fte22

I wasn't really surprised when I didn't see anybody mention anything about the new ad that came out yesterday? Based on this lady's story.....
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...035076186.html

or this study's findings,
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...035071711.html


Didn't think so, bunch of hypocrites that some are .......

__________________
"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier -- just so long as I'm the dictator." -- George W. Bush (December 18, 2000)

VH-PBC

So they're saying that for every $200000 the governemnt "earn" they (indirectly) manage to save a person from going to hospital? It comes at quite a price for one visit and it all comes out of our pockets!

How much would they have been paid to say all the stuff in that article? Or maybe a boost in funding?

__________________

VH-PBC

Also, the accident with that chick, that accident and outcome could have happened even AT the speed limit! Who's to say that the 75 km/h person did more damage than another in the same predicament at the speed limit? Surely it's not the TAC!

__________________

Casper

Transport Minister Peter Batchelor said the research proved the Government's approach was changing driver behaviour. "This is independent scientific research that shows that enforcement and education . . . are clearly working," he said.

The reports were funded by the Transport Accident Commission, VicRoads and the Department of Justice.

How can it be independent if it was funded by those who wanted the justification for the camera revenue? oxymoron...or in Batchelors case, just moron.

Last night the RACV - which has been a critic of the Government's policy - called for the proceeds of penalty notices to be invested in road safety programs.

"This shows that enforcement is an essential part of road safety strategy," said RACV general manager of public policy Ken Ogden. "But the community needs to understand that. It must see that enforcement is about road safety and not about raising revenue."

huh?, we oppose it but it is essential? Good one Ken, you sound more confused that a monkey eating wax fruit! How to sound like an idiot there!

VicRoads general manager (road safety) Eric Howard said higher camera use and reduced tolerance of speeding since May last year had helped reduce Victoria's road toll by 28 deaths from the same time a year ago.

28 death reduction....$427million! Not bad, only $15.25million per saved life! Gee, do you thing the general age of cars decreaseing, airbags, abs, irs, or all the other life saving devices developed by car manufacturers and now more common on the road had any part in this??? What are we, idiots here!

As for the ad, what a crock! 70kph, 75kph, they hit a TREE!!! They could have been doing 60kph and had the same result.

TAC..stop with the bullsh*t statistics and start with the facts!


Cheers,

__________________

XR6HP01

From the first article:
"...the clouds had burst and the car was travelling at 75km/h in a 70 zone..."

Doesnt this mean that it was raining as well? I could be wrong but it could have been as simple as driving to the conditions that would have made the difference not the mere 5km/h over the limit....

__________________

GDHAU2

Haven't seen it, I'm (fortunately) not in Victoria...

Percentages are a wonderful thing...they can take trivial movements in statistics and make them seem substantial. According to the referenced Age report, the road toll in Vic has dropped by 28 year-on-year. I have no doubt some of which is due to low speed tolerances and higher enforcement/penalties...let's say half. So perhaps 14 lives were saved due to the measures in place.

Is this good? Sure.

But what is your government doing about the causes for the deaths of the other 300-400 who die on Victorian roads each year?
- better driver education?
- getting unroadworthy junkers off the road?
- removing road hazards?
- improving the road system?
Or are they just helping themselves to a revenue bonanza, and spending a trickle of that amount on more advertising, more cameras, and more reports?

If they were serious about road safety, would they inject millions of dollars to remove road hazards, or would they spend the same amount of money suing local governments for failure to do same? And which did they choose?

When there's a police blitz on blackspot areas, and not simply more money spent on "Xmas light" speed cameras on the Westgate and Hume Freeways, I might begin to believe that their intentions match their rhetoric.

I'm glad you're happy with the government's policy - you're the one who has to live with it.

GDH

fte22

I guess some people will never get it .... until it effects them hey? I'd like to see anyone from here that is so knowledgeable about it have the balls to discuss it with this lady and her family? Wouldn't think so?

__________________
"If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier -- just so long as I'm the dictator." -- George W. Bush (December 18, 2000)

XWGT

Yep, would the girl of suffered less serious injury if she was travelling at 73 in a 70 zone?
The article clearly states "After a downpour" Common sense, and even the mickey mouse licence test, tells you to drive to the conditions.
But heres the question I really want answered. WHAT GOOD IS A FIXED OR HIDDEN SPEED CAMERA IN THIS SITUATION???? It would have simply forwarded the fine to her in hospital. It would have done NOTHING to slow her down at the time.
And for those that are surprised at her injuries, the maximum speed you can hit any object that is stationary, and survive, even in the worlds safest cars, is 80kph. Anything over that, your dead, end of story. So if she hit a tree, at 75, yep, I'm not surprised shes hurt.

As for the road toll being 28 down on last year, I would like to see that broken up a little further. I would like to see the break up of inner city deaths as opposed to rural deaths, and the number of deaths per month extended out to the rest of the year.

As I have stated, time and time again, I have no great objection to speed cameras. What I DO have an objection to, is the completely unworkable 3 kph tolerance. If manufacturuers cant produce a speedo that can measure speed that accurately, then why the hell should a driver be made responsible to?

__________________
Chevs may go, but theres nothing like a HO!
Proud LSUG Member, and 9" Nodular Iron driveline test pilot.
Member FGTCoA
www.falcongtclub.org

XR6HP01

Thanks for confirming that XWGT. 5km over the limit is not the problem here. It is a result of the real problem: someone who didnt drive to the conditions and that should be a much more enforced offence for my mind, especially compared to 3ks over the limit. This girl just happens to be the victim of someone who drove like a tool and she paid the price. End of story, sad but true. Things like tailgating, changing lanes without indicating and so on are a much more dangerous thing and occur as frequently as speeding if not more, but the fines arent as great for these as they are for the speeding offence, nor are they as easy to enforce.

__________________

VH-PBC

Here here! Now that is one absolute beauty of a comment! That could be a slogan for Victorians, don't you think? What's more is that there are 3 manufacturers in Melboune alone which makes the point even more clearer.

__________________