RTA/RACV/RACQ etc: The ultimate nanny-state agencies? (2 Viewers)

[murphyad]

OK, so this topic may seem a bit left-of-centre for the NCAP forum, but nevertheless, I couldn't help getting angry when I read this article:

http://www.caradvice.com.au/50781/nsw-state-wide-speed-limit-90kmh/

I guess anyone who's read my posting on this forum would know that I'm not a huge fan of the libertarian school of thought. But fuck me, I am sick to death of the constant incursions and regulations surrounding road usage in this country. Aside from having zero effect on the road toll, the draconian bullshit emanating from the RTA is responsible for community disenchantment with law-enforcement agencies and relies solely on the use of fear to make an invalid point, typified by those endless 'shock-and-awe' ads that generate more than a third of total automobile-related advertising standards complaints from citizens.

And the Queensland equivalent, the RACQ, is just as bad. The other day I heard on the news that a new tunnel in Brisbane is going to have 8 speed cameras.....in 7 km. That means that unwitting drivers going 5k's over could lose their license in the space of about 10 minutes and be slugged with a zillion-dollar fine to boot. What a complete joke.

Clem 7 Motorists May Be Fined For Speeding Twice

I dunno if anyone else feels strongly about this issue, but I believe there is a strong case to be made for a different kind of 'enforcement' regarding speed on our roads, as well as the need for an entirely different culture within our road-safety agencies that are supposed to be saving lives, not making bucketloads of money for the state.

Thoughts?

EDIT: Thanks to those who have updated me on the differences between the RTA and the RACV/RACQ.

 

[loquasagacious]

Why do you think central planning/regulations will work for the economy if you don't think they work for the roads?

 

[aussie-boy]

Of course its BS...
There are many freeways in NSW with a design speed of 130km/h - yet we are limited to 110kmh

NB RACQ/RACV are NRMA equivalents - i.e. organisations which started as royal automobile clubs, set up to campaign for better roads and the rights of motorists... get your facts right

 

[Azarnakumar]

OK, so this topic may seem a bit left-of-centre for the NCAP forum, but nevertheless, I couldn't help getting angry when I read this article:

http://www.caradvice.com.au/50781/nsw-state-wide-speed-limit-90kmh/

I guess anyone who's read my posting on this forum would know that I'm not a huge fan of the libertarian school of thought. But fuck me, I am sick to death of the constant incursions and regulations surrounding road usage in this country. Aside from having zero effect on the road toll, the draconian bullshit emanating from the RTA is responsible for community disenchantment with law-enforcement agencies and relies solely on the use of fear to make an invalid point, typified by those endless 'shock-and-awe' ads that generate more than a third of total automobile-related advertising standards complaints from citizens.

And the Queensland equivalent, the RACQ, is just as bad. The other day I heard on the news that a new tunnel in Brisbane is going to have 8 speed cameras.....in 7 km. That means that unwitting drivers going 5k's over could lose their license in the space of about 10 minutes and be slugged with a zillion-dollar fine to boot. What a complete joke.

Clem 7 Motorists May Be Fined For Speeding Twice

I dunno if anyone else feels strongly about this issue, but I believe there is a strong case to be made for a different kind of 'enforcement' regarding speed on our roads, as well as the need for an entirely different culture within our road-safety agencies that are supposed to be saving lives, not making bucketloads of money for the state.

Thoughts?

dudette

- when you own the road you can decide the regulations ok

- um what, i believe you will find that most RTA policies are aimed at reducing the road toll and are based on solid scientific evidence but whateva, what would those engineers and science guys know about statistics and physics

- their point is very valid, a 90km speed limit is beneficial in a lot of ways. for example:

- lower speeds have been shown to reduce the incidences and severity of crashes
- the extra travel time is insignificant and does not significantly increase fatigue levels
- speed is a contributing factor in the majority of fatal crashes, reducing the speed limit THUS increasing penalties for speeds like 120km/h will reduce incidences and severity of crashes. fatigue is nto a factor in as many crashes, therefore even if it was significantly affected, it would still be beneficial.

m8

 

[aussie-boy]

- when you own the road you can decide the regulations ok

I pay tax ... I own the road

- um what, i believe you will find that most RTA policies are aimed at reducing the road toll and are based on solid scientific evidence but whateva, what would those engineers and science guys know about statistics and physics

The people setting these limits are public servants (bureaucrats) - the few RTA engineers are busy building roads.

An engineer who has built a road for 130km/h travel would set a 130km/h speed limit.

- their point is very valid, a 90km speed limit is beneficial in a lot of ways. for example:

- lower speeds have been shown to reduce the incidences and severity of crashes
- the extra travel time is insignificant and does not significantly increase fatigue levels
- speed is a contributing factor in the majority of fatal crashes, reducing the speed limit THUS increasing penalties for speeds like 120km/h will reduce incidences and severity of crashes. fatigue is nto a factor in as many crashes, therefore even if it was significantly affected, it would still be beneficial.

m8

Where's your evidence?
Severity of crashes increasing at higher speeds is obvious... incidence is debatable

NB: Even if you consider figures which support your POV, you must consider that:
*people who speed are generally more dangerous drivers
*it is exceptionally dangerous driving significantly faster than nearby cars

A recent article in SMH Drive provided a decent analysis of the above and concluded in favour of higher speed limits

NB: Fatigue contributes to ~18% of crashes

 

[banco55]

dudette

- when you own the road you can decide the regulations ok

- um what, i believe you will find that most RTA policies are aimed at reducing the road toll and are based on solid scientific evidence but whateva, what would those engineers and science guys know about statistics and physics



m8

RTA is at least as concerned with revenue raising as they are with road safety.

 

[incentivation]

If Australians were more proficient drivers then the need for regulation would be far less; much like our incessant passion for binge drinking. It seems we have a genetic predisposition for ignoring 'sensibleness', despite education or up-skilling.

We know the risks, don't have the skills yet continue to do it anyway. Thus, the government feels a need to reduce the number of incidents by regulating.

Despite the substantial increases in the population and volume of vehicles on the road over the past two to three decades, the death toll in 2009 is substantially lower than years gone by; partly due to a greater regulatory regime.

 

[murphyad]

If Australians were more proficient drivers then the need for regulation would be far less; much like our incessant passion for binge drinking. It seems we have a genetic predisposition for ignoring 'sensibleness', despite education or up-skilling.

We know the risks, don't have the skills yet continue to do it anyway. Thus, the government feels a need to reduce the number of incidents by regulating.

Yes but that's no excuse for a bad fix. The primary difference between us and countries with lower per-capita road tolls is primarily due to driver training; in some countries such as Japan, Germany and France, getting a license can actually constitute a major expense, due to the far superior driver training involved.

There are measures we can take to improve road safety awareness, yet the authorities responsible would rather consolidate speed-camera revenue. What about proper driver training for young drivers, including limit handling/skid correction training, as well as a proper driving test? It's 2009, yet the hardest manoeuvre in the NSW driving test is a reverse park. This is a poor method for equipping young drivers to face the perils of the road. What about compulsory license tests every 5/10 years, including training for anyone who fails? This is the sort of enforcement we need, as opposed to the stop-gap 'speeding kills' rubbish that currently substitutes for proper policy.

Despite the substantial increases in the population and volume of vehicles on the road over the past two to three decades, the death toll in 2009 is substantially lower than years gone by; partly due to a greater regulatory regime.

Unfortunately, that's incorrect. In NSW, for instance, the road toll has experienced a dramatic spike this year:

NSW road toll nearly 100 higher than this time last year

There is no definitive trend to suggest that the road toll is improving. In fact, in some places in the country (NT) it has become significantly worse in the last two years. This is despite the huge advances in car safety throughout the aggregate national fleet. For forty years, the road toll steadily decreased, despite growing numbers of cars on our roads. In the early 1990's, the road toll flatlined, just around the time when road authorities began to peddle their 'speeding kills' nonsense, and this flatline continues today.

The RTA (et al) is a surgeon with a knife, who thinks that stabbing it deeper into the heart of his patient is going to fix the problem. This is patently untrue. It's time for a fresh approach.

 

[incentivation]

Unfortunately, that's incorrect. In NSW, for instance, the road toll has experienced a dramatic spike this year:

NSW road toll nearly 100 higher than this time last year

There is no definitive trend to suggest that the road toll is improving. In fact, in some places in the country (NT) it has become significantly worse in the last two years. This is despite the huge advances in car safety throughout the aggregate national fleet. For forty years, the road toll steadily decreased, despite growing numbers of cars on our roads. In the early 1990's, the road toll flatlined, just around the time when road authorities began to peddle their 'speeding kills' nonsense, and this flatline continues today.

You can't use a one-yearly trend to discredit a two decade trend.

Greater regulation of our roads, including Random Breath Testing, has had a profound influence on road safety.

For instance, a comparison of 1997 vs 2007.

1997 http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/downloads/accidentstats1997.pdf

Fatal accidents 525 1.0 -13 -2.4
Serious injury accidents 4,950 9.9 -4 -0.1
Other injury accidents 13,377 26.7 -1,170 -8.0
Injury accidents 18,327 36.6 -1,174 -6.0
Non-casualty accidents 31,268 62.4 -1,076 -3.3
Total recorded accidents 50,120 100.0 -2,263 -4.3
CASUALTIES
Killed 576 2.3 -5 -0.9
Seriously injured 6,147 24.6 +70 +1.2
Other injured 18,307 73.1 -1,645 -8.2
Total injured 24,454 97.7 -1,575 -6.1
Total casualties 25,030 100.0 -1,580 -5.9
VEHICLES ON REGISTER1 3,417,200 +54,200 +1.6
Fatalities per 10,000 vehicles 1.69 -2.4

2007 http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/downloads/accidentstats2007.pdf

CRASHES
Fatal crashes 405 0.9 -44 -9.8
Injury crashes 19,914 43.9 +251 +1.3
Non-casualty crashes 25,076 55.2 -340 -1.3
Total recorded crashes 45,395 100.0 -133 -0.3
CASUALTIES
Killed 435 1.7 -61 -12.3
Injured 25,845 98.3 +406 +1.6
Total casualties 26,280 100.0 +345 +1.3
VEHICLES ON REGISTER1 4,310,600 +90,500 +2.1
Fatalities per 10,000 vehicles 1.01

The key figure of course is last.

This comparison is of a recent trend. If one was to look at the trends across the last two to three decades the difference is even more stark.

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/downloads/100yearson1.pdf

The two decades 1983 to 2003 emhpasises the true trend. The key data missing from this analysis of course is the ratio of fatalities to registered vehicles or licensed drivers.

Education has undoubtedly assisted in the road safety campaign, however, that does not diminish the value of regulation. Anomalies such as this years road toll inevitably occur and shouldn't prompt a reduction in road safety related regulations. If the trend continues, then of course such moves should be considered, however until then, it is just rampant journalistic sensationalism.

 

[KFunk]

Unfortunately, that's incorrect. In NSW, for instance, the road toll has experienced a dramatic spike this year:

NSW road toll nearly 100 higher than this time last year

Complete speculation on my part: financial crisis induced suicide?

 

[SylviaB]

Why do you think central planning/regulations will work for the economy if you don't think they work for the roads?

hey fag answer this :O :O

 

[katietheskatie]

aren't the rta and racq entirely different things

racq is like nrma or whatever, like they come and tow you if you're broken down/you pay for yearly membership and get discounts to places etc .. as a fuckwit that has never been taught to change a tire, i appreciate the racq very much

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

Complete speculation on my part: financial crisis induced suicide?

Not to mention that the road toll should, on average, increase each year along with population increase.

Some sort of per capita measure might make more sense.

But again, one data point is not a trend.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Despite the substantial increases in the population and volume of vehicles on the road over the past two to three decades, the death toll in 2009 is substantially lower than years gone by; partly due to a greater regulatory regime.

correlation /= causation

 

[Mu5hi]

Come down to sydney, you cant go over 40km/s anyways so i could care regardless what the speed limit is.

 

[murphyad]

You can't use a one-yearly trend to discredit a two decade trend.

Greater regulation of our roads, including Random Breath Testing, has had a profound influence on road safety.

Granted, maybe that was a bit of a cheap shot. The last link you provided was actually quite interesting, despite the fact that it stopped at 2003 - I would be interested to see the data on the next 6 years. What is clear from the graph is that some methods of regulation work, while others clearly do not. The massive decline in fatalities per 100K are a result of the introduction of the RBT as you state. However, from 1999-2003, road fatalities per 100K went from 10.8 to 8. This is a far lower decline, despite the huge leaps and bounds in car safety since that time. The flatlining road toll figure itself has publicly been admitted as a problem by the RTA, whose own strategies to reduce it have utterly failed. However, I guess this point is not really complete without more recent data.

Education has undoubtedly assisted in the road safety campaign, however, that does not diminish the value of regulation. Anomalies such as this years road toll inevitably occur and shouldn't prompt a reduction in road safety related regulations. If the trend continues, then of course such moves should be considered, however until then, it is just rampant journalistic sensationalism.

Yes, but should it require an increase in regulations? As far as I'm concerned, road 'regulations' are so varied in nature that it is difficult to conflate them as a single group. For instance, drink-driving regulations have been a resounding success, while anti-speeding and young-driver ones have perhaps not been. Hence we need to look at the type of regulation being considered and the odds are on that (say) an increase in driver training requirements as opposed to a reduction in speed limits is going to have that affect on the road toll that the authorities are looking for.

 

[Napstar]

Complete speculation on my part: financial crisis induced suicide?

Kamikazi Mercedes drivers. The *horror*

 

[David Spade]

Hey guys it doesnt matter how concerned the RTA is with revenue raising really. You pay to use their roads.

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2008/9782940395040_eng.pdf

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/downloads/200908_newell_highway_safety_review.pdf

Newell Highway reduced speed limit

You cannot deny that:

a) lower speeds = less severe crashes
b) lower speeds = less incidence of crashes
c) lower speeds =/= significantly increase travel times thus fatigue levels

so lol what have you got against a lower speed limit really? Sure it may be revnue raising but it is also a valid safety policy.


Best regards
Roads Engineer

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

correlation /= causation

Uhg, please don't start sounding like a Slashtard. I mean, it's always an important thing to consider, but what other explanations are even plausible? Are airbags really that successful? One could tell by comparing the crash rate to the fatality rate I guess.

 

[Planck]

You cannot deny that:

a) lower speeds = less severe crashes
b) lower speeds = less incidence of crashes
c) lower speeds =/= significantly increase travel times thus fatigue levels

so lol what have you got against a lower speed limit really? Sure it may be revnue raising but it is also a valid safety policy.


Best regards
Roads Engineer

I think it is more that speed isn't the primary determinant in car accidents, given that poor driver control of the vehicle, fatigue, etc are all much more likely to lead to a crash.

Speeding in and of itself does not tend towards an increase in crashes.

Physics though, does show that through conservation of momentum, the faster a motherfucker is going, the more dead y'all gone be.