NZTA hypocrites caught demonstrating that speed does not kill

[HenryDorsetCase]

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11496051


LOLOLOL


One of the more disturbing aspects of this is that if you work for these fascists you have a GPS tracker in their car - thats how they got the data they got.

Now they have a good sample set of data: reasonably late model vehicles being driven all over the country by a range of people. They can cross check this with how many accidents they had and actually come up with some data about speed and death.

I absolutely agree that the faster the impact, the more damage there is. What I dont accept is the arbitrary level, and the zealous over enforcement. We have bigger problems with driving in this country than speed: Shit drivers, abysmal training, terrible roads for three.

anyway, made me giggle.

[Swoop]

Well said Sir, and good points for researchers to delve into.

[TheDemonLord]

One of the more disturbing aspects of this is that if you work for these fascists you have a GPS tracker in their car - thats how they got the data they got.


Whilst it is certainly gold - I am too cynical to think it will result in any form of Policy change - but I must disagree on the above:

If it was a GPS tracker in my personnal car, then yes - I would be livid, but GPS in a company car, owned by the company is all okay IMO

[Tazz]

Nothing will happen, they'll just try keep it quieter next time.

It did give me a good laugh too though :laugh:

[Smifffy]

The 2 biggest dots on the N Island are the same car. Go well, those wee i40's :)

https://www.carjam.co.nz/buy/?plate=hqp83

[Scuba_Steve]

The faster you go the quicker you get there*


* Fair use policy applies, not to be used with any other special, if problems persist please see your doctor, not responsible for any injuries caused by misuse or failure to adhere to safety guidelines, do not microwave.

[mashman]

I see a low cost low administration revenue gathering opportunity. It'll debit your account without argument.

[Tazz]

A lot from areas I know well-ish are unsurprisingly by passing bays or good over taking stretches.

Had a quick squiz up north though and straight away found one area with a bunch of dots from one almost exclusively car over the space of a few months. Twisty as fark too. Good effort :laugh:

[pritch]

Well said Sir, and good points for researchers to delve into.

Hardly, serious research would likely disprove almost everything they tell us. About the 140kph plus speeds mentioned on TV, I'd guess that most of those were during an overtake. I doubt they are cruising around the country at 140. Well not much?

When I was still gainfully employed there was a trial where all of our vehicles were fitted with GPS. I never heard the result. There would have been some inconclusive results, not because of sabotage, but just because some people should not be allowed anywhere near a motor vehicle. Or a computer, or...

[swbarnett]

Even NZTA don't believe in the arbitrary enforcement of speed limits. It says so right on their web site:


The single biggest road safety issue in New Zealand today is speed - drivers travelling too fast for the conditions.

[Swoop]

Hardly, serious research would likely disprove almost everything they tell us.

It would be an interesting analysis. They have the speeds, distances and gps locations (to compare with the posted limit in that area). Add to that accidents (if any) and things get interesting for where speed limits are not set appropriately.
They might prove that speed doesn't, in fact, kill.<_<

[TheDemonLord]

They might prove that speed doesn't, in fact, kill.<_<

Newtonian physics already states that speed doesn't kill.

Sudden deceleration exceeding 20 G however tends to be rather fatal.

[R650R]

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11496051
I absolutely agree that the faster the impact, the more damage there is. What I dont accept is the arbitrary level, and the zealous over enforcement. We have bigger problems with driving in this country than speed: Shit drivers, abysmal training, terrible roads for three.



So what fair carrot and stick policy to get drivers to drive safely to conditions do you propose that would be effective given the wide spread amount of shit drivers with abysmal training on terrible roads???
Are you going to use your lawyers skills to instigate a Cready style private prosecution of NZTA employees for speeding and also management for failing to act, are you going to conmplain to police?

The simple fact is speed enforcement is the only one size fits all policy that works on the majority of the population. Given that its average joe ma and pa who die in crashes it could well be argued speed enforcement has saved lives.
For the minority of the population that own high speed performance vehicles a speed ticket is a small expense in the overall cost of ownership and infrequent inconvenience given ticket frree km's travelled overall. Its a very small tax on your freedom and if your real clever you can avoid them almost completely.

Just like building regulations we need a baseline level of compliance to stop complete anarchy and craziness creeping in...

In over 20 years of riding, plus truck and car driving I've only had 3 speed tickets, in between those I've had a shitload of fast fun, I think its a pretty good deal the status quo.
As for the NZTA drivers in any organisation you will have x amount that don't comply with the rules, remember most of them are just workers not road safety fundamentalists. Its a govt dept not a church, think gliding on style work ethic, I'm sure Beryl would have crept over 50 in the dept Mini popping out for milk.
Unless you've driven under GPS you wont know how hard it is to drive 100% legal 100% of the time....

[Scuba_Steve]

Newtonian physics already states that speed doesn't kill.

Sudden deceleration exceeding 20 G however tends to be rather fatal.

Too many G's in general can be deadly; NASA proved that one when they spun round astronaut wannabes in the early days

[Scuba_Steve]

So what fair carrot and stick policy to get drivers to drive safely to conditions do you propose that would be effective given the wide spread amount of shit drivers with abysmal training on terrible roads???

The simple fact is speed enforcement is the only one size fits all policy that works on the majority of the population. Given that its average joe ma and pa who die in crashes it could well be argued speed enforcement has saved lives.
For the minority of the population that own high speed performance vehicles a speed ticket is a small expense in the overall cost of ownership and infrequent inconvenience given ticket frree km's travelled overall. Its a very small tax on your freedom and if your real clever you can avoid them almost completely.


Why do you need carrot & stick policy? And how bout we just make it simple, you have to be able to operate a vehicle in order to obtain a licence not too hard is it. Just not a election winner

Simple fact is IT DOESN'T WORK [for safety], never has, never will. It is there now to bring in money, nothing more

[TheDemonLord]

The simple fact is speed enforcement is the only one size fits all policy that works on the majority of the population. Given that its average joe ma and pa who die in crashes it could well be argued speed enforcement has saved lives.
For the minority of the population that own high speed performance vehicles a speed ticket is a small expense in the overall cost of ownership and infrequent inconvenience given ticket frree km's travelled overall. Its a very small tax on your freedom and if your real clever you can avoid them almost completely.

Can you cite an example where due to the sole cause of Speed Enforcement resulted in a saved life?

We both know you can't.

My issue is that there are times when one can drive below the speed limit but too fast for the conditions - They do not get ticketed and yet they are more likely to be involved in a fatal accident, whereas there are roads (that lovely bit of Tarmac between Hastings and Dannevirke springs to mind) where it is nice a straight with excellent visibility, where travelling 10,20 or even 30 kph over the limit is not inherently unsafe - yet they are ticketed and branded as some form of social pariah.

From this blatant fact, we must accept that speeding enforcement is not to do with saving lives.

[R650R]

Simple fact is IT DOESN'T WORK [for safety], never has, never will. It is there now to bring in money, nothing more

Speed enforcement and other general traffic fines are not a profit making entity, if they were the govt would have long ago privatised it and sold it off. Revenue form traffic fines is small potatoes in overall govt spending and income source. And its not free income either, it comes at a considerable cost of training, salary and wages of cops and court staff and vehicle fleets.
If they really wanted extra money from motorists they could just up the petrol tax a few cents then let people speed and accelerate briskly, race away from traffic lights and the extra petrol used would generate more revenue than current fines do.
Most normal people don't get speeding tickets often, a small minority get them a lot for various reasons. Theres not enough repeat clients for it to be profitable.

[R650R]

Can you cite an example where due to the sole cause of Speed Enforcement resulted in a saved life?

We both know you can't.

My issue is that there are times when one can drive below the speed limit but too fast for the conditions - They do not get ticketed and yet they are more likely to be involved in a fatal accident, whereas there are roads (that lovely bit of Tarmac between Hastings and Dannevirke springs to mind) where it is nice a straight with excellent visibility, where travelling 10,20 or even 30 kph over the limit is not inherently unsafe - yet they are ticketed and branded as some form of social pariah.

From this blatant fact, we must accept that speeding enforcement is not to do with saving lives.

When speed cameras first came out I had my first bike, FZR250. I used to ride everywhere at about 70-80k in 50 zones as I thought I was safe and good at spotting hazards.
Shortly after cameras came out I slowed to 50 near a spot where camera had started hiding, a car pulled out from side road. Just missed, at 70 mi would have been toast, pretty clear example....

That bit of road you like has seen many people killed on it, classic case of risk compensation. It feels safer so people pay less attention or take risks.
Its not inherently unsafe until that bored tired sales rep drifts over the centreline, your both cruising at a safe 130k but no time to react... then there's the stray livestock lurking in the long grass and the extreme wind gusts...

[Scuba_Steve]

Speed enforcement and other general traffic fines are not a profit making entity, if they were the govt would have long ago privatised it and sold it off. Revenue form traffic fines is small potatoes in overall govt spending and income source. And its not free income either, it comes at a considerable cost of training, salary and wages of cops and court staff and vehicle fleets.
If they really wanted extra money from motorists they could just up the petrol tax a few cents then let people speed and accelerate briskly, race away from traffic lights and the extra petrol used would generate more revenue than current fines do.
Most normal people don't get speeding tickets often, a small minority get them a lot for various reasons. Theres not enough repeat clients for it to be profitable.

What, like they've done in America, Aust & probably other places too?
and it is free income given the insane way accounting works, cause it goes into a fund that did not have to outlay the investment it's pure profit, 60mil/yr profit & rising
They do increase petrol tax, all the fucking time.
That last line doesn't make any sense; well least not if you've seen any of the official releases on the speed scam

[HenryDorsetCase]

When speed cameras first came out I had my first bike, FZR250. I used to ride everywhere at about 70-80k in 50 zones as I thought I was safe and good at spotting hazards.
Shortly after cameras came out I slowed to 50 near a spot where camera had started hiding, a car pulled out from side road. Just missed, at 70 mi would have been toast, pretty clear example....

That bit of road you like has seen many people killed on it, classic case of risk compensation. It feels safer so people pay less attention or take risks.
Its not inherently unsafe until that bored tired sales rep drifts over the centreline, your both cruising at a safe 130k but no time to react... then there's the stray livestock lurking in the long grass and the extreme wind gusts...

I like kittens.

I'm just saying. correct horse battery staple

[R650R]

and it is free income given the insane way accounting works, cause it goes into a fund that did not have to outlay the investment it's pure profit, 60mil/yr profit & rising


$60 million is pocket money, about one day of welfare payments in NZ.

Some numbers based on 2003 data...

225 highway patrol officers, lets say there Salary plus uniform and other work costs, sick days holiday pay etc adds up to 70k per officer, that's $15,750,000 to start with.
We'll say a hundred traffic cars on the road doing 70,000km a year at the IRD running cost of 77c/km is $50,589 per car per year which is $5,058,900 for the fleet.
Then there is the fuel bill for the cars double shifted is easily $2,000,000 a year.
Another million dollars a year at least in fleet devaluation.

So right out the gate your looking at operating costs of just under 24 million dollars a year, to 'earn' $60 million in revenue, much of which is not collected or written off by the courts.
So lets say the net profit is $20 million at best, in a country of 4 million that's a mere five dollars per person....

[caspernz]

Unless you've driven under GPS you wont know how hard it is to drive 100% legal 100% of the time....

Haha, yeah we've got the new fangled E-Road licence readers all up and running in the whole truck fleet now, and the fella who is overlooking the reports has recently been "schooled" on how to extract the relevant info. It's meant a bit of adjustment for some drivers, with the target speeds for us now suggested as 2 km/h below the prevailing speed limit in any given area. Maybe I should go and work at NZTA...:oi-grr:

All in all I'm not fussed about NZTA having been sprung, for as an individual my best contribution to road safety is to do my best at all times. And my speeding ticket frequency is less than 1 for every 1 million kms covered, so I'm quite relaxed about the whole "speed scam" hoopla that some keep referring to :crazy:

[TheDemonLord]

When speed cameras first came out I had my first bike, FZR250. I used to ride everywhere at about 70-80k in 50 zones as I thought I was safe and good at spotting hazards.
Shortly after cameras came out I slowed to 50 near a spot where camera had started hiding, a car pulled out from side road. Just missed, at 70 mi would have been toast, pretty clear example....

That bit of road you like has seen many people killed on it, classic case of risk compensation. It feels safer so people pay less attention or take risks.
Its not inherently unsafe until that bored tired sales rep drifts over the centreline, your both cruising at a safe 130k but no time to react... then there's the stray livestock lurking in the long grass and the extreme wind gusts...

Or at 70 kph, you would have been passed the side road by the time the car pulled out.

It is interesting that you mentioned the tired sales rep - By your own scenario, Speed was not a factor, crossing the centreline caused the accident - so why then do you blame speed?



$60 million is pocket money, about one day of welfare payments in NZ.

Some numbers based on 2003 data...

225 highway patrol officers, lets say there Salary plus uniform and other work costs, sick days holiday pay etc adds up to 70k per officer, that's $15,750,000 to start with.
We'll say a hundred traffic cars on the road doing 70,000km a year at the IRD running cost of 77c/km is $50,589 per car per year which is $5,058,900 for the fleet.
Then there is the fuel bill for the cars double shifted is easily $2,000,000 a year.
Another million dollars a year at least in fleet devaluation.

So right out the gate your looking at operating costs of just under 24 million dollars a year, to 'earn' $60 million in revenue, much of which is not collected or written off by the courts.
So lets say the net profit is $20 million at best, in a country of 4 million that's a mere five dollars per person....

That is the biggest strawman ever presented:

Those 225 Patrol officers are there regardless of whether you are ticketing people for speed or not - they represent a fixed cost. One currently payed for by the Tax power, now if we start ticketing people, we suddenly are covering our fixed costs and not only that, we have a surplus (by your own admissions guesstimated at $20 million) by my quick maths - that allows you to almost double your budget for the Patrol officers without having to ask the Govt for additional funding.

By that, and that alone it is revenue gathering - getting a Govt department to 'pay its way'

[willytheekid]

$60 million is pocket money, about one day of welfare payments in NZ.

Some numbers based on 2003 data...

225 highway patrol officers, lets say there Salary plus uniform and other work costs, sick days holiday pay etc adds up to 70k per officer, that's $15,750,000 to start with.
We'll say a hundred traffic cars on the road doing 70,000km a year at the IRD running cost of 77c/km is $50,589 per car per year which is $5,058,900 for the fleet.
Then there is the fuel bill for the cars double shifted is easily $2,000,000 a year.
Another million dollars a year at least in fleet devaluation.

So right out the gate your looking at operating costs of just under 24 million dollars a year, to 'earn' $60 million in revenue, much of which is not collected or written off by the courts.
So lets say the net profit is $20 million at best, in a country of 4 million that's a mere five dollars per person....

Sorry, but NOPE!

Revenue grab!...NOTHING more!!

You wanna make the roads safer?...TEACH people to drive safely!...its called defensive driving:yes:, and all most all other country's won't give you a license until you pass said defensive driving course...but NZ??...fuck no!!, "can ya get around the block?...park this piece of crap?...Ohh only your 17th go at sitting this BASIC test??...well, congrats!, you FINALLY passed...just learn the rest as you go!..that'll be $$$

But hay, teaching people said safe driving skills COSTS money! (even if it saves lives, lowers hospital costs, acc, insurance, and many MAAAANY other related costs)...But its just soooo much easier and profitable to rape a poorly trained populace over bullshit! 5k fluctuations in speed!...and THAT'S what you refer to as "road safety"???

:oi-grr:...sorry mate, its just a revenue grab under the false guise of "road safety"...and we ALL know it.

heres some "facts"...Ive Been speeding my whole life!!...an I'm still here...could be all that advanced rider training I had...or is it just those speed cameras keeping me alive? :confused:...thanks NZTA/Police :facepalm:

[caspernz]

Those 225 Patrol officers are there regardless of whether you are ticketing people for speed or not - they represent a fixed cost. One currently payed for by the Tax power, now if we start ticketing people, we suddenly are covering our fixed costs and not only that, we have a surplus (by your own admissions guesstimated at $20 million) by my quick maths - that allows you to almost double your budget for the Patrol officers without having to ask the Govt for additional funding.

By that, and that alone it is revenue gathering - getting a Govt department to 'pay its way'

The way you look at those numbers makes sense, but it overlooks the basic problem. We've now reached the point where the "indoctrination" of the majority of HP officers is complete. How does one go about changing this outlook without improving actual driving standards? Quickly becomes a circular reference I realise...:brick:

[Mike.Gayner]

We'll say a hundred traffic cars on the road doing 70,000km a year at the IRD running cost of 77c/km is $50,589 per car per year which is $5,058,900 for the fleet.
Then there is the fuel bill for the cars double shifted is easily $2,000,000 a year.
Another million dollars a year at least in fleet devaluation.

While I broadly agree with you, that's not quite right on a technical level - the IRD rate is a complete reimbursement and already accounts for depreciation and fuel cost. Having said that I think you've grossly underestimated the costs of our "road safety force".

However on a broad level, the evidence is clear that:
a) on a population level, reducing speed reduces injury and death, all else being equal
b) $60m is barely a rounding error on the government accounts.

Do I therefore agree with the NZTA/Police strategy? Absolutely not, but it's a much more complicated problem than people here care to believe.

But of course the average KB'er would have you believe they're every bit as capable as Rossi on the roads.

[Mike.Gayner]

heres some "facts"...Ive Been speeding my whole life!!...an I'm still here...could be all that advanced rider training I had.

Well, who could possibly argue with this unquestionably conscientious body of evidence?

[TheDemonLord]

The way you look at those numbers makes sense, but it overlooks the basic problem. We've now reached the point where the "indoctrination" of the majority of HP officers is complete. How does one go about changing this outlook without improving actual driving standards? Quickly becomes a circular reference I realise...:brick:

True, true - I would like to think though that we could (with our collective smarts) write better legislation that targets more accurately dangerous driving habits and then fines them accordingly. I don't care for mr and mrs average doing 110 kph on a road where the conditions are safe to do so, I do care about Mr or Mrs reckless doing 80 (in a 100 zone) where the conditions are not safe to do so. I care about Mr or Mrs poor lane discipline wandering all over their lanes, I care about Mr or Mrs shitty cornering lines who can't seem to go round a corner on the open road without cutting it.

I could go on.

There is also a big element in this country that many of our major inter-city arterial routes are little more than Back roads hastily converted into 'State Highways' - and yet I have never seen the Govt issued a ticket for its complicity in the appalling state of some of the roads....

[TheDemonLord]

However on a broad level, the evidence is clear that:
a) on a population level, reducing speed reduces injury and death, all else being equal


The reducto ad absurdium of that arguement is that if we reduce the Speed limit to 0 - all injuries and deaths will be avoided.

And yet, somehow, I don't think you would be in favour of that notion.

[R650R]

Or at 70 kph, you would have been passed the side road by the time the car pulled out.

It is interesting that you mentioned the tired sales rep - By your own scenario, Speed was not a factor, crossing the centreline caused the accident - so why then do you blame speed?






Damn you for making me multi quote.... well if your only doing 100k the closing speed is much slower, more time to react. Pretty simple really and has been said a lot by cops and others.
The faster you go the less reaction time for others mistakes. Eg at roadworks if you hit a roadworker at 30k still likely to kill him. The reason for the 30k limit is so you have chance to avoid him if he steps or falls in front of you.





That is the biggest strawman ever presented:

Those 225 Patrol officers are there regardless of whether you are ticketing people for speed or not - they represent a fixed cost.

But we're generally agreed there writing out tickets 99% of time.....

No one likes speed tickets but really its a lost argument that a govt would spend so much money to get 'revenue' when they could just tax us all another $5 a year....

[R650R]

While I broadly agree with you, that's not quite right on a technical level - the IRD rate is a complete reimbursement and already accounts for depreciation and fuel cost. Having said that I think you've grossly underestimated the costs of our "road safety force".

However on a broad level, the evidence is clear that:
a) on a population level, reducing speed reduces injury and death, all else being equal
b) $60m is barely a rounding error on the government accounts.

Do I therefore agree with the NZTA/Police strategy? Absolutely not, but it's a much more complicated problem than people here care to believe.

But of course the average KB'er would have you believe they're every bit as capable as Rossi on the roads.

I'm glad someone can see the bigger picture outside of the impact on their own wallet :)

[swbarnett]

The simple fact is speed enforcement is the only one size fits all policy that works on the majority of the population.
Bullshit. Pull your head out of the sand. The simple fact is speed enforcement is a one size fits no-one policy that fails to address the route causes of accidents and only serves to make the government look good to an increasingly diminishing proportion of the population. The rest know full well it's a crock.

[swbarnett]

If they really wanted extra money from motorists they could just up the petrol tax a few cents then let people speed and accelerate briskly, race away from traffic lights and the extra petrol used would generate more revenue than current fines do.
Upping petrol tax will lose votes. Arbitrary speed enforcement won't.

[Scuba_Steve]

Damn you for making me multi quote.... well if your only doing 100k the closing speed is much slower, more time to react. Pretty simple really and has been said a lot by cops and others.
The faster you go the less reaction time for others mistakes. Eg at roadworks if you hit a roadworker at 30k still likely to kill him. The reason for the 30k limit is so you have chance to avoid him if he steps or falls in front of you.

Except as shown by John Lamert formerly of Vic Roads & over half a century in road safety shows that someone [in a 50km/h area] going 50km/h but watching they stay there are upto 10x more likely to hit someone than someone going 80km/h but not watching their speed... ten times more likely!



No one likes speed tickets but really its a lost argument that a govt would spend so much money to get 'revenue' when they could just tax us all another $5 a year....

They do tax us more all the time while still running the speed scam, why limit to 1 revenue stream when you can rape people from all angles?

[swbarnett]

Its not inherently unsafe until that bored tired sales rep drifts over the centreline
That bored, tired salesman is far more likely to do this at 100k than at 130.

[caspernz]

True, true - I would like to think though that we could (with our collective smarts) write better legislation that targets more accurately dangerous driving habits and then fines them accordingly. I don't care for mr and mrs average doing 110 kph on a road where the conditions are safe to do so, I do care about Mr or Mrs reckless doing 80 (in a 100 zone) where the conditions are not safe to do so. I care about Mr or Mrs poor lane discipline wandering all over their lanes, I care about Mr or Mrs shitty cornering lines who can't seem to go round a corner on the open road without cutting it.

I could go on.

There is also a big element in this country that many of our major inter-city arterial routes are little more than Back roads hastily converted into 'State Highways' - and yet I have never seen the Govt issued a ticket for its complicity in the appalling state of some of the roads....

The condition of our roading network, in my view at least, is not bad taking into account our population numbers. The consistency of some of the roading design is an issue, but in essence driving in Scotland for example is no different than traversing our country.

Driving standards need to be lifted, not gonna win votes so any government that makes this change too quickly will end up voted out again. If there was a simple silver bullet for this problem, I'm sure it would have been presented by now. I just try to start by doing the best every time I venture out. Unless I venture out on two wheels in my one piece leather suit of course...

[willytheekid]

Well, who could possibly argue with this unquestionably conscientious body of evidence?

lol, You know what I mean

[swbarnett]

I do care about Mr or Mrs reckless doing 80 (in a 100 zone) where the conditions are not safe to do so. I care about Mr or Mrs poor lane discipline wandering all over their lanes, I care about Mr or Mrs shitty cornering lines who can't seem to go round a corner on the open road without cutting it.
Why? There are far more important things to worry about if you must worry.

Far better to accept that there are drivers like this on the road and drive accordingly.

The only accident rate you have any hope of controlling is your own.

[scumdog]

Except as shown by John Lamert formerly of Vic Roads & over half a century in road safety shows that someone [in a 50km/h area] going 50km/h but watching they stay there are upto 10x more likely to hit someone than someone going 80km/h but not watching their speed... ten times more likely!


Only because they are incapable of doing more than one thing at a time, I bet they couldn't even piss and fart at the same time, frikkin' losers.:rolleyes:

[Laava]

From the same hole?

[Kickaha]

They do tax us more all the time while still running the speed scam

If it is a scam then it's a pretty easy one to avoid

[scumdog]

If it is a scam then it's a pretty easy one to avoid

Yep, I suspect he DID need to be told that...

[Tazz]

I like kittens.

I'm just saying. correct horse battery staple
I concur.

I would also like to add rubber ducky economic sandwiches but Camelot endoplasmic sun spots.

Moist.

[swbarnett]

If it is a scam then it's a pretty easy one to avoid
It was pretty easy for Rosa Parks to avoid being arrested to. Are you actually suggesting that she should've stuck to the end of the bus designated for people of her colour?

[Kickaha]

It was pretty easy for Rosa Parks to avoid being arrested to. Are you actually suggesting that she should've stuck to the end of the bus designated for people of her colour?

Can you please point out where I suggested she should have

[swbarnett]

Can you please point out where I suggested she should have


If it is a scam then it's a pretty easy one to avoid
This says to me that you think people should just stick to the law irrespective of the moral implications. Or am I wrong in thinking you meant "don't speed".

[Kickaha]

This says to me that you think people should just stick to the law irrespective of the moral implications. Or am I wrong in thinking you meant "don't speed".

You are wrong, I dont give a fuck if people speed or not I do it myself, all I said was it is easy to avoid

[Ocean1]

Hardly, serious research would likely disprove almost everything they tell us. About the 140kph plus speeds mentioned on TV, I'd guess that most of those were during an overtake. I doubt they are cruising around the country at 140. Well not much?

When I was still gainfully employed there was a trial where all of our vehicles were fitted with GPS. I never heard the result. There would have been some inconclusive results, not because of sabotage, but just because some people should not be allowed anywhere near a motor vehicle. Or a computer, or...

I'm aware of at least one company who took them out due to "technical issues". The issue being that if they left them in and stuck to company policy they'd technically have no fucking employees. And this was over just 6 months.

Amazing what 100% non-compliance can do to any given authority's compliance policies.

[Kickaha]

I'm aware of at least one company who took them out due to "technical issues". The issue being that if they left them in and stuck to company policy they'd technically have no fucking employees. And this was over just 6 months.

Amazing what 100% non-compliance can do to any given authority's compliance policies.

We've had people dismissed from GPS readings, not just for speeding but for being places they shouldn't be at times they shouldn't be

[Ocean1]

We've had people dismissed from GPS readings, not just for speeding but for being places they shouldn't be at times they shouldn't be

One Aussie infrastructure multinational tried to sack one of their staff for using the company ute on a weekend. He'd taken it down his drive to wash it.

They actually did give him a formal written warning. See if you can guess which company's whole fleet now looks like shit.

[Kickaha]

One Aussie infrastructure multinational tried to sack one of their staff for using the company ute on a weekend. He'd taken it down his drive to wash it.

They actually did give him a formal written warning. See if you can guess which company's whole fleet now looks like shit.

How well do GPS blockers work ;)

[Big Dog]

It was pretty easy for Rosa Parks to avoid being arrested to. Are you actually suggesting that she should've stuck to the end of the bus designated for people of her colour?
It is not an easy comparison to compare an unjust law with one that had been implicitly agreed to.

Sent via tapatalk.

[Berries]

About the 140kph plus speeds mentioned on TV, I'd guess that most of those were during an overtake. I doubt they are cruising around the country at 140. Well not much?
Worth having a look at some of the routes then and watching how the same vehicle was pinged several times on the same trip indicating the driver doesn't believe in the mantra being put out by their bosses but rather that there is a time and a place where it can be 'safe' to exceed the posted speed limit. Fair enough in my view. Doing it in the work car is a bit daft, if you get a ticket the boss will see it and you'll get a talking to. Doing it in an NZTA vehicle just shows that the driver is a retard.

[Big Dog]

Worth having a look at some of the routes then and watching how the same vehicle was pinged several times on the same trip indicating the driver doesn't believe in the mantra being put out by their bosses but rather that there is a time and a place where it can be 'safe' to exceed the posted speed limit. Fair enough in my view. Doing it in the work car is a bit daft, if you get a ticket the boss will see it and you'll get a talking to. Doing it in an NZTA vehicle just shows that the driver is a retard.
I don't often drive work vehicles any more, but when I do I take my time.
2 reasons.
1 it doesn't look good when you punt a company car into the side of another car. Especially if the owner of the other car is s regular client.
2 when your getting paid by the hour what's the rush?

Sent via tapatalk.

[HenryDorsetCase]

I don't often drive work vehicles any more, but when I do I take my time.
2 reasons.
1 it doesn't look good when you punt a company car into the side of another car. Especially if the owner of the other car is s regular client.
2 when your getting paid by the hour what's the rush?

Sent via tapatalk.

I worked with you in the '80's. One of the "senior" guys at my job would drive the work Vauxhall Chevette on the open road at 80kph. In third. "What's the hurry? we get paid by the hour".. plus if it takes us long enough we get overtime.....

I still remember the whine the thing used to make.

I spun the car 360 degrees on a wet road pressing on with cars parked either side. Didn't hit one. Unbefuckingleivable.

[swbarnett]

You are wrong, I dont give a fuck if people speed or not I do it myself, all I said was it is easy to avoid
Apologies. It seems I read your post in completely the wrong context.

[Woodman]

Fastest I have had one of my company cars up to was a smidgen under 240km/hr. :woohoo:

[swbarnett]

It is not an easy comparison to compare an unjust law with one that had been implicitly agreed to.
Interesting point.

The public at large may have implicitly agreed to it but I sure as hell didn't.

The laws regarding speed on public roads are definitely an order of magnitude less oppressive than legalised racism but the principle is the same - the majority imposing their ideology on the minority when the "illegal" actions of the said minority do absolutely no harm to anyone, especially the said majority.

[scumdog]

Doing it in an NZTA vehicle just shows that the driver is a retard.

True.
A pedal car would still be dangerous in his hands if he's that dumb.

And Monique sez he's dumb.

[Kickaha]

. Doing it in the work car is a bit daft, if you get a ticket the boss will see it and you'll get a talking to..
Only if it is a speed camera and it gets sent to head office, if you're stopped and it's given to you then they dont see it

It may have happened to me a couple of times :rolleyes:

[Swoop]

The solution to speed cameras could be as simple as using a bit of Blu Tac (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/great-grandad-tried-stick-pictures-6247485)...

[Big Dog]

I worked with you in the '80's. One of the "senior" guys at my job would drive the work Vauxhall Chevette on the open road at 80kph. In third. "What's the hurry? we get paid by the hour".. plus if it takes us long enough we get overtime.....

I still remember the whine the thing used to make.

I spun the car 360 degrees on a wet road pressing on with cars parked either side. Didn't hit one. Unbefuckingleivable.
Not quite 80/100. But I sure don't speed.
I sure do give more room than I need to at intersections.

I tend to drive other people's hardware at the lesser of the law and how they personally would drive it.

In the last 15 years about 10% or less of my road use has involved a steering wheel.
If my work vehicle was a motorcycle I couldn't say my answer wouldn't be different.


Sent via tapatalk.

[TheDemonLord]

Damn you for making me multi quote.... well if your only doing 100k the closing speed is much slower, more time to react. Pretty simple really and has been said a lot by cops and others.

Love the Multi Quote ;)

That is a Strawman argument - simply being slower does not inherently give more time to react - it is perfectly possible to cross the centreline at 80 kph, 100 kph and 130 kph and have the exact same reaction time - the only difference being the distance separating the vehicles when the line is crossed.

The statement by the Cops and others is predicated on the same scenario, with the vehicles being the same distance apart when the line was crossed - the only factor being changed is speed, however this is not the same way that the commentators you mentioned are implying the statement to mean - which is that somehow traveling at higher speeds means it is impossible to have sufficient reaction time to avoid an incident.


The faster you go the less reaction time for others mistakes. Eg at roadworks if you hit a roadworker at 30k still likely to kill him. The reason for the 30k limit is so you have chance to avoid him if he steps or falls in front of you.

And funnily enough, I have no problem going slow near road works with people working on them.


But we're generally agreed there writing out tickets 99% of time.....

No one likes speed tickets but really its a lost argument that a govt would spend so much money to get 'revenue' when they could just tax us all another $5 a year....

Nope - prior to the rigid enforcement of speed, the Highway cops still existed - it is only a policy change that has happened, you are trying to chicken/egg the argument.

and besides - your maths of $5 is faulty - since you used the 4 million people - you actually need to use the Tax paying members of society- which from memory is closer to about 1 million (Children don't pay Tax, Super annuits don't really, same with people on the benefit)

[Bassmatt]

Love the Multi Quote ;)

That is a Strawman argument - simply being slower does not inherently give more time to react - it is perfectly possible to cross the centreline at 80 kph, 100 kph and 130 kph and have the exact same reaction time - the only difference being the distance separating the vehicles when the line is crossed.

The statement by the Cops and others is predicated on the same scenario, with the vehicles being the same distance apart when the line was crossed - the only factor being changed is speed, however this is not the same way that the commentators you mentioned are implying the statement to mean - which is that somehow traveling at higher speeds means it is impossible to have sufficient reaction time to avoid an incident.



And funnily enough, I have no problem going slow near road works with people working on them.


and besides - your maths of $5 is faulty - since you used the 4 million people - you actually need to use the Tax paying members of society- which from memory is closer to about 1 million (Children don't pay Tax, Super annuits don't really, same with people on the benefit)

Anyone with an interest bearing bank account pays tax in this country, child or not.

[Smifffy]

Anyone with an interest bearing bank account pays tax in this country, child or not.

Yup, and many on the bene have less in the bank than the fine for 10km over the limit. So the approx 30% tax on the $2 interest they earn, spread across all of the tax funded programs doesn't go very far.

[R650R]

Smarter Policing, aka budget cutbacks from national....

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/71185459/smarter-policing-means-half-a-million-fewer-breath-tests

Since the new limit rolled out I've had about zero checkpoints outside my house where previously it was a good spot for them. High traffic area with blind corner approach and lots of wanted ferals living nearby, disqualified drivers etc... the tow trucks were busy.
And right next door Mr Rugby player has his frequent booze up and his half cut mates keep on driving away, never a checkpoint on those nights for some strange reason....
Given that about 1-1.5% of people stopped are DUI that means they have missed out on 7500 'dangerous drunk drivers', what does that look like on the road toll stats during same time frame????
Bet it sure looks good on the courts and jail balance sheet and helped stopped overcrowding at a time of the serco debacle....

[J.A.W.]

Blue tac, or white board marker on rego plate( depending on symbols needing amendment) can work, if in a hurry..

As for speeding in company shitboxes, yeah - generally don't bother, its 'bidness time' after all..

Unless for example - some poseur on a Ducati is having ludicrous knee-down fantasies on a long 180` motorway on-ramp..
& you want to give him a hurry-up in the crappy company Cramry ( V6 understeering its tits off, but still right up his slow 1/2 arse)..

Awkward.. ( but as a motorcycle rider its your bounden duty to drive your appointed cage in the proper manner, right, eh, sportsfans)..

[HenryDorsetCase]

Blue tac, or white board marker on rego plate( depending on symbols needing amendment) can work, if in a hurry..

As for speeding in company shitboxes, yeah - generally don't bother, its 'bidness time' after all..

Unless for example - some poseur on a Ducati is having ludicrous knee-down fantasies on a long 180` motorway on-ramp..
& you want to give him a hurry-up in the crappy company Cramry ( V6 understeering its tits off, but still right up his slow 1/2 arse)..

Awkward.. ( but as a motorcycle rider its your bounden duty to drive your appointed cage in the proper manner, right, eh, sportsfans)..

With my new job I drive a lot more and I have this thing on the motorway onramp on the way to work. If I am stopped at the bottom of it and am first when the lights go green the question is how fast I can be going by the end of the merge lane.... best is 160 because of slow car and stupid traffics.