case) for the purposes of deriving statistics on road accidents. Indeed, it is very misleading, as the general public would perceive the stats on speed-related accidents to mean excessive speed, with the specific exclusion of slow road-hoggery or other types of accidents that could occur at slow speeds, such as nose-to-tail accidents caused by tailgating.

“…did you know that it can take 2.5 kilometres to overtake a road train that's doing 100kph. That takes a lot of skill and control at ‘high speed’ “.

That doesn’t make any sense. At high speed, you could overtake a road train that’s doing 100kmh in a few hundred metres, easily.

Within your very broad interpretation of speed, I guess you could even argue that any drink-driving accident, no matter how slow the idiot might have been going or what the circumstances of the accident might have been, would be speed-related because the driver was going too fast for his impaired reaction ability to deal with the situation.

Anyway, your very broad interpretation of speed seems to be pretty much the same as what I call risk factors and safety margins. So we have the same broad concerns and that is the main thing.

“Things like tailgating is not too bad and at normal speeds is not really dangerous except when there is a mismatch in vehicle sizes…”

Steel, I’ll have to disagree.

In surveys conducted by the RACQ (Royal Automobile Club of Queensland), tailgating is of a very high level of concern http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/10/08/1160246005913.html

Tailgating gives the immediate indication that the offending driver has a very poor understanding and appreciation of risk factors and safety margins, or of road courtesy.

It is very distracting for the driver in front.

It places the innocent party in front in an ongoing heightened risk scenario. For as long as they are being tailgated, they have very little scope for slowing down, let alone breaking quickly if they need to.

It is just about impossible for the driver in front to do anything about most of the time.

It causes road-rage.

Nose-to-tail accidents caused by tailgating make up the top category of motor vehicle insurance claims.

How often do you see a whole line of silly drivers travelling too close to the vehicle in front? I see it all the time. It only takes a very slight slowing down of the front vehicle for an exaggeration of slowing to be created back along the line of traffic, with each driver reacting more strongly to the slowing of the vehicle in front until there is a great screech of brakes and an accident back down the line somewhere.

I am very sensitive to this and hang well back when in a line of traffic. But very often the driver behind is intolerant of this, even though it is obvious to the twat that I’m travelling at the same speed as the car in front of me.

Nope, tailgating is bad news indeed. And the abject lack of policing of it is just disgusting.

yes, but does it actually kill people or injure them significantly? Is it truly dangerous? I think the answer currently is not really as millions of people tailgate and the absence of accidents prove that it's almost harmless, though I agree with you when it is done serious at high speeds and I would classify it as dangerous then. The cause is probably proof that current speed limits are ridiculous enough to cause a lot of frustration. People would tailgate a lot less if the speeds were higher or a better system was in place.

Ludwig,

"But it makes no sense for all of these different manifestations of bad driving to be lumped under the one category of speed (if this is the case) for the purposes of deriving statistics on road accidents. Indeed, it is very misleading, as the general public would perceive the stats on speed-related accidents to mean excessive speed,"

Here here!

In fairness, Queensland Transport, used to (mid to late 1990s) and may still take the approach of using a more normal concept hence deriving statistics of speed as a factor in 4% of accidents.

New South Wales took the misleading approach and got a figure of 40% from memory.

Steel, the vast majority of tailgating doesn’t lead to serious accidents. But then you can say the same about speeding or drink-driving or grey-nomad highway-hoggery or fatigue or vehicle mechanical failure or roos on the road, etc, etc.

Tailgating is very significant all-told. And it is surely one of the easier hazards to deal with, with the right policing and educational regime.