Reconcile this garbage.

[MilesR]

Well supposition and conjecture aside plenty of people complain about the policing of road rules.

I know many people who complain about the road rules and their enforcement, but I also know many who do not, and many who actually agree with the rules. However, neither of us will be able to substantiate our opinions with anything other than personal experience until a poll determines popular opinion, or a vote on the issue reveals the will of voters. I cannot make either of these things happen, so I am happy to leave the question of public opinion and political interest undecided.

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

I would have a bit more faith in the research. Researchers are trained to identify and account for confounding factors, and determine the effects of each factor. This research would have taken into account as many other factors as possible, and controlled for those not related to speed. This is standard scientific practice.

Also note that the problems identified in that report are exactly what I have been arguing against here. The public simply do not believe that 5km/h makes a difference, they are in the habit of speeding by more than this amount anyway, and they treat any effort to bring about such a reduction as an attempt to fleece them. In all honesty, is there anything at all that could convince you that a 5-10km/h reduction is worth pursuing?

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

I would not take this assertion for granted, considering that the high-order offences have a fine about 6 times higher than low-order offences. I would be curious to know what proportion of fine revenue comes from what source - breath-testing, unlicensed driving, speeding, red-light cameras, etc. - and in each case, what order of offence is most significant.

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

I think you missed the point. The intention was not to make car-drivers better motorcyclists. It was to make them aware of the risks and bad practices of car drivers, particularly around motorcyclists, that they would probably not notice otherwise. In addition, as I stated earlier, the lack of rider protection on a motorcycle might also make the possible consequences of an accident more evident than they would be in a car.

As for the possibility of reducing the speed capability of cars, I agree that there would be cultural resistance to it in Europe, Australia and probably america. However, laws like these would probably be accepted with little resistance in many other Asian countries, which do not tend to have a culture of high speed and high power, like western countries tend to do. In Japan, kei cars are limited to 130km/h and every other car is limited to 180km/h. It is also worth noting that Japan's urban speed limit is commonly 30km/h, and even divided highways will often be limited to 60km/h or 80km/h. It is possible to live like that, and the Japanese have built some of the world's most impressive performance cars as a result of these and other restrictions.

your assumptions/opinion here is basically completely wrong

Substantiate that.

http://www.monash.edu.au/miri/resear...ther/hfr12.pdf

Yes, drivers can respond in less than 1 second, but the reality is that drivers only respond that fast when they know that a hazard is about to be encountered. For drivers that are unalerted - that is, they have not been told that they are being tested for their response time to a hazard - their braking or steering response time is between about 1.8 and 4 seconds, with most being about 2.5 seconds (see page 45/53 of the above report).

My example of the racing drivers was intended to demonstrate that even being that well trained does not necessarily confer instantaneous responses. It does increase the chance of the instinctive reflex being the correct one. Even if every normal driver had reflexes as fast as you believe that they do, there is no guarantee that a response produced by instinct will be one that reduces the risk. Besides, I can see potential problems with adopting a road safety policy that requires every driver to be a Japanese swordsman.

[crisis]

I would have a bit more faith in the research. Researchers are trained to identify and account for confounding factors, and determine the effects of each factor. This research would have taken into account as many other factors as possible, and controlled for those not related to speed. This is standard scientific practice.

Ever read any research about the use of mobile phones? Or how about on global warming? The findings of any research are bound by the frames of reference and the scope of the research. Sometimes even by who is funding it…..

I spoke to a guy from the department of Transport who was actually in involved in this once. I asked him how could you simply accept that traveling 10ks slower in the areas recently reduced from 60 to 50 ks was entirely attributable to the reduction in accidents given all of the other factors at play. He said none of those mattered if the statistics showed a reduction. So the government can claim the reduction in speed resulted in the reduction of accidents. I will claim it was the 1 million new cars being registered per year with airbags and abs. Neither of us can untimely prove our claim.

Also note that the problems identified in that report are exactly what I have been arguing against here. The public simply do not believe that 5km/h makes a difference, they are in the habit of speeding by more than this amount anyway, and they treat any effort to bring about such a reduction as an attempt to fleece them. In all honesty, is there anything at all that could convince you that a 5-10km/h reduction is worth pursuing?

Honest substantiated proof of its impact.

The public (some of them) do not believe it because there is no evidence. Sure there are stats but only a fool believes these without knowing the details.

The 50 zones in Adelaide used to be all 60. From the days when seatbelts were not compulsory there were no inertia real seatbelts , ABS, air bags, we had worse tyres and drum brakes brakes etc. These zones have been reduced by 10ks and we now have progressively better and safer cars. The current emphasis in road safety right now is on “creepers”. Those travelling a bit faster than the speed limit. Now I would presume (as they don’t say) this to mean 5 or 6 ks. This is still 4 or 5 ks below what the original “safe” limit was when our cars were worse. My question is how can we reconcile the sincerity of an authority that is (seemingly) obsessed with these minor transgression to the extent they play them out as insidious and evil ones and a substantial cause of serious accidents?

If, as you say they are “speeding by more than this amount anyway” by all means target them. Even if the act of travelling 10ks over the current 50k zones is only driving at a speed that 5 or so years ago was accepted as legal and safe and everything has changed for the better.

I would not take this assertion for granted, considering that the high-order offences have a fine about 6 times higher than low-order offences. I would be curious to know what proportion of fine revenue comes from what source - breath-testing, unlicensed driving, speeding, red-light cameras, etc. - and in each case, what order of offence is most significant.

I am referring to the revenue from speed related offences.

Currently the fines are as follows.
By less than 15km/h $260
By 15km/h but less than 30km/h $383
By 30km/h but less than 45km/h $550
By 45km/h or more (excessive speed) $671

Given the majority of speed traps are in 50k zones I would (and can only) presume the motorists in the first category contribute to a large share.

What is interesting now (yet not surprising) is the posting of the new fines come September.

What transpires is this-
By less than 10km/h $150
By 10km/h but less than 20km/h $330
By 20km/h but less than 30km/h $670
By 30km/h but less than 45km/h $800
By 45km/h or more (excessive speed) $900

You said earlier - "I also disagree that such rules are more for the purpose of revenue than safety. If the intention is to raise money, why has this policy just lowered fines for creepers, and increased demerit points? Wouldn't it be more logical to increase fines and reduce demerit points, to keep more drivers licensed and offending?"

As it has become clear the only fines that will be reduced are those for traveling less than 10ks over the speed limit. They have actually created more breaks and traveling between 10 and 15k over is actually an increase of $70. All other offences have not only increased in demerit points but increased by a huge % in actual fines.

So the propaganda in the original release I posted being -" the lowest level speeding offence expiation fee will fall from $260 to $150 but will now attract a loss of two demerit points.
The fine for the highest speeding offence, exceeding the speed limit by 45km/h or more, rises from the previous $671 to $900 plus a loss of nine demerit points." is deliberately deceitful. No wonder most of the so called strategies are ”likely to be perceived by drivers as revenue raising rather than a genuine attempt to slow traffic and so reduce the potential for crashes.”

[MilesR]

Ever read any research about the use of mobile phones? Or how about on global warming? The findings of any research are bound by the frames of reference and the scope of the research. Sometimes even by who is funding it…..

I am also not sure what you are asking; have I ever read a research publication and am I familiar with scientific methods, or have I ever read/do I believe the data relevant to those issues? It is true that funding is a consideration, but the university of Adelaide study, cited by the RAA, would have been government-funded in part, if not entirely, and yet it concluded that fines and rules were not likely to be effective. Surely the government funding could be expected to influence the results the other way. A scientist could be dismissed for falsifying data, and the government interpretation of the data, or the conclusions, is often not made with the approval or advice of the scientist, and is distinct from the scientific import of the data itself.

Honest substantiated proof of its impact.
The public (some of them) do not believe it because there is no evidence. Sure there are stats but only a fool believes these without knowing the details.

But what would you accept as proof, substantiation or evidence? You seem unconvinced by scientific studies, even though scientific research is the most rigorous method of gaining understanding that humanity has yet devised.

The 50 zones in Adelaide used to be all 60. From the days when seatbelts were not compulsory there were no inertia real seatbelts , ABS, air bags, we had worse tyres and drum brakes brakes etc.

This is true, but when the speed limits were first set, there were also lower standards for safety, and a fraction of the current number of cars on the road. In this light, a reduction in the number of accidents is noteworthy. I could be wrong, but I would also expect creeping to have become more common now, as it is easier to gain speed without noticing in a modern car, than in a car that is even 15 or 20 years older.

As it has become clear the only fines that will be reduced are those for traveling less than 10ks over the speed limit.

Yes, but this is the range of speeds that can reasonably be considered creeping. Beyond this range, speeding begins to look (in my opinion) like negligence, at least. If this level of offence contributes the majority of fine revenue, reducing the fines in this range would lose a substantial proportion of revenue. I consider the fines in the higher speed ranges to be irrelevant to the question of persecuting unintentional creepers, as no competent driver should reach those speeds unintentionally. I do not see the press release as deceitful, as it should still deliver the claimed reduction in fines to those who make an honest error.

[crisis]

I am also not sure what you are asking; have I ever read a research publication and am I familiar with scientific methods, or have I ever read/do I believe the data relevant to those issues? It is true that funding is a consideration, but the university of Adelaide study, cited by the RAA, would have been government-funded in part, if not entirely, and yet it concluded that fines and rules were not likely to be effective. Surely the government funding could be expected to influence the results the other way.

Universities are obviously funded by the government. That is a bit different form them being commissioned by them. Universities are able to operate independently despite the finding. If the government asked for the research and then specified the frames of reference then one could assume the findings may be guided to a particular conclusion. The recent inquiry into the ADF was commissioned by the government and the some of the findings made public. The information the government didn’t want to share only became public after the ABC submitted an freedom of information request and were able to obtain the full findings. Those who commission enquiries can manipulate the questions to be asked and even the answers to an extent. This I why I am skeptical about taking “research” at face value especially when the party commissioning it has a vested ( in this case monetary) interest in the outcome.

A scientist could be dismissed for falsifying data, and the government interpretation of the data, or the conclusions, is often not made with the approval or advice of the scientist, and is distinct from the scientific import of the data itself.

the data does not have to be falsified. If you ask the question “have accidents been reduced on roads that have had the speed limit reduced from 60 to 50ks?” you will get an answer. The answer that they have does not touch on any other factors because it was not asked to. It tells the truth but not all of it.

But what would you accept as proof, substantiation or evidence? You seem unconvinced by scientific studies, even though scientific research is the most rigorous method of gaining understanding that humanity has yet devised.

Rubbish, see above. Also see research on mobile phones and global warming.

This is true, but when the speed limits were first set, there were also lower standards for safety, and a fraction of the current number of cars on the road.

A death was a death. The standard for being pronounced dead is still the same as far as I know. Yes the number of cars have increased and in some cases the roads have also been improved. It is all of this and more that must be taken into account when trying to ascertain if the speed reductions have had a significant impact.

I could be wrong, but I would also expect creeping to have become more common now, as it is easier to gain speed without noticing in a modern car, than in a car that is even 15 or 20 years older.

Yep you could be. I don’t know if “creeping” is a deliberate occurrence ( as the authorities seem to be implying) or the result of the idiosyncrasies of “modern” cars. Something else missing from the data. In any case what is of importance is if travelling in a safer car at the same speed that was once prescribed for a certain piece of road is more dangerous now than it used to be. And why.

Yes, but this is the range of speeds that can reasonably be considered creeping. Beyond this range, speeding begins to look (in my opinion) like negligence, at least. If this level of offence contributes the majority of fine revenue, reducing the fines in this range would lose a substantial proportion of revenue. I consider the fines in the higher speed ranges to be irrelevant to the question of persecuting unintentional creepers, as no competent driver should reach those speeds unintentionally. I do not see the press release as deceitful, as it should still deliver the claimed reduction in fines to those who make an honest error.

The press release said this – “the lowest level speeding offence expiation fee will fall from $260 to $150 but will now attract a loss of two demerit points.”
The truth is that the lowest level speeding offence is no longer the same. That is misleading. Whether it is justifiable to change is not the point. The point is how can we trust the motivation of the authorities and be assured that the genuine intention is to improve road safety and not merely collect revenue in the name of it.

[MilesR]

This I why I am skeptical about taking “research” at face value especially when the party commissioning it has a vested ( in this case monetary) interest in the outcome.

But isn't it worth investigating the research, before dismissing it as worthless or misleading? There is a difference between scepticism and close-mindedness.

Rubbish, see above. Also see research on mobile phones and global warming.

Shall I take it that you do not believe that global warming is real? What is it that you don't believe about mobile telephones? Also, this still does not answer the question of what you would consider to be evidence or proof. How else do you gain knowledge about the world, if not by studying it? Would you believe research results if they agreed with your existing belief, or would you dismiss those, too?

A death was a death.

Indeed, but standards have changed. Even within this discussion, there is evidence of a belief that the chance of serious injury or death in an accident in a modern car, without excessive speed being a factor, is very low. In older cars, the expectation was not the same. Modern institutional safety practices in the developed world are governed by a "zero-risk" mentality. Until Ralph Nader made his presence felt, the risks of motoring were accepted as unavoidable. His influence, combined with other modern developments, have changed the acceptance of risk, hence different standards, and speed limits, are now imposed.

Yep you could be. I don’t know if “creeping” is a deliberate occurrence ( as the authorities seem to be implying) or the result of the idiosyncrasies of “modern” cars.

I think that the causes probably include both deliberate, or at least conscious, speeding, and unintentional speeding, due to inattention. I think the latter may be worsened by newer cars, simply because small pedal movements produce larger changes in speed, and are accompanied by much less noticeable change in sound and vibration, when compared with equivalent older cars. This has certainly been true of the cars that I have driven. It would not surprise me if this component of creeping had increased, as a result.

Whether it is justifiable to change is not the point. The point is how can we trust the motivation of the authorities and be assured that the genuine intention is to improve road safety and not merely collect revenue in the name of it.

I would argue that the motivation is secondary. If the policy is based on sound principles, and safety improves, then the outcome is good. This policy seems to be based on sound scientific underpinnings, and the only people who may lose from it will be those doing the wrong thing. I would argue that these rules should be introduced, and then be judged on the consequences observed after their introduction. The cries of revenue raising and persecution should be withheld until convincing evidence can be presented to support them.

[crisis]

But isn't it worth investigating the research, before dismissing it as worthless or misleading? There is a difference between scepticism and close-mindedness.

The problem is we can’t investigate the research because we are only told trite one line cliché style snippets. One may ask why? I don’t trust the governments motives or the individuals in it. Nothing in the last 49 years has given me any reason to.

Education has failed in a very serious way to convey the most important lesson science can teach: skepticism.

David Suzuki

Shall I take it that you do not believe that global warming is real? What is it that you don't believe about mobile telephones?

On the contrary. I am not comprehensively convinced what I should believe regarding both of those as scientific research has given us 180 degrees conflicting views with regards to both topics. My suspicion as to why is the research is conducted by different parties with different frames of reference funded by groups with different agendas due to conflicting desired outcomes. That is the point of my reference to these topics.

Also, this still does not answer the question of what you would consider to be evidence or proof. How else do you gain knowledge about the world, if not by studying it? Would you believe research results if they agreed with your existing belief, or would you dismiss those, too?

I want the government to recognize/admit all of the possible attributing factors when they publish their findings. Not just the reduction in speed limits.
I want them to explain how the reduction in speed contributed. I want to know exactly what kind of accidents we are comparing and how, if at all, they relate to each other. I want to know when “speed was thought to be a contributing factor” how much did it contribute and was it dangerous speed or exceeding a posted limit. I want to be convinced the “research” is not merely funded scientific excuses.

Indeed, but standards have changed. Even within this discussion, there is evidence of a belief that the chance of serious injury or death in an accident in a modern car, without excessive speed being a factor, is very low. In older cars, the expectation was not the same. Modern institutional safety practices in the developed world are governed by a "zero-risk" mentality. Until Ralph Nader made his presence felt, the risks of motoring were accepted as unavoidable. His influence, combined with other modern developments, have changed the acceptance of risk, hence different standards, and speed limits, are now imposed.

The standards with which cars are built have changed. They are stricter. Partly because research has found new ways of protecting occupants and partly because technology has made these methods affordable. If we were to follow your philosophy then all cars would have 12 airbags and state of the art traction control stability control and ceramic brakes. But they don’t. All roads would be separated by median strips and be dual lanes, well lit and with no curbside obstacles. But they aren’t. If there was a “zero risk” mentality then the authorities would remove all the risks they were able to remove. But they don’t. Instead they make marginal, affordable, changes to the infrastructure and put the majority of cost back on the motorist through the cost of purchasing cars with better safety features and pretend to help by using speed traps to collect revenue.

I think that the causes probably include both deliberate, or at least conscious, speeding, and unintentional speeding, due to inattention. I think the latter may be worsened by newer cars, simply because small pedal movements produce larger changes in speed, and are accompanied by much less noticeable change in sound and vibration, when compared with equivalent older cars. This has certainly been true of the cars that I have driven. It would not surprise me if this component of creeping had increased, as a result.

I would also throw in the fact that people who have been driving for more than ten or so years are now having to come to terms with roads they previously were traveling “safely” on in less “safe” cars are no posted 10kmh less.

I would argue that the motivation is secondary. If the policy is based on sound principles, and safety improves, then the outcome is good. This policy seems to be based on sound scientific underpinnings, and the only people who may lose from it will be those doing the wrong thing. I would argue that these rules should be introduced, and then be judged on the consequences observed after their introduction. The cries of revenue raising and persecution should be withheld until convincing evidence can be presented to support them.

The cries are that of more revenue raising. The cries have existed ever since the proliferation of speed cameras and the publishing of the millions of $ in revenue they produce. And the subsequent increases in cameras without a corresponding decrease in road accidents that can be directly attributable to them. Unlike your argument however, this is not an opinion. This is fact.

[clutch-monkey]

cars get safer, roads get smoother, but speed limits get lower and the fines increased..

[MilesR]

The problem is we can’t investigate the research because we are only told trite one line cliché style snippets.

Yes, you can, and criticism of the research is more persuasive when it is from a position of knowledge:

http://casr.adelaide.edu.au/speed/SPEED-V1.PDF

I have a critical approach, and I can see some shortcomings in this research, but the results are not simplistic, nor do they fail to take into account other contributing factors, where possible. The resulting data are not necessarily incontestable, but they are defensible. This is also the research that was cited by the RAA, with the conclusion that better enforcement or lower limits would be ineffective. This is not the conclusion that the researchers reached. It seems that the RAA made that up.

If we were to follow your philosophy then all cars would have 12 airbags and state of the art traction control stability control and ceramic brakes. But they don’t.

Even if every road side obstruction were removed, and night lighting were of daylight intensity, cars would still crash into each other, or into safety barriers. Zero-risk is not a realistic objective for road safety, but the principle is evident in attitudes to road safety. Now, a new car with two airbags is subject to criticism, and there was outcry and ridicule of Brilliance, following the catastrophically bad results of their preliminary crash tests. The safety standard of the Brilliance would have been comparable to most common cars 20 years ago, but those standards are no longer considered acceptable. Similarly, Victoria no longer allows the sale of new cars without electronic stability control. Our collective tolerance of risk is far lower than it was before. This is also evident in workplace safety standards, where zero-risk is now treated as a realistic goal, and even a right of workers.

I would also throw in the fact that people who have been driving for more than ten or so years are now having to come to terms with roads they previously were traveling “safely” on in less “safe” cars are no posted 10kmh less.

Yes, that is probably quite true, too. They would probably make up some of both the intentional and the unintentional creeping groups. Again, however, the accepted meaning of "safe" has changed. In 1970-1971, the road toll in Australia was between 3 and 4 times higher than it is now. In 1971, there were about 4,000,000 cars owned in Australia, and about 5,000,000 motor vehicles in total. Now there are over 12,000,000 cars, and over 15,000,000 motor vehicles in total (MOTOR VEHICLE CENSUS AUSTRALIA 30 SEPTEMBER 1976, 9309.0 - Motor Vehicle Census, Australia, 31 Mar 2009). Based on these numbers, the risk of fatal accident, per vehicle, was about 15 times higher in 1970 or 1971, than it is now. With 1970 conditions prevailing now, we could expect in excess of 11,000 fatalities per year, and that is not taking into account the effect of increasing traffic density on the probability of an accident. Those conditions would simply not be accepted as normal, now as they were before, and that is why it is reasonable for rules, and their enforcement, to now follow different standards.

cars get safer, roads get smoother, but speed limits get lower and the fines increased..

And the subsequent increases in cameras without a corresponding decrease in road accidents that can be directly attributable to them. Unlike your argument however, this is not an opinion. This is fact.

Stating that "This is fact" does not make it so. Can you support that? The following links are to research conducted in Victoria, and in Norway, into the effectiveness of speed monitoring in improving compliance, and reducing rates of accidents. Again, these studies do not necessarily provide proof, but they at least provide evidence that supports the position of the government.

http://www.popcenter.org/library/Cri...1/10bourne.pdf

http://gridchicago.com/wp-content/up...12/02/rune.pdf

[crisis]

Yes, you can, and criticism of the research is more persuasive when it is from a position of knowledge:

http://casr.adelaide.edu.au/speed/SPEED-V1.PDF

I have a critical approach, and I can see some shortcomings in this research, but the results are not simplistic, nor do they fail to take into account other contributing factors, where possible. The resulting data are not necessarily incontestable, but they are defensible. This is also the research that was cited by the RAA, with the conclusion that better enforcement or lower limits would be ineffective. This is not the conclusion that the researchers reached. It seems that the RAA made that up.

The results are statistical and give information in the form of cold hard numbers. Accidents are the result of the sum of many various factors and variable dynamics.

The pre-crash travelling speeds of the case vehicles were determined using computer-aided accident reconstruction techniques. This was made possible by the detailed investigation of each crash at the scene which provided the physical evidence needed for input to the computer reconstruction program (M-SMAC).

First problem is how does this computer reconstruct the accident. What does it take into account. For example does it allow for possible extra complacency a driver may have driving at a slower speed and as such feeling they are driving mores safely?

Additional information about the effects of travelling speed was obtained by calculating what the results of the crash would have been if the case vehicle had been travelling at a different speed.

Seriously, how? Everything changes. Each accident is the sum of many things. The amount of variable cannot be reconstructed by a computer program.

This is a perfect example of how the use of statistics can be used to prove something that simply cannot be proved.

A 5 km/h reduction showed much less effect but would still have resulted in a reduction of at least 15 per cent in the number of crashes.

Does the computer model take into account the added impatience traveling at these lower speeds cause? Or the fact that drivers are now distracted from concentrating on driving because they have to look for the speed limit signs?

a speed limit of 50 km/h in local streets, while having a significant effect on local street crashes, would be likely to have only a small effect on free travelling speed casualty crashes as a whole (a 6 per cent reduction) due mainly to the very small proportion (14 per cent) of these crashes which occurred on local streets.

But this is where they are and more importantly seem to be monitored for revenue collection by speed traps.

The report cites a study done in the United States “more than 25 years ago” which “attempted to quantify the relationship between speed and crash involvement by ascertaining pre-crash speeds for individual vehicles (Solomon, 1964; Cirillo, 1968; Research Triangle Institute, 1970).”

The relevance to driving conditions in Australia, let alone the change in technology therefore vehicles among other things must surely render this useless.

Our collective tolerance of risk is far lower than it was before.

Institutionally it is a reaction to the road toll. The result is institutional pressure on manufacturers to invent technologies that mitigate against risk. We then come to expect that the vehicle we have now will protect us more than the previous ones did. And they do. Then we have speed limits reduced under the guise of a further improvement. Well naturally the slower you go the better chance we have of avoiding or surviving an accident. But to what end. What level is our current tolerance of risk? Surely it would be safer driving these cars at 5ks?

This is also evident in workplace safety standards, where zero-risk is now treated as a realistic goal, and even a right of workers.

LOL. There have been much needed improvements in work place safety but be assured this is driven equally by the $.

Yes, that is probably quite true, too. They would probably make up some of both the intentional and the unintentional creeping groups. Again, however, the accepted meaning of "safe" has changed.

I don’t necessarily agree the meaning of safe has changed. We have the ability to make driving safer through technology. Not being killed is still not being killed. The road toll was an issue in 1970 although in 1970 there were no speed cameras so perhaps the government didn't have to make such a deal of it to try to justify a major source of revenue collection.

With 1970 conditions prevailing now, we could expect in excess of 11,000 fatalities per year, and that is not taking into account the effect of increasing traffic density on the probability of an accident. Those conditions would simply not be accepted as normal, now as they were before, and that is why it is reasonable for rules, and their enforcement, to now follow different standards.

But the reason we don’t have those fatalities can be directly attributable to how survivable accidents are compared to 1970. Seat belts. Air bags. ABS. Tyres. Improved roads. ETC.

Stating that "This is fact" does not make it so. Can you support that? The following links are to research conducted in Victoria, and in Norway, into the effectiveness of speed monitoring in improving compliance, and reducing rates of accidents. Again, these studies do not necessarily provide proof, but they at least provide evidence that supports the position of the government.

Kudos for the research and links.

The first link makes a great deal about the “relationship” of the introduction of cameras and a “shock” campaign with the marked reduction in collisions, injuries etc from 1989 to 1992. Subsequently however the fatalities increased in 1993 to 435 from 396 in 1992. In 1993 airbags were introduced into one of Australia’s largest selling cars the Commodore. The following year, 1994, the toll dropped from 435 to 377. Can we then presume that this occurrence alone can be attributable to the introduction of airbags?

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/fatalit...alia-80-02.pdf


The cries of revenue raising are fully supported by evidence. The governments own evidence of how much money they reap. The question of whether reducing the speed on some roads by 10ks will by itself have a measurable effect on road safety is still unsupported by fact. This is factually supported in part by your own link which claimed “a speed limit of 50 km/h in local streets, while having a significant effect on local street crashes, would be likely to have only a small effect on free travelling speed casualty crashes as a whole (a 6 per cent reduction) due mainly to the very small proportion (14 per cent) of these crashes which occurred on local streets.”

[MilesR]

The results are statistical and give information in the form of cold hard numbers. Accidents are the result of the sum of many various factors and variable dynamics.

First problem is how does this computer reconstruct the accident. What does it take into account.

True, but the numbers are derived from and describe the reality. The researchers try to design their analyses so that the other factors remain as consistent as possible, while they measure the effect of a change in the one factor that they are investigating - in this case, the speed. The study does not claim that the car's speed is the only factor. It aims to determine just how significant a factor it may be.

The simulation uses data like the properties of the car tyres and road surface, the skid marks and the vehicles' deformations, to calculate the energy losses due to skidding and impact, and the directions of vehicle movement. The speeds of the vehicles, at as many points as possible, are then estimated throughout the sequence of the crash. The model has been previously tested by experiment. Reconstructions were not conducted if insufficient information could be derived from the scene, or if the information from the vehicle occupants was inconsistent with the physical evidence. In this way, the researchers' confidence in their simulations was high, as each conclusion was based on clear and self-consistent information, and supported by statements from those who were present.

The alternative speed simulations assumed that the hazard emerged at the same starting positions of the vehicles, and that the drivers' responses were the same. It then simulated the movements and interactions of the vehicles. Results for different starting speeds were compared with the real accident, to determine differences in the speed and geometry of impact, or its avoidance.

Does the computer model take into account the added impatience traveling at these lower speeds cause? Or the fact that drivers are now distracted from concentrating on driving because they have to look for the speed limit signs?

I would also consider the reverse: that some drivers would be paying more attention, as a result of consciously looking for speed limit signs and maintaining their speed. There are also many people who would not become more impatient or complacent as a result of lower speed limits. I do not deny that these factors could contribute, but their contribution could be positive, negative, or neutral overall, and I see no reason to believe that they undermine the reported conclusion.

a speed limit of 50 km/h in local streets, while having a significant effect on local street crashes, would be likely to have only a small effect on free travelling speed casualty crashes as a whole (a 6 per cent reduction) due mainly to the very small proportion (14 per cent) of these crashes which occurred on local streets.

But this is where they are and more importantly seem to be monitored for revenue collection by speed traps.

This is true, but these streets are also where research was conducted, so the evidential support for the introduction of reduced speed limits and enforcement is strongest for these types of streets. However, although the scientific evidence has not been extended this far yet, it is quite likely that the same results are applicable to other road conditions. If so, the overall rate of all accidents may be reduced by 50%, if the same speed reductions were introduced everywhere. That would make the effect on safety possibly much greater than the 6% reduction quoted in the report. I do not know if the government may be bound by the lack of specific evidential support for speed cameras elsewhere.

The relevance to driving conditions in Australia, let alone the change in technology therefore vehicles among other things must surely render this useless.

Not necessarily useless. I doubt that human reflexes would have undergone a significant change in the last 50 years, and a higher speed increases the risk of loss of control and injury now, as it did then, due to reasons of grip and impact force. Likewise, I doubt that american and Australian conditions are sufficiently dissimilar for the results to become irrelevant. The results have remained broadly similar, despite 50 years of refinements and improvement to the scientific methods. If, each time we look more closely, we see a similar pattern emerging, the logical conclusion is that our understanding of the system is consistent with the reality. The baseline level of risk was higher in the past, but the effect of travelling speed on that risk was probably similar to now, as drivers probably had similar fallibilities.

But to what end. What level is our current tolerance of risk? Surely it would be safer driving these cars at 5ks?

LOL. There have been much needed improvements in work place safety but be assured this is driven equally by the $.

Yes, there is a reasonable limit, but I do not consider the current speed limits, nor their close enforcement, to be unreasonable. 50-60km/h in a car is still normally about twice as fast as public transport or cycling, so the car retains its benefits of speed and convenience.

The financial incentive (I assume that you mean legal costs) in the industrial context is a consequence of a reduced acceptance of risk among the workers, and a general legislative support for the workers' rejection of risk, and hence the increased risk of being successfully sued. The safety standards might be enforced by money, but it still has to have been motivated by a low/zero-risk culture.

But the reason we don’t have those fatalities can be directly attributable to how survivable accidents are compared to 1970. Seat belts. Air bags. ABS. Tyres. Improved roads. ETC.

Yes, I have no doubt that at least some of those things have helped, but the evidence for their efficacy is more equivocal, in some cases, than that for the reductions in road speeds (the ABS being the most obvious example).

Kudos for the research and links.

The first link makes a great deal about the “relationship” of the introduction of cameras and a “shock” campaign with the marked reduction in collisions, injuries etc from 1989 to 1992. The following year, 1994, the toll dropped from 435 to 377. Can we then presume that this occurrence alone can be attributable to the introduction of airbags?

Glad to be of service. I aim to please.

I agree that the first reference was of limited value for its conclusions - it exaggerated the significance of the observed correlation, without providing convincing support for the mechanism. It was, however, useful for the historical data, which was the main reason that I included it. The other reference was better, as it made a point of eliminating more variables, and looking for changes under very consistent, controlled circumstances. The airbags may explain the reduction in fatalities, if enough Commodores were built, sold and crashed in that year to show up in the statistics. Speed reductions can happen more immediately for more people, so the speed correlation can be more suggestive, depending upon the details of the data.

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/fatalit...alia-80-02.pdf

That was an informative read. Thanks. A worthwhile note from that report was that while fatality rates have been falling, there has been a rise in the rates of serious injury in Victoria and New South Wales. I am not sure of the exact numbers, but this seems consistent with more crashes occurring, but crash survival rates improving due to improved safety measures, including both reduced speeds and improved vehicle crash safety.

The cries of revenue raising are fully supported by evidence. The governments own evidence of how much money they reap.

This is correlation, but does not prove causation. In much the same way that you argue that reduced speed limits and better enforcement correlate with reduced accidents and fatalities, but cannot be proven to be the cause of the reduction, the revenue can likewise not be proven to be the cause of the policies, but it can be correlated with them. If it is to be counted as evidence, it is certainly no stronger than the evidence of the effect of speed on accident rates.

[crisis]

True, but the numbers are derived from and describe the reality. The researchers try to design their analyses so that the other factors remain as consistent as possible, while they measure the effect of a change in the one factor that they are investigating - in this case, the speed. The study does not claim that the car's speed is the only factor. It aims to determine just how significant a factor it may be.

And it doesn’t determine this.

I would also consider the reverse: that some drivers would be paying more attention, as a result of consciously looking for speed limit signs and maintaining their speed.

They are paying more attention to the side of the road as opposed to what is going on in front and behind them. Thus paying less attention where attention is needed most.

There are also many people who would not become more impatient or complacent as a result of lower speed limits. I do not deny that these factors could contribute, but their contribution could be positive, negative, or neutral overall, and I see no reason to believe that they undermine the reported conclusion.

If those factors are not recognized then they form no part of the report. It is one more factor that whether important or not is a variable that is not included. The report focuses on what it wants and not on the question as a whole. Therefore its findings have to be compromised.

This is true, but these streets are also where research was conducted, so the evidential support for the introduction of reduced speed limits and enforcement is strongest for these types of streets. However, although the scientific evidence has not been extended this far yet, it is quite likely that the same results are applicable to other road conditions. If so, the overall rate of all accidents may be reduced by 50%, if the same speed reductions were introduced everywhere. That would make the effect on safety possibly much greater than the 6% reduction quoted in the report. I do not know if the government may be bound by the lack of specific evidential support for speed cameras elsewhere.

So its basically hypothesis and supposition based on compromised findings. Ill go back to my answer to your question -

In all honesty, is there anything at all that could convince you that a 5-10km/h reduction is worth pursuing?

Honest substantiated proof of its impact (on road safety).

Not necessarily useless. I doubt that human reflexes would have undergone a significant change in the last 50 years,

Interesting that. I agree that you would presume this and in a physiological sense it probably hasn’t. But as someone who has driven as part of my job for around 27 years I notice, as a passenger with people who have not had similar exposure, differences in how they handle heavy traffic. Now the concept of heavy in Adelaide is nowhere near what it is in larger cities however the need to act quickly, decisively and almost instinctively in peak hour traffic is handled quite differently. To the extent many people reuse to drive in the CBD at these times. Of course this makes them even less able to manage when they are forced to. In effect it is possible that the experience of driving in conditions of increased hazards makes for drivers who are perhaps quicker thinkers and perhaps drive with greater attention. It may follow that drivers today are as a result in a general sense “better” than those who ambled along with far fewer other cars on the roads.

and a higher speed increases the risk of loss of control and injury now, as it did then, due to reasons of grip and impact force.

But in cars that can stop quicker and will protect you far better at higher speeds than back then. A crash now in a modern car at 60ks is far more survivable than one back then in one with cross ply tyres, drum brakes, no seat belts, air bags, ABS, crumple zones and cars that did not even have “handling” as part of their vocabulary..

Yes, there is a reasonable limit, but I do not consider the current speed limits, nor their close enforcement, to be unreasonable. 50-60km/h in a car is still normally about twice as fast as public transport or cycling, so the car retains its benefits of speed and convenience.

so is 40k. My point is that the reduction from a previously legislated safe speed, 60kmh, in less safe cars, to 50 where we now travel more or less in safer cars is not based on motives purely of safety. And the disproportionate policing by speed cameras that do not stop those exceeding the new limit, rather merely take money after the event, is driven by the imperative of revenue raising.

Yes, I have no doubt that at least some of those things have helped, but the evidence for their efficacy is more equivocal, in some cases, than that for the reductions in road speeds (the ABS being the most obvious example).

Some of these things have helped.
Airbags | Australasian College of Road Safety
airbags and other safety features saving thousands of lives

Interestingly this report attributes Victoria’s reduction in road toll to “safety developments” rather than speed cameras. “reduction Victoria's road toll was 337 in 2006 - 76 fewer than it would have been if not for safety developments, according to the study."

Which is why I consider the results of scientific research totally dependent on the frames of reference and on who is conducting for whom.

Further -
RACV's chief vehicle engineer Michael Case said the study drew on the research centre's extensive database of vehicle safety performance, which he said is the largest and best in the world.
He said while secondary safety improvement technology was now included in most cars at the top end of the market, more lives would be saved when these secondary safety features became commonplace in all cars on the road.
''These numbers in this study are significant,'' Mr Case said.
''What we're seeing is the [safety] effect is still filtering down into cars on the road and we still have a long way to go before road users are driving cars with the most effective secondary safety equipment.''
Dr Newstead said that the improvement in road safety over the 15 years of the study was due to the fact that about 75 per cent of Australian cars were replaced with safer new ones in that time.

Life savers
The innovations that have revolutionised road safety
1 Driver airbags.
2 Passenger airbags.
3 Seatbelt pre-tensioners that take slack out of belt in order to hold occupants tightly to the seat if there’s a crash.
4 Seatbelt load-limiters that allow the stitching to start giving way if the force on the occupants becomes more than the body can bear.
5 Crumple zones, which absorb the energy of a collision rather than transferring it to vehicle occupants.
6 Occupant cell that is much more rigid and immune from intrusion.
7 Crash resistant door pillars that defl ect the force of a side-impact collision away from the head area and toward the legs.
8 Stronger doors, internal padding and better seats also improve protection in side impact crashes.
9 Impact absorbing interior materials provide padding and cushioning on dashboards and armrests.
10 Many benefits flow from computer aided design, which allows for much more sophisticated modelling of what happens to a car in a crash.

And on ABS I will say it again that until you have had a chance to use it you will not know how to. Therefore the advantages of it will only ever be recognized if drivers are required have its use demonstrated as part of the driver instruction process.

This is correlation, but does not prove causation. In much the same way that you argue that reduced speed limits and better enforcement correlate with reduced accidents and fatalities, but cannot be proven to be the cause of the reduction, the revenue can likewise not be proven to be the cause of the policies, but it can be correlated with them. If it is to be counted as evidence, it is certainly no stronger than the evidence of the effect of speed on accident rates.

No it does not prove anything but money talks. In the same way the government happily collects money from poker machines in the billions but pays lip service to the problems gambling creates. Or the way the governments tackle the issue of smoking or alcohol abuse by taking more and more revenue from it.

[MilesR]

And it doesn’t determine this.

The report focuses on what it wants and not on the question as a whole. Therefore its findings have to be compromised.

So its basically hypothesis and supposition based on compromised findings.

The hypothesis has been supported, in this case, by observation and experiment. The results are not compromised, but they are limited. The study shows that, under the conditions observed, people who drive slightly slower tend to be involved in fewer serious accidents, therefore speed is positively correlated with accident risk. What it does not completely determine is the reason for this correlation, but that does not undermine the correlation. While the correlation is easy to observe, the cause is not always so simple to determine, although the known laws of physics do a pretty good job in this case.

They are paying more attention to the side of the road as opposed to what is going on in front and behind them. Thus paying less attention where attention is needed most.

This is where many accident causes come from - cars entering from side-roads or driveways, pedestrians crossing, parked cars, etc. In any case, seeing speed limit signs is necessary whatever the speed limit, and there is no reason to look for speed cameras, unless you intend to speed until you see one. As I said before, that is not how it is intended to work. My intended point with respect to attention was that better enforcement might encourage some people to stop daydreaming or using mobile telephones, for example, and pay more attention to driving in general, which I can only imagine would improve safety.

Ill go back to my answer to your question -

In all honesty, is there anything at all that could convince you that a 5-10km/h reduction is worth pursuing?

Honest substantiated proof of its impact (on road safety).

But this still does not answer the question of what you would accept as proof. I get the impression that you would not accept any experimental method or source of information as proof, if you did not want to believe it. Could you devise a way of measuring the factors that you would want measured, in order to obtain results that would convince you? Besides that, almost every study so far has either supported the conclusion that lower speeds are safer, or at least not contradicted it. Rejecting evidence and requiring unarguable, faultless proof before adopting a precaution is analogous to maintaining a 3-packet a day smoking habit, because the science does not absolutely prove that a particular brand will cause cancer, like the other brands do. Surely it is better to be cautious based on the available evidence.

But in cars that can stop quicker and will protect you far better at higher speeds than back then. A crash now in a modern car at 60ks is far more survivable than one back then in one with cross ply tyres, drum brakes, no seat belts, air bags, ABS, crumple zones and cars that did not even have “handling” as part of their vocabulary..

My point is that the reduction from a previously legislated safe speed, 60kmh, in less safe cars, to 50 where we now travel more or less in safer cars is not based on motives purely of safety.

Yes, but physics still works the same way. A new car driven fast will take longer to stop than a new car driven slowly, for example, and a fast impact will be more severe than a slow impact. As you said, driving in a city now is more demanding than it was years ago, due to the number of cars on the road. The results of crashes may be less severe, but it is not unreasonable to expect the probability of a crash to be as high, or higher, than it was before, and that a lower speed may help reduce the risks.

Interestingly this report attributes Victoria’s reduction in road toll to “safety developments” rather than speed cameras. “reduction Victoria's road toll was 337 in 2006 - 76 fewer than it would have been if not for safety developments, according to the study."

Which is why I consider the results of scientific research totally dependent on the frames of reference and on who is conducting for whom.

Yes, but that could be because the study concerned only vehicle design, not speed limits or driving habits, and any conclusions regarding speed would have been unsubstantiated. Taken together, these studies do not contradict each other. One tells us that reducing speed reduces the chances of a serious accident, while the other tells us that improved vehicle safety reduces the risk of injury as a result of an accident. Both conclusions make intuitive sense to me.

[csl177]

Talk about focus... shaping up as the best argument clinic evar.

[crisis]

The hypothesis has been supported, in this case, by observation and experiment. The results are not compromised, but they are limited. The study shows that, under the conditions observed, people who drive slightly slower tend to be involved in fewer serious accidents, therefore speed is positively correlated with accident risk.

Road Safety Minister Jennifer Rankine said a reduction of 5km/h in average travel speed would reduce rural casualty crashes by about 30 per cent and urban crashes by about 25 per cent.

The closest we get to supporting that was the initial reduction in Melbourne in the first year of the speed camera campaign. Subsequently it rose, fell etc. subsequently additional factors have played a part.
The experiment has no real baring as far as supplying useful evidence for the prolonged and increased use of speed cameras in areas where the minority of fatalities and serious injuries occur.

Acting Officer in Charge Traffic Support Branch Inspector Stuart McLean said the state's rural roads continued to be over represented in fatal crashes.

The obsession with creeping, travelling a marginal speed faster than a prescribed limit, also does not correlate with the above claims/figures. It correlates with increased revenue though.

This is where many accident causes come from - cars entering from side-roads or driveways, pedestrians crossing, parked cars, etc.

But people aren’t looking for these. They are looking for speed sign posts in between looking for speed traps, checking their speedo to make sure they are not 4 or 5 ks over whatever limit they are supposed to be doing for that piece of road and trying to avoid other cars.

In any case, seeing speed limit signs is necessary whatever the speed limit, and there is no reason to look for speed cameras, unless you intend to speed until you see one.

When the reality is that almost every time you enter a different road you may find yourself in a different speed zone the necessity is disproportionate to necessity to concentrate on the road. And by road I mean all of it, beside you in front of you and behind you.

My intended point with respect to attention was that better enforcement might encourage some people to stop daydreaming or using mobile telephones, for example, and pay more attention to driving in general, which I can only imagine would improve safety.

People who are using mobile phones are already breaking the law and driving in a considerably more dangerous manner than anyone travelling 5 ks or so over a prescribed limit. Given their disregard for road safety and the associated fines I would not expect them to be overly troubled by what is going on around them whatsoever.

But this still does not answer the question of what you would accept as proof. I get the impression that you would not accept any experimental method or source of information as proof, if you did not want to believe it. Could you devise a way of measuring the factors that you would want measured, in order to obtain results that would convince you?

It is pretty obvious the faster you go the longer it takes to stop and the harder you hit. However we accept (or we should) that given the point of driving an automobile is that we can travel at a speed in excess of that which is totally safe for the benefit of transporting ourselves in a manner that enables us to go about our business in reasonable time. We have authorities that are responsible for controlling the speeds and the manner in which we do this. I remain highly suspicious of their motives when their reasoning and rationale appear to conflict or ignore important facts and seem designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator with a view to justifying the increased proliferation of devices that collect disproportionate amounts of revenue form the drivers who I believe are the least threat to road safety.

Yes, but physics still works the same way. A new car driven fast will take longer to stop than a new car driven slowly, for example, and a fast impact will be more severe than a slow impact.

yes but the new car driven at than same speed as the old car is already safer. This does not appear to be taken into account when the reduction of speed limits are introduced. We are presented with such statements as “a reduction of 5km/h in average travel speed would reduce rural casualty crashes by about 30 per cent and urban crashes by about 25 per cent.” when effectively due to the advancements in new cars this may have already been achieved. And it is achieved to varying degrees depending on the car.

Yes, but that could be because the study concerned only vehicle design, not speed limits or driving habits, and any conclusions regarding speed would have been unsubstantiated.

What, you mean weighted to a specific outcome?

[MilesR]

But people aren’t looking for these. They are looking for speed sign posts in between looking for speed traps, checking their speedo to make sure they are not 4 or 5 ks over whatever limit they are supposed to be doing for that piece of road and trying to avoid other cars.

People who are using mobile phones are already breaking the law and driving in a considerably more dangerous manner than anyone travelling 5 ks or so over a prescribed limit. Given their disregard for road safety and the associated fines I would not expect them to be overly troubled by what is going on around them whatsoever.

Yes, but my point was that paying attention to one's driving at all is better than not paying attention. Enforcing speed limits by any means might provide a monetary incentive for people to avoid using their mobile telephones while driving, if doing so increases the chance of them creeping. If it fails as an incentive for law-breakers, there is reason to believe that it would also not provide sufficient incentive to distract conscientious drivers from the road and their vehicle.

yes but the new car driven at than same speed as the old car is already safer. This does not appear to be taken into account when the reduction of speed limits are introduced. We are presented with such statements as “a reduction of 5km/h in average travel speed would reduce rural casualty crashes by about 30 per cent and urban crashes by about 25 per cent.” when effectively due to the advancements in new cars this may have already been achieved.

The results suggest that reducing speeds would result in a further reduction by 25-30%. The safer design of cars might balance out the increased risk from increased speed, but if both speed reductions and car design are considered, a cumulative effect could result, reducing the overall risk, instead of keeping it roughly stable. This is quite possibly the reason why road fatalities are now so low, despite the much higher number of vehicles on the road, compared with previous decades.

What, you mean weighted to a specific outcome?

No. Both studies only considered one question. In one case it was the correlation between speed and accident rate, and in the other it was the effect of car design on safety. The results are not weighted. They are simply restricted to answering the question posed. Does higher travelling speed correlate with higher accident risk? Yes, it does. Do more safely designed vehicles reduce occupant injury? Yes, they do. They are not weighted or biased. They only report the influence of the particular factors that they set out to measure.