PDA

View Full Version : Kiwi driver challenge



Angry Puppy
23rd March 2004, 13:29
Anyone watch the Kiwi Driver Challenge last night? Only caught the first half (clashed with ER). Don't know about the second half, but in the fist half, bikes were not mentioned once. Wouldv'e been nice to at least have been achknowledged as road users.

What scores did you guys get? I only got 1 wrong in the fist half (honest!)
check out the questions at http://www.kiwidriverschallenge.co.nz/

FB

Jackrat
23rd March 2004, 13:38
Lou allready did this one in the off topic section.
Bikes got a mention in the second half.They had an R1 on stage,nice looking bike to.

Angry Puppy
23rd March 2004, 13:42
Yeah, just did the full test on-line.Two questions on bikes!

Slingshot
23rd March 2004, 13:42
They had two questions about bikes, the first was "What is the biggest contributor to fatal motorcycle accidents in NZ?" & the second was "Where is the best place on the road to position your bike while riding?"

They even had a nice shiny R1 on display. I'm pretty sure it was the 04 model as well, it had the exhaust under the seat.

I didn't record my answers so I don't know what my score was.

One thing I though was quite funny was every question that was aimed at speed made out like speed was the devil. I guess with the current push on enforcing the speed limits "they" will use any medium to try and tell us that speeding is the root of all evil.

merv
23rd March 2004, 13:57
Got 85% for the whole thing. I was amazed that the second half had questions like the number of breath tests that were carried out. I guessed 1.3M and damn the answer they said was 2.3M for a year. Because I got that wrong am I therefore a more unsafe driver or what? Seems to me those statistical and number type questions that aren't related to the road code were a bit pointless and you'd only know the answers for sure if you had the stats in front of you.

Wkid you'd be disputing the fact that the new R1 is only 150hp too wouldn't you, though that wasn't a question it was a statement they made.

Slim
23rd March 2004, 14:08
I just did the on-line test.

What are the chances that all those statistic-type questions are actually part of the driver test?!?!? Hmmm???? Not bloody likely. I only fluffed three of the "real" questions and one of those because I didn't stop to think it out properly, but guessed a reasonable proportion of the statistic-type questions to get a total of 80%.

piperj
23rd March 2004, 14:16
I'm guessng that the point of the stat questions was for us to see where our perceptions of what goes on with regard to breath testing, the effectiveness of seat belts and so forth, measured up with reality. After all our perceptions are what govern our actions. If we percieve certain driving habits etc. are unnecessary then we are less likely to employ them or follow the rule.
Hence they gave us the oppurtunity to see if our perceptions are correct (and fix them if need be).

Slim
23rd March 2004, 14:22
It could also be to see how effective the LTSA/Government Road Safety advertising campaigns have been. :brick:

The TV3 site has a "Feedback" link if anyone else feels like telling them how effective their stats are going to be. http://www.tv3.co.nz/corporate/faq.cfm and the Feedback link is on the left.

speedpro
23rd March 2004, 15:28
I only got 70%. The only answers I got wrong were the statistical ones. Interesting I thought that the studio audiance only got about 42% of the first questions correct which were the questions to do with the actual rules and what you are supposed to do. Pretty predictable given most drivers demonstrated ability. It would be interesting to divide the questions into relevant and statistical bullshit questions and then do the percentages for each group. Going by the early part of the programme I'd say that the results would be fairly sad for the questions that matter.

Slingshot
23rd March 2004, 15:47
I'm guessng that the point of the stat questions was for us to see where our perceptions of what goes on with regard to breath testing, the effectiveness of seat belts and so forth, measured up with reality. After all our perceptions are what govern our actions. If we percieve certain driving habits etc. are unnecessary then we are less likely to employ them or follow the rule.
Hence they gave us the oppurtunity to see if our perceptions are correct (and fix them if need be).

It was propaganda, nothing more...nothing less. The LTSA would have been involved in setting this up and they would of seen it as a good natural platform to con us all into thinking their way.

There's a conspiracy at hand.

riffer
23rd March 2004, 16:00
There's a conspiracy at hand.
Hmmm. You could be right. I'd dispute whether the major cause of road safety problems in this country is people speeding. LTSA's own statistics don't bear this out.

I got 70% on the test. Major stuffup on the question about the two cars turning into a three-lane road. Based on reality I assumed the blue car turning right could cut the red car off by going right across three lanes - and imagined the red car should wait a while to see what the idiot in the blue car would do. I guess LTSA don't consider reality in the test.

The rest of my stuffups were mainly the stats...

I didn't watch the program. Wife wanted to see results of NZ Idol and I was head down at the laptop in the lounge taking refuge in KB.

wari
23rd March 2004, 16:37
Hmmm. You could be right. ...

I didn't watch the program. Wife wanted to see results of NZ Idol and I was head down at the laptop in the lounge taking refuge in KB.

Thats what I like to hear ... :spudguita :spudbooge

Hitcher
23rd March 2004, 16:38
We are about to enter, I suspect, the darklands of bodgy statistics at which the LTSA is a master force.

Don't forget that the stats get carved different ways: The same accident event (drunk driver, no seatbelt, failing to stop at an intersection, therefore going too quickly, in an unregistered vehicle with bald tyres, with an unrestrained child in the rear, etc) gets divided up into the myriad of categories that have been created for purposes best known to the propeller-heads at the LTSA.

Also the LTSA does not examine or report adequately on CAUSE of accidents at known blackspots, just that this is where people routinely get killed.

Speed doesn't kill. Failure to stop/take necessary evasive action is what kills. Certainly speed contributes to a driver's/rider's ability to stop or adequately control their vehicle but it is not the CAUSE.

Dismounts hobby horse, returns it to stable.

Wenier
23rd March 2004, 16:41
yea i found overall the program was a let down when they brought out the stats questions that u would have to guess to get right. and comon 150bhp for an '04 R1 that cant b right :)

Coldkiwi
23rd March 2004, 17:27
i just had a conversation with a mate of mine who did a BSc in Stats at Uni about that program. I didn't see it but debated that speed was the cause of fatal accidents and said that 'rider error' was the primary cause. I then mentioned i had doubts about LTSA's crash data havign seen their loaded questions and stats. His response was:

Trust me - you give me a table of figures showing the annual wheat production
in France, and I'll be able to use it to prove that the most common source of
fatal motorcycle accidents is actually accidentally pressing the ejector seat
while driving under a bridge. Statistics prove anything.

..and he's quite right!
for instance:

"50% of British 11 year olds know of someone who is currently having sex in
their year at school."

It might not have been 11 year olds.. might have been 10 or 12, but anyway....
look at the wording. It's stupid. 50% know of someone having sex. So, let's say
we have 2 schools, with 300 11 yr olds each. of these 600 kids, 1 is having sex.
Just one. Everyone at school is going to know about it, so all of a sudden, 50%
of the pool of 600 kids know about it. Chances are some of the kids from school
A are friends with kids from school B. All it takes is for 1 person from school
B to hear about it, and then they will all know about it, and now it's up to
100% of the kids know. Add in school C... and so on and so forth.,....

So really, saying that 50% of the kids know someone having sex only means that
there is at least 1 person in the whole of Britain who is having sex, and is 11,
and that the school networking system isn't perfect... there are some schools
who are totally isolated from others.


BEWARE THE STATISTICIANS!

pete376403
23rd March 2004, 17:46
"There are lies, damned lies and statistics" - Samuel Clemens.

mangell6
23rd March 2004, 19:39
You forgot to mention "Excessive Speed"

Watched it and the major cause of motorcycles accidents is "excessive speed".

What is "Excessive Speed"?

speedpro
23rd March 2004, 19:55
I hope everyone has bothered to send the TV station their thoughts on the programme. If inteligent viewers don't make their views known the station will continue showing this type of programme.

Lou Girardin
23rd March 2004, 21:38
40% for the studio audience, 70 - 76% for people on the net or texting. What a bloody joke! Then there was the Asian woman who thought she was a good driver because she drove slowly.
Imagine what practical testing would show up.
And we're sharing the road with these prats.
Lou

Posh Tourer :P
23rd March 2004, 22:32
I was pretty disappointed with the studio audience.... and even the attitudes of the presenters in making it all a big joke that they all got 40% in the road code test... that says to me (in very very bad logic) that in over half the situations they encounter, they dont know what they are doing.... I tried the test and got 14/15 for the real part of it, not the propaganda part from big brother at the end re drikn driving, accidents without seatbelts, etc. Although I was surprised at the difference in stopping distance between 50 and 60kmh.... has that been verified? I would like to know, as the best cars brake 100-0 in about 33m, how does 10kmh induce that much difference, even allowing for worse brakes. Interesting to note the presenters going on about the wonders of ABS.... it allows drivers to steer while having their foot to the floor on the brake... may or may not be beneficial, I have heard that there can be instances where the driver has "turned the wrong way" and got themselves into more trouble.
What we essentially need is much better licencing. Eg. Guy from Denmark I talked to over the summer was getting his motorcycle licence (In Demark), spent a total of maybe 2 weeks in riding school. Had 3 days of practicing emergency stops.... It pissed down and was very cold ie icy in places, and they were still out practicing emergency stops. Now if that doesnt teach you how to slow down safely in any conditions I dont know what will

Lou Girardin
24th March 2004, 06:46
That's good point on ABS. When it first became common in the States, the NHTSB were puzzled why accidents in 1st and 2nd generation ABS equipped cars were higher than for others. They investigated and found that a lot of drivers panicked when the pedal started pulsing and released the brakes.
Lou

Drunken Monkey
24th March 2004, 08:28
... has that been verified? I would like to know, as the best cars brake 100-0 in about 33m, how does 10kmh induce that much difference, even allowing for worse brakes. Interesting to note the presenters going on about the wonders of ABS.... it allows drivers to steer while having their foot to the floor on the brake... may or may not be beneficial, I have heard that there can be instances where the driver has "turned the wrong way" and got themselves into more trouble.

Some more info/thoughts.

A new Mazda 6 can do 100-0 in 21m, at 1.05 lateral G's. Tested and proven.

My old Mk III supra would come to a lurching, tyre smoke infested stop from 100 in around 40m at a pathetic 0.76 lateral G's (locking up over 0.69G's). Pish, and they called it a sports car!

My flatmate's old Fairmont's shitty drums would take longer to stop the car than the H.M.S. Hood (7 nautical miles)

That 10m is based on an 'average' braking distance of 35m (or was it 38?). You could see from the demonstration which had cones at 5m intervals in the first braking test, the distance differential was actually only around 7-8m. It would be more accurate to describe it as a percentage - that 20% extra speed (ie 50km/h vs 60km/h) requires 'about' 20% extra braking distance (35m vs 42m). Since energy is expressed as a square of velocity, so that will make up the extra 3m or so...


There can always be exceptions to the rule, but being able to steer around a hazard while braking is a generally good thing. Though that's not the same as using that ability effectively!

Food for thought, anyway...

Coldkiwi
24th March 2004, 09:24
My flatmate's old Fairmont's shitty drums would take longer to stop the car than the H.M.S. Hood (7 nautical miles)

...

uhh, to my knowledge, once the germans applied the heavy 16" 'brakes' to the Hood's ammunition store, the ol Hood was stopped pretty damn quickly indeed.
(3 survivors out of 1407 crew)

Drunken Monkey
24th March 2004, 09:30
uhh, to my knowledge, once the germans applied the heavy 16" 'brakes' to the Hood's ammunition store, the ol Hood was stopped pretty damn quickly indeed.
(3 survivors out of 1407 crew)

That's true...the magazine ran the length of the ship, without seperating compartments. Kaboom big time. But you got my point - I'll bet the 42,000 ton wreck still ploughed through the water a fair distance as it sank tho :)

k14
24th March 2004, 10:09
Exactly why i answered that question 5m (which was wrong according to them). I know that a car mag i sometimes read gets a Commodore to stop from 100-0 in about 35m. So saying that 10km more makes 10m difference is just bullshit. It is just to stop people from going 60 in a 50 zone.

More propaganda bullshit.

Coldkiwi
24th March 2004, 11:06
not necessarily K14... kinetic energy stored by a moving vehicle is a squared function (someone stop me) of its velocity. so picking up twice as much speed actually increases the energy get it back down to that speed is four times as much.. ie. your brakes do 4 times the work. hence why it doesn't take 5m to stop at 10kph and 50m to stop at 100kmhr

Wenier
24th March 2004, 11:52
but it is really to do with driver reactions in this case because they are using the same cars with i guess same setup of everything. But there is no gaurentee how each driver will actually react.

georgedubyabush
24th March 2004, 13:40
I was in hysterics the way Kelly Swanson-Roe was throwing herself around in the passenger seat under the 'extreme Gs' of an extra 10km/hr through the cones. And when Oscar hiffed the watermelon out the front windscreen when he was supposed to be holding it as tight as he could...

merv
24th March 2004, 18:21
I was in hysterics the way Kelly Swanson-Roe was throwing herself around in the passenger seat under the 'extreme Gs' of an extra 10km/hr through the cones. And when Oscar hiffed the watermelon out the front windscreen when he was supposed to be holding it as tight as he could...

Yeah anyone with half an intention of enjoying the ride could easily have braced themselves in the seat during the slalom, and of course at least hung on to the water melon by wrapping their arms around it. Just trying to scare the 40% Joes who don't know better eh!! And as for the 40% crowd they didn't even have a blonde group like they did on the IQ test a while ago.

It is definitely a worry how little so many of then knew and no wonder the driving we see is so appalling. They needed a motorcyclist group there to show the way. At least the taxi driver and the asian woman weren't complete bozos.

Posh Tourer :P
24th March 2004, 20:07
Thanks CK and DM for clearing that up for me.... still quite a scary and significant difference.... I'd have to see it to believe it, but certainly 10m looked to be rounded up a bit....
Anyway....
I'd agree with you george... the asian lady, despite her profession of driving carefully=good driving early on, definitely wasnt a *complete* bozo...though there was a high level of bozoness in the room

James Deuce
24th March 2004, 20:46
i just had a conversation with a mate of mine who did a BSc in Stats at Uni about that program. I didn't see it but debated that speed was the cause of fatal accidents and said that 'rider error' was the primary cause. I then mentioned i had doubts about LTSA's crash data havign seen their loaded questions and stats. His response was:

Trust me - you give me a table of figures showing the annual wheat production
in France, and I'll be able to use it to prove that the most common source of
fatal motorcycle accidents is actually accidentally pressing the ejector seat
while driving under a bridge. Statistics prove anything.

..and he's quite right!
for instance:

"50% of British 11 year olds know of someone who is currently having sex in
their year at school."

It might not have been 11 year olds.. might have been 10 or 12, but anyway....
look at the wording. It's stupid. 50% know of someone having sex. So, let's say
we have 2 schools, with 300 11 yr olds each. of these 600 kids, 1 is having sex.
Just one. Everyone at school is going to know about it, so all of a sudden, 50%
of the pool of 600 kids know about it. Chances are some of the kids from school
A are friends with kids from school B. All it takes is for 1 person from school
B to hear about it, and then they will all know about it, and now it's up to
100% of the kids know. Add in school C... and so on and so forth.,....

So really, saying that 50% of the kids know someone having sex only means that
there is at least 1 person in the whole of Britain who is having sex, and is 11,
and that the school networking system isn't perfect... there are some schools
who are totally isolated from others.


BEWARE THE STATISTICIANS!

Might also just be that 50% of 11 year old's at that particular school just woke up to the fact that their Mum & Dad have sex.

k14
24th March 2004, 20:52
not necessarily K14... kinetic energy stored by a moving vehicle is a squared function (someone stop me) of its velocity. so picking up twice as much speed actually increases the energy get it back down to that speed is four times as much.. ie. your brakes do 4 times the work. hence why it doesn't take 5m to stop at 10kph and 50m to stop at 100kmhr

Yes, i know the physics of energy (Ek = 1/2mV^2).

But what i am trying to say is that if a holden commodore (which would have alot more mass than those toyotas (i think) that they did it in) can stop from 100kph in about 40m or so and they think that going 60kph as opposed to 50kph makes you take 10m more to stop, it doesnt take a physics expert to say that something doesn't add up.

Hence, it is just propaganda from the LTSA to stop people going 60 in a 50 zone. It was all put out of proportion imo.

Lou Girardin
25th March 2004, 06:42
I was in hysterics the way Kelly Swanson-Roe was throwing herself around in the passenger seat under the 'extreme Gs' of an extra 10km/hr through the cones. And when Oscar hiffed the watermelon out the front windscreen when he was supposed to be holding it as tight as he could...

It was 5km/h and she then tries to tell us that the car was out of control!
Lou

Wenier
25th March 2004, 07:36
Yea thats rite lou it was 5km and she said it was "so out of control" :laugh: wut a crack up go LTSA for making most ppl i guess take ur BS. And that asian women said she hadnt had any crashes because she drove slowly, so in other words she might know the road code and all but she still could be doing 45km in a 50 and making other people do odd things to get past as she is holding them up! :)

Towelie :D