Safe or unsafe

[Paul in NZ]

Very strange reporting (if it can be called that) by Stuff again

Initially there is a non biased report on the judgement and suddenly and opinion piece from the AA. The original piece was sensible I thought but I suppose this makes better click bait.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/119814892/driving-at-148kmh-is-always-going-to-be-dangerous-on-nz-roads-says-the-automobile-aassociation

By the AA's thinking 50kph will always be dangerous as well. Even walking has an element of danger and of course the AA always knows more that the Judge - pfft...

[onearmedbandit]

Stuff? Click-bait? Suuurrely not ha!

[neels]

There is a difference between driving being 'dangerous', and the legal definition of 'dangerous driving'. You'd think the AA would understand that.

It hasn't been proven in court that his speed constituted 'dangerous driving', so he's been found guilty of a lesser charge relating to his excessive speed.

Any driving is dangerous. In parts of the south island it's not uncommon to meet someone coming the other way on the wrong side of the road, in many cases the worst they will get is a $150 fine for failing to stay in their lane, yes it's 'dangerous' but it doesn't meet the definition of 'dangerous driving'

The law and all that.....

[TheDemonLord]

It seems the Judge is talking sense, it will be interesting to see if this gains traction as Legal Precedent for setting the threshold for 'Dangerous Driving'.

Oh and Fuck the AA.

[Berries]

Comments closed already on one of the three Stuff stories. I guess the commentators weren't following the party line. NZTA must be fuming.

I particularly liked this comment which tried to add a bit of reality to the speed discussion, which as we all know cannot be done in New Zealand.


New Zealand has a strange obsession with speed as a bad thing. 148kph is a touch over 90mph, and a speed that might or might not get you a ticket from a following police car on a UK motorway. You'd certainly be highly unlikely to get pulled over for 80mph (130kph) on a UK motorway. And yet the UK has less than half as many road fatalities as New Zealand. That is taken as per 100,000 inhabitants NZ = 7.8 — UK = 3.1, per 100,000 vehicles NZ = 10 — UK = 5.7, and per billion vehicle kilometers driven NZ = 7.2 — UK = 3.4.

The AA can piss right off anyway.

[Jeeper]

I have always found AA representative to be really anti-motoring in NZ.

Type of car alone makes a huge difference whether 148km/h is safe or not. In Suzuki Swift, it would not be my choice. In an Audi R8, it be easily and safely doable on most roads (without sharp bends or turns).

[merv]

Stockdale said: "There is no public road in New Zealand on which 148kmh is safe."

"It would be unsafe regardless of what sort of car you were in, he added."

So I guess we can take it from that he would mean regardless of what sort of motorcycle as well.

I am sure we can all point to roads that this is blatantly untrue for as many are up to exactly the same standard that the German autobahns are with unlimited speed and they don't have a bad safety record.

If humans didn't move at all we are still at risk from floods, pestilence, earthquakes and asteroid strikes so you are right about the 50km/hr comment Paul. AA are just sticking to the party line here.

Here's some photos we took travelling from Munich to Prague. True speed on GPS, I found most of the the locals seemed to typically drive at around 190km/hr max so to hit the magic 200km/hr I had to back off a bit and then speed up to clock it then slow down again. 148km/hr would have been slow. Only the odd Porsche would blast past faster where there was space. You can see armco down the middle and no side barriers yet our powers that be say our expressways (whatever happened to calling them motorways) just aren't up to the required standard and wouldn't be safe above 110km/hr. In Germany they even allowed truck on truck action if the road was only two lanes in that direction (pic is at an on ramp so that is not three lanes and we all had to slow down while that truck passed. If there were three lanes the trucks were forbidden from using the lane closest to the centre.

So food for thought - why are our roads legislated at such low speeds and why do our politicians think they will find success by reducing many of them further?

[merv]

I have always found AA representative to be really anti-motoring in NZ.




.... and particularly anti-motorcycling in NZ.

[jellywrestler]

Very strange reporting (if it can be called that) by Stuff again

Initially there is a non biased report on the judgement and suddenly and opinion piece from the AA. The original piece was sensible I thought but I suppose this makes better click bait.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/119814892/driving-at-148kmh-is-always-going-to-be-dangerous-on-nz-roads-says-the-automobile-aassociation

By the AA's thinking 50kph will always be dangerous as well. Even walking has an element of danger and of course the AA always knows more that the Judge - pfft...

i'd click on the first one as i'm over the other propaganda

[HenryDorsetCase]

Very strange reporting (if it can be called that) by Stuff again

Initially there is a non biased report on the judgement and suddenly and opinion piece from the AA. The original piece was sensible I thought but I suppose this makes better click bait.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/119814892/driving-at-148kmh-is-always-going-to-be-dangerous-on-nz-roads-says-the-automobile-aassociation

By the AA's thinking 50kph will always be dangerous as well. Even walking has an element of danger and of course the AA always knows more that the Judge - pfft...

fuck that. a man with a red flag walking in front of every car will make us all safe.

[slofox]

.... and particularly anti-motorcycling in NZ.

I have had one really good interaction with an AA roadside dude.

The battery failed in the bike at the gas station. Couldn't get it to start any way. Rang AA, dude was there in about 5 minutes. He was a rider as well and was great to deal with. So I guess not all AA staff are anti bike...

[TheDemonLord]

fuck that. a man with a red flag walking in front of every car will make us all safe.

I dunno, Ladies might still miscarriage at the sight of it.

[merv]

I have had one really good interaction with an AA roadside dude.

The battery failed in the bike at the gas station. Couldn't get it to start any way. Rang AA, dude was there in about 5 minutes. He was a rider as well and was great to deal with. So I guess not all AA staff are anti bike...

Yeah roadside dudes are usually good, I was really referring to the suits that get quoted in the media.

[jasonu]

Stockdale said: "There is no public road in New Zealand on which 148kmh is safe."

"It would be unsafe regardless of what sort of car you were in, he added."

So I guess we can take it from that he would mean regardless of what sort of motorcycle as well.

I am sure we can all point to roads that this is blatantly untrue for as many are up to exactly the same standard that the German autobahns are with unlimited speed and they don't have a bad safety record.

If humans didn't move at all we are still at risk from floods, pestilence, earthquakes and asteroid strikes so you are right about the 50km/hr comment Paul. AA are just sticking to the party line here.

Here's some photos we took travelling from Munich to Prague. True speed on GPS, I found most of the the locals seemed to typically drive at around 190km/hr max so to hit the magic 200km/hr I had to back off a bit and then speed up to clock it then slow down again. 148km/hr would have been slow. Only the odd Porsche would blast past faster where there was space. You can see armco down the middle and no side barriers yet our powers that be say our expressways (whatever happened to calling them motorways) just aren't up to the required standard and wouldn't be safe above 110km/hr. In Germany they even allowed truck on truck action if the road was only two lanes in that direction (pic is at an on ramp so that is not three lanes and we all had to slow down while that truck passed. If there were three lanes the trucks were forbidden from using the lane closest to the centre.

So food for thought - why are our roads legislated at such low speeds and why do our politicians think they will find success by reducing many of them further?

The general standard of driving in NZ is abysmal and the general standard of driving in Germany is quite good.

[FJRider]

It seems the Judge is talking sense, it will be interesting to see if this gains traction as Legal Precedent for setting the threshold for 'Dangerous Driving'.

Oh and Fuck the AA.

There is NO indication by Government that might suggest a change to the Land Transport Act is pending. As such ... all higher speed traffic offenses will be treated in exactly the same manner. And ... with the same charges as are currently applied to those caught roadside at such speeds.

Location location location ... still is the criteria applied at sentencing. And always will be ... well by one judge anyway ... :lol:

[oldrider]

Stockdale said: "There is no public road in New Zealand on which 148kmh is safe."

"It would be unsafe regardless of what sort of car you were in, he added."

So I guess we can take it from that he would mean regardless of what sort of motorcycle as well.

I am sure we can all point to roads that this is blatantly untrue for as many are up to exactly the same standard that the German autobahns are with unlimited speed and they don't have a bad safety record.

If humans didn't move at all we are still at risk from floods, pestilence, earthquakes and asteroid strikes so you are right about the 50km/hr comment Paul. AA are just sticking to the party line here.

Here's some photos we took travelling from Munich to Prague. True speed on GPS, I found most of the the locals seemed to typically drive at around 190km/hr max so to hit the magic 200km/hr I had to back off a bit and then speed up to clock it then slow down again. 148km/hr would have been slow. Only the odd Porsche would blast past faster where there was space. You can see armco down the middle and no side barriers yet our powers that be say our expressways (whatever happened to calling them motorways) just aren't up to the required standard and wouldn't be safe above 110km/hr. In Germany they even allowed truck on truck action if the road was only two lanes in that direction (pic is at an on ramp so that is not three lanes and we all had to slow down while that truck passed. If there were three lanes the trucks were forbidden from using the lane closest to the centre.

So food for thought - why are our roads legislated at such low speeds and why do our politicians think they will find success by reducing many of them further?

Reduction in the number of politicians would be a good start to lower cost and get more accountability and positive action on anything that matters? - :msn-wink:

[pritch]

I try not to be cynical but... My first thought as I read that was the kid's father's a lawyer and knows the judge. Then I saw the kid is a law student.

Right first time?

[SaferRides]

I thought I would check Mark Stockdale's qualifications and experience to make such sweeping statements. He apparently does not understand that a "legal technicality" is in fact the law.

At least the associate minister had enough sense not to comment.


Mark Stockdale

AA Expert

I've worked for the AA since late 2005, and prior to that spent 9 years as a transport lobbyist at the Bus & Coach Association in Wellington.

My role at the AA includes monitoring and commenting on fuel prices, domestic and global supply trends, renewable fuels, and helping advise motorists on how to reduce their fuel costs. I also advise members on transport issues and law, and research and prepare submissions on transport legislation and policy. I am also the AA representative on various industry stakeholder groups.

[Scuba_Steve]

Ability of driver alone makes a huge difference whether 148km/h is safe or not. In Suzuki Swift, it would not be my choice. In an Audi R8, it be easily and safely doable on most roads (without sharp bends or turns).

FTFY

Type of car makes a difference in safety ONLY when impacting

[onearmedbandit]

FTFY

Type of car makes a difference in safety ONLY when impacting

Nope. Not at all.

[TheDemonLord]

There is NO indication by Government that might suggest a change to the Land Transport Act is pending. As such ... all higher speed traffic offenses will be treated in exactly the same manner. And ... with the same charges as are currently applied to those caught roadside at such speeds.

Location location location ... still is the criteria applied at sentencing. And always will be ... well by one judge anyway ... :lol:

No change to the Legislation, however it sounds like from the Judge's interpretation that it may now be precedent that a defense against the charge of Dangerous driving (not speeding) will be to prove, absent citing the speed, that there was Danger.

[Berries]

While I have no issue with the speed itself and would be a total hypocrite if I did, I do agree with comments by Greg Murphy about age and experience being overlooked.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/news/119854993/teens-dangerous-driving-dodge-shows-need-for-change-greg-murphy-says

[Jeeper]

FTFY

Type of car makes a difference in safety ONLY when impactingNot entirely correct. Grip and aerodynamics play a big role when cars start exceeding 100+ kmph. Suzuki Swift doing 148 kmph is more likely to contribute to loss of control, versus Lamborghini Avantador at the same speed, driver ability and road conditions.

[TheDemonLord]

While I have no issue with the speed itself and would be a total hypocrite if I did, I do agree with comments by Greg Murphy about age and experience being overlooked.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/news/119854993/teens-dangerous-driving-dodge-shows-need-for-change-greg-murphy-says

Murph has always had some good insight to driving issues.

[Bonez]

I try not to be cynical but... My first thought as I read that was the kid's father's a lawyer and knows the judge. Then I saw the kid is a law student.

Right first time?Apprently they were Russian.

[Moi]

"Dangerous" driving - according to the judge it did not tick the boxes required for his driving to be considered 'dangerous'. However, was it driving of a responsible and/or thinking driver/rider? Was he driving in a responsible manner?

The AA spokesman says there are no roads in NZ on which a speed of 150km/h is safe... I'd suggest that the section of the Kapiti Expressway between Paraparaumu and the northern end could qualify, so could sections of the Waikato Expressway with the proviso that the driver was capable of driving at that speed and the vehicle in question was also suitable. And I am sure there are other sections of road where such speed would be safe provided the conditions at the time were appropriate.

Would I want to attempt such speed in a Suzuki Swift? Doubt it. What about an SUV? No way! What about a current model Commodore - yeah, the Opel in roo skin - possibly. And the 'possibly' would depend on a number of factors: weather, road conditions, traffic conditions, vehicle condition, my own state-of-mind...

I think Stockdale has missed an opportunity for a sensible and reasoned discussion/conversation round the concept of responsible driving and what that entails.

[Scuba_Steve]

Not entirely correct. Grip and aerodynamics play a big role when cars start exceeding 100+ kmph. Suzuki Swift doing 148 kmph is more likely to contribute to loss of control, versus Lamborghini Avantador at the same speed, driver ability and road conditions.

But a good driver won't exceed the capabilities of either making them the most dominate force in safety. If the swift can't do 148km/h a good driver wouldn't take it there.

A Lambo with a drongo behind the wheel is gonna be more dangerous than the Swift with Greg Murphy behind the wheel. Sure Greg can probably go harder & faster in the Lambo but that doesn't make the Lambo 'safer' as a rule, least not until it impacts & the advanced safety features kick in

[Jeeper]

I said same driver ability. Comparing like for like, car makes a huge difference in how they behave in like situations.

[MD]

For me it always come back to time and place. I've driven that road a fair few times and, I can't believe I'm saying this, but 148kph in a car seems a bit beyond even my generous personal 'tolerance level'

I do praise the Judge though for not accepting that speed alone is the only test required for dangerous driving.

[F5 Dave]

FTFY

Type of car makes a difference in safety ONLY when impacting
Your next post after this one trys to talk around this post. You said 'only'. In capitals.

If you've ever driven a tiny little shitbox, say my old flatmates daihatsu, it felt unstable at much more than 50 and you could induce ever increasing oscillations by tweaking the wheel going uphill.

In an emergency move I think my van would be safer, and a modern car with abs, braking stabilisers and decent dampers would help most people be safer.

All this stuff is BEFORE impact.

I claim internet bragging rights and you can imagine me doing a little victory dance. Except I'm tired so I'm not really.

[FJRider]

No change to the Legislation, however it sounds like from the Judge's interpretation that it may now be precedent that a defense against the charge of Dangerous driving (not speeding) will be to prove, absent citing the speed, that there was Danger.

The precedent was set when "Motorcycling" was found to be "Dangerous" ... after that ... it was all downhill. The danger itself wasn't putting people off ... but is often the reason people ride.

Danger was not the issue in this case ... as no other factors were involved in the incident ... like other traffic. Road conditions and weather were good. Speed was the only issue. This has always been the case. I have known of similar results in court ... and for the same reason. One recently in a car at a higher speed.

Remember ... 40 km/hr over the posted limit and you're walking ... you know the risks ... your choice.

[Berries]

Would I want to attempt such speed in a Suzuki Swift? Doubt it. What about an SUV? No way!
Have you driven in the UK, or Europe? There will be Suzuki Swifts and SUVs banging along the motorways at 130 to 40km/h every day without blowing the pistons through the bonnet, taking flight or melting due to friction from the passing air.

Well, with a clear bit of road.

[SaferRides]

I've gone a bit stupid in a Swift I rented in Queenstown. Keep the revs up and they go well and stick to the road. But I would not want to crash in one. Not exactly a solid build.

[Berries]

Bloody tourists.

[Jeeper]

Have you driven in the UK, or Europe? There will be Suzuki Swifts and SUVs banging along the motorways at 130 to 40km/h every day without blowing the pistons through the bonnet, taking flight or melting due to friction from the passing air.

Well, with a clear bit of road.Suzuki Swift comes in 3-4 different engine variations. If it's 1.0l version, it would be interesting. But the 1.4l turbo (in Swift Sport) with 6 speed transmission would be fine at those speed on good roads. But I wouldn't do that on most NZ public roads. Not much margin of error on roads here.

[Scuba_Steve]

I said same driver ability. Comparing like for like, car makes a huge difference in how they behave in like situations.

Again a good driver shouldn't be putting the vehicle beyond it's capabilities. Again making the driver the most dominate feature in vehicle safety
I've never driven a Swift but I've taken a C20 Vanette to 140km/h and had no problem with safety, I'd dare say the capabilities of the Swift far exceed the Vanette.


Your next post after this one trys to talk around this post. You said 'only'. In capitals.

If you've ever driven a tiny little shitbox, say my old flatmates daihatsu, it felt unstable at much more than 50 and you could induce ever increasing oscillations by tweaking the wheel going uphill.

In an emergency move I think my van would be safer, and a modern car with abs, braking stabilisers and decent dampers would help most people be safer.

All this stuff is BEFORE impact.

I claim internet bragging rights and you can imagine me doing a little victory dance. Except I'm tired so I'm not really.

Most situations don't call for those features they only kick in when the driver has exceeded the standard capabilities of the vehicle. So yea maybee saying ONLY on on impact was an exaggeration, they can help in 'shit done fucked' situations; but fact remains the driver is the biggest safety feature (or hazard) a vehicle has. Nothing affects the safety of a vehicle more than the driver

[onearmedbandit]

but fact remains the driver is the biggest safety feature (or hazard) a vehicle has. Nothing affects the safety of a vehicle more than the driver

We all knew that already, it's just that wasn't what you said.

[SaferRides]

You should see all the safety stuff on the 2019 Corolla I rented last week, including autonomous emergency braking. And it read the speed limit signs and told you off if you went 5 km/h over. I turned that feature off very quickly.

[F5 Dave]

Yeah Dads Sooburroo does all that shit with eyes off the road warning which would be a boon for sleepy drivers (who hopefully take a hint and pull over).

The autonomous braking was awesome and decided to kick in just before I pressed the brake pedal when someone slowed to avoid someone else pulling out on open road. I hovered my foot above the pedal to see what happened as it braked fairly heavily. It was conservative but quicker to react than I was. In certain circumstances it will save collisions I'm sure. I was well impressed.

Cue detractors of technology, making us worse drivers blah blah. Go.

[Berries]

The autonomous braking was awesome and decided to kick in just before I pressed the brake pedal when someone slowed to avoid someone else pulling out on open road. I hovered my foot above the pedal to see what happened as it braked fairly heavily. It was conservative but quicker to react than I was. In certain circumstances it will save collisions I'm sure. I was well impressed.

Cue detractors of technology, making us worse drivers blah blah. Go.
Well.......

Have been driving a new Corolla at work with all these bells and whistles. I do like the adaptive cruise control, it means you don't have to concentrate on driving quite so much. Pain in the arse when you follow a car in to an urban area which then pulls off and you end up accelerating away with a clear road ahead.

The autonomous braking has caught me out twice. The first time the car in front indicates to turn left off a rural road. It slows, I slow and I check the way is clear to go past him and as I pull out my car suddenly brakes. Probably would have been hit if someone was behind me and about to follow suit. The second time was on what we call a motorway down here where the slip lane on the right had stationary traffic queuing back from traffic lights but the main road and through lane curves away to the left and was free flowing (Andy Bay Road for those who know it). My car thinks I am going to hit a stationary car in the slip lane and brakes very hard. Anyone behind me would think I was a right twat. I can see the safety benefits of this system but it needs some work on the Toyota.

A new game is using the lane assist and seeing how far you can drive with no steering input. It must scare oncoming traffic with the car weaving to keep centered in the lane. It does make me think how many of these tourists we see in late model rentals weaving all over the road are just playing the same game?

Oh yes -

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fGj66EeEqts" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[HenryDorsetCase]

Yeah Dads Sooburroo does all that shit with eyes off the road warning which would be a boon for sleepy drivers (who hopefully take a hint and pull over).

The autonomous braking was awesome and decided to kick in just before I pressed the brake pedal when someone slowed to avoid someone else pulling out on open road. I hovered my foot above the pedal to see what happened as it braked fairly heavily. It was conservative but quicker to react than I was. In certain circumstances it will save collisions I'm sure. I was well impressed.

Cue detractors of technology, making us worse drivers blah blah. Go.

I'm a terrible driver (ask SWMBO) and all those things sound good to me.

[actungbaby]

Very strange reporting (if it can be called that) by Stuff again

Initially there is a non biased report on the judgement and suddenly and opinion piece from the AA. The original piece was sensible I thought but I suppose this makes better click bait.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/119814892/driving-at-148kmh-is-always-going-to-be-dangerous-on-nz-roads-says-the-automobile-aassociation

By the AA's thinking 50kph will always be dangerous as well. Even walking has an element of danger and of course the AA always knows more that the Judge - pfft...Yeah I was in court .there kid lived next door to this cop.was ovbovious cop had in for him.judge goes to him I got word of cop of 30 years or yours
I was thinking this cop threaten to frame my dad.because my dad was bit outspoken.so am thinking he but of a prick.

Sent from my CPH1941 using Tapatalk

[actungbaby]

Not entirely correct. Grip and aerodynamics play a big role when cars start exceeding 100+ kmph. Suzuki Swift doing 148 kmph is more likely to contribute to loss of control, versus Lamborghini Avantador at the same speed, driver ability and road conditions.Not to mention wheelbase and also engine just ticking over in comparison . brakes car like chould reach brake to standstill quicker.

Sent from my CPH1941 using Tapatalk

[actungbaby]

In others opions whould be safe to have this on motorbikes .

Sent from my CPH1941 using Tapatalk

[BadSarah]

Oh yes -

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fGj66EeEqts" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Changing into top gear at 180ks... in a Suzuki swift... although the speedo appears to read 10k over, wow.

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

[SPman]

Test drove a Swift Sport at car replacement time. Went well, nimble, light but built like crap and the seats were too narrow. Went with an i30 SR manual, without most of the " safety features".... heavier but feels more stable at speed and with 200 hp and higher torque, has a far stronger midrange...