Speed limits too high on most roads, NZTA estimates

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › Speed limits too high on most roads, NZTA estimates

ilovemusic

1469 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 307

#251023 5-Jun-2019 11:36

another useless green minister continuing the attack on transport's softest target

how about spending some of that $1.4b on driver education ?

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/391246/speed-limits-too-high-on-most-roads-nzta-estimates

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | ... | 8

3505 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1830

Lifetime subscriber

#2251998 5-Jun-2019 11:48

Back to this soon...

“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” -John Kenneth Galbraith

rb99

hio77

'That VDSL Cat'
13036 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3896

ID Verified

Trusted

Lizard Networks

Subscriber

#2251999 5-Jun-2019 11:56

rb99:

Back to this soon...

idk, do you see that background? He's clearly speeding.

#include <std_disclaimer>

Any comments made are personal opinion and do not reflect directly on the position my current or past employers may have.

rb99

3505 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1830

Lifetime subscriber

#2252004 5-Jun-2019 12:07

and leaning into that corner. Shocking.

“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” -John Kenneth Galbraith

rb99

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#2252006 5-Jun-2019 12:10

... or, to put it another way, NZ roads inadequate for current usage.

sen8or

1897 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1402

#2252007 5-Jun-2019 12:12

What else is to be expected from 2 car hating political parties that are in power together?

Theres lies, damned lies and statistics and statistics can be interpreted and manipulated to serve whatever cause or agenda is being pushed.

In 2017, 378 people were killed on the road, that is tragic and unnecessary, I don't think anyone would argue that there is an acceptable number of deaths, so from a philosophical perspective, the zero target is the right target to work towards. That being said, there is only so much that roading, speed restrictions, safety features and anything else that can be done to prevent or minimise road deaths. The human element behind the wheel is fallible and prone to making mistakes, misjudgements and poor decisions, and in a 1tonne plus vehicle travelling at any sort of velocity, the consequences can be tragic.

To put some perspective on that 378 deaths however -

In 2000, there were 2.15mio light passenger cars on the road which made up just under 80% of the 2.68mio total road registered vehicles. In that year, there were 462 road deaths, or .021% of the light passenger cars on the road (and .0002% of total cars).

In 2017, there were 3.2mio light passenger cars on the road, 77.5% of the 4.15mio registered vehicles. In that year, there were 378 road deaths, or .012% of light passenger cars on the road (excel didn't like the % of total, but I'd say its probably circa .00009%)

The median # of road deaths throughout that 18 year period was 381, with low # of 253 in 2013 and high # of 462 in 2000.

From 2000 to 2018 there has been a 54% increase in the number of vehicles on the road (2.68mio to 4.15mio), the fact that there hasn't been a comparable increase in the number of deaths is actually a "positive" and shows that improvements have been made.

As above, I don't advocate for an "acceptable casualty rate", but its all but impossible for there not to be one. We should be making our roads safer through technology improvements, using better roading surfaces, putting barriers up where appropriate, adding additional passing lanes and/or dual carraige way roads and driver education rather than simply burying our heads in the "speed is evil" sand bucket!

DonH

231 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 158

Lifetime subscriber

#2252009 5-Jun-2019 12:12

ilovemusic:

... how about spending some of that $1.4b on driver education ?

Agreed, so long as a similar amount is spent on improving the roads.

People hear what they see. - Doris Day

Dell

Shop now for Dell laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

Benoire

2878 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 681

#2252013 5-Jun-2019 12:16

ilovemusic:

another useless green minister continuing the attack on transport's softest target

how about spending some of that $1.4b on driver education ?

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/391246/speed-limits-too-high-on-most-roads-nzta-estimates

The tool used for this was developed under nationals watch by NZTA, it is based on the science of human survivability, surface performance (grip, rutting etc.), safe avoidance design, safe visibility design.

In the absence of protection against on coming vehicles on our rural roads, reduction in speeds to the 70kph mark (agreed limits of human body in a vehicle in a head-on) seems appropriate, or do you believe that a road toll is an acceptable outcome for a modern transport network? Evidence by road safety specialists have indicated that campaigns have a 1-2% impact on driver behaviour; our putting it another way we have been trying to educate for 30y+ and if it was effective, why do we still have poor driver habits, poor overtaking etc. surley the education done to date would have made us all compliant?

floydbloke

3646 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4554

ID Verified

#2252019 5-Jun-2019 12:26

sen8or:

...

In 2017, 378 people were killed on the road, that is tragic and unnecessary, I don't think anyone would argue that there is an acceptable number of deaths, so from a philosophical perspective, the zero target is the right target to work towards. ..

Are there any numbers available on how many of those deaths were directly attributable to people driving too fast but within the stated speed-limit?

I.e. Had the speed limit of the piece of road where the death occurred been lower and the driver had adhered these deaths would have been avoided.

I don't typically analyse every report of a road death but my general impression is that most fatalities happen due to crossing centre lines, excessive alcohol, not wearing seatbelts, excessive speed (exceeding the limit), trying to escape from police pursuits, failing to give way, not adjusting to conditions.

Sometimes I use big words I don't always fully understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.

Benoire

2878 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 681

#2252022 5-Jun-2019 12:28

sen8or:

As above, I don't advocate for an "acceptable casualty rate", but its all but impossible for there not to be one. We should be making our roads safer through technology improvements, using better roading surfaces, putting barriers up where appropriate, adding additional passing lanes and/or dual carraige way roads and driver education rather than simply burying our heads in the "speed is evil" sand bucket!

The cost of roading is substantial, asphalts are incredibly costly in NZ (I managed a 300m rebuild to slightly less than European standards in Auckland for Structural AC at 10x the cost for what I did a KM in before I left London). We have limited budgets, limited supply of bitumen that is costly, not many coating plants across the country and a funding regime which tries to sweat the asset because the cost to build for low operational expenditure is crippling from a capital perspective. A lot of the older roads where not designed around modern car speeds and the geometries are not even to standard, hence why we have a lot of advisory curve signs on the rural network. Fixing them to a modern standard for sight distance, safe avoidance etc. is too much for the regions to bear and as such either passing lanes or barriers is the best option. Where this cannot be done due to financial availability from the NLTP then reducing speed limits is the best approach at reducing harm.

Remember reckless behaviour can be from an accidental issue as well as a pre-determined thought, but the consequences can be far far worse and we should be doing our very best to reduce the chance of the consequence. Humans are not very good at resisting kinetic energy. As Kinetic energy is mv2, the velocity is the most important part of the equation, aka speed and we can only tolerate 30 kph on foot or bike and upto 70 kph in a vehicle, anything more than that and the risk of death or serious injury increases substantially... This is why there is a focus on speed as a method to reduce death and serious injury on the road network.

geekiegeek

2513 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 625
Inactive user

#2252025 5-Jun-2019 12:30

invest in driverless cars and take the human factor out of the equation. Then we can all travel at twice the current limits.

rb99

3505 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1830

Lifetime subscriber

#2252026 5-Jun-2019 12:30

I would have thought that there is an acceptable road toll, just no one will admit it. You're 70km/hr limit might help unless of course you're a pedestrian, or I should imagine an infant inside a car, never mind outside. Even walking pace won't reduce the toll to zero. I read about these king hits people suffer, one blow, head to pavement and they never wake up again - anyone know the speed of the fist that causes that. Even walking pace won't reduce the toll to zero.

“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” -John Kenneth Galbraith

rb99

Dyson

Shop now for Dyson appliances (affiliate link).

Benoire

2878 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 681

#2252027 5-Jun-2019 12:31

For reference I work in the transport sector in Auckland as a design engineer that has to grapple with the reality of this issue and my professional and ethical requirements to avoid harm to others when doing my work.

Benoire

2878 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 681

#2252030 5-Jun-2019 12:37

geekiegeek:

invest in driverless cars and take the human factor out of the equation. Then we can all travel at twice the current limits.

I'll avoid the urbanist conversation around the concept of cars and people mixing and focus on the driverless car.

The infrastructure requirements to support driverless car are substantial, the main auto manufacturers are still unable to solve autodrive without external influence and I read an article that stated they didn't think they could really over come it, that it would always have issues... Look at Tesla and its problems. So, that leads to installing infrastructure to help these cars navigate and then communicate back to a central hub which given our assets are on a 25y+ life expectancy would require huge investment at the same time otherwise driverless won't work.

There is also the problem of the fleet, NZs car fleet is ~14 years old from NZTA data for the average vehicle, to shift the fleet to driverless will take decades without financial support from government and the lower socioeconomic areas are unlikely to be able to change ever as the cost will be too high.

sen8or

1897 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1402

#2252031 5-Jun-2019 12:37

floydbloke:

sen8or:

...

In 2017, 378 people were killed on the road, that is tragic and unnecessary, I don't think anyone would argue that there is an acceptable number of deaths, so from a philosophical perspective, the zero target is the right target to work towards. ..

Are there any numbers available on how many of those deaths were directly attributable to people driving too fast but within the stated speed-limit?

I.e. Had the speed limit of the piece of road where the death occurred been lower and the driver had adhered these deaths would have been avoided.

I don't typically analyse every report of a road death but my general impression is that most fatalities happen due to crossing centre lines, excessive alcohol, not wearing seatbelts, excessive speed (exceeding the limit), trying to escape from police pursuits, failing to give way, not adjusting to conditions.

I'm sure the "cause data" is available, I got all the data from NZTA reports with a quick google search, but I haven't the time to review the NZTA data to that degree, it just irks me that they try and take a "one approach will solve all" viewpoint when its such a complicated issue.

WyleECoyoteNZ

1055 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 372

#2252032 5-Jun-2019 12:37

DonH:

ilovemusic:

... how about spending some of that $1.4b on driver education ?

Agreed, so long as a similar amount is spent on improving the roads.

Agreed as well.

As long as, IMO, improving the roads doesn't just mean making the roads straighter.

I heard this the other week on talk back radio, whats generally happened with roading improvement works is a corner, or set of corners will be taken out, and the road made straight between the 2 points. That's all well and good if they were accident\crash black spots, but by taking the corners out, you're increasing the average speed of a vehicle between the 2 points. By taking the corners out, you're not forcing the vehicles\traffic to slow down.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | ... | 8