Speeding tickets. Why the angst?

[Fast Eddie]

It ain't no fun if you can't do the ton..

[Jack Miller]

Na not really most of my tickets were paid for by NZ (cheers guys), drip feed off the dole. I latter learnt it was just a scam & stopped paying all together

Was that your car I saw in West Auckland? It's number plate surround said:
"Hello Officer, put it on my tab."

[Scuba_Steve]

Was that your car I saw in West Auckland? It's number plate surround said:
"Hello Officer, put it on my tab."

Na I live in New Zealand & Try my best to keep away from that country, Auckland.

[theseekerfinds]

hell, I just pay and get on with my life.. something about the self responsibility I'm trying to teach my kids and all that..

now if only I could teach them that eating too much junk food makes you overweight, or stop myself from eating too much junk food so I stop putting on weight.. bloody leathers are getting too tight to zip up me boots..

[scumdog]

hell, I just pay and get on with my life.. something about the self responsibility I'm trying to teach my kids and all that..

..
There's a shit-load of whinging ranters (from time to time) on this site that you could try to teach as well...:whistle:

[george formby]

There's a shit-load of whinging ranters (from time to time) on this site that you could try to teach as well...:whistle:

I'm sure their was an Irish folk band called The Whinging Ranters. :shutup:

[mstriumph]

I think you are missing the point, the question is why are some things illegal, and some not, when they provide the same amount of inconvenience. Surely it should be all or nothing for consistency?

ahHA! And there you have the guts of the matter... and I'd take it further and say "why, of the things that are illegal, are some much more heavily policed than others"?

the answer, I suspect, is that the things most heavily legislated and 'policed' are those easiest to levy fines on and less likely to end up disputed in court (like a bike parked on the footpath) and the things that are less followed up are those that would take more time, effort and actual police-work to get a result.

forgive my cynicism, but I'm sure the authorities have KPIs just like the rest of us.

[FJRider]

... and I'd take it further and say "why, of the things that are illegal, are some much more heavily policed than others"?

It's really simple ... "accidents" are most usually caused by a number of factors ... with the most common factor being speed. If the speed factor was taken out of the accident "equasion" ... the accident would either not have happened, or would not be as serious.

So that factor is treated seriously ...

Simple eh ...

[Maha]

I'm sure their was an Irish folk band called The Whinging Ranters. :shutup:

Most of them now live in the South Island..:yes:
...sorry, im thinking of the Manic Street Preachers..as you were..:corn:

[Scuba_Steve]

It's really simple ... "accidents" are most usually caused by a number of factors ... with the most common factor being speed. If the speed factor was taken out of the accident "equasion" ... the accident would either not have happened, or would not be as serious.

So that factor is treated seriously ...

Simple eh ...

If that factor was taken out the accident wouldn't happen, stationary vehicles find it really hard to have accidents :yes:

if your talking "exceeding the posted speed limit" or even "to fast for the conditions" these both have relatively low representation in the statistics in-fact "speed" &/or drink driving are factors in less than 30% or accidents... "Most common" ay??? :facepalm: I think you'll find inattention &/or distraction is most common

[FJRider]

If that factor was taken out the accident wouldn't happen, stationary vehicles find it really hard to have accidents :yes:

But think of the money you'd save on fuel ... :innocent:


if your talking "exceeding the posted speed limit" or even "to fast for the conditions" these both have relatively low representation in the statistics in-fact "speed" &/or drink driving are factors in less than 30% or accidents... "Most common" ay??? :facepalm: I think you'll find inattention &/or distraction is most common

Exceeding the posted ... and Too fast for ... are only two charges that can laid ... not factors that can cause an accident. Operating a vehicle that you dont have experience/ability to handle is not against the law.... if you have the correct licence. (for example) Is driver error against the law ... ???
Inattention and distraction(???) are only factors ... seldom the single cause of an accident.

If stupidity was a possible charge ... I think THAT would be the the most enforced ...

[Scuba_Steve]

Inattention and distraction(???) are only factors ... seldom the single cause of an accident.

Say what???:blink:
Of-course they'll never be the single cause nothing will, but they are the biggest causes of accidents.
speed while involved in every accident causes none it can only ever be a factor, it can be a factor in exaggerating an accident but you'd be hard pressed to find an accident caused by speed. Even those written off to "speed" you'll find it was inattention at that speed, or distraction at that speed, or inability to control the vehicle at that speed, never the speed itself, speed is only ever a factor never a cause.

[FJRider]

... Even those written off to "speed" you'll find it was inattention at that speed, or distraction at that speed, or inability to control the vehicle at that speed, never the speed itself, speed is only ever a factor never a cause.

Exactly as I said in my post ... but the one factor the powers that be ... (as well intentioned as they are) ... see as the (one) factor they can police ...

Amazing how often ... after an accident ... it is reported ... speed ... was a factor ... not the cause.

[Scuba_Steve]

Exactly as I said in my post ... but the one factor the powers that be ... (as well intentioned as they are) ... see as the (one) factor they can police ...

Amazing how often ... after an accident ... it is reported ... speed ... was a factor ... not the cause.

the reporting is because of legalities more than anything, I believe they aint allowed to report the cause until it has been officially determined so they say "speed" was a factor, which of-course it was it's impossible to have an accident without speed, but they have an agenda to push & that's trying to continue to get us to believe "speed" is bad, worse than theft, assault or child abuse (based on police commitment to these areas) & scamming us for it is good so the Govt can keep making their $$$.

[scumdog]

You kids STILL fuckin' about and niggling on this thread???:blink:

[Scuba_Steve]

You kids STILL fuckin' about and niggling on this thread???:blink:

Why yes, come join us won't you :)

[scumdog]

ahHA! And there you have the guts of the matter... and I'd take it further and say "why, of the things that are illegal, are some much more heavily policed than others"?

the answer, I suspect, is that the things most heavily legislated and 'policed' are those easiest to levy fines on and less likely to end up disputed in court (like a bike parked on the footpath) and the things that are less followed up are those that would take more time, effort and actual police-work to get a result.

forgive my cynicism, but I'm sure the authorities have KPIs just like the rest of us.

Cynical or naive??

[FJRider]

You kids STILL fuckin' about and niggling on this thread???:blink:

I have to ... I don't have SKY ... :facepalm:

[swbarnett]

I have to ... I don't have SKY ... :facepalm:
What do you mean you don't have sky?

Just poke your head out the window and look up.

[FJRider]

What do you mean you don't have sky?

Just poke your head out the window and look up.

This place has windows ??? ....... :blink:

[mstriumph]

Cynical or naive??

well, both I guess .. part of my charm :innocent:

[mstriumph]

It's really simple ... "accidents" are most usually caused by a number of factors ... with the most common factor being speed. If the speed factor was taken out of the accident "equasion" ... the accident would either not have happened, or would not be as serious.

So that factor is treated seriously ...

Simple eh ...

That's what the authorities would have you believe
If only it WERE that simple
To expand on that 'accidents' are caused by inattention, a driver's lack of ability to read the road and weather conditions, poor training, poor attitude, lack of sleep, bad temper, badly maintained roads, inadequate signage, etc etc etc and(perhaps) speed .... of those the only one that gets meticulously policed is speed - BECAUSE IT'S THE EASIEST - I rest my case.

[LBD]

And there is a difference between speed being a factor and illegal speed being a factor....after all if there was no speed at all there would be no accident....

The angst for me is when I get booked for 109 on an near deserted wide dry road...yes illegal but ....and this is where the angst comes in....in my opinion I was not being dangerous, I was riding to the conditions, I was having no affect on other drivers....but I am still being punished like a criminal....to a degree, it becomes a pride thing.

[Bob]

I have recently written a column for the Huffington Post on this very subject: http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/142756-Opinion-Speed-is-not-the-root-of-all-evil

[Kickaha]

in my opinion I was not being dangerous

It seems as though no matter what the conditions or what speed no one pulled up for speeding ever considers what they were doing was dangerous

[Ocean1]

It seems as though no matter what the conditions or what speed no one pulled up for speeding ever considers what they were doing was dangerous

Seems entirely reasonable, they wouldn't have been doing it if they thought it was likely to hurt.

And then; maybe they've got a slightly less black and white idea of what constitutes danger.

[Mad-V2]

This is ridiculous. You can take one small step, fall over, break your neck and die.
Should we ban walking.
People are stupid clumsy things, and will at some point do something to hurt themselves or someone else.
It doesn't matter how fast they were going, or the conditions, it just happens.
Most of the time it is a lapse in concentration that causes the accident and not the speed involved
And if a cop pulls you over for doing 105 on a quiet dry open road.....accept the ticket, call him a dickhead or tell him how ya feel about the ticket (since we know how much they love that) and carry on with ya life.
Otherwise....don't get caught
Trying to change every motorcyclists attitude when it comes to speeding is like trying to tell the whole country to never smoke weed, people will still smoke it.

[LBD]

It seems as though no matter what the conditions or what speed no one pulled up for speeding ever considers what they were doing was dangerous

And I think it is that difference of opinion between you and the officer that creates the angst... worse still is even if he agrees it was not dangerous, but still books you anyway...and they wonder why they are losing respect!

[scumdog]

And I think it is that difference of opinion between you and the officer that creates the angst... worse still is even if he agrees it was not dangerous, but still books you anyway...and they wonder why they are losing respect!

Wow, I never knew I had any respect to lose!!:shit:

Ah well, who cares...

[Ocean1]

it just happens.

It's not as complicated as some would have it, but that's a tad too simple.

Best model I've seen is a variant of this, common in the aviation and health industries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_cheese_model

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codeq/risk/docs/uva.pdf

So, if you want to survive learn how to move the cheese. Just one slice will do.

[FJRider]

... To expand on that 'accidents' are caused by inattention, a driver's lack of ability to read the road and weather conditions, poor training, poor attitude, lack of sleep, bad temper, badly maintained roads, inadequate signage, etc etc etc and(perhaps) speed .... of those the only one that gets meticulously policed is speed - BECAUSE IT'S THE EASIEST - I rest my case.

So ... in ALL those conditions/factors ... if all concerned SLOWED DOWN .... would not ALL concerned be less likely to get hurt (less) in the case of an "accident" ???

[Usarka]

So ... in ALL those conditions/factors ... if all concerned SLOWED DOWN .... would not ALL concerned be less likely to get hurt (less) in the case of an "accident" ???

Cool. Make sure you only do 75kph in a 100 zone. It's a lot safer.

[Ocean1]

Cool. Make sure you only do 75kph in a 100 zone. It's a lot safer.

He could do that. 'Course he'd piss a lot of motorists off, which isn't usually that safe.

Best he just stays home with a nice cup of coacoa.

[LBD]

[QUOTE=scumdog;1130173819]Wow, I never knew I had any respect to lose/QUOTE]

You probably have some to lose....but not much to spare.....:blink:

[Scuba_Steve]

Cool. Make sure you only do 75kph in a 100 zone. It's a lot safer.

whoo whoo whoo, thats far far too fast best just to stick at idle that'll be the best chance he has of not sustaining an injury short of stationary.

[Jack Miller]

So ... in ALL those conditions/factors ... if all concerned SLOWED DOWN .... would not ALL concerned be less likely to get hurt (less) in the case of an "accident" ???

Of course, which comes back to affirming my point - the ridiculous logic of speed enforcement is that traffic safety only occurs when there is no traffic. i.e.; When everyone slows down to zero there will be no accidents and the police will be happy.

[FJRider]

Of course, which comes back to affirming my point - the ridiculous logic of speed enforcement is that traffic safety only occurs when there is no traffic. i.e.; When everyone slows down to zero there will be no accidents and the police will be happy.

But motorcycles (and other traffic) still seem to fall off the road with nobody else around ... at least at the speed limit ... they fall off safely ... :innocent:

[scumdog]

When everyone slows down to zero there will be no accidents and the police will be happy.

Really?

I wish that was all it took..

[caspernz]

The whole speeding ticket debate amuses me greatly, but as a professional truck driver I spend my worktime being amused by the motoring public anyhow.

On occasion I'll get passed several times by the same car or bike, usually in the same erratic or dangerous manner, only to find same car or bike at the next coffee shack or such. A little while goes by and then I come across a patrol car with the disco lights on having pulled same car or bike over....a wee toot of the horn usually elicits a familiar grin from the officer....there's the road code and then there's the code of the road....

Now I can't lay claim to being perfect as I've already been pinged for speeding on 3 occasions thus far, in 27 years and about 4 million kilometres on the road. I won't lie and say I don't find myself speeding on occasion, but growing up and taking responsibility for your own choices is obviously hard to take for some....let's not start on drink driving...

Speeding isn't the most dangerous thing on the road, but it's one of the easier things to measure and thus enforce. Tailgating, dangerous overtaking, failing to keep left being just three of the most common failings. Can't wait for us to have our drivercam installed, will make for good Youtube footage. Then again, bad driving is just something that 'other people' do isn't it?

By the way, I don't believe truck drivers as a group are anywhere near perfect. Loads of ratbags in our profession as well. From my perspective though, bikers as a group are the most risk tolerant group, so crying about speeding tickets, ACC, rego and such...tough! We as a group need to improve our behaviour on public roads before we'll be taken seriously....

[RUSS]

The whole speeding ticket debate amuses me greatly, but as a professional truck driver I spend my worktime being amused by the motoring public anyhow......
...

Well said!

[Bytor]

The whole speeding ticket debate amuses me greatly, but as a professional truck driver I spend my worktime being amused by the motoring public anyhow.

On occasion I'll get passed several times by the same car or bike, usually in the same erratic or dangerous manner, only to find same car or bike at the next coffee shack or such. A little while goes by and then I come across a patrol car with the disco lights on having pulled same car or bike over....a wee toot of the horn usually elicits a familiar grin from the officer....there's the road code and then there's the code of the road....

Now I can't lay claim to being perfect as I've already been pinged for speeding on 3 occasions thus far, in 27 years and about 4 million kilometres on the road. I won't lie and say I don't find myself speeding on occasion, but growing up and taking responsibility for your own choices is obviously hard to take for some....let's not start on drink driving...

Speeding isn't the most dangerous thing on the road, but it's one of the easier things to measure and thus enforce. Tailgating, dangerous overtaking, failing to keep left being just three of the most common failings. Can't wait for us to have our drivercam installed, will make for good Youtube footage. Then again, bad driving is just something that 'other people' do isn't it?

By the way, I don't believe truck drivers as a group are anywhere near perfect. Loads of ratbags in our profession as well. From my perspective though, bikers as a group are the most risk tolerant group, so crying about speeding tickets, ACC, rego and such...tough! We as a group need to improve our behaviour on public roads before we'll be taken seriously....

Dude that contains far too much common sense for KB:bleh:
Katman's going to love you for that last paragraph:laugh:

[caspernz]

Dude that contains far too much common sense for KB:bleh:
Katman's going to love you for that last paragraph:laugh:

Haha, well the trick to growing up is knowing how to act in public....or in other words making people think you don't misbehave:banana::banana:

[Reckless]

Cant be bothered searching back through a long thread to find the post but the claim was a cop has to have a full 3 second lock for a ticket to be legal.

How do we get the traffic cops to show they have a full 3 second lock??
Is this done at the time of the ticket? Is there a lock time read out on the radar??

I'd guess this is a very common thing that is forgotten poss by both parties in most cases?

Thanks in advance :)

[caspernz]

Cant be bothered searching back through a long thread to find the post but the claim was a cop has to have a full 3 second lock for a ticket to be legal.

How do we get the traffic cops to show they have a full 3 second lock??
Is this done at the time of the ticket? Is there a lock time read out on the radar??

I'd guess this is a very common thing that is forgotten poss by both parties in most cases?

Thanks in advance :)

The other thingee was that you can ask to see the display which shows the speed you were supposedly clocked at.

In the end, you'll know when you've been done fairly or not, technicality aside.

[FJRider]

The other thingee was that you can ask to see the display which shows the speed you were supposedly clocked at.

In the end, you'll know when you've been done fairly or not, technicality aside.

I think half a second of constant speed can get a lock on ... thats all thats needed ...

If the speed showing on the dial had NOT been reset since it was locked on ... who is to say it was YOU ... or someone ELSE ...

[Reckless]

The other thingee was that you can ask to see the display which shows the speed you were supposedly clocked at.

In the end, you'll know when you've been done fairly or not, technicality aside.

Yeh standard practice I understand for you to ask for this?? But with the rear mounted radar and the new trend of pinging you no matter how much other traffic is around, the reliability on mirrors only to make sure its you, and your just not the most likely target, you don't know if its your speed in the first place?
There has been a few inferences in the last few posts about just issuing the ticket and letting the courts sort it out?

I just picked up this point and thought with a decent reaction time you could hit the brakes within the 3 seconds???

So how does the officer prove he got a genuine 3 second lock??

Which generates a second question if you speed is rapidly falling over that 3 seconds can the radar get a lock???

[vifferman]

I think half a second of constant speed can get a lock on ... thats all thats needed ...

If the speed showing on the dial had NOT been reset since it was locked on ... who is to say it was YOU ... or someone ELSE ...
Hasn't there been some court cases over this, where a cop ticketed a whole lot of people on the same day for the same speed?

[scumdog]

Cant be bothered searching back through a long thread to find the post but the claim was a cop has to have a full 3 second lock for a ticket to be legal.

How do we get the traffic cops to show they have a full 3 second lock??
Is this done at the time of the ticket? Is there a lock time read out on the radar??

I'd guess this is a very common thing that is forgotten poss by both parties in most cases?

Thanks in advance :)

It's as true as a cop can't give you a ticket if he's not wearing a hat

Or if you do over 150kph they have to call the chase off

Or if the cop doesn't have his blue and red lights turned on he can't speak to you on a traffic matter or give you a ticket.

Or if you've got the keys out of the ignition by the time the cop walks up to your car he can't do you for pissed driving....

The world and KB is full of urban lawyers with their urban myths...

My understanding is: A clear reading and tone and lock it on.

About the same amount of time it takes to change channels on the TV remote is all it takes in most cases.

[Reckless]

It's as true as a cop can't give you a ticket if he's not wearing a hat

Or if you do over 150kph they have to call the chase off

Or if the cop doesn't have his blue and red lights turned on he can't speak to you on a traffic matter or give you a ticket.

Or if you've got the keys out of the ignition by the time the cop walks up to your car he can't do you for pissed driving....

The world and KB is full of urban lawyers with their urban myths...

My understanding is: A clear reading and tone and lock it on.

About the same amount of time it takes to change channels on the TV remote is all it takes in most cases.

Ok scummy cheers I wont respond to the first 5 lines of troll :laugh:

Thanks for the answer! Thanks KB more bullshit then aye :third: No 3 second lock required :Police:

I'm interested though?
Will it still lock if your speed is decreasing fast and catch you at whatever your doing when the button is pressed by the officer?

[Jack Miller]

My understanding is: A clear reading and tone and lock it on. About the same amount of time it takes to change channels on the TV remote is all it takes in most cases.
Keep thinking that Scumdog. The more Popo's think that's true the more tickets I can get off. For God's sake don't look up "Tracking History" in the manufacturer's user manual or research "Sweep" in the context of sloping bonnet lines & fairings.

[Jack Miller]

Really?

I wish that was all it took..

It appears that Traffic Cops are even more miserable than I thought. Even no accidents won't make them happy?

[scumdog]

Keep thinking that Scumdog. The more Popo's think that's true the more tickets I can get off. For God's sake don't look up "Tracking History" in the manufacturer's user manual or research "Sweep" in the context of sloping bonnet lines.

Down here we don't have constant Noddy Trains of traffic.

So it's easier to get a true reading - and quickly.

And I do so ONLY when there is no doubt as to which car it is - often it's the only one on the road.

I'll be the first to let you know if anybody ever challenges one of my ticket - it will be the first.:bleh:

(BTW: It must be some wierd hobby to be out driving at a speed in excess of the posted limit, get stopped, have to wait while an ION is written out - then go through the rigmarole of defending it - then do it all over again a later date - possibly in a town 500km from home that you were passing through while on holiday. Me? I'll just stick to riding at a sedate pace, keeps life a bit simpler eh...ah well, whatever turns your crank...)

[Jantar]

Keep thinking that Scumdog. The more Popo's think that's true the more tickets I can get off. For God's sake don't look up "Tracking History" in the manufacturer's user manual or research "Sweep" in the context of sloping bonnet lines.

I haven't read the manuals, but I DO know that "sweep" only affects Laser, not Radar.

[oneofsix]

Me? I'll just stick to riding at a sedate pace, keeps life a bit simpler eh...ah well, whatever turns your crank...

yep well you do ride a HD tractor don't you? Makes it simpler to pottle along. My baby was complaining about the pace being too slow to keep the crank turning in the damp air this morning, choice was drop a cog or switch to the T2 lane even though it was 'open' and step up to 50 real rather than the 50 indicated on some cagers dial. Of course I chose to drop a cog.

[Jack Miller]

I haven't read the manuals, but I DO know that "sweep" only affects Laser, not Radar.

Wrong. There are two types of "sweep" error. You've only found the first so far.

[Jack Miller]

It must be some wierd hobby to be out driving at a speed in excess of the posted limit, get stopped, have to wait while an ION is written out - then go through the rigmarole of defending it - then do it all over again a later date - possibly in a town 500km from home that you were passing through while on holiday. Me? I'll just stick to riding at a sedate pace, keeps life a bit simpler eh...ah well, whatever turns your crank...)
Good point, I've changed my mind. Popos should read the manuals and learn what is required to get a reading the manufacturer is prepared to back. That would stop them issuing a lot of tickets in the first place, many of those tickets not issued would be in passing lanes, which would suit me even better.

[scumdog]

which would suit me even better.

That's the story Jack - change the world to suit you!!:banana:

[rastuscat]

That's the story Jack - change the world to suit you!!:banana:

I recently checked my globe, and found that the world revolves around Jacko the Lad.

Haven't been on for a while, but I see things haven't changed. Jacko still banging on about his right to exceed the speed limit in passing lanes. My, maybe it's time I started to take him seriously.

Nah.

Donuts.

[rastuscat]

And I think it is that difference of opinion between you and the officer that creates the angst... worse still is even if he agrees it was not dangerous, but still books you anyway...and they wonder why they are losing respect!

If the speed was dangerous, you'd be charged with driving at a dangerous speed.

Speeding tickets aren't about danger, they're about exceeding the limit. That's why it's called the limit. Imagine that.:Police:

Edit : Speeding tickets are about risk, just to clarify.

[rastuscat]

I think half a second of constant speed can get a lock on ... thats all thats needed ...

If the speed showing on the dial had NOT been reset since it was locked on ... who is to say it was YOU ... or someone ELSE ...

+1

Folk get all wound up about seeing the reading. What the policy says is that if it is available to show, then it should be shown. It doesn't say a single thing about it being mandatory.

I've had people frothing at the mouth about being shown the reading ("I know my rights, you can't write me a ticket if I haven't seen the reading............my best mate's second cousin is a law student, I know the law"), then they want to see the photo to prove it was them.

What;s to stop me from locking a speed on at, say, 62, early in the morning, then driving round all day dishing out tickets to anyone I decide to pick on for doing 62? Nothing at all. Except the fact that I don't have to make shit up, there are enough folk breaking the rules.

What stops me is that it's wrong, unnecessary, and wrong. Did I mention wrong?

[Scuba_Steve]

Speeding tickets aren't about danger, they're about exceeding the limit. That's why it's called the limit. Imagine that.:Police:

translated - "speeding tickets have nothing to do with safety, they're about money gathering. That's why people call it a scam. Imagine that :Police:"

[Scuba_Steve]

What stops me is that it's wrong, unnecessary, and wrong. Did I mention wrong?

So's the speed scam but you still participate in that don't you???

[rastuscat]

Keep thinking that Scumdog. The more Popo's think that's true the more tickets I can get off. For God's sake don't look up "Tracking History" in the manufacturer's user manual or research "Sweep" in the context of sloping bonnet lines & fairings.

Maybe that's the crux of it Jacko. Tracking history is something that doesn't get talked about often enough.

In training, the Popo manual requires the officer to learn how to estimate the speed of an oncoming or receding vehicle, before having the radar confirm it. Basically, the primary evidence in court is that the officer saw the vehicle being driven at excess speed, THEN had it confirmed by the radar. Stalkers, we are talking. Just like TR6s, KR10s, Hawks, Eagles, and lord know how many digitectors and truvelos. You have me reminiscing here.

What happens tho, is that there is too much reliance on the radar, with little thought given to the tracking history. Too much for my liking, anyway.

For example, I see a line of cars coming up the left lane of the opposing passing lane. I see a bike flying up the right hand of those two lanes. I see a reading of 123 on the radar. I turn and write the rider a ticket.

It makes an interesting conversation, when the rider tries to convince me it wasn't him. Thing is, I SAW him going faster than all the cars, so if he is telling me that one of the cars was doing 123, then he was going faster than that.

It's roadcraft, tracking history, and should get more attention than it does.

Still, the biker doing 123 would probably just claim the Jacko defence anyway, as his safety probably depended on him having to go that fast to be safe.

Yawn.

[rastuscat]

So's the speed scam but you still participate in that don't you???

Skoober !!!!! Still trawling.

I didn't say the speed thing is a scam. Me and my troops try to reduce harm in intersection crashes. Crashes at lower speeds are better than crashes at higher speeds.

I'm sure even you can understand that.

[Scuba_Steve]

Skoober !!!!! Still trawling.

I didn't say the speed thing is a scam. Me and my troops try to reduce harm in intersection crashes. Crashes at lower speeds are better than crashes at higher speeds.

I'm sure even you can understand that.

No, I said the speed thing is a scam, cause it is!. No crash is better than a crash at slow speed & *you are less likely to have a crash if you are "speeding".

Intersection enforcement is a good thing, when it's people & not cameras so I hope you don't go getting replaced anytime soon.

*if you are a half decent driver in the 1st place & driving to conditions

[Max Preload]

The other thingee was that you can ask to see the display which shows the speed you were supposedly clocked at.

In the end, you'll know when you've been done fairly or not, technicality aside.And they can refuse to show you... or say they didn't lock it because they don't have to and that they observed it... or even simply show you the speed that was locked on another vehicle.

[Max Preload]

For example, I see a line of cars coming up the left lane of the opposing passing lane. I see a bike flying up the right hand of those two lanes. I see a reading of 123 on the radar. I turn and write the rider a ticket.Hopefully only if it's the FAST reading and doesn't match the TARGET speed... and you wait until the bike passes and verify the FAST reading has changed...

[SMOKEU]

Speeding tickets aren't about danger, they're about exceeding the limit. That's why it's called the limit. Imagine that.:Police:

It's about the fucking stupid government looking for another excuse to tax people even more.

[Jantar]

....What;s to stop me from locking a speed on at, say, 62, early in the morning, then driving round all day dishing out tickets to anyone I decide to pick on for doing 62? ....

The reason you can't do that is because a certain Alexandra cop has the copyright on that practice. (Although I did read a report in a motoring mag a couple of years ago that another cop was being investigated for the same practice.)

[rastuscat]

Hopefully only if it's the FAST reading and doesn't match the TARGET speed... and you wait until the bike passes and verify the FAST reading has changed...

Interesting clarification.

The Stalker in the cars in Chur Chur city have the old handpieces, the ones that can't lock the FAST display. The Highway guys have new handpieces, which can lock the FAST speed.

[Kickaha]

translated - "speeding tickets have nothing to do with safety, they're about money gathering.


It's about the fucking stupid government looking for another excuse to tax people even more.


Yeah, that must be why they reduced the fines a few years back, because it's all about money gathering

It is an "idiot tax" and one that's relatively easy to avoid

[rastuscat]

Yeah, that must be why they reduced the fines a few years back, because it's all about money gathering

It is an "idiot tax" and one that's relatively easy to avoid

+1

Nobody ever mentions that when they trot out the revenue gathering chestnut.

Tickets in general are easily avoidable. Don't break the rules, you won't get a ticket for breaking the rules. Easy really.

[Scuba_Steve]

Yeah, that must be why they reduced the fines a few years back, because it's all about money gathering

It is an "idiot tax" and one that's relatively easy to avoid

well it sure as hell aint about the safety Rustuscat even said that in different words.


Speeding tickets aren't about danger, they're about exceeding the limit.
Yet here you are claiming it aint about money gathering then calling it an "idiot tax" :facepalm: (you know what a tax is right???)

I don't care what they sting you with it doesn't change the fact it is a scam! It has an adverse impact on safety, has never & will never save a single life & does nothing except bring $$$ into the Govt.

If you can prove to me how some made up number & staying under it can magically save lives I'll listen till then I'll continue spreading the truth & maybee a few will wise up & one day we can abolish the scam.
Don't confuse this either there is dangerous driving, or too fast for the conditions (these can be done at any speed). What I'm against is the speed scam keeping your eyes off the road & on a speedo while calling it "safety" when all it does is make the Govt $$$. Which is exactly how they measure it too, how much money they brought in each year.

[Kickaha]

It has an adverse impact on safety,
And your evidence to back this up is where?

& does nothing except bring $$$ into the Govt.
So why were the fines reduced instead of being increased?

[SMOKEU]

Yeah, that must be why they reduced the fines a few years back, because it's all about money gathering



Infringement notice values were decreased because the worst offenders could not afford to pay those fees. Back then it was very easy to get billed over $1000 in a single traffic stop, and for the muppets who drive around in Cefiros with cut springs and their cap on backward, they can't afford to keep paying $1000 every time a cop pulls them over. Demerits were increased simultaneously for certain offences.

[FJRider]

+1

Folk get all wound up about seeing the reading. What the policy says is that if it is available to show, then it should be shown. It doesn't say a single thing about it being mandatory.

I've had people frothing at the mouth about being shown the reading ("I know my rights, you can't write me a ticket if I haven't seen the reading............my best mate's second cousin is a law student, I know the law"), then they want to see the photo to prove it was them.

What;s to stop me from locking a speed on at, say, 62, early in the morning, then driving round all day dishing out tickets to anyone I decide to pick on for doing 62? Nothing at all. Except the fact that I don't have to make shit up, there are enough folk breaking the rules.

What stops me is that it's wrong, unnecessary, and wrong. Did I mention wrong?

I never claimed it was mandatory. Almost all the tickets I have had issued were entirely MY fault.

However on ONE occasion ... my hand-held GPS told me my speed had not exceeded 103 kms/hr in the PREVIOUS two and a half hours. His claim ... my GPS required re-calibrating ... (???) A phone call to his supervisor ( whom I knew due to the youth group I am involved with) sorted the problem. A slow trip (below 103 kms/hr) to the police station, to show the GPS reading, saw the officer got "spoken to on the matter" ...

It happens ... Thank-you for NOT doing similar ...

[Jantar]

I never claimed it was mandatory. Almost all the tickets I have had issued were entirely MY fault.

However on ONE occasion ... my hand-held GPS told me my speed had not exceeded 103 kms/hr in the PREVIOUS two and a half hours. His claim ... my GPS required re-calibrating ... (???) A phone call to his supervisor ( whom I knew due to the youth group I am involved with) sorted the problem. A slow trip (below 103 kms/hr) to the police station, to show the GPS reading, saw the officer got "spoken to on the matter" ...

It happens ... Thank-you for NOT doing similar ...

The same Alexandra cop who, when I asked him to note on the back of the ticket that my bike was fitted with GPS, and the GPS was on, and recording, got back into his car and drove off without giving me a ticket?

[FJRider]

If you can prove to me how some made up number & staying under it can magically save lives I'll listen till then I'll continue spreading the truth & maybee a few will wise up & one day we can abolish the scam.
Don't confuse this either there is dangerous driving, or too fast for the conditions (these can be done at any speed). What I'm against is the speed scam keeping your eyes off the road & on a speedo while calling it "safety" when all it does is make the Govt $$$. Which is exactly how they measure it too, how much money they brought in each year.

Intelligent, skilled riders/drivers, that are familiar with their vehicles, should have no problems keeping within any posted (speed) limit ... Funds gained in this "scam" ... goes towards supporting the country, with the "benefits" (for want of a better word :innocent:) the goverment provides. Without the $$$$ this "scam" provides .... where would these $$$ come from ... ???

Maybe ... if there were fewer muppets on the road, without the skill and ability (not to mention the vehicle) to travel safely at higher speeds ... the rules may be relaxed ...

Or ... a majority of the roads improved, so higher SAFE speeds could be attained. (Motorways everwhere ... ???) Too many people fall off long straight roads now ... for various reasons, without any OTHER vehicle involved.

The lowest common denominator rule ... rules ...

Such is life. Such is the rules ... and it's not a perfect world ... get over it ...

[scumdog]

It's about the fucking stupid government looking for another excuse to tax people even more.

Luckily for me that tax only applies to dumb/blind/careless people...

Luckily for me the above types pay my share.

Good on ya guys!:woohoo:

[scumdog]

Don't break the rules, you won't get a ticket for breaking the rules. Easy really.

But not easy enough for some of the bozos on this site...apparently..<_<

[FJRider]

But not easy enough for some of the bozos on this site...apparently..<_<

Almost as if the results of getting caught speeding ... is a secret ...

and ... :innocent:

they wont catch me ... I'm too good/fast ... and I've got a radar detector ... :facepalm:

[SMOKEU]

Luckily for me that tax only applies to dumb/blind/careless people...

Luckily for me the above types pay my share.

Good on ya guys!:woohoo:

That's why the government is more interested in busting speeders than violent thugs and thieves, because it costs money to put people in jail.

[Kickaha]

That's why the government is more interested in busting speeders than violent thugs and thieves, because it costs money to put people in jail.
What a load of crap, If there was a drug dealers forum you'd probably find them on there whinging about the "revenue raising police" picking on them and how they're not harming anybody and all the same old shit that gets trotted out on here time after times well

If you really do think that then you're a lot dumber than I thought, we should raise the Nations average IQ and send you home


Infringement notice values were decreased because the worst offenders could not afford to pay those fees. Back then it was very easy to get billed over $1000 in a single traffic stop, and for the muppets who drive around in Cefiros with cut springs and their cap on backward, they can't afford to keep paying $1000 every time a cop pulls them over. Demerits were increased simultaneously for certain offences.

That was the reason the fines were decreased?, sounds like some made up shit backwards cap wearing inbreds made up and repeated enough times that dumb people started believing it, either way it still fucks the "revenue" argument

[superman]

You're a lot dumber than I thought, we should raise the Nations average IQ and send you home

He's nailed it with my past experience of this countries law enforcement. :yes:

[Fast Eddie]

haha when your bored KB members will entertain...

[Edbear]

Funny thing, this speeding tax. I've had two speeding tickets in the last 41 years on the road. 61km/h camera in town while off in dreamworld just after fixed camera's were introduced and one 112km/h caught by marked car again by not watching the speedo in an area I knew he frequented.

Yet I've driven at speeds up to 210km/h, (Is this where I say "On a closed private road..?":innocent:), and I've just got back from Manfeild, a round trip of over 1200km all up, passing cars and trucks on passing lanes and other safe places. I saw several cops, in marked and unmarked cars, passed a few camera vans and fixed camera's and managed, I don't know how, :blink: to avoid getting even a warning finger waggle. We made excellent time in the Kizashi in crap weather and arrived home safe and sound and just a wee bit weary.

I'm really sorry to the coppers on here, but I just can't seem to get caught as every time a cop goes by, I'm not speeding for some weird reason... :confused: Could someone please enlighten me on what it takes to get caught speeding and fined for it? Am I just too dumb..? :facepalm:

[Usarka]

Will it still lock if your speed is decreasing fast and catch you at whatever your doing when the button is pressed by the officer?

I've asked that a few times and never got an answer. So I'm assuming the answer is no, as I've been under heavy braking (from 101kph) on a few occassions and got a wag of the finger instead of a u-turn reaming.....

[rastuscat]

Funny thing, this speeding tax. I've had two speeding tickets in the last 41 years on the road. 61km/h camera in town while off in dreamworld just after fixed camera's were introduced and one 112km/h caught by marked car again by not watching the speedo in an area I knew he frequented.

Yet I've driven at speeds up to 210km/h, (Is this where I say "On a closed private road..?":innocent:), and I've just got back from Manfeild, a round trip of over 1200km all up, passing cars and trucks on passing lanes and other safe places. I saw several cops, in marked and unmarked cars, passed a few camera vans and fixed camera's and managed, I don't know how, :blink: to avoid getting even a warning finger waggle. We made excellent time in the Kizashi in crap weather and arrived home safe and sound and just a wee bit weary.

I'm really sorry to the coppers on here, but I just can't seem to get caught as every time a cop goes by, I'm not speeding for some weird reason... :confused: Could someone please enlighten me on what it takes to get caught speeding and fined for it? Am I just too dumb..? :facepalm:

Funny old thing.

People drive at speeds above the speed limit quite often, without getting caught.

Then when they do get caught they whinge like banshees.

How about, when you get caught , you divide the fine by the number of times you have exceeded the speed limit, and realize that it's just a few cents for each time over the limit.

But then, it would be too sensible, so sod it, let's all just whinge like schoolgirls and start a thread about it. Doh, too late, I already did that.

So listen here dudes, I started this thread as I wanted to hear why I people were so torn up about getting caught speeding. 40 pages later, I still hear the same old whining, and still don't get it. Bollocks, life goes on, and nothing changes.

[FJRider]

Only 40 pages ...









seems longer ...

[scumdog]

Only 40 pages ...









seems longer ...

Only because you weren't going fast enough...:shifty:

[Edbear]

Funny old thing.

People drive at speeds above the speed limit quite often, without getting caught.

Then when they do get caught they whinge like banshees.

How about, when you get caught , you divide the fine by the number of times you have exceeded the speed limit, and realize that it's just a few cents for each time over the limit.
But then, it would be too sensible, so sod it, let's all just whinge like schoolgirls and start a thread about it. Doh, too late, I already did that.

So listen here dudes, I started this thread as I wanted to hear why I people were so torn up about getting caught speeding. 40 pages later, I still hear the same old whining, and still don't get it. Bollocks, life goes on, and nothing changes.

If I did that, wouldn't the Govt. owe me money..?

[Berries]

I'm really sorry to the coppers on here, but I just can't seem to get caught as every time a cop goes by, I'm not speeding for some weird reason... :confused: Could someone please enlighten me on what it takes to get caught speeding and fined for it?
Ride a bike. Like one or two on here.

[Brian d marge]

Funny old thing.

People drive at speeds above the speed limit quite often, without getting caught.

Then when they do get caught they whinge like banshees.

How about, when you get caught , you divide the fine by the number of times you have exceeded the speed limit, and realize that it's just a few cents for each time over the limit.

But then, it would be too sensible, so sod it, let's all just whinge like schoolgirls and start a thread about it. Doh, too late, I already did that.

So listen here dudes, I started this thread as I wanted to hear why I people were so torn up about getting caught speeding. 40 pages later, I still hear the same old whining, and still don't get it. Bollocks, life goes on, and nothing changes.

How about a different approach, Remember the days when the old bill were respected , Wonder why, at least the sally army gives me a pin to say thanks when they take my money. If it were all about education , you lot would do just that , educate , how many people are " educated " by that camera on the harbor bridge ? ALL of them, I assume , but with the wrong kind of knowledge

Report card

Police , must try try harder, fails to grasp simple concepts

Government

Excellent results in maths and economics , though has difficulties with others in class

Stephen

[Kickaha]

Ride a bike. Like one or two on here.

Yeah the bastards gave me a ticket once while I was riding my bike (actually a mates bikes) back in 1984, haven't stopped hating them since

[Edbear]

Ride a bike. Like one or two on here.

But, but... I started riding bikes at 12 years of age and have never had either a speeding ticket or an accident on one, despite that alleged 210km/h being on a bike...! :blink:

I even, allegedly, used to ride my T500 at an average of over 100mph pretty much everywhere... Yet never even pulled over for a rego or licence check! Last time I came up to a Police stop checking WoF's, they just waved me through and I was clearly visible on the C50T! I even waved to the guy as I went by! What have I been doing wrong..? :mellow:

[Scuba_Steve]

But, but... I started riding bikes at 12 years of age and have never had either a speeding ticket or an accident on one, despite that alleged 210km/h being on a bike...! :blink:

I even, allegedly, used to ride my T500 at an average of over 100mph pretty much everywhere... Yet never even pulled over for a rego or licence check! Last time I came up to a Police stop checking WoF's, they just waved me through and I was clearly visible on the C50T! I even waved to the guy as I went by! What have I been doing wrong..? :mellow:

do people pass you when your doing these speeds? I'd say your speedo's well out :shutup:

[superman]

I started this thread as I wanted to hear why I people were so torn up about getting caught speeding. 40 pages later, I still hear the same old whining, and still don't get it.

Lets look at fairer systems in other countries shall we...

Germany
In Germany, a 3 km/h tolerance (4 km/h when speeding over 100 km/h) in favor of the offender is always deducted. Fines for speeding depend on how high above the speed limit the measured speed is and where the offense occurred. Speeding in built-up areas invariably carries higher fines than outside city limits. While fines for minor offenses tend to be moderate, speeds in excess of 20 km/h (12 mph) above the limit in built-up areas and 30 km/h (19 mph) on other roads result in distinctly higher fines and points on the driver's license, and, depending on the speed at which the offender was clocked, may lead to a driving ban of at least one month.

So no demerit points if speeding less than 20km/h over. That almost sounds ridiculously lenient compared to the NZ version. :shutup: Germans are less strict?! :facepalm:

Speeding tickets cost less in rural areas... 29km/h over for example, 50 Euros ($85 NZD) 60 Euros in the city. While that would cost $230 here.

I'd say a large number of people go up to 20km/h over especially motorcyclists out in rural NZ. In Germany no demerits if caught 19km/h over, the fine 30 euros ($51 NZD) rural, 35 euros city. Here $120 and 1/5 of your demerits gone.

[Edbear]

do people pass you when your doing these speeds? I'd say your speedo's well out :shutup:

Well, considering that there are very few if any other vehicles in the vicinity at the time I only have my own speedo or GPS to go by... :shifty:

[caspernz]

Haha Ed, I love your attitude, maybe 'cause mine is the same....don't speed and the wallet doesn't bleed :laugh::laugh:

[scumdog]

But, but... I started riding bikes at 12 years of age and have never had either a speeding ticket or an accident on one, despite that alleged 210km/h being on a bike...! :blink:

I even, allegedly, used to ride my T500 at an average of over 100mph pretty much everywhere... Yet never even pulled over for a rego or licence check! Last time I came up to a Police stop checking WoF's, they just waved me through and I was clearly visible on the C50T! I even waved to the guy as I went by! What have I been doing wrong..? :mellow:


Face it Ed -
Some people are just straight-out ticket magnets.
And some like you just plain don't get them at all...

[Edbear]

Haha Ed, I love your attitude, maybe 'cause mine is the same....don't speed and the wallet doesn't bleed :laugh::laugh:

Yeah, funny that, I must be too chicken to ride/drive fast anywhere where there is traffic about. Set the cruise on 103km/h by the GPS and relax. Time and again. I say to my wife while riding, (Sigh...), or driving, "Good thing I wasn't speeding.." as another cop car goes by or we pass a camera van... Must be gettin' old... Mind you, I do like playing in the twisties, don't have to speed to have fun then! :yes:


Face it Ed -
Some people are just straight-out ticket magnets.
And some like you just plain don't get them at all...

Sigh... :bye:

[caspernz]

Mind you, I do like playing in the twisties, don't have to speed to have fun then! :yes:

+1 :yes::laugh:

[Brian d marge]

Its not the point and you know it

Stephen

[Edbear]

How about a different approach, Remember the days when the old bill were respected , Wonder why, at least the sally army gives me a pin to say thanks when they take my money. If it were all about education , you lot would do just that , educate , how many people are " educated " by that camera on the harbor bridge ? ALL of them, I assume , but with the wrong kind of knowledge

Report card

Police , must try try harder, fails to grasp simple concepts

Government

Excellent results in maths and economics , though has difficulties with others in class

Stephen


Its not the point and you know it

Stephen

Some people just don't want to be educated, mate. Everyone knows the rules, whether they like them or not, it's just that they don't like it when the rules apply to them. Sure some Police persons are nicer than others, but they have a crap job, dealing with arrogant and ignorant idiots on a daily basis, so they can tend to become rather jaded and impatient with certain members of society and the attitudes they get.

They're only human after all.

[baffa]

translated - "speeding tickets have nothing to do with safety, they're about money gathering. That's why people call it a scam. Imagine that :Police:"

Clearly, it has everything to do with reducing the risk. I exceed the speed limit regularly, and feel that a modern well maintainted vehicle is safely capable of more than the posted speed limits in certain situations, but that is my belief. The Government has to cater to the lowest common denominator and all sorts of vehicles and all sorts of conditions.

I'm sure you can safely speed on a dead empty flat road, but who has to scrape your mess of the side of the road and break the news to your family when you get sunstrike just as a car pulls out in front of you?

[Brian d marge]

Some people just don't want to be educated, mate. Everyone knows the rules, whether they like them or not, it's just that they don't like it when the rules apply to them. Sure some Police persons are nicer than others, but they have a crap job, dealing with arrogant and ignorant idiots on a daily basis, so they can tend to become rather jaded and impatient with certain members of society and the attitudes they get.

They're only human after all.

I could imagime the Job could get a whole lot nice if just a few small changes ewere made

Suffice to say , ( as this has been discussed " ad mortem" ) the roading limits are archaic, and the poor police man is on the receiving end.

Just a thought , If the health care were to be completely privatized , I wonder how long it would be for road Safety to be a non issue ( politically wise )

Stephen

[FJRider]

Just a thought , If the health care were to be completely privatized , I wonder how long it would be for road Safety to be a non issue ( politically wise )

Stephen

You mean "user pays" ...???

[caspernz]

To change the approach to the speeding debate, how about applying the 'circle of concern' and 'circle of influence' method?

I kinda work on the theory that as the rider I have concern about the method by which speed limits are set, and to a degree the method of enforcement. On any given day I only have control over my actions, so exceeding the limit is simply a choice. Oh, and I lend my voice to the debate on changing speed limits and enforcement methods, as and when I come across a useful lobby.

Just for the record, 27 years on the road, in excess of 4 million kilometres travelled by road, 3 speeding tickets, that's my tally to date. That's one each in car, on bike and in truck. Yeah, slow learner....:laugh::facepalm:

[Brian d marge]

You mean "user pays" ...???

Anything like that , ....
Stephen

[FJRider]

To change the approach to the speeding debate, how about applying the 'circle of concern' and 'circle of influence' method?

On any given day I only have control over my actions, so exceeding the limit is simply a choice.


Those things I place in MY "circle of influence" ... I would/could place in my "circle of concern" ...

You (as I do) have control over our own actions and choices ... however the actions, and choices of other road users ... and for that matter ... ANY other living things in the area ... We do not. And at any given time ... I could not accurately predict their actions (Should I/we even know of their existence) ... in every given circumstance. Neither can you.

YOUR "choice" may put YOU in THEIR "Circle of concern" ...

It would seem you've been lucky so far ... long may it continue eh ...

And ... the "risk" in speeding is not just the "risk" of a ticket ...

[FJRider]

Anything like that , ....
Stephen

Due to the selfish, self-centered stupidity, of some road users ... any "later cost" is the least of their problems ... or worries. SOMEBODY will pay. Just NOT them ....

[rastuscat]

Some people just don't want to be educated, mate. Everyone knows the rules, whether they like them or not, it's just that they don't like it when the rules apply to them. Sure some Police persons are nicer than others, but they have a crap job, dealing with arrogant and ignorant idiots on a daily basis, so they can tend to become rather jaded and impatient with certain members of society and the attitudes they get.

They're only human after all.

+1

The numb-nuts we have to deal with every day effect the way we deal with people overall.

Sorry team, it's our humanity that causes the bad dealings at times.

Sigh.

[rastuscat]

Those things I place in MY "circle of influence" ... I would/could place in my "circle of concern" ...

YOUR "choice" may put YOU in THEIR "Circle of concern"

Smiled when I read that.

I was first on the scene of a car-v-ped in Rolleston Ave, Chur Chur, a couple of years back. A young woman was crossing on a ped crossing when she as hit by a car which failed to give way. The drivers cell phone was the main suspect, but whatever. As I held the hand of the young woman while the ambos worked on her she asked me to sing the Circle of Life song from the Lion King.

Now, I will do almost anything in circumstances like that, but I as buggered if I knew the lyrics, so I crooned a tune from the Muppets (the opening theme, actually), just to keep her mind off her broken pelvis. She lived, the driver was convicted, and life goes on.

Sometimes the job is a very emotional one, and sadly we react badly to provocation due to whatever shitty jobs we have been doing prior to the healthy discussions we have with motorists.

I still smile when I hear the Circle of Life, wondering is anyone will ever ask me to sing that one again. Must remeber the words, you never know.

Sorry about the tangent.

[riffer]

Sorry about the tangent.

May have been a tangent, but a good reminder that the Police have wide ranging dealings with the public. Whether you agree with the speed limits, they are what they are. Until (if ever) they are changed, there's no point in complaining. There are alternatives if you want to go fast, and they're not that expensive, and if someone's going too slow it's easy to go around them on a bike.

Y'see, it's not our god-given right to do what we want on the road. We have to share it, and doing that means that we need some rules. You don't like the rules; don't play the game. Don't ask to play and then demand a change to the off-side rule because it makes it hard for you to play the game the way you want.

LIke it or not, the Police are the referees. You don't blame the ref if he blows a penalty because you dove into the side of the ruck while off your feet and tried to take the ball. The whistle's there to stop you being rucked into oblivion. Same thing with the ticket.

[FJRider]

Smiled when I read that.

I still smile when I hear the Circle of Life, wondering is anyone will ever ask me to sing that one again. Must remeber the words, you never know.

Sorry about the tangent.

Just for you ...

From the day we arrive on the planet
And blinking, step into the sun
There's more to see than can ever be seen
More to do than can ever be done
There's far too much to take in here
More to find than can ever be found
But the sun rolling high
Through the sapphire sky
Keeps great and small on the endless round

It's the Circle of Life
And it moves us all
Through despair and hope
Through faith and love
Till we find our place
On the path unwinding
In the Circle
The Circle of Life

It's the Circle of Life
And it moves us all
Through despair and hope
Through faith and love
Till we find our place
On the path unwinding
In the Circle
The Circle of Life

[riffer]

In the interests of full disclosure, I'm not one of those never-get-a-ticket types.

My latest was for overtaking at 126km/hr while on the painted median, giving the one-finger salute and shouting obscenities at a brain-dead idiot in some nondescript SUV who'd unsuccessfully tried to wipe me out no less than three times between SH68 (Haywards Hill) and Silverstream.

It was almost worth the 35 demerits and $380. But not if you ask my wife.

[bsasuper]

Its that time of year when they need to top up the coffers again, camera vans where they have never been before, sneaky cops setting up sneaky speed traps, getting ticketed for the minimim, but its OK because the popo want us to have a happy safe xmas, and extracting unfair MONEY from us will solve everything.

[scumdog]

Its that time of year when they need to top up the coffers again, camera vans where they have never been before, sneaky cops setting up sneaky speed traps, getting ticketed for the minimim, but its OK because the popo want us to have a happy safe xmas, and extracting unfair MONEY from us will solve everything.

Well they won't get jack-shit out of me!:no:

[rastuscat]

Its that time of year when they need to top up the coffers again, camera vans where they have never been before, sneaky cops setting up sneaky speed traps, getting ticketed for the minimim, but its OK because the popo want us to have a happy safe xmas, and extracting unfair MONEY from us will solve everything.

Yet again, the same ol'd thing applies. The money extraction is totally, 100% voluntary. Don't wanna pay? Don't speed. Don't wanna get caught? Don't speed. It's amazing how many people are going to drive past a Popo radar car this week without being targetted, coz they aren't speeding.

Getting a hint yet? Appears not, from your comment about sneaky cops. Even sneaky radar traps can't catch someone speeding if they aren't.

Harumph.

[rastuscat]

Well they won't get jack-shit out of me!:no:

I'll come down and kick the shit out of you Scummie.

Hey, heard of the Blue Knights?

[Kickaha]

Yet again, the same ol'd thing applies. The money extraction is totally, 100% voluntary. Don't wanna pay? Don't speed. Don't wanna get caught? Don't speed.

A lot of people don't seem to be intelligent enough to be able to work that out by themselves

[Berries]

Hey, heard of the Blue Knights?
Is that when you get the lads round for the evening and watch porn?

[Brian d marge]

Due to the selfish, self-centered stupidity, of some road users ... any "later cost" is the least of their problems ... or worries. SOMEBODY will pay. Just NOT them ....

The cost to the health care system will drop , one also assumes the govenments , angst about the road toll .

On a side note the argument about , don’t speed don’t pay .. I have a red flag I am willing to lend to the fine boys in blue so that they may walk in front of your vehicle to warn mm the fellows of the impending Motoring carriage


The road and transport system is antiquated , and needs overhauling, but why would you when The harbor bridge pays quite nicely thanks

Stephen

[bsasuper]

Yet again, the same ol'd thing applies. The money extraction is totally, 100% voluntary. Don't wanna pay? Don't speed. Don't wanna get caught? Don't speed. It's amazing how many people are going to drive past a Popo radar car this week without being targetted, coz they aren't speeding.

Getting a hint yet? Appears not, from your comment about sneaky cops. Even sneaky radar traps can't catch someone speeding if they aren't.

Harumph.

I get it 100% (Harumph?), but you dont.Tell me how extorting money out of people is going to save lives,tell me how if one street is patrolled its safe, but another that is not is going to kill someone.I just hope that you dont get caught in one of their setups.Sure I always laugh when I see someone getting a ticket,its just some of their methods that are "sneaky" example, country road, 80 limit, minimum traffic, big potholes, people get ticketed for 8km over or crossing the double line avoiding the potholes, when there are no other vechicles on the road.Dont get me wrong, speeding is a danger, I keep my speeding for the track.I have video footage of them doing it,every person who cops a ticket cant believe what just happened,I also have video of cops breaking traction when they thought no one was around, I could put it on youtube, but I have something called discretion so I wont, as it could mean a few cops get fired, who have families, kids to feed etc, but untill they find out the use of discretion I have zero respect, when it comes to unfair traffic tickets.

[sinfull]

I like going fast !

That's all.

[swbarnett]

So why were the fines reduced instead of being increased?
My theory is that as the fines are reduced the default rate will drop. Therefore increasing the overall take.

[swbarnett]

Intelligent, skilled riders/drivers, that are familiar with their vehicles, should have no problems keeping within any posted (speed) limit
So, if the law told you you could only eat white bread because some people were stupid enough to choke on wholemeal (but were safe with white) would you blindly comply?

Just because I "have no problems keeping within any posted (speed) limit" if I choose to does not mean anyone has the right to force me to do so.

The African Americans of the 50s should've had no problems keeping to there section of the bus. Are you saying they were wrong for deliberately sitting outside their assigned area?

The speed limit is just another example of legalised discrimination. It discriminates against those drivers that have no problem keeping within a reasonable speed for the conditions that sometimes just happens to be above some arbitrary number of a sign post.

[DR650gary]

So, if the law told you you could only eat white bread because some people were stupid enough to choke on wholemeal (but were safe with white) would you blindly comply?

Just because I "have no problems keeping within any posted (speed) limit" if I choose to does not mean anyone has the right to force me to do so.

The African Americans of the 50s should've had no problems keeping to there section of the bus. Are you saying they were wrong for deliberately sitting outside their assigned area?

The speed limit is just another example of legalised discrimination. It discriminates against those drivers that have no problem keeping within a reasonable speed for the conditions that sometimes just happens to be above some arbitrary number of a sign post.

The scary thing is that you probably believe the drivel that you are typing :shutup:

[Edbear]

So, if the law told you you could only eat white bread because some people were stupid enough to choke on wholemeal (but were safe with white) would you blindly comply?

Just because I "have no problems keeping within any posted (speed) limit" if I choose to does not mean anyone has the right to force me to do so.

The African Americans of the 50s should've had no problems keeping to there section of the bus. Are you saying they were wrong for deliberately sitting outside their assigned area?

The speed limit is just another example of legalised discrimination. It discriminates against those drivers that have no problem keeping within a reasonable speed for the conditions that sometimes just happens to be above some arbitrary number of a sign post.

So just how would you resolve the "problem" that your riding/driving skills are so much better than others, and your ability to pick the road/weather/traffic conditions everywhere is faultless, that you should be allowed to ride/drive at whatever speed you choose without being pulled over for it?

Bearing in mind, and all the cops on here will agree, that most people are unsafe at any speed on the road and should never get behind the wheel in the first place, it would be carnage to allow them to do the same. How would you phrase the legislation and Police it?


The scary thing is that you probably believe the drivel that you are typing :shutup:

Well, we can't all be thinkers can we...?

[Kiwibaconator]

Newbie here. I've just joined looking for ways to fight a speeding ticket that I didn't earn. I was pulled over in town and accused of speeding at 114km/h roughly 4km ago. There being three major problems, I didn't break 100km/h on the entire trip, the cops cannot even show me the area where they allege I was speeding and due to road corners and undulations there was no visual until 3.5km later. The last few hundred metres finding a clear place to stop. The only thing they could show was an iphone map of an area roughly 4km back in a string of 65km/h corners which I always (no exception this day) take below 100.
They did show me a radar reading of 114. But that reading is either not mine or there's a serious issue with their equipment. I was driving at the time and I have a witness in the car.

Looks like this one is going to court, I've never had a ticket before and I'm not starting with one I didn't earn. Can someone PM me the list of information that can be requested?

Cheers

[sinfull]

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha a troll surely

[FJRider]

So, if the law told you you could only eat white bread because some people were stupid enough to choke on wholemeal (but were safe with white) would you blindly comply?

Having false teeth means ... I only eat WHITE bread anyway ... no issues there ... :innocent:


Just because I "have no problems keeping within any posted (speed) limit" if I choose to does not mean anyone has the right to force me to do so.

Ummm force NO ... but as it's required by law ... non complience to that law may result in legal action taken out against you, by those empowered to do so.

Why is YOUR choice(s) more important than mine. OR anybody elses ... ???


The African Americans of the 50s should've had no problems keeping to there section of the bus. Are you saying they were wrong for deliberately sitting outside their assigned area?

The fact is, that that bus law only "applied" to one group of people (the whites could sit anywhere they liked)... perhaps ... if we changed the law to accomodate the "choices" of bikers only ... to allow them to travel at ANY speed they like ... in whatever VEHICLE they like .. ???


The speed limit is just another example of legalised discrimination. It discriminates against those drivers that have no problem keeping within a reasonable speed for the conditions that sometimes just happens to be above some arbitrary number of a sign post.

Enforcement of the traffic laws, allows for discretion by the officer, should the officer believe it should be given. You dont need to be stopped by an officer, to be given this discretion ...

And if "discrimination" is your true belief ... see a lawyer ... he could do with a laugh .... :shifty:

[Jantar]

So just how would you resolve the "problem" that your riding/driving skills are so much better than others, and your ability to pick the road/weather/traffic conditions everywhere is faultless, that you should be allowed to ride/drive at whatever speed you choose without being pulled over for it?....

Huh? I have tried reading swbarnett's post again and nowhere can I find that he claims his "riding/driving skills are so much better than others" Nor can I find where he claims his "ability to pick the road/weather/traffic conditions everywhere is faultless".

Sorry, strawman arguments do not assist your case. How about instead, you try answering his question: "The African Americans of the 50s should've had no problems keeping to there section of the bus. Are you saying they were wrong for deliberately sitting outside their assigned area?" Well, NO, you don't have to because that is another strawman question and has nothing to do with the issuing of speeding tickets in New Zealand.

The issues are:
Why do we have speed limits?
Are those speed limits appropriate for all sections of road to which they apply?
Are those speed limits appropriate for all types of vehicle to which they apply?
Are those speed limits appropriate for all drivers/riders to which they apply?
Are those speed limits enforced evenly and fairly?


Only when those issues are addressed will we get a general acceptance of speed enforcement.

[Edbear]

Huh? I have tried reading swbarnett's post again and nowhere can I find that he claims his "riding/driving skills are so much better than others" Nor can I find where he claims his "ability to pick the road/weather/traffic conditions everywhere is faultless".

Sorry, strawman arguments do not assist your case. ...SNIP...Only when those issues are addressed will we get a general acceptance of speed enforcement.

Not at all, he does obviously feel he should be allowed to ride/drive at whatever speed he chooses without being ticketed for it. Thereby, claiming by default that he has the skill to judge for himself what is safe and appropriate for the circumstances. Who on here would say they don't have this skill?

My challenge was for him to demonstrate how to legislate for individual preferences especially where those preferences are solely based upon the individual's opinion of his own riding/driving skills.

[oneofsix]

The issues are:
Why do we have speed limits?
Are those speed limits appropriate for all sections of road to which they apply?
Are those speed limits appropriate for all types of vehicle to which they apply?
Are those speed limits appropriate for all drivers/riders to which they apply?
Are those speed limits enforced evenly and fairly?


Only when those issues are addressed will we get a general acceptance of speed enforcement.

why? they a reported to be set at a safe speed for the technology of road and vehicles. They are sometimes set to "save fuel". Drivers are meant to judge their own safe speed within the maximum. How I wish this were true. In truth they are set for political expediency.
appropriate for all sections of road? No. Not when you get 80k limits on 100k roads AFTER the safety improvements. Nor when you get 60k limits on 80k roads after some idiot comes off at over 100k on a sharp bend or other slide off a 40k bend at 30 due to oil.
appropriate for all types of vehicle? no. B-trains, trailers limited to 90, cars to 100 therefore bikes should be 110k
appropriate for all drivers/riders? see why. Can't set the limit for the driver. Most over estimate their ability (unlike me who is amongst the top 10% of drivers just like 80% of the population believe of themselves). The 70k learner thing was stupid and I would not like to see this again. If you can't travel within 10% of limit you are holding up traffic and should adjust your driving to allow the traffic to flow (pull over or get off the road).
enforced evenly and fairly? yes for the most part although fairly get emotional. Truckies would say they get picked on, cars would say they do and bikers say they do. Trailer seem to slip through the gap between their limit and cars. Actually I guess all those that are meant to travel at less than 100k slide under the camera, which would make it unfair and a scam.

[Scuba_Steve]

The issues are:
Why do we have speed limits?

"The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions" would be the simple answer to why they were 1st introduced



Are those speed limits appropriate for all sections of road to which they apply?

Nope



Are those speed limits appropriate for all types of vehicle to which they apply?

Nope



Are those speed limits appropriate for all drivers/riders to which they apply?

Nope



Are those speed limits enforced evenly and fairly?

Not even in the slightest

[FJRider]

The issues are:
Why do we have speed limits?
Are those speed limits appropriate for all sections of road to which they apply?
Are those speed limits appropriate for all types of vehicle to which they apply?
Are those speed limits appropriate for all drivers/riders to which they apply?
Are those speed limits enforced evenly and fairly?


Only when those issues are addressed will we get a general acceptance of speed enforcement.

I dont believe they are "issues", merely questions ...

If appropiate limits were place on the appropiate roads ... the limits would be dropped ... in some places ... considerably ... and the "advisory" corner speed signs may be changed to lawful LIMIT. Good bike roads reduced to scooter country.
Speed limits on vehicles should depend on the vehicles ability to do it, given if the driver/riders ability to do this can be proved.
Thus ... in MY belief ... Better DRIVER testing/training should be introduced BEFORE speed limits are raised. (note the learner speed limit for bikes, was raised)

As for enforcement ... the few muppets (enforcers and public) ruin the arguement for increased limits, by their actions, and by the statistics of their actions.

Untill the standard of the lowest common denominator is raised ... nothing much will change.

[chasio]

appropriate for all types of vehicle? no. B-trains, trailers limited to 90, cars to 100 therefore bikes should be 110k

I don't follow you there.

Virtually any car made in the last 20 years can outbrake any bike; we are more likely to crash due to factors such as surface issues (leaving aside ego and skill issues) AND we get more severely injured if we do have an accident. Why should the speed limit be higher for bikes than cars? I'm not saying that I am against it, just that I can't see that a logical case can be made for it.

Perhaps I am missing something.

[Scuba_Steve]

I don't follow you there.

Virtually any car made in the last 20 years can outbrake any bike; we are more likely to crash due to factors such as surface issues (leaving aside ego and skill issues) AND we get more severely injured if we do have an accident. Why should the speed limit be higher for bikes than cars? I'm not saying that I am against it, just that I can't see that a logical case can be made for it.

Perhaps I am missing something.

same as car being allowed faster than the truck I'd assume. The truck has 18 wheels to lockup, has even less chance of injury & can *outbrake a car, so why is the car allowed faster?


*load & truck dependant

[superman]

same as car being allowed faster than the truck I'd assume. The truck has 18 wheels to lockup, has even less chance of injury & can *outbrake a car, so why is the car allowed faster?


*load & truck dependant

Reckon it's load on the road maybe? Trucks at 10km/h faster than there current maximum wear down the road past the point of efficiency? Perhaps... or perhaps idiot law makers exist. Which is more likely? :laugh:

[oneofsix]

Reckon it's load on the road maybe? Trucks at 10km/h faster than there current maximum wear down the road past the point of efficiency? Perhaps... or perhaps idiot law makers exist. Which is more likely? :laugh:

Load on the road makes sense therefore the lighter the bike the faster its allowed to go :yes: :laugh:

No I think it is to do with the trailer and jack knife risk.

chasio braking ability relates to following distance and visible clear road. Light weight, manoeuvrability should allow quicker speeds :yes: Also gets us out of the way of cagers trying to crush us.

[Brian d marge]

I dont believe they are "issues", merely questions ...

If appropiate limits were place on the appropiate roads ... the limits would be dropped ... in some places ... considerably ... and the "advisory" corner speed signs may be changed to lawful LIMIT. Good bike roads reduced to scooter country.
Speed limits on vehicles should depend on the vehicles ability to do it, given if the driver/riders ability to do this can be proved.
Thus ... in MY belief ... Better DRIVER testing/training should be introduced BEFORE speed limits are raised. (note the learner speed limit for bikes, was raised)

As for enforcement ... the few muppets (enforcers and public) ruin the argument for increased limits, by their actions, and by the statistics of their actions.

Untilthe standard of the lowest common denominator is raised ... nothing much will change.

agreed , and that lowest common denominator will get worse

not long now before " where is the ABS on my Harley comes to this town"

Stephen

[oneofsix]

I dont believe they are "issues", merely questions ...

If appropiate limits were place on the appropiate roads ... the limits would be dropped ... in some places ... considerably ... and the "advisory" corner speed signs may be changed to lawful LIMIT. Good bike roads reduced to scooter country.
Speed limits on vehicles should depend on the vehicles ability to do it, given if the driver/riders ability to do this can be proved.
Thus ... in MY belief ... Better DRIVER testing/training should be introduced BEFORE speed limits are raised. (note the learner speed limit for bikes, was raised)

As for enforcement ... the few muppets (enforcers and public) ruin the arguement for increased limits, by their actions, and by the statistics of their actions.

Untill the standard of the lowest common denominator is raised ... nothing much will change.

in the bit highlighted I think you make a fundamental mistake, the same one most of us do. I assume the muppets don't know what they should be doing or how to do it right. This is wrong. It is a bit like the SMIDY. They know, they are just too lazy or stupid. They do it right for the training and the test but then get lazy on it. No matter how good the training or the test they will still just play the game until the pass and then do WTF they can get away with on the roads.
This is part of the angst about speeding tickets in a back to front way. With the focus on speed where it is doing no harm instead of the harder to police getting the basics right. When you see patrol cars turn into the far lane on multi-lane roads and splitting lanes to avoid the merge it is no wonder joe blogs doesn't care about the basics. And yet when you challenge Joe for left lane when he is turning right into the multi-lane (not to be done on a bike) it is funny how quickly he remembers the rules

[FJRider]

... it is funny how quickly he remembers the rules

For the sake of convenience ... the actual rules are often broken ..... by all parties ... sometimes we even get away with it... sometimes not.

No amount of training, or rules are worth anything ... if either is NOT applied ... or obeyed.

[BoristheBiter]

same as car being allowed faster than the truck I'd assume. The truck has 18 wheels to lockup, has even less chance of injury & can *outbrake a car, so why is the car allowed faster?


*load & truck dependant

Because cars can turn safer at higher speeds than trucks.

[Jantar]

Among my other interests is aviation, and I am now the proud owner of a vintage glider. There are many similarities between flying and motorcycling (eg you bank to turn, and the more bank you have on the more throttle is required), but there are some areas where motorcycling (and road users in general) can learn from aviation.

When flying I have to have a 2 yearly flight test called a Bienniel Flight Review. Don't pass that 2 yearly test and you can't fly without an instructor's permission. Maybe a good thing to try with our driver's licences.

I obey the speed limits placed on glider without exception:
Fly slower than the stalling speed and the glider will stall, no need for anyone to police it it WILL happen. All pilots are taught how to recognise a stall and to recover (except for some airbus pilots apparently). Ride your bike too slow and you may fall off.
Fly faster than VNE (speed limit) and there is a risk the wings will fall off due to flutter. No need for anyone to police it it WILL happen. I pesonally know a pilot who had this happen, and fortuantely his parachute worked. A german pilot flying from Omarama a few years ago wasn't so lucky. Exceed the speed limit on your bike and you may be unlucky enough to get a ticket.

In aviation we are taught to recognise when we are approaching dangerous speeds in either direction, so why can't motorcyclist learn the same thing? Well they can learn, TPTB just don't want them to.

[chasio]

Load on the road makes sense therefore the lighter the bike the faster its allowed to go :yes: :laugh:

No I think it is to do with the trailer and jack knife risk.

chasio braking ability relates to following distance and visible clear road. Light weight, manoeuvrability should allow quicker speeds :yes: Also gets us out of the way of cagers trying to crush us.

I like the theory and communtering means I certainly use it :).

Once or twice I have seen my 'visible clear road' become a very short distance indeed when I had failed to predict a third-party manouevre in heavy traffic. It has made me a touch more cautious, I would say.

Oh and on another tack: ref BdM: there is a speed camera on the harbour bridge? I am amazed that a friend of mine (eek!) has never had a ticket, if that is the case. He shouldn't speed if he doesn't want one, of course...

[Scuba_Steve]

In aviation we are taught to recognise when we are approaching dangerous speeds in either direction, so why can't motorcyclist learn the same thing? Well they can learn, TPTB just don't want them to.

I think that right there is on the money, all these arguments about "catering" for the lowest common denominator on the road are bullshit, TPTB are creating the lowest common denominator with these laws & road layouts.

Make the roads "hard" suddenly people learn to drive. Tell people what to do & when to do it, you get mindless morons :yes:

[SPman]

Exceed the speed limit on your bike and you may be unlucky enough to get a ticket.

That's drawing a long bow to equate a fundamental design limit, dictated by physical stresses and material design and properties, with a politically proclaimed, non scientific limit, arbitrarily applied and enforced!

http://www.motorists.org/press/montana-no-speed-limit-safety-paradox

[Edbear]

I think that right there is on the money, all these arguments about "catering" for the lowest common denominator on the road are bullshit, TPTB are creating the lowest common denominator with these laws & road layouts.

Make the roads "hard" suddenly people learn to drive. Tell people what to do & when to do it, you get mindless morons :yes:

Sorry mate but that's crap if you'll pardon the expression. The simple fact is that most drivers are barely adequate at the best of times and too many are incompetent, or driving with their minds anywhere else but on what they are doing.

TPTB know this all too well and have done a lot to change the licensing requirements in order to improve the standard of new drivers/riders. There has been much publicity on the need to educate our young ones better and there are ads on TV encouraging parents to keep an eye on their kids as they get through their licenceing stages.

The issue is that it has been too easy for people to get licences from overseas and adults do not have to resit their examinations to get an NZ licence and pass competencey tests in order to drive here. In some fields, for example plumbing, childcare, early childhood education, etc. one must study sit and pass NZ exams in order to enter that field regardless of any overseas qualifications.

The same should be true of driving in this country, but the logistics and legislation are considerable. As should be retesting every ten years. The problem is cost and infrastructure and if you can solve those issues the Govt. would be happy to hear you out. Put some real thought into it instead of just moaning and complaining about it with no real understanding of the nuts and bolts. I challenged earlier to come up with legislation that would allow you to ride as you consider fit, but to no avail it seems...

Too many are fully prepared to complain and accuse, but not at all prepared to do anything positive about the issues. Wonder why?

[Jantar]

That's drawing a long bow to equate a fundamental design limit, dictated by physical stresses and material design and properties, with a politically proclaimed, non scientific limit, arbitrarily applied and enforced!

http://www.motorists.org/press/montana-no-speed-limit-safety-paradox

Yes, Isn't it? :innocent: But that is exactly what politicians do when they set those speed limits. They assume that exceeding that "arbitrarily applied and enforced' speed limit will cause death and destruction, even when there is no scientific or engineering proof for it.

[Scuba_Steve]

Sorry mate but that's crap if you'll pardon the expression. The simple fact is that most drivers are barely adequate at the best of times and too many are incompetent, or driving with their minds anywhere else but on what they are doing.

TPTB know this all too well and have done a lot to change the licensing requirements in order to improve the standard of new drivers/riders. There has been much publicity on the need to educate our young ones better and there are ads on TV encouraging parents to keep an eye on their kids as they get through their licenceing stages.

The issue is that it has been too easy for people to get licences from overseas and adults do not have to resit their examinations to get an NZ licence and pass competencey tests in order to drive here. In some fields, for example plumbing, childcare, early childhood education, etc. one must study sit and pass NZ exams in order to enter that field regardless of any overseas qualifications.

The same should be true of driving in this country, but the logistics and legislation are considerable. As should be retesting every ten years. The problem is cost and infrastructure and if you can solve those issues the Govt. would be happy to hear you out. Put some real thought into it instead of just moaning and complaining about it with no real understanding of the nuts and bolts. I challenged earlier to come up with legislation that would allow you to ride as you consider fit, but to no avail it seems...

Too many are fully prepared to complain and accuse, but not at all prepared to do anything positive about the issues. Wonder why?

Yes licensing in this country is a joke from vehicles to firearms the whole system is a joke (maybee an exception in aviation I am unfamiliar with that but people seem to think it's decent) you gots monies you gets licence.
But we are creating moron drivers too
slower speed = less chance of crash/death? Bullshit!!! means more time for txt or "look at the pretty scenery"
pretty little lights = safer, faster, better intersections? Bullshit!!! means slower, red light running, & "fuck what do I do the pretty little lights aint telling me" confusion
Lowest common dominator will go as low as you let it you keep catering for them as we do they just get lower
We are creating morons simple as that, it's human nature why waste your time learning something when you don't have to??? You should know this better than anyone Ed just look at those who refuse to learn about religion & why? cause they don't have to, they're happy to let someone else tell them what to do, they have little to no interest in learning for themselves.
So make the roads such that people have to think don't give them the option they'll either learn to drive or let someone else drive for them the problem is, in NZ driving is all but a right & thats probably because the Govt & their families can't drive

As for the whole system from licensing to the operation of the road I've got a good fucking system & while (like always) there would be a setup cost to it, the ongoing would be much cheaper than current & way more convenient & efficient, producing better, fairer results both in roading & licensing

[Edbear]

Yes, Isn't it? :innocent: But that is exactly what politicians do when they set those speed limits. They assume that exceeding that "arbitrarily applied and enforced' speed limit will cause death and destruction, even when there is no scientific or engineering proof for it.

Sorry but no. They set the speed limits in consultation with several parties including Councils and Police and with regard to the
"average" driver's abilities. Many of the pollies themselves would prefer higher limits as would many Police persons. The fact is that they have to set a figure, and then naturally they have to enforce it or it is meaningless.

Of course there are many areas and times where the speed limit can be safely exceeded by many drivers/riders, but that is not at all practical to adjust the law to.

The fact is we live in a society of many people from all backgrounds and abilities, over 4m in this country, and all have to be catered for in a fair and equitable fashion. For every person that is capable of safely exceeding the limit, there are several who are not, so unless you can bring all up to the same standard of driving that you consider yourself at, you must accept that for the general good, the limit is set and you must obey it or suffer the consequences.

The only fair way is for you to remove yourself from this society and live where you can make your own laws to suit yourself. Otherwise, if you exceed the limit and get pinged for it, smile and accept it is only your fault.

[Jantar]

Sorry but no. They set the speed limits in consultation with several parties including Councils and Police and with regard to the "average" driver's abilities. . .....

If the limits were set with regard to the average driver's abilities then it would be so bad. Unfortunately they are often set to the "well below average driver's abilities", then there are many roads with a speed limit of 100 kmh that even an expert driver would have trouble maintaining. Consider the South Kaikoura coastline; it is set at 80 kmh almost the entire length, and the sole reason for that limit is that a couple of trucks left the road, one of them causing some major pollution. So now ALL vehicles are limited to 80 instead of 100.

[FJRider]

Make the roads "hard" suddenly people learn to drive. Tell people what to do & when to do it, you get mindless morons :yes:

The "hard" roads people find ... and fall off now ... get the blame of the Goverment/councils/contractors .... anybody but themselves ...

Why is there an assumption that ALL roads with a posted speed limit of 100 km's/hr CAN and SHOULD be able to be negotiated ... AT 100 km's/hr (OR MORE)... Part of the "learning" process is finding out you CAN'T ... well not always ...

Even roads you know ... you only know as well as the last time you travelled it ...

[Edbear]

Yes licensing in this country is a joke from vehicles to firearms the whole system is a joke (maybee an exception in aviation I am unfamiliar with that but people seem to think it's decent) you gots monies you gets licence.
But we are creating moron drivers too
slower speed = less chance of crash/death? Bullshit!!! means more time for txt or "look at the pretty scenery"
pretty little lights = safer, faster, better intersections? Bullshit!!! means slower, red light running, & "fuck what do I do the pretty little lights aint telling me" confusion
Lowest common dominator will go as low as you let it you keep catering for them as we do they just get lower
We are creating morons simple as that, it's human nature why waste your time learning something when you don't have to??? You should know this better than anyone Ed just look at those who refuse to learn about religion & why? cause they don't have to, they're happy to let someone else tell them what to do, they have little to no interest in learning for themselves.
So make the roads such that people have to think don't give them the option they'll either learn to drive or let someone else drive for them the problem is, in NZ driving is all but a right & thats probably because the Govt & their families can't drive

As for the whole system from licensing to the operation of the road I've got a good fucking system & while (like always) there would be a setup cost to it, the ongoing would be much cheaper than current & way more convenient & efficient, producing better, fairer results both in roading & licensing

See above. The fact is that it does matter what the road is like. Why are there far more accidents on secondary roads that require a higher standard of driving capability and less on easy motorway systems? Check the stats on where the accidents are happening and the numbers per area. Check the stats on accident numbers after road realignments and improvements.

Some people could crash a car anywhere in any conditions they are that incompetent. I do maintain and I think we agree that there needs to be far stricter conditions for getting an NZ licence for overseas visitors and immigrants.

There is also a difference between competent drivers and safe drivers. Not all "good" drivers are safe, and not all mediocre drivers are unsafe. My wife is not what I'd call a "good" driver, but she has never had an accident and I have no qualms about sitting in the passenger seat if she is behind the wheel although I rarely do as her driving tends to frustrate me... She's not bad, just not as consistent as I pride myself on being.

Witness, too, the number of bikers killing and maiming themselves while proclaiming and firmly believing they are good and competent...

Most accidents are due to inattention, not incompetency, a momentary lack of judgement, or a slit second of not seeing something.

[Edbear]

If the limits were set with regard to the average driver's abilities then it would be so bad. Unfortunately they are often set to the "well below average driver's abilities", then there are many roads with a speed limit of 100 kmh that even an expert driver would have trouble maintaining. Consider the South Kaikoura coastline; it is set at 80 kmh almost the entire length, and the sole reason for that limit is that a couple of trucks left the road, one of them causing some major pollution. So now ALL vehicles are limited to 80 instead of 100.

The short answer, is we need to stop people having needless accidents and killing themselves unneccesarily. Trouble is that the people doing so are across all sectors of society. See my post above.

[FJRider]

... then there are many roads with a speed limit of 100 kmh that even an expert driver would have trouble maintaining. Consider the South Kaikoura coastline; it is set at 80 kmh almost the entire length, and the sole reason for that limit is that a couple of trucks left the road, one of them causing some major pollution. So now ALL vehicles are limited to 80 instead of 100.

Unless people get their act together ... I can see ALL "Black-spot" areas getting a speed limit reduction applied ...

[Ocean1]

Yes, Isn't it? :innocent: But that is exactly what politicians do when they set those speed limits. They assume that exceeding that "arbitrarily applied and enforced' speed limit will cause death and destruction, even when there is no scientific or engineering proof for it.

Dead right. Everyone knows the natural limit on most Litre sports bikes is up around 260k, and even then you're not in serious trouble unless you lift the front wheel too much.

[Ocean1]

Sorry mate but that's crap if you'll pardon the expression. The simple fact is that most drivers are barely adequate at the best of times and too many are incompetent, or driving with their minds anywhere else but on what they are doing.

I hear this a lot. Average drivers aren't crap, by definition they're "average".

Not sure what the motive for claiming otherwise is, other than an attempt to claim one is "other than average" and wishes to advertise the fact.

[Edbear]

I hear this a lot. Average drivers aren't crap, by definition they're "average".

Not sure what the motive for claiming otherwise is, other than an attempt to claim one is "other than average" and wishes to advertise the fact.

Wotchu talkin' 'bout Willis..? Of course I'm not average, no-one on KB is average. We are all highly skilled and competent operators of whatever machinery we are in control of at the time! :bash:

[Ocean1]

The short answer, is we need to stop people having needless accidents and killing themselves unneccesarily. Trouble is that the people doing so are across all sectors of society. See my post above.

"We" need to let people drive at speeds that don't send them to sleep. If you really must do something to lower the death toll arsehole all of the fucking stupid roadside signs on the outside of corners.


Oh, and repeating the same tired old line doesn't make it any more factual.

[Edbear]

"We" need to let people drive at speeds that don't send them to sleep. If you really must do something to lower the death toll arsehole all of the fucking stupid roadside signs on the outside of corners.

Oh, and repeating the same tired old line doesn't make it any more factual.

"Trouble is that the people doing so are across all sectors of society."

This bit says different. It's everyone's fault, and the death toll is highest among those who seriously think they are excellent drivers and who consistently drive/ride well above the speed limits.

People of all ages, genders, (!), and driving skill levels in all types of vehicle are killing themselves and having accidents, yes even Kiwibikers!

Anyone who claims driving at 100km/h sends them to sleep should not be behind the wheel or handlebars of any vehicle.

To claim, as some here do, that road warning signs and safer roads is somehow "dumbing down" the competency of people is plain rubbish, too.

[caspernz]

Lots of roadside signs are placed in questionable places, no argument there. But I figure it's better to watch the blacktop....

Another thing that amuses me is how some of the worst driving I see daily is the commuter rushing off to the job he/she hates, or the rush to get home from same....just an observation.

[Ocean1]

"Trouble is that the people doing so are across all sectors of society."

This bit says different. It's everyone's fault, and the death toll is highest among those who seriously think they are excellent drivers and who consistently drive/ride well above the speed limits.

People of all ages, genders, (!), and driving skill levels in all types of vehicle are killing themselves and having accidents, yes even Kiwibikers!

Anyone who claims driving at 100km/h sends them to sleep should not be behind the wheel or handlebars of any vehicle.

To claim, as some here do, that road warning signs and safer roads is somehow "dumbing down" the competency of people is plain rubbish, too.

Of course the people doing so are across all sectors of society, any random sample of 0.000075% of the population will be.

Sorta makes a nonsense of any claim that "certain types" are mostly responsible eh?


And I wasn't claiming signage was "dumbing down" the competancy of people. It probably is but in my case I don't pay it most of it much heed so I really don't give a fuck. I was claiming that some of it was bloody dangerous. Like the fucking big posts all around the outside of a curve with arrows stuck on them telling you there's a curve there.

And another thing: "traffic calming" measures. Don't. In fact the next time I find some shiney orange plastic floppy posts in the middle of a perfectly normal piece of road I'm likely to chope the fuckers down. And don't get me started on the closing of passing lanes on hollidays...

[Scuba_Steve]

Most accidents are due to inattention, not incompetency, a momentary lack of judgement, or a slit second of not seeing something.

And that statement right there ^ is why most studies (not sponsored by those with vested financial interest) show that higher or no speed limits tend to work out safer than whats being forced upon us by people that have no idea what they're talking about. Because at the higher speeds people don't "drift off" or get bored, they pay attention to what they're doing.
But even worse, NZ is currently running round changing the speeds to below minimum threshold i.e. the speed at which even the slowest driver will tolerate. So now we have a whole lotta roads (& more coming) with speed limits even the oldest slowest granny in NZ will break because they are well below anyones tolerable limits.

[scumdog]

I'll come down and kick the shit out of you Scummie.

Hey, heard of the Blue Knights?

Oh yes.

And unfortunately so have the bosses.:confused:

They give the idea a big :no::nono:

Like I care...

[FJRider]

And that statement right there ^ is why most studies (not sponsored by those with vested financial interest) show that higher or no speed limits tend to work out safer than whats being forced upon us by people that have no idea what they're talking about. Because at the higher speeds people don't "drift off" or get bored, they pay attention to what they're doing.

So ... the things that caused that "inattention" WONT be there at a higher speed ... ???
The cell phone wont ring ... the CD player WONT need changing CD's ... the baby strapped in the back seat WONT need checking ... kids WONT need telling off (not allowed to smack eh ...!!!) Maps wont need checking ... The 1001 things that distract a driver/rider on any trp ... WONT/CAN'T happen ... because you are going a bit faster ... ??? ... yeah right ...
In the "momentary lapse's in good judgement" ... you travel just that bit further ... at a higher speed :duh: and that "split second of not seeing something" ... gets that bit closer sooner, at a higher speed. At an even slightly higher speed ... the incompetent will really be shown in their truer numbers ...


But even worse, NZ is currently running round changing the speeds to below minimum threshold i.e. the speed at which even the slowest driver will tolerate. So now we have a whole lotta roads (& more coming) with speed limits even the oldest slowest granny in NZ will break because they are well below anyones tolerable limits.

Well ... if you frequent those roads ... you deserve to be held up by "Granny" ... I prefer to find roads that aren't policed (often), and are in low traffic volume areas ... much more fun ...

[Scuba_Steve]

So ... the things that caused that "inattention" WONT be there at a higher speed ... ???
Well ... if you frequent those roads ... you deserve to be held up by "Granny" ... I prefer to find roads that aren't policed often), and in low traffic volume areas ... much more fun ...

They'll be there but are far less likely to distract, as the person is concentrating on driving. Same reason bikers are found to be far better road users than cages, we have to concentrate on the task at hand.

Some of us have to travel certain roads to get places I don't always enjoy it but it's gotta be done sometimes (tho the roads are usually fun when you can actually drive them)

[Kickaha]

Same reason bikers are found to be far better road users than cages
There's a good Tui add in that

[Edbear]

They'll be there but are far less likely to distract, as the person is concentrating on driving. Same reason bikers are found to be far better road users than cages, we have to concentrate on the task at hand.

Some of us have to travel certain roads to get places I don't always enjoy it but it's gotta be done sometimes (tho the roads are usually fun when you can actually drive them)

Did you miss the fact that the highest death toll is among those who drive/ride consistently fast and who consider themselves "good" drivers/riders. And that motorcyclists are contributing a disproportionately larger tally to the road toll?

The "worse" drivers are as a percentage lower in the stats than the "good" drivers. That's why I said to check the stats. You will find you are somewhat misled by opinion.

[Scuba_Steve]

Did you miss the fact that the highest death toll is among those who drive/ride consistently fast and who consider themselves "good" drivers/riders. And that motorcyclists are contributing a disproportionately larger tally to the road toll?

The "worse" drivers are as a percentage lower in the stats than the "good" drivers. That's why I said to check the stats. You will find you are somewhat misled by opinion.

Think it's worth remembering there are lies, damm lies & statistics. I get the info from studies & prefer studies done without any vested financial interest backing.
Stats also don't include the cause of the crash like the "worse" driver causing the the "good" driver to take evasive action leading to the crash/death

[Edbear]

Think it's worth remembering there are lies, damm lies & statistics. I get the info from studies & prefer studies done without any vested financial interest backing.
Stats also don't include the cause of the crash like the "worse" driver causing the the "good" driver to take evasive action leading to the crash/death

The stats simply record who crashed, who died, where it happened and how many crashes/deaths in that area. No bias about it.

[Jantar]

The stats simply record who crashed, who died, where it happened and how many crashes/deaths in that area. No bias about it.
Stats like that are worse than useless. The only stats that have any meaning are those that compare accident rates with distance travelled. Unfortunately that important piece of data is missing.

The official stats http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Documents/Motorcycle-crash-fact-sheet-2010.pdf include this comment

Learner licence holders make up a greater percentage of motorcyclists involved in crashes (21 percent) than overall drivers, including motorcyclists (7 percent). In 2009, motorcyclist learner licence holders made up 12 percent of all motorcycle licence holders, whereas learner car licence holders made up only 8 percent of all car licence holders. Fifty-seven percent of car learner licence holders were aged under 25 years old, whereas only 16 percent of motorcycle learner licence holders were aged under 25 years.

This counters your statement
Did you miss the fact that the highest death toll is among those who drive/ride consistently fast and who consider themselves "good" drivers/riders. And that motorcyclists are contributing a disproportionately larger tally to the road toll?

[Edbear]

Stats like that are worse than useless. The only stats that have any meaning are those that compare accident rates with distance travelled. Unfortunately that important piece of data is missing.

The official stats http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/Documents/Motorcycle-crash-fact-sheet-2010.pdf include this comment


This counters your statement

Point taken but I was talking about deaths in this instance, so perhaps we can find out the death toll among the age groups?

[Jantar]

ACC supplied that information in their relativity data, and the majority of deaths were in the 40+ age group. But again the stats didn't include distance travelled, and the age groups weren't evenly divided. I no longer have a copy of the raw data so can't give exact numbers. From my submission the age brackets were 15 - 20, 21 - 25, 26 - 30, 31 - 40 and 40+. It didn't give the number of licenced riders within each age group.

[scracha]

This bit says different. It's everyone's fault, and the death toll is highest among those who seriously think they are excellent drivers and who consistently drive/ride well above the speed limits.

Show me them stats because I must have missed something? No correlation AFAIK.



Anyone who claims driving at 100km/h sends them to sleep should not be behind the wheel or handlebars of any vehicle.

Driving at 100km/h on most roads at most times, makes me sleepy.



To claim, as some here do, that road warning signs and safer roads is somehow "dumbing down" the competency of people is plain rubbish, too.
Hmm.. Put a Japanese or Kiwi fellah who's used to low speed limits and having corners with speed signs on a twisty European road or fast motorway and you'll see just how "dumbed down" their driving has became. Hell, I'd probably wet my pants if I had to drive/ride back in France these days as my driving has became so autonomous with all these 80k zones, double yellows etc etc.

[Edbear]

Show me them stats because I must have missed something? No correlation AFAIK.


Driving at 100km/h on most roads at most times, makes me sleepy.


Hmm.. Put a Japanese or Kiwi fellah who's used to low speed limits and having corners with speed signs on a twisty European road or fast motorway and you'll see just how "dumbed down" their driving has became. Hell, I'd probably wet my pants if I had to drive/ride back in France these days as my driving has became so autonomous with all these 80k zones, double yellows etc etc.

Time to wakey wakey and concentrate methinks..

[SPman]

With all talk of speed etc, it reminds me that the best and most relaxed driving I've seen on a NZ road in living memory, was a Sunday Morning on the Southern Motorway (Auck). ALL the traffic around (15-20 cars) was sitting on around 118-120. The "mood" of the traffic was good, and everyone had good following distances and seemed very relaxed and concentrating. Then, a police car entered on the Manurewa ramp - of course, everyone hauled back to 100, but, the thing I noticed was, following distances closed right up, the traffic got irritable and a tension replaced the previous calmness. It was quite noticeable. Then, when said Polis pulled off at Wiri, the whole group resumed its 115-120 speed, gaps opened right up and everything calmed down again. It was quite uncanny, but, proved to me that traffic, if left to it's own devices will tend to set it's own limits and will probably act in a safer manner than if it is artificially controlled. Overseas results have shown that, when there are no speed limits, (eg Montana in the late '90's) traffic doesn't tend to travel much faster, overall, and is generally better behaved and more responsible - except for a few who seem to think they are god's gift to driving - and you get that with speed limits, anyway. I'm in favour of prima facie speed zones, where there is no limit - or a high limit, but it is up to you to prove, if you are pulled over, that it was safe to do so given the road and conditions. This would, however, need more skilled and sensible police and drivers on the roads and is probably just to hard for authorities to contemplate.
Personally, I think authorities are generally control freaks and tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater, inflicting punitive controls on all, because of the predictable behaviour of a few, causing more problems than they are trying to solve.

I'll just carry on driving/riding as I do, in a safe manner for the road/traffic conditions I'm in, and not actually look at the speedo (other than necessary built up areas)......concentrating more on the task at hand..........

[Edbear]

ACC supplied that information in their relativity data, and the majority of deaths were in the 40+ age group. But again the stats didn't include distance travelled, and the age groups weren't evenly divided. I no longer have a copy of the raw data so can't give exact numbers. From my submission the age brackets were 15 - 20, 21 - 25, 26 - 30, 31 - 40 and 40+. It didn't give the number of licenced riders within each age group.

It would be interesting to be able to analyse the data this way. While many newbies are crashing, the ones dying seem to be the more experienced older ones who no doubt figure they are better riders and the deaths occur at much higher speeds in the main. Of course the faster you travel the more likely you will die, but to know what speed the deceased was doing would also be helpful. We do hear often enough that in a fatal accident it is speeding and alcohol that are "contributing factors" to the accident. Not neccessarily way over the limit but "too fast for the conditions" is a phrase we also hear far too often.

[Ocean1]

It would be interesting to be able to analyse the data this way. While many newbies are crashing, the ones dying seem to be the more experienced older ones who no doubt figure they are better riders and the deaths occur at much higher speeds in the main. Of course the faster you travel the more likely you will die, but to know what speed the deceased was doing would also be helpful. We do hear often enough that in a fatal accident it is speeding and alcohol that are "contributing factors" to the accident. Not neccessarily way over the limit but "too fast for the conditions" is a phrase we also hear far too often.

To analyse data that way you need all of it, and it's either not available or it's only available from parties with t vested interest in the use of it.

One correction that can be made is that "older riders" crash and die more than young ones. Even with the skewed age groupings Jantar noted you can correct for numbers licensed to ride to start with, or better yet those owning registered bikes. Which, by the way changes the results from them old bastards, (the largest group) being dead man riding to them being amongst the safest.

If you can't see enough of a data set to make such basic corrections then chances are the data's from that source is being spun, and it's safest to simply write it off as propaganda.

[BoristheBiter]

To analyse data that way you need all of it, and it's either not available or it's only available from parties with t vested interest in the use of it.

One correction that can be made is that "older riders" crash and die more than young ones. Even with the skewed age groupings Jantar noted you can correct for numbers licensed to ride to start with, or better yet those owning registered bikes. Which, by the way changes the results from them old bastards, (the largest group) being dead man riding to them being amongst the safest.

If you can't see enough of a data set to make such basic corrections then chances are the data's from that source is being spun, and it's safest to simply write it off as propaganda.

and none of the stats say how long the rider/driver has held a licence for or what type it was.

Mind you that can be a bit off as i have had mine (bike) for over ten years but have only been riding on the road for 3.

[rastuscat]

With all talk of speed etc, ......Personally, I think authorities are generally control freaks and tend to throw the baby out with the bathwater, ..

Actually I've spent a lot of time thinking about how to make the roads safer. Then I asked on this forum about a few things, and I generally appreciate the responses. Some just get forgotten coz they're trash, but I listen to most. I started this thread, and have enjoyed the various responses.

Does that really make me a control freak?

I don't wanna control anyone, I'd just like people to realize that it's their own actions that they can influence most, instead of bitching and grizzling about the gubbermint and all the other homicidal maniacs they blame for most things.

But then, where's the fun in identifying personal responsibility? It's too sobering. No fun at all.

:yawn:

[caspernz]

A lot of the comments on this post are like a T-shirt I've got. It reads: "To err is human, to blame someone else good management."

[SPman]

Does that really make me a control freak?
:yawn:
No more than I, as a Building Inspector, was a "control freak" who was always looking for a win/win outcome with every inspection I did. After a short time in the job, you realised that 85% of the builders were after the same outcome and could be generally relied upon to do the right thing, with the occasional nudge, 10%, you definitely kept your eye on and 5% were just arseholes, who seemed to spend as much time trying to circumvent standards and regulations as actually build (badly), despite how you tried to accomodate them - probably similar to motorists, and the population in general.
Governments and authorities in general often seem to attract more egomaniacs and control types, along with those that want to do good. Normally the control freaks are better at squeezing out the rest and tend, over time, to become a majority. They then want to micro manage everything, with the resultant race to the bottom with ever increasing restrictive legislation, driven by an unflappable belief that the average person is incapable of managing their own lives and affairs.
In a road use situation, they howl about carnage and mayhem ,use that as an excuse to bring in more ill thought out restrictions all in the name of safety, using dubious knee jerk responses to every manufactured, emotion-charged "crisis", without actually stepping back and taking a cool, clear, unbiased overview of the whole scene. They prefer to accede to the demands of the "howling mob" element of society, and then smugly sit back and say "see, I listened to the people", whilst generally making things steadily worse.
Most motorists, if presented with clear, realistic road rules and limits, lightly but competently & professionally policed, would probably quite happily obey them without too much angst. Instead, they are bombarded with punitive, restrictive, demonising laws, heavily policed, that go a long way to making the roads a trying and demanding environment, in themselves, let alone coping with all the other, more important things that are happening.

Open road speeds - they often quote "the 85th percentile" speed, as being the most appropriate speed to set as a limit. That is correct, but they base the 85th percentile on speeds measured when there is already a maximum speed limit of 100 kph. The 85th percentile is only applicable as a guideline to recorded speeds in a totally unrestricted situation. If you applied that to NZ, you'd probably find the speed limit should be nearer 120Kph, with a floating margin for circumstance, ie. police discretion. Yet, listen to the safety nazis, and they'd be screaming of road carnage and deaths etc doubling or tripling. I'd say they'd probably drop!

[Ocean1]

I'd say they'd probably drop!


Probably. Also, when most of the population exceeds the speed limit almost every time they drive only a fool would insist the speed limit needs to be lower.

[scumdog]

If you applied that to NZ, you'd probably find the speed limit should be nearer 120Kph, with a floating margin for circumstance, ie. police discretion. Yet, listen to the safety nazis, and they'd be screaming of road carnage and deaths etc doubling or tripling. I'd say they'd probably drop!

Just about 12 or so years back the de-facto speed limit WAS 120kph.

The road deaths were also higher then.

FYI

[rastuscat]

Open road speeds - they often quote "the 85th percentile" speed, as being the most appropriate speed to set as a limit. That is correct, but they base the 85th percentile on speeds measured when there is already a maximum speed limit of 100 kph. The 85th percentile is only applicable as a guideline to recorded speeds in a totally unrestricted situation. If you applied that to NZ, you'd probably find the speed limit should be nearer 120Kph, with a floating margin for circumstance, ie. police discretion.

Yup, still listening to ya, and I agree with some of your points.

However, one law that hasn't changed and that has no level of discretion is the law of physics.

Some blokes called Isaac Newton, Gottfried Leibniz and Johann Bernoulli came up with it, I think. It was the basis of the faster you go the bigger the mess promotion. If the population drove at an average of, say, 120 km/h, the carnage would be a lot more than 20% greater than of the population drove at 100 km/h. That's coz, as I understand, the kinetic energy increases at a greater rate than the speed i.e. it's non-proportional.

For that reason, and because traffic has to get around at some speed (otherwise we'd all be parked, not travelling), the gubbermint set a compromise of 100 km/h. It allows for a certain level of carnage. Go faster, the carnage increases. Go slower, productivity decreases.

The compromised doesn't suit everyone. Some want to go faster, some slower. Thing is, it's near impossible to set a speed for each individual. We'd all have to have a sign over our heads showing everyone else how fast we are or can go.

Ho hum, nothings going to change.:yawn:

[Scuba_Steve]

Just about 12 or so years back the de-facto speed limit WAS 120kph.

The road deaths were also higher then.

FYI

I hope your not using that as an argument??? It's piss poor & misleading but I'm sure you know that.
switch out all the cars on the road for those used 12 years ago & see how that argument stands. The only thing that has improved safety over the years is the devices crammed into cars & the speed scam just rides on this success as justification

[scumdog]

I hope your not using that as an argument??? It's piss poor & misleading but I'm sure you know that.
switch out all the cars on the road for those used 12 years ago & see how that argument stands. The only thing that has improved safety over the years is the devices crammed into cars & the speed scam just rides on this success as justification


Ok, but there's a shitload more cars on the road (safer or not) yet the deaths are still down...not just per capita but as a whole

That's the info I have, it's not 'my argument'.

Your results may differ.

[rastuscat]

I hope your not using that as an argument??? It's piss poor & misleading but I'm sure you know that.
switch out all the cars on the road for those used 12 years ago & see how that argument stands. The only thing that has improved safety over the years is the devices crammed into cars & the speed scam just rides on this success as justification

............and the nay-sayers continue to deny that vehicle safety, road engineering safety and targeted enforcement, as a package, have reduced the road toll.

Are you saying that it's vehicle engineering that decreased the crashes on the Auckland Harbour Bridge? Bollocks, it was road engineering, in the form of a barrier separating the traffic flows. I remember 1990 when a bloke called Hei Hei got pissed and crashed head on into a car load of family members. Blocked the bridge, killed 2, bloody mess. Compulsory Breath Testing, as an enforcement tool, has reduced the prevalence of drink driving in crashes.

Skoober, 12 years ago (23 years ago, actually) I was hearing the same old carping and whinging about how enforcement is all about revenue gathering. I still can't see how CBT raises revenue for us. Look at the bigger picture, and see that education, enforcement and engineering all play a part. Don't just pick the bits you like and which suit your argument.

Harumph.

[Scuba_Steve]

Ok, but there's a shitload more cars on the road (safer or not) yet the deaths are still down...not just per capita but as a whole

That's the info I have, it's not 'my argument'.

Your results may differ.

............and the nay-sayers continue to acknowledge that vehicle safety, road engineering safety and targeted enforcement, as a package, have reduced the road toll.

Skoober, 12 years ago (23 years ago, actually) I was hearing the same old carping and whinging about how enforcement is all about revenue gathering. Look at the bigger picture, and see that education, enforcement and engineering all play a part. Don't just pick the bits you like and which suit your argument.

Harumph.
don't twist words, Inforcement does not work & the way it's currently run it is straight scam. Passing lanes, downhill, straight flat roads.
if inforcement really did work accidents would be down. Fatalities are only down because of safety enhancements in cars like I said replace the cars on the road with those from 12-20 years ago see how the road toll fares.
So, how are accidents doing??? last I heard the % of accidents in relation to the number of vehicles on-road has only increased since the speed scam was pushed.

Yea, really sounds like the speed scam is working :facepalm:



However, one law that hasn't changed and that has no level of discretion is the law of physics.

Some blokes called Isaac Newton, Gottfried Leibniz and Johann Bernoulli came up with it, I think. It was the basis of the faster you go the bigger the mess promotion. If the population drove at an average of, say, 120 km/h, the carnage would be a lot more than 20% greater than of the population drove at 100 km/h. That's coz, as I understand, the kinetic energy increases at a greater rate than the speed i.e. it's non-proportional.

For that reason, and because traffic has to get around at some speed (otherwise we'd all be parked, not travelling), the gubbermint set a compromise of 100 km/h. It allows for a certain level of carnage. Go faster, the carnage increases. Go slower, productivity decreases.


Nice theory but doesn't really work does it? "faster you go bigger the mess" was banned because of being inaccurate & false. Physics also says the faster vehicle will be better off, much like how the SUV will be better off. If your theory was right trucks wouldn't be going faster than 30km/h & SUV's limited to 60km/h while bikes should be good to 150km/h if cars remain 100km/h

[rastuscat]

Skoober et al

The faster you go the bigger the mess, well that makes its way all the way from the school house. Remember being told not to run in the hallways? Same message. It changed to faster you go the greater the risk, as most Kiwis don't think a crash is going to happen to them, so why would they have to slow down? Can't possibly apply to them as they aren't going to crash.

Still, keep on distorting the truth Skoober, my thread keeps growing.

[Scuba_Steve]

Skoober et al

The faster you go the bigger the mess, well that makes its way all the way from the school house. Remember being told not to run in the hallways? Same message. It changed to faster you go the greater the risk, as most Kiwis don't think a crash is going to happen to them, so why would they have to slow down? Can't possibly apply to them as they aren't going to crash.

Still, keep on distorting the truth Skoober, my thread keeps growing.

I'm not distorting anything, I'm bringing the truth.

As I said a few days previous

If you can prove to me how some made up number & staying under it can magically save lives I'll listen, till then I'll continue spreading the truth & maybee a few will wise up & one day we can abolish the scam.
Don't confuse this either. There is dangerous driving, or too fast for the conditions (these can be done at any speed). What I'm against is the speed scam keeping your eyes off the road & on a speedo while calling it "safety" when all it does is make the Govt $$$. Which is exactly how they measure it too, how much money they brought in each year.

[SPman]

............and the nay-sayers continue to deny that vehicle safety, road engineering safety and targeted enforcement, as a package, have reduced the road toll. On the contrary, vehicle safety and road engineering safety have been the biggest contributors to road safety over the last 20 yrs. We've, perhaps, seen the most contribution from vehicle safety, but road engineering still has a large part to play - particularly in large traffic volume areas.

In the late 90's, Montana had no open road speed limits. In 2000,with federally funded "safety" initiatives and a large political push, and against the advice of traffic engineers, they re-introduced speed limits (75mph) and vigorous enforcement. The results:-

"1. After the new Speed Limits were established, interstates fatal accidents went up 111%. From a modern low of 27 with no daytime limits, to a new high of 56 fatal accidents with speed limits.

2. On interstates and federal primary highways combined, Montana went from a modern low of 101 with no daytime limits, to a new high of 143 fatal accidents with speed limits.

3. After a 6 year downward trend in the percentage of multiple vehicle accidents on its 2 lane primary highways, multiple vehicle accident rates increased again.

4. With the expectation of higher speed when there was no daytime limit, Montana’s seat belt usage was well above the national average on its highways without a primary law, lane and road courtesy increased, speeds remained relatively stable and fatal accidents dropped to a modern low. After the new limits, fatal accidents climbed to a modern high on these classifications of highway, road courtesy decreased and flow conflict accidents rose again."

......This begs the question, do people change the way they drive when there is no speed limit? The evidence suggests the answer is yes. The measured vehicle speeds only changed a few miles per hour as predicted – comparable to data collected from other western states. What changed? The two most obvious changes were improved lane courtesy and increased seat belt use. Did other driving habits and patterns change as well?

...... People do, in fact, act in a reasonable and responsible manner without constant government intervention.
The Montana experience solidifies the long held traffic engineering axioms, “people don't automatically drive faster when the speed limit is raised, speed limit signs will not automatically decrease accident rates nor increase safety, and highways with posted speed limits are not necessarily safer than highways without posted limits.”


OK, NZ is not the US, but generally, people do react in similar ways. You will always get the loose, useless, reckless, incompetent bozos. Police on patrol, particularly if they patrol the same areas, tend to know the troublesome people and areas. They should be left to concentrate on these sections of the driving public (whilst still keeping a weather eye on the general driving public- everyone can make mistakes or sometimes needs a "reminder', and, while you canna change the laws of physics, the automatic assumption that everyone going slightly quicker than a preset limit, WILL crash, is poppycock!
Perhaps, breaking the addiction of authorities to the bounteous amounts of cash involved,might be a help - but, I can't see it happening any time soon.

or - maybe I ascribe greater levels of medium range competence to my fellow road users, than they potentially have........:(

[BoristheBiter]

I'm not distorting anything, I'm bringing the truth.

As I said a few days previous

You wouldn't know truth if it slapped you in the face.

The human body can only handle certain forces, after that injury occurs and sometimes it is fatal.
Yes some can die at very low speeds and some can walk away from massive accidents but the law of physics states that the likelihood of injury or death from an accident rises with speed.

No matter how good the road, the car/bike/truck or the driver is these laws can not be changed.
I think there might be a few on here, or not anymore, would disagree in your saying that the faster object is better off.

[Scuba_Steve]

You wouldn't know truth if it slapped you in the face.

The human body can only handle certain forces, after that injury occurs and sometimes it is fatal.
Yes some can die at very low speeds and some can walk away from massive accidents but the law of physics states that the likelihood of injury or death from an accident rises with speed.

No matter how good the road, the car/bike/truck or the driver is these laws can not be changed.
I think there might be a few on here, or not anymore, would disagree in your saying that the faster object is better off.

"Pictures say 1000 words"
253254
253253

[BoristheBiter]

"Pictures say 1000 words"
253254
253253

That says more about you than me.

[Scuba_Steve]

That says more about you than me.

just cause you can't see truth when it's slapping you in the face don't stop it from being the truth

[swbarnett]

In the interesets of my sanity and blood pressure I'm not going to reply specifically to every post in this thread that just simply defies logic.

One smiley sums up this "discussion" quite nicely from both sides :brick:


This is an emotionally based argument not at all unlike a religious debate. As such, neither side is ever going to make any real headway in trying to convince the other of the righteousness of their position.

And, just for the record, I am neither dumb, blind nor careless (based on the opinion of those I trust, BTW, not mine).

I think we all agree that carnage is bad. Where we differ boils down to two important points:

1. The level of carnage that we deem "acceptable".

and

2. The amount of collatoral damage that we are willing to accept as a result of any attempt to reduce the level of carnage.


There are two opposing philosophies at work here - one where it doesn't matter if the "innocent"* get convicted as long as one is able to convince oneself that what you're doing is reducing the carnage - and one where oppression of the "innocent" definitely does matter.

The former is characterised by a belief that it's better to jail an innocent person than run ANY risk of letting a murderer go free. The latter, of course, is the opposite - rather a murderer goes free than an innocent person is jailed.

Most people, I believe, hold to the former and, as a result, this is what guides most of our laws and creates a society where thousands of innocent people are penalised daily in order to catch the one or two that are actually dangerous.


*By "innocent" I mean those operating within the spirit of the law if not within the letter i.e. in this case over the limit but within the conditions.

[baffa]

Nice theory but doesn't really work does it? "faster you go bigger the mess" was banned because of being inaccurate & false. Physics also says the faster vehicle will be better off, much like how the SUV will be better off. If your theory was right trucks wouldn't be going faster than 30km/h & SUV's limited to 60km/h while bikes should be good to 150km/h if cars remain 100km/h

Wow. Who taught you physics?
I'd like to be able to agree with you about speed limits, but your arguments do little but prove the other side right.

A good driver on a good road with a good vehicle is capable of exceeding the current limits. Of that I dont think there is any doubt.

The problem is, kiwis are not good drivers, and we just wont talk about the average road and vehicle standards.

You have to cater to the lowest common denominator.

Older vehicles, trucks etc are not safe to be travelling at higher speeds.
So what do we do for vehicles that supposedly are? Where do we draw the line?

If anything many of our driving skills have gotten worse. The majority of people I see on the road can't even figure out how to indicate on a round a bout. We have ABS and a billion airbags in modern vehicles, and SUVs that drive like cars, so drivers are lulled into a false sense of security.

[BoristheBiter]

That says more about you than me.

So what you are saying is the faster you go the less likely you are not only to have a crash, but if you do you will have less injury's?

[Scuba_Steve]

Wow. Who taught you physics?
I'd like to be able to agree with you about speed limits, but your arguments do little but prove the other side right.

A good driver on a good road with a good vehicle is capable of exceeding the current limits. Of that I dont think there is any doubt.

The problem is, kiwis are not good drivers, and we just wont talk about the average road and vehicle standards.

You have to cater to the lowest common denominator.


Firstly I passed Physics, did you???
Don't believe what I say heres a very simple test to prove it & no-one has to die.
Just find someone else willing (might be best to be drunk for this) & head butt each other, the one to come worse off will be the one who hesitates putting less speed thus kinetic force behind their blow, as people keep saying "the law of physics don't change" so this is the same for cars too. That's why it's usually the "speeder" coming best off & killing the other vehicles occupants, the force is transferred to the lesser.

This "lowest common dominator" argument is BS too, it was addressed couple pages back, we create the lowest common dominator through our laws & roads. The lower you cater for the lower they go, people would be better drivers if they were forced to be.
You said it yourself our roads have improved and we've added lots of pretty lights telling people what to do, while laws keep getting tighter & we have the slowest overall speed we've had in quite awhile. we catered for the lowest common dominator time & time again, yet...
If anything many of our driving skills have gotten worse, The majority of people I see on the road can't even figure out how to indicate on a round a bout.

[Scuba_Steve]

So what you are saying is the faster you go the less likely you are not only to have a crash, but if you do you will have less injury's?

:brick: NO!!! you are less likely to be involved in a crash if you are travelling at a safe comfortable speed watching the road instead of an insignificant needle on an insignificant dial. Driving to the conditions rather than a made-up number.

*If you do crash I only said being the faster one is safer in the same way that being in the SUV is safer, you'll come out better off as you have the greater kinetic energy I'm not saying you should go faster for this reason (just like I wouldn't advise getting a SUV for this reason) just saying "faster you go the bigger the mess" doesn't work as physics has a different view on occasions, vehicle vs brick wall yes it can work there but I wouldn't advise driving into them either & your less likely to if your driving to the condition than driving to an artificial made-up limit.


*equivalent vehicles

[baffa]

[QUOTE=Scuba_Steve;1130220198]Firstly I passed Physics, did you???
Don't believe what I say heres a very simple test to prove it & no-one has to die.
Just find someone else willing (might be best to be drunk for this) & head butt each other, the one to come worse off will be the one who hesitates putting less speed thus kinetic force behind their blow, as people keep saying "the law of physics don't change" so this is the same for cars too. That's why it's usually the "speeder" coming best off & killing the other vehicles occupants, the force is transferred to the lesser.
[QUOTE]

How about you test that theory by heat butting a wall. I'm sure the wall will be a lot worse off than you if your theory is correct.

And yeah I did, and I do understand physics. I think you need to take another look at Newtons laws.

[BoristheBiter]

:brick: NO!!! you are less likely to be involved in a crash if you are travelling at a safe comfortable speed watching the road instead of an insignificant needle on an insignificant dial. Driving to the conditions rather than a made-up number.

*If you do crash I only said being the faster one is safer in the same way that being in the SUV is safer, you'll come out better off as you have the greater kinetic energy I'm not saying you should go faster for this reason (just like I wouldn't advise getting a SUV for this reason) just saying "faster you go the bigger the mess" doesn't work as physics has a different view on occasions, vehicle vs brick wall yes it can work there but I wouldn't advise driving into them either & your less likely to if your driving to the condition than driving to an artificial made-up limit.


*equivalent vehicles

So now you say if we drive at a comfortable speed we are less likely to have a crash and if you are the faster of the two vehicles you will not get injured.

So what you are saying is you shouldn't drive fast unless you are about to crash into another vehicle then you should speed up to make sure you are going faster?

[Usarka]

Just about 12 or so years back the de-facto speed limit WAS 120kph.

The road deaths were also higher then.

FYI

Many other things have changed (cost of petrol for a start!).

There was an example a few years back (in the states I think) where raising the speed limit showed a direct and attributable reduction in crashes/deaths. I tried to google it but ADHD kicked in hey look what's that out side.

[Scuba_Steve]

So now you say if we drive at a comfortable speed we are less likely to have a crash and if you are the faster of the two vehicles you will not get injured.

So what you are saying is you shouldn't drive fast unless you are about to crash into another vehicle then you should speed up to make sure you are going faster?

Yep now I'm sure
253259

[Jantar]

So now you say if we drive at a comfortable speed we are less likely to have a crash
Yes, that is what he said, and the available data from those places that raised their speed limits bears witness to this fact.


and if you are the faster of the two vehicles you will not get injured. .... So what you are saying is you shouldn't drive fast unless you are about to crash into another vehicle then you should speed up to make sure you are going faster?

No, that is not what he said, but its not too far away. The energy transferred is equal to change of kinectic energy. In any collision, unless the collision is completely inelastic and both coliding bodies are the same mass and velocity, then one body will experience a greater change in energy than the other. The change in velocity of either body is proportional to the mass of that body and the nett change in momentum. The damage to the human body is proprtional to the accelleration. Take all these factors into consideration and if the two colliding bodies are the same mass then the faster body will suffer less acceleration and hence less damage to the human involved.

Of course if one body has a greater mass then its change in velocity will be lower, so NO, Don't going banging your moving head against a stationary brick wall or you will be hurt.

[scumdog]

Yes, that is what he said, and the available data from those places that raised their speed limits bears witness to this fact.
.

Of course that is in countries with a better roading system than ours.

And probably better drivers.(Shouldn't be TOO hard to be that!)

[caspernz]

The disparate points of view are quite amusing....to me anyway. Not only are lots of folks resistant to enforcement, they also shun education, oh well.

I think back to a change that has taken place at my employer over a number of years. Go back ten or so years, trucks limited to 105, then 100, 95, 90, to now being clipped at 88 km/h, this being 2 clicks below the limit for trucks. At each reduction in speed, the drivers moaned and groaned, saying it would be impossible to do the same work with these slow trucks....in reality there was little change in trip times, but running costs dropped markedly. The amusing thing is that running at legal limits is actually quite comfy and devoid of stress, not to mention quite a bit safer than pushing on at some higher self imposed limit beyond the legal one, although my wife tends to get quite stressed when I set the cars' cruise at 102....:killingme

Putting loads of energy into moaning about speed limits is about as effective as crying about the weather, in my view anyhow. Makes for entertaining reading though, so by all means ramble on fellas.....:lol:

[BoristheBiter]

Yes, that is what he said, and the available data from those places that raised their speed limits bears witness to this fact.



No, that is not what he said, but its not too far away. The energy transferred is equal to change of kinectic energy. In any collision, unless the collision is completely inelastic and both coliding bodies are the same mass and velocity, then one body will experience a greater change in energy than the other. The change in velocity of either body is proportional to the mass of that body and the nett change in momentum. The damage to the human body is proprtional to the accelleration. Take all these factors into consideration and if the two colliding bodies are the same mass then the faster body will suffer less acceleration and hence less damage to the human involved.

Of course if one body has a greater mass then its change in velocity will be lower, so NO, Don't going banging your moving head against a stationary brick wall or you will be hurt.

And at 120Km the human brain can't take the sudden stop and at 140km the brain will become a mushy thing inside your skull.
You can ponce around with your fancy physics talk all you want, it was one of my top subjects, but the end result remains the same the human body is more likely to be injured the higher the speed.

[FJRider]

Of course that is in countries with a better roading system than ours.

And probably better drivers.(Shouldn't be TOO hard to be that!)

I spent a fair bit of time touring Aisa (amongst other places)... on a motorcycle. I found (then) NZ has quite good roads.

Those worried about the standard of the roading system ... should get a duel-purpose bike.

But then (I guess) the roads wont be bad enough ... :lol:

[avgas]

And at 120Km the human brain can't take the sudden stop and at 140km the brain will become a mushy thing inside your skull.
You can ponce around with your fancy physics talk all you want, it was one of my top subjects, but the end result remains the same the human body is more likely to be injured the higher the speed.

Actually your brain is mush much lower than that.
Be thankful the we don't have to drive at 25kph..........because that is apparently the "magic" number.

[SPman]

And at 120Km the human brain can't take the sudden stop and at 140km the brain will become a mushy thing inside your skull.
You can ponce around with your fancy physics talk all you want, it was one of my top subjects, but the end result remains the same the human body is more likely to be injured the higher the speed.Has anyone really disputed that? In a sudden stop against a solid object, of course this is what will happen. Reducing things to limits, humans shouldn't go faster than the 6-8km/hr we have evolved to physically cope with!....:oi-grr:

[McJim]

Has anyone really Reducing things to limits, humans shouldn't go faster than the 6-8km/hr we have evolved to physically cope with!....:oi-grr:

Slow git. I can do at least 20kph on foot and 65kph without an engine on the flat. :P

[swbarnett]

How about you test that theory by heat butting a wall. I'm sure the wall will be a lot worse off than you if your theory is correct.
His theory relies on the fact that the masses of the two colliding objects are at least within the same ball park.

Take a piano on wheels and role another one of the same or similar mass into it. The frist piano will move. Repeat the experiment with a piano hit by a ping-pong ball at the same speed and it won't move to any measurable level.

[BoristheBiter]

His theory relies on the fact that the masses of the two colliding objects are at least within the same ball park.

Take a piano on wheels and role another one of the same or similar mass into it. The frist piano will move. Repeat the experiment with a piano hit by a ping-pong ball at the same speed and it won't move to any measurable level.

So now to be safer you must be in the faster vehicle or the biggest?

Well we're fucked on our little two wheeler's or maybe we should just go even faster to adjust for our lower mass.

If you think, this is aimed at all not just you swb, that to be safer you must go faster then by all means go right ahead. If you get a ticket for it I don't care, if you crash I don't care, But if you crash into me or mine then you will have a problem.

[swbarnett]

So now to be safer you must be in the faster vehicle or the biggest?
Let's think about this....

Truck versus motorcycle - pretty much guarenteed the motorcyclist comes off second best no matter the speed of the truck. This is kind of like the brick wall example.

However, in a collision between like vehicles it does seem that the faster one will suffer relatively less damage.

This, of course, will only apply to a small fraction of real world motorcycle accidents (motorcycle vs motorcycle is not that common).


Well we're fucked on our little two wheeler's
Well, duh! Being the smallest motorised thing on the road does mean we will always come off second best. There's nothing magic about 100k that keeps us safe. Far better to prevent accidents in the first place.


or maybe we should just go even faster to adjust for our lower mass.
I don't think there's a bike on the road that could go fast enough to mitigate the mass of a large truck (or a tree for that matter). Besides, we're not saying that the faster vehicle gets off scott free. Just that the relatively higher speed*mass relationship MAY mitigate SOME of the affects of the collision (certainly not a theory I would rely on).


If you think, this is aimed at all not just you swb, that to be safer you must go faster then by all means go right ahead. If you get a ticket for it I don't care, if you crash I don't care, But if you crash into me or mine then you will have a problem.
We're not trying to say that faster is safer - given that a collision is inevitable - just that the physics is not as cut and dried as one might think.

[BoristheBiter]

Let's think about this....

--------------.

Either way this thread is about why people have a big fat cry like a little girl when they get a speeding ticket.
If's, but's, maybe's don't mean shit when you get pulled over for speeding.
You get off with a warning or you might get a ticket but either way you should just man up and get over it.
We have a tolerance that most other country's don't, we know what the speed limits are.

[swbarnett]

Either way this thread is about why people have a big fat cry like a little girl when they get a speeding ticket.
If's, but's, maybe's don't mean shit when you get pulled over for speeding.
You get off with a warning or you might get a ticket but either way you should just man up and get over it.
We have a tolerance that most other country's don't, we know what the speed limits are.
I agree. That doesn't make it right.

[schrodingers cat]

The way I see it - a ticket is loosely a right to speed token. Every so often you have to by a new one. Too many and you get to take the bus for a while.

[superman]

The way I see it - a ticket is loosely a right to speed token. Every so often you have to by a new one. Too many and you get to take the bus for a while.

:2thumbsup That's a good one.

Total energy is quadrupled when the speed is doubled. energy = 1/2 * mass * velocity * velocity

30,000 kg truck at 100km/h = 11,574,074 Joules
1500 kg car at 100km/h = 578,703 Joules
250kg (bike + rider) at 140km/h = 189,043 Joules
80kg (pushbike + rider) at 200km/h = 123,456 Joules

[SPman]

Either way this thread is about why people have a big fat cry like a little girl when they get a speeding ticket. - speak for yourself
If's, but's, maybe's don't mean shit when you get pulled over exceeding the posted speed limit
You get off with a warning or you might get a ticket but either way you should just man up and get over it. - don't most people?
We have a tolerance that most other country's don't, we know what the speed limits are. - que? From riding in Nevada, Arizona and Northern California, it seemed everyone sat about 10-15mph over the 70-75 mph limit...and the cops barely blinked as long as you were otherwise behaving yourself!

[ellipsis]

....whats hard to understand about the rules of the game that we all play, buy into, and cant really play outside of, without the referees blowing their whistles when we cheat...simple really...the real crime is being caught, it seems....

[superman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcYxr0RsIlY&feature=related

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcYxr0RsIlY&feature=related)These guys made me laugh!

[FJRider]

From riding in Nevada, Arizona and Northern California, it seemed everyone sat about 10-15mph over the 70-75 mph limit...and the cops barely blinked as long as you were otherwise behaving yourself!

It would still be at the descretion of the officers in those areas ... not policy as such.

As it is in this country.

[SPman]

It would still be at the descretion of the officers in those areas .... Of course - as it should be, and I'm not naive enough to think that all areas were like that.
..not policy as such.

As it is in this country I will read that to mean the policy in this country is to remove discretion, where ever possible......which leads to a conflict between those officers who follow the "official" requirements without thought, and those officers who still exercise their own discretion, where and when they can, but have to be careful about it, unless they get themselves in the official crap.

[Edbear]

....whats hard to understand about the rules of the game that we all play, buy into, and cant really play outside of, without the referees blowing their whistles when we cheat...simple really...the real crime is being caught, it seems....

That's the way it goes with about all crimes, doesn't it? "Feel sorry for me, this isn't the real me, I'm not like that, it's not my fault, the Police were acting wrongly, they were unfairly targetting me, it's not fair, I was abused as a child......" :weep:


Of course - as it should be, and I'm not naive enough to think that all areas were like that. I will read that to mean the policy in this country is to remove discretion, where ever possible......which leads to a conflict between those officers who follow the "official" requirements without thought, and those officers who still exercise their own discretion, where and when they can, but have to be careful about it, unless they get themselves in the official crap.

The Police on here have often commented on their ability to use discretion, maybe they could remind us how hard it is to get away with it?

[scumdog]

The Police on here have often commented on their ability to use discretion, maybe they could remind us how hard it is to get away with it?

It's not that hard -if the rider/driver is speeding and not stopped (Got the big finger shaken at them etc) then almost nobody knows.

If the motorist IS stopped and no ticket issued then only two parties (mostly) know that:
offence detected/discretion used/no ticket issued.

So unless the offending party posts on KB (Pff, like THAT happens much!) to say how he/she 'got let off' due to the cop using discretion nobody really knows eh??

[Edbear]

It's not that hard -if the rider/driver is speeding and not stopped (Got the big finger shaken at them etc) then almost nobody knows.

If the motorist IS stopped and no ticket issued then only two parties (mostly) know that:
offence detected/discretion used/no ticket issued.

So unless the offending party posts on KB (Pff, like THAT happens much!) to say how he/she 'got let off' due to the cop using discretion nobody really knows eh??

I think the last time I got let off was at a checkpoint in 1977. Jill was driving the old Vanguard and I was leaning over the back seat changing baby's nappy. Got "advised" that wasn't really a good idea and we should have pulled over to do that, but I think the fact that Jill was wearing a short skirt might have had something to do with the use of "discretion" by the officer... ;)

Mind you I've only been pulled over once since and that was three years ago, got a ticket for 112km/h, bummer, but couldn't argue.

Jill got pulled over for exceeding 50km/h a couple of years ago, but she had a few workmates in the van and she told the officer they were laughing so much she didn't realise she was over the limit... Got let off with a warning... :lol:

[rastuscat]

I think the last time I got let off was at a checkpoint in 1977. Jill was driving the old Vanguard and I was leaning over the back seat changing baby's nappy. Got "advised" that wasn't really a good idea and we should have pulled over to do that, but I think the fact that Jill was wearing a short skirt might have had something to do with the use of "discretion" by the officer... ;)

Mind you I've only been pulled over once since and that was three years ago, got a ticket for 112km/h, bummer, but couldn't argue.

Jill got pulled over for exceeding 50km/h a couple of years ago, but she had a few workmates in the van and she told the officer they were laughing so much she didn't realise she was over the limit... Got let off with a warning... :lol:

.........and then we bang on about how discretion has died. Yeah right.

Lots of warnings get given, but bugger all gets said about them. Coz it doesn't sound cool to haver been warned. It sounds cooler to bitch about having gotten a ticket and how it's all the revenue collecting, quota matching bastards fault.

So a Popo is a good bastard if he gives a warning, then is a bastard if he writes a ticket. Go figure.

[Edbear]

.........and then we bang on about how discretion has died. Yeah right.

Lots of warnings get given, but bugger all gets said about them. Coz it doesn't sound cool to haver been warned. It sounds cooler to bitch about having gotten a ticket and how it's all the revenue collecting, quota matching bastards fault.

So a Popo is a good bastard if he gives a warning, then is a bastard if he writes a ticket. Go figure.

Well I would definitely post about getting let off but first I have to get pulled over for breaking the law...

[Jantar]

.........and then we bang on about how discretion has died. Yeah right.

Lots of warnings get given, but bugger all gets said about them. Coz it doesn't sound cool to haver been warned. It sounds cooler to bitch about having gotten a ticket and how it's all the revenue collecting, quota matching bastards fault.

So a Popo is a good bastard if he gives a warning, then is a bastard if he writes a ticket. Go figure.

I have been let off with a warning twice. The first time was in 1974 for doing 59 mph in a 50 mph area near Blenheim. It was a written warning. That is I received a ticket, but it had warning only written on it. There were two of us in the Radar beam, so the written warning was fair to both parties.

The second time was just north of Blenheim when I was running late for the ferry in 1984. Same cop, and he gave me an escort to Picton at a slightly higher speed than I had been doing. I deserved a ticket and got an escort, how great is that?

[Edbear]

I have been let off with a warning twice. The first time was in 1974 for doing 59 mph in a 50 mph area near Blenheim. It was a written warning. That is I received a ticket, but it had warning only written on it. There were two of us in the Radar beam, so the written warning was fair to both parties.

The second time was just north of Blenheim when I was running late for the ferry in 1984. Same cop, and he gave me an escort to Picton at a slightly higher speed than I had been doing. I deserved a ticket and got an escort, how great is that?

What? You weren't even in labour?

[Jantar]

What? You weren't even in labour?

Well, at that time I was. But I'm sure my political affiliation had nothing to do with it. :innocent:

[ellipsis]

....I got let off with a warning that I should not have ten people in my Mk 2 Zephyr, specially if one is hanging out the window trying to get his rugby boots on and that maybe we should save the drinking til after the game...then when we explained that we were late for the kick off were told to hurry up ...1974 ...things were a little different then...a lot of our vehicles would have been struggling to speed...and a discretionary kick in the arse from a size ten boot was not moaned about too much...better than a night in central...

[BoristheBiter]

It's not that hard -if the rider/driver is speeding and not stopped (Got the big finger shaken at them etc) then almost nobody knows.

If the motorist IS stopped and no ticket issued then only two parties (mostly) know that:
offence detected/discretion used/no ticket issued.

So unless the offending party posts on KB (Pff, like THAT happens much!) to say how he/she 'got let off' due to the cop using discretion nobody really knows eh??

Then you get the other two types.

The one that gets the warning then just brag's about getting away with it, generally the one that thinks it's a scam in the first place and has no real respect for the police, has masses of fines, will never pay them off and doesn't really care anyway.

And the one that never gets let off, always gets the ticket no matter for what and looks at police discretion as a joke, and whose respect for the police is starting to wear thin.
After all discretion is just a form of bending the law which is a lower form of corruption.

[rastuscat]

celebrating 50 pages on this thread. Glad I started it. Lots of healthy discussion and lots of bollocks.

Love you all.

Too many beers.

Rastuscat. (hic)

[FJRider]

celebrating 50 pages on this thread. Glad I started it. Lots of healthy discussion and lots of bollocks.

Love you all.

Too many beers.

Rastuscat. (hic)

Bollocks ... bullshit !!!! ... This is KB. We only deal in (un-verified) FACT ... I know this because ... a mate of my cousin told me ...

[rastuscat]

Bollocks ... bullshit !!!! ... This is KB. We only deal in (un-verified) FACT ... I know this because ... a mate of my cousin told me ...

Sheesh.......how can you shay day.......many more beers to come.....

[Brian d marge]

Sheesh.......how can you shay day.......many more beers to come.....

Bloke down pub , is a reliable source

Stephen

[mstriumph]

Quote Originally Posted by mstriumph
... To expand on that 'accidents' are caused by inattention, a driver's lack of ability to read the road and weather conditions, poor training, poor attitude, lack of sleep, bad temper, badly maintained roads, inadequate signage, etc etc etc and(perhaps) speed .... of those the only one that gets meticulously policed is speed - BECAUSE IT'S THE EASIEST - I rest my case.


So ... in ALL those conditions/factors ... if all concerned SLOWED DOWN .... would not ALL concerned be less likely to get hurt (less) in the case of an "accident" ???

erm NO
Like a lot of politician-speak that sounds sensible but, upon examination, proves ... well ... catchy but simplistic to the point of daft. A bit like applying a sticking plaster to an arterial hemorrhage.

To take your suggestion through to its logical conclusion, we could abolish accidents totally by reducing the speed limit to zero... a bit like saying we could control the population explosion through the mass extermination of storks? :mellow:

[baffa]

His theory relies on the fact that the masses of the two colliding objects are at least within the same ball park.

Take a piano on wheels and role another one of the same or similar mass into it. The frist piano will move. Repeat the experiment with a piano hit by a ping-pong ball at the same speed and it won't move to any measurable level.

I understand the logic, infact it is reminding me of the fun experiments in physics class, but regardless of the damage done to a motorcycle, at higher collision speeds the rider is going to be thrown from the vehicle, so who cares if his bike is ok if he is flying towards a tree at 80 km/hr

[mstriumph]

ahhhh ... but have the relative fatigue levels, expertise and traffic savvy of the riders of the piano and ping pong ball been taken into consideration? ... what about the wind speed? visibility? time of day? :confused:

[swbarnett]

ahhhh ... but have the relative fatigue levels, expertise and traffic savvy of the riders of the piano and ping pong ball been taken into consideration? ... what about the wind speed? visibility? time of day? :confused:
Exactly. Far too many variables to justify picking on only one. Especially when that one is, more often than not, not a major contributing factor to an accident.

[scumdog]

Life would have been torture for a lot of you young 'uns 'back in the day', i.e.:

1973 the open-road speed limit DROPPED from 55mph (88kmh) to 50mph (80kmh). (Mainly as a measure to try and reduce fuel consumption - once again NZ was on the bones of its arse with overseas deb, don't ask me why it was 55mph in the first place...:confused:)

And stayed like that until 1985 when it shot back up to a whopping 100kmh.

At the time everybody said "Ah, thank God at last a sensible open road speed limit, we can live with that , no need to speed everywhere now".

My, my...:whistle:



Just sayin'

[Owl]

At the time everybody said "Ah, thank God at last a sensible open road speed limit, we can live with that , no need to speed everywhere now".

I do remember that and the comment "People will still travel at the same speed, only legally now"!:no:

[Scuba_Steve]

However Scummy something you may not realize (riding a Harley :shutup:) is car tech has significantly progressed since then.
My 1967 land-rover maxes out at about 80km/h, takes 2 cities to stop & about 5 to turn round
My 1988 Van maxes out at about 180km/h, takes less than 100 meters to stop & turns around in a single lane


Just saying :whistle:

[Kickaha]

My 1967 land-rover maxes out at about 80km/h, takes 2 cities to stop & about 5 to turn round
We used to be able to wind the work IIA out around to the cold start or choke light? dunno off the clock anyway, generally depending on the schedule there'd be 3 in line about 1 metre off each others bumper or ever nudging it