Police getting tougher on speed tolerance

[FJRider]

I don't, but suspect they do. Two incidents I can recall suggest that. There was a fatal single vehicle accident involving a solo rider on a BMW 650 in the Waikato. It was treated more as a mystery than a potential health event.

Last year there was a dual fatality head-on near here. Police said it was a mystery: straight road, daylight, fine weather. No mention of the ages of the female drivers, eighty something and ninety. My guess? A medical emergency for one driver coupled with target fixation on the part of the other. How that got recorded in the statistics though God knows.

Suspected cause verses proven cause.

Can't prove it ... didn't happen ...

[pritch]

Suspected cause verses proven cause.

Can't prove it ... didn't happen ...

In both of the instances I mentioned, short of autopsies all round, they remain unproven. But to record those as driver error or similar would be fiction.

Oh, and for a change, in neither case were speed or alcohol stated to be contributing factors. Which is in itself remarkable.

[Ulsterkiwi]

I am all for the multifaceted approach that safer journeys is supposed to promote. Safer roads, drivers/riders and vehicles. Only works if you work on all three.
Policing speed the way it is done here with the shifting “tolerance” bullshit will change nothing. The other issue is when a road is made safer that should allow policing effort to go on the relatively less safe roading.
Case to illustrate (not prove):
Kapiti Expressway. In the cage. Left hand lane. 105 indicated. Clear day. Dry road.
Absolute dunger of a car is overtaking me at a reasonable pace. No issue with their manoeuvre or actually being overtaken. Fill your boots mate.
I have been waiting for quite a while for a response from this driver as up ahead I have seen a patrol car sitting on the shoulder.
Guy finally sees it when we are maybe 3 seconds out, less than 100metres? absolutely stands on the brakes and falls back behind me but remains in right hand lane.
I continue at my existing speed.
After we leave patrol car behind, dunger gets back up to 115/120 (I am guessing) and passes me.
So my thoughts are:
What has been achieved? Driver in the speeding car has not adapted their behaviour at all. In fact because of their abject failure to look ahead he/she carried out a dangerous manoeuvre (sudden braking for no apparent reason other than avoiding a ticket)
Police officer was achieving little patrolling one of the (apparently) safest roads in the country. Why not go and spend some time where it’s less safe and “improve” things there? Catch some people doing actual dangerous shit?
I dunno, maybe someone can explain it to me


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FJRider]

In both of the instances I mentioned, short of autopsies all round, they remain unproven. But to record those as driver error or similar would be fiction.

I have experience with family members involved in such cases ... cause of death listed as heart attack (confirmed by autopsy as required in cases of sudden death). Actual time of death unconfirmed (read not sure if ... prior to/during/or after the incident).

Listed as cause of the accident ... Medical event.

All parties involved escape the (possible) finger of blame (read escape further scrutiny).



And the world continues on ...

[slofox]

Incidentally, was there a reduction in speed tolerance this year? Coz if there was, I didn't know about it...

[Moi]

A letter to the New Zealand Herald, Thursday January 3, 2019:

Crash Barriers
Research over a period of 30 years has
proved beyond doubt that it's a waste of
time to try to make people drive better.
The only thing that is guaranteed to stop
cars crashing is median barriers and wide
shoulders.
The Auckland Council spent large
sums of money a year or two ago inviting
a Swedish specialist here to consult on
road safety. He said people will always
behave idiotically. That will never change
no matter how much money we spend
on driver education. The key is making
roads safer.
Perhaps with policies announced
recently we have some chance of at last
seeing something effective being done to
reduce the road toll. We should all be
grateful that funds are about to be put into
medians and shoulders.
Susan Grimsdell, Auckland Central.

I have not yet found the research to which Susan Grimsdell refers, though I wonder if she is thinking of this: Sweden model could reduce NZ road deaths - researcher.

However, it is her first paragraph I find the most disturbing, absolute ambulance at the bottom of the cliff and leaving the blinkers on so I can't see anything different. If she is correct, can't find any research to support her position - perhaps someone on here might do better than me in finding it, then why are we bothering with RideForever or any other programme that improves the skills of riders and/or drivers?

[husaberg]

rs, though I wonder if she is thinking of this: Sweden model could reduce NZ road deaths - researcher.

However, it is her first paragraph I find the most disturbing, absolute ambulance at the bottom of the cliff and leaving the blinkers on so I can't see anything different. If she is correct, can't find any research to support her position - perhaps someone on here might do better than me in finding it, then why are we bothering with RideForever or any other programme that improves the skills of riders and/or drivers?

Most people that die on motorbikes are as a result of car drivers mistakes so think of those courses as being practical defensive driving courses.ie survival skills
its the same with Car vs truck its generally not the trucks fault but car drivers who hit trucks generally die Yet with cars who hit bikes its the rider that normally dies.
Both are over represented in road deaths but its mostly not their fault.
As i said earlier speed is the easiest to police but when the cameras started out they were meant to be in black spot areas unfortunately they have never applied them like this.
Our company actively manage speed and aggressive driving with tracking, it works at lowering the accident rate plus as a side benefit saves fuel plus wear and tear on tyres and vehicles

[speedpro]

IIRC cameras were going to target the top 10% of speeders. Of course that is a reducing target and has been completely overlooked now.

[husaberg]

IIRC cameras were going to target the top 10% of speeders. Of course that is a reducing target and has been completely overlooked now.

i live a about 8-10bkM's out of town
Part of the road is really windy and narrow and a know spot for killing people over a patch of a few Km's
Never once has there been a speed camera on this piece of road.
They instead carry on to put speed cameras on the 70km in the town i live as its straight wide and easy to speed.
Whilst very lucrative it doesn't lower the speed on the dangerous section much.
they lowered the speed to 80 km and widened the road its better but still far from perfect.

That said, Supposedly seeing a police car or officer is a most effective speed control measure.
Japan used to set up fake policeman dummies and it seems to be spreading arround the world

[Navy Boy]

I am all for the multifaceted approach that safer journeys is supposed to promote. Safer roads, drivers/riders and vehicles. Only works if you work on all three.
Policing speed the way it is done here with the shifting “tolerance” bullshit will change nothing. The other issue is when a road is made safer that should allow policing effort to go on the relatively less safe roading.
Case to illustrate (not prove):
Kapiti Expressway. In the cage. Left hand lane. 105 indicated. Clear day. Dry road.
Absolute dunger of a car is overtaking me at a reasonable pace. No issue with their manoeuvre or actually being overtaken. Fill your boots mate.
I have been waiting for quite a while for a response from this driver as up ahead I have seen a patrol car sitting on the shoulder.
Guy finally sees it when we are maybe 3 seconds out, less than 100metres? absolutely stands on the brakes and falls back behind me but remains in right hand lane.
I continue at my existing speed.
After we leave patrol car behind, dunger gets back up to 115/120 (I am guessing) and passes me.
So my thoughts are:
What has been achieved? Driver in the speeding car has not adapted their behaviour at all. In fact because of their abject failure to look ahead he/she carried out a dangerous manoeuvre (sudden braking for no apparent reason other than avoiding a ticket)
Police officer was achieving little patrolling one of the (apparently) safest roads in the country. Why not go and spend some time where it’s less safe and “improve” things there? Catch some people doing actual dangerous shit?
I dunno, maybe someone can explain it to me


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sadly a typical reaction - You see it with fixed cameras (As well as mobile van cameras) all the time. I've a theory that cameras or cop cars positioned as such actually cause more harm than good for the reasons you've outlined above. Personally I'd love to see an unmarked police bike or two zapping people on their mobile devices. It'd be like shooting fish in a barrel in Wellington and Auckland. Then stick the footage on Facecloth/Instatwerp and get it into the public domain. Perhaps then a slightly more reasoned debate might result.


Down here on the mainland there are our fair share of dozy twerps around on the roads at the moment. Having said that I was out for a good few hours on the bike again today and saw plenty of patient and considerate driving with slower vehicles pulling over for us when it was safe to do so. I was really pleased to see this - There's hope people!

[AllanB]

The police are just recruiting wrong.

[scumdog]

Most people that die on motorbikes are as a result of car drivers mistakes

Thats the biggest biker myth ever.

21 years on the job and I know of two crashes in my area where the car driver was at fault (bikers not killed)

BUT off the top gf my head I know of at least five crashes (possibly more, memory not at full throttle!) I attended or was involved with where the biker was totally at fault. a couple hit cars the other ran off the road


And that's not counting the crashes where there was minor/no injury when a rider exceeded their capabilities

[speedpro]

What I would have thought as well given my own experiences and observations.

[husaberg]

Thats the biggest biker myth ever.

21 years on the job and I know of two crashes in my area where the car driver was at fault (bikers not killed)

BUT off the top gf my head I know of at least five crashes (possibly more, memory not at full throttle!) I attended or was involved with where the biker was totally at fault. a couple hit cars the other ran off the road


And that's not counting the crashes where there was minor/no injury when a rider exceeded their capabilities

i could have phrased it better but i was meaning car vs bike, accidents only resulting in death.
i will bow to your superior knowledge though

Although this suggests otherwise based on US crash stats.

Conducted by USC Professor Harry Hunt and initiated by the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration, the Hurt Report identified answers to many questions that help shed light on who is usually at fault when these collisions occur.
All of the following information was found within the Hurt Report :
When motorcycles are involved in crashes with another vehicle(s), the other vehicle(s) is found to have violated the biker’s right-of-way and be at fault for the collision in more than 66% of those accidents.

https://www.motorcycleaccidentcasela...-fault-of-the/

In analyzing 10 years of Florida motorcycle crashes, Chanyoung Lee, a senior researcher at the University of South Florida's Center for Urban Transportation Research, found that 60 percent of the time motorists in other vehicles are at fault when they collide with motorcycles.
"There's a bias by people driving," Lee said. "They don't expect to see motorcycles."

https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl...309-story.html

okay this is intersting so i will go to ZNZ if we go to NZ stats produced by our MOT

A motorcyclist has the primary responsibility for 56 percent of fatal and injury crashes involving
motorcycles. For fatal and serious injury crashes, the motorcyclist is more likely to have the primary
responsibility4 for the crash. The motorcycle rider has the primary responsibility for 70 percent of fatal
motorcycle crashes, but the comparable figure for minor injury crashes is 51 percent.
In about two-thirds (64 percent) of the crashes that involve a collision with another vehicle, it is the
other vehicle that has the primary responsibility for the crash

https://www.transport.govt.nz/assets...Speed-2017.pdf
So its a toss up so overall deaths seem more likely riders fault, but of all acidents involving cars vs bikes accidents its far more likely car drivers fault.

---

Some intersting stuff.
https://www.transport.govt.nz/assets...Speed-2017.pdf

[FJRider]

... Although this suggests otherwise based on US crash stats.

Stat's from the USA are relevant in the USA. But we are in NZ. Interesting to compare the two separate cultures involved ... but I wouldn't go as far as stating their stat's are relevant.

So its a toss up so overall deaths seem more likely riders fault, but of all acidents involving cars vs bikes accidents its far more likely car drivers fault.

If you choose to expect "Right of Way" when "The Law" requires you to get it ... be prepared for disappointment ... it's not always going to happen. If you do the macho "I have my rights" thing ... it will hurt. As I said ... not always ... but if you want to live ... that's the way to bet.

Fault becomes irrelevant when you're sliding down the road on your ass ...