Kiwiblog

Stuff reports:

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.

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.

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.

The Southland Times editorial:

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.

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

http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/traffic-control-devices-manual/docs/draft-tcd-traffic-signs.pdf

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

The Herald supports proposed student loan changes:

Either way, it is clear that the Government, having declined to do away with interest-free student loans, must find ways to reduce the cost of the scheme.

t has to do this, first, because an alarming 41.5 per cent of the Government money placed in tertiary education goes directly to students as loans, allowances and interest subsidies. That is more than double the OECD average. Also, Mr Joyce, like other ministers, must find savings in his portfolio for this year’s Budget. This year he took a first step by proposing that student loans should be conditional on students’ success. That was reasonable, if only because it moved the loans into the same territory as living allowances to students on age, income and residential criteria, which are not available to those who failed more than half their course the previous year. In the same vein, new residents already have to wait two years for a student allowance or a welfare benefit. There seems no reason for student loans to be different, and good reason for them to be aligned. …

If any exception is to be made to the proposed stand-down period for student loans, it should be for refugees. Most, by dint of their status, arrive in this country with virtually nothing. The scheme provides those who wish to study with a degree of independence. Clearly, refugees are not comparable to the new residents who Mr Joyce suggests swoop on student loans as soon as they arrive, whether or not they are committed to their studies or to New Zealand. In effect, signing on for tertiary courses provides them with funding denied them by the two-year benefit stand-down.

I agree that the two year stand down for new migrants should exclude refugees. Refugees are admitted for humanitarian reasons, not economic reasons.

The Dom Post talks terrorism:

Hence, terrorist threats to Olympic and Commonwealth Games are not just an attack on the athletes, or host countries, but an attack on international fellowship – an attempt to stop nations and peoples co-operating and getting to know each other.

The reasons for the weekend bomb blast outside the Chinnaswamy Stadium in Bangalore, venue for an Indian Premier League cricket match, are not yet known, but the amateurish nature of the devices that injured 17 people suggests it may have been the work of disaffected locals rather than al Qaeda, which early this year warned international competitors to stay away from the World Hockey Cup, the IPL tournament and the October Commonwealth Games in New Delhi.

But, whatever the case, Commonwealth governments and sporting associations are doing the right thing by not being panicked.

And the ODT supports safer driving measures:

Something must be done about youth driving.

The statistics are oft-quoted but they bear repeating because they lie at the heart of the Government’s move, among other things, to raise the driving age to 16.

Take comparison with Australia: New Zealand drivers in the 15-19 age group suffer an average of 21 deaths a year for every 100,000 of population, compared with Australia’s rate of 13.

Further, young drivers between the ages of 15 and 24 in this country comprise 16% of all licensed drivers but in 2008 they were involved in around 37% of all fatal crashes and 38% of all serious injury crashes. …

Road crashes in fact are the highest single killer of 15- to 24-year-olds and the leading cause of their permanent injury.

Broadening out the international comparisons, 15- to 17-year-olds in New Zealand have the highest road death rate in the OECD and 18- to 20-year-olds the fourth highest.

The Government’s moves in the area of youth driving are widely supported as long overdue.

The Herald reports:

The minimum legal driving age could yet rise to 17, after the Government moved yesterday to have it raised from from 15 to 16 by the middle of next year.

The Cabinet yesterday approved the rise to 16, which is part of the Government’s 2010-20 Safer Journeys project.

The project also includes encouraging 120 hours of supervised driving for a restricted licence; learner drivers now do about 50 hours.

Young drivers could also face restrictions on how powerful their cars can be, and tougher penalties for breaching restricted licence conditions.

I think the move to 16 is sound, especially as the school leaving age is no longer 15. It also is more consistent with the general regime we have that young NZers get a partial set of rights at 16 (sex, driving, marriage with parental consent etc) and get most of their full rights at 18 (voting, drinking etc).

The 120 hours of supervised driving to get a restricted is sensible also.

The Herald weighs up large trucks on roads:

According to the Ministry of Transport, trucks carrying heavier loads on our roads “will help to improve road safety, while reducing road congestion, operating costs and vehicle emissions”.

The statement is a highly contrary one to critics of the move, who foresee only an increased threat to safety. They are apt to point out that trucks are involved in 16 per cent of all road fatalities despite comprising only 4 per cent of the vehicle fleet.

The MOT rationale is I presume that it is safer to have a fewer number of heavier trucks on the road, than a larger number of lighter trucks.

Allowing trucks to carry loads of up to 53 tonnes – an increase from the present limit of 44 tonnes – from next month can only, they say, make matters worse.

Basic physics supports their view. Heavier trucks will take longer to stop, thereby creating heightened danger for any motorist caught in their path.

That individual truck may be more dangerous, but it does not mean the trucking fleet as a whole will be more dangerous.

But physics are not uppermost in the ministry’s mind when it talks of safety. It hangs its hat on the productivity equation – that a given amount of freight will be carried on fewer trucks.

Safer roads, it says, will be the product of an estimated 20 per cent decrease in the number of trips by trucks, as will be an increase of productivity of between 10 and 20 per cent.

I’d rather have fewer trucks on the road, even if they are heavier.

The Dom Post looks at Auckland Mayors today:

Aucklanders sometimes wonder why the rest of the country rolls its eyes when contemplating shenanigans in the City of Sails.

Sunday newspaper reports about the behaviour of North Shore Mayor Andrew Williams illustrate why. He has been accused of public drunkenness, urinating in a public place and driving the mayoral car after he had been drinking one night. …

The mayor has built for himself a reputation of volatility and irascibility, particularly when his will is crossed. Still, he won’t be North Shore mayor after October.

I suspect many North Shore residents are counting down the days.

Mr Williams says he will run for the super-city but won’t say if he’ll contest the mayoralty – probably the second-most-important political position in the country. If he does, he is unlikely to win. New Zealand might love its iconoclasts, but this job is too important to entrust to someone of his ilk.

Little risk there I would say.

The Press calls for Easter trading reform:

If there is one area of the law which is crying out for a thorough re-examination it is the Easter shop trading restrictions.

Once again over the past long weekend Labour Department inspectors were out and about, attempting to enforce a hotchpotch trading regime which is riddled with inconsistencies. …

Then there is the view that with liberal retailing hours at other times of the year it is not too much to reserve Good Friday and Easter Sunday as, generally, shopping-free days, along with Christmas Day and Anzac Day before 1pm.

Yet loosening the restrictions on Easter Sunday or even Good Friday would not compel New Zealanders to head to the cash register. Those who choose, instead, to spend time with family could still do so.

Provided there are safeguards to ensure that reluctant employees could not be coerced into working, then it is high time that the traditional justifications for trading restrictions be scrutinised to determine whether they remain relevant.

Absoultely. And once the change had been made, everyone will wonder why we didn’t do it years ago – just like weekend shopping.

The ODT focuses on the military:

While the air force’s lack of strike-force capability remains a joke, significant expense and effort has gone towards better equipping the navy and army – only for poor judgements and decision-making to undermine much of the progress. …

HMNZS Canterbury, the multi-role ship in this little fleet, had so many defects that manufacturer BAE Systems paid the Government $84.6 million to repair them.

A scathing independent review last year said the ship’s poor performance in high seas would now just have to be accepted. …

How disappointing that one of the army’s latest purchases did its best to outdo the worst of the navy’s larks.

The army spent $590,000 on bullets that were unfit for use in the army’s guns, and had to resell the ammunition for $350,000.

Not to be outdone in magnitude of waste, the army’s light operational vehicles were 63 months late, cost $37 million more than planned and had a string of difficulties.

Now the Government is looking at selling 35 of the 105 because it believes too many were bought.

It was obvious from the beginning we have too many LAVs.

My personal view is that without a strike capability, there is no reason to maintain the RNZAF as a separate service, and our remaining planes and choppers should be integrated into the Army and Navy.

The Age reports:

In one of the advertisements, a voiceover tells teenagers that every time they use mobile phones and drive, ”gingers get fresh with other gingers”, while showing two redheads in bed.

Another ad says that using a mobile while driving will cause an ”emo” to be born.

They will be the most effective road safety ads of a generation. Warning teenagers their actions could lead to more gingas or emos will be highly effective.

The videos are not set up for embedding, but you can view the emo one here and the ginga one there.

The NZ Herald focuses on the departure of Vanda Vitali:

The trust board was also keen to see the museum throw off austerity and become part of an international trend typified by Te Papa. Part of this was a restructuring that left 46 personnel, many of them senior staff, without jobs.

Amid accusations that this meant core museum displays were being downgraded, the board backed Dr Vitali to the hilt for most of her tenure. Its support began to waver late last year, however, after a series of public relations disasters.

It is questionable who should bear the responsibility for these. Did the board, having appointed Dr Vitali and provided a mandate, fail to give sufficient direction and guidance?

Did it not recognise sufficiently that, as a Canadian, she was operating in an unfamiliar cultural context? Or did the director, like many set on instituting change, not see finesse and heedfulness as part of her job description? …

It must not become fusty and tradition-bound. Dr Vitali’s achievement can be measured by comments lamenting her resignation.

One of the more notable came from Naida Glavish, of the Ngati Whatua Runanga, who said she had brought the museum “back to life”. An initial reservation about Dr Vitali was her sensitivity to the Maori and Pacific exhibitions.

Museums are always seeking a balance. In Auckland’s case, that involves using flair and imagination to attract local people, while also catering for overseas tourists’ major interest, the Polynesian treasures.

Dr Vitali wrought major change in a short time. With a little finesse, the correct balance can be struck.

Is Te Papa still looking for a CEO?

The Dominion Post is unhappy with Israel:

The timing of Israel’s announcement of a new 1600-house Jewish development in East Jerusalem was the equivalent of a one-fingered salute to the United States and to the peace process.

It demonstrates a contempt for the Obama Administration so withering that it diminishes the American ability to broker any deal. The administration had last year demanded a freeze on Jewish settlements, but eventually got only a partial, temporary halt – except in Jerusalem.

Why should the Palestinians pay any heed to what Washington wants, when the Israelis clearly don’t? It will also raise questions even among those sympathetic to Israel whether its current leadership has any intention of reaching a negotiated settlement.

I am a friend and supporter of Israel, but on this issue I agree they are wrong. They really should stop building new settlements. It makes the job of achieving a peace agreement a lot lot harder, for little gain.

The Press focuses on bad driving:

It is the common complaint of many New Zealand motorists. Truck drivers hog the road and, being oblivious to other road users, are responsible for accidents and near misses, both in urban areas and on the open road.

Those who subscribe to this jaundiced view should be taking a hard look at the video footage on The Press’s website. This footage, which was taken from cameras mounted in Canterbury Waste Services (CWS) trucks and which has created great public interest, has graphic images of other road users behaving recklessly and illegally.

It includes video images of one car overtaking a truck and forcing oncoming traffic to take evasive action. Other footage shows motorists not stopping at red lights or compulsory stop signs, failing to adhere to the give-way rule at other intersections, adopting some appalling driving techniques at roundabouts, and skidding due to a failure to drive to the conditions.

Luckily Wellington drivers are better than that

The ODT looks at child abuse in the Catholic Church:

It is hard to believe the senior ranks of the Roman Catholic Church, increasingly under siege in Fortress Vatican, have any real appreciation of the extent of the calamity facing them.

For if they did, surely they, and Pope Benedict XVI, would be cutting a radically different course from that now being offered to a confused, disappointed and sometimes angry congregation.

Prominent among the strategies it has adopted in the face of what is beginning to seem like a perfect storm of recent revelations – of sexual abuse cases and “cover-ups” in Brazil, the United States, Ireland, the Netherlands, Austria, Italy, Germany and, periodically, in this country and Australia – has been the time-honoured tactic of attacking the messenger. …

It just reminds me of the South Park episode where a priest calls on the gathered Cardinals to stop priests having sex with little boys, and the response back is that as they can’t have sex with women, if they stop having sex with little boys, then they’ll get to have no sex at all!

Abstinence is not natural in my opinion!

The Herald calls for PPPs to hasten infrastructure projects:

Finance Minister Bill English calls his National Infrastructure Plan an important step towards better infrastructure management. “Even a small improvement in this area could reap gains worth billions – making our infrastructure dollars go further and ensuring a better return for taxpayers,” he says.

The multibillion-dollar sums sprinkled throughout the plan leave no doubt about the size of the commitment. Equally, the OECD’s view that investment in infrastructure, especially transport and communications, boosts long-term economic output more than other kinds of physical investment emphasises this is a road that must be travelled.

The Government, like its predecessor, does not seem sold on fixing this by adopting the bold option of build, own, operate, transfer (Boot) schemes, even though they have been widely used in Australia. The plan is not specific, talking only of PPPs expanding “the scope for innovation in design, construction and management of new assets”.

But it also pays attention to their potential downsides. These include the “reduced flexibility due to the long-term nature of the contract, and the cost that arises from unanticipated contract variations”. The latter can, of course, be mitigated by precise framing, so the private partner is in no doubt about the risk to itself.

Far more emphasis should have been placed on the advantages of PPPs at a time when, despite the squeeze on its finances, the Government is eyeing spending $8 billion to $9.6 billion on designated roads of national significance over the next decade. These pluses include not only the reduced cost to the Crown but the economic value of private investment decisions if they have to carry a fair share of the risk.

Transmission Gully would be a fine candidate for a PPP.

The Dom Post looks at waterfront democracy:

Democracy can be a messy, expensive and lengthy business, as Wellington City Council is finding as it tries to push ahead with its plans for the waterfront. It also provides the best chance of the public ending up with with something it finds acceptable.

Wellington Mayor Kerry Prendergast’s sense of frustration at the appeals against Variation 11 is palpable. In broad terms, Waterfront Watch and the Historic Places Trust believe the variation, which allows buildings under certain heights to go ahead on part of the waterfront without any public consultation, is not stringent enough, and will mean the loss of transparency in the process. Queens Wharf Holdings, on the other hand, believes the proposed restrictions are too stringent. …

Ms Prendergast hopes a solution can be found through mediation. That, based on past experience, is unlikely. The dispute over the proper role for the waterfront has dragged on too long and the positions are too entrenched to hope with any sense of realism for a negotiated settlement. Instead, it seems inevitable that both sides will remain in their trenches, lobbing legal grenades at each other. That is not ideal, but it is the price paid for having a democracy where everyone can have their say and test their case.

It’s ridicolous that after almost two decades we still have no agreed upon plan implemented for the waterfront.

The Press looks at the proposed driving changes:

Despite clear evidence that younger drivers are over-represented in crash statistics, successive governments had for too long placed the controversial issue of the driving age in the too-hard basket.

Finally the present administration has decided to act by accepting the recommendation in the Safer Journeys discussion document to raise the age to 16. And, in another welcome move, the Government has announced that there will be a zero-alcohol limit for drivers under 20. …

And the ODT also looks at the driving changes:

Fifteen is too young to be out and about on the road in cars.

Once, of course, cars in this country were a relatively expensive commodity, owned only after years of hard work and saving.

It might be surmised that a degree of maturity and good sense would have been inculcated in the individual in that time.

There were no cheap Japanese imports, the banks operated under much stricter lending criteria, and there were no such entities as finance companies as might be recognised today; certainly none especially designed to propel young men and women, barely past puberty, into the ownership of fast cars.

There is a table of probable first actions for the Government’s Safer Journeys Strategy. They are:

Raise driving age to 16.

I support this one, as I have always seen it as linked to the school leaving age.

Make the restricted licence test more difficult to encourage 120 hours of supervised driving practice.

More supervision before you drive solo sounds good to me. However 120 hours may be a bit too high. That means a (probable) parent spending two hours a day week supervising their kid for 60 weeks.

Introduce a zero drink-drive limit for drivers under 20.

I do support this one, and not just because I am over 20. I think it will be beneficial to have a clear message saying if you are under 20 you should never drive if you have been drinking alcohol. The crash statistics show too many young people don’t know when to stop, so a zero limit makes it easier for friends to intervene also.

Investigate vehicle power restrictions for young drivers.

Not so sure about this, but will be interested to see the research.

Address repeat offenders and high level offending through Compulsory alcohol interlocks and a zero drink-drive limit for offenders.

I prefer solutions that target the problem, and don’t hassle or criminalise the vast majority who are not causing a problem, so supportive of these measures for repeat offenders.

Either, lower the drink-drive limit to BAC 0.05 and introduce infringement penalties for offences between 0.05 and 0.08
Or
Establish the level of risk posed by drivers with a BAC between 0.05 – 0.08.

I remain quite opposed to the first option, even though I note they are talking infringement not criminal penalties. Quite simply the 2007 crash statistics show just two drivers killed in car crashes had blood alcohol limits in the .05 to .08 range. I’ve seen some media reports suggesting 20 to 30 lives a year could be saved by such a change.  This is propaganda.

The second looks like a we’ll do it later version of the first option, but one can hope there is an open mind on the issue.  I certainly would like to see some good research on the risk posed by adults with a BAC of 0.05 to 0.08, but also on the prevalence of adults who drive at that level so one can have an idea of how many people a change may affect, and what the benefits will be.

Develop a classification system for the roading network

That would be useful to know which roads are safest and least safe.

Change the give way rules for turning traffic.

This will be a major change, but I think it is overdue.

In an ideal world we would also change to driving on the right hand side of the road, so tourists who come here don’t pose such a danger, and vice-versa for NZers overseas. However the transition costs would be immense.

Stuff 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.

Rural Women New Zealand have alerted me to the strange cast of the Road Safety Trust – an organisation funded by a crown monopoly that declined every grant application it received this year.

This quango is funded out of the sale of personalised plates. According to the 2007/08 annual report it made a $2.2 million  surplus that year. They budgeted $2.33 million of grants and paid out just $150,000. And this year they have approved none it seems.

Radio NZ reports:

The independent trust is funded by a portion of profits from the sale of personalised plates and one of its aims is to hand out money for community safety initiatives.

The trust has been spending money on its own national campaign to reduce driver distraction and has rejected 14 applications from community groups for the year to June because they did not meet its criteria.

Among those rejected were the organisations Rural Women and Safekids.

Rural Women asked for money to create signs to remind drivers of the speed limit when passing school buses.

So we have this quango deciding to fund its own campaigns (which seem to mirror existing NZTA campaigns) and declining every community group’s application as not being innovative enough.

The campaign to remind drivers to slow down passing school buses seems very laudable. According to Rural Women NZ a pilot on SH58 has seen an average speed drop from 90 – 100 km/hr to 20 – 40 km/hr.

The Minister has said he will look into the trust. I think that would be an excellent idea. They are privileged to receive money from a state monopoly – personalised plates. And the purpose of the funding is not to empire build with massive reserves, or running solely their own advertising campaigns. If your criteria are so restrictive that not a single group can manage to qualify, that suggests there is a problem.

UPDATE: A reader has located where some of the money goes. The Road Safety Trust is an “Official Partner of both the Air New Zealand Cup Referees and Heartland Championship Referees for the 2009 season”.

That’s much better than getting cars to slow down for school buses!

UPDATE2:

Now I understand what they mean by restricting funding to innovative campaigns. Because no one has ever thought that you can reduce the road toll by sticking a meaningless slogan on a rugby referee’s shirt, they decided to innovate and try that to see what happens.

While billboards telling people to slow down for school buses doesn’t meet that all important innovation criteria.

This is from South Korea but could happen here:

A woman in South Korea who tried to pass the written exam for a driver’s licence with near-daily attempts since April 2005, has finally succeeded on her 950th try.

The aspiring driver spent more than 5 million won (NZ$5836) in application fees, but until now had failed to score the minimum 60 out of a possible 100 points needed to get behind the wheel for a driving test.

Cha Sa-soon, 68, finally passed the written exam with a score of 60 last week, said Choi Young-chul, a police official at the drivers’ licence agency in Jeonju, 210km south of Seoul.

Police said Cha took the test hundreds of times, but had no specific total. Local media said she took the test 950 times.

Now she must pass a driving test before getting her licence, Choi said.

I’ve always wondered why we have a system that says you are a fit driver for life, if say 30 years ago you managed to pass an exam on your tenth go.

If the Government really wanted to make a difference to road safety, they should force motorists to resit their driving licence every five to ten years.

And maybe have a limit on how often you can sit a test and fail, before you can retry.

From Stuff:

Transport Minister Steven Joyce has made the introduction of drug tests for drivers his “top priority”.

A bill, which would give police the power to stop and make drivers have a roadside test for drug impairment, is before Parliament’s select committee.

Drafted by the previous Labour Government, the bill failed to get through the select committee stage in 2007.

Mr Joyce has now put the bill forward again and believes it will be passed by the middle of the year.

It certainly is a serious problem:

An ESR study between 2004 and 2008 found 52 per cent of drivers that died in accidents were under the influence or alcohol or drugs.

What I don’t know if how any testing will determine if the drug use was recent (ie is currently impairing the driver) or historical. Off memory cannabis can remain in your bloodstream for weeks or longer.

Readers (with kids especially) might want to check out this paper about how the use of booster eats in cars can reduce injuries to kids. This isn’t about infants but kids up until the age of ten years who are too short for seatbelts to best prevent injuries.

This video above shows the problem.