Examples of Some Road Safety Muppets & Hypocrites

...Content and Information pending/updating...>

Because this website is under ongoing development (as regards an amount of information yet to be published) the way in which we display those who are demonstrated to be hypocrites towards road safety is yet to be finalized. These should be displayed for greatest impact (excuse pun) on behalf of enlightening the general motoring public - regarding the main topic of this site.

See example/s: Donald Aubrey, Spokesperson for NZ. Federated Farmers... ...> Highways Advocates & Safety for Teenage Drivers... see below>(Judith L Stone)


....Hon Ruth Dyson: In 2004 Hon Ruth Dyson (then) Minister for Accident_Compensation_NZ was made fully aware of the gains to road safety that could be achieved by the relatively straight-forward implementation of regulating the ESL functions of late model vehicles.
Her response however was that; "ACC advises me that while the technology suggested will limit the maximum speed of the vehicle, it may not have the same effects on creating positive long-term cultural and behavioural change. I am advised that most speed related crashes occur when drivers are travelling at inappropriate speeds, rather than illegal speeds. ACC believes that the key to reducing speed related crashes is through helping drivers to think about travelling at speeds that are appropriate to the environments and conditions they are driving in, rather than driving to the limit. For example, unsafe driving speeds in bad weather conditions, on difficult roads, or on busy areas may actually be below the speed limited by such technology."
what does the Minister and her department say they are (were) going to do about creating "positive long-term cultural and behavioural change...?" - in the next 12, 24, 48 or whatever months? (and what specifically was meant by "cultural"?)

Was there evidence supporting that this "...cultural and behavioural change..." would save an approximate number of fatalities each year? - as is far more statistically verifiable with top-speed regulation. [I.e. In context with reductions offered by the suggested top-speed/L regulation, there was very little 'behavioural change' exhibited by a young driver, who, in 2008, drove at 150km/h, crashing into and killing the mother of one of Ruth Dyson's political opponents, Aaron Keown.]
The Minister did go on to respond that there were some possible positive effects of utilising such technology; and gave reference to the fact that top speed limiters could contribute to a reduction in the cases of high speed pursuits with police.  Regrettably for more than 20 victims, since that 2004 response, nothing has been done (at time of publishing) regarding using the obvious/ cost effective method/remedy, and thereby reducing the recent upsurge of high speed pursuit related fatalities in New Zealand in 2009-2011.
Perhaps the most indicting hypocrisy regarding this response to top speed limiting, is that in May 2008 the mother, of (then) Waimakariri Political Candidate Aaron Keown, was killed as a direct result of a driver losing control at an estimated speed of 150-160km/h in his EFI engined vehicle. This tragedy happened in Ruth Dyson's OWN home electorate (of Waimakariri,) and exemplifies that had she, or someone with similar political clout, pushed for the regulation of ESL functions on compatible vehicles - or especially those owned by drivers who the transport data-base system had identified as having had two or more speeding offences [as the driver in this incident had] - then the four years (from 2004) to 2008 may have been enough time for the "phase-in" of the regulations.  This may have prevented Vincent Matagi from his reckless speed on that day!
It might also have prevented the NZ taxpayer from needing to spend the $70,000 per-Annum to keep Mr Matagi in prison for two years, and he could thus have continued with his formerly gainful employment - paying tax himself.
See also: Aaron Keown > page three of 'About Us' - and who ought to be next_example on this DRAFT list of road safety hypocrites.

The (2004) dismissal by the Minister is an intriguing appraisal of an available remedy.  On many levels the response is irresponsible and negligent.  For a start, it is using "creating positive long-term cultural & behavioral change" as an excuse not to utilise the (electronic) ability to limit the excessive top speeds of cars. But these are two completely separate subjects each with their own merits. (It's a bit like saying, "Gosh, I'm having a bad hair day; I know what I'll do, I'll brush my teeth tomorrow - possibly.")
One should not be used to deny the other, or to say that one is a better solution than the other. Both could be addressed at the same time.
What's worse though, is that the Minister (re; her advice received) doesn't even know if top-speed regulation will have the same effect on creating positive long-term cultural and behavioural changes or not.  The Minister only thinks that "it may not".  Equally the Minister could have said that "it may," though that would have been just as inaccurate, for ESL regulation would assuredly have an immediate and permanent effect on creating long-term cultural & behavioural change (as opposed to non-binding and capricious advertising).
For example; is it not reasonable to expect that if cars ceased to be marketed with speedometer_scale_values that read to as high as 200km/h, there might/ or would be a long-term behavioural change.  We don't even see this simple "cultural" aspect being addressed.

And yet the advisers to the Minister are using a vague notion on an unrelated subject to deny the known life-saving potential immediately commensurate speed limiter regulation.
In other words, what they are saying, through the Minister for ACC, is allowing people  [many who are completely innocent] to die on the roads in significant numbers (say, at least 50 per-Annum, conservatively?-for NZ roads) because of a preference for a "long-term" strategy of nebulous and subjective aims - with no guarantee of changing anything - over utilising presently available technology with immediate effect.
Further illustrating a negligent and self serving attitude is that these adviser's have fallen over themselves to advocate for the mandatory use of electronic stability control (ESC) which they know forms part of the very same engine computer system that speed limiter functions are embedded in - but they completely neglect to recognise this greater safety feature!  This demonstrates a willingness [or should that be "negligence"] to only use technology where it suits their political purposes.


...Kevin Burgess . . . Further Information is pending regarding that Kevin Burgess, of Auckland, has (apparently) ignored the fact that sensible activation/implementation of EFI embedded speed limiter functions on motorcycles could have prevented the 190km/h pursuit - responsible for the death of his loved-one - choosing instead to make much "bru-haha" about the alleged fault of Police in not calling off the pursu.../..._...  Is this an example of someone attempting to gain relief through some form of "blame complemented" bereavement... . . .  by seeking to direct it at a perceived wrong-doer, instead of looking at the most fundamental remedy _. . . . < www.authority rules_on-police crash probe >... _ _ that could actually stop a similar tragedy happening to another family!   Read also: Minimizing Police Pursuits, />... ...

Royal Australian College Of Surgeons:  " Legislation to protect teenager drivers??". It has not gone unnoticed that the (named) College of Surgeons has been made aware of the trauma reducing benefits to be gained by implementing top-speed ESL regulations. They too however, appear to have displayed a level of anti-social arrogance - by dismissing enquiries as to their 'expected endorsement' for such a straightforward and cost effective health & safety initiative.
This was after (their) Professor Rob Atkinson having commented on nationwide Radio, in New Zealand, May 2007; [Bill Ralston afternoon show] that he considered the driving age was too low - and that by raising it, large improvements to the statistics relating to teenage deaths, could be achieved.   Perhaps this arrogance, in their case, is caused in part by a type of EMBARRASMENT for not having realised that the remedy has been available for many years?

Professor Atkinson also stated that raising the age in NZ would "provide 'vulnerable' teenage drivers with LEGISLATION that would enable them to drive within their limits" - e.g. without the (otherwise) influence of peer-pressure, to drive out-side their limits. 
Q If he is genuinely concerned for road safety however, why would he not totally endorse immediate use of speed limiting LEGISLATION?   As he says himself; "Legislation that would enable young, ego-vulnerable drivers, to be protected from... (themselves, Sic).  Note Perhaps they also need protecting from the failures of people such as Professor Atkinson to lobby for effective remedies, when these are plainly available!
...Further content on this hypocrisy is pending...

Judith Lee Stone, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety...[USA]  is another (supposedly sincere safety advocate?- for minimising excessive speeds?) who has evidently chosen to ignore the initiative available through regulation of ESL top-speeds.  -     "The Crisis of teen crashes" - AFHAAS  also promotes 'Safe_Roads_4_Teens' which reminds us that on average more than 10 teens are KILLED in the USA each day as a result of  road crashes.   Perhaps, Advocates for Highway & Auto Safety could consider lobbying more strongly for safer top-speeds on the cars that teenagers are driving - they may like to liaise with Donald Aubrey of NZFED-Farmers?      > Further content pending...


www.Road Traffic Injury Prevention. . . Has released a "World" Report into prevention strategies etcetera. One heading reads; Road Injury Prevention and Control - The NEW Understanding.  We haven't researched this 'World-Report' yet, but predict there will be very little mention of the large benefits to be gained from regulating vehicle ESL functions to a sensible activation level; e.g. www.The-Social-and-Economic-Costs-of-road-injuries....> / < www.--Australia Calls for 120km/h restriction-- >
Further content regarding 'The World Report on Prevention...' may be pending,,, .


Stop Press!! NZ!...
Car smash deaths could be eliminated!
... so claims The NZ Herald on 19 May 2007!

Quote from above article; "The biggest advance in road safety since the seatbelt would save more than 100 New Zealand lives annually. But few cars coming into the country have this and other lifesaving features".
The article is about electronic stability control (ESC) and is designed to enlighten a (then- 2007) presumably uninformed public about the ability of it to reduce road crashes. It goes on to say that 400 people are dying each year on NZ roads, and 1500 in Australia.  It then states that ANCAP "believes that one third of those deaths could have been avoided if all cars were fitted with a revolutionary driver aid called ...ESC, a computerised system that can keep cars on the road when they would normally spin out."
"ESC, say Mr McIntosh [then chairman of AnCAp, Sic] is the biggest advance in road safety since the seatbelt."
Perhaps a more accurate assessment though, would have been to say that the use of computer chip technology in the mechanics and management "per-se" of motor vehicles, has been the greatest advancement to safety since the seatbelt??

Lauchlan McIntosh also says that, "Still more lives could be saved if all cars were manufactured to maximum safety safety standards."  And, he mentions the gains to had through side and curtain air-bags, and such like.
It is difficult however, to actually believe that he would not be aware (in 2007) that the very same computerised engine management systems that incorporate [more-or-less] the ESC features he is so enthralled with, similarly contain a function that can limit excessive top-speed.  Surely both of these 'features' therefore, could be used in the vehicle at the same time! one complementing the other - though in terms of pure statistical gains in relation to deaths reduced, excessive speed restriction would have the greater (statistical) benefit.
"It'll never happen to me?"- syndrome- re; Two-killed-by-Jag-driven-at-112MPH!! >.

Additional content pending...