Auckland Transport is starting a new campaign against red light running and have the backing of the police. Here is the press release:
Auckland Transport and Police are combining their efforts to make motorists, motorcyclists, cyclists and pedestrians safer at traffic light controlled intersections.
A month-long campaign to raise awareness is being launched by Auckland Transport, while Police will be conducting enforcement campaigns at high risk intersections.
Auckland Transport’s Road Safety Manager Karen Hay says red light running causes crashes and costs lives. “The annual cost of red light running is estimated at $43 million and sadly the practice injures or takes the life of Aucklanders.”
Between 2008 and 2012 there were 11 fatalities, 169 serious injuries and 1466 minor injuries at intersections where motorists failed to stop at red lights.
To get the message across that “Red Means Stop” Auckland Transport is today launching a campaign using online, busbacks, billboards and radio.
The campaign has the full backing of Police. Waitemata Road Policing Manager, Inspector Mark Fergus says “Together with Auckland Transport we hope to reduce the road trauma that occurs when motorists drive unsafely at intersections.”
Auckland Transport’s Community Transport Manager Mathew Rednall says, “We need to get the message to everyone who uses our roads that there can be serious consequences if you ignore a red light.
“The most common intersection crashes are due to poor observation and failing to give way or stop including at red lights.”
This campaign follows an announcement last month that the government is stepping up the use of red light cameras, it expects to see new generation cameras appearing at intersections from the end of next year.
A Red Light Camera Pilot has been running in Auckland since 2007 it has found:
75 per cent public support for the use of Red Light Cameras
43 per cent reduction in Red Light Running, on average
69 per cent reduction in Red Light Running crashes, on average
32 per cent reduction in rear-end crashes (estimated)
93 per cent reduction in social cost of crashes (estimated)
The recently established Auckland Road Safety Executive Governance group, comprising representatives from Auckland Transport, NZTA and NZ Police, has also agreed to expand the current CBD red light camera operation to cover at least an additional five intersections identified as high-risk red light running crash sites, using the existing cameras. The sites have yet to be confirmed.
They have also produced this video and image which people should start seeing around the place as part of the campaign.
It is good to see some action on addressing red light runners however the details don’t give any mention of additional enforcement other than a few other red light camera locations in the central city. Hopefully the police will be able to get out there and beef up enforcement at the same time too.
Processing...
Red light cameras pay for themselves pretty rapidly, they should be aggressively buying them and rolling them out across the city and suburbs. Another 1 1/2 years before we see any additional ones is pretty slow, considering how long these cameras have been around.
But you’ve just hit the crux of the problem. Rapid & mass deployment risks people calling it revenue gathering. Personally, I’d like to portable solutions (guessing it’d be too hard to hook into the control systems though) and deployed randomly around Auckland outside the CBD, i.e. areas like Lincoln Road, St Lukes Road, Great North Road etc could really do a good turn in discouraging people from Red Light running.
I think this can not come soon enough. Running red lights is an epidemic in NZ, its almost as if genetically we are colour blind between green and amber. Punishments should be expensive and zero tolerance.
Interestingly I wonder how many cyclists regularly run reds? I ask this because whilst I always stop for lights in my car, I will often sneak through on a red (if there is no traffic) on my bike. Same as a Pedestrian, how many of us cross against the red man if there is no traffic?
There is some recent research done on this in Auckland: see http://conf.hardingconsultants.co.nz/workspace/uploads/newcombe-daniel-ipenztg2013-5191a1db7043d.pdf
Yeah, gotta wonder about this, even as a cyclist I have to admit a lot of cyclists do run the reds in town. Though the situation is obviously completely diferent it would be good to compare.
true – if you are at one of those light controlled pedestrian crossings and there is no traffic its tempting to cross it
like its not light controlled. Mind you something must be happening in the conditioning – I was at one of those lights the
other day in the rain no traffic coming and there was about 3 of us sitting waiting for the green man ……….and waiting and waiting – I think it was
on long sequence or something ….all the while no cars were coming and we were all getting wetter ………of course by the time the cars came the light had stopped them ……..probably those lights would be sensible to have some sort of traffic sensing system on them …
But def ….with the kids in tow I am reminded I am teaching them and need to be consistent or they won’t learn – so I will wait even when theres no traffic ….and even with no kids I wait now ……but its def a good question – If you are walking or cycling its not any less illegal to run a red light …….
but potentially people see if differently somehow …
I guess that brings up a question – is red light running behaviour related in anyway to how long at a light someone waits or how many cars get through each light ? Is there intersections where the sequencing adds to the issues caused by what is already a common behaviour for some drivers/road users ?
Is it illegal to ‘run a red’ as a pedestrian.
Around UoA there are heaps of lights with ludicrously long pedestrian phases. It is not abnormal to see 400 people wait 1 minute for 20 people to drive through an intersection before they frantically try to scurry across up to 40m of road in less than 25 sconds.
Yes the Uni has a decent amount of pedestrian traffic around it …..and a busy road too…and a lot of people that choose
to cross Symonds street not at the lights too I note perhaps there’s an element of not frustration at waiting in that who knows ….
I find that the underpasses which even have ramp access are great – you avoid
dealing totally with waiting at lights perhaps add a couple more steps to your day but get there just
as fast ………
Also I do think the pedestrian controlled lights on symonds street have helped with the jaywalking issue somewhat……though there is a long phase on those …….I recall the days of old before those lights ………..even the point where someone, obviously ahead of their time given thats were the lights eventually went painted a pedestrian crossing on that strip of road as a capping stunt ….however it is worth remembering there’s also an underpass under almost that exact stretch of road ……
Thanks Dan, an interesting read and the reasons given for running the lights as a cyclist are similar to my own motivations.
I would not change the laws though to allow cyclists free left turns or any other row. I think the fact that its still illegal to run the light means that the cyclist is going to slow down and show more care than they would if they had a right of way.
The advance line is a good idea on busy roads where cyclists gather. Ive seen these in London and it does help them get away at the intersections. It actually seems to speed up both the cyclists and the cars.
Not to mention Amber light running. Doesn’t the Road Code say something about only entering an ‘amber’ intersection unless you cannot safely stop? But I suppose since it doesn’t result in many, if any, accidents, it’s not going to get any attention.
Hopefully there will be a general attitude change with some of this …..
for some I know there’s the odd moments inattention (which can happen to all sorts of road users
as we are human after all) and an orange that could
have been stopped for etc gets gone through but for others its a habit or deliberate I think …..
This was all really brought home to me on the daily walks home with my under 5’s – teaching them
about the red man means stop and the green man means go, bending down to their level and watching
the lights and traffic with them……the message I had meant to teach when I started was:
you can’t walk when the man is red see him….see the cars they are going past us they could hurt us….see the man turned green….
now we can go………
what it ended up as was:
you can’t walk when the man is red see him….see the cars they are going past us they could hurt us….see the man turned green….
now we can check again ……..look left and right …oh look there’s a car, we need to look left and right again ..ohhh there’s another car
ohh and theres another …….and I kid you not that was a near daily experience !
On several occasions the man had turned red again by the time we waited (and since I was teaching a point we waited
through another cycle of lights)………..And then the kids get a little older and ask but Mummy why doesn’t that man/lady
stop if they have a red light ………..so it really makes you aware of how common it is to run the red weather by accident or
design….
Having said that on that particular intersection the cops have started parking in the bus lane and picking
people off for running reds every so often in the morning…..
Also I note the RNZFB when training my Mum with her dog teach …wait for the beeping to change (signalling the red to green switch)
wait a certain number of counts/seconds then proceed to cross………that certainly brings in to sharp notice that its a common thing ….
and of course that strategy helps except when you get those running a really red red …..then it doesn’t …..I know red light running for
one is something that makes my Mum quite frustrated …….and vulnerable ………..But then again as pointed out above all of us are vulnerable safetywise …..
Have they got any plans on stop signs? My observation is that no one, absolutely no one stops at stop signs unless they are forced to by traffic. I include police cars in that as I have seen several fail to stop.
I honestly do not think I have seen a single other vehicle stop at a stop sign. I nearly get rear ended every time I do.
I stop at stop signs but then I drive a manual car and need to come to a complete stop before engaging first gear. I like to do things well, driving being no exception, so I follow the rules. Cars unfortunately became appliances somewhere along the way. One button for go and one for stop and most people obviously can’t even get that right.
Hopefully they also include people who stop across intersections. This is a typical scene on New North Road/BHB Road intersection most evenings: http://www.asciimation.co.nz/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=4988&g2_serialNumber=2
Note that the cross traffic is almost finished it’s cycle so those cars have been sitting there some time. It can be dangerous there as a pedestrian as when you cross these drivers try to close up the gaps and you are in danger of being squished between cars.
Also in that film it says of drivers at fault 57% had full licenses and 28% were on learners or restricted. That’s 85%. What were the other 15%? Unlicensed? Foreigners?
I did actually see a Police car turn on it’s lights and sirens the other day to go after a van that had just gone through a red light on Albert Street so they are doing something it seems!
Simon
We have an intersection sort of local to us thats a real pain in terms of queuing across – and the police do chase it up
from time to time. I cross it with my Mum and often with the cars queued across it you just cannot cross when its your
turn – esp as those queing cars often try to drive at that point (to get out of the intersection presumably) and they
actually then become a risk for running you over …….in fact theres been several occasions where we have had
to wait through more than one change of lights to safely go ………its not too bad if the queued car sees you
and lets you cross in front of them on the green man but often they don’t and can get quite agressive about it.
However in the defence of cars that intersection design is terrible – for the turning traffic onto the road
you cannot even see if there’s a queue as you have no visibility – you turn the corner and then wham you meet a queue,
the straight through traffic can see more but again its often hard to judge – due to the parallel parking through the shopping complex the road narrows
and often the first car or two might think there’s room and then it transpires there’s not ….there’s also two straight through
lanes that turn to one due to the parking – I thought really one of them should be made a turning only…….
Actually its a real pain in the middle of the day but its a huge bottleneck at rush hour ………
this is the map if I have got it right – station rd, gt south rd, hill rd junction …..
https://maps.google.co.nz/maps?q=hill+road+and+great+south+road+manurewa&hl=en&ll=-37.021246,174.896427&spn=0.001062,0.002629&sll=-37.014537,174.906397&sspn=0.016997,0.042057&t=h&hq=hill+road+and&hnear=Great+South+Rd,+Manurewa&z=19
I too stop at stop signs when I do actually drive …but then like I have said before I am probably not
the most typical Auckland driver and if there’s a queue of people behind you it seems to cause a
bit of frustration if you do stop too ………….
The Blockhouse Bay Road/New North Road intersection is one of the worst signalised intersections I’ve come across anywhere in the world. From empirical observation I contend that its latest phasing design – which allows pedestrians 6 seconds to cross Blockhouse Bay Road – seriously compromises pedestrian safety. The fact that it takes around 4 minutes for pedestrians to cross the road legally seriously diminishes pedestrian utility. The fact that the design has been adopted in an area which has relatively high numbers of elderly persons (John Tait village, etc) and school children (Avondale Primary, Intermediate and College) is extraordinarily remiss of AT and its predecessor bodies. But all they can say is that red light running is a behavioural issue and therefore something for the Police (who couldn’t give a stuff); and that there are insufficient numbers of pedestrians to warrant a dedicated pedestrian phase, which is one of the best ex post facto arguments I’ve heard. I’ve observed this intersection, off and on, for the past 50 years and every time they redesign it, pedestrians are further marginalised. Ripe for red light cameras! Aside from being nearly hit by cars turning left from New North Road into Blockhouse Bay Road three times over the last four years, I’ve been threatened by drivers on numerous occasions when they observe that they’ve been photographed: one even chased me down the road (having turned back from Blockhouse Bay Rd), got out of his car and demanded that I delete the photographs. I reported him nonetheless and can still recall his registration number; nasty piece of work.
Hey is Asciimation yours? Love the Ascii Star wars 🙂
Thanks! I should really finish that one day.
Simon
From what I have read, there are only going to be very limited numbers of cameras, ie less than a dozen for Auckland. which I think is stupid. they should be everywhere. who cares if they generate revenue. they would save more in lives than revenue easily. I think the main reason they have taken so long is that they are waiting to implement cameras that have both speeding/RLR functions together.
I take pictures of cars doing silly things then send the to the Police Community Road Watch site. I know it doesn’t do anything really (supposedly the drivers get sent a letter) but I figure you have to start somewhere and they get enough of these complaints then they might start looking into it a bit more or contact AT about it for problem spots. They can’t fix problems they don’t know are there!
You can’t upload pictures unfortunately so I upload them to my own gallery and put a link into the complaint. You need to enter the registration and colour, make and model of the car (which you can get by entering the rego into carjam.co.nz).
You have to be careful taking the picture. People can get aggressive about it. I had one taxi driver who was parked on the footpath start following me in his cab shouting abuse out the window. Not particularly clever when they are so easily identifiable. I have a small key chain camera (actually for another use but handy for this too) on the way which is a lot less obvious than holding a smart phone up!
If they are serious about this red light running campaign I wonder if they follow up pictures taken by the public a little more if submitted through the road watch site (which is here by the way: https://forms.police.govt.nz/forms/online-community-roadwatch-report/9).
They are slowly improving places so I like to think the feedback helps. The intersection I mentioned above on New North road now has green cycle stopping places painted on them which is good. They just need drivers to start stopping behind them not on top of them!
Simon
Stuff does happen. I’ve had confirmation of letters being sent.
I also know someone who reported a driver (in a Jag) coming around a corner on the wrong side of the road due to queuing
A week later a cop saw the same car do the same thing.
So they charged him with both offences.
Then the driver shoved the cop who turned up to charge him (at home), so he got charged with assaulting a police officer as well
Two weeks later they (the police) saw him do it yet again, but declined to charge him because then the Queens counsel he was using as his lawyer would have started arguing police harassment,
That site is a bit of a mixed blessing. My wife got such a letter; it was extremely vague, implying she had done something naughty at the Parnell Rd/Domain Dr/Ayr St intersection (see http://goo.gl/maps/yVbjD), but not what the alleged offence was. She had been through the intersection that day, so that part was true. The phasing there is a bit unusual so our guess is that the complainant either didn’t understand it, or is a serial complainer – but it’s possible she may have unintentionally cribbed an amber, who knows? It just left us feeling that it was a pointless exercise and a waste of police time. You would need to have a rather authoritarian mind-set to make that kind of complaint other than for an egregious offence such as Roger W describes.
As for red light cameras – I have no problem with them. I understand they take two shots a second apart, so if the driver stops just over the line that’s deemed OK. Speed cameras are fine too except for their placement which is often calculated to catch out the unwary. My father-in-law, a notorious slow driver, was very proud of the speed camera ticket he once got at the bottom of a long suburban hill. We never heard the end of it.
Waste of time. The real offenders won’t care unless charged. So at best, this improves some of those people’s behaviour who weren’t the ones most in need anyway.
Agreed starnius (I must practice writing concise comments like yours!). Some comments are just tl;dr.
Yeah, I don’t generally bother unless I see at least 3-4 offences in a row.
Like speeding through a red light while changing lanes and using your cell phone.
Yes, I did report that lady in her shiny new Audi
To be honest. I’d like to see red light cameras lots of places, plus additional ones at each motorway over pass.
And ‘time between points’ speed ticketing (which apparently they CAN (but don’t) do with the Puhoi tunnel cameras
Then again, I would also like a license plate on the roof/bonnet of cars, and 2-3 fitted RFID tags as well.
Then we could start working on tailgaters and people who change lanes 5 times per minute.
and those two are probably overkill. 🙂
Except that fast traffic SHOULD be changing lanes 5 times a minute in free flow in order to keep left.
In free flow traffic you shouldn’t need to change lanes except to enter/exit.
And if it’s not free flow, every lane change causes delays for both lanes you move through, decreasing overall traffic speed. Since we claim that waiting 20 seconds for 4 people inconveniences 60 people for trains and is bad, the same logic should be applied to cars.
If the traffic is free flow, you should be moving at the traffic speed, so why change unless you are trying to speed “above prevailing conditions”?
Every change of lane provides yet another opportunity to have 2 vehicles clip each other and people who lane change like that often indicate late or not at all, and change close to other vehicles.
Also changing lanes does NOT decrease your travel time:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Traffic/story?id=499882&page=1
Original study
http://sunburst.usd.edu/~schieber/psyc707/pdf/Redelmeier1999.pdf
You are a bit of a kill joy Roger. The speed limit in NZ is so slow its a struggle at times to keep awake 🙁 Speed isn’t the problem in any road accident, its the drivers judgement that is always the cause of the crash. If only Kiwis could learn to drive better we could safely have 140km speed limits but for as long as they cant negotiate a foodtown car park without crashing or follow simple rules like Green = Go, Red (and Amber) = Stop we are doomed to mind numbingly slow 100km/hr 🙁
I can’t agree with you there Phil. I design and investigate the crashes on roads for a living and see time and time again the people who think they know better going out and killing themselves or others.
If you think the speed limit is too low and makes you fall asleep you are no better than a drunk driver and should not be on the road putting other people’s lives at risk no matter how awesome of a driver you think you are.
Speed kills and that is an undeniable fact.
I don’t know what is wrong with Kiwi drivers. We are collectively not good at what is a simple task these days. I hear what you are saying about carnage on the roads and the slogan ‘speed kills’ is a truism in NZ in so much as speed is a contributing factor.
Surely though (and my point above) the biggest factor in accidents is poor judgement on behalf of at least one of the drivers involved. If drivers understood how their car works, the simple physics of the wheels remaining on the road provides traction (not exceeding slip angle) and obeyed pretty obvious rules like not overtaking on blind stretches of road, running lights, driving to conditions then in theory the only accidents would happen because of mechanical failures.
Yes the roads in NZ are more challenging than other countries but how hard is it to keep a car on the road and in your correct lane?
If it were really ‘speed kills’ then we could lower the limit to 20km/hr and all live. Unfortunately Im pretty sure that an accident at 100km/hr is going to be as deadly as one at 80, or even 40 if its a head on.
Now I ‘Know’ I am an O for awesome driver, I actually do have the tin cup to prove it 😀 but its the other people on the road that scare me… because of that I do stick pretty close to 100 🙁
I’m saying nothing at all about speed limits.
I’m saying that responsible driving, and the law, say that you are expected to “drive with the prevailing traffic” and “drive to the conditions”
That fact that you think 100km/h is too slow on roads that were mostly originally designed for 80km/h makes you sound like my boss. And while he’s an excellent driver with a superb car, I would never travel anywhere with him ever again.
There are plenty of roads in NZ where you could (if everyone obeyed the law) drive safely at 200km/hr. Now I am not suggesting that should be the speed limit but are you trying to tell me a modern car is any danger at 200km/hr on a motorway that is effectively a dead straight road? As I have some experience of driving very fast I can tell you 140km/hr on motorways should be the safe limit.
My point is that the problem is the driver. Its not the car running red lights or changing lanes or getting pissed, its the idiot behind the wheel.
You suggested that there should be ‘time between points’ speed controls and all I am saying is it is a great pity Kiwi drivers are so bad we have to have such a slow speed limit and cameras at lights. In an ideal world we could travel a bit faster and not approach every intersection wondering if some idiot is running a red light at you.
“IF EVERYONE OBEYED THE LAW” is the eternal problem.
Sure 200km/h is safe
Until the moron ahead decides to cut lanes and misjudges the distance (oops, human error)
Or suffers a blowout (oops, mechanical failure), also more likely at 200 than 100
Or YOU suffer a blowout (oops, mechanical failure again)
Or a bird hits your windscreen (curse you mother nature)
The point of a speed limit is NOT the maximum safe speed for a good car.
The point of a speed limit it the maximum speed consist with an ACCEPTABLE degree of safety for all parties given the vagaries of the real universe.
Or to quote a famous race driver:
“The secret”, said Niki Lauda, “is to win going as slowly as possible”.
http://www.clivejames.com/articles/clive/lauda
As for “only the driver” That’s a gross exaggeration.
Just last week a work colleague was talking about surviving a crash a couple of years ago.
A car 4 ahead lost it’s front wheel due, after investigation, to a manufacturing fault 20 years earlier.
Car was loaned to the drivers by their landlord. Had been well maintained, and had been warranted 2 weeks earlier.
The wheel hit an overhead sign and came back down the road.
It hit his bonnet and pushed the cam shaft through the firewall
It crossed the median and hit the road before, beside and then behind a motor cyclist.
Where is the drivers fault?
Or a wheel blowing out?
Or your engine stopping?
Or …
My high school driving instructor always used to say “drive like everyone else on the road is an idiot”
Pretty near everyone fails to do that.
I always used to say “If they’re all idiots I shouldn’t get on the road with them”
Nowadays I say (for life in general) “And some days you will be the idiot”
Oh, and supreme irony for safe driving is watching:
An ACC car labelled with “Only a fool breaks the 2 second rule” tailgating a truck on the motorway, and in turn being tailgated by another truck.
I assume you missed the bit where I wrote “driving to conditions then in theory the only accidents would happen because of mechanical failures”.
Phil – exactly what roads are you talking about the need to be “fastened up” ????
The 50km residentials (or 40km around school zones), the motorway 100km type roads or the
rural roads ?
I assume you are refering to the middle of my 3 options based on the way you have worded
your statements (which don’t tend to have many red lights – that being the original topic of this post)
If you are talking regarding the first – remind me to watch out while I am out and about with my kids – the
difference 5km an hr can make if you hit a pedestrian in terms of survival rates (should anything
out of the ordinary suddenly happen) is huge ……..no matter who is at fault ….
And if you are talking about the last of my options then quite frankly some of our rural roads are not good for 100km/hr
and would be deadly at 140km/hr …..I would rather the speed limit was dropped on those types of roads really to
reflect the reality of their engineering
Also “driving to the conditions” well conditions change every sec ….sudden things happen and yes idiots (who
are probably generally lovely people having momentary lapses) abound as do children, dogs, possums cats and cows ….
I would say your reaction time to respond to these changes is a lot less at 140km/hr than 100km/hr and while
accidents may already be likely to be fatal at 100km/hr that great speed would probably ensure more carnage ……
However the variation on opinions here is really reflective of what we see on our roads …..
some drivers (like me) would prefer slower others (like you) faster…..and while I am sure
you are a wonderful driver not everyone is and we are all human and have momentary lapses
so the laws we have I guess are trying to counter for everyone …….And yes differences in opinions
about how driving should be done …..often result in intimidating driver behaviour and driver frustration
For those that like more speed and feel they are great drivers perhaps we need places where they
can go and let off that frustration once in a while ?
After all for many if other modes of transport are suitable they have to drive weather they have the natural aptitude for it
or not ………
doh I meant if other modes of transport are NOT suitable (for that particular journey) ….
jjay, I am all in favour of cracking down on running red lights. Im in favour of making the driving test harder as well. I was just responding to Roger who wants time test speed controls and suggesting that if the general public could drive better then speeds could be raised.
Of course I do not mean raising speeds in residential areas. I am talking about dead straight motorways and quiet stretches of highway. You know, in Switzerland they have mountains to negotiate and yet they manage to have much higher speed limits without the carnage associated with NZ roads.
I agree with you about places exist for people to drive fast. Track days are great for this but I still wish we could all collectively behave ourselves so we could at least do 110km/hr legally. You know the difference between an accident at 100 or 110 is irrelevant, both are going to hurt.
Hi Phil….. I’d would be checking out the physics of forces differences between 100km/hr and 110km/hr before you
say that ………………….hurt yet – but there are varying shades of biological damage in there …………
10 km/hr could be a big difference to outcomes ………..In fact though physics is not my speciality and I
am sure there are others who could give us more details I know that 10km/hr can make a big difference
unless you are assuming “f**k up” at 100km/hr you are dead anyway and dead is dead – which is a motto
I know some people go by (I do not personally though)…..
I think it would not be appropriate to raise speed limits in NZ as roads are for all NZers not just those who enjoy driving …….
and a posted speed limit is generally seen as a goal – so while you may drive safely at 140km/hr many others could not
but would still feel pressured to do so if that was the limit – just as now driving at 80km/hr on a rural road (even in wet conditions
etc) is deemed as highly annoying to those behind you wishing to do 100km/hr (or in reality more) ..
However I fully support those who like to drive and drive fast having an non-public road outlet with which to do so with
other like-minded people – esp if it allows them to be a little more patient on our roads as they have a chance for “stress relief”
And I will concede from what I am told by my foreign colleagues (from most countries I get a similar opinion as well) that NZers are not
that careful as drivers as you see in other countries ……I guess the point being its “possible” that greater ticketing rates for speed
and lower tolerance for speeding and other offences might change the collective driving attitude ………then again there are probably
other ways to go about it I think education and awareness have a lot to do with it – the “drive social” ads I think have an effect ……..
I guess its the “people will try to avoid getting penalties but not want to change” v “people who start to understand there are great reasons to change their
driving behaviour and do it as a matter of course” type situation …………….
Also often we are all at fault of the odd “idiot moment” (even wonderful drivers) so I would prefer that the prevailing speeds allowed a little for that …
but by the same token you have drivers on the road with no licences (often having lost them) with huge fines they cannot
pay that keep doing the same thing too …….no matter what we do currently changing their behaviours consistently is hard ….. that’s another matter …..
Actually I was replying to your first comment and not your second.
However: You cannot control those factors happening to yourself in some instances or others at all. Or others being idiots. Then speed become a major factor in the results.
Going from 100 to 110 increases the kinetic energy transfer by 21%.
It decreases your available response time by 9%.
Going from 100 to 140 increases the kinetic energy transfer by 96%.
It decreases your available response time by 28%.
That both significantly increases the likelihood of failing to avoid an incident, and the lethality of the incident.
Especially considering response time where a good driver can react in ~200 milliseconds, and at 100km/h that corresponds to 5m.
And when I say react I mean “saw something and made the decision to hit the brakes and have their foot start to move”, not “And actually had something to happen”
Then consider that a large number of people think that 10m is a safe following distance at 100km/h, which is 400ms, which is about the response time for a bad driver.
A good compromise distance is actually around 1 second, or about 25m. How long do you think a space that size stays open on the motorway?
jjay, I agree with all you wrote…still a great shame to drive so slow 🙁
NZ has some of the nicest roads in the world to drive on, unfortunately populated by some of the worst drivers. For this and the reasons you state above I agree the 100km limit is here to stay.
Roger, what none of the stats really tells us is how survival rates vary from vehicle to vehicle. An Aston Martin or Porsche is more likely to have a much shorter stopping distance at 140km/hr than a Toyota Prius. Both will have significantly shorter stopping distances than the RUV’s many people feel safe taking their kids to school in.
Modern cars have better survival rates and one day carbon fibre may become economical for mainstream car manufacturer. As someone who has first hand experience of hitting an immovable object head on in a carbon manufactured vehicle I can tell you it is possible to walk away unhurt from accidents above 190kms/hr. Expensive though 🙁
I always found it amazing that you used to be able to run a red light and only get a $150 fine, (now I understand it is 20 demerits included too) yet, being a learner driver on a motorcycle or car these days not having your L plate up sees you get $400 and 20 demerits, personally running red lights should be an instant 50 demerits it has the potential for serious serious consequences. It would definitely get people thinking twice bout it.
We need to be far harsher on dangerous driving offences. RLJ kills people, should be something like 3 of these type of offences and you lose your licence.
Which would be about 35 points per offence.
100 points in 2 years = loss of license
That would put it on a par with failing to stop for a police officer, failing to display L plates, or going 20-30km/h over the speed limit.
35km/h+ over the speed limit = 50 points
I believe 50km/h+ is instant loss of license
Sounds about right to me.
Only loss of licence for 3 months, I can’t see anywhere that says running a red light results in a loss of any demerit points at all which is pretty shocking if true
http://www.nzta.govt.nz/licence/offences-penalties/demerit.html
Yes people should not run red lights, it’s dangerous. No acknowledgement or analysis from the Transport agency though of the reasons why this may be occurring. Yes impatient drivers but also how about the phasing system in Auckland. How about implementing intelligent phasing in Auckland. On Hobson Street for example, there are five or six intersections, every one of them you’ll be stopped by another red light. Pedestrian lights as well, people get impatient waiting for lights to finally change with no traffic. People wait a reasonable amount of time and then cross.
Another thing I’ve mentioned before, how about the lights also turning from red-amber-green as occurs in other countries so people get some warning the lights are going to turn green to move off.
AT make it seem like it’s everybody else’s fault these things are happening. How about improving the network.
For me, the only thing as bad as red light running is the clowns at a congested intersection who see that the light is about to turn orange and drive through, spanning the yellow box and then blocking the traffic whose turn it is to then go.
Different results of course (red lights can mean death) but utterly frustrating and the only thing that results in me getting road rage…it just screws it up for everyone.
And that’s a $150 instant fine.
If done it myself once. But then again I was the 6th car of 6 to do it, and I’d had my full license for about a month.
Policeman had a nice word with us about it.
I always wonder when people say the Police are just revenue gathering whenever they do something (usually with speed cameras) when if they really were just out for cash they could monitor pretty much any stop sign or intersection and issues hundreds or thousands of instant $150 fines. The bottom of my road is a no right turn between 4-6pm but without fail there is a queue of cars there turning right. One policeman there could generate thousands of dollars in the 2 hours it’s illegal.I suppose they actually have to stop the drivers though and all that takes time so maybe it isn’t worth their effort?
Simon
More a case of an allocation of resources. Lack of time for Police to be be dealing with traffic thanks to budget cuts I guess.
They do occasionally send a car to get speeders up my road. They usually park right in front of my house. But that’s probably once every six months or so and only for a few hours during evening rush hour. Bring back traffic cops maybe?
Or allow councils to monitor moving vehicle offences as it pertains to traffic, they can monitor bus lanes, why can’t they monitor things like illegal turns, or driving through pedestrian malls?
a bit off topic but somewhat relevant …
from the herald today
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=10913028
Love the article.
Can’t help recound the anecdote of the day: This morning biking into town along Tamaki drive the traffic was slowing before Kelly Tarlton’s, and the car in front of me was wandering half across the bike lane. As I passed her on the inside I saw she was texting. Well over the pedestrian tables right outside Kelly’s and she passes me back, still texting.
She looked a million dollars in her Touareg, and really it doesn’t seem fair that she should have to comply with laws made for the hoi polloi.
Absolutely. As Phil Moore often points out, the high caste members of NZ society like him shouldnt be held to the same standard as the rest of us. If your car is worth more than a certain value then you should just be able to mow down cyclists and pedestrians with impunity.
Obviously these Indian drivers in Delhi have seen the light:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-19572583
“Car owners are the creators of wealth. Do you realise that they get exhausted sitting in their cars due to traffic jams and they reach office completely tired? It affects their efficiency. Do you want them to perform less?” asks the main petitioner BB Sharan.
Amen brother amen.
Heh. That’s the other use for smartphones.
One of my clients is an RV club.
One of the board members runs full time HD recording from the front of his vehicle due to the number of dodgy incidents he encounters.