What would you do to make the roads safer?

[mister.koz]

The theme of bike training for all makes a lot of sense, but as already observed, totally impractical.

Depleted skills when drunk is more than adequately legislated against, so what we're talking about are the near non existent skills of the sober majority.

Surely the solution would be a license retest (practical not written multiple choice) every 3-5 years - fail and you're off the road.

I gotta agree with you there, its the people on the road who can't drive and don't know the rules who need to be woken up.

[Genestho]

.

Depleted skills when drunk is more than adequately legislated against, so what we're talking about are the near non existent skills of the sober majority.

Oh really? At the risk of sounding like an emotional widow, or a religious zealot, I will make no apologies for what I am about to say: wakeup dude.

My Husband was killed by a drunk who had 20 years history of drink driving, and four prior convictions - indefinately disqualified.

He tried to sit his license 2 years prior and failed, he killed our 2 friends and my husband surivived and then died.

If drink driving was adequately legislated I would have celebrated my second and subsequent wedding anniversaries and shared the future of our baby who was 7months, and his big brother who was 3 - with my best mate.

The guy that killed three people and himself and put his kids at risk, was 137/100 mg 4 hours after he smashed into our lives, and 8 hours after - 93/100mg of blood.
Go back and do the math of how his limit may have been at time of crash and before he chose to drive, that indicates that he was rotten drunk.

His post mortem showed he had extensive liver disease.

There were three kids in the car whose statements are horrific, what they went through prior to crashing is irreprehensible and in my opinion neglectfull.
My husbands bike hit the car that crossed the centreline straight after our friend, front and back, and rode the bonnet until he was dumped a metre from the car.

The woman who tried to help my husband stay calm for an hour until emergency services came, walked past our mates leg, to get to him..
Her marriage is now split because of this day

Our mate was one with the car engine, the bonnet and roof and then came off the back, his lady 38 metres up the road, dead.
My husband knew his friends were dead, he could hear kids screaming.
Then he died in hospital, after waiting for me to arrive, to tell me this wasnt his fault.
He was sadly coherent, and in massive pain. I never heard him complain about being sick ever and would work regardless, last time I saw him in pain and showing it was in '96.

This couldve been prevented both by personal responsibilty and more appropriate legislative measures!

If drink driving is adequately legislated why is recidivism and drink driving rates rising?

Nathing King 28, killed by drunk driver, the driver sentenced to a years home D and $11.000 reperation, 250 hours community service

Jonathon Keough 29
Killed by a repeat drink driver - The impact was so great that Jonathan died at the scene. Despite not wearing a seat-belt Mr Cashman was uninjured. He was sentenced to three years prison for excess alcohol causing death; he is eligible for parole after two years. Under current sub-standard legislation this can be considered a good sentence.
At sentencing the Judge described him as a clear peril every time he got behind the wheel.

Mr Cashman's blood alcohol count was almost twice the legal limit, he recklessly hurtled his car over two passing lanes of flat straight road and he had several convictions for drunk and dangerous driving.
Cashman was released in July 2008, released on parole and did not serve full sentence

Tara Groenestein 36 killed by a drunk driver 3x over the limit, one years home D, disqualified from driving for a year.


These are just but a few stories, there are many many more

And in the suggested box of magic tricks targeting alarm bells of high bac and recidivism? Lowering the BAC which has been proven to be a failure:

"The rationale behind lowering BAC is fundamentally flawed as it fails to make connection between a lower BAC limit and alcohol related crashes.
There is a process involved in changing drink drive behavior that includes drivers becoming aware of the law, becoming motivated to comply with the law and understanding how to comply with the lower limit, there is little evidence to suggest that the introduction of a lower BAC limit has an effect on this process, hence, there is little reason to expect a reduction in alcohol related crashes.

In addition the rationale for a lower BAC limit fails to acknowledge the powerful influence that alcohol abuse or dependence has on behavior, People with alcohol problems account for the majority of alcohol related crashes.
Their drinking behavior and subsequent driving is not easily changed.
Regardless of a lower BAC limit this high risk group will continue to drink heavily and drive afterwards, lowering the limit is a measure directed at the wrong group of drivers”.

This from an international study with findings from Canada, Sweden and Australia

http://www.trafficinjuryresearch.com...BAC_Limits.pdf

And its not just a bunch of emotion ridden people saying things need to change..
http://www.aa.co.nz/about/issues/roa...d-driving.aspx


Mate - If this were to ever happen to you (wouldnt wish it on you!), I hope you can still say confidently "depleted skills when drunk are more than adequately legislated" when you dress your loved one who is cold and grey and smashed up, and watch as they are lowered into the ground.

Sorry to go there but this is real, for a great many people, these lives do and must count for change.
We cannot change the past but we can change the future

[candor]

Oh really? .........
We cannot change the past but we can change the future

Full support. It is not a sobre majority holding the key here. A recent analysis of dead drivers aged 25-35 scraped off NZ roads found that 96% had used either alcohol, drugs or frequently both and 77% were culpable likely as a result!!!

Definately its the wasted not sobre majority killing and being killed in the big bulging age group within the toll.

Legislation adequate. No way. We are not dealing well with the repeat offenders who are grossly overrepresented in the death and kiling statistics - yet Govt is pushing to waste resources on those in the non risky category, and reluctant to nip the rest in the bud.

At least one hundred die from over 0.08 and they want to lower the limit which could potentially save a meagre 3 lives status quo, but that move may end up killing even more... through tying checkpoint Police up processing and charging non riskies. And making people think an adequate or even major change has occurred. When so much else needs proirity fixing ahead of weak interventions.

As above - and as supported by the AA link Guzzi Widow provided - where is the compulsory treatment for those who clearly need it, the licence loss, the removal from roads until provably safe, the drug testing, the ignition alcolocks, and the message from sentences that killing someone in this state is ummm hey actually a crime - not just the "oopsy daisy" of a bloody idiot that Nanny State will shelter from consequences.

Why were said high risk offenders named above not issued permanent bus passes and consistently checked on by Police who ought have had their names and addresses highlighted in their patrol books. Its a minority causing half the harm - no rocketscience to prevent homicide when it stares in the face.

And another halloween type mystery.... why has Government set a goal that 21% of the road toll shall involve drink drivers, while other Governments have set goals to eliminate the drink drive toll? Why have they set the Road Police RAM (Resource Allocation - read Revenue calculator) computer program to set the target number of checkpoint captures that must be budgeted for and achieved to result in 21% of the toll being drink related by an upcoming year?

Seems cruel to set goals so hostile to road safety which condemn certaibn unknowing road users. Could be you or me factored in that 21%. How serious can we believe Govt are about reducing this peril if they are only planning sufficient interventions to trim it not remove it. Who calls the shots here - obviously those having the shots! Be concerned - be real concerned as the "emotional bleating" could oneday be coming from you.

And thanks GW for keeping putting the real stories out there. Its hard work, no fun at all and one always runs the risk of being called a winger. But if it catches attention of even 1 who needs to hear the consequences... a job well done.

Some basic reassessment of a drivers license being a right after an arbitrarily set disqual period is needed. We may as well give licenses to 3 year olds as to those entitled to reissue under our laws.

[4Ducati]

I'm gonna put my 2c worth in here too.......(Guzzi Widow, Candor - fully agree with you both!!)

1) Recidivist drink drivers - deal with them properly!!!!! PLEASE!! Absolute utter lowlifes as far as I'm concerned.

2) Put an EXPIRY date on restricted licences - 2yrs from getting your restricted, it expires if you have'nt passed a full test - start again at the beginning!! We have 30 yr old drivers on our roads that have NEVER sat a full licence test, & have been driving on restricted licences for over 10 yrs.

3) STOP telling people how 'safe' their vehicles are - fact is, they are bloody dangerous @ times!! ABS, airbags, stability control & all the other rubbish, is NO substitute for having a good driver making great decisions behind the steering wheel!! Theres a stack of drivers out there that can't even identify 'what' a hazard is, before it embeds itself into their bonnet.

4) Speeding..........I absolutely hate the current revenue & quota driven approach to speeding.........!! So, 100kph is 'safe', yet 101 kph is deemed unsafe........what rubbish!! 101kph is just 'illegal' - 70kph in some 100k areas is dangerous in some conditions. Much like in dry weather in a modern vehicle, an alert driver is perfectly safe doing 140kph through the MacKenzie Basin (Tekapo / Twizel etc) in light traffic conditions.

5) Fatigue / drugs - educate & enforce.

6) Introduce zero blood alcohol limit for all drivers, period!! What we have at the moment is just bullshit IMHO.

7) Driving Fines exceed $5000 - revoke licence till paid off - impound & sell any vehicles that driver is caught driving. Once fines paid off - can then resit licence starting at 'L' stage again.

8) Put some proper driving skills into our drivers.

9) Get rid of the current 'put up a hazard road sign' mentality - driving IS hazardous, yet some drivers can't relate to a hazardous situation if there happens to be no sign up telling them about it / warning them.........

When will things change??? Only when NZ drivers / riders / operators start taking proper & total responsibility for their actions while driving, - when NZ families finally get tired of putting their loved ones in a hole in the ground, because of the actions of a few idiots & oxygen thiefs that we continue to allow to drive on NZ roads.

Interesting thread this one, & something I'm extremely dedicated to. (trust me, I'm being fairly restrained in this post.........!!)

[slimjim]

I'm gonna put my 2c worth in here too.......(Guzzi Widow, Candor - fully agree with you both!!)

1) Recidivist drink drivers - deal with them properly!!!!! PLEASE!! Absolute utter lowlifes as far as I'm concerned.

2) Put an EXPIRY date on restricted licences - 2yrs from getting your restricted, it expires if you have'nt passed a full test - start again at the beginning!! We have 30 yr old drivers on our roads that have NEVER sat a full licence test, & have been driving on restricted licences for over 10 yrs.

3) STOP telling people how 'safe' their vehicles are - fact is, they are bloody dangerous @ times!! ABS, airbags, stability control & all the other rubbish, is NO substitute for having a good driver making great decisions behind the steering wheel!! Theres a stack of drivers out there that can't even identify 'what' a hazard is, before it embeds itself into their bonnet.

4) Speeding..........I absolutely hate the current revenue & quota driven approach to speeding.........!! So, 100kph is 'safe', yet 101 kph is deemed unsafe........what rubbish!! 101kph is just 'illegal' - 70kph in some 100k areas is dangerous in some conditions. Much like in dry weather in a modern vehicle, an alert driver is perfectly safe doing 140kph through the MacKenzie Basin (Tekapo / Twizel etc) in light traffic conditions.

5) Fatigue / drugs - educate & enforce.

6) Introduce zero blood alcohol limit for all drivers, period!! What we have at the moment is just bullshit IMHO.

7) Driving Fines exceed $5000 - revoke licence till paid off - impound & sell any vehicles that driver is caught driving. Once fines paid off - can then resit licence starting at 'L' stage again.

8) Put some proper driving skills into our drivers.

9) Get rid of the current 'put up a hazard road sign' mentality - driving IS hazardous, yet some drivers can't relate to a hazardous situation if there happens to be no sign up telling them about it / warning them.........

When will things change??? Only when NZ drivers / riders / operators start taking proper & total responsibility for their actions while driving, - when NZ families finally get tired of putting their loved ones in a hole in the ground, because of the actions of a few idiots & oxygen thiefs that we continue to allow to drive on NZ roads.

Interesting thread this one, & something I'm extremely dedicated to. (trust me, I'm being fairly restrained in this post.........!!)

very well said.....

[4Ducati]

Thanks Slim - I left one out though..........

10) - Harden up the serious driving offence repercussions - kill some-one in a MVA, & you currently get charged with 'careless use causing death' or 'dangerous driving causing death' - take away the 'vehicle component', & obtain the same result using a differant type of 'weapon', & you're looking at 'murder / manslaughter' charges..........

Am I the only one that struggles to see what the differance is..........???!!! Bearing in mind, both are same result, caused by some-one elses actions.........

If changing laws happens to upset a few of our tree-hugging dope-smoking left-winged pollitically-correct do-gooder queer ba$tards that are nicely closeted in their beauracratic palaces away from the 'REAL' world - I"M ALL FOR IT!!!!!!!

[vgcspares]

Full support. It is not a sobre majority holding the key here. A recent analysis of dead drivers aged 25-35 scraped off NZ roads found that 96% had used either alcohol, drugs or frequently both and 77% were culpable likely as a result!!!.

I think the above's worthy of a challenge - exactly which analysis (by whom, when published and in what journal) has ever cited 77% of dead drivers were culpable through drink/drugs ?????


Put up, or shut up - but don't post compost and claim it's based on facts.

[HEADACHE]

Pretty simple - Put Katman in charge!!

Have him:

Ban all lights, roundabouts, give ways.

Open speed limit on all roads

Ban women drivers and anyone over the age of 70.

Ban D.I.C. drivers at their first conviction.

Export all the dykes back to Holland.

Implement a more intensive driver training program where idiots are doomed to fail and never pass.

Employ the Police to perform actual police work.


Keep NZ clean.

[candor]

I think the above's worthy of a challenge - exactly which analysis (by whom, when published and in what journal) has ever cited 77% of dead drivers were culpable through drink/drugs ?????

Put up, or shut up - but don't post compost and claim it's based on facts.

It's not compost - but lets go ballistic before even ascertaining the facts are correctly presented, why not. Also I did not say 77% of dead drivers were culpable through alcohol or drugs. Pay attention before throwing hissys. I said 77% of the dead drivers who had used alcohol or drugs were culpable, and that almost all in a certain age group had used.

This is not from journal but a NZ Police report concerning dead drivers from I think 2004-7 that has been made avail to road safety groups like AA and MPs on Transport committee. As analysed in its first year in a thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Chemistry at The University of Waikato, by Carolina Troncoso Vergara. Is that good nuff for ya' or is it a bit academically suspect? If sus to u don't stress - the same stats showing 96% of an age group (as in initial post) on drink / drugs at time of death will likely be appearing in a peer reviewed article very soon. For now you can find it within the thesis.
Link here - http://adt.waikato.ac.nz/public/adt-...448/index.html

Anyway it appears from your posts re drink driving in this thread that you're flat out hostile to the DUI issue, so I trust you'll also manage to misread this study just as you did my words. Difficult - as straight numbers counted (dead drivers, numbers of an age drunk or drugged) are hard to rebutt, but Congrats on your passionate approach of challenging modern stats we dislike. Denial is always a top method to reduce problems, specially if you work for Govt. I must trade my unsubstantiated compost based musings for like rants soon.

[vgcspares]

I am dead against drink driving - but unlike people for whom it's become a Holy Grail, I believe that the massive majority of accidents occur where neither party is intoxicated. Additionally the penalities available to the courts for DUI are severe and quite severe enough if their full weight is brought to bear.
However the incidence of too light a penalty being levied where death occurs and the culpable party is sober/straight is too high to ignore and represents a greater failure of the system than the small number of DUIs who get off lightly.

[mstriumph]

Ban bikes.

Ban cars.

Put bombs in trucks attached to the "tamper proof" speed limiter. Exceed 90km/hr, get blown up.

Put seatbelts in buses.

Shoot taxi drivers.

Execute anyone who has ever owned a scooter, a skateboard or a push bike.

methinks YOU need a HUG

[mstriumph]

actually - i really LIKED those suggestions about automatic fines for SLOW drivers and reducing the speed limit when it's raining

i'd like more emphasis put on suiting driving speeds to conditions .... this could include RAISING limits on good, open road ...

i'd also like to see a system of graduated licencing where skilled and experienced drivers were allowed to drive 30kph over the limit in areas that weren't built up

dreams ....

[SPman]

• Most areas of motorways - 110km/h speed limit (like Australian highways)

Most traffic if left to their own devices on the motorway seem to sit around 120 kph on motorways, so the limit should be 130! (like the revised N.T. limit)

Police should be more interested in overall traffic behaviour, targeting incompetent, abusive and aggressive driving habits, more, than cars a few K over the limit. Perhaps if people weren't concentrating on their speedos and actually concentrating on the road, they may improve their traffic awareness.....get away from this slavish obsession with "speed"

Just back from some time in Nevada and Arizona, and, generally it was a pleasure to drive there, with traffic outside towns generally travelling at speeds of 80-90mph. (65-75mph limits) and cops only seeming to pull over people who were being stupid! The marked thing was the general lack of aggressive rage if you passed someone who was sitting just below the limit. Do that in NZ or Aus and you've got the full gamut of fuckwitted ego driven irrationality directed at you for some strange reason.

[candor]

I am dead against drink driving - but unlike people for whom it's become a Holy Grail, I believe that the massive majority of accidents occur where neither party is intoxicated. Additionally the penalities available to the courts for DUI are severe and quite severe enough if their full weight is brought to bear.
However the incidence of too light a penalty being levied where death occurs and the culpable party is sober/straight is too high to ignore and represents a greater failure of the system than the small number of DUIs who get off lightly.

I doubt anyone thinks this important issue killing at easily over 3x the murder rate is the holy grail - more like one of the important rings to gather up on the road safety quest. The stats show well over half of the most serious ie fatal crashes do involve intoxication as a major factor. Thats including consideration of both dead drivers and of crashes that kill which a surviving intoxicated culprit caused. So its out of kilter still - and serious DUI versus other serious crashes are disproportionately high here, if compared to many other countries.

DUI though is much less an issue - almost insignificant - with non serious ones, of which there are legion more crashes than there are fatals. So considering total crash numbers each year you'd be right to say the vast majority of crashes don't feature booze. But I think that point is diversionary as circumstances of minor prangs are not what concerns most people.

Can't imagine where you get your info that our DUI penalties are severe - talking to the local drunk perhaps? Or from reading LTNZ / NZTA website, which says so, I guess. It is a part of the general deterrence policy NZ uses to have spin Drs put out the goss that penalties are severe. They are actually about half as severe as in Oz, and lined up against the majority of countries look like taking out the title of softest in the world.

But yes these wet bus tricket slaps for DUI could be termed "severe," in comparison to what sobre dangerous drivers reap if they disable or bury us. The number of sobre drivers charged with causing harm to others however doesn't eclipse the number of impaired drivers so charged in NZ. Can dig up the court dept stats if you're sceptical on this. Its possible though that sobre drivers who deserve hammering might experience positive discrimination. And be less likely than drunks to even get charged, given its harder to make cases without impartial witnesses etc.

How are dui penalties severe enough if their full weight is bought to bear? Maximum of 5 years for killing minus 2/3rds of sentence for "non violent offence". Starting point usually 1-2.5 years given standard mitigating factors like "he feels really bad" (says the defense lawyer). Minus the 2'3rds - likely served via home D. OMG - big bizzo for United video, time to pimp out the killing machine once the blood is polished off.

License loss that is Claytons as any decent lawyer can get an exemption.
Return of license required after a max of 1 yr with no requirement for proving fitness to drive. In Sweden the drinker is subject to prior liver tests to prove no ongoing alcohol abuse and must also submit to ongoing drug and liver function tests for years after license returned. And may be offered ignition interlocks. I think its permanent loss if reoffend - as a drivers license is not seen as a right in Europe, instead it's a privilege earned by sane responsible use of it. If you ask me our lawmakers are from the asylum.

Some places take the plates off all drink drivers immediately not just immediately suspend very high BAC ones like here, and prior offenders elsewhere may even have a red strip sticker or something put on their car, so cops can always pay them very special attention (its checked they don't remove it either). This scarlet lettering has led to a strong cringe factor for offenders and reinforced and added to societal lack of acceptance of it.
We want to be told of paedophiles in our street - why not of the drunk drivers expecting to share our roads while proving they're rehabed.

Ones with restricted licenses crash 5x as much as general population drivers (brain damage / drug use some jurisdictions) - but less than if they were simply disqualified and doing the typical suspended driving number. Mark those cars so we can keep distance and not let the kiddys ride with them - ah dreams are free.

[vgcspares]

I write a few lines and get a tome in response but trying to get this monolith back on topic I'll risk it ....

having cavassed a few claims people with more than just a little experience in aggregate (oh heck I know I'm going to regret this) it would appear that the percentage of motoring claims that involve a DUI is a shade over 1% (including both parties) ... oh shit now I've done it

can you keep the response to less than a page please ?