Monday, November 4, 2013

IT MIGHT GET CUNLIFFE OF THE FRONT PAGE BUT IS IT GOOD GOVERNMENT.



After the release of the  report from Air Accident inmspectors,  suggesting the high probability that pilot, Lance Hopping was under the influence of Cannabis when he made the seriously poor chain of decisions that left a dozen people dead in a Carterton Paddock, the government announces a crackdown.

No, not on what role Cannabis and other mind altering drugs play in accidents.

The muppets are going to make a change lowering the BAC level to drive a vehicle on the road.

The wowsers have won and another kick in the guts is delivered to rural New Zealand who cannot access crown cars, taxis, buses or shanks pony after a couple of beers on the way home from a hard days work, paying the country's bills.

In spite of very scarce evidence that the bac of 80 mg per 100 ml  will deliver a measurable change in accident stats if lowered to 50mg, nanny state has decided  that'l do for now and dope drivers can just carry on.
They wont introduce random salive testing  for other well documented drugs that impair decision making, as employed in those states who are the inspiration for this further attack on moderate responsible drinking on rural roads with traffic flow measured in movements a day not per minute.
They will pander to the chorus of illinformed wowsers with many options to cope with the change, and take the easy money way forward.

Perhaps this is a dark art ploy to deliver rural votes to the Consevatives, but that would imply a degree of nouse way beyond the easily swayed mps in the parliament.

It does cut the ground from the Palmerston North MP with two names I guess.

Gerry,  we did not need to be reminded you can probably avoid the new low in government decision making because you are a fat bastard.

Already the campaign to reduce the limit to zero is underway.

14 comments:

Edward the Confessor said...

Great move. Research from all the countries who have done this indicates a significant reduction in deaths and injuries will follow. You hate evidence-based decision-making and stuff, but for rational people not blinded by a desire to get pissed and drive this is great. Congratulations Gerry, ignore the weirdo extremists.

Paranormal said...

Yet again the government follow the single interest lobby groups rather than actually addressing the causes of fatalities and injuries on the road. Etc is another example of knee jerk reaction rather than actually doing something about properly addressing the causes of crashes.

The narrow focus on speed and booze to the detriment of other causes of crashes will continue the mayhem on the roads unabated. If we put some real effort into driver training - actually teaching people how to handle vehicles in a range of conditions we would see a huge improvement in our stats. Until then it's business as usual for the para medics.

Tinman said...

GD, I share your disgust at this government action.

James Stephenson said...

I'm guessing that what the research really shows is that there's quite a lot of missed revenue to be gathered from people blowing between .5 and .8 when randomly stopped.

Edward the Confessor said...

"If we put some real effort into driver training - actually teaching people how to handle vehicles in a range of conditions we would see a huge improvement in our stats. "

We would place a massive compliance burden on motorists and increase the number of crashes. Look up any research on this.

As for mayhem, the road toll is at its lowest level for 60 years and lowest in history on a per driver basis thanks to initiatives such as this one, enforcement of speeding limits, better roads and driver behaviour. Damn government!

Paranormal said...

Never thought you'd be a cheer leader for a John Key led National government - well done for seeing the light.

Sadly though etc your shallow analysis ignores the obvious - the death toll is not an indicator of improved driving. It is an indicator of improved vehicle crash performance and the improvement in getting seriously injured individuals into hospital care within the golden hour.

If you want statistics, the crash rate reached a peak in 1987 then magically fell. it rose again to reach previous highs in the late nineties/early 2000's and then dropped again in the late 2000's but is increasing again. The correlation is not with speed and booze campaigns but underlines our deeper driving psyche.

As for speed, analysis of 'speed related' accidents has shown that as high as 70% of crashes occurred under the posted road speed. A signal that speed enforcement is not the single magic bullet the myopic champion. There are issues with driving to the conditions, decision making and vehicle control that are just not taught to our youth and rarely mastered by 'mature' drivers.

30 years experience in improving my clients fleet accident rates has proven that driver training and attitude is the answer.

If you want a deeper understanding of the issue (and risk management in general) I suggest you read Risk by John Adams ISBN-10: 1857280687 | ISBN-13: 978-1857280685

gravedodger said...

Christ you are thick confuser.

The stats now being used by LTSA are "crash" stats and many of them are never reported and therefore avoid the net as the damaged vehicle is privately removed and as there are no injuries to report no police involvement.

As stated by Paranormal vastly improved vehicle design to absorb energy and improved strength of occupant cacoon technology with side impact bars improved seatbelts and airbags have diminished the damage to the people that your outdated stats used to record with depressing emphasis.
You are on track Para but the "golden hour" is now a reduced need due to the trauma abilities of paramedics dispatched immediately to a crash scene assessed to have such requirement.
Fluid supplement, airway management, extraction times and equipment are all so much improved in the 13 years I have been active in the sector that the "crash deaths" are reducing in spite of crash numbers rising with traffic volumes.

One aspect that impedes the inevitable lowering of Death numbers is the growing belief that an attempt to outrun the Authorities will succeed, has exacerbated the death figures with the soft cock inspired preventing of plod doing his duty.
Those nutters crash in spectacular fashion with serious outcomes.

Edward the Confessor said...

"the death toll is not an indicator of improved driving."

Yes it is.

"If you want statistics, the crash rate reached a peak in 1987 then magically fell."

That's not a statistic, it's a falsehood. Road toll peaked in 1973 then started its slow inconsistent descent with the implementation of stricter drink-driving, speed and seatbelt laws.

"then dropped again in the late 2000's but is increasing again..."

Wrong again. It's been dropping steadily since the 1990s and still is.

"30 years experience in improving my clients fleet accident rates has proven that driver training and attitude is the answer."

And finally wrong again. Attitude possibly (ie the societal shift towards not tolerating drink driving), driver training no. Look it up. Massively expensive and counterproductive. A simple Google search will enlighten you. Too lazy or too stupid?

I

Paranormal said...

etc - It's a shame you are incapable of reading. You need to understand 'road toll' is a subset of accident or crash rate. I hope that helps you understand it in your primary school maths.

Too lazy or stupid to get out of your own ideological rut. If that's the best you've got it is abundantly clear you've had no actual involvement in improving driving outcomes. I have for the past 30 years. As mentioned before on this blog - google is not an accurate analysis tool. Actual results speak for themselves. But hey - why would that worry a devout leftard like yourself.

Edward the Confessor said...

"You need to understand 'road toll' is a subset of accident or crash rate."

And you're still wrong. The worst year for both fatalities and injury crashes was 1973 (then they improved with the introduction of seat belt and drink driving laws and other measures). If you can't even get something so simple correct it doesn't say much for your much boasted about 30 years so called experience is whatever it is you think you do.

"google is not an accurate analysis tool."

Um yeah, no it's a "search engine" it provides links to analytical tools and studies that demonstrate the expensive futility of the sorts of advanced driver training courses you think, with no evidence, everyone should be forced into.

"Actual results speak for themselves."

Yep, they do. And your measures are a failure.

Paranormal said...

etc - so you don't even understand primary school level maths. Typical of those that have a political agenda.

Anonymous said...

You waste your time with obsute fool like confessor, Paranormal.They cannot and will not see any point of view other than your own.

As a Civil Engineer with 10 years + experience managing highway networks I am in broad agreement with your earlier comments.

Improved levels of trauma medcine as well as Roading and Automotive engineering improvments have made a real and measureable reductions to the road toll.

EXOCET

Anonymous said...

Sorry that should read 'other than their own'

EXOCET

Edward the Confessor said...

"Improved levels of trauma medcine (sic) as well as Roading (sic) and Automotive (sic) engineering improvments have made a real and measureable reductions to the road toll."

To an extent, moron. As have improved enforcement and better compliance with speeding, seat-belt and drink-driving laws. What doesn't work is what paranormal mysteriously thinks will. He's not across the basic facts and he has no evidence, which is why he's resorting to abuse.