The Australian Federal Police Association has called for an “”abuser pays” system of traffic law enforcement. The secretary of the association, Jason Byrnes, said that 10 per cent of all fines should go towards upgrading equipment used by police for road safety, such as radar and breath-testing machines and protective clothing.
The two elements of the idea are fine. Yes, police should have better equipment. Yes, greater deterrence should be imposed against recalcitrant drivers. The trouble is linking the two. Anecdotal evidence suggests there is already a widespread view that some police traffic activity is mere revenue raising. It would be unfortunate if that view gained greater currency. But that would be the inevitable result of Mr Byrnes suggestion. Motorists would respond to be fined with: “”The coppers got me because they just want more equipment.” Whereas the response should be: “”I should not have been speeding and I won’t speed again.”
On that ground Mr Byrne’s suggestion should be ruled out. His complaint about police equipment, however, should be taken seriously. If the equipment is out-dated or in short supply it is essential government do something about it, irrespective of the level of revenue from fines. The major financial impact from traffic enforcement comes not from the $4.5 million raised in fines, nor on the money spent on equipment, but in the savings or losses caused by death, injury and damage of property. Conservatively, these run to $100 million a year in the ACT. So deterrents and rewards are important.
Recently double demerit points have been used on holiday weekends. However, it appears the system is losing its impact. Police say they charged more drivers last holiday weekend when double-demerit applied than at the same weekend a year ago when they did not. NSW Opposition roads spokesman George Souris suggested that an arsenal of six or seven shock therapies to be used at varying times. He said that changing the ingrained attitudes of drivers was the key to improving road safety. That is true.
Mr Souris is also right in suggesting that a combination of and variation in the various remedies is more likely to be successful than assuming that there is a single answer. Different people respond to different to different stimuli. Loss of licence, big fines, public humiliation, praise and recognition for good driving, or the certainty of being caught affect different people in different ways.
One thing must be recognised. The task is getting more difficult. This is because Australia has had dramatic success in cutting the road toll from the early eighties on. Australia has been more successful that virtually all other developed countries. In the late 1970s Australia had one of the worst road records in the developed world, whether measured per person, per vehicle or per kilometre travelled. Now we have one of the best. It has been brought about by using a combination of technological onslaught with seat-belts, electronic speed measuring, breath-testing and speed and red-light cameras, of using higher penalties and more licence suspension and more education.
The rewards and penalties must continue. Perhaps the two single most significant anomalies are compulsory third-party injury insurance for injury and the fact that accident insurance for property damage to third parties is voluntary.
At present compulsory third-party insurance for personal injury applies the same premium to all drivers, irrespective of the risk. All the statistics tell us, however, that under 24-year-old drivers, particularly, males do a grossly disproportional part of the damage. They should pay accordingly. Perhaps they should start by paying double the standard premium with a cash rebate at the end of the year if they driver accident- and offence-free. (Double premium, incidentally, is about commensurate with the risk.) Moreover the premium gets reduced a bit the following year, once again with the potential for a rebate. Those who regress get a higher premium the following year.
Obviously, in such a regime the premiums for drivers who go long-term without accidents or offences would fall quite steeply, unlike the present system where everyone pays the same irrespective of risk.
Insurance against damaging other people’s property should be compulsory. Once again, a system of carrot and stick would apply according to a driver’s accident and offence record.
Further, heavier premiums could apply for both sorts of insurance, according to the make and model of car.
Using insurance premiums would be a more effective and acceptable form of abuser pays because it would eliminate the suggestion that the police are just revenue raising.