I am an evil endangered minority

[Hitcher]

Being critical of the official administration's policies on “road safety”, one runs the risk of being labeled a baby killer, Holocaust denier or Justin Bieber fan. Perhaps all three.

But what the heck. I think that the New Zealand motoring public is being incrementally marginalised while the real villians and killers of road users go unaddressed.

I believe that the real villian is driver inattention, but more on that later.

The most obvious remedy I believe is ongoing driver training and education. This also most obvious omission from the official administration's current road safety programme.

While it's still fresh in my mind, I'd like to raise the issue of zero-tolerance speed limit enforcement, particularly now it being lauded by the Police for being a resounding success over this past Queen's Birthday weekend.

One road-related death at Queen's Birthday. I hesitate to use the term “accident” as it implies that there are Evil Forces(TM) afoot beyond the influence of the operators of motor vehicles that somehow mysteriously conspire to maim or kill. More on “dangerous roads” later.

New Zealand's road toll currently runs at about 380 a year. To make the maths a bit easier, let's call that one a day or 365 a year.

That means that for a three-day holiday weekend, not allowing for increased traffic flows and other matters, the “toll” should statistically be three. A five-day Easter break should be five, and for a 10-day Christmas/New Year break, it should be 10. The margin of error is probably about one or two either way.

12 deaths over an Easter is higher than average. One death for a Queen's Birthday weekend is lower than average. One holiday weekend on its own does not a trend make. Therefore trying to claim “success” for one particular contributor to road safety is,I believe, drawing a very long bow indeed.

Traffic safety zealots (one hesitates to use the N word from fear of Godwin's Law) believe that road deaths can be eliminated. They believe this can be done through safer vehicles and safer roads. They are fools. Fools who have never heard of the Law of Diminishing Returns or of human falibility.

“One death is too many,” they argue. Who, other then some sort of god-hating, mother-beating, apple-pie-intolerant deadhead could argue an opposing view?

Such a position is tantamount to the “Who isn't with us is against us” slant on the US's “war” on terrorism made famous by President George W Bush. It implies that the only solution to a problem is the one that is officially sanctioned.

Even though they may not say so in as many words, most people accept that there is an inherent risk associated with travel. If they didn't, people would never go anywhere.

I believe that what the New Zealand electorate needs to determine is an acceptable level of road-related deaths and injuries. Given that zero is a farcical impossibility, despite the best intentions of the zealots, then why can't such a level be set? Why can't that level be set at a point that doesn't require facile measures to be implemented, such as 70kmh open road speed limits, no overtaking anywhere ever, nobody younger than 25 allowed to be in control of a motor vehicle, and travel by permit only at weekends and during national holidays.

Unfortunately in our society, the wishes of a few often outweigh the needs of the many. Vaccination, fluoride, 1080, road safety, alcohol, criminal justice, All Black selections. I doubt that any government would have the stomach for such a discussion or for setting a level which, I suspect, is somewhere about 300 deaths a year. As this number falls, the costs associated with bringing it down go up.

Heaven forbid that we ever have to consider the competence of operators of motor vehicles, or the effects that alcohol and similar mind-altering substances may have on them. That's way too easy, unnecessary or irrelevant, apparently.

So rather than implementing measures that actually make a difference we are instead to be ground down by a myriad of the facile and the inane.

“Don't cross the centreline,” we are told. Fair enough, but that surely is a matter of time and place? The poster child of the Police's campaign against evil killers last week was SH3 through the Manawatu Gorge. A windy road, no question. But a winding road that has, in several places, stretches where a driver has a clear line of sight through a sequence of corners and who can choose to straighten the road out without any danger whatsoever.

To suggest otherwise, as the Police endeavoured to do last week, is beyond farce, even if some zealot has had the whole length of this stretch of road double-yellow-lined. More troubling is that the utterers of this “news” appear to believe what they are saying. Even more troubling is that the media swallows all of this without question and, in the case of the Dominion Post's editorial this morning, be calling for even more.

Zealots believe that there are such things as dangerous roads. Apart from roads made unsafe by unmarked hazards (such as diesel, stock effluent, pea gravel, livestock, small children) or the unexpected absence of roads (such as through washouts, avalanches), I argue that there is no such thing as a dangerous road. The real danger is generally created by the inability of a motor vehicle operator to cope with surprise, often exacerbated by things like following distance, mind-altering substances, or by having to use the wheel or pedals to impose one's will on the vehicle itself.

I believe that removing road information signage (apart from that which identifies hazards, as noted above) would have a significant positive benefit on road safety for no other reason than drivers would have to concentrate harder on what they're doing, rather than making assumptions or taking no actions at all.

The money saved from unnecessarily modifying roads could be better spent on ongoing driver training and education.

As long as people are trusted with the operation of motor vehicles, there will be “accidents”. Even with the best will in the world, we could all drop dead at any moment. People already do this while driving cars. Even Denny Hulme did it. Who knows, even I may do it.

[Motu]

Bring back road deaths - we want a higher speed limit.

[p.dath]

I believe that the real villian is driver inattention, but more on that later.

The most obvious remedy I believe is ongoing driver training and education. This also most obvious omission from the official administration's current road safety programme.

I've been considering your first statement ("in-attention") and all the different types of "road users" (as opposed to just drivers), but when you look at the NZTA reports of the top accident types the majority are like you say - failure to observe a situation. Weather it be rear-end collisions, failure to see cylists, pedestrians, motorcyclists, etc. The rest are what I would describe as "road user error", failure to take a corner due to inappropriate speed, under the influence of alchohol or drugs, etc.

How do you train people to be more attentive (to address the largest chunk of accidents)? My initial reflections on it make me think a large portion of being attentive is simply experience. Time on the road makes it easier to spot potential dangers coming up, so that you act accoordingly, so that it is no longer a danger (or at least the danger is reduced).
Sure you can give someone a test asking them to identify dangers and the situation around them, but my pondering makes me think that experience is what really makes it count.

NZ has recently (or rather is about to) extend the learner licence period. Hopefully this will help achieve this aim.


Addressing road user error might be tougher. How do you teach someone that drinking and driving means they are more likely to have an accident and hurt themselves - and more importantly - someone else? And what about those that just don't care? You can keep senidng them to training courses, but if they have no empathy or other road users what can you do?


Traffic safety zealots (one hesitates to use the N word from fear of Godwin's Law) believe that road deaths can be eliminated. They believe this can be done through safer vehicles and safer roads. They are fools. Fools who have never heard of the Law of Diminishing Returns or of human falibility.


“One death is too many,” they argue. Who, other then some sort of god-hating, mother-beating, apple-pie-intolerant deadhead could argue an opposing view?

I'm with you on this one. If we took the extreme, and only allowed one road user on the public roads at a time, there would still be an accident. it's just a matter of time. So you have to accept there are going to be accidents and deaths.


I believe that what the New Zealand electorate needs to determine is an acceptable level of road-related deaths and injuries. Given that zero is a farcical impossibility, despite the best intentions of the zealots, then why can't such a level be set?

I agree. You also have to consider the wider socio-economic benefit of being a road user. Lets say that to achieve a zero accident rate that tomorrow we banned all road users from being on a public road. Sure we could achieve the zero accident rate - but can you imageine the huge cost socio-economic cost? NZ would be plunged into being a third world state.

So you have to conlcude, that NZ as a whole BENEFITS from preople dying on the road. Yeah I know, tough to swallow.

Of course you can take it to the extreme, and there is a point where there are so many deaths that it also costs NZ as a whole - the social cost.

So I am with Hitcher. We need to realise that to have a country we like to live in that there has to be an acceptable level of death and accidents on public roads, and that number is not zero.

This of course is a bitter pill to swallow if you have lost a loved one on the public roading network (and I give you my condolences, and mean no offence to you). But everything has a risk in life (except death, funnily, which is a certainty). Playing a game of rugby, working your 9 to 5 job, sitting on the couch watching TV, having sex - everything.

Slowing the traffic down has a very real financial cost due to the loss of labour of enjoyment of life. Of course, accidents also have a very real cost. I agree with Hitcher, the trick is to choose the balance. How many accidents and deaths are we prepared to tolerate.


Unfortunately in our society, the wishes of a few often outweigh the needs of the many. Vaccination, fluoride, 1080, road safety, alcohol, criminal justice, All Black selections. I doubt that any government would have the stomach for such a discussion or for setting a level which, I suspect, is somewhere about 300 deaths a year. As this number falls, the costs associated with bringing it down go up.

Those aren't all quite the same comparison. Road users tend to only affect a small number of users at a time (when considering accidents). Vaccinations are often only made compulsory when the potential saving in human life is huge, and the cos tto provide that saving is low.


I believe that removing road information signage (apart from that which identifies hazards, as noted above) would have a significant positive benefit on road safety for no other reason than drivers would have to concentrate harder on what they're doing, rather than making assumptions or taking no actions at all.

Or it could make drivers with limited attention stretch what little they have left even more ...

A lot of accidents happen when one road user fails to see another road user. Nothing to do with signage.


The money saved from unnecessarily modifying roads could be better spent on ongoing driver training and education.

I'm not in agreement with you here. I would like to see a consistent level of road engineering for the duration of a road.

For example. If 90% of the corners on a road can be taken at 80km/h, then you shouldn't suddenly have 30km/h corners on the same road. There should be consistency.

[scumdog]

Most 'accidents' aren't.

They are really crashes caused by inattention/distraction/fuckwittery.

And as soon as I have invented a detector for the above I'll be making millions.

[Ixion]

Bring back road deaths - we want a higher speed limit.

Nothing wrong with the speed limit, 100 is fine. It's the UNITS that are messed up. That stupid k has sneaked in when it should be m Bring back 100 mph

[sinfull]

Change then to than and send it to the media !

[sinfull]

I've been considering your first statement ("in-attention") and all the different types of "road users" (as opposed to just drivers), but when you look at the NZTA reports of the top accident types the majority are like you say - failure to observe a situation. Weather it be rear-end collisions, failure to see cylists, pedestrians, motorcyclists, etc. The rest are what I would describe as "road user error", failure to take a corner due to inappropriate speed, under the influence of alchohol or drugs, etc.

Your right, it has been crap lately !

[rustic101]

Being critical of the official administration's policies on “road safety”, one runs the risk of being labeled a baby killer, Holocaust denier or Justin Bieber fan. Perhaps all three..

Unfortunately I have to agree with you.

Speeding is the third lowest cause of fatalities on New Zealands roads. In order:

1, Carelessness Driving
2, Drink/ Drug driving
3, Speeding.

That list straight from Road Policing.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a speed freak, however so much is being placed on speed as it has a tangible outcome...

What is interesting is that one fatal crash out of how many users on the roads compared with the past 54 years?? It is certainly not apples for apples.

An interesting point in relation to that past weeks speed campaign is that all other resources were pulled away (where possible) from core policing (excluding CIB and specialists) to cover the Road Policing duties.

[bogan]

A very well written rant Hitcher, but to get 'them' to see sense is like trying to push shit up hill, and I'm talking morning after curry and beers shit too.


Most 'accidents' aren't.

They are really crashes caused by inattention/distraction/fuckwittery.

And as soon as I have invented a detector for the above I'll be making millions.

I thought the motorcycle was the natural fuckwit detector? if you fail a fine is the least of your worries though.

The whole 0 road deaths strategy is laughable, but cry-able cos the are actually trying to do it :blink: Perhaps the public get behind it as those at fault often take the innocent with them, which is fair enough, negligence causing death. Regardless of how many tickets are issued, we still have two tonnes of metal being propelled at 27m/s under the control of complete fucking morons, and this is legal; until training sorts that out, there will never be a 0 road toll.

[scumdog]

Funny how 'everybody' says they can ride/drive safely in excess of the Gov't mandated speed limit.

But you never hear anybody banging on about how they are safe with a breath-alcohol level higher than the G'ovt mandated limit....

[bogan]

Funny how 'everybody' says they can ride/drive safely in excess of the Gov't mandated speed limit.

But you never hear anybody banging on about how they are safe with a breath-alcohol level higher than the G'ovt mandated limit....

true, some would even say they are unsafe after drinking even if under the breath alcohol limit; does that mean the govt got the speed limit wrong?

[rustic101]

Funny how 'everybody' says they can ride/drive safely in excess of the Gov't mandated speed limit.

But you never hear anybody banging on about how they are safe with a breath-alcohol level higher than the G'ovt mandated limit....

If it were up to me I would have a Zero limit.

I have on three separate occasions sat in a controlled environment at Calibrations testing equipment and on each been well under the limit. In reality each time my flatmate picked me up I was pissed to bits and in absolutely in no fit state to drive let alone get on a dance floor afterwards..

[Ocean1]

If you don't like the current tolerance levels I'd suggest 400 fatalities a year is probably more workable.

And I don't believe any amount of training will improve anyone's span of attention on the road, like eye colour it is what it is.

[sinfull]

Funny how 'everybody' says they can ride/drive safely in excess of the Gov't mandated speed limit.

But you never hear anybody banging on about how they are safe with a breath-alcohol level higher than the G'ovt mandated limit....
Some would say the Gov't mandated breath alcohol limit should be zero, i agree with them, as if it WAS zero i would not drink and drive!

[rustic101]

Some would say the Gov't mandated breath alcohol limit should be zero, i agree with them, as if it WAS zero i would not drink and drive!

One great thing is that there is no ambiguity - You have either had or haven't had a drink.

However you will still have the babies crying that its from the night before when they are bailed up in the morning. Well refer above!

[yachtie10]

A very well written rant Hitcher
The whole 0 road deaths strategy is laughable, but cry-able cos the are actually trying to do it : there will never be a 0 road toll.

I agree with most of all the above. I have thought for a while now that the real cause of the idotic way we try to reduce the road toll is mainly political. It has very little to do with road safety.
What I think has been happening is we have figures like NZ is in the botton 5 of OECD countries on its road toll. This causes polititions to give people a job to reduce it (and most importantly makes a reduction in the road toll a performance measure in there employment contract). These people usually dont have the power to change things that are the real cause. But they can do things like this weekends crackdown.

My 2 cents

[sinfull]

No wait!!! I know what the problem is ! Cops are looking to give us tickets is all it is ! Some cunt fucks up and dies or kills some other cunt on the road and it's a cops fault, surely ?

[Woodman]

If the police state that the low road toll is because of the weekends policy, does that mean they are responsible for the deaths when this policy has not been enforced ??

Can of worms.

[merv]

I drove to Napier and back in the weekend going up on Saturday and back on Monday. First comment I'd make is there were a large number of trucks on the road on Saturday - don't those guys have homes to go to? Second comment is I have the GPS going and know my speed accurately, clearly others have little idea how inaccurate their speedos are so drive rather slowly. The Police panicked them into thinking that it was so evil to go over 100 that they kept probably just below 100 on the clock and on my GPS stuck behind them my reading was typically around 93. Third comment was the usual cop factor - instead of happily driving past a parked cop car at up to 104 most zubes hit their brakes and whoopee the whole line panick brakes and next thing I'm reading about 66 on the GPS on flippin SH2.

All in all I'd say most drivers totally over-reacted to the threat of fines which caused different and potentially dangerous problems. Also I'd agree with Hitch it is a bit rich the cops already claiming success when the statistics around crashes at long weekends shows an average over the years plus or minus about 200-300% so to say a 20% reduction in crash numbers was directly attributable to their campaign may well be stretching the truth.

[Max Preload]

Funny how 'everybody' says they can ride/drive safely in excess of the Gov't mandated speed limit.

But you never hear anybody banging on about how they are safe with a breath-alcohol level higher than the G'ovt mandated limit....The difference being you can adjust your speed for the conditions you encounter. You can't adjust your level of impairment following the consumption of alcohol - it adjusts itself provided you don't consume more.

[puddytat]

Ive seen a report on the Telly where somewhere in Europe they have been trialing just the approach you mention Hitcher.With the results being very syrprising & entirely in line with your prediction. I'd Google it ,but with dial up.....:weep:
The bit I saw was mainly in the inner city somewhere & they had removed all signage including zebra crossings,.....with the result that both drivers & pedestrians had to think for themselves & actually observe thier surroundings rather than being reliant on signage or prompts.
Damn sure I wouldnt be fanging down some road if I didnt rely on a sign suggesting a safe speed for a corner, so add on my third or so to it e.g 60 + 20 =80 & Im usually quite happy. Double it & Im in the zone....
So I'd slow down a fair bit I'd say if I was flying blind so to speak.

[Gremlin]

you write good. I'd also say they need to stop straightening the fucken roads. I can do 600km of demanding SI roads no worries, but struggle to remain 100% focussed during 200km from Wellington to Taihape.

[MSTRS]

... we have figures like NZ is in the botton 5 of OECD countries on its road toll. ...

Are we? I don't know. But there was a link in another thread in the last few days that said the US has some 48,000 road deaths pa. Per capita, that's about 2.5x the death rate here.

[Swoop]

The "powers that be" have been stating that the last "bad" weekend road toll of ten deaths, was an "abberation"...

The truth is that this weekend was the "abberation" due to multiple factors, but mainly the crappy weather throughout the entire country.


Also we need to consider the population of this Banana Republic has increased to 4 million. The target of 300 deaths was dreampt up when we had closer to 3 million.
Population up, road toll target down = a shit load of money needs to be spent. NZ does not spend money where needed, so we end up with a cheap and nasty approach. Target speeding is quick and simple, and provides ample time to munch on donuts'...

Unfortunately the idiots at the top do not see the same picture as the worker bees at the workface.

[Paul in NZ]

Most 'accidents' aren't.

They are really crashes caused by inattention/distraction/fuckwittery.

And as soon as I have invented a detector for the above I'll be making millions.

I made one of those once but I think its faulty. It seems to go off whenever I go anywhere near it... Must be broken I reckon....

[Pixie]

I believe that what the New Zealand electorate needs to determine is an acceptable level of road-related deaths and injuries. Given that zero is a farcical impossibility, despite the best intentions of the zealots, then why can't such a level be set? Why can't that level be set at a point that doesn't require facile measures to be implemented, such as 70kmh open road speed limits, no overtaking anywhere ever, nobody younger than 25 allowed to be in control of a motor vehicle, and travel by permit only at weekends and during national holidays.


You forgot the ersatz banning of motorcycles through making it too expensive to do it legally

[Bald Eagle]

I made one of those once but I think its faulty. It seems to go off whenever I go anywhere near it... Must be broken I reckon....

You must have it calibrated wrong, needs to be set for 'hairy arsed biker'

[Pixie]

How do you train people to be more attentive (to address the largest chunk of accidents)? My initial reflections on it make me think a large portion of being attentive is simply experience. Time on the road makes it easier to spot potential dangers coming up, so that you act accoordingly, so that it is no longer a danger (or at least the danger is reduced).
Sure you can give someone a test asking them to identify dangers and the situation around them, but my pondering makes me think that experience is what really makes it count.

You can engineer to increase driver attention,cheaply and easily.

A six inch steel spike positioned in front of the drivers forehead in each car,is all it takes.
Making cars safer has the opposite effect.
Why are most motorcyclists more careful and attentive than car drivers?

[Pixie]

Nothing wrong with the speed limit, 100 is fine. It's the UNITS that are messed up. That stupid k has sneaked in when it should be m Bring back 100 mph

Me preference be knots me hearty,aarrrr

[Pixie]

Ive seen a report on the Telly where somewhere in Europe they have been trialing just the approach you mention Hitcher.With the results being very syrprising & entirely in line with your prediction. I'd Google it ,but with dial up.....:weep:
The bit I saw was mainly in the inner city somewhere & they had removed all signage including zebra crossings,.....with the result that both drivers & pedestrians had to think for themselves & actually observe thier surroundings rather than being reliant on signage or prompts.
Damn sure I wouldnt be fanging down some road if I didnt rely on a sign suggesting a safe speed for a corner, so add on my third or so to it e.g 60 + 20 =80 & Im usually quite happy. Double it & Im in the zone....
So I'd slow down a fair bit I'd say if I was flying blind so to speak.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,448747,00.html

[MSTRS]

I believe that removing road information signage (apart from that which identifies hazards, as noted above) would have a significant positive benefit on road safety for no other reason than drivers would have to concentrate harder on what they're doing, rather than making assumptions or taking no actions at all.


Likening this to the education system...
The public has had thinking trained out of them. Vast numbers are now at the Doctorate stage of this training. What does one do with these people when thinking is re-introduced to the curriculum?

[Edbear]

Well said, Hitcher and some good comments here. Driver training is undoubtably the best option, but if you look at the "accidents" occurring, it's not the new drivers of 15 years of age that are having the crashes, it's a range of young men and women in their twenty's who are boozing and racing and older men who are recidivist drink/disqualified drivers in the main.

The fact is that speed is the easiest of the three mentioned factors to police prior to the fact, how do you police distraction and innattention? And statisitcally, because it is that a reduction in average speed results in a reduction in accidents, it is easy to argue the link, harder to argue the other two due to the inability to do much about them before an accident occurs.

When I was 16 I went through the then newly introduced Defensive Driving Course and those lessons have stood me in good stead throughout my 40 years of driving/riding and has saved me on many occassions. Such a course should be mandatory as part of the licencing procedure.

My recent accident was a wake-up call to me as it was a true accident in that I was driving under the speed limit, driving according to the conditions but could not see the oil on the road that caused the rear tyres to slip sideways. I was doing well under 50km/h on an off-camber bumpy uphill bend. I was stone cold sober, the van had passed its WoF the Friday before, (the accident was Wed 12th May), and everything was in order.

The stretch of road is notorious for accidents, (one resident claims 70 in the last 12 months), and I was assuming they were due to driver inability. A motorcyclist had crashed breaking his leg 20 minutes before my crash on the same corner and we were in ED together in Auckland Hospital, though I never got to meet him. Now I'm more aware that while driver innattention is the leading cause of accidents, there are times when it is not up to you.

I've been shaken up more than I care to admit by the crash, as I was confident and relaxed about my abilities after 40 years without serious incident, then to break my back and nearly kill myself at such a low speed on such an innoccuous and familiar road, was a shock!

[duckonin]

you write good. I'd also say they need to stop straightening the fucken roads. I can do 600km of demanding SI roads no worries, but struggle to remain 100% focussed during 200km from Wellington to Taihape.

There are two corners for u one going into Bulls the other leaving Bulls..ha ha

[SPman]

Double it & Im in the zone.... Just don't try it in Oz....they have more realistic advisory signs over here! :scooter: :eek: :shit:

[p.dath]

You can engineer to increase driver attention,cheaply and easily.

A six inch steel spike positioned in front of the drivers forehead in each car,is all it takes.
Making cars safer has the opposite effect.
Why are most motorcyclists more careful and attentive than car drivers?

I can't agree on this one. Putting a death spike in front the the drivers forehead would simply result in a lot of drivers having fatal injuries from minor incidents beyond there control (see that child's ball rolling across the road, or that big dog, or how about that person that just opened up their car door without looking when parked while you were driving by).

Increasing the danger of using the road in the pretence of making it safer is not the solution.

[Bald Eagle]

Increasing the danger of using the road in the pretence of making it safer is not the solution.

This doesn't apply to WRB's off course. :scratch:

[MSTRS]

Increasing the danger of using the road in the pretence of making it safer is not the solution.

Unless, of course, you ride a motorcycle.

[Big Dave]

Can I stick that on the KR site too please?

[p.dath]

Unless, of course, you ride a motorcycle.

I don't think anyone is under the pretence that riding a motorcycle is safer ... :)

[PrincessBandit]

1. People will always speed no matter what the speed limit (unless there is no limit at all) simply because they don't like any restrictions or rules imposed on them, oh and because they are convinced they're clever enough to and never encounter a problem they can't cope with adequately. 2. People will always drive/ride/cycle like inconsiderate plonkers because we have a society which encourages every person to be only concerned with their own welfare, wants and needs at the moment (screw thinking about anyone else). 3. Anyone prepared to "follow the law" will readily be labelled a suck-up, arse kisser, pussy (no offence there John), and to people who say that, my reply is :motu:

New Zealanders don't like being told they suck at anything. And a lot of road users (regardless of mode of travel) suck. Developing attention won't be successful because the ones who need it the most won't recognise it and will be in a complete state of denial when it's mentioned to them.

[Bass]

To extend what Hitcher said and try to add yet a little more perspective, I have never really understood why there is so much focus on the road toll anyway.
If we look at all the ways that we kill ourselves, doing it on the road is not even near the top of the list.
It seems to me that our knives and forks are our deadliest weapons of mass destruction and there are many other ways of doing ourselves in before we get down to motor vehicle collisions.
Another random example - the last figure I read (in the mainstream media admittedly) for annual deaths in Auckland associated with vehicle generated air pollution, was around 600 (and I can hear the cheers from the other side of the Bombays already).
My point, of course, is why do we agonise so fervently over the road toll while almost ignoring factors that actually kill or harm a much larger number?

[bogan]

To extend what Hitcher said and try to add yet a little more perspective, I have never really understood why there is so much focus on the road toll anyway.
If we look at all the ways that we kill ourselves, doing it on the road is not even near the top of the list.
It seems to me that our knives and forks are our deadliest weapons of mass destruction and there are many other ways of doing ourselves in before we get down to motor vehicle collisions.
Another random example - the last figure I read (in the mainstream media admittedly) for annual deaths in Auckland associated with vehicle generated air pollution was around 600 (and I can hear the cheers from the other side of the Bombays already).
My point, of course, is why do we agonise so fervently over the road toll while almost ignoring factors that actually kill or harm a much larger number?

I reckon its the perception of fault, in other cases its always the faceless masses who do the damage, but in road accidents, it's perceived as mainly the blatant stupidity of the individual. Which I suppose makes it seem more real, and makes it seem like there is more we can do about it.
Thats my theory anyhow, and I'm sticking with it till a better one comes along.

[carbonhed]

Epic rant Hitcher :clap:

It's strange that in every field of human endeavour, except driving, if you want to improve you get coaching and practice what you've been taught. I think some of the reluctance comes from experience with outdated forms of training, like skid pan lessons, which gave a false sense of security and actually led to more accidents.

The obsession with "Speed Kills" is because it's easily measured and enforced. The plods get to issue tickets, the brass gets to meet targets and the pollies are seen to be doing "something". There is of course the kernel of truth in the proposition that the faster you hit something the more it's going to hurt. Personally I prefer to not hit anything at all rather than worrying about the speed of impact.

One fact that's religiously avoided by the speed zealots is that if your driving at an innappropriately slow speed it's almost impossible to maintain your concentration on the task in hand. Boredom induced loss of concentration, well known in the aviation industry. Train drivers have to push a button regularly to confirm they're awake/alive otherwise the whole shebang comes to an emergency halt. Our cars on the other hand almost invite you to nod off. Warm, quiet, comfortable seats, home entertainment systems, phones... what could possibly go wrong? It feels as threatening as your lounge! Apart from the fact your sitting in a tonne and a half of steel travelling at 100k a couple of metres away from a bunch of other fuckwits doing exactly the same but in the opposite direction! Concentrate? Optional surely :lol:

I think there's some moves in the auto industry to monitor the drivers eyes and thereby tell whether they're looking where they're actually going... now wouldn't that be a fucking novelty!

[Dave Lobster]

My point, of course, is why do we agonise so fervently over the road toll while almost ignoring factors that actually kill or harm a much larger number?

Because there's money in it.

[scumdog]

My point, of course, is why do we agonise so fervently over the road toll while almost ignoring factors that actually kill or harm a much larger number?

I dunno.

maybe more preventable?

or??

[MSTRS]

Wait until some polly introduces fines for fat people having diabetes and heart disease...

[Bass]

Wait until some polly introduces fines for fat people having diabetes and heart disease...

That's not as silly as it sounds and already happens after a fashion.
For example, you are unlikely to be accepted for transplant surgery if you are a smoker or for weight reduction surgery if you can't lose any weight on your own.

Anyway, thus far, we have had nearly as many different answers to my question as there have been responses, with perhaps some emphasis on the reason being that road safety is an easy target.

No-one has challenged the basic premise that the situation is as I stated it.

The next question then, has to ask whether this is an acceptable state of affairs and if not, what to do about it. To my mind, it's understandable that the easier problems get tackled first, but surely there must come a time when the harder ones move up the priority list.
Or am I just being naive?

[MSTRS]

Not exactly.
Having a target, and making money in the pursuit of that target is very different to saying we won't save you from yourself...

[p.dath]

To extend what Hitcher said and try to add yet a little more perspective, I have never really understood why there is so much focus on the road toll anyway.

Let me pose a different question, as it answers makes a lot of things clearer. Should suicide be legal - and why?

[Ronin]

Let me pose a different question, as it answers makes a lot of things clearer. Should suicide be legal - and why?

I'm curious as to how many people have been successfully prosecuted for committing suicide?

[T.W.R]

I'm curious as to how many people have been successfully prosecuted for committing suicide?

Life insurance isn't worth the paper it's written on if someone commits suicide

[p.dath]

I'm curious as to how many people have been successfully prosecuted for committing suicide?

I think you'll find people are forced into having care provided for them under the legislation (either by the state or released to family), as opposed to being fined or imprisoned ...

But I digress. It is not important in this discussion. Societies views towards suicide (taking your own life) should be related to how we feel about loosing a life due to an accident on a public road and weather be need more enforcement and laws to prevent it happening.

[MSTRS]

Legislating to prevent suicide is as ridiculous as legislating speed limits to prevent road deaths.

A certain number of road deaths ARE suicides, anyway.

[Edbear]

Life insurance isn't worth the paper it's written on if someone commits suicide

Most life insurances state that suicide is not covered for the first 13 months but are after that.

[T.W.R]

Most life insurances state that suicide is not covered for the first 13 months but are after that.

Most suicide clauses will only pay what amount the primiums have accrued to upto the time of death.

Suicide Clause
The suicide clause in your policy specifies that the insurance company will not pay the money if the insured attempts or commits suicide within a specified period from the beginning of the coverage. If the insured's death is a result of suicide, an insurer will only return previously paid premiums to the family.

[Edbear]

Most suicide clauses will only pay what amount the primiums have accrued to upto the time of death.

Suicide Clause
The suicide clause in your policy specifies that the insurance company will not pay the money if the insured attempts or commits suicide within a specified period from the beginning of the coverage. If the insured's death is a result of suicide, an insurer will only return previously paid premiums to the family.

That's what I said, and it is usuallly 13 months. I was selling insurance for a while and this was pretty much standard across the companies.

[T.W.R]

That's what I said, and it is usuallly 13 months. I was selling insurance for a while and this was pretty much standard across the companies.

That's making any form of payout in the specified period (13mths - 2yrs) and hereafter they only pay the accrued amount of primium payments made upto time of death.... to bad if you've got a policy for say $250k etc and 5yrs after the policy was initiated you cap yourself, your family is left in the shit

[red mermaid]

It is, and has been since at least 1962, against the law to attempt to commit suicide.


Legislating to prevent suicide is as ridiculous as legislating speed limits to prevent road deaths.

A certain number of road deaths ARE suicides, anyway.

[yachtie10]

That's making any form of payout in the specified period (13mths - 2yrs) and hereafter they only pay the accrued amount of primium payments made upto time of death.... to bad if you've got a policy for say $250k etc and 5yrs after the policy was initiated you cap yourself, your family is left in the shit

which is why suicide by cop aparently has become more common (or at least more creative ways to commit suicide)
Do we have any documented cases in NZ? (and did the insurance company pay out?)

[MSTRS]

It is, and has been since at least 1962, against the law to attempt to commit suicide.

Of course. How could I have forgotten? :slap:

Well, duh, I know it's against the law. I'm just drawing parallels. Legislation doesn't stop people attempting or succeeding, or road deaths. To think otherwise is just stupid.