Negligence Issues Involved


Are those who administer the law being wilfully negligent?:

By and large, laws are regularly amended and ‘updated’ in order that they keep pace with developing technologies and/or new sociological trends within the community; that improve the overall safety of our society.  Law-makers are usually very forth-coming with necessary changes to reflect and accommodate these ‘duties’ of care, to the public.

Some examples, from New Zealand, would be the [1987] Fencing of Swimming Pools legislation; the Smoke-Free legislation and the 2002 HSE (re: health & safety in the work/place) legislation, that contains provision for a work vehicle to be deemed a 'place of work'.  All of these illustrating willingness to enact suitable changes where sociological issues or health hazards require and dictate.

The above examples demonstrate 'changes' which were required, from areas of public safety quite distinct from any motor vehicle related issue.

To illustrate some analogically associated amendments to motor vehicle safety – and/or ‘road safety’ legislation – would be to consider the many stages to seat belt law, that have been enacted as seat-belt technology has improved – from the original “diagonal only” (with manual buckles) to the present systems with ‘pre-tenssioners’ etcetera… and the requirement to have all passengers buckled in, not just those in the front seats.

These examples clearly show that authorities and government law-makers have been willing to consider the obvious advantages of the improved technologies; and to pass legislation accordingly.
, with the [clearly obvious] technological advances associated with computer chip activated top speed limitation, they have (clearly) been negligent. There is no debate as to whether the authorities have ‘known about’ the existence of the technology. Therefore, to have not utilised it, for this length of time, surely demonstrates a degree of negligence.

For example, when the issue is compared with the advent of electronic stability control (ESC) authorities have been quite proactive, advocating the improvements to safety that these systems can provide.  They neglect to tell the motoring public however, that the ESC activation software is contained (by and large) in the very same engine computer that (also) contains the speed limiter function . . .
Q; Is there some peculiar double standard towards public safety being practiced in regards this remedy?
See also: article, ESC and Speed Limiting

Eight year old boy crashes?? at 170km/h, killing bystander...??- well obviously this heading is false and intended only to draw attention to the main public safety thrust of the website. However, there have been a number of incidents in New Zealand since 2005 where 13 year old drivers have driven at excessive speeds/or been involved in a police pursuit.
Consequently the question to ask is, "at what age would a driver have no legal resonsibility for being the driver that causes death, through an excessive to speed"?  Would 10 years of age preclude all liability? If so, and the vehicle was doing 170km/h, could the millionair relatives of the dead person lay negligence against vehicle distributor??
Note: Yahoo NZ News, 31 Jan. 2017 reports a 13 year old boy that led Police on a 20 km pursuit from Hamilton to Narawhahia; no injuries this time, LUCKILY!

Paine Report: - the excessive SCALE Value of speedometers-...
In a 1996 (Australian) Research report, PR5/96 - Speed Control Devices for Cars, by Michael Paine - reference is made to possible 'psychological influences' caused by the excessive scale on speedometers.
It states; "The ADR does not restrict the maximum scale value on the speedometer. Most cars have a speedo that reads 180km/h plus. Many popular high-powered cars have a maximum speed potential in excess of 200km/h. When travelling at the maximum legal speed limit in Australia (110km/h) the speedometer in most cars is barely half-way around the scale. This practice adversely affects discrimination of readings in the range of interest (0 - 110km/h). It also gives a false impression about the safe speed capabilities of the vehicle and it must have an adverse affect on drivers' attitudes to speeding (indeed, it is conceivable that a motorist involved in a very high speed crash could commence litigation against a vehicle manufacturer for "false labelling").
This 'quote' from the Paine Report, illustrates some of the anachronistic and contradicting attitudes, to driver attitude improvement, that have prevailed regarding authorities duty to try to prevent excessive speeds.

>>More references/ articles and information pending, regarding speedometer scale issues...

NB: A quite useful and informative article, that provides psychological type insights into many of the issues covered in this web site<
www.Cars and the Six Basic Needs >

Matekohi Morgan crash: (2004)
The case was described by the New Zealand Herald, 03/ 06/ 2006, as the first case of its kind where the driver whose car had not crashed had been sentenced . . .

. . . Relevant association. . .
Justice David Baragwanath
has evidently set some kind of precedent, regarding "guilt by association" when he sentenced, to jail, reckless driver Matekohi Morgan.
Morgan had been the driver of a vehicle that was drag racing another, that subsequently crashed at high speed, killing two of its occupants.  Morgan received 3 1/2 years for manslaughter.
"As the facts of the case show, the hideous death toll on the roads and the increasingly hard line taken by sentencing courts have too often failed to register with young drivers," . . . Justice Baragwanath said.

No doubt the rationale used by this Judge was that the actions of Morgan - by participating in the drag-race - were a clear incidence of a person (who should know better) knowingly "influencing" another (driver) to indulge in a dangerous act.
If this is a correct summation of the rationale used, then it is quite reasonable that similar....
TVNZ article - - or see above, 1996 Research Report by Michael Paine.

Refer also: Intelligent Speed Assistance- Myths & Reality - < >.
It could never happen to you??- see: Two-killed-as-Jag-driven/at-112MP/h...
Further Information Pending
. . .


Aiding & Abetting - the commission of an offence. . .
[A critique on the rationale/s for enforcement of laws against the "aiding and abetting" of an offender - to commit a driving offence:]
It was reported in the Waikato Times 09/ 09/ 2006 that two teenagers, Cindy McFadden, aged 16, and Krystal McCarthy, 15, were travelling with a restricted (licence holder) driver and hence were each fined $400, on the grounds they were 'aiding and abetting' the offence.
This type of offence has been available [evidently] under section 66 of the New Zealand Crimes Act 1961. In the News paper article (then) LTNZ spokesperson Andy Knackstedt says, that evidence would probably be required that the passenger/s knew, or should have known that the driver was unlicensed or breaching the conditions of their licence.

NB: The main rationale for why laws have been formulated governing the actions of teenage drivers in this regard, is the direct association with a past and present history of "these drivers" involving themselves in serious trauma crashes.  Many of these crashes stemming directly from the use of excessive speed.
Question:  If authorities can justify the fining of 15 and 16 year old passengers - who may not even have a licence themselves - for, in essence, being "party to facilitating the commission of an offence" then on the basis of a similar rationale [prior knowledge] concerning public safety, . . . .

Refer also; above paragraph "1996 Paine Report-..."

.... Further indicting the double standards, towards public safety, espoused above, is that in a 2004 News Paper article on improvements and refinements to seat belt technology, (then) New Zealand Land Transport Safety Director, David Wright, stated that '...when this type of technology exists, and is widely available, motorists [Sic] deserve to have the benefits from them.'   [We suggest that given the number of avoidable fatalities, since ESL regulation could have been 'phased-in' - such as 2003 - the application of a widely available remedies/s seems to be on a self-interest type basis for some road safety advocates . . .
Refer also:
"electronic immobiliser regulations to combat ram-raids..."

The USA (legal fraternity) and top-speed limiting: Though the USA has a history of.... -action... ... and litigation- relating to... 'losses suffered'...- they don't appear to have seen the potential for . . . .similar actions - - ... in relation to the damages and losses from cars travelling at unnecessary/excessive speeds...
This is possibly because - and notwithstanding their citizens being among the most amicable and sociable individuals on a world scale - they are not renown for possessing great intuition nor using it wisely.  Indeed, they completely misjudged the value of their associated intelligence prior to Pearl Harbor.  They would not have gotten the Manhattan Project of the ground as early as they did without the help of physicist Lord Rutherford, of New Zealand [where this website originates] - and the rocket systems used for the Apollo missions were developed directly as a result of requisitioning the skills of scientists from Germany and other European countries.  Nationalistic Frivolity aside however, could there be a general lack of intuition, for an ISSUE that is quite "obvious" - meaning their erstwhile negligence lawyers may need prompting, from outside parties. . . in order to realise the potential...  . . . vis-a-vis the damages/suits impied above... (additional content to be up-loaded...) . . .

...Most Product Safety legislation, nowadays, is worded to include provisions of responsibility - that a retailer must take all reasonable steps or practicable steps... .

Rental Car Companies...
It was reported in a New Zealand news paper (Southland Times) 07/ 01/ 2010 <re; Amy Milne-- > that tourists [presumably in rental vehicles] have been caught speeding at more that 140km/h on southern roads... .  Southland Highway supervisor Sergeant Geofff Sutherland (at the time) contacted The Southland Times asking it to help warn tourists to slow down.
Mr Sutherland stated Police had issued more than 548 tickets to drivers between boxing day and Monday. 'Most were for speeding offences and issued to tourists. . .' . One officer had caught three tourists in a four-hour period... all were travelling in excess of 139km/h. One had been caught at 150km/h.
Question; do these excessive speeds, by unwitting "tourists" on foreign roads, suggest a need for rental car companies to become conscious of the aspects relating to negligence - as implied above . . .?

....206km/h OK then?_ < www.p-plate/driver-clocked@206... > on a public road?

....What about 190km/h on rural road near Auckland?? < ...www.Teenager-killed-in/high-speed... > Could the fact the vehicle in this needless fatality was able to attain such enormous velocity, be a straightforward product safety matter. . .?

Teenage driver from deadly joyride named: NZ. Newspapers report, 07 Feb 2007, that Pehi Tahana, aged 14! of Rotorua, died after the stolen holden Commodore he was driving slammed into an oncomming van... One of Tahana's passengers, a 15 year old girl, is in Waikato Hospital with a broken leg. Q; if this driver had been 12years old what/which areas of culpability would he then face - for stealing a car and causing it to reach 150km/h through a 10 second press of the accelerator.

Key Priorities??- from the New Zealand Land Transport Authority, 2003:
From the website of the above Authority [in 2003] under the heading "Key Priorities- SPEED" the following facts are bulleted:
Excessive speed contributed to 23% of all fatal crashes and 19% of serious injury crashes in 2000.

. The faster you drive a vehicle, the less control you have, the less time you have to react to situations and less time for other to react to you. Consequently, the faster you drive the more likely you are to crash and the faster you crash, the more likely you are to die.
. 50% of of speed related crashes occur on the open road.
. Modern cars are designed to absorb some of the impact in a crash, but at higher and higher speeds the human body  has  to absorb more of the impact forces.


... further general content on associated negligence is pending...