Fast and Safe

[spudchucka]

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

I don't think anyone has ever said it is simply because of better speed enforcement. I think what has been said is that speed is a factor in most fatal and serious injury crashes and they will continue to strickly enforce speed limits as a counter measure to speeding drivers.

[spudchucka]

Have a look at the graph here; http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/media/2005/050101.html

I don't see how anyone can say that the situation hasn't improved.

Deaths per 100,000 of population have halved. 21.4(1990) - 10.7(2004).

Deaths per 10,000 vehicles have more than halved. 3.3(1990) - 1.5(2004).


From the Public attitudes to road safety - 2004 survey.

6. Speed

6.1 Risk of crash. Recognition of the risk of speeding has gradually increased over the last ten years. 15% of New Zealanders still think there is not much chance of an accident when speeding if you were careful. This is an improvement on last year's 18%, and a return to the 2002 level.

6.2 The attitude that speeding isn't risky as long as you are careful is most common among men (22%) and in the 20 to 24 year age group (23%). People who said that there was not much chance of an accident when speeding, as long the driver was careful, were more likely than others to have received a speeding ticket in the previous year (26% vs. 18%).

6.3 Like driving fast. More than one-third (36%) of drivers say they enjoy driving fast on the open road. Overall, 42% of males and 31% of females say they like driving fast on the open road. Half of all males aged 15 to 34 like driving fast.

6.4 Effectiveness of enforcement. Support for speed enforcement remains high: 77% of New Zealanders agree that enforcing the speed limit helps to lower the road toll. 13% disagree and 9% said they were neutral on this issue.

6.5 Risk of being caught. Awareness of speed enforcement has increased markedly in the last four years. Only 25% of New Zealanders now think the risk of being caught speeding is small, compared to 33% in 2002 and 2003, and around 40% in earlier years. People aged 60 and over are most likely to think that the risk of being caught was small.

6.6 Speed limits. The great majority of New Zealanders (84%) think that speed limits on the roads they normally use are about right. 4% think they are too high and 10% think they are too low.

6.7 Most New Zealanders are in favour of retaining the open road speed limit at 100km/h. 80% want the speed limit kept at 100km/h or lower.

6.8 It's a similar story in urban areas – 85% of New Zealanders want the urban 50km/h speed limit retained or lowered. Since these questions were first asked in 1995, there has been in a gradual decline in support for raising speed limits.

6.9 Automatic licence loss. Most New Zealanders find extremely high speeds unacceptable. 90% describe automatic loss of licence for drivers caught speeding at 150 km/h on the open road as fair or very fair, up from 87% in 2003. Three quarters think loss of licence for speeds of 140km/h is fair and half think loss of licence is fair at 130km/h.

6.10 Speeding in an urban area was regarded equally unfavourably. 92% support loss of licence for speeding at 90km/h in a 50km/h zone. Three quarters (76%) now support loss of licence for doing 80km/h in a 50km/h zone, an increase from 72% in 2003 and 68% in 2002.

6.11 Just under two-thirds (63%) of New Zealanders think automatic loss of licence for three speeding tickets in a year is fair or very fair. 19% said it was unfair or very unfair, and 16% were neutral on this issue.

6.12 Support for automatic loss of licence for three speeding tickets in a year has decreased slightly in the last year, from 67% in 2003 to 63% in 2004. This may reflect the perception that speeding tickets are more often issued at speeds of 110 – 115 km/h (see sections 6.15 and 7.3 below).

6.13 Penalties. Twenty-six percent agree with the statement 'penalties for speeding are not very severe even if you are caught'. Over the last eight years this has gradually become a less prevalent view. In general, penalties for speeding are more often thought to be severe than those for drink-driving or failing to wear a safety belt, though the gap is closing as the public becomes more aware of safety belt enforcement (see Fig. 3).

6.14 Self-reported speeding infringements. Nearly one fifth (19%) of all drivers reported receiving at least one speeding ticket in the previous year. This is a slight increase on 16% in 2001-2003. Fourteen percent of women and 24% of men reported receiving a speeding ticket in the year preceding the survey.

6.15 Chance of receiving a ticket. The number of people who expect to get a ticket if passing a Police officer (without a speed camera) at speeds over 110 km/h has continued to increase (see Fig 5). 42% said they would expect to get a ticket if they passed a Police officer (without a speed camera) at 115 km/h, compared with 36% in 2003 and 28% before the advent of the State Highway Patrol in 2000. 68% would have expected a ticket at 120 km/h, compared with only 54% in 2000.

6.16 However, expected ticketing rates are still lower for Police officers than for speed cameras – 13% of New Zealanders still do not think they would be likely to receive a ticket if they drove past a Police officer at 130 km/h.

6.17 In 2004, several new questions about speed enforcement were added to the survey.

6.18 Definition of speeding. Respondents were asked 'On the open road, what speed do you consider to be speeding?' 55% named speeds of 115 or lower, as speeding. This may reflect widespread knowledge of the 10km/h enforcement tolerance applied by Police in practice.

6.19 The other new questions relate to the use of unmarked vehicles, other than speed camera vehicles, to detect offending on the roads.

6.20 Unmarked vehicles for traffic enforcement. 84% of New Zealanders are aware of the use of unmarked vehicles for this purpose.

6.21 Most New Zealanders think unmarked cars are good for road safety. 70% said the use of unmarked cars to detect traffic offending was very effective or quite effective in helping to reduce the road toll. 21% thought the use of unmarked cars was not very effective, 4% said they have no effect and 5% said they didn't know.

6.22 Most New Zealanders are happy with the use of unmarked cars. 78% think using unmarked cars to catch traffic offenders is fair or very fair; 9% think it is unfair or very unfair, and the remaining 12% were neutral.

It seems that the vast majority of NZ road users support the current approach to road safety.

[Jantar]

I don't see how anyone can say that the situation hasn't improved.

I don't believe that anyone is saying the situation hasn't improved, or that it isn't continuing to improve. What I am saying is that the improvement is due to a lot of factors, and speed control is only one of them.

I would not pay any attention to surveys that ask for mass opinions, because that is all they are, opinions. I would, and do, look at actual scientific research and data. Unfortunately, in any situation where risk to life is concerned, there is often a lack of real data as the normal human reaction is to continuously try to improve the situation. The human efforts often mask many of the real improvements, and lead to incorrect priorities. Just look at the Global Warming phobia for a prime example.

[scumdog]

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

Not scientific I know (so shoot me down) but guys that have been in the job a LOT longer than me (ex-MOT types etc ) say they really notice the drop in serious crashes (note: not just drop in deaths/serious injuries) like never before since the harder attitude to speed, they admit it may be a possibility that it's a "spike" in the graph but in their experience they think it is unlikely.

Speed enforcement seems to have slowed the mean speed down but unfortunately the drink drive penalties are not enough to deter the booze adled driver, still picking them up with monotonous regularity - and it's not as some people think "the old die-hards that won't learn" but heaps of 15 to 25 year olds who everybody thinks are 'good when it comes to drink/driving.

[Mongoose]

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.

Yes indeed there is more than one element involved in the road toll dropping, so why discard speed restrictions and not wny of the others?

[Alan Wilkinson]

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?

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

The only way to tell is to look at what happens to the trend when there is a major change. We had a major change with the highway patrol and the rigid enforcement of speedlimits to 10 km/h tolerance. It dramatically has reduced average speeds, but has had no impact on the fatality trend. All the indications are that there would have been the same number of fatalities without all the extra speeding tickets.

And the numbers of cars on the road was increasing before the change too, so it was contributing to the trend line then and there is no reason to believe its contribution has changed or is having more impact.

[scumdog]

More people + more cars, should = more fatal/serious injury crashes, however, + (a)safer vehicles + (b)more rigourous speed & traffic law enforcment?

= less no. of serious crashes, less deaths & less serious injuries.

Remove (a) or (b) and the numbers WOULD go up.

Speed tickets are like GST, like it or lump it, they're both here to stay, NOTHING you do/say is going to change things.

Joust at your windmills Alan if it keeps you happy.

[Alan Wilkinson]

Speed tickets are like GST, like it or lump it, they're both here to stay, NOTHING you do/say is going to change things.

Fortunately that isn't true, Scumdog. I've been involved in a lot of political issues in my lifetime and almost all have been won in the end. But it may take a decade - that is a typical length of time to win public opinion and defeat the entrenched vested interests.

[speedpro]

I think scum is right. The huge effort and resources that have gone into making the NZ public aware that "speed kills" will be very difficult to counter. It's a numbers game, people vote for politicians, people think "speed kills", politicians are for "speed kills" solutions. Politicians ensure that more "speed kills" propoganda is published to support their platform. More of the public become aware that "speed kills", etc etc. I despair at the stupidity of people in general, especially when it comes to issues like this. The catch-cry, in this case "speed kills" is repeated endlessly with no understanding to back it up.

Years ago my group used to all go everywhere on our bikes as fast as possible. We were all on 900-1100cc bikes. Average sort of "cruising" speed was 140-160kmh, or higher in places like the Napier-Taupo road. More recently I've been Ak to Wn in the car at a minimum cruising speed of 140 or so and for a lot of the time just off the speed limiter. In the car I never had a moment, did nothing that would have caused anyone else to have a moment, and generally just cruised along. There was no demon braking to avoid anything or anyone, no crazy swerving round obstacles, no intimidating flying up behind someone and then jamming on the brakes, nothing, just a good fast cruise to Wellington.

But that makes me a bad bastard 'cause "speed kills". Yeah right.

[Alan Wilkinson]

Yes, but you don't have to have 50% of the population fully understanding an issue to win. In fact, the critical number has been put as low as 5%. Then it just snowballs, because most people don't think logically - they go with the flow and the trend.

[Blakamin]

Fortunately that isn't true, Scumdog. I've been involved in a lot of political issues in my lifetime and almost all have been won in the end. But it may take a decade - that is a typical length of time to win public opinion and defeat the entrenched vested interests.

i'd vote they get rid of speeding fines... if jail was the other option... good-bye boy racers (and my boss)


a realist can see that it is never gunna happen tho.....

politicians on the other hand... they just aren't real....

[avgas]

We cannot confuse aspects of motoring, such as speed and death.
Statistics on speed are a load of bullshit - on both sides (for and against speeding).
Yes if we decrease speed limits, less people MIGHT die. However if change some other aspect, such as carless (and bikeless) days - less people will also die.
Mentioning 'Fast' and 'Safe' in the same sentence is like mentioning 'grass' and 'milk'.
People think that milk comes from grass, yet if i eat grass - i do not fill up with milk.
Likewise if i change my speed, and do not die, that does not mean i wont die later at the same speed.
Yes i do on occasion ride fast, but i do not wish to all the time. Yet by increasing the speed limit i would be forced to.
Practice does make perfect, but repetition means chance of error will increase.

[scumdog]

Yes, but you don't have to have 50% of the population fully understanding an issue to win. In fact, the critical number has been put as low as 5%. Then it just snowballs, because most people don't think logically - they go with the flow and the trend.

They go with the flow 'cos they'll get hammered if they don't - and the polies keep telling them that.

Fully understanding doesn't come into it - a lot are incapable of "understanding" anyway, hence why a 'blanket' speed limit etc.

It's like when your dad said 'do it' and never bothered to explain - but you did it anyway 'cos you knew it would hurt if you didn't.

[Clockwork]

Have a look at the graph here; http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/media/2005/050101.html

I don't see how anyone can say that the situation hasn't improved.

Deaths per 100,000 of population have more halved. 21.4(1990) - 10.7(2004).

Deaths per 10,000 vehicles have more than halved. 3.3(1990) - 1.5(2004).


From the Public attitudes to road safety - 2004 survey.


It seems that the vast majority of NZ road users support the current approach to road safety.

Hang on, what has what people "think" got to do with what is safe? Lets face it it not like the Great New Zealand public hasn't been continuously subjected to LTSA propagenda for the last 10 years!!!

[marty]

The only way to tell is to look at what happens to the trend when there is a major change. We had a major change with the highway patrol and the rigid enforcement of speedlimits to 10 km/h tolerance. It dramatically has reduced average speeds, but has had no impact on the fatality trend. All the indications are that there would have been the same number of fatalities without all the extra speeding tickets.

.

rubbish. when HP was introduced, there was a drop in both the fatality numbers to under 500 for the first time ever. this downward trend continued until 2004, however the numbers are still under 500. the 2005 trend is down.

'all the indications'?????? which ones? i hope that's not your opinion, as facts are sacred......, and that's what we are talking about here.


{edit} and alan, i suggest you talk to some volly ambo and firefighters in the rural areas that have a heavily policed SH1 running through them. ask them what their observations are, in relation to fatal/serious MVAs. i can't remember there being 19 deaths in a month due to speed/alcohol for a long time (within a 10km stretch of road that is).