Fast and Safe

[Blakamin]

ok... the name calling is stopping or I'll lock the thread....

[Alan Wilkinson]

Those were just the charts for the rest of the world.

It's not that I don't care about the rest of the world, just that other people worry about those stats and I concentrate on NZ.

I look at NZ data showing road deaths dropping and the question is whether we are unique or in line with overseas trends. That is why I put up those other charts.

[Blakamin]

I look at NZ data showing road deaths dropping and the question is whether we are unique or in line with overseas trends. That is why I put up those other charts.

but really, everywhere is unique... places have different laws, different geography, different problems...
Our problem is we cant afford roads that work properly... unless bill gates and richard branson move over and think "fuck, these roads suck", not a lot can be done about it... so we have laws to try and keep the road deaths as low as possible...
and when you consider what a coupla judges make a year, we cant afford your way either..... I'd rather see the money spent on health care than wasting the courts time with whining over tickets....

[Alan Wilkinson]

but really, everywhere is unique... places have different laws, different geography, different problems...
Our problem is we cant afford roads that work properly... unless bill gates and richard branson move over and think "fuck, these roads suck", not a lot can be done about it... so we have laws to try and keep the road deaths as low as possible...

But the interesting thing is there's not that much difference in the developed countries - both in trends and in relative numbers. Basically there has been new technology in radar and cameras which have enabled the cops to harvest huge numbers of speeding fines and made a lot of money for the equipment suppliers and operators. (Except in British Columbia where the govt decided cameras weren't doing any good and pulled them out.)

But there is no evidence all the speeding tickets have done any good.

And we can't just "keep the road deaths as low as possible" or we wouldn't have a transport system. We have to balance competing needs of safety and efficiency, and we have to allow for progress.

[Blakamin]

But there is no evidence all the speeding tickets have done any good.

worked for me... I no longer sit above 120 in the work van... therefore I am driving a hell of a lot safer (not passing when previously I would etc)

And we can't just "keep the road deaths as low as possible" or we wouldn't have a transport system. We have to balance competing needs of safety and efficiency, and we have to allow for progress.

Obviously we aren't going to take all the bloody cars off the road!!
if cops didn't give out tickets, the idiots with their BR cars would cause multiple accidents in my street... already happens... saw a pisser right outside last year when a guy was speeding in daddys merc.... rego was "SSS" but had lines drwan so it looked like "$$$"
fuck I laughed at him... after calling an ambulance for the girl in the other vehicle......

[Biff]

worked for me... I no longer sit above 120 in the work van... therefore I am driving a hell of a lot safer (not passing when previously I would etc).

It worked for me too, you won't catch me doing over 110 in the car, and this is because I've recevied two speeding tickets and I've learnt my lesson.


But then again you wont catch me at all on my bike.......

[Mongoose]

We have to balance competing needs of safety and efficiency, and we have to allow for progress.

Is that not exactly what is being achieved with things like speeding and other raod laws, a balance for everyone with progress.Taken to the extreme you no longer need a bell ringer walking infront of your car to warn people.?
ps, You still seem not to care for the last bit off one of your own link sites that states that there was no proof that raised speed limits made roads safer.See post 539 for exact wording.

[Alan Wilkinson]

ps, You still seem not to care for the last bit off one of your own link sites that states that there was no proof that raised speed limits made roads safer.See post 539 for exact wording.

Sorry, I'd missed that post previously.

The answer is that study was revised several times after that first report when the authors got more data.

For instance, the author told me this prior to my writing up his work on my website:

From: Young-Jun Kweon
Sent: Friday, 19 March 2004 9:48 a.m.
To: Alan Wilkinson
Subject: Re: Spatially Disaggregate Panel Models of Crash and Injury Counts


Dear Mr. Alan Wilkinson,

Since I included speed choice models' results into crash occurrence models,
the conclusions have been changed. The following is a draft of my dissertation conclusion, which is not the final version, but close to the final.
Once I have the final version in my hands, I will send its abstract to you.

"Responding to a hypothetical 10 mph speed limit increase, the final models predict just a 0.07 percent increase in fatalities, a 1.62 percent increase in fatal crashes, an 11.7 percent decrease in injuries, a 12.3 percent decrease in injury crashes, a 9.2 percent decrease in PDO crashes, and an 8.4 percent decrease in total crashes. Using Blincoe et al.'s 2002 findings, a 10 mph speed limit increase on high-speed roadways in the State of Washington is estimated to offer benefits worth $2.9 million (in 1996 dollars) to society."

{PDO = Property Damage Only}

[Mongoose]

Dear Mr. Alan Wilkinson,

Since I included speed choice models' results into crash occurrence models,
the conclusions have been changed. The following is a draft of my dissertation conclusion, which is not the final version, but close to the final.
Once I have the final version in my hands, I will send its abstract to you.

"Responding to a hypothetical 10 mph speed limit increase, the final models predict just a 0.07 percent increase in fatalities, a 1.62 percent increase in fatal crashes, an 11.7 percent decrease in injuries, a 12.3 percent decrease in injury crashes, a 9.2 percent decrease in PDO crashes, and an 8.4 percent decrease in total crashes. Using Blincoe et al.'s 2002 findings, a 10 mph speed limit increase on high-speed roadways in the State of Washington is estimated to offer benefits worth $2.9 million (in 1996 dollars) to society."

{PDO = Property Damage Only}

So what brought this complete turn around on his previous findings? And how can he be so at odds with A) His original findings and B) The accepted norm of MoI ie Speed.
I would need way more info on how faster causes, say, less injury for starters.
Follow that thru and an increase of huge ammounts would see the disappearance of all injury and death crashes

[Alan Wilkinson]

So what brought this complete turn around on his previous findings? And how can he be so at odds with A) His original findings and B) The accepted norm of MoI ie Speed.

I asked him that ...

----- Original Message -----
From: Alan Wilkinson
To: Young-Jun Kweon
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 2:41 AM
Subject: RE: Spatially Disaggregate Panel Models of Crash and Injury Counts


Thank-you Jun.

Your earlier paper showed 80% increase in fatalities but a slight reduction in crashes after the speed limit changes.

Why does introducing the speed choice model change that result to a greater reduction in crashes and almost zero increase in fatalities?

I don't understand how it attributes the extra fatalities to some other causal factor?

Regards
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: Young-Jun Kweon
Sent: Monday, 22 March 2004 2:17 p.m.
To: Alan Wilkinson
Subject: Re: Spatially Disaggregate Panel Models of Crash and Injury Counts


First, the old paper only used 5 interstate highways for analysis, which is not correct because it may only consider roadways experiencing speed limits (biased treatment).
And the recent work (i.e., my dissertation) includes all roadways with a speed limit of 50 or higher mph (7 interstates and 162 state routes).
Moreover, the recent work includes speed estimates. These two aspects change the results about speed limit impacts.

Jun

I would need way more info on how faster causes, say, less injury for starters.
Follow that thru and an increase of huge ammounts would see the disappearance of all injury and death crashes

Nobody is saying that it keeps happening as speed limits keep getting faster. We don't have any data on that. Just that it seems to happen on these one-off changes. [And it is just the injury crashes - fatalities don't change.]

Although in NZ it shows up both in 50 km/h and 100 km/h speed zones when the enforcement changed in both. Some of that could be affected by police reporting changes because the ACC data doesn't give any speed zone info so we don't know where the extra ACC claim traffic injuries happened.

[Mongoose]

I asked him that ...

----- Original Message -----
From: Alan Wilkinson
To: Young-Jun Kweon
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 2:41 AM
Subject: RE: Spatially Disaggregate Panel Models of Crash and Injury Counts


Thank-you Jun.

Your earlier paper showed 80% increase in fatalities but a slight reduction in crashes after the speed limit changes.

Why does introducing the speed choice model change that result to a greater reduction in crashes and almost zero increase in fatalities?

I don't understand how it attributes the extra fatalities to some other causal factor?

Regards
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: Young-Jun Kweon
Sent: Monday, 22 March 2004 2:17 p.m.
To: Alan Wilkinson
Subject: Re: Spatially Disaggregate Panel Models of Crash and Injury Counts


First, the old paper only used 5 interstate highways for analysis, which is not correct because it may only consider roadways experiencing speed limits (biased treatment).
And the recent work (i.e., my dissertation) includes all roadways with a speed limit of 50 or higher mph (7 interstates and 162 state routes).
Moreover, the recent work includes speed estimates. These two aspects change the results about speed limit impacts.

Jun

Almost makes you wonder if the first results were not as expected and changes were made untill the desired results were achieved. As you were refering, originally, to having a motorway built that would be safer his first results are the relevant ones.

[Mongoose]

Although in NZ it shows up both in 50 km/h and 100 km/h speed zones when the enforcement changed in both. Some of that could be affected by police reporting changes because the ACC data doesn't give any speed zone info so we don't know where the extra ACC claim traffic injuries happened.

Ask any emergency service personel what is the biggest contributor to injury in a crash, all other things being equal, with out a doubt it is speed, or as I said earlier more correctly, the rate of decelaration.

[Alan Wilkinson]

As I said, speed is a factor in 100% of crashes. But knowing that doesn't help set optimal policies on speed limits or enforcement.

[Mongoose]

As I said, speed is a factor in 100% of crashes. But knowing that doesn't help set optimal policies on speed limits or enforcement.

Is that an admission that you want to inmcrease the speed limit, with no idea as to how that will impact on crach victims?.
While everyone needs a hobby, this idea of your is so pie in the sky it will never take off. My reasoning, you are so flippant with your responses when anyone points out a potential problem. Take for example the courts and the system, you quite happily say how it will work, but that is ONLY in your head. The changes are so vast, not only on the road, the building of better super Hi-ways, the less policing etc makes your idea a non-runner.
With respect I suggest o you that you stick to one plausable idea that does NOT impact on so many other areas at the same time.
Further, you have no idea where the money will come from(maybe even more petrol tax?) to make this idea work.
What you seem to forget is the population of NZ and the fact that for the size of population NZ has in fact roads that are more than reasonable. Go to another country, say Canada and go away from the cities, head north and see what their roads are like when you get away from the populated areas. Same could be said for the USA.
The models you base your arguements on all have large, densely populated areas.

[marty]

If you lose, you pay the full cost of all parties. It would only cost the government if they take losing cases to court - or if they were silly enough to dole out legal aid to losers. They would soon learn those lessons.

we've already discussd the legal aid thing, my recollection is that you said that people should be able to get legal aid if they can't afford to pay for it. please correct me if i'm wrong - point me to the post if you like.


and you referring me to your site is like me referring you to the ltsa one. show me some independent stats that back up a single thing you say, and i'll look at them