Legal Minded, Not So Legal Minded, Opinionated, Maligned, Cheesed Off Or Plain Scared

[Ducati888]

Originally Posted by vztrt

Yes cause every situation is black and white. Increasing the safety of the car doesn't just mean electronics. Its improvements in handling and how well the safety cell will be in a crash. Electronics are helpful and the technology is there so it should be used. Most people aren't as interested as a car enthusiest forum would be.
Maybe the same arguments were being said when they brought in the seat belt laws.

Maybe they were, but to suggest that every car without ESC is "unsafe" is a croc.

ESC cars may be safer, but that doesn't mean that a car without it is unsafe, with its 7 airbags, ABS, collapsible steering column and crumple zones.

Compared to a drum braked FJ Holden, then yes, you could say unsafe, but not compared to cars built in the last ten years. Just "safer", but only in a situation where you were going to crash without ESC, which would be very rare.

If a driver is stupid enough to put their foot down that hard on a gravel road or wet shoulder or grass, and the ESC activates, then maybe the rest of us road users would be better off without that driver on the roads.

It comes back to the competence of the driver again. The features of the car are irrelevant if the driver is incompetent. They'll crash it anyway.

[Autolite]

How about signage to make drivers aware that a mobile speed camera is in the area. ( Not sure about other states but this doesn't happen in Vic.) If this were the case then everyone that can read would do the right thing as apposed to recieving a fine in the mail 2 weeks later.
(I deliberately didn't use the words "Revenue Raising" in my post)

[|||]

the current "club rego" needs to be reformed. make it a nationally recognised restricted rego for restored/modified cars enforced by a log book required to be sighted by the RTA (or equiv) every year.

encourage enthusiasts to use the roads responsibly by allowing them to drive their cars to organised events supported by the police/RTA. this will stop the losers in VT commodores giving enthusiasts a bad name.

enforce large fines & suspension for people on restricted rego who do the wrong thing.

[stang65]

-"Mature (M) plates for older drivers, periodic driver competency testing, starting at retirement age"

I agree with the above but fear the goverment will make it expensive and unecessarily difficult. The test should be more like a 5 to 10 minute drive around the block. It should not be score based ie. out of 100 and it should only be based on confidence and co ordination. Otherwise I feel the elderly are being victimized.

The Idea of M plates is good and also other drivers should cut them some slack on the road and avoid aggressive behaviour(road rage) when they see cars with them. It is easy to change lanes.The elderly still deserve some convenience and not be stripped of their indepenance.

Also I believe the white lines on the roads should reflect the speed limit on that road ie. white 80k yellow 70k orange 60 k etc and also every 100mtrs the speed should be printed in each lane.

[MAD]

To start off with, here's are the notable ones that got my attention, and I like very much...

The proposed tolerance for speeding that does not match the tolerance allowed in car speedos. So a person may be caught speeding when their car actually shows they are not.

Compulsory minimum 3rd party insurance for all motorists.

Heavy policing of headlights at night, including dazzling other drivers with high beams and people who drive with park lights on only.

"Hooning" laws should be rid of entirely. Stick with undue noise and driving dangerousley/etc.

Roadworks signs and speed limits should be removed after hours/on weekends if the road is up to scratch.

An instant prison term (say 1 month?) for anybody caught driving on a disqualified license.

How about more policing of all traffic laws, not just speeding.

all revenue raised by speed fine cameras should go to starlight, red cross, salvos, or some other charitys and not in govco's coffers. (it's not about the money, it's about saving live's)

all prive enterprise must not hold stake in public roads, speed cams and toll's (M2, M5, M7, harbour bridge/tunnel, callhill)

If a driver is found to be using a vehicle which is neither registered, unlicenced or without TPO, then it is impounded for up to 1 month for them to be paid. If not it is crushed or VIN cancelled and vehicle dismantled with money going to victims of motor accidents.

To add to this, I'd like to see a larger focus on courtesy when it comes to driver education. More than just steering it properly.

As part of the license test I would like to see mandatory 'merging requirement'. Too many people just dont get it, but it also goes with above courtesy of other to not close the door on someone merging also.

Where possible I would like to see merging lanes extended so those that dont like to accelerate quickly have more opportunity to reach the traffic flow speed.

More Police focus on 'keep left' and tailgating.


I'm sure I'll think of more too.

[Quicksand]

[QUOTE=Ducati888]

Originally Posted by vztrt

Personally I'd like to see safety in cars bumped up. We still let vehicles in the country that are unsafe. The corolla until recently didn't have ESC as standard.

Are you suggesting, VZTRT, that cars without ESC are unsafe? That's rich.

If you are in a situation where the ESC comes in to play, you have been driving incompetently in the first place. If you are in a situation where ANCAP rating of 5 is required, then the car is written off already, you just most likely walked away.

Perhaps driver competence should outweighs car "safety features". The most variable and unpredicatable safety feature in a car is the bonehead behind the wheel.

For the most part, i like where you are going with this. I do agree that the onus should be more on the driver. But i need to query some of your logic. Are you suggesting that the only time ESC comes into play is through driver incompetence? Do you feel there are no other possible scenarios that require the use of ESC?

Examples may include hitting an oil patch, hitting a small patch of black ice on the road (but still driving safely under the limit and to the conditions), swerving away from an oncoming collision (car, truck, kangaroo), driving at night and seeing something last minute and taking evasive action etc. I think in the situations where you have very little control and very little time to think, cars with ESC ARE safer as (within reason) they increase the chances of coming out unscathed, or worse case scenario alive. In this context, in these situations, cars without ESC are unsafe compared to cars with ESC. I dont think its a silver bullet but anything that increases the probability of survival may be considered a positive thing.

[XESP351]

Overhaul the 'Hoon hotline' system which most states use, IMO this is a token system which exists to show that something is being done about 'hoons'. It is not good enough that there has to be numerous complaints about the same person before a visit by the police is warranted, someone driving extremely dangerously once can kill people the first time he does it, why wait until he does it a few times?

I understand there are problems with authenticity of calls at times and to be honest I dont know how this can be flushed out or eliminated but i do know that the system needs change.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by stang65

-"Mature (M) plates for older drivers, periodic driver competency testing, starting at retirement age"

I agree with the above but fear the goverment will make it expensive and unecessarily difficult. The test should be more like a 5 to 10 minute drive around the block. It should not be score based ie. out of 100 and it should only be based on confidence and co ordination. Otherwise I feel the elderly are being victimized.

The Idea of M plates is good and also other drivers should cut them some slack on the road and avoid aggressive behaviour(road rage) when they see cars with them. It is easy to change lanes.The elderly still deserve some convenience and not be stripped of their indepenance.

Also I believe the white lines on the roads should reflect the speed limit on that road ie. white 80k yellow 70k orange 60 k etc and also every 100mtrs the speed should be printed in each lane.

A few minor issues.

Changing the road line colors is a huge job and in that speed limits tend to change on a very regular basis all over the place will be a nightmare.

The M plate will be an absolute disaster as apart from the huge political clout of grey power how do you qualify it?

By age? There are many 75 year olds who are much better drivers that the majority of 30 year olds. P plates are not for the young they are for those who have only just got their license (most of whom, but not all, are young)

How about treating the whole system like aviation.

Medicals:
Private drivers less then 40, every 4 years; 40-65, every 2 years; over 65 every year.
Professional drivers less than 40, every 2 years; 40-65 every year; over 65 not available.

Biennial driving review (written and practical):
Private drivers every 2 years
Professional drivers every year.

(Professional driver = taxi, truck, bus, limo, pizza delivery, emergency services etc. Yes I know some already have this)

Annual roadworthiness check including emissions and "aging vehicle roadworthiness" schedules to ensure that older vehicles are as safe as possible for normal road use.
Collectable vehicles (like warbirds) should be exempt from this schedule as long as they are permenantly club rego only.

Endorsments:

At the moment the only endorsments are manual trans, bike up to 250, open bike and light truck (excluding professional vehicles)

Endorsments for towing, pillion on bike, dirt roads, FWD, RWD, AWD, 4WD over 2t gross would ensure that the driver understands the operation of the vehicle and can control it.
Right now a person can do a driving test in a Hyundai Getz and the next day tow a 30ft caravan behind a turbo V8 diesel 4WD on a dirt highway.

Of course the nett effect is that the majority of drivers and cars will be thrown off the road and not allowed on until they comply which will lead to screaming from minority groups that it is too hard and too expensive.

Well I suppose we could always let them on anyway just ensure that when they prang they get doctors that have failed their exams and are admitted to hospitals that are sub standard (hey QLD Health needs the money)

Or am I being too cynical......

[aussiblue]

People of retirement age (65) should be tested every 2 years, with a Government subsidy for pensioners.

I can't support that and on the face of the statistical evidence it would be impossible to mount any objective argument for it as (see page 3 of the thread http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthr...0&page=3&pp=30 the 60 to 69 age group is the lowest risk group).

Yes there is a case for the over 70's although putting everyone from 70 to 120 in the same grouping perhaps distorts some of those statistics too (perhaps the 85 plus are doing all the damage).

And stop picking on us oldies. I do support more realistic and tolerent hoon laws and CTP.

I would also like a system of coloured roadside lines indicating the speed limit as used in other countries so a quick glance to the left would all that is needed to verify the speed limit.

Depending on what it covered, advanced driving training for new drivers may not necessarily produce the desired results either. Some research in corporations that sent their employee drivers on such courses found that where it involved skid pan work and the like, it made the drivers overconfident in their abilities and actually increased their accident rate. Given overconfidence in their own ability is already known factor in new driver caused accidents it might just exacerbate the problem.

Better maintained and designed roads are the best thing to decrease road fatalities but they cost especially in a low population density country like Australia,

[SSD-85]

If an article I read in Street machine is indeed correct, it is something id like to gone. It apparently is that a vehicle manufactured before 1989 that has been modified from that year onwards cannot be imported into Australia.

A summary of my opinion is that modification laws in Australia should not be getting less favourable for us, the enthusiasts. Stay the way they are at the very least.

Also, better and more regular upkeep of this country's roads is something id like to see. I am tired of the bashing both me and my car recieve on these "roads".

[snappy]

Haven't read all the posts but two things i would like to see is anyone traveling 5kph or less then the posted speed limit in the right hand or middle lane to punished (but actually enforce it as well at the very least for the sanity of truck drivers now).

An tailgaters i sit on 102kph all the time on the highway and allways keep as far left as possible but i still get people tailgating me . An triple the punishment for tailgaiting truck drivers nothing scares me more on the road then a 20 tonne truck with the braking ability of falling piano sitting up my rear and expecially in stormy poor visability sititations.

[aussiblue]

i would like to see is anyone traveling 5kph or less then the posted speed limit in the right hand or middle lane to punish

Would be a bit tough in parts of Perth where we have a freeway with several right hand lane exits (Freeway northbound through CDB exits to Charles St and Mitchell Freeway North) so even slow traffic has to pick a right hand lane.

But this whole bit of Perth freeway needs some serious mods; another example is the rush hour southbound lane madness of drivers from the Mitchell trying to get into the left hand Riverside Drive exit many illegally crossing painted traffic islands and barging through other lanes which is mixed with the southbound Kwinana CDB traffic trying to get in the right hand lane ASAP as MRD has painted a full legally uncrossable line between the pre Narrows bridge entry lanes. At 5pm rush hour you have this mad scene of two groups of traffic from the extreme left and right lanes trying to swap places. We need a new tunnel, underpass or overpass lane that gives southbound Mitchell Freeway traffic a exclusive exit to Riverside Drive or block off that exit an provide a route from the South Terrace exit to the Causeway (perhaps a South Perth version of Riverside drive -sorry yes;too bad about the Wagyl/sacred river serpent).

[aussiblue]

Given the stated objective in the OP was to identify the statistically supportable "the best options to ensure that we as road users are all safe", I have to question if, while I support it, CTP will do this. It might make the road a nicer place in terms of the outcomes of meeting the cost of no fault collisions, but will it make the roads any safer? There is some research http://e-ajd.net/source-pdf/AJD-15%2...estimony-2.pdf that in some cases it actually increases accident rates. It may depend on how it is done; i.e it would on the face of that reasecrh see preferable if it is done in a way that punishes or penalises, rather than subsidises the costs of, high risk drivers.

[aussiblue]

Although this suggests http://www.jstor.org/pss/725817 that requiring drivers to purchase their own 3rd party insurance and having an additional insurance surcharge for drivers caught DUI might deter binge drinking driving.

and from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...a086c9ca5df275

Despite speculation about the role of vehicle insurance in road traffic accidents, there is little research estimating the direction or extent of the risk relationship. Data from the Auckland Car Crash Injury Study (1998–1999) were used to examine the association between driving an uninsured motor vehicle and car crash injury. Cases were all cars involved in crashes in which at least one occupant was hospitalized or killed anywhere in the Auckland region. Controls were 588 drivers of randomly selected cars on Auckland roads. Participants completed a structured interview. Uninsured drivers had significantly greater odds of car crash injury compared to insured drivers after adjustment for age, sex, level of education, and driving exposure (odds ratio 4.77, 95% confidence interval 2.94–7.75). The causal mechanism for insurance and car crash injury is not easily determined. Although we examined the effects of multiple potential confounders in our analysis including socioeconomic status and risk-taking behaviours, both of which have been previously observed to be associated with both insurance status and car crash injury, residual confounding may partly explain this association. The estimated proportion of drivers who are uninsured is between 5 and 15% in developed countries, representing a significant public health problem worthy of further investigation.

so maybe CTP may improve road safety although its not an overwhelmingly persuading case. It might just mean that accident prone group will form as part of illegally driving unregistered, unlicensed and now also illegally uninsured group.

[aussiblue]

And it seems that compulsory vehicle inspections doesn't reduce accident rates either:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...00b87ba5df84ad

204,000 cars were randomly assigned to three different experimental conditions. 46,000 cars were inspected annually during a period of three years; 46,000 cars were inspected once during three years; and 112,000 cars were not inspected. The number of accidents was recorded for a period of four years. No differences in accident rates were found between the groups. The technical condition of inspected vehicles improved compared to those not inspected. The experiment did not have any unintended side-effects. It is concluded that periodic motor vehicle inspection has no preventive effect on the technical condition of cars in a system where roadside inspections also exist.

[aussiblue]

Quebec seems to have been the case study for CTP http://www.jstor.org/pss/3550638 and even after 32 years of it and various studies I'm not sure the outcome has been agreed regarding any impacts on road safety and sufficient research reports arguing it actually increases accident rates to make it a doubtful case to argue. And iif you can extrapolate from the no fault insurance research http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcon...ntext=psheaton it probably has little impact on raod safety either way and what little impact it has is probably negative.

[MAD]

I wasnt thinking of CTP as a road safety measure.
I'd like to see it in place so that innocent people dont get left with the bill to fix their own car when some other numbnut decides to crash in to them without insurance and then cries poor leaving the driver of the damaged car with payments of $5 month if at all.

[aussiblue]

----------------------------------------
I wasn't thinking of CTP as a road safety measure

But road safety ideas was the objective given in the opening thread and I think we are already a diverse enough group with diverse enough opinions to have real difficulty in even agreeing a one road safety orientated idea without widening our front. BTW for selfish and equity reasons I also support CTP but maybe we need a new thread and petition for that one. I would also like more economic analysis; if it doubles the cost of everyone vehicle TP we may need to think again. Noting compulsory takes away some market choices and thus market forces and it may be a matter of don't argue about the cost mate; it's compulsory just pay up. It may be effectively giving insurers or the Government agency managing CTP an open cheque.

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

I can't support that and on the face of the statistical evidence it would be impossible to mount any objective argument for it as (see page 3 of the thread http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthr...0&page=3&pp=30 the 60 to 69 age group is the lowest risk group).

Yes there is a case for the over 70's although putting everyone from 70 to 120 in the same grouping perhaps distorts some of those statistics too (perhaps the 85 plus are doing all the damage).

And stop picking on us oldies. I do support more realistic and tolerent hoon laws and CTP.

I would also like a system of coloured roadside lines indicating the speed limit as used in other countries so a quick glance to the left would all that is needed to verify the speed limit.

Depending on what it covered, advanced driving training for new drivers may not necessarily produce the desired results either. Some research in corporations that sent their employee drivers on such courses found that where it involved skid pan work and the like, it made the drivers overconfident in their abilities and actually increased their accident rate. Given overconfidence in their own ability is already known factor in new driver caused accidents it might just exacerbate the problem.

Better maintained and designed roads are the best thing to decrease road fatalities but they cost especially in a low population density country like Australia,

I have to admit, I don't believe 'M' plates are a fair option. Yes, they are mature, however, psychologically as we age, we begin to get set in our ways - we enjoy our freedom and independence. I know if someone told me now that I had to show a plate up advising I was less than 30...I'd balk at the idea...I spent 5 years displaying my L & P plates, I've done my time!

In saying this, however, I think to ensure that we have more prepared, well adapted road users, courteous, polite, etc., etc., the emphasis really does need to be on educating younger road users, not allowing them to flout the system when they do their tests...and going easy on them is just another way we're accepting poor social standards within the transport environment and any other.

The suggestion in the courier mail (posted here http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthread.php?t=11302551) is a direct indication that the government is not serious about lowering the road toll.

This was my main reason for this proposal.

There is statistical proof that speeding causes a great deal of accidents, but the government is going to sugar coat it and allow a learner driver to speed once every 6 minutes in their driving test, by 5km's each time AND not indicate 6 times also in this 30 minute period.

As a competent driver, we are expected not to exceed the posted speed limit at all and we must indicate every single time, failure to do this could result in catastrophe.

From this, it is then further exemplified that the seriousness about lowering the road toll is a rort - the spending that went into road transport 2008/09FY ...sweet FA when you look at the current issues.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@....-09&num=&view=

It has become very clear to me that to overhaul the transport legislation, and allow for safer road users, we really need to start with the big issue - as teenagers we are invincible, teenagers in today's society are no different to when I was a kid. These teenagers however, have not been taught to be responsible and accept responsibility for their actions as most older people have been. We aren't able to educate them, discipline them, or anything - because they know their 'rights' and they will use them to get what they want. Police can't discipline them, teachers can't discipline them - the judicial system won't discipline them, and their parents seem to not want to educate. Now I'm not saying this is the case with ALL young people, to do that would be grossly misrepresenting them. What I am saying, however, is that without these values - we are fighting a losing battle.

The detail behind the 'invincible' status - http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roa...RG_2009002.pdf

The crux of this previous document (it's quite hefty...117 pages)

The role of risk-propensity in the risky driving of younger and older drivers
Summary

Young drivers are over-represented in road injury statistics, partly because they engage in more risky driving than older people, perhaps as part of a broader "risky behaviour syndrome". Although it is assumed that younger people have greater risk propensity, defined as a positive attitude to risk, relevant theory is imprecise and relevant research is clouded by inappropriate measures. We aimed to compare younger and older drivers in terms of appropriate measures of risk propensity and related risk motivations, and to examine the association of these measures with risky driving. The study involved 89 participants aged 16-25, and 110 participants aged over 35, recruited outside motor registries, as well as 188 Psychology students (aged 16-25) recruited for course requirements, who completed questionnaires designed to measure risk aversion, risk propensity (general and in accident, health, financial and social domains), and risk-related motives for risky driving. Questionnaires also assessed selfreported risky driving and risky behaviour in health, financial and social domains. Compared to older drivers, younger drivers demonstrated lower risk aversion, higher propensity for accident, health and social risks, and stronger motives for risky driving in relation to experience-seeking, excitement, sensation-seeking, social influence, prestige-seeking, confidence/familiarity, underestimation of risk, irrelevance of risk, "letting off steam", and "getting somewhere". Further, these variables were associated with risky driving, which was also associated with risk propensity, and risky behaviour, in other domains. Results suggest targeting the "young driver problem" by aiming to reduce experience-seeking, excitement, sensation-seeking, confidence/familiarity, underestimation or risk, irrelevance of risk, and "letting of steam" motives for drinkdriving, and experience-seeking, excitement, sensation-seeking, and "letting off steam" motives for speeding, for both males and females, as well as irrelevance of risk motives for speeding and social influence motives for drink-driving for males only. For young females only, increasing prestige-seeking and social influence motives in relation to speeding may be beneficial.

There is comments about wanting more police presence - police presence is useless if our judicial system is screwed - the police can arrest, but when a slap on the wrist is all someone gets for running a red light and killing someone because they weren't concentrating...we are on a downward spiral to impending disaster.

The focus really does need to be on impressing values on people...I know, an impossible task...my idealism sometimes get away from me...I'd like to think it's possible though.

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

This proposal will not just entail the current stipulations for driving regulations but also how easy it is to obtain a licence, keep a licence, and what legislation should be when it comes to policing of minor speeding infringements, ADR's, etc.

Australia is a contracting states party to the GLOBAL TECHNICAL REGULATIONS ON MOTOR VEHICLES administered by the UNECE. With time - I fully expect our ADR's, currently 'federal legislative instruments' (parliamentary legislation), to be almost fully rescinded. For most part that is appropriate, since the global design rules are superior to our domestic adoption as ADR, and are constantly advancing as 'live documents'.

Want to make a new design rule, or amend and existing - take it to the world body.
http://www.unece.org/trans/welcome.html

Global Technical Regulations on Vehicles, 1998 - AUS contract - link broken atm, should return.
http://www.unece.org/trans/conventn/.../2008-272e.pdf

(Almost as far as my personal UN support goes:-)

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Ducati888

Maybe they were, but to suggest that every car without ESC is "unsafe" is a croc.

ESC cars may be safer, but that doesn't mean that a car without it is unsafe, with its 7 airbags, ABS, collapsible steering column and crumple zones.

AND?? Like the world will come to an end if cars had to come mandatory with them? If you read the post and not concentrated on the example I said more should be done in stopping unsafe cars in and making our roads safer.

[Jim Goose]

Seems most of us agree on what is needed.

With regards to driver training:
Drivers ed (like they do in the USA) should be introduced into schools.
At the very least they should be taught the road rules and in order to make it somewhat safe, the use of an approved full size car simulator, which would visit schools in the district.. especially usefull in remote areas where it could be mounted in a trailer.

Mandatory defensive drivers course
Mandatory driving at night, high speed, high speed at night etc.
(in some European countries it is mandatory to drive in snow conditions using chains!)
Less time with parents/ relatives/ mates to gain hours and more time with an actual instructor.
At the end of their P plate time, they must undergo another test in order to see if they are actually competent, fail that, back to P plates again, most instructor time.

Road rules:
Common Australia wide rules and regulations
(with Melbourne and its hook turns!)

Signage, including road work areas:
Standardizing all road signs, sizes etc, layouts of road works etc etc...

Speed limits zones:
Reduction in the amount of variance allowed with certain short distances etc..
Eg: a road which is 2km long and has 3 speed zones! (not including school zones)

Fines, points, drink drivers, hoons etc:
Make the courts actually dish out real punishments like they should.
Currently the law is somewhat adequate, but usually most drivers get the lowest fine etc.
Constant offenders (Drink driving, hooning, caught speeding more then 40kmh over speed limit) MUST do jail time (48hrs, 7days, a month etc.. the more you get caught the higher the jail time each time).
Drink Drivers MUST go to the watch house when caught no questions.
To be released ONLY when they are legal to drive.
(They did this 20yrs ago, now they let you go so you can go pick your car up and get caught 2 more times in a night).
Caught doing more then 40kmh over speed limit, one night in watch house (as well as the loss of your car)

Vehicle regos:
As much as I hate to say it, but every 2yrs everyone gets a roadworthy once a NEW vehicle warranty finishes.
Regos the same across the country.

Licence:
Once you loose your license no matter what your age you become a P plater again as soon as the suspension is over. Again, once the P plate period is over, do yet another driving test.

Mature age drivers once they hit say 65yrs of age must undergo some form of appitude or cognitive test at their local Doctors while they under go a medical, every 2yrs.

Australia wide licence.... (this then replaces any ideas about the "Australia Card")

A REAL NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM! Ok ok im dreaming here....

Thats all I can think of for now....

[ZDI-970]

i think an idea would be to have a license test every 5 or 10 years, that way people will not get into bad habbits, that they can get away with after recieving their full license..

[aussiblue]

Sessy is very right. One of the big issue is that younger, male drivers, including me when I was young, are less risk adverse, generally overate their own driving confidence, have a greater false belief in their own immortality and have hormones that make them do irrational things to impress the opposite sex or, like competing rutting stags, prove themselves the stronger male more worthy of the opposite sex by showing off to their male mates.

Given this is innate young male behaviour, it has always and continues to be an extremely difficult issue to address. Perhaps requiring neutering before getting the L plates would be an effective albeit not a very attractive approach.

On a serious note it does concern me that young drivers are not often represented on road safety authority boards and such boards are dominated the older people. Given this, I think it's not surprising that they fail to deliver messages and campaigns that strike a chord with the younger drivers and prove effective. Additionally there the elements of "those old fuddy duddies trying to tell us young rebels what to do again" issue.

I think such road safety boards and councils should have representation that better reflects the demography of road fatalities; i.e more young male drivers. Hopefully they would then have more empathy with the target audience and develop campaigns that are more effective. It may not work but it's worth a try and can't hurt.


At the end of the day the stats show again that the most effective proven way of saving lives is safer cars and safer roads. The young will still have a higher accident rate than other road user but more drivers of all ages will survive these accidents. Ultimately, this will take us to cars that more drive themsleves and roads that seperate the traffic and perhaps to the point where the experience of "driving" the car will unfortunately be more akin to taking a train.

[Franco Cozzo]

Being arguably the best and most experienced driver on this forum (lol jokes, I've had my licence since march this year), I'd like to raise a few points about the country roads I drive on every day:

All of our roads are built to a lower standard than metropolitan roads, a road denoted by a C at the start of its number/name means its a low standard road (so I have been informed by a VicRoads "employee"), I have no idea what the differences are, but every time it rains out here potholes form the day or two after, its getting so bad that part of the main road in my town is looking like a patchwork quilt, all they have done is filled them up with tar, so its very un-even and its bad enough to jolt my Fiesta pretty hard when you drive over them, this is not comfortable and it isn't doing much good for my wheel alignment, there's about 30 potholes that have been patched in about 70 meters and they are already falling apart.

It's not just the main road of my town, its all of the road, stretching about 30km, the potholes are very big in some cases, being over a meter big, Mum hit one yesterday and I think she may have done some damage, the car is wobbling like anything now. A lot of people use this road, why can't some more money be put into it to bring it up to the standard of the metropolitan roads, rather than getting someone out to shovel in some tar every 3 or so days?

This weekend I shall go out and provide some pictures.

Another thing I don't agree with is VicRoads having 5 or so test routes for each license test area, ranging from stupidly easy to quite hard, they should create one route and make it challenging, involving driving skills which should have been taught by parents/driving instructor. Also the examiners seem to have total discretion over if you pass or fail the test, they have a sheet that they mark off but it can come down to who you have and how they feel like on the day of the test, they should mark by the rules, they should be the be all and the end all, though the examiner should be able to apply SOME discretion to the overall result, not have total. I also would like regulation of driving instructors, if you ask a question in regards to the test, you will get a different answer from instructor to instructor.

Regarding P plate restrictions, the high powered vehicle list does not make much sense, at the moment it is perfectly fine to drive a recent model 4/6 cylinder car, which makes more power and torque than older model V8s, but the older V8 is still banned because it has 8 cylinders? I'm not so fussed about power restrictions, but they aren't making much sense. Bring back power to weight ratio, it would be much fairer and make more sense as you are banning the faster and more powerful cars regardless of cylinder count and power/torque figures, which brings me onto my next point. Commercial type vehicles, like Ford F series and Chevrolet/GMC Silverado/Sierra are banned because they come under the 8 cylinder rule, under power to weight ratio, pre 2007 P plate rules in Victoria, they would be legal to drive. They aren't fast, they are capable of towing and carrying heavy loads.

Thanks much.

[Keepleft]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Road rules:
Common Australia wide rules and regulations
(with Melbourne and its hook turns!)

We do, our basic fundamental rules of the roads are Internationally sourced and adopted into AUS from;

"The UN Convention on Road Traffic". 1949 edition contracted by AUS and gazzetted in 1953.

EXAMPLES for our RHD country; Keep left/Keep Left Multi-lane, headlight use, fog light use, appropriate speeds etc.


Not contracted, but used in part here, is an attachment to the UN Road Traffic Convention - called the "Road Signs & Signals" portion. (Design and use of specific road signs vis; speed; directional signs, No parking, start freeway-end freeway etc etc). NZ/Fiji/Vanuatu/New Caledonia use many of these International road signs.

Signage, including road work areas:
Standardizing all road signs, sizes etc, layouts of road works etc etc...

ROAD SIGNS & SIGNALS portion of the above Road Traffic Convention covers International areas, BUT Australia to a large degree has gone it alone in creating its own unique road traffic signs, we do so as "AUSTRALIAN STANDARDS". Example is that an Aussie speed limit sign (held in AS 1742) is not 'circular', and done everywhere else on earth to reduce reflected glare, but square (maximises glare) - but we do use the red ambula over a white ground, like the International type.

We also use ENGLISH LANGUAGE, much of earth on the other hand uses SYMBOLIC signage.

EXAMPLE; - We start a freeway using an english language sign "START FREEWAY" and "END FREEWAY", but the rest of the world team use the symbolic version. We should have stayed with it in my view. Good work Victoria and Monash, uber duh.

[aussiblue]

Jim Goose:

Driver Ed:

As appealing as it sounds the research (and there's been a lot) doesn't support it at least in the ways previously implements as an effective road safety measure. If someone can find a way so it can be used to instill a sense of mortality and acknowedgement of driving incompetence in young males perhaps so. As it is now it can even increase their level mistaken belief in their own driving competence ("I've been driving since I was 15 so I know it all")

Seehttp://www.ajpm-online.net/article/S...115-9/abstract
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cont...2/ii3.abstract
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...6b349af90d19eb

etc etc
There was some research that those who did driver ed drove more safely between ages 15 and a 16 but then the hormones kicked in just giving a delay before they became part of the high risk group high accident group.

Vehicle Regos


As I previously stated it seems that compulsory vehicle inspections doesn't reduce accident rates either:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...f00b87ba5df84ad


I will see if I can find any research on the other idea in terms of any proven effectiveness (or otherwise) for road safety.

[aussiblue]

and we might kill more YL's http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi...ract/78/9/1206

Mandatory driver training and road safety: the Quebec experience.

L Potvin, F Champagne and C Laberge-Nadeau

Interdisciplinary Health Research Group (GRIS), Faculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Quebec.

In January 1983, the Quebec Government made driver training courses mandatory for any person seeking a first driver's license. Using accident and licensure data over a five-year period, we conducted an evaluation of the impact of the enactment of mandatory driver training on: the risk of accident for newly licensed drivers; the mortality and morbidity of these accidents; the number of new drivers; and the mean age of licensure. Results of our time series analyses show that this legislation had no appreciable effect on the risk of accident or on the mortality/morbidity rate per accident for newly licensed drivers aged 18 and over. However, since 1983, the number of women under 18 years of age getting their first driver's license has increased by 20 per cent, and their mean age has decreased from over 18 to under 18. Mandatory driver training may have increased the numbers and risks of accidents for young, primarily female, drivers.

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

All of our roads are built to a lower standard than metropolitan roads, a road denoted by a C at the start of its number/name means its a low standard road (so I have been informed by a VicRoads "employee"), I have no idea what the differences are, but every time it rains out here potholes form the day or two after, its getting so bad that part of the main road in my town is looking like a patchwork quilt, all they have done is filled them up with tar, so its very un-even and its bad enough to jolt my Fiesta pretty hard when you drive over them, this is not comfortable and it isn't doing much good for my wheel alignment, there's about 30 potholes that have been patched in about 70 meters and they are already falling apart.

It's not just the main road of my town, its all of the road, stretching about 30km, the potholes are very big in some cases, being over a meter big, Mum hit one yesterday and I think she may have done some damage, the car is wobbling like anything now. A lot of people use this road, why can't some more money be put into it to bring it up to the standard of the metropolitan roads, rather than getting someone out to shovel in some tar every 3 or so days?

This weekend I shall go out and provide some pictures.

From my understanding, the lettering indicates the standard, but I didn't want to misinform...so I found the link...also had a feeling it was an indication of how much traffic flowed on it...but I couldn't find that anywhere.

http://www.travelvictoria.com.au/victoria/roads/

As part of the proposal I would like to question why all roads are not maintained as a federal initiative.

From some statistics that I have read, speed isn't just a killer, country roads and rural areas are also black spots.

Coming from south western Victoria, these 'black spots' are death traps and many people have died as a result - the funding that goes into these roads is of a low standard, and not acceptable, particularly when the ultimate goal is to lower the road toll.

If you can take some photos that would be awesome...add to the appendix of the 'novel'.

[aussiblue]

As part of the proposal I would like to question why all roads are not maintained as a federal initiative.

I'm cynical I know but it about limited dollars and ensuring they are spent to get the most votes for those holding the purse strings.