Somehow alive
January 1st, 2010 at 6:31 am by David FarrarStuff reports:
Police are amazed no-one was killed when a car left the road at Rangitata, cleared a creek, rolled eight times, hit a tree and landed on its wheels.
I always wonder how much of our lower road toll is due to advances in car safety, rather than safer driving.
Related posts:
- Road Safety Policies not working
- Reason #46 to change the Government
- The propoganda war continues
- Tourist road crashes
January 1st, 2010 at 7:34 am
Safer cars ? One of the benefits of Nanny state. Along with safe food, health , construction.
Vote:January 1st, 2010 at 8:19 am
An awful lot of the reduction can be attributed to advances in car safety. But you can’t tax or fine that, so the Wombles at Land Transport still carry on with their ill thought out campaigns because to tax/fine us more. The next major thing required to “lower” the road toll is to greatly improve the roads as they have now not kept up with the cars, but improving roads costs money whereas more rules in the name of “Road Safety” generates revenue.
Vote:January 1st, 2010 at 8:49 am
There are still a lot of accidents, and an awful lot of that can be attributed to a lack of advances in driver competence. Campaigns and fines must also make a difference – I’m happy for restrictions to drunken and speeding driving. Car safety technology has just improved to enable stupid people (and their victims) to survive more easily.
Vote:January 1st, 2010 at 9:07 am
Don’t be silly Countess.
Safer cars are as much a part of car companies meeting market demand for safety as it is government standards. Most safety innovations are invented by private car companies or private research labs, not government designers. Airbags, ABS brakes, seatbelts and traction control all came from inventors or car companies. Intelligent car manufacturers decided that keeping their customers alive was a good business strategy long before the state decided on imposing their standards on cheap car makers (I’m thinking mostly of non-Japanese Asian car makers.)
Where the state has been highly successful is providing a neutral assessment of vehicle safety for the public, eg awarding stars for cars that don’t disintegrate on impact so people can work out which car they want to buy based on safety concerns.
Vote:January 1st, 2010 at 9:10 am
Three things have made the most difference. Safer cars, better roads and cell phones. People can now call for help when needed, the injured get medical attention sooner, and live instead of die.
Vote:January 1st, 2010 at 9:46 am
Sigh… another Kiwiblog year kicks off and already we have a surfeit of posts from Pete George telling us all what “he thinks”. This is a debate forum, not True Confessions. Constant expressions of reverence for whatever left wing social engineering policy is under discussion do not cut it.
Here’s a New Years Resolution for you Mr. George- “I will cease smothering Kiwiblog with subjective and pointless crap and try to post only when I have a contribution that brings something real or factual to the debate. This means I will make far less posts than in 2009. (Probably about 95% less).”
Innovative thinking by traffic authorities in some countries has seen them move away from fines and regulations with very positive results. Look it up.
In NZ tho, we just have the usual self serving empire building bureaucrats at work, and mindless information starved leftist drones like Pete George slavishly supporting every draconian infringement on civil liberties they come up with.
Vote:January 1st, 2010 at 10:10 am Vote:
January 1st, 2010 at 10:16 am
Yeah read that Petey
Vote:What restrictions for drunken driving are you happy with given that drunken drivers drive after conviction (s) it seems all too often.
January 1st, 2010 at 10:26 am
He didn’t serve off road to avoid another speeding Helen Clark motorcade?
Vote:Just wondering as the witch has connections down south.
January 1st, 2010 at 10:33 am
I’d better not give an opinion on that Mike, I have been given typical hypocritical anti free speech directives by someone who seems to think they are the blog master, Baiter.
In any case the change in one generation of drink driving attitudes and practices by the majority of people are obvious. It is also obvious that it is impossible to stop everyone from deliberately placing themselves and innocent people at greater risk.
Vote:January 1st, 2010 at 10:42 am
Market demands for car safety. There is no such thing as you can see from tests of Chinese made cars ( not for western consumption)
Virtually every car safety feature is from regulatory requirement.
Speeding motorcades D4J ? Key now requires the airforce to ‘speed’ him back to Wellington, often in helicopters , with a backup
Vote:January 1st, 2010 at 12:44 pm
Countess, you are quite wrong.
In the USA, the law requires a driver and passenger airbag in every car.
Yet if you take a look at any car manufacturer who builds or exports cars to the USA, you will see that many cars have multiple bags for knees, sides, curtains, even rear doors. This is because the market demands safety in cars above and beyond the level that the state insist, and car manufacturers respond accordingly.
Clearly you missed my point above where I referenced the poorer safety record of non Japanese Asian cars, like the Chinese designs, and Malaysian brands like Proton.
Vote:January 1st, 2010 at 2:37 pm
From the muckier side of the MVA, where the A should but dosn’t stand for adverse levels of competence, there have been tremendous strides in recent years in the protection of the occupants of crash vehicles, so long as the occupants give the bags, belts, crumple zones etc a chance to do their jobs.
Vote:However If the MSM description of this crash is accurate he was a very lucky man, as were all the potential innocents he did not hit during the manouvre.