‘Bloody Idiots’

This is the huge headline on the front page of today’s Courier Mail.

More than 8000 people booked for speeding over the first three days of the Easter break. 340 drivers charged with drink-driving, 320 with not wearing seatbelts, etc, etc.

How obvious is it that the road-safety policing regime is NOT WORKING in Queensland, nor across the country!!

When are we going to develop a holistic approach to this problem, instead of addressing it in the same old ineffective manner?

One of the key problems is that road-rule infringers feel that there is little chance of being caught. Generally they are right, because the police are too few and far between, too conspicuous, and tend to turn a blind eye to many infringements and concentrate on just a small number of offences.

The police need to be put into unmarked cars, of various models, so that they don’t stick out like dogs balls. If this was made a general practice then in the eyes of would-be offenders, every second car on the road could potentially be a police vehicle. Surely this simple step would make a huge difference to law-abidance and overall road safety.

There is a whole bunch of other things that could easily be implemented. Please see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=2877#26408 and my following 15 posts.

It just completely befuddles me as to why these things don’t get addressed in a serious manner.

Bottom line: instead of spending many millions of dollars on roads, spend the majority of it on improving driver skills and the policing regime.

I worked for 22 years for the NSW RTA first on call for a fatal road event for far more times than you would believe.
Our death strip saw 12 killed in a week and 72 before I stopped counting.
Accidents do not happen acts of stupidity do often.
This long weekend any long time road worker even a past one like me can smell death.
Its mixed with the joy of holidays and bragging about how good the car is.
It is content to overtake the local driver who remembers the road trauma in this spot at great speed.
And it brands the local driver taking his time as a local yokel, while rushing madly toward being a statistic.
No road in any condition ever killed anyone, driving without respect for the conditions has.
Bloody idiots? you flatter some of them.

So Belly, what are your thoughts on my assertion that the police need to be INCONSPICUOUS?

The trouble with them getting around in obvious police vehicles is that they are conspicuously absent most of the time. People very quickly get a feel for the frequency of a police presence, if not the regularity in many instances as well.

If the police were abundant, then being conspicuous would work. But given the extreme thinness of the blue line, I’d say it works very strongly against them, and against law abidance in general.

Didn't there used to be a saying,

Better to be late than DEAD on time.

Policing is not the answer in Vic and NSW you get booked for being a couple of K's over, and there are cops every where.
What we need are positive driver education programs that people can identify with, simple stuff like get out of bed 10 minutes earlier so you don't need to rush, be courteous, don't change lanes,don't be impatient, it doesn't matter if someone else does something stupid.
These negative campaigns and the big stick approach don't and won't work.
Alanpoi

Alanpoi, there is nothing wrong with police booking people for doing a couple of ks over, is there? Just as long as we all know what the law is, ie that the speed limit signs apply at face value or that a consistent well-publicised leeway applies, then we can’t complain, can we?

If the police are only going to book chronic speeders as part of their normal policing duties and then book everyone who is doing 3ks over in a blitz, we have a problem. The policing regime needs to be consistent and the public needs to have confidence that it is.

One of the most unfortunate aspects of the current situation is that in many situations those who drive cautiously and technically within the law are actually presenting a hazard. For example, a speed of about 95kmh on the open highway where the speed limit is 100 should be fair and reasonable. But if you dare to do this, you’ll get tailgated and overtaken impatiently and dangerously. It is much safer to roll with the flow and drive a few ks over the limit. It is safer to drive ILLEGALLY!

What is stated in law MUST be the same as what is policed. We MUST know exactly where we stand with the law. Currently we have what are effectively two speed limits on every road in the country: one for the strict law-abider and one for those who push the envelope and know that they can get away with it.

Leeways should be abolished and the onus for sticking strictly to the speed limit placed fairly and squarely on drivers.
.

Yes we need driver-education programs on a massive scale. But even with the best education system, a strong regulatory regime is still going to be needed.

Basic courtesy would stop a lot of accidents and near misses. I spent a lot of time on the Newell Hwy in NSW, and the roadworks on the road cause the most horrendous situations. There have been traffic lights just north of Parkes for probably near 12 months (and I applaud the fact that the hwy is being upgraded here, because it needs it badly). But it is a busy road, and by the time the lights change there is usually a huge bank of traffic, including trucks, caravans, farm utes and cars. The next 100-200 kms are spent jockeying to get around the slower vehicles, with impatient drivers doing the most idiotic things. One very memorable occasion about 6 months ago, was just after this section of roadworks with a line of slow vehicles moving along a winding section of road. From 2 cars behind me a B-Double pulled out and proceeded to overtake me (and he 2 cars behind) and then 3 cars in front of me also, whilst going around a blind bend. I cut my speed right back as soon as I could see he was going to go past me, both to give him room to pull in, and then once I realised he was going further I slowed down even more to avoid getting tied up in the accident that I was sure was going to happen. I have seen a lot of stupid things - that one takes the cake though.

An idea - give people at say 20 a simulated driving test. Give them 50kms of road to cover and put things like caravans and road works in the way. Give them a deadline to meet and see how they respond. use a simulator rather than a real situation and have the computer record their responses and risks. Grade them, with different education requirements for different grades. Those that get a fail grade, require them to go to a fatal collision and see the results themselves.

“...A B-double pulled out and proceeded to overtake… whilst going around a blind bend”

Country Gal, I’m amazed that any driver could experience something like this and then not go straight to the police and report it!

Well ok, I would have been amazed a few years ago. But after my experiences with making a few complaints to police about the worst of dangerous driving incidents like this, I understand why people don’t go to the cops!

This sort of complaint is effectively discouraged! With five complaints I made in as many years, I got responses from police ranging from enthusiastically helpful to just not interested. The three middle responses were all along the lines of: ’oh well, if you insist, then ok, but I really can’t be bothered’

None of the five complaints went anywhere. I never heard back about any of them.

So the public has been effectively disenfranchised of their right (and responsibility) to make complaints about unlawful and dangerous antics on our roads, unless they are of a very serious nature. And by a very serious nature, and that essentially means: having caused an accident!

Surely we could make huge advances in road safety if everyone felt empowered to make complaints, and have them treated seriously. Of course this would have to go along with education on how to make effective complaints. There is an awful lot we can do with a mobile phone camera or camcorder for example.

Even if just a small portion of passengers in vehicles on our highways had their camcorder ready to use to gather evidence of dangerous tailgating and overtaking and were then willing to go to the police, who enthusiastically supported their efforts, then a huge impact could be made on unlawful and risky driving.

With just two steps –

1. inconspicuous police and

2. encouragement and facilitation of the general public to do their bit to bring law-breakers to account, by way of making credible complaints with associated evidence,

our terrible national road-safety record could be very greatly improved.

Ludwig, had the truck in question had a company name and number on the back I would have reported it, and rung the number to give the owner a verbal beating. However, I had my own survival in mind at the time and was concentrating on creating a decent space buffer around my car in case of a crash up ahead. Too much to do and get the number plate at the same time. The next town with a police station was 50km away, so not much use reporting by the time I got there, given the sheer number of B-doubles on that road.

That's probably the craziest thing I've seen. I did think afterwards that perhaps he had radioed a truck around the bend to see if the road was clear, but even if this was the case it sets an appalling example. I know that trucks do these sorts of things to give them a chance to pass slow traffic, and in certain circumstances I can understand it - the general public is just so rude when it comes to sharing the road with trucks. A truck stuck behind a caravan has little enough chance to pass it, but is completely hamstrung if at every overtaking lane it has cars whizzing around both it and the van. I prefer to travel in a vehicle with a UHF, so I can talk to the truckies around me and let them know that I am happy for them to go first, etc. Like I said originally, a little courtesy goes a long way.

The biggest problem in NSW is the people that deride the use of speed cameras as 'revenue raising' tools for the government. For crying out loud, there are three signs before a fixed speed camera saying "speed camera in use". The worst one is when people then say they didnt see the signs!! If they miss three signs, God help them if a young child runs out onto the road.

What I noticed on the Easter weekend was that there was basically no police presence on the road at all. Double demerit points dont matter if there is no chance of being caught. Also, there is a limit to how much you can spend trying to create awareness and educate.

If I had my way I would install more fixed speed cameras and remove the warning signs. I think the police resources are drained as it is, so I would employ pople to operate mobile speed cameras. Teams of two or so, and they could work in their local area. It could be great for people who need a part-time job, or long term unemployed to start getting back into the workforce etc. It would probably pay for itself very quickly.

Now if people did stop speeding and no one was caught, it would probably still pay for itself. I'd like to see a costing of how much a death on the road actually costs, not to mention the loss of future productivity when young people are killed. I know that may sound detached, but I do not feel sorry at all for people who kill themselves due to speeding on our roads, because I bet they dont care about endangering my life through their recklessnes.

d

I’m with you Deryck.

Maximised speed cameras, no signs to indicate their presence, and perhaps an organisation quite separate from the police to take care of them. Sounds good to me.

Just one thing: we need a greatly increased frequency of speed limit signs so that the limit is always obvious.

All too often I find that I am not sure of what zone I am in, especially in areas that I am not fully familiar with. When travelling through a lot of changing speed zones, when the last sign is a long way back or when turning into a road and not encountering a sign for some distance, you are left not knowing what the bloody speed limit is!

I reckon speed limits need to be painted on the road just past every intersection and perhaps every 100 metres along urban roads and every couple kilometres on the open highway. Something like that anyway.

The bloody idiots in this equation are the bloody bureaucrats that set our rediculously low speed limits.
By the end of easter it was 13000 motorists booked for trying to drive modern cars at sensible speeds, which probably equates to 1,300,000 motorists who exceeded these limits.
In this case I think the Is have it. The limits are artificially low, & incredibly, getting lower, for no reason. Most motorists feel this way, & have no resoect for speed limits. Revenue raising, you bet.

Take my area. A country road I used daily to get to work, for 12 years, was narrow & rough, & a bit hilly, & twisty, in one area, with a speed limit of 100 KPH. Occasionally some dill drove off into the bush, generally some hoon doing 150 KPH.

They widened & resurfaced the thing, but then incredibly, with the safer road, they reduced the limit to 80 KPH. some dills still drove off into the bush, generally hoons, etc.

They then did a real job, with a wide good surface, easing a couple of curves, & adding an overtaking lane on the steepest bit of hill. Great, except they then lowered the speed limit even further to 70 KPH, & some of the road on the flat to 90 KPA. This is all in the bush.

The same number of drivers still drive off into the bush, & more people get fustrated, because the 70 KPH overtaking lane is useless.
Those of us who try to drive near the speed limit get tailgated, because we're going ridiculously slowly for the improved road.

One stretch of 12 Km, which had 10 dotted line overtaking places, where one could pass a slow farm truck or such, is now all double lines. WHY? With cars getting better all the time, why is it no longer safe to do what once was safe?

I have no interest, or need to speed on the public roads, but I do not wish to have some fool public servant tell me I may not drive faster than the average incompetent twit.

The problem is that any oversight has a self-interest in the revenue procured in this manner. It's a fundamental contradiction in our system of governance. Do you really think the expansion of the police force is a response to a dramatic, mysterious rise in serious criminal activity, or merely a response to the vast revenues flowing in from this lazy form of policing, where they sit with some coffee and point a speed gun at ordinary, lawful citizens or flag them down for a "breath test" as they wait for their their ample "stress" time off (how stressful it must be to point a speed gun at a motorist).

Fair enough hasbeen. Or at least up to a point. Speed limits are often too low, sometimes ridiculously so. And sometimes they are too high.

We all need to have a sense of fair play with speed limits and all other road rules. They’ve got to be reasonable and be seen to be reasonable. Otherwise the greatly improved policing regime that I desire is not going to work, but is just going to rile the public and end up working against the police and any government that strives to improve policing.

We need a system of review that can engage the public, in much the same way as the facilitation of complaints that I discussed above. This needs to encompass all road rules.

When we have a comprehensive driver-training program and a much-improved policing regime implemented across the country, we could justify widespread increases in speed limits. But in the interim, adjustments should be minor.

In fact, that should be an attractive promotional angle for governments to put to the public: support much-increased training and policing efforts and they will raise speed limits pretty well across the board, vastly improve speed limit signage and review all laws that anyone thinks need reviewing.

Hang on country girl about roadworks, the road is the factory floor for all who work in that construction site.
Speed limits exist and warnings about changed driving conditions at such areas.
People just will not drive to those changes.
6 hours drive yesterday on the pacific highway and the same home today.
I found it imposable to drive to the speed limit, trucks just drove me harder.
One traffic cop south of Port Maquarie, 4 lane divided road he was facing north in the south bound lanes!
How did he get there in safety?
How did he get out 400 meters from the nearest entry to the north bound lanes?
Why was he totally hidden by bush he had driven into?
could you or I drive on the wrong side of divided road?
is the police force fair dinkum about safety?
no money only.

Country Gal

Harking back to your suggestion about simulated driving tests:

YES, an excellent idea. Comprehensive simulated tests should be a major part of driver-training.

A driver’s licence should be hard-won, in much the same way as university degree. No I’m not suggesting that we should have to do three years’ fulltime study, but we should certainly be required to do a fair whack of study, a whole lot of practical application and rigorous examination.

The theory should start in school a couple of years before driving age.

All current drivers should be required to undergo training programs and then fairly extensive retesting every ?five years. Anyone who is convicted of even the most minor infringement should perhaps be required to promptly do a refresher course.

All of this would take a whole lot of money and personnel. But it would surely be worth it when you consider the consequences of road trauma.

If we were to divert about half of the planned expenditure on roads for a few years into this upgraded training system, and policing regime, we could win the war on the road toll.

Belly

Have you overlooked my question of 10 April:

What are your thoughts as an ex-RTA officer on my assertion that the police need to be INCONSPICUOUS?

Actually, I think there's always going to be road deaths, and more training won't necessarily make a huge impact.

Here's an item for consideration, which I think could pretty much eliminate speeding - privatise lidar guns.

Think about it - anyone can apply for a license to operate a lidar speeding detector. They pay a quantity of money for this licence, say $3,000, then they can stake out a patch of road, and pick up those who speed. When each speeder is registered with a central traffic authority, the bulk of the fine goes to the operator, thus they can make a profitable living.

During the licensing process, those with criminal backgrounds would be weeded out.
You would have to a) ensure that tampering with the cameras is federal offence with jail time and b) if possible, arrange for speed cameras to be hooked up to a wireless network. When a speeder is caught, it is automatically registered on the network - alternatively, if it is in a remote area, it is lodged on a hard drive embedded within the vehicle. Operators could possibly be required to work in pairs to dissuade violent attacks, something that could be ameliorated with inbuilt surveillance and heft penalties for attackers.

For starters, any black spots where speeding is rife, will automatically attract those interested in making money. There would have to be rules relating to staking a claim to such an area.

Of course, this would destroy a revenue raising exercise for the police force, but on the flip side, it would free up a massive amount of police resources.

If governments were genuinely serious about cutting down on the road toll, this would be one way of going about it.

I think that’s got real potential TRTL.

I’m very much in favour of empowering the public to undertake regulatory roles in any way that can be implemented.

“Actually I think there’s always going to be deaths…”

Yes. But they can be reduced to a tiny fraction of the current loss.

“….and more training won’t necessarily make a huge impact”.

Not in isolation, but in conjunction with a greatly improved regulatory regime, it surely would. Besides, how can we condone drivers being on our roads who are ignorant of basic safety margins and risk factors and of the appropriate actions to take in a variety of circumstances?

For the person that asked the monetary cost of each fatal accident; I think you will find that the latest estimate is $1.5 million per fatal collision. This takes into account just about everything you can imagine.

For those of you that think a part of the solution is to empower 'members of the public' to enforce road rules need to have another think about it. Where would they get the power to pull people over and demand their details? Who would be responsible for them? Who would oversight their activities? Domestics and Traffic Stops are among the most dangerous of activities performed by Police, so how will they protect themselves - give them guns too? The list goes on. To do such a thing would be just ridiculous.

Now for a fact (NSW only); the monies generated through all tickets issued by the Police goes into consolidated revenue ie: to state government's coffers. What they do with is up to them and Police have no say in it.

And the quip about the job of Police being easy and non stressful, well that's just plain ignorant and shows an obvious dislike for Police and what they do. Whilst you are entitled to your opinion, please try and keep it factual and as best you can, objective.

Mr. Ludwig. We have discussed at length traffic issues and the difficulties of enforcing them before. The biggest problem I see so far is that everyone seems to have a 'simple' answer to the problem. Unfortunately it is far from being simple and the solution would require changes from the Premier right the way through to the public. As you know it is hard enough getting any one group to agree on the same thing let alone all of them.

Quiggley - I never suggested anything along the lines of pulling people over.
There would be no need for authority. Photographing the plates and feeding them to a central authority could do the trick - the people would be little more than mobile speed cameras.

Besides, there would be a basic licensing process, which would involve a small degree of background checks for criminal history and basic training. Aside from the amount of training, how is this different to police, bearing in mind that people wouldn't be asked to pull people over. I only suggested pairs on the off chance somebody spots one and acts aggressively, actually pulling over - I don't see how this is different to any other crime, and the operators aren't being asked to interact one-on-one with speeders.

I've thought about this topic quite a lot - you dismiss it as ridiculous, fine, but give more reasons than the vague one you included. I suspect I'll have a retort handy - this theory may not be accurate, but I think it has merit for discussion at the very least. You've given me nothing concrete to suggest otherwise.

I certainly didn't say policing was an easy job, though I see other posters have expressed that. The reason why I put this suggestion forward is to take off some of the load of their work - I know police officers who work very hard, and don't get paid nearly enough to cop the kind of abuse they receive.

So, if you've got any holes in my theory, please put forward some specifics - otherwise I guess I'd respond in kind, labelling your argument ridiculous.

Hello Quiggley. Long time no chat.

You misunderstand my desire to empower the public to have a part to play in law enforcement. It certainly wouldn’t extend as far as people pulling others over, or approaching law-beakers in any way.

It would only extend to making competent complaints and collecting the necessary evidence to take to the police in order to cop the law-breakers.

We should all be able to do that now. I mean, what sort of wobbly situation is it when members of the public can’t do anything about situations in which they are subjected to heightened risk, offensive behaviour or other illegal antics on our roads?

Quite frankly, in just about any situation other than on our roads, we WOULD be able to make a complaint about things like this and have it treated seriously by the police. But for some bizarre reason, the roads are different!

I don’t think that the whole road safety issue is all that hard. It is easy in theory, and if we could just put our hearts into it, it would easy in practice. There ARE relatively simple answers, based around a much better policing regime and better driver-education and training.

I haven’t encountered too much disagreement on this.

The most disappointing thing is the relative lack of interest, even on a forum such as OLO. This indicative of the fundamental problem – a lack of interest across our society. We've become blasé about the road toll.

TRTL. There are numerous reasons why it wouldn't work. The basic idea of of having people acting as pseudo authorities if fraught with danger, both to the public and to themselves. I don't know how far you would suggest these people be trained, what security checks they would need to pass and/or backed by the government, so some things may not be relevant.

My first concern would be the type of people this sort of job would attract. I'm sure we can all recall an incident where a security guard, bouncer and alike have acted as if they were 'the law', well outside their area of training and authority, and they have to undergo specific training and background checks to get a security license.

Who would supply the vehicles they use and the equipment they would use? What if they had an accident whilst doing their duties? There are many more specifics, but I'm guessing you would have them trained and or authorized to a standard of Special Constable or similar.

You say they wouldn't be responsible for pulling the vehicle over. That sounds good, but then who does the rest of the follow-up work? You will have to track down the registered owner of the vehicle and ask them if they were driving and/or place the form of demand on them to supply the details of who was, then make any further inquiries etc. Pretty much the same thing that happens now if a member of the public comes in and makes the same complaint, with or without supporting evidence ie: video footage, passengers etc.

What if the vehicle they are watching is driving in such a dangerous manner that it should be pulled over then and there, but they don't or can't and they have an accident? I'm personally against all this suing rubbish, but that's not going to make it go away, so they or their employer may be the subject of a law suit by both the victims and the offenders/their families etc. Don't laugh, I've seen it happen, especially when certain minority groups are concerned.

TRTL: unfortunately the restrictions of this forum make a thorough discussion of such complex matters very difficult.

Then there is the issue of any audio/visual evidence that these people may obtain being subject to the rules of evidence and the accountability of same. As Mr. and Mrs. Public they are not expected to abide by these restrictions, but as pseudo law enforces, they would. They would also have to be trained in court matters, brief preparation and evidence giving. If you go this far, you may as well go that bit extra and train them as Police Officer. Thus allowing them to act on the spot and intervene in other matters etc.

How far would these people be expected to go to obtain the necessary evidence? Would they be bound strictly to the road rules themselves, or could they break a couple of them in the interests of getting someone doing something more serious - I think you can see the problems in this area.

Then who would they be employed by? Who would train them? How much would they get paid? Who would want to do it if the pay and working conditions weren't reasonable. The logistics of this are just too complicated, or as I have said before, train them as Police Officers.

TRTL: My comment about Policing and stress leave... wasn't directed at you. I think it was Steel who made it.

Hello Mr. Ludwig. I see we still have the same aim, just differ on the route to get there. Unfortunately I think one of the most poignant statements you have made is; 'a lack of interest...blasé about the road toll' is probably the hardest to get around. For without the public jumping up and down, the politicians will never devote the funds necessary to make a decent dent in this issue.

It will require a holistic (I hate buzz words) approach to address this problem, not a simple, narrow focus one. Roads/speed limits, driver education/licensing, Police numbers & enforcement, courts/penalties all play a major part and none can be ignored.

I suppose the big question is; If it was really that simple why hasn't it been done?

The Police are made up of all sorts of people, but scattered amongst them are a few very cluey ones. So why haven't they come up the solution? They live, breath, have the responsibility for and also have access to all the facts, figures and research about it. How come it is those with the least experience in the field that are the sole purveyors of common sense and the only ones to have the 'answer'?

Hmmm... just maybe it's not that simple after all.

Sorry if I offend anyone, but I'm merely pointing out the facts from the feces.

I think there is scope for a second kind of enforcement authority made up of people with some training but far lesser powers than the police.

But much more importantly, all of us should be informed of how we can make effective complaints / evidence submissions against infringers. This is surely just facilitating our basic rights.

What is the alternative?

Obviously the thin blue line is far too thin to do the job alone. It needs help. It needs a lot of help. Even if we were to double police numbers, with the same approach to the issue that we have now, it would hardly make a difference!

So let’s make the police blend into the background and make the public capable and enthused about assisting the policing effort.

“ 'a lack of interest...blasé about the road toll' is probably the hardest to get around.”

Indeed it is Quiggley. I agree that it all comes down to this. If the general community was particularly concerned about the issue, then great steps forward could be taken by governments, very quickly.

For as long as apathy reigns supreme, it is indeed a very difficult issue.

But it may only take one enlightened enthusiastic politician to start putting forward the sorts of ideas that I have been expressing ad-nauseum on OLO (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=2877#77182) to raise concern and support in the general community to the extent that some big steps forward can be made.

So while community apathy is the biggest problem, it CAN be attacked… and beaten into pulp of positive energy!

Frrrrkh!!

Beaten into... A... pulp of positive energy!

And if that was to happen, great things could flow forward very quickly.

Turn Left etc.

OK, I've paid my licence fee, bought my camera and I'm all fired up to do right.
But the pickings aren't so good.
What can I do? Gotta get my investment back at least.

Ah! Ha! Solution: I'll mount my camera in the back of my vehicle and drive along at 90kph and snap the cars etc going in the opposite direction.
Voila! Caught 'em doing well over the limit.

Nice little earner.

This idea is a great example of Police State thinking and would have done credit to the Security Forces of the former USSR.

Is Mise - if you're found violating the terms of your license, it's revoked and you face charges.

The photos taken (in order to get the license plate) would probably also be pretty good clues as to whether the operator was driving on the highway.

Quiggley - by the same logic you just expressed, nobody should suggest any changes, ever because they would already have been suggested.
The status quo can be a powerful force in its own right.
Besides. How popular would a politician be, if they advocated a system that is likely to ratchet up the number of people caught speeding? There's another reason.

Note that this operation hinges on the concept, that speeding is illegal, and if this is the case, the most efficient way to prevent it should be enacted. Arguments contrary to this are a separate issue to the efficiency of this concept - I don't necessarily want to see greater control of speeding, but I believe that if this is the goal, which in theory it is, this would be a more efficient way to go about it.

Aha, the police state argument comes out at last!

This has been a quick retort over the years to my push for a better policing regime (I’ve been in this debate since 1991).

The fact is that under a regime of much improved community input into the regulation of road safety issues, no one is going to get stung unless they break the law (or at least, hardly anyone – no moreso than at present).

Everyone is going to know exactly where they stand with the law and far fewer people are going to infringe it, in fact only a tiny fraction of the current number.

There would also be much more concern about all sorts of laws. So there will be public pressure to modify various laws and dump others entirely.

It will bring the community out of their appalling apathy over this whole issue.

Far from having some sort of police state where the people are suppressed by all-powerful police, we will have a society where the whole community is actively involved in the whole process of road-safety law implementation and regulation.

Surely that can only be a very good thing.

TRTL; 'The status quo can be a powerful force in its own right.'

Yes it can be and is also a convenient excuse for some to do nothing, but I don't think that applies here. Don't forget you have 100s and indirectly 1000s of Police (and many 1000s of others like yourself and Ludwig) contributing their ideas on the subject. I and I dare say most of them are willing to listen to other peoples ideas on the topic, but don't mistake me for being apathetic when I point out the problems with ideas that are put forward. I dare say I have seen and experienced more first hand on this topic than anyone on this forum, so I think I'm well placed to point out the difficulties involved in some of the suggestions. Believe me, if you or anyone else comes up with the 'right' idea, I will say so and join in the applause you would so deserve.

Ludwig; If you can come up with a workable way let me know. But unfortunately having knowledge of the court/legal system, it would only be a matter of time before someone, and it would only take one, would contest the whole thing and unless it was airtight, all the good work (and money spent on it) would be undone and wasted.

Quiggley

With the utmost respect, you seem to be wholly negative to any suggestions being put forward here.

Yes of course all these ideas have been bandied around for a long time. But that doesn’t make them bad or redundant. Some of them could work if we could just get community and government to run with them.

So that is the key – overcoming the apathy. Or perhaps not apathy, but a feeling of powerlessness in the community.

In fact both: apathy for a large portion of the populace and an abject feeling of powerlessness also for a large portion.

So if we could just get some bright-spark politician to take up the cause and publicise it to the max, this disenfranchised section of the community could be brought onside…..and great things could ensue.

And yet Quiggley, you don't seem able to point out these flaws. I'm sorry, but "I know more about it" isn't good enough - it may be the case, but it makes a pretty poor platform for debate.

TRTL: 'you don't seem able to point out these flaws'

I think you might want to read my post of the 17 April again. I though I raised quite a few issues that, in my opinion at least, would make policing of traffic matters by pseudo (I'm not being derogatory here) police unrealistic.

TRTL: 'I'm sorry, but "I know more about it" isn't good enough'

Fair enough comment, so I shall outline my experience in the area. Police Officer of 25 years, 4 years Highway Patrol and 10 years Crash Investigation Unit where we only investigated fatal, serious injury or crashes involving high media attention. Lecturer and course compiler at the Police Academy on both traffic related subjects. Numerous other RTA (NSW Traffic Authority) and Stay Safe (NSW Parliament) committees.

Quiggley - I did read your post, and I replied that I wouldn't expect the public to enforce these matters at all, just like we don't expect speed cameras to.

My question is, why can't people find black spots, and act as speed cameras with Lidar guns? they don't need to pull them over. Why can't the offenders be registered with a central traffic authority, and the letters be sent to them in the same way a speed camera violator is caught?

The only problems you've outlined are in relation to enforcement, and I repeat that I've never suggested that.

I hear your experience, and at no stage have I expressed doubt at your credentials, though aside from the enforcement angle, which I've already stated wouldn't be necessary, I've yet to hear any flaws put forth.

Ludwig: No don't mistake my comments as being negative to any new ideas. I'm merely pointing out the 'real world' problems that some of the ideas will encounter. If I can think of these problems I'm sure there will be plenty of others out there who will too. Not to mention all the groups out there that are just plain anti-authority/Police/Law etc. that will take any opportunity to shoot a good idea down just because they can.

All the things you say about the majority feeling helpless and alike is very true. But also remember that it is the silent majority that has allowed the erosion of many of the basic moral standards that we just don't have in this day and age anymore. So how has it got this way? By the very vocal minority talking over the quite majority and eventually suppressing them to the point where they can't be bothered anymore. Just look at any ideas that go against the gay or Aboriginals groups (just picking two conspicuous ones), anyone who dare speak out against the bias in favour of these groups is automatically branded a homophobic or a racist - not matter how good the idea or how well intentioned it is. It all sounds very Orwellian, but there is a certain truth to it.

So good luck with your quest to become part of a vocal minority. Just make sure any ideas you put forward are sensible, workable and fair to all, not just a select section of the community. I thinks that's why many of the other groups don't have much respect, they are too self centered and narrow forcused.

“No don't mistake my comments as being negative to any new ideas.”

OK. But your comments have still amounted to “pointing out the 'real world' problems” without offering any suggestions as to how we might improve road safety.

It must be very clear to you after so many years experience just what we really need to do to address the core of this issue.

You said earlier;

“I see we still have the same aim, just differ on the route to get there…”

So can you tell us what your route is.