Revenue Raiser
Letter to the Australian
MOTORISTS have contributed $365 million to government coffers in 2007 in speeding fines on the rationale fining saves lives. So how many did fining save in 2007? Four, based on the figures of 337 killed in 2006 and 333 in 2007. That means that saving each life cost $91.25 million. Clearly the scheme is better at raising revenue than saving lives. If it wanted to save lives, it would do what is being done in other countries, painting speed limits on the road as that has been proved to cut speeds and road deaths. But that won’t happen here as it does not raise money. R.A. Marks Drouin, VicGood point but I can’t see any government letting this income stream go.
Facebook
Twitter
I agree – it’s a major revenue raiser, but you could drive a truck through R A Marks’ reasoning.
To draw a direct link between speeding fines and fatalities is fallacious – although the pollies do it with monotonous regularity.
He assumes that all the factors relating to distance driven, state of the roads, enforcement, both of speed limits and DUI, weather conditions, vehicle numbers, traffic density, the price of fuel – to name just a few of the prevailing factors – have no significance. There are an enormous number of factors, and they keep changing.
This article, although from 2005, is relevant –
http://www.monash.edu.au/news/newsline/story/417
The most interesting aspect of this report is the drop of 228 from 1989 to 1990 (a drop of 29%) on the annual fatality count. The article doesn’t highlight this, and tries to draw a link (unconvincing in my book) between the setting up of the University’s own research team and a drop in the figures. I’d like to know what changed from 1989/90.
You can drive a truck through his reasoning because it’s only tongue in cheek but it does highlight the hypocrisies of Police Commissioners etc who link speed alone as a factor and commit sins of omissions by not mentioning all the other factors that contribute to our toll.
The point being the other factors you rightly mention are largely unquantifiable and therefore difficult to fine.
Of course the Traffic Super intendant can only manage speeding
AfterFrom the shocking peak of 1970, when more than 1000 Victorians lost their livesthe writer should have included;
and wearing a seatbelt wasn’t compulsory
removed the ‘enforcement tolerance’ (previously there was a tolerance of around 10 per cent or 10 km/h above the limit before a speeding ticket was issued, making the effective speed limit well above the posted limit)
This statement totally ignores the fact that my car manufacturer and most others will not guarantee the vehicles speedo accuracy to within ten percent. Thus if I believe I am driving at 99 kph in a 100 zone and my speedo is out and I’m booked then what happens to the old “intent to commit a crime/traffic act infringement?”
It also ignores the fact that drivers traveling a few Ks over the limit in the vast majority of cases are not the people dying or crashing.
The statistics are the young men pushing their testesterone, the inexperienced, the tired, the drugged, those on bad roads etc.
I’m not sure what happened in 1989/90 but maybe it was then that police got serious with DUI…maybe airbags started to make an impact or ABS braking. Improved engineering has an impact on their stats that only seem to record the deaths. Improvement in Ambulance paramedic training, better equipped ambulances, Improved Medical Trauma and ICU performance and standards have also had an impact.
But their only answer answer is every K over is a killer!
I read somewhere that at a BBQ there is often talk about people being caught speeding by radar. But NO ONE mentions how the Police finally nabbed the guy who broke into the local servo or pub.
I was recently in Hawaii and saw many times during the day cops in their cruisers. But rarely do I see a cop locally.
Where are they?
Out catching speeding motorists perhaps?
And the definition of speeding is now 3kms over the posted limit.
Kev alluded to the fact that we are suckers. The manufactures, as legislated by the government, can have a speedo error of 10% whereas the enforcement agencies work on 3% fudge factor.
Maybe we should demand accurate speedos?
Kev,
Your last line “But their only answer answer is every K over is a killer!” reminded me of the road safety campaign that used that foolish phrase.
It was galling to see one arm of government proclaiming that every K over was a killer, while another arm (Southport Magistrates Court) believed the claim was a nonsense. How else to explain the light punishments handed down during that campaign to people charged with exceeding the speed limit?
Cheers,
HRT
But what can be done to change this situation?
Surely all postings here are suggesting that speeding fining should be slowed or better controled?
Would there be a state party who would run for Government with a promise to cut speeding fines?
Wouldn’t that be passed off by people in cities (who train everywhere)as irresponcible?
I wrote about some of these issues at http://www.observationdeck.org/weblogs/?p=2793 Basically most of the drink driving laws are a con but it gives the government something to act tough on. Very few people would try to argue about drink driving because they don’t really think about. I am going to try and get the blood alchohol figures for al major vehicle incidents including fatalities for 2007 under FOI. I don’t know how I’ll go. If I can get them I am certain that it will show that those who have serious crashes are always pissed rotten. Below is an excerpt from the post alluded to above.
“Every few weeks the newspapers have a headline ’20 DRINK DRIVERS CAUUGHT ON WEEKEND!!’. It makes things sound bad and that the roads are full of drunks, like much of what you read in the papers it is not true. When the first tests to estimate how much alchohol would affect your driving were conducted the results were not clear cut. Some people were affected with very low levels and some could have very high levels without having a marked effect on their driving. The researchers found that for 99% of the population that somewhere between .05 and .1 was where driving skills STARTED to be effected. After that the states slowly introduced laws regarding alcohol and driving some set the limit at .08 and some at .05. As there was no exact point at which the effect was apparent the police and the courts in Victoria were entitled to some discretion when people were in that range, this is how some people could be charged by police but the courts would not punish a person if they could demonstrate a good driving record etc. This was a sensible state of affairs.”