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!