Next Wednesday the National Road Safety Council will have its inaugural meeting in Parliament House. This initiative from Australia’s Transport Ministers is an attempt to get expert advice from around the nation to make practical suggestions aimed at reducing our road toll.

The funeral for teenager Anthony Ienetta in Melbourne, one of five youths killed in the Mill Park crash. Photo: Tony Gough

The meeting will have a sombre tone.

Sadly, the heart-wrenching grief caused by road deaths visited more families last year than the year before. The road toll in 2009 was up by almost 5 per cent to 1,509 deaths, albeit still the second lowest figure in almost 60 years and less than half the average recorded during the peak of the 1970’s (3798).

Every loss of life on our roads is a tragedy, and my thoughts and condolences go out to the families that have lost loved ones. 

While tougher laws, improved driver training, better road design, extensive education campaigns and new vehicle technologies have done much to reduce road deaths over the last three decades, motorists themselves appear to be a major obstacle to a further significant reduction in the road toll.

The latest annual survey of community attitudes, which was released only a fortnight ago, found that while most are well informed about road safety matters and support the efforts of police to catch those that break the law, the personal conduct of many leaves a lot to be desired.

While no one is perfect, far too many of us are still regularly engaging in risky behaviour such as speeding, driving under the influence, driving distracted and driving while tired.

The survey of 1,615 Australians, conducted by the Social Research Centre, found:

- One in four respondents (25 per cent) consider it acceptable to speed ‘if you are driving safely’;

- 16 per cent of respondents had fallen asleep at the wheel, with a disturbingly large proportion of these (43 per cent) having done so more than once;

- 6 per cent of respondents – and 11 per cent of those younger than 25 – ‘always, nearly always or mostly’ drive at least 10 km/h over the speed limit;

- 4 per cent of respondents – or 1 in 25 – thought it was likely they had driven while over the blood alcohol limit at least once within the past 12 months.

Sadly, just hours after the release of the survey, the devastating news of the death of 5 young Australians in a car crash in Mill Park in Victoria was relayed around the nation. Police have found the vehicle was travelling over 140 kilometres per hour and the driver registered a 0.19 blood alcohol reading.

The impact of this crash on those families directly affected is hard to comprehend.

While the dangers of speeding and driving under the influence of alcohol have been the subject of campaigns for a long time, new technologies are creating new challenges.

Three in five drivers say they use their mobile phone while driving, up from 47% just four years ago.

This worrying trend has occurred despite almost universal support for current laws banning the use of hand held mobiles and a high level of awareness that making and receiving calls or texting increases a motorist’s chances of being involved in a crash.

According to British research mobile phone use affects a driver’s ability to react to dangerous situations, making them four times more likely to have a crash.

As we become a more mobile and wireless society, we can’t afford to ignore the impact new technology can have on road safety.  Every time you take your eyes off the road – even for a few seconds – to type or read a text message you are putting yourself and the lives of others in danger.

For our part, the Rudd Government has moved quickly since being elected a little over two years ago, to put in place a number of important new road safety initiatives.

This has included more than doubling the roads budget, with extra money to fix dangerous black spots on local roads, install boom gates at high risk level crossings, and build additional rest stops for truck drivers.  On top of that we’ve quadrupled investment in rail in an effort to get more people and freight off our roads and onto rail.

We have also introduced new regulations requiring Electronic Stability Control (ESC) to be fitted to all new models of passenger vehicles from November 2011. This is the most significant technological change since seat belts with the potential to reduce a motorist’s chances of being involved in a fatal accident by 25 per cent.

Along with the Australian Automobile Association we have introduced Keys2Drive – a new, innovative road safety program which will provide more than 200,000 free driving lessons to learner drivers and their parents.

Together these initiatives will help construct better roads, train smarter drivers and build safer vehicles.

But ultimately Governments can only do so much. All of us need to take greater responsibility for our own personal conduct when behind the wheel.

154 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • PatC says:

      06:58am | 28/01/10

      One point not raised in this article or any where else that I have seen, is how our culture portrays driving and vehicle use. While a high speed car chase on city streets may look spectacular, the underlaying message to our young people is that you can drive around at high speed and nothing too bad will happen. Even if one does crash one can still jump out to fight the villains, or flee the nasty authorities.
      This is so far from reality that most adults don’t take these sorts of messages on board. But how does it effect our children? Their attitudes to driving and their ability to assess risk have to come from somewhere.
      I know my children have never seen me drive a car around town at 100kph or up the highway at 200kph but both of them as young adults believed it was quite safe to do so if you where a “good driver”.  They, and their friends all considered themselves “good drivers” after having had their licences for a few months.
      Thankfully, all my children lost where a few points and some hard earned cash.  My heart goes out to those who lose so much more.

    • Adam says:

      10:55am | 28/01/10

      “motorists themselves appear to be a major obstacle to a further significant reduction in the road toll.” - Issue solved, continue upgrading roads to make crashes less likely to be fatal to innocent drivers, i.e dividers and continue education. Nothing more can be done.

      Also PatC the movies portray bad behaviour boohoo line is so stupid I shouldn’t even coment on it. I saw a movie last night where they weren’t hurt from a crash. I also saw the news story replayed 100 times of 5 teenagers dying in a mangled car. Now I am just confused what happens when you crash? I will have to try it to find out.

    • Bryndal says:

      02:12pm | 28/01/10

      Make the roads better - people drive faster - no improvement in safety. I can remember a doco (cant recall the name) about the history of car & road safety. The main conclusion was that the best way to minimise acidents is to put a 8 inch spike in the middle of the steering wheel. What would a driver do if you put them on a road that was ‘completely safe’ in a car that was ‘completely safe’ - they would druve as fast as they could. It is only human.

    • PatC says:

      10:35pm | 28/01/10

      Adam, I am assuming that you are an adult because you are reading Punch and commenting on issues raised (although your asinine reply leave that in doubt).
      My comment was about CHILDREN not adults, I specifically stated “This is so far from reality that most adults don’t take these sorts of messages on board.” Maybe you should try and read the comment before deeming it stupid.
      I would also suggest you do some serious research on the effects of upgraded roads and their contribution to road fatalities. Your simple solution simply does not work out in the real world.

    • John Cohen says:

      10:20am | 29/01/10

      Its always our media culture.
      Obesity - fast food ads
      Anorexia - magazine models
      Violence - video games
      Reckless Driving - movies

      no, these people are just not intelligent.

    • Adam says:

      01:44pm | 31/01/10

      The ability to articulate words is not the only measure of intelligence.

      @ bryndal Because its on a documentary does not make it true. And if you going to use someones elses info to pose a point at least have the decency to site the source

      @ PatC I assume most people who drive cars are also adults. Perhaps I am wrong let me check if my 2 year old is behind the wheel. Also I am up for upgrading roads to avoid fatalities for other drivers on the road. If someone crashes because of alcohol/drugs/bad driving/unlucky/bad car/speeding/on thehone or any number of issues related to that person then the consequences should be only for that person.

      What do people call it… oh yeah individual responsibility.

    • T.Chong says:

      06:58am | 28/01/10

      Some of our self claimed rugged individualists lack enough insight to realise that their driving ability aint the best, so its easier to blame the “guvmint”.
      These people , who usually deplore the “nanny state “and demand we take resposibility for our own actions, perversly like to lay blame on all others rather then having enough itelligence to drive safely, as the conditions require.
      If the road is bad in whatever way, simply slow down. , it wont kill you, unlike the alternative.

    • Eric says:

      07:01am | 28/01/10

      How unsurprising to hear that drivers are blaming everybody else accept themselves for their actions on the road. How can there be a valid argument about road safety when you have imbeciles that still don’t get the message that drink driving is endangering not only their life but that of others?? And I do happen to agree with AA on this one in that Governments can only do so much. At the end of the day, drivers need to ask themselves this question. If I drink and drive or speed or drive in an otherwise safe manner I will be putting myself and others in a situation where I may kill or be killed. Its as simple as that. Thinking of those closest to you works for me.

    • i see bad drivers says:

      07:01am | 28/01/10

      well at least you didnt try telling us speed cameras save lives. i know this might sound radical, but i think a few more coppers on the road might help. then again, im not a politician, so what would i know.

    • SM says:

      07:21am | 28/01/10

      The title of your piece is odd Mr Albanese - reckless drivers don’t really blame anyone for road carnage, not even you.  They don’t really care about road carnage.  It’s the safe drivers who care. 

      A lot of drivers will speed if they’re in a hurry.  Some will speed even if they’re not in a hurry.  Drivers over the holiday season will speed and drive dangerously on unfamiliar, winding country roads even after seing on the news the previous night that “the holiday road toll has now risen to 6,421…” 

      The threat of a $100-$200-$300 fine is no deterrent. 

      How about this; if you get caught going 10k+ over the speed limit, you are automatically fined $25,000, and your licence is suspended for 10 years?  Your wages are garnished every week until the fine is paid. 

      Less people will speed

    • Wayne Hutchins says:

      07:57am | 28/01/10

      Fines should be based on the income of the perpetrator of the crime. I’m poor as I am a carer and we are just not worth that much so $300 is a big hit to me but to someone like sleazy Albanese it would not be missed.

    • Jade says:

      09:28am | 28/01/10

      That is a stupid idea if i have ever heard one?! Seriously 25k and 10 years suspension? pppft.

    • Ben says:

      02:02pm | 28/01/10

      Given speed is a contributing factor to only 5% of crashes (in QLD…I suggest you look it up if you’re in any doubt), how do you justify fining someone $25k for, say, failing to see a poorly placed speed sign?  What you’ve suggested is possibly the most moronic thing I’ve ever read, and perfectly indicative of the type of mouth-breathing attitude too many Australians now share.  All thanks to believing that “speed kills”.

    • Jess says:

      12:23am | 29/01/10

      Jade its not stupid at all, make it a capital ofence to go over 10km over the limit and you can bet every cent your ever earn that no one would risk it, and if their that dumb that they do they deserve their fate.  I know my suggestion is totally not possible but even 25k fine and 10 years without a license is a great idea, if your going over that your a dangerous moron and need to be taken off the road asap and so deserve the punishment. If you do nothing wrong the idea cant be stupid as it would not apply to you. If a drivers guilt that they are risking innocent peoples lives does faze them, or even if the dont give a crap about other people and their stupidity allowes them to risk their own lives, you can bet that the possibilty of loosing a LOT of money and the ability to drive would certainly mean more to these losers than the thought they are a danger.

    • Charles Kelly says:

      09:49am | 29/01/10

      More blinkered ignorance from SM/Jess - blindly playing right into the revenue-raisers’ hands.

      Brainwashing the gullible with their message that “speed kills” is how the revenue-raisers get away so easily with their extortionary tactics. Of course with the percentage of accidents actually CAUSED by driving at a speed in excess of the posted limit being less than 5% of the overall tally, the truth is that their revenue raising has bugger all to to with road safety. Still SM/Jess, with many people like you around to willingly swallow anything they spoon-feed you, the revenue-raisers will be making a fortune while avoiding genuine road safety issues for a long time to come. ??To justify raising the massive amount of revenue they do, the public has to buy into the government’s deceptive propaganda - so the major focus has to be on that 5% at the expense of the rest. This has resulted in genuinely dangerous behaviour on our roads continuing unabated, due to the many brainwashed idiots who actually believe that as long as they’re not “speeding”, they’re driving safely.

      You may be perfectly comfortable with irresponsibly ignoring the MAJOR causes of road accidents just so our incompetent government can make a lot of money SM/Jess, but many intelligent rational people are not.

    • Bogan River says:

      08:21am | 28/01/10

      Good drivers drive to the conditions, not the speed limit. I live in the country and I can tell you if I’m on a highway trying to overtake a road train there’s no way I’m paying any heed to speed limits. Once you’re on the wrong side of that white line it’s foot to the floor (also why only idiots drive around in anything toting less than 6 cylinders out our way).

      The reason governments are so tough on speeding is so they have an excuse for raising revenue through speed traps and cameras.

      Go for a drive in Germany and come back and tell me we’re speeding.

    • iansand says:

      09:39am | 28/01/10

      Leaving aside the relatively small number of vehicle assisted suicides, it is a reasonable assumption that no one sets out to have an accident.  It is also a reasonable conclusion that those at fault in an accident thought they were “driving to the conditions”.  Do you see the flaw in your theory yet?

    • geeezus says:

      10:14am | 28/01/10

      iansand..  driving to conditions, though it may imply that you could safely drive at 120 kmh in a 110 zone, also implies that on a wet slippery 80 kmh road, one would drive accordingly .. at 60 kmh..  get it?

    • iansand says:

      10:19am | 28/01/10

      Of course I get it.  Do you know anyone who drives exactly at the speed limit, all the time?  That little canard is one of the usual straw men created by the boy racers.

    • Tim says:

      10:24am | 28/01/10

      Iansand,
      that would simply be a flaw in the perception of driver’s that they are driving to the conditions.
      This could easily be fixed with higher levels of driver training.

    • Ron Roberts says:

      08:24am | 28/01/10

      There’s a lot of truth in here, but the claim that the Rudd Govt has doubled spending on roads and quadrupled spending on rail is rubbish. the only way anyone could get figures like that is to compare spending in 2010 with spending in 1996 - hardly an accurate comparison

    • Charles says:

      08:27am | 28/01/10

      Anthony Albanese, in concert with his state colleagues misses all the reality of driving fatalities in Australia. 

      Firstly, road fatalities are related to the demographic intensity and the relative ability of cars to protect drivers.  If you have a prang under about 80 kph, then most cars are designed to enable the driver to survive.  Over that figure the design capacity of cars is under some threat and the chances of the driver being seriously hurt rise accordingly. 

      In addition, once you start to get to areas where motorists spend most of their driving miles above that 80 kph figure, then the deaths per head of population rises.  This is why places like the NT always have the worst rate, compared to the ACT, where there are few zones where the limit is greater than 80 kph, and subsequently it has the best rate.

      Weather is also a significant factor, with wetter years generally having a greater number of deaths than drought years.  The reasons why this is so are obvious.

      Fining a large proportion of the population for driving 5-10 kph over the speed limit does nothing to eliminate those who like the fatal crash last week that accounted for 5 deaths was committed by a driver who was actually driving recklessly, and not just speeding.

      Once road and traffic authorities face up to the reality of what causes fatalities, then we can commence to truly address it as an issue rather than faux approach we have at the moment where innocent and responsible drivers tend to be penalised for technical breaches of the road law.

    • cats says:

      09:26am | 28/01/10

      “Fining a large proportion of the population for driving 5-10 kph over the speed limit does nothing to eliminate those who like the fatal crash last week that accounted for 5 deaths was committed by a driver who was actually driving recklessly, and not just speeding.”

      Yeah thats all well and good, but they have to do something about speeding. They can’t set a speed limit and then say “its alright if you break the speed limit, just don’t drive recklessly”. It is breaking the law afterall, so there has to be some punishment.

      I do agree that they need to start focussing on reckless driving more than speeding though. With tv commercials and things that go “speeding kills” - well we all know that it doesn’t. Maybe they should introduce new ads.

    • Michael L says:

      05:00pm | 28/01/10

      This driver was drunk - almost .2 which is seriously inebriated. Also it has been alleged that he was chased from a party by gatecrashers. If he had not been drunk and possibly chased by thugs would he have been doing this speed and crashed?

    • Mike says:

      08:36am | 28/01/10

      There was public outcry over the need for changes to the firearm legislation in 1996 when 35 people lost their lives aft the shootings at Port Arthur. Now firearms owners need a purpose to own a firearm and are restricted to what they can have. 

      Yet in one year with 1,509 deaths on Australia roads there is no mention of changes to legislation. Instead we see the government wasting money on drink driving adds which no one listens to.

      We should be limiting the speed at which cars can go. For example, no car should be able to go above 120km/h and people under 25 should have a restriction on the power of the cars engine.

      If I as a responsible firearms owner must be limited due to irresponsible action of others, maybe all car owners should be restricted to what they can use.
      “Remove the temptations”

    • Super D says:

      09:41am | 28/01/10

      No government of any flavour has the capacity to legislate away the ability of members of the public to be selfish morons.  This will never stop them trying however as the need to be seen to be doing something is overwhelming.

    • Libbie says:

      08:57am | 28/01/10

      Ah Bogan, the old drive to the conditions chestnut. Speed limits are there for a reason - generally the conditions. If you have to put your foot to the floor to pass someone else, then clearly they were doing the speed limit and you should be obeying the law.
      And stop with the nonsense about speed cameras and traps as revenue raisers. There would be no revenue if idiots like you did the right thing and stuck to the limit. I’ve had 1 speeding fine in my 20+ years of driving for doing 112 in a 100 zone and it was completely my fault and I was an idiot. It wasn’t the fault of the police or the Government or anyone else.
      Mr Albanese you’re 100% right - drivers need to take more responsibility.
      My heart goes out to the families of the people killed in accidents, particularly those taken by the stupidity of drunk drivers and morons travelling at excessive speed.
      Parents, please show your kids the footage and pictures and do everything you can to get the message through.

    • Davy says:

      09:47am | 28/01/10

      Actually Libbie I think speed limiters at 120 would cause more accidents than they would save in country areas at least. When a vehicle is doing 90 you want to be able to pass it safely rather than follow it for 2 hrs.
      Try sitting behind a vehicle doing 50 in a sixty zone on your way to work and you might understand.

    • Tim says:

      10:30am | 28/01/10

      Libbie,
      you are obviously one of the sheep who don’t actually know how speed limits are set.
      If you did some research you would realise that a lot of the time, road conditions do not determine the set speed limit.
      Its people like you who think “oh i’m driving under the speed limit”. I must be a safe driver.
      Higher levels of driver education will save more lives than speed limits ever will.

    • Tom says:

      03:32pm | 28/01/10

      Yes, but people will generally obey laws they consider reasonable - hence why the vast majority of people do not rape, murder, steal or defraud others. However, surely the sheer number of people who travel over the speed limits shows that in many cases they are set far below what is reasonable - that the Hume Highway is limited to 110 when comparable roads in the US and Europe have a 120-130km/h limit is a case in point. It seems somewhat incongruous that as cars have gotten far safer (Better construction, ABS, stability control, air bags, better tyres etc.) that speed limits have generally been lowered.

    • Eric says:

      09:05am | 28/01/10

      Speed limits are not set to conditions. They’re set to the lowest common denominator of driver skill.

    • cats says:

      10:49am | 28/01/10

      I don’t know about that Eric. Last weekend i went to a friends birthday party in Diamond Valley (sunshine coast) and i enountered at least three roads with winding, sloping and with little visability, where the speed limit was set at 100. I mean really, it was completely impossible to do 100 anyway. I see roads all the time where the speed limit are too high and of course theres ones which are too low. You just have to use your brain to figure out what the safest speed is.

    • conditioned driver says:

      09:10am | 28/01/10

      anyone who drives slower than me is an idiot, anyone who drives faster is a lunatic.

      and libby, maybe the truck was driving slower than the speed limit, but it makes sense to want to get past it as fast as possible and back onto the left hand side of the road..  you sound like the sort of driver that pisses everyone else off, doesnt leave any space between you and the car in front so that people behind can over take safely.. youre probably the sort of driver that speeds up when people try to overtake, while you tsk tsk tsk at them.. you do sound like an idiot indeed.

    • James says:

      12:20pm | 28/01/10

      If the truck was driving slower than the speed limit, then by driving at the limit one should be able to overtake it.

    • conditioned driver says:

      12:53pm | 28/01/10

      yes jimmy, thats great if you are crossing the nullabor .. and want to pass a road train doing 105.. itll only take a week to get past.. but sometimes, conditions and circumstances dictate that a faster manoeuvre is a safer one. and not everyone who drives, is as courteous as you, who takes notice of the other traffic around them, and will slow down a bit to facilitate an easier overtaking by the car behind who obviously wants to overtake, or actually pulls over to let all those lined up behind to pass safely..

    • James says:

      02:09pm | 28/01/10

      True conditioned driver.  Some people are absolutely awful on the road.  I am certain that some people speed up when being overtaken simply to take some sort of pleasure in annoying another driver.  Leads me to think that Mr Albanese is right - until we deal with selfish and incompetent drivers, the road toll will hover somewhere around where it currently stands.  Various governments have done all they can, and now it is down to the drivers.

    • daniel hadfield says:

      09:21am | 28/01/10

      Its called a ‘Speed Limit’ for a reason , These young drivers on the road dont take into account the Pain and Suffering their Lack of Judgement will have in the Future ,

      How many more young deaths will there be on the roads before VicRoads and VicPol get together and work out a Solution

    • Steve of Cornubia says:

      09:22am | 28/01/10

      You list a number of factors that contribute to the road toll, then list a number of Labour initiatives to reduce this, yet none of these initiatives addresses your own list of contributing factors.

      Meanwhile, the majority of the ever-increasing pile of revenue from speeding tickets will not be collected from dangerous drivers, but those like myself who have accumulated four speeding tickets over thirty-odd years, all of which were for doing a few kph over the posted limit due to missing a speed limit sign or being distracted. Nowadays, I may not spend any time texting (never have) while driving, but I do spend way too much time scanning the forest of roadside signs rather than the road, desperate to avoid missing a new speed limit sign. Not good.

    • Steve of Cornubia says:

      09:24am | 28/01/10

      Oh, and I forgot to mention earlier Anthony, you guys need to make your minds up where you stand on road casualties. Are you responsible or not? It seems that, whenever there is good news on the road toll (such as a small fall) governments are quick to take the credit, so why don’t you take the blame when things aren’t looking so good?

    • Wayne Hutchins says:

      09:43am | 28/01/10

      Mike you have obviously never driven on country roads. Share the road with a few road trains and see if you would be happy to be restricted to 120 k per hour. I had a company Toyota rav 4 which was a gutless piece of crap that nearly got me in trouble a couple of times. If we had dual carriage ways the length a breast of this country then I may agree with you but we don’t.
      The shootings at Port Aurthur were just the excuse the government were looking for to disarm it’s population. Job done….or is it?
      and Libbie, you are obviously a city driver and are most likely the reason many accidents occur on country roads.  A vehicle travelling at 95 klm per hour is very difficult to get past on these countries roads with minimal over taking lanes. Instead of fixing the roads, governments just decrease the speed limit and whack in a speed camera to pick up a bit of revenue. The government love people like you who are prepared to shoulder the blame when the true responsibility lies with them for the majority of road deaths. Not all accidents are caused by dickheads but they would like you to believe just that..and you sound like you do.

    • Betenut says:

      11:05am | 28/01/10

      Why the desperate need to get in front of a vehicle doing 95km/h in the first place?  So you overtake, reduce you speed to the speed limit, and over the next 60 minutes manage to get 5km further up the road (or 3 minutes of driving time, about the same time as the average pop song)

      Personally, I get sick of the peanuts driving on country roads taking inappropriate risks to overtake SLIGHTLY slower vehicles, only to see them again at the next petrol station.  If you cannot safely pass a car a 120km/h, maybe there was no need to pass it in the first place!

    • Bogan River says:

      12:30pm | 28/01/10

      Betenut because by your logic why does the person travelling at 95 (with the person who wants to travel at the speed limit of 110 sitting patiently behind them) need to overtake someone travelling at 85? And why does the peron travelling at 85 need to overtake the learner driver travelling at 75?

      And so on until we’re all stuck behind the old cocky in his tractor doing a whopping 30km an hour.

      Until we have dual carriageway across the country (or at least enough overtaking lanes) I’ll travel as fast as I need to to get around the next truck. I’m not putting my life on the line for the sake of conforming to the law.

      You’ve obviously not driven much on country roads.

    • Colin says:

      12:41pm | 28/01/10

      I didn’t even bother reading this article - the headline said it all. To wit:

      “Labor blames someone (anyone) else… as usual”.

      FWIW, I totally agree if this particular article was emphasising the importance of personal responsibility on the road. I’ve simply had a gutful of this government’s incessant buck passing and blame shifting on EVERYTHING.  There’s one hell of an irony in anyone from this government saying “Don’t blame us” (again!), when they have not and will not ever take any personal responsibility… for anything.

      Sheesh.

    • Bogan River says:

      11:50am | 29/01/10

      Dude…

      In NSW try the Mitchell, Barrier, Castlereagh, Sturt, Mid Western, Cobb and Silver City Highways for starters.

      And road trains take a long time to get around.

      It’s almost an hour faster from Dubbo to Bourke at 120km compared to 95km. Why wouldn’t you overtake?

      The police don’t care either - I had a cop pull out behind me on the Mitchell the other day between Narromine and Trangie whilst I was doing 115. He overtook me (no sirens)- obviously thought I was travelling too slowly,

    • Bogan River says:

      12:23pm | 29/01/10

      Off the top of my head, the Cobb, Mitchell, Silver City, Barrier, Sturt, Mid Western and Castlereagh highways all have long sections of 110km/h

      As did the Newell until the RTA decided they were’nt making enough money from it about two months ago

    • Dave C says:

      06:56am | 30/01/10

      Firstly, if you can point out any country roads (in Victoria and NSW at least) that have a speed limit in excess of 100km/h and are not duel carriagways, that would be most helpful….

      The Mitchell or Great Western Highway is 110km hr from Dubbo all the way to the Qld Border past Bourke and it is not dual Carriageway. There are other examples of country roads which are long and straight but still single lane that have a 110km limit on them. Its just that ignorant city centric drivers dont know this

    • Betelnut says:

      01:15pm | 28/01/10

      @Bogan River

      Firstly, if you can point out any country roads (in Victoria and NSW at least) that have a speed limit in excess of 100km/h and are not duel carriagways, that would be most helpful.

      Secondly, where did I say people should never overttake.  In a 100 zone, a person doing 85 is indeed annoying.  Going 120km/h to overtake means a closing speed of ~10m/s, meaning an average car can be overtaken relatively safely within a few seconds.  Unfortunately, there are ample dickheads who think some old “cocky” driving at 95km/h is sooo ridiculously anti-social they feel the need to overtake, over a crest at 150km/h.

      My point remains the same, if you NEED to do 150km/h to overtake someone your have (a) not enought clear road to overtake safely and/or (b) the person you are overtaking is not going significantly slower than the speed limit. Either way, driving FAIL!

      Unfortunately, it is not just your life you are putting on the line with your impatience, you risk the lives of the occupants surrounding vehicles as well.  I am more than happy for reckless peanuts to self-select themselves and their friends out of the gene pool.  If you have a date with a tree, that is fine, just leave everyone else out of it.

    • Kay says:

      04:16pm | 28/01/10

      Yes, genuine accidents happen on the road - that is a risk we take when we drive.  But why do people think it is acceptable to risk more crashes/fatalities that are caused/contributed to by people acting like dickheads?

    • sue says:

      09:51am | 28/01/10

      maybe advertise the fines on tv i know the $500+ fine and ? demerit points etc ad and ask what would you prefer a govt contribution or a new whatever.  just a thought.

    • Lucas says:

      09:55am | 28/01/10

      1. Raise the driving age to 18 yrs
      2. ban the sale and driving of v8s to people under the age of 25
      3. provide incentives to purchase safer 4 cylinder cars
      4. encourage more pubs to offer a courtesy bus like in some rural town pubs to decrease drink drivers

    • pete says:

      10:00am | 28/01/10

      I think the basis of the whole problem is that there is a flagrant disregard for the law and authority. it can be seen through the attitude towards police as well as other drivers on the road.
      I agree wholeheartedly with extremely heavy fines, total destruction of the offender’s vehicle and lengthy terms of disqualification on one hand, but i am realistic enought to knowe that the people who flout the law are quiet capable of driving unlicensed, because they “can”

      I am sick to death of these type of drivers who have no regard for others the lengths these selfish individuals go to is unbelievable. I spent 11 years of my life as an ambo cleaning up the damage these people cause to themselves and others.  To give you an idea of their attitude I clearly remember one accident, a one car collision with a pole, the car was a write off and there was one deceased occupant and one survived with barely a scratch.  The survivor told us the dead occupant (his brother) was speeding and lost control. When we examined the survivor we noticed he had a bruise over his right shoulder from a seat belt.
      It transpired that the survivor was the driver who lost control and killed his brother, who he then placed in the drivers seat to avoid prosecution

      How do you deal with that mentality?

    • SM says:

      10:20am | 28/01/10

      If someone continues to drive after having their licence cancelled for 10 years and is caught, they go to jail for 2 years

      less people will drive on a cancelled licence

    • iansand says:

      10:24am | 28/01/10

      There was this paragraph that I found interesting:

      “Only two rules remain – drivers cannot go above 30 mph, the German speed limit for city driving, and everyone has to yield to the right, regardless of whether it is a car, a bike or a mother with a pushchair”.
       
      Particularly the bit about the speed limit.  I am old enough to know that 30 mph is about 50 kph.

    • Charles Kelly says:

      10:14am | 29/01/10

      What’s your point iansand?

      30Mph is almost the same speed limit we have here for city driving - and once they’re out of the city in Germany, restrictions are lifted. That article shows quite clearly that when you stop patronising people with endless nanny-state restrictions, they act accordingly.

      In Australia, people are trusted to drive at 40 in a 50 zone in situations when conditions require it, but not to drive at 60 in a 50 zone in situations when conditions allow it. It’s bloody ludicrous! It’s MUCH more dangerous to drive at 50 in a 50 zone on a dark night in torrential rain than it is to drive at 60 in a 50 zone on a bright clear day when there’s not another car or person in sight - but the former is legal and the latter is not! Treat people like incompetent morons and they’ll act accordingly - as is evident every day on our roads.

    • Hurr says:

      10:42am | 28/01/10

      The thing is most of these crashes happen in rural areas. Out there there are not enough police to enforce the road rules. How many of you have gone on a family holiday and been overtaken by a tradie in a ute that looks like its going over 150km/h.

      The only solution I see to this is a drastic automisation of freeways accross Australia. Which would include the addition of many speed cameras WITHOUT WARNINGS, but also an increase in the speed limit on major freeways from 110kmph to 120kmph.

      To help combat speeding p platers, all cameras would take pictures of people going 115->120 and then the pictures would be checked to see if the drivers had P plates on.

    • formersnag says:

      10:56am | 28/01/10

      YES we can blame government for the outrageous condition of our roads to begin with, then there are plenty of other good reasons why our road toll has been increasing.

      1, the population is increasing stupid, has been for some time, the real question should be, why is the road toll, not even higher? why are there no “per capita” stats?

      2, social & family degeneration has been official green/labour policy for 40 years now, is it any wonder then, that there may have been an increase in irresponsible, reckless behaviour by lost youths whacked out on grog &/or drugs?

      3, Alcohol is easily more destructive to human health than tobacco, why is the alcohol industry not treated the same as tobacco, advertising banned, etc?

      Perhaps these criminal thugs from the green/labour coalition could start with these few?

    • Bazz says:

      11:56am | 28/01/10

      I agree - the alcohol problem that still exists on the roads is NOT being tackled agressivelly enough, hence the stats still show it to be a major single contributor.
      Tackle this issue seriously enough & the result will be evident.

    • Michael says:

      11:22am | 28/01/10

      Time to bring back mobile speed cameras.

      Time to match personal actions (speeding) with personal responsibility (paying the fine).

    • Steve of Cornubia says:

      12:16pm | 28/01/10

      I doubt that this would achieve anything except a further deterioration in relations between the public and the police. My guess is that 80% of those caught ‘speeding’ would be doing less than 10kph over the limit, mostly inadvertently. And no doubt said cameras would be positioned to cature the most revenue (i.e. on a nice, straight two-lane highway with no pedestrians nearby, posted well below its safe speed) rather than where it might actually save lives (i.e. outside a busy shopping strip where in fact very few cars exceed the limit).

      Nah, rather than a 100% focus on such ‘speeding’, let’s see the police targeting real hoons and idiots who weave through traffic, ignore Give Way signs, tailgate other drivers just to get past, drive unsafe vehicles, drive while drugged, fail to indicate on motorways, space invaders who squeeze into gaps forcing others to brake, etc, etc.

    • iansand says:

      01:03pm | 28/01/10

      In NSW Harold Scruby, a pedestrian rights ratbag, made a FOI request for statistics of the number of fines issued for speeds between 1 and 10 km/hr over the limit.  Not one document was produced.  At least in NSW, it doesn’t happen.

      Incidentally, my Subaru Forester speedo reads about 6% slower than my Satnav indicates.

    • Michael L says:

      12:12pm | 28/01/10

      The usual bogan minds screaming for more punishment. It is my long and bitter experience that these people are the most inept drivers who do not have a basic understanding of the complexities that they are dealing with. There is an old saying “To every complex problem there is a simple answer which is invariably wrong”.
      For the speed limit freaks. Speed limits are NOT set according to the conditions; they are mostly set for political reasons - some local yokel wants to impose a limit and the authorities give in to make political capital, after all it is not their constituents who get a ticket for doing something reasonable. The open road general limit is 100 kph because that is the metric equivalent of 60 mph which 60 or 70 years ago was as fast as people could go so that limit was imposed. On today’s roads and current cars it is ridiculously slow.
      We have the first world’s lowest standard of driver testing and training; how do you teach someone to drive on freeways or the open road when they are restricted to 80 kph? They have to learn that all by themselves.
      Road Safety research is extremely poor - my profession was the assessment of research projects. The research that claims that 5 kph over the 60 kph limit is full of experimental and analytical flaws; it blames a driver on a major road when someone drives across his path - ridiculous.
      The NSW RTA claims that over 40% of fatal crashes are caused by speeding; Queensland 18% and the UK police who do a more thorough analysis show 12% being caused by speed in excess of the speed limit (including “joy riders” and suicides). Why put all the effort into the least cause?
      We need better driver training and testing (including sending bad drivers for a re-test), real live police on the road with a mission to pick up bad driving instead to being a ticket issuing machine, and engineering improvements. The massive taxation on fuel, GST on motoring purchases should be ploughed back into roads.
      Anyone who cannot cope with trucks on the road should stay home!

    • iansand says:

      01:11pm | 28/01/10

      12% of accisents caused by speed?  Assuming that is correct and assuming a national road toll of 1,500, 12% of 1,500 equals 180 lives.

      Excessive speed is easily monitored.  Picking off the low hanging fruit for 180 lives looks like a pretty good equation to me.

    • SM says:

      03:35pm | 28/01/10

      12%?  There must be a difference between “caused by speeding” and “speed as a contributing factor” 

      Less than 1 in every 8 fatalties on the roads involves a speeding car? 

      No way

    • Michael L says:

      04:04pm | 28/01/10

      Iansand. Ignoring the 88% of causes as you propose is not really smart. Especially when you should realise that most of the 12% of fatals caused by exceeding the speed limit are by “Joyriders” (thieves) and suicides. About 4% of deaths are due to ordinary people driving in excess of the speed limit so spending all effort on this cause is clearly a waste of scarce resources. Most crashes are caused by inattention and driver error. Tackling these are harder but much more rewarding; prima facie speed limits would be a good start as it would force drivers to pay attention at all times. Having a driving test that really checked out ability and attitude over a period of at least one hour on the road and including freeway/local open roads would be another useful thing. Teaching first aid and traffic management at crash sites would also help.

    • Charles Kelly says:

      08:42pm | 28/01/10

      Here’s another fun little statistic for you all: The number of crashes where speed in excess of the posted limit is the actual CAUSE of the accident, but where the speed in excess of the posted limit does not exceed 29Kmh - NONE! Now look up the percentage of speeding fines issued where the speed in excess of the posted limit does not exceed 29Kmh, and you’ll see what a ridiculous farce we’re all part of.

      The more gullible idiots buy into the “speed kills” propaganda, the more likely it is that the REAL road safety issues are ignored. As usual, the revenue-raisers will always try to find a way to justify more speed cameras (in place of any genuinely effective action taken to reduce the road toll), and as usual it will do far more harm than good.

    • Shell says:

      12:20pm | 28/01/10

      Not just v8’s but v6’s, and anything like a Suburu WRX, Mitsubishi Evo and other road-legal sports cars. After watching many rear-wheel drives spin out in the wet in front of my house driven by responsible drivers, maybe banning the sale & driving of rear-wheel drives to inexperienced drivers as well might help.  Funny how the “traditional” Aussie cars of Falcon & Commodore are both rear-wheel drive & very powerful… and lusted after by spotty teens out to impress their mates and end up wrapped around a tree

    • Nigel says:

      01:06pm | 28/01/10

      Astonishing.  RWD are in no way more dangerous than FWD and your specious example of a WRX well that’s an all-wheel-drive.
      The use of FWD was driven not by safety but by cost and size. For example, there is no requirement for a transmission tunnel in a FWD car that decreases passenger space and increases heat.
      I drive an AWD on the road and a RWD on the race track (a little 2l, 4-cyl that goes very fast) and yes I have the correct CAMS licence for racing.  Both vehicles are incredibly safe and both handle far better than my third car which is a modern, comfortable FWD.

    • Tom says:

      03:56pm | 28/01/10

      Nigel, you forget most people are not experienced/good drivers. For most, the inherent behaviour of an FWD car is safer - i.e. if it understeers, you will back off the throttle and that will usually bring it into line. With a RWD car, counter - steering to control oversteer is much harder. Of course in modern cars with stability control it is much less of a problem either way.

      And the NSW law banning P Platers from driving super/turbocharged cars etc. is ridiculous. You can’t drive something like a Mercedes C200K with every imaginable safety feature, but you can drive a bombed out old 20 year old Commodore, an ill - handling beast with no safety features save for seat belts.

    • wolf says:

      12:42pm | 28/01/10

      Betenut the issue is largely with vehicles that oscilate between 5-20km under the speed limit because they have no accelleration control, then floor it as you attempt to pass.  I get seriously pissed off when I have to push up to 150km/h to SAFELY overtake (based on how much road is left before a blind corner) because the car I am trying to overtake suddenly finds the accellerator and shoots from 80km/h to 130km/h whenever an overtaking opportunity occurs before dropping back to 80km/h afterwards.
      What about the effect of driver fatigue on all of this?  If two drivers are sharing a 800km drive at a legal 100km/h then it will take 8 hours (less another hour for breaks of course).  Significant number of smacktards with no accelleration control can add at least an hour to that, increasing the chance that drivers will become fatigued.
      If Anthony and his mates are serious about addressing the road toll how about upgrading all our major inter city roads to dual carriageway and ensuring they are good enough to maintain a 150km/h speed? That same 8 hour drive would be over in 5 hours.  Less fatigue, less chance of someone falling asleep at the wheel and crashing.

    • Betelnut says:

      01:25pm | 28/01/10

      I know the peanuts you are talking about RE acceleration control and find them similarly frustrating.  However, is there seriously an 800km stretch of road in Australia with no overtaking lanes and no safe passing opportunities for the entire distance?  When you take your rest stops, we are now assuming the annoying driver stops with you for identical times?

      My point remains the same, even after doing this mythical 800km drive over 9 hours, you have saved a sum total of 1 hour of your life. 

      I get seriously pissed off when trailing a driver with oscillating speed whilst waiting for a SAFE oppurtunity to pass, I have to brake suddenly to avoid the dipshits who misjudge their overtaking distances and have to cut-in to avoid a head on.  I fail to see why my family needs to be put at risk by their impatience.

    • Traveller says:

      02:19pm | 28/01/10

      The road between Mt Isa and Townsville (QLD) is around 900kms, frequented by road trains and virtually no overtaking lanes.  Road trains are long, slow and dangerous to follow.  Overtaking them as quicklly and efficiently as possible is the only solution.

    • wolf says:

      02:47pm | 28/01/10

      Betelnut timing is everything.  That extra hour can make the difference between making it to your destination for the day/night and having to keep driving while fatigued.
      One common theme running through the comments here is that in country areas there ARE roads where there are insufficient overtaking opportunities (and there are peanuts who dont know when to overtake safely).  Surely a viable dual carriageway in good order AT LEAST between the capital cities is something the government could do to cut the road toll.
      I dont think there is anything the government could do to cut the toll in urban areas other than putting more police on the roads to tackle the idiot risktakers who ignore (urban) speedlimits and common sense.

    • cupcake says:

      12:45pm | 28/01/10

      formersnag, as you will notice in the article (if you in fact read it), the road toll before ‘social and family degeneration’ begun, the road toll was 3798. So how can you say there has been an increase in irresponsible, reckless behaviour by lost youths whacked out on grog or drugs?

    • Steve of Cornubia says:

      01:25pm | 28/01/10

      The road toll from 10, 20 or 30 years ago can’t be used for all comparisons because vehicle construction standards (stronger shells, safety glass, collapsible steering columns, crumple zones, stronger fuel tanks, ABS, traction control, etc) has increased so much in that time, along with seat belt usage.

      I recently drove a ‘70s Holden and I felt really vulnerable. Floppy suspension, virtually no brakes, no seatbelts, bench seat, metal dashboard - the lot. Though it was a charming car, I couldn’t wait to get out of the thing!

    • Harquebus says:

      12:57pm | 28/01/10

      Show the blood, guts and distress on the 6PM news. Wars, violence and road kill will soon decrease. The edited propaganda that we call news is helping to raise a nation of wimps.

    • steve says:

      01:00pm | 28/01/10

      Just yesterday afternoon, had an idiot roll his car down the bottom of my road.  3.15pm, racing along a windy, busy road, cornered too fast, raced across the incoming lane and rolled his car. Just missed some oncoming cars. 

      Evidently he’d clipped another car a little earlier as he did an outlandish overtaking manouver.

      Did the little twerp seem remorseful—nope. Only at his own circumstance of smashing up his car, not the potential horror he could have inflicted on other innocent people, or even the school zone that he was just about to enter. 

      Seriously, how can we stop idiots like this, when just the day before 3 poor youg lads were killed in a similar type of car crash!

      What real hope do we have?

    • me again says:

      01:39pm | 28/01/10

      well you see, though you and me obey the law, some people dont. thats why we have police.. otherwise.. if everyone obeyed the law, we wouldnt need police at all! - now… its the governments job, among other things, to have enough police to make sure people obey the law. mr albanese thinks the government isnt responsible,  well id say our government is irresponsible if they dont have enough police to do the job, to enforce their laws, to stop people putting other innocent lives at risk..

      isnt it wonderful.. our politicians today, one writes about how theyre not to blame for anything, another writes about what a great job theyre doing, and another writes to tell us shes unconvinced..

      without a doubt.. no real hope, were screwed

    • Steve of Cornubia says:

      01:46pm | 28/01/10

      That incident would be written-up as a case of ‘speeding’, which is part of the problem. In reality, it was hooligan behaviour in a car.

      That this problem is caused (or exacerbated) by social issues is evident on the water too. I use my boat very little these days, because I’m sick of all the hoons who charge about at high speed, ignoring speed limits and making life very uncomfortable for anybody moored up, as they’re tossed around by constant wake from these idiots. The worst ones are the ‘towsports’ mob, who blat around in V8-engined speedboats, towing some drunken, yelling fool on an inflatable while 1000watts of AccaDacca booms across the water.

      And don’t get me started on the jetski lot.

      Whinge, gripe, moan…..

    • SM says:

      02:34pm | 28/01/10

      Fine him $25,000, garnish his weekly wage until it’s paid, ban him from driving for 10 years.

      Less people will speed

    • Sue says:

      02:38pm | 28/01/10

      In 1971 my husband of 2 months was seriously injured in a road crash which left him with brain damage, 2 inches off one leg and epilepsy.  After 3 months in hospital, he couldn’t even use a knife and fork and had to re-learn everything including going to the toilet.  My children and I suffered terribly from his abuse which was caused by personality changes and eventually it tore our little family apart and we went into hiding.  In 1985 he died from an epileptic fit.  I was 19 years old and he was 20 when the accident happened.  However, he was an accident waiting to happen, he drove very fast and didn’t care about passengers rights, including mine.  I believe that kids should only be allowed to drive low powered cars and not be allowed to carry passengers (or limited to 1) until they are off their Ps.  If they want to drive like idiots, drunk or whatever they shouldn’t be carrying passengers when they waste their own life.  Having a licence to drive is a priviledge not a right!

    • Tim says:

      03:22pm | 28/01/10

      Why are you limiting it to P Platers Sue?
      I’ve found that supposedly adult drivers are some of the worst offenders.
      More driver education for everyone should be the answer. Retest everyone every 10 years.

    • Sue says:

      03:47pm | 28/01/10

      Yes that would help too.  You should take a drive down the South Eastern Freeway at peak hour and watch the P plate drivers weave in and out of traffic at high speed.  I agree with you though, its not only P platers, however re-testing every 10 years won’t stop these young drivers from killing themselves and/or their mates.  I think they should do compulsory intensive driver training which should include talking to people with severe injuries.  I’m sure there would be a few young survivors who would be happy to tell all.

    • Fed up in Summertown says:

      02:47pm | 28/01/10

      Monday night a motorbike rider was killed instantly 10m from my house. The road is a 60 zone; he was going that fast his helmet was blown off upon impact. I am sick of people making excuses for stupidity. If you want adult privileges such as private transportation you have to accept adult responsibilities and consequences. If you don’t like speed limits don’t drive/ride. I certainly don’t appreciate people doing 90km/h past my home or abusing me whilst I am trying to pull into my driveway- yes I actually get abused by impatient road users whilst turning into my driveway.

      When you obtain a motorbike licence you are restricted as to the power of the bike, why can’t the same be applied to cars? Why can’t we restrict teenagers to 4 cylinder cars until they prove that they are worthy of trust on our roads

    • steve says:

      03:44pm | 28/01/10

      another quick story.

      i was out with a mate riding our bikes recently through the adelaide hills, when we heard the umistakeable drone of a high powered car in the distance.  we decided to pull off the road, just alongside an older lady who was walking. 

      sure enough, nissan skyline, loud pipes, p-plates, very quick, sideways around a corner: the lot. 

      we tried to get number plate but it was too quick and ended up just shaking our heads.

      the older lady on the other hand was very visibly shaking—we asked her if she was ok and she said she was suffering from nervous anxiety because of all the idiots on the roads.

      according to her, around that area on weekend evenings its like a raceway with regular crashes.  her family is too scared to leave the house and be on the roads.

      calls to police result in nothing really happening.

      if we can have a nationwide task force for anti-social nightclub behaviour before xmas, why can’t they do the same for anti-social car drivers—just don’t announce it in advance.?  it’s not hard to know where they drive.

      it’s the total lack of visible enforcement of dickhead driving that pisses me off the most.

    • Johnno says:

      03:59pm | 28/01/10

      Potential drivers need intesnive EDUCATION and training before being let loose on the roads - far too easy at present to get a licence without any understanding of the power and forces involved in driving.  As well, there needs to be far more draconian penalties for the relatively few dangerous and reckless drivers - like jail time for drink drivers and those who habitually put the lives of others in danger.  It is far easier to sit behind a speed camera on an open road and tab up hundreds of technical offences that to get out in traffic and weed out the hoons. A licence is a privelage, not a right.

    • Brian says:

      04:17pm | 28/01/10

      Given the amount of tax paid in Australia, every road should be paved with gold. What a stupid article from an ALP insider - not only is it insensitive to write such an article when lives are lost but then to wash hands of responsibility. You have been around Rudd, Keating et al too long.

      Stop wasting money under the guise of “infrastructure” and spend it where it is needed, not where your vote-buying is best.

    • Mike says:

      04:21pm | 28/01/10

      The speed and power of cars should be restricted. There is no reason why you should be able to own a V8 or V6…….

      Cars should be also limited to 120km/hr max. I can safely pass a truck (which is limited to 100km/hr anyway) on a rural road doing 120km/hr in my 4 cylinder car.
      If you remove the ability of speeding then it wont become a factor.

      The other option is to cancel their licence for hoon driving behaviour. If they then decide to do it again, wack them in jail of 1 year, or give them a $30,000 fine minimum.

      Lets get harsher with the penitents. Maybe then they will listen.

    • Yolanda says:

      04:28pm | 28/01/10

      If anyone is needing support after being affected by road trauma, there is a new social networking site built especially for this purpose: http://www.journeybeyondroadtrauma.org.

    • Carl Palmer says:

      04:53pm | 28/01/10

      Dear Minister, whilst I applaud your initiative however I do not accept your last sentence.

      It is your responsibility to change behaviour. It is your responsibility to take on this challenge, to introduce strategies that will see the road toll head in a southerly direction. You are the National Govt and you have an obligation to instigate change together with your state colleagues.

      Why is it that Portugal was able to reduce their road toll from 1865 deaths in 1998 to just 738 in 2009. Did the Portuguese drivers suddenly realise that they had to take “greater responsibility”?? Doubt it. Someone in authority had the audacity to actually want to do something about it come up with a strategy and the audacity to implement it. So it can be done.

      So whilst I applaud you for your inaugural National Road Safety Council meeting, please do not make this a talk fest – outcomes must be achieved, followed up, refined and implemented. Maybe in your opening address you could set a target of where the number must be by say 2020. Yes you probably won’t be in govt but it is the trend that we are interested in and how fast and steep it can head south.

    • S.L says:

      05:21pm | 28/01/10

      The only measure introduced that has been successful in reducing road tolls is random breath testing. I grew up and drove a few years in the era when you “got too drunk to walk so you drove home”. My father drove taxis in the 60s and has metioned how it was an obstacle course of drunk drivers in the festive season. Now attitudes in following generations have changed to this stupid activity. Ok there is still the odd dope but nothing like before.
      Still with all the ideas with great intensions nothing will stop a slit second of stupidity and no driver can say they can’t be accused of something silly sometime.

    • fred upf says:

      06:06pm | 28/01/10

      why are we such a sucky country that we cant have advanced driver education at schools?

      if kids were able to learn to safely execute skids on a skid pan.. all the, well most, of the novelty would have worn off by the time they left school..

      a lot of it is kids are getting into cars after just getting their licence, and seeing what they can do. pushing the envelope..

      many parent dont have the resources to be able to give their kids much driver training.. obviously not as much as is needed these days., not everyone grows up on a farm where they can let loose and get it all out their system..

      cars then just become a means of transport, the ute back on the farm was for having fun..

      as practically everyone will need driving skills by the time they leave school.. the government is remiss in not providing practical and theory driving education in all schools, including advanced driving in how to control skids etc… none of which is included these days in any driver education as it is..

      theres a LOT more the government could be doing..  and dont tell me it will cost to much..

    • Luke says:

      07:45pm | 28/01/10

      Here is an email i sent to the Qld Department of Transport a month or so ago.
      Basically the idea behind it is that if you are a safe driver you get rewarded by paying less in registration, free licence renewals etc.  For example, my girlfriend has been driving for six years and has not once received a speeding ticket or demerit point notice but yet still pays the same to use the road as people who have regular speeding fines and demerit point notices.  Where is the encouragement to drive safely?  I understand the need for enforcement of road rules including speeding but a reason people do break road rules is that they can get away with it for quite sometime.  I guarantee if I walk outside now to Coronation Drive, even without a speed gun I could see people breaking road rules.  But on the other side of the argument if you reward people and encourage them to save money (by reducing rego fees etc) people would change their behaviours.  I was also a part of the Psycholgically Based Safety Training and during this training we learnt about the benefits of providing people with encouragement (in very basic terms) so they work safer and not injure themselves.  Surely the same principles would apply to road safety?  And also in the news at the moment is all the “revenue raising” that speed cameras etc are allegedly there for – if this policy was in place you could quite definitively say that it is not about revenue raising but also encouraging safe driving behaviours.  And if covering the payment of the rewards policy was an issue, maybe the money raised from speed cameras and fines could cover the cost?  I am quite sure that this would also encourage safe driving because if people knew that they were helping other people save money they would be more likely to drive safer. My main belief is that you can have both systems in place and would help improve road safety.
      I recieved a response saying that it would cost too much, that rewarding positive driving behaviours wouldn’t work (even though it is pychologically proven that it can).  They also stated they have done research on this is in the past and there isn’t enough evidence supporting this.
      I think the ideas i have raised have merit and probably need to be investigated further because this may help road safety? I am interested in other readers view points here as well.
      My condolences go out to anyone who has lost someone in this manner.

    • sean says:

      08:15pm | 28/01/10

      In Victoria people focus on their speedo doing 100 (not one iddly little bit over) all the while travelling very close to the vehicle in front.  And the use of cruise helps them maintain their compliant speed.  And crash as soon as the car in front has to slow for some unexpected reason.  It is not about speed, its about driving safely.  Ken Lay just does not get it.

    • Michellemac says:

      09:19pm | 28/01/10

      One of the other issues is that most people will, generally, go along with things they see as “right” or that make sense to them personally. But where things seem to fly in the face of common sense, they will take matters into ther own hands.

      In WA, we’ve just had a huge fan fare about a new Perth-Bunbury H’way which was much needed (like, about 20 years ago!) but the speed limits make no sense. Driving in the 2-3 lane “freeway” bit, complete with overpasses/roundabouts and merging lanes for entering traffic, the speed limit is 100. Once one gets the the “highway” part of the road, where there are T-junctions and traffic from minor roads turns directly into the path of drivers travelling at 110+,, the speed limit is 110. It makes no sense. And so people ignore it. Maybe only by 5-15kms per hour but they ignore it because it is so arbitary and makes no sense. Why is the ‘safe’ section of the road signposted at 100 and the seemingly more dangerous bit 110? And of course, every weekend, the police sit at the part of the road where the official speed limit goes down, and then you wonder why people get cynical?

      I’m not saying they are right, but I can understand it. Why do I stick to the speed limit on that road? Because I need my licence and don’t want a fine. Do I agree with the signposted speed limits? No. And if I was a little less worried about getting a fine/demerits, then I probably would be one of the ones travelling too fast.

    • Steve of Cornubia says:

      12:43pm | 29/01/10

      Th ereason the three-lane highway is posted at 100kph is because every good trap needs good bait.

    • jess says:

      12:30am | 29/01/10

      The only people who say that speeding fines are just a way for the gov to make money are those who need an excuse to put their foot down and ease their guilt that they are risking other peoples lives. Hang your head in SHAME! speed kills, think otherwise? your a dummy and shouldnt be on the road. and to the idiot who said drivers in the country can drive to the conditions? noones exempt from death mate, not even you or the person you could hit head on overtaking the truck. Suck it up and driver behind the truck, other people deserve to be safe from you risking their lives just to get somewhere faster. That what happened to that poor Lplater and her dad, an impatient moron to dumb to know the risks.

    • Tim says:

      09:34am | 29/01/10

      Jess,
      do some research before commenting.
      Do you actually know how speed limits are set?
      Driving to some arbitrary number that the government has decided is “safe” does not keep you from having an accident.
      I know of many speed limits where I live where the roads were designed for 100km/h, yet the set speed limit is 80km/h? Why?
      The government has now put speed cameras all down the straight stretches of road in these 80km/h zones? Don’t try and tell me it isn’t about revenue raising.
      If they were serious about saving lives, they would put the speed cameras where accidents are more likely to happen and increase the funding for driving education. I’m not holding my breath for it to happen though.

    • Charles Kelly says:

      10:25am | 29/01/10

      Iin lieu of any genuinely effective action taken to reduce the road toll, the revenue-raisers will always look for more ways to justify installing extra speed cameras. The more people buy into the “speed kills” propaganda they use to justify their greed, the more people will continue to die as a result of their ignorance of the real dangers on our roads. The blood of these people is on the hands of the revenue-raisers and the moronic gullible sheep who let themselves be brainwashed by their propaganda. I’m looking squarely at YOU jess. Wake up to yourself!

    • James says:

      10:49am | 29/01/10

      So what if it is about revenue raising anyway?  The only people who would have a reason to complain are those who break the law.  If you want to avoid speeding fines, avoid speeding.  Pretty simple really.

    • Charles Kelly says:

      11:20am | 29/01/10

      The fact is James, that the overwhelming focus on “speeding” distracts from the major road safety issues which slip by largely unnoticed. Just like I said, “The more people buy into the ‘speed kills’ propaganda they use to justify their greed, the more people will continue to die as a result of their ignorance of the real dangers on our roads. The blood of these people is on the hands of the revenue-raisers and the moronic gullible sheep who let themselves be brainwashed by their propaganda.” It appears this applies to you too.

    • James says:

      11:34am | 29/01/10

      I agree with you that the various speed kills campaigns distract from other important issues Charles (like drink driving) - no need to insult people.  I just think that when it comes to speed cameras it doesn’t matter if it is revenue raising, because if you don’t want to pay the fines, don’t speed.  It really is that simple.  It is about personal responsibility for your own actions.

    • James says:

      02:21pm | 29/01/10

      Hi Charles,

      Inattention probably does kill a lot of people, true.  But when I walk my daughter to school, it is comforting to know that most people will not be driving above the speed limit.  Apart from overtaking on country roads, when is it appropriate to speed exactly?

      Would you be okay with an anti-speeding campaign if it said that speed kills some people, and so does drink driving and inattentive driving?

    • k says:

      07:49am | 29/01/10

      Age isn’t always a factor- I received my drivers licence at the ripe age of 15. ( rural state in the USA)  the test consised of 20 multiple choice questions and a drive around the block.  BUT in order to get to the point where I could apply for my licence had to endure a 15 hour classroom course (with a much harder test) and 0 hours in the car, both with certified instructors)  If you weren’t willing to cough up for the class, you couldn’t get a licence until 16.
      Rural area, single lane for the highways- yet the worst accident I remember wasw a freind rolling their jeep on a dirt road (they all walked away)
      The driving course emphasised defensive driving, and risks (when you livein an area where black ice is a major factor in accidents you need to be always aware) and tested students both on actual driving laws and driving concepts.  Students couldn’t get to the actual driving part of the course until they passed all of the tests and the theory part- and it wasn’t easy.
      Net result- I have never never had aspeeding ticket and the only accident I have ever had was the result of the crappy Holden turning circle- I scraped a parked car in an underground parking lot, while trying to park.
      Mandatory driving course for learners (that cost money- if you can pay for a car you can pay for a curse) ma be a better restriction than a simple age based limit.  Stupidity is not age related.

    • Charles Kelly says:

      11:18am | 29/01/10

      Perhaps if attention was focussed on THE REAL DANGERS ON OUR ROADS, people might actually stop dying? Accidents in which speed in excess of the posted limit is THE ACTUAL CAUSE account for a very minor percentage of the overall road toll - in direct contrast to the overwhelming amount of emphasis placed upon the subject in government propaganda campaigns to justify their revenue-raising excercises. Speed IS NOT the problem the revenue-raisers would like us to think it is - the real problem is driver inexperience, incompetence, inattention and inconsideration. However these very real dangers on our roads will never be addressed while there’s so much money to be made from fining experienced, competent, attentive and considerate drivers who occasionally exceed the posted speed limit.

      The oft-repeated statistics regarding the percentage of accidents attributed to “speeding” ARE LIES! They DO NOT relate directly to the CAUSE of these accidents, nor do they specifically relate to speeds in excess of the posted limit. For “speed” to be noted as “a contributing factor” in an accident, a vehicle DOES NOT have to be “speeding” - and rarely is the speed at which a vehicle is travelling the catalyst for an accident. A brief scan of some comments listed here is enough to see the amount of gullible people in this country who are more than willing to blindly swallow and regurgitate the deliberately misleading propaganda the authorities spoon-feed us in order to justify their greedy revenue-raising.

    • James says:

      11:38am | 29/01/10

      Attentive, responsible drivers watch their speed, and do not have to worry about fines.

    • iansand says:

      02:10pm | 29/01/10

      There are a few other inesapable physical facts of life.  To wit:

        The faster you go the more likely it is that centrifugal force will exceed the adhesive frictional force of tyres and road.

        The faster you go the further you will go before frictional forces between brake pads and discs slow you to a stop.

        The faster you go the further you will go within a fixed reaction period.

      For some reason it appears these inescapable rules have no effect on the potential for accidents.  Perhaps the flying pigs waft people out of harm’s way.

    • Charles Kelly says:

      02:28pm | 29/01/10

      Yes iansand, we all understand your desire to go back to the times when motor vehicles travelled at a snail’s pace with a man in front ringing a bell. There, happy?

      However the more intelligent people here understand the concept of “acceptable risk”.

    • iansand says:

      11:19am | 29/01/10

      More speed, more kinetic energy.  Simple fact of physics.

      The more kinetic energy the more destruction when movement ceases unexpectedly.  Another simple fact of physics.

      You can’t avoid physics, no matter how much you think you can.

    • Bogan RIver says:

      11:59am | 29/01/10

      Great… so we all travel everywhere at 30. Less kinetic energy all round.]

      Brilliant

    • iansand says:

      12:21pm | 29/01/10

      So you don’t believe in physics?  Why am I not surprised?

    • Charles Kelly says:

      01:03pm | 29/01/10

      Perhaps we should all go back to the times when motor vehicles travelled at a snail’s pace with a man in front ringing a bell? That would suit your argument iansand - so I’ll assume you’re in favour of such an idea.

    • Angry Punter says:

      01:27pm | 29/01/10

      Dear Charles, I take it you’ve never lost a close friend or family member or family member in a car crash caused by a speeding motorist?  Lucky you.  Those of us who aren’t so lucky don’t feel quite as sanguine about it all.  Trust me, speed kills.  I hope that you work this out for yourself, before you find out the hard way.

    • Charles Kelly says:

      01:51pm | 29/01/10

      Was the “crash” you allude to actually CAUSED by driving at a speed in excess of the posted limit Angry Punter, or something else? Can this be proven?

      Where’s YOUR empathy with the MANY MORE people who have lost loved ones due to the systemic ignorance of the MAJOR causes of road accidents?

    • Charles Kelly says:

      02:56pm | 29/01/10

      The problem with that argument James, is that small children have also been killed by cars travelling slowly in their own family driveways. This places you squarely in league with iansand, who evidently believes that we should all go back to the times when motor vehicles travelled at a snail’s pace with a man in front ringing a bell.

    • iansand says:

      02:02pm | 29/01/10

      Betcha don’t believe in gravity, either.  That is another inescapable phyiscal fact of life.

    • James says:

      02:31pm | 29/01/10

      If, in that split second, you were driving past a school at 60km/h instead of 40km/h, them you are much more likely to hit a small child, making speed quite dangerous.  It is not as simple as you seem to think it is.  Speeding can kill, as can inattention and drink driving and inexperience and a host of other things.  But if focusing attention on things that kill prevents even one or two deaths, why should I care if some people have to pay a fine to save those lives?

    • Betelnut says:

      11:51am | 29/01/10

      I fail to see why so many apparently “experienced, competent, attentive and considerate drivers” drivers are unable to maintain a posted speed limit, seems like a particularly relevant driving skill.  If you want to speed, that is fine, just expect to pay for it.

      In terms of revenue raising and misplaced road safety priorities, you might have a point.  Maybe a redirection the revenue from speeding infringments (really a stupidity or incompetence tax) out of consolidated revenue and placement directly into driver education programs, blackspot removal, level crossing removal and drink driving campaigns might be warranted, if only to diminish the obvious resentment.

    • Charles Kelly says:

      12:51pm | 29/01/10

      NO Betelnut, the focus of law ENFORCEMENT needs to change to reflect the real issues on our roads. While the overwhelming focus is on speeding, other more important issues get ignored by idiots who are incapable of thinking for themselves.

    • Angry Punter says:

      12:09pm | 29/01/10

      I can’t believe the number of people who think it’s OK to speed, and if they crash it must be someone else’s fault (usually the government’s).  No road is an accident waiting to happen.  You’re not ‘driving to the conditions’. Speeding fines are not ‘revenue raisers’.  You’re selfish, stupid, dangerous idiots and you make me sick.

    • Charles Kelly says:

      01:00pm | 29/01/10

      I can’t believe the number of gullible people who blindly buy into the government’s “speed kills” propaganda Angry Punter. Some idiots are genuinely incapable of comprehending that in some circumstances when “driving to the conditions” it is MUCH SAFER to exceed the speed limit than it is to drive at or just below the speed limit in other situations. These morons are selfish, stupid, dangerous idiots and they make me sick.

    • James says:

      02:17pm | 29/01/10

      There are many situations where exceeding the speed limit is incredibly dangerous, Charles.  Take the roads around schools for example, or quiet suburban streets, or city centres.  It is not as simple as “speeding is okay”.  Speeding is only okay under two circumstances - when overtaking on country roads, and when you don’t mind paying the fine if you get caught.

    • James says:

      02:37pm | 29/01/10

      Hi Charles,

      I just read this:

      “In Australia, people are trusted to drive at 40 in a 50 zone in situations when conditions require it, but not to drive at 60 in a 50 zone in situations when conditions allow it. It’s bloody ludicrous! It’s MUCH more dangerous to drive at 50 in a 50 zone on a dark night in torrential rain than it is to drive at 60 in a 50 zone on a bright clear day when there’s not another car or person in sight - but the former is legal and the latter is not! Treat people like incompetent morons and they’ll act accordingly - as is evident every day on our roads.”

      I would agree entirely with you, if only I had your faith in my fellow human beings.  Sadly, there are yobs and idiots out there who think it is perfectly fine to get drunk and then drive four friends to their deaths at 140 km/h, as evidenced by recent events.  People simply can not be trusted to do what is best for others, and must accordingly be forced.  Who knows how much higher our road toll would be if people were not wary of being caught speeding?

    • Bogan River says:

      01:28pm | 29/01/10

      Speed limits (on major highways) aren’t supposed to stop people dying if they crash. Let’s face it - if you hit something (movement ceases unexpectedly) at highway speed you’re pretty much done for anyway, whether you’re travelling at 100 or 150.

      Speed limits are meant to stop you having a crash in the first place - the logic being that on some sections of road travelling too fast puts you in danger of losing control.

      What we’re pointing out here is that in some circumstances (such as on the Hume, or on the empty Barrier Highway) it may be safe to travel faster than the arbitrarily chosen limit on the sign.

      When you are overtaking it is actually safer if you drive faster, since you spend less time on the wrong side of the road.

      Country drivers generally recognise this, which is why most of them are quite happy at 9-10km over the speed limit (a speed which the a highway patrol officer won’t book you on the open highway in good conditions). When you live 400km from the nearest major town, along a road that mightn’t have a bend for 100km it makes good sense.

      Even the ones that don’t normally speed will, without exception, go past the speed limit if necessary when overtaking.

    • Charles Kelly says:

      02:10pm | 29/01/10

      No James, that’s simply an example of the delusional thinking the revenue-raisers program into motorists who are incapable of thinking for themselves.

      Attentive, responsible drivers drive at an APPROPRIATE SPEED for the conditions James. In certain circumstances, this speed can safely be in excess of the posted limit.

      Attentive, responsible drivers don’t need to monitor their speedometer to drive at an APPROPRIATE SPEED for the conditions. In certain circumstances, this speed can safely be in excess of the posted limit.

      It only takes a split second of inattention on the road for an accident to happen. Every glance at your speedometer requires a moment of inattention to more important matters. Every glance at your speedometer takes at least a split second. Do the math.

    • Charles Kelly says:

      02:22pm | 29/01/10

      Once again James, you fail to comprehend the importance of the distorted message the overwhelming focus on speed enforcement sends. The more speed enforcement, the more ignorance, the more distraction, the more resentment, the more reaction, the more road rage, and the more danger on our roads.

    • Steve of Cornubia says:

      02:29pm | 29/01/10

      If we’re going to get pedantic about this (kinetic energy and all that guff) then let’s at least admit that the ‘speed kills’ capaign is absurd, given that we don’t die instantly if we exceed the speed limit. If speed really did kill, all F1 drivers would arrive at the first corner dead in their cars. Utter nonsense.

      So having established that speed itself does not kill, let’s consider why we fuss about it so. Well, kinetic energy is a factor and higher speed will inevitably result in more damage, if not to the driver then certainly to the car. However, the only way to avoid this is to remain stationary, and then it would take an awfully long time to get to work.

      So, what we’re really taking about seems to be a contradiction in terms - ‘safe’ speed. What is ‘safe’ speed? Well I guess we’re talking now about acceptable risk. Pretty much as soon as we move we increase risk, so how much risk is acceptable? This has to be a trade-off between risk and utility. If I stay under 10kph then my chances of injury are negligible, at least through crashing, though chances are I’ll be beaten to a pulp by the mile-long queue of tradies stuck behind me in their utes.

      Nah, the problem is that speed limits are arbitrary and therefore wrong most of the time. Sometimes it IS safe to travel at double the speed limit, whereas at other times, it would be dangerous to do more than 60 on the highway.

      These arbitrary speed limits should be set using the best evidence available, rather than (as they are now) to (a) avoid the expense of upgrading roads and/or (b) to provide a steady stream of revenue for greedy and profligate governments. It makes no sense whatsoever to post a straight, two-lave highway at 80kph and then a single-lane country road with dips, crests, blind corners and abundant wildlife at 100kph. Unless you are in government of course…....

    • Tim says:

      02:33pm | 29/01/10

      Iansand,
      I hope you don’t drive then because your argument can be used to reduce every speed limit to 0.
      The more sensible people around will realise that every time we get in our cars, we expose ourselves and our passengers to an element of risk. Only a part of that risk is related to speed.
      Surely the government should be focused on reducing that element of risk as a whole, and not just concentrating on a small part of it?
      Why are speed cameras always placed in areas where they will have the least amount of impact on accidents but the highest impact on revenue?
      The government can have all the speed cameras they want but they should not try to claim that they have anything to do with reducing the road toll. They are a form of voluntary taxation, nothing more.
      BTW I have never had a speeding fine.

    • iansand says:

      04:47pm | 29/01/10

      Do you have a problem with the physical principles I have described?  Do you disbelieve them?  If you read carefully you will see that I have done no more than describe physical principles.

      What I have found fascinating is the mouth frothing self justifications of Team Boy Racer.

    • Charles Kelly says:

      09:57am | 30/01/10

      Once again iansand, we all understand your desire to go back to the times when motor vehicles travelled at a snail’s pace with a man in front ringing a bell. We’ll start a petition OK! Happy NOW?

      However the more intelligent people here understand the concept of “acceptable risk”. All YOUR “mouth frothing self justification” in detailing the “physical principles” you have described has achieved, is highlighting your narcissistic ignorance.

    • iansand says:

      01:08pm | 30/01/10

      My problem is that I may have to accept the risk that you take.

      Why do you want to drive fast anyway?

    • Tim says:

      08:51am | 01/02/10

      Iansand,
      “why do you want to drive fast anyway”?
      Ignoring the fact that no-one has actually said they wanted to drive fast, surely with all your knowledge of physical laws, you know that speed is relative?
      What I and others have been saying is that in some places speed limits have been set at ridiculous levels that have no impact on the safety of drivers.
      And if you don’t want to take on the risk of “others” on the road, then unless you have your own personal dedicated road system, i suggest you stop driving.

    • Charles Kelly says:

      10:13am | 01/02/10

      EVERYONE who chooses to drive on the road accepts the risk of doing so iansand. We experienced, competent, attentive and considerate drivers are forced to “accept the risk” of putting up with the inexperience, incompetence, inattention and inconsideration of other drivers - so why shouldn’t you have to share the road with us?

      Although evidently you would prefer to travel at a snail’s pace with a man in front ringing a bell, most people want to get to their destination in the shortest possible time that an appropriate level of safety will allow.

      EVERYONE who drives at an appropriate speed on the road drives “fast” - and as far as I can see, NOBODY here is suggesting it’s acceptable to drive “too fast”.

      Relatively, 20Kmh is “fast” - and it’s also “too fast” if conditions dictate that a slower speed is required to ensure acceptable level of safety. 120Kmh is “fast”, but it’s NOT “too fast” if conditions dictate that such a speed is acceptable in ensuring the acceptable level of safety. The key words here are “appropriate speed”.

      Common sense dictates that an intelligent person is FAR more capable of determining an “appropriate speed” for the prevailing conditions than an arbitrary number on a street sign.

    • Charles Kelly says:

      02:37pm | 29/01/10

      OF COURSE there are many situations where exceeding the speed limit is incredibly dangerous, that’s why intelligent motorists “drive to the conditions”. Ring a bell James?

      Only a complete moron would assume that “speeding is okay” in ALL circumstances - just as only a complete moron would assume that someone believes that “speeding is okay” in ALL circumstances, regardless of the fact that they’ve actually said NOTHING of the sort.

    • James says:

      10:45am | 01/02/10

      Exactly.  And there are plenty of complete morons out there who, without the existence of fines for speeding, would speed in all circumstances.  That is who the laws are directed at.

      BTW, only someone without intelligence resorts to calling people names instead of presenting their arguments in a civilised fashion.

    • Charles Kelly says:

      11:22am | 01/02/10

      What a load of BOLLOCKS James!

      IF “there are plenty of complete morons out there who, without the existence of fines for speeding, would speed in all circumstances” - EXPLAIN why in freeway situations combining poor light and visibility, slippery roads and torrential rain, it is extremely rare to see anyone at all driving at a speed even remotely close to the posted limit?

      If your ridiculous claim was even close to being valid, MANY people would drive at or close to the posted speed limit ALL THE TIME! Anyone in possession of even a modicum of common sense knows this scenario is FAR from reality.

      BTW, only someone without intelligence resorts to presenting insultingly asinine rhetoric under the deluded guise of “presenting their arguments in a civilised fashion”.

    • James says:

      12:18pm | 01/02/10

      So angry, Charles.  Calm down mate - its okay.

      Okay, given, in such extreme circumstances as you describe, most would not drive at high speeds but that is mainly because their own life is at risk.  But in plenty of more reasonable circumstances, and when the lives at risk belong mainly to others, plenty of bogans would drive above the speed limit.  Outside schools, for example.  The reason we have speed law is because in some situations, speeding is highly dangerous, and if it saves only one or two lives, then it is worth it.

      That said, I still agree with you that we need to also focus on other causes of motor vehicles deaths, a point you seem to have missed in your determination to undermine people rather than simply put your arguments forward.

    • Charles Kelly says:

      12:57pm | 01/02/10

      I don’t need to undermine your argument James, you’re doing a great job of that yourself. Your delusionary contradictions continue to omit basic logic and common sense, and only serve to reinforce my stance - as you’re successfully arguing against yourself. Frankly, your contentious drivel is insulting and objectionable, and as such it deserves no respect.

      I have a right to be angry - because it’s people like YOU who are responsible for our roads being the pathetic shambles that they are. I’d LOVE to be present when irony finally catches up with you. Wake up to yourself!

    • James says:

      01:33pm | 01/02/10

      Hi Charles,

      There is no point engaging with you - you are not willing to concede anything, and just become more and more aggressive over time.

      I pity you, to be honest.  You seem angry, isolated and lonely.  I think someone needs a hug…

    • Charles Kelly says:

      03:08pm | 01/02/10

      If there was actually anything in your empty rhetoric to “concede” James, I’m sure I would - but so far you’ve failed on all counts to genuinely rebut any point I’ve made.

      It’s clear at this point all you’ve got at your disposal is denial and hypocrisy.

      Tell you what, when your daughter gets cleaned up in a school zone by a paranoid motorist hypnotically fixated on watching their speedometer instead of the road, I’ll be right over with a nice big hug for you - and I’ll try really hard to avoid reminding you of the obvious irony.

    • James says:

      03:32pm | 01/02/10

      I would never speak of your children (if you have any - God forbid) being killed in such a shocking way, and the fact that you think it is okay to look forward with such obvious glee to the horrible death of mine speaks volumes about your character.

    • Charles Kelly says:

      04:55pm | 01/02/10

      I have grave concerns about not only your character James, but your suitability as a parent. You have made it perfectly clear you want motorists in school zones to dangerously divert their attention away from vigilantly watching the road and surrounds, to religiously monitor their speedometers instead. This puts not only your daughter in peril, but also those of more intelligent and sensible people who do not share your reckless views. Therefore you either have to wake up to yourself, or accept the consequences of your irresponsible parenting.

    • James says:

      08:52am | 02/02/10

      You have committed the exact same offense of which you accuse me, sir.  You assume that because I think people should not speed around school, that I also think they should not watch the road.  That is deeply flawed logic, to say the least.  That is the exact sort of asinine and irrelevant rhetoric which you abhor so much.  At least I know that you do not have children to torture, otherwise you would not say such awful things about a perfectly innocent girl.  You would understand that it is morally wrong.  However, I understand how, in the complete absence of ethics, you might consider the loss of a child a fitting punishment for not caring if speed cameras are simply revenue raising, and that people should obey the law or accept the consequences of their actions.  A typical attitude of the vacuous, childless bogan.  Besides, I only let her cross the road to her school when the little green man flashes, being a good parent.  A concept with which, I am certain, you are unfamiliar, having never seen one or been one yourself.

    • Charles Kelly says:

      11:47am | 02/02/10

      Seriously James, is that the best you can do??? Are you REALLY only capable of nothing more than ignorantly jumping to inaccurate conclusions??? If they awarded PhDs in “asinine and irrelevant rhetoric”, you’d surely top the list for consideration. Don’t you EVER tire of being WRONG???

      I NEVER said that because you think “people should not speed around school”, that you also think “they should not watch the road”. That is a pathetically absurd statement, but not surprising at all coming from YOU. It’s an irrefutable fact that carefully monitoring your speed distracts from monitoring the road and surrounds - only a deluded moron would think otherwise. Perhaps if you took some remedial reading and comprehension lessons, you may one day realise this. I won’t hold my breath.

      As I said earlier: “It only takes a split second of inattention on the road for an accident to happen. Every glance at your speedometer requires a moment of inattention to more important matters. Every glance at your speedometer takes at least a split second. Do the math.”

      I really feel sorry for your daughter. It’s completely unfair that she should be subject to irresponsible parenting such as yours. Still, not everyone can grow up to be brain surgeons - society needs people to clean its toilets as well (she can join the family business). It’s just a shame that the eventual drug, sex and alcohol fuelled rebellion will be completely unavoidable, given the sorry state of her home life. Why should other people in our society have to suffer due to your glaring deficiencies as a parent???

    • James says:

      12:31pm | 02/02/10

      I’ve worked it out now.  You are just a troll.

      At least I can take comfort in the fact that you will die alone because you can not hold a civil conversation, lack any kind of decency, have no concept of ethics, and no doubt alienate everyone you ever meet.

    • Tim says:

      12:31pm | 02/02/10

      *eats popcorn*

    • Charles Kelly says:

      01:13pm | 02/02/10

      Just as I expected James, you’ve got nothing else.

      Accusations of “trolling” are the refuge of the cowardly and weak. When one lacks a valid argument by way of rebuttal, it’s a pathetically convenient cop-out.

      Here’s a tip; people tend not to take you seriously if almost every comment you make is either ill-informed, inaccurate, self-contradictory, conceited, delusional or hypocritical - or any combination of the aforementioned. Your dogged persistance with this approach is also extremely disrespectful to those who actually take the time to compose a coherent argument, and as such, you have waived any right to be treated with civility.

      Ever heard the saying, “Don’t bring a knife to a gunfight”? Clearly the most useful advice I could possibly give you is that when all you’ve got at your disposal is the intellectual equivalent of a blunt stick, it’s probably best for all concerned if you just run away and hide somewhere.

    • James says:

      01:57pm | 02/02/10

      I’m getting bored with this.  How about this - I believe that people should accept the consequences of their actions.  You break the law, you pay the fine/go to jail. 

      You think that we should choose which laws we obey.

      I think that insults have no place in orderly discourse.

      You think that insults do have a place in orderly discourse.

      You are entitled to think what you like, or more likely troll what you like.  Insult me, and fantasise about seven year old children dying all you like, it does not mean I have to agree with you.  Go ahead and insult me again, but I am not going to bother with you any more. 

      Pass the popcorn, please Tim.

    • a moffat says:

      10:05pm | 30/01/10

      did you see the way the minister skillfully avoids all responsibility on the slippery roads? fantastic to see such a professional in action.. top spot on the podium.. fair shake of the champagne bottle.

    • Charles Kelly says:

      02:26pm | 02/02/10

      A simple question James, if you genuinely think that “think that insults have no place in orderly discourse”, WHY do you persist with using them?

    • James says:

      02:49pm | 02/02/10

      Because once I get called a moron for disagreeing, I tend to assume that I am no longer engaging in orderly discourse.

      In any case, there is a difference between insulting me, and engaging in fantasies about my young child’s death.  A difference which seems lost on you.  Once you started on about my family and in particular on insulting my daughter, on the basis that I believe in personal responsibility no less, I got a bit angry.  Had you children of your own, you might understand.

    • Charles Kelly says:

      03:13pm | 02/02/10

      No James, the reason YOU choose to insult people is because you’re a spineless HYPOCRITE. The evidence is clear not only in this topic but others as well. And now you’re making pathetic little excuses for your hypocrisy - how sad.

      Of course that’s by no means the extent of your many deficiencies. You have no ethics, you have no conviction, you have no credibility - and it’s perfectly clear to any intelligent person reading this, that you have NO valid argument. All you are left with are your self-aggrandising masturbatory delusions.

    • James says:

      03:21pm | 02/02/10

      What is invalid about accepting the consequences of your actions?  If you do not like speeding fines, do not speed.  That is my argument.  If that is self-delusional masturbation, then so be it.

      In any case, I apologise for my insults.  The fact that you seem to think it is okay to get stuck into children says more about your ethics than anything I have argued on The Punch.

    • Charles Kelly says:

      06:12pm | 02/02/10

      Bloody pathetic James.

      YOU support a scheme which promotes the very real possibility of people being injured or killed by distracted drivers, and YOU are perfectly content with this - that is, of course, until it’s pointed out that the unwilling victim of YOUR ignorance could potentially be YOUR own daughter. Then, and only then, does this situation offend you. YOU are the one who is unwilling to accept the consequences of YOUR own actions.

      Are you going to apologise to the MANY people you’ve referred to as “loons”, “uneducated”, “simple minded”, “boy-men”, while criticising their “stupidity”, “ignorance” and “deep seeded psychological problems”?

      Spineless delusional HYPOCRITE.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

@MelanieTait I was thinking the same thing!

Malcolm Farr

@AndrewCatsaras Agreed. Kills more people than AIDS. Yet tolerated. Meanwhile: Good Insiders piece again Andrew.

Daniel Piotrowski

RT @JamieTravers: I'm in Europe and don't care for Eurovision, why is my twitter feed filled with Aussies recounting the bloody thing!?

Anthony Sharwood

Dementor doing a good job for sweden #sbseurovision

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter