Fresh from his flogging at the last state election, when he advocated legalising speeding (he called it a ‘tolerance zone’), Victorian Opposition Leader Robert ‘Leadfoot’ Doyle is back at it again, complaining that there are too many speed cameras collecting too much in fine revenue. The fact that Victoria’s road toll is falling substantially (according to the same report “The state’s road toll was 160 yesterday, compared with 185 at the same time last year”) is of no concern to Doyle.
Until now, Victorian politics has been characterised by a bipartisan commitment to road safety which has been reflected in a stunning decline in road deaths. Since 1970, when seat belt laws were introduced (over the objections of people like Doyle),
road deaths in Victoria have been lowered from a peak of 1,061 to 378 last year, despite an increase of 140% in registered vehicles and 41% in population. The Victorian fatality rate in 1970 of 8.1 deaths per 10,000 registered vehicles was one of the worst among motorised countries, while the 1997 rate of 1.2 was one of the lowest.
By contrast, in the US, where people like Doyle have been successful in resisting strong road safety laws and effective enforcement, road deaths are rising.
Doyle is a disgrace. He has no place in Australian politics.
John Quiggin 
I knew a bloke (in Melbourne actually) who joined the ambulance service. He said speaking to old-timers in the business, they all put the introduction of seatbelt laws as the happiest day of their lives: “suddenly there were just about no people with their faces removed from having gone through the windscreen” was how he put it.
I agree with you that Doyle is a disgrace, but not for his remarks on speeding fines. You are beginning to sound like a left-wing humourless bureaucrat. In the sixties the left were hated because they got the girls and had all the fun. Now it’s the turn of the right – and lefties like you (and me,to be honest) can’t stand it.
A rational look at the road toll at the margin would enquire whether pinging people for speeding (say under 7 kph above the limit) on safe, straight uncrowded roads (which is what most people are rationally complaining about) is better than, say, annual vehicle inspections, or some sort of encouragement to everyone to travel as close to the same speed as possible. There are many other options, of course.
On that last point, I remember an article at least a decade ago in The American Economic Review of all places which demonstrated that egregious speed (or slowness) kills. Thus in general, it’s safer to exceed the speed limit if everyone is doing it. Conversely, little old ladies travelling too slow lead to more accidents than you’d think.
Basically the problem with speeding fines in Victoria is that people feel it’s unfair to be fined while you’re driving with perfect safety, while the hoon in front of you gets away with passing on double lines around a curve because they don’t put radar on curves.
Sure, for every 1 kphr average speed drops x lives will be saved, but at what cost? Exactly the same argument as applied to inspections at regional airports or spending on kidney dialysis machines.
I agree with you that Doyle is a disgrace, but not for his remarks on speeding fines. You are beginning to sound like a left-wing humourless bureaucrat. In the sixties the left were hated because they got the girls and had all the fun. Now it’s the turn of the right – and lefties like you (and me,to be honest) can’t stand it.
A rational look at the road toll at the margin would enquire whether pinging people for speeding (say under 7 kph above the limit) on safe, straight uncrowded roads (which is what most people are rationally complaining about) is better than, say, annual vehicle inspections, or some sort of encouragement to everyone to travel as close to the same speed as possible. There are many other options, of course.
On that last point, I remember an article at least a decade ago in The American Economic Review of all places which demonstrated that egregious speed (or slowness) kills. Thus in general, it’s safer to exceed the speed limit if everyone is doing it. Conversely, little old ladies travelling too slow lead to more accidents than you’d think.
Basically the problem with speeding fines in Victoria is that people feel it’s unfair to be fined while you’re driving with perfect safety, while the hoon in front of you gets away with passing on double lines around a curve because they don’t put radar on curves.
Sure, for every 1 kphr average speed drops x lives will be saved, but at what cost? Exactly the same argument as applied to inspections at regional airports or spending on kidney dialysis machines.
John, you are assuming that Victoria’s road toll is falling because of an increased speed camera presence. There are many factors that would determine the road toll besides speeding or the presence of speed cameras.
The most likely reason the road toll in Victoria has fallen since 1970 is because of improvements in vehicle safety like seatbelts (as you mentioned), but also airbags, ABS, better brakes, traction control, IRS, improved tyres, sealtbelt pretensioners, collapsable steering columns etc.
To say that speeding is the one factor behind the road toll and not poorly maintained roads or cars, poorly trained drivers, drink driving etc is a massive oversimplification of the road safety issue.
I don’t have any opinion on Doyle one way or the other, but I have yet to see substantial evidence that the increased use of speed cameras has lowered the road toll. Much like in economics, to isolate the impact of the speed camera intiative would require holding all other factors in the road toll constant, a fairly unlikely scenario.
Jonathan, if improvements in cars etc were sufficient to offset the growth in the number of vehicles, road deaths would also be falling in the United States. They aren’t.
Peter, the AER point undermines your argument. If everyone is free to make their own judgement about the safe speed, they will travel at different speeds. Enforcement of a known limit is the only way to achieve co-ordination.
On self-coordinating behavior on the roads, here’s an interesting report from the BBC looking at an experiment in Holland – removing all regulated rights of way at a junction except for a speed limit of 20mph.
There is a much longer article floating around, but this was the first version I came across. No data about the outcomes though.
cheers,
Christopher
Doyle is being a shameless populist; if he were in government, of course, he would be doing exactly the same revenue ramping as the Bracks mob is now.
My contrarian take on the matter is this – at what point can a form of government taxation be criticised for “speeding”; that is, increasing geometrically rather than arithmetically (as in rising with the CPI, or along some other rational straight-line basis)?
A 53.4 per cent rise over a year, cited in The Age article, certainly seems like a case of a tax free-rolling down the hill, with the handbrake left off. It simply has no correspondence with hugely worse driver behaviour, as indeed Peter Batchelor’s “increased police activity” rationalisation acknowledges. If then as seems the case, police activity (or more accurately, the private companies who run most of the speed camera industry) is increasing geometrically, I think that this is a genuine cause for social concern.
Yes, it almost certainly saves lives – but at what social cost (as another commenter wrote).
It’s not obvious to me that there is a significant social cost, particularly when you compare this to other possible sources of state government revenue such as gambling taxes.
As regards arithmetic vs geometric, there has been since 1970 what might reasonably be seen as a geometric increase in the severity of all kinds of traffic laws, and the payoff is there to be seen in the road death stats. Until the road toll falls to a much lower level, the benefit-cost case for tightening laws and toughening penalties is overwhelming.
I agree that anyone who argues against road saftey measures needs to have their motives (and sanity) questioned. I think it’s important to look at the specific issue that Doyle was arguing about at the time of the last election.
The issue that most people were annoyed at was the fact that the 10% allowance in speed measurements for speedo inaccuracy was removed. The argument was that this was being used as an excuse.
The problem is that it’s legal to manufacture, sell and operate a motor vehicle with up to 10% inaccuracy in its speedometer, but (in Victoria at least) you can not rely on an instrument complying with the law to avoid being fined.
Sure, a 10% allowance is quite a lot, and that should probably be reduced, but it’s unreasonable to deny that ANY measuring device will have some inaccuracy, and fine people as a result.
I note that the 3km/h allowance for the presumably (hopefully) highly accurate and regularly calibrated speed detection devices remains, but no allowance whatsoever remains for speedos that are expected to operate, basically unmaintained, for decades.
The Liberals are not going to win government in Victoria until November 2010 at the earliest, and when they do Robert Doyle won’t be their leader, so it’s not as though anything he advocates is going to be implemented.
And I think we can lay very long odds on him using his searing intellect to change the terms of the debate on this or any other subkect.
What the Doylster says is irrelevant.
John,
The NSW Upper House had a committee loiok at this and found there was no correlation between the people who were fined for speeding and people involved in car accidents. This was some time ago. I seem to remember Wal Murray was Deputy Premier.
As far as I can recall this is the only time this has been looked at.
Can you tell me if this has been updated etc at all?
Homer, I’m not aware of this study. Insurance companies clearly don’t accept the finding since (where they can, as in the US) they raise rates for individuals who have been booked for traffic offences.
Also, I’m pretty sure that the correlation is good at the group level – that is, young drivers are more likely to be booked than middle-aged, men than women etc, and these are the groups with high crash rates (very old are also bad drivers, but that is clearly a different story).
I don’t understand this issue – it’s a perennial fave of the Herald-Sun letters column. If you don’t like contributing to the state’s revenues through speeding fines then, duh, don’t speed. Arguments that “oh, but the hoon over there was speeding” are childish and stupid.
When you get your little piece of plastic saying you can drive on the road, you agree to a pile of conditions, or as they’re also known, road laws. One of these is “obey the little numbers in the circles on the signs”– the speed limit. If you’re feel that you’re somehow not bound by this, then tough shit if you get booked.
And if you’re one of those idiots that thinks that they’re a top-notch driver who should be allowed to set their own road rules — please stay off the roads anywhere near me. Thank you.
“I agree that anyone who argues against road saftey measures needs to have their motives (and sanity) questioned.”
Where does it stop? As one commentator noted, if a study comes out that shows a maximum speed of 20kph would reduce road deaths by 80%, should we implement it?
The motives aren’t that hard to understand. People want the freedom to drive as best as they are capable of doing. Artificial restrictions on speed (e.g. the 50kph limit in built-up-areas) are not conducive to this practice.
It’s no secret that the slower you go, the less likely you are to have an accident. The ultimate consequence of this is that the speed limit should be zero.
Do you think cars should be banned, Boyd? If not, then the questioning of continually reducing maximum speed limits is a perfectly valid topic of discussion, as is the questioning of methods used to enforce those limits.
I question the driving ability of someone who thinks a maximum speed limit of 50kph is necessary to ensure safety.
Yobbo, I assume you’re among the 80 per cent of drivers who consider themselves “above average”.
There are dumb posts and dumber posts. Then there is Yobbo’s post.
What can you say? It’s not even rational on its own terms.
Speed limits don’t just protect drivers from themselves. They protect drivers and their passengers from other, bad drivers. So even if you consider yourself to be the best driver in the world, you don’t want others who can’t drive as well as you to endanger your life and the lives of your passengers.
This should be obvious to anyone with an IQ that is measured with 3 digits.
But, of course, drivers are not as good as they tihnk they are, and they do need to be protected from themselves.
As for what is the optimum speed limit, it is a matter of benefits and costs. If the benefits of reducing the maximum speed in built up areas (fewer deaths and serious injuries) exceed the costs (slower travel times for drivers), then that’s what should happen. If not, it shouldn’t.
This isn’t a matter of individual liberties. Unsafe driving isn’t a victimless crime, like smoking a joint in your own backyard. Drivers interact with each other all the time, and unsafe drivers impose big costs on others, including the ultimate cost, death.
The only place this isn’t true is in the middle of the desert. For this reason, the Northern Territory has no speed limit outside urban areas. It also has the highest rate of death by motor vehivle accident in Australia.
I actually have asked Insurance companies to justify this but they never release their ‘studies’ or even their results.
This is particularly the case when you start making statments which tells them you actually have studied statistics.
I don’t understand this as it would enhance public understanding of this topic.
Insurance companies have been known to be loose with the truth in other areas so I am being sceptical at present until I see firm evidence rather than bland assertions.
Homer, it is in the interests of insurance companies to charge more for bad drivers, since they have more crashes. This is why under 25s pay much more for car insurance. But it is not in the interests of insurance companies to charge for a risk that is fictitious. Otherwise, people will take their business elsewhere.
Insurance, especially motor vehicle insurance, is a commodity business. It is highly competitive. If insurance companies can get a competitive edge by actuarial research which shows that driver type X is Y% more likely to crash his car, then they will keep that reaearch to themselves.
I think Yobbo’s got a point on the artificial restrictions on speed. Speed restrictions in urban areas are cruel to the cars too. Domesticated cars have a miserable existence, compared to cars which are allowed to run free in their natural environment.
I wrote a reply to Dave’s post, but I accidentally clicked the back button on the browser before submitting it.
Instead, I’ll just call him a moron and press submit because that seems to be his Modus Operandi, and it’s a hell of a lot easier than actually addressing the points in his post.
If you want dumbarses, you should go over to Tim Blair’s place and check the comments there.
“I pressed the backbutton”. That’s right up there with the dog ate my homework.
Methinks, Yobbo, you can’t think of any responses to my post, which is why you haven’t posted any.
I’m reminded of the Simpsons. Again. I’m often reminded of the Simpsons.
“Reduce the speed limit to 35mph? That’s crazy! Sure, it might save a few lives, but millions will be late!”
You can think whatever you please. I wrote a response, then erased it by accident. I couldn’t be bothered typing it again. I’m lazy.
I also reconsidered why I should bother continuing a discussion with you when your primary argument is that I’m a moron. I’ll leave you all to agree with each other in peace.
Yobbo, my primary was argument was not you are a moron. That was my secondary argument.
Game, set and match. Thank you linesmen, than you ballboys.
You people need to consider what it is like not only for you drivers on the road, but for those are are also learning. If speed limits are set at a high speed, the learner diver (with no experience) will feel pressured to keep up with the traffic and therefore increase speed. If this occurs, it is more likely that an accident will take place… The speed limits are at a resonable pace, however, it is the margin for error that aggrivates many drivers. 3km/hr (the margin for error) is incredibly hard to follow, especially as most cars are equiped with analogue speedo-meters. This contentious issue is not about the speed limits being to low but about the margin for error being to close to call.