Consider this AS PART OF A SET OF STRATEGIES to help solve road carnage and the subsequent costs to society.
1: Any serious moving violation offender having their vehicles fitted with GPS/taco recorders and sealed, for a period of 12 months at their expense. These could be checked every 3 months by the TRB at computer stations. Further unacceptable breaches would incur an increased fines and longer monitoring.
Sell or trash the car requires rego notification and official removal and re-installation on the new vehicle at the the offenders cost.

2: Engineers tell me it is possible to make these devices an integral part of a motor so that could be phased in. Older cars unless registered as 'classic' (limited street driving) could be progressively taken off the road or mandated to meet tighter safety criteria. Make structurely modified or engine modified cars harder to register and cost more.

3: Starting with the 25 yo rust buckets and progressively mandate all operating/ registered vehicles must be road worthy at the time of re-registration.

4: Also mandate that cars more recyclable.

5: Separate out moving violations and hand them to an expanded TRB officers and trained community police. (both forces exist.)

Some arguments :
Items 1 & 2 : Most recalcitrants object to having them mandated on vehicles claiming rights but their lack of interest in truckies' "rights" is inconsistent.
- 12 mths would be long enough to change habits.
- Big brother only applies to those who choose to behave in antisocial ways.
Item 3: This way you get rid of bangers and create a new market for cheaper technologically safer cars.

Item 5: Easier to recruit and cheaper to train....more bang for buck. Real police can then concentrate on more appropriate issues.

Any better ideas? Well then Girls and guys let it rip

I would like to see the compulsory fitting of speed limiters to all cars. Make them future compatible with wireless speed signs that transmit the current speed limit and change the limiter accordingly. Replace all speed signs with radio beacons and then speeding will be a thing of the past. Phased in over ten years the cost will be minimal and the savings huge. The need is there, the technology is there but is the will to save lives really there?

P.S. As a compensation I would increase the maximum allowable speed to 140/160 on roads that are appropriate.

examinator: "Starting with the 25 yo rust buckets and progressively mandate all operating/ registered vehicles must be road worthy at the time of re-registration."

Already done in some states, such as Queensland. It hasn't made an observable difference road fatalities.

examinator: "Also mandate that cars more recyclable."

Surely your aren't saying this would make the roads safer?

As for the rest, if you could convince me that heavy enforcement of things life speed limits would make the roads noticeably safer I'd go along. But the evidence isn't good. Red light cameras, for example, have had no measurable effect. http://j.mp/3djXtx I recall hearing in the decades following the shift in the UK from a holistic "driving safely" approach to a rule based "speed is bad" approach, accidents have gone up. Since fine revenue has also gone up, it looks like the approach is here to stay.

By the way, are you are we already know how to cut road fatalities by maybe half? It simple really. Raise the driving age to 25. http://j.mp/eFSo9

Firstly, I must point out that I do not support speeding, but, if we rid the roads of speeding motorists, where will the revenue come from to replace the revenue currently collected from these drivers?

A large portion of this revenue goes to fixing our roads.

Does traveling at 100 in an 80 zone cause that much additional wear and tear on our roads?.

In other words, if they stop traveling at 100, and do 80, will the repair costs reduce to almost nil?

Now don't get me wrong, I would love to see our roads safer, I have two kids who use them regularly, but; Where will the money come from if not from speeding fines?

Now while on speeding, we see police at road works almost every day.

Why can't they hold a radar gun at the same time?

We are already paying for them to be there!

Oh, and now I remember: after speed limits were introduced in the NT accident rates on average increased. Well, maybe they were just leaping all over the place as usual, but they certainly haven't reduced. http://j.mp/16y4BL

All
Thanks for your responses but think a collective solutions.
Rstuart Perhaps I should have said renewing registrations. Which happens no where in Australia.
Recycle-ability helping road accidents? sure Recycleable cars = cheaper materials to make the next ones = cheaper cars = more money to maintain the current car. well in theory anyway. remember the Button plan less models, interchangeable parts, like that only more extensive. Helping to make cars cheaper in lei of the unsafe rust buckets.
The point was all these are PARTS OF THE SOLUTION

The short comings with the answers so far are that they focus on
a. What exists now
b. single focus on single issues rather than the probable answer...a series of changes to the system.

Many of these solutions are designed to change some of the dangerous attitudes we have towards driving. These IMO are the real root cause of the problem of road safety.

Re The cops are revenue gaining...simply stop their source by not blatantly ignoring the laws.

The Polices are under funded and under manned police these issues properly...and police crime properly too.
Here the big impediment is money to train an all round police officer equipt etc. Currently this ends up in waning enrolments and unacceptable compromises down the line. If they're untied doing less demanding things like mobile violations enforcement.

The answer is cheaper special purpose policing TRB officers etc. The TRB enforce trucking laws so why not simply enlarge that force and its responsibilities to include traffic etc. less stress on on police less feelings of pointlessness (morale).

Offences occur out of their range static cameras
Answer, more mobile enforcement, by Trained and vetted TRB/CP officers,

TRB/CP could take over roadwork control cheaper with the authority to book idiots.

TRB/CP under supervision patrol places where dodgy cars are issuing cause notices for unsafe modified or rust buckets etc.

Rehctub Observed speeds limits lessen accidents. Think other improvements safer roads. Roads tailored for the traffic they carry not by class. i.e. Big heavy quarry trucks pulling dogs on suburban streets break up surfaces prematurely and cause accidents.

To have all cars the same is a mistake.

Many people work just that bit harder so they can one day own that 'dream car'. Take away that dream and you risk taking away the motivation, something that drives our ecconomy.

I think the anti hooning laws are on the right track. Remember, they're only new so give them time, I am sure they will make a difference.

Electronic speed signs are good. They can be changed to suit conditions. There are a few on the gateway now.

One grey area is road works.

Signs like 'reduce speed', from what! 100 to 98?

'Prepare to stop' Where and when?, perhaps not at all.

40kph road works in progress. Where, I can't see anything going on. Oh, do you mean those guys 2 clicks up the road?

These issues need to be addressed before many will take notice. It's a bit like a fire alarm today. We hear them so often now we take little notice.

Also, increase speeding fines at roadworks double the fine and double the points, they (speeders) will soon lern.

Possible Solution
Stop placing radars and cameras in lame areas. Place them in known problem spots. STOP REVENUE RAISING and start reducing accidents.

What a surprise: examinator wants more authoriatarian state interventions into the lives of ordinary people - of course, he'd never speed...

By any objective measure our roads are safer than they've ever been before, with accident rates declining and death rates dropping even faster. Cars now provide very survivable conditions for their occupants in the case of an accident and the dynamic performance of even older cars is way beyond the speed limits.

I spend a great deal of time on the roads, both in the city and the bush and I don't see an epidemic of speeding drivers and hoons. What I see is a bunch of people who simply don't pay attention. In the past week I've been forced to brake heavily on at least 4 occasions to avoid an accident caused by some brain-dead fool failing to notice the 2 tons of 4 WD occupying the same space she wanted to fit her littlre bubble car into. I've had to wait at an intersection for 5 minutes because the driver of the last car to pull up at the set of lights just down the road pulled up directly in front of my vehicle instead of leaving the 2 or 3 meter gap that would have left the intersection clear. I've left clear braking space in front of my vehicle, only to have some twit in yet another bubble car slip in under heavy braking, forcing me to brake heavily in turn and so on down the line of traffic. I could go on, but what all the incidents have in common is a dimwit focussed entirely on the urgency of their own needs to the exclusion of all else.

What is needed most of all is a driver education programme designed to remind people that all those other cars contain actual people, just like them, ISTM.

ALL
Antiseptic,On one hand you seem to be dismissing the ideas as a product of an some authoritarian demented mind yet your example proves my basic point it is the attitude towards driving that are the problem.
Not paying attention IS an attitude, selfishness i.e. "I can fit my bubble car in that space" My need are my focus is an attitude.
Additionally are you telling us that you're happy with the level of crime prevention....or that the highly payed, expensively trained officers doing jobs that can be done by other less expensive options the best use of our police resources? What's your answer to changing silly attitudes?
BTW I've been pinged for speeding etc but my attitude is " I did the crime I do the fine" without whinging it's called personal responsibility to the society on which I depend.

Rehctub, the Button plan, and what I'm advocating is not all cars being the same. Note my words. I simply want a line of cheap, technologically safe cars available for those who must and can only afford a cheap car.

Where we live and in what is based on what we can afford....i.e. Choices are secondary to safety and functionality. I worry about car loads of children being chauffeured by mum in rust buckets or with bald tyres because they can't afford two top of the range cars while dad drives the new car.( if that isn't arse about values/attitudes I don't know what is?)
Wouldn't you rather your teenagers in a technologically safe second hand car than a bomb. My plan is aimed at reducing the cost of secondhand but reliable cars

Examinator

Great to see some bold lateral thinking being applied to an age old problem. I applaud suggestions 1-4.

Not so sure about No. 5. I don't see more policing as the answer. That will only end up penalising competent drivers, who drive to the conditions, even though they might occasionally breach some arbitrary cutoff point. I also see handing over policing powers to another group in society as being somewhat fraught. You only have to look at the private security industry, and the cowboys it attracts, to see the problems likely to follow if policing powers on our roads are further devolved.

Antiseptic

<< .. some brain-dead fool failing to notice the 2 tons of 4 WD occupying the same space she wanted to fit her little bubble car into. >>

<< .. only to have some twit in yet another bubble car slip in under heavy braking .. >>

I agree, it's annoying to see another car slip into the safe braking distance you've deliberately kept between yourself and the car in front. At least when it's a 'bubble' though, your vision of the road ahead isn't entirely obscured, as it is when it's a 4W drive!

At the risk of attracting a bucketful from yourself and others, I'd respectfully suggest upping the disincentives to driving large 4W drive vehicles. Not only would it improve the vision and safety on our roads, but it would have the added benefit of decreasing carbon emissions.

Dear Examinator,

Simple solution - get rid of all of the above,
and bring back the horse and cart.

The Amish in the US - are doing very well and
are happy with the horse and cart and the local
authorities don't have a problem.

For longer distance travel - there are buses,
trains and planes. The hoons on the road, the mobile
phone users, the elderly, and confused - wouldn't have
a problem because the horse has his own mind - and he
knows where to go - and we'd get an additional bonus -
free fertilisation for the garden.

There are far too many horses who have nothing to do -
and they would be very happy to be called upon to
provide a service - besides horse feed is cheaper than
petrol.

What do you think? :-)

Great ideas, Examinator, in fact very similar to ones I suggested in a letter to an Editor recently. Cars have become much more than transportation; they are personas, status or phallic symbols, leisure accessories, superman suits. Cars should be "de-sexed", made into nerdish and green conveyances that "real" men and "bad bitches" would have nothing to do with. 40 kph speed-limits around town and strict speed-limiters should be introduced. Traffic violations could be recorded on board and reported, or the car even shut down and police called if necessary. The roads would be cleaner and much safer for cyclists and pedestrians.

Bronwyn:"I'd respectfully suggest upping the disincentives to driving large 4W drive vehicles."

I don't pay to put fuel in my old nissan because I like paying for fuel, I do it because it can tow 2 1/2 tons and carry things like spare wheels for my truck or a ram for the forklift or the chainsaws or fuel and oil drums, not to mention being able to haul up to 6 kids to things like scout camps and the like and being able to get in and out of slippery worksites thanks to 4WD.

Point me to a bubble car that can do that and I'll swap tomorrow.

examinator:"are you telling us that you're happy with the level of crime prevention"

No, not really, the "nobody need ever know your name" thing really bothers me. How do you feel about that? Authoritarian enough for you?

Crime rates for most offences are at historic lows and likely to get lower still, despite all the hysteria in the media. Women's violence against men is a notable exception to the rule. I don't generally fear for either my property or myself, however.

All,
Antiseptic is exactly like the old 'Age' in Melbourne always agreed with the right to strike...'but not this one'. In the final analysis over 40 years every strike was a 'not this one'.

Again we have 'this is what I do and the method/reasoning is right
mentality.In order to let me do what *I want* to do take preference over the common good.

Antiseptic, there are ways around your needs and maybe some of your wants need changing. I can't justify not being pinged for breaking the law or doing what I WANT at the current cost. A few thousand killed Tens of thousands injured most costing taxpayers Millions. All that suffering/misery, loss of production it just isn't worth it. Especially if one of yours is effected because of someone else's transgressions.

BTW the local police know me rather well. After my sons bashing and their sloppy work there are some who are unappreciative of my knowledge of the system and tenacity. I'm simply not frightened of any authority.

I do respect the democracy and the laws and their purpose. Even if I'm inconvenienced some times. I'm not authoritarian as such just aware.

Thanks Bronwyn, whats your alternative to no 5? Keep in mind this is a suggested collective solution . I really want other ideas

Bronwyn,

4WDs are necessary on Sydney roads. With the pot-holes and speed humps and chicanes, it's the only way to get around.

I hate 4WDs too, as I'm generally a hater. But the solution is really to buy a monster truck I feel.

But why not ban them, that seems to be the solution to everything these days. Lets ban everything, starting with cars. I'm with you Foxy. Be afraid.

pontificator seems to have a special interest in pontificating about the rules of traffic when he's not on about manners. I suppose anal retentive types are like that. The last thing the world needs is more rules. Go to the park, and there is a sign of 15 things you're not allowed to do in the park, ranging from... well, most things you may need an open space for. The Nanny state is in full force, egged on by the pontificators of this world.

The tax pool just cant keep up with the likes of examinator and the thousands of new rules, and documentation and policing needed to enforce them. Think of the children! If we can save on child it will be worth it though huh? pft.

BTW: It's typical form from Exam to try to punish the poorest because they have old cars, and introduce new costs into driving when most suburbs have stuff all other options. Or maybe he intends to tax the rich more.

Examinator
Wouldn't you rather your teenagers in a technologically safe second hand car than a bomb. My plan is aimed at reducing the cost of secondhand but reliable cars

My wife and I drive great cars and my kids as well. It is important to me.

Foxy
Simple solution - get rid of all of the above,
and bring back the horse and cart.

Gee I hope that is just a joke, otherwise, be prepared to pay ten fold for your food stuffs alone'

Please, tell me it was a joke!

Of course it's a joke !

Admittedly a poor one.

My sense of humour sometimes gets a bit warped -
but hey - I'm only human. I am disappointed
though - that Examinator didn't even react.
That really puts me in my place - in the
'naughty corner.' (Hands on my head as well)!

But, back to the subject - I agree with Anti -
better driver education would help - as would
more frequent license testing - say every three
years - at least - my mum who's in her eighties
and has problems with her eyesight was granted a
license for ten years - what were they thinking?

Foxy's right, we should bring back horses. I like horses, & horses, being much slower, will be much safer.

But hang on a minute, in the day of the horse, the road toll, per head of population, was much higher than it has been, any time since. I guess that means it's safer to go faster.

At least it is safer, on a long run, when the boredom, generated by trundling down the near straight roads of today, at our mind-blowingly slow speed limits, make you a real prospect of falling asleep, & running into a tree.

Anyone who thinks 100Km/hour is fast, should immediately surrender their licence, as they have no idea of car control, a & are therefore not fit to drive on the public road.

To All,
Do any of you think that the problem may be the nut behind the wheel not rules with more regulation.

R10, I agree.

I'm sure you have all seen this picture before.

A line of youths sitting in a row racing each other on those 'in line' car-racing machines.

They handle almost like the real thing, only, if they go off the track they may crash and loose a few places, but they don't get hurt. No worries they say, cause the guys in front may crash to so I can still win.

Now while this may be lots of fun, the problem is many young drivers today think they know how to handle a car simply because they are 'ace' at these car games or the Xbox or PS.

They then take this newfound talent onto the roads but don't realise, they often start out, not in a 'race car', but rather 'the best car they could afford at the time'.

The result is often serious injury to both themselves and their passengers, or even death.

Now when I was a kid learning to drive, back in the 70's, we drove the best car we could afford, but didn't just assume we could drive. The car racing machines were very poor as well.

I feel there is a definite link between these games and young drivers accident rates.

All......
Foxy, What ?! You mean you lied to me? You're not a Goddess?
I'm shocked and disappointed :-o & :-(

In that case...GO TO YOUR ROOM !

Richie10 Hooray! That's my point ….the question is how do change the attitudes.
Education yep but people ignore that.

My solution by toughening up the enforcement of existing laws and the addition of tachometers on offenders cars for 12 months MIGHT help reprogram for better habits.
Psychology teaches that if a person can practice for 45-60 day on a new (positive) action it can remap the brain create a new automatic habit. This is the basis of much of cognitive behaviour modification techniques.

NASA retrain their astronauts brains to cope with multi tasking by simple exercises which require the subject to read a coded columned instruction/translate it to defined physical and verbal actions.
i.e. A list of jumbled letters which the subject says the letter and simultaneously making leg /arm movements in accordance with the code
e.g

C …... L...... R the subject says “ C “ simultaneously saying raises left leg and right arm

Z...........-........L the subject says “Z” simultaneously saying raises left arm only

K.........L....... - the subject says “K” simultaneously saying raises left leg only etc.
BTW it can be a hoot at parties trying the exercises.

The list repeats all instructions randomly and can be 60 lines long. Once the subject can do these seamlessly for 45-60 days, tests shows that their multitasking skill (reading several dials etc. simultaneously) have increased by up to 60%. and has become an automatic “instinctive” reaction.

My idea is to force miscreants to retrain out of bad habits to new good ones. The key fact here is the longer the training time the stronger is the reprogramming.

Aside: this tends to call into serious doubt the primacy of Yabby's chemical fixed brain instincts(deterministic) argument.

Dear Examanty,

" I come from a tribe of nature worshippers,
pantheists, believers in faeries, forest sprites,
and wood nymphs ... I grow nervous in rooms and
must step outside and touch a tree, or sink my toes
in the dirt, or watch the birds fly by ..."
(Borrowed from the poetry of Al Zolynas).

I don't lie - but I do have a mischievous streak...

Your solutions for mobile traffic violations sounded
a bit complicated - that's why I playfully suggested
going back to the bygone days of the horse and cart.

However, as I stated in my other post - it should
all really begin with better driver education
programmes, regular license testing (at least every
three years for good drivers, and every year for 'bad,'
drivers). 4W-drives in city areas are a nuisance and
an invitation for accidents. It's hard enough for
essential commercial vehicles on the roads - without the
added unnecessary 4W - drives, whose place belongs on
the farm.

I find that most of what is written on this page is absolute garbage and the writers have no idea about road safety. Its pathetic.

The way I see it, if the powers that be insist on handing out licences to all, based on the criteria currently required in all Licence Handbooks, then you all can do nothing but cop it sweet.
Either that, or migrate to the heaviest vehicle you can find and drive like an 18yo and know that you will not be responsible for anything.

Remember that a fair majority of road users have self determined that driving is a right, not a privelige.
Until that attitude changes along with licensing credibility, I wish you all well.

PS. as for the revenue bit.....hello!! Registration and fuel tax was supposed to add to coffers for road maintenance!!

NT

NTeyeball,
I agree it is an attitudinal one now What is your solution to solving the problem?

Examinator:"there are ways around your needs and maybe some of your wants need changing."

Oh, really? Do enlighten me, won't you? I'm always thrilled when a pompous busybody tries to tell me what's good for me.

Frankly, old chap, the whole "nobody need ever know your name" thing sounds like it'd suit you down to the ground. I bet you've got the crimestoppers 1300 number on speed dial on the mobile, just in case...

What's become obvious from this thread is that there is a great deal of speaking out of posteriors going on. Speed is an exacerbating factor in some accidents, it's not a causative factor in many at all. What causes accidents in the city is primarily poor driving and in the country it is both poor driving and poor fatigue management, as well as a high proportion of single-vehicle "accidents" being deliberate suicides.

In my life I have driven well over a million km and I have competed successfully as a rally driver at clubman level as well as being licensed to drive most classes of vehicle, up to and including heavy trucks and also motorcycles. I'm a pretty good driver, if I do say so myself. I've been involved in about 8 collisions, of which I was held to be responsible in 3. Each case was a simple misjudgement or a lack of attention, as were the ones I was not responsible for. None of them involved speeds over the posted limit.

I suspect that accident rates are stuck where they are for the foreseeable future, simply because there is an irreducuible minimum rate for any given traffic density which we are rapidly approaching. the only beneficiaries of a more draconian regime would be the State, through increased revenues and the fearful nanny-staters, like bombasticator.

Antiseptic.
You do me a disservice.

How am I a busybody that is really a matter of perspective.
I'm not interested in the details your life nor telling you what to do.
You made statements all I did was challenge the immutability of them saying some were needs based and others were because you WANT to do them that way.
I was being objective nothing more.
Any offense was in your mind and didn't occur to me.

People do things the way they do because they find it convenient for them. That doesn't mean that it couldn't be done any other way or for the sake of the whole community shouldn't.

You may well be a good driver I don't know.It's not germane to the topic.

The topic was on the whole of drivers basis not an individual.
I've said this 4 times now it is clear that the real issue is drivers' (in general) attitudes to driving. The crux of the issue is to find a way to change those attitudes. Given the criteria set by people in and out of the discussion I offered a strategy consisting of a series of actions.

I simply find thousands of deaths, hundreds of thousands of injured and affected, loss of production and health services tied up in this worrisome, worthy of discussion.

read all my posts see what my reasoning is/was then comment on that.
I don't insult you or your views. Personal attacks are pointless . What is your solution(s)? I am interested or else I wouldn't have posted the topic. I'm well passed the ego trip of my ideas are brilliant life has taught me that, if nothing else.

No matter what the speed limit people will continue to do five over.
The fines are only loose change, get realistic and have real fines.
If the limit is 100 that does not mean 101. People will continue to speed because the ratio of being caught and kilometers travelled is very large.
The only way to fix this is realistic fines. A minimun of $1000.00
The petty fines that exist now, makes no one think of the consequences.
Parking in no standing zones outside a school, doesn't mean a thing.
On the highways the chances of getting caught are remote, so people elect to go over the speed limit just a little bit.

Good ideas Examinator. Well worth exploring them. But you know what I'm gunna say... we could deal with the road safety issue much more easily if we could just get past this ridiculous blockage with community policing.

We wouldn't need to wait a decade, or perhaps fives years if we really push it, to get technological innovations implemented, we could deal with the guts of the road safety issue inside of twelve months.

Just empower the public to make complaints, along with evidence to corroborate the complaints, and we'd be on a winner.

If the necessary evidence is gained, which in most cases could be done with a cam recorder or still camera, then any issues of false or vexacious complaints or situations of entrapment could be eliminated.

If all citizens just had their basic right to act against illegal activity by way of reporting it to the cops and had their complaints fully acted upon, we'd have the issue solved.

We CAN make complaints about all manner of things, and without having to gather the evidence to support them, and the cops will deal with them. But when it comes to road safety, for some bizarre reason it is entirely different, unless an accident has happened. Well, that's my experience over many years at least.

Empowering the public so that in the eyes of fools every person is virtually a potential police officer, will do the trick. For as long as the thin blue line remains incredibly thin, and only they can effectively act against dangerous drivers (and they continue to turn a blind eye to it a lot of the time), we won't be able to deal with the problem, short of some pretty amazing, expensive and long-time-before-implementation technofixes.

The problems with reporting someone for 'doing wrong' can lead to ramifications for both yourself and your family, due to the fact that if these charges were defended in court, you would have to front to give evidence.

You then place everyone at risk.

The main problems is that fines are really a 'sourse of revenue' and this is evident by the placements of speed cameras and radars.

70 in a 50 zone is far more dangerous than 120 in a 100 zone, yet they attract the same fine/points.

I had a speed camera fine a few years back and oppted to pay the $750 as a company rather than nominate myself as driver for the lessor fine of about $140. The result being that I lost no points and had to eat in that night. Big deal!

Now simply offer free, or almost free public transport, along with huge parking fees and you will solve many traffic problems overnight.

Fewer cars means fewer crashes. But where will the money come from?

I say again, traffic violators pay a huge chunk of the roads revenue so where will it come from if not from them?

Another angle, somewhat twisted, is the fact that thousands of man hours for employees of the state are generated through traffic incidents and accidents. From police, ambo's , doctors and nurses.

Where are these hours going to be replaced if all of a sudden we have no traffic violators to control and or accidents to attend.

Health?, Education? Deffence?, Welfare?, where do we cut back to fund the gap?

Solve that problem first and you may have a chance.

Remember, to every 'action', there will be a 're-action', and it may not be to pretty!

As I said earlier, we're geting safer every year. Look at the graph on the top of this page, which flatly contradicts the sensationalist scare-mongering headline

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/road-carnage-approaches-12year-high-20090911-fku7.html

It shows that since about the mid-70s, the number of vehicles on Qld roads has gone from about 1million to well over 3 million yet the number of fatal accidents has declined from well over 600 per year to around 300. in other words, we're at least 6 times less likely to be killed on an "average" journey than we were 30 years ago.

What's the problem?

Well, there isn't one, really, even "hoons" are far less prevalent than they were then. As a young man at boarding school in East Brisbane I can recall listening to the hoons racing around Vulture Street and the back streets of East Brisbane and Norman Park at all hours, often followed by the sound of sirens.

I can't recall the last time I heard that.

The only problem is that there are a couple of groups with vested interests in maintaining the public fear.

The first, obviously, is the insurance industry. Their idealised model includes only premiums, no claims, so they do their best to get enforcement of what they see as the most common claim-producing behaviours.

The second group is the police, who try to create the perception that there is a problem in order to both increase their own political influence and to gain greater powers. The "anti-hooning" vehicle impoundment laws are one example of this process in action.

The third group is the politicians, who try to induce fear to bolster their own security of tenure. We all know how it works.

The fourth group is the media, who just want to sell advertising. Guess who spends lots of money on advertising, especially those big full-page ads about "The Road Toll", not to mention all those lovely 30 second prime-time spots and the airtime that ACA can fill for very little cost.

The fifth group is the geriatrics. "Things were so much better in my day".

Bollocks.

"The problems with reporting someone for 'doing wrong' can lead to ramifications for both yourself and your family, due to the fact that if these charges were defended in court, you would have to front to give evidence."

I don't know about you but the feeling of powerlessness that I have when driving and confronted with brazen idiots is one of the worst and most enraging feelings that I can imagine. It is disgusting beyond belief that we can be so powerless in situations in which our safety is placed at a considerable risk, by people who are blatantly breaking the law.

I don't know how you can accept a situation like this. Surely you would be in favour of empowering the public to do something, with the aid of the police, in that sort of situation, by way of simply being able to make a complaint and have it acted on.

Do you realise that there are a lot of idiots out there that have come to know just how powerless the public really is and therefore how freely they can act like dangerous fools, with impunity?

For goodness sake, it is a fundamental tenet of our democracy and way of life that everyone have the power to report illegal activities. Not only this but it is, in theory, our duty to do so.

Again, we CAN do this with all manner of illegal activities. We've got neighbourhood watch all over the country, in which we are implored to report suspicious activity...which doesn't even have to be illegal. We've had 'dob in a smoky vehicle' campaigns. We've got signs on some highways that implore us to report hazards.

continued

And yet, when it comes ot reporting tailgaters, speeders, dangerous overtakers, etc on our roads, it is just an entirely different story.

Yes we might need to go to court on the rare occasion if a person that we report chooses to fight the matter. So what? Do you really think that possible ramifications are a significant concern?

Surely people need to have the choice to report something and to go to court as a result. I'm not saying that everyone should do it as a matter of duty, but we certainly should all have that choice.

And if we did, with full facilitation from the police and politicians, it would make more of a difference than any technofix options.

Empower the people. That is the solution.

Ludwig:"Do you realise that there are a lot of idiots out there that have come to know just how powerless the public really is and therefore how freely they can act like dangerous fools, with impunity?"

Did you have a look at that chart I linked to?

The last thing our country needs is an expansion of busy-bodyism. Every time some old dear on her weekly trip to the shops gets a horn blown at her for driving at 40 in a 60 zone there'll be a bloody court case!

One thing I do approve of is that you're not advocating anonymous dobberism like that promoted by the "no one need ever know your name" Crimestoppers disgrace.

Is there a correlation between the massive increase in fearmongering over recent years and the rise of women into decision-making positions in politics and bureaucracy?

Antiseptic,
First person is a poor tool/argument when dealing with masses of people.
Perhaps you should visit eAnt's place and listen to all the hoons and police sirens every night.
Technically he doesn't live in Brisbane centre but close enough.

Your insurance argument need crutches. not all traffic accidents are from speeding et al. or moving violation activities.
- You argued elsewhere for lack of judgement, that happens at any speed.
- No prangs no need for insurance...their market place dwindles.
- 10% of rating 1 profit is what $200, 10% of $1500 (with excesses)rating 6 rating profit is $200+ risk factor. Think of loans policies.
Are you saying that the police are campaigning for more work....According to police attitudes traffic is the lowest end of work favoured except for DV.

The graph you mention is fine for overall but % comparisons
But Most of are concerned about the victims as Individuals....i.e. too many.
I dread ever having to have another early AM call by the police telling me that a member of my family has been killed. I'm also sure that almost every other survivor feels the same way. You're lucky if it hasn't touched you.

The geriatric comment is a rash over assumption and/or contextually misapplied.
As for your correlation with women in power prove it and in its absence I say Bollocks

Examinator:"Perhaps you should visit eAnt's place and listen to all the hoons and police sirens every night.
Technically he doesn't live in Brisbane centre but close enough."

I'll take that on board, but I stand by my view that the whole matter is overstated.

Examinator:"not all traffic accidents are from speeding et al. or moving violation activities."

erm... on the whole, stationary vehicles don't cause accidents...
but I do agree that speeding isn't often causative, as I said earlier. It's one of the easiest things to police, however, which is why it's pushed so heavily.

examinator:"No prangs no need for insurance...their market place dwindles."

Not if the insurers can convince everyone they're at risk. That's what insurance advertising does.

I really can't make head nor tail of your next statement. "PLease explain?".

examinator:"Are you saying that the police are campaigning for more work....According to police attitudes traffic is the lowest end of work favoured except for DV."

Those in charge don't do traffic work, or DV work. Those in charge do political work. What those doing traffic work think doesn't enter into it.

examinator:"The graph you mention is fine for overall but % comparisons
But Most of are concerned about the victims as Individuals....i.e. too many. "

All worderfully santimonious, but the graph clearly shows there are far fewer "Individuals" becoming "victims".
Personally, I reckonI've got good reason to believe I'm unlikely to become one of them, so what's in it for me as a quid pro quo for sacrificing my autonomy?

Eaxaminator:"You're lucky if it hasn't touched you."

And mothers bear children. Any other statements of the bleedin' obvious you'd like to get off your chest?

Examinator:"The geriatric comment is a rash over assumption and/or contextually misapplied."

LOL. Whatever you say, old chap.

Examinator:"As for your correlation with women in power prove it and in its absence I say Bollocks"

I only asked. I'll put you down as a "no" vote...

Antiseptic,
Your point that to YOU the case is overstated comes across like "because YOU can't see it therefore it either doesn't matter or doesn't exist.
In context I was giving ready Aust details countering the above point.
You base your argument on *a* statistical comparison. What the above and your subsequent argument ignore is that while the statistical comparison is favourable, lots of people are both directly and indirectly are adversely effected. (The stats don't address the wider context and therefore true effects) The validity of any stats as an argument depends on the the nature of the stats and what they were designed to show.

The stats don't investigate the increase the numbers and duration of the injured and cost of care, loss of income. Nor do they account for the costs to the treasury in sickness payments, payments from the nominal defendant , increases in premiums, attendances by relevant police etc. the list goes on finishing with loss of production and its flow on.. Lets not forget the human suffering either.

>>"Personally, I reckon I've got good reason to believe I'm unlikely to become one of them, so what's in it for me as a quid pro quo for sacrificing my autonomy?"<<

I suspect this is the crux of your argument . This is demonstrably a very superficial self-centred assessment of reality in a society.

Objectively your argument is fatally flawed by virtue of the fact of living in Australia and in reality as in all counties Your autonomy is what society as a whole says it is and on its own non negotiable.

Finally the 'sanctimonious' ( I assume you meant that) comment, I ask how stating provable details are "overly hypercritically pious" ..."where did I say I was better than anyone?" You criticism seem based on egocentricity than what was written.
We are talking about all drivers not you per se.
You always seem to personalise the subject matter, I personalise the style.

And if we did, with full facilitation from the police and politicians, it would make more of a difference than any technofix options.

Yes and meanwhile our gaols and juvinile detention centres are full with people whos only motivation is to seek revenge when they get out and, thanks to the 'do-gooders' they will get out, often after honning their 'crime skills' at our expense.

I am not saying to be submissive to anyone in the wrong, but just take a look at the gangs of youths roaming the streets 24/7 as our police are powerless to do anything about them, esspecially if they are 'racially challenged'

Why else do you think so many witnesses fail to front up on court day.

Antiseptic: "Did you have a look at that chart I linked to?"

The entire point of this thread is to let a group of grumpy men tell the powers that be how they should be run the place. Don't go and confuse the issue with facts. You'll just spoil their fun, and give them yet another excuse to grump. There has been more than enough grumping here already.

So nobody is addressing the issue of job losses.

Traffic accidents are a bit like wars. Ecconommies thrive on them.

As sick as it may sound, tell me; Where are the jobs going to come from if these jobs are lost?

Also, where will we take the money from to fund roads if there are no traffic violators to pay fines?

It's a bit like smoking. Only a small portion of taxes raised through smoking go back to treating vitims of smoking related illnesses. This is why smoking can never be banned.

The governments are caught between a rock and a hard place.

It's a bit like you leaving your job (source of income/revenue) to find enother. Sure, you may not like your job, but find another first, then leave. Same applies here.

Antiseptic, You've responded to my statement:

"Do you realise that there are a lot of idiots out there that have come to know just how powerless the public really is and therefore how freely they can act like dangerous fools, with impunity?"

But, um...you haven't addressed this issue at all!

The link you posted suggests all the usual stuff like and increased police presence on our roads, blah blah. But it doesn't address my point.

I see one of the biggest problems in road safety as being the perception that there is just about no chance of being caught for many offences and only a tiny chance for the classic ones such as speeding and drink-driving. This is of fundamental importance to the whole road safety issue. It is the number one thing that we need to work on!

A very significant portion of drivers are just plain bad drivers. Then the vast majority of the rest feel pressured to roll with the flow. So they become entrenched law-infringers as well...and we end up with a culture of driving that is very different to the strict legal situation.

Why has this happened? Predominantly because of the TINY police presence....and of course, because of the absolutely awful blind-eye, inconsistent, unscrupulous, woolly manner in which road safety is policed.

So again, the most fundamental thing that we need is to empower the public so that any citizen can do their bit, and so that the vast majority of would-be bad drivers will conceive the risk of being caught to be very much greater and will pull their stupid looking heads in!

SIMMMMPLE !! !! !! !!

Don't get hung up with silly notions of authoritarianism, 'dobberism' or potential repercussions on those who make complaints. Be positive. Look at the huge potential advantages of simply increasing the power to the people, not to an excessive degree but just to the extent that we should all expect, within a democracy and free society.

Ludwig
Don't get hung up with silly notions of authoritarianism, 'dobberism' or potential repercussions on those who make complaints.

Try telling this to the family of a guy who got shot and killed recently in brisbane. All as a result of 'boat ramp rage'.

I don't know the facts but I will bet the guy who did the shooting was not the one who complained.

Ludwig:"the perception that there is just about no chance of being caught for many offences and only a tiny chance for the classic ones such as speeding and drink-driving."

I dispute that. I drove an old bomb of a car for a while and got pulled up for "random" breath testing regularly. When I was a young bloke I drove a couple of flashy cars and got regularly booked for doing the same thing as everyone else was, especially speeding. My car was singled out on several occasions from a line of cars all doing the same speed. Young blokes driving flashy cars are still facing the same sort of policing regime, only now the penaties they face are far higher.

Ludwig:"the TINY police presence"

I'd just as soon there were fewer policing traffic and more policing serious crime.

Ludwig:"Look at the huge potential advantages of simply increasing the power to the people"

Ah, if only 'twere so. Sadly, the majority of those using their new-found power would be either Mother Grundys or motivated by something other than civic duty, I suspect. We already have law that allows a party to make a complaint and if there is evidence, the police will act. We don't need the anonymous curtain-peerers to be given any more encouragement.

RStuart,anti
I can't speak for others but I am neither geriatric nor grumpy.
FYI I have never agreed with the idea that "things were better good old days" I'm the one who constantly cries CONTEXT.

Everyone
While I think of it, thank you for your inputs I do appreciate them.
ALL the issues raised are valid in that the problem is CUMULATIVE nos just one issue.
I simply raised the perspective that there are too many victims direct and indirect and something(s) clearly need to be done. Of course there will be losers generalities do that. But the REAL alternative is to allow a few to win and the majority to suffer (from multiple causes) that are broadly speaking 'mobile(traffic) violations. My vote is I'll cope with restrictions of my "autonomy(?) such as it is" for the greater good and the benefits I have from being in a society. I guess it all depend on the degree of the restrictions as if they are so restrictive as to stifle what it means to belong to a democratic(?) (such as it is) society.

“Try telling this to the family of a guy who got shot and killed recently in brisbane. All as a result of 'boat ramp rage' “.

Rehctub, if we all stuck to the rules, instead of there basically being two sets of rules; those for the idiot fraction that don’t have any respect for the law and only have respect for what they can get away with, and those for the fraction that are basically law-abiding as a matter of either principle or fear of getting busted for infringements…then there would be a whole lot less road rage, boat-ramp rage and so on.

I very strongly suggest that this sort of rage is largely due to people feeling powerless. They observe something that is bluntly illegal or stupid and they know they won’t get any satisfaction if they report it to the police, so they are left with the option of either copping it sweet or taking matters into their own hands.

If the law was well-respected, if the police did their job properly, if the public knew that they stood a very good chance of being busted if they mucked up, then there would be a whole lot less rage!

“I dispute that….”

Antiseptic, I agree that if you make yourself conspicuous by driving an old bomb or by being an 18 year old petrol-head with a car to match, then you’ll get more than your average share of police attention. But even for them, the police will only target a very small number of offences. They’ll get away with tailgating, dangerous overtaking, etc, just the same as for the rest of us.

“I'd just as soon there were fewer policing traffic and more policing serious crime.”

Yes yes YES!!

If we had an effective community policing regime, it would free up the cops from road-rule policing and allow them to spend more time on other crime. Although I wouldn’t call it more serious crime, as stupid antics on our roads that lead to death and injury or increase the chances of it happening are every bit as serious as many ‘serious’ crimes.

Non-police administrative personnel could take care of most of the complaints rendered through community policing.

“We already have law that allows a party to make a complaint and if there is evidence, the police will act.”

YES! So why do the cops effectively discourage complaints or the gathering of evidence to support them??

Ludwig, I agree with what you are saying, I think we have plenty of police but our police resourses could be far better managed.

One problem is that of 'revenue targets' .Police must book a certain number of traffic offenders, they must perform a certain number of RBT's.

You know you have a problem when there are up to 15 police attending an RBT, yet it can take up to 40 min to get a response to a more violent crime.

We need non police conducting RBT's as long as there is one or two officers there.

One problem is that of offenders challenging their offence in court. Without police present at the offence, you would have a lot more cases thrown out of court. This of cause involves mountains of paperwork. Another waste of valuable police time.

Another is our loose laws with respect to juviniles as they are almost 'untouchable' and they know it.

Kids often have to commit up to 20 times before they get locked away, only to come out a better crim as they are locked away with other crims.

Make parents accountable for the actions of their kids and many things would change.

Hit mum and dads pocket and watch what happens. Who knows, perhaps in time we will effectively 'breed out' the miss fits of society, as many of todays 'missfits' are from yesterdays 'missfits'. And to think we pay them for it!

Agreed rehctub. So if a community policing regime for road safety was to be implemented, the police could be very considerably freed up.

I just completely don't understand the lack of support for community policing, or a much better facilitation of complaints, or whatever you might want to call it, amongst the good folk of OLO.

There have only been negative points put forward. But once I have initially countered them, there has been a distinct lack of willingness to continue with any debate (on a number of threads).

There seems to be a complete lack of enthusiasm for the concept, but without any real foundation.

I would have thought that the idea of better-empowering the public to act against illegal and dangerous antics would have been well-supported, at least by some people.

I've got to admit I am disappointed, dismayed and at a loss to understand it.....although it does help me to understand why our road-safety policing regime is so despicably poor.