[Ugly Mongrel]

I'll let the video say it......

[rustynutz]

Hmmm, Government Propaganda....

[Ugly Mongrel]

Hmmm, Government Propaganda....

rustynutz, could you please explain what makes you believe that this ad is government propaganda?

Am I wrong in thinking that trying to make drivers see the tragic results of bad decisions and actions taken while behind the wheel of a car is probably a good thing?

[rustynutz]

Am I wrong in thinking that trying to make drivers see the tragic results of bad decisions and actions taken while behind the wheel of a car is probably a good thing?

No, it's probably a good thing to a certain extent.....it's just that I know some of the stuff the TAC has come out with has been less than helpful, especially towards motorcyclists....that, combined with the fact that motorcyclists in Victoria are forced to pay a TAC "safety" tax when no other road user is required to pay such a thing...I just find it all very frustrating.

On another note, our bureaucrats would also have us believe that holidays are traditionally a more dangerous time to be out on the roads when, in fact it isn't.... Their own statistics prove this....

Anyhow, feel free to ignore me..I'm just being a grump...

[eye30]

The vid speaks for itself and it says it all

[Surferdude]

IMO, if motorcyclists have to pay a little more to help educate other road users about them, that's fine by me (I have a full motorcycle license). Especially considering their registration and other costs are generally less than other drivers.

[Surferdude]

[
On another note, our bureaucrats would also have us believe that holidays are traditionally a more dangerous time to be out on the roads when, in fact it isn't.... Their own statistics prove this....

Rusty, I dispute this. I don't have time to do it right now but I pulled up some road death figures a year or so back with the number of deaths by month for the last 20 or so years. They also had some interesting figures on older drivers which might be useful in that other thread.
I'll see what I can do in the next day or so.

[Dazzler]

  If everyone watched that vid a couple of times the toll would drop further I'm sure..

A real eye opener  (it will certainly make me extra careful this Christmas) 

[rustynutz]

IMO, if motorcyclists have to pay a little more to help educate other road users about them, that's fine by me (I have a full motorcycle license). Especially considering their registration and other costs are generally less than other drivers.

So you're happy to punish the victim? 
By the way, the TAC safety tax isn't just used to educate other road users, it's also used to fix "black spot" roads....Now roads are supposedly built for all road users so why are motorcyclists forced to pay a safety levy or tax to bring these roads up to scratch? Motorcycles should have been taken into consideration when the roads were built, afterall, motorcycles have been around just as long as cars....
Re registration costs...I don't know what you pay up in Queensland, but in Victoria, costs for a large motorcycle are basically on par with cars.....

[rustynutz]

Rusty, I dispute this. I don't have time to do it right now but I pulled up some road death figures a year or so back with the number of deaths by month for the last 20 or so years. They also had some interesting figures on older drivers which might be useful in that other thread.
I'll see what I can do in the next day or so.

Like I said, Trev....Government statistics prove it....Click HERE  

[Surferdude]

Rusty, I dispute this. I don't have time to do it right now but I pulled up some road death figures a year or so back with the number of deaths by month for the last 20 or so years. They also had some interesting figures on older drivers which might be useful in that other thread.
I'll see what I can do in the next day or so.

Like I said, Trev....Government statistics prove it....Click HERE  

This is consistent with the findings of the 2003 ATSB study, which noted the important unknown ‘counterfactual’: the holiday fatality rate might have been much worse if additional enforcement and other road safety measures had not been in place.
vi


I think this is a telling point.
It's a bit like advertising where it is generally agreed that at least 50% of all advertising is wasted, but no one knows which half.
So, who would be game to take away the increased police presence on our roads at Christmas and Easter to see if deaths increase. I think you'd have to admit they DO have a major influence, along with all the media scrutiny.

[rustynutz]

This is consistent with the findings of the 2003 ATSB study, which noted the important unknown ‘counterfactual’: the holiday fatality rate might have been much worse if additional enforcement and other road safety measures had not been in place.
vi

It could also have been less.... :-\

The point is though, the safetycrats are happy to bs people even when their very own stats can prove otherwise.

 I certainly take whatever they say with a grain of salt.....

[Lakes]

IMO, if motorcyclists have to pay a little more to help educate other road users about them, that's fine by me (I have a full motorcycle license). Especially considering their registration and other costs are generally less than other drivers.

What do you think about Bicycle Riders Trev? i think they get a free ride, I ride both, i don't think eather are 100% safe but i'm still alive.

[Lakes]

Rusty, I dispute this. I don't have time to do it right now but I pulled up some road death figures a year or so back with the number of deaths by month for the last 20 or so years. They also had some interesting figures on older drivers which might be useful in that other thread.
I'll see what I can do in the next day or so.

Like I said, Trev....Government statistics prove it....Click HERE 

This is consistent with the findings of the 2003 ATSB study, which noted the important unknown ‘counterfactual’: the holiday fatality rate might have been much worse if additional enforcement and other road safety measures had not been in place.
vi


I think this is a telling point.
It's a bit like advertising where it is generally agreed that at least 50% of all advertising is wasted, but no one knows which half.
So, who would be game to take away the increased police presence on our roads at Christmas and Easter to see if deaths increase. I think you'd have to admit they DO have a major influence, along with all the media scrutiny.

Good point Trev, also when i was young, i was the victim of a drunk out of control driver, he totaled a new car i had. so i support our tuff drink driving laws

[rustynutz]

If you'd like to know more of why I take what our SafetyCrats say with a grain of salt, then you may like to have a read of this......

If you'd like to know more of why I take what our SafetyCrats say with a grain of salt, then you may like to have a read of this......

I have to admit that I had formed the opinion that I would agree with you only infrequently. Your apparent brashness was... well... brash.

I suspect you knew this.

However, your last post and its link have given you another chance... strange as it might (or not) seem I'm with you on this. It's not speed, it's not bad roads, it's not alcohol, it's not any number of superficially measurable (and therefore useable as a win/lose result for political reasons), it's as simple as recognising that it takes a while to learn and avoid errors in driving. I know that it's not only young drivers that are the problem but I think most agree they are over represented in accidents.

Unfortunately, driving (and other skills) are learned when still at an age when mistakes will be made. This is precisely how (social) driving skills are built.

The trick is to get through this phase intact where (social) driving skills are learned without (duffing) killing anyone.  Once mastered they, the former kids, are with us... the old farts, survivers and masters of their (destiny) cars!

What I would like to see is much stricter licensing tests with limits on new license holders and follow-up testing where greater skill needs to be attained with each test and for which a pass confers greater liberty for drivers. These should continue for life, and as skill deminishes so should the privileges.

It will not take too much (extra) technology to identify the driver at any time to ensure that the "privileges" are not exceeded. Telemetry, similar to toll-road charges or even something as simple as an external display identifier (perhaps LED for current technology?).

If the driver wishes to increase his/her standard (renewed annually), just take the test.

Some of the privileges (and tests for ability) might be related to speed allowed (in the outside lane only), a sensible amount of BAL or even (not) driving in peak hour perhaps.

The point I'm making is: test individuals and judge each on proven ability to attain set skill levels.

This removes the draconian laws that force us to drive at crawling speeds based on the stupid assumption that if we all drive slower we will kill less people when the inevitable accident occurs.

Unfortunately it's true... but there are better ways to get the same result. Make us better drivers and/or make us drive within our ability.

That way we won't get the suggestions we get (here) that old farts are dangerous. (hang on, I think I said that... )

FWIW

[snowcherry]

debates aside, this is a very well done clip. good editing and great song = powerful message. i'm a bit of a cynic myself with many things but couldn't help but be drawn into this one. 

rusty - instead of me jumping through hoops to try and read a document that i can't access in the end can you post it directly or something? or pm it to me maybe.  ???

[Ozbrum]

That's so true and so tragic that film clip ..... When we see the daily 18.00 news and the newsreader says "There were 6 people killed in a tragic accident today" and then they show us a smashed up car that you have no idea of the make because of the damage ..... that's all we see and then we'll say 'awful shame that'  What's for tea ?... We don't see the broken bodies or some unfortunate loved ones head and arm 10 metres away from the rest of their body left in the car or the people's last curdled cry to try and scream their loved ones name ...... If we did we may be a little more careful or we may not ?

While we all can still drive or even travel in a car there will always be fatal road crashes and some of us will die .... We all just hope that it's not us or anyone we love or care about and I don't mean to sound cynical but that's human nature.

 

[rustynutz]

rusty - instead of me jumping through hoops to try and read a document that i can't access in the end can you post it directly or something? or pm it to me maybe.  ???

Snow, I thought about posting it directly but to do that it would've involved a fair bit of mucking around, such as posting parts of it on a hosting site which is why I opted to just offer it as a downloadable pdf instead. Honestly, it's not hard to download (it's also small) and you only require adobe reader which I'd say would be on just about every computer in the land.

Another option, if you prefer, is to PM me your email address and I can send it to you....of course you'll still need adobe reader to be able to read it.
Cheers 

[Surferdude]

If you'd like to know more of why I take what our SafetyCrats say with a grain of salt, then you may like to have a read of this......

Rusty, that's an interesting "take" on the issue. I've only read 4 pages so far but saved a copy for further reading. However, in those four pages, I detected a fairly typical approach to placing one's own interpretation on the facts.
I'll explain further later but IMO the writer is simply using his written skills to justify a position against the way things are done now. I'm not saying I disagree with him but there are several galring errors in his statements and the way he interprets the facts.

from a high of over 1,300 fatalities in 1978 down to under 600 fatalities for 2003.
Despite the ongoing use of such strategies, our road toll has been in a virtual stasis since 1997.

In actual fact, the figures from and including 2003 are as follows.......
2003     539
2004     510
2005     508
2006     496
2007     435
2008     374
2009     460
2010     400 (ytd Nov.)

So in fact, using up to date figures, up to 2008 inclusive, the toll has continued to drop.
More on the deaths "caused by" speeding and alcohol to follow.

[rustynutz]

I have to admit that I had formed the opinion that I would agree with you only infrequently. Your apparent brashness was... well... brash.
I suspect you knew this.

No, pip, I didn't know this and I must admit I'm quite surprised. Don't think i've ever been accused of being brash before.... opinionated, even passionate, maybe...

I'm also curious to understand why you'd think you'd only agree with me infrequently too...

[Surferdude]

IMO, if motorcyclists have to pay a little more to help educate other road users about them, that's fine by me (I have a full motorcycle license). Especially considering their registration and other costs are generally less than other drivers.

What do you think about Bicycle Riders Trev? i think they get a free ride, I ride both, i don't think eather are 100% safe but i'm still alive.

Yeah I ride both. Well it's sometime since I used my motorcycle license but it's still valid.
 Don't start me on cyclists.
They are among the most aggressive and inconsiderate of all road users.
I ride a fair bit around the southern end of the Sunshine Coast and go out of my way to clear the way for cars.  Apart from the woman in a MX5 who took me out, coming out of the Coles carpark.

[rustynutz]

Rusty, that's an interesting "take" on the issue. I've only read 4 pages so far but saved a copy for further reading. However, in those four pages, I detected a fairly typical approach to placing one's own interpretation on the facts.
I'll explain further later but IMO the writer is simply using his written skills to justify a position against the way things are done now. I'm not saying I disagree with him but there are several galring errors in his statements and the way he interprets the facts.

Placing one's own interpretation on the facts is surely the case with any paper or publication of this type.   

from a high of over 1,300 fatalities in 1978 down to under 600 fatalities for 2003.
Despite the ongoing use of such strategies, our road toll has been in a virtual stasis since 1997.

In actual fact, the figures from and including 2003 are as follows.......
2003     539
2004     510
2005     508
2006     496
2007     435
2008     374
2009     460
2010     400 (ytd Nov.)

So in fact, using up to date figures, up to 2008 inclusive, the toll has continued to drop.
More on the deaths "caused by" speeding and alcohol to follow.

Not sure of the point you're trying to make with those figures, Trev.... :-\

  One thing you need to be aware of, this paper is a few years old...

[Surferdude]

Rusty, that's an interesting "take" on the issue. I've only read 4 pages so far but saved a copy for further reading. However, in those four pages, I detected a fairly typical approach to placing one's own interpretation on the facts.
I'll explain further later but IMO the writer is simply using his written skills to justify a position against the way things are done now. I'm not saying I disagree with him but there are several galring errors in his statements and the way he interprets the facts.

Placing one's own interpretation on the facts is surely the case with any paper or publication of this type.  Exactly> Regardless of which side of the fence you are on. That was my point. I was trying to place this guy's presentation in balance 

from a high of over 1,300 fatalities in 1978 down to under 600 fatalities for 2003.
Despite the ongoing use of such strategies, our road toll has been in a virtual stasis since 1997.

In actual fact, the figures from and including 2003 are as follows.......
2003     539
2004     510
2005     508
2006     496
2007     435
2008     374
2009     460
2010     400 (ytd Nov.)

So in fact, using up to date figures, up to 2008 inclusive, the toll has continued to drop.
More on the deaths "caused by" speeding and alcohol to follow.

Not sure of the point you're trying to make with those figures, Trev.... :-\ I'm aware it's a few years old. The point is, as per his quote above, if you extrapolate it out to include the most recent figures, his argument about plateauing (and therefore arguing against the authorities' position) doesn't hold water

  One thing you need to be aware of, this paper is a few years old...

The writer uses a subtle technique here in a number of his arguments. For instance, saying that fatalities in 2003 were "under 600". Which sounds a lot worse that "just over 500" or even "537".
Sort of like price ticketing items at $19,990 Drive Away which sounds so much better tha $20,000 Drive Away. The brain only hears the first couple of figures and thinks, "Oh! $19,000 is pretty good"

Sorry. Old marketing man here. Plus I spent some time on post graduate studies where they encourage you to argue a position even if you disagree with it, so you can see the other side of something.

I'm also curious to understand why you'd think you'd only agree with me infrequently too...

I based that opinion on the approach you had regarding the damaged door seal. I disagreed with you on that and we seemed to come from opposite sides which I assumed would be our respective takes on many other topics.  Seems not. I meant no offense.

I'll leave you and Trev to sort out the current topic... I'm not passionate enough about this one to really participate.

[rustynutz]

I'm aware it's a few years old. The point is, as per his quote above, if you extrapolate it out to include the most recent figures, his argument about plateauing (and therefore arguing against the authorities' position) doesn't hold water

If you look at the figures he's referring to, you'll find he's pretty much correct....

1997 - 576
1998 - 556
1999 - 577
2000 - 603
2001 - 524
2002 - 561
2003 - 539

As far as I'm aware nothing much has changed as far as enforcement is concerned since then, so maybe much of it can be put down to safer cars?
There are getting more and more cars out there with ABS, ESP, Airbags etc...these could certainly explain the drop....

[rustynutz]

BTW, I'm not sure how we got to be arguing the state of the road toll in NSW...

The reason I posted the file was to point out how figures get "fudged" by our Bureaucrats....As in, what they tell you isn't necessarily true...

[rustynutz]

I'm also curious to understand why you'd think you'd only agree with me infrequently too...

I based that opinion on the approach you had regarding the damaged door seal. I disagreed with you on that and we seemed to come from opposite sides which I assumed would be our respective takes on many other topics.  Seems not. I meant no offense.

I'll leave you and Trev to sort out the current topic... I'm not passionate enough about this one to really participate.

No worries, pip...we're all entitled to our opinions.....cheers 

[2i30s]

BTW, I'm not sure how we got to be arguing the state of the road toll in NSW...

The reason I posted the file was to point out how figures get "fudged" by our Bureaucrats....As in, what they tell you isn't necessarily true...

i think it all started at reply #1 russ. 

[snowcherry]

Another option, if you prefer, is to PM me your email address and I can send it to you....of course you'll still need adobe reader to be able to read it.
Cheers 

i've tried twice now, it won't give it to me.