What would you do to make the roads safer?

[vinnieh]

What would you do to make NZ's roads safer if you were a Road Safety Minister?

I would:


Cops carry special hammers and can bash a car or motorbike on any non-glass surface if the driver is caught infringing the law. Refusal to co-operate results in a jail term.
<br>
Fines for bikers multiplied by 3 (e.g. a $100 fine becomes $300)
<br>
Bikers that are repeat offender speeders get their bikes crushed - no exceptions
<br>
Most areas of motorways - 110km/h speed limit (like Australian highways)
<br>
People should have the option to pay off their fines or do community work instead of paying a fine (I'd much rather do a bit of work in the community rather than pay the government, plus it'd be a good way to meet fellow speeders;))
Drink driving automatically equals a prison term or or community work (why should it be more affordable for rich people to drink drive?)
<br>
People on learners and restricted licenses can't drive cars with engines larger than 1.6l, turbos not allowed.
<br>
Automatic fine for people driving more than 20kmh under the speed limit unless they have a reasonable excuse (e.g. trailer, engine troubles)
<br>
Roads are built properly, come up with some formula that determines how sharp a corner can be - i.e. no ridiculously sharp corners, roads are designed to last for more than 5 years (most roads are only designed to last for 5 years before complete resealing is needed)
<br>
Speed limit automatically reduced by 20km/h when it's raining. vehicles must turn on headlights in rain or risk fines
<br>
People under the age of 21 (that includes me) can't purchase powerful motorbikes or cars
<br>
WOFs needed every 12 months instead of 6, and 2 years for new cars. Introduce compulsory 3rd party insurance



(PS: just kidding about those first three rules ;))

[piston broke]

a 6 lane arterial(sp)from one end of the country to the other

[devnull]

Handguns for bikers.

Cagers are less likely to endanger our lives if it means they also endanger theirs :dodge:

[BMWST?]

a 6 lane arterial(sp)from one end of the country to the other



Roads are built properly come up with some formula that determines how sharp a corner can be - i.e. no ridiculously sharp corners, roads are designed to last for more than 5 years

you sure you guys actually ride bikes on our highways...the corners are the best part!

[PirateJafa]

Elect Katman as supreme Fuhrer.

That should keep everyone cowering in their homes.

[1 Free Man]

What would you do to make NZ's roads safer if you were a Road Safety Minister?

I would:

[LIST]
Cops carry special hammers and can bash a car or motorbike on any non-glass surface if the driver is caught infringing the law. Refusal to co-operate results in a jail term.
<br>
Fines for bikers multiplied by 3 (e.g. a $100 fine becomes $300)
<br>
Bikers that are repeat offender speeders get their bikes crushed - no exceptions



(PS: just kidding about those first three rules ;))

Just as well I was going to suggest you be burned at the stake!:angry:

[James Deuce]

Ban bikes.

Ban cars.

Put bombs in trucks attached to the "tamper proof" speed limiter. Exceed 90km/hr, get blown up.

Put seatbelts in buses.

Shoot taxi drivers.

Execute anyone who has ever owned a scooter, a skateboard or a push bike.

[Sketchy_Racer]

Ban scooters

Kill scooter riders

Wrap everyone in bubble warp......


Seriously, if you think the roads are too dangerous as they are, get the fuck off them and stop trying to fix something that ain't broken

[Sketchy_Racer]

Oh but to seriously answer your question, re-introduce PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY

Seems no one knows what that is these days. It's always someone else's fault.

[BOGAR]

What Sketchy Racer said plus
Don’t limit engine size on the cars / bikes make it a limited HP instead.
Have car / bike crushed after x number of repeats for different offences.
These people who are getting 10 drink driving convictions should be locked away, they should not even be able to get that many.
I agree with the 110 km/h on motorways.
Make it illegal for people in front doing 80km/h to speed up at passing lanes.
As for the roads being built properly it only comes down to cost. Some road contracts only last for 5 years. You could make the road last longer but if you don’t re-win the contract someone else gets an easy 5 years.
I like the idea for people to get WOFs every year except for people who fail it. You could make an exception on things like one light out or a number plate light and a side lamp…just because if you walk through town and look at peoples tyres you may see quite a few that are bald.
But how long would it be with a good working system for some twat to add something stupid again.

[vifferman]

When I am OberFuhrer of OuterRower, I'm going to repeal all laws, especially the ones pertaining to safety. You can't make the roads safer by making more laws. Also, vehicles have become too safe and cosseting, and the roads are too easy to navigate with impunity. They need to be more challenging.
If people don't measure up in the driving skills department, they will get pwnd by themsleves.
Yeah, I *know* they'll also pwn other motorists. What's your point?
Life has a 100% mortality rate.

[MSTRS]

Oh but to seriously answer your question, re-introduce PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY

Seems no one knows what that is these days. It's always someone else's fault.

I second this.
Because everytime something is 'improved', an improved idiot comes along to negate the benefit.

[BOGAR]

Funny enough one study found by opening the road up and making it wider people were having more accidents and driving faster because the perceived risk is less even if the road stays unchanged. So building these wider safer roads isn’t always the best option.

[Jantar]

A good question. I would comment that almost all suggestions in this thread so far are about enforcing the existing laws rather than making the roads safer. I believe that safety comes through reducing the cause of accidents in the first place, rather than blindly following some politician's mantra.

That means improved driver/rider training in many areas, and some road modification in others.

Such as keeping a good lookout: In aviation, no pilot is permitted to go solo until he/she has demonstrated the ability to lookout for other aircraft, and that's in 3 dimensions. On the road all we ask is that drivers/riders look in 2 dimensions and most can't even do that.

Such as reading the road surface: Motorcyclists are often better at this than drivers, yet how often do we read that riders get it wrong and slide out on painted lines or looses gravel.

Such as looking through bends: All drivers/riders are able to corner much more confidently when they can see through a bend or corner. This may require engineering on some roads, not to change the road surface, but to clear visual obstacles.

[madbikeboy]

We're a super aggressive nation (anyone recall Goofy and Mr Hyde) behind the wheel of a car. Remove that national aggression, and instead replace it with courtesy and awareness.

Failing that, and a less peaceful option:
1. Organise a night in Hamilton where anyone can drive, speed, take drugs, and drive. Should aolve our issues by the 3rd night (accounting for slow learners)

2. Make gas for SUV's $20/litre.

3. Make gas for anyone driving a mid life crisis (HSV/XR6 etc) $50 per litre

Ahh, this is too hard, the unfunny thing is nothing is going to change, in fact, as our roads get increasingly crowded, the problems will escalate...

[Usarka]

Have a mandatory fail rate for driving tests of say 40%.

[Slyer]

Make all driving tests at night and during pouring rain on a poorly lit gravel road.
Public executions for repeated drunk drivers.

[vifferman]

Have a mandatory fail rate for driving tests of say 40%.
It's like that now - the examiners get paid by the test, so it's in their interests to arbitrarily fail applicants as a revenue-generating exercise.

[vifferman]

Driving on the road in Noo Zilund is a real-life version of The Wacky Races. You guys seem to be forgetting that - you should be thinking about your strategies for the next round, not worrying so much about what the other competitors are up to.

[Slyer]

Which is good, it should be in their best interests that they pass only those that are worthy.

[kiwifruit]

Stop using the roads as a race track

[BOGAR]

But aren’t we designing a country were we can't fail. NCEA jumps to mind here. But I do like the idea of harder driving conditions for tests ( rain at night ect) and a set fail rate. But then we need to also look at overseas drivers. When I came back from the states I could drive on that licence for a year. Crazy.

[eelracing]

Ban seat belts and have 12 inch knife blades poking out of steering wheel columns at drivers chests.

[Slyer]

Ban seat belts and have 12 inch knife blades poking out of steering wheel columns at drivers chests.

Have a look just over half way down this page:
http://www.carbibles.com/nannycars.html
Lots of other good points on that page too.

[FROSTY]

I would remove most of our road rules and introduce one simple road rule.
USE COMMON SENSE.

Some rules would have to stay so the above could be relivant --but not many.


I'D also introduce a graduated licence system that encourages people to improve their drive/riding skills.

[Goblin]

What would you do to make NZ's roads safer if you were a Road Safety Minister?

I would:

[LIST]
Cops carry special hammers and can bash a car or motorbike on any non-glass surface if the driver is caught infringing the law. Refusal to co-operate results in a jail term.
<br>
Are you a panelbeater?

[Badjelly]

I would remove most of our road rules and introduce one simple road rule. USE COMMON SENSE.

I do think we should keep DRIVE ON THE LEFT :msn-wink:

I expect you'll have heard of the new trend in urban road design to eliminate most of the signs, road markings, obstacles and let people decide where they can drive, park and walk. They say it makes people behave more thoughtfully and sensibly. It sounds great, but I'm a little sceptical.

[Ixion]

To make the roads safer? Dig holes in them. Seriously.

[sunhuntin]

id remove all people movers, specially those driven by exclusive brethern. [yeh, i know its spelt wrong and i really couldnt care less] they are THE worst drivers on the road.

[Manxman]

Oh but to seriously answer your question, re-introduce PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY

Seems no one knows what that is these days. It's always someone else's fault.

Bling for the correct answer.

[slofox]

Making the roads safer is the wrong move.

The biggest problem the planet faces is human over-population. Given NZ's reputation as a "world leader in social reform", here is another chance to reinforce that reputation and set the world yet another example.....
Instead of striving to lower the road toll, we should be trying to maximise it. That way, less people. So less health costs, education costs etc etc the list goes on. Saves MONEY!
To that end: Make the minimum speed 150km/hr on open roads and 80km/hr in town. NO maximum speed. DO NOT maintain the roads so that they get more and more dangerous as they fall to bits. No minimum driving age. No licence required to drive and all vehicles to be grossly overpowered. Do away with WOF's. No cops, no lights no roundabouts or any other method of traffic control. NO ambulance services to smashes either. In anyone is injured, just put 'em out of their misery - with a shotgun should do it....
Any other bright ideas?

[Slyer]

That is a good idea but wouldn't it be preferable to eliminate the morons first? Smart people can die this way. ;)

[Usarka]

Unfortunately it's all the stupid people who are breeding.:Pokey:

[vinnieh]

Making the roads safer is the wrong move.

The biggest problem the planet faces is human over-population. Given NZ's reputation as a "world leader in social reform", here is another chance to reinforce that reputation and set the world yet another example.....
Instead of striving to lower the road toll, we should be trying to maximise it. That way, less people. So less health costs, education costs etc etc the list goes on. Saves MONEY!
To that end: Make the minimum speed 150km/hr on open roads and 80km/hr in town. NO maximum speed. DO NOT maintain the roads so that they get more and more dangerous as they fall to bits. No minimum driving age. No licence required to drive and all vehicles to be grossly overpowered. Do away with WOF's. No cops, no lights no roundabouts or any other method of traffic control. NO ambulance services to smashes either. In anyone is injured, just put 'em out of their misery - with a shotgun should do it....
Any other bright ideas?

Haha agreed 100% lol

[vifferman]

Unfortunately it's all the stupid people who are breeding.:Pokey:
That must include me, I guess, seeing I have three (3!) progeny, one of whom periodically berates me for procreating...
However (but!) it is extremely unlikely the dynasty will continue, as none of them is remotely likely to ever end up with a partner. Weirdness is rather unattractive.
Beats me how I ever landed a partner...
Oh - that's right: she's short-sighted.

[Swoop]

Elect Katman as supreme Fuhrer.

That should keep everyone cowering in their homes.
Why? People would confuse him with any other whining dickhead.

We're a super aggressive nation (anyone recall Goofy and Mr Hyde) behind the wheel of a car.
Great cartoon!

I do think we should keep DRIVE ON THE LEFT
Whaddaya mean "keep"? Nobody obeys that bloody rule now!

[Katman]

Elect Katman as supreme Fuhrer.

That should keep everyone cowering in their homes.

I'm grateful for your nomination.

Do you think they can get my name on the ballot papers by tomorrow?

[PirateJafa]

I'm grateful for your nomination.

Do you think they can get my name on the ballot papers by tomorrow?

I've got some crayons...

[wbks]

Heres a code: Lower speed limit, add even more laws restricting how people live and eliminate personal responsibility. I call it: Soviet New Zealand.

[NighthawkNZ]

Wrap everyone in bubble warp......

Actually that could be fun... :blink:

[Max Preload]

Take the licenses off the passing lane drag racers and miscellaneous other fuckwits like the one I encountered today in the car between Port Waikato and SH22, who slowed to a crawl around the corners and on short straights then as soon as the opportunity came for me to pass him, sped up. Then he wonders why I cut him off pulling back in, so flashes his headlights and gets the bird in return. New Zealanders are un-fucking-believably inconsiderate drivers.

[popelli]

make car drivers have to have a bike licence for 5 years before they can get a car licence

the darwin theory would eliminate the worst of them and the those that survived would have far more road sense

[unhingedlizard]

1. As previously mentioned, a 6 lane highway from wellington to Auckland. (I realise this is impractical as "New Zealand is such a small country" but that only money conserns to be overcome. When they built the Malau Bridge/Titanic/other engineering marvals they had to overcome the experts grasp of physics. Would be more beneficially than a new stadium or an overseas boat race.
2. Increase the driving age. Honestly, 15?
3. Power restrictions on drivers up to the age of 25. You want to modifiy your car that is fine. You will then need to provide a certified Dyno chart AT YOUR EXPENSE, to get it through a WOF or present to a Police Officer if you are pulled over.
4. Drink driving is not exceptable. Period. First offence = Big fine, Second offence = Jail Time, Third offence = Never allowed to drive on the public highway again.
5. Social training for young drivers to begin before they get behiond the wheel. E.g. teaching young drivers the way they are expected to behave in advance of physical driver training.
6. Introduction of a 12 month but more stringent WOF.
7. Increase the National Limit for "Approved Drivers" I.e you want to go 140kph there is a training program and test as well as subjecting your vehicle to 6 month inturum WOF's as apposed to the new 12 month WOF.
8. Death penalty for any EURO driver who drives around with thier fog lights on during the day. That gets my goat.

Oh and easier scope for adjusting ideas and laws that are not working.

Sing with me,
"I used to rullllleee the world,
seas would rise when i gave the word......."

[Slyer]

I agree with all of those except 3 and 8.
I'm thinking age 18-20 and community service.

[Max Preload]

2. Increase the driving age. Honestly, 15?

Nobody I know that has not learned to drive early is any good at it.


3. Power restrictions on drivers up to the age of 25. You want to modifiy your car that is fine. You will then need to provide a certified Dyno chart AT YOUR EXPENSE, to get it through a WOF or present to a Police Officer if you are pulled over.

Impractical. How do you know it's 'modified'.


4. Drink driving is not acceptable. Period. First offence = Big fine, Second offence = Jail Time, Third offence = Never allowed to drive on the public highway again.

Perhaps a bit over the top, but I see what you're saying.


5. Social training for young drivers to begin before they get behiond the wheel. E.g. teaching young drivers the way they are expected to behave in advance of physical driver training.

Teaching? Showing & explaining, perhaps.


6. Introduction of a 12 month but more stringent WOF.
7. Increase the National Limit for "Approved Drivers" I.e you want to go 140kph there is a training program and test as well as subjecting your vehicle to 6 month inturum WOF's as apposed to the new 12 month WOF.

Hard to police the increase limit and definitely no to the 12 month WoF - too many NZers think a WoF is a substitute for maintenance already - no need to check tyres for exposed cords etc - it's got a WoF and the vehicle will be perfect until the day it 'expires'!!!.


8. Death penalty for any EURO driver who drives around with thier fog lights on during the day. That gets my goat.

And at night and any other time it's not foggy. :2thumbsup

[Genestho]

Money earned from revenue to be re-invested into roadsafety education as it is overseas.

4. Drink driving is not acceptable. Period. First offence = Big fine, Second offence = Jail Time, Third offence = Never allowed to drive on the public highway again.

Perhaps a bit over the top, but I see what you're saying.

A bit over the top, hows that?

Its not acceptable to wave a gun around on our streets, yets its acceptable to have a weapon in the hands of someone incapable of driving, potential risk of death is the same - if not more? And these weapons are accesable to any old cowboy..

Theres a suggestion that to be caught a second time is indicative of abuse or dependancy, because the first time, we supposedly should learn from the shame, fine, legal sanctions and education, and not go there again...there also needs to be consideration taken into high BAC readings even on first offence

Second Offence = Jail time but jail time served to its full sentence, and sent to a & d for assessment (54% of drink drivers are on their 4/5th offence before being ordered for assessment) interlocking devices installed user pays after earning the license back through assesment and treatment programs and post sentencing monitoring via Health and Dept of Corrections, with a National Database.

A Recidivist has three plus convictions:

Third time = Jail time served to its full and more appropriate sentence, the car confiscated for good - regardless of ownership, auctioned - money re-invested into anti drink drive education.
And keep removing the weapon regardless of ownership, that brings others into whether or not they want to lend their car to a drunk risk potentially loosing it, it appears loss of something material or getting caught has a bigger impact than causing death.

Sure remove licences for good, but thats just "paper" its supposed to be law, but 2007 there were 1203 "indefinately" disqualified drivers caught with excess blood alcohol readings.

And quite frankly if everyone were to experience a preventable death in the family on the roads at the hands of another, it would be a sure way to re-evaluate your input on the roads, and personal responsibility

Maybe everyone should should have to survive a smash or simulate surviving a smash, feel the car roll, hear the steel scream, feel the impact, and undertand the damage car and bike and road impacts can do, at high speed and respect your body doesnt bend, it shatters like glass.


Personally I wonder how painted lines prevents the idiots from popping over to see how it is on my side of the road....


DRIVER EDUCATION from a young age, and lots of it, say no more.

[unhingedlizard]

Money earned from revenue to be re-invested into roadsafety education as it is overseas.

4. Drink driving is not acceptable. Period. First offence = Big fine, Second offence = Jail Time, Third offence = Never allowed to drive on the public highway again.

Perhaps a bit over the top, but I see what you're saying.

A bit over the top, hows that?


Personally I wonder how painted lines prevents the idiots from popping over to see how it is on my side of the road....


DRIVER EDUCATION from a young age, and lots of it, say no more.

Absolutely agree with everything you have said. I have often wondered if we lived in a world with no private transportation, and you went to parliment with a plan to allow anyone that completes a small amount of training to drive vehicles weighing up to 4.5 tonnes directly towards each other at a combined speed of 200kph seperated only by a thin line of white paint, how far you would get before being laughed out of the debating chamber.

[Pedrostt500]

I was going to propose some hard arse laws but what is realy needed is EDUCATION.

[Elysium]

Ban most of the female population from owning 4wd trucks.

[Wingnut]

After reading many a thread on him, probably banning Carver and his moron few would be a good start. Anyone who rides at an extremely slow pace is just endangering themselfes and others around them!

[NighthawkNZ]

What would you do to make NZ's roads safer if you were a Road Safety Minister?

Stop every one but me from using the roads...

[Choco]

1. Car drivers on learners/restricted cant drive anything over 1.6L or with a turbo. (we get it why shouldnt they?)
2. Community service for 1st drink driving/riding offenses and then jail time.
3. I also agree with 3rd party insurance becoming compulsory.

All done :D

[rudolph]

The Nazis had the right idear :Punk:

[Genestho]

1. Car drivers on learners/restricted cant drive anything over 1.6L or with a turbo. (we get it why shouldnt they?)
2. Community service for 1st drink driving/riding offenses and then jail time.
3. I also agree with 3rd party insurance becoming compulsory.

All done :D

1.That makes sense

2. We do that now, community service on first offence and also for the 5th, 17th etc, problem with that idea is - unless jailtime was a substantial amount - some convictions are quite spread out... eg, remove these people from our roads for good for road users safety, (which its not going to be, comparing "other" sentences) they'll get straight back out, into their cars pissed, onto a road near you.

54% of drink drivers are not ordered for assessment until 4/5th offence

Only 5% of all drink drivers were ordered to attend A&D treatment, we need to aim for long term recovery not just the education provided, and we do not monitor after the current 12 weeks of education.

For every one drink driver convicted and assessed, we fail to intervene and assess and aim treatment at another 10, that need it.

There is no - one, magic bullet, it will take more than one solution, but there are options that are proven to reduce recidivism which we to date in NZ have not tried. We need to stop clinging to the old ways and move with the times, if recidivism is rising by 13% and drink driving by 15%, change the "bloody idiot" record in anti drink drive advertising..

3. I also agree with 3rd party insurance becoming compulsory

[/QUOTE]

[mister.koz]

Well, i saw somewhere that 90% of accidents that involve cages and bikes are the cager's fault.

So i reckon make it compulsary that you get your bike licence for 2 years and pass at least the restricted test on a bike before applying for your car learners.

Courtesy on the road and complete idiots are the main issue, people who ride bikes are normally more courteous and the stupid ones are more likely to get some smarts feared into them.

I was riding upto a corner the other day at twilight and there were so many signs that i had to dip my headlights to see, seems to me unsafe to have more signs that seal on a corner.

[James Deuce]

Well, i saw somewhere that 90% of accidents that involve cages and bikes are the cager's fault.

So i reckon make it compulsary that you get your bike licence for 2 years and pass at least the restricted test on a bike before applying for your car learners.

Courtesy on the road and complete idiots are the main issue, people who ride bikes are normally more courteous and the stupid ones are more likely to get some smarts feared into them.


There's so many contradictions and distorted truths in there that I don't know where to start.

So instead I'm going to have a Tequila and got to bed.

[mister.koz]

There's so many contradictions and distorted truths in there that I don't know where to start.

So instead I'm going to have a Tequila and got to bed.

Meh, whether the 90% is a fact or fiction i don't know or care. I do think that after a year on a bike you develop a better awareness on the road and more courtesy.

Surely more courteous and aware drivers can't be a bad thing.

[Slyer]

Although completely unfeasible.

[mister.koz]

Although completely unfeasible.

Its still an idea.

Changing rules wont effect the idiots who get pissed and drive or the people who have had their licence for 20 years and refuse to re-learn how to indicate on roundabouts.

The fact is morons will be morons.

Perhaps making it compulsary for people to sit (and pass) a practical defensive driving course before getting their restricted licence (bike and cars)

I think that the drinking things should be much much harder, especially on repeat offenders.

[vgcspares]

The theme of bike training for all makes a lot of sense, but as already observed, totally impractical.

Depleted skills when drunk is more than adequately legislated against, so what we're talking about are the near non existent skills of the sober majority.

Surely the solution would be a license retest (practical not written multiple choice) every 3-5 years - fail and you're off the road.

[mister.koz]

The theme of bike training for all makes a lot of sense, but as already observed, totally impractical.

Depleted skills when drunk is more than adequately legislated against, so what we're talking about are the near non existent skills of the sober majority.

Surely the solution would be a license retest (practical not written multiple choice) every 3-5 years - fail and you're off the road.

I gotta agree with you there, its the people on the road who can't drive and don't know the rules who need to be woken up.

[Genestho]

.

Depleted skills when drunk is more than adequately legislated against, so what we're talking about are the near non existent skills of the sober majority.



Oh really? At the risk of sounding like an emotional widow, or a religious zealot, I will make no apologies for what I am about to say: wakeup dude.

My Husband was killed by a drunk who had 20 years history of drink driving, and four prior convictions - indefinately disqualified.

He tried to sit his license 2 years prior and failed, he killed our 2 friends and my husband surivived and then died.

If drink driving was adequately legislated I would have celebrated my second and subsequent wedding anniversaries and shared the future of our baby who was 7months, and his big brother who was 3 - with my best mate.

The guy that killed three people and himself and put his kids at risk, was 137/100 mg 4 hours after he smashed into our lives, and 8 hours after - 93/100mg of blood.
Go back and do the math of how his limit may have been at time of crash and before he chose to drive, that indicates that he was rotten drunk.

His post mortem showed he had extensive liver disease.

There were three kids in the car whose statements are horrific, what they went through prior to crashing is irreprehensible and in my opinion neglectfull.
My husbands bike hit the car that crossed the centreline straight after our friend, front and back, and rode the bonnet until he was dumped a metre from the car.

The woman who tried to help my husband stay calm for an hour until emergency services came, walked past our mates leg, to get to him..
Her marriage is now split because of this day

Our mate was one with the car engine, the bonnet and roof and then came off the back, his lady 38 metres up the road, dead.
My husband knew his friends were dead, he could hear kids screaming.
Then he died in hospital, after waiting for me to arrive, to tell me this wasnt his fault.
He was sadly coherent, and in massive pain. I never heard him complain about being sick ever and would work regardless, last time I saw him in pain and showing it was in '96.

This couldve been prevented both by personal responsibilty and more appropriate legislative measures!

If drink driving is adequately legislated why is recidivism and drink driving rates rising?

Nathing King 28, killed by drunk driver, the driver sentenced to a years home D and $11.000 reperation, 250 hours community service

Jonathon Keough 29
Killed by a repeat drink driver - The impact was so great that Jonathan died at the scene. Despite not wearing a seat-belt Mr Cashman was uninjured. He was sentenced to three years prison for excess alcohol causing death; he is eligible for parole after two years. Under current sub-standard legislation this can be considered a good sentence.
At sentencing the Judge described him as a clear peril every time he got behind the wheel.

Mr Cashman's blood alcohol count was almost twice the legal limit, he recklessly hurtled his car over two passing lanes of flat straight road and he had several convictions for drunk and dangerous driving.
Cashman was released in July 2008, released on parole and did not serve full sentence

Tara Groenestein 36 killed by a drunk driver 3x over the limit, one years home D, disqualified from driving for a year.


These are just but a few stories, there are many many more

And in the suggested box of magic tricks targeting alarm bells of high bac and recidivism? Lowering the BAC which has been proven to be a failure:

"The rationale behind lowering BAC is fundamentally flawed as it fails to make connection between a lower BAC limit and alcohol related crashes.
There is a process involved in changing drink drive behavior that includes drivers becoming aware of the law, becoming motivated to comply with the law and understanding how to comply with the lower limit, there is little evidence to suggest that the introduction of a lower BAC limit has an effect on this process, hence, there is little reason to expect a reduction in alcohol related crashes.

In addition the rationale for a lower BAC limit fails to acknowledge the powerful influence that alcohol abuse or dependence has on behavior, People with alcohol problems account for the majority of alcohol related crashes.
Their drinking behavior and subsequent driving is not easily changed.
Regardless of a lower BAC limit this high risk group will continue to drink heavily and drive afterwards, lowering the limit is a measure directed at the wrong group of drivers”.

This from an international study with findings from Canada, Sweden and Australia

http://www.trafficinjuryresearch.com/publications/PDF_publications/BAC_Limits.pdf

And its not just a bunch of emotion ridden people saying things need to change..
http://www.aa.co.nz/about/issues/road-safety/Pages/Alcohol-and-driving.aspx


Mate - If this were to ever happen to you (wouldnt wish it on you!), I hope you can still say confidently "depleted skills when drunk are more than adequately legislated" when you dress your loved one who is cold and grey and smashed up, and watch as they are lowered into the ground.

Sorry to go there but this is real, for a great many people, these lives do and must count for change.
We cannot change the past but we can change the future

[candor]

Oh really? .........
We cannot change the past but we can change the future

Full support. It is not a sobre majority holding the key here. A recent analysis of dead drivers aged 25-35 scraped off NZ roads found that 96% had used either alcohol, drugs or frequently both and 77% were culpable likely as a result!!!

Definately its the wasted not sobre majority killing and being killed in the big bulging age group within the toll.

Legislation adequate:gob:. No way. We are not dealing well with the repeat offenders who are grossly overrepresented in the death and kiling statistics - yet Govt is pushing to waste resources on those in the non risky category, and reluctant to nip the rest in the bud.

At least one hundred die from over 0.08 and they want to lower the limit which could potentially save a meagre 3 lives status quo, but that move may end up killing even more... through tying checkpoint Police up processing and charging non riskies. And making people think an adequate or even major change has occurred. When so much else needs proirity fixing ahead of weak interventions.

As above - and as supported by the AA link Guzzi Widow provided - where is the compulsory treatment for those who clearly need it, the licence loss, the removal from roads until provably safe, the drug testing, the ignition alcolocks, and the message from sentences that killing someone in this state is ummm hey actually a crime - not just the "oopsy daisy" of a bloody idiot that Nanny State will shelter from consequences.

Why were said high risk offenders named above not issued permanent bus passes and consistently checked on by Police who ought have had their names and addresses highlighted in their patrol books. Its a minority causing half the harm - no rocketscience to prevent homicide when it stares in the face.

And another halloween type mystery.... why has Government set a goal that 21% of the road toll shall involve drink drivers, while other Governments have set goals to eliminate the drink drive toll? Why have they set the Road Police RAM (Resource Allocation - read Revenue calculator) computer program to set the target number of checkpoint captures that must be budgeted for and achieved to result in 21% of the toll being drink related by an upcoming year?

Seems cruel to set goals so hostile to road safety which condemn certaibn unknowing road users. Could be you or me factored in that 21%. How serious can we believe Govt are about reducing this peril if they are only planning sufficient interventions to trim it not remove it. Who calls the shots here - obviously those having the shots! Be concerned - be real concerned as the "emotional bleating" could oneday be coming from you.

And thanks GW for keeping putting the real stories out there. Its hard work, no fun at all and one always runs the risk of being called a winger. But if it catches attention of even 1 who needs to hear the consequences... a job well done.

Some basic reassessment of a drivers license being a right after an arbitrarily set disqual period is needed. We may as well give licenses to 3 year olds as to those entitled to reissue under our laws.

[4Ducati]

I'm gonna put my 2c worth in here too.......(Guzzi Widow, Candor - fully agree with you both!!)

1) Recidivist drink drivers - deal with them properly!!!!! PLEASE!! Absolute utter lowlifes as far as I'm concerned.

2) Put an EXPIRY date on restricted licences - 2yrs from getting your restricted, it expires if you have'nt passed a full test - start again at the beginning!! We have 30 yr old drivers on our roads that have NEVER sat a full licence test, & have been driving on restricted licences for over 10 yrs.

3) STOP telling people how 'safe' their vehicles are - fact is, they are bloody dangerous @ times!! ABS, airbags, stability control & all the other rubbish, is NO substitute for having a good driver making great decisions behind the steering wheel!! Theres a stack of drivers out there that can't even identify 'what' a hazard is, before it embeds itself into their bonnet.

4) Speeding..........I absolutely hate the current revenue & quota driven approach to speeding.........!! So, 100kph is 'safe', yet 101 kph is deemed unsafe........what rubbish!! 101kph is just 'illegal' - 70kph in some 100k areas is dangerous in some conditions. Much like in dry weather in a modern vehicle, an alert driver is perfectly safe doing 140kph through the MacKenzie Basin (Tekapo / Twizel etc) in light traffic conditions.

5) Fatigue / drugs - educate & enforce.

6) Introduce zero blood alcohol limit for all drivers, period!! What we have at the moment is just bullshit IMHO.

7) Driving Fines exceed $5000 - revoke licence till paid off - impound & sell any vehicles that driver is caught driving. Once fines paid off - can then resit licence starting at 'L' stage again.

8) Put some proper driving skills into our drivers.

9) Get rid of the current 'put up a hazard road sign' mentality - driving IS hazardous, yet some drivers can't relate to a hazardous situation if there happens to be no sign up telling them about it / warning them.........

When will things change??? Only when NZ drivers / riders / operators start taking proper & total responsibility for their actions while driving, - when NZ families finally get tired of putting their loved ones in a hole in the ground, because of the actions of a few idiots & oxygen thiefs that we continue to allow to drive on NZ roads.

Interesting thread this one, & something I'm extremely dedicated to. (trust me, I'm being fairly restrained in this post.........!!) ;)

[slimjim]

I'm gonna put my 2c worth in here too.......(Guzzi Widow, Candor - fully agree with you both!!)

1) Recidivist drink drivers - deal with them properly!!!!! PLEASE!! Absolute utter lowlifes as far as I'm concerned.

2) Put an EXPIRY date on restricted licences - 2yrs from getting your restricted, it expires if you have'nt passed a full test - start again at the beginning!! We have 30 yr old drivers on our roads that have NEVER sat a full licence test, & have been driving on restricted licences for over 10 yrs.

3) STOP telling people how 'safe' their vehicles are - fact is, they are bloody dangerous @ times!! ABS, airbags, stability control & all the other rubbish, is NO substitute for having a good driver making great decisions behind the steering wheel!! Theres a stack of drivers out there that can't even identify 'what' a hazard is, before it embeds itself into their bonnet.

4) Speeding..........I absolutely hate the current revenue & quota driven approach to speeding.........!! So, 100kph is 'safe', yet 101 kph is deemed unsafe........what rubbish!! 101kph is just 'illegal' - 70kph in some 100k areas is dangerous in some conditions. Much like in dry weather in a modern vehicle, an alert driver is perfectly safe doing 140kph through the MacKenzie Basin (Tekapo / Twizel etc) in light traffic conditions.

5) Fatigue / drugs - educate & enforce.

6) Introduce zero blood alcohol limit for all drivers, period!! What we have at the moment is just bullshit IMHO.

7) Driving Fines exceed $5000 - revoke licence till paid off - impound & sell any vehicles that driver is caught driving. Once fines paid off - can then resit licence starting at 'L' stage again.

8) Put some proper driving skills into our drivers.

9) Get rid of the current 'put up a hazard road sign' mentality - driving IS hazardous, yet some drivers can't relate to a hazardous situation if there happens to be no sign up telling them about it / warning them.........

When will things change??? Only when NZ drivers / riders / operators start taking proper & total responsibility for their actions while driving, - when NZ families finally get tired of putting their loved ones in a hole in the ground, because of the actions of a few idiots & oxygen thiefs that we continue to allow to drive on NZ roads.

Interesting thread this one, & something I'm extremely dedicated to. (trust me, I'm being fairly restrained in this post.........!!) ;)


very well said.....

[4Ducati]

Thanks Slim - I left one out though..........

10) - Harden up the serious driving offence repercussions - kill some-one in a MVA, & you currently get charged with 'careless use causing death' or 'dangerous driving causing death' - take away the 'vehicle component', & obtain the same result using a differant type of 'weapon', & you're looking at 'murder / manslaughter' charges..........

Am I the only one that struggles to see what the differance is..........???!!! Bearing in mind, both are same result, caused by some-one elses actions.........

If changing laws happens to upset a few of our tree-hugging dope-smoking left-winged pollitically-correct do-gooder queer ba$tards that are nicely closeted in their beauracratic palaces away from the 'REAL' world - I"M ALL FOR IT!!!!!!!

[vgcspares]

Full support. It is not a sobre majority holding the key here. A recent analysis of dead drivers aged 25-35 scraped off NZ roads found that 96% had used either alcohol, drugs or frequently both and 77% were culpable likely as a result!!!.

I think the above's worthy of a challenge - exactly which analysis (by whom, when published and in what journal) has ever cited 77% of dead drivers were culpable through drink/drugs ?????


Put up, or shut up - but don't post compost and claim it's based on facts.

[HEADACHE]

Pretty simple - Put Katman in charge!!

Have him:

Ban all lights, roundabouts, give ways.

Open speed limit on all roads

Ban women drivers and anyone over the age of 70.

Ban D.I.C. drivers at their first conviction.

Export all the dykes back to Holland.

Implement a more intensive driver training program where idiots are doomed to fail and never pass.

Employ the Police to perform actual police work.


Keep NZ clean.

[candor]

I think the above's worthy of a challenge - exactly which analysis (by whom, when published and in what journal) has ever cited 77% of dead drivers were culpable through drink/drugs ?????

Put up, or shut up - but don't post compost and claim it's based on facts.

It's not compost - but lets go ballistic before even ascertaining the facts are correctly presented, why not. Also I did not say 77% of dead drivers were culpable through alcohol or drugs. Pay attention before throwing hissys. I said 77% of the dead drivers who had used alcohol or drugs were culpable, and that almost all in a certain age group had used.

This is not from journal but a NZ Police report concerning dead drivers from I think 2004-7 that has been made avail to road safety groups like AA and MPs on Transport committee. As analysed in its first year in a thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Chemistry at The University of Waikato, by Carolina Troncoso Vergara. Is that good nuff for ya' or is it a bit academically suspect? If sus to u don't stress - the same stats showing 96% of an age group (as in initial post) on drink / drugs at time of death will likely be appearing in a peer reviewed article very soon. For now you can find it within the thesis.
Link here - http://adt.waikato.ac.nz/public/adt-uow20060817.160448/index.html

Anyway it appears from your posts re drink driving in this thread that you're flat out hostile to the DUI issue, so I trust you'll also manage to misread this study just as you did my words. Difficult - as straight numbers counted (dead drivers, numbers of an age drunk or drugged) are hard to rebutt, but Congrats on your passionate approach of challenging modern stats we dislike. Denial is always a top method to reduce problems, specially if you work for Govt. I must trade my unsubstantiated compost based musings for like rants soon.

[vgcspares]

I am dead against drink driving - but unlike people for whom it's become a Holy Grail, I believe that the massive majority of accidents occur where neither party is intoxicated. Additionally the penalities available to the courts for DUI are severe and quite severe enough if their full weight is brought to bear.
However the incidence of too light a penalty being levied where death occurs and the culpable party is sober/straight is too high to ignore and represents a greater failure of the system than the small number of DUIs who get off lightly.

[mstriumph]

Ban bikes.

Ban cars.

Put bombs in trucks attached to the "tamper proof" speed limiter. Exceed 90km/hr, get blown up.

Put seatbelts in buses.

Shoot taxi drivers.

Execute anyone who has ever owned a scooter, a skateboard or a push bike.

methinks YOU need a HUG :hug:

[mstriumph]

actually - i really LIKED those suggestions about automatic fines for SLOW drivers and reducing the speed limit when it's raining

i'd like more emphasis put on suiting driving speeds to conditions .... this could include RAISING limits on good, open road ...

i'd also like to see a system of graduated licencing where skilled and experienced drivers were allowed to drive 30kph over the limit in areas that weren't built up

dreams ....
:crybaby:

[SPman]

Most areas of motorways - 110km/h speed limit (like Australian highways)

Most traffic if left to their own devices on the motorway seem to sit around 120 kph on motorways, so the limit should be 130! (like the revised N.T. limit)

Police should be more interested in overall traffic behaviour, targeting incompetent, abusive and aggressive driving habits, more, than cars a few K over the limit. Perhaps if people weren't concentrating on their speedos and actually concentrating on the road, they may improve their traffic awareness.....get away from this slavish obsession with "speed"

Just back from some time in Nevada and Arizona, and, generally it was a pleasure to drive there, with traffic outside towns generally travelling at speeds of 80-90mph. (65-75mph limits) and cops only seeming to pull over people who were being stupid! The marked thing was the general lack of aggressive rage if you passed someone who was sitting just below the limit. Do that in NZ or Aus and you've got the full gamut of fuckwitted ego driven irrationality directed at you for some strange reason.

[candor]

I am dead against drink driving - but unlike people for whom it's become a Holy Grail, I believe that the massive majority of accidents occur where neither party is intoxicated. Additionally the penalities available to the courts for DUI are severe and quite severe enough if their full weight is brought to bear.
However the incidence of too light a penalty being levied where death occurs and the culpable party is sober/straight is too high to ignore and represents a greater failure of the system than the small number of DUIs who get off lightly.

I doubt anyone thinks this important issue killing at easily over 3x the murder rate is the holy grail - more like one of the important rings to gather up on the road safety quest. The stats show well over half of the most serious ie fatal crashes do involve intoxication as a major factor. Thats including consideration of both dead drivers and of crashes that kill which a surviving intoxicated culprit caused. So its out of kilter still - and serious DUI versus other serious crashes are disproportionately high here, if compared to many other countries.

DUI though is much less an issue - almost insignificant - with non serious ones, of which there are legion more crashes than there are fatals. So considering total crash numbers each year you'd be right to say the vast majority of crashes don't feature booze. But I think that point is diversionary as circumstances of minor prangs are not what concerns most people.

Can't imagine where you get your info that our DUI penalties are severe - talking to the local drunk perhaps? Or from reading LTNZ / NZTA website, which says so, I guess. :beer:It is a part of the general deterrence policy NZ uses to have spin Drs put out the goss that penalties are severe. They are actually about half as severe as in Oz, and lined up against the majority of countries look like taking out the title of softest in the world.

But yes these wet bus tricket slaps for DUI could be termed "severe," in comparison to what sobre dangerous drivers reap if they disable or bury us. The number of sobre drivers charged with causing harm to others however doesn't eclipse the number of impaired drivers so charged in NZ. Can dig up the court dept stats if you're sceptical on this. Its possible though that sobre drivers who deserve hammering might experience positive discrimination. And be less likely than drunks to even get charged, given its harder to make cases without impartial witnesses etc.

How are dui penalties severe enough if their full weight is bought to bear? Maximum of 5 years for killing minus 2/3rds of sentence for "non violent offence". Starting point usually 1-2.5 years given standard mitigating factors like "he feels really bad" (says the defense lawyer). Minus the 2'3rds - likely served via home D. OMG - big bizzo for United video, time to pimp out the killing machine once the blood is polished off.

License loss that is Claytons as any decent lawyer can get an exemption.
Return of license required after a max of 1 yr with no requirement for proving fitness to drive. In Sweden the drinker is subject to prior liver tests to prove no ongoing alcohol abuse and must also submit to ongoing drug and liver function tests for years after license returned. And may be offered ignition interlocks. I think its permanent loss if reoffend - as a drivers license is not seen as a right in Europe, instead it's a privilege earned by sane responsible use of it. If you ask me our lawmakers are from the asylum.

Some places take the plates off all drink drivers immediately not just immediately suspend very high BAC ones like here, and prior offenders elsewhere may even have a red strip sticker or something put on their car, so cops can always pay them very special attention (its checked they don't remove it either). This scarlet lettering has led to a strong cringe factor for offenders and reinforced and added to societal lack of acceptance of it.
We want to be told of paedophiles in our street - why not of the drunk drivers expecting to share our roads while proving they're rehabed.

Ones with restricted licenses crash 5x as much as general population drivers (brain damage / drug use some jurisdictions) - but less than if they were simply disqualified and doing the typical suspended driving number. Mark those cars so we can keep distance and not let the kiddys ride with them - ah dreams are free.

[vgcspares]

I write a few lines and get a tome in response but trying to get this monolith back on topic I'll risk it ....

having cavassed a few claims people with more than just a little experience in aggregate (oh heck I know I'm going to regret this) it would appear that the percentage of motoring claims that involve a DUI is a shade over 1% (including both parties) ... oh shit now I've done it

can you keep the response to less than a page please ?

[Genestho]

I write a few lines and get a tome in response but trying to get this monolith back on topic I'll risk it ....

having cavassed a few claims people with more than just a little experience in aggregate (oh heck I know I'm going to regret this) it would appear that the percentage of motoring claims that involve a DUI is a shade over 1% (including both parties) ... oh shit now I've done it

can you keep the response to less than a page please ?

Ouch the tone on you. Bit of a rude way to get your point across?

I dont disagree that there are other factors that kill.
We are entitled to speak, educate and campaign on DUI matters, and DUI is a contributing preventable factor of road fatalities, so we are on topic.

I recon along with the kick in the guts, I earned that right when I buried three friends - yes my Husband was a friend too - in one go, some poor bastard nearly buried me.
I believe Candor buried her mother.

Claims where, Insurance? Nationwide? What are YOU talking about?
References please, was it you who said..

Put up, or shut up - but don't post compost and claim it's based on facts.
Break it on down brother

[scumdog]

Additionally the penalities available to the courts for DUI are severe and quite severe enough if their full weight is brought to bear.

Mwahahah, ya forgot to type 'if' in capitals sonny.....when the hell has ANYBODY received the full weight of the law for drink-driving.

First timer fine limit is $4,500, in reality it won't be more than $500, read the Court news, you will see a close link between the breath-alcohol level and the fine. (ie Blow 550mcgm and get a $500 fine)

And the only reason the disqualy is six months is because the law says it HAS to be six months...and as for jail...forget it!

[Quasievil]

Roads will never be safe so who cares, use them at your peril.

[FJRider]

actually - i really LIKED those suggestions about automatic fines for SLOW drivers and reducing the speed limit when it's raining

i'd like more emphasis put on suiting driving speeds to conditions .... this could include RAISING limits on good, open road ...

i'd also like to see a system of graduated licencing where skilled and experienced drivers were allowed to drive 30kph over the limit in areas that weren't built up

dreams ....
:crybaby:

Impeding the flow of traffic does get instant fine...:yes:
Who gets to decide who is skilled and experienced... ???:dodge:
Dreams... :zzzz:

[candor]

having cavassed a few claims people with more than just a little experience in aggregate (oh heck I know I'm going to regret this) it would appear that the percentage of motoring claims that involve a DUI is a shade over 1% (including both parties) ... oh shit now I've done it



IF you are speaking of insurance claims not claims of sobriety by m8s you surveyed who have crashed (?) on track etc...

maybe consider that as there is no entitlement to insurance if you were blung then it would be a fool who tries claiming. There are special niche market insurers who cover high risks like those with prior dui's, I'm betting that' not who you got your info from. And the dead tend not to file claims.

Your 1% is way off the mark (again) if it's bad not trivial crashes you speak of - we're looking at 28% of fatals with impairment factoring for official LTNZ figures. Official figures are known to underestimate - being based on incomplete raw data due to 12% of bods being non tested as too frazzled/cooked to get blood from, non testing of many suspects in non injury and some fatal crashes and there is non testing for drugs by Police whose advice informs official figures, due to legalities). Unofficial but good sources put sus substances at round 50% of serious crashes.

There are so many sources to back these ballpark figures up - from court records, to studies, to media reports re the stats... that I find it amazing you persist with your "DUI is an overblown myth" theory. Why would you...:confused:

OK I go with don't believe everything you read - but trust me you have grabbed the wrong end of the stick here, and run an Olympic marathon with it. I have to think you're only 1% serious. C'mon an issue that only resulted in 1% of a problem would never ever ever have gained or kept up any traction or public support!

Quite a few on this website have lost to impaired drivers - we're not 1%.
Say the upper estimate is 200 killed in the toll yearly are felled due to impairment out of a total of 20000 yearly deathsof all causes (Statistics NZ), then your chance of dying in a dui related way (as opposed to alternative means like Cancer) over 50 years exposure of hanging out on the road would rise to one in twenty, just by a quick reckoning.

[scumdog]

Roads will never be safe so who cares, use them at your peril.

Damn right, they are used by people - and amongst people you will find a plethora of fuckwits - the same ones you share the roads with.

[Genestho]

I dont think Motor Vehicle claims are indicative of the true numbers.

The Muppet who was indefinately disqualified, wouldnt have been able to get insurance paid out, even if it was his car..and the car that killed was not insured to begin with.
Without going into detail, there were 4 dead people in this case that didnt claim Motor Vehicle insurance.

And what about the number of passengers per 100 drink drivers killed?
Still, Im interested in what is said;)

(Minus the tone thanks)

[manicmedic]

Through my work :whistle: I see far more drivers involved in accidents that have had some mind altering drug (usually alcohol) than those who are sober. Some are serious some are not. If you can't give the road your full attention for whatever reason, you should consider wheather to drive or not. We are preaching to the converted. How can we actively do something rather than just giving the keyboard a workout? 2c given.

Manic

[mstriumph]

...........Who gets to decide who is skilled and experienced... ???:dodge:
.. the independant panel of Bikers who run the system of graduated testing/licencing of course ....

[this ALSO means that 90 year old short blind asian lady drivers will be rated too low to drive their volvos ...... hey - this gets better and better :sunny:]

[slofox]

Regarding whether or not the legislation is strong enough re drink driving:

I have just re-read this entire thread and have this to say......
For some, I don't think it really matters what the law says - there will always be lunatics who will go out and drive drunk regardless of how many prior convictions they have or what the law says or what risks they pose to themselves and other road users. Lock 'em up? Sure, but they get out one day. Confiscate the car? Not hard to get another from a mate or family member or just pinch one. Ban them from driving for life? They ignore it.

The only way to prevent these drivers doing their thing is to either lock 'em up forever (expensive for us all) or maybe fit every vehicle with an alcohol lock..(and I am sure the more inventive ones would find a way round that as well......).
I doubt we will ever stop drink driving completely. BUT I would have to say that in my lifetime the public attitude towards drink driving has changed dramatically and that can only be for the good. We have made some progress. We certainly need to make more. I'm just not sure how to get through those concrete heads.......

[ckai]

Regarding whether or not the legislation is strong enough re drink driving:

I have just re-read this entire thread and have this to say......
For some, I don't think it really matters what the law says - there will always be lunatics who will go out and drive drunk regardless of how many prior convictions they have or what the law says or what risks they pose to themselves and other road users. Lock 'em up? Sure, but they get out one day. Confiscate the car? Not hard to get another from a mate or family member or just pinch one. Ban them from driving for life? They ignore it.

... I'm just not sure how to get through those concrete heads.......

Agree. As has been mentioned. By the sounds of it, the drink drivers the do the majority of killing, are repeat offenders. That means they don't care about the law or their responsibility to protect other road users.

You can try and educate them all you want but there is always those that "know it won't happen to them" so don't give a shit.

Starting by better education of the new drivers/riders will drastically improve overall road usability for everyone. By educating the new, they are in a better position to avoid possibly danger from others. Yes, accidents will still happen but I believe this will help minimise the damage caused.

Until then, raising speed limits and the like, will not help make the roads better. We are protected from the minority of idiots. I'm the first to admit our speeds are bollucks but I don't want some young kid flying around a corner at the new "target" taking me out because he can!

Educated people educate others. It's as simple as that. Better drivers/riders breed more better drivers/riders. A very simple example, I'm no greeny, but being the age I am, I'm quite into recycling. Now I've changed my parents attitude to be that way also.

Educate, educate, educate - then the snowball will begin.

[FJRider]

.. the independant panel of Bikers who run the system of graduated testing/licencing of course ....



I'm independant..... I'm a biker.... (Panel beaters keep your distance...)

I'll be totally unbalanced...oops ... unbiased, but totally susceptable to bribes... when do I start... ???

[AllanB]

I'd ban hot women in tight/small clothing - dam distracting and dangerous when your blood is directed away from your brain while riding/driving.

[FJRider]

I'd ban hot women in tight/small clothing - dam distracting and dangerous when your blood is directed away from your brain while riding/driving.

I'd activly encourage it... enough dicks on the road now, we can afford to "lose" a few...

[Genestho]

Since the death of my Husband, one of the things I do now, is to raise awareness of both the consequences of drinking and driving and recidivist drink drivers.
I admit I am a work in progress myself.
I do not disagree there are other factors that kill innocent road users.
What this thread has taught me, is that we all believe in the way we believe, some are more passionate than others (I’ll stick my hand up!:rolleyes:)

Im just an everyday person like anyone here at KB, a Mum really.

I make no apologies that I believe in what I do and I educate and campaign using my husbands story and the knowledge of the history of a recidivst drink driver and the people around him who could’ve stopped this if theyd thought about the consequences of their actions.
I know this has caused a huge amount of sadness and suffering for a lot of people.

Legislatively and personally it could’ve been avoided. I will never change my thoughts on this.
I know that my Husbands message has reached and changed alot of peoples habits (at this point)..and thats all I want here.

I want to avoid a circular debate and save repeating myself.

A forum like this is a great place to get info out to the general public, and only a minute part of what I do.

I guess if anything, I hope anyone that reads this thread can understand, that at the end of the day we are responsible for ourselves and our behaviour on the roads, but also that we can also take responsiblilty when others are unable to do so.

I wish to take this moment, to thank everyone for their input and opinions.
Go Safe, Merry Xmas.

[FJRider]

Thinking of the (possible) consequences of your actions, could save a lot of problems... any time... anywhere...

[slofox]

Thinking of the (possible) consequences of your actions, could save a lot of problems... any time... anywhere...

Which is exactly why I do NOT a.) roar into corners that I cannot see through, and b.) fly over the top of hills when I cannot see the other side.
You never know what might be there. And even if you do not care about yourself, what if there is some little kid running out of a driveway you cannot see? It happens. You think you could live with yourself if you killed one such? 'Cause I sure could not............