Thread: Attitudes to the road toll

Originally Posted by Dibbers

So I'm on another forum unrelated to Woodwork (My NRL teams fan forum actually), and in the Politics Thread (dangerous thing to follow that, almost as fraught with danger as the Religion Thread!) there was a post that i thought was highly applicable to this discussion. Its a bit of a read, but a pretty decent summary by a seemingly ignored subject matter expert of sorts.

is it only me who sees the inconsistency in this letter and any ensuing conversation.

11 January 2018

The Hon Malcolm Turnbull MP Prime Minister Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600


Dear Prime Minister

Recent media reports have highlighted what we in the transport industry already know all too well - Australia has a dire road safety problem. In the five years to 2016, more than 1,000 people were killed in truck crashes. Our approach to heavy vehicles in this country is core to tackling this issue.

We have heard from many experts across government and academia on what needs to be done to improve road safety, and we thank them for their important contributions. I write to you to as the leader of Australia’s largest transport and logistics company, Toll Group, and the former leader of Linfox, the second largest transport company. I’ve worked in the trucking business since I was 13 years old, and am a second generation industry veteran with my mother having run a highly successful transport business.

I offer you a different perspective to this important discussion on what must be done to improve safety on our roads. I bring you an operator’s perspective.

We must begin by addressing six critical areas.

Firstly, we must have one rule book across Australia. Starting with the basics - we are yet to have a consistent definition of what a “heavy vehicle” is. Sometimes it’s a vehicle above 12 tonnes (for work and rest hours), sometimes above 12 tonnes and manufactured after 1997 (for speed limiters – except in NSW), and sometimes a vehicle above 4.5 tonnes (mass, dimension and load restraint). Compliance starts with clarity of the rules. A truck should be any vehicle 4.5 tonnes and above. Period.

On the life and death matter of driver fatigue, our current state-based system allows drivers to drive for up to 17 hours in a 24 hour period in Western Australia and up to 18 hours in the Northern Territory – a workday that would be illegal for a driver in any other state. This leaves time for a maximum of only 6 to 7 hours of rest in a 24 hour period – resulting in the physiological equivalent of a blood alcohol concentration of 0.05. We do not accept drunk driving. We should not accept fatigued driving.

Further, the maximum speed limit for trucks between 4.5 and 12 tonne varies from 100 km/h in NSW to 130 km/h in the Northern Territory. Any truck driver making the slightest error in judgement at 130 km/h will certainly have a devastating outcome for the driver and anyone unfortunate enough to be in the vicinity.

It is time for a genuinely national approach to heavy vehicle regulation, including for heavy vehicle driver licensing. A national driver licensing system can stipulate the skills and competencies required to safely drive a heavy vehicle, including how to restrain a load and how to fill out a work diary. A genuinely national system would mean that licence cancellation in one state means cancellation in all states. A targeted strategy will attract new drivers, arrest the decline in competent drivers and provide a career path for driving professionals.

The National Heavy Vehicle Regulator was supposed to deliver one rule book. It hasn’t. Western Australia and the Northern Territory have refused to sign up to the national law. And so today Australian road freight operators are subject to multiple and overlapping rules at the local council, state and national level. Let’s look to aviation for inspiration on how this can be achieved. This industry is subject to one set of rules. No exceptions. We must follow.

Secondly, we must introduce an operator licensing system. Where operators in maritime, rail and aviation must all demonstrate their safety and competence before they can operate, in road transport virtually anyone with a truck, a driver and an ABN can be a road freight operator. This makes Australia unusual: most comparable countries have an operator licensing system for road transport. For example, in the UK, road transport operators must pass a “fit and proper” person test, prove they have the funds to maintain vehicles, and employ transport managers who understand what compliance looks like.

Third, the solution to the road toll cannot and will not come solely from industry. The community, government, enforcement and road safety bodies must do their part too. Through NTI data, we know that in 93% of fatalities involving a truck, the other party was at fault. Yet national and state road safety strategies are silent on how light vehicle drivers can “share the road” safely with trucks. There is an opportunity to ensure that drivers are educated on driving safely around trucks, such as safe stopping distances and over-taking, as part of licensing schemes.

Fourth, by pulling the right policy levers, government can incentivise and reward safe behaviours from heavy vehicle operators. Discounted registration and stamp duty fees could be offered to operators with sound safety records. Government can also mandate investment in newer, safer more sustainable fleet. Technologies such as autonomous emergency braking systems, lane departure warning systems and electronic stability control can save up to 104 lives per year but are taking too long to become standard in the fleet. The average age of a heavy rigid truck in Australia is 15.7 years. The average age of an articulated truck is 11.9 years. An operator licensing system could stipulate a maximum vehicle age or offer subsidies/incentives to safe operators to deploy these lifesaving technologies.

Fifth, mandate telematics, which includes GPS and black box technology, for all new heavy vehicles. Enforcement of the rules is tough in Australia because of the vast distances between towns. There are not enough police to catch every driver and operator that puts other road users at risk. Mandatory telematics on every vehicle will identify operators that systematically and deliberately speed, overload vehicles and push fatigue limits. Removing operators that refuse to do the right thing protects the community and allows good operators to remain competitive.

Finally, we must ensure that operators such as Toll Group are actively engaged in any debate and policy development pertaining to road safety and heavy vehicles. Any discussion on heavy vehicle regulation must draw on private sector expertise to truly understand how we can overcome the obstacles that are holding us back from creating safer roads for our community.

To recap, I call on the government to make the following six points a priority to affect real improvements in driving the road toll down:

(1) Have one rule book for heavy vehicles and heavy vehicle drivers across the country. No variations, no exceptions. This must cover a standard definition of a heavy vehicle as well as a national approach to: mandatory stationary rest times for heavy vehicle drivers, speed limits for heavy vehicles and a driver licensing system
(2) Introduce a national operator licensing system
(3) Enhance community understanding of how to drive safely around trucks, including through the graduated licensing system and education campaigns
(4) Incentivise and reward safe, modern fleets with life-saving technologies
(5) Make telematics mandatory for regulatory purposes.
(6) Draw on private sector expertise from transport operators in any discussion on improving road safety outcomes pertaining to heavy vehicles

I am sending this letter to all Road and Road Safety Ministers across Australia with the view to driving collaboration across governments. As Australia’s largest provider of road freight logistics, Toll stands ready to work with all governments to make these six points a reality.

In our view, we don’t need any further research, studies and committees. We have immediate, critical opportunities before us today that, when implemented, will save lives. We know what needs to be done. It is time for action.

if the sentence I've highlighted is true, greater regulation of heavy vehicle drivers and operators will have minimal impact on road safety.
If you assume that the proposed measures could be 100% effective -- which in itself is very unlikely -- they would only apply to 7% of fatal crashes involving a heavy vehicle. Which doesn't seem a good return to me.


As I've said previously, road safety is a very complex issue with very emotive outcomes.

Originally Posted by ian

is it only me who sees the inconsistency in this letter and any ensuing conversation.

if the sentence I've highlighted is true, greater regulation of heavy vehicle drivers and operators will have minimal impact on road safety.
If you assume that the proposed measures could be 100% effective -- which in itself is very unlikely -- they would only apply to 7% of fatal crashes involving a heavy vehicle. Which doesn't seem a good return to me.


As I've said previously, road safety is a very complex issue with very emotive outcomes.

Bearing in mind who the author of the letter is, I am guessing that this is the very point that he was trying to make, while at the same time making it known that the transport industry was willing to play a part.

Originally Posted by ian

is it only me who sees the inconsistency in this letter and any ensuing conversation.

if the sentence I've highlighted is true, greater regulation of heavy vehicle drivers and operators will have minimal impact on road safety.
If you assume that the proposed measures could be 100% effective -- which in itself is very unlikely -- they would only apply to 7% of fatal crashes involving a heavy vehicle. Which doesn't seem a good return to me.


As I've said previously, road safety is a very complex issue with very emotive outcomes.

And point 3 in his manifesto is addressing the other 93%....

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Dibbers

And point 3 in his manifesto is addressing the other 93%....

I can't see that many light vehicle operators being willing to think and "drive like a truck" -- long braking distance, conserving momentum in rolling terrain, etc.

In my experience "Educating drivers on how to drive safely around trucks, such as safe stopping distances and over-taking..." is code for
in urban areas keep out of a truck's braking zone
after overtaking a truck (or another vehicle) don't cut straight back in and slow down -- although I understand that licencing authorities and the cops "encourage" this behaviour.
it's OK to drive at 90 to 95 km/h on the open road, but when an overtaking lane appears don't speed up to 100 km/h because you suddenly feel more comfortable with the greater width between you and oncoming traffic.
and at the end of an overtaking lane, don't suddenly slow to 85 km/h just because you can. (There's a particular overtaking lane in the southern part of NSW that in my experience is notorious for this behaviour. Most vehicles are doing 100 to 110 towards the end of the lane and about 85 km/h (in a 100 km/h zone) 300 m after the lane ends.)
when overtaking a truck do so quickly -- which in most cases means exceeding the speed limit. I'll leave you to guess how that will go down within the road safety community.


The road freight industry knows that any collision with a heavy vehicle will end badly for the occupants of a car.
I'm told by those in the know that most of the bad practices -- like preying on operators looking for back loads -- have been eradicated.
so apart from the cost implications of establishing a regulatory regime where there are just a few very big transport operators -- having just a handful of very large operators each with the wherewithal to push back against unrealistic delivery schedules may not be a bad thing.

But then again ... the open letter does look a lot like an oportunistic push to mandate an oligopoly.

Originally Posted by ian

I can't see that many light vehicle operators being willing to think and "drive like a truck" -- long braking distance, conserving momentum in rolling terrain, etc.

In my experience "Educating drivers on how to drive safely around trucks, such as safe stopping distances and over-taking..." is code for
in urban areas keep out of a truck's braking zone
after overtaking a truck (or another vehicle) don't cut straight back in and slow down -- although I understand that licencing authorities and the cops "encourage" this behaviour.
it's OK to drive at 90 to 95 km/h on the open road, but when an overtaking lane appears don't speed up to 100 km/h because you suddenly feel more comfortable with the greater width between you and oncoming traffic.
and at the end of an overtaking lane, don't suddenly slow to 85 km/h just because you can. (There's a particular overtaking lane in the southern part of NSW that in my experience is notorious for this behaviour. Most vehicles are doing 100 to 110 towards the end of the lane and about 85 km/h (in a 100 km/h zone) 300 m after the lane ends.)
when overtaking a truck do so quickly -- which in most cases means exceeding the speed limit. I'll leave you to guess how that will go down within the road safety community.

Also, every driver should experience being around trucks in a low, small car to get some perspective of just how big they really are. The top of a semi wheel is about eye-level in my car and it's not a pleasant feeling to be around.

Originally Posted by elanjacobs

Also, every driver should experience being around trucks in a low, small car to get some perspective of just how big they really are. The top of a semi wheel is about eye-level in my car and it's not a pleasant feeling to be around.

I know exactly what you mean. For nearly 10 years the "family car" was my wife's MX5.

if you want frightening, be standing on the side of a very busy wet 3 lane road running down hill in peak hour when you hear a semi's brakes lock up and the vehicle start to slide

Originally Posted by ian

Probably never.
Why fuss about the road toll when your maternal mortality rate is 35.8 per 100,000 live births (in Victoria it is 8.9 per 100,000 live births) and your infant mortality rate is 5.9 per 1000 live births (in Victoria is about 3.3 per 1000 live births).

When it comes to health issues -- Texas is just backward

I doubt that the infant deaths are equivalently counted (IIRC, the US counts deaths as infant deaths in cases where they're not counted in other countries).

As to the roads, I can't imagine there's anything in victoria equivalent to houston or dallas. re: the population density, there's no good reason to believe that deaths will be proportional to population or population density. I'm sure they wouldn't, but you'd have to study the causes to find out what they are and why. I'd imagine some of it is habit, some of it is illegals driving without licenses, some of it is driving drunk, ...but, I'd bet relatively little is due to the difficulty of the driver's test.

Further north where I live, we have a similar driving situation - a fairly easy permit test, but they will fail you for almost anything on the driver's test. that doesn't make competent drivers, but it does mean either going through a school program or paying for private tutoring to pass the road test is important.

That said, I tracked down a PA report on road deaths (it's from 2014). 1,195 traffic deaths (population 12 million plus a little). 383 were alcohol related (of course, not all of those are due to the alcohol, but a majority would be). Interesting trends from this (PA has a lot of population in cities or metro areas - probably 5MM in Philadelphia, 2.5MM in pittsburgh metro, probably as much in pittsburgh in the other metro CDPs like Harrisburg, Lancaster, etc), a very small share of deaths occurs on interstates here (presumably that term is universal). somewhere around 80% (not going back to check) are on state roads that are not interstate - PA has a lot of those - no margin for error on them.

Accident rate is much higher for youths, but didn't find the death rates for youth vs. older. Distribution of multi-vehicle accidents is more uniform by age (youths get involved in a lot of single-vehicle accidents, probably because they're distracted or just haven't gotten the spatial repetition yet). Somewhere around 40% of the deaths were attributed to excessive speed (not related to driver education - good luck getting people to slow down near cities), and another (can't remember) significant amount due to "illegal turns", which is presumably aggressive turning or turning without looking (which can be a big problem in rural areas where you get conditioned into thinking you don't have to look because there's no traffic).

How does that compare to Victoria? I don't know, but it isn't because "Pennsylvania is Backwards" compared to Victoria. It's probably similar aside from the population density (GDP in PA is marginally higher nominally, but adjusted for purchasing parity, it's about 20% higher).

Originally Posted by ian

Probably never.
Why fuss about the road toll when your maternal mortality rate is 35.8 per 100,000 live births (in Victoria it is 8.9 per 100,000 live births) and your infant mortality rate is 5.9 per 1000 live births (in Victoria is about 3.3 per 1000 live births).

When it comes to health issues -- Texas is just backward

though it's not popular to say, there's a huge difference in infant mortality rate in the US when you parse data by race - same with maternal mortality.

I found the article where your Texas maternal mortality rate came from - it defines a maternal death as occurring within 1 year of child birth. The WHO defines the maternal death rate as death occurring within 42 days (and so does Australia). You do realize that you can't compare the numbers that you gave, right? At all.

If you compare infant mortality rates for Texas vs. Victoria after adjusting out ethnicities that Victoria really doesn't have, then the rate in Texas is about 5 (vs. 3 -not exactly something to write home about).

One thing appears to be true of other countries when it comes to the states. In the old days, we were always criticized as being unaware of what life is actually like in the rest of the world (those of us in the states). It's clear that the rest of the world watches way too much reality TV, and your idea of what it's like to live in the States is pretty far detached from reality. In 41 years here, I have never seen:
* anyone brandish a gun in public (and I live in a city and catch the bus at a stop that also services seedy areas)
* anyone shot
* anyone mugged
* I've never seen a redneck riding through town in the back of a pickup truck
* I've never seen anyone turned away from a hospital Emergency room (though I've seen plenty of people in them who were definitely not going to pay - and watched a guy leave in front of me the last time I was in the ER - he had a wallet full of cash, no insurance, and he refused to pay for his services. They could do anything, they have to serve him and can't make him pay).

This list could be 100 points long.

(I have had racial slurs hurled at me while waiting for the bus, but I'm white as a sheet - you can guess what they were).

We seem to have gotten away from the thread topic of the road toll a bit here.

Recently on the radio (3AW) there has been some debate about the requirements for driving in Victoria.

Apparently, anyone who visits Victoria on a tourist visa and has a drivers license in another country is able to drive on that license for up to six months.

They do not have to prove any knowledge of Victorian road rules. All they need is a document which is a translation of their foreign license into English.

Apparently rental car companies are supposed to show them a video explaining the road rules in their own language before renting them a car but the radio station phoned several rental car companies and nobody shows the videos.

They did say that they were trying to get some data on how many accidents/fatalities were able to be linked to these foreign drivers but if the answer was found I was not listening at the time.

It was also stated that immigrants who had a drivers license in their country of origin (or any other country I think) are given an Australian license without having to undergo any testing.

Regardless of the standard of license testing for everyone else, including logbook hours for young learners and P plates, the standard for drivers in Victoria is therefore by default - equal to the lowest in the world.

They would give out a license to a tourist or immigrant from a country with the lowest standard so that becomes the standard.

Originally Posted by doug3030

Apparently, anyone who visits Victoria on a tourist visa and has a drivers license in another country is able to drive on that license for up to six months.

In WA the period is for as long as the overseas licence is valid - no, they cannot just renew their Overseas licence although many do this and I wonder about this .

They do not have to prove any knowledge of Victorian road rules. All they need is a document which is a translation of their foreign license into English

Correct .

They did say that they were trying to get some data on how many accidents/fatalities were able to be linked to these foreign drivers but if the answer was found I was not listening at the time.

The bloke that ran head on into me while texting was an overseas student with an out of date overseas licence. He also purchased insurance the day after the claim and changed the date on his accident report and wanted me to do the same - I just hung up on him.

It was also stated that immigrants who had a drivers license in their country of origin (or any other country I think) are given an Australian license without having to undergo any testing.

In WA, apart from NZ and a few recognised countries, all others have to take the standard road rules theory exam.
It depends on the class of licence. Only folks from NZ and a few recognised countries get an exemption from the car practical test. Folks from all other countries have to pass the standard car driving test. All countries (inc NZ) have to pass the MC and HR class practical test

Originally Posted by doug3030

We seem to have gotten away from the thread topic of the road toll a bit here.

Recently on the radio (3AW) there has been some debate about the requirements for driving in Victoria.

Apparently, anyone who visits Victoria on a tourist visa and has a drivers license in another country is able to drive on that license for up to six months.

They do not have to prove any knowledge of Victorian road rules. All they need is a document which is a translation of their foreign license into English.

the same is true for visitors from other states.
And I'm not just referring to Melbourne's infamous (?) box turns.

U-Turn at traffic signals is legal in Victoria and illegal in NSW.

BUT, most rules of the road are pretty common.
1. drive so that the vehicle is one side of the center of the road with the driver's position closest to the center of the road.
2. stop at red lights
3. stop at stop signs, or at least be going slow enough that you can stop in a metre or so.
4. stop at railway crossings
5. give way at give way signs
6. take the most aggressive option at a roundabout.
7. give way to pedestrians -- but only when you feel like it.
8. only conform to the speed limit when you think you may get caught.
9. don't use your mobile and drive -- an optional action. In NSW, you can be done for "mobile use while driving" if you are stopped, the handbrake is on, and the engine is running. The logic escapes me.
10. rules on parking. Who really cares, in NSW, at least, the "rules" are manipulated to generate revenue for the local Council.


But, as far as I am aware, "non-resident alien" drivers are no more likely to be involved in a serious or fatal crash than "resident aliens" or citizens.



BTW
I've read / heard a few stories on the ABC about immigrants from Syria and Iraq and the like having to re-learn to drive before sitting Australian driver's tests. Apparently, where they come from looking out for snipers is more important than looking at where you are going.

Originally Posted by D.W.

Probably never.
Why fuss about the road toll when your maternal mortality rate is 35.8 per 100,000 live births (in Victoria it is 8.9 per 100,000 live births) and your infant mortality rate is 5.9 per 1000 live births (in Victoria is about 3.3 per 1000 live births).

though it's not popular to say, there's a huge difference in infant mortality rate in the US when you parse data by race - same with maternal mortality.

I found the article where your Texas maternal mortality rate came from - it defines a maternal death as occurring within 1 year of child birth. The WHO defines the maternal death rate as death occurring within 42 days (and so does Australia). You do realize that you can't compare the numbers that you gave, right? At all.

If you compare infant mortality rates for Texas vs. Victoria after adjusting out ethnicities that Victoria really doesn't have, then the rate in Texas is about 5 (vs. 3 -not exactly something to write home about).

I'm not sure I want to go where this is heading. Parsing the data by race implies that maternal death rates are strongly correlated with race -- something I had not heard asserted anywhere before.

But to your point about inconsistency in definition. In Victoria the female death rate, all causes, is about 20 per 100,000 for women through their child bearing years. Because women who have many (10+) closely spaced children are very rare, even, I would imagine, in Texas, the numbers are still comparable even allowing for the difference in definition. Extending the maternal mortality definition to one year, would at worst increase the Victorian rate to somewhere betrween 6 and 7 per 100,000 live births.

Originally Posted by D.W.

I tracked down a PA report on road deaths (it's from 2014). 1,195 traffic deaths (population 12 million plus a little). 383 were alcohol related (of course, not all of those are due to the alcohol, but a majority would be). Interesting trends from this (PA has a lot of population in cities or metro areas - probably 5MM in Philadelphia, 2.5MM in pittsburgh metro, probably as much in pittsburgh in the other metro CDPs like Harrisburg, Lancaster, etc), a very small share of deaths occurs on interstates here (presumably that term is universal). somewhere around 80% (not going back to check) are on state roads that are not interstate - PA has a lot of those - no margin for error on them.

interstates tend to be built to higher standards, are grade separated -- no intersections or property entrances -- and are generally more "forgiving" when a vehicle leaves the carriageway.

state roads tend to be two, three or four lane undivided, where a vehicle crossing the center line has a relatively high probability of being involved in a head-on crash.
Sweden in their Vision Zero recognise this and plan to install a wire or other divider on all two way roads that have a speed limit greater than 70 km/h (about 42 mph).

Originally Posted by D.W.

Accident rate is much higher for youths, but didn't find the death rates for youth vs. older. The Australian evidence is that youths are still very much learning to drive when the pass their driving test. Data I've seen suggests that prior to graduated licencing, after passing the driving test it took the typical young driver 2 to 3 years to become really competent to drive under all conditions, especially in respect to the skills -- like overtaking, merging and changing lanes on freeways -- that are not taught to learners.
Distribution of multi-vehicle accidents is more uniform by age (youths get involved in a lot of single-vehicle accidents, probably because they're distracted or just haven't gotten the spatial repetition yet). As I noted above, the typical young driver is still learning when they get their licence. They also tend to be very socially active and driving late at night or early in the morning when most older folk are in their beds.
Somewhere around 40% of the deaths were attributed to excessive speed (not related to driver education - good luck getting people to slow down near cities), this is a good one to confuse the issue. There is a strong correlation between speed and severity of injury. So in many minds "excessive speed" is the cause of a crash -- when in reality speed is the just major contributor to the severity of injury suffered in the crash. For example, a crash involving a vehicle running off a straight road can be coded fatigue related (= driver fell asleep at the wheel) or excessive speed. The same crash (driver asleep at the wheel) on a curve is invariably coded "excessive speed" because the vehicle didn't make the curve.
and another (can't remember) significant amount due to "illegal turns", which is presumably aggressive turning or turning without looking (which can be a big problem in rural areas where you get conditioned into thinking you don't have to look because there's no traffic). in Australia an "illegal turn" is not an "aggressive" turn. It's a turn against a red light, a turn against a no left turn sign, a turn against a no right turn on red sign (you have those in PA?) where the turning vehicle gets T-boned or collects a pedestrian or cyclist. Rarely is it a turn without looking. In urban areas, "illegal turns" are often associated with "red light running" which is a symptom of impatience rather than aggression.

Originally Posted by ian

I've read / heard a few stories on the ABC about immigrants from Syria and Iraq and the like having to re-learn to drive before sitting Australian driver's tests. Apparently, where they come from looking out for snipers is more important than looking at where you are going.

In PNG you NEVER stop at ANY lights. If its yellow or just gone red you keep going. If there are cars ahead that are stopped you slow down but time your run so the car keep moving as much as possible - this is to avoid car jacking. Also they tend to travel in convoys where they can especially to cross dangerous areas.

don't use your mobile and drive -- an optional action. In NSW, you can be done for "mobile use while driving" if you are stopped, the handbrake is on, and the engine is running. The logic escapes me.

Its not that hard to understand why they do this , its to prevent people from using mobiles at traffic lights or at intersections, as well as stopping IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD to answer their phone.