End revenue deaths - conquer the RAM

[candor]

I suggest a campaign for an inquiry to adverse effects of quotas - or more broadly to rd safety.
KB is one of the most organised multi skilled lobbies in NZ. Members have made valuable long term contributions to road safety, as usual ignored on the whole. But this is a key juncture with the Govt walking thin ice as it tries to impose a 10 year road safety plan that is a dog.

If NZ really wants to change the answer to who's next the most intensive researhers say that getting rid of GER/RAM ie the "greatest enforceable risk" advertising policy and the Resource Allocation Model (intensive MoT quota study within our shores post 2002 - RAM).

National's Steven Joyce has declined requests from 3 organisations including the AA to review how revenue raising increases trauma. First request was from Akila Foundation to review the crash analysis ysatem for corrupted statistics that overrepresent quota issues. Second request was from the AA to review the road safety program from an injury prevention versus revenue focus. Third request by Candor Trust incorporated both ideas and was to look at the operation of the quota system and it's adverse effects.

All requests that were well supported with statistics and pretty graphs were summarily dismissed.

The Candor Trust therefore petitioned the Labour party re this a couple mths ago, and are getting a good hearing. Charles Chauvel is currently reviewing our submission - and has forwarded it to Clayton Cosgrove and Lianne Dalziel for comment.

Labour has all the facts tidily presented, so can make an issue of this... the usual (and I've dealt with lots of families of innocent persons killed or hurt by Police idiocy) is a short media field day, an inquiry that refuses to go there re quotas and at best just lays personal blame or more likely weak criticism, then there is a time lapse befor it all happens again. While the last victim becomes a faint memory.

Want to kick off the anti quota carnage campaign then step 1 is easy as fresh groundwork laid

Please if you're happy to do so; e-mail to Charles Chauvel with cc to Darien Fenton, Lianne Dalziel and Clayton Cosgrove and Annette King support of Candor Trusts request for a full review of how revenue goggles create severe conflicts with road safety (see submissions in post below sent to Labour 26/3/2010).
It is not just a rare incident or cost of business - it undermines safety totally putting us in the worst stats in the OECD. Have no doubt - it's the fact we're crawling with roving meter maids that got us here. We had Nat Police Spokesman Chester Borrows "up to speed" (no pun intended) before elections but that JK puled in the Green guy Joyce, who is clueless, and advised by morons.

Charles.Chauvel@parliament.govt.nz (why him - because he is clued up, a mover/shaker and an economist with public health specialty)
darien.fenton@parliament.govt.nz (transport spokeswoman - also been given the goods in March so should be onto it)

[Okey Dokey]

Thanks for the information and suggested course of action.

[Mom]

Word to the wise here, dont want to be a critic, but most members will not even bother to read that post. Far too many words in one post. May I suggest you break that up into bite sized pieces.

[bombsquad]

I think the biggest problem you will encounter is the fact that the police still deny there is a revenue quota system in place, they say officers must "make contact" (no pun intended) with X amount of members of the public per day, this does not mean fining them everytime, though we know this is the way they operate.

Sorry if this is not relevant to your post but like Mom said I lost intrest in your big post pretty much after the second paragraph

[candor]

It's no problem that one quota denial - we have bulk documented evidence of the system, so that argument crumbles fast. The quota computer programs etc we got all that under the OIA. Just to clarify it is a top level group within MoT called NRSC but controlled by outside advisors (world bank) dictating behind scenes. MoT policy writers need to get their heads given back. No more puppets - this is why AA says return control to MOT. Its not meaning move it from one group within MoT to another, but rather to let policy writers do their job ie lead policy analysis/development. Sack NRSC management group and we can get back to evidential based policy.

Here is what we requested after the meeting with Labour brass to discuss political reality (that some revenue is still needed but doing it safely may be achievable); All that follows is part of what we put on the table of matriarch Annette King

Suggested 4 point plan to retreat from Safer Journeys experimental quicksand

An expanded issues range, more "evidence based" than "revenue based" and a more infrastructural approach is urgent. By far the most reported injury crash cause in the Crash Analysis System is “poor observation” (47%) and as there is no major commitment to safety engineering, contending with this and causes like fatigue, drugs and carelessness are priorities.

The AA say “The current system of crash data collection and management is very much based on the Greatest Enforceable Risk proposition that road safety can be addressed through enforcement…Unfortunately the performance of this approach during the past decade has not achieved any reduction in road user risk (in social cost per vehicle kilometre travelled) nor does the evidence collected by the system support this proposition”.

1. Move control from NRSC to MoT and stakeholders with better initiatives to follow from injury prevention evidence –in contrast to high risk modeling of enforcement experiments.

Ministry of Transport should review all current and planned Road Safety related expenditure – not just the apparently detrimental boy racer legislation – doing so in terms of injury prevention
The AA believes that Government should review road safety programs in terms of injury prevention rather than revenue collection, starting with the RAM formula. It should never operate at harmfully high quota strength or in manners that cause excess conflict eg high fines for breaches of learner license resulting in triggered pursuits. There is ignored compelling evidence a 0.05 alcohol limit will increase deaths in the problem group – young males/Maori.

MoT to take over research and information gathering role and policy formation to be research and evidence based, rather than continuing the current method NRSC steers, either regardless of evidence or while trying to create supportive evidence eg the proposed study into frequency of low blood alcohol in crashes as a means to smoothly implement a limit drop.
Road safety has only advanced well in other countries when non governmental advisory committees with issue task forces steer policy, as Governments can like NZ has be too fixated on revenue to the detriment of road safety, so we recommend that a lead committee of broad representation deal by taskforces with the 5 key areas AA identified
• Inattention and distraction • Safer Roads and Roadsides • Road User Education and Information • Safety of Younger Drivers • Alcohol and Drug Impaired Driving.

Following a 100 car naturalistic study and literature review upgrade CAS to become a useful crash analysis system, rather than primarily an evaluative tool for the operation of RAM. Per the AA “Important data, such as the deployment of airbags at crash scenes, is not recorded in CAS. CAS is not integrated with the driver license system or the motor vehicle register. Both of these systems too are deficient in recording important information such as the safety qualities of the vehicles (eg ABS brakes) or the driver (e.g. license status and past history).
Furthermore, at the barest minimum fatigue and drug impairment factors must be integrated to crash investigations say Candor, by inclusion in the Traffic Crash Report with mandatory collection of evidence to affirm or deny drug driving being performed on every occasion where a crashing driver is alcohol tested in fitting with ERSO recs.

The research/information system, once made useful, must be integrated into the operational system - the Ministry of Transport should undertake a review of information systems and development and in its role of policy adviser and manager bring research systems that go well beyond just CAS under its purview, so as to inform up to date policy. Policy writers often seem to be poorly versed in road safety but full of delusions about speed and alcohol issues (the nature and best policies).

4. Accommodate inattention / error with forgiving roads or speeds, curtail risk raiser pursuits

Support KiwiRap. Stop fund wastage by councils on urban beautification and traffic calming - median barriers should run the length of SH1 to Christchurch and of SH2 in 100kph zones, with regular passing lanes where practicable. The Australian Government has announced that it will invest $22.3 billion in Australia’s land transport system from 2009-10 to 2013-14 under Auslink 2. This is a 41 per cent increase on the current Auslink programme and the biggest investment in land transport infrastructure ever made.

As the AA and Candor both supported in SJ submissions, use speed zoning (creating areas with 50 and 80kph open road speeds) where it is clear no engineering treatments are available soon, and there is a history of speed related crashes.

Urgently add mandatory booster seats to the milieu for all children

Make greater use of technology eg ANPR and police coordination in preference to high speed pursuits, and reduce discretion to pursue at over 140 kph to situations where a major crime has occurred or someone eg a kidnapped passenger is in immediate danger. Remove discretion to chase young drivers, motorcyclists and suspected impaired drivers if they have not stopped quickly and are accelerating. Film fugitives, trace them later and add a tradable penalty of vehicle confiscation or 6 months home detention for running.

Undertake an engineering program that goes beyond black spot treatments and the pitiful goal of reducing 100 yearly "head on collision" deaths by 10 via medians. Require roading authorities to divide all roads over 6000 vehicles (with safe barriers).

Scrap the following pitiful goals – so pathetic when 100 die in head on crashes yearly;
"(Safer Journeys) intend to focus on run-off road and head-on crashes as they are the most common crash types. We will initially target highest risk rural roads – those that carry over 15,000 vehicles per day, in particular the RoNS. A road with 15,000 vehicles per day has roughly five head-on crashes per 10km every five years. Some New Zealand roads carry 15,000 – 20,000 vehicles per day but do not have median barriers. Installing median barriers on all high risk high volume rural roads is estimated to save 8 to 10 lives per year".

[CookMySock]

I found your post very interesting and compelling. Thank you for what you do. I wish I had your skills.

Punctuation and paragraphs are more important than colours and fonts, but those who don't want to read it or do something about it probably don't want to do much else either.

Steve

[candor]

thx for listening - I get RSI so type and edit lazily as it hurts. I think we can get critical mass - so many are working away on this stuff - combined efforts of trainers, groups like BADD, Crossroads, Bronz, KB, groups alreay mentioned, individuals like the bikers previously taken out in u-turns. A lot of people are getting informed - all that's needed then is continued pushing in relative unison. If NZ can't sort this unsavoury shit I despair - if its not sorted within another 2 years I quit being a Kiwi, Perth calls.

[CookMySock]

combined efforts of trainers, groups like BADD, Crossroads, Bronz, KB, groups alreay mentioned, individuals like the bikers previously taken out in u-turns. A lot of people are getting informed - all that's needed then is continued pushing in relative unison.Well that is a lot of compelled people working on the problem. I feel a bit helpless thinking what to do.


If NZ can't sort this unsavoury shit I despair - if its not sorted within another 2 years I quit being a Kiwi, Perth calls.There's always something to despair about no matter where you are. Better for movers and shakers to do it here and help us. Better for us anyway.. :shifty:

Steve

[StoneY]

Interesting thread.
I agree with Mom you need to compress the message and not fill it with italics and long legalese paragraphs

Please PM me I would like to be involved
I am currently acting president of BRONZ Wellington branch
Your method's and ability to research could be well used by our executive board (oh and Rick barker MP is one of our members so he can help advize you behind scenes)

Cheers

[Mudfart]

yep perth sounds good, good riding weather there too!.
it seems to me the main lobby group for pro motoring with the most public sector government influence is the Automobile Association.
Its strange but they endorse the revenue gathering from what I understand, they claim its in the interest of the greater good, in that maybe a few may get killed, but it means speeding is kept down, drink drivers off the roads, etc, etc.
If you ask me, its their mentality that needs a rethink.
Has anyone checked with the AA, to see if my suspicions are correct?. Where does the AA stand right now?.

[candor]

The AA say “The current system of crash data collection and management is very much based on the Greatest Enforceable Risk proposition that road safety can be addressed through enforcement…Unfortunately the performance of this approach during the past decade has not achieved any reduction in road user risk (in social cost per vehicle kilometre travelled) nor does the evidence collected by the system support this proposition”.
"The AA believes that Government should review road safety programs in terms of injury prevention rather than revenue collection"
Source - AA submission to Safer Journeys.
The AA has been the strongest lobby group against the quota formula. Please see its publication saving ourselves - link on BADD website I believe.

Will do Stoney, just called the pollies but they're in caucus.

[Genestho]

AA has put out their report on Road Safety in NZ with research and data, probably not Motorcycle 'friendly' views.

Candor, Whilst I personally would support a Royal Commission of Inquiry, provided there is founded solid evidence and research to substantiate claims, it's probably not a wise idea to either speak on behalf of BADD nor Crossroads.

In submissions I have made reference to supporting a review into evidence regarding the particular roadsafety policy, behind lowering BAC limits.

[candor]

Oops I wasn't actually "speaking for" BADD or CR lest any misunderstanding on that, though I'm part of Crossroads, and have done media work for it a couple of x as requested to. What I meant in that posting is that there is getting to be a broad lot of well informed people, which is a good foundation for seeking some major overhaul. With all the gnashing of teeth etc , and obvious discontent with current direction it almost seems like a first principals inquiry is inevitable.

The first principles are GER-RAM as rsearch by multiple groups and their submissions al show. I'm just seeking support here or maybe gauging it re tackling those flawed fundamentals. In saying a lot of groups are working away on this stuff I just meant on upping r/s which is in major poo in NZ - there's little debate on that point now.

The only group I've quoted above is AA who are very happy to have their view represented and heard. As a member of them I'm happy to put it forward as their research is really high grade and to my mind point to the right direction of the inquiry. Its just consistent with what several other groups including Candor have long advocated hence my strong support.

I think their overarching big ideas are MC friendly in wanting a revenue versus injury review. Because of this imho they should not be dismissed so fast as allies by people perhaps offended by any anti MC ravings they might have put out there.

[Genestho]

and obvious discontent with current direction it almost seems like a first principals inquiry is inevitable. I'm just seeking support here or gauging it. In saying a lot of groups are working away on this stuff I meant on upping r/s which is in major poo in NZ - there's little debate.
The only group I've quoted above is AA who are very happy to have their view represented and heard. As a member of them I'm happy to put it forward as their research is really high grade.

I personally agree with the AA research too, it is very high quality and well resourced. And yes there is discontent about revenue quotas, but there is a right way of doing things in my opinion, and a wrong way.

[Pixie]

I think the biggest problem you will encounter is the fact that the police still deny there is a revenue quota system in place, they say officers must "make contact" (no pun intended) with X amount of members of the public per day, this does not mean fining them everytime, though we know this is the way they operate.

Sorry if this is not relevant to your post but like Mom said I lost intrest in your big post pretty much after the second paragraph

The fines are the way that contacts are measured

[SMOKEU]

I think the biggest problem you will encounter is the fact that the police still deny there is a revenue quota system in place, they say officers must "make contact" (no pun intended) with X amount of members of the public per day, this does not mean fining them everytime, though we know this is the way they operate.



I have done stupid stuff while drving in front of traffic cops many times before, and I should have lost my licence on the spot and had the car impounded several times over. The worst I got was being told to slow down and a fine for no WOF.

[candor]

What way do you think it should be tackled GW? Or should not be? When the Govt has turned down 3 requests for reviews or Royal Commissions in a short time frame I reckon it's not something to take lying down A lot of research and work (years) went into all the requests. I know Akilla formed like a 100 page document with appendixes, see his releases which he asked me to post here
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1004/S00195.htm
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1004/S00084.htm

[Spearfish]

Its going to be a long road
I think politicians will have problems convincing MA'n'PA complacent that their driving skills leave a lot, if not it all, to be desired without voter backlash. They pay their money so they have the right...
I'm not trying to sound defeatist but the current reactionary method of law enforcement is favoured by politicians, how do you become proactive, thereby affecting a larger proportion if not all of New Zealands drivers without getting kicked out of power.
We have become a nation of blame the victim for creating a situation of being a victim rather than the cause of the crime so now we
don't go out after dark
kids cant ride/walk to school because of the boogyman or the dangerous driving
motorbikes are becoming to dangerous for New Zealands driving style...
public toilets get locked along with public parks...
and we lock ourselves into the small footprint of our houses while the crims get the rest to run around in..
And the list goes on and on
If they cant/wont work on the most basic rights of New Zealanders then what pressure does a motoring minority have for change?

[StoneY]

The fines are the way that contacts are measured

I just asked someone who truly knows how the contacts are measured (senior cop himself, supervisory position)
No its NOT on how many tickets they write
It also includes contacts with shoplifters, wife bashers, drug dealers....its not a ROAD policing requirement at all its merely 'you shall talk in pereson to x members of the public every week'
Its taken from thier patrol notebooks

Obviously a dedicated road police officer such as Highway patrol members rarely get to contact anyone other than speeders or drunk drivers, building the myth they have a set quota of tickets to issue


Now lets NOT turn a real statsitical analysis and oppurtunity to make a difference into a 'Cop Bash' thread, we will get noweher with that method or attitude

Edit: And forgive my attrocious spelling, spell check takes time muwahahahahahaha

[Bald Eagle]

Now lets NOT turn a real statsitical analysis and oppurtunity to make a difference into a 'Cop Bash' thread, we will get noweher with that method or attitude

Indeed. The issue to be attacked her is the shonky stats collection methods being used to shape 'policy' If you build on an unsafe data set you will not get a good outcome. The Police are unfortunate 'whipping boys' who have to work with the policies handed down to them from the mountain.

[candor]

Wrong - we have the charts showing that Police are contracted to set hours spent on each of a small range of infringements. In turn these hours have an expected ticket issue rate per hour (Jones 2005 - effective and efficient road policing Trentham Library). Have documented proof. And inside sources who confirm it, but there is a code of silence on this aided by an indoctrination program that says "keep Mum because quotas are about safety - don't think, just do" .

Yep Police are just the faces of the bad policy, they don't write it.

[avgas]

They will stop the anti-quota carnage when the anti-law carnage stops.
So if you really want to fix it stop breaking the law.
Pretty simple math really.

[candor]

The case has been adequately made by the AA and by 4 reviews of the quota system by MoT that the quota carnage exceeds the carnage that would exist without quotas (by about 30 lives a year) - which means the Police are what is behind our high road toll. It may be legal but it's not right. Quota activities are a conflict of interest with road safety once quotas rise over a certain threshold. The opposition powers that be now concede that it is necessary to discover where the overdose threshold lies (several meetings in the Beehive resulted in this).

120 000 learners breaches with high bounties and incentivised chases seem to be upping our youth toll. There are nw more dangerous driving charges than ever thanks to quotas (Police get praise for productivit if convictions rise and chases lead to opportunities for double quota hits - a ticket for speed or alcohol infringement and a dangerous drive conviction). The paradigm creates chaos as it's better to issue two tickets in one hit than one (mor donut time).
Too many checkpoints are causing chases that end in death when the drunk was best not confronted. They also divert resources from areas where the spend would return more life savings. Weird but true States with no checkpoints and drunk quotas have lower drink drive death rates.
A million speeding tickets - not helping one iota.

The math says very clearly the quotas are killing. Or as the AA say "more enforcement leads to more crashes". And the victims are not all quota targets, Police and quota targets playing cowboy harm innocent parties in 10% or so of the casualties. As it is people outside the little greyhound rabbit game that et hurt that makes it everyones business.

[avgas]

The math says very clearly the quotas are killing. Or as the AA say "more enforcement leads to more crashes". And the victims are not all quota targets, Police and quota targets playing cowboy harm innocent parties in 10% or so of the casualties. As it is people outside the little greyhound rabbit game that et hurt that makes it everyones business.
While I completely agree with you. Do you have the figures to back this up.
All arguments have to be validated otherwise they don't count for shit.
how else do you think they got speed cameras into the system?

[CookMySock]

They will stop the anti-quota carnage when the anti-law carnage stops.
So if you really want to fix it stop breaking the law.This logic is circular. The laws they put in place are about revenue collection - not road safety. They purport to address a problem that is actually a fallacy. The solution proposed will never actually become a solution, so the public is left climbing mountain impossible. In the meanwhile, the government collects substantial moolah until it figures out another wild goose chase to foist on us.

Steve

[candor]

Will once I can scan (back up I mean)

Bearing in mind a Brit Police trainer tells me the training is a joke here "a few hours versus months at home" Goddards report is interesting. It notes a quadrupling of pursuits since the 1990s especially spiking since 2003 when meeting 30 of the NRSC announced a shift to full dependency on the quota software (and my oia shows parallel related trauma);

Goddard report excerpts

Driver training
53. The Police Professional Driver Programme has been progressively implemented since early 2004. As noted above, under the programme, members receive a rating of gold, silver, or bronze depending on their knowledge of pursuit theory and policy.

Police gather data on outcomes of pursuits involving motorcycles to determine whether the risks are greater than those involving other vehicles, and, in turn, to determine whether specific guidance about pursuit of motorcycles is needed in the pursuit policy or training.

Type of vehicle
100. In the Authority’s analysis of 137 pursuits, the pursued vehicles included 116 cars, 18 motorcycles, and three vans. Of the cars, 25 were Subarus, 22 were Nissans, 12 were Holdens and 12 were Mitsubishis.
101. In the NZ Police Review of Pursuits April 2004‐May 2007, more than 81 percent of pursued vehicles were cars, and just over 11 percent were motorcycles. Other vehicles pursued included vans (3 percent), utes (1.5 percent), mopeds (0.4 percent), light trucks
(0.4 percent), quad bikes, heavy trucks, taxis and one mobile home (NZ Police, 2008).
Risks associated with motorcycles
102. For purposes of comparison, at 30 June 2007, New Zealand’s on‐road vehicle fleet comprises just over 3.2 million vehicles of which just under 64,000 (2 percent) are motorcycles (Land Transport New Zealand, 2008). Motorcyclists are, in other words, far more likely than other road users to be involved in pursuits.17
103. Motorcyclists are also involved in a disproportionate number of road crashes.18 This indicates that motorcyclists are, on average, more likely than other road users to take risks and to act in ways that bring themselves to Police attention.
104. It is not possible from the Authority’s sample of 137 pursuits to determine whether it is more dangerous to pursue a motorcycle than another vehicle.19

According to Pursuits: The Case for Change (NZ Police, 2003), just over 60 percent of fleeing drivers in a 1996‐2002 sample had previous convictions.

Police in Victoria, Canada in 2007 adopted a policy restricting pursuits to situations where there were reasonable grounds to believe the driver or passenger of a vehicle “has committed, or is about to commit a serious criminal offence involving the
imminent the threat of grievous bodily harm or death to any person”. The policy explicitly prohibited pursuits when the offence was solely a traffic or property crime.

[candor]

Just replying to myself! I think Goddard did actually find out about MCist trauma but it was too sensitive to include in the report, hence the recommendation Police look into it. It needs to include collateral damage though.

Transport registry can likely give the required breakdowns of the following figures I got awhile ago.

Table 3
Casualties (killed & injured) in ''Evading Enforcement' crashes by road user type, 2002 to 2008
(chases up 2-3x with harm following introduction of resource allocation quota model)

Driver------ Passenger ------ Pedestrian------ Pedal Cyclist
521------------ 269----------- 19 ------------------- 5 ------- --- Total 814

And many victims were not the pursued,

Age----------- Pursued----------------------------not pursued
unknown---------------41-------------------------7
0-14--------------------36--------------------------7
15-19------------------234------------------------27
20-24------------------150-------------------------9
25-39---------------------145-----------------------58
40-59-------------------39--------------------------41
60+---------------------0----------------------------20
Total--------------------------------------------------814

[candor]

Stop wasting bandwith Mu. Re quotas; a little history of who said and did what when, and a link to a slightly out of date web site with pictures - you can always skip reading the below if interested as pictures tell 1000 words.
The RAM http://roadsafety.candor.org.nz/page2.html#Commission
A little report card on how officer did on tickets leaked to media http://roadsafety.candor.org.nz/offences.htm
And another end product of the quota software http://roadsafety.candor.org.nz/risk_targetting.htm

A fruit of the profit or break even model borne out of the passage of the State Sector Act of 1988 was that the 1994 MoT offshoot NZ’s Land Transport Safety Authority, spearheaded introduction of the Supplementary Road Safety Package (SRSP) in October 1995. A budget allocated to enable high apprehensions of drink drivers and speeders. This was the start of the project listed on NZTA website called “to develop and refine a resource allocation model” for Road Policing. In 2002 it’s leader Tony Bliss took up his position at the World Bank.

It was at a doomsday meeting no. 30 held for the NRSC at MoT in November, where Economist Tony Bliss who’d for 8 years worked for LTSA and Treasury on working papers for the RAM (Safety Directions) advised that it was time to apply the formula. The Government (MoT) said it disliked the idea of basing road safety “entirely on the formula” but Bliss said he had confidence in the study and Rob Robinson soon appeared saying the Minister had just signed off on the increased ticketing. Supportive law changes were done like halving the max drink driver disqualification.

Here is the surface rationale for our study in intensive enforcement funding as it's big boy hard sells.
http://io.ssc.govt.nz/pathfinder/documents/PathfinderPresentationtoSPARC-AucklandCouncilsJuly03.ppt.

But Police were soon writing paniced letters to the MoT along with othe agencies sworn to secrecy saying they had never had a plain English rendering of what they signed on for and now weren’t happy with the science.Why? Long inquiries by Martin Jenkins of Akilla campaign established the RAM is encapsulated in a mathematical formula located deep in a Departmental or Consultants hard drive which MoT finally handed over, after denying its existence and years of OIA’s. It took ombudsmen involvement and threats to sue to get delivery!

It rigidly directs Police and road safety operations in each Police District using functions from “Fatality number / cost =’s current fatality risk/cost on road segment minus theorized impact of ticket quotas for speed, alcohol, seatbelts, intersection infringements and supportive advertising of such enforcement given expected traffic density.”

Treasury docs had provided clues to its existence in stating “The targets are set using a mathematical model that predicts road safety outcomes. The model is built upon a set of assumptions derived from a wealth of historical crash and roading information. This snapshot of New Zealand road safety is the base from which a set of mathematical functions predict how various interventions and other factors should affect road safety outcomes.” (TREASURY WORKING PAPER 01/05 Outcomes Focussed Management in New Zealand –A Background Paper Chris Ussher and Andrew Kibblewhite

According to a presentation by Inspector Dave Cliff “(Southland) staff were in a 200-2003 trial run assigned a specific number of hours of road policing activity to deliver each month, divided across the strategic projects of drink drive, speed, restraint and visible road safety enforcement (sic intersections). A reasonable expectation of the number of offences detected for each type of hour was also set – and 25% of the >hrly notices were being expected to be in the 11 – 15 km/hour range Effective Road Policing in Rural Areas: An Integrated Approach Presentation Inspector David M Cliff New Zealand Police

So purportedly the ex Chief MoT Economists software could magically forecast the yearly number of fatalities by District, based on the offence ticket targets which initially covered 3 crash factors of 19 possible ones identified as having a toll role. Intersection running was a recent addition.

BUT THEY WERE AND ARE WRONG. 3 SECRET INTERNAL REVIEWS AT MOT SHOWED THAT THE HARDER THE FORMULA IS APPLIED THE HIGHER THE SOCIAL COST OF CRASH TRAUMA GOES!
Atop Govt self appraisals showing failure PhD analyses showed “high visibility/rigid enforcement policies introduced in Dec 2000 (when) the LTSA and police introduced new Highway Patrols with greatly increased resourcing resulted in 11,000 ADDITIONAL injuries and some 50 ADDITIONAL deaths in 3 years, and continues to cause 5000 unnecessary injuries every year (Fast & Safe).

THIS DECLINE ACCELERATED SINCE 2003 AS RISING QUOTAS SAW ACCS CRASH LIABILITIES TRIPLE TO NEAR 7B (Akilla OIA 2009)

Back at the halfway mark in the midst of a major ratchet up of the enforcement program in November 2003, Superintendent Fitzgerald took time out to reassure Police worried about an increasing loss of community respect (in an address in the Police Assn magazine) that Road policing represented 23% of all police business, which meant it now funded 1650 frontline positions and 450 new non-sworn staff.

.An increase of 50% in Police highway patrol hours over 5 years from ’03-2008 occurred in tandem with reduced highway crash costs under 1% as per Police National Progress reports. Highway patrol hours dedicated to ever increasing quotas rose from 200,000 in 2003 to over 350,000 preceding publication. The shocking result has been stasis in fatality trends, a 3% yearly growth in serious injuries + less than a 1% decrease in crash social costs on State Highways (static at 1.6B)

Annette King was forced to admit to media and Parliament after prior denials that “the use of infringement notices and traffic offence notices-performance measures-was first introduced in 1997-98 in line with Treasury guidelines. I also have with me the New Zealand Police road traffic enforcement agreement 1999-2000, and it lists the data that must be provided by each district. The data includes speeding offences detected per hour, drink-driving offences detected per hour, and contacts per hour”.

This particular agreement was signed by(the oppositions)Transport Minister, Maurice Williamson. I am glad I have finally got to the bottom of why districts have been allocating tickets on individual police “I can say that the issue is finally being cleared up. I can tell members that no such performance indicators now exist.” On July 5th 2006 the Police Comm. made public a memo sent to all district commanders, saying it would be permissible for enforcement targets to be set on a district, area or group basis, but those were not to be allocated to individual staff.

However a leaked email from Waitemata road policing Superindendent John Kelly in 2008 said each full-time equivalent highway patrol officer is expected to issue 1420 tickets a year. Mr Kelly repeated denials there was a quota system in response to queries about his email which says officers should write 560 speeding tickets a year, 130 for alcohol-related offences, 110 for restraint offences (mainly seatbelts and carseats), 220 for dangerous and careless driving and 400 for high-risk driving.

A spokesman for Police Minister Annette King then fronted to say that she maintained the line she took two years ago when she said that she “didn't support” quotas. Yet she was powerless to change things. Last year a road safety coordinator was stoppe in the rain and they attempted to ticket her for too slow. She said I’m drtiving to the conditions. The Officer said he could not get back to the station until he issued one more s please take it.

The RAM resource allocation model (MoT) sets ticket levels in Police Districts, and remains referenced with it’s companion manual “LTSA Safety Directions” by the National Land Transport Funding Document. It dictates funding shares to the 12 Police Districts of around 1,5340M from fuel taxes and vehicle registrations and a contribution from the State Accident insurer to the National Road Policing program and funds the supportive publicity campaign to legitimize enforcement campaigns. The RAM working papers “safety directions” are listed on many key documents as still providing the strategic framework for road safety.

There was a 27% funding increase to Police & LTNZ midst the revenue windfall early 2000’s - revenue was up to at least 1B by 2006 from quotas of approx.30,000 intersection fines, 25,000 drink drive and 750,000 speed tickets. As a third of tickets aren’t paid and Road Policing costs 3B it is not a revenue neutral set up, as required under the Public Finance Act.

It’s both an economic and safety failure. Members of the NRSC are oddly compelled to sign secrecy agreements about what they hear about the high level strategy, which places the Local Govt rep in breach of local Govt laws, requiring public consultation. Funny that disclosure is no problem elsewhere just not in NZ. The study has been reported back to the World Bank and the part funder the European Commission since 2002. My big Q is who owns the intellectual rights to the formula software - what dunce?

[shrub]

Sadly it's all rather futile. The media campaign to turn speed into a social demon has been very effective and most people genuinely believe the MOT position, and if they attempted to change the status quo there would be an uproar.

People believe what they're told to believe.

[MSTRS]

Sadly it's all rather futile. The media campaign to turn speed into a social demon has been very effective and most people genuinely believe the MOT position, and if they attempted to change the status quo there would be an uproar.

People believe what they're told to believe.

So, just start telling them something different.
These people have a responsibility to correct some of what they've been forcing on us all.

[shrub]

So, just start telling them something different.
These people have a responsibility to correct some of what they've been forcing on us all.

They may have a responsibility to do that, but they have been tasked with making speed an all-encompassing demon. I believe it has been chosen because it is very easy to police and prosecute compared to, say, driver inattention and that it gives them an excuse "we're doing something about the road toll - we're cracking down on speeding".

And can you honestly imagine Our Masters admitting that speeding isn't that bad after all?

[MSTRS]

'That' TV ad...

Everyone does that along here
It's where a lot of the crashes are happening

In view of targetting speed, and cops U-turns, it doesn't take much extrapolating, does it?

[candor]

People believe what they're told to believe.

What if they're told to believe that MoT says its quota system doesn't work but we must try to believe it does.
I will send the whole RAM paper trail to a KBer who offered to put it on the net, as I lack know how. Then y'all can judge the level of criminality down at MoT for yourself - or technically at the NRSC as is is the agency dictating and providing the allowable economic packages to Ministers.

[Pixie]

What if they're told to believe that MoT says its quota system doesn't work but we must try to believe it does.
I will send the whole RAM paper trail to a KBer who offered to put it on the net, as I lack know how. Then y'all can judge the level of criminality down at MoT for yourself - or technically at the NRSC as is is the agency dictating and providing the allowable economic packages to Ministers.

Can't wait to see and distribute this info.

[Ronin]

Just to clarify it is a top level group within MoT called NRSC but controlled by outside advisors (world bank) dictating behind scenes.

While I fully support any effort to make our roads safer for all users, I got to the point above and gave up. I have seen far to many collections of conspiracy theories reference the world bank. Makes it difficult (for me anyway), no matter how well researched or intentioned your efforts are to read any further.

[candor]

While I fully support any effort to make our roads safer for all users, I got to the point above and gave up. I have seen far to many collections of conspiracy theories reference the world bank. Makes it difficult (for me anyway), no matter how well researched or intentioned your efforts are to read any further.

Then essentially you give up on safety and give into the conspiracy to target your wallet. Tony Bliss is lead LIMC transport lender. He was the strategy director that set up LTSA as a transport economics research agency in part. He came from working for Australian Transport agencies in 1994 as a consultant there. His "achievements" in NZ were creating the overarching strategy for road safety called "Safety Directions". He co-wrote safety directions working papers 1-7 then the manual for the resource aloccation model Safety Directions. His name. along with current advisors of the NRSC is on the ongoing MoT study "to develop and refine a resource allocationb model for road safety".

This model is the mathematical quota formula mentioned in safety directons working papers as the way to fund services. He was working for Treasury and LTSA at the time. He took up employment with the world bank in 2002. In 2002 (after this) he attended a meeting of the NRSC and advised applying the RAM study in real life. MoT objected. He said politics must not stand in the way. At the next meeting the Minister Hawkins was reported by Police Ciommissioner Rob robinson as consenting to the increase in tickets.

Tony Bliss and Rob Robinson (who the World Bank publicly credits with implementing the NZ RAM) recently toured Africa offering loans to buy speed cams and patrol cars and breathalysers, using the NZ model as an example of "good practice" and misreporting the benefits. Bliss proceeded on to the Easterm bloc again misrepresenting NZs benefit/costs. And he is telling Sweden to switch to the NZ way FFS! He is also responsible for running the global decade of safety initiative with UN/ World Bank support. It's goal is to sign everyone on to the NZ way, using loans with strings. His loans contracts require an authoritative WB advisor to the National r/s Committees which present policy to Ministers. Don't be fooled it is not MoT that does this here in NZ. It's NRSC advised by Tony et al.

Last year Roadpol the global traffic police headquarters which has a website promoting the NZ way set up in Wellington. It offers Nz Police to go and play big brother to countries that have taken world bank "road safety" loans from Tony Bliss. Vietnam has been partnered with NZ and their loan contract with the WB requires adherence to World Bank dictation and suppression of non quota education and issues. HC lately met with Tony Bliss, when he was out here to see MFAT about the "road safety ie revenue lessons" twinning arrangements.

The global road safety partnership (which Bliss is heavily involved in) has NZ listed as one of its 13 case studies reported back to it since 2002. A review by Swedish Development Agency SIDA of GRSP programs said they are not evidence based or properly reviewed, a concern as SIDA part funds. The Police are publishing internal reviews of our on road enforcement research and sharing such papers with the Oz Police and Monash University Accident Research Centre (set up with World Bank and Who help). Papers relating to the RAM research here are published in the ERSO policy think tank website as part funded funded by the European Commission. An agency advised by guess who - Tony.

So the fact is that Tony of the world bank set up NZs experiment (it's all over his CV), has ongoing involvement, and is selling the very model he developed through an agency "Road pol" that he has helped set up in NZ. It could be a conspiracy only there are just too dmn many facts getting in the way here that instead infer high level cock up.

Oh and then there is the fact that a friend of Blisses told me that Bliss complained to him that I had got one of his NZ men Dr Guria Economist and RAM project scientist moved from MoT to NZIER, as I got documents showing a cavalier attitude to the experiment and bandied them about.

The document where Dr Guria said that the RAM system doesn't work to predictions (it increases the road toll) but the Govt needs to try and believe it does. This seems a very unscientific approach to transport economics research huh. the Govt then lied to me (back in 06 I think) and said the research is now on hold. Disproved by a letter to Akilla Foundation that was forwarded to me in which MoT made a contradictory claim of stopping theresearch in 2008. It has never stopped.

Now if none of this is true I'm guilty of slander. I'm waiting for the lawyers calls at Candor Trust - but I know there won't be any and I'm not going to loose my house over this. As it's all true. We got the whodunnit solved. We just need to stop the crime in progress.

The sad thing is I think this Economist gang set out with good intentions, but now they've worked on this for 15 years, are myopic and things have gone too far to allow a graceful retreat.

[StoneY]

Candor-

Your posts are way too long to follow, please compress the information and provide links to the sources
The super long overly emotive way your writing is not making it easy to assimilate therefore 90% of the thread readers will just pass your posts and miss the vital information you DO have

Also please, world bank?
That will lose you all credibility instantly

StoneY

[candor]

To me cred comes from telling the full truth. I realise that may put some people off as there are many nuts on about the world bank. Unfortunately it does play a major role in this issue. As should not be surprising given it is an economics / revenue matter. I've a problem with not explaining stuff fully as fed in dribs and drabs the overview is lost - and the above was just to show Ronin why the WB aspect does matter. Without an organisational diagram its hard to figure out where responsibility lies. Maybe it is in different places in a legal sense and in an ethical sense.

Links? I'd be here for a month but I am able to publish the reference list for the book we're writing (contains all above claim sources) then people with a passion can check our research and conclusions - request the list anyone who wants it and I'll post up. Anyhow it is all too much info for light conversation, and prolly best to just focus on the study itself and it's success or failure, as that is a big lot on info in itself. Background stuff though may be useful to people who like to know all the ins and outs?

[Ronin]

Then essentially you give up on safety and give into the conspiracy to target your wallet.

Well I don't give up on safety for a start. Because we have different views does not mean we do not want the same outcome. However (and see stoneys post), I do believe that for you to be credible and taken seriously that you need to move away from the World Bank conspiracy. You are obviously intelligent and put a great deal of hard work into this, it would be a pity to see it ignored because most people when faced with 'evidence' of conspiracy just turn off and stop paying attention.

Are there systemic failures in the way road safety is run here? Yes. Would things improve a great deal if funding and political issues were taken away? Yes. Do I have the solutions? Hell no. I do have the right to voice my opinion and have it heard, I do not though for one minute think that it will make any difference. Still not going to stop me though.

[candor]

So - best to present it evidence of cock up than of reckless trialing of scientists pet theories on a live population. But what then is it called when cock up isn't acknowledged and rectified. It then proceeds to cover up right. Arse covering. Two tactics then present as options - whip the covers off the a-holes or expose what is being fudged - or both, which risks accusations of being a conspiracist. I bet most Kiwis would not be happy to know that Police presented 3 new enforcement "trials" to NRSC for approval to NRSC in May 2007. WTF is going on here, aside from extreme relative carnage, Road safety is too vital to be field trialed without public appro imo.

[MSTRS]

Candor - your message is lost in the poorly written way you present it, coupled with obscure abbreviations and references to things that would have us reach for our tin-hats.
Your last post suggests to me that there is one man (Tony Bliss), who has some sort of vision as to how things should be and uses his position to achieve each step in his vision of Subjugation of the motoring public.

[candor]

Perfectly succinct. Can you be my writer please? so all I needed to say is that he is a driving force? Also if you had just read 10.000 pages of the National Road Safety Committees meeting minutes you would be reaching for a tin hat, their doings ARE unbelievable. Trials, studies, comparing notes with the control studies based on differing variables. We needed puke buckets for about a week. The reason it hits hard is that both our relatives fates (Akilla and mine) were deaths as collateral damage to this RAM study.

[StoneY]

Candor - your message is lost in the poorly written way you present it, coupled with obscure abbreviations and references to things that would have us reach for our tin-hats.
Your last post suggests to me that there is one man (Tony Bliss), who has some sort of vision as to how things should be and uses his position to achieve each step in his vision of Subjugation of the motoring public.

Indeed.

Also the posts lose credibility for calling the so called conspiritists 'a-holes'
Just because we are bikers does not mean we need to have every official called by rude names to catch our attention

If any newsagency published an article written this way, or a govt agency submitted a report written in this manner, it would be laughed off the face of the planet

Candor, if you want to be taken seriously by the KB crowd, less conjecture and more fucus on the points, and links to the evidence

I am fast starting to doubt their is any credibility in any of it, especially when the "World bank" becomes the root of all this evil in the interest of a global zionist conspiracy to control all the road users of the world on behalf of one Tony Bliss - aka The Anti Christ blah blah blah..........

Now FACTS please, documents, and links.

The stuff you sent to BRONZ Wellington is interesting yes... BUT; the way its being presented rips the credibility out of the whole pile, due to overly emotive, wandering writings that fail to reach any solid conclusion of FACT!

Your documents had our guys drooling with 'oh my god read this, read that and look at...' but without refference and verifiable sources, its just shit paper for the long drop to be honest

[riffer]

Full disclosure time. I'm the KBer that Candor has been sending the information to.

I've spent quite a bit of time reading the information that Candor's sent BRONZ. It's very tricky to do this, as some of the information presented is in the form of snippets of OIA releases and some appears to be email transcripts, and there is potential for a fair chunk of it to be taken out of context, and I have to wonder if this is the intention. However, I've given it the benefit of the doubt here as I imagine there's a lot of information to sift through and Candor's trying to give a "summary of the facts", as it were.

I won't presume to speak for BRONZ here, as we haven't looked at this on an official level, but I'll give MY OWN, personal view of what I've been presented.

Herein lies my two big problems:

1. Information is incomplete
2. Some has OIA stamps on it; the "smoking gun" stuff however doesn't. This makes it difficult for me to verify.

Now there is no doubt in my mind that there are a number of bureaucrats in Wellington that have been charged with creating the Resource Allocation Model, which dealt with how to police the roads in order to lower the road toll, and that Tony Bliss, an economist, was part of this group, a role he had the qualifications to perform. I have NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER their intentions were good. It appears that Tony Bliss was in time offered a role in the World Bank, again a role he had the qualifications to perform.

They developed a formula to assess the success of this work. They advised the Minister at the time (George Hawkins) that they needed time to prove their theory. They initially felt three years would show enough of a trend but this figure seems to be constantly changing as they found that road accidents were more random than their original theory was able to deal with. So they've made modifications to the formula and advised the minister that they felt, hand on heart, that this method would bring the results.

The Minister has given them time for their models to try and work, the road toll has dropped a bit, but they aren't easily able to provide a link due to the randomness of crashes. This merry-go-round has continued through the next two ministers.

So are they ideologically driven? Absolutely.

Is there a conspiracy? I very much doubt it. What we have here is bureaucracy in its purest form. Ministers charge their public servants to come up with the best advice they can get.

I'll continue reading it, in case there's something I've missed, but I just don't see the conspiracy here at this point.

[candor]

Thx Riffer.
Some of the stuff like e-mls wasn't stamped - only the first pages were. The cock up rather than conspiracy is in 2 things; the early acknowledgements x2 or 3 actually that the system is ineffective and increases trauma (you only have copies of one set of reviews showing this). And in that it was allowed to continue. The advice being followed is indisputedly bad (my evidence here is our experts opinions that I did not provide yet, real world evidence and common sense) and non independent.

As I said in private e-mls the materials are reviewed by 2 experts who agree the reviews amount to flagging the system being trauma productive. Of course you only have a fraction of the materials but those are the most important. And as you say I tried to put them in an order you can follow chronologically and make connections. It was not a deliberate attempt to slant, but rather trying to condense and aid navigation of an array of related materials. Would be far easier to do it by a presentation with all things at hand.

Say what Smoky? Bronz has been forwarded several key documents fully supporting my central tenets. They are hardly "shit paper" being official info request replies containing hot material. It is hot enough there is media interest, but they have a couple of requirements I communicated to Bronz in a private e-ml. And I thought we agreed to work on a way to present the complex info sent to Bronz - more legibly than has been done before here on KB. In a keep it simple way. But if you think its all shitpaper, in contradiction to several experts who differ, who've in fact dedicated large resources to defeating the RAM, then I can't help. Have you read it yet?

Your post just seems like an outright attack on my cred, no worries I have it elsewhere and can continue working with other good faith parties IF Bronz aint interested. If it is maybe this thread should be shut down until after Bronz has a crack at mulling materials over, askds for any holes I may have left in the chain to be clarified, understands the docs and relevance fully, and has assessed them for usefulness. Why infight? Those doing wrong within Govt Depts on this fully deserve expletives, it's serious what they do. But if you think clean mouths help then so be it. All I'm interested in is making progress as I know others are.

[candor]

Full disclosure time. I'm the KBer that Candor has been sending the information to.

They initially felt three years would show enough of a trend but this figure seems to be constantly changing as they found that road accidents were more random than their original theory was able to deal with. .

Our experts say the conclusion regarding randomness is wrong. That the model is fundamentally flawed not due to this but due to "turbulent flow", wrong assumptions, and the size of the dummy factor. The flaw in the advice they say wa to not look outside the flawed paradigm of believing speed and alcohol ticket numbers have a linear relation to trauma.

[candor]

Also the road toll has not "dropped a bit". Not by statistical significance, and the Duignan report showed any savings in deaths made were by engineering improvements. The trend though altered midway when the model went full force. The toll as counted in crash numbers and fatal and serious injury numbers aggregated (the correct measure of progress in successful countries) has increased astronomically. As an engineer mate says - if you live or die is random, the fiocus should be on crash prevention not mitigating impacts.
From 2B ACC crash liabilities a mere 6 odd years ago to nearly 7B now. The formula is therefore a major lemon.

[StoneY]

Our experts say the conclusion regarding randomness is wrong. That the model is fundamentally flawed not due to this but due to "turbulent flow", wrong assumptions, and the size of the dummy factor. The flaw in the advice they say wa to not look outside the flawed paradigm of believing speed and alcohol ticket numbers have a linear relation to trauma.

Much better post. Short, pointed, and informative! Well done

Keep the emotion out and you make better sense its that simple

And I will accept the freudian slip of calling me Smokey, but heed my words
Your not the only one with access to the Labour Party.

You gotta drop the conspiracy theorist angle, it kills all interst.
BRONZ does not act without VERIFYING sources, take that as you will Rachael

Have a nice day :)

[MSTRS]

From 2B ACC crash liabilities a mere 6 odd years ago to nearly 7B now.

That in its self, is not a reliable indicator. Only the number of crashes counts, not the cost of them.

[riffer]

Also the road toll has not "dropped a bit". Not by statistical significance, and the Duignan report showed any savings in deaths made were by engineering improvements. The trend though altered midway when the model went full force. The toll as counted in crash numbers and fatal and serious injury numbers aggregated (the correct measure of progress in successful countries) has increased astronomically. As an engineer mate says - if you live or die is random, the fiocus should be on crash prevention not mitigating impacts.
From 2B ACC crash liabilities a mere 6 odd years ago to nearly 7B now. The formula is therefore a major lemon.


Actually it has. There are far more road users on the road than 10 years ago. Do remember Rachael, we did a LOT of research during the bikoi regarding this info and we KNOW the numbers. This has been largely due to better roads and better vehicles , not the RAM. We have this information from Charlie Lamb, and this IS verifiable.

[Pixie]

For those that doubt the existence of these organisations and their activities

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTTRANSPORT/EXTTOPGLOROASAF/0,,menuPK:2582226~pagePK:64168427~piPK:64168435~th eSitePK:2582213,00.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RoadPol

The claims here (below) for reductions in NZ's road toll imply that it is another NZ in a parallel universe.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17419247/RoadPol-Police-Leadership-Saves-Lives-June09

[candor]

Wasthat just MCs or general - different data sources give different pictures. Serious injuries numbers are rising faster than population or vehicle km rises warrant it seems, the official figures from Police used by MoT and in reviews they commission are Crash Analysis system sourced and deriving from on the spot Police reports are much different (lower) to those from MoH hospitalisation data or ones we got from Health Info Service for head and spinal injuries (rising hardout since 2002), and a recent Otago study showed Police under record injuries.
I'd be pretty sure total killer/serious injury crashes are up per capita... even taking into account vkms and that this reflects in ACC claims as well as increased medical costs not helping. Regardless, even if they may just hover at a muchness when taking all other factors in account this is still disgraceful levels compared to other countries. The toll predicted as achievable had best evidence (more engineering) been followed in the outgoing 2010 plan was for 150 fewer yearly deaths than we're at. It wouldhave been 100 less had the RAM done what it was meant to.

[candor]

The claims here (below) for reductions in NZ's road toll imply that it is another NZ in a parallel universe.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17419247/RoadPol-Police-Leadership-Saves-Lives-June09

Selling snake oil my palm

[Ixion]

Perhaps I may comment.

Mr Bliss certainly exists. He was a senior official at the LTSA. He is now a senior official at the World Bank (which also exists). There, he runs a program aimed at 'third world' countries, intended to enable, or persuade, them to reduce their road fatality rate.

Here is some independent info about Mr Bliss (well, sort of independent, it's from the World Bank themselves)
http://web.worldbank.org/external/default/main?menuPK=3607353&pagePK=64148645&piPK=64148610&q=Tony%20Bliss&theSitePK=29708

Mr Bliss is an economist . As such, he thinks differently to real people. In particular , he (like all economists) regards road safety as a cost benefit exercise. So many people killed or injured , costs X much, programs to reduce that casualty rate cost Y much. That may seem a bit cold blooded but it's the way economists think.

Realistically, we could cut the road death and injury rate to almost nothing. Reduce all speed limits to 20kph, fence roads off completely, fit governors to all vehicles. And hire 100000 traffic cops to police it all. But the cost of all that would be disproportionate. Cold bloodedly, we have to accept that some people are going to die. Mr Bliss tried to analyse what pattern of expenditure of money would produce the greatest benefit (it's more complicted than it seems - for instance , letting old people get killed is probably a good thing as far as an economist is concerned, they are a net drain of society . I said economists were odd )

The result of that was the Resource Allocation Model. Mr Bliss worked out that if you concentrated the majority of your money on road policing of drink driving, speeding, and seatbelts , you got the best result. No, I don't know what planet he comes from.

But the RAM certainly exists. You can buy a book all about it if you really want to (though I doubt it has the secret formulas in it ).
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a713867956

On the face of it, the RAM seems not illogical. Unfortunately, people are strange creatures, that seldom behave how economists think they ought to. And, so it has proven in this instance. Despite applying the RAM with vigour and zeal, the cost of road casualties has risen . Rsien quite a lot. That's the cost, as measured by deaths , injuries, hospital time, lost productivity etc. So it's a bit more complex than a simple 'how many people dead' number.

The problem is , that a lot of people are very obsessively committed to the RAM . And don't want to know about any problems . "nah nah nah, I can't hear you I've got my fingers in my ears, I can't hear you". Economists are a bit like that, look at Mr Brash.

[candor]

RAM has some pseudonyms dependent on the audience. At the Bank it's known as "safety management system 1b". I always wonder what 1a is, maybe Victorias system. Among Police it's known as general deterrence Policing. And at NZTA it is Greatest Enforceable Risk. Some engineers dispute that economists particularly at bachelor level have any business in applied sciences like injury prevention. I really think that had injury prevention specialists, engineers or even IT modellers been consulted throughout the flaws in modelling would have screamed.

Alice and the Cheshire cat, a telling tale, signed by Bliss in his capacity as employee of LTSA and the World Bank. Cached version as original just got removed.
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:SNgrm0oJZdUJ:io.ssc.govt.nz/pathfinder/documents/AS_IQPC_PolicyAdviceImplementation_BetterResultsfo rCitizens2.ppt+pathfinders+alice+bliss&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nz

[Ronin]

Perhaps I may comment.

I'm glad you did, because that was, with all due respect to candor, understandable.

So if the RAM is so bad. What should it be replaced by? And I'm assuming here that there will still be bean counters involved somewhere.

[candor]

Evidence based policies as seen on tv. Nah, as seen in many countries. This requires analysis of the evidence about crash causes - not just RAM defined ones, then use of proven methods to tackle those causes. The AAs safer j's submission provides a good framework to overhaul the system. Parts are cited in my earlier post here in green and yellow, which was actually a submission we made to Labour seeking a review.

Importantly the AA recommends redefining the paradigm by moving away from the priorities set by RAM and Safer Journeys - which give education low value incidentally. It instead proposed redefined areas of focus in 5 categories eg education replaces "young drivers" as an area of focus. RAM is strongly anti eucation as I guess its not enforceable! Or formula fodder.

The Govt has been provided with rich input via Safer Journeys. What constitutes evidence based policies is no mystery - it's just that RAM has been a major blocker here. Ixions use of the word obsessed nails it.

[Pixie]

Mr Bliss is an economist . As such, he thinks differently to real people. In particular , he (like all economists) regards road safety as a cost benefit exercise. So many people killed or injured , costs X much, programs to reduce that casualty rate cost Y much. That may seem a bit cold blooded but it's the way economists think.


More info: prior to LTSA Mr Bliss was one of the inmates at Area 51 that didn't get autopsied and managed to escape inside a donkey.
The phrase "ignorance is Bliss" can be attributed to his 5th grade teacher, Modor the Terrible at PS 45 on Alpha Sagittarius 5.

[Pixie]

Alice and the Cheshire cat, a telling tale, signed by Bliss in his capacity as employee of LTSA and the World Bank. Cached version as original just got removed.
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:SNgrm0oJZdUJ:io.ssc.govt.nz/pathfinder/documents/AS_IQPC_PolicyAdviceImplementation_BetterResultsfo rCitizens2.ppt+pathfinders+alice+bliss&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nz

I suppose he did a degree to be able to write such drivel

[Pixie]

I'm glad you did, because that was, with all due respect to candor, understandable.

So if the RAM is so bad. What should it be replaced by? And I'm assuming here that there will still be bean counters involved somewhere.
Perhaps one of the policy packages that work in most other countries?
God! what am I saying? New Zealand do something other than reinvent the wheel?

[StoneY]

I'd be pretty sure total killer/serious injury crashes are up per capita... .

No the injuries and deaths are DOWN, calculated against the fact the road fleet has quadrupled in 20 years and the death toll itself is relatively static by comparison to the rise in vehicles. This was NOT just motorcycle specific, it was a factor accross the entire national road fleet, all classes

Mostly, the decreases in these incidents PER CAPITA is credited to better roads, better quality cars (ABS etc)

BUT the COST of treatment and recovery also rose at a rate far in excess of what anyone predicted
Thats largley due to rising medical costs, and inflation as opposed to an increase in serious harm accidents above the ratio of cars/bikes/trucks using the roads
Thats what rose the ACC levies, the 'predicted cost of treastment in 10 years' not the bills to be paid right now

So in short, no we have not seen a huge increase in injury and death, just a massive increase in the cost to the taxpayers

[Ronin]

Perhaps one of the policy packages that work in most other countries?
God! what am I saying? New Zealand do something other than reinvent the wheel?

Which are what? Details lol Present a viable alternative. I genuinely would like to see one. It's all well and good to claim Bliss is the spawn of Satan and that he kills puppys with the RAM but people who are not as tied up in it need to be presented with well reasoned non vitriolic evidence and alternatives or you will lose your audience.

[candor]

Ronin if you read upon "vision zero" that'll show you the ideal for safety based on science.
Literature reviews and analysis and study tours and consulting experts is how countries that succeed identify good policies for them to pursue.

But structural issues in the organisation of road safety here - specifically the traffic enforcement research projects - are serious obstacles to the norm. This needs dealing with before other ideas than RAM can have any show.

IMO the AA has laid out a good replacement strategy in it's submission (I'll e-ml it to you if you and their radio interview on how Govts belief on crash causes is wrong, if you PM me). It wants these to be the key areas, not what is in Safer Journeys - a policy predicated on RAM targets again.

• Inattention and distraction • Safer Roads and Roadsides • Road User Education and Information • Safety of Younger Drivers • Alcohol and Drug Impaired Driving.

In countries that excell there is one common thread. Task forces or committees in which political influence is diluted. Instead of bureaucrats building their own empires, committees with wide expert and stake holder representation are empowered, and made accountable for sensible targets. Not targets like reducing average speeds from 100kph to 98kpm (that's RAM).

IMO we need an injury prevention committee with task forces in the 5 areas AA recommended. These should have the apt Govt Depts represented, consultancy budgets and stakeholder representation.

For example the Safer Roads taskforce would have the right Govt agency in it, bikers could be represented among others, it would generate sane policy and have push.

Push is best achieved when legislation is passed requiring Parliament to treat the road toll as a disaster or a war, requiring the least possible casualties and therefore backing of any reasonable policy. This is the law passed in Sweden, which stops the silliness of elections and voter popularity having too much of a hobbling or a deprioritising effect on progressive ideas.

For example, all the political capital gained from the kneejerk panic around boy racers which made one pollie popular in CHCH was very distracting from legislators focussing on evidence based policy. If they had really cared to address the inder 20 road toll boy racer legislation would have been the last resort - and child booster seats for kids under 10 or so would have been no.1.

[candor]

Mostly, the decreases in these incidents PER CAPITA is credited to better roads, better quality cars (ABS etc)

So in short, no we have not seen a huge increase in injury and death, just a massive increase in the cost to the taxpayers

Yep I just dug up from the OIA pile transit charts of trends 1999-2005. Just a couple of exceptions to the general improve trend though. The charts for fatal and serious crashes per million vk travelled show down trends everywhere bar Napier Office reports and Dunedin Office. Looking at a further breakdown to 14 regions Hawkes Bay, Nelson Marlborouh, Otago and Southland have uptrends in trauma or are static. All others showed small down trends. But... I don't trust the data if its primary source is Police crash reports.

The recent agreement to data match betwen ACC claims and the crash analysis system injury reports will show in a year or two if the CAS is as much a "tool" as some people think (for under reporting).

Things just may be worse than portrayed. I'll try and get updated charts, as these are a bit old to aid discussion.

[StoneY]

So in short, even when the doc's your holding in you're hand from your OIA Pile (as you describe it) show an improvement in crash stats you're STILL doubting it?


Simon and I went over the stuff you sent him last night, and while it is interesting reading we see NO refference to either Tony Bliss or the World Bank in what you provided us to date.
We see no smoking guns pointing at your conspiracy.

What we can see is hard working public servants answering ministerial questions and the ongoing development of the formulae applied each new anual period

I note a total lack of departmental letterheads, page footers, or file refferences among other tell tales that indicate genuine government documents.

Its obvious this sort of documentation would be watermarked as confidential at LEAST yet no such marks are shown in any of these doc's.

To help you understand why I say this;
I worked in fairly high up IT roles within several government departments over the last 6 years, and have been instrumental in the application of Meta Data policies with DOL and ERO among other projects that I am not allowed to speak of

I am very familiar with what 'confidential' documents look like, and I am not convinced of the validity of these documents we have been sent.

http://rapidshare.com/files/379051894/Candor.pdf.html
Anyone who wishes to have a look for themselves, here it is. Ten downloads only so be quick

StoneY

[candor]

No I'm agreeing with you there is improvement, but adding my 5 cents that it is minor and maybe not even as much as it looks at that. And I'm agreeing with you that it comes from things like road improvements.

Hmm kay. Heres just one of numerous papers we have showing he is a leader in this project.
Scroll down to the Resource Allocation model study on p7 and you'll see Safety Directions by Bliss are the developmental papers.
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:J_CB161EqmYJ:www.transport.govt.nz/research/Documents/NZ-Road-Safety-Research-2007.pdf+research+bliss+guria&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=nz

He was also the LTSA attendee at meeting 30 advocating the formula use.

He is also the main author on LTSA Safety Directions publications which the NRSC memorandum of understanding lists as providing the strategic direction for road safety in NZ. Safety Directions working papers 1-7 and the Safety Directons manual lay out the theory behind and developmental stages of the RAM.

If you don't think the docs are genuine what can I say - phone the AA motoring policy advisors and they'll tell you they studied the GENUINE docs we provided them for weeks, which helped inform their anti enforcement submissions to cabinet and government. Or phone Martin Jenkins BEng of the Akilla campaign who spent a year doing numerous OIAs - met with Transport Officials with their lawyers present, and then had to use the Ombudsmen to secure the release of the docs - I'll PM you his PH number if I'm not credible.

No trouble to produce these things at a meeting and more to pad things out, but I have no scanner so cannot post up so easily. I'm not in the business of forging Govt papers thanks!
We've had a couple years analysing this stuff so we know a bit - and it is not a product of hardworking civil servants. It is serious negligence or a major cock up. You'll need to see the analyses by people far brighter than myself to "get it" probably. I originally did not know what I was looking at, as I'm not educated to that level, I needed a "translator" so to speak.

Don't worry - they tried every trick in the book to avoid release, including denial the info existed. But the law mandated release as the OIA is quite strong. incidentally the e-ml has an oia stamp on its first page of 2 so not sure why it's said to be unmarked. And I accidentally scanned one doc twice, and missed doing another one, which shows what questions under the OIA we'd asked - which i see may make following it all a bit tricky.

[Ixion]

I'm a bit confused about where all this is coming from or going to.

Tony Bliss certainly exists , and he certainly works for the World Bank, and used to work for LTSA. I have corresponded with him, he took part in the Safer Journeys forum discussion. And he certainly developed a mathematical model for allocation of resources for road safety.

I have found at least one of his working papers, which is attached. It's very boring but it is certainly 'official'

I'm sure he would be happy to confirm all that, he can be contacted through the World bank i imagine.

From the papers Candor has, it appears that the model has become considerably more complex since he moved on. I suspect that like most such things the more complex it becomes the less relaible it becomes.

It is important to note that Mr Bliss's work was not directed toward eliminating road casualties. Rather, to minimising the financial impact of them - to determining the point at which extra expenditure (in whatever area) produced dimishing returns.

His work suggested that the most effective (effective in financial terms, not necessarily in safety or social terms) use of the available money was by directing it to having police giving out tickets.

Whether this model is proving robust in practcie is a matter that can be argued by everyone in every direction. Certainly the predicted casualty rates for 2010 have not eventuated. But economic models seldom do produce real world results that tally with the expectation.

Whether any of this comprises a 'smoking gun' or 'conspiracy' I don't know. It all seems fairly straight forward to me. Likewise whether it actually WORKS is a matter that may be endlessly debated. Personally i don't think it does, human interactions are always far more complex than economists want to admit. But then, I'm not an economist.

What can be said is that Mr Bliss's resource allocation model does , by and large, direct the governments allocation of resources (duh, hardly surprising). And doubtless will until someone comes up with an alternative model. I very much doubt that Treasury would be impressed by a suggestion along the lines of "Lets throw lots of money around generally and see if any of it does any good".

[candor]

He didn't move on - he still attends NRSC meetings when in NZ. Where this is going is hopefully where the start of the thread suggested. To get support for a review as requested by several road safety agencies of the RAM. Its hard to see why this would be controversial when I can and will produce documents in a meeting, that show experts saying the model is not only ineffective but is harmful. If it is harmful and produces more cost than it rakes in (as the AA say), well then it is rather hard to justify.
I can forward by e-ml some of the official statements put out by experts, based on review of these papers, supporting that RAM does no good and is a waste of time and resource, to anyone interested. If these aren't all compelling taken together... then I am in an alternate universe. Sure its a bit of reading to get to the bottom of, but prolly worth it.

[candor]

BTW Stoney I have received other docs marked confidential that were quite boring. What does it signify and how do they decide which ones to mark as that - flip a coin?

[Ixion]

The problem I would see with this (I don't disagree with you, but my opinion isn't what counts), is that it would be hard for wanyone reviewing a economic model to go past police ticketing ,and specifically speed ticketing, as a major intervention.

Simply because it is so cheap . Largely self financing, may even show a profit

I'm sure that other appraoches could be found that would save a lot more lives,and injuries, but they would cost (net) a lot more. The RAM ultimately isn't about safety it's about cost.

I don't think the RAM takes into account collateral cos teffects (such as public loss of confidence in the police force). Those are very hard to quantify. The model has complicated formulae (always suspicious), but ultimately is quite simple. Cost of crashes (noting that sometimes having a crash kill off somone, eg an old person may be a net cost benefit - no more superannuation, no hip replacements etc); versus net cost of enforcement. Net cost of speed enforcement is pretty much zero. Hard to go past that if all you are looking at is a simplistic comparison BTW I think I see that the major determinator of crashes is actually traffic volume. How surprising. More bikes on the road, more crashes. So why does Mr Smith deny it?

[candor]

IMO it should only be a supportive intervention as part of a smarter plan - not the cornerstone. It's more on peoples mind to find the point of diminishing ROAD SAFETY returns or where too much of a good thing turns bad eg is it 500,000 tickets, 1 million or 5 million.
At what point is the supposed road safety spend (on patrolling, cameras or whatever) best spent somewhere else to save more life eg donations to Bronz (:
Dreaming on. Yes take the formula to one logical conclusion for toll reductions, and you drop the vehicle kms by "high risk" road users to zip. Or as you observed earlier another permutation could be - do not target boy racer pensioners for harm reduction as they're too costly to be worth preserving!
But the point is; that Labour MPs have said it's worth considering from a fiscal responsibility viewpoint finding out the right cut off - reviewing the system for glitches. This interest in compromise is progress, but may not linger without support. And they are very interested in building evidence based new policies at this point. The Nats to me are just cruising on a smile and a wave.

[Spearfish]

All this complexity, little wonder the navel lint admirers in Wellington have trouble...
What country drives the best and why and would it work here, isn't that all there is to it?

[Ronin]

All this complexity, little wonder the navel lint admirers in Wellington have trouble...
What country drives the best and why and would it work here, isn't that all there is to it?

My eyes glazed long ago. BUT, I have read through all of the documents referenced here, even the wiki stuff. Did I understand most of it? hmmm some. Candor does have a point in that it should be possible to lower the road toll through different means than just ticketing... Will it ever happen here? Nup. From what I can see, most of the models from overseas rely on the proactive safety of the roads themselves. I cant see many people being happy about having to pay for that here. With such a small population base the cost per head would be prohibitive. Yes, I'm aware that this is essentialy putting a dollar value on a life but IMO there is affordable safety and then there is unaffordable cotton wool.

[StoneY]

My last say on this issue.

Candor;
I agree that Labour SEEM to pay us more attention (of course they want VOTES next year) and I stop in at Parliament frequently to catch up with a few of them. Dont mistake vote mongering for anything other than that.
Your forgotten the moment the phone lines disconnected, think anything else and your as naieve as I was in November.

Conspiracy?
Nup. No smoking guns, no blame to be held by zionist bankers at the heart of the world eccononmy

An issue in our road management?
Yes, definitely. They try to minimise bad behaviour by charging and fining offenders...same situation as the rest of the world and you know, its all they HAVE as a prevention in most countries


NOW here is how it works in reallity, where we end up after all the tickets fail:

See attached PDF.

Timmy, launched his 800hp turbo charged rotary powered nissan Silvia (illegally modified, unregistered, unwarranted, non compliant) race car from 200 meters away from where MY car was parked.
He wrapped his Nissan around my Legacy in a 50kmh zone at estimated speed of 150kmh
He was also pissed at the time (over 700 mg on the breath, still he chose a blood test)

One wet bus ticket awarded, and the very reason we have repeat offenders constantly killing people in our country on the roads.

Ticket Timmy all ya like, he will say what he said while I was handing him a towel for his bleeding scalp..... 'its ok Daddy will pay for it'

StoneY out

(thread unsubscribed, peace all)

[Bald Eagle]

My last say on this issue.

One wet bus ticket awarded, and the very reason we have repeat offenders constantly killing people in our country on the roads.


That bus tickets barely bloody damp FFS

[candor]

[/QUOTE]One wet bus ticket awarded, and the very reason we have repeat offenders constantly killing people in our country on the roads.

Ticket Timmy all ya like, he will say what he said while I was handing him a towel for his bleeding scalp..... 'its ok Daddy will pay for it'
[/QUOTE]

Daddy will pay for it................................ well that drives it home - no reg, no wof and on and on for Timmy!
And this is standard stuff too. What are we - the capital of semi wet bus ticket slaps?

How was it Naive in November - bike-oi got results, I thought .

But maybe midst the vote catching behaviour there is the occasional pollie effort to do something useful. All this talk of rebranding the party might suggest they look for some points of difference. Prolly a wasted effort working on pollies - but maybe you've got to be in to win? Anyway interest has dried up, and I see some better ideas to get change on other threads, so signing off this one too.

Ronin, we can actually afford a lot more safety engineering than they are doing. I saw somewhere how only a small rise in charges levied on road users can achieve a lot road safety wise. It was a pittance really - that I think most would be happy to pay. Our long network is a problem, but I can't see why we couldn't afford to spruce up the main ones full length like sh1 and sh2. Apparently this was commenced with road widening a few decades ago, but never completed. IRAP program may bring about better prioritising.

Anyway, off to watch the intersection ads and ads telling me to buy an elecronic stability car (thanks NZTA - I'll be down the dealers tomorrow), good ads they assume I'm blind and/or don't know the road code or how to drive. TV will surely larn me - like Timmy.

[candor]

Bogan- will look into it re those stats & PM ya once get time/energy... bit knackered just now.