Police blast speed cameras.

[Sanx]

Fuck it - can't resist.

Listen, my pathetically ignorant little friend. See if you can get your 2.5 working neurons round this...

In 1999, there were 124,880 speeding tickets issued by officers. By 2003, that had risen to 390,195 speeding tickets. In the same period, average open road speed fell from just over 100kph to just over 98kph and average speeds in 50kph areas fell from 57.5 kph to just over 53 kph. Enforcement was working - speed was coming down.

Now, according to your fucked-up, propaganda-laden, evidence-free theory, NZ would be a happy place full of smiling individuals saved from a gruesome death at the hands of those deadly speeders. Except it isn't. Road deaths in 50 kph areas fell by 13% between 1994 and 2000. Between 2001 and 2003, they rose back up to 1994 numbers, despite the massive increase in vehicle safety (ABS, traction control, ESP, airbags, better suspension and brakes, etc). Injuries in 50 kph zones dropped by 7% between 1994 and 2000, then rose by 10.4% between 2001 and 2003. Open road deaths fell during the 2000 to 2003 period by 2%, but injuries rose by 7.8%, more than negating the fall in the preceeding six years.

Do you see where this is going, oh cop of little brain? This is not some politician-inspired hypothesis based upon a preconceived notion and rolled out to convince the sheeple that they're doing something. These are just the government's own figures for average speed, tickets issued, people killed and injuries that occurred. And, taken as a whole, all of the evidence points to just one thing. (I'll try to keep it in words of one syllable so you can understand.) Giving out fines for speed does not make the roads any safer. In fact, it makes the roads less safe.

OK, I failed on the one syllable thing - if the sentence proves hard to understand, looking up "giving" in a dick-shun-aree. It's a big book of words. You'll find 'giving' just after 'git' and before 'gullible'.

Safe driving cannot be measured in kilometres per hour. Driving more slowly does not equate to driving safer. If, and I realise this may prove impossible as you'd actually have to engage what passes for your brain occasionally, you manage to understand this, you might end up an effective police officer. And no, effective does not mean issuing lots of tickets, before you unzip and slap out your ticket book and boast about how big it is. Effective means doing something to improve the safety of road users. The figures show that for the last few years, the government and police have between them managed to reverse what had been a decade-long year-on-year fall in the number in injuries and fatalities. That is not road safety. Even for you.

[jaykay]

Sounds like you've actually done some research - there don't appear to be many people who have worked out that giving out tickets probably makes the roads less safe.

[Biggles08]

Sounds like you've actually done some research - there don't appear to be many people who have worked out that giving out tickets probably makes the roads less safe.

I've figured it out!

[Sanx]

Sounds like you've actually done some research - there don't appear to be many people who have worked out that giving out tickets probably makes the roads less safe.

The sad thing is that I didn't have to do any research. All the information one requires is published by various governmental bodies and neatly presented in tabular form. If the information wasn't so easily available, it would be a half-decent excuse for people such as the traffic muppet concerned to remain ignorant.

I imagine that most people have figured out that increased speed enforcement - as opposed to enforcement targeted at bad driving - is, at best, completely ineffectual and at worst, counter-productive.

Unfortunately, the ones that haven't figured it out are politicians, police commissioners, over-zealous traffic wombles and other individuals with amoeba-like intelligence levels. Not naming any names here, of course.

[Jantar]

Sounds like you've actually done some research - there don't appear to be many people who have worked out that giving out tickets probably makes the roads less safe.

Have a look at http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...light=accident From almost exactly one year ago.

[scumdog]

Fuck it - can't resist.

Listen, my pathetically ignorant little friend. See if you can get your 2.5 working neurons round this...

Except it isn't. Road deaths in 50 kph areas fell by 13% between 1994 and 2000. Between 2001 and 2003, they rose back up to 1994 numbers, despite the massive increase in vehicle safety (ABS, traction control, ESP, airbags, better suspension and brakes, etc). Injuries in 50 kph zones dropped by 7% between 1994 and 2000, then rose by 10.4% between 2001 and 2003. Open road deaths fell during the 2000 to 2003 period by 2%, but injuries rose by 7.8%, more than negating the fall in the preceeding six years.

. That is not road safety. Even for you.

You did of course include the not inconsequential amount of extra cars on the roads (and other factors you probably haven't thought about/don't know about when you dug up those figures) eh? eh?

And injuries ROSE while deaths FELL?? Jeeeeez, I wonder why that is??

Oh, and what oh mighty one will it take to get the injuries/deaths down????

[Sanx]

You did of course include the not inconsequential amount of extra cars on the roads (and other factors you probably haven't thought about/don't know about when you dug up those figures) eh? eh?

And injuries ROSE while deaths FELL?? Jeeeeez, I wonder why that is??

Oh, and what oh mighty one will it take to get the injuries/deaths down????

So dude. The number of extra cars on the road between 1994 (actually, road deaths had been falling since 1991) and 2000 didn't affect the figures, but the numbers did affect the figures between 2001 and 2003? Is that what you're trying to say? And what are these other factors that should take all the blame and responsiblity away from the government and Police, huh? If you're going to use that argument, state what these factors are?

No - I don't have a magic bullet answer, but everywhere in the world that has tried increased speed enforcement as a method of reducing the road toll has found it has failed. Victoria, a model NZ holds up as being the epitome of success, has a rising road toll. The UK's road toll rose in areas where speed cameras went in and decreased in the few areas they didn't. The US saw a marked drop in the road toll in those States that increased their speed limits following the abolition of the 55mph federal maximum in 1995.

Road safety is brought about by a combination of three factors, often referred to as the three E's: enforcement, education and engineering. In NZ, we get enforcement. No education (no education based on fact, anyway), and precious little engineering. But those cost money, and enforcement generates money.

[scumdog]

So dude. The number of extra cars on the road between 1994 (actually, road deaths had been falling since 1991) and 2000 didn't affect the figures, but the numbers did affect the figures between 2001 and 2003? Is that what you're trying to say? And what are these other factors that should take all the blame and responsiblity away from the government and Police, huh? If you're going to use that argument, state what these factors are?


Road safety is brought about by a combination of three factors, often referred to as the three E's: enforcement, education and engineering. In NZ, we get enforcement. No education (no education based on fact, anyway), and precious little engineering. But those cost money, and enforcement generates money.

Just look at the dungers on the road now - cars that were not so old pre '01, and let's not even look at the types that drive them...

And I guess the education doled out by enforcement is too subtle for the average slack-jawed mouth-breathing car 'steerer' eh?

"Goll-eee Ethel, done got me ANOTHER one of them seat-belt tickets, what can I do ta stop gettin' them?"

[swbarnett]

You did of course include the not inconsequential amount of extra cars on the roads (and other factors you probably haven't thought about/don't know about when you dug up those figures) eh? eh?

The only way this would invalidate the comparison is if it can be shown that the vehicle fleet rose significantly faster (as a percentage) in the later of the two periods compared.

And injuries ROSE while deaths FELL?? Jeeeeez, I wonder why that is??

Improved vehicle safety maybe? Accidents that used to kill are now survivable.

Oh, and what oh mighty one will it take to get the injuries/deaths down????

Treating drivers with respect and assuming that they actually do have half a brain would be a good start.

[swbarnett]

And I guess the education doled out by enforcement is too subtle for the average slack-jawed mouth-breathing car 'steerer' eh?

Hitting somebody with a blunt instrument does not constitute education.

[Sanx]

Just look at the dungers on the road now - cars that were not so old pre '01, and let's not even look at the types that drive them...

The average increase in the age of the road fleet is fractional; 11.9 years in 2000 and 12.4 years in 2006. And the government can be thanked for that average increase in the age of the vehicle fleet too, as they introduced regulation to limit the age of imported cars from Japan, meaning that lower-paid individuals and families can no longer upgrade their cars as easily. However, that still means that on average, cars in 2006 were built in the 1994, rather than in 1988. By 1994, more and more cars came with ABS and better suspension and brakes. Tyre technology improved too. And the government and police still managed to reverse what had been an impressive downward trend.

Sorry, Scumdog, I cannot see that the average age of cars increasing by six months having the slightest effect on road safety, especially when you take into account the fact the cars, in absolute terms, are six years newer than they were in 2000.

And I guess the education doled out by enforcement is too subtle for the average slack-jawed mouth-breathing car 'steerer' eh?

"Goll-eee Ethel, done got me ANOTHER one of them seat-belt tickets, what can I do ta stop gettin' them?"

As you know, I was talking about speed enforcement. No-one's against patently sensible enforcement, like wearing seat belts and not driving around in cars with the top 3" of the springs cut off. The figures I gave for tickets were for speeding tickets. In four years, they went up by over 350%. Did we see a resultant fall in deaths and injuries? Nope - we saw a reversal of the downward year-on-year trend that had been evident since 1991. And injuries rose sharply.

So, where are these valid reasons I conveniently overlooked?

[thehollowmen]

Interesting, when I was sending my stuff up from chch and riding my bike north, I noticed that the Christchurch intersections which have red light cameras on them have now got shortened amber times.

If they're worried about safety at the intersection, shouldn't the amber times get longer?

[scumdog]

Treating drivers with respect and assuming that they actually do have half a brain would be a good start.

You mean if we did that nobody would cut blind corners, drive drunk, speed in inappropriate places etc etc?

I feel you do not meet the same drivers I do, giving a lot of them credit for having half a brain is seriously over-estimating them.

[scumdog]

Interesting, when I was sending my stuff up from chch and riding my bike north, I noticed that the Christchurch intersections which have red light cameras on them have now got shortened amber times.

If they're worried about safety at the intersection, shouldn't the amber times get longer?

Awe-kontraire, NO amber light would be the safest..

[Jantar]

Awe-kontraire, NO amber light would be the safest..

Only if the period that is currently amber was then red in ALL directions and adiscretionary period was allowed so that a driver who is only 10 meters short of the intersection at the time it changes to red doesn't have to suddenly slam on his brakes with resulting nose to tails.

But, isn't that what the amber light is now? Effectively it is a red light which means "Stop if it is safe to do so". Intentionally going through an amber when there is time to stop should be targeted just as much as going through a red.

I'm glad that we haven't got any lights here yet. There may be a round about in the near future though.