If your job was to reduce road deaths what would you do?

[Markw336]

Ask yourself this question:

If there were no rules or laws at all, how much differently would you ride your bike from the way you ride it now?

For myself, there would be very little change!

I endeavour to ride as safely as I can now, for my bike, for me and my passenger and with consideration for other road users ETC.

Speed is regulated in accordance with the above.

Currently are regarded as another roadside hazard to observe, avoid and negotiate safely past, mainly because they work for unrealistic employers! You and me!

good idea but i think that with no laws all the really stupid people would die off lol in accidents then left with a country full of really safe people

[Mikkel]

good idea but i think that with no laws all the really stupid people would die off lol in accidents then left with a country full of really safe people

But if 95% of the population is "really stupid people" and there's 10% collateral damage - then all the "really safe people" could be dead before half of the "really stupid people" have managed to kill themselves. Improbable, but not impossible.

Not too good.

[NinjaNanna]

Simple really:

Corner speed signs to show three speeds

1. Motorcycle
2. Car
3. Truck

with an extra board or coloured background to show

1. decreasing radius
2. off camber

I'd also create a meaningful standard for centre line markings that

1. was meaningful in regards to safe overtaking
2. indicated safe overtaking distance remaining.

I'd also launch a meaningful TV education campaign reminding rider's of the unpredicatable nature of road hazards particularly:

1. tyre rubber
2. pot holes
3. landslips
4. other drivers
5. tractors

and hammer home that there is sfa anybody can do about these and its up to the rider to expect them.

Finally I'd increase the open road limit for bikes to 125km so that they can stay clear of other road users. This limit would only apply to clear open roads and not to any open road

[Genestho]

You and Hinny are just talking B.S?

I decided to take up the challenge and read up a little on your source.

I discovered this brief synopsis on the source you quote http://www.kwengineering.org/TeleCameras.pdf.

So, Ok maybe there is some truth in what you are saying.

In some of the recent research I did into the 70km/h learner restriction I discovered that there appears to be no road safety research being conducted in N.Z.

Do a search on "road safety research" in google within N.Z. to see what I mean.

Yes I found the road safety trust, and I found that they offer funds for research ...but where is the research that is the result of this? The closest thing we have to reserach is the "Down with speed document" which quotes from overseas research.

The police have a statistics department but it doesn't appear to use these as a foundation for commencing research. I also discovered that the police are shockingly bad at statistical collection (and a lot of the information they collect is never even entered into a database!) so statistical analysis is consequently all but impossible in many areas

At the best of times statistical anaylyses is fraught with problems. For example statistics have been used to show that there is no evidence that riders who opt to attend voluntary practical defensive driving courses have a lower fatality result than riders who do not attend these courses. However what reporters of the quoted statistics don't show is that the people who opt to go on these course fall predominently into the demographic of 15-25 year old adrenalin seeking males.

Raw statistics and research are two very different things.

Everyone on this thread has some road saftey ideas that they really believe in just like the ideas our law makers and ministers have. But genuine road safety needs to start with research ... not a request by Steven Joyce for submissions from uninformed people (like you and me and the police, etc).

I have come to the conclusion that traffic safety policy and the associated laws are politically inspired rather than inspired by a real desire to reduce fatalities and injuries.

I feel that the opinions of members of this forum are of no value as this forum is not read by any of our policy or law makers. Posting your ideas here may be a waste of time.

I get the feeling that many (most) of the police I have been discussing road safety issues with in the last 12 months have long since given up and don't believe that they can have a genuine role/effect in lowering road injuries and fatalities.

You need to post your ideas on a traffic safety discussion forum. Is there such a thing in New Zealand? The safeas forum web site (http://www.safeas.govt.nz/) that the government initiated but has now locked/closed was probably the closest thing we had to a public and open online forum.

There's an online forum at the MOT website, opened up along side the Safer Journeys Road Safety Stategy to 2020, and as far as research - you have to provide it, cited and referencable. At that point the way I understand it, is further research is conducted, as to how far - I couldn't tell you.I have an interest in the raw data.

Also if you really want to contribute to safer roads, you need to make a submission on the public consultation papers.

You don't have to agree, you can actually disagree on X, Y, Z because ___________.

Whether or not that's adhered to is another story, I guess it depends on numbers of submission saying the same things with referenced material?

Check the MOT site here for the forum, consultation paper, and submissions, both online and printable/post version, forms.

[Genestho]

MarkW, the flaw in your evil plan, is that the really stupid people quite often take the really innocent people down with them.

[Hinny]

You and Hinny are just talking B.S?

I decided to take up the challenge and read up a little on your source.


So, Ok maybe there is some truth in what you are saying.

Fucktard is a term that springs to mind.
Keep your hand off it (the keyboard) until you do a bit more reading.

Little quote from your ref.
'report from the TRL, Report 595, commissioned by the Highways Agency, looking into the effect of cameras on motorways.
The TRL had found that, where fixed cameras were installed at road works, the risk of accidents giving rise to injury was increased by 55 per cent. Where fixed cameras were installed on open motorways the risk was increased by 31 per cent. In general, fatal and serious crashes were 32
per cent more likely where cameras were being operated.'

[Tony]

Done any courses? Not trackdays I mean, but actual courses. They fall into two camps. People traversing the licensing programme and a small number of people, usually 30s to 50s, brushing up on their skills.

NZ's democratic system is based on the Westminster Parliamentary system and despite the Bill of Rights and what people would like to believe, indivduals have no rights and no influence on Government, other than at election time.

They don' need no steekeen research. They know best.

Yep done some courses. Not many 30s to 50 year olds on the skills courses I have participated in. Probably only a couple in this age group last time I attended NASS. Not many girls either.

But couldn't agree more with your point "They know best".

[ukusa]

How would you go about it?
What rule changes would you recommend?
What education, training and advertising would you recommend?
What roading changes would you recommend?

All cars must be made of foam rubber
All bikes will have compulsary air bags (additional to the pillion)
All roads will be made of rubber
All trees & lamposts will be removed from the roadside.
Standard rider gear would be a blow up sumo suit

[Tony]

Fucktard is a term that springs to mind.
Keep your hand off it (the keyboard) until you do a bit more reading.

Little quote from your ref.
'report from the TRL, Report 595, commissioned by the Highways Agency, looking into the effect of cameras on motorways.
The TRL had found that, where fixed cameras were installed at road works, the risk of accidents giving rise to injury was increased by 55 per cent. Where fixed cameras were installed on open motorways the risk was increased by 31 per cent. In general, fatal and serious crashes were 32
per cent more likely where cameras were being operated.'

Yep read the whole thing twice before commenting.

Maybe you missed the question mark in my comment "You and Hinny are just talking B.S?"

Sorry I didn't mean to upset you, I thought you would spot that I was being sarcastic ... and many thanks for the source reference. It certainly shows there are two sides to the 'speed kills' debate. The problem is that there is now a large vested interest (pride and financial income) in the speed kills debate here and in the UK, Australia and America.

It's become politically unacceptable to challenge this 'common wisdom'. Imagine if Steven Joyce said hold on a minute I've got some doubts about this focus on 'speed kills'.

Besides they don't know how to police/process/prosecute anything without cut and dried limits, i.e. speed and alchohol.

Hinny please keep bringing stuff like this to our attention.

Once again sorry for the misunderstanding.

[Hinny]

Maybe you missed the question mark in my comment "You and Hinny are just talking B.S?"

Sorry I didn't mean to upset you, I thought you would spot that I was being sarcastic ...

Lost my fricken glasses again.

[The Stranger:Me]

Not many 30s to 50 year olds on the skills courses I have participated in. Probably only a couple in this age group last time I attended NASS. Not many girls either.

NASS, please tell me you aren't referring to the North Auckland Street Skills event are you?

[The Stranger:Me]

Maybe you missed the question mark in my comment "You and Hinny are just talking B.S?"

That's not a question, it's a statement with incorrect punctuation.

[Hinny]

Hinny please keep bringing stuff like this to our attention.

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...=69494&page=10
Formal complaints thread went off road for a while on the topic of speed limits.
Post 145 Some US States raised their speed limits, some didn't. Over the same time period those States with the increased speed limits experienced a better result vis a vis road deaths than the States that kept the old 55mph limit.
Can you imagine driving say Reno to Salt Lake City at 55mph. It's about 400 miles with 4 corners. (from memory) Straight as far as you could see. Nothing on either side of the road. I can imagine people falling asleep being a common occurrence.

[light]

*Get in line with the rest of the world and change the giveway rule to the person turning left has the right of way over the person turning right.

You see this is something I am very interested in which I may make a thread on.

The way NZ have the rule imo is correct. Reason being we drive on the Left side of the road not the right. Here is the reason why.

When turning left you are on the left-hand side of the road out of the way of other traffic. The person turning right however is in the middle of the road with both on coming and traffic behind them. On NZ roads it is in the best interest to get the car turning Right around the corner asap.

Countries that drive on the right-hand side of the road still use the same system we do. Left turning traffic give way to all. That imo is stupid because the left turning traffic is in the middle of the road meaning they are stuck in the middle of the road causing issue for the traffic infront of them and behind them.

I have driven in europe for about 3 years and obviously in NZ also and I think the way NZ have it is much safer.

[Ixion]

There is some background behind the NZ rule.

Bear in mind that NZ is still largely a rural country. Larger than England, and less than 10% of the people.

Fifty years ago, it was even more rural.

Back then the "typical" road was a country road. Gravel, no centre line.Narrow.

The rule then was, if turning right pull over to the *left* (ie the side of the road). Wait until there was no traffic coming in either direction , then make the turn .

If turning left, you had right of way over right turning traffic, waiting over on the side of the road

This was pretty safe . Left turning traffic is in a fairly safe place to start with (tucked in on the side of the road). Right turning traffic was ALSO in a a safe place at the side of the road..

But, as traffic volumes increased, it became apparent that often the "pull over to the left" rule was impractical. Waiting until there was no traffic in either direction took forever.

So they changed it so the right turning vehicle waited by the centre line. Right turn still gave way to left turn (This was maybe in 1962 but i can't really remember and I'm not going to bother finding out)

Trouble was, on country roads , this meant that the right turning vehicle was in a pretty dangerous position. Those roads are narrow. If there was a bit of left turning traffic the right turner had to wait for quite a long time , out there in the middle of the road. Quite a few people got cleaned up by straight through traffic.

So, they reversed it. Left hand turner gives way. He's in a safe place, doesn't matter if he has to wait a while. Get the dangerously placed right turner out of harms way as soon as possible.

It makes sense in a country where , even today, the norm is the country road. In cities, with multi lane highways, not so sensible. But it's still safer.

"The rest of the world does it differently" doesn't cut it for me.