Speeding, is it the real issue?

[The Singing Chef]

I am working on another article to perhaps get published and am maybe half way through it. It is rather long but there are a few points that need talking about, but I would be interested to see what you crazy bastards think of this and kindly give me some feedback. I won't bother asking for constructive feedback ha.
Sorry for the formatting, was written on my blog.

Anti-speeding propaganda is everywhere, we are lead to believe that as soon as we travel 4km/h over the limit, we are going to die a horrible fiery death. But this is not really the case and neither is it the largest cause of death on our roads. But of course you believe otherwise right? The Government has told you so and they must be right.

The boy in the bubble:

If you are someone from the 'older' generation, you will notice this effect taking place. The large differences from when you were growing up and today, the Government has slowly but surely placed a blanket over our heads and tucked us into our beds so that we are not hurt by the big, bad world outside. It is now on the plan to make it onto our roads, the reach of full control for "our safety" is clasping it's hands onto the way we drive and the text below will show this to you.

It is evident in everything from the "Anti-smacking bill" to the Life jackets, alcohol purchases, cycle helmets etc... where we are being rather mothered but here is something taken from the NZTA website, which purely scares me.

What would a Safe System free of death and serious injury look like?

We would enjoy a transport system where everyone expects a zero road toll. Roads and roadsides would encourage safe behaviour and be forgiving of human error by providing safety cues to users and protecting them from hazards.

Vehicle technology would communicate with the road environment and automatically adjust to appropriate speeds that respond to real-time road conditions.

Road users would understand and play their part in the system, with licensing dependent on a high level of skill. Alertness and compliance would, if necessary, be reinforced by in-vehicle technology (including alcohol and safety belt interlocks, and fatigue and speed monitoring).

Automated enforcement, including point-to-point (average speed) cameras and remote vehicle power down, could be used for high-risk road users.

Crash risk would be further reduced by advanced vehicle-to-vehicle warning systems (such as vehicle/pedestrian proximity warnings) and automatic collision avoidance technologies (including lane containment and emergency override features in the event a driver fails or is unable to respond to warnings).

If a crash is unavoidable, advanced airbags, crumple zones and head restraints would manage crash forces to levels the human body can tolerate."

1) Providing safety cues to users and protecting them from hazards.

While this is a good thing, especially for the unsuspecting motorist coming around a bend to find that it is also a sheep crossing, who can now slow down to a reasonable speed as well as trying to keep as much risk out of driving as possible. But what I take from this is the fact that road users will become too dependent on these cues and safety measures and they will soon come to rely on them to alert them to a potentially dangerous situation, and when the time comes and there is no sign there, the driver will be in a slight state of shock and won't know what to do in such a situation.

2) Automatically adjust to appropriate speeds.

So, the Government wants us to keep lower speeds so that there is a decrease in the severity of crashes on our roads. What does that mean when you are going around a corner at XXX speed and then your car/bike decides to slow down, immediately increasing the risk of crashing significantly. Or when you need to speed up to pass a car or get out of a sticky situation? Will there be a limit that needs to be reached till it comes on or does it play by ear?

Personally I don't like the thought of having a computer do my thinking for me or having any control over me whatsoever.

3) (including alcohol and safety belt interlocks, and fatigue and speed monitoring).

Ok, I do agree with an alcohol monitoring system to gain access to your vehicle as well a some sort of fatigue test so that we don't have idiots falling asleep at the wheel, but in saying that we should have the choice not to wear a seat-belt or leave them unclipped if we want to go for a drive. But what really gets me is the speed monitoring system,which is what is already taking place in some other countries. It is going to remove any freedom at all that we previously had and when the Police stop you for no reason in particular and then ask to search the pre-installed GPS tracker that is in your car and find that within the space of a week, you have gone over the limit X amount of times and proceed to write out fines left right and center.

4) Emergency override features in the event a driver fails or is unable to respond to warnings.

This can be a good thing, there are two sides to the coin and while there is a positive side to this which is potentially saving the drivers life and also people around them which could also be harmed. There is also the fact that a computer is now going to be allowed full access to your car, ranging from steering, braking, acceleration and every other aspect that could be controlled and if there is a malfunction, you could be at serious risk if the car decides to do something stupid.

Another possibility of malfunction could be that the computer picks up false signals and therefore decides to react where in fact there is no danger what so ever or the driver has decided that what ever incident that is happening around them can be better avoided with another maneuver but the computer decides otherwise and then leads itself into a dangerous position.

We are now taking what control we had an putting it into a pre-determined computer system that falls in to place with what the Government thinks is best for us. Your whole life is soon going to be determined by what the Government thinks is best for you and the only way to escape it is to go and live out in a secluded mountain range and live off plants, though you will probably still have to pay a mountain tax anyway.

Instead of learning to think for ourselves and getting taught appropriate ways of dealing with situations, we are being put into diapers and placed into a harm-free environment where we are likely to turn into brain dead zombies, which is their goal I guess but nevertheless.

Speed, is it the real problem?

If you read the article I linked in the title, you will see what my view of speed is and what I think needs changing, but I will go a little more in-depth to it here as well as add some more points and information.

Some interesting statistics (Go to page 30) from the Government show that the majority of crashes and deaths are actually in the 50km/h speed limit areas. Wait a second, isn't it at high speeds where we are likely to die? Or are they all speeding in the 50km/h zone and got injured or killed as a result? It seems unlikely to me, which brings me to the conclusion that it isn't the really high speeds that are going to kill you, in fact they hold the lowest crash rates, but at speeds that are slow which can lead your mind to wander and then lead you on to not see that car turning or small child running out from behind that car and then it's all over red rover.

Now, talking with people and also my flatmates I have also come up with some other thoughts about speed and it's effect on us.

My flat mate had the idea that it's not actually bad drivers that are causing the crashes on the road but simply for the fact that they are good drivers and have the knowledge but simply don't bother absorbing all of the information around them and don't drive to the conditions.

Now that is not only bad driving, but a phenomenally stupid idea.

Another one is that if you speed, you are most likely to lose control and kill yourself.

It is not really speed in it self that will cause the problem, but more so the lack of driver skill than anything. If speed was really the cause, there wouldn't be any kind of motor sport because, hey, they are all going to die anyway.

It comes down to how well the driver can manipulate his/her vehicle and if they can use all of the information that the road provides us to keep to a safe speed.

Now when I talk about safe speeds, I am not referring to the speed limit set in place by the Government, but more so about the speeds that are safe to maintain traction, stability, line and adequate stopping distance.

It is quite easy to safely speed throughout many roads and not cause any harm to anyone or kill yourself, but it all comes down to driver ability.

Have you tested the brakes on your car from both 50 and 100km/h to see how fast you can stop, or will you just learn it at the time? Have you tested the handling of the car, what will it take under duress in corners or a quick turn to get away from a dangerous situation?

[jellywrestler]

simple fact is speed is easy to police, it's done via a calibrated device, there's no need for the copper to go to court and very little chance of getting off it so it's efficient way of 'policing'

pull people over for other offences they inevitably want to take it to court the cop has to go along too and often the charge gets thown out or reduced, simple, the cops simply don't bother nabbing you for much at all.

ANSWER put cameras in all cop cars and record all levels of offences use the footage for the person to see/take to their lawyer/show a judge.
Cop keeps on patrolling, the footage doesn't tell lies then we have a fairer way of policing our roads to reduce the REAL offences happening.

Two bonuses, a/ can use the footage for tv programs b/ can keep an eye on cop chases to see what really happens.
Before the law whines about being recorded there's a lot of jobs now where thta's the norm

[The Singing Chef]

Yea that is why as well, the money is just too easy.

I think the camera's would be an interesting addition and what effect that would have on those sneaky bastards haha.

Would make good t.v as well.

[numbersixteen16]

First up, whats this about you don't want to have to wear a seat-belt? Why not? Fact - seat belts save lives. If it digs into your shoulder, buy some pads. Just because your heading down to the store, doesn't mean you aren't going to have a 20kph crash, resulting in you knocking out your front teeth. Then you claim on ACC and everyone else shares your burden, nice one.

Policing speed works well to keep people safe:
How? Without it, people sit at 140 down a country road. A speed that in a "warrant-able" car (ie. next to no tread on tires, spongy drum brakes, horrible suspension) would leave the driver unable to avoid/slow down for a hazard. And would almost certainly cause instant death in most crash situations.

If every road was in good condition, every car on road had modern brakes, suspension, good tires and someone who knows how to drive behind the wheel, it would be perfectly safe to drive at 200kph down the highway. But I'm guessing only about 20% of road users can actually control a car properly, and about 5% of cars on the road have adequate handling capabilities.

A perfect system would have people resit their license test every 10 or so years, that way everyone would brush up on the new road code, and the amount of incompetent drivers on the road would decrease.

It is however impossible to have a perfect, no crashing, no speeding system. Why? Because you cant govern such a thing, the only thing you can do is make the vehicles we drive and the road we drive on safer.

Besides, if you really wanted to stop people speeding, you would govern all cars coming into the country to 100kph - that's the fasted you can legally go, so why let people go faster than the max speed limit if they aren't actually allowed to? (to generate money from speeding tickets, duh). Its like letting a kid play with matches, but telling him off when he lights a fire.

All else aside, you should rely on your own common sense, ability and confidence to judge what speed you are doing, 140kph is safe in some situations, 70kph is dangerous in others. If you crash you have one person to blame - yourself. Even when pulled into by grandma, its best to look at how YOU could have avoided the situation. Where you going to fast, where you watching for hazards? etc.

However for those without common sense, laws and regulations prove to keep them safe and happy most of the time.

[Akzle]

TL: DR

life jackets are a f*ing good idea. i don't often wear em because i can swim for miles. no bloody good if i'm unconscious, but i pay attention when piloting boats.

some fun facts:
80% of fatal crashes happen below that ever-scary "speed limit"
(read that as you will)

the ONLY thing that has bought down fatal crashes is vehicle safety devices (abs, air bags etc)


many roads in NZ (certainly between whg and hlz) i'll take at ~190km/h in a cage.
now, i don't actually have any specific training, just a lot of experience, so a professional v8 driver is likely to be quicker again. i havent seen many sealed roads i wouldn't "limit" at 160. (then, i would limit ALL roads against women, "SU"Vs and aucklanders. unless they pass an extreme competency test)
-the roads are certainly not the limiting factor here.

crashes are usually caused by inattentive drivers, almost never mechanical failures, and rarely changes in vehicle handling. (FWD will always sledge a corner when front brakes are locked up, ie. so this comes down to lines, entry speeds etc)

several road safety initiatives i've come up with:

time a professional rally driver doing runs on various stretches of road, the new "licenses" are gained by completing that stretch of road within 10% of that time safely.

licenses to be sat on gravel roads in rear wheel drive vehicles with no airbags, abs or any other "safety feature" invented since 1980.

licenses to include basic maintenance of vehicle, changing tyres, checking oil, electrolyte, electrical system etc. to also include understanding of combustion engine and driveline components. (if you cant understand how fuel becomes spinning wheels, no car.)

women licensees must be able to explain, in some depth, the difference between front wheel drive and rear wheel. if they can't they're not allowed a rear wheel drive (most SUVs, ie.)

ALL drivers MUST ride a 50cc scooter for 2 years before getting a cage, this will dramatically increase their attention-paying, road reading, hazard ID, and overall driving ability. (mobikkers are exempt) it will also remove the people that really shouldn't be on the road in the first instance.

Reigonal "L" plates with restrictions on movement.
ie aucklanders get "A" and they're limited to within the muncipal limits, limited exemptions can be applied for so they may travel on main roads on holiday etc.
any aucklanders found in cages on twisties or gravel has their car crushed.

if you live in a rural area or are a farmer, you get a "NZ" plate. you can drive anywhere in the country.
(doesn't apply to "lifestylers" or commuters - they get city plate with exemption only on roads they need to travel home from work)

[Akzle]

First up, whats this about you don't want to have to wear a seat-belt? Why not? Fact - seat belts save lives.

negatory and not always.

i know several people who would not be alive if they'd been wearing their seatbelts, and at least one occasion where not wearing it reduced injuries (vehicle rolled) compare to them in the vehicle who were.

so i don't often wear my seatbelt. the only times it's going to decrease your chance of death is head on collisions in vehicles without airbags,
...those i usually see coming because i'm often paying attention to what's happening around my vehicle.

"seatbelts save idots" is probably more apt.

[Muppet]

Slow down, wear your safety belt and don't drink and drive. Simple. Oh, and try stopping at Stop Signs and red traffic signals too. One more thing, don't drive while talking or texting using your mobile phone either.

[oldrider]

Slow down, wear your safety belt and don't drink and drive. Simple. Oh, and try stopping at Stop Signs and red traffic signals too. One more thing, don't drive while talking or texting using your mobile phone either.

Up until this moment individual breathing control is "personal and optional" but they are working on that!

[tigertim20]

I read about half your post cos it was looong but heres my thoughts on the matter.

No, speeding is not the real cause. Plenty of other countries have systems where you can travel at a higher rate of speed, yet lso have lower crash figures, however you cant simply blue print the overseas examples, and apply it to NZ.
For a start its far too easy to get a licence here, even with the recent changes, its still a joke, so the problem really, is that OUR DRIVERS are not particularly safe at speeds of over 100km. the problem isnt so much the speed, its the people doing a speed that is beyond their ability. another factor is our roading and infrastructure, our roads are fucking awful, and on many occasions, fall well short of the quality provided by countries that afford a higher speed limit.

there are a lot of factors, and the main one i reckon is people.

[The Singing Chef]

I read about half your post cos it was looong but heres my thoughts on the matter.

No, speeding is not the real cause. Plenty of other countries have systems where you can travel at a higher rate of speed, yet lso have lower crash figures, however you cant simply blue print the overseas examples, and apply it to NZ.
For a start its far too easy to get a licence here, even with the recent changes, its still a joke, so the problem really, is that OUR DRIVERS are not particularly safe at speeds of over 100km. the problem isnt so much the speed, its the people doing a speed that is beyond their ability. another factor is our roading and infrastructure, our roads are fucking awful, and on many occasions, fall well short of the quality provided by countries that afford a higher speed limit.

there are a lot of factors, and the main one i reckon is people.

Yea and I still have more to write :-/ haha

Yea people are the main reason with the other factors coming in close second. Just getting statistics and data to back up my points some of which were linked in the text but I couldn't be bothered adding it onto here.

[BMWST?]

Its not the outright spped i reckon its the big variations in speed that cause the problems,and the very nature of our roads and terrain.Half our our national highway network is over very difficult terrain.We just cant aford the types or road found in bigger countries so we have to accept that our roads WILL be a factor in incidents despite what Mr Akzle says,we simply cant allow every body to zoom around at what ever speeed they wish.
A real eye opener for me was last time i drove to tauraunga.The 4 km spped tolerance was imn place and it made for a very consistent speed.The biggest difference tho was the relative lack of trucks.Peple were travelling at about the same speed and seemed more content to go 100.
There was litle overtaking as a result,and the passing lanes worked wel because most people kept left,and only the overtakers were in the right lane.
Was one of the best rtips to TGA i have ever had,bike or car

[Kickaha]

i know several people who would not be alive if they'd been wearing their seatbelts

I've heard that line from several different people but I doubt it is possible to prove
I've also been in two vehicle rollovers one wearing a seatbelt and one without, it's a lot more fun if you're wearing one

"seatbelts save idots" is probably more apt.

Could also be that they save you from idiots

[Voltaire]

I'm old and things were a lot better in the olden days..... I liked it better when I ruled the road on my Z1000 and car drivers had Hillmans, Cortinas, Holdens, Falcons and other POS with no stereos and other comforts.
If they were serious about speeding they could fit devices to cars and debit you account....
I'm riding the smallest bike I have had in years and its lots of fun, 100 HP Pfft......I'm happy with 50.

[scumdog]

I'm old and things were a lot better in the olden days..... I liked it better when I ruled the road on my Z1000 and car drivers had Hillmans, Cortinas, Holdens, Falcons and other POS with no stereos and other comforts.

Likewise -there was LOTS less traffic, you knew who would give you a ticket (Traffic Officers) so Police din't worry you.

And while Nanny Gov't wants to wrap us all in cotton wool part of it is driven by the "they should do something about it" harping on every time more than one person gets killed/injured by some activity..."It's too dangerous, it shouldn't be allowed"

[Akzle]

I've heard that line from several different people but I doubt it is possible to prove
I've also been in two vehicle rollovers one wearing a seatbelt and one without, it's a lot more fun if you're wearing one

hokae. i'll put it this way:

based on my observation and given the facts (we'll go with the T-boning my cousin got), had he been trapped in the driver's seat with a belt, he would have ~2tonnes of 4x4 embedded in his body, a condition which is most often fatal.

basically to say that seatbelts always save lives in all crashes, i find BS.

Could also be that they save you from idiots

+1