Speeding, is it the real issue?

[The Singing Chef]

I am working on another article to perhaps get published and am maybe half way through it. It is rather long but there are a few points that need talking about, but I would be interested to see what you crazy bastards think of this and kindly give me some feedback. I won't bother asking for constructive feedback ha. :beer:
Sorry for the formatting, was written on my blog.

Anti-speeding propaganda is everywhere, we are lead to believe that as soon as we travel 4km/h over the limit, we are going to die a horrible fiery death. But this is not really the case and neither is it the largest cause of death on our roads. But of course you believe otherwise right? The Government has told you so and they must be right.

The boy in the bubble:

If you are someone from the 'older' generation, you will notice this effect taking place. The large differences from when you were growing up and today, the Government has slowly but surely placed a blanket over our heads and tucked us into our beds so that we are not hurt by the big, bad world outside. It is now on the plan to make it onto our roads, the reach of full control for "our safety" is clasping it's hands onto the way we drive and the text below will show this to you.

It is evident in everything from the "Anti-smacking bill" to the Life jackets, alcohol purchases, cycle helmets etc... where we are being rather mothered but here is something taken from the NZTA website, which purely scares me.


What would a Safe System free of death and serious injury look like?

We would enjoy a transport system where everyone expects a zero road toll. Roads and roadsides would encourage safe behaviour and be forgiving of human error by providing safety cues to users and protecting them from hazards.

Vehicle technology would communicate with the road environment and automatically adjust to appropriate speeds that respond to real-time road conditions.

Road users would understand and play their part in the system, with licensing dependent on a high level of skill. Alertness and compliance would, if necessary, be reinforced by in-vehicle technology (including alcohol and safety belt interlocks, and fatigue and speed monitoring).

Automated enforcement, including point-to-point (average speed) cameras and remote vehicle power down, could be used for high-risk road users.

Crash risk would be further reduced by advanced vehicle-to-vehicle warning systems (such as vehicle/pedestrian proximity warnings) and automatic collision avoidance technologies (including lane containment and emergency override features in the event a driver fails or is unable to respond to warnings).

If a crash is unavoidable, advanced airbags, crumple zones and head restraints would manage crash forces to levels the human body can tolerate."



1) Providing safety cues to users and protecting them from hazards.

While this is a good thing, especially for the unsuspecting motorist coming around a bend to find that it is also a sheep crossing, who can now slow down to a reasonable speed as well as trying to keep as much risk out of driving as possible. But what I take from this is the fact that road users will become too dependent on these cues and safety measures and they will soon come to rely on them to alert them to a potentially dangerous situation, and when the time comes and there is no sign there, the driver will be in a slight state of shock and won't know what to do in such a situation.

2) Automatically adjust to appropriate speeds.

So, the Government wants us to keep lower speeds so that there is a decrease in the severity of crashes on our roads. What does that mean when you are going around a corner at XXX speed and then your car/bike decides to slow down, immediately increasing the risk of crashing significantly. Or when you need to speed up to pass a car or get out of a sticky situation? Will there be a limit that needs to be reached till it comes on or does it play by ear?

Personally I don't like the thought of having a computer do my thinking for me or having any control over me whatsoever.

3) (including alcohol and safety belt interlocks, and fatigue and speed monitoring).

Ok, I do agree with an alcohol monitoring system to gain access to your vehicle as well a some sort of fatigue test so that we don't have idiots falling asleep at the wheel, but in saying that we should have the choice not to wear a seat-belt or leave them unclipped if we want to go for a drive. But what really gets me is the speed monitoring system,which is what is already taking place in some other countries. It is going to remove any freedom at all that we previously had and when the Police stop you for no reason in particular and then ask to search the pre-installed GPS tracker that is in your car and find that within the space of a week, you have gone over the limit X amount of times and proceed to write out fines left right and center.

4) Emergency override features in the event a driver fails or is unable to respond to warnings.

This can be a good thing, there are two sides to the coin and while there is a positive side to this which is potentially saving the drivers life and also people around them which could also be harmed. There is also the fact that a computer is now going to be allowed full access to your car, ranging from steering, braking, acceleration and every other aspect that could be controlled and if there is a malfunction, you could be at serious risk if the car decides to do something stupid.

Another possibility of malfunction could be that the computer picks up false signals and therefore decides to react where in fact there is no danger what so ever or the driver has decided that what ever incident that is happening around them can be better avoided with another maneuver but the computer decides otherwise and then leads itself into a dangerous position.

We are now taking what control we had an putting it into a pre-determined computer system that falls in to place with what the Government thinks is best for us. Your whole life is soon going to be determined by what the Government thinks is best for you and the only way to escape it is to go and live out in a secluded mountain range and live off plants, though you will probably still have to pay a mountain tax anyway.

Instead of learning to think for ourselves and getting taught appropriate ways of dealing with situations, we are being put into diapers and placed into a harm-free environment where we are likely to turn into brain dead zombies, which is their goal I guess but nevertheless.

Speed, is it the real problem?

If you read the article I linked in the title, you will see what my view of speed is and what I think needs changing, but I will go a little more in-depth to it here as well as add some more points and information.

Some interesting statistics (Go to page 30) from the Government show that the majority of crashes and deaths are actually in the 50km/h speed limit areas. Wait a second, isn't it at high speeds where we are likely to die? Or are they all speeding in the 50km/h zone and got injured or killed as a result? It seems unlikely to me, which brings me to the conclusion that it isn't the really high speeds that are going to kill you, in fact they hold the lowest crash rates, but at speeds that are slow which can lead your mind to wander and then lead you on to not see that car turning or small child running out from behind that car and then it's all over red rover.

Now, talking with people and also my flatmates I have also come up with some other thoughts about speed and it's effect on us.

My flat mate had the idea that it's not actually bad drivers that are causing the crashes on the road but simply for the fact that they are good drivers and have the knowledge but simply don't bother absorbing all of the information around them and don't drive to the conditions.

Now that is not only bad driving, but a phenomenally stupid idea.

Another one is that if you speed, you are most likely to lose control and kill yourself.

It is not really speed in it self that will cause the problem, but more so the lack of driver skill than anything. If speed was really the cause, there wouldn't be any kind of motor sport because, hey, they are all going to die anyway.

It comes down to how well the driver can manipulate his/her vehicle and if they can use all of the information that the road provides us to keep to a safe speed.

Now when I talk about safe speeds, I am not referring to the speed limit set in place by the Government, but more so about the speeds that are safe to maintain traction, stability, line and adequate stopping distance.

It is quite easy to safely speed throughout many roads and not cause any harm to anyone or kill yourself, but it all comes down to driver ability.

Have you tested the brakes on your car from both 50 and 100km/h to see how fast you can stop, or will you just learn it at the time? Have you tested the handling of the car, what will it take under duress in corners or a quick turn to get away from a dangerous situation?

[jellywrestler]

simple fact is speed is easy to police, it's done via a calibrated device, there's no need for the copper to go to court and very little chance of getting off it so it's efficient way of 'policing'

pull people over for other offences they inevitably want to take it to court the cop has to go along too and often the charge gets thown out or reduced, simple, the cops simply don't bother nabbing you for much at all.

ANSWER put cameras in all cop cars and record all levels of offences use the footage for the person to see/take to their lawyer/show a judge.
Cop keeps on patrolling, the footage doesn't tell lies then we have a fairer way of policing our roads to reduce the REAL offences happening.

Two bonuses, a/ can use the footage for tv programs b/ can keep an eye on cop chases to see what really happens.
Before the law whines about being recorded there's a lot of jobs now where thta's the norm

[The Singing Chef]

Yea that is why as well, the money is just too easy.

I think the camera's would be an interesting addition and what effect that would have on those sneaky bastards haha.

Would make good t.v as well.

[numbersixteen16]

First up, whats this about you don't want to have to wear a seat-belt? Why not? Fact - seat belts save lives. If it digs into your shoulder, buy some pads. Just because your heading down to the store, doesn't mean you aren't going to have a 20kph crash, resulting in you knocking out your front teeth. Then you claim on ACC and everyone else shares your burden, nice one.

Policing speed works well to keep people safe:
How? Without it, people sit at 140 down a country road. A speed that in a "warrant-able" car (ie. next to no tread on tires, spongy drum brakes, horrible suspension) would leave the driver unable to avoid/slow down for a hazard. And would almost certainly cause instant death in most crash situations.

If every road was in good condition, every car on road had modern brakes, suspension, good tires and someone who knows how to drive behind the wheel, it would be perfectly safe to drive at 200kph down the highway. But I'm guessing only about 20% of road users can actually control a car properly, and about 5% of cars on the road have adequate handling capabilities.

A perfect system would have people resit their license test every 10 or so years, that way everyone would brush up on the new road code, and the amount of incompetent drivers on the road would decrease.

It is however impossible to have a perfect, no crashing, no speeding system. Why? Because you cant govern such a thing, the only thing you can do is make the vehicles we drive and the road we drive on safer.

Besides, if you really wanted to stop people speeding, you would govern all cars coming into the country to 100kph - that's the fasted you can legally go, so why let people go faster than the max speed limit if they aren't actually allowed to? (to generate money from speeding tickets, duh). Its like letting a kid play with matches, but telling him off when he lights a fire.

All else aside, you should rely on your own common sense, ability and confidence to judge what speed you are doing, 140kph is safe in some situations, 70kph is dangerous in others. If you crash you have one person to blame - yourself. Even when pulled into by grandma, its best to look at how YOU could have avoided the situation. Where you going to fast, where you watching for hazards? etc.

However for those without common sense, laws and regulations prove to keep them safe and happy most of the time.

[Akzle]

TL: DR

life jackets are a f*ing good idea. i don't often wear em because i can swim for miles. no bloody good if i'm unconscious, but i pay attention when piloting boats.

some fun facts:
80% of fatal crashes happen below that ever-scary "speed limit"
(read that as you will)

the ONLY thing that has bought down fatal crashes is vehicle safety devices (abs, air bags etc)


many roads in NZ (certainly between whg and hlz) i'll take at ~190km/h in a cage.
now, i don't actually have any specific training, just a lot of experience, so a professional v8 driver is likely to be quicker again. i havent seen many sealed roads i wouldn't "limit" at 160. (then, i would limit ALL roads against women, "SU"Vs and aucklanders. unless they pass an extreme competency test)
-the roads are certainly not the limiting factor here.

crashes are usually caused by inattentive drivers, almost never mechanical failures, and rarely changes in vehicle handling. (FWD will always sledge a corner when front brakes are locked up, ie. so this comes down to lines, entry speeds etc)

several road safety initiatives i've come up with:

time a professional rally driver doing runs on various stretches of road, the new "licenses" are gained by completing that stretch of road within 10% of that time safely.

licenses to be sat on gravel roads in rear wheel drive vehicles with no airbags, abs or any other "safety feature" invented since 1980.

licenses to include basic maintenance of vehicle, changing tyres, checking oil, electrolyte, electrical system etc. to also include understanding of combustion engine and driveline components. (if you cant understand how fuel becomes spinning wheels, no car.)

women licensees must be able to explain, in some depth, the difference between front wheel drive and rear wheel. if they can't they're not allowed a rear wheel drive (most SUVs, ie.)

ALL drivers MUST ride a 50cc scooter for 2 years before getting a cage, this will dramatically increase their attention-paying, road reading, hazard ID, and overall driving ability. (mobikkers are exempt) it will also remove the people that really shouldn't be on the road in the first instance.

Reigonal "L" plates with restrictions on movement.
ie aucklanders get "A" and they're limited to within the muncipal limits, limited exemptions can be applied for so they may travel on main roads on holiday etc.
any aucklanders found in cages on twisties or gravel has their car crushed.

if you live in a rural area or are a farmer, you get a "NZ" plate. you can drive anywhere in the country.
(doesn't apply to "lifestylers" or commuters - they get city plate with exemption only on roads they need to travel home from work)

[Akzle]

First up, whats this about you don't want to have to wear a seat-belt? Why not? Fact - seat belts save lives.

negatory and not always.

i know several people who would not be alive if they'd been wearing their seatbelts, and at least one occasion where not wearing it reduced injuries (vehicle rolled) compare to them in the vehicle who were.

so i don't often wear my seatbelt. the only times it's going to decrease your chance of death is head on collisions in vehicles without airbags,
...those i usually see coming because i'm often paying attention to what's happening around my vehicle.

"seatbelts save idots" is probably more apt.

[Muppet]

Slow down, wear your safety belt and don't drink and drive. Simple. Oh, and try stopping at Stop Signs and red traffic signals too. One more thing, don't drive while talking or texting using your mobile phone either.

[oldrider]

Slow down, wear your safety belt and don't drink and drive. Simple. Oh, and try stopping at Stop Signs and red traffic signals too. One more thing, don't drive while talking or texting using your mobile phone either.

Up until this moment individual breathing control is "personal and optional" but they are working on that! :facepalm:

[tigertim20]

I read about half your post cos it was looong but heres my thoughts on the matter.

No, speeding is not the real cause. Plenty of other countries have systems where you can travel at a higher rate of speed, yet lso have lower crash figures, however you cant simply blue print the overseas examples, and apply it to NZ.
For a start its far too easy to get a licence here, even with the recent changes, its still a joke, so the problem really, is that OUR DRIVERS are not particularly safe at speeds of over 100km. the problem isnt so much the speed, its the people doing a speed that is beyond their ability. another factor is our roading and infrastructure, our roads are fucking awful, and on many occasions, fall well short of the quality provided by countries that afford a higher speed limit.

there are a lot of factors, and the main one i reckon is people.

[The Singing Chef]

I read about half your post cos it was looong but heres my thoughts on the matter.

No, speeding is not the real cause. Plenty of other countries have systems where you can travel at a higher rate of speed, yet lso have lower crash figures, however you cant simply blue print the overseas examples, and apply it to NZ.
For a start its far too easy to get a licence here, even with the recent changes, its still a joke, so the problem really, is that OUR DRIVERS are not particularly safe at speeds of over 100km. the problem isnt so much the speed, its the people doing a speed that is beyond their ability. another factor is our roading and infrastructure, our roads are fucking awful, and on many occasions, fall well short of the quality provided by countries that afford a higher speed limit.

there are a lot of factors, and the main one i reckon is people.

Yea and I still have more to write :-/ haha

Yea people are the main reason with the other factors coming in close second. Just getting statistics and data to back up my points some of which were linked in the text but I couldn't be bothered adding it onto here.

[BMWST?]

Its not the outright spped i reckon its the big variations in speed that cause the problems,and the very nature of our roads and terrain.Half our our national highway network is over very difficult terrain.We just cant aford the types or road found in bigger countries so we have to accept that our roads WILL be a factor in incidents despite what Mr Akzle says,we simply cant allow every body to zoom around at what ever speeed they wish.
A real eye opener for me was last time i drove to tauraunga.The 4 km spped tolerance was imn place and it made for a very consistent speed.The biggest difference tho was the relative lack of trucks.Peple were travelling at about the same speed and seemed more content to go 100.
There was litle overtaking as a result,and the passing lanes worked wel because most people kept left,and only the overtakers were in the right lane.
Was one of the best rtips to TGA i have ever had,bike or car

[Kickaha]

i know several people who would not be alive if they'd been wearing their seatbelts
I've heard that line from several different people but I doubt it is possible to prove
I've also been in two vehicle rollovers one wearing a seatbelt and one without, it's a lot more fun if you're wearing one

"seatbelts save idots" is probably more apt. Could also be that they save you from idiots

[Voltaire]

I'm old and things were a lot better in the olden days..... I liked it better when I ruled the road on my Z1000 and car drivers had Hillmans, Cortinas, Holdens, Falcons and other POS with no stereos and other comforts.
If they were serious about speeding they could fit devices to cars and debit you account....
I'm riding the smallest bike I have had in years and its lots of fun, 100 HP Pfft......I'm happy with 50.:innocent:

[scumdog]

I'm old and things were a lot better in the olden days..... I liked it better when I ruled the road on my Z1000 and car drivers had Hillmans, Cortinas, Holdens, Falcons and other POS with no stereos and other comforts.


Likewise -there was LOTS less traffic, you knew who would give you a ticket (Traffic Officers) so Police din't worry you.

And while Nanny Gov't wants to wrap us all in cotton wool part of it is driven by the "they should do something about it" harping on every time more than one person gets killed/injured by some activity..."It's too dangerous, it shouldn't be allowed"

[Akzle]

I've heard that line from several different people but I doubt it is possible to prove
I've also been in two vehicle rollovers one wearing a seatbelt and one without, it's a lot more fun if you're wearing one


hokae. i'll put it this way:

based on my observation and given the facts (we'll go with the T-boning my cousin got), had he been trapped in the driver's seat with a belt, he would have ~2tonnes of 4x4 embedded in his body, a condition which is most often fatal.

basically to say that seatbelts always save lives in all crashes, i find BS.


Could also be that they save you from idiots+1 :killingme

[scumdog]

hokae. i'll put it this way:

based on my observation and given the facts (we'll go with the T-boning my cousin got), had he been trapped in the driver's seat with a belt, he would have ~2tonnes of 4x4 embedded in his body, a condition which is most often fatal.

basically to say that seatbelts always save lives in all crashes, i find BS.

+1 :killingme

True - it doesn't ALWAYS save lifes.

But I've seen a slew of Government sponsored cabbages and dead people that wouldn't have been that way had they bothered to wear their seat-belt.

[Virago]

...Anti-speeding propaganda is everywhere, we are lead to believe that as soon as we travel 4km/h over the limit, we are going to die a horrible fiery death. But this is not really the case and neither is it the largest cause of death on our roads. But of course you believe otherwise right? The Government has told you so and they must be right...

The first rule of reasoned research - don't distort facts. Please point us in the direction of ANY documentation that will confirm the above claim. No? I didn't think so.

Anti-speeding campaigns will point out two issues. Firstly, statistics confirm that high speed is a known contributor to crashes. Secondly, the higher the speed, the greater the risk of death or injury. Nowhere does it say that "you're going to die if you speed". Please don't base your arguments on a statement of pure nonsense.

People who argue against speed limits base their arguments on one basic position. Me. It's all about me. My rights. I'm a good driver / rider, I should be able to go as fast as my wonderful skills will allow.

What they tend to ignore / dismiss, is that high speed reduces the margin of error, for both yourself and other road users. Do you really have the right to do that?

[scumdog]

The first rule of reasoned research - don't distort facts. Please point us in the direction of ANY documentation that will confirm the above claim. No? I didn't think so.

Anti-speeding campaigns will point out two issues. Firstly, statistics confirm that high speed is a known contributor to crashes. Secondly, the higher the speed, the greater the risk of death or injury. Nowhere does it say that "you're going to die if you speed". Please don't base your arguments on a statement of pure nonsense.

People who argue against speed limits base their arguments on one basic position. Me. It's all about me. My rights. I'm a good driver / rider, I should be able to go as fast as my wonderful skills will allow.

What they tend to ignore / dismiss, is that high speed reduces the margin of error, for both yourself and other road users. Do you really have the right to do that?

100% agree.

KB way: "They are always telling us speed kills' or 'we will die if we go over 104kph' blah-blah-blah.
Reality: whataloadofcodswollop...

[The Singing Chef]

The first rule of reasoned research - don't distort facts. Please point us in the direction of ANY documentation that will confirm the above claim. No? I didn't think so.

Anti-speeding campaigns will point out two issues. Firstly, statistics confirm that high speed is a known contributor to crashes. Secondly, the higher the speed, the greater the risk of death or injury. Nowhere does it say that "you're going to die if you speed". Please don't base your arguments on a statement of pure nonsense.

People who argue against speed limits base their arguments on one basic position. Me. It's all about me. My rights. I'm a good driver / rider, I should be able to go as fast as my wonderful skills will allow.

What they tend to ignore / dismiss, is that high speed reduces the margin of error, for both yourself and other road users. Do you really have the right to do that?

I think it comes down to how you interpret it, unless you take everything at face value?

NZ Herald article (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10649421) <-
Police fed up with carnage on the roads will prosecute every driver caught more than 4km/h over the speed limit this Queen's Birthday weekend.

The move comes in the wake of a horror holiday weekend last year, in which 10 people were killed and 32 seriously injured - the highest toll in 13 years.

National road policing manager Superintendent Paula Rose said police will be out in force from tomorrow to enforce the tough new stance, which will see police reduce their 10 per cent tolerance for driving over the speed limit to just 5 per cent.

They are sick of the high death rate, so in a move that they say will drop the death toll they bring in the 4km/h tolerance. Now there must be a reason that they target such a small increase in speed in order to drop the death toll over public holidays in a large way?

So the way I see it is that we are now going to be pulled over for 4km/h over in order to keep the death toll down, so does that mean that if we go over the 4km/h tolerance, we are then a lot more likely to crash and/or die.

Statistics also confirm that the largest amount of crashes by far, is in the 50km/h zone. Yes, high speeds are a factor in crashes but then so are many other things.

Yes there is an increased risk for injury or death, I am sure that every body knows that. But according to statistics, it is far more dangerous to travel at 50km/h, so should we lower the speed limit some more? Maybe 30km/h would be safer, better for pedestrians, cyclists, more time to stop if a child runs out for sure!

How am I basing the argument on ME? It is to look at what we are being told and what is actually happening. I have no problem sticking to the speed limit now, more than less anyway. So I'm not looking to try and justify to myself that speeding is either bad or ok, but more so the general public who think that speed is of the devil and then begin to slag off the wonderful name of bikers whom they have a less than ideal view of.

Yes High speed reduces the margin of error, but so does 1 beer, one adjustment of the radio. Everything you do is going to affect the margin of error, but would you rather be focussing on the road around you or constantly checking your speed, just in case.

[Kickaha]

based on my observation and given the facts (we'll go with the T-boning my cousin got), had he been trapped in the driver's seat with a belt, he would have ~2tonnes of 4x4 embedded in his body, a condition which is most often fatal.

Young guy who worked for me put his civic sideways into a powerpole doing 80-100kmh, impact right on the drivers door and pole ended up about where he was sitting, he was wearing a seatbelt and had to be cut from the car, badly broken leg was the result and about a week in hospital while they scewed it back together, looking at the photos you'd swear it would have been a fatal so I don't think it's quite as easy to pick a "yes he would have died had he been wearing one" accident

Inappropriate speed is the issue not just speed in itself


Statistics also confirm that the largest amount of crashes by far, is in the 50km/h zone.
What speed and area do you think the majority of NZ traffic travels at each day?

[ducatilover]

"seatbelts save idots" is probably more apt.
The spelling mistake makes this somewhat ironic.

I don't see the need for discussion here, cars crash because of people.
With attentive drivers and better trained drivers, there will be a dramatic reduction in crashes.
The faster you drive, the less likely you are to avoid an incident in front of you.
End of the bloody story.
:facepalm:

[Virago]

...So the way I see it is that we are now going to be pulled over for 4km/h over in order to keep the death toll down, so does that mean that if we go over the 4km/h tolerance, we are then a lot more likely to crash and/or die...

Arguably, yes - but I have my own reservations about the 4km/hr vs 10km/hr tolerance. But there's a difference between a claim of "more likely to crash and/or die" and your interpretation of "you WILL die". Yes, you're entitled to your interpretation of what was meant, but it doesn't make it any less silly.

And I do indeed have concerns about the cynical police use of statistics to back their claims of reducing the road toll with the lower tolerance. They will gleefully claim credit when the road toll over a weekend is lower, but happily ignore an excessively high toll during a tolerance blitz (such as happened last Christmas).

Some tolerance on speed limits is necessary to ensure fairness. Speedos may be incorrect, speed may creep a little in road dips etc. Personally, I think the 10km/hr tolerance is fair and reasonable - althought there is a tendency for the public to adopt it as a "+10" speed limit. How many times have police officers been told by a 115km/hr speeder - "I was ony 5k over...".

Longing for the good old days before the "PC Nanny State"? Here's some info for you - back when I learned to drive / ride, the open road speed limit was 80km/hr. Ah, the good old days, eh?

Arbitrary values need to be placed upon our driving limits, for the public good. Whether that is speed limits, or blood/breath alcohol limits, or vehicle licensing parameters.

Your arguments about speed could also be applied to the alcohol issue. Someone with a breath alcohol reading of 500mcg might be a far better driver than someone else with a 300mcg reading. Should we allow skillful drunk drivers to decide their own limits? Of course not, the 400mcg blanket limit is the only fair (and generally safe) way to control drunk drivers.

And so it is with speed. You don't have to like (or agree with) the arbitrary limits, but you do have to observe them - or face the consequences. Just like the drunk driver.

[Akzle]

Your arguments about speed could also be applied to the alcohol issue. Someone with a breath alcohol reading of 500mcg might be a far better driver than someone else with a 300mcg reading. Should we allow skillful drunk drivers to decide their own limits? Of course not, the 400mcg blanket limit is the only fair (and generally safe) way to control drunk drivers.

And so it is with speed. You don't have to like (or agree with) the arbitrary limits, but you do have to observe them - or face the consequences. Just like the drunk driver.

i think we should arbitrarily limit your ability to voice your opinion.

that is such a crock of shit. i'm a better driver with 2000mics of breath alcohol than most city-dwellers when they wake up.
setting the bar so low that no-one can fail, as the NZ govt is wont to do, is not going to improve road safety or the quality of life for anyone, or the future of the economy.

[Virago]

i think we should arbitrarily limit your ability to voice your opinion.

that is such a crock of shit. i'm a better driver with 2000mics of breath alcohol than most city-dwellers when they wake up.
setting the bar so low that no-one can fail, as the NZ govt is wont to do, is not going to improve road safety or the quality of life for anyone, or the future of the economy.

Internationally, NZ's alcohol driving levels are rather high.

The bench-mark for defining a dickhead lies in their firm belief in their ability to drive well when drunk.

I rest my case...

[The Singing Chef]

Arguably, yes - but I have my own reservations about the 4km/hr vs 10km/hr tolerance. But there's a difference between a claim of "more likely to crash and/or die" and your interpretation of "you WILL die". Yes, you're entitled to your interpretation of what was meant, but it doesn't make it any less silly.

And I do indeed have concerns about the cynical police use of statistics to back their claims of reducing the road toll with the lower tolerance. They will gleefully claim credit when the road toll over a weekend is lower, but happily ignore an excessively high toll during a tolerance blitz (such as happened last Christmas).

Some tolerance on speed limits is necessary to ensure fairness. Speedos may be incorrect, speed may creep a little in road dips etc. Personally, I think the 10km/hr tolerance is fair and reasonable - althought there is a tendency for the public to adopt it as a "+10" speed limit. How many times have police officers been told by a 115km/hr speeder - "I was ony 5k over...".

Longing for the good old days before the "PC Nanny State"? Here's some info for you - back when I learned to drive / ride, the open road speed limit was 80km/hr. Ah, the good old days, eh?

Arbitrary values need to be placed upon our driving limits, for the public good. Whether that is speed limits, or blood/breath alcohol limits, or vehicle licensing parameters.

Your arguments about speed could also be applied to the alcohol issue. Someone with a breath alcohol reading of 500mcg might be a far better driver than someone else with a 300mcg reading. Should we allow skillful drunk drivers to decide their own limits? Of course not, the 400mcg blanket limit is the only fair (and generally safe) way to control drunk drivers.

And so it is with speed. You don't have to like (or agree with) the arbitrary limits, but you do have to observe them - or face the consequences. Just like the drunk driver.

That's fair and I may have exaggerated that point a little.:whistle:

I think that the tolerance is definitely needed and 10km/h does seem to be a fair limit. Also, yes I have noticed the adoption of using the 110km/h tolerance to their favour, but hey, when they get pulled over then it's fair enough to get a ticket.

I had heard that, re the 80km/h limit. I'm thinking of it more as a general state than just for roads though. Every little thing has become regulated and if it hasn't yet then it most likely will be soon.

Alcohol impairs the mind, speed doesn't. I couldn't think of an argument to try and defend drink driving.

I also have no problem with the limit as it is, nor following it any more. It is all about public knowledge, it's always best to hear two sides of the story and put up an informative argument, rather than just listen to the Government, bend over backwards and take it like the slaves we are becoming.

[tigertim20]

Young guy who worked for me put his civic sideways into a powerpole doing 80-100kmh, impact right on the drivers door and pole ended up about where he was sitting, he was wearing a seatbelt and had to be cut from the car, badly broken leg was the result and about a week in hospital while they scewed it back together, looking at the photos you'd swear it would have been a fatal so I don't think it's quite as easy to pick a "yes he would have died had he been wearing one" accident

Inappropriate speed is the issue not just speed in itself


What speed and area do you think the majority of NZ traffic travels at each day?

I agree with the "Innapropriate speed" part, however (and this links back to Virago's point) the definition of what constitutes innapropriate speed is highly debatable, I know MY limits and how fast I can ride/drive, I do the servicing on my own vehicles so I know their roadworthiness as of right now unlike others who are ignorant and assume a current wof from 5 months ago means they are safe, therefore, i should be allowed to drive at xxx over the speed limit.

as for 'the statistics' heres a point.
the 7 dwarfs, one is named happy right?
so, statistically, 6 out of 7 dwarfs arent happy, right? - OK, hardly a fantastic example I admit, but the point is valid, statistics are basically about HOW you choose to compile or display the numbers more than the truth of the numbers themselves, its easy to use the same numbers to argue opposing points.

As for speed being a factor in an accident, well thats an interesting one. Two stationary cars arent going to crash are they? - no. So of course being in motion at any given time makes your speed a factor in whatever outcome occurs - thus 'speed' is a factor in EVERY crash, provided at least on vehicle was in motion at the time, or immediately prior to contact.

I think Virago is right, you need to rely more on cold, hard facts presented in the most neutral manner possible, you cannot rely on an emotional response/interpretation, as that is going to reduce any support for your opinions right from the start

[Winston001]

Good on you Chefie, you have a point of view and you are working out your arguments.

Plenty of people moan and whinge but don't take the necessary step of formulating what bothers them.

More power to you. :Punk:

[rastuscat]

[COLOR="#139922"] i'm a better driver with 2000mics of breath alcohol than most city-dwellers when they wake up.

And so ends any credibility you had left.

Gosh, I'm glad you are such a shit hot driver. Wish we were all as good as you.

Yeah right.

[Scuba_Steve]

Anti-speeding campaigns will point out two issues. Firstly, statistics confirm that high speed is a known contributor to crashes. Secondly, the higher the speed, the greater the risk of death or injury. Nowhere does it say that "you're going to die if you speed". Please don't base your arguments on a statement of pure nonsense.

...

What they tend to ignore / dismiss, is that high speed reduces the margin of error, for both yourself and other road users. Do you really have the right to do that?
Statistics confirm neither of your claims (dependent on your definition of "high speed") They attempt to imply these but they cannot confirm either as neither is true.

As for "margin of error" yes this can be reduced with higher speeds but the chances of needed that margin of error is also decreased with the absence of the speed scam & arbitrary speed limits.



Inappropriate speed is the issue not just speed in itself

What speed and area do you think the majority of NZ traffic travels at each day?

that 1st statement there is correct along with people just can't drive. "speed" has little to do with any of this as proved by the 2nd statement

[rastuscat]

Speed is a causal factor in a small number of crashes.

However, it is a determinative factor in every crash. Faster speed imparts greater energy. Simple fact.

Good that someone is thinking about the speed kills propaganda. When you come up with a solution please try to make it practical to apply in real life to all drivers/riders. solutions that require differential application are a no go.

[Fast Eddie]

"seatbelts save idots" is probably more apt.


The spelling mistake makes this somewhat ironic.

hahaha.... ahhh :shifty::yes:


i think we should arbitrarily limit your my ability to voice your my opinion.
yes.


... i'm a better driver with 2000mics of breath alcohol than most city-dwellers when they wake up.

haha! you are too much

[GrayWolf]

OK having lived in the UK and here, I've driven European roads ....
SPEED???
yes and no as far as the direct cause of deaths, injuries. Of course if you lose control at high speed the likelyhood is for more severe injury. probably the biggest 'killer' here is the roads themselves, gravel, poor construction methods, tight corners with ditches , and most roads have a plethora of lethal obstructions and roadside furniture. When compared to motorways in Europe, or A class roads, the highways here are substandard. So to my mind the greatest contributor IS the roads themselves, they leave little (at best) to no room for error at any sort of high speed.
Next contributing factor IS the safety system's themselves... the perceived danger is reduced with every new safety feature. As has been pointed out when they fail, or reach the point of no longer coping (traction control as an example) there is NO recovery from the following events for the average 99% of driver's/rider's, in effect the driving skills are being dumbed down. How often is cadence braking taught now? or how to control fishtailing? or skid control? We know that vehicle control computers are inevitable.. as described, speed, distance for braking etc will be controlled by a computer.... failsafe??? I know this type of technology is NOT failsafe from my work. We dont have distance or speed control but we do have traction and braking controls as well as electronic protection for the 'vehicles' themselves. often as has been found the 'protection's' are leaving the driver with anticipation of the safety features (equivalent of ABS) dropping out during reducing speed. So if anything they require a state of readiness of a different type when operating them. As much as it pisses off so many, there does need to be some control on power of ALL roadgoing vehicles... 200bhp is just fucking ridiculous, plain and simple. So is 3/4/500 bhp in cars.

The best form of safety is alertness, and training, training, training.... did I say training?? THAT is the one area the NZ Govvy seems to have bugger all interest in, advanced driver/rider training.....

[Fast Eddie]

200bhp is just fucking ridiculous, plain and simple. So is 3/4/500 bhp in cars.

:facepalm: replace ridiculous with fun and I'm with ya..

[Akzle]

The bench-mark for defining a dickhead lies in their firm belief in their ability to drive well when drunk.

that may be your bench-mark.
i'll put the challenge to ya tho. if i'm ever in your neck of the woods, i'll have a few bevvys then we can go for a spin eh?

i didn't say drunk. i said with 2000mics breath alcohol. that's probably still a while before i'll be "impaired".

studies have shown (UK one, i'm thinking of) that people are actually "better" drivers after 1-3 "standard drinks". go figuire.
maybe it should be mandatory to have a breath alcohol reading of 100mcg?


And so ends any credibility you had left.

Gosh, I'm glad you are such a shit hot driver. Wish we were all as good as you.

Yeah right.shouldn't you be out enforcing policy somewhere? i just saw on the news that there's been some crime.
i don't think you or your kind are doing a good enough job.

as the public, your "service" is highly lacking.

PS, as an agent of a defacto institution that relies on bully-tactics, threats of force and deceit to take the benefits of people's sweat off those people, your view of "credibility" doesn't mean very much.

[scumdog]

. i said with 2000mics breath alcohol. that's probably still a while before i'll be "impaired".



I think you achieved that sober...

[scumdog]

PS, as an agent of a defacto institution that relies on bully-tactics, threats of force and deceit to take the benefits of people's sweat off those people, your view of "credibility" doesn't mean very much.

Sez fecin' who?

Nobody of importance or influence I'll be bound...

[The Singing Chef]

OK having lived in the UK and here, I've driven European roads ....
SPEED???
yes and no as far as the direct cause of deaths, injuries. Of course if you lose control at high speed the likelyhood is for more severe injury. probably the biggest 'killer' here is the roads themselves, gravel, poor construction methods, tight corners with ditches , and most roads have a plethora of lethal obstructions and roadside furniture. When compared to motorways in Europe, or A class roads, the highways here are substandard. So to my mind the greatest contributor IS the roads themselves, they leave little (at best) to no room for error at any sort of high speed.
Next contributing factor IS the safety system's themselves... the perceived danger is reduced with every new safety feature. As has been pointed out when they fail, or reach the point of no longer coping (traction control as an example) there is NO recovery from the following events for the average 99% of driver's/rider's, in effect the driving skills are being dumbed down. How often is cadence braking taught now? or how to control fishtailing? or skid control? We know that vehicle control computers are inevitable.. as described, speed, distance for braking etc will be controlled by a computer.... failsafe??? I know this type of technology is NOT failsafe from my work. We dont have distance or speed control but we do have traction and braking controls as well as electronic protection for the 'vehicles' themselves. often as has been found the 'protection's' are leaving the driver with anticipation of the safety features (equivalent of ABS) dropping out during reducing speed. So if anything they require a state of readiness of a different type when operating them. As much as it pisses off so many, there does need to be some control on power of ALL roadgoing vehicles... 200bhp is just fucking ridiculous, plain and simple. So is 3/4/500 bhp in cars.

The best form of safety is alertness, and training, training, training.... did I say training?? THAT is the one area the NZ Govvy seems to have bugger all interest in, advanced driver/rider training.....

I agree with the dumbing down of driving skills from driver aids, wrote up a page of handy skills to learn on the bike but have just got to get a bike so I can practice them now. Also in regards to training, will be touching on that later in the post. I think that is one of the biggest things that the Government could do to drop accident rates and have an overall better standard of driving.



Good on you Chefie, you have a point of view and you are working out your arguments.

Plenty of people moan and whinge but don't take the necessary step of formulating what bothers them.

More power to you. :Punk:

Cheers mate, always interested in finding out more about things that I am involved in.

[Virago]

that may be your bench-mark.
i'll put the challenge to ya tho. if i'm ever in your neck of the woods, i'll have a few bevvys then we can go for a spin eh?

i didn't say drunk. i said with 2000mics breath alcohol. that's probably still a while before i'll be "impaired"...

If we can precede that with a physical demonstration of yesterday's claim that you can shrug off 10+ Amps of mains electrical shock - you're on...

[Ocean1]

Yea people are the main reason with the other factors coming in close second.

Some people. At least some people more than others. Just ask the insurance industry, they're the experts at determining who's more likely to fuck up.

Not to put too fine a point on it; it's the inexperienced, agressive little oiks in their shitbox fashion statement deathtraps.

One of 'em mouthed off at me for failing to give way to him at the end of a passing lane. Me. In the fully insured work hack. Idiot.

Anyway, if you want to lower the accident rate get the wee darlings off the road until they grow up.


Just getting statistics and data to back up my points some of which were linked in the text but I couldn't be bothered adding it onto here.

Waste of time looking, any data collected from the field has been well corrupted well before you get it. Before it's collected in fact, the reporting tool is usually well bent, so there's no risk of an embarassing result.

[Ocean1]

When you come up with a solution please try to make it practical to apply in real life to all drivers/riders. solutions that require differential application are a no go.

Why? That mandates a set of rules nescessary for the 1% that'll never be safe on the road.

Every one of us represents a very different set of risks on the road, why not legislate accordingly? Graduated licences already exist, where's the problem sticking a few more layers in there?

[GrayWolf]

:facepalm: replace ridiculous with fun and I'm with ya..

you do NOT need 200bhp to have fun on the road... thats just EGO yakking pure and simple..

I can handle it, I am a good rider...... Tui advert!!!!!!

[FJRider]

[COLOR="#139922"]i didn't say drunk. i said with 2000mics breath alcohol. that's probably still a while before i'll be "impaired".



We didn't say drunk either ... we put your impairment down to brain injury. If that is NOT the cause ... please enlighten us ...

[ducatilover]

shouldn't you be out enforcing policy somewhere? i just saw on the news that there's been some crime.
i don't think you or your kind are doing a good enough job.

as the public, your "service" is highly lacking.

But... he's a traffic cop :blink: He's probably doing a great job, however, the issue could be taken to his superiors, tell them Rastus needs to be in a burglary unit or summat?


you do NOT need 200bhp to have fun on the road... thats just EGO yakking pure and simple..

I can handle it, I am a good rider...... Tui advert!!!!!!
Power to weight is the key. 200hp in an FJ Land Cruiser? Probably not as fun as a 200hp Lotus Elise...let alone a 200hp scooter...or skateboard. A DC2 Integra Type R makes bang on 200hp, it's far more amusing than a VS Commodore running an EcoTec, which also makes 200hp. :yes:

But, that's jus' logic.

So, after all the bitching and pointless opinionated bleating in this thread (nice write up SingingChef) why hasn't everyone just agreed, drivers are the issue, training is nigh on non-existent and this is the cause of the problem. What the fuck else could it be?

[Akzle]

If we can precede that with a physical demonstration of yesterday's claim that you can shrug off 10+ Amps of mains electrical shock - you're on... if you'd read further you'd'a learned that skin apparently isn't that conductive and the current was in the order of some hundred millamps. tickled, but.
asides, i never claimed it was more than 10 amps. i said it woulda been less than, on account of the fuse didn't go.
but good deal. i'll let you know when i'm in town.


But... he's a traffic cop :blink:
they still make them? i thought they went out with the mot...
i'm sure it takes a special breed.


speak for yourself FJ (not "we").
it was our mate ^up there who threw the word drunk into the conversation.

[Virago]

if you'd read further you'd'a learned that skin apparently isn't that conductive and the current was in the order of some hundred millamps. tickled, but.

Sigh. Yes, I know - it was me who explained it to you. I also explained that 60mA was more than enough to kill you. On that basis, I'd be happy for you to demonstrate the "some hundred milliamps".


...asides, i never claimed it was more than 10 amps. i said it woulda been less than, on account of the fuse didn't go...

Really?


...i've grounded 240v, as a child of ~10. lasted more than a few seconds before i kicked it off. wouldn't want to do it again, but not fatal. unfortunately didn't have the ammeter on me to check the current but it didn't blow the fuse so not massively more than 10...

But, who knows? Someone who can blow five times the legal alcohol limit and not be even slightly impaired, would likely be impervious to electrickery as well.

That, or full of bullshit and bravado. I'm sure we can work it out...

[Winston001]

People have been having fatal accidents ever since they learned to ride horses. The human body is not constructed to withstand sudden and violent deceleration. The brain bounces around and doesn't like it, and the heart tears off the aorta. Neither are conducive to ongoing life.

The physics are simple: throw a thin bag of fluid against hard objects and it breaks.

Which leaves engineers, road builders, and governments with drawing speed limits which apply across the whole population. And must allow for all types of vehicle.

Thus a thin mountainous island with few taxpayers gets roads where 100kph is safeish but in fact too fast in plenty of places. And numbingly slow in others.

And for those who criticise the quality of our roads check out Australia: they have many roads with only a single lane of asphalt. Bad luck on a bike at 160k if you find a kangaroo or oncoming vehicle.

[Fast Eddie]

you do NOT need 200bhp to have fun on the road... thats just EGO yakking pure and simple..

I can handle it, I am a good rider...... Tui advert!!!!!!

haha relax.. jeez.

and na you don't need it. infact you don't need a lot of things.

but they are nice to have around.. so less complaining.. and more supporting of the fun toys.

500hp cozza anyone?

[GrayWolf]

haha relax.. jeez.

and na you don't need it. infact you don't need a lot of things.

but they are nice to have around.. so less complaining.. and more supporting of the fun toys.

500hp cozza anyone?

PFFFFT... fun toys? you can have fun on sub 100bhp with good torque... Bandit 1250 is a good example, GSX1400, XJR1300, CBR1300.......
MT-01... all fun toys!!!

[Tigadee]

"seatbelts save idots" is probably more apt.

Makes life easier for the St Johns people, don't have to search for your body.

[ducatilover]

PFFFFT... fun toys? you can have fun on sub 100bhp with good torque... Bandit 1250 is a good example, GSX1400, XJR1300, CBR1300.......
MT-01... all fun toys!!!
To each their own though, while I agree with you, some people do enjoy the top end rush of a 4cyl (it is somewhat addictive)
I think I'd be rather happy with however many HP a GB4/500 has, but I'd be even happier with a VTR1000 :innocent:

[GTRMAN]

Sigh. Yes, I know - it was me who explained it to you. I also explained that 60mA was more than enough to kill you. On that basis, I'd be happy for you to demonstrate the "some hundred milliamps".



Really?



But, who knows? Someone who can blow five times the legal alcohol limit and not be even slightly impaired, would likely be impervious to electrickery as well.

That, or full of bullshit and bravado. I'm sure we can work it out...

"Don't wrestle with pigs, you both get dirty and the pig enjoys it" On the up side it would appear that with all the information coming from our esteemed colleague he should be up for a Darwin award any day now....

[Akzle]

"Don't wrestle with pigs, you both get dirty and the pig enjoys it" On the up side it would appear that with all the information coming from our esteemed colleague he should be up for a Darwin award any day now....

i love esteem!
i love awards!
oh the future looks bright eh? :D:D

[Swoop]

the biggest 'killer' here is the roads themselves, gravel, poor construction methods, tight corners with ditches...
Do not forget the amazingly common "wrong camber for the direction of turn". Road designers/builders have mastered that ability.:facepalm:

The best form of safety is alertness, and training, training, training.... did I say training?? THAT is the one area the NZ Govvy seems to have bugger all interest in, advanced driver/rider training.....
I've been saying that for years. Not that any government or agency will ever take notice...

[Blackbird]

The best form of safety is alertness, and training, training, training.... did I say training?? THAT is the one area the NZ Govvy seems to have bugger all interest in, advanced driver/rider training.....

Couldn't agree more but there's a fair bit of hypocrisy among riders too in blaming other road users for their poor skills but not doing anything formal to get their own standards assessed by a competent third party.

Fair comment?

[Kickaha]

probably the biggest 'killer' here is the roads themselves, gravel, poor construction methods, tight corners with ditches , and most roads have a plethora of lethal obstructions and roadside furniture. When compared to motorways in Europe, or A class roads, the highways here are substandard. So to my mind the greatest contributor IS the roads themselves, they leave little (at best) to no room for error at any sort of high speed.

The biggest killer here is the high level of incompetence amongst NZ road users due to the poor level of training and their inabilty to consider themselves anything but a good driver

[Big Dave]

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/RJ6GzJoIQzE?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[tigertim20]

The biggest killer here is the high level of incompetence amongst NZ road users due to the poor level of training and their inabilty to consider themselves anything but a good driver

Ill expand on that.
the biggest killer, is people not recognizing the limitations afforded by our poor quality roads - the roads arent the factor, peoples inability to recognize changes in the road and adapt to the roads we have are.

[scumdog]

The biggest killer here is the high level of incompetence amongst NZ road users due to the poor level of training and their inabilty to consider themselves anything but a good driver


So bloody true - some would be out of their depth in a Reliant Robin on Bonnelville salt flats, they'd still find a way to crash.

The tragic thing is most don't realise the level of their incompetence - even after they have binned by their own hand.

[Muppet]

that may be your bench-mark.
i'll put the challenge to ya tho. if i'm ever in your neck of the woods, i'll have a few bevvys then we can go for a spin eh?

i didn't say drunk. i said with 2000mics breath alcohol. that's probably still a while before i'll be "impaired".

studies have shown (UK one, i'm thinking of) that people are actually "better" drivers after 1-3 "standard drinks". go figuire.
maybe it should be mandatory to have a breath alcohol reading of 100mcg?

shouldn't you be out enforcing policy somewhere? i just saw on the news that there's been some crime.
i don't think you or your kind are doing a good enough job.

as the public, your "service" is highly lacking.

PS, as an agent of a defacto institution that relies on bully-tactics, threats of force and deceit to take the benefits of people's sweat off those people, your view of "credibility" doesn't mean very much.

When you eventually crash, and it will be a beauty cos you'll be speeding as well as being drunk, can you make sure you hit the only tree on the road and not take out anyone else? Cheers!

[caspernz]

So bloody true - some would be out of their depth in a Reliant Robin on Bonnelville salt flats, they'd still find a way to crash.

The tragic thing is most don't realise the level of their incompetence - even after they have binned by their own hand.

Very true!

Mind you, when I brought up last year that I was gonna do some rider refresher training...the chorus of disparaging remarks summed up the notion of "it's someone elses problem, not mine" is alive and well. And this from a group of guys who've got far less experience than myself, and far more accidents under their belts....

Lack of patience is the single biggest problem on our roads, at least in my opinion...

[GTRMAN]

So to summarise,

• Speed is most often a factor but not always the cause of an accident.
• NZ has more than its fair share of poorly designed / maintained roads
• Our driver licensing system turns out poorly trained and over confident drivers
• Too many people think it is fine to operate a motor vehicle after drinking / smoking / shooting up etc.

It would seem that we are all very good at identifying the problems, what are some solutions?

I’ll get the ball rolling (ideas, not personal opinions)...
• If you wish to indulge in your recreational drug of choice then do so, by all means, just leave the keys and your vehicle at home. ZERO tolerance, removes the question of ‘how much is OK?’
• Realise that the road is not a race track, it is not specifically designed to allow you to go as fast as you can with everyone going in the same direction.
Anyone have any other ideas?

[Blackbird]

Take responsibility for raising your own roadcraft skills. Waiting for someone else to do something is a cop-out and hell will probably freeze over first anyway :yes:

[tigertim20]

Very true!

Mind you, when I brought up last year that I was gonna do some rider refresher training...the chorus of disparaging remarks summed up the notion of "it's someone elses problem, not mine" is alive and well. And this from a group of guys who've got far less experience than myself, and far more accidents under their belts....

Lack of patience is the single biggest problem on our roads, at least in my opinion...
but, I have a licence, so, I dont need to learn anything else!!!

So to summarise,

• Speed is most often a factor but not always the cause of an accident.
• NZ has more than its fair share of poorly designed / maintained roads
• Our driver licensing system turns out poorly trained and over confident drivers
• Too many people think it is fine to operate a motor vehicle after drinking / smoking / shooting up etc.

It would seem that we are all very good at identifying the problems, what are some solutions?

I’ll get the ball rolling (ideas, not personal opinions)...
• If you wish to indulge in your recreational drug of choice then do so, by all means, just leave the keys and your vehicle at home. ZERO tolerance, removes the question of ‘how much is OK?’
• Realise that the road is not a race track, it is not specifically designed to allow you to go as fast as you can with everyone going in the same direction.
Anyone have any other ideas?

your summary looks good.
as for solutions, the one regarding tolerance looks good too. Ive seen several tests where they took a group and let them drink steadily, some eating, some not eating. the results were all over the place, several could drink an unreal amount of piss and still pass, others had fuckall, felt 100% and failed it - a ''tolerance" is saying 'Nah, have a couple its ok'. it isnt.

as for the 'road isnt a race track' (and I make this comment to cars as well as bikes) I dont think it has a whole lot to do with wanting to go fast, so much as it has to do with showing off, showing off can de done by going fast, racing, burnouts, stupidly loud music etc etc - that issue (the one of lunacy on the roads) is, IMO, the harder one to find a solution for. How do you stop 16 year old captain spotty face from redlining it past the school to show to the boys because he is full of testosterone, how do you get premature peter to not hang the back of the cefiro out when he's all boned up at that piece of ass from the girls college he just drove past? - thats a deeper issue about changing the general social value base, not just in youth (though they are generally over represented) but also in the older muppets. IMO that kind of stuf (road lunacy) stems from chemical reactions, erections, and sluts with tight arses giving people a boner, or high levels of testosterone when the boys are hanging together and someone is dared to do a 'mean skid bro'

[Scuba_Steve]

So to summarise,

• Speed is ALWAYS a factor but NEVER the cause of an accident.
• NZ has more than its fair share of poorly designed / maintained roads
• Our driver licensing system turns out poorly trained and over confident drivers
• Too many people think it is fine to operate a motor vehicle after drinking / smoking / shooting up etc.

It would seem that we are all very good at identifying the problems, what are some solutions?

I’ll get the ball rolling (ideas, not personal opinions)...
• If you wish to indulge in your recreational drug of choice then do so, by all means, just leave the keys and your vehicle at home. ZERO tolerance, removes the question of ‘how much is OK?’
• Realise that the road is not a race track, it is not specifically designed to allow you to go as fast as you can with everyone going in the same direction.
Anyone have any other ideas?

Zero for booze is just beyond stupid, so I hope that wasn't included in your "drug of choice" solution, but all pre-bottled/canned drinks should come in 1 standard drink per bottle/can & the 4 for guys 2 for chicks message should be pushed, social engineering.
As for other drugs, hard to tolerance without more details as to effects but ones like Coke, P, Speed, etc shouldn't be on the road & probably shouldn't be in the person either

Speed scam should be abolished, we should split traffic & cops again. Traffic would do bad driving speed being a null & cops would do what they should be doing

To get a licence you should have to complete a simulation which would go through multiple aspects of driving including but not limited to hill starts, merges, parallel parking, faulty traffic lights etc. Simulation would be manual gearbox and there would be no human interaction, the computer would decide so no room for, lets call it "human error" for want of a better word.

Bring the roading maintenance back under Govt no 3rd party corporation trying to maximize profit rather than roading properly

There thats my suggestion overview for your summery

[ducatilover]

So to summarise,

• Speed is most often a factor but not always the cause of an accident.


Always a factor, two immobile objects do not collide.
It's the driver's fault.
Ask Katman.

[FJRider]

So to summarise,

• Speed is most often a factor but not always the cause of an accident.
• NZ has more than its fair share of poorly designed / maintained roads
• Our driver licensing system turns out poorly trained and over confident drivers
• Too many people think it is fine to operate a motor vehicle after drinking / smoking / shooting up etc.

It would seem that we are all very good at identifying the problems, what are some solutions?

If speed IS a factor ... it becomes one of the causes. Most accidents are caused by a number of causes. Often ... remove one factor ... and the accident wont (may not) happen. If it still happens ... the likelyhood of less serious injurys may result, the lower the speed at which ... that accident occurs.

Design and build qualitys of New Zealand, roads have nothing to do with the belief of some ... that they can travel on roads like the lower south island west coast ... at the same speed they travel on city motorways (or vice-versa). Same speed limit ... right ... ???

Whatever driver licensing system is used in any country ... it is the vehicle operators usual belief ... that the result of failure to obey any road rules ... may only just result in a financial fine ... or at worst, the loss of their drivers licence. The real cost, is not deaths ... but a long term recovery from injurys. AND long term non-recovery (to full health) injurys.

What people think is OK prior to driving on the roads is not the issue. THEY know the effects ... but they either think those effects never happen with them ... or they just don't give a dam.

Perhaps ... the solution is for people to start ... GIVING A DAM ... !!!

[Akzle]

When you eventually crash, and it will be a beauty cos you'll be speeding as well as being drunk, can you make sure you hit the only tree on the road and not take out anyone else? Cheers!i haven't been drunk this year... probably haven't driven drunk in the last 2. and me crashing is highly unlikely, but i do take your concerns on board.

Zero for booze is just beyond stupid,

...Speed scam should be abolished, we should split traffic & cops again. Traffic would do bad driving speed being a null & cops would do what they should be doing

zero tolerance for booze is a fucking good idea (as far as government policy goes). and really easy to enforce. no "back to the station for evidential testing" - you been drinking, don't fucking drive. how easy is that?

i don't think we could go back to having a seperate transport ministry. but maybe they could lump the cops in with their new superministy. it'd save some $$ on politicians too.

[The Singing Chef]

Some good points that I will incorporate into my piece.

Quickly though, I think that the one thing that the Government needs to do is to get tough, not as much on speeding, but more so on bad driving etc... Push ads etc... on those as well. Thorough and challenging driver training and class room sessions detailing in-depth lessons on being a road user. If some one is at fault in a crash, make them take another course or something of the sort.

More about everything soon, will also ponder over your arguments and draw something up for those as well.

[Akzle]

...not as much on speeding, but more so on bad driving etc... Push ads etc... on those as well. Thorough and challenging driver training and class room sessions detailing in-depth lessons on being a road user. If some one is at fault in a crash, make them take another course or something of the sort.
the "northland freight group' has radio ads that tell people how to drive:
"most single vehicle accidents happen on bends
if you're braking in or through a corner you've got it wrong"
(they also say go 10 below)
and that "all loads handle differently"

these kind of messages should be pushed (unfortunately enforcement is just not profitable)

i think a community awareness website (two run in tandem) bad-driver.org and good-driver.org, where joe public can tell the time, place, and vehicle that he has witnessed driving well/badly (with brief description) then you can log on, check out cars in you area matching your description and see what your neighbors think of ya.
obviously women whinging about, well, pretty much anything, will be screened.

i don't think you have a shitshow of changing anything in govt, let alone a profitable licensing system. the motivation needs to come from the people, how you get the ignorant masses to buy in.... anyone's game.

[Maki]

Zero for booze is just beyond stupid, so I hope that wasn't included in your "drug of choice" solution, but all pre-bottled/canned drinks should come in 1 standard drink per bottle/can & the 4 for guys 2 for chicks message should be pushed, social engineering.
As for other drugs, hard to tolerance without more details as to effects but ones like Coke, P, Speed, etc shouldn't be on the road & probably shouldn't be in the person either

Speed scam should be abolished, we should split traffic & cops again. Traffic would do bad driving speed being a null & cops would do what they should be doing

To get a licence you should have to complete a simulation which would go through multiple aspects of driving including but not limited to hill starts, merges, parallel parking, faulty traffic lights etc. Simulation would be manual gearbox and there would be no human interaction, the computer would decide so no room for, lets call it "human error" for want of a better word.

Bring the roading maintenance back under Govt no 3rd party corporation trying to maximize profit rather than roading properly

There thats my suggestion overview for your summery

The simulation is a great idea, but what would happen to the nazi testers who fail people when they find one dog hair in the car seat? They would have to get a real job, booo hooo.

Do any statistics exist regarding the cause of traffic accidents in New Zealand? If not, someone is not doing their job. If these statistics do not exist then how do we know what is the cause of fatal crashes? I think the main cause is Bogans but I don't know because I don't have the stats.

I do know that speed sometimes saves lives. They used to have no speed limits in parts of northern Australia. As soon as they imposed limits and POLICE started enforcing them fatal accidents increased. Why? Because drivers drove slower and stopped paying as much attention.

[GTRMAN]

Zero for booze is just beyond stupid, so I hope that wasn't included in your "drug of choice" solution, but all pre-bottled/canned drinks should come in 1 standard drink per bottle/can & the 4 for guys 2 for chicks message should be pushed, social engineering.
As for other drugs, hard to tolerance without more details as to effects but ones like Coke, P, Speed, etc shouldn't be on the road & probably shouldn't be in the person either

Speed scam should be abolished, we should split traffic & cops again. Traffic would do bad driving speed being a null & cops would do what they should be doing

To get a licence you should have to complete a simulation which would go through multiple aspects of driving including but not limited to hill starts, merges, parallel parking, faulty traffic lights etc. Simulation would be manual gearbox and there would be no human interaction, the computer would decide so no room for, lets call it "human error" for want of a better word.

Bring the roading maintenance back under Govt no 3rd party corporation trying to maximize profit rather than roading properly

There thats my suggestion overview for your summery

Why is zero tolerance for booze beyond stupid?

[Scuba_Steve]

Why is zero tolerance for booze beyond stupid?

1stly it's been shown that 1-2 drinks improves driving in most people.
but more importantly you would appreciate 6mths no driving & 800$ fine for having a bundagerg ginger beer or lemon & lime bitters, some cough syurp or even just that banana thats been sitting in the sun would you???
The problem isn't those staying under the limit, the problem are those 2, 3, 4x the limit. Lowering the limit isn't going to magically stop them, incase you hadn't picked up on it yet they're already over the current limit. All zero would do is screw over the rest of us & make another huge money grab for the Govt.
If you wanna be prosecuted every time you have a Bundaberg & drive Just send me 800$ every time you do it. That way you get what you want, I get money, & everyone else isn't screwed by the Govt for more money from effectively what will be another scam. It's a win, win, win :2thumbsup

[GTRMAN]

1stly it's been shown that 1-2 drinks improves driving in most people.
but more importantly you would appreciate 6mths no driving & 800$ fine for having a bundagerg ginger beer or lemon & lime bitters, some cough syurp or even just that banana thats been sitting in the sun would you???
The problem isn't those staying under the limit, the problem are those 2, 3, 4x the limit. Lowering the limit isn't going to magically stop them, incase you hadn't picked up on it yet they're already over the current limit. All zero would do is screw over the rest of us & make another huge money grab for the Govt.
If you wanna be prosecuted every time you have a Bundaberg & drive Just send me 800$ every time you do it. That way you get what you want, I get money, & everyone else isn't screwed by the Govt for more money from effectively what will be another scam. It's a win, win, win :2thumbsup


Where has it been shown? Lots of people trucking out this viewpoint but no link to any published studies...

[FJRider]

1stly it's been shown that 1-2 drinks improves driving in most people.


It was actually shown that drivers, after having a few drinks, drove with fewer inhibitions, less thought to possible outcomes .... and with more confidence in their decision making. Not necessarily though ... better decision making ... than they would ... sober.

[Scuba_Steve]

Where has it been shown? Lots of people trucking out this viewpoint but no link to any published studies...

It was a UK study I think? (somewhere in Euro anyways) I saw it in paper form (might have been that science mag?).

It wasn't straight "drinking makes you a better driver". But what it came down to was, a couple of drinks wasn't enough to inhibit your driving ability (lets face it driving isn't exactly genius territory, tho with the amount that can't do it you'd think it was) but it did relax the drivers so when they went through the random SURPRISE obstacle driving simulation they avoided the obstacle rather than panicking & hitting it or sending the vehicle outta control like they did when sober.

I'll go on the search & see if I can find it for you.

[Conquiztador]

"Speeding, is it the real issue?"

No.

[Winston001]

"Speeding, is it the real issue?"

No.

I suppose we could argue the core issue is brutal bodily harm and at the extreme, death. Caused by people using motor vehicles. So speed is merely one element.

That's not much help to the parents of a 5 yr old killed by a 40kph car outside a school.

Our car's and bike's power far exceed the margins of our streets and roads. But more crucially, our abilities as human beings are primitive in the microseconds when reactions are required. We aren't up to it.

Many posts here talk about bad driving, low skills, inexperience etc. Yet the reality is the only way to learn these skills is to spend hours and years driving in all sorts of weather and conditions. And that can't happen without mistakes. Sad awful tragic mistakes on rare occasions.

So...the one simple control to limit those mistakes is to restrict speed. It is easy to understand and easy to enforce. The slower you go the more time you have to react.

[Virago]

...Many posts here talk about bad driving, low skills, inexperience etc. Yet the reality is the only way to learn these skills is to spend hours and years driving in all sorts of weather and conditions. And that can't happen without mistakes. Sad awful tragic mistakes on rare occasions]...

Putting on my Old Fart's hat, I reckon it's all but impossible to convince many young 'uns of that. They're shit hot, ten foot tall, and bullet proof. They've got the skills, borne out by how fast they can go - they can drift a car, or get their knee down on a bike. It takes old age to realise that true road skill comes from restraint and wider situational awareness... - ...and why am I wasting by breath. I was young once - sigh.

Sadly, there's no perfect driver. The years of improving road-craft invariably meet the senility coming the other direction...:laugh:


...So...the one simple control to limit those mistakes is to restrict speed. It is easy to understand and easy to enforce. The slower you go the more time you have to react.

And that's it in a nutshell. Not only greater reaction time, but statistically less dire consequences if you do crash.

[Scuba_Steve]

So...the one simple control to limit those mistakes is to restrict speed. It is easy to understand and easy to enforce. The slower you go the more time you have to react.

theoretically but it's been shown not only that most people self limit when given the chance but also restricted speed limits increase the chance of an accident/death.
1 because focusing on a speedo isn't safe in any way shape or form, & 2 because people start to "daydream" at slower speeds, especially those ones being rolled out now that are well below sensible & even the slowest drivers are starting to exceed. Remember over 80% of deaths are below the speed limit

[GTRMAN]

theoretically but it's been shown not only that most people self limit when given the chance but also restricted speed limits increase the chance of an accident/death.
1 because focusing on a speedo isn't safe in any way shape or form, & 2 because people start to "daydream" at slower speeds, especially those ones being rolled out now that are well below sensible & even the slowest drivers are starting to exceed. Remember over 80% of deaths are below the speed limit

Where has it been shown?


1stly it's been shown that 1-2 drinks improves driving in most people.
but more importantly you would appreciate 6mths no driving & 800$ fine for having a bundagerg ginger beer or lemon & lime bitters, some cough syurp or even just that banana thats been sitting in the sun would you???
The problem isn't those staying under the limit, the problem are those 2, 3, 4x the limit. Lowering the limit isn't going to magically stop them, incase you hadn't picked up on it yet they're already over the current limit. All zero would do is screw over the rest of us & make another huge money grab for the Govt.
If you wanna be prosecuted every time you have a Bundaberg & drive Just send me 800$ every time you do it. That way you get what you want, I get money, & everyone else isn't screwed by the Govt for more money from effectively what will be another scam. It's a win, win, win :2thumbsup


It was a UK study I think? (somewhere in Euro anyways) I saw it in paper form (might have been that science mag?).

It wasn't straight "drinking makes you a better driver". But what it came down to was, a couple of drinks wasn't enough to inhibit your driving ability (lets face it driving isn't exactly genius territory, tho with the amount that can't do it you'd think it was) but it did relax the drivers so when they went through the random SURPRISE obstacle driving simulation they avoided the obstacle rather than panicking & hitting it or sending the vehicle outta control like they did when sober.

I'll go on the search & see if I can find it for you.

Again, where has it been shown?

Without showing the evidence of these ideas it reads a bit like "It's been shown that a couple of drinks makes you a better driver - Therefore I can drink and ride" "It's been shown that riding under the limit makes you daydream and lose concentration - Therefore I can go as fast as I want because I am more engaged in the activity at the time"

Not attacking you personally Steve but in an informed debate you have to be able to back up your statements

[GTRMAN]

Effects of Raising and Lowering Speed Limits - http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html

SPEED KILLS - OR DOES IT? - http://www.investigatemagazine.com/july00speed.htm this might be the article you are thinking of Steve

European Commission, Directorate-General Transport and Energy Study on speed - http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/specialist/knowledge/pdf/speeding.pdf

[Scuba_Steve]

Where has it been shown?

Again, where has it been shown?

Without showing the evidence of these ideas it reads a bit like "It's been shown that a couple of drinks makes you a better driver - Therefore I can drink and ride" "It's been shown that riding under the limit makes you daydream and lose concentration - Therefore I can go as fast as I want because I am more engaged in the activity at the time"

Not attacking you personally Steve but in an informed debate you have to be able to back up your statements

these are all from independent studies, not manipulated statistics (which still fail to show speed as a problem)
If you want to test the speed one just go out & watch you speedo, see how safe it is, or sit behind that car doing 80 & tell me you're mind doesn't start to "drift" making you have to force yourself to concentrate due to the numbingly slow speed your stuck at.

I'm still trying to find that "couple drinks" study but like I mentioned I saw it in paperback & due to it's nature I'm not likely to find it on many if any "official channels" it's not the kind of study Govts & lobby groups champion.

Also don't get hung up on the word "better" I probably could have used a better word there.
The couple of drinks didn't magically improve their driving skill as per say, but it also didn't decrease it, that remained the same. All the couple drinks did was when the random surprise was thrown at them in the simulation, they didn't panic they remained calm & avoided disaster something they failed to do when fully sober.
So there was no detrimental effects (as far as driving went) to a couple drinks but there was a positive effect should something go wrong while driving

[scumdog]

these are all from independent studies, not manipulated statistics (which still fail to show speed as a problem)
If you want to test the speed one just go out & watch you speedo, see how safe it is, or sit behind that car doing 80 & tell me you're mind doesn't start to "drift" making you have to force yourself to concentrate due to the numbingly slow speed your stuck at.


The couple of drinks didn't magically improve their driving skill as per say, but it also didn't decrease it, that remained the same. All the couple drinks did was when the random surprise was thrown at them in the simulation, they didn't panic they remained calm & avoided disaster something they failed to do when fully sober.


I find I can go for yonks without glanceing at my speedo and rarely do I find myself changing speed by much, you get a 'feel' after a bit of what your speed is.

And substantiate what a couple of drinks consists of??

Sure, one or two glasses might not adversely affect your ability to drive - that's why there's a 'breath/blood alcohol limit'

BTW: Funny how the guys I 'meet' that have an EBA reading of 783 or 1072 etc invariably tell me they have only had 'a couple of drinks'!:laugh:

[FJRider]

Also don't get hung up on the word "better" I probably could have used a better word there.
The couple of drinks didn't magically improve their driving skill as per say, but it also didn't decrease it, that remained the same. All the couple drinks did was when the random surprise was thrown at them in the simulation, they didn't panic they remained calm & avoided disaster something they failed to do when fully sober.
So there was no detrimental effects (as far as driving went) to a couple drinks but there was a positive effect should something go wrong while driving

What better word could be better ... than better ... ??? :laugh:

What people also forget ... booze slows your reaction times down. Travelling at 100 km/hr ... you cover around 28 metres distance a second. Even with a good reaction speed sober ... with a few drinks, you could cover that distance before you even make a decision ... to do something. Another half second before something starts to happen (be it directional change or slowing).

A half second is another 14 metres closer to the object you may end up hitting. And that is not taking into account that the object may be travelling at the same speed towards you. Their reaction times may not be as great as yours though .... (although you might hope better than yours)

[Scuba_Steve]

I find I can go for yonks without glanceing at my speedo and rarely do I find myself changing speed by much, you get a 'feel' after a bit of what your speed is.

And substantiate what a couple of drinks consists of??

Sure, one or two glasses might not adversely affect your ability to drive - that's why there's a 'breath/blood alcohol limit'

BTW: Funny how the guys I 'meet' that have an EBA reading of 783 or 1072 etc invariably tell me they have only had 'a couple of drinks'!:laugh:

Yea it's not you clientele's "couple of drinks" (tho they may be telling the truth just not using the standards scale) this was couple of standard drinks & again not your clientele's "standard". Which if I was right & this was UK study, does mean the couple of drinks was a total of 20ml pure alcohol contained within as against the 25.4ml it would be here.

[Berries]

The slower you go the more time you have to react.
I don't think that is going to be catchy enough for the next advertising campaign somehow.

[Akzle]

BTW: Funny how the guys I 'meet' that have an EBA reading of 783 or 1072 etc invariably tell me they have only had 'a couple of drinks'!:laugh:
i'm guessing you're a patched up blue-gang member.

it's not funny. when you forcibly detain people with the implied threat of incarceration, monetary penalties and general "i'm paid with your money to fuck you aroundery", they're hardly going to roll up and say "ohyup, i'm pissed ossifer, btw there's a dead hooker in the boot and my concaine stash under the seat."
because saying that is only slightly stupider than willingly providing the evidence that you're going to use against them in the next breath, so to speak.

FWIW the alcohol vs driving ability study i saw was televised some years ago, there was debate as to whether it was directly linked to the booze or whether it was "I've been drinking so i better drive real good so no-one thinks i've been drinking"

the other thing, and i think statistics do back this up, is that drunk people in crashes suffer less injuries, because they're more relaxed, so at the time of impact their muscles aren't locked up and they just "go with the flow", resulting in less injuries.

[scumdog]

i'm guessing you're a patched up blue-gang member.

it's not funny. when you forcibly detain people with the implied threat of incarceration, monetary penalties and general "i'm paid with your money to fuck you aroundery", they're hardly going to roll up and say "ohyup, i'm pissed ossifer, btw there's a dead hooker in the boot and my concaine stash under the seat."
because saying that is only slightly stupider than willingly providing the evidence that you're going to use against them in the next breath, so to speak.

FWIW the alcohol vs driving ability study i saw was televised some years ago, there was debate as to whether it was directly linked to the booze or whether it was "I've been drinking so i better drive real good so no-one thinks i've been drinking"

the other thing, and i think statistics do back this up, is that drunk people in crashes suffer less injuries, because they're more relaxed, so at the time of impact their muscles aren't locked up and they just "go with the flow", resulting in less injuries.



Wa-wa-fuckin' wa, cue cracked gramaphone record....



After long consideration of what should be the appropriate response to the above post I settled on this one.





Fuck off...........

[Kickaha]

After long consideration of what should be the appropriate response to the above post I settled on this one.


Fuck off...........

Ah fuck, he's on whiskey again

[scumdog]

Ah fuck, he's on whiskey again

Hell no, I'm too mellow for that right now!

But I think I'll have one now, maybe a Speyburn:msn-wink:

[oneofsix]

I suppose we could argue the core issue is brutal bodily harm and at the extreme, death. Caused by people using motor vehicles. So speed is merely one element.

That's not much help to the parents of a 5 yr old killed by a 40kph car outside a school.

Our car's and bike's power far exceed the margins of our streets and roads. But more crucially, our abilities as human beings are primitive in the microseconds when reactions are required. We aren't up to it.

Many posts here talk about bad driving, low skills, inexperience etc. Yet the reality is the only way to learn these skills is to spend hours and years driving in all sorts of weather and conditions. And that can't happen without mistakes. Sad awful tragic mistakes on rare occasions.

So...the one simple control to limit those mistakes is to restrict speed. It is easy to understand and easy to enforce. The slower you go the more time you have to react.

Sounds fair and reasonable doesn't it? Some good points made but just a thought. The speed limit didn't help the 5 year old in the example, perhaps it even harmed him because the driver was driving to the limit and not the conditions. Around this place everything is so limited, below what the roads and conditions suit, that drivers stop thinking for themselves, and stop noticing the dangers for themselves.

[Berries]

The speed limit didn't help the 5 year old in the example, perhaps it even harmed him because the driver was driving to the limit and not the conditions.
Not a great example. How many five year olds have survived after being hit outside school by a vehicle travelling at 40km/h rather than would have died having been hit by someone going at the previous 50km/h speed limit? And what conditions would have you driving/riding below 40km/h anyway?

Of more interest I wonder how many crashes have been caused by the adoption of the 100km/h speed limit signs rather than the old black stripe on a white circle? I would suggest lots, but something we will never know.

[Ocean1]

Of more interest I wonder how many crashes have been caused by the adoption of the 100km/h speed limit signs rather than the old black stripe on a white circle? I would suggest lots, but something we will never know.

LSZ sign. Didn't mean the same thing.

In fact iirc in it's original incarnation it meant "something less than flat out, 'cause there's a bit of gravel here an' there, we can trust ypu to do that, can't we?"



Spot the problem for today's constabulary?

[Muppet]

I find I can go for yonks without glanceing at my speedo and rarely do I find myself changing speed by much, you get a 'feel' after a bit of what your speed is.

And substantiate what a couple of drinks consists of??

Sure, one or two glasses might not adversely affect your ability to drive - that's why there's a 'breath/blood alcohol limit'

BTW: Funny how the guys I 'meet' that have an EBA reading of 783 or 1072 etc invariably tell me they have only had 'a couple of drinks'!:laugh:

Yes, specifically I get told "But I've only had two beers". It looks even funnier in court when the summary is read to the Judge ie:

"Defendant underwent an Evidential Breath Test which gave a positive result of 982 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath.

Defendant stated to Police he'd had only two beers.":killingme

Usually at this point you see the Judge, Registrar and Court Clerk sniggering away.

[Kickaha]

Defendant stated to Police he'd had only two beers.":killingme

Lady on the police program the other night had only had one bottle, bottle of what was asked, vodka was the reply

[Ender EnZed]

LSZ sign. Didn't mean the same thing.

In fact iirc in it's original incarnation it meant "something less than flat out, 'cause there's a bit of gravel here an' there, we can trust ypu to do that, can't we?"



Spot the problem for today's constabulary?

According to the Road Code book, the LSZ sign means the same as a 100 sign unless:

- the weather is bad
- visibility is poor
- there are people, animals, cyclists or lots of vehicles on the road
- the road is in poor condition

If any of the above is true then the limit is 50km/h.

I'm pretty sure almost no one knows what it means so there'd be some good lulz for a cop on a rainy day.

[FJRider]

LSZ sign. Didn't mean the same thing.



A black diagonal stripe on a white background sign, was an "open road speed zone" ... in the times when the open road speed limit changed often.

Limited speed zone signs had these very words on the sign.

[Berries]

Nah, I didn't mean the LSZ sign, of which there are none now anyway. I meant the old derestriction sign, white circle with a black stripe through it, you still see them around although not on the state highways. It means exactly the same as the 100km/h sign, ie the speed limit is 100km/h, but I have always felt that there is an implied difference between the two. One says the national speed limit applies, which happens to be 100km/h, the other says that the speed limit is 100km/h. Put yourself in the shoes of a visitor to these shores and I suspect they see a sign that says 100 and so they go 100 with no other thought because they are told they can do 100.

This is supported by MOTSAM which for some reason on this matter NZTA don't follow - RG-2 signs (the ones with the 100 on them) are preferred and should be installed in situations where the alignment and nature of the road in the vicinity of the sign generally permits safe travel speeds of 100 km/h. Where this is not possible RG-2.1 signs (the one with the black stripe) may be used.

[FJRider]

Lady on the police program the other night had only had one bottle, bottle of what was asked, vodka was the reply

Methinks ... that lady was no lady ... :lol:

[Ocean1]

Nah, I didn't mean the LSZ sign, of which there are none now anyway. I meant the old derestriction sign, white circle with a black stripe through it, you still see them around although not on the state highways. [/B]

Quite right. As you were.

[Scuba_Steve]

Yes, specifically I get told "But I've only had two beers". It looks even funnier in court when the summary is read to the Judge ie:

"Defendant underwent an Evidential Breath Test which gave a positive result of 982 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath.

Defendant stated to Police he'd had only two beers.":killingme

Usually at this point you see the Judge, Registrar and Court Clerk sniggering away.

whose to say those "2 beers" weren't jugs of Schorschbräu Schorschbock 57% finis coronat opus :Pokey:


(& yes the 57% is it's alc content 57.7% to be exact)

[The Singing Chef]

I find I can go for yonks without glanceing at my speedo

Haha yea but you don't have to worry about getting nabbed by La Policia. :shifty:

[scumdog]

Haha yea but you don't have to worry about getting nabbed by La Policia. :shifty:
Explain to me why??:confused:

[The Singing Chef]

Explain to me why??:confused:

Heard a few stories from mates in the force not getting ticketed by their mates also in the force.

[tigertim20]

Heard a few stories from mates in the force not getting ticketed by their mates also in the force.

a recent story in the news of a low level officer nabbing a high power cop for minor traffic infringements appears to suggest your friends in the force are pulling your tits.

[Shesti]

Now, I come from Europe, and I can say that infrastructure and speed are NOT the causes of people here crashing. It's simple - people here just can't drive. They are pampered by government laws, it's too easy to get the license, and speed limits make people mediocre. That is also THE ONLY reason for traffic jams in Auckland - people just don't know how to drive.
I was present when a guy got his motorcycle license without obviously being able to control his bike.
My friend is a taxi driver here, and he gets calls on a regular basis from people who just ask him to park their car?!?
You are not thought how to change lanes and include in traffic - instead of increasing the speed and keeping with the traffic - people here slow down and expect someone to brake and let them change lanes.
There are many examples - who's been driving in any European country knows what I mean.

Other things I've noticed:

I've seen much worse roads - and people driving much faster safely on them without problems.

Automatic transmission makes idiots of drivers - there's no way you can properly learn to drive unless driving manual.

100 kph speed limit is ridiculous. If that is normal - cars & bikes that go over 200 wouldn't be made.

In Germany there are Autobahns where there's no speed limit - and crash rate on them is above 50% less than on regular Autobahns. You drive much more careful when you know that someone can fly by you driving 250 or more (oh, yeah, driving slow in the right lane on motorway and not moving to the left when someone behind you is approaching faster is one of the things NZ drivers also do).
There was an experiment in America (I don't remember, Nevada or Arizona or something) where they've taken off speed limit from one portion of highway. For that portion - rate of crashes decreased 70%. As soon as they returned speed limit on - the crash rate got back to same again.

Speed limits in NZ are too low, and drivers are really bad. Investing in drivers education and raising the standards for issuing someone a drivers license - with a more practise driving oriented test, where driver actually proves that he/she is able to control the vehicle would do much more than limiting speed. All the crashes I've seen here are caused by the people that doesn't know how to control their vehicle. I haven't seen such rate of bad drives anywhere in the world, and believe me - I've been places :) In fact - I've been shocked seeing how people (cannot) drive here.

There's much to that, and personal responsibility and knowing your capabilities - never drive beyond them...but - if you never go near the border - you'll never improve...

[Akzle]

Wa-wa-fuckin' wa, cue cracked gramaphone record....



After long consideration of what should be the appropriate response to the above post I settled on this one.





Fuck off...........
na you :bleh:


Now, I come from Europe, and I can say that infrastructure and speed are NOT the causes of people here crashing. It's simple - people here just can't drive. They are pampered by government laws, it's too easy to get the license, and speed limits make people mediocre. That is also THE ONLY reason for traffic jams in Auckland - people just don't know how to drive.
I was present when a guy got his motorcycle license without obviously being able to control his bike.
My friend is a taxi driver here, and he gets calls on a regular basis from people who just ask him to park their car?!?
You are not thought how to change lanes and include in traffic - instead of increasing the speed and keeping with the traffic - people here slow down and expect someone to brake and let them change lanes.
There are many examples - who's been driving in any European country knows what I mean.

Other things I've noticed:

I've seen much worse roads - and people driving much faster safely on them without problems.

Automatic transmission makes idiots of drivers - there's no way you can properly learn to drive unless driving manual.

100 kph speed limit is ridiculous. If that is normal - cars & bikes that go over 200 wouldn't be made.

In Germany there are Autobahns where there's no speed limit - and crash rate on them is above 50% less than on regular Autobahns. You drive much more careful when you know that someone can fly by you driving 250 or more (oh, yeah, driving slow in the right lane on motorway and not moving to the left when someone behind you is approaching faster is one of the things NZ drivers also do).
There was an experiment in America (I don't remember, Nevada or Arizona or something) where they've taken off speed limit from one portion of highway. For that portion - rate of crashes decreased 70%. As soon as they returned speed limit on - the crash rate got back to same again.

Speed limits in NZ are too low, and drivers are really bad. Investing in drivers education and raising the standards for issuing someone a drivers license - with a more practise driving oriented test, where driver actually proves that he/she is able to control the vehicle would do much more than limiting speed. All the crashes I've seen here are caused by the people that doesn't know how to control their vehicle. I haven't seen such rate of bad drives anywhere in the world, and believe me - I've been places :) In fact - I've been shocked seeing how people (cannot) drive here.

There's much to that, and personal responsibility and knowing your capabilities - never drive beyond them...but - if you never go near the border - you'll never improve...

despite the poor engrish - i completely agree with you.

[Shesti]

na you :bleh:



despite the poor engrish - i completely agree with you.

:D Yeah... but considering I speak 5 languages and I'm only 2 years in New Zealand - it's not so bad :)
Anyway, this is not a language & grammar - but motorcycle forum, and I've seen English speaking people that spell worse than me ;)

It's important that you clearly understand what I'm saying :)

Cheers

[FJRider]

Speed limits in NZ are too low, and drivers are really bad.

So .... in a country where you believe all the drivers are really bad (How long did you need to spend touring the country to find this out ... or have you only been to auckland ??) and you want the speed limit raised ... ??? :wacko:

[Shesti]

So .... in a country where you believe all the drivers are really bad (How long did you need to spend touring the country to find this out ... or have you only been to auckland ??) and you want the speed limit raised ... ??? :wacko:

I just gave you an example and statistics about removing speed limit completely...and of course, you seem to read selectively, 'cause you missed the part with raising the standards for getting license and investing in education of drivers...
Anyway - do you see anywhere in my post where I suggest raising the limit? Everything I said stands - 100 km/h IS ridiculous (and New Zealand is one of the few countries in the world that has speed limits so low - hmm, I wonder what are the rest of the few... :) ), people here CANNOT drive, and I've SEEN people driving faster completely safe on worse roads - if you want to know what I'm talking about - go to Italy, Greece, Turkey... all the Southern Europe, France, not to mention Germany, Austria... Do you know what's the procedure of getting license in any of these countries?

So first things first - and don't put the words in my mouth :)

[Berries]

I'm English and have driven throughout Europe and agree with most of what you say. Most of all I like your attitude, that will go down well on KB.


Anyway, this is not a language & grammar - but motorcycle forum
You'll learn.

[FJRider]

I just gave you an example and statistics about removing speed limit completely...and of course, you seem to read selectively, 'cause you missed the part with raising the standards for getting license and investing in education of drivers...

And I asked a question as to where you noticed these bad drivers you found ... and told us of in your post (the one I quoted from) and no reply.
If you are worried about the standard of driving in auckland ... either go back to europe where (by your admission) driving standards are so great .... try a different part of our country ... or go home.

But you seem to prefer here ... WHY ... ???


Anyway - do you see anywhere in my post where I suggest raising the limit? Everything I said stands - 100 km/h IS ridiculous (and New Zealand is one of the few countries in the world that has speed limits so low - hmm, I wonder what are the rest of the few... :) ), people here CANNOT drive, and I've SEEN people driving faster completely safe on worse roads - if you want to know what I'm talking about - go to Italy, Greece, Turkey... all the Southern Europe, France, not to mention Germany, Austria... Do you know what's the procedure of getting license in any of these countries?

So ... you think the speed limit is too low, the drivers are all bad, and you aren't in favour of raising the speed limit ... ???

If your experience of New Zealand drivers are solely based around auckland ... I suggest you look farther the the bombay hill ... (you've probably not been past there either)




So first things first - and don't put the words in my mouth :)



The words I quoted were yours. I believe the questions were fair.

[Scuba_Steve]

using the speed argument with bad drivers is a moot argument. These drivers are bad regardless of speed (& usually well below current limits). Lest we go to a 30km/h maximum the speed argument is effectively null & void, it is simply a red herring.

[FJRider]

using the speed argument with bad drivers is a moot argument. These drivers are bad regardless of speed (& usually well below current limits). Lest we go to a 30km/h maximum the speed argument is effectively null & void, it is simply a red herring.

Logic is not allowed in KB arguements ... bullshit, heresay and good old-fashioned opinion rules ... ok ???

[Shesti]

And I asked a question as to where you noticed these bad drivers you found ... and told us of in your post (the one I quoted from) and no reply.
If you are worried about the standard of driving in auckland ... either go back to europe where (by your admission) driving standards are so great .... try a different part of our country ... or go home.

But you seem to prefer here ... WHY ... ???

So ... you think the speed limit is too low, the drivers are all bad, and you aren't in favour of raising the speed limit ... ???

If your experience of New Zealand drivers are solely based around auckland ... I suggest you look farther the the bombay hill ... (you've probably not been past there either)

The words I quoted were yours. I believe the questions were fair.

Dude...you have some serious issues :D :D :D ... I recognize the type of person that won't be satisfied with any explanation given... The only one making assumptions here is you :) - I gave you facts, and a suggestion how the situation can be really improved - based on working models from another countries.

That "go home" part was really ugly :D :D :D

Anyway, I give up, hanging on forums and trying to explain something to people that are there just to feed their own frustrations was never actually my thing - I prefer riding :)

So - up on one of my bikes - and will leave you to comment this further :D :D :D

Cheers :)

[Shesti]

I'm English and have driven throughout Europe and agree with most of what you say. Most of all I like your attitude, that will go down well on KB.


You'll learn.

I see now what you've meant :)

Thanks, Cheers :)

[baffa]

Good points Shesti, dont worry about the trolls.

I have lived in NZ all my life, and I have to say, we are shockingly shit drivers.
Driving round in countries like Ireland, Uk, and France, you see the difference.
Even in Paris where people drive like they have a death wish, they are aware of their surroundings, dont hold up other drivers unnecessarily, and park neatly and efficiently.

If it was down to me, everyone would have one year to resit a new much tougher drivers license including skid pan work, high and low speed defensive driving, and of course road rules testing, in a manual. And you have to resit this test every 5 years.

Too many people who got their license 20+ years ago beleive they are accomplished drivers. Very few are.

[Indoo]

and I've SEEN people driving faster completely safe on worse roads - if you want to know what I'm talking about - go to Italy, Greece, Turkey... all the Southern Europe, France, not to mention Germany, Austria... Do you know what's the procedure of getting license in any of these countries?

And yet all those countries with the exception of Germany have a higher fatality rate per vehicle than we do.

[CRM]

I haven't read all of this but there are some interesting points for sure. I love it when I get in parts of the country where it's about riding to the conditions rather than to a speed limit - I'm sure whenever it's all about watching the speedo we don't ride as well - it's certainly not as enjoyable. Speed is simple to measure and enforce but as has been stated over and over again speed is a very poor measure of the likelihood of causing or being part of an accident. I'm not advocating crazy speeds by the way - just riding safely and appropriately for your skills and the conditions :baby:.

My second point is about the obsession that the authorities have with "fixing" our roads. There is a LOLCAT meme with a cat sitting on a keyboard with the caption "If it's not for sits then why is it made of warm?" We could say the same about our roads: "If its not for fasts why is it made of smooth?" Making corners "safer" just means we want to challenge that corner and our own skills by taking it faster. Yes there are dangerous bits of road that need fixing - but roads that follow natural contours are more fun to ride, more attractive and less impacting on the landscape - plus you don't go as fast as you can on our 100km/h "autobahns" :eek5:.

Thirdly - what about a bit of self-policing? Sometimes I see drivers or riders doing crazy dangerous stuff without any regard to the safety of others. Maybe the *555 thing could be extended and encouraged so that actually dangerous behaviour (not speed as such but actual danger) could be reported and logged and actually dangerous people be sent off for re-programming ;).