"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.