Ostentia is a large country in which motor vehicles are a vital means of transport. Our traffic laws need to strike a balance between safety and the need for efficient travel over long distances.

Annual road deaths in Ostentia have fallen from 2,300 in 2004 to approximately 1,500. Over that period, road travel has increased by almost 150 per cent. While this is commendable in one sense, the restrictions on mobility and transport imposed in the course of achieving such a reduction are rarely considered.

It is not a realistic goal to seek the virtual elimination of deaths and injuries due to traffic accidents, and should not be the intention. The primary aim of traffic laws and their enforcement must be to reduce the potential for death and injury to innocent road users – passengers, innocent bystanders and safe drivers – to a level that is reasonably proportional to the need for an efficient transport system. Moreover, what is reasonably proportional is a matter for society to decide, not politicians and public servants.

This should be accompanied by a health system that does not impose on society the cost of recovery of irresponsible and dangerous drivers. Drivers should be free to risk their own safety provided they are responsible for the consequences of the choices they make.

Currently;

· Too many traffic laws are based on the subjective views of policymakers and reflect a “nanny-state” mentality.

· Too many traffic laws are intended to protect drivers from themselves, even when they are the only ones likely to suffer adverse consequences. Seat belt laws are especially paternalistic.

· Too many traffic laws are based on assumptions about outdated automotive technology and have never been reviewed as technology improved.

· Enforcement of traffic laws often has too little impact on risky driver behaviour and does little more than generate government revenue. This undermines public confidence in the police and legal system.

· The enforcement of traffic laws is at times vindictive and oppressive, especially on young drivers. Enforcement of speed limits in Victoria, for example, has gone well beyond the limits of what is compatible with a free society.

Speed limits require a major rethink. Not only are they disregarded by a majority of drivers, but the justifications offered for speed limits bring the law into contempt. It is clearly false, for example to claim that “there is no such thing as safe speeding” or “speed kills” when the sport of motor racing has such a safe record.

Traffic laws that reflect the behaviour of the majority of motorists have better compliance than laws that arbitrarily criminalise the majority of motorists and encourage violations. The normally careful and competent actions of a reasonable person should be considered legal. A speed limit should be set so that the majority of motorists observe it voluntarily and enforcement can be directed to the minority of offenders.

This can be achieved by applying the 85th percentile rule. Traffic engineers observe that the majority of drivers drive in a safe and reasonable manner, with the safest vehicles travelling at or below the 85th to 90th percentiles. Vehicles travelling over the 85th percentile speed (or faster than the flow of traffic) have a significantly higher crash risk than vehicles travelling around or modestly below this speed.

Some authorities claim to follow the 85th percentile rule - however, actual limits are frequently lower due to bureaucratic and political bias.

The CCP’s policies

Speed Limits

1. Speed limits should be set at, or slightly above, the 85th percentile. This would result in an increase of 10-30 km/h in the limit on roads where drivers felt it was safe to drive at such speeds, while perhaps leading to reductions on less safe roads.

2. All speed limits over 90 km/h should be automatically reduced by a uniform amount (eg 10-20 km/h) at night and in the rain.

3. The setting of speed limits and other road laws should be conducted in an open and transparent manner, with bureaucrats and politicians required to publicly justify themselves.

4. Enforcement of speed limits should allow tolerance of 10% for speedometer error and temporary inattention.

5. Special speed limits (for example in school zones) should only apply when flashing yellow lights are operating.

6. Covert enforcement of speed limits should be replaced with sign-posted enforcement to increase the deterrent effect.

7. Speed enforcement (including placement of speed cameras) should concentrate on locations where the risk of speeding creates substantial risks to other road users.

General

1. All traffic laws should be reviewed to ensure the priority is on safety to others, not the safety of the driver.

2. Licence testing should emphasise the skills and knowledge required to handle a vehicle to avoid being a danger to others. Parking is not one of those.

3. Renewal of drivers’ licences should be subject to retesting after a certain number of years.

4. Enforcement of traffic laws intended to protect road users from themselves, while having no impact on innocent victims, should be low priority.

5. The highest enforcement priority must be driver behaviour that infringes on the rights of others, particularly if it risks their death or injury. Red light cameras are an example of valid enforcement based on this criterion. Road rage is an example of behaviour that warrants criminal sanctions.

6. Modifying and hotting up cars should not be prohibited unless it leads to vehicles that are dangerous to other road users (ie not the driver) or infringes on the rights of others (right to sound sleep, eg acceptable exhaust sound volumes). The onus must be on the prosecution to establish such danger.

7. A five-year trial should be conducted in which the blood alcohol limit is decreased to 0.02% for adult drivers. If, at the conclusion of the trial, the results suggest no significant deincrease in deaths and injuries, the blood alcohol limit will be re-raised to 0.05%.

8. Penalties for breaching traffic laws should not necessarily include the combined penalties of a large fine plus points leading to loss of licence. Offenders should be given the option of paying a larger fine without losing points, or losing more points without a large fine.

9. The revenue from traffic fines should be quarantined and used for something highly unpopular such as paying the salaries of politicians. This would ensure the emphasis was on modifying driver behaviour rather than collecting revenue.

10. Fuel taxes, as with all taxes, should be substantially reduced by eliminating government waste, duplication, unnecessary regulation and excessive bureaucracy.

11. All fuels, whether petrol, diesel, LPG, ethanol or CNG, should be subject to the same level of tax. The government should not favour one fuel over another (other than continuing to exempt fuels produced by individuals for personal use).

12. Road design, construction and maintenance must improve. This includes improving roads and roadsides to reduce the risk of crashes and minimise harm, measures for higher speed roads including dividing traffic, and providing clear driver guidance.

Seems mostly alright to me. Point 3 of General is already done, retesting takes place every fifteen years, compulsorily...

Oh right, didn't know that. Whoops. Well scratch that from my statement.

1. What do you mean by the 85th percentile? 85th percentile of what? And going which way?
Also bear in mind that it isn't whether the driver feels it is safe that is important - it is whether it actually is safe that is.

2, 5. So you are suggesting flexible speed limits on all roads? Very very expensive that would be - both for enforcement purposes and simply to let drivers know what the speed limit is at that time - plus you would need to employ people full time to decide whether a speed limit should be temporarily altered or not (note - last point does not apply to 5). Nice idea in theory though.

3. I think I agree with this. Sounds a tiny bit dodgy though.

4. Makes sense.

6. Sorry, this wouldn't increase the deterrance effect. Indeed quite the opposite - it would mean people would happily break the speed limit (which, remember, is breaking the law) anywhere where there aren't speed cameras, just temporarily slowing down for the signed area before speeding up again. This is generally accepted fact - the only reason any country signposts where its speed cameras are is because the politicians are scared of the power of the road lobby.

7. Makes sense. Probably already happens. But bear in mind that concentrating on those areas does not mean excluding others.

1. The safety of the driver is important too.

2. I have personally myself had my foot run over by someone who was parking their car incompetently. It was the most serious physical injury I have had in my life. So I must say I disagree.

3. Already done as Cieran says.

4. There are few of these. Also I feel the emphasis here is the wrong way - saying that enforcing those laws intended to protect others should be prioritised over those where the only danger is to the individual in question would be better. As you do in 5.

6. I must make this clear that this should include ANY modification that is likely to be distracting to other drivers. Which includes crazy colour schemes for example.

7. The word is decrease not deincrease. Otherwise, no objections here.

8. I disagree, as this would enable very dangerous drivers to stay on the roads if they have the wealth to pay off the fine. The points off the license is important, at least for those offences (which, remember, is almost all of them) which put others at risk.

9. Interesting, if bizarre...

10. Wholeheartedly disagree. Fuel taxes are there for a reason and are, if anything, nowhere near high enough.

11. What if one fuel could be proven to have significantly harmful effects on anyone breathing it in (like leaded petrol for example)? It takes a long time for cars and petrol stations to convert over to cleaner fuel. Surely extra tax should be levied on this fuel and then used to help pay for the healthcare costs and/or speeding up the transfer to cleaner fuel AS WELL AS providing an incentive for people to make the switch? (cleaner fuel here meaning a replacement fuel that does not contain the toxins inducing the harmful effects).

12. Okay.

1. http://www.google.com.au/search?client=saf...=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit#8...percentile_rule - 85th percentile is quite a common saying when it comes to road use.

Traffic engineers may rely on the 85th percentile rule to establish speed limits. The speed limit should be set to the speed that separates the bottom 85% of vehicle speeds from the top 15%. The 85th percentile is slightly greater than a speed that is one standard deviation above the mean of a normal distribution.
The theory is that traffic laws that reflect the behavior of the majority of motorists may have better compliance than laws that arbitrarily criminalize the majority of motorists and encourage violations. The latter kinds of laws lack public support and often fail to bring about desirable changes in driving behavior. An example is United States's old 55 mph (88 km/h) speed limit that was removed in part because of notoriously low compliance.

2,5. Flexible road limits are quite common, and a OOC example is the majority of Sydney, an example of which can be viewed at http://travel.webshots.com/photo/2942417310011817778OBeSmm Controlling the signs can be done largely automatically, change at dusk and dawn and also according to weather forecasts.

3. Glad you agree. It will help prevent arguments that the Government is revenue raising when it comes to speed limit enforcement.

4. Thanks.

6. The argument here is that the Government's often claim that speed cameras are a deterrent, nothing more. It is probably a case of redefining the purpose of speed cameras. In addition to this, I'd suggest we could have mobile speed cameras in the back of white vans sitting on the side of the road. These also can be marked ala; http://i26.tinypic.com/23sufyq.jpg.

7. Thanks. And it probably does, but it'd be good to legislate it.

1. The safety of the driver is important (not as important as the persons who's rights the driver is infringing upon), but from a libertarian standpoint it is ultimately up to the driver what they want to do so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others including the Government.

2. But they certainty don't cover that in parking tests in the exam. The parking was a side point, not the main point of the statement.

3. Acknowledged.

4. That is the point I am trying to make, unfortunately as you can probably tell, and have told me before, I am not a particularly good wordsmith.

6. Crazy colour schemes are only distracting if you choose to stare and judge the car, unless the car of course is painted in chrome and reflects the sun onto you or whatever.

7. Whoops, typo. Thanks, originally it was swapped around so increase made sense and then I must have not edited it correctly.

8. Keep in mind this only applies in general low level offenses, if someone was caught DUI or dangerous driving excessively, this infringes on the rights of others and a appropriate penalty will apply which can and will include suspension and disqualification of license.

9. Thanks.

10. But why do we tax fuel excessively and not other things such as printer toner, or blank DVD's? Their production also harms the environment. (Note, can you tell I just looked around my desk for objects? :lol: )

11. Aren't we going to Hydrogen regardless in a previous bill? Regardless, the government can provide subsidies and levies to people choosing to convert their cars to LPG or hydrogen, as found here http://www.ausindustry.gov.au/EnergyandFue...Pages/home.aspx

Whilst I generally agree, I can't help but feel

May be subject to abuse - someone claiming they were not looking for a moment or were temporarily inattentive. Constant "temporary" inattentiveness can lead to a very poor driver. Therefore whilst I grant you are not here to specifically get into what the wording of such allowances is, I do feel it should be worth note such tolerances should be made but noted so that it can be kept as a record of the driver's apparent inability to pay attention.

Temporary inattentiveness with regards to speed is essential to ensure safe driving. If you're spending all the time focussing on what speed you're doing, you're clearly not paying attention to the road.

IRL, there's leeway. I think it's usually about 5 MPH, may be wrong though.

I assumed temporary inattentiveness referred to inattentiveness to driving in general.