Safer Journeys (The Final Word)

[dpex]

Okay, so the report's out. Read it at http://www.transport.govt.nz/saferjo...s/default.aspx

As expected, there's not much new, and nothing innovative. It bangs on about crash statistics and the 'Social Cost' whatever the hell that is. Quotes stuff from countries such as Sweden...a place where riding a bike is impossible for at least half the year.

It bats on about various Australian 'enforcement advances' and how we 'should' be emulating them.

Fails completely to mention anything to do with restricting tourists from right-hand driving lands.

As you will see, there's an 'innovation' to restrict learners and provisionals to bikes with PTW ratios of 150 kilowatts per tonne. That's 0.15 kilowatts per kilogram of bike. The conversion is (i kilowatt equals 1.359616 hp). In other words my 187kg Yammie would not be allowed to develop more than 28hp.

It acknowledges the 250cc rule for learners is a joke given the power of modern 250's.

But it does acknowledge that coming to an all-standing stop, from 50kph (ergo hitting something solid) results in a 50% chance of death.

Maybe they should consider reducing the number of pedals on a racing bike from two to one. That should stop the bastards exceeding 50kph and hitting something solid and hoping the colourful lycra will contain the resulting ooze.

But then it goes on to assert that learners could be restricted to 660cc. Eh?

It goes on about rider training but doesn't mention what that might look like or who might conduct it.

However, it does mention an interest in improving those roads which are popular biker-run roads, so that's a nod toward the fact we might actually be deem citizens after all.

But nowhere does the concept of rewards for 'accident-free' driving get a look in.

And surely, that's what it's all about? Being accident-free!

If penalties truly worked on the psyche of a deliberately dangerous driver/rider, then they wouldn't exist, would they?

No penalty will encourage poor driver/riders to mend their ways, mainly because they all believe they're good driver/riders. And no amount of reward will change their view.

But if they want to cut down the hoon factor they could come up with all manner of reward for hoons to remain accident-free.....Mind you, according to the report, hoons comprise only 11% of accidents and contribute a 15% gene-pool clearance rate.

I dunno. It seems to me like a multi-million dollar waste of time given the only real teeth to be increased is penalty for and enforcement of speed restrictions, like they make a difference.

Bah Humbug.

[Berries]

I'm disappointed as well. Based on the consultation document I was all set to approach NZTA seeking a job as a motorbike specific safety engineer, as a way of ensuring things were done from the inside, rather than shouting about it on here, and to account for that $30 ACC are taking from us all. Alas they dropped the high priority focus on those parts so it isn't going to happen.

My reading of the strategy is that it is also a start on dropping the open road speed limit. Speed zoning did not work last time, but they are pushing it again. They are also talking up the benefits of median barriers.

Fails completely to mention anything to do with restricting tourists from right-hand driving lands.

Restricting how ? And why ? While there are some terrible examples, overseas drivers are often viewed as a scapegoat so that New Zealanders don't have to look at their own poor driving skills, but that's another thread.

[CookMySock]

Sadly, this is what we have come to expect. Take ten steps back and look at the big picture - the "study" was probably more a PR distraction for the real event. What was that event?

Steve

[p.dath]

I don't think the result is bad. You have to remember the wheels of Government turn very slowly. This hasn't even made it to parliament or select committee for debate yet. That's how far away it is still. All this start is start to set a direction.

I agree with many of its points. For example, it says all roads of a certain "type" should be built the same way, e,g. state highways should be built to a similar standard. For example, speeds, corners no sharper that "x", surface of type "y". It also wants to implement standards based around volume of traffic, such as compulsory barriers for roads carry 12,000 vehicles a day or more (could be wrong, but close to that number). It acknowledges that most of the cost is bringing the existing roading network up to the standards currently being used.

It wants to shift towards using demerits instead of fines. I support this.

There didn't feel like much "meat in the sandwich" for motorcyclists in particular though. I feel there were a lot more cyclist and pedestrian lobbyists that motorcycle ones, if you know what I mean.

[Brian d marge]

I thought it was ok to me

even said it will fix the rad up for the Akaroa Gp

One thing no mention of Canada where they RAISED the speed limit and the crashes came down,,,,,in fact from my bad memory Canada has a good crash record ....though some intelligent policies

Stephen

[slofox]

Bah Humbug.

I agree with this bit...