NZ road toll – what is acceptable?

Home Discussions News & Current Affairs (excluding Politics) NZ road toll – what is acceptable?

This topic contains 80 replies, has 17 voices, and was last updated by Profile photo of TedE TedE 5 days, 3 hours ago.

Viewing 10 posts - 41 through 50 (of 81 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1608405
    Profile photo of drlivingstone
    drlivingstone
    Member
    Member since: October 22, 2006
    Topics: 282
    Replies: 32886

    TedE, Thats interesting.So its the Car that rules! Some people move rather slowly and  I suppose they are pandering to drivers who  could become irate if there was a dedicated pedestrian crossing holding them up.You would be taking your life in your hands perhaps eh?We have lots of elderly and disabled we would be concerned about.

    Dr.Livingstone
    Peoples Republic Of Christchurch

    • This reply was modified 5 months, 2 weeks ago by Profile photo of drlivingstone drlivingstone.
    #1608457
    Profile photo of Joybel
    Joybel
    Member
    Member since: November 2, 2006
    Topics: 613
    Replies: 33022

    A faster road to heaven or hell is what the reality could be. leaving home ten minutes earlier could be the difference between life, death or brain damage.

    #1608472
    Profile photo of Gigglebyte
    Gigglebyte
    Member
    Member since: May 28, 2009
    Topics: 35
    Replies: 3574

    No road deaths are acceptable.I am all for driving tests(including an eye test) being much stricter. This would eliminate some unfit drivers,although not all.Also raise the age of eligibility.Anyone driving drunk or causing death or brain damage by their driving should lose their licence as a result. A driver should have to have character witnesses before they can apply for a licence,as well as a signed note from a doctor.
    Once ,when waiting at a hospital,some people came into A&E on stretchers after a car accident. I saw one of them,whose face was pale except for blood on it.Careless driving can cause great damage,some people’s lives are never the same again all because of it.

    #1608513
    Profile photo of drlivingstone
    drlivingstone
    Member
    Member since: October 22, 2006
    Topics: 282
    Replies: 32886

    A number of cities have woonerfs or “Living Streets This concept has been used overseas in London, Montreal and The Netherlands. We have Worcester Boulevard in Christchurch which is a slow streetbut we have our oneway streets too.There is a push on here to get more people on to bikes but not us oldies We both still drive.Our Village is building a Mobility Scoota Park currently with eight charging bays as residents consider giving up their licence or “Shanks Pony” for motorised transport.There are some sophisticated covered scootas available.

    Dr.Livingstone
    Peoples Republic Of Christchurch

    #1608572
    Profile photo of TedE
    TedE
    Member
    Member since: May 6, 2006
    Topics: 3
    Replies: 1763

    ROAD TOLL: Is what we pay to use the roads?
    Are we paying too much?

    Should we be talking about Road Deaths as a cost of using the road?

    Should we accept paying this price?

    TedE - Papakura -

    #1608604
    Profile photo of Gigglebyte
    Gigglebyte
    Member
    Member since: May 28, 2009
    Topics: 35
    Replies: 3574

    IF by road toll-you mean what you pay to use the roads how do you judge that? Well are you getting value for money?Some people will say yes.Some will say “no”. Are you getting what was promised to you?Better?Less?About right?
    and if you did not need to pay a road toll,would you be happy to do without the service(s) provided?
    To me, however, road toll, is not about money but about human life.I reiterate, no road deaths are acceptable.

    #1609786
    Profile photo of TedE
    TedE
    Member
    Member since: May 6, 2006
    Topics: 3
    Replies: 1763

    Thank you folk for your responses. I also believe that no deaths or injuries are aceptable as a price for getting from a to b, unless they are like my wife (Who recently slipped off her Jandals’ and broke her leg).

    I guess we have to accept the odd accident but not those caused from impatience and the lack of consideration for other road users. Having said that i think we are far to accepting of killing more than one person a day as a price for our mobility.

    Here’s another thought:
    from Roger Brooking’s Flying Blind – How the justice system perpetuates crime and the Corrections Department fails to correct;
    The only drink-drivers in New Zealand required by law to attend an alcohol and drug assessment are those given an ‘indefinite’ disqualification – affecting only about 1,500 of the 30,000 people convicted each year. The vast majority of drink-drivers are disqualified for between six months and 12 months, and automatically get their licence back at the end of the disqualification – with no questions asked.

    Every year, one third of those convicted are repeat offenders and many drink drivers continue driving while disqualified – and sometimes end up killing someone. Disqualified drivers involved in fatal accidents are three times more likely than other drivers to be under the influence of alcohol.

    Surprisingly, treatment for alcohol dependence is not required even in the most serious cases when someone has been killed. For instance, in September 2009, 71-year-old Alison Downer was driving drunk and killed a cyclist near Otaki. It was her fourth conviction. Ms Downer was sent to prison for 2½ years and given an eight-year disqualification.

    The disqualifications given to these drink-drivers who caused death, range from 3½ years to 8 years. Irrespective of whether they were sent to prison or not, they were given much longer periods of disqualification than normal because someone was killed. However, not one of them was required by the judge to attend an assessment or treatment for their drinking problem. Because none of them were disqualified ‘indefinitely’, they’re all eligible to get their driver’s licence back at the end of their disqualification without being required to attend any treatment.

    The Dominion Post picked up on this anomaly in August 2010 and described it as a ‘loophole in the law which serious drink-drivers were slipping through’. This description is inaccurate because it implies there is a legal wall in place which effectively blocks the vast majority of drink-drivers from getting their licence back without treatment. Such is not the case. Currently, 95% of disqualified drivers get through the wall because there is no legal requirement to mandate drink-drivers into treatment (except the 1,500 given an indefinite disqualification). drives through. Each year up to 4,000 disqualified drivers get through one particular hole allowing them to apply for a limited licence – which theoretically enables them to drive for work-related purposes only.

    Even for those given an ‘indefinite’ disqualification, the outcome is fairly meaningless. There’s nothing ‘indefinite’ about it. After a minimum period of one year and one day, drink-drivers with an ‘indefinite’ disqualification can see an approved alcohol assessor and begin the process of getting their licence back. If they pass the assessment, and resit their licence, they can be back on the road within 18 months. Although 1,500 people a year receive indefinite disqualifications, about 1,000 others with indefinite disqualifications get their licences back each year. Even recidivist drink-drivers with five or more convictions seem to have little difficulty regaining their driver’s licence.

    TedE - Papakura -

    #1609934
    Profile photo of TedE
    TedE
    Member
    Member since: May 6, 2006
    Topics: 3
    Replies: 1763

    Am I a bit crazy to feel that this thread is an important issue for us to engage on?
    Is it unreasonable to have expected a greater input of ideas on how to reduce the “Toll” of our roads?
    What can we as indidviduals do to stop more than one person a day being killed?
    Is it worth thinking about?

    I try to engage our grandchildren in coversations about their road safety and the safety of their friends. I have tried with limited success to reduce their involvement/admiration for the Brrrrmmmm, Brrrmmmm, behaviour and attitude and questioned their impressions of “Motor sport”. I have also tried to enlist their interest in fuel economy which leads to smoother sensible driving.

    We have formed an opinion that motor sport spectators are really wanting to witness a real highspeed crash. Thie vicarious thrill spills over into subsequent behaviour on the roads with terrible consequences.

    TedE - Papakura -

    #1610169
    Profile photo of TedE
    TedE
    Member
    Member since: May 6, 2006
    Topics: 3
    Replies: 1763

    What can we as indidviduals do to stop more than one person a day being killed?
    Is it worth thinking about?

    TedE - Papakura -

    #1611527
    Profile photo of strangerontheshore
    strangerontheshore
    Member
    Member since: March 28, 2017
    Topics: 0
    Replies: 148

    Hi Ted, I can only speak for my State of NJ, and no its not all about cars….pedestrians are also liable. and fined.  One has to stop at every crossing for them or else big fines, which also puts points on license and insurance rates. I’ll attach here on what one is liable for,

    http://www.nj.gov/oag/hts/pedestrian.html

Viewing 10 posts - 41 through 50 (of 81 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Advertisement