Police getting tougher on speed tolerance

[onearmedbandit]

Very well put Navy Boy.

[rastuscat]

Facts ... ??

Fact is ... step out in front of a car moving at 50 km/hr ... and the chance of you getting killed is good.

Pedestrians seem to forget that.

And so ... if it's found the driver was not at fault ... the speed limit wouldn't be reduced .. ??

A quick look on Google maps (usually streetview is a few years behind reality) ... but Woodend is still showing a 50km/hr town speed limit.

You are a bit closer to there than I am ... is it still 50 km/hr in town ... ??

It's a question of perspective. If you think purely as an individual the speed reductions are senseless. Likely optimism bias causes you to think you aren't going to crash, so there is no need to reduce your speed.

But if you think of it on a societal level, or community level, crashes happen. So reducing the speed at which they happen makes sense.

I've always reflected that we object to speeds being limited, but we also think drivers and roads need to be better. It doesn't take much trawling on KB to find stories about crap drivers and roads.

Once every is as awesome as they think they are, and the roads are like the Nürburgring, I think speeds can remain as they are. But given that roads and drivers are crap, crashes will continue, so it makes sense to limit the harm done.

Navy Boy points out that you can't argue with the laws of physics. Impact is logarithmically related to speed. Small increases in speed lead to large increases in harm, because Kinetic energy is the energy that an object has due to its motion. Ek, is the energy of a mass, m, in motion, v2.

Ek = 1/2 mv2

where Ek = Kinetic energy, m = mass, and v = velocity.

So the impact is a product of the speed squared. Hard to argue.

And yes, Woodend is still 50 kmh, and is unlikely to change. For the last 25 years a bypass has been talked about and planned, but it hasn't had the money it needs put into it.

[pete376403]

People step in front of trains, too. Is there a push to reduce train speeds? At what point do people become responsible for, and suffer the consequence of, their own actions? Are we to get to the point of insanity like the US, where Kia and Hyundai are being sued because their cars are too easy to steal (with instructions posted on TikTok) and teens subsequently killing themselves crashing?

[Navy Boy]

People step in front of trains, too. Is there a push to reduce train speeds? At what point do people become responsible for, and suffer the consequence of, their own actions? Are we to get to the point of insanity like the US, where Kia and Hyundai are being sued because their cars are too easy to steal (with instructions posted on TikTok) and teens subsequently killing themselves crashing?

You're right - This is very much a case of personal responsibility and how that is exercised.

I don't think any of us would advocate going down the US route that you have referred to - I know that I certainly wouldn't.

I guess that my point was that seeing such an incident first-hand really brought it home to me the 'So what?' of unplanned vehicle/people interfaces and that the image stayed with me for a very long time afterwards. Whilst I wouldn't wish witnessing such an incident on anyone the fact is that it served as a powerful reminder of why the little voice in the back of your head (And yes I am referencing the original Magnum P.I ) needs to be listened to. Which, if we're being brutally honest is what we are talking about when we talk of road safety and what it means to us as individuals.

If I remember my physics correctly Momentum = Mass x Velocity, as Rastus has pointed out. When I reflected on what I'd seen I did wonder what could have been done differently to either stop it happening or to lessen the effects. To be honest I'm still not certain that it was an accident that could have been avoided but just seeing the effects of it as an involuntary spectator served as a graphic wake-up call for me.

To be clear - There's no staff answer to this - Only varying shades of useful. It's what we take from it and use in the future which interests me about the whole thing.

[rastuscat]

If I remember my physics correctly Momentum = Mass x Velocity, as Rastus has pointed out..

That's the kicker. Momentum = Mass x Velocity SQUARED.

It's the SQUARED bit that really bites ass.

Small increases in speed really matter when it's the speed squared.

Like 3 kmh squared = 9

5 kmh squared = 25

So the extra 2 kmh (33%) gives you a lot more than that in terms of outcome.

That's why the difference between 30 kmh and 50 kmh in pedestrian dense areas is so critical.

[pete376403]

Boris says it best https://borismihailovic.com/vision-z...on-impossible/

[Berries]

Yesterday a pedestrian was killed by a car travelling on Main North Road in Woodend.

It's a 50 kmh road, and until the vehicle speed is determined, lets speculate that it was doing 50 kmh.

This is an excellent example of the reason to slow traffic down, at least in places where people are likely to make a mistake. Pretty much anywhere there are people.

Whatever the reason the pedestrian stepped out in front of the vehicle, the speed of the vehicle determined the outcome.

Only if you speculate it was doing 50km/h.

Lets speculate that the car was doing 30km/h, slowed to 20km/h and the person was tapped lightly, tripped and hit their head on the kerb and died. Or the car was doing 30, slowed to 20 and nudged someone who was old and frail and their age contributed to the sad outcome.

Not going to argue with your general point about slowing down traffic where people are crossing the road but jumping on this crash so quickly when a lot more than just the speed of the vehicle has yet to be determined seems to be pushing the speed management crusade a bit hard.

[FJRider]

[QUOTE=rastuscat;1131210675]It's a question of perspective. If you think purely as an individual the speed reductions are senseless. Likely optimism bias causes you to think you aren't going to crash, so there is no need to reduce your speed.

But if you think of it on a societal level, or community level, crashes happen. So reducing the speed at which they happen makes sense.

The speed limit in Woodend has not changed. I have not heard that local authorities even WANT the Town speed limit changed. But YOU do.

Apparently.

Police ... or even EX Police don't make (or change) the speed limits ... just because they think it's a good idea.

I've always reflected that we object to speeds being limited, but we also think drivers and roads need to be better. It doesn't take much trawling on KB to find stories about crap drivers and roads.

Even with good roads and a good driver ... they'll still hit a pedestrian ... if the ignorant shit steps off the kerb in front of them.

Reducing the fucking speed limit won't stop that.

Once every is as awesome as they think they are,

What's that in English please .. ??

and the roads are like the Nürburgring, I think speeds can remain as they are. But given that roads and drivers are crap, crashes will continue, so it makes sense to limit the harm done.

Nurburgring is a fucking Motor Racing track. AND ... fit for fucking purpose. New Zealand ROADS are NOT a Fucking motor racing track.

Fit for purpose ... is the question though.

Most of my working life ... I have been driving work vehicles. Only one accident requiring hospitalization. And No pedestrian ever dared step out in front of me.

Navy Boy points out that you can't argue with the laws of physics. Impact is logarithmically related to speed. Small increases in speed lead to large increases in harm, because Kinetic energy is the energy that an object has due to its motion. Ek, is the energy of a mass, m, in motion, v2.

I went to school too. And I'm familiar with physics.

Ek = 1/2 mv2

where Ek = Kinetic energy, m = mass, and v = velocity.

So the impact is a product of the speed squared. Hard to argue.

ie: The faster you go ... the bigger the mess ...

And yes, Woodend is still 50 kmh, and is unlikely to change. For the last 25 years a bypass has been talked about and planned, but it hasn't had the money it needs put into it.

If it was such a good idea ... why has it not change .. ??

[Berries]

If it was such a good idea ... why has it not change .. ??

It will become 40km/h once NZTA get round to reviewing the highway speed limits.

[rastuscat]

[QUOTE=FJRider;1131210686]

It's a question of perspective. If you think purely as an individual the speed reductions are senseless. Likely optimism bias causes you to think you aren't going to crash, so there is no need to reduce your speed.



The speed limit in Woodend has not changed. I have not heard that local authorities even WANT the Town speed limit changed. But YOU do.

Apparently.

Police ... or even EX Police don't make (or change) the speed limits ... just because they think it's a good idea.



Even with good roads and a good driver ... they'll still hit a pedestrian ... if the ignorant shit steps off the kerb in front of them.

Reducing the fucking speed limit won't stop that.



What's that in English please .. ??



Nurburgring is a fucking Motor Racing track. AND ... fit for fucking purpose. New Zealand ROADS are NOT a Fucking motor racing track.

Fit for purpose ... is the question though.

Most of my working life ... I have been driving work vehicles. Only one accident requiring hospitalization. And No pedestrian ever dared step out in front of me.



I went to school too. And I'm familiar with physics.



ie: The faster you go ... the bigger the mess ...



If it was such a good idea ... why has it not change .. ??

Flattered that you would multi quote me, line by line. Cheers.

What I was referring to with the Nürburgring reference was that we pretty much accept that drivers are pretty poor, and that our roads are pretty poor, but we object to slowing those poor drivers on poor roads down. Seems kind of conflicting.

No, I don't believe the speed limit on that piece of road in Woodend should change. Where did I say that? I just used it to highlight the issue of vehicle speed and it's effect on pedestrians.

Many roads in our District are pedestrian dense, so 50 kmh is really quite fast in those areas. The 50 kmh speed limit is so out of date. For example, in High Street, Rangiora, nobody can do more than 30 anyway, there are raised pedestrian crossings, and restricted lane widths, with cars parking all over. The 50 kmh limit is farcical.

Neighbourhoods are better places to live when traffic goes slower too. Kids are more likely to play in the street, people are more likely to use the public spaces. Roads are for people not just motor vehicles.

And yes, I think the bypass in Woodend is the best solution. It was due to be built until the changing on the government 5 years ago changed the priorities. If the government changes again, it might be back on the cards. It hasn't changed due to political will.

The road running through Woodend with a steady volume of traffic at a steady 50 kmh splits the community. Remember Orewa being the main road north decades ago? It's far nicer place these days, having been bypassed and traffic calmed.

Play the ball, not the man.

[pritch]

I'm not in favour of simply lowering speed limits and then proclaiming that the road toll problem will/should diminish

British police ranked speed as the seventh highest cause of accidents. That figure was considered artificially high because many accidents were attended by general duties officers rather than specialist traffic police.

Assuming drivers in NZ are not dissimilar to those in the UK, by focussing on speed it would seem we are doing nothing to alleviate the top six causes of accidents.
If we even know what they are.

[rastuscat]

British police ranked speed as the seventh highest cause of accidents. That figure was considered artificially high because many accidents were attended by general duties officers rather than specialist traffic police.

Assuming drivers in NZ are not dissimilar to those in the UK, by focussing on speed it would seem we are doing nothing to alleviate the top six causes of accidents.
If we even know what they are.

The cause of a crash, is relevant. But it doesn't exclude speed as a major determinant of the outcome.

E.g. a car doing 50 kmh hits the a car which pulled out of the side road ahead of them. Causative factor, the car pulling out.

The same car doing 40 kmh would have a better chance of avoiding the car that pulled out, and even if it did hit, it impact would be significantly less.

The speed is a significant determinant factor of the impact, even if it's not a causative factor.

[Moi]

If a government decides to reduce the number of people killed on the roads each year then the government has a number of cards it can play to achieve a reduction in the number of deaths.

The government could do something about the quality of driving - they could institute a programme of driver education.

The government could do something about the quality of the roads - they could begin a programme of improvements to the state highway system with priority on the single digit state highways.

The government could do something about the quality of the vehicle fleet - they could introduce an age limit of vehicles on the road and a much stricter check on vehicles.

The government could do something about one of the factors that make crashes 'fatal crashes' - they could reduce the speed of traffic on roads to what the government considers is a more appropriate speed for the conditions of that section of road.

Of the above the first three will require expenditure that is quite capable of making your eyes water and which will raise questions about 'where does the money come from?' - do we raise the fuel tax? do we raise the RUCs? do we raise general taxation? do we place 'distance based' toll charges on roads? do we cut back in other areas of government spending - shall the government stop building the new hospital in Dunedin or the replacement of Hutt Hospital's earthquake prone building? shall the government not build the replacement local school which is riddled with leaking buildings and mouldy and draughty classrooms? shall the government reduce the funding for social services?

However, the reduction of speed limits is a relatively cheap card to play in comparison to building a dual-carriageway from Christchurch to Dunedin. Look at the cost of the expressways north of Wellington, the expressway north of Auckland - perhaps there is someone on this forum who can give a ball park figure as the cost per kilometre of expressway that is rated for 110km/h.

Reducing the speed on a road gives more time for other cards to be played to improve that road - the installation of side barriers or medium barriers, the straightening of a windy section, the widening of a narrow section, the improvement of intersections - and at the same time reduces the 'fatalness' of crashes on that road. Running off a road into a drainage ditch at 80km/h is better than doing it at 100km/h. Not running off a road is even better still!

I guess the final decision will be in the hands of the people and we'll see which way that goes at the election at the end of the year...

[pete376403]

"Road to Zero" started out as "Vision Zero" in Sweden and govts around the world have been quick to jump on the bandwagon. Swedens zero target was 2020 but that hasn't worked out so well for them, despite the well educated population, relatively low population, very good roads (Roads in Sweden are built with safety prioritised over speed or convenience. Low urban speed-limits, pedestrian zones and barriers that separate cars from bikes and oncoming traffic have helped. Building 1,500 kilometres (900 miles) of "2+1" roads—where each lane of traffic takes turns to use a middle lane for overtaking—is reckoned to have saved around 145 lives over the first decade of Vision Zero) yet the road toll there remains "In 1997 the Swedish Parliament introduced a "Vision Zero" policy that requires that fatalities and serious injuries are reduced to zero by 2020. This is a significant step-change in transport policy at the European level. All new roads are built to this standard and older roads are modified. Vision Zero also incorporated other countermeasures targeting drivers and vehicles. It is worth noting that Sweden's road death toll was declining prior to 1997 and continued to do so under Vision Zero. However, the number of deaths has not improved since 2013." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_Zero

[James Deuce]

Nobody gives a fuck if you live or die. They REALLY care if you survive and cost the taxpayer money. The only reason "Road to Zero" exists is because no one wants to pay for the road network maintenance. So if you reduce speed trucks fuck it up less.

All the boohoo, wank, wank shit about personal cost of injury and death means nothing. It's about reducing the Governments exposure to injury costs and the cost of maintaining our overly extensive road network.