Practicality writes an article exposing the stupid morass of over-regulation that dominates Australia state and federal government. One of the principles of republicanism is that spontaneous self-organization is superior to government regulation - the latter being far too coarse and often political to take in the local context or be as good as the judgement of an individual in any situation. There are areas where government regulation has a place, but for most purposes it carries the burden of inefficiency.

One of the issues facing government and the police is that speed signs have been delegitimized. They are too low for the road conditions, and worse they are becoming ever confusing and seemingly arbitrary in choice. So no-one really knows what the speed limit is at any one time so when they see a camera or a speed trap drivers throw out the anchors to 20kmh below the speed limit which is more dangerous than doing 15kmh above the speed limit and maintaining traffic flow.

Drivers - rightly - consider themselves better judges of driving conditions than any blanket speed limit:

The main determinants of driving speed were considered to be the weather conditions, the speed of other vehicles, the volume of traffic and the amount of time available to reach one's destination.

While the government is enforcing speed limits left-right-and-centre, drivers are making up their own minds what is sensible driving for the conditions. Government will never have any legitimacy in this area unless they match the reality of how people drive.

So what should government policy be? First remove all fixed forms of observation such as speeding cameras and red-light cameras. They are repugnant to liberty and do not solve the issue of safe driving. They cause more turbulence in the traffic flow than good and no-one considers them legitimate.

Secondly set the speed limit to the 85th percentile of traffic and reduce the number of speed limit signs to a couple. Further, let the police use their judgement of who is driving unsafely and who is not. It will mean some police will abuse this trust, just as some drivers will abuse the grey area of enforcement, however we put up with these people in other aspects of life and they can be dealt with by firing or in the courts when they whinge their guts out. We can accept some inefficiencies in this area to ensure greater efficiency in terms of traffic flow.

Thirdly: improve the roads. Connect the major cities at the very least with dual-carriageways that are 21st century road technology - like decent asphalt.
Cam Riley: South Sea Republic. Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic.

Comments
  • adam . # . 1/1
    Red light cameras? Seriously? I don't think I've ever heard people seriously object to them before - because red lights are not routinely run, and running them is widely recognised as dangerous. Whereas anyone who drives recognises it is sometimes safer to do slightly over the speed limit.

    The other problem I have with this argument is because of bad road design, allowing traffic behaviour to evolve in an emergent way is a great way to screw bicyclists and pedestrians. So, to bring in the UI metaphor, we have to put in a big error dialog hack of traffic calming etc when you shouldn't be able to press the button at all at that time.
    Give me utilitiy or give me something slightly better!
    • cam . # .
      I got pinged by a red light camera in 1989(?) in Sydney near Sydney Uni. It was when they first put them in there. Anyway I dawdled through the lights at 40kmh when getting caught in no-mans land with stop/go through. I got photographed. The annoyance was that if I had of sped through the lights at 90kmh then I would not have been caught. They lack context.

      IIRC a couple of counties here got caught shortening the amber interval to increase revenue. Other studies from US DOTs have shown that increasing the amber interval lets drivers make good decisions and decreases people running the lights. So again, no need for the cameras, adjusting to allow emergent behaviour works.

      I think town planning and roads(traffic) are another issue. I am comfortable with roads being changed to accomodate pedestrians/bikers explicitly rather than the tack on they are now.

      'Sworn to no party, and of no sect am I.' Frederick Vosper's republican motto.