Annual road toll up 44 [Archive]

98tls

1st January 2015, 19:19

Stress people out by tightening up on speed and they get held up by extra slow careful drivers for extended periods of time. Soon they are texting to say they are late or doing dodgy passing to get by. Police speed and push the problem about solves nothing except the gubberments tax flow.

If they cared about us do you think tax on smokes would go up 10% every 6 months or be banned altogether?
Do you think they would limit new pokey rooms to 12 machines or ban gambling?
If you think the guy holding the wallet cares about the village idiots your a village idiot.

Police simply do as there told,if those that make the rules gave a fuck about the road toll they would long ago have sorted the drink driving issue ie lack of any fitting punishment until A the drink driver kills someone B the media decides to report on an 11th time convicted drink driver that still hasnt been away etc etc.Worst part of being a copper in my eyes (apart from the endless paperwork) would be having to attend court and watch some geriatric gutlass do gooder and the army of otherwise unemployable do gooderss undo your good work.As A said "shame on us" for putting up with it.

rastuscat

1st January 2015, 19:31

Amen to that,no doubt coppers at the coal face feel the same.

Indeed Citizen. I agree with a lot of what we do, but some of the focus given to us by the Bwanas is mis placed.

We're each expected to toe the party line, but equally, we each have our personal beliefs.

gjm

1st January 2015, 19:39

I've not been out'n'about so much over the Chrimble/NY season, but there seemed to have been far fewer police and camera vans on the roads.

Maybe it was just the roads I've driven?

SH1 between TK and Hampton Downs has seen two serious incidents - the wire barriers in the centre were down in two places, and on the left in one. Given this is a single carriageway stretch, overtaking is unlikely to have been responsible. Dozing, texting or just being a fuckwit who shouldn't have a license seem possible causes.

98tls

1st January 2015, 19:56

Indeed Citizen. I agree with a lot of what we do, but some of the focus given to us by the Bwanas is mis placed.

We're each expected to toe the party line, but equally, we each have our personal beliefs.

No doubt,ive 3 family members front line coppers,no idea what there attitude at work but good buggers out of it,2 family members that work in police comms and another that works in the 111 call center to be honest its the last that can give you the best idea of what we as a country are up against.Road toll threads are at best amusing.

R650R

1st January 2015, 20:40

Statistical anomaly. The level has plummeted so much in recent years its yet to find a new consistant median value from one year to the next.
So many factors at play, recession, weather patterns, fuel prices, new WOF laws maybe influencing buyer/importer choices to newer safer cars....

That oxygen theif lambchops Wilson-clive is now saying its trucks fault the road toll has gone up since hes done pissing off bikers for now with the number plate crap....
The same Fairfax excuse for journalism article trys to say trucks are responsible for 17% of road toll....

Apparently though more bikers, pedestrians, cyclists and passengers have died this year than normal for their groups....

R650R

1st January 2015, 20:42

2 family members that work in police comms and another that works in the 111 call center to be honest its the last that can give you the best idea of what we as a country are up against.Road toll threads are at best amusing.

I've had worse dealings with them than actual coppers... don't know what training they get but some of them need to be reminded they are just glorified PA's and not lawyers or cops....
The best one kept trying to talk over the top of me while I was reading out the number plate of car fleeing crime scene....

Moi

1st January 2015, 21:29

I have sympathy for the Police and what they have to do - they have been given their marching orders by those in higher places and that includes the Minister of Transport.

Yes, speed is a cause of death on our roads, so is inattention; driving when unfit - drunk, drugged, tired, emotional unstable; inexperience; basic inability to control a vehicle, be it bike, car, truck or any other vehicle; inability to follow simple road rules such as stop for a red light. I am sure we could all add a few others to this list.

However the apparent obsession with speed is, in my belief, creating a culture of driving to the speed limit irrespective of the conditions at the time. I would rather see a more rational approach to traffic policing with drivers/riders prosecuted for driving/riding in a manner which is endangering either themselves or others. By that, I mean, doing 100km/h in torrential rain in heavy traffic is more dangerous than doing 110km/h in a well maintained vehicle on a straight wide section of open road on a fine day; unable to stop at Stop signs; tailgating; and the list goes on.

I don't see the above happening until there is a major change in the thinking of very senior people within the MoT. And a change of attitude from many drivers/riders who are probably ready and happy to learn new skills in their job but would resist being told to do any form of upskilling of their riding/driving.

Just my tuppence worth.

mossy1200

1st January 2015, 21:46

I have a theory

A=Forkwits that don't pay attention to the conditions or laws are going to cause accidents at 100kph anyway.
B=Now we have a new breed of risk takers due to frustration.

A+B=44 more than normal.

caspernz

2nd January 2015, 03:20

SH1 between TK and Hampton Downs has seen two serious incidents - the wire barriers in the centre were down in two places, and on the left in one. Given this is a single carriageway stretch, overtaking is unlikely to have been responsible. Dozing, texting or just being a fuckwit who shouldn't have a license seem possible causes.

This type of damage to road furniture as you described above, is quite common in holiday periods. As I travel a decent section of the North Island by truck, it's always interesting to note damage to guard rails/fences. Or skid marks leading into the water table on an easy curve...and it makes me wonder whether driving the vehicle was the number one priority of the person in the drivers' seat.

Not always keen to jump to conclusions though, for a few seconds of distraction can make a big change to my day as well :blink:

unstuck

2nd January 2015, 04:51

is now saying its trucks fault the road toll has gone up

Finally someone sees the real menace on our roads. Give the man a DB.
Most truckies are ego maniacs with little dicks who need a big vehicle to compensate. Especially stock truck drivers, those fuckers need to be banned from the road unless they can prove they are competent of emptying their tanks and know how to monitor those tanks.
Milk tankers, just shoot the lot of the fuckers.:whistle:

rastuscat

2nd January 2015, 06:06

Statistical anomaly. The level has plummeted so much in recent years its yet to find a new consistent median value from one year to the next.
So many factors at play, recession, weather patterns, fuel prices, new WOF laws maybe influencing buyer/importer choices to newer safer cars....

When the road toll was 843 (1973) a few more or less was hardly noticeable.

Now that it's down to around 300 a few extra is a significant variation.

The Popos can't influence the weather, recession, fuel prices, blah blah blah, but that's no reason why we shouldn't do what we believe will help the issue.

If we didn't believe what we were doing would help, we wouldn't be doing it. We'd be doing the things we believe would.

All that said, as mentioned previously, I've got strong beliefs that we could do better. But at my level, influencing national policy is a pipe dream.

We can only do what we can do. And I do.

I almost envy the knockers. It must be easy when you actually can't do anything to sit back and tell those who can how to act. All the ideas with no need to actually do anything except bang away at a keyboard.

jellywrestler

2nd January 2015, 06:20

Most truckies are ego maniacs with little dicks who need a big vehicle to compensate.

I drive a smart car.

awayatc

2nd January 2015, 06:28

I spend a far greater amount of time going to work.....
out of those hard earned earnings I pay a substantitial amount of tax....
it is not unreasonable to expect that that money is being put to good use looking after the country I live in.
I also spend most of my time in a manner that complies with the standards, expectations and laws of said country.
I resent the fact that some civil servant higher up the pecking order misguidedly abuses his powers , and uses a whole government department to extort me under the pretense of looking after me.
I deserve better.....
and so do you...

Kickaha

2nd January 2015, 06:50

and uses a whole government department to extort me .

So how many tickets do you actually get?

R650R

2nd January 2015, 06:58

Now that it's down to around 300 a few extra is a significant variation.

We can only do what we can do. And I do.

I almost envy the knockers.

Wasn't knocking the cops, pointing out that we're at a point now where the numbers will be murkey. Yes as a percentage its still a big variation but there's so much chance and bad luck involved with crashes eg the innocent party coming the other way is it one person or family of five etc.
Tragic as it is 44 people is not many extra when you factor in multiple passengers etc.

I think there's a general level of badluck/basic poor decision making by humans that will ensure there is always a certain barrier level that the road toll wont drop through but orbit around. This is no matter what training or enforcement options are used however effective they may be in 95% of cases.
Bit like the worlds most powerful military in afganistan, they have all the tools to do the job but will always be chasing their tales there in an environment where victory is not completely possible.

I'm picking the road toll will rise again this year. The Money junkies have dropped the prices of oil again to try and hurt Russia. This will prob last for the next six months till they jack it up again. In the meantime people will make more journeys and drive faster on the cheaper gas and crash more.

R650R

2nd January 2015, 07:00

Finally someone sees the real menace on our roads. Give the man a DB.
Most truckies are ego maniacs with little dicks who need a big vehicle to compensate. Especially stock truck drivers, those fuckers need to be banned from the road unless they can prove they are competent of emptying their tanks and know how to monitor those tanks.
Milk tankers, just shoot the lot of the fuckers.:whistle:

That's a pretty sloppy Burley trail of baiting there, I'm disappointed I know you can come up with better shit than that :)

R650R

2nd January 2015, 07:04

I drive a smart car.

You shouldn't say that outloud https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnFAAdOBB1c

awayatc

2nd January 2015, 07:27

So how many tickets do you actually get?

Far more then I should.....
and all for speed...
Little bit to quick....
10- 15 kms
25 km over even sometimes.
Been all over the world.
Only nz and oz are so anal regarding speed...

Voltaire

2nd January 2015, 07:37

caseye

2nd January 2015, 09:14

BlackSheepLogic

2nd January 2015, 09:19

Finally someone sees the real menace on our roads. Give the man a DB.
Most truckies are ego maniacs with little dicks who need a big vehicle to compensate

I'm seldom held up by trucks for very long, they always pull over and let the traffic pass. They are also easy to follow compared to slow cars which sit on the brakes at every minor curve in the road.

Got stuck behind a typical camper van yesterday doing 80Km/h and sometime less. Wanker speed up every time there was an opportunity to pass which were not many.

The worst thou are the cars which heavily brake mid-corner.

swbarnett

2nd January 2015, 09:20

The Popos can't influence the weather, recession, fuel prices, blah blah blah, but that's no reason why we shouldn't do what we believe will help the issue.

If we didn't believe what we were doing would help, we wouldn't be doing it. We'd be doing the things we believe would.
This is all well and good but you (as in the police as a whole) have no right to act on blind faith and ignore the evidence. Every religious conflict in history resulted from zealots acting on blind faith without corroborating evidence. I'm sure ISIL feels justified in their genocide for the same reason.

It must be easy when you actually can't do anything ...
I do the most any individual driver/rider can do to lower the road toll. I drive and ride in a manner that will keep myself and those around me on the road and in one piece - even if that may contradicts a law or two.

swbarnett

2nd January 2015, 09:27

Take ACC off motor vehicles
Definitely.

and transfer to personal insurance.
NO, NO, NO. ACC is a public good. It benefits everyone so everyone should pay - equally. The ONLY fair way to fund ACC is from the general tax take.

rastuscat

2nd January 2015, 09:28

This is all well and good but you (as in the police as a whole) have no right to act on blind faith and ignore the evidence.

You believe your evidence, and I believe ours. Each piece of evidence I produce, you can produce something to the contrary. And vice versa. For the record, again, I actually don't buy 100% the party line, but it's still the party line. How far would it get me to run around disagreeing with the Bwana? Nowhere, coz he's still the Bwana.

[/QUOTE] do the most any individual driver/rider can do to lower the road toll. I drive and ride in a manner that will keep myself and those around me on the road and in one piece - even if that may contradicts a law or two.[/QUOTE]

And THATs all we can ask. That everyone does their bit. Trouble is, most don't give it a second thought.

TheDemonLord

2nd January 2015, 09:44

The Popos can't influence the weather, recession, fuel prices, blah blah blah, but that's no reason why we shouldn't do what we believe will help the issue.

Its True the police can't influence those things - but did that stop them from claiming credit and causation for the lower road toll? - I seem to remember when we had the first death-free public holiday that the police were blowing their trumpets about how it was a direct result of their lower speed tolerance (never mind the other factors that probably had more to do with it)

And now, the toll is up, the speed tolerance is down and yet the same line somehow rings hollow - surely if the lower tolerance was the sole and only reason for the death-free holiday, then an even lower tolerance would have meant a lower toll overall for the year....

I am not having a go at the individual cop - who may believe the line or may simply be following orders - Just this kind of thing grates me: If the lower speed tolerance works, then why did it not do dick over the holidays, or if it isn't working, a retraction, public apology and a refund are in order.

fit jammers to vehicles to stop mobile phones working.
Have Rego based on power, want more power, pay more.
Make third party insurance compulsory
Take ACC off motor vehicles and transfer to personal insurance.

What about passengers? Fitting Jammers is a 1000 lb bomb to crack a walnut.
Rego based on power - I could somewhat agree with this notion - but if we are going to go down that path, there are other factors I would like to see accounted for before power
Compulsory insurance - I am vehemently against it for the following reasons:

1: It does nothing to help the road toll
2: all the insurance companies who are currently telling you that premiums won't change much are lying - just look at the UK to see how it works over there - I could not own or drive Any of the vehicles I owned and drove for the first 10 years of my driving career - the cost of an insurance premium for a 1.1 ltr car for a male driver under 25 is almost more than the cost of the car.
3: it gives Mr Plod another excuse to issue tickets (and boy do they love to do that in the UK)
4: it doesn't change what happens if there is an accident with someone with no insurance - you log a police report, you go to court, the lawyers laugh to the bank and everyone gets screwed.

Finally ACC - I personally don't mind keeping ACC around - but I do think that it should take into account fault in an accident - afterall, if I have to spend 2 weeks in hospital and a further 1 year in physical rehab because somebody pulled out without looking, it isn't right that my premiums increase, if ACC behaved more like an insurance company, they would be reaming either the person at fault or the person at fault's insurance - not mine.

AllanB

2nd January 2015, 11:00

Pop into your local show room and sit in a new car - they are so well appointed with goodness, electronics, blue tooth this and that that I wonder if the extras are actually distracting the drivers attention now - kind of like giving them a false sense of security.

The 'drive' is now a luxury 'ride'

Also with all the modern aids such as anti lock brakes etc etc we are still smashing he shit out of each other.

Advertising re speed may or may not work - advocating more responsibility to the person behind the wheel may. Speed killed? Nah the driver speeding killed. Big difference.

willytheekid

2nd January 2015, 11:21

Hmmmm, I say we put the bubble wrap away...and just assist natural selection :yes:

307345

...just a thought :D

Tazz

2nd January 2015, 11:37

I've only done a lazy skim :yawn: but did anyone see this wee gem?

http://www.3news.co.nz/nznews/lower-fuel-prices-blamed-for-road-toll-2015010109#axzz3NcDeHT25

Also I love how our roading condition/s are allegedly not good enough for a higher speed limit (rings true for a lot of our roads to be fair) like other countries with lower road tolls, yet our own road toll is somehow still comparable?

SPman

2nd January 2015, 11:45

Finally ACC - I personally don't mind keeping ACC around - but I do think that it should take into account fault in an accident - afterall, if I have to spend 2 weeks in hospital and a further 1 year in physical rehab because somebody pulled out without looking, it isn't right that my premiums increase, if ACC behaved more like an insurance company, they would be reaming either the person at fault or the person at fault's insurance - not mine.

And that attitude, m'Lud, is the reason ACC is in the state it is now and behaving like an insurance company instead of the no fault Social Service it was originally conceived as.......

mstriumph

2nd January 2015, 11:50

'''''''''''''''''''''''''
However the apparent obsession with speed is, in my belief, creating a culture of driving to the speed limit irrespective of the conditions at the time. I would rather see a more rational approach to traffic policing with drivers/riders prosecuted for driving/riding in a manner which is endangering either themselves or others. By that, I mean, doing 100km/h in torrential rain in heavy traffic is more dangerous than doing 110km/h in a well maintained vehicle on a straight wide section of open road on a fine day; unable to stop at Stop signs; tailgating; and the list goes on..............

Amen to that
Our main problem seems to be that traffic law is put in place by out of touch idiots wanting to appear 'to be doing something', enforced by foot soldiers who just want to keep their jobs and visited on a general public browbeaten into mindless obedience irrespective of the stupidity of what's being enforced

If all three levels were encouraged to THINK about the implications of what they are doing, the roads would be a safer place

... no?

TheDemonLord

2nd January 2015, 12:34

And that attitude, m'Lud, is the reason ACC is in the state it is now and behaving like an insurance company instead of the no fault Social Service it was originally conceived as.......

I concede part of that, but I think more of the problem is to do with trying to do both - my suggestion is to move it to purer insurance company model, as opposed to the 50/50 it is trying to be (which I agree is part of the problem)

gjm

2nd January 2015, 13:02

I've only done a lazy skim :yawn: but did anyone see this wee gem?

http://www.3news.co.nz/nznews/lower-fuel-prices-blamed-for-road-toll-2015010109#axzz3NcDeHT25

Well, the lower tolerance on speeding was always going to be the correct course of action, and it couldn't possibly be the lack of skill on the part of drivers that would cause accidents.

Had to be something else, something new and different...

Yup - fuel prices. Must be the fuel prices!

Silly government. When the wholesale price of oil dropped, they should have increased taxation on fuel because that would not only help to fill John Key's, sorry, the government's coffers but it would alos have helped reduce the road toll over Christmas!

There. Tax increases linked to safety promotion. Simples.

Or maybe 3news is secretly owned by Fox. They're known for their inability to accurately report anything.

breakaway

2nd January 2015, 13:21

I say next year we reduce the speed limit to 30 km/h on all roads and see what happens.

If you are found exceeding the speed, your car will be crushed and replaced with a smart car.

mstriumph

2nd January 2015, 13:40

I say next year we reduce the speed limit to 30 km/h on all roads and see what happens.

If you are found exceeding the speed, your car will be crushed and replaced with a smart car.

let's have a law that every motor vehicle must be limited to 4kph speed and have a bloke with a red flag walking in front of it ... (think of the impact on the unemployment stats!)

and, if you are found exceeding the limit, YOU will be crushed and replaced with the bloke who had to walk in front of you ... (that's if you didn't crush him when you exceeded the limit)

:facepalm: seriously, fella?

EJK

2nd January 2015, 13:43

Pathetic piece of shits always pointing fingers and blaming others.

Fuel prices? Really? I mean, seriously? You gotta be fucking kidding me.

I can't stand both Clive Matthew-Wilson scapegoating on stupid variables and the media boosting and pumping bullshit on the Internet.

jellywrestler

2nd January 2015, 13:55

Pathetic piece of shits always pointing fingers and blaming others.

Fuel prices? Really? I mean, seriously? You gotta be fucking kidding me.

he's dead right, look how cheap mcdonalds is and how many fat cunts there are out there.

TheDemonLord

2nd January 2015, 14:55

swbarnett

2nd January 2015, 15:23

For the record, again, I actually don't buy 100% the party line, but it's still the party line. How far would it get me to run around disagreeing with the Bwana? Nowhere, coz he's still the Bwana.
All it takes for evil to flourish is for good people to do nothing.

And THATs all we can ask. That everyone does their bit. Trouble is, most don't give it a second thought.
And all I ask is that the police actually try and figure out which of us are part of the solution and leave us alone. I would be much happier if it was clear that they were actually trying, even if they were still getting it wrong.

Edbear

2nd January 2015, 15:49

Hmmmm, I say we put the bubble wrap away...and just assist natural selection :yes:]

...just a thought :D

If only the perpetrators were affected. Trouble is it's too often the innocent.

Well, they are right to a degree

When fuel is expensive, only people who can afford to drive, go away for the holidays - these people tend to be:

1: Higher educated (so know what the fuck they are doing)
2: driving late model cars (so have the latest and greatest safety features)
3: Have smaller families (so not a million cuzzies in a clapped out Whanau Ferry)

And most importantly of all:

4: Less other road users to crash into.

So why are BMW drivers the worst of all?

EJK

2nd January 2015, 15:54

So why are BMW drivers the worst of all?

Because they are driven by Asians.

Tazz

2nd January 2015, 15:58

Well, they are right to a degree

When fuel is expensive, only people who can afford to drive, go away for the holidays - these people tend to be:

1: Higher educated (so know what the fuck they are doing)
2: driving late model cars (so have the latest and greatest safety features)
3: Have smaller families (so not a million cuzzies in a clapped out Whanau Ferry)

And most importantly of all:

4: Less other road users to crash into.

So you've studied this in depth then? Or are you just drawing a few small conclusions there :lol:

People still go, they just spend less when they get there, or give the credit card a workout. Petrol is just one of those things where it costs what it costs and you grab it anyway because hopes and dreams don't pedal you very bloody far :laugh:

Funny they weren't out last year saying the high cost of petrol was saving lives if all this bullshit is so factual!
Sad sign of the times that people like that moron get so much air time. This sort of crap shouldn't even get a second glance.

Edbear

2nd January 2015, 16:08

Because they are driven by Asians.

That's what I thought but even the European drivers, male and female of all age groups - it's rare to find someone driving a BMW well. Then there are the boy racers with their rotary powered older Beemers with no suspension :doh:

Virago

2nd January 2015, 16:17

...Have Rego based on power, want more power, pay more...

Which is effectively the rego system we now have on bikes? The system we all objected to on introduction?

BlackSheepLogic

2nd January 2015, 17:51

gjm

2nd January 2015, 18:09

That's what I thought but even the European drivers, male and female of all age groups - it's rare to find someone driving a BMW well.

I try to. May I consider myself the exception that proves the rule? :-)

kiwi cowboy

2nd January 2015, 18:23

Finally someone sees the real menace on our roads. Give the man a DB.
Most truckies are ego maniacs with little dicks who need a big vehicle to compensate. Especially stock truck drivers, those fuckers need to be banned from the road unless they can prove they are competent of emptying their tanks and know how to monitor those tanks.
Milk tankers, just shoot the lot of the fuckers.:whistle:

Diddnt you drive a truck once apon a time?.:devil2:

Edbear

2nd January 2015, 18:27

I try to. May I consider myself the exception that proves the rule? :-)

I have seen one or two who can and I'll take your word for it. If you drive between Orewa and Auckland and around Auckland you may be one of them.

kiwi cowboy

2nd January 2015, 18:41

Well, they are right to a degree

When fuel is expensive, only people who can afford to drive, go away for the holidays - these people tend to be:

1: Higher educated (so know what the fuck they are doing)That are stuck up arrogant fuckwits Who think there shit don't stink and are better than avery one else so should get out of THEIR way
2: driving late model cars (so have the latest and greatest safety features)And because of this and the fact there rich and arrougant stuckup fuckwits every one should get out of THEIR way.
3: Have smaller families (so not a million cuzzies in a clapped out Whanau Ferry)

And most importantly of all:

4: Less other road users to crash into.:msn-wink::msn-wink::msn-wink::rolleyes:

unstuck

2nd January 2015, 18:46

Diddnt you drive a truck once apon a time?.:devil2:

Once or twice:2thumbsup
Even own one.:rolleyes:

True about the tanker drivers though.:whistle:

R650R

2nd January 2015, 18:53

Wow, let's bring racism & prejudice against blue collars into this thread.

LOL he's never heard of petrol drive offs... the poor still go on holiday, just with someone elses wagon!

Swoop

2nd January 2015, 18:59

An enjoyable lot of bullshit, is the current public servant announcement that "distracted drivers are dangerous drivers".
No shit Sherlock!

More attention needs to be applied, searching for taxation camera vans & plod, which takes attention away from actual, real dangers.

When fuel is expensive, only people who can afford to drive, go away for the holidays ...
Rubbish.

I have personally witnessed a "bro" laughing about how WINZ simply pumps out more fuel vouchers for "the needy".

Voltaire

2nd January 2015, 19:05

Which is effectively the rego system we now have on bikes? The system we all objected to on introduction?

I meant applied to cars.

Virago

2nd January 2015, 19:10

I meant applied to cars.

Is there any correlation between vehicle power and the road toll?

schrodingers cat

2nd January 2015, 19:27

Is there any correlation between vehicle power and the road toll?

When did correlation ever drive policy?

How about rego cost by power to weight calculation?
That way large families won't have to be burdened with exorbident costs.
And we'll achieve zero unemployment trying to keep track of it all

gjm

2nd January 2015, 19:52

Has there been any official response to the stats? (Other than the pulp news conjecture?)

TheDemonLord

3rd January 2015, 07:25

Okay - so a lot of accusations and requests to back what I said up with some data - so here yah go:

http://www.interest.co.nz/sites/default/files/embedded_images/image/Dubai%20crude%20to%20go%20go.gif

And the government transport website:

http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/roadtoll/#5

It is curious that we see a massive dip around 2009 for the price of Crude and a massive increase in the Road toll for the corresponding year, it then increases slightly for 2010, and we see a slight reduction in the toll, then we see another spike in 2011 and we see a big reduction in the road toll and finally another dip in 2012 and the Road Toll goes up.

It also accounts for my 4th point - less cars on the road means for those that can afford to drive - they have less other cars to crash into/hold them up etc. so less likelyhood of there being a crash

No I am not going to commit the police fallacy and say that Petrol price is the only factor, but it certainly is A factor - higher prices mean some people can't afford to go on holiday OR can only afford to go on holiday to destinations closer to home - this means less traffic on the road and people taking shorter road trips - which reduces their risk of crashing (less time spent on the road)

Now to back up my point about educated drivers being better - I did find some graphing and did do an examination of their sources

Here is the graph:

307405

And here is the website it is from:

http://fathersmanifesto.net/iq.htm

For the Record - it appears to be a white supremecist/christian supremicist website (which I personally find to be one of the most vile combinations - but that is an aside) and as such, I treat all their data as highly suspicious (hence why I am posting the source link so no one can accuse me of not being transparent)

Read into it what you will - for those that reject the data on the basis that it is likely biased (which you are more than entitled to) - I ask just this one question - do you agree that someone with a Higher IQ is more likely to be able to learn good driving techniques from others quicker and more effectively, more likely to take additional driver training (most people with high IQs like additional education), more likely to not be under the influence of drugs/alcohol, more likely to be aware of the dangers of tired driving and finally more likely to be aware of the current road rules and abide by them?

As for BMW drivers - I don't know where this came from - I have checked my original post and there is nothing about BMW drivers - I only mentioned that richer people tend to drive newer late model cars with better safety (side impact airbags, airbags for passengers etc.) which means should they be involved in a crash - they are less likely to be fatal.

For those that don't believe me on this point:

307403

Newer cars have shorter stopping distances (so less likely to collide in the first place)

And here is the definitive:

307404

So now we have established my first 2 points (which so many of you asked me for evidence) and by corollary point 4 - this just leaves point 3:

This is not a racist attack but simple maths - if you have a 5 seat car with 4 occupants (parents, 2 children) vs a people mover with 9 people in it (parents, children, extended family and friends - aka Whanau) and both are in a fatal crash - which one is more likely to have a higher body count (with all other factors being equal)? And it has long been known that lower income groups tend to have larger numbers of children, whereas higher income groups tend to have a smaller number.

R650R

3rd January 2015, 08:30

This is not a racist attack but simple maths - if you have a 5 seat car with 4 occupants (parents, 2 children) vs a people mover with 9 people in it (parents, children, extended family and friends - aka Whanau) and both are in a fatal crash - which one is more likely to have a higher body count (with all other factors being equal)? And it has long been known that lower income groups tend to have larger numbers of children, whereas higher income groups tend to have a smaller number.

They say there's lies, damn lies and statistics.... :)

On a percentage basis the car with nine occupants would be the safer one to be in... as long as all the other factors are the same eg seatbelts good tyres etc then the car with nine people is more likely to be driven in a safer coutesous manner on the way to the campground. Where as My Whitey in his leased HSV commodore and 2.5 children is prob in a hurry to get the limited off street parking at the city hotel so no one scratches his symbolic manhood.... you can play these sagas any direction... :)

I think poorer people less likely to be insured so maybe more proactive about avoiding collision....

At any level I don't think it would figure in NZTA safety strategys at any level that will be taken seriously, so many factors that would skew the data... Its like saying sportsbike riders are more likely to be higher educated and safer riders than Harley riders... (this is not my view just illustrating angle)....

But just for shits and giggles you could ring Michael Laws on talkback and let him run with this one :)

Scuba_Steve

3rd January 2015, 09:01

I'm surprised the road toll is not higher with the level of incompetence of humans behind the wheel/bars.
Drop the blood alcohol to zero to make the calculation of " how much can I drink" easier.
fit jammers to vehicles to stop mobile phones working.
Have Rego based on power, want more power, pay more.
Make third party insurance compulsory
Take ACC off motor vehicles and transfer to personal insurance.

You're an idiot
Zero is stupid, it's the drunks that are the real problem not people wanting to have 1 or 2
Again stupid, jammers aren't specific or directional they'll take out alot more than just cells... also the radio is much more dangerous than talking on a cell
Why?
If you want to pay more than pay more, don't force everyone else too... Just get yourself full insurance, be happy it's still cheaper than compulsory 3rd party & stop complaining everyone should be forced to pay more for insurance
Again if you want to pay more do so, go get yourself private healthcare & stop trying to fuck over everyone else

You believe your evidence, and I believe ours. Each piece of evidence I produce, you can produce something to the contrary. And vice versa. For the record, again, I actually don't buy 100% the party line, but it's still the party line. How far would it get me to run around disagreeing with the Bwana? Nowhere, coz he's still the Bwana.

You want to produce some evidence showing the speed scam to work? & this could be anywhere in the world, I'm interested to see it... I have plenty of studies showing it to be what it is, a scam, but yet to see one showing it to work. I'm not the only one either, as I've previously mentioned road safety expert John Lambert is also yet to see a study backing up this absurd claim; so if you can produce one I'm interested to see it

TheDemonLord

3rd January 2015, 09:53

They say there's lies, damn lies and statistics.... :)

On a percentage basis the car with nine occupants would be the safer one to be in... as long as all the other factors are the same eg seatbelts good tyres etc then the car with nine people is more likely to be driven in a safer coutesous manner on the way to the campground. Where as My Whitey in his leased HSV commodore and 2.5 children is prob in a hurry to get the limited off street parking at the city hotel so no one scratches his symbolic manhood.... you can play these sagas any direction... :)

I think poorer people less likely to be insured so maybe more proactive about avoiding collision....

At any level I don't think it would figure in NZTA safety strategys at any level that will be taken seriously, so many factors that would skew the data... Its like saying sportsbike riders are more likely to be higher educated and safer riders than Harley riders... (this is not my view just illustrating angle)....

But just for shits and giggles you could ring Michael Laws on talkback and let him run with this one :)

I love the lies, damned lies and statistics quote.

But I don't think that your idea that a car with 9 people is more likely to be driven safely has any merit:

Anecdotally - some of the worst driving behaviour I have witnessed has come from people movers, fully laden
Next - you have 8 potential sources of distraction as opposed to 3
I don't think that number of occupants would decrease the hurry that the driver would be in to get somewhere - if anything having 8 people asking how much longer and 'are we there yet' is going to increase the hurry.
I do agree however that you could play the Saga every which way (based on conjecture, personal experience and what not)

Finally lack of insurance vs proactive avoidance of crashes - this is a toughy - on one hand I agree that not having insurance is a very good incentive not to crash, on the other - I would much less want to crash a $100,000 car compared to a $10,000 car - I actually don't think that on a day-to-day basis the lack of insurance has any bearing on the drivers actions.

kiwi cowboy

3rd January 2015, 09:57

I meant applied to cars.

I didn't know this until recently but it is in a way as the likes of the wrx subies and mitsi ovo's are taxed higher in redg than the perceived ordinary car or so im told.

pete376403

3rd January 2015, 10:29

I didn't know this until recently but it is in a way as the likes of the wrx subies and mitsi ovo's are taxed higher in redg than the perceived ordinary car or so im told.
Love to know where you heard this..
all I can find is http://www.nzta.govt.nz/vehicle/registration-licensing/fees.html

(Sorry about the formatting)

Registration of motor vehicle (issued with standard plates, and includes your first vehicle licence)
6 months 12 months
Passenger car/van
Private passenger Petrol driven - 1301-2600cc 291.08 431.25
Petrol driven - 2601-4000cc 322.13 462.30
Non-petrol driven - 1301-2600cc 361.77 572.64
Non-petrol driven - 2601-4000cc 392.82 603.69
Trailer
Other (standard) goods 0-3500kg GVM 84.46 98.55
Motorcycle
Private passenger Petrol driven - 0 - 60cc incl 246.36 444.18
Petrol driven - 61cc – 600cc incl 273.96 477.53
Petrol driven – 601cc and over 331.03 591.69
Moped
Private passenger Petrol driven 131.23 213.93
See more information on registering your vehicle.

So it appears registering a WRX / Evo costs about the same as a 60cc scooter

BMWST?

3rd January 2015, 10:40

people with more powerful bikes and cars (petrol) already pay more as more powerful vehicles use more petrol therefore pay more tax,including acc..The SPEED obsession is because it is a factoer and it is easily measured.Other factors are less easily measured.
I think there needs to be a little more focus on other bad driving behaviour and enforcement backed up by the courts.simple stuff like seatbelts, and keeping left.The 9 occupants of the people mover probably arent wearing seatbelts,whereas the commodore occupants probably are,and BMW Audi and Merc drivers almost certainly will be

caspernz

3rd January 2015, 10:42

I didn't know this until recently but it is in a way as the likes of the wrx subies and mitsi ovo's are taxed higher in redg than the perceived ordinary car or so im told.

Rego is the same, but the insurance now that's another topic :laugh:

pete376403

3rd January 2015, 10:50

And of course car registration goes down from 1 June on average 41%. Bike rego goes down a tiny little bit

caspernz

3rd January 2015, 11:06

I love the lies, damned lies and statistics quote.

But I don't think that your idea that a car with 9 people is more likely to be driven safely has any merit:

Anecdotally - some of the worst driving behaviour I have witnessed has come from people movers, fully laden
Next - you have 8 potential sources of distraction as opposed to 3
I don't think that number of occupants would decrease the hurry that the driver would be in to get somewhere - if anything having 8 people asking how much longer and 'are we there yet' is going to increase the hurry.
I do agree however that you could play the Saga every which way (based on conjecture, personal experience and what not)

Finally lack of insurance vs proactive avoidance of crashes - this is a toughy - on one hand I agree that not having insurance is a very good incentive not to crash, on the other - I would much less want to crash a $100,000 car compared to a $10,000 car - I actually don't think that on a day-to-day basis the lack of insurance has any bearing on the drivers actions.

The topic of the road toll very quickly takes a dive into social studies, at least if we allow our own anecdotal evidence to form opinions. I wonder if statistics would back some of this up? Not PC in this day and age of course.

The insurance thing ($100k car vs $10k car, and behaviour of driver) quickly becomes a moot point when you consider income. Say you can afford that $100k car, it's seen as no different as the $10k car to someone who earns less don't you think?

Personally I think my best way to make a positive contribution to the subject matter is to remain calm and vigilant, indulge in available training whether at work or private time, and just enjoy myself.

BMWST?

3rd January 2015, 11:17

The topic of the road toll very quickly takes a dive into social studies, at least if we allow our own anecdotal evidence to form opinions. I wonder if statistics would back some of this up? Not PC in this day and age of course.

The insurance thing ($100k car vs $10k car, and behaviour of driver) quickly becomes a moot point when you consider income. Say you can afford that $100k car, it's seen as no different as the $10k car to someone who earns less don't you think?

Personally I think my best way to make a positive contribution to the subject matter is to remain calm and vigilant, indulge in available training whether at work or private time, and just enjoy myself.

the actual price difference between a 10 000 car and 100 000 dollar car as far as insurance is concerened is bugger all .Your other stuff...well said

FJRider

3rd January 2015, 12:01

I didn't know this until recently but it is in a way as the likes of the wrx subies and mitsi ovo's are taxed higher in redg than the perceived ordinary car or so im told.

I don't know about being taxed higher ... but the insurance for them is dammed expensive ... some companies won't even cover them. (top of the stolen vehicles list)

FJRider

3rd January 2015, 12:29

So many factors at play, recession, weather patterns, fuel prices, new WOF laws maybe influencing buyer/importer choices to newer safer cars....

The Stupidity factor has featured a few time too .. the old excuse ... "It seemed like a good idea at the time" ...

But ... regardless of how safe your vehicle is .... doing a U-turn in front of a fully laden logging truck is not a good idea.

Tazz

3rd January 2015, 12:51

So now we have established my first 2 points (which so many of you asked me for evidence) and by corollary point 4 - this just leaves point 3:

Hmm, so where is the analysis of the NZ crashes showing what accidents were caused by driver error, those by vehicle failures and what injuries and fatalities were a direct result of a lack of side curtain airbags and such. Also for the age, does my old 88-97 model/generation vehicle that had a 4 star safety rating count as a clapped out heap of shit? What about the new great wall and Toyota 70 series that are only 2 and 3 star? Do they make it past your year cut off to be counted as safe or fall somewhere else?

What about the old fella that had the head on with the truck on SH1 on the 29th? If that was a medical problem where does the year of his car come into it? If it was medical was it hereditary or directly related to his age? Did he have massive head injuries from lack of an airbag, and if so, was he actually already dead from a heart attack before they happened anyway?

Also do you have stats of 'educated' (what counts as educated? Uni grad? On job learning?) vs 'non educated' accidents, fatalities vs injury/nil?

I haven't even touched the surface :laugh:. You can almost draw whatever numbers you want from data like that and present it as whatever you like.

So yeah, unless you've sat down with a calculator and spent a bit of time sifting through accurate data and compiled it correctly, you're drawing big conclusions on your bullet points no matter how you dress it.

As for the BMW stuff before, I know I'd feel safer riding near a nice and tidy BMW than a dented to fuck Commodore.

FJRider

3rd January 2015, 13:03

As for the BMW stuff before, I know I'd feel safer riding near a nice and tidy BMW than a dented to fuck Commodore.

The sheer numbers of dented to fuck Commodores on the road ... makes it highly possible ... that's what will clobber you in your BMW.

Fasten your seat belt ... <_<

TheDemonLord

3rd January 2015, 13:27

Hmm, so where is the analysis of the NZ crashes showing what accidents were caused by driver error, those by vehicle failures and what injuries and fatalities were a direct result of a lack of side curtain airbags and such. Also for the age, does my old 88-97 model/generation vehicle that had a 4 star safety rating count as a clapped out heap of shit? What about the new great wall and Toyota 70 series that are only 2 and 3 star? Do they make it past your year cut off to be counted as safe or fall somewhere else?

I used overseas data, however because we don't produce any cars locally (all are designed and tested overseas) we can reliably use overseas data.

The point I am making here is that when we look at all the vehicles on the road - newer cars are safer than older cars - they stop quicker and are fitted with the latest and greatest safety features as standard.

What about the old fella that had the head on with the truck on SH1 on the 29th? If that was a medical problem where does the year of his car come into it? If it was medical was it hereditary or directly related to his age? Did he have massive head injuries from lack of an airbag, and if so, was he actually already dead from a heart attack before they happened anyway?

Assuming he was alive, then being in a newer car would have improved his chances of surviving.

Also do you have stats of 'educated' (what counts as educated? Uni grad? On job learning?) vs 'non educated' accidents, fatalities vs injury/nil?

Educated/above average IQ - I will concede here that the data I submitted to back up that point was probably biased.

I haven't even touched the surface :laugh:. You can almost draw whatever numbers you want from data like that and present it as whatever you like.

So yeah, unless you've sat down with a calculator and spent a bit of time sifting through accurate data and compiled it correctly, you're drawing big conclusions on your bullet points no matter how you dress it.

As for the BMW stuff before, I know I'd feel safer riding near a nice and tidy BMW than a dented to fuck Commodore.

I am well aware of Stats and Correlation vs causation - but I have backed up my points with numbers - and there is a definite correlation between petrol price and road toll - we can infer a number of things from this correlation as likely explanations (no matter how un-PC they may be) and since it is something where it is almost impossible to do a control test for - inference from our data is all we have (as opposed to drawing big conclusions from thin air)

But I digress - if you wish to prove me wrong - present your own set of Data to negate that which I have stated, otherwise: My opinion backed up with relevant data > your opinion without any corroborating evidence

R650R

3rd January 2015, 14:45

Anecdotally - some of the worst driving behaviour I have witnessed has come from people movers, fully laden

Perhaps its an inverted bell curve... cause a LOT of the worst driving I have seen has come from rich pricks in the latest SUV/HSV etc...

Of course that means all us 'middle class' (another misused term but a whole thread in itself...) keyboard warriors are the safest riders/drivers *said tongue in check while puking lol*

But who actually crashes, according to Rastus its average Joe ma and pa who didn't think their day was going to turn to shit. And from living near a busy T junction where there used to be a lot of crashes (traffic engineering/visibility fixed it) I have to agree with him. And they would prob be the largest single user road group and by default the most dangerous as there isn't enough credible data to break it down to per kim travelled etc....
BTW Sober drivers are by far THE MOST DANGEROUS road users out there, they cause 70% of all fatal and serious injury crashes.... drunk drivers (despisable as they may be) 'only' cause 30%....

You have to love statistics and pigeon holes.....

FJRider

3rd January 2015, 14:52

Assuming he was alive, then being in a newer car would have improved his chances of surviving.

And if he wasn't .... staying at home would not have improved his chances of surviving ...

FJRider

3rd January 2015, 15:04

But who actually crashes, according to Rastus its average Joe ma and pa who didn't think their day was going to turn to shit.

To add a twist to the statistics ...

It's who crashes and die ... that feature in the road death statistics ... who are not (always) those that caused the crash.

R650R

3rd January 2015, 15:10

To add a twist to the statistics ...

It's who crashes and die ... that feature in the road death statistics ... who are not (always) those that caused the crash.

Yes.... so the fit people have more chance of surviving but tehn the fatties have extra padding.... maybe it all evens out :)

Brett

3rd January 2015, 15:19

Just got back from driving Auckland to Paihia in the Bay of Islands and back. The state of the driving was absolutely shocking. Drivers going 30-50kph consistently in a 100kph zone, people following each other like sheep, sitting in a line all going 80kph and then speeding up AS A BLOODY LINE to 110kph on the over taking lanes only to drop back to 75/80kph collectively. I have driven in a lot of countries and NZ is undoubtedly the worst. Our drivers are so incredibly unskilled and ignorant it is unbelievable. Very few appeared to be "immigrants" or "tourists" either.

Only saw two speed camera's and two patrol cars. Both on overtaking lanes or nice, safe, long straights. I have never been more convinced that the "Speed Kills" campaign is an absolute rort to bring in revenue. If the powers that be actually gave two shits about people's safety, they would actively crack down on this sort of incompetent driving.

FJRider

3rd January 2015, 15:37

Yes.... so the fit people have more chance of surviving but tehn the fatties have extra padding.... maybe it all evens out :)

I'm not fat ... So I'm at more risk ... ???? :eek:

My thinking is it's not those at greater risk that (should) feature in road deaths reports/statistics ... but those that put themselves at risk.

Also ... There is the smug complacency of some ... that if you are under the posted speed limit and obeying all/most/some of the other road rules ... you can relax and still be safe.

AllanB

3rd January 2015, 15:38

pritch

3rd January 2015, 15:40

Educated/above average IQ - I will concede here that the data I submitted to back up that point was probably biased.

To equate IQ with driving ability is ludicrous. At one stage I was considering writing a piece for the AA mag about the crazy stuff I'd seen and heard from drivers most of whom had degrees. This could potentially have landed me in trouble as these drivers worked in the same place as I did so discretion was deemed advisable.

Believe me a degree is no indication of driving ability.

AllanB

3rd January 2015, 15:43

Believe me degree ia no indication of driving ability.

Yeah I reckon that Hawkins guy would drive like shit!

A degree is often referred to by the holder as something that make one better than a non holder. Crap.

R650R

3rd January 2015, 15:47

Plenty wank on here about rider training (a good idea) but anyone with a licence should have to complete some form of refresher training course every X years - shit I'd probably fail it was almost 34 years ago I got my license and I've not had to do any refresher since. I still get confused over that change to give way - top of the T or some shit except in roundies. I fail to see how hard GIVE WAY TO YOUR RIGHT was!!!!!!!!!

Every ride is a fucking refresher course in safety, every intersection and overtake is the ultimate bloody test. its either something you understand or you don't...
You don't need some glorified certificate to post on your wall to stop from crashing.

I've done forklift 'refresher' courses several times, zero impact on real world use of said device except now I know its a good legal move to go off to the smoko room if someone is going to do dumb shit as if you watch and laugh your just as liable under osh law....

R650R

3rd January 2015, 15:48

To equate IQ with driving ability is ludicrous. At one stage I was considering writing a piece for the AA mag about the crazy stuff I'd seen and heard from drivers most of whom had degrees. This could potentially have landed me in trouble as these drivers worked in the same place as I did so discretion was deemed advisable.

Believe me degree ia no indication of driving ability.

EEewwww an AA writer, how could you live with yourself. The utter shite they print in that holiday sales brochure masquerading as a motorists rights publication..... *puke*

Tazz

3rd January 2015, 16:26

I used overseas data, however because we don't produce any cars locally (all are designed and tested overseas) we can reliably use overseas data.

The point I am making here is that when we look at all the vehicles on the road - newer cars are safer than older cars - they stop quicker and are fitted with the latest and greatest safety features as standard.

Assuming he was alive, then being in a newer car would have improved his chances of surviving.

Educated/above average IQ - I will concede here that the data I submitted to back up that point was probably biased.

I am well aware of Stats and Correlation vs causation - but I have backed up my points with numbers - and there is a definite correlation between petrol price and road toll - we can infer a number of things from this correlation as likely explanations (no matter how un-PC they may be) and since it is something where it is almost impossible to do a control test for - inference from our data is all we have (as opposed to drawing big conclusions from thin air)

But I digress - if you wish to prove me wrong - present your own set of Data to negate that which I have stated, otherwise: My opinion backed up with relevant data > your opinion without any corroborating evidence

You've done exactly what I said was easy to do and grabbed a bunch of stats and thrown it at whatever is convenient for what you're trying to say at the time :laugh: I'm still at work so I'll chew through it a bit better when I have more than a few mins to glace and chug coffee, but I didn't see anything there for the stats for NZ last year (nevermind fuck knows where you'd find half the details you need to draw informed conclusions).

I'm not saying newer cars are not by in large safer, just that it is not as simple as drawing a line in the sand and saying that you are 100% better driving/riding this or that when every situation/accident is different.
A guy I went to school with blacked out (kidney trouble or something) and took out a kid on a bike. His age, car year, location, speed, breakfast, fart scent all become numbers for people to draw on in which ever way suits.

It was a fatality, he was under 20, boom, in with the under 20's for dangerous driving.
His car was a 2003 or whatever, pow maybe the kid would have survived if it was a 2013
It was in the same suburb as a knarly intersection, shizaamm lumped in with that
He had bacon for breakfast, kaplowser if he was a Jew and just ate the eggs he would have been on the road sooner missed the kid altogether.

AllanB

3rd January 2015, 16:33

Every ride is a fucking refresher course in safety, every intersection and overtake is the ultimate bloody test. its either something you understand or you don't...
You don't need some glorified certificate to post on your wall to stop from crashing.
.

Yeah - funny riding the same places for 36 years - you shoot around corners where 25 years back you'd pass a car - but now on a much better bike I'd not even consider it.

I do feel you may have missed my point re updating licenses or even skills - bad habits creep in, laws change and a refresher may help.

In the States they run a system of if you are ticketed X times they send you on a course. No idea how it works but if they had something here - $150 ticket for your offense or sit a Sat morning course (that you must pass so you can't just fuck around) what would you pick?

Edbear

3rd January 2015, 16:36

When the road toll was 843 (1973) a few more or less was hardly noticeable.

Now that it's down to around 300 a few extra is a significant variation.

The Popos can't influence the weather, recession, fuel prices, blah blah blah, but that's no reason why we shouldn't do what we believe will help the issue.

If we didn't believe what we were doing would help, we wouldn't be doing it. We'd be doing the things we believe would.

All that said, as mentioned previously, I've got strong beliefs that we could do better. But at my level, influencing national policy is a pipe dream.

We can only do what we can do. And I do.

I almost envy the knockers. It must be easy when you actually can't do anything to sit back and tell those who can how to act. All the ideas with no need to actually do anything except bang away at a keyboard.

Few would ever consider getting involved personally. Much easier to be a keyboard warrior.

Bad driving crosses all statuses and types. I had the misfortune to have to follow a distinguished middle-aged driver in a Bentley GT and he was hopeless at all driving skills like keeping in lane, consistent speed, etc. He wasn't even talking on the phone.

I am also not impressed with the number of younger European males who so often turn out to be the culprits in excessively slow speeds on the open road.

haydes55

3rd January 2015, 16:43

Yeah - funny riding the same places for 36 years - you shoot around corners where 25 years back you'd pass a car - but now on a much better bike I'd not even consider it.

I do feel you may have missed my point re updating licenses or even skills - bad habits creep in, laws change and a refresher may help.

In the States they run a system of if you are ticketed X times they send you on a course. No idea how it works but if they had something here - $150 ticket for your offense or sit a Sat morning course (that you must pass so you can't just fuck around) what would you pick?

I wouldn't give them the choice of paying a fine, I'd force them to pay for the course. If you prove you can't drive safely to an officer, how can they let you carry on your way with a few less $$$ and say problem solved.

Tazz

4th January 2015, 11:19

Murray

4th January 2015, 11:58

Just got back from driving Auckland to Paihia in the Bay of Islands and back. The state of the driving was absolutely shocking. Drivers going 30-50kph consistently in a 100kph zone, people following each other like sheep, sitting in a line all going 80kph and then speeding up AS A BLOODY LINE to 110kph on the over taking lanes only to drop back to 75/80kph collectively.

Must have been the route you were on. 6 of us did Ham - Whanganui races. Traffic was great even in ran, mist and fog - not even dumb motorcyclists as per last year (2013). Then Whanganui - Palmie to Hastings all traffic travelling 90-100kms apart from a short period following a slow truck. Then over Gentle Annie where all traffic was courteous and well behaved. Then Taihape to Hams and again flowed between 85-100 km no problems. Worst driving on the whole trip was a young asian girl who moved into our lane in Palmerston North with out looking or indicating.

There are a few idiots out there but on our trip away everyone was courteous and travelling well and safe.
Thank you to all those on the road when and where we were!!

gjm

4th January 2015, 12:55

In the States they run a system of if you are ticketed X times they send you on a course. No idea how it works but if they had something here - $150 ticket for your offense or sit a Sat morning course (that you must pass so you can't just fuck around) what would you pick?

The UK has something similar. Most people take the course... It's not difficult and seems aimed more at awareness than skills.
However, the course leader does have discretion in requesting people take further instruction, so turning up, messing around and passing a test isn't an option.

TheDemonLord

4th January 2015, 13:18

Man that is a shit graph to try and compare to :laugh: I see your dip in price in April 12 along with a decrease in fatalities? Case closed! There is maybe a slight trend but nothing really drastic, and again, that first graph sucks. I also see the road toll has been decreasing since the 80's http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/roadtoll/annualroadtollhistoricalinformation/ as the petrol price has been rising, wooo, petrol price saving lives, while conveniently ignoring 1000's of other factors including the hard to explain away constant increase in population and road users?

http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/motor-vehicle-registration-statistics/docs/2013.pdf

I'll also just leave this here....:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2640550/Does-sour-cream-cause-bike-accidents-No-looks-like-does-Graphs-reveal-statistics-produce-false-connections.html

You say you've present facts but you haven't presented shit. If you're that serious about it for some reason do it properly, get all your facts including the average distance travelled by NZ'ers in the last few years, stack it against the fuel price while also looking at what the weather was for long weekends that may have had a higher or lower number of KM's travelled than anticipated due to other numbers, major events, major road works and so on and so forth. There are just so many factors.
Putting aside new vehicle regos, KM's travelled and the weather at the very least are important factors to add to the mix.

I hope you are laying off the sour cream this holiday season, for safetys sake.

I don't like Sour Cream anyway....

I'm not going to address anything directly per se in that post - I am well aware that causation and correlation are different and the fun you can have with stats (my personal favorite is proving fire engines cause fires). the reason I am not going to address anything directly is because I stated quite explicitly:

No I am not going to commit the police fallacy and say that Petrol price is the only factor, but it certainly is A factor

Tazz

4th January 2015, 14:45

TheDemonLord

4th January 2015, 15:42

Each to their own. Posting up that fuel graph and a fatalities list then calling it fact is a pretty poor way to roll though, given the overall absurdity of saying you can blame a car crash on fuel prices..

I'll remember this if I have an accident. 'If it wasn't for the low petrol price this month he wouldn't have even been in my lane!'

:facepalm:

Well, The fuel graph is fact, the Fatality is fact, unless you wish to present your own contradicting evidence (something I have noticed you have not once done) - there is positive inverse correlation between the two and the two are related.

There is no absurdity to say that more cars on the road, driving more kilometers on account of cheap fuel is likely to lead to an increase of accidents, some of which will be fatal, therefore a higher petrol price is likely to reduce the number of cars on the road and reduce the overall kilometers driven which will likely lead to a decrease in accidents.

To clarify - I am not blaming the petrol price for car crashes, merely stating that it is a factor and as a factor it appears to be more effective at changing the road toll than the police's lower speed tolerance

As to your attempt at reducto ad absurdium if petrol was $100 a ltr, he probably wouldn't have been in your lane as he probably wouldn't be able to afford to drive - infact you probably wouldn't be on your bike either.....

Tazz

4th January 2015, 16:40

Well, The fuel graph is fact, the Fatality is fact, unless you wish to present your own contradicting evidence (something I have noticed you have not once done) - there is positive inverse correlation between the two and the two are related.

There is no absurdity to say that more cars on the road, driving more kilometers on account of cheap fuel is likely to lead to an increase of accidents, some of which will be fatal, therefore a higher petrol price is likely to reduce the number of cars on the road and reduce the overall kilometers driven which will likely lead to a decrease in accidents.

To clarify - I am not blaming the petrol price for car crashes, merely stating that it is a factor and as a factor it appears to be more effective at changing the road toll than the police's lower speed tolerance

As to your attempt at reducto ad absurdium if petrol was $100 a ltr, he probably wouldn't have been in your lane as he probably wouldn't be able to afford to drive - infact you probably wouldn't be on your bike either.....

307515

If I plot the numbers of cats that have overdosed on heroin in the last few years, add one marker for a month every two years and compare it to tidy road toll data showing deaths per months for the last few years and find a correlation, can I have a cookie?

I'm not posting bullshit stats and statistics because my point was they are bullshit stats and statistics that have been fucking half arsed together. Get all your ducks in a row and I'll happily accept what you're peddling and we can put fuel prices up to stop people crashing and save the world.

R650R

4th January 2015, 17:08

Traffic school... yeah right, something like this would make you better????????

Someone mentioned the UK, don't know about ordinary drivers but for commercial operators they have local 'traffic commisioners'. If you get too many speed tickets or have dodgy maintenance records they limit how many vehicles you can operate, this hits way harder than fines so generally companies toe the line.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJA4k9smwfE

TheDemonLord

4th January 2015, 18:49

If I plot the numbers of cats that have overdosed on heroin in the last few years, add one marker for a month every two years and compare it to tidy road toll data showing deaths per months for the last few years and find a correlation, can I have a cookie?

I'm not posting bullshit stats and statistics because my point was they are bullshit stats and statistics that have been fucking half arsed together. Get all your ducks in a row and I'll happily accept what you're peddling and we can put fuel prices up to stop people crashing and save the world.

No, I think you are missing the point - Cars and Petrol are complimentary goods - you use one when you use the other, so it stands to reason that a change in one will have an effect on the other. To ram this point home - imagine that there is no petrol/diesal/LPG/electricity anywhere in NZ tomorrow (so none in anyones tank either) No one can drive - the road toll would be 0 for car and motorbike related fatalities. Changes to petrol (either the price, or supply) has a direct flow on effect to cars - this is not bullshit stats or statistics. Unless you are implying that the actual data sets are bullshit (however these were sourced from reputable sources)

Now to progress the discussion - do you concede that Petrol and how we drive have direct consequences on one another? or do you believe that in the thought experiment above, somehow people would still be able to drive?

If you concede that Petrol and driving are directly related - then we can confer that the correlation we see in the 2 datasets may be one of the many factors that increase/decrease the road toll. I will grant you at this point however that yes, more study would be needed to definitively prove an absolute causal link - to the point where further discussion would be needed as to whether it needs to be controlled to reduce the road toll - however I for one would not be in favour if this, even if a direct causal link was verified and peer-reviewed.

Cats on Herion and anything to do with cars are not complimentary, they are in no way related - I get the point you are attempting to make, but since the products are not related in anyway - I may dismiss your comparisson.

However I think your last sentance gives away your hand and spirited resistance - I am not in anyway advocating or suggesting that we should change fuel prices - only stating that it is a factor that based on the data above appears to have greater impact than the police speed tolerance.

Edbear

4th January 2015, 21:03

Fuel prices definitely influence me. I was seriously looking at buying a Mitsubishi PHEV. But now I am considering a Falcon XR8. :yes:

gjm

4th January 2015, 21:11

The only thing about the fuel prices is that they were at their lowest some time before Christmas. Cynically, it could be suggested prices were hiked over Christmas (wholesale oil price hasn't really changed) in order to cash-in on all the travelling that goes on. As such... Are fuel prices during the period discussed actually all that much cheaper?

Probably find they come down again in a week or so.

Berries

4th January 2015, 23:19

Fuel prices definitely influence me. I was seriously looking at buying a Mitsubishi PHEV. But now I am considering a Falcon XR8. :yes:
You should try a motorcycle.

Or perhaps not according to that wanker from the TV -

He said 80 per cent of road deaths happened under the speed limit.

The remaining 20 per cent of fatalities were caused by high-risk drivers who were "almost exclusively yobbos, impaired drivers or motorcyclists - all of whom are basically immune to road safety messages"

http://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/64653498/high-road-toll-means-police-tactics-failed

Edbear

5th January 2015, 07:31

You should try a motorcycle.

Or perhaps not according to that wanker from the TV -

http://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/64653498/high-road-toll-means-police-tactics-failed

If only my surgeon would let me!!! :bye:

unstuck

5th January 2015, 07:45

If only my surgeon would let me!!! :bye:

What a lame excuse.:laugh::sleep:

BlackSheepLogic

5th January 2015, 08:19

TheDemonLord

5th January 2015, 09:03

Your wasting your time on this one Tazz, it is another 5th form economics example. Last week it was a simplified 5th form physics model being used to explain road fatalities.

- Asked why a 10% increase in speed could result in a crash not being survivable
- Got shown the formula that shows that when calculating the energy of a moving object, speed is squared, so a small increase in speed results in a bigger change in energy
- Doesn't like the answer so complains about it, even though the physics is both well known and well established on this.

And for your reference - complimentary products and the effects they have on each other is actually 4th form Economics....

bogan

5th January 2015, 09:07

- Asked why a 10% increase in speed could result in a crash not being survivable

Technically, that should read impact speed. Road speed prior to incident will have a far weaker correlation.

TheDemonLord

5th January 2015, 09:16

Technically, that should read impact speed. Road speed prior to incident will have a far weaker correlation.

Indeed - you are quite right!

BlackSheepLogic

5th January 2015, 09:36

Technically, that should read impact speed. Road speed prior to incident will have a far weaker correlation.

Also assumed engry. transferred in an single instance of time. If you have ever walked away and examined the aftermath you will find that that the total energy was absorbed by multiple impacts, tumbling, sliding, friction etc. The angle of impact makes a huge difference in the initial impact.

The 5th form model assumes both object collide and stop. Real world don't work that way. The rider survivability is NOT determined by speed alone, speed is a minor factor.

TheDemonLord

5th January 2015, 09:48

Also assumed engry. transferred in an single instance of time. If you have ever walked away and examined the aftermath you will find that that the total energy was absorbed by multiple impacts, tumbling, sliding, friction etc. The angle of impact makes a huge difference in the initial impact.

The 5th form model assumes both object collide and stop. Real world don't work that way. The rider survivability is NOT determined by speed alone, speed is a minor factor.

:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:

Okay.

All other factors being equal - a crash at higher speed results in significantly more energy - an impact speed difference of 10% can result in a total energy difference of 20% - this is because the relationship between speed and energy is that speed is Squared in the equation to calculate energy.

So this is to say if you had 2 cars that collided - everything was the same (the multiple impacts, the Tumbling, the sliding, angle of impact etc. was all the same) and the ONLY variable that was different was the impact speed, we find that a small increase in speed (10 kph more for example) results in a significant change in the amount of energy needing to be dissipated.

As a side note - in any collision (where it can be assumed that all objects come to complete stop) the total energy at the moment of impact needs to be dissipated - how it is dissipated can change drastically, but it still needs to be dissipated - doesn't matter if it is a full head on collision or just a paint trade.

Of course in the real world things are different - but what you appear to be arguing is all the what-ifs:

you may as well ask:

What if in the middle of the crash, one of the cars was abducted by Aliens - your calculation doesn't factor that in

BlackSheepLogic

5th January 2015, 10:02

So this is to say if you had 2 cars that collided - everything was the same (the multiple impacts, the Tumbling, the sliding, angle of impact etc. was all the same) and the ONLY variable that was different was the impact speed, we find that a small increase in speed (10 kph more for example) results in a significant change in the amount of energy needing to be dissipated.

Firstly we not dealing with cars, we dealing with a bike (i.e. a rider). Do you think my an extra 10ft slide would make any difference to my leathers? Did you know riders are killed sitting on their stationary bikes which fall?

There would be possible a small increase in death rate at a higher speed but it is not 10%, would not even be 1%, those killed at 110km/h on initial impact would almost certainly have been killed at 100km/h on initial impact - the rest begin a short trip down the road... Do you know what the dangers are to a rider who is separated from a bike on a busy highway? Think about a race track that should give you some clues.

Of course in the real world things are different - but what you appear to be arguing is all the what-ifs:

WTF, are we back to your 5th form physics book again?

TheDemonLord

5th January 2015, 10:16

Firstly we not dealing with cars, we dealing with a bike (i.e. a rider). Do you think my an extra 10ft slide would make any difference to my leathers? Did you know riders are killed sitting on their stationary bikes which fall?

Cars, Bikes, US spy drones - Energy does not care what you are on/in

An extra 10ft slide could easily make a difference, depending on the factors and environment

There would be possible a small increase in death rate at a higher speed but it is not 10%, would not even be 1%, those killed at 110km/h on initial impact would almost certainly have been killed at 100km/h on initial impact - the rest begin a short trip down the road... Do you know what the dangers are to a rider who is separated from a bike on a busy highway? Think about a race track that should give you some clues.

But as you attested earlier - its not just speed - Right? it depends on the angle of impact etc. etc. - you keep missing the wood for the trees that small changes in speed result in a bigger change in energy - energy which has to go somewhere - whether it is a slide down the road with little to no injuries, or straight into a brick wall for a fatal accident - All other factors being equal a higher speed means more energy

WTF, are we back to your 5th form physics book again?

We'll keep going back to it until you can grasp the principles of speed and energy, how they are related and how they play a part in impacts, once done we can move onto 6th form Physics to start working out impulse and momentum (which also have a key part to play in accidents)

Tazz

5th January 2015, 10:50

No, I think you are missing the point - Cars and Petrol are complimentary goods - you use one when you use the other, so it stands to reason that a change in one will have an effect on the other. To ram this point home - imagine that there is no petrol/diesal/LPG/electricity anywhere in NZ tomorrow (so none in anyones tank either) No one can drive - the road toll would be 0 for car and motorbike related fatalities. Changes to petrol (either the price, or supply) has a direct flow on effect to cars - this is not bullshit stats or statistics. Unless you are implying that the actual data sets are bullshit (however these were sourced from reputable sources)

Now to progress the discussion - do you concede that Petrol and how we drive have direct consequences on one another? or do you believe that in the thought experiment above, somehow people would still be able to drive?

If you concede that Petrol and driving are directly related - then we can confer that the correlation we see in the 2 datasets may be one of the many factors that increase/decrease the road toll. I will grant you at this point however that yes, more study would be needed to definitively prove an absolute causal link - to the point where further discussion would be needed as to whether it needs to be controlled to reduce the road toll - however I for one would not be in favour if this, even if a direct causal link was verified and peer-reviewed.

Cats on Herion and anything to do with cars are not complimentary, they are in no way related - I get the point you are attempting to make, but since the products are not related in anyway - I may dismiss your comparisson.

However I think your last sentance gives away your hand and spirited resistance - I am not in anyway advocating or suggesting that we should change fuel prices - only stating that it is a factor that based on the data above appears to have greater impact than the police speed tolerance.

The amount of traffic on the road does not cause accidents. People fucking up causes accidents whether it is an empty road, a nose to tail main highway or your spa pool after an aggressive curry. Period.
If there are more people on the road then yes there is more of a chance of an accident but not because there is more people per se, it is because there are just more fuckups.

Since it is thrown around so much lets take a quick nose at Sweden:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/02/economist-explains-16

I don't see high petrol prices mentioned there. Why? My guess is because their not dense or desperate enough to blame a myriad of other reasons for fuckups on the price of gas.

p.dath

5th January 2015, 11:05

Zero speed tolerance at its best.....

44 more roadkills then year before.....

whats next .?

Only people I like to see included in roadtoll is chief popo's...

mind you being braindead, almost same thing...
Happy new year....!

While it would be nice and comfortable to jump to the conclusion that the zero tolerance had such an impact on the road toll (because lets face it - its not a popular move) it may not be the actual cause. Someone really needs to take a look at each death and determine if it was related to driver concentration/fatigue, or some other issue (like alcohol).

TheDemonLord

5th January 2015, 11:32

If there are more people on the road then yes there is more of a chance of an accident but not because there is more people per se, it is because there are just more fuckups.

I'm glad you finally agree with me.

Tazz

5th January 2015, 11:38

I'm glad you finally agree with me.

Yeah, that people cause accidents, not the price of gas, and that there are many different factors that cause accidents. Hit the back button, I said that to start with along with how statistics are used to spread bullshit.

Example of bullshit?

Low petrol prices cause deaths.....

:facepalm:

BlackSheepLogic

5th January 2015, 11:40

Cars, Bikes, US spy drones - Energy does not care what you are on/in

Unfortunately bikes are different to cars, they don't have cages around the riders to absorb impact.

A fuck up at 80km/h, 100km/h or 110km/h it's extremely serious, when your dealing with accident at those speeds the risk of death is very high and you would be hard pressed to show a meaningful real world example of where you walk away from one and would not have walked away from the other. In some cases the higher speed may have changed the dynamics and become survivable.

Unlike cars, a riders ability to absorb impact is very limited, the 100km/h vrs 110km/h has no real world influence on that. If you end up sliding down the road your survival is not dependent on 100km/h vrs 110km/h. It's the interaction of you and the road surface and how that energy is distributed. I'm much more concerned about being run over or my bike catching up with me that an extra 10ft slide.

The problem with text books is that the real world is full of dynamics yet to be introduced into your 5th form physics class. You need to construct real world scenarios where a rider would have survived had they been traveling at 100km/h vrs 110km/h. For each one of those scenarios your could construct a scenario where had they been traveling at the higher 110km/h they would have survived - not been run over or hit the road at a different angle, or missed an object etc.

My original point was that for a rider 100km/h vrs 110km/hwould make little difference to a riders outcome. Unfortunately once you are traveling at speed survivability for a rider depends on factors that have a much greater influence than the speed does.

The golden rule of speed on a motorcycle is "Can you stop in the distance you see to be clear". Traveling at 100km/h on a bike carries the same risk as traveling 110km/h on a bike in terms of rider outcome. Once your dead your dead.

If this is too much to take in so be it.

TheDemonLord

5th January 2015, 11:49

Yeah, that people cause accidents, not the price of gas, and that there are many different factors that cause accidents. Hit the back button, I said that to start with along with how statistics are used to spread bullshit.

And more people means more accidents and Cheaper fuel means more people on the road to cause more accidents - its a flow on effect, the inverse is also true restricted availibility of fuel means less people on the road, less people means less accidents.

TheDemonLord

5th January 2015, 12:03

Unfortunately bikes are different to cars, they don't have cages around the riders to absorb impact.

A fuck up at 80km/h, 100km/h or 110km/h it's extremely serious, when your dealing with accident at those speeds the risk of death is very high and you would be hard pressed to show a meaningful real world example of where you walk away from one and would not have walked away from the other. In some cases the higher speed may have changed the dynamics and become survivable.

Unlike cars, a riders ability to absorb impact is very limited, the 100km/h vrs 110km/h has no real world influence on that. If you end up sliding down the road your survival is not dependent on 100km/h vrs 110km/h. It's the interaction of you and the road surface and how that energy is distributed. I'm much more concerned about being run over or my bike catching up with me that an extra 10ft slide.

The problem with text books is that the real world is full of dynamics yet to be introduced into your 5th form physics class. You need to construct real world scenarios where a rider would have survived had they been traveling at 100km/h vrs 110km/h. For each one of those scenarios your could construct a scenario where had they been traveling at the higher 110km/h they would have survived - not been run over or hit the road at a different angle, or missed an object etc.

My original point was that for a rider 100km/h vrs 110km/hwould make little difference to a riders outcome. Unfortunately once you are traveling at speed survivability for a rider depends on factors that have a much greater influence than the speed does.

The golden rule of speed on a motorcycle is "Can you stop in the distance you see to be clear". Traveling at 100km/h on a bike carries the same risk as traveling 110km/h on a bike in terms of rider outcome. Once your dead your dead.

If this is too much to take in so be it.

Okay so you want examples:

a Rider falls off at 100 kph - the total energy is dissipated through a combination of cracking 3 ribs, shattered wrist and sliding along the road
Same scenario run at 110 kph, all other factors about the fall are the same, except now the 20% increase in energy causes a punctured lung, 4 cracked ribs, a shattered wrist and ruptured Ulnar artery and sliding along the road - the Rider bleeds to death before the ambulance could arrive.

A rider falls off at 100 kph - the total energy is dissipated through a slide of 50 m (from the ADAC leather slide test), Rider gets up, dusts himself off and walks away
A rider falls off at 110 kph - all other factors are the same, but the 20% increase in energy means he slides for an extra 10 meters - into the oncoming lane and underneath a truck - Dead.

I could keep going - but the stark reality is - at the start of the crash, Energy has to go somewhere, and an increase initially energy means more has to be done to dissipate it and all other factors being equal, that 20% increase in energy could be the difference between life and death.

Tazz

5th January 2015, 12:07

And more people means more accidents and Cheaper fuel means more people on the road to cause more accidents - its a flow on effect, the inverse is also true restricted availibility of fuel means less people on the road, less people means less accidents.

No it doesn't actually. There were more deaths with less populous on the road in the past...I even linked that.

307569

bogan

5th January 2015, 12:08

Cars, Bikes, US spy drones - Energy does not care what you are on/in

An extra 10ft slide could easily make a difference, depending on the factors and environment

But as you attested earlier - its not just speed - Right? it depends on the angle of impact etc. etc. - you keep missing the wood for the trees that small changes in speed result in a bigger change in energy - energy which has to go somewhere - whether it is a slide down the road with little to no injuries, or straight into a brick wall for a fatal accident - All other factors being equal a higher speed means more energy

We'll keep going back to it until you can grasp the principles of speed and energy, how they are related and how they play a part in impacts, once done we can move onto 6th form Physics to start working out impulse and momentum (which also have a key part to play in accidents)

Not quite correct, energy in bike/car accident, goes aha, Imma get all up in this biker and wreck his shit.

Difference between wheeee, and wheeeeeeee?

Ah, but what are you going to hit? 10kmhr bike energy increase is about the same as a 1kmhr car increase init; there lies my justification for bikes being exempt from the plod's 1kmhr speed tolerance shit.

Yeh, 6th form time, your 10% increase in speed is easily negated (and then some) but finding some soft lardarse to crash into instead of tree.

Tazz

5th January 2015, 12:12

Your wasting your time on this one Tazz, it is another 5th form economics example. Last week it was a simplified 5th form physics model being used to explain road fatalities.

Yeah it's looking that way. I don't even really care that much about it all, but you know, teach a sheeple to fish and all that :laugh:

Happy New Year anyway man! Hope you're out and about rocking the new gears as much as you can :niceone:

TheDemonLord

5th January 2015, 12:20

No it doesn't actually. There were more deaths with less populous on the road in the past...I even linked that.

2 things with this - in the past, could it be that in the past there were less safety equipment fitted to cars which meant crashes which are now survivable were fatal in the passed (one of the points I also originally raised)?!?

Secondly: Hang on - you said and agreed:

If there are more people on the road then yes there is more of a chance of an accident but not because there is more people per se, it is because there are just more fuckups.

So now you are disagreeing with yourself?

Tazz

5th January 2015, 12:23

2 things with this - in the past, could it be that in the past there were less safety equipment fitted to cars which meant crashes which are now survivable were fatal in the passed (one of the points I also originally raised)?!?

Secondly: Hang on - you said and agreed:

So now you are disagreeing with yourself?

I'm saying fuckups (which is a very long list) cause accidents, not the amount of people. Pretty clear.

Wasn't the last death for the 'holiday season' a single car accident into a pole? Price of gas or 120 extra cars on the road in his district cut his brake lines or something?

BlackSheepLogic

5th January 2015, 12:26

Happy New Year anyway man! Hope you're out and about rocking the new gears as much as you can :niceone:

Thanks Tazz, hope you are also out and about on the bike.

haydes55

5th January 2015, 12:52

Energy of a car at 100km/h is 10x higher than a motorbike at 100km/h. (Mass is 10x higher, just an easy number).

A moment of impact would be somewhere around about 0.4 seconds (guestimate). Any persons in the car will decelerate at the same speed.

A motorbike will decelerate in a shorter time (no crumple zones), however the rider will most often decelerate over a period of up to 10 seconds, the majority of bike Vs. Car accidents, the rider goes over the car or glances down the side of the car.

Going by physics, shouldn't the energy dissipated by a rider be at least 20x less than a driver of a car suffers in a same speed crash?

That would suggest, the best way to reduce motorbike fatalities would be to stop giving motorcyclists an abrupt stop? Less trees near corners, give drain pipes rounded covers, angle curbing etc.

EDIT: To further ad to this, as soon as an accident occurs, the only weight that matters is that of the rider, so do the mass X velocity squared of the rider and gear alone. Would you rather be 1,500kg going 100km/h or 90kg going 120km/h?

Physics can prove motorbikes are safer than cars too

TheDemonLord

5th January 2015, 12:53

I'm saying fuckups (which is a very long list) cause accidents, not the amount of people. Pretty clear.

Wasn't the last death for the 'holiday season' a single car accident into a pole? Price of gas or 120 extra cars on the road in his district cut his brake lines or something?

Not a long list at all:

3

Environmental
Mechanical
Human

if we increase the number of people on the road, we increase the likelyhood that someone will have an accident (the human factor) - as for the last comment: if there were a 120 extra cars on the road - he might have hit one of them instead of the pole and then it would be a double fatality, or if the price of fuel was too high, he wouldn't have gone for a drive.

TheDemonLord

5th January 2015, 12:57

Energy of a car at 100km/h is 10x higher than a motorbike at 100km/h. (Mass is 10x higher, just an easy number).

A moment of impact would be somewhere around about 0.4 seconds (guestimate). Any persons in the car will decelerate at the same speed.

A motorbike will decelerate in a shorter time (no crumple zones), however the rider will most often decelerate over a period of up to 10 seconds, the majority of bike Vs. Car accidents, the rider goes over the car or glances down the side of the car.

Going by physics, shouldn't the energy dissipated by a rider be at least 20x less than a driver of a car suffers in a same speed crash?

That would suggest, the best way to reduce motorbike fatalities would be to stop giving motorcyclists an abrupt stop? Less trees near corners, give drain pipes rounded covers, angle curbing etc.

That the best way to reduce all fatalities - lengthen the time period of the impulse - but yes better road design would go a long way.

for the physics side - I think the problem there is that the rider only had himself and his safety gear to dissipate the energy, whereas the car driver has things that will dissipate it for him (airbags for example)

There is also an equation for something to do with the distance over which an object accelerates that has something to do with it (so my armour in my leathers is about 10-20 mm thick, compared to an airbag which is about 400 mm deep when fully inflated) but I can't remember it.

Tazz

5th January 2015, 13:16

Not a long list at all:

3

Environmental
Mechanical
Human

if we increase the number of people on the road, we increase the likelyhood that someone will have an accident (the human factor) - as for the last comment: if there were a 120 extra cars on the road - he might have hit one of them instead of the pole and then it would be a double fatality, or if the price of fuel was too high, he wouldn't have gone for a drive.

With extra 120 cars he would have been stuck in traffic and there would have been no crash at all.

I can woulda, coulda, shoulda too, and it still don't mean jack :laugh:

As for not many, we know you like to simplify things, but it is not one single thing that causes a accident and not a single thing you can graph saying that caused it.

Has kinda headed into 'guns kills people vs people kill people' territory.
I'm happy living without fear that low petrol prices are going to kill me anyway....

TheDemonLord

5th January 2015, 13:54

With extra 120 cars he would have been stuck in traffic and there would have been no crash at all.

:laugh::laugh: True that.

I can woulda, coulda, shoulda too, and it still don't mean jack :laugh:

It's fun isn't it

As for not many, we know you like to simplify things, but it is not one single thing that causes a accident and not a single thing you can graph saying that caused it.

That one I actually took from crash investigators - the 3 categories for any crash (Environment - weather, road, road surface etc. Mechanical - something breaking etc. Human - Us making poor decisions) pretty sure it is also used as the framework for Aircraft accident investigation - of course there are a myriad of sub factors, but all can be classed into one of the above catogaries

Has kinda headed into 'guns kills people vs people kill people' territory.

Agreed

I'm happy living without fear that low petrol prices are going to kill me anyway....

I will too

Tazz

5th January 2015, 14:05

:laugh::laugh: True that.

It's fun isn't it

That one I actually took from crash investigators - the 3 categories for any crash (Environment - weather, road, road surface etc. Mechanical - something breaking etc. Human - Us making poor decisions) pretty sure it is also used as the framework for Aircraft accident investigation - of course there are a myriad of sub factors, but all can be classed into one of the above catogaries

Agreed

I will too

Well that's interesting. If you lost traction in the rain surely it would be environment, mechanical and human error, predominantly human and environment that cause the crash. Just say weather did it alone is quite a narrow view. I guess they say speed is always killing us nevermind any other factors so it kinda lines up with official logic.

Schweet!
For a bit of fun if I happen upon anyone electrocuted by getting bread out of the toaster with a knife, bread that they bought while on special, I'll make sure it ends up on the news regarding food prices and food safety in Clives honour ;)

BlackSheepLogic

5th January 2015, 14:55

for the physics side - I think the problem there is that the rider only had himself and his safety gear to dissipate the energy, whereas the car driver has things that will dissipate it for him (airbags for example)

There is also an equation for something to do with the distance over which an object accelerates that has something to do with it (so my armour in my leathers is about 10-20 mm thick, compared to an airbag which is about 400 mm deep when fully inflated) but I can't remember it.

I think the problem here is that your confused about the differences between a motorcycle and a car.

Cars do quite a good job of containing there occupants and therefore have very sophisticated technology to try and protect those occupants. The design of riding gear is largely based on the assumption that the rider will be separated from the bike. In a motorcycle accident where the Bike & Rider remained one there is a very very poor outcome - Not survivable at speeds far less than 100Km/h.

unstuck

5th January 2015, 15:02

Electricity can cook a mans dinner, and it can also cook the man.:rolleyes:

bogan

5th January 2015, 15:06

Electricity can cook a mans dinner, and it can also cook the man.:rolleyes:

I'm fairly positive, I sat on a battery terminal earlier :bleh:

unstuck

5th January 2015, 15:12

I'm fairly positive, I sat on a battery terminal earlier :bleh:

Tightarse.:sweatdrop

TheDemonLord

5th January 2015, 15:14

I'm fairly positive, I sat on a battery terminal earlier :bleh:

did you experience any negative outcomes?

bogan

5th January 2015, 15:18

did you experience any negative outcomes?

nah, that only happens when I massage my prostate with an ESD tester...

Tazz

5th January 2015, 15:24

nah, that only happens when I massage my prostate with an ESD tester...

I've seen that DVD!

unstuck

5th January 2015, 15:26

I've seen that DVD!

WTF, gay porn. :eek5:

I thought you were a little too friendly.:confused:

dangerous

5th January 2015, 15:40

now... please forgive me if its been said but I aint reading thro 10 pages
Am i correct here or just as fucked up as the road toll... population has increased, those on the road this xmas (as I herd the xmas toll is double last years) is greater due to, also down this way I noticed a lot more on the road due to the earthquake thing being nearly sorted as far as famileys go.

IMHO how the fuck can the toll decrease when theres more traffic on the road... its not possable no mater what the coppers do or say, it will only ever increase or at the least stay the same, which is an improvment when you work out the population now traveling.

and FWIW... zero speed tolarance hasent afected me, I dont do 1kph over I do 15... so the zero shit aint going to sfect the likes of me.
also FWIW... I noticed a average of 90-95kph on the open rd... man it caused issues and anger again IMO causing more risk of a road toll, so many people are shit sceard they will get nicked for doing 3k over they sit 10k under... fuck wits

PrincessBandit

5th January 2015, 15:56

Bottom line - drive to the conditions with full concentration and situational awareness, without substances in your blood stream, and (dare I add, just for shits and giggles) not exceeding the speed limit.

Most New Zealand drivers are incapable of doing at least two of those things simultaneously so it's no wonder our road carnage is as bad as it is.

Sure, anyone can drive in excess of the speed limit and get to their destination perfectly in one piece but faster speeds cause greater damage when things go wrong and the vehicle probably gets thirstier. Lose lose.

Berries

5th January 2015, 16:06

...............and the vehicle probably gets thirstier.
If I gave a shit about fuel economy I wouldn't ride a motorbike.

If you "drive to the conditions with full concentration and situational awareness" then some arbitrary set speed limit shouldn't really come in to it. As pointed out within the story, the majority of crashes were within the speed limit so you are barking up the same old worn out tree.

Tazz

5th January 2015, 16:14

WTF, gay porn. :eek5:

I thought you were a little too friendly.:confused:

Didn't you say variety is the spice of life? :dodge:

Nah I found it in a history channel DVD cover (guess he thought no one would look there) along with a torch and stylish nut and corn scented bead necklace I gave to the neighbours kids.

Sorry to get your hopes up :shutup:

PrincessBandit

5th January 2015, 16:23

If I gave a shit about fuel economy I wouldn't ride a motorbike.

If you "drive to the conditions with full concentration and situational awareness" then some arbitrary set speed limit shouldn't really come in to it. As pointed out within the story, the majority of crashes were within the speed limit so you are barking up the same old worn out tree.

Woof woof. Hey, I'll lift my leg and piss on that tree if I want. And as for arbitrary speed limits, as you put it, it's probably a safe guess that it wouldn't matter what speed restriction - or no limit on speed if you really want - we'd still have the same fucked up stats because of the other things I mentioned in my post.

Oh, and fuel economy isn't an automatic given for motorbikes although some (mine for example) do run more economically than a car :bleh:

swbarnett

5th January 2015, 16:31

faster speeds cause greater damage when things go wrong
Impact speed only. An attentive driver is 100 times safer at the same or higher speed (that is good for the conditions) than a distracted one.

R650R

5th January 2015, 16:36

A motorbike will decelerate in a shorter time (no crumple zones), however the rider will most often decelerate over a period of up to 10 seconds, the majority of bike Vs. Car accidents, the rider goes over the car or glances down the side of the car.
Going by physics, shouldn't the energy dissipated by a rider be at least 20x less than a driver of a car suffers in a same speed crash?

If your lucky this happens... and if your even luckier you don't dismember/detach one of your limbs on said vehicle during process.
After that your going to hit the ground very soon and probably with some rotational energy guaranteed to smash bones.

Yes you see motogp riders get away with somemassive highsides which would be similar to your fairytale outcome but the road is a lot different.
Accidents are nasty business, its just pure risk compensation to try and say one mode is safer than another when there are so many variables. Even in a truck your not safe despite how it looks to an outsider...

PrincessBandit

5th January 2015, 16:39

Impact speed only. An attentive driver is 100 times safer at the same or higher speed (that is good for the conditions) than a distracted one.

Oh I agree, but impact is generally as a result of things going wrong... and impact is only one possible outcome of distraction. You can still suffer injury while surviving near misses (eg from seatbelt for example, banging your head against the side window while your mate struggles but eventually rights the car during a slide etc.)

R650R

5th January 2015, 17:02

Fuel prices definitely influence me. I was seriously looking at buying a Mitsubishi PHEV. But now I am considering a Falcon XR8. :yes:

Congratulations on having the courage to admit that, now we can work on correcting your condition.... actually the mitsi page was interesting after a google search, but still no mention of battery cost.
Covered by warranty if needed.... but what happens to the poor sap who buys the wagon three years later. bet like many oem parts they will be model specific and costly....
Seems counter intuitive you use the aircon to cool the battery down if it gets too hot....

Just went from 2.5L v6 to a 3.5L v6 by same engine maker, very little difference in fuel economy if driven properly :)

veldthui

5th January 2015, 17:13

Cars, Bikes, US spy drones - Energy does not care what you are on/in

An extra 10ft slide could easily make a difference, depending on the factors and environment

Maybe/Maybe not.

If there was an accident going to happen at a certain spot and time in space at 100km/hr then doing 110km/hr means that it will not happen at all because the circumstances have changed. Same for the other way around.

It all if, butts and maybes.

swbarnett

5th January 2015, 17:44

Oh I agree, but impact is generally as a result of things going wrong... and impact is only one possible outcome of distraction. You can still suffer injury while surviving near misses (eg from seatbelt for example, banging your head against the side window while your mate struggles but eventually rights the car during a slide etc.)
All I meant was that the risk of injury is much lower if you pay attention. This is a far greater determinant of the outcome than the initial speed.

I was something that stated that an attentive driver at 80kph (in a 50 zone) was 100 times safer* than a distracted one at 50.

*i.e. had that many fewer accidents and when an accident did occur the impact speed was lower.

And in reply to your rep comment, yes, the same study did show a massive increase in carnage for the distracted driver at 80.

dangerous

5th January 2015, 19:15

hey heres something... if two oncoming cars each traveling at 200kph stay on there side of the road they do so with out crashing...
If the same to cars travel at 2kph but one crosses the line to the other side of the road... they will and do crash

As pointed out within the story, the majority of crashes were within the speed limit so you are barking up the same old worn out tree.and there we have it... but ofcourse the crash showen on the news tonight was speed related... I find that odd

Edbear

5th January 2015, 19:18

Congratulations on having the courage to admit that, now we can work on correcting your condition.... actually the mitsi page was interesting after a google search, but still no mention of battery cost.
Covered by warranty if needed.... but what happens to the poor sap who buys the wagon three years later. bet like many oem parts they will be model specific and costly....
Seems counter intuitive you use the aircon to cool the battery down if it gets too hot....

Just went from 2.5L v6 to a 3.5L v6 by same engine maker, very little difference in fuel economy if driven properly :)

The only attraction for me was the probable $500 per month fuel saving based on my normal tripping, (!), around. That the Outlander was also comfortable and nice to drive was a pleasant bonus.

It uses LiFePO4 batteries, too... :innocent:

My considerations on it were purely selfish as I would be unlikely to keep it long enough to need to replace the battery pack. Meantime while I continue to ponder, the Kizashi keeps proving I made the right choice when I bought it.

Katman

5th January 2015, 19:57

I had the misfortune to have to follow a distinguished middle-aged driver in a Bentley GT and he was hopeless at all driving skills like keeping in lane, consistent speed, etc. He wasn't even talking on the phone.

But did he crash Ed?

If not, it may well indicate that he's somewhat more capable than you are.

Edbear

5th January 2015, 20:05

But did he crash Ed?

If not, it may well indicate that he's somewhat more capable than you are.

Typical of your bias and selective memory to so conveniently forget that the Serious Crash Unit said neither I nor my van was to blame and that I was complimented on being able to avoid other traffic in the conditions. I could have taken out at least a couple of other cars were it not for my reactions.

So, yeah, I guess he must be a really good driver after all. :doh:

MisterD

6th January 2015, 07:28

I don't see high petrol prices mentioned there. Why? My guess is because their not dense or desperate enough to blame a myriad of other reasons for fuckups on the price of gas.

Yes yes yes, Sweden have found a bunch of ways to reduce the number of accidents on their roads, which include being much better drivers than Kiwis on average.

The point is that if we make an assumption (and I think a relatively fair one) that we have a reasonably constant number of fatals per car.kilometer, then if we have more cars on the road because of lower fuel prices, we get a proportional increase in the number of fatals.

That's probably simplistic because over the Xmas period people are likely to be tired because they're driving further than they're used to, more likely to be alcohol impaired...etc etc...which would likely magnify the effect, but the fact remains that more cars travelling more kilometers must inevitably mean more accidents and if you don't think that lower fuel prices leads to more cars on the road travelling more k's then, um...

p.dath

6th January 2015, 08:04

Okay so you want examples:

a Rider falls off at 100 kph - the total energy is dissipated through a combination of cracking 3 ribs, shattered wrist and sliding along the road
Same scenario run at 110 kph, all other factors about the fall are the same, except now the 20% increase in energy causes a punctured lung, 4 cracked ribs, a shattered wrist and ruptured Ulnar artery and sliding along the road - the Rider bleeds to death before the ambulance could arrive.

A rider falls off at 100 kph - the total energy is dissipated through a slide of 50 m (from the ADAC leather slide test), Rider gets up, dusts himself off and walks away
A rider falls off at 110 kph - all other factors are the same, but the 20% increase in energy means he slides for an extra 10 meters - into the oncoming lane and underneath a truck - Dead.

I could keep going - but the stark reality is - at the start of the crash, Energy has to go somewhere, and an increase initially energy means more has to be done to dissipate it and all other factors being equal, that 20% increase in energy could be the difference between life and death.

Your examples make it sound black and white and applying simple school yard e=(1/2)mv^2 does not take into account the complex dynamics of an accident. You are assuming that all of the extra energy is being dissipated into the rider. I don't know about you, but of the combined bike+rider weight, I make up the much smaller proportion, and if my body separates from the bike during the accident then the bike is able to dissipate a much larger chunk of the energy due to its weight.

Also a lot of energy will be dissipated through friction, both through the bike sliding itself, and through my safety gear scraping on the road surface.

It is also likely some energy will be dissipated through rotation ( e=(1/2)mv^2 is really only suitable for straight line motions).

Then there is the impact (if there even is one). When the rider comes to a sudden stop against something solid. The whole point of safety gear like helmets is to spread the energy around the helmet and into the protective inner material - and not to transmit it directly into the riders head. Ditto with boots, back protectors, etc.

Lets take the extreme case of the rider dieing at 100km/h. An increase in speed at the start of the accident is not going to make the outcome any less worse.

Just as you claim that an increase in speed could cause a rider to slide into the path of an oncoming truck the same argument could be made about it allowing the rider to slide out of the path of an oncoming truck.

The impact of greater speed to a rider during an accident depends a lot on the type of accident the rider has, and it would be an error to assume that an increase of 10Km/h in the riders speed at the start of the impact would have any difference in the outcome of the severity of any injuries.

TheDemonLord

6th January 2015, 08:32

Your examples make it sound black and white and applying simple school yard e=(1/2)mv^2 does not take into account the complex dynamics of an accident. You are assuming that all of the extra energy is being dissipated into the rider. I don't know about you, but of the combined bike+rider weight, I make up the much smaller proportion, and if my body separates from the bike during the accident then the bike is able to dissipate a much larger chunk of the energy due to its weight.

Also a lot of energy will be dissipated through friction, both through the bike sliding itself, and through my safety gear scraping on the road surface.

It is also likely some energy will be dissipated through rotation ( e=(1/2)mv^2 is really only suitable for straight line motions).

Then there is the impact (if there even is one). When the rider comes to a sudden stop against something solid. The whole point of safety gear like helmets is to spread the energy around the helmet and into the protective inner material - and not to transmit it directly into the riders head. Ditto with boots, back protectors, etc.

Lets take the extreme case of the rider dieing at 100km/h. An increase in speed at the start of the accident is not going to make the outcome any less worse.

Just as you claim that an increase in speed could cause a rider to slide into the path of an oncoming truck the same argument could be made about it allowing the rider to slide out of the path of an oncoming truck.

The impact of greater speed to a rider during an accident depends a lot on the type of accident the rider has, and it would be an error to assume that an increase of 10Km/h in the riders speed at the start of the impact would have any difference in the outcome of the severity of any injuries.

Hence why I used the Caveat of all other factors being equal - the point I was demonstrating was that a small increase in speed could be the difference between surviving an accident and not - of course I have had to use some gross simplifications (it is impossible to have 2 crashes exactly the same)

bogan

6th January 2015, 08:55

Typical of your bias and selective memory to so conveniently forget that the Serious Crash Unit said neither I nor my van was to blame and that I was complimented on being able to avoid other traffic in the conditions. I could have taken out at least a couple of other cars were it not for my reactions.

So, yeah, I guess he must be a really good driver after all. :doh:

So it was an act of God then?

He must not like you very much...

unstuck

6th January 2015, 08:58

So it was an act of God then?

Everything is an act of God.:msn-wink:

dangerous

6th January 2015, 09:00

Everything is an act of God.:msn-wink:

God has a lot to answer for then... why is it, it seems that 'only the good die young'

unstuck

6th January 2015, 09:05

why is it, it seems that 'only the good die young'

Tis a myth, plenty of good old buggers around.:niceone:

Moi

6th January 2015, 09:20

Tis a myth, plenty of good old buggers around.:niceone:

There's at least one in Gorrrrrrrrrrre... :Punk:

Edbear

6th January 2015, 09:35

God has a lot to answer for then... why is it, it seems that 'only the good die young'

Life is uncertain at best and it's obvious that if He prevented one tragedy He would have to prevent them all and everyone knows what that would mean. It's a case of hands on or hands off. What would everyone prefer?

Off topic here though.

unstuck

6th January 2015, 09:35

There's at least one in Gorrrrrrrrrrre... :Punk:

OI, I aint old.:bleh:

willytheekid

6th January 2015, 10:21

OI, I aint old.:bleh:

Ahhh...yeah...you are mate :Pokey:

...but there aint nothin cooler than old school rockers:Punk:

307640

you old fart! :laugh:

swbarnett

6th January 2015, 10:48

Life is uncertain at best and it's obvious that if He prevented one tragedy He would have to prevent them all and everyone knows what that would mean. It's a case of hands on or hands off. What would everyone prefer?
I'd prefer that we stopped blaming a logical non-entity* for our actions and took responsibility for ourselves.

*Although I have recently postulated that if we are all just brains in jars "God" may actually be a lab technician.

unstuck

6th January 2015, 11:14

Ahhh...yeah...you are mate :Pokey:

...but there aint nothin cooler than old school rockers:Punk:

you old fart! :laugh:

Bastard, I'm not even to the top of the hill yet, let alone over it.:finger:

Tazz

6th January 2015, 11:32

The point is that if we make an assumption (and I think a relatively fair one) that we have a reasonably constant number of fatals per car.kilometer, then if we have more cars on the road because of lower fuel prices, we get a proportional increase in the number of fatals.

Is the increased traffic directly causing the extra accidents, or is it the increase in morAnism?
If all those accidents occurred purely because there were an extra 12 vehicles or whatever in their vicinity, then it holds weight as a legitimate factor and cause, otherwise it is just a weak attempt at shifting the blame from bad driving/moronism (fuck ups). That is my (apparently badly worded?) point.

If I have a head on with a car while overtaking it isn't the fact the road is 'busy' that is at fault, it is me, pulling out in front of the car like an eejit.
If the road was less busy and there was no car to hit, cool, but I'm just a lucky eejit then because I'm obviously too hopeless to check for oncoming traffic correctly, and it is only a matter of time before my luck runs out (or I head to Specsavers).

No wonder there are so many useless people on the road if blaming extra traffic for shitacular driving propaganda is so easily swallowed.

MisterD

6th January 2015, 11:38

Is the increased traffic directly causing the extra accidents, or is it the increase in morAnism?

Sheesh. How about you read this and come back to us?

307645

Taxythingy

6th January 2015, 11:40

No wonder there are so many useless people on the road if blaming extra traffic for shitacular driving propaganda is so easily swallowed.

Surely it's the all the extra traffic on the road that is useless?? :bleh:

Scuba_Steve

6th January 2015, 11:45

God has a lot to answer for then... why is it, it seems that 'only the good die young'

I don't need to answer for shit! :finger:

Edbear

6th January 2015, 12:25

I'd prefer that we stopped blaming a logical non-entity* for our actions and took responsibility for ourselves.]

Now there's a novel idea... :rolleyes:

bogan

6th January 2015, 12:29

Now there's a novel idea... :rolleyes:

Indeed, maybe you should apply it to your accident then?

Taxythingy

6th January 2015, 12:43

There is also an equation for something to do with the distance over which an object accelerates that has something to do with it (so my armour in my leathers is about 10-20 mm thick, compared to an airbag which is about 400 mm deep when fully inflated) but I can't remember it.

That would be force = mass * acceleration, units of which are Newtons = kg * metres/seconds^2.

Edbear

6th January 2015, 13:44

What is clear is that crashing usually hurts and hurts a lot more if you break yourself at the same time.

I crashed at the incredibly fast speed of 45 km/h and broke my back. Object of impact? The kerb. Cause? Unseen patch of oil on the corner - invisible in the dark and rain. Vehicle involved? Toyota Estima, one of the stronger vehicles.

What happened? Rear tyres lost grip and the rear slid sideways heading me into oncoming traffic. I managed to spin the van around and it headed straight into the high kerb, smashing the front alloys and as it was sideways, rolled onto its side. The force of impact drove me down into the seat, smashing a vertebrae. What they termed a burst fracture of the L1.

Outcome? One of the longest fusions they have ever done, L3 to T11, rebuilding the L1 with a sizeable chunk of my right hip as there was only small fragments of it left. A permanent curve in the spine and a warning against activities that place strain on the L4/5. Surgeon said the fusion itself would cause considerable stress on those joints and if I stuff up another one there would be nothing he could do. Prognosis? Ongoing pain, early onset of arthritis and uncertainty of time remaining vertical. He stated no more bike riding as that not only places extra strain on the L4 / 5 but also even a minor "off" could cripple me.

In short, I have to decide my risk and balance with staying on my feet for as long as possible. If it was only me affected I would ride, but my family, and especially my wife, want me to stay out of a wheelchair. They had enough last time I was in one for a year or so.

Complicating the issue is a chronic illness that is muscle wasting and very fatiguing among other things that mean it's 50 % fatal if untreated.

What lessons learned? Crashing hurts. Breaking important stuff has long term consequences and accidents can ruin your whole day.

Berries

6th January 2015, 14:24

...but there aint nothin cooler than old school rockers:Punk:
307640
Jeez, Shania Twain has let herself go.

Tazz

6th January 2015, 14:29

Sheesh. How about you read this and come back to us?

307645

How about you find all the recent holiday road toll details and point out where it says excess traffic caused the death.
I think you'll find booze, inattention, tiredness and all the usual suspects have actually taken their lives.

How can other countries with way more traffic on the road have lower road tolls if it is that simple? Their traffic is also increasing every year.
Check your shelf full of books for dummies and let us know?

I'm fully aware and understand the simple place you're coming from, more traffic = more risk, but it isn't the traffic that is the risk, it's the mistakes they make and those are what results in the deaths.
Saying if there was less traffic on the road there would be less deaths is a simpleton cop out.

Remember this is all in the context of lemon mans comment and the speed and booze crack downs for this holiday season.
Blaming it on a few more cars on the road (and I haven't actually seen any figures to back that up for this holiday season. How is it measured? Litres of fuel sold? Were boaties out more too?) is just hiding bigger issues, and brushing over the failure of the 'crack down' on speed and booze.

As someone stated, we didn't see them saying that high fuel prices were to blame for the lower road toll last year, they were low due to the lower tolerance on speed allegedly. That's convenient, and probably in your dummies book under 'using whatever stats you can grab to make your argument looks better because it's that easy when you don't account for the full picture'.

Tazz

6th January 2015, 14:36

Surely it's the all the extra traffic on the road that is useless?? :bleh:

Finally, some recognition for me as the worlds best ever driver :laugh:

bogan

6th January 2015, 14:42

haydes55

6th January 2015, 17:00

My thoughts about the lower fuel prices having a correlation to more crashes. Some drivers and riders are on a waiting list to die. They fuck up a lot, they disregard the severity of their actions and don't believe it could happen to them. Eventually, given an opportunity, they will kill themselves in a good crash. Lower petrol prices have meant more of these people could afford to travel further distances, so they managed to meet their fate now, instead of in 6 months time from a different fuck up.

Idiots will die at some point, just because they all died around a certain time doesn't mean they wouldn't have died in 6 month from another crash anyway.

There will always be a few fatalities from competent drivers/riders. But the majority will be the brain dead ones.

Tl;Dr people die. If they die from a lack of driving/riding skill, they would die sooner or later anyway, but having cheaper gas allows it sooner, rather than later.

dangerous

6th January 2015, 17:16

How can other countries with way more traffic on the road have lower road tolls if it is that simple? Their traffic is also increasing every year.
Check your shelf full of books for dummies and let us know?

umm ok not that Im acepting being a dummy BUT...
'other contries' dont have the same mentality as NZ, we are shockers at the best of times, our roads are not allways as good as 'other contries' they are more narrow and tight than a lot of 'other contries' we travel oncomming side by side unlike a lot of 'other contries' we have a lot of tourests that seem to cause a lot of the issues than 'other contries'
now I didnt read this in any book (cos I cant read) it is just IMHO

FJRider

6th January 2015, 17:41

hey heres something... if two oncoming cars each traveling at 200kph stay on there side of the road they do so with out crashing...
If the same to cars travel at 2kph but one crosses the line to the other side of the road... they will and do crash

and there we have it... but ofcourse the crash showen on the news tonight was speed related... I find that odd

Three questions.

At the time of your last crash/off on the open road ...

1: Were you over or under the posted speed limit .. ??

2: Were there any other vehicles involved .. ??

2: Did you cross the center-line .. ??

dangerous

6th January 2015, 17:52

Three questions.

At the time of your last crash/off on the open road ...

1: Were you over or under the posted speed limit .. ??

2: Were there any other vehicles involved .. ??

2: Did you cross the center-line .. ??

duno what this has to do with me but cos ya asking there was this once in the last 30yrs a couple a years ago, Touno thour
well under
no
no

hows that help ya?
ohh and me not hurt

FJRider

6th January 2015, 18:11

duno what this has to do with me but cos ya asking there was this once in the last 30yrs a couple a years ago, Touno thour
well under
no
no

hows that help ya?
ohh and me not hurt

If you as an experienced and capable rider (experienced on the race track) can crash on your own ... well under the speed limit ... how safe would/could not so experienced riders be .. at (or over) the posted speed limits .. ???

Would it have been more serious for you if you were on or (well) over the posted speed limit .. ???

Edbear

6th January 2015, 18:19

Three questions.

At the time of your last crash/off on the open road ...

1: Were you over or under the posted speed limit .. ??

2: Were there any other vehicles involved .. ??

2: Did you cross the center-line .. ??

Under
No
No.

Oh, but you asked on the open road. Mine was in town. Never crashed on the open road.

R650R

6th January 2015, 18:20

There will always be a few fatalities from competent drivers/riders. But the majority will be the brain dead ones.

Don't know how old you are but I've seen a few people squished and expired over the years. Sadly though Darwines theory of evolution doesn't gel with the motor vehicle very well. Its only a single brief moment that the conditions for a fatal crash occur.
A high enough impact velocity, two paths converging at the exact instance after perhaps the most minor of errors or misjudgement by one or both drivers.
There's a hell of a lot of ordinary people I've known that have come to grief, and the idiots well they just keep on keeping on.

Tazz

6th January 2015, 18:25

umm ok not that Im acepting being a dummy BUT...
'other contries' dont have the same mentality as NZ, we are shockers at the best of times, our roads are not allways as good as 'other contries' they are more narrow and tight than a lot of 'other contries' we travel oncomming side by side unlike a lot of 'other contries' we have a lot of tourests that seem to cause a lot of the issues than 'other contries'
now I didnt read this in any book (cos I cant read) it is just IMHO

Yeah for sure. Numbers on the road become more and more irrelevant when you focus on driver skill and other factors that cause accidents. We'll never be without them unless humans are removed from the equation, but personally I don't think we've peaked at perfect roading and licensing conditions as things stand.
Not to say I see the need for improvements to come in the way of heavier policing or more and more legislation, nor am I some Johnny too good that has never broken a rule or made a mistake.

I agree that bad drivers in rental campervans stand out, but I've noticed a habit of people saying that overseas drivers are better than us, yet when they get here it seems to be a different story? To many beersies on the plane? :laugh:

Murray

6th January 2015, 18:33

and the idiots well they just keep on keeping on.
And unfortunately quite a few are driving trucks. Worst driving I have seen over the festive season a big truck overtaking a car on the outside lane of a roundabout at speed and then cutting infront of the car on the exit to the roundabout as it went into 1 lane then tailgating (scarily) the next car in front doing 80km in an 80 km zone. This was Tauranga to the Mount and traffic was busy.

Generally theres only 1 winner in a truck vs other vehicle collision.

FJRider

6th January 2015, 18:41

Saying if there was less traffic on the road there would be less deaths is a simpleton cop out.

Plenty have crashed (and died) on the roads with no other vehicles involved.

But the more traffic on any given road ... the greater the odds of one crashing. The greater the concentration of vehicles ... the greater the odds of some being involved in another drivers accident.

Regardless of legislation ... it is a personal choice (right .. ??? :scratch:) as to what is believed to be an increase/decrease/no change ... to your odds of actually crashing.

Plenty die on the road due to no fault of their own. At such times ... excess speed can't help. And we can't pick at which times ... that will happen.

We all know who those types at fault could be ... just not where they could be ...

Tazz

6th January 2015, 18:53

Maybe the next road safety campaign should just simply be 'Stay off our fucking road. The stats don't lie' :laugh:

They can show ads of spastic people running out onto the road without looking and having no bad consequences or personal responsibility to worry about. Safety in numbers (or lack there of).

caspernz

6th January 2015, 18:55

And unfortunately quite a few are driving trucks. Worst driving I have seen over the festive season a big truck overtaking a car on the outside lane of a roundabout at speed and then cutting infront of the car on the exit to the roundabout as it went into 1 lane then tailgating (scarily) the next car in front doing 80km in an 80 km zone. This was Tauranga to the Mount and traffic was busy.

Generally theres only 1 winner in a truck vs other vehicle collision.

Try making a phone call to the transport co when you witness aggro stuff like that. As a fellow trucker I can't stand the described behaviour, and at times the video from my onboard camera tells the story...in case the transport co don't wanna know, the local boys in blue will deal with it :niceone:

AllanB

6th January 2015, 19:48

It's the cunty attitude of many drivers. Witnesses tonight a fat prick overtaking on the inside - well over the posted 50 k limit and when the car he swerved in front of tooted, the fatarse gave the finger, slammed his brakes on and proceeded to tootle along at 30 just to piss off the other driver. He was really fat. Maybe the accelerator got stuck between his fat toes.

Fucking old piece of shit 4WD too. Typical.

There is NO fix all. Ticketing me for doing 103 won't make a Silverfishes dicks length of difference to the road toll. Indeed it may make it worse as after receiving such a ticket, manly testosterone will kick in and I'm possibly more likely to drive like a pissed off arse after receiving the ticket.

R650R

6th January 2015, 20:15

And unfortunately quite a few are driving trucks.

Actually I'd say their are a lot. I think Casper is right though, few people ever complain through the right channels, preferring to rant on message boards or in smoko rooms...
But then who has time to play mall cop anyway, where do you draw the line.... I gave up ages ago and feel better for it, coincidentally the road toll dropped during that period hmmmmm.....

We tend to remember certain vehicle types when we have bad interactions eg trucks or police cars. The risk is prob perceived higher than it is...

The roundabout grand prix is a tough one though, lightly loaded it is easy to maintain quite a high speed in the outside lane, many cars damn near stop going though the inside lane. One persons view of OMG that's dangerous might just be business as usual and a car on the inside has panicked and slowed more than they need to.... Then there's people who are the first to approach a double lane traffic lights or roundabout and to lazy to use the left lane the get agro when someone comes along and burbles on through on momentum.....
But yes there are tools out there going past that and doing dumb stuff like you describe.... One chap I used to work with thought he could put his Quad chiller semi past me in the right hand lane of roundabout, it didnt work for him is all ill say.... neither did the time he redlined his truck to try and pass me when we had the same loads on up passing lanes.

Bosses get complaints all the timje, some legit and some not. If you have a genuine one you should make it.
We had one bullshitter who reckoned he had driven roadtrains in OZ (never mind the boss was too dumb to work out he was too young to have ever gained the right licence). Lots of colleagues at work complained but nothing happened.... until the head dispatcher was getting tyre changed and saw the muppett doing 90 in 50 zone passing cars on painted median like a freakin fire engine....

bogan

6th January 2015, 21:44

Actually I'd say their are a lot. I think Casper is right though, few people ever complain through the right channels, preferring to rant on message boards or in smoko rooms...
But then who has time to play mall cop anyway, where do you draw the line.... I gave up ages ago and feel better for it, coincidentally the road toll dropped during that period hmmmmm.....

We tend to remember certain vehicle types when we have bad interactions eg trucks or police cars. The risk is prob perceived higher than it is...

The roundabout grand prix is a tough one though, lightly loaded it is easy to maintain quite a high speed in the outside lane, many cars damn near stop going though the inside lane. One persons view of OMG that's dangerous might just be business as usual and a car on the inside has panicked and slowed more than they need to.... Then there's people who are the first to approach a double lane traffic lights or roundabout and to lazy to use the left lane the get agro when someone comes along and burbles on through on momentum.....
But yes there are tools out there going past that and doing dumb stuff like you describe.... One chap I used to work with thought he could put his Quad chiller semi past me in the right hand lane of roundabout, it didnt work for him is all ill say.... neither did the time he redlined his truck to try and pass me when we had the same loads on up passing lanes.

Bosses get complaints all the timje, some legit and some not. If you have a genuine one you should make it.
We had one bullshitter who reckoned he had driven roadtrains in OZ (never mind the boss was too dumb to work out he was too young to have ever gained the right licence). Lots of colleagues at work complained but nothing happened.... until the head dispatcher was getting tyre changed and saw the muppett doing 90 in 50 zone passing cars on painted median like a freakin fire engine....

Now you must be doing it on purpose, shirley?

R650R

7th January 2015, 07:36

Now you must be doing it on purpose, shirley?

Stop teasing me with all your typos, its nearly getting me as excited as the cow avatar....

shurley, should be surely ;p and as its rhetorical question you don't need the question mark ;p

bogan

7th January 2015, 08:36

Stop teasing me with all your typos, its nearly getting me as excited as the cow avatar....

shurley, should be surely ;p and as its rhetorical question you don't need the question mark ;p

'Shirley' was a narrative literary device; and rhetorical questions are entitled to question marks. Your abilities are already slipping, please apply yourself more.

dangerous

7th January 2015, 09:23

If you as an experienced and capable rider (experienced on the race track) can crash on your own ... well under the speed limit ... how safe would/could not so experienced riders be .. at (or over) the posted speed limits .. ???

Would it have been more serious for you if you were on or (well) over the posted speed limit .. ???

heres the thing... if I was over the speed limit, it very well may not have happened :first: different line, lean angle... no one will ever know the jury is still out on the reason as to why.

as for your 1st question... on the track you may have a point, but we are talking about the road, which as I said above could well be eralevent, diferent bike, different road, different weather conditions...

The thread is about the general toll over the xmas break... I dont think any bikes were included in the toll, I might be wrong.

'Stay off our fucking road. thats "my" fucking road thanks... and there lieth 80% of the problem, its the kiwi way, our right to use the road not privlage

unstuck

7th January 2015, 09:25

I might be wrong.

Think there was one in cuntabury, but I might be wrong.:confused:

Murray

7th January 2015, 11:55

And unfortunately quite a few are driving trucks. Worst driving I have seen over the festive season a big truck overtaking a car on the outside lane of a roundabout at speed and then cutting infront of the car on the exit to the roundabout as it went into 1 lane then tailgating (scarily) the next car in front doing 80km in an 80 km zone. This was Tauranga to the Mount and traffic was busy.

Generally theres only 1 winner in a truck vs other vehicle collision.

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/truck-crash-banks-up-traffic-heading-tauranga-6215516

Coincidence???

unstuck

7th January 2015, 12:38

7th January 2015, 12:54

I'd like to know how many of these 44 deaths happened while travelling between 1 and 9 kph over posted limit. This is the new hip 'killing zone' that TPTB are so determined to convince us we must never travel at, for fear of instant anniliation.

FJRider

7th January 2015, 18:18

heres the thing... if I was over the speed limit, it very well may not have happened :first: different line, lean angle... no one will ever know the jury is still out on the reason as to why.

as for your 1st question... on the track you may have a point, but we are talking about the road, which as I said above could well be eralevent, diferent bike, different road, different weather conditions...

The thread is about the general toll over the xmas break... I dont think any bikes were included in the toll, I might be wrong.

thats "my" fucking road thanks... and there lieth 80% of the problem, its the kiwi way, our right to use the road not privlage

Plenty crash into other vehicles ... that they would not have ... had their average speed have been higher. But ... how many did you MISS ... by not going faster .. ??? (the ones you almost hit)

On different days ... all roads can be different. At different times ... weather/traffic volume/vehicle used/your mood ... all can change how you ride/drive. Nothing new there ...

Nothing mentioned about any change in "Injury Accident" statistic numbers ... by comparison with previous years.

No matter how well you (or anybody else) can know or "own" a road ... it's only known as well as the last time you traveled it. Different days are/cad be different roads with different and variable conditions. Unless on closed and private roads ... you can never really be sure who or what is on that road. Be it an oil/fuel spill ... a rock/slab of wood/possum carcass/pedestrian ... or ... something ... else. In short ... plenty crash on roads they know well.

How many crashes you have (or have had) in any given time ... is too many .. ??? And are good accidents ... the one's you survive ... ???

dangerous

7th January 2015, 19:15

No matter how well you (or anybody else) can know or "own" a road ... it's only known as well as the last time you traveled it. Different days are/cad be different roads with different and variable conditions. Unless on closed and private roads ... you can never really be sure who or what is on that road. Be it an oil/fuel spill ... a rock/slab of wood/possum carcass/pedestrian ... or ... something ... else. In short ... plenty crash on roads they know well. ohhh shit... that does it... everyone back in ya cotton wool and back inside

Plenty crash into other vehicles ... that they would not have ... had their average speed have been higher. But ... how many did you MISS ... by not going faster .. ??? (the ones you almost hit)I have never 'almost hit' anything... well there was this sparrow one day but he/she got away due to my excessive speed making my fairing very aerodynamic, the bird went up n over, cept it shat itsself all over my visor... but come on dont be calling that a hit

unstuck

7th January 2015, 19:26

ohhh shit... that does it... everyone back in ya cotton wool and back inside

I have never 'almost hit' anything... well there was this sparrow one day but he/she got away due to my excessive speed making my fairing very aerodynamic, the bird went up n over, cept it shat itsself all over my visor... but come on dont be calling that a hit

Was it not you that had the ooopsy in the terrano on the gravel road? :confused:
Or was that the effect of some good weed on my part.:eek::eek5: My mind is playing tricks on me.:devil2:

dangerous

7th January 2015, 19:54

Was it not you that had the ooopsy in the terrano on the gravel road? :confused:
Or was that the effect of some good weed on my part.:eek::eek5: My mind is playing tricks on me.:devil2:

OHHHHHHHHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... bring that up now aye :motu:
Ok good example of bad driving causing a accedent with out SPEED being involved.... and it was a navara not terano thankyou.

me driving on my side of a shingle road (with 2 under 5yr old sons) aproaching a left hand bend at the top of a wee rise in damp conditions (no dust) oncomming CUTTING A RIGHT HAND BEND (as cock sucking kiwi fuckwits do) came 5 in a company santafe... boom bang

whats ya point unstuck?

FJRider

7th January 2015, 20:23

whats ya point unstuck?

Consistent bouts of memory loss on your part ... maybe ... ???

Age does that ...

mada

9th January 2015, 21:32

Bullshit Castle PNHQ will probably come out with a statement like "better reporting of stats" or "adjustment" :rolleyes:

dangerous

10th January 2015, 08:42

How can other countries with way more traffic on the road have lower road tolls if it is that simple? Their traffic is also increasing every year.
Check your shelf full of books for dummies and let us know?.

BECAUSE... LMFAO... a lot of your "other countrys" have a HIGHER legal speed limit than we do, eg: OZ 110kph-NT having open limits, the auto barn...

theres are answer to the road toll... increase the speed limit, thanks Tazz

unstuck

10th January 2015, 08:54

whats ya point unstuck?

That you are an angry fucker, and should hand your license in to scummy.:bleh::bleh::msn-wink:

dangerous

10th January 2015, 09:08

That you are an angry fucker, and should hand your license in to scummy.:bleh::bleh::msn-wink:What licence? :cool:

unstuck

10th January 2015, 09:18

What licence? :cool:

:laugh::laugh::laugh: Touche.:niceone:

At least I have everything but the bike one.:msn-wink:

Berries

10th January 2015, 09:54

the auto barn...
Is that like Repco and Supercheap?

rastuscat

22nd January 2015, 20:05

theres are answer to the road toll... increase the speed limit, thanks Tazz

You are cherry picking your preferred solution. I'd agree if the roads and drivers supported it, but they don't.

ellipsis

22nd January 2015, 20:44

You are cherry picking your preferred solution. I'd agree if the roads and drivers supported it, but they don't.

...I had some really lovely cherries the other night...picked from the side of SH75...

swbarnett

22nd January 2015, 21:08

You are cherry picking your preferred solution. I'd agree if the roads and drivers supported it, but they don't.
It's not about the roads. It's about the fact that drivers are much safer if they're allowed to drive at their own natural speed. That way you get far fewer distracted drivers.

haydes55

22nd January 2015, 21:59

It's not about the roads. It's about the fact that drivers are much safer if they're allowed to drive at their own natural speed. That way you get far fewer distracted drivers.

Also, faster arterial roads, less traffic everywhere, less time spent on roads, less people driving in an autonomous state, less concern about speed, more about actual driving errors.

As for the comment about NZers not doing driver training, that's bullshit. If people aren't doing training, that's because A- it's never advertised to average Joe B- there's currently no reason (incentive) to go for average Joe C- everyone passed their license so easily they think they are better than they are.

Suggestion- your license can still be for pretty much life, but to drive, you must currently have a card which proves you undertook a driver/rider/safety course recently. Card expires 2 years after the course. Sparkly glitter cards for those who eclipse the rigorous test at the end of the course, valid for 4 years. ACC subsidised, group classes, employ thousands of competent drivers. Added bonus, all foreigners will have to do a course before being allowed to drive on NZ roads. The courses could be 2 hours, with a 20 minute driver test. How about a test that actually tests a drivers limits? Enter a corner too fast, obstacle avoidance, loss of grip etc.

speedpro

25th January 2015, 07:33

How about a test that actually tests a drivers limits? Enter a corner too fast, obstacle avoidance, loss of grip etc.

Everyone knows the answer to those situations - jam on the brakes

Murray

25th January 2015, 07:37

Enter a corner too fast, obstacle avoidance, loss of grip etc.

Or a test on not entering corners too fast.

haydes55

25th January 2015, 08:34

Or a test on not entering corners too fast.

So what happens 3 years down the track when the driver enters a corner too fast by accident for the first time? They slam on the brakes, rear end comes around, they panic and brake more, turn into the skid or let go of all controls and crash?

Better to train for any situation that could arise, than to train to drive with your hands at 10 and 2 at exactly the speed limit around town. Because no one gets through 100,000km of driving without ever mucking up at least one corner. If you have never broken traction before, if you don't know how to control a loss of traction, then regardless of whether you're a "good" driver, or whether you can stick below the speed limit, you will one day lose traction, and you will crash as a result.

I'm the only guy at work who has been working for longer than a year there, and hasn't had a crash in over 3 years and 150,000km of driving the work van. I'm also the fastest driver by far and I go through tires about 10,000km more often than the other guys in the same vans as me. I have deliberately chucked the van into corners too fast, I have over steered, I have under steered. I've driven in rain, fog, hail and shine and broken traction in it all. I've done emergency stops, swerve avoidance and given way to people about to cut me off. I've come across quite a few situations that could have resulted in a crash for an average driver, and come out dent free. Never once had a complaint against my driving and never caused a crash.

I think I have done everything possible to make my driving as safe as possible, I even indicate correctly when there's no cars or pedestrians for miles. I don't think I will ever have a crash in a 4 wheeled vehicle, I think that because I practice, mostly on a weekly basis whilst driving. I practice entering corners too fast, I practice losing traction, I practice losing traction in rain. If ever my van loses traction, I won't even have to put down my pie to drive out of it one handed.

ellipsis

25th January 2015, 08:59

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bw2ap5lEmCJHcjV6cXRfb2RmT1E/edit?pli=1

.............

rastuscat

25th January 2015, 14:11

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bw2ap5lEmCJHcjV6cXRfb2RmT1E/edit?pli=1

.............

That's very interesting.

Right, so if we take that as gospel, it'd be safer for everyone to go 71 mph than 49 mph.

Including those numpties who suck at driving, who don't know other road users exist, who can't see beyond the end of the bonnet.

Really?

Scuba_Steve

25th January 2015, 14:31

That's very interesting.

Right, so if we take that as gospel, it'd be safer for everyone to go 71 mph than 49 mph.

Including those numpties who suck at driving, who don't know other road users exist, who can't see beyond the end of the bonnet.

Really?

The same ones who are like that because the Govt (with the help of their gang 'NZ Police') won't let them think for themselves i.e. the "bored, distracted, inattentive, but legal ones".
Maybee with resources not spent illegally extorting moneys for "speeding" they could be spent harassing said bad drivers instead, it's a win win

Tazz

25th January 2015, 15:11

That's very interesting.

Right, so if we take that as gospel, it'd be safer for everyone to go 71 mph than 49 mph.

Including those numpties who suck at driving, who don't know other road users exist, who can't see beyond the end of the bonnet.

Really?

Everything else aside, under a system like that though wouldn't everyones optimal speed be different, including numptys? It would possibly even be less than the current 100 target on pieces of road that would otherwise see them keeping their speed up even in the rain.

veldthui

25th January 2015, 15:35

So what happens 3 years down the track when the driver enters a corner too fast by accident for the first time? They slam on the brakes, rear end comes around, they panic and brake more, turn into the skid or let go of all controls and crash?

Better to train for any situation that could arise, than to train to drive with your hands at 10 and 2 at exactly the speed limit around town. Because no one gets through 100,000km of driving without ever mucking up at least one corner. If you have never broken traction before, if you don't know how to control a loss of traction, then regardless of whether you're a "good" driver, or whether you can stick below the speed limit, you will one day lose traction, and you will crash as a result.

I'm the only guy at work who has been working for longer than a year there, and hasn't had a crash in over 3 years and 150,000km of driving the work van. I'm also the fastest driver by far and I go through tires about 10,000km more often than the other guys in the same vans as me. I have deliberately chucked the van into corners too fast, I have over steered, I have under steered. I've driven in rain, fog, hail and shine and broken traction in it all. I've done emergency stops, swerve avoidance and given way to people about to cut me off. I've come across quite a few situations that could have resulted in a crash for an average driver, and come out dent free. Never once had a complaint against my driving and never caused a crash.

I think I have done everything possible to make my driving as safe as possible, I even indicate correctly when there's no cars or pedestrians for miles. I don't think I will ever have a crash in a 4 wheeled vehicle, I think that because I practice, mostly on a weekly basis whilst driving. I practice entering corners too fast, I practice losing traction, I practice losing traction in rain. If ever my van loses traction, I won't even have to put down my pie to drive out of it one handed.

Someone who has done everything possible to make their driving as safe as possible does not do things like deliberately chucking a van into a corner too fast and all the other shit you boast about.

BMWST?

25th January 2015, 16:20

Or wear out tyres 10000 k faster and boast about it

haydes55

25th January 2015, 16:36

Someone who has done everything possible to make their driving as safe as possible does not do things like deliberately chucking a van into a corner too fast and all the other shit you boast about.

When my van hits hidden gravel mid corner, oil patches, black ice and/or grit, I can control it and know for a fact I can safely regain traction. All because I've practiced it. I'd rather not leave the first time I lose traction to be a surprise and have only vague ideas of what to do to correct it.

On the same vane, I practice emergency braking and swerving on my bike. Am I stupid for deliberately slamming on my brakes with no need? Or should I just wait til I get cut off for my first go at emergency braking?

Akzle

25th January 2015, 16:58

If ever my van loses traction, I won't even have to put down my pie to drive out of it one handed.

duct tape death match?

More importantly, what kind of pie?

caspernz

25th January 2015, 17:21

That's very interesting.

Right, so if we take that as gospel, it'd be safer for everyone to go 71 mph than 49 mph.

Including those numpties who suck at driving, who don't know other road users exist, who can't see beyond the end of the bonnet.

Really?

Mmmm, quoting stuff a bit too literally I reckon. Improve driver training/licensing standards, then remove the overly enthusiastic enforcement on speeding, and prangs seem to go down...at least in most areas where this approach has been tried.

The downside is that the numpties who struggle to drive to start with, may tend to go even slower, thus making the gap between morons and maniacs bigger again. Then you end up with our roading network being the limiting factor...so in essence there's no easy answer to this topic :brick:

R650R

25th January 2015, 17:37

Better to train for any situation that could arise, than to train to drive with your hands at 10 and 2 at exactly the speed limit around town. Because no one gets through 100,000km of driving without ever mucking up at least one corner. If you have never broken traction before, if you don't know how to control a loss of traction, then regardless of whether you're a "good" driver, or whether you can stick below the speed limit, you will one day lose traction, and you will crash as a result.

I'm the only guy at work who has been working for longer than a year there, and hasn't had a crash in over 3 years and 150,000km of driving the work van. I'm also the fastest driver by far and I go through tires about 10,000km more often than the other guys in the same vans as me. I have deliberately chucked the van into corners too fast, I have over steered, I have under steered. I've driven in rain, fog, hail and shine and broken traction in it all. I've done emergency stops, swerve avoidance and given way to people about to cut me off. I've come across quite a few situations that could have resulted in a crash for an average driver, and come out dent free. Never once had a complaint against my driving and never caused a crash.

I think I have done everything possible to make my driving as safe as possible, I even indicate correctly when there's no cars or pedestrians for miles. I don't think I will ever have a crash in a 4 wheeled vehicle, I think that because I practice, mostly on a weekly basis whilst driving. I practice entering corners too fast, I practice losing traction, I practice losing traction in rain. If ever my van loses traction, I won't even have to put down my pie to drive out of it one handed.

Your an accident waiting to happen mate, I thought the way you talk about riding your bike was bad enough but this is worse. Proper faster driving would not significantly wear out tyres faster than others, but poor technique would.
You'll be the first to be let go if your employer implements any of the ACC programmes to reduce their costs which they will eventually.

50,000km a year *sniggers* lol some people would do that just commuting to work, that's nothing.

I suspect like your 'not stopping for police' policy that its all talk anyway... had a flatmate who sounded just like you once... one day he found out he wasn't as good as he thought he was. Trouble was he walked away after crossing the centreline in Hiace van but the woman coming the other way had to get rescue choppered...

caspernz

25th January 2015, 17:51

R650R

25th January 2015, 18:06

The accident can't be too far away then, if the one accident per 160,000 odd km for light vehicles remark from the insurance fella is correct...:eek:

Slightly more dangerous than the rate for trucks then... remember when roadfrightners offered us the chance to be OD's the numbers then were within 6 years a new heavy truck would be almost guaranteed to have been in a serious incident of some sort. And apparently the highest risk period is first 10,000km and six months due to lack of familiarity with road feedback/blindspots etc....
Ohhh I should have bragged my last one was crash free for 860,000km before I threw the keys back at the boss....
Wonder what his fuel bill is like... bosses DO notice those...

haydes55

25th January 2015, 18:14

Your an accident waiting to happen mate, I thought the way you talk about riding your bike was bad enough but this is worse. Proper faster driving would not significantly wear out tyres faster than others, but poor technique would.

You'll be the first to be let go if your employer implements any of the ACC programmes to reduce their costs which they will eventually.

50,000km a year *sniggers* lol some people would do that just commuting to work, that's nothing.

I suspect like your 'not stopping for police' policy that its all talk anyway... had a flatmate who sounded just like you once... one day he found out he wasn't as good as he thought he was. Trouble was he walked away after crossing the centreline in Hiace van but the woman coming the other way had to get rescue choppered...

I never cross center lines unless overtaking, even with clear line of sight. I think I'm not very good communicating my point. I never put myself in a dangerous position, I control everything I can. I have never heard or seen a crash that I wouldn't have avoided if I was in the driver seat, driving as I do.

And yes my 50,000km/year isn't huge mileage, but it's not commuting, it's driving different roads every day. I live 2 minutes from work. I think I gain more from usual driving, than I would from commuting, brainlessly sitting in a queue of traffic back and forth every day.

haydes55

25th January 2015, 18:21

Wonder what his fuel bill is like... bosses DO notice those...

Funny you should ask, the only time the other guys in the same vans beat me for mileage was when I had the roof rack and ladder on. My van is also the only one on it's original gearbox, completely untouched. Quietist engine and everything still works as good as new.

I go faster by carrying more corner speed, watching further ahead and reading traffic flows, lights etc. I'm also a lot gentler on the gears and engine than the others (from what I saw when I've been in their passenger seats). Our vans are 2011 Mazda 1800i's all similar Ks bought at the same time, driven for the same reasons down the same roads. Aside from making 30,000km on a set of tires instead of 40,000km. My van is the cheapest running van in every respect.

Kickaha

25th January 2015, 18:28

I never cross center lines unless overtaking, even with clear line of sight. I think I'm not very good communicating my point. I never put myself in a dangerous position, I control everything I can. I have never heard or seen a crash that I wouldn't have avoided if I was in the driver seat, driving as I do.

You're just a typical NZ motorist by the sound of it

R650R

25th January 2015, 18:30

I think I'm not very good communicating my point.

I hope this is this problem

I never put myself in a dangerous position, I control everything I can. I have never heard or seen a crash that I wouldn't have avoided if I was in the driver seat, driving as I do.

Ohhh dear... so many others before you have thought the same, even similar lines myself when I was young.... the problem arise though when your at the edge of the performance envelope and someone else stuffs up coming your way and you have nothing left in reserve.
Perhaps while your practicing your wet road countersteer slides or fast cornering. It gets even more shit of someone sees your 'fast' driving and ends up being a witness blaming you. Just like how motorbikers get the blame cause they look fast, a fact even the police admitted on one of their tv shows one night.

At a guess I think your in your early twenties and under 30 at the most. There's a lot of shit to be seen an experienced first hand on the road over decades of driving to get to the understanding that there never is any safe fast driving or 100% avoidable encounters with other vehicles. People will do the weirdest dumbest shit you can imagine. And when they do it near your work vehicle you really want to make sure you i's are dotted and t's crossed with no one following whose just witnessed your 'good' manner of driving.... I'm no angel myself and been lucky at times, but just sayin.... keep it tidy.