- #1544841chris214 June 8, 2016 at 12:41 am
Joybel, yes, it is bad driving when you hold up other traffic, BUT, that’s not what I was referring to. I was referring to the idiots who think they are bomb proof enough to drive at 100ks even when conditions are NOT safe to do so, despite the legal limit being 100. As an exdriver yourself, you are well aware, or should be, that weather and road conditions are often not safe at such speeds. Especially down your way, you get a lot of black ice, and I can think of many places where winding roads, for instance, mean that speeds MUST be limited to well UNDER the 100, at times even going as low as 40ks. But there are still idiots who think they can hit them at normal open road speeds. And then wonder why they wake up DEAD
Good evening Bosun. You are right. The old M.O.T. were experienced in traffic management. They KNEW when to just issue a warning, and when to come down hard. Whereas the police these days go on a roster for traffic duties, in general for only THREE months. So they never really get experienced. And when you lack experience, you HAVE to go by the book, which means that a lot of police time, and court time, is spent on minor issues that should be dealt with by a warning. And the quota system of so many tickets per day/week whatever again is self defeating. The quota system IS there, despite what the police/govt say. A relation of mine was in theforce and confirmed it. They gain or lose points depending on the number of tickets issued.#1545096TedE June 9, 2016 at 2:40 pm
I think that we need to start a conversation on how many deaths on the road each year is acceptable and to wonder who we should sacrifice next.
One of the items i came across recently and I think it was in the link that I posted initially was the different survival rates by age on the x axis and speed on the y axis and the younger you are when hit a 50kph the greater your chance of survival. As the speed of the vehicle increases so the survival rate widen.
Which raises an interesting question for me?
Why do we tolerate speeding at all in the zones near where we live. I think it is time we had a different speed limits for Streets roads arterial roads and motorways.
Streets = urban places where houses and schools are situated.
Arterial roads = link villages and towns but are urban in nature.
Roads = link villages and towns
The places where we live should be shared paths where pedestrians may use the carriageway in safety and vehicles travel at speeds which are conducive to stopping in time for errant children etc. Cyclists move at pace which does not imperil pedestrians of any age. Streets should not be subject to vehicles on rat runs.
We need to produce a new attitude in all drivers that is more like those of our parents who had grown up in the horse drawn era, where patience and consideration was more the norm than that now prevailing of the impatient speed freaks.
How can we change our current situation for the better?
Surely it is in the minds of all those using the roads of whatever type?
TedE - Papakura -#1545104don021MemberMember since: May 15, 2012
Replies: 1825don021 June 9, 2016 at 3:22 pm
You are quite right TedE, why do we tolerate speed and why do we tolerate so many other law infringements. Far too many drivers do not give a hoot for the road laws, stand at any Give Way corner and note the FEW that stop. Fines do not deter the rebel youngsters, they just do not pay them. Strict enforcement of the law is the only way to lower the road toll, no fines, impound the cars ON THE SPOT for varying times depending on the level of offending. The word will soon get out if a car is impounded 20 Km. from home. Or even 2Km.from home.#1545113TedE June 9, 2016 at 3:40 pm
This was the report in 2014 regarding the road toll for 2013:
One of the big reasons for making improvements to our streets is simply for safety. Safety for pedestrians, safety for cyclists and safety for drivers. We’ve been talking about safety a lot over the last month or so and despite the great news that 2013 has the lowest road toll in New Zealand for over 60 years, it’s still way too high.
One of the lessons New York has learned as a result of its roll out of bike lanes is that not only does it make the streets safer for cyclists but for all users of a street. The reason for this is often quite simple, far too many of our streets have been designed with only the movement of cars in mind. This often means roads with wide traffic lanes, big intersections to try and cater for all movements and as few pieces of pedestrian/cycling infrastructure as possible.
Cities like New York are striving to improve safety and despite the impressive gains that they’ve made so far it clearly isn’t enough and last year 286 people were killed on traffic crashes – or as some are now calling it “Traffic Violence”. Bill De Blasio, the new mayor of New York has just announced what he calls “Vision Zero” which is a vision to reduce that traffic violence to zero.
Just two weeks after his inauguration, New York mayor Bill de Blasio did something safe street advocates have been demanding for years. The mayor outlined comprehensive changes in the city’s approach to traffic fatalities, treating the issue as “a public health problem” and ordering city government branches to pull together to reduce those deaths to zero
In his remarks on Wednesday, de Blasio put traffic safety in the spotlight. “I said on Inauguration Day that we were here to make changes, and I meant it,” he said. “This is an example of where we will act immediately.”
The mayor pointed out that last year, the city hit a record low of 333 homicides, but that nearly as many people – 286, by last count – died in traffic. “It is shocking to see how those two numbers correspond,” he said. He noted that motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of injury-related death among New Yorkers younger than 14, and the second-leading cause of injury-related deaths among New York’s seniors.
The mayor’s approach calls for an unprecedented coordination among the NYPD, the city’s Department of Transportation, its Department of Health, and the Taxi Commission. De Blasio said he wants to see detailed plans from the leaders of those agencies by February 15.
TedE - Papakura -#1545115ross015MemberMember since: May 29, 2011
Replies: 1ross015 June 9, 2016 at 3:53 pm
I agree there are a lot of senior citizens who should not be driving, if there reflexes have slowed up that much that they cant do the legal speed may be they should have a licence that restricts them to Suburban driving only ( for shopping doctors & visiting) but not open road. Slow driving is just as bad as speeding.#1545153chris214 June 9, 2016 at 7:10 pm
As I said before, it all comes down to DRIVING TO CONDITIONS. And speed limits are not, and never have been, the target. Speed limits are the MAXIMUM speed you can drive at but only IF conditions permit it. The trouble is that many drivers, and not only youngsters, simply ignore adverse conditions and drive as if everything is perfect
And what many people do nopt understand, is that it can take as little as a quarter of a second for a situation to get to the point where an accident is unavoidable. All you need to do, for example, is reach for the radio control button at the wrong moment. And many do just that. When driving, you CAN NOT AFFORD TO HAVE ANY DISTRACTION.#1545162bosunBlockedMember since: June 6, 2016
Replies: 144bosun June 9, 2016 at 8:47 pm
Just wondering. Anyone else notice how many of the serious and head on accidents seem to be in the Waikato. Is it the roads? Is it the people up there have different attitudes on driving, is it more large vehicles in that area. ??#1545197joybelMemberMember since: November 2, 2006
Replies: 33302joybel June 10, 2016 at 10:27 am
Those who think it is “cool” to ignore seatbelts should be disqualified from driving for ever as, In my opinion that is just one law they are blatantly breaking with disregard for passengers. When one reads of kids and adults unrestrained it is a worry as to what other safety rules do they not comply with. They are a menace to others on the road and actually all others anywhere. Stupid, arrogant and criminal.
Joybel#1545284chris214 June 10, 2016 at 4:49 pm
And one other thing that is seriously overlooked. DRUGS and ALCOHOL
I know this is an unpopular thought, but there SHOULD be a ZERO tolerance for both. I know some peoplke claim they can drive safely after a glass of whatever. But the facts are against that. If having six bottles of liquor affects you, then it stands to reason that one drink WILL also affect you up to a point. After all, nobody ius seriously going to claim that the first two/three drinks won’t affect you, but the next one comes in with a wallop And it is well known that alcohol. and drugs. affect different people differently. Which makes it very confusing for everyone. Therefore the ONLY sensible answer is NO alcohol, or drugs. That way there is no confusion.
And if the law can say zero tolerance to young drivers, it surely can’t be that difficult to have a total ban. No problem. Oh byes, I forgot, the breweries and wineries won’t like it. Tough, They don’t, or at least SHOULDN’T, run the country.#1545520TedE June 12, 2016 at 1:57 pm
bosun, I hadn’t noticed that about Waikato accidents.
I wonder could it be that a lot of Aucklander’s escape through the Waikato and they bring their motorway driving habits with them onto inappropriate roads and in their haste to quit the big smoke do not drive ot the conditions.
I used to live near Patumahoe and when they moved the Grande Prix from Ardmore to Pukekohe you could expect to see stupdity on the roads around the times of motor sport events at Pukekohe. It is also noticeable at the time of car rallies and motocycle rallies of various sorts.
Motor sport drive a lot of what I would call irresponsible behaviour on the roads, making TV heroes of these drivers is in my opinion counter productive. Showing these people in their fast cars going sideways or doing burnouts after winning etc are all the wrong message if we want to promote road safety. Just take a look at your TV news for the next couple of weeks and watch the sycophantic behaviour of some of the interviewers for this sort of stupidity.
When did you last see a realistic coverage of a “Efficiency” car or promotion of the a road test in safe economic driving. Or good coverage of economic driving.
I was interested in our son’s visit recently where he used our car which we have had for over 10years now and he has used many times before however he has since bought a similar vehicle which he drives to work daily. Sufficient to say that I had always stuck to the manufacturers recommended tyre pressures but he increased the pressures by 8 and 10 psi and the fuel efficiency gain was remarkable. He had also some other tips on driving that I had not used which also help no doubt but the tyre pressures I feel would have given the greatest gain.
TedE - Papakura -
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.