Attitudes to the road toll

[elanjacobs]

"Ain't no dang nanny state gon' tell me how to not die"
- Texas

[doug3030]

Seems remarkably light. I've been told that the average cost for a DUI in Texas is something like $25,000. Incarceration, bans, lockouts and so on are also used here.

Yet people are still committing these offences every day?

But does it solve the problem? If speed cameras stop speeding and booze buses stop people drinking and driving then how come so many people are still caught every day? So no, it does not work but it raises a bucket-load of money for the government so no doubt it will continue.

Texas generally and San Antonio specifically has an ongoing multiyear outbreak of various sexually transmitted diseases and diseases of poverty. Texas has the largest number of people lacking medical insurance and is home to the largest number of children living in poverty among the states.

So if people in Texas, which is a poor state will still commit an offence which will cost them $25,000 what makes our government think drivers in Australia will respond to the smaller penalties here. Fines are clearly not a deterrent but they make heaps of money for the Governments. If they are serious about the road toll and not revenue raising then they might try something different. But alternatives like education programs cost money not make it so they won't happen.

Cheers

Doug

[PhilT2]

Texas, like many US states does not require motorcycle helmets.
https://respectfulinsolence.com/2016...o-donorcycles/

[Chris Parks]

The road toll as pointed out above has fallen hugely but I suspect not for the reasons we generally think of such as harsher penalties and better education and let's not forget the draconian rural country road speed limits that extend journeys and increase fatigue levels. The two single biggest reasons IMHO are the incredibly safe cars we drive and the huge advances in road design and construction. I used to drive the Hume Highway when it was a two lane goat track just about all the way in cars that were nothing but death traps but at that time I only bought new cars. I don't think anyone who was not a driver in those times can appreciate how bad things were, even heaters were an optional extra. The other thing not often given credit for is the huge advances in dealing with accident victims at the scene and the modern advances in medicine, years ago people simply died because the medical care was inadequate compared to today.

Our politicians bleat on about how they have single handedly reduced the road toll using punitive methods but they conveniently forget to mention the other factors that have had at least the same effect if not more.

[rob streeper]

Texas, like many US states does not require motorcycle helmets.
https://respectfulinsolence.com/2016...o-donorcycles/

Another nugget just came to mind: The Legislature of the Great State of Texas saw fit, in the last session, to explicitly legalize the carrying in public of spears and swords.

When in Rome...

Patton saber.JPG

[Grumpy John]

So if people in Texas, which is a poor state will still commit an offence which will cost them $25,000 what makes our government think drivers in Australia will respond to the smaller penalties here. Fines are clearly not a deterrent but they make heaps of money for the Governments. If they are serious about the road toll and not revenue raising then they might try something different. But alternatives like education programs cost money not make it so they won't happen.

Cheers

Doug

I'm not sure about you Doug, but the thought of copping a fine for speeding keeps me to the limit, and I think the same applies to most people. The trouble is that there is an element out there that just don't care, fines mean nothing to them. These are generally the same people that don't pay their rego, drive unlicensed, and generally don't give a rats about anyone else on the road. This is where, as I mentioned earlier, seizure of the vehicle they are driving would inconvenience them more than a fine that they don't pay. It's been a while since I've seen it, but the sherrif's department used to do random roadside and carpark checks of vehicles with outstanding fines and clamp cars that were over a certain amount. I don't know what the trigger point for the clamping was, but I'm surer it was more that a couple of hundred dollars.

I'm not having a go Doug, but I don't know what the authorities are supposed to do with people who do not care about the fines. Clearly these people are so selfish that all the education programs won't help. You're right, other alternatives do cost money, things like television advertisements, police attending schools giving talks on road safety don't come cheap, and people are still speeding and drink driving. Shows like RBT and Highway Patrol show what idiots are out there, many of them are repeat offenders.

[Mr Brush]

Then you read about an accident where the innocent party was killed or badly injured, while the (unlicensed) offending driver was "known to police, having been caught driving while disqualified 8 times in the past". How is this allowed to happen? If someone gets caught even twice driving while disqualified, that's telling you they don't give a rats about other people's safety, or the law. They clearly have no intention of following the rules, and will keep on driving no matter what. Second offence driving while disqualified should be automatic impounding (and crushing) of their vehicle, plus a short jail term to get the scumbag off the streets.

[damian]

Restraining myself from having a good rant. This is a topic close to my heart and one that makes me terribly angry.

Road safety is far more complex than most of the opinions offered above. Try getting the DATA from around the developed world and doing a proper analysis.

I have never found a data set from any jurisdiction that demonstrates a link between a mass anti speeding campaign and a reduction in road trauma. In fact if you look at queensland there was an OBVIOUS stop to the downtrend in road trauma after 1998 when Beatie introduced speed cameras and sent the police out raising revenue on mass. If you look more closely there was NO drop in trauma due to speed but a demonstrable increase in trauma due to inattention.

If you look at the numbers there is limited correlation between any of the australian government "road safety" campains. RBT for example has had pretty much no impact on drunk driving incidents.

The demonstrable correlations (not necessarily causations of course but the trends are strong) are changing social trends (less boozing, less driving when fuel prices rise rapidly) and improved car design. The deployment of disc brakes and hardened passenger cells have had a tremendous impact (no pun) and to a lesser extent things like ABS. In recent years there has been a tremendous trend away from deaths but a corresponding increase in injuries. People are still crashing at the same rate but they aren't dying due mainly to hardened passenger cells and crushing front and rear zones.

The texas situation you cite has as much to do with cultural issues as regulation.

Germany is the gold standard for road safety, but it would be politically impossible to implement the strategies that have been demonstrated to work there and in similar jurisdictions. Even the driver training and regulation/compliance would be impossible let alone the billions it would cost to bring our roads up to world's best practice, instead of the dogs breakfast we have now.

Politicians don't care about results. They just want to put on a smoke a mirrors show to get re elected and keep their snouts in the trough. The police have an enforcement fixes all mentality and strong incentives not to rock the boat. The electorate keep voting for the same people, what can I say ?

Every person killed or maimed on our roads is a tragedy, for every person who cares about that victim. 10X as many people die every year on our roads as get shot. Cars are just about the most deadly thing ever created by humans. It's a pity we don't take this catastrophe seriously, but people don't want results, they just want to feel good about themselves. Same with gun laws. If people actually wanted a solution they would change their votes.

[damian]

Then you read about an accident where the innocent party was killed or badly injured, while the (unlicensed) offending driver was "known to police, having been caught driving while disqualified 8 times in the past". How is this allowed to happen? If someone gets caught even twice driving while disqualified, that's telling you they don't give a rats about other people's safety, or the law. They clearly have no intention of following the rules, and will keep on driving no matter what. Second offence driving while disqualified should be automatic impounding (and crushing) of their vehicle, plus a short jail term to get the scumbag off the streets.

Correct. There is a small minority of drivers who are vastly over represented in road trauma and serious crashes. They are invariably unlicensed and unregistered. These aren't people who have just lost their licenses, they are responsible for the killing and maiming of several people in different incidents. This is an area where strong penalties such as gaol would make a difference.

[Chris Parks]

I'm not sure about you Doug, but the thought of copping a fine for speeding keeps me to the limit, and I think the same applies to most people. The trouble is that there is an element out there that just don't care, fines mean nothing to them. These are generally the same people that don't pay their rego, drive unlicensed, and generally don't give a rats about anyone else on the road. This is where, as I mentioned earlier, seizure of the vehicle they are driving would inconvenience them more than a fine that they don't pay. It's been a while since I've seen it, but the sherrif's department used to do random roadside and carpark checks of vehicles with outstanding fines and clamp cars that were over a certain amount. I don't know what the trigger point for the clamping was, but I'm surer it was more that a couple of hundred dollars.

I'm not having a go Doug, but I don't know what the authorities are supposed to do with people who do not care about the fines. Clearly these people are so selfish that all the education programs won't help. You're right, other alternatives do cost money, things like television advertisements, police attending schools giving talks on road safety don't come cheap, and people are still speeding and drink driving. Shows like RBT and Highway Patrol show what idiots are out there, many of them are repeat offenders.

The problem with fines and other punitive measures to control speeding is that the limits are not in any way scientific with good basis but someone pulled the number out of a hat and decided that the number was good for that piece of road. I have witnessed close to my home roads that had high accident rates due to a limit that was way too high have millions spent on improvements and THEN they reduced the speed limits when it was not necessary after the roads were clearly able to support the original limits.

The other issue is the one Victoria has encountered and that is they have to keep reducing the tolerance the enforcement authorities allow before imposing a punishment to the driver. The reason this becomes necessary is that the revenue drops off as drivers change their driving habits to avoid being punished and the authorities have become used to the cash flow that was being generated. In the end and it will happen the cash flow will dry up so they invent other methods to lift it again. In NSW this has not become a problem as the authorities have a wide tolerance, the limits are not widely abused and the whole system seems to work well.

The biggest problem I have with the system is that politicians will not admit that their punitive approach is only part of the reason the toll has dropped and in the end it is I would guess less than 50% of the overall reason but we will never hear those that support the punitive approach ever admit that. I am willing to bet that no politician will ever fund a study to see what the influences have been as they would then have to admit their approach is not the total answer and only a minor part of it and all their rhetoric is a sham.

There is a bottom limit to how far the road toll can be reduced due to the human element and the only fix for that is autonomous cars not driven by humans. When that happens and it will happen the toll will reduce further but funnily enough the cash flow from punishing drivers will take a huge hit and I wonder what the pollies will do then. In their usual fashion they will panic and invent some other way of generating the lost revenue because Leopards don't change their spots.

The above mainly centres around speeding but other offences do happen mainly drink driving which is dealt with too lightly in my view. I think the first offence should be six months jail with no appeal possible and let's see what happens then. There is now a proposal to lighten the punishment instead of increasing it being looked at and I shake my head at the pollies approach to the road toll all over again.

Plan to keep drunk motorists from facing court

[Bohdan]

For our pollies jail is not an option as it costs money and generates no revenue. The jails are already overfull and judges are "instructed" to not sentence even repeat offenders.

[Handyjack]

Probably one of the biggest problems now being seen is drivers effected by drugs.
Some of the worst drivers will not have a licence to loose, and not be driving a vehichle owned by them, it might even be stolen.
Some driver's just do not care if the kill and maim others and the justice system is too soft.

Here in Victoria this year we have had two drivers wilfully mow down pedestrians. Both were probably drug effected and time will tell if they are even tried. Neither owned the vehicle they were driving, one was stolen from a neighbour, the other belonged to a relative.

So what is the solution for those who do not care? I do not know. Impounding or destroying the vehicle will not work because it is not theirs and they probably have few if any assest to seize.

[Chris Parks]

For our pollies jail is not an option as it costs money and generates no revenue. The jails are already overfull and judges are "instructed" to not sentence even repeat offenders.

Yep, pollies like the money. It might save a few lives though, ask someone who has had a relative or partner killed due to someone driving under the influence what they think.

[woodPixel]

Do we not live in a democracy?

Perhaps we need to ensure the will of the people is heard, not the will of magistrates and politicians. After all, are they not on our payroll? (They certainly are on those of corporations).

If the population says a thing is to be be done, it must be done. If we force a digital one-to-one weekly compulsory voting system on pretty much every issue of substance (yay/nay) then it doesn't matter what a party thinks or a certain politician thinks. They are simply the drones ensuring the will of the people is enforced.

Imagine the response if politicians were responsible for the actions of their electorates?

Really responsible. Theft, violence, mayhem, incivility and anti-social behaviour?

Personally I think we are too soft on punishments. There needs only to be one result for serious crime.

[Grumpy John]

So what is the solution for those who do not care? I do not know. Impounding or destroying the vehicle will not work because it is not theirs and they probably have few if any assest to seize.

True, not much can be done if the car is stolen, but friends will stop lending cars if they are going to be impounded. I don't really like the idea of crushing a usable vehicle, I believe it should be sold to pay for any fines/costs.