Slovenia has too many accidents for its population, including those with the worst consequences. We have a poor driving culture. Traffic rules and signals are often ignored. Some foreign motor-racing federations and associations also warn their drivers about this. Proposed measures:
a.     Penalty policy. Here a strict distinction should be made between unintentional offences and objective offences. The difference is enormous - one only has to ask the surviving victims and the relatives of the deceased. This includes, in addition to deliberate speeding, driving under the influence of psychoactive substances, alcoholic beverages, using the telephone while driving and, in my opinion, smoking. This is objectivism, deliberately causing accidents and endangering general safety, with the most serious consequences. The division of those who cause accidents into 'poor' and 'rich' when punished is nonsense, because there is no difference between the consequences of irresponsible behaviour; both poor and rich drivers can kill and destroy. The current treatment of such 'drivers' is a mere and dangerous inducement. The impression is given that the various speed bumps and at least some roundabouts (roundabouts), which are funded by taxpayers' money, are intended for them, but the fact is that they also hinder vehicles on intervention runs(!), not to mention their negative impact in winter, in the worst driving conditions (fog, icy conditions)... Definitely an inadequate solution. Radars can only track "poachers", but not all traffic offenders. These are immature personalities. In their hands, the vehicle is just like a firearm, and the rest of us road users are just helpless hostages. They should therefore be punished drastically, for a warning to others (permanent confiscation of the vehicle and driving licence with a permanent driving ban), and other offences should be dealt with and punished according to the existing tariff. Survivors and relatives of the deceased will attest to this.
b.    Speed limits for vehicles of different categories. For heavier vehicles, in addition to the speed limit, the effect of the linear component (mass) of heavier vehicles, especially tractors and those with trailers, must be taken into account. At the same speed, the kinetic energy of these vehicles is several times greater than that of lighter vehicles due to their mass, braking distances are considerably longer and the destructive power in accidents is disproportionately greater due to their greater mass. Therefore, all other things being equal, the speeds of heavier vehicles should be more limited.
c.     Change in legislation. If nothing else, at least before any change in traffic legislation, the state of traffic signals everywhere should be reviewed, illogicalities, defects, defects and deficiencies should be eliminated. Users of traffic routes would certainly be involved in this, as it is in their common interest to do so, since they use them daily, know them and would report their observations to the various associations, for example the AMZS, which in turn would pass them on. Just like vehicles, roads need to be in perfect condition. This way of finding out and informing is efficient and inexpensive.
d.    Existing legislation is too servile even to heavier vehicles (lorries). At the very least, they cause congestion and, given that they destroy the roads much more than cars, the user charge they pay is only symbolic and should be increased. Wherever possible, freight traffic should be diverted to the railways.