just a little thing on the speed enforcement - Ford Forums - Mustang Forum, Ford Trucks, Ford Focus and Ford Cars

gm dstroya · 07-30-2003, 04:26

this is the editor of carpoint magazine thoughts on the hole advertiseing that the governments use on speeding...

The latest round of shock tactic television advertisements from the Victorian Transport Accident Commission is nothing but a blatant slap in the face to all Australians. How thick do they think we, the public, are?

Mindless lemmings without sufficient brain power to think for ourselves, obviously, judging from the thinly disguised propaganda they're dishing up to us... The most sickening -- and disheartening -- aspect of the campaign is we're swallowing it whole.

In case you're not familiar with the advertisement in question, it's a victim's view of a road crash that left her in a coma and fighting for her life. Rachel Roberts tells us her boyfriend was driving at 5km/h over the speed limit. The suitably authoritative voice-over suggests that, had he been sticking to the speed limit, the crash and this lady's trauma which continues today, may not have happened.

Let's look more closely at the circumstances surrounding the event. Let's go beyond what the TAC is prepared to disclose in order to get its "Wipe-off five" message across, and look at the facts they chose to withhold. Rachel Roberts' wrote an account of the crash for the Teenagers' Road Accident Group (www.trag-vic.org) website, and it's very revealing.

Firstly, the road is the Ringwood-Warrandyte road in outer Melbourne; a typical outer suburban road; narrow, badly surfaced and with no gutters - just mud on the verge. The road on the TV ad is inner suburban; smooth, good gutters, footpaths, the best a man can build.

Second, the real car is a 1978 Ford Escort four-door. Nothing wrong with that. The average Australian car is 10.1 years old, according to the government's own data. The car in the advertisement is a 1993 Ford Laser, which the TAC says it chose "for its similar size and safety features". Ford must be happy to hear its small car safety went nowehere in 15 years.

Third, Ms Roberts' own words say it was raining at the time of the crash. No rain on the TV version. Interestingly no rain on the police crash report, either. Though the photos of the crash clearly show a wet road.

Fourth, Ms Roberts' own words say the tyres on her boyfriends Escort were bald. Her father and her future brother in-law had been telling the driver to "get new tyres on his car". Again, no mention of bald tyres in the ad, and no bald tyres noted in the police report.

Fifth, the driver was on his P plates, and in Ms Roberts' own words "he was inexperienced".

The vehicle's speed, which is the crux of the advertisement, was deemed to be 5km/h over the limit. By who? Witnesses, that's who. How accurately can you judge a car's speed? Try it sometime, and discover how widely your estimate can vary based on the proximity of roadside objects.

There is no doubt that Ms Roberts is the victim of a tragic set of events. There is also no doubt that these events can be avoided. But is wiping 5km/h off a vehicle's speed the answer?

Would tyres with tread have performed better than the car's bald tyres? Would a more experienced driver have read the situation better? Would a better maintained road, without muddy verges and without trees right alongside have resulted in a different outcome?

The most alarming question to come out of this commercial is the abysmal level of intelligence the Victorian TAC attributes to the average driver. Is everything we see on television God's honest truth?

The TAC pursues its 'speed kills' campaign for one reason and - shock horror - it's not the safety of road users. It is to legitimize its use of speed cameras to raise revenue. How else does a government department meet a traffic infringement budget forecast of $392million? That's up $101 million on the previous year.

Want to know how ludicrous this situation is? If more money is expected to be made, then more people are expected to speed. If the government itself predicts more speeding drivers, then clearly people aren't slowing down. If people aren't slowing down, then the road safety campaign is not working!

Or is speeding not the real cause of crashes?

Glenn Butler
Editor, CarPoint Australia

cheers.joe.

gm dstroya · 07-30-2003, 04:31

also you can veiw the real story as told by
the lady involved in the acceident

take this link to veiw...

http://www.trag-vic.org/rroberts.html

also this link has the above mention article as well as some other interesting reads...
http://www.trag-vic.org/rroberts.html
cheers.joe.

laminge · 07-30-2003, 04:43

I would have to say driver awareness is prob the biggest thing

John McMaster · 07-30-2003, 04:57

I was once asked a question by a QC in The Federal Court in Darwin,this was during my 90mins in the box giving evidence. The question was"Mr McMaster can you tell the court how fast the Masseratti was going when it was approaching your checkpoint, my answer "no sir it's almost impossible to estimate a vehicles speed when your standing on the roadside"
This was a result of the accident that killed the Canonball Run.

cs123 · 07-30-2003, 14:58

Driver attittude is the biggest factor.
Doesn't matter what skills you have or what speed you travel if your attitued sucks, so does your driving.

VH-PBC · 07-30-2003, 15:50

I believe it's a combination of factors, not necessarily 1 factor. Speed is not solely to blame for anything, as is driver error, road conditions individually.

Speed is the only thing that the govt. can get money from. Driver error, they have to pay to bring people up to scratch in driver education & road conditions is definately going to come out of their money bag. All this leaves speed as the scapegoat.

xdc351 · 07-30-2003, 16:00

Knowing the road all to well you can rest assured if anyone was stupid enough to drive along there at the speed limit, in the wet, with bald tyers they will crash. Simple as that. I personally doubt with bald tyers and an old esky he would have even been able to get enough momentum up to do 75 through there.

The road is extremely slippery and 70 most of the way along, except the near bendless residential part which is 60, and my XF with brand new tyres and me being very timid with the throttle will loose traction on the bends at 60 in the wet. If I gave it a bootfull i'd be straight off the road.

There is a couple of corners (and i'm sure one of them is where the accident happened) where I have to slow down to about 45kmh or it'll step out on me with no throttle through the corner. I must point out that aside from being a bit rough the road is fine when its dry.

If the government was serious about saftey they would be spending the speeding fine revenues on road improvements. But they don't, they spend it on the f*cking commonwealth games and other crap that nobody cares about like federation square. Intead choosing to put tolls on freeways (which they promised not to in their election campain) and more cameras in order to make more money.

[/Rant]

Aussie Pete · 07-30-2003, 16:33

I ahve an answer to the dilemma posed near the end of the first post.

They need more speeding drivers to meet budget forecasts for revenue. Yet more people get caught so they must not be slowing down?

Well, let me use the RTA in NSW as an example of how to sort this out.

1. Stoney Creek Road Bexley-Beverley Hills; this used to be a 70 zone with very high volumes of trucks and very busy all the time regardless. Now, after building the M5 East and the traffic volumes dropping considerably they have changed it to a 60 zone. Police patrol this stretch ruthlessly with a fave spot being a little downhill section over a crest where LIDAR rakes in a fortune.

2. General Holmes Drive; again after building the M5 east and improving this road greatly they chgange it from a 90 zone to a variable zone which is normally 70. They also conveniently install two speed cameras.

3. Princes Hwy Kogarah; despite all the pedestrian furniture such as fences, traffic lights and an overpass this 60 zone is turned into a school zone and two speed cameras are installed.

And so on.

So, to keep up revenue, just keep lowering the speed limits.

rsgerry · 07-30-2003, 17:10

accidents occur for a number of reasons. speed is used as a major cause because it is convenient, it is hard to disprove and it justifies the misuse of speed cameras.

driver experience needs to be considered. someone who knows their car, the road, conditions and the way to read the road is safer behind the wheel than someone who cannot see beyond the end of the bonnet. the latter case is dangerous at any speed. to me, experience is everything. you know when to slow down, when it is safe to speed up, what your own car is capable of etc.

TS50 · 07-30-2003, 23:04

options in the poll too hard to say, there are so many contributing factors
Driver inatention
Lack of ability
Roadworthiness of car
so I chose all of the above, however I dont believe speed to be a huge factor. Having said that, inapropriate speed is a major factor, have to drive to suit the conditions and area.