Hi mjpb, nice to see you back.

I have not studied the WA road accident statistics, or tried to analyse them. I am going on recent media reports. Not always reliable I know, but these reports seem to have been fairly presented, with independent witness statements, sometimes actual speed measurements shortly/immediately before the accident, skid marks etc and/or condition of the vehicle and whatever it ran into.

In a recent incident, a 22 year old motorcyclist was doing 120kph [I believe the legal limit is 80 on that stretch of road] shortly before crossing onto the wrong side of the road on what, at 80, would have been an easy curve. Broad daylight, but no sun glare. Good weather and road conditions. Not particularly busy. He collided with a vehicle coming in the opposite direction containing a family, killing himself, but fortunately not seriously injuring anyone in the other vehicle. No suggestion whatsoever that the family driver was doing anything wrong.

Similar stories could be repeated endlessly. Speed and/or inexperience are certainly not the only causes and/or serious contributory factors of road accidents, but, to me, they rank with the inexcusable.

There is rarely any excuse at all for excessive speed, except in an emergency situation, where the driver is a specially trained, experienced and authorised person [ie police, fire or emergency service]. As for inexperience, well that can't be avoided, we all have to start somewhere, but I believe that new drivers are well aware of their possible limitations and this should be legally re-inforced by limitations on the type and/or power of their vehicles.

Sorry I can't be more generally helpful on this.

In regard to Rule of Law.

This phrase sounds as if "rule" and "law" ought to basically mean the same thing, but unfortunately [perhaps unavoidedly in some cases] it doesn't always work out that way. If it did, then in the event of an appeal to a higher court, the end verdict would invariably be clear and unanimous. But this frequently isn't so, is it?

I have no legal training, but when I have looked like being in a situation which is going to need some legal understanding, then I do my homework and try to listen to those who may be in an position to help me [free of charge, of course]. And I am a big believer in thinking laterally and not automatically accepting the so-called superior wisdom of the overbearing know-alls. And I've worked in sales management, which means that I've often had to think on my feet, but, unlike politicians, I've then had to justify my position, if called upon to do so.

I have been part of various effective campaigns in WA [on different levels of commitment] regarding topics as varied as banning tobacco advertising, getting smoke-free restaurants etc, controlling industrial/commercial noise, pollution and disruption, Neighbourhood Watch, gay rights [I'm not gay, but I believe in a fair go for all, that's supposed to be typically Australian, isn't it?], anti-nuclear, public access to foreshores, retention of heritage buildings, stopping inappropriate developments, curtailing over-logging practices and a fair deal for nude bathers. But, like Fernando from the ABBA song about the Alamo, it's been [metapohorically] a while since I've had a rifle in my hands.

Some time ago, I was president of the North Fremantle Community Assn. There was a prominent Fremantle City councillor in those days who I sometimes crossed swords with, but we generally respected one another. One time he said something in Council which had a profound effect on me. "Find out what the rules are and make 'them' stick to them."

cont

Sometimes those in authority don't know what the rules are, or pretend they don't, or think those rules don't apply to them anyway. It's sometimes amazing what you find out if you dig a little.

One way in which a campaign can have remarkable success, apparently against all the odds, is to invoke the health angle. For instance, many people justifiably complain against unreasonable, perhaps literally illegal, commercial/industrial noise, particularly at night. But they typically get ignored, lied to, fobbed off etc, even threatened.

But a few years ago, a man living in inner-city Perth, in a planned and promoted new residential development, had his night's sleep regularly interupted by the illegally noisy activities of the Perth City Council, of all people. But he didn't just complain, he got even, by beating them in court and being awarded damages, with lots of good publicity. But first of all he got a letter from his doctor, saying that his health was suffering. This, of course, was the clincher!

I thought at the time that this was a wonderful breakthrough for everyone suffering in this way. I currently live in a quiet, totally residential area. But others within a few kilometres from me have serious problems with illegally loud, invasive industrial noise. So they complain, write to the papers and get fobbed off. Old, ineffectual habits often die hard, don't they?

The fact is, we often CAN "beat city hall", just as long as we go the right way about it.

Hi Rex thank you very much.

I'd suggest not letting down the guard with media reports even if they seem fair. You analyzed an aspect of it namely the likelihood that a particular example was correct. I believe that you quite capably and probably correctly analysed that. You then drew a normal but not so considered conclusion from the fact that most reports involved high speed.

In fairness to the media they want something interesting and high speed crashes provide the most spectacular examples. However you need to realize that 163 or more people are killed annually in that State in a large number of crashes and many other serious crashes just result in serious injury. Just because the other crashes aren't shown doesn't mean there aren't a lot or that the ones they show are in the majority. It simply means that high speed wreckage strewn across a road makes better television footage (particularly after a reasonably intact car has been cut in half to try to rescue an occupant or recover a cadaver).

"Speed and/or inexperience are certainly not the only causes and/or serious contributory factors of road accidents, but, to me, they rank with the inexcusable.etc."

I totally agree with this comment and generally agree with the balance of what you wrote.