MAKING A KILLING FROM THE ROAD TOLL

Okay, we all know it. We've all talked about it at some stage. Rarely has any red blooded Australian male ever disagreed that speed cameras are purely revenue raising. It's been discussed around barbeques and water coolers. Occasionally we may meet a poor sycophant who actually thinks speed cameras save lives etc, but they are the exception and we should feel sorry for them.

Before you write in and say "But you're a motorist! An enthusiast! A rev-head! You've sold out!", become disillusioned and lose all hope, read on...

Yes, if we are to believe that the mass media are a reliable source of information (and I don't), speed kills and we should all slow down. It's as sure as global warming and that terrorists are just misunderstood, disenfranchised victims of western bullying. First we must remember that the media survive on advertising. Here in Victoria, the TAC are big on advertising. The dailys don't need to be printing news undermining the integrity of their biggest sources of income, that would be counter-productive.

That's why, as a non-football fan, my only wish every season is that the TAC-sponsored teams all bomb. Badly. Besides that, I don't care who wins.

Yes, we all know that speed cameras are a State Government revenue device. In fact, I personally think it resembles communism. Deprive the rich for the great social collective. If you own and drive a car, that's good enough- you're rich. Then tell them it's for the greater good. But you know what? That's not the worst part. Nationally, a snapshot of the last 30 years of motoring fatalities reveals some interesting data. Put simply, the road toll has been on a steady decline. From the early 1980's to 1996, the net reduction in deaths was 30% (NTSB stats). That's good news. From 1997-2004 however, the reduction dramatically slowed to 10%. It's still going down- just not as much. That's bad news. What changed in the latter period?

Oh, the irony...

Speed cameras, many fixed and automated, swept the nation and became the core road safety action. Police road presence reduced. Speed limits were lowered. That's what changed.

Victoria even lead the way by reducing the enforcement tolerance to BELOW 10%, which is, basically, illegal. But they got away with it. The low tolerance enforcement alone is said to have gained the Vic Gov $140 million. It's no wonder SA and others are looking at doing the same. Tempting, isn't it- instant, unchallenged revenue.

So back to the toll figures: it's pretty conclusive: Speed enforcement kills. Well, it does when utilised the way it currently is.

Have you ever wondered how the speed limits are determined? Here's an interesting tidbit from the world of sociology: once upon a time, in the days of sensible policies, there was this technique called the 85th percentile. It worked on a simple fact; 85% of motorists are socially responsible people. Therefore, they drive in a socially responsible manner. Yes, there are socially irresponsible drivers. But they are the same people who vandalise, steal cars, assault grannies and generally not care about social standards. They are known as the "minority". Using this sound factual basis, the socially responsible motorist can elect a safe travelling speed based on their acquired amount of risk, forward visibility, road conditions, etc.

Put simply, the 85th percentile method takes this into account, removes the 15% of "socially irresponsible" drivers from the calculations as a safety buffer, and presto, there's your speed limit. A "majority rules" situation. It encourages social conformity for the sake of safety. Motorists are treated as the solution, not the problem.

So there you have it. Contrary to the propaganda, once behind the wheel you are not really an axe-wielding homicidal lunatic, who given half the chance will do 300km/h through school crossings. You do not need to be protected from yourself and heavily controlled by lower speed limits. How about that.

Besides, how, exactly, does fining my mother for doing 54km/h going to stop a socially irresponsible driver who wants to do 150km/h? There is a difference between driving in a socially irresponsible manner, and simply not being coerced into driving ridiculously slowly.

Here is a fascinating article about those very same social aspects. In Victoria, the majority of revenue comes from those low level infringements LESS than 10% over the posted speed limit. Put simply, this means a LOT of people are travelling a LITTLE over the limit. FEW people travel a LOT over. Get it?

I won't dignify their ridiculous "5 km/h over" claims by commenting extensively here. Speed-kills research is nothing more than selective figures delivered by a guy in a white coat who looks believable. Look Johnny, the faster you go, the longer it takes you to stop! Bet you never knew that. As they say, if you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything.

Besides, the TAC are an insurance company. Since when do we get bossed around by insurance companies?

It's simple. Greed kills. There are thousands of reasons why and they are beyond the scope of this article. But we should deal with the most obvious one- fatigue. Why should we spend 8 hours doing a boring, fatigue-inducing 100km/h to South Australia when we can safely do the trip in 6-7 hours? Less time on the road means less time to have an accident. Here's some more sociology studies; fatigue results from boredom. Boredom results from what is called "lack of involvement in process". If you don't feel involved in what you're doing, you get bored. End of story.

We 'aint been catching nobody for days Sarge! I can't work it out!

What better way to make a motorist feel uninvolved, than by forcing them to drive slower than they safely feel they can- for a prolonged period?

And who is this magical person who decides arbitrarily at what speed I will be safe, whilst sitting behind a stationary desk? What is their qualification ? Can I meet them? Can I at least have their phone number?

So, that's why I say to the greed merchants and revenue raising cartel: Put them wherever you like. Hide the suckers, I don't care. But while you're at it-set the speed limits according to the 85th percentile, set the tolerance at 10% (plus the degree of error on the speed detection devices), and complement them with increased police road presence. Then see what happens. Travel times will decrease, driver attentiveness will improve, the road toll will go down.

And your precious revenue? Well, you'll find another way of making the trains run on time. Please, just try and find one that doesn't involve killing people.

Some invaluable sites with indepth info and some advice for anyone interested in fighting that fine
fightfines.info/
policespeedcameras.info/
safespeed.org.uk/buckingham.pdf