Quote:
Originally Posted by holdenz88
Personally, my own view is there should be a strict tolerance on speed enforcement - go over the speed by 1km and expect an infringement notice. Put speed cameras on every street. Haha... ok I guess that is over the top, but maybe over the top is needed when you look at the number of people killed on the roads.
|
No, that's "Brainwashed by A Current Affair or Today Tonight" talk.
By placing strict speed enforcement in place, you have people driving around looking at their speedo instead of the road in front of them. Driver training is the key to reducing accidents and fatalities on the road. When you look at the number of people killed on the roads they always point to the statistic where speed was named as the cause. If they can not determine a cause, speed is the default cause. So old man Jerry can have a heart palpatation and clutches his chest doing 70km/h in an 80km/h zone in his 1966 Valiant with no air bags and hits a pole head on and dies in the crash before he has a heart attack. Hey presto, speed killed Jerry because all old people have some sort of heart problem and yet he was 10km/h under the limit.
How many of those people in the death statistics died in the country areas where going off the road at just about any speed will result in a collision with a tree or flipping over in a big spoon drain? National limit for highways is 110km/h. Hit a tree at 100km/h because you are dozing off and saw the roo at the last minute and swerved you have a fair chance at dying. Also, how many rural deaths are there compared to those in the metro? I would hazard a guess at 4:1, yet multanova's, handheld lasers and now fancy dual light cameras and point o point cameras are put in metro areas because that's where revenue is generated. Put a camera on Brand Hwy near Eneabba and you might catch 10 people speeding per shift. That same camera could be on Marmion Avenue catching 10 people per hour. That's xx times the revenue and that's all the Government sees. Saving lives my fat ass.