I don’t agree with the notion that it is the governments privilege to grant the rights for a person to drive a car they have paid for and will continue to do so on a road they have paid for and will continue to do so. I accept there must be rules and people must be seen as “fit” to be able to do this.
It is reasonable for voters to expect a government be obligated to govern fairly. That would cover all the things you appear to believe governments are exempt from doing.
If the government was sincere about road safety they would make driving less confusing and easier rather than the alternative they appear to prefer. If civilization were to have adopted your attitude toward misused authority I guess we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.
You are free to doubt what you like. The problem is we are not really presented with accurate meaningful information on this 72% and I expect for good reason. In many reports on accidents they use the term “speed was believed to be a factor”. Good enough for the drones. What does that mean? Exceeding the posted limit or driving at a dangerous speed? And if it was a factor how much of one? And what else was? Without the facts your hypothesis is no more valid than mine. And I am happy to be PROVED wrong.
If the chances of survival are not all that good after hitting a substantial object at 100km/h then a head on collision with both vehicles travelling at 50kmh will do it. If you fall asleep at 100ks you won’t die. You will if you hit something and that is going to be another vehicle head on or a tree on the side of the road. In a modern car dropping a wheel off the side of a road should not automatically cause you to lose control and die in a flaming wreck. I would assume this would be at the low end of country road fatalities. Of course if you did this at 130 or 15kmh I think it becomes a whole lot more interesting.
Yes, as I believe it should be.
Who mentioned conspiracies? They don’t have to fabricate data. They produce the data in the form of statistics to suit their agenda. Their agenda appears to be raising revenue. You can produce statistics to support most points of view if you ask the right questions. Similarly they use of ambiguous and suggestive terms like “speed was believed to be a factor”
Get this from the SA Police website.
Relative to our population South Australia has one of the highest fatality rates compared with the rest of Australia and is a staggering 15% worse than the national average.
15% worse than the average is nothing to be proud of. But “one of the highest fatality rates” is ambiguous. There are 7 states/territories so are we in the top three or four. If we were second would not saying we are the second worst sound more impactful? If we are third then we are almost in the middle which doesn't have the same impact as "one of the highest".
Ambiguous use of data to make a point.
“ 40% of all fatalities and 52% of serious injuries occur on metropolitan Adelaide roads.” Therefore 60% of fatalities are in the country. My bad.
http://dpti.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/..._2006-2010.pdf
This is all very good but we still see an over representation of speed traps in 50k zones. This may lead the gullible into believing that 50k zones are the most dangerous places or that exceeding 50ks results in the most carnage.
It appears that 27% of “Serious casualty crashes” occur in these zones.
http://dpti.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/..._2006-2010.pdf
An interesting find in the same link “The most common type of serious crash in the metropolitan area was a vehicle colliding with a fixed object, accounting for approximately 141 serious crashes per year.” The two major types of objects struck in ‘hit fixed object’ type serious casualty crashes in metropolitan Adelaide, 2006-2010 were trees and the ubiquitous South Australian icon the stobie pole. A cement pole encased in H beam iron used to carry power lines. I for one have never understood how trees have a place on the side of metropolitan and in fact more so country roads. I also cannot fathom the rational of maintaining stobie poles within one or two feet of the side of major roads. If the government were serious about road safety would they not try to do something more about these than merely reduce the speed that motorists hit them?