Speeding facts vs fiction

[Hobbyhorse]

http://www.carbibles.com/speeding_facts.html

[Voltaire]

Its a bit like standing up in the Pub and announcing that Alcohol being bad for you is a myth :lol:

[Jantar]

That is a good light hearted description of the truth about speed vs accidents. Although it is UK based it reference information from USA and Canada, and emphisises the important part "When speed limits are increased, the accident rate drops".

[Akzle]

i like speeding

[paturoa]

That is based on interpreting the propoganda etc as that, speeding causes crashes. Which is true and this set of stats says it isn't a big number. I was surprised that booze didn't feature in the stats which is another catch cry.

Listening more closely to the propoganda in the last few years I'm detecting a change of message from, speed causes crashes, to lower speed = lower carnage. Which is also true. The slower the crash the less the injury and death. This for me is also flawed and is a better ambulance at the bottom of the cliff approach. Please can we have more fences at the top.

I'm not seeing a lot of propaganda on the cause of crashes other than, booze, driving age and cell phones.

Every day of my daily dorkland commute, I see several instances of dangerous tail gating, lane changes, red light runners, incompetent driving, brain dead driving, etc. The PTB need to suck it up and add more tricks to the pony on the causes.

Crashes (I refuse to call them accidents) will always happen when there are humans in control, question is how do we minimise that without taking away my freedoms?

[haydes55]

Every day of my daily dorkland
Crashes (I refuse to call them accidents) will always happen when there are humans in control, question is how do we minimise that without taking away my freedoms?


Police could actually ticket bad/dangerous driving (a friend on fb was showing her 2 tickets, one for no seatbelt and one for speeding, the cop said to her "I saw you had no seatbelt, so I looked at my radar, I saw you were speeding so pulled you over" basically, cop would have ignored seatbelt if she wasn't speeding).

Or if you cause one crash, 40 hours community service, start from L plates again for all licenses.

If you cause a second accident 100 hours community service and stand down of 6 months before you can apply for your learners again.

If you are the cause of another accident, your insurance should charge you for all damages caused by your actions, 200 hours community service and a year before you can resit your learners.

If you cause any more accidents in your life, you obviously are a slow learner, lifetime ban of operating any vehicle and jail time.

Peoples lives are dependant on drivers ability. Why is a vehicle allowed to cause more damage than a gun, yet any damage caused by a vehicle is punished less than any damage by a gun?

[Akzle]

Peoples lives are dependant on drivers ability. Why is a vehicle allowed to cause more damage than a gun, yet any damage caused by a vehicle is punished less than any damage by a gun?

because guns are scary and dangerous.
just like cars are safe and sppeding is dangerous.

[The Reibz]

Fact: If you speed you will get to your destination faster

[Voltaire]

Fact: If you speed you will get to your destination faster

If you leave earlier you there on time too :lol:

[Scuba_Steve]

If you leave earlier you there on time too :lol:

if you leave early & "speed" you'll get there earlier & have more time to relax/play

[The Reibz]

Both Valid points.

The more you speed the less time you spend on the road.
The less time you spend on the road, the less likely you are to have a accident?

[Big Dog]

Police could actually ticket bad/dangerous driving (a friend on fb was showing her 2 tickets, one for no seatbelt and one for speeding, the cop said to her "I saw you had no seatbelt, so I looked at my radar, I saw you were speeding so pulled you over" basically, cop would have ignored seatbelt if she wasn't speeding).

Or if you cause one crash, 40 hours community service, start from L plates again for all licenses.

If you cause a second accident 100 hours community service and stand down of 6 months before you can apply for your learners again.

If you are the cause of another accident, your insurance should charge you for all damages caused by your actions, 200 hours community service and a year before you can resit your learners.

If you cause any more accidents in your life, you obviously are a slow learner, lifetime ban of operating any vehicle and jail time.

Peoples lives are dependant on drivers ability. Why is a vehicle allowed to cause more damage than a gun, yet any damage caused by a vehicle is punished less than any damage by a gun?

The flaw to this argument is the definition of fault. By your standard I would be banned for life and bankrupt. My first few accidents I was deemed to be at fault, not for my actions, because I was on a learner or restricted license.

Each time I was told if I had had a full license I would not have had any blame.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[TheDemonLord]

I have always known speed doesn't kill.



However rapid deceleration spread over a very short time frame is very bad for your health

[jonbuoy]

In 50 years time when we are deemed too reckless/feckless to control a vehicle ourselves I wonder if people will look back and wonder how we we ever accepted 1.2 million people a year dying from car accidents? And some people get nervous about flying!

Why is there no motorway/skid pan training as part of the driving test?

Why are we not tested every 5 years?

[Erelyes]

Why are we not tested every 5 years?

Because half the cunts on the road that got their licence in a weet-bix packet 25 years ago will lose it.

Licence testing ain't great, but some drivers are fuckin atrocious.

[admenk]

Because half the cunts on the road that got their licence in a weet-bix packet

nah, I got mine after collecting tokens from packets of Frosties

[FJRider]

Fact: If you speed you will get to your destination faster

sometimes ... not

[Dave-]

Sometimes I wonder if our speed limits are too low, then I remember the people who change lanes through intersections, fail to signal, fail to give way, and generally display a complete lack of ability to safely operate a vehicle. These people are the reason we have speed limits.

You, I and a disproportionate number of people who visit these forums probably have the ability to safely travel a bit faster than the posted speed limit. However more people than all the people on this forum cannot, and this is why we have speed limits.

I'm scared enough of the fuckwits on NZ roads let alone letting them go 50km/h faster.

[TheDemonLord]

In 50 years time when we are deemed too reckless/feckless to control a vehicle ourselves I wonder if people will look back and wonder how we we ever accepted 1.2 million people a year dying from car accidents? And some people get nervous about flying!

Why is there no motorway/skid pan training as part of the driving test?

Why are we not tested every 5 years?

I personally agree 100% about Skid pan training should be required - In the same way that Sweden has:

however - Testing every 5 years - sure if the Govt pays for it and I can take the test afterhours or on a Saturday/Sunday - but if not, I am not going to pay to be retested at my inconvenience.

[schrodingers cat]

What I know is that when things go bad, at a lower speed there is less energy to dissipate.

[scumdog]

however - Testing every 5 years - sure if the Govt pays for it and I can take the test afterhours or on a Saturday/Sunday - but if not, I am not going to pay to be retested at my inconvenience.

And that folks, is the crux of the matter - everybody thinks regular retesting etc is a 'good-idea' (tm).

But nobody wants to pay for it.

And non-licenced types will still be just that.

[rustic101]

, then I remember the people who change lanes through intersections, fail to signal, fail to give way, and generally display a complete lack of ability to safely operate a vehicle. You, I and a disproportionate number of people who visit these forums probably have the ability to safely travel a bit faster than the posted speed limit. I'm scared enough of the fuckwits on NZ roads let alone letting them go 50km/h faster.Bang on Dave well said. My 5c worth for what its worth.I'm not anti speed, in fact far from it. Individuals need to realise there are consequences for behaviours and actions. I'm fucking sick of seeing a raft of people killed or suffering because of theirs or others momentary stupidity. I've watched pedestrians get hit at 110kph, car v car head ons and recently a car v motorcycle meet at speed - I wont describe in detail but will tell you its a sickening feeling seeing a top box travel 60 meters into the air and travel three hundred meters. For me I don't care who is at fault - I care that people are killing or maiming each other and that others have to attend these crashes, witness the effects and deal with the aftereffects to one extent or the other. At times this can be in excess of 300 people indirectly involved in one crash. Its heartbreaking at times!If you are ever in Wellington and would like to see first hand, let me know and I'm happy to visually educate rather than entertain or amuse. I promise it wont be like watching some russian youtube clip where you have a chuckle its about people we share the roads with in NZ, people that could kill you or visa versa.

[Erelyes]

I am not going to pay to be retested at my inconvenience.

The same government makes your employer give you four weeks' annual leave, minimum. Out of those 100 days over 5 years I think you could spare half of one...

Me, meanwhile, I shouldn't have to cos I'm already a fucking awesome driver. It's just all these other idiots

[haydes55]

I personally agree 100% about Skid pan training should be required - In the same way that Sweden has:



however - Testing every 5 years - sure if the Govt pays for it and I can take the test afterhours or on a Saturday/Sunday - but if not, I am not going to pay to be retested at my inconvenience.


Yet you happily go every 6 months to get a WoF for each vehicle you own, you can't spare 1 hour for a licence test?

I have never been tested how well I can drive/ride. I've never had to show anyone that I have any driving/riding skill above following basic road rules.

I'd happily do a proper driving test annually. I won't see another licence test for another decade.... Yet I'm supposed to be trusted to not forget a single road rule, I'm supposed to just change my driving and adjust to new road rules without any consequence if I decide to ignore basic road etiquette/rules.

Look at the round about indicating for example. If you go straight through, you indicate left before exiting the round about. Yet 9/10 people fuck it up, people either don't indicate at all, indicate right, or indicate right then left. How dumb do you have to be to not know how to go straight through a round about? Dumb enough that I'd prefer to see proof they can still drive.

[Scuba_Steve]

Sometimes I wonder if our speed limits are too low, then I remember the people who change lanes through intersections, fail to signal, fail to give way, and generally display a complete lack of ability to safely operate a vehicle. These people are the reason we have speed limits.

You, I and a disproportionate number of people who visit these forums probably have the ability to safely travel a bit faster than the posted speed limit. However more people than all the people on this forum cannot, and this is why we have speed limits.

I'm scared enough of the fuckwits on NZ roads let alone letting them go 50km/h faster.

But a main cause of these people being bad is that they haven't had to think for themselves in the past 20yrs & while you're worried about these idiots going faster I'm more worried that you would rather have them & they're being forced to steer at a speedo rather than the road.

[swbarnett]

Please can we have more fences at the top.
No bloody way. I like the view thank you very much.

[Dave-]

But a main cause of these people being bad is that they haven't had to think for themselves in the past 20yrs & while you're worried about these idiots going faster I'm more worried that you would rather have them & they're being forced to steer at a speedo rather than the road.

Why would they stare at their speedo?

The word is stare by the way.

[Urano]

i dedicated a little study on the subject, and grossly agree with the guy of the website.
it is true that the safest conduction is to set your speed at 85 percentile of car flow around you.
it is true that todays vehicles are able to manage higher speeds and energies
it is true that governments use speed fines as a form of taxation and that a more focused road design as well as more effective license process would be much more effective in securing our safety

BUT

it is also true that a pedestrian has no airbags nor abs, still many geniuses can't understand the difference between an open road (where you could go a bit faster remaining reasonably safe) and a city street (where you can kill someone else at every angle...)
i remain of the idea that what we really need is rethinking licensing programs...

[TheDemonLord]

The same government makes your employer give you four weeks' annual leave, minimum. Out of those 100 days over 5 years I think you could spare half of one...

Me, meanwhile, I shouldn't have to cos I'm already a fucking awesome driver. It's just all these other idiots

Those days are for me, not for the government.


Yet you happily go every 6 months to get a WoF for each vehicle you own, you can't spare 1 hour for a licence test?

Look at the round about indicating for example. If you go straight through, you indicate left before exiting the round about. Yet 9/10 people fuck it up, people either don't indicate at all, indicate right, or indicate right then left. How dumb do you have to be to not know how to go straight through a round about? Dumb enough that I'd prefer to see proof they can still drive.

I can go for a Warrant on Saturdays and with some garages, afterhours (by appointment) currently licence testing was between 7:00 am and 3:30 pm - if you start work at around 8 - this leaves you no time to be able to do it - and unlike a Warrant, you can't just drop the car off and pick it up on your lunch break.

I agree regarding the roundabout - that said, it used to say in the road code that you indicate right to join the roundabout and then left to exit - which is why some people indicate right then left - I used to do it, because that is what it said to do when I took my test - apparently that was changed recently that you only have to indicate left when exiting the roundabout if going straight through.

[Scuba_Steve]

Why would they stare at their speedo?

The word is stare by the way.

Have you not noticed the criminal scammers at the side of roads? They're increasingly more prevalent at passing lanes & downhills now too

[Jantar]

....I agree regarding the roundabout - that said, it used to say in the road code that you indicate right to join the roundabout and then left to exit - ......
Strange. I can't ever remember that being in the road code. The earliest I can rmember of any mention of roundabouts was to treat them as T intersections when joining and always indicate to leave.

[Jantar]

Sometimes I wonder if our speed limits are too low, then I remember the people who change lanes through intersections, fail to signal, fail to give way, and generally display a complete lack of ability to safely operate a vehicle. These people are the reason we have speed limits. .....
Sorry, but I fail to see to see any connection between speed limits and changing lanes, failing to signal, inability to opearte a motor vehicle. All of these are offences in their own right, and far more likely to cause an accident than simply exceeding an abitary taxable number.

All of the evidence shows that raising the speed limits doesn't mean that everyone will drive to that new limit, but rather they will drive to a limit they feel comfortable with and spend more time watching the road and other traffic than watching their speedo. IOW they will drive safer with a higher limit.

Take this past holiday weekend as an example. The speed limit didn't change, but because of the reduced tolerance there was a perception of a reduced limit. And we had an increase in crashes. Very few of those involved were travelling in excess of the speed limit, and I haven't heard of any that were with the 104 - 110 range.

[Big Dog]

Speeding has been taxed heavily as long as I have been alive because it is a fact that can be represented with scientific measure and is difficult to refute once they get a lock. Failing to indicate is word against word.

Globally a large number of wanted criminals are caught because of petty offences such as speeding and driving visibly unsafe vehicles.
Taxing speeders is just good police work in that light.

I do think it is long overdue to return to the old national speed limit from before the 70s oil crisis when the national limit was dropped temporarily to lower our national fuel bill.

There are no doubt older riders here oh can tell you what it was. I was in nappies.

With the exception of the sub 400cc bikes most I have ridden have been more stable and handled better at 120-140 than 100-110. The increased braking distance compensated for by the increased need to focus.
On the southern motorway at 100 or less religiously I get drowsy even when well rested it is so straight and monotonous. This is made worse by the gentle undulations in the road created by the way the road is sealed.
At 110 these undulations are less noticeable. When my speed had crept a little higher I find i suddenly feel less sleepy and am more alert to my surroundings.
I believe our roads would be safer if the national speed limit was 140 with a 10% tolerance.
Assuming we also had 100km signs where appropriate. Assuming we also had harsher penalties for exceeding that tolerance.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[haydes55]

Any speed limit is a target, and tolerances are just a new limit to aim for. I'd rather no speed limit at all. Drive at a speed which you, an individual, feel safe and in control. Many people aren't safe and comfortable at 100km/h yet feel pressured to go 100km/h because everyone else is. This is where crashes can happen. If the limit was 140km/h, people would try get to 140km/h in their '94 Corolla, when their driving experience consists of sweet fuck all.

No matter what the speed limit is, one thing I know for certain is that every 'people mover' will still drive at 80km/h on the open road and 80km/h in town....

[SPman]

And that folks, is the crux of the matter - everybody thinks regular retesting etc is a 'good-idea' (tm).

But nobody wants to pay for it.

And non-licenced types will still be just that.

If you've got a pilot's license, you have to take regular check flights with an experienced instructor to keep up your license - and you have to pay for it!

So....why not with road vehicles.

[TheDemonLord]

If you've got a pilot's license, you have to take regular check flights with an experienced instructor to keep up your license - and you have to pay for it!

So....why not with road vehicles.

Well Flying is more likely to bite if you get it wrong - if you run out of fuel on the motorway, pull over and call the AA, at 1,500 ft, its a slightly different story, you have to find a field and do an emergency landing. Imagine you have a major component failure in a Car, generally you will be able to bring the car to a stop or at worst be involved in an accident in the process of trying to come to a stop. In a plane, a major component failure can very easily result in a crash and Death.

As much as I hate to say it - look at Colin McRae (RIP) absolute legend on 4 wheels, a better driver than most of us could ever dream to be and capable of driving in a manner that even the best of us are unable to.

He failed to keep his Helicopter licence current and engaged in unsafe piloting and sadly paid the price.

Would keeping his licence current prevented the accident - probably not, although it might have refreshed him on safe piloting

[Big Dog]

Any speed limit is a target, and tolerances are just a new limit to aim for. I'd rather no speed limit at all. Drive at a speed which you, an individual, feel safe and in control. Many people aren't safe and comfortable at 100km/h yet feel pressured to go 100km/h because everyone else is. This is where crashes can happen. If the limit was 140km/h, people would try get to 140km/h in their '94 Corolla, when their driving experience consists of sweet fuck all.

No matter what the speed limit is, one thing I know for certain is that every 'people mover' will still drive at 80km/h on the open road and 80km/h in town....

And if speed limits were less punitive people would drive at speeds they felt safe at instead of trying to keep up. The Corolla would play up for a while. Most drivers do anyway.
One of three things would happen over three years.
1 the drivers skills improve and with it his choice in car.
2 The driver would learn it is not smart or clever to drive faster than is safe and we will be mocking corolla drivers for only doing a 100.
3 the driver would not learn, this weakness would be removed from the gene pool.

Darwinian evolution at its finest.

Number 3 is why the politicians will always shy away from removing the temporary lowering of the national speed limit that has been in effect for approx 40 years.

A proposal to go back to the old limit was before the house in the 80's. It looked promising that the limit would be lifted. I wasn't yet a teenager. From memory: A minister lost a family member. Speed and alcohol were factors. The proposal went away quietly.

For those too young to know, that is why open road signs don't have a speed on them. So that this number can be arbitrarily changed. Otherwise there would be no need to have two different signs.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[Big Dog]

Myself in my 4wd there are massive stretches of open road I will not go over 80. Even in good weather. It is just not good driving to do so. There are stretches of the motorway I would happily do 120 or even 140 if I was not speeding to do so. Discretion of the driver exists.

We would have to update the rules around using the "fast lane" to keep those using their discretion from holding up traffic. But this either needs review or enforcement with the current limit.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[Swoop]

Why would they stare at their speedo?
There's no time to look at a speedo now! Keeping an eye out for roadside taxation specialists is taking up every nano-second of a driver's attention!

... unlike a Warrant, you can't just drop the car off and pick it up on your lunch break.
It's much faster to get one off of the printer! Photoshop has a LOT of uses!:blip:

If you've got a pilot's license, you have to take regular check flights with an experienced instructor to keep up your license ... So....why not with road vehicles.
What!? I wouldn't get in a car with most pilots! Crazy fuckers, most of 'em!:sweatdrop:oi-grr:

[The Reibz]

It's much faster to get one off of the printer! Photoshop has a LOT of uses!:blip:


How much do you charge? Can you do rego labels too?

[haydes55]

How much do you charge? Can you do rego labels too?

Not much use, they just run the number plate. If the system says you aren't rego'd but your sticker says you are, they will scan the barcode and see it's a fake

[The Reibz]

Not much use, they just run the number plate. If the system says you aren't rego'd but your sticker says you are, they will scan the barcode and see it's a fake

Will get you past random roadside checkpoints mate

[MarkH]

If you've got a pilot's license, you have to take regular check flights with an experienced instructor to keep up your license - and you have to pay for it!

So....why not with road vehicles.

How many pilots are there?
How many people with drivers licenses are there?
If there are over 2m people with car driving licenses then just how practical would it be to test each one every 5 years?

[Akzle]

Not much use, they just run the number plate. If the system says you aren't rego'd but your sticker says you are, they will scan the barcode and see it's a fake

unless you put a legit barcode on. Or one that says 'fuckoff'
or maybe a bobby drop tables...

[bsasuper]

Speeding has been taxed heavily as long as I have been alive because it is a fact that can be represented with scientific measure and is difficult to refute once they get a lock. Failing to indicate is word against word.

Globally a large number of wanted criminals are caught because of petty offences such as speeding and driving visibly unsafe vehicles.
Taxing speeders is just good police work in that light.

I do think it is long overdue to return to the old national speed limit from before the 70s oil crisis when the national limit was dropped temporarily to lower our national fuel bill.

There are no doubt older riders here oh can tell you what it was. I was in nappies.

With the exception of the sub 400cc bikes most I have ridden have been more stable and handled better at 120-140 than 100-110. The increased braking distance compensated for by the increased need to focus.
On the southern motorway at 100 or less religiously I get drowsy even when well rested it is so straight and monotonous. This is made worse by the gentle undulations in the road created by the way the road is sealed.
At 110 these undulations are less noticeable. When my speed had crept a little higher I find i suddenly feel less sleepy and am more alert to my surroundings.
I believe our roads would be safer if the national speed limit was 140 with a 10% tolerance.
Assuming we also had 100km signs where appropriate. Assuming we also had harsher penalties for exceeding that tolerance.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

Bloody hell!, I hope I don't ever have to share the road with you with that sort of thinking, If you feel you have to do 140 on our crap roads, best go to a track day once a month and get it out of your system.

[scumdog]

Not much use, they just run the number plate. If the system says you aren't rego'd but your sticker says you are, they will scan the barcode and see it's a fake

Same with WOF.

[FJRider]

Well Flying is more likely to bite if you get it wrong - if you run out of fuel on the motorway, pull over and call the AA, at 1,500 ft, its a slightly different story, you have to find a field and do an emergency landing. Imagine you have a major component failure in a Car, generally you will be able to bring the car to a stop or at worst be involved in an accident in the process of trying to come to a stop. In a plane, a major component failure can very easily result in a crash and Death.



On a Motorcycle ... with opposing traffic (at times) less than a metre away ... at 100 km/hr ... you have few seconds before you hit something if you get it wrong. A blowout in the right front tyre will put you there too. As will ice, oil, loose gravel, inattention and lack of ability to keep in your own lane.

"Pilot Error" is still the cause of most accidents ... on the ground or in the air. A seized engine on the motorway isn't fun either ... especially if you're in the right hand lane.

[MarkH]

Interesting info here:
http://www.investigatemagazine.com/july00speed.htm

[MarkH]

I do think it is long overdue to return to the old national speed limit from before the 70s oil crisis when the national limit was dropped temporarily to lower our national fuel bill.

Which old speed limit are you talking about?
50mph?
55mph?
60mph?
100kph?
80kph? (fuel crisis era)
100kph? (current)

[russd7]

I do think it is long overdue to return to the old national speed limit from before the 70s oil crisis when the national limit was dropped temporarily to lower our national fuel bill.

so you would like us to o back to 60mph, by the way that equates to 96kph meaning with a 4kph tolerance then anyone doing over 100kph would be due for a ticket ;) we could go back to the oils crisis days of 80kph, that was painful, tho the last ticket i had in those days was for exceeding the open road speed limit, speed posted was 110kph and it cost me $30 bucks and that was on my xl500, pretty in silver it was.

[Big Dog]

Bloody hell!, I hope I don't ever have to share the road with you with that sort of thinking, If you feel you have to do 140 on our crap roads, best go to a track day once a month and get it out of your system.

I don't feel I have to do 140. I believe that there has been so much dumbing down of certain roads that it becomes difficult to maintain concentration.
The human mind is equipped to handle 2 mins of intense concentration, 10 mins of concentration or 1 hour of attention.
Put us on a road that does not even a significant change direction for 5 kms at 100 kmph. That is 3 minutes, 1 minute longer than can be dedicated to specific task.
At 140 the task could be concentrated on without the mind wandering.

On the approach to the Bombay hills I see someone wander over a rumble strip or into another lane almost every night.
Every morning it is even more obvious who has already been driving for some time. Those who have come a fair way already their driving and level of attention rapidly degrades as they get further from the hill. It suddenly sharpens up as they approach the first significant corner.
Not so for drivers who got on at the Bombay on ramp.

Surely you have noticed for yourself that on long straight stretches you are more aware of what song is on the radio, what the kids are doing in the back seat, that you can kind of see down your wife's top etc?

I am not proposing that all 100 km zones be 140s. Just that the national open road speed limit be restored (I can't be sure because I was born the year they changed but I think it was 120kmph but expressed in mph) and any roads that are not viable for these kinds of speeds have the signs changed from open road to 100.

I am also proposing that given "improvements" to our motorways this should be increased [I] where practical [I/] to 140.


Get rid of arbitrary limits imposed under different intents than current purpose and allow the general road user to improve.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[Big Dog]

On a Motorcycle ... with opposing traffic (at times) less than a metre away ... at 100 km/hr ... you have few seconds before you hit something if you get it wrong. A blowout in the right front tyre will put you there too. As will ice, oil, loose gravel, inattention and lack of ability to keep in your own lane.

"Pilot Error" is still the cause of most accidents ... on the ground or in the air. A seized engine on the motorway isn't fun either ... especially if you're in the right hand lane.

To a large extent the majority of the events you have described are no more risky at 100 than they are at 80. What changes is the degree of mess.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[Big Dog]

Which old speed limit are you talking about?
50mph?
55mph?
60mph?
100kph?
80kph? (fuel crisis era)
100kph? (current)

We were told when we covered it in economics at high school that the national speed limit was 120kmph. But expressed in MPH ( to the nearest 5mph obviously.)

If anyone on here was "there" in the 70s and remembers then I would like for them to speak up. Especially if it is to correct me.

Note: not sarcasm. Just wanting the real facts.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[Big Dog]

so you would like us to o back to 60mph, by the way that equates to 96kph meaning with a 4kph tolerance then anyone doing over 100kph would be due for a ticket ;) we could go back to the oils crisis days of 80kph, that was painful, tho the last ticket i had in those days was for exceeding the open road speed limit, speed posted was 110kph and it cost me $30 bucks and that was on my xl500, pretty in silver it was.

And that is where the waters get muddy. The national speed limit would mean the posted limit was invalid. In your circumstance the ticket would be for the difference on 100 If the national limit was 100. Or 80 during the fuel crisis. For 110 to be posted the national limit had to have been higher or equal to the sign.

According to the same teacher, when he was a young man open road was exactly that.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[Big Dog]

I don't approve of speeders at the moment. Not because of the speed they are doing but because of the differential over expectation by other road users. I suspect people would make a less cursory head check before pulling into the fast lane if the speed limit in the fast lane was different.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[FJRider]

We were told when we covered it in economics at high school that the national speed limit was 120kmph. But expressed in MPH ( to the nearest 5mph obviously.)

If anyone on here was "there" in the 70s and remembers then I would like for them to speak up. Especially if it is to correct me.

Note: not sarcasm. Just wanting the real facts.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

An interesting read from Otago University in 2012.

http://www.otago.ac.nz/wellington/otago041123.pdf

1973
On the 4th of December 1973, the New Zealand government implemented a 50mph (80.47km/h) open road speed limit. This was meant primarily as a fuel saving measure during the international oil crisis of 1973.

The open road speed limit was increased from 80km/h to 100km/h in 1985.

[Urano]

Well Flying is more likely to bite if you get it wrong

i think this is a common misunderstanding.
as commercial pilot, i always felt much much safer on a plane than on the road.
the reasons are vary.
the mains are that on a plane there is a constant focus on driver conditions (skills and physical), vehicle conditions (while almost the 85% of road vehicles are not constantly maintained nor verified. tyre pressure are out of range in near the 90% of the cases... every time i jump on the saddle i perform an external verification of the bike: how many do that? and on a car??), there is a constant focus on external conditions (before takeoff i always receive a meteo folder with condition at the place, at arrival and in any other different location i could need if an emergency should occur. do the majority of motorists know how's the weather before leaving home? do they know if all the roads are viable? don't think so...) and there is a constant concern about the position of anyone else around you (never heard "watch out, there is someone coming fast from your left at the next crossroad! slow down to avoid crashes" in a car or on the bike...).

normally you have much more time and space to amend messes on a plane than the 100 cm you spare from the one you're passing on a road...



How many pilots are there?
How many people with drivers licenses are there?
If there are over 2m people with car driving licenses then just how practical would it be to test each one every 5 years?

my point is that a good half of them shouldn't have the license 'cause they're not able to use it.
however this position wouldn't ensure me a lot of votes, so i'll be likely unable to make it real...
but the truth remains.
a large group of drivers don't have physical conditions to keep a license: eyesight, blood pressure, various levels of dementia, motor anomalies, medications (or else...) addiction. then there are the simple, plain, completely... stupid.
some would say that you can't put "intelligence" on a legal term, i'd say that you can, or at least you can avoid to give permission to move a 2 tons suv to someone who doesn't understand what he's doing...

then there are the ones physically fit but unable for lack of skills. as pilot i have to perform emergency maneuvers twice a year: am i able to bear with them? good. am i not? ok, go back to study and repeat in a week. am i still not able? grounded. full stop.
are emergency maneuvers checked in roads licensing tests? normally not. and once you gained the license it's something like a nobiliary title.
i'm pretty surprised you don't have the right to transmit it to your offspring actually...
i say, driving license should be progressive (no car license if you don't have bike one), short termed (every two years top back to a practical check), and emergency centered (emergency stop in turn at 70kmh. emergency stop at 90kmh while avoiding obstacle. correct stopping distance calculation. visual clues search and understanding techniques).
they're all test pretty simple in a large park with a water wall. are you able to stop the car consistently? good. not able? try again in a week. still not able? i'm sorry, you can't drive anymore. if you want you can file for a new license STARTING FROM THE BEGINNING)
human factor? never heard of it on the road. still, it's the main part of safety.

my 2c.
you see that speed comes pretty late while looking for safety

[MarkH]

We were told when we covered it in economics at high school that the national speed limit was 120kmph. But expressed in MPH ( to the nearest 5mph obviously.)

That would be 75mph, I am fairly sure that wasn't the limit in the 70s.

From a google search I found:
http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/culture/the-1960s/1969

In 1960, 374 New Zealanders lost their lives in road accidents. By 1969 the number had increased by almost 200. New Zealanders were driving more powerful cars prompting calls for increased speed limits. These occurred in 1962 when the open road speed limit increased from 50mph (80km/h) to 55mph (88km/h) and again in 1969 to 60mph (96km/h).

It was the early '70s (1972 I think) when we went metric on the road speeds and I remember the stickers we got from the Post Office to stick on our cars speedos, at that time the speed limit became 100kph.

[Big Dog]

If we are not going to raise the speed limit we need to shift the focus from dead straight and put enough bends back in to keep drivers in point. If you don't need to change something every 2 minutes you cannot stay focused.
And I mean change. Not subconscious automatic corrections.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[SMOKEU]

pparently that was changed recently that you only have to indicate left when exiting the roundabout if going straight through.

There's nothing recent about the roundabout indicating laws.



If there are over 2m people with car driving licenses then just how practical would it be to test each one every 5 years?

Very practical. It's not that practical to close roads and have emergency services show up each time some muppet kills someone.

[MarkH]

Very practical. It's not that practical to close roads and have emergency services show up each time some muppet kills someone.

Logic fail!
Doing something impractical doesn't become practical because something else is also impractical.
Retesting all drivers every 5 years wont happen and there are many reasons why not, smart people will be able to understand those reasons while others will scratch there heads and say "why don't they do this?".

[Voltaire]

speed limit was dropped to 80 for a while when they brought in 'Carless Days" not to be confused with the Spanish Guitarist Carlos Dayz.

I remember I had a Sunday sticker for not driving and used to drive the old mans ute as he had a green exemption.

That was about 1980 I think, some trumped up fuel crisis, may have been around the time of the Iran Hostage crisis.

I'm sure the stats would tell you if it made a difference to the road toll.

The media were no so focused on infotainment like they are now, more sort of news orientated.

I had a Z1000 at the peak of bike crashes, I was unaware of it at the time, we had no internet and to get information you went to the library.

[rastuscat]

To a large extent the majority of the events you have described are no more risky at 100 than they are at 80. What changes is the degree of mess.

That is the key to the reasoning of speed enforcement.

Two sentences of truth.

[TheDemonLord]

i think this is a common misunderstanding.
as commercial pilot, i always felt much much safer on a plane than on the road.
the reasons are vary.
the mains are that on a plane there is a constant focus on driver conditions (skills and physical), vehicle conditions (while almost the 85% of road vehicles are not constantly maintained nor verified. tyre pressure are out of range in near the 90% of the cases... every time i jump on the saddle i perform an external verification of the bike: how many do that? and on a car??), there is a constant focus on external conditions (before takeoff i always receive a meteo folder with condition at the place, at arrival and in any other different location i could need if an emergency should occur. do the majority of motorists know how's the weather before leaving home? do they know if all the roads are viable? don't think so...) and there is a constant concern about the position of anyone else around you (never heard "watch out, there is someone coming fast from your left at the next crossroad! slow down to avoid crashes" in a car or on the bike...).

normally you have much more time and space to amend messes on a plane than the 100 cm you spare from the one you're passing on a road...

No argument that flying is safer than driving - but how much of that is due to pre-flight checks and actively mitigating risks because if something goes wrong the consequences are more likely to be worse

[Jantar]

That is the key to the reasoning of speed enforcement.

Two sentences of truth.
But true safety comes from reducing the causes of accidents rather than reducing the consequences of accidents. Another wee truism learnt from aviation.

[Kickaha]

speed limit was dropped to 80 for a while when they brought in 'Carless Days" not to be confused with the Spanish Guitarist Carlos Dayz.

I remember I had a Sunday sticker for not driving and used to drive the old mans ute as he had a green exemption.

Petrol station trading hours were also restricted (no weekend trading?)and I think there was a limit on the amount of fuel you could carry in a can

http://www.teara.govt.nz/files/c-23085-atl.jpg

[SMOKEU]

Retesting all drivers every 5 years wont happen and there are many reasons why not, smart people will be able to understand those reasons while others will scratch there heads and say "why don't they do this?".

People need to start taking more responsibility for their actions when driving. Since the majority of drivers don't give a fuck and treat driving as a right, rather than a privilege, the onus should be on the driver to periodically prove that they have maintained the necessary skills to operate a motor vehicle safely.

Or should we allow the muppets to keep killing one another at the current levels, just because it's "too hard" and may upset some people by making them realize how bad a driver they are and that they shouldn't even be on the roads?

[Scuba_Steve]

That is the key to the reasoning of speed enforcement.

Two sentences of truth.

Is it so true? that reasoning has been proven wrong time & time again. The countries with the highest roadtolls also tend to have the slowest roads in-fact one of the worst rated cities for road fatalities in the world has an avg speed of 12km/h not 120km/h, 12km/h

[Erelyes]

That is the key to the reasoning of speed enforcement.

Two sentences of truth.

The tourist who killed three people on the roads on Queen's Birthday Weekend was not speeding, he failed to stop at a stop sign.

Shall we work out the speed that the deceased's vehicle would have had to be travelling, for the accident to be prevented, and bring the national speed limit down to that?

[gjm]

Is there any merit in a higher speed limit being applied on some roads? For instance, the new piece of SH from Taupiri through to Hamilton is open, clear and a good piece of road. I'm sure we can all think of similar stretches elsewhere.

The national speed limit would remain at 100kph, unless clearly signed otherwise. Or would this over-tax the limited comprehension of too many drivers?

I appreciate that many roads currently 'enjoying' 100kph limits certainly should not have a higher limit. 100kph probably isn't safe - is too fast - on some, under any circumstances!

[swbarnett]

The tourist who killed three people on the roads on Queen's Birthday Weekend was not speeding, he failed to stop at a stop sign.

Shall we work out the speed that the deceased's vehicle would have had to be travelling, for the accident to be prevented, and bring the national speed limit down to that?
Or UP to it. Up or down, if they had been travelling at a significantly different speed the timing would've been completely different and they would never have met.


On another note, I wonder why noone is talking about what the victim (not the tourist) could've done to prevent the accident. I have come up to an intersection a few times where I wasn't sure whether or not the approaching vehicle was going to stop. I have applied the brakes strongly just in case they didn't and only when I was sure released them. Surely it's not that hard to look at a car and judge that they're going too fast, too close to the intersection, to be certain they're going to stop?

After all, isn't this the point of the latest traffic "safety" ad?

[Zrex]

How about for those people that do partake in driver/rider training at their own cost from approved instructors. Those people who do trackdays and continually work at improving their skills. How about for those people they get an endorsement on their licence that raises the open road limit for them.

How many of you would work on your driving/riding abilities and pay the cost then?

[unstuck]

How about for those people that do partake in driver/rider training at their own cost from approved instructors. Those people who do trackdays and continually work at improving their skills. How about for those people they get an endorsement on their licence that raises the open road limit for them.

How many of you would work on your driving/riding abilities and pay the cost then?

How do you propose we police that idea?

[haydes55]

How about for those people that do partake in driver/rider training at their own cost from approved instructors. Those people who do trackdays and continually work at improving their skills. How about for those people they get an endorsement on their licence that raises the open road limit for them.



How many of you would work on your driving/riding abilities and pay the cost then?


I'd pay higher rego for that!

But yea, hard to police. Unless you still get pulled over and have to present paperwork to the officer. Or different coloured number plates.

[Daffyd]

AFAIR the national speed limit before the "oil crisis" was 50mph, with a 60mph exemption, for what were then, called motorways. I can remember the derestricted signs, (white with black diagonal stripe), and also the standard type sign stating 60mph, for the "motorways". They removed the 60mph for the oil crisis. My timing could be out, but it was about that time. This will upset some, but I would get rid of open road speed limits and replace them with dangerous driving if driving at an excessive speed. I guess it would be too hard to police though.

[Daffyd]

How about for those people that do partake in driver/rider training at their own cost from approved instructors. Those people who do trackdays and continually work at improving their skills. How about for those people they get an endorsement on their licence that raises the open road limit for them.

How many of you would work on your driving/riding abilities and pay the cost then?

One major downside with both your and my suggestions is the less experienced driver misjudging an approaching vehicle's speed when pulling out in front of them. This could well have been the cause of the Canterbury crash.

[rastuscat]

One major downside with both your and my suggestions is the less experienced driver misjudging an approaching vehicle's speed when pulling out in front of them. This could well have been the cause of the Canterbury crash.

Cant speak to that through experience, just a couple of comments.

The young and the old have a lesser ability to correctly judge the onset of oncoming vehicles. It's physiological, it's just a fact. It's why kids and old folks pull out in front of people.

It's dangerous to assume that someone is going to comply with the road rules, but we virtually have to, or we'd never get anywhere. For example, drove back from Hanmer this morning, and took it for granted each time that a car coming the other way would stay on their own side of the road. If I'd have stopped to make sure each time, I'd still be somewhere between Culverden and Waikari.

We have certain conventions of understanding with each other as road users. We expect everyone else to stay on their side of the road. When we're in a give way looking for a gap, we assume that an oncoming vehicle is within coo-eee of the speed limit. It's just an assumption we make.

Occasionally we get it wrong. We're human. Allowing for human error is important. Understanding that the other road users we share the road with are human and that we all make mistakes is an important part of the big road use picture.

[R650R]

Cant speak to that through experience, just a couple of comments.

The young and the old have a lesser ability to correctly judge the onset of oncoming vehicles. It's physiological, it's just a fact. It's why kids and old folks pull out in front of people.

Occasionally we get it wrong. We're human. Allowing for human error is important. Understanding that the other road users we share the road with are human and that we all make mistakes is an important part of the big road use picture.

I've seen that first hand, a learner driver in front of me, his Dad in passenger seat and sister in back. He stopped as if giving way to the oncoming traffic (before making right turn into side road) then half second later let the clutch out smoothly and drove into the path of an oncoming car. I was right behind him an could not believe it, thought the oncoming car was going to land on my bike as it lifted a good half metre clear of ground and rotated 180 deg, and this was in 50k zone. No one hurt but a good lesson for me to see early on in my riding days.
The poor innocent chap coming other way was quite upset as he'd previously been involved in a fatal (not his fault) and brought back bad memories etc...

[Urano]

No argument that flying is safer than driving - but how much of that is due to pre-flight checks and actively mitigating risks because if something goes wrong the consequences are more likely to be worse

which, actually, is the exactly the same thing that happens on a bike with respect to a car.
anyway since you're talkin about pre-flight checks, i'd like to point out that they have nothing to do with speed.
in fact they're normally performed with the plane immobile. :laugh::laugh:


The tourist who killed three people on the roads on Queen's Birthday Weekend was not speeding, he failed to stop at a stop sign.
Shall we work out the speed that the deceased's vehicle would have had to be travelling, for the accident to be prevented, and bring the national speed limit down to that?

so it will land at around 20kmh.

a missed sign has little to do with speed by itself.
a missed sign in an information cluttered environment as a city road is more likely to be a slip within scanning procedures, a flaw in the way you look around you.
or maybe result of a distraction: was he alone, in the car? was he chatting, talking at the phone, messaging?
he was a tourist, so maybe he had no confidence with the road, with left driving rules, maybe he was looking at a map, he was trying to interpretate the gps, he was looking for a hotel...

and when you consider all the possibilities you'll realize that there is no actual speed which is "right" to avoid those slips, 'cause they don't depend by statistics or by general physic but they vary with any single person and even more, they vary, for the very same person, with time of the day, stress situation, sleep amount, mental load, nutritional situation, weather, conformation of the single road...

at the end of the evaluation process you'll find the only, real, undeniable truth: there's an intrinsic risk in anything we do, and these type of accident are not possible to be "prevented". ("safety is not the equivalent of risk-free" as the u.s. supreme court stated years ago...)
the only thing you can try to do is mitigate the outcome of the event.
since the threshold speed which more likely would permit victims to survive in similar tragic events is 30kmh (and that's the reason why this is the limit in residential and "sensible" areas), you'll end up to set a general speed limit around 20.

that's it...



Occasionally we get it wrong. We're human. Allowing for human error is important. Understanding that the other road users we share the road with are human and that we all make mistakes is an important part of the big road use picture.

so true :niceone:

[Dave-]

What if we increased the speed limit to say, 150km/h (or your favourite)

But decreased the tolerance to 0 and increased all fines by a factor of 10?

[Urano]

What if we increased the speed limit to say, 150km/h (or your favourite)

But decreased the tolerance to 0 and increased all fines by a factor of 10?


it would work only if you'd be absolutely sure to be fined every single time you reach 151.

[swbarnett]

What if we increased the speed limit to say, 150km/h (or your favourite)
This I like...


But decreased the tolerance to 0 and increased all fines by a factor of 10?
This, however would, for one, result in way more runners.

[Dave-]

This I like...


This, however would, for one, result in way more runners.

Prison sentence.

Not here to fuck spiders.

[scumdog]

it would work only if you'd be absolutely sure to be fined every single time you reach 151.

Sealed electronic device that electronicly fines you each time you exceed the 150kph?

And kills your engine management system for 28 days if you go 5kph over?

[FJRider]

This, however would, for one, result in way more runners.

Few die during a police chase ... most die 2 minutes after the chase is called off. So ... it's just another form of suicide ... ;)

[Urano]

Sealed electronic device that electronicly fines you each time you exceed the 150kph?

And kills your engine management system for 28 days if you go 5kph over?


they're talkin about it from the '80s.
it wouldn't be completely a bad idea.
here we have insurance companies that offer a lower price if you agree to put a gps box which constantly records your speed.
but i dare you to mount one: there's the possibility that if you have a problem within a 50kmh limit area and the box records 55, you would not be covered by the policy...
you say "only if you exceed 150". cool. but how long would it take for some moron seated in some government palace to decide that, since everybody have it, it'll be checked for any crash at any speed.
then good luck explaining that you had right of way and the other idiot has passed anyway...

anyway, heavy vehicles have all tachograph, so as soon they're stopped by police they could be fined for all the speeds they kept.
it doesn't seems me that they have particularly low crash records...

[Jantar]

Sealed electronic device that electronicly fines you each time you exceed the 150kph?

And kills your engine management system for 28 days if you go 5kph over?
But My DR650 doesn't have an engine management system. :(

OK, It won't do 150 either, so I guess I'm safe on that bike. Now as for the GSX.............. :sweatdrop

[Dave-]

they're talkin about it from the '80s.
it wouldn't be completely a bad idea.
here we have insurance companies that offer a lower price if you agree to put a gps box which constantly records your speed.
but i dare you to mount one: there's the possibility that if you have a problem within a 50kmh limit area and the box records 55, you would not be covered by the policy...
you say "only if you exceed 150". cool. but how long would it take for some moron seated in some government palace to decide that, since everybody have it, it'll be checked for any crash at any speed.
then good luck explaining that you had right of way and the other idiot has passed anyway...

anyway, heavy vehicles have all tachograph, so as soon they're stopped by police they could be fined for all the speeds they kept.
it doesn't seems me that they have particularly low crash records...

Heard of tinfoil?

[Urano]

Heard of tinfoil?

yes.
i'm afraid in a situation like that you'd be immediately fined (or worse) on presumption that you have something to hide.
burden of proof...? AHAHAHAHA :laugh: that's a good one...

[unstuck]

anyway, heavy vehicles have all tachograph, so as soon they're stopped by police they could be fined for all the speeds they kept.
it doesn't seems me that they have particularly low crash records...

What you talking bout willis?

[yevjenko]

they're talkin about it from the '80s.
it wouldn't be completely a bad idea.
here we have insurance companies that offer a lower price if you agree to put a gps box which constantly records your speed...


They all ready are. Tower have an app to run on your smart phone that records driving style and offers rebates if you have a 'safe driving style'

No way I'm putting that on my phone

:)

One way to improve driving quality would be get rid of automatic boxes cars (impractical i know). Since moving over here i notice the low standard of driving, and can't help wondering if it's because there are many auto's that let people switch off on the road compared to Europe. You're certainly more involved in the car if you have to think about engine revs and gear ratios


sent from my phone (so scuze auto correct typos)

[R650R]

OK, It won't do 150 either, so I guess I'm safe on that bike. Apparently they will with one hand behind your back and chin on the handlebars...




One way to improve driving quality would be get rid of automatic boxes cars (impractical i know). Since moving over here i notice the low standard of driving, and can't help wondering if it's because there are many auto's that let people switch off on the road compared to Europe. You're certainly more involved in the car if you have to think about engine revs and gear ratios


sent from my phone (so scuze auto correct typos)

Automatic transmissions actually enable you to concentrate on driving more. I was always a diehard manual gear fan, never owned an automatic car. Even mastered Eaton roadranger 13/15/18speed, slip shifting without clutch etc...
Then my boss at time gave me keys to brand new R580 scania with autotransmission (12speed tiptronic style with clutch for start and stop).
I was converted pretty quick then I sat down and did the maths and realised how many gear changes during a night I would make. Even though its second nature and you do it without thinking it still uses a few concentration dollars to steal a keith code line. Sure there's a few quirks and situations where you need to over ride but that's about 0.0001% of time spent driving.
A few years later time to upgrade car and went for auto and never looked back.

[Big Dog]

When I sat my license you had to do it in a manual unless you wanted an auto only license.
I mostly drive autos now but I do believe having the understanding of what is happening as you are driving is essential to driving safely. I always find re driving of those who can't drive stick frightening.

Auto all the way in Dorkland though. Not enough opportunity to benefit from the clutch in stand still traffic.

Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[Erelyes]

A few years later time to upgrade car and went for auto and never looked back.

Autos can be handy but they are pigs on hills sometimes.

My 06 Outback 3.0 is fairly competent in the torque stakes, but with the 5spd auto, it still 'hunts' between 3rd/4th going up a hill at 90-100. You have to chuck it in tippy and tell it what to do (suppose that's not much different to a manual).

What gets me is even with the cruise control on, it keeps the same throttle when dropping a gear.... it should work out there is extra load and hold the gear til the hill is done.

Maybe the modern ones are better (aside from being 7+ speed)

[R650R]

Autos can be handy but they are pigs on hills sometimes.



Yeah I'll give you that, my 2.5L annoys the hell out of me on Napier-Taupo road on big hills.
The new truck ones are a different act, much smarter though I'm waiting for them to link GPS to them so they know what terrain their on...

[Scuba_Steve]

Automatic transmissions actually enable you to concentrate on driving more. I was always a diehard manual gear fan, never owned an automatic car. Even mastered Eaton roadranger 13/15/18speed, slip shifting without clutch etc...
Then my boss at time gave me keys to brand new R580 scania with autotransmission (12speed tiptronic style with clutch for start and stop).
I was converted pretty quick then I sat down and did the maths and realised how many gear changes during a night I would make. Even though its second nature and you do it without thinking it still uses a few concentration dollars to steal a keith code line. Sure there's a few quirks and situations where you need to over ride but that's about 0.0001% of time spent driving.
A few years later time to upgrade car and went for auto and never looked back.

But as per someone else post back a bit, humans can only concentrate on 1 thing for so long; a manual allows you to concentrate on the road longer as auto's tend to end up putting people into "cruise control". This might be & probably is different in big rigs but for the avg driver the auto allows them time to look at the scenery & goto sleep
Course then there's the technical reasons why manuals are better like control of vehicle & no delay but most drivers cant so those advantages aren't of concern

[Urano]

What you talking bout willis?

tachograph?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachograph

in europe it's standard (and required) equipment on any heavy vehicle (buses, truck, work stuff...)




One way to improve driving quality would be get rid of automatic boxes cars (impractical i know). Since moving over here i notice the low standard of driving, and can't help wondering if it's because there are many auto's that let people switch off on the road compared to Europe. You're certainly more involved in the car if you have to think about engine revs and gear ratios


mh.
consider that many drivers can't even bear to think at the distance from the car before.
not sure adding another mental load would generate a better outcome :lol::lol::lol:

[unstuck]

tachograph?





Yes, I am quite aware what they are.;)
What I was wondering is, what makes you think all heavy vehicles here have them?? Cos we is not europe.:2thumbsup

[TheDemonLord]

Yeah I'll give you that, my 2.5L annoys the hell out of me on Napier-Taupo road on big hills.
The new truck ones are a different act, much smarter though I'm waiting for them to link GPS to them so they know what terrain their on...

That big looooong hill with the passing lane where every auto can't decide which gear to sit in?

[Urano]

Yes, I am quite aware what they are.;)
What I was wondering is, what makes you think all heavy vehicles here have them?? Cos we is not europe.:2thumbsup

the fact that your regulations are often quite similar to uk

even if this is not the case, we can take it as a gross statistic equivalency: in europe all heavy vehicles have tachs and they're not on the low side of the crash tables. this suggests me that in nz, with or without tach, the numbers could be somehow similar.

[Daffyd]

That big looooong hill with the passing lane where every auto can't decide which gear to sit in?

I don't think this is the problem it used to be with more intelligent autoboxes today.

[Swoop]

Is there any merit in a higher speed limit being applied on some roads? For instance, the new piece of SH from Taupiri through to Hamilton is open, clear and a good piece of road. I'm sure we can all think of similar stretches elsewhere.
Like the Australian freeway system. I know Brisbane is(was?) 110kph and it made a lot of sense.

[yevjenko]

Do it like they do in France, 130 I the dry, 110 or lower in the rain

sent from my phone (so scuze auto correct typos)

[rastuscat]

Set the speed limit at 110. Anyone riding a Harley just do what your bike can manage.

[scumdog]

Set the speed limit at 110. Anyone riding a Harley just do what your bike can manage.


Great! My HD is in MPH!:2thumbsup

[unstuck]

Great! My HD is in MPH!:2thumbsup

0-40? Must be a small dial, how do you read it? :2thumbsup

[Berries]

Big numbers

[caspernz]

Big numbers

On account of the vibration of course...:eek5:

[swarfie]

Set the speed limit at 110. Anyone riding a Harley just do what your bike can manage.

Nice to hear a cop advocating 110....so when are we going to get real and bring that rule in? Only for some stretches though, some motorways and wide straight bits would be good. Then those that wanna ride Charlie Harrisons can ride em balls out :yawn:

[swbarnett]

Great! My HD is in MPH!:2thumbsup
I like the way you think. My bike is as well.

"Truly , officer, my speedo never went over the limit..."

[Urano]

Do it like they do in France, 130 in the dry, 110 or lower in the rain


this is the widest applied limit in europe.
on that you have to consider the tolerance set at 5% (7kmh) for the speed camera.
eventually, summing up the tolerance for the camera and the one of the tachometer, you can safely consider that if you stay below 150kmh indicated you're risking almost nothing, a minimum fine at worst.
trucks and buses have lower limits (90-100 the firsts, 110 the latter)

130kmh seems to me a good limit.
cars have no real good reason to go faster: the fuel consumption rises quickly above 130-140 for normal cars, and the time to destination drops of only few minutes every 100 km, so it's not a big deal
bikes has the problem of comfort, and whatever you say, riding faster than 110-120kmh is a mess: very high noise in the helmet, low air protection from the fairing, and then again high fuel consumption.
on a track you can go full throttle in the straight, but in open roads it becomes rapidly annoying...

obviously, you have to consider the infrastructures.
how you doing with the cheesecutter thing guys?

[swbarnett]

and whatever you say, riding faster than 110-120kmh is a mess: very high noise in the helmet, low air protection from the fairing,
Please do not put words in my mouth. You can only say this is what you've found. Others have found quite different.

[rastuscat]

Whatever the limit gets set at they have to factor in a tolerance. Effectively it's already 110 most of the year, cept holiday weekends when it's 104.

Or are we asking for 110 and zero tolerance?

[russd7]

130kmh seems to me a good limit.

bikes has the problem of comfort, and whatever you say, riding faster than 110-120kmh is a mess: very high noise in the helmet, low air protection from the fairing, and then again high fuel consumption.
on a track you can go full throttle in the straight, but in open roads it becomes rapidly annoying...

obviously, you have to consider the infrastructures.
how you doing with the cheesecutter thing guys?

may be a problem with your bike and gear but not the case on either of my bikes, of course i have only ever gone over 100km/hr on a track ;).
i would suggest you need to invest in a good quality helmet or get one that fits correctly if you have an issue with noise in your helmet

[Scuba_Steve]

Whatever the limit gets set at they have to factor in a tolerance. Effectively it's already 110 most of the year, cept holiday weekends when it's 104.

Or are we asking for 110 and zero tolerance?

Na I think what most are asking for is common sense & zero extortion

[Kickaha]

Na I think what most are asking for is common sense & zero extortion

Perhaps when motorcyclists start showing more common sense the law might as well

[bluninja]

The highest speed limit in Bermuda is 35 kmh and foreigners aren't allowed to drive. Yet.......

According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development – OECD, Bermuda has one of the highest rates of road fatalities – 20 per 100,000. The OECD average is 9.6 per 100,000. From the year 2000 to 2012 135 people died on Bermuda's roads

(source http://www.cada.bm/index.php/statistics/info/statistics_for_road_deaths_in_bermuda/)

Wow!!!

[Berries]

Or are we asking for 110 and zero tolerance?
Well if you are taking requests I'll go for 160 and a 40km/h tolerance thanks.

[Scuba_Steve]

Perhaps when motorcyclists start showing more common sense the law might as well

Don't be daft, it's the "law" which has killed common sense in the 1st place...

[scumdog]

Perhaps when motorcyclists start showing more common sense the law might as well

Like THAT will ever happen!:rolleyes:

[rastuscat]

Na I think what most are asking for is common sense & zero extortion

Reckon you might be surprised how much tolerance is shown.

Say I write ten tickets in a day. I would have seen 30 offences in that day but either couldn't get to them or couldn't be arsed disrupting traffic flows to do do. Do the 20 feel lucky? Most don't even know they've been seen.

[Ocean1]

Reckon you might be surprised how much tolerance is shown.

Say I write ten tickets in a day. I would have seen 30 offences in that day but either couldn't get to them or couldn't be arsed disrupting traffic flows to do do. Do the 20 feel lucky? Most don't even know they've been seen.

Trouble is mate, all it takes is one cop to ping someone for 105 in perfect conditions in the middle of the Himatangi straights and any goodwill that member of the public had for the rozzers is toast for bloody years.

Tolerance works both ways.

[rastuscat]

Tolerance works both ways.

Just for the record so does intolerance.

[Ocean1]

Just for the record so does intolerance.

Oh aye. Tends to be ingrained though, rather than episodic.

[Urano]

Please do not put words in my mouth. You can only say this is what you've found. Others have found quite different.

sure.
for example others have found that black cats will bring you bad luck...



may be a problem with your bike and gear but not the case on either of my bikes, of course i have only ever gone over 100km/hr on a track ;).
i would suggest you need to invest in a good quality helmet or get one that fits correctly if you have an issue with noise in your helmet

:)
thanks for the suggestion.
despite your hypothesis though, various studies (but i encourage you to simply have a look at COST 327) have found noise levels inside helmets as "dangerously high".
it spans from 90db at 65kmh to 120 at 160kmh.
exposing to a noise level higher than 95db for more than 2 hours will exceed widely accepted safety limits for workers.

as i often say, USE EAR PLUGS!
anytime your trip will stretch out the city limit, stop a sec and put them on.
(btw, yes, they're often forbidden...wrongly...)

that takes us back to the point: if you're going to travel along way, blasting it in 3 hour at 150 it's prolly worse than trolling at 120 arriving 40 minutes later...

[avgas]

After reading half the dribble I see - I often wonder why many of your don't crash at slower speeds.

Speeding is a personal thing. I personally can no longer hack the 170+kph I used to be able to do on straights. Small things catch me out and I know one day I will be fucked. However I am quite comfortable at 140kph corners.
It's knowing your personal limit and riding there.

The road doesn't care what speed you are going, but it certainly helps it at killing you at a higher velocity than a lower one. The same as it is easier to really hurt yourself with a hammer if you swing it fast than if you swing it slow. This doesn't mean you can't hurt yourself if you swing it slow - just that changes are you will notice you are about to hurt yourself and stop your action.

Mother fucking rocket science people.

[yevjenko]

The same as it is easier to really hurt yourself with a hammer if you swing it fast than if you swing it slow. This doesn't mean you can't hurt yourself if you swing it slow - just that changes are you will notice you are about to hurt yourself and stop your action.

Mother fucking rocket science people.

You just added to the dribble. To correct your analogy, you should compare swinging a hammer really fast, to only slightly less fast.

If we come off at 120, there won't be much difference than if we came off at 100. The road furniture is still going to make you come to a very abrupt stop if the other road users don't do it first.

sent from my phone (so scuze auto correct typos)

[Reckless]

You just added to the dribble. To correct your analogy, you should compare swinging a hammer really fast, to only slightly less fast.

If we come off at 120, there won't be much difference than if we came off at 100.

Not according to the TV ads if someone pulls out on you and your doing 8k over its all your fault for his kids life??
The cops make everything about speed but its not working, is it?

[scumdog]

[QUOTE=Reckless;1130734428]Not according to the TV ads if someone pulls out on you and your doing 8k over its all your fault for his kids life??
The cops make everything about speed but its not working, is it?[/QUOTE

You believe TV ads???:confused::blink:

[Reckless]

[QUOTE=Reckless;1130734428]Not according to the TV ads if someone pulls out on you and your doing 8k over its all your fault for his kids life??
The cops make everything about speed but its not working, is it?[/QUOTE

You believe TV ads???:confused::blink:

Of coarse not Scummy and you know it was meant to be sarky, bad try at a Troll LOL

BUT a large % of of joe public do, that's why everyone is falling to sleep or listening to there MP3, stuck behind grandma at 85K, miles of double yellows, passing lanes coned off, to scared to exceed the limit to safely pass in case you blokes are patrolling the passing lanes with your instant on set at 104k.

haha troll worked I guess LMAO

[avgas]

If we come off at 120, there won't be much difference than if we came off at 100. The road furniture is still going to make you come to a very abrupt stop if the other road users don't do it first.
You missed the point fella.
So here is the mother fucking rocket science.

100 kph = 27.8 ms
120 kph = 33.3 ms

Say a reaction time of the average fool is 0.7 seconds.
So you see a car suddenly pull out in front of you (morons are everywhere) - even if you neglect braking distances.
@100kph by the time you reach the brake lever you have traveled 19.49m
@120kph by the time you reach the brake lever you have traveled 23.31m

Difference = 3.85m
Or the length of the car you didn't want to hit.

As I mentioned - find what speed your a capable at. If you get it wrong - your fucked purely on the laws of physics. Regardless of what you think.

Mother fucking rocket science.

[russd7]

sure.
for example others have found that black cats will bring you bad luck...




:)
thanks for the suggestion.
despite your hypothesis though, various studies (but i encourage you to simply have a look at COST 327) have found noise levels inside helmets as "dangerously high".
it spans from 90db at 65kmh to 120 at 160kmh.
exposing to a noise level higher than 95db for more than 2 hours will exceed widely accepted safety limits for workers.

as i often say, USE EAR PLUGS!
anytime your trip will stretch out the city limit, stop a sec and put them on.
(btw, yes, they're often forbidden...wrongly...)

that takes us back to the point: if you're going to travel along way, blasting it in 3 hour at 150 it's prolly worse than trolling at 120 arriving 40 minutes later...
haven't used earplugs since i started buying better quality helmets and quite regularly do trips in excess of 500kms at speeds above 120km/hr
I have issues with neither wind nor noise and incedently, according to the hearing test i had for work friday last week, my hearing is well above average for my age which is not bad considering i farmed for 25 yrs and have ridden motorcycles for over 30yrs and now work around noisy woodworking machinery all day.
oh and by the way, my trips do occasionally stretch in to city limits unfortunately.

[Urano]

haven't used earplugs since i started buying better quality helmets and quite regularly do trips in excess of 500kms at speeds above 120km/hr
I have issues with neither wind nor noise and incedently, according to the hearing test i had for work friday last week, my hearing is well above average for my age which is not bad considering i farmed for 25 yrs and have ridden motorcycles for over 30yrs and now work around noisy woodworking machinery all day.
oh and by the way, my trips do occasionally stretch in to city limits unfortunately.

you're saying tha... oh sorry...

YOU'RE SAYING THAT DESPITE YEARS OF MOTORBIKE RIDING AND WORK IN NOISY ENVIRONMENT YOUR HEARING IS BETTER THAN THE AVERAGE?
:D :D
well, good for you. if i were you i'd go to the nearest university and offer myself as an interest case study. :niceone:

now you understand that (given your case is still applicable considering requirements, levels and frequency of test, correctness of data, procedure and equipment) this could only been considered as a personal experience of no statistic value, right?
it's the ancient, rusty problem of the "old pal" everybody has that has crashed wearing nothing more than a t-shirt, had not even a scratch and now is claiming that atgatt is for morons...

so, if want to give us something useful simply repeat your test twice again, then build up a statistic graph of measurements.
then find out another bunch of guys with a similar story (at least 150-200. better 500. 1000 would be great.) test them three times and make similar graphs. then correct the data for age, gender, race, place, and anthropometric differences and come back here tellin us your findings.
it would be awesome. :clap:

while we wait we'll stick to others that have done all these stuff before you, and whose results are, as i said, worth of attention.

http://www.isvr.co.uk/at_work/m_cycle.htm

this is something newer:
http://www.cieh.org/jehr/hearing_loss_motorcyclists.html

and the cost327:
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/roadsafety_library/publications/cost327_final_report.pdf

and here i report a screenshot (for the lazy ones...) of page 220-221 chapter 8:
298109

[Big Dog]

you're saying tha... oh sorry...

YOU'RE SAYING THAT DESPITE YEARS OF MOTORBIKE RIDING AND WORK IN NOISY ENVIRONMENT YOUR HEARING IS BETTER THAN THE AVERAGE?
:D :D
well, good for you. if i were you i'd go to the nearest university and offer myself as an interest case study. :niceone:

now you understand that (given your case is still applicable considering requirements, levels and frequency of test, correctness of data, procedure and equipment) this could only been considered as a personal experience of no statistic value, right?
it's the ancient, rusty problem of the "old pal" everybody has that has crashed wearing nothing more than a t-shirt, had not even a scratch and now is claiming that atgatt is for morons...

so, if want to give us something useful simply repeat your test twice again, then build up a statistic graph of measurements.
then find out another bunch of guys with a similar story (at least 150-200. better 500. 1000 would be great.) test them three times and make similar graphs. then correct the data for age, gender, race, place, and anthropometric differences and come back here tellin us your findings.
it would be awesome. :clap:

while we wait we'll stick to others that have done all these stuff before you, and whose results are, as i said, worth of attention.

http://www.isvr.co.uk/at_work/m_cycle.htm

this is something newer:
http://www.cieh.org/jehr/hearing_loss_motorcyclists.html

and the cost327:
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/roadsafety_library/publications/cost327_final_report.pdf

and here i report a screenshot (for the lazy ones...) of page 220-221 chapter 8:
298109

To be fair in 1992 an 1996 ( the dates mentioned ) my helmet was much noisier. True up until my CLSP above 140 or below 110. My FG-15 is much quieter again least wind noise is a pocket this time about 60 to 160. . As was my shoei. But where it becomes a little less about science and a little about the anecdote: I had to discontinue the of earplugs in the 90's and again in the 00s because recurring ear infections were causing hearing loss that returned when the plug use stopped. Last hearing check my hearing was above normal.



Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[Urano]

To be fair in 1992 an 1996 ( the dates mentioned ) my helmet was much noisier.

true.
the data are not extremely "fresh".
i myself remember my old 1994 mds helmet as quite different, from a construction standpoint, compared to my actual shoei xr1100.
cieh survey though is not farther than 2004, and still i feel the annoying "whistle" in my ears when i keep for more than a pair of hour... "happy" speeds...

[unstuck]

you're saying tha... oh sorry...

YOU'RE SAYING THAT DESPITE YEARS OF MOTORBIKE RIDING AND WORK IN NOISY ENVIRONMENT YOUR HEARING IS BETTER THAN THE AVERAGE?
:D :D
well, good for you. if i were you i'd go to the nearest university and offer myself as an interest case study. :niceone:

now you understand that (given your case is still applicable considering requirements, levels and frequency of test, correctness of data, procedure and equipment) this could only been considered as a personal experience of no statistic value, right?
it's the ancient, rusty problem of the "old pal" everybody has that has crashed wearing nothing more than a t-shirt, had not even a scratch and now is claiming that atgatt is for morons...

so, if want to give us something useful simply repeat your test twice again, then build up a statistic graph of measurements.
then find out another bunch of guys with a similar story (at least 150-200. better 500. 1000 would be great.) test them three times and make similar graphs. then correct the data for age, gender, race, place, and anthropometric differences and come back here tellin us your findings.
it would be awesome. :clap:



while we wait we'll stick to others that have done all these stuff before you, and whose results are, as i said, worth of attention.

http://www.isvr.co.uk/at_work/m_cycle.htm

this is something newer:
http://www.cieh.org/jehr/hearing_loss_motorcyclists.html

and the cost327:
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/roadsafety_library/publications/cost327_final_report.pdf

and here i report a screenshot (for the lazy ones...) of page 220-221 chapter 8:
298109
Sorry, but all of that ^^^^^ that just makes you look like an arrogant, anorak wearing pillock to me. :tugger:

[Urano]

Sorry, but all of that ^^^^^ that just makes you look like an arrogant, anorak wearing pillock to me. :tugger:

sorry about that.
i've tried only to give you some info to preserve your health based on standardized data and not personal opinions (as respectable as they are).
you're obviously free to give it the consideration you want... :Punk:

[unstuck]

sorry about that.
i've tried only to give you some info to preserve your health based on standardized data and not personal opinions (as respectable as they are).
you're obviously free to give it the consideration you want... :Punk:

Sure, but you do not need to be a pillock about it. :msn-wink:

[Berries]

you're saying tha... oh sorry...

YOU'RE SAYING THAT DESPITE YEARS OF MOTORBIKE RIDING AND WORK IN NOISY ENVIRONMENT YOUR HEARING IS BETTER THAN THE AVERAGE?
:D :D
well, good for you. if i were you i'd go to the nearest university and offer myself as an interest case study. :niceone:

now you understand that (given your case is still applicable considering requirements, levels and frequency of test, correctness of data, procedure and equipment) this could only been considered as a personal experience of no statistic value, right?
it's the ancient, rusty problem of the "old pal" everybody has that has crashed wearing nothing more than a t-shirt, had not even a scratch and now is claiming that atgatt is for morons...

so, if want to give us something useful simply repeat your test twice again, then build up a statistic graph of measurements.
then find out another bunch of guys with a similar story (at least 150-200. better 500. 1000 would be great.) test them three times and make similar graphs. then correct the data for age, gender, race, place, and anthropometric differences and come back here tellin us your findings.
it would be awesome. :clap:

while we wait we'll stick to others that have done all these stuff before you, and whose results are, as i said, worth of attention.

http://www.isvr.co.uk/at_work/m_cycle.htm

this is something newer:
http://www.cieh.org/jehr/hearing_loss_motorcyclists.html

and the cost327:
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/roadsafety_library/publications/cost327_final_report.pdf

and here i report a screenshot (for the lazy ones...) of page 220-221 chapter 8:
298109
Pardon?



10c

[Maha]

It is fiction that you have to pay a speeding fine. It is just the interpretation of the issuing officer, about the said event.

[scumdog]

It is fiction that you have to pay a speeding fine. It is just the interpretation of the issuing officer, about the said event.


Did Akzle tell you that?;)

[unstuck]

It is fiction that you have to pay a speeding fine. It is just the interpretation of the issuing officer, about the said event.

I want my money back then.:mad:

[Scuba_Steve]

Did Akzle tell you that?;)

It's written in legislation, where Akzle gets it from; Maybee you should read some sometime it's got alot to do with what you're supposed to be doing.
Course the "MoJ" & Police have no concern/respect for law & will illegally steal or breach your rights regardless.

[FJRider]

It is fiction that you have to pay a speeding fine. It is just the interpretation of the issuing officer, about the said event.

You HAVE to pay the speeding fine if one is issued (although if you write "The letter" it may be waived)

The issuing of the ticket depends entirely on/at the discretion of the officer at the time of said event ... as to what ( or ... if any) infringement notice is issued ...

[scumdog]

It's written in legislation, where Akzle gets it from; Maybee you should read some sometime it's got alot to do with what you're supposed to be doing.
Course the "MoJ" & Police have no concern/respect for law & will illegally steal or breach your rights regardless.


You sound AWFULLY defensive to a rather inocuois remark I must say.

Mr Scuba (Said in best Sgt Wilson from Dads Army voice).

[Scuba_Steve]

You HAVE to pay the speeding fine if one is issued (although if you write "The letter" it may be waived)

The issuing of the ticket depends entirely on/at the discretion of the officer at the time of said event ... as to what ( or ... if any) infringement notice is issued ...

You're ignorant, go read yourself some legislation it's all online right here (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/)



You sound AWFULLY defensive to a rather inocuois remark I must say.

Mr Scuba (Said in best Sgt Wilson from Dads Army voice).

What can I say cept guess I'll have to watch Dads Army to know who this Sgt Wilson is

[Dave-]

sorry about that.
i've tried only to give you some info to preserve your health based on standardized data and not personal opinions (as respectable as they are).
you're obviously free to give it the consideration you want... :Punk:

Yeah, rationale and citing credible references doesn't go down so well around here. You'll be labelled all sorts of titles, many of which won't make any sense.

Other peculiarities:

You can literally make up anything, so long as it has a percentage figure in the claim.
Burden of proof is on the party refuting the claim.
Anything beyond a linear relationship is way beyond the comprehension of the crowd.


They reckon 100% of people killed in an accident above the speed limit thought the speed they were doing was safe.

[ellipsis]

...I just posted 'the letter'...I generally take a philosophical look at paying the speeding tax, and there have been so few in 42 years that I consider myself extremely lucky...but sometimes, some officers, seem as blind, as the fuckwit motorists, they have to herd...

[FJRider]

You're ignorant, go read yourself some legislation it's all online right here (http://www.legislation.govt.nz/)






I looked ... :shifty:

Any particular heading I should be looking at ... ??? :scratch: ... The Sale of Liquor Act 2012 maybe ... ??? :bleh:

[rastuscat]

An infringement offence notice or ION is an authorised officers allegation of wrong doing. The person on the receiving end is entirely in control of the situation.

If they pay the fine they are legally pleading guilty. If they don't, it is in essence a not guilty plea, and becomes a matter to be sorted by the courts.

Of course, if you don't agree with the ticket it's better to request a hearing up front and save a bunch of administration costs being added.

Ultimately it's better to not get the ticket in the first place. Don't give the Popo's the right to issue the ION by not breaking the rules. Seems obvious really.

Just sayin'

Donuts

[Scuba_Steve]

I looked ... :shifty:

Any particular heading I should be looking at ... ??? :scratch: ... The Sale of Liquor Act 2012 maybe ... ??? :bleh:

Well that could be a good one if that was you're interest but The 'bill of rights' is a good start as it's supposed to be our basic fundamental rights as NZers (tho largely ignored & Govt's trying to eliminate), then there's 'Human rights', 'crimes act' etc that should get you started



An infringement offence notice or ION is an authorised officers allegation of wrong doing. The person on the receiving end is entirely in control of the situation.

If they pay the fine they are legally pleading guilty. If they don't, it is in essence a not guilty plea, and becomes a matter to be sorted by the courts.

Of course, if you don't agree with the ticket it's better to request a hearing up front and save a bunch of administration costs being added.

Ultimately it's better to not get the ticket in the first place. Don't give the Popo's the right to issue the ION by not breaking the rules. Seems obvious really.

Just sayin'

Donuts

Completely ignoring the right to be innocent until proven guilty, which apparently is reserved only for criminal cases & in total disregard to a law setup specifically to stop this type of extortion which simply reads "That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegall and void." - course when has legislation ever stopped criminals

Just sayin
Vodka

[FJRider]

Completely ignoring the right to be innocent until proven guilty ...

He DID say the Infringement notices were an "Allegation" of your breach of the Land Transport act. ... and you have the right to fight any such allegation in a court of law.

Paying the stated fine being an admission of the traffic infringement/offense ...

The courts are by no means ... Always totally in support of the police. In a majority of the cases that come before the courts ... they ARE .... (because they're as guilty as fuck)

But not always.

[Dave-]

Completely ignoring the right to be innocent until proven guilty...

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/2727748211/c3d0981ae770f926eedf4eda7505b006_400x400.jpeg

[caspernz]

Meh, all this talk of speeding facts vs fiction is a bit like the fat chick in the hotel pool...

298146

[unstuck]

Speed kills. :whistle:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/DMzoqpyUbhg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[James Deuce]

The "cause" of accidents is people and people are dicks. Until people stop being dicks, accidents will keep happening.

Don't be a dick.

[swbarnett]

Don't be a dick.
Exactly.

This is, of course, not the same as saying "don't break the law". Contrary to popular belief staying within the law is no guarantee that a driver is not still being a dick.

[rastuscat]

Contrary to popular belief staying within the law is no guarantee that a driver is not still being a dick.

Inversely, it also means that being outside the law doesn't necessarily mean you're not a dick.

Or something. Um, what was I trying to say?

[rastuscat]

He DID say the Infringement notices were an "Allegation" of your breach of the Land Transport act. ... and you have the right to fight any such allegation in a court of law.

Paying the stated fine being an admission of the traffic infringement/offense ...

The courts are by no means ... Always totally in support of the police. In a majority of the cases that come before the courts ... they ARE .... (because they're as guilty as fuck)

But not always.

It's just Skoober being Skoober. You're right, but that won't matter to him.

[swbarnett]

Inversely, it also means that being outside the law doesn't necessarily mean you're not a dick.

Or something. Um, what was I trying to say?
I know what you're trying to say and I totally agree. The law is often a very poor yard stick.

[Scuba_Steve]

It's just Skoober being Skoober. You're right, but that won't matter to him.

he aint right & you should know better.

[R650R]

The "cause" of accidents is people and people are dicks. Until people stop being dicks, accidents will keep happening.

Don't be a dick.

That deserves a Patches O'Houlihan quote but no ones made a meme of the bar scene yet... and I've just remembered its Team America I'm thinking of...
Everyones been drawn off into a wrong tangent here as speed does kill.
What we're really trying to argue is our divine right to choose our own excessive extra risk levels. As we've become accustomed to carrying out other dangerous skull cracking activities without govt intervention.
Eg: one can enter forest park without suitable food, footwear, clothing or means of signalling rescue. One can go kayaking in extreme off shore winds with no PLB or Radio... etc....
Yet being slightly stupid in/on a motor vehicle we have all these rules to pretend its safe otherwise no one would go near them.

[rustic101]

May be a repost???

Irish anti speed TV ad

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ajsi2vPR70

[swbarnett]

speed does kill.
BULLSHIT!

Just ask an astronaut.

[Erelyes]

BULLSHIT!

Just ask an astronaut.

If you can find one alive :laugh:

[R650R]

BULLSHIT!

Just ask an astronaut.

What you mean one of those holly wood actors that landed in that studio at las vegas...

http://www.unmuseum.org/moonhoax.jpg

[swbarnett]

If you can find one alive :laugh:
Still, it certainly wasn't speed that killed them.

[swbarnett]

What you mean one of those holly wood actors that landed in that studio at las vegas...
Well, that explains a lot.



If the moon landing had been faked there would have had to be literally thousands of people in on it. It would've been blown wide open right from the start.

[Big Dog]

I love how the film crew is clearly cgi but the centre action is not.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[avgas]

Still, it certainly wasn't speed that killed them.
Is an explosion speed? I can't imagine bits of stuff slowly heading in there direction hit them and then kept going.....slowly.

[avgas]

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/500x/51600632.jpghttp://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/500x/51600812.jpghttp://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/500x/51601063.jpg

[swbarnett]

Is an explosion speed? I can't imagine bits of stuff slowly heading in there direction hit them and then kept going.....slowly.
Acceleration is the killer, the actual speed has nothing to do with it.

[Erelyes]

Acceleration is the killer

Deceleration* :bleh:

[Scuba_Steve]

Deceleration* :bleh:

Na he was right, if you've ever done physics you'll know there's no such thing as deceleration :msn-wink:

[Dave-]

Na he was right, if you've ever done physics you'll know there's no such thing as deceleration :msn-wink:

Correct, Acceleration is a vector, it has both magnitude and direction.

Anyone who has ever done physics, or seen Despicable Me.

Best line in that entire film.

[Ocean1]

or seen Despicable Me.

... would have probably felt compelled to explain to the nippers how the movie should have been using Δv.

[caspernz]

... would have probably felt compelled to explain to the nippers how the movie should have been using Δv.

Nah, they'll just confuse it with that old Chuck Norris series...

[Robbo]

High Speed Chase

Did'nt know about the 4km/h over limit.:nono:

[Metastable]

Well what do you know.... the original post talks about British Columbia.... well they are about to increase their speed limits. Apparently they decided to pay attention to the facts.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/speed-limits-on-some-b-c-highways-to-hit-120-km-h-1.2694277

[awayatc]

the police is supposed to enforce what the politicians legislate............

we vote for the politicians...

thus we should be able to dictate, or at least influence legislation.......

unfortunately for us, in NZ we have a them"know better "vs us "do as you are told" culture...

definitely not the best way of pretending to be democratic

and also definitely not the only way democracies function.

[swbarnett]

the police is supposed to enforce what the politicians legislate............

we vote for the politicians...

thus we should be able to dictate, or at least influence legislation.......

unfortunately for us, in NZ we have a them"know better "vs us "do as you are told" culture...

definitely not the best way of pretending to be democratic

and also definitely not the only way democracies function.
Agreed. What we need is a system whereby we don't only vote for the government as a whole but also vote on anything that's not just day to day running. In Switzerland you even get a vote on whether the proposed budget is acceptable.

[awayatc]

in the Neterlands drivers were asked what they thought the most annoying thing was....

Tailgaiting came out tops, hence gets very heavily fined.......

Speeding was considered a non event, hence very little speed policing...(only extreme speeding)

And yes their Road toll is lower then ours.....

[Robbo]

in the Neterlands drivers were asked what they thought the most annoying thing was....

Tailgaiting came out tops, hence gets very heavily fined.......

Speeding was considered a non event, hence very little speed policing...(only extreme speeding)

And yes their Road toll is lower then ours.....

Yep, Tailgating would be one of my biggest complaints also.

[oneofsix]

Yep, Tailgating would be one of my biggest complaints also.

Heck yeah. I really hate it when the vehicle in front is hogging the lane and all you can do is tailgate them.

:corn:

[R650R]

in the Neterlands drivers were asked what they thought the most annoying thing was....

And yes their Road toll is lower then ours.....

They are a more intelligent nation overall though, many of them speak several languages etc.
Prob credit the Vikings too for weeding out those with slow reactions and bad attitudes lol...

At the 6min mark, proof speed causes crashes, either that or too many donuts in the boot of this patrol car. Classic mid corner sledge and ditch roll.


http://youtu.be/QfAaDHWIpMQ?t=6m

[swbarnett]

At the 6min mark, proof speed causes crashes,
Bullshit. That's like saying that having a knife in your hand causes stabbing.

Yes, speed inappropriate for the conditions is ill-advised. However, in this case the speed had nothing to do with the cause. I could likely have taken that corner at that speed under the same circumstances and not crashed. The real problem was that the entry line was atrocious. If they'd been on the far left side of the road before the corner they'd have been sweet. Given the visibility around that corner there was no excuse for staying in their own lane.

[haydes55]

Bullshit. That's like saying that having a knife in your hand causes stabbing.



Yes, speed inappropriate for the conditions is ill-advised. However, in this case the speed had nothing to do with the cause. I could likely have taken that corner at that speed under the same circumstances and not crashed. The real problem was that the entry line was atrocious. If they'd been on the far left side of the road before the corner they'd have been sweet. Given the visibility around that corner there was no excuse for staying in their own lane.


Adding to that, he was going too fast for that corner with the line he took. He did not crash because he was above a speed limit, he crashed because he was faster than his capabilities. Even if the speed limit was 150mph I wouldn't have crashed there, because I would have assessed the corner and slowed to an appropriate speed. The speed limit, nor lack of adherence to, played no part in that crash at all.


"you're riding unsafe at illegal speeds"..... Funny that the motorbike didn't try take any risks, was no way near full throttle or anyway near knee down at all, perfectly safe, as proven by not crashing where a "trained" cop crashed.

[R650R]

Oh bugger, I always though 'speeding' included driving/riding too fast for type of road, above or below the limit...

[oneofsix]

Oh bugger, I always though 'speeding' included driving/riding too fast for type of road, above or below the limit...

in a perverse way that sums up the problem, too many retards listen to the propaganda and think that if they stay below the arbitrary limit they will be safe.

[swbarnett]

Oh bugger, I always though 'speeding' included driving/riding too fast for type of road, above or below the limit...
That's really part of the problem. "Speeding" has two meanings and is often used out of context. It's a word that has been so abused that it really can't be used anymore without ambiguity.

As to the cop that rolled. The speed wasn't too fast for the conditions. They just didn't have a clue how to use it.

The state of having "speed" cannot cause an accident by itself. There must be other factors involved. If this were not the case we wouldn't be able to get satellites into orbit.

[Akzle]

that sums up the problem: too many retards

fixed for you.

[gjm]

The whole 'speed is a factor' thing is another misleading phrase. Of course it's a factor - if someone involved in an accident was travelling an average of 5km/h slower (or 5km/h faster) then they wouldn't have been at the location where the accident happened. This is a fact. Perhaps they would have had an accident somewhere else, but then we're getting into philosophy and causality.

There certainly are accidents where the inability of one party to stop due to excessive speed for the conditions is a major contributory factor.

Does anyone have information relating to the percentage of accidents caused by one vehicle pulling out, or across, in front of oncoming traffic?

[Scuba_Steve]

OK so speed alone won't kill, it's "speed" + crash that kills & to prove that here's Hammonds crash in 2006

http://www.autospies.com/images/users/Agent009/Hammond%20crash%2001.jpg


Aaannnddd here he is in 2014

http://www.topgear.com/uk/imageresize/image.jpg?OriginalImageUrl=%2Fuk%2Fassets%2Fcms%2F 9c2ac7b0-6d77-4785-b148-cc7f7da69108%2F670x377Image.jpg%3Fp%3D140130_09%3A 19&Width=615&Height=347


Wait!? he crashed at 464km/h in 2006 yet there he is driving a car on Top Gear in 2014, 8yrs later... Someone's gonna need to explain this; maybee RC & his Newton's law?
Everything was there
Vehicle - Check
Speed - Check
Crash - Check
Newton's Law - Check
Death - Negative

So either Hammond's a Ghost/Zombie, it's the speed signs that kill (as there was none present on the airfield to inform of the death speed), or FACT! speed does not kill or cause death (at-least at the speeds humans are capable of at current) & FICTION the speed scam is for "safety"

[Dave-]

Wait!? he crashed at 464km/h in 2006 yet there he is driving a car on Top Gear in 2014, 8yrs later... Someone's gonna need to explain this; maybee RC & his Newton's law?

Before I bother explaining, I need to gauge an idea of your understanding of physics, and in particular rotating masses.

Thus I need you to explain in your own words what the term 'moment of inertia' means and explain to me the key difference between centrifugal and centripetal force and why one is considered an incorrect observation.

You should reference yours reliable sources.

[R650R]

Aaannnddd here he is in 2014

Have you any idea of the reapers workload man??? dudes entitled to a bit of annual leave from time to time you know ;p

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mcbipcNZa91qkto2zo1_500.jpg

[awa355]

Speed has never killed any body. It's the sudden stop that does the damage.

[unstuck]

Speed has never killed any body. It's the sudden stop that does the damage.

Overamping, google it. Speed does kill.:whistle:

[TheDemonLord]

and explain to me the key difference between centrifugal and centripetal force and why one is considered an incorrect observation.

Since moving in a circle requires constant acceleration (towards the centre point of the circle) Centrifugal force is felt - however this is just the Newtonian reaction to centripetal force which we experiance.



Can't be arsed trying to describe moments of inertia

[Ocean1]

Can't be arsed trying to describe moments of inertia

Is when you've finished your morning coffee and toast and can't be fucked making a start on the weekend chores.

[macka77]

Big Dog;1130729983]If we are not going to raise the speed limit we need to shift the focus from dead straight and put enough bends back in to keep drivers in point. If you don't need to change something every 2 minutes you cannot stay focused.
And I mean change. Not subconscious automatic corrections.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.[/QUOTE
What a incompetent statement this proves
Surely to make the roads a safer place a driver should pass IQ test to obtain a license

[TheDemonLord]

Is when you've finished your morning coffee and toast and can't be fucked making a start on the weekend chores.

Don't drink Coffee and don't have any weekend chores





(but don't tell my wife I don't :D)

[Big Dog]

Big Dog;1130729983]If we are not going to raise the speed limit we need to shift the focus from dead straight and put enough bends back in to keep drivers in point. If you don't need to change something every 2 minutes you cannot stay focused.
And I mean change. Not subconscious automatic corrections.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.[/QUOTE
What a incompetent statement this proves
Surely to make the roads a safer place a driver should pass IQ test to obtain a license
Clearly you don't understand what you quoted.




Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[swbarnett]

(at-least at the speeds humans are capable of at current)
ANY constant speed is harmless. You could, in theory, be travelling near the speed of light and be perfectly safe.

[oneofsix]

ANY constant speed is harmless. You could, in theory, be travelling near the speed of light and be perfectly safe.

:lol: love threads like this.

Constant speed is only harmless if there isn't a slower object in the path. You could only theoretically travel safely near the speed of light providing you are encased in a protected environment so a stray dust particle or bee can't end it for you.

:corn:

[swbarnett]

:lol: love threads like this.

Constant speed is only harmless if there isn't a slower object in the path. You could only theoretically travel safely near the speed of light providing you are encased in a protected environment so a stray dust particle or bee can't end it for you.

:corn:
Very true. However, the speed itself wouldn't cause you any harm.

Speed is safe. Acceleration is the killer (both negative and positive).

[haydes55]

Very true. However, the speed itself wouldn't cause you any harm.



Speed is safe. Acceleration is the killer (both negative and positive).


How badass would a gravestone look, engraved with "Accelerated to death".

[Dave-]

Very true. However, the speed itself wouldn't cause you any harm.

Speed is safe. Acceleration is the killer (both negative and positive).

Haha

Bro do you even theory of relativity?

[swbarnett]

Haha

Bro do you even theory of relativity?
Not sure I quite understand the question (I think there's something missing between "even" and "theory").

I do, however, know a little about Einstein's theorys of relativity. For instance, if you were to travel near the speed of light your mass would be so astronomical that you wouldn't even notice hitting a speck of dust, let alone a bee.

[Ocean1]

For instance, if you were to travel near the speed of light your mass would be so astronomical that you wouldn't even notice hitting a speck of dust, let alone a bee.

Well you're right in that you'd never notice it.

Want to take a shot at the energy likely to be liberated by, say a bee and a similar quantity of biology briefly employing the same coordinates at differential velocities of relativistic magnitude?

Did you suppose "bang" might almost cover it?

[swbarnett]

Well you're right in that you'd never notice it.

Want to take a shot at the energy likely to be liberated by, say a bee and a similar quantity of biology briefly employing the same coordinates at differential velocities of relativistic magnitude?

Did you suppose "bang" might almost cover it?
You're right. Given that both bodies are travelling at velocities of relativistic magnitude the collision would be seriously destructive.

I was assuming that the speck of dust or bee would be at rest (or at least at a velocity of non-relativistic magnitude).

[bogan]

You're right. Given that both bodies are travelling at velocities of relativistic magnitude the collision would be seriously destructive.

I was assuming that the speck of dust or bee would be at rest (or at least at a velocity of non-relativistic magnitude).

At rest with respect to what? Tis all relative remember.

[swbarnett]

The observer of course.

[bogan]

The observer of course.

Yeh but the idea behind relativity, is the observer has to be able to be anywhere, without noticing effects of velocity. Put it this way, you have an observer next to the speck of dust, and reckon since the dust has no vel it just gets pushed aside? but if said observer is sitting in the spaceship, said dust is oncoming at lightspeed and will wreck shit. Shit don't work like that.

[swbarnett]

I think we're getting into trouble applying Newtonian principles to relativistic speeds. I'll have to ask my wife. She's the physicist.