Fast and Safe

[spudchucka]

No, I'd prefer to see the government controlling less of our lives and our resources. Nations do better when individuals are freer so long as life, liberty and property is protected.

You'll find few countries freer than little old NZ.

If the Govt isn't going to pay for your road through some form of tax, (controlling our resources), then who will be funding it and how will they be raising the revenue?

[Alan Wilkinson]

Progress at the expense of human life? So long as it isn't your life or the life of someone close to you.

When individuals are free to make their own decisions, they take risks to innovate and may invest their life in something they believe in. Sometimes they win and sometimes they lose. The human race benefits from their endeavours and their experiments.

Your dreams of a national four lane divided highway are delusions of granduer. We will be travelling by teleporter before that road gets built.

No, it is a realistic objective and should guide planning and investment. That would stop an awful lot of waste I see happening.

[Alan Wilkinson]

You'll find few countries freer than little old NZ.

And those countries got wealthier than we did.

If the Govt isn't going to pay for your road through some form of tax, (controlling our resources), then who will be funding it and how will they be raising the revenue?

If the Govt continues to raise revenue from road users, it should spend it on the roads, and spend it wisely. Otherwise it should lease road corridors to private operators and let them build and operate those roads. They would raise money the way they do for everything else - from investors - and users would pay tolls.

[speedpro]

Comments a little earlier in the post to the effect that the rigid enforcement of speed limits has had an effect on drivers missed the point. Yes you may have slowed down as a consequence. The point of this thread is whether going slower has made you any safer on the road. I don't believe so. Yes you may now survive an accident, BUT if you'd been paying attention you may have avoided the accident completely. In that regard going slower is worse as the perceived risk is lower so you would relax, imperceptibly raising the risk again.

All the propoganda about NZ roads being built in the '50s is irrelevant here. Noone is advocating raising the limit on some backwater road. The topic is about having realistic speed limits, and enforcement, on our main roads. Typical examples I'm thinking of are places like the Bombay hills, SH1 motorway north of Albany, etc. There is no logical reason taking into consideration the roads and modern vehicles why the limit couldn't be 120kmh or even higher. The only risk I think would come from peoples lack of ability to drive.

Examples illustrating my view that speed is not THE issue is the number of crashes that occur in places like the Canterbury plains. We have long, flat, straight, well maintained, pieces of road and still there are crashes. My opinion is that driver skill/paying attention is THE problem.

[spudchucka]

When individuals are free to make their own decisions, they take risks to innovate and may invest their life in something they believe in. Sometimes they win and sometimes they lose. The human race benefits from their endeavours and their experiments.

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?

The human race benefits from their endeavours? The poor shmuck that gets killed some arsehole in a hurry today might have been the genious that invents the teleporter tomorrow. How would his death benefit the human race?

Or maybe he'll just becomes a vegetable, wheel chair bound for the rest of his life and a great burden to society and his family.

Who are the winners and losers in this situation?

[speedpro]

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?

The theory is that going a little faster isn't going to CAUSE an accident, quite the opposite in fact.

Noone is arguing about the severity IF an accident occurs and you are going a bit quicker.

[spudchucka]

Examples illustrating my view that speed is not THE issue is the number of crashes that occur in places like the Canterbury plains. We have long, flat, straight, well maintained, pieces of road and still there are crashes. My opinion is that driver skill/paying attention is THE problem.

Why the hell would you want inattentive drivers moving at high speed on any section of road?

You can't legislate against peoples stupidity and inability to make reasonable decisions. You can however minimise the risk by imposing speed restrictions.

[spudchucka]

The theory is that going a little faster isn't going to CAUSE an accident, quite the opposite in fact.

Noone is arguing about the severity IF an accident occurs and you are going a bit quicker.

Its not an absolute. Going a little faster can cause a crash. Its not often the sole cause but is almost always a factor in both cuase and effect.

[Alan Wilkinson]

Why the hell would you want inattentive drivers moving at high speed on any section of road?

For example, bored drivers forced to travel at 90 km/h when they want to travel at 120 km/h?

You can't legislate against peoples stupidity and inability to make reasonable decisions. You can however minimise the risk by imposing speed restrictions.

Only if it does minimise the risk. My point is that it doesn't, hasn't and won't.

[Alan Wilkinson]

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?

That is about judgement and risk-taking, not innovation.

It is a decision a driver makes every moment - what speed to travel at. Whether it is above or below the posted speed limit makes no difference whatever. The risk and outcome possibilities are exactly the same.

As I have said, almost always drivers get it right. Occasionally, not, and we should investigate those cases properly to find out why and what we can do to avoid recurrence.

You are right, you cannot legislate against people making mistakes. First you have to understand why they made them - then you can try to do something about it.

[scumdog]

For example, bored drivers forced to travel at 90 km/h when they want to travel at 120 km/h?

Keep the roads twisty and rough, that'll keep 'em from getting bored!!
Life's a risk anyway.

[scumdog]

That is about judgement and risk-taking, not innovation.

It is a decision a driver makes every moment - what speed to travel at. Whether it is above or below the posted speed limit makes no difference whatever. The risk and outcome possibilities are exactly the same.

As I have said, almost always drivers get it right. Occasionally, not, and we should investigate those cases properly to find out why and what we can do to avoid recurrence.

You are right, you cannot legislate against people making mistakes. First you have to understand why they made them - then you can try to do something about it.

Yesterdays prangs I went to, one was worn tyres on a wet road, the other lack of attention, how do we "do" something about that type of thing?? :spudwhat:

[Mongoose]

For example, bored drivers forced to travel at 90 km/h when they want to travel at 120 km/h?

Only if it does minimise the risk. My point is that it doesn't, hasn't and won't.

You seem fixated on crashes and not the after effects of a crash. How long before 120kmh becomes boring for some? Where would you draw the line Alan?

Minimise risk you say? Again think of minimising the risk of serious injury or death, or does that not count?

[Alan Wilkinson]

Yesterdays prangs I went to, one was worn tyres on a wet road, the other lack of attention, how do we "do" something about that type of thing??

Maybe a good start would be to require people have insurance and let the insurance companies put the pressure on their customers. No insurance, no entrance to private toll roads.

Oh, and as usual when the govt runs things, if they drive on public roads without insurance we'll fine and/or jail them. Anything the govt runs, it has to invent yet more crimes to manage it.

[Alan Wilkinson]

You seem fixated on crashes and not the after effects of a crash. How long before 120kmh becomes boring for some? Where would you draw the line Alan?

Minimise risk you say? Again think of minimising the risk of serious injury or death, or does that not count?

I am fixated on what works and what doesn't work, that is all. What we might think minimises risk doesn't matter. What matters is what actually does minimise risk. To find out we have to investigate and measure things.