labrat

OK, it must be Friday, because I'm prepared to be shot down in flames over this. I believe that the best form of cure is prevention. In this instance, there are some people who should simply not be allowed to drive - ever. They are psychologically unsuited to being in charge of a potentially lethal device. The problem arises as to how you weed these people out in a democratic society. Putting aside such niceties as infringement of people's civil rights. I would institute psychological testing for all would-be drivers before they even embark on a learn-to-drive campaign. If they failed, they could then (at there own expense) front a government approved pyschologist for a re-evaluation. I know there are doubts as to the worth of pysch testing, but I worked for a large mining corporation which had instituted psych testing when it was founded. Everytime somebody over-rode the pysch test findings and hired some clown, we had all the problems of getting rid of drunks, crooks and in some cases downright sociopaths (and you know how long that takes and how much it costs). The net effect of this policy was a remarkably stable and harmonious workforce, considering the remote location. In my view, properly designed and properly applied, psych testing works. It's implementation however would be a legal/political football, and I suspect that governments will be prepared to wear the road toll rather than consider it.

auzoom

I was traveling down the Northern Ring Road here yesterday and was doing about 105Kms (did I just admit to that!) and taking it nice and easy. I passed a P Plater with 4 passengers SQUASHED into an older Prelude. No issue there.

A few hundred metres down the road I look in my rear view and see the prelude change lanes in front of another car and gun it. I pulled out the way to let them through and I reckon that they would have been doing 130-140 as they passed me.

But it didnt stop there, they continued to swearve in and out of traffic at the same high speed.

I frustrates the hell out of me that the driver put not only the 4 lives of his/her passengers at risk but the 20-30 people they were reklessly passing at risk.

God I dread when my kids get their licenses, I hope I have tought them well.

Andrew

RXP33D

Kall,

Yeah, I've thrown in the odd launch, had some drags, but NO, I don't show off nor do I know how to do a burnout, although I have a rough idea, but have never come to the point wanting to shread $ tyres. I let the car speak for itself, I don't feel that I need to 'rip it up' to impress the ladies or my mates.
I have the decency to take my car to the track and hoon around there, hell I even tracked with Revolver.
But just to clarify, if anyone would feel endangered going on cruises or tracking their car with a group that involved P-Plater's, drop us a line or let people know before hand.

timbo

[rant]
Labrat, I am violently in agreement with you -- up to a point -- because unfortunately psych testing is very useful but by no means an infallible predictor of behaviour.

First, because of the risks and responsibilities it entails, a licence to drive is not a right; it is a privilege. Few people seem to appreciate this -- young or old, and that is why one of the better deterrents to poor driving behaviour is licence suspension. In my personal observation, that is the factor that most people fear (see various web forums for extensive thread discussions about this)

Secondly, as observed above, people's behaviour changes with age. The young -- especially young men -- are risk takers. That is the nature of the species and even those psychologically "suitable" to drive will have a riskier approach to driving while young. That's not my opinion; that's what the statistics show, and why everytime there is an insurance thread, those under 25 suddenly discover that those over 25 are paying considerably less for their insurance.

This is also why, as we get older, we become more conservative in our driving, to the point that we become, as observed, virtually inept, as we're no longer capable of making driving decisions in the time available to us. What did I read -- 45,000 drivers out there in Australia suffering from various degrees of senile dementia Try telling an aged parent that they shouldn't really drive any longer -- hell, I can tell you it was much easier riding with and teaching my three sons to drive, than as a passenger with my father -- who had a class 5 licence for 40 years -- and discovering he's now a road menace

Psychological testing may address part of the problem, but much more needs to be addressed in proper driver education, licence testing, and re-testing periodically throughout one's lifetime.

In my opinion, and following up on Labrat, maybe re-testing should occur at certain age points andafter the accumulation of a certain number of infringement points.
[/rant]

auzoom

I have to disagree. Of the bad, dangerous, rekless, etc drivers I see whenever I am on the road, in whole I reckon women (especially P platers) are the worse drivers.

Guys tend to drive fast in long stretches, eg lets see if I can get to 100 between turning this corner and that set of lights 100 metres ahead. Girls tend to just drive flat out everywhere, ie I am doing 100, why bother slowing down around this corner, or ohh look there is some space between that car and the next, I will just swearve into it. They are rude, aggresive and blinkered.

This is just an observation I have been making over the last 2-3 years to amuse myself while driving.

On the issue of P-Platers and elderly drivers, I dont believe its P-Platers in general, its the unfortunate thing of most P-Platers are 18-21 year olds. A 30 year old P-Plater is obviously going to be a different story. In my mind (and from personal experience, eg myself) its the overconfidence and invulnerability that most <25 year olds suffer from that is the biggest issue.

Andrew

timbo

Andrew

Unfortunately, neither traffic accident statistics nor insurance actuarial studies support you.

Young men are the problem :oops:

auzoom

Timbo, yep aware of that and it always amazes me. Guess I am to busy watching the chicks instead of the guys

Andrew

Revolver

I believe mandatory sentencing for select traffic offences is a good thing. At least then the public would quickly learn that x=y in terms of conduct and result, if caught.

Look, I'm in the trade - I know what goes on.

Johhny P-plater gets all hormonal and decides to lair off down the road with a car full of mates. Boys in blue catch him and actually charge him instead of just writing out a ticket. All of a sudden Johnny is **** scared because the parents are on his back and if convicted every potential employer may discover he's got a criminal record. So Johhny's poor old Dad finds a slick traffic lawyer who gets references from everyone to the local priest about what a good boy Johnny is. Johnny turns up to court wearing a tie for the first time in his life, turns milksop eyes on the beak and the usual submissions are made on his behalf. Result - fined and suspended but no conviction recorded.

Now, I'm sure the experience is enough for some kids to learn a good lesson. However, after the scare has worn off, many laugh with said mates about how they got off and soon end up going back to their wicked ways.

And it is never just their own life they are risking. Go talk to a family who has lost their son/daughter in a road accident. I have, plenty of times. It's not just the driver's life that is badly affected, even in a single car accident.

Revolver

Absolutely no doubt about that Kall.

I've focused a little on the P-platers in this thread but they make themselves obvious targets by their massive over-representation in the stats.

Completely agree that a number of drivers become menaces as they grow older. Grey nomads towing caravans spring to mind.

Revolver

Tuan, you are taking my comments as a personal attack. That was not intended.

Although I stand by my comments that no P-plater has the experience and maturity to decide when or if it is safe to travel at some 170km/h on a public road, that is not a criticism or a personal slight. It is just common sense. It takes a little time to get the skills necessary to know when and how to drive at that speed.

I appreciate that younger people hate this kind of stuff. Hell, when I was your age I knew it all and thought I was a marvellous driver. It is only in later years that I have fully appreciated some of the ridiculous risks I took.

As for cruises, it was only on the drive to Nowra in December that MACCAA and I witnessed one of our younger members perform an overtaking move that made our blood run cold. It was truly one of the stupidest bits of driving I've seen in a long time.

Having said that, I've found most of you to be great drivers both on road and track and have no problem with anyone attending. So, please don't take this as an attack on you. My comments are aimed at P-platers and other drivers who do the kind of crazy stuff that this guy got up to - not to those of us who merely enjoy the odd mild spurt now and again.

takahashi

No one should do 170kmh in an Australian public road... the condition cannot simply handle it.

Do not agrue, since you are the one to lose... what happen if you crash. You ruined nothing but your life.

Not worth it. I would say. There are simply too many years ahead of you.

When you are 80 then you can do 200kmh in a 60 zone... since no one bloody cares about you when you are that old. ok ?!

Revolver

I know where you're coming from Timbo but I also see Andrew's point. I've noticed in recent years a lot more younger women driving recklessly than I ever did before. And Kall has it right - they're usually in crappy little Hyundai's, etc that cannot brake or handle worth a damn, hence diminishing their ability to get out of trouble.

However, this is probably just a reflection of changing culture. Years ago a lot of women never even learnt to drive. I also read somewhere that women are rapidly catching men in alcohol consumption. There's now more of a blurring of the edges between male and female behaviour so I guess it was only a matter of time before more female hoons arrived.

The upside of all this - I see a lot more girls in the water when I surf.

Revolver

I agree with plenty of this Timbo. However, the guys who are repeatedly drink driving and speeding to massive excess don't usually participate in polite chat forums methinks.

For these characters, I tend to agree with labrat that they just shouldn't be allowed to drive. Not sure about weeding them out in advance via psych testing. That's just a little too Big Brother for me. However, once an individual has demonstrated on a number of occasions that loss of licence, fines, etc just do not work to deter them, I believe cars need to be seized.

dupa12345

back on topic ...

I think there should be no penalty at all .. this is in the middle of night .. prolly no traffic .. speed limits should be adequate and adaptable to road and traffic conditions .. which with normal regulations would probably be 130-150

somebody mentioned roads are not good enough for speeds .. dont know .. havent been there .. but have driven on eastern european roads and would be very surprised if they were worse there .. those roads were also limited to 100-110kph but 160-180 was common enough during the day and in traffic

the only concern i have is with age .. because its easy enough to make the wrong decisions just to show off .. and the younger you are the easier those decisions come .. so possibly in this case the tolarance should be a little lower

so why no penalty .. if the law is inadequate .. you shouldnt enforce it .. and i havent been in adequate speed zones anywhere in the world yet except for a few school zones

idolo

What has gotten into everyone, what are we arguing here, that there should be tougher penalties for road users in Australia? Jesus we already have the biggest bunch of road **** police in the entire world and you lot are saying we should make it worse.

The guy was doing 170 on the M2 at night, so what? In my opinion thats far safer than driving through a crowded shopping centre or school zone at say 60km/h. There are no pedestrains on the M2 and i would imagine there were few to no other cars. He got a $1550 fine and 6 months suspension. I am sure that will have taught him a lesson.

All this psych testing stuff is absolute nonesense. Young people take risks, then they grow out of it. Get over it, its just the way people are.

timbo

idolo

The point is, that in a statistically significant number of cases, young people take risks, have accidents...and kill and injure themselves and others.

Of course the M2 is safer than a crowded shopping centre or school zone...but on any public road there is a risk to others, often entirely innocent. No one really appreciates this until it happens to someone they know.

The other -- perhaps real -- point is that we're all tolerant of different behavious, but this guy was over the top!

idolo

Timbo i understand the point that young drivers are statistically more likely to kill themselves or someone else but my point is that changes to legislation will not make any difference, its always going to be this way. Young people in general don't care too much about what the law says they can and can't do. There are already existing laws that deal with all of this (ie speed limits) and we don't need to be ranting on about making more laws. With all due respect this thread sounds like a story from Today Tonight or A Current Affair.

timbo

For my part, I'm not talking about more laws, just a more effective and appropriate application of those that already exist, to act as deterrent. A large fine, as in this case, and a failure to take the matter to court because of the administrative blah blah by the police shows that government is more concerned with revenue than road safety

xxup

I say we hand them over to the AFP who can ship them out on a one way trip to Bali!!

177 km/Hr in a Holden is just stupid!!!!!

Revolver

Some perspective please. We'd all agree that the **** tactics being currently used such as speed cameras at the bottom of a hill on three lane freeways and zero tolerance for minor infringements is to be damned and damned to hell. I also agree that some posted speed limits are far too low.

The whole point of this thread is what we do with the serious offences and particularly repeat offenders. Now, you seem to think 170km/h at night by a P-plater in a Holden with Gods knows what braking and handling capability to be a minor issue and even quite safe. If that's your view I can easily understand why you think this is all a rant. However, some of us actually think that kind of thing is just plain wrong and should be punished.

And some young people don't grow out of taking risks - they die. The gene pool might benefit in their case but the people they often kill along the way are the real tragedy.

My main point is that drivers offend to this degree because they do not see the existing penalties as a deterrent. They see the system as malleable and basically pay very little regard to what is safe or not. Hmph, $1,500 and 6 months - so what. Many young people earn the kind of money that would see that paid off with ease and as I mentioned earlier, the kind of drivers who risk such speeds on a public road would think nothing of driving without a licence.

Revolver

I understand that young people don't exactly read the traffic act before they drive recklessly but if straightforward penalties aren't applied in a uniform manner then people start to think that either they'll get away with it or, if caught, will get off with a minimal penalty. It all encourages the kind of risk taking we agree occurs.

I mean, how many times have you heard someone saying that a given speed over the limit was "throw away the key stuff". This case demonstrates that you can be driving at a speed well in excess of what most people would consider to be a "spirited drive" and yet basically walk away with your wallet a bit lighter and the need to consider whether to catch the bus for six months or take the punt you won't be caught driving in that time.

I agree you cannot legislate against stupidity. However, you can ensure that people understand what will be the consequences of their actions. The present system doesn't achieve that.