Setting Of Speed Limits - Consultation [Archive]

rastuscat

20th June 2024, 13:51

If speed limits concern you...........

The Government has opened consultation on how speed limits are going to be set in future. The legislation around this is called the Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits Rule 2024

Feedback is sought on

Proposal 1 – require cost benefit analysis for speed limit changes
Proposal 2 – strengthen consultation requirements
Proposal 3 – require variable speed limits outside school gates
Proposal 4 – introduce a Ministerial Speed Objective
Proposal 5 – changes to speed limits classifications
Proposal 6 - update the Director’s criteria for assessing speed management plans for certification
Proposal 7 – reverse recent speed limit reductions

Other matters are also discussed.

The consultation is open to individuals, organisations or groups, and I encourage you to express your view on how speed limits will be set in the future.

There are two options for making a submission

Download the consultation document, fill it out, return it to the email address on the website.
Make your submission online, via the website.

The consultation can be found here

https://consult.transport.govt.nz/.../setting-of-speed.../

HenryDorsetCase

20th June 2024, 18:49

Speed signs are optional. They're guidelines for the weak-willed. Go as fast as you want, wherever you want. Do eeeet!

Grumph

20th June 2024, 19:22

Speed signs are optional. They're guidelines for the weak-willed. Go as fast as you want, wherever you want. Do eeeet!

If this is drumming up business, where's the link to download your professional card ?

SaferRides

21st June 2024, 06:32

I like Proposal 7! It seems speed limits continue to be reduced despite my understanding that this process was put on hold at the end of last year.

SH25A in Coromandel has gone from a temporary 80 limit over summer to a blanket 80.

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

F5 Dave

21st June 2024, 08:09

Go on.
Ride fast. Take risks. :banana:

R650R

21st June 2024, 10:32

R650R

21st June 2024, 10:34

Rastus your link said not working so try this

https://consult.transport.govt.nz/policy/setting-of-speed-limits-2024-consultation/

HenryDorsetCase

21st June 2024, 11:38

If this is drumming up business, where's the link to download your professional card ?

not my area of expertise... but let me refer you to my colleague:

Berries

22nd June 2024, 00:02

Just a few tips people.

To be successful in this process you need to write reasons or examples about how your life is impacted by the previous or proposed changes, don’t just say going slow sucks.

For example on number 7 talk about the negative impacts on your work life balance longer journey times is creating. Fatigue from the journey taking longer etc.
I think you are pissing up the wall re Proposal 7. It was the Councils that decided to take the 30km/h speed limits way past the school area and cover larger urban areas so they aren't going to backtrack on that. Dunedin is a good example as they jumped in with both feet on that particular aspect of the Rule. The only way those speed limits will change is if there has been a change in council staff.

Rural road speed limit reversals in Proposal 7 are confined to state highways. A lot of NZTA areas simply never got round to lowering them for fear of a public backlash so no change there. Where they did change the speed limits it is because that is where they have the people who bought into the previous speed limit regime and I can't see them changing their views. For councils that did do a blanket drop of the 100km/h limit to 80 like Invercargill there is no requirement to move them back up to 100. With the cost of replacing all the signs once again that won't happen.

Looks good on paper, pretty meaningless in reality.

I don't know why nobody took up my idea of getting rid of all the 100km/h signs and putting the derestricted signs back up. Then each new Minister of Transport could decide what the sign meant and at one fell swoop the open road speed limit nationwide could be 60, 80, 100 or whatever said suit feels like it should be. Or 200km/h for me and F5 Dave.

But above all contribute something even if you can only muster a few sentances.
And always run a quick spell check before submitting it.

F5 Dave

22nd June 2024, 09:22

200! Go for Coma.:devil2:

SaferRides

22nd June 2024, 13:33

I think you are pissing up the wall re Proposal 7. It was the Councils that decided to take the 30km/h speed limits way past the school area and cover larger urban areas so they aren't going to backtrack on that. Dunedin is a good example as they jumped in with both feet on that particular aspect of the Rule. The only way those speed limits will change is if there has been a change in council staff.

Rural road speed limit reversals in Proposal 7 are confined to state highways. A lot of NZTA areas simply never got round to lowering them for fear of a public backlash so no change there. Where they did change the speed limits it is because that is where they have the people who bought into the previous speed limit regime and I can't see them changing their views. For councils that did do a blanket drop of the 100km/h limit to 80 like Invercargill there is no requirement to move them back up to 100. With the cost of replacing all the signs once again that won't happen.

Looks good on paper, pretty meaningless in reality.

I don't know why nobody took up my idea of getting rid of all the 100km/h signs and putting the derestricted signs back up. Then each new Minister of Transport could decide what the sign meant and at one fell swoop the open road speed limit nationwide could be 60, 80, 100 or whatever said suit feels like it should be. Or 200km/h for me and F5 Dave.

And always run a quick spell check before submitting it.

It's very easy to change back to the 100 limit. Remove all of the 80 (and 60) signs, then replace the sign where the limit changes to 100. Only one new sign required and there will be plenty of volunteers to remove the 80 signs!

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

F5 Dave

22nd June 2024, 18:09

Velcro?

.

.
.

pete376403

4th July 2024, 10:39

It's very easy to change back to the 100 limit. Remove all of the 80 (and 60) signs, then replace the sign where the limit changes to 100. Only one new sign required and there will be plenty of volunteers to remove the 80 signs!

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

Like those enormously expensive electronic speed signs that were installed in Ngauranga Gorge many years back and which have stayed on 80 ever since

SaferRides

11th July 2024, 17:57

Submissions close TODAY!!! https://consult.transport.govt.nz/policy/setting-of-speed-limits-2024-consultation/consultation/intro/

rastuscat

17th July 2024, 13:14

Hope anyone who has an opinion (is there anyone who doesn't?) took the time to express themselves.

onearmedbandit

17th July 2024, 14:14

https://www.thepress.co.nz/nz-news/350343565/first-responders-clash-state-highway-75-speed-limit-debate/?utm_source=stuff_article&utm_medium=referral

rastuscat

17th July 2024, 16:14

https://www.thepress.co.nz/nz-news/350343565/first-responders-clash-state-highway-75-speed-limit-debate/?utm_source=stuff_article&utm_medium=referral

Yes, read that.

The time savings from higher speeds are often (and normally) over estimated. I do wonder how productive people are in the 3 minutes they save by going faster. Apart from ordering coffee and scratching their backside.

onearmedbandit

17th July 2024, 16:58

Yes, read that.

The time savings from higher speeds are often (and normally) over estimated. I do wonder how productive people are in the 3 minutes they save by going faster. Apart from ordering coffee and scratching their backside.

I've always thought the same, that the claims of time gains on most peoples journeys from a 20kmh difference would be negligible at most.

jellywrestler

17th July 2024, 20:43

Yes, read that.

The time savings from higher speeds are often (and normally) over estimated. I do wonder how productive people are in the 3 minutes they save by going faster. Apart from ordering coffee and scratching their backside.

maybe, but how do you quantify the frustration factor of silly limits, and the boredom factor when they go on for an hour or so, like between blenheim and nelson when you're at the same limit as trucks, and got a big white wall in front of you with not a fucking added passing lane to get past? That promotes sleep

Gremlin

18th July 2024, 00:21

That promotes sleep
This is the crux for me. Nothing to focus on = boredom = mind wanders = not paying attention = increased risk. Not able to overtake = frustration = more risky behaviour.

Just magically reducing the speed doesn't fix this, but it does reduce the kinetic energy in a crash. However, this argument has flaws. Why don't you make it even slower (note, I absolutely don't want this)? I mean, less energy, less chance of dying, so these people are basically saying, some deaths are OK, the speed is reasonable. Well, that's an opinion, just like those that want it higher (and effectively are happy with more dying).

The statistics show that speed isn't the biggest contributor, well, if you reduce the speed limit, I'd argue you're trying to shift the numbers to make it so it does look like a bigger contributor (ie, if crashes were occurring at 90kph, in a 100kph, that's OK, but in an 80kph zone, oooh, that's bad). The authorities keep saying that the limit is not a target, sure, but when you put the speed limit at an artificially low level, then yes, it does become a target, because you can more easily exceed it from "natural" driving/riding, meaning you need to keep more of an eye on your speed.

I've come across drivers incapable of maintaining 60kph on open (100kph) roads, reducing the speed limit is going to have absolutely no effect on their comprehension of how to turn a steering wheel to change the direction of the tyres.

SaferRides

18th July 2024, 03:39

Hope anyone who has an opinion (is there anyone who doesn't?) took the time to express themselves.
Yes, anyone else? I did it as a business owner and emphasised the additional costs because of increased travel time, and also how confusing the speed limit changes are in places.

The consultation document itself was very interesting. MoT could not quantify what difference changing back to the previous limits would make to accident rates.

Rastuscat may correct me, but the only study I am aware of on the effects of the lower limits is the flawed AT report carried out during the Covid period.

Basically, if the rule is adopted, all limits will revert to what they were before the 2020 Rule by July 2025 unless the regulatory authority can justify a reduction based on the criteria in the new rule.

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

SaferRides

18th July 2024, 03:41

https://www.thepress.co.nz/nz-news/350343565/first-responders-clash-state-highway-75-speed-limit-debate/?utm_source=stuff_article&utm_medium=referralThe poll so far overwhelmingly supports changing back to the old limit!

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

F5 Dave

18th July 2024, 07:53

Well all that, and going faster is more fun.
Just sayin.

Berries

18th July 2024, 13:35

Hope anyone who has an opinion (is there anyone who doesn't?) took the time to express themselves.
I have an opinion.

After working on the development of the 2003 Rule and training people around the country in how to set speed limits based on roadside development and after writing the speed limit bylaw for many councils around New Zealand I found that 20 years later I was having to help councils implement the 2022 Rule. Hand on heart I found I was fundamentally opposed to a lot of what I was being forced to do so in the end I quit my job and ended a career that I celebrated starting by buying my first motorbike in the late 80's, a shiny black KMX125. May it rest in pieces.

I think the GP hit the nail on the head in the story linked above. Not sure why that link is subscriber only, this one isn’t - https://www.thepress.co.nz/a/nz-news/350343565/first-responders-clash-over-akaroa-highway-speed-limits. After attending and/or investigating over 200 fatal crashes in the last 20 years I have to agree with him. Every single fatal crash I have been to had speed as a factor and yet there was not one of them where speed was the only factor involved. Very few of the crash outcomes that I have seen would have been altered with a lower speed limit unless you make an awful lot of assumptions about road user behaviour which, as a short drive in New Zealand should tell anybody, is an assumption too far.

We cannot go back to 1900 and start again, we have to accept basic facts and move forward. We have to accept that we do not have the same road network as Sweden, we do not have the same vehicle fleet and we sure as hell don't have the same attitude to driving that they do. The reality is that people will die on our roads, it is the simple result of moving human bodies in metal containers at a speed above walking pace. Continuing to ignore that reality means that we will never make any real progress. Road to Zero and Safe Systems are nice sound bites but nothing substantial has been done to actually achieve them. Quality road policing seems to have disappeared around the same time that the LTSA got the arse back in 2007 or whenever and new driver training is pretty poor from what I have experienced recently. The only safety advance I can think of in recent years is the wider use of rumble strips.

I could rant for hours but it is pointless, as would have been expressing myself by way of a submission. There may be a new sheriff in town but you have the same people at the MOT and NZTA so nothing will change. The councils who didn't really buy into the way things were going have not implemented their speed management plans so will be very happy to just drop them. The councils who brought into it already have their signs up and they won't change their views either.

Thanks for listening.

Well all that, and going faster is more fun.
What she said.

onearmedbandit

18th July 2024, 13:52

I Not sure why that link is subscriber only, this one isn’t - https://www.thepress.co.nz/a/nz-news/350343565/first-responders-clash-over-akaroa-highway-speed-limits.

It's not. I'm not a subscriber and it works fine for me. Not sure why it wouldn't for you.

Berries

18th July 2024, 14:34

Very weird. I saw the article yesterday and it opened fine but clicking on your link I get the picture below. They do have different URLs.

The one I can see - https://www.thepress.co.nz/a/nz-news/350343565/first-responders-clash-over-akaroa-highway-speed-limits

The one I cannot see - https://www.thepress.co.nz/nz-news/350343565/first-responders-clash-state-highway-75-speed-limit-debate/?utm_source=stuff_article&utm_medium=referral

I always knew they were watching me.

R650R

18th July 2024, 19:56

Yes, read that.

The time savings from higher speeds are often (and normally) over estimated. I do wonder how productive people are in the 3 minutes they save by going faster. Apart from ordering coffee and scratching their backside.

Yes many people waste their time saved. A good average speed trip time is easiest achieved by not stopping. And that’s also how safety advocates measure trip time effects of lower limits, it’s all fine and dandy on paper.
But in real world that little bit of extra speed here and there to execute an overtake pays dividends that aren’t visible unless your in business of moving on highways instead of monitoring them.
That little bit extra gets you past that truck before last passing lane ends.
It gets you to roadworks lights stop/go while it’s still in your favour.
It gets you past the incompetent driver that will sit at major junction missing several safe opportunities to pull out.
It’s all a moot argument anyway as our population rapidly grows the shear volume of traffic becomes the defacto to speed limiter. In fact we’d do well to just do away with limits and just make a law called unsafe behaviour where if your technique or speed is significantly different to traffic flow you get fined and your visible attitude and fatigue level would be part of it too. That would really make people think about their behaviour.

SaferRides

20th July 2024, 03:24

I have an opinion.

After working on the development of the 2003 Rule and training people around the country in how to set speed limits based on roadside development and after writing the speed limit bylaw for many councils around New Zealand I found that 20 years later I was having to help councils implement the 2022 Rule. Hand on heart I found I was fundamentally opposed to a lot of what I was being forced to do so in the end I quit my job and ended a career that I celebrated starting by buying my first motorbike in the late 80's, a shiny black KMX125. May it rest in pieces.

I think the GP hit the nail on the head in the story linked above. Not sure why that link is subscriber only, this one isn’t - https://www.thepress.co.nz/a/nz-news/350343565/first-responders-clash-over-akaroa-highway-speed-limits. After attending and/or investigating over 200 fatal crashes in the last 20 years I have to agree with him. Every single fatal crash I have been to had speed as a factor and yet there was not one of them where speed was the only factor involved. Very few of the crash outcomes that I have seen would have been altered with a lower speed limit unless you make an awful lot of assumptions about road user behaviour which, as a short drive in New Zealand should tell anybody, is an assumption too far.

We cannot go back to 1900 and start again, we have to accept basic facts and move forward. We have to accept that we do not have the same road network as Sweden, we do not have the same vehicle fleet and we sure as hell don't have the same attitude to driving that they do. The reality is that people will die on our roads, it is the simple result of moving human bodies in metal containers at a speed above walking pace. Continuing to ignore that reality means that we will never make any real progress. Road to Zero and Safe Systems are nice sound bites but nothing substantial has been done to actually achieve them. Quality road policing seems to have disappeared around the same time that the LTSA got the arse back in 2007 or whenever and new driver training is pretty poor from what I have experienced recently. The only safety advance I can think of in recent years is the wider use of rumble strips.

I could rant for hours but it is pointless, as would have been expressing myself by way of a submission. There may be a new sheriff in town but you have the same people at the MOT and NZTA so nothing will change. The councils who didn't really buy into the way things were going have not implemented their speed management plans so will be very happy to just drop them. The councils who brought into it already have their signs up and they won't change their views either.

Thanks for listening.
.
For me, the most telling part of the consultation document was that MoT was unable to quantify the effect on accident rates from increasing the speed limits. The corollary must then be true, which is that they did not know what effect reducing them would have.

And in the meantime, the carnage on our roads continues.

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

Berries

20th July 2024, 09:49

For me, the most telling part of the consultation document was that MoT was unable to quantify the effect on accident rates from increasing the speed limits.
Over the last few years the MoT and NZTA have overseen a complete meltdown of their once world leading crash database. They don't even have accurate figures for the number of people killed and seriously injured on the roads anymore. Any NZ based stats that use those figures should be taken with a pinch of salt.

And in the meantime, the carnage on our roads continues.
And will continue to do so regardless of which way this consultation goes.

rastuscat

21st July 2024, 18:19

Over the last few years the MoT and NZTA have overseen a complete meltdown of their once world leading crash database. They don't even have accurate figures for the number of people killed and seriously injured on the roads anymore. Any NZ based stats that use those figures should be taken with a pinch of salt.

And will continue to do so regardless of which way this consultation goes.

Thing with CAS is the way the data is collected.

Cops who attend crashes have a variety of pressures which adversely effect the quality of the information which makes its way into the database.

Yet people drawing information out of CAS seem to think it accurately reflects the crashes that have been reported.

Its still valuable in terms of establishing trends, as long as we can feel confident thays its inaccuracy is consistent.

Alternate data sources are thin on the ground. ACC only reports those crashes that injure people. There's no consistent reporting of insurance data, or hospital admissions.

I saw a SPOT (single point of truth) report a while back which was a review of all the various sources. Its the best analysis I've seen. But its very expensive to do, so unlikely to survive budget constraints.

Berries

21st July 2024, 19:36

Thing with CAS is the way the data is collected.

Cops who attend crashes have a variety of pressures which adversely effect the quality of the information which makes its way into the database.

Yet people drawing information out of CAS seem to think it accurately reflects the crashes that have been reported.

More than happy to cut the guys on site some slack. Problem is when they say a crash is serious and describe the injuries which are clearly serious and it gets recorded as minor you would think that NZTA would want to correct the data when told. Nope. Took this to director level at MOT and NZTA and none of them give a shit. At least 30% of serious injury crashes were incorrect in some areas.

I cared for a while as it was my job. Now it isn't I am less bothered.

rastuscat

22nd July 2024, 08:39

More than happy to cut the guys on site some slack. Problem is when they say a crash is serious and describe the injuries which are clearly serious and it gets recorded as minor you would think that NZTA would want to correct the data when told. Nope. Took this to director level at MOT and NZTA and none of them give a shit. At least 30% of serious injury crashes were incorrect in some areas.

That's the thing. CAS is really valuable, as long as anyone using the data is cognisant of the pitfalls of the data collection.

I've done hundreds if not thousands of crash reports, having started at ACC Traffic before the 5 page crash report was a thing. I know how the way data is collected influences the analysis. Even the mindset of the data collector influences the resulting assumptions.

The key is for whoever is taking the data to realise that it has drawbacks.

rastuscat

23rd July 2024, 10:27

This is the crux for me. Nothing to focus on = boredom = mind wanders = not paying attention = increased risk. Not able to overtake = frustration = more risky behaviour.

Just magically reducing the speed doesn't fix this, but it does reduce the kinetic energy in a crash. However, this argument has flaws. Why don't you make it even slower (note, I absolutely don't want this)

That's the balance that we need to accept as a society. Efficiency v Safety. I guess the problem is human error, which few of us think we will commit.

Obviously the economic effect of everyone going 30 kmh everywhere would be too great. Even if it meant a 90% reduction in death and serious injury, which it likely would.

So we need to settle on the amount of trauma we are prepared to tolerate in return for increased mobility. The balance has swung between the last government and the current one, which is why this issue arose.

We hear of those who want to be allowed to go everywhere at whatever speed they want, because they are awesome drivers. Okay, so if the population as a whole can prove they are awesome drivers, maybe that would work.

But are we all awesome drivers? Given the number of deaths and serious injuries we collectively cause and suffer, it seems unlikely. But we are all human.

The human trait of optimism bias causes us all to believe that we won't crash. So we believe that the speed we travel at shouldn't be limited, as we aren't going to crash. Which rather flies in the face of the evidence.

Because crashes happen every day to people who didn't think they would.

Berries

23rd July 2024, 11:06

And then you get this rubbish -

temporary-speed-reduction-after-spate-highway-crashes (https://www.odt.co.nz/regions/south-canterbury/temporary-speed-reduction-after-spate-highway-crashes)

A lower speed limit for the next six weeks for a weather related temporary issue. I can almost guarantee there will be a few signs thrown up and no positive traffic management to force a speed reduction yet due to the media reaction over a couple of crashes the Police will have to be out there pinging people for speeding.

Obviously they won't be out when it is foggy as you can't see shit or when it is icy because the risk is too high so the likelihood is they will be there when the fog has lifted, the ice has gone and there is no reason not to be able to do the national speed limit. Anybody would think that the technology is not available to have a sign turn on when the temperature drops to a certain level. Oh hang on, they already use them.

This knee jerk reaction then gets shafted by the fire brigade saying 50-60km/h is a safe speed when it is icy, apparently even when it is so icy you can't even stand up on the road. Top advice that.

rastuscat

23rd July 2024, 12:27

This knee jerk reaction then gets shafted by the fire brigade saying 50-60km/h is a safe speed when it is icy, apparently even when it is so icy you can't even stand up on the road. Top advice that.

I work at a local council these days, where people expect us to grit every frozen spot, so they can continue to do 1000 kmh wherever they want.

Despite the fact that grit only adds about 10% to the coefficient of friction of any slippery road, so doesn't really solve the problem, it only partially mitigates the risk. Then presents a risk to motorcyclists, well after the ice has gone.

Oh, I'm sorry, it's not safe to do 1000 kmh everywhere.

Berries

23rd July 2024, 14:58

Fucking hell. 50km/h for 28km of rural road for six weeks because three people failed to drive to the conditions during a cold spell.

Overkill much?

rastuscat

24th July 2024, 08:53

354844

Just in case you hadn't see it.

Simeon insists on making decisions based on evidence. Here it is.

Berries

24th July 2024, 23:27

No shit Sherlock - concern-motorists-may-ignore-changed-speed-limits (https://www.odt.co.nz/regions/south-canterbury/concern-motorists-may-ignore-changed-speed-limits)

Anyway, should also mention in relation to post #31 that another example of the poor crash data quality is the number of actual SH crashes now being classed as local road crashes. Any data like that shown above which shows a reduction in the rate of SH crashes should take this into account yet it is an issue that has been pretty much kept quiet. I would take any crash stats that are used to try and prove a point with a pinch of salt. it is pretty bloody easy to use the same data to prove the opposite view.

SaferRides

25th July 2024, 15:02

Just in case you hadn't see it.

Simeon insists on making decisions based on evidence. Here it is.I'm sure there is some dubious data shown there. For those of us old enough to remember, the SH2 90 limit was introduced in connection with realignment of the most dangerous section of the road. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but if there was a period after the road realignment before the 90 limit on the remaining road, it was not very long. It won't be the only example in that figure.

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

rastuscat

26th July 2024, 12:23

I'm sure there is some dubious data shown there. For those of us old enough to remember, the SH2 90 limit was introduced in connection with realignment of the most dangerous section of the road. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but if there was a period after the road realignment before the 90 limit on the remaining road, it was not very long. It won't be the only example in that figure.

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

I drive through Weka Pass 8 times a week. It was 100 kmh before the 2016 Kaikoura Earthquake, and reduced to 80 kmh a short time after the Eq.

In the 7 years before the speed reduction on 1 July 2017 there were 35 crashes categorised as death or serious injury crashes.

In the 7 years since 1 July 2017, there have been 17.

Little else changed, just the speed limit. Have we all suddenly become better drivers? I think not.

And yet lots of people I speak to maintain that it should go back to 100 kmh, as they were perfectly safe at that speed.

See, nobody thinks they will crash, until they do. But then it's too late.

R650R

27th July 2024, 14:55

I drive through Weka Pass 8 times a week. It was 100 kmh before the 2016 Kaikoura Earthquake, and reduced to 80 kmh a short time after the Eq.

In the 7 years before the speed reduction on 1 July 2017 there were 35 crashes categorised as death or serious injury crashes.

In the 7 years since 1 July 2017, there have been 17.

Little else changed, just the speed limit. Have we all suddenly become better drivers? I think not.

And yet lots of people I speak to maintain that it should go back to 100 kmh, as they were perfectly safe at that speed.

See, nobody thinks they will crash, until they do. But then it's too late.

It would be interesting to see these crash rates referenced against other routes unchanged. For example I know avoid some 80k routes for my recreational rides cause 80 sucks. Now how many other people are perhaps doing same? Even say a 10% drop in usage would reduce crash rates because the other party has to be there in right place at wrong time. A bit like how congestion can reduce crashes purely because you can’t pull out to pass to start with.

Let’s not forget two years of crippling lockdowns on travel, reduced migration and tourism activity, reduced economic activity and older less safe vehicles slowly leaving the fleet.

onearmedbandit

27th July 2024, 16:50

This I agree with. I know of quite a number of riders who no longer ride to Akaroa, there will be plenty more I don't know of. This alone will count towards a reduction in crashes. Oh well net result is the same.

rastuscat

29th July 2024, 08:16

It would be interesting to see these crash rates referenced against other routes unchanged. For example I know avoid some 80k routes for my recreational rides cause 80 sucks. Now how many other people are perhaps doing same? Even say a 10% drop in usage would reduce crash rates because the other party has to be there in right place at wrong time. A bit like how congestion can reduce crashes purely because you can’t pull out to pass to start with.

Let’s not forget two years of crippling lockdowns on travel, reduced migration and tourism activity, reduced economic activity and older less safe vehicles slowly leaving the fleet.

The speed reduction in Weka Pass on 1/7/17 was a direct result of SH1 being closed in late 2016 on the Kaikoura coast, and SH7 becoming the main road North. Traffic basically quadrupled. Crashes started to climb, quite a few as a result of overtaking manoeuvres arising from slower vehicles holding traffic up.

So to say that the decreased crashes were as a result of people not wanting to suffer the lower limit is a bit of a stretch. Covid didn't start until March 2020, and traffic went back to normal maybe 18 months to 2 years later.

Avoiding routes with lower limits is called displacement. It happens. But it's overall effect is marginal. If people want to go to Akaroa, they will go to Akaroa.

But if people want the roads to be a recreational space, they may be displaced by lower speed limits.

SaferRides

30th July 2024, 03:49

So how have traffic volumes and speeds changed over the periods before and after the limit was reduced, if the data exists?

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

Berries

30th July 2024, 07:17

So how have traffic volumes and speeds changed over the periods before and after the limit was reduced, if the data exists?
You could interpret it as crashes going up due to significant increases in unfamiliar traffic and then back to the way it was when SH1 reopened again 18 months later? I would check but have lost access to the database.

After the earthquake I had to do a driveover of the alternative route to SH1 to identify pinch points and potential safety issues, and there were shitloads. Am amazed a truck was not lost over the side in some spots. The problem was doing any kind of improvements was limited by the need to keep the road open. With the need to make sure crashes did not go through the roof NZTA went with the only option they had which was to lower the speed limit. Here it was the only quick fix given traffic was already causing issues but as in many other areas, and i am guessing here, once whatever problem was fixed they never came back to put the speed limit back to what it was.

But if people want the roads to be a recreational space, they may be displaced by lower speed limits.
The road is a recreational space for motorcyclists isn't it, unless commuting?

rastuscat

30th July 2024, 08:42

The road is a recreational space for motorcyclists isn't it, unless commuting?

It's fun to ride. That's why we choose bikes, I guess. Using the roads as a rec space is perfectly acceptable, in my view.

But using them as a play ground, well, maybe not so much.

rastuscat

30th July 2024, 08:47

Here it was the only quick fix given traffic was already causing issues but as in many other areas, and i am guessing here, once whatever problem was fixed they never came back to put the speed limit back to what it was.

Perhaps the realisation struck that the lower speed limit reduced the number and severity of crashes.

I note that the new draft Speed Limit Setting Rule has a category of road being "mountainous or hill corridors, being Roads where the alignment is tortuous". Weka Pass has it's share of hills and curves that likely justify that designation.

Berries

30th July 2024, 13:07

Perhaps the realisation struck that the lower speed limit reduced the number and severity of crashes.
Or the burning down of the Waipara Hotel in 2014 stopped drink driving in the area?

I imagine there has been zero detailed analysis of crashes to prove it either way which is a shame. If it was looked at in detail and a direct link made between the speed limit and crashes then I might believe it but most analysis is very broad brush and jumps too quickly to conclusions that just so happen to support the current road safety regime.

rastuscat

30th July 2024, 13:54

the current road safety regime.

The current road safety regime is more concerned with economic efficiency than safety.

I see this as confirmation bias. I see what I want to from the data, and others see what they want to. On the up side, I have one eye on other opinions too, unlike some.

Berries

30th July 2024, 16:31

Sorry, I meant "most analysis is very broad brush and jumps too quickly to conclusions that just so happen to support the road safety regime of that particular time.

18 months ago lower speed limits and median barriers were the go so the analysis that was being done would often show that there would be benefits by introducing one or the other when it was actually a bit of a stretch to claim some of those benefits. Some of the obvious disbenefits were totally ignored. All just part of the ever growing road safety gravy train.

FJRider

30th July 2024, 23:14

Speed signs are optional. They're guidelines for the weak-willed. Go as fast as you want, wherever you want. Do eeeet!

That is it in the purest sense of Motorcycling, and Personal Choices.

We all know the risks involved. And not just the risks of getting caught.

Just DO IT. You know you want to ... :sunny:

rastuscat

31st July 2024, 08:02

Sorry, I meant "most analysis is very broad brush and jumps too quickly to conclusions that just so happen to support the road safety regime of that particular time.

18 months ago lower speed limits and median barriers were the go so the analysis that was being done would often show that there would be benefits by introducing one or the other when it was actually a bit of a stretch to claim some of those benefits. Some of the obvious disbenefits were totally ignored. .

We are in an interesting time. 5 to 10 years from now we will be able to look back at the speed limits that have been reduced only to be reset to previous levels. That'll be a rich bed for research, based on efficiency v safety.

SaferRides

31st July 2024, 14:35

I recently did a return journey from Nelson to Westport in a rental after doing the journey on a motorbike a couple years ago. There are a couple of reduced speed limits in the hills before Murchison, and in your average small SUV (CX5) on a wet day, you wouldn't want to be going any faster in places. But on a motorbike they seemed stupidly slow.

It will be interesting to see what happens after the new rule comes into effect, as I can't see the government backing down on this issue. It's a pity that there is unlikely to be good quality data to make an assessment of the effects of the changes to the rule.

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

jellywrestler

31st July 2024, 17:16

We are in an interesting time. 5 to 10 years from now we will be able to look back at the speed limits that have been reduced only to be reset to previous levels. That'll be a rich bed for research, based on efficiency v safety.

or they can ban cars using a model like the asbestos debacle in new zealand, a zero tolerance policy driven entirely by those who make money from the stuff and their scare mongering.....

SaferRides

2nd August 2024, 22:34

The Herald appears to be on some kind of crusade against the rule change: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/expert-trauma-surgeon-says-speed-limit-increases-will-drive-up-deaths-injuries-traffic/PAYH7OV2H5GPPJ62KMM5QP3QAY/
This was on the front page today.

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

frogfeaturesFZR

3rd August 2024, 18:07

Apparently the Herald knows what’s best for the rest of us.:argh:
Excuse me, if I disagree
Rather sick of opinions being presented as news TBH

R650R

11th August 2024, 20:31

Interesting doco on road deaths in Texas. In this good old freedom loving part of America you get off with just a warning for the first four speed violations!! They can’t fine you until you’ve had your four warnings. And even if you’re going stupid fast that is bad enough to warrant a court appearance you get to carry on driving and will get off with a good lawyer.

At 30 million they have five times our population but worse stats. About 4300 killed last year, that’s a death every 2 hours. A serious crash happens once every minute and serious injury one person every two minutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHpLdYcg-Gk&pp=ygUSRGVhZGx5IHRleGFzIHJvYWRz

• The Fatality Rate on Texas roadways for
2023 was 1.45 deaths per hundred million
vehicle miles traveled. This is a 4.10%
decrease from 2022.
• Texas experienced a decrease in the
number of motor vehicle traffic fatalities.
The 2023 death toll of 4,283 was a
decrease of 2.81% from the 4,407 deaths
recorded in 2022.
• There were 15,219 serious injury crashes in
Texas in 2023 with 18,752 people
sustaining a serious injury*.
• The annual vehicle miles traveled in Texas
during 2023 reached 294.785 billion, an
increase of 1.34% over the 290.891 billion
traveled in 2022.
• Fatalities in traffic crashes in rural areas of
the state accounted for 52.84% of the
state’s traffic fatalities. There were 2,263
deaths in rural traffic crashes.
• Single vehicle, run-off the road crashes
resulted in 1,368 deaths in 2023. This was
31.94% of all motor vehicle traffic deaths in
2023.
• In 2023 there were 1,120 people killed in
crashes occurring in intersections or related
to an intersection.
• There were 635 people killed in head-on
crashes in 2023.
• There were no deathless days on Texas
roadways in 2023.
• There were five crashes that resulted in 6
or more fatalities in 2023.
• Saturday, September 9th was the deadliest
day in 2023 with twenty-five (25) persons
killed in traffic crashes. June and August
were the deadliest months with 390
persons killed.
• Based on reportable crashes in 2023:
� 1 person was killed every 2 hours
3 minutes
� 1 person was injured every 2
minutes 6 seconds
� 1 reportable crash occurred every
56 seconds
• Of all persons killed in vehicles where
restraint usage was applicable and usage
was known in 2023, 48.89% were reported
as not restrained when the fatal crash
occurred.
• 250,335 persons were injured in motor
vehicle traffic crashes in 2023.
• There were 599 motorcyclists (operators
and passengers) killed in 2023. forty
percent (40%) of motorcyclists killed were
not wearing helmets at the time of the
crash.
• Pedestrian fatalities totaled 807 in 2023.
This is a 0.98% decrease from 2022.
• Pedalcyclist fatalities totaled 105 in 2023.
This is a 15.38% increase from 2022.
• In 2023, there were 1,090 people killed in
motor vehicle traffic crashes where a driver
was under the influence of alcohol. This is
25.45% of the total number of people killed
in motor vehicle traffic crashes.
• During 2023, more DUI - Alcohol crashes
were reported in the hour between 2:00 am
and 2:59 am than any other hour of the day.
Also, more of these crashes occurred on
Sunday than any other day of the week.
• In 2023, there were 403 people killed in
crashes involving distracted driving. This is
an 17.25% decrease from 2022.
• There were no fatalities caused by a bridge
collapse in 2023.

rastuscat

12th August 2024, 07:48

• There were 599 motorcyclists (operators
and passengers) killed in 2023. forty
percent (40%) of motorcyclists killed were
not wearing helmets at the time of the
crash.

Not to say that helmets will save everyone, but I bet a few would have survived. It's actually an interesting commentary on state control. The anti-helmet argument is mostly around personal freedom.

They don't have ACC there, so the argument is different here.

Funny, while conducting a Basic Handling Skills Test a few years back, I had a client tell me he can't ride with gloves, as his hands aren't sensitive enough to feel the controls. Amazingly, when told he had no choice, or the test wouldn't happen, his hands suddenly developed sensitivity. Kind of miraculous, really. It was en example of someone taking a position, then finding reasons and "evidence" to support his position.

Confirmation bias. Happens all the time every day. I even find myself having to try to avoid it.

SaferRides

12th August 2024, 08:06

rastuscat

12th August 2024, 08:27

Wearing a helmet on a motorbike has been compulsory for as long as I can remember and I am struggling to remember the last time I saw someone without a helmet on the road, apart from the odd dirt bike rider.

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

Yes, that's not what I was saying. The Texas figures are just reflective of the personal choice argument gone wild.

pritch

12th August 2024, 09:41

Wearing a helmet on a motorbike has been compulsory for as long as I can remember a

Ahh but I can remember when helmets weren't compulsory unless you planned to exceed 30mph. You didn't need a helmet ii you were just riding around town. You put the helmet on to head out on the open road. The road toll was way higher then.

The US is umm different. It was reported that during the war in Iraq the US Marines were losing more marines to motorcycle accidents than to enemy action. The guys would come home with a heathy bank account having had virtually no opportunity to spend their pay while in Iraq. They could buy a new Hyabusa and head out on the road with no experience and no safety equipment with sadly predictable results.

onearmedbandit

12th August 2024, 09:54

The US is umm different. It was reported that during the war in Iraq the US Marines were losing more marines to motorcycle accidents than to enemy action. The guys would come home with a heathy bank account having had virtually no opportunity to spend their pay while in Iraq. They could buy a new Hyabusa and head out on the road with no experience and no safety equipment with sadly predictable results.

Yup, I have a couple facebook friends who talked about bans put on owning motorcycles on base because of this issue.

SaferRides

12th August 2024, 09:56

Yes, that's not what I was saying. The Texas figures are just reflective of the personal choice argument gone wild.I could have put it better. For some reason, helmet wearing in countries like NZ is a safety measure that has been universally adopted. Texas represents the other extreme.

The reasons for this reflect the very different attitudes to personal freedoms. Perhaps one reason for some of the policies of the present government, including the proposed rule, may represent a feeling that the previous government had gone too far?

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

rastuscat

12th August 2024, 10:58

Grumph

12th August 2024, 11:24

I could have put it better. For some reason, helmet wearing in countries like NZ is a safety measure that has been universally adopted. Texas represents the other extreme.

The reasons for this reflect the very different attitudes to personal freedoms. Perhaps one reason for some of the policies of the present government, including the proposed rule, may represent a feeling that the previous government had gone too far?

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

I note that the requirement to wear a helmet on a pushbike seems to have been forgotten.
It's been weeks since I last saw a cyclist wearing a helmet.

I'm going to assume that enforcement of this has fallen through the rather large gaps in the Police budget.
Do they still go to schools teaching the road code and safe cycling ?

onearmedbandit

12th August 2024, 11:29

Yeah I've noticed that too. Mind you in the past 3-4yrs I've noticed far less patrolling police cars than I can ever recall.

https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1008.html

rastuscat

12th August 2024, 11:33

I note that the requirement to wear a helmet on a pushbike seems to have been forgotten.
It's been weeks since I last saw a cyclist wearing a helmet.

I'm going to assume that enforcement of this has fallen through the rather large gaps in the Police budget.
Do they still go to schools teaching the road code and safe cycling ?

Yes, the NZTA Bike Ready programme is delivered through most schools in the country, and teaches about helmets.

https://bikeready.govt.nz/

You are right though, enforcement of this is fairly non existent. I have views on this which don't align with the belief that helmets make cycling safer.

Helmets discourage cycling, leading to deaths and medical problems from obesity. Which has only become obvious from decades of helmet laws. More people would cycle if they didn't have to wear helmets.

The only places cycling helmets are compulsory at NZ and Australia. What is it we know that the rest of the world doesn't?

Head injuries went down when helmets were introduced, but so did the number of people cycling, which also led to a reduction in head injuries. Cause or effect?

nerrrd

12th August 2024, 12:01

Helmets discourage cycling, leading to deaths and medical problems from obesity. Which has only become obvious from decades of helmet laws. More people would cycle if they didn't have to wear helmets.

The hilly, windy and wet nature of Auckland was a far bigger factor in discouraging me from cycling than wearing a helmet ever was (and I have cycled as an adult, although I've never ridden an electric bicycle which might help with a couple of those).

neels

12th August 2024, 14:24

More people would cycle if they didn't have to wear helmets.
Personally I have no issue with wearing a helmet on a bike, simply because falling on your head from a couple of metres up or crashing into a tree is going to hurt.

I have talked to a number of people (mainly female) who would be quite happy to cycle the short distance to work, particularly where there are cycle lanes which mean they don't have to interact with other traffic, but won't because they like to have their hair looking nice and sticking on a helmet undoes an hour of effort to this end.

rastuscat

12th August 2024, 15:25

Personally I have no issue with wearing a helmet on a bike, simply because falling on your head from a couple of metres up or crashing into a tree is going to hurt.

The same mindset is shared by those who ride motorcycles in sleeveless leather vests. They aren't going to crash, you see, so have no need for protective gear.

In terms of cycle helmets, I can see the need when I am riding a road bike at 30 kmh on the Sunday bunch. But when doing 15 kmh to the shops to buy milk, I'm not convinced.

R650R

12th August 2024, 15:58

As a child of the 80’s I remember exactly why we got helmet laws. Some lady from down south ended up having to care for her son in a vegetative state after he got knocked off his bike.Nowadays he’d prob just die due to the response time of our overworked emergency services compounded by traffic delays.
Anyhow she made it a crusade to speak at just about every school in country. People deal with idea of death ok but the idea of lifelong care for permanently mental disability of your offspring swayed public opinion. About the same time Patricia Bartlett was trying to get pornography banned. Helmet lady took over the news cycle, Penthouse magazine survived and maybe a few cyclists as a result.

Everyone was in on its and we still had a domestic Mc helmet manufacturer back then too, Pacific. Can’t remember if they got into pushbike scene. If you saved 5 bread bags I think natures fresh subsidised your helmet purchase. So for awhile there were a lot of yellow and orange kids in their company colours.

I agree with rastus that we’ve probably gained greater health problems over all and a bit more freedom is better. But then I have seen long term health effects of a friend who slipped over backwards and had head injury on concrete floor. So I kinda don’t mind wearing it even on off highway cycle paths as just like motorbiking you don’t get to choose when you will crash.

onearmedbandit

12th August 2024, 16:07

The classic Stack Hat!

http://www.suzyj.net/2014/02/stackhat-iconic-brand-that-helped-kill.html

Berries

12th August 2024, 16:55

Personally I have no issue with wearing a helmet on a bike, simply because falling on your head from a couple of metres up or crashing into a tree is going to hurt.
My head is higher above ground when walking than it is while cycling but I am not wearing a helmet when walking to the pub, or back, when statistically I am more likely to have a head / concrete interaction than I would sober on a pushbike.

I have talked to a number of people (mainly female) who would be quite happy to cycle the short distance to work, particularly where there are cycle lanes which mean they don't have to interact with other traffic, but won't because they like to have their hair looking nice and sticking on a helmet undoes an hour of effort to this end.
It's not even that. I used to commute by pushbike in the UK and for my health I should ride a bike here but I have done so 3 or 4 times in over 20 years, purely because of the helmet laws. I get helmet hair from my Shoei, it's not that, it is being told what is good for me when I fundamentally disagree with that view. It would be better long term for me to cycle without a helmet than take the car and come home via the drive through. Basic shit, I'm not 9 years old anymore

nerrrd

12th August 2024, 17:11

And then I saw someone riding one of these these along the main road I live on this morning.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR1970AMj7ahqYnxslkJcWI3cbIbA_71 jwzUzB_Swlcz_w5wxPipUHWtX8&s=10

I think the rider was wearing a helmet, probably a good idea.

neels

12th August 2024, 19:28

In terms of cycle helmets, I can see the need when I am riding a road bike at 30 kmh on the Sunday bunch. But when doing 15 kmh to the shops to buy milk, I'm not convinced.
I completely agree.

Down the cycle lane on the commuter bike to Pak n Save to get some milk and waffles for breakfast a helmet seems somewhat redundant, and therefore don't bother to avoid the possible annoyance of getting ticketed for no helmet if there happens to be a cop passing who's bored enough or down on his quota for the week.

Kickaha

13th August 2024, 07:22

Funny, while conducting a Basic Handling Skills Test a few years back, I had a client tell me he can't ride with gloves, as his hands aren't sensitive enough to feel the controls. Amazingly, when told he had no choice, or the test wouldn't happen, his hands suddenly developed sensitivity. Kind of miraculous, really. It was an example of someone taking a position, then finding reasons and "evidence" to support his position.

Why? Gloves aren't a legal requirement for riding

I grew up not wearing cycle helmets, started wearing them when the law came in, now it is like my motorcycle, and I don't feel as safe if I don't wear one

rastuscat

13th August 2024, 08:13

Why? Gloves aren't a legal requirement for riding

There's an NZTA document called the statement of approved conditions. It's basically the rules around how things are required to be done.

One of the requirements is that rider has to have long pants, and long sleeves when doing the BHST. Basically, no skin under the chin.

So gloves are mandatory for that. It also encourages good habits, for those learning to ride.

SaferRides

14th August 2024, 10:03

Somone came on a group ride recently without gloves. He seems like a perfectly normal, intelligent person, but somehow thought riding a motorbike at speed without gloves was OK.

Someone had a quiet word and he's worn them ever since!

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

jellywrestler

14th August 2024, 18:40

, no skin under the chin.

.

I've been riding for near 50 years and never heard that, sounds like a catchy message wondering why one of the ride forever type organisations haven't used that, much more hip than ATGATT.

Berries

14th August 2024, 23:37

By default it must mean that skin above the chin is ok but pretty sure there will never be a campaign for open face helmets.

"Think about it" is all you need. If you aren't going to fall off you don't need any safety gear. If you are going to fall off you should stay at home. For the majority of us who sit between those two extremes you need to think about the consequences of coming off and protect yourself accordingly.

I am sure my essential riding gear will differ to yours but until one of us falls off it doesn't really matter, and I do my utmost not to fall off.

nerrrd

15th August 2024, 10:02

Saw the 'tall bike' rider again this morning, keeping up with the traffic in the outside lane on the four lane main arterial I live on, no helmet.

While I applaud his bravery, it does make me wonder if ACC should have an excess system for treatment based on whether the victim was taking their own (and others) safety into consideration in the event of an accident, payable on their recovery.

rastuscat

16th August 2024, 16:48

I've been riding for near 50 years and never heard that, sounds like a catchy message wondering why one of the ride forever type organisations haven't used that, much more hip than ATGATT.

I'll admit to having stolen the "no skin under the chin" phrase.

It's a rule for American service people who ride motorcycles, either on duty or not. The military got sick of losing staff to motorcycle injuries, so instituted a legal requirement for all staff to have "no skin under the chin" when riding bikes, off duty or not.

I guess you could just wear lycra, but that's not the point. They use it to keep their staff ready for deployment instead of lying in a burns ward recovering from road rash.

pritch

17th August 2024, 09:23

instead of lying in a burns ward recovering from road rash.

A new doctor is being shown around a Scottish hospital

As they enter one ward, the nearest patient turns to him and says "Fair fa' your honest sonsie face, great chieftain o' the pudden race!"

Before the doctor can react, the patient in the next bed adds "Wee sleekit cowerin' timorous beastie! O what a panic's in thy breastie!"

And not to be outdone, the third patient responds "Some ha' meat and cannae eat, and some wad eat that want it!"

The doctor murmurs to the orderly "So this is the mental health ward?"

"Och no!" replies the orderly.

"...it's the serious Burns Unit!"

R650R

20th August 2024, 13:12

Well here’s something that can prob be argued both ways but good example that root cause of crash is stupid actions. This is on what is now an 80k section of SH5 but most people in a decent vehicle would be cracking on a bit more to make use of last passing opportunity for awhile and same for oncoming passing lane that ends at same spot.
Logger would have been empty piggy backing trailer so good steering and braking.
NZTA will prob dig up road for 12 months to install barriers so she can do stupid upturn at another location…
When people ask why do trucks need to be in fast lane overtaking cars or camper and this is why. As per drivers comments you can read in advance that they are stupid and it’s better to be in front if chance arises.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350384196/watch-near-miss-car-tries-u-turn-front-truck-napier-taupo-road

SaferRides

20th August 2024, 22:11

pritch

21st August 2024, 13:38

U turns are dangerous especially when the cops do them.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/4867479/U-turn-cop-charged-over-death
https://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/former-cop-guilty-dangerous-driving

Berries

21st August 2024, 21:43

I'd be interested to know how many people die every year as a result of U turns. It can be a very dangerous manouvere, especially at open road speeds, as the the consequences of getting it wrong are usually severe.
I used to post a response to these questions but jacked in my job and no longer have access to the data. Safe to say however the number is fuck all in relation to the overall road toll. One that I do personally remember is one of those very very very few where I think it could have been me. Pissed twats pull a u-turn, bloke on his newly purchased mbike riding all legal etc comes around corner and has nowhere to go. Manages to scrub off enough speed that it should not be fatal but hits his head on the rear door frame and game over. Not nice, not deserved, could have been you or me.

If you look at motorcycle crash data you will find a higher proportion of these SMIDNSY crashes but overall they are not a big part of the the road toll.

SaferRides

21st August 2024, 22:24

I used to post a response to these questions but jacked in my job and no longer have access to the data. Safe to say however the number is fuck all in relation to the overall road toll. One that I do personally remember is one of those very very very few where I think it could have been me. Pissed twats pull a u-turn, bloke on his newly purchased mbike riding all legal etc comes around corner and has nowhere to go. Manages to scrub off enough speed that it should not be fatal but hits his head on the rear door frame and game over. Not nice, not deserved, could have been you or me.

One I remember was outside a friend's place near Te Kauwhata where a police car did a U turn just before a blind crest and a motorbike coming the other way went straight into the car. My friend gave up road riding after that.

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

rastuscat

28th August 2024, 17:33

I'll have a look at CAS tomorrow to find the U turn stats involving motorcycles.

I suspect more involve motorcycle rider problems than the well known Police U turn problems. But most crashes don't make the media, so don't enter the public consciousness.

Berries

31st August 2024, 08:37

I'd be interested to know how many people die every year as a result of U turns. It can be a very dangerous manouvere, especially at open road speeds, as the the consequences of getting it wrong are usually severe.

An average of four per year in the last five years. Two thirds on roads with speed limit above 70km/h. What is interesting is that when it comes to motorbike involvement over 70% of these crashes were on roads below 70km/h.

I'll have a look at CAS tomorrow to find the U turn stats involving motorcycles.

I suspect more involve motorcycle rider problems than the well known Police U turn problems. But most crashes don't make the media, so don't enter the public consciousness.
Here you go then, all according to the national crash database which has a variety of data quality issues.

54,677 crashes resulting in injury in last five years. 916 were u-turn crashes which is 1.7% of the total.

19 of these crashes were fatal which is 1.2% of the 1,514 fatal crashes on the database - certainly not a significant issue in the scheme of things.

As you would expect, well I would, motorbikes are well over represented in these figures with eight of the 19 crashes having them hit and the rider being killed.

There are three where the rider does not appear to have been doing anything wrong, in two cases a car pulled across their path, the third was never really established but it was motorbike vs motorbike.

Hate to say it, but as always the rider was not exactly squeaky clean in the other crashes. This is where it gets difficult because some of you may know some of the deceased. Some of you may even have been at the incident but there is no way to sugar coat things. Of the other five crashes all the bikes were exceeding the speed limit which means the driver could easily misjudge things. The three low level speeding (<30km/h over the limit) were all Harleys and hard not to note that two of the riders did not have a valid licence. The other two crashes were in 50km/h areas with the bikes doing 90 and 130km/h. I find it hard to blame the car driver when shit like that happens.

R650R

31st August 2024, 09:14

Good info Berries. It all comes back to the basics of being aware of what’s around you and planning for the worst. And a bit of lateral thinking is needed but sadly that only comes with age.
Eg when your younger man this hopeless loser up front is slow gotta get past him asap.
Now you think why is that road user going slow or inconsistent pace, what weird crap is he about to pull that could mess my day up bad. Have we just passed and orchard/shop/junction he may have missed his turn?
You have to wonder how many of those under 70s jobs are where a biker has used max acceleration in a cluttered urban environment that a frustrated car driver trying to get a gap for a turn just doesn’t comprehend.

SaferRides

4th September 2024, 02:19

Berries, thanks for the info. Good to know that U-turns are not a significant cause of car v. motorbike accidents.

rastuscat

10th September 2024, 21:25

Looks like speed limits are on the way up.

Now, look around you and choose which of your family or friends you are okay to lose in a road crash.

Because the numbers are gonna go up.

jellywrestler

10th September 2024, 21:44

Looks like speed limits are on the way up.

Now, look around you and choose which of your family or friends you are okay to lose in a road crash.

Because the numbers are gonna go up.

so speed and alcohol blah blah blah

when the fuck are the police going to actually police the roads on any offences other than speed and alcohol. The standard of driving is pretty retarded out there. and yet what is being done about it?

Berries

10th September 2024, 23:50

Now, look around you and choose which of your family or friends you are okay to lose in a road crash.
I'm not ok to lose any of my family in a crash so I tell them two things, drive to the actual conditions in front of you and treat everyone else as an idiot. An arbitrary speed limit based on 1960's vehicles and thinking does not even come into it. It is inappropriate speed that kills, not failure to comply with a road sign.

To me the problem seems to be that we don't actually tell new drivers what is inappropriate, we just point at a sign and send them on their way. Perhaps if we shifted all these resources away from speed for a short time and concentrated on some of the actual crash causing facets of driving we would see some improvements in the road toll. But hey, I'm a dreamer.

Seeing as you are being emotive though, can I choose my neighbour? He's a prick.

SaferRides

11th September 2024, 07:11

Looks like speed limits are on the way up.

Now, look around you and choose which of your family or friends you are okay to lose in a road crash.

Because the numbers are gonna go up.Not if you live the the Far North where the council is pushing ahead with lower limits:

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/far-north-district-council-under-fire-for-reducing-speed-limits-despite-government-mandate/BUKOQSXCLNH4JFJV77B4N2RVVY/

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

SaferRides

11th September 2024, 07:17

Looks like speed limits are on the way up.

Now, look around you and choose which of your family or friends you are okay to lose in a road crash.

Because the numbers are gonna go up.Has the new rule been finalised already?

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

jellywrestler

11th September 2024, 08:03

To me the problem seems to be that we don't actually tell new drivers what is inappropriate, we just point at a sign and send them on their way. Perhaps if we shifted all these resources away from speed for a short time and concentrated on some of the actual crash causing facets of driving we would see some improvements in the road toll. But hey, I'm a dreamer.

when was the last time anyone saw a sign re phone use while driving? The problem is rife.

How hard would it be to put the odd sign on a traffic light, e all stop at them, i'm sure it would go some way to influencing a percentage of those who seemed to have forgotten the law.

rastuscat

11th September 2024, 08:14

Has the new rule been finalised already?

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

Not yet, but it's going to be in line with the Ministerial directives. We could have guessed that from the wording of the consultation.

Ironically, the new govt has protested about blanket speed limits, and then said that 100 and 50 everywhere is what they expect. That's a blanket straight from the 50's right there.

SaferRides

11th September 2024, 08:25

Not yet, but it's going to be in line with the Ministerial directives. We could have guessed that from the wording of the consultation.

Ironically, the new govt has protested about blanket speed limits, and then said that 100 and 50 everywhere is what they expect. That's a blanket straight from the 50's right there.I wasn't around that long ago, but remember the LSZ - Limited Speed Zone - from when I started driving in the 70's. Not a silly idea, but no one seemed to know when to slow down and by how much!

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

rastuscat

11th September 2024, 08:35

when was the last time anyone saw a sign re phone use while driving?

Signs are recognised as having very little influence on behaviour. Especially behaviour that everyone already knows is against the rules.

The few studies that have been done have not shown signage as having any strong effect on changing driver behaviour.

In fact, many experts believe that the main purpose of traffic warning signs is not to reduce accidents but to provide liability protection for the agency that posts them.

Berries

11th September 2024, 09:30

In fact, many experts believe that the main purpose of traffic warning signs is not to reduce accidents but to provide liability protection for the agency that posts them.
I have never understood why we put advisory speeds on curves. In some conditions the advisory speed is way too fast for the corner, in other conditions way too conservative. And then two people will come up with a different advisory speed for the same corner given the neolithic way they are calculated. Then a crash will get the RCA reducing the advisory speed by 10km/h just to be on the safe side.

Would be better off with just the top sign if it was actually representative of the curve alignment and then hand things over to Darwin.

jellywrestler

11th September 2024, 09:52

Signs are recognised as having very little influence on behaviour..

very little, one life saved to certain people is not very little. A simple sign on a few traffic lights advising cell phones are not allowed to be used while your engine is running would be read by many, and if nothing else kids in the car will be able to read them out to their drivers.
That 'very little' is still something is it not?

Berries

10th October 2024, 18:24

SaferRides

11th October 2024, 06:51

pete376403

11th October 2024, 07:00

I just cannot believe how this guy is still alive. Does he not watch the adverts?

how-678-speeding-violations-boss-went-unnoticed (https://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/how-678-speeding-violations-boss-went-unnoticed)

As usual, insufficient data other than for the highest (ie greatest shock value) speed.

pritch

11th October 2024, 07:03

[emoji1]. Just lucky?

What's all the fuss? He never even cracked the ton. Close but no prize. :innocent:

Grumph

11th October 2024, 07:16

Like the fuss around the cops rushing Helen Clark to the airport some years back.

A general lack of knowledge of how straight, flat and generally pretty empty Canterbury roads are.

I tend to stick to the limits on the main roads - and I get passed a lot.
It's only when a cop is visible everyone obeys the limits.

roogazza

11th October 2024, 07:46

Like the fuss around the cops rushing Helen Clark to the airport some years back.

Haha Auntie Helen wanted to get to the Rugby ,can't remember who was playing ?

She was sat in the back reading the newspaper..... :shifty:<_<:confused:

R650R

11th October 2024, 13:59

Looks like speed limits are on the way up.

Now, look around you and choose which of your family or friends you are okay to lose in a road crash.

Because the numbers are gonna go up.

Perhaps someone could do the maths on that. For starters x amount of population would already be set to be involved in a bad crash under the old system, marked for it perhaps in some kind of Final Destination movie style sequence.
Raising speed limits will result in higher energy collisions but also will shift crash locations perhaps some that would have been marked for impact under old system might be saved as they will longer be in wrong place at wrong time.
Divided up amongst nearly five million people our current 300 people killed a year is tragic but so small in a statistical exposure that is evident in peoples attitude to road safety. So even another 50 or 100 added it’s still (and yes that would be terrible) it’s statically a small exposure risk.

One way or another at least in another five years we will have some pretty accurate data that will solve the argument properly.

R650R

11th October 2024, 18:46

when was the last time anyone saw a sign re phone use while driving? The problem is rife.

How hard would it be to put the odd sign on a traffic light, e all stop at them, i'm sure it would go some way to influencing a percentage of those who seemed to have forgotten the law.

Aren’t our new speed cameras going to detect phone use like in UK? It’s kinda just like speeding though people believe too much in their own ability and don’t realise how long their attention is diverted. It’s prob more dangerous than drunk driving, at least the pissheads are watching road looking out for a checkpoint to avoid.
It will prob take same amount of time to change culture like drink driving, really it took about a solid 20 years for it to become widespread unacceptable.
Followed a lady yesterday that flagged about traffic lights could see here reaching over reading txt’s, after about a km of easy urban stopping locations she finally pulled over and made a call, I doubt she realised just how much she wasn’t looking at.

R650R

11th October 2024, 18:49

I have never understood why we put advisory speeds on curves. In some conditions the advisory speed is way too fast for the corner, in other conditions way too conservative. And then two people will come up with a different advisory speed for the same corner given the neolithic way they are calculated. Then a crash will get the RCA reducing the advisory speed by 10km/h just to be on the safe side.

Would be better off with just the top sign if it was actually representative of the curve alignment and then hand things over to Darwin.

Yep always thought those were like rally driving pace notes for average joe. The original formula involved a morris 1100 and a marble on dashboard.
Go overseas and you just don’t see them we should get rid of them.

R650R

11th October 2024, 18:53

I just cannot believe how this guy is still alive. Does he not watch the adverts?

how-678-speeding-violations-boss-went-unnoticed (https://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/how-678-speeding-violations-boss-went-unnoticed)

Amateur… mate had 3500 in linehaul truck and it got thrown out in court as cops presented it as hearsay evidence and couldn’t say where the data was stored(integrity of evidence issue).

SaferRides

10th November 2024, 09:58

I was out for a ride north of Auckland yesterday and it struck me just how many roads will be affected by the rule change. One example is the old SH1 from Puhoi to Warkworth, which for some reason had the limit reduced to 80 the year before the new motorway opened. It carries almost no traffic now and should be perfectly safe at 100. It is of course heavily patrolled by the police!

It will be interesting to see what happens after the limits are reset next year. Will people drive faster again, or perhaps continue at reduced speeds?

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

rastuscat

11th November 2024, 17:47

I'm spending my days trying to work out the school zones the new rule says we have to use.

Most of them are sensible, but the rules throw up some pretty interesting scenarios.

The new rule basically says no district has to change any limits (other than the reversions they talked about), then says we have to change the zones around schools.

It's actually interesting trying to apply a rule written in Wellington to our 27 schools. I have some sympathy with whoever drafteed the new rule, which has to suit every school in the country. There's a good deal of interpretation required.

But we can change whatever we want and put up whatever signs we want. There'll be those who insist on their right to do whatever speed they regard as safe. As a community, few of us see the need to slow down. For those folk, we are hoping there's enforcement.

jellywrestler

12th November 2024, 10:12

rastuscat

29th January 2025, 10:43

355632

Well, it seems it's happening. In this mornings news.

F5 Dave

29th January 2025, 11:34

Featherston to masterton back to 100km/h. I try to avoid the direct route but it will please a lot of locals.
Beware July till implementation. I wonder if they stored the signs they took down.

Guess they had been replaced there since we went metric.

HenryDorsetCase

29th January 2025, 14:37

F5 Dave

29th January 2025, 16:00

Autobahn-NewZealand you reckon?

HenryDorsetCase

29th January 2025, 16:07

Autobahn-NewZealand you reckon?

every bahn is an autobahn if we're a libertarian

sugilite

29th January 2025, 18:07

R650R

29th January 2025, 19:44

Did I miss something - Napier Taupo road, one of the silliest ones of all in my opinion is not getting changed back? Huh??? They even had a "Jacinda did this" sign posted on it FFS :mad:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360563005/speed-limit-reduction-reversals-start

Yep you missed it. It’s there as rangataiki to Eskdale.
Conveniently we’ve just had a spate of major crashes everywhere locally so they won’t be able to say speed caused it.
Apparently the stats do say a drop in fatalities etc since reduction but let’s not forget we’ve had so much roadworks and congestion you can’t die if your stopped. Plus a lot of recreational road users have started away due to so much loose chip etc.

R650R

29th January 2025, 19:47

All the pseudo libertarians on here should be pestering their Jesus, David Seymour to remove all speed limits everywhere. Let the market decide who lives or dies and how fast you should go. Audi and BMW and 4x4 doublecab ute drivers already drive this way and its fine.

What are you doing driving comrade. The state has provided rail, bus and air travel for you to travel in safety. Yes it may be a long walk to some stations but it’s for the greater good. The exercise will help keep you fit and a lesser burden on health system.

HenryDorsetCase

29th January 2025, 20:52

What are you doing driving comrade. The state has provided rail, bus and air travel for you to travel in safety. Yes it may be a long walk to some stations but it’s for the greater good. The exercise will help keep you fit and a lesser burden on health system.

I am working many extra hours at tractor factory to ensure bountiful harvests assured by Marxist-Leninist ideology can be processed into food for the proletariat. I have no interest in going anywhere other than tractor factory and Party meetings which I can walk to.

onearmedbandit

29th January 2025, 21:36

I am working many extra hours at tractor factory to ensure bountiful harvests assured by Marxist-Leninist ideology can be processed into food for the proletariat. I have no interest in going anywhere other than tractor factory and Party meetings which I can walk to.

He lies! I saw him drive past my property the other day, even had a cheery smile on his face as he waved to me from behind the wheel of his personal automobile.

SaferRides

30th January 2025, 03:02

Let the market decide who lives or dies and how fast you should go. Audi and BMW and 4x4 doublecab ute drivers already drive this way and its fine.
The 110 section of the Waikato expressway seems to be heading this way. I rode down to Cambridge from Auckland one evening last month and did my usual 120 once the limit went to 110 at Hampton Downs. The traffic was light and maybe half the cars and utes were going faster. So I tried 130, and was still being passed, with the odd Audi or BMW going very quick.

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

sugilite

30th January 2025, 08:03

Yep you missed it. It’s there as rangataiki to Eskdale.

Thank you for pointing this out - thank goodness for that!

Does anyone know, did they do a blanket reversal, or did they take this on a case by case basis before making a decision on what roads speed changes get reversed, and which ones don't?

rastuscat

30th January 2025, 08:13

Thank you for pointing this out - thank goodness for that!

Does anyone know, did they do a blanket reversal, or did they take this on a case by case basis before making a decision on what roads speed changes get reversed, and which ones don't?

Some are being directly rolled back.

Others are undergoing public consultation, before a decision is made.

This has created confusion, as the public just expects new signs to be up on every road this morning, which is unrealistic. But that impresssion was created by the poor communication of the situation.

SaferRides

30th January 2025, 09:25

Some are being directly rolled back.

Others are undergoing public consultation, before a decision is made.

This has created confusion, as the public just expects new signs to be up on every road this morning, which is unrealistic. But that impresssion was created by the poor communication of the situation.More details on the consultation process on the NZTA website? The Stuff article looks like a cut and paste.

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

SaferRides

30th January 2025, 10:22

Here is the link. The consultation process under the 2024 rule goes beyond the local community, so have your say!
https://nzta.govt.nz/about-us/public-consultation-hub/current-consultations/regional-consultation-under-the-new-speed-rule/

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

R650R

30th January 2025, 15:07

Thank you for pointing this out - thank goodness for that!

Does anyone know, did they do a blanket reversal, or did they take this on a case by case basis before making a decision on what roads speed changes get reversed, and which ones don't?

Just be aware it’s generally patrolled daily now and the buggers work earlier and later than they used to.

SaferRides

31st January 2025, 06:18

I was going through the full list and noticed that SH25A is not included, even though the limit was only reduced last year.

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

sugilite

31st January 2025, 14:33

Just be aware it’s generally patrolled daily now and the buggers work earlier and later than they used to.

Yep, I always viewed the Napier Taupo as a liter bike road, thus ruling out any real fun to be had since it would be a license losing road if one were to cut loose.

I prefer more discrete roads, and even then "cutting loose" would account for about all of 3% of the ride - if that. I've been doing this one down below a bit lately, custom made for my RSV :yes:

https://andys-kawasaki-zxr-zx7r-tribute-site.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Screenshot-2025-01-31-151903.jpg

F5 Dave

31st January 2025, 15:08

Too long in the US has affected your spelling:bleh:

Berries

31st January 2025, 15:35

I prefer more discrete roads, and even then "cutting loose" would account for about all of 3% of the ride - if that. I've been doing this one down below a bit lately, custom made for my RSV :yes:

Why would you post your favourite route for cutting loose? It's like when MACA or whatever they are called wanted to know our favourite roads, Erm, no thanks. They are my favourite roads. I don't want them ruined by by having the corners straightened out, the speed limit reduced or having the Police patrol them.

sugilite

31st January 2025, 17:53

Why would you post your favourite route for cutting loose? It's like when MACA or whatever they are called wanted to know our favourite roads, Erm, no thanks. They are my favourite roads. I don't want them ruined by by having the corners straightened out, the speed limit reduced or having the Police patrol them.

Crikey, looks like I've been pulled by the fun police. :Police:
In my defense officer....
The roads like the one I posted, and others I do , the cutting loose parts almost always takes place through sections that one would not exceed 100 kph, despite it being a 100 kph listed road. Snotty tight roads are my nirvana.
The same roads in these tucked out of the way areas would never get the budget required to straighten them.
Pretty sure a post or 3 in KB (considering its posting numbers these days) would not have a lot of sway in getting speeds reduced.
My feeling is every road patrol officer already well knows where such motorcycle roads are in their designated patrol zones.
The ultimate fun police -the national party, through their targeted draconian ACC levies aimed at discouraging new riders have reduced us down to a number so small, the police are unlikely to have the budget to do stings on these far away roads with sparse amounts of motorcyclists. They are not even given the budget to clamp down on the masses of boy racers acting up right under their noses every Weekend.

For the purposes of this thread, I should probs should state my idea of cutting loose roads.
I must know these roads well. The sections of road in question must have no farm gates, no side roads, no corners that do not have at least one alternate action plan available to avoid unexpected shit, no tourist destinations along the way. Probably others I'm forgetting now, but would remember with a pair of handlebars in my hands. Hence the small percentage of cutting loose available.
And the last thing, the cutting loose 80's and 90's version of myself would have a stone cold cup of cappuccino waiting for the current version of myself as I'm now an old grey haired prick with much slower reaction times - thus ride accordingly.

Berries

31st January 2025, 20:33

And the last thing, the cutting loose 80's and 90's version of myself would have a stone cold cup of cappuccino waiting for the current version of myself as I'm now an old grey haired prick with much slower reaction times - thus ride accordingly.
Ha ha, I laugh at my old self and wonder how I would have survived back then with my current ride. Back in the UK 80's and 90's you weren't even speeding until you were doing 100mph so it was warp factor nine everywhere on a bike that didn't handle all that well. Now it is wart factor 2 with 170hp and I am worried about hitting 160km/h on a bike that can do it in the blink of an eye. It's explaining the loss of licence to the wife which is my main worry.

Once, just once, I would like a guarantee of no cops on the Crown Range so I could do a timed run.

onearmedbandit

31st January 2025, 21:05

Once, just once, I would like a guarantee of no cops on the Crown Range so I could do a timed run.

Phone in a b0mb threat lol

SaferRides

31st January 2025, 22:38

Once, just once, I would like a guarantee of no cops on the Crown Range so I could do a timed run.
Yeah, that's a fun ride. I rode it on the R1 and the brakes got a good workout going from the summit to the Cardrona pub.

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

Berries

31st January 2025, 22:48

Phone in a b0mb threat lol
The last time I did that I got into proper trouble.

sugilite

1st February 2025, 08:11

Ha ha, I laugh at my old self and wonder how I would have survived back then with my current ride. Back in the UK 80's and 90's you weren't even speeding until you were doing 100mph so it was warp factor nine everywhere on a bike that didn't handle all that well. Now it is wart factor 2 with 170hp and I am worried about hitting 160km/h on a bike that can do it in the blink of an eye. It's explaining the loss of licence to the wife which is my main worry.

Once, just once, I would like a guarantee of no cops on the Crown Range so I could do a timed run.
Ha, exactly! I always preferred UK bike mags over the American ones and the 80's scene over there in the UK sure looked freaking awesome with gaggles of RD's and the like running wild!

The last time I did that I got into proper trouble.
While your bomb threat plan certainly had elegance and was particularly time efficient, I feel I have (an admittedly elaborate but doable) plan to get you and your friends the Crown Ridge Road for an entire day. Not only cop free, but car and truck free too - then at the end of it have the fuzz instead of arresting you, request that you make it a annual, nay monthly event :banana: Read on.....

1. The night before, you and your mates go to a local road works area, set up a maze of cones and cunningly placed stop/go signs. Once trapped in the maze, in order for the conies (as I will now call them) to move the signs to "go" to get to the next part of the maze, is to have a small cone of weed. They will be stuck in there all day experiencing the hellscape they inflict upon us all on a daily basis. Perfect!

2. Re-appropriate their cone truck with temporary traffic lights.

3. Put out signs at each end of your "run" stating "Rock falls ahead, motorcycles only past this point". Fuck, cagers barely know what side mirrors are, so they wont think to question the signs.

4. Set up the temp traffic lights as timing devices for your runs, then use the same lights to get you all back to the start again once your runs are complete - safety first after all.

5. Post a well placed advert in facebook advertising a flash doughnut festival in Arrowtown attracting the police.

6. Set up fun tasks for the fuzz to complete such as a set of fake cell stairs with old mannequins atop wearing t-shirts with slogans such as "I'm your boss because my taxes pay your wages" and "I'm a sovereign citizen, you have no power over me". The winners of the quiz get to "assist" the mannequins down said cell stairs! Set up effigies of the police minister helpfully wearing a t-shirt reminding them of their recent pay negotiations stating "We ran on the blue then we fucked you". Winners get to light the effigies on fire! Have the bean counter non police officer personal that make ill informed police policy rounded up and placed in bunch of police car back seats in sweltering heat - wearing heavy stab proof vests cleaning out drunkards chunder deposited from the night before. In an everyone wins a prize moment, all the police get to feast upon a mountain of sweet, sweet sparkling sugar coated doughnuts at the end of the days competition. YUM!

7. At end of your event - return the cone truck to it's original position, the conies likely won't remember much of anything as their day won't of been that much different from their normal routine.

8. Get a crowbar out in a futile attempt to remove you and your buddies best day riding ever shit eating grins from your faces!

Do it - Do it now! :devil2:

HenryDorsetCase

1st February 2025, 10:41

HenryDorsetCase

1st February 2025, 10:44

Berries

1st February 2025, 11:01

Yes, and why Dunedin sucks arse. Two hours to Teretonga, two hours to Highlands and two hours to Levels. We only really have Three Mile Hill around here and they have lowered the speed limit and put doubles yellows the full length so that has been neutered.

Lot of big drops in there and loopys coming the other way. Be careful in living out your IoM fantasies! Friend of mine dropped a bike on that road that ended up about 2 feet from going down the hill....... not in the fun way.
Have been to three or four fatal motorbike crashes on that road. Unfortunately I had to take a ute so didn't get the benefit of the closed road and no oncoming traffic. A two ton Hilux doesn't quite give you the same buzz.

Berries

1st February 2025, 11:15

Talking of Three Mile Hill -

pritch

1st February 2025, 20:03

More details on the consultation process on the NZTA website? The Stuff article looks like a cut and paste.

Well that makes a change from an AI spiel.

SPman

2nd February 2025, 00:51

SaferRides

2nd February 2025, 07:04

I have checked the Auckland council website, where they say that none of the reduced limits on rural roads need to be reversed.

So the new rules only applies to some state highways?

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

sugilite

2nd February 2025, 09:42

Aaah - that one .... been 18 yrs, but I remember it well on a good day .....

Yep, and in autumn, the tree colors are nothig short of stunning in that valley. There is also a nice cafe opened up in Hunterville that does exceptional hot dogs and also sells second hand stereo equipment. A curious combo indeed....

Berries

2nd February 2025, 10:38

I have checked the Auckland council website, where they say that none of the reduced limits on rural roads need to be reversed.

So the new rules only applies to some state highways?
NZTA are the government agency therefore they do what they are told regarding speed limits on state highways. They don't answer to ratepayers either so any consultation with them about speed limits is a bit of a sham. I did not realise how many SH speed limits had been changed. Down south they did not rush into those wholesale changes seem elsewhere, there was a bit of pushback from local staff thankfully.

Local roads however are another matter and I know a few councils who are sick to death of all these rule changes by NZTA. They get told to have a speed managenent plan and spend tens of thousand dollars on getting consultants to produce them. They get threatened by NZTA with legal consequences if they don't match the speed limits with what they say they should be. They then spend more tens of thousands on consultation, then they make the changes and spend thousands on signs.

Some councils have elected councillors who were totally against the changes in the first place. They will pressure the staff to change them by waving the new rules around like the old rules were waved at them last time. It all comes down to who is in charge of the roading department IMO. if it is the same people involved in the speed management plan then they won't be changing the speed limits back in a hurry.

It won't be a great cost to change things back to the way they were but with all councils being under pressure for spending on other things they aren't going to rush into it. Particularly if the rumours about that National MP are correct and a snap election is called with Labour winning by a landslide and changing the speed limit rule again.

SaferRides

2nd February 2025, 11:17

I will start asking questions. It's unfortunate that we have a new transport minister as Simeon Brown seemed determined to push this through.

Our mayor (no relation) might not be impressed either. But Auckland Transport just do what they want regardless, but not for much longer. [emoji1]

Sent from my SM-S906E using Tapatalk

F5 Dave

2nd February 2025, 11:29

Yes he's being moved to Health where he can do more damage to the crumbling system.

Our local rag reported that 1 in 5 nursing graduates get employed by TeHospitalplace. Despite chronic nursing shortages on wards.
That seems a bit broken.

rastuscat

5th February 2025, 07:15

NZTA are the government agency therefore they do what they are told regarding speed limits on state highways. They don't answer to ratepayers either so any consultation with them about speed limits is a bit of a sham. I did not realise how many SH speed limits had been changed. Down south they did not rush into those wholesale changes seem elsewhere, there was a bit of pushback from local staff thankfully.

Local roads however are another matter and I know a few councils who are sick to death of all these rule changes by NZTA. They get told to have a speed managenent plan and spend tens of thousand dollars on getting consultants to produce them. They get threatened by NZTA with legal consequences if they don't match the speed limits with what they say they should be. They then spend more tens of thousands on consultation, then they make the changes and spend thousands on signs.

Some councils have elected councillors who were totally against the changes in the first place. They will pressure the staff to change them by waving the new rules around like the old rules were waved at them last time. It all comes down to who is in charge of the roading department IMO. if it is the same people involved in the speed management plan then they won't be changing the speed limits back in a hurry.

It won't be a great cost to change things back to the way they were but with all councils being under pressure for spending on other things they aren't going to rush into it. Particularly if the rumours about that National MP are correct and a snap election is called with Labour winning by a landslide and changing the speed limit rule again.

The rule requiring reversal is a bit more detailed than just "All speed limits have to go back to what they were".

Here, have a read.

https://www.nzta.govt.nz/assets/Safety/docs/speed-management-resources/national-speed-limit-register/National-Speed-Limit-Register-user-guide-for-Reversals.pdf

The devil is in the detail.

R650R

6th February 2025, 19:31

Yep, I always viewed the Napier Taupo as a liter bike road, thus ruling out any real fun to be had since it would be a license losing road if one were to cut loose.

I prefer more discrete roads, and even then "cutting loose" would account for about all of 3% of the ride - if that. I've been doing this one down below a bit lately, custom made for my RSV :yes:

https://andys-kawasaki-zxr-zx7r-tribute-site.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Screenshot-2025-01-31-151903.jpg

Your kinda right but I’ve enjoyed it on all of my bikes and from tarawera tav to Waipunga falls is twisty enough to enjoy at lesser engine powers. Despite the big climbs and descents it’s also a great road in truck, the radius of about all the bends just has some lovely flow to it.
Awhile ago when all the 80k drama kicked off I came across a news article and photos from 50/60’s where they set about making it a proper highway. It was openly proclaimed as a great safe “high speed “ route to get country moving and it was mostly if not all gravel still!!!

Certainly had some unmentionably great trips across that road…

R650R

6th February 2025, 19:35

Local roads however are another matter and I know a few councils who are sick to death of all these rule changes by NZTA. They get told to have a speed managenent plan and spend tens of thousand dollars on getting consultants to produce them. They get threatened by NZTA with legal consequences if they don't match the speed limits with what they say they should be. They then spend more tens of thousands on consultation, then they make the changes and spend thousands on signs.

Never mind the signs it’s the outbreak of all these plastic speed humps that annoys me the most. They need to go also.

F5 Dave

15th February 2025, 06:53

So last week I decide to go for a longer ride and want to transport up SH2 to save some time to get near Masterson bypass. Guess I'll suffer the 80km drag.

Oh!
It's changed back already. Sweet.

R650R

15th February 2025, 07:31

And 4km of new road announced to bypass Waikare gorge/Putorino on Wairoa road SH2.
You’ve got four years left to enjoy the short blast through the gorge one the most satisfying bits of tarmac if you get a clean run through it.
Thanks Nat/act/nz first making it happen get the country moving.

rastuscat

17th February 2025, 08:30

Thanks Nat/act/nz first making it happen get the country moving.

It always amuses me that we think drivers in NZ are awful, but we don't want to slow them awful drivers down.

F5 Dave

17th February 2025, 11:39

He just wants to salute the parties because he thinks everything is a moral battle between some left and right political division.

The Featherston to Masterton SH2 reduction on straight roads was pretty silly. Why do it there?

I mean sure if every road was 50kmph it would be safer. Why stop there. Why not have a man walking in front with a flag?

pete376403

17th February 2025, 20:58

So last week I decide to go for a longer ride and want to transport up SH2 to save some time to get near Masterson bypass. Guess I'll suffer the 80km drag.

Oh!
It's changed back already. Sweet.

Didnt seem to make much difference on Monday, long queues held up by someone who wasnt aware of the change

Jantar

19th February 2025, 08:40

It always amuses me that we think drivers in NZ are awful, but we don't want to slow them awful drivers down.

In many cases its because they are slow that they are awful. They can just cruise along with their brains in neutral and not have to think about the road, their vehicle or other traffic.

R650R

19th February 2025, 09:09

It always amuses me that we think drivers in NZ are awful, but we don't want to slow them awful drivers down.

Yes I agree but the proper solution would be to not allow the awful drivers on the road in first place via a more effective training regime. By the time we are ready to accept this technology and political ideology’s will have ended private vehicle use anyway.

Think of speeding as like staying indoors to reduce exposure to uv radiation. Your reducing your exposure time to bad drivers by completing your journey quicker.Its a common aspect of modern health and safety analysis, yes something is risky but can we reduce the time of exposure.

nerrrd

19th February 2025, 10:38

Jantar

19th February 2025, 11:02

R650R

20th February 2025, 14:18

How much of the issue with slow drivers on the open road is lack of skills, and how much lack of experience? All the training in the world isn’t going to make you a confident driver on the open road until you experience it first hand.

I suspect a lot of these drivers just don’t spend enough time driving on the open road to develop that confidence. I include myself in that category, I’ve done more ride forever courses than I can remember, and I’m (almost always) the slowest rider on the open road, despite having had plenty of skills taught to me over the years. I just don’t do it often enough to maintain that confidence level.

That’s the bulk of it, compounded by cost stopping people from driving as much as before.
Fast on the road just equals higher risk taking in 90% of cases. Met couple riders who caught up to me on a journey, I followed them for a bit then let them go. We ended up at same coffee stop. Oh we going that way to want to ride with us? Yeah nah.

rastuscat

21st February 2025, 11:33

jellywrestler

21st February 2025, 12:05

onearmedbandit

21st February 2025, 12:44

I'd be happy with reduced speeds if we introduced more curves on our roads. There are studies that show roads with frequent curves are safer, factors that may skew this could include less traffic as people seek straight roads, but it also stands to reason that roads with frequent curves require great driver attention.

https://ssti.us/2019/10/28/more-sharp-curves-make-roads-safer/

Berries

21st February 2025, 12:46

The table is interesting. Were optimum speeds calculated from the ground up or do they have a relationship to the current national speed limit? Seems odd that the max optimum speed on the best roads is pretty much the national speed limit plus a small tolerance whereas the same standard of road overseas could have a much higher speed limit.

I note how the optimum speed for both vehicle types across all roads (apart from the 105) is lower than every one of the current cruise speeds. Was the table produced to support Safe and Appropriate Speeds perhaps? I see that term/measure has quietly been shown the door in the new legislation.

what about the boredom factor causing lack of concentration, and the piss off factor too, or are the shiny arses who did this bus commuters who hide from the real world?
They cannot measure or enforce that so not interested. Ditto fatigue.

Kickaha

21st February 2025, 13:37

There are studies that show roads with frequent curves are safer,

Isn't the largest group of motorcycle accidents "single bike on corner" ?

onearmedbandit

21st February 2025, 13:45

Isn't the largest group of motorcycle accidents "single bike on corner" ?

That would make sense. Would help to weed out those that shouldn't be riding. Win win!

Gremlin

21st February 2025, 23:28

Isn't the largest group of motorcycle accidents "single bike on corner" ?
For motorcycles, rural environment: single vehicle loss of control (aka we fuck up)
For motorcycles, urban environment: intersections

R650R

22nd February 2025, 11:24

An optimum speed limit is defined as providing maximum benefit from reduced travel times and minimizing the costs of road trauma, environmental emissions and vehicle operating costs.

The results of the analysis confirm that 70km/h is the optimum speed for heavy vehicles, and no more than 85km/h for light vehicles on all but New ZealandÂ’s motorway standard roads.

The overall economic impact if all vehicles travelled at their optimum speeds was estimated to be a saving of $482 million per annum in total social costs or 3.7% reduction in the estimated $13.1 billion annual cost of rural State Highway travel in New Zealand.

355736

So despite all the clamour about higher speeds producing greater economic benefit, actually factoring in other influences than time saved reveals a different picture.

But few if any of us consider the societal impact of our individual behaviour. We look purely at the impact on ourselves.

Harrumph.

I would call such data a preferred speed rather than optimum when itÂ’s composed of compromises across four different inputs. I agree you can get massive fuel savings and lower tyre costs going slower.
But in little NZ we canÂ’t afford to blow out travel times with slower speeds. We are short on drivers and vehicles to get job done as it is. Just look at impacts of covid and ksikoura quakes of two good examples of longer travel and reduced labour availability. It took ages for logistics networks to recover from that.
We are very small fish in a big pond, we canÂ’t afford the niceties that would create the perfect low road toll.We have to get our goods to international markets as quickley and efficiently as we can to remain relevant in international markets.
Other wise we go down to proper third world status and all the associated problems from societal breakdown due to job losses.
Just look at impacts of electricity prices. Higher transport costs would push more industries below break even and more cascading job losses.

Many of nz routes you have just enough time to do return journeys with a backload, blow that out and the labour costs and 30-50% loss in asset utilisation is scary maths. Another analogy is overnight courier delivery, it used to mean overnight delivery and the van would arrive at your house at a consistent time. Now youÂ’re not sure what day they might even deliver due to demand. Now envision a scenario where your local supermarket stops getting reliable delivery and youÂ’ll have covid panic buying again.

Maybe the next time the circus comes to town the greens will get there way and weÂ’ll get to see for real what a slower transport network looks like.

Countries that have high speed road (and rail) networks are successful, those that donÂ’t are third world.

rastuscat

24th February 2025, 11:37

I would call such data a preferred speed rather than optimum when itÂ’s composed of compromises across four different inputs. I agree you can get massive fuel savings and lower tyre costs going slower.
But in little NZ we canÂ’t afford to blow out travel times with slower speeds. We are short on drivers and vehicles to get job done as it is. Just look at impacts of covid and ksikoura quakes of two good examples of longer travel and reduced labour availability. It took ages for logistics networks to recover from that.
We are very small fish in a big pond, we canÂ’t afford the niceties that would create the perfect low road toll.We have to get our goods to international markets as quickley and efficiently as we can to remain relevant in international markets.
Other wise we go down to proper third world status and all the associated problems from societal breakdown due to job losses.
Just look at impacts of electricity prices. Higher transport costs would push more industries below break even and more cascading job losses.

Many of nz routes you have just enough time to do return journeys with a backload, blow that out and the labour costs and 30-50% loss in asset utilisation is scary maths. Another analogy is overnight courier delivery, it used to mean overnight delivery and the van would arrive at your house at a consistent time. Now youÂ’re not sure what day they might even deliver due to demand. Now envision a scenario where your local supermarket stops getting reliable delivery and youÂ’ll have covid panic buying again.

Maybe the next time the circus comes to town the greens will get there way and weÂ’ll get to see for real what a slower transport network looks like.

Countries that have high speed road (and rail) networks are successful, those that donÂ’t are third world.

It's remarkable how unproductive dead and seriously injured people are. Like, long term. Expensive too, with the seriously injured costing society more than the deceased.

I get it, I don't want to slow down much at all on my 120 km commute to and from work. 250 kms a day just to get to and from work. Hanmer Springs to Rangiora and back. Good road, bugger all traffic. It flows.

At 100 kmh on the adaptive cruise (true 97) I get 5.3 l/100. At 90 kmh (87 true) I get 4.6 l/100. Mk 7 VW Golf Variant. I tend to use 90 kmh unless I have someone behind me, and there's no place to overtake, as fuel economy matters when I am doing that many km per week just to get to and from work.I'm conscious of anyone behind me wanting to go faster. Lots of places to overtake on that road. The time difference isn't much, and it's a price I'm happy to pay. Time spent comes from my personal day, but money spent on gas comes from my bank account.

I find the slower speed a bit dull on long straights (e.g. Culverden Straight), but generally the 90 (87) is a bit more relaxed than the 100 (97). If I get a chance I hook in behind a B train, those drivers use their cruise at 94 generally, so I just draft behind tham, at 3 seconds following. I like the adaptive.

My musings, I know I'm a generally lone voice on this.

R650R

24th February 2025, 12:36

It's remarkable how unproductive dead and seriously injured people are. Like, long term. Expensive too, with the seriously injured costing society more than the deceased.

I get it, I don't want to slow down much at all on my 120 km commute to and from work. 250 kms a day just to get to and from work. Hanmer Springs to Rangiora and back. Good road, bugger all traffic. It flows.

At 100 kmh on the adaptive cruise (true 97) I get 5.3 l/100. At 90 kmh (87 true) I get 4.6 l/100. Mk 7 VW Golf Variant. I tend to use 90 kmh unless I have someone behind me, and there's no place to overtake, as fuel economy matters when I am doing that many km per week just to get to and from work.I'm conscious of anyone behind me wanting to go fatser. Lots of place to vertake on that road. The time difference isn't much, and it's a price I'm happy to pay. Time spent comes from my personal day, but money spent on gas comes from my bank account.

I find the slower speed a bit dull on long straights (e.g. Culverden Straight), but generally the 90 (87) is a bit more relaxed than the 100 (97). If I get a chance I hook in behind a B train, those drivers use their cruise at 94 generally, so I just draft behind tham, at 3 seconds following. I like the adaptive.

My musings, I know I'm a generally lone voice on this.

Nice post. I agree that prob works on a personal level and I might even do the same if living in same circumstances. Now just imagine if the law had now pulled that truck down to 70 on that route it’s a big change in your commute.
My issue is that like all laws pulling everything down has other bigger side effects on everyone to mitigate the risk to a few.
BTW ID recommend a bigger following distance than 3 secs to spot debri in road easier and to get better fuel economy.

rastuscat

24th February 2025, 14:10

BTW ID recommend a bigger following distance than 3 secs to spot debri in road easier and to get better fuel economy.

I have the adaptive cruise set to its furthest distance. I must actually check how far that is, my 3-sec estimate could be out.

Yes, I get it, surface apraisal is so important, even in the car.

rambaldi

25th February 2025, 11:03

I would call such data a preferred speed rather than optimum when itÂ’s composed of compromises across four different inputs. I agree you can get massive fuel savings and lower tyre costs going slower.
But in little NZ we canÂ’t afford to blow out travel times with slower speeds. We are short on drivers and vehicles to get job done as it is. Just look at impacts of covid and ksikoura quakes of two good examples of longer travel and reduced labour availability. It took ages for logistics networks to recover from that.
We are very small fish in a big pond, we canÂ’t afford the niceties that would create the perfect low road toll.We have to get our goods to international markets as quickley and efficiently as we can to remain relevant in international markets.
Other wise we go down to proper third world status and all the associated problems from societal breakdown due to job losses.
Just look at impacts of electricity prices. Higher transport costs would push more industries below break even and more cascading job losses.

Many of nz routes you have just enough time to do return journeys with a backload, blow that out and the labour costs and 30-50% loss in asset utilisation is scary maths. Another analogy is overnight courier delivery, it used to mean overnight delivery and the van would arrive at your house at a consistent time. Now youÂ’re not sure what day they might even deliver due to demand. Now envision a scenario where your local supermarket stops getting reliable delivery and youÂ’ll have covid panic buying again.

Maybe the next time the circus comes to town the greens will get there way and weÂ’ll get to see for real what a slower transport network looks like.

Countries that have high speed road (and rail) networks are successful, those that donÂ’t are third world.

How much of those just long enough return journeys are setup that way because they are just long enough. ie some bean counter somewhere worked out - if our shops are here then the cheapest place to have a truck go there and back would have the wharehouse here. If travel speeds dropped, then the centres would move closer together, yeah there would be turmoil and shit when the changes happened but long term they would settle out. As they would if the changes went in the other direction as well. Probably the same thing happened, back when they got more strict on truckies and their log books.

rastuscat

26th February 2025, 08:20

Isn't the largest group of motorcycle accidents "single bike on corner" ?

From memory (which admittedly is fading, as I don't think much about this stuff any more) I think the highest number of crashes are multiple vehicle, where the fault lies with the driver. But these are generally at lower speeds, so tend not to be fatal. SNAFU*, but not fatal.

*(SNAFU - situation normal, all ***cked up)

The higher proportion of fatals are loss of control on higher speed (generally rural) bends.

I should go back to CAS and have a look again, just to remind myself.

It's all about how you dice up the stats.

Berries

26th February 2025, 11:11

I should go back to CAS and have a look again, just to remind myself.

I have provided those stats many times on here but for all the effort it is a waste of time. Here's a random list of reasons for some of the fatal bike crashes in 2023 for shits and giggles and a bit of reality -

Right turn against but speeding and drugs
140 in a 50
Reckless riding, 130km/h head on
High speed read end of ute
150km/h. Lost control heavy braking
160km/h, rear ended slowing ute
First ride. Fell off wearing hard hat
Ran red light during pursuit
O/T turning traffic at 120km/h
LOC while cornering in wet
Swung wide too fast head on
Gang ride gone wrong
LOC due to no experience
LOC on corner
Left the road due to inexp
Bike caused head on. Inexp
Gang ride LOC at 125km/h
180km/h on curve, fell off and died. Inexp
Speeding, wrong side of road, drugs
Rear end of car in heavy traffic
Left road hit power pole
LOC for unknown reason. Poss drugs
LOC when cornering. Had L for a week
Lost control racing other
Showing off, crashed at 130, inexp
Rear end of traffic while speeding. THC
Blood 212 post mortem

In summary some of us are idiots and go mental at the wrong time and wrong place and if you have been drinking or have drugs onboard your decision making is compromised. I would suggest that the posted speed limit was irrelevant in most of those crashes.