A couple of letters to the editor this week complained about the high cost of third-party insurance. One wondered why premiums for mid-range sized motor bikes were so high. The other wondered why third-party insurance in the ACT was much higher than in other places like the Northern Territory and country NSW when the fatality rate on ACT roads was much lower.
The NRMA’s response was that intermediate-range motorcyclists are maiming and killing their pillion passengers at a greater rate. And in general in the ACT, those maimed and killed on the road tend to be a younger and earn higher salaries than those elsewhere. So when they make a claim for loss of earnings, the claim is higher. Moreover, the ACT has a generous system of compensation for motor-accident victims. It is a common law system under which the insurer of the driver at fault has to recompense all lost wages and lost earning capacity. Other places have caps
The NRMA’s message his clear. We all pay for the accidents on our roads. Unfortunately, all car owners pay equally even though we draw unequally.
The NRMA’s response to the motor-cyclist’s complaint was reasonable, but did not go far enough. Quite reasonably, the NRMA argued, motorcyclists cause more damage, so should pay a higher premium. But if that is the case, why does someone who has driven 20 or 30 years without an injury-causing accident have to pay the same premium as someone who has had a licence for only a year.
If it is good enough to differentiate damage-causing motorcyclists from less-damage-causing car drivers, why cannot we separate classes of car drivers into the damage causing and the less damage causing, in particular, males from females?
The NRMA and the ACT Road Safety Trust recently commissioned the Monash University Accident Research Centre to research the effect that passengers have on accident rates. The findings, the center’s most recent, tell us intuitively what we have known for a long time — that young males are a menace. That they are a menace as drivers is tragically and obviously reflected in the raw data of dead and injured. The new research reveals them as menaces as passengers, too.
The research said, “”Young male drivers were reported to have a higher crash risk in the presence of passengers than young female drivers, and young males passengers were found to place young drivers, male and female, at a greater risk of a crash than female passengers. . . The fatal crash risk of young drivers was reported to increase with two or more passengers provided the passengers are peers of the young driver.”
And more damningly, the report said, “”The crash risk of young drivers, male and female, also was shown to increase with each additional male passenger.”
Females, on the other hand, seem to have a more calming effect on other females. The report said, “”A beneficial effect of carrying two or more female passengers was observed for young drivers, but for female drivers only. . . . Friends or peers as passengers are generally a negative influence on the behaviour of the young driver, particularly the young male driver.”
The crosses on the side of Hindmarsh Drive, for example, are a daily, tragic reminder of this.
The research illustrates the impossible position of parents who will state quite honestly that Johnny is a very good, responsible, safety-conscious driver. Those parents can never see Johnny behind the wheel with only his mates in the passenger seats.
The research canvassed jurisdictions that had passenger restrictions for young drivers; looked at the ACT road accident statistics; and did a survey of passenger and driver knowledge.
Interestingly, passengers and drivers had completely different conclusions about the degree of passenger influence. Passengers (of both sexes and all ages) volunteered that they would tell an over-55 driver to hurry and engage in anti-social conduct but did not admit to egging on younger drivers. Drivers, however, said that young passengers and passengers of the opposite sex had the effect of egging them on to anti-social conduct – something those drivers seemed to be oblivious of.
The research said we should consider double demerit points for young drivers with passengers and even a ban on passenger-carrying for a period after getting a licence. It called for an education program, particularly during the learner period, that should make drivers expect passengers to warn and caution them about risky driving hazards – treating the passenger as a “”crew member”.
The research was silent about higher third-party premiums in early years with no-claim bonuses to reward drivers against whom there is no personal-injury claim.
We should look at these things. At present, we seem powerless in the face of this testosterone-driven peer pressure which makes young males engage in risky conduct on the road.