Wednesday last week, a news story made its way to news.com.au, and that article described a situation, where two drivers, one male, the other female, were involved in an incident involving a lane charge.
The situation got flared up, after the female chose to “flash her lights, stick her finger up”, which apparently was not offensive at all to the male driver.
However, the woman driver went ‘too far’ when she followed on with an RTA ad campaign gesture, using her pinky finger to describe his, well some might say brain, but of cause, the description is of his downstairs equipment.
He apparently got very offended by her referring to him as having little downstairs, and he resorted to throwing a bottle at her.
It’s not clearly known what part of the lane change sparked the argument, but one might assume he simply wasn’t looking at his blind spot, or he pulled in front of her.
What is certain however, is that the RTA ad has seen a negative impact on the reaction to it.
Anyway, this follows on, with a recent Today Tonight article (no, I don’t want Today Tonight often, the online news is great :)), which demonstrated targetting of elderly drivers.
They make up a very, very small number of the crash statistics on our roads.
Ask the insurance companies, they’ll tell you what has the highest proportion of costs. They’ll tell you its the 17 to 25 year age group.
What they can’t tell you in detail however, is how many of those accidents in the 17 to 25 group happen as a result of stupid behaviour, compared to the amount that happens as a result of inexperience.
My personal guess is that the majority (> 50%) are a result of idiots being given licences, and allowed to behave stupidly on the road.
A car is safe. A car is as safe as its driver. If the driver is driving safely, and every other car around it is also moving safely, all exists in harmony. Naturally, the safety line is there, but not all cars are safe, and not all drivers are safe drivers.
The line on safe driving needs to be drawn however, between safe, unsafe, and stupid. Unfortunately for those who have to pay for greenslips and insurance, there are a lot of idiots who are falling into the stupid category.
It wouldn’t be so much of a concern in the “unsafe” category. It is an issue for the stupid idiots who habitually speed, irregularly be idiots, and get involved in what can only be seen as dangerous and stupid moves.
That is what I suspect would be revealed in an accident by accident investigation of the largest age group involved in accidents.
I know that the elderly group make up a larger than normal (normal being in the 30 – 60 age group) percentage, but thats only due to the obvious, they are older, and the age issue sort of strikes their driving abilities.
The move to have the elderly tested every year however, is a stupid move. It will do little to fix the dominant cause of accidents, unfortunately, reflected in statistics as 17 – 25 year old drivers.
The real truth is the dominant cause of accidents in that age group, and this is my guess, and I am nearly sure this is right, is the direct result of stupid behaviour.
For some reason, there are a lot more idiots in that age group, who are convinced that they can do what they like in a car, and likely come out good at the other end.
Trouble with the logic they use (if they do use any at all) is that the statistics say otherwise. You be an idiot around other moving ‘idiots’ and an accident becomes unavoidable.
The RTA can only do what they do, which is screen for driving ability. They unfortunately don’t screen for common sense or intelligence either, if they did, I suspect the highest level of crashes would indeed be the older age category that are the target of yearly testing.
There really should be a way to implement a testing measure to determine if the person being given a licence is likely to be an idiot, a danger on the road to other road users.
The RTA “Finger” ad claims to target speeding, but does nothing of the sort.
We see an idiot doing a burnout, sure, he is an idiot, but he isn’t speeding.
We see another idiot drifting around a turn, again, a clear braindead idiot, but he isn’t speeding.
We see a final idiot, failing to stop at a crossing, appearing proud of his action, braindead, stupid, but not speeding.
Yet, the message ends with “Speeding. No one thinks big of you.”.
My thoughts are the RTA might have wasted money on the ad, because they aren’t targetting speeding, they are targetting mental health issues.
Perhaps the final line of the ad should be “Be An Idiot, and no one will think big of you.”.
That would be an accurate representation of the problem. It’s not speeding that is the problem (in fact, slowing traffic down might make it safer, but certainly adds fatigue).
The result should almost certainly be attacking the braindead morons who have licences. Don’t give them out in the first place, or alternatively, find a way of fixing the problem with a powerful message that speaks to the stupid.
The issue with crash statistics being represented I believe, is not speeding, I doubt many of the younger drivers are involved in speeding, I believe many are getting in accidents due to being stupid. Simple. Be stupid, become a crash statistic, and end up leaving your family wondering why they ever let the kid out behind the wheel.
The idiots involved in the target of that campaign, don’t have the balls to speed, they need a real approach, one which sends the exact message to them, if you be stupid, you’ll end up mushed up severely. Now, you might get lucky several times, and that might continue for months, but ONE point, you won’t get lucky. A truck, car, bus, bike, might find its way in the path of your stupidity, and you will find your parents wondering how they ever let you get mushed into a power pole, windscreen, truck trailer, train track, or if you get real lucky, how you ended up in jail.
Clearly, the idiots being targetted don’t consider their actions, and the consequences of them, again, the problem. Target it. Taxpayer dollars better spent on inserting brains into the idiots.