Traffic Laws in Melbourne Going Too Far?

Trying2SaveABuck on 24/04/2019 - 21:00
Last edited 25/04/2019 - 14:04 by 1 other user

Road toll is almost double last years in Victoria

We have some of the harshes fines and restrictions in the world but still a shocking number of road fatalities

I mean u get almost a 500$ fine and 4 points for looking at you phone at the traffic lights

Speeding fines are well over $250 these days for 5km over the limit

If it really was about safety then why are Parking fines are also outrages? Surely parking an extra 20min in a 2hr zone isn't going to kill anyone…..

Don't get me started on charging the city speed limit to 30km! When we have bad traffic as it is!

The death toll rises and revenue is going the same way? Is it time we loosened the laws improve and increase speed limits so the city moves a bit better!?

Clearly the current approach isn't working and it isn't really fair? More police with the power to take points and hand out smaller fines would be more effective then barely any cops and loads of cameras and parking inspectors…

Note - I have not been fined recently just noticed the toll is unfortunately really high and questioning if all the revenue raising was improving the safety of our roads….

Poll Options

  • 422
    We need to relax the laws - The road laws are more interested in revenue raising then road safety
  • 16
    The laws are fine - I'm happy to give money to the state government and let people die on the roads
  • 76
    The laws need to be harsh - give the government more money
Automotive

Comments

              • Ughhh on 25/04/2019 - 15:22
                +1

                @Ti-au: Yes exactly.

                As I said, Japanese culture is very different to Australia. It's a country where talking on the phone while on the bus is considered very rude, even though (afaik) it's not illegal. Australian culture and upbringing is very different, though has it's pros and cons, unfortunately when it comes to ego on the road, we need a leader to set and enforce the rules. Also need authorities to protect those who don't know how to protect themselves.

              • p1 ama on 25/04/2019 - 23:21
                +1

                @Ti-au:

                Laws are nothing without adequate deterrent. If you don't fear the punishment why would you care?

                I disagree, there are no laws telling people to be polite or to respect other people, but people generally do. Why? Because there's the untold rule - treat others like you wish others to treat you. This is the sort of attitude we need on the roads.

    • dbun1 on 25/04/2019 - 10:32
      +9

      Japanese people are polite though and respect rules and guidelines etc.

      Australia can’t even follow basic rules like staying in the appropriate lane depending on how fast you are going, obeying road markings, changing lanes correctly etc etc. everyone is too self absorbed with no respect for anyone around them.

      People will happily block one lane of traffic because they suddenly realised they need to be in the turning lane and try to push in at the last minute rather than drive another 20m down the road and u-turn.

      It’s this “me, me, me” attitude that causes rules and penalties to increase because people can’t get the basics right.

    • skillet on 25/04/2019 - 11:52
      +1

      You know what's the coolest in Japan? You get to play with flares when there's an emergency.

    • SydStrand on 25/04/2019 - 12:33
      +5

      I trust Japanese drivers to be more respectful and safe than us. In the 5 times I've visited, I've never seen anyone so much as litter or cut a queue. If the government suddenly took away all cameras and highway patrol, it'll be a bloodbath. Just watch Aussie Dash Cams to get reminded of the kind of morons on our roads.

    • [Deactivated] on 25/04/2019 - 14:58
      +2

      Yeah lol us Australians can't be trusted, the general mentality/behaviour of the population in Japan is far more mature and refined.

      As much as I hate the ridiculous policing, speed cameras just after crests and ever-changing tighter laws - we clearly haven't proved ourselves responsible (as a population) and have dug our own graves, so to speak.

  • tabitha731 on 25/04/2019 - 09:41
    +2

    I’m glad the road rules are harsh… too many people drive around thinking their road rules from their own state or home country are the same as in Victoria/ Melbourne. Drivers need to make sure they know the current road rules of the area they want to drive in on a regular basis.

    • Ti-au on 25/04/2019 - 14:47

      The punishment are not harsh.

  • Mrgreenz on 25/04/2019 - 09:49

    Should the policing behaviours around road rule change? Yes

    Is a relatively small and therefore relatively volitile statistic the best way to frame an argument against it? No

    I see shocking dangerous driving daily, this should be punished way way before marginal speeding offences IMO

  • Herbse on 25/04/2019 - 10:29

    Too much focus is put on infringements after the fact. Not enough put on better education and training.

    Everyone should do a mandatory defensive driving course and licenses should be re tested after a certain age.

    I'm fine with high penalties for using a phone, running a red light and dui offences. These are a threat to everyone. Speeding however is rarely the main factor for an accident.

    • pegaxs on 25/04/2019 - 13:22
      +2

      Speeding however is rarely the main factor for an accident.

      Crash statistics beg to differ… Most fatal car crashes happen in the 100km/h+ speed bracket…

      The top common contributor to fatalities in motor vehicle accidents is speeding. Closely followed by alcohol/drugs and driver fatigue.

      Up to 90% of car accidents fall into either speeding, followed by distraction, fatigue or impairment.

      These facts are easily Googleable and are on almost every insurance site and on the Department of Infrastructure and Bureau of Statistics websites.

      • apptrack on 26/04/2019 - 10:19

        Yes it's a factor but not usually the main cause, as per above only 5% of crashes were just because of speeding.

        • pegaxs on 26/04/2019 - 10:39

          Don't know where you pulled that number from. The results I get, where speed is the main contributing factor, it's around 40% of fatalities and about 25% of serious injuries. Or are you lumping in fender scrapes in car parks in the prize pool to dilute the numbers out?

          In that case, drink driving is safe, because it wasn't the sole drink driving that caused the accidents and accidents where alcohol being the sole cause only contributed a small percentage. (Alcohol impairment "as a contributor" makes up about 15% of fatalities and about 7% of serious injuries. Sorry I don't have the stats on "fender scrapes" to dilute it out.)

          • apptrack on 26/04/2019 - 11:22

            @pegaxs: Contributing yes but not the only factor.

            • pegaxs on 26/04/2019 - 12:27

              @apptrack:

              The top common contributor to fatalities in motor vehicle accidents is speeding.

              I didn't say it was the "only" factor in accidents. But speed is the highest contributor to fatal and serious injury related accidents.

              So suggesting that speeding only makes up 5% is erroneous and suggesting that speeding is "rarely the main factor" is just misleading and ignorant.

              • Mrgreenz on 28/04/2019 - 12:18

                @pegaxs: Thats akin to saying a high speed projectile is the highest contributor to fatal shootings

                • pegaxs on 28/04/2019 - 13:53

                  @Mrgreenz: No, but saying speeding is not a major contributor is like saying guns are not a major contributor in shootings.

                  Silly analogies are silly.

                  • Mrgreenz on 28/04/2019 - 14:52

                    @pegaxs: It seems you are interchanging speeding with speed.

                    Speed = the rate of distance covered by time. A nesessity in achiving the inversely proportional primary goal of transport… to cover distance.

                    Speeding = Exceeding a value of speed defined by authorities.

                    • pegaxs on 28/04/2019 - 16:00

                      @Mrgreenz: Not sure if you are trolling or didn't actually read my comments above. (Or understand English, come to think of it…)

                      You also need to find out what a phrase means before you try and use them to sound smart. The inverse proportion to speed is time, not;

                      to cover distance.

                      Your statement is saying, the faster I go, the less distance I would cover???? (I think what you meant to say was: to cover the most distance in the least amount of time.)

                      And "speeding" is what @herbse said was not a main factor, when it is a major factor across most fatalities and serious injury related crashes. (Sorry that I was unable to include shopping centre car park trolley dings and reverse parking fender bumps.)

                      Most serious and fatal accidents happen either in the 100km/h and above or at speeds in excess of the posted limit and/or conditions.

                      I'm not here to debate the semantics of the language, but the misnomer that "Speeding however is rarely the main factor for an accident." is grossly inaccurate.

                      So, I'm just going to mark you down as a troll, and treat you as such.

                      • p1 ama on 28/04/2019 - 16:36

                        @pegaxs: I think this entire discussion is a little silly. To those who disagree with you, of course the speed of a vehicle will play a major part in 1) the probability of a collision, and 2) what happens after the collision. To say that speed doesn't matter is to deny basic physics. What seems to be lost on both the extreme sides of the debate (those who say that speed is not a factor at all, and those who want some draconian implementation of the road rules at any cost) is the fact that it all comes down to a risk/return trade-off.

                        Of course, if we ban all cars and everyone just walked, there would be no traffic fatalities, so we have to accept that if there are cars, there will be people who (either through an accident or their own idiocy) sadly die on the roads. The question is whether the regulations (which are a cost to other responsible road users) and the public funds (which are a cost to the general taxpayer) worth spending to try and reduce the road toll at the expense of other causes of death. As an example, three times as many people died from suicide as the road toll in 2018. Is there anywhere near the funding and public awareness of problems relating to suicide compared to road safety? If we are in the business of trying to prevent preventable deaths, this is an important public policy question to try and answer.

                        Lastly, I think it makes sense to consider this entire issue in the broader context. Speed is a factor, but it is not the only factor. Germany (and the UK, Japan and other EU countries) regularly drive faster than we do in Australia, yet the road toll (per 100,000 cars) is lower. It makes sense to ask why (and it largely has to do with driver competence). The problem with car drivers in Australia is that it's always someone else's fault, there's usually very little introspection for one's own driving ability.

                        • wyrmy on 28/04/2019 - 17:41

                          @p1 ama: Comparing driving and suicide doesn't take into consideration that road accidents can cause death and injury to others, not just the driver.
                          The impact to the general public is far greater. I could do everything right and still get hurt or killed by someone else on the road.

                          Taking the emotional aspect aside, the same cannot be said for suicide and most other forms of potential fatalities.

                          I'm completely in favour of a better approach to how things are done currently. If I could I would make advanced driving courses mandatory for all license holders, but saying road accidents shouldn't get more attention based purely on statistics is wrong IMO for the above reason.

                          • p1 ama on 28/04/2019 - 18:20

                            @wyrmy:

                            Comparing driving and suicide doesn't take into consideration that road accidents can cause death and injury to others, not just the driver. The impact to the general public is far greater.

                            My point wasn't that we pay too much attention to the road toll, but rather we don't pay enough attention to thinking about the many other causes of death.

                            I'm completely in favour of a better approach to how things are done currently. If I could I would make advanced driving courses mandatory for all license holders, but saying road accidents shouldn't get more attention based purely on statistics is wrong IMO for the above reason.

                            I agree, and I'm not saying that road accidents should or should not be getting more attention. My general issue is that car drivers, particularly, are very oblivious about their abilities and the dangers and difficulties of driving. The truth is very few drivers know what to do in the case of an accident. How to regain control of a car, how to swerve out of danger, when do you brake, when do you speed up…etc.

                        • pegaxs on 28/04/2019 - 19:45

                          @p1 ama:

                          I think this entire discussion is a little silly

                          Agreed.

                          I think the major problem here is that people think that I am advocating for harsher laws relating to "speeding", and that's not what I am doing. What I am advocating for is less bullshit and more facts.

                          The original statement was that;

                          Speeding however is rarely the main factor for an accident.

                          when the Department of Infrastructure and Bureau of Statistics and various state bodies and insurance companies who study this data in-depth all say the opposite thing. Speeding is one of the biggest contributors in fatal and serious injury accidents. I am not and never did say it was the "only" factor or it is always the "sole" factor, but it is a major contributor.

                          And I was kind of with you until you went off the reservation with the comparison to suicide. You know, why don't we all chip in with something irrelevant. I'm tossing heart disease in the ring, that kills more people than motor vehicles and suicide combined… But it's not relevant to the original comment that was made that "speeding is rarely a main factor".

                          And yes, lastly, I think the problem is that as Australians, a great many of us, are arrogant and unskilled as drivers. So many Australians think they are better than what they actually are or are unwilling to just get along in traffic where we would rather carve each other up than to lose one car length to someone we don't know.

                          Comments like "iT's ReVeNuE rAiSiNg!!" or "speeding doesn't kill" goes a great deal of the way to showing just how ignorant drivers are here. All of this coupled with a system that doesn't require much in the way of driver training or ongoing training and/or re-testing over the life of a persons license.

                          The difference between here and places like Germany and Japan is, here there is a lack of respect, lack of ability, lack of patience, lack of support and an "I don't care" attitude to other road users and their safety.

                          Entitlement of Australian drivers and total disregard for laws, and like you said, the "not may fault" mentality, is whats breeds these stupid threads.

                          PS: To all the morons who will get butt hurt and neg my comments, if you think speeding is not an issue and think that I'm advocating for anything any law changes, you are part of the problem. And for that reason, I'm out of this thread…

                      • Mrgreenz on 28/04/2019 - 17:36

                        @pegaxs: Every "fact" you have stated is wrong pretty much probably why you can't cite any supporting evidence other than "google it"

                        yes inversely proportional to time was meant.

                        • pegaxs on 28/04/2019 - 19:18

                          @Mrgreenz:

                          So, I'm just going to mark you down as a troll, and treat you as such.

                          • Mrgreenz on 28/04/2019 - 19:33

                            @pegaxs: It's ok, you don't have to substantiate your drivel, it is the internet after all.

                            • pegaxs on 28/04/2019 - 19:48

                              @Mrgreenz:

                              I'm just going to mark you down as a troll

                              Just in case you missed it the other 2 times…

      • OzzyOzbourne on 28/04/2019 - 10:00

        Speeding or speed? I think you will find the reports say speed…. As in…. Moving… So yes, most accidents and fatalities are with a moving vehicle.

        They specifically use speed, to justify more speed cameras.

        • pegaxs on 28/04/2019 - 10:32
          +1

          What a silly comment to make. By their nature, cars move. So I would say that almost 100% of vehicle accidents involve motion. Why is it that the statistic only show that around 40% of fatalities involve “speed”. What were the other 60% of people doing in their cars if moving wasn’t a factor.

          iT’s aLL aBOuT ReVeNuE rAiSiNg…

          If you think that government departments fudge accident figures to justify putting speed cameras in, then I suggest you need to get a larger sized tin foil hat. That one is too tight it seems.

          If you don’t like paying “stupidity tax”, don’t exceed the speed limit. It really is that simple.

  • dbun1 on 25/04/2019 - 10:29
    +4

    There is absolutely no need to look at your phone whilst driving apart from using it as per the rules for navigation.

    I am all for harsh penalties on this one as muppets looking at their phones is seriously dangerous.

  • magic8ballgag on 25/04/2019 - 10:43
    +1

    The poll options are pretty one-sided, either we agree with you or we are horrible people that let others die.

    It seems like you've been recently fined and are looking to be reassured that what you were doing was correct, and that it's the governments fault.

    • dbun1 on 25/04/2019 - 12:29
      +2

      I agree.

      Laws are fine. In fact, some should be harsher e.g. phone use, running red lights, drink driving etc.

      You only give money to the government if you can’t follow them, but the OP has worded it otherwise.

      OP is probably salty because they got pinged for something.

      • Trying2SaveABuck on 25/04/2019 - 13:40
        +2

        I've not be pinged for anything you defending it to me sounds like ur a cop or one of those (profanity) who sit with a speed camera….

        I was just reading the paper and noticed the toll is almost double and it got me thinking is all this bullshit revenue raising crap Actually helping and results would suggest NO matter of fact it is making worse…

        Matter of fact I'm a rather good driver but do want safer roads and the question needs to be asked is safety or money at the forefront

  • vr4indian on 25/04/2019 - 11:47
    -2

    This is what we need

    1: all cars shoud have speedometer of 120 or 140 and note 200 or 220 as none of the OZ road allows more speed. Thus one driver hits 50 or 60 km, it gives indication that he/she is already 50% of meter. At present ig gives only 30 to 40%.

    2: Safety rating is sometimes baffling specially when we see Airbags recalls in past few years.

    3: Mandate and support by subsidies to install Reverse Camera

  • whooah1979 on 25/04/2019 - 11:49
    +4

    We've been driving down some nicely maintained roads this Easter.

    A big thanks to the minority of motorists that are paying for it.

  • skillet on 25/04/2019 - 11:50
    +2

    I actually like more police out there to enforce the rules, such as the use of mobile phone, not using turn indicators. Pedestrians not obeying lights in CBD.

    I'm fine with current rules they are not too hard to follow at all but I would like the speed limit to go away.

  • HeWhoKnows on 25/04/2019 - 12:29

    Pointless poll.
    Doesnt achieve anything.
    It's the old saying
    Lump it or LEAVE!

    Time for OP to leave the state

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 25/04/2019 - 12:39

      Well thats not very nice

      It is an 'opinion poll' and it seems the majority agree with me…

      • dbun1 on 25/04/2019 - 12:42
        +3

        The poll was poorly worded and favoured a particular response

        E.g you can have harsh laws and NOT give the government money if you are competent enough to follow the rules.

        • Trying2SaveABuck on 25/04/2019 - 12:52
          +1

          Actually even if you never had a 'fine' the government is still ripping you via really high rego fees to cover all the TAC claims from people that are injured on the roads.

          Which leads go my initial point the large fines are NOT fair considering we pay 808 a year just to drive a car….

          So it isnt poorly worded if you think the system is fair then you must like giving money to the government it is basically a tax on drivers weather you are a good driver or not you are stung on some level for people that are bad drivers or people driving on ice, drunk etc…

          So why in gods name are fines and rego so high? You can have high fines low rego cost or high rego and reasonable fines but please tell me why we have both?

          Keep in mind most people who drive are 'workers' who already pay a f*** tone of tax…

          So there is absoultly no bias…dont get me started on the fuel tax we pay to just drive a car…. which is then taxed AGAIN with GST

          • dbun1 on 25/04/2019 - 13:31

            @Trying2SaveABuck: This is not what your post and poll is about though.

            It’s only on large fines being “unfair” which only applies if you can’t drive and follow them.

            • Trying2SaveABuck on 25/04/2019 - 13:34
              -1

              @dbun1: Ummm Im arguing all fines are large…. there is no logic to it you are on your phone u cop 500

              U run a red light you cop 300?

              My poll is the system is to harsh and doesn't make sense and once again I point to the results ppl agree with me…

              Running a red light or driving on drugs are prob the two worst things you can do but for some reason speeding 10-15km or answering you phone whilst in a parking spot with your engine running are treated harsher or as harsh?

              No body questions it that's why I started this poll….

              • dbun1 on 25/04/2019 - 14:29
                +2

                @Trying2SaveABuck: One again I point to the fact that your poll is flawed as the wording for the 2nd and 3rd options aren’t correct. Others have already pointed this out too.

                E g. I did not vote at all as neither option accurately fits my view and I believe many others are in the same boat.

                Option 2 and 3 should not have been tied to giving money to the government and letting people die.

                I also don’t really care what the penalties are for various offences as I know how to drive and play within the rules.

              • Milk tea on 26/04/2019 - 22:24

                @Trying2SaveABuck: It's pretty simple. If the fines are tremendous it would be a huge deterrant because clearly campaigns aren't working. If a fine is just 50 dollars for speeding or touching your mobile, nobody would care.

          • Milk tea on 27/04/2019 - 00:56

            @Trying2SaveABuck: Our fuel is actually one of the cheapest in the world and if theres no taxpayers the government wouldn't be able to pay off the debt within the decade or fix roads bla bla and like above said, the poll was biased

          • corbz on 28/04/2019 - 12:20

            @Trying2SaveABuck: Do you want to cut TAC coverage?
            Do you want TAC to be taxed out of your income instead?
            Do you choose to drive a car?

    • burningrage on 25/04/2019 - 18:27

      "Time for OP to leave the state"

      Hmmmm where did I hear something similar to this?

  • webtonmoy on 25/04/2019 - 13:36

    The amount of reckless drivers I have encountered over the past year (I generally took public transport beforehand) actually surprised me. I am not sure if it was always the case….

    One guess of mine is the congestion itself, during office hours I notice people being impolite and more reckless than normal…

  • 91rs on 25/04/2019 - 14:47
    +4

    Let's stop pretending that overseas licenses are equal to Australian licenses. Different road conditions, distances in rural areas, speeds of traffic, wildlife etc.
    So many people show up and do not have the skills to drive here and end up as a statistic or end up killing someone else.
    Getting a license should be harder, proof of ability is missing, peoples obvious lack of interest in their driving is just as bad.
    Simple skills are lacking, coming in to winter and each day in the early morning (darkness 5-6am) I see several people driving in the dark with headlights off, I see several blinding everyone else with high-beams on along urban roads totally unaware of what they're doing. Victorians lack of ability to stay in one lane especially when there are tram tacks is unbelievable.

    Our super low standards on simple things is part of the reason the road toll is so high.
    Too much focus on revenue for things and not enough focus on peoples lack of ability and how dangerous they are on our roads.

  • gth on 25/04/2019 - 15:03
    +2

    Don't like fines? Deny the government all of the revenue from them by not speeding.

    In my experience, those who speed excessively are also driving dangerously on other ways, endangering other road users. They deserve all the fines they get, and more. It's just easier to confine their tickets to speeding because that's scientifically measurable, rather than the rather subjective "driving like an idiot" that might be obvious with camera footage. Negligent driving ticket is usually issued after a crash in my experience, because the evidence is in the photos.

    Bah! Give it a few years and self driving cars will be preferred anyway. Not sure what the folks in Highway Patrol will do when that happens.

    • dbun1 on 25/04/2019 - 17:17

      It’s easier to get bitter and twisted about the rules rather than simply following them

      • thord on 26/04/2019 - 11:58
        +1

        Blindly following rules (and telling others "just follow the rules") just shows your ignorance. Perhaps there's a reason why so many people are complaining about said rules? If you shut down discussion, or you don't want discussion about the rules, and you can provide no valid justification for their current state, it sounds like the rules are kinda shitty and should be adjusted to something more appropriate.

        • dbun1 on 26/04/2019 - 22:22
          +1

          Ignorance to what?? The fact that driving requires skill, coordination and competence which many people seem to lack?

          Following the rules is what you are meant to be doing. It’s a condition of your license. Telling people to do what they are supposed to be doing does not make anyone ignorant.

          Just open your eyes and look around when you’re driving and witness the circus on the roads.

          People are complaining because they are getting pinged for doing stupid stuff on the roads…..”I CANT BELIEVE I GOT FINED FOR LOOKING AT MY PHONE AT THE LIGHTS WHEN I WAS STOPPED!?!?!?”

    • apptrack on 26/04/2019 - 10:20

      They'll find a way to get revenue another way as usual.

    • HeWhoKnows on 30/04/2019 - 16:34

      Love the finale

  • PAOK11 on 25/04/2019 - 15:19

    I'm from Melbourne, my new year resolution is the same every year. Don't get a single fine for 12 months. I'm not even joking , to achieve my goal I need to always be on high alert. If I think I can just jump in my car and cruise to where I'm going, I have to re-evaluate whether I should drive in the first place. The fines are so expensive I honestly can't afford them but my problem is that I actually pay them. The people who don't pay don't care and drive around like lunatics. I drive to work, I go through maybe 3 speed cameras and a school zone trap where the cops patrol on the same day the kids come back from school holiday. Something has to give. Also don't get me started on parking tickets, need to sit there for ten minutes and draw mind maps to work out what a sign says

    • Mike88 on 25/04/2019 - 21:42
      +1

      I drive roughly 40k kms a year for work and haven’t had a fine in over 10 years. Yes the speed cameras/limits are annoying but if you can’t drive to the limits then maybe you shouldn’t have a license.

      • PAOK11 on 25/04/2019 - 23:27
        +1

        when there are mobile cameras all over the place that ping you for being 2~3ks over. Yes, I would be better off without a license if the public transport system wasn't so bad. Every Friday there is a major issue much worse than the roads. Driving from kilmore to Bundoora doesnt count. A trained monkey can drive the same speed one on a continuous road with no traffic. Try driving from inner melbourne to an outer suburb on the other side without going through tolls, then tell me again whether I should have a license

        • Milk tea on 26/04/2019 - 22:21
          +1

          Why don't you go through tolls then? Drive 5 kms under the max speed limit and those mobile cameras won't get you.

      • Milk tea on 26/04/2019 - 22:19
        +3

        It's always people breaking the law that complain about getting fines and revenue raising until someone they know dies in a car accident..

        • PAOK11 on 26/04/2019 - 23:25

          why dont I go through tolls??? because theres cameras in the damn tunnel !!! Im paying an exorbitant amount of money to use the damn road and I can be pinged for speeding as well. I don't know about you but i'd rather be pinged without paying an extra $9 for the opportunity

          • Milk tea on 27/04/2019 - 01:00

            @PAOK11: I drive through the burnley everyday and am glad theres cameras as idiots always tailgate and even speed through it more likely causing an accident..so why would you get fined if you drove within 80km? The toll is high but youre cutting through an extra 20 minutes of traffic, saving petrol and time…

          • Mike88 on 27/04/2019 - 18:49
            +1

            @PAOK11: Maybe you could you try not speeding… If you can't avoid known speed camera locations there is seriously something wrong with your driving

    • corbz on 28/04/2019 - 12:19

      to achieve my goal I need to always be on high alert

      Yeah no kidding, you're going 100km/h in a piece giant heavy piece of metal a few feet from other people doing the same thing.

      You should be on high alert.

      Get control of your vehicle and you won't get fined.

  • DiscoJango on 25/04/2019 - 17:14
    +3

    in melbourne, the driving mentality is me me me. im not surprised the road toll has doubled. no one cares for anyone except themselves.

    40 zones? stuff it, ill rip thru this.

    roundabouts, slowing down, what?

    carparks, their like nascar zones right, go as fast as u can, while launching over speed humps

    tight residential side streets, better use it as a shortcut for the 80kph main road. should i slow down, nah, gonna keep doing 80kph.

    now, neg me all you want, heck ill neg myself to get the bandwagon started: female drivers in small suv's are the worst drivers on the roads by far. they have even eclipsed the mighty asain camry driver.

    • dbun1 on 25/04/2019 - 17:17

      Solid double white lines means overtaking lane, right?

      Geez, and people want speed limits raised or removed.

  • GodsSon23 on 25/04/2019 - 17:51
    -1

    Ban alcohol completely.

    • GodsSon23 on 25/04/2019 - 23:06
      -1

      "In the United States, roughly 28 people die every day in motor vehicle crashes that involve an alcohol-impaired driver. … Alcohol-related accidents accounted for nearly one-third of all traffic-related deaths. More than 1.1 million drivers were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics in 2014." - Alcohol - The scourge of society

      • [Deactivated] on 27/04/2019 - 11:22
        -1

        As long as we can still drive on heroin?

  • dlakers3peat on 25/04/2019 - 19:04
    +2

    Traffic laws in every state is a a joke. None of the measures they have put in place has curbed driving behavior as the national road toll increases each year. Also not having national road rules is absolutely dumbfounded. What's legal in one state is illegal in another e.g. u turns at traffic lights in Vic is legal but illegal in NSW. The states only care about revenue raising. For a first world country we have extremely poorly designed roads which are also poorly maintained.

  • Euphemistic on 25/04/2019 - 19:12

    The rules haven’t really changed. The fines have just gone up because too many people are breaking the rules.

    • Milk tea on 26/04/2019 - 22:17

      Yep higher death tolls even though there are more campaigns to prevent it

  • tkdbboy on 25/04/2019 - 19:15
    +3

    I find it interesting you can be fined (in VIC) for a GPS mounted above the centre console because it obstructs the drivers view, yet you have patrol cars with numerous devices mounted on the dashboard.

    Apparently this is OK for police as they have received proper training to operate a vehicle in this condition.
    I can only conclude that said training has given them the ability to see through solid devices.

    Sign me up

  • bobwokeup on 25/04/2019 - 20:54

    Looking at your phone at the traffic lights or anywhere else on the road should be double that. It's a bad habit and causes distractions on the road.

  • jaimex2 on 25/04/2019 - 23:22

    Self driving cars will end the gouging. Can't wait.

    • Baysew on 27/04/2019 - 11:30

      So they will be programmed not to drive through red lights, not to exceed posted speed limits and to drive at an appropriate speed for the road conditions?

      • jaimex2 on 27/04/2019 - 18:58

        I would expect so.

  • OzzyOzbourne on 25/04/2019 - 23:42
    +1

    The aggression, stupidity, frustration and sheer arrogance on the roads in Melbourne is the cause.. Made worse by ever increasing traffic jams, stupidly low speed limits, cameras everywhere and every damn traffic light being on red. I've driven in many countries and cities, but Melbourne consistently has the most dangerous and retarded drivers I've ever seen.

  • vicosads on 26/04/2019 - 07:53
    -1

    gotta have someway to pay for all the 3rd worlder "immigrants" on welfare

  • mezje on 26/04/2019 - 09:07

    Better driver training, harsher phone penalties (instant loss of license), license retesting. As drivers get older and more bored the death tolls is only going to increase, expect it to be double again next year…

  • Eeples on 26/04/2019 - 10:12
    -1

    Points system ought to be maintained or beefed up.
    At the moment the only thing really stopping rich and poor people breaking road rules is the point system.

    Fines based on income gleaned from tax returns would be more fair in my opinion.
    Currently rich people have little trouble paying the fines and poor people have little trouble getting a repayment plan.

  • andyhui01 on 26/04/2019 - 10:45

    Here is a fact about speed. If you set the speed limit to 0 and make everyone walk everywhere. We would have no fatalities regarding moving vehicles. yay!

    Even if the speed limit was 5kph, people would still get hit by cars. (ie. people/prams still get hit by cars in carparks), parents still run over kids on their driveway.

    There will always be accidents if a vehicle moves. I feel that the safest way forward in Victoria is to make everyone walk. Ensure people walk at under 3kph and fine anyone walking too fast so the government maintains its revenue.

  • thord on 26/04/2019 - 11:54

    If the country was serious about reducing deaths, they would make license requirements harsher, make the tests hard, actually require defensive driving classes and have mandatory re-testing (maybe every 5 years?). But no, that would piss off a lot of old people (voters) so they won't do the intelligent thing.

    • this is us on 27/04/2019 - 01:24

      I think the requirements are pretty fair, except the requirement of "having an examiner who is your instructor's friend to get some extra points".

      The problem is that once they get the license, drivers stop following the rules and drive like stupid animals. That's why they need Police checking out, and fines that are high enough to make people think twice before doing stupid things. Apparently, it is too hard not to look at the mobile when driving, or stop at the red sign.

  • foolsgold on 26/04/2019 - 13:46
    +5

    Having driven around Europe (about 2 years). I can honestly say compared to most countries are roads are mostly BETTER.
    - They are maintained more often, resurfaced, less grafiti, trash picked up etc
    - Our roads are consistent, most of our rural roads have maintained reflectors, signs, verges
    - We have actual physical barriers to protect workers vs a traffic cone
    - Our freeways are larger, straighter
    - Our on ramps/off ramps are longer
    - We have lots of digital signage to respond to incidents
    - We have good drainage, good engineering for traffic flow
    - Our suburban streets, and inner city streets are wider
    - Our parking is more clearer, we actually have lines that are visible

    Yet, we have an obsession with speeding, over safety.

    • With 3x the merging length of a freeway on ramp overseas, people strugle to merge, slowing down
    • 3-4 Lane freeways, people absolutely hog up the right lane
    • Doing 1-2 km over on a freeway with good visibiliy, in a state that has hardly any ice/snow or dangerous weather conditions, has been conditioned into drivers so much, that people will sit in the right lane at 95km, because that's the law.

    Most other countries, the drivers are NOT better, they just drive to the CONDITONS better.
    Because if they do 150km/h on a straight bit of freeway where the speed limit is 130km/h they wont get punishment just shy of someone who murdered their wife and dumped their body in bushland.

    Speeding in a township? Hardly happens, because the blind corners are unforgiving there, you will almost certainly hit an unsigned high wall without a kerb, an incoming car driving in the middle of the road, a cyclist or a pedestrian.

    • p1 ama on 26/04/2019 - 20:41
      +1

      The problem is that in Australia, you have a lot of timid drivers and a lot of aggressive drivers. Put them together and you end up with chaos.

      I completely agree with people not knowing how to merge. People are too afraid to hit the accelerator and don't understand they need to be at a similar speed to the cars on the freeway to merge. However, there are also idiots who try to speed up as you're trying to merge so that you don't merge in front of them.

  • billybilly81 on 26/04/2019 - 14:14
    +2

    It's worth noting that most increases are likely due to driver distraction (and possible pedestrian distraction):

    Pedestrian deaths are up 56%, bicycle deaths are up 300% and motorcycle deaths are up 100%.

    The other significant increase is single vehicle deaths in rural areas. The numbers above make up the vast majority of the increase.

    I would like to see fines for people illegally crossing the road and/or people so engrossed in their phones that they don't even realise they're crossing the road. As an ex-Uber driver, the amount of people who literally walked out in front of me not realising they were walking onto a road was astounding!

    As a person who has lost not 1 but 2 people in my family due to speeding, I won't weigh in on the debate as I have a particular bias but I will say this, when and only when somebody in your family is killed, you will likely change your view on whether 'revenue raising/phone demerit points & fines' is justified or not.

  • mini2 on 26/04/2019 - 14:53
    +1

    Hello Victoria licensed drivers - please speed up when you're out of Victoria, other states don't clamp down on speeding drivers as much as your home state so feel free to speed up a little as to not holding up traffic kthxbai.

    • p1 ama on 26/04/2019 - 20:42

      I completely agree, when I went to Tasmania, I was regularly driving around 130 km/h on straight stretches of their country roads. Just so much nicer being able to actually punch the throttle, take bends, let loose a little.

      • Milk tea on 27/04/2019 - 00:50

        Melbourne is grossly overpopulated compared to other states so there isnt really a comparison.

        • mini2 on 27/04/2019 - 16:01
          +1

          Yeh but Sydney would give it a run for its money yet the tolerance is still somewhat reasonable rather than 2km/h over and you're booked.

          I've been going up and down Hume/Federal Highway for a good part of this decade. I've lost count the amount of times flying past marked or unmarked cop cars doing 10+ over the limit and not booked. The only time that I've been pulled over/booked are when I'm solid 20+ over then write me a ticket a range lower which I can't blame anyone but myself.

          • p1 ama on 28/04/2019 - 16:44

            @mini2:

            Yeh but Sydney would give it a run for its money yet the tolerance is still somewhat reasonable rather than 2km/h over and you're booked.

            The issue is not cops in Victoria, but cameras. I've (accidentally, of course) cruised past marked and unmarked highway patrol cars on most major freeways here at around 105 km/h (which is what I set my cruise control at) without any controversy (and yes, my speedo is calibrated, so I'm not going at 98 km/h when my speedo says 105 km/h which is what most cars seem to do).

            The cameras in Victoria are absolutely unforgiving though. You could be booked for going 3 km/h over the speed limit, which I think is just draconian. One of my colleagues came into work the other day having been booked at 64 km/h in a 60 km/h zone. What irritates me is that later that day, I saw some incompetent muppet try to change lanes across a solid white line, causing a few cars behind him to slam the brakes. All because he was trying to queue jump the right turn lane. Who's more dangerous?

  • RocketSwitch on 26/04/2019 - 15:14

    I don't mind the laws.

    It's the inconsistent speed limits that make no sense.

    You could drive in an area where the speed will change from 50, 60 and 70 in a matter of 1 minute, there's no difference. Still suburban houses. Why would they have a 70 speed limit on one road with houses and in another 50? How does it makes any sense?

    • Inshinshishimop on 27/04/2019 - 10:06

      Some roads have high rates of accidents. Especially those curvy ones. Reducing speed reduces accidents on those roads.

  • smartazz104 on 26/04/2019 - 16:06

    61 of these deaths were in rural roads; were these only because of speed, fatigue or other factors?

  • Plug on 26/04/2019 - 19:20

    Well there's nothing else for plod to do. No gang problems, no drug problems, all fine and dandy so motorists are the next thing to fix. Oh, wait…….

  • Milk tea on 26/04/2019 - 22:15

    Fines are harsh due to many preventable accidents. There has been a higher death toll than last year not because of cars malfunctioning but more so due to human error e.g. distraction, drinking, drugs etc. The only thing that talks is money. What else can they do to deter this behaviour? Before looking at my phone I think about possibly getting a near 500 dollar fine and that's a turn off in itself.

    • p1 ama on 26/04/2019 - 23:29
      +1

      Before looking at my phone I think about possibly getting a near 500 dollar fine and that's a turn off in itself.

      It shows the sheer stupidity of people that they think about a fine rather than the fact that looking at their phone could mean they get run off the road and die. You would think that's the natural deterrent.

      Fines are harsh due to many preventable accidents.

      I would say that fines are pretty harsh for very minor offences and not harsh enough for more major offences. The bitterness comes from the fact that people get fined for going at 65 km/h in a 60 km/h zone whilst we all see stupid people do much worse things every day and get away with it.

      • Milk tea on 27/04/2019 - 00:48
        +1

        If everyone thought about the consequences of death and harm by using their mobiles then there wouldn't need to be such high fines as a deterrant. The maximum speed limit isnt so people drive right at that limit, you wouldnt even be getting a fine if you were under 5km but people would rather drive at the maximum and complain when they get fined for being slightly over.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join