Stupid Stupid Demerits System

[Scuba_Steve]

Surely if demerits can be allocated so quickly for non-safety offences, these two offences (red lights and seatbelts) can be addressed.

How's anyone else feel about it?

Red lights ok, seatbelts no... But lets 1st see the cops that hand these out charged as the criminals they are. It is in no way acceptable to me for cops to be committing criminal offenses going after civil ones.
The whole system is fucked from the ground up & corrupt from the top down

Nope. The guy writing the ticket doesn't do it for the money.

Maybe someone in Treasury cares but the guys writing the tickets sure don't do it for the money.

What? no-one handing out extortion letters gets paid?

I'd love to see that study if you do find it - genuine interest. However it would count as an extreme outlier amongst countless studies that show the opposite in terms of lower speed limits being safer, especially in urban areas (infered from your 50kph). Logically then if this was the case (higher speeds safer) then why would we have lower speeds? Even accepting the very specific premise of the study as you've stated it (not implying you're misquoting, just being clear that I am taking what you have said and assuming that there is robust evidence to support it), then you would also need to show that increasing the speed to 80 increase the proportion of attentive drivers. Also you're not taking into account that at 50 there is a far far higher chance of the pedestrian living in those crashes that still occur.

When studies are looking for a specific outcome (when most the time they are) they'll find it, yes lower impact = less damage but at the same time over inforcing the speed scam = less safe roads; steering at a speedo rather than the road is in no way shape or form safe. Also it's worth noting ALOT of the "studies" into speed are done/commissioned by those with vested financial interest i.e. those that make the equipment

And while it's not directly a study it does include a man who has studied lots of studies with over half a century (& counting) in road safety incl heading Vic Roads for a bit. He too points out someone driving 50km/h but watching their speed is over 8x more likely to hit someone than someone traveling 80km/h but watching the roads

ACA story on speed cameras - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPD0EgbLnec

[rastuscat]

I thought it was 4kph until the end of the month. I wonder how that's working for them?

Sorry.

Apart from seasonal blitzes, the 10 kmh tolerance stands.

Not for much longer though. I bet the 4 kmh will slip in at some stage.

[rastuscat]

Where do you think the money comes from to pay the police champ?

If the Govt can have it self funding them why wouldnt they?

Just for correctness.

Approx 25% of the annual police budget comes from the Land Transport Fund.

The rest comes from a source called Vote Police, a budgetary determination.

[rastuscat]

Red lights ok, seatbelts no... But lets 1st see the cops that hand these out charged as the criminals they are. It is in no way acceptable to me for cops to be committing criminal offenses going after civil ones.
The whole system is fucked from the ground up & corrupt from the top down


What? no-one handing out extortion letters gets paid?


When studies are looking for a specific outcome (when most the time they are) they'll find it, yes lower impact = less damage but at the same time over inforcing the speed scam = less safe roads; steering at a speedo rather than the road is in no way shape or form safe. Also it's worth noting ALOT of the "studies" into speed are done/commissioned by those with vested financial interest i.e. those that make the equipment

And while it's not directly a study it does include a man who has studied lots of studies with over half a century (& counting) in road safety incl heading Vic Roads for a bit. He too points out someone driving 50km/h but watching their speed is over 8x more likely to hit someone than someone traveling 80km/h but watching the roads

ACA story on speed cameras - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPD0EgbLnec

Skoobers back.

On the up side, I can now come out and say what I want without worrying about what The Man might think.

Congrats on the studies you selectively quote. You're no different to the pro-speed-enforcement crowd. Decide on a position then find reports to support your stance.

Quite funny actually that you feel that studies take a position then conduct the reserch to support it.

I still can't buy into the staring-at-speedo argument. If you can't keep an eye on your speed with an occasional glance, cash your licence in. Pace judgement is a driving/riding skill. If you don't have it hand your right to drive back.

[rastuscat]

Any chance we can just stick to the demerits argument?

There's no real conclusion to the speed discussion.

I OP'd about demerits.

[nzspokes]

Just for correctness.

Approx 25% of the annual police budget comes from the Land Transport Fund.

The rest comes from a source called Vote Police, a budgetary determination.

What % of Police are on traffic duty?

[Scuba_Steve]

Skoobers back.

I never left, just don't have access at work anymore

Congrats on the studies you selectively quote. You're no different to the pro-speed-enforcement crowd. Decide on a position then find reports to support your stance.

I didn't really quote any studies, but all into the effects of the speed scam show it to be detrimental to road safety.

Quite funny actually that you feel that studies take a position then conduct the reserch to support it.

Funny you think I'm wrong.

I still can't buy into the staring-at-speedo argument. If you can't keep an eye on your speed with an occasional glance, cash your licence in. Pace judgement is a driving/riding skill. If you don't have it hand your right to drive back.

I'm still waiting for you to put your money where your mouth is with that


Anyways going back to the demerits I do agree they should only be used for safety & should be removed from things like tax & the speed scam but should also not be added to seatbelts but should to red light runners

[rastuscat]

For the record, the speed obsession in the police and NZTA hierarchy is one of the long list of reasons I jacked the job in.

I agree with Skoober on a lot of his views. Not all, but a lot.

[rastuscat]

Just a suggestion.

[bogan]

I still can't buy into the staring-at-speedo argument. If you can't keep an eye on your speed with an occasional glance, cash your licence in. Pace judgement is a driving/riding skill. If you don't have it hand your right to drive back.

The probelm is it's not just the speedo, you gotta glance from speedo to rear view mirrors, to off road hazards, to passenger, to pie in other hand, to cellphone, to radio, to kids in back seat, and then your focal distance is shot when you want to look at the road ahead.

But on a more serious note, that's a strawman argument. A) numerical pace judgement is not a requisite safe driving/riding skill, to think it is just shows how you haven't completely escaped the indoctrination, B) Not having requisite skills for safe riding/driving doesn't lose people their licenses; starting doing that with a speed focus would be going further down the path we already know is stupid.

[rastuscat]

The probelm is it's not just the speedo, you gotta glance from speedo to rear view mirrors, to off road hazards, to passenger, to pie in other hand, to cellphone, to radio, to kids in back seat, and then your focal distance is shot when you want to look at the road ahead.

But on a more serious note, that's a strawman argument. A) numerical pace judgement is not a requisite safe driving/riding skill, to think it is just shows how you haven't completely escaped the indoctrination, B) Not having requisite skills for safe riding/driving doesn't lose people their licenses; starting doing that with a speed focus would be going further down the path we already know is stupid.

My view on this is just based on the fact that over the years I've found that when I glance at the speedo I'm almost always at or about the speed I want to be.

I'm not having to stare at the speedo, so I'm not sure why people have to.

[eldog]

My view on this is just based on the fact that over the years I've found that when I glance at the speedo I'm almost always at or about the speed I want to be.

I'm not having to stare at the speedo, so I'm not sure why people have to.

Perhaps it's because you were involved in a lot of drive/riding through your employment(I am assuming you spent most of your time in a traffic unit)

While there are professional drivers (truck and car)
There is a majority of people who don't drive all that much, especially long distances.

I am still thinking about demerits - they do work for most reasonable people, but there is a large number who don't care about fines or demerits.
Currently my view is that they should encourage people to change their actions while they expire so at the end they don't really impact their lives
Demerits have their place, just how/what and value needs consideration.

[bogan]

My view on this is just based on the fact that over the years I've found that when I glance at the speedo I'm almost always at or about the speed I want to be.

I'm not having to stare at the speedo, so I'm not sure why people have to.

It's just a skill some may have and others may not, it's also a lot to do with road feel. I find it harder to do that in unfamiliar cars, autos, suvs, etc; and in differing road conditions. And it's just not relevant to safe driving; 'drive to the conditions' '100kmhr it's not a target', do those ring any bells?

I'm not sure why people have to either, but that is because I'm not sure why this retarded speed enforcement policy has ever got this far.

[rastuscat]

It's just a skill some may have and others may not, it's also a lot to do with road feel. I find it harder to do that in unfamiliar cars, autos, suvs, etc; and in differing road conditions. And it's just not relevant to safe driving; 'drive to the conditions' '100kmhr it's not a target', do those ring any bells?

I'm not sure why people have to either, but that is because I'm not sure why this retarded speed enforcement policy has ever got this far.

Entirely agree.

Doesn't that make a pleasant change

[Duncan74]

All responses below in the spirit of good discussion and respectful debate:-

On the face of it I would agree with this. Until we start to consider the financial and resource cost of the 5 star car. We have resource and economic issues in the world already. The extra safety gained may not be worth the cost of the extra safety features required to produce a 5 star over a 2 star car when the bigger picture is considered.

And that's where my clarification in post 37 about incentives come in. However the costs of incorporating all the safety features in all cars at time of manufacture is making the cost / resources at build minimal. The challenge in NZ is the length of time it takes for that to filter through. Mean age of cars is over 11 years in NZ compared to 5 in most of western europe. Not sure of the USA. So I'm keen that there is a way to incentivise the renewal of the fleet. I admit that this does stretch my non-existant environmental credentials though.

A motorcycle takes one person (mostly) from point A to point B. A 5 start car does the same job (and more) at about the same speed (traffic not withstanding). The "function" of a bike is the same as that of a car (the fun factor is somewhat different though). To make the snowmobile and canoe analogies fit you'd have to liken it to replacing a motorcycle with a pair of shoes.

Yeah, I did admit there were logical holes here ;-) However there are some functional positves with bikes, including parking space, energy use, congestion in terms of what 'policy' considerations are likely to focus on. The 'it's just fun' is also a huge factor for those registered here, possibly less so on a national policy basis.

This study wasn't looking at speed limits per se. It looked into the accident rates for attentive vs distracted drivers at different speeds. On top of saying that an attentive driver is much safer at 80kph than a distracted one at 50kph it also said that a distracted driver at 80kph is another order of dangerous again.


The main point of the study was that it doesn't matter if you're doing 50kph if you don't see the ped until they're touching your bumper. The attentive driver at 80kph is more likely to be able to avoid the ped because they react long before the point of impact.

No, study as you stated concluded a driver was less likely to have a crash. Not that they were safer. If I was hit by a distracted driver at 50 then I've a chance of living. Hit by an attentive driver at 80 then there's bugger all chance.

Apologies below is in MPH not KPH. But looking at 30/50mph as proxy for 50/80kph then you can see that to stop in the same distance the driver at 50kph has six times the thinking time. That's a huge difference. (0.65s to 3.9seconds).



The attentive / inattentive arguement is common, and I do see some logic to it. However, the solution to me is to focus on encouraging attention through removing distractions (eg mobiles), better streetscape design (rationalising roadsigns, avoiding visual distractions such as advertising), etc. I don't see using increasing risk as the mechanism for improving attention as that logically only brings you back to the same risk point you started at at best.

That's the theory. Also, if everyone is allowed to find their natural speed then you will have more engaged drivers. For some even 50kph is too high. If you remove speed limits then they won't feel the pressure to travel at the speed limit and can drive slower.

Sadly there is then the pressure to overtake, and that's the biggest risk on most NZ roads. Ok, not applying to dual/motorways, but see below for comment on that. Driver frustration is a tough one. Yes when following someone at way then it's bloody annoying if they are at way below the speed limit in good conditions. But if you broaden the spread of 'desired speeds' then you increase the risk through overtaking which is typically a head on crash as opposed to a shunt style where you've gone into the back of the car in front as you've been playing with the stereo and not noticed the car in front has braked. That car in front is likely to be the one hitting the ped / cyclist pulling out from the side street etc, and logically if they are travelling at their desired speed they are being attentive.

Another could be (my own theory here) that at higher speeds a given road can handle more vehicles in a given unit of time, thus reducing congestion and the opportunity for a collision to occur.

Nope. Simply then with a 2 second safe gap between vehicles then the capacity of any road is about 1800 vehicles per lane per hour regardless of speed (3600/2). In reality then people don't quite leave 2 seconds in semi congested conditions, and so you get around 2000 / hr. Now here's the kicker though. If you increase the upper speed limit, then you get more spread in the desired speeds, and so more desire for overtaking. On a motorway then that puts a vehicle momentarily in 2 lanes at once as there is a gap they are moving into and the one they are coming out of. And so this reduces capacity in reality. A secondary factor is that with reduced gaps then you get the shockwaves going ack through traffic that produces the phantom queues. And that's why the use of active speed limits that drop to 80, or even lower in heavy traffic conditions work, people weave less and so you can get more traffic though.

Yes, if you do have a collision then higher impact speed will likely lead to greater damage. I say likely because it does depend on the geometry of the crash. At a higher speed the collision may only be glancing rather than square on, for example. Of course the reverse may also be true.

(source NZTA) - same diagram used internationally, so I'm not 100% sure that reflect NZ current vehicle stock. Over time then all those lines are moving to the right, ie survivability increasing as a result of vehicle design. But this diagram takes into account all crashes, and so even if the angle changes then clearly the outcome of that crash is worse for all types of user at higher speeds.


Apologies to the OP for continued discussion on what's largely speed related.