Rail Safety

[#Metro]

20 years of the TAC in Victoria since the first road accident campaigns began.
Warning: There are some truly awful scenes in the link that i wouldn't wish upon anyone.

http://www.youtube.com/user/TACVictoria?feature=pyv&ad=3989142261&kw=tac%20advertising%20campaigns&gclid=CJDnyrSU-Z4CFUYwpAodxE_iJQ#p/u/44/YfHsLCR-yjM

Watching these made me think of boom gates and the many people that drive through them.
(There was another rail safety thread with regards to boom gates etc. Newer topics have since crowded it out. Perhaps Safety could be a sub board)

Nevertheless, by analogy with the TAC, I think the Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) would be better positioned to include the crossing issue in its road campaigns. QR traditionally does this, but role of QR is the operator of rail services not the regulator, which is TMR.

Level crossing incidents involving cars are are likely to be due to the car doing something is shouldn't do.
Although QR has its own safety campaigns, I wonder whether the reach is far enough or targeted at the right people as car drivers probably don't spend any amount of time on trains or near railways to come into contact with the safety campaign material. It is simply not included in public road safety advertisements.

Indeed I can't remember any time I have seen a road campaign that included a level crossing and a train. Ever.
Time to include level crossing crashes in the mix. QR pleading with motorists does not seem to cross the divide, people just don't think about trains when they drive. Why should they?

[#Metro]

Oh and another thing. QLD needs an overhaul of transport accidents. We focus on "road safety" and "rail safety" when really it could be broader "transport safety". Our insurance scheme is also seems to pale when compared to Victoria's TAC. Just look at the bits that I've boldened. I'm assuming that 'driver' also encompasses drivers of trains, buses and trams. Victoria has no citycat. I assume that passengers would also include passengers on a bus, train or tram if they were injured.

The insurance is 'no fault', unlike QLD. In QLD if there is no-one at fault (ie. bus hits tree with no passengers on board, then I guess that means you can't claim.) I'm not 100% sure if it would cover accidents on the railways where someone crosses tracks etc, but it seems that they cover that as well. As the state insurer it makes the campaigns and has a direct financial incentive to reduce the road toll (it can pay out less claims if it does so).


What the TAC does

What the TAC Does

Delivering benefits

The TAC covers transport accidents directly caused by the driving of a car, motorcycle, bus, train or tram. The organisation pays benefits to people injured in an accident as a:

   * driver,
   * passenger,
   * pedestrian,
   * motorcyclist, or
   * cyclist.

The TAC can pay for the costs of reasonable medical treatment that a person needs to treat injuries sustained in a transport accident. Services the TAC can pay for include ambulance, hospital, medical, chemist, therapy, dental and nursing services.

The TAC can also pay for the reasonable cost of other, non-medical, services and items a person needs due to injuries form the accident. For example, travel costs to attend treatment, or for special equipment to help overcome accident injuries.

The types of treatment and benefits the TAC pays for will depend on: what can be paid under the legislation; a person's individual circumstances; and what is reasonable in relation to the need for and cost of the service.

Other types of benefits the TAC can pay include income, impairment and common law benefits.

The TAC is committed to delivering these benefits to injured people in a caring, efficient and financially responsible way.

[mufreight]

The question arises of what has happened to personal responsibility, such a scheme has some merit but a better outcome would be that any compensation should be tied to any level of responsibility for the accident that has caused the incident and all costs arising from the incident should be met by the person or entity responsible for the incident.
The insurers would then by higher rates deter further risky actions and those who then decide that the insurance costs are unaffordable would then become totaly liable for their actions with the government fund meeting the shortfall rather than as the vistorian system seems to work pay all costs including those of the person or entity that was responsible for the incident which has no deterrent effect and simply has the taxpayer again paying in full for the risky or negligent actions of those responsible.