Hi All... and to 'Is Mise'

I've been driving for 'round fifty + years, and as a former member of the NSW STP, I would have to say, one of the greatest components and causes of serious motor traffic accidents would have to be, driver attitude.
It never ceases to amaze me, the strange 'metamorphosis' that seems to take place when a reasonable, well adjusted adult gets behind the wheel of a motor vehicle? It's almost a declaration of war. Why this happens, I really don't know? What I do know is that when a NOK is required at the morgue, for a formal ID of a close family member, attitudes change...absolutely!
Cheers...sungwu

A significant number of Australians die, or are seriously injured, due to the criminally irresponsible driving of other road users. I don't see why I [or anyone else for that matter] should have to accept this as inevitable.

I agree with the use of speed traps, but believe that the degree of tolerance should match the accepted degree of speedo accuracy, and that this should be publicised. We all know that accepted tolerances are taken advantage of, but anyone who assumes that they can invariably drive at the upper tolerance level is likely to incur regular speeding penalties, and rightly so.

In regard to tailgating, particularly by large vehicles at high speed, this is seriously dangerous to the life of the occupants of the vehicle being tailgated, and I believe that the policing and penalties should reflect this seriousness.

I would like to see a number of assorted non-descript [official] vehicles on the road, travelling at 5Ks over the limit, for the purpose of booking every driver who overtook them. Extra penalties could also be incurred for tailgating, irresponsible overtaking, weaving, not signalling etc. The technology for recording this type of behaviour, to the satisfaction of a court, is most certainly available.

In WA, we have a system by which hoons, usually young, inexperienced drivers and often P platers, can have their vehicles impounded for 48 hours. This ridiculously inadequate so-called penalty appears to be regarded by the hoons as a badge of honour. For some of the obviously more potentially dangerous hoon activities, such as burn outs on busy blind corners etc [as evidenced by the tyre marks], I would suggest a 6 month impoundment period, with a realistic storage charge to get the vehicle back after 6 months.

cont

Talking of tyre marks, I'm not an expert on this, but I wonder if repeatedly doing burn outs etc would cause the tyres to wear unevenly in a typical pattern. If this is so, I believe that tyre outlets should be legally obliged to report clients to the police who replace tyres for this apparent reason. Obviously there are other reasons for uneven tyre wear, so this wouldn't be grounds for prosecution, but it may help to deter irresponsible drivers.

If P platers are caught doing serious things like, for instance, 20 Ks or more over the limit, it indicates to me that they should be back on L plates. And similarly, some drivers, including some older, experienced drivers, should be back on P plates. The shame factor would work very well here.

In our local paper this week, there's an account of a hit-and-run, leaving a pedestrian injured, after he was hit by a car doing burn outs. This, or worse, could easily happen to any of us.

Why not apply the same penalties to car owners as are applied to gun owners?
If a gun owner, in his own home, commits a minor breach of the law, his first offence, such as not securing his gun by keeping it out of his gun safe because he is going on a hunting trip at 5.00 am the next morning and he is caught, then he will lose his licence for 10 years and his guns will be confiscated. The guns may be worth thousands of dollars and if they are damaged while in polce hands there is no compensation. If he is found not guilty he may not get his firearms back; their return is solely at the Commissioner's discretion.

Contrast the above with the fate of a car owner who tests over the permissable alcohol limit after being in an accident in which no one is injured. Fine and 6 months suspension for a first offence or 12 months if he's really unlucky?

Which one was the greater danger to society?

Rex

“I agree with the use of speed traps, but believe that the degree of tolerance should match the accepted degree of speedo accuracy, and that this should be publicised.”

I support the use of speed traps or more accurately; speed regulation devices, mobile and stationary. But they must be used in a genuine effort to reduce overall speeding and not in a primarily revenue-raising manner, which certainly seems to be the case some of the time.

The accuracy of a speedometer should be fairly and squarely the responsibility of the owner / driver, as are all other aspects of vehicle roadworthiness and safety.

Speed limits should be policed at face value. There really is a fundamental problem when we see a certain speed on a sign but know that a speed limit a few ks higher actually applies. Let’s strive to align the law with general practice and with the policing regime.

If there are to be leeways on speed limits, then they need to be written into law and very importantly, need to be very well publicised so we all know exactly where we stand. This business of having some unstated leeway on speed limits that probably varies from place to place or between different police officers is just unacceptable slackness in the law and its regulation, and can easily lead to essentially innocent people being booked.

“I would like to see a number of assorted non-descript [official] vehicles on the road…”

Absolutely! The widespread use of unmarked police cars on our roads would surely greatly improve the situation. If every reasonably new car could potentially be a police vehicle in the eyes of would-be offenders, then a huge impact could be made on road safety.

There are a few out there now and have been for a long time (?in all states?). But not enough to put the wind up wonky drivers.

Speed limits should, at the least, bear some resemblance to reality. I live in a country town where the prevailing limit is 50 kph,) except for the highway where it is 60 kph), regardless of the condition of the roads or the density of the traffic.
In contrast Crystal St, Petersham (Sydney) carries a volume of traffic per day which most of our streets would not equal in a year (and I don't exagerate) the limit on Crystal Street is 60kph. It is narrower than 99% of our streets and the road surfaces are about the same. A few kilometres out of town there are winding dirt roads, so narrow that passing vehicles must pull over onto the verges to get past each other, yet the speed limit is 100 kph.
Any wonder that most locals travel over the 50 limit on the wide, deserted, well graded and tarred town roads?

They see observance of the town limit as being as unrealistic as the STOP signs at level crossings on disused rail lines where trains haven't run for thirty years, and yet drivers have been fined for disregarding these signs. There is one crossing where the rails are burried deeply beneath the road and the gates across the line can't be opened for trains because of bushes growing through them and the bottoms buried in road mtal, yet the stop signs are still in place.