Reconcile this garbage.

[crisis]

I think the general government strategy to enforce safety is that those who act in a way that is considered against safety, can be best hit in the place where it hurts most, being the money department.

Unfortunately the easiest targets. Not the most dangerous. Which is why I question their genuine commitment to safety. The SA Police website used to have a stat claiming 60% of fatal accidents happened in the country yet I can assure you 605 of “safety cameras” are not there.

[henk4]

Unfortunately the easiest targets. Not the most dangerous. Which is why I question their genuine commitment to safety. The SA Police website used to have a stat claiming 60% of fatal accidents happened in the country yet I can assure you 605 of “safety cameras” are not there.

possibly because the countryside is a well known speed camera demolishing area?

[crisis]

possibly because the countryside is a well known speed camera demolishing area?

There are other ways of policing than merely sitting taking photos and allowing the dangerous activity to proceed. Actual highway patrol’s wouldn’t hurt or radars in police cars. They do this but not 60%.

[Alastor]

I think the general government strategy to enforce safety is that those who act in a way that is considered against safety, can be best hit in the place where it hurts most, being the money department.

On the surface it is logical, but when the foundation of government is also 'money' this creates a very clear conflict of interest of the government's motives.

Are they creating/changing laws to promote safety, or are they trying to raise additional revenue. I guess in most cases it is both, so in that case is there a difference between, increasing safety where the side effect is additional revenue, or increasing revenue where the side effect is additional safety. I would say either way the real motive can always be claimed to be 'safety'.

[MilesR]

Can you please explain the logic underlying that supposition?

If a large enough proportion of the population objected to the state of the road rules, one party or other could use changes to the laws to win votes. If they do not, it suggests that not enough voters care, for votes to be won this way. It is not proof of public opinion, but I think it is suggestive. If correct, it indicates that, accidentally or otherwise, the government is probably representing the majority, or at least the average, on this issue.

I could say that the vocal opposite then would include around 50% of the voters who didn’t vote for “them” at the very least

I think that the "Us and them" mentality is not limited to party politics. I think that there are people who see the government as an opponent, irrespective of the party in power, simply because they are in charge. Likewise, I have met very few Australians who like the police, regardless of the ruling party at the time, because they see them as agents of an oppressor. Treating the authorities as "Us" or "Them" is not simply agreeing or disagreeing with them, but rather seeing them as "of the people", or distinct and separate from their subjects, sometimes irrespective of whether or not they are of the same mind. I assume that this was the intent of your original comment, Pieter?

Also, it is not a conclusion and not based on conjecture. It is an opinion, or impression, based on the opposition that I see voiced. The arguments against changes to road rules often seem to be based on the assumption that the rules are being changed for the benefit of the government, not the people. This corresponds to the treatment of the government as "Them", with different interests from "Us", the people. I do not know if this opinion is held only by the minority, but I do think that it is only voiced by the minority. The opinions of one or a few outraged politicians, journalists, commentators etc. will be available to everyone, while the unpublicised opinions of the many, who may be less-outraged, or supportive, will go unheard. This does not prove that the noisy few do not represent the majority, but the noise of the opinions does not necessarily correlate with general public support for them.

it is more indicative of the general apathy of the australian public, i think you will find..

It could be, but I would interpret apathy as an indication that the issue does not motivate most people. Perhaps "satisfied" was the wrong choice of word. Perhaps they find no significant cause for complaint with the current rules. It would surprise me if such an issue could win significant votes, yet be ignored by politicians. In your experience, do Australians have a similarly apathetic attitude to other issues, that become election issues?

There are other ways of policing than merely sitting taking photos and allowing the dangerous activity to proceed. Actual highway patrol’s wouldn’t hurt or radars in police cars. They do this but not 60%.

You could argue for the reduction of fines and raising of limits for low-order speeding offences, and enforcement only by police motor vehicles, but this would likely increase costs of enforcement, and reduce the chance of catching offenders, based on reduced presence. The costs would be passed on to taxpayers, instead of being covered by offenders. I like the current billing system better. Conversely, enforcement could be reduced, to save costs and reduce victimisation, but there is no way that this could be claimed to be in the interests of safety.

[crisis]

If a large enough proportion of the population objected to the state of the road rules, one party or other could use changes to the laws to win votes. If they do not, it suggests that not enough voters care, for votes to be won this way.

It may also suggest neither part is prepared to cough up an easy guaranteed and ostensibly justifiable revenue stream. They have many areas where their opinions differ violently and therefore it would make no sense for them to fight an election over subtleties in policing methods of road rules.

You could argue for the reduction of fines and raising of limits for low-order speeding offences, and enforcement only by police motor vehicles, but this would likely increase costs of enforcement, and reduce the chance of catching offenders, based on reduced presence.

Firstly I would not necessarily argue for either of those two. What I would dearly like to see is a sincere approach to road safety.
I agree more police cars is a cost but after all we tax payers are funding it. I fail to see how the physical presence of law enforcement reduces the chances of catching offenders. Given the only way a speed camera “catches” an offender is a few weeks after they have finished their apparently lethal behavior (behavior which they have been left to pursue by virtue of not being pulled over at the very least) they provide no physical barrier between those “speeding” at the time of the offence.

The costs would be passed on to taxpayers,

It largely is anyway.

instead of being covered by offenders.

They can still pay fines. ?

Conversely, enforcement could be reduced, to save costs and reduce victimisation, but there is no way that this could be claimed to be in the interests of safety.

Enforce that which is shown to be the most threat to road safety.

[MilesR]

They have many areas where their opinions differ violently and therefore it would make no sense for them to fight an election over subtleties in policing methods of road rules.

I would still be surprised if significant public opposition to speed limit rules did not translate into votes for the party that addressed the issue. The lost revenue is irrelevant to a party, if it wins insufficient votes to take power. I would expect that the votes would take priority over the revenue. Besides, major differences of opinion may also lose votes for at least one of the parties concerned, so are not necessarily the better approach to an election. I still see it as suggestive of perceived public opinion.

I agree more police cars is a cost but after all we tax payers are funding it. I fail to see how the physical presence of law enforcement reduces the chances of catching offenders. Given the only way a speed camera “catches” an offender is a few weeks after they have finished their apparently lethal behavior (behavior which they have been left to pursue by virtue of not being pulled over at the very least) they provide no physical barrier between those “speeding” at the time of the offence.

It largely is anyway.

You are arguing that these rules are of benefit to the police or the government, who earn money from them. This is not quite consistent with the conjecture that the taxpayer already funds the law-enforcement exercise. Road rule enforcement either costs money, or it makes money. It is hard to argue that it does both.

I am not sure how consistent this is around the world, but the majority of speed cameras that I have encountered are not automated, fixed-position cameras, which are very easy to avoid or slow down for. Most have been mobile cameras, which involve a police vehicle, on the side of the road, with a laser or radar gun. This method of enforcement requires police vehicles and police staff to be present, so it is not done to save money, and theoretically, at least, they are capable of observing and reporting other dangerous behaviours. Would these meet your standards?

If the police cars are driving in traffic, I think it would reduce the number of cars that they can observe. If a police car is driving 1km behind you, it is likely to remain 1km behind you, unless you stop. Conversely, a staffed mobile speed camera will be capable of observing every car that travels along a road, while it is there. I would expect that, despite the more active police presence, the risk of encountering a moving police vehicle would be lower for any given journey, thus reducing the number of infringements that are likely to be recorded. On the other hand, moving police cars could observe particular vehicles until an offence is committed. I am sure that this would provoke cries of revenue-raising, too.

What is your position on unmarked police cars performing patrols?

They can still pay fines. ?

But I would expect there to be less revenue from fines, and a greater cost to be covered by the law-abiding members of the public. Why should not the costs be covered, as far as possible, by those whose behaviour requires the enforcement measures? This is already normal for people who cause accidents or commit crimes, and are answerable for the damage and losses.

[clutch-monkey]

It could be, but I would interpret apathy as an indication that the issue does not motivate most people. Perhaps "satisfied" was the wrong choice of word. Perhaps they find no significant cause for complaint with the current rules. It would surprise me if such an issue could win significant votes, yet be ignored by politicians. In your experience, do Australians have a similarly apathetic attitude to other issues, that become election issues?

australian's are apathetic towards anything until the media or government tells them to be otherwise.
nobody really likes the traffic laws, but nobody could be stuffed doing anything so the politicians keep going and going..

[Niko_Fx]

*Only read the first post*

While giving someone a ticket for doing 5kms over the speed limit is absolutely ridiculous imo, enforcing stronger rules point-wise makes sense and awkwardly I kind of agree with it. In the US speeding laws are plain simply a way of revenue for the State, if they truly wanted you to lower your speed they'd come up with something such as "two speeding tickets within a year and lose your license for a couple of months"... but that wouldn't bring as much money, heck I have a friend that got 7 tickets one year, paid a couple of thousand bucks for them and never had his license suspended, what a flawed system.

[MRR]

The thing I like about the USA, at least the small sections of the country that I have corssed by car, is that virtually everybody sticks to the speed limit

Lol wut? I don't know what sections of the USA you drove across but that is certainly not true anywhere in the states I have been. Hell on my commute the speed limit is 65 mph (~105 km/h) while the speed of traffic in the left most lane regularly exceeds 80+ mph (130 km/h). With the exception of the living corpses driving old Buicks/Crown Vic land barges 10 mph under even the slowest drivers regularly exceed 5 mph or more over. The problem we have here is drivers have not been trained to keep right except to pass and get visibly confused/angry when you try to overtake them on the left or flash your highbeams to pass (too many believe they are entitled to stay in the passing lane no matter what their speed). Also speed cameras are illegal in most states (only Maryland and Arizona to my knowledge allow speed monitoring without a police officer holding a radar/LIDAR gun).

[crisis]

I would still be surprised if significant public opposition to speed limit rules did not translate into votes for the party that addressed the issue. The lost revenue is irrelevant to a party, if it wins insufficient votes to take power. I would expect that the votes would take priority over the revenue. Besides, major differences of opinion may also lose votes for at least one of the parties concerned, so are not necessarily the better approach to an election. I still see it as suggestive of perceived public opinion.

Well supposition and conjecture aside plenty of people complain about the policing of road rules. Governments generally win power through the fact the public has grown tired of the incumbent or majorly dislikes a policy they have brought in during their tenure. Oppositions rarely win due to the promise of a policy or policies. Neither would enter a election promising to amend intricacies of road rules that while many dislike they are also too apathetic to make sufficient noise about.
Basically this -

australian's are apathetic towards anything until the media or government tells them to be otherwise.
nobody really likes the traffic laws, but nobody could be stuffed doing anything so the politicians keep going and going..

Further the RAA which is the chief non government motoring body in South Australia says a this -

SPEEDING – Do drivers really understand the risk?
The University of Adelaide’s Road Accident Research Unit has shown that for every five kilometer per hour increase in vehicle speed above 60km/h, the risk of involvement in a casualty crash doubles. Travel at 65km/h and you are two times more likely to be involved in a crash than some one traveling at 60km/h.
This correlation has been well known for some years now, at least among the road safety fraternity. But it is not well understood by drivers.
Speed studies on arterial roads in metropolitan Adelaide indicate that 85th%ile speeds ie the speed at which 85% of vehicles are observed to be traveling under free flowing conditions, is closer to 70km/h than 60km/h.
There are probably two reasons for this. First, like it or not, drivers are generally aware that Police allow a 9km/h – 10km/h enforcement tolerance. Second, drivers do not believe that travelling at 5km/h – 10km/h above the speed limit is significantly more hazardous than travelling at the speed limit.
Tougher penalties eg demerit points for speed camera-detected offences are unlikely to cause drivers to reduce speed within the tolerance limit. They are likely to continue to exceed the limit by up to 9km/h, or thereabouts.
Lowering the enforcement tolerance is also unlikely to generate voluntary speed reductions. Instead, such a move is likely to be perceived by drivers as revenue raising rather than a genuine attempt to slow traffic and so reduce the potential for crashes, particularly in a climate of recently reduced speed limits (50km/h and, soon, fewer 110km/h zones). Drivers need to be given a better reason for slowing down. They need to fully understand
the crash risks associated with speeds above the speed limit. In this way, speed limits will be given increased credibility. It will no longer be regarded as ‘safe’ to travel at just under 70km/h in a 60km/h zone, or around 120km/h on a country road zoned 110km/h.

http://www.raa.com.au/download.aspx?...ocument_59.pdf

Now I don’t agree with the rather broad conclusion that “for every five kilometer per hour increase in vehicle speed above 60km/h, the risk of involvement in a casualty crash doubles.” simply because it ignores every other factor involved in an accident. In fact the conclusion itself, as covered previously, can lead the dumber drivers to simply believe they have satisfied their road safety obligations because they have stuck to the speed limit. But it outlines that there are institutionalized concerns about tougher penalties and stricter enforcement as a deterrent.

You are arguing that these rules are of benefit to the police or the government, who earn money from them. This is not quite consistent with the conjecture that the taxpayer already funds the law-enforcement exercise. Road rule enforcement either costs money, or it makes money. It is hard to argue that it does both.

Ever heard of double dipping? Taxpayers fund everything. The fact that all monies go into general revenue and are then redistributed as the governments sees fit notwithstanding.

I am not sure how consistent this is around the world, but the majority of speed cameras that I have encountered are not automated, fixed-position cameras, which are very easy to avoid or slow down for. Most have been mobile cameras, which involve a police vehicle, on the side of the road, with a laser or radar gun.

The majority of metro S.A. cameras are in parked cars on the side of the road manned by public servants. Not actual police officers. They are generic enough so that do not stand out unless one is savvy to the varieties of cars used and the areas they are used. Ie 50k zones hat run off the end of 60k zones. Traps. Those on the lookout will slow down from 55 to 50 etc. These people are of 0 threat in any case. The idiot travelling through 20 or so ks above the limit will continue on his way oblivious to the fine he will review days later and may eventually cause an accident.

This method of enforcement requires police vehicles and police staff to be present, so it is not done to save money, and theoretically, at least, they are capable of observing and reporting other dangerous behaviours. Would these meet your standards?

What you descried is in the minority. If they apprehend the “speeding” driver then I would suggest they have in the case of drivers driving at dangerous speeds performed a duty of enforcing road safety. If they have picked someone up for travelling 5ks over a limit, “creeping” as they like to call it they have merely collected revenue.

If the police cars are driving in traffic, I think it would reduce the number of cars that they can observe. If a police car is driving 1km behind you, it is likely to remain 1km behind you, unless you stop.

I want them in the traffic observing what I see every day. Dangerous drivers. Whether the drivers see them or not is irrelevant. Apprehend and fine them.

What is your position on unmarked police cars performing patrols?

Perfect if the target dangerous drivers.

Why should not the costs be covered, as far as possible, by those whose behaviour requires the enforcement measures

They should. But those who present the minimum threat to road safety, i.e. minimal speed infringements, pay the majority of revenue.

[Badsight]

I think the general government strategy to enforce safety is that those who act in a way that is considered against safety, can be best hit in the place where it hurts most, being the money department.

because we all know that limiting the speed of cars wont achieve lower average speeds on our roads aye

instead the absolute best way to make roads safe seems to be taking money off people ?!?!?

basically, governments/politicians dont believe their own speel - because if speed is the real killer its made out to be then they would act against the right to purchase a 100+ km/h capable car

they never will

[henk4]

basically, governments/politicians dont believe their own speel - because if speed is the real killer its made out to be then they would act against the right to purchase a 100+ km/h capable car

they never will

that opens an interesting discussion...In Europe only Germany has stretches of unlimited speed on motorways. Once a general reduction to 130 kph max will be introduced, there is indeed no reason to allow cars that grossly exceed that limit. The German car industry will go all the way though to prevent such a general speed limit.

[Badsight]

For the UK I say it repeatedly. EVERY car driver should be required to tak ea motorbike license and test. Teaches two things ... proper observation and planning AND as important .. to look out for bikers !!

motorcyclists from every country say the same thing

theres no comparison between the 2. cars you can drive without a brain whilst operating a motorcycle like that will ensure death

& many middle age "new" bikers do just that - ride it like its a car

[Badsight]

People on average do take about 2 seconds to respond. That takes into account the time between the hazard emerging, the eye perceiving the hazard, the brain interpreting the hazard, appropriate action being chosen, and action actually being taken. Racing drivers act faster, because their decisions are normally made quite a while before the action is taken, and they are more often prepared for the hazard to be there. Even they can be caught out by the unexpected, as demonstrated by the occasional but regular rear-end accidents, when someone fails to launch on the start grid. Normal motorists do not expect to be responding to hazards, and so the response takes longer. The reason why there are so few crashes is that most people follow most of the rules most of the time, introducing enough of a safety margin for a 2 second response time to be adequate to avoid most hazards..

your assumptions/opinion here is basically completely wrong

the reason theres not more crashes on the roads is because your instant reaction speed is not related to the mental process of driving

crashes happen when that process is interrupted/stopped

the average reaction of a human being is half what your claiming, & you dont need to be a trained driver in the slightest to have near instant reactions. a strong survival instinct has kept many a person upright & alive

think about this. when your facing someone armed, who wants to hack off your limbs/head, do you really think your reactions are going to take 2 seconds to occur. japanese swordsmen called it satori