December 2006 Road Safety Policy Statement

**XP@** · 14th December 2006, 22:42

I hummed and haaa'd about which forum to sick this in (safety or law). In the end I decided this is the best place, cos well.. why not...

Site: http://www.safeas.govt.nz/safeas-downloads.html

Document: http://www.safeas.govt.nz/road-safet...ent-dec-06.pdf

See also: http://www.transport.govt.nz/monthlyoverview/ for the latest collected sats on accidents.

Memorable quotes (all out of context so read the document):

Our broad advertising campaigns will be used as appropriate to help to make people are aware of the road safety risks posed by issues like fatigue and driver distractions that cannot be addressed by enforcement

A second area, where fines have been problematic, is in relation to speed management, where unfounded accusations of revenue gathering have been able to undermine the safety message as being the sole reason for speed enforcement.

The Government is not prepared to introduce demerit points on speed offences detected by camera. However, it does wish to explore the feasibility of the diminishing demerit points system.

Speed management presents a dilemma. The view of road safety experts worldwide is that speed is the single most important determinant of the extent to which anyone will be injured in a crash. Everything possible should be done to try and reduce driving speeds as that is the single most effective strategy for reducing road trauma.

The approach to speed management needs to link with efforts to address climate change issues and the impact of emissions on health.

... seeing around 130 fatal crashes each year occurring where driving too fast for the conditions is a contributor..... there are still over 100 fatal crashes each year where alcohol is a contributing factor

Government is concerned about the safety implications of the rapid increase in growth of the motorcycle fleet. Anecdotal evidence suggests that much of this growth is among older and returning riders. This development raises the following issues, which officials have been asked to explore and report on:

(a) improving education and training of motorcyclists and raising awareness of motorcyclists among the general population of road users;
(b) considering whether the 70km/h speed limit for learner motorcyclists is appropriate given the concerns expressed by motorcyclists about the risks presented by this limit; and
(c) assessing the suitability of the infrastructure to support the growth in motorcycling. in particular, there are issues around the safety of the road surface and suitability for motorcycling and cycling.

And for the grand finale, the crux of the summary after all the rest of the blather...

The changes to urban speed tolerances will take effect in early February 2007.

They listened and they have spoken. We will have a whole new paradigm of revenue gathering!

**Donor** · 14th December 2006, 22:52

Originally Posted by The Government People

(b) considering whether the 70km/h speed limit for learner motorcyclists is appropriate given the concerns expressed by motorcyclists about the risks presented by this limit

Woot! Woot I tell you!

**Skyryder** · 14th December 2006, 23:15

See SPEED MANAGMENT 24-30.

Looks like some serious changes coming up. Watch out for the PR that is going to dispell the revinue gathering myth.

Skyryder

**Lou Girardin** · 15th December 2006, 05:52

Nothing new here. Except for the 'reducing balance' management of demerits. What happened to the concept of punishment clearing your slate?

**SPman** · 15th December 2006, 12:57

But Lou - surely you know that "road crime" is a most heinous offence which will lead to the downfall off civilisation as they know it and perpetrators should be made to suffer...and made.....and made........

**riffer** · 15th December 2006, 13:46

Points 24-30 don't scare me.

The way I see it, they are admitting that a large proportion of the public don't believe them when they say they aren't trying to raise revenue.

Let's face it, Point 24 is absolutely right. In a crash situation, your speed will determine your fate.

I would applaud different measures taken to reduce overall speed. Fining people hasn't worked. The amount of under 18's who owe more than $1000 is ridiculous.

I believe they should wipe fines, and go with the demerits. If we have to have the system they offer, with demerit points lasting 2 years regardless of whether you lose your licence or not, then so be it. You make a good point Lou about punishment cleaning your slate but it just doesn't seem to be deterring the worst offenders.

I feel the danger of being hit by a speeding car driven by some riceboy is much greater than being hit by a speeding bike.

**bell** · 15th December 2006, 15:45

Originally Posted by XP@

They listened and they have spoken. We will have a whole new paradigm of revenue gathering!

As long as there are people kind/foolish enough to exchange their money for the opportunity to speed then the government will happily keep taking it from us.

**Jantar** · 15th December 2006, 16:54

Originally Posted by Lou Girardin

Nothing new here. Except for the 'reducing balance' management of demerits. What happened to the concept of punishment clearing your slate?

The idea behind diminishing demerits came from my suggestion at http://www.safeas.govt.nz/smf/index.php?topic=196.0

If punishment was meant to clear the slate then why weren't my 20 demerits cleared when I paid my fine? Instead the demerits only started when I paid up. Read my suggestion again and you will see that good drivers who only infringe occassionally will be rewarded by their points diminishing, while serious and repaet offenders will have to watch their driving habits closely.

Originally Posted by riffer

I believe they should wipe fines, and go with the demerits. If we have to have the system they offer, with demerit points lasting 2 years regardless of whether you lose your licence or not, then so be it. You make a good point Lou about punishment cleaning your slate but it just doesn't seem to be deterring the worst offenders.

But under my suggestion the points don't remain for two years. They diminish 10% per month.

**Skyryder** · 16th December 2006, 08:40

Originally Posted by riffer

Points 24-30 don't scare me.

The way I see it, they are admitting that a large proportion of the public don't believe them when they say they aren't trying to raise revenue.

Let's face it, Point 24 is absolutely right. In a crash situation, your speed will determine your fate.

I would applaud different measures taken to reduce overall speed. Fining people hasn't worked. The amount of under 18's who owe more than $1000 is ridiculous.

I believe they should wipe fines, and go with the demerits. If we have to have the system they offer, with demerit points lasting 2 years regardless of whether you lose your licence or not, then so be it. You make a good point Lou about punishment cleaning your slate but it just doesn't seem to be deterring the worst offenders.

I feel the danger of being hit by a speeding car driven by some riceboy is much greater than being hit by a speeding bike.

See 28 of Speed Management.

It looks as if speed reduction is going to be linked to environment factors on the open road. If this is the case then 28 has nothing to do with the reduction or road trauma but everything to do with keeping up REVINUE FLOWS.

Skyryder

**Fub@r** · 18th December 2006, 12:14

"Government is concerned about the safety implications of the rapid increase in growth of the motorcycle fleet"

The Government is more concerned about the reduced petrol tax revenue from so many people using bikes vs a cage. They are already in a tizz over how to tax electric cars

**Dai** · 18th December 2006, 12:39

Originally Posted by Fub@r

"Government is concerned about the safety implications of the rapid increase in growth of the motorcycle fleet"

The Government is more concerned about the reduced petrol tax revenue from so many people using bikes vs a cage. They are already in a tizz over how to tax electric cars

I couldnt agree more with you. Wasnt it last week they were duiscussing a milage tax for electric cars.

Isnt desiel taxed in a similar manner now?

**pete376403** · 18th December 2006, 17:24

Road user charges for diesels. Would be far less bother to administer if they just included the road tax in the cost of diesel fuel. But then the farmers start bleating about paying rucs for their tractors and combine harvesters.

**Fub@r** · 18th December 2006, 18:22

Originally Posted by pete376403

Road user charges for diesels. Would be far less bother to administer if they just included the road tax in the cost of diesel fuel. But then the farmers start bleating about paying rucs for their tractors and combine harvesters.

Its more than just farmers that would get hit, got earthmovers and various contractor equipment, there are many things that use diesel and don;t use the road

**Steam** · 18th December 2006, 18:31

It's depressing how it all comes down to saving money. Even saving lives and stopping injuries is about saving money, as motorcycle injuries cost heaps.
Money money money!
What we need is National in power, they'll focus more on social issues and less on money. YEAH RIGHT!