Tuesday October 16, 2012

Government Hiding Data Over Road Deaths – Experts

Proposed changes to the Warrant of Fitness system could result in over 80 preventable road deaths per year, said a panel of experts at a press conference in Auckland today.

The expert panel – led by veteran road safety campaigner Clive Matthew-Wilson – says officials have deliberately underestimated the number of probable deaths and injuries that could result from the changes.

“Transport officials say increasing the time between WoF checks from 6 months to 12 months will cause only a few extra deaths per year. However, the government appears to have deliberately ignored research that completely contradicts this view.”

According to the government, vehicle safety problems detected during Warrant of Fitness inspections contribute to about 2.5 per cent of all fatal and injury crashes. However, German research suggests that 10% of vehicle accidents are caused or strongly affected by defects in the vehicle. Monash University in Australia, suggests the figure is actually 24%.[1]

Australian vehicle accident expert Chris Coxon, who co-founded Australia’s ANCAP crash test program, is deeply concerned at the standard of the research behind the changes to the WOF regulations.

“The New Zealand government scientists appear to have deliberately excluded research that didn’t support the government position. That’s not science. No scientist should ever exclude data merely because it doesn’t support his case.”

Coxon, who has spent decades as a road safety advisor to the New Zealand government, adds:

“I don’t know whose figures are correct. However, where human lives are concerned, it pays to be very cautious, I think the New Zealand government needs to go back to square one and research this issue properly before proceeding with the planned WOF changes.”

Government scientists acknowledge that the WOF changes will lead to an increase in road deaths, but suggest that the numbers will be quite low: between 0.7 and 33.6 extra fatalities per year. [2]

However, if the Monash University figure is correct, then the actual road deaths that result from the WOF changes could be many times higher: up to 80 extra deaths per year. [3]

Racing driver and road safety educator, Greg Murphy, says vehicle defects are far more important than many people realise.

“The quality of tyres, brakes and your suspension can mean the difference between life and death on a racetrack – and they’re just as important on the roads we use every day.”

“New Zealand has old cars and really rough roads. For about three quarters of Kiwis whose cars are over six years old, a WoF check twice a year is how they know their cars are safe.”

Alan Parker, who manages a testing station in the working-class district of Glen Innes in Auckland, says:

“No one who has inspected cars for a living can support extending the period between WOF inspections. I promise you, in my district, many vehicles have significant safety issues even after six months. The thought of extending the period between WOFs to 12 months horrifies me.”

“Don't be fooled that a longer inspection period means you'll save money. If I'm issuing a WOF that has to last twelve months, I’ll be much more cautious and there'll be no more warnings about slightly worn items. This is going to be expensive for anyone with an older car.”

“In a working-class district like mine, I suspect that a tougher WOF inspection will simply mean more people drop out of the system and drive around without any WoF at all."

Matthew-Wilson, who edits the car review website dogandlemon.com, is also alarmed that the economics of the WoF changes haven’t been properly costed.

“The government is now saying that they’ll make up for the loss of safety with more police roadside inspections. To be effective, roadside inspections would need to be frequent and widespread. The costs for this would probably be in the tens of millions, yet the government is telling us that the WOF changes will save money. We’ve seen no budgets or plans for how these police roadside inspections will work, and the government hasn’t told us what other police duties will suffer as a result of increased police roadside inspections of vehicles.”

“Policemen aren’t mechanics; the average policeman can’t detect whether the airbag warning light has been disconnected or if the directional tyre tread is appropriately positioned. Those judgement calls are the work of trained WOF technicians at government-approved testing stations. That’s where the safety assessments should be done, not by a policeman at the side of the road.”

Matthew-Wilson adds:

“The ultimate irony about these changes to the WOF system is that most people are perfectly comfortable with the system as it is.”

---

[1] (see the government estimates at the end of this release)

[2] (see the government estimates at the end of this release)

[3] (Government studies suggest that, if 10% of vehicle accidents are defect-related, then the changes to the WOF regulations would result in 33.6% more deaths per year. As far as we are aware, the Ministry of Transport has not done an estimate of the number of extra deaths that might occur if the Monash figure (24%) is accurate. However, if we take the MOT’s estimates based on the assumption that 10% of accidents are defect-related, then multiply this by 2.4, to bring the 10% figure in line with the Monash estimates, the figure becomes 80.6 extra road deaths per year.)

Below are the actual government figures on the probable outcomes of changing the WoF system.

Defect Rate Sensitivity Analysis

The underlying assumption in the Ministry of Transport’s calculations is that only 2.5% of injury car accidents have a link to vehicle defects. Internationally, there is a lot of debate about this figure. The MoT has chosen particularly optimistic assumptions, especially when compared to the international studies quoted below and their figures.

Percentage of all crashes with vehicle defects that played a contributory role

Percentage of all (injury) crashes with vehicle defects that played a significant causal role

The two tables below show the death and injury rate estimated in the Vehicle Licensing Reform Options Paper and what those figures would look like using the assumptions from other countries that we often compare ourselves with. Those countries also normally have better roads and newer cars.

Click for big version.

Some of the Ministry of Transport's own statistics and research about road safety in New Zealand

At an average age of 12.7 years in 2010, New Zealand has one of the oldest light vehicle fleets in the developed world. As acknowledged by the MoT,

“Vehicle age is important as it is a proxy for a range of vehicle attributes, but especially the safety technology and the vehicle’s level of harmful vehicle emissions such as carbon monoxide and fine particles. It is reasonable to assume that an older fleet will be less safe and have higher harmful emissions than a younger fleet. The importance of age was recognized in the 2010 Safer Journeys strategy which recommended a target of an average age of ten years for the light vehicle fleet, which is comparable to Australia.”
Ministry of Transport Sector Report – Aging of the light vehicle fleet – May 2011

This difference in fleet age makes it difficult to compare New Zealand with Australia and other developed countries in terms of the contribution of vehicle defects to crashes. Also, as stated in the 2010 Safer Roads strategy:

“New Zealand’s roads are not as safe as those in other countries. Our road network is comparatively long, with much of it built when we had fewer vehicles travelling at lower speeds. Our geography is challenging, and our population base is small. This means it is difficult to spend the same amount per kilometre of road as the best-performing countries”.
Ministry of Transport- Safer Journeys and the Safe System – the Governments
strategy to guide improvements in road safety over the period 2010-2020

There is also considerable room for improvement in overall driving standards. For example, and again quoting the 2010 Safer Roads strategy:

“Our young people have lower levels of safety compared with their peers in other developed countries. For example, young Australians have a road fatality rate of 13 per 100,000 population, while young New Zealanders have a fatality rate of 21 per 100,000 population. If New Zealand had the same road fatality rate for 15 to 24 year olds as Australia, then in 2009, 25 lives would have been saved.”
Ministry of Transport- Safer Journeys and the Safe System – the Governments
strategy to guide improvements in road safety over the period 2010-2020

There is a general acknowledgement in the various studies and reviews that available data under-reports the contribution of vehicle defects to car accidents. Further, according to Motor Vehicle Crashes in New Zealand 2010:

“comprehensive hospital-based surveys indicate that only about two thirds of such injury crashes are reported to the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA).”

ENDS

© Scoop Media