As we embark on another busy holiday period on our roads, I’m reminded of a tragic story.

Photo: Glen Miller.

It was late at night. A car ran a red light and an innocent family was in trouble.

As a police officer, I was one of the first on the scene. The father had died on impact in the car. The mother – who was given CPR by ambulance officers – also died at the scene.

Their three young boys, ranging in age from 18 months to five years old, were injured and orphaned.

It was a terrible scene, and a pretty confronting one for a 19 year old police officer. But what stayed with me was not just the crash scene and the terrible losses. It was the aftermath. 

The boys not only lost their parents, but three to four years later they were still dealing with their injuries.

As the legal process over their injuries continued, the eldest who was now eight years old still had callipers – big steel pole frames – on his legs. It was painful for the boy and also socially difficult.  He couldn’t interact normally with friends and also carried a stigma about being different.

There’s no doubt Australia has made great strides in road safety, and our approach has changed a lot since I was a 19-year-old rookie.

Compulsory wearing of seatbelts, random breath testing, introduction of electronic stability control in vehicles, graduated licensing, more roadside barriers and speed limit reductions – just to name a few initiatives –  have all had an impact.

The problem is, we’ve come to accept that there will be a road toll.

Media attention on road deaths tends to peak in holiday times. Tragically, in the past five years, 113 people have died over the Easter holiday period, 14 of those in 2010.

But road deaths aren’t confined to holiday periods. On average, four people die and 80 people are seriously injured on Australian roads every day.

The National Road Safety Council (NRSC) is passionate about reducing the unacceptably high numbers of road crashes in Australia.

We call them road crashes, not accidents, because much of the time, they’re avoidable.

Apart from causing incalculable suffering for families and friends of the victims, road crashes cost the Australian economy $27 billion a year.

Australia is about to make a significant change in the way we approach road safety. It’s a change that the National Road Safety Council applauds.

The new Safe System approach recognises that we all make mistakes.

This approach is the cornerstone of the proposed National Road Safety Strategy 2011-2020, which will be released by the Australian Transport Council in the coming months.

This approach takes into account the way vehicles, roads and people interact with each other.

It recognises that while people need to be responsible for driving safely, we need to create a system that means a mistake on the road doesn’t result in death or serious injury.

In formal terms the Safe System approach means that we make sure vehicles and traffic management systems are designed to account for normal human error, with support through education and enforcement to manage misbehaviour.

For our families, our sons and daughters, and friends – in fact anyone on our roads – it’s about making sure people are as safe they can be: by influencing the way they drive, the safety of the car they drive, the safety of the road they’re driving on, and the speed they drive.

As someone who talks frequently with parents of road safety victims, I’m determined in my support of this significant change in the way we approach road safety nationally.

Not only to save lives and reduce serious road related injuries, but to stop the burden of grief that road victim’s families take with them to their grave.

And as the holiday exodus on the roads approaches, it’s a timely reminder about the challenges of road safety.

While we sometimes might find the solutions an imposition, we all want to make sure we arrive at our destination safely.

75 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • acotrel says:

      06:17am | 21/04/11

      Decreasing the road toll depends largely on improving driver competence.  The answer lies in training and education, NOT harassment.  If you have a look at the statistics , I’m sure you’ll find that drivers who compete in circuit racing are much less represented amongst fatalities from road accidents.  People like racing driver John Bowe provide an excellent service when they teach young people how to control a car in the worst circumstances.  It’s experience we don’t get in a lifetime of normal road driving.  And it’s not rocket science to provide a controlled facility for kids interested in street drags.  Instead of behaving with hysteria, we can be constructive?

    • Al says:

      08:34am | 21/04/11

      i’d like to see the first six months of a learner permit ONLY with a licensed instructor. Then six months with a licensed driver. It would mean all the most keen drivers (like i was at 16) forced to get proper training, or have to wait six months. Not a big inconvenience but would have a big impact imo on people who are probably more susceptible to thinking they are better drivers than than they are. That and more cycling ... its made me a much calmer and observant car driver.

    • gman says:

      11:25am | 21/04/11

      Couldn’t agree more.

      All paper-based initiatives like increasing learner hours from 50 to 120 a few years ago just made people lie in their log books. If your parent is a poor driver then they will inherently pass those poor skills on to their children.
      Of course, we could do what Germany does and require all learner drivers to attend mandatory driving classes that make them learn how to drive at high-speeds, in poor weather conditions and how to handle a vehicle when control is lost. But, that would cost money, and if kids knew how to handle a vehicle with skill and confidence rather than minimum knowledge and arrogance then they’d all be hoons. Until then, your ‘initiatives’ are moot.

    • Wynston Cruso says:

      12:03pm | 21/04/11

      Agreed acotrel. It’s my opinion that drivers licenses are far too easy to get, as the government relies on the income generated by the fact everyone has one, even incompetent people who shouldn’t be allowed to operate motor vehicles. Additionally, I find the most dangerous drivers to be those who are hesitant, slow and overly cautious.

    • baal says:

      12:04pm | 21/04/11

      A more sensible policy is too make driver training an intensive part of high school.

    • John says:

      06:58pm | 21/04/11

      I also believe a limit should be placed on engine size. If the laws are good enought for motor bike riders that in the 1st year they must ride a 250cc or less then why not cars. Just think thier are P platers out thier getting behind a car that has over 300kw of power and how much experience has this person had, very liitle.

      I would propose a scheme of starting in the first year drivers can not buy or drive anything over 4 cylinder or twin cam, or maybe base it on power nothing greater then 150kw.

    • Jade says:

      06:51am | 21/04/11

      The thing is though you will never ever reduce the road toll to zero unless we all live in an inflatable world or one covered in bubble wrap.

      You could introduce mandatory driving course every few years for all licence holders so that you are aware of all the rules and crash avoidance skills.

      Meh.. or you can do a QLD government and just add in more covert/regular speed camera’s and tell everyone they work.

    • Markus says:

      11:31am | 21/04/11

      Or drop the BAC to 0.02 while making spurious claims that Finland do it too and that is the reason their driver fatality rates are so low.

      Yes Bligh, I’m sure it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they have one of the most intense driver training courses in the world. Ever wonder why they have so many world champion rally drivers?

    • acotrel says:

      07:27am | 21/04/11

      Speed cameras are a great innovation, but they miss the fundamentals of behavioural science.  If you want to punish to change behaviour, it must happen immediately.  And encouragement and reward is a much better option.  Our governments love the cameras almost as much as the pokies!
      The biggest deterrent to speeding is the big black policeman on the motorbike appearing in your rear vision mirror, but only training and aducation will reduce our road toll to the minimum achievable.

    • michael j says:

      11:01am | 21/04/11

      @actoral-is a big black policeman on a motorbike,,more of a deterrent
      then a big white policeman on a motorbike,,,lets face it ,they may not have ax-handle’s any-more,but both have 9mm’s and stun guns,,,,,,,,

    • mikeymike says:

      11:54am | 21/04/11

      Why black, acotrel?

    • jimbo the angry whale says:

      12:06pm | 21/04/11

      @Acotel, are you scared of black people?

    • gman says:

      01:43pm | 21/04/11

      Perhaps the intent was dressed in black, as police motorcyclists wear black leathers.

    • The Real Erick says:

      02:33pm | 21/04/11

      Let’s face it, a big black policeman is far more intimidating and effective than a small white policewoman.

    • fml says:

      02:57pm | 21/04/11

      not if your black.

    • the whisperer says:

      10:37pm | 21/04/11

      isn’t it strange that those who criticise your comment about death avoidance do it with what they deem to be humour.This is why no-one, and I mean NO-ONE takes the comments of people like Michael j, Mikeymike, Jimbo whale, gman, and the real Erick, plus fml, (and we know what that means),seriously.
      When police, (and the word itself has lost meaning), begin to serve the public instead of a mentality that has existed for a thousand years, (Give me authority and I will excercise it), we will be accommodated with what we are entitled to be supplied with. Protection. Call your local police station to report a robbery, a break-in, an assault, and you will be told, “We are really busy”. “We have no personell available”.
      “Where are they?”, we ask. “They are out on the road, collecting revenue”.  Nah, I’m joking. They don’t tell you that. But they should. Because that is QPS!    A bloody disgrace!

    • fml says:

      10:54am | 22/04/11

      what?

      franklyn michael lincoln?

    • acotrel says:

      07:32am | 21/04/11

      ‘The National Road Safety Council (NRSC) is passionate about reducing the unacceptably high numbers of road crashes in Australia.

      We call them road crashes, not accidents, because much of the time, they’re avoidable.’

      I wonder if the NRSC has ever heard of risk management, and why they don’t promote use of the term ‘incident’ rather than ‘road crashes’!  Seems to be all part of our culture of scaremongering, rather than taking a well considered managed approach to life

    • KH says:

      07:48am | 21/04/11

      ‘Road crash’ is a far better description of a scene where people are dead and seriously injured in a mangled vehicle, than ‘incident’ which makes it sound like someone bumped a supermarket trolley into your boot.

    • Robbo says:

      01:44pm | 22/04/11

      I think the term ‘accident’ is essentially a misnomer in some circumstances - being that it relates to a scenario where the result is due to unavoidable incidents that eventually lead to the accident.  Many on road collisions are the result of many contributing factors - most of which could have been better managed by the participants - many of whom are unintended and certainly unwilling participants.  I agree that road crashes is a harsh term - however if it assists in shaking us out of our malaise and decreases our willingness to accept that the road toll is merely an everyday part of modern living then I am of the opinion it is a step in the right direction

    • Rev says:

      07:45am | 21/04/11

      “National Road Safety Ambassador”

      How about fixing the goddamn roads?  Have you ever driven from Brisbane to Cairns?  The further north you go, the less maintenance you see.

      To be fair, it is less ridiculous than ‘speed cameras save lives’.

    • Reggie says:

      08:56am | 21/04/11

      Rev “How about fixing the goddamn roads?”

      A “good” driver always adapts to the conditions of the road and what is happening around him. Is that too difficult to understand?

      My concern is that peripheral vision testing is still ignored in driver training and testing.

    • marley says:

      09:26am | 21/04/11

      @Reggie - the problem is, the majority of drivers out there are not “good drivers.”  They drive too fast for the road conditions and/or their own skill level, and when something goes wrong, there’s no leeway because the roads are lousy.  And the poor sucker coming the other way ends up in a head-on crash through no fault of his own.

    • Reggie says:

      10:36am | 22/04/11

      Quite right too Marley but how far can we extend the excuse so that the road condition is blamed for every driver lapse?  Could we say that the straight smooth road was so boring and unchallenging that the makers were responsible for the drivers taking a nap?  smile

      Hey that’s a good idea. Straight and smooth with random speed bumps of various heights leaping unexpectedly to the surface. Far better than speed cameras. You’d have them praying for a caravan to follow.

      Or perhaps even that the excellent roads meant I could neglect the condition of my tyres, my vehicle and my attention to my driving?

      The driver has much more responsibility than the road maker. As you may have noticed if you’ve ever driven the Urandangie track either before or after it’s dried out.  wink

    • TChong says:

      07:56am | 21/04/11

      I never thought I would ever publicly state that I supported much of what the NSW police service would ever do, but this is such an occasion.
      The state of the roads, condition of vehicles etc is a debate worth having, but until all our roads are autobahns, all the vehicles and drivers excellent, then accidents will occur, and the faster you go, the more damage and injuries will be the result.
      Very few things more life changing, than a serios accident. Death and destruction, or long term , devastating, life changing injuries.
      As some one who sees the aftermath, please all Punchers, drive carefully.
      Dont want to see any one on a gurney , being wheeled to the morgue - thats the reality.

    • Steve - Albury says:

      08:03am | 21/04/11

      When measuring road safety, we should only be looking at the numbers of injuries or deaths.  We have a camera making an area safe that has had minimal accidents, but is now safer because of the camera.

      As long as we use camera revenue as a measure of safety, we will be have a bogus measure of effort, and no one trusting policy.

    • ibast says:

      08:21am | 21/04/11

      I’m sorry to anyone who has ever lost anyone in an accident, but I have to disagree with this article.  It is clear that the draconian techniques used to address this issue by governments around this nation have reached their limit in reducing the road toll.  It is also apparent this limit was reached some years ago.

      We should not in any way be encouraging these governments in continuing this heavy handed, negative approach.  In fact many of the measures that have been implemented in the past 5 years should be reversed.

      The fact is there are billions of road trips in Australia each year and the road toll is only about 1500.  This is lottery winning territory.  We know this inherently because most of us continue to drive reasonably even when the speed limit is well below reasonable.

    • Phil says:

      08:22am | 21/04/11

      The Road Toll will never be at zero. The most unsafe thing about a car these days? The driver.
      Until serious time and money is invested in driver education MAKING people better drivers and requiring a much higher level of competency than we currently do the roads are always going to be a much higher risk.
      The scare mongering that the government use about speed killing and all the fear campaigns that are used to allow the use of speed cameras to rob us is another problem. Look at Victoria they have gone the wrong way about it, NSW are following in their footsteps because it makes them great money.

      The Government are all hot air about saving lives and are only interested in the revenue made from punishing people for <10 kph over.

      Labeling people with an interest in cars instantly as “hoons” does nothing for your cause and only creates a divider of blame.
      The 50 year old repeat drunk drivers out there are a bigger danger than a few P platers who will hit a telegraph pole every now and then.

      If you want to target and punish people aim your sights squarely at those who drive drunk or drug affected, spending large amounts of time on the road as a part of my job (all over AU) ive seen quite a lot of horrific accidents.
      The worst were always the ones caused by drunks taking out a car with a family in it.

    • Jane says:

      01:13pm | 21/04/11

      Unfortunately even good drivers momentarily make stupid mistakes. I have a clean record but I know I have accidentally gone through more than 1 red light in my 20 years of driving. Driving on auto pilot is dangerous and something we are all guilty of.

    • acotrel says:

      07:00am | 22/04/11

      My wife travels t o Melbourne each wee k.  The other day I received a fine from her driving.  She was in front of a red light camera for 0.9 seconds too long! $299 - CA CHING!!  - THANK YOU! But it kept the road toll down?

    • Reggie says:

      10:44am | 22/04/11

      Now that you’ve told us acrotel, YES IT DID!!!!!

      Hear that folks, .......

      $299 $299 $299 $299 $299 or DEATH, for a few seconds of inattention.

      An undertaker charges lots more.  Sky’s the limit!!!!!

      Thank You.

    • grumpy old man says:

      08:24am | 21/04/11

      we are actually not bad on a global basis, about 119th in a UN list, with the worst being number 1. The countries with better rates tend to be middle eastern and smaller nations.  couldn’t find any research that looked at those nations doing better in the global stakes to see what they did differently.
      We are basically pretty damn bad drivers, impatient, not very aware of others on the road, and with an overwhelming believe that if we can save a couple of seconds in our journey, then its ok to inconvenience others.
      I doubt that any measures the police or pollies can take will actually have too much effect, the issue is social and behavioral, not mechanical.

    • Dark Horse says:

      08:42am | 21/04/11

      As a high school student we were shown US horror videos of vehicle crashes to encourage us to drive safely. When I became a member of a police Traffic Accident Investigation Squad some years later, I became aware that some people have a propensity to collide, just as others don’t. We need to psychologically test our drivers to see if they have the aptitude to drive and the intelligence to do so. It’s 40 years since I picked up lifeless bodies from the road and pulled them out of cars and nothing has changed. Thinking it will get better without keeping those with a propensity to collide from our roads is like wishing for a lottery win; feels good, but highly unlikely to happen.

    • acotrel says:

      06:55am | 22/04/11

      @Dark Horse If you road race a motorcycle, you suddenly lose your ‘propensity to collide’.  It’s the incentive scheme - the incentive to avoid pain!

    • Reggie says:

      04:03pm | 22/04/11

      I fear you are suggesting that all motor-cycle deaths are the fault of the others for not keeping a special eye out for motor-cyclists acotrel?

        Perhaps I need to point out, that it was the rider who knowingly put himself in such a dangerous situation with the full knowledge that he was riding in traffic where many of the drivers and riders are inept.  Even the better drivers make mistakes and BLACK high powered cars are a special danger to everyone, especially at night.

    • Parker says:

      09:13am | 21/04/11

      State and federal funding should prioritise and target drug effected drivers far more,the proliferation of recreational drug’s and the seemingly wide acceptance of their use combined with highly caffeinated beverages are one area that if you were serious could be policed far more.Weak government of either persuasion can do more but it would be politically unpopular,so don’t expect change if you don’t change habit’s

    • Budz says:

      10:21am | 21/04/11

      I have an interesting question here for everyone, to give an idea of how people see their driving skills. I’d love it if we could add a poll to this story.

      How would you consider your driving skills?
      Above average, average or below average?

      I wonder how many people actually think they are below average? I reckon about 2%. And I think about 80% believe they are above average.

    • Octavius says:

      10:50am | 21/04/11

      Define average?

    • michael j says:

      11:07am | 21/04/11

      @Octavius-for males it would be doing 20 kph over the speed limit to see how big the sheilas tits are in the car beside them,,,,,,,,,,

    • fairsfair says:

      11:10am | 21/04/11

      That is a good point. I’d say I am average Budz. I am not a twit, but I am no superstar. I come from a car loving family and my brother “knows how to drive” but until recenly youth completely counter acted his ability. Now he has a child I would say he is an above average driver in spite of the volume of speeding fines he has attracted in the past.

      How do we get rid of the invincibility factor? I think the antidote is different for everyone, but it mostly comes with age, even though some of the biggest numpties on the road are middle aged. Allowing for that, we have to come up with some continencies.

      When I was a P Plater I was agressive and though I did not speed, my 1.6L Fiesta got to the speed limit rather quickly. I changed lanes to much, tailgated and was overall impatient. My mother used to lecture me on it and I just couldn’t see what her beef was. One day though, at around 22 years old I just thought why am I doing this? Now, I am fine in normal conditions, I have heaps of experience driving in pelting rain and heavy traffic, but I am lucky. I have never been in an accident situation. I have never had to drive my way out of trouble, steer my way back into control or really test the brakes on my car.

      I would love to do a defensive driving course, but they are just too expensive. I think the state govts should work in conjunction with driver training programs and offer discounts off registration (perhaps even insurance companies should get involved to) for people who are willing to make the personal investment in their driving. A lot of people are, because I think a lot of people are decent enough drivers and decent enough people for that matter.

      I also think our schooling system should take a leaf out of the US book and have driver training as part of the curriculum. If all seniors got their learners at the start of the year, learnt the theory and the responsibility and were then taught the skills prior to “passing” and being offered the choice to take their driving test - I think we would have some better educated young drivers. The arbitrary “get your license at 17” is stupid - it should be guaged on skill and ability alone. Re-training should also be required. Perhaps every five years. It is not that you forget how to drive, you forget the responsibility that comes along with it. Sometimes we need to be reminded of that and that should be on our terms - not via the involvement in a MVA or the loss of a loved one.

    • Mahhrat says:

      11:50am | 21/04/11

      Budz, my skills are adequate to driving a family sedan with a trailer, but certainly no more than that.

      But then, that’s why I always keep to the speed limit, while i keep my damn eyes open, and when I’m doing something unusual (refer said trailer, or unknonwn roads) I’m even more cautious still.

      Driving is not not not not not a difficult thing to do.

    • baal says:

      12:08pm | 21/04/11

      I am terrible driver but I am aware of how terrible I am so that really helps me stay alive.
      The issue is I agree people who are bad drivers but do not seem aware of the fact.

    • braunman says:

      01:23pm | 21/04/11

      In terms of raw skill I’m below average, but with regards to staying safe while driving I’m definately above. I’m 25, been driving since I was 16, and still haven’t lost a point off my license (wow that sounds smug). The only crash I’ve been involved in was when I was rear-ended by someone not paying attention while changing lanes.

      I think the main reason is that from the very moment I started driving it was drilled into me that I should pay attention to everything around me at all times, and to never be caught unawares. Do that for a few years and it just becames a habit. It’s the basic principles they teach you on defensive driving courses, so stay aware and you’ll stay safe!

    • Rocket Surgeon says:

      03:03pm | 21/04/11

      How many have taken the next step and done additional driver training? I have and it made a huge difference. My son gets his Ls at the end of this year and I will make sure he does a training course before he is allowed to drive by himself.

    • bikinis on top says:

      12:25pm | 21/04/11

      labor voters use public transport.
      liberal voters are responsible for the road toll

    • Grendel says:

      01:22pm | 21/04/11

      Actually, Labor voters drive old sh**heaps because their welfare payments won’t cover a better car.
      So Labor voters are responsible for the road toll by keeping Hyundai Excel’s running.

    • LC says:

      01:45pm | 21/04/11

      Labor voters may use public transport.

      But Gillard, the labor brass and the union kingpins sure as hell don’t.

    • The Real Eric says:

      02:42pm | 21/04/11

      @bikinis on top: how wrong you are!

      1. Labor voters drive old vehicles that suck fuel and have little safety features. They can’t afford new vehicles because they are union pawns who barely put in a honest day’s labor.
      2. Green voters use public transport because they’re unemployed and welfare payments won’t cover the costs of a vehicle.
      2. Liberal voters drive new cars that are fuel efficient and are loaded with safety features. They can afford new vehicles because they work hard.

    • acotrel says:

      07:05am | 22/04/11

      ’ Liberal voters drive new cars that are fuel efficient and are loaded with safety features. They can afford new vehicles because they work hard.’

      OR Daddy gave them money!

    • LC says:

      01:40pm | 21/04/11

      Making mistakes is a part of life, and it is normal for us as a species to make them. The car industry has helped by making new cars far safer than the ones of 30, even 20 years ago. But they cannot and should not be expected to prevent every single accident. They cannot stop every single pisshead getting behind the wheel after a dozen too many beers. They cannot stop every single retard zooming through urban streets at 120ks+. No-one can.

      You cannot prevent every single car fatality unless you ban them outright (and knowing how our knee-jerk nanny state governments operate, that actually might happen).

    • Louisa says:

      02:44pm | 21/04/11

      Everyone should drive a Volvo

    • TracyH says:

      03:18pm | 21/04/11

      Power steering can be blamed for a lot…too easy to steer off the road if someone’s mobile goes off…or someone’s checking out the girls/boys on the side of the road. Also too easy to over-correct.
      Seriously…I can’t believe no-one’s ever thought to ban power steering, or at the very least look in to it.

    • stephen says:

      02:57am | 22/04/11

      Quite true, but what you did not say is that whilst steering is too easy, there should not be a correlation with pedal-power, e.g.acceleration.
      With the increase in power in a car, a driver instinctively feels the propensitive power in the arm.
      ‘Arm’ driving is under-taught in driving-schools.

    • Biff says:

      03:29pm | 21/04/11

      Blah blah blah. Typical copper rhetoric & propaganda. The road toll is hysteria over nothing. I accept there will be a road toll, why can’t these waste of space safety committee’s also accept it? At the end of the day the number of people that die in road accidents must be 0.000001% of all drivers on the road. I am willing to take the risk and accept that each time I drive I might die or end up being a vegetable. Now let’s move on and stop crying about nothing.

    • fairsfair says:

      04:01pm | 21/04/11

      Crying over nothing? If you were the one (like I am sure the author has probably witnessed many a time) who had to shovel up a human being off bitumin (then the firies just do a quick spray it off once the big bits are removed) prior to rocking up to the door step of the parent/partner of the person and tell them they are dead - would you say that this is just nothing?

      There is no avoiding accidents - that is clear - but read the article - most incidents are avoidable.

    • Dick J says:

      04:27pm | 21/04/11

      Biff you boofhead a couple of simple facts;

      1. A male driver under 25 is four times more likley to die in an MVA than
      the rest of the poulation;

      2. We started keeping road death figures in the early 1920’s. Since that time more Australians have died in road accidents than Australian servicemen who died in all wars from the Boer war, WW1,WW2 , Korea, Malaya Vietman, Afghanistan about 100,000 servicemen. Who is going to march for them on 25 April.

      3. Would you accept a jumbo jet with 500 on board crashing every 3 month’s?

      Accidents will happen but your stats are way out. The way to reduce the road toll is to regulate young drivers

      1.  L’s at 18. Provisinal at 21. Unrestricted at 25.
      2. Psychcological testing for all learners and P’ drivers;
      3 Learner and prov isional drivers can only dirve vehicles, petrol under   1.4 litres and diesel 1.6 litres with power less than 100 kw.
      4. Annual testing and renewal between 21 & 25.
      5. No more than one passenger.
      6 Madatory courses for all L’s & P’s

    • Biff says:

      06:10pm | 21/04/11

      But it hasn’t happened to me and if it did I would accept that it is just bad luck. Just because he does a job that has him involved in those situations is not my concern. I ride a motorbike everyday as well as drive a car. You don’t need to tell me accidents are avoidable, I’m usually the one avoiding them by keeping a vigilant look out for stupidity. Ride a bike and it will really highlight how many bad drivers are out there but as usual we let them drive and make everyone else slow down for them. I don’t agree with accommodating the lowest common denominator.

    • fairsfair says:

      06:42pm | 21/04/11

      Biff, really good points. But what you are saying is exactly the point I took from the article. If we all left home in the same mindset as you do, there would be far less accidents as like the author says they are not accidents - they could easily be avoided through vigilence and education. We should not accept the road toll as just a part of life, because it is a waste of life.

      I am with you, sometimes bad things happen to good people but when you think about the story supplied - one stupid mistake by a driver who ran a redder directly destroyed five lives, plus exteded family and friends.

    • mikeymike says:

      03:47pm | 21/04/11

      The problem is not education.  Seriously, is there anyone who doesn’t know what the black number inside a red circle means?  And yet, on every road, every day, we all see speeding.
      Do we not know that it is not safe to drink and drive?  And yet every day, we hear of people getting caught drinking and driving, sometimes on the news in a fatality.  Same goes for driving tired And - God help us as a human race - driving and texting.
      If you have a licence and you don’t know these things, hand it in now.  So please, let’s move on from education.  We are educated, the problem is that we’re complacent.
      I wonder where the research is on the number of accidents occurring where speed/ impairment or inattention were not a contributing factor?

    • Gerard says:

      10:51pm | 21/04/11

      The problem isn’t complacency, it’s the fact that the information being given to drivers is false and/or irrelevant. When the observation of a speed limit requires a sustained, conscious effort, then the speed limit is too low. Drivers will therefore drive at whatever speed they feel like (and since the licencing system makes no attempt to measure a driver’s ability to judge road conditions, this could be anywhere between 40 and 300kph), or deliberately drive as fast as possible simply for the sake of defying mindless authoritarianism. Given the RTA’s obsession with profits over safety, t’s absolutely staggering that the road toll isn’t far higher than it is.

    • marley says:

      08:11am | 22/04/11

      @Gerard - maybe what you say is true in urban Australia with nice straight double-lane highways, but not out here in the boondocks.  The “highways” here are mostly signposted 100 km/hr, but that is really too high for narrow, winding roads with no shoulder and plenty of kangaroos.  90 km would be far more rational, but no one would observe it.  So, 100 it is, and if one does 100, you can bet you’re going to be passed on a double line on a curve by someone in a hurry.  In the rain.

      The problem isn’t the speed limits, the problem is idiot drivers who have no sense of what a safe speed is, just what a fun speed is.  And we’ve got the casualty statistics to prove it.

    • Tombowler says:

      05:01pm | 21/04/11

      Hate to be “that guy” but this is all emotive bullsh#t.

      The “Road toll” is nothing more than a cost of doing business associated with having 10 million odd people operating heavy machinery every day of the year.

      It is commendable trying to lower the road toll but it will eventually hit the ‘floor’ at which it will stay (as the mean) until there is some dramatic and distinct changes in technology.

      Draconian knee-jerks when there is a 3 or 4% increase in road deaths is stupid and it is disingenous to suggest that it’s nessecary: an increase in the toll by 4 is not symptomatic of worse driving, the need for lower limits or more cameras it is merely a few more sets of crappy circumstances that have robbed some poor buggers of their loved ones.

      I know: if your one of those who loses someone in the road-toll “lottery” it’s terrible and no amount of comfort can be drawn from the fact that their death was a statistical aberration but it’s true.

      It needs to be accepted that there will always be a road toll and it’s the price we pay for the convenience of the motor car. As an aside, perhaps if the governments spent more on roads, we could raise the speed limit, get places faster and reduce the incidence of ‘fatigue’ related deaths. Surely it’s better if one could get from Adelaide to Melbourne in a reasonable 5 hours than lowering limits until one is dog-tired from driving at 80kph for 11….

    • muddabikes says:

      12:22pm | 22/04/11

      Well said that man.
      Coulndn’t agree more. As a motorcyclist I deliberately break the speed limit whenever I ride. My reasoning…...if I am doing something illegal I pay an extra amount of attention to what is going on around me. If I am focussed to a higher degree then I am in fact “safer” than when I am simply obeying all the rules but bored and switched off.
      The flip-side to the “Speed Kills” mantra is the implication that if one does not speed, then one will not have an accident, sorry, crash.

    • Pavlo says:

      06:09pm | 21/04/11

      I’ve just come home from Pre-Easter Thursday Afternoon Mass Stupidity on the roads. 

      Un&^$#$believable!

      Hate to be negative… but here’s just a couple of examples of atrocious driving that I saw between 2pm and 4pm today. The kind of stupidity that can easily spiral out of control – bumping up the road toll over Easter.

      1. Massive downpour of rain and about 100m in front of me IDIOT No. 1 is closely tailgating a car at 80km/h ... closely followed by IDIOT No. 2 in a B-Double-Semi tailgating IDIOT No. 1.

      2. It’s raining again, and IDIOT No. 3 P plater does a burnout as he takes off then weaves in and out of traffic to get ahead by a couple of cars.

      3. Saw in my mirror, douche-bag Idiot No. 4 in a white commercial van steering with his elbows while texting (!!) and attempting to change lanes.

      FFS!

      Good luck over Easter on the roads people.
      You’ll need bucket loads of it.

    • gra gra says:

      11:21pm | 21/04/11

      So pavlo, the first bloke 100 metres in front of you is being tailgated by another, and he is being tailgated by a double, and then there’s you. Sounds like, given my math and knowledge of car, car, and ‘double’ lengths you must have been tailgating, In the “massive rain”. What an IDIOT! .
      Now, you saw in your mirror, (again presumably),  a douche bag (?) resting his elbows on the wheel, texting, and (!) attempting to change lanes. What an observant fellow you are. And all of this whilst watching the road, Eh? If you, like so many other pretenders, (read fool!) seek to be seen as “experts”, please try a different venue. We know that those who protest the most are generally trying to excuse their own actions by highlighting the faults, (or imagined faults), of others. You really should not have a licence.

    • Pavlo says:

      08:59am | 22/04/11

      @gra
      So gra gra how did you deduce that I was tailgating simply because I observed others tailgating from a distance?
      Were you there? (for the record I was well behind the tailgaters with ample stopping distance)

      - I wrote, “massive downpour of rain” not “massive rain”.

      - Also, it’s normal to periodically check one’s mirror while driving - that’s how I saw the idiot steering with his elbows while texting and simultaneously tailgating me.

      “We know that those who protest the most are generally trying to excuse their own actions by highlighting the faults of others.”
      No. Listen to me. The driving that I saw on the roads yesterday was simply deplorable. There’s no excuse for it.

      I’m an accredited driving instructor, so I AM in a position to comment with some authority on the atrocious driving behaviour of others. 
      Look me up - you might learn something.

    • Pavlo says:

      10:37am | 22/04/11

      @gra gra

      So gra gra, you would choose to defend the pitiful driving of a few inconsiderate idiots on the road (whilst also launching an spurious personal attack on me) instead of looking at the real issue at hand - which is the senseless carnage and death on the roads, especially over the Easter break.

      Easy for you to sit there and criticise Gra. But have you ever lost a family member because of the stupid driving of others on public roads?

      If it ever happens to you, you may think differently.

      Like I say – good luck mate you’ll need it.

    • Gerard says:

      11:02pm | 21/04/11

      Articles like this are the reason that no one follows the road rules. Moronic (and, frankly, wrong) catch phrases like “let’s not accept road tolls as normal” demonstrate that this country’s lawmakers/enforcers are living in la-la land. Try saying something intelligent and logical, and then we’ll start listening to you.

    • Edward James says:

      06:34am | 22/04/11

      Well John Hartley, with all your years of experience. Are you permitted to tell us why after so many politicians over decades have ventured overseas to do studies on road safety. Government, police and the RTA and those study groups including the NRMA still insist on allowing non frangible light poles and timber power poles at the edge of our roads ? For example it is years since a very big company of commercial advertisers began placing the hundred millimeter square steel post carrying advertising street signs on street corners. They have started adding an extruded aluminum cover to the steel post. These post can still be lethal to bicyclist and motor cyclist. Why the steel pole is not set back against the building alignment and canter levered out to the road side edge above the height of cars and people using the road is a mystery.  Sure all the improvements built into modern cars has held the road toll back a lot. But seriously knowing what is done in Europe to remove post and other impact hazards from along the roadside edge. And not adopting the same strategies such as replaceing steel poles with frangable road side furniture designed to break away here. Tells me our politicians and their spokes people, that would include you John among others are being just a little disingenuous.  When will government address the fatigue related deaths which result from low speed limits on our open roads?
      Edward James .

    • muddabikes says:

      09:33am | 22/04/11

      How about this…..
      Stage 1: Mandatory first licence is a motorcycle one.
      Those that are going to hoon will proably exit from the gene pool early and do less damage to the ‘innocents’ out there on the road.
      Those that aren’t capable of learning to ride a motorcycle (not nearly as easy as driving a car) won’t be able to progress any further towards getting behing the wheel of a tonnes worth of mobile steel.
      Those who are competent enough to operate a motorcycle and smart enough to survive will learn many valuable lessons about their own vulnerability and awareness of other road users.
      Stage 2: After a motorcycle licence the next compulsory licence will be a truck licence. Here the learner driver will be limited in power but will have to exercise greater caution and responsibility for other road users due to the mass of their vehicle and the longer braking distances needed, but will struggle to speed/ hoon.
      Stage 3: Finally the beloved car licence with power output limits as we now have for motorcycles.

    • Tim Scully says:

      10:10am | 22/04/11

      The approach taken by states and territories to road safety is fatally misdirected.  All we see in awareneess campaigns is coppers threatening to book us for speeding or drink driving.  We see absolutely nothing on how to drive safely; how to merge into traffic, how to use an indicator, how to negotiate a bend, when to give way (and when not to), how to use a round-about, how to keep left, how to overtake…and more.  The notion that reducing speed will save us is ridiculous; people still die driving below the speed limit because they can’t drive.

      Travelling on the New England Highway to Glenn Innes recently I noticed two road-side signs before every bend.  The first sign said “9 out of 10 road deaths…”  and the second said “...occur on bends”.  These signs grabbed my attention.  But does any state or territory have an awareness campaign to teach people how to negotiate bends?  Of course not,  we only see coppers in mirror sunglasses and radar guns threatening us with consequences. 

      The creativity and imagination of road safety and awareness campaigns is suited to the horse drawn carriage era.  And yes, we must accept road deaths if we fail to teach people how to drive.

      In NSW my learner driver daughter was not allowed to drive one of the safest cars on the road (Volvo XC90) because it is turbo charged, but she can drive our Subaru Impreza (no turbo) which would blow the Volvo off the road.  She could only learn at 80kph, but as soon as she got her license she could drive at 90kph without having any experience doing so. Likewise when she goes from red to green P plates, she can drive at 100kph, ostensibly with no experience at 100kph.  This is an example of the plain stupidity of our RTAs and police in their approach to lowering the road toll.  Start teaching people what to do!

    • muddabikes says:

      11:13am | 22/04/11

      If, as John Hartley asserts, road traffic accidents in Orstralia costs $27 Billion dollars, then is it cynical of me to think that there is a lot of business being made off the back of said accidents, sorry, crashes?
      Could it be that there is an agenda to keep the status quo? Could it be that more training and information would impact negatively on this flow of cash?
      Could it be that more training might reduce the road toll and there remove the justification for those lovely budget-balancing sneaky speed cameras?
      Could it be that the Pleece Farce and their overbearing enforcement of draconian speed limits (that were designed in the days of EH Holdens, cross-ply tires and drum brakes), have lost their once proud credibilty in the road using community?

    • WayneT says:

      11:22am | 22/04/11

      Where’s the data and statistics that support this strategy.  The statement that Speed Kills is very broad and misleading.  Anytime a car is in motion and is involved in an accident, it can be classed as speed related, and often is for propaganda purposes.  The real facts and figures paint a different picture.  Data from overseas and from here in Australia show that only 6-8% of road deaths are caused by people travelling above the posted speed limit.  And would it surprise you to know that most accidents actually only occur around 60-80kmh according to the collected data.  Most deaths are caused by driver behaviour, like cutting across traffic, not driving to conditions or obeying road rules.  The only way to attack this other 94% of deaths is to have police on the roads, not cameras that merely capture the act and don’t stop it from happening.  Someone should take the State Government to task on their failure in their Duty of Care.  They know that cameras don’t save lives, just the budget bottom line.  Why should the police service make 3% reductions to their budget when the Government collects this tax from road users?  Where is all the money going, and what would they do if they didn’t have it coming in anymore.  It’s a bit of a false economy when our hospitals are still handling severe road trauma cases because of the continuing rise in road accidents that are occurring at speeds below the posted limits.

    • the whisperer says:

      02:08pm | 22/04/11

      Pavlo:  You didn’t invite a reply to your silly little self-serving posts, (2), but I thought I would do so anyway. Firstly, I must apologise for saying massive downpour instead of your phrase “massive rain”. I don’t know what came over me. Now checking the rear view is, as you say, a good idea. But how, whilst attending to what is happening in front, were you able to notice, (in the rain and through his front windscreen, and your rear window), that he was, (a), steering the car with his elbows, (b) texting on his mobile, (c) tailgating you, and (d), changing lanes? Try to picture that, Pavlov, and you will see why I doubt that you are being truthful. Or careful.
      I didn’t and don’t appreciate bad driving, (like yours for instance), and I have lost someone quite recently so obviously I don’t appreciate your condescending attitude. I was stating, (as you know), that idiots like you should not have a licence. Between both our comments I think that has been made crystal clear.
      By the way, did you note the number of any of these “transgressors? No? Didn’t report them? No? What did you do after your pre-easter Mass? Just go home? And you a driving instructor!  I hope none of my children ever get in your clutches.
      Finally, you invite us to contact you to verify your qualifications. How? You silly boy, you forgot to leave your contact details. Perhaps, like Pavlov’s dog, a bell will get you running to us.

    • The Driver says:

      07:20pm | 22/04/11

      Has anyone driven the Pacific Highway recently?
      The newly laid (over the top of the old) sections of road anywhere north of Kempsey are a disgrace, and whoever has the contract for such works should not be paid. I do not mean the temporary tarmac laid for diversions while new road is laid. I mean the brand new stuff, mostly single lane that is laid straight over the old, potholes, cracks and all. It is extremely dangerous. It’s rough, inconsistent in quality and driver unfriendly.

      As for the “new strategies” for road safety, here’s a thought: provide safe roads in the first place. Pedestrians should not be interacting with any vehicle on the road. Ever heard of an overpass? An underpass? Cyclists should also not be on the road with cars. The vast majority of cyclists do not obey road rules when it doesn’t suit them.
      A roadway should be designed to moved MOTOR vehicles, and those two wheel things with engines transporting temporary Australians, from point A to point B as quickly as possible. Shared Zones, School Zones etc need to be wiped out. Build the taxpayer decent roads using the BILLIONS collected in fuel tax / excise / GST and you may find the road toll reduced significantly. Continue treating drivers like children, increasing registration and insurance fees, build roads in a “partnership” with private companies then slap a toll on the use of the road, and you may just find the frustration level continue to rise and rise, and rise.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

#markwebber just wasted petrol faster than everyone else in monaco #f1

Anthony Sharwood

In my sports column on The Punch tomorrow: why Eurovision was easily the best game on the weekend. Mummy bloggers, you'll like this one!

Daniel Piotrowski

The Logies could learn a lot from Eurovision #lamethings#sbseurovision

Daniel Piotrowski

RT @ellehardytweets: Already despondent about the next fifty one weeks. #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