Fast and Safe

[Waylander]

I sometimes find it confusing why some roads are the speed they are. Who decides them? I mean, how do they work it out?

Magical lepricons that instead of giving you money when you find them, they take it form you?

[Slipstream]

Magical lepricons that instead of giving you money when you find them, they take it form you?

Dude...that was an actual question...keep your buffoonery to the other silly threads


What I meant by my previous post was, is there some guy who follows a formula in deciding what speed goes where? Or do people actually go check out the roads and make an informed decision?
And why make it a 50km road when it really should be a 70km road? And Vice Versa.

[Waylander]

Dude...that was an actual question...keep your buffoonery to the other silly threads :P


What I meant by my previous post was, is there some guy who follows a formula in deciding what speed goes where? Or do people actually go check out the roads and make an informed decision?
And why make it a 50km road when it really should be a 70km road? And Vice Versa.

Awwww... but all I post IS baffoonery. <--- need a monkey that does this now.

[John]

Dude...that was an actual question...keep your buffoonery to the other silly threads


What I meant by my previous post was, is there some guy who follows a formula in deciding what speed goes where? Or do people actually go check out the roads and make an informed decision?
And why make it a 50km road when it really should be a 70km road? And Vice Versa.

In all seriousness, I thought that the ultimate speed was 'eqated' by the calculation of width, direction, proximity, and corners (width of road, Direction it is heading, Proximity to townships, And Cornering Difficulty (visibility etc))?
There are some factors like crash rates, which slowed most northland roads down from 100 to 80kph.

[Clockwork]

Maybe a good start would be to require people have insurance.....

They do this in the UK.... Personally I think this was a license for the insurance companies to rip off the motorist!... (its also a good way of keeping poor people off roads... or in courts for driving without insurance)

[Clockwork]

How does this theory apply in the context of humans who have destroyed not only their own lives but the lives of innocent parties purely in the pursuit of arriving at a destination a few minutes faster than they would have if they drove at the speed limit?

How can you justify such risk simply to save yourself a few minutes on a journey?

If you take this argument to its its logical conclusion maybe we should reduce the limit to ......... 50kph?

[Clockwork]

In all seriousness, I thought that the ultimate speed was 'eqated' by the calculation of width, direction, proximity, and corners (width of road, Direction it is heading, Proximity to townships, And Cornering Difficulty (visibility etc))?
There are some factors like crash rates, which slowed most northland roads down from 100 to 80kph.

I think the authority is split between Tranzit and local government. For instance, Fergusson Drive used to be SH2. North of Upper Hutt the speed limit along this road was 70kph, that part of Fergusson Drive that is still SH2 (north of the River Road which ends at Maoribank) is still 70kph But when the River Road (bypass) was built and became SH2 then the section of Fergusson Drive that was bypassed fell under the authority of the local council. They saw fit to reduce the speed limit to 50kph despite the fact that the road was originally engineered for 70kph..... its straight..... its very wide.... and these days its largely empty of traffic too.

I can't understand why this road used to be considered safe at 70kph but is now only safe at 50kph.

[Alan Wilkinson]

Actually i think you have reached a conclusion and then looked for facts to back them up. The american study as per my last post you quoted used data for 3 years 1996 - 1999 and only used very small sections of road and concluded that speed is in fact a significant issue still in road safety.

It used those years because that was when the speed limit changed. It chopped the roads into smaller sections so that it could investigate different impacts on straight/curved/hilly/flat etc. etc. sections and not just assume that the average result applied to all roads.

You are entitled to your opinion but you are wrong. I initially got into this investigation when an MP sent me a chart of data and one glance showed me that what LTSA was telling the public about the hidden speed camera trial did not square with the facts. I went looking for overseas analyses when I found the NZ casualty facts were contrary to official beliefs and propaganda.

And incidentally, peer review in the traffic casualty study field seems to be exceptionally incompetent. I prefer to find competent, objective researchers who are independent of "speed kills" funding sources.

[Alan Wilkinson]

What do you suggest they do to punish all the miscreants? Take their birthdays away from them?

Private enterprise avoids making clients into miscreants when at all possible and uses carrots instead of sticks. Governments do the opposite.

For example, now you can be fined $370 for tying a white flag onto the end of an overhanging load. You have to use the approved flag - no doubt supplied by a company with mates in govt.

[Alan Wilkinson]

But you DO NOT know what works, its all an experiment to you, its all theory not proof.

You seem confused. Experiments provide proof. Theories and beliefs do not.

Are you in any way suggesting that a lower speed does not minimise the risk of unjury/death?

Yes. That is an assumption that requires testing. Don't forget there are two separate factors involved - first, the risk of a crash and second, the risk of injury or death in that crash.

The second factor may reduce with lower speed at first but then rise as the chance of being rear-ended at a higher speed differential rises. [An effective way to get killed is to stop or reverse slowly up a motorway.]

The first factor depends on a heap of things including several such as time at risk, inattention and tiredness which may increase with lower speeds.

[Mongoose]

You seem confused. Experiments provide proof. Theories and beliefs do not.

Yes. That is an assumption that requires testing. Don't forget there are two separate factors involved - first, the risk of a crash and second, the risk of injury or death in that crash.

The second factor may reduce with lower speed at first but then rise as the chance of being rear-ended at a higher speed differential rises. [An effective way to get killed is to stop or reverse slowly up a motorway.]

The first factor depends on a heap of things including several such as time at risk, inattention and tiredness which may increase with lower speeds.

Just thinking Alan, do you actually believe what you just wrote?? Read again and see if it make any logical sense or is it just total garbage

[Alan Wilkinson]

What don't you understand?

[Mongoose]

The second factor may reduce with lower speed at first but then rise as the chance of being rear-ended at a higher speed differential rises. [An effective way to get killed is to stop or reverse slowly up a motorway.]

Why does clutching at straws spring to mind with this analogy?

Yes. That is an assumption that requires testing. Don't forget there are two separate factors involved - first, the risk of a crash and second, the risk of injury or death in that crash.
An assumption that requires testing, an experiment in other words? And for the time being tis a theory of yours, right?
Both risks increase with speed Alan, stop trying to sound inteligent, it does you no good.

[Alan Wilkinson]

I have no interest in "sounding intelligent". I gave you an accurate answer. What you do with it is your problem.

[marty]

[QUOTE=Alan Wilkinson]
The second factor may reduce with lower speed at first but then rise as the chance of being rear-ended at a higher speed differential rises. [An effective way to get killed is to stop or reverse slowly up a motorway.]

QUOTE]

BUT, reversing up the motorway won't in itself get you killed, but the (insert any speed you want) closing speed of the approaching doodler driving at the speed s/he feels comfortable with probably will.

leaves 4 options.

the person driving forward lives, the reverser dies. the reverser wasn't doing anything wrong (they were doing what they thought was prudent and safe in the circumstances), so it must be the fault of the doodler. they weren't doing anything wrong, just travelling at their 'safe' speed. no no-one's at fault - it must be the road's fault.

the doodler dies, reverser lives. same as above.

both live. they exchange insurance details and get on with their lives. the insurance companies however, want to apportion blame, so one of them can bill the other. unless they are a state-owned insurer who just covers people cause it's good like that. shame about the $1000 premiums.

both die. it was both their faults....couldn't be the road, as everyone is responsible for their own actions.