Attitudes to the road toll

[Grumpy John]

That is no longer an exit from a private driveway but officially classed as a road by evidenced by the give way sign, road markings and directional arrows on the other side.

Fair point Peter, but an even stronger case for having to give way.

[ian]

We've gone a little off topic here, but that's okay. We're getting to the root cause of accidents, not necessarily road deaths. Most, if not all accidents are caused by drivers not paying attention, or being aware of their surroundings. IMHO, knowledge of road rules play a minor part in traffic accidents, attitude toward other road users plays a much larger part.

Have a look at this graphic from a recent newspaper article and tell me who you think was at fault. Try not look for reports of the accident, just give an opinion based on the graphic. I will post the link later.

426781one of the Probable causative factors

the school entrance is "'protected" by a 40 km/h zone at regular school start and finish times. Driver exiting the school at 7:20 PM expected that traffic approaching from the right would slow to 40 km/h and only looked as far up the road as a vehicle travelling at 40 km/h would travel in around 5 seconds. At 40 km/h, 5 seconds is equivalent to 56 m -- not much further than the length of a 50 m swimming pool. At 100 km/h, 5 seconds equates to about 140 m.
This is a fairly common occurrence.

[doug3030]

Ok GJ,

I am guessing that your point is that the mother who exited the school grounds failed to give way, resulting in the death of herself and her daughter, but the man in the commodore who was drunk, unlicensed and not in a fit mental state to drive will finish up paying for their error.

[Sturdee]

From the newspaper article I see that the driver No 1 has been charged with culpable driving causing death under the Crimes Act and not the standard road rules.

Twelve years ago I was part of a County court jury that dealt with a similar case involving speed, erratic driving and alcohol.

We found the driver guilty of the offences charged and the 6 days spent hearing the evidence and seeing the crime scene had a serious effect on me and this case brings back awkward memories.

Consequently I don't want to know more about this and am leaving the discussion.

Peter.

[ian]

I've now had a good look at this site using Google maps and StreetView.

The sight distance to a vehicle approaching from the right is measured in the hundreds of metres. At 100 km/h a vehicle needs about 160 m to stop. This includes reaction time (up to 2 seconds) and assumes average surface friction and tire tread depth.

Even if the vehicle "at fault" was doing 160 km/h there is more than enough sight distance for a vehicle exiting the school to see it approaching unless
1. it was dark and the approaching vehicle was travelling without lights
2. the approaching vehicle was hidden by the setting sun.

I'll stay with my assessment that the exiting driver didn't look properly.


But the "at fault" driver was DUI so unless he has very good legal representation he will be found guilty because someone other than an "innocent" mum and daughter must be at fault.

[doug3030]

But the "at fault" driver was DUI so unless he has very good legal representation he will be found guilty because someone other than an "innocent" mum and daughter must be at fault.

As Peter pointed out before departing for personal reasons that I can fully understand, the first driver is being charged with Culpable Driving Causing Death, under the Crimes Act 1958.


Culpable driving causing death is the most serious of traffic offences in Victoria. Essentially it refers to causing the death of another person through one of four actions (and the charge must state which of the four is relevant):


Driving recklessly. This basically means that the driver deliberately (and without any good reason) ignores a substantial risk that another person may die or suffer what is known as “grievous bodily harm” as result of their driving. This does not mean that the offence relates to situations where serious injury only is caused by the accident.
Driving negligently. This basically means that a person fails majorly (and without any good reason) to take enough care to avoid the death or grievous bodily harm. Fatigue (that the person is likely to fall asleep) is specifically listed as a cause of negligence under the Act. Driving above or below the speed limit however, is not determinative of negligence
Driving under the influence of alcohol). This is to such an extent that proper control of the vehicle cannot be maintained. Driving over the legal blood alcohol limit is not necessarily determinative.
Driving while under the influence of drugs. This is to such an extent that proper control of the vehicle cannot be maintained.

Factors such as the condition of the driver (as noted above), the vehicle (whether the vehicle is in a state to be driven at all) and the roads, as well as other external factors, may all be relevant in such a consideration.
It is important to remember that culpable driving causing death is a standalone offence. If someone is charged with culpable driving causing death they cannot also be charged with other relevant offences, such as unlawful homicide or driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol under the Road Safety Act (http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/Domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/LTObject_Store/LTObjSt3.nsf/DDE300B846EED9C7CA257616000A3571/4FBD7416245B23A4CA257761002C2446/$FILE/86-127a113.pdf), whether at the same time or subsequently.

Read dot point 3. The prosecution will build a case that if he was sober and alert he may have been able to handle the situation of the other vehicle not giving way. Also note the last paragraph - the driver charged with culpable driving cannot also be charged with drink-driving.

Even though the second vehicle failed to give way there is obviously no point in charging the driver with anything.

[beefy]

This seems so typical of how it all works. Maniacs everywhere causing accidents, but so long as they aren't over the limit or drugged up, no big deal and the government isn't out there trying to clear up this everyday problem.

However, if someone is over the limit they'll get crucified, even if the lack of care and attention of the injured / killed party was what really caused the accident. No doubt drugs/alcohol are the cause of some bad accidents but taking the big picture I bet general maniac driving is causing a lot more. Of course that's more difficult to deal with so the government have their PR campaigns and come down heavy in other ways.

And look at the media, they're just as bad. Where's the considerations in the stories asking if the mother had took care crossing that road. The media seem more interesting in automatically insinuating blame on the drunk driver, while saying how the departed mum and daughter were lovely people.

Once again too much political correctness while not taking an unbiased view of things.

I'm sure the mum new the bad history of that road and its' speed. I know roads like that and hate pulling across them. Caution and careful observation of the cars on the highway are seriously on my mind. Unless there was sun in her eyes or some other mitigating factor, would the drunk driver not have been in clear enough view for quite some distance. She only had to drive the short distance over the road, which should not take a great deal of time. Based on the limited information we have does that not mean she's pulled out when he was RELATIVELY close, even if he was travelling significantly faster than the speed limit.

IF that is the case then the drunk driver is also a victim because he's getting the whole blame for "causing" the deaths. Granted, he may have been better able to avoid the collision or reduce its severity but I don't think he should take all the blame if both parties were at fault.

[woodPixel]

Twelve years ago I was part of a County court jury that dealt with a similar case involving speed, erratic driving and alcohol.

We found the driver guilty of the offences charged and the 6 days spent hearing the evidence and seeing the crime scene had a serious effect on me and this case brings back awkward memories.

Sturdee has made the ultimate point - its effect on others.

This accident didn't just "happen" to the mum/daughter and Mr Scumbag - it is now happening to jurors, court staff, defence, prosecution, ambulance, fire brigade, police and tow truck drivers.

[Grumpy John]

I have been trying to find a way to see the coroners report regarding this accident. I don't know if they are available to the public. It would be interesting to know other details such as how far away the Commodore was when she pulled out on to the road, what lane she pulled in to, or if she was going straight across. I drive past this school almost every day and always move over to the right lane as more than once people have pulled out of the driveway in front of me. The speed limit has been dropped from 100 down to 80 all the way from Cranbourne to Five Ways, but there is still no "school hours" speed limit for this school.

[doug3030]

IF that is the case then the drunk driver is also a victim because he's getting the whole blame for "causing" the deaths. Granted, he may have been better able to avoid the collision or reduce its severity but I don't think he should take all the blame if both parties were at fault.

If circumstances were different, for example if the mother survived the crash and her daughter was killed, you would probably find that mother would also be on a culpable or dangerous driving charge. But she isn't alive so obviously she cannot be charged. Her penalty is much more severe than that, so although it may appear that way she has not gotten off scott-free.

As I pointed out above, if the driver of car 1 is charged with culpable driving then he cannot then or at any later time be charged with drink-driving. If the jury find him not guilty of culpable or dangerous driving, then he can NEVER be charged with drink-driving. This would tell you that the police prosecutors believe that they have a very strong case. If he beats that charge he walks away free and blameless. He was three times the legal limit

The case does not go to court until 25 January so until the end of the trial it is only speculation on who gets what penalty.

[Grumpy John]

After Peters post stating that he is withdrawing from this conversation I sent him a PM apologising for bringing up painful memories.
With his permission I have posted his reply explaining his decision.

"John you were not expected to know that this accident brought back bad memories so don't be upset.

The memories of my jury service had faded well and truly in the back ground but this brought it back.

Whilst I'm okay with that service and the decisions I had to reach I have no intention of reading armchair critics pontificating about such cases and as to who was right or wrong. What did happen and what should have happened. It is a tragedy that 2 people died and then as an armchair critic debating it is IMO not okay. But everybody drives a car so they are experts.

I had to inspect the scene of the accident in my case, listen to 4 days of evidence, see the graphic police photos, see the accused and the family of the victims all the time and then together with my other jurors reach a unanimous verdict knowing that if the accused was found guilty he would serve at least a minimum of 4 years in jail.

What ever happened it was tragic and this case is as well.

Peter."

"By all means publish it in the thread as it explains my personal reasons for not looking at the thread anymore. I know what is involved in such a case from now on and until you are closely involved in a judgmental capacity I believe we should not debate it and let the court system take its place.

Peter."

[DavidG]

I think this thread is starting to open memories that some of us would prefer to leave buried. :C

Maybe it is time to quietly move on - PLEASE -

[elanjacobs]

Do you live in the area EJ?
Nope, but that part of the world is pretty flat. I also did cheat a bit and check Steetview to confirm my suspicions

[ian]

To get back towards the original thrust of this thread and to pick up on an earlier comment about what would happen in Norway and Sweden ...

Sweden has a road safety concept called Vision Zero. In broad terms that means a road toll of ZERO.
To achieve that aim, the Swedes recognise that multiple factors need to be addressed and apart from safer cars and better (safer?) drivers, there also needs to be an emphasis on building a road environment where a small mistake doesn't result in death or serous injury. So
# if there is a possibility of hitting a pedestrian (or a cyclist) -- think urban street -- then the speed limit would be 40 km/h or less.
# if there is a possibility of a head-on collision -- think the typical two-lane, two-way rural highway -- the speed limit should be 70 km/h. In a modern vehicle a head-on crash where both vehicles are doing 70 km/h is considered "survivable". Higher speeds mean a higher standard of road -- either 4 lane divided carriageway or a wire barrier down the center of the road, overtaking being accommodated by occasionally providing an additional lane.
# if there is a possibility of T-bone crash -- the example discussed in the last 30 or so posts -- the speed limit would be 50 km/h (or less, I don't recall the exact value).


Having spent a good part of my life working in the area, the questions that are never asked about the example being discussed are:
# why was a high traffic volume land use (a school) approved in what is essentially a high speed rural environment?
# why weren't proper arrangements made for the traffic entering and leaving the school?
# and the saddest of all -- how many people have to die before these two negligent acts are corrected? This is the question that really gets my dander up as the answer is usually "many more than 2".

[woodPixel]

I was going to mention earlier, but didnt for my attitudes don't align well to macro-public, but if the punishment was to immediately have a car "cubed" and left on your driveway for 6 months, people might stop being idiots.

Speeding over 30k's? Cubed
Drink driving? Cubed
Drugs? Cubed
Hooning? Cubed
Mates car? Cubed
Hire car? Cubed

The cops pull you over, call a "cubing truck" and it rams the whole lot (minus people and animals, but EVERYTHING in the car, no exceptions) into a neat 1m x 1m cube. Right there and then. The cube is then delivered to the front of your driveway and left there.

Social embarrassment, extreme cost, severely disproportionate inconvenience plus the near-inability to obtain insurance for the next car might make people think.

The cubing and delivery is completely free :)

Boohoo people will whinge. Boo-bloody-hoo indeed. The other result is a mangled mess for someone else to clean up. Boo-bloody-hoo then.

I read this article yesterday which highlights just how stupid some people are: Tourist's 'ridiculous' driving prompts woman to take action (http://www.smh.com.au/world/tourists-ridiculous-driving-prompts-woman-to-take-action-20171228-h0aybp.html)

[BobL]

I was going to mention earlier, but didnt for my attitudes don't align well to macro-public, but if the punishment was to immediately have a car "cubed" and left on your driveway for 6 months, people might stop being idiots.

Speeding over 30k's? Cubed
Drink driving? Cubed
Drugs? Cubed
Hooning? Cubed
Mates car? Cubed
Hire car? Cubed

The cops pull you over, call a "cubing truck" and it rams the whole lot (minus people and animals, but EVERYTHING in the car, no exceptions) into a neat 1m x 1m cube. Right there and then. The cube is then delivered to the front of your driveway and left there.

While I agree in principle I just don't trust the cops enough whether it's unintentional or otherwise.
eg "I don't like the cut of your jib", Cubed?

[Mr Brush]

"Looking at me in a funny way"........cubed
"Driving through a built up area wearing a loud shirt after 10pm"........cubed

This idea has great potential !! :2tsup:

[Chris Parks]

There are some extreme attitudes here none of which would change a thing. These threads stir up extreme thoughts without addressing the basics, always have and always will and everyone criticises all the rest of the driving world as "other drivers" infererring the critic is an expert driver and every other driver is a dill. There is one sobering thought in all this and that is there is no such thing as an accident, they all have a root cause and the so called "accident" did not happen by chance. The big thing is that governments treat the driving population as a source of revenue, criticise the drivers for causing accidents, plead with them to stop it all when the ultimate problem was thiers to begin with because they did not educate the driving population to begin with. Mum and Dad and I include every one who has posted to this thread do not have the skills to teach safe driving and all they do is pass on bad habits and poor skill sets. I taught advanced and competition driving when I was younger, was a professional driver for a large part of my working life and I still reckon my skills as a driver could be improved even after the eight week full time course I did back when I was a young man. In fact it occurs to me that the longer the mum and dad tuition requirements (L plates) go on for the greater the opportunity is for bad habits, poor skill building because the tutor never had the skills in the first place and has no right to be teaching any young driver anything. No one here has identified what the driver pulling out through the give way sign should have done initially but I will leave it to the experts to tell us. I stopped posting here as I could see what way things were going and I will stop again as I have no desire to get caught up in the "punishment is the only answer" argument. Who sets the parameters for the punishment?

[Grumpy John]

Chris, I think the people here are expressing frustration at continued anti social behaviour experienced by road users. Unfortunately repeat offenders do not respond to the softly softly approach, and drastic measures need to be taken.

I don't believe punishment is the only answer, but there needs to be accountability.

[doug3030]

I read this article yesterday which highlights just how stupid some people are: Tourist's 'ridiculous' driving prompts woman to take action (http://www.smh.com.au/world/tourists-ridiculous-driving-prompts-woman-to-take-action-20171228-h0aybp.html)

I would love to see the woman in that article in Melbourne - She would not know which one to follow to their destination and give a lecture to.

Cheers

Doug

[Twisted Tenon]

<style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;} @font-face {font-family:Cambria; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0mm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} @page Section1 {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt; mso-header-margin:36.0pt; mso-footer-margin:36.0pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style> I have come to this thread late, however re Roundabouts... I live on the Central Coast and around here all of our big roundabouts are being converted to lights, as it seems they are a major contributor to traffic jams. They were dangerous as well with many prangs over the years. The point of a round about is that it should be possible for four cars to enter at once. This is a rare feat indeed.

I have noticed that there are two sets of rules as far as roundabouts go. One is what the road rules actually say. According to The RMS website requirements of entering a roundabout.
“The roundabout sign means Slow Down, prepare to Give Way and if necessary stop to avoid a collision. So, as you're approaching a roundabout, you must get into the correct lane, indicate if turning, and give way to traffic already on the roundabout.
Enter the roundabout when there is a safe gap in the traffic.”

And the second rule is what actually happens. On approaching a roundabout a driver will look to see if anyone is on their left, and then speed up in an effort to block that person. This happens on all the smaller roundabouts here on the Coast and up around the Hunter/Newcastle areas too. It doesn’t matter if you have already entered the roundabout; the driver on your right expects that you will give way. In effect converting the approach to the roundabout as if it were a jousting tournament.



I am a retired Parole Officer and have spent a lot of time in courts and have often facilitated a drink driver program called the “Sober Driver Program”. It is worth noting that 80% of first offender drink drivers never return to Court, only about 20% return for the second offence. Of that 20% at least 5-10% will continue to be repeat offenders. The program I facilitated was aimed at that 20%. It was thought that if these people could be diverted from further offending then the cost and danger to the community will be greatly reduced.

The program is a joint venture between the RMS, NSW Police, Attorney Generals Dept & NSW Corrections. It was a three-day course held over three Saturdays. I could always tell if there was going to be any change in any of the participants by the second day after we looked at a real scenario of a young father who had stayed too long at a pub lunch and consequently crashed his van and killed a much respected member of the local community. A part of the exercise was to work out the cost to the community in dollars and of course the emotional cost to the first responders and witnesses. It will run into the millions. The knock on costs and the emotional trauma cannot be fully calculated.

I am pleased to say that so far the program has a high success rate.


TT

[BobL]

Mum and Dad and I include every one who has posted to this thread do not have the skills to teach safe driving . . . .?
How do you know that no one else that has posted in this thread has not undertaken Advanced driving instruction courses ?

I think that mums and dads, or any responsible driver, are able to teach young drivers, many life saving things about driving.

Teaching a new driver how to get out of a complex skid and getting them to remember it when it first comes up 5 years later is a 3rd order issue issue compared to other very basic things that kids can learn from a responsible driver.

The most important things that mums, dad, friends, relatives, peers can teach are NOT advanced driving skills but basic attitudes to driving, most of which involve very little skill.
eg It's OK to
- drive 5-10 k's over the limit
- drink and drive
- , no wait - it's fun! to drift through a roundabout.
- drive with your seatbelt just half draped across your body.
- use a mobile while driving
- cut into the path of a driver with a right of way - just make sure you accelerate fast enough to get out of the way.
- drift through stop signs
- fondle your girl friend or VV while driving.
ETC

Attitudes to these things are being picked by kids well before they have a learners permit.

[beefy]

There are some extreme attitudes here none of which would change a thing. These threads stir up extreme thoughts without addressing the basics, always have and always will and everyone criticises all the rest of the driving world as "other drivers" infererring the critic is an expert driver and every other driver is a dill. There is one sobering thought in all this and that is there is no such thing as an accident, they all have a root cause and the so called "accident" did not happen by chance. The big thing is that governments treat the driving population as a source of revenue, criticise the drivers for causing accidents, plead with them to stop it all when the ultimate problem was thiers to begin with because they did not educate the driving population to begin with. Mum and Dad and I include every one who has posted to this thread do not have the skills to teach safe driving and all they do is pass on bad habits and poor skill sets. I taught advanced and competition driving when I was younger, was a professional driver for a large part of my working life and I still reckon my skills as a driver could be improved even after the eight week full time course I did back when I was a young man. In fact it occurs to me that the longer the mum and dad tuition requirements (L plates) go on for the greater the opportunity is for bad habits, poor skill building because the tutor never had the skills in the first place and has no right to be teaching any young driver anything. No one here has identified what the driver pulling out through the give way sign should have done initially but I will leave it to the experts to tell us. I stopped posting here as I could see what way things were going and I will stop again as I have no desire to get caught up in the "punishment is the only answer" argument. Who sets the parameters for the punishment?

Chris, while I see some good points in what you say, do you really think EDUCATION is the root of many of the accidents here. No one here has to be a super dooper driving expert to realise that people actually are taught some correct stuff when they learn to drive, yet they choose to ignore it and blindly copy what many others are doing, despite it clearly being a pretty dumb driving technique to adopt. Or are people really so stupid they can't think for themselves a little.

In addition to better driver education, I think a large part of the problem is attitude and the lack of interest in being a better, less aggressive, and basically less of an as*%ole driver. Education is all well and good and I think it could be improved a lot, but we can't put aside the attitude problem that clearly exists on our roads.

I think what we also need is an injection of fear, with drivers knowing the cops are out there in force, in plain cars, looking for generally chaotic and aggressive driving. If many drivers are going to behave like maniacs, that's exactly how they need to be dealt with. People like that won't give a toss about being educated, that will just be an inconvenience for them.

For the rest who would like to be good drivers, education would be great.

[doug3030]

I think what we also need is an injection of fear, with drivers knowing the cops are out there in force, in plain cars, looking for generally chaotic and aggressive driving. If many drivers are going to behave like maniacs, that's exactly how they need to be dealt with. People like that won't give a toss about being educated, that will just be an inconvenience for them.

Many years ago -when cops still patrolled the roads and drivers used to obey the rules and were more polite than they are now because of it - I had a friend who was a cop and patrolled in an unmarked vehicle. He said that whenever he had to pull someone over because they cut him off or failed to give right of way to him, they almost always used to say the same thing to him. "Sorry mate, I didn't know you were a cop!" Hes standard response was "So its alright to do that to anyone else, just not to cops, is that right?" Then he would write them a ticket. He said that the very few who said something like "Sorry, I didn't see you," were usually given a warning.

Police patrolling the roads is far more effective in behavior modification than speed or red light cameras. On the day you commit the offence you are blissfully unaware of the penalty and you get to your destination feeling good about yourself for saving so much time driving just a bit faster than you should and going through that light that might have just turned red. You get the fine three weeks later and it really means nothing. But if you get pulled over for speeding or running a light you have to sit there while they give you a lecture and write out the ticket and it slows you down and you lose time and you do not get to your destination feeling good about taking those chances and getting away with it - because you already know you didn't get away with it. Your passengers all know what happened and anyone you know who drove past will have seen you. Far more accountability to friends and family than a fine in the mail you don't have to tell anyone about.

The big problem is that the state governments are looking at the roads and the road rules as an income generating business. They have a business model of maximizing fines for minimum outlay and road safety is not even a consideration. Speed and red-light cameras are operated by businesses with a contract to the government. They are not even a police responsibility. the company that runs them is getting a commission from every fine they issue. If fines stopped people speeding then nobody would be speeding. If fines and suspensions stopped people drink driving nobody would be drink driving.

[swk]

Topical article (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-29/road-safety-holiday-drug-driving-texting/9291692) on todays ABC

SWK

[woodPixel]

60 offences, now killed 3 and maimed another. Annabelle Falkholt dies after Boxing Day crash, actress sister Jessica Falkholt remains critical - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-29/annabelle-jessica-falkholt-dies-after-boxing-day-crash/9292808)

Is my hard-line attitude too much?

[doug3030]

60 offences, now killed 3 and maimed another.

At least he won't do it again.

[rob streeper]

The fastest speeding tickets issued in Texas in 2016 - San Antonio Express-News (http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/houston-texas/texas/article/The-fastest-speeding-tickets-issued-in-Texas-10864124.php#photo-12208266)

[DiRob]

I don't think the mobile phone issue has been mentioned only have to look at the penalty . Accountability of politicians will never happen but should as stated.

[BobL]

I don't think the mobile phone issue has been mentioned only have to look at the penalty . Accountability of politicians will never happen but should as stated.

Mobiles have been mentioned 7 times in this thread.

[Twisted Tenon]

Just to bring some perspective to this discussion, the NSW Center for Road Safety reported that Speeding (http://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/speeding/index.html), fatigue (http://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/stayingsafe/fatigue/index.html)and alcohol (http://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/stayingsafe/alcoholdrugs/index.html)are the three main causes of death and injury on our roads. In 2012 more people in NSW died in fatigue-related crashes than drink driving crashes and Speeding remains the greatest cause of death and injuries on our roads, contributing to about 40 per cent of road fatalities.


The National Drug Strategy (http://www.nationaldrugstrategy.gov.au/internet/drugstrategy/publishing.nsf/Content/nds20102015~nds20102015-about) 2010-2015 reported that : The cost to Australian society of alcohol, tobacco and other drug misuse 2 (http://www.nationaldrugstrategy.gov.au/internet/drugstrategy/publishing.nsf/Content/nds20102015~nds20102015-about#footnote2) in 2004–05 was estimated at $56.1 billion, including costs to the health and hospitals system, lost workplace productivity, road accidents and crime. Of this, tobacco accounted for $31.5 billion (56.2 per cent), alcohol accounted for $15.3 billion (27.3 per cent) and illegal drugs $8.2 billion (14.6 per cent).

Stats and more stats as at 28/12/17 NSW (http://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/statistics/index.html) is at 389 road deaths which is ten more that last year and - Since (http://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/statistics/fatalitytrends.html) the start of random breath testing in 1982, road deaths per 100,000 population have dropped from about 23 to 4.1 in 2014.

It is clear to me that there are many factors contributing to road deaths and that NSW Governments of both persuasions are actively promoting safer driving programs which are bearing fruit. Of course any death on the roads is one too many.

TT

[ian]

60 offences, now killed 3 and maimed another. Annabelle Falkholt dies after Boxing Day crash, actress sister Jessica Falkholt remains critical - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-29/annabelle-jessica-falkholt-dies-after-boxing-day-crash/9292808)

Is my hard-line attitude too much?
ask yourself the questions -- why has this information been released? is it to deflect attention from some other relevant information? what relevance does a "long criminal history" have in the matter?

and remember in NSW registration and licence cancellation are used as punishments for offences unrelated to person's competence as a vehicle operator.

[doug3030]

remember in NSW registration and licence cancellation are used as punishments for offences unrelated to person's competence as a vehicle operator.

Like speeding fines?

[Twisted Tenon]

Like speeding fines?

A person can amass a series of fines for say fare evasion, shoplifting or for assaultive behaviour as well as for speeding. They fall behind in their payments and State Debt Recovery will have their lisence suspended. They will send a notification out to the last known address but if the person has moved or the letter gets lost the first they know about it is when they are pulled over by the police. Some people know they have been suspended but take the risk to drive because they need the work. As Ian says people can lose their lisence for reasons other than traffic infringments.
TT

[doug3030]

As Ian says people can lose their lisence for reasons other than traffic infringments.

No he didn't. He said:


for offences unrelated to person's competence as a vehicle operator.

Like speeding fines - which can have as much to do with your competence as a vehicle operator as fare evasion, shoplifting etc. You can get a speeding fine when driving safely and competently. All you have to do is cross an arbitrary boundary. In fact you don't even have to do that. You just have to be accused of doing it and not be able to prove your innocence.

[Twisted Tenon]

No he didn't. He said:



Like speeding fines - which can have as much to do with your competence as a vehicle operator as fare evasion, shoplifting etc. You can get a speeding fine when driving safely and competently. All you have to do is cross an arbitrary boundary. In fact you don't even have to do that. You just have to be accused of doing it and not be able to prove your innocence.

I see your point. Speeding doesn’t necessarily make you an incompetent driver, but it does make you a law breaker. Not sure I get the point re accusations. I have several speeding fines over many years of driving and was caught dead to rights each time.
TT

[doug3030]

I see your point. Speeding doesn’t necessarily make you an incompetent driver, but it does make you a law breaker. Not sure I get the point re accusations. I have several speeding fines over many years of driving and was caught dead to rights each time.

As I said a few dozen post back:


When I am out on the highways I have my GPS navigation up for an accurate speed reading since you cannot trust the car's speedo. I drive with cruise control on and the speed set to right on or just under the speed limit by the GPS. Yet twice in the last 12 months I have been caught by speed cameras when I know that I have not been over the limit - let alone the 3 km/h leeway you are allowed before being booked. These were both speed cameras which I was well aware of the location of. My old (8+ years) GPS did not have dashcam and trip recording, which is why I recently upgraded as I discussed in this thread http://www.woodworkforums.com/f125/dash-cam-218708. Next time I get booked I will have the proof I need. Speed cameras are not as infallible as most people think and most people pay up because they cannot prove otherwise. So yes I attempt to avoid the fines but I have been caught doing nothing wrong. The next ticket I get will be contested and the dash cam will have paid for itself.

Did you know that in Victoria at least, speed cameras are not even operated by the police, or even the Government? The responsibility is contracted out to a private company whose income is derived from commissions from the speeding fines. That kind of blows any arguments that speed camera fines are not based on revenue raising. That company has a business model based entirely on raising revenue that way.

[woodPixel]

Did you know that in Victoria at least, speed cameras are not even operated by the police, or even the Government? The responsibility is contracted out to a private company whose income is derived from commissions from the speeding fines. That kind of blows any arguments that speed camera fines are not based on revenue raising. That company has a business model based entirely on raising revenue that way.

Plus an incentive to get it wrong... just sometimes....

[doug3030]

Plus an incentive to get it wrong... just sometimes....

and according to The Age, they also have a nasty habit of attempting to cover up problems, which when discovered can result in losses of commissions/revenue. So by inference, when the problem is not discovered, innocent motorists get to fork over their hard-earned cash.

State government reserves decision on troubled road camera operator Redflex (http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/redfaced-redflexs-traffic-camera-contract-scrutinised-in-ransomware-crisis-20170625-gwy0ib.html)

Have a look at the part about their dealings over in Chicago a few years back as well. They do not seem to have a good track record.

[ian]

No he didn't. He said:

and remember in NSW registration and licence cancellation are used as punishments for offences unrelated to person's competence as a vehicle operator.
Like speeding fines - which can have as much to do with your competence as a vehicle operator as fare evasion, shoplifting etc. You can get a speeding fine when driving safely and competently. All you have to do is cross an arbitrary boundary. In fact you don't even have to do that. You just have to be accused of doing it and not be able to prove your innocence.

When I used "competence" I was actually thinking of parking fines -- if you want to contest a parking fine, State Debt Recovery (in NSW) has immutable deadlines, miss a deadline by even one day and your only recourse is the Local court. Not an option that is affordable for many people.

[rob streeper]

An adjacent municipality installed this speed monitoring road sign this year. Not visible in the picture is a high-intensity flashing white light that serves to attract attention. I haven't seen any reports of its general effectiveness but it has caused me to be more careful. It does not serve as a traffic camera, just a warning.

427076

[rob streeper]

I've been reading this:

Emily M. Zitek, Alexander H. Jordan. Psychological Entitlement Predicts Failure to Follow Instructions. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2017; 194855061772988 DOI: 10.1177/1948550617729885 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1948550617729885)

The authors write that people who have a greater sense of entitlement also have a tendency to disregard rules and that this disregard arises from a sense that the rules are unfair. The paper is paywalled but if anyone would like to read it send me a PM.

[Grumpy John]

I may be reading things wrong, but I get the impression that, on one hand people want offenders cars crushed, and on the other hand speeding fines are arbitrary and subject to manipulation by the company charged with monitoring speed cameras.
Sweeping statements like fines are only revenue raising tools are ridiculous. What would you have as a deterrent if not fines?
Generally, I believe that the speed limits set for both town and country traveling are pretty spot on, with a few exceptions. I also believe that the 3k allowance is too tight and should be 5K, either that or make it unlawful to place speed cameras at the bottom of hills.

[rob streeper]

This earlier paper from the same researcher

J Pers Soc Psychol. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20085398#) 2010 Feb;98(2):245-55. doi: 10.1037/a0017168.

Victim entitlement to behave selfishly.
Zitek EM (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Zitek%20EM%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=20085398)1, Jordan AH (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Jordan%20AH%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=20085398), Monin B (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Monin%20B%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=20085398), Leach FR (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Leach%20FR%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=20085398).

suggests that subjective feelings of having been treated unfairly, both in the past and present, contribute to selfish or entitled behavior. If you Google the title you'll find links to access the full paper.:)

In the context of driving and this thread it raises the possibility that harsh punishments for driving infractions may elicit further bad behavior from individuals who have generalized feelings of having been treated unfairly into, if you will, a persecution complex.

[woodPixel]

I may be reading things wrong, but I get the impression that, on one hand people want offenders cars crushed, and on the other hand speeding fines are arbitrary and subject to manipulation by the company charged with monitoring speed cameras.
Sweeping statements like fines are only revenue raising tools are ridiculous. What would you have as a deterrent if not fines?

How about asshole points?

A stern talking too?

Clearly that works for criminals with 60 convictions who end up killing 3 others while driving high on methadone. Yes, a formal letter of reprimand should do it.

[Twisted Tenon]

[QUOTE=doug3030;2062628]As I said a few dozen post back:


http://d1r5wj36adg1sk.cloudfront.net/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by doug3030 http://d1r5wj36adg1sk.cloudfront.net/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.woodworkforums.com/f43/attitudes-road-toll-218716-post2061665#post2061665)
When I am out on the highways I have my GPS navigation up for an accurate speed reading since you cannot trust the car's speedo. I drive with cruise control on and the speed set to right on or just under the speed limit by the GPS. Yet twice in the last 12 months I have been caught by speed cameras when I know that I have not been over the limit - let alone the 3 km/h leeway you are allowed before being booked. These were both speed cameras which I was well aware of the location of. My old (8+ years) GPS did not have dashcam and trip recording, which is why I recently upgraded as I discussed in this thread dash cam (http://www.woodworkforums.com/f125/dash-cam-218708). Next time I get booked I will have the proof I need. Speed cameras are not as infallible as most people think and most people pay up because they cannot prove otherwise. So yes I attempt to avoid the fines but I have been caught doing nothing wrong. The next ticket I get will be contested and the dash cam will have paid for itself.



Wow. I'm pretty sure that here in NSW the leeway is 10 percent plus one. I set my cruise control onto 118 kph when on the expressways and have never been booked by the police. Fixed radar is a different matter. I have a grey nomad friend who lives in QLD who will not drive in Victoria because of their radar traps.

TT

[Twisted Tenon]

An adjacent municipality installed this speed monitoring road sign this year. Not visible in the picture is a high-intensity flashing white light that serves to attract attention. I haven't seen any reports of its general effectiveness but it has caused me to be more careful. It does not serve as a traffic camera, just a warning.



I've seen from time to time on the Newcastle Expressway a police car pulled over on the middle median strip just sitting there with its warning lights on. Every one slows done for a while. I've wondered if it was a bored copper or part of a strategy.

TT

[doug3030]

I may be reading things wrong, but I get the impression that, on one hand people want offenders cars crushed, and on the other hand speeding fines are arbitrary and subject to manipulation by the company charged with monitoring speed cameras.
Sweeping statements like fines are only revenue raising tools are ridiculous. What would you have as a deterrent if not fines?
Generally, I believe that the speed limits set for both town and country traveling are pretty spot on, with a few exceptions. I also believe that the 3k allowance is too tight and should be 5K, either that or make it unlawful to place speed cameras at the bottom of hills.

Well lets put things in perspective. The two idiots in v8's I saw recently on the M80 who were going a good 50 - 80 km/h over the 100km/h speed limit, weaving in and out of the traffic and braking sharply at a known speed camera site would deserve anything the law could throw at them - if they were caught. I think I speak for every other driver on the motorway that day that they would have loved a front seat to watch their cars get crushed, just to see the look on their faces. They had no legitimate excuse for speeding or they would not have slowed down at the speed camera site. They are the people who we really need to get off the roads - yet they are probably more skilled in operating a motor vehicle than 99% of the population. They have the skills but not the common sense. That type of behavior belongs on a racetrack where the cars have the proper safety gear and all the drivers are highly skilled and expecting everyone else to be driving like that.

However, I do not think there was anything to be gained by crushing their cars. Why reduce probably $100,000 into a couple of hundred dollars worth of scrap metal. Confiscate them and have a big auction a few times a year.

So yes, I am all in favor of harsh treatment when the punishment fits the crime, but wielding a big stick at everyone just incites resentment, as others have pointed out.


Good men need no laws, and bad men are not made better by them.
(quote often attributed to Plato)

Now look at the normal daily speed enforcement in Victoria - speed and red light cameras operated by a private company on a government contract and earning commission.

To quote from the link I posted earlier:


Ms Neville said it was her understanding Redflex was aware of the virus on June 15, but rather than notifying relevant authorities, it rebooted and repaired the system and failed to report the outbreak.She said the department became aware the virus had infected 55 cameras between June 16 and June19, but also failed to report it to her until June 22.
Redflex - which has declined to comment - did not tell the government about the additional 42 cameras infected until June 23.
A total of 97 cameras have now been identified as having the virus, mistakenly put into the cameras by a contractor during a routine maintenance program, Ms Neville said.
The outbreak of the virus has caused chaos in Victoria's speed camera network with all fines for the state's 280 fixed red-light and speed cameras on hold until a full investigation is conducted by Road Safety Camera Commissioner John Voyage.
So this company was aware of an issue that affected speed camera operation for several days and tried to conceal the situation presumably because it would have affected their commission if fines were withdrawn. How do we know how often this has happened and they have successfully kept it quiet? We will never know; but any of us, our friends and relatives could have easily been wrongly fined as a result.

This same company was also operating a "red light camera business" in Chicago. (to quote from the Chicago article "The Emanuel administration tells Redflex it will not be allowed to keep its red light camera business with the city.) Have a look at the link here to see details of the corruption and bribes that took place to get the system set up how they wanted it so that they would be profitable. http://graphics.chicagotribune.com/news/local/red-light-timeline/

And to quote form this article:

A Tribune analysis of more than 4 million tickets issued since 2007 and a deeper probe of individual cases reveal clear evidence that a series of sudden, unexplainable spikes in Chicago's network of 380 cameras were caused by faulty equipment, human tinkering or both. Chicago transportation officials say they had no knowledge of the wild swings in ticketing until they were told by the Tribune — even though City Hall legally required the camera vendor to watch for the slightest anomaly in ticketing patterns every day. Many of the spikes lasted weeks.
"Unexplainable spikes" n the network? Does this imply that there is a predictable pattern that occurs at a given camera when it is functioning correctly? And if there is a spike, it must be investigated to ensure that the camera is functioning correctly? Doesn't that mean that they expect a consistent number of speeders every day? But they cannot be the same people each time or they would soon lose their licenses due to loss of points. So, can it really be the drivers that are totally to blame?

And why do fines start at 3 km/h over the speed limit? Purely and simply because the company running the cameras would not make a profit if they were only allowed to book people who were doing more than 10 or 20 km/h over the limit. It would not be economically viable to run their business unless they had forced the government to allow them to fine drivers for trivial issues like going 3 km/h over the limit.

The threshholds for penalties for the whole system are based on the business model of a private company working on a commission income, and have nothing to do with road safety. Look at the bribes that this company has been proven to have paid in Chicago. Now look around and ask yourself who in Victoria is shouting loudest about speed cameras saving lives. I do not know if there is a connection or not.

[Dibbers]

"Unexplainable spikes" n the network? Does this imply that there is a predictable pattern that occurs at a given camera when it is functioning correctly? And if there is a spike, it must be investigated to ensure that the camera is functioning correctly? Doesn't that mean that they expect a consistent number of speeders every day? But they cannot be the same people each time or they would soon lose their licenses due to loss of points. So, can it really be the drivers that are totally to blame?

And why do fines start at 3 km/h over the speed limit? Purely and simply because the company running the cameras would not make a profit if they were only allowed to book people who were doing more than 10 or 20 km/h over the limit. It would not be economically viable to run their business unless they had forced the government to allow them to fine drivers for trivial issues like going 3 km/h over the limit.

The threshholds for penalties for the whole system are based on the business model of a private company working on a commission income, and have nothing to do with road safety. Look at the bribes that this company has been proven to have paid in Chicago. Now look around and ask yourself who in Victoria is shouting loudest about speed cameras saving lives. I do not know if there is a connection or not.





Governments engaging private enterprise to own/operate anything as a means of paying for the infrastructure is inherently flawed. Private enterprise are in it for money, nothing else. If there wasn't a way to make money they wouldn't invest. For anyone, especially politicians, to say that these companies are in the business of road safety is ridiculous. They are exploiting the community and its in their interests for Road Safety to NOT improve, that is their business model. If they improved road safety, they wouldn't be profitable.

[Dibbers]

Regarding the unexplainable spikes in the network, this actually makes sense as a method of monitoring for issues in the network.

I'm an analyst, and if it was me, i'd be looking at the trend of fines over a certain time frame (days, weeks, peak hour, off peak etc). There'd be an average amount of cars being pinged. You'd have to factor in seasonality (public holidays, Xmas break, major events etc), but by and large it'd all be pretty constant.

If you had an unexplained spike (or dip for that matter) in fines at a certain time that can't be explained by a major event, weather, festive season etc, then that would be a trigger to investigate and make sure the equipment is running as it should.

It may well be that there were a bunch of idiots all driving through that trap at a particular time, and its not to say the equipment is faulty, but its a flag to run a diagnositc.

So in short, yes there would be a somewhat predictable pattern with each camera.

[Bohdan]

What possible incentive would any of our current crop of pollies have in investigating faulty camera operation. It only can result in a drop in their income and a further smear to their reputation.

Admitedly their current reputation is so poor that it probably couldn't be made worse.

[ian]

What would you have as a deterrent if not fines?


How about asshole points?

A stern talking too?

Clearly that works for criminals with 60 convictions who end up killing 3 others while driving high on methadone. Yes, a formal letter of reprimand should do it.
I see that you have bought the story someone in authority wanted you to buy.

In the ABC's report of the crash there is a lot of positive information about two of the five victims, and a lot negative information about one, Mr Whitall.

Police said Mr Whitall had a long criminal history and had been jailed for driving while disqualified.
At the time of the crash, he was driving with P-plates having only recently got his licence back.
Mr Whitall was "well-known" to police in his hometown of Ulladulla and had more than 60 offences on his record as well as a number of aliases, authorities said.
The issue of whether Mr Whitall was on methadone or other drugs at the time of the crash will be part of the coronial investigation. implies to me that someone is trying to deflect interest -- the question is to deflect public interest from what? Around the time of the crash had police been following Mr Whitall waiting for another "gotcha" opportunity?

[doug3030]

I'm an analyst, and if it was me, i'd be looking at the trend of fines over a certain time frame (days, weeks, peak hour, off peak etc). There'd be an average amount of cars being pinged. You'd have to factor in seasonality (public holidays, Xmas break, major events etc), but by and large it'd all be pretty constant.

If you had an unexplained spike (or dip for that matter) in fines at a certain time that can't be explained by a major event, weather, festive season etc, then that would be a trigger to investigate and make sure the equipment is running as it should.

It may well be that there were a bunch of idiots all driving through that trap at a particular time, and its not to say the equipment is faulty, but its a flag to run a diagnositc.

So in short, yes there would be a somewhat predictable pattern with each camera.

Thanks Dibbers,

As an analyst, what do you make of it when there is a consistent, predictable number of different drivers committing the same offence at the same location every day when the speed limit is clearly defined and the location is a well-known speed camera site, day after day, week after week, month after month... ?

[Dibbers]

Thanks Dibbers,

As an analyst, what do you make of it when there is a consistent, predictable number of different drivers committing the same offence at the same location every day when the speed limit is clearly defined and the location is a well-known speed camera site, day after day, week after week, month after month... ?

It wouldn't be a constant number. And not everyone that drives down that road has done so before, and even if they have they might have a lapse in concentration.

How i'd do it (this is a simple method, and i'm sure the methods used would be far more complex), Say on average 1000 people get pinged on fridays over the course of a year, 75% during peak our. If one normal friday (i.e. no holidays, major events, traffic incidents etc), 1500 people get pinged, thats a variance of +50%. Run a diagnostic.

Inverse applies. If on a normal Friday 500 people get pinged, thats a variance of -50%, run a diagnostic.

If on a normal friday 957 people get pinged, assume all is working as expected.

Its not saying that they know exactly how many people will get pinged on any given day, you model the data to give you an average, or an expected number, determine what is an acceptable system tollerance, and anything outside of that you'd investigate.

Again, if it does fluctuate wildly, that isn't to say something is wrong, its just a flag to check the systems.

Another way to look at it is like any other company projecting profits, say Coles for example. You have no idea how much people will spend on groceries, but you can estimate based on previous years sales, factoring in population change in your stores catchment, competition opening/closing in the area etc... you provide a projection for your shareholders. You may have to revise it part way through the year if your projections were off but you still need a baseline to work off.

[woodPixel]

"The man will face the ACT Magistrates Court on Wednesday morning, charged with culpable drive causing death, failing to stop and give assistance, disqualified driving, driving while unregistered, driving an uninsured vehicle and exceeding the speed limit."

Crash Tuesday night here: Man charged after person dies in Hughes crash on Tuesday night (http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/man-charged-after-person-dies-in-hughes-crash-on-tuesday-night-20180102-h0cq27.html)

Its always the same... isn't it?

[Mr Brush]

Some drivers will get pinged by speed cameras no matter what....

Remember when the Sydney Harbour Tunnel first opened - in those days the speed cameras needed flash or good lighting to work. There were signs right through the tunnel stating that speed cameras were in use, plus a short really brightly lit strip roughly in the middle of the tunnel where the camera was. Obvious? Maybe to you and I, but it still didn't stop hundreds of people being pinged by the most obvious speed camera in Australia every month.

[Mr Brush]

"The man will face the ACT Magistrates Court on Wednesday morning, charged with culpable drive causing death, failing to stop and give assistance, disqualified driving, driving while unregistered, driving an uninsured vehicle and exceeding the speed limit."

Christ - talk about collecting the whole set !

Whatever next? "Passing through a red light, drunk, while speeding, backwards, with the car on its' roof and on fire"?

[ian]

"The man will face the ACT Magistrates Court on Wednesday morning, charged with culpable drive causing death, failing to stop and give assistance, disqualified driving, driving while unregistered, driving an uninsured vehicle and exceeding the speed limit."

Its always the same... isn't it?NOPE

have to disagree with your "always" .

the number of lives lost on NSW roads in 2017 was 392 more than zero. In Victoria it was 255 too many.
on average, that works out at just under 2 people being needlessly killed each day.
If drivers like the one in your example were a typical primary causal factor, our court systems would be clogged with culpable driving cases. But they are not.

Concentrating on the perhaps 5% of incidents where what you have highlighted is a primary causal factor is, IMO, misguided as it deflects attention from more costly but more effective measures such as a more forgiving road environment, more accessible public transport, and a younger car fleet which incorporates more safety features. However, it does serve to deflect attention from more costly actions.


For an example of there but for the grace of god World cycling champion Caroline Buchanan expected to make full recovery after crash - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-03/bmx-olympian-caroline-buchanan-injured-in-car-accident/9300416)

[doug3030]

"The man will face the ACT Magistrates Court on Wednesday morning, charged with culpable drive causing death, failing to stop and give assistance, disqualified driving, driving while unregistered, driving an uninsured vehicle and exceeding the speed limit."

At least he wasn't drunk :party5:

[woodPixel]

Ian, good post. It shows I've been subverted by their psyops! You are spot on. I wish I had your clarity of thought.

[ian]

Ian, good post. It shows I've been subverted by their psyops! You are spot on. I wish I had your clarity of thought.I've had a bit of practice.

I wrote the following about 18 months ago in response to an article on the programming of driverless vehicles, and how the AI code should respond to a range of scenarios. I think the tone of my last paragraph will give you a flavour of my attitude.



Real people make moral decisions based on gender, race, religion, a person’s attractiveness (good looking female vs fat lady), a person’s social standing and other factors. Anyone who denies that bias affects their decision making is a liar. The best you can hope for is that a person faced with a decision will be aware of their biases and will consciously attempt to negate that bias.

I find that all your scenarios at moralmachine.mit.edu unrealistic as they presuppose that the driverless vehicle will be travelling in an area with high pedestrian activity at a speed that, in the event of a crash into a solid object, will result in the death or very serious injury of the vehicle occupants. Alternatively, a crash into the group of pedestrians will result in the death of many of them. Go read the Swedish Vision Zero. In it you will find guidance that should result in a driverless car’s programming not allowing the vehicle to exceed 30 km/h in an area with significant pedestrian activity. At 30 km/h a vehicle / pedestrian crash is survivable for the pedestrian (and a vehicle impact into a solid object at that speed is 100% survivable for properly restrained vehicle occupants.)


Even reading the Wikipedia entry – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_Zero – will get you started on a more appropriate path with your vehicle programing.

And the presumption that a pedestrian walking against a DON’T WALK can legitimately be killed is completely morally repugnant and reflects a too legalistic view of road use. People make mistakes, and in some cases ignore instructions or guidance. Those people should not be considered legitimate targets.

[AlexS]

Ian, the theme of your last paragraph is applicable to so many situations in life. Thanks for posting it.

[Mr Brush]

Here we go again...

https://www.949powerfm.com.au/news/news/87638-disqualified-nsw-drink-driver-granted-bail

Exactly who is responsible if this guy gets behind the wheel of a car while "double-disqualified" and kills or injures someone?? :((

[rustynail]

Cars are faster, drugs are prevalent, youth is ever more irresponsible, the aged are getting older, less and less money going to road upkeep, more bicycles, more motor bikes. What do you expect?

[ian]

Here we go again...

https://www.949powerfm.com.au/news/news/87638-disqualified-nsw-drink-driver-granted-bail

Exactly who is responsible if this guy gets behind the wheel of a car while "double-disqualified" and kills or injures someone?? :((in terms of being able to function within Australia society, a licence and/or access to a motor vehicle is almost essential.
Unless you live in one of the Sydney's "silver-tail" suburbs, being disqualified till 2035 is essentially equivalent to being placed under house arrest for 25 years. (The press story implies that disqualification occurred 7 years ago i.e. in 2010).

Disqualifying someone for 25 years may make a bunch of us old fogies feel better, but really, what as a community do we expect to be the outcome?
Pay the guy a disability pension for 25 years? because without a licence and/or a vehicle he can't really access meaningful employment.

[doug3030]

in terms of being able to function within Australia society, a licence and/or access to a motor vehicle is almost essential.
Unless you live in one of the Sydney's "silver-tail" suburbs, being disqualified till 2035 is essentially equivalent to being placed under house arrest for 25 years. (The press story implies that disqualification occurred 7 years ago i.e. in 2010).

Disqualifying someone for 25 years may make a bunch of us old fogies feel better, but really, what as a community do we expect to be the outcome?
Pay the guy a disability pension for 25 years? because without a licence and/or a vehicle he can't really access meaningful employment.

Well if you are going to follow that argument, then nobody should ever be disqualified from driving. Even loss of license for a month could and has, caused people to lose their jobs.

A girlfriend of mine from several years ago had a daughter who was severely injured when a truck ran into her school bus. Mum and daughter (17 by then, two years after the accident) was in court when the truck driver was sentenced. the penalty was a substantial fine and a license suspension for - if I recall correctly - about two years. After passing sentence, the judge turned to the 17-year-old victim and asked if she understood what had just happened. She replied "I think so your Honour, you just fined a man $10,000.00 and then removed his ability to pay it."

[MAPLEMAN]

Alcohol is certainly a contributing factor towards our shocking National road toll...and always has been!
I'd like to see zero alcohol tolerance for all road users...that would be a good start
Probably the most insidious drug on this planet...and it's legal...go figure :doh:
Drunk drivers are the ones that should be 'cubed'...MM

[ian]

She replied "I think so your Honour, you just fined a man $10,000.00 and then removed his ability to pay it."
precisely

[Twisted Tenon]

She replied "I think so your Honour, you just fined a man $10,000.00 and then removed his ability to pay it."

This is the real issue. There should be a distinction between the punishment for drink driving and driving while suspended. I think that suspending a persons drivers license for anything other that a driving offense is counter productive. I saw a man in court tell a magistrate that he owed over $40 thousand dollars in unpaid fines. There was a pause in the court and the magistrate said "you'll never drive again". We all new that he would take the risk, as he had nothing to lose. He did and went to gaol. There should be a distinction between keeping a dangerous driver off the road and punishing a person for non payment of fines. Much like we keep firearms away from mentally unstable persons.

TT

[Lappa]

Apparently drug use has now overtaken alcohol as a cause of accidents according to recent media reports.

[doug3030]

Apparently drug use has now overtaken alcohol as a cause of accidents according to recent media reports.

It always has caused more accidents. The difference is that now they are testing for it.

[Twisted Tenon]

It always has caused more accidents. The difference is that now they are testing for it.

The police have a test for it now and the results for alcohol and illicit drugs will eventually even out. The problem with the current testing methods is that the saliva swipe does not indicate the level of the drug it detects, just that it detects the drug. This means that people are charged for having an illicit substance in their system that may or may not be affecting their driving. Just because there is a trace of an illicit drug in the system, does not mean that it is impairing a persons ability to drive.
TT

[doug3030]

Just because there is a trace of an illicit drug in the system, does not mean that it is impairing a persons ability to drive.

I guess that there is no real incentive to come up with a test to indicate the level of drug in the system since it is illegal to drive with any level of concentration. A positive reading and that's another tick against the daily quota.

[Twisted Tenon]

I guess that there is no real incentive to come up with a test to indicate the level of drug in the system since it is illegal to drive with any level of concentration. A positive reading and that's another tick against the daily quota.

Agreed, but when the test is used to gauge a persons culpability in an accident it isn’t fair. We know cannabis can stay in the system for over a month and amphetamines can still be detected between 3-5 days, however Any impairment may have worn off after a few hours, much like alcohol. So until research is completed that can accurately determine the level of impairment for each illicit drug the test remains unfair. There is little incentive for any government to do address this.

TT

[FenceFurniture]

So until research is completed that can accurately determine the level of impairment for each illicit drug the test remains unfair. There is little incentive for any government to do address this.That might have to change with more and more people using medicinal cannabis legally.

[rustynail]

"Do not drive or use machinery" is marked on many a pill bottle. As for illicits, just take it as a given.

[rustynail]

I've lost track of how many dope users I've had to sack over the years.

[FenceFurniture]

That might have to change with more and more people using medicinal cannabis legally.I mean in terms of there being residual evidence for some weeks. As I understand it, users of medicinal cannabis do not get stoned as such, so in that case it would seem harsh to effectively ban them from driving altogether. No doubt there'll be some research done.

[Dibbers]

The current mobile drug testing is a bit of a joke. as mentioned in a previous post, its not like an RBT that measures levels of alcohol, it only looks for traces. So if you dabbled in a little something a week ago (whether or not you approve of such things) it is no longer impacting your ability to drive. If you had it 5 minutes ago, it is. But the drug testing can't determine that. neither can the subsequent blood tests from what i understand.

Now, if the mobile drug tests were looking to charge people for using an illicit substance, thats one thing, but they are using it to charge DUI, which IMO in its current form it can't possibly do because it can't measure the amount of the substance in a persons system.

Now (and this is drawing a very long bow here i know), if I had my drink spiked, theoretically i can't drive for a week or 2 (depending on the drug) because i'd still have traces in my system and if pulled over, i could be charged.

I'm actually surprised that these charges are holding up in court as there are so many flaws in it... probably people aren't willing to fight it because they'd be admitting they'd taken something illegal in the first place...

[doug3030]

I've lost track of how many dope users I've had to sack over the years.

Me too.

[Twisted Tenon]

T
I'm actually surprised that these charges are holding up in court as there are so many flaws in it... probably people aren't willing to fight it because they'd be admitting they'd taken something illegal in the first place...

Firstly the law is currently written so that if any illicit drugs are found in your system you are guilty of DUI. Secondly the cost of defending the matter is often not worth the lawyers fees and time off work. Better to just cop the fine. Thirdly, many an offender has claimed that his drink has been spiked to no avail :rolleyes:

TT

[rustynail]

Firstly the law is currently written so that if any illicit drugs are found in your system you are guilty of DUI. Secondly the cost of defending the matter is often not worth the lawyers fees and time off work. Better to just cop the fine. Thirdly, many an offender has claimed that his drink has been spiked to no avail :rolleyes:

TT
One can "claim" almost anything. The onus of proof becomes relevant here.

[woodPixel]

L-plater was on drugs when stolen car ploughed into shuttle bus in Kewdale, killing teen boy - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-11/l-plater-was-drug-affected-in-fatal-kewdale-crash/9320664?pfmredir=sm)

[MAPLEMAN]

And of course there are those that drive around merrily on 'legal' prescription drugs...MM:(

[ian]

L-plater was on drugs when stolen car ploughed into shuttle bus in Kewdale, killing teen boy - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-11/l-plater-was-drug-affected-in-fatal-kewdale-crash/9320664?pfmredir=sm)
I'm not sure of your point. given the kid's history he possibly had more experience driving than most other 18 year olds -- I'm not suggesting that the experience was legally obtained. But short of a .22 to the head, how should we as a community react? Lock him up and throw away the key? treat him as a person with a mental illness? give him a smack on the wrist and admonish him not to do it again?

There must be lots of kids out there with histories similar to Mourish -- I tend to think the community's best response is to try and detect these kids and divert them from what is essentially their self-destructive behavior before that behavior affects others.

[A Duke]

Bring back the cat!

[doug3030]

I'm not sure of your point. given the kid's history he possibly had more experience driving than most other 18 year olds -- I'm not suggesting that the experience was legally obtained.

For the last 20 years or so, our young people have been learning how to drive by playing computer games. Long before the ever get behind the wheel of a real car they already have ingrained bad habits and a poor attitude to safety.

For several years after they get their license, they have more "driving time" on the computer where if a car crashes, it rolls over and the windscreen cracks in front of them. The car then immediately rights itself, the windscreen automatically heals itself miraculously and they drive off unscathed with a new life. When they get an Adrenalin rush in a race or a police chase their mind reverts to the computer scenario that they know so well. In their mind, there are no physical consequences and all that matters is the win.

A human being is a product of their past experiences. Look at what the youth of today are feeding their brains with. Therein lies the problem - and not just on the roads. Society used to discourage the young from watching movies with physical violence that was no where near as bad as what there is in G rated computer games now. It's the old computer adage - garbage in garbage out.

[Twisted Tenon]

For the last 20 years or so, our young people have been learning how to drive by playing computer games. Long before the ever get behind the wheel of a real car they already have ingrained bad habits and a poor attitude to safety.

For several years after they get their license, they have more "driving time" on the computer where if a car crashes, it rolls over and the windscreen cracks in front of them. The car then immediately rights itself, the windscreen automatically heals itself miraculously and they drive off unscathed with a new life. When they get an Adrenalin rush in a race or a police chase their mind reverts to the computer scenario that they know so well. In their mind, there are no physical consequences and all that matters is the win.

A human being is a product of their past experiences. Look at what the youth of today are feeding their brains with. Therein lies the problem - and not just on the roads. Society used to discourage the young from watching movies with physical violence that was no where near as bad as what there is in G rated computer games now. It's the old computer adage - garbage in garbage out.

Not sure that your analogy is a good one Doug. There are numerous studies which indicate that kids can differentiate between reality and what’s on a computer screen. But I agree that there needs to be significant amounts of desentitisation in order for juveniles offenders to behave the way they do. It’s all about the family/community (or lack of it in some instances) which are the significant contributors towards juvenile delinquency. Unemployment , poverty and community expectations are significant contributors to this.

TT

[doug3030]

Not sure that your analogy is a good one Doug. There are numerous studies which indicate that kids can differentiate between reality and what’s on a computer screen.

Computer gaming is a multi-billion industry which can afford to fund research to support ANYTHING that is in their own best interest, true or not.

[Twisted Tenon]

Computer gaming is a multi-billion industry which can afford to fund research to support ANYTHING that is in their own best interest, true or not.

Im not resourcing data from the computer industry for this Doug. There are a lot of independent, peer reviewed papers which support the thesis that kids can differentiate between what they see on a computer screen and reality. While it was a long time ago that I was researching this, I would be surprised if this has changed.

TT

[doug3030]

Can you post a link to one?

[Twisted Tenon]

Can you post a link to one?

Sure. I’ll have a look at my stuff. I finished my degree in 2000 but still have my essays in a folder somewhere. It was a Social Welfare degree which majored in Juvenile Justice. One paper I remember noted that TV could exert an influence in a home environment which placed it on a pedestle. So if no one in the family was allowed to speak or interrupt while theTV was on, there was a likelihood that what was seen on TV was likely to be treated as gospel. You’ve only got to look at The guff on American cable TV re Trump/Clinton that was treated as truth to realise that there is more at play than just the fact that “it was on TV”. I’ll have a look and see if there is any recent data on this too.

TT

[ian]

Not sure that your analogy is a good one Doug. I tend to agree.

I haven't seen the papers myself, but I'm told that adults who play driving simulator games -- and I'm not sure if in this context an adult is older than 18 or 21 or some other age -- drive more aggressively, especially in respect to tail gating, but have fewer rear end crashes than adults who don't play those sorts of games.

If you want an analogy, the airline industry and military make extensive use of simulators to train pilots and some simulators can be programmed to perform aerodynamically impossible feats -- like flying a 737 under the Harbour Bridge vertically.

[rustynail]

Virtual reality is exactly that - virtual. Not quite the real thing. This can lead to trouble in a dangerous situation. As an addition to the real thing, when the real thing is not available, can be a a handy tool. To consider it an alternative becomes the folly of fools. I don't know how many times I have had to "snap" my kids back into reality, as they attempt to take on projects well outside their comfort zones. Work experience, internships, apprenticeships all provide the student with real life training.

[Twisted Tenon]

Can you post a link to one?

Hi Doug
So, went to look for my electronic files and realised that all my early essays were written in Claris Works which became Apple Works. I should be able to open the docs as RTF in Word but it aint playin. In any case most of my older stuff was obtained in hard copy because the interwebby wasn't cranked up in the 90"s.

I have located some recent papers as below. The last link is to an article which leans towards your theory I think.

TT
<style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:Cambria; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0mm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {mso-style-noshow:yes; color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {mso-style-noshow:yes; color:purple; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} @page Section1 {size:595.0pt 842.0pt; margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt; mso-header-margin:35.4pt; mso-footer-margin:35.4pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style> APA Review Confirms Link Between Playing Violent Video Games and Aggression (http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2015/08/violent-video-games.aspx)


Do video games make people violent? - BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-33960075)


https://videogames.procon.org/


Impact Of Television In Relation To Juvenile Delinquency - Free Coursework from Essay.uk.com, the UK essay, dissertation and coursework writing company (http://www.essay.uk.com/coursework/impact-of-television-in-relation-to-juvenile-delinquency.php)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jordanshapiro/2014/08/27/a-surprising-new-study-on-how-video-games-impact-children/#33051cbb7556


http://time.com/34075/how-violent-video-games-change-kids-attitudes-about-aggression/

[doug3030]

I have located some recent papers as below. The last link is to an article which leans towards your theory I think.

I had a quick read through them all and I can't see one article that really contradicts what I said. I think all the articles at some point said that exposure to media violence at some level impacts upon behaviour. I had never meant to imply that every kid who plays violent driving games will become a killer on the road - just that some, who may overdo the exposure or be more susceptible to the influence due to other environmental factors may get pushed over the line. Others who have not gone that far may still be acting more aggressively than they would have done without some level of exposure to that environment.

I doubt anyone could read those articles objectively and say that they conclude that video games do not have an affect on people.

<style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:Cambria; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0mm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {mso-style-noshow:yes; color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {mso-style-noshow:yes; color:purple; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} @page Section1 {size:595.0pt 842.0pt; margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt; mso-header-margin:35.4pt; mso-footer-margin:35.4pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style>

[Twisted Tenon]

I had a quick read through them all and I can't see one article that really contradicts what I said. I think all the articles at some point said that exposure to media violence at some level impacts upon behaviour. I had never meant to imply that every kid who plays violent driving games will become a killer on the road - just that some, who may overdo the exposure or be more susceptible to the influence due to other environmental factors may get pushed over the line. Others who have not gone that far may still be acting more aggressively than they would have done without some level of exposure to that environment.

I doubt anyone could read those articles objectively and say that they conclude that video games do not have an affect on people.

<style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:Cambria; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0mm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi; mso-ansi-language:EN-US;} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink {mso-style-noshow:yes; color:blue; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {mso-style-noshow:yes; color:purple; text-decoration:underline; text-underline:single;} @page Section1 {size:595.0pt 842.0pt; margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt; mso-header-margin:35.4pt; mso-footer-margin:35.4pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style>

Yes the thrust of some the articles was that video games may have a causal effect on violent behaviour but that more research was needed to confirm this and to measure the extent of the influence. Some of the articles indicated that violent video games on their own were unlikely to have a long term affects on violent behaviour unless this was supported by a peer group.



For the last 20 years or so, our young people have been learning how to drive by playing computer games. Long before the ever get behind the wheel of a real car they already have ingrained bad habits and a poor attitude to safety.

I wonder if for the past 20 years our YP have been instead learning to win at a video game. Again the research seems to support the idea that YP can tell the difference between a video game and reality.

For several years after they get their license, they have more "driving time" on the computer where if a car crashes, it rolls over and the windscreen cracks in front of them. The car then immediately rights itself, the windscreen automatically heals itself miraculously and they drive off unscathed with a new life. When they get an Adrenalin rush in a race or a police chase their mind reverts to the computer scenario that they know so well. In their mind, there are no physical consequences and all that matters is the win.

I think that it is more likely that our P plate drivers suffer from the 6' tall and bullet proof syndrome. I lived on my reflexes for the first 2 years of driving. Hence the very restrictive red & green P plate system which is designed to slow down young males. I know women can get toey behind the wheel but it is nothing like a bunch of hyped up males. I have one son and two daughters, boy was there a difference between their driving styles.

Having said that, I for a fact know that during the 90's certain young males would steal a Porsche or something similar and drive to a police station, rev it up and enjoy the ensuing police chase. The police seemed to enjoy it too. There was some rule that once they were caught they went quietly and all was good. I think this supports the view that this behaviour if supported by a peer group is more likely to happen. Mind you after chatting with these manchilds it was a case of much regret after acting in haste and repenting in leisure.

A human being is a product of their past experiences. Look at what the youth of today are feeding their brains with. Therein lies the problem - and not just on the roads. Society used to discourage the young from watching movies with physical violence that was no where near as bad as what there is in G rated computer games now. It's the old computer adage - garbage in garbage out.

Agreed there is a lot of garbage going in. I can't remember the exact numbers, but someone has done a survey of the television a child is likely to watch and has calculated that by the age of ten they will have witnessed several thousand murders, and other acts of violence. Again there is evidence that a family's support will ameliorate the impact this has on the child.


I think that alone video games will not cause violence, but when when a young person exhibits violent behaviour, you will find video games present along with DV in the family, absent fathers, illicit drug use, poverty, a peer group that supports violence, anger etc. Therefore your analogy of GIGO is correct.

TT

[woodPixel]

Shame FIFA world Cup won't make me a better soccer player :)

[Twisted Tenon]

Man kills mother during tantrum over video games, police say (http://www.smh.com.au/world/man-kills-mother-during-tantrum-over-video-games-police-say-20180113-h0hzc5.html)

Food for thought?

TT

[rob streeper]

Ryan was a neighbor and family friend. CHP: Wrong way driver in I-5 fatal head-on crash may have been suicidal | KRCR (http://krcrtv.com/news/shasta-county/chp-wrong-way-driver-in-i-5-fatal-head-on-crash-may-have-been-suicidal)