Thursday, Feb 23, 2006 at 13:04
Increasing penalties will not solve the problem. Having a massive penalty, say $10,000 fine or gaol for 10K over the limit might decrease it, but that would be stupid. The gaols would be full from unpaid fines and we would need a 3 strikes and you are executed policy to keep the penalties progressive and prevent overcrowding.
After all, the death penalty has not stopped murders in USA, or drug trafficing in Indonesia and Singapore.
This must also be kept in perspective. Of course we should aim for zero road fatalities, but that is impossible to achieve with current technology. Back in the early 70s, I was living in Victoria. There were 1034 people killed on the roads one year. I remember it
well because the government ran a road safety campaign called '1034 campaign'. Over the past 20 years, the number of deaths has been
well below this level despite many more vehicles, much faster cars and many more
young drivers (few 18 year olds could aford a car back then). Most of the improvement was in the early days, long before speed cameras etc.
I suspect that given current vehicle technology, road construction etc, there is a 'natural level' of road deaths that will occur regardless of what is done with penalties. A bit like unemployment. Around 5% unemployment is widely believed to be as low as it can reasonably go without draconian measures like removing the dole, forcing people to accept available work or move to get work.
Another point. Queensland does not have annual vehicle safety inspections. Inspections are only required when selling or re registering an unregistered vehicle. How many accidents are caused by poorely maintained vehicles? I'd rather not have to get annual inspection, but is this simple measure likely to be more effective than doubling fines?
And finally. With the right attitude, kids can be safe drivers. I have 2 kids in their mid 20s. Both have been driving since 18. Neither has had an accident and the only 'driving offence' was when my son lost his muffler when he went camping one time. Got defected on his way
home. They NEVER drink (even one drink) and drive.
I don't mind big penalties for serial offenders (particularly serial drink driving offenders) or for driving 30kph or more over the limit. But doubling penalties for 5kph over the limit will do nothing other than increas government revenue.
Bit of a ramble. Sorry about that. But I had my say.
AnswerID:
156659
Follow Up By: Member - Norm C (QLD) - Thursday, Feb 23, 2006 at 13:53
Thursday, Feb 23, 2006 at 13:53
I guess this all depends on the detail. There have been a number of reports in the media with different info. So the facts remain a bit vague.
The following was copied from the National Nine News Website. If this is what is going to happen, I have no great problem. Although I think signs highlighting high accident areas (like in Northern NSW now) may be more effective than fixed cameras; but signs cost without generating income.
'Under the changes, people repeatedly caught driving drunk, unlicensed, disqualified or unregistered cars, will have their vehicles confiscated.
The alcohol breath testing units attached to the ignition, known as alcohol interlocks, will be fitted to cars for those caught twice with alcohol blood levels above 0.15 per cent.
And drivers caught speeding 20kph above the limit twice in one year would be slapped with double demerit points - meaning they could lose their licence.
Fixed speed cameras would also be introduced at accident hot spots on the Bruce Highway and the M1 between
Brisbane and the
Gold Coast.
An extra 1,000km of audible line markings will be fast-tracked, while a crackdown on drug driving will be introduced through roadside testing following the completion of a 12-month trial already underway.'
FollowupID:
410745
Follow Up By: Member - Beatit (QLD) - Thursday, Feb 23, 2006 at 16:18
Thursday, Feb 23, 2006 at 16:18
G'day Norm,
I read in the RACQ mag a couple of years ago now that even though Qld doesn't have annual rego inspections they did not support it to be introduced. They quoted some figures involving unroadworthy cars involved in accidents in Qld and NSW and per capital there were more unroadworthy vehicles involved in prangs in NSW - where it is cumpulsory to have these checks.
I wonder also if a performance measure might be undertaken based on cost to the community v's additional lives saved in say a year. We might even find that no one benefited except general revenue.
Kind regards
FollowupID:
410769