Having had plenty of interest in my posts on road safety and speeding. I thought I’d work it up into a column for the Fin (Subscription required). Thanks to everyone who participated in the debate, on all sides of the question. This ‘road test’ certainly helped to sharpen up my arguments, and maybe also helped people on the other side of the question to clarify their position. Here’s the closing bit
One of the great strengths of the campaign for road safety has been the bipartisan support it has attracted. Labor, Liberal and National Party Transport ministers have been willing to brave the mindless reactions of those drivers who consider that their special skills should exempt them from the rules applying to the common herd (80 per cent of drivers class themselves as ‘above average’). Even more remarkably, their political opponents have refrained from trying to score cheap political points at the expense of public safety.
Until now, that is. Victorian Opposition Leader Robert Doyle pandered to the leadfoot vote at the last election with a proposal to legalise speeding, in the form of a 10 per cent tolerance above speed limits. Despite a comprehensive thrashing, he’s returned to his ‘soft on crime’ line, with complaints that the Bracks government is enforcing speeding laws too vigorously.
Doyle raises the tired argument that speeding fines are motivated by ‘revenue raising’. Even if this were true, what would be wrong with that? Governments have to raise revenue, and dangerous drivers are at least as good a tax base as gamblers, homebuyers and wage employees, the targets of the main taxes left to state governments. In fact, however, the increase in fines seems to be contributing to a renewed decline in road deaths, which have fallen sharply in 2003.
If he had any chance of being elected to office, Doyle’s irresponsible demagoguery would be dangerous. As it is, it gives his long-suffering colleagues yet another reason to dump him.
John Quiggin 
80% of drivers think theyre above average…and 50% of them are right.
(actually at least 30% of them are right, because maybe the good drivers dont think theyre above average)
thus your b) from the previous post is false. most people dont overestimate their abilities.
most people think theyre above average, and only fifty percent can be above average (average being median and not mean, which is probably what most people meant anyway)
if we assume the people that are above average know theyre above average, then the 30% remainder think theyre above average and theyre not. so only 30% overestimate, not most.
if on the other hand, we assume that the 80% is composed of fifty percent below average, and only 30% accurate, then at best (worse?) half of the drivers overestimate their ability, and 20% underestimate their ability.
and i think the first assumption is reasonable, given that there are at least some people that know theyre bad.
John,
I know I should not have to say this, but the fact that 2003 road deaths are down does not mean that 2004 deaths will be down. Probably yes, and even if the lowered speed limits and increased patrolling has done this, is there any point in your worldview when we could stop lowering the Victoria’s speed limits and stop trying to get more money from people marginally over the speed limit? Why not go on to the next phase? Revenue is up about 300% BTW.
[And, for the record, I always try to drive within the speed limit]
Alan
Motor vehicle deaths per 100,000 population in all states and territories except NT range from 5.5 in the ACT to 11 in WA.
In NT, where there is no speed limit outside urban areas, the figure is 32.
In NSW, motor vehicle deaths caused by alcohol — which has had a lot of attention with random breath testing etc— are trending down, but deaths from speeding, which hasn’t had nearly the same emphasis from police and the government, are trending up.
All data from the NSW Police web site.
The fines for speeding are an attempt at revenue raising, but so what? If they also help with road safety it’s simply two birds with one stone.
I’d be in favour of the following changes though:
– raise speed camera ‘tolerance’ from 3km/h to 5km/h
– fine only, no demerit points, if within 10km/h of speed limit
– double demerit points on long weekends and holidays like christmas
– a sliding demerit point scale for repeat offenders ie if you are 15km/h over speed limit you lose, say, 3 points, but if this is your second offence in the last six months you lose five points
– drivers with no traffic offences against them over a three year period qualify for saving on car rego (something substantial, say 50%)
Some of the above ideas are already in practice in some states.
c8t0, your quibble doesn’t work, because my general point is supported by evidence from more finely-graded questions. Not only do more than 50 per cent of people class themselves as above average, but more than 20 per cent think they are in the top 20 per cent and so on. I’ll try and chase more evidence on this point.
i knew youd get sucked in by some honest to goodness maths…
but anyhoo, i agree with your general point, we need speed limits. for the people that cant drive. and revenue raising speed ticketing is just as fair/unfair as any other tax.
What’s the fuss about the tolerance band? If you think your speedo or your ability to keep a constant speed is not accurate to within a 3 kmh band, aim to travel at (say) 57kmh rather than 60. The difference in travel time will be absolutely insignificant. Seems to me there’s no real reason for any tolerance band.
And yea, it’s voluntary taxation. If you really don’t want to pay the tax then keep below the speed limit. If want to travel a little above the speed limit, adding slightly to the danger to other people, then pay it with good grace – just like other ‘sin’ taxes. Is that so hard to understand?
dd, opposition to speeding fines is ideological.
Car drivers = rugged individualists who should be able to do whatever they want.
Those who want to set speed limits and enforce them = socialists/welfarists/nanny statists.
Add to that, the machismo psychological angle:
big fast car = big penis (or substitute for)
and you have your explanation.
The column asks what’s wrong with using speeding drivers as a revenue base. I kind of agree with the answer that there’s nothing wrong with it IN PRINCIPLE. But people are perfectly entitled to criticise it AS A POLICY, the same way as they’re entitled to question the appropriateness of any other tax.
All else being equal (which, of course, it never is) given the choice between a party that promised to tax non-dangerous speeding and one that promised not to, I would vote for the latter. Now, what’s wrong with that?
Dave,
What about those of us who prefer small fast cars?
tim, that’s where the “it’s not what you’ve got, it’s what you do with it” argument comes in.