verging_on_random

Lord make the roads safer … but not just yet

May 18, 2008 on 11:36 am | In Uncategorized |

Two interesting stories about road safety yesterday in the Sydney Morning Herald*.

The first tells us that it is now technically and economically feasible to install a device in cars that prevents the engine being started if the driver is pissed.

The devices were originally developed for the most dangerous drunk drivers: high-breath alcohol content or repeat offenders. But anti-drink-driving advocates are lobbying to get interlocks in every car driven by an adult over the legal drinking age. Some carmakers have developed technology to help stop drink driving. In Japan Nissan is trialling its on-board breathalyser with government authorities but Nissan Australia says there are no plans yet to bring the technology here.

I cannot think of a single initiative that would do more to reduce the road toll than mandatory installation of such a device in all vehicles (retrofitting existing vehicles at government expense). it would have the associated benefit of saving the millions of dollars spent on random breath testing and freeing up scarce police resources for other duties.

Yet I confidently predict that if anybody proposed such a move in Australia, there would be howls of outrage all over the place. We would be bombarded with the usual far-fetched objections like ‘it will cost lives cos people won’t be able to rush their mate to hospital when he’s been bitten by a brown snake on a fishing trip’ and ‘it will get confused when I’ve been eating me mum’s wine trifle’ and of course the would-be killer: ‘devious crims will find ways to beat the system so it will only end up penalising ordinary mums and dads’.

I personally know of a few people who would be alive today if such devices were compulsory and writing as someone who used habitually to drink and drive in my youth and only avoided tragedy by sheer good luck, I wish such devices had been around when I was young and did stupid things. However as I say, my prediction is that the opposition would be vocal and sustained and governments won’t go near the idea.

The second story concerns efforts in NSW to ensure that drivers actually have a bit of experience before they are allowed to drive by themselves. Again drawing from personal experience if I may, this seems like a great idea. I vividly remember hitting another (stationary) car the second time I drove solo after getting my licence as a 17 year old; at the time I had been behind the wheel in my lifetime for a cumulative total of oh, eight hours at least.

In NSW learner drivers are now required to keep log books showing that they have driven at least 120 hours with a licensed driver before they can take their full licence test. The reasoning seems obvious and compelling - contrary to shrill objections it’s not because it takes 120 hours to teach someone to drive but the learned skills need considerable practice before they can be applied properly. Having a licensed driver in the car for the first 120 hours means that learners are more likely to get that practice while sober and free of the temptation to show off to peers. By the end of the 120 hours, they might even have acquired a basic understanding that it’s dangerous out there if you don’t concentrate and take a bit of care.

This is not idle deductive reasoning.

In Sweden, which lifted driving practice hours from about 45 hours to 120 hours, the number of crashes involving young drivers fell by 40 per cent within two years, according to an OECD report in 2006.

Yet such empirical evidence is dismissed out of hand in the face of objections like these:

• 120 hours is, like, a long time. ‘It has taken Mr O’Brien 10 months to give each of the boys 25 hours behind the wheel. For all three triplets, he has done 95 hours of lessons - and has 195 to go. At one hour a week each, it will be more than two years before the boys can sit for their licence.’ Ummmm yes doofus, that’s the idea. However it’s not really good policy-making to base it on the circumstances of a father with triplets, a wife who doesn’t drive, a job that means he can only spend three hours a week with his kids and no other licensed driver apparently who can make a contribution to the load. I mean it’s hardly a typical case is it, and as we all know, difficult cases make bad law.
• It costs too much. ‘The lessons cost the family $30 to $40 extra each week in petrol, to which the triplets contribute.’ Ummm they are not ‘lessons’, they are practice. Here’s an idea - why not let the kids drive to places dad was going to go to anyway? That means there’ll be no extra cost at all.
• People will cheat. Ah the hardy perennial - there’s no point doing it cos it just penalises honest folk and the crims will find ways around the law (see also: why there’s no point regulating gun ownership). Of course some people will cheat but some people will also comply, leading to better drivers on the road and fewer deaths and injuries.

The opponents aren’t convinced. It’s all just another assault on Working Families as far as they are concerned. The NSW opposition has the answer:

Andrew Fraser, the Opposition road safety spokesman, agrees. “The system is flawed. It’s not the hours that count, but the quality of education.”

Instead, he wants compulsory driver education in schools. “The cost [of the new regulations] is huge for families.”

Brilliant! Why didn’t the government think of that costless solution? Reasons why teaching driving in schools is a terrific idea include:

• schools have vast gaps in the school day because of the reduced demands from the community to teach things like literacy, numeracy, Australian values and vocational skills;
• teachers are all expert driving instructors who can provide the quality driver education demanded by the opposition (especially the librarians and history teachers - they’re practically formula 1 aces);
• schools can provide driver education in a variety of conditions such as highway driving, night driving and peak hour congestion because teachers are sure to volunteer to take classes out of ordinary school hours;
• schools have plenty of spare vehicles that can be used for driver education, or if they don’t, the local P&Cs will soon have a cake stall or something and buy a fleet. Or maybe teachers will be happy to let pupils practise on the their own cars, I mean why wouldn’t they?

The steady reduction in the road toll over the last 30 years has been one of Australia’s stunning public policy success stories, one which is insufficiently recognised and applauded. Yet virtually every measure from compulsory seat belt wearing to random breath tests to harsher penalties to radar and speed cameras has been bitterly opposed on all sorts of specious grounds by interest groups who still regard their cars as their own private toys which they ought to be allowed to use however they like and to hell with anyone else in our increasingly crowded urban jungles.

*I modified my new ‘no MSM’ policy by getting a SMHerald every Saturday. The magazine inserts are a good read and besides, I realised I use newspaper for all sorts of practical household purposes that have nothing to do with reading the contents.