Arguments for and against the 4 km/hr cap

[shrub]

Our beloved masters are crowing with delight over the record low road toll for Liz's birthday weekend, and the correlation of this with their 4 kmh cap has led them to attribute this incredibly smart, innovative and effective approach to road safety (me, sarcastic?) with the low road toll, so I was expecting to see An Announcement from the lovely Paula soon enough to advise us that 10 kmh had gone.

But maybe not, just as Our Beloved Masters will argue for their reduced cap, a compelling argument against it has emerged. Using the blunt instrument of correlation, I have identified the following arguments against it:
1. The post-weekend road toll is significantly higher than normal
2. Over Queens birthday weekend record rainfall fell in many areas around NZ resulting in devastating flooding
3. An Indian taxi driver's wife and daughter were murdered

So, using the statistical tool of correlation (please do not use the spurious word in this thread) we can say that there is a direct correlation between post-weekend death toll, flooding and the murder rate amongst Indian taxi driver's families and a 4 kmh cap. Therefore we are faced with some questions: do we lower the cap and lower road toll but face a possibility of flooding, people getting killed on Tuesdays and the deaths of taxi driver's families?

Do we recognise that maybe there was a limited causal relationship between the cap and road toll, and that maybe the real cause was paranoia among car drivers and more visible cops combined with a crap weekend meaning more people stayed home?

Or do we take road safety seriously and reintroduce the system of having a man with a red flag walking in front of cars, and along the way stop scaring horses?

[yungatart]

If TPTB were to introduce a 4 kph tolerance, I would hope that they would drop the differing speed limits, so that all trucks, vehicles towing trailers etc would also be able to do 100 kph.
In the US, it is those states that have speed differentials between classes of vehicles that have the highest accident rates.

[JR1]

what about men with yellow flags on all the corners.

[slofox]

Our beloved masters are crowing with delight over the record low road toll for Liz's birthday weekend, and the correlation of this with their 4 kmh cap has led them to attribute this incredibly smart, innovative and effective approach to road safety (me, sarcastic?) with the low road toll, so I was expecting to see An Announcement from the lovely Paula soon enough to advise us that 10 kmh had gone.

But maybe not, just as Our Beloved Masters will argue for their reduced cap, a compelling argument against it has emerged. Using the blunt instrument of correlation, I have identified the following arguments against it:
1. The post-weekend road toll is significantly higher than normal
2. Over Queens birthday weekend record rainfall fell in many areas around NZ resulting in devastating flooding
3. An Indian taxi driver's wife and daughter were murdered

So, using the statistical tool of correlation (please do not use the spurious word in this thread) we can say that there is a direct correlation between post-weekend death toll, flooding and the murder rate amongst Indian taxi driver's families and a 4 kmh cap. Therefore we are faced with some questions: do we lower the cap and lower road toll but face a possibility of flooding, people getting killed on Tuesdays and the deaths of taxi driver's families?

Do we recognise that maybe there was a limited causal relationship between the cap and road toll, and that maybe the real cause was paranoia among car drivers and more visible cops combined with a crap weekend meaning more people stayed home?

Or do we take road safety seriously and reintroduce the system of having a man with a red flag walking in front of cars, and along the way stop scaring horses?

Temporal contiguity does not, of necessity, imply causality...:whistle:

[MarkH]

Or do we take road safety seriously and reintroduce the system of having a man with a red flag walking in front of cars, and along the way stop scaring horses?

That's just stupid - get a grip on modern times! We can just mandate that all cars should be speed limited to 6kph (fast walking pace) and the death rate will drop drastically. This saves having to hire the man with the flag and since there aren't many horses on the road he isn't really needed. 6kph will save lives! Speed kills!

[shrub]

That's just stupid - get a grip on modern times! We can just mandate that all cars should be speed limited to 6kph (fast walking pace) and the death rate will drop drastically. This saves having to hire the man with the flag and since there aren't many horses on the road he isn't really needed. 6kph will save lives! Speed kills!

But I like the idea of the man with the red flag and it would create more jobs than the cycleway. And as you suggest by getting with the times we could have women with red flags, imagine the streets filled with beautiful young women walking around carrying red flags - hell, I might even start enjoying driving the cage if I got to follow a pretty girl all day.

And bikes are kind of iron horses, and cars do scare us so it's gotta be the best traffic safety solution ever. I'm going to write to Paula Rose.

[shrub]

Temporal contiguity does not, of necessity, imply causality...:whistle:

Oh yeah, that's right. But don't tell Our Beloved Masters.

[beyond]

I can see the advantage of having scantily clad loverlies creeping around in front of my vehicle with a red flag. BUT... perchance the road toll might increase as a result and then the scantily clad loverlies with red flags will be ticketed?

[cowpoos]

Our beloved masters are crowing with delight over the record low road toll for Liz's birthday weekend, and the correlation of this with their 4 kmh cap has led them to attribute this incredibly smart, innovative and effective approach to road safety (me, sarcastic?) with the low road toll, so I was expecting to see An Announcement from the lovely Paula soon enough to advise us that 10 kmh had gone.

But maybe not, just as Our Beloved Masters will argue for their reduced cap, a compelling argument against it has emerged. Using the blunt instrument of correlation, I have identified the following arguments against it:
1. The post-weekend road toll is significantly higher than normal
2. Over Queens birthday weekend record rainfall fell in many areas around NZ resulting in devastating flooding
3. An Indian taxi driver's wife and daughter were murdered

So, using the statistical tool of correlation (please do not use the spurious word in this thread) we can say that there is a direct correlation between post-weekend death toll, flooding and the murder rate amongst Indian taxi driver's families and a 4 kmh cap. Therefore we are faced with some questions: do we lower the cap and lower road toll but face a possibility of flooding, people getting killed on Tuesdays and the deaths of taxi driver's families?

Do we recognise that maybe there was a limited causal relationship between the cap and road toll, and that maybe the real cause was paranoia among car drivers and more visible cops combined with a crap weekend meaning more people stayed home?

Or do we take road safety seriously and reintroduce the system of having a man with a red flag walking in front of cars, and along the way stop scaring horses?

Meh....police got lucky this weekend...they're full of shit...if they are willing to take credit for the low road toll...they will be taking responsibility for high road toll weekend??? thats how it works!!

But besides that...4 kmph over the limit gets a ticket....fair enough...you are actually speeding...law says 100kmph. I can drive easily below that...so if your going to complain you can't..maybe you shouldn't have a license...because really your incompetent!!

[AllanB]

Cowpoos is correct - at the end of the day 4 kms OVER the limit is still over the limit so you are speeding. Period.


Back to the weekends low toll - I predict they will not make it standard but drag it out every public holiday weekend.

Even if they go back to the previous 8% error (I think) you can probably get pinged for doing 106 as it is the same equipment used to detect the speed whether it reads 104 or 106.

[shrub]

Meh....police got lucky this weekend...they're full of shit...if they are willing to take credit for the low road toll...they will be taking responsibility for high road toll weekend??? thats how it works!!

But besides that...4 kmph over the limit gets a ticket....fair enough...you are actually speeding...law says 100kmph. I can drive easily below that...so if your going to complain you can't..maybe you shouldn't have a license...because really your incompetent!!

I see. So criticising the motives and rationale of Our Beloved Masters reflects on my ability as a motorcycle rider? Interesting logic. I also think that the current government is weak and the last one was devious and manipulative - does that make me a really good pianist?

[Kickaha]

I see. So criticising the motives and rationale of Our Beloved Masters reflects on my ability as a motorcycle rider?

Can you point out where he actually says that?

[shrub]

Can you point out where he actually says that?

Yes. "if your going to complain you can't..maybe you shouldn't have a license...because really your incompetent!!"

[JimO]

drove from Dn to chch to and back over the weekend most people on the road were traveling at 90, except for passing lanes then it was 105, i set the cc on 105 and passed where i could only saw 3 cops all weekend

[chasio]

Pfft, fucking amateurs.

I think you'll find that the road toll was lower last weekend because I ate loads of grated beetroot on Saturday and shat crimson on Sunday, actually.

I think I'll do it every holiday weekend, just to prove how effective it is. You can all can thank me later.

[grusomhat]

drove from Dn to chch to and back over the weekend most people on the road were traveling at 90, except for passing lanes then it was 105, i set the cc on 105 and passed where i could only saw 3 cops all weekend

Wow. I picked up three seperate cops between Ashburton and Christchurch. All had their radar blarring 3km down the road which was quite nice :)

[cowpoos]

I see. So criticising the motives and rationale of Our Beloved Masters reflects on my ability as a motorcycle rider? Interesting logic. I also think that the current government is weak and the last one was devious and manipulative - does that make me a really good pianist?

Your like a irrational woman...your making an argument over nothing at all...lol

Seriously shrub...don't try and read into something I write...the meaning is on the surface only!

[Kickaha]

Yes. "if your going to complain you can't..maybe you shouldn't have a license...because really your incompetent!!"

I think it's a bit of a stretch to infer he was calling you incompetent because you criticised our "Beloved masters", he was talking about if you're not capable of sticking to the leagal limit nothing more

[shrub]

Your like a irrational woman...your making an argument over nothing at all...lol!

I see. So taking the piss out of what you said makes me "like a irrational woman".

[Jizah]

Interesting conclusion. It means the people traveling at speeds between 104 and 110km/h are the people who are having the accidents. These are the people who were specifically targeted and the road toll subsequently dropped. There was no change of policing for the speeders doing 110+km/h.

[Kickaha]

I see. So taking the piss out of what you said makes me "like a irrational woman".

You'd have to shop at the plus sized womens shops though :bleh:

[shrub]

I think it's a bit of a stretch to infer he was calling you incompetent because you criticised our "Beloved masters", he was talking about if you're not capable of sticking to the leagal limit nothing more

In context: I was criticising the government spin that was likely to credit the low road toll with lowering the tolerance on speed. He then said "f your going to complain you can't" which suggests that I'm not allowed to complain for some reason, then he added "maybe you shouldn't have a license", which I assume meant that if I complained I shouldn't have a license and finally he qualified it with "because really your incompetent!!". If we follow his statements sequentially complaining means I am an incompetent rider. Despite the fact that he has no idea who I am or how skilled a rider I am (or am not) he feels he is able to judge my motorcycle riding skill based on my daring to criticise our beloved government. This place never fails to amuse and amaze me.

[shrub]

You'd have to shop at the plus sized womens shops though :bleh:

or the tent shops.

[breakaway]

Interesting conclusion. It means the people traveling at speeds between 104 and 110km/h are the people who are having the accidents. These are the people who were specifically targeted and the road toll subsequently dropped. There was no change of policing for the speeders doing 110+km/h.

Yeah. This is why I cruise at 120 km/h.

[cowpoos]

In context: I was criticising the government spin that was likely to credit the low road toll with lowering the tolerance on speed. He then said "f your going to complain you can't" which suggests that I'm not allowed to complain for some reason, then he added "maybe you shouldn't have a license", which I assume meant that if I complained I shouldn't have a license and finally he qualified it with "because really your incompetent!!". If we follow his statements sequentially complaining means I am an incompetent rider. Despite the fact that he has no idea who I am or how skilled a rider I am (or am not) he feels he is able to judge my motorcycle riding skill based on my daring to criticise our beloved government. This place never fails to amuse and amaze me.

If you can't ride at a constant speed...your are incompetent. do you agree or not?

I also addressed police/government spin in my opening lines....

[cowpoos]

In context: I was criticising the government spin that was likely to credit the low road toll with lowering the tolerance on speed. He then said "f your going to complain you can't" which suggests that I'm not allowed to complain for some reason, then he added "maybe you shouldn't have a license", which I assume meant that if I complained I shouldn't have a license and finally he qualified it with "because really your incompetent!!". If we follow his statements sequentially complaining means I am an incompetent rider. Despite the fact that he has no idea who I am or how skilled a rider I am (or am not) he feels he is able to judge my motorcycle riding skill based on my daring to criticise our beloved government. This place never fails to amuse and amaze me.

If you can't ride at a constant speed...your are incompetent. do you agree or not?

I also addressed police/government spin in my opening lines....

[wingnutt]

Our beloved masters are crowing with delight over the record low road toll for Liz's birthday weekend, and the correlation of this with their 4 kmh cap has led them to attribute this incredibly smart, innovative and effective approach to road safety (me, sarcastic?) with the low road toll, so I was expecting to see An Announcement from the lovely Paula soon enough to advise us that 10 kmh had gone.

But maybe not, just as Our Beloved Masters will argue for their reduced cap, a compelling argument against it has emerged. Using the blunt instrument of correlation, I have identified the following arguments against it:
1. The post-weekend road toll is significantly higher than normal
2. Over Queens birthday weekend record rainfall fell in many areas around NZ resulting in devastating flooding
3. An Indian taxi driver's wife and daughter were murdered

So, using the statistical tool of correlation (please do not use the spurious word in this thread) we can say that there is a direct correlation between post-weekend death toll, flooding and the murder rate amongst Indian taxi driver's families and a 4 kmh cap. Therefore we are faced with some questions: do we lower the cap and lower road toll but face a possibility of flooding, people getting killed on Tuesdays and the deaths of taxi driver's families?

Do we recognise that maybe there was a limited causal relationship between the cap and road toll, and that maybe the real cause was paranoia among car drivers and more visible cops combined with a crap weekend meaning more people stayed home?

Or do we take road safety seriously and reintroduce the system of having a man with a red flag walking in front of cars, and along the way stop scaring horses?

Yeh, the weekend for the queen, wasn’t a good indicator that dropping the allowable speed reduced the road toll, traffic was very light, and the ones I was moving with, where all around 105kph – 110kph. Very occasionally the odd driver would be quicker, but all drove really well, no dickheads, and it made for a very pleasant ride.

I saw two police cars, who obviously thought the same, and where letting drivers get on with it, which was great to see.

I don’t believe speed is what’s killing folks, it’s the dickhead decisions being made, speed only compounds it after the fact, leave the speed limit, and the 10kph allowable variance, target the dangerous driving, slow drivers included.

[Morepower]

Yeah. This is why I cruise at 120 km/h.

Exactly 104 or 110 ,,,makes no difference to me

[Morepower]

Yeah. This is why I cruise at 120 km/h.

Exactly 104 or 110 ,,,makes no difference to me

[shrub]

If you can't ride at a constant speed...your are incompetent. do you agree or not?.

Depends. Speed and competence are influenced by a great many variables, and on some roads and on some bikes it takes a lot more effort to sustain a constant speed of 100 kmh, whereas others it's easy - one of the reasons I have gone for a retro style bike with an upright riding position.

[Spearfish]

Exactly 104 or 110 ,,,makes no difference to me


I think the perception of getting caught had more affect than what they said the target was. As it turned out many runs had no hassles at all.

A 105 fine wont stick LTNZ allow manufactures a 10% margin on speedometers, if its less than that a calibrated speedo would be part of the WoF requirement.

[Rhys]

it's not the person traveling at 106 it's the f wits traveling at 70 on highways

bring back public stonings

[JimO]

it's not the person traveling at 106 it's the f wits traveling at 70 on highways

bring back public stonings

i agree and they are totally oblivious to the line of traffic building behind them

[Tryhard]

I'm all for controlling speed...... in the right place! Around schools at the apropriate time, shopping centres, bus stops and stuff like that.
But 110 to 104 on the open road! cmon
110 or 115 could be all good for some places.

[Morepower]

it's not the person traveling at 106 it's the f wits traveling at 70 on highways

bring back public stonings

As someone who has driven for work reasons for the last 15 yrs the standard of driving during school holidays and weekends is very poor. There are a significant number of people that hold licences who do not have the skills required to drive in a manner that is both safe and considerate of other road users. When my Boys went for licences I taught them to drive and they both passed with ease. The tester praised both for being very good , told me that too pass though you don't need to be a good driver just safe ! WTF ?? I did not know that you can be a crap driver but still safe ???

[scumdog]

Cowpoos is correct - at the end of the day 4 kms OVER the limit is still over the limit so you are speeding. Period.

Correct.

Can you lat your WOF go 4% past its expiry and not risk a ticket?

Can you run your tyres 4% lower in trad depth than allowed and not risk a ticket?

Can you park it a 60 minute parking spot for 4% longer and not risk a ticket?

No.

OK, a lot of laws ARE pretty sucky but they are the law (ass-like or not), hence you brak them at your wallets peril.

[Scuba_Steve]

OK, a lot of laws ARE pretty sucky but they are the law (ass-like or not), hence you brak them at your wallets peril.

The real problem is ALOT of time is spent on "traffic scams" and for what? Money at best, it does absolutely NOTHING for the safety of New Zealanders & in fact has the opposite effect. And while all this time is spent on "traffic scams" its obviously time not being spent on real crimes, ones that would protect, help & keep New Zealanders safe.

[ukusa]

all of this is very confusing, but based on the Police's self praising successful long weekend with only 1 road death, I have managed to conclude the following;
1. no motorbike riders died when reducing the speed limit to 104 km/h for one long weekend, so logic tells me that this will always be the case.
2. the day after a long weekend is now considered more dangerous than other days of the week.
3. if we made a zero alcohol limit, we would have had no road deaths on the long weekend in question, so that must meen that all long weekends will be the same.
4. with no road deaths on long weekends, we will save the country millions because we won't have to pay holiday rates/days in lieu for cops. Many cops will also have to be laid off because of lack of work, further saving money.
5.reduced deaths of motorcyclists on long weekends will result in lowering of ACC levy on bike rego.

Now all we need to establish is how many deaths occur on a normal 2 day weekend with the 104k limit, and the road toll will easily be predictable.
I'm off to fit cruise control to my Bird, shame it's another 4 months till the next long weekend!:bye:

[shrub]

Correct.

Can you lat your WOF go 4% past its expiry and not risk a ticket?

Can you run your tyres 4% lower in trad depth than allowed and not risk a ticket?

Can you park it a 60 minute parking spot for 4% longer and not risk a ticket?

No.

OK, a lot of laws ARE pretty sucky but they are the law (ass-like or not), hence you brak them at your wallets peril.

Not quite. If you go over your parking time the little men and women down here chalk your tyres and then come back in 10 minutes of so and write you a ticket if you haven't moved on or topped up, and I got a ticket for no WOF in my cage the other day and I wrote in and was let off because I got a new WOF the next day. I wouldn't ride or drive with tyres that were under the legal limit, but I understand they give you a chance to go and get new tyres.

[scumdog]

Not quite. If you go over your parking time the little men and women down here chalk your tyres and then come back in 10 minutes of so and write you a ticket if you haven't moved on or topped up, and I got a ticket for no WOF in my cage the other day and I wrote in and was let off because I got a new WOF the next day. I wouldn't ride or drive with tyres that were under the legal limit, but I understand they give you a chance to go and get new tyres.

True - but I did say 'risk' a ticket.

You may or may not get one but you could.

[avgas]

I personally think the 4kph thing is bullshit.
And the dumb thing here is I don't speed.

Its quite simply a decreasing of a margin, to reap the rewards. 10kph is easy and simple. Its 1 tick on the speedo too much. People can see this with very little thought.
To penalize someone for something they cant see, bloody stupid. They may as well just ping everyone who goes over the speed limit. While they are at it, throw away their license if they had a beer in the last 5 hours, burn their prius because it lost traction at the lights, ticket all those who have failed a wof and then attempted to drive home.......

I mean who is going to tell the poor sod in their chevy they were 2.49mph over the speed limit???

I am going to say what I said in the other thread. But this time a bit more clearer. Queens bday weekend did not have the same drivers on the roads as usual. The roads were sodden. And the remaining drivers were safe.
NONE OF THIS IS ATTRIBUTED TO A 4KPH SPEED LIMIT DROP.

I mean seriously - to join the dots is like saying "Thanks for the white picket fence in front of our property - no one has burgled us since"

[Blackshear]

Correct.

Can you lat your WOF go 4% past its expiry and not risk a ticket?

Can you run your tyres 4% lower in trad depth than allowed and not risk a ticket?

Can you park it a 60 minute parking spot for 4% longer and not risk a ticket?

No.

OK, a lot of laws ARE pretty sucky but they are the law (ass-like or not), hence you brak them at your wallets peril.

I apologize if it isn't, but this looks awfully intentional.

[scumdog]

I apologize if it isn't, but this looks awfully intentional.

As intentional as bourbon will make it!

[Blackshear]

As intentional as bourbon will make it!

INNOCENT! NEXT CASE! Of bourbon.

[Ragingrob]

True - but I did say 'risk' a ticket.

You may or may not get one but you could.

Well right now I'm driving around not knowing at what speed a cop will pull me over. Either they should name an exact limit and enforce it OR name the law in terms of subjective reasoning case by case for going too fast in context. All this fluffing around leaves the public in the dark when the cops are meant to be there on behalf of us.

Doesn't help that speedos read high, why the fuck do they? Going past those speed laser things at "100" on my speedo reads around 94kph, so the general public now think they must drive at "100" in the overtaking lane on the motorway... I'm sick of having to weave in and out of traffic on the motorway JUST to travel AT the speed limit.

[slofox]

hence you brak (BREAK?) them at your wallets (WALLET'S?) peril.

There are also grammatical and spelling rules Scummy...:whistle:

sorry - couldn't resist that one...write out 100 lines please! "I must pay attention to spelling and grammar" In my office, Monday morning, 9.00am sharp - or else!!

[miloking]

Correct.

Can you lat your WOF go 4% past its expiry and not risk a ticket?

Can you run your tyres 4% lower in trad depth than allowed and not risk a ticket?

Can you park it a 60 minute parking spot for 4% longer and not risk a ticket?

No.

OK, a lot of laws ARE pretty sucky but they are the law (ass-like or not), hence you brak them at your wallets peril.

Oh Scummy...thats a lightly retarded comparison, but i understand what you trying to say...

Speed limit = Arbitrary limit (made up bullshit to make money)

WOF = Arbitrary limit (made up bullshit as well als to make money mostly, lots of countries dont have them... i've see cars getting WOF with worn tyres, suspension etc, while for example having sticker on a corner of rear window is fail...pathetic)

Parking times = Arbitrary limit set by council to make money

Tyre thread = actual physical limitation of tyre, you cannot wear it down past something that doesnt exist

But i see that they all atract tickets....apart from worn tyres actualy which is probably the only dangerous thing...and i havent seen a cop checking tyres yet.
Hmm..so what does that tell you....tickets for breaching arbitrary limits set by govt = easy money!

[scumdog]

Oh Scummy...thats a lightly retarded comparison, but i understand what you trying to say...

Speed limit = Arbitrary limit (made up bullshit to make money)

WOF = Arbitrary limit (made up bullshit as well als to make money mostly, lots of countries dont have them... i've see cars getting WOF with worn tyres, suspension etc, while for example having sticker on a corner of rear window is fail...pathetic)

Parking times = Arbitrary limit set by council to make money

Tyre thread = actual physical limitation of tyre, you cannot wear it down past something that doesnt exist

But i see that they all atract tickets....apart from worn tyres actualy which is probably the only dangerous thing...and i havent seen a cop checking tyres yet.
Hmm..so what does that tell you....tickets for breaching arbitrary limits set by govt = easy money!

I have given out HEAPS of compliance tickets for expired WOF, rego out and tyres below the legal limit (as well as a lot other things).

Not ONE cent to the Go'vt from a compliance ticket....

Not ONE complaint from my bosses about me doing that either.

So I doubt your theory about the need to get revenue holds water. (but don't let me stop you from thinking that)

(However there's a shit-load of people out there seem keen to 'donate' when it's preventable)

[scumdog]

................

[doc]

There are also grammatical and spelling rules Scummy...:whistle:

sorry - couldn't resist that one...write out 100 lines please! "I must pay attention to spelling and grammar" In my office, Monday morning, 9.00am sharp - or else!!


Just give him an infringment notice.

[Shadows]

Do we recognise that maybe there was a limited causal relationship between the cap and road toll, and that maybe the real cause was paranoia among car drivers and more visible cops combined with a crap weekend meaning more people stayed home?

It was for exactly that reason. However the police will insist otherwise, the media will report the police media releases verbatim as they always do, and the public will lap it up because most people are too fucking stupid to think for themselves, and thereby the 4km/h cap will gain public support and become standard procedure in the very near future.

[Berries]

Well right now I'm driving around not knowing at what speed a cop will pull me over. Either they should name an exact limit and enforce it OR name the law in terms of subjective reasoning case by case for going too fast in context. All this fluffing around leaves the public in the dark when the cops are meant to be there on behalf of us.
Subjective reasoning sounds good, but what you or I think is a safe speed may be considered as downright dangerous by someone with a radar and a uniform. Every ticket would be an argument, you'd get done for 115 while a mate would get off for 125km/h. I like the idea of Police discretion but it is not easy to have any kind of consistency.

Why not just assume that they will pull you over for anything over the posted speed limit ? That way you know exactly where you stand.

[Ragingrob]

Subjective reasoning sounds good, but what you or I think is a safe speed may be considered as downright dangerous by someone with a radar and a uniform. Every ticket would be an argument, you'd get done for 115 while a mate would get off for 125km/h. I like the idea of Police discretion but it is not easy to have any kind of consistency.

Why not just assume that they will pull you over for anything over the posted speed limit ? That way you know exactly where you stand.

If that's the case then why doesn't the govt just limit every single vehicle in NZ to 100kph and that's that, easy! If they don't do that then there must be times where exceeding 100kph is acceptable?

[scumdog]

If that's the case then why doesn't the govt just limit every single vehicle in NZ to 100kph and that's that, easy! ?

Don't give them ideas.....:shifty:

[Ragingrob]

Don't give them ideas.....:shifty:

But seriously, if we're not allowed to exceed that speed anyway, and we as tax payers spend so much on preventative speeding programs, they could easily prevent it at relatively little cost. Oh wait, that's right, the govt probably enjoys it's little income am I right? Because otherwise the solution is that simple.

[Berries]

You are right. The solution is that simple (although not cheap or easy to introduce in a small country like this). By not doing it there is an implication that exceeding the speed limit is ok.

It's a bit like ciggies. If the Government really cared about the people then they would ban the import and production of tobacco products. They don't, and they won't. I am not sure how much the tax take enters the equation, but the same question could be asked about the tax take from vehicles travelling at over 100km/h.

I smoke, and wish they would ban it. But if they did limit vehicle speeds then I for one would have a problem with it. And it wouldn't be the cure all for all the road carnage. They would then have to look at education and training, you know, the hard stuff that they ignore that might cost $$$ rather than bringing $$$ in.