Paekakariki speed limit

[Navy Boy]

I see that the threatened 80Km/hr limit is going to be introduced this next weekend. This being the expected outcome from the 'Consultation' period when the new 80 speed limit signs were erected and then taped up...

Consultation? Mmm...

Take it easy if riding up there guys.

[Ocean1]

I see that the threatened 80Km/hr limit is going to be introduced this next weekend. This being the expected outcome from the 'Consultation' period when the new 80 speed limit signs were erected and then taped up...

Consultation? Mmm...

Take it easy if riding up there guys.

To be somewhat more fair than is probably consistent with the generally good practice of lambasting every decision LTNZ makes: I can't say I'm too upset about this one. It's one of those roads where increased traffic density has made an open limit a bit dodgy.

But I agree wholeheartedly with you re the "consultation" thing. In fact I understood that the correct legal definition of the "correct" speed limit on highways has been "no lower than 80% of the mean unrestricted traffic speed" and remains so to this day, "consultation" be fucked. And what I want to know, therefore is when and where these unrestricted trials are to be held. For technical reasons.

[merv]

Presume you are actually talking about SH58 from Haywards to Pauatahanui and not Paekakariki. Paekak already has a 70km/hr limit through it on SH1 and the Paekak Hill Road is 70km/hr at the Paekak end briefly and 60km/hr the rest of the way to Pauautahanui already.

Just drove back over SH58 about 30 minutes ago and the road was covered with pace cars anyway only going about 65-75 so the 80km/hr limit will only make a difference in real low times and not peak times.

[Scuba_Steve]

Paekakariki? We talking Haywards Hill?
We all knew that was happening as soon as they mentioned "looking at the possibility"
Just like they've already lowered the Paekakariki Hill & Pauatahanui Inlet to 60km/h (a speed far too low for the inlet)
They also plan on making the road between Paekakariki & Pukerua Bay 50km/h (currently a far too slow 80km/h) as a way to force people to pay the transmission gully... can't have the free alternatives looking even the slightest bit attractive

[jellywrestler]

haywards and maybe through paekak township, althought hat's been 80 for a while, about two months ago i updated my gps info, the haywards was then changed to 80 so they only put the submission process out there for smoke and mirrors.

[merv]

haywards and maybe through paekak township, althought hat's been 80 for a while, about two months ago i updated my gps info, the haywards was then changed to 80 so they only put the submission process out there for smoke and mirrors.

No Jelly as I said above through Paekak town has already been 70 for a while on SH1 from not long after the rail overbridge heading north, while the rest of the road back towards Pukerua Bay is 80.

https://www.google.co.nz/maps/@-40.9922687,174.9483856,3a,15.6y,34.82h,88.36t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPtWMVTlWLUQzhbP1jhnH4g!2e0!7i1 3312!8i6656

[Hoonicorn]

Everywhere around Paekakariki is 50, 60, 70 or 80. Haywards has been 100 but the road surface has deterioriated so rapidly they may want to drop it to 80 just to slow down the wear.

[Navy Boy]

You're absolutely correct - I was referring to Haywards Hill. I just think of it as the road to Paekakariki.

I agree that 100 on there can be a bit much at times but the erection of the 80 signs before the announcement had been made is the bit that really winds me up. :oi-grr:

[pritch]

In the early (very) sixties I was part of a group sent down to pick up some new cars from Wellington. We were staying in the Paekak pub and seemingly all night we listened to guys thrashing their sports cars, or cars they fancied as sporting, along the coast road. When we drove into Wellington the next morning a significant portion of the erstwhile sporting cars were immobile, broken down.

If you only ever drove modern machinery, you don't know how lucky y'are. :whistle:

[Ulsterkiwi]

Presume you are actually talking about SH58 from Haywards to Pauatahanui and not Paekakariki. Paekak already has a 70km/hr limit through it on SH1 and the Paekak Hill Road is 70km/hr at the Paekak end briefly and 60km/hr the rest of the way to Pauautahanui already.

Just drove back over SH58 about 30 minutes ago and the road was covered with pace cars anyway only going about 65-75 so the 80km/hr limit will only make a difference in real low times and not peak times.

They actually lowered the limit on the Northern section of the hill road to 60 a while ago. Its 60 for the entire length now.

[rastuscat]

They actually lowered the limit on the Northern section of the hill road to 60 a while ago. Its 60 for the entire length now.

Less speed less harm

[Ulsterkiwi]

Less speed less harm

Perhaps. I am not sure what lowering the limit from 70 to 60 will do in terms of limiting harm on that particular stretch of that particular road.
There are two issues with the hill road:
First, Ute and van drivers who use the road as their personal commuting race track. They can undoubtedly work the pedal under their right foot. They have a problem however using the round thing for their hands, more specifically using it to keep their vehicle on that side of the road designated for those travelling in that direction. These folks usually travel at 90ish kph anyway so making the limit 60 is superfluous.
Second, Motorcyclists who have no clue that cornering while leaning across the centre line actually means they are not on their side of the road, even if their wheels are. Their heads will get fucked up but the wheels will be sweet as bro. Again they tended to ignore the 70 limit, not sure what difference it will make reducing that to 60.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ulsterkiwi]

Less speed less harm

Just to cross themes with the other thread you began Rastus, when I must confess to getting tired of the simplistic mantras that road policing management and government roading management trot out. Speed limits are arbitrary at best and a blunt instrument at worst. SH58 is a shockingly badly maintained piece of significant infrastructure. Policing picks low hanging fruit. So instead of a licence system that actually indicates drivers have some skills and judgement and enforcing the existing laws that govern shitty behaviour on the roads speed limits are reduced and speed tickets are issued. That keeps the courts less pressured and seems to release NZTA from responsibility to ensure roading and drivers are up to scratch.
Broad brush strokes I know, no more so than “less speed less harm”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ocean1]

Less speed less harm

How many injuries or fatalities have occurred around there under the legal limit?

Caus from where I'm standing it looks like every single one of them was substantially over the limit, even back when it was 100k.

And the injuries and fatality numbers were still used as the reason to lower the limit further.

Which, outside of the local constabulary's particular echo chamber isn't seen as anything more than complete nonsense.

[awayatc]

Less speed less harm

Bit like saying blunt knIves cut less deep....

To buy into that one needs to be at least partly lobotomised

[merv]

They actually lowered the limit on the Northern section of the hill road to 60 a while ago. Its 60 for the entire length now.

The only reason I said that is because it is briefly 70 at the Paekak end because the 60 sign is just after the turn off up the hill a bit and not right at the corner isn't it so as not to confuse speeds on SH1 as that is set at 70?

[Ulsterkiwi]

The only reason I said that it is briefly 70 at the Paekak end is because the 60 sign is just after the turn off up the hill a bit and not right at the corner isn't it so as not to confuse speeds on SH1 as that is set at 70?

You are quite correct.
Ironically, many don’t seem to realise the limit on SH1 at the turn off for the hill is 70 not 80 [emoji849]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[merv]

Ironically, many don’t seem to realise the limit on SH1 at the turn off for the hill is 70 not 80 [emoji849]




That's what I said to Jelly on the previous page and put the Google street view link for the signs at the south end.

That was lowered when they were mulling over what to do with the intersection which is still an abortion really. They put the median strip kerb on SH1 to stop you turning right off the hill road but you still have to enter SH1 to then pull in where the old BP was to do the loop back. Surely they could have done something better? I think the problem is no big investment went into it because all the money is going into Transmission Gully.

[Ulsterkiwi]

That's what I said to Jelly on the previous page and put the Google street view link for the signs at the south end.

That was lowered when they were mulling over what to do with the intersection which is still an abortion really. They put the median strip kerb on SH1 to stop you turning right off the hill road but you still have to enter SH1 to then pull in where the old BP was to do the loop back. Surely they could have done something better? I think the problem is no big investment went into it because all the money is going into Transmission Gully.

And yet the utes and vans I referred to, do in fact turn right there on a regular basis. It’s certainly a bollox of an intersection. TG will hopefully lift the pressure off that stretch of road.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[merv]

And yet the utes and vans I referred to, do in fact turn right there on a regular basis. It’s certainly a bollox of an intersection. TG will hopefully lift the pressure off that stretch of road.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As in they don't do that silly loop to the left thing, do they just cut past the edge of the median strip and sneak north kind of in the south bound lane for a little bit, is that what you are saying?

[Ulsterkiwi]

As in they don't do that silly loop to the left thing, do they just cut past the edge of the median strip and sneak north kind of in the south bound lane for a little bit, is that what you are saying?

Yup. Seen it happen many a time


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jellywrestler]

Less speed less harm

more travel time to be charged to customers too

[rastuscat]

How many injuries or fatalities have occurred around there under the legal limit?

Caus from where I'm standing it looks like every single one of them was substantially over the limit, even back when it was 100k.

And the injuries and fatality numbers were still used as the reason to lower the limit further.

Which, outside of the local constabulary's particular echo chamber isn't seen as anything more than complete nonsense.

Great, that's opened up a channel for further discussion.

Clive Matthew-Wilson frequently grizzles about speed enforcement, and almost every time he speaks he trots out the line that the majority of crashes happen below the speed limit. Which is likely to be true, as reported by CAS.

Thing is, there are actually two very separate concepts at play here.

1. The speed at which a crash happens is a major determinate factor of the kinetic energy imparted in the crash. Less speed, less harm.

2. Enforcement of the speed limit is a significant influencing factor on the speed that most people travel at. Not all, some folk just don't give a toss.

So, keeping those concepts separated, engineers want traffic to slow down, so that when crashes happen (and almost certainly they will), they impart less kinetic energy. (Note, no mention of the speed limit in this sentence.)

There are a few ways to achieve this. These methods generally fall into the categories of engineering, education and enforcement.


In engineering terms, engineers put in place lower speed limits, and create environments with greater perceptual side friction. E.g. narrow roads, with lots of close side obstacles, cause us to slow down.

In education terms, ads go in the paper, TV ads talk it up, I bang on on KB, that's education.

In enforcement terms, the cops write tickets.

All these things combine to try to reduce the speed that crashes happen at.

Another concept to consider is the contrast between individual risk and collective risk. In road safety circles, it is considered that if the average speed of the entire fleet reduced by 1%, you'd see a corresponding reduction in both the number of individual crashes, and the resultant harm arising from crashes which occur for whatever reason.

But as individuals, we consider the issue from our own point of view, with the human trait of optimism bias influencing our thoughts.

E.g. We each don't think that we are going to crash, so we each don't believe that we should have to slow down.

I've attended thousands of crashes of various degrees over the years, and in every one of those, if I had asked the drivers if they knew the crash was going to happen, they'd have said no. Because if they had thought it was going to happen, they would have done something different to avoid it. Fault means bugger all when you're lying in the back of an ambulance, so don't even start to think about whose fault the crash is. Think on what you can do, every time you're out and about to reduce your chance of becoming anyones victim.

That thing you can do to avoid the crash, that's available right here, right now. Leave a decent following distance, don't ride in blind spots, don't ride faster than your skills, or the road surface, or the traffic conditions, safely support. All this stuff is available at no cost, free, to each of us, every day.

It rather causes me a wry grin when people talk up how atrocious drivers in this country are, then in the next breath insist on their right to go faster. Cool, lets crash at higher speeds.

Oh, but that's right, we're not going to crash, are we.

[Scuba_Steve]

But let's look at the trend of making things slow
Slowest roads are the most deadly & true to form the slower our roads are getting the higher our road toll is reaching
The safest roads are where the mass population decide the speed; most people will travel a safe & comfortable speed. We as quite powerful computers are very good at, well, computing. We can judge shit quite well when left/forced to do it for ourselves.

There will always be mistakes even those new fan dangled self drive cars are gonna fuck up, nothings perfect. The focus should be on minimizing accidents from happening NOT on increasing the accidents but "softening the blow" such is the current thinking; car manufacturers do a good job of the lessening death, leave it to them

[Ulsterkiwi]

It rather causes me a wry grin when people talk up how atrocious drivers in this country are, then in the next breath insist on their right to go faster. Cool, lets crash at higher speeds.

Oh, but that's right, we're not going to crash, are we.

Actually I wasn't arguing for the freedom to go faster. A 100kph limit on that road is ENTIRELY inappropriate. My point was the speed limit reduction on the stretch of road in question does nothing to address the riskiest behaviours exhibited on the road. ergo, the measure is a sop, low hanging fruit or whatever other cliche you want to apply. The only policing you will see on the Paekakariki Hill Road is on the straighter section south of Battle Hill. The straighter section, the only bit of the damn road where it might actually be safe to travel at 80kph. I take satisfaction from trying to negotiate that road as smoothly and as consistent a pace as possible so my actual speed is normally within the posted limit. There is one corner I check my speedo because on occasion I might have gotten to 70, right before that straight because if there is a patrol car anywhere on that road, that is the place it will be sitting. That is how enforcement of speed has affected my behaviour. By the ute drivers who cross the centre line at 80 every other corner North of there, no fucks are given.

While we are on this topic, I have had this out with serving and past officers before. Police and NZTA send mixed messages about speed with the way they enforce. In the winter its ok to travel at 10kph over the limit, in the summer (with clearer roads and better conditions) you can only travel at 4kph over the limit. Yes I know its about volumes of traffic and the proportion of traffic trying to get somewhere to a deadline but surely it must register with someone that all the general populace hears are the numbers and the resultant conflicting message?
Speed limits should be enforced, no question . Speed appropriate to the conditions. If speed enforcement is the solution you seem to be making out, why are all the speed restrictions in place in the roadworks happening in the Wellington region at the moment not being enforced? Why are the speed restrictions on the "smart motorway" not being enforced? I travel these roads every day at different times. I do not "feel" a police presence enforcing those restrictions and I am not alone.
Why do I instead experience tailgating, being cut up, inattention because of drivers focused on their phones (crossing the centre line etc) and feel like these behaviours are not of interest to those patrolling the highways? Again, I am not alone.
Surely enforcement is in part at least about perception? I do not hear ANY representatives of government or police talking about poor driving behaviours other than speed. Then we have the overwhelming image of our largest city being one huge car park, not much speed there!
Look I am not naive, I know there are very dedicated professional people on the ground trying their very hardest to make the world we exist in as safe as possible. I do think there is a PR problem and a failure to address strongly held perceptions about policing in particular. One does not break down strongly held beliefs or views by simply dismissing them and and that is what the big bosses seem inclined to do.

[jellywrestler]

Great, that's opened up a channel for further discussion.

Clive Matthew-Wilson frequently grizzles about speed enforcement, and almost every time he speaks he trots out the line that the majority of crashes happen below the speed limit. Which is likely to be true, as reported by CAS.

Thing is, there are actually two very separate concepts at play here.

1. The speed at which a crash happens is a major determinate factor of the kinetic energy imparted in the crash. Less speed, less harm.

2. Enforcement of the speed limit is a significant influencing factor on the speed that most people travel at. Not all, some folk just don't give a toss.

So, keeping those concepts separated, engineers want traffic to slow down, so that when crashes happen (and almost certainly they will), they impart less kinetic energy. (Note, no mention of the speed limit in this sentence.)

There are a few ways to achieve this. These methods generally fall into the categories of engineering, education and enforcement.


In engineering terms, engineers put in place lower speed limits, and create environments with greater perceptual side friction. E.g. narrow roads, with lots of close side obstacles, cause us to slow down.

In education terms, ads go in the paper, TV ads talk it up, I bang on on KB, that's education.

In enforcement terms, the cops write tickets.

All these things combine to try to reduce the speed that crashes happen at.

Another concept to consider is the contrast between individual risk and collective risk. In road safety circles, it is considered that if the average speed of the entire fleet reduced by 1%, you'd see a corresponding reduction in both the number of individual crashes, and the resultant harm arising from crashes which occur for whatever reason.

But as individuals, we consider the issue from our own point of view, with the human trait of optimism bias influencing our thoughts.

E.g. We each don't think that we are going to crash, so we each don't believe that we should have to slow down.

I've attended thousands of crashes of various degrees over the years, and in every one of those, if I had asked the drivers if they knew the crash was going to happen, they'd have said no. Because if they had thought it was going to happen, they would have done something different to avoid it. Fault means bugger all when you're lying in the back of an ambulance, so don't even start to think about whose fault the crash is. Think on what you can do, every time you're out and about to reduce your chance of becoming anyones victim.

That thing you can do to avoid the crash, that's available right here, right now. Leave a decent following distance, don't ride in blind spots, don't ride faster than your skills, or the road surface, or the traffic conditions, safely support. All this stuff is available at no cost, free, to each of us, every day.

It rather causes me a wry grin when people talk up how atrocious drivers in this country are, then in the next breath insist on their right to go faster. Cool, lets crash at higher speeds.

Oh, but that's right, we're not going to crash, are we.
i travel that haywards hill regularly, it's quite ok at 100, now it's just mind numbing to travel at 80 and mind numbing means loss of concentration etc, which can lead to issues and crashes. they spent a lot of time upgrading one section, superwide etc but didn't put a passing lane in, now you've got a road that a lot of people use, tradesman etc, so you've got nana in her barina, you've got a truckload of soil, or a linesmans truck all with regular speed traffic, and a long stretch where there;s no opportunity to pass
why can't you twat engineers see this and put in a passing lane?

[rastuscat]

i travel that haywards hill regularly, it's quite ok at 100, now it's just mind numbing to travel at 80 and mind numbing means loss of concentration etc, which can lead to issues and crashes. they spent a lot of time upgrading one section, superwide etc but didn't put a passing lane in, now you've got a road that a lot of people use, tradesman etc, so you've got nana in her barina, you've got a truckload of soil, or a linesmans truck all with regular speed traffic, and a long stretch where there;s no opportunity to pass
why can't you twat engineers see this and put in a passing lane?

It's a question of priorities.

I did a lot of riding over Haywards when doing Popo motorcycle training. I feel your pain.

Engineering is the gold plated way to solve crashes. It's the best solution long term. It also happens to be the most expensive. A passing lane is an engineering solution.

I don't know the priorities of the District Council up there. Possibly it's on their long term plan, possibly it's not, I don't know.

Have you spoken to them about their priorities, or are you just happy to hit the keyboard.

[Ocean1]

Great, that's opened up a channel for further discussion.

Clive Matthew-Wilson frequently grizzles about speed enforcement, and almost every time he speaks he trots out the line that the majority of crashes happen below the speed limit. Which is likely to be true, as reported by CAS.

Thing is, there are actually two very separate concepts at play here.

1. The speed at which a crash happens is a major determinate factor of the kinetic energy imparted in the crash. Less speed, less harm.

2. Enforcement of the speed limit is a significant influencing factor on the speed that most people travel at. Not all, some folk just don't give a toss.

So, keeping those concepts separated, engineers want traffic to slow down, so that when crashes happen (and almost certainly they will), they impart less kinetic energy. (Note, no mention of the speed limit in this sentence.)

There are a few ways to achieve this. These methods generally fall into the categories of engineering, education and enforcement.


In engineering terms, engineers put in place lower speed limits, and create environments with greater perceptual side friction. E.g. narrow roads, with lots of close side obstacles, cause us to slow down.

In education terms, ads go in the paper, TV ads talk it up, I bang on on KB, that's education.

In enforcement terms, the cops write tickets.

All these things combine to try to reduce the speed that crashes happen at.

Another concept to consider is the contrast between individual risk and collective risk. In road safety circles, it is considered that if the average speed of the entire fleet reduced by 1%, you'd see a corresponding reduction in both the number of individual crashes, and the resultant harm arising from crashes which occur for whatever reason.

But as individuals, we consider the issue from our own point of view, with the human trait of optimism bias influencing our thoughts.

E.g. We each don't think that we are going to crash, so we each don't believe that we should have to slow down.

I've attended thousands of crashes of various degrees over the years, and in every one of those, if I had asked the drivers if they knew the crash was going to happen, they'd have said no. Because if they had thought it was going to happen, they would have done something different to avoid it. Fault means bugger all when you're lying in the back of an ambulance, so don't even start to think about whose fault the crash is. Think on what you can do, every time you're out and about to reduce your chance of becoming anyones victim.

That thing you can do to avoid the crash, that's available right here, right now. Leave a decent following distance, don't ride in blind spots, don't ride faster than your skills, or the road surface, or the traffic conditions, safely support. All this stuff is available at no cost, free, to each of us, every day.

It rather causes me a wry grin when people talk up how atrocious drivers in this country are, then in the next breath insist on their right to go faster. Cool, lets crash at higher speeds.

Oh, but that's right, we're not going to crash, are we.

Flawed as the concept of low speed = low risk is, that's not the main problem with that description of one side of a cost/benefit analysis. The main problem is that it completely ignores the other side.

Which is evident if, (as most of us suspect is the inevitable end result) you take it to its natural conclusion: addressing only the safety related variables will always result in a speed of zero.

It also ignores any discussion about the function of personal responsibility in the trait that differentiates humans from animals: free will. And on a less philosophical level it completely skips over the effect of risk homeostasis, the fact that the slower people travel the less care they take.

But that's right, the hive is more important than the individual, which justifies the dodgy ethics and tragically poor science invoked, here, don't it.

[rastuscat]

While we are on this topic, I have had this out with serving and past officers before. Police and NZTA send mixed messages about speed with the way they enforce. .

I'm with you on that.

The speed limit gets set. It's the maximum the law says you can do on a road.

Then the Police say it's okay to do 10 kmh more most of the time, and 4 kmh more anytime. Many Police individually apply an even more liberal tolerance.

Which leads us to have an expectation of tolerance.

If we have an expectation of a 10 kmh tolerance, that's why we get all antsy when the tolerance comes down to 4. When we expect a 4 kmh tolerance, it makes the 5 kmh ticket easier to stomach. Not easy, just easier.

If the limit was treated as the limit, we would accept it better. But the tolerance gets treated as the limit.

[Ulsterkiwi]

I'm with you on that.

The speed limit gets set. It's the maximum the law says you can do on a road.

Then the Police say it's okay to do 10 kmh more most of the time, and 4 kmh more anytime. Many Police individually apply an even more liberal tolerance.

Which leads us to have an expectation of tolerance.

If we have an expectation of a 10 kmh tolerance, that's why we get all antsy when the tolerance comes down to 4. When we expect a 4 kmh tolerance, it makes the 5 kmh ticket easier to stomach. Not easy, just easier.

If the limit was treated as the limit, we would accept it better. But the tolerance gets treated as the limit.

And that is completely in the hands of the enforcement agency not “the people”. Whomever thought it was a good idea to start talking about tolerance and changing that tolerance at different times of the year should be publicly beaten. Those went along with the idea should be as well!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Swoop]

Engineering is the gold plated way to solve crashes.

Glad you used the word "solve" instead of "prevent", since "gold standard engineering" still does not prevent crashes.
Exhibit A: a modern motorway with all the barriers and signage... still has massive skidmarks and impact evidence at random places. Caused by: poor driving.

Speed is an irrelevant aspect. Look at our current Indy car champion who drives quite rapidly. The road has all of the lovely safety gear, yet an accident only happens when a driver screws up.
Quite frankly Mr Darwin could be of use thinning out the more stupid drivers on our roads.

[rastuscat]

Speed is an irrelevant aspect. Look at our current Indy car champion who drives quite rapidly. The road has all of the lovely safety gear, yet an accident only happens when a driver screws up.


Big, median separated highways are the safest roads in NZ, per km traveled. That's why they are considered to be included in the 110 kmh speed limit club.

If everyone is going in the same direction, at the same speed, with no intersections, that reduces the chances of human error leading to a crash.

It's when there is speed differential, when there is merging, when there is lane changing, that's when human error causes crashes.

[Swoop]

... human error causes crashes.

Yup.


+10 chars.....

[SaferRides]

Interesting thread.

[jellywrestler]

Have you spoken to them about their priorities, or are you just happy to hit the keyboard. they dropped grays road after a couple of fatalities, to 60kmh, even though my understanding is both vehicles were estimated at 140km'h when crashing, then some prick pats himself on the back then looks at another road to look at cause it's an easy target for him to work at and justify his job, they did the paekak hill where now the biggest risk is constantly taking your eyes off the road to ensure you don't get busted as it's a windy road that it's real hard to judge speed, reality there's about two spots where you can actually go much faster the 60, still no passing lanes and no possibilty of getting past that crawler who slows painfully on corners, cause you can't exceed 60 on the couple of spots you can actually pass.
the haywards will change soon, traffic will boom on it when transmission gully starts, they've down SFA to prepare for this at all.
additionally they asked for submissions on dropping the speed, well before the final date it was noted the speed signs were already up yet taped over, they were never going to listen it was a done deal, as i said earlier, the gps maps were updated weeks and weeks ago, again a done deal.
these chimps actually need to spend some time on the roads with a picnic basket and actually see what traffic does i reckon.
some years ago there wasa four person fatality on centennial highway, hours later they put in a temp speed limit of eighty km's hour.
if they'd actually gone out there and watch they would have realised that seldom did traffic exceed this at all, it's one of those roads where most drove cautiously as a lot of trucks to deal with, i say they didn't go there cause if they had they would've seen a big problem with tailgaters, and signs, don't be a fool, obey the two second rule would have surely been called for.

[BMWST?]

there is nothing weong with centennial highway that a big high fence on the seaward side wouldnt fix.Its the f---wits who dont look where they are going