Road safety campaigner - 2 things come to mind...

[TheDemonLord]

Tdl rule 1.
TdL will always take the Contrary position, even in the face of reason.

Rule 2.
There will no consequence of action in TDL world.

Rule 3.
When you look to be losing an argument, quickly prepare a wall of many paragraphs and don't forget a strawman or two.

You forgot Rule 4.

TDL will be vindicated by subsequent events that everyone thought him a fool for predicting.

Which invalidates Rules 1 through 3.

[onearmedbandit]

It is an interesting hypothetical. There is no objective answer - as much of it is weighing one risk against the other. The temporary risk of a U-Turn and parking up (at most a minute or so) vs the risk of that big chunk of metal (which probably sat in the road for much longer).

I view that the short time exposed to danger by parking and doing the U-Turn made it the lesser risk. I would also contend that parking far enough away from the hazard means a greater time of a pedestrian walking on the road (also a risk).

I am not being contrary for the sake of it - I see the point you are making, I feel it could be made better acknowledging that too many people walk by things they have the skills and capability to fix because it is neither their problem or they dont want to be criticised for doing something.

And I think that makes for a poorer world.

Without wanting to drag this on any further than necessary. He could have performed the u-turn another 500m up the road, significantly reducing any risk from the maneuver and increasing the time to get to the chunk of metal by very little. I would add to this that the damage done by a vehicle hitting the chunk would on odds be significantly less than t-boning a car at 100kmh. Similarly, the potential damage from hitting a pedestrian at 100kmh (and I find your example weak, as there is significant road verge for him to walk along ensuring he is well off the road) compared to a car cutting across the centreline to avoid his parked vehicle and colliding head on with oncoming traffic would be quite significant. With respect to it being 'at most a minute or so', in this instance yes it was, but that argument doesn't hold up well when applied to "I only parked in the disabled spot for a minute or so" or "I was only speeding for a minute or so".

I have no problem with him acting in a good manner to reduce risk to other road users by removing the dangerous object, and I have no issue with him filming it either, in fact seeing his video may prompt others to do the same. I just think that he could have demonstrated this in a far better way that would have been easy for him to do and not increased the risk to other road users.

In short, I agree that his action in isolation was good. But the way he went about it, especially as a 'road safety campaigner', to which he holds himself open to higher scrutiny, was poor and invites legitimate criticism.

[onearmedbandit]

Although U-turns should be avoided in some places there are much worse issues to be worried about out there.
In any case there is not a danger if other motorists are
1) paying attention to the road ahead
2) travelling at such a speed that they can stop in the length of clear visible lane ahead( this is a legal req spelled out in law)
3) operating a vehicle with working brakes and tyres
4) undertaken training to increase their risk perception

Disclaimer I may not follow all the advice I prescribe

There are blind corners with speed advisory notices of 75kmh. Are you seriously saying that we should tip toe around these corners in case someone is about to do a u-turn just after the apex of the corner? If so, the speed advisory signs should be changed. You may recall the officer in 2007 who performed a u-turn on the Buller Gorge and had two motorcyclists t-bone him? He was charged with dangerous driving and lost his license. By your reasoning, the riders were at fault.

[Berries]

There are blind corners with speed advisory notices of 75kmh. Are you seriously saying that we should tip toe around these corners in case someone is about to do a u-turn just after the apex of the corner? If so, the speed advisory signs should be changed.

Not a bad point that. Advisory speed signs have been installed for years to provide a safe and comfortable speed to negotiate the curve and yet some of them are encouraging you to drive at a speed that means you fall foul of Clause 5.9 (1) of the Road User Rule.

I always come back to a hump I know on SH8 near Waitahuna. You can't see shit beyond it so to comply with the Rule you should be slowing to less than 20km/h on a fast rural road however if you did that you would be run off the road by someone following you. Example of the Rule not really being practical, even though it is generally good advice.

[R650R]

There are blind corners with speed advisory notices of 75kmh. Are you seriously saying that we should tip toe around these corners in case someone is about to do a u-turn just after the apex of the corner? If so, the speed advisory signs should be changed. You may recall the officer in 2007 who performed a u-turn on the Buller Gorge and had two motorcyclists t-bone him? He was charged with dangerous driving and lost his license. By your reasoning, the riders were at fault.

I wouldn’t say that. Merely pointing out that the primary concern for us about someone else doing a U-turn usually relates to most of us our driving outside our visible stopping distance. For which I blame as berries points out our advisory speed sign system which not all countries have. That system takes away the thought process.
Spent some time driving in UK, much of the backroads are tree and stone lined walls with zero visibility. Couple that with larger population base and smaller size farms there is surprisingly often a farm tractor around the next “ blind” corner. Very quickly you adjust your driving style.
Our population density even in rural areas is rapidly increasing, we need to rid our old habits of I know this road or can crack this corner at xxx.
As for the police case of which there has been several it prob relates to the manner in which the turn was done and the higher expectation of a professional road user. Stopping abruptly and doing a jturn is a different scenario to someone pulling over and taking a second or two longer to check their mirrors and indicate for three seconds etc…

[R650R]

Not a bad point that. Advisory speed signs have been installed for years to provide a safe and comfortable speed to negotiate the curve and yet some of them are encouraging you to drive at a speed that means you fall foul of Clause 5.9 (1) of the Road User Rule.

I always come back to a hump I know on SH8 near Waitahuna. You can't see shit beyond it so to comply with the Rule you should be slowing to less than 20km/h on a fast rural road however if you did that you would be run off the road by someone following you. Example of the Rule not really being practical, even though it is generally good advice.

Yes there is one like that on SH5, I at least slow to 99 as camera can likes to park on other side.

[onearmedbandit]

I don't disagree with being prudent for our own safety, and that of other road users. However, if I was pushed on the issue and had to attribute blame to either the driver negotiating the corner or that of the driver doing the u-turn, using this bit of text from NZTA -

Making a U-turn

You’re normally allowed to make U-turns, as long as the road is clear in both directions and it’s safe to do so. Make sure you have enough room to complete the turn and don’t create a hazard for oncoming vehicles.

I would argue that performing a u-turn immediately following a corner is not following road safety advice, and being practical doesn't play a part in it. If it isn't safe, too bad, go find somewhere safe to do it.

As to the police officers case, that example was easy to find due to the very fact he should be held to a higher standard (almost but not entirely like the self appointed road safety campaigner above). However, I have no doubt that if you or I did the same we would find ourselves in the same position, dangerous driving due to failure to ensure the road was clear in both directions.

[TheDemonLord]

In short, I agree that his action in isolation was good. But the way he went about it, especially as a 'road safety campaigner', to which he holds himself open to higher scrutiny, was poor and invites legitimate criticism.

Fair - I think the criticism is being overly harsh. That is not the say it isnt legitimate - just... Harsh.

Perhaps there is history with this person or their work as a 'road safety campaigner' that I am not aware of and so am not viewing it through that lens.

[onearmedbandit]

Fair - I think the criticism is being overly harsh. That is not the say it isnt legitimate - just... Harsh.

Perhaps there is history with this person or their work as a 'road safety campaigner' that I am not aware of and so am not viewing it through that lens.

None that I'm aware of neither, I just think his choice of actions were of far greater risk than the risk he removed from the road itself.

[Berries]

Mind you, it can be dangerous doing a u-turn anywhere-

copper-comes-cropper