| The basic message of these pages: Government road safety programs are flawed
by over-emphasis on speed, unscientific use of speed cameras and enforcment
effort too often mis-directed. Programs should be aiming more by
education to improve driver skills and behaviour thus reducing the thousands
of careless "collision enhancing actions" that we see on our roads every
day. Actions that inevitably lead to costly damage, injuries and death. |
First a quick look at the history of road fatality statistics
in Australia, data sourced from Commonwealth Transport Dept. web site,
links below. Now we are all well aware of the many repetitive media
news items over the years bleating about the "road toll" on this
or that weekend or holiday period, quoting numbers that are seldom put in
any context as to history or trend. The graph shows annual numbers of people
killed on our roads from 1925 to 2002 and it is good to see that whether
measured per population, vehicles registered or kilometres driven,
the death rates all show a decreasing trend. Click on the graph for
large image, click here for breakdown of deaths
per population, state by state. The NT is currently just under 30
so taken with the low ACT number and the good record for Victoria, a smaller
state with relatively good roads, the graph suggests that road quality
is an over-riding factor affecting collision rates.|
Vehicle collisions relate
in a sequence in this way. |
Interventions
by society to improve road safety |
| [1] In
say a given week there are 100,000 collision enhancing acts
acts by drivers; [2] lets say this results in 10,000 close shaves, tyre squealing, heavy braking, swerving etc; [3] there are 1,000 minor collisions where people are shaken up but not injured; [4] in 100 instances people are hospitalised with injuries from which they make a complete recovery; [5] in 10 cases injuries are so severe people are left with permanent impairment; [6] there is one death. (note my use of the factor 10 between my classes 1 to 5 here is purely to illustrate my points, the real factor will be different of course. For example statistics on the Safer Roads site, see links below, suggest 100 may be a closer figure. If I used 100 it makes my case better but the numbers get too large to read easily.) |
{A}
We test and licence drivers to prevent unskilled people from harming
others. {B} Road rules or laws have evolved to exclude bad driving practises and to define a road environment conducive to safer vehicle operating. {C} New legal measures are introduced such as compulsory seat belts, motor cycle helmets, blood alcohol limits, child restraints etc. {D} The police look for infringements of the road laws and book or charge offenders. {E} We build better roads. {F} We build better and safer cars. {G} Advertising is used to educate drivers about widespread bad habits which research shows causes accidents. |
Some comments and ideas to indicate that many avenues are still
open to cut the fatality rate.
Taking points in the right hand column in order.
A: We treat driving as a right making the licence
test passable by the vast majority, which assumes all have sufficient
physical (and mental) skills and aptitudes to drive safely. Common
sense observations on the roads tell me that a percentage of people that
should be excluded by testing for eyesight and reflexes, which could be
done partly by arcade type driving simulators. I personally think
that road safety would be enhanced if candidates with say the worst 5%
eyesight and reflexes were given public transport free passes &
half price taxi cards and not granted their drivers licence. Research
would indicate where the percentage cut off might be to balance rights against
reducing collisions. The Channel 9 A Current Affair
TV show (8 July 2004) ran a segment showing drivers who were terrified
to drive, simply timebombs waiting for a random collision event to catch
them, and who were getting therapy to cope. You would have to ask
how they were shoehorned through the driving test in the first place. The
therapist was of the opinion thousands of people were like this. What was
it I said a few lines up ?
B C and D: In general, because of the
small number of patrols police attention on the road tends to focus
on collision events resulting in injury (class 4) in the left hand collumn
above. This means that police attention may be restricted to perhaps only
one thousandth of collision enhancing acts by drivers. For example
it would be rare to get booked for not indicating, or using a cellphone
(compared to the number of drivers who do not indicate and make phone calls)
yet bad indicating or using a cellphone is enhancing the possibility of
a collision. Laws would need changing and entire new patrol procedures
developed to detect and record drivers initiating collision enhancing activities.
This would allow police patrols, or maybe special traffic patrols
to look for class 1 and 2 driving actions.
In recent decades the use of speed cameras has increased and
it is a fact that they are very often placed on safe portions of road.
This page has not been set up to get sidetracked on the many issues around
speed cameras when there are already many web sites. My personal
view very quickly is that I have not seen evidence of a statistical connection
between fining drivers for doing 64 kmh on a safe portion of road and
reducing collisions. Bearing in mind the authorities mindsets revealed
during the late 2003-early 2004 legal shambles in Victoria where $60Million
in fines was in doubt because of flakey cameras, I would have to
say speed camers are a form of "population abuse" by Australian governments.
One wonders how long people will tolerate this before the reasonable
application of speed cameras becomes a political issue.
Oct-Nov 04 article in "Road Patrol" by West Aust RAC headlined, "Fixed Cameras.....Do
they make a difference ?"
They will certainly increase revenue.
I think it is regrettable that more enforcement activity is not seen around places on our road network with the greatest concentration of broken plastic lying around. Which are usually traffic light controlled intersections, it is not rocket science to figure where collisions are happening.
Running the orange / red light with risk of having
to use heavy collision inducing braking is obviously a vital area
in which to reduce collisions. We have all also experienced getting
a green light and then counting up to four vehicles turning late across
our path with their arrow obviously turned red. A fruitful place
I would have thought to give errant drivers a hip pocket reminder of that
particular collision enhancing habit.
E: Roads are being slowly improved and one can only
assume that our politicians who set the rate of new road spending are
happy that the cost of road trauma does not warrant bringing forward say,
improvements to the Pacific Highway. The fact that "accident
black spots" are referred to as such is ample evidence that road quality
is an ever present factor in collision frequency. As mentioned near
the page top, the breakup of State & Territory statistics indicates
road quality to be a major collision rate determinant.
F: Cars are always improving handling, road holding
and general safety. As a society we choose not to prevent high risk drivers
from driving high risk cars which says that we value notions of freedom
over reducing road trauma. We also are happy to drive cars that are
hard to see in bad light or rain.
G: Road safety advertising tends to concentrate on
drink driving and speeding. There are many other unsafe
driving habits & conditions that could be contrasted with good driving
habits with the aim of improving road safety. For ideas
on positive TV advertising
to promote better, safer driving read the text of Christopher Clayton's talk on 101.4
FM Radio New Zealand
Some observations of mine on poor driving habits, all of which enhance the risk of collision.
Eye contact: Why do films and TV entertainment so often show
drivers turning to face passengers FOR SO LONG !!!. It may be a
great dramatic device but it sure is "collision enhancing" on the roads. Every
day I see dozens of cases where drivers turn to face passengers, yet safety
would be improved if drivers paid more attention to the road and
complexities of other traffic and not their passengers face.
Driving while angry, stressed or preoccupied.
It is obvious that under those conditions our ability to react is impaired.
Canadian research is showing that loud noises, whether it is
Wagner or Hip-Hop impairs our reactions. Yet we allow high risk
age groups to drive around in deafening conditions in high powered vehicles.
Freedoms more important again.
Other actions that distract drivers attention while driving:
Every day you will see people map reading, reading a document, applying
make up, turning to check a child, tolerating a pet placed where it would
interfere in an emergency, slowing unecessarily to look at a shop window,
street number, dawdling and preoccupied with an unsafe load, whatever.
All of these seemingly minor actions can (and will eventually) contribute
to collisions, injury and death by randomly interacting with other collision
enhancing actions. Passengers too should have a responsibility not
to distract drivers particularly say at busy interesections. How many
times are you following a car where there is obviously a vigorous conversation
in progress with hand gestures, head bobbing, head turning etc, while
the driver is negotiation a busy set of lights. We all have
to realise that by not leaving the driver free to concentrate on driving
we are reducing his/her ability to react and slightly increasing the chance
of a collision.
I notice in mid 2004 DVD players and screens optional in cars, what madness
is this ? Even if screens are not visible to drivers, what a MAD idea which
can only add to distraction and collisions.
Drivers should have a frame of mind that driving is potentially
dangerous and needs their full attention and application.
Vehicle TV advertising should not glorify collision enhancing
behaviour. Think of utes doing wheelies, 4WD's doing crazy things,
passenger cars racing, doing wild slides & spins, I could go on. Another
fairly common behaviour shown in TV ads to sell cars is to portray
occupants "jiving around to a song" All of these behaviours,
wild driving or jiving around will lead to more collisions and are counter
productive when taxpayers are paying for TV ad campaigns aimed at improving
road safety.
Insurance Companies: We all know drivers who often have
collisions. Drivers experiencing regular collisions are more likely to be
involved with injury or death. Is road trauma an important enough
issue that some privacy issues have to take second place to the community
good. Why should insurance companies have the right to take money
off safer drivers to keep collision prone drivers still having collisions
? I am not aware of these issues even being on road safety
agendas.
Maybe insurance companies should have to report collision events and
the worst collision prone drivers should be more rapidly priced out of
insurance, or guided towards counselling or re-testing and the testing should
be more rigorous as discussed above.
Further ideas of mine, this time on more efficient road transport
I think there needs to be changes to our road rules / laws to take account of the following broad principles and increase road efficiency.
Roads are there to proceed on and there should be an onus on drivers to proceed reasonably into clear space in front of them and not hold up others who wish to do so.
The concept of smooth and safe traffic flow is surely what our huge
investment in roads is all about, auto clubs should be campaigning for
this and enforcement people should want to see smooth safe flow instead
of using cameras to rigidly enforce penalties on safe driving.
Many freeways now have overhead message displays and the notion of
flexible speed limits to enhance flow could easily be introduced first
on these roads along with fog warnings etc.
Why have I never seen road safety publicity warning that sudden braking is in effect accelarating your car at the vehicle behind. Many times we see drivers braking or turning suddenly to enter an intersection they have overshot and only getting by on the good reflexes of others. It must become normal that when we make that mistake and overshoot, that we in fact continue driving smoothly and proceed on till we can turn off and re-establish our route safely, despite the lost time.
Why don't the authorities allow free left turns (onus on the left turner) at many light controlled intersections. Drivers twiddle their thumbs while clear road invites progress. Surely drivers should be skilled enough to manage this and improve traffic flow.
There are many STOP signs that could be replaced by GIVE WAY signs to improve
flow but once again we apparently can not be trusted.
Back to http://www.warwickhughes.com/
Contact me by email; inward at sign warwickhughes.com
Links:
Association of British Drivers Excellent
comprehensive web site on all issues where drivers are under attack. Their
pages on the way environmental issues are twisted to denigrate cars appeals
to me. Good links page too incl. Australian and Intnl. links.
http://www.abd.org.uk/
Australian Transport Safety Bureau
http://www.atsb.gov.au/road/index.cfm
Safer Roads web site with useful information. Links to all Australian
auto clubs, could the clubs do more ?
http://www.aaa.asn.au/saferroads/
WA Dept of Transport's Office of Road Safety, follow Research to statistical
reports. Many links
http://www.officeofroadsafety.wa.gov.au/
New Zealand research
http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/research/annual-statistics-2002/
Safe Speed UK site promoting intelligent road safety
http://www.safespeed.org.uk
RoadWeb UK hub web site Pro Road - Pro Safety - Pro Transport Choice -
Pro Truth - Pro Motorists' Rights
http://www.roadweb.org.uk/
Fear of Driving, tutors fearful drivers in Melbourne Australia..
http://www.fearofdriving.com.au/course.htm
