Operation Mataki - SH75 to Akaroa

[Brian d marge]

I remember when it WAS a general store......

steak and cheese or mince......

stephen

[rastuscat]

The sausage rolls in the last cafe on the left are the best I've had in years. I will be having one on Saturday, and maybe Sunday too.

Hoping for nice weather, which will bring out more bikers, and thus, more donut vouchers.

[rastuscat]

When there is a philosophy that every incident or breach must result in a penalty then they will not be reported if not absolutely neccessary.

Had an interesting discussion with one of our crash analysts this morning.

I read your post about no blame investigations a couple of days back, and it ties in with what I have pondered over the years. It sound ideal, like a good way to get good crash data.

Trouble is the reality of the situation. If I'm following a cage down the road and the cage turns right across the path of an oncoming motorcycle, near miss, classic SMIDSY, narrowly avoids killing the rider, I'd use the blues'n'twos to pull the cage over, and off to court we'd go.

Now if the same cage made the same turn but actually nailed the biker, how right would it be to have a no fault investigation, just coz the driver was lucky enough to actually nail the rider?

I see conflicts in the no fault investigation philosophy, no matter how well intentioned it was.

[oneofsix]

Had an interesting discussion with one of our crash analysts this morning.

I read your post about no blame investigations a couple of days back, and it ties in with what I have pondered over the years. It sound ideal, like a good way to get good crash data.

Trouble is the reality of the situation. If I'm following a cage down the road and the cage turns right across the path of an oncoming motorcycle, near miss, classic SMIDSY, narrowly avoids killing the rider, I'd use the blues'n'twos to pull the cage over, and off to court we'd go.

Now if the same cage made the same turn but actually nailed the biker, how right would it be to have a no fault investigation, just coz the driver was lucky enough to actually nail the rider?

I see conflicts in the no fault investigation philosophy, no matter how well intentioned it was.

butting in out of ignorance, the KB way. But what I've seen from aircrash investigation etc, there version of no fault investigation isn't that they don't prosecute where blame is found, far from it, but rather the driving force behind the investigation is safety improvement. You still get to prosecute the cage but if instead you discover that the layout of the intersection is a large contributing factor then that has to also be actioned or it might mean the cager gets an excuse but you don';t go into it looking for someone to blame. Also from the likes of Aircrash Investigation the aviation industry used to have the same blame investigation mentality and it wasn't until they changed that that the safety improvements started to happen.

[HenryDorsetCase]

...if you can afford the truffles at the LR shop, ya got too much expendable income...what the fucks a truffle anyway, dont you need a pig to snort round in the ground for those things...there are no truffle snufflers on SH75...they all got bowled ...

No they're little chocolate ball things. Rum flavour and rolled in coconut. they're gooood.

[HenryDorsetCase]

butting in out of ignorance, the KB way. But what I've seen from aircrash investigation etc, there version of no fault investigation isn't that they don't prosecute where blame is found, far from it, but rather the driving force behind the investigation is safety improvement. You still get to prosecute the cage but if instead you discover that the layout of the intersection is a large contributing factor then that has to also be actioned or it might mean the cager gets an excuse but you don';t go into it looking for someone to blame. Also from the likes of Aircrash Investigation the aviation industry used to have the same blame investigation mentality and it wasn't until they changed that that the safety improvements started to happen.

Its actually an argument towards a more inquisitorial style of justice (based on Roman law) instead of our English based adversarial system.

The inquisitor finds the facts then apportions the blame. the prosecution and defence have different and smaller roles.

[gammaguy]

Just stay away from it between Saturday 10am and say 5pm and Sunday same times. If I am going all the way (oooh err) I try and leave early. But my 8.30am gym thing on saturday kind of fucks that up.

or weekday afternoons though you have to be a bit careful: few more trucks about. But we're all careful on that road all the time, right?

i just go there during the week now,mid morning there,mid afternoon back.

i dont recommend the second cafe on the left in little river either,the big one is better.the coffee at the small one tastes like it should go into my TDR's oil tank

[Drew]

No they're little chocolate ball things. Rum flavour and rolled in coconut. they're gooood.

Those are called...wait for it...Rum balls.

[Jantar]

....Trouble is the reality of the situation. If I'm following a cage down the road and the cage turns right across the path of an oncoming motorcycle, near miss, classic SMIDSY, narrowly avoids killing the rider, I'd use the blues'n'twos to pull the cage over, and off to court we'd go.

Now if the same cage made the same turn but actually nailed the biker, how right would it be to have a no fault investigation, just coz the driver was lucky enough to actually nail the rider?....

What you are suggesting here is not a case of self reporting, but rather an offender being caught in the act. CAA will penalise pilots who are caught breaking CAA rules, its the cases of self reporting that are investigated with a view to improving safety rather than prosection.

Here's an example:
1. A driver/rider passes through a red light, but only notices it when its too late to stop safely. On the way through he narrowly misses colliding with another vehicle. Under the police methodology if either party report it he will be prosecuted. Under the aviation method, he reports it, including the fact that he didn't see the red light untill it was too late because of some hazard on the side of the road that he had been concentrating on. The police will look at the situation and recommend that the hazard be removed, or the lights be made more conspicuous.

2. A driver/rider passes through a red light, but only notices it when its too late to stop safely. On the way through he collides with another vehicle causing damage. Under the police methodology if either party report it he will be prosecuted. Under the aviation method, he reports it, including the fact that he didn't see the red light untill it was too late because of some hazard on the side of the road that he had been concentrating on. The police will look at the situation and recommend that the hazard be removed, or the lights be made more conspicuous. The owner of the damaged vehicle or his insurance company sues the offending driver.

[oneofsix]

Its actually an argument towards a more inquisitorial style of justice (based on Roman law) instead of our English based adversarial system.

The inquisitor finds the facts then apportions the blame. the prosecution and defence have different and smaller roles.

Drifting off topic but I am aware of the system of which you speak and have in the past wondered if it wouldn't serve us better especially in cases like the Kahu murder. The police throw both parties in front of the courts and the evidence for all to see rather than having to choose one amongst a conspiracy of lies.

Funny enough I can remember being told at school, good old NZ edumacation, that under our system you are innocent until proven guilty but under that system you had to prove your innocences with the heavy, possibly stated, implication that you were guilty until you could prove yourself innocent.

[Berries]

Those are called...wait for it...Rum balls.

Nah, that's what you get after a first date if you don't, you know, do it.

[rastuscat]

What you are suggesting here is not a case of self reporting, but rather an offender being caught in the act. CAA will penalise pilots who are caught breaking CAA rules, its the cases of self reporting that are investigated with a view to improving safety rather than prosection.

Here's an example:
1. A driver/rider passes through a red light, but only notices it when its too late to stop safely. On the way through he narrowly misses colliding with another vehicle. Under the police methodology if either party report it he will be prosecuted. Under the aviation method, he reports it, including the fact that he didn't see the red light untill it was too late because of some hazard on the side of the road that he had been concentrating on. The police will look at the situation and recommend that the hazard be removed, or the lights be made more conspicuous.

2. A driver/rider passes through a red light, but only notices it when its too late to stop safely. On the way through he collides with another vehicle causing damage. Under the police methodology if either party report it he will be prosecuted. Under the aviation method, he reports it, including the fact that he didn't see the red light untill it was too late because of some hazard on the side of the road that he had been concentrating on. The police will look at the situation and recommend that the hazard be removed, or the lights be made more conspicuous. The owner of the damaged vehicle or his insurance company sues the offending driver.

Well explained. Makes sense.

However. Someone fails to take a bend that thousands of others have taken with no problems, is the problem really the bend? Is it the vehicle?

A driver goes through a red light that sticks out like dogs nuts......short of a person running out in front of every car waving a red flag, not sure how much more can be done.

I've had cause to look at why people don't see things, and inattention blindness appears to cover it. Trouble is, it's a human trait, developed over the history of man. Not sure how to overcome that.

So we throw the responsibility for road safety into the hands of motorists, and have an enforcement system that aims to encourage people to be more bloody careful.

We give NZTA the responsibility for road safety. They contract Popos to do enforcement. And consume donuts.

A system that has a no fault ethos is also a system that discourages a sense of responsibility. Sure I can see benefits of doing it, but there are problems too.

[FJRider]

Here's an example:

And if the version described by the motorists in 1. & 2. ... is different to that shown in the Red-light cameras (or eye witness account), they could be charged anyway. And the Insurance company may take the "offending" motorist to court as well.

Those guilty of acts of gross stupidity, and ignorance now ... plead innocence.

Until an eye witness ... or photos of the event are found ...

Those that bitch about statistics ... how they are not completely accurate now. Shouldn't bitch about the requirement to report accidents ... and near misses. Changes to legislation are often based on statistics ... so accurate reporting has to be to everybody's advantage, in the great scheme of things ... right .... ???

[oneofsix]

And consume donuts.

A system that has a no fault ethos is also a system that discourages a sense of responsibility. Sure I can see benefits of doing it, but there are problems too.

I see Rustus point but I also see entrenched thinking based on the idea that we, the public, have to be controlled. I would argue that the no blame system actually encourages people to take responsibility for their actions rather than to expect NZTA or the Police or some other government party to do it for them.
A bit like the health nuts wanting to put a limit on the number of donuts you can consume based on averages and limit understanding of now you control your own donut consumption.

[Scuba_Steve]

Well explained. Makes sense.

...

I've had cause to look at why people don't see things, and inattention blindness (created in no small part by the speed scam) appears to cover it. Trouble is, it's a human trait, developed over the history of man. Not sure how to overcome that. <- stop the speed scam

...

A system that has a no fault ethos is also a system that discourages a sense of responsibility. Sure I can see benefits of doing it, but there are problems too.

We've already "discouraged sense of responsibility", a combination of police inforcement, insurance companies, & social conditioning at large (pass the blame is the name of the game, it's never anyones fault anymore) has seen to it that personal responsibility is all but gone in modern society.
An aviation like setup might actually help get some personal responsibility back