Based on this assumption you have to wonder why this hasn’t been done: after all, is not the human life precious?

I would surmise that the different Australian governments enjoy the revenue that the cameras provide and can spout that they are taking road safety seriously.

Speed cameras can’t solve the real problems of road safety, you know, the ones that actually kill and maim people.

Joe Murphy, Bonython

I am a retired ACT Driving Instructor who covered 80,000 kms a year on ACT roads, plus the normal 15,000 in non professional driving.

The suggestion below was submitted a few years back to the then Safety Manager of Road Services, who listened politely to me, put it in his in tray, and rang me a couple of months later (nothing in writing) to say he had made various legal and administrative enquiries and the scheme was unworkable, none of which I believed.

If any progress is to be made towards lowering the road toll, it will not be made with the present cosmetic methods in place. Until authorities take an unpopular tough approach, nothing will change. However, whether state and territory governments have the political will to implement such an approach is highly unlikely, so we will continue to sacrifice thousands of productive lives and $20b pa into the forseeable future.

Over the years I have received agreement from people in the driver training area and a Sydney journalist, but disagreement from people whom I suspect would see themselves as victims of such a scheme.

Keith Chappell

Keith Dot Chappell kdchappell@bigpond.com

Road Watch
1.The present system of Road Rules Enforcement involves low surveillance and high penalties. This system should be reversed to a system of high surveillance and low penalties, by making greater use of Demerit Points, which would be renamed Re- Education Points. Points should be easier to lose, and more difficult to regain. Drivers at risk of losing their licences because of an impending “zero points” situation could regain points by voluntarily attending accredited Road Safety courses, this being a “one-off “ opportunity to re-educate themselves in the area of driver attitude.

2. The method by which drivers lose points needs to be very simple to administer, but difficult to challenge. Applications for licences (and renewals) would contain a clause stating that the driver accepts Road Watch as a condition of the licence.
As there are no financial penalties associated with this proposal, drivers would be extremely unwise to involve themselves in the costs of a legal challenge. Penalties which already exist for breaches would remain unchanged.

3. A body consisting of thousands (countrywide) of honorary, anonymous Road Marshalls (for want of a better term) would be established to monitor driver behaviour and report breaches to a central office, which would then advise the Registered owner that he/she has been penalised 1 point for a breach at a specified place and time. If the registered owner denies driving the vehicle at the time, the name and licence no. of the driver will need to be supplied. Obviously there will be difficulties with fleet vehicles, but the owner of such vehicles would be expected to take their own disciplinary actions to protect their interests and reputations. N.B. Many fleet vehicles at present have bumper stickers asking the public to report careless driving.

4. The Road Marshalls would be subjected to similar character and personality checks to those applied to such people as JP’s before being appointed. They would also need to have a comprehensive knowledge of Road Rules, plus a great deal of common sense and the ability to interpret traffic conditions, given that a driver may break a road rule in order to prevent a serious accident. They would probably be people who spend a fair amount of time on the road, and would be spread over the whole state or territory. Initial consideration would be given to people who apply because of a genuine interest in curbing the road toll, not because they believe that “All whatevers are rotten drivers!”

5. The beauty of this system is that it is self regulating. A Marshall who submits an extremely large number of reports is obviously unsuitable because it begs the question of whether he is concentrating sufficiently on his own driving, or he has a set on a particular age group, sex or even nationality. If reports about one driver are received from several different sources, then that driver has a problem. A concentration of reports from one area could indicate a road design problem or an under policed area. Other interpretations of data could be made by experts in this area.

6. The underlying philosophy of this scheme is one of self re-education. Any thinking driver who loses 1 point with no financial penalty should realise that he is being offered an opportunity to reassess his driving behaviour and act accordingly to rectify it. I believe that once a driver changes his habits in this way, it very soon becomes apparent that this new way of sharing the road is not so hard, and stress levels are lowered considerably, to the benefit of all road users.
As mentioned earlier, a challenge to the loss of 1 point would have little appeal to any intelligent person. Is the cost of a day in court, plus loss of pay really justified when all that is required is a resolution to avoid loss of further points? After all, the points will be re-instated every two years, by which time your new driving attitude will be a habit.
I also believe that 90% of road problems are caused by 10% of drivers who frustrate and infuriate otherwise good road users, so this scheme is directed at that 10%.

FAQ’s.

Q. Does the Law allow a driver to be penalised under these conditions?
A. Laws are being changed on a regular basis. That is the job of the Government.

Q As happens at present, another party is coerced into admitting driving the car at the time. How does this system prevent this.?
A. It doesn’t, but the friends and family have to be responsible and place the blame where it is due. They are the ones who are most affected by road tragedies. Eventually the driver will run out of people to nominate, and even if it takes this circumstance to educate the driver, haven’t we achieved our aim?

Q How can fleet vehicles be included?
A As stated above, most fleet operators will know who was driving their vehicle at the time, and it is in their interest to protect their vehicles and reputations, even at the expense of a driver.

Q How can you force drivers to accept this scheme as a condition of a licence?
A The same way that P Platers are obliged to display a P Plate on their car as a condition of their licence.
Many P Platers consider themselves to be “branded” by this requirement, thus making them a target for Police and other drivers. There is the possibility that under this scheme, P Plates could become voluntary, used only as an indication to other drivers of inexperience, and a request for consideration. However, 1st Year P Platers would only have an allocation of 4 points, rising to 8 points in the 2nd Year, but the voluntary aspect would obviate any claims of discrimination for the purposes of Road Watch.

Q. How is this scheme financed?
A. Hopefully by savings from the $20 billion that road trauma costs us.

Obviously this proposal needs much further development, but I see this as a starting point.

Thoughtful piece of yours today – we are on the same page. I wrote the attached for my monthly column in LG Focus this month. I have had a gutfull of the death and misery – my personal view is to put speed traps up every tenth bloody gum tree – and use the revenue for good causes!

kind regards

Rod Brown
Cockatoo Network
(& APD Consulting Ltd)
Canberra ACT Australia
apd@orac.net.au
02 – 62317261 Mobile 0412 922559
BLOG http://www.investmentinnovation.wordpress.com

Your article on road safety again tinkers only around the edges of the problem, like so many comments and articles by Australian road safety organisations, the various RTA’s and motoring clubs. The fact is that Australia is a “Can’t Do” country, where new ideas either are never considered at all, or 20 years after less developed countries have implemented them. While it is commendable that with a lot of talk, talk, talk our road toll has slighly decreased, the way our mentally restricted authorities go on you will never get a zero road toll. Who knows: next year it might go up again, and every life lost or maimed is one too many. As I once wrote to you the only sure way to get a lasting reduction in the road toll is by insisting that Learners, P-Platers, offenders and old persons (like myself) go through rigorous simulator training, and where necessary retraining, where the test person is submitted to many different hazard situations and his/her reaction measured, all acompanied by modified legislation. It’s done in Europe now, but will never be done here where concrete heads are in charge of the licensing authorities and police who can’t see the wood for trees. And of course there are vested interests who don’t want to see their primitive jobs endangered by professional training with simulation.

Of course safet cars and better roads are also important. But Australia will never the trillions necessary to build better roads, and horrible accidents even occur on freeways. And of course safer cars come from overseas.

As a person who learned flying I can only say that flying is infinitely easier than driving a motor vehicle. You can yourself imagine why. At $55 Mio. dollar per day you’d have the whole country soon covered by professional driver training simulation centres. Of course I realise that this couldn’t be done over night and some accidents will always occur.

Happy dawdling on in the Can’t Do Country. Kind regards Max.