Stupid Stupid Demerits System

[Big Dog]

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.

When I was doing my car license in the 80's my instructor took me out for a drive with a piece of cardboard day so the passenger could see the speedo but the driver could not.

You would be surprised how easy it is to stay on or under the speed limit but within 50kmph when the alternative is extending the lesson in 30 minute increments at $120 an hour until you get it.
If you just relax and drive to the conditions it is almost easier without the speedo goading you.

Sent via tapatalk.

[Big Dog]

Any chance we can just stick to the demerits argument?

There's no real conclusion to the speed discussion.

I OP'd about demerits.

I don't see the value in demerits on seat belts. I do in red light / give way issues.
Do they give demerits for insecure load?

Sent via tapatalk.

[RDJ]

Originally Posted by rastuscat - 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.

IMO it also has a lot to do with the constantly varying speed limits and the zero tolerance - combine the two and we got a recipe for having to check the speedo frequently. Just went by cage to Wellington back to help the First Daughter with moving house, with Second Son driving and me piloting. From Foxton to Waikanae for example, speed changed from 100, to 50, to 70, to 40, to 50, to 70, to 80, to 100, to 50... Plus (at least) 4 (visible) revenue cameras. The Bulls revenue camera triggers at 52 km/hr...

A recent study from Oregon University concluded that taking your eyes off the road two seconds (minimum time to check a speedometer reading*) increases the risk of a crash by up to 24 times.

“...anything that takes your attention away, any glance away from the road for two seconds or longer can increase the risk of an accident from four to 24 times,” said David Hurwitz, an assistant professor of transportation engineering in the College of Engineering at Oregon State University, and corresponding author of the study, which was published in the Journal of Transportation Safety and Security. “This is a dramatic increase in risk, with inexperienced drivers who are least able to handle it,” he said. “The absolute worst is texting on a cell phone, which is a whole group of distractions. With texting, you’re doing something besides driving, thinking about something besides driving, and looking at the wrong thing.”


* The police spokesmurf who said it take a millisecond was either profoundly ignorant or just careless. I vote careless, you can't be that stupid to think it only takes 1000th of a second.

[eldog]

I don't see the value in demerits on seat belts. I do in red light / give way issues.
Do they give demerits for insecure load?

Add in Stop

Insecure loads - often the fine is enough, movement of load usually has a greater incentive for next time. Saw the result of driver ignoring my instructions/pleas for tying down a load, which came through into the cab, when he had to Estop.
NEVER rely on someone else tying stuff down
I learnt by doing it myself and watching the big truck drivers and looking at their loads and how they did it.

I would like to see incentives (demerits) for road signage (such as - hidden behind trees, immediately on corners) and for road conditions

Seat belts let Darwin decide, its your responsibility for your passengers. If they are 18+ and refuse to put seat belt on they get the fine/demerit instead of driver.
Had one or two of those passengers. Kiddies can be a pest in this area when they decide they don't need a seatbelt


I am beginning to think demerits for anything that may involve injury to another person.

[Tazz]

[I]
A recent study from Oregon University concluded that taking your eyes off the road two seconds (minimum time to check a speedometer reading*) increases the risk of a crash by up to 24 times.

Holy shit. Wonder if someone could find a correlation between this, the lowered 'tolerance' and the increased road toll.
I'm sure it would still be ignored anyway.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...-24-times.html

[Moi]

I don't see the value in demerits on seat belts. I do in red light / give way issues...

Add in Stop...

Here's the list of what you need to do to earn demerit points...

[eldog]

Thanks Moi

I hadn't gotten round to look at the list itself

I try to drive/ride to the road code, so I don't often have to think about demerits or tickets.

[RGVforme]

Here's the list of what you need to do to earn demerit points...

The ATV helmet one is a bit and on the nose when you don't need a license to operate it.

Does this apply when your just ducking down the road or does it mean that Worksafe can now issue fines as well as demerits on private Farmland if they catch ole Fred bringing the cows in without a helmet on?.

If it did then would not the Worksafe chap have to be a sworn in as police are to inforce A traffic safety law rather than a workplace safety law?.

Someone said on here that fines don't work because the rich can afford to pay and the poor just cant.

If it was about teaching the stupid who just don't get it a lesson instead of the cash the demerits would be more and the fines less but there's no money to be made from someone who keeps breaking the rules and cant drive on the road I guess.

[RGVforme]

Any chance we can just stick to the demerits argument?

There's no real conclusion to the speed discussion.

I OP'd about demerits.

Look out everyone Dads up at 8am on a Sunday and he's grumpy

[RDJ]

Holy shit. Wonder if someone could find a correlation between this, the lowered 'tolerance' and the increased road toll.
I'm sure it would still be ignored anyway.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...-24-times.html

I suspect there is one, but I seriously doubt that anybody funded by the government or the police would ever find that. And yes, even then I agree it would still be ignored. Because, the Religion of the Zero Excess Speed Tolerance.

[RDJ]

Look out everyone Dads up at 8am on a Sunday and he's grumpy

I know, I know, how can a thread not only be hijacked, but subject to relevant comments involving logic and evidence? Burn the witches (or warlocks) responsible, clearly.

[OddDuck]

I agree with the OP completely. Demerits should reflect shitty behaviour on the roads.

Red light running is obvious. Those talking about seatbelts simply being Darwin in action should look at what happens if the muppet lives. Family drafted in as permanent carers, ACC bills galore, taxes for all the rest of us. Demerits should definitely apply.

[eldog]

I agree with the OP completely. Demerits should reflect shitty behaviour on the roads.

Those talking about seatbelts simply being Darwin in action should look at what happens if the muppet lives. Family drafted in as permanent carers, ACC bills galore, taxes for all the rest of us. Demerits should definitely apply.

Maybe more people should think about others if they didn't wear their seatbelts and the possible outcomes

Riding a bike, I don't wear a seat belt, but I do ATGATT.
I know if I screw up my family will be lumbered with either a death or a muppet case.
I would expect them to pull the plug if it wasn't recoverable (brain dead) or lead to misery.

Not sure how demerits would help in the seatbelt case. No reason why it couldn't be tried as a trial.

[swbarnett]

And that's where my clarification in post 37 about incentives come in.

I can't quite see how incentives addresses the issue of extra cost/resource use?

However the costs of incorporating all the safety features in all cars at time of manufacture is making the cost / resources at build minimal.

Minimal on a global scale with unrestricted population growth will still have a major impact on the environment.

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'm actually in favour of an older fleet. The older the fleet the better it is for the environment (emissions improvements not withstanding).

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.

Agreed.

No, study as you stated concluded a driver was less likely to have a crash. Not that they were safer.

Point well made. Slip of the wording here as that's what I meant.

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.

If you were hit at those speeds then I totally agree. The point is that the attentive 80kph driver is likely to hit you at a lower speed than the distracted 50kph driver that doesn't brake at all.

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).

All the thinking time in the world is of no use if the driver is blithely unaware that there's a problem.

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.

I can see the logic to this as well. Some mix of the two is probably the answer. If you remove too many "challenges" on the road drivers will just go to sleep. I agree that too many is not good either.

Sadly there is then the pressure to overtake,

I do wonder how much of this is the thinking that "that shit-head is driving under the speed limit". Remove the speed limit and you remove this "target" to measure others by. I would like to think that then faster drivers would be more tolerant towards the slower ones.

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).

I have seen quotes from roading engineers that state that the higher the speed the more cars per lane per hour. My rough calculations have born this out (taking into account the increased gap to maintain 2seconds).

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.

There is a section of the Auckland motorway that is currently reduced to 80kph due to road works (that are off the motorway). I travel through there every morning and I can tell you from personal experience that this is a massive bottle-neck. Free flowing at 100kph before it and even freer after it due to the cars trapped in it.

even if the angle changes then clearly the outcome of that crash is worse for all types of user at higher speeds.

If you are comparing the same impact angle at different speed then I agree. What I'm saying is that at the same speed the impact angle is a strong factor in survivability.

[RGVforme]

Wow you two!!! Is it really worth all this effort??........2nd thoughts carry on....lol....