Has the current propaganda focus on speed and road safety affected how you ride? [Archive]

p.dath

30th December 2010, 14:45

I noted your comment about debate; but can't help myself.

It's obvious speed is a factor in most accidents. If vehicles on the road "travelled" at 0 km/h there wouldn't be many accidents would there? So you have to conclude speed is a factor in most accidents.

I agree the Police focus is wrong. They give the impression that speed is the cause of the accidents, although they are careful to only say it is a factor.

Our road toll hasn't gone down for a while now, despite pushing this message harder and harder. Is it possible the road toll is not changing because the message isn't correct?

Driving/riding appropriate to the conditions is the important message. Not the actual speed itself.

My partners oldest son is getting his restricted car licence. As part of the learning experience I took him out at night time on a rural road that includes gravel. The entire road is sign posted 100 km/h. It is impossible to drive on this road at 100km/h - despite what the sign says at the beginning.
The message - driving at an appropriate speed for the conditions is more important than trying to drive to the speed written on some sign. I hope he got the message.

avgas

30th December 2010, 15:24

While the latest campaign may have slowed me a little.
I found giving my wife my balls decreased my speed dramatically.

bogan

30th December 2010, 15:27

poll is missing an option, I ride slower (so as not to get ticketed), but just as aware (possibly even less aware as its boring).

FJRider

30th December 2010, 15:32

Speed is the common factors in fatal crashes ... and also the easiest to police.

Stupidity (read: stupid decisions) rate up there too ... easy to spot, but easy to let slide by if no "incident" occurs ... (is stupid really another word for dangerous ???)

Most crashes are the result of a combination of factors ... sometimes small errors (or a number of) that end .... WRONG ...

When things turn bad from good ... to ... oops ... do you back/button off ???

Or just (try to) correct and ... continue ... as you were ... ???

schrodingers cat

30th December 2010, 16:34

Our road toll hasn't gone down for a while now, despite pushing this message harder and harder. Is it possible the road toll is not changing because the message isn't correct?

Perhaps the dabate should be how many deaths per 1000k travelled is acceptable (or some other hopelessly complicated metric).

Because you're never, ever, ever going to reach zero.

PrincessBandit

30th December 2010, 16:38

It hasn't changed my riding style particularly although I tend to keep my eyes peeled more along known patrolled routes.

I've sometimes wondered about a radar detector but then decide (a) my husband would go bonkers if I got one, wondering why on earth I'd need it and (b) if I'm going to speed then I take the medicine if I get caught. Not to mention, aiming to stay well within my skill set on 2 wheels.

So effectively, no different!

george formby

30th December 2010, 16:38

I noted your comment about debate; but can't help myself.

It's obvious speed is a factor in most accidents. If vehicles on the road "travelled" at 0 km/h there wouldn't be many accidents would there? So you have to conclude speed is a factor in most accidents.

Our road toll hasn't gone down for a while now, despite pushing this message harder and harder. Is it possible the road toll is not changing because the message isn't correct?

Driving/riding appropriate to the conditions is the important message. Not the actual speed itself.

My partners oldest son is getting his restricted car licence. As part of the learning experience I took him out at night time on a rural road that includes gravel. The entire road is sign posted 100 km/h. It is impossible to drive on this road at 100km/h - despite what the sign says at the beginning.
The message - driving at an appropriate speed for the conditions is more important than trying to drive to the speed written on some sign. I hope he got the message.

First bit +1
Second bit. What a good idea..:yes: but lets hope he does not try it.

Ocean1

30th December 2010, 16:42

Think I'll start another poll.

How many of you have ever seen another person's core behaviour permanently change?

SMOKEU

30th December 2010, 16:42

rural road that includes gravel. The entire road is sign posted 100 km/h. It is impossible to drive on this road at 100km/h - despite what the sign says at the beginning.

It can be done - I've been at almost twice that speed on gravel in a cage. Wouldn't try it on the CBR though.

george formby

30th December 2010, 16:44

It can be done - I've been at almost twice that speed on gravel in a cage. Wouldn't try it on the CBR though.

Bloody noisy is'nt it?

FJRider

30th December 2010, 16:49

Think I'll start another poll.

How many of you have ever seen another person's core behaviour permanently change?

I have ... but she was worth it .... :yes:

OH ... you're still talking about speed ... right ... ??? :innocent:

AllanB

30th December 2010, 17:18

I often hear statements from the authorities that alcohol is a factor in a large percentage of road deaths and accidents.

It also causes untold social issues from (ahem) lubricating (so to speak) young girls into sexy-times they would not entertain if sober (pretty sure that used to be called dating a few decades back :facepalm:), family violence and numerous medical issues. Not to mention the stink of urine around town on a Saturday morning.

So logically it should be banned.

I may have to ponder this over a cool beer.

Back to speeding - if indeed speeding is so evil it would be a easy thing for all motorized vehicles to be governed to say 125 max (giving a emergency allowance).
I was looking at a $360,000 Maserati this afternoon (just looking, no touching!) as I waited for a tyre to be fitted - I bet that will never go over 100!.

FJRider

30th December 2010, 17:24

I was looking at a $360,000 Maserati this afternoon (just looking, no touching!) as I waited for a tyre to be fitted - I bet that will never go over 100!.

I'd take that bet ... :rockon:

pass me a beer would ya ... ??

LBD

30th December 2010, 17:49

2wheeldrifter

30th December 2010, 18:16

I may have to ponder this over a cool beer.

.

pass me a beer would ya ... ??

Good on ya mate..........s

bloody southerners lol

FJRider

30th December 2010, 18:19

Good on ya mate..........s

bloody southerners lol

I guess a few just wont get it .....

James Deuce

30th December 2010, 18:22

Sadly no. Someone wanna give me a bike?

FJRider

30th December 2010, 18:56

Sadly no. Someone wanna give me a bike?

Na .................

James Deuce

30th December 2010, 19:07

Typical...

jtzzr

30th December 2010, 19:11

If all you motorcyclist travelled at the posted speeds there would be no need for this poll.

I cannot believe people would travel over the posted speed. That`s just crazy , and Dangerous.

But Drink/Driving is different , cause when your`e pissed it makes you invisible.

But in all seriousness , yeah defineately. I watch out for the constabulary alot more, even if I`m over by 10ks , just don`t need to add more to the gubbermint coffers.

FJRider

30th December 2010, 19:13

expected a reply .... wasn't dissapointed ...

jtzzr

30th December 2010, 19:24

Noticed the Road Safety bit in the title , Here`s a point , why don`t they actually make the roads safer.

Instead of adding 20 or 30 kms of straight road , why don`t they make those little twisty-turney bits safer , by getting rid of tar snakes/pea gravel and a range of other crap?

Sorry about the rant ( well not really)

SMOKEU

30th December 2010, 19:35

Bloody noisy is'nt it?

It's all part of the fun.

Ocean1

30th December 2010, 19:36

why don`t they actually make the roads safer.

Instead of adding 20 or 30 kms of straight road , why don`t they make those little twisty-turney bits safer , by getting rid of tar snakes/pea gravel and a range of other crap?

Sorry about the rant ( well not really)

I'd be happy if they simply stopped installing hard immovable shit onthe outside of corners. Well, not actually happy, as such... there's a fuckload of money being spent on not eliminating killer road furniture.

I see they've taken to sticking multiple posts-with-arrows around the outside of most of the corners on SH58, presumably to minimise the chances of survival should you fail to identify where the road went.

steve_t

30th December 2010, 19:43

But Drink/Driving is different , cause when your`e pissed it makes you invisible.

Invisible? :blink::innocent:

Bonez

30th December 2010, 20:01

What campaign? Witnessed Mr Plod chassing a red triumph triple today, very enteraining. Probably because he was wearing a t-shirt and they wanted to give the bloke a safely leaflet.

Conquiztador

30th December 2010, 20:17

Oh and I am currently looking at radar detectors. Thou the latest plan of plod, where they will install plate identification cameras at a distance apart and then have software that calculates how long it took to get from A to B (we are talking mutiple Km's apart here) and if you could NOT have done that distance in the short time it took you they will fine you, is a new twist. The way I understand it these cameras could be 50Km's apart... Makes me wonder if that gizmo James Bond had on his old Aston Martin (press button and the plate is swapped) is not the way to go...

AllanB

30th December 2010, 20:20

What campaign? Witnessed Mr Plod chassing a red triumph triple today, very enteraining. Probably because he was wearing a t-shirt and they wanted to give the bloke a safely leaflet.

I suspect if he was wearing just a red T-shirt then the officer was probably concerned about his genitalia flapping around in the wind ........ :shit:

Bonez

30th December 2010, 20:25

I suspect if he was wearing just a red T-shirt then the officer was probably concerned about his genitalia flapping around in the wind ........ :shit:Too small to see thank goodness. They didn't take note of the speed indicater sign they where approaching when it was flashing "SLOW DOWN". Maybe it was just a publicity stunt.:facepalm:

AllanB

30th December 2010, 20:29

Thou the latest plan of plod, where they will install plate identification cameras at a distance apart and then have software that calculates how long it took to get from A to B (we are talking mutiple Km's apart here) and if you could NOT have done that distance in the short time it took you they will fine you, is a new twist. The way I understand it these cameras could be 50Km's apart..

Now this is interesting - I see it only working over a shirt distance other wise there could be too many factors in play unless they allow a very generous margin in their calculations.

For example presumably someone first drives the distance at a legal speed to do a 'test' distance. Now if I come along on my motorcycle, again not exceeding the speed limit but briskly throwing it into corners and shortening said corners in our usual manner by straightening them up I may well be significantly quicker and cover less distance over the 50kms. Am I right?

Again if they are really concerned about excessive speeds each vehicle could be fitted with a electronic monitoring system that they could bluetooth and it would tell the office what speeds you have been doing today. Indeed why not just have to do a compulsory download from your vehicle every day into a police computer and they can automatically debit your bank account.

I should probably stop this, as someone in Government may well be reading .....

cheshirecat

30th December 2010, 20:32

This Official speed debate has been going on for ever and a day. I remember similar official discussions when starting riding 40 years ago - sh''t that dates me!

I've done plenty of time where traffic speeds are significantly higher than here but accident rates are signif lower - you ever tried getting onto a UK roundabout in a underpowered auto. No doubt anyone who have ridden in France and Germany know cars drivers really know their vehicles and expect you to know yours. I remember being burnt off by two French nuns in 2CV once on my tricked up CB750. Tres embarasing.

Personally I'd much rather they put effort into rewarding good drivers/road users and hitting red light runners, drunks, center line crossers, dopey 'sunday' drivers blah blah and a decent driving test where amongst other things (big list potential here) you don't give a lisence for two tons of metal to a 15 year old in a non urban lax settting. There - - and I've spelt license wrong.

AllanB

30th December 2010, 20:44

Red light runners - welcome to Christchurch!

I cannot believe that action down here - utter madness. As a result I never take off at speed on a green - I have a darn good look first.

Conquiztador

30th December 2010, 20:51

Now this is interesting - I see it only working over a shirt distance other wise there could be too many factors in play unless they allow a very generous margin in their calculations.

For example presumably someone first drives the distance at a legal speed to do a 'test' distance. Now if I come along on my motorcycle, again not exceeding the speed limit but briskly throwing it into corners and shortening said corners in our usual manner by straightening them up I may well be significantly quicker and cover less distance over the 50kms. Am I right?

The way I understood it is that the cameras would be set up over a distance where there is no changes in the speed limit. Lets say that they are 10 Km apart and it is a 100Km/h road. That means you can do that in 6 minutes. Any less and you had to be speeding at some stage. = Fine!

swbarnett

30th December 2010, 20:52

Again if they are really concerned about excessive speeds each vehicle could be fitted with a electronic monitoring system that they could bluetooth and it would tell the office what speeds you have been doing today. Indeed why not just have to do a compulsory download from your vehicle every day into a police computer and they can automatically debit your bank account.

I should probably stop this, as someone in Government may well be reading .....
Don't worry, I'm sure they've already thought it.

The reason they don't try and implement anything so drastic is that it would violate the boiling frog principle that politicians are so fond of. Personly I wish they would push the envelope a lot further. Then they would find out just what us apathetic kiwis are capable of (aka the UK poll tax).

Voltaire

30th December 2010, 22:28

Don't worry, I'm sure they've already thought it.

The reason they don't try and implement anything so drastic is that it would violate the boiling frog principle that politicians are so fond of. Personly I wish they would push the envelope a lot further. Then they would find out just what us apathetic kiwis are capable of (aka the UK poll tax).

Cor..i remember the poll tax....we couldn't join the Clapham library in case they caught us....... and we kept a filled out Tele licence by the front door....we lived in fear.....:shutup:
If they tried a Poll Tax....imagine all the internet whining......:violin:

Rhys

30th December 2010, 23:03

They have cameras/computers that can read your plate and tell if its got rego and wof :facepalm:

That may have some of us unstuck :shit:

Conquiztador

30th December 2010, 23:32

They have cameras/computers that can read your plate and tell if its got rego and wof :facepalm:

That may have some of us unstuck :shit:

I have a bunch of old plates that I find useful...:finger:(always wanted to use that one)

oldrider

31st December 2010, 05:36

swbarnett

31st December 2010, 07:34

Cor..i remember the poll tax....we couldn't join the Clapham library in case they caught us....... and we kept a filled out Tele licence by the front door....we lived in fear.....:shutup:
What I remember is the riots depicted on the news and Thatcher having to back down.

If they tried a Poll Tax....imagine all the internet whining......:violin:
Maybe not a poll tax but there must be something that our government could try to do that would shock us out of our complacency. I wish they would try.

In the words of Thomas Jefferson - "Eternel vigilence is the price of liberty". It seems in NZ we have it so good that we've fallen asleep. When we finally wake up we won't have any liberty left.

p.dath

31st December 2010, 08:11

It can be done - I've been at almost twice that speed on gravel in a cage. Wouldn't try it on the CBR though.

Its not the gravel that prevents you travelling at 100km/h on that road road. It's the tight blind corners, the corrugations in the road, the width of the road, and then combine that with night and you just can't travel at 100km/h on that road.

scumdog

31st December 2010, 08:20

It can be done - I've been at almost twice that speed on gravel in a cage. Wouldn't try it on the CBR though.

Yeah, but for how long 'at almost twice that speed'?

davebullet

31st December 2010, 08:28

Think I'll start another poll.

How many of you have ever seen another person's core behaviour permanently change?

Agreed. the longer I live, the more I reaslise I am comfortable with my perception of law and rules. My behaviour like my personality will never change.

I suppose the focus of a 5kph tolerance has made me more aware, but there are still stretches of road where 100kph is below the safe speed limit, and 80kph is above the safe speed limit. I still choose the speed I determine is safe.

avgas

31st December 2010, 10:04

Perhaps the dabate should be how many deaths per 1000k travelled is acceptable (or some other hopelessly complicated metric).

Because you're never, ever, ever going to reach zero.
One death per square meter would be acceptable to me.

May be then everyone else would respect how lucky we are not to die on the roads.:Pokey:

schrodingers cat

31st December 2010, 11:48

One death per square meter would be acceptable to me.

May be then everyone else would respect how lucky we are not to die on the roads.:Pokey:

Or getting out of bed even.

People die. All the time and in all sorts of ways.
Some people kill themselves quickly - some take their time.

The point is, it is utopian to presume that all of us will live to '3 score years and 10'.

I for one am sick of the hand wringing that goes on every time anyone under 20 is killed. Wonderful person, wasted talent, promising future, kissed his grandmother, whatever.

In 2009 376 people died on the roads. From 4.1 million that is 0.0000917% of the population or 0.0917 deaths per 1000

During WW1 with a population of 1.1 million, 18 050 casulties over 4 years or 0.0041% of the population - 43 times more. ( 4.102 deaths per 1000 population)

So flame away - you've never lost a loved one etc. That is true. Its just I think debate should be logical and supported by fact rather than an emotional tirade so I welcome your intellectual contribution.

Here's the question again - fellow worshippers of the internal combustion engine ; how many lives is an acceptable number to sacrifice per year at the alter to appease the 'god of speed' and all the benefits she brings to society?

The answer cannot be zero.
If you want it to be zero - enjoy your mud hut and don't let a sabre toothed tiger eat you before you die of old age at 26 years old

baptist

1st January 2011, 01:17

Cor..i remember the poll tax....we couldn't join the Clapham library in case they caught us....... and we kept a filled out Tele licence by the front door....we lived in fear.....:shutup:
If they tried a Poll Tax....imagine all the internet whining......:violin:

Argh the Poll Tax, I remember those good old days... I paid and the next year got a surcharge to cover those who had not!!!! I got threatened with court for refusing to pay a tax surcharge because others they could not trace had not paid... total madness:shit:

Red light runners - welcome to Christchurch!

I cannot believe that action down here - utter madness. As a result I never take off at speed on a green - I have a darn good look first.

It is bad up here as well, and not just by a second either but real blatant jumping... some of these guys really should not be allowed on the road.

As for the original thread, I ride (and drive) as before, riding made me a better driver though, not another gummint campaign

been_there

1st January 2011, 01:59

I believe in angels...
when i know the time is right for me...
its to be....

wingnutt

1st January 2011, 10:06

5th poll option....

Has it created contempt for the law and disrespect for the police?
Most definately....

As a mature rider/ driver/ family person with an good safety record....driving to conditions etc....getting booked for 109 south of Levin on a straight wide dry road with hardly any traffic is nothing but utter revinue raising, making quotas, bullshit,...

Yeh, been there done that, and it pissed me off too, to change this shit though, we need to change the hierarchy running the police, my guess is the officers have very little discretion, its the paula roses and judith colins that are creating the stupidity in ticket issuing.

cheshirecat

1st January 2011, 11:11

Or getting out of bed even.

People die. All the time and in all sorts of ways.
Some people kill themselves quickly - some take their time.

The point is, it is utopian to presume that all of us will live to '3 score years and 10'.

I for one am sick of the hand wringing that goes on every time anyone under 20 is killed. Wonderful person, wasted talent, promising future, kissed his grandmother, whatever.

In 2009 376 people died on the roads. From 4.1 million that is 0.0000917% of the population or 0.0917 deaths per 1000

During WW1 with a population of 1.1 million, 18 050 casulties over 4 years or 0.0041% of the population - 43 times more. ( 4.102 deaths per 1000 population)

So flame away - you've never lost a loved one etc. That is true. Its just I think debate should be logical and supported by fact rather than an emotional tirade so I welcome your intellectual contribution.

Here's the question again - fellow worshippers of the internal combustion engine ; how many lives is an acceptable number to sacrifice per year at the alter to appease the 'god of speed' and all the benefits she brings to society?

The answer cannot be zero.
If you want it to be zero - enjoy your mud hut and don't let a sabre toothed tiger eat you before you die of old age at 26 years old

And the war casualties are goverment sanctioned so it's OK to kill maim if the Gov say's it is for political reasons - must be a legal precedent here but it's the New Year and too deep for me at this time.

p.dath

1st January 2011, 12:25

Here's the question again - fellow worshippers of the internal combustion engine ; how many lives is an acceptable number to sacrifice per year at the alter to appease the 'god of speed' and all the benefits she brings to society?

I think I would find the question easier to answer if you asked how much was I prepared to spend to save a human life.

I think I would be prepared to spend $1m to save a human life.

You said 376 people died in 2009. If 100 of those could have been prevented by spending $100m, then I'm happy to do that.
If the next 276 would have cost $552m (i.e. $2m each), then I'm afraid the expense is more than I'm prepared to bear because the social cost of what that money could otherwise have been used for is too great.

Scuba_Steve

1st January 2011, 12:33

p.dath

1st January 2011, 12:43

But then how would you spend that $100mil? by NOT running speed scams we could potentially be saving 69 lives every year here in NZ but because the speed scam is so profitable our Govt is sacrificing an est 69 people every year just to keep the $$$ flowing.

How would I spend it?
Well I guess the case needs to be made. For example, if three people a year die on a particular corner, and $3m worth of road works will resolve it, then spend the money. The case has been made.

The Government represents the people, and does not run at a profit. The Government needs to bring in sufficient money from the people to cover its outgoings. However, we are running a large deficit that is going to take to around 2020 just to pay off.

But back to your second point, which I have not seen. What gives you the impression that 69 people are year die on NZ roads because of speed enforcement?

bogan

1st January 2011, 12:49

How would I spend it?
Well I guess the case needs to be made. For example, if three people a year die on a particular corner, and $3m worth of road works will resolve it, then spend the money. The case has been made.

The Government represents the people, and does not run at a profit. The Government needs to bring in sufficient money from the people to cover its outgoings. However, we are running a large deficit that is going to take to around 2020 just to pay off.

But back to your second point, which I have not seen. What gives you the impression that 69 people are year die on NZ roads because of speed enforcement?

Interesting point about it being a money issue rather than numbers.. but the problem with fixing only whats broken, is you still get broken people. You gotta predict how many live a roading modification would likely save, not how many it would have saved in the past, which of course is more of a grey area when applied to a particular corner, better to just have some standards by which all roads should be built and maintained right?

p.dath

1st January 2011, 12:59

Interesting point about it being a money issue rather than numbers.. but the problem with fixing only whats broken, is you still get broken people. You gotta predict how many live a roading modification would likely save, not how many it would have saved in the past, which of course is more of a grey area when applied to a particular corner, better to just have some standards by which all roads should be built and maintained right?

I gave the corner as just an example. Some chunks of roads have a regular death count. "x" number of people have died a year, each year, for the last "y" years.

But you could make a case for a specific roading standard I guess. If you have two similar roads, one made to standard "a" that has "b" deaths, and the other made to standard "c" that has less deaths, and the incremental cost of the standard is less than $1m/death then I would say a case has been made.
But remember, I am only addressing the initial question of roading deaths, and not minimum road quality (which is what standards will address). And you do need a minimum road quality to use machines on.

I'm just supplying a method that in my head would lead to the number of deaths that I would find acceptable, and what I would be prepared to spend (as a country) to achieve that goal.

Scuba_Steve

1st January 2011, 13:15

The Government represents the people, and does not run at a profit. The Government needs to bring in sufficient money from the people to cover its outgoings.

Yes thats what they're supposed to do but... (we'll leave that for another time)

But back to your second point, which I have not seen. What gives you the impression that 69 people are year die on NZ roads because of speed enforcement?

the number comes from a "crude" scaling method (for want of a better word) but effectively the number comes from the study done by the UK's MOT (which they tried to hide, seems the report wasn't to their liking) stating 1000 lives could be saved in the UK each year by not running speed scams, given the population difference this works out to 69 NZ'ers each year.

Katman

1st January 2011, 13:29

The answer cannot be zero.
If you want it to be zero - enjoy your mud hut and don't let a sabre toothed tiger eat you before you die of old age at 26 years old

As I've said before, no-one has ever asked for a zero road toll. That is clearly an unrealistic expectation.

If we could simply eliminate (or even drastically reduce) the number of accidents caused by shear stupidity then we would look way better than we do right now.

Then, if we started to work on the accidents that could be avoided by better vehicle management or situational awareness we'd look better still.

MSTRS

1st January 2011, 13:34

As I've said before, no-one has ever asked for a zero road toll. That is clearly an unrealistic expectation.

If we could simply eliminate (or even drastically reduce) the number of accidents caused by shear stupidity then we would look way better than we do right now.

Then, if we started to work on the accidents that could be avoided by better vehicle management or situational awareness we'd look better still.

Yep. 'Fixing' the roads and nothing else just leads to even more dumbing-down of motorists. Better roads = easier driving = less brain-engaged.

Scuba_Steve

1st January 2011, 13:35

Yep. 'Fixing' the roads and nothing else just leads to even more dumbing-down of motorists. Better roads = easier driving = less brain-engaged.

true that worse the roads, better the driver & vise versa

Ocean1

1st January 2011, 15:08

I think I would find the question easier to answer if you asked how much was I prepared to spend to save a human life.

I think I would be prepared to spend $1m to save a human life.

You said 376 people died in 2009. If 100 of those could have been prevented by spending $100m, then I'm happy to do that.
If the next 276 would have cost $552m (i.e. $2m each), then I'm afraid the expense is more than I'm prepared to bear because the social cost of what that money could otherwise have been used for is too great.

There used to be a discipline called Safety Engineer, in America. One of their key responsibilities was to cost lives so that safety initiatives could be evaluated in exactly the terms you suggest.

They're not around any more. The public pressure generated by the press as a result of several public works disasters killed that particular breed of engineer.

The calculations are still done of course, they're just expressed in slightly more politically correct terms and not usually published.

You're obviously aware there's a diminishing return effect at work here. ANd you've bunged a price on a John Doe. All good. Now you just need to secure the funding for the changes in road safety budgets.

Oh, and several years ago the real cost was $1.3M.

FJRider

1st January 2011, 15:22

Yep. 'Fixing' the roads and nothing else just leads to even more dumbing-down of motorists. Better roads = easier driving = less brain-engaged.

Fix the roads ... easier to drive faster ... (regardless of the/any limit) more deaths due to higher speeds ... fix road again ... drive faster ...

er ... hang on ..

Katman

1st January 2011, 15:28

Fix the roads ... easier to drive faster ... (regardless of the/any limit) more deaths due to higher speeds ... fix road again ... drive faster ...

er ... hang on ..

Precisely.

We keep coming back to the base need to 'fix' the goings on inside the head of New Zealand motorists/motorcyclists.

p.dath

1st January 2011, 15:38

the number comes from a "crude" scaling method (for want of a better word) but effectively the number comes from the study done by the UK's MOT (which they tried to hide, seems the report wasn't to their liking) stating 1000 lives could be saved in the UK each year by not running speed scams, given the population difference this works out to 69 NZ'ers each year.

Real interesting. I found this web site discussing the issue:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/

miloking

1st January 2011, 18:18

Real interesting. I found this web site discussing the issue:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/

Hmmmm interesting..and since our Police tries to copy UK (and AUS) like little bitches, most of it probably applies to NZ too...

miloking

1st January 2011, 18:20

Real interesting. I found this web site discussing the issue:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/

Hmmmm interesting..and since our Police/Transport minister tries to copy UK (and AUS) like little bitches, most of it probably applies to NZ too...

sinned

1st January 2011, 18:46

Hmmmm interesting..and since our Police/Transport minister tries to copy UK (and AUS) like little bitches, most of it probably applies to NZ too...
Also interesting: there has been a change of government and the focus seems to be the same.

Ocean1

1st January 2011, 18:56

Also interesting: there has been a change of government and the focus seems to be the same.

Yes, Minister.

steve_t

1st January 2011, 19:09

A cruise up to Thames today made me think that the speed limits seem as low as they do because TPTB need to cater for the lowest common denominators. From what I saw today, they are VERY low :shutup:

MSTRS

2nd January 2011, 09:52

A cruise up to Thames today made me think that the speed limits seem as low as they do because TPTB need to cater for the lowest common denominators. From what I saw today, they are VERY low :shutup:

And why is it that these prats all seem to be on my bit of road while I'm using it?

steve_t

2nd January 2011, 10:36

And why is it that these prats all seem to be on my bit of road while I'm using it?

Meh. A lot of people will travel over the holidays; no avoiding that. I was just thinking that if the speed limit was 120 like in other countries or higher, the people who pull out from side roads without enough space will pose a much greater risk to everyone else. Maybe the propaganda is working on me...

swbarnett

2nd January 2011, 17:54

I think I would find the question easier to answer if you asked how much was I prepared to spend to save a human life.

I think I would be prepared to spend $1m to save a human life.
If it were only money I might agree with you. However, the cost is far beyond mere dollars and cents. How much FREEDOM are we prepared to lose so that less of us cease to exist?

The issue is that the more freedom that we lose the less living we are able to do. You will eventually get to the point were people may not be dieing on the road anymore but they're not exactly living either (merely existing).

swbarnett

2nd January 2011, 18:01

How would I spend it?
Well I guess the case needs to be made. For example, if three people a year die on a particular corner, and $3m worth of road works will resolve it, then spend the money. The case has been made.
The same could be said for smoking and probably many other causes of death. If we paid $1m for every one of those as well the bill would run in to the 10s of billions. Where do you stop?

swbarnett

2nd January 2011, 18:08

more deaths due to higher speeds
This is just another part of the propoganda.

jafar

2nd January 2011, 18:53

Personally I'd much rather they put effort into rewarding good drivers/road users and hitting red light runners, drunks, center line crossers, dopey 'sunday' drivers blah blah and a decent driving test where amongst other things (big list potential here) you don't give a lisence for two tons of metal to a 15 year old in a non urban lax settting. There - - and I've spelt license wrong.

Crossing the centre line isn't an offence, neither is crossing a yellow (no passing)line unless your actually passing. The lines are there to mark the theoretical centre of the road & thats all.:yes:

p.dath

2nd January 2011, 19:02

The same could be said for smoking and probably many other causes of death. If we paid $1m for every one of those as well the bill would run in to the 10s of billions. Where do you stop?

You could easily pose the same cost question for that as well. I guess the difference I consider is that smoking is self-inflicted - and that most smokers should know there is a 50% chance harm will come to themselves by engaging in the activity. As a result, I'm not prepared to spend very much to save a smoker.

Using a road is more a necessity, and the chance of being killed by it is not 50%, like smoking.

But lets not distract from the initial question, which was how many deaths per 1000 km's is acceptable, and I personally prefer a financial measure like I had given.

scumdog

2nd January 2011, 19:04

And why is it that these prats all seem to be on my bit of road while I'm using it?

You were at Coromandel in the last 24hrs...???:blink:

Mom

2nd January 2011, 19:35

Your poll options are flawed. We all must subscribe to the doctrine. Speed kills!

I took my life into my own hands the other day...

I overtook a car that was pootling along at 70kph. It took me several minutes to get up the courage to overtake, I thought I went faster than the 100kph allowed, but obviously I didnt as I am still alive to tell the story.

Mom

2nd January 2011, 19:43

As a result, I'm not prepared to spend very much to save a smoker.

Sanctimonious Arseholes are at top of my not prepared to save list.

Smokers I will save as they just need to understand how easy it is to stop. It is impossible to save S.As. They will always be Sanctimonious Arseholes.

ynot slow

2nd January 2011, 20:40

Biggest piss off is still the poeple who persist in travelling at 100km(no account for speedo error)and get to passing lane and speed up as cars pass,also the amount of cars who hit passing lanes and all think woohoo we can pass,and the lane runs out,what happened to the mantra make sure you have enough clear road before passing.

Several times on Wednesday 2 of us both 2 up were enjoying the road from Waitara to Te Kuiti,and never saw a cop,but road works on southern Mt Messenger meant traffic was stop and go to summitt and a couple of trucks at the front,was ok for us 15-20 cars back,but at a rest area both of us pulled over to let the traffic pass,we both commented on watching the cars in front and rear attempt dodgy passes,and we were buggered if we'd be piggy in the middle,so a picture stop at Tongaparutu and Mokau enabled a pleasant ride on.Whitebait was nice too.

cheshirecat

2nd January 2011, 21:29

jafar

2nd January 2011, 21:49

I believe it comes under 'failure to keep left' The smokey bears have ticketed some for it.

Be interesting to see if the tickets were challenged as you are allowed to cross the centre line. I'm thinking clipping it with your wheels not right into the oncoming lane.

FJRider

2nd January 2011, 22:17

jafar

2nd January 2011, 22:54

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ...

A few may dissagree .....

http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/22392.html

Think about it , if there was a law saying you couldn't cross the white line how would you pass another vehicle if there was a white line??? the people in that article were being done for failing to keep left, not for crossing the white line.

FJRider

2nd January 2011, 23:02

Whats to think about ...

http://www.northernadvocate.co.nz/local/news/drivers-urged-not-to-cut-corners/3752836/

swbarnett

3rd January 2011, 06:26

You could easily pose the same cost question for that as well. I guess the difference I consider is that smoking is self-inflicted - and that most smokers should know there is a 50% chance harm will come to themselves by engaging in the activity. As a result, I'm not prepared to spend very much to save a smoker.
Yes, you're right. Bad example. The point still stands though - if we spent $1m on every preventable death the economy would suffer.

But lets not distract from the initial question, which was how many deaths per 1000 km's is acceptable, and I personally prefer a financial measure like I had given.
For me it's not a matter of an actual dollar amount, rather a financial trend line i.e. the point where increase in cost to save another life is too high. This is illustrated by the graph below*. The red line is a measure of the number of lives saved each year (per 1000km if you like) as a direct result of money spent on road safety and the blue line is a measure of the cost of saving one life in each successive year. As the road toll drops the cost of saving one more life in the following year will start to climb exponentially as the law of diminishing returns comes in to play. The question then becomes "What percentage increase in the road safety budget is acceptable to save one more life?". My answer to this is that we are already at the point where any more money thrown at the problem is only reducing our ability to live our lives for no good return.

*Don't worry about the lack of actual numbers. It's the trend I'm trying to illustrate.

p.dath

3rd January 2011, 06:43

Crossing the centre line isn't an offence, neither is crossing a yellow (no passing)line unless your actually passing. The lines are there to mark the theoretical centre of the road & thats all.:yes:

Let me direct you to the "Land Transport (Offences and Penalties) Regulations 1999":
http://interim.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/1999/0099/19.0/whole.html#dlm280560

Refer to 2.3(1)(b), "Use of lane to right of centre line unless passing". Maximum fine $1,000. Minimum fine $150.

p.dath

3rd January 2011, 06:59

Sanctimonious Arseholes are at top of my not prepared to save list.

Smokers I will save as they just need to understand how easy it is to stop. It is impossible to save S.As. They will always be Sanctimonious Arseholes.

:) I obviously touched a raw nerve. People have different view points, and I respect that you obviously have a desire to spend a lot more than I on saving a smokers life by helping them give up the habit (the original amount proposed was $1m/smoker - too rich for my blood with the number of smokers we have).

I don't know any smokers that have tried to give up that would describe the process as easy. Perhaps they don't know any easy way of doing it.

But I detract from the original question, how many deaths for 1,000 km/s are acceptable.

Scuba_Steve

3rd January 2011, 07:11

Let me direct you to the "Land Transport (Offences and Penalties) Regulations 1999":
http://interim.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/1999/0099/19.0/whole.html#dlm280560

Refer to 2.3(1)(b), "Use of lane to right of centre line unless passing". Maximum fine $1,000. Minimum fine $150.

I would like to see 2.1(2) & 2.1(1)(c)(i) enforced, hell theres moneyz to be made so get to it little P.I.G.ys enforce a justified traffic law for once

scumdog

3rd January 2011, 07:11

, I'm not prepared to spend very much to save a smoker.

Using a road is more a necessity, and the chance of being killed by it is not 50%, like smoking.

I tend to agree to some extent.

Smokers KNOW what they're doing is harmful (not just potentially).

Road users don't EXPECT their travels to result in harm to themselves..

scumdog

3rd January 2011, 07:13

I would like to see 2.1(2) & 2.1(1)(c)(i) enforced, hell theres moneyz to be made so get to it little P.I.G.ys enforce a justified traffic law for once

It is ferkin' enforced.

And I love the look on the offending dick-wads face when I remind them it's not JUST $150 for the ticket - there's demerits that go with it

Them...:shit:

Scuba_Steve

3rd January 2011, 07:18

It is ferkin' enforced.

And I love the look on the offending dick-wads face when I remind them it's not JUST $150 for the ticket - there's demerits that go with it

Them...:shit:

Well maybee you could come up the North Island sometime & teach our cops about it.

MSTRS

3rd January 2011, 09:06

Well maybee you could come up the North Island sometime & teach our cops about it.

Have you not heard the howls of protest when cops set up video cameras to catch corner cutters? Been done on HW50, Manawatu Gorge, Rimutakas - that I know of...

Scuba_Steve

3rd January 2011, 09:13

Have you not heard the howls of protest when cops set up video cameras to catch corner cutters? Been done on HW50, Manawatu Gorge, Rimutakas - that I know of...

yea I know about the "corner cutters" campaign but they started that after noting their profit was down along with sending the crazy with the yellow paint NZ wide to help with boosting their profits back up. But I'm taking about slow drivers & drivers that stick to the right lane see it almost everyday & yet P.I.G.s do nothing about it seems most don't know anything about traffic other than "speed"

Kickaha

3rd January 2011, 09:28

but they started that after noting their profit was down along with sending the crazy with the yellow paint NZ wide to help with boosting their profits back up"

Got some facts to back that up? or is it just your usual anti police ranting?

scumdog

3rd January 2011, 09:31

yyet P.I.G.s do nothing about it seems most don't know anything about traffic other than "speed"

Ah well, maybe if people would not exceed the posted speed limits the said P.I.G.S's might have time to focus on other offending......:corn:

MSTRS

3rd January 2011, 09:35

... slow drivers & drivers that stick to the right lane see it almost everyday & yet P.I.G.s do nothing about it ...

Lanes that travel in the same direction are another subject altogether. The roadcode says keep left, but that booklet is a curious mixture of what's law and what's considerate or best practice.

Scuba_Steve

3rd January 2011, 09:41

Got some facts to back that up? or is it just your usual anti police ranting?

what like this "Figures released to the Herald under the Official Information Act show $30.4 million, or $2.5 million a month, was collected from 340,368 speed-camera tickets issued nationwide in the 12 months to October 31.
However, those figures were down by about $5 million and almost 100,000 tickets compared with the previous October year." As for the crazy with the yellow paint just go have a look round the roads, there are alot which used to be white & now are yellow.

Oh & FYI I'm Anti P.I.G.s not police... there is a difference

Ah well, maybe if people would not exceed the posted speed limits the said P.I.G.S's might have time to focus on other offending......:corn:

And maybee if said P.I.G.s would get their priorities right & leave the scamming to the Nigerians, they could get back to their job & we would all be safer & better off for it. When it is upto me all speed signs will go from there current red circle to a yellow background & then my good man you'll be free to catch proper criminals.

Kickaha

3rd January 2011, 09:49

what like this "Figures released to the Herald under the Official Information Act show $30.4 million, or $2.5 million a month, was collected from 340,368 speed-camera tickets issued nationwide in the 12 months to October 31.
However, those figures were down by about $5 million and almost 100,000 tickets compared with the previous October year." As for the crazy with the yellow paint just go have a look round the roads, there are alot which used to be white & now are yellow.

You still haven't provided any proof to back up your argument, corner cutting campaigns have been around for a lot longer than that

So far all you've shown is speed camera revenue is down for one particular period, how much did the corner cutting campaign (which have been going on for fucking years)boost it back up again?

Latte

3rd January 2011, 09:52

Scuba_Steve

3rd January 2011, 10:09

You still haven't provided any proof to back up your argument, corner cutting campaigns have been around for a lot longer than that

So far all you've shown is speed camera revenue is down for one particular period, how much did the corner cutting campaign (which have been going on for fucking years)boost it back up again?

Hey my association is more a light-hearted "this is probably whats happening" one, not to be taken too seriously I am not making any concrete claims, but none the less I am putting together falling profit & the expanding "areas of attack" its only recently the BIG push with things like corner-cutters, red lights etc along with more roads (most which just shouldn't) getting the crazy with the yellow paint treatment. As for this campaign has been going on for "years"? umm yea... about 1?. Cause I aint seen much of it previous.

Kickaha

3rd January 2011, 10:13

As for this campaign has been going on for "years"? umm yea... about 1?. Cause I aint seen much of it previous.

I can remember them from at 5 years + ago in the Marlborough region, redlight campaign 15 + years ago in Chch

swbarnett

3rd January 2011, 11:03

Ah well, maybe if people would not exceed the posted speed limits the said P.I.G.S's might have time to focus on other offending......:corn:
This implies that speeding is the number 1 priority. Why should it take precedence over truly dangerous driving behaviour?

MSTRS

3rd January 2011, 11:08

Cos speeding is the only one that can be 'seen' at a distance. And people suddenly remember how to drive when there's a (marked) cop close-ish.

p.dath

3rd January 2011, 11:14

I know, we need stupid detectors! :lol:

Scuba_Steve

3rd January 2011, 11:25

I know, we need stupid detectors! :lol:

well thats where my plan can help. The learners licence will involve filling petrol & tire pressure (weeding out the truly retarded) the learners period will be done on 2-wheels (learning the road b4 getting in tonne killing machines & weeding out yet more incapable people) restricted will involve merging with instant fail for treating it as a "give-way" or the likes, & automatics will be banned unless needed i.e. disabled thus weeding out what should be the last of the retards. It's probably not perfect but should go a long way to keeping the "stupid" away from the road

Ocean1

3rd January 2011, 11:51

Got some facts to back that up? or is it just your usual anti police ranting?

Probably the usual. I gota say, though, that the first time I rode northwards over the hill after that blitz of double yellow I laughed and laughed: every single straight bit of yellow line had multilple yellow dotted lines trailing over into the right hand lane and back again. :killingme:killingme:killingme

scumdog

3rd January 2011, 12:08

I know, we need stupid detectors! :lol:

I've always said that!

What we need is a 'stupidometer' to detect stupid driving/riding from a distance.

Oh, and more plain cars to catch out the dick-wads that drive like idiots only when they think no cop is in their vicinity.

rustic101

3rd January 2011, 15:28

I don't ride like a nanna, nor do I ride like a retard but I do step over the posted speed more often than not.

My biggest headache this holiday session has been cars and a few bikes crossing the center line. My other is wankers sitting right on my arse - That above all else gets me extremely nervous. Most times I'll hold my line and current speed until I feel safe to move or slow down to let them past.

The trip between BULLS and WANGANUI on boxing day was the worst I've had yet. The humor in most cases was that I eventually past most drivers a few ks down the road.

Coldrider

3rd January 2011, 15:39

swbarnett

3rd January 2011, 18:41

Coldrider

3rd January 2011, 19:25

Riders who can't corner properly?

Sounds just as bad as cagers that speed up for passing lanes.

Why pass cars illegally and then have a subset of skills that hold the cages up ? (a serious lack of judgement of the capabilities of some vehicles and drivers).

Cagers and others that speed up on passing lines do so because they feel safe to travel at the limit in that space.

Maha

3rd January 2011, 19:42

The humour I saw that day was bikers passing cages (sitting at 100 to 105 kph)at warp speed on the straights and passing lanes, then slowing down to 90kph for corners, positioning cars on their tails. WTF is that about?

South of here is a crash hot spot passing lane. On the 29th, we were in a line of cars heading south (the passing lanes are north bound) with double yellow lines to our right. The double yellows continue around a right hand bend and on for about another 300 mts. To the far right about halfway up the passing is a metal dump. The car about four ahead of us suddenly pulls out of the line and head across the two lanes towards the metal dump,why? I dont know but what astounded me was, there was a bike overtaking all of us at the same time, over the double yellows. The bike was alongside me when the car ahead pulled out (the car was indicating) did it phase the biker? nope, he carried on, around the right hand bend and beyond. If we were quick enough, we would have *555 the wanker on the bike, he clearly has no respect for his own life let alone anyone elses. Did the car driver see the bike? who fucking cares, the bike was not supposed to be there.

schrodingers cat

3rd January 2011, 20:38

I think I would find the question easier to answer if you asked how much was I prepared to spend to save a human life.

I think I would be prepared to spend $1m to save a human life.

Irrespective of cause?

BTW

http://www.transport.govt.nz/saferjourneys/PublishingImages/Figure%205%20Road%20deaths%20per%20100,00%20popula tion.jpg

swbarnett

3rd January 2011, 23:59

Why pass cars illegally and then have a subset of skills that hold the cages up ? (a serious lack of judgement of the capabilities of some vehicles and drivers).
Indeed. Sometimes it's just a matter on under estimating the cage driver's ability. I've done this once or twice (I was in a cage myself at the time). As soon as I realise that the other driver is faster than me in the corners (even though they were crawling down the straight) I'll let them past at the next safe opportunity.

Cagers and others that speed up on passing lines do so because they feel safe to travel at the limit in that space.
I was actually thinking of those that speed up over the speed limit for passing lanes (after crawling through the corners), making it all but impossible for faster drivers to pass in the length of the passing lane without breaking the sound barrier.

swbarnett

4th January 2011, 00:06

http://www.transport.govt.nz/saferjourneys/PublishingImages/Figure%205%20Road%20deaths%20per%20100,00%20popula tion.jpg
Deaths per population is a meaningless figure. It depends on how many ks the average citizen does in a given year. Switzerlan would be artificially low because most of the population doesn't even own a vehicle (1 car per 1350 residents in Zurich in the mid 90s). Whereas NZ is artificially high because we tend to drive a lot.

schrodingers cat

4th January 2011, 07:25

Deaths per population is a meaningless figure. It depends on how many ks the average citizen does in a given year. Switzerlan would be artificially low because most of the population doesn't even own a vehicle (1 car per 1350 residents in Zurich in the mid 90s). Whereas NZ is artificially high because we tend to drive a lot.

Correct. The trend is in fact a falling road toll.

Most posters on here seem to want better roads.

I saw an interesting graphic the other day that showed the location and size of fatal accidents in 2010. It looked like a picture showing distribution of population to me...

Katman wants to reduce human stupidity as a strategy. Bless. Its a nice idea but then so is the rotary engine (in theory)

Pixie

4th January 2011, 07:40

The only bullshit that affects the way I ride is the kind that real cows produce -not that stupid cow Paula Rose.

Pixie

4th January 2011, 07:54

Don't worry, I'm sure they've already thought it.

The reason they don't try and implement anything so drastic is that it would violate the boiling frog principle that politicians are so fond of. Personly I wish they would push the envelope a lot further. Then they would find out just what us apathetic kiwis are capable of (aka the UK poll tax).
Don't go there.
The thought of 4.2 million kiwis bent over,lubricated and waiting to be rogered makes me shudder

Pixie

4th January 2011, 07:59

As I've said before, no-one has ever asked for a zero road toll. That is clearly an unrealistic expectation.

I think you will find that this and previous governments do have a zero target to be achieved by 2020 or 2050 depending on which source you read

schrodingers cat

4th January 2011, 08:00

Indeed. Sometimes it's just a matter on under estimating the cage driver's ability. I've done this once or twice (I was in a cage myself at the time). As soon as I realise that the other driver is faster than me in the corners (even though they were crawling down the straight) I'll let them past at the next safe opportunity.

And for that, fellow citizen, you can have bling!

The amount of morons I've encountered over the last 10 days and 1500km's who are unable or unwilling to travel at posted highway speeds in perfect road conditions. The percentage who make any effort to let you past is pitiful.

In my eyes, a good driver is one who is AWARE of what is happening ALL around them and drives in a co-operative manner.

swbarnett

4th January 2011, 08:24

Don't go there.
The thought of 4.2 million kiwis bent over,lubricated and waiting to be rogered makes me shudder
Aren't we doing that now? If it was shooting rather than rogering don't you think a fair percentage of the population would finally yell enough?

I think you under estimate what we're capable if pushed far enough in one hit. TPTB seem to understand the boiling frog syndrome and are using it to great effect. I'd rather TPTB pushed hard enough in one go to get us all fighting than slowly wittled away at our freedoms as they're currently doing. In the long run the the latter is much worse.

avgas

7th January 2011, 13:45

Don't go there.
The thought of 4.2 million kiwis bent over,lubricated and waiting to be rogered makes me shudder
Perhaps you did not understand the first few lines of the national anthem......the ones the politician love to sing.
Something about kiss my toes, tax payer.

buellbabe

12th January 2011, 11:23

Well I am not gonna get into a debate (interesting reading it has been though!) with anyone.

In answer to the question...I couldn't truthfully tick any of the poll options.

Yes I am definately reining in the Beast (currently riding the 1125CR) on the more widely used roads. Jeez! Trying to keep it at 104 on the motorway (work and back every day) ain't easy so I am constantly checking the speedo and have noticed a general drop in the speed of most drivers which ain't a bad thing. But why is it that very few car drivers (from my own daily observations) slow down for the 70km work zones? A few months back when the Manukau bit was still pretty rough I was on my way to work on the bike and saw a car hurtle past me , bounce the wrong way on an uneven bit of road and smash straight into the barrier. I continued on my merry way thinking "serves ya right!" (Sorry if that offends anyone but that is honestly how I felt).

So yes, like I have already said I am making an effort to slow down on the main state highways but on the back roads I do my own thing and "ride to the conditions" at a speed that I deem to be safe. Quite often that is over the posted limit but there are also some roads where I think "100kph? you have to be kidding!" and will ride slower than the posted limit...swings and roundabouts...

And quite frankly if someone wants to try for their top speed on a deserted straight stretch of road with 100% visibility then whats the freaking harm in that?

I have always tried to be an "aware rider", looking for potential hazards, be they speed cameras or wandering stock/tractors pulling out etc so no, this campaign hasn't made me more aware in that sense. As far as I am concerned , that aspect hasn't changed for me.

MSTRS

12th January 2011, 14:41

And quite frankly if someone wants to try for their top speed on a deserted straight stretch of road with 100% visibility then whats the freaking harm in that?

Deserted? Then it never happened, eh?

Ocean1

12th January 2011, 15:16

Deserted? Then it never happened, eh?

Well, no photographers....

buellbabe

13th January 2011, 05:45

Exactamondo!

No photos, it never happened LOL

idleidolidyll

14th January 2011, 11:27

Yes, I deliberately avoid anywhere I think the scum might be hanging out waiting to tax me for exceeding an arbritary speed limit based on the opinion of some tossed who has probably never ridden a motorbike.

If they were serious about it instead of just anal wankers and drones collecting taxes, they'd legislate to allow motorbikes to go 10kmh faster so they could legally put themselves into that safe place where there are bugger all tin tops.

p.dath

14th January 2011, 11:41

If they were serious about it instead of just anal wankers and drones collecting taxes, they'd legislate to allow motorbikes to go 10kmh faster so they could legally put themselves into that safe place where there are bugger all tin tops.

What? How would legislating to allow motorcycles to travel at a different speed to the rest of the road users make it safer?

It's for this very reason they are dropping the 70km/h restriction for learner riders. Traffic is usually safest when everyone is moving at the same speed. Nice and smooth.

idleidolidyll

14th January 2011, 11:59

Why are trucks limited to 90?

Think about it: is it safer to ride amongst the stream of cars or in that large gap up ahead where there are no cars for ages?

A stream of cars doing about 100kmh currently obliges us by law to stay in that dangerous place where cars do dumb shit and don't see us.

Allowing us to do say 110 kph would legally allow us to overtake and sit in the gap. If we went slower we would always be caught by cars and would have to suffer the danger of riding with tin tops.

Actually, this is how I ride now. It may be illegal for me to speed to get into that gap but it's safer. Once in the gap I generally watch ahead and in my mirrors to try and match my speed with the tin tops and stay in that big open space for a while longer time.

idleidolidyll

14th January 2011, 12:06

What? How would legislating to allow motorcycles to travel at a different speed to the rest of the road users make it safer?

It's for this very reason they are dropping the 70km/h restriction for learner riders. Traffic is usually safest when everyone is moving at the same speed. Nice and smooth.

Damn iPad: won't let me scroll inside a text box.

No, it is NOT safer in a stream of traffic because your utopian vision and reality do not match.

Cars tailgate, turn without indicating, drive at 70, text while driving and scratch their arses or pick up crap they've dropped on the floor. Any motorbike rider who pays attention and/or has been doing this for a while knows that the most dangerous place on the road is when you are riding in close proximity to cars and trucks.

p.dath

14th January 2011, 12:36

Why are trucks limited to 90?

Try stopping 40 tonnes. Takes a bit longer than a car or a motorbike. Also the momentum makes truck manoeuvrability trickier (imagine 38 tonnes of trailer "pushing" your 2 tonne tractor unit as you try to turn a corner - who do you think wins when it goes wrong?). Also there are special considerations to be given to high walled trucks and wind. All of these things are directly impacted by speed.

Think about it: is it safer to ride amongst the stream of cars or in that large gap up ahead where there are no cars for ages?

Weather you can travel 10km/h faster than a car or not has nothing to do with choosing to ride on a safe place on the road.

I could just as easily say - slow down - and choose the safer place behind all the cars. Easy huh? And it requires no special laws to be passed.

A stream of cars doing about 100kmh currently obliges us by law to stay in that dangerous place where cars do dumb shit and don't see us.

Negative. No law requires you to place yourself in danger or to ride where you can not be seen. Only you can choose to do that. Simply don't ride somewhere that you think is dangerous. Move to a safe place.

You choosing to ride somewhere safe. 2s (including your reaction time).
Time for parliament to make a new law which wont be effective - 5 years.

You choose.

Allowing us to do say 110 kph would legally allow us to overtake and sit in the gap.

Next thing cars will want a law to allow them to travel 10km/h to get past motorbikes to make it safer. Then cyclists will want a law saying people have to go 10km/h slower past them for their safety. It's not safer for anyone.

Road users making sensible decisions - that's safer. Personal responsibility.

Actually, this is how I ride now. It may be illegal for me to speed to get into that gap but it's safer. Once in the gap I generally watch ahead and in my mirrors to try and match my speed with the tin tops and stay in that big open space for a while longer time.

I consider the law a blunt tool intended for the well being of society, to help everyone live together, and to be fair. I bet 99.9% of the people in NZ don't know every law. I don't. The thing is you don't have to know every law - you just have to be considerate and fair to others. The law is to help moderate those that are selfish and act for themselves without regard for others.

The last thing we want is for the law to be a rule book with a rule for every aspect of our lives, telling us exactly what we have to do.

So I say ride/drive to the conditions, with due consideration for others, and not worry about the exact semantics of the law. If this means going 10km/h faster than the limit for a short period of time, then I personally say do it.

Oops, almost ranting. Sorry.

MarkH

14th January 2011, 13:00

Deserted? Then it never happened, eh?

I'm pretty sure my sig covers this situation!

idleidolidyll

14th January 2011, 15:21

Try stopping 40 tonnes. Takes a bit longer than a car or a motorbike. Also the momentum makes truck manoeuvrability trickier (imagine 38 tonnes of trailer "pushing" your 2 tonne tractor unit as you try to turn a corner - who do you think wins when it goes wrong?). Also there are special considerations to be given to high walled trucks and wind. All of these things are directly impacted by speed.

So then the fact that my KTM 690 stops way quicker than a Transit van and is much better around corners means bikes should be allowed to go faster?
Thanks for wrecking your own argument

Weather you can travel 10km/h faster than a car or not has nothing to do with choosing to ride on a safe place on the road.

I could just as easily say - slow down - and choose the safer place behind all the cars. Easy huh? And it requires no special laws to be passed.

WRONG! You didn't read my posts did you.
If you go slower than the traffic you will always have some dick in a car up your date. If you can go faster legally, you can pick the gap then match your speeds to stay in that gap longer.

Negative. No law requires you to place yourself in danger or to ride where you can not be seen. Only you can choose to do that. Simply don't ride somewhere that you think is dangerous. Move to a safe place.

Duh! I choose to speed a little to stay alive. what isn't clear about that?

You choosing to ride somewhere safe. 2s (including your reaction time).
Time for parliament to make a new law which wont be effective - 5 years.

You choose.

I chose to ignore assholes who make dumb laws that put me in danger years ago. Why are you advocating that bike riders stay in danger (lines of traffic) just to stay legal?

Next thing cars will want a law to allow them to travel 10km/h to get past motorbikes to make it safer. Then cyclists will want a law saying people have to go 10km/h slower past them for their safety. It's not safer for anyone.

Chcken Little would be proud of that nonsnese

Road users making sensible decisions - that's safer. Personal responsibility.

Read my post

I consider the law a blunt tool intended for the well being of society, to help everyone live together, and to be fair. I bet 99.9% of the people in NZ don't know every law. I don't. The thing is you don't have to know every law - you just have to be considerate and fair to others. The law is to help moderate those that are selfish and act for themselves without regard for others.

The law is an ass and is designed around what works for cars and trucks with fuck all thought given to the reality of motorbikes

The last thing we want is for the law to be a rule book with a rule for every aspect of our lives, telling us exactly what we have to do.

There's that Chicken Little thing again

So I say ride/drive to the conditions, with due consideration for others, and not worry about the exact semantics of the law. If this means going 10km/h faster than the limit for a short period of time, then I personally say do it.

Oops, almost ranting. Sorry.

ALMOST ranting?

p.dath

15th January 2011, 08:31

So then the fact that my KTM 690 stops way quicker than a Transit van and is much better around corners means bikes should be allowed to go faster?
Thanks for wrecking your own argument

I was supplying a reason why trucks might be limited to a top speed of 90km/h instead of 100km/h. You've inverted and twisted the argument to justify why bikes should be allowed to go faster, which has nothing to do why trucks have to go slower.

Using your argument you might as well say change the speed limits to 200km/h for motorcycles because they can corner faster.

WRONG! You didn't read my posts did you.
If you go slower than the traffic you will always have some dick in a car up your date. If you can go faster legally, you can pick the gap then match your speeds to stay in that gap longer.

I did read your post. Did you read mine?

You wanted an increase in 10km/h for motorcycles so you could speed up to get into a gap in front. I said you could just as easily slow down for a little but to get into the gap behind.

Duh! I choose to speed a little to stay alive. what isn't clear about that?

That is probably the worst argument I have heard - that speeding a little will keep you alive. :lol:

I'll agree that riding to the conditions to be safe is the important factor, and that this may mean going both faster and slower than the posted limit.

rastuscat

15th January 2011, 19:47

Stop thinking that speed causing crashes is the big issue. Speed causes a few (like failing to take a corner coz your entry speed is too high, the open road disease), but it contributes to far more injuries.

For eggsample, someone pulls put of a give way into your path. You deply the parachute, 3 discs and your foulest language, and manage to pull up short. Had you crashed, the cause would have been the dickhead that pulled out into your path.

However, add 20 km/h to whatever you were doing, and the difference is , Dr Spock, staggering. You'd be embedded in the dickheads drivers door. The cause would still have been the dickhead that pulled out into your path, but you'd be scraping your bike off his car for some time to come.

As for the speed limits being arbitrary, yes they are. Otherwise, yopu'd be having to leave it to the individual Popo to decide what speed is safe and reasonable in the circumstances. That sort of subjectivity is damn hard to interpret.

On the North Shore the council used to be dead reluctant to vary speed limits, despite East Coast Road being easily fit for a 60 km/h limit, up from 50. I always wondered why. When I moved to Chch I was pleased to see that the council had varied the limits based on traffic volume, habitation, population density etc. Then I found that driving around, people oftten had bugger all idea what the limit was, as the signs met the standard, but who ever sees the signs?

So be careful what you wish for (in terms of speed limit variation) as you just might get it. Alog with a great opportunity for speed enforcement to enter your life.

So, speed causes some crashes, but not many. Any crashes that happen for other reasons are made significantly worse (bloody law of physics) by an increase in participant speed.

Donuts.

swbarnett

15th January 2011, 20:30

Stop thinking that speed causing crashes is the big issue. Speed causes a few (like failing to take a corner coz your entry speed is too high, the open road disease), but it contributes to far more injuries.
I have absolutely no problem with this statement.

For eggsample, someone pulls put of a give way into your path. You deply the parachute, 3 discs and your foulest language, and manage to pull up short. Had you crashed, the cause would have been the dickhead that pulled out into your path.
Again, right on the money.

However, add 20 km/h to whatever you were doing, and the difference is , Dr Spock, staggering. You'd be embedded in the dickheads drivers door. The cause would still have been the dickhead that pulled out into your path, but you'd be scraping your bike off his car for some time to come.
Also spot on.

However, All of the above ignores the fact that, at a higher speed (or lower), you wouldn't have been there in the first place. It also ignores the situation where one may be travelling over the posted speed limit where there are no intersections (or at least no vehicles approaching from the side) but one is alert enough to spot a potential danger and adjust your speed (up or down) or take other action (lane change for example) to removes said potential.

Deciding what speed is suitable in a given situation for a given stretch of road is a complex process that can only be reliably arrived at by the driver. The only time that a driver can be reliably said to have got this decision wrong is in the aftermath of a crash. No crash, no problem.

As for the speed limits being arbitrary, yes they are. Otherwise, yopu'd be having to leave it to the individual Popo to decide what speed is safe and reasonable in the circumstances. That sort of subjectivity is damn hard to interpret.
So what you're saying is because it's hard it shouldn't be done? Human progress relies on exactly the opposite - find something hard and figure it out. Otherwise we'd still be living in caves (actually, we wouldn't have moved in to caves yet).

So, speed causes some crashes, but not many. Any crashes that happen for other reasons are made significantly worse (bloody law of physics) by an increase in participant speed.

Also true:

So, driving causes some crashes, but not many. Any crashes that happen for other reasons are made significantly worse (bloody law of physics) by an increase in driving.
By this logic we should abanden driving. Or walking. Hell, let's just all committ scuicide now. That should lower the road toll.

rastuscat

15th January 2011, 21:10

By this logic we should abanden driving. Or walking. Hell, let's just all committ scuicide now. That should lower the road toll.

No, it's question of balance. All or nothing arguments are not helpful.

The limits are set at a level of trauma that society can handle. Think of it as a volume control; turn up the speed, and you turn up the injuries. If we were happy to and maim more, put the limits up. Then the average speeds would increase, and people would spend less time on the road. Trouble is, it's likely to increase the related trauma.

See, speed limits are there to regulate the average speed of the fleet, by regulating the speed of the individuals.

I once considered commiting scuicide, but when it came to it I decided that it was too close to suicide for comfort.

Conquiztador

15th January 2011, 21:14

The 16 yo chap who crashed on Monday and sadly died today (R.I.P young fella!) cut a blind corner and collected a 4WD. This was rider error. Yes, he might have been speeding, but his mistake was to cross the line in a blind corner. I do not sadly have any solution apart from training to make this type of crash go away. No matter how many millions are spent on policing the speed limit I have a suspision that it would not have helped here.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10699826

rastuscat

15th January 2011, 21:33

The big issue is that this young man probably didn't think it would happen to him, so saw no reason to regulate his riding. None of us ever think it will happen to us, so we don't regulate our behaviour.

Then it did happen to him, and the outcome was too late to fix.

RIP, young man, you've had to chance to learn from your mistake, and that's a dreadful outcome.

Ocean1

15th January 2011, 22:19

The limits are set at a level of trauma that society can handle.

Bollox, the limits are most certainly not set by “society”. Yes there's always a bunch of hand wringing when there's been a fatality, but it's politicians that use that to drive the policies which set the limits.

Why do politicians continue to legislate to drive speeds down? Follow the cash, it just costs less, it's that simple. So we're forced to endure a penurious and arbitrary enforcement regime in the name of a simple minded austerity measure.

p.dath

16th January 2011, 05:27

Why do politicians continue to legislate to drive speeds down? Follow the cash, it just costs less, it's that simple.

And voters like paying less tax ...

swbarnett

16th January 2011, 06:59

No, it's question of balance. All or nothing arguments are not helpful.
My argument is not all or nothing. It is that it is the individual that has the right to determine the parameters under which they live their life. As long as consideration is given to those around them noone has the right to set these parameters for them. one should not be forced to live against their principles just so someone else can feel safe in the knowledge that they will not have to witness another's trauma.

The limits are set at a level of trauma that society can handle.
If this is true then why do the majority of vehicles travel above the speed limit until either there's a cop around or they are brainwashed by TV ads and over policing? Left to their own devices society will accept higher and higher speeds over time. In 1896 the first speeding ticket was issued for travelling at 8mph in a 2mph zone. Society changes and with it so does the appreciation of what speeds are generally acceptable. Our current speed limits have been in place long enough now that they are out of step with society (and reality).

Think of it as a volume control; turn up the speed, and you turn up the injuries. If we were happy to and maim more, put the limits up. Then the average speeds would increase, and people would spend less time on the road. Trouble is, it's likely to increase the related trauma.
It has been demonstrated on numerous occasions that raising speed limits (or removing them all together) actually results in fewer crashes and less related trauma.

See, speed limits are there to regulate the average speed of the fleet, by regulating the speed of the individuals.
Yes, this I understand. The trouble is that reducing the average speed of the fleet does not reduce the level of trauma. The slower the fleet the less drivers are thinking about their driving.

Ocean1

16th January 2011, 10:14

And voters like paying less tax ...

Not as much as they dislike unreasonable constraints.

Here's an idea: let's leave the speed limits right where they are. Then, sell licences allowing higher speeds in 5k increments, say $1000.00 for +5k, $2000.00 for +10k... Proceeds ringfenced for road safety improvements. Like uprooting kilometres of WRB.

Or you could just cut all the bullshit, chop down all the recomended retail speed signs and allow ACC to calculate individual premiums the same way real insurance companies do. Yes, yes, I know, some people wouldn't be allowed to drive at all. How sad.

scumdog

16th January 2011, 13:21

It has been demonstrated on numerous occasions that raising speed limits (or removing them all together) actually results in fewer crashes and less related trauma.
.

Hmmmm,..I wonder...???

Haven't got the figure but untill 1999 - 2000 or thereabouts nobody got a speeding ticket for anything under 20kph more than the set speed limit (50kph to 100kph..whatever it happened to be in that area).

Ergo the 'de facto' speed limit around town was 70kph or so and 120kph on the open road.

Can some brain-box find the figures to do a comparison with say the 1999 figures and 2009? - comparing number of crashes, number of serious injury and deaths etc.

Remembering the fleet on our roads is now a bit bigger of course.