Separate names with a comma.
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.
Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by smee, Aug 11, 2011.
wonderful what great insights come with a higher education :roll:
just to clarify, this comment is not directed at smee, but the dill who wrote the report!!!
we could necklace that one. Fuck it, we could necklace Muarc.
Oh wow, the slower you hit the less damage it causes.....
These morons needed a university degree for that????
Too hard to find ways to reduce people from crashing in the first place.....
Focus on the REAL cause rather than their loser approach of expecting everyone to crash so we'll just try and reduce the consequence.
Driving decisions/actions cause crashes..
Oh why bother, like they'll listen to anyone but themselves...
Unfortunately, speed has a double-whammy of both being a contributing factor to the rate of accidents as well as being a contributing factor to the outcome of accidents.
Auditing of speed (and implementation of speed limits which are much lower than infinity) is always gonna have a place in the management of road safety even if we have super-alert uberdrivers who can decide on an appropriate speed of travel for all conditions. And they're always going to take a multi-pronged approach to safety management. Auditing of speed is just one of those prongs, on top of making safer vehicles, safer environments + roadside furniture, driver attitude, etc.
I hear ya big fella. But it doesn't appear to be working down here in Vic. We've had our entire road safety program focus on speed, drink/drug driving, speed, hooning, speed, a little bit on fatigue, and speed.
We have safer cars which are now more dangerous for everybody except the occupants.
We have a safer road environment if you crash as long as you're in your safety car.
What we don't have is safer drivers. And casual observation suggests they are crashing at a higher rate now than they were previously. I wish I had some numbers to back this up, because if it's true then the roads are safer for everybody in a 5 star rating vehicle but not for anybody else.
...or to be precise, I don't want to be caught up in an accident with a car at ANY speed. So they can shove their speeding counter measures right the way up their jaxxy.
Yeah, I don't disagree, Chef.
Actually I'm really impressed that the UK's doing a risk/reward analysis to see if it's worthwhile to increase the speed limit of the motorways there rather than blindly pushing the speed limit down and increasing enforcement. There's gotta be a happy medium between risk vs reward, and they've decided to actually explore that rather than going "waah risk!"
Likewise NSW government for reinstating the 110kph limit on the Newell after deciding the 100kph limit wasn't doing much aside from pissing people off.
Ultimately it's the bureaurocrats and pollies who have to decide what's reasonable/acceptable/compatible. I'd love to see more governments take the UK's recent approach re: speed limits.
Every form of progress has its costs; check out the number of shipwrecks in the English Channel alone.
This wooly guff is driven by the same anti-progress mentality that wants to shut down coal-fired power stations and have 'clean' engery instead, at a cost of $20,000 a year per household.
If we are going to have fast, flexible private transport, then we are going to pay a price for it; society has to decide what price it is prepared to pay for the benefits.
We will never have zero deaths on our roads, and successive draconian legislation has not had a proportionate impact on this.....
The answer to whether cars are crashing more or not might possibly be found from the Automobile Chamber of Commerce or whatever the local version is. ie, are the panel shops seeing more work now than say 10 years ago. Are there more or less panel shops. Surely the Insurance council, or even the TAC itself can tell whether there are more or less crashes. Are the towies doing more or less tows than 10 years ago. There must be a multitude of ways to cross check the results.
With any report I read I'd like to know who funded it so I know what the answer is well before I finish reading it.
The MUARC is funded largely by TAC and other government money so they'll always tow the line of the person effectively paying thier wages.
Road Safety in Norway Strategy 2002–2011
Yes there's the usual rubbish that we've come to know and expect from Monash's finest but who really cares what the article says because it's largely irrelevant. It seems some of you people are too busy spitting chips to read between the lines.
The timing of this article is interesting. It said itself - midway between release of the NSW audit and the VIC audit. I wouldn't be surprised if MUARC views these audits as the biggest threat to their budget in the last ten years - particularly in light of the NSW report - and this article is almost a case of the tail wagging the dog in order to influence the report and justify their baseline position of the last era.
Either way, the audit report can't really make it any worse for Vic other than perhaps support the MUARC and VicRoad position. It can possibly make it better but unfortunately I'm slightly too cynical to really believe that. Removing a speed camera or two from Vic's roads won't really make anything better.
I think these guys have their bias clearly showing.
How can the injury rate be burgeoning when the $peed $camera's have been so "successful" reducing injury rates?
I think you're right Lilley, they're getting desperate.
have they taken into account the lower casualty rate during a crash is more to do with improved saftey like crumple zones and air bags and less to do with speed cameras making us drive slower
No. They have a paper which argues that all reductions since seatbelts and RBT's is due to speed camera's and speed enforcement. They argue that they'd have expected a greater reduction due to car design, but that it's likely that driver distraction has countered the expected reduction.
What a load of BS! Teach the muppets in their tintops to drive, and we may get some progress!
The joke is you aren't required to report accidents without casualties so basically they have no stats and basically don't even care about the accident rate as it is not their focus, just reducing consequences - they have no idea how risk management works, which should be reduce causes and consequences. Not even the MUARCs fukkers get this but of course, they're just yes-men for vicpol, telling them what they want to hear so they get funding. It's fukked.
The argument that they'll put is that cars are designed to be damaged in an accident (crumple zones etc), so cars will be going into repairs at lower speeds.
And there's no more of that push a dint back into position & she'll be right stuff.
That's a good point.
There are stats around however, showing that intersection crashes have gone up - in gross terms at least. The concept some commentators are pushing is that the larger blindspots in new vehicles is a contributing factor. The national road safety strategy proposes to lower intersection speeds to help deal with this modern phenomena.
I don't know what other states have in regards to road transport accident compensation or systems, but TAC was experiencing an increase in claims. That's interesting because fatalities have dropped but injuries have gone up. Better cars and slower speeds could account for that. Poorer drivers could account for that too. No one knows. The likes of MUARC keep pushing the speed train however, but what they never say is that even if every vehicle complied totally with the current speed limits, people would still die and get injured on the roads.
(I wonder if the USA still has its 10mph bumper requirement...)
http://www.iihs.org/50th/default.html is always entertaining viewing, with respect to old cars vs new. Admittedly not a low-speed shunt, but hey...