Fast and Safe

[spudchucka]

Do you have any factual point to make, spudchucka?

Why would that be of interest to you, facts I mean?

[Waylander]

This is gonna be fun *sits back and watches with his bag of popcorn*

[Alan Wilkinson]

Two reasons. First, it will indicate what your opinions are worth. Second, it might save me the usual minimum 30 day wait to obtain facts from government agencies. (If, as Lou implies, you have internal access to them.)

On the latter track, it would be very helpful if you could explain in detail how policy on the rigid enforcement of speed limits is developed and transmitted to individual police officers.

[Paul in NZ]

Do you have any factual point to make, spudchucka?

Dude.... We all need to be a little careful of FACTs spouted by enthusiasts, zealots and salesmen. Brian Tamaki preaches facts (according to him). Do we believe him?

I seem to remember a poll the govt did re spped cameras. The question was cunningly worded something like.

"Would you support the use of speed cameras to reduce the road toll."

Obvious answer of course is YES! What sane person would NOT want to reduce the road toll?

But of course the poll question actually presumes that speed cameras DO reduce the road toll. Thats debateable and really, there is no way to properly answer that question with a yes or no..

Personally I think ya need to take a chill pill. The flavour of the week is writing tickets. That is showing some signs of relaxing a little. Everything is just for a season and personally I don't mind if we are all just travelling a little slower... Then again, I own an old Guzzi so wtf would I know...

Paul N

[Alan Wilkinson]

Paul, of course we have to be careful of facts. That is precisely my business and my concern, as a scientist, a statistician and as a computer software engineer.

But you seem to be saying we can ignore facts because they are all dubious. That is nonsense, and propagates nonsense.

Regarding speed cameras, a well-designed experiment would be able to determine their impacts - good and bad. Unfortunately good design was not amongst LTSA's capabilities. However, they did attempt a trial of hidden speed cameras in Waikato. The Minister terminated it as a failure. Two years later LTSA tried to resurrect the results as a success. Their analysis was completely incompetent or fraudulent - impossible to distinguish which. It is all exposed here:

http://www.fastandsafe.org/site.aspx...eraTrial/index

The principal outcome was that the trial suggested rigid enforcement of speed limits has no impact on fatalities and an adverse impact on injuries. This has been thoroughly verified by the subsequent introduction of the highway patrol and the zero tolerance policy on speed limit enforcement.

[speedpro]

This is one of those times where personals really need to be kept out of the discussion and only the facts presented, preferably with supporting evidence.

[manuboy]

What i like about the Fast&Safe site, is that regardless of motivation, agenda or outcome, it's a about a guy getting off his arse and spending some time and energy on something he believes in. Which is a far cry from 6 pages of frustration vented here about the latest speeding ticket.

Personally, i could care less about the LTSA / Government / Police policies in regards to enforcing road safety in terms of speeding motorists, because i travel at whatever speed takes my fancy and seems safe to me at the time (judgement call). I suspect that that approach is quite common. Or not.

The only thing i've changed since remounting my steed a couple of months back was to accept responsibility for that. Thankfully so far that hasn't involved wondering if i was travelling a little slower, could i have avoided that vehicle and it's inhabitants.

It has involved not mentioning any tickets i've picked up lately, because you can't be sore at breaking the law while you 100% knew you were doing it, regardless of how shitty the circumstances were....

[Paul in NZ]

Paul, of course we have to be careful of facts. That is precisely my business and my concern, as a scientist, a statistician and as a computer software engineer.

But you seem to be saying we can ignore facts because they are all dubious. That is nonsense, and propagates nonsense.

Regarding speed cameras, a well-designed experiment would be able to determine their impacts - good and bad. Unfortunately good design was not amongst LTSA's capabilities. However, they did attempt a trial of hidden speed cameras in Waikato. The Minister terminated it as a failure. Two years later LTSA tried to resurrect the results as a success. Their analysis was completely incompetent or fraudulent - impossible to distinguish which. It is all exposed here:

http://www.fastandsafe.org/site.aspx...eraTrial/index

The principal outcome was that the trial suggested rigid enforcement of speed limits has no impact on fatalities and an adverse impact on injuries. This has been thoroughly verified by the subsequent introduction of the highway patrol and the zero tolerance policy on speed limit enforcement.

Dude... I agree with you but I also don't want to go back to the days when 120kph was the minimum speed on the wellington northern motorway. The driving during rush hour is a lot calmer these days (as observed from my little starlet).

There has to be a sane compromise?

Paul N

[FlyingDutchMan]

WTF is up with graph: (and the others like it!)


Why the log scale for deaths? Is this to flatten out the actual numbers and make it look like its not going down? Thats a 50% decrease (if not more) in deaths in 13 years! I can't tell exactly because you are not displaying the information in a useful manner (well maybe useful from your point of view, but its not very clear).

The normal exponential growth equation is y = exp(ax) where a is a constant, x is the time variable and y is the population measure. (e is approx 2.718) This equation applies in situations where the increase in population is proportional to the size of the population, for example where a population has a net increase of 2% per year. (In that case a = 0.02 for x measured in years.)

The natural logarithm is defined to be: ln(y) = ln(exp(ax)) = ax. This means that if we plot ln(y) against x we get a straight line of slope = a. This is the reason for using logarithmic scales in these charts. On a normal flat scale we would be observing changes in curved lines - much harder to identify and measure.

Translation: I've used a log scale to hide the actual decrease in the deaths and injuries over the last 13 years.

As a statistition you should be showing the information in a non-biased view. You are actually worse than the LTSA for trying to deliberatly trying to mis-lead people. Everyone knows the LTSA does it, but you claim to be the voice of reason while trying to pull bullshit like that.

Got the graphs and quotes from: http://www.fastandsafe.org/site.aspx...yTrends/charts

[SPman]

I think the intent is to show the upwards trend in deaths and injuries since 2000, despite the intensive crack down on speed, in contrast to the national downwards trend displayed in the preceding 10 yrs.

[Alan Wilkinson]

The log scale is to show a constant long term trend as a straight line rather than as a curve. This is so it is easy to spot changes in the trend - you can't easily see how an exponential curve is changing but you can see how a straight line changes.

Roads have been getting safer and crash numbers have been reducing world-wide for many decades around the world. That's why you can't just compare numbers from one year to the next to find the impact of a change. You have to look for the change against the long term trend line.

The charts show that there was a very constant long term trend (ie a straight line sloping downwards) from about 1993 to the end of 2000. Then the highway patrol was introduced with rigid enforcement of speed limits, and it all turned to custard.

I believe the long term trend downward is mostly due to incremental road and vehicle engineering improvements. Demographics and congestion may also play a part.

[Alan Wilkinson]

I should have added that it also totally disproves the LTSA claim that crash rates are exponentially dependent on average speeds.

[Alan Wilkinson]

Dude... I agree with you but I also don't want to go back to the days when 120kph was the minimum speed on the wellington northern motorway. The driving during rush hour is a lot calmer these days (as observed from my little starlet).

There has to be a sane compromise?

Paul N

I absolutely agree that all kinds of needs should be met by our road transport system. It is clear from the research that there are different needs. For a simple example, on average, women prefer to drive 7 mph slower than men. Those differences should be catered for and not ignored or suppressed.

For a start, SH1 should be at least a 4 lane divided highway throughout the North Island. Secondly, the driving test should ensure drivers are capable of passing and allowing others to pass on our other 2 lane main roads.

I would like to see private operators running toll lanes and new toll roads with freedom to innovate and provide services for different kinds of users.

[SPman]

I would like to see bias, prejudice, political advantage, point scoring and all other manner of bullshit taken out of the whole road safety scenario.
Clear, accurate data, and solutions from people and organisations with no barrow to push, that takes into account the real world and an overview of how transport and society are intertwined, from proper data that is comprehensively collected, analysed and interpreted.



Hah!
Fat chance!
Is that a porker I see flying past my window?



Oh fuck it, I'll just go back to ignoring the entire road regulation scenario and riding as best as I see fit, in the manner that has kept me and others alive, unharmed and happy the last 40 yrs!

[Paul in NZ]

For a start, SH1 should be at least a 4 lane divided highway throughout the North Island.

Bollox

It should be 4 lanes all the way to Dunedin and 6 lanes in the north

I agree
SPman