Stupid Stupid Demerits System

[rastuscat]

Left the job a few months ago but I ain't letting this go.

The demerit point system in New Zealand was designed to deter poor driving which posed a risk to other members of society.

In recent years demerit points have been introduced for such non-safety offences as having a noisy exhaust (introduced as a knee jerk reaction to Christchurch's boy racer problem) and failing to licence your vehicle.

This in light of there being no demerit points for driving through a red traffic light (hard to believe, but true) or no demerits for not wearing a seat belt.

Letters written to Simon Bridges & Stephen Joyce have been met with letters failing to address the matter even remotely.

When it was personally drawn to the attention of Judith Collins, she responded by suggesting I write to Stephen Joyce!!

Surely if demerits can be allocated so quickly for non-safety offences, these two offences (red lights and seatbelts) can be addressed.

How's anyone else feel about it?

[Bikemad]

Left the job a few months ago but I ain't letting this go.

The demerit point system in New Zealand was designed to deter poor driving which posed a risk to other members of society.

In recent years demerit points have been introduced for such non-safety offences as having a noisy exhaust (introduced as a knee jerk reaction to Christchurch's boy racer problem) and failing to licence your vehicle.

This in light of there being no demerit points for driving through a red traffic light (hard to believe, but true) or no demerits for not wearing a seat belt.

Letters written to Simon Bridges & Stephen Joyce have been met with letters failing to address the matter even remotely.

When it was personally drawn to the attention of Judith Collins, she responded by suggesting I write to Stephen Joyce!!

Surely if demerits can be allocated so quickly for non-safety offences, these two offences (red lights and seatbelts) can be addressed.

How's anyone else feel about it?

yep it a fuckin joke..........nothing to do with safety.....all about revenue gathering........i recently got stopped on my way to the DGR ride a few months back......fair enough i was speeding slightly......was ticketed for the speeding and riding while on exemption.......no worries about the no WOF though.....safety?.....insert TUI ad here

[Moi]

I'm on your side with this... makes such sense.

Rules for control versus rules for safety...

In a classroom setting I could "sell" rules for safety and the majority of kids would buy in to those rules for their safety...

But try selling rules for control...

However, it was the "rules for control" that were emphasis of very senior management, but they weren't at the chalk-face and it was no good trying to discuss the difference or the kids' resistance to control...

Sounds familiar to what you're saying...

[pritch]

Red lights yes (except for push bikes). :devil2:

Seat belts no. They aren't endangering anyone else, they're just proving Darwin was right.

[nzspokes]

So you just worked out its about making $$$$$$$

Congratulations, good to see you caught up.

[rastuscat]

So you just worked out its about making $$$$$$$

Congratulations, good to see you caught up.

Nope. The guy writing the ticket doesn't do it for the money.

Maybe someone in Treasury cares but the guys writing the tickets sure don't do it for the money.

[J.A.W.]

Nope. The guy writing the ticket doesn't do it for the money.

Maybe someone in Treasury cares but the guys writing the tickets sure don't do it for the money.


Sure, 'cause no way he/she'd be doing the job professionally.. they do it due to the inherent evil in their black souls..

C'mon, even 'Blind Freddy'can bloody well see that stupid laws such as are being applied - only serve to bring the apparatus of law into discredit within the wider community, & eventually make criminals of trivial 'offenders'..

[Rhys]

Does anyone remember when speed cameras first came out they were for road safety, so they were to be highly visible, not hidden be hind trees in unmarked vehicle
No the cops would never do it for revenue gathering

[rastuscat]

Does anyone remember when speed cameras first came out they were for road safety, so they were to be highly visible, not hidden be hind trees in unmarked vehicle
No the cops would never do it for revenue gathering

Funny you should mention that.

In 1993, when cameras were first introduced, I volunteered to be one of the first two operators of the Auckland City camera car based at Greenlane. It was a Toyota Camry wagon. Marked.

I spent more time going to community groups and various other places doing presentations about the new toy than I ever did operating.

Our output was measured in hours of operation. The computer logged the amount of time spent operating. That was our performance measure. X-number of hours per month.

A remarkable trend emerged early in that field. The camera only take photos of the cars equalling or exceeding the trigger speed. The trigger speed was set at the 85th percentile, being the speed at which 85% of the cars travelling on that road were travelling less than. That way only those who were in the top 15% would get snapped.

In reality about 1 to 2 % got snapped on most deployments, as people driving with their eyes open would see it, and not get snapped.

The 85th percentile idea sounded like a good one but people largely didn't get it. In subsequent years it was standardised at 11 over any speed limit. This was easier for folk to understand.

The trend still remained. Only people snapped travelling at 11 or more were prosecuted. Remarkable.

At various times over the years the tolerance has been varied, and the policy is what it is today.

It's remarkably self selecting. Those when don't exceed the tolerance past a speed camera still don't get prosecuted. It's free. Not everyone has picked that up.

To some extent that 9 months formed my view that too much emphasis in placed on speed to the exclusion of other poor driving behaviours. I've carried that viewxthrough until I left.

Certainly it's an important part of the picture. Speed causes some crashes. But for the vast majority of crashes caused by the other things, the input speed of the folk involved determines the severity of the crash.

Given that nobody knows when it's going to happen (and that nobody ever thinks it will happen to them), the philosophy that things would be better if everyone slowed down overall, prevails.

And I'm still waiting for the cheque for the tickets I've written. As far back as 1988.

[rastuscat]

Never mind that fact that you get demerits for not licensing your vehicle but none for doing 49 kmh over a speed limit past a camera.

[nzspokes]

And I'm still waiting for the cheque for the tickets I've written. As far back as 1988.

You have already had it unless you were working for free.

[pritch]

Speed causes some crashes.

A few years ago British Police figures ranked speed as the seventh highest cause of crashes. Looking at the other factors, and never having heard mention of them here, makes me wonder if the NZ Police actually even consider any factors other than speed or alcohol. Which, along with foreign tourists, are all we seem to hear about.

Further, it was thought that ranking of seventh was artificially high due to a percentage of accidents being handled by general duties staff who too readily attribute the cause to excessive speed due to their lack of specialist training. All of which causes me to wonder about the level of training here.

[nzspokes]

All of which causes me to wonder about the level of training here.

What makes you think they are trained? <_<

[Ulsterkiwi]

You have already had it unless you were working for free.

What a completely stupid thing to say. What about the other branches of the police? How do they pull in the money to get paid if your suggestion is correct? Sell the drugs they seize? Invoice the drunks who start a bar fight? Tax the proceeds of stolen goods?

I admire Rastus, he keeps trying to start sensible discussion on this board. Gotta wonder why.

[eldog]

Left the job a few months ago but I ain't letting this go.

The demerit point system in New Zealand was designed to deter poor driving which posed a risk to other members of society.

In recent years demerit points have been introduced for such non-safety offences as having a noisy exhaust (introduced as a knee jerk reaction to Christchurch's boy racer problem) and failing to licence your vehicle.

This in light of there being no demerit points for driving through a red traffic light (hard to believe, but true) or no demerits for not wearing a seat belt.

Surely if demerits can be allocated so quickly for non-safety offences, these two offences (red lights and seatbelts) can be addressed.

How's anyone else feel about it?

So you got the political run around - too much effort for them for what gain in their eyes.
I would suspect most people see red lights and seatbelt as a minor issue (speeding and alcohol being the publics perception and the silver bullet regarding road safety)

You would have seen the end results of what happens when red lights and seat belts are not observed....

I support your efforts but can't see any change to law etc as we are all expert drivers:cool:

Would like to see encouragement for the majority of the public to become better drivers (there's a large proportion of the community that driving is a means to an ends - they really only get from A to B and don't consider driving as a skill.

On KB most of use would be able to ride/drive at a higher level and enjoy getting better as road users. Trouble is we are a minority and not really a poster group for the media to promote.

[bogan]

I think the problem remains one of judgement responsibility, with speed and booze that all gets lumped upon the tech. How can anything else be policed with the same efficacy?


Red lights yes (except for push bikes). :devil2:

Seat belts no. They aren't endangering anyone else, they're just proving Darwin was right.

I agree with this, but perhaps with the caveat that if you are transporting children without belts demerits should still apply.

[R650R]

Yes the demerit system like many a govt policy has holes you could drive a truck through.
But it does deter me from speeding and other things, paying a ticket us no drama but having demerits hanging over you when you need licence for job is not good.

On truck side you can get 35 Demerits for failing to produce a logbook which is a good thing as that's what the smart bent drivers would do, fail to produce s record instead of be done for fraud via falsifying a logbook.
In the same vein you can get 10 demerits for an omission, eg not recording a rego number, name, date, time or location etc which was the other easy cheat.
The problem is human nature and accidental loss means you can still commit the above offences with zero impact on safety but be penalised.

From another angle picture the young teen boy racer in a modified death trap whose on his demerits limit. He's speeding him and a cop both see each other, he knows it's going to be bye bye licence, hello police pursuit.... Nothing to lose....

Expecting a give department to accept outside advice and make change for better, that's the best joke I've heard all week.

Remember some years ago, just before Herr Ckark got voted out, they were going to have 75 demerits and 5o Demerits for faint to stop at stop sign and failing to give way. It was slated to come in the next year but Nats got cited in and it never happened.

[pritch]

I agree with this, but perhaps with the caveat that if you are transporting children without belts demerits should still apply.

Not really, that could be classed as "child neglect" and there's whole Department of the Government dedicated to dealing with that very thing.

[bogan]

Not really, that could be classed as "child neglect" and there's whole Department of the Government dedicated to dealing with that very thing.

Could be, but exactly zero chance there'd be any action taken based on lack of seat belts alone. Spot fine/demerits, job done, no point fucking around.

[Moi]

... A remarkable trend emerged early in that field. The camera only take photos of the cars equalling or exceeding the trigger speed. The trigger speed was set at the 85th percentile, being the speed at which 85% of the cars travelling on that road were travelling less than. That way only those who were in the top 15% would get snapped.

In reality about 1 to 2 % got snapped on most deployments, as people driving with their eyes open would see it, and not get snapped.

The 85th percentile idea sounded like a good one but people largely didn't get it. In subsequent years it was standardised at 11 over any speed limit. This was easier for folk to understand.

The trend still remained. Only people snapped travelling at 11 or more were prosecuted. Remarkable.

At various times over the years the tolerance has been varied, and the policy is what it is today...

That's interesting...

at present the default speed on any road is 10km/h over that which is posted... and above that speed you are targeted...

However, with the target speed and, consequently, the trigger for a speeding fine set at 85th percentile drivers are probably unable to assess the "default speed" for a section of road as they are most likely unable to access the data to determine the trigger speed. Would this method have a positive result on driving behaviour?

It would mean that speeds on roads would need to be monitored more regularly so that the 85th percentile is as accurate as possible...

Just thinking out loud...

[pritch]

That's interesting...

at present the default speed on any road is 10km/h over that which is posted... and above that speed you are targeted...



I thought it was 4kph until the end of the month. I wonder how that's working for them? :whistle:

[Moi]

I thought it was 4kph until the end of the month. I wonder how that's working for them? :whistle:

True, but let's ignore the Christmas / New Year "special offer"...

and use the figures Rastus supplied...

[Gremlin]

Does anyone remember when speed cameras first came out they were for road safety, so they were to be highly visible, not hidden be hind trees in unmarked vehicle
No the cops would never do it for revenue gathering
Hah, my dad picked up 3 camera tickets in one morning from the same camera mid December. All for 55 in a 50. Rules are rules obviously, but I have to ask, how exactly did that help? He had no idea until he received the notices after New Year... and given the propensity to now site cameras at the bottom of hills... I'm not surprised what the general public think (note, there will always be those shouting and screaming and hating the police, but I prefer to refer to the "general" public)

[nzspokes]

What a completely stupid thing to say. What about the other branches of the police? How do they pull in the money to get paid if your suggestion is correct? Sell the drugs they seize? Invoice the drunks who start a bar fight? Tax the proceeds of stolen goods?

I admire Rastus, he keeps trying to start sensible discussion on this board. Gotta wonder why.

Where do you think the money comes from to pay the police champ? :facepalm:

If the Govt can have it self funding them why wouldnt they?

[Ulsterkiwi]

Where do you think the money comes from to pay the police champ? :facepalm:

If the Govt can have it self funding them why wouldnt they?

clearly from our tax dollar champ, that however is not the point of the original thread.

your inference was Cops are handing out tickets so they can get paid or that the issuing of tickets was responsible for maintaining the police budget.

Of course ticketing raises revenue but the accusation that there is some kind of perk to writing them is dumb, Rastus made reference to that and your response was directly to his statement that he is still waiting for direct financial benefit from writing tickets if such a thing were true.

No issue with questioning or criticising an imperfect system, cynicism and incorrect inferences are not helpful.

[nzspokes]

No issue with questioning or criticising an imperfect system

Apparently you do....

An balanced and fair Police force is a lie some of us dont believe anymore.

[RGVforme]

That's interesting...

at present the default speed on any road is 10km/h over that which is posted... and above that speed you are targeted...

However, with the target speed and, consequently, the trigger for a speeding fine set at 85th percentile drivers are probably unable to assess the "default speed" for a section of road as they are most likely unable to access the data to determine the trigger speed. Would this method have a positive result on driving behaviour?

It would mean that speeds on roads would need to be monitored more regularly so that the 85th percentile is as accurate as possible...

Just thinking out loud...

"Only targeted after your 10km over the posted speed limit".

Are you sure? or are you just quoting.... Either way im not buying unless your paying the fine if wrong.

Always thought that the 10km over thing was up to the police officers discretion but also allows for speedo calibration difference between models and speedo drive component wear Vs the scanner/camera involved.

Perhaps this is why everyone thinks 10kms over is safe having driven past a cop/camera at 8kms over the posted and been ok.

Why I also thought that the 4km limit was a bit stupid as anybody can argue that "I was smack on 100" and have a good chance of being right but would have to go though the motions ie VTNZ check? or something to prove it.

Im sure I seen a tv show that had a workshop do some tests on some cars speedos and found that all has a lower speed than the clock showed by 4 to 8 km.

Run my Navman on two diff bikes and three cars and they all show a slight different but all lower than speedo read speed.

Still I think doing 60km in a 50 or 110km in a 100 past a oncoming police car is bound to get you targeted in some way shape or form.
Pity they fine you per km back to the posted speed limit when caught.

[Duncan74]

To save the trouble, then I shall go directly to hell once I've finished writing this post. I know I deserve to be burnt at a stake, etc etc.

Ok, first off the biggest change to demerits I'd make is to assign demerit points to fixed and mobile cameras too. Yes, I appreciate that someone can pick up enough points to go from clean to no license in the time that it takes to post them, but only if said person is consistently driving in excess of the legal limit.

The problem with just cash fines is that they are zero deterrent to the very rich / poor, and have to be set at a realistic level for the 'lower middle' income to be able to pay.

Why is there such a focus on drink driving and speeding? Because they are two things that as a driver / rider I have complete control over. Ok, add in using mobile phone (distraction), but most of the other causes, or factors in crashes involve some element of combined factors of other drivers actions, vehicle or road defect, or external distraction.

And whilst there is a huge spend on safer roads, one of the most effective ways in reducing crashes and reducing the severity of the crash when they happen is to reduce the energy in that crash by lowering the speed. In many cases then it's not just your speed, but the combined speed of the other vehicle. So Two vehicles head on travelling at 90 - 180kph less any braking they do, so say 150kph (-15kph). Two vehicles at 120 kph, then 240kph, less time to slow, so say 225kph (-7.5kph) impact speed. Even if we are as individuals perfect drivers (trust me, we aren't) then part of driving is recognising that you are operating in an environment where others make mistakes and are in vehicles that may not be able to slow or steer in teh same way as yours.

Now I'm not sure why there is a general view that speed limits don't really apply, and there's a 'game' involved in exceeding them. Most other laws are pretty clear cut. You don't shoplift for items less than 10% of what you pay for in the superparket. You don't give someone a light punch in the face and expect to get away with it. But excess speed for conditions (note not exceeding speed limit) which (amongst a whole range of other contributory factors) can clearly be linked to deaths and serious injuries we seem to find acceptable as a society. Unless we get overtaken by a cap wearing yoof in a subaru with a dustbin exhaust of course.

So what's the link between excess speed and speed limits? Well if we have an open road speed limit of 140kph for example, then there would be lots more corners where you'd need to slow so as not to be carrying excess speed. And there would be a much greater spread of speeds on the open road, and so more people would want / need to overtake. And that overtaking is a serious risk factor. Hence the 90 speed limit on SH2 for example. It's not really that the road is only safe to travel at 90kph for most vehicles in most conditions, it's that by slapping a 90kph limit discourages those wanting to travel at 100 (ie 110kph) from overtaking, and you get a steady 'train' of vehicles all doing 90kph with no overtaking that is about as safe as you can get. I must admit I'm not totally convinced by the 90kph limit on one of the dual carriageway bits, but lets ignore that.

What do I feel when I see a police car pulled in to the side clearly waiting for speeders. Well when on the bike then I'm grateful that someone's out there doing something to keep me safe. Without the 'threat' of the ticket and demerit then I know that there would be a significant increase in me being wiped out by someone out of control. How can I be so sure? Because even with the rules and imperfect enforcement then there are still 300 people a year dying on our roads. If we all drove at 70 (open road) then there would still be >100 a year as crashes would still happen, and even with lower speeds, then that would still result in deaths. If we drove faster then that figure would go up, no doubt in my mind as it's simple physics.

[Moi]

"Only targeted after your 10km over the posted speed limit".

Are you sure? or are you just quoting.... Either way I'm not buying unless you're paying the fine, if wrong.

Always thought that the 10km over thing was up to the police officers discretion but also allows for speedo calibration difference between models and speedo drive component wear Vs the scanner/camera involved.

Perhaps this is why everyone thinks 10kms over is safe having driven past a cop/camera at 8kms over the posted and been ok.

Why I also thought that the 4km limit was a bit stupid as anybody can argue that "I was smack on 100" and have a good chance of being right but would have to go though the motions ie VTNZ check? or something to prove it.

Im sure I seen a tv show that had a workshop do some tests on some cars speedos and found that all has a lower speed than the clock showed by 4 to 8 km.

Run my Navman on two diff bikes and three cars and they all show a slight different but all lower than speedo read speed.

Still I think doing 60km in a 50 or 110km in a 100 past a oncoming police car is bound to get you targeted in some way shape or form.
Pity they fine you per km back to the posted speed limit when caught.

I was using the figures that Rastus had used. That way there are no new figures introduced to the discussion.

As for your fine... charge it to C Rime... :laugh:

[FJRider]

.....all about revenue gathering.......

Demerits are not about revenue gathering ... the fines are.

Enough demerits and you walk for a bit.


I wonder how many Members of Parliament are KB members too .. ???

A few ride motorcycles ... write THEM a letter ... What harm could that do .. ??

[Ulsterkiwi]

Apparently you do....

An balanced and fair Police force is a lie some of us dont believe anymore.

apparently you do not read so well.

The focus on speed is wrong, the demerits system is screwed up with an imbalance which does not reflect its stated intent. Road policing should in my opinion have a complete overhaul in terms of policy and strategy.

Having a go at individuals is not helpful. Inferring officers benefit from enforcement is incorrect.

[nzspokes]

Inferring officers benefit from enforcement is incorrect.

Would they have a job if they didnt?

[FJRider]

Never mind that fact that you get demerits for not licensing your vehicle but none for doing 49 kmh over a speed limit past a camera.

As I recall ... At more than 40 km/h above the speed limit you get a 28-day licence suspension.

At more than 50 km/h over the limit you could be charged with careless, dangerous or reckless driving.

The purpose of the demerits is the possibility of a (slow) loss of license ... if you continue with the various infringements that gather demerits ...

No doubt the list of such will be added to at some stage.

[swbarnett]

Why is there such a focus on drink driving and speeding? Because they are two things that as a driver / rider I have complete control over.
I have complete control (money willing) of which vehicle I drive as well. Does that mean you would advocate banning any vehicle that doesn't have a 5-start safety rating? That's motorcycles done with then.

What about the other million and one things that I can do to ensure that me and those around me are as near to 100% safe as it is possible to get? Why pick on one that has little or no bearing on road safety?


If life is to be lived then it must be lived on our own terms (as long as we ensure that others are free to do the same). Not those of some power-hungry tossers that don't know me from an amoeba. Anything else is just existing and we'd all be better off topping ourselves.

[FJRider]

Would they have a job if they didnt?

If everybody obeyed more of the traffic regulations (especially the ones that endanger motorcyclists) ... a few might be put out of work.

What a bugger that would be eh .. ??

[RGVforme]

I was using the figures that Rastus had used. That way there are no new figures introduced to the discussion.

As for your fine... charge it to C Rime... :laugh:

:crazy::killingme

[Duncan74]

I have complete control (money willing) of which vehicle I drive as well. Does that mean you would advocate banning any vehicle that doesn't have a 5-start safety rating? That's motorcycles done with then.


And that's why ACC incentivises through more risky vehicles (bikes and low star rating cars) subsidising those vehicles that are safer (4/5 star). Both my cars (pajero and golf) are 5 star and so pay the lowest ACC. My parents Tiida pays more as it doesn't have the same safety rating. When I went looking for the golf the requirements I had was '5 star NCAP' as there is a particulary dangerous intersection we drive through every day.

Would I like to see all 3 star and less cars replaced by 5 (or 6) star. Yes, but I appreciate that's not economically pratical for many. So incentivise not banning as there would be too greater disbenefits to some from banning.

I appreciate we have different views on if speed has any bearing on road safety. You think it has little to no bearing. I'm comfortable with my view that the higher the speed the greater the chance of a crash (less reaction time to forseeale and unexpected events, laws of physics in terms of friction and momentum), and the greater the injury from that crash. I'm assuming that we're both pretty set in that view so probably one to agree to disagree on?

[Duncan74]

If everybody obeyed more of the traffic regulations (especially the ones that endanger motorcyclists) ... a few might be put out of work.

What a bugger that would be eh .. ??

Also less nurses, surgeons, panel beaters, ambos, insurance assessors, road designers (without crashes no econonomic justification for improvements), ......

(tongue in cheek)

[RDJ]

What a completely stupid thing to say. What about the other branches of the police? How do they pull in the money to get paid if your suggestion is correct? Sell the drugs they seize? Invoice the drunks who start a bar fight? Tax the proceeds of stolen goods?.

There is more than one way to Defur the Feline of Motivation. Nothing so crass as a cheque for writing up tickets is needed - just the career advancement (or even just being left alone by the hierarchy) that comes with Acting Aligned to the Motives of The Management.

This lesson from Sweden (and also Cologne more recently) while entirely different in subject from traffic tickets, does show one how nothing needs to be said or paid for, for an enforcement (or any other) organization to take, or be influenced down, a particular path of activity or inactivity...

Swedish police find themselves under investigation after covering up incidents of sexual assaults allegedly perpetrated by immigrants at a music festival in Stockholm.

This information has come to light after newspaper Dagens Nyheter cited internal police memos that mirror similar incidents taking place in Germany where numerous women were raped by Muslim men on New Years Eve.

The country has become the rape capital of the world in recent years with media and politicians trying desperately to mask this fact.

Bloomberg reports National Police Commissioner Dan Eliasson vowed to investigate whether there had been a cover up. He admits the girls could have potentially been saved.

“We could perhaps have prevented that girls had been molested if we had talked clearly about this. Secondly, it’s obviously not our role to take various political aspects into account,” he said.

Despite admitting it was a mistake to not tell the public about the sexual attacks, the policy of Swedish police is to never reveal the ethnicity or background of alleged perpetrators.


No-one is suggesting (the Swedish) police were paid not to report ethnicity. It just "wasn't the thing to do" dontcha know...

[swbarnett]

Would I like to see all 3 star and less cars replaced by 5 (or 6) star. Yes,
I take it you'd like to see all motorcycles replaced with 5 (or 6) star vehicles as well?


I'm comfortable with my view that the higher the speed the greater the chance of a crash (less reaction time to forseeale and unexpected events, laws of physics in terms of friction and momentum), and the greater the injury from that crash.
Lower speed can mean more boredom and therefore more distraction. Laws of human nature (and physics). It has been shown (sorry, can't remember the study) that in a 50kph area an attentive drive at 80kph is 100 times safer (less likely to crash) than a distracted driver at 50kph.


I'm assuming that we're both pretty set in that view so probably one to agree to disagree on?
To say that I'm set in my view is over stating things a bit. Yes, I'm pretty sure that I'm right. But I'm not set in concrete. If someone actually came up with a logical argument that showed the opposite I would gladly give it careful consideration. If I could not fault their logic I would concede that they had a point. I've done this on a number of occasions over my life. It's just the process of learning.

[WristTwister]

I agree with the OP, running a red light is right up there with the worst things you can do driving. But it's also true drivers don't worry too much about how good they are at driving anyway, it is just a means to get from A to B for many people. Maybe the best way to teach people to be better safer road users is to show us in adverts, rather than show another drunk person or speedster having an accident. :brick:

I know ACC offer scooter riders urban rider training, but I wonder how many have bothered to take them up on it? A shame really as scooter accidents count towards motorcycle statistics as well. A significant number of motorcycle accidents happen in urban areas - and I'd bet that they are scooters because there are so many in the cities.

[Duncan74]

I take it you'd like to see all motorcycles replaced with 5 (or 6) star vehicles as well?

Whilst not bulletproof in logic, then I would suggest that there is no inherent disbenefit to replacing a 2 star car with a 5 star as they can both do the same. A bike is a different form of transport, and so is akin to replacing a snowmobile with a pair of skis, or a canoe with a submarine - you're changing the function, not just enhancing the specific mode of travel.



Lower speed can mean more boredom and therefore more distraction. Laws of human nature (and physics). It has been shown (sorry, can't remember the study) that in a 50kph area an attentive drive at 80kph is 100 times safer (less likely to crash) than a distracted driver at 50kph.

I'd love to see that study if you do find it - genuine interest. However it would count as an extreme outlier amongst countless studies that show the opposite in terms of lower speed limits being safer, especially in urban areas (infered from your 50kph). Logically then if this was the case (higher speeds safer) then why would we have lower speeds? Even accepting the very specific premise of the study as you've stated it (not implying you're misquoting, just being clear that I am taking what you have said and assuming that there is robust evidence to support it), then you would also need to show that increasing the speed to 80 increase the proportion of attentive drivers. Also you're not taking into account that at 50 there is a far far higher chance of the pedestrian living in those crashes that still occur.

http://www.gw.govt.nz/assets/Transport/Pix/Road-Safety/_resampled/resizedimage600399-survivable-speeds-image.jpg


To say that I'm set in my view is over stating things a bit. Yes, I'm pretty sure that I'm right. But I'm not set in concrete. If someone actually came up with a logical argument that showed the opposite I would gladly give it careful consideration. If I could not fault their logic I would concede that they had a point. I've done this on a number of occasions over my life. It's just the process of learning.

Based on the above would it be fair to suggest that the case for alowing higher speed is that it would enhance driver/rider concentration and therefore that would lead to less crashes through distraction? Are there other factors that increased speed would have on decreasing the casualty numbers and severity of casualty? My thinking here is that there will be some things that we can probably agree are worse from higher speeds (in the case of a crash the severity of injury to pedestrian, cyclist, biker and occupants of car), greater breaking distance, and some others. Some that are positive (ie higher speed some correlation to greater attention). And some that are separate (let's assume speed is not materially linked to the existance of road or vehicle defects, the number of other drivers on the road that are drunk or tourists.

(off out, so apologise for posting and running).

[Flip]

IMHO the police in nz have blown any credability they had in this country, The 4km tolerance is nothing but tax collecting its got fuck all to do with safety. I would give the NZ police the same social status these days as dog catchers, building inspectors and parking enforcement officers. The rozza wonder why people don't help the police anymore. That video of the cop car with a broken tail light that was posted on social media recently was a prime example. Why are there no demerit points for running a red light? Why, because they are really difficult to enforce on push bike riders and there is other easier tax targets out there.

[WristTwister]

13% Rider affected by alcohol or drugs
18% Speed or travelling too fast for the conditions
16% Combination of alcohol/drugs and speed
53% Other:confused:




Nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of all motorcycle injury crashes occur on urban (speed limit of 70km/h
or less) roads.


[Source: Ministry of Transport (NZ)]

[swbarnett]

I would suggest that there is no inherent disbenefit to replacing a 2 star car with a 5 star
On the face of it I would agree with this. Until we start to consider the financial and resource cost of the 5 star car. We have resource and economic issues in the world already. The extra safety gained may not be worth the cost of the extra safety features required to produce a 5 star over a 2 star car when the bigger picture is considered.


A bike is a different form of transport, and so is akin to replacing a snowmobile with a pair of skis, or a canoe with a submarine - you're changing the function, not just enhancing the specific mode of travel.
A motorcycle takes one person (mostly) from point A to point B. A 5 start car does the same job (and more) at about the same speed (traffic not withstanding). The "function" of a bike is the same as that of a car (the fun factor is somewhat different though). To make the snowmobile and canoe analogies fit you'd have to liken it to replacing a motorcycle with a pair of shoes.


I'd love to see that study if you do find it - genuine interest.
Unfortunately I lost the reference and can't find it again.


However it would count as an extreme outlier amongst countless studies that show the opposite in terms of lower speed limits being safer, especially in urban areas (infered from your 50kph).
This study wasn't looking at speed limits per se. It looked into the accident rates for attentive vs distracted drivers at different speeds. On top of saying that an attentive driver is much safer at 80kph than a distracted one at 50kph it also said that a distracted driver at 80kph is another order of dangerous again.


Logically then if this was the case (higher speeds safer) then why would we have lower speeds? Even accepting the very specific premise of the study as you've stated it (not implying you're misquoting, just being clear that I am taking what you have said and assuming that there is robust evidence to support it), then you would also need to show that increasing the speed to 80 increase the proportion of attentive drivers. Also you're not taking into account that at 50 there is a far far higher chance of the pedestrian living in those crashes that still occur.
The main point of the study was that it doesn't matter if you're doing 50kph if you don't see the ped until they're touching your bumper. The attentive driver at 80kph is more likely to be able to avoid the ped because they react long before the point of impact.



Based on the above would it be fair to suggest that the case for alowing higher speed is that it would enhance driver/rider concentration and therefore that would lead to less crashes through distraction?
That's the theory. Also, if everyone is allowed to find their natural speed then you will have more engaged drivers. For some even 50kph is too high. If you remove speed limits then they won't feel the pressure to travel at the speed limit and can drive slower.



Are there other factors that increased speed would have on decreasing the casualty numbers and severity of casualty?
Distraction would be the main one. Another could be (my own theory here) that at higher speeds a given road can handle more vehicles in a given unit of time, thus reducing congestion and the opportunity for a collision to occur.


My thinking here is that there will be some things that we can probably agree are worse from higher speeds (in the case of a crash the severity of injury to pedestrian, cyclist, biker and occupants of car),
Yes, if you do have a collision then higher impact speed will likely lead to greater damage. I say likely because it does depend on the geometry of the crash. At a higher speed the collision may only be glancing rather than square on, for example. Of course the reverse may also be true.


greater breaking distance,
This is really where the distraction theory comes in. If the driver at 80kph is aware of what's going on around them then they will react much earlier than the distracted driver at 50kph. Hence they will in all likelihood stop in a shorter distance (in the worst case the distracted drive won't stop at all).

[Scuba_Steve]

Surely if demerits can be allocated so quickly for non-safety offences, these two offences (red lights and seatbelts) can be addressed.

How's anyone else feel about it?
Red lights ok, seatbelts no... But lets 1st see the cops that hand these out charged as the criminals they are. It is in no way acceptable to me for cops to be committing criminal offenses going after civil ones.
The whole system is fucked from the ground up & corrupt from the top down


Nope. The guy writing the ticket doesn't do it for the money.

Maybe someone in Treasury cares but the guys writing the tickets sure don't do it for the money.
What? no-one handing out extortion letters gets paid?



I'd love to see that study if you do find it - genuine interest. However it would count as an extreme outlier amongst countless studies that show the opposite in terms of lower speed limits being safer, especially in urban areas (infered from your 50kph). Logically then if this was the case (higher speeds safer) then why would we have lower speeds? Even accepting the very specific premise of the study as you've stated it (not implying you're misquoting, just being clear that I am taking what you have said and assuming that there is robust evidence to support it), then you would also need to show that increasing the speed to 80 increase the proportion of attentive drivers. Also you're not taking into account that at 50 there is a far far higher chance of the pedestrian living in those crashes that still occur.

When studies are looking for a specific outcome (when most the time they are) they'll find it, yes lower impact = less damage but at the same time over inforcing the speed scam = less safe roads; steering at a speedo rather than the road is in no way shape or form safe. Also it's worth noting ALOT of the "studies" into speed are done/commissioned by those with vested financial interest i.e. those that make the equipment

And while it's not directly a study it does include a man who has studied lots of studies with over half a century (& counting) in road safety incl heading Vic Roads for a bit. He too points out someone driving 50km/h but watching their speed is over 8x more likely to hit someone than someone traveling 80km/h but watching the roads

ACA story on speed cameras - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPD0EgbLnec

[rastuscat]

I thought it was 4kph until the end of the month. I wonder how that's working for them? :whistle:

Sorry.

Apart from seasonal blitzes, the 10 kmh tolerance stands.

Not for much longer though. I bet the 4 kmh will slip in at some stage.

[rastuscat]

Where do you think the money comes from to pay the police champ? :facepalm:

If the Govt can have it self funding them why wouldnt they?

Just for correctness.

Approx 25% of the annual police budget comes from the Land Transport Fund.

The rest comes from a source called Vote Police, a budgetary determination.

[rastuscat]

Red lights ok, seatbelts no... But lets 1st see the cops that hand these out charged as the criminals they are. It is in no way acceptable to me for cops to be committing criminal offenses going after civil ones.
The whole system is fucked from the ground up & corrupt from the top down


What? no-one handing out extortion letters gets paid?


When studies are looking for a specific outcome (when most the time they are) they'll find it, yes lower impact = less damage but at the same time over inforcing the speed scam = less safe roads; steering at a speedo rather than the road is in no way shape or form safe. Also it's worth noting ALOT of the "studies" into speed are done/commissioned by those with vested financial interest i.e. those that make the equipment

And while it's not directly a study it does include a man who has studied lots of studies with over half a century (& counting) in road safety incl heading Vic Roads for a bit. He too points out someone driving 50km/h but watching their speed is over 8x more likely to hit someone than someone traveling 80km/h but watching the roads

ACA story on speed cameras - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPD0EgbLnec

Skoobers back.

On the up side, I can now come out and say what I want without worrying about what The Man might think.

Congrats on the studies you selectively quote. You're no different to the pro-speed-enforcement crowd. Decide on a position then find reports to support your stance.

Quite funny actually that you feel that studies take a position then conduct the reserch to support it.

I still can't buy into the staring-at-speedo argument. If you can't keep an eye on your speed with an occasional glance, cash your licence in. Pace judgement is a driving/riding skill. If you don't have it hand your right to drive back.

[rastuscat]

Any chance we can just stick to the demerits argument?

There's no real conclusion to the speed discussion.

I OP'd about demerits.

[nzspokes]

Just for correctness.

Approx 25% of the annual police budget comes from the Land Transport Fund.

The rest comes from a source called Vote Police, a budgetary determination.

What % of Police are on traffic duty?

[Scuba_Steve]

Skoobers back.

I never left, just don't have access at work anymore



Congrats on the studies you selectively quote. You're no different to the pro-speed-enforcement crowd. Decide on a position then find reports to support your stance.

I didn't really quote any studies, but all into the effects of the speed scam show it to be detrimental to road safety.



Quite funny actually that you feel that studies take a position then conduct the reserch to support it.

Funny you think I'm wrong.



I still can't buy into the staring-at-speedo argument. If you can't keep an eye on your speed with an occasional glance, cash your licence in. Pace judgement is a driving/riding skill. If you don't have it hand your right to drive back.
I'm still waiting for you to put your money where your mouth is with that


Anyways going back to the demerits I do agree they should only be used for safety & should be removed from things like tax & the speed scam but should also not be added to seatbelts but should to red light runners

[rastuscat]

For the record, the speed obsession in the police and NZTA hierarchy is one of the long list of reasons I jacked the job in.

I agree with Skoober on a lot of his views. Not all, but a lot.

[rastuscat]

318880

Just a suggestion.

[bogan]

I still can't buy into the staring-at-speedo argument. If you can't keep an eye on your speed with an occasional glance, cash your licence in. Pace judgement is a driving/riding skill. If you don't have it hand your right to drive back.

The probelm is it's not just the speedo, you gotta glance from speedo to rear view mirrors, to off road hazards, to passenger, to pie in other hand, to cellphone, to radio, to kids in back seat, and then your focal distance is shot when you want to look at the road ahead.

But on a more serious note, that's a strawman argument. A) numerical pace judgement is not a requisite safe driving/riding skill, to think it is just shows how you haven't completely escaped the indoctrination, B) Not having requisite skills for safe riding/driving doesn't lose people their licenses; starting doing that with a speed focus would be going further down the path we already know is stupid.

[rastuscat]

The probelm is it's not just the speedo, you gotta glance from speedo to rear view mirrors, to off road hazards, to passenger, to pie in other hand, to cellphone, to radio, to kids in back seat, and then your focal distance is shot when you want to look at the road ahead.

But on a more serious note, that's a strawman argument. A) numerical pace judgement is not a requisite safe driving/riding skill, to think it is just shows how you haven't completely escaped the indoctrination, B) Not having requisite skills for safe riding/driving doesn't lose people their licenses; starting doing that with a speed focus would be going further down the path we already know is stupid.

My view on this is just based on the fact that over the years I've found that when I glance at the speedo I'm almost always at or about the speed I want to be.

I'm not having to stare at the speedo, so I'm not sure why people have to.

[eldog]

My view on this is just based on the fact that over the years I've found that when I glance at the speedo I'm almost always at or about the speed I want to be.

I'm not having to stare at the speedo, so I'm not sure why people have to.

Perhaps it's because you were involved in a lot of drive/riding through your employment(I am assuming you spent most of your time in a traffic unit)

While there are professional drivers (truck and car)
There is a majority of people who don't drive all that much, especially long distances.

I am still thinking about demerits - they do work for most reasonable people, but there is a large number who don't care about fines or demerits.
Currently my view is that they should encourage people to change their actions while they expire so at the end they don't really impact their lives
Demerits have their place, just how/what and value needs consideration.

[bogan]

My view on this is just based on the fact that over the years I've found that when I glance at the speedo I'm almost always at or about the speed I want to be.

I'm not having to stare at the speedo, so I'm not sure why people have to.

It's just a skill some may have and others may not, it's also a lot to do with road feel. I find it harder to do that in unfamiliar cars, autos, suvs, etc; and in differing road conditions. And it's just not relevant to safe driving; 'drive to the conditions' '100kmhr it's not a target', do those ring any bells?

I'm not sure why people have to either, but that is because I'm not sure why this retarded speed enforcement policy has ever got this far.

[rastuscat]

It's just a skill some may have and others may not, it's also a lot to do with road feel. I find it harder to do that in unfamiliar cars, autos, suvs, etc; and in differing road conditions. And it's just not relevant to safe driving; 'drive to the conditions' '100kmhr it's not a target', do those ring any bells?

I'm not sure why people have to either, but that is because I'm not sure why this retarded speed enforcement policy has ever got this far.

Entirely agree.

Doesn't that make a pleasant change :clap:

[Duncan74]

All responses below in the spirit of good discussion and respectful debate:-


On the face of it I would agree with this. Until we start to consider the financial and resource cost of the 5 star car. We have resource and economic issues in the world already. The extra safety gained may not be worth the cost of the extra safety features required to produce a 5 star over a 2 star car when the bigger picture is considered.

And that's where my clarification in post 37 about incentives come in. However the costs of incorporating all the safety features in all cars at time of manufacture is making the cost / resources at build minimal. The challenge in NZ is the length of time it takes for that to filter through. Mean age of cars is over 11 years in NZ compared to 5 in most of western europe. Not sure of the USA. So I'm keen that there is a way to incentivise the renewal of the fleet. I admit that this does stretch my non-existant environmental credentials though.



A motorcycle takes one person (mostly) from point A to point B. A 5 start car does the same job (and more) at about the same speed (traffic not withstanding). The "function" of a bike is the same as that of a car (the fun factor is somewhat different though). To make the snowmobile and canoe analogies fit you'd have to liken it to replacing a motorcycle with a pair of shoes.

Yeah, I did admit there were logical holes here ;-) However there are some functional positves with bikes, including parking space, energy use, congestion in terms of what 'policy' considerations are likely to focus on. The 'it's just fun' is also a huge factor for those registered here, possibly less so on a national policy basis.



This study wasn't looking at speed limits per se. It looked into the accident rates for attentive vs distracted drivers at different speeds. On top of saying that an attentive driver is much safer at 80kph than a distracted one at 50kph it also said that a distracted driver at 80kph is another order of dangerous again.


The main point of the study was that it doesn't matter if you're doing 50kph if you don't see the ped until they're touching your bumper. The attentive driver at 80kph is more likely to be able to avoid the ped because they react long before the point of impact.

No, study as you stated concluded a driver was less likely to have a crash. Not that they were safer. If I was hit by a distracted driver at 50 then I've a chance of living. Hit by an attentive driver at 80 then there's bugger all chance.

Apologies below is in MPH not KPH. But looking at 30/50mph as proxy for 50/80kph then you can see that to stop in the same distance the driver at 50kph has six times the thinking time. That's a huge difference. (0.65s to 3.9seconds).

318881

The attentive / inattentive arguement is common, and I do see some logic to it. However, the solution to me is to focus on encouraging attention through removing distractions (eg mobiles), better streetscape design (rationalising roadsigns, avoiding visual distractions such as advertising), etc. I don't see using increasing risk as the mechanism for improving attention as that logically only brings you back to the same risk point you started at at best.


That's the theory. Also, if everyone is allowed to find their natural speed then you will have more engaged drivers. For some even 50kph is too high. If you remove speed limits then they won't feel the pressure to travel at the speed limit and can drive slower.

Sadly there is then the pressure to overtake, and that's the biggest risk on most NZ roads. Ok, not applying to dual/motorways, but see below for comment on that. Driver frustration is a tough one. Yes when following someone at way then it's bloody annoying if they are at way below the speed limit in good conditions. But if you broaden the spread of 'desired speeds' then you increase the risk through overtaking which is typically a head on crash as opposed to a shunt style where you've gone into the back of the car in front as you've been playing with the stereo and not noticed the car in front has braked. That car in front is likely to be the one hitting the ped / cyclist pulling out from the side street etc, and logically if they are travelling at their desired speed they are being attentive.


Another could be (my own theory here) that at higher speeds a given road can handle more vehicles in a given unit of time, thus reducing congestion and the opportunity for a collision to occur.

Nope. Simply then with a 2 second safe gap between vehicles then the capacity of any road is about 1800 vehicles per lane per hour regardless of speed (3600/2). In reality then people don't quite leave 2 seconds in semi congested conditions, and so you get around 2000 / hr. Now here's the kicker though. If you increase the upper speed limit, then you get more spread in the desired speeds, and so more desire for overtaking. On a motorway then that puts a vehicle momentarily in 2 lanes at once as there is a gap they are moving into and the one they are coming out of. And so this reduces capacity in reality. A secondary factor is that with reduced gaps then you get the shockwaves going ack through traffic that produces the phantom queues. And that's why the use of active speed limits that drop to 80, or even lower in heavy traffic conditions work, people weave less and so you can get more traffic though.


Yes, if you do have a collision then higher impact speed will likely lead to greater damage. I say likely because it does depend on the geometry of the crash. At a higher speed the collision may only be glancing rather than square on, for example. Of course the reverse may also be true.

318882
(source NZTA) - same diagram used internationally, so I'm not 100% sure that reflect NZ current vehicle stock. Over time then all those lines are moving to the right, ie survivability increasing as a result of vehicle design. But this diagram takes into account all crashes, and so even if the angle changes then clearly the outcome of that crash is worse for all types of user at higher speeds.


Apologies to the OP for continued discussion on what's largely speed related.

[Big Dog]

I still can't buy into the staring-at-speedo argument. If you can't keep an eye on your speed with an occasional glance, cash your licence in. Pace judgement is a driving/riding skill. If you don't have it hand your right to drive back.

When I was doing my car license in the 80's my instructor took me out for a drive with a piece of cardboard day so the passenger could see the speedo but the driver could not.

You would be surprised how easy it is to stay on or under the speed limit but within 50kmph when the alternative is extending the lesson in 30 minute increments at $120 an hour until you get it.
If you just relax and drive to the conditions it is almost easier without the speedo goading you.

Sent via tapatalk.

[Big Dog]

Any chance we can just stick to the demerits argument?

There's no real conclusion to the speed discussion.

I OP'd about demerits.
I don't see the value in demerits on seat belts. I do in red light / give way issues.
Do they give demerits for insecure load?

Sent via tapatalk.

[RDJ]

Originally Posted by rastuscat - I still can't buy into the staring-at-speedo argument. If you can't keep an eye on your speed with an occasional glance, cash your licence in. Pace judgement is a driving/riding skill. If you don't have it hand your right to drive back.

IMO it also has a lot to do with the constantly varying speed limits and the zero tolerance - combine the two and we got a recipe for having to check the speedo frequently. Just went by cage to Wellington back to help the First Daughter with moving house, with Second Son driving and me piloting. From Foxton to Waikanae for example, speed changed from 100, to 50, to 70, to 40, to 50, to 70, to 80, to 100, to 50... Plus (at least) 4 (visible) revenue cameras. The Bulls revenue camera triggers at 52 km/hr...

A recent study from Oregon University concluded that taking your eyes off the road two seconds (minimum time to check a speedometer reading*) increases the risk of a crash by up to 24 times.

“...anything that takes your attention away, any glance away from the road for two seconds or longer can increase the risk of an accident from four to 24 times,” said David Hurwitz, an assistant professor of transportation engineering in the College of Engineering at Oregon State University, and corresponding author of the study, which was published in the Journal of Transportation Safety and Security. “This is a dramatic increase in risk, with inexperienced drivers who are least able to handle it,” he said. “The absolute worst is texting on a cell phone, which is a whole group of distractions. With texting, you’re doing something besides driving, thinking about something besides driving, and looking at the wrong thing.”


* The police spokesmurf who said it take a millisecond was either profoundly ignorant or just careless. I vote careless, you can't be that stupid to think it only takes 1000th of a second.

[eldog]

I don't see the value in demerits on seat belts. I do in red light / give way issues.
Do they give demerits for insecure load?

Add in Stop

Insecure loads - often the fine is enough, movement of load usually has a greater incentive for next time. Saw the result of driver ignoring my instructions/pleas for tying down a load, which came through into the cab, when he had to Estop.
NEVER rely on someone else tying stuff down :shutup:
I learnt by doing it myself and watching the big truck drivers and looking at their loads and how they did it.

I would like to see incentives (demerits) for road signage (such as - hidden behind trees, immediately on corners) and for road conditions

Seat belts let Darwin decide, its your responsibility for your passengers. If they are 18+ and refuse to put seat belt on they get the fine/demerit instead of driver.
Had one or two of those passengers. Kiddies can be a pest in this area when they decide they don't need a seatbelt


I am beginning to think demerits for anything that may involve injury to another person.

[Tazz]

[I]
A recent study from Oregon University concluded that taking your eyes off the road two seconds (minimum time to check a speedometer reading*) increases the risk of a crash by up to 24 times.


Holy shit. Wonder if someone could find a correlation between this, the lowered 'tolerance' and the increased road toll.
I'm sure it would still be ignored anyway.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3000917/Drivers-distracted-taking-eyes-road-just-2-seconds-increases-accident-risk-24-times.html

[Moi]

I don't see the value in demerits on seat belts. I do in red light / give way issues...


Add in Stop...

Here's the list of what you need to do to earn demerit points (https://www.nzta.govt.nz/driver-licences/driving-offences-and-penalties/demerit-points/)...

[eldog]

Thanks Moi :niceone:

I hadn't gotten round to look at the list itself

I try to drive/ride to the road code, so I don't often have to think about demerits or tickets.

[RGVforme]

Here's the list of what you need to do to earn demerit points (https://www.nzta.govt.nz/driver-licences/driving-offences-and-penalties/demerit-points/)...

The ATV helmet one is a bit and on the nose when you don't need a license to operate it.

Does this apply when your just ducking down the road or does it mean that Worksafe can now issue fines as well as demerits on private Farmland if they catch ole Fred bringing the cows in without a helmet on?.

If it did then would not the Worksafe chap have to be a sworn in as police are to inforce A traffic safety law rather than a workplace safety law?.

Someone said on here that fines don't work because the rich can afford to pay and the poor just cant.

If it was about teaching the stupid who just don't get it a lesson instead of the cash the demerits would be more and the fines less but there's no money to be made from someone who keeps breaking the rules and cant drive on the road I guess.

[RGVforme]

Any chance we can just stick to the demerits argument?

There's no real conclusion to the speed discussion.

I OP'd about demerits.

Look out everyone Dads up at 8am on a Sunday and he's grumpy :spanking: :spanking: :killingme

[RDJ]

Holy shit. Wonder if someone could find a correlation between this, the lowered 'tolerance' and the increased road toll.
I'm sure it would still be ignored anyway.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3000917/Drivers-distracted-taking-eyes-road-just-2-seconds-increases-accident-risk-24-times.html

I suspect there is one, but I seriously doubt that anybody funded by the government or the police would ever find that. And yes, even then I agree it would still be ignored. Because, the Religion of the Zero Excess Speed Tolerance.

[RDJ]

Look out everyone Dads up at 8am on a Sunday and he's grumpy :spanking: :spanking: :killingme

I know, I know, how can a thread not only be hijacked, but subject to relevant comments involving logic and evidence? Burn the witches (or warlocks) responsible, clearly.

[OddDuck]

I agree with the OP completely. Demerits should reflect shitty behaviour on the roads.

Red light running is obvious. Those talking about seatbelts simply being Darwin in action should look at what happens if the muppet lives. Family drafted in as permanent carers, ACC bills galore, taxes for all the rest of us. Demerits should definitely apply.

[eldog]

I agree with the OP completely. Demerits should reflect shitty behaviour on the roads.

Those talking about seatbelts simply being Darwin in action should look at what happens if the muppet lives. Family drafted in as permanent carers, ACC bills galore, taxes for all the rest of us. Demerits should definitely apply.

Maybe more people should think about others if they didn't wear their seatbelts and the possible outcomes

Riding a bike, I don't wear a seat belt, but I do ATGATT.
I know if I screw up my family will be lumbered with either a death or a muppet case.
I would expect them to pull the plug if it wasn't recoverable (brain dead) or lead to misery.

Not sure how demerits would help in the seatbelt case. No reason why it couldn't be tried as a trial.

[swbarnett]

And that's where my clarification in post 37 about incentives come in.
I can't quite see how incentives addresses the issue of extra cost/resource use?


However the costs of incorporating all the safety features in all cars at time of manufacture is making the cost / resources at build minimal.
Minimal on a global scale with unrestricted population growth will still have a major impact on the environment.


The challenge in NZ is the length of time it takes for that to filter through. Mean age of cars is over 11 years in NZ compared to 5 in most of western europe. Not sure of the USA. So I'm keen that there is a way to incentivise the renewal of the fleet.
I'm actually in favour of an older fleet. The older the fleet the better it is for the environment (emissions improvements not withstanding).


Yeah, I did admit there were logical holes here ;-) However there are some functional positves with bikes, including parking space, energy use, congestion in terms of what 'policy' considerations are likely to focus on. The 'it's just fun' is also a huge factor for those registered here, possibly less so on a national policy basis.
Agreed.


No, study as you stated concluded a driver was less likely to have a crash. Not that they were safer.
Point well made. Slip of the wording here as that's what I meant.



If I was hit by a distracted driver at 50 then I've a chance of living. Hit by an attentive driver at 80 then there's bugger all chance.
If you were hit at those speeds then I totally agree. The point is that the attentive 80kph driver is likely to hit you at a lower speed than the distracted 50kph driver that doesn't brake at all.


Apologies below is in MPH not KPH. But looking at 30/50mph as proxy for 50/80kph then you can see that to stop in the same distance the driver at 50kph has six times the thinking time. That's a huge difference. (0.65s to 3.9seconds).
All the thinking time in the world is of no use if the driver is blithely unaware that there's a problem.


the solution to me is to focus on encouraging attention through removing distractions (eg mobiles), better streetscape design (rationalising roadsigns, avoiding visual distractions such as advertising), etc. I don't see using increasing risk as the mechanism for improving attention as that logically only brings you back to the same risk point you started at at best.
I can see the logic to this as well. Some mix of the two is probably the answer. If you remove too many "challenges" on the road drivers will just go to sleep. I agree that too many is not good either.


Sadly there is then the pressure to overtake,
I do wonder how much of this is the thinking that "that shit-head is driving under the speed limit". Remove the speed limit and you remove this "target" to measure others by. I would like to think that then faster drivers would be more tolerant towards the slower ones.


Nope. Simply then with a 2 second safe gap between vehicles then the capacity of any road is about 1800 vehicles per lane per hour regardless of speed (3600/2).
I have seen quotes from roading engineers that state that the higher the speed the more cars per lane per hour. My rough calculations have born this out (taking into account the increased gap to maintain 2seconds).


the use of active speed limits that drop to 80, or even lower in heavy traffic conditions work, people weave less and so you can get more traffic though.
There is a section of the Auckland motorway that is currently reduced to 80kph due to road works (that are off the motorway). I travel through there every morning and I can tell you from personal experience that this is a massive bottle-neck. Free flowing at 100kph before it and even freer after it due to the cars trapped in it.


even if the angle changes then clearly the outcome of that crash is worse for all types of user at higher speeds.
If you are comparing the same impact angle at different speed then I agree. What I'm saying is that at the same speed the impact angle is a strong factor in survivability.

[RGVforme]

Wow you two!!! Is it really worth all this effort??....:girlfight:....2nd thoughts carry on....lol....:corn:

[caspernz]

Funny how far off topic one can get...flicking thru the various posts :brick:

Back to Petes' original post though, yes I think red light running and failing to wear the seat belt should be demerit offences. Both have a social cost in worst case scenario, so that solves it for me.

[Akzle]

Would I like to see all 3 star and less cars replaced by 5 (or 6) star. Yes, but I appreciate that's not economically pratical for many.

or... And this is just a far out left fielder, make it some kind of rule not to drive in to other cunts,

thereby making any "safety rating" 100% fucking irrelevant.

[Scuba_Steve]

Seatbelts still IMO shouldn't be anyone else's business
In my family car I'm happy to wear a sealtbelt, I expect to survive in that; but my van from the 80's I shouldn't be forced to wear a belt that only hinders safety, it provides as much safety as a lap belt on a motorbike. I have 2mm of light grade steel between me & death, seatbelt aint doing shit!

Seatbelts should be personal choice just like ATGATT & hi-vis; those who think it should be mandatory IMO should hand in their bikes for cages as bikes are inherently far too dangerous... in-fact we should probably start handing out demerits to anyone that rides one, after all "look at what happens if the muppet lives" & there's a "social cost in worst case scenario"

Also to add; Red light runners are still cocks like those who push into lines & should be targeted (but not by cameras)

[Akzle]

Seat belts let Darwin decide, its your responsibility for your passengers. If they are 18+ and refuse to put seat belt on they get the fine/demerit instead of driver.
Had one or two of those passengers. Kiddies can be a pest in this area when they decide they don't need a seatbelt


except the driver gets fined roo. 150 each iirc.

Had a 4 year old try telling me that (not mine). Once. Only once.

Stood on the picks at the end of the street...He changed his mind while he was upside down in the footwell.

[gsxr]

My rant My story.


Seat belts in this day and age are needed given the increased amount of traffic
However back in the 70s I was a hoon. Race bikes etc.
But I was an old school boy racer..... There maybe still some on here that remember me.
I had a supercharged road legal Pontiac that was the envy of most popo with a ticket book

One night I was pissed off with the girl I was with so i boosted it . Long story short I didnt quite get around the corner as planed .
The lampost was unforgiving .
Fortunately she wasnt wearing her seat belt and was sitting next to me on the front bench seat
The unforgiving lamp post went throgh where she should have been sitting
Had she been wearing her seat belt I would not have been able to wake up to her beautiful face every morning to this day.

[eldog]

Had a 4 year old try telling me that (not mine). Once. Only once.

Stood on the picks at the end of the street...He changed his mind while he was upside down in the footwell.

Even though I like your method....

try telling that to an autistic child, and then having to explain to the parent how the bruises came about

Then they wonder why I have nothing to do with them.

[awayatc]

Yes demerits should only be for dangerous fuck ups.....

red light definitely....

no rego ...?

So yes above mentioned demerit cock up fits perfectly well with overall traffic policing "efforts"

[rastuscat]

My rant My story.


Seat belts in this day and age are needed given the increased amount of traffic
However back in the 70s I was a hoon. Race bikes etc.
But I was an old school boy racer..... There maybe still some on here that remember me.
I had a supercharged road legal Pontiac that was the envy of most popo with a ticket book

One night I was pissed off with the girl I was with so i boosted it . Long story short I didnt quite get around the corner as planed .
The lampost was unforgiving .
Fortunately she wasnt wearing her seat belt and was sitting next to me on the front bench seat
The unforgiving lamp post went throgh where she should have been sitting
Had she been wearing her seat belt I would not have been able to wake up to her beautiful face every morning to this day.

Far, far more people have been saved by seatbelts than have ever been killed by them.

If you're a gambler, play the odds.

http://i.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/282345/Seatbelt-rebel-caused-own-death

[Erelyes]

To save the trouble, then I shall go directly to hell once I've finished writing this post. I know I deserve to be burnt at a stake, etc etc.

Ok, first off the biggest change to demerits I'd make is to assign demerit points to fixed and mobile cameras too. Yes, I appreciate that someone can pick up enough points to go from clean to no license in the time that it takes to post them, but only if said person is consistently driving in excess of the legal limit.


First off, well thought out post.

Re demerits, the trouble is in setting the system up to correctly assign demerits to the driver. When you're caught red-handed and they sight the license, it's easy. But if a camera nabs you, all they can do is post it to the registered owner. Having a fine in your name is one thing, having something with an actual bearing on your right to drive (demerits) is quite another. Then you get muppets that don't change the address the car is registered to, and herpderp, wonder why they have a bailiff knocking on the door months down the track.

You are right that lower speeds = lower impact speeds.


It has been shown (sorry, can't remember the study) that in a 50kph area an attentive drive at 80kph is 100 times safer (less likely to crash) than a distracted driver at 50kph.

Some early research showed that lower speeds = more crashes (which leads one to wonder whether fatalities dropped). Studies since have compared fatalities with speeds and found essentially that even if people are crashing more at lower speeds, they're still dying less. There was an indication injuries went up. (Perhaps only because they got to be counted as 'injured' instead of 'dead'). Hence any argument that people pay less attention at lower speed, is moot as it's not the number of crashes that matter but their outcome. I presume accordingly your view of 'safety' relates to crashes, not the actual impact (pun intended) on the occupants. The studies are cited here. (http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDcQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nhtsa.gov%2Fpeople%2Finjury%2 Fenforce%2FSpeed_Forum_Presentations%2FFerguson.pd f&ei=f23iVLmfEI3msASn0IHoCA&usg=AFQjCNGC1ELU62qSlGqu5aHElfXjNglI4g&bvm=bv.85970519,d.cWc&cad=rja)

The crux of the problem is not so much setting a lower speed limit, and assuming that people will drive slower (and fining those that don't). Where speed limits are sensible people generally abide by them. Where speed limits are lower than what someone's brain tells them is safe, they are more likely to ignore it. The more of these 'foolish' limits are in place, the less drivers respect speed limits overall. Hence, by setting a lower speed in a particular area just to appease residents, your piece of paper, or a local politician, you're gradually eroding the safety in other areas. Of course most residents when told this will fly off the handle as they were never asking for a lower speed based on a logical argument, but rather solely an appeal to emotion (won't SOMEONE think of the CHILDREN?). But anyway, the key is, if you actually want people to go slower, setting lower limits can be counter-intuitive.

I just wish Police focussed on issuing ticket for OTHER things in an equitable fashion. Speed is not the leading cause of crashes. Driver inattention is. (Anyone arguing contrary, I cite this (https://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwjM2KKz9bHKAhWhxqYKHTg5BakQFggdMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nhtsa.gov%2Fstaticfiles%2Fnti %2Fpdf%2F811727.pdf&usg=AFQjCNHbqpoHXfbfgZvFYi0iPqgoYegnHw&sig2=DIoAgceP8R6R6Z5TjqCAsQ), page 3-2, and await your evidence to the contrary)

But getting away from that, the other problem is this: we live in a society where, if we want to change behavior we legislate a new rule, rather than enforcing the ones we already have. The 'Boy Racer Act' is a prime example of this. It was already illegal to do burnouts (careless driving, causing annoyance, etc). It was already illegal to race. In fact, laughably, if you look at the law (http://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1998/0110/latest/DLM434542.html?search=qs_act%40bill%40regulation%4 0deemedreg_exhibition+of+speed_resel_25_h&p=1#DLM434542), it actually says that if the vehicle is within the speed limit and does not contravene any other enactment, then the driving is authorised by law! In other words "we're not making anything new illegal, we're just making this more punitive".

Of course rather than giving Police 'more powers' we could have actually, y'know, had more Police. But the legislators prefer to earn money sitting around debating bills which they proclaim will fix all our problems, rather than that money actually going to enforcing the rules they've already made. OR, by fixing the fuckups in the laws they made before (because that would be admitting they didn't get it right).


Any chance we can just stick to the demerits argument?

YOU'RE NOT MY SUPERVISOR!


I I'm actually in favour of an older fleet. The older the fleet the better it is for the environment (emissions improvements not withstanding).

Correct. The amount of 'stuff' it takes to make a new car, compared with maintaining an older one, is astronomical.

[rastuscat]

I'm entirely in agreement with Erelyes.

Take a photo.

[RDJ]

Far, far more people have been saved by seatbelts than have ever been killed by them.

And not just saved.

I have spent many a weary Saturday night and Sunday morning suturing facial lacerations and picking windscreen glass out of various anatomical locations in people who failed to wear their seatbelt... When in a car.

And if you think that's no fun, try having a nurse scrubbing grit out of your abrasions and lacerations with a toothbrush... so you don't end up terminally tattooed by road rash and other environmental infringements.

Not wearing a seat belt in a car, to me, is analogous to not wearing a helmet and gloves and boots while riding.

But hey, you're the author of your own destiny. Darwinian theory in practice.

[Ocean1]

Where speed limits are sensible people generally abide by them. Where speed limits are lower than what someone's brain tells them is safe, they are more likely to ignore it. The more of these 'foolish' limits are in place, the less drivers respect speed limits overall. Hence, by setting a lower speed in a particular area just to appease residents, your piece of paper, or a local politician, you're gradually eroding the safety in other areas. Of course most residents when told this will fly off the handle as they were never asking for a lower speed based on a logical argument, but rather solely an appeal to emotion (won't SOMEONE think of the CHILDREN?). But anyway, the key is, if you actually want people to go slower, setting lower limits can be counter-intuitive.

Certainly counter productive. I'm interested in the legal mechanism whereby speed limits are set. I know there's at the very least a guide to set the limit at 85% of the mean unrestricted speed for any given bit of road. In fact one report had that as not so much a guide as a requirement.

Which begs a bunch of questions. Not least of which is "how do you establish the mean unregulated speed?"

Only, I've never encountered a stretch of road with a sign saying: "Hit it guys, we're timing you to see what speed you're comfy with".

[rastuscat]

I don't buy the personal choice argument.

Not when you'll be picked up and mended by the community. The Ambo, the A&E, the plastic surgeon reconstructing your face. When you are covering all those costs yourself, then I'll buy the personal choice argument.

And as for demerits, I know people who just don't give a toss about the Fines. Only points are enough to motivate some folk.

[bogan]

I don't buy the personal choice argument.

Not when you'll be picked up and mended by the community. The Ambo, the A&E, the plastic surgeon reconstructing your face. When you are covering all those costs yourself, then I'll buy the personal choice argument.

And as for demerits, I know people who just don't give a toss about the Fines. Only points are enough to motivate some folk.

Does that not apply to your personal choice to ride bikes then?

[Moi]

Certainly counter productive. I'm interested in the legal mechanism whereby speed limits are set. I know there's at the very least a guide to set the limit at 85% of the mean unrestricted speed for any given bit of road. In fact one report had that as not so much a guide as a requirement.

Which begs a bunch of questions. Not least of which is "how do you establish the mean unregulated speed?"

Only, I've never encountered a stretch of road with a sign saying: "Hit it guys, we're timing you to see what speed you're comfy with".

Here you go... (https://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/rules/setting-speed-limits-2003/)

[eldog]

I don't buy the personal choice argument.

Not when you'll be picked up and mended by the community. The Ambo, the A&E, the plastic surgeon reconstructing your face. When you are covering all those costs yourself, then I'll buy the personal choice argument.

And as for demerits, I know people who just don't give a toss about the Fines. Only points are enough to motivate some folk.

I suppose this is opening the ACC debate again, but perhaps those PROVEN at fault should pay for remediation. But that's not going to happen.
The Darwinian theory is a great idea because it uses only 2 outcomes - life/death, not life with disability or reconstruction. This is not reality.

Reality everyone has to deal with the consequences of their or someone elses actions.

A fine with demerits for such basic things as seatbelts could be applicable. Maybe a written warning is enough for most people.
Multiple times may require a stint to be educated - attendance compulsory - along the lines of showing the individual the consequences.

Would agree there is a big proportion that don't give a fig about fines, but when someone can and will remove their license....

The is a group that don't care about loss of license either or personal freedom. How do we tackle those?

[J.A.W.]

There is a group that don't care about loss of license either or personal freedom. How do we tackle those?

For sure, the ol'... 3 strikes & off to prison for a lengthy stretch - routine, as played out stateside - is pretty pricey..

[eldog]

For sure, the ol'... 3 strikes & off to prison for a lengthy stretch - routine, as played out stateside - is pretty pricey..

For some it appears to be a way of life, a place of education to further that life and to keep prison officers employed.

I would prefer to be out riding the bike.


Maybe theres a more permanent way.....

[rastuscat]

Does that not apply to your personal choice to ride bikes then?

Sure does.

It's one of the compromises of life. I reckon allowing motorcycling is a balanced social decision. The benefit out weighs the social cost, in my view.

But allowing people to not wear seatbelts is a bit unnecessary.

In terms of cost benefit, the cost of everyone wearing a seat belt is minimal. There's a comfort argument, but it's spurious. Versus the benefit to society of everyone wearing them, we'll, to me it's a sound decision. Of course not everyone agrees, and that's okay.

[eldog]

Sure does.

It's one of the compromises of life. I reckon allowing motorcycling is a balanced social decision. The benefit out weighs the social cost, in my view.

But allowing people to not wear seatbelts is a bit unnecessary.

In terms of cost benefit, the cost of everyone wearing a seat belt is minimal. There's a comfort argument, but it's spurious. Versus the benefit to society of everyone wearing them, we'll, to me it's a sound decision. Of course not everyone agrees, and that's okay.

Would you want to extend this to wearing of ATGATT?

I would agree that ATGATT isn't as protective as a seatbelt, but it has similar injury protection for road rash etc as seatbelts for glass impacts

There is a lot of bikers that would object to having demerits for no ATGATT.


OP: I suppose what you are asking is where is the boundary for demerits, fines and a combo for both. What/where is the practicality/benefit border.

[J.A.W.]

For some it appears to be a way of life, a place of education to further that life and to keep prison officers employed.

I would prefer to be out riding the bike.


Maybe theres a more permanent way.....


Sure is..

In Germany.. ~80 years ago, the Gov't developed a number of concepts, like the speed unlimited Autobahn..

..& that of "useless mouths" a category which includes "anti-social elements" such as habitual criminals..
..for scientific evaluation into re-education-redeemable, or alternatively, yes, frank extermination..

Adolf, himself being a motorhead, would not have signed off on those with excessive licence demerit points,
gained for trivial offences - but who were otherwise productive citizens, being put up for the chop..

Even as a humanist, I find the logic difficult to rebut..

[rastuscat]

I'm not asking to re write the rules.

We already have a demerit system. MoT can put them on vehicle licencing tickets.

So how hard can it be?

[eldog]

I'm not asking to re write the rules.

We already have a demerit system. MoT can put them on vehicle licencing tickets.

So how hard can it be?

Most people are resistant to change if that means that they have to do something that wont benefit themselves.

They want to have a good time, or go to work to pay for a good time (they don't goto work because they want to)

[bluninja]

Here you go... (https://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/rules/setting-speed-limits-2003/)

Nah, that is just for the setting of the speed limits between 50 and 100 kmh. There's nothing about how the upper speed limit is calculated.....pobably cos it wasn't.

[Ocean1]

Here you go... (https://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/rules/setting-speed-limits-2003/)

Ah, the real deal. And there's the very word itself: 3.1...... :facepalm:

[Kickaha]

And as for demerits, I know people who just don't give a toss about the Fines. Only points are enough to motivate some folk.

True, when it was fines only I didn't give a shit, 120-140 was normal cruising speed

[5150]

Nope. The guy writing the ticket doesn't do it for the money.

Maybe someone in Treasury cares but the guys writing the tickets sure don't do it for the money.

And here I was thinking that the number of tickets written on the side of the road is directly proportional to the amount of doughnuts you boys get as a weekly Friday night bonus. :bleh: