Safer Journeys, interesting...

**koba** · 15th March 2010, 06:05

From the "Safer Journeys" website:

"In general, submitters placed more emphasis on initiatives aimed at road users than on roading, vehicle, or speed initiatives. This may indicate that submitters do not understand the safe system approach and are much more focussed on the driver, rather than the other three elements of the safe system."

Comments?

**Blackbird** · 15th March 2010, 07:02

A bit bloody patronising, but nothing to get too worked up about. The State can worry about the other factors as there's relatively little that the "ordinary person"can influence there. We're right to focus on the driver because that's where we can have the greatest influence. If the driver/rider has better situational awareness skills, then he or she should be able to largely compensate for the other factors by driving to the conditions. Oh, and it's a relatively low cost solution too.

Or am I wrong?

**p.dath** · 15th March 2010, 07:25

I'd say there was probably a good degree of interest in roading, but roading is expensive to fix, and we are in a recessionary period. I'd support the introduction of barriers for roads carrying a volume of 10,000 vehicles per hour. Many other countries have the same standard. I believe the NZTA would like this to.

Hasn't happened yet. Probably wont happen for a long time. Because it costs a lot of cash to retrofit NZ's roads.

I support a common roading standard for highways. I believe NZTA does as well. Hasn't happened yet. Probably wont happen for a long time. Costs a lot of money to correct the engineering of the roading network.

And lots of people support increased driver education. However that hasn't progressed - because agreement hasn't been reached on what and how that education should be done.

**MSTRS:Me** · 15th March 2010, 07:56

Originally Posted by koba

Comments?

Changing driver behaviours will have a bigger influence on road safety then all other measures put together.
Spend all the millions you like on making roads easier etc...won't help if drivers are still 'asleep'.

**jim.cox** · 15th March 2010, 08:11

I note on-going training for motor-cyclists

But nothing for cage drivers

I think the Govt is still too scared to actually do anything effective

**bogan** · 15th March 2010, 08:43

Originally Posted by p.dath

I'd say there was probably a good degree of interest in roading, but roading is expensive to fix, and we are in a recessionary period. I'd support the introduction of barriers for roads carrying a volume of 10,000 vehicles per hour. Many other countries have the same standard. I believe the NZTA would like this to.

Would the barriers end up being cheese cutters though?

In a country like NZ there is always going to be issues with the roading, the population is too spread out, so while it would be a lot safer to have better roads, its not feasible. So we should work on driver training instead, at the very least I think that traffic offenders who get more than half way to losing thier license in demerits should have to resit the test (and pay for it themselves), maybe exclude speeding in that one though?

Originally Posted by p.dath

And lots of people support increased driver education. However that hasn't progressed - because agreement hasn't been reached on what and how that education should be done.

Retesting every 10 years would be logical as thats when driver licenses have to be renewed anyway I think?

**p.dath** · 15th March 2010, 12:03

Originally Posted by bogan

Would the barriers end up being cheese cutters though?

Currently I would say yes, because I see more cheese cutters being deployed than non-cheese cutters.

Its probably a question of "we have $x" to spend, which will allow us to day "y" km's of concrete barriers, or "z" km's of cheese cutters.

Which will save more motorcyclists? Don't forget, even though cheese cutters are "bad" if a motorcyclists hits them - it does help prevent oncoming vehicles crossing the centre lane and hitting us.

**bogan** · 15th March 2010, 12:31

Originally Posted by p.dath

Currently I would say yes, because I see more cheese cutters being deployed than non-cheese cutters.

Its probably a question of "we have $x" to spend, which will allow us to day "y" km's of concrete barriers, or "z" km's of cheese cutters.

Which will save more motorcyclists? Don't forget, even though cheese cutters are "bad" if a motorcyclists hits them - it does help prevent oncoming vehicles crossing the centre lane and hitting us.

well a road with no barriers is better off for motorcyclists than a road with cheesecutters (think thats what the whole cheesecutter campaign is about), so the Y kms of concrete is better!

**p.dath** · 15th March 2010, 12:59

Originally Posted by bogan

well a road with no barriers is better off for motorcyclists than a road with cheesecutters (think thats what the whole cheesecutter campaign is about), so the Y kms of concrete is better!

I don't think I can agree. There are a lot (and I mean a lot) more accidents caused by vehicles crossing the centre lane than there are motorcyclists being injured on cheese cutters.

So it seems that it is better to have the odd motorcyclist cut up by a cheese cutter, than having a lot more killed because of a complete lack of barriers.

**bogan** · 15th March 2010, 13:05

Originally Posted by p.dath

I don't think I can agree. There are a lot (and I mean a lot) more accidents caused by vehicles crossing the centre lane than there are motorcyclists being injured on cheese cutters.

So it seems that it is better to have the odd motorcyclist cut up by a cheese cutter, than having a lot more killed because of a complete lack of barriers.

um, cos there's a lot more roads without barriers than there are ones with cheese cutters. And even if you are correct, the ends don't justify the means, killing 10 bikers to save 20 cagers isn't an option.

**p.dath** · 15th March 2010, 17:07

Originally Posted by bogan

um, cos there's a lot more roads without barriers than there are ones with cheese cutters. And even if you are correct, the ends don't justify the means, killing 10 bikers to save 20 cagers isn't an option.

I was only talking about saving motorcyclists. I bet that more motorcyclists get killed by cars crossing the centre line, than motorclists get killed on cheese cutters (cheese cutter accidents have very few recorded incidents).

So the choice becomes more busy roads with cheese cutters, or only a few with concrete barriers.

**bogan** · 15th March 2010, 17:27

Originally Posted by p.dath

I was only talking about saving motorcyclists. I bet that more motorcyclists get killed by cars crossing the centre line, than motorclists get killed on cheese cutters (cheese cutter accidents have very few recorded incidents).

So the choice becomes more busy roads with cheese cutters, or only a few with concrete barriers.

If thats the case then why are there motorcycle groups against cheesecutters all over the world, surely someone would have prevented statistics to back up your claim as it would remove a lot of opposition to the barriers. They also don't stop all traffic from crossing the center, heavy vehicles force their way through, to end up on the other side with no control whatsoever found this in the cheesecutter section which may be an interesting read for you.

**Ender EnZed** · 15th March 2010, 17:34

Originally Posted by p.dath

I was only talking about saving motorcyclists. I bet that more motorcyclists get killed by cars crossing the centre line, than motorclists get killed on cheese cutters (cheese cutter accidents have very few recorded incidents).

So the choice becomes more busy roads with cheese cutters, or only a few with concrete barriers.

This is precisely the Cheescutter Debate isn't it? There is a specific section of KB for it.

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/fo...utter-campaign

**p.dath** · 15th March 2010, 20:16

Originally Posted by bogan

If thats the case then why are there motorcycle groups against cheesecutters all over the world, surely someone would have prevented statistics to back up your claim as it would remove a lot of opposition to the barriers. They also don't stop all traffic from crossing the center, heavy vehicles force their way through, to end up on the other side with no control whatsoever found this in the cheesecutter section which may be an interesting read for you.

Motorcyclists don't like them because they usually sever limbs or heads with a heavy impact. Pretty nasty.

If you read the Monash University report they cite, they compare the relative accident rates of the barriers. The short story is that very few motorcyclists have a collision with the wire barrier at such an angle that they do loose a limb (how many have we had in the last 5 years in NZ, one?).
I don't know the number of motorcyclists killed because someone crossed the centre line, but I would be pretty confident the the number would be much higher.

Personally I don't like the idea of cheese cutters because of limb dismemberment. But I like the idea even less of the higher probability of being killed by a drunk crossing the centre lane and killing me head on.

So I guess I begrudgingly accept we need to get barriers on as many roads as possible with a flow of 10,000 cars per hour as possible, and then look at upgrading them to safer concrete barriers.

So I'm saying do what we can to save as many lives as we can now, and then work on making it better. If we aim for the best option first probably hundreds of riders will be killed before we can complete the project of upgrading the busiest roads.