Lets discuss "Wipe Off 5" campaigns :)

[moosenoose]

Interesting thread, although I feel that some of the arguments are debased by the lack of reference for some of that statistical claims being made, name calling, and by implying that if a person doesn't agree with a point of view that they must be of lower intellect or not a free thinker.

It’s just the truth though

Back to the OP.

I agree the manipulation of data and science can be frustrating. I feel some of the data used in road safety needs to be put in context. For example, if speeding is a factor in X percentage of accidents, how does that relate to the percentage of the general population which is speeding at any given time? I realise that providing all the background stats can be hard when an ad campaign only has a certain amount of time, but I feel more effort needs to be made to put the information out there.

As for the government using the data to help justify "revenue collecting"; I don't see how there is a need for this as there is already a law in place which is justification enough. I also don't really have an issue with the current way the laws are enforced as it works on an "opt-in" system. If you don't want pay the fine then it is easy enough not to.

It’s the way they are selling it BH. They figure (and correctly) that the vast majority of the public have a sheep-like mentality & will tote the line if they can dress up actors in scientific suits, read manipulated data from clipboards & show graphically staged videos of what might happen if you travel 5kph over the limit – and it sucks people in! They used to do it with toothpaste commercials etc for heaven sakes.

Why can’t they just come out & say “we’re going to start booking you for anything over the limit! We know that the speedometers in your car aren’t accurate to those tolerances, but don’t get too upset because you know that additional 5kph can seriously injure people, because that’s what our little commercials portray”. They can’t say that because it wouldn’t be popular with the general masses. The sheep don’t want to know why they’re being led into the barn, they just follow the rest of the crowd

So now are they trying to really say Wipe off 10? It should be that you wipe off 5 from say 60kph, to drop your speed to 55kph. The examples they give show a vehicle that has no ABS on …new or old tyres?...hitting a woman at a predicted speed of 5kph because she stepped out at measured distance X….and was obviously deaf, blind or drug & alcohol affected but it shows a 5kph impact. Had she stepped out 5m closer & the driver been doing 55kph she still would have been hit…probably harder!

What about wet roads whilst we’re talking about it? Wipe off 5 still? I often Wipe off 20 in wet conditions & heavy traffic. Drive to the conditions! That should be the message of these commericals …but that’s not justifying the issuing of fines for drivers only marginally above the limit.

So yeah I agree it’s an Opt-in system, but the tolerances of that system have been whittled down so much in recent times to unrealistic levels. The systems they use to determine many road speeds are still back in an era (70’s) where drink driving was commonplace (and was the biggest killer on our roads) and safety systems like ABS, ESC were a rarity.

Distractions are the biggest problem on our roads, and often its drivers in shopping/school zones who have taken their mind off the road, but more so to “was that a parking bay over there?”

Speed statistics - TAC - Transport Accident Commission

Again, what determines the 45m mark in the example above? Do all accidents happen in 45m? And the zoning of speeds on any given street? The science is there to back up the impact (that’s a given), but where’s the science in relation to a street speed being declared safe at 60kph? Maybe it’s safe at 55kph? Maybe its fine at 85kph? The speed zones are not an accurate science!

 

[Wing_Nut]

Regardless of how you manipulate the evidence, it doesn't change the fact (scientifically proven by a comprehensive study by Monash University for example) that a reduction in speed will result in a reduced number of motor vehicle crashes.

While it is understandable that you, and rightly so, want to question the motivation of these campaigns, I think the application "that's it's all just a conspiracy" is incorrect.

The biggest supporters of these type of speed reduction campaigns are insurance companies. It's very important to them because they know if they can reduce the speed at which the average car travels, it will improve their bottom line. They know that speed is a variable they can control and that it is also the single biggest variable they can attempt to mitigate to improve their profits.

Speed limits are set by a very complex system, overseen by engineers. Most roads are designed and built to certain speed specifications, and based on these designs speed limits are set. Contrary to above, speed limits are a very exacting science, and take into consideration a massive amount of data to determine them.

The drop 5 campaigns are based on simple statistics, and if everyone adopted that policy, the funding for these campaigns would disappear. The message is quite simple, the designated speed limit is the maximum you can travel, but just because you can go that fast, doesn't mean you should.

Regardless of every other possible contributing factor that may cause a crash, the ultimate outcome with regard to damage, injury, etc is determined by the speed the vehicle is travelling. No matter how you look at it, speed reduction will reduce crash severity and frequency.

 

[moosenoose]

I like what you’ve said, and I agree with a fair whack of it. My whole point which I’ve rehashed half a dozen times now is not so much that it’s a conspiracy, its just they’ve used examples where there are too many holes in their advertising campaigns. My biggest question is WHERE & HOW ARE THE SPEED ZONES SET. They CANNOT possibly be within these preached 5kph tolerances to ensure that the current set limits are safe. It’s very simple to understand they cannot possibly have this right – but their advertisement campaigns preach it like its gospel.

Yes 5kph of additional speed will cause more damage (no question), but a road where they have a current 60kph sign is probably genuinely safer at 40kph. Who determined that road was safe at 60kph? Using the Wipe off 5 mentality why don’t we all reduce every road by 20kph and save more lives?

 

[jedi_339]

I wasn't going to get involved, but I'm bored and I've got a few minutes to draft a reply. (Make that double the time now since I just got logged out and lost EVERYTHING I'd written FML)

Statistics are far too easily manipulated to accurately portray any relevant information, especially by government bodies who are compulsive liars to begin with.

Let's use the link that (formerly) Badsville gave us where we can filter out stats depending on certain parameters.

Australia wide in the 12 months to December 2013 there were 104 pedestrian fatalities where the posted speed limit was 60km/h and under. Comparatively over the same time period, once again Australia wide, there were only 27 pedestrian fatalities where the posted speed limit was 100-130. Therefore you have a 79.39% chance of getting hit walking across at a lower speed compared to a speed limit of 100-130km/h Correct? They can be manipulated almost any way you wish.
Even If you include pedestrian fatalities from 80-130 you still end up being half as likely to be killed as at lower speeds.
Surely there must be something fishy there as it defies common sense.... But the stats support it so it must be true

I've always said that those adverts where they show the child running out and the car stops at 50 but doesn't at 60, if you were really doing 60km/h you would've passed the child before they even ran out onto the road :lol:

I used to live with a woman that had this mentality, and I kid you not this was really her belief.
She never used to wear a seat belt while driving. Her reasoning was that if 20% of people died in accidents while not wearing a seat belt and 80% died in accidents whilst they were wearing one, She was much safer to drive around without one on :facepalm:

 

[Wing_Nut]

I agree that a bigger reduction in speed limits would reduce accidents, the bigger the reduction the more it will reduce. The 5kph was determined by interpreting the statistics, statistics they say that while the roads are relatively safe, and fit this standard, we can do better. It was a figure that was determined by the think tanks who analyse the data and adopted because it represented the best approach to get the message across to the average road user and reduce the instances of crashes by a certain figure to meet a certain criteria. It is genuinely a education program to reduce crashes, implemented by the road safety branches, independently of law enforcement. The advertising campaign is propaganda, no doubt about it, designed like any advertisement to get a message across within a specified time frame, it's bound to have holes in it, but it is representative only, but it's message is quite clear. It was never intended to be a comprehensive advertisement, but it is backed up with freely available science that shows the benefits of speed reduction. How would you approach the issue if it was up to you to design a campaign to reduce speed related road crashes?

Speed zones are calculated to meet an international standard. They are based on the best science at the time and also have a built in safety factor. Traffic engineers determine the speed limit in a road, taking into consideration many different variables. They also need to find a balance between safe, and practical.

I drive a lot (1000km + per week) and have a interest in road safety. I personally think the authorities have got it spot on with this.

 

[jedi_339]

I also drive a lot especially at work (300+km per day) however I think more important even than speed limits are the road conditions. And I don't just mean rain hail or shine, I mean the actual condition of the constructed roads. Who here has driven on outback QLD roads and then on Northern Territory Roads? The difference is unreal. If the government wants to fine people for going over the speed limit than that is fine, but how about they actually spend the money on constructing the roads properly in the first place. Anyone who has ever seen the construction process on Aussie roads, even highways would be astonished at the shortcuts they take especially in QLD. It's no wonder half the road surfaces are destroyed before they've even finished opening the final lanes.

The reason the German Autobahn has such a high speed and low fatalities? Yes there is driver training and rules that people follow i.e. no overtaking on the right etc. but it is also because they have a machine that travels the length of the highway network and as soon as they detect a crack in the road surface they replace the whole section in a big slab. No council truck with a little bit of tar patting it down with a shovel like in this country.

 

[moosenoose]

Really interesting points Wing_Nut. I see plenty of sense in your answer.

To be honest I don’t know how I’d tackle it. If you give people more leeway they push it further – that’s human nature. Perhaps that’s why they’ve pushed for tighter lower tolerances.

In real terms I guess the police still have a 5kph tolerance on the speed they book you at. Is it 5kph or more? …I just don’t get the Ads, I’d drop those for a start as it makes people question why they are doing what they’re doing. They’d be better off showing some road stats & being more honest about why they need people to stay under the limits that are set. Even at under 60kph, the accidents will still be there. This campaign has been running for well over 10yrs and I’d be highly surprised if there’d been a dramatic reduction in fatalities below that speed. If anything it’ll be because the safety warning & braking systems in cars has increased in popularity & affordability.

A better deterrent; maybe make the fines higher?

I’m curious though. You obviously cover quite a few kilometres yourself. I’ve found driving habits have changed for the better in recent years, but I’ve also found frustrations of drivers in heavy traffic has also escalated, with driver courtesy & patience seemingly going out the window, particularly in morning traffic.

 

[Jacknife]

I suspect the majority of accidents involve at least one white car. Does that mean that white cars are likely to cause more accidents? But then again stationary cars are seldom involved in accidents which supports the claim that speed is a major factor.

Statistically probably yes, as there are more white cars on the road than any other. Saying stationary cars are seldom involved in accidents is also pretty silly. How many people have returned to their parked car to find a scratch or ding in it? almost everyone.

Attempts at sarcastic humor are all well and good, but get it right.

 

[BrownHash]

I’m curious though. You obviously cover quite a few kilometres yourself. I’ve found driving habits have changed for the better in recent years, but I’ve also found frustrations of drivers in heavy traffic has also escalated, with driver courtesy & patience seemingly going out the window, particularly in morning traffic.

What the hell is driver courtesy. :lol:

I realise the question isn't aimed at me, but I'll throw in my 2cents anyway. Personally I have found that I just have less tolerance for people as I get older which may be a reason for the perception that there is more frustration on the road. I have also noted that the roads I drive are a lot more congested than what they use to be ten years ago, so its hard to tell if frustration has increased or if its just related to the larger numbers of people making it seem that way.

The systems they use to determine many road speeds are still back in an era (70’s) where drink driving was commonplace (and was the biggest killer on our roads) and safety systems like ABS, ESC were a rarity.

My questions is; were they getting it right back in the 70's? Or is the system only just starting to match the cars and their technology now? Looking at the statistic for the last few decades a think we are at least heading in the right direction. I also think once we have been able to level of the fatality rate, we are nearly there, then it may be time to look at increasing speed limits. However, I feel that there are still too many older cars and different types of vehicles on the road with varying levels of technologies for this to happen.

 

[Jacknife]

It's not about telling the public that we now have lower tolerances and at 5k over we're gonna punish you. It's about educating the public to be more aware that higher speeds = worse outcomes.
Of course advertising is propaganda - the two go hand in hand. But who cares about it being propaganda when the message is one of truth, fact and safety.

 

[moosenoose]

Fair call Jackknife

 

[Wing_Nut]

You raise some good points to moosenoose, its certainly hard not to be sceptical when you think about all the money, tax payers money, that is invested in these campaigns and you really want to see concrete results. The common thread with almost all government initiatives is they want to push the onus onto someone else. In this case they want to be able to say, we've made sure road users are not breaking the law, we've done our bit.

I think the success of the campaign is evident, for example, its something you think and talk about and are very much aware of and one would like to think the majority of road users are better for it in that they are aware of at least some of the evidence, and drive differently.

The number of road fatalities has very much reach a level where its likely to not change dramatically from year to year, at least not with the current situations. There will always be people with a blatant disregard for the law and for whatever reason, kill themselves or other people on the road. There will always be accidents, and there will always be unforeseen circumstances. This will never change while humans drive cars. The direction that road safety is headed is seemingly more directed at reduction in serious trauma, after all, this is the most costly part of motor vehicle injuries, and I think this is why campaigns like this are still run.

Certainly improvements in car safety, policing and education all combine to put downward pressure on the road toll.

If minor speeding infringements where taken serious by the governments, then perhaps a system where by road users who do not attract minor traffic offenses could have the incentive of reduced licensing premiums each year. Encourage safer driving rather than punish bad driving.

To answer your question directly, I agree for the most part driving habits have improved, many people on country roads turn lights on during the day for example, the majority of people are reasonably courteous, and by and large, most people try to abide by traffic regulations. Certainly traffic congestion has increased a lot, and during peak hour traffic the "general" behaviour of drivers seems the exact opposite exactly like you have described. By and large, there is nothing courteous going out the windows

 

[moosenoose]

If minor speeding infringements where taken serious by the governments, then perhaps a system where by road users who do not attract minor traffic offenses could have the incentive of reduced licensing premiums each year. Encourage safer driving rather than punish bad driving.

Oh I like that approach! That'd be a pretty worthwhile incentive They used to have a good driver reward scheme ages ago if I remember correctly. But like most people who drive regularly, not too many of them have squeaky clean licenses. I had a sparkling unblemished driving record after 13yrs (was a good stint) & got done for 70 in a fluctuating 60 zone (I thought it was 60 & always knew the cops regularly used their lasers there. But it was my fault pure & simple. I should have taken more notice of the signs instead of looking for the cops )

To answer your question directly, I agree for the most part driving habits have improved, many people on country roads turn lights on during the day for example, the majority of people are reasonably courteous, and by and large, most people try to abide by traffic regulations. Certainly traffic congestion has increased a lot, and during peak hour traffic the "general" behaviour of drivers seems the exact opposite exactly like you have described. By and large, there is nothing courteous going out the windows

I was abused for letting someone in front of me once. He must have been high on something :lol: My courtesy was rewarded with vulgar gestures, hand & fist waving I must just have that effect on some people hehe

 

[champagne]

Statistically probably yes, as there are more white cars on the road than any other. Saying stationary cars are seldom involved in accidents is also pretty silly. How many people have returned to their parked car to find a scratch or ding in it? almost everyone.

Attempts at sarcastic humor are all well and good, but get it right.

wow, are you only like this behind your keyboard or a complete d bag in person as well?

 

[Retic]

Could you please explain to me then why the autobahn in Germany is one of the worlds safest freeways? I'll give you a hint...correct driver training, courtesy, and cars that have the technology and safety features to do the speeds.
I drive on the same roads as you and everyone else here as well as driving on racetracks. Feel free to get off the road if you chose but I would rather drive at 120km/hr and reduce fatigue related deaths, as research has also proven, than sit next to someone doing 110.

I totally agree, it is the same here, the safest roads by a big margin are the motorways where drivers regularly drive at 90mph and more. I have driven past unmarked Police cars at close to that speed and never had as much as a sideways glance. I go to Germany 3 or 4 times a year and the average speed on the autobahns would amaze most people. It all comes down to education. It has nothing to do with the speed it has everything to do with driver education. Personally I wouldnt like to drive at those speeds on an Australian freeway as most of the drivers just arent good enough.

 

[Jacknife]

wow, are you only like this behind your keyboard or a complete d bag in person as well?

You just can't know these days can you?
If it's any consolation I feel the exact same right back.

There's this amazing function in your account settings called the ignore list. Guess who I just used it on....