Some might like to read this as well.
Road trauma Australia statistical report 2017
https://bitre.gov.au/publications/ongoing/files/Road_Trauma_Australia_2017III.pdf
From the summary
48% of fatalities occur in or near major urban zones. That might be where many of us do most of our driving? Also where the road environment is constantly changing.
45% of fatalities occur in 100kph or higher speed zone. That would be on major highways and country roads? Also where every second a vehicle is 28m or more distant from when the driver last looked out the window.
P.S.
The opinion piece from âWhichcarâ does make some good points about driver behaviour and the relationship to training.
It neglects âpersonal behavioursâ (personality) as a factor.
Typically the author engages with the perennial of all motoring journalists - that speed limits are too low, the law is inconsistent, and speed cameras are only for revenue raising. Naturally attentive drivers always know the speed limit and never get caught, so there should be no issue with that one either?
Based on statistics Australia has reduced the maximum speed limits in many places in order to reduce accidents, injuries and deaths on the roads.
Weâve done this in urban areas (50 kph unless signposted otherwise), near schools and other institutions (eg 40 kph at certain times), and in other areas (20 kph maximum speed).
We have learnt that 70-80-90 kph is too high a maximum where pedestrians are crossing the road (and either lowered the maximum limit or constructed pedestrian overpasses etc).
Yet we have failed to apply the same logic and study of cause & effect to other roads. Quite the opposite, the push is always on to increase the maximum speed limit - ignoring the fact that lowering maximum speeds reduces both the severity and incidence of accidents.
There will always be someone who says âIf you lower the limit from 100 to 90, I will just drive ten kph over the signposted maximumâ No use trying to âpleaseâ these folks as they will do 100 in a 90 zone, 110 in a 100 zone, 120 in a 110 zone, etc - as Mark_M says it is a personality behaviour.
While having no citations the comments reflect those in many places. If it was only about speed how could any of this be?
http://allkmc.com/how-to-survive-the-german-autobahn/
One also has to continue reading this few years old report after reaching what some âwant to readââŠ
The German autobahns are built principally with safety and speed in mind. Australian and most other roads around the world are designed for capacity and flow. I am sure that if our roads were designed the same way autobahns are, as a whole, we could argue against the lowering of speed limits on roads or requesting upper speed limits be increased where appropriate.
In Qld at least, the authorities have found a cheaper alternative to fixing the roads by simply reducing the speed limits.
On the Bruce Goat Track, aka, the âBruce Highwayâ, there are at least 3 sections which have been downgraded from 100 km/h to 90 km/h, and have remained at the lower speed limit for years.
One section is north of Gympie, one section is north of Gin Gin and one section is in the Cowley area in FNQ.
New speed limit signs are much cheaper than road repairs and it also creates opportunities for more speed traps.
You have âarguedâ a problem that is beyond âjust speedâ 
Not necessarily road repair. I am familiar with the Gympie section as used to drive along this from time to time for work. This section is a known head on crash hotspot and I understand that the speed limit was reduced as response to such. To prevent crashes in this section would possibly require duplication of highway (barrier separation between direction of flow) and also removing blind spots where inappropriate overtaking occurs.
I suppose at the end of the day Queensland Transport has to determine if the cost of the additional ~5 minutes of journey time over the whole section for all drivers is better than redirecting potentially $100s millions (if not billions) of road funding to upgrade the same section of road to the detriment of other state controlled roads.
The other solution could be to substantially increase taxes to pay for road we wish we had.
Really puts a new slant onto âriding shotgunâ.
Why is it that drivers wanting to turn right at an intersection pesrsit in getting to the left side of the lane as far as they can?
Even the Translink/Sunbus drivers do so, thus making it impossible for drivers wanting to turn left to get past whilst these idiots are waiting to turn right.
Of course it is often unclear as to whether they actually intend to turn right or left as they do not bother to use their indicators, at least prior to actually turning.
I just wish I had known about this auction beforehand.
Those 2 machine guns would be very handy for re-educating these type of drivers.
There seems to be a problem in that drivers donât know what indicators are for. The law only says that the driver must indicate (IIRC). What is doesnât say is that the reason for indicating to to inform others of your intention. To that end, indicating after the start of the manoeuvre might satisfy the letter of the law, but doesnât achieve the intended outcome. For what itâs worth, I generally try to begin indicating about ten seconds before a turn.
Category âRâ weapons license required in Qld, unless you have some other form of license you are not telling us about.
Of corse in all the Bond films the collateral damage of any simulated weapons use or stunts is strictly controlled. Not so simple in the real world.
Nice to know you have access to $9.4M if I need a loan though. 
An article regarding a road rule question in WA along with some hilarious answers.
When road rules are more than 500 pages filled with technicalities, many rules that are not enforced excepting when there is a complaint lodged, others that are enforced by discretion, and all that have penalties, the only people who do not think there is a problem are those who receive revenue and those who think adding to the burdens of understanding it all will in any way improve road safety and their like-minded constituencies.
Fewer but consistent road rules, all harmonised across the country, would likely (certainly my opinion, might also have some substance) promote better road safety than the dogs breakfast of this and that, and adding a rule for every accident that occurs in an attempt to prevent another instance of it.
In some ways the question is poorly expressed. The question may have been better if it asked, âwhen is it legal or cross a solid centre lineâ?
Iâm with you on that one.
Any one bored might like to look to the following on Qld traffic laws and come to their own conclusions. Certainly in Qld contrary to WA you cannot do a U-turn across a solid centre line, and there appears to be no written exemption which allows a driver to cross the centre line to avoid obstacles. Only permitted when there is a cyclist? However there are some very interesting parking rules, including leaving at least a 3m clear distance between a parked vehicle and solid centre line. Perhaps it is at the discretion of plod as to whether the WA circumstance would cause an infringement to be issued in Qld.
A young lady who works at a bike shop got ticketed for parking too close to that centreline after parking in the same location for years (Vic). it seems someone was perturbed about the cars parking on the street to patronise the bike shop and other businesses, so rang the council.
Since then our parking rules have become even more convoluted. My fav still on the books is a blanket prohibition about parking on nature strips, but Melbourne metro would go into permanent gridlock if most of us did not. Now and again someone will get a ticket when a council needs revenue or a neighbour complains. I cannot imagine how many lives (or gas line breaks) that un-enforced rule saves.
An article regarding a basic road rule that many âdriversâ do not understand.
And the explanation of why Australian drivers are so bad.
In 1971 when I got my first Qld license the written tests were fill in the blanks not tick boxes. I was told by a mate that if I suffixed every answer with âand avoid an accidentâ I would get a pass. I donât remember how many answer I got right or wrong from the technical part of each response but I passed first go.
Today the concept of âand avoid an accidentâ seems long gone while a tacit requirement to enforce ones rights to ones part of the road at all costs seems to have taken over for an increasing number of drivers. Camera for that?
No surprise there. The testing instructor always followed up with a few oral questions concerning the road rules. His choice concerning how hard or easy they might be. Based on their personal assessment of the victim, or according to others, mood on the day?
If you had waited just a few years longer to when Qld road rules went metric? The whole numbers of 8, 10, 20, 50 feet etc were direct converted to metres to 2 decimal places, âtruncatedâ and not rounded. IE accuracy of 1cm or 3/8â. Rarely seen in everyday motoring, but common in a demolition derby of F1 inside passing move. This was apparently to avoid potential conflicts in applying the law if taken to court. Subsequently someone has seen past this and changed them to sensible numbers.
Perhaps we still need as @Fred123 appears to suggest, to look beyond the obvious commentary on confused drivers to a confused system, that produces confused drivers. It may also explain why the CornFlake packet analogy still works. Test all drivers thoroughly and we would all fail!
