NZ road safety ads & videos (2014)

[MVnut]

Compulsory Stop means 'stop where you can see whether the way is clear and then proceed only when it is'. I wish cops would hammer ComStop runners more, I f**king HATE THEM ALL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[haydes55]

Compulsory Stop means 'stop where you can see whether the way is clear and then proceed only when it is'. I wish cops would hammer ComStop runners more, I f**king HATE THEM ALL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In this scenario, he stopped. Like he legally should. However, if it was a give way sign, he wouldn't have stopped, and he would have had plenty of time to get into his lane before the speeder got to him.

What are the criteria for an intersection being a stop sign or a give way sign?

[MVnut]

In this scenario, he stopped. Like he legally should. However, if it was a give way sign, he wouldn't have stopped, and he would have had plenty of time to get into his lane before the speeder got to him.

What are the criteria for an intersection being a stop sign or a give way sign?

If the way was clear when he proceeded through the intersection, there cannot possibly be an accident, regardless of speed. It's not like it suggested there was limited visibility or anything. STOP means STOP.....Go ONLY when it's clear, what part of this do you not understand. Other than the 'compulsory' aspect of the ComStop, a Give Way sign is identical in respect of who has right of way. I have quite a few roads within 10 km of me where virtually nobody actually stops at ComStops when there is no (visible) traffic, probably 95% + do NOT stop.....I really wish the cops would blitz this area instead of the 104km blanket limit now in force which is purely a revenue gatherer anyway (if you think it's not, you are either a liar or delusional).....don't get me started on this IAM crap in the other thread. Safety is not always about obeying the rules, (in fact, sometimes obeying the rules is downright dangerous, even pulling over can be dangerous) I ride so that I can ride another day. I break the rules virtually every time I ride but I don't ride like an idiot.....no tickets and no crashes (other than racetrack) in nearly 3m km on every Continent barring Antarctic.

[Virago]

...That was going to end badly if the oncoming car was doing any speed over about 70km/h...

...The approach speed of the car with the right of way is rather immaterial, even 80 clicks would have been prang time...

Yes. At 70 or 80k there would still be a prang. But the difference in speed may dictate whether the kid in the backseat dies or not.

Sigh. It's not rocket science. The ad is not blaming the accident on the speeder. "Other people make mistakes." But if you want to defend the "right" to charge through occupied intersections at high speed, you might one day be faced with the "what if" scenario when someone dies. Hospitals and morgues are full of people who had right-of-way...

Well, I suppose it's all in the way you view it.

If you take from it the message that a vehicle waiting at an intersection needs to be treated as a hazard and may well require a reduction in speed to allow for that hazard (instead of blindly continuing on without any adjustment of your speed or your conscious evaluation of the situation) then it's been worth something.

Yes. Thank you - someone gets it.

[Scuba_Steve]

Yes. At 70 or 80k there would still be a prang. But the difference in speed may dictate whether the kid in the backseat dies or not.

at 80km/h & below there is way more chance of a prang as people start to second guess & that only leads to problems.
Which is the other problem with this ad, the fact that accident is FAR more likely to occur at 80km/h than at 100 or 120km/h as humans are idiots they'll look see a car too close for them to go (if the car was travelling normal speeds) so they'll look the other way expecting said car to pass soon, then they look back & see it's still not here, at this time alot will 2nd guess & because humans are stupid & driving takes common sense which seems to be lacking in most humans they pull out only to then realise they fucked up & either have a near miss so they can do it all again at another date or collision where car safety features kick in to determine the outcome

[Virago]

at 80km/h & below there is way more chance of a prang as people start to second guess & that only leads to problems.
Which is the other problem with this ad, the fact that accident is FAR more likely to occur at 80km/h than at 100 or 120km/h as humans are idiots they'll look see a car too close for them to go (if the car was travelling normal speeds) so they'll look the other way expecting said car to pass soon, then they look back & see it's still not here, at this time alot will 2nd guess & because humans are stupid & driving takes common sense which seems to be lacking in most humans they pull out only to then realise they fucked up & either have a near miss so they can do it all again at another date or collision where car safety features kick in to determine the outcome

If I've deciphered the world's longest sentence correctly, you're actually claiming that low speed causes accidents?

[Scuba_Steve]

If I've deciphered the world's longest sentence correctly, you're actually claiming that low speed causes accidents?

I'm stating fact, yes
Stats, studies & observations will all back this up

[Woodman]

Probly been said, but if the guy was doing say 160 km/h he would have been passed the intersection before the other guy even got their to pull out in front of him.

Actually I got that the point of the ad is "shit happens".

[Virago]

I'm stating fact, yes
Stats, studies & observations will all back this up

I've not been able to find such stats. Can you point me in the direction?

[MD]

Well, I suppose it's all in the way you view it.

If you take from it the message that a vehicle waiting at an intersection needs to be treated as a hazard and may well require a reduction in speed to allow for that hazard (instead of blindly continuing on without any adjustment of your speed or your conscious evaluation of the situation) then it's been worth something.

Stone the crows I agree with you. I get nervous approaching intersections or driveways where someone appears to be correctly giving way to me, I don't trust em! I tend to slow, try and make eye contact, hover over brake (lever or pedal). I glance left and right just before going through green lights too.

[Smifffy]

Yes. At 70 or 80k there would still be a prang. But the difference in speed may dictate whether the kid in the backseat dies or not.

Sigh. It's not rocket science. The ad is not blaming the accident on the speeder. "Other people make mistakes." But if you want to defend the "right" to charge through occupied intersections at high speed, you might one day be faced with the "what if" scenario when someone dies. Hospitals and morgues are full of people who had right-of-way...

So the root cause of the prang at that intersection is the clown that pulled out, not the guy already on the road. The speed affects the outcome, not the cause. NZTA should be addressing root causes, not secondary effects. That would possibly be more difficult and less profitable for the consolidated fund.

[Ocean1]

So the root cause of the prang at that intersection is the clown that pulled out, not the guy already on the road. The speed affects the outcome, not the cause. NZTA should be addressing root causes, not secondary effects. That would possibly be more difficult and less profitable for the consolidated fund.

There's rarely a simple "cause", invariable there's a multitude of contributing factors.

I just looked to see if there was any contributions from the intersection itself, and... did anyone spot the fact that the vehicles weren't actually on an intersecting trajectory?

[Virago]

So the root cause of the prang at that intersection is the clown that pulled out, not the guy already on the road. The speed affects the outcome, not the cause. NZTA should be addressing root causes, not secondary effects. That would possibly be more difficult and less profitable for the consolidated fund.

In a perfect world, I would agree with you. Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world.

People. Make. Mistakes. Everyone does. Some do it more than others...

Such mistakes represent a background hazard on the roads - a hazard that can't be eliminated. All we can do is manage the risk. Driving through intersections at high speed with a "fuck you" attitude simply adds to the risk.

It's not about right or wrong. It's about cause and effect. Life or death.

[Scuba_Steve]

I've not been able to find such stats. Can you point me in the direction?

Yea for one our own NZTA has some you can look at

Driving through intersections at high speed with a "fuck you" attitude simply adds to the risk.

Driving out of an intersection when a vehicles about to come through adds significantly more risk, but why focus on that when there's a "speeder" about, right.
You should be able to come through an intersection at speed, you should be able to drive on our roads in reasonable safety & with the knowledge that others know what they're doing. Unfortunately our driver licensing system is such that ability to drive is optional in-fact they even go as far as "praising" bad & dangerous drivers.
The biggest problem on NZ roads bar none is our licensing system

[caspernz]

So the root cause of the prang at that intersection is the clown that pulled out, not the guy already on the road. The speed affects the outcome, not the cause. NZTA should be addressing root causes, not secondary effects. That would possibly be more difficult and less profitable for the consolidated fund.

Yep, and while I'm all for (and practice) defensive driving, the advert itself has the wrong focus.

So I've got a leaking roof and need a bucket to catch the water that comes in...the adverts' logic suggests I need a bigger bucket, whereas maybe fixing the roof would be a better idea...