Why are many members of the Victorian TAC board also on the Monash University Accident Research Centre board?
Why do MUARC research papers funded by bodies such as the TAC always match the aims of TAC (speed kills) or support TAC programs (covert cameras on safe roads)?
How is this co-existence of board members and the delegation of funding not a serious conflict of interest?
BA'1.5' Pursuit 290
Lightning Strike / Reflective Orange Stripes 'General' Dog - AP's German Shepherd and Best Mate - 02Dec1998-15Dec2003.
'Pepper' Dog - General's and My Little German Shepherd Sweetie - 1996?-02Apr2006. 'Sako' Dog - My Beautiful and Pretty German Shepherd - 2001?-23Aug2006.
Old news there AP (I know your knew about this AGES ago). Problem is that no one in the media is asking the questions in a serious way. No one is going at them without compromise. Basically, welcome to the "we'll do it our way screw the public" state governments.
Most of these road safety commitees & the like are funded by companies that have most to gain from preventing accidents, reducing repair costs. The major shareholders of these companies are those that also appoint the commitees too, so it's the good old "you scratch my back & I'll scratch yours routine".
So why doesn't anyone do anything about it. The reason is simple - If you so much as complain they use the how can you say road deaths are acceptable routine on you. NOBODY is arguing that - the techniques employed to reduce these things ARE!!!.
If these bodies were serious in reducing the toll, why not increase spending on driver education(advanced driver training etc). After you prove to one instructor how well you can perform in a 5 minute drive around the block, you're pretty much left to your own devices(yeah sure they give you probation & the like, but NO reassessment on what you do/don't know)
There's PLENTY of different approaches that SHOULD be tried instead of the brilliant, "I KNOW" - lets increase driver frustration levels & make pack more vehicles onto roads that are loaded beyond capacity, & make then travel at an even slower speed in vehicles that are today of a higher safety standard then when we built the roads 30 odd years ago!
Wulos takes his medication & attempts to calm down.......
Now, firstly, I want to say that the state of play on the roads sickens me, so many people getting killed, killing themselves and others, and even more getting seriously harmed, but I would also like to point out there has been some questions asked about the TAC's methodology when trying to measure the effectiveness of its so-called 'road safety' ads. I am bringing this up not because I want to go faster or I think driver ed should be overhauled, I wouldn't agree with most people here about these issues, but because the TAC's method of spreading the road safety message is seriously flawed. They work from a top-down, linear 'direct effects' model of communication. People are taught this at uni so they can move beyond it and study more current and incredibly complex approaches to communication. How do I know? Because I am a uni tutor in a communications unit and my PhD is on modified-car culture. I tackle the road safety literature not as some sycophantic sheep that will believe anything they read just as long as it says that 'driving fast is bad'. Driving fast IS bad, but it is certainly not the only issue to do with safe driving, plus the messages the TAC advertises are framed in such an authoritarian way most people they are trying to address (those most 'at-risk') simply interogate the message and dismiss it. (Think of the ad with the two falcons, how it has been totally gutted by enthusiasts on many different online forums.) When they did have a relatively independent group assess whether the ads they made were effective (from a SA uni), measuring according to a cost-benefit analysis they were found to be seriously flawed. The debate that followed was published in one of the market research journals.
I read something in the age a little while ago about last years road toll where the road toll has dropped significantly, but injuries from accidents that require a visit to the emergency ward were up by heaps.
Could be that the speed cameras have done nothing to affect the road toll, but the level of safety in cars has? So instead of dying in the accident, you live, just in a painful way.
Since mid 90's the average age of cars in VIC has lowered by 1.2yrs (or something cant remeber exact figure), and back in the early/mid 90's there was a study which found if the average age of cars was down by 1yr, it would save a potential 60-90 lives per year.
But who cares what we think? we are motorists and dont know any better.
Do I really have to write something funny in here?
DILLIGAF: a subsiduary of the DGAF NOP group of companies. BSR Member - 'Blanky' 'ConeKiller'
The AutoGuide.com network consists of the largest network of enthusiast-owned enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
AutoGuide.com provides the latest car reviews, auto show coverage, new car prices, and automotive news. The AutoGuide network operates more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share opinions as a community.