The dramatically named "Operation Rolling Thunder" was the latest knee jerk reaction to a string of fatal accidents which involved a heavy vehicle.
Are the blitzes really making our roads safer?
As usual the media were on board, emotively calling for "rogue operators" and "cowboy truckies" to be taken off the road.
Assistant Police Commissioner Michael Corboy said: "This operation is in direct response to three fatal truck crashes in the course of two days earlier this year that cost the lives of five people."
"We simply cannot stand by and accept that dangerous trucks are on our roads and are causing people to die.
"NSW carries the bulk of the nations freight and we need to ensure that all of the trucks coming and going from the state are safe and compliant, and that truck drivers are not driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
"Todays operation will test the entire heavy-vehicle industry in NSW and across other states.
"We will review results from the operation and stop any trucks, drivers, owners or operators who cant comply with safety standards and road rules, to ensure all dangerous trucks are removed from our roads."
As usual the media were looking for a headline and the general public were baying for blood.
The RMS, NSW Police and other interstate agencies took to the task with extreme vigour.
Once again the transport industry, the job I love, my mates and I were copping an absolute hiding in mainstream media and I had had enough.
I found the crash statistics for NSW for fatal accidents between 2012-2016 and started reading.
What I found did not come as a surprise to me at all. I sat down, worked out a few percentages, put this into a Facebook post and sent it to a couple of friends, unsure whether I should post it.
They encouraged me to do so and what happened next left me stunned. Over 1,000 shares in 24 hours, messages from people all over Australia I had never met thanking me for telling the transport industry's side of the story and getting the facts out to the general public. These numbers from the original Facebook post are included below.
Heavy vehicle traffic accounts for 7% of all traffic movements in NSW Between 2012-2016. In NSW there were 1,619 fatal accidents on our roads, 260 or 17% of these involved trucks.
That is 83% of the road toll that doesnt even involve a heavy vehicle. Of that 17% or 260 accidents that involved a heavy vehicle, 80% of the time the heavy vehicle WAS NOT AT FAULT.
That means that 208 of these accidents were the result of the car driver being at fault! Therefore in NSW in that 4 year period, 1,567 out of 1,619 fatal accidents were not the fault of a heavy vehicle.
The end results, 96.7% of all fatal crashes in a 4 year period were not the fault of a heavy vehicle or its operator.
Only 3.3% of the road toll can be attributed to heavy vehicle at fault accidents in a 4-year period.
All of a sudden when you break it down the stats don't look so bad for an industry that has such poor public perception and a bad rap in mainstream media.
During the operation, police from all states and RMS inspectors combined stopped and inspected more than 5,000 heavy vehicles.
More than 2,000 defect notices for a range of offences were issued, with 26 drivers returning positive drug tests.
A total of 1,752 drivers were tested for drugs and the result was then labelled disgraceful by the Commander of NSW Police Traffic & Highway Patrol.
Assistant Commissioner Michael Corboy said: "The fact that we caught 26 drivers who tested positive for drugs is just a disgrace".
Really? A disgrace? While I agree that having any driver test positive for drugs behind the wheel of a heavy vehicle is completely unacceptable, 26 out of 1,752 or 1.48% can hardly be described as a disgrace.
In fact, 98.52% of drivers returned a negative result for a drug test; far from a disgrace, I think this is a great result for the industry.
As for the defect notices, 2,000 defects from 6,600 vehicles stopped between the Police and RMS doesn't sound great, but neither did the "disgraceful" drug test results until we looked a bit closer did they?
How many actual vehicles were defected out of the 6600? I'd like to bet that those 2,000 defects weren't all for separate vehicles.
There were 33 major defects where the vehicle was grounded on the spot for a serious safety issue. Thats 33 out of 6,600, or 0.5% of all vehicles stopped.
By the Government's own admission 99.95% of vehicles they stopped did not have any major safety issue!
How many of these remaining defects were for faded warning labels, cracked or missing reflectors, empty windscreen washer bottles or faded number plates etc.?
How many of these defects are really genuine issues with a vehicle that affects its safety and how many are just making up the numbers?
It's time the mainstream media didn't just spit out the politically motivated propaganda they're fed at press conferences by the heads of these government agencies and reported real facts with real research.
It's also time that the government looked at their own facts and figures regarding the road toll and took action where it is most needed, where the majority accidents are caused, light vehicles.
Ask yourself why if they are so serious about safety they target the group of road users we have statistically proven, using the governments own data, to be the safest on the road.
Is it a politically motivated move to alienate a minority group? A group, which only represents 7% of vehicle movements annually in NSW.
Is it to try and appear to the other 93% of road users that they are taking proactive and worthwhile action against the road toll thereby encouraging the public to vote for them again next election?
Or is it a revenue raising exercise, one that they know the 93% of road users who are not heavy vehicle operators will support because they're doing it all in the name of "safety"?
I don't know, but maybe, with a bit of effort and a united front the industry can show the general public we aren't as bad as some people would like them to believe.
Public perception is where we need to start if we want industry reform. If we can get the support of the public by showing them statistics like this in an intelligent and well-reasoned manner and present our side of the story in a way that is articulate and professional then maybe, just maybe we can manage to affect some meaningful change in our industry and make a contribution that will have some long term benefits.
Chris Campbell, NSW
Craig1 said
07:58 PM Feb 21, 2018
Hey Chris, your reasoned comments wont make a " Headline", so a hard sell. Probably a bit like a big dog bite and a yapper. Not many big dogs do bite, but bloody yappers go unreported, despite numerous bleeding fingers etc. How do we stop the " Stevanovics" preaching on morning TV in a most biased manner? Anyway cheers and all the best
dogbox said
08:19 PM Feb 21, 2018
the truth doesn't always make a good story
Kebbin said
08:51 PM Feb 21, 2018
Who is Chris Campbell? Woody are you quoting somone else? Where did the statistics come from?
-- Edited by Kebbin on Wednesday 21st of February 2018 08:53:33 PM
rockylizard said
09:26 PM Feb 21, 2018
Gday...
Fully understand and appreciate that the % of defects is low ... and even drug/alcohol affected is low ..... but just what would be an acceptable number of defective vehicles??
I also fully understand the media, in every way possible, ALWAYS take the 'dramatic' stance and dramatise everything from a small basis of fact.
In the instance you have highlighted - heavy vehicle involvement in the road toll. They do the same with any drop in the share market - preaching Chicken Little responses rather than an informed, rational approach.
Praps, the ad below regarding the road toll gives some perspective of just what is an acceptable number in regard to anything to do with the road toll -
Despite what ANY statistics may indicate - we should strive to do better.
Cheers - John
boab said
09:50 PM Feb 21, 2018
Very well put Chris a couple of stats that dont show up is how many accidents are avoided because most of out truckies are very professional the other would be how many klms traveled per accident compared to other road users. In my opinion here in the west people on push bikes are a major source of frustration contributing to many accidents because they have the right to be on the road and they seem to want to exploit that right to be there.
Woody n Sue said
10:05 PM Feb 21, 2018
Chris Campbell is a truck driver who was sick of the one sided reporting, and researched the governments own statistics to get these figures and it was published in Owner Driver a well known and read truck magazine .
Rocky I can not disagree which a single point you make . All sections of road users have blood on their hands .
I post this simply to point out that the trucking industry gets a particularly bad rap when, if the full statistics are published, they are actually doing better than other rearly mentioned segments .
Zero drug affected drivers is the only acceptable number
Zero drunk drivers is the only acceptable number
Zero deaths on our roads is the only acceptable number
Unfortunately a cant see that happening any time soon, but that doesnt mean we shouldnt try .
The media publishing accurate unbiased information would be a good starting point, alas I cant see that happening any time soon either
Better compulsory driver training before licensing and regular re testing, would be a great help in road toll reduction also.
Woody
Woody n Sue said
10:09 PM Feb 21, 2018
Boab you make an interesting point about Klms traveled per accident
Not going to take the bait on push bikes though .
Woody
Desert Dweller said
04:50 AM Feb 22, 2018
OPERATION ROLLING THUNDER, sounds dramatic doesn't it!
Accidents have happened & will continue to happen, simple really.
Hopefully none of us will be involved in the next one.
-- Edited by Desert Dweller on Thursday 22nd of February 2018 05:00:47 AM
Mike Harding said
08:33 AM Feb 22, 2018
The police, politicians, news people and the road safety industry just love to climb on the bandwagon and blame drivers. It's easy, it's popular because we all agree that *other* drivers are *bad* whereas *we* are *good*, and it's almost impossible to prove them wrong.
One never hears them blame lack of funding for road improvements or the total lack of driver training in this country amongst other things.
There is a price to pay for moving a couple of tons of metal around a random course at high speed with a human in real-time charge and 1225 deaths (2017) is probably around as low as that price will go although I imagine reducing speed limits to 25kph would improve it?
So 1225 road deaths but 2866 suicides (2016) in Australia.
Where is the righteous outrage and the investment in resources to reduce the suicide toll?
Of course that is much more difficult to do: reducing speed limits, double demerit points, more speed cameras, reduced drink/drive levels etc cost nothing to implement (indeed they make money) and allow the police and politicians to throw up their hands saying "We've done all we can" and blame driver behaviour.
But they are never challenged on suicide; groups of people don't normally commit suicide together and the press generally give suicides low or no coverage so we can just forget about them and become all outraged when three people die in a vehicle accident. Easy.
If this issue is really about "saving lives" and not just "looking good about pretending to save vehicle passengers lives" then, with the road toll at such a low level, it would be good to see some of the enormous budget committed to road safety and derived from speed cameras redirected to reducing the suicide toll.
But I don't think that's going to happen. Too hard - easier just to look good.
Leo said
10:14 AM Feb 22, 2018
Woody n Sue wrote:
[snip]
Zero drug affected drivers is the only acceptable number Zero drunk drivers is the only acceptable number Zero deaths on our roads is the only acceptable number
[snip]
Woody
Sorry Woody, but that is not so at all. It is the rhetoric of those quick talking commentariat, the 'meeja' and gutless politicians who put populism with the media, especially the mammoth taxpayer-funded ABC, ahead of talking frankly and reasonably with the public to inform and consult.
'Zero' requires, mandates, being risk averse and we would never get out of the house or even out of bed if we are to attempt to avoid all risk. -But in so doing of course we indulge in behaviour that creates, trades off on, a plethora of new and different risks, such as the risks of obesity and the psychological and physical brain effects of limited interaction with what is about us and social.
The only reasonable approach is to identify and manage risks with well targeted and robust risk treatments, while accepting that some risk will always be there.
Also, we should be aware of the political stunts of politicians and others who want limelight and of the media with their favourite go-to cans to kick on slow news days: stirring with their big wooden spoons to ban this and ban that.
Of course police would be doing the politically correct 'crack downs' as governments demand some response from the police commissioners as 'proof positive' (more words of media hacks) of political 'solutions' - Qld's Courier Mail always carried the headline 'Police Blitz'. Not so long ago when the Qld govt was being criticised for lack of action on drug trafficking criminal gangs a police crack down on traffic offences 'proved' the police were doing something and took the headlines away from drug gangs. Crude, but politicians know how to divert attention.
However, none of that is to say that large transport cannot improve its safety record or that rogue operators should be tolerated. In the past, Lindsay Fox has commented on ways to improve safety.
Edited out repeated word
-- Edited by Leo on Thursday 22nd of February 2018 10:34:34 AM
Woody n Sue said
01:03 PM Feb 22, 2018
Leo wrote:
[snip].
However, none of that is to say that large transport cannot improve its safety record or that rogue operators should be tolerated. In the past, Lindsay Fox has commented on ways to improve safety.
Hi there Leo you seem to have missed the whole point of my post
I agree transport can still improve their safety record, undeniable, however the point I were making is that transport ie truck crashes as a cause of death is already much lower than any other segment yet I see no crackdown on car drivers like that bing applied to trucks , and yet they cause more deaths on our roads .
and as far as Lindsay Fox goes, great business man that he obviously is, the man has never driven a semi or b double in his life, as far as I know he has only ever held a rigid truck licence, yet he like polititions get to make the driving rules and regulations none of which they will ever have to abide by themselves .
woody
-- Edited by Leo on Thursday 22nd of February 2018 10:34:34 AM
Woody n Sue said
01:04 PM Feb 22, 2018
Mike Harding I can agree with you however that is another subject altogether
Woody
Gundog said
11:48 AM Feb 24, 2018
At the end of the day, all that media and the political masters require is "dont let the facts get in the way of a good story"
The dramatically named "Operation Rolling Thunder" was the latest knee jerk reaction to a string of fatal accidents which involved a heavy vehicle.
As usual the media were on board, emotively calling for "rogue operators" and "cowboy truckies" to be taken off the road.
Assistant Police Commissioner Michael Corboy said: "This operation is in direct response to three fatal truck crashes in the course of two days earlier this year that cost the lives of five people."
"We simply cannot stand by and accept that dangerous trucks are on our roads and are causing people to die.
"NSW carries the bulk of the nations freight and we need to ensure that all of the trucks coming and going from the state are safe and compliant, and that truck drivers are not driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
"Todays operation will test the entire heavy-vehicle industry in NSW and across other states.
"We will review results from the operation and stop any trucks, drivers, owners or operators who cant comply with safety standards and road rules, to ensure all dangerous trucks are removed from our roads."
As usual the media were looking for a headline and the general public were baying for blood.
The RMS, NSW Police and other interstate agencies took to the task with extreme vigour.
Once again the transport industry, the job I love, my mates and I were copping an absolute hiding in mainstream media and I had had enough.
I found the crash statistics for NSW for fatal accidents between 2012-2016 and started reading.
What I found did not come as a surprise to me at all. I sat down, worked out a few percentages, put this into a Facebook post and sent it to a couple of friends, unsure whether I should post it.
They encouraged me to do so and what happened next left me stunned. Over 1,000 shares in 24 hours, messages from people all over Australia I had never met thanking me for telling the transport industry's side of the story and getting the facts out to the general public. These numbers from the original Facebook post are included below.
Heavy vehicle traffic accounts for 7% of all traffic movements in NSW Between 2012-2016. In NSW there were 1,619 fatal accidents on our roads, 260 or 17% of these involved trucks.
That is 83% of the road toll that doesnt even involve a heavy vehicle. Of that 17% or 260 accidents that involved a heavy vehicle, 80% of the time the heavy vehicle WAS NOT AT FAULT.
That means that 208 of these accidents were the result of the car driver being at fault! Therefore in NSW in that 4 year period, 1,567 out of 1,619 fatal accidents were not the fault of a heavy vehicle.
The end results, 96.7% of all fatal crashes in a 4 year period were not the fault of a heavy vehicle or its operator.
Only 3.3% of the road toll can be attributed to heavy vehicle at fault accidents in a 4-year period.
All of a sudden when you break it down the stats don't look so bad for an industry that has such poor public perception and a bad rap in mainstream media.
During the operation, police from all states and RMS inspectors combined stopped and inspected more than 5,000 heavy vehicles.
More than 2,000 defect notices for a range of offences were issued, with 26 drivers returning positive drug tests.
A total of 1,752 drivers were tested for drugs and the result was then labelled disgraceful by the Commander of NSW Police Traffic & Highway Patrol.
Assistant Commissioner Michael Corboy said: "The fact that we caught 26 drivers who tested positive for drugs is just a disgrace".
Really? A disgrace? While I agree that having any driver test positive for drugs behind the wheel of a heavy vehicle is completely unacceptable, 26 out of 1,752 or 1.48% can hardly be described as a disgrace.
In fact, 98.52% of drivers returned a negative result for a drug test; far from a disgrace, I think this is a great result for the industry.
As for the defect notices, 2,000 defects from 6,600 vehicles stopped between the Police and RMS doesn't sound great, but neither did the "disgraceful" drug test results until we looked a bit closer did they?
How many actual vehicles were defected out of the 6600? I'd like to bet that those 2,000 defects weren't all for separate vehicles.
There were 33 major defects where the vehicle was grounded on the spot for a serious safety issue. Thats 33 out of 6,600, or 0.5% of all vehicles stopped.
By the Government's own admission 99.95% of vehicles they stopped did not have any major safety issue!
How many of these remaining defects were for faded warning labels, cracked or missing reflectors, empty windscreen washer bottles or faded number plates etc.?
How many of these defects are really genuine issues with a vehicle that affects its safety and how many are just making up the numbers?
It's time the mainstream media didn't just spit out the politically motivated propaganda they're fed at press conferences by the heads of these government agencies and reported real facts with real research.
It's also time that the government looked at their own facts and figures regarding the road toll and took action where it is most needed, where the majority accidents are caused, light vehicles.
Ask yourself why if they are so serious about safety they target the group of road users we have statistically proven, using the governments own data, to be the safest on the road.
Is it a politically motivated move to alienate a minority group? A group, which only represents 7% of vehicle movements annually in NSW.
Is it to try and appear to the other 93% of road users that they are taking proactive and worthwhile action against the road toll thereby encouraging the public to vote for them again next election?
Or is it a revenue raising exercise, one that they know the 93% of road users who are not heavy vehicle operators will support because they're doing it all in the name of "safety"?
I don't know, but maybe, with a bit of effort and a united front the industry can show the general public we aren't as bad as some people would like them to believe.
Public perception is where we need to start if we want industry reform. If we can get the support of the public by showing them statistics like this in an intelligent and well-reasoned manner and present our side of the story in a way that is articulate and professional then maybe, just maybe we can manage to affect some meaningful change in our industry and make a contribution that will have some long term benefits.
Chris Campbell, NSW
Who is Chris Campbell? Woody are you quoting somone else? Where did the statistics come from?
-- Edited by Kebbin on Wednesday 21st of February 2018 08:53:33 PM
Gday...
Fully understand and appreciate that the % of defects is low ... and even drug/alcohol affected is low ..... but just what would be an acceptable number of defective vehicles??
I also fully understand the media, in every way possible, ALWAYS take the 'dramatic' stance and dramatise everything from a small basis of fact.
In the instance you have highlighted - heavy vehicle involvement in the road toll. They do the same with any drop in the share market - preaching Chicken Little responses rather than an informed, rational approach.
Praps, the ad below regarding the road toll gives some perspective of just what is an acceptable number in regard to anything to do with the road toll -
How many should we accept?
Despite what ANY statistics may indicate - we should strive to do better.
Cheers - John
Rocky I can not disagree which a single point you make . All sections of road users have blood on their hands .
I post this simply to point out that the trucking industry gets a particularly bad rap when, if the full statistics are published, they are actually doing better than other rearly mentioned segments .
Zero drug affected drivers is the only acceptable number
Zero drunk drivers is the only acceptable number
Zero deaths on our roads is the only acceptable number
Unfortunately a cant see that happening any time soon, but that doesnt mean we shouldnt try .
The media publishing accurate unbiased information would be a good starting point, alas I cant see that happening any time soon either
Better compulsory driver training before licensing and regular re testing, would be a great help in road toll reduction also.
Woody
Not going to take the bait on push bikes though .
Woody
OPERATION ROLLING THUNDER, sounds dramatic doesn't it!
Accidents have happened & will continue to happen, simple really.
Hopefully none of us will be involved in the next one.
-- Edited by Desert Dweller on Thursday 22nd of February 2018 05:00:47 AM
The police, politicians, news people and the road safety industry
just love to climb on the bandwagon and blame drivers. It's easy,
it's popular because we all agree that *other* drivers are *bad*
whereas *we* are *good*, and it's almost impossible to prove them
wrong.
One never hears them blame lack of funding for road improvements or
the total lack of driver training in this country amongst other things.
There is a price to pay for moving a couple of tons of metal around a
random course at high speed with a human in real-time charge and 1225
deaths (2017) is probably around as low as that price will go
although I imagine reducing speed limits to 25kph would improve it?
So 1225 road deaths but 2866 suicides (2016) in Australia.
Where is the righteous outrage and the investment in resources to
reduce the suicide toll?
Of course that is much more difficult to do: reducing speed limits,
double demerit points, more speed cameras, reduced drink/drive levels
etc cost nothing to implement (indeed they make money) and allow the
police and politicians to throw up their hands saying "We've done all
we can" and blame driver behaviour.
But they are never challenged on suicide; groups of people don't
normally commit suicide together and the press generally give
suicides low or no coverage so we can just forget about them and
become all outraged when three people die in a vehicle accident. Easy.
If this issue is really about "saving lives" and not just "looking
good about pretending to save vehicle passengers lives" then, with
the road toll at such a low level, it would be good to see some of
the enormous budget committed to road safety and derived from speed
cameras redirected to reducing the suicide toll.
But I don't think that's going to happen. Too hard - easier just to
look good.
Sorry Woody, but that is not so at all. It is the rhetoric of those quick talking commentariat, the 'meeja' and gutless politicians who put populism with the media, especially the mammoth taxpayer-funded ABC, ahead of talking frankly and reasonably with the public to inform and consult.
'Zero' requires, mandates, being risk averse and we would never get out of the house or even out of bed if we are to attempt to avoid all risk. -But in so doing of course we indulge in behaviour that creates, trades off on, a plethora of new and different risks, such as the risks of obesity and the psychological and physical brain effects of limited interaction with what is about us and social.
The only reasonable approach is to identify and manage risks with well targeted and robust risk treatments, while accepting that some risk will always be there.
Also, we should be aware of the political stunts of politicians and others who want limelight and of the media with their favourite go-to cans to kick on slow news days: stirring with their big wooden spoons to ban this and ban that.
Of course police would be doing the politically correct 'crack downs' as governments demand some response from the police commissioners as 'proof positive' (more words of media hacks) of political 'solutions' - Qld's Courier Mail always carried the headline 'Police Blitz'. Not so long ago when the Qld govt was being criticised for lack of action on drug trafficking criminal gangs a police crack down on traffic offences 'proved' the police were doing something and took the headlines away from drug gangs. Crude, but politicians know how to divert attention.
However, none of that is to say that large transport cannot improve its safety record or that rogue operators should be tolerated. In the past, Lindsay Fox has commented on ways to improve safety.
Edited out repeated word
-- Edited by Leo on Thursday 22nd of February 2018 10:34:34 AM
[snip].
Woody