Clive Matthew-Wilson writes at Stuff:
The proposed changes to the vehicle licensing laws are a case in point. According to the Government, most of the changes involve stretching out the period between warrants of fitness (WOFs) from six to 12 months.
Sounds good. The government geeks assured us there would be no safety compromises as a result. Beware of geeks bearing gifts.
No, they never said there would be no compromise. They said the benefits probably do not exceed the costs.
Despite a glowing endorsement of the Government’s plans by the AA (which is the beneficiary of several lucrative government contracts), the best independent research suggests the average motorist will save very little and might lose a lot.
A ridiculous attack on the AA. The AA has battled Governments on many many issues they disagree with. To suggest they are not impartial is a classic attacking the man, not the ball. Add to that the mischaracterisation of what the Government has said, and he is off to a bad start.
A recent independent report by Australia’s Monash University, contradicts many of the claims by the Government and the AA.
The report concluded that extending the WOF period from six to 12 months is likely to increase the road death toll by between 1.3 deaths and 25.6 deaths per year. Monash also predicts injury accidents might increase by between 16 and 325 per year.
Not the selective cherry-picking. He overlooks the actual conclusion from Monash. The report is here.
In terms of the cost-effectiveness of the New Zealand WoF scheme as a whole, we placed the known costs of the scheme to the motorist as one side of the cost-benefit equation and then estimated the necessary benefits to equal these costs, represented by Figure 10. The benefits started to exceed the costs only when the drop in crash rate associated with the scheme reached 12%. This is evidently quite a demandingly high level of injury reduction. It is unlikely from the literature and from the rate of fault detection in the NZ WoF scheme that 12% of crashes can even be considered to be caused by mechanical defects, let alone able to be prevented by periodic inspection and repairs.
So Monash said that six monthly WOF checks are only cost effective if they reduce the crash rate by 12%.
Now recall that mechanical defects are implicated in only 2.5% of vehicle crashes and are the sole cause in only 0.4% and you see that there is no way the six monthly checks reduce the road toll by 12%.
So Monash concluded:
Despite these safety benefits estimated, the costs to the motorist of the 6-monthly inspections over and above the annual inspections were estimated to be considerable. This means that the 6-monthly inspections compared to annual inspections were not considered to be cost-effective.
But Matthew-Wilson said:
The Monash report found: “[changing the period for WOFs from six months to 12 months is] not considered to be cost effective”. In other words, there will be little or no saving from the changes.
That is the exact opposite of what they found. Go read the report for yourself.Tags: Clive Matthew-Wilson, road safety, WOF
Mathew Dearnaley at NZ Herald reports:
Motor industry lobbyists are citing “huge” regional variations in the ages of vehicles on New Zealand roads in their campaign against any loosening of the existing warrant of fitness system.
Although the average age of the national fleet is 13.03 years, Government statistics reveal a wide range from 10.3 years in central Auckland to 16.8 years in Waimate in south Canterbury.
Which is a red herring.
That has prompted the Motor Trade Association, representing repair workshops and service stations, to warn policy-makers to think twice before changing the existing requirement for six-monthly warrants of fitness for any vehicle more than six years old to be allowed to stay on the road.
The MTA own VTNZ whose main source of income is WOF checks. I’m surprise they do not advocate the checks should be weekly.
The warning comes as the Government is expected to choose in the next fortnight from four potential alternatives, such as annual inspections for the first 12 years of a vehicle’s life, as favoured by the Automobile Association and about 70 per cent of its members.
That sounds more reasonable.
Although Australian university researchers believe that could save motorists up to $250 million a year, the MTA warns it could be at the cost of 80 more annual road deaths.
Oh, absolute bullshit.
The road toll last year was 282, so the MTA is claiming the number of road deaths will increase 28% if cars between six and twelve years old are checked annually instead of every six months.
That is strongly disputed by the AA, which says mechanical defects are implicated in only 2.5 per cent of vehicle crashes and are the sole cause of just 0.4 per cent.
So of 282 deaths, around seven are due to mechanical defects in part and one in full.
So in fact the MTA is claiming the number of crashes causing deaths from mechanical defects will increase by over 1000% due to going from six monthly to twelve monthly WOF checks.
I don’t mind industry groups trying to do what is good for their industry. But when they resort to such unadulterated bullshit, and scare-mongering, they do their industry a dis-service. It also means they will have diminished credibility on any other issues going forward.Tags: MTA, road safety, WOF
Wellington road policing manager Inspector Pete Baird said most buses trundled along the Golden Mile at between 13kmh and 17kmh but getting hit by a 12-tonne bus “is like getting hit by a car at 140kmh”.
Is it? Instinctively I’d choose a bus at 17 km/hr over a car at 140 km/hr? I’ve been run over by a bus, but never hit by one, so I can’t judge off experience.
Someone with a better memory of physics want to calculate the force in each case?
Incidentally the article is on lowering the speed limit in the golden mile from 30 km/hr to 20 km/hr, which I’m fine with.Tags: road safety
The Herald reports:
More than half the drivers taken to hospital after causing a crash were found to have drugs in their system, a study has found.
The Ministry of Transport study used blood samples taken from 453 drivers who caused crashes.
Drugs were detected in the systems of 258 drivers, analysis by the Institute of Environmental Science and Research (ESR) found.
Of that group, 156 were found to be on drugs not administered by a medical professional
Ninety people sent to hospital had both cannabis and alcohol in their system.
Yesterday, the Automobile Association renewed its calls for random roadside saliva tests to be used to target drug drivers.
I support this.
The data above indicates a much much higher presence of drugs in drivers who have crashed than in the normal population. Now there are issues around drug testing, as the presence doesn’t mean a current impairment (unlike alcohol). But I have long thought that drugged driving is as big an issue as drunk driving – and we need to reduce the prevalence of both to make our roads safer.Tags: drugs, road safety
The Herald reports:
The Government could scrap the need for a Warrant of Fitness on new cars under changes to the vehicle licensing regime.
New cars would first be checked two years after being sold, followed by inspections at four and six years. Thereafter, they would need a yearly Warrant of Fitness. The current six-monthly WoF on cars over six years old could be moved out to 12 months.
The changes are part of government proposals to lower the annual compliance costs of the WoF, vehicle registrations and the certificate of fitness and transport services licensing systems.
This seems pretty sensible for me. The timing of WOF checks should be based on the probability of there having been faults develop during that period which make the car less safe to drive. I don’t know what the data is, but this should be an evidence based decsion.
Opponents say changes would put people out of work, affecting Vehicle Inspection NZ, Vehicle Testing NZ stations and small garages.
“The neighbourhood corner garage relies on six-monthly WoFs for its bread and butter,” said one man. “Switching to a year on older cars and two years on new ones would force many of the smaller garages to close.”
Sigh. Arguments like this depress me. This is effectively arguing that the reason we require WOF checks, is to create jobs in garages. Well why stop there, let’s require monthly checks and that will be a huge boost for jobs in garages.
Sustainable jobs are those based on their being a legitimate demand for the associated services or goods.Tags: road safety
It is against the law in New Zealand to flash a car’s headlights to warn other motorists of a speed camera, but a Florida court has ruled it is okay.
United States judge Alan Dickey has ruled that using car lights to communicate to other road users is engaging in behaviour protected by the US Constitution.
Superb. I love the First Amendment.
In New Zealand, a motorist is not allowed to flash car lights `dazzling, confusing or distracting other motorists’.
The fine for an offence of this kind is $150.
I think most motorists find that having car lights flashed at them is not dazzling, confusing or distracting. To the contrary it focuses them on ensuring they are driving safely and at a legal speed – so is a good and welcome thing.Tags: road safety
The Herald reports:
Government transport officials are being urged to consider raising the speed limit on some motorway stretches – particularly in Auckland – to 110km/h.
Very sensible. There are some roads on which that speed is entirely safe. There are also some open roads where if you drive over 60 km/hr you are a moron. Not all open roads are the same. Key issues are quality of road, width of road, median barrier, side roads, straightness, pedestrian density etc.
A call by veteran motoring writer Peter Gill to raise the limit from 100km/h along “choice” sections such as the new Hobsonville motorway gained tentative support yesterday from the Automobile Association.
Good. One happy member here.
The important thing was to match speed limits with road types, rather than to continue to widen the range with little apparent consistency.
But Brake chief executive Mary Williams said last night that Mr Gill and other drivers could not cheat basic laws of physics, which meant that “the faster you are going, the less time you have to react to unexpected hazards and the bigger the force of impact”.
No, but you look at what is the possibility of unexpected hazards on a particular road. On Lambton Quay it is very high as people cross over all the time so I support a 30 km/hr limit there. On the Foxton Straits the most likely hazard would be a plane crashing from the RNZAF base, so you can have a higher limit.
“A small increase in speed leads to a much bigger increase in the distance needed to sop, no matter how good your brakes are. We need to build on that, not introduce measures which present a bigger risk to road users.”
Wrong. With that sort of thinking, we would have a nationwide 20 km/hr limit. It is never about just reducing risk. You have to look at the benefits of allowing faster travel, and weigh them up against the risk.
Open road limits
* Australia 100km/h to 130km/h
* UK 113km/h (may rise to 129km/h)
* US 89km/h to 129km/h
* Japan 80km/h to 100km/h
* France 130km/h on motorways (reduced to 110km/h in rain)
* Germany No general limit on autobahns, maximum of 130km/h recommended.
Austria has no limits also. It is a real pleasure driving on their autobahns.Tags: road safety, speed limit
NZ Herald reports:
The six month warrant of fitness check may be a thing of the past under reforms being looked at by the government.
Transport Minister Gerry Brownlee’s thrown up a host of ideas around vehicle licensing reform, with the aim of saving millions in unnecessary costs and times for both households, businesses and the government.
In the spotlight is our inspection system, which he says is one of the most frequent in the OECD.
Under the current system a warrant’s required every six months unless your car is less than five years old – then it’s an annual check.
My car has just moved from annual to six monthly checks and it is a pain. The six months fly past so quickly. I can’t think of anytime when a six month check picks anything up which is urgent and wouldn’t wait for the annual check.
Plus many drivers are having regular service inspections as well as WOF checks.
It seems no other country has WOF checks as often as NZ does.Tags: road safety
Police are “seriously considering” a permanent crackdown on speeding drivers by slashing the 10kmh tolerance they now allow.
The 10kmh tolerance allowed on the top speed limit of 100kmh has been cut to 4kmh over public holidays since 2010. The 4kmh tolerance is now being introduced for the rest of this month.
If the Police do go ahead with this, I expect to see some quality research showing how many crashes occur with drivers driving between 104 and 109 km/hr on open roads.
“We are of the opinion that it’s having a positive effect on the road toll. On that basis, we would be considering it very seriously.
“It will really be an evidence-based decision, it’s about an assessment of whether it saves lives.”
I hope it will be an evidence-based decision, rather than just “we are of the opinion”.
A police spokeswoman said crashes during holiday periods since the change was introduced had fallen 46 per cent.
A meaningless stat by itself, in terms of measuring the impact of the tolerance drop. How much has the crash rate fallen outside the holiday periods? Has the fall been greater during the holiday period? Has the decline in crashes been crashes with speed as a factor?
Automobile Association motoring affairs general manager Mike Noon said: “We’re not convinced that 104kmh poses any significant risk on our best roads.
Thank you Mr AA.
Dog & Lemon Guide editor Clive Matthew-Wilson said the move would unfairly target innocent motorists, while failing to cut the road toll. “It won’t make the slightest difference.”
A high toll over the latest Christmas period showed the lower speeding tolerance did not work, he said. “Heavy policing does not lower the road toll.”
I’m not saying it won’t make any difference. I’m saying the Police have not yet made a case. Mr Matthew-Wilson does have a point that in the most recent holiday period, there was a high toll despite the tolerance drop.
UPDATE: The Police have said the reduction of the tolerance is temporary, and will not become permanent. Good.Tags: road safety
Michelle Duff at Stuff reports:
Dreamy, clammy, drooling or overemotional – the tell-tale signs of a drugged driver have led to hundreds of people being netted since the new laws were introduced.
Figures released to The Dominion Post under the Official Information Act show 514 people appeared sufficiently out of it for police to perform a compulsory impairment test on them since the Land Transport Amendment Act was introduced in November 2009.
Of these, 455 struggled to walk nine steps and turn without wandering off the line – stopping, miscounting the number of steps, not understanding the instructions or having to use their arms for balance.
Under the law, a police officer who suspects a driver of being impaired can require the driver to carry out a compulsory impairment test. This measures co-ordination, physiological reactions and markers for drug impairment such as pupil dilation.
As well as requiring them to walk in a straight line, police must check the driver’s behaviour against a list of possible signs of drug use – including slurred or incoherent speech, dilated pupils, and flushed or clammy skin.
They might also be making jerky movements, drooling, scratching, or appear dreamy or anxious.
A driver who fails must undergo a blood test and can then be charged with driving while impaired, which carries similar penalties to those for drink-driving.
Of the 455 drivers who failed the impairment test since 2009, 429 tested positive for one or more drugs.
I was a long time advocate that the Police should check drivers not just for excess alcohol, but for drugs which impair driving ability. It is good to see that the law change has produced results. Driving while stoned is a very very stupid thing to do, as responses are so slowed.Tags: drugs, road safety
A judge has told a 42-year-old Nelson man with 41 previous driving convictions that it was only a matter of time before he injured or killed somebody.
Norman Mostyn Teece appeared in Nelson District Court for sentencing yesterday by Judge Tony Zohrab on a charge of dangerous driving causing death, and was sentenced to three years in prison. …
Judge Zohrab said a law change last year meant the maximum sentence he could impose had doubled from five to 10 years.
“It’s hard not to be sympathetic to the situation you find yourself in, but the sympathy is dulled or tempered because of your history.”
Teece had received 41 previous driving convictions in the period between 1986 and 2001, and since 2001 had had his driving licence suspended twice.
“You have a terrible prior history. You have placed members of the public in danger again and again.” Judge Zohrab said.
Judge Zohrab is right that it was only a matter of time before he killed someone. I think he is lucky to have got only three years jail. A case for manslaughter could be made, if you take into account his past history.
This got me thinking, is there any way different laws could have prevented this death, or minimised the chance of its happening.
I’d advocate two changes for such recidivist dangerous drivers.
The first is that after a certain number of offences, you face a lifetime ban from driving. I’m not sure how many offences that would be, but certainly less than 41.
I note even now he has only been suspended for five years, of which around half he will be in prison for anyway.
The second change is around penalties for driving while disqualified. We know certainty of being caught and certainty of sentence are deterrents. I would advocate that any driver who has been permanently disqualified from driving (I would hope we have less than 100 in total) is subject to pro-active checking by Police that they are not driving and that if they are caught driving while permanently disqualified they are automatically jailed with say a minimum three month sentence.
If they refuse to drive safely on the roads, then better they are in jail than they are allowed to carry on until they do kill someone, as Norman Teece did.Tags: Norman Teece, road safety
Katie Chapman at Stuff reports:
Concern that people may think new give-way rules were an April Fool’s Day joke led to an eleventh-hour date change – despite plans for a $1.2 million education campaign.
Just hours before Transport Minister Steven Joyce was due to lodge a Cabinet paper outlining the changes to the give-way rule, he questioned the planned April 1 start date, saying people may think it was a joke.
Despite advice that April 1 would be more memorable, the date was changed to March 25.
The rule change includes dropping the give-way-to-the-right rule in favour of giving way to the left.
I have to say I think the Minister called this one right. telling people the give way rules will be changing on April Fools Day would be a risk best avoided.
For us Kiwis, giving way to the right is so ingrained, it will take a while to get used to it. Now all we need is a law change that also allows you to turn left on a red light if it is safe.Tags: road safety
A driver caught doing 127kmh in a 50kmh zone at Wellington’s Moa Pt was having trouble working out the speed his newly bought Mercedes Benz was doing, a court has been told.
Mario Giannoutsos, 42, of Otaki was clocked by police doing 77kmh above the speed limit just after midnight on July 30 while driving along Moa Pt Rd. …
Wellington District Court duty solicitor Barbara Hunt said yesterday that Giannoutsos had only recently bought the car and was having trouble with it, including being unable to work out the speed he was going because the lights on the dashboard were not working. He had been driving to check out what was wrong with the car.
Judge Davidson fined him $600. The maximum he could have been fined was $1000.
Somehow I think he knew the speed, with or without lights. That road is notorious for people trying to set speed records on it.Tags: road safety
Mike Noon from the AA writes in the Herald:
The AA is one of the leading road safety campaigners in New Zealand, we support the use of speed cameras and do not condone speeding. But let’s take a step back for a moment and consider what is the ultimate aim of the cameras? The answer is obviously getting drivers to slow down.
Fixed speed cameras (the ones mounted on permanent poles) are placed in safety black-spots where there has been a history of speed-related crashes. …
The fact that some of these cameras are still issuing thousands of tickets shows the current approach isn’t succeeding and that speeds are not being managed.
Having signs alerting drivers that there is a speed camera area or camera operating ahead will ensure more drivers slow down in these black-spots, and this has to be a good thing.
The other key point in this debate is that the AA is only calling for signs ahead of fixed speed cameras. We support the continued use of mobile cameras without signage, such as vans on the side of the road.
So if a driver chooses to slow down for a signposted fixed camera and then speed back up again, they can be caught by the anytime, anywhere mobile cameras, and of course they can be caught by police officers on patrol. Our call is not about helping drivers to avoid tickets, it’s about getting drivers to slow down and to check their speed, especially in high-risk areas.
Having signs alerting drivers to a fixed speed camera is done in Australia, Britain, and most other countries we compare ourselves to for road safety best practice.
I think the AA makes incredibly valid points, and the Police and Government should reconsider their policy. Otherwise the suspicion will remain that revenue is more important than safety.Tags: AA, road safety, speed cameras
John Weekes at NZ Herald reports:
Police and child welfare authorities are hunting a woman who was spotted breastfeeding and driving at the same time, with three other children in the car.
In a move called “highly dangerous”, the woman attracted attention with her erratic driving at Kamo, near Whangarei.
The Government has banned using a cellphone while driving. Will it also ban breastfeeding while driving?
I have to admit I have no first hand knowledge of how distracting it is to breastfeed while driving a car, but surely it is more dangerous than using a cellphone?
Or maybe the Government should do a compromise, and say it is legal to breastfeed while driving only if you use a hands-free kit.Tags: road safety
It was inevitable, of course. The only real surprise is that it has taken almost three weeks for Labour’s latest attention-grabbing bid to crash and burn.The “Stop asset sales vote Labour” campaign, launched in Auckland on April 4, effectively died of scornful, mocking laughter on Thursday. It should not be lamented, even by the most ardent of Labour supporters.
Except Grant and Trevor who like General Custer keep claiming victory.
So the concept was good. The only parts missing were the skill, finesse and luck.
Whoever came up with the concept of plastering the message on imitation road stop signs should be led away to a disused shed out the back somewhere, put under 24-hour guard and released only after the next general election is over.
Now this is a good way to find out if Labour really think their campaign is a great success. Let’s have the MP or staffer whose idea it was to use imitation road signs put their hand up and identify themselves. If they are not willing to do so, that speaks volume.
Whoever then came up with the idea of selling these signs to the party faithful at $10 a pop should be made to share the shed.
But a desert island, a really remote desert island, should be reserved for the genius who came up with the idea of putting the signs, signs with the same shape and colouring of real road stop signs, along the median strip of a road in the Hutt Valley this week.
That surely would be Trevor.
You’d think that even if someone was a sheep short in the top paddock he or she would realise that slapping big stop signs along a busy road might have caused a few problems for motorists, but no.
Obviously more than one sheep has escaped the paddock.Tags: editorial, Grant Robertson, Labour, road safety, Southland Times, Trevor Mallard
Labour have been so busy printing up their stop asset sales signs, that I wonder if they have bothered to check the law. You can see them all planted here next to the road, in the Hutt.
However, the problem for Labour is that displaying something that looks like a road sign, near a road, is an offence punishable by a $150 instant infringement notice with a potential fine of up to $1000.
So what does the law say?
We have a law called Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004 and Rule 3.2(5)(a) appears most relevant:
3.2(5) A person must not install on a road, or in or on a place visible from a road, a sign, device or object that is not a traffic control device, but that:
(a) may be mistaken for a traffic control device
It is covered again at Rule 13.7
13.7 Responsibilities of all persons
A person must not:
(a) unless that person is a member of the New Zealand Police, or is authorised by a road controlling authority or the [Agency], install, modify, remove or obscure a traffic control device;
(b) damage or otherwise interfere with a traffic control device;
(c) mark or install, or allow to be marked or installed, on a road, or in or on a place that is visible from a road, a sign, device or object that appears to be a traffic control device but is not;
(d) install a traffic control device that bears a logo, monogram, sign of sponsorship, sign indicating an association with a business, or any information other than that specified in this rule;
Also we have the NZTA Trafiic control devices manual. They even use a non authorised stop sign as an example of an illegal sign. Compare their example below with Labour’s signs.
I think it is a pretty clear cut case. So will Labour say the law doesn’t apply to them, or will they change their advertisements?Tags: Labour, road safety
The NZ Herald reports:
One in three road deaths are caused by speeding, young and repeat drunk drivers, according to a new report released by Transport Minister Steven Joyce.
The Ministry of Transport report shows that between 2005 and 2009 642 people were killed in crashes where high-risk drivers were at fault.
The report is well worth reading. There is lots of interesting info in it.
The report defines high-risk drivers as unlicensed and disqualified drivers, those with previous speed and alcohol offences, or those who drive over the legal alcohol limit, evade enforcement or take part in illegal street racing.
Those drivers were at fault in 35 per cent of fatal crashes, the research shows.
It’s good to have some research focusing on the drivers who cause a disproportionate nunber of road deaths. It would have been useful to have them also calculate what percentage of the driving population are “high risk”, so one might then have a figure along the lines of “The 4% of drivers who are high risk cause 35% of fatal crashes”.
I tend to favour road safety measures that target high risk drivers.
The minister also released an addition to the report showing that when at-fault young drivers who were not already classified as high risk were added to high-risk drivers, together they comprised 53 per cent of at-fault drivers in fatal crashes and 48 per cent of at-fault drivers in fatal and serious injury crashes.
Hence the Minister says his priorities are:
- A zero drink drive limit for young drivers and repeat drink drivers
- Raising the driving age
- Tougher licensing tests for new drivers
- Alcohol interlocks for repeat drink drivers
- Doubling the prison penalties for dangerous drivers who cause death.
Sensible targeted measures, which target the drivers who cause the most crashes, rather than targetting those who drive at a BAC of 0.05 to 0.08 – a level at which almost no over 25 year old drivers are involved in fatal crashes.Tags: road safety
Marty Sharpe at the Dom Post reports:
Police are advising drivers to pull over to the side of the road if they feel amorous after a couple rolled their car while attempting a kiss near Wairoa.
Senior sergeant Tony Bates said the couple in their twenties from Hastings were driving south near Nuhaka, north of Wairoa, when the male driver leaned over to kiss his partner yesterday afternoon.
“The car appears to have veered slightly to the left, gone into a grass verge.
“He tried to gently steer out but started fish-tailing.
“He tried to correct but lost it and slid sideways into drain, where the car slid for some distance on its side before hitting a clump of toetoe and rolling, finishing up on its side. By the time help arrived they had righted the car,” Bates said.
The car, a white Hyundai Accent, was probably a write-off, he said.
The male was uninjured but the female received bruises and a possible broken collarbone.
As the Government has banned using a cellphone while driving, will they also ban kissing while driving?
Will the Herald on Sunday launch a campaign calling on drivers to have no more than two kisses while driving?
Will Family First call on kissing while driving to be discouraged, unless they are a married couple?
Will a Labour MP announce their support for no kissing while driving, and then have TV3 reveal they were filmed kissing in a car after the press gallery party?
Will a taxpayer funded lobby group emerge to publish shonky research on the costs to the taxpayer of kissing while driving?Tags: road safety
The Herald reports:
iPod users are being warned by police to be vigilant on the roads after the death of a young woman who was hit by a car while listening to music.
It is believed to be the third case in the past year in which a pedestrian or cyclist listening to an iPod has been distracted and killed.
Well that has killed more people than drivers aged over 25 with a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08.
Clearly the Government needs to ban pedestrians and cyclists from walking/cycling with an iPod.Tags: road safety
The NZ Herald says work can make you better:
For some time, the startling increase in the number of people on sickness and invalids benefits has been as vexing as it is worrying. Have we become a sickly society? Is this the logical consequence of an ageing population? The relentless rise in the number of such beneficiaries – from 1.2 per cent of the working-age group in 1980 to 4.8 per cent today – suggested other factors were at work. Indeed, it is now apparent that a major factor is mental illness. Psychological disorders, led by stress and depression, accounted for the entire increase in sickness benefits and a third of the increase in invalids benefits from 1996 to 2002. This has obvious implications for those charged with getting as many beneficiaries as possible back into the workforce. …
Happily, it has just been highlighted by the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, which, in a position statement, noted that “the evidence is compelling: for most individuals, good work improves general health and wellbeing and reduces psychological stress”. The college points to a recent British review, which found the beneficial effects of work outweighed any risks, with the benefits much greater than the harmful effects of long-term unemployment or prolonged sickness absence.
I’ve had a couple of brief periods of unemployment or under-employment. During those times I did volunteer work so I was still doing something, rather than nothing.
The Press focuses on the proposed Gaza flotilla inquiry:
The Israelis also fear what they see as the stitch-up that the Goldstone inquiry into the assault on Gaza a couple of years ago became. Although it was led by a respected South African former judge, Richard Goldstone, and made some efforts at even-handedness, that inquiry’s findings were quickly unpicked by critics as weighted unfairly towards the Palestinians and ultimately were easily dismissed. One of Palmer’s tasks, if he gets the job, will be to ensure that the inquiry is conducted with a scrupulous regard to impartiality. A properly conducted inquiry might help defuse some of the tension that the raid has generated. It might go some way to averting serious and lasting diplomatic damage that at the moment seems inevitable.
I may not agree with Sir Geoffrey on alcohol reform, but I think he would be a very good choice for this role. NZ is one of the few countries seen pretty much as an honest broker, and a proper inquiry would be very beneficial.
The Dom Post talks road safety:
Last year 10 people died on the roads over Queen’s Birthday Weekend. By late yesterday this year’s toll was one. That is good news, but it is still one too many.
Aroha Ormsby was killed when she was thrown from a car. Her death leaves three young children motherless, and friends and family confronting a personal tragedy that will never be revealed by a study of the bald statistics.
The death of Ms Ormsby – and of the hundreds of other New Zealanders killed each year – is why the police were right to trial a lower tolerance for those who break the speed limit. As long as there are New Zealanders dying on the roads there can be no slackening in the effort to make the roads safer.
The sceptics will point to the atrocious weather over the holiday break, and say that the low toll and lower speeds owe as much to people staying home or slowing down in the rain. That will have played a role but so too will the increased prospect of a ticket.
I certainly think the appalling weather was the major contributor. I also think it is unwise to jump to conclusions based on just two data points.
They should remember that the 100kmh limit is just that – a legal limit. It is not meant to be treated as an infinitely flexible guideline, something that applies unless the road is clear and it’s a sunny day, or unless there is a car that needs overtaking
I hope the editorial writer has never over taken a car by exceeding the limit. Never mind that to overtake a car travelling 90 km/hr means you need a straight road with no cars coming for at least 2,000 metres to do so without exceeding 100 km/hr.
The ODT looks at Labour’s mud and smears:
The Labour Party seems unable to get over the fact that John Key is wealthy, and it has frequently made attempts to imply or demonstrate that he gained his wealth deviously, and continues to do so.
None of these efforts has succeeded.
Helen Clark tried it when she claimed Mr Key personally profited from the 1993 privatisation of Tranz Rail, because he had been a former director of Bankers Trust, which won a contract to advise the then National government on the sale.
At the relevant time, however, Mr Key was nowhere near the sale; he was operating as a foreign exchange dealer.
Ms Clark may have been badly advised, but this did not slow her attempts to muddy the Prime Minister’s credibility, especially in the business and commercial world.
Clark and Labour’s view seem to be if you made your money in business, you must be corrupt – the only honest way to earn money is as a teacher, academic or unionist.
The latest attempt has been made by another senior party figure, the Dunedin North MP, Peter Hodgson, who has tried to show the Prime Minister knows what assets are held in his “blind trust”, implying that a conflict of interest has or can arise where government policy is concerned, to Mr Key’s financial advantage.
That is a serious claim to make where public figures are concerned who hold positions where they can influence policy.
Mr Hodgson’s “evidence” – it hardly justifies the description – has been successful to the extent that Mr Key, in responding, seems to have had some knowledge of one asset in particular.
It is no more than that, however: there is no shred of proof that his knowledge – if he had it – has been used to influence policy to his advantage.
Key’s crime is that three weeks after the blind trust was set up, he referred to owning a vineyard that was now in the blind trust.
That appears to be the end of the latest attempt to impugn the Prime Minister for his wealth, but it is unlikely to be the last.
The ODT has got to the heart of the real crime – that John Key is wealthy. You can just feel the envy and hatred blister as they snidely refer to his holiday home in Hawaii. How dare he have become wealthy.Tags: Dominion Post, editorials, Geoffrey Palmer, Israel, Labour, NZ Herald, ODT, road safety, smears, The Press, welfare
The Dom Post reports:
Speeding motorists used to driving 10kmh over the maximum speed limit will not get away with it this weekend, as police trial a zero tolerance policy to cut road deaths.
Police say New Zealand’s 10 per cent tolerance zone is higher than other countries, and cutting it could help change the attitudes of motorists who claim lives.
How many road deaths are caused by people driving at 56 km/hr in a 50 zone? Or 106 kmhr on a multi-lane motorway?
This is naked revenue gathering, which will see thousands of people fined for driving just over the speed limit, unaware that the tolerance has been lowered.
I supported a lowered tolerance around school buses and crossings. There t makes sense. Hell I tend to slow down to 30 km/hr around a school bus or crossing.
But a blanket lowering of the tolerance is about meeting ticket and/or revenue quotas.
The Automobile Association predicts the move will anger motorists unaware of the change, or driving with inaccurate speedometers.However, as another life was lost on our roads yesterday, national road policing manager Superintendent Paula Rose said police needed new weapons to change driver behaviour. “There can be no excuses. We are killing our people and we want it to stop.”
Bullshit. Road safety policy is a balance between safety and convenience. If the only focus was the road toll, then we would simply have a law requiring all vehicles to be fitted with a device that limits the maximum speed to 30 km/hr.
What I want to hear from the Police is the research they have done to conclude that lowering the threshold (which has been in place for around 30+ years) will be effective.
AA motoring affairs manager Mike Noon agreed that roads had to be made safer, but said the tolerance existed to allow for speedometer error, which could occur when motorists changed their tyres.
Speedometers were not checked during warrant tests and it would be difficult for motorists to measure such small speed differences.
To keep within the zone, they could end up spending more time on the wrong side of the road while passing, so police would need to enforce the change carefully, Mr Noon said.
The Police don’t eve use discretion any more for people passing slow moving traffic, even though it is basically impossible to do it legally. If a vehicle is driving at 90 km/hr, you will need two kms of clear road to safely pass them without exceeding 100 km/hr.
I am dismayed that once again changes are being made to road safety enforcement, that is not backed up by research showing this is a problem area. The Government is going for the easy targets, not the effective ones.
First they banned cellphones in cars, despite the research showing other distractions cause more accidents.
Secondly they seem highly likely to lower the blood alcohol limit from 0.08 to 0.05 despite the research showing only one death from drivers aged over 25 with a blood level between 0.05 and 0.08.
And now they have decided that the real problems out there are the motorists going 5 km/hr hour over the posted speed limit, who must be fined and demerited. Despite the fact I can guarantee you the number of accidents caused by people driving 5 km/hr over the speed limit on straight roads is minimal.
And what is the bet that if these measures don’t work, we will be told then even more measures are needed.Tags: Police, road safety