NZ road safety ads & videos (2014)

[haydes55]

Anyone else seen that new ad on tv?

A driver going 108km/h heads towards a driver who stopped at a stop sign, then pulls in front of him. The cars pause and the drivers get out to talk etc.

Here's what pisses me off, the message of the ad is "sorry mate, I'm going to fast" and "it was a simple mistake". But regardless of whether he was going 80km/h or 120km/h the crash would have happened (they hit at very high speed by the looks of the ad). And if the driver wasn't required to stop at the stop sign, he would have easily got to his lane before the car hit him. So what this ad tells me is, if I come to a stand still at a stop sign or don't got 40km/h slower than the speed limit I will die? The only person who deserved to die in that scenario was the driver who pulled out, but he should have died before he could reproduce.

[Madness]

It's been discussed for a day or so already in the reduced speed tolerance thread :niceone:

[haydes55]

It's been discussed for a day or so already in the reduced speed tolerance thread :niceone:







Best I start reading that thread haha

[Madness]

Best I start reading that thread haha

She's a long-un. I'd recommend a nice doob to accompany your read.

[Scuba_Steve]

But regardless of whether he was going 80km/h or 120km/h the crash would have happened (they hit at very high speed by the looks of the ad).

Crash could have been avoided at 120km/h & is far more likely to happen at 80km/h. Again "speeding" saves the day

[Robbo]

She's a long-un. I'd recommend a nice doob to accompany your read.

Anyone game to ask Cassina for his/her comments on this?? He/She's the fuckwit who's rattling his/her gums on
this thread: http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/162788-Orange-Street-Triple-R-on-Akaroa-Highway-%282-January%29
and no one seems able to shut him/her up:brick:

[bogan]

It's a good add, the only thing wrong with it is the speedo shows 108 instead of 98.

[R650R]

We should be thankfull they didn't film it with a fireblade cresting the rise in third gear with the front wheel off the deck with an imperial speed in instead...
There all to arty and fake these new ads, this stuff however makes you realise how quick it all goes wrong and think a bit...

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/-e41EEEfqt0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[chasio]

We should be thankfull they didn't film it with a fireblade cresting the rise in third gear with the front wheel off the deck with an imperial speed in instead...
There all to arty and fake these new ads, this stuff however makes you realise how quick it all goes wrong and think a bit...


Sobering indeed. But a "tribute"??

[MD]

So TV1 News tonight run a story on how wonderful the latest 'don't speed at 109kpm' add is with worldwide praise oh, happy, happy, joy, joy. The one where two cars crash at a T intersection. It appears both were doing, brace yourselves, 109kph and nearly destroyed planet earth in the process. I'm amazed the entire universe survived such excess. What a crock of shit, 109 kph so absolute mayhem, death and destruction followed.

LTSA Andy Full-of-Shit spokesperson should be charged with 3 decades of lying to the public. These over dramatized 'speed kills' propaganda adds piss me off. So had said driver been doing 103kpm (yeah, within the latest deemed safe tolerance) they would have all smiled at each other as they passed the intersection in total safety and later shared a laugh over a pleasant creaming soda milk shake, as Fonsy made funny jokes in the back ground with school girl Chicks and Richie finally gets laid.

I've had a gutsful of these PC perfect poofters telling us how evil we all are. Far more evil goings on happen every bloody day by people who actually deliberately intend to cause harm to others.

Tomorrow I am going to hit 110kph so all brace yourselves. The sun may go out, the earth crust might shatter, and even worse, Bruno Mars will probably release another crap whinging attempt at music.

[Indiana_Jones]

Agreed, the ad is a cunt load of bollocks.

-Indy

[Katman]

The one where two cars crash at a T intersection. It appears both were doing, brace yourselves, 109kph and nearly destroyed planet earth in the process.

Do you really think the car that pulls out from the stop sign was doing 109kph?

[scumdog]

And get onto the thread that already exist for this topic...

[Big Dave]

Hope it has better stunt co-ordination than the one with the intersection chocolate wheel - where the Jag t-bones a white car. That 'gag' (what the stuntmen call it) went wrong and put Stretch in hospital for a month.

[george formby]

I don't watch TV. It's not good for free thinking.

[wysper]

I caught the ad online recently. I actually thought it was pretty good.
I agree with the OP about the 109 bit being a bit stupid. But the ad itself is quite effective.
They could have left the speed part out - the ad would still work. Infact could even work better if people thought this scenario could occur at any speed and not just that of above the speed limit.

Anyway, on balance if it makes more drivers think about their actions and possible consequences that has to be good. Doesn't it?

[Crasherfromwayback]

I like this thread. It has lots of love!

[Motu]

Yeah, the speed's irrelevant, it's about the shit that can happen when you are feel good and safe at your desired speed. Shit happens, cars pull out, kids run out, sheep run out, tourist forget what side of the road they are on - rouge events...keep an eye out for them.

[Kickaha]

I like this thread. It has lots of love!

What's not to love about Katman?

[noobi]

What took you so long to jump from your soap box on to this thread. Your pedantic comments are always appreciated and enjoyed by all who like to hear from a real Mr Perfect. It must be amazing to be right all the time. I stand corrected, only one of the drivers was shown to be speeding. The one that stopped at the intersection could not see the approaching car because the human eye can not detect objects going above 104kpm.

Has your Nobel prize arrived in the mail yet? Do you even have room on your shelf for more awesome me awards.

http://cdn.riveraveblues.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/miss-the-point2.jpg

[SMOKEU]

:corn: :corn:

[mashman]

I never quite understood why we need someone to remind us about the speed limit. Them target things are everywhere. You can be the best driver on the planet and still get fucked over by the second best driver in the world who has just dropped the ciggy lighter between his legs.

[Akzle]

Anyway, on balance if it makes more drivers think about their actions and possible consequences that has to be good. Doesn't it?

people who watch tv dont think.

[Smifffy]

"I've got my boy in the car"

If that's important to you, then you should take more time at intersections and not pull out in front of traffic travelling at open road speeds. That was going to end badly if the oncoming car was doing any speed over about 70km/h.

We have an intersection like that here, the straight bit is a well known hoon strip. If I can even see a car, I wait, cos it is almost impossible to judge it's speed from the approach angle.

[caspernz]

Ad is quite provocative. Nothing to do with speed in my book though, it's about not pulling out when there's insufficient room/time to clear the junction. The approach speed of the car with the right of way is rather immaterial, even 80 clicks would have been prang time...

Maybe there'll be more to come of these adverts? Could highlight all the poor driving habits that need attention in this country that way...what's Andy Knackstedts' number?

[Katman]

The ad would have far more relevance (and credibility) if the car travelling at 109kph was replaced with a motorcycle travelling at 160kph.

[Scuba_Steve]

& there's the problem, it would be a ok ad if it focused on the bad driver but instead it's just more propaganda to try & justify NZ's biggest scam.
All the speed scam ads use strawmans & completely disregard the actual dangers, even show people doing illegal & dangerous things like this ad but never once point them out instead try & claim it's all the "speeders" fault. Well if this guy had of actually been "speeding" this whole crash could have been avoided... Another case where "speeding" saves lives

[Katman]

& there's the problem, it would be a ok ad if it focused on the bad driver but instead it's just more propaganda to try & justify NZ's biggest scam.


Well, I suppose it's all in the way you view it.

If you take from it the message that a vehicle waiting at an intersection needs to be treated as a hazard and may well require a reduction in speed to allow for that hazard (instead of blindly continuing on without any adjustment of your speed or your conscious evaluation of the situation) then it's been worth something.

[Erelyes]

From day dot as a kid crossing the road, this was drilled into me:
1. Look right.
2. Look left.
3. Look right again.

I think it's a powerful ad. I do wonder when NZTA is going to remind us of the simple habits like the one above, though, rather than just talking constantly about speed.


If you take from it the message that a vehicle waiting at an intersection needs to be treated as a hazard and may well require a reduction in speed to allow for that hazard (instead of blindly continuing on without any adjustment of your speed or your conscious evaluation of the situation) then it's been worth something.

Absolutely. However I think if you take that from it, then that's something that probably already crosses your mind.

I found this bit at the end interesting -
"Other people make mistakes"
Not 'People make mistakes', mind, but OTHER people do. :wacko:

[Robbo]

Well, I suppose it's all in the way you view it.

If you take from it the message that a vehicle waiting at an intersection needs to be treated as a hazard and may well require a reduction in speed to allow for that hazard (instead of blindly continuing on without any adjustment of your speed or your conscious evaluation of the situation) then it's been worth something.

Exactly, and that's one of the scenarios that defensive driving courses taught us years ago. Assume the said driver has,nt seen you and is going to pull out, therefore you adjust your speed accordingly in case you need to brake and avoid him or have an escape route planned to miss him.
Basically the message was to treat every other driver out there as an idiot that was out to ruin your day and be prepared at all times to avoid him.
I know that this line of thinking has kept me sunny side up and accident free for many years. :yes:

[MVnut]

Compulsory Stop means 'stop where you can see whether the way is clear and then proceed only when it is'. I wish cops would hammer ComStop runners more, I f**king HATE THEM ALL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[haydes55]

Compulsory Stop means 'stop where you can see whether the way is clear and then proceed only when it is'. I wish cops would hammer ComStop runners more, I f**king HATE THEM ALL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



In this scenario, he stopped. Like he legally should. However, if it was a give way sign, he wouldn't have stopped, and he would have had plenty of time to get into his lane before the speeder got to him.

What are the criteria for an intersection being a stop sign or a give way sign?

[MVnut]

In this scenario, he stopped. Like he legally should. However, if it was a give way sign, he wouldn't have stopped, and he would have had plenty of time to get into his lane before the speeder got to him.

What are the criteria for an intersection being a stop sign or a give way sign?

If the way was clear when he proceeded through the intersection, there cannot possibly be an accident, regardless of speed. It's not like it suggested there was limited visibility or anything. STOP means STOP.....Go ONLY when it's clear, what part of this do you not understand. Other than the 'compulsory' aspect of the ComStop, a Give Way sign is identical in respect of who has right of way. I have quite a few roads within 10 km of me where virtually nobody actually stops at ComStops when there is no (visible) traffic, probably 95% + do NOT stop.....I really wish the cops would blitz this area instead of the 104km blanket limit now in force which is purely a revenue gatherer anyway (if you think it's not, you are either a liar or delusional).....don't get me started on this IAM crap in the other thread. Safety is not always about obeying the rules, (in fact, sometimes obeying the rules is downright dangerous, even pulling over can be dangerous) I ride so that I can ride another day. I break the rules virtually every time I ride but I don't ride like an idiot.....no tickets and no crashes (other than racetrack) in nearly 3m km on every Continent barring Antarctic. :woohoo:

[Virago]

...That was going to end badly if the oncoming car was doing any speed over about 70km/h...


...The approach speed of the car with the right of way is rather immaterial, even 80 clicks would have been prang time...

Yes. At 70 or 80k there would still be a prang. But the difference in speed may dictate whether the kid in the backseat dies or not.

Sigh. It's not rocket science. The ad is not blaming the accident on the speeder. "Other people make mistakes." But if you want to defend the "right" to charge through occupied intersections at high speed, you might one day be faced with the "what if" scenario when someone dies. Hospitals and morgues are full of people who had right-of-way...


Well, I suppose it's all in the way you view it.

If you take from it the message that a vehicle waiting at an intersection needs to be treated as a hazard and may well require a reduction in speed to allow for that hazard (instead of blindly continuing on without any adjustment of your speed or your conscious evaluation of the situation) then it's been worth something.

Yes. Thank you - someone gets it.

[Scuba_Steve]

Yes. At 70 or 80k there would still be a prang. But the difference in speed may dictate whether the kid in the backseat dies or not.


at 80km/h & below there is way more chance of a prang as people start to second guess & that only leads to problems.
Which is the other problem with this ad, the fact that accident is FAR more likely to occur at 80km/h than at 100 or 120km/h as humans are idiots they'll look see a car too close for them to go (if the car was travelling normal speeds) so they'll look the other way expecting said car to pass soon, then they look back & see it's still not here, at this time alot will 2nd guess & because humans are stupid & driving takes common sense which seems to be lacking in most humans they pull out only to then realise they fucked up & either have a near miss so they can do it all again at another date or collision where car safety features kick in to determine the outcome

[Virago]

at 80km/h & below there is way more chance of a prang as people start to second guess & that only leads to problems.
Which is the other problem with this ad, the fact that accident is FAR more likely to occur at 80km/h than at 100 or 120km/h as humans are idiots they'll look see a car too close for them to go (if the car was travelling normal speeds) so they'll look the other way expecting said car to pass soon, then they look back & see it's still not here, at this time alot will 2nd guess & because humans are stupid & driving takes common sense which seems to be lacking in most humans they pull out only to then realise they fucked up & either have a near miss so they can do it all again at another date or collision where car safety features kick in to determine the outcome

If I've deciphered the world's longest sentence correctly, you're actually claiming that low speed causes accidents?

[Scuba_Steve]

If I've deciphered the world's longest sentence correctly, you're actually claiming that low speed causes accidents?

I'm stating fact, yes
Stats, studies & observations will all back this up

[Woodman]

Probly been said, but if the guy was doing say 160 km/h he would have been passed the intersection before the other guy even got their to pull out in front of him.

Actually I got that the point of the ad is "shit happens".

[Virago]

I'm stating fact, yes
Stats, studies & observations will all back this up

I've not been able to find such stats. Can you point me in the direction?

[MD]

Well, I suppose it's all in the way you view it.

If you take from it the message that a vehicle waiting at an intersection needs to be treated as a hazard and may well require a reduction in speed to allow for that hazard (instead of blindly continuing on without any adjustment of your speed or your conscious evaluation of the situation) then it's been worth something.

Stone the crows I agree with you. I get nervous approaching intersections or driveways where someone appears to be correctly giving way to me, I don't trust em! I tend to slow, try and make eye contact, hover over brake (lever or pedal). I glance left and right just before going through green lights too.

[Smifffy]

Yes. At 70 or 80k there would still be a prang. But the difference in speed may dictate whether the kid in the backseat dies or not.

Sigh. It's not rocket science. The ad is not blaming the accident on the speeder. "Other people make mistakes." But if you want to defend the "right" to charge through occupied intersections at high speed, you might one day be faced with the "what if" scenario when someone dies. Hospitals and morgues are full of people who had right-of-way...



So the root cause of the prang at that intersection is the clown that pulled out, not the guy already on the road. The speed affects the outcome, not the cause. NZTA should be addressing root causes, not secondary effects. That would possibly be more difficult and less profitable for the consolidated fund.

[Ocean1]

So the root cause of the prang at that intersection is the clown that pulled out, not the guy already on the road. The speed affects the outcome, not the cause. NZTA should be addressing root causes, not secondary effects. That would possibly be more difficult and less profitable for the consolidated fund.

There's rarely a simple "cause", invariable there's a multitude of contributing factors.

I just looked to see if there was any contributions from the intersection itself, and... did anyone spot the fact that the vehicles weren't actually on an intersecting trajectory?

292201

[Virago]

So the root cause of the prang at that intersection is the clown that pulled out, not the guy already on the road. The speed affects the outcome, not the cause. NZTA should be addressing root causes, not secondary effects. That would possibly be more difficult and less profitable for the consolidated fund.

In a perfect world, I would agree with you. Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world.

People. Make. Mistakes. Everyone does. Some do it more than others...

Such mistakes represent a background hazard on the roads - a hazard that can't be eliminated. All we can do is manage the risk. Driving through intersections at high speed with a "fuck you" attitude simply adds to the risk.

It's not about right or wrong. It's about cause and effect. Life or death.

[Scuba_Steve]

I've not been able to find such stats. Can you point me in the direction?

Yea for one our own NZTA has some you can look at


Driving through intersections at high speed with a "fuck you" attitude simply adds to the risk.


Driving out of an intersection when a vehicles about to come through adds significantly more risk, but why focus on that when there's a "speeder" about, right.
You should be able to come through an intersection at speed, you should be able to drive on our roads in reasonable safety & with the knowledge that others know what they're doing. Unfortunately our driver licensing system is such that ability to drive is optional in-fact they even go as far as "praising" bad & dangerous drivers.
The biggest problem on NZ roads bar none is our licensing system

[caspernz]

So the root cause of the prang at that intersection is the clown that pulled out, not the guy already on the road. The speed affects the outcome, not the cause. NZTA should be addressing root causes, not secondary effects. That would possibly be more difficult and less profitable for the consolidated fund.

Yep, and while I'm all for (and practice) defensive driving, the advert itself has the wrong focus.

So I've got a leaking roof and need a bucket to catch the water that comes in...the adverts' logic suggests I need a bigger bucket, whereas maybe fixing the roof would be a better idea...

[Virago]

...You should be able to come through an intersection at speed, you should be able to drive on our roads in reasonable safety & with the knowledge that others know what they're doing...

Ah, yes - that mythical perfect world again. Keep dreaming...

[Scuba_Steve]

Ah, yes - that mythical perfect world again. Keep dreaming...

Why's it so "mythical" to expect those with drivers licences capable of driving?
I think it perfectly reasonable to expect people to be able to drive before handing them a driver licence I mean they do it with aircraft
or maybee we should just hand them out with IRD numbers, that would achieve the same result as current only difference is everyone would have ID. Your preferred option I'm sure

[mashman]

or maybee we should just hand them out with IRD numbers, that would achieve the same result as current only difference is everyone would have ID.

If you have a berth certificate, the number giving is an absolute certainty. Fuck 'em. Pretend, just for once, that a PERSON is a human being and not a PERSON at all. Veritas Vincit.

[ducatilover]

I dislike that advert. I like safety campaigns, but I think "Check for others before driving out of a fucking intersection" would be a better slogan. The fellow was pulling out anyway, and suggesting that a knob in a Stagea would have avoided said incident doing 100km/h is silly talk, the Subaru driver is a plonker.


It's a sore subject for me any way, a mate of mine was killed by one of these pull out Catholic pricks at an intersection near Palmy a few years back.


I have completely lost faith in the NZTA bunch driving these adverts.

[Virago]

...I think it perfectly reasonable to expect people to be able to drive before handing them a driver licence I mean they do it with aircraft...

And yet people in aircraft frequently die due to human error?

People. Make. Mistakes. Be prepared for it, and make allowances for it. It's a key part of defensive driving.

No-one denies that you should be able to drive through an intersection at normal speed. But, due to human error, intersections can be very dangerous places. Easing off just a little as you approach is not a big ask.

[pzkpfw]

My $0.02:

There already have been ads aimed at certain kinds of mistake, aimed at the perpetrators (e.g. don't drink and drive; and that wheel-of-death ad a year or two back was already about intersections), so on the whole I don't mind an ad aimed at making everyone realise that they need to be careful of other peoples' mistakes, not just sit smug in their own ability to be faultless (apology for hyperbole). So at first I was quite prepared to "defend" this ad.

But, the more I think about it, the more it annoys me.

First, there have not been enough campaigns aimed at the silly mistakes that irk other drivers (I think normal human frustration is an under-appreciated cause of accidents) and can lead to accidents, and secondly, that ad with it's "Other people make mistakes" tag line is well intentioned but makes far too much of a point about the guys speed. If he was doing 100 k/h (the legal limit there) the crash would still have occurred. Yes, he was "too fast" - but the limit was not the main cause. Ignoring the speedometer and showing an alternate reality where the guy had seen the car at the intersection and backed off, or gotten ready for avoidance, might have been more on point.

The ad makers have asked the very people they directed the ad at, to ignore it.



(Me, I want to see junior cops planted at roundabouts, mailing $20 fines to people who can't indicate correctly. Stuff like that, just to raise the general need for a higher standard of thinking and awareness when driving.)

[Jantar]

And yet people in aircraft frequently die due to human error?.......
One of the big differences between aviation and road safety is that in aviation pilots are encouraged to fly safely rather than to a set selection of rules. If it is safer to NOT follow the rules then the pilot is required to take the safest option rather than to blindly follow the rule. Yes there are speed limits in aviation, and there is also a clause that says "...unless another speed is safer."

Other aspects of aviation safety that are in contrast to road safety are:
When a pilot does make a mistake he is supported in coming forward and reporting his mistake with recommendations on how other pilots can avoid that same mistake. When a driver makes a mistake he is fined and hence encouraged to hide the error.

In aviation the emphasis is on preventing accidents from happening, and that way there is less need to reduce the impact of accidents, although reducing is still a factor in design in most instances. In driving it appears that the emphasis is on reducing the impact of accidents even if that strategy will cause more accidents overall.

In aviation it is exteremly hard to get a licence. The licence test includes a test of your knowledge of technical matters so that yo need to show that you understand how the engine works, what keeps your plane in the air, what factors cause reductions in control forces etc. Even once you do get a licence there are regular reviews including a bi-enial flight test. Fail a flight test and you are reffered back for remedial training, and may not carry any passengers until you pass. In driving it is easy to get a licence, and once you have one, it is yours for life, subject to paying a fee and keeping your photo up to date.

The relevence to the ad that we are discussing here is that this ad shows just how focused the police are on reducing the impact of accidents, focus on speed, rather than reducing the cause of the accident, focus on maintaining a good lookout for other traffic.

[Voltaire]

My $0.02:

(Me, I want to see junior cops planted at roundabouts, mailing $20 fines to people who can't indicate correctly. Stuff like that, just to raise the general need for a higher standard of thinking and awareness when driving.)

You mean the ones who are going straight ahead on very small roundabouts and briefly indicate left then right...? or the ones who don't bother at all?

[Virago]

On the topic of allowing for the errors of others, we quite happliy accept allowances for children. Kids will make mistakes, in crossing the road, or chasing a ball, etc. In that regard, virtually everyone accepts lower speeds and tighter controls around schools. We all understand that the difference between hitting a child at 40k or at 60k can be quite horrific.

But beyond that, the great kiwi "fuck you" attitude prevails. This is my road, I have right of way, and I'll quite happily kill you (and your innocent kids) if you encroach on my turf. I'm in the right, and therefore any consequences are not my fault.

It's a sad reflection on our society.

[Big Dave]

Cops on roundabouts? Wouldn't happen here.

They are too busy at servos.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/8TMOiMopMCU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Robbo]

The roundabout rules just to refresh memories.

http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/know-your-way-around-roundabouts/docs/know-your-way-around-roundabouts.pdf

Would'nt be a bad idea if there was a maximum speed for entering a roundabout either.

[MVnut]

To be blunt, the guy doing 108km approx probably wasn't even speeding if they used a GPS, car speedos are normally about 10% generous so he was most likely under 100km in reality.

[Jantar]

....
Would'nt be a bad idea if there was a maximum speed for entering a roundabout either.
There is. As every entrance to a roundabout is via a give way sign it is illegal to enter a round about any faster than the speed at which you can determine that the way is clear for you to proceed. Just like at any other give way you must slow down and prepare to stop before proceeding through the give way.

[Virago]

...Would'nt be a bad idea if there was a maximum speed for entering a roundabout either.


There is. As every entrance to a roundabout is via a give way sign it is illegal to enter a round about any faster than the speed at which you can determine that the way is clear for you to proceed. Just like at any other give way you must slow down and prepare to stop before proceeding through the give way.

We have a local roundabout where one entry point is virtually blind. The unseen traffic approaching from the right charges through at high speed, expecting and demanding right-of-way. It's just a matter of time before someone is hurt. But it won't of course be the speedster's fault...

[Ocean1]

You mean the ones who are going straight ahead on very small roundabouts and briefly indicate left then right...? or the ones who don't bother at all?

The ones that piss me off are those waiting on the left as you enter the roundabout that get all huffy because you didn't let them know you were going straight through.

Those, and the ones indicating right going in... and then switch to indicate left and take the straight through road.

There's also a lot of roundabouts with 3 or 5 exits, or exits at angles other than left, straight ahead and right which make the rules completely unworkable.

I hate the fucking stupid roundabout indication rules, we were all much safer when you simply had to indicate before exiting the roundabout.

[pzkpfw]

You mean the ones who are going straight ahead on very small roundabouts and briefly indicate left then right...? or the ones who don't bother at all?

There's a bunch of stuff people do wrong.


What really gets me worked up is when I follow someone through Tawa and they do something different (!) on each roundabout they go through. To me it shows they are just not thinking about what they're doing; they're just dreaming their way along the road, perhaps guessing what to do at each decision point.

(By way of comparison; to me, an alert driver doing 110, in suitable conditions in a 100 k zone - is safer than a dreamer doing 40 in a 50.)

[pzkpfw]

The ones that piss me off are those waiting on the left as you enter the roundabout that get all huffy because you didn't let them know you were going straight through.

Eh? What signal are they expecting for that?


I hate the fucking stupid roundabout indication rules, we were all much safer when you simply had to indicate before exiting the roundabout.

Eh? What's changed now? The only difference between "current" practice and what you just wrote is indicating right on entry, if planning to exit more than 180 degrees around. And is that really a change from what you expect, or what you think is "good"?

[Ocean1]

Eh? What signal are they expecting for that?

Fuck knows but it's awfully common, I'm often tempted to simply turn on the hazard lights and let them guess. I suspect most of them are of the opinion that you're supposed to indicate right if you're not taking the first road off.


Eh? What's changed now? The only difference between "current" practice and what you just wrote is indicating right on entry, if planning to exit more than 180 degrees around. And is that really a change from what you expect, or what you think is "good"?

When nobody indicated on entering a roundabout everyone on their left had to give way to them. Now we get fuckwits indicating left when they really mean "I'm going left eventually" and the guy pulling out in front of them at the first road left gets cleaned up. It's a fucking mess, I remember a nice blond police person pulling me over a month after the rule change to warn me for not indicating right when I went straight through.

As it stands I indicate as per the new rules, but I give way to absolutely everything on my right whatever they're indicating.

[Madness]

Here's the latest NZ Popo propaganda.

<div id="fb-root"></div> <script>(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); }(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));</script>
<div class="fb-post" data-href="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=627842950598581" data-width="466"><div class="fb-xfbml-parse-ignore"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=627842950598581">Post</a> by <a href="https://www.facebook.com/NZPoliceRecruitment">NZ Police Recruitment</a>.</div></div>

[bogan]

Here's the latest NZ Popo propaganda.

<div id="fb-root"></div> <script>(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); }(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));</script>
<div class="fb-post" data-href="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=627842950598581" data-width="466"><div class="fb-xfbml-parse-ignore"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=627842950598581">Post</a> by <a href="https://www.facebook.com/NZPoliceRecruitment">NZ Police Recruitment</a>.</div></div>

So he has an excuse then, what's the cager's defense?

[scumdog]

Here's the latest NZ Popo propaganda.



Nah, more likely he was on 'P'....

But given the number I see who are on the cell-phone (when I'm off duty) I wouldn't be surprised...

[Madness]

Nah, more likely he was on 'P'....

But given the number I see who are on the cell-phone (when I'm off duty) I wouldn't be surprised...

With the number of truck drivers you see every day talking on their phone without hands-free you'd be forgiven for thinking they were exempt from the no phone rule. That said, I think the popo who decided that the truck drivers cellphone use was relevant to the cause of the crash was probably more likely to be on drugs than the truck driver.

[Stylo]

I don't watch TV. It's not good for free thinking.

I'm with you mate, tried to find something to watch tonight searched through the channels, nothing but dribble and Harvey Norman like ads shouting at you like you're deaf AND stupid. Noel Leeming would turn in his grave if he was still alive.

Leaving the TV for the terminally numb

Quiet book and an a nice ale for me tonight :-)

[unstuck]

But the car drove into the truck.:confused:

[chasio]

But the car drove into the truck.:confused:

Indeed: propaganda was the right word for it. Take a secondary factor and make the accident "about" that.

Very nasty and utterly avoidable with a simple head-check (lifesaver) before merging.

Mind you, the ability and/or willingness of NZ motorway users in general to accommodate vehicles from on-ramps leaves much to be desired (and sometimes mush on the road).

[ktm84mxc]

That's a well known crash spot just past the Hill rd off ramp heading to Takanini on the Southern motorway likely the car cut in front of the truck as 3 lanes go down to 2 just over the ridge, happens all the time as 5 lanes get reduced to 2. Hell there's been an accident/crash outside my house every year for as long as I've lived here that's 24 yrs and counting. Murphy's law in it's purest form.

[Scuba_Steve]

That's a well known crash spot just past the Hill rd off ramp heading to Takanini on the Southern motorway likely the car cut in front of the truck as 3 lanes go down to 2 just over the ridge

I don't know the road but given the above, that sounds like bad road layout... musta been an NZTA job.

[chasio]

That's a well known crash spot just past the Hill rd off ramp heading to Takanini on the Southern motorway likely the car cut in front of the truck as 3 lanes go down to 2 just over the ridge, happens all the time as 5 lanes get reduced to 2. Hell there's been an accident/crash outside my house every year for as long as I've lived here that's 24 yrs and counting. Murphy's law in it's purest form.

Is the camera looking North or South there? (Edit, forget it: it's North and it must be 3 lanes to 2, not 5).

Regardless, that looks worse every time I watch it. The poor occupant(s) of the SUV had nothing to do with the car / truck altercation until the car swiped them :( The driver probably didn't even see the car coming until it swung around the front of the truck.

[SNF]

So this is basically what I wrote in the speed whinge thread :) Yeah I think its shit too that whole speed thing. Anyway my whinge about that stupid ad.....

Even if the guy going down the hill had been going 80 km/h they still would hit. Probably even at 60.
Stop using the kid as an excuse to your shitty hazard perception skills. Why not use a brain and LOOK. I actually yelled that when I first saw the ad.

Address the shitty driving. Give them a choice. A $200 fine with 28 days like any other or a mandatory learn how the fuck to drive - maintain ONE speed, keep a car in a lane, safe lane changing (Indicating, headchecks, blindspots - the works.) Safe following distances, hazard perception, where and when to pull out, how to merge, even how to park properly.

You know the very basic, basic stuff which seems like most aren't taught. The fine gets halved. Fail, try again until either the person is deemed too stupid to handle any vehicle - which I doubt but it is possible, that or they pass. Win win. Government get their quota. Roads get somewhat safer (I hope). Its a good idea. Won't happen though. Cops are probably too busy speed hunting.

Also someone was saying about indicating and roundabouts. I NEVER indicate when going straight through. Its a fucking stupid rule, you're just asking someone to pull out. "Oh please just wreck it. Its fine. I don't need that bumper, lights, radiator..."

[pzkpfw]

Its a fucking stupid rule, you're just asking someone to pull out. "Oh please just wreck it. Its fine. I don't need that bumper, lights, radiator..."

Rubbish. Do it as recommended and there's nobody who's going to hit you by misunderstanding.

(Unless some numpty pulls out into a vehicle directly in front of them.)

[SNF]

Rubbish. Do it as recommended and there's nobody who's going to hit you by misunderstanding.

(Unless some numpty pulls out into a vehicle directly in front of them.)

Just try it Auckland ;) They pull out even if you indicate right, while turning right (funny that!) Through a roundabout. Had to fucking stop, even though they had the give way sign. Imagine indicating as you exit. No thanks, rather not bother. Also this has happened on many different round abouts on many different occasions.

[Berries]

What are the criteria for an intersection being a stop sign or a give way sign?
It should be a stop sign if from 9m back from the limit line you cannot see 1.2x the 85th percentile speed, or more simply, if you can't see 55m ish in an urban area and 120m ish in a rural area it should be stop.

Many don't meet that criteria. Some are put in as a sop to moaning residents or as a cheap fix for crashes that are actually due to other reasons. These are the ones where people will ignore the sign because they can clearly see far enough to make a decision on whether it is safe to pull out without coming to a complete stop. Strangely enough, these are also the ones that will get enforcement due to said moaning residents (and KB members so it seems), the high profile of a particular crash site or the fact that it is like shooting fish in a barrel. And so the merry go round continues, revenue gathering, ticket the bastards, revenue gathering, ticket the bastards.

One factoid. Riders are higher than the driver eye height that is used to measure this so depending on the visibility constraint, say a bridge rail or barrier, a motorcycle rider can sometimes see past that constraint and therefore is not subject to the same problem. Unfortunately this fact doesn't mean shit when you get a ticket, as I found out at one of the numerous BS stop signs in Dunedin. Like speed limits, whether it is set correctly doesn't seem to matter all that much. The sign is there and we are expected to comply with it regardless of whether it is correct or not. Baa.

[pzkpfw]

Just try it Auckland ;) They pull out even if you indicate right, while turning right (funny that!) Through a roundabout. Had to fucking stop, even though they had the give way sign. Imagine indicating as you exit. No thanks, rather not bother. Also this has happened on many different round abouts on many different occasions.

Take a look at the PDF a few pages back. If you Indicate left before you exit, who will there be to not Give way?

[The Reibz]

Cops on roundabouts? Wouldn't happen here.

They are too busy at servos.


Yeah I saw that video yesterday. Complete bullshit, let us hope that those laws never reach the other states or cross the ditch over here

[Berries]

Actually, here's a solution to failing to stop at a stop sign. Nobody has ever caused a crash solely by failing to stop at a stop sign. If they cause a crash they have failed to give way which is a charge in itself. Keep that, and up the penalties if you like. Get rid of the failing to stop at a stop sign charge because it is not crash related. The criteria I posted earlier is to support that actual wording which says a stop sign should be used at "blind intersections where lack of visibility makes it unsafe to approach the intersection at a speed greater than 10 km/h." Ergo, at some intersections it must be "safe" to proceed at below 10km/h and not have the wheels stop rotating?

Get rid of that charge and replace it with one for causing another party to change their position/speed on the road due to the failure to give way at the intersection. Keep stop signs to highlight to people that visibility is restricted and then come down hard on those who cause crashes or who cause people to take avoidance action. The latter should be easy to do and would get the full support of the motoring public. Pinging people for not stopping at a stop sign when they can see that there is no approaching traffic is one of those little things chipping away at the view of traffic enforcement by the Police and, rightly or wrongly, will result in the cry of revenue gathering.

[Heybrew]

Currently sitting at 5.8million views and has people thinking about road safety all around the world...

Bullshit or not, the ad had been a success

[Jantar]

...Bullshit or not, the ad had been a success
It is only a success if it changes peoples attitudes and results in fewer accidents. Until that is measured then it is too early to say that it is a success. Merely saying that an ad is a success because of the number of views is meaningless.

[Scuba_Steve]

It is only a success if it changes peoples attitudes and results in fewer accidents. Until that is measured then it is too early to say that it is a success. Merely saying that an ad is a success because of the number of views is meaningless.

Yep, going by 5.8mil views=success theory Rebecca Black must be mega success with her song 'Friday' right?
course maybee he just works for NZTA statistical dept.

[Big Dave]

Yeah I saw that video yesterday. Complete bullshit, let us hope that those laws never reach the other states or cross the ditch over here

I like to think Queensland is unique at stupid. There are so many examples. As Joh used to say - and don't you worry about that.

[Smifffy]

Thanks to all the comments here, I've reconsidered my viewpoint on this ad, and now agree that it is a vital road safety message and the basic factors are the same under most circumstances.

For example:

The guy with the kid in his car could pull out of that intersection, the oncoming vehicle could be a schoolkid on a scooter doing 70 km/h,or a BHT graduate doing 90, and it could still be fatal, but during the conversation in the middle of the road, the driver of the car would still be exonerated worldwide by simply saying "Sorry mate, I didn't see you."


Good work NZTA! keep making excuses for dickheads, and keep targeting those nasty speed demons.

Barkeep, more kool-aid for everyone.

[mashman]

It is only a success if it changes peoples attitudes and results in fewer accidents. Until that is measured then it is too early to say that it is a success. Merely saying that an ad is a success because of the number of views is meaningless.

Similar to lowering the maximum speed limit by 5kmh.

[Akzle]

Thanks to all the comments here, I've reconsidered my viewpoint on this ad, and now agree that it is a vital road safety message and the basic factors are the same under most circumstances.

For example:

The guy with the kid in his car could pull out of that intersection, the oncoming vehicle could be a schoolkid on a scooter doing 70 km/h,or a BHT graduate doing 90, and it could still be fatal, but during the conversation in the middle of the road, the driver of the car would still be exonerated worldwide by simply saying "Sorry mate, I didn't see you."


Good work NZTA! keep making excuses for dickheads, and keep targeting those nasty speed demons.

Barkeep, more kool-aid for everyone.

what i dont get, is that they have time to get out of the car and have a fucking conversation about it, why not just use that time to gtfo the way?

[unstuck]

what i dont get, is that they have time to get out of the car and have a fucking conversation about it, why not just use that time to gtfo the way?

The drugs have ruined your sense of imagination, best you send them to me and I will dispose of them sensibly.:whistle:

[Banditbandit]

The drugs have ruined your sense of imagination, best you send them to me and I will dispose of them sensibly.:whistle:

That deserves it's own TUI billboard

[haydes55]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n0vOVNeBPY&feature=share&list=PL3s4mrDIG9I7M5qZTNV1ViQeuZmQCrDOG

So, a truck driver goes in a straight line, within his lane, whilst on the phone, and the car who side swipes the truck is innocent because he/she is in a smaller car, suffers worse damage and wasn't on the phone?

This is possibly the stupidest thing they have ever published to promote safety. Here's an idea, how about the caption "Don't merge into a lane until the lane has adequate space for your vehicle" (yea that's the opposite of a good slogan, but at least it squarely points blame where it's due).

Knowing the field of vision of some trucks, the driver mightn't have been able to see the car at all, regardless of whether he was on the phone or not. Passenger side, in a blind spot for some trucks, below the windows.

[ICE180]

so that campaign is making a mockery out of merge like a zip


Man the ad agency must be loving these mind changes every 6 weeks more money for them

[Kickaha]

comments are disabled for this video, dumbarse motherfuckers probably realised what kind of pasting they'd get

[haydes55]

so that campaign is making a mockery out of merge like a zip


Man the ad agency must be loving these mind changes every 6 weeks more money for them

It's more like "Merge, or not, your choice. Just don't talk on your phone".


This video would suit the slogan from the last ad I had a bitch about "other people make mistakes".


I'd hate to be involved in an accident the police investigate. No matter who is at fault, it's a gamble what they are policing at the time and who they will pin blame on.

[unstuck]

This one needs to merge with the last one on this ad.:2thumbsup

[Madness]

It's a good thing the truck driver wasn't subjected to a Cannabis urine test, he'd have been lynched if he'd failed one.

[oldrider]

The truck driver on the phone or not wouldn't have been able to anything else about the car on the left of him anyway!

The design of the road looks the most suspect thing to me from that video, how did that car on left get to be where it was comming from anyway?

The poor bastard in the van on the right (that got smashed) had no chance whatsoever. (in the clip)

Unless they were all speeding because speed (not stupidity) kills doesn't it? :rolleyes: Bloody awfull situation to be involved in! :eek5:

[Gremlin]

This one needs to merge with the last one on this ad.:2thumbsup
Can't find it. :facepalm:

[unstuck]

Can't find it. :facepalm:

Your fired.:angry2:

[Madness]

Can't find it. :facepalm:

Have a hoon on this (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/162914-Latest-road-safety-TV-ad-load-of-bollocks-(Jan-2014)/page5).

[98tls]

Does anyone actually give a toss about the phone/driving thing?Personally i cant be bothered even owing a mobile phone but am amazed at how many people i see daily driving and yapping on em.Can understand a self employed bloke having one but other than that its got me buggered,always considered phones fucking annoying things at home and cant understand why anyone would want to carry one around with em...

[Gremlin]

Your fired.:angry2:
:laugh: Sweet, like being released from purgatory!!


Have a hoon on this (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/162914-Latest-road-safety-TV-ad-load-of-bollocks-(Jan-2014)/page5).
Ah, you posted it originally, but the post didn't contain the video (explains why I couldn't see it).


Does anyone actually give a toss about the phone/driving thing?Personally i cant be bothered even owing a mobile phone but am amazed at how many people i see daily driving and yapping on em.
Yep, I do, as it's bloody rare that anyone can do it successfully. Usually, the driving is shocking, well, it's shocking with or without the phone, but very likely shocking with the phone?

Yeah? Uh... :crazy:

[unstuck]

Saw a detective the other day talking on a mobile while driving, they must have special exemption Im thinking.:whistle:

[98tls]

Saw a detective the other day talking on a mobile while driving, they must have special exemption Im thinking.:whistle:

Mate everything in Gore is "special".Can remember a "special" fireworks night many moons ago when i was living there,sitting in the coon at midnight we got a hell of a fright when some fucker blew up the phone box next to the cop shop with dynamite...

[unstuck]

Mate everything in Gore is "special".Can remember a "special" fireworks night many moons ago when i was living there,sitting in the coon at midnight we got a hell of a fright when some fucker blew up the phone box next to the cop shop with dynamite...

Meh, just another night in hicksville, saw a bunch of drunken idiots laying around on the railway tracks this morning, round 3 ish. They moved when the train came, fuckers, spoilt my excitement.:laugh:

[98tls]

Meh, just another night in hicksville, saw a bunch of drunken idiots laying around on the railway tracks this morning, round 3 ish. They moved when the train came, fuckers, spoilt my excitement.:laugh:

Selfish cunts:angry:You would think one would have the balls to see it through.Was there when that fucker blew the head of that poor chick he had kidnapped,he allowed her to go to the money machine/bank then off with her head when she got back into the Monaro,things got almost funny when the cop at the front of the car sent a round through the back window missing everything but almost got his mate at the back of it.

[Akzle]

Saw a detective the other day talking on a mobile while driving, they must have special exemption Im thinking.:whistle:

dont even fucking start me. i've been IN A FUCKING COP CAR, while the prick was talking on his phone.

course that cocount cunt thought he was hot shit. little boy, big stick and what.

[Scuba_Steve]

Yep, I do, as it's bloody rare that anyone can do it successfully. Usually, the driving is shocking, well, it's shocking with or without the phone, but very likely shocking with the phone?


But haven't you noticed all this law's done is make those drivers even more shocking as they try all sorts of shit to hide their phone in use including... wait for it... head below the dash only appearing once in awhile to make sure they were still going straight :brick:

[unstuck]

But haven't you noticed all this law's done is make those drivers even more shocking as they try all sorts of shit to hide their phone in use including... wait for it... head below the dash only appearing once in awhile to make sure they were still going straight :brick:

Yeah, I know a shearer like that, real dangerous fucker. With any luck he will only kill himself.:msn-wink:

[98tls]

dont even fucking start me. i've been IN A FUCKING COP CAR, while the prick was talking on his phone.

course that cocount cunt thought he was hot shit. little boy, big stick and what.

Did you tell him that at the time?Actually dont bother answering course you didnt far less painful to tap a few keys later.

[Geeen]

My wife showed me this article in the herald about that new police road safety ad with the truck, had to laugh...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11192432

[BoristheBiter]

The truck driver on the phone or not wouldn't have been able to anything else about the car on the left of him anyway!

The design of the road looks the most suspect thing to me from that video, how did that car on left get to be where it was comming from anyway?

The poor bastard in the van on the right (that got smashed) had no chance whatsoever. (in the clip)

Unless they were all speeding because speed (not stupidity) kills doesn't it? :rolleyes: Bloody awfull situation to be involved in! :eek5:

There is nothing wrong with the road, except it should have more lanes.
Truck drivers on the Auckland motorway live by the slogan "might is right" and the car driver didn't agree.

[bogan]

Good on him for giving his side of it.

Saw some funny signs up over the weekend.

Hamilton to the Mt, "Slow down for corners, Just the facts" road safety (someone needs a dictionary)

Desert rd, "100kmhr is not a target" and "we will catch speeders" followed by torrential rain, with everybody (except an underpowered yellow van) trying to do 100.

Be interesting to see the reception an 'ad' with two driver pov pics on it, one having torrential downpour on a windy road and speedo stuck at 103 captioned 'fine', the other a straight road clear skies with the speedo at 108 captioned 'fined'. "Safer communities together".

[nodrog]

when my Dads been Blazing he drives smooth as.

[pritch]

My wife showed me this article in the herald about that new police road safety ad with the truck, had to laugh...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11192432

I didn't laugh, I was annoyed.

The Police spokespersons have been quoting rather creative statistics of late, and now we have what appears to be outright lie. That accident was not caused by the truck driver, in fact the guy that got bowled complimented the driver. Watching the clip, things could have been a whole lot worse had the truck driver not done such a good job.

As pathetic as a dishonest ad is, the official explanation is worse.
Yesterday, police said the footage was released "as a public safety video". "Nobody has been identified in the footage,"

Whatever these people are paid, it's too much. /rant

[Smifffy]

The government and the police lie to the public? That's new.

[haydes55]

My wife showed me this article in the herald about that new police road safety ad with the truck, had to laugh...



http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11192432





Yea had a read of that, the police spokesman said to contact police directly if they have anything to say about the ad campaign.... Might lay a formal complaint if I can.

[Scuba_Steve]

Surely if this talking on a phone is as dangerous as they claim they'd have some real, accurate, factual footage to show rather than trying to pass this BS as the phone's fault.
It's looking a lot like the speed scam to me. Scaremongering & Straw-mans

[RDJ]

A while back a sign on the road between Taupo and Turangi read "You're just an average driver"

Below which someone had spray painted "… on below-average roads"

[RDJ]

Surely if this talking on a phone is as dangerous as they claim they'd have some real, accurate, factual footage to show rather than trying to pass this BS as the phone's fault.

We (the company I work for) have looked at this issue carefully as we need our medical staff to be able to respond to emergency and urgent calls in real-time ASAP, at times while they may, for example, be driving to work / from work. The research 'out there' (and there is a lot of it) does confirm that speaking on a cell phone is distracting, significantly so.

One easy-to-read / understand reference is at http://www.psych.utah.edu/AppliedCognitionLab/cdir489.pdf

The 'money quote' is on p. 131

In sum, the data indicate that cell-phone conversations place demands upon the driver that differ qualitatively from those of other auditory/verbal/vocal tasks commonly performed while operating a motor vehicle. Even when cell-phone drivers direct their gaze at objects in the driving environment, they often fail to ‘‘see’’ them because attention has been diverted to the cell- phone conversation.

[BoristheBiter]

That accident was not caused by the truck driver, in fact the guy that got bowled complimented the driver. Watching the clip, things could have been a whole lot worse had the truck driver not done such a good job.


Sorry but I have to disagree with the statement.

You have no facts other than watching a video clip (not that ever stopped anyone on here).
For all you can tell the truck could have closed in on the back of the car (basic driving of trucks in Auckland)
Did a good job? he braked hard after his truck hit a car. (basic reaction while driving)

All this demonstrates how shit the driving on our roads has become.

[oneofsix]

Yea had a read of that, the police spokesman said to contact police directly if they have anything to say about the ad campaign.... Might lay a formal complaint if I can.

of course they want you to complain directly to the police, then they can bury your complaint. They aren't going to count them up and consider the individual points, but as long as The Herald has an interested public (indicated by people complaining) they are going to keep publicizing it and therefore rubbing the police's hierarchies noses in it

[Ocean1]

We (the company I work for) have looked at this issue carefully as we need our medical staff to be able to respond to emergency and urgent calls in real-time ASAP, at times while they may, for example, be driving to work / from work. The research 'out there' (and there is a lot of it) does confirm that speaking on a cell phone is distracting, significantly so.

One easy-to-read / understand reference is at http://www.psych.utah.edu/AppliedCognitionLab/cdir489.pdf

The 'money quote' is on p. 131

In sum, the data indicate that cell-phone conversations place demands upon the driver that differ qualitatively from those of other auditory/verbal/vocal tasks commonly performed while operating a motor vehicle. Even when cell-phone drivers direct their gaze at objects in the driving environment, they often fail to ‘‘see’’ them because attention has been diverted to the cell- phone conversation.

I recall some specialist official advice to govt on the pending legal changes banning cell phone use by drivers to the effect that hands-off units were statistically exactly as dangerous as a hand-held, which were themselves only just statistically visible against background noise.

Affected the planned policy change not a jot.

[ktm84mxc]

So my view was correct the car that caused the accident was over taking the truck on the left and cut in front of it leading to the carnage the truck driver was not at fault and no one was using a cell phone. NZTSA said probably lets find some graffic crash video and use it to promote our views on road safety as they well know the more gore it has the more visual impact.

[BoristheBiter]

So my view was correct the car that caused the accident was over taking the truck on the left and cut in front of it leading to the carnage the truck driver was not at fault and no one was using a cell phone. NZTSA said probably lets find some graffic crash video and use it to promote our views on road safety as they well know the more gore it has the more visual impact.

And how do you come up with that?

[pritch]

And how do you come up with that?

He probably got it from the same TV and newspaper interviews that everybody except you seems to have seen. The driver of the car that got bowled said the woman driver undertook the truck so close that the truck couldn't take evasive action. Hit by the truck, her car then hit his car. The Police later rang him and told him that she had been charged.

Had the truck jacknifed under braking things could have been much worse.

I don't understand why you are having difficulty with any of this.

[Smifffy]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11192821

"There was no intention to mislead the public"

When I got my last speeding ticket I had no intention to exceed the limit either...

[BoristheBiter]

He probably got it from the same TV and newspaper interviews that everybody except you seems to have seen. The driver of the car that got bowled said the woman driver undertook the truck so close that the truck couldn't take evasive action. Hit by the truck, her car then hit his car. The Police later rang him and told him that she had been charged.

Had the truck jacknifed under braking things could have been much worse.

I don't understand why you are having difficulty with any of this.

Yep sorry, must have missed that post, read it now.
Yep the ad should be removed and an apology given to the truck driver.

I still think that emergency braking should be classed normal driving skills, regardless of vehicle.

Still nothing shocks me any more after 20+ years of driving 100+km a day in AKL and at the Greval road on ramp(southbound) it is the trucks that force their way in after coming down the transit lane.

[oldrider]

Yep sorry, must have missed that post, read it now.
Yep the ad should be removed and an apology given to the truck driver.

I still think that emergency braking should be classed normal driving skills, regardless of vehicle.

Still nothing shocks me any more after 20+ years of driving 100+km a day in AKL and at the Greval road on ramp(southbound) it is the trucks that force their way in after coming down the transit lane.

Sorted ... there was an appology to the truck driver in the Otago Daily Times this morning! :yes:

[BoristheBiter]

Sorted ... there was an appology to the truck driver in the Otago Daily Times this morning! :yes:

and one in the Herald.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11192821