This road is highly dangerous. Can someone tell me why?

[neels]

Depends on their method of rating them, whether it's actual accidents, chance of accident or result if there is an accident.

I can see how it could be a bit iffy with lots of high fences, hedges etc obscuring vehicles pulling out of intersections/driveways, hence increased chance of accident.

All those large poles close to the edge of the road would make for a much worse result of an accident if someone runs off the road or has to take evasive action.

[Ixion]

I think that accidents history is considered. But it's not the only criterion. They say

Based on inspection of various design elements, the Star Rating provides an evaluation of the impact and severity those elements would have in a crash scenario.

And they give examples of the "various design elements"

The safest roads are likely to be straight, divided, have good line-markings, wide lanes and sealed shoulders. Roadsides with no trees or ditches, and roads with few, if any, intersections are also deemed safer.

Comparatively, single or narrow lanes, undivided roads and unsealed shoulders are deemed the least safe. Tight curves in mountainous terrain, poor line markings and unforgiving roadside features such as trees, power poles and ditches also affect the safety rating.

Which is all simplistically logical. But, in reality , the vast majority of NZ roads are going to include tight curves , and features such as trees power poles ditches etc. The only ones that don't are motorways and such like . (boooorrrring)

Why this worries me, is that I suspect that they are setting up a formulaic system that will automatically classify almost all "normal" country roads as "highly dangerous". Which then gves a perfect excuse to cut the speed limit on them. That MAY be fair enough if the roads considered "highly dangerous" really are. But based on their example, I'm not seeing it.

[Ronin]

SH2 between Clive and Hastings. Lots of orchards, nice straights to speed on. Pedestrians like to walk down there at all hrs and get run over.

That's backed up by the info on the web site. everyone did read it right? Relatively short stretch of road with a high accident rate is always going to be a 2 star road regardless of the road construction.

[yungatart]

I think it is because that is where all the spaceships come to play...never know what might happen with those pesky little aliens around...can't trust 'em.

[cowboyz]

actually... thinking about it... speed kills so its probably based on speeding tickets..

So all dead striaght roads where drivers creep up to 105km/hr will be class 2 roads

[bogan]

That's backed up by the info on the web site. everyone did read it right? Relatively short stretch of road with a high accident rate is always going to be a 2 star road regardless of the road construction.

they do factor in traffic volume as well though surely?

edit: just looked and collective risk doesn't but personal risk does

[Ixion]

Yes. As well as purportedly, road engineering factors. They compute two risk ratings, personal risk , which is the risk relative to traffic volume, and general risk, which is the overall risk of a crash occuring on that stretch of road (which obviously will be higher for a busy road).

[Mom]

To clarify, I don't know the answer. They've classified it as two star (as low as they went). It has a few issues, I wouldn't want to blat down there at 200kph, but overall it looks a pretty reasonable back road.

What I'm really trying to work out is whether there star ratings are the result of some meaningless formula (like the way they calculate corner speeds), or whether there is some reason why that stretch of road would be considered especially dangerous.

Here is my spin on it, this used to be a typical main rural type road. Large parts of SH1 between Albany and Orewa (now SH 17) were layed out the same. Back then many, many people were killed and maimed, on long straight stretches of road in head on accidents. How the hell it could happen was beyond me, visibility huge, no bends nothing.

However, travelling on it, it was really obvious how it happened. Ma & Pa Kettle out for a Sunday pootle on a Wednesday morning, pulled over onto the very wide shoulder and travelled at 70 kph. Now they thought they were doing the right thing, but really they were still holding folk up, they took up enough of the lane that cars could not zip past even though Ma & Pa were using the shoulder. SO frustration sets in, and the following car takes a risk and overtakes the old farts. BANG!

Now, transpose Ma & Pa with a slow truck, or a tractor, or a tractor towing a hay baler and you begin to get the picture. Slow traffic holding up others who get frustrated and take a risk to overtake. Interestingly enough, when they redesigned the road and got rid of the wide shoulders the accident/fatality rate dropped too. Look about yourself when you travel rural roads and observe the white crosses, you may be surprised to see them on wide laned, large shouldred strainght or gently curving bits of tarmac.

My theory, I am sticking with it.

[Stirts]

And if I am not mistaken, is that a business operation of some description (signage) enabling fucktards to decide to pull in/out at a moments notice causing mayhem and carnage?

[robertydog]

And if I am not mistaken, is that a business operation of some decription (signage) enabling fucktards who decide to pull in/out at a moments notice causing mayhem, carnage, death and destruction?

Cafe and another business

[Scuba_Steve]

Why this worries me, is that I suspect that they are setting up a formulaic system that will automatically classify almost all "normal" country roads as "highly dangerous". Which then gves a perfect excuse to cut the speed limit on them. That MAY be fair enough if the roads considered "highly dangerous" really are. But based on their example, I'm not seeing it.

Lets hope then instead it just makes all those who can't drive think these roads are too dangerous for them & they stay off 'em, leaving them free for the rest of us to have some fun on

[bogan]

interstingly, the road at the top of the collective risk table doesn't feature in the personal risk. So to us it isn't a risky road, but to the gubbermint, it is a road that the cost of re-engineering will be most effective. Thats my take on it anyway.

[Ixion]

Well, on that road, if I were riding it, I'd be wary of

High hedges either side, causing shadows and damp/icey roads.
Likely sustrike for oncoming traffic (see the shadows)
road surface isn't perfect , some minor tar bleed and loos stuff by the sides.
Not a lot of run off, and cluttered with heavy duty poles. But there is some run off,and the road is pretty straight
Some sort of business on the left ahead
And a couple of semi concealed driveways, which are blind (both ways, I can't see down them, farmer coming out of them can't see me until the last minute) because of those high hedges
Long vegetation by the right hand side, harbouring birds and animals
High trees in the area, which could attract hawks
Some sort of intersection in the far distance

That's a bit of a list, but no more than I'd see on almost any back road, and a lot less than some. Still not seeing why this is a bad road (admittedly, I could never see why SH 2 was considered such a deadly road , either).

And, I am looking at it as a motorcyclist. They admit that they totally ignored motorcyclists in the study. So a cager might spot somethign that doesn't worry a biker.

[Ixion]

Lets hope then instead it just makes all those who can't drive think these roads are too dangerous for them & they stay off 'em, leaving them free for the rest of us to have some fun on

There is that. One can always hope.

Alas, though, the collectivly dangerous ones seem to be so just because they have very large traffic volumes (and are therefore mostly exceeding boring). Whilst of the personally dangerous (read, interesting) roads bugger all are around Auckland. 'S not fair. Why do you buggers in Nelson get all the interesting roads (anyone see a link with the other thread about Nelson biker blitz?). I must check out SH 12 from dargaville to Ohaewai

[p.dath]

To clarify, I don't know the answer. They've classified it as two star (as low as they went). It has a few issues, I wouldn't want to blat down there at 200kph, but overall it looks a pretty reasonable back road.

What I'm really trying to work out is whether there star ratings are the result of some meaningless formula (like the way they calculate corner speeds), or whether there is some reason why that stretch of road would be considered especially dangerous.

Perhaps it is related to the number of accdients there have been on the road. Who knows.