All charges dropped

[Ronin]

I found the data. It doesn't support your hypothesis. Assuming the 19 fatalities were the result of 10-15 accidents then chances are that exceeding the speed limit was not a factor in any of them. It is only a factor in 1:20 accidents.
The contributing factors were much more likely to have been:
Poor Observation: 48%
Failed Give-Way/Stop: 25%
Poor Handling: 23%
Poor Judgement: 18%

It must be very traumatic to be involved following road fatalities. It is a tragedy that the resulting zeal to make an improvement gets sidetracked into ticketing a few ks over the speed limit, which has almost nothing to do with fatalities.

Sheldon, are you teasing the bikers again?

[Jack Miller]

Hi Jack................DOH !!!!! Really have to stop saying that. Don't want to upset the air hostesses.
Don't really recall having said that. But hey, I must have , coz you're always right.
Harumph

Let's take them one at a time - keep it simple:
How can I interpret this:

"I know it can be done, but the process is a beast, and to be avoided. So it is."

as anything other than lazy? i.e.; it's too hard so I'll not bother.

[jim.cox]

Or, in simpler terms, the faster you go, the bigger the mess. It's the law. Newtons third law of physics. The law you can't break.

Actually its the faster you STOP...

[Jack Miller]

Hi Jack.............DOH
Look at the bigger pikkie, Obiwan.
No matter what causes your crash (Poor Observation: 48%, Failed Give-Way/Stop: 25%, Poor Handling: 23%, Poor Judgement: 18%, your stats) , the higher the impact speed, the greater the kinetic energy to disperse.
Or, in simpler terms, the faster you go, the bigger the mess. It's the law. Newtons third law of physics. The law you can't break.

Your stats actually NZ Police Crash Information System. You know those accident forms you fill in...
Anyway, even allowing for the kinetic energy effect, you and your colleagues only record exceeding the speed limit as one of several factors in just 5% of accidents. It simply isn't the big killer that NZTA/Police makes out.

Even so, I'm not a fan of exceeding the speed limit on public roads, and I don't do it. However, like most motorists (AA data) I get a bit annoyed when stuck behind someone who is driving in breach of section 2.1(2) and I wish you'd take some time out of enforcing the speed limit to enforce 2.1(2) with the same vigor:
"If a driver’s speed, when driving, is such as to impede the normal and reasonable flow of traffic, that driver must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, move the vehicle as far as practicable to the left side of the roadway when this is necessary to allow following traffic to pass." 2.1.(2)

There are a lot of places where there is plenty of room that could be used if such drivers cared. However, all this "faster you go - bigger the mess" propaganda combined with the blanket zero tolerance enforcement of speed limits but occasional wet-bus-ticket slaps for impeders leaves such road hogs believing they have the right to impede other road users so they don't move left even when the shoulder is a full vehicle wide. Then, when the chance to overtake presents your colleagues make it dangerous by issuing tickets in passing lanes and you don't ticket the impeder.

The law is balanced. "You can't go as fast as you want" is balanced with "you have to get out of other people's way if you're travelling slowly". Police enforcement is not balanced, it is biased: zero-tolerance for speed vs slap-hand for impeding.

Enforce the law with balance and you will find me infinitely less critical. It's not impossible either. You know your territory and you know the places where moving left is safe and practical. If you see someone coming towards you with a queue following and you know there was a safe passing space just up the road it is a safe bet that they were in breach of 2.1.(2). When you pull the impeder over you will be a hero and any of the passing vehicles will be happy to be stopped to give evidence if required to help you convince the JP. But I doubt you'll bother, it's much easier to ticket speeders in passing lanes and you've already betrayed your preference for the easy ticketing options.

[Jack Miller]

It doesn't support yours either when you're using words like "assuming" "chances are" and "much more likely"

Police experts fill out forms at crashes. On those forms they note factors they believe contributed to the crash. In 5% of crashes "Exceeding the speed limit" is recorded as a factor. In 95% of crashes it is not recorded as a factor. 19 out of every 20 crashes are caused by factors other than exceeding the speed limit! Furthermore, of the 1 in 20 where it is a factor it is just one of several factors.

Note also that the reporting system is biased towards including speed as a factor. Firstly it is prominently placed at the top of the incident form making it easy to tick. Secondly it is easy to interpret inattention and/or tiredness as speed. The officer notes the obstruction and the first point at which the driver could have seen it. He/she then estimates the vehicle's speed based on the distance from that point to the impact. However, if the driver was distracted or tired he/she would not have reacted as soon as the obstruction could have been spotted but rather when they noticed it, which could be much later. The same impact damage could be sustained from a lower speed if the avoiding action started later than it could have had the driver been alert. Thus there is a significant margin of error with the 5% figure. If it is wrong it is too high.

[scumdog]

Police experts fill out forms at crashes. On those forms they note factors they believe contributed to the crash. In 5% of crashes "Exceeding the speed limit" is recorded as a factor. In 95% of crashes it is not recorded as a factor.

Maybe because they didn't know/couldn't find out?

Oh, and not all that fill in these forms are 'experts' by any means - but thanks for the credit.

Anyway, who cares....

[MSTRS:Me]

...but it's an honest attempt...

You almost had me. Until this point.

[oneofsix]

vs slap-hand for impeding.

When you pull the impeder over you will be a hero .

slapping the impeder's hand is a bit violent, more likely to pat him on the back. Actually the pat on the back just about works for me, anything providing they pull the fucker over and therefore get them out the way, hence why I left the last quote.
rumour has it there are some countries or states where if you are traveling below the limit and have more than 4 cars behind you you get ticketed. With a law like that not the wishy washy 'impeding' and 'responsible' wording we have, it wouldn't be hard to get the JP to support the ticket as most of them get just as pissed of with the road hog.

[Jack Miller]

Maybe because they didn't know/couldn't find out?

That would be true for all the other factors as well, they could be present but undetectable. It should balance out overall.

[Jack Miller]

the petrol retailers might have an issue with providing the commerically senistive information required to allow this to happen.

Good point. So the reporters should ask the IRD how much fuel tax they collected. That should do the job without disclosing any confidential market-share fuel company data.

[rastuscat]

Your stats actually NZ Police Crash Information System. You know those accident forms you fill in...
If you see someone coming towards you with a queue following and you know there was a safe passing space just up the road it is a safe bet that they were in breach of 2.1.(2). When you pull the impeder over you will be a hero and any of the passing vehicles will be happy to be stopped to give evidence if required to help you convince the JP.

Yes, I do actually know those TCR forms. Nowhere do they have a box to fill in that allows me to travel back in time and measure the speed the driver was doing before they crashed. It's normally a question we ask the driver, and lets face it, who is going to be honest and admit to having been doing in excess of the limit when the nasty policeman is asking you. So most people who crash are doing the speed limit or less. Yes, I could spend hours doing analysis of the scene, vehicles and witnesses, and prove they were doing more, but the donut shop would be closed by the time i was finished, and we can't have that. In essence, nobody gets charged with speeding arising from a crash, so that field on the form is largely representative, not definitive.

Looking for some advice here Jacko. Imagine yourself in a patrol car (not in the rear seat with handcuffs this time) and you're driving down a country road. 100 km/h limit. A line of cars goes past you in the other direction at 80 km/h. It's obvious that the car in front is holding everyone else up.

If it's a straight road, what's to stop the other cars having gone past? You don't know, as you've only seen what's happening as you went past, a snapshot of the actual possible problem. If it's a narrow, winding road, what chance has the slower car had to pull over and let the others go? You don't know that either.

At the moment the only option is to wait until all the cars have gone past, switch on the bells and whistles and driver like a tosser until you get behind the crawling leader. At which time he'll likely say 'What cars behind me?' Yes, it needs to happen more, but not to the total exclusion of prosecuting the faster drivers too.

So, let me have a fast, efficient, safe way of enforcing it, and I'll be all over it like a rash. As soon as the earthquakes stop, and I go back to work.

[rastuscat]

Oh, and not all that fill in these forms are 'experts' by any means - but thanks for the credit.

Come on Scummie, you know we don't take credit. It's cash or donuts only.

[Scuba_Steve]

Or, in simpler terms, the faster you go, the bigger the mess.

Ohh you must not have got the memo... that propaganda got pulled for being factually inaccurate (as proved but 18-wheelers).

[oneofsix]

Ohh you must not have got the memo... that propaganda got pulled for being factually inaccurate (as proved but 18-wheelers).

now now don't go bring physics and all that weight and inertia stuff in to it. You know how we hate facts to get in the way of the arguments here. Fluffy ideas like speed and mess are much better when it comes to propaganda, they mix truth with :BS: so much better than facts.

[marty]

I found the data. It doesn't support your hypothesis. Assuming the 19 fatalities were the result of 10-15 accidents then chances are that exceeding the speed limit was not a factor in any of them. It is only a factor in 1:20 accidents.
The contributing factors were much more likely to have been:
Poor Observation: 48%
Failed Give-Way/Stop: 25%
Poor Handling: 23%
Poor Judgement: 18%

It must be very traumatic to be involved following road fatalities. It is a tragedy that the resulting zeal to make an improvement gets sidetracked into ticketing a few ks over the speed limit, which has almost nothing to do with fatalities.

way back in the early 90's we didn't have a serious crash office, and in fact even the coroner would sometimes deal with the death as 'due a car crash' so limited information was recorded.

bottom line is, the average speeds that i saw dropped significantly - higher visibility and dedicated patrol by HP cars, more ticketing - or more targetting ticketing perhaps, better recording of possible causes (again - don't forget that many of the stats that you are relying on i would say were only consistant from around 2001 when SCU really started to get serious - until then it was a bit of a mish-mash).

it is a pointless agrument really. I know what me and my (ex)colleagues have seen happening on the roads - it doesn't really matter a squat to me if it is through speed reduction or whatever else. You are stating statistics, but I am not sure for what purpose?

AS a closing from me - have a read of George L. Kelling & James Q Nelson's books on Broken Windows law enforcement. Cops are not there to educate, unless you want to be educated by simply dumping cash in the consolidated fund