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.

The Beige society is upon us

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by smee, Dec 3, 2010.


    Read the other stuff proposed like speed limiters etc etc etc
    Wire rope barriers everywhere
    etc etc etc

  2. Catherine King said this morning (radio interview) that these are things for the community to decide. That's a change. Immediately got talkback calls from biddys calling for 12 month car confiscation for the most minor offenses.

    If we don't want this stuff, we have to tell them so. There's plenty of half-alive jellies calling for even more regulation.

    Re the target of a reduction of 30% in the next decade - I heard KL talking yesterday of a figure of 10% being realistic.
  3. They want to slash the road toll... 0.02 isn't going to do it. 40km/h is going to do it.

    I feel like going postal on these beige ****ers pooncifying our amazing country, a country that was based and built on a healthy disrespect to authority... at least disrespect of abuse of authority.

    Where the **** did the true australian spirit go?

    :( :roll:
  4. They will save less than 4.2 lives, while destroying a lot of licenses & raking in the revenue.

    (42 drink drivers were killed in vic in 2009, in all ages brackets, not just in the under 26 bracket)

    Yes, it's been hovering around .02% of the population for the last 100 years...

    Rhetoric, lies & spin.
  5. may as well ban radios in cars and make it illegal to have a conversation with other people in the same moving car as well

    what difference is there in having a conversation with a passenger and using a hands free blue tooth telephone to have a conversation - ABSOLUTELY ZERO

    my question is "when do the book burnings start ?"

    as for the blood alcohol levels - I must say that in the eastern europe countries they have a zero level and tolerance for it - does it work - I do not know - I do know that the Russians , Ukranians Serbs - Slavs basically still drive pissed
  6. When you read news articles on booze bus blitzes and how they test "thousands of drivers" but then only a half a dozen of them are over (and they usually don't say by how much), you really gotta wonder why they're focusing on this.

    Personally, it wouldn't bother me as I don't drink that much these days. But it may affect the "morning after" drivers who may be bordering on .02 but who are still fine to drive.

    I think that the government is treading cautiously here because it knows that there could be an electoral backlash if suddenly there are tens of thousands of drivers suddenly finding themselves with drink driving convictions. This affects more than just losing the licence. It means that people could lose their jobs, that getting insurance later on is much harder and more expensive, shit like that.

    And like speed cameras pinging motorists for doing 108 km/h on Eastlink it will achieve diddly squat.
  7. Looking ar the positives, it's about bloody time there was a review of driver distractions. I've no problem at all with all mobile use being banned (not sure how it would be enforced though) and the effects of in-car toys being examined. I'm quite pleased that "life-long driver education" is mentioned too, with the qualifier that it has to be worthwhile education. I favour taking a leaf out of the book of the IAM in the UK but there may be alternatives.

    I'm ambivalent about lower alcohol limits. It makes no difference to me as I don't find it any hardship not to drink, but I know nothing about the Swedish experience so I've no idea whether it's valid or not.

    Rubbish like cutting the top off the speedo range, speed limiters and so on should be treated with the contempt it deserves though.

    In my experience as a legislator, I would suggest to those responding to the powers that be that a reasoned critiique taking each point on its merits is more likely to have a positive effect than a wholly negative rant about one or two prominent areas.
  8. It never ceases to amaze me how they cherry pick their foreign countries when formulating road policies.

    They look to Sweden for the most harshest of "safety" policies, a country that bears little resemblence either geographically, culturally, politically or economically to Australia. And when people mention France's Autoroutes, Italy's Autostradas (I think that's what they're called) or Germany's Autobahns when it comes to higher speed allowances, they ignore them totally.

    Even the Mother Country, the UK has higher speed limits which aren't enforced as zealously as they are here.
  9. 1.24 million drivers tested in vic in 2009, "more than" 4000 tested, (we'll say 4500 to be on the safe side) gives [strike]0.0032%[/strike] 0.32% drivers over the limit.

    I'm not a statistician, but isn't that what you'd call "statistically insignificant"...?

  10. Not to be a pedant, but it is in fact 0.32%
  11. Really? I suck at maths...

    Still that's a very low number, right?
  12. Ya :) You forgot to move the decimal when converting it from a raw number to a percentage. Still low...
  13. Yeah, but it's hard to get around the fact that those 0.32% of the population are massively overrepresented in the crash stats.

    Personal experience, anecdotal evidence from quite a few people and at least one dimly remembered (and so not referencable) academic study from when I was professionally involved in traffic safety matters, indicate that there is a massive difference psychologically.

    Besides, whilst a ban on conversations in cars is neither practical nor IMHO desirable, can you seriously suggest that you would happily converse with your passengers in all driving situations? Surely there are times when you would consider it appropriate for both you and them to shut the feck up while you concentrate on the task at hand. Much easier when (a) your passengers can see the situation for themselves and (b) your boss isn't squawking in your ear while you try to avoid that 4WD that just cut in on you.
  14. hahah, I was just about to point out that 0.0032 is a ratio, which in percentage terms = 0.32%... I got caught by the same simple error myself recently. So far operation RAID in Victoria has found a 0.36% BAC hit rate. So basically, >99.6% of drivers are adhering to the BAC laws... that does sound like a success story.

    My question would be, where's the evidence that 0.02 limit would slash the road toll?

    The cherry picking point was one of my greatest beefs about the Vic GLS discussion paper. Selective cherry picking is intellectually dishonest.

    PatB, as a former legislater, what is this drive to save ourselves from ourselves all about? When do you think the legislaters will ban saturated fat oils and the like? 1500 - 1800 people might die on Australian roads yearly... but ~24000 died from heart disease... ostensibly totally avoidable.

    2008 death stats: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/7472F4976D5DC022CA2576F600122927?opendocument
  15. The thing they forget to mention is that Sweden with changes to it's entire alcohol sales environment has some pretty big Alcohol problems at the moment...
  16. Dont believe it for a minute PATB ( the study or whatever it was ) its easy enough to switch out the noise instantly ( I drove a cab for many years and it was easy to ignore the drunken louts in the car and concentrate on driving )
  17. As far as traffic safety is concerned, there is, of course, the political imperative to be seen to be doing something in order to garner votes from talkback radio audiences. That's the obvious one. However, in my experience the principal, and also more insidious and dangerous, cause is the nature of the middle levels of the PS departments tasked with the issue. That is, the levels where policy detail is actually developed. Many PS staff at this level are basically well meaning but they tend to be not terribly bright, certainly deeply unimaginative, disinclined to reasoned argument and very, very conventional. Beige, if you will. It was particularly striking that the technically trained people (ie us engineers) tended to be less inclined towards the legislation as a cure-all approach than the career public servants without tech qualifications or background.

    I'm out of that world now, and so can't comment on what is driving this current set of proposals. However, I can cite examples of people with major influence on policy development being driven by their own personal and ill-informed opinions. The guy in WA who was strongly and influentially in support of the proposed national anti-splitting amendments because the practice was "clearly dangerous" and he'd lost a mirror to a splitter once and who dismissed any evidence to the contrary as "irrelevant" and "proving nothing" is one example. The federal chap who decided that the legislation on truck braking systems needed tightening on the basis of all the truck skidmarks he saw on the road on his way to work, notwithstanding the fact that he had no means of knowing whether or not the trucks that made those marks complied with current legislation is another.

    In short, State and Federal policy is worryingly dependent on the opinions of a few individuals who are frequently neither as capable nor as well informed as we would like them to be. Unfortunately, many of them are wilfully uninformed and so it's hard to see what to do about them. On the upside, there are (I hope) still a few good, intelligent people in the relevant bodies, open to evidence and capable of exerting influence. It is to be hoped that at least some of any feedback on this reaches them as well as the dim ideologues.

    As far as the saturated fat issue goes, it comes down to a battle between the lobby who make money from it and the new puritanism that is on the rise and insists that everyone must be protected from themselves. At this stage I predict a win by the puritan lobby inside twenty years, resulting in a ban, but would be happy to be proved wrong.
  18. PATB

    Your comments above re- bureaucrats and politicians

    agree with you 1 bazillion percent

    The politicians and bureaucrats do not have the skills, training or knowledge to solve majority of Australia's issues/problems.

    it is the technologists ( scientists, designers, engineers etc ) that have those skills and are underpaid and under utilised and more often than not ignored
  19. A quick Google turned up quite a few references and even discarding all those by MUARC or people with strong links thereto there's enough to at least suggest you're wrong. Here's one as an example.

    And are being weeded out of government departments at a frightening rate because they ask for annoying distractions like "evidence".

    Interestingly, the ideologues suddenly become very enthusiastic indeed abnout evidence when you request funding for research into an area that doesn't fall within their blinkered vision. Explaining that evidence is what the research is intended to obtain doesn't seem to help much.