End revenue deaths - conquer the RAM

[candor]

I suggest a campaign for an inquiry to adverse effects of quotas - or more broadly to rd safety.
KB is one of the most organised multi skilled lobbies in NZ. Members have made valuable long term contributions to road safety, as usual ignored on the whole. But this is a key juncture with the Govt walking thin ice as it tries to impose a 10 year road safety plan that is a dog.

If NZ really wants to change the answer to who's next the most intensive researhers say that getting rid of GER/RAM ie the "greatest enforceable risk" advertising policy and the Resource Allocation Model (intensive MoT quota study within our shores post 2002 - RAM).

National's Steven Joyce has declined requests from 3 organisations including the AA to review how revenue raising increases trauma. First request was from Akila Foundation to review the crash analysis ysatem for corrupted statistics that overrepresent quota issues. Second request was from the AA to review the road safety program from an injury prevention versus revenue focus. Third request by Candor Trust incorporated both ideas and was to look at the operation of the quota system and it's adverse effects.

All requests that were well supported with statistics and pretty graphs were summarily dismissed.

The Candor Trust therefore petitioned the Labour party re this a couple mths ago, and are getting a good hearing. Charles Chauvel is currently reviewing our submission - and has forwarded it to Clayton Cosgrove and Lianne Dalziel for comment.

Labour has all the facts tidily presented, so can make an issue of this... the usual (and I've dealt with lots of families of innocent persons killed or hurt by Police idiocy) is a short media field day, an inquiry that refuses to go there re quotas and at best just lays personal blame or more likely weak criticism, then there is a time lapse befor it all happens again. While the last victim becomes a faint memory.

Want to kick off the anti quota carnage campaign then step 1 is easy as fresh groundwork laid

Please if you're happy to do so; e-mail to Charles Chauvel with cc to Darien Fenton, Lianne Dalziel and Clayton Cosgrove and Annette King support of Candor Trusts request for a full review of how revenue goggles create severe conflicts with road safety (see submissions in post below sent to Labour 26/3/2010).
It is not just a rare incident or cost of business - it undermines safety totally putting us in the worst stats in the OECD. Have no doubt - it's the fact we're crawling with roving meter maids that got us here. We had Nat Police Spokesman Chester Borrows "up to speed" (no pun intended) before elections but that JK puled in the Green guy Joyce, who is clueless, and advised by morons.

Charles.Chauvel@parliament.govt.nz (why him - because he is clued up, a mover/shaker and an economist with public health specialty)
darien.fenton@parliament.govt.nz (transport spokeswoman - also been given the goods in March so should be onto it)

[Okey Dokey]

Thanks for the information and suggested course of action.

[Mom]

Word to the wise here, dont want to be a critic, but most members will not even bother to read that post. Far too many words in one post. May I suggest you break that up into bite sized pieces.

[bombsquad]

I think the biggest problem you will encounter is the fact that the police still deny there is a revenue quota system in place, they say officers must "make contact" (no pun intended) with X amount of members of the public per day, this does not mean fining them everytime, though we know this is the way they operate.

Sorry if this is not relevant to your post but like Mom said I lost intrest in your big post pretty much after the second paragraph

[candor]

It's no problem that one quota denial - we have bulk documented evidence of the system, so that argument crumbles fast. The quota computer programs etc we got all that under the OIA. Just to clarify it is a top level group within MoT called NRSC but controlled by outside advisors (world bank) dictating behind scenes. MoT policy writers need to get their heads given back. No more puppets - this is why AA says return control to MOT. Its not meaning move it from one group within MoT to another, but rather to let policy writers do their job ie lead policy analysis/development. Sack NRSC management group and we can get back to evidential based policy.

Here is what we requested after the meeting with Labour brass to discuss political reality (that some revenue is still needed but doing it safely may be achievable); All that follows is part of what we put on the table of matriarch Annette King

Suggested 4 point plan to retreat from Safer Journeys experimental quicksand

An expanded issues range, more "evidence based" than "revenue based" and a more infrastructural approach is urgent. By far the most reported injury crash cause in the Crash Analysis System is “poor observation” (47%) and as there is no major commitment to safety engineering, contending with this and causes like fatigue, drugs and carelessness are priorities.

The AA say “The current system of crash data collection and management is very much based on the Greatest Enforceable Risk proposition that road safety can be addressed through enforcement…Unfortunately the performance of this approach during the past decade has not achieved any reduction in road user risk (in social cost per vehicle kilometre travelled) nor does the evidence collected by the system support this proposition”.

1. Move control from NRSC to MoT and stakeholders with better initiatives to follow from injury prevention evidence –in contrast to high risk modeling of enforcement experiments.

Ministry of Transport should review all current and planned Road Safety related expenditure – not just the apparently detrimental boy racer legislation – doing so in terms of injury prevention
The AA believes that Government should review road safety programs in terms of injury prevention rather than revenue collection, starting with the RAM formula. It should never operate at harmfully high quota strength or in manners that cause excess conflict eg high fines for breaches of learner license resulting in triggered pursuits. There is ignored compelling evidence a 0.05 alcohol limit will increase deaths in the problem group – young males/Maori.

MoT to take over research and information gathering role and policy formation to be research and evidence based, rather than continuing the current method NRSC steers, either regardless of evidence or while trying to create supportive evidence eg the proposed study into frequency of low blood alcohol in crashes as a means to smoothly implement a limit drop.
Road safety has only advanced well in other countries when non governmental advisory committees with issue task forces steer policy, as Governments can like NZ has be too fixated on revenue to the detriment of road safety, so we recommend that a lead committee of broad representation deal by taskforces with the 5 key areas AA identified
• Inattention and distraction • Safer Roads and Roadsides • Road User Education and Information • Safety of Younger Drivers • Alcohol and Drug Impaired Driving.

Following a 100 car naturalistic study and literature review upgrade CAS to become a useful crash analysis system, rather than primarily an evaluative tool for the operation of RAM. Per the AA “Important data, such as the deployment of airbags at crash scenes, is not recorded in CAS. CAS is not integrated with the driver license system or the motor vehicle register. Both of these systems too are deficient in recording important information such as the safety qualities of the vehicles (eg ABS brakes) or the driver (e.g. license status and past history).
Furthermore, at the barest minimum fatigue and drug impairment factors must be integrated to crash investigations say Candor, by inclusion in the Traffic Crash Report with mandatory collection of evidence to affirm or deny drug driving being performed on every occasion where a crashing driver is alcohol tested in fitting with ERSO recs.

The research/information system, once made useful, must be integrated into the operational system - the Ministry of Transport should undertake a review of information systems and development and in its role of policy adviser and manager bring research systems that go well beyond just CAS under its purview, so as to inform up to date policy. Policy writers often seem to be poorly versed in road safety but full of delusions about speed and alcohol issues (the nature and best policies).

4. Accommodate inattention / error with forgiving roads or speeds, curtail risk raiser pursuits

Support KiwiRap. Stop fund wastage by councils on urban beautification and traffic calming - median barriers should run the length of SH1 to Christchurch and of SH2 in 100kph zones, with regular passing lanes where practicable. The Australian Government has announced that it will invest $22.3 billion in Australia’s land transport system from 2009-10 to 2013-14 under Auslink 2. This is a 41 per cent increase on the current Auslink programme and the biggest investment in land transport infrastructure ever made.

As the AA and Candor both supported in SJ submissions, use speed zoning (creating areas with 50 and 80kph open road speeds) where it is clear no engineering treatments are available soon, and there is a history of speed related crashes.

Urgently add mandatory booster seats to the milieu for all children

Make greater use of technology eg ANPR and police coordination in preference to high speed pursuits, and reduce discretion to pursue at over 140 kph to situations where a major crime has occurred or someone eg a kidnapped passenger is in immediate danger. Remove discretion to chase young drivers, motorcyclists and suspected impaired drivers if they have not stopped quickly and are accelerating. Film fugitives, trace them later and add a tradable penalty of vehicle confiscation or 6 months home detention for running.

Undertake an engineering program that goes beyond black spot treatments and the pitiful goal of reducing 100 yearly "head on collision" deaths by 10 via medians. Require roading authorities to divide all roads over 6000 vehicles (with safe barriers).

Scrap the following pitiful goals – so pathetic when 100 die in head on crashes yearly;
"(Safer Journeys) intend to focus on run-off road and head-on crashes as they are the most common crash types. We will initially target highest risk rural roads – those that carry over 15,000 vehicles per day, in particular the RoNS. A road with 15,000 vehicles per day has roughly five head-on crashes per 10km every five years. Some New Zealand roads carry 15,000 – 20,000 vehicles per day but do not have median barriers. Installing median barriers on all high risk high volume rural roads is estimated to save 8 to 10 lives per year".

[CookMySock]

I found your post very interesting and compelling. Thank you for what you do. I wish I had your skills.

Punctuation and paragraphs are more important than colours and fonts, but those who don't want to read it or do something about it probably don't want to do much else either.

Steve

[candor]

thx for listening - I get RSI so type and edit lazily as it hurts. I think we can get critical mass - so many are working away on this stuff - combined efforts of trainers, groups like BADD, Crossroads, Bronz, KB, groups alreay mentioned, individuals like the bikers previously taken out in u-turns. A lot of people are getting informed - all that's needed then is continued pushing in relative unison. If NZ can't sort this unsavoury shit I despair - if its not sorted within another 2 years I quit being a Kiwi, Perth calls.

[CookMySock]

combined efforts of trainers, groups like BADD, Crossroads, Bronz, KB, groups alreay mentioned, individuals like the bikers previously taken out in u-turns. A lot of people are getting informed - all that's needed then is continued pushing in relative unison.

Well that is a lot of compelled people working on the problem. I feel a bit helpless thinking what to do.

If NZ can't sort this unsavoury shit I despair - if its not sorted within another 2 years I quit being a Kiwi, Perth calls.

There's always something to despair about no matter where you are. Better for movers and shakers to do it here and help us. Better for us anyway..

Steve

[StoneY]

Interesting thread.
I agree with Mom you need to compress the message and not fill it with italics and long legalese paragraphs

Please PM me I would like to be involved
I am currently acting president of BRONZ Wellington branch
Your method's and ability to research could be well used by our executive board (oh and Rick barker MP is one of our members so he can help advize you behind scenes)

Cheers

[Mudfart]

yep perth sounds good, good riding weather there too!.
it seems to me the main lobby group for pro motoring with the most public sector government influence is the Automobile Association.
Its strange but they endorse the revenue gathering from what I understand, they claim its in the interest of the greater good, in that maybe a few may get killed, but it means speeding is kept down, drink drivers off the roads, etc, etc.
If you ask me, its their mentality that needs a rethink.
Has anyone checked with the AA, to see if my suspicions are correct?. Where does the AA stand right now?.

[candor]

The AA say “The current system of crash data collection and management is very much based on the Greatest Enforceable Risk proposition that road safety can be addressed through enforcement…Unfortunately the performance of this approach during the past decade has not achieved any reduction in road user risk (in social cost per vehicle kilometre travelled) nor does the evidence collected by the system support this proposition”.
"The AA believes that Government should review road safety programs in terms of injury prevention rather than revenue collection"
Source - AA submission to Safer Journeys.
The AA has been the strongest lobby group against the quota formula. Please see its publication saving ourselves - link on BADD website I believe.

Will do Stoney, just called the pollies but they're in caucus.

[Genestho]

AA has put out their report on Road Safety in NZ with research and data, probably not Motorcycle 'friendly' views.

Candor, Whilst I personally would support a Royal Commission of Inquiry, provided there is founded solid evidence and research to substantiate claims, it's probably not a wise idea to either speak on behalf of BADD nor Crossroads.

In submissions I have made reference to supporting a review into evidence regarding the particular roadsafety policy, behind lowering BAC limits.

[candor]

Oops I wasn't actually "speaking for" BADD or CR lest any misunderstanding on that, though I'm part of Crossroads, and have done media work for it a couple of x as requested to. What I meant in that posting is that there is getting to be a broad lot of well informed people, which is a good foundation for seeking some major overhaul. With all the gnashing of teeth etc , and obvious discontent with current direction it almost seems like a first principals inquiry is inevitable.

The first principles are GER-RAM as rsearch by multiple groups and their submissions al show. I'm just seeking support here or maybe gauging it re tackling those flawed fundamentals. In saying a lot of groups are working away on this stuff I just meant on upping r/s which is in major poo in NZ - there's little debate on that point now.

The only group I've quoted above is AA who are very happy to have their view represented and heard. As a member of them I'm happy to put it forward as their research is really high grade and to my mind point to the right direction of the inquiry. Its just consistent with what several other groups including Candor have long advocated hence my strong support.

I think their overarching big ideas are MC friendly in wanting a revenue versus injury review. Because of this imho they should not be dismissed so fast as allies by people perhaps offended by any anti MC ravings they might have put out there.

[Genestho]

and obvious discontent with current direction it almost seems like a first principals inquiry is inevitable. I'm just seeking support here or gauging it. In saying a lot of groups are working away on this stuff I meant on upping r/s which is in major poo in NZ - there's little debate.
The only group I've quoted above is AA who are very happy to have their view represented and heard. As a member of them I'm happy to put it forward as their research is really high grade.

I personally agree with the AA research too, it is very high quality and well resourced. And yes there is discontent about revenue quotas, but there is a right way of doing things in my opinion, and a wrong way.

[Pixie]

I think the biggest problem you will encounter is the fact that the police still deny there is a revenue quota system in place, they say officers must "make contact" (no pun intended) with X amount of members of the public per day, this does not mean fining them everytime, though we know this is the way they operate.

Sorry if this is not relevant to your post but like Mom said I lost intrest in your big post pretty much after the second paragraph

The fines are the way that contacts are measured