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.

Negative spin journalism - again

Discussion in 'General Motorcycling Discussion' started by ~DadAgain~, Jan 5, 2010.

  1. OK so its nothing new - but last night a news story really caught my eye for blatant and in-yer-face doomsaying:

    "..Qld road toll last year was 360 - thats 20 more than the previous year.... Police say 'the message just isnt getting through <blah blah blah>...."

    and then the stunning revalation:

    "..This year (note: this story was on 4th Jan) already 2 people have died - Its simply not acceptable..."

    By *my* mathematics 2 people dying by the 4th Jan is WAAAAY better than acceptable - its almost HALVING the statisticaly predicted normal death-toll this year. Where was the story saying "So far this year roads are looking to be much safer than in previous years - but police say it is early days - keep up the good work" 8-[
  2. what shits me too, is it's going to always go up! population is growing more and more people are using the roads.. yet its the 3km/h over the limit speeders were going to **** by sticking a camera everwhere
  3. The Courier Mail had an article in yesterdays paper, it had a nice big fat graph showing that over the last 30 or so years, that the deaths per 100,000 have decreased from around 40 to 10.

    It's not all doom and gloom, just mostly :p
  4. Yes but what did they use that graph to show?
    Because I've heard of those stats used to justify increased speed camera usage etc.
    Never mind the fact that cars are better at protecting their occupants and improved medical technology has turned certain death into a less likely event.
  5. I've always been confused by the approach of governments and police departments to road safety:

    1) Decide road toll is too high.
    2) Insert lots of reve...umm, "road safety" cameras and reduced speed limits.
    3) Wait for results.
    4) See that the road toll hasn't decreased.
    5) Say "oh, the idea mustn't be getting through - the cameras aren't working"
    6) Put up more cameras.

    Umm, seriously. If all these cameras and reduced limits aren't working, how thick are they to realise they must have to try something different?
  6. For the purpose of this, lets pretend we accept that speeding is the leading cause of accidents and if only we could make people slower lives would be saved.
    What are the most commonly accepted ways to do this?
    1) Change the roads (put in round abouts, traffic lights, speed bumps, one way streets etc)
    2) Put more cops on patrol (Increased enforcement + small revenue stream)
    3) Put up speed cameras (Increased enforcement + enormous revenue stream)

    All 3 of these options will cost money initially, only one of them has any potential to actually bring real money back.

    I would argue that more cops is the way to go to actually have an impact, but I don't have to balance the books on this nation.
  7. In the case of Victoria, they gotta pay for their (combined) $3B f*ckups on Myki and the water pipeline somehow.
  8. where every you have moving objects that people control someone or thing will always die....always have and always will ](*,)
  9. No, you got the cliche wrong. It's "the message isn't getting through".

    That's what they trot out all the time down here.

    Never mind that like others have posted here, over the past 30 years there are more people on the road and that they travel further.

    What I'd like to see are the figures from the insurers. How many crash repairs are they paying out on? If the crash rate is the same or has gone higher based on km travelled or whatever meaningful statistic that you want to use, then the current strategies clearly aren't working.

    While I hate to quote anything from MUARC one of the "professors" there stated recently that the problem isn't speed offences of a few kays over. It's the really excessive ones that are the problem. And yeah, the governments are addressing this. But it still doesn't stop this bullshit of fining someone for doing 106 km/h on a 100 km/h road, or 114 km/h on a 110 km/h road.
  10. My first impressions of the graph I was talking about is that the road toll is decreasing because of the new technologies implemented (speed cameras, RBT's, etc. etc.) and therefore introducing new technologies/practices would be justified..

    Sounds right?
  11. Succinctly put mate. :applause:
  12. If the road toll has gone up, it shows that people aren't getting the msg and we need stricter rules. If it goes down, you can prove that the strict rules are working, so we need more of them.

    Ipso facto, more strict laws.
  13. I think it was Mark Twain who said that there are 3 types of lies, lies, damn lies and statistics.
  14. Side note for sake of interest:

    [/ot] as you were.
  15. opps wrong thread
  16. Oops. My bad. That's what I meant though.

    Are you kidding me? MUARC actually made a valid point?! *falls off chair*

    Anyway, that's the point I'm getting at. Just like the proposal in Queensland to consider Zero BAC for riders, all these new limits are only changing things for people who obey the existing rules. The problems are being caused by people who already disregard the laws as they are. Making the laws stricter isn't going to change anything.
  17. (Disclosure: I am in NSW, cameras have 3 signs warning you of their presence before you get to the camera itself)

    If I am speeding, a marked police car is really the only thing that will slow me down for any period of time.

    Cameras are simply an annoyance, traffic goes from 5-10km/h over the limit to 5-10km/h under the limit until past the camera in question. Their presence has also put me in shitty situations a handful of times, I don't enjoy having to decide between my safety/escaping from a dangerous situation v having my portrait taken and receiving the bill later.

    A marked car, however, makes me think twice. If they are travelling in the same direction as I am, then obviously I am on my best behaviour for as long as we are travelling partners. If they go past in the opposite direction I ask myself has something happened ahead? Are there more? Again, I slow down to the limit, probably for the rest of my journey (omens and such :p)

    A marked car has the added benefit of me not speeding in that area for a few more trips... in case the car does it as a regular patrol.

    As it currently stands, I don't speed on motorways (marked and unmarked cars are always out and about) and major roads/commuter roads. Time and place is very much in my mind when on the bike.