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.