thisllub

NSW recorded no deaths over the Easter period.
A fantastic result but I hate to see politicians get the credit.

My comment to the drive.com.au blog on the subject.
I did research the stopping times although I did deliberately ignore reaction times.
Any opinions.


http://blogs.drive.com.au/2008/03/no...s_for_nsw.html

Revolver

Better driver education which builds practical skills and compulsory re-testing for the over 65's every 3 years is my 2 cents...

takahashi

No because most people stay at home this Easter. Who will go out and spend money when the interest rate and petrol price is this high?

enforcer

Interesting comment Dave. I concur with the first but whats your rationale behind the magical number of over 65's?

Revolver

Over 65 is when a variety of ageing diseases can start to kick in, which can have dramatic effects on mental and physical abilities, yet these don't all result in licences being automatically taken away until they become quite florid in their presentation. So, regular licence testing would be a bit like regular checks for cancer, etc - catching the problem before it becomes too late.

Yes, senior citizens get all shitty about this sort of thing and rave on about how long they've been driving and never had an accident, yada yada yada but what's the harm in being tested? If you pass, you keep driving. If you fail, you see if you can get whatever's wrong fixed up and take the test again. If you can't, just face up to the fact that you've become a danger to yourself and others on the road and make use of that travel pass they all covet.

If we were being honest we'd all agree that we've seen elderly drivers cause, or nearly cause, a number of accidents, simply because they no longer have the skills and reaction time to be on the road. The stereotypical doddering driver with the bowls hat on the parcel shelf, like all satire, has some truth in it. Not all accos are caused by P-platers tearing around with their hair on fire. Indeed, some of those P-platers have acted out of frustration because Ethel or Harold have been crawling along a single lane carriageway at 25kms below the speed limit because they can't handle driving at these crazy modern speeds.

We'll all be old one day (hopefully) and with that comes the responsibility to know (or face up to) when certain activities that involve risk to ourselves and others are beyond our failing health. Unfortunately, stubbornness can also set in with age (or increase, lol), so it might help if formal testing took the place of self-assessment. We all think we're better drivers than average, which makes you wonder what the average really is. ;-))

That all said, I sure hope I remain fit enough to still be turning up at track days at the age of 90!

timbo

I reckon there's probably some merit in having drivers of all ages who are guilty of certain, defined offences -- and all repeat offenders of any type with, say, a 12mth period -- go through a compulsory retest. Discuss

takahashi

I think so. I think people lose awareness of strict road rules after driving for a while. Skill and experience improve at the same time though

DrGonzo

I remember reading somewhere that seniors are under-represented in road toll figures, percentage wise. That's not to say that they are all safe though, and I agree that mandatory testing should be introduced.

In my opinion the real issue is that we get drummed into our heads that speed kills and if your car comes within 5km/h of the speed limit it will automatically explode - what happens here is that Average Joe believes the government propaganda and feels that as long as he keeps his eye on the speedo and doesn't watch out for other road hazzards, feels it's OK to change lanes without doing a head check, rolls through stop signs etc he will be somehow safe. There are also too many safeguards for the lowest common denominator (eg 40km/h zones in shopping strips - just in case an idiot decides to step into oncoming traffic before looking both ways) - essentially we are all being dumbed down.

On a slightly seperate note, road tolls have decreased in recent years but I would like to see some data to show whether accidents causing serious injury (or total accidents) have also decreased - with advances in vehicle safety and trauma medicine, is driving on the roads really safer today than it was 10 years ago?

Revolver

Agreed - discussion over.

Revolver

Some interesting stuff there.

I understand from what I've read that older people usually aren't going fast enough to kill themselves but they certainly have accidents and cause others to do so. And when you think about it, if pilots have to pass regular medical tests, why shouldn't motorists, especially once they fall into higher risk categories like the elderly or those with a bad record, as Timbo suggests.

Being dumbed down is also interesting. I read that in some town somewhere they removed all speed limits and the actual result was less accidents because people drove to the prevailing conditions and were more wary of other cars. How often do you see tailgating on freeways because everyone just assumes that the cars in front and behind will remain in ofrmation at the speed limit?

I reckon as ESP/DSC/whatever systems become more prevalent in the national car fleet we're going to see many less serious accidents - simply, the car will be going slower before impact because the car has sought to do what its driver has not (i.e. get it back under control).

takahashi

Also reduced amount of people driving under the influence is very good too.

Although something unpleasent happen in the first day of drug testing
http://www.theage.com.au/news/nation...207340707.html

thisllub

I don't disagree with 40km/h zones around schools and shops. Young kids are a different level of risk.
I have been teaching my kids to drive over the last 2 years and it gives you a real perspective on how far behind some people come from. Some kids are being taught by people who shouldn't have a licence themselves. Even professional driving instructors aren't subject to serious testing. I know of a few who come from countries where road rules are optional that get plenty of work because they speak the language but are increasing the number of incompetent drivers.


The other issue is that of speed. The figures I quoted came from a British study into braking. From 100 km/h a B-double takes about as long to stop as the RX-8 from 160. To me that stands out as an anomaly like the southbound end of a northbound dog.

My top 3 dumb road laws.

#1 A car can be registered without third party property damage.
Obvious.

#2 (Except QLD) Learners have to drive up to 30km/h slower than other cars.
Try merging 30 k slower than the other traffic and you will get the point.

#3 Indicating left to leave roundabouts.
If you indicate correctly entering a roundabout why should you need to indicate to leave one?

timbo

I'd certainly agree the first two are "dumb", but IME, the roundabout rules are totally misunderstood by most of the Australian driving population, a good number of whom fail to give any indication of what they are doing at all. Most transgressed is the belief by most drivers that, notwithstanding the give way sign on entry, they nonetheless have the right to simply 'drive across' a car that has already entered the roundabout on their left, and use their horn to underscore the point

The French are the only ones who mark their roundabouts correctly -- with the international sign, reinforced by a further sign telling entering drivers "you do not have any right of way"