Fast and Safe

[Alan Wilkinson]

according to the doco, germany has those deaths just on autobahns... it does NOT include cities, b roads etc!!!!

So what? You have to scale it for the number of people, amount of km travelled before you know whether the number is good or bad relative to everywhere else.

[Blakamin]

So what? You have to scale it for the number of people, amount of km travelled before you know whether the number is good or bad relative to everywhere else.

why do you have to scale anything??? 2000 deaths on a highway is huge!!!
why do you insist on scales?? didn't work for the NCEA, how can it work for you?

go back and re-read my edited post...or I'll just quote it here

um.. you might wanna check the years on your chart... I'm sure we haven't got to 19969 yet or 20007 either... if you get that wrong, what else???

and "per 10,000 registered vehicles" is pretty stupid.. what about overall numbers?? how many "per 10,000 registered vehicles" use the autobahn everyday? same as the kiwi vehicles that use sh1? or the aussies (that actually have states, therefore can use "State Highway") use the Hume????

[Biff]

So you have to be objective about overall results and not make decisions and policies swayed by occasional spectacular or emotive incidents.

The point I attempting to make, "spectacular" incidents aside, is that German Autobahns are far more than roads that you can drive fast on. They are state of the art highways, constructed out of leading edge composite materials and are littered with a wide range of real time traffic monitoring equipment, as well as very strict policing by law enforcement authorities.

So in-keeping with the theme of being objective, in order to allow the same kinds of speeds to be travelled on the roads here would require an enormous amount of investment & innovation. Quite simply I don't believe that New Zealand has the population density to be able to afford such a major development, bearing in mind that the autobahns were conceived and began being built during the 1940's (courtesy of Her Hitler). The German chancellery has now admitted that maintaining the autobahns is draining 100's of millions of Euro's a year for the nations coffers, money that they would rather spend on other public services, and at the risk of insulting Kiwi drivers, we are nowhere near achieving the standard of Germans or most Europeans attain in terms of driving skills. So we'd also need to invest heavily in re-training our road users. Again - at huge expense.

[Alan Wilkinson]

why do you have to scale anything??? 2000 deaths on a highway is huge!!!
why do you insist on scales?? didn't work for the NCEA, how can it work for you?

go back and re-read my edited post...or I'll just quote it here

Thanks for noting the typos. I've fixed them. I think you'll find it was "not scaling" that's got NCEA in big trouble.

You scale to compare apples with apples and to put things into perspective. Otherwise, you tend to get excited about things that don't matter in the big picture.

The best comparison basis is on total distance travelled. But this is hard to get good data for - so people tend to use population or total number of vehicles as an approximation.

[Alan Wilkinson]

Biff Baff

I don't think anyone is proposing that 240 km/h is safe on NZ roads or we upgrade them to that level. But there are plenty of times and places that 120 km/h is perfectly safe and we should accept that kind of target as a first step towards progress.

[Blakamin]

The best comparison basis is on total distance travelled. But this is hard to get good data for - so people tend to use population or total number of vehicles as an approximation.

why not the whole picture??? how many people actually died on German roads last year???
stuff the scaling... I wanna know!!!

[Biff]

Biff Baff

I don't think anyone is proposing that 240 km/h is safe on NZ roads or we upgrade them to that level. But there are plenty of times and places that 120 km/h is perfectly safe and we should accept that kind of target as a first step towards progress.

OMG - I think I agree with you!!! As a Brit living here I must admit to the fact that I was surprised that on 'some' long, straight (or mildly windy), wide roads the speed limit's appear to be rather low. But I'd stop short at going any further with you and join you in stating that this was the, "first step towards progress". My fear is that if we managed to get 120 K, then we'd be pushing for 130, then 140 and so on.

The first step has to be the basics - and that is to improve driver training. Then and only then should we consider increasing speed limits.

[Alan Wilkinson]

Blakamin

If you really want to know, get off your butt and onto Google and go find out. My focus is on NZ stats, not the rest of the world, and even there I am still waiting on an official information request to get all the 2004 numbers.

[Blakamin]

Blakamin

If you really want to know, get off your butt and onto Google and go find out. My focus is on NZ stats, not the rest of the world, and even there I am still waiting on an official information request to get all the 2004 numbers.

you're the one comparing stats, not me....
geez, Alan, If you made the chart, I thought you would have them :spudwhat:

[Alan Wilkinson]

you're the one comparing stats, not me....
geez, Alan, If you made the chart, I thought you would have them

I didn't make the chart(s). If you bother to look you will see both were referenced from authoritative external sources.

So you really don't want the data, you just want to put me to some trouble?

[scumdog]

Biff Baff

I don't think anyone is proposing that 240 km/h is safe on NZ roads or we upgrade them to that level. But there are plenty of times and places that 120 km/h is perfectly safe and we should accept that kind of target as a first step towards progress.

Sure there are times/places where 120kph is safe - for SOME. Others feeling unsafe at that kind of speed would be dawdling along at 90kph, in that case you would have an oncoming vehicle that could be doing 90 or it could be doing 120 - almost half as much again, makes o'taking tricky, especially if you're in a havily laden 4X4 or similar as opposed to a bike.
Also human nature being what it is they would want to go for 130kph or more.

"Geeze officer, it's not even 10% over the limit"

And WHO is going to decide the time/place WAS safe?? at THAT time or at THAT place? for WHAT vehicle? for WHO? :spudwhat:

[Mongoose]

Did I miss Alans comment on this quote, from his site, or is it just another ignored one?

(1994, 1997) and Houston (1999)), they appear to rather dramatically raise local crash injury counts and fatalities. Though crashes claim more human lives in the U.S. than any other disease or accident, they remain a rare event. And, in the long term, vehicle design and driver choices
may counteract more of the risks that Americans seem to be facing due to the raised speed limits."

[Blakamin]

I didn't make the chart(s). If you bother to look you will see both were referenced from authoritative external sources.

So you really don't want the data, you just want to put me to some trouble?

I thought you made the charts so I thought you'd have the numbers.....
I'll find out myself and let you know....

[marty]

See charts on this page:

http://www.fastandsafe.org/site.aspx...s/Trends/index

and also:

http://www.fastandsafe.org/site.aspx...rcement/charts

i want independent facts, i'm not going to your site

[marty]

Blakamin

If you really want to know, get off your butt and onto Google and go find out. My focus is on NZ stats, not the rest of the world, and even there I am still waiting on an official information request to get all the 2004 numbers.

funnily enough, if you're on google, there's a good chance you're on your butt anyway....