ANOTHER speeding clamp down

[gjm]

Yup - that time of year. The police are out in force, tackling the major issues of road safety. By sitting at the side of long, clear stretches of road and pointing a camera at motorists.

There was a police representative on the news this morning, dishing out the same old meaningless diatribe - "Speeding causes accidents... blah, blah, blah..."

What causes accidents is people not paying attention to the road or other road users.
What causes accidents is BAD driving.

Travelling at 110km/h on a clear piece of road with 2km of visibility does not cause an accident, but will see you with a fine.

If accident reduction is the aim, why place the mobile cameras in areas where accidents never happen? Like the one parked on SH1 southbound, about 600m after the dual carriageway finishes coming out of Huntly? There was one there on Thursday morning, in the mist, and a different one there Thursday evening. Let's have someone watching the central hatched area at the start to the dual carriageway as SH1 exits Huntly southbound, to catch the fuckwits who just can't wait and overtake before getting to the overtaking lane.
Or someone watching the dual carriageway as it ends on the approach to Huntly, in either direction, where Mr or Mrs car/van driver wants to just pass one more vehicle before breaking hard into a stream of traffic?
These are the people causing accidents. They may not be exceeding the speed limit, but they are dangerous.

The message the police are giving is "travel under the posted limit and you will be safe". This is utter rubbish.

Travel at a speed appropriate to the conditions, which includes road surface, weather, visibility, rider/driver condition, vehicle specification, prevalent traffic and more, and then you will be safer.

Yesterday afternoon, returning from Raglan, there were huge queues of traffic on SH1. Probably just holiday traffic, but most of it moving at 10-50km/h. If it was moving at all. And police cars parked 'watching' nothing happen.

We got off SH1 and took the long but fun route back. 1B east, then Whitakahu Road, then cross country north to Waerenga Road. Great roads. Lots of long, long straights, some fun corners and combinations. Lots of opportunity for some 'spirited' riding and if ridden without care, lots of opportunity for carnage. But not one police car, speed camera van or any form of traffic speed enforcement, unless you include some unannounced new seal which was a bit interesting... Still, riding appropriately and paying attention ensured there were no problems.

Are Kiwis typically taken in by the drivel spouted about speeding? If they believe that rubbish, why don't so many of them believe the instruction 'keep left unless passing', for instance?


Glad I got that out of the way. I'll go and enjoy a sunny few days off. :)

[sil3nt]

Pretty sure I got done twice on the way back from Auckland. Will find out in a few weeks. Had no speeding tickets in 10 years of driving until new years when I got done for 105 km/h at the bombays. I think I got done again at the bombays and possibly at Huntly. Lesson learned though! Stop going to Auckland on these long weekends :pinch:

[James Deuce]

Are Kiwis typically taken in by the drivel spouted about speeding? If they believe that rubbish, why don't so many of them believe the instruction 'keep left unless passing', for instance?


No, like you they believe they are superior road users, massively skilled drivers and riders and that it won't happen to them.

[gjm]

No, like you they believe they are superior road users, massively skilled drivers and riders and that it won't happen to them.

Hmm. Not sure how you reached (jumped to?) that conclusion, and I think that's the second time you've (incorrectly) assumed you know me. Please don't do that - meet me first, eh?

[R650R]

No, like you they believe they are superior road users, massively skilled drivers and riders and that it won't happen to them.

Yes. He's just written a great advertisement about why speed matters, lets hope the ltsa doesn't steal it for the next ad.

GJM you've just stated you are constantly surrounded by idiotic bad drivers, the extra speed increases your stopping distance and space to avoid their mistakes.
I like to stretch my legs at times but accept the rules of the game imposed on us and what ever penalty occasionally hit with.
Just think of all the times you don't get caught and speed tickets are quite a cheap fee for freedom of travel...

[TheDemonLord]

Hmm. Not sure how you reached (jumped to?) that conclusion, and I think that's the second time you've (incorrectly) assumed you know me. Please don't do that - meet me first, eh?

if I were a betting man, I would say that he reached that conclusion, based on your comments about speed not being equal to safety, and driving to the conditions is actually equal to safer driving - as typically these comments are spoken by people who believe themselves to be the sole and only people capable of driving on the open road at 120 kph.


That said - I agree with you that focussing soley on speed as a metric of good driving is a bad idea and that instead trying to raise the collective standard of driving is a better idea.

Common areas where NZ drivers appear to lack compared to other countries:

Lane discipline
correct use of Motorway lanes
courteous open road driving
Road awareness

[SMOKEU]

Common areas where NZ drivers appear to lack compared to other countries:

Lane discipline
correct use of Motorway lanes
courteous open road driving
Road awareness

As well as not giving a fuck about even the most basic vehicle maintenance like tyre pressures and fluids, and braking during the corners instead of before the corners. And not knowing/being too lazy to use engine braking, especially when going down mountain roads.

[TheDemonLord]

As well as not giving a fuck about even the most basic vehicle maintenance like tyre pressures and fluids, and braking during the corners instead of before the corners. And not knowing/being too lazy to use engine braking, especially when going down mountain roads.

The last one I think is more an idicator that we drive a lot of Automatics - compared the UK where most cars are still predominantly manual (or with flappy paddle semi autos)

[SMOKEU]

The last one I think is more an idicator that we drive a lot of Automatics - compared the UK where most cars are still predominantly manual (or with flappy paddle semi autos)

I've never driven an auto car where engine braking isn't possible by moving the gear shifter into a lower gear. But then again, I've never driven a modern car.

[Tazz]

http://lifewithmisty.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/going-in-circles-sign2.jpg

[Tazz]

http://www.memecreator.org/static/images/memes/2651176.jpg

[Edbear]

if I were a betting man, I would say that he reached that conclusion, based on your comments about speed not being equal to safety, and driving to the conditions is actually equal to safer driving - as typically these comments are spoken by people who believe themselves to be the sole and only people capable of driving on the open road at 120 kph.


That said - I agree with you that focussing soley on speed as a metric of good driving is a bad idea and that instead trying to raise the collective standard of driving is a better idea.

Common areas where NZ drivers appear to lack compared to other countries:

Lane discipline
correct use of Motorway lanes
courteous open road driving
Road awareness


As well as not giving a fuck about even the most basic vehicle maintenance like tyre pressures and fluids, and braking during the corners instead of before the corners. And not knowing/being too lazy to use engine braking, especially when going down mountain roads.

Let's just acknowledge that the majority of drivers in NZ lack the competence to drive safely at any speed on any road. A minority can achieve the speed limit in ideal circumstances, and a tiny minority can maintain it for any distance.

[SMOKEU]

Let's just acknowledge that the majority of drivers in NZ lack the competence to drive safely at any speed on any road. A minority can achieve the speed limit in ideal circumstances, and a tiny minority can maintain it for any distance.

Pretty much.

[DamianW]

It seems odd to me that in NZ you are within the law if you drive/ride 100km/h on a road without speed restrictions - without any insurance; and yet be breaking the law if you drive/ride on the same stretch of road at 120km/h - with full comprehensive cover insurance.

Yes, the legal speed limit is exactly that but driving/riding without insurance(?) I just can't fathom it.

[SMOKEU]

Yes, the legal speed limit is exactly that but driving/riding without insurance(?) I just can't fathom it.

And if someone with no insurance crashes into you, then you'd be lucky to get paid $20 a week out of their benefit for it. Although your insurance company should be able to take the guilty party to court.

[DamianW]

And if someone with no insurance crashes into you, then you'd be lucky to get paid $20 a week out of their benefit for it. Although your insurance company should be able to take the guilty party to court.

Yes, this is exactly what has happened to my wife. Last year a guy didn't check his blind spot and pulled right out in front of her damaging the cars front wing. He admitted liability and our insurance paid for the repairs to my wife's car. This week and eight months later our insurance company is taking the other driver to court for not paying the repair costs. It seems that he is objecting to the repair bill being higher than he is prepared to pay.

[caseye]

While this is no guarantee of not getting a ticket I will often wait for a car to pass me doing 120k and then follow them at 120k for a bit. Years ago I was following another biker around a bend over the limit in ChCh and I avoided a ticket thanks to him.

So aye, not only incompetent but happy to admit to letting others take the fall for you, despicable you are.

[James Deuce]

Hmm. Not sure how you reached (jumped to?) that conclusion, and I think that's the second time you've (incorrectly) assumed you know me. Please don't do that - meet me first, eh?

Seen that long list of justifications about why you should be allowed to drive/ride however you want, been to its funeral. Over it.

[TheDemonLord]

It seems odd to me that in NZ you are within the law if you drive/ride 100km/h on a road without speed restrictions - without any insurance; and yet be breaking the law if you drive/ride on the same stretch of road at 120km/h - with full comprehensive cover insurance.

Yes, the legal speed limit is exactly that but driving/riding without insurance(?) I just can't fathom it.

Personally, I don't mind driving/riding without insurance - compare NZ insurance prices to places where 3rd party is compulsory - every time there is a dicussion about whether it should be we see the insurance companies going:

'Oh no, it won't raise premiums at all'

Whilst rubbing their hands with glee and warming up the money printing machines.

[DamianW]

Personally, I don't mind driving/riding without insurance - compare NZ insurance prices to places where 3rd party is compulsory - every time there is a dicussion about whether it should be we see the insurance companies going:

'Oh no, it won't raise premiums at all'

Whilst rubbing their hands with glee and warming up the money printing machines.

I agree with your sentiment about the risk of hiking premiums but I think making insurance compulsory would lead to better driving/riding outcomes and improve vehicle road worthiness. On the latter, from memory you can't get a vehicle WOF (MOT) disc in the UK without an insurance policy cover note.

[BoristheBiter]

I agree with your sentiment about the risk of hiking premiums but I think making insurance compulsory would lead to better driving/riding outcomes and improve vehicle road worthiness. On the latter, from memory you can't get a vehicle WOF (MOT) disc in the UK without an insurance policy cover note.

Meh, I pay for full comp, makes it the insurance company's problem.

premiums in the UK are basically theft. costs more for 3rd party than most cars.
I'll be fucked if i want that system here.

[mashman]

Yes. He's just written a great advertisement about why speed matters, lets hope the ltsa doesn't steal it for the next ad.

GJM you've just stated you are constantly surrounded by idiotic bad drivers, the extra speed increases your stopping distance and space to avoid their mistakes.
I like to stretch my legs at times but accept the rules of the game imposed on us and what ever penalty occasionally hit with.
Just think of all the times you don't get caught and speed tickets are quite a cheap fee for freedom of travel...

If you have to pay for it, it isn't freedom.

[bogan]

If you have to pay for it, it isn't freedom.

Freedom is never free.

[mashman]

Freedom is never free.

It's always free or you're doing it wrong.

[bogan]

It's always free or you're doing it wrong.

The price of freedom is death - Malcom X

Speed Kills, Pay up bitches - NZcops*








*some paraphrasing may have been involved

[mashman]

The price of freedom is death - Malcom X

Speed Kills, Pay up bitches - NZcops*








*some paraphrasing may have been involved

The death of what though? ‘We are free.’ The minute you hear ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’, watch out… because in a truly free nation, no one has to tell you you’re free.” - Jacque Fresco

bwaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaa... wot, no hi viz?

[bogan]

The death of what though? ‘We are free.’ The minute you hear ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’, watch out… because in a truly free nation, no one has to tell you you’re free.” - Jacque Fresco

bwaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaa... wot, no hi viz?

The people wanting the freedom, it's like a hardline quote of Franklin's "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." or the Beastie Boy's "Fight for your right, to party"

nah, you gotta pay extra for that...

[mashman]

The people wanting the freedom, it's like a hardline quote of Franklin's "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." or the Beastie Boy's "Fight for your right, to party"

nah, you gotta pay extra for that...

So twue... shame there's no form not to sign.

ACC is an organisation that specialises in prevention isn't it?

[DamianW]

Meh, I pay for full comp, makes it the insurance company's problem.

premiums in the UK are basically theft. costs more for 3rd party than most cars.
I'll be fucked if i want that system here.

Each to their own but I'd take higher national speed limits over here for compulsory, even higher cost insurance any day of the week. That should get a few more vehicles off the road.

[Tazz]

Each to their own but I'd take higher national speed limits over here for compulsory, even higher cost insurance any day of the week. That should get a few more vehicles off the road.

They'll never raise the speed limit here. Ever. I'd bet my full head of hair on it.

[Madness]

Years ago I was following another biker around a bend over the limit in ChCh and I avoided a ticket thanks to him.

The hypocrisy in this thread is bordering on criminal already but Cassina, that's pure fucking gold! :niceone:

[R650R]

Each to their own but I'd take higher national speed limits over here for compulsory, even higher cost insurance any day of the week. That should get a few more vehicles off the road.

So how does the compensation package work out if your six feet under afterwards...

Your idea has merit though on a Darwinian level, we'll up the speed limits for awhile to reduce the number of risktakers in the gene pool and hope they don't take out too many good drivers along the way...
After 10 years of that we'd reacha new equilibrium of courteous road users....

[DamianW]

Higher speed limits in most other parts of the world doesn't seem to be resulting in sending proportionately more road users to early graves. The point isn't so much about a desire for increased risk-taking but more about highlighting that artificially low speed limits are imposed relative to other developed countries. That so many fatalities occur at speeds between 60-80km/h suggests driver/rider error is primary cause as opposed to outright speed.

[ducatilover]

Compulsory insurance keeping crap cars off the road?

Fuck right off. There are bloody thousands upon thousands of illegal cars driving around, insurance, WoF etc will not change a thing.
Just like speeding fines, some cunts still think they deserve better than the 10km/h grace they are already given, as bad as cunts like me who reserve the right to keep smoking tobacco even though it kills. And these pretentious wankers on their fucking dangerous motorcycles


Jesus wept, bunch of moaning pricks who think they deserve better. Enjoy the roads, have a tug, chug a beer, hit yer missus and smile at life. Sandal wearing FIAT drivers the lot of ya ('cept JD and Bogan, logical pricks)

[bogan]

Compulsory insurance keeping crap cars off the road?

Fuck right off. There are bloody thousands upon thousands of illegal cars driving around, insurance, WoF etc will not change a thing.
Just like speeding fines, some cunts still think they deserve better than the 10km/h grace they are already given, as bad as cunts like me who reserve the right to keep smoking tobacco even though it kills. And these pretentious wankers on their fucking dangerous motorcycles


Jesus wept, bunch of moaning pricks who think they deserve better. Enjoy the roads, have a tug, chug a beer, hit yer missus and smile at life. Sandal wearing FIAT drivers the lot of ya ('cept JD and Bogan, logical pricks)

U wot m8? Fuggin having a logic thread off this time, wassit all aboot anyhu? Roady roady zoomy zoomy kachingy chingaling /wah?

[BoristheBiter]

Each to their own but I'd take higher national speed limits over here for compulsory, even higher cost insurance any day of the week. That should get a few more vehicles off the road.

What little fantasy land did you get that gem from?

[DamianW]

Thanks for that :rolleyes:

[TheDemonLord]

Each to their own but I'd take higher national speed limits over here for compulsory, even higher cost insurance any day of the week. That should get a few more vehicles off the road.

If the higher cost was reasonable (ie, a 30% or 50% increase) then fine,

but I think the UK is something like 300-400% more expensive

[BoristheBiter]

If the higher cost was reasonable (ie, a 30% or 50% increase) then fine,

but I think the UK is something like 300-400% more expensive

the last time I owned a car in the UK was in 97.
it was a 72 morris, cost 125 quid, insurance was 630 quid for minium 3rd party.

[James Deuce]

Compulsory insurance keeping crap cars off the road?

Fuck right off. There are bloody thousands upon thousands of illegal cars driving around, insurance, WoF etc will not change a thing.
Just like speeding fines, some cunts still think they deserve better than the 10km/h grace they are already given, as bad as cunts like me who reserve the right to keep smoking tobacco even though it kills. And these pretentious wankers on their fucking dangerous motorcycles


Jesus wept, bunch of moaning pricks who think they deserve better. Enjoy the roads, have a tug, chug a beer, hit yer missus and smile at life. Sandal wearing FIAT drivers the lot of ya ('cept JD and Bogan, logical pricks)

Fuck, better sell the FIAT.

[DamianW]

If the higher cost was reasonable (ie, a 30% or 50% increase) then fine,

but I think the UK is something like 300-400% more expensive

Lived in Germany for four years in the '80's. Insurance cost was reasonable, higher open road speed limits and I have yet to see any nation match their overall standard of driving competency. I have no quantitative stats to support that view but taken from a longitudinal ethnographic study over four years living there. So to BtB, not so much fantasy land mate.

[ducatilover]

Fuck, better sell the FIAT.

If you could just go ahead and do that, that would be great.

[TheDemonLord]

Lived in Germany for four years in the '80's. Insurance cost was reasonable, higher open road speed limits and I have yet to see any nation match their overall standard of driving competency. I have no quantitative stats to support that view but taken from a longitudinal ethnographic study over four years living there. So to BtB, not so much fantasy land mate.

I think you will find though that the driving comptency has a direct correlation with the national mindset - same reason why German engineering is so very often of such high quality.

I have visited germany and agree the standard of driving to be very high - I particularly like the fact that you can be ticketed for driving too slow in the fast lane (so annoying when some numpty is doing 80 in the overtaking lane here for no reason)

but as for insurance - the UK (which we are more closely aligned, in terms of attitude and national psyche) has ridiculas insurance premiums which has done nothing to quell either youthfull spirited driving, or shit buckets on the road - the only policy that did address the later was the new car one (CBF finding the policy)

[swbarnett]

Lived in Germany for four years in the '80's. Insurance cost was reasonable, higher open road speed limits and I have yet to see any nation match their overall standard of driving competency.
Try the Swiss.

The main reason, I feel, that their driving is so good is that they have the best public transport system I've seen, probably the best in the world. Because of this only those that want to drive actually drive*. This results in a driving population that are actually engaged in what they're doing.





*When I lived there there was only 1 car for every 1350 people in Zurich

[ducatilover]

I think you will find though that the driving comptency has a direct correlation with the national mindset - same reason why German engineering is so very often of such high quality.

I have visited germany and agree the standard of driving to be very high - I particularly like the fact that you can be ticketed for driving too slow in the fast lane (so annoying when some numpty is doing 80 in the overtaking lane here for no reason)

but as for insurance - the UK (which we are more closely aligned, in terms of attitude and national psyche) has ridiculas insurance premiums which has done nothing to quell either youthfull spirited driving, or shit buckets on the road - the only policy that did address the later was the new car one (CBF finding the policy)

Seen how hard it is to get a licence over there? You actually need some level of competence, and hours behind the wheel in different conditions.
Apparently, driver training is good, because (this is a fucking long shot here) it trains drivers.
But, what the fuck would I know? Dah gummint knows wotz best for all youse guys and I follow them.

[Scuba_Steve]

Wouldn't it be nice if they just clamped down on bad driving instead?
They could start with Holden drivers, here's a prime example :yes:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/t1.0-9/p180x540/10170787_468170286648141_3219318645294329335_n.jpg

[FJRider]

Travelling at 110km/h on a clear piece of road with 2km of visibility does not cause an accident, but will see you with a fine.



At 110 km/hr ... that 2 km clear visibility will last about a minute and a half. Less if a vehicle is coming towards you. You wont know it's coming ... or ... if its a threat to you ... until it is within a few hundred meters of you.THEN .. it's just a couple of seconds away from you.

Up that initial speed a bit ... and the timings (and your potential lifespan) shorten considerably.

Speed is seldom the only cause of accidents ... just one factor. Speed is the easiest to police ... so they do. High traffic areas are well policed (usually) with holiday weekends more so ...

[Berries]

At 110 km/hr ... that 2 km clear visibility will last about a minute and a half. Less if a vehicle is coming towards you. You wont know it's coming ... or ... if its a threat to you ... until it is within a few hundred meters of you.THEN .. it's just a couple of seconds away from you.
Which is all just basic physics. The poster said that 110km/h on a clear road with 2km visibility does not cause an accident. This is correct. There is no magic Newtonian switch between one speed and another, even though the rigid enforcement and promotion of a tolerance would suggest that there is.

[BoristheBiter]

Which is all just basic physics. The poster said that 110km/h on a clear road with 2km visibility does not cause an accident. This is correct. There is no magic Newtonian switch between one speed and another, even though the rigid enforcement and promotion of a tolerance would suggest that there is.

110km/h on a clear road with 2km visibility and you cant see the cop? you deserve the ticket.

[Ulsterkiwi]

I agree with your sentiment about the risk of hiking premiums but I think making insurance compulsory would lead to better driving/riding outcomes and improve vehicle road worthiness. On the latter, from memory you can't get a vehicle WOF (MOT) disc in the UK without an insurance policy cover note.

there is a scientific term for that theory........bollocks

making something compulsory does not automatically change the mindset of those who do not voluntarily do the thing that you have made a requirement. How many armed robbers use a firearm they have obtained with a licence? And no, its not that different.

Making insurance compulsory is giving insurance companies a licence to print money. Interesting that the UK has its insurance tax as well, so make you have something and tax you for being compliant.

[TheDemonLord]

Seen how hard it is to get a licence over there? You actually need some level of competence, and hours behind the wheel in different conditions.
Apparently, driver training is good, because (this is a fucking long shot here) it trains drivers.
But, what the fuck would I know? Dah gummint knows wotz best for all youse guys and I follow them.

I watched a docu about driving in germany - and I do agree, the driver training over there is more rigid - however I believe my post still has relevance:

The national mindset in germany is very structured, with a clear 'this is the right way to do things' and 'this is not the right way to do things' - Why do they have the degree of professional driver training as compulsory - because (and feel free to read this is in a faux german accent):

"Das ist das rvight wvay, Jah"

Compare to NZ - our national mindset is very much 'She'll be right', so people that can't drive, teach people to drive and She'll be right, we have no formal driver training, but that's okay, She'll be right (you see where I am going with this)....

[oneofsix]

At 110 km/hr ... that 2 km clear visibility will last about a minute and a half. Less if a vehicle is coming towards you. You wont know it's coming ... or ... if its a threat to you ... until it is within a few hundred meters of you.THEN .. it's just a couple of seconds away from you.

Up that initial speed a bit ... and the timings (and your potential lifespan) shorten considerably.

Speed is seldom the only cause of accidents ... just one factor. Speed is the easiest to police ... so they do. High traffic areas are well policed (usually) with holiday weekends more so ...

That sounds like a sucker that has swallowed the propaganda, do you swallow? :bleh: 110km/hr driving to the conditions, and to the limit of your visibility and you start braking sooner than the person driving at 100km/hr and constantly checking their speedo because the is comfortable at higher speed but artificially limited.

I reckon a prime example is coming up in Wellington if the WCC reduce the CBD limit to 30k, we have an issue with the wore jaywalkers in the country all ready, roads limit below the natural speed and the drivers wont be looking out, jaywalkers will feel more confident due to the lower traffic speed. The WCC has been warned by the AA but the WCC too have swallowed as have all those who think they only do 30k through there anyhow. I hope I and the AA are wrong but international research, which the AA quoted, says otherwise.

[oneofsix]

there is a scientific term for that theory........bollocks

making something compulsory does not automatically change the mindset of those who do not voluntarily do the thing that you have made a requirement. How many armed robbers use a firearm they have obtained with a licence? And no, its not that different.

Making insurance compulsory is giving insurance companies a licence to print money. Interesting that the UK has its insurance tax as well, so make you have something and tax you for being compliant.

Agreed, he also misses the point NZ has compulsory insurance with several collection methods, nearly every one pays the petrol portion but not everyone pays the rego portion, rumour has it that motorcyclists are especially bad at this. Of course in NZ this insurance only covers the person injury portion of the UKs 3rd party insurance and is not meant ot be an insurance at all but a group sharing of costs, but there has been enough threads about that, :laugh:

[Ulsterkiwi]

but there has been enough threads about that, :laugh:

no there hasnt! lets really flog this horse to death....oh wait....:shit:

[oneofsix]

no there hasnt! lets really flog this horse to death....oh wait....:shit:

think you meant deaf, as in none so deaf as those that don't want to hear. <_<

[DamianW]

Thanks UIsterkiwi - I was taught to be always gracious:

Good manners cost-eth nothing :)

[swbarnett]

110km/h on a clear road with 2km visibility and you cant see the cop? you deserve the ticket.
What about an unmarked car?

[wingnutt]

Yup - that time of year. The police are out in force, tackling the major issues of road safety. By sitting at the side of long, clear stretches of road and pointing a camera at motorists.

There was a police representative on the news this morning, dishing out the same old meaningless diatribe - "Speeding causes accidents... blah, blah, blah..."

What causes accidents is people not paying attention to the road or other road users.
What causes accidents is BAD driving.

Travelling at 110km/h on a clear piece of road with 2km of visibility does not cause an accident, but will see you with a fine.

If accident reduction is the aim, why place the mobile cameras in areas where accidents never happen? Like the one parked on SH1 southbound, about 600m after the dual carriageway finishes coming out of Huntly? There was one there on Thursday morning, in the mist, and a different one there Thursday evening. Let's have someone watching the central hatched area at the start to the dual carriageway as SH1 exits Huntly southbound, to catch the fuckwits who just can't wait and overtake before getting to the overtaking lane.
Or someone watching the dual carriageway as it ends on the approach to Huntly, in either direction, where Mr or Mrs car/van driver wants to just pass one more vehicle before breaking hard into a stream of traffic?
These are the people causing accidents. They may not be exceeding the speed limit, but they are dangerous.

The message the police are giving is "travel under the posted limit and you will be safe". This is utter rubbish.

Travel at a speed appropriate to the conditions, which includes road surface, weather, visibility, rider/driver condition, vehicle specification, prevalent traffic and more, and then you will be safer.

Yesterday afternoon, returning from Raglan, there were huge queues of traffic on SH1. Probably just holiday traffic, but most of it moving at 10-50km/h. If it was moving at all. And police cars parked 'watching' nothing happen.

We got off SH1 and took the long but fun route back. 1B east, then Whitakahu Road, then cross country north to Waerenga Road. Great roads. Lots of long, long straights, some fun corners and combinations. Lots of opportunity for some 'spirited' riding and if ridden without care, lots of opportunity for carnage. But not one police car, speed camera van or any form of traffic speed enforcement, unless you include some unannounced new seal which was a bit interesting... Still, riding appropriately and paying attention ensured there were no problems.

Are Kiwis typically taken in by the drivel spouted about speeding? If they believe that rubbish, why don't so many of them believe the instruction 'keep left unless passing', for instance?


Glad I got that out of the way. I'll go and enjoy a sunny few days off. :)



I think our roads are fast becoming a banana republic, or a police state.

The ticketing system is a rip off that has become nothing more than another way of filling up, the governments consolidated fund.

The ‘road safety ‘ banner is nothing more than a carrier, to fine motorists using pathetic reasons, that have no bearing on road safety whatsoever.

And the speed fetish, is basically corporate crap, designed to pacate a gullible public, while using the excuse, to make shit loads of easy money.

Let’s be realistic, it is legalized extortion, when fines are issued for meaningless indiscretions, I mean fining for speeds like 105kph, and 111kph on straight dry roads, with light traffic is just bullshit that does nothing but piss motorists off, not that the corporate arseholes care about that, it makes money, and that all there is too it.

Politicians won’t stop the fines because 1. It looks like they doing something about behaviour on our roads, and 2. It makes the fund look real good, justifying huge corporate salaries.

It’s a well known statistic, that most accidents happen below the speed limit, and yet corporate cops ad nauseam, continue to bleat about it, and I agree with you, I’m really sick in tired of some bloody corporate cop continually bleating about it, knowing full well, it’s not the answer to our driving problems.

To some degree, I feel sorry for the cops in cars, their discretion, and common sense, has been replaced with quotas, (they can call it what they like but it’s still quotas) and the decision to issue a fine is made for them, before they even get out of the car.

No, the real reason for our driver problems, is attitude, and behaviour, if corporate cops where serious about improving driving, then this is what needs looking into, but there is no money in it, so they wont.

I see that petrol companies are saying that profits are down, and they are blaming social media, well if other drivers are anything like me, my quess would be people are not travelling as much, because they don’t want to pay a fine, for picking their nose.

I know the last couple of 104kph times, I was on state highway one, I saw six cop cars, but you could shot a bullet down the road, and not hit anyone, the road was that quiet.

Maybe this a sign that folks have had a guts full, of being ripped off.

[swbarnett]

bloody corporate cop continually bleating about it, knowing full well, it’s not the answer to our driving problems.
Unfortunately I think that's only half the story. There are a number of cops and politicians that actually believe their own bullshit.


No, the real reason for our driver problems, is attitude, and behaviour,
I am increasingly of the opinion that actually we don't have a driving problem. Yes, there are those on the road that really shouldn't be driving. However, there is one inalienable fact that everyone seems to be missing - we are HUMAN. And humans are fallible. It's about time we accepted that with the freedom to drive comes a certain level of carnage.

If we do want to improve on the current situation we cannot expect the driving population as a whole to improve. To my mind, if we want to improve things we have to change the makeup of drivers. We have to change the driving test so that only those that actually have the aptitude can get a license and ban the rest from ever setting foot to pedal.

I have seen this in action in Switzerland. Not once in the two years that I lived there did I see one example of bad driver behaviour. Of course the one thing we have to do here before this can work is to get ourselves a fully functional, nationwide public transport system. And accept that it will run at a loss but pay for itself many times over in social terms.

[BoristheBiter]

It's about time we accepted that with the freedom to drive comes a certain level of carnage.



:crybaby::crybaby::crybaby:

It's about time you accepted the fact that if you go above the posted speed limit you could get a ticket.

bunch of crying pussy's that lot of ya.

[swbarnett]

It's about time you accepted the fact that if you go above the posted speed limit you could get a ticket.
Where in that post did I mention speed limits?

Anyway, if they pass a law banning motorcycles I dare say you'll just stop riding because they told you to.


bunch of crying pussy's that lot of ya.
All I'm asking is that we recognise that humans are fallible and no amount of bleating about better training for the masses is going to change that. You're obviously a little sensitive when it comes to having your delusions challenged.

In fact, you're the crying pussy "oh woe is me, the roads are too dangerous". Grow up and stop expecting perfection. Such a thing does not exist.


BTW: The apostrophe denotes possession, not plurality. And the expression is "the lot of ya".

[BoristheBiter]

Where in that post did I mention speed limits?

the threads about getting tickets for speeding, go figure.


Anyway, if they pass a law banning motorcycles I dare say you'll just stop riding because they told you to.

even for you that's a piss weak analogy.


All I'm asking is that we recognise that humans are fallible and no amount of bleating about better training for the masses is going to change that. You're obviously a little sensitive when it comes to having your delusions challenged.

don't disagree, nothing sensitive about my delusions.


In fact, you're the crying pussy "oh woe is me, the roads are too dangerous". Grow up and stop expecting perfection. Such a thing does not exist.

I'm not the one crying about getting tickets. Never said the roads are dangerous. Never expected perfection I deal with the public so know all to well how fucking dumb they can be.

Who fucking cares how they come up with a speed or how straight the roads are or how good you think you are at riding.
You speed, they catch you you get a ticket. Just don't get caught. All you have to do is play the game, I have put the odds further in my favor by getting a radar detector. never had a ticket since and I have not slowed down.

and's who's the's fuck's care's if's there's meant's to's be's an's apostrophe's or's what's it's denote's

[FJRider]

Which is all just basic physics ....

Actually ... Basic physics is "You're perfectly safe until you hit something" ... and you choose what speed.

At 110 km/hr ... tickets are unlikely ... unless they've reduced the tolerance ... again. (Or the cop has used up his discretion)

I've been on a road with 2 km's of clear visibility ... no cars coming .. bumped the speed up a "tad" ... three sheep ran out in front of me. I clipped the middle one. I was looking too far ahead.

[FJRider]

110km/hr driving to the conditions, and to the limit of your visibility and you start braking sooner than the person driving at 100km/hr and constantly checking their speedo because the is comfortable at higher speed but artificially limited.

I normally sit just under 110 km/hr. I've been stopped and lectured on the evils of speed. A few flashed red and blues. (the occasional waggled finger out the drivers window. No tickets at that speed. No issues at that speed. :headbang:

Which island are you on again ... ??? :scratch:


I reckon a prime example is coming up in Wellington

Ahhhh ...... question answered. :killingme

[Scuba_Steve]

=
I've been on a road with 2 km's of clear visibility ... no cars coming .. bumped the speed up a "tad" ... three sheep ran out in front of me. I clipped the middle one. I was looking too far ahead.

Lesson there? should have been going faster, ya woulda missed the lot then ;)

[FJRider]

Lesson there? should have been going faster, ya woulda missed the lot then ;)

I was going a tad faster than I thought I was .. I didn't go tits up ... but it was close.


Sheep shit does wash off ...

[gjm]

the threads about getting tickets for speeding, go figure.

When I started the thread, it was intended to be about the apparent disparity between the effort made to catch people for, in many cases, very minor infractions where they are travelling 1 or 2km/h too fast (there will be those clocked for being seriously over the limit, too), and the seeming relative disinterest and investment of effort in stopping people for driving or riding badly or dangerously.

I'm really pleased to see the discussion that has followed. It shows people do think about stuff like this even if those of us here, on the forum, are a minority.

[BoristheBiter]

When I started the thread, it was intended to be about the apparent disparity between the effort made to catch people for, in many cases, very minor infractions where they are travelling 1 or 2km/h too fast (there will be those clocked for being seriously over the limit, too), and the seeming relative disinterest and investment of effort in stopping people for driving or riding badly or dangerously.

I'm really pleased to see the discussion that has followed. It shows people do think about stuff like this even if those of us here, on the forum, are a minority.

Don't get me wrong, I too think they should pick on all bad points of driving.
They just don't have the staff to police everything and as speeding, well going above posted speed, is the easiest to police, go figure.
And who cares how they justify it, it's all political spin after all.

I spend a lot of time behind the wheel during the day and will maybe see 2-3 police cars and that is mainly on the motorway so the chance to see someone doing something wrong is very small as we all know when we see a cop we start obeying the rules.

Do I think they should target bad drivers, yes. Do I think the licence tests should be harder? yes. do I think the speed should be higher on some roads? yes. do I think if you speed, or go too slow, you should get a ticket? yes.

I learnt to play the game a long time ago, just seems a lot have a lot to learn.
The speed limit has been what it is for a long time and if you need to look at the speedo for more than a second to check what speed you are doing then you are one of those bad drivers (being general) as you should be scanning your mirrors the same way and if you can't do that then you shouldn't be on the road or get a car with cruse control.

[Hashbandicoot]

disparity between the effort made to catch people for...very minor infractions...and the seeming relative disinterest and investment of effort in stopping people for driving or riding badly or dangerously.

My 2c.

Three factors are at work.
1) The Law.
2) Ability and ease of enforcing the Law.
3) Revenue.

The road has a speed limit. Being over the limit by any amount is a breach of the law (although some leeway is given). By being caught travelling over the speed limit you can be fined. The charged fines are (primarily) a way of increasing revenues and funding law enforcement agencies. The fact that enforcing the speed limit makes the highways "safer" is a byproduct of revenue creation and is a secondary motivation.

It is simply easier and requires less manpower to catch people speeding than it is to catch dangerous driving in other ways. To effectively stop drink driving for example requires human observation (Police; whose wages must be paid) and intervention. Speeding can be enforced with a camera in a minivan. I don't know the cost of one of those minivan speed traps but after it has dispensed a few fines it will have paid for itself, and after that it is a profit machine.

With regard to the issue of road safety I'd sooner share the highway with a speeding motorist than a fatigued or drunk one.

[swbarnett]

do I think if you speed, or go too slow, you should get a ticket? yes.
This is what I take issue with. It shows a blind respect for the law that it simply doesn't deserve.

It's people like you that would've blindly arrested Rosa Parks irrespective of what you personally thought of that particular law.

[BoristheBiter]

This is what I take issue with. It shows a blind respect for the law that it simply doesn't deserve.

It's people like you that would've blindly arrested Rosa Parks irrespective of what you personally thought of that particular law.

It's because you are a dick.

Likening a speeding ticket to civil rights what a fuck head.

[Ulsterkiwi]

Thanks UIsterkiwi - I was taught to be always gracious:

Good manners cost-eth nothing :)

you are welcome and indeed manners do cost nothing, which is why I commented on the idea you were discussing and did not enter into pointless (and rude) derision of you personally. I do not know you, therefore will not presume to make judgements on you personally. If however you freely enter into a public discussion and put forward an opinion which is (in my opinion) flawed then I will say so and I will do that in a manner of my choosing. I do so in the full knowledge that you or any other interested party has the freedom to similarly dispense comment on my ideas.

To further illustrate the point, an ungracious comment would have been to suggest you build a bridge and get over yourself, but I wouldn't do that :innocent:

[Ulsterkiwi]

Thanks UIsterkiwi - I was taught to be always gracious:

Good manners cost-eth nothing :)


as further illustration I have included a more extreme example............




It's because you are a dick.

Likening a speeding ticket to civil rights what a fuck head.

[Robert Taylor]

Dont complain, the IWIs are constantly hungry and need lots of revenue from the consolidated fund

The last time I got pulled and ticketed I asked if I could make the cheque out straight away and to nominate which Iwi to make it out to so that it could avoid the middleman..........

[BoristheBiter]

as further illustration I have included a more extreme example............

Meh, who cares? if i think someones being a dick (or a fuckhead) i'll tell them, and i would expect to be treated the same, and have been.

Some people seem to live in a fantasy world where they believe the government is just out to get them and anyone that disagrees is just a sheep that sucks in every bit of political spin as the truth.
There is no point in trying to have a rational debate on these issues as they can't even begin to see the other side as that might mean they are wrong and is never considered. SWB and the post above is case in point.

[DamianW]

as further illustration I have included a more extreme example............

I take your points Ulster and will follow this thread to see how it unfolds.

\\

[swbarnett]

Likening a speeding ticket to civil rights what a fuck head.
Sorry, but this is a civil rights issue. Admittedly the consequences of a speeding ticket are a hell of a lot less severe but the logic behind both laws are just as flawed as each other.

The law is the law. Yes, it's easier to accept it and walk away with little more than a bruised ego but the principle is the same. The severity of the injustice is irrelevant.

Ever heard of the the boiling frog?

[swbarnett]

There is no point in trying to have a rational debate on these issues as they can't even begin to see the other side as that might mean they are wrong and is never considered. SWB and the post above is case in point.
You do realise that name calling is a sure sign that you've lost the argument, don't you?

[FJRider]

The coincidence of a "Speeding clampdown" occurring ... each time a KB member/whinger gets a speeding ticket ... amazing ... :whistle:

[BoristheBiter]

Sorry, but this is a civil rights issue. Admittedly the consequences of a speeding ticket are a hell of a lot less severe but the logic behind both laws are just as flawed as each other.

The law is the law. Yes, it's easier to accept it and walk away with little more than a bruised ego but the principle is the same. The severity of the injustice is irrelevant.

Ever heard of the the boiling frog?

What do you smoke of a morning? but OK i will play along with your silly game.

What is the flaw in speed restrictions and what civil rights have been broken? Remember that when you sit/get your licence you sign to agree to abide by the condition set done in legislation.


You do realise that name calling is a sure sign that you've lost the argument, don't you?

I will wait to see you answer to the above before I reply to that.

[swbarnett]

What do you smoke of a morning?
I don't smoke anything, ever.


but OK i will play along with your silly game.
Interesting that you consider my point of view silly simply because it's at odds with yours (or so it appears).


What is the flaw in speed restrictions
The flaw is that they are counter productive to their stated aim and distract the police from other driver behaviour that may actually be dangerous.


and what civil rights have been broken?
The right to go about our daily lives, doing harm to noone, without interference from the state.


Remember that when you sit/get your licence you sign to agree to abide by the condition set done in legislation.
I don't remember signing any such document. I signed my license but that's simply for I.D. purposes. Maybe things have changed or it's simply too long ago to remember.

And besides, many thousands of people signed ACC167. It's called extortion. Either you sign or you don't get what you're entitled to.

[Hashbandicoot]

Remember that when you sit/get your licence you sign to agree to abide by the condition set done in legislation.

Reading this started my curiosity going. I am new to NZ and have only recently obtained an NZ drivers license and so have started investigating which conditions I need abide by.

Under the Land Transport Act 1998:
"driver, in relation to a vehicle, includes the rider of the motorcycle or moped or bicycle; and drive has a corresponding meaning (Part One - Preliminary Provisions (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1998/0110/latest/DLM433619.html?search=ts_act%40bill%40regulation%4 0deemedreg_driving_resel_25_a&p=1))

At this point I would like to stress I cannot find the "corresponding meaning" of drive in the Land Transport Act 1998.

I have searched for this definition in NZ legeslation and have yet to find it. Next time I am in town I hope to find some sort of legal dictionary in the library to give me a better idea. In the meantime I am using the following definition.

"DRIVER. One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Driver

Note the word employed.
"EMPLOYED. One who is in the service of another. Such a person is entitled to rights and liable to perform certain duties. "
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/employed

Again due to a lack of an online NZ legal dictionary I am using this definition as a substitute to support my point. Should anyone be aware of the actual definition I would welcome it.

Drivers to be licensed

(1) A person may not drive a motor vehicle on a road—

(a) without an appropriate current driver licence; or

(b) in contravention of the conditions of the person's driver licence; or

(c) if the person is disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence, or the person's driver licence is suspended or has been revoked, or the driving is contrary to an alcohol interlock licence, a zero alcohol licence, or a limited licence
(Part Two, Section 5 Land Transport Act 1998 (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1998/0110/latest/DLM434509.html?search=ts_act%40bill%40regulation%4 0deemedreg_driving_resel_25_a&p=1))

So, if I am travelling from point A to point B on my motorbike, and I am not being employed by any person(s) to do so, by definition I am not driving nor would I require a driving license. I would also be exempt from complying with NZ Road Code rules (including speed limits) as I would not be a driver I would be a traveller.

[FJRider]

Reading this started my curiosity going. I am new to NZ and have only recently obtained an NZ drivers license and so have started investigating which conditions I need abide by.

Under the Land Transport Act 1998:
"driver, in relation to a vehicle, includes the rider of the motorcycle or moped or bicycle; and drive has a corresponding meaning (Part One - Preliminary Provisions (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1998/0110/latest/DLM433619.html?search=ts_act%40bill%40regulation%4 0deemedreg_driving_resel_25_a&p=1))

At this point I would like to stress I cannot find the "corresponding meaning" of drive in the Land Transport Act 1998.

Pick one you might believe to be the correct one ... I'm guessing 2. To "Ride" is the corresponding meaning.

cor·re·spond·ing
[kawr-uh-spon-ding,]
adjective
1.
identical in all essentials or respects: corresponding fingerprints.
2.
similar in position, purpose, form, etc.: corresponding officials in two states.
3.
associated in a working or other relationship: a bolt and its corresponding nut.
4.
dealing with correspondence: a corresponding secretary.
5.
employing the mails as a means of association: a corresponding member of a club.



I have searched for this definition in NZ legeslation and have yet to find it. Next time I am in town I hope to find some sort of legal dictionary in the library to give me a better idea. In the meantime I am using the following definition.

"DRIVER. One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Driver

Pick one you believe to be correct .. I'm guessing b :

Full Definition of DRIVER
: one that drives: as
a : coachman
b : the operator of a motor vehicle
c : an implement (as a hammer) for driving
d : a mechanical piece for imparting motion to another piece
e : one that provides impulse or motivation <a driver in this economy>
f : a golf wood with a nearly straight face used in driving
g : an electronic circuit that supplies input to another electronic circuit; also : loudspeaker
h : a piece of computer software that controls input and output operations


Note the word employed.
"EMPLOYED. One who is in the service of another. Such a person is entitled to rights and liable to perform certain duties. "
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/employed

Again due to a lack of an online NZ legal dictionary I am using this definition as a substitute to support my point. Should anyone be aware of the actual definition I would welcome it.

Employed does not always mean for payment.

Adj. 1. employed - having your services engaged for; or having a job especially one that pays wages or a salary; "most of our graduates are employed"
busy - actively or fully engaged or occupied; "busy with her work"; "a busy man"; "too busy to eat lunch"
unemployed - not engaged in a gainful occupation; "unemployed workers marched on the capital"
2. employed - put to useemployed - put to use
exploited - developed or used to greatest advantage


Drivers to be licensed

(1) A person may not drive a motor vehicle on a road—

(a) without an appropriate current driver licence; or

(b) in contravention of the conditions of the person's driver licence; or

(c) if the person is disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence, or the person's driver licence is suspended or has been revoked, or the driving is contrary to an alcohol interlock licence, a zero alcohol licence, or a limited licence
(Part Two, Section 5 Land Transport Act 1998 (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1998/0110/latest/DLM434509.html?search=ts_act%40bill%40regulation%4 0deemedreg_driving_resel_25_a&p=1))

So, if I am travelling from point A to point B on my motorbike, and I am not being employed by any person(s) to do so, by definition I am not driving nor would I require a driving license. I would also be exempt from complying with NZ Road Code rules (including speed limits) as I would not be a driver I would be a traveller.

In most cases of Legislation ... it starts "The operator of any motor vehicle may (or may not) .."


But I'm sure your interpretations would be easily explained (and defensible) in any resulting Court case ... :msn-wink:

[FJRider]

The right to go about our daily lives, doing harm to noone, without interference from the state.

Actually ..

World English Dictionary
civil rights

— pl n
1. the personal rights of the individual citizen, in most countries upheld by law,

No citizen in any society is permitted engage in any unlawful actions "As of right" ...


I don't remember signing any such document. I signed my license but that's simply for I.D. purposes. Maybe things have changed or it's simply too long ago to remember.

Old age can be a bitch at times ... eh ..

First the memory goes .. Then ... (bugger .. I can't remember what goes next)

[swbarnett]

Actually ..

World English Dictionary
civil rights

� pl n
1. the personal rights of the individual citizen, in most countries upheld by law,

No citizen in any society is permitted engage in any unlawful actions "As of right" ...

Interesting.

Perhaps what I'm referring to is a "human right". I certainly didn't sign anything when I was born (or since) to say that I agree to have my life interfered with by the state (or anyone else) when I'm just minding my own business.

[Swoop]

Wouldn't it be nice if they just clamped down on bad driving instead?
They could start with Holden drivers, here's a prime example :yes:
I hope the driver of that vehicle is dead.
We have all been told that "speed kills" and that vehicle was obviously going too fast for the conditions ("speeding").

IF the driver is alive, then the propaganda is wrong & the public has been lied to.

IF the driver is dead then everyone can be happy.

[BoristheBiter]

I don't smoke anything, ever.

It is a figure of speach becuse you have, IMO, some way of track ideas


Interesting that you consider my point of view silly simply because it's at odds with yours (or so it appears).

see above


The flaw is that they are counter productive to their stated aim and distract the police from other driver behaviour that may actually be dangerous.

They seem productive to me as everyone is always crying that have just got a speeding ticket, and their aim is to slow traffic down so when there is a crash the chances of survivil is greatly increased. So the only flaw stems from your opinion of what they should be focusing on.


The right to go about our daily lives, doing harm to noone, without interference from the state.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ have a good read. I think the one you are looking for is the right to go about out lawful business without fear of persecution or something like that, but if you are speeding you are lawful so you can be stopped. under the lad transport act you can be stopped anytime.
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1998/0110/latest/DLM435105.html


I don't remember signing any such document. I signed my license but that's simply for I.D. purposes. Maybe things have changed or it's simply too long ago to remember.

:laugh: for ID purposes man how naive is that. no one ever reads the terms and condition.:laugh:
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1998/0110/latest/DLM433613.html
have a read so you know what you have signed.


And besides, many thousands of people signed ACC167. It's called extortion. Either you sign or you don't get what you're entitled to.

Because no one ever rips off the system. :facepalm:

[BoristheBiter]

Interesting.

Perhaps what I'm referring to is a "human right". I certainly didn't sign anything when I was born (or since) to say that I agree to have my life interfered with by the state (or anyone else) when I'm just minding my own business.

If you are just minding your own business then yes you have the right to walk away from a police officer, but if you are driving/riding then you come under the land transport act and it is a privilege and not a right.

[swbarnett]

They seem productive to me as everyone is always crying that have just got a speeding ticket, and their aim is to slow traffic down so when there is a crash the chances of survivil is greatly increased. So the only flaw stems from your opinion of what they should be focusing on.
I agree with you that the faster you are going when you hit something the greater the damage is likely to be. However, slowing the fleet down doesn't lead to a reduction in the overall carnage. In fact, the opposite has been shown to be the case. Raising or removing the speed limit on the open road has actually led to a reduction in the carnage.


http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ have a good read.
I've read that. What I'm really saying is, if I'm minding my own business and not doing any harm to anyone what gives anyone else the right to interfere with my course of action at the time? Irrespective of what some self-important body of bureaucrats decide to put down in writing.


I think the one you are looking for is the right to go about out lawful business without fear of persecution
No, I'm not talking about "lawful". I'm talking about the right to do whatever we damn well please as long as it does noone any harm and we respect everyone eles's right to do the same. Under those circumstances noone has the right to interfere.


Because no one ever rips off the system. :facepalm:
And this is relevant how exactly?

[Tazz]

If you are just minding your own business then yes you have the right to walk away from a police officer, but if you are driving/riding then you come under the land transport act and it is a privilege and not a right.

So, out of interest, if you were at a gas station that is quite busy and a cop rocked on up to check your vehicle over, would you be within your rights to ask them to wait until you've filled, paid, and pulled up out of the way so someone else can use the pump or because you are with your vehicle do you have to produce all your ID right there and then?

[BoristheBiter]

I agree with you that the faster you are going when you hit something the greater the damage is likely to be. However, slowing the fleet down doesn't lead to a reduction in the overall carnage. In fact, the opposite has been shown to be the case. Raising or removing the speed limit on the open road has actually led to a reduction in the carnage.


I've read that. What I'm really saying is, if I'm minding my own business and not doing any harm to anyone what gives anyone else the right to interfere with my course of action at the time? Irrespective of what some self-important body of bureaucrats decide to put down in writing.


No, I'm not talking about "lawful". I'm talking about the right to do whatever we damn well please as long as it does noone any harm and we respect everyone eles's right to do the same. Under those circumstances noone has the right to interfere.


This discussion is like a broken pencil..........................pointless.
You just carry on being highly indignant to all things government and we will call this closed.


And this is relevant how exactly?

You don't get sarcasm do you?

[BoristheBiter]

So, out of interest, if you were at a gas station that is quite busy and a cop rocked on up to check your vehicle over, would you be within your rights to ask them to wait until you've filled, paid, and pulled up out of the way so someone else can use the pump or because you are with your vehicle do you have to produce all your ID right there and then?

Under the law, yes (to producing your details) but i guess it would depend on the cop and/or your attitude.

out of interest you weren't at a mobile on Wairau road the other week then?

[Tazz]

Under the law, yes (to producing your details) but i guess it would depend on the cop and/or your attitude.

out of interest you weren't at a mobile on Wairau road the other week then?

Nope. Has only happened to me once in Chch and everything was legit. Cop was just a bit of a dick about it when I suggested waiting a tick for me to finish up and move to the side. Just got me thinking about it. Shoulda worded it so he thought it was his idea :laugh:

[swbarnett]

This discussion is like a broken pencil..........................pointless.
The real problem is that (if I read you correctly) you're on the side of government control and who cares if a few citizens are disadvantaged, have their freedoms curtailed, for no good reason. Whereas I'm more of an idealist and believe in the principle of live and let live and a government that stays out of my life unless I do something that impinges on the rights of others.


You don't get sarcasm do you?
I do, just couldn't see the relevance.

[BoristheBiter]

The real problem is that (if I read you correctly) you're on the side of government control and who cares if a few citizens are disadvantaged, have their freedoms curtailed, for no good reason. Whereas I'm more of an idealist and believe in the principle of live and let live and a government that stays out of my life unless I do something that impinges on the rights of others.


I do, just couldn't see the relevance.

You have the same naive principles that Mashy does with his NOW idea in thinking that everyone is the most spectacular human and does right by society.

hence why you didn't get the point about ACC167, if people didn't try and scam ACC then this form wouldn't be needed.

If you don't want to drive under the conditions of your licence then don't drive and you will be allowed to go about your day.

[mashman]

You have the same naive principles that Mashy does with his NOW idea in thinking that everyone is the most spectacular human and does right by society.

hence why you didn't get the point about ACC167, if people didn't try and scam ACC then this form wouldn't be needed.

If you don't want to drive under the conditions of your licence then don't drive and you will be allowed to go about your day.

You rang fucknuckle?

Given that driving is illegal act without a drivers license, driving is illegal. Therefore TPTB are giving you a license to break the law. Those who make the law allow you to break the law as long as you pay them? That's bribery... and given that TPTB won't let you on the road without paying for a license, that's extortion, especially as you have contributed to those roads through your taxes. You give them the right to halt your progress, I'm becoming more of the opinion that I should tell them to get fucked given that they are breaking the law in more ways than 1.

You break the law every time you drive/ride Boris, having a license doesn't make it any less illegal... the sweet thing is, you don't actually know that coz you're too fuckin stupid to work it out.

Don't worry, your legal guardians will protect you... for a price.

[BigAl]

You rang fucknuckle?

Given that driving is illegal act without a drivers license, driving is illegal. Therefore TPTB are giving you a license to break the law. Those who make the law allow you to break the law as long as you pay them? That's bribery... and given that TPTB won't let you on the road without paying for a license, that's extortion, especially as you have contributed to those roads through your taxes. You give them the right to halt your progress, I'm becoming more of the opinion that I should tell them to get fucked given that they are breaking the law in more ways than 1.

You break the law every time you drive/ride Boris, having a license doesn't make it any less illegal... the sweet thing is, you don't actually know that coz you're too fuckin stupid to work it out.

Don't worry, your legal guardians will protect you... for a price.

Brilliant bit of logic that :niceone:

[swbarnett]

You have the same naive principles that Mashy does with his NOW idea in thinking that everyone is the most spectacular human and does right by society.
Anything but. I just think that those that can play nice should be allowed to do so. And not pulled up for behaviour that "might" be dangerous under a very narrow set of circumstances that don't exist most of the time. And, in the case of a speeding ticket, seldom exist when one is issued.


hence why you didn't get the point about ACC167, if people didn't try and scam ACC then this form wouldn't be needed.
Got it. Seems obvious now that it's explained it. I agree that some kind of that form is needed. I was trying to make the point that just because someone signs a form doesn't mean they actually agree with what's in it.

[Edbear]

I reckon a very interesting experiment would be to trial a month with no speed limit, but emphasise that the cops will be targetting dangerous driving and there will be no mercy for causing accidents.

[Hashbandicoot]

...lots and lots of words...But I'm sure your interpretations would be easily explained (and defensible) in any resulting Court case ... :msn-wink:

Were your definitions from a legal dictionary? From my limited research I am coming to understand that words have different meanings in terms of the law than in conversation. Somewhere there will be an established meaning and interpretation of drive based on precedents etc. which may be different from the linguistic meaning of the word.

I do take your point on being employed in a task does not neccessarily mean you are being paid for it. Who then decides if I am employed or not? I would like to think that decision resides with me, but it probably doesn't.

I think it is unfair on the average citizen that there could be a very real way to challenge speeding tickets and fines through the courts, the main problem being that the associated cost of doing so being far larger than the fine. I think it represents a flaw in the system that you are financially penalised for acting in a principled manner - i.e. challenging the law if you believe it to be unjust.

I tell you what though if I win the lotto I will deliberately go out and get a speeding ticket, take it to court and try and turn driving and travelling into a legal dichotomy. Then we can all fuck off getting licenses and paying rates and travel as fast as we damn well please, and in certain circumstances die as fast as we damn well please.

Oh and on the recurring discussion of "freedom" remember that where one man's freedom ends and another man's begins is hard to find. As an example let us say that when driving I am terrified of other road users travelling faster than the speed limit. As the Declaration of Human Rights gives me the right to 'freedom from fear' other motorists driving too fast are impeaching on my rights blah blah blah it all turns into a load of subjective bollocks.


So, out of interest, if you were at a gas station that is quite busy and a cop rocked on up to check your vehicle over, would you be within your rights to ask them to wait until you've filled, paid, and pulled up out of the way so someone else can use the pump or because you are with your vehicle do you have to produce all your ID right there and then?

Ask if you are being detained and under what act. If he cites the Land Transport Act and you don't want to try your luck with the (possibly hair-brained) driving/travelling idea then I would show him your ID straight away. Let people start queing up behind so they get a good view of a member of NZ's finest serving the community.

And because all of this is fast becoming way to serious, here is a daft picture of an owl.
http://thumbpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Hilariously-Adorable-Owl-Memes-7.jpg

[mashman]

Brilliant bit of logic that :niceone:

Apply that to everything that you are required to have a license for.

And then if you really want to get pedantic:

Ask yourself, under whose jurisdiction do those who make their "laws" fall under (http://www.parliament.nz/en-nz/about-parliament/how-parliament-works/fact-sheets/00HOOOCPubResAboutFactSheetsWhat1/parliament-brief-what-is-parliament).
You can follow that tree as high up as you like, but it's a trap, because you vote for it and therefore if you consider yourself to be bound by the "laws" of man, then you are subject to the "laws" of man by your own volition.
The actual basis for the "laws" of man are flakey at best (https://www.royal.gov.uk/ImagesandBroadcasts/Historic%20speeches%20and%20broadcasts/CoronationOath2June1953.aspx) given the Laws (notice capital L) she has been charged with protecting... coz I'd say those Laws have been violated repeatedly by her representatives and that she is delinquent in her duty.

PERSONally, I blame Akzle... but only for making me think about it.

[G4L4XY]

Well I succeeded in not getting nabbed on my wee trip to Tauranga and back last night he he he. Pitty too, would've been a real decent contribution to their doughnut fund.

[BoristheBiter]

rantings of a complete idoit.

Your stupidity is only overshadowed by your idiocy.


Anything but. I just think that those that can play nice should be allowed to do so. And not pulled up for behaviour that "might" be dangerous under a very narrow set of circumstances that don't exist most of the time. And, in the case of a speeding ticket, seldom exist when one is issued.

and chooses who plays nice? you? me? or what even is playing nice?
Funny thing is I have never been pulled over for doing nothing, and have only been through about 2 check points.

So under that idea we should be allowed to drink drive as most of the time it is only dangerous in a very narrow set of circumstances, driving on the wrong side of the road, what about cutting corners, insecure loads, badly maintained vehicles?
I have nearly been taken out while on the bike/in the car when fuckheads think they can handle a corner at speed and lose control or cross the center line.

I have seen far too much carnage on the roads to even consider your ideology when it comes to road policing even if i agree on what they focus on is not what they should be, it's just the easiest.



Got it. Seems obvious now that it's explained it. I agree that some kind of that form is needed. I was trying to make the point that just because someone signs a form doesn't mean they actually agree with what's in it.

Well that's ideology for ya.

[BoristheBiter]

PERSONally, I blame Akzle... but only for making me think about it.

WTF? akzle makes you think? you're more fucked up than I thought.

[mashman]

Your stupidity is only overshadowed by your idiocy.

And yours knows no bounds.


WTF? akzle makes you think? you're more fucked up than I thought.

Remember the you and thinking thing and how it doesn't work out so well for ya? I thought we had decided that you would stop it... or do you it to be a law before you'll take it seriously? Either way, thinking about such things is a side effect of seeking the freedom that is my absolute right and that no man or "law" of man has authority over me other than myself. Especially not your society.

[Scuba_Steve]

I reckon a very interesting experiment would be to trial a month with no speed limit, but emphasise that the cops will be targetting dangerous driving and there will be no mercy for causing accidents.

While it has all the possibility of being the safest month we've ever had, it doesn't really give long enough for adjustment period; Think you'd need to run at-least 6mths. But lets face it it's never gonna happen anyways because it's all about $afety, none of them care about safety.

[BoristheBiter]

Either way, thinking about such things is a side effect of seeking the freedom that is my absolute right and that no man or "law" of man has authority over me other than myself. Especially not your society.

Are you willing to die for that right?

[Kickaha]

Are you willing to die for that right?

If he isn't let's kill him anyway

[mashman]

Are you willing to die for that right?

I already will be, but that's another story... but yes, although not without a fight.


If he isn't let's kill him anyway

Yeah yeah, bring it tuffnut: 99 Neverland Ave, Wellington.

[swbarnett]

and chooses who plays nice? you? me? or what even is playing nice?
Civil accusation. I'm accused of not playing nice. It goes before a judge and is argued out. No laws involved except that of common sense. And no lawyers either. Oh, and actual harm has to be proven (this can be as simple as loss of sleep from a noisy party).

The flip side is that if people understand and agree with the reasoning behind a law it will be respected. When the reasoning is so obviously flawed the law makers are pushing shit up hill to get compliance and just show themselves up to have a serious lack of cognitive ability.


So under that idea we should be allowed to drink drive as most of the time it is only dangerous in a very narrow set of circumstances, driving on the wrong side of the road, what about cutting corners, insecure loads, badly maintained vehicles?
While perhaps not so black and white I do support the idea of leaving people alone until an accident happens. Then you throw the book the one that caused it (along with the other 19 hard-backed volumes). I'd rather have an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff than a cop car at the top spoiling the view.


I have seen far too much carnage on the roads to even consider your ideology when it comes to road policing even if i agree on what they focus on is not what they should be, it's just the easiest.
The thing is, a lot of that carnage is an indirect result of poor focus on the part of police and government.


Well that's ideology for ya.
What's life without a little bit of ideology now and then?

[BoristheBiter]

Civil accusation. I'm accused of not playing nice. It goes before a judge and is argued out. No laws involved except that of common sense. And no lawyers either. Oh, and actual harm has to be proven (this can be as simple as loss of sleep from a noisy party).

So then you just change form laws to an angry mob, weren't you saying something of the right to be left alone?


The flip side is that if people understand and agree with the reasoning behind a law it will be respected. When the reasoning is so obviously flawed the law makers are pushing shit up hill to get compliance and just show themselves up to have a serious lack of cognitive ability.

I really wish that was true, and to the most part it is. Try travelling at 100kph (on the open road) and see how many cars you catch up to.
The ones that lack cognitive ability are the ones that speed and keep getting tickets for it, whine about it but carry on doing the same shit.
Like i have said before, learn to play the game and you won't have a problem.


While perhaps not so black and white I do support the idea of leaving people alone until an accident happens. Then you throw the book the one that caused it (along with the other 19 hard-backed volumes). I'd rather have an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff than a cop car at the top spoiling the view.

Cold comfort the the innocent party that has just been taken out.


The thing is, a lot of that carnage is an indirect result of poor focus on the part of police and government.

No the carnage is the DIRECT result of poor choices by the driver. To claim otherwise is just showing your disdain to all authority.



What's life without a little bit of ideology now and then?

The real world.

[mashman]

Like i have said before, learn to play the game and you won't have a problem.

http://www.beheadingboredom.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/cat-teaches-dog-trick.gif

[swbarnett]

So then you just change form laws to an angry mob,
Tempered by a structured arbitration process, yes.


weren't you saying something of the right to be left alone?
Unfortunately what is "playing nice" will have to be tested from time to time. If the arbitration comes out in the favour of the accused then they're free to keep doing what they were doing without interference.


Like i have said before, learn to play the game and you won't have a problem.
That depends on the rules of he game.


Cold comfort the the innocent party that has just been taken out.
In the long run I think you'll find that the number of innocent parties taken out will reduce from what it is now.


No the carnage is the DIRECT result of poor choices by the driver. To claim otherwise is just showing your disdain to all authority.
Yes, the driver has the primary responsibility. However, it is said that the only thing required for evil to flourish is for good people to do nothing. This gives secondary (hence "indirect") responsibility to those that have been tasked with making the roads safer.


The real world.
I don't know what world you live in but mine is populated by humans - every one of which (including you) live by their own ideology.

[Swoop]

Yeah yeah, bring it tuffnut: 99 Neverland Ave, Wellington.


We could not find 99 Neverland Ave, Wellington


Make sure your search is spelled correctly.

Try adding a city, state, or zip code.

More Google search results for 99 Neverland Ave, Wellington

Well, if you don't seem to even know where you live, anything else posted by you appears to be unreliable.

[mashman]

Well, if you don't seem to even know where you live, anything else posted by you appears to be unreliable. The case for the prosecution rests me'lud

lol... fixed that for ya.

[BoristheBiter]

Tempered by a structured arbitration process, yes.


Unfortunately what is "playing nice" will have to be tested from time to time. If the arbitration comes out in the favour of the accused then they're free to keep doing what they were doing without interference.

So.....all your've done is change how the rules are written. So how is that any different to what we have now?


That depends on the rules of he game.

No it doesn't. all games have rules, you must learn them before playing.


In the long run I think you'll find that the number of innocent parties taken out will reduce from what it is now.

While i completly dissagre with that, are you willing to bet your family's lives on that, because I sure aren't



Yes, the driver has the primary responsibility.

no the driver holds the only responsibility.


However, it is said that the only thing required for evil to flourish is for good people to do nothing. This gives secondary (hence "indirect") responsibility to those that have been tasked with making the roads safer.

So don't we do that by abiding by the laws that have been set down?

So going by what you have stated in your last few posts we should;
let everyone drive/ride however they like,
when they crash we should throw the book, set a set of books, at them by an angry mob,
we should stop the evil by making rules.....that.....should........be........followe d ??????hang on didn't you say we shouldn't have rules?

I think you might have just contradicted yourself.

[swbarnett]

So.....all your've done is change how the rules are written. So how is that any different to what we have now?
The "norms" of society would be decided on a case by case basis instead of the one size fits all solution that we have now.


No it doesn't. all games have rules, you must learn them before playing.
I, and you, will definitely have a problem if we don't like the rules of the game. That's why no set of rules is ever static.


While i completly dissagre with that, are you willing to bet your family's lives on that,
Yes, I am.


no the driver holds the only responsibility.
Moral responsibility, yes. But, if a cop, for example, ignores someone driving the wrong way on a motorway they are at least a cog in the machine that leads to the subsequent head-on collision.


So don't we do that by abiding by the laws that have been set down?
Only if the laws make sense under the circumstances.


So going by what you have stated in your last few posts we should;
let everyone drive/ride however they like,
when they crash we should throw the book, set a set of books, at them by an angry mob,
No angry mob necessary. Only reasoned arguments before an arbitrator.


we should stop the evil by making rules.....that.....should........be........followe d ??????
I never said that we should make rules. I said that the under the current system the cops are tasked with making the roads safer. Their actions prove beyond reasonable doubt that they have no clue how to do this. Which makes them part of the problem.

I also said that a sensible law will be respected as it will reflect basic common sense anyway.


I think you might have just contradicted yourself.
Not at all. I may not have been as clear as I could've been however.

[BoristheBiter]

The "norms" of society would be decided on a case by case basis instead of the one size fits all solution that we have now.


I, and you, will definitely have a problem if we don't like the rules of the game. That's why no set of rules is ever static.


Yes, I am.


Moral responsibility, yes. But, if a cop, for example, ignores someone driving the wrong way on a motorway they are at least a cog in the machine that leads to the subsequent head-on collision.


Only if the laws make sense under the circumstances.


No angry mob necessary. Only reasoned arguments before an arbitrator.


I never said that we should make rules. I said that the under the current system the cops are tasked with making the roads safer. Their actions prove beyond reasonable doubt that they have no clue how to do this. Which makes them part of the problem.

I also said that a sensible law will be respected as it will reflect basic common sense anyway.


Not at all. I may not have been as clear as I could've been however.

No you have actually been quite clear, you will abide by any rule, or law, that you agree with and all others are a waste of time.

I really don't know why I bothered as I knew how this was going to end up hence my post a few pages back.

[swbarnett]

No you have actually been quite clear, you will abide by any rule, or law, that you agree with and all others are a waste of time.
After all "Laws are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools."

I will abide by a law that:

1. I agree with

2. I understand the reason for, even though it may be to my detriment.

3. Is no skin off my nose either way.

4. The penalty is not worth the risk (although I can't think of any law that falls into this category that's not covered by point 5 anyway).

5. Other than that my own sense of right and wrong is plenty of guidance when it comes to interacting with other members of society.


I really don't know why I bothered
Truthfully, neither do I.

[Banditbandit]

'Bout time this bullshit disappeared into Pointless Drivel isn't it ???

[mashman]

I'll do it myself this time

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-BHHOUWmD-mM/UaxCTiBqmkI/AAAAAAAAJWo/PsIRahxfwLA/s1600/lll.jpg

[BoristheBiter]

After all "Laws are for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools."

I will abide by a law that:

1. I agree with

2. I understand the reason for, even though it may be to my detriment.

3. Is no skin off my nose either way.

4. The penalty is not worth the risk (although I can't think of any law that falls into this category that's not covered by point 5 anyway).

5. Other than that my own sense of right and wrong is plenty of guidance when it comes to interacting with other members of society.


Truthfully, neither do I.

I was curious whether you had something better than "because i say so" but you don't.
When you remove all the ideological wrapping it remains that you are just like everyone else and in it for yourself.

[Scuba_Steve]

No you have actually been quite clear, you will abide by any rule, or law, that you agree with and all others are a waste of time.


Do you blindly follow all laws?
I'm sure you think you do & try to being blinded as you are, but do you really?

There's really only 1 answer that wouldn't make you a hypocrite & I bet the truth is opposite.

[BoristheBiter]

Do you blindly follow all laws?
I'm sure you think you do & try to being blinded as you are, but do you really?

This is the classic post from an anti-government person.
if some disagrees they are a sheep, or blinded, every thought that you are the one that is wrong?


There's really only 1 answer that wouldn't make you a hypocrite & I bet the truth is opposite.

I'm not the one crying about getting a ticket, or speed tolerance, or what the police should be doing, or how my civil rights are getting eroded. I don't see a conspiracy under every rock like you do.

[Scuba_Steve]

This is the classic post from an anti-government person.
if some disagrees they are a sheep, or blinded, every thought that you are the one that is wrong?


I'm not anti-govt per say, I'm anti-corruption. It just so happens our govt is corrupt so I'm anti them!
people aren't "sheep or blinded" for disagreeing with me; You're a sheep, or blinded because you willingly follow & obey your masters without question or thought.



I'm not the one crying about getting a ticket, or speed tolerance, or what the police should be doing, or how my civil rights are getting eroded. I don't see a conspiracy under every rock like you do.

No you're crying about people not blindly following & agreeing with your masters like you do. Maybee you're just envious of other peoples ability to think for themselves?
Also from what I've seen from you on here you're so blinded you wouldn't know what civil rights were being taken from you even if your masters told you directly.

[swbarnett]

I was curious whether you had something better than "because i say so" but you don't.
When you remove all the ideological wrapping it remains that you are just like everyone else and in it for yourself.
Yes, I'm in it for myself. So what? You're in it for yourself too.

I am also in it for all the other people in society that have been brought up to know right from wrong and don't need a random group of strangers to define it for them. Especially when that group has so obviously got it wrong.