The ‘safety’ conundrum – in a nutshell.
Putting matters aeronautical aside for the moment; the following passage of play, for me at least, defines the dilemma in which the government, the enforcement agencies and the public find themselves.
Mr Mahon : In Queensland, it is a legal requirement to declare your medical condition if it has an impact on driving.
Senator O'SULLIVAN: There is one thing about a declaration—that is, if you do not declare. Do we have any measures at all, any due diligence that goes to determine—I mean, if I fill the form in and I say I do not suffer from epilepsy, I do not suffer from diabetes type 1, I do not suffer from some other condition that may materially impact on my ability at some stage to perform the function of driving this heavy vehicle, once I make that declaration, that is it? I am not trying to seek something out; I am just trying to come to understand it—is that it? It is a self-declaration, and that is that?
Mr Mahon : It is, but there are legal ramifications if something occurred.
Senator O'SULLIVAN: There certainly is if they live through the accident, but what about the family of six in the vehicle on the other end? I am somewhat—
Mr Stapleton : I am aware of a case in Queensland, last week, where someone failed to declare a medical condition and they are going to jail as a result of that because of the accident that occurred.
The final Stapleton paragraph defines the quandary. 'After the fact' – if you are proven to have broken a law, then, quite rightly, you will get the shit kicked out you; furry muff. The penalties for breaking the rules, in this case are severe. But are those rules a deterrent? Clearly not.
The government can only write rules and law etc. which, after the fact penalise the ‘wrong-doer’. The ‘agencies’ can enforce that law, provided they can prove the breach, after the fact. The ‘problem’ may only be addressed – after the fact; this is all that can be done. From a purely ‘safety’ standpoint, this is not enough; but the law makers can do no more; the enforcement agencies can do no more and yet ‘accidents’ continue to happen, despite the best efforts of those who make and enforce law.
The easiest route to explaining what I’m banging on about is to take a drive – say from home to the airport. Speed limits – there are penalties in place for speeding, which, after the fact – can be severe. There are ‘speed cameras’ which provide the evidence for prosecution – strict liability – pay the fine – loose the points; and, off you go again – trying not to get ‘done’. The spirit and the intent of that law is lost; despite the ‘revenue’ generated from the camera; the total cost to the nation of a high speed prang is great. A fatal prang, with multiple vehicles more expensive again, when you total the entire cost from delay, services, administration, hospitals, funerals and the cost to a family in terms of loss. Yet, despite all the deterrents, you can sit on the speed limit on any city major road and there will be vehicles, large and small, flying past you as though you were standing still; horns blaring, lights flashing, idiots sat on your back bumper etc. Why? Because you are obeying the law . Right or wrong law is debatable. Non the less, a law which was writ and is enforced with an aim to keep you and others safe.
The pro’s and con’s of the ‘speed’ control debate are too big a subject and I digress. To the point; there is little more ‘government’ can do, other than write law, which, after the fact, penalises. That law, no matter how erudite cannot prevent the ‘intent’ to break it. For a ‘safety case’ the law, standing alone cannot prevent an accident, no more than it can prevent murder or theft. So, what’s to be done to prevent an accident ‘before it becomes fact’.
Even the simplest of crimes, say illegal parking, is viewed more as gamble than a safety risk. Yet the fool parked on an intersection corner preventing you from seeing the oncoming traffic does not care about the potential for accident – just finding a ‘park’ within easy walking distance of destination. After the fact, the law may act – the driver may even get a ticket – but does that enforce the reason why the ‘No Parking’ sign is there? No, regrettably it does not. In the pub that same bloke will be bemoaning the fact that he was given a ticket – not admitting that he inconvenienced many other folk and may, potentially, have been the cause of an accident. Just pissed off because he got booked.
Law upon law keeps the legal profession busy, very busy indeed. There are some who say that myriad, complex law even promotes ‘criminality’ through the loop holes and wriggle room created within the complexity. But then, even the simplest rules have had very little real effect – look at the ten commandments (well it is Sunday)– only 10 of ‘em – and they get broken every day. So that system failed as well, although there is much support for the argument that it is harder to break a simple rule. Endless. I can only wish Glen Sterle and Barry O’Sullivan the very best in their quest to find a solution and be grateful it’s not me doing the job.
Aye well; there are many, much, much cleverer folk than I who can’t work it all out. But IMO it is apparent that layer upon layer of law will never help with prevention, only a cheap, easy conviction; about which the next offender will not give a continental. As we say in aviation – if you think safety is expensive – have an accident.
Toot – toot.
Putting matters aeronautical aside for the moment; the following passage of play, for me at least, defines the dilemma in which the government, the enforcement agencies and the public find themselves.
Mr Mahon : In Queensland, it is a legal requirement to declare your medical condition if it has an impact on driving.
Senator O'SULLIVAN: There is one thing about a declaration—that is, if you do not declare. Do we have any measures at all, any due diligence that goes to determine—I mean, if I fill the form in and I say I do not suffer from epilepsy, I do not suffer from diabetes type 1, I do not suffer from some other condition that may materially impact on my ability at some stage to perform the function of driving this heavy vehicle, once I make that declaration, that is it? I am not trying to seek something out; I am just trying to come to understand it—is that it? It is a self-declaration, and that is that?
Mr Mahon : It is, but there are legal ramifications if something occurred.
Senator O'SULLIVAN: There certainly is if they live through the accident, but what about the family of six in the vehicle on the other end? I am somewhat—
Mr Stapleton : I am aware of a case in Queensland, last week, where someone failed to declare a medical condition and they are going to jail as a result of that because of the accident that occurred.
The final Stapleton paragraph defines the quandary. 'After the fact' – if you are proven to have broken a law, then, quite rightly, you will get the shit kicked out you; furry muff. The penalties for breaking the rules, in this case are severe. But are those rules a deterrent? Clearly not.
The government can only write rules and law etc. which, after the fact penalise the ‘wrong-doer’. The ‘agencies’ can enforce that law, provided they can prove the breach, after the fact. The ‘problem’ may only be addressed – after the fact; this is all that can be done. From a purely ‘safety’ standpoint, this is not enough; but the law makers can do no more; the enforcement agencies can do no more and yet ‘accidents’ continue to happen, despite the best efforts of those who make and enforce law.
The easiest route to explaining what I’m banging on about is to take a drive – say from home to the airport. Speed limits – there are penalties in place for speeding, which, after the fact – can be severe. There are ‘speed cameras’ which provide the evidence for prosecution – strict liability – pay the fine – loose the points; and, off you go again – trying not to get ‘done’. The spirit and the intent of that law is lost; despite the ‘revenue’ generated from the camera; the total cost to the nation of a high speed prang is great. A fatal prang, with multiple vehicles more expensive again, when you total the entire cost from delay, services, administration, hospitals, funerals and the cost to a family in terms of loss. Yet, despite all the deterrents, you can sit on the speed limit on any city major road and there will be vehicles, large and small, flying past you as though you were standing still; horns blaring, lights flashing, idiots sat on your back bumper etc. Why? Because you are obeying the law . Right or wrong law is debatable. Non the less, a law which was writ and is enforced with an aim to keep you and others safe.
The pro’s and con’s of the ‘speed’ control debate are too big a subject and I digress. To the point; there is little more ‘government’ can do, other than write law, which, after the fact, penalises. That law, no matter how erudite cannot prevent the ‘intent’ to break it. For a ‘safety case’ the law, standing alone cannot prevent an accident, no more than it can prevent murder or theft. So, what’s to be done to prevent an accident ‘before it becomes fact’.
Even the simplest of crimes, say illegal parking, is viewed more as gamble than a safety risk. Yet the fool parked on an intersection corner preventing you from seeing the oncoming traffic does not care about the potential for accident – just finding a ‘park’ within easy walking distance of destination. After the fact, the law may act – the driver may even get a ticket – but does that enforce the reason why the ‘No Parking’ sign is there? No, regrettably it does not. In the pub that same bloke will be bemoaning the fact that he was given a ticket – not admitting that he inconvenienced many other folk and may, potentially, have been the cause of an accident. Just pissed off because he got booked.
Law upon law keeps the legal profession busy, very busy indeed. There are some who say that myriad, complex law even promotes ‘criminality’ through the loop holes and wriggle room created within the complexity. But then, even the simplest rules have had very little real effect – look at the ten commandments (well it is Sunday)– only 10 of ‘em – and they get broken every day. So that system failed as well, although there is much support for the argument that it is harder to break a simple rule. Endless. I can only wish Glen Sterle and Barry O’Sullivan the very best in their quest to find a solution and be grateful it’s not me doing the job.
Aye well; there are many, much, much cleverer folk than I who can’t work it all out. But IMO it is apparent that layer upon layer of law will never help with prevention, only a cheap, easy conviction; about which the next offender will not give a continental. As we say in aviation – if you think safety is expensive – have an accident.
Toot – toot.