Speed tolerance reduced for December and January

[Gremlin]

The useless prick should have realised that and taken even more care eh!

(Now they're blaming the shrubbery...)

Nothing new. First on the scene of a fatality (watched most of it in my mirror) a few years back (thread on here somewhere actually I think). Car straddled the road edge and smacked into an enormous tree. One child dead, one adult brain damaged I think, anyway, net result was a few months later a cute (but probably ineffectual) wooden rail along the road edge and the tree removed.

Poor tree didn't ask for that!

[Jantar]

Actually Jantar you're wrong (again). .....

While the driver is in the dip he must lose sight of a portion of the lane ahead of him.

In accordance with the 2004 Road User Rules, Section 5.9 (1) clearly states:

A driver must not drive a vehicle in a lane marked on a road at such a speed that the driver is unable to stop in the length of the lane that is visible to the driver.

....

Please do, because it sounds as though you're the sort of person they're targeting in the video.

I am well aware of that law, and it is also called driving to the conditions which is something I'm a big fan of. However reading your comment did make me think I'd missed something, so I went back and looked at the video again in more detail. Yes there is a dip in the road, but the car is visible all the way. Even from the driver's view he could see the hazard as the other vehicle came out of the intersection. Note that he was already climbing out of the dip before the other car intruded into his space.. maybe I am the sort of person they are targetting, in which case they have it all wrong. I deal in data, and physics, not emotion. If they want to target me then show a real situation with real data, like is done on SCU. Tell me why the oncoming driver made no attempt to brake, nor to avoid the situation, dont just say that driving at the speed limit on a straight, dry road is too fast.

[pete376403]

The useless prick should have realised that and taken even more care eh!

(Now they're blaming the shrubbery...)

The three Es of road safety (engineering, education, enforcement) but I guess you have a vested interest in only the third.

Not blaming the shrubbery at all, only suggesting it could have been a contributor. If the ad was a real-world case, then a small amount of engineering (clearing obstructions) could help prevent the event.

I notice this quite a lot, lots of plantings on traffic islands actually obscure the view of oncoming traffic.

[Berries]

Is it just me, or does the kid in the back seat look like he has suffered serious head injuries before?

Agree with others that because of the speed shown it drops it straight in to the whole enforcement/tolerance argument. Given that a side impact crash is quite high severity at even lower speeds showing the speedo at 90km/h may have had more impact, if you'll pardon the pun. But then perhaps that is the point...........

[Ender EnZed]

dont just say that driving at the speed limit on a straight, dry road is too fast.

He wasn't doing the speed limit though, he was 8km/h over. That's why everyone died.

[Mo NZ]

The intersection safety advertisement is a crock and is full of incorrect innuendo.
"Im going too fast"
The theme suggested is that there would not have been a collision if the guy was not speeding at about 107kph or so.

CRAP

Here's why. Think about speed and how many metres per second you travel at 100kph and 107kpk.
The difference is (nah you work it out) ..

There still would have been a collision if the driver was doing 100kpk.

[Akzle]

There still would have been a collision if the driver was doing 100kpk.

one hundred kilometers per... Kilometer?

[willytheekid]

Yeah baby. Its always SOEs fault. Someone Elses.

Its a fact of life. Sigmund Frued identified it in his Ego vs Id Theory. Our egos protect us by reading facts so that they protect us.

No matter what happens, we can find someone else to blame.

Aint THAT the truth!

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crim...tes-for-police

...but as you said mate...ego's!

Imagine getting that bill!

Drive safe...everyone!

[_Shrek_]

re the crash ad - the bush/shrubbery around the base of the pole would obscure the view of the road for the driver at the stop sign, especially if the oncoming car was in the dip. Sometimes it's not always completely the fault of the driver(s)

you must be related to the purp at the stop sign

[SPman]

Is it just me, or does the kid in the back seat look like he has suffered serious head injuries before?

They had to do several takes.........

[bluninja]

Well some people will try to cause an accident because they are dicks, not because of speed. My wife was driving this morning and came up behind someone who thought doing 80 kmh and straddling the line between 2 passing lanes was the right thing to do. When this was repeated at the next passing lane, the car behind her overtook her and the straddled, my wife then overtook the straddled and was doing an indicated 100kph when she pulled in behind the car in front. A police car was at the end of the lane and pulled the car in front. Must have been able to see the idiot straddling but chose the car doing a safe overtake.

As for the advert.....perhaps as a long time bike rider I have lost count of the number of times I have braked to a standstill a few meters short of the drivers door as they have pulled across me from a give way (even with a sharp toot on the horn before they start to move). It's no point going to hospital or dying knowing you had the right of way, so you adjust your speed according to the prevailing conditions. That doesn't mean looking down at the speedo to see if you are at some "magical" number and missing cues to potential hazards that you can avoid. The ad does not make any link between piss poor driving skills and accidents only the inference that "speeding kills".

[Jantar]

....
As for the advert.....perhaps as a long time bike rider I have lost count of the number of times I have braked to a standstill a few meters short of the drivers door as they have pulled across me from a give way (even with a sharp toot on the horn before they start to move). .....

Strangely enough I experienced this on my way home from Clyde about an hour ago. Wet road too as the idiot pulled out from the intersection right in front of me. Even more strange I had checked my speedo only a short time before and it was indicating just slightly higher than the one in the ad. Only I was on my DR so the true speed was only around 97 or 98. I stopped short, but unlike the ad, I didn't get out and go and have a conversation with the driver. I merely indicated politely to him that he should get on his way, which he did. I still don't understand why the driver in the ad didn't brake.

[bluninja]

Strangely enough I experienced this on my way home from Clyde about an hour ago. Wet road too as the idiot pulled out from the intersection right in front of me. Even more strange I had checked my speedo only a short time before and it was indicating just slightly higher than the one in the ad. Only I was on my DR so the true speed was only around 97 or 98. I stopped short, but unlike the ad, I didn't get out and go and have a conversation with the driver. I merely indicated politely to him that he should get on his way, which he did. I still don't understand why the driver in the ad didn't brake.

Or brake and swerve with the brakes full on....that model car has ABS right? Perhaps he was going so fast he didn't have time to react

[Dave-]

The intersection safety advertisement is a crock and is full of incorrect innuendo.
"Im going too fast"
The theme suggested is that there would not have been a collision if the guy was not speeding at about 107kph or so.

CRAP

Here's why. Think about speed and how many metres per second you travel at 100kph and 107kpk.
The difference is (nah you work it out) ..

There still would have been a collision if the driver was doing 100kpk.

1km = 1000m, 1h = 3600s.

100kmh^-1 = 100000/3600 = 27.778ms^-1

107kmh^-1 = 10700/3600 = 29.722ms^-1

100/107 * 100 = 93.46%

29.722/27.788 * 100 = 93.46%

There's a linear relationship between kmh^-1 and ms^-1, how does thinking about the speed in different units change anything?

I've watched it a few times Dave & both can see each other.....

at the end of the day the guy was at a stop sign & saw the other car & knew his kid was in the car..... that is where the fault is end of story

the pc world wants to blame every one else for their mistakes instead of facing up & owning it...

I am well aware of that law, and it is also called driving to the conditions which is something I'm a big fan of. However reading your comment did make me think I'd missed something, so I went back and looked at the video again in more detail. Yes there is a dip in the road, but the car is visible all the way. Even from the driver's view he could see the hazard as the other vehicle came out of the intersection. Note that he was already climbing out of the dip before the other car intruded into his space.. maybe I am the sort of person they are targetting, in which case they have it all wrong. I deal in data, and physics, not emotion. If they want to target me then show a real situation with real data, like is done on SCU. Tell me why the oncoming driver made no attempt to brake, nor to avoid the situation, dont just say that driving at the speed limit on a straight, dry road is too fast.

At 4 seconds you can clearly see the artificial horizon caused by the dip in the road, section 5.9(1) clearly states that you must be able to stop within the visible lane. It absolutely does not matter that he can see the car waiting at the interection the entire time. The fact of the matter is he cannot see over the brow. At 99kmh^-1 he cannot stop in the visible lane ahead.

[swbarnett]

At 4 seconds you can clearly see the artificial horizon caused by the dip in the road,

Yes, and this artificial horizon (in the photo you embedded) is at the intersection.