If anyone reading this has read my column before (repeat business? Yay!), you'll know that a certain few things tend to give me the shits on a regular basis. I'm sure I've had a whinge about this particular topic in the past; but a few recent events have brought it to the fore again.
The thing I'm talking about is policing of road safety; and in particular, "speeding" and speed fines.
As I said, it's always bothered me a little. I mean, in some ways it can make sense; if everyone's kept to the same speed then there's little speed difference and less chance for a crash to occur. And also that there are many, many bad drivers out there; the speed limits have to be set to cater for those people with an innate inability to drive. And also that the number of crashes is increasing, and that cars are big killers and people recklessly driving over the speed limit are causing carnage out on our roads ...
The problem is, so much of this is crap! And the amount of crap seems to have built up recently, such that sensible, thinking drivers really have to question the motives of those who're mandating the methods used to enforce road laws for our safety.
OK, number one was the rubbish that resulted from the extra deaths over the Christmas period this year. There seemed to be no questions asked about what caused it. In NSW, the media was full of appeals from the police services for people to slow down to the speed limit. Which does make some sense, if exceeding the speed limit was what caused the crashes in question. But from what I saw, no valid research has ever been undertaken as to whether that was the case - it's just assumed.
So "Great!" thinks I; there'll be a knee-jerk reaction and they'll just go for overkill in vehicle speed enforcement.
There were all sorts of stupid suggestions made from tweed-jacket wearing academics - speed limiters on cars; how dangerous is that? And then at Easter, the police service went all-out to catch people speeding ...
Well, as luck would have it, Easter had perfect weather for driving. Very few crashes occurred; and the police service pats itself on the back for the great work it's done. They seem to ignore the fact that people are still driving stupidly; in fact, if the piss-poor driving I saw on Easter Monday was an example of what was standard over that weekend, I'm surprised we didn't have twice as much carnage as usual. People were overtaking at only 2 km/h faster than the vehicle they were passing, presumably because they were scared of being booked for speeding under the police blitz; I saw so many near side-swipes due to people just not looking it was incredible.
Yet, the police service would tell us they've helped us immeasurably, and that the statistical anomaly was all their doing. The fact that they'd also collected a shitload of revenue didn't seem to be mentioned.
And then we hear about 30 or 40 permanent speed cameras being set up around the state, so that no police presence is needed to enforce speed limits. Or rather, so that manpower doesn't need to be paid for when collecting revenue. And yet, the speed limits are allegedly in place to cater for the lowest common denominator ... so, why is it fair to enforce those limits in perfect conditions when they are by definition too low? Not to mention the fact that speed cameras will happily take a few pikkies and take your licence away without even giving you the chance to slow down ... forget even scaring people into stopping the hideous act that speeding is, it's easier just to extract the money quickly and quietly.
Is it because going faster obviously means larger accidents? Well, yes, I suppose hitting things at higher speeds is going to cause more damage ... but then road crashes aren't just simple straight-line kinetics, are they? Travelling too slowly can result in boredom and a lack of concentration; and we all know how difficult it can be to stick to a low speed limit under certain circumstances, at least without taking your attention away from the road.
Now, just about everyone must have heard about studies conducted in various countries that find no connection at all between exceeding the speed limit and an increase in crashes. Yet the government (the one that keeps spending money on advertisements to tell us how bad speeding is) cannot produce a study which proves any connection between exceeding the speed limit and increased likelihood of crashes.
They point to the fact that more damage happens if you hit something, and they can point out the obvious by saying that driving through a school-zone at 160 km/h can cause death. But they seem unable to come up with a justification for booking people at 10 km/h over the speed limit in perfect highway conditions. And the issue is made even worse when you see roads like the M2 in Sydney, with speed cameras being set up on the verge. Well, that and the fact that you know full well that it was designed for safety at 130 km/h, yet has a paltry 90 km/h limit on it 'cos the locals (who bought cheap land next to a proposed freeway) had a whinge. So, it's safe at 130 km/h, people will exceed those low limits as a result ... the perfect cash cow.
And then the latest MOTOR magazine was delivered the other day, complete with a story entitled "Greed Kills"*. They've assembled a good collection of facts, and some of it is downright scary. When you look at it, you really do wonder if our governments are actively enforcing this "speed kills" myth for the sake of making money, rather than the money just being a side issue.
Get this; road deaths are decreasing, not increasing as they'd have us believe. Try 3321 in 1981, down to 1817 in 2000. Or hospitalisations; down from 31000 in 1982 to 22000 in 1996.
Or how about statistics used to "prove" that travelling at 72 km/h gives the same increase in accident risk over 60 km/h as having a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 ... and yet using 151 crashes compared to 604 non-crashed control vehicles to work that out - who chose those particular crashes out of the 22000?
And how about the fact that the flu killed almost three times as many people in 1997 as road crashes?
And how about the definition of "excessive speed" being so rubbery that the claimed one-third of road crashes allegedly caused by "excessive speed" is quite possibly absolute rubbish?
Or how about the estimated net $40 million earned by the Traffic Services Branch in NSW per year, after expenses? That fact is especially damning when you realise that exceeding the speed limit hasn't been shown to actually be a problem, and that people do truly drive badly - if you look at the money actually put into research trying to stop other deaths and trauma in society, how come money is being made out of speeding instead of being spent on education or something to actually reduce road deaths?
It's an interesting read, and I'd recommend looking at it. I'd also recommend doing what is suggested in MOTOR, and what others have said; quiz your state Member about this sort of thing, and make it known that you believe the situation is ridiculous! OK, there are probably more important issues in society; but that doesn't make this right, it's almost criminal neglect.
Ahh, I feel better now, and will get down from the soap box. Sorry if it might be all a little incoherent, but when you're on a roll ...
And anyway, good things do come along when the bad ones do. By the time you read this, he might have explained his reasons, but Dave Rubie has ditched that German thing and purchased a Volvo. A Volvo family wagon, to be exact. (Dave's story will appear in a few weeks - Ed)
Defend his decision as he might, we all know the real truth; Volvos are just too kewl. Yep, I claim another convert...
* Pages 53-58, June 2001 issue of MOTOR Magazine, ACP Publishing Pty Ltd.
|