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

**Brian d marge** · 26th June 2010, 01:55

Originally Posted by Ixion

MoT have just finished classifying all the roads in the country , in an exercise called Kiwirap (Kiwi Road Assessment Program - don't blame me I didn't invent the stupid name).

What they've done is go through all the raods and grade them from 2 star (dangerous) to 4 stars (very safe).

Two problems though.

First, is that they ignored motorcycles. Intentionally.

Second is the ratings often don't seem to make sense.

Like this one, http://www.kiwirap.co.nz/pdf/2-Star%...xample%202.jpg.

Can someone tell me why that stretch of road should be considered as one of the most dangerous in the country. Because I can't any major issues. Just looks like a normal back road to me.

+++

Easy three reasons

is it Hard , there is a kiwi motorist on it

and no gravel traps

Next Question

Stephen

**Brian d marge** · 26th June 2010, 02:07

heres the road looking towards My house

now one has been hurt there in all of ten years

Safe as! this one is .

Stephen

**MSTRS:Me** · 26th June 2010, 09:38

This morning's paper....
The section covered in Ixion's photo is being considered for a drop to 80kph 'because it is NZ's most dangerous piece of road'
What gets me is that despite it currently being 100kph, it is a rare day when one can exceed about 80kph anyway. Well, not for long, esp when in a car.

**Berries** · 26th June 2010, 11:04

That’s where it all turns to custard. NZ’s most dangerous road pops up all over the country depending on how you look at the data. Using the first iteration of KiwiRAP the worst performing section of road was actually one in Dunedin that I ride every day.

Dropping the speed limit is the cheap and easy non-fix. If it is rare that you can get above 80km/h then nothing will be achieved, other than more tickets for the government coffers from otherwise law abiding people. Who will still fall asleep and crash in to those poles, and will still pull out of fruit shops and hit traffic that they should have seen. Remove the poles, remove the hazard. Oh dear, too expensive. Let’s just slap some signs up and get the police to enforce it.

**MSTRS:Me** · 26th June 2010, 11:13

Originally Posted by Berries

That’s where it all turns to custard. NZ’s most dangerous road pops up all over the country depending on how you look at the data. Using the first iteration of KiwiRAP the worst performing section of road was actually one in Dunedin that I ride every day.

Dropping the speed limit is the cheap and easy non-fix. If it is rare that you can get above 80km/h then nothing will be achieved, other than more tickets for the government coffers from otherwise law abiding people. Who will still fall asleep and crash in to those poles, and will still pull out of fruit shops and hit traffic that they should have seen. Remove the poles, remove the hazard. Oh dear, too expensive. Let’s just slap some signs up and get the police to enforce it.

It's not the road that dictates the speed, but rather Ethel, Albert and all their friends...

**p.dath** · 26th June 2010, 16:18

Originally Posted by Ixion

I understand all about crash mitigation and not having nasty hard bits to hit (even better not having nasty hard shapr bits that cut you in half, but they're all good according to NZTA). Jolly good, just do it stuff.

But, y'know, here's an idea right out of left field. Strange concept I know, but, how about not crashing in the first place ?

And, come on now, for anyone to crash on that stretch of road they'd need to be either

Drunk or stoned
Absolute imbeciles
or the victim of some freak catastrophe (heart attack, all the wheels fell off stuff).

I can't but help think of James Duece who got hit by a sheep. I never had the opportunity to meet JD - but he won my respect. How about the two recent motorcycle deaths caused by a Polcie officer U-turning in front of them. I had a friend recently come off after running onto diesel on the road - and he is the best rider I know.

Freak catastrophe's happen all the time. I doubt any reasonable person plans to have an accident. Sometimes you don't get a choice where you are going to come off the road. And the difference between being badly hurt or worse could be as simple as having a road free of furniture for you to hit.

**Maha** · 26th June 2010, 16:23

Originally Posted by cowboyz

i think youll find it will be based on the accidents in the area in the past. maybe all living int he area cant drive?

Partly correct, I will say visual deception may have a part to play. Notice how the road narrows?

**Ixion** · 26th June 2010, 16:32

Certainly, there are some accidents that have to be classified as just plain "shit happens".See the "freak catastrophe " clause. You can never eliminate the risk completely. And, for that reason ,as I said, getting rid of roadside nasty hard bits is a GoodThing. Like I said, just do it.

My beef is that blaming the road, then reducing the speed limit accordingly, on the assumption that people are inevitably going to crash, is the ONLY thing TPTB seem interested in.

I'm pretty sure that if crashes were reduced to the "shit happens " ones, and the incompetent/imbecile/don't give a shit/doing stupid shit/haven't a clue crashes were eliminated, the road toll would be a fraction of what it is now. And a small fraction at that. (Your police u turn example isn't a good one - that classes as "doing stupid shit").

And your diesel example illustrates another problem - you can only eliminate the permanent road hazards. You'll still be left with the ones that come and go. Diesel, oil, ice, birds, clay, gravel, mechanical failure, heart attack at wheel, sun strike, you name it.

I reckon 90% of the effort is going to what should be only 10% of the problem. Mainly because "Lower the speed limit" is such an easy "fix". (In reality it will fix nothing).

**pete376403** · 26th June 2010, 16:43

Originally Posted by Ixion

I reckon 90% of the effort is going to what should be only 10% of the problem. Mainly because "Lower the speed limit" is such an easy "fix". (In reality it will fix nothing).

Easy (ie cheap signage) fix AND the revenue potential from speeding tickets. Win/win situation for them - how can they not do it?

**p.dath** · 26th June 2010, 20:47

Originally Posted by pete376403

Easy (ie cheap signage) fix AND the revenue potential from speeding tickets. Win/win situation for them - how can they not do it?

I would be interested in them trying a signage approach as well. I keep reflecting back recently on a trip I did to Great Barrier Island. Pretty much most of the roading network is "legalally" 100km/h. There is no way you could go that fast. You just couldn't. The roads are too twisty, have single lane stretches, etc.

So they just have signs with an advisory speed and a warning. It seems to work for them. Lets try it on the mainland.

**roenut** · 26th June 2010, 20:57

im sure that road is the main road to napier or pakowhai rd, i used to live around the corner. 100km zone with multiple orchard driveways and a few small intersections. not much lighting at all too

**george formby** · 27th June 2010, 10:36

The article about dangerous roads in the Herald today lists SH 1 from warkworth to north as dangerous & SH 10 north of the Bay of Islands as dangerous. The west coast route & twin bridges roads are low to medium. SH1 & SH10 are open, wide well sign posted & reasonably well surfaced roads. The west coast & twin bridges roads are narrow, very twisty & in places appalingly surfaced. It's not the roads is it? More thoughtless, biased propoganda. Get slow people out of fast cars I say.

**cowboyz** · 27th June 2010, 12:43

one would HAVE to argue what we have been spending all the roading budget on if Sh1 (you know... the number ONE STATE highway) is concidered a dangerous road!!