Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Let the people decide how much

By David Leyonhjelm - posted Monday, 14 February 2011


Early each year we often see media stories about how many people were killed in road accidents over the holiday season and whether this is higher or lower than previous years.

The source of these stories is usually one of the government agencies responsible for road traffic issues, such as the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority, and invariably includes claims about excess speed, idiotic drivers and the obvious need for further measures to compel drivers to slow down.

The tone is typically patronising. If only drivers would be more responsible or, like naughty children who refuse to behave, they must be caught and punished. There are often lectures by police officers who tell us it’s all for our own good, while governments run advertisements trying to frighten us into slowing down with gory pictures of accidents or warnings of lifelong injuries.

Advertisement

There are two problems with all this. One is that speed is nowhere near the cause of road casualties it is made out to be. Second, the overwhelming majority of drivers know this and, through their actions, indicate they do not believe exceeding the speed limit is inherently dangerous, that they are at fault when they do so, or that enforcement measures are merited.

Speed limits are much the same as they were 40 years ago, yet road traffic deaths have declined dramatically. Just in the last 20 years they have approximately halved, notwithstanding increases in car numbers and distances travelled.

The reasons for this decline have little to do with speeds, which mostly go up whenever enforcement is not apparent, but to improvements in vehicle safety (eg brakes, tyres, airbags, seat belts and electronic stability control) plus better roads.

This is confirmed by the fact that much larger declines occurred in many other countries over the same period, including some where speed limits are higher than in Australia. That includes Germany and the UK, which also have fewer fatalities per 100,000 people.

The RTA claims speed is a key factor in over 40% of road deaths, but the data behind this is very flimsy. Speed is often blamed by accident investigators whenever an alternative explanation is not apparent, even when lone drivers commit suicide by crashing into a tree at high speed.

Other countries tell a different story. Official British road casualty statistics for 2006 show "exceeding speed limit" was a contributory factor in 5% of all casualty crashes (14% of all fatal crashes), and that "travelling too fast for conditions" was a contributory factor in 11% of all casualty crashes (18% of all fatal crashes).

Advertisement

Similar results were found in a study published in 2008 by the US National Highway Safety Traffic Administration. Based on early and detailed post-accident investigations of 5,471 accidents, it concluded that driving too fast for conditions or too fast for a curve accounted for just 13.3% of them. (More than a third of accidents were found to be related to an intersection.)

In the absence of a speed camera or other enforcement, probably three-quarters of all Australian drivers would exceed the speed limit when they felt it was safe to do so. Anecdotally, that includes most off-duty police officers as well as the journalists who write the stories discussing lack of compliance with speed limits. At certain times, a car crossing the Sydney Harbour Bridge would hold up traffic if it travelled below the speed limit.

This has led to enormous cynicism about the enforcement of speed limits and their contribution to state government budgets. There is something inherently absurd about being told that travelling at 5 km/hr above the limit is dangerous while it is safe at 5 km/hr below it.

That raises an interesting question. When the law says one thing and a large majority of people demonstrate they have a different view, which prevails? If the law is supposed to reflect the values of society, as is supposedly the basis of the common law and a key expectation of democracy, the law is clearly wrong. Only in a dictatorship do we expect the ruler to insist the people are wrong.

The way some public servants and politicians talk, you could be forgiven for thinking that the policy objective of traffic laws is to reduce accidents and deaths to zero. Yet that is clearly nonsense – accidents causing death and injury are inevitable at any speed above walking pace. The road toll could be immediately stopped by reducing speed limits to 10 km/hr or by banning cars.

Clearly, there is a trade-off. Explicitly or not, we accept a certain level of accidents as the price of convenient travel, as we do in numerous other activities. What is apparent from the fact that so many drivers disobey the speed limits when they have the opportunity is that the trade-off needs recalibrating. And rather than public servants deciding what it ought to be, the community as a whole should do it.

There is an internationally recognised method by which this can be achieved, known as the 85th percentile formula. In essence, it involves the temporary removal of the speed limit while speeds are monitored. At the conclusion of the period, a limit is reimposed at or slightly above the speed at which 85 percent of drivers travel.

The concept is based on the assumption that the large majority of drivers are reasonable and prudent, do not want to have a crash, and wish to reach their destination in the shortest possible time.

It is supported by statistical evidence, which shows that those who exceed speed limits based on the 85th percentile are substantially more likely to cause accidents (as are those who travel below the 15th percentile). Enforcement directed at these drivers thus has a positive impact on road safety while enjoying community support and avoiding perceptions of revenue-raising.

If the formula was applied to Australian roads, speed limits would certainly be increased on our major highways, probably to European levels. There may also be increases on some dual carriageways in metropolitan areas, although it is unlikely most suburban streets would change. Given that most drivers are indeed reasonable and prudent, there might even be a few reductions.

Notwithstanding the flawed assumptions about speed and road accidents, an increase in casualties cannot be ruled out. But if there was to be an increase, it would reflect the community’s choice of trade-off. Moreover, unlike the current situation where public servants and politicians set speed limits and are blamed for any increase in casualties, there would be nobody to criticise. With choice comes responsibility.

It is high time governments stopped treating motorists like naughty children and a source of additional revenue. Australia’s speed limits are not only lower than the rest of the world, but are out of step with community values. In a society in which the government serves the people, they should be updated.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

39 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

David Leyonhjelm is a former Senator for the Liberal Democrats.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by David Leyonhjelm

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of David Leyonhjelm
Article Tools
Comment 39 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy