- #1652123TedE November 14, 2017 at 6:34 am#1652323TedE November 15, 2017 at 9:13 am
Two children have died while cycling on New Zealand roads recently. One child died while cycling on a school journey just days after the election and another died while out cycling on a weekend. Another child was seriously injured while cycling on the school journey. This should not be happening. With a rising road toll, these sad deaths and injuries are concerning. Lucinda Rees from NZ School Speeds has set up a petition to urge the future Transport Minister to put rules in place that protect children on our roads as they did in the Netherlands in the 70s.
Should we support this? What cost progress? We don’t really need to go faster. Do we?
TedE - Papakura -#1652807TedE November 17, 2017 at 7:40 am
This is an interesting report on a meeting I had not heard of from any other source. The items that were interesting were as follows:
Lisa Rossiter, Senior Manager Strategic Interventions at NZTA said, She didn’t want to hear that the road toll is “too hard” or that “technology is going to solve everything” or that “we don’t need median barriers.” She only wanted “helpful conversations” because when it comes to controlling energy (vehicles) and protecting people “we know what has to be done”.
Fresh in his role as NZTA’s Safety and Environment Director Harry Wilson offered the most promising “teaser” of what we can expect under the leadership of Minister of Transport Phil Twyford and Associate Minister Julie Anne Genter. He told us that based on early signs, the new government “wants to make a difference” and that Minister Twyford has asked for “safety and vision zero” to be part of a new transport action plan. Mr Wilson saw it as a “reset of aspirations of what the government is aiming to do” after progress under the previous administration had “stalled” on road safety and infrastructure investment. He said that the Ministry of Transport had “done us proud” with the briefing to the incoming Minister.
No doubt there will be organizational push back and many tensions (NZTA “ great journeys to keep New Zealand moving” promise to “customers” is clearly out of step in failing to address both “place” and “movement”, and Agency presentations were strikingly weak on references to climate change). But from my Trafinz takeaways I am hopeful that the next Safer Journeys Action Plan will adopt the “ethical imperative” of Vision Zero to prioritise the safety of people so we can look forward to a future of accessible, inclusive, safe, sustainable, healthy transport that also works to meet our climate change commitments.
it’s to be hoped that their efforts can bring about changes.
TedE - Papakura -#1652817TedE November 17, 2017 at 8:05 am
“we’ve got to stop trading off safety for time savings”
Absurd. All human life is equal. All parts of a human life are equal. A human life consists of time; it is the duration of our existence that is literally *our life*
As such, life does have a time value. 42048000 minutes (approximately). One person’s life is worth the same as 42048000 people’s one minute.
If we couldn’t trade off safety for time savings, we’d have no problem having the entire human population of the earth put in stasis for eternity to prevent one death. We realise this is absurd and realise *sometimes* we can trade time for life. It’s the balance that is important.
Supposing road-accidents were made entirely predictable. Supposing we could be advised in-advance with 100% certainty, the names of the 372 fatalities / 3720 serious injuries (or whatever it is) that will be required without-fail next year, in order to enable our horribly-dangerous road-transport system to continue on as it has for the past several decades.
JDELH, supposing your name appeared on the casualty-list for next year. Would you be happy to volunteer your soul “for the greater good” of ensuring that other motorists can continue to drive at speeds which result in this outcome? Or would you suddenly find yourself valuing life more highly? Would you find new enthusiasm for persuading others to take a little more time over their journeys, knowing that this could save your bacon?
How many of “other-people’s minutes” do you feel your life to be worth?
You are also assume that time spent travelling is the same as time being dead.
Good point, billions and billions of people have died and not one of them has decided to give up death for traffic. Preference revealed.
TedE - Papakura -#1652820halcyonMemberMember since: May 4, 2014
Replies: 4512halcyon November 17, 2017 at 8:08 am
One of the best ways to make cycling safe would be for councils to introduce Precinct Parking (parking areas) and do away with Strip Parking (Parking at the side of the street). Unfortunately such a move would be unpopular as people have become wedded to their cars and appear to hate walking .(Yet they go to the gym for exercise). They always try and park as close to the shop as possible. Actually if we developed drive-through supermarkets some people would be happy.#1652822arandarMemberMember since: November 23, 2009
Replies: 10498arandar November 17, 2017 at 8:29 am
Actually, I always wanted private cars banned from the CBDs of every town with parking precincts outside and convenient PT inside.
Strasbourg does it beautifully. People stroll, shop, bike; there are 🚕 and 🚊.
We were there in winter, very cold tho no snow sadly, still people rugged up and strolled, ate, drank, met friends, shopped, there were Christmas markets and nativity scenes at every square and stalls selling street food and mulled wine in takeaway cups – who’d be confined to a car with all that going on – not to mention bands and buskers and dancing in the streets.
The cafes provided gas heaters and snuggle rugs and people still sat outside, day and night, enjoying a city made for people not the car.
Lets do this too. 🚕🚊🤩☀️🌦🌧🍷☕️🍨
🌊Arandar🏄🏽♀️#1652975TedE November 18, 2017 at 7:26 am
Pippa Coombs wrote: Here are my notes from Dr Paul Graham’s presentation ” Why is NZ’s road safety performance declining”
I think his data shows how abhorrent it is to blame bad driving or irresponsible drivers on the 37% increase in fatalities since 2013 (34% increase in serious injuries and a 38% increase in ACC claims)
He looked at where there have been increases and the multiple influences on the road toll.
In users there has been no great change eg overseas drivers, motorcycles (+11% licensed drivers) are slowly rising; older drivers are steady
He looked at the regional differences that show it is a nationwide problem (eg Auckland is +20%)
More vehicles on the road and more KM traveled may be a factor but have only increased 11%
More crashes are happening more often – he presented some factors
Serious injuries caused by car v truck has doubled to 27%.
Heavy vehicle fleet has increased by 100k since 2013
He looked at % exceeding speed limit. Open road speeds are going up by 1% For every 1% increase in speed there is a 4% increase in fatalities (corridors make up 4% of the network but 30% of fatalities and serious injuries)
Vehicle safety is another factor
Half of all occupant fatalities are in vehicles more than 15 years old (used car fleet getting bigger. 40% of vehicles have only a 1 or 2 star rating). Younger people tend to drive older vehicles
He didn’t have any answers as to why there has been a doubling in the number killed not using a seat belt in last 3 years but observed that buckle up campaigns have declined (to focus on other road safety messages) so perhaps the message had stopped getting through.
As he is quoted in this article – at any given crash “we don’t need to ask why this accident happened … we do need to ask why people were killed or seriously hurt.”
TedE - Papakura -#1652992halcyonMemberMember since: May 4, 2014
Replies: 4512halcyon November 18, 2017 at 9:35 am
While I accept the notion that reducing the crash severity will cut the road toll TedE, I do question his statement “we don’t need to ask why this accident happened?”
Surely knowing what caused the accident, and what needs to be done to prevent such accidents, is a good starting place. To just focus on the damage minimisation suggests that we have given up on prevention.#1653028arandarMemberMember since: November 23, 2009
Replies: 10498arandar November 18, 2017 at 1:09 pm
Given the driverless car is coming and…
given petrol is going to run out or be unaffordable one day/some day and…
given PT can’t transport everything at any time we need people and things transported then
Roads will remain an important part of our transport network for the foreseeable
Therefore, we must make it harder for human beings to hurt themselves and others on our roads.
It should be virtually impossible for two cars on the highways and open roads to collide head on no matter how hard their drivers try. Median barriers as a minimum, median strips 100 meters wide as a max; it’s done O/S so it can be done here.
Cars can be kept immobile until the seatbelts are clicked. Ditto breath alcohol meters actually – no blow no go
Pedestrians and cyclists should be separated from motor vehicles
Trucks should be required to drive in an inside lane, at a lower speed, and should not be allowed to overtake each other not even using the passing lanes.
plus all the ideas listed above
PS: isn’t this subject too ‘political’?
#1653031SquirterMemberMember since: March 18, 2007
- This reply was modified 10 months, 1 week ago by arandar.
Replies: 13052Squirter November 18, 2017 at 2:08 pm
“”Trucks should be required to drive in an inside lane, at a lower speed, and should not be allowed to overtake each other not even using the passing lanes.””
Forget about Motorways/Freeways driving….””not be allowed to overtake each other not even using the passing lanes.””
That in itself is causing accidents including ‘head-ons’ 😉 😉 😉
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.