Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Drivers being banned at record rate

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by stewy, May 28, 2008.

  1. http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=570324

    Always knew this would get to the point when it would make news headlines....it's a scary statics though, but i can see how so many lose there license....oh well guess thats 40,000+ of our worest and reckless drivers of the roads. :roll:

    What was/is most worrying to me about this was the impact it must have on family life, and employment.....i mean the govt's are screwing with ppls lives, oh $$$ :evil:
  2. They will claim that their efforts are working as the road toll is dropping every year.
    Which of course is nothing to do with more and more cars having better suspension, braking,ABS, airbags and traction control fitted. :roll:
  3. Not exactly working this year :roll:
  4. Actually it isn't - the national toll was up 4% last year and up by a similar percentage the year before that.
    So the question is if the Government is catching all the speeding/drunk drivers and taking them off the roads, then who's to blame for the increased deaths.

    Edit: Ahh I see someone beat me to it with NSW stats.

    Interesting point one of the major increases in deaths was passengers - so maybe they should start booking any vehicles with more than one occupant.
  5. Try per capita.
    The road toll has been dropping year on year compared to the number of licence holders and vehicles registered.
  6. Ahh but did you try factoring the increased number of those licence holders who aren't allowed to drive :p.
  7. Yes but the distanced traveled per license holder and per vehicle has been dropping also which counteracts that to some extent.

    When passenger safety is being calculated it should include factors for not only accident rates and vehicle numbers but also distance and time traveled.
  8. I'm surprised they haven't yet used the argument that they're doing it for the environment! I mean, more cars off the road and more people crowded onto brown coal-powered trains and trams has GOT to mean a reduction in carbon footprint... doesn't it?

    And of course it wouldn't have ANYTHING to do with helping out mates in the business of providing that public transport.... would it?

    And... wouldn't have ANYTHING to do with state budgets being set dependent on a doubling of income from fines... would it?

    Aldous Huxley was spot on. Base the whole business of governing upon a lie and then drill it into people until it becomes a mantra and not a thought. We're already there.[/i]

  9. hahahaha this is great.

    It is exactly why statistics can be so misleading as a 'proof' of something. so many variables its easy to miss some. I didn't even consider the dropping travel distance... :-k
  10. either way, it just goes to show that the approach taken with this is cr@p and isn't working. What? Driver education? Nahhhhh, what revenue can you get out of that??
  11. The following is from an email I sent to the Comonwealth Dept of Infrastructure a month or so back concerning distance travelled figures for motorcycles. I haven't really had a satisfactory response.

  12. You disagreed with the accuracy of those results?

    I thought that was the study that showed the 'weekend warrior' type riders were more at risk because they presumably have less experience ^_^
  13. Sounds good to me. Any driver who is paying so little attention to the road, signage and drivers around him that he manages to be caught by a fixed camera is not one that I want to be on the road with, whether on a bike or in a car.

    Incidentally, in my experience, the drivers who must be, according to the government, reanimated corpses - given their perpetual speeding - are the most alert and courteous. I think it must be because they are actually concentrating on driving, which cannot be said for 98% of people on the road.
  14. I probably should have made myself a little clearer. The accuracy is suspect because of the numbers and methodology.

    The "accepted wisdom" relates to what some of the academic types (the likes of CARRS-Q ) want to do to reduce crashes and that is to reduce exposure - in other words have people ride less to reduce crashes. What they haven't realised is that may increase the crash rates because of inexperience.
  15. Another factor, surely is the different TYPES of riding motorcyclists do as compared to car drivers. Cars tend to be used to commute, or the odd holiday, so they travel much the sme roads and distances on a week/month/year basis.

    Bikes can be commuting one day, heading through the twisties at much highr speeds the next day,, and doing an overnight trip to Bright and back on the next weekend....
  16. It is well known in the aviation field that skills degrade over time. One week is about as long as you can go before you start to get "rusty" and that increases rapidly over time.
    I am 100% sure that this applies to motorcycles as well, as evidenced by teh huge spate of offs in teh first nice weekend in September.
    I find it extremely plausible that people who ride a couple of times a month would be much more highly represented in teh figures, but we'll never truly know because A: no one will bother to do a proper study, and B: riders as a whole refuse to acknowledge that they make mistakes. I would guarantee that any proper survey/study would be met with teh usual motorcycle paranoia "what's teh study for? To get us off teh roads, I'd better lie again".
    As for banned drivers/riders, I suspect around 75% of banned road users stil drive, which makes teh punishment useless.

    Regards, Andrew.
  17. And how many do you think need to out of necessity, due to living in a decentralised society and travelling away from public transportation routes, just to get to work.
  18. Perhaps they should have thought of that first, though???
  19. Exactly. Most people who lose their licence are repeat offenders, who have shown a clear disrespect for the road rules, and by inference, everyone else. Everyone I know who lost their licence most certainly deserved to.
    Why do people defend people who recklessly endanger others on teh roads? A driver's licence is a privelige, not a right..........

    Regards, Andrew.
  20. In principle, I agree.

    In reality: I dispute that sentiment.

    Fuel taxes, GST, registrations, fines, CTP levies... combined with shit public transport [Sydney perspective here] - the 'privilege' of driving is a necessity for many; and the government has done nothing to earn the RIGHT to control that privilege arbitrarily except be elected to a position where ill-informed decisions can go unchallenged due to magnificent financial incentive to all in the political environment to reduce the public's margin for error and increase the cost of erring.