[AshSimmonds]

http://carsguide.news.com.au/site/motoring-news/story/speed_limits_put_into_context/

Speed limits put into context

Karla Pincott
The emphasis authorities put on speeding is out of proportion to the accident risk.

The experience in Germany also shows those who drive fast often pay better attention to their driving, says Ulrich Mellinghoff, head of safety design and development at Mercedes-Benz.

Mellinghoff says while speed is not limited on the German autobahns, data over the past 30 years has shown the country has a low accident rate compared to other European countries.

“We have seen ... that people who drive rather fast are much more concentrated on driving,” he says. “So their risk of having an accident is not higher than those who drive only 100km/h or so.”

While Australian authorities have suggested that advanced levels of driver training encourage people to take higher risks — resulting in more accidents — Mellinghoff says research shows advanced training reduces both the number and severity of accidents.

“We have been doing driver schools for 30 years and what we have found is that almost 80percent of drivers — as an example — are not able to make an emergency brake, together with trying to steer around a critical situation,” he says.

“So I'm absolutely convinced that a driver school helps to reduce the accident rate.”

Mellinghoff says another critical factor in the accident rate is mixed traffic on the road system.

“In Germany, on the highways, there are only about 600 fatalities peryear, while on our normal roads where you have crossing traffic, you have about 3500 killed per year,” he says.

“Also, on highways we have three or four times as much traffic as the other roads.

“This shows how important it is to separate the traffic — people with cars from people on bicycles or pedestrians — how important it is to have perfect road conditions.”

Mellinghoff says with the right infrastructure you not only reduce the risk of accident, you avoid it completely.

[Aircon]

i have never in my life heard that!

"While Australian authorities have suggested that advanced levels of driver training encourage people to take higher risks — resulting in more accidents — Mellinghoff says research shows advanced training reduces both the number and severity of accidents."

did the "australian authorites" really say that?

[AshSimmonds]

did the "australian authorites" really say that?

No official standing that I can find.

http://www.racq.com.au/cps/rde/xchg/racq_cms_production/hs.xsl/Motoring_Road_Safety_Foun_motor_roadsafety_roadusereducdrivers_ENA_HTML.htm

Unfortunately, there is a link between increased skill and increased risk-taking, a phenomenon called optimum bias or unrealistic optimism.  For example, if taught emergency braking or swerving procedures, some drivers may believe they are better than average and practice such advanced tasks at inappropriate times and locations.  Thus, the driver may be twice or four times as likely to get out of an accident situation but ten times more likely to allow themselves to get into it.

Therefore, with any encouragement of drivers to seek further driver training and education, there needs to be safeguards in place so that drivers do not become overconfident in their own abilities.  Post-licence driver training and/or education should emphasize the cognitive aspects of the driving task, i.e., the need for driver awareness and concentration, hazard perception, risk assessment, alertness, appropriate behaviour and attitude.

http://203.184.70.2/wps/wcm/resources/file/eb1a9e402b4b02c/driver%20training%20monograph.pdf

Some young or recently licensed drivers attend post-licence driver training courses with the belief that this may improve their driving skills and reduce crash risk. At face value, this has some intuitive appeal. New drivers are at greatest crash risk in the first six months of solo
driving (34). However, there would appear to be little evidence that training programs undertaken by young and/or recently licensed drivers are effective in reducing crash risk or traffic violations (35-37). Such training often leads to an increase in confidence and optimism bias (ie where novices can believe that they are more skillful than they actually are) and sometimes an increase in crash risk for novices, particularly young males (10, 13, 30).

From a theoretical perspective, there is support for the development and application of programs that target optimism bias, over-confidence and attitudinal or motivational factors that influence driving behaviour (17, 29, 38-39). Several programs using this approach - sometimes referred to as “Insight” training - have been trialled in Sweden (40) and the Netherlands (41) in recent years. Evaluations using behavioural rather than crash-based methods have been undertaken. However, there is little evidence thus far that this type of training reduces
crash/violation risk among novices as few crash-based studies of these newer approaches to training have been completed.

[AshSimmonds]

This little stat was interesting:
http://www.racq.com.au/cps/rde/xchg/racq_cms_production/hs.xsl/Motoring_Road_Safety_Foun_motor_roadsafety_roadusereducdrivers_ENA_HTML.htm

In Queensland, crashes involving fleet vehicles account for 25% of road fatalities

[AshSimmonds]

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/carsguide/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/cancel_the_rtas_license/

CANCEL THE RTA’S LICENSE

Paul Pottinger

If the RTA’s tenure was linked to performance, it’d be queuing at Centrelink. If the RTA was a horse, it’d be en route to the cat food factory.

Of all the relieved sighs that filled the horribly hot night air that state election night almost 12 months ago, by far the loudest came from those who sit atop the RTA’s Tower of Babel in Centennial Plaza.

The sight of Peter Debnam’s budgie smugglers and the ominous sound of happily clapping religious zealots had seen NSW return the most intellectually and morally bankrupt government since the Rum Corps.

Morris Minor, Costa-living and the whole crew of terminal underachievers were handed another 48 months – the first 12 of which has seen them act about as responsibly and accountably as that emaciated brat in the stupid sunglasses would if tossed a six pack of alcoholic lemonade and the keys to a Ferrari.

So too has the other bunch who were reprieved that night; the disorganization popularly known as the Road Tolls Authority.

We can’t know how a government led by Debnam and the Nat’s Andrew Stoner would have been, expect that we can be certain they wouldn’t have been any more feckless.

Or if they would have fulfilled their promise to break up the RTA like the rotten hulk it is and re-create separate agencies for licensing and roads.

The RTA’s approach to its dual responsibilities has been even-handed. It’s failed to fulfill both roles with equal incompetence.

Pray consider:

• The Lane Cove Tunnel
• The expenditure of more than half its budget on advertising and consultants
* The hiring of consultants because (They had a sign on their door which read “consultants” and must have some sort of idea, right?)
• The funneling of Epping Rd (Is that enough traffic now, Mr Tunnel Operator?)
• The fresh-air and wide open lanes of the M5
• The lack of flashing lights at 40km/h school zones (Well, you can’t fine drivers if they slow down)
• The speed cameras with the accuracy of Steve Bucknor (Don’t worry, they’ll never take it to court. Oh bugger ...)
• The $2 million campaign to encourage obscene gestures (Sure the pinkie wiggler was kicked to death, but we’re reducing the road toll)
• The refusal to teach drivers how to drive (Teaching them to use brakes just encouraged them to speed)
• The banning of the safest cars in the world to P-Platers
• The road safety policy maker whose kept his job for 28 years despite the continuingly disproportionate numbers of dead P-Platers
• The elderly gentleman who was failed by one RTA instructor for failing to look over his shoulder, then failed by another for looking over his shoulder too frequently.

There’s more. As I’m sure you can add.

Alright, we’ve got another 36 months of the Iemmagumment. Longer if the alternative proves as unpalatable next time as it was last year.

But wouldn’t it be worth voting for anyone willing to cancel the RTA’s license?

[AshSimmonds]

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23533420-5001021,00.html

THE traditional roadside speed trap along with a dressing down by a police officer is disappearing fast as figures show police-issued speeding fines have plummeted by 44 per cent - or 158,000 - over the past four years.

Even on public holiday double-demerit weekends, when campaigns warn of enforcement, police are issuing about a third fewer fines than several years ago, figures show.

A Daily Telegraph investigation can reveal police issued just 202,850 speeding fines last year compared with 360,892 in 2003-04.

At the same time the number of fines issued by fixed speed cameras is soaring, putting highway patrol officers out of a job.

The number of fines issued by fixed speed cameras soared to 620,194 last year, doubling revenue in just 12 months, as dozens of new machines are used to enforce school zones.

NRMA president Alan Evans yesterday said the State Government was making a mistake if it was relying on fixed cameras to make the roads safer.

He said enforcement by police offered better road safety dividends than enforcement by fixed cameras.

"All the research shows that a police presence is the best deterrent," he said.

There was little value in having a motorist find out weeks after an offence that they have been caught speeding by a fixed camera.

In the 30 days of double demerits in 2007, police issued 30,164 fines while speed cameras generated 42,494.

While the number of police-issued fines was fewer, the focus was on more serious speeding offences.

Police fines were worth $6,048,846 while the speed cameras had a total fine value of $4,421,386.

The Daily Telegraph was inundated with emails last month after revealing how 87 per cent of motorists caught speeding by fixed cameras last year were in breach of the minimum, exceeding the limit by less than 15km/h.

[Aircon]

i recently got included in that 87%

grrrrrrr

can only blame me.

[leburpor]

I hate this topic.....I hate Vic cops...5kmh over the limit, in a 100kmh zone, and I get a fine. Probably be less safer now that I have to watch my speedo more often to ensure I don't go over by 5%!! *%#()&%#! @#$)(@#$)(@#$)(*#@!!!....

[Aircon]

I hate this topic.....I hate Vic cops...5kmh over the limit, in a 100kmh zone, and I get a fine. Probably be less safer now that I have to watch my speedo more often to ensure I don't go over by 5%!! *%#()&%#! @#$)(@#$)(@#$)(*#@!!!....

at least you have cruise control!

you should have bought a porsche...they have it too.

[leburpor]

at least you have cruise control!

you should have bought a porsche...they have it too.

due to past experiences, I would very seldom use cruise control if I'm driving by myself. Driving alone is boring enough and one less physical activity will bring me one step closer to Zzzz-land 

yea, the vibration and noise in the Porshe would keep me more alert..