Fast and Safe

[hobdar]

some kids dies near hamilton today...

My thoughts are that surely this is the reason why we have speed limits...and why the fast and safe argument is too simplistic it just does not work there are people who are already driving at what they feel is a safe speed and splattering themselves on the road/highway/rivers of our country.....even some kb'ers driving at what they think is a safe speed in the circumstances and out of no where in comes a duck.... or gravel or something that could not in the circumstances be accounted for....the list goes on

the sheep wandering into the road, the cow coming around the blind corner the car in the opposite lane drifiting into the oncoming lane (if you had been going that fraction of a second slower you could have survived)

if we have an unlimited speed on the roads instances like this will get worse and the road toll will increase..... do i have any research to back this up no- but i think most people will agree that it is common sense...if the fast and safe argument becomes popular then very strict driver education becomes of upmost important....imho..

[spudchucka]

My point is, making the inattentive driver travel at some arbitrary speed, assuming they are paying some small bit of attention to the speed they are doing, will not "stop" them being a problem. The problem is what to do to make them pay attention.

I agree with the point you are making about the lack of attention being the primary problem. However controlling the top speed at which they can travel helps to reduce the potential for harm to all road users, not just the idoits. After all it is often the driver who is in the right that suffers the worst. Regardless of how good a driver is they can still be taken out by the inattentive driver approaching from the other direction. If you are traveling at 130 and maintaing control but some retard that can't manage 80 crosses into your path then you are about to become a statistic, even if you were in total control at the time of the crash.

Limiting speed helps to reduce trauma. I'm all for better training though and encourage any endeavours to improve the skills of the average driver.

The reasonable speed that is the threshold for remaining alert for me appears to be fairly high. In that regard I think I'm probably safer at a speed above the legal limit.

Unfortuneately there are plenty of drivers who think like that as well but are definitely not safer at speeds above the legal limit.

[spudchucka]

And spudchukka et al if you had the ability to deteremine road policy etc...what initiatives would you put in place to reduce the road toll?

I'd like to see a live shotgun round in the drivers seat of every vehicle that discharged up the arsehole of the driver the moment his or her vehicle crosses the centre line.

It would cause a sharp increase in the road toll initially but in a very short space of time it would rapidly decline to pretty much nil.

(PT)

[speedpro]

some kids dies near hamilton today...

My thoughts are that surely this is the reason why we have speed limits...and why the fast and safe argument is too simplistic it just does not work there are people who are already driving at what they feel is a safe speed and splattering themselves on the road/highway/rivers of our country...

We don't know whether they were travelling at a speed they "thought" was "fast and safe". It is a very simple matter to prove they weren't travelling at a speed that was "fast and SAFE".

More likely, taking into account the vehicle and the ages of the occupants, and using my stereotypical prejudiced views, they were more likely hooning/showing off and binned it doing something way beyond their capabilities. More than likely no notice was being paid to remaining within the speed limit and therefore forcing the other 99.99999999% of drivers to travel at the legal limit has had no effect on this outcome.

So much for my opinion and prejudices.

[speedpro]

I'd like to see a live shotgun round in the drivers seat of every vehicle that discharged up the arsehole of the driver the moment his or her vehicle crosses the centre line.

(PT)

I have a similar idea for when I'm elected President of NZ. Every person will be issued with a single shot firearm at say 21yrs age.. Only that person may use it and they will be immune from any legal action as a result of using it. Imagine how much more pleasant people would be. No more road rage, you would never know how bad a day the person you were abusing had and whether they still had their single shot. Thing is you wouldn't just go and shoot someone because someone else might come and shoot you.

[Skyryder]

I have a similar idea for when I'm elected President of NZ. Every person will be issued with a single shot firearm at say 21yrs age.. Only that person may use it and they will be immune from any legal action as a result of using it. Imagine how much more pleasant people would be. No more road rage, you would never know how bad a day the person you were abusing had and whether they still had their single shot. Thing is you wouldn't just go and shoot someone because someone else might come and shoot you.

I shall make the assumption that when they have used their single shot they will not be allocated further ammo, the gun will be returned to the state as they will have no use for it. Bloody good idea. Everyones armed and everyones afraid to use it. Shit I wish I had thought of that when I was slinging barbs on some of the militia forums a few years back.


Skyryder

[speedpro]

I shall make the assumption that when they have used their single shot they will not be allocated further ammo, the gun will be returned to the state as they will have no use for it. Bloody good idea. Everyones armed and everyones afraid to use it. Shit I wish I had thought of that when I was slinging barbs on some of the militia forums a few years back.


Skyryder

My in-laws would be looking for me

[Clockwork]

My in-laws would be looking for me

Oh..... that's two bullets to your one!

[Alan Wilkinson]

some kids dies near hamilton today...

My thoughts are that surely this is the reason why we have speed limits...and why the fast and safe argument is too simplistic it just does not work there are people who are already driving at what they feel is a safe speed and splattering themselves on the road/highway/rivers of our country.....even some kb'ers driving at what they think is a safe speed in the circumstances and out of no where in comes a duck.... or gravel or something that could not in the circumstances be accounted for....the list goes on

the sheep wandering into the road, the cow coming around the blind corner the car in the opposite lane drifiting into the oncoming lane (if you had been going that fraction of a second slower you could have survived)

if we have an unlimited speed on the roads instances like this will get worse and the road toll will increase..... do i have any research to back this up no- but i think most people will agree that it is common sense...if the fast and safe argument becomes popular then very strict driver education becomes of upmost important....imho..

We have speed limits and rigid enforcement of them, yet this still happens.

When the NZ open road speed limit was raised to 100 km/h around 1985 we began a long period of steadily falling road casualties. Prior to that, they had been rising.

Same thing happened in the U.S. when they relaxed the federal speed limit. There was no consistent impact on the road toll. Some States went up, some went down. There just isn't a strong connection between speed limits and casualties.

Yes, driver education and training of young drivers is very important (whatever the speed policy is). But I'm not sure we know how to do it yet. LTSA keeps quoting research that says it is ineffective. I don't think the evidence is very convincing either way, so I think it needs a lot more work.

[scumdog]

Point not mentioned: the road toll has fallen since rigid enforcement of speed limit commenced.

[Jantar]

Point not mentioned: the road toll has fallen since rigid enforcement of speed limit commenced.

Yes, But it has also fallen in conjunction with improvd tyres, greater use of ABS systems, the introduction of crumple zones in vehicles etc.

As has been mentioned on this thread a number of times already, statisitcs can be used and/or misused to prove or disprove almost anything. Rather than look at the enforcement of the speed limit as a comparison to the road toll, the only correct way would be to compare an area with less speed enforcement with an area of greater speed enforcement, and then look at the accident trends (ie cause rather than effect). The resultant should then be subjected to a statistical analysis to see what (if any) confidence limit has been exceeded.

[scumdog]

The other way of looking at it is; WITHOUT rigid speed enforcement but with the safety features mentioned by some of you what do you think the road toll would be like? :spudwhat:

Remember the number of vehicles on the road is still increasing steadily too.

Sad thing is the safety devices that save lives not only save the lives of intelligent people who contribute to society etc but also save those that by the laws of nature should have been eliminated in a crash to prevent another generation of 'stoopid' people that can't drive safely.

[Jantar]

Sad thing is the safety devices that save lives not only save the lives of intelligent people who contribute to society etc but also save those that by the laws of nature should have been eliminated in a crash to prevent another generation of 'stoopid' people that can't drive safely.

Now that is one comment I must agree with. Its a pity there isn't an open season on stupidity every now and then.

[spudchucka]

Rather than look at the enforcement of the speed limit as a comparison to the road toll, the only correct way would be to compare an area with less speed enforcement with an area of greater speed enforcement, and then look at the accident trends (ie cause rather than effect). The resultant should then be subjected to a statistical analysis to see what (if any) confidence limit has been exceeded.

The two sections of road would have to be identical in nature, have the exact same road & weather conditions on any given day, have identical traffic flows and driver demographics.

Unless the study was over a long period of time, (a decade) I think there would be far too many subjective variables for the study to actually prove anything worthwhile.

[Jantar]

Unless the study was over a long period of time, (a decade) I think there would be far too many subjective variables for the study to actually prove anything worthwhile.

Absolutely correct. So now do you also see the falacy of claiming a reduced road toll is simply due to better speed enforcement? :spudwhat: