Vic road safety strategy... "angry and frustrated"... Xmas joke...

What a joke, why not admit that their road safety strategy is flawed instead of rolling out the annual "angry and frustrated"
statements.


" Victoria Police acting Chief Commissioner Bill Kelly said he was angry and frustrated at the number of deaths on state roads so
far this Christmas.
"Not only is it really tragic, it's absolutely appalling in terms of where we are going with the road toll," he said.

"We've done everything within our power this year in terms of traffic management through the regions to try and curb the road toll."

"




http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/24/1072239715197.html

Victoria deaths push road toll to 27December 24, 2003

Print this article
Email to a friend



A horror 36 hours that claimed five lives in Victoria has pushed the national Christmas-New Year road toll to 27.

The latest victim was a motorcyclist who collided with a truck in Melbourne's north-east today, making him the 10th fatality in the
state since the start of the toll period.

Police said the motorcyclist, who has not been identified, hit the truck at Kinglake about 2.10pm (AEDT).

The truck driver was not injured in the crash.

Two people died in a car crash in Melbourne's south-east late last night.

The man and woman, both in their late teens, were backseat passengers in a car which crashed into a concrete telegraph pole in
Clayton just after 11pm (AEDT).

Three other people in the car, all males in their teens and early 20s, were taken to the Alfred Hospital in a serious but stable
condition.

Metropolitan Ambulance spokesman James Howe said the impact of the crash caused the telegraph pole to break in half.

A crash involving a car and a truck in Shepparton yesterday evening killed a 17-year-old woman, and a man died after his car hit a
tree at Panton Hill early yesterday morning.

Victoria Police acting Chief Commissioner Bill Kelly said he was angry and frustrated at the number of deaths on state roads so far
this Christmas.

"Not only is it really tragic, it's absolutely appalling in terms of where we are going with the road toll," he said.

"We've done everything within our power this year in terms of traffic management through the regions to try and curb the road toll."

Since the start of the toll period on December 19, five people have died in NSW, five in Queensland, three in Western Australia, and
two each in South Australia and the Northern Territory.

Tasmania and the ACT remain fatality-free.

AAP


--
alx


**********
*********
***
**
**
*******
**
**
**
**

 

management through the regions to try and curb the road toll."


obviously what they are doing is wrong !

less "$afety" camera$ and more training and better roads

mh

 

Work out how to do that while still bringing in the revenue and giving the
percption to the masses that they were right all along and this sudden and
complete change of tact was always in the master plan and then you -might-
have a chance...

Aaron
ZX6R

 

So, they're saying that all year they've been heading for the lowest road
toll since records started, and will probably still get that or very close
to it, but it's all been down to luck, and now either luck has turned or the
law of averages has caught up.

There is zero chance that they'll say that perhaps they need to concentrate
on safety issues rather than speed issues.

--
Conehead
I'm bored, Saddam!

instead of rolling out the annual "angry and frustrated"

and frustrated at the number of deaths on state roads so

we are going with the road toll," he said.

management through the regions to try and curb the road toll."

national Christmas-New Year road toll to 27.

Melbourne's north-east today, making him the 10th fatality in the

at Kinglake about 2.10pm (AEDT).

car which crashed into a concrete telegraph pole in

were taken to the Alfred Hospital in a serious but stable

caused the telegraph pole to break in half.

a 17-year-old woman, and a man died after his car hit a

frustrated at the number of deaths on state roads so far

we are going with the road toll," he said.

management through the regions to try and curb the road toll."

in NSW, five in Queensland, three in Western Australia, and

 

They usually arent when a 100kg Bike hits 50ton of steel

 

conehead said....

co> So, they're saying that all year they've been heading for the lowest road
co> toll since records started, and will probably still get that or very
co> close to it, but it's all been down to luck, and now either luck has
co> turned or the law of averages has caught up.

From the TAC website, and data is as of 23rd December:


Change 5 Year
Average
Year 2003 Year 2002 No %
Bicyclist 4 7 -3 -43% 9
Driver 166 174 -8 -5% 180
Motorcyclist* 37 56 -19 -34% 50
Passenger 82 86 -4 -5% 86
Pedestrian 40 58 -18 -31% 69

We are on target to achieve the lowest fatality toll ever, according to
them. However, as the above stats show, car driver/pax figures have
barely shifted. And I'm tipping that with the "holiday toll" running
higher than all other states, that this figure will probably be equal to
or greater than 2002's figures.

The real improvements have been from bikes (push and motor) and
pedestrians. 2 of those groups are not affected by speed cameras, while
the third may be, but only if they're rear facing cameras, and if
they're on the roads where most riders frequent, such as the GOR,
Reefton Spur, etc.

Of course, the government may argue that 50 km/h speed limits in
residential areas may be a factor in reduced pedestrian deaths. If it
is, I don't know how they work it out.

 

Why wouldn't you think that the 50kph limit had directly contributed to the
reduction in pedestrian fatalities? I'd have thought the stats pretty clearly
pointed in that direction.

Nev..
'03 ZX12R
'02 CBR1100XX

 

In aus.motorcycles on Sat, 27 Dec 2003 16:13:06 +1100

Correlation is not causation. IF there is a reduction, all other causes
uave to be eliminated. Are there fewer cars on the streets? Are there
fewer pedestrians on the streets? Is the reduction only in 50kmh areas?

What would be interesting is "are there fewer crashes"?

I suspect that lower speed limits in general *do* mean fewer fatalities.
I don't think there's much doubt that kinetic energy being dissipated
into thing hit is lower at 50 than 60. This is more important in a
crash between two cars than between a ped and a car, but it's still a
factor.

If, adjusting for ped and car numbers in the area (bet there's no way to
do that cos no one bothered to survey numbers beforehand), there are
fewer crashes, then that's a very interesting stat. Would it be cos
people have just that much more reaction time, both "human chicken"[1]
and car driver?

has the *injury* rate climbed?

I think that with car/car crashes, lower speed limits don't mean fewer
crashes, just more people surviving.

Zebee

[1] courtesy Mr A.P. Herbert who noted that the coming of the motor car
transformed humans into chickens, scuttling across the road and making
startled noises.

 

I never said that it was the only or primary cause, just that there was a
quite clear correlation between the two, which you too obviously noted. I
initially failed to understand how the OP failed to see something so glaringly
obvious, but upon rereading, it is obvious that he has seen just that, has
pre-empted what the government might say - based on his own understandings -,
and then said he fails to see how they can work that out, despite the fact
that he himself deduced precisely that which he now disclaims. Severe logic
error.

Nev..
'03 ZX12R
'02 CBR1100XX

 

In aus.motorcycles on Sat, 27 Dec 2003 16:49:46 +1100

Well what you said was "contributed to". That's claiming causation and
is a fallacy.

Whether you say primary or only cause is irrelevant, the mere fact of
correlation is nothing to do with causation. You can't say it's *any*
kind of contribution until there's more evidence, or all other possible
causes are ruled out.

As an exercise, think of other reasons for the correlation. I've
already noted two - fewer cars on the roads or fewer peds.

There might also be fewer crashes, but perhaps something else is
responsible? For example, maybe one area had 10% of the ped crashes
in the previous 5 years, and now has none. THe speed limit was lower,
but also a very dangerous set of roads by a shopping centre has been
overhauled, and now there are bridges, and traffic lights, and a new
carpark meaning peds don't have to cross a road, plus a school traffic
area has been made one way and has volunteer traffic marshals. There is
no change in the ped fatalities in any other area, but that one area has
had crash rates drop from very high to nil, so the overall percentage
has dropped.

Until everything like that's checked and shown to not have affected
numbers, there's no way your "contributed to" statement holds any kind
of water at all. Best you can say is "may have contributed to", and
that's pretty meaningless really, the close pass of Mars might have too,
there's just as much evidence for it.

Now, if there was a map of previous ped fatalities, separating out areas
that were limited to higher than 50 and are now 50, plus pre- and
post-change traffic counts, plus pre- and post-change speed surveys,
plus pre- and post-change injury and crash counts, then it might be
possible to point at speed change as a contributing factor. Without
that, there's no way to know.

Which is the absolute bastard of all this "speed kills" road safety
stuff. No one is interested in collecting useful information, because
they are sure they know the answer already. (And it's cheaper to
install speed cameras than do major roadworks....)

Zebee

 

Simple: You try running through a pedestrian area at 60Km/h for
any length of time and see if you don't go and chuck a heartie!

G

 

Interesting maybe, but in this case irrelevant. Knowing the number of
crashes is of no benefit when determining if the lowering of a speed limit
has affected fatalities.

Or perhaps the lower speed limit has nothing to do with it at all and it is
the improvement or advancement and mass availability/fitment of
passenger/driver safety devices that means more people are surviving.


Cheers,
Jason

 

In aus.motorcycles on Sun, 28 Dec 2003 01:56:32 +1100

Depends. IT is possible that fewer crashes happen because the lower
limit gives more reaction time.

NO idea how you could demonstrate that's what happened though.

That's most definitely part of it. HAs to be,

But, if lower speed limits mean lower speeds of crash - which would have
to be demonstrated - then physics requires that impact energy is less.

Zebee

 

I remember reading somwhere, but can't find reference now so happy to be
corrected, that even at 30km/h in a car and restrained by seat-belt a
fatality could occur.


Cheers,
Jason

 

In aus.motorcycles on Sun, 28 Dec 2003 11:22:46 +1100

Wouldn't be surprised, but we aren't about "could", we are about "reduce
chances of".

There's no doubt in my mind that a 2kmh crash could cause a fatality in
some circumstances, but that's not the point.

The point is... "in how many crashes will a reduction in kinetic energy
mean the impact isn't fatal".

Consider the motorcycle helmet. It's job is to decellerate your head so
that you don't get as much kinetic energy passed to your thinking bits.
If the polystyrene liner - which is the bit that does most of that job
- is damaged, then the lid can't decellerate you as much. So when it
might have been able to reduce a 10kmh impact to "not well but alive and
mostly all there" before being damaged (or when it was new) when damaged
or worn enough to be compacted, the kinetic energy passed to the head
might be enough to make the 10kmh impact leave you incapable or dead.
But if the impact was 5kmh and not 10kmh,then maybe even the worn/damaged
lid would cope. If you broke your neck though, the condition of the
helmet is immaterial.

IT may be that in a significant number of car/car crashes a lower impact
speed - 100kmh instead of 120kmh for a head on - might mean the safety
kit in the car can reduce the damage level to "not dead".

Can't know that without knowing a lot more about the crash
characteristics. What do fatal crashes have in common as regards
damage to people, and what factor does kinetic energy have in that. If
most deaths are due to head injury gained by slamming into door pillars
then it's probable that wearing a helmet is more useful than slowing
impact speed.

Zebee

 

Nev.. said....




Ne> I never said that it was the only or primary cause, just that there was a

It certainly looks like you did when you said this:

Ne> own understandings -, and then said he fails to see how they can work
Ne> that out, despite the fact that he himself deduced precisely that which
Ne> he now disclaims. Severe logic error.

You wanna check your own logic out, too, I reckon.

Zebee's reply to you pretty well echoed my thoughts on the issue. (she's
just better at putting words together than I).

There's more to it than just plain speed limit reductions.

 

Zebee Johnstone said....

ZJ> What would be interesting is "are there fewer crashes"?


According to Vicroads' Crashstats program, in the years 1998 to 2003,
there has been around 17,500 casualty crashes each year, give or take a
few.

So, it appears that even though there is a tighter tolerance on speed,
little has changed.

Also, with reference to newly introduced 50 km/h zones casualty
pedestrian accidents numbered:

1820 in 98/99,
1830 in 99/00,
1695 in 00/01, and
1706 in 01/02.

02/03 figures aren't complete and it indicates 1515 ped accidents to
date. It doesn't say how many month's worth of data there is available
for 2003.

Most of the ped casualties occured during the day around mid arvo and in
60 km/h zones. Of course, the majority of the data is pre-50 km/h. It
doesn't say whether the 60 km/h zones are now 50 km/h or not. It'd be
nice if the data could be broken down that far.

Fatal ped accidents show a decline in numbers from 1999 (76) to 2002
(39) with the numbers varying in between. 47% of them occured in clear
daylight hours, with 53% of them at night. The winter months appear to
have a higher proportion (shorter daylight hours).

So, perhaps the 50 km/h zones are doing something positive. However,
people are still being struck down, and while the overall numbers are
down, it's not by much, percentage-wise.

There are heaps of different ways that the data can be analysed.
Unfortunately, a basic, ready-made query such as what I accessed took
about 10 mins to process.

Does NSW have a similar service that you can access?

 

you're drawing a long bow to turn "Pointed in that direction" into "only or
primary cause"

Nev..
'03 ZX12R
'02 CBR1100XX

 

Does anyone know the fine for a pedestrian crossing dangerously or against lights?

If you dont know then I suggest it's because the education policy is greatly biased towards the driver than pedestrian activity.

Does the police ever police pedestrian activity? If not why not?

Has the limit of policing cars in urban areas been overreached and would better education/enforcement of pedestrian activity be more
cost-effective.

 

In aus.motorcycles on Sun, 28 Dec 2003 18:44:44 +1100

You are the only one who has used the phrase "only or primary cause".

It's irrelevant. IT doesn't matter if it's "only or primary" or one
amongst many, there is only correlation and *no* evidence for causation
as it stands.

YOu asked "why wouldn't you think that the 50kph limit had directly
contributed" and the answer is "because there is no reason to, only
correlation". Then you say "stats pretty clearly pointed in that
direction." but they don't. They just correlate.

There may be a causal relationship. That has yet to be shown, and a
simple correlation is no reason to think there is any causal
relationship.

Zebee