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.

N/A | National The spin on road rules.. R U a believer?

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by Archaeon, Feb 4, 2012.

  1. This has probably been said before, but Police/government focussing on road accidents etc... sounds good, and "in the publics interest" blah blah.. but seriously.. this is the spin from how I see it..

    Cops / government says..
    > "More needs to be done to increase road safety and reduce road tolls."
    > "Speeding is the biggest factor in road accident and fatalities."
    > "The number of avoidable accidents and deaths are a tragedy"
    > "The introduction of cameras will help us catch law breakers, and to slow people down"
    > "We must get tougher of road laws to ensure the roads are safe for everyone"

    Make of what you want from the above.. Fact or Fiction, you decide. Often political motives (and motives in general) are a mix of some truth... mixed with a lot of positives which can be interpreted by the general public as an improvement that they need.. not what the law makers want.. but what society needs - important point this.. The amount of resources poured into making the roads safer.. or rather penalising motorists as much as possible, since road conditions and designs take a back seat in such scenarios... is insane when compared to the lives that will be saved if techology and resources were poured into other areas of society.

    Comparatively.. You rarely hear the following (if at all)
    > "Road conditions have a huge effect on vehicle performance, including braking distance"
    > "Pedestrians who do not cross the road in a safe manner are jeopardising their lives and of motorists"
    > "Overseas drivers may not have the same competencies which Australian License holders must meet in order to operate a vehicle"
    > "The number of accidents involving a police vehicle accounts for X number of damages."
    > "Road related fatalalities are less than fatalities related to Construction, Health and Suicide"

    Fact or fiction, again you decide. Incorporating business models to political focus, the ROI (return on investment) is significantly higher when dealing with motorists. Everyone will travel faster than posted speed limits, and reducing speed limits will further increase the chances of motorists being caught, which in turn will generate a greater return in revenue.

    Investments in safer construction practices will require substantial negotiations with private companies and will likely result in an over regulated sector which may stifle businesses. (ie standardising technologies, and enforced safe work practices) basically too hard to control, and not very profitable (if anything, work cover claims will be higher which will be an added expense)

    Health care will always be an expense, and will never be profitable. The only reason to improve on this is ensuring the general well being of workers to keep the economic wheels churning. Smoking apparently causes a whole range of health issues to the smoker and the others around them. A ban on cigarette sales (why not throw in a line like "in the interest of the people") would immediately send the business underground, and will result in a massive reduction in revenue generated through taxes collected through tobacco. If anything, it's more beneficial to keep people smoking.. more money and a form of population control. "We don't care about people who are too old to contribute to society.. unless you're pretty wealthy and like spending your hard earned life savings - literally)

    Suicide rates have increased year over year. The problem is too hard to tackle, and certainly not profitable. Anti-suicie campaigns cannot be enforced or controlled with a fine or court battle - heck it'll cost more to rehab them than to just let them be (sounds really bad I know). However the cause of suicide stems from social pressure, anxiety and financial hardship. In order to properly address suicide, the cause of suicidal frame of minds must be taken into consideration.. How likely will a government enact measures to ease financial hardship when knowing what the GDP is, is more important in terms of international trade is concerned.

    Do you believe the spin? Are you the type that claims "if you're not doing anything wrong then you wont be caught and have nothing to worry about."

    Are you the type that loves kicking a goal every now and then, or achieving something you set your mind to, knowing what the end goal was?

    What if the goal posts kept changing...? Would this make playing by the rules a little more difficult.. would it cause you to readjust your approach to reach the same goal, even if this may increase the time it took you to reach that goal.? ... Would the time to invest outweigh the benefits? What if you knew something can be achieved much faster, more efficiently; however enacting on such would be illegal due to some law that was passed to deliberately increase the chances of you breaking such law?

    What happens to justice when upon a conviction by the prosecution (say a fine from a "safety" camera) effectively deems you to be guilty until proven innocent. How much resources would you have at your disposal to prove your innocence.. how much funding would be needed to properly present your case in the court of law.. again, to prove your innocence?

    Agree or disagree? Argue your point. Politics, like the financial system is made out to appear complex; however at its core, it's really quite simple. Don't be ignorant to what impacts your life.. now and into your future. Truth is you're not as free as democracy makes it out to be, but under such a system, you do have the power to surrender your voice.
    • Like Like x 8
  2. The government is interested in nothing more than taking our money. They don't give a f**k about saving lives because if they really wanted to, they'd force car manufacturers to electronically govern speed and acceleration, they'd force greater levels of driver training and they'd stop sitting on the side of the road nabbing people doing 10kph over the limit on a straight road.

    They don't care and they never will. They want money and nothing more.
    • Like Like x 1
  3. I understand that I am over generalizing in saying this but.

    Germany has a strong economy, an economy to be proud of (to my limited understanding anyway), yet they have probably the worlds most intelligent road system and drivers. They don't focus on speeding, they focus more on common courtesy (i.e. stick left [or right] when you are not overtaking, etc). So their government aren't stimulating their pockets with speed cameras. Why is it so hard to follow their example?

    Again, I may be wrong, this isn't an educated statement, more of a question to someone who may have done prior research.
  4. Amen!
  5. You have to remember mate, the government is structuring the laws so that you cannot avoid breaking them when acting in any fair and reasonable manner.
    They dont want law abiding citizens - they cant fine them!
  6. It's simply not true and you guys don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about.

    • Like Like x 1
  7. Presumably you mean that the "gov just wants to make money off you" rhetoric is wrong. I agree.

    One of the points was that the human capital ROI would be higher in areas like health than an area like road safety. That rings bells with me.

    - - -
    Tapatalking loud, saying somethin'
  8. Anytime the discussion turns to 'it's all about revenue raising' the discussion is over.

    It's over-simplistic.
    It's outdated.
    It's been proven wrong.
    It is wrong.

    No useful insights can be drawn from it, no information or understanding can be garnished from it. I feel sorry for the OP for wasting his time posting.

    This is the core of the discussion from where I sit, and the responses have been born out of ignorance.

    The authorities have the mantra of 'speed kills', our return mantra is 'revenue raising'.

    We condemn the authorities for oversimplifying and focusing on one aspect of road safety, we're more guilty of it than they are.

    The reason why the authorities dumbed down road safety to just speed, is because they know they're talking to simple people.

    It's not about revenue raising and it never was, that's just a side benefit.
    All of the OP's post is what it's really about. I'll leave it to him to illuminate everybody.

    Leave ya with this, taken directly from the Vicpol press release website....
    Keywords to think about:
    15 deaths
    300 serious injuries

    It doesn't get any simpler than that.

    • Like Like x 1
  9. Research shows that there is a direct correlation between Global Warming and the number of pirates. What we should be asking is whos research, what were the parameters of that research. The glib throw away lines from Government and QANGOs we need to force them to justify and present their evidence. Show me the study, any study, and you can pick holes in it.

    • Like Like x 3
  10. There are truths and spin involved. I don't believe there is a great profit margin to be made from hwp cars. If you take into account professional salaries, training costs, vehicle and equipment running costs, possible court costs, layers and layers of bureaucracy, penalty rates, etc there would be little left after even a good day out speed hunting.

    Speed kills is a very simple mantra. But conspicious speed cameras I do believe are effective. Not at bringing down speed but testing driver attention. I don't believe there is much wrong with speeding, but I do believe theres a problem with speeding and either a) being unaware of it or b) not being attentive enough to notice a sign. Marked speed cameras are about the only real way to penalize inattentive drivers. This is.where the spin is because a government could not get away with saying speedings ok but pay attention. Unmarked cameras are a different ball game which fall into the revenue raiser catagory.
    • Like Like x 1
  11. You've proven my point much better than I could of hoped for.

    It's happening, it will continue to happen, have fun with photoshop.
  12. You're even close enough to the truth to warrant further discussion.
  13. Well I'm on the hume hwy now. Melb to syd. Mrs is driving. Crossing the border I instantly changed my behavior and added an extra 10c. I noticed everyone around me did the same. Unmarked cameras do slow people down very effectivly, but does this save lives? I doubt it.
  14. Well being from NSW and having spent the last two weeks driving round vic, I've had a good chance to observe how unmarked speed cameras affect my behavior.

    I did slavishly follow the speed limit, while I am not so rigid driving in NSW. So yes they slowed me down. But does that equate to safter driving? I dont think so. When driving speed limit plus GST I find I am far more alert. I am looking far ahead for signs of a speed trap. While in vic I found I would set the cruise to the limit and pay far less attention. I had a lot less concentration after a couple hours driving in vic. My observations of those around was there were far less people speeding around me.

    Funnily enough the only accident I saw was on the border at Albury Wodonga.
  15. what about compulsory RWC for rego renewal? Honestly it needs to be enforced at a federal level.
  16. Hmmm... time for me to re-enter the discussion :D

    All the responses have touched on aspects of what this thread was getting at, and its nice to know that you're thinking about it, be on a surface level or deeper. I'll start with this.. (seeing it was the post that's called me out)

    Without trying to express my opinion too strongly (to encourage further thought and discussion) this touches on a lot of what I was hinting at. I just want to say that I wasn't expecting a right or wrong answer here (no pre-judgement) I was hoping to get people thinking about this for more than a few minutes.

    Laws are passed "in the peoples best interest". We hear this all the time.. "The people have the right... It is in the national interest... For the safety of all australians... To ensure the wellbeing of the people of australia.." You get the idea. This is thrown around so casually that it may have actually lost its true meaning behind it. There's a saying somewhere by someone.. "Tell a lie often enough, to enough people, and people will start believing it"

    Welcome to modern day Democracy. Straight from the wiki (i know, totally reliable source of info.. but hey..) Democracy in its purest or most ideal form would be a society in which all adult citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives

    I touched on a lot in my original post, but let me bring it back to road rules, since this is a rider forum.. In NSW, the new liberal MP took the following actions (just to name a few that stood out with relevence to transport) after winning the seat from Labour.
    • Reviewed all fixed speed cameras and the effectiveness (ie were they just generating revenue or actually saving lives)
    • Sought public opinion on what roads had the wrong speed limits, whcih would allegedly result in a professional review of the stretch of road/street in question to better assess the feasibility of adjusting the speed limit.
    • Promised to review proposals for more efficient public transport which would benefit more people

    The delivery by the premier was simple. It addressed public concerns, action was taken and a result was or will be achieved.

    The fact is.. the following is what actually resulted from these outcries from the public "The people of NSW have been asking for this under the labour government, and we are delivering these where they had failed..."

    Some cameras were in proven to serve no safety benefit at all, and were shut off. http://news.drive.com.au/drive/roads-and-traffic/speed-cameras-minister-orders-38-to-be-switched-off-20110727-1hzcz.html However more mobile cameras and "Safety Cameras" were given the green light. Further R&D has brought forth cameras able to track and tag a greater number of motorists - even going so far as to claiming they can detect mobile phone usage and the likes from 500m away (posted elsewhere on the forum). Did it shut the public up? Did the public feel like they were being heard? What about road designs? What about traffic volume? what about driver education? Oh right this was about speed cameras only... But hang on.. according to http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafet...dcameras/fixedspeedcameralocations/index.html cameras locations and their "... criteria are based on crash and injury accident rates and travelling speeds. This ensures that cameras are installed on 'blacklengths' (lengths of road with a high accident rate) and a demonstrated speeding problem." It would seem speed still kills..all other factors are irrelevent.

    After seeking public input on where speed limits needed to be reviewed, most speed zones were actually REDUCED! Consider this.. most court arguments over a speeding fine had (and probaly still is) revolved around the plaintiff (defendent / person who got the ticket) complaining about the many varying speed zones makes it near impossible to keep track of when they are speeding. Interesting that this has in effect made life easier for many motorists.. Surely they wont speed now that its more or less relatively consistent? It might add an extra few minutes to your journey, but the congestion caused by everyone travelling at that pace, combined with traffic lights that seem to only allow a few cars to pass at a time (likely caused by the backlog of traffic cause by the reduction in legally allowable speed in which you can travel at).. So ... if we are all complaining about the speed cameras, and why they shouldn't be there because its revenue raising.. why would people also be complaining about the speed on a stretch of road be too high, and should be reduced?

    I wont go into the public transport point I made earlier, but for some interestign reading, consider this when you next hear a premier promising more public transport. http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/minister-readies-railcorp-for-cuts-20120131-1qrfd.html#ixzz1l66TPuEO

    I would be interested to know what people from NSW other states have to share or add on this (I'm in NSW). Fact or fiction.. Is your voice / concerns / interests actually being represented properly in our modern day democracy? I'm not leading towards conspiracies; however do you believe in the spin that is being presented to you day after day, week after week? Have you already tuned out and just couldn't be arsed thinking about it anymore? "Yeah whatever, the laws F****d, I really don't care anymore" ... hmm.. how interesting.

    As an interesting side note, upon no opposition to a proposed change that is communicated and delivered "in the peoples best interest" it eventually becomes law. Breaking such a law, which your assumed support (through lack of opposition) allowed it to come into force, will result in a matter that can only be settled through court. The court has rules, and it costs time and money. Would you be submissive or challenge it then?

    ... and I know the sources / links i've provided is as reliable as google and wiki, but hey.. (again) ;)
  17. I personally don't like it when things get enforced.. but I do see a reason to have certain things fall into thie category.. Firearms prohibition has my full support for instance. a RWC (road worthy certificate?) being enforced on at federal level.. I dunno.. to quote a line from Terminator 3 "it'll be like killing a fly with a nuke"

    Why do you believe it needs to be enforced at Fed level?
  18. When you are a member of the Police Force - your job is to go out and catch people. If you are not catching many crims - then you aren't doing your job.

    When you are a Politician your job is to tell people you are doing something. If you aren't announcing stuff - then you aren't doing your job.

    When you are a Doctor it is your job to look for better ways to heal people - i.e. justify why they should give you that extra bit of expensive medical kit.

    IMHO, it really all about justifying their existence. Be they the cops, pollies, medical profession, VicRoads/RTA etc - its all about justifying why they should be employed. Put a cop in the Traffic Commissioner's role and the rhetoric is the same every time, "Aren't I good, I'm out there catching and reporting the crime....". yadda, yadda, yadda.....

    As for the Road Toll - its just another excuse to justify the crap they come up with and their very existence - be it right or wrong.

    Please feel free to enhance my list.
  19. It's been a matter of public record that the Victorian government budgeted for, and achieved, very large increases in speed penalty revenue. That couldn't happen without people breaking the law.

    Everything is working exactly as it was intended to.
  20. just thought i'd add this for your viewing pleasure.. NSW Rail needs to be "bailed out" .. this comes after the premier promises more efficient public transport services to reach more areas.. SPIN DOCTORS!!