Speed tolerance reduced for December and January

[R650R]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11180340

Once again showing that the average NZ Herald reader is fucking clueless and shouldn't be allowed on the roads. The very fact that people are unwilling to do or exceed the 100kph limit in the fast lane demonstrates that they have no idea why motorway fast lanes exist in the first place :brick:

I really shouldn't be surprised if this 'trial' becomes regular practice. Maybe I'll just up and move to a less transport-fucktarded country:angry:

That's a bit rough on Herald readers... What it really is says is that two thirds or respondants know that in a fatal crash the police will delve deeply into their personal life and find this snippet of data in their online history that might keep them out of jail. I hate the way these online polls are worded too, often their biased from the start and their isn't much choice amongst the options.
A good example of how much our 'news' is actually biased opinion pieces rather than equally factual reporting from opposing camps.
BTW the motorway 'fastlane' is an urban myth from the days when the freshly built infrastructure was operating below capacity. The fastlane now is the safety lane for people who cant drive, they sit their up against that big concrete safety blanket thinking they can control the flow of traffic and only get hit from one side, and boy are they wrong! There should be a law that covers "Failing to drive like the other 85% do" which would also cover people like the zoo animal I was following yesterday near town who obviously couldn't afford the petrol for his shiney v8 commodore and had to idle everywhere holding up traffic.
While some motorists dream of being racers it seems being the pace car driver is equally fantasised about LOL...

[R650R]

And to add to that http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/9570923/Van-full-of-people-goes-over-bank
You'll see a link to some dangerous roads blog. Plenty of people here will have travelled SH5 enough to read that the quoted description is a total joke!
Went to the blog to comment as others had and it seems to be crashing with the traffic.

[Mo NZ]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11180340

I really shouldn't be surprised if this 'trial' becomes regular practice.

That was always going to happen. The short period was the thin edge of the wedge.

[bluninja]

That was always going to happen. The short period was the thin edge of the wedge.

Well I looked at the current online poll stats (4500 respondents) and it seemed that there were 56% didn't want a 4 kmh tolerance all year round. Interesting spin though.....

"The poll showed that two-thirds of respondents felt that the policy was fair because it was about safety"

[scumdog]

Bring back the open road speed limit of 80kph - then give 'em a 15kph tolerance.

THAT would keep everybody happy eh!;)

[R650R]

Bring back the open road speed limit of 80kph - then give 'em a 15kph tolerance.

THAT would keep everybody happy eh!;)

Yep long as we have all the other 80's stuff to make it legit, like MK4 cortinas for the cops, no speed cameras, no random wof and rego checks masquerading as drink drive checkpoints, double figure rego fees, leaded petrol, cross ply tyres and mullet haircuts... :)

[Ocean1]

Bring back the open road speed limit of 80kph - then give 'em a 15kph tolerance.

THAT would keep everybody happy eh!;)

Nah. Bring back the 60mph limit with a tolerance that accommodates most instrumentation error and you might get some traction.

When you do I'll be almost legal. Mostly.

[Angel_of_Metal]

BTW the motorway 'fastlane' is an urban myth from the days when the freshly built infrastructure was operating below capacity.

Not true, The autobahns in Germany show quite well that there is a 'fastlane'. Outside of the cities in the areas where the speed is unlimited there are qutie often signs showing 'minimum speeds' for each individual lane, with the third/outermost lane being the highest minimum speed (iirc being 180kph), and the other two lanes being proportionally lower :)

Although that was interesting to read about that part about people assuming they were protected having a wall on one side rather than another lane. I've never thought of that before and you are quite right in saying that that doesn't necessarily mean greater safety at all

[Mo NZ]

I think the real and unspoken gain comes about from more driver attention or vigilance so to speak.
In Oz I think for instance there is double demerits on long weekends, which achieves the same enhanced driver attention.

If it becomes the norm some drivers will relax back into "bad driving behaviour"
Rather than adopt the newer tolerance full-time it should be used intermittently, as it will have a more desirable, long term effect.

[swbarnett]

I think the real and unspoken gain comes about from more driver attention or vigilance so to speak.
Yeah, of the speedo.

[R650R]

Not true, The autobahns in Germany show quite well that there is a 'fastlane'. Outside of the cities in the areas where the speed is unlimited there are qutie often signs showing 'minimum speeds' for each individual lane, with the third/outermost lane being the highest minimum speed (iirc being 180kph), and the other two lanes being proportionally lower :)

Although that was interesting to read about that part about people assuming they were protected having a wall on one side rather than another lane. I've never thought of that before and you are quite right in saying that that doesn't necessarily mean greater safety at all

Yeah in certain first world countries with much more better infrastructure and better training that does happen but even though motorways worldwide are supposed to be a set standard the euro stuff is generally a bar or two above our setups...
I went and lived in Auckland for about 3 years, that was one of the first things I noticed about some drivers on mway. When friends or family visited from the bay and other small provinces I noticed many of them were overwhelmed by having two lanes of other traffic to worry about

[Mo NZ]

I think the real and unspoken gain comes about from more driver attention or vigilance so to speak.
.


Yeah, of the speedo.

BIG SIGH
I guess one day you may discover that safer riding is much more than matching your speedo to the maximum speed.

[oneofsix]

BIG SIGH
I guess one day you may discover that safer riding is much more than matching your speedo to the maximum speed.

did someone miss the sarcasm font? If you manage to convince the :Police: then you will be onto something.

[roogazza]

Here's a question for someone, What ever happened to the Limited Speed Zones of a few years ago now ?
Modern Society now, probably couldn't make a decision regarding appropriate speed ? <_<

[haydes55]

Here's a question for someone, What ever happened to the Limited Speed Zones of a few years ago now ?

I guess it's expecting too much of something like that on the open road.

Modern Society now, probably couldn't make a decision regarding appropriate speed ? <_<









LSZ are a stupid idea really. If you go over 100km/h you get a ticket anyway.

LSZs are supposed to be in areas where the road is a risk to travel at 100km/h in poor conditions, so ideally needed different speed limits for rain or sunny days. But if a corner is too sharp/slippery/dangerous to take at 100km/h, you slow down regardless of whether it's a LSZ or a 100km/h zone.

I'd suggest LSZ vs 100km/h speed zones didn't have any noticeable Change in road toll so LSZ would have been canned.

[Angel_of_Metal]

did someone miss the sarcasm font? If you manage to convince the :Police: then you will be onto something.

THis. *Applauds* :2thumbsup

[R650R]

LSZ are a stupid idea really. If you go over 100km/h you get a ticket anyway.

LSZs are supposed to be in areas where the road is a risk to travel at 100km/h in poor conditions, so ideally needed different speed limits for rain or sunny days. But if a corner is too sharp/slippery/dangerous to take at 100km/h, you slow down regardless of whether it's a LSZ or a 100km/h zone.

I'd suggest LSZ vs 100km/h speed zones didn't have any noticeable Change in road toll so LSZ would have been canned.

Sssssshhhhhhh don't remind the traffic/govt boffins about these casinos... There are still a few of them about, usually in places where there wold otherwise be a 70 zone between a 100 and a 50 etc. from memory there were five criteria, one on their own enough to reduce limit to 50. Rain, traffic, lighting, and???
Has anyone ever been ticketed in a LSZ?

[Jantar]

....Has anyone ever been ticketed in a LSZ?

Yes. My first ever ticket was for exceeding 30 mph in a LSZ. It was 1967 and I was 14 years old and on my push bike, try to go as fast as I could down the Faifield straight. The cop who gave me the ticket wrote "warning" on his copy, but let me believe I was actually going to have to go to court. He did have the courtesy to phone my father and tell him the truth, but it did leave me worried for a day or two.

[swbarnett]

BIG SIGH
I guess one day you may discover that safer riding is much more than matching your speedo to the maximum speed.
Um... I discovered that long ago. Way before I even started riding (or driving). I guess you missed my point that this is what drivers will do when their only concern is fear of a speeding ticket?

[Berries]

Sssssshhhhhhh don't remind the traffic/govt boffins about these casinos... There are still a few of them about, usually in places where there wold otherwise be a 70 zone between a 100 and a 50 etc. from memory there were five criteria, one on their own enough to reduce limit to 50. Rain, traffic, lighting, and???
Rain? How much? Persistent or just spitting?
Traffic? How much?
People on the road? How many, how old?

There were so many variables it is no wonder they got rid of them. The road being in poor condition was one of the other factors - try defining that one. Those LSZs that you see around don't have any legal status now as the legislation does not allow for them. I am guessing that they default to 100km/h unless in an urban area where it defaults to 50.

[scracha]

Rain? How much? Persistent or just spitting?
Traffic? How much?
People on the road? How many, how old?

There were so many variables it is no wonder they got rid of them. The road being in poor condition was one of the other factors - try defining that one. Those LSZs that you see around don't have any legal status now as the legislation does not allow for them. I am guessing that they default to 100km/h unless in an urban area where it defaults to 50.

Seem to manage it in France OK. From memory, speed limit there reduces from 130 to 110 when it rains or snows.

[Ocean1]

Seem to manage it in France OK. From memory, speed limit there reduces from 130 to 110 when it rains or snows.

Perhaps they don't have a "greatest enforceable risk" policy driving their road rules.

[scracha]

Perhaps they don't have a "greatest enforceable risk" policy driving their road rules.

I've no idea what that means but I do recall them basically turning a blind eye unless you were being an arsehole in built up areas or going stupidly fast. Seemed more interested in solving actual crime. Funny that.

[scumdog]

Seemed more interested in solving actual crime. Funny that.


Maybe if NZ still had dedicated traffic cops and the police were a separate organisation people wouldn't think along those lines...and be happier with traffic guys stopping them/enforcing speed limits etc ..<_<

[Damantis]

Maybe if NZ still had dedicated traffic cops and the police were a separate organisation people wouldn't think along those lines...and be happier with traffic guys stopping them/enforcing speed limits etc ..<_<

As long as they didn't cruise around, pretending to be cops, and actually did some positive public relations, along with educating people about more aspects of their driving that just that obvious old chestnut of speed. I mean things like lane compliance, timely indication, following distance, cellphone use, hazard identification, driving to the conditions, and stuff like that.

It's easy the nostalgically view the past as something it wasn't. What we had was revenue collecting wannabe cops with porn-stashes and aviator sunglasses given a license to drive fast and beat people up, on a power trip, while the regular police took two weeks to turn up to a burglary.

[scumdog]

It's easy the nostalgically view the past as something it wasn't. What we had was revenue collecting wannabe cops with porn-stashes and aviator sunglasses given a license to drive fast and beat people up, on a power trip, while the regular police took two weeks to turn up to a burglary.

That was your view of the past, through a half empty glass too it seems....:rolleyes:

I certainly had several 'run-ins' with the MOT (Hell, my one speeding ticket was from one in '87!).

But not ever being burgled back then I cannot comment on police response time. - which as now probably varied from district to district. Generally I got on well with them though, even as a long-haired scruffy drunken yahoo of a freezing worker that I was back then.

But I'm not bitter about anything trivial as 'cops aren't doing their job properly' shit...life is too short.

[roogazza]

I've no idea what that means but I do recall them basically turning a blind eye unless you were being an arsehole in built up areas or going stupidly fast. Seemed more interested in solving actual crime. Funny that.

Pretty much how it was !

[SPman]

Well I looked at the current online poll stats (4500 respondents) and it seemed that there were 56% didn't want a 4 kmh tolerance all year round. Interesting spin though.....

"The poll showed that two-thirds of respondents felt that the policy was fair because it was about safety"

Interesting - the Milgram effect in action!
First - tell everyone it's all about safety...that gets them going for starters (it must be for my own good). Then, approximately 2/3rds of the population " will do what they are told to do, irrespective of the content of the act and without limitations of conscience,etc, because they perceive the command comes from a legitimate authority!"

[cheshirecat]

That was your view of the past, through a half empty glass too it seems....:rolleyes:

I certainly had several 'run-ins' with the MOT (Hell, my one speeding ticket was from one in '87!).

But not ever being burgled back then I cannot comment on police response time. - which as now probably varied from district to district. Generally I got on well with them though, even as a long-haired scruffy drunken yahoo of a freezing worker that I was back then.

But I'm not bitter about anything trivial as 'cops aren't doing their job properly' shit...life is too short.
So in those days you got the bike going long enough to get a ticket - better "luck" then me then.

[Madness]

<div id="fb-root"></div> <script>(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); }(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));</script>
<div class="fb-post" data-href="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=808308622529485" data-width="466"><div class="fb-xfbml-parse-ignore"><a href="https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=808308622529485">Post</a> by <a href="https://www.facebook.com/OtorohangaPolice">Otorohanga Police</a>.</div></div>

[Jantar]

The guy who is accused of going too fast wasn't even speeding. His speedo was showing 107 kmh but that particular model of Suzuki has a speedo that over reads by 8% so his actual speed was 99 kmh. The speed at which he appeared to hit would suggest that he made no attempt to brake either, so going slower still wouldn't have avoided the accident.

[Ender EnZed]

Must've been a 50km/h zone.

[Edbear]

It was a TV advert, made for TV under the currrent constraints of PC. Effective, though.

[Mushu]

The guy who is accused of going too fast wasn't even speeding. His speedo was showing 107 kmh but that particular model of Suzuki has a speedo that over reads by 8% so his actual speed was 99 kmh. The speed at which he appeared to hit would suggest that he made no attempt to brake either, so going slower still wouldn't have avoided the accident.

I had a very similar argument with my cousin when I saw that ad for the first time I thought it rediculous that he would be shown doing just over 100 and they make out like that couple of km/h would have made any difference, my argument being that he did nothing to respond to the potential hazard that was the other vehicle approaching the stop sign and continued to do nothing at all when the driver actually pulled out, he didn't brake at all despite having quite a bit of warning (the time it took for the subaru to make it halfway across the intersection) and made no attempt to swerve around the offending subaru either despite the fact the sides of the road look to be quite clear (given the choice of t-boning a car or taking my chances swerving into a paddock, even through fences, live stock etc.. I know which I would choose) the cause of that crash was inattention on the part of both drivers, the only role speed played was the force of the impact which is the trade off we have to make unless you want to wind up doing 30km/h everywhere. (and I would bet that it still wouldn't be slow enough to guarantee no road deaths)

[rastuscat]

I had a very similar argument with my cousin when I saw that ad for the first time I thought it rediculous that he would be shown doing just over 100 and they make out like that couple of km/h would have made any difference, my argument being that he did nothing to respond to the potential hazard that was the other vehicle approaching the stop sign and continued to do nothing at all when the driver actually pulled out, he didn't brake at all despite having quite a bit of warning (the time it took for the subaru to make it halfway across the intersection) and made no attempt to swerve around the offending subaru either despite the fact the sides of the road look to be quite clear (given the choice of t-boning a car or taking my chances swerving into a paddock, even through fences, live stock etc.. I know which I would choose) the cause of that crash was inattention on the part of both drivers, the only role speed played was the force of the impact which is the trade off we have to make unless you want to wind up doing 30km/h everywhere. (and I would bet that it still wouldn't be slow enough to guarantee no road deaths)

May I introduce you to the old grammatical habit known as USING PARAGRAPHS.......

[rastuscat]

The guy who is accused of going too fast wasn't even speeding. His speedo was showing 107 kmh but that particular model of Suzuki has a speedo that over reads by 8% so his actual speed was 99 kmh. The speed at which he appeared to hit would suggest that he made no attempt to brake either, so going slower still wouldn't have avoided the accident.

Dude, so predictable. I'm sure you understood what they were saying, you just chose to pick holes in one of the points.

Did you get the point that the speed that you travel at impacts others ability to judge your speed? And that the faster you go, the less the margin for anyones error?

Guess not. Amazing what a closed mind can't see.

[bogan]

May I introduce you to the old grammatical habit known as USING PARAGRAPHS.......

How do you mean? you can't split one sentence across multiple paragraphs :bleh: though a four line sentence is sometimes frowned upon :msn-wink:


Dude, so predictable. I'm sure you understood what they were saying, you just chose to pick holes in one of the points.

Did you get the point that the speed that you travel at impacts others ability to judge your speed? And that the faster you go, the less the margin for anyones error?

Guess not. Amazing what a closed mind can't see.

You know what would make that add a hell of a lot more relevant though, if the guys speedo showed 100kmhr before impact.

As in, people make mistakes, even if you go at or below the speed limit. Rather than, go 100kmhr and our wizards will protect you :rolleyes:

[bluninja]

Amazing what a closed mind can't see.

A little bit of psychological projection?

[Dave-]

The guy who is accused of going too fast wasn't even speeding. His speedo was showing 107 kmh but that particular model of Suzuki has a speedo that over reads by 8% so his actual speed was 99 kmh. The speed at which he appeared to hit would suggest that he made no attempt to brake either, so going slower still wouldn't have avoided the accident.

Actually Jantar you're wrong (again). Even at 99km/h he's 'speeding'.

If you watch the video again you will see there is a dip in the road just before the intersection.

While the driver is in the dip he must lose sight of a portion of the lane ahead of him.

In accordance with the 2004 Road User Rules, Section 5.9 (1) clearly states:


A driver must not drive a vehicle in a lane marked on a road at such a speed that the driver is unable to stop in the length of the lane that is visible to the driver.

You can read more about these laws here:
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2004/0427/latest/DLM303092.html

Please do, because it sounds as though you're the sort of person they're targeting in the video.

[_Shrek_]

Actually Jantar you're wrong (again). Even at 99km/h he's 'speeding'.

If you watch the video again you will see there is a dip in the road just before the intersection.

While the driver is in the dip he must lose sight of a portion of the lane ahead of him.


I've watched it a few times Dave & both can see each other.....

at the end of the day the guy was at a stop sign & saw the other car & knew his kid was in the car..... that is where the fault is end of story

the pc world wants to blame every one else for their mistakes instead of facing up & owning it...

[rastuscat]

I've watched it a few times Dave & both can see each other.....

at the end of the day the guy was at a stop sign & saw the other car & knew his kid was in the car..... that is where the fault is end of story

the pc world wants to blame every one else for their mistakes instead of facing up & owning it...

Yeah baby. Its always SOEs fault. Someone Elses.

Its a fact of life. Sigmund Frued identified it in his Ego vs Id Theory. Our egos protect us by reading facts so that they protect us.

No matter what happens, we can find someone else to blame.

[R650R]

The guy who is accused of going too fast wasn't even speeding. His speedo was showing 107 kmh but that particular model of Suzuki has a speedo that over reads by 8% so his actual speed was 99 kmh. The speed at which he appeared to hit would suggest that he made no attempt to brake either, so going slower still wouldn't have avoided the accident.

Actually a Nissan Stagea M35.
Nice concept but there's a few things they could have played with outside the generic speed propaganda.
The Stop sign motorist could have opened his window slightly and LISTENED for oncoming traffic, man if we managed to drum that into car drivers habits we could save a few bikers alone just with that. Sadly aircon has thrown away 50% of our natural hazard perception for most people...
The Stagea guy could have chosen which part of Mr Stop signs car to hit. I got this tip from an old driver who t-boned a cop car years ago at Te Poi. Recalling the story to me he said this cop in emergency mode pulled out in front of his truck, he couldn't miss him but he could CHOOSE which part of the car to hit, ie the back or front, not the drivers door etc...
But that's probably getting too complicated for your average tintop driver to be wargaming away hazard scenarios and options instead of listening to radio etc...

[Akzle]

No matter what happens, we can find someone else to blame.
isnt that your job? Finding someone to blame?

As long as its the right people (jews), the blame is well apportioned

cop pulled out in front of his truck, he could CHOOSE which part of the car to hit, ie the drivers door

[pete376403]

re the crash ad - the bush/shrubbery around the base of the pole would obscure the view of the road for the driver at the stop sign, especially if the oncoming car was in the dip. Sometimes it's not always completely the fault of the driver(s)

[scumdog]

re the crash ad - the bush/shrubbery around the base of the pole would obscure the view of the road for the driver at the stop sign, especially if the oncoming car was in the dip. Sometimes it's not always completely the fault of the driver(s)

The useless prick should have realised that and taken even more care eh!

(Now they're blaming the shrubbery...)

[Gremlin]

The useless prick should have realised that and taken even more care eh!

(Now they're blaming the shrubbery...)
Nothing new. First on the scene of a fatality (watched most of it in my mirror) a few years back (thread on here somewhere actually I think). Car straddled the road edge and smacked into an enormous tree. One child dead, one adult brain damaged I think, anyway, net result was a few months later a cute (but probably ineffectual) wooden rail along the road edge and the tree removed.

Poor tree didn't ask for that!

[Jantar]

Actually Jantar you're wrong (again). .....

While the driver is in the dip he must lose sight of a portion of the lane ahead of him.

In accordance with the 2004 Road User Rules, Section 5.9 (1) clearly states:


A driver must not drive a vehicle in a lane marked on a road at such a speed that the driver is unable to stop in the length of the lane that is visible to the driver.....

Please do, because it sounds as though you're the sort of person they're targeting in the video.

I am well aware of that law, and it is also called driving to the conditions which is something I'm a big fan of. However reading your comment did make me think I'd missed something, so I went back and looked at the video again in more detail. Yes there is a dip in the road, but the car is visible all the way. Even from the driver's view he could see the hazard as the other vehicle came out of the intersection. Note that he was already climbing out of the dip before the other car intruded into his space.. maybe I am the sort of person they are targetting, in which case they have it all wrong. I deal in data, and physics, not emotion. If they want to target me then show a real situation with real data, like is done on SCU. Tell me why the oncoming driver made no attempt to brake, nor to avoid the situation, dont just say that driving at the speed limit on a straight, dry road is too fast.

[pete376403]

The useless prick should have realised that and taken even more care eh!

(Now they're blaming the shrubbery...)

The three Es of road safety (engineering, education, enforcement) but I guess you have a vested interest in only the third.

Not blaming the shrubbery at all, only suggesting it could have been a contributor. If the ad was a real-world case, then a small amount of engineering (clearing obstructions) could help prevent the event.

I notice this quite a lot, lots of plantings on traffic islands actually obscure the view of oncoming traffic.

[Berries]

Is it just me, or does the kid in the back seat look like he has suffered serious head injuries before?

Agree with others that because of the speed shown it drops it straight in to the whole enforcement/tolerance argument. Given that a side impact crash is quite high severity at even lower speeds showing the speedo at 90km/h may have had more impact, if you'll pardon the pun. But then perhaps that is the point...........

[Ender EnZed]

dont just say that driving at the speed limit on a straight, dry road is too fast.

He wasn't doing the speed limit though, he was 8km/h over. That's why everyone died.

[Mo NZ]

The intersection safety advertisement is a crock and is full of incorrect innuendo.
"Im going too fast"
The theme suggested is that there would not have been a collision if the guy was not speeding at about 107kph or so.

CRAP

Here's why. Think about speed and how many metres per second you travel at 100kph and 107kpk.
The difference is (nah you work it out) ..

There still would have been a collision if the driver was doing 100kpk.

[Akzle]

There still would have been a collision if the driver was doing 100kpk.

one hundred kilometers per... Kilometer?

[willytheekid]

Yeah baby. Its always SOEs fault. Someone Elses.

Its a fact of life. Sigmund Frued identified it in his Ego vs Id Theory. Our egos protect us by reading facts so that they protect us.

No matter what happens, we can find someone else to blame.

Aint THAT the truth!

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/9581943/Cost-of-car-crashes-escalates-for-police

...but as you said mate...ego's!:rolleyes:

Imagine getting that bill! :no:

Drive safe...everyone!

[_Shrek_]

re the crash ad - the bush/shrubbery around the base of the pole would obscure the view of the road for the driver at the stop sign, especially if the oncoming car was in the dip. Sometimes it's not always completely the fault of the driver(s)

:killingme you must be related to the purp at the stop sign :msn-wink:

[SPman]

Is it just me, or does the kid in the back seat look like he has suffered serious head injuries before?

They had to do several takes.........

[bluninja]

Well some people will try to cause an accident because they are dicks, not because of speed. My wife was driving this morning and came up behind someone who thought doing 80 kmh and straddling the line between 2 passing lanes was the right thing to do. When this was repeated at the next passing lane, the car behind her overtook her and the straddled, my wife then overtook the straddled and was doing an indicated 100kph when she pulled in behind the car in front. A police car was at the end of the lane and pulled the car in front. Must have been able to see the idiot straddling but chose the car doing a safe overtake.

As for the advert.....perhaps as a long time bike rider I have lost count of the number of times I have braked to a standstill a few meters short of the drivers door as they have pulled across me from a give way (even with a sharp toot on the horn before they start to move). It's no point going to hospital or dying knowing you had the right of way, so you adjust your speed according to the prevailing conditions. That doesn't mean looking down at the speedo to see if you are at some "magical" number and missing cues to potential hazards that you can avoid. The ad does not make any link between piss poor driving skills and accidents only the inference that "speeding kills".

[Jantar]

....
As for the advert.....perhaps as a long time bike rider I have lost count of the number of times I have braked to a standstill a few meters short of the drivers door as they have pulled across me from a give way (even with a sharp toot on the horn before they start to move). .....
Strangely enough I experienced this on my way home from Clyde about an hour ago. Wet road too as the idiot pulled out from the intersection right in front of me. Even more strange I had checked my speedo only a short time before and it was indicating just slightly higher than the one in the ad. Only I was on my DR so the true speed was only around 97 or 98. I stopped short, but unlike the ad, I didn't get out and go and have a conversation with the driver. I merely indicated politely to him that he should get on his way, which he did. I still don't understand why the driver in the ad didn't brake.

[bluninja]

Strangely enough I experienced this on my way home from Clyde about an hour ago. Wet road too as the idiot pulled out from the intersection right in front of me. Even more strange I had checked my speedo only a short time before and it was indicating just slightly higher than the one in the ad. Only I was on my DR so the true speed was only around 97 or 98. I stopped short, but unlike the ad, I didn't get out and go and have a conversation with the driver. I merely indicated politely to him that he should get on his way, which he did. I still don't understand why the driver in the ad didn't brake.

Or brake and swerve with the brakes full on....that model car has ABS right? Perhaps he was going so fast he didn't have time to react :spanking:

[Dave-]

The intersection safety advertisement is a crock and is full of incorrect innuendo.
"Im going too fast"
The theme suggested is that there would not have been a collision if the guy was not speeding at about 107kph or so.

CRAP

Here's why. Think about speed and how many metres per second you travel at 100kph and 107kpk.
The difference is (nah you work it out) ..

There still would have been a collision if the driver was doing 100kpk.

1km = 1000m, 1h = 3600s.

100kmh^-1 = 100000/3600 = 27.778ms^-1

107kmh^-1 = 10700/3600 = 29.722ms^-1

100/107 * 100 = 93.46%

29.722/27.788 * 100 = 93.46%

There's a linear relationship between kmh^-1 and ms^-1, how does thinking about the speed in different units change anything?


I've watched it a few times Dave & both can see each other.....

at the end of the day the guy was at a stop sign & saw the other car & knew his kid was in the car..... that is where the fault is end of story

the pc world wants to blame every one else for their mistakes instead of facing up & owning it...


I am well aware of that law, and it is also called driving to the conditions which is something I'm a big fan of. However reading your comment did make me think I'd missed something, so I went back and looked at the video again in more detail. Yes there is a dip in the road, but the car is visible all the way. Even from the driver's view he could see the hazard as the other vehicle came out of the intersection. Note that he was already climbing out of the dip before the other car intruded into his space.. maybe I am the sort of person they are targetting, in which case they have it all wrong. I deal in data, and physics, not emotion. If they want to target me then show a real situation with real data, like is done on SCU. Tell me why the oncoming driver made no attempt to brake, nor to avoid the situation, dont just say that driving at the speed limit on a straight, dry road is too fast.

At 4 seconds you can clearly see the artificial horizon caused by the dip in the road, section 5.9(1) clearly states that you must be able to stop within the visible lane. It absolutely does not matter that he can see the car waiting at the interection the entire time. The fact of the matter is he cannot see over the brow. At 99kmh^-1 he cannot stop in the visible lane ahead.

292045

[swbarnett]

At 4 seconds you can clearly see the artificial horizon caused by the dip in the road,
Yes, and this artificial horizon (in the photo you embedded) is at the intersection.

[Dave-]

Yes, and this artificial horizon (in the photo you embedded) is at the intersection.

....and he can't stop within that distance. Right.

Q.E.D Speeding.

[bluninja]

....and he can't stop within that distance. Right.

Q.E.D Speeding.

You do realise this is a staged piece of fiction don't you? Thus there is no evidence of speeding, merely a series of cues to create a desired emotive or cognitive response.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

[Jantar]

At 4 seconds you can clearly see the artificial horizon caused by the dip in the road, section 5.9(1) clearly states that you must be able to stop within the visible lane. It absolutely does not matter that he can see the car waiting at the interection the entire time. The fact of the matter is he cannot see over the brow. At 99kmh^-1 he cannot stop in the visible lane ahead.


Hey, I like numbers as well. So at 4 secs at 99 kmh he is 110 m away from the brow of the rise. So what rate of decelleration is required to stop within 110 m from 27.5 m/s.
V^2 = 2fs where V = 27.5 and s =110
So f = 3.43 m/s/s. or only 0.35G
So ample distance for the car to stop.

Lets see what the minimum stopping distance would be assuming a flat road (this was uphill) at 0.9G or 8.8 m/s/s
Using the same formula we find that the minimum stopping distance (without reaction time) is 43 m. add on 1 second reaction time (pretty slow) and the stopping distance comes to 70.5 m. Still leaving almost 40 m, so his speed was legal.

[swbarnett]

....and he can't stop within that distance. Right.

Q.E.D Speeding.
Well, the idiot in the ad can't because he doesn't even have the brain to hit the brakes. Put any halfway decent driver in the same situation and it won't be so clear cut.

[Dave-]

You do realise this is a staged piece of fiction don't you? Thus there is no evidence of speeding, merely a series of cues to create a desired emotive or cognitive response.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

You mean, they didn't actually stop time?


Hey, I like numbers as well. So at 4 secs at 99 kmh he is 110 m away from the brow of the rise. So what rate of decelleration is required to stop within 110 m from 27.5 m/s.
V^2 = 2fs where V = 27.5 and s =110
So f = 3.43 m/s/s. or only 0.35G
So ample distance for the car to stop.

Lets see what the minimum stopping distance would be assuming a flat road (this was uphill) at 0.9G or 8.8 m/s/s
Using the same formula we find that the minimum stopping distance (without reaction time) is 43 m. add on 1 second reaction time (pretty slow) and the stopping distance comes to 70.5 m. Still leaving almost 40 m, so his speed was legal.

It's actually 3.4375 which rounds to 3.44, and the sign of the magnitude is negative as acceleration is a vector which has both magnitude and direction. Also deceleration of a car is non-linear.

Where'd you get 110m from? I think it's much closer, like 30 or 40m.

[Jantar]

....Where'd you get 110m from? I think it's much closer, like 30 or 40m.
I got that from you. 4 secs away at 27.5 m/s = 110 m.

[roogazza]

News break !!!!!!!!!
I see we're keeping up the road death average with another two dead last night !
Two trucks and a car near Sanson.

[chasio]

News break !!!!!!!!!
I see we're keeping up the road death average with another two dead last night !
Two trucks and a car near Sanson.

Yes, there are always more.

I see the overall toll last year was the lowest on record, or somesuch. No doubt that will be disingenuously linked to the 4km/h tolerance despite it being in place for about 6 weeks of the 52 and people dying in unhealthy numbers whilst it applied.

Lube up, peeps: there's a politician with a boner to pick with you.

[Dave-]

I got that from you. 4 secs away at 27.5 m/s = 110 m.

Ohh no, 4 seconds into the film is where you can see the artificial horizon. I have no idea how much time elapses between then and the collision because they pluck the heart strings for a bit. But I would say it looks about 30 or 40m? Maybe less even. Either way it's too shorter distance to haul up an average car in.

Sent from cellular device*

[SNF]

Too much focus on speed. Yeah it can contribute, but its made out to be the one and only cause of all accidents when its not. People drive as if they have had a vodka or two before they drive, why is it? People get into cars and suddenly become brainless. Crossing center lines, following too close. Going fast and slow. Oh and my fave, the intersection ad. See a car. Go "hurrr duuhhrrrr....." and then pull out. Very. Fucking. Slowly. Come on if your gonna do that then at least redline the bitch!

That speed/intersection ad is utter crap. Even if the guy going down the hill had been going 80 km/h they still would hit. Stop using the kid as an excuse to your shitty hazard perception skills. Why not use a brain and LOOK. I actually yelled that when I first saw the ad.

Addressing speed isn't doing much. Addressing the shitty driving will. Give them a choice. A $200 fine with 28 days like any other or a mandatory learn how the fuck to drive - maintain ONE speed, keep a car in a lane, safe lane changing (Indicating, headchecks, blindspots - the works.) Safe following distances, hazard perception, where and when to pull out, how to merge, even how to park properly.

You know the very basic, basic stuff which seems like most aren't taught. The fine gets halved. Fail = again until either the person is deemed too stupid to handle any vehicle - which I doubt but it is possible or they pass. Win win. Government get their quota. Roads get somewhat safer (I hope). Its a good idea. Won't happen though. Cops are probably too busy speed hunting.

[scumdog]

Too many of you seem to focus waaay too much on the freakin' 4kph thing.:yes:

It's only a fart-skin, a poofteenth, a mere skerrick of the whole picture relating to life and death on the roads...

Still, if that's what takes your fancy who am I to stop you??:yawn:

[Mo NZ]

Too many of you seem to focus waaay too much on the freakin' 4kph thing.:yes:

:

What a pity the add being discussed did not reflect that eh Scumdog.

[Mo NZ]

Uh no.

It did focus on the over speed thingi
What with a picture of the speed and " im going too fast"

its a crock.

[bluninja]

Too many of you seem to focus waaay too much on the freakin' 4kph thing.:yes:

It's only a fart-skin, a poofteenth, a mere skerrick of the whole picture relating to life and death on the roads...

Still, if that's what takes your fancy who am I to stop you??:yawn:

Aren't you the one to stop us when we don't focus on the freaking 4kph thing and go to 5kph over (or more)?

[swbarnett]

Too many of you seem to focus waaay too much on the freakin' 4kph thing.:yes:

It's only a fart-skin, a poofteenth, a mere skerrick of the whole picture relating to life and death on the roads...

Still, if that's what takes your fancy who am I to stop you??:yawn:
I totally agree. So why the hell do TPTB care about it?




BTW: The only reason it affects me personally is because it does seem to have slowed the traffic down at times. Probably causing more accidents through increased congestion and impatience.

[Stylo]

Have these figures been thrown into the equation ?

Here's the speed limits on the open road as at 10/13 for other countrys , km/h

Australia 110 ( Northern territory just raised to 130 )

Austria 160

Bulgaria 140

China 120

Denmark 130

France 130

Germany Unlimited

Iceland 90

India 120

Italy 150

Japan 100

Netherlands 130

NEW ZEALAND 100

Poland 140

Russia 110

South Africa 120

Sweden 120

UK 112

USA 129 ( Texas 137 )

Not wading into this one too much further and I have my opinions too, just thought I'd throw some numbers on the board.

If they have been already , my apologies :sleep:

[swbarnett]

Have these figures been thrown into the equation ?

Here's the speed limits on the open road
One thing that needs to be made clear is that the speed limit for rural roads and motorways are often not the same. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you're talking about motorways, not rural roads as we would call them here.

I say this because I know from personal experience that the speed limits in switzerland were (when I was there in the late '90s) very different (80kph for rural roads and 120kph for motorways).

[Dave-]

Have these figures been thrown into the equation ?

Here's the speed limits on the open road as at 10/13 for other countrys , km/h

<Numbers>

Not wading into this one too much further and I have my opinions too, just thought I'd throw some numbers on the board.

If they have been already , my apologies :sleep:

Keep in mind the quality and style of roads in many of those countries are far superior to our botched up volcanic chip shit.

[Berries]

Heard the bang of a crash this morning when I got to work, looked out the window to see a builders van that had clearly failed to give way at a give way sign and get twatted by a car going about its normal business. No idea how fast the car was going, and clearly if it had been going much slower the crash could have been avoided, but the fact is the van driver caused it. We can all drive around at 30km/h below the posted speed limit 'just in case' but then that margin of safety will soon be used up by the fuckwits who fail to give way or, in the case of the advert that was on again as I type, think they have enough time to get across.

Funny thing is I went through the same intersection ten minutes earlier than the car. While I like to think of myself as a defensive rider and generally expect people to pull out on me so am ready to try and avoid them, in the pissing rain this morning I probably wouldn't have been able to.

Not sure if there is a moral there, I only went that way as I thought I had been pinged on the motorway.

[Katman]

We can all drive around at 30km/h below the posted speed limit 'just in case' but then that margin of safety will soon be used up by the fuckwits who fail to give way or, in the case of the advert that was on again as I type, think they have enough time to get across.


What gets me is the number of clowns who fail to recognise that a vehicle stopped at an intersection should still be seen as a hazard - regardless of who has right of way.

[SPman]

make that

Australia 110 ( Northern territory lowered to 130 )

[Stylo]

One thing that needs to be made clear is that the speed limit for rural roads and motorways are often not the same. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think you're talking about motorways, not rural roads as we would call them here.

I say this because I know from personal experience that the speed limits in switzerland were (when I was there in the late '90s) very different (80kph for rural roads and 120kph for motorways).

Semantics

Switzerland has a population of close to 8m people and 41, 000 km2 in area

New Zealand has around 4m people ( half of Switzerland ) and 271,000 km2 in area = 6.5 times the area of Switzerland.

I'm not surprised they have a tighter control regarding speed limits on that basis.

[scumdog]

What a pity the add being discussed did not reflect that eh Scumdog.
.

Once again that was only a part of it- look at the discussion on the other aspects on the add that relate to unsafe driving - it provoked quite a bit of thought imho.

[scumdog]

Aren't you the one to stop us when we don't focus on the freaking 4kph thing and go to 5kph over (or more)?

ONLY if you insist...are you insisting?

[scumdog]

Have these figures been thrown into the equation ?

Here's the speed limits on the open road as at 10/13 for other countrys , km/h

Australia 110 ( Northern territory just raised to 130 )

Austria 160

Bulgaria 140

China 120

Denmark 130

France 130

Germany Unlimited

Iceland 90

India 120

Italy 150

Japan 100

Netherlands 130

NEW ZEALAND 100

Poland 140

Russia 110

South Africa 120

Sweden 120

UK 112

USA 129 ( Texas 137 )

Not wading into this one too much further and I have my opinions too, just thought I'd throw some numbers on the board.

If they have been already , my apologies :sleep:

How about the deaths per capita and deaths per 100,000km figure too - just to keep a balance?

[Gremlin]

Too many of you seem to focus waaay too much on the freakin' 4kph thing.:yes:
I'm focussed on it because it impacts my licence and insurance. I'm focussed on it because there are vans tucked into the roadside in between and under trees, in passing lanes. I'm focussed on it because cops patrol passing lanes and highways. I observed both during my Christmas travels.

I'm focussed on it, because it's a risk to me. Wish it wasn't, but I don't have much choice.

[scumdog]

I'm focussed on it because it impacts my licence and insurance. I'm focussed on it because there are vans tucked into the roadside in between and under trees, in passing lanes. I'm focussed on it because cops patrol passing lanes and highways. I observed both during my Christmas travels.

I'm focussed on it, because it's a risk to me. Wish it wasn't, but I don't have much choice.

And if the tolerance was 10kph (or even 20kph) you would still be focussed on it - everybody likes to push the boundaries...

[Scuba_Steve]

And if the tolerance was 10kph (or even 20kph) you would still be focussed on it - everybody likes to push the boundaries...

most people here aren't focused on the tolerance per say they're focused on the scam; the lower tolerance is just waking more NZers upto the scam, tho a 4km tolerance & the way it's inforced does increase danger on the roads quite significantly.

[oneofsix]

And if the tolerance was 10kph (or even 20kph) you would still be focussed on it - everybody likes to push the boundaries...

ya might be right. The important thing is not to focus too hard on just one aspect of driving but on the holistic package like dick wads that are too distracted to stop at stop signs, or indicate or plan don't give a fuck about other road users.

[Gremlin]

And if the tolerance was 10kph (or even 20kph) you would still be focussed on it - everybody likes to push the boundaries...
Not quite as much, as over the years I've developed a sweet spot and habit for doing +10 indicated. Now strictly, yes, I'm speeding, but taking speedo error into account I'm somewhere inside the +10. CB900, I'm at +0 at 110kph, the BMW around +5-7, depending on tyre choice, how worn they are etc. A 5 increment has no notch on the speedo so trying to do 100 real. Creep is a big problem, very easy to go higher with little effort as the speed isn't "normal".

Ute... get to 100 real, tap cruise, no problem. Also has a speed warning which I can set (and I do).

Perhaps cops won't be draconian, but the cameras will be, and I have no way of knowing about the cars do I? ;)

[Ocean1]

And if the tolerance was 10kph (or even 20kph) you would still be focussed on it - everybody likes to push the boundaries...

Yep. Right up to the speed they'd be driving / riding if there wasn't any limit.

85% of which is where that limit is supposed to be set. And we're a fucking sight slower than that now, ain't we? So why the surprise that everyone's pushing the limits?

Set the limits to somewhere reasonable and nobody would give a flying fuck what the tolerance is.

[swbarnett]

Semantics

Switzerland has a population of close to 8m people and 41, 000 km2 in area

New Zealand has around 4m people ( half of Switzerland ) and 271,000 km2 in area = 6.5 times the area of Switzerland.

I'm not surprised they have a tighter control regarding speed limits on that basis.
My point was that it is not clear what type of road the speed limits you quoted pertain to. I'm pretty certain that not all rural roads in Germany are unlimited.

Also, having lived in Switzerland I can say that, although the average population density is much higher, the rural roads feel about the same as here. It's just that the distance between villages (they're generally too small to be called towns) is shorter.

[awa355]

So, has anyone actually know or heard of someone getting a ticket for doing 5kph over the limit?

[bluninja]

So, has anyone actually know or heard of someone getting a ticket for doing 5kph over the limit?
I got one 4/12 for 5 kph over the limit from a camera van.

[rastuscat]

So, has anyone actually know or heard of someone getting a ticket for doing 5kph over the limit?

Lots have. I've written some of them. Mostly good humoured banter, when it's realized that the evil nasty fine is $30.

[RDJ]

So, has anyone actually know or heard of someone getting a ticket for doing 5kph over the limit?

Yes. It happens.

[Murray]

So, has anyone actually know or heard of someone getting a ticket for doing 5kph over the limit?

OK so he wasnt doing "5km" over the limit but hey he was still over the limit

A TOWNSVILLE man has copped a $146 fine for driving 1km/h over the speed limit.

Jake Cassidy, 21, was pulled over on December 23 and accused of clocking 61km/h in a 60km/h zone.

Mr Cassidy was driving a company car on a delivery and is not convinced he was 1km/h over.

The police officer did not use a speed gun to catch Mr Cassidy but measured the speed by driving behind him.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/townsville-man-fined-146-for-doing-1kmh-over-speed-limit/story-fnihsrf2-1226792203056

[grubbytech]

Well over here on the dark side the government has just announced that a section of the M1 (The North/South motorway here in England) is about to have the speed limit reduced to 60MPH. Allegedly this is to aid traffic congestion & reduce pollution.:shit:
I'm willing to bet that there'll be even more cameras put into this section of the motorway just to ensure that we all obey the law, not to make money you understand!

[Dave-]

So, has anyone actually know or heard of someone getting a ticket for doing 5kph over the limit?

Yup, chick I use to know got pinged a few years ago....long before the 'tolerance' thing.

[SPman]

OK so he wasnt doing "5km" over the lim...............
.........The police officer did not use a speed gun to catch Mr Cassidy but measured the speed by driving behind him.

The fine was dropped after the brouhaha and the officer was "spoken to"......

[rastuscat]

Well over here on the dark side the government has just announced that a section of the M1 (The North/South motorway here in England) is about to have the speed limit reduced to 60MPH. Allegedly this is to aid traffic congestion & reduce pollution.:shit:
I'm willing to bet that there'll be even more cameras put into this section of the motorway just to ensure that we all obey the law, not to make money you understand!

No speed no fine.

I've been trying to find a simple way to express this, as it's KB after all.

[oneofsix]

No speed no fine.

I've been trying to find a simple way to express this, as it's KB after all.

"No speed" = stationary (any got a pad and pencil?).

"No Fine"; rastuscat are you sherking your responsibilities again? Stopping on the motorway is illegal.


:bleh: :laugh:

it is KB after all

[Mo NZ]

Stationary vehicle = pion:shit:

[bluninja]

Well over here on the dark side the government has just announced that a section of the M1 (The North/South motorway here in England) is about to have the speed limit reduced to 60MPH. Allegedly this is to aid traffic congestion & reduce pollution.:shit:
I'm willing to bet that there'll be even more cameras put into this section of the motorway just to ensure that we all obey the law, not to make money you understand!

At 60 mph you need less distance between the vehicles so you actually have more vehicles travelling in the same section of road...errr... that would make it more congested over the whole section of motorway. Though I guess the 70 mph down to 0 queue for a few minutes and then start increasing speed again makes it feel more congested at the point you stop. Still not a problem for bikes, they'll still be lane splitting at 80 and away from the gantry speed cams.

[swbarnett]

No speed no fine.

I've been trying to find a simple way to express this, as it's KB after all.
We are not slaves. Just because some prat in power decides it's a good idea doesn't mean it is. It's high time TPTB (police included) got it through their thick skulls that the ONLY way you will ever get complete compliance is when EVERY individual understands the reason behind the law and agrees with it.

It is the responsibility of Government to ensure that the laws are understood by the populace. And that those laws are in line with the stated reason for the law. When basic logic puts the lie to the stated reason, that law does not have a mandate to exist. In which case we, the populace, have a moral obligation to ignore said law when it is logical to do so within the reasoning behind that law.

Laws are for the obediance of fools and the guidence of the wise.

[Dave-]

At 60 mph you need less distance between the vehicles so you actually have more vehicles travelling in the same section of road...errr... that would make it more congested over the whole section of motorway. Though I guess the 70 mph down to 0 queue for a few minutes and then start increasing speed again makes it feel more congested at the point you stop. Still not a problem for bikes, they'll still be lane splitting at 80 and away from the gantry speed cams.

Throughput will be largely based on the speed-distance ratio.

[rastuscat]

We are not slaves. Just because some prat in power decides it's a good idea doesn't mean it is. It's high time TPTB (police included) got it throught their thick skulls that the ONLY way you will ever get complete compliance is when EVERY individual understands the reason behind the law and agrees with it.

It is the responsibility of Government to ensure that the laws are understood by the populace. And that those laws are in line with the stated reason for the law. When basic logic puts the lie to the stated reason, that law does not have a mandate to exist. In which case we, the populace, have a moral obligation to ignore said law when it is logical to do so within the reasoning behind that law.

Laws are for the obediance of fools and the guidence of the wise.

Cool. Get everyone to agree wirh you and you're on a winner.

Precisely because we cant all agree about most things we have these things called elections to select people to do our decision making for us. Its the Democratic process.

Its the real world, not some imaginary utopia where everyone gets their own way all the time.

Grow up.

[swbarnett]

Cool. Get everyone to agree wirh you and you're on a winner.
Yes, this is the ideal that is almost unacheivable in anything bigger than a small village. However, a tue democracy (not what we have in NZ) comes very close.


Precisely because we cant all agree about most things we have these things called elections to select people to do our decision making for us. Its the Democratic process.
Wrong. This is not the process of a democracy. It's the process of a Parliamentary Democracy. A system of Government where a binding referendum is held for anything beyond what the MPs are to be served for lunch is a lot closer to a true democracy than the dictatorship we have in NZ.


Its the real world, not some imaginary utopia where everyone gets their own way all the time.
Within the laws of physics, the real world is what we make it. Not what we're handed in a "take it or leave it" manner by a tiny minority in Wellington.

[Akzle]

Precisely because we cant all agree about most things we have these things called elections to select people to do our decision making for us. Its the Democratic process.

cool. i never voted for anyone to make decisions for me. democracy involves the consent of the governed - i dont consent....
so, by your own winning logic, i can do whatever the fuck i want, eh?

[Scuba_Steve]

cool. i never voted for anyone to make decisions for me. democracy involves the consent of the governed - i dont consent....
so, by your own winning logic, i can do whatever the fuck i want, eh?

APPROVED!*

*providing it doesn't affect other innocents wanting the same

[angle]

cool. i never voted for anyone to make decisions for me. democracy involves the consent of the governed - i dont consent....
so, by your own winning logic, i can do whatever the fuck i want, eh?

Well, this means that either democracy is not what you think it is or we don't have a democracy (which is not suprising as we don't even have a constitution and the head of state is a monarch).

[Akzle]

Well, this means that either democracy is not what you think it is or we don't have a democracy (which is not suprising as we don't even have a constitution and the head of state is a monarch).

you don't have a democracy, the government was not constitutionally formed. they are defacto and illegal. look it up.
the UK crown abandoned NZ as a colony (and aus too) when there was some jew-up with the league of nations.
you can't sit at the league of nations if you're not a colony or a country. yet *somehow* (jews) both oz and nz continued to sit after being dis-colonied by "the crown" - giving defacto legitimacy to the (crown) government in NZ. then they changed it to the united nations and some banker jews swept it all under the carpet and enslaved the god fearing white world with an ursurious monetary system

and that, dear children, is the history of dumb crackers in 30 seconds with bob.

[rastuscat]

cool. i never voted for anyone to make decisions for me. democracy involves the consent of the governed - i dont consent....
so, by your own winning logic, i can do whatever the fuck i want, eh?

You had the choice to vote, and you chose not to. By doing so, you exercised your democratic right.

[bogan]

Well, this means that either democracy is not what you think it is or we don't have a democracy (which is not suprising as we don't even have a constitution and the head of state is a monarch).

Actually we have a representative democracy, which is shit. Now a direct democracy, that would be more interesting; and maybe even something old greenie fucktard could get behind.

[Akzle]

You had the choice to vote, and you chose not to. By doing so, you exercised your democratic right.

so, according to you, i dont have the right to make decisions for myself?

[Stylo]

You had the choice to vote, and you chose not to. By doing so, you exercised your democratic right.

It certainly can't be worse than the despotic regime held by mother Clark.

Truly the dark days in our history as a country.

[Scuba_Steve]

Actually we have a representative democracy, which is shit. Now a direct democracy, that would be more interesting; and maybe even something old greenie fucktard could get behind.

We don't even have that. At best you get to choose the lesser of 2 evils or which colour anal shaft you want for the next few years
We have nothing more than a party led dictatorship; "democracy" is no better than communism, it just involves more people & takes longer.

[roogazza]

I wasn't thinking of Democracy today in Wgton's perfect weather. I did however try to keep the beast on 104 kph for a while,soon gave up on that and just enjoyed the morning's ride.
Couple of cigars,a flat white and home again by 1040am, with a fucking great smile on the dial. :cool:

[bluninja]

I think Mount Messenger messes up speedos, so I didn't bother looking at it today :rolleyes:

[angle]

You had the choice to vote, and you chose not to. By doing so, you exercised your democratic right.

What if there is nobody who may represent you or your views participates in the elections?

[MVnut]

What if there is nobody who may represent you or your views participates in the elections?

It's simple, vote for the lesser evil or stop complaining

[Jay GTI]

Or start your own political party. Then discover, despite your best intentions, strongest moral judgement and efforts to do the right thing, the whole system is so rigged to allow the corrupt to continue to pull the fast ones they always have, even if you got elected, you have no power anyway.

[Ocean1]

Or start your own political party. Then discover, despite your best intentions, strongest moral judgement and efforts to do the right thing, the whole system is so rigged to allow the corrupt to continue to pull the fast ones they always have, even if you got elected, you have no power anyway.

Or, just possibly discover that what the great unwashed want isn't actually achievable without consequences they simply wouldn't accept.

Now that'd be a real bummer...

[Akzle]

with so many who feel its wrong... Yet the system persists.
Theres a collective sickness of mind.
Yall need to UNGRIP

[rastuscat]

so, according to you, i dont have the right to make decisions for myself?

Of course you do.

You can choose to vote for anyone standing for election. Or you can choose to not vote.

You chose not to vote. Tell me whose decision that was, if not yours.

[pritch]

Its the real world, not some imaginary utopia where everyone gets their own way all the time.



He wasn't entirely wrong you know. Many people obey the laws they agree with, and ignore the ones they disagree with.
Just as Police enforce the laws they agree with, and ignore the ones they don't. Unless told otherwise... In the real world I mean.

We appear to have had some fairly third rate people heading up the Police in recent years, pardon me if I chose to ignore their more ridiculous utterances.

Also the NZTA staff apparently sit an intelligence test before they are hired, they fail the test, they get the job. :whistle:

[caspernz]

He wasn't entirely wrong you know. Many people obey the laws they agree with, and ignore the ones they disagree with.
Just as Police enforce the laws they agree with, and ignore the ones they don't. Unless told otherwise... In the real world I mean.

We appear to have had some fairly third rate people heading up the Police in recent years, pardon me if I chose to ignore their more rediculous utterances.

Also the NZTA staff apparently sit an intelligence test before they are hired, they fail the test, they get the job. :whistle:

Forgive me while I chuckle in agreement...:yes:

Over the years I've found leadership positions are often occupied by yes men/women, or on the "not what you know, but who you know" principle.

[Ocean1]

Many people obey the laws they agree with, and ignore the ones they disagree with.

What kind of idiot behaves otherwise?

Individuals make mistakes, but nowhere near the historically cataclysmic fuckups committees make on their behalf.

[Akzle]

You chose not to vote. Tell me whose decision that was, if not yours.

right. So i chose not to choose someone to make decisions for me... But you enforce their decisions against me?

[Dave-]

right. So i chose not to choose someone to make decisions for me... But you enforce their decisions against me?

So what you're proposing is that anyone who didn't vote should be granted impunity from any laws they don't agree with?

[Akzle]

So what you're proposing is that anyone who didn't vote should be granted impunity from any laws they don't agree with?

no, see, 'no man is above the law'
these are the laws of physics, gravity, logic, etc.
What youre speaking to is legislation. Theyre no more than mans rules to rule other men.

[R650R]

It certainly can't be worse than the despotic regime held by mother Clark.

Truly the dark days in our history as a country.

Well we didn't have no 4km/h tolerance back then, she did think it was ok after all to crack along at 175km/h to get to the rugby on time. If we'd let Clarkistan run its course we could have had autobahns by now...
Sure Team America would have come and saved us once she started offering free train rides to a better place.

About voting, how about this Rastus. How effective would your enforcement/safety tools be if you only got to ticket/arrest/impound bad drivers, speeders, drunks etc once every three years and the rest of the time had to sit back and watch the train wreck unfold, cause that's how democracy 'works'.

[Akzle]

and yes. One has a moral obligation to disobey unjust rule

[awayatc]

and yes. One has a moral obligation to disobey unjust rule

The best post by far..

The only thing being said in this everlasting ridiculous saga that makes any sense.

Great.

[scumdog]

no, see, 'no man is above the law'
these are the laws of physics, gravity, logic, etc.
What youre speaking to is legislation. Theyre no more than mans rules to rule other men.

So? And the problem is.....?

[Akzle]

So? And the problem is.....?

people like you. who have to ask.

[Kickaha]

and yes. One has a moral obligation to disobey unjust rule

Who gets to decide if the rule is unjust?

[swbarnett]

Who gets to decide if the rule is unjust?
That's up to your individual sense of right and wrong. Sometimes it's not very clear cut. Other times it's bloody obvious.

Thre are some very famous historical figures that lived by this principle that are generally regarded in a very positive light. Nelson Mandela and Ghandi spring immediately to mind.

[scumdog]

About voting, how about this Rastus. How effective would your enforcement/safety tools be if you only got to ticket/arrest/impound bad drivers, speeders, drunks etc once every three years and the rest of the time had to sit back and watch the train wreck unfold, cause that's how democracy 'works'.

Well THAT makes sense...on KB maybe...:rolleyes:

Or so some would think.

[Akzle]

Who gets to decide if the rule is unjust?

not jew.

Your creator, call it god or mohammed or yhyw-qz3##.
Has written into your dna. If you are doing wrong, you will not be at peace.

[willytheekid]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/9601751/Father-says-mentally-ill-son-is-road-menace

"They've been going on since Christmas about this damn road toll, and here we are trying to be proactive in stopping both him hurting himself, and more importantly, him running over some kid in the street.

"He's a danger on the road, but they're just not interested."

After 28 years service to the police, he said "it's really put me off them".

"Their attitude these days is like a police state, and unless they can issue a ticket for revenue gathering, they're not interested"

....so much fail its just not funny :facepalm:

After 28yrs service!...even he has noticed the dramatic shift towards revenue collection over actual roadsafety!

...lets just wait till this MENTALLY UNSTABLE kid kills someone...THEN act :yes:


:facepalm:

[pritch]

"Their attitude these days is like a police state, and unless they can issue a ticket for revenue gathering, they're not interested"


Could be worse, could be like Queensland.

Apparently there is a law there that says you can't leave a car unlocked. On hot days people will leave the windows down a bit but there is a limit, if any window is more than 5cm(?) down you get an A$146 ticket for leaving the car unlocked. There was a photo of a female cop in a Supermarket car park checking the gaps with a ruler.

A motorcyclist took a foot off the peg to stretch his leg, he was stopped and issued a ticket for riding with his feet off the pegs.

The money just keeps rolling in.

[Ocean1]

A motorcyclist took a foot off the peg to stretch his leg, he was stopped and issued a ticket for riding with his feet off the pegs.

Any law about riding with your arse on the seat?

'Cause I routinely stand on the pegs for 10 min or so...

[Scuba_Steve]

Any law about riding with your arse on the seat?

'Cause I routinely stand on the pegs for 10 min or so...

If not I'm sure they'll make one if there's moneys to be made

[roogazza]

16 or 17 days to run for the tolerance.
What are we averaging about one death a day on the roads !
If we continue at this rate we'll have have 350 for the year.
That's a 100 up on last year? :weep: Mmmmmmm.

[Akzle]

16 or 17 days to run for the tolerance.
What are we averaging about one death a day on the roads !
If we continue at this rate we'll have have 350 for the year.
That's a 100 up on last year? :weep: Mmmmmmm.

must have happened because there werent enough police enforcing the 'tolerance' and they must all have happened at 109km/h, because tv said.

[Tigadee]

It is the responsibility of Government to ensure that the laws are understood by the populace. And that those laws are in line with the stated reason for the law. When basic logic puts the lie to the stated reason, that law does not have a mandate to exist. In which case we, the populace, have a moral obligation to ignore said law when it is logical to do so within the reasoning behind that law.

But then where will the gubbermint get its revenue from? If not from the immoral and illogical, and more importantly the ignorant?

[swbarnett]

But then where will the gubbermint get its revenue from? If not from the immoral and illogical, and more importantly the ignorant?
Which is, of course, one of the main reasons they don't bother to educate the populace. An educated population is much harder to subjugate.

[rastuscat]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/9601751/Father-says-mentally-ill-son-is-road-menace

"They've been going on since Christmas about this damn road toll, and here we are trying to be proactive in stopping both him hurting himself, and more importantly, him running over some kid in the street.

"He's a danger on the road, but they're just not interested."

After 28 years service to the police, he said "it's really put me off them".

"Their attitude these days is like a police state, and unless they can issue a ticket for revenue gathering, they're not interested"

....so much fail its just not funny :facepalm:

After 28yrs service!...even he has noticed the dramatic shift towards revenue collection over actual roadsafety!

...lets just wait till this MENTALLY UNSTABLE kid kills someone...THEN act :yes:


:facepalm:

Smiled when I read that story. Its sad for the family, and lots of other families in similar predicaments.

Imagine though, if the Popos just acted on every case like this. Imagine the infignation when I turn up at someones door and remove their licence based on what an informant had told us.

How much closer to a Police state do we really want to get? There is already a process via the medical system and the NZTA which deals with exactly this circumstance.

Nah, let's just let the Popos act on complaints and take peoples right to drive away.

The 28 year veteran chose to forget the process he should have followed instead of using the media to make a whipping boy (yet again) of his ex employer.

If you don't have a legitimate criticism, nothing works quite as well as the old revenue collecting chestnut.

[rastuscat]

and yes. One has a moral obligation to disobey unjust rule

Key point there Akzle.

The decision as to what is unjust is the key.

[willytheekid]

Smiled when I read that story.

I dont think any of road going public did!...or his family!:pinch:

As for following "proceedure"...I should think you know the process Ras, my mother inlaw works in mental health, and even she was horrified about that story, and stated the ACTUAL "proceedure" regarding this one.(She's only got 30+yrs experiance in mental health...should I ignore her decades of experiance and opinion as well?)

...as the police have the legal right to asses an individual's mental well being & mental state (especially when alerted to the situation by family), and then if they deem the individual is mentaly unfit or at risk to themselves or other members of the public, they have the right to detain and refer them to the mental health services for an assesment. (legitimate enough?)

"I'm not happy with that, I feel the least they could have done was knocked on the door and assessed him and been proactive in this situation".

Its exactly what the father was asking!.(Maybe he did know the process...hence his...frustration)

...but nah!!, lets just get defensive and ignore commonsence at the expense of the public's safety and the young individual in question.

28yrs service mate...he has the right to his opinion, and quiet frankly, an opinion from a long serving popo should be carefully listened to...not instantly dismissed (some of us respect the opinion's from the older popos...like yours!:laugh:)

But yes...going to the media was not the best move IMHO....I guess frustration and the fact it was his kid in trouble made him go for the "noisey" option.

...tis a worry tho, kids messed up that badly and in control of a motor vehicle:wacko:..recipe for disaster there.

Meh!...stay safe Ras and keep up the great work (And sharing your opinions etc on here...its the best reading I get most days lol)

ps...hope you had a great Xmas NYrs Ras...when ya heading off to Vegas? (Pleeeeese take lots of "touristie" picys to share)

[willytheekid]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/9606393/Road-threat-driver-taken-into-care

Update

...good to see the kid got some help :clap:

[Tazz]

One of the staff just went through the process of trying to get her mothers license removed (she got lost going to the dairy for a pack of smokes and ended up in Nelson with no idea how/why and no idea how to get home, and other such things also involving picking up hitch hikers too) and it was not a straight forward process at all. Your inlaw might be an efficient health care professional, but the 5 come across in the case mentioned were tits on a bull. I believe she still has it now but is minus a vehicle due to family action (which has caused its own problems)

To many rules, not enough rules, idiots lucky enough to be left alone, small slip up book thrown at you by wanker cops incidents...we just can't win :brick:


I dont think any of road going public did!...or his family!:pinch:

As for following "proceedure"...I should think you know the process Ras, my mother inlaw works in mental health, and even she was horrified about that story, and stated the ACTUAL "proceedure" regarding this one.(She's only got 30+yrs experiance in mental health...should I ignore her decades of experiance and opinion as well?)

...as the police have the legal right to asses an individual's mental well being & mental state (especially when alerted to the situation by family), and then if they deem the individual is mentaly unfit or at risk to themselves or other members of the public, they have the right to detain and refer them to the mental health services for an assesment. (legitimate enough?)

"I'm not happy with that, I feel the least they could have done was knocked on the door and assessed him and been proactive in this situation".

Its exactly what the father was asking!.(Maybe he did know the process...hence his...frustration)

...but nah!!, lets just get defensive and ignore commonsence at the expense of the public's safety and the young individual in question.

28yrs service mate...he has the right to his opinion, and quiet frankly, an opinion from a long serving popo should be carefully listened to...not instantly dismissed (some of us respect the opinion's from the older popos...like yours!:laugh:)

But yes...going to the media was not the best move IMHO....I guess frustration and the fact it was his kid in trouble made him go for the "noisey" option.

...tis a worry tho, kids messed up that badly and in control of a motor vehicle:wacko:..recipe for disaster there.

Meh!...stay safe Ras and keep up the great work (And sharing your opinions etc on here...its the best reading I get most days lol)

ps...hope you had a great Xmas NYrs Ras...when ya heading off to Vegas? (Pleeeeese take lots of "touristie" picys to share)

[Ocean1]

One of the staff just went through the process of trying to get her mothers license removed <> and it was not a straight forward process at all.

We were lucky enough to encounter a similar situation just when the old dear was due en eye test to retain her licence.

We stole her glasses.

And the new pair.

[willytheekid]

One of the staff just went through the process of trying to get her mothers license removed (she got lost going to the dairy for a pack of smokes and ended up in Nelson with no idea how/why and no idea how to get home, and other such things also involving picking up hitch hikers too) and it was not a straight forward process at all. Your inlaw might be an efficient health care professional, but the 5 come across in the case mentioned were tits on a bull. I believe she still has it now but is minus a vehicle due to family action (which has caused its own problems)

To many rules, not enough rules, idiots lucky enough to be left alone, small slip up book thrown at you by wanker cops incidents...we just can't win :brick:

Yup!...its sad state of affares when Bullshit over rides commonsence!

But without these crazy rules, as Rastus has said, we risk falling into a "police state" type of system
...but once again the popo are left to clean up the mess, and risk breaking some of these crazy rules in the process(And get grilled by the media & public either way)...kinda damned if they do, and damned if they don't kind of situation :pinch:...tis a fine line...would hate there job.

...all the way to Nelson!:gob:...DAAAAAMN!!!! (And I thought I drift off occasionally)
thats gotta be scary!

ps...and from what Ive seen of the mental health system...crazy just dosn't sum it up! :wacko:

[pzkpfw]

16 or 17 days to run for the tolerance.
What are we averaging about one death a day on the roads !
If we continue at this rate we'll have have 350 for the year.
That's a 100 up on last year? :weep: Mmmmmmm.

Heh.

When I worked at the MRC (Motor Registration Centre) the LTSA (it was, then) staff magazine had a thing on the road toll.

In March you'd see "Road toll 20, target for year 180".

(They meant well, but it read very wrong.)

[scumdog]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/9606393/Road-threat-driver-taken-into-care

Update

...good to see the kid got some help :clap:

Hmm, lets see....
"Police might have been able to prevent the events of Saturday night - when his son was arrested again - if they acted earlier, the father said.

"Had they done something on Saturday morning we may have stopped him either being assaulted or being involved in a fight and as I say, all they really needed to do was take his keys off him," he said.

But a police spokesman said "a number of proactive steps" were taken by staff after being contacted by the man's mother on Saturday morning.

"We did locate the vehicle at a nearby address, and staff spoke to the occupants of that address," the spokesman said.

The occupants told police they had no concerns for the man at that time, and that he was in the care of someone he knew, he said.

"So at that point we were reasonably happy that (a) he was in a better state of mind and (b) that he wouldn't be driving for the rest of that day," the spokesman said.

The man's parents received a call from a "really concerned" woman on Saturday night, saying their son was at her house, and behaving erratically.

SO, something WAS done - but not to Dads satisfaction.

And that "really concerned" woman? - if the son really was that bad why did she not call Police?

(BTW: rocking up to the front door, saying " 'Ell-ello-ello, you look a bit loopy my man and we're going to take your licence off you and throw you in the padded cell" certainly wouldn't go down well!

The procedures are a little more complex than that and can be bloody frustrating....and have any of you seen how quickly a person who is behaving in an unstable manner can suddenly appear 'normal' when they realise their freedom is in jeopardy? - 'cos I certainly have)

[Akzle]

Could be worse, could be like Queensland.

Apparently there is a law there that says you can't leave a car unlocked. On hot days people will leave the windows down a bit but there is a limit, if any window is more than 5cm(?) down you get an A$146 ticket for leaving the car unlocked. There was a photo of a female cop in a Supermarket car park checking the gaps with a ruler.

A motorcyclist took a foot off the peg to stretch his leg, he was stopped and issued a ticket for riding with his feet off the pegs.

The money just keeps rolling in.

http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/cold-shock-warming-up-your-car-illegal/

mmmhmmmmmmmm

[Tazz]

http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/cold-shock-warming-up-your-car-illegal/

mmmhmmmmmmmm

Might as well just be fined for owning things that people want to steal.

[Ocean1]

Might as well just be fined for owning things that people want to steal.

Aye.

"Even in Colorado, famous for its skiing, it’s illegal state wide to warm up your car while you’re not in it. Police in the state are actually cracking down on the practice to reduce the number of stolen vehicles. They are actively patrolling neighborhoods looking for homeowners trying to get to work in the morning without freezing."

All wrong innit? Where do we get all this blaming the stealee from?

If'n I wus sheriff there'd be a fleet of unattended cars with special self-locking doors that called 911 when closed.

[Akzle]

Might as well just be fined for owning things that people want to steal.

shhhhhh!:shutup::shutup:

you'll give scumpuppy ideas.

[Akzle]

If'n I wus sheriff there'd be a fleet of unattended cars with special self-locking doors that called 911 when closed.

why not just roll up the windows and release cyanide, with an ejector seat.
like self-re-setting traps.

or a small bear.
doors lock, back seat folds down into boot *bam* grizzly up in yo shit nigga!

[scumdog]

why not just roll up the windows and release cyanide, with an ejector seat.
like self-re-setting traps.

or a small bear.
doors lock, back seat folds down into boot *bam* grizzly up in yo shit nigga!


Hey that makes sense...:shutup:

[RDJ]

I'd like this fitted if I had a car - with a proximity/theft trigger

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bdf_1352583873

IMO, theft is stealing time not just goods. If you work a month of 40 hour weeks to buy a bike and someone steals it, he's stolen a month of your 40-hour weeks' efforts. The mentality of the police spokespeople who say "do not leave valuables visible as it attracts thieves" is difficult to grasp. It is the immoral equivalent (but not as bad as) saying "she was wearing a short skirt and (so) getting assaulted was her fault". Just because something is in view does not constitute a license, provocation or endorsement that it is available to be taken by force. A disarmed populace of course leads to exactly this, where only the Government and criminals have access to protective force. But, I repeat myself..

[scumdog]

s. The mentality of the police spokespeople who say "do not leave valuables visible as it attracts thieves" is difficult to grasp. .

Oh you can leave your i-Pad and any other valuables in plain sight in your unlocked car overnight.

Just don't act surprised when it goes awol.

and likewise when the insurance company refuse your claim - or at least drag it out painfully.

nek minnit you'll have us believe it's OK to leave a loaded gun lying around 'cos nobody else should mess with it so nobody will end up being shot...or sommat like that.

[RDJ]

Oh you can leave your i-Pad and any other valuables in plain sight in your unlocked car overnight.

Just don't act surprised when it goes awol.

and likewise when the insurance company refuse your claim - or at least drag it out painfully.

nek minnit you'll have us believe it's OK to leave a loaded gun lying around 'cos nobody else should mess with it so nobody will end up being shot...or sommat like that.

""nek minnit you'll have us believe it's OK to leave a loaded gun lying around 'cos nobody else should mess with it so nobody will end up being shot...or sommat like that"" - no, that's your straw man argument. Your assertion that I would do that does not follow from my previous statements.

""Oh you can leave your i-Pad and any other valuables in plain sight in your unlocked car overnight. Just don't act surprised when it goes awol."" - no, I don't intend to do that because the police take little or no interest in solving small-scale property crimes and the courts take little or no interest in punishing thieves. I am never surprised when people of low or no morals steal.

As for insurance - we pay high insurance rates not because honest people possess valuable staff they worked hard for but because lowlife scum steal it. And said lowlife scum don't get punished if they do get caught.

[bluninja]

Oh you can leave your i-Pad and any other valuables in plain sight in your unlocked car overnight.

Just don't act surprised when it goes awol.

and likewise when the insurance company refuse your claim - or at least drag it out painfully.

nek minnit you'll have us believe it's OK to leave a loaded gun lying around 'cos nobody else should mess with it so nobody will end up being shot...or sommat like that.

This happened to my cousins 8 year old son and his friends. Walk into an unlocked neighbours, house pick up the gun, play pretend "stick em up" and gun discharges into 8 year olds hand....a few inches away from his head. Lucky for the boys they lived and learned.

[Akzle]

This happened to my cousins 8 year old son and his friends.

well there's the fucking problem right there. your cousin is a fucking moron.

all kids should have guns, it should be taught in primary school.

but no, enforcement is more profitable than education. as you were.

[Ocean1]

If you work a month of 40 hour weeks to buy a bike and someone steals it, he's stolen a month of your 40-hour weeks' efforts.

In one case close to me the cost represented two years of saving from weekend jobs.

I know that machine intimately. Several times over the last few years I've come across similar bikes on a ride and asked politely to look closer. I may never find it. But I wouldn't bet on it.

[pritch]

all kids should have guns, it should be taught in primary school.
.

That may be just a bit radical. Most boys used to be taught to shoot at secondary school. A few years ago most homes outside the 50kph areas had a firearm, that's probably still the case.

A farmer who doesn't own a gun is potentially a source of annoyance to his neighbours.

[roogazza]

Can't wait to see the police stats for the Dec/Jan period. They are to announced today.
Not that it made any difference to me or the death numbers.
For the moment it's back to 10 k tolerance.

[Akzle]

Can't wait to see the police stats for the Dec/Jan period. They are to announced today.
Not that it made any difference to me or the death numbers.
For the moment it's back to 10 k tolerance.

i dont think anyone gives a fuck. the cop line will be "alcohol" and "they were doing 105, clearly a hazard" and or every other bullshit that backs up their campaign.

i was doing 140 last night, in a cage no less, and got overtaken.:shit:

no one died.

[FJRider]

A farmer who doesn't own a gun is potentially a source of annoyance to his neighbours.

Most farm kids were wandering their farms with a .22 shooting rabbits ... long before they went to high school.

If a few of the stock rustlers knew how well armed most farms were ... :shifty:
And how keen said farmers would be ... to shoot said rustlers ... :laugh:

[slofox]

Sooooo...1 Feb today. Guess the lowered tolerance is gone for now, huh?

[Scuba_Steve]

i dont think anyone gives a fuck. the cop line will be "alcohol" and "they were doing 105, clearly a hazard" and or every other bullshit that backs up their campaign.

i was doing 140 last night, in a cage no less, and got overtaken.:shit:

no one died.

Bullshit!... NZ's biggest criminal gang says thats impossible; you would have been dead as soon as you hit 105km/h, tho today you can take it to 110km/h

[FJRider]

Sooooo...1 Feb today. Guess the lowered tolerance is gone for now, huh?

Do you think all the HP officers wont stop you if you only exceed the posted speed limit by 10 km/hr .. ?? .... :blink: :facepalm:

Those that feel obliged to stop ALL road users exceeding posted speed limits ... will continue to do so ...

[Mike.Gayner]

The police win either way with stats. Deaths and accidents are way down? Cops pat themselves on the back for a job well done. Deaths and accidents way up? Cops tell us that the number of tickets issued proves we're still going too fast. Of course they are never willing to entertain other factors like weather, road conditions, average newer age of vehicles etc.

[awa355]

Going up the hill out of Te A yesterday, it's a 70k zone. The speedo was reading 82kph when a cop came over the brow towards me.

You know what the buggar did?? :sweatdrop:sweatdrop just drove past. Didn't stop me, write a ticket, give me a lecture, nothing. :argh:

Here I was, endangering lives, excessive speeding breaking the law, and this popo just ignored me.

How the hell can society expect a safe world to live in when the police wont do their job? I've a damn good mind to complain!!

And, it was still January.

[Juniper]

The police win either way with stats. Deaths and accidents are way down? Cops pat themselves on the back for a job well done. Deaths and accidents way up? Cops tell us that the number of tickets issued proves we're still going too fast. Of course they are never willing to entertain other factors like weather, road conditions, average newer age of vehicles etc.

Average stupidity of newer and older drivers....

Average people drinking......

Talking on their phone on speaker hidden in their lap.....

[Swoop]

The transition period will be interesting.

I'm not seeing a massive increase in road deaths currently, so perhaps the 4kph "tolerance" is just the bullshit we know it to be.

Good to see we are still not concentrating on driver training and education.

[willytheekid]

...Good to see we are still not concentrating on driver training and education.

Pffft!,No money in that!...this is about revenue!...not actual road safety!<_< (why fix a well paying problem when you can profit from it!$!)

[bluninja]

Average stupidity of newer and older drivers....

Average people drinking......

Talking on their phone on speaker hidden in their lap.....

Actually it's the older drivers talking to their cocks because it's the only attention it gets these days....the mobile phone in the lap is just an excuse to cover their embarrassment :tugger:

[roogazza]

Actually it's the older drivers talking to their cocks because it's the only attention it gets these days....the mobile phone in the lap is just an excuse to cover their embarrassment :tugger:

At the risk of being jumped by a vagina.
What I see is mostly women playing with phones while driving.
I'm so tempted to do a bit of role play at times,but then I'd get locked up ?
:spanking::corn:

[scumdog]

At the risk of being jumped by a vagina.
What I see is mostly women playing with phones while driving.
I'm so tempted to do a bit of role play at times,but then I'd get locked up ?
:spanking::corn:

Yep, I see about 5 woman drivers using the phone (mostly texting) for every male I see using his phone.

Maybe the males are more cunning???

[_Shrek_]

Yep, I see about 5 woman drivers using the phone (mostly texting) for every male I see using his phone.

Maybe the males are more cunning???

na scummy just got less to talk about :innocent:

[pete376403]

Yep, I see about 5 woman drivers using the phone (mostly texting) for every male I see using his phone.

Maybe the males are more cunning???

Do you ticket the phone users?

[buggerit]

Do you ticket the phone users?
Should be allowed to pull them over:Police:, taser them:eek:,crush the phone:ar15:, and send them on their way:motu:

[Scuba_Steve]

Should be allowed to pull them over [:Police:], taser them:eek:,crush the phone:ar15:, and send them on their way:motu:

not a bad idea, should strip them of their gang patches too

[swbarnett]

Should be allowed to pull them over:Police:, taser them:eek:,crush the phone:ar15:, and send them on their way:motu:
Yet another overreaction to a non-problem. If a driver is distracted there is a deeper issue that needs to be addressed. The phone is not the problem.

[buggerit]

Yet another overreaction to a non-problem. If a driver is distracted there is a deeper issue that needs to be addressed. The phone is not the problem.

Na, overreaction would be ,shoot em with the glock, crush the car:eek5: