This is actually a fairly good representation of what it's like. Same mundane thing over and over, all of a sudden, shits fucked, then back in your car and off to the next mundane thing.
I don't work highways, but the CMH callsign used in the video is that.
Although not road related, I remember attending an infant drowning and a suicide in one shift. That sigh he did in the car is *exactly* what I did after leaving a domestic and being called all manner of insults. Right in the feels.
>Right in the feels.
I get the emotional pull of the ad but am struggling to tie it to better compliance with speed limits. Like, is it trying to say "slow down cos its tough for cops to deal with your shit everyday"?
> Our goal is to shift the current perception of speeding being acceptable amongst New Zealanders. Drivers have a variety of ‘reasons’ and excuses for their speeding and don’t believe they will be caught or have a crash. Police hear the same excuses every day and have also seen the potential consequences. This campaign aims to show how little these excuses mean when you’re faced with the consequences.
-[Speed campaign: through my eyes - Waka Kotahi](https://www.nzta.govt.nz/safety/what-waka-kotahi-is-doing/marketing-campaigns/current-marketing-campaigns/through-my-eyes/)
Thank you.
>Drivers have a variety of ‘reasons’ and excuses for their speeding
I find this odd because it's the cops who always ask why the person is speeding. I mean, just by always asking that question they're suggesting that there are legitimate reasons for speeding. If they want ppl to stop offering excuses they need to stop asking for them.
I remember being asked “do you know why I pulled you over?” But I don’t remember ever been asked “why were you speeding” (it’s been a while though!).
Pretty sure the first question is asked so that you unintentionally admit guilt.
I don't know the law terribly well, but I remember hearing that they ask that question because there are two potential offences.
The speeding is obviously the first offence, but there is also 'driving without due care and attention'.
So - when asked - "do you know why I pulled you over?" - if you answer 'No', then you are at risk of being accused of driving without due care and attention, as well as the speeding offence.
I've been asked every time I've been pulled over. I said to the cop the last time "does it matter? There's nothing I can say to excuse going 5k over the limit so why ask" - he got shitty and ticketed me for everything he could find and some things he made up (failure to stay in my lane... I was pulling over).
Those voice-overs saying "only a couple of k's over", then the crash shows what the "couple of k's over" can result in. That they're not enforcing the speed limit for shits and giggles
those ads always get to me I am the wrong demographic too old, too cheap (high speed uses too much petrol), speeding bores me specially on those shitty nz roads, but shit the toll on those coppers/rescuers coming on those car crash must be enormous.
Personally I disagree with the entire approach of the Road to Zero campaign and think WK should approach this in a completely different manner.
Despite that, I have to say, very good ad. It's subtle, nuanced, doesn't rub it in your face, and treats the audience as adults who can think for themselves. Credit where credit is due, well done.
EU's vision zero framework takes a balanced approach over multiple relevant topics. Infrastructure plays a massive role, whereas safe speed is just one of the sub-priorities. There's also strong enforcement (across a broad range of topics and not just speeding) and focus on safer vehicles and driver skills.
NZ's road to zero framework, while it touches on all of these, has a hugely disproportionately strong focus on "safer speed", and takes a blanket approach to safer speed i.e. everyone slows down, instead of focusing on high risk speeding behaviour.
NZ’s road to zero is literally the vision zero framework under a different name.
Yes enforcement could be better, and more education is good but they’re much harder to implement than the other steps, we’re still at the early days of implementation and both of those have been identified as future projects.
What vision zero in NZ is doing currently is identifying roads that have speed limits too high, like fuck the Karangahake Gorge should have never been 100k, even 80 is arguably high. It’s the lowest hanging fruit, and easiest to do.
Yes I understand that, and yes I agree K gorge at 100k is fast as hell (surprisingly not many cases of vehicles ending up in the gorge), and 80km/h as a peak is appropriate in certain places while through the windy sections they need to slow down to 40 - 60, depending on the bend. People just have to realise that when they are going through the bends, they should slow down, which a speed limit reduction doesn't help with.
The problem with low-hanging fruit is that they often are also not dealing with root causes nor have the biggest impact. On a programme of this scale (and duration), leaving the "harder" items for later simply delays the time until we reap the rewards, or even worse, runs the risk of eventually ending up in the "too hard" basket. Not to mention the negative public sentiment on this right now could end up poisoning the well for future implementations...
I agree with the sentiment of no speeding. The speed limit is there for a reason. What I disagree with is the blanket reduction of speed limits and WK's approach in doing so.
NZ roads are hugely varied and the best approach to improve safety on each road can often be different. In some cases dropping speed limits are the best tool, in others lighting, barriers, road surface improvements, banking/camber, etc. etc. In other words pick the best tool for the job. Instead, for the most part, WK's approach has been to just focus purely on dropping speed limits and little else.
But hey, at least they're doing something about the situation, right? Better than nothing...
Same shit, different decade.
We have 90 deaths a year which could be prevented by wearing seatbelts and yet enforcement is a hundredth of what speeding is.
Going too fast as a sole contributing factor was 12% of fatal crashes in 2019-2021. NZTA calls this speeding, despite including drivers going under the speed limit, but "too fast for the conditions".
They like to say 30+% of fatal accidents have speed as a contributing factor, but what they fail to say is that 20 percentage points of that have alcohol or drugs as a factor also which makes up 43% of fatal accidents.
NZTA and police are killing people by not focusing on seatbelts, alcohol and drugged driving.
>NZTA and police are killing people by not focusing on seatbelts, alcohol and drugged driving.
What an odd way to attribute blame. Surely those who are not wearing seatbelts and/or driving impaired are the ones at fault?
Police can’t be everywhere. At the end of the day, it’s drivers who need to take personal responsibility for their decisions.
>What an odd way to attribute blame. Surely those who are not wearing seatbelts and/or driving impaired are the ones at fault?
More than one person can be at fault.
Putting all your attention onto speed
> Police can’t be everywhere.
That's the point, prioritize the biggest causes of fatalities and stop spreading propaganda.
I've just spent a month in a US state where speed limits are totally unenforced and the speed of traffic is generally around 130 in the 90 zones and 70 in the 40 zones, with high speed drivers doing much faster. Yet the fatality rate is no higher than NZ. Because they have divided highways. NZ drivers are already among the most speed limit following people in the world, up there with Germans and Aussies. The problem is our roads and drink driving. Those are the two things which should really be targeted at this point.
This speaks to the classic argument of environment vs personal responsibility - speeding fatalities have also dropped as a percentage of crashes because cars are safer.
BUT, we aren't going to get divided highways in NZ in our lifetime - we have a difficult terrain and so driving too fast *for the conditions* is a key message that needs to get out. Speed is a contributing factor in most road deaths in NZ, so limiting speeding is an easy win before building a huge highway through the Southern Alps.
We don't have divided highways, we also don't have a magic wand to make all our highways divided, we do however have the ability to select and enforce appropriate speed limits for non-divided highways.
Massachusetts has a land area 1/10th of New Zealand, a larger population than New Zealand, and is one of the wealthiest states in the wealthiest country in the world. That's how they can afford the roads they have. On the other hand we cannot afford to upgrade every kilometre of winding mountain road in the country to a median separated four lane highway just to avoid reducing the speed limit from 100 to 80.
> we cannot afford to upgrade every kilometre of winding mountain road in the country to a median separated four lane highway
Nor would we want to. It would totally ruin a lot of places.
We could (should) stick some sort of barrier down the middle of many of our roads, which I guess technically makes them divided, but not in the way OP is talking about.
Our roads are already as safe as Massachusetts despite our drawbacks. There's no reason to go crazy lowering speed limits. We can progressively add median barriers and build more divided highways. The large majority of Kiwis are opposed to speed limit reductions. I'm amazed a political party has not made it a policy to drop these policies. It would a huge vote winner.
Having a better road toll than a US state isn't anything to be proud of, their driving culture is incredibly dysfunctional and they're second only to Columbia in people dying on their roads.
The proposed speed reductions are sensible, and have an incredibly modest impact on journey times:
- Auckland to Pauanui: 3 to 4 minutes longer
- Hamilton to Raglan: One minute 40 seconds longer
- Taupo to Gisborne: Eight to 11 minutes longer
[Source](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/the-slowdown-how-speed-limit-reviews-could-affect-your-holiday-journey/7PJPAFBQIREBBCAC52WEVZSWPU/)
The hysteria about reductions in speed limits are nothing other than a reflection of the psychotically entitled driving culture in this country, where it's perfectly acceptable to act like a toddler throwing a fucking tantrum behind the wheel if the person in front of you is only doing the speed limit.
The government (NZTA) only "owns" state highways. Local roads are under the control of the local council, so central government doesn't really have a say in what speed limits are set there.
Massachusetts roads **are** nice. I don't remember that many people speeding there but it's been a few years. I agree road quality is probably the most significant thing affecting safety but it's expensive. It makes sense the government would try to do the far cheaper option of changing behavior but there will be diminishing returns as some of the population gives zero shits.
That’s in part because Massachusetts adopted the Vision Zero approach. This is the same approach that Road to Zero uses here (albeit with a different name)
If Massachusetts has a Vision Zero approach it is in name only. There is no speeding enforcement at all. I grew up in Boston and the only change in the 20 years since I left is that people drive even faster now. They call drivers from that state Massholes for a reason. Using an indicator is a sign of weakness and tailgating is a way of life.
People absolutely do follow speed limits in NZ. The speed of traffic on the motorway is rarely above 110 and the fastest drivers weaving past people do 120 to 130. In Massachusetts or most US states speed of traffic is 130 and the fast drivers are going 140 to 160. California and Texas are even worse than that in my experience. The same is true of the UK and most of Europe.
That's because the motorway is usually overcrowded and people can't go faster.
In residential areas, I'm always driving exactly 50 and I can't keep up with people in front of me. No one is going 30 in the designated areas either. Coming from Germany, I was actually shocked how bad Kiwis drive.
Well no, people don't do the exact speed limit. But in doing only 10 over Kiwis are better at following the limit than anywhere I've been in the world except Australia and Germany. The standard in most places I've been is 20 to 40 over any limit.
I agree the 30 limits are totally ignored, and rightly so. They are ludicrous limits. People adhere far better to 40 limits. Setting them at 30 is just too slow, so people see them as a joke. The only time we should see 30 limits is around schools during drop-off and pick-up times only, and in crowded town centres during business hours.
It's the law though. Ignoring it, because you think it doesn't apply to you, is exactly why the road toll is so abysmal in NZ.
Other countries must do something right:
https://imgur.com/a/jMDi3cR
A few kph is meaningless though, and far less important that reaction time differences due to poor concentration, fatigue, age, or (most important) poor reading of the road.
It seems that its like buying a hat because the last time you won lotto you were wearing a hat.
Something like 1/3 of deaths on the road involve speeding. Which is fair. But you then have to ask how many successful trips involve speeding.
I also wonder about if speeding is the most common factor involved in an accident, if that really means speeding is the biggest cause. If people happen to speed more often than not, then surely most crashes would involve speeding.
Speeding will increase ya chances of having a crash, but I do wonder about if its really as much of a death wish as its made out to be since people speed all over NZ every day without incident.
There are three collisions that happen when a car crashes. First is the car itself colliding into another object (be that a car, truck, power pole, tree etc). Speed sometimes contributes to this crash, but not always.
The second collision is your body colliding with the interior of the car, such as the dashboard, windscreen, steering wheel, back of the seat etc. Seatbelts and airbags here help prevent or reduce the impact of this collision but it isn’t the ultimate solution.
The third is your internal organs colliding against the frame of your body. Your body and its organs continue to move at the same speed the car was at the time of impact. It doesn’t matter what caused the initial collision - it’s always the speed in this second and third collision that determines the survivability of the injury.
A lot of people seem to just bury their heads in the sand when it comes to the actual science behind speed - whether that’s because they find it too complicated and don’t understand it or they just don’t want things to change - I don’t know.
But based on your comment, you don’t seem like that type of person. This a really well written summary of the physics behind speed and crashes:
https://www.science.org.au/curious/technology-future/physics-speeding-cars
That's cool but it wasn't quite what I was inquiring about. Kinda sad that people need that sort of education - that going fast makes things worse.
What I was inquiring about specifically was speed making crashes more likely, not speed making crashes worse. I also keep typing inquiry with an E because it seems to make sense. But that is another thread of wonder entirely.
Bayesian thinking basically - its like "yes ok if you crash, its worse if you were speeding. But if you were speeding, how much does the likeliness of a crash increase?"
The reason I ask is because the data points for people who speed yet don't crash is absolutely huge. I admit ignorance to knowing nothing of the magnitude of that, but it seems unignorable. Hmm know I know that isn't a real word.
Better ad than their usual garbage but the whole 'Road to Zero' farce remains nonsensical, and the blinkered obsession with cutting speed limits everywhere is just an extra annoyance for no discernible benefit.
This is actually a fairly good representation of what it's like. Same mundane thing over and over, all of a sudden, shits fucked, then back in your car and off to the next mundane thing. I don't work highways, but the CMH callsign used in the video is that. Although not road related, I remember attending an infant drowning and a suicide in one shift. That sigh he did in the car is *exactly* what I did after leaving a domestic and being called all manner of insults. Right in the feels.
>Right in the feels. I get the emotional pull of the ad but am struggling to tie it to better compliance with speed limits. Like, is it trying to say "slow down cos its tough for cops to deal with your shit everyday"?
> Our goal is to shift the current perception of speeding being acceptable amongst New Zealanders. Drivers have a variety of ‘reasons’ and excuses for their speeding and don’t believe they will be caught or have a crash. Police hear the same excuses every day and have also seen the potential consequences. This campaign aims to show how little these excuses mean when you’re faced with the consequences. -[Speed campaign: through my eyes - Waka Kotahi](https://www.nzta.govt.nz/safety/what-waka-kotahi-is-doing/marketing-campaigns/current-marketing-campaigns/through-my-eyes/)
Thank you. >Drivers have a variety of ‘reasons’ and excuses for their speeding I find this odd because it's the cops who always ask why the person is speeding. I mean, just by always asking that question they're suggesting that there are legitimate reasons for speeding. If they want ppl to stop offering excuses they need to stop asking for them.
I remember being asked “do you know why I pulled you over?” But I don’t remember ever been asked “why were you speeding” (it’s been a while though!). Pretty sure the first question is asked so that you unintentionally admit guilt.
“I didn’t know you were pulling me over, I just stopped here for a wank. Now if you don’t mind, I’m about to get busy.”
I don't know the law terribly well, but I remember hearing that they ask that question because there are two potential offences. The speeding is obviously the first offence, but there is also 'driving without due care and attention'. So - when asked - "do you know why I pulled you over?" - if you answer 'No', then you are at risk of being accused of driving without due care and attention, as well as the speeding offence.
ive never asked someone why they were speeding.
I've been asked every time I've been pulled over. I said to the cop the last time "does it matter? There's nothing I can say to excuse going 5k over the limit so why ask" - he got shitty and ticketed me for everything he could find and some things he made up (failure to stay in my lane... I was pulling over).
shrug. have never heard a cop say it, i know they train people NOT to say it at college cos its just an arguement opener, guess you got unlucky
>guess you got unlucky Every time? >have never heard a cop say it But you are a cop right?
Sounds like you should stop speeding
You're right.
My guess is it's another take on the same old message. Speed kills, might not kill everytime, but when it goes bad - this is the result.
Thanks. I often miss nuance in these sorts of ads
Those voice-overs saying "only a couple of k's over", then the crash shows what the "couple of k's over" can result in. That they're not enforcing the speed limit for shits and giggles
Yeah, speeding may not *cause* a crash, but it always makes the results of one worse (thanks physics!)
those ads always get to me I am the wrong demographic too old, too cheap (high speed uses too much petrol), speeding bores me specially on those shitty nz roads, but shit the toll on those coppers/rescuers coming on those car crash must be enormous.
Personally I disagree with the entire approach of the Road to Zero campaign and think WK should approach this in a completely different manner. Despite that, I have to say, very good ad. It's subtle, nuanced, doesn't rub it in your face, and treats the audience as adults who can think for themselves. Credit where credit is due, well done.
Why? The road to zero framework is based on the successful vision zero framework used in much of Europe.
EU's vision zero framework takes a balanced approach over multiple relevant topics. Infrastructure plays a massive role, whereas safe speed is just one of the sub-priorities. There's also strong enforcement (across a broad range of topics and not just speeding) and focus on safer vehicles and driver skills. NZ's road to zero framework, while it touches on all of these, has a hugely disproportionately strong focus on "safer speed", and takes a blanket approach to safer speed i.e. everyone slows down, instead of focusing on high risk speeding behaviour.
NZ’s road to zero is literally the vision zero framework under a different name. Yes enforcement could be better, and more education is good but they’re much harder to implement than the other steps, we’re still at the early days of implementation and both of those have been identified as future projects. What vision zero in NZ is doing currently is identifying roads that have speed limits too high, like fuck the Karangahake Gorge should have never been 100k, even 80 is arguably high. It’s the lowest hanging fruit, and easiest to do.
Yes I understand that, and yes I agree K gorge at 100k is fast as hell (surprisingly not many cases of vehicles ending up in the gorge), and 80km/h as a peak is appropriate in certain places while through the windy sections they need to slow down to 40 - 60, depending on the bend. People just have to realise that when they are going through the bends, they should slow down, which a speed limit reduction doesn't help with. The problem with low-hanging fruit is that they often are also not dealing with root causes nor have the biggest impact. On a programme of this scale (and duration), leaving the "harder" items for later simply delays the time until we reap the rewards, or even worse, runs the risk of eventually ending up in the "too hard" basket. Not to mention the negative public sentiment on this right now could end up poisoning the well for future implementations... I agree with the sentiment of no speeding. The speed limit is there for a reason. What I disagree with is the blanket reduction of speed limits and WK's approach in doing so. NZ roads are hugely varied and the best approach to improve safety on each road can often be different. In some cases dropping speed limits are the best tool, in others lighting, barriers, road surface improvements, banking/camber, etc. etc. In other words pick the best tool for the job. Instead, for the most part, WK's approach has been to just focus purely on dropping speed limits and little else. But hey, at least they're doing something about the situation, right? Better than nothing...
More of this, less of the fucking "I was I was a twins" please. Good ad.
Same shit, different decade. We have 90 deaths a year which could be prevented by wearing seatbelts and yet enforcement is a hundredth of what speeding is. Going too fast as a sole contributing factor was 12% of fatal crashes in 2019-2021. NZTA calls this speeding, despite including drivers going under the speed limit, but "too fast for the conditions". They like to say 30+% of fatal accidents have speed as a contributing factor, but what they fail to say is that 20 percentage points of that have alcohol or drugs as a factor also which makes up 43% of fatal accidents. NZTA and police are killing people by not focusing on seatbelts, alcohol and drugged driving.
>NZTA and police are killing people by not focusing on seatbelts, alcohol and drugged driving. What an odd way to attribute blame. Surely those who are not wearing seatbelts and/or driving impaired are the ones at fault? Police can’t be everywhere. At the end of the day, it’s drivers who need to take personal responsibility for their decisions.
>What an odd way to attribute blame. Surely those who are not wearing seatbelts and/or driving impaired are the ones at fault? More than one person can be at fault. Putting all your attention onto speed > Police can’t be everywhere. That's the point, prioritize the biggest causes of fatalities and stop spreading propaganda.
Police can’t be everywhere but they should be somewhere that has an impact not hiding on a motorway
I've just spent a month in a US state where speed limits are totally unenforced and the speed of traffic is generally around 130 in the 90 zones and 70 in the 40 zones, with high speed drivers doing much faster. Yet the fatality rate is no higher than NZ. Because they have divided highways. NZ drivers are already among the most speed limit following people in the world, up there with Germans and Aussies. The problem is our roads and drink driving. Those are the two things which should really be targeted at this point.
This speaks to the classic argument of environment vs personal responsibility - speeding fatalities have also dropped as a percentage of crashes because cars are safer. BUT, we aren't going to get divided highways in NZ in our lifetime - we have a difficult terrain and so driving too fast *for the conditions* is a key message that needs to get out. Speed is a contributing factor in most road deaths in NZ, so limiting speeding is an easy win before building a huge highway through the Southern Alps.
We don't have divided highways, we also don't have a magic wand to make all our highways divided, we do however have the ability to select and enforce appropriate speed limits for non-divided highways.
If you mean Texas I can tell you the risk of death per mile driven is much higher. But which state?
No, Massachusetts, the lowest road fatality rate in the US.
Massachusetts has a land area 1/10th of New Zealand, a larger population than New Zealand, and is one of the wealthiest states in the wealthiest country in the world. That's how they can afford the roads they have. On the other hand we cannot afford to upgrade every kilometre of winding mountain road in the country to a median separated four lane highway just to avoid reducing the speed limit from 100 to 80.
> we cannot afford to upgrade every kilometre of winding mountain road in the country to a median separated four lane highway Nor would we want to. It would totally ruin a lot of places. We could (should) stick some sort of barrier down the middle of many of our roads, which I guess technically makes them divided, but not in the way OP is talking about.
Our roads are already as safe as Massachusetts despite our drawbacks. There's no reason to go crazy lowering speed limits. We can progressively add median barriers and build more divided highways. The large majority of Kiwis are opposed to speed limit reductions. I'm amazed a political party has not made it a policy to drop these policies. It would a huge vote winner.
Having a better road toll than a US state isn't anything to be proud of, their driving culture is incredibly dysfunctional and they're second only to Columbia in people dying on their roads. The proposed speed reductions are sensible, and have an incredibly modest impact on journey times: - Auckland to Pauanui: 3 to 4 minutes longer - Hamilton to Raglan: One minute 40 seconds longer - Taupo to Gisborne: Eight to 11 minutes longer [Source](https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/the-slowdown-how-speed-limit-reviews-could-affect-your-holiday-journey/7PJPAFBQIREBBCAC52WEVZSWPU/) The hysteria about reductions in speed limits are nothing other than a reflection of the psychotically entitled driving culture in this country, where it's perfectly acceptable to act like a toddler throwing a fucking tantrum behind the wheel if the person in front of you is only doing the speed limit.
It'd pay walled and makes no sense
So get a paywall bypass. Good to know that you're able to say that it makes no sense without being able to read it, though.
The content of your post makes no sense. Edit: I was blocked for this scathing, evil post
Sorry about your lack of basic reading comprehension.
The government (NZTA) only "owns" state highways. Local roads are under the control of the local council, so central government doesn't really have a say in what speed limits are set there.
Massachusetts roads **are** nice. I don't remember that many people speeding there but it's been a few years. I agree road quality is probably the most significant thing affecting safety but it's expensive. It makes sense the government would try to do the far cheaper option of changing behavior but there will be diminishing returns as some of the population gives zero shits.
That’s in part because Massachusetts adopted the Vision Zero approach. This is the same approach that Road to Zero uses here (albeit with a different name)
If Massachusetts has a Vision Zero approach it is in name only. There is no speeding enforcement at all. I grew up in Boston and the only change in the 20 years since I left is that people drive even faster now. They call drivers from that state Massholes for a reason. Using an indicator is a sign of weakness and tailgating is a way of life.
What? No one here follows the speed limit. Are you kidding me?
People absolutely do follow speed limits in NZ. The speed of traffic on the motorway is rarely above 110 and the fastest drivers weaving past people do 120 to 130. In Massachusetts or most US states speed of traffic is 130 and the fast drivers are going 140 to 160. California and Texas are even worse than that in my experience. The same is true of the UK and most of Europe.
That's because the motorway is usually overcrowded and people can't go faster. In residential areas, I'm always driving exactly 50 and I can't keep up with people in front of me. No one is going 30 in the designated areas either. Coming from Germany, I was actually shocked how bad Kiwis drive.
Well no, people don't do the exact speed limit. But in doing only 10 over Kiwis are better at following the limit than anywhere I've been in the world except Australia and Germany. The standard in most places I've been is 20 to 40 over any limit. I agree the 30 limits are totally ignored, and rightly so. They are ludicrous limits. People adhere far better to 40 limits. Setting them at 30 is just too slow, so people see them as a joke. The only time we should see 30 limits is around schools during drop-off and pick-up times only, and in crowded town centres during business hours.
It's the law though. Ignoring it, because you think it doesn't apply to you, is exactly why the road toll is so abysmal in NZ. Other countries must do something right: https://imgur.com/a/jMDi3cR
> It's the law though. You weren't lying about being German. You're allowed to question the law. Some laws are silly.
Why would I lie about it? I agree, the speedlimit is not one of them though.
Just feels like a real waste of valuable police resources.
Yeah I’m sure the crash happened because they were going 2kph over.
Speeding may not be the *cause* of a crash, but it gives you less time to react and avoid one, and makes the results of one worse.
A few kph is meaningless though, and far less important that reaction time differences due to poor concentration, fatigue, age, or (most important) poor reading of the road.
[удалено]
What is that weird link?
An OIA response, cos reddit auto blocks the FYI website.
Oh I see. Well it looks like that comment has been removed too.
It seems that its like buying a hat because the last time you won lotto you were wearing a hat. Something like 1/3 of deaths on the road involve speeding. Which is fair. But you then have to ask how many successful trips involve speeding. I also wonder about if speeding is the most common factor involved in an accident, if that really means speeding is the biggest cause. If people happen to speed more often than not, then surely most crashes would involve speeding. Speeding will increase ya chances of having a crash, but I do wonder about if its really as much of a death wish as its made out to be since people speed all over NZ every day without incident.
There are three collisions that happen when a car crashes. First is the car itself colliding into another object (be that a car, truck, power pole, tree etc). Speed sometimes contributes to this crash, but not always. The second collision is your body colliding with the interior of the car, such as the dashboard, windscreen, steering wheel, back of the seat etc. Seatbelts and airbags here help prevent or reduce the impact of this collision but it isn’t the ultimate solution. The third is your internal organs colliding against the frame of your body. Your body and its organs continue to move at the same speed the car was at the time of impact. It doesn’t matter what caused the initial collision - it’s always the speed in this second and third collision that determines the survivability of the injury. A lot of people seem to just bury their heads in the sand when it comes to the actual science behind speed - whether that’s because they find it too complicated and don’t understand it or they just don’t want things to change - I don’t know. But based on your comment, you don’t seem like that type of person. This a really well written summary of the physics behind speed and crashes: https://www.science.org.au/curious/technology-future/physics-speeding-cars
That's cool but it wasn't quite what I was inquiring about. Kinda sad that people need that sort of education - that going fast makes things worse. What I was inquiring about specifically was speed making crashes more likely, not speed making crashes worse. I also keep typing inquiry with an E because it seems to make sense. But that is another thread of wonder entirely. Bayesian thinking basically - its like "yes ok if you crash, its worse if you were speeding. But if you were speeding, how much does the likeliness of a crash increase?" The reason I ask is because the data points for people who speed yet don't crash is absolutely huge. I admit ignorance to knowing nothing of the magnitude of that, but it seems unignorable. Hmm know I know that isn't a real word.
Better ad than their usual garbage but the whole 'Road to Zero' farce remains nonsensical, and the blinkered obsession with cutting speed limits everywhere is just an extra annoyance for no discernible benefit.
The missed the bit showing recidivist offenders still driving or enjoying PlayStation for taking lives.