Has the current propaganda focus on speed and road safety affected how you ride?

[baptist]

Cor..i remember the poll tax....we couldn't join the Clapham library in case they caught us....... and we kept a filled out Tele licence by the front door....we lived in fear.....
If they tried a Poll Tax....imagine all the internet whining......

Argh the Poll Tax, I remember those good old days... I paid and the next year got a surcharge to cover those who had not!!!! I got threatened with court for refusing to pay a tax surcharge because others they could not trace had not paid... total madness

Red light runners - welcome to Christchurch!

I cannot believe that action down here - utter madness. As a result I never take off at speed on a green - I have a darn good look first.

It is bad up here as well, and not just by a second either but real blatant jumping... some of these guys really should not be allowed on the road.

As for the original thread, I ride (and drive) as before, riding made me a better driver though, not another gummint campaign

[been_there]

I believe in angels...
when i know the time is right for me...
its to be....

[wingnutt]

5th poll option....

Has it created contempt for the law and disrespect for the police?
Most definately....

As a mature rider/ driver/ family person with an good safety record....driving to conditions etc....getting booked for 109 south of Levin on a straight wide dry road with hardly any traffic is nothing but utter revinue raising, making quotas, bullshit,...

Yeh, been there done that, and it pissed me off too, to change this shit though, we need to change the hierarchy running the police, my guess is the officers have very little discretion, its the paula roses and judith colins that are creating the stupidity in ticket issuing.

[cheshirecat]

Or getting out of bed even.

People die. All the time and in all sorts of ways.
Some people kill themselves quickly - some take their time.

The point is, it is utopian to presume that all of us will live to '3 score years and 10'.

I for one am sick of the hand wringing that goes on every time anyone under 20 is killed. Wonderful person, wasted talent, promising future, kissed his grandmother, whatever.

In 2009 376 people died on the roads. From 4.1 million that is 0.0000917% of the population or 0.0917 deaths per 1000

During WW1 with a population of 1.1 million, 18 050 casulties over 4 years or 0.0041% of the population - 43 times more. ( 4.102 deaths per 1000 population)

So flame away - you've never lost a loved one etc. That is true. Its just I think debate should be logical and supported by fact rather than an emotional tirade so I welcome your intellectual contribution.

Here's the question again - fellow worshippers of the internal combustion engine ; how many lives is an acceptable number to sacrifice per year at the alter to appease the 'god of speed' and all the benefits she brings to society?

The answer cannot be zero.
If you want it to be zero - enjoy your mud hut and don't let a sabre toothed tiger eat you before you die of old age at 26 years old

And the war casualties are goverment sanctioned so it's OK to kill maim if the Gov say's it is for political reasons - must be a legal precedent here but it's the New Year and too deep for me at this time.

[p.dath]

Here's the question again - fellow worshippers of the internal combustion engine ; how many lives is an acceptable number to sacrifice per year at the alter to appease the 'god of speed' and all the benefits she brings to society?

I think I would find the question easier to answer if you asked how much was I prepared to spend to save a human life.

I think I would be prepared to spend $1m to save a human life.

You said 376 people died in 2009. If 100 of those could have been prevented by spending $100m, then I'm happy to do that.
If the next 276 would have cost $552m (i.e. $2m each), then I'm afraid the expense is more than I'm prepared to bear because the social cost of what that money could otherwise have been used for is too great.

[Scuba_Steve]

I think I would find the question easier to answer if you asked how much was I prepared to spend to save a human life.

I think I would be prepared to spend $1m to save a human life.

You said 376 people died in 2009. If 100 of those could have been prevented by spending $100m, then I'm happy to do that.
If the next 276 would have cost $552m (i.e. $2m each), then I'm afraid the expense is more than I'm prepared to bear because the social cost of what that money could otherwise have been used for is too great.

But then how would you spend that $100mil? by NOT running speed scams we could potentially be saving 69 lives every year here in NZ but because the speed scam is so profitable our Govt is sacrificing an est 69 people every year just to keep the $$$ flowing.

[p.dath]

But then how would you spend that $100mil? by NOT running speed scams we could potentially be saving 69 lives every year here in NZ but because the speed scam is so profitable our Govt is sacrificing an est 69 people every year just to keep the $$$ flowing.

How would I spend it?
Well I guess the case needs to be made. For example, if three people a year die on a particular corner, and $3m worth of road works will resolve it, then spend the money. The case has been made.

The Government represents the people, and does not run at a profit. The Government needs to bring in sufficient money from the people to cover its outgoings. However, we are running a large deficit that is going to take to around 2020 just to pay off.

But back to your second point, which I have not seen. What gives you the impression that 69 people are year die on NZ roads because of speed enforcement?

[bogan]

How would I spend it?
Well I guess the case needs to be made. For example, if three people a year die on a particular corner, and $3m worth of road works will resolve it, then spend the money. The case has been made.

The Government represents the people, and does not run at a profit. The Government needs to bring in sufficient money from the people to cover its outgoings. However, we are running a large deficit that is going to take to around 2020 just to pay off.

But back to your second point, which I have not seen. What gives you the impression that 69 people are year die on NZ roads because of speed enforcement?

Interesting point about it being a money issue rather than numbers.. but the problem with fixing only whats broken, is you still get broken people. You gotta predict how many live a roading modification would likely save, not how many it would have saved in the past, which of course is more of a grey area when applied to a particular corner, better to just have some standards by which all roads should be built and maintained right?

[p.dath]

Interesting point about it being a money issue rather than numbers.. but the problem with fixing only whats broken, is you still get broken people. You gotta predict how many live a roading modification would likely save, not how many it would have saved in the past, which of course is more of a grey area when applied to a particular corner, better to just have some standards by which all roads should be built and maintained right?

I gave the corner as just an example. Some chunks of roads have a regular death count. "x" number of people have died a year, each year, for the last "y" years.

But you could make a case for a specific roading standard I guess. If you have two similar roads, one made to standard "a" that has "b" deaths, and the other made to standard "c" that has less deaths, and the incremental cost of the standard is less than $1m/death then I would say a case has been made.
But remember, I am only addressing the initial question of roading deaths, and not minimum road quality (which is what standards will address). And you do need a minimum road quality to use machines on.

I'm just supplying a method that in my head would lead to the number of deaths that I would find acceptable, and what I would be prepared to spend (as a country) to achieve that goal.

[Scuba_Steve]

The Government represents the people, and does not run at a profit. The Government needs to bring in sufficient money from the people to cover its outgoings.

Yes thats what they're supposed to do but... (we'll leave that for another time)

But back to your second point, which I have not seen. What gives you the impression that 69 people are year die on NZ roads because of speed enforcement?

the number comes from a "crude" scaling method (for want of a better word) but effectively the number comes from the study done by the UK's MOT (which they tried to hide, seems the report wasn't to their liking) stating 1000 lives could be saved in the UK each year by not running speed scams, given the population difference this works out to 69 NZ'ers each year.

[Katman]

The answer cannot be zero.
If you want it to be zero - enjoy your mud hut and don't let a sabre toothed tiger eat you before you die of old age at 26 years old

As I've said before, no-one has ever asked for a zero road toll. That is clearly an unrealistic expectation.

If we could simply eliminate (or even drastically reduce) the number of accidents caused by shear stupidity then we would look way better than we do right now.

Then, if we started to work on the accidents that could be avoided by better vehicle management or situational awareness we'd look better still.

[MSTRS:Me]

As I've said before, no-one has ever asked for a zero road toll. That is clearly an unrealistic expectation.

If we could simply eliminate (or even drastically reduce) the number of accidents caused by shear stupidity then we would look way better than we do right now.

Then, if we started to work on the accidents that could be avoided by better vehicle management or situational awareness we'd look better still.

Yep. 'Fixing' the roads and nothing else just leads to even more dumbing-down of motorists. Better roads = easier driving = less brain-engaged.

[Scuba_Steve]

Yep. 'Fixing' the roads and nothing else just leads to even more dumbing-down of motorists. Better roads = easier driving = less brain-engaged.

true that worse the roads, better the driver & vise versa

[Ocean1]

I think I would find the question easier to answer if you asked how much was I prepared to spend to save a human life.

I think I would be prepared to spend $1m to save a human life.

You said 376 people died in 2009. If 100 of those could have been prevented by spending $100m, then I'm happy to do that.
If the next 276 would have cost $552m (i.e. $2m each), then I'm afraid the expense is more than I'm prepared to bear because the social cost of what that money could otherwise have been used for is too great.

There used to be a discipline called Safety Engineer, in America. One of their key responsibilities was to cost lives so that safety initiatives could be evaluated in exactly the terms you suggest.

They're not around any more. The public pressure generated by the press as a result of several public works disasters killed that particular breed of engineer.

The calculations are still done of course, they're just expressed in slightly more politically correct terms and not usually published.

You're obviously aware there's a diminishing return effect at work here. ANd you've bunged a price on a John Doe. All good. Now you just need to secure the funding for the changes in road safety budgets.

Oh, and several years ago the real cost was $1.3M.

[FJRider]

Yep. 'Fixing' the roads and nothing else just leads to even more dumbing-down of motorists. Better roads = easier driving = less brain-engaged.

Fix the roads ... easier to drive faster ... (regardless of the/any limit) more deaths due to higher speeds ... fix road again ... drive faster ...

er ... hang on ..