Originally Posted by ABCDiamond

As Australia has more cars per population than the UK, then it is obvious that Australia will have a higher incidence per population than the UK for example.

That is one reason why the rate per 10,000 vehicles is commonly used.



Looking at that, it appears that using the "reported fatalities per 10,000 motor vehicles" is NOT actually twisting statistics, but is the norm, for country safety record comparisons.

Originally Posted by Broad Shoulders

your list is in order of lowest to highest though

Originally Posted by ABCDiamond

Yes.

Originally Posted by Broad Shoulders

the other problem I have with that method of comparison is that I cannot see how it can account for deaths of pedestrians, hence why I would have thought the per capita option would be the most accurate

Originally Posted by The Woodcutter

Traffic offences are strict liability. Pay up and get over it.

Originally Posted by ABCDiamond

It is interesting, when removing the Northern Territory from the list, how the figures change. eg:

0.77 Victoria, Australia


On the original topic, it is possible to challenge a ticket. Done it and been successful. But not done a red light ticket.

Originally Posted by The Woodcutter

Traffic offences are strict liability. Pay up and get over it.

Originally Posted by Broad Shoulders

true but again that is twisting stats. You have to do it by population rather than vehicle as by doing it per vehicle you would need to understand the average number of passengers per vehicle

Originally Posted by Deancm

Of course you can contest traffic offences.

Originally Posted by ossigeno

I have seen people successfully challenge traffic offences in court. I've seen others have their vehicle registered in a company name and cannot identify the driver, preventing demerit points. Therefore you may choose to 'pay up and get over it' but others may choose to consider their options.