Original article published Novermber 2010 in:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/speed-camera-sceptics-endanger-us-all-20101122-183ot.html
What are shaping up as the big issues for the upcoming Victorian election? Health? Education? The environment? According to leaked ALP strategy documents, the topic that will swing many Victorians is the critical question of speed camera fines.
If you are to believe the stories on some commercial network current affairs programs, or the claims on websites such as aussiespeedingfines.com, the government has created "the miss-perception [sic] that speed kills" in order to strip you of your "driving rights". Yes, the Victorian government has apparently been colluding with governments from around the world, police, scientists, economists and health workers to perpetuate the absurd notion that speed and safety are somehow interrelated.
In order to claim that excessive speed isn't dangerous, the critics pretty much have to deny basic science. While Newton's laws of motion have been shown to be remarkably consistent and accurate since 1687, speed conspiracy theorists simply shrug off ideas such as force being the product of mass multiplied by acceleration; never mind that it was the very knowledge of such concepts that helped lead to the invention of automobiles in the first place. You can't have your physics and eat it too.
But in addition to those denying the basic science, there are even more people out there who fervently believe that speed cameras are all about revenue raising – a golden egg that bumps up the "coffers" of "greedy governments". Such people will write endless letters to the paper, buy "ghost plates" to obscure their registration number or GPS apps that alert them to speed camera hotspots – even change their vote – rather than just simply drive within the speed limit. Really, it's not that hard – you just match the big number on the sign to the little number on your speedo.
These sceptics most frequently rely on anecdotal evidence, online polls by interest groups and conclusions inferred from other related data to feed the public misinformation about speeding. When it comes to producing any properly designed, peer-reviewed research by independent bodies to support their claims, they generally fall mysteriously quiet. On the other hand, an increasing amount of research designed to test the efficacy of speed cameras is proving their benefits.
The University of Queensland, for example, released research last month that reviewed 35 existing studies and concluded that speed cameras (both fixed and mobile) reduced the average speed of drivers and lessened the chance of serious injury crashes and deaths in both urban and rural areas.
Whether or not they raise revenue, I would argue, is inconsequential. If they punish drivers who make the deliberate and calculated decision to speed and put others at risk, then I say bring on the tax. Anyway, the revenue raising argument loses a bit of its potency when you compare the estimated $437 million revenue from speed cameras in 2009-2010 and the actual cost of road trauma in the state, which is nearly $4 billion per year.
It's important to note that no one – governments, academics, "wowsers" like me – is arguing that speed alone is responsible for all traffic accidents. However, even where speed isn't the sole cause, the severity of injuries and likelihood of death are far greater when vehicles are travelling at higher speeds. It's that basic physics again.
Nor is anyone arguing that speed cameras should be the only weapon in the road safety arsenal. Better driver education, greater police presence and increased roadworthy standards, for example, are all critical parts of the safety equation. But properly functioning speed cameras do represent one of the most cost-effective ways of changing behaviour, deterring speeding and catching those who do.
For those still in doubt, I invite you to imagine the following scenario: Your six-year-old son is walking out of school and notices friends on the other side of the road. Without thinking or looking, as children so often do, he runs straight into the path of an oncoming car. Now, does it matter to you whether the driver was doing the 40-kilometre speed limit or do you maintain your faith that speed is largely irrelevant and feel ambivalent on discovering that the driver was doing 50 or even 60 km/h? As you sit outside the emergency department waiting to hear whether or not your son will survive, do you wish the driver had previously been caught by a camera in the vicinity of your son's school or do you still bemoan the "nanny state" and all its "rules"?
I'd put money on the fact that most speed camera sceptics have never felt the first-hand effects of road trauma. Perhaps if they had, they might realise that driving over and above the posted speed limit isn't actually a "right". In doing so, they might even make the roads safer for the rest of us.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Friday, November 5, 2010
Fashion: It's big, it's bland
First published in the National Times in November 2010
With the spring racing carnival in full swing, don't expect to open a newspaper or turn on the telly without being confronted by the really important questions facing the world today: Fascinator or floral head dress? Should dresses be over or above the knee? And can you really wear a "nude"-coloured dress without appearing washed out?
Try as I might, I can't think of another industry on which we waste so much energy, money and media real estate and that contributes so little to the common good. And there is no other time of the year where fashion becomes such a sycophantic orgy as during the spring racing carnival. The fashion blather reaches its zenith today, Oaks Day, traditionally ladies day at the track.
Newspaper articles tell us what we can and can't wear, "experts" publicly rank race-goers on whether they have passed or failed some arbitrary test of style, and the news coverage will show us yet another woman falling on her face after getting a stiletto caught in the grass. Really, are we all that bored, or gullible, as to put up with this stuff?
From bewildering fashion shows such as a recent one from London Fashion Week, where designer Charlie Le Mindu sent expressionless models down the catwalk naked, to Lady Gaga's recent fashion shoot for Vogue in which she wore an outfit made entirely from cuts of raw beef, it's easy to find many examples of the frivolous and utterly preposterous nature of fashion. And from magazines that present and promote a physical ideal that most of us cannot attain, to high-heeled shoes that inhibit a woman's ability to do something as fundamental as freely walking around, you can also point to the industry's somewhat harmful nature. Despite all this though, what really infuriates me about fashion is the utter waste of it all.
At a time when more and more people are installing water tanks or collecting 4c/litre petrol savings dockets, we still elevate an industry that celebrates – indeed, is built upon the concept of – such pointless wastage.
It is astonishing to think that otherwise sane people can be convinced to change their wardrobe every season, discarding perfectly good clothes on which they spent not-insubstantial amounts of money just because some self-appointed fashion guru said so. It is mind-boggling to think that an otherwise fairly rational person could possibly justify spending $2000 on a handbag.
But, of course, money is not the only casualty in this endless loop of consumerism.
What about all the thousands of animals slaughtered for their hides because the leather look is apparently back "in" this year? What thought is given to the water required to irrigate the cotton crop, and the fossil fuels burnt during production and transportation of the distressed jeans that are supposed the "must have" item of the season? And, of course, when you're looking for a cheeky little number to wear to Oaks Day, it's easy to conveniently ignore the fact that the majority of Australian-made clothing is produced by a workforce of 300,000 migrant outworkers who, according to the Fairwear campaign, earn as little as $3 per hour and work 18-hour days. Clothes made using overseas labour are likely to have been produced by workers who face even worse conditions.
Sure, there is a place for self-expression via clothing, a growing interest in second-hand garments and some designers are attempting to be more ethical. But in a consumer-driven, image-conscious world, it can be easy to get lost in the belief that, as designer Vivienne Westwood so succinctly put it, "fashion is very important". Really? What about climate change? Or the 13 million people still affected by the Pakistan floods? Sometimes it pays to remember that fashion is one of the most unimportant things in the world.
Perhaps it is time, in a week when the media is likely to be soaked with talk of frocks and frills and flowers in button holes, for us to re-examine the degree to which we have elevated an ultimately pointless, profit-driven and self-serving industry. Maybe we should stop to consider the environmental and social costs involved in discarding good clothes because they are "so last season".
See the original article at: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/its-big-its-bland-its-fashion-20101103-17do4.html
With the spring racing carnival in full swing, don't expect to open a newspaper or turn on the telly without being confronted by the really important questions facing the world today: Fascinator or floral head dress? Should dresses be over or above the knee? And can you really wear a "nude"-coloured dress without appearing washed out?
Try as I might, I can't think of another industry on which we waste so much energy, money and media real estate and that contributes so little to the common good. And there is no other time of the year where fashion becomes such a sycophantic orgy as during the spring racing carnival. The fashion blather reaches its zenith today, Oaks Day, traditionally ladies day at the track.
Newspaper articles tell us what we can and can't wear, "experts" publicly rank race-goers on whether they have passed or failed some arbitrary test of style, and the news coverage will show us yet another woman falling on her face after getting a stiletto caught in the grass. Really, are we all that bored, or gullible, as to put up with this stuff?
From bewildering fashion shows such as a recent one from London Fashion Week, where designer Charlie Le Mindu sent expressionless models down the catwalk naked, to Lady Gaga's recent fashion shoot for Vogue in which she wore an outfit made entirely from cuts of raw beef, it's easy to find many examples of the frivolous and utterly preposterous nature of fashion. And from magazines that present and promote a physical ideal that most of us cannot attain, to high-heeled shoes that inhibit a woman's ability to do something as fundamental as freely walking around, you can also point to the industry's somewhat harmful nature. Despite all this though, what really infuriates me about fashion is the utter waste of it all.
At a time when more and more people are installing water tanks or collecting 4c/litre petrol savings dockets, we still elevate an industry that celebrates – indeed, is built upon the concept of – such pointless wastage.
It is astonishing to think that otherwise sane people can be convinced to change their wardrobe every season, discarding perfectly good clothes on which they spent not-insubstantial amounts of money just because some self-appointed fashion guru said so. It is mind-boggling to think that an otherwise fairly rational person could possibly justify spending $2000 on a handbag.
But, of course, money is not the only casualty in this endless loop of consumerism.
What about all the thousands of animals slaughtered for their hides because the leather look is apparently back "in" this year? What thought is given to the water required to irrigate the cotton crop, and the fossil fuels burnt during production and transportation of the distressed jeans that are supposed the "must have" item of the season? And, of course, when you're looking for a cheeky little number to wear to Oaks Day, it's easy to conveniently ignore the fact that the majority of Australian-made clothing is produced by a workforce of 300,000 migrant outworkers who, according to the Fairwear campaign, earn as little as $3 per hour and work 18-hour days. Clothes made using overseas labour are likely to have been produced by workers who face even worse conditions.
Sure, there is a place for self-expression via clothing, a growing interest in second-hand garments and some designers are attempting to be more ethical. But in a consumer-driven, image-conscious world, it can be easy to get lost in the belief that, as designer Vivienne Westwood so succinctly put it, "fashion is very important". Really? What about climate change? Or the 13 million people still affected by the Pakistan floods? Sometimes it pays to remember that fashion is one of the most unimportant things in the world.
Perhaps it is time, in a week when the media is likely to be soaked with talk of frocks and frills and flowers in button holes, for us to re-examine the degree to which we have elevated an ultimately pointless, profit-driven and self-serving industry. Maybe we should stop to consider the environmental and social costs involved in discarding good clothes because they are "so last season".
See the original article at: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/its-big-its-bland-its-fashion-20101103-17do4.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)