4kmh tolerance for Waitangi Weekend until 29 February?

[BoristheBiter]

I'm not trying to be very hard on the police - they have a very difficult job (as do others, their job is not uniquely difficult and just like the rest of us, they all volunteer to do what they do). But it's pretty difficult to even get a burglar or a potential murderer to court when the police decide simply not to show up... or wait until after everybody has got their story straight / while cautioning the rest of us not to jump to conclusions. BTW - those of us who deal with people whose behaviour intersects with the police, see a lot more than the 1% you suggest.

I completely agree with you about the frequent laxity shown by the courts. About the only time the judges "throw away the key" is one of their own is attacked.

Really,unless its a "burgs on" there is very little chance of catching someone and with the small police force we have its a wounder they do as well as they do.
As you are well aware it's not like it is on CSI.
There is a little thing called due process and if it isn't carried out the case just gets thrown out.

And look at the Kahui twins, a jury found her not guilty when she was just as guilty. if people don't want to talk or will just lie there is not much the police can do.

[BoristheBiter]

You what? Are you thick? No - wait - don't answer that...your next post shows that there is some neurological activity going on.

More than could be said for you

[shrub]

I completely agree with you about the frequent laxity shown by the courts. About the only time the judges "throw away the key" is one of their own is attacked.

the thing is, if you look anywhere in the world all tougher sentences do is increase the crime rate, but they make the middle class feel a lot happier because at long last the authorities are Doing Something About It and are Getting Tough On Crime. Which is where speeding comes in.

Sure, speed does have a relationship with risk and probability of crashing, but to what extent is it a causal relationship? If you listen to the PR department of the police you'd be forgiven for thinking that there is a near 100% correlation, and that there is an actual point at which speed becomes dangerous. The relationship is real, just like the relationship between me being a slow rider and my bike - if I rode a superbike I would be faster, but my low speed is caused by my bike, my skill level, my fear of falling over etc, but the biggest cause is my fear of pain.

I get annoyed when Our Beloved Leaders and their Noble Servants The Cuntstables tell us how speed is killing us, and if they can only stop people speeding the crash rate would plummet to 2.3 people a year because it's mostly bollocks. There are a hundred reasons Johnny Dickhead wiped himself out, and speed is only one of them, but it's the one being targeted because it's easy and popular.

It's easy because a simple piece of electronic equipment fitted to most cop cars can tell you that I was doing EXACTLY 61 kmh in a 50k zone, and it's impossible to argue against. I may have been driving impeccably, but I had crossed a line and must be punished for my miscreancy. It's a hell of a lot harder to identify that Mary Pajero was busy wiping little Tarquin's botty when she should have been driving or had spent the last 5 seconds covering several hundred feet blind because she was changing the CD in her stereo. It's bloody hard to pick up when people tailgate, don't indicate, don't pay attention or any one of the many other things that cause crashes, and even harder to prove, so popo can't be arsed.

And it's popular because it doesn't affect 99% of car drivers. Cars aren't as fast as bikes and aren't as easy to drive fast, and more importantly the majority of citizens don't have any desire to drive faster than 100 kmh, so they will rarely, if ever, experience a speeding ticket. The people who speed are us because it is bloody hard not to go over 110 kmh on a lot of bikes and the small number of car drivers who speed, most of whom are bogans and boy racers.

And nobody gives a fuck about what we think because we simply don't matter to TPTB.

[MSTRS]

More than could be said for you

And you have obviously been exposed to the party line for so long that you are losing the power of reasoning outside the square, and incapable of recognising the ability in others who can...

[RDJ]

And nobody gives a fuck about what we think because we simply don't matter to TPTB.

Yea, verily!

[Clockwork]

Seems to me that many of our road's speed limits are set unreasonably low, quite possibly with the implicit expectation that Police have consistently (presumably with the backing of the Minister for Police) overlooked minor breaches of the limit. Its often been stated that the defacto open road speed limit is 110kph.

It troubles me these attempts by the Police Management to redefine these "tolerance" levels are somehow inappropriate, in someway indicative of a Police state mentality. Surely such decisions should be the responsibility of the politicians who are ultimately accountable to the wider electorate yet it appears that as usual that they are happy to play Pontius Pilate. How gutless is that?

[SMOKEU]

Its often been stated that the defacto open road speed limit is 110kph.


90kmh more like it.

[MSTRS]

Its often been stated that the defacto open road speed limit is 110kph.



90kmh more like it.

Speed limit and actual speed travelled at...

[bikaholic]

I work on the fact that the tolerance is actually 39KPH over the posted speed limit, as that the different tolerance levels I value are connected to my wallet. Do 39kph over the posted limit and you still get to drive away.
I either do the posted limit or I am way over it, no pissy in the middle 100-ish :no:

[Drew]

I tried an experiment the other day. I rode down the road at 104 kmh, and I was incredibly safe from any hazard. Cars gave way, indicated when they were supposed to, stopped at red lights (and even amber lights) and maintained a good following distance, all the while paying attention to what they were doing and ignoring little Tarquin killing his sister Tamsin in the back seat. The road surface miraculously smoothed out and most importantly, I found I could handle my bike flawlessly and my skill level skyrocketed.

I carefully accelerated to 105 kmh, and suddenly everything changed. I found it hard to control my bike and suddenly other road users started tailgating, crashing amber and red lights etc. I conquered my fear and accelerated to 110 kmh, and it was as though I had shifted to another world. The roads were almost undriveable, other road users became aggressive and inconsiderate, and I watched a car drive through a red light, and noticed that the driver was drinking beer, eating dinner and reading the paper. But what terrified me was the impact it had on me. I was almost unable to control my bike, and corners that were a breeze at 104 kmh became terrifying near-death experiences. My brakes disappeared meaning I could no longer stop and my vision faded to the point where it was as though I was riding in twilight with no lights.

I believe that dropping the tolerance to 4 kmh will have an incredible impact on the road toll and make driving as safe as sitting in a comfy chair watching Coronation Street. And about as interesting.You didn't read the rest of the thread did you numb nuts?

The LIMIT is 100kph. There has to be a tollerance due to the fact that it is impossible to drive safely whilst only looking at your speedo. However, it is perfectly reasonable to expect road users to have enough awareness, to keep a vehicle within 4 k's of the posted limit.

You should not be bitching about the tollerance ya bloody bell end, if you have issue, it is with the LIMIT!

Right, that said, I'm off on the Thursday night ride, where I hope I don't get spotted by the fuzz, and if I do catch their attention, it'll be own fault without excuse.


Speed limit and actual speed travelled at...

[FJRider]

I work on the fact that the tolerance is actually 39KPH over the posted speed limit, as that the different tolerance levels I value are connected to my wallet. Do 39kph over the posted limit and you still get to drive away.
I either do the posted limit or I am way over it, no pissy in the middle 100-ish :no:

Pass a school bus stopped to pick up/drop off passengers ... at 100 kms/hr (on the open road) ... you ARE walking ...

Usually you are allowed to drive home ... if you pass the attitude test. Regardless of speed ticked ...

(At the officers descretion)

[shrub]

You didn't read the rest of the thread did you numb nuts?

The LIMIT is 100kph. There has to be a tollerance due to the fact that it is impossible to drive safely whilst only looking at your speedo. However, it is perfectly reasonable to expect road users to have enough awareness, to keep a vehicle within 4 k's of the posted limit.

You should not be bitching about the tollerance ya bloody bell end, if you have issue, it is with the LIMIT!

Right, that said, I'm off on the Thursday night ride, where I hope I don't get spotted by the fuzz, and if I do catch their attention, it'll be own fault without excuse.

Yes, quite. Thank you for pointing that out, I had absolutely no idea and I am in awe at your intelligence and by your understanding of the law. Your fellow Thursday night riders are lucky to share the road with you and I hope they appreciate the common sense and wisdom you bring to the group.:not::not:

Muppets, too funny!

[bikaholic]

Pass a school bus stopped to pick up/drop off passengers ... at 100 kms/hr (on the open road) ... you ARE walking ...

Usually you are allowed to drive home ... if you pass the attitude test. Regardless of speed ticked ...

(At the officers descretion)that's correct and there would be other scenarios as well but that is out of the spirit of the 4kph tolerance generally, just as the reduced speed limit at road works doesn't carry the extra penalties.

[trustme]

They were just testing the waters. It's coming sooner or later

[FJRider]

that's correct and there would be other scenarios as well but that is out of the spirit of the 4kph tolerance generally, just as the reduced speed limit at road works doesn't carry the extra penalties.

"Spirit of tolerance" is just that ... it holds NO tangible effect in law. It is applied at the descretion of the officer that catches you exceeding the speed limit. Over the limit, but under the tolerance ... you can STILL get an infringement notice.

The tolerance can NOT be used in your defence of being caught ... exceeding the speed limit.

He doesn't even need to stop you ... you may just "get it in the mail" ...

[RDJ]

He doesn't even need to stop you ... you may just "get it in the mail" ...

Indeed. The ticketing process is frequently both invisible and if there is any human involvement that is artfully concealed. Wait until we have Singapore-like ERP gantries and if the average speed between two of them is "too high" - bingo, the Govt cashes in again. It would be good (but not to be expected) if instead of always taking more from the taxpayer's wallets they actually spent less in the first place. Never happen until we face Grecian Times.

[Drew]

Yes, quite. Thank you for pointing that out, I had absolutely no idea and I am in awe at your intelligence and by your understanding of the law. Your fellow Thursday night riders are lucky to share the road with you and I hope they appreciate the common sense and wisdom you bring to the group.:not::not:

Muppets, too funny!

I am glad you recognise my superiority.

As you were.

[shrub]

I am glad you recognise my superiority.

As you were.

You're funny, keep it up. :clap:

[Drew]

You're funny, keep it up. :clap:

Too much pressure now.

[MSTRS]

He doesn't even need to stop you ... you may just "get it in the mail" ...


Indeed. The ticketing process is frequently both invisible and if there is any human involvement that is artfully concealed. Wait until we have Singapore-like ERP gantries and if the average speed between two of them is "too high" - bingo, the Govt cashes in again. It would be good (but not to be expected) if instead of always taking more from the taxpayer's wallets they actually spent less in the first place. Never happen until we face Grecian Times.

Boris - does this need any more explanation? These guys just used more words than I...

[Drew]

Wait until we have Singapore-like ERP gantries and if the average speed between two of them is "too high" - bingo, the Govt cashes in again.

I think that average speed between two places thing is fuckin briliant.

[MSTRS]

I think that average speed between two places thing is fuckin briliant.

As long as the pie shop/cafe/pub is between cameras...

[willytheekid]

Yes, quite. Thank you for pointing that out, I had absolutely no idea and I am in awe at your intelligence and by your understanding of the law. Your fellow Thursday night riders are lucky to share the road with you and I hope they appreciate the common sense and wisdom you bring to the group.:not::not:

Muppets, too funny!

:laugh:, yeah Drew is an odd one mate.:rolleyes:

But please remember...he suffers from multiple personality disorder (poor thing)
One day he's a pro racer, the next hes a pro stunt rider, then he's a cop hating rebel:headbang:, then he's a well educated high IQ genius!, next he's a law abiding citizen who never breaks the speed limit or trys to organize stunt/race challenges with other KB members (like riding over bridge struts or race ya for your papers etc)

But at the end of the day, your right!...he is DAMN funny! :lol: (And never alone due so many persona's to keep him company:killingme)

http://morganegesnouin.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/multiple_personality_disorder_tshirt-p235505048117396347cpu4_400.jpg

PS:Just havin a giigle Drew:love:...you know we all love you!...and you...and you...and even him!:killingme

[Drew]

PS:Just havin a giigle Drew:love:...you know we all love you!...and you...and you...and even him!:killingmeThat last guy is a cunt, no-one loves him.

Edit: I am not a pro at anything, and I have a very low IQ. The rest was spot on.

As you were.

[shrub]

:laugh:, yeah Drew is an odd one mate.:rolleyes:



PS:Just havin a giigle Drew:love:...you know we all love you!...and you...and you...and even him!:killingme

Yeah, right now we need people like Drew because everything else is so fucking depressing. Drew my lad, you're a legend and I luffs you (but only in a very manly and heterosexual way of course).

[BoristheBiter]

Boris - does this need any more explanation? These guys just used more words than I...

Anything over a sentence is usually more words for you and me most days.

The problem is, as I see it;
You (I'm talking generally) think the speed limit should be higher, and you shouldn't get tickets for speeding.
The government thinks the speed limit is fine and you will get tickets for speeding.

You think your skill level is as such you are quite capable of these higher speeds.
The government doesn't know you from adam so thinks you are like the rest of the population and unable to handle higher speeds.

I have seen, and I guess you have too, that peoples perception of their skill level is not always a true reflection of said skill base.
There are so many different types of vehicles on the roads.
Our roads are not top quality with driveways coming out onto blind corners in 100kph zones.
These are just some of the things used when setting speed limits.

As for toeing the party line, far from it.
Very rarely do I do the speed limit (100k zones i am talking about).
Do I want the limits higher? of course. Do I think all people can drive/ride at these speeds? hell no.
Do I want these people on the road with me? Hell hell no. (licence and skill is for another thread)

At the end of the day TPTB set limits they deem to be acceptable and will enforce them, if you don't like it stay off the roads.

[MSTRS]

Very rarely do I do the speed limit (100k zones i am talking about).


You are a naughty boy!!!
I let you think my superior negotiating skills have allowed me to avoid getting a speeding ticket since 1997 and you assumed the rest...

[willytheekid]

..... if you don't like it stay off the roads.

I TRIED that...but then they told me to keep off the footpaths!...sheesh...just can't win!:no:

http://flipthatbird.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/ghost-rider-motorcycle-sidewalk.jpg

[BoristheBiter]

You are a naughty boy!!!
I let you think my superior negotiating skills have allowed me to avoid getting a speeding ticket since 1997 and you assumed the rest...

Superior negotiating skills :rofl: fuck your funny.


Like I said I was Generalizing.

[Deano]

That last guy is a cunt, no-one loves him.

Edit: I am not a pro at anything, and I have a very low IQ. The rest was spot on.

As you were.


Nah mate - you are a pro at crashing and walking away !

I tell ya there is a market for that sort of skill set - you could even get funding from ACC to train people !!

[MSTRS]

I very rarely do the speed limit (100k zones)


You are a naughty boy!!!




No assumptions needed, you have posted it.

:laugh: I see what you did there...

[MSTRS]

Nah mate - you are a pro at crashing and walking away !

I tell ya there is a market for that sort of skill set - you could even get funding from ACC to train people !!

Fuck yeah! Acc couldn't give a toss about the number of crashes...

[BoristheBiter]

Fuck yeah! Acc couldn't give a toss about the number of crashes...

Did you see that guy on motorway cops last night do a runner after crashing and flying threw the air?
Just lands on his feet and runs away, now thats a skill.

[Drew]

I TRIED that...but then they told me to keep off the footpaths!...sheesh...just can't win!:no:

http://flipthatbird.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/ghost-rider-motorcycle-sidewalk.jpgFUCK THAT'S A COOL HELMET! I want one. I like the draggin jeans for safety, and no gloves or jacket look too.

[willytheekid]

Did you see that guy on motorway cops last night do a runner after crashing and flying threw the air?
Just lands on his feet and runs away, now thats a skill.

That was AWESOME! the cop cracked me up, :shit:hes up!....:eek:HES RUNNING!!! :killingme

what a hit tho...that HAD to hurt...stupid shit

[Drew]

Nah mate - you are a pro at crashing and walking away !

I tell ya there is a market for that sort of skill set - you could even get funding from ACC to train people !!


Fuck yeah! Acc couldn't give a toss about the number of crashes...

Although there are simple things to do when you come off a bike to save injury, and I am very good at them, I struggle to think of a good way to teach them.

[MSTRS]

Did you see that guy on motorway cops last night do a runner after crashing and flying threw the air?
Just lands on his feet and runs away, now thats a skill.

Nope. I'm too busy to watch that shit. Too busy starring in future episodes...
Did see the shorts. I winced. A bit.

[BoristheBiter]

That was AWESOME! the cop cracked me up, :shit:hes up!....:eek:HES RUNNING!!! :killingme

what a hit tho...that HAD to hurt...stupid shit

drugs do that. He was feeling very sorry for himself at the end.

[BoristheBiter]

Although there are simple things to do when you come off a bike to save injury, and I am very good at them, I struggle to think of a good way to teach them.

I don't think you can. It's more like instinct and the only way you learn it is to do it, so no one want's to practice.

[willytheekid]

I don't think you can. It's more like instinct and the only way you learn it is to do it, so no one want's to practice.


Although there are simple things to do when you come off a bike to save injury, and I am very good at them, I struggle to think of a good way to teach them.

If I may share some rather good advice from advanced rider training (they covered crash posture etc)

The best bit of advice I have EVER had in regards to.."Oh shit..this is gonna hurt!" situations was:

...try to stand up!...get your pelvis above the headset and handlebars! (If its a head on type of impact of course)

No shit, sounds hard, but under rapid breaking it is actually a natural movement due to the forward g-forces etc...and doing so will save your pelvis and lower spine from getting...."ahem"...(insert messy graphic image here)

And of course all the usual stuff, star fish arms n legs-don't tuck n roll(Or you will overtake the bike and snap bits off...yourself!), kick bike away (DON'T HUG IT GOODBYE DURING SLIDE! :laugh:) etc etc

As for learning how to crash? as Drew said...bloody hard to teach:confused:, and not wise to "demonstrate":laugh:

...best way to learn...buy a dirt bike...insert into muddy paddock...go friggin nuts!! (crashing & learning shall follow:lol:)
http://www.seeitornot.faketrix.com/content/thrash-pics/page3/originals/dirt-bike-crashing-motocross-wipeout-photo-motorcycle-racing-accident.jpg

[Drew]

...best way to learn...buy a dirt bike...insert into muddy paddock...go friggin nuts!! (crashing & learning shall follow:lol:)
http://www.seeitornot.faketrix.com/content/thrash-pics/page3/originals/dirt-bike-crashing-motocross-wipeout-photo-motorcycle-racing-accident.jpgDoesn't really apply. Crashing on a soft surface is easier to get hurt than on a hard surface. Whatever hits the ground first digs in, then you're fucked. Try and find a pro motoX rider who has both collar bones intact his whole life.

[BoristheBiter]

If I may share some rather good advice from advanced rider training (they covered crash posture etc)

The best bit of advice I have EVER had in regards to.."Oh shit..this is gonna hurt!" situations was:

...try to stand up!...get your pelvis above the headset and handlebars! (If its a head on type of impact of course)

No shit, sounds hard, but under rapid breaking it is actually a natural movement due to the forward g-forces etc...and doing so will save your pelvis and lower spine from getting...."ahem"...(insert messy graphic image here)

And of course all the usual stuff, star fish arms n legs-don't tuck n roll(Or you will overtake the bike and snap bits off...yourself!), kick bike away (DON'T HUG IT GOODBYE DURING SLIDE! :laugh:) etc etc

As for learning how to crash? as Drew said...bloody hard to teach:confused:, and not wise to "demonstrate":laugh:

...best way to learn...buy a dirt bike...insert into muddy paddock...go friggin nuts!! (crashing & learning shall follow:lol:)
http://www.seeitornot.faketrix.com/content/thrash-pics/page3/originals/dirt-bike-crashing-motocross-wipeout-photo-motorcycle-racing-accident.jpg

Have, do and will continue to ride dirt, just got a new bike.


Doesn't really apply. Crashing on a soft surface is easier to get hurt than on a hard surface. Whatever hits the ground first digs in, then you're fucked. Try and find a pro motoX rider who has both collar bones intact his whole life.

Not so many trees as well.

[rastuscat]

Check your inbox - that was from Paula Rose on Sep 11, 2011

The number of speeding tickets handed out last year was nearly double the amount issued the previous year, police figures reveal.

Police gave out 627,948 tickets for speeding infringements in 2010, compared to 329,838 in 2009.

The 2010 figure was more than 200,000 above the four year average for tickets issued.

In the first four months of this year, the country's 55 cameras had captured 200,671 incidents of speeding.



The revenue and the number of tickets aren't necessarily glued together. Double the tickets doesn't necessarily mean double the revenue.

Like, I write one ticket for 72 in a 50 area, kaching, $170.

Next day I write two tickets for 55 in a 50, kaching, 2 x $30, or $60.

So, by writing twice the tickets, have I doubled the income?

By your reasoning, apparently so.

[mossy1200]

The revenue and the number of tickets aren't necessarily glued together. Double the tickets doesn't necessarily mean double the revenue.

Like, I write one ticket for 72 in a 50 area, kaching, $170.

Next day I write two tickets for 55 in a 50, kaching, 2 x $30, or $60.

So, by writing twice the tickets, have I doubled the income?

By your reasoning, apparently so.

ahh but your $60 up on letting the 2 55ers past and im sure you wouldnt let a 72 go past cause you got the 2 55s.
Only thing effecting revenue is the lack of speeding traffic above tolerence level.

[FJRider]

ahh but your $60 up on letting the 2 55ers past and im sure you wouldnt let a 72 go past cause you got the 2 55s.

So ... with processing costs then .... you ran at a loss ... :shit:

Is then the quota actually on total revenue gained ... not mere ticket numbers issued ... as most think ... ??? :innocent:

[rastuscat]

So ... with processing costs then .... you ran at a loss ... :shit:

Is then the quota actually on total revinue gained ... not mere ticket numbers issued ... as most think ... ??? :innocent:

Processing cost of a ticket is $26. Fact. (Source - Internal audit.)

So the gubbermnit makes $4 from a ticket for 55, but $146 from a ticket for 71.

Yeah, no wonder they are so keen on us writing tickets for 55.

[Scuba_Steve]

Processing cost of a ticket is $26. Fact. (Source - Internal audit.)


ah so that is one of those "ambo cost $20,000" (if you include everything that is being paid for regardless <_<) otherwise 50$ real cost
So real cost your probably talking what? 50c? 1$?

[steve_t]

Processing cost of a ticket is $26. Fact. (Source - Internal audit.)

So the gubbermnit makes $4 from a ticket for 55, but $146 from a ticket for 71.

Yeah, no wonder they are so keen on us writing tickets for 55.

Does that include speed camera vans? Say all tickets from the vans were only $30 so a $4 profit was made...
(obviously the average will be much higher)



In the first four months of this year, the country's 55 cameras had captured 200,671 incidents of speeding.

- National road policing manager Superintendent Paula Rose

Extrapolated over the year gives approx 600,000 speed camera tickets. Profit of $4 per ticket is...

[FJRider]

Does that include speed camera vans? Say all tickets from the vans were only $30 so a $4 profit was made...
(obviously the average will be much higher)

He did say ... Processing costs ... not issueing costs ...

[steve_t]

He did say ... Processing costs ... not issueing costs ...

I expected that "... the gubbermnit makes $4 from a ticket for 55..." to be all inclusive

[mossy1200]

Processing cost of a ticket is $26. Fact. (Source - Internal audit.)

So the gubbermnit makes $4 from a ticket for 55, but $146 from a ticket for 71.

Yeah, no wonder they are so keen on us writing tickets for 55.

By the time tax gets me several times and bills take a bite then my wife cleans up idd be excited to make $4.00 a day

[rastuscat]

Does that include speed camera vans? Say all tickets from the vans were only $30 so a $4 profit was made...
(obviously the average will be much higher)



Extrapolated over the year gives approx 600,000 speed camera tickets. Profit of $4 per ticket is...

Hold the phone !!!!!!!

The cost is to the Police. Like, the processing cost comes from the Police operational budget.

The fine money, when/if paid, goes to the consolidated fund.

So the cost to the Police is actually not offset by the fine revenue. In the huge scheme, I guess we are funded for the cost via fine revenue, although it's a tenuous relationship. The Police receive 21% of our funding from the Land Transport Fund, of which fine revenue is a small part.

One thing that remains constant. Don't spid, no spidding ticket. Wear your setablet, no setatblet ticket. Stop at stop signs, no stop sign ticket. Is there a pattern forming here?

Alternately, persist with the thought that it's all a grubby revenue gathering exercise. Okay, I don't agree, but if that's your kick, crack on. The best way to fix the grubby, quota obsessed bastards is similar to above. Don't spid, no spidding ticket. Wear your setablet, no setatblet ticket. Stop at stop signs, no stop sign ticket. That'll learn 'em.

Standing back, it all just looks so damn simple.

[steve_t]

Hold the phone !!!!!!!

The cost is to the Police. Like, the processing cost comes from the Police operational budget.

The fine money, when/if paid, goes to the consolidated fund.

So the cost to the Police is actually not offset by the fine revenue. In the huge scheme, I guess we are funded for the cost via fine revenue, although it's a tenuous relationship. The Police receive 21% of our funding from the Land Transport Fund, of which fine revenue is a small part.

One thing that remains constant. Don't spid, no spidding ticket. Wear your setablet, no setatblet ticket. Stop at stop signs, no stop sign ticket. Is there a pattern forming here?

Alternately, persist with the thought that it's all a grubby revenue gathering exercise. Okay, I don't agree, but if that's your kick, crack on. The best way to fix the grubby, quota obsessed bastards is similar to above. Don't spid, no spidding ticket. Wear your setablet, no setatblet ticket. Stop at stop signs, no stop sign ticket. That'll learn 'em.

Standing back, it all just looks so damn simple.

Where does the other 79% of Police funding come from? Hey, I've never said it's grubby revenue gathering!

I did just that tonight. An RBT on the main road as I went home but I hadn't had a drop of alcomohol! I sure showed them :msn-wink:

[mossy1200]

Hold the phone !!!!!!!

The cost is to the Police. Like, the processing cost comes from the Police operational budget.

The fine money, when/if paid, goes to the consolidated fund.

So the cost to the Police is actually not offset by the fine revenue. In the huge scheme, I guess we are funded for the cost via fine revenue, although it's a tenuous relationship. The Police receive 21% of our funding from the Land Transport Fund, of which fine revenue is a small part.

One thing that remains constant. Don't spid, no spidding ticket. Wear your setablet, no setatblet ticket. Stop at stop signs, no stop sign ticket. Is there a pattern forming here?

Alternately, persist with the thought that it's all a grubby revenue gathering exercise. Okay, I don't agree, but if that's your kick, crack on. The best way to fix the grubby, quota obsessed bastards is similar to above. Don't spid, no spidding ticket. Wear your setablet, no setatblet ticket. Stop at stop signs, no stop sign ticket. That'll learn 'em.

Standing back, it all just looks so damn simple.

dont smoke,dont speed,dont drink,dont fornicate,dont do drugs,dont stress,dont eat fatty food,dont cross the road......And you have a 67% chance of living forever.Dont pay tax and IRD will make you wish you died already.

[Scuba_Steve]

Alternately, persist with the thought that it's all a grubby revenue gathering exercise. Okay, I don't agree, but if that's your kick, crack on. The best way to fix the grubby, quota obsessed bastards is similar to above. Don't spid, no spidding ticket. Wear your setablet, no setatblet ticket. Stop at stop signs, no stop sign ticket. That'll learn 'em.

Standing back, it all just looks so damn simple.

don't murder you won't get charged with murder...
Arthur Allan Thomas He spent 9 years in prison but was given a Royal Pardon, and was released and awarded $1 million compensation for wrongful convictions.

ok don't rape you won't get charged with rape... oh wait...
David Dougherty After serving over 3 years in prison, he was acquitted in 1997 after new DNA evidence ruled him out.
Aaron Farmer served 2 years and 3 months in prison for the rape of a Christchurch woman before being exonerated by DNA evidence.

right well surely you don't smack someone round you won't be done for assault??? right??? :confused:
Tania Vini, Macushla Fuataha The girls served seven months in prison before being released. Justice Gault, said the girls had the courtʼs sympathy for the injustice that had wrongly sent them to prison.
:Pokey: :devil2:

[rastuscat]

don't murder you won't get charged with murder...
Arthur Allan Thomas He spent 9 years in prison but was given a Royal Pardon, and was released and awarded $1 million compensation for wrongful convictions.

ok don't rape you won't get charged with rape... oh wait...
David Dougherty After serving over 3 years in prison, he was acquitted in 1997 after new DNA evidence ruled him out.
Aaron Farmer served 2 years and 3 months in prison for the rape of a Christchurch woman before being exonerated by DNA evidence.

right well surely you don't smack someone round you won't be done for assault??? right??? :confused:
Tania Vini, Macushla Fuataha The girls served seven months in prison before being released. Justice Gault, said the girls had the courtʼs sympathy for the injustice that had wrongly sent them to prison.
:Pokey: :devil2:


Yup, got me on that one.

Best I can do is, please advise which of those were put in jail by a traffic Popo?

Weak, but best I can do.

I've previously posted about how much of a bastard it must be to be an innocent accused.

[rastuscat]

Where does the other 79% of Police funding come from? Hey, I've never said it's grubby revenue gathering!

I did just that tonight. An RBT on the main road as I went home but I hadn't had a drop of alcomohol! I sure showed them :msn-wink:

79% comes from the consolidated fund, via a thing called Vote Police.

[steve_t]

Hold the phone !!!!!!!

The cost is to the Police. Like, the processing cost comes from the Police operational budget.

The fine money, when/if paid, goes to the consolidated fund.

So the cost to the Police is actually not offset by the fine revenue. In the huge scheme, I guess we are funded for the cost via fine revenue, although it's a tenuous relationship. The Police receive 21% of our funding from the Land Transport Fund, of which fine revenue is a small part.

One thing that remains constant. Don't spid, no spidding ticket. Wear your setablet, no setatblet ticket. Stop at stop signs, no stop sign ticket. Is there a pattern forming here?

Alternately, persist with the thought that it's all a grubby revenue gathering exercise. Okay, I don't agree, but if that's your kick, crack on. The best way to fix the grubby, quota obsessed bastards is similar to above. Don't spid, no spidding ticket. Wear your setablet, no setatblet ticket. Stop at stop signs, no stop sign ticket. That'll learn 'em.

Standing back, it all just looks so damn simple.


79% comes from the consolidated fund, via a thing called Vote Police.

So let me get this straight, the money from fines goes into the consolidated fund and 79% of police funding comes from the consolidated fund but the cost of processing fines come from the police operating budget and so is only 'tenuously' associated with fine money? Is that right?

[rastuscat]

So let me get this straight, the money from fines goes into the consolidated fund and 79% of police funding comes from the consolidated fund but the cost of processing fines come from the police operating budget and so is only 'tenuously' associated with fine money? Is that right?

Yes, coarsely speaking. I don't work for Treasury, so you'll have to check with them.

Bottom line is that the guy writing the ticket gets paid the same, regardless of how many tickets he writes.

[FJRider]

Yes, coarsely speaking. I don't work for Treasury, so you'll have to check with them.

Bottom line is that the guy writing the ticket gets paid the same, regardless of how many tickets he writes.

Talk to your boss ... get on contract rates ...

[Shadows]

I'll probably get shot for this, but traffic seemed to run a bit more smoothly this last week.

It has me wondering if some of the fucking numpties that normally screw the traffic flow up by travelling at 30k under the limit were actually taking a look at what their speedometers were registering from time to time for fear of being caught speeding, and were picking up the pace after realising how slowly they were actually going.

Or maybe it was just not too bad a week and there was a numpty convention out of town somewhere.

[Buyasta]

I'll probably get shot for this, but traffic seemed to run a bit more smoothly this last week.

It has me wondering if some of the fucking numpties that normally screw the traffic flow up by travelling at 30k under the limit were actually taking a look at what their speedometers were registering from time to time for fear of being caught speeding, and were picking up the pace after realising how slowly they were actually going.

Or maybe it was just not too bad a week and there was a numpty convention out of town somewhere.

I drove out to Oxford today, and saw a grand total of three cars heading in the same direction as me on the Old West Coast rd, all three of whom were hovering around 75-80, so I can't really say I agree there.
Having said that, I also got overtaken by a guy who apparently wasn't so worried about speeding tickets (or the possibility I may need to brake while he was a metre or two off my bumper) doing 120+ once I'd gotten onto Depot rd, and the two cars I came across on the way back were also meeting/exceeding the limit, so I guess it's pretty much a matter of luck of the draw.

Traffic pretty much seems the same as it always is - some under and some over the limit, too few at it.

[Clockwork]

Processing cost of a ticket is $26. Fact. (Source - Internal audit.)

So the gubbermnit makes $4 from a ticket for 55, but $146 from a ticket for 71.

Yeah, no wonder they are so keen on us writing tickets for 55.


Ah yes., but there must be "economies of scale" to be considered here. Maybe the plan is to reduce that unit cost by increasing the volume. :laugh:

[martybabe]

Vote Police.

Never!

10 char

[Drew]

Yes, coarsely speaking. I don't work for Treasury, so you'll have to check with them.

Bottom line is that the guy writing the ticket gets paid the same, regardless of how many tickets he writes.

No matter what, you cunts get hated on by the same people in threads like this whatever you say. I take my hat off to your persistance.

Funny as fuck, I'd have a beer with you, (don't worry, I won't be sitting by the letter box awaiting an invitation) before this Scuba Steve character who only appears to be capable of writing, but not reading. That's a very unique problem though, could an educater type on here tell me how this poor fellow could have slipped through the cracks in the system?

[Scuba_Steve]

No matter what, you cunts get hated on by the same people in threads like this whatever you say. I take my hat off to your persistance.

Funny as fuck, I'd have a beer with you, (don't worry, I won't be sitting by the letter box awaiting an invitation) before this Scuba Steve character who only appears to be capable of writing, but not reading. That's a very unique problem though, could an educater type on here tell me how this poor fellow could have slipped through the cracks in the system?

:confused::scratch:??? I can write & read I am multi talented like that :D as for having a beer tho, your right you would do that before me, I don't drink the sewage water I prefer drinks with alcohol in them :yes:

[mashman]

Revenue Grab pure and simple. The official line can't be "We want your cash because we believe that you're driving unsafely through excessive speed.". The popo just toe the official line... but I bet they have their suspicions. Revenue Grab!!!!!!!!!!

[FJRider]

Revenue Grab pure and simple. The official line can't be "We want your cash because we believe that you're driving unsafely through excessive speed.". The popo just toe the official line... but I bet they have their suspicions. Revenue Grab!!!!!!!!!!

I think "The Official Line" is ... if you break the rules of the Transport Act ... expect a penalty ...

Be it cash ... or just your drivers licence ...

The key is ... how much are you willing/affording to lose before you toe the "official line" ...

So far ... I pay in (small) installments ... :msn-wink:

[mashman]

I think "The Official Line" is ... if you break the rules of the Transport Act ... expect a penalty ...

Be it cash ... or just your drivers licence ...

The key is ... how much are you willing/affording to lose before you toe the "official line" ...

So far ... I pay in (small) installments ... :msn-wink:

:shit: I was trying to be nice and not mention The Rules. I've broken the speed limit just about every day this week, sometimes for a few seconds at a time, sometimes for a minute... although I dunno how far out my speedo is :innocent:.

I haven't paid in about 3 years now... I must be invisible :eek:

[cs363]

Revenue Grab pure and simple. The official line can't be "We want your cash because we believe that you're driving unsafely through excessive speed.". The popo just toe the official line... but I bet they have their suspicions. Revenue Grab!!!!!!!!!!

In the past I probably would have agreed with you, these days I think it's just blind stupidity according to the Paula Rosetintedglasses textbook.

After all the fine for exceeding 100km/h by up to 10km/h over is only $30, I've seen it said before that the fine wouldn't even cover the costs associated with processing it. Given that it also carries 10 demerit points I see that as the bigger deterrent (from getting caught... :shifty:).

The whole idea of the 10km/h tolerance was to allow for speedo error and the occasional variances in speed from terrain, that seemed like a very sensible idea. Getting pinged for 105km/h on a downhill or a passing lane (and you know the more unscrupulous HP's will be fishing in the busy pond) and getting 10 demerits sucks.
I'd like to see a review of speed limits with perhaps a 120km/h limit introduced for motorways and major A condition roads where warranted, there's some roads at the other end of the scale that really shouldn't be 100km/h limit either, so not all about going faster, just sensible speed limits applied in a more targeted fashion. If 'they' did that I'd be a lot happier about the limit being heavily enforced.

[mashman]

In the past I probably would have agreed with you, these days I think it's just blind stupidity according to the Paula Rosetintedglasses textbook.

After all the fine for exceeding 100km/h by up to 10km/h over is only $30, I've seen it said before that the fine wouldn't even cover the costs associated with processing it. Given that it also carries 10 demerit points I see that as the bigger deterrent (from getting caught... :shifty:).

The whole idea of the 10km/h tolerance was to allow for speedo error and the occasional variances in speed from terrain, that seemed like a very sensible idea. Getting pinged for 105km/h on a downhill or a passing lane (and you know the more unscrupulous HP's will be fishing in the busy pond) and getting 10 demerits sucks.
I'd like to see a review of speed limits with perhaps a 120km/h limit introduced for motorways and major A condition roads where warranted, there's some roads at the other end of the scale that really shouldn't be 100km/h limit either, so not all about going faster, just sensible speed limits applied in a more targeted fashion. If 'they' did that I'd be a lot happier about the limit being heavily enforced.

Putting my rose tinted specs on, I'd rather see no limit, other than by schools and in towns etc... but heavily enforce dangerous driving on the "open" road and A roads. Those who kill themselves kill themselves, I have no problem with letting people do that. Those who are gonna fuck up are gonna fuck up irrespective of limit.

[actungbaby]

Just heard from a reliable source that tickets will be issued by officers (and speed cameras) for 5km/h over the limit.

Not just Waitangi weekend but for all of February.

was listening to news talk zb danny watsons show and after he got angrey about this

The police sent him a email explaining this was not permant thing

funny thing he said he must got somone into trouble apprently was temp police chiefs

press release somone must got rack up about it when got adverse reaction too it

As mr watson said people supported when was hoilday scheme to reduce accidents

But not as a permantant all month deal

[cs363]

Putting my rose tinted specs on, I'd rather see no limit, other than by schools and in towns etc... but heavily enforce dangerous driving on the "open" road and A roads. Those who kill themselves kill themselves, I have no problem with letting people do that. Those who are gonna fuck up are gonna fuck up irrespective of limit.

I agree 100%, unfortunately I can't ever see TPTB going for that - that's why I was suggesting something that might be more palatable for thems wot makes the rules. :)

[mashman]

I agree 100%, unfortunately I can't ever see TPTB going for that - that's why I was suggesting something that might be more palatable for thems wot makes the rules. :)

Aye mate, hence putting my specs on. Wonder if the UK ever passed their 80mph legislation? (like many do under 90).

[actungbaby]

In the past I probably would have agreed with you, these days I think it's just blind stupidity according to the Paula Rosetintedglasses textbook.

After all the fine for exceeding 100km/h by up to 10km/h over is only $30, I've seen it said before that the fine wouldn't even cover the costs associated with processing it. Given that it also carries 10 demerit points I see that as the bigger deterrent (from getting caught... :shifty:).

The whole idea of the 10km/h tolerance was to allow for speedo error and the occasional variances in speed from terrain, that seemed like a very sensible idea. Getting pinged for 105km/h on a downhill or a passing lane (and you know the more unscrupulous HP's will be fishing in the busy pond) and getting 10 demerits sucks.
I'd like to see a review of speed limits with perhaps a 120km/h limit introduced for motorways and major A condition roads where warranted, there's some roads at the other end of the scale that really shouldn't be 100km/h limit either, so not all about going faster, just sensible speed limits applied in a more targeted fashion. If 'they' did that I'd be a lot happier about the limit being heavily enforced.
+1

gee was some twit on his show rang up said was motorcylist and more talked worse we sounded , rekoned he spoke for all of us that we have to pass everthing on the road

For safety reasons omg what load of bs , i was thinking i dont pass hardly ever

Said he did was when up close behind he choudint see the pot holes yeah right
What road he ride i never had this problem either its embarrsing to hear

And why do people have this duled theroy you get up close behind something to pass it
its not nascar people its actually safer to stay behind and follow the safe distance rule then build up speed and on passing lanes if you must

[cs363]

Aye mate, hence putting my specs on. Wonder if the UK ever passed their 80mph legislation? (like many do under 90).

Last thing I read was a while back and it was still under consideration. At least the UK is starting to get an enlightened view of things, this move plus the decreasing use of speed cameras is a good move. Don't know why the NZTA can't look further afield for inspiration instead of blindly following Victoria, AU all the time.

Edit: Just had a wee Google and it's a done deal: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2043444/UK-motorway-speed-limit-increased-80mph.html

[mashman]

Last thing I read was a while back and it was still under consideration. At least the UK is starting to get an enlightened view of things, this move plus the decreasing use of speed cameras is a good move. Don't know why the NZTA can't look further afield for inspiration instead of blindly following Victoria, AU all the time.

Edit: Just had a wee Google and it's a done deal: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2043444/UK-motorway-speed-limit-increased-80mph.html

:rofl: aye... why would you think for yourself when you can spend years discussing the results of other country's attempts at speed control before talking about it some more before implementing a carbon copy from another country and later realising that this is NZ and not Germany

bwaaaaa ha ha ha haaaaaaa@ perfectly decent people

[cs363]

And why do people have this duled theroy you get up close behind something to pass it
its not nascar people its actually safer to stay behind and follow the safe distance rule then build up speed and on passing lanes if you must

Not to mention that dropping back a little gives you a far better view of the road ahead and therefore better opportunity to make a safe pass. :yes:

[actungbaby]

Not to mention that dropping back a little gives you a far better view of the road ahead and therefore better opportunity to make a safe pass. :yes:

totally with u brother

And am not having a go at motorcyclist either car drivers do it just as much,
People i see in there turbo cars wtf its not like they go not enough bhp.

Thats great part of having bike /car with bit of go

And please no more passing on corners either i find scary to drive in my mx5 car sometimers.
as drivers are doing dangerous overtakes i wonder if am going wear what happens next
or my wife as well.

The amount times i have to brake to protect somone esles ill thought out passing
and thats on passing lanes .

And on my pushbike to work its worse, as you have plenty of time to take in all they crazy
driving damm, its eye opener getting back to the pushbike i tell you

I wonder if there will ever a time we treat each like we whould like to be treated .

Cutting down the road toll , and some paintence would go along to improve everones day.

Myabe should have adverts on tv ,with some dude driving being polite and letting people in front
with smile on his/her face / then pan to some dude driving like his pants where alright

[Drew]

totally brother

And am not having a go at motorcyclist either car drivers do it just as much
In there turbo cars wtf its not like they go not enough bhp.

Thats great part of having bike /car with bit of ompph

And please no on corners either i find scary to drive in my mx5 car
as people doing dangerous overtakes wonder if am going wear what happens next
or my wife as well

amount times i have to brake to protect somone esles ill thought out passing
and thats on passing lanes .

And on my pushbike to work its worse as you have time to take in all they crazy
driving damm its eye opener getting back to the pushbike i tell you

I wonder be ever a time we treat each other like we care about each other go along way to
Cutting the road toll that and some paintence go along way aslo

Myabe should have add camoin with some dude driving being polite and letting people in front
with smile on his/her face / then pan to some dude driving like his pants where alrightI wonder, (and I'm just spit balling here). Are you from an English speaking country?

I ask, because if you are there is sufficient evidence from your posts that you lack the slightest ability to form a sentence, in said language. My spelling is bad, but yours is fucken near unreadable!

[Zedder]

Putting my rose tinted specs on, I'd rather see no limit, other than by schools and in towns etc... but heavily enforce dangerous driving on the "open" road and A roads. Those who kill themselves kill themselves, I have no problem with letting people do that. Those who are gonna fuck up are gonna fuck up irrespective of limit.

I agree a little. The problem is the dangerous drivers don't always kill themselves but do however kill and seriously injure themselves and others. The taxpayer then picks up the tab for the downstream costs of emergency services, hospitals and rehabilitation etc. There's also the emotional costs of stressed and grieving families to factor in.

[BoristheBiter]

Putting my rose tinted specs on, I'd rather see no limit, other than by schools and in towns etc... but heavily enforce dangerous driving on the "open" road and A roads. Those who kill themselves kill themselves, I have no problem with letting people do that. Those who are gonna fuck up are gonna fuck up irrespective of limit.

You are a waste treatment plant all to yourself.
So you want no speed limit but dangerous driving? Now who's definition of dangerous driving will you use? mine? yours? a cops? you would all still squeal like a stuck pig for getting a ticket no matter what it is for.

And why not do that for drunk driving, driving on drugs, oh hell while we are at it lets just take away the licence system and have a free for all on the roads as those that will kill themselves are going to do it irrespective of rules.

The problem with your stupid brain dead idea is the innocent people get taken out as well and if you are happy with that then fine, a lot of people aren't.
So go and crawl back under the hippy rock and leave the talking to the grown ups.

[Drew]

Don't matter how you reply to a lot of people with that view. They wont read your point, or if they do, assume they have it all figured out better and ignore you anyway.

Arrogance at it's absolute worst.

Yip, I'm a hypocrite too, but admitting I have a problem is the first of twelve steps I'm told.

[Shadows]

I drove out to Oxford today, and saw a grand total of three cars heading in the same direction as me on the Old West Coast rd, all three of whom were hovering around 75-80, so I can't really say I agree there.
Having said that, I also got overtaken by a guy who apparently wasn't so worried about speeding tickets (or the possibility I may need to brake while he was a metre or two off my bumper) doing 120+ once I'd gotten onto Depot rd, and the two cars I came across on the way back were also meeting/exceeding the limit, so I guess it's pretty much a matter of luck of the draw.

Traffic pretty much seems the same as it always is - some under and some over the limit, too few at it.

The numpty convention must have been held out Oxford way then. Thought it was too good to be true.

[mashman]

I agree a little. The problem is the dangerous drivers don't always kill themselves but do however kill and seriously injure themselves and others. The taxpayer then picks up the tab for the downstream costs of emergency services, hospitals and rehabilitation etc. There's also the emotional costs of stressed and grieving families to factor in.

Praps the cops will be allowed to use their firearms :shifty: you'd shoot a lame horse after all.


You are a waste treatment plant all to yourself.
So you want no speed limit but dangerous driving? Now who's definition of dangerous driving will you use? mine? yours? a cops? you would all still squeal like a stuck pig for getting a ticket no matter what it is for.

And why not do that for drunk driving, driving on drugs, oh hell while we are at it lets just take away the licence system and have a free for all on the roads as those that will kill themselves are going to do it irrespective of rules.

The problem with your stupid brain dead idea is the innocent people get taken out as well and if you are happy with that then fine, a lot of people aren't.
So go and crawl back under the hippy rock and leave the talking to the grown ups.

Oh dear you've not been fed have you. If you are seen putting others at risk, the popo that is (as they're the only ones that can do anything about it anyway) then that's dangerous driving... same if you have passengers in the car and are deemed to be dangerous putting their life at risk.

As for the rest of your ill thought out moranism... this shit happens anyway, people are already being put at risk by fucktards offering as much thought for their actions as you have in your post. It happens and you're saying that because the limit isn't there that everyone is gonna die as we'd all be blasting around ignorant of our surroundings and of other road users :facepalm:. I think you'll find Nanny State in the third aisle on the left between Communism and Police State.

Grown ups, more like a bunch of Elite egotistical pricks that judge everyone as to how much they measure up to their own pathetic yard stick... get back in your hole and take your shackles with you man.

[BoristheBiter]

Praps the cops will be allowed to use their firearms :shifty: you'd shoot a lame horse after all.



Oh dear you've not been fed have you. If you are seen putting others at risk, the popo that is (as they're the only ones that can do anything about it anyway) then that's dangerous driving... same if you have passengers in the car and are deemed to be dangerous putting their life at risk.

As for the rest of your ill thought out moranism... this shit happens anyway, people are already being put at risk by fucktards offering as much thought for their actions as you have in your post. It happens and you're saying that because the limit isn't there that everyone is gonna die as we'd all be blasting around ignorant of our surroundings and of other road users :facepalm:. I think you'll find Nanny State in the third aisle on the left between Communism and Police State.

Grown ups, more like a bunch of Elite egotistical pricks that judge everyone as to how much they measure up to their own pathetic yard stick... get back in your hole and take your shackles with you man.

You sir are a fucking idiot.
You sit on here and whine like the PMS bitch you are (sorry if i offended any ladies) when a cop hands out ANY form of punishment and now you are wanting them to use their discretion for what they would deem as dangerous driving. You get stupider every post.

The speed limit holds most people with a curtain default limit and most seem to be able to comprehend why this is.

On you moron ideology why not just lets us all have a free for all as people don't stop at stop or give way signs so lets take them down and might as well get rid of the traffic lights to as people are running them.

Nanny state in the third aisle? I think you dropped your brain at the door on the way in.

[Usarka]

You sir are a fucking idiot.
You sit on here and whine like the PMS bitch you are (sorry if i offended any ladies) when a cop hands out ANY form of punishment and now you are wanting them to use their discretion for what they would deem as dangerous driving. You get stupider every post.

The speed limit holds most people with a curtain default limit and most seem to be able to comprehend why this is.

On you moron ideology why not just lets us all have a free for all as people don't stop at stop or give way signs so lets take them down and might as well get rid of the traffic lights to as people are running them.

Nanny state in the third aisle? I think you dropped your brain at the door on the way in.

That time of month? :rofl:

[mashman]

You sir are a fucking idiot.
You sit on here and whine like the PMS bitch you are (sorry if i offended any ladies) when a cop hands out ANY form of punishment and now you are wanting them to use their discretion for what they would deem as dangerous driving. You get stupider every post.

The speed limit holds most people with a curtain default limit and most seem to be able to comprehend why this is.

On you moron ideology why not just lets us all have a free for all as people don't stop at stop or give way signs so lets take them down and might as well get rid of the traffic lights to as people are running them.

Nanny state in the third aisle? I think you dropped your brain at the door on the way in.

Thanks, that means a lot coming from an obviously drug addled prat... and probably the only thing that you've gotten right in the whole post.
You need to make up some better stories, where's my cop rant? Seriously dude, the sleeping pills and red wine don't seem to agree with you as you're halucinating posts.

Did I say remove all speed limits? Seriously dude, the sleeping pills and red wine don't seem to agree with you as you're halucinating posts. Ooooo deja vu. I understand why the speed limit is there, I'm just questioning its need in some places and if you weren't so baked out of your mind you might have read the post with a modicum of sanity and not the out and out rage you seem to be incapable of controlling. Have a blow instead of the booze man, it'll work wonders.

Interesting idea on the traffic lights and stop signs, but I think that would be going a bit too far, removing traffic lights indeed, it'd be absolute bloody mayhem. I'll bet when you've slept it off and reconsidered your idea you'll see that it needs a little more work... I'd go with not trying that it all... and they call me an idiot :facepalm:.

Did you find it as I've been wondering where it went? Sorry, I should have said Aisle 3, the third aisle coulda been anywhere, from the left, from the right, from the centre and I do apologise... let me know if you find the place, if not, I'll pay for a Brownie to come and help you out

[actungbaby]

[QUOTE=Drew;1130256181]I wonder, (and I'm just spit balling here). Are you from an English speaking country?

oh great ice ing on the cake you think your american to boot damm dude spit balling (gross)
okay i let this go because your got a point with the understanding but..no my irish dander is up

(that means am bit angry ) just in case you cant work this out..

your beebing smartass
my grandparents where from england and Ireland dick head and your point is you ignorant
DH hehe

And whats this english speaking lark about i hope you understand the spelling of dick head

And so you understand am meaning your comments are not constructive in the least

And get this you so vain you think this message is about you drew hehe noo not in the least

I was meaning another anoying prat called drew , i guessing your not drew carry as you seem to be short
of any humour or good grace



Nice dude i see your going for mr popularity 2012 good luck with that so far give you d-

Maybe we send you to the middle east with x painted on your back you sure will go over a treat
with your understanding attitude and care free manner hmmm nice maybe can insult there culture as well

am guessing you ride a harley think pop music is for gays and never bother to vote but winge all the same

think culture is something growing between you toe nails scared of anything from overseas think dam asians
are going take all are jobs ,

Think you have to put ever one down to make yourself feel like a bigger man

[RDJ]

I think this thread just imploded...

[Drew]

oh great ice ing on the cake you think your american to boot damm dude spit balling (gross)
okay i let this go because your got a point with the understanding but..no my irish dander is up

(that means am bit angry ) just in case you cant work this out..

your beebing smartass
my grandparents where from england and Ireland dick head and your point is you ignorant
DH hehe

And whats this english speaking lark about i hope you understand the spelling of dick head

And so you understand am meaning your comments are not constructive in the least

And get this you so vain you think this message is about you drew hehe noo not in the least

I was meaning another anoying prat called drew , i guessing your not drew carry as you seem to be short
of any humour or good grace



Nice dude i see your going for mr popularity 2012 good luck with that so far give you d-

Maybe we send you to the middle east with x painted on your back you sure will go over a treat
with your understanding attitude and care free manner hmmm nice maybe can insult there culture as well

am guessing you ride a harley think pop music is for gays and never bother to vote but winge all the same

think culture is something growing between you toe nails scared of anything from overseas think dam asians
are going take all are jobs ,

Think you have to put ever one down to make yourself feel like a bigger manSo, from my question, you think I'm a Harley riding, racist, whinging drain on society? That's a question too by the way. You can tell because of the question mark that ends the sentence.

I think ya took it a bit serious, and jumped to a few too many conclusions from imagined implications.

By the way, your post took me ten minutes to read, and can be interpreted many different ways in places.

Yeah I poked fun at ya for it, deal with it. This whole place is a joke, lighten up.

[Drew]

I think this thread just imploded...But, the shit slinging is the best bit!

[rastuscat]

I worked for the Coast to Coast. Escorted the leading men and women on my work steed, and did several hours of point duty while wearing full motorcycle uniform. Bloody near melted.

Got abused by a few for holding them up, par for the course. Got thanked by a lot for my work at dealing with the race in heavy traffic. The ones who complained the most had been held up for 3 or 4 minutes, I did the point for 3 hours. Diddums for them.

On the way back to the office, totally shagged from the exertions of the day, I collected $150 from a numpty who drove through a red light. To his credit, he admitted it. I almost kissed him for not argung, but that might have upset Mrs Cat.

Must sit down an write a letter of apology to the people I upset by holding them up, and for not having prepared a personalised traffic management plan for each of them to get them to their destination without delay.

What a nasty, quota driven, revenue gathering donut muncher I am.

Over.

[Gremlin]

I gained a lot from that post Mr Rastuscat. You stood around for 3 hours and were totally shagged.

Clearly your gear is not up to the task, and I suggest gear of a 3 layer design, more appropriate for our variable climate, as the thermal and waterproof liners are separate to the outside jacket, and would allow you to withstand stationary heat better.

Of course, I would actually suggest multiple sets of gear, suited either to warm weather, or cold weather, but then I am a bit of a gear whore.

You're welcome :niceone:

[Mully Clown]

several hours of point duty while wearing full motorcycle uniform. Bloody near melted.

Visor down and vents open I hope.

[mossy1200]

So is this confirmed 4 k tolerence till 29th.i picked the worst time to tour gotta ride through Rangiora area at 93.9 clicks on Monday 27th now.:Police:

Personally I feel safer at 99.9

[mashman]

Bloody near melted.

Ride a bit faster? :shifty:

[YellowDog]

I got stopped doing 125ish this morning at 05:45. I told the cop that I was only speeding to get clear of his blinding lights and he was speeding up, which was making it difficult; hence 125ish kph.

He said that the near side blinding illumination was spcifically to cover the gutter/ditch areas.

He checked me out and then let me go without a ticket :rolleyes:

Thanks Mr Policeman :yes:

[FJRider]

I got stopped doing 125ish this morning at 05:45. I told the cop that I was only speeding to get clear of his blinding lights and he was speeding up, which was making it difficult; hence 125ish kph.

He said that the near side blinding illumination was spcifically to cover the gutter/ditch areas.

He checked me out and then let me go without a ticket :rolleyes:

Thanks Mr Policeman :yes:

the "attitude" test is not always answered by yes/no sir ... an original joke with admission of guilt usually makes them smile ...







... not always though ...

[superman]

Thanks Mr Policeman :yes:

Cops seem to have been nicer the past few days, went passed one at 120 with not even a wave to slow down, and caught up to one on the motorway at an 'accidental' 130... with no worries. At this rate I'm going to have to stop worrying about the speedo and focus on the road :eek:

[Berries]

So is this confirmed 4 k tolerence till 29th.i picked the worst time to tour gotta ride through Rangiora area at 93.9 clicks on Monday 27th now.:Police:

Personally I feel safer at 99.9
Dude, I'd get that bike fixed.

[Gremlin]

Dude, I'd get that bike fixed.
He's towing a trailer... bloody trailer people <_<

[Kickaha]

I worked for the Coast to Coast. Escorted the leading men and women on my work steed, and did several hours of point duty while wearing full motorcycle uniform. Bloody near melted.

Got abused by a few for holding them up, par for the course. Got thanked by a lot for my work at dealing with the race in heavy traffic. The ones who complained the most had been held up for 3 or 4 minutes, I did the point for 3 hours. Diddums for them.

I think you should reward yourself by taking the work bike out to the "have a go day" at Ruapuna today and doing a few laps

[rastuscat]

I think you should reward yourself by taking the work bike out to the "have a go day" at Ruapuna today and doing a few laps

Nah. They've been speed limited to 104, coz it's too unsafe to go faster :nya:

I have found that the BMW Series 5 helmet has a major flaw. The ventilation is appalling. Standing directing traffic for an hour wearing full motorcycle gear made me feel a little sweaty. Still, I've found that the ventilation works better when you are riding, so maybe it's just me. I did the next 2 hours without the helmt, and that as far better.

Of course, that's against our uniform policy which says we should always wear our hat, so here is the link to respond to

http://www.ipca.govt.nz/

Strange that the BMW design people would design a motorcycle suit (Santiago) that has enough vents to keep Scuba Steve venting for months, yet it's still too hot to disco dance in an intersection with.

Yup, tangent.

:Police:

[roogazza]

Nah. They've been speed limited to 104, coz it's too unsafe to go faster :nya:

I have found that the BMW Series 5 helmet has a major flaw. The ventilation is appalling. Standing directing traffic for an hour wearing full motorcycle gear made me feel a little sweaty. Still, I've found that the ventilation works better when you are riding, so maybe it's just me. I did the next 2 hours without the helmt, and that as far better.

Of course, that's against our uniform policy which says we should always wear our hat, so here is the link to respond to

http://www.ipca.govt.nz/

Strange that the BMW design people would design a motorcycle suit (Santiago) that has enough vents to keep Scuba Steve venting for months, yet it's still too hot to disco dance in an intersection with.

Yup, tangent.

:Police:
That gave me a bit of a giggle, feel for ya. Joining in 73 we were lucky to get a stick and some handcuffs so I saw a lot of changes. The duty belt with all the shit on it was a pain and
lucky for me I retired just as that non flattering stab vest arrived.
At least you missed the old black uniform with nylon shirt in the summer. G. ( yes I was an old redneck)

[Zedder]

Check this article out:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/road-safety/8702111/How-do-accidents-happen.html

[steve_t]

Check this article out:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/road-safety/8702111/How-do-accidents-happen.html

You should forward that to the police :msn-wink:

[Zedder]

You should forward that to the police :msn-wink:

Would it make any difference do ya think?

[FJRider]

You should forward that to the police :msn-wink:

I think they already know.

But to clairify ...

So ...
13.9 % were exceeding the posted speed limit ...
15.9 % were going to fast for the conditions ...
34 % suffered loss of control (like going into a corner too fast) ...
12 % failed to judge another vehicles speed correctly (they weren't expecting the other vehicle to be speeding ???)

A large proportion of DEATHS (75 %) were speed related ... even those deaths that occured under the posted limit.
Something those that all those that travel at the maximum speed allowed ... at all/most times ... should remember .....

Being in the right and ... "not breaking any laws" ... is little consolation for being dead.

[Zedder]

I think they already know.

But to clairify ...

So ...
13.9 % were exceeding the posted speed limit ...
15.9 % were going to fast for the conditions ...
34 % suffered loss of control (like going into a corner too fast) ...
12 % failed to judge another vehicles speed correctly (they weren't expecting the other vehicle to be speeding ???)

A large proportion of DEATHS (75 %) were speed related ... even those deaths that occured under the posted limit.
Something those that all those that travel at the maximum speed allowed ... at all/most times ... should remember .....

Being in the right and ... "not breaking any laws" ... is little consolation for being dead.

Were You reading the same article as everyone else....? Did You read the paragraph starting with "Unexpected findings...."?? It goes on to state "the relative unimportance that speeding plays....? The article wasn't just about fatal accidents it was about how accidents happen in general.... You focused on the fatality aspect....? Guilty conscience? Trying to justify something perhaps?

[Bassmatt]

all these circles making me dizzy <_<

[pritch]

I get a strong impression from things I've read and seen that the British Traffic Police are rather higher trained than ours. BIKE magazine made an inquiry under their equivalent of the Official Information Act, and speed ranked actually seventh as a cause of accidents.

The six causes that preceded speed would probably not even be considered in this country. Every time I hear a Police spokesman (sorry, spokesperson) on TV say, "Speed was a factor". I think, "Maybe, but this spokesperson needs training."

[Zedder]

all these circles making me dizzy <_<

If you mean the question marks, I was writing in FJRider text to assist in the comprehension. Apologies to all others.

[Bassmatt]

If you mean the question marks, I was writing in FJRider text to assist in the comprehension. Apologies to all others.

this speed/speeding thread and the others like it end up going round and round in circles.

[Zedder]

this speed/speeding thread and the others like it end up going round and round in circles.

Gotcha. It's probably because some of the people involved aren't telling the whole/truthful story.

I hear what you're saying as well Pritch.

[Gremlin]

I get a strong impression from things I've read and seen that the British Traffic Police are rather higher trained than ours.
For car pursuits, the officers are graded according to achieved levels. ie, each officer can pursue up to a certain speed, and has to pass tests to be allowed to pursue at higher speeds. I doubt NZ has anything like that? Yes, lot of training there.

UK also has many more bike police than NZ, and also seems to actively promote their use much more. Ambo bikes more heavily used as well.

All NZ training I believe comes from the UK stuff (police and general) and in some areas they run days where the bike police are the trainers, giving feedback to the normal motorcyclists but they have quite a few motorcycle cops attending). I'm certainly jealous at the training opportunities etc, that they have...

[Zedder]

For car pursuits, the officers are graded according to achieved levels. ie, each officer can pursue up to a certain speed, and has to pass tests to be allowed to pursue at higher speeds. I doubt NZ has anything like that? Yes, lot of training there.

UK also has many more bike police than NZ, and also seems to actively promote their use much more. Ambo bikes more heavily used as well.

All NZ training I believe comes from the UK stuff (police and general) and in some areas they run days where the bike police are the trainers, giving feedback to the normal motorcyclists but they have quite a few motorcycle cops attending). I'm certainly jealous at the training opportunities etc, that they have...

Yes, but you're mainly talking about Police on motorbikes and in cars being trained to perform certain enforcement tasks. I, and probably others too, would like to hear from a member of the Serious Crash Unit for example to get their perspective.

[steve_t]

I get a strong impression from things I've read and seen that the British Traffic Police are rather higher trained than ours. BIKE magazine made an inquiry under their equivalent of the Official Information Act, and speed ranked actually seventh as a cause of accidents.

The six causes that preceded speed would probably not even be considered in this country. Every time I hear a Police spokesman (sorry, spokesperson) on TV say, "Speed was a factor". I think, "Maybe, but this spokesperson needs training."

I always wonder what the criteria for "speed was a factor" are. If the finding was that the car was travelling at 101km/h in a 100 zone when or before it crashed, was speed a factor?





UK also has many more bike police than NZ, and also seems to actively promote their use much more. Ambo bikes more heavily used as well.


There's a show on UK TV that follows biker ambos. They typically get to the scene in about 3 minutes which is way faster than the regular ambos. It's good watching!

[FJRider]

Were You reading the same article as everyone else....? Did You read the paragraph starting with "Unexpected findings...."?? It goes on to state "the relative unimportance that speeding plays....? The article wasn't just about fatal accidents it was about how accidents happen in general.... You focused on the fatality aspect....? Guilty conscience? Trying to justify something perhaps?

Actually I read it a few times ... the "unexpected findings" WERE about fatal accidents. Not accidents in general.

It stated Quote: But illegal speeding – when drivers exceed the posted limit – accounts for only 13.9 per cent of fatal accidents. Which is what I stated. Going too fast for the conditions does not mean over the posted speed limit.

Perhaps YOU better read it again. But dont stop reading after "the realitive unimportance of speed" bit ....

[Zedder]

Actually I read it a few times ... the "unexpected findings" WERE about fatal accidents. Not accidents in general.

It stated Quote: But illegal speeding – when drivers exceed the posted limit – accounts for only 13.9 per cent of fatal accidents. Which is what I stated. Going too fast for the conditions does not mean over the posted speed limit.

Perhaps YOU better read it again. But dont stop reading after "the realitive unimportance of speed" bit ....

Rubbish, the "Unexpected findings" paragraph also included injury accidents.

I reiterate that the wholearticle was about, and I quote, "How do accidents happen?"

Anyway, as I wrote earlier I'd like to hear from a member of the Serious Crash Unit for a change.

[Pedrostt500]

4kmh = 4000m/hr / 60 = 66.666 reacuring m/minute = /60 = 1.111 reacuring meters per second, yep even a fat bastard like me can walk that fast.
10kmh = 10000 m/hr /60 = 166m/minute = /60 2.777 m/second.
I have no problem paying a speeding ticket if I am caughtdoing more than 10kmh over the posted speed limit, but when that tolerance is only walking speed, then there is no way that I can judge the speed diference of 1.111 meters per second when I am doing 100kmh, wich is 27.777 meters per second, I doubt I could tell the difference between 27.7 m/sec and 28.8 m/sec, yes I could buy a gps, but there are far to many distractions in riding and driving as it is.

[BoristheBiter]

I always wonder what the criteria for "speed was a factor" are. If the finding was that the car was travelling at 101km/h in a 100 zone when or before it crashed, was speed a factor?



Speed is always a factor, if it wasn't you wouldn't be moving.

[oneofsix]

Speed is always a factor, if it wasn't you wouldn't be moving.

And if you or the other object isn't moving then you can't collide. Makes it a rather meaningless phrase don't you think?
But, to look at it another way, even standing still you are moving and faster than your bike can ever go relative to the ground it is passing over. Just happens to be that the planet you are standing still on is whizzing through space at thousands of kilometres an hour and also spinning on its axis faster than your bike can propel you across it's surface.
Speed is relative term with no bearing which makes it great for propaganda :Punk:

[BoristheBiter]

And if you or the other object isn't moving then you can't collide. Makes it a rather meaningless phrase don't you think?
But, to look at it another way, even standing still you are moving and faster than your bike can ever go relative to the ground it is passing over. Just happens to be that the planet you are standing still on is whizzing through space at thousands of kilometres an hour and also spinning on its axis faster than your bike can propel you across it's surface.
Speed is relative term with no bearing which makes it great for propaganda :Punk:

sorry, sarcasm smiley needed.

[oneofsix]

sorry, sarcasm smiley needed.

Not really. I just wanted to build on your theme.

The whole 4 k tolerance thing is a joke. Right now it has shock value and people get nervous and slow down but once they make it standard the human reaction will be to adapt and ignore, as we do with living on earthquake faults or volcanoes or even inside volcanic craters. It will become a case of "in for a penny, in for a pound". So I get a couple of demerits and a fine for 5k over or I get a few more demerits and pay a bit more for 10k over either way I stand no more chance of being pinged than before so what f.... and if the choice is between watching the needle as I go over the raise or watching out for the hidden driveway, parked car, or u-turning cop (had to have a dig) the speedo comes last.

[BoristheBiter]

Not really. I just wanted to build on your theme.

The whole 4 k tolerance thing is a joke. Right now it has shock value and people get nervous and slow down but once they make it standard the human reaction will be to adapt and ignore, as we do with living on earthquake faults or volcanoes or even inside volcanic craters. It will become a case of "in for a penny, in for a pound". So I get a couple of demerits and a fine for 5k over or I get a few more demerits and pay a bit more for 10k over either way I stand no more chance of being pinged than before so what f.... and if the choice is between watching the needle as I go over the raise or watching out for the hidden driveway, parked car, or u-turning cop (had to have a dig) the speedo comes last.

I don't disagree, i haven't slowed down.

I do wish they would just leave it the fuck alone. 4k or 10k tolerance i don't care, just choose one and use it.

And I wish there reason would be "because we said so", no wishy-washy bollocks.

[rastuscat]

It's the shock value that makes the difference. Once we're all used to it, like, once we get blase about it, what next?

[MSTRS]

It's the shock value that makes the difference. Once we're all used to it, like, once we get blase about it, what next?

I'm thinking about starting a business. Making red flags. Oh - and training men to walk whilst carrying one.
By the time TPTB bring it in, I'll have the market cornered.

[Zedder]

It's the shock value that makes the difference. Once we're all used to it, like, once we get blase about it, what next?

Do something really bizarre like increasing the speed limit for heavy vehicles while reducing it for all others with less momentum.

[Scuba_Steve]

I'm thinking about starting a business. Making red flags. Oh - and training men to walk whilst carrying one.
By the time TPTB bring it in, I'll have the market cornered.

and this will really help keep down the accidents/deaths cause by the time it comes around the costs of certs & OSH etc will be such that the only ones able to afford this service will be the 1%ers so thats like what? 70 people on the road?

[Zedder]

and this will really help keep down the accidents/deaths cause by the time it comes around the costs of certs & OSH etc will be such that the only ones able to afford this service will be the 1%ers so thats like what? 70 people on the road?

That's precisely why we need you in power Scube!

[oneofsix]

It's the shock value that makes the difference. Once we're all used to it, like, once we get blase about it, what next?

enforcing the road rules? The little things like correct lane use, correct indication etc. Make people realise that you have to actually drive and not just sit there and steer. Make them realise that driving is an activity not passive. That the arbitrary speed limit isn't the only thing to worry about and perhaps they will then notice that there are other people on the road, not just vehicles. Shit it would cost me a fortune.

[Zedder]

enforcing the road rules? The little things like correct lane use, correct indication etc. Make people realise that you have to actually drive and not just sit there and steer. Make them realise that driving is an activity not passive. That the arbitrary speed limit isn't the only thing to worry about and perhaps they will then notice that there are other people on the road, not just vehicles. Shit it would cost me a fortune.

Whoa OO6, one step at a time, he's meeting with the big guys tomorrow let him sort out that issue out first.

[rastuscat]

enforcing the road rules? The little things like correct lane use,indicating...........


Whoa!! I work on a section that targets shitty driving. Out if interest, speed is way down or list of priorities.

It's hard to get my troops to target lane driving and indicating, coz the penalty is disproportionate to the offence. $150 would surely start a few threads about revenue collecting.

My troops are a reflection of the society from which they are drawn, as am I. Nobody seems to take the lane thing or indicating seriously, it's a culture in this country.

Any time I ask the troops to do something I have to sell it to them, unless it's firmly common sense, like catching a drunk, dangerous or disqualified driver. People feel good about arresting a thief, impounding a car seen doing a burnout, all the stuff that makes us feel good. It's a different story about charging someone $150 for not indicating. It's hard to feel good about that.

It's easy to stand back and tell someone that it's what they're paid for, just do it, but that's ignoring the humanity of the situation.

We have a bit of a policy where if someone doesn't indicate and we actually stop them (rare), they only get a ticket if they actually inconvenienced someone i.e. pissed someone off. Same with lane driving; if they impede someone by using the wrong lane when turning, maybe a ticket happens. Otherwise it either gets ignored or warned.

Just my thoughts.

[rastuscat]

Whoa OO6, one step at a time, he's meeting with the big guys tomorrow let him sort out that issue out first.

Yup. Hoping to make a change there, so I'll leave changing the world for later.

[Zedder]

Yup. Hoping to make a change there, so I'll leave changing the world for later.

Good on you and I mean that. It's the most positive thing I've seen coming from Police on this site.

[Scuba_Steve]

Whoa!! I work on a section that targets shitty driving. Out if interest, speed is way down or list of priorities.

It's hard to get my troops to target lane driving and indicating, coz the penalty is disproportionate to the offence. $150 would surely start a few threads about revenue collecting.

My troops are a reflection of the society from which they are drawn, as am I. Nobody seems to take the lane thing or indicating seriously, it's a culture in this country.

Any time I ask the troops to do something I have to sell it to them, unless it's firmly common sense, like catching a drunk, dangerous or disqualified driver. People feel good about arresting a thief, impounding a car seen doing a burnout, all the stuff that makes us feel good. It's a different story about charging someone $150 for not indicating. It's hard to feel good about that.

It's easy to stand back and tell someone that it's what they're paid for, just do it, but that's ignoring the humanity of the situation.

We have a bit of a policy where if someone doesn't indicate and we actually stop them (rare), they only get a ticket if they actually inconvenienced someone i.e. pissed someone off. Same with lane driving; if they impede someone by using the wrong lane when turning, maybe a ticket happens. Otherwise it either gets ignored or warned.

Just my thoughts.

Well you should be handing out those warnings, alot of it comes down to ignorance. Hell even a few on here think it's fine to be in the right lane if on a motorway (FYI for those people, it's not! Keep left) so you should be informing as many as you can of the law, after all there's no quotas to worry bout right??? So handing out advice rather than tickets shouldn't affect you none. Also with today's tech you can record them for 1st time warning 2nd time ticket.
As for 150$ not indicating, that's more justified than the speed scam or belt law. But I get the point about "only if it inconvenienced someone" it gets harder to justify it on a "dead road" (I won't mention that other "law" here).

[rastuscat]

Also with today's tech you can record them for 1st time warning 2nd time ticket.

You'd think so, wouldn't you. There isn't a system for recording warnings, so it's hard to know if it's the first time they've been dealt with.

[Gremlin]

It's hard to get my troops to target lane driving and indicating, coz the penalty is disproportionate to the offence. $150 would surely start a few threads about revenue collecting.

My troops are a reflection of the society from which they are drawn, as am I. Nobody seems to take the lane thing or indicating seriously, it's a culture in this country.
....
We have a bit of a policy where if someone doesn't indicate and we actually stop them (rare), they only get a ticket if they actually inconvenienced someone i.e. pissed someone off. Same with lane driving; if they impede someone by using the wrong lane when turning, maybe a ticket happens. Otherwise it either gets ignored or warned.
That's where it starts I reckon. Don't tackle every minor instance immediately (although I wouldn't mind so much) simply because of the backlash. Start with the bad ones, barely staying within the lane (or not at all), clearly not demonstrating their mind is on driving, and over time things will get better. The "culture" exists simply because people continue to get away with it. Hell, it won't change over night, but at least if everyone is on the right track.

[FJRider]

We have a bit of a policy where if someone doesn't indicate and we actually stop them (rare), they only get a ticket if they actually inconvenienced someone i.e. pissed someone off. Same with lane driving; if they impede someone by using the wrong lane when turning, maybe a ticket happens. Otherwise it either gets ignored or warned.

Just my thoughts.

Funny how ... not that many years back. THAT same policy ... was on speed.

Some may see your attitude of which laws you choose to enforce, similar to the attitude those that choose which one's they ignore ...

Simply because it wasn't hurting anybody ...

[Scuba_Steve]

You'd think so, wouldn't you. There isn't a system for recording warnings, so it's hard to know if it's the first time they've been dealt with.

probably for the best, if there were the Govt would probably start asking why you were giving warnings when you could have been making them $$$.
Either way warnings or being informed about the law they possibly did not know they were braking is always a good thing. Like I said ignorance plays a BIG part in the breaking of laws like the "keep left" rule. The indication rule is usually more out of laziness, unless they're turning left with a right-turner waiting, then it's just greed.

[mashman]

It's hard to get my troops to target lane driving and indicating, coz the penalty is disproportionate to the offence. $150 would surely start a few threads about revenue collecting.

My troops are a reflection of the society from which they are drawn, as am I. Nobody seems to take the lane thing or indicating seriously, it's a culture in this country.

Any time I ask the troops to do something I have to sell it to them, unless it's firmly common sense, like catching a drunk, dangerous or disqualified driver. People feel good about arresting a thief, impounding a car seen doing a burnout, all the stuff that makes us feel good. It's a different story about charging someone $150 for not indicating. It's hard to feel good about that.

It's easy to stand back and tell someone that it's what they're paid for, just do it, but that's ignoring the humanity of the situation.

We have a bit of a policy where if someone doesn't indicate and we actually stop them (rare), they only get a ticket if they actually inconvenienced someone i.e. pissed someone off. Same with lane driving; if they impede someone by using the wrong lane when turning, maybe a ticket happens. Otherwise it either gets ignored or warned.

Just my thoughts.

How about 5 or 10 demerits with no fine? It gets recorded and the bad bad person gets a "warning" to be careful as they could have killed someone.

[oneofsix]

Whoa!! I work on a section that targets shitty driving. Out if interest, speed is way down or list of priorities.

It's hard to get my troops to target lane driving and indicating, coz the penalty is disproportionate to the offence. $150 would surely start a few threads about revenue collecting.

My troops are a reflection of the society from which they are drawn, as am I. Nobody seems to take the lane thing or indicating seriously, it's a culture in this country.

Any time I ask the troops to do something I have to sell it to them, unless it's firmly common sense, like catching a drunk, dangerous or disqualified driver. People feel good about arresting a thief, impounding a car seen doing a burnout, all the stuff that makes us feel good. It's a different story about charging someone $150 for not indicating. It's hard to feel good about that.

It's easy to stand back and tell someone that it's what they're paid for, just do it, but that's ignoring the humanity of the situation.

We have a bit of a policy where if someone doesn't indicate and we actually stop them (rare), they only get a ticket if they actually inconvenienced someone i.e. pissed someone off. Same with lane driving; if they impede someone by using the wrong lane when turning, maybe a ticket happens. Otherwise it either gets ignored or warned.

Just my thoughts.

It isn't just your troops though. It would need the whole propaganda deal, like what they are doing with speed, but the thing here is it not the individual offence but the driving attitude that is targeted. The fine is not out of proportion if you look at it as an attitude thing. The person that turns into the wrong lane can be cutting someone else off, seen it a few times and even where the victim ends up having a crash the cause disappears into the ether. The person not indicating causes a wrong decision resulting in a crash. All cause aggravation that can result in silly moves later. At the moment people don't care as much about their general driving as they do their speed and yet speed isn't the biggest risk, it is the general driving, the SMIDSY if you like. We bikers go on about the SMIDSYs but how many car to car accidents are also SMIDSYs just because one of the operators wasn't actually driving at the time, they were just resting their hands on the wheel whilst thinking about god knows what.
Yes it would start threads about revenue collection but those threads are there already. Easier to sell the point that someone changing lanes without indicating is a danger than selling this lot that doing 120k down a straight empty highway is a danger.
"My troops are a reflection of the society from which they are drawn" what? you don't get the corporate ra ra sessions telling you why speed is such a danger? Knowing the way management works no matter where I feel sure you get more than just the odd media ad on the dangers of speeding. There must be in house bulletins. But what you said in a way is the point, to get society as a whole to treat driving as something that requires concentration, would solve the cell phone use attitude as well.
Having lived in PN I have seen the odd Blue and White corporate vehicle turn into the wrong lane on multi-lane roads, suspect fining others $150 for something they themselves may have done good be part of the problem, I mean they never speed do they? :bleh: Also seen the corporate vehicle straddle both lanes to block someone passing them just before the merge, great attitude as it puts one more car back in to the intersection :doh:. Don't take that to heart, as said earlier targeting basic driving would hit me too.

[shrub]

It isn't just your troops though. It would need the whole propaganda deal, like what they are doing with speed, but the thing here is it not the individual offence but the driving attitude that is targeted.....

Spot on mate. BTW, i don't see the cops as being revenue gatherers because if they were, all they'd need to do is sit at major traffic lights and just about every cycle they'd have a ticket to write.

Failing to indicate, failing to stop at a stop sign, failing to stop for an amber light and tailgating are IMHO the kind of things that need to be targetted because they are the actions of people who don't take driving/riding seriously, and if you don't take it seriously you need to get a big old wakeup call because I don't want to be on the road at the same time as you.

[Zedder]

Spot on mate. BTW, i don't see the cops as being revenue gatherers because if they were, all they'd need to do is sit at major traffic lights and just about every cycle they'd have a ticket to write.

Failing to indicate, failing to stop at a stop sign, failing to stop for an amber light and tailgating are IMHO the kind of things that need to be targetted because they are the actions of people who don't take driving/riding seriously, and if you don't take it seriously you need to get a big old wakeup call because I don't want to be on the road at the same time as you.

The simple lack of personnel puts paid to the major traffic light ticketing scenario as it does to all other infringment policing on a larger scale.

Coming as I have done from the roading industry where roads are designed/redesigned for safety, it was very hard dealing with continual lack of funding.

Since the money from ticketing goes into the consolidated fund and not to a road safety fund, the industry cannot help but see the situation as revenue gathering.

Granted, it is just one aspect but, road surface and design integrity is a fundamental factor in traffic safety which all too often has a lessor priority due to other spending. In short, and this is a common theme, New Zealand just can't afford good health care, education, and roading etc "all in the same boat".

[scumdog]

probably for the best, if there were the Govt would probably start asking why you were giving warnings when you could have been making them $$$.
.


Nah, they never question why so many of my tickets are 'compliance' tickets.

The person I give 'em to pays nothing - and the tickets cost the Govt $$$ to process.

[scumdog]

We have a bit of a policy where if someone doesn't indicate and we actually stop them (rare), they only get a ticket if they actually inconvenienced someone i.e. pissed someone off. Same with lane driving; if they impede someone by using the wrong lane when turning, maybe a ticket happens. Otherwise it either gets ignored or warned.

Just my thoughts.

Kinda sums my act up too...

Amazing the number of people I've pulled over and the first thing they say as they get out the car is: "oh, I know why you pulled me up, I didn't indicate back there eh"

and often that is NOT why I 'pulled them up...':doh:

[SMOKEU]

and often that is NOT why I 'pulled them up...':doh:

What about when someone does a wheelie?

[scumdog]

What about when someone does a wheelie?

Yeah they don't indicate either...:shifty:

[shrub]

Yeah they don't indicate either...:shifty:

Sometimes wheelies indicate - stupidity.

[cs363]

It isn't just your troops though. It would need the whole propaganda deal, like what they are doing with speed, but the thing here is it not the individual offence but the driving attitude that is targeted. The fine is not out of proportion if you look at it as an attitude thing. The person that turns into the wrong lane can be cutting someone else off, seen it a few times and even where the victim ends up having a crash the cause disappears into the ether. The person not indicating causes a wrong decision resulting in a crash. All cause aggravation that can result in silly moves later. At the moment people don't care as much about their general driving as they do their speed and yet speed isn't the biggest risk, it is the general driving, the SMIDSY if you like. We bikers go on about the SMIDSYs but how many car to car accidents are also SMIDSYs just because one of the operators wasn't actually driving at the time, they were just resting their hands on the wheel whilst thinking about god knows what.
Yes it would start threads about revenue collection but those threads are there already. Easier to sell the point that someone changing lanes without indicating is a danger than selling this lot that doing 120k down a straight empty highway is a danger.
"My troops are a reflection of the society from which they are drawn" what? you don't get the corporate ra ra sessions telling you why speed is such a danger? Knowing the way management works no matter where I feel sure you get more than just the odd media ad on the dangers of speeding. There must be in house bulletins. But what you said in a way is the point, to get society as a whole to treat driving as something that requires concentration, would solve the cell phone use attitude as well.
Having lived in PN I have seen the odd Blue and White corporate vehicle turn into the wrong lane on multi-lane roads, suspect fining others $150 for something they themselves may have done good be part of the problem, I mean they never speed do they? :bleh: Also seen the corporate vehicle straddle both lanes to block someone passing them just before the merge, great attitude as it puts one more car back in to the intersection :doh:. Don't take that to heart, as said earlier targeting basic driving would hit me too.

Yes, please....when can this start?! :D

[cs363]

What about when someone does a wheelie?

How do you indicate for a wheelie? :confused:

[rastuscat]

How do you indicate for a wheelie? :confused:

Above the headlight of my bike is a third frontal indicator. When I'm about to pull a wheelie I indicate it 3 seconds early, so everyone knos what I'm about to do. Hasn't your bike got one? :ride:

[cs363]

Above the headlight of my bike is a third frontal indicator. When I'm about to pull a wheelie I indicate it 3 seconds early, so everyone knos what I'm about to do. Hasn't your bike got one? :ride:

You must have a speshul model, neither of my bikes have that and they're both supposedly performance bikes.... :lol:

Is that third indicator blue by chance? :innocent:

[rastuscat]

You must have a speshul model, neither of my bikes have that and they're both supposedly performance bikes.... :lol:

Is that third indicator blue by chance? :innocent:

Darn, I'm rumbled.............

The R1200RT-Ps are known for lifting the front wheel mainly with assistance from a helicopter. Although, if you do a high-lean-angle U-turn, and accelerate heavily out of it, the front lifts when the bike is still seriously under lean, an effect known to be followed with a severe pucker.

:banana:

[mossy1200]

Darn, I'm rumbled.............

The R1200RT-Ps are known for lifting the front wheel mainly with assistance from a helicopter. Although, if you do a high-lean-angle U-turn, and accelerate heavily out of it, the front lifts when the bike is still seriously under lean, an effect known to be followed with a severe pucker.

:banana:

Only 931 tickets away from a upgrade


http://www.google.co.nz/imgres?imgurl=http://www.bikeland.org/images/articles/54823-Concours-14-Police.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.bikeland.org/board/viewthread.php%3FFID%3D27%26TID%3D54823&usg=__4KeA2xdSkf5b7JAvC3ng1jhyWl0=&h=462&w=600&sz=108&hl=en&start=1&zoom=1&tbnid=KJeSpqqAh22W3M:&tbnh=104&tbnw=135&ei=CrA4T7bGIsGjiAeGxJH5AQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dzx14%2Bpolice%2Bbike%26hl%3Den%26safe %3Doff%26rlz%3D1T4HPAA_enNZ451NZ451%26gbv%3D2%26tb m%3Disch&itbs=1

[cs363]

Darn, I'm rumbled.............

The R1200RT-Ps are known for lifting the front wheel mainly with assistance from a helicopter. Although, if you do a high-lean-angle U-turn, and accelerate heavily out of it, the front lifts when the bike is still seriously under lean, an effect known to be followed with a severe pucker.

:banana:

Apparently I have to spread rep around before I can give you any more, so please accept these seeds as a token of my appreciation of your well thought out answer:

http://laughingsquid.com/wp-content/uploads/donut-seeds-20091111-222834.jpg


I can see the headline now - Rangiora cop caught growing his own... :lol:

[release_the_bees]

Well I got my first speeding ticket ever (13 years driving/riding) in the mail yesterday. 56km/h in a 50 zone in Bulls somewhere.

[martybabe]

Well I got my first speeding ticket ever (13 years driving/riding) in the mail yesterday. 56km/h in a 50 zone in Bulls somewhere.

Ah, they're buggers there. First road on the right heading south usually but there's also a static camera, don't know if it works but.

[RDJ]

which leads to the next question... Why aren't static cameras also installed at places where children more frequently get beaten up? since enforcement should be about prevention...

[yod]

Well I got my first speeding ticket ever (13 years driving/riding) in the mail yesterday. 56km/h in a 50 zone in Bulls somewhere.

Let this be a lesson! It's maniacal hoons blazing about the place at insane speeds like this that make this country a terror to live in!

:facepalm:

[scumdog]

Well I got my first speeding ticket ever (13 years driving/riding) in the mail yesterday. 56km/h in a 50 zone in Bulls somewhere.

Well, all I can say is I'm glad I'm not sharing the the roads with YOU!!

[roogazza]

well i got my first speeding ticket ever (13 years driving/riding) in the mail yesterday. 56km/h in a 50 zone in bulls somewhere.

maniac !!!!!!

[Bassmatt]

which leads to the next question... Why aren't static cameras also installed at places where children more frequently get beaten up? since enforcement should be about prevention...

Cameras arent there for prevention, they just make it easier to catch the baddie after the fact.

[rastuscat]

Cameras arent there for prevention, they just make it easier to catch the baddie after the fact.

Some crooks are smart enough to know where the cameras are, and not break the law in the vicinity of one. Bit like fixed speed cameras. Some know where they are so don't get caught.

[FJRider]

Darn, I'm rumbled.............

The R1200RT-Ps are known for lifting the front wheel mainly with assistance from a helicopter. Although, if you do a high-lean-angle U-turn, and accelerate heavily out of it, the front lifts when the bike is still seriously under lean, an effect known to be followed with a severe pucker.

:banana:

Cops ... and their U-turns ... :no:

[Coldrider]

Above the headlight of my bike is a third frontal indicator. When I'm about to pull a wheelie I indicate it 3 seconds early, so everyone knos what I'm about to do. Hasn't your bike got one? :ride:I just flick 'the bird' as my wheelie indicator, works well.

[orangeback]

got mine today , 57km =$30

[rastuscat]

got mine today , 57km =$30

$26 to process your ticket.......ka ching........$4 into the consolidated fund. Well worth collecting.

[Coldrider]

$26 to process your ticket.......ka ching........$4 into the consolidated fund. Well worth collecting.Broke a couple of road rules today, didn't get busted so 'saved' myself heaps. What time do you think those 'savings' will hit my bank account?:innocent:

[mossy1200]

$26 to process your ticket.......ka ching........$4 into the consolidated fund. Well worth collecting.

If we all donate $4 each will the madness stop?

[FJRider]

If we all donate $4 each will the madness stop?

As long as some will continue to donate more than their share ... No ...

[Drew]

I still get a laugh from this thread.

Can everyone agree that there needs to be a speed limit, and the reason for it is the safety of road users? I doubt anyone can argue with that.

Someone will probably mention self regulated speeds like there are in places in Europe, they are fuckin retards if they think it would work on our roads.

I just don't understand how anyone can then moan about the tollerance given over and above the LIMIT. Do we need to have a definition of the word 'LIMIT' under every speed sign?

[Shadows]

I just don't understand how anyone can then moan about the tollerance given over and above the LIMIT. Do we need to have a definition of the word 'LIMIT' under every speed sign?

I only use the signs as a guide to the fine which could potentially be incurred for the speed I'm doing if a cop spots me before I spot him or if I pass a speed camera.

Still, I suppose that means that I do understand them.

[Scuba_Steve]

I still get a laugh from this thread.

Can everyone agree that there needs to be a speed limit, and the reason for it is the safety of road users? I doubt anyone can argue with that.

Someone will probably mention self regulated speeds like there are in places in Europe, they are fuckin retards if they think it would work on our roads.

I just don't understand how anyone can then moan about the tollerance given over and above the LIMIT. Do we need to have a definition of the word 'LIMIT' under every speed sign?

Everyone could argue with that, theres little to no truth in it

As for tolerances, it's not them I have a problem with directly. It's the inforcement of the speed scam itself I have issue with.

[blackdog]

Sorry Steve I'm with Drew on this one. The last thing any of us wants is every fucking retard with a cereal box license doing whatever speed they like. A fair percentage of them are incompetent at well below the posted limit as it is.

[Scuba_Steve]

Sorry Steve I'm with Drew on this one. The last thing any of us wants is every fucking retard with a cereal box license doing whatever speed they like. A fair percentage of them are incompetent at well below the posted limit as it is.

well guess that shows not everyone would argue, but still everyone could argue.
Fact remains If I ever got control of the roads :devil2: I would be changing all signs to yellow ('cept maybee CBD ones?) as drivers should be thinking for themselves (which is part the problem, these "cereal box licences" usually come about because signs are doing all the thinking for them) & you are either dangerous or your not. The speed you travel at has little bearing on that & while some might argue "people that are dangerous, faster speed bigger crash thing" past about 60km/h your getting into "fucked either way territory" so 100km/h, 120km/h theres gonna be little to no difference in the real world.

People are better at self regulation than given credit, but with all these signs round why think for yourself? the more the roads tell people what to do the worse the drivers get. Anyone thats seen the uptake of traffic lights over the years should know this, especially when those lights blink orange.

[BoristheBiter]

well guess that shows not everyone would argue, but still everyone could argue.
Fact remains If I ever got control of the roads :devil2: I would be changing all signs to yellow ('cept maybee CBD ones?) as drivers should be thinking for themselves (which is part the problem, these "cereal box licences" usually come about because signs are doing all the thinking for them) & you are either dangerous or your not. The speed you travel at has little bearing on that & while some might argue "people that are dangerous, faster speed bigger crash thing" past about 60km/h your getting into "fucked either way territory" so 100km/h, 120km/h theres gonna be little to no difference in the real world.

People are better at self regulation than given credit, but with all these signs round why think for yourself? the more the roads tell people what to do the worse the drivers get. Anyone thats seen the uptake of traffic lights over the years should know this, especially when those lights blink orange.

Fuck you are such a retard, self regulation tui ad anyone.

The limit is not just there for if you hit something or something hits you.
Try getting out of a rear slide at 100 and then try it at 150. then come back to me and say there is no difference.
If you make a mistake at 100 chances are you can recover before you crash into something or someone. Above that you have less time not only to react but less time to overcome what has gone wrong.
And as said above its not just your fantastic riding skills we are taking about, its the Muppet in the SUV that has just taken the corner to fast and is now on your side of the road.

[RDJ]

I still get a laugh from this thread.

Can everyone agree that there needs to be a speed limit, and the reason for it is the safety of road users? I doubt anyone can argue with that.

Someone will probably mention self regulated speeds like there are in places in Europe, they are fuckin retards if they think it would work on our roads.

I just don't understand how anyone can then moan about the tollerance given over and above the LIMIT. Do we need to have a definition of the word 'LIMIT' under every speed sign?

Certainly no-one who by your definition is a fuckin retard, will take the time to argue with you Drew.

[Scuba_Steve]

Try getting out of a rear slide at 100 and then try it at 150. then come back to me and say there is no difference.
If you make a mistake at 100 chances are you can recover before you crash into something or someone. Above that you have less time not only to react but less time to overcome what has gone wrong.

God & you call me a retard :facepalm:
Let me know when your willing to demonstrate this, I got a YouTube channel just waiting for a video of "idiot trying to show how to recover loss of rear traction at 100km/h on NZ roads"

[steve_t]

Didn't the Aussie NT show that people actually did self-regulate? And that after they imposed speed limits, accidents actually increased?

[Jay GTI]

I still get a laugh from this thread.


I just don't understand how anyone can then moan about the tollerance given over and above the LIMIT. Do we need to have a definition of the word 'LIMIT' under every speed sign?

I still get a laugh from people who think not speeding is that simple.

There is a tolerance for a good reason, which is because in the normal day to day act of driving, it is impossible to stick to exactly the speed limit for the entire duration of the journey. You could argue that in order to maintain your own tolerance, just in case you should get speed creep, you should drive slightly below the speed limit. Do this and enjoy the bad driving you'll witness from other drivers, frustrated by your cruising around at 45, 90 or what ever. Hopefully you won't cause an accident in the process.

Where I understand the frustration comes from, is that if the widely accepted tolerance for 100kph sppeed limits is 15kph, then people (not all, but some) just drive at 115kph. So, in the war on speed (cos speed kills, kids), we get these nice little reminders that we shouldn't take the 15kph tolerance as the new speed limit and so have little holiday periods where the tolerance is widely accepted to be 4kph. Trouble is, if you're trying to maintain exactly 100kph for any length of time, that 4% tolerance is pretty difficult. So you get pinged. For doing something that not even cops can honestly manage.

[quickbuck]

Well I got my first speeding ticket ever (13 years driving/riding) in the mail yesterday. 56km/h in a 50 zone in Bulls somewhere.

Yup, apparently the mrs was going past that camera at 60 on the 11th too....... Wasn't me, as I would have been doing 145 on Taupo about that time.... (Yes the race track).
Yes, still $30....
AND we are local.... I think it must have been about 20 metres from the coffee stand ;)

[FJRider]

I still get a laugh from people who think not speeding is that simple.

There is a tolerance for a good reason, which is because in the normal day to day act of driving, it is impossible to stick to exactly the speed limit for the entire duration of the journey. You could argue that in order to maintain your own tolerance, just in case you should get speed creep, you should drive slightly below the speed limit. Do this and enjoy the bad driving you'll witness from other drivers, frustrated by your cruising around at 45, 90 or what ever. Hopefully you won't cause an accident in the process.

Where I understand the frustration comes from, is that if the widely accepted tolerance for 100kph sppeed limits is 15kph, then people (not all, but some) just drive at 115kph. So, in the war on speed (cos speed kills, kids), we get these nice little reminders that we shouldn't take the 15kph tolerance as the new speed limit and so have little holiday periods where the tolerance is widely accepted to be 4kph. Trouble is, if you're trying to maintain exactly 100kph for any length of time, that 4% tolerance is pretty difficult. So you get pinged. For doing something that not even cops can honestly manage.

The speed limits ARE set. To exceed the limits and you are liable to recieve a Traffic Infringement notice. No tolerance is set in law. Descretionary powers are given to police to make their own judgement on the need to issue Infringement notices ... if a vehicle is stopped for breach of any transport regulation ... or any other matter.
It is up to the operator of the velicle to ensure they dont exceed the speed limits. No "what if's" are accepted in court.

In the past 9 km/hr has been the advised tolerance ... although most officers would not usually bother for under 15 km/hr over the open road limit. 50 and 70 km zones are a different matter. It is at their descretion to not do so though.

In short ... ANY speed over the posted speed limit is liable for an infringement notice.

And it make me laugh ... when supposedly "skilled" riders claiming difficulty in keeping to these speed limits.

[BoristheBiter]

God & you call me a retard :facepalm:
Let me know when your willing to demonstrate this, I got a YouTube channel just waiting for a video of "idiot trying to show how to recover loss of rear traction at 100km/h on NZ roads"

Well you are ether retarded or can't read.
Read the post again fuck nuts and see if you can see the part where I said you can't. I said tell me there is no difference.

And I don't want to see any videos of you wanking thanks, I'll let you keep that for chat roulette.

[Zedder]

Didn't the Aussie NT show that people actually did self-regulate? And that after they imposed speed limits, accidents actually increased?

No, in 2007 they put open road speed limits in place due to fatalities in the NT being the highest in the OECD and twice the Australian average.

[Scuba_Steve]

Well you are ether retarded or can't read.
Read the post again fuck nuts and see if you can see the part where I said you can't. I said tell me there is no difference.


Can you read??? Your da 1 writing this shit & you don't even know what it says. Yet here you are spouting personal attacks to make up for your own inadequacies

So 1st your saying theres a difference between getting out of a 100km/h rear slide out & 150km/h one, the 100km/h one you have a chance of recovering (heres your own words below)



Try getting out of a rear slide at 100 and then try it at 150. then come back to me and say there is no difference.
If you make a mistake at 100 chances are you can recover before you crash into something or someone. Above that you have less time not only to react but less time to overcome what has gone wrong.

Now your saying you can't recover 100km/h rear slide out after I challenge you on it


Well you are ether retarded or can't read.
Read the post again fuck nuts and see if you can see the part where I said you can't. I said tell me there is no difference.


Think it's time not only for you to learn how to read, but also to understand what you are saying. Maybee you should get your mum to help you with your online posts from now on

[steve_t]

No, in 2007 they put open road speed limits in place due to fatalities in the NT being the highest in the OECD and twice the Australian average.

I found this from 2009

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/28/2840.asp

"Up until 2007, rural roads in the Northern Territory, Australia had no speed limit. Claiming that speed limits were essential to saving lives, the state government imposed a 130km/h (80 MPH) limit on the Stuart, Arnhem, Victoria and Barkly highways and a 110km/h (68 MPH) speed limit on all other roads, unless otherwise marked lower. Despite the best of intentions, however, the number of road deaths actually increased 70 percent after the change -- despite worldwide drop in traffic levels"

[jaffaonajappa]

I found this from 2009

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/28/2840.asp

"Up until 2007, rural roads in the Northern Territory, Australia had no speed limit. Claiming that speed limits were essential to saving lives, the state government imposed a 130km/h (80 MPH) limit on the Stuart, Arnhem, Victoria and Barkly highways and a 110km/h (68 MPH) speed limit on all other roads, unless otherwise marked lower. Despite the best of intentions, however, the number of road deaths actually increased 70 percent after the change -- despite worldwide drop in traffic levels"


Hmm, think NT is like 20 years behind most of Ausie....NT only recently Required truckies to report their non-animal road kills....

[Ocean1]

I found this from 2009

There's several similar results from various US state changes to open speed limits.

[Berries]

There is a tolerance for a good reason, which is because in the normal day to day act of driving, it is impossible to stick to exactly the speed limit for the entire duration of the journey. You could argue that in order to maintain your own tolerance, just in case you should get speed creep, you should drive slightly below the speed limit. Do this and enjoy the bad driving you'll witness from other drivers, frustrated by your cruising around at 45, 90 or what ever. Hopefully you won't cause an accident in the process.
Playing the Devils advocate here, you are not supposed to stick exactly to the speed limit anyway, it is the maximum legally allowed speed. If you do tend to stray +/-5km/h then you should be aiming at riding/driving at 95km/h to compensate.

4km/h tolerance to me means no tolerance. So I just ignore it and concentrate on the 40km/h tolerance that will cost me my licence instead. (I think some other smart arse said that earlier)

[Zedder]

I found this from 2009

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/28/2840.asp

"Up until 2007, rural roads in the Northern Territory, Australia had no speed limit. Claiming that speed limits were essential to saving lives, the state government imposed a 130km/h (80 MPH) limit on the Stuart, Arnhem, Victoria and Barkly highways and a 110km/h (68 MPH) speed limit on all other roads, unless otherwise marked lower. Despite the best of intentions, however, the number of road deaths actually increased 70 percent after the change -- despite worldwide drop in traffic levels"

That's the complete opposite to my three research sources.

[jaffaonajappa]

and concentrate on the 40km/h tolerance that will cost me my licence instead.


Same.
But...need a better radar detector :(

[Jay GTI]

The speed limits ARE set. To exceed the limits and you are liable to recieve a Traffic Infringement notice. No tolerance is set in law. Descretionary powers are given to police to make their own judgement on the need to issue Infringement notices ... if a vehicle is stopped for breach of any transport regulation ... or any other matter.
It is up to the operator of the velicle to ensure they dont exceed the speed limits. No "what if's" are accepted in court.

In the past 9 km/hr has been the advised tolerance ... although most officers would not usually bother for under 15 km/hr over the open road limit. 50 and 70 km zones are a different matter. It is at their descretion to not do so though.

In short ... ANY speed over the posted speed limit is liable for an infringement notice.

And it make me laugh ... when supposedly "skilled" riders claiming difficulty in keeping to these speed limits.

Yeah you're not getting the point. I never said there was a tolerance set in law, just a generally accepted tolerance... which means, generally, the cops won't ping you if your speed is within the "accepted" tolerance. They are free to ping you for 101kph, but by and large chose not to. This is because we can't actually manage to keep to exactly 100kph at all times and because it is understood (generally) that if we maintain our own tolerance of 5-10kph below the speed limit to make sure we don't hit ping zone, other road users will get angry and frustrated and cause more trouble than it's worth. So we get a "get out of jail free" tolerance that does allow us to exceed the speed limit by an "accepted" margin, as long as we're not doing anything else stupid.

[Mully Clown]

Instead of the 4kph tolerance they should temporarily reduce the speed "limit" to 90kph and continue on with the 10kph tolerance.

[BoristheBiter]

Can you read??? Your da 1 writing this shit & you don't even know what it says. Yet here you are spouting personal attacks to make up for your own inadequacies

So 1st your saying theres a difference between getting out of a 100km/h rear slide out & 150km/h one, the 100km/h one you have a chance of recovering (heres your own words below)

Now your saying you can't recover 100km/h rear slide out after I challenge you on it

Think it's time not only for you to learn how to read, but also to understand what you are saying. Maybee you should get your mum to help you with your online posts from now on

Now you are either trolling or are really that stupid so either way it's pointless explaining as you don't have the mental ability to comprehend what has been written down.

:finger:

[Scuba_Steve]

Now you are either trolling or are really that stupid so either way it's pointless explaining as you don't have the mental ability to comprehend what has been written down.

:finger:

you can't explain little boy, you don't even understand it and the worst part is you wrote it.
Like I said from now on it would be best if you got your mum to help you with future online posts, she'll help you understand what you are writing & be able to explain other posts in a dumbed down form you can understand.
Your letting you inadequacies turn you into an angry little boy, you just need some help is all.

[Drew]

you can't explain little boy, you don't even understand it and the worst part is you wrote it.
Like I said from now on it would be best if you got your mum to help you with future online posts, she'll help you understand what you are writing & be able to explain other posts in a dumbed down form you can understand.
Your letting you inadequacies turn you into an angry little boy, you just need some help is all.Pot, meet kettle.

You look to be a real fuckin winner from what you've posted, perhaps you should take some of your own advice.

Oh yeah, about the self regulated speed thing. With our licence system, and our roads, it'd be fuckin carnage on a biblical scale. You small minded cocks who can't seem to see past your own noses really need to aquire some scope before opening your gobs.

[MSTRS]

That's the complete opposite to my three research sources.

All I've ever seen is that AFTER limits were set, deaths went up.
If deaths in NT were higher than 'average' to start with, then something else is going on and introducing limits is not the answer (we know that anyway - not that we actually know what the answer is)

[Scuba_Steve]

Pot, meet kettle.

You look to be a real fuckin winner from what you've posted, perhaps you should take some of your own advice.

Oh yeah, about the self regulated speed thing. With our licence system, and our roads, it'd be fuckin carnage on a biblical scale. You small minded cocks who can't seem to see past your own noses really need to aquire some scope before opening your gobs.

well my response to that came from your very own hand


Pot, meet kettle.
You look to be a real fuckin winner from what you've posted, perhaps you should take some of your own advice.
You small minded cocks who can't seem to see past your own noses really need to aquire some scope before opening your gobs.

[Drew]

well my response to that came from your very own handYou're Charlie Sheen aren't you? Just posting on our forum for fun aye?

[BoristheBiter]

you can't explain little boy, you don't even understand it and the worst part is you wrote it.
Like I said from now on it would be best if you got your mum to help you with future online posts, she'll help you understand what you are writing & be able to explain other posts in a dumbed down form you can understand.
Your letting you inadequacies turn you into an angry little boy, you just need some help is all.

So you are just trolling then.

[mashman]

All I've ever seen is that AFTER limits were set, deaths went up.
If deaths in NT were higher than 'average' to start with, then something else is going on and introducing limits is not the answer (we know that anyway - not that we actually know what the answer is)

More vehicles on the road? or driving standard change? or a change in expectations as to how everyone else is going to be driving?

[Scuba_Steve]

All I've ever seen is that AFTER limits were set, deaths went up.


Yep thats what I've seen too, this also went for Arizona (I think) or some state i the US, where deaths sharply rose after speed limits were introduced. and yet one of the safest roads in the world, autobahn.
Also from NZ
In the early 1970s, as a result of the 1973 oil shock, both New Zealand and the United States imposed new, lower speed limits in an effort to save fuel. In New Zealand’s case the limit dropped from 60 mph (100ks) to 50mph (80ks), while in the US it dropped to 55 mph - the so-called "double nickel".
In the ten years leading up to the drop in the New Zealand speed limit, an average of 608 New Zealanders had died on the roads each year.
In the ten years that followed the drop from 100 kph down to 80 kph, an average of 707 New Zealanders died on the roads each year: in other words, the new, lower New Zealand speed limit coincided with a 17% increase in road deaths.

Deaths on NZ roads were also on a steady decrease till around 1990 when the decrease flattened out (now who can tell me what came in round this time?) & since 2000 pretty much has stabilized if not gone up slightly. Fact still remains vehicles are saving lives speed scams are endangering them.

[Scuba_Steve]

You're Charlie Sheen aren't you? Just posting on our forum for fun aye?

:shit: How did you know :shifty:

[MSTRS]

Deaths on NZ roads were also on a steady decrease till around 1990 when the decrease flattened out (now who can tell me what came in round this time?) & since 2000 pretty much has stabilized if not gone up slightly. Fact still remains vehicles are saving lives speed scams are endangering them.

Nevada, wasn't it? Remember the bit in the Bert Munro film?
Not sure, but guessing roadside cameras?
Actually, the death toll is still inching down overall. Of course that has NOTHING to do with the changed tolerance...

[Drew]

Actually, the death toll is still inching down overall. Of course that has NOTHING to do with the changed tolerance... I think it's got more to do with cars getting safer, than drivers improving.

At some point, cars will be capable of driving into each other head on at 100k's without anyone dying. So if the limit doesn't get raised, eventually the road toll will be zero for all but pedestrians.

[MSTRS]

I think it's got more to do with cars getting safer, than drivers improving.

At some point, cars will be capable of driving into each other head on at 100k's without anyone dying. So if the limit doesn't get raised, eventually the road toll will be zero for all but pedestrians.

I think you're forgetting a large segment...

[Scuba_Steve]

I think it's got more to do with cars getting safer, than drivers improving.

At some point, cars will be capable of driving into each other head on at 100k's without anyone dying. So if the limit doesn't get raised, eventually the road toll will be zero for all but pedestrians.

except that relies on the banning of bikes (both motorized & non) & forcing everyone to purchase a newer "safe" car, then also you have to factor in trucks & buses a hit from them at the old 80km/h limit is equivalent to a hit from a car at 440km/h so we'll never hit zero but your've got the right basis. It's the cars doing all the safety work, drivers are getting worse & speed scams create accidents & danger so the vehicle & almost the vehicle alone is saving lives with improved roading taking up the slack.

[Zedder]

Bearing in mind Aussie keenness for alcohol and the NT still has open road speed limits of 110 and 130kph in places here's some data: http://www.roadsafety.nt.gov.au/stats/index.shtml

[steve_t]

Bearing in mind Aussie keenness for alcohol and the NT still has open road speed limits of 110 and 130kph in places here's some data: http://www.roadsafety.nt.gov.au/stats/index.shtml

So your link says in 2006, before the limit imposition, there were 44 fatalities. In 2007 after they put in the limits, there were 57 and in 2008 there were 75.

[rastuscat]

Interesting to see the contrasting views on here, and how it's morphed into various topics. It's good that we can disagree, and have a laugh at some of the humorous responses. :killingme

Still, just to drag reality back. Kinetic energy is mass x velocity(squared).

So, a 1000kg vehicle (e.g. a Hardley Rideable or a Honda Civic) going at 100 km/h produces this

Mass (1000) x (100x100), or 1000 x 10000 somethings. That's 10,000,000 somethings.

Probably kilojoules, but that's about weight loss, I think. I'll check with Mrs Cat.

Increase the speed of the Civic (really difficult to do that on a Hardley) to 110 km/h, and here's how it looks.

1000 x (110x110), or 12,100,000 somethings.

So, increase the speed by 10%, and the kinetic energy of the vehicle increases by 21%.

That's why there is some attempt at limiting the shit that happens at speed. I think it's make more sense to limit the amount of kinetic energy a motorist is allowed to impart, but the only real world way to do that is via a speed limit. Fat people shouldn't be allowed to go as fast as thin people, but that's another campaign.

Now, I'm not suggesting that speed causes all those nasty, tewwible cwashes that Mrs Wose talks about, but even I can see the sense in everyone imparting less kinetic energy when the crashes that happen for any reason, happen.

So, I'm all for having no speed limit, and everyone making their own judgement on how fast to travel at. Once, that is, every fecking numpty learns to drive. Every one, not just the really shit hot ace riders on here.

Ho hum, back to the garden. Really loving the garden. Not.

[Zedder]

Remember Steve I wrote "Bearing in mind" etc. Check out the info below the second table: A summary of factors pdf.

[Scuba_Steve]

That's why there is some attempt at limiting the shit that happens at speed. I think it's make more sense to limit the amount of kinetic energy a motorist is allowed to impart, but the only real world way to do that is via a speed limit. Fat people shouldn't be allowed to go as fast as thin people, but that's another campaign.

So your saying we should (using cars as the baseline) allow cars to go 100km/h, motorbikes 220km/h, SUV's & Harley's 60km/h & trucks 15km/h so the energy imparted would be around equal.

Would be a world of chaos to be sure, not to mention the "that part will be a couple weeks, has to come down from Auckland by truck"

[davereid]

So, a 1000kg vehicle (e.g. a Hardley Rideable or a Honda Civic) going at 100 km/h produces this

Mass (1000) x (100x100), or 1000 x 10000 somethings. That's 10,000,000 somethings.

The kinetic energy thing creates some interesting outcomes.

Lets say we have two identical vehicles both doing 100 km/hr and they have a head on crash.

They have identical mass and velocity, identical energy and will both decelerate to zero in the same amount of time. Equal energy absorbed by both vehicles, so similar survival outcomes for the occupants, as they all experience exactly the same deceleration, and its the deceleration that kills you.

But then imaging one vehicle is speeding, or its much heavier. Its got more kinetic energy.

When they collide, the crash involves this extra energy.

But what happens is, the crash is no longer equal.

The vehicle with the least energy will stop, and possibly even be pushed backwards by the other vehicle. The vehicle with the higher energy will have much more deceleration time, and thus will have a better chance of being survivable.

Thats why I always speed. :weird:

[Zedder]

Interesting to see the contrasting views on here, and how it's morphed into various topics. It's good that we can disagree, and have a laugh at some of the humorous responses. :killingme

Still, just to drag reality back. Kinetic energy is mass x velocity(squared).

So, a 1000kg vehicle (e.g. a Hardley Rideable or a Honda Civic) going at 100 km/h produces this

Mass (1000) x (100x100), or 1000 x 10000 somethings. That's 10,000,000 somethings.

Probably kilojoules, but that's about weight loss, I think. I'll check with Mrs Cat.

Increase the speed of the Civic (really difficult to do that on a Hardley) to 110 km/h, and here's how it looks.

1000 x (110x110), or 12,100,000 somethings.

So, increase the speed by 10%, and the kinetic energy of the vehicle increases by 21%.

That's why there is some attempt at limiting the shit that happens at speed. I think it's make more sense to limit the amount of kinetic energy a motorist is allowed to impart, but the only real world way to do that is via a speed limit. Fat people shouldn't be allowed to go as fast as thin people, but that's another campaign.

Now, I'm not suggesting that speed causes all those nasty, tewwible cwashes that Mrs Wose talks about, but even I can see the sense in everyone imparting less kinetic energy when the crashes that happen for any reason, happen.

So, I'm all for having no speed limit, and everyone making their own judgement on how fast to travel at. Once, that is, every fecking numpty learns to drive. Every one, not just the really shit hot ace riders on here.

Ho hum, back to the garden. Really loving the garden. Not.

It's interesting indeed Rtc. I'd just got back from a ride prior to posting and had a great time all while observing the laws. No crashes, no tickets, great company and brilliant weather. Life's damn good!

[rastuscat]

The kinetic energy thing creates some interesting outcomes.

Lets say we have two identical vehicles both doing 100 km/hr and they have a head on crash.

They have identical mass and velocity, identical energy and will both decelerate to zero in the same amount of time. Equal energy absorbed by both vehicles, so similar survival outcomes for the occupants, as they all experience exactly the same deceleration, and its the deceleration that kills you.

But then imaging one vehicle is speeding, or its much heavier. Its got more kinetic energy.

When they collide, the crash involves this extra energy.

But what happens is, the crash is no longer equal.

The vehicle with the least energy will stop, and possibly even be pushed backwards by the other vehicle. The vehicle with the higher energy will have much more deceleration time, and thus will have a better chance of being survivable.

Thats why I always speed. :weird:

One thing I have learned from my Serious Crash Unit colleagues is that bigger vehicles always come off better than smaller vehicles. Now, One way to deal with that is to buy a Hummer. The other is to drive defensively in whatever vehicle you choose, in case you come across some dickhead in his Hummer.

I reflect on how I view Volvos. They were regarded as the safest car in the world.Thing is, if the owner is a knob, he'll factor that in, and drive it less safely, knowing that he'll be better off when he crashes coz the car compensates for his dickhead driving.

A natural extension of that is that we should make vehicles less safe, and that'd cause people to be more careful. A few more would die, but that'd be the price paid for everyone to have more freedom.

I can see many sides to this discussion, but at the end of the day, what we have is what we have. It'll change sooner or later, probably later. Yes, I can see a day that crashing at 100 km/h won't be too big a problem. It's just not here yet. Look how far cars have come since Model T Fords, then imagine how far ahead they'll be in 2100.

One thing that won't have changed is that kinetic energy will still be a product of mass and velocity(squared). Ain't no exemption or tolerance on that fact.

:drinkup:

[FJRider]

Interesting to see the contrasting views on here, and how it's morphed into various topics. It's good that we can disagree, and have a laugh at some of the humorous responses. :killingme

Still, just to drag reality back. Kinetic energy is mass x velocity(squared).



This is KB. With the amount of time you've spent on site ... it must have occured to you ... reality with some ... is sporadic at best. In some quarters, unknown.

[Zedder]

The kinetic energy thing creates some interesting outcomes.

Lets say we have two identical vehicles both doing 100 km/hr and they have a head on crash.

They have identical mass and velocity, identical energy and will both decelerate to zero in the same amount of time. Equal energy absorbed by both vehicles, so similar survival outcomes for the occupants, as they all experience exactly the same deceleration, and its the deceleration that kills you.

But then imaging one vehicle is speeding, or its much heavier. Its got more kinetic energy.

When they collide, the crash involves this extra energy.

But what happens is, the crash is no longer equal.

The vehicle with the least energy will stop, and possibly even be pushed backwards by the other vehicle. The vehicle with the higher energy will have much more deceleration time, and thus will have a better chance of being survivable.

Thats why I always speed. :weird:

Sure, I can see your argument when applied to two 4 wheeled vehicles but when it's motorbike versus 4 wheeled vehicle the bike is going to come off second best. Always.

[FJRider]

when it's motorbike versus 4 wheeled vehicle the bike is going to come off second best. Always.

The rider may come off ... and actually be airborne.

2nd best is an understatement.

Perhaps we need seatbelts on bikes ... :lol:

[Zedder]

The rider may come off ... and actually be airborne.

2nd best is an understatement.

Perhaps we need seatbelts on bikes ... :lol:

Now now FJR ,you know what I'm getting at.

[FJRider]

Now now FJR ,you know what I'm getting at.

I DO ... and for those that aren't aware of it ... or never experienced it ... 2nd best bloody hurts.

You can even die of it.

[Zedder]

I DO ... and for those that aren't aware of it ... or never experienced it ... 2nd best bloody hurts.

You can even die of it.

Gottcha, sorry, I thought you were taking the piss.

[FJRider]

Gottcha, sorry, I thought you were taking the piss.

only on the seatbelt bit ... :msn-wink:

[martybabe]

One thing I have learned from my Serious Crash Unit colleagues is that bigger vehicles always come off better than smaller vehicles. Now, One way to deal with that is to buy a Hummer. The other is to drive defensively in whatever vehicle you choose, in case you come across some dickhead in his Hummer.

I reflect on how I view Volvos. They were regarded as the safest car in the world.Thing is, if the owner is a knob, he'll factor that in, and drive it less safely, knowing that he'll be better off when he crashes coz the car compensates for his dickhead driving.

A natural extension of that is that we should make vehicles less safe, and that'd cause people to be more careful. A few more would die, but that'd be the price paid for everyone to have more freedom.

I can see many sides to this discussion, but at the end of the day, what we have is what we have. It'll change sooner or later, probably later. Yes, I can see a day that crashing at 100 km/h won't be too big a problem. It's just not here yet. Look how far cars have come since Model T Fords, then imagine how far ahead they'll be in 2100.

One thing that won't have changed is that kinetic energy will still be a product of mass and velocity(squared). Ain't no exemption or tolerance on that fact.

:drinkup:

In my time servicing the largest busiest motorway network in Europe we had a rule of thumb, mass rules, i.e. .truck vs car= truck wins, car vs tree= tree wins, Bike vs car=car wins. There are exceptions but if you seek out the occupants of the less dense vehicle or object you will usually find your most injured victims and see to them first obviously. Pretty useful in a multi vehicle pile up in freezing fog.

Similarly, in collisions between police vehicles and civilians we would generally see to the civilians first as the same rule applies, the less dense people were usually the most hurt.:bleh:

[FJRider]

Similarly, in collisions between police vehicles and civilians we would generally see to the civilians first as the same rule applies, the less dense people were usually the most hurt.:bleh:

Less dense ... mmmmmmmm :lol:

[martybabe]

Less dense ... mmmmmmmm :lol:

You have a keen eye sir, clearly you are one of the less dense people :msn-wink:

[FJRider]

In my time servicing the largest busiest motorway network in Europe we had a rule of thumb, mass rules, i.e. .truck vs car= truck wins, car vs tree= tree wins, Bike vs car=car wins. There are exceptions but if you seek out the occupants of the less dense vehicle or object you will usually find your most injured victims and see to them first obviously. Pretty useful in a multi vehicle pile up in freezing fog.

Similarly, in collisions between police vehicles and civilians we would generally see to the civilians first as the same rule applies, the less dense people were usually the most hurt.:bleh:

I know of a few medic's that ignore the one's making the most noise. The one's that are silent can't tell you their issues. And usually have the bigger problems.

[martybabe]

I know of a few medic's that ignore the one's making the most noise. The one's that are silent can't tell you their issues. And usually have the bigger problems.

Agreed, although the silent ones could just be in shock, they could also be preparing to exit stage left. The vocal ones, though perhaps in considerable pain were still well enough to kick up a fuss so presumably had time on their side.

Again not a hard and fast rule but when you're faced with accident victims lying all over the shop you have to make a decision and quickly, so you could say speed was a factor in all road accidents eh :msn-wink:

[FJRider]

Again not a hard and fast rule but when you're faced with accident victims lying all over the shop you have to make a decision and quickly, so you could say speed was a factor in all road accidents eh :msn-wink:

True.

Get it right you're a hero ...

Get it wrong ... you're a stupid cunt.

[Ocean1]

just to drag reality back.

For the record, reality seems to be that far more flexible or non-existent speed limits mean fewer fatalities.

P'raps the extra fatalities in a heavily policed regime are all physicists.

[Ocean1]

The rider may come off ... and actually be airborne.


I once jumped a car that pulled out in front of me. Probably got a few scrapes from the road because of the extra height, but it was worth it.

[Drew]

I once jumped a car that pulled out in front of me. Probably got a few scrapes from the road because of the extra height, but it was worth it.I've gone over the top twice. Once I rode straight into the back of a car when I wasn't paying attention as a young fella. The second, a woman pulled out from a stop sign for some reason. First time I broke my arm, second time my leg was crushed between the car and the bike, before I flew over. So that was broken really badly and I dislocated my thumb.

From this, I gleen this little gem. Flying over or not, you're gonna get fucked up if you fit a car, when there is any speed differential between the two vehicles.

[Ocean1]

I've gone over the top twice. Once I rode straight into the back of a car when I wasn't paying attention as a young fella. The second, a woman pulled out from a stop sign for some reason. First time I broke my arm, second time my leg was crushed between the car and the bike, before I flew over. So that was broken really badly and I dislocated my thumb.

From this, I gleen this little gem. Flying over or not, you're gonna get fucked up if you fit a car, when there is any speed differential between the two vehicles.

Similar. First time was over the bonnet of an HQ Holden. The woman looked right, (c'mon, c'mon look at me) Looked left, looked me straight in the eye, (all right then we're all good).... and pulled out at a range of about 20ft. I remember actually jumping to clear my feet over the bars, cleared the windscreen by inches and landed on me arse at not very much under 30mph. Hotmix, thank Christ: just minor bruising.

Second one I don't talk about. :o

[rastuscat]

In my time servicing the largest busiest motorway network in Europe we had a rule of thumb, mass rules, i.e. .truck vs car= truck wins, car vs tree= tree wins, Bike vs car=car wins. There are exceptions but if you seek out the occupants of the less dense vehicle or object you will usually find your most injured victims and see to them first obviously. Pretty useful in a multi vehicle pile up in freezing fog.

Similarly, in collisions between police vehicles and civilians we would generally see to the civilians first as the same rule applies, the less dense people were usually the most hurt.:bleh:

Dense me sez :bleh: back :lol: