Another F'ing Speeding Ticket.

[slofox]

Ok I give up. I got another ticket. First one on the bike in many years ( maybe - 45 years? ). Some fucking camera I didn't even see. As usual.

What pisses me off over this one is that it was on a ride that I take real easy. Lots of traffic, narrow road, etc yadda yadda. I rarely go there any more. But I decided the road itself is so good I just had to give it a whirl. One Tuesday, late morning. And there ya go. $80 voluntary tax. Coulda bought some decent malt for that...Last ride I thought I would be at risk of speeding on.

I thought I was doing well but the radar said 113km in 100k zone. Maybe because I rarely check which gear I am in and use engine pitch to monitor speed a lot which is all fine if you know which gear you are in. One gear up is 10kph faster than ya think.

Mind you, I passed a cop car today in an intersection that was totalled in the front - obviously ran into something at high speed...:whistle: The flashing lights still worked though.


OK rant over - :drinkup:

[oldrider]

When I am Prime Minister speeders will be issued with Lotto tickets - people (electors) will know me by my golden hair. :wait:

[SaferRides]

Ok I give up. I got another ticket. First one on the bike in many years ( maybe - 45 years? ). Some fucking camera I didn't even see. As usual.

What pisses me off over this one is that it was on a ride that I take real easy. Lots of traffic, narrow road, etc yadda yadda. I rarely go there any more. But I decided the road itself is so good I just had to give it a whirl. One Tuesday, late morning. And there ya go. $80 voluntary tax. Coulda bought some decent malt for that...Last ride I thought I would be at risk of speeding on.

I thought I was doing well but the radar said 113km in 100k zone. Maybe because I rarely check which gear I am in and use engine pitch to monitor speed a lot which is all fine if you know which gear you are in. One gear up is 10kph faster than ya think.

Mind you, I passed a cop car today in an intersection that was totalled in the front - obviously ran into something at high speed...:whistle: The flashing lights still worked though.


OK rant over - :drinkup:Why NZ persists with not having signs for speed cameras is beyond me. Does nothing for safety and just pisses people off.

Where was the camera? The new fixed cameras are in some weird places.

[FJRider]

... Maybe because I rarely check which gear I am in and use engine pitch to monitor speed a lot which is all fine if you know which gear you are in. One gear up is 10kph faster than ya think.



Maybe you check your speed with your speedometer. That is was it was designed to do ... :blink:

Maybe it's your hearing that needs adjustment ... it's obviously not working as you expect it should. Age does that to a person ... :innocent:

And ... SaferRides ...If everybody slowed down ... it would be in the interest of everybody's safety ... Start living up to your name ... :yawn:

If two vehicles are travelling at 113 km/hr and collide ... impact speed is 226 km/hr. What possible harm could that do ... ??? :shifty:

[AllanB]

I thought I was doing well but the radar said 113km in 100k zone. Maybe because I rarely check which gear I am in and use engine pitch to monitor speed a lot which is all fine if you know which gear you are in. One gear up is 10kph faster than ya think.


My Ducati has a readout that tells you what speed you are doing ..........

[speedpro]

If the 2 vehicles were doing 100kmh they would be perfectly safe. No harm would occur.

If they didn't collide it wouldn't matter how fast they were going. If a little effort was put into anything that helped avoid the collision in the first place I "might" start believing speed cameras were part of a road safety programme.

[buggerit]

If two vehicles are travelling at 113 km/hr and collide ... impact speed is 226 km/hr. What possible harm could that do ... ??? :shifty:[/QUOTE]

Yeah,a 200kmh impact speed is much safer, get with the progamme!
I hear knitting circles can be fun:bye:

[98tls]

My Ducati has a readout that tells you what speed you are doing ..........

Handy i guess,no doubt in time technology will evolve to the point it can remind you of how many lattes you had at the last stop.:innocent:

[layton]

Maybe you check your speed with your speedometer. That is was it was designed to do ... :blink:

Maybe it's your hearing that needs adjustment ... it's obviously not working as you expect it should. Age does that to a person ... :innocent:

And ... SaferRides ...If everybody slowed down ... it would be in the interest of everybody's safety ... Start living up to your name ... :yawn:

If two vehicles are travelling at 113 km/hr and collide ... impact speed is 226 km/hr. What possible harm could that do ... ??? :shifty:

why does everything you say seem negitive? he was having a rant let him rant.

you are quick to criticize.

[jasonu]

If two vehicles are travelling at 113 km/hr and collide ... impact speed is 226 km/hr. :shifty:

That's not true. Look it up.

[speedpro]

Good point. If both vehicles are equal mass it would be like driving into a solid object, not one moving the other way.

[nzspokes]

That's not true. Look it up.Correct.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

[FJRider]

why does everything you say seem negitive? he was having a rant let him rant.

you are quick to criticize.

As were you to me ... Harden up petal and follow your own advice ... :motu:

[Drew]

:

And ... SaferRides .:

If two vehicles are travelling at 113 km/hr and collide ... impact speed is 226 km/hr. What possible harm could that do ... ??? :shifty:
Closing speed makes no difference to impact. The difference comes from mass and speed differential between the two objects.

Two bikes the same colliding at the same speed results in the same force on each as one bike hitting a stationary object.



Anyhoo. Back to the topic.
I like that the OP says 'voluntary tax'. Because the rider chose to flaunt the law, and this consequence is a direct result.

There's a speed limit. Look up the definition of 'limit'.

[FJRider]

Good point. If both vehicles are equal mass it would be like driving into a solid object, not one moving the other way.

If one vehicle was a 40 tonne truck (or a large SUV) travelling at 90/100 km/hr ... the other a motorcycle ... do you think both vehicles would just stop at the point of impact ... ???

Even the average car will have 3 or 4 times the mass of the average motorcycle. Aside from the likely-hood of the rider implanting himself in the car windscreen ... the final outcome of the rider is not something to look forward to.

[Scuba_Steve]

If one vehicle was a 40 tonne truck (or a large SUV) travelling at 90/100 km/hr ... the other a motorcycle ... do you think both vehicles would just stop at the point of impact ... ???

Even the average car will have 3 or 4 times the mass of the average motorcycle. Aside from the likely-hood of the rider implanting himself in the car windscreen ... the final outcome of the rider is not something to look forward to.

You're still not making any valid point, the bike could be stationary & fun fact: it's a bike so it's fucked! If a 40 tonne truck hits it while the bikes going 0km/h or 580km/h, it's fucked!

[FJRider]

Closing speed makes no difference to impact. The difference comes from mass and speed differential between the two objects.

Two bikes the same colliding at the same speed results in the same force on each as one bike hitting a stationary object.

The bikes may become stationary rather rapidly ... but the riders could end up quite some distance away from the impact point. The point and angle of impact will vary with motorcycles ... as they dont have the solid flat frontal areas cars and trucks do.


. Back to the topic.
I like that the OP says 'voluntary tax'. Because the rider chose to flaunt the law, and this consequence is a direct result.

There's a speed limit. Look up the definition of 'limit'.

I think the ones that pay those voluntary taxes ... pay for a lot of things that a compulsory tax might have otherwise have to be implemented to fund.

To those that continue to pay this voluntary tax on my behalf ... thank you for your kind donations ...

[OddDuck]

Ahh, we're arguing about speed again. Le sigh.

Yes, it's real, yes, reducing speed reduces both likelihood of a crash event and also consequences of said crash. It's easy to see and easy to control. Fucking speed cameras. I reckon we're doing it all wrong.

I'd heard years ago that in the UK, speed cameras are posted to accident blackspots. There are warning signs well before the camera. If you get nicked, well, first: you were warned, and second: you scorched it through a blackspot, the fine was deserved. People around you will tell you that, too. Not exactly the ambush and cash grab approach used in NZ. We pretty much hate our cops these days. I'm old enough to remember a time when we didn't.

Let's look at everything else that gets people hurt on the roads, shall we?

- loose stock
- fuel / oil spills
- pea gravel on patch repairs
- bad roads
- cellphones
- medical events behind the wheel or the bars
- discourtesy
- impatience
- distraction
- people who drive slow and pull over never
- fatigue
- drugs
- booze
- idiot tourists
- idiot locals
- entitlement: I have a right to drive attitude
- failure to wear a seatbelt (driving) or proper gear (riding)

It's not as simple as just speed.

[Blackbird]

Ahh, we're arguing about speed again. Le sigh.

Yes, it's real, yes, reducing speed reduces both likelihood of a crash event and also consequences of said crash. It's easy to see and easy to control. Fucking speed cameras. I reckon we're doing it all wrong.

I'd heard years ago that in the UK, speed cameras are posted to accident blackspots. There are warning signs well before the camera. If you get nicked, well, first: you were warned, and second: you scorched it through a blackspot, the fine was deserved. People around you will tell you that, too. Not exactly the ambush and cash grab approach used in NZ. We pretty much hate our cops these days. I'm old enough to remember a time when we didn't.

Let's look at everything else that gets people hurt on the roads, shall we?

- loose stock
- fuel / oil spills
- pea gravel on patch repairs
- bad roads
- cellphones
- medical events behind the wheel or the bars
- discourtesy
- impatience
- distraction
- people who drive slow and pull over never
- fatigue
- drugs
- booze
- idiot tourists
- idiot locals
- entitlement: I have a right to drive attitude
- failure to wear a seatbelt (driving) or proper gear (riding)

It's not as simple as just speed.

Slofox was just having a vent, no more or less and that's the end of the matter. Speed is something within our personal control, as are a heap of the other things on your list. I'm sure that in general, most of us try to do the right thing or at least choose the right time and place for a few antics. End of story, nothing to see here....

[TheDemonLord]

What a novelty - a KB thread with a physics argument and it's not one I've instigated/been involved in.

[bluninja]

You're still not making any valid point, the bike could be stationary & fun fact: it's a bike so it's fucked! If a 40 tonne truck hits it while the bikes going 0km/h or 580km/h, it's fucked!

You are so right and I am so lucky that it was a Ford Ranger and not a truck that used me and my stationary bike to stop with, :baby: so my bike was only half fucked. I wonder what would happen if people got ticketed for causing a collision?
Easy peasy, demerit points and fine....and it's not a victimless road traffic offence! After all speed is only a problem if you have a collision.

[Laava]

What a novelty - a KB thread with a physics argument and it's not one I've instigated/been involved in.
Get in there!

[TheDemonLord]

Get in there!

Lord knows I'm tempted - but I think I'm going to see how this plays out...

[jasonu]

. I wonder what would happen if people got ticketed for causing a collision?
.

They can and often do that here in Oregon. The offense is called 'failure to maintain control of your vehicle'.

[Swoop]

Simple solution to the OP's problem...

Remove the offending numberplate!:msn-wink:

[Oakie]

What a novelty - a KB thread with a physics argument and it's not one I've instigated/been involved in.

I remember watching this one on 'Mythbusters'. Two similar vehicles going at the same speed and hitting head on. They expected they damage would be that same as a vehicle hitting a wall with the combined speeds of the two vehicles ... but no! The miniature mock up suggested no and the full size confirmed it. Two similar vehicles hitting head on at a particular speed only creates the same damage as one vehicle driving into a wall at the same speed. Something to do with both vehicles crumpling.

[pritch]

Cheer up Slofox. If you're going to have a fine, an $80.00 fine is as about as good as it gets.

[BMWST?]

If two vehicles are travelling at 113 km/hr and collide ... impact speed is 226 km/hr. What possible harm could that do ... ??? :shifty:
probably the same as a closing speed of 200km/hr

[FJRider]

probably the same as a closing speed of 200km/hr

So ... no pain involved then ... ;)

[russd7]

meh, we are all just temporary kiwis anyway,

bet that tax collector parked just over the Oreti bridge on the road out to the burt rally site made a killing, damned near got me.

[speedpro]

which part of "equal mass" wasn't obvious?

[onearmedbandit]

I remember watching this one on 'Mythbusters'. Two similar vehicles going at the same speed and hitting head on. They expected they damage would be that same as a vehicle hitting a wall with the combined speeds of the two vehicles ... but no! The miniature mock up suggested no and the full size confirmed it. Two similar vehicles hitting head on at a particular speed only creates the same damage as one vehicle driving into a wall at the same speed. Something to do with both vehicles crumpling.

Nope, more to do with the fact that if you have two vehicles of similar mass collide head on at 100km/h the total impact is a combined 200km/h. Split that between two vehicles and it's a split of 100km/h each (in ideal situations). Nothing to do with crumple zones etc. It can't be 200km/h of force each (yes I know f= m x a but I'm simplifying things here) because that would mean a combined speed of 400km/h.

[FJRider]

Let's look at everything else that gets people hurt on the roads, shall we?

- loose stock
- fuel / oil spills
- pea gravel on patch repairs
- bad roads
- cellphones
- medical events behind the wheel or the bars
- discourtesy
- impatience
- distraction
- people who drive slow and pull over never
- fatigue
- drugs
- booze
- idiot tourists
- idiot locals
- entitlement: I have a right to drive attitude
- failure to wear a seatbelt (driving) or proper gear (riding)

It's not as simple as just speed.

Out of ALL that ... only four feature in legislation forbidding it on the roads of New Zealand.

[Scuba_Steve]

Out of ALL that ... only four feature in legislation forbidding it on the roads of New Zealand.

Shows how much you know, I can place at-least 9 of those with legislation possibly 11

[MarkH]

meh, we are all just temporary kiwis anyway,

bet that tax collector parked just over the Oreti bridge on the road out to the burt rally site made a killing, damned near got me.

I was glad to be taking it easy when I saw him!
Luckily I never speed because it is illegal and therefore wrong! :innocent:

[riffer]

The speed thing is interesting.

Pretty much hit anything dead on at over about 65 and it's a coin toss. Hit anything dead on between 30 and 60 and you're gonna get badly hurt.

Whether you're doing 100 or 115 is pretty much irrelevant. If you hit something you are absolutely dead. Having said that I am yet to see evidence that proves a link between exceeding the limit by less than 20% and increased crashes. The only argument is that kinetic energy causes damage to humans at an exponential rate.

I have personal experience in hitting a vehicle straight on at close to 60km/hr (pickup truck pulls out of driveway onto highway, sees bike, slams on brakes and stops. Bike doesn't quite stop in time). I really don't recommend it. Slowing down quickly from that speed hurts. For a long time. And puts a fair few nasty scratches and dents in your bike.

The biggest problem isn't you falling off through going over the speed limit. It's being able to avoid and stop in time to mitigate the unexpected.

But speed is exhilarating and fun. And we love it.

[russd7]

I was glad to be taking it easy when I saw him!
Luckily I never speed because it is illegal and therefore wrong! :innocent:

I travel that road regularly and I always have to keep checking my speed, having said that I do have great respect for the speed limit, I also have great respect for the missus as well but I don't always do what she says, please don't tell her I said that tho :sweatdrop