More restrictions and speed limits coming up. Announcement 13 December

[Ixion]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3892510a11,00.html

Brace yourself.

New restrictions could include

Blanket 80kph speed limit except for motorways.
Double demerit points on holidays
Tougher speeding penalties
Reduction in blood alcohol limits
Tougher penalties for breach of licence conditions
(unlikely) increase in minimum driver licence age.
Radar detectors to be illegal

And who knows what other silly ideas.

None of which will make any difference of course, but it will be seen as "doing something"

It is *just* possible that the 70kph limit for learners might get looked at.

[Swoop]

How sad. They have locked the figure of 300 into their brain and the population refuses to comply with their budgeted amount of road deaths per year.
The population growth may or may not have been taken into account. The state of the roads will not sway them.


It is *just* possible that the 70kph limit for learners might get looked at.
Using their logic, 70 will be lowered to 50kph...

[FilthyLuka]

(unlikely) increase in minimum driver licence age.


a shit head is going to kill himself/others regardless if hes 16 or 36... Licence age is fine as it is in my oppinion...

Denden

[Karma]

15 year olds aren't mature enough to drive a car. If you're still running around playing kiss chase or tag then you don't deserve to drive.

[judecatmad]

Hmmm.....tell you what, why don't they just make driving illegal?

Or, ooh, ooh, I know this might sound silly but (and apologies if I make any sort of sense here) how about 1) increasing learner driver training and making it harder for idiots to get licences, 2) raise the age at which you can learn to drive and get a full licence and, 3) improve the state of NZ roads.

Just the thoughts of a crazy lady....

[Jantar]

I received an invitation to the launch of the Road Safety Policy Statement on Wednesday 13 December at Parliament, from 4.30-5.30pm. However I fly out of Wellington just before lunch time on that day so I won't be able to honour the ministers with my presence. :shutup:

Somehow I don't believe that the measures will be quite as draconian as you think. Ixion. Almost all of the measures you suggest relate to revenue gathering rather than road safety and I believe that the police, LTNZ and our politicians want to move away from that direction.

[Steam]

Imagine 80kph on the open road! It'd be like the 1950's again. I think it's a great idea, as my GN250 doesn't do more than 80.

[davereid]

suits me too, I'll be able to sell the FZR and the harley and just keep the scooter !

[slinky]

Hmmm.....tell you what, why don't they just make driving illegal?

Or, ooh, ooh, I know this might sound silly but (and apologies if I make any sort of sense here) how about 1) increasing learner driver training and making it harder for idiots to get licences, 2) raise the age at which you can learn to drive and get a full licence and, 3) improve the state of NZ roads.

Just the thoughts of a crazy lady....

sense.. far from it! that made absolutely no sense at all, and they are very bad ideas, and definiately extremely worthless ideas for the government to consider............YEAH RIGHT!

........ could be a good Tui advert maybe?

[TonyB]

Well thats the first time I've ever seen any info on injury numbers. Surprise surprise its going up.

Achieving the hospitalisation target of 4500 by 2010 was a concern, Johnson said.

Hospital admissions were 5985 in 2000, but this increased to 7225 last year.
Thats a significant increase. Could this possibly mean that all the tactics being employed are having no effect at all? I mean, it sure as hell looks like there have been MORE accidents to me, and whats the bet that the only reason the DEATH toll has dropped is because as time goes by the NZ vehicle fleet becomes progressively safer.

[Al]

Sheesh, and here in the NT everyone is up in arms about the proposed abolishment of open speed limits!
Next year sometime the limit on open roads will be 130km/h. Demerit points were suggested and promptly dropped!

Nanny states?

Al

[idb]

Well thats the first time I've ever seen any info on injury numbers. Surprise surprise its going up.
Thats a significant increase. Could this possibly mean that all the tactics being employed are having no effect at all?

Yeah, that confuses me as well!

[ManDownUnder]

It is *just* possible that the 70kph limit for learners might get looked at.

WHY??? Hell's bells it's only 10 kph slower than the proposed open road speed and simply means they'll stand out as road kill.

If you can handle 70, 80's not a lot different (is it???) and it sounds more like a punative measure than common sense or an injury reduction measure.

[Ixion]

It's 70 at present. I mean that they ahve been vaguely receptive to doing away with it.

I hope Mr Jantar is right. But they must do something to be seen to be doing something.

I forgot cellphones, I think that soem sort of restriction is highly probable.

[Robbo]

F***in Wankers, they fail to address the real problem on our roads, which is the standard of driving. eg Tailgating, Dangerous Overtaking, Running Red Lights and Stop signs, Failing to keep Left, just to name a few and continue to target Speeding, which as we all know is just another form of Taxation, with the possible exception of driving at excessively dangerous speeds.
I am sure that a large presence of Clearly Marked and Visible Patrol Cars out and about on our roads would have a better effect and may actually be able to see Tailgaters etc and target them as opposed to fixed cameras, after all, when did you last see a fixed camera observe a dangerous driving manouver and jump out and catch them. Just Bloody Roadside Cash Registers.
This is not a moan at our cops but at our Parliamentary Law makers who half the time would'nt even know what way up was, even if it was up them.
:mad:

[Flyingpony]

I noticed a change in speed zone for a road in Chch recently.

Get this, it has gone from a 80km zone to a 30km zone :gob:

[davereid]

Accidents are caused by one thing - someone making a mistake.

Lowering speed limits gives you more time to make a decision, but that does not necessarily mean you will not make a mistake. It also tends to reduce the severity of injuries, but most of all its easy and profitable to enforce.

Alcohol is another factor in bad decisions. But last time they came up with the idea of reducing from 80 to 50mg, they couldnt find any accidents caused by people in the 50-80mg range, so it became a hard one to sell. Realistically most people who drink are either well under 80mg, and still quite capable of making good decisions, or they are past decision making and drive anyway ! So a reduction in the DD limit will be a good coffer filler, but its unlikely to reduce the road toll.

Tiredness is another major factor. Reducing speed limits is likely to increase the time of your journey. So this will get worse, not better.

General bad driving - tailgating, etc etc etc - hard to police, so will be ignored.

Road engineering is the best place to reduce the road toll. Simple thing help. For example, traffic lights are a place where a mistake can be fatal. And they are a place where sudden decions have to be made - ie the light has gone orange.. should I go thru and risk smacking that motorcyclist or should I brake hard and get rammed by the truck behind me.. Yet if replaced by a roundabout, they get much safer. And even if you make a mistake you are likely to get away with it.

Passing lanes help, people don't get to make bad decisions about passing. Central barriers help avoid head ons too.

So actually, we know how to solve the problem. But we wont do it because its too expensive. Instead we will just keep on fn around with "solutions" that we know wont work, but hey we have to be seen to be trying.

RAVE OVER :done:

[Indiana_Jones]

One thing these people saying we need to reduce deaths forgets the fact that man wasn't meant to buzz along at 100kph+ in a cage or on a bike lol

-Indy

[Big Chim]

Heres an idea,

why don't we take whats not work and run with that,

Hang on a sec not only run with it but double our efforts on whats not working.

Bright, Real Bright:oi-grr:

[sunhuntin]

stupid.
while i do sometimes ride quite happily at 80k, there are times when you physically cant ride at that speed. while riding from dunedin to invers, i had to ride at 110k just to keep from being blown into a ditch. do away with the learner speed too.
they say speed causes all accidents, but they never include the other surrounding factors [wet roads, drunk, windy patch etc]
my only accident i was speeding [about 5k over the limit] but would have been fine aside from the other factor, which was a car pulling out of a stop sign.
i think the orange lights should stay orange for a little longer too...very hard to slam on the brakes in the wet and stay upright.
they need to focus on the more important things [tail gating, overtaking when unsafe, following distances etc]

davereid...you raise good points towards tiredness. as above, most of my south island trip was done at about 80k, but when i arrived at my destination each night, i was always physically exhausted, even on the first day when i was still quite fresh. whether the same would have happened had i been riding at 100k, i cant tell.

[BAD DAD]

80kpa is way too slow for motorways. Most of the time 80 should be the minimum. Remember that motorways were originally built to acheive rapid transit. Part of the frustration for this rider/driver is that many people are not fully engaged in their driving and "multi-task" on the motorway, like texting, talking to and looking at their passenger rather than out of the windscreen, yapping on the cellphone while checking notes, fiddling with the radio, sortingout the baby, etc.
Driving slowly and erratically, leaving TOO much of a gap, giving way unneccesarily while hold up everyone behind, fucking about at the traffic lights when they should already be well underway, obeying the road rules to the letter while making sure every poor sod behind them ends up missing every phase of the lights, bla bla bla.
This is the sort of stuff that drives even a usually quite peacefull sort of person like myself into the blackest depths of frustration...I feel a rant coming on.

[Kickaha]

Imagine 80kph on the open road! It'd be like the 1950's again. I think it's a great idea, as my GN250 doesn't do more than 80.

the 1950's? we had a 80kmh limit in the 80's

[Ixion]

Actually, in the 50s it was 90kph. Which was actually pretty reasonable on the roads sof the day. Go find a narrow windy gravel road and blat down it at 90kph.Then see if you'd want it any faster.

But of course cops didnt have radar then,either. And the MK 1 Zephyr was only good for about 85mph.

[scumdog]

But of course cops didnt have radar then,either. And the MK 1 Zephyr was only good for about 85mph.


It sounds so much faster when you say 130kph

And with 3.9 dif and 13" tyres what d'ya expect??

[Dadpole]

the 1950's? we had a 80kmh limit in the 80's

And then my average speed would have been 120. 80 was too slow and the fines for 120 were not much more than 100. When the limit went up to 100 I slowed down.
Perverse, but true.

[Big Dave]

New restrictions could include

Blanket 80kph speed limit except for motorways.



If that happens I'm out of here. Tassie is nice. no blitz.

[padre]

Its only propaganda so everyone breathes sigh of relief on the day.

Predictions - 3rd party insurance compulsory, subsidised drriver training with "brain gym" for teens that credits to NCEA run by AA, cellphone ban, new demerit system, red light cameras, reduce trucking hours and increase regulation of industry, they'll throw a bone to the anti speed lobby - it exists - oh yes it does! And they'll throw the greenies a bone - legalise marijuana perhaps in return for their votes and responsibly using pedal power to save this rock we consort on. Sheesh - maybe it helps to be stoned under Helens rulership. :zzzz:

[Kickaha]

Go find a narrow windy gravel road and blat down it at 90kph.Then see if you'd want it any faster.

I have no problems hitting 120-140+ down gravel roads even on a road bike (closed private road of course):yes:

[SlashWylde]

How sad. They have locked the figure of 300 into their brain and the population refuses to comply with their budgeted amount of road deaths per year.
The population growth may or may not have been taken into account. The state of the roads will not sway them.

This is a good point. I'd like to know where the figure of 300 comes from. I would have thought a percentage of active motorists would have been a better target.

Also this is likely to be one of those statistics which asymptotes at around the level proposed, so no matter what measures the govt implements the toll may not reduce below this level.

Personally, given our societies attitudes towards driving (and drinking etc), I'd say we've already reached that asymptote and the road toll won't go down without implementing truly draconian measures.

[Lou Girardin]

The poor blind fools are still focussed on enforcement as a cure-all.
What they aren't telling the great unwashed is that since they introduced stricter enforcement, hospitalisations have increased and the number of fatal accidents, as distinct from the number of deaths, have increased this year compared to last.
So people are crashing more but killing less often. Could this be due to safer cars and roading improvements?

[Ixion]

Actually, one of the biggest factors in the reduction in the death count, is changes in what happens immediately after the crash. Wide availability of cellphones , and air ambulances , together with technical improvements in critcal injury care have greaty incresed the number of people who survive after serious injury.

Whereas once, after a crash, the injured person would wait, dying, while someone went and found a landline phone, then wait while an ambulance made its way there, then the trip to the nearest hospital, which like as not didn't have anything flash in critical care facilities. It all took too long when people were really badly hurt. Now, the first person along probably has a cellphone, and helicopters can get there much quicker than an ambulance stuck in the traffic jam. And take the injured person directly to a major hospital.

Those that know speak of the "golden hour". The hour immediately after major trauma, if the injured person can be gotten to critical care facilities within that hour , their chances of surviving increase enormously. Now, far more crash victims are getting there within that hour.

Hence, I think, what we see - more hospitalisations, but fewer deaths.

The drop in the death rate isn't due to road law - it's due to better ambo and communication services and more advanced nursing and medical treatment.

[Swoop]

This is a good point. I'd like to know where the figure of 300 comes from.
I would also like to know how NZ gets this figure. In Russia this is the DAILY figure!

[jimbo600]

Well I don't pay attention to the current laws so changing them won't make a bit of difference to me.

[vamr]

In Russia this is the DAILY figure!

...a country that has 35 times the population of NZ with some of the worst roads short around without naming third world countries.

[Ixion]

Population 35 times, death rate 365 times? (if the figures are true)

[Lou Girardin]

Padre is right, the rule is; make 'em expect the worst - then they will be relieved when they are only slightly sodomised.

[doc]

the 1950's? we had a 80kmh limit in the 80's


I think they dropped it in the 70's the first oil shock. Those were the days only 1 dollar to fill the ole Commando, just enough to get you to the next petrol station except in the weekend when they were closed.

[davereid]

Yeah they bought in carless days at the same time. You had to nominate a day of the week that you wouldnt use your car, and you got a sticker to say what day it was.

Pissed off the people who only had one car in the family, but petrol heads like me had several cars so it was a waste of time.

[Ixion]

Bump. Thursday night. 6:30 pm (there's some screwy thing in the calendar that displayed it as 7:30 even though the time was entered as 18:30 start.) It's 6.30 pm , half past 6.

Danish House Rockridge Rd Penrose. Directions and map below/above .

Lots of people complain about the roads. Too much gravel, not enough signs, cheescutters , potholes. Here's the chance to establish a dialog with the people who can do sometime about it. So come and take part . Put up, or shut up.

[Toaster]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3892510a11,00.html

Brace yourself.


Oh flippin' heck! Next we'll have to ride wrapped in cotton wool with seatbelts fitted and a tank airbag! Or maybe 'super' sports bikes will be classified as 'dangerous weapons'.

On the serious side... I hope it makes positive changes making it easier to enjoy a safer ride.

[Toaster]

Accidents are caused by one thing - someone making a mistake.

RAVE OVER :done:

Good comments Dave. To add to that, it's very clear and well known that poor driver behaviour is rife, especially in Auckland.... many people I talk to from the UK can't believe how poor our driving standards are.

Ride safe people!

Article today in Herald about cyclists not wearing helmets.... "They are designed to prevent serious head injuries, but it seems helmets are a turn-off for would-be cyclists worried about messing up their hair."

Isn't that just typical of peoples shallowness and short-sightedness when it comes to safety on the roads!

[Toaster]

Hence, I think, what we see - more hospitalisations, but fewer deaths.

The drop in the death rate isn't due to road law - it's due to better ambo and communication services and more advanced nursing and medical treatment.

Bloody good point!

[Toaster]

I'm all for compulsory insurance. Gives the other party some comeback instead of being left to dry with reparation almost never being awarded and when it is , you rarely get paid out. So much for the Victims Rights Act....

[Dai]

I'm all for compulsory insurance. Gives the other party some comeback instead of being left to dry with reparation almost never being awarded and when it is , you rarely get paid out. So much for the Victims Rights Act....

My experience with compolsory insurance is from the UK where they have such.

The insurance companies milk it for everything they can get. Even down to having different classes for bikes.

My ZZR 1100 for 3rd party only was costing me 1000 UK pounds a year. I had fully comprehensive for 1500ukp p/a. With excesses and then a write off (when a car hit me) and a stolen bike. My premium went through the roof.

Finally couldnt afford to keep paying these prices. Just before leaving UK I rode for 6 months with out insurance. Got caught by the cops in a random check and taken to court. Fined and a criminal record.

[Roadrash]

Changes to the age you can get your licence or making it harder to get your licence doesn't work, speeking from experience the majority of people on the road who drive like they shouldn't be on the road either havn't ever had a licence or are disqualy or suspended drivers, its the attitude to speeding that needs to change, people in big 4wds fly down 50 km areas next to school and
then get flashed by people coming the other way warning them that theres a speed camera or cop ahead, yet if that 4wd accidentaly lost control and wiped out a kid the driver would be a monster.
People think speeding is fine until someone dies and then it's ooohhh where were the cops when you needed them, yet 5 minutes before they were flashing other traffic warning of a speed camera , the road toll will change wgen the publics attitude change.

[quickbuck]

Ride safe people!

Article today in Herald about cyclists not wearing helmets.... "They are designed to prevent serious head injuries, but it seems helmets are a turn-off for would-be cyclists worried about messing up their hair."

Isn't that just typical of peoples shallowness and short-sightedness when it comes to safety on the roads!

I saw that!

It is tree hugging gone MAD!!!

They are saying the benifit to the enviroment if more people rode a [push]bike (without a helmet, if that is what it takes to get them on it) will be a bigger benifit to the enviroment than the benifit of a helmet in a crash.

FFS!!!
They already got their way with lukemia causing, tree saving aromatics in unleaded petrol (as opposed to the "nasty" lead).

[davereid]

Actually.. I'm with the tree huggers on this one.

Why ? Motorcycle helmets may actually be useful. At least for gravel rash !

But bike helmets arent.

In NZ a chap called Scuffham was commissioned by the G'ment to show the world how great our compulsory helmet law was. After all, we managed to get almost 100% compliance after the law was passed.

What did he conclude ?

He couldn't find any proof that helmets had stopped a single injury. All he could show was a negative health benefit, as lots of people stopped riding bikes. (Including me!)

In conclusion..

A cost-benefit analysis of the New Zealand helmet law showed that the cost of helmets outweighed the savings in injuries even taking the most optimistic estimate of injuries prevented.

(And excluded consideration of the environmental and health benefits !)

References :
(Trends in cycle injury in New Zealand under voluntary helmet use Scuffham PA, Langley JD. 1997. Accident Analysis and Prevention: 1997 Jan;29(1):1-9)

Head injuries to bicyclists and the New Zealand bicycle helmet law, Scuffham P, Alsop J, Cryer C, Langley JD. 2000. Accident Analysis and Prevention: 2000 Jul;32(4):565-73


Just remember when you support banning something on the grounds of safety that as a motorcyclist you are next !

[Motu]

I'm all for compulsory insurance. ....

You'll love it! I'm not sure about the present time,but a few years ago it was costing my brother in Canada $1600 a year to use a bike 6 mths of the year.User pays....and pays...and pays.

[scumdog]

I have no problems hitting 120-140+ down gravel roads even on a road bike (closed private road of course):yes:

Yeah but you're not normal.:nya: :bleh: :laugh:

[SwanTiger]

Indeed, my cousin was struck by a 4X4 (proved to be speeding, doing well over 60 kmp/h) in a 50 kmp/h school zone around 3pm in the afternoon (when school had finished) and seriously injured. As far as I'm aware the driver was warned and let off, no charges or fines came about.

It does happen and on a regular basis too.

Trucks are increasingly becomming worse too, as more and more drivers obtain their licences and employers pay little to fuck all; The quality of the driver decreases and we are left with dipshits on the roads in charge of a few tonnes of carnage.

A few weeks ago a large truck pulled out of a side street in front of me, I re-acted in time and avoided the truck, however unfortunately the car hit the curb and due to it being on a hill, dug into the bank, lifted the back up and then flipped over on its side. The driver tried to deny responsibility, first saying I was speeding, then saying I had plenty of room and shouldn't of braked to avoid him. However he was on a stop sign, based on skidmarks I was only doing 40 ish kmp/h (which is correct, as it was a 50 kmp/h zone) and two independant witnesses backed up my story. Was a pretty freak accident anyway.

Then there is the truck who rear-ended my brothers new BMW on the motorway due to the driver not paying attention. Twisted the chassis and wrote the car off.

Or on the way down to Bruces funeral, the truck driver who had apparently fallen asleep and drifted off the road, wiping out 50 meters of fence and a few power poles.

Or the other day, at the Red Beach / Whangaparoa Road lights (which are on a hill), where a genius woman driver forgot to apply her brake and failed to notice she was rolling back down the hill as she txt'd on her mobile! Luckily I could reverse fast enough to get out of her way.

The list goes on.

However I will confess one stupid thing, stuck in a traffic jam, doing a U-Turn I hit someones trailor, no damage. My fault as I wasn't paying attention, was looking for cars, motorcycles and trucks to avoid, not trailors.

As for improved driver training, I am not so sure it would make much of a difference, skills and experience aren't the problem, its attitude.

A friend from germany had to pay $2,000 or $3,000 NZD to obtain her German drivers license. Heaps of one on one training, practical and theory. Her driving is absoloute shite! No smooth control, rough acceleration, panic braking and lack of attention and confidence at intersections. Tail gating, failing to give way, excessive speeds and the list goes on. My cars gear box is fucked because of her driving.

Not to mention the countless times she drove on the wrong side of the road.

I thought "okay, maybe its just her" but I've spoken to a few people who own campervan rental places, they all say the same thing. Can't drive for shit. Although I'm sure there are exceptions :dodge:


Changes to the age you can get your licence or making it harder to get your licence doesn't work, speeking from experience the majority of people on the road who drive like they shouldn't be on the road either havn't ever had a licence or are disqualy or suspended drivers, its the attitude to speeding that needs to change, people in big 4wds fly down 50 km areas next to school and
then get flashed by people coming the other way warning them that theres a speed camera or cop ahead, yet if that 4wd accidentaly lost control and wiped out a kid the driver would be a monster.
People think speeding is fine until someone dies and then it's ooohhh where were the cops when you needed them, yet 5 minutes before they were flashing other traffic warning of a speed camera , the road toll will change wgen the publics attitude change.

[Lou Girardin]

I haven't heard that the motoring world is about to fall in yet.
Anyone seen a headless chook go by?

[riffer]

Yeah, me neither Lou :mellow:

Perhaps it's all been overshadowed by the news about Telecom today.

[Ixion]

Yes it all seems (thank goodness) to be a bit of a damp squid.

Info is vague but so far reported are

Roadside drug testing
Demerit points for red light running
Demerit points for not wearing seatbelts (bit difficult for passengers, who may not have a licence ?)
Demerit and fine regimes for speeding offences are "also up for change". whatever that means.
But no speed camera demerits (that will piss off the plod)
and
"There is also consideration being given to changing the graduated license system by increasing the amount of supervised practice learner drivers go through before driving solo. The penalties imposed on drivers who breach the conditions of the graduated system are also being looked at. King says the graduated licensing system is being looked at with the emphasis on changing behaviour."



So, not too bad. The Demerits for speeding offences bit is ominous, and the changes to the GDLS may be a bit of a bugger for some. But it could be worse



Thank God for Harry Duynhoven he's about the only sane fellow in the gubbernmint I reckon

[xwhatsit]

No news about 70kph learner's limit, then? :-|

[Ixion]

Nothing specific. Could be in t he vague waffle about the GDLS. The media reports are very sketchy, i can't find the official release,I suspect the blurdy webmasters are asleep on the job again

[apteryx_haasti]

Story now on Stuff:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3899039a10,00.html

Pretty much what Ixion said. An extract from Stuff:


The details of an expanded demerit point system have not been finalised, but offences that would incur demerit points include running red lights, failing to stop at a stop sign, failing to wear a seatbelt when required, and young drivers breaking any licence restrictions.

The current system disqualifies drivers who earn 100 points within two years, with a driver travelling 11kmh to 20kmh over the limit incurring 20 points.

Under the changes, a motorist with demerit points for speeding could breach the 100-point limit by committing an offence such as running a red light.

Mrs King said the proposals aimed to change driver habits by threatening motorists' licences.

"People who persist in breaking road rules will lose their driving privileges because they pose an unacceptable risk to other road users."

However, the Government has stopped short of applying demerit points to speed camera offences.

A law against drugged-driving will be introduced next year, with police able to demand a physical roadside test, followed by a blood test, if they suspect a driver has taken drugs.

[Toaster]

Actually.. I'm with the tree huggers on this one.

Just remember when you support banning something on the grounds of safety that as a motorcyclist you are next !

I'm impressed with your research.... nice one.

[Toaster]

With the insurance thing, people keep complaining about the cost of having it.... don't forget its also about protection for us from people who dont have insurance and hit us, leaving us with bugger all comeback.

[Ixion]

Oh oh don't relax too soon folks. Like all political statments the devil is in the detail - which ISN'T in the press reports.

I finally found the actual policy statement, at http://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/NewPDFs/Road-safety-policy-statement-Dec-06.pdfand there's some nasties in there



This new approach will also be taking account of climate change issues and the impact of emissions on health. There are environmental benefits to be gained from, for example, speed reductions on the open road.



... an innovative new approach to demerit points was offered on the website. Diminishing demerits is an idea that appears, on the face of it, to have considerable merit. This system does not allow for the clock to be set back to zero when a person, disqualified as a result of achieving 100 demerit points, has served their disqualification and their licence is reinstated. Instead, points would start to drop off the total at a specified rate from the point when they are allocated. As a result, when an offender gets their licence back they could still have a total of say 70 demerit points so that the next infringement would get them a further disqualification rather than waiting to accumulate 100 points from scratch. This would impact significantly on repeat and serious offenders but serve merely as a warning to those who make an occasional mistake. The idea received strong support from commentators on the website.



Speed management presents a dilemma. The view of road safety experts worldwide is that speed is the single most important determinant of the extent to which anyone will be injured in a crash. Everything possible should be done to try and reduce driving speeds as that is the single most effective strategy for reducing road trauma.



Officials have been asked to provide a series of proposals that will: (a) ensure that our young people are as capable as possible before driving unsupervised on the network; and (b) deter young drivers from breaking restrictions that are designed to keep them and other road users safe.



Government is concerned about the safety implications of the rapid increase in growth of the motorcycle fleet. Anecdotal evidence suggests that much of this growth is among older and returning riders. This development raises the following issues, which officials have been asked to explore and report on:
10
(a) improving education and training of motorcyclists and raising awareness of motorcyclists among the general population of road users; (b) considering whether the 70km/h speed limit for learner motorcyclists is appropriate given the concerns expressed by motorcyclists about the risks presented by this limit; and (c) assessing the suitability of the infrastructure to support the growth in motorcycling. in particular, there are issues around the safety of the road surface and suitability for motorcycling and cycling.


A couple of positives though. The government is actually taking notice of what is on the safeas website. And we had a strong presence there, and should be able to continue that. So get along there and make the biker voice heard ! And the 70kph limit looks like it might go.

[steved]

Hmm. A bit reactionary of me but ...


19. A second area, where fines have been problematic, is in relation to speed management, where unfounded accusations of revenue gathering have been able to undermine the safety message as being the sole reason for speed enforcement.

:gob:

[McJim]

Hmm. Bit reactionary of me but ...



:gob:

That's alright - they were only concerned about the unfounded accusations of which there weren't many - the Founded Accusations based on actual Police memos aren't referred to in that document. :rofl:

[car]

how about 1) increasing learner driver training and making it harder for idiots to get licences

Or the blind: my missus reckons that there was a woman in when she went to do her theory test that took forever to pass the sight test because, when she tried to read the left-hand column with her left eye, "there's nothing there -- it's all grey". Half a dozen retests and she got one through.

Never mind, it's only cyclists and pedestrians on that side of the car, eh?


2) raise the age at which you can learn to drive and get a full licence and

Skill is skill. If they can pass the test and they're still dangerous, the test is wrong. Meritocracy rules. I'd much rather that the apparently healthy teenager who was in before me got his license than the woman who couldn't see anything to the left of her nose got one.


3) improve the state of NZ roads.

No arguments here. Who's going to pay for the new windscreen on my bloody Odyssey, eh? Or the paint repairs?


Just the thoughts of a crazy lady....

I'm not crazy: I have this certificate, look.

[bell]

Will someone kindly enlighten me as to how the continued policy of allowing radar detectors aligns with the aims of the government's current road safety 'initiatives'?

[Jantar]

Will someone kindly enlighten me as to how the continued policy of allowing radar detectors aligns with the aims of the government's current road safety 'initiatives'?

That's simple. There are no documented cases of radar detectors ever causing accidents. In fact the opposite is true. Radar detectors tend to make the rider/driver more aware of their speed and more aware of other traffic around them.

[SPman]

80kpa is way too slow for motorways.
Why - not enough pressure.

[bell]

That's simple. There are no documented cases of radar detectors ever causing accidents. In fact the opposite is true. Radar detectors tend to make the rider/driver more aware of their speed and more aware of other traffic around them.

Ha! Your suggestion would be laughable if it was not so absurd.

Please explain how exactly a radar detector can 'make a rider/driver more aware of their speed' when the process of being aware of one's speed is as simple as looking at the speedometer of the vehicle.

These devices are not a substitute in any way for riders/drivers simply adhering to the posted speed limits on our roads. You choose to exceed that limit and you should also accept the consequences of same.:yes:

[scumdog]

Yes it all seems (thank goodness) to be a bit of a damp squid.

Info is vague but so far reported are

But no speed camera demerits (that will piss off the plod)

THAT comment goes straight into my 'wanky' list.

Never met a plod yet that has said the get pissed off by no demerits for speed cameras.
Most are like me and put it in the 'who cares'? catagory.

But don't let me squash yet another urban myth.

[Ixion]

You haven't met Asst Commissioner Wright (or whatever his title is) then ? Dude with all the silver scrambled egg n his cap. At the Safeas workshops. Declared that "we were wasting our time until there were demerits on speed cameras.

Don't imagine frontline cops care less, it doesn't affect them , but HQ definately want them.

[NighthawkNZ]

Please explain how exactly a radar detector can 'make a rider/driver more aware of their speed' when the process of being aware of one's speed is as simple as looking at the speedometer of the vehicle.

These devices are not a substitute in any way for riders/drivers simply adhering to the posted speed limits on our roads. You choose to exceed that limit and you should also accept the consequences of same.:yes:

I tend to agree, but it is so easy for the speed to creep up with noticing, without intention... and then you get pinged... its murphys law (murphy is a prat yah know)... Mr plod don't get the ones that speed all the time on purpose...just you... :yes: (which is one reason I am going to get cruise control, and GPS though the GPS is for other things too but it will have a record of highest speed and if its way different from Mr Plods dopler shift read out then housten we have a problem)

Anyway you react more to an alarm with sound... thats why pilots have warning alarms sound when things aint right, and not just a flashing light on the dash that can go un-noticed... So if you take note of the radar detectors audible warning (even with the false alarms) you do tend to keep your speed down...

I also find riding in groups its easier to keep the speed down as well. (unless the group itself is going like a bat out hell...then I try to avoid riding with that group) :scooter:

I don't have a radar dector (i use too) and am thinking about getting another one... though I am running out room in my dash... hmmmm

[Lou Girardin]

Ha! Your suggestion would be laughable if it was not so absurd.

Please explain how exactly a radar detector can 'make a rider/driver more aware of their speed' when the process of being aware of one's speed is as simple as looking at the speedometer of the vehicle.

These devices are not a substitute in any way for riders/drivers simply adhering to the posted speed limits on our roads. You choose to exceed that limit and you should also accept the consequences of same.:yes:


US studies have shown that detector users have the same rate of accidents as non-users, but the mileage they cover is far higher. Ergo, their accident rate is lower.
It's not a matter of the detector making you safer, rather, drivers that use them are safer.
If you want to preach about obeying speed limits, you are definitely in the wrong forum. Perhaps the 'Safe as" one would be more welcoming.

[NighthawkNZ]

Since 1990 the number of vehicles on the road has increased by 46% while Police reported injuries have dropped by 14%, road deaths have dropped by 49% and the number of days spent in hospital as a result of road crashes has dropped by 47%.

http://www.transport.govt.nz/monthlyoverview/

I know Im not good at math, but I aint that bad either... tells me we aren't doing that bad over all...

[Jantar]

Ha! Your suggestion would be laughable if it was not so absurd.

Please explain how exactly a radar detector can 'make a rider/driver more aware of their speed' when the process of being aware of one's speed is as simple as looking at the speedometer of the vehicle.

These devices are not a substitute in any way for riders/drivers simply adhering to the posted speed limits on our roads. You choose to exceed that limit and you should also accept the consequences of same.:yes:
I agree with only one of your comments "These devices are not a substitute in any way for riders/drivers simply adhering to the posted speed limits on our roads", but then who claimed they were?
Further, why do you assume that because I have a radar detector I choose to exceed the speed limit? In fact I have found that since having a radar detector fitted I am more often riding within the speed limit.

The detector makes a rider more aware of his speed because he gets more reminders to glance down at the speedo. I might add here that on most occassions I still pick the police car up by eye before the detector goes off, and on most occassions that the detector is my first warning I am already under the speed limit. If the cop is using his radar correctly then a detector will not prevent a speeding ticket, it will only inform you that you have just been pinged.

[madandy]

I agree with only one of your comments "These devices are not a substitute in any way for riders/drivers simply adhering to the posted speed limits on our roads", but then who claimed they were?
Further, why do you assume that because I have a radar detector I choose to exceed the speed limit? In fact I have found that since having a radar detector fitted I am more often riding within the speed limit.

The detector makes a rider more aware of his speed because he gets more reminders to glance down at the speedo. I might add here that on most occassions I still pick the police car up by eye before the detector goes off, and on most occassions that the detector is my first warning I am already under the speed limit. If the cop is using his radar correctly then a detector will not prevent a speeding ticket, it will only inform you that you have just been pinged.

You either have extrememly super human eyesight or a crap radar detector dude!

[Jantar]

You either have extrememly super human eyesight or a crap radar detector dude!
Not really. If a cop is using his radar correctly then he has it on standby mode until you are only 4 - 500 meters or so away from him. If you are watching for other traffic then you should pick up the cop car at around 6 - 800 meters. If the cop is lazy and leaves his radar on all the time then the detector will pick it a couple of kms away or even more on a straight road.

[candor]

[QUOTE=NighthawkNZ;864109I know Im not good at math, but I aint that bad either... tells me we aren't doing that bad over all...[/QUOTE]

Its only spin. We're doing terribly - about 15th in OECD lands as far as per capita toll goes. 2-3x the chance of dying on road than most civilised places eg UK, or Sweden which has ice and rampaging mooses.

Around one in 50 of us are dying on the road, its a veritable blood bath.

Course it sounds sweet how they put it. But we don't have the same rates of syphilis or TB (normally) that we had 50 years ago. Nor should we.

What I'm saying is we are way way behind other countries due to the goals they've set for us. Policy document specifically states our goal is by 2010 to lag behind the best countries by ten years in our per capita tolls. Yaay! Not.

The Breen report hammered NZ for having peple who don't demand a safe infrastructue and a governmen that provides a road safety policy in conflict with injury prevention goals. How does "we want or will accept 300 dead" tie in with injury prevention. Shuld we aim for the same number of drownings too! Good countries aim for no deaths and are getting close.

[bell]

It's not a matter of the detector making you safer, rather, drivers that use them are safer.
If you want to preach about obeying speed limits, you are definitely in the wrong forum. Perhaps the 'Safe as" one would be more welcoming.

Help me out here please Lou: you appear to be claiming that because a driver uses a device to help them evade detection by police when they are speeding, that this makes them a 'safer' driver? Fuzzy logic apparent there.

Now, there will be members of this forum that maintain that they do not own a radar detector for the purpose of evading detection by police when they are speeding but what other reason would anyone bother owning one for? Aside from the Driver Warning System that is/was in use in Western Australia: http://www.adrawa.com.au/issues.htm what other legitimate use is there for one of these devices?

Your comment re preaching made me smile Lou. Your avatar speaks volumes.


Further, why do you assume that because I have a radar detector I choose to exceed the speed limit? In fact I have found that since having a radar detector fitted I am more often riding within the speed limit.

The detector makes a rider more aware of his speed because he gets more reminders to glance down at the speedo.

You need a device to remind you to check your speed? I imagine most of us use that thing between our ears.

[Ixion]

Of course one uses a radar detector to evade detection by police when speeding. That's the whole point of them. That's why I've just bought one, it jolly well had better help me avoid detection (not that I shall be so silly as to rely on it of course).

Mr Plod is the greatest danger we face on the roads, and ECM is a useful weapon in our armoury of survival.

And anyone who rides a 4 cylinder 750 and claims never to have need to evade detection by the police is either fibbing, posing, or lacking in fiscal apptitude.

[Jantar]

Help me out here please Lou: you appear to be claiming that because a driver uses a device to help them evade detection by police when they are speeding, that this makes them a 'safer' driver? Fuzzy logic apparent there..
Are really as thick as you are pretending to be, or do you normally twist information and put in meanings that were never there. Read Lou's comment again. He didn't claim that because a driver uses a device to help them evade detection by police when they are speeding, that this makes them a 'safer' driver. His comment is that they are already a safer driver without the detector. This is shown by the fact that they are neither over or under represented in accident statistics despite the higher than average distance travelled.


Now, there will be members of this forum that maintain that they do not own a radar detector for the purpose of evading detection by police when they are speeding but what other reason would anyone bother owning one for? Aside from the Driver Warning System that is/was in use in Western Australia: http://www.adrawa.com.au/issues.htm what other legitimate use is there for one of these devices?.
Again you are mis-interpreting, I don't believe anyone has made such a claim, nor is anyone likely to. But what I would claim, and I believe many others would as well, is that a radar detector is a backup to the old Mk1 eyeball.



You need a device to remind you to check your speed? I imagine most of us use that thing between our ears.
No, I did say that. I said "The detector makes a rider more aware of his speed because he gets more reminders to glance down at the speedo"
Nowhere did I claim I need a device to remind to me to check my speed.

If you are this bad at comprehending simple statements in a forum such as this one, then I can see why you would scared of any technology that allows a rider to concentrate on his riding.

[SuperDave]

I'm looking more and more forward to when Hampton Downs will be completed.
The road is seeming less and less appealing.

[bell]

Mr Plod is the greatest danger we face on the roads, and ECM is a useful weapon in our armoury of survival.

And anyone who rides a 4 cylinder 750 and claims never to have need to evade detection by the police is either fibbing, posing, or lacking in fiscal apptitude.

2 things:

We choose our speed based on all manner of factors, road conditions and personal abilities being two of them. One factor that is not high on my list is whether there's a cop with radar around the next corner. Buy some track time and perhaps you'll save yourself the stress of worrying if your ECM's are up to the task.

Posing? Fibbing? They're my points of view ixion. Let's play nicely. I'm too tired to bother working out what you mean exactly by 'lacking in fiscal aptitude'. Sounds clever though.

[bell]

Are really as thick as you are pretending to be, or do you normally twist information and put in meanings that were never there. Read Lou's comment again. He didn't claim that because a driver uses a device to help them evade detection by police when they are speeding, that this makes them a 'safer' driver. His comment is that they are already a safer driver without the detector. This is shown by the fact that they are neither over or under represented in accident statistics despite the higher than average distance travelled.

Again you are mis-interpreting, I don't believe anyone has made such a claim, nor is anyone likely to. But what I would claim, and I believe many others would as well, is that a radar detector is a backup to the old Mk1 eyeball.

No, I did say that. I said "The detector makes a rider more aware of his speed because he gets more reminders to glance down at the speedo"
Nowhere did I claim I need a device to remind to me to check my speed.

If you are this bad at comprehending simple statements in a forum such as this one, then I can see why you would scared of any technology that allows a rider to concentrate on his riding.

Ohhh, please leave the personal criticisms out of it ffs. Scared of technology? You make me laugh. Generalisations such as that do little for your credibility. I, as would a great number of others out there, do not need a piece of plastic and microchips to allow me to concentrate on my riding/driving. Hmmm, what would we all revert back to if we didn't have radar detectors?

Point taken re more reminders to check speed....again, an unnecessary device if you're in the habit of checking your speed regularly. 'Regularly' being variable based on when/where you're riding, etc.

I've re-read Lou's post and yes, I can see a different angle to it now. It's a tenuous link between accident rates:miles travelled = safer rider/driver however. There are many more factors involved would you agree?

[xwhatsit]

... It's a tenuous link between accident rates:miles travelled = safer rider/driver however. There are many more factors involved would you agree?

Man, you're not the best at reading comprehension, are you, lol? What he said, was people with radar detectors have same amount of accidents -- but travel more. So their accident rate is lower. It's simple math. If I have one crash in a year, and have travelled 500kms, and you have had one crash too, yet travelled 5000kms, then you have a lower accident rate. I don't think you can dispute that a lower accident rate (over a significant sample size) does not represent a safer driver than somebody with a higher accident rate.

[bell]

Man, you're not the best at reading comprehension, are you, lol? What he said, was people with radar detectors have same amount of accidents -- but travel more. So their accident rate is lower. It's simple math. If I have one crash in a year, and have travelled 500kms, and you have had one crash too, yet travelled 5000kms, then you have a lower accident rate. I don't think you can dispute that a lower accident rate (over a significant sample size) does not represent a safer driver than somebody with a higher accident rate.

Yes, I understand the math behind it sufficiently well thanks. As to my reading comprehension, it's fine too thanks. (I must admit though it can be very hard deciphering the shite that a significant number of kbers 'post'. I'm unsure if I am reading English or some other variation of what passes for language these days.)

I don't think we're naive enough to believe that what makes us a 'safe' rider is whether we have x accidents/y miles travelled. There is a significant number of other things that we do on the road that determine whether we are safe riders or not. Attitude to other road users and perception of abilities being two that come to mind.

On the simplest level, yes, an accident free rider is safer than one that has had an accident. We're off topic and it's late and I'm going to bed...

[Jantar]

.... what would we all revert back to if we didn't have radar detectors?...
An interesting question. I don't see that it would change anyones riding/driving style.

So lets reverse it and go right back to your original statement.
Will someone kindly enlighten me as to how the continued policy of allowing radar detectors aligns with the aims of the government's current road safety 'initiatives'?

Will you please explain how banning radar detectors will improve traffic safety?

[bell]

Will you please explain how banning radar detectors will improve traffic safety?

There are more than a few threads on here that bemoan the government's enforcement regime.

If we start with the basic premise that speed is a factor in a significant proprtion of road traffice accidents (yes, along with a host of other factors) and then look at current and proposed initiatives to increase enforcement of speed related offences, it appears to be totally incongruous that the government allows people to use a device that gives them an opportunity to evade said enforcement.

The word "loophole" springs to mind. "Hypocrisy" too.

Take away radar detectors and the government will quite possibly catch and fine more of the individuals that they are trying to target with their enforcement regime. Who knows, this might even bring about a modification of driving behaviour that is hopefully at the heart of the government's aim to reduce the road toll.

I'm not so cynical that I believe the government gives police the task of enforcing our speed limits purely for revenue-raising. It's often called that.

I believe there are huge numbers of drivers/riders on or roads who simply do not know what the limits of their abilities are. These limits are more often than not going to be tested when they're faced with a scenario that requires them to take evasive action or emergency braking for example.

Eg. if driver is travelling 20km/h over the posted limit and that extra speed eats up their reaction time and then braking time, etc and they have an accident.....their speeding was a direct contributor to that accident. I'm aware of the myriad of other variables that come into play in accidents but to explain my point let's keep it simple.

If I've got this completely wrong then tell me why - rider chooses to speed (let's say they regularly like to blat about at 140+ km/h), rider makes decision to use a radar detector to help them avoid being fined for speeding, rider can no longer use detector as they are made illegal, rider realises after they get fined several times that their riding behaviour is costing them $$$, rider might choose to alter their behaviour and ride closer to the posted limits....

Multiply that scenario by 30 000 drivers/riders (arbitrary figure - I have no idea what % of NZ drivers use radar detectors) and due to the fact that a large number of these accidents that are caused by excessive speed could be minimised (prevented in some cases), we have roads that are safer to a degree.

Of course, mandatory defensive driver training for all road users might achieve similar reductions in the road toll or hospital admissionss due to accidents. (Or any one of a number of other excellent ideas that were discussed in the recent workshops on road safety initiatives.)

[Ixion]

I am so cynical. And I have never heard any convincing argument that establishes a nexus between accidents and safe but illegal speed.

(also, your position might be stronger if your avatar did not show a motorcylist engaged in an illegal, and very dangerous, overtaking manoeuvre).

[bell]

I am so cynical. And I have never heard any convincing argument that establishes a nexus between accidents and safe but illegal speed.

(also, your position might be stronger if your avatar did not show a motorcylist engaged in an illegal, and very dangerous, overtaking manoeuvre).

Yeah, what is safe but illegal is quite open to interpretation.

BTW my avatar is actually a "road safety" poster from about the 1950's! It's too small to be readable but the text is "Journey's End". http://www.aerostich.com/catalog/US/Journeys-End-Poster-p-16794.htm

[Ixion]

Yes, I read the text (it's not that small) . I was not sure if it was supposed to be ironical - journies end in death.

I'd consider overtaking on the crest of a blind hill immeasurably more dangerous than tootling along at a safe but illegal 130 or 140 kph.

And certainly safe but illegal is open to interpretation. But so is legal but unsafe. Why do you assume (as implicitly you do) that a legal speed is a safe speed.

I am regularly overtaken by people driving (legally) at 100kph, when I consider the safe speed to be much less than that. I imagine those same people who are driving legally, but dangerously, are the ones who would get all excited on a later, much safer , stretch of road, when I overtake them, driving safely (but illegally) at 130.

[Jantar]

Thanks for your explanation bell, now I can get a better idea of where you are coming from so lets look at this argument in detail.


If we start with the basic premise that speed is a factor in a significant proprtion of road traffice accidents ...
This basic premise is the start of the debate. The data produced by the MoT show that speed is a signifacant factor in a very small proportion of accidents. Most accidents occur at speeds lower than the posted speed limit and only around 11% of accidents are at speeds above the speed limit. That still doesn't mean speed was a cause of the accident, just a factor. Speed is a greater contributor to the seriousness of the accident, and I don't think anyone would dispute that. However, the police have included speed that is "inapropriate for the conditions" as being a factor in a greater percentage of accidents, even where that speed was below the speed limit.


(yes, along with a host of other factors) and then look at current and proposed initiatives to increase enforcement of speed related offences, it appears to be totally incongruous that the government allows people to use a device that gives them an opportunity to evade said enforcement.... You said it yourself, to evade said enforcement, not to avoid accidents.



The word "loophole" springs to mind. "Hypocrisy" too.

Take away radar detectors and the government will quite possibly catch and fine more of the individuals that they are trying to target with their enforcement regime. Here you are agreeing that banning radar detectors will increase revenue to the government.


Who knows, this might even bring about a modification of driving behaviour that is hopefully at the heart of the government's aim to reduce the road toll. I notice you use the word "might". Is there any eveidence from anywhere in the world that banning detectors does bring about such modification? From the evidence I have seen there is no appreciable difference in speeding offence rates or accident rates between thos US states that allow detectors and those that don't. The raw empirical evidence is that those staes with higher speed limits and allow detectors actually have fewer speed related accidents than those with lower speed limits and that ban detectors.


I'm not so cynical that I believe the government gives police the task of enforcing our speed limits purely for revenue-raising. It's often called that. I would agree that speed enforcement is not purely for revenue-raising, but it is primarily for this purpose. When the goverment and speed enforcement agencies have been shown data that indicates what the real cause of accidents (ie fatigue among others) has been they keep coming back to the basic argument that policing for fatigue is not enforceable and not punishable by fines.


I believe there are huge numbers of drivers/riders on or roads who simply do not know what the limits of their abilities are. These limits are more often than not going to be tested when they're faced with a scenario that requires them to take evasive action or emergency braking for example.

Eg. if driver is travelling 20km/h over the posted limit and that extra speed eats up their reaction time and then braking time, etc and they have an accident.....their speeding was a direct contributor to that accident. I'm aware of the myriad of other variables that come into play in accidents but to explain my point let's keep it simple. There can be circumstances where this may be correct, but this is only correct if the speed limit is such that is exactly the appropriate speed for the conditions. The MoT data shows that this example occurs in very few cases.


If I've got this completely wrong then tell me why - rider chooses to speed (let's say they regularly like to blat about at 140+ km/h), rider makes decision to use a radar detector to help them avoid being fined for speeding, rider can no longer use detector as they are made illegal, rider realises after they get fined several times that their riding behaviour is costing them $$$, rider might choose to alter their behaviour and ride closer to the posted limits....

Multiply that scenario by 30 000 drivers/riders (arbitrary figure - I have no idea what % of NZ drivers use radar detectors) and due to the fact that a large number of these accidents that are caused by excessive speed could be minimised (prevented in some cases), we have roads that are safer to a degree. I can't speak for all riders, but I don't ride any faster now that I have a detector to what I did before. Therefore I would have no additional reason to ride slower without a detector. I choose to ride at a speed that is suitable for the conditions, not because of some arbitrary number dreamed up by someone who doesn't even know me.


Of course, mandatory defensive driver training for all road users might achieve similar reductions in the road toll or hospital admissionss due to accidents. (Or any one of a number of other excellent ideas that were discussed in the recent workshops on road safety initiatives.)

Now here is something I'm more inclined to agree with. Not just defensive driving but better total driving and riding training.

[Jantar]

message too long?

[davereid]

Speed is of course a factor in ALL accidents.

Lowering the speed at which you travel gives you two advantages ;

1- you get more decision and reaction time
2- the injuries sustained often are less at lower speeds.

Trouble is, any speed above zero is dangerous, kids get backed over in the driveway, yet mums only doing 3km/hr.

Broken record time (all stuff Ive raved about in the past) :

- Accidents are caused by people making mistakes.

The real solution to the road toll comes from road engineering, not from speed limits. And the road engineering only has to do two things - limit the number of opportunities for mistakes to occur, and minimise the effects if they do occur.

Take your average set of traffic lights. they change every 60 seconds, so 1440 times a day a driver, (or actually several drivers) have to make a quick decision.. is it safe to go on through... is it safe to stop... is the guy behind me watching... is that kid gonna step out when the light changes...

A mistake here happens at the posted speed limit, and its likely to be fatal if its a pedestrian or motorcyclist collected.

Yet replace the traffic lights with a roundabout, and that sudden decision is gone. And even if a mistake is made by one driver, its much easier for another motorist to avoid accident.

Another example - the passing lane. Passing is a tricky job at the best of times. Its even harder when you have to stick to the speed limit while passing. Evertime I hear of another head on crash, I know someone made a mistake. Easily cured by passing lanes, and median barriers.

So yes, speed is a factor in ALL accidents. But as long as we persist chasing the speed enforcement god instead of engineering our roads properly we will never lower the road toll.

The current reduction in deaths on our roads is due to better vehicle engineering, not years of fining motorists.

:rockon:

[bell]

Yes, I read the text (it's not that small) . I was not sure if it was supposed to be ironical - journies end in death.

I'd consider overtaking on the crest of a blind hill immeasurably more dangerous than tootling along at a safe but illegal 130 or 140 kph.

And certainly safe but illegal is open to interpretation. But so is legal but unsafe. Why do you assume (as implicitly you do) that a legal speed is a safe speed.

I am regularly overtaken by people driving (legally) at 100kph, when I consider the safe speed to be much less than that. I imagine those same people who are driving legally, but dangerously, are the ones who would get all excited on a later, much safer , stretch of road, when I overtake them, driving safely (but illegally) at 130.

Hmmm, there was some irony in there I believe. "Journey's End" was implying that the biker's journey was possibly about to end I believe.

Assumptions are interesting. I can think of a dozen places that I drive or ride around Nelson where the maximum posted speed of both 50 and 100 is anything but safe, so that puts your theory on my opinions on 'legal speeds being safe speeds' to rest.

[bell]

I can't speak for all riders, but I don't ride any faster now that I have a detector to what I did before. Therefore I would have no additional reason to ride slower without a detector. I choose to ride at a speed that is suitable for the conditions, not because of some arbitrary number dreamed up by someone who doesn't even know me.

Ok. Modification of behaviour won't be an outcome for some of us. I'm curious though: did you get many tickets prior to using a detector? Also, do you think a magistrate would accept the notion of speed limits being arbitrary numbers, and thus credible as a defence if you were, say, facing a loss of licence due to racking up more than the allowed number of demerits?

This might be getting close to the heart of the issue: on what grounds could we justify choosing our own speed limit as an individual on a particular section of road?

[Ixion]

This might be getting close to the heart of the issue: on what grounds could we justify choosing our own speed limit as an individual on a particular section of road?



Assumptions are interesting. I can think of a dozen places that I drive or ride around Nelson where the maximum posted speed of both 50 and 100 is anything but safe, so that puts your theory on my opinions on 'legal speeds being safe speeds' to rest.


Presumably, therefore, in those places ,you do indeed choose your own speed limit, and elect to ride at a speed which is safe, despite any limit (or do you mean that you ride at the limit anyway, despite considering it dangerous)

So, if you feel you are able to choose your own speed limit at speeds up to 100kph (and, presumably, justify your choice), what magical event happens at 100kph that makes it impossible for you to apply the same processes to rationally choose a safe speed at a speed > 100kph?

[Lou Girardin]

Help me out here please Lou: you appear to be claiming that because a driver uses a device to help them evade detection by police when they are speeding, that this makes them a 'safer' driver? Fuzzy logic apparent there.
.

That's exactly what I didn't say, read my post slowly.
I'll also go on record and say that I'm an inveterate speeder, in that I exceed the posted limits. I consider my detector use to be tax avoidance, although I have used them for 22 years. I was once deemed sufficiently skilled to have a legal defence to speeding charges and I'll put my accident history up against anyones. I also note that you own a bike that seems to have a superfluous speed capability for your needs. Why?
So spare me the lectures, I have had them from vastly more qualified people.

[pritch]

I'm already giving serious thought to the way I ride as discussed earlier in another thread. (Although this didn't seem to have taken effect on Friday night.)

I'm also in the process of considering possible replacements for the Hornet. It's only two years old but it's done nearly 40,000. Most likely replacements are a VFR or another Hornet.

If the witless collective that govern us do bring in a blanket 80kph limit, I'll have to start seriously considering a Harley.

[Jantar]

Ok. Modification of behaviour won't be an outcome for some of us. I'm curious though: did you get many tickets prior to using a detector? Also, do you think a magistrate would accept the notion of speed limits being arbitrary numbers, and thus credible as a defence if you were, say, facing a loss of licence due to racking up more than the allowed number of demerits?

This might be getting close to the heart of the issue: on what grounds could we justify choosing our own speed limit as an individual on a particular section of road?
I have received 3 speeding tickets in the past 15 years. two without a detector and one with. I defended one of those tickets and the police dropped the charge. I should have defended the second ticket as I wasn't speeding at the time even though the cop claimed he clocked me at 114 kmh when I knew my speed was not more than 105 kmh, but it would have costmore than the cost of the ticket to take 3 days off work and pay for two nights accomadation. This is what inspired me to get a radar detector. My third ticket was with a detector at 14 kmh over the limit, and it was a fair ticket.

Would a judge accept the notion of speed limits being arbitrary numbers, and thus credible as a defence? I would hope not. He must uphold the law as it is written even when the law is an ass.

On what grounds could we justify choosing our own speed limit as an individual on a particular section of road? I believe Ixion has already answered that for you.

[Jantar]

...if driver is travelling 20km/h over the posted limit and that extra speed eats up their reaction time and then braking time, etc and they have an accident.....their speeding was a direct contributor to that accident. I'm aware of the myriad of other variables that come into play in accidents but to explain my point let's keep it simple...
I believe I'd like to make a further observation on this comment.

There are many bikes that are set up such that it is neccessary to take your eyes off the road in order to read the speedo. My current bike is a good example where I have to take my eyes off the road for aproximately 2 seconds to read the speedo.

So take a hypothetical situation where I'm riding safely down a nice rural road. There is good visibility and no other traffic. I glance down at my speedo and see that it reads 120 kmh. I have 2 choices: Either I continue to ride safely and do not modify my speed; or I can choose to slow down to the legal speed limit. I am curently travelling 32 meters in each second

In the first case I choose to continue at my present speed. Almost immediately I notice a sheep at the side of the road about 200 meters ahead. This sounds a warning in my head so I look closer and sure enough there is a lamb on the other side of the road. I am now only 150 meters away, so I check that my brakes are covered (reduces reaction time) and I watch in case one or the other starts to cross the road. Sure enouth with about 50 meters to go the lamb runs out onto the road. I look at the clear space behind the lamb, veer slightly left and cruise through safely.

In the second case I choose to bring my speed back down to 100 kmh as that is the legal speed. I watch the speedo as I reduce power and after around 2 - 3 seconds I am back to 110 kmh. A quick glance at the road, and I am still on track and no traffic. I do not see the sheep standing at the side of the road. Look back at the speedo for another 2 - 3 seconds and I am now at 100 kmh. I look up and see a sheep at the side of the road about 50 meters ahead, it doesn't look like it is going to move but I watch it anyway. Just as I am passing it there is a hell of a bang and I go sailing through the air. What didn't I see?

Now which do you consider safer: Watching for hazards and riding to the conditions, or mindlessly obeying the speed limit?

[xwhatsit]

I believe I'd like to make a further observation on this comment.

There are many bikes that set up such that it is neccessary to take your eyes off the road in order to read the speedo. My current bike is a good example where I have to take my eyes off the road for aproximately 2 seconds to read the speedo.

So take a hypothetical situation where I'm riding safely down a nice rural road. There is good visibility and no other traffic. I glance down at my speedo and see that it reads 120 kmh. I have 2 choices: Either I continue to ride safely and do not modify my speed; or I can choose to slow down to the legal speed limit. I am curently travelling 32 meters in each second

In the first case I choose to continue at my present speed. Almost immediately I notice a sheep at the side of the road about 200 meters ahead. This sounds a warning in my head so I look closer and sure enough there is a lamb on the other side of the road. I am now only 150 meters away, so I check that my brakes are covered (reduces reaction time) and I watch in case one or the other starts to cross the road. Sure enouth with about 50 meters to go the lamb runs out onto the road. I look at the clear space behind the lamb, veer slightly left and cruise througth safely.

In the second case I choose to bring my speed back down to 100 kmh as that is the legal speed. I watch the speedo as I reduce power and after around 2 - 3 seconds I am back to 110 kmh. A quick glance at the road, and I am still on track and no traffic. I do not see the sheep standing at the side of the road. Look back at the speedo for another 2 - 3 seconds and I am now at 100 kmh. I look up and see a sheep at the side of the road about 50 meters ahead, it doesn't look like it is going to move but I watch it anyway. Just as I am passing it there is a hell of a bang and I go sailing through the air. What didn't I see?

Now which do you consider safer: Watching for hazards and riding to the conditions, or mindlessly obeying the speed limit?

I'm no lunatic speed-demon, but I definitely have to agree with the above post. Obviously on my 250cc thumper, I'm in no danger of zooming off above the 100kph limit without a moment's thought, but quite frequently I find it quite distracting to try and stay at the 50kph limit around town. Constantly glancing at my speedo all the time to try and work out how fast I'm going does take away my attention from the road, I'm sure of it. It's not a problem in traffic, where I can just follow the rest of the cars, but when I'm riding on my own late at night in the suburbs, there are certain situations where travelling at 60-70kph doesn't feel unsafe, or too fast, so the warning bells in your head don't trigger. Not that it's appropriate to do that sort of speed in the suburbs, there are too many other dangerous things around, whereas on the open road I would say there's plenty of situations where travelling >100kph is perfectly safe.

But yeah, there is a point where the law becomes an almost dangerous distraction.

[bell]

Presumably, therefore, in those places ,you do indeed choose your own speed limit, and elect to ride at a speed which is safe, despite any limit (or do you mean that you ride at the limit anyway, despite considering it dangerous)

So, if you feel you are able to choose your own speed limit at speeds up to 100kph (and, presumably, justify your choice), what magical event happens at 100kph that makes it impossible for you to apply the same processes to rationally choose a safe speed at a speed > 100kph?

I might have been more clear ixion. The meaning I intended to convey was that I choose my speed up to the posted limit. Riding at the limit, as some road users feel they must, has its roots in a number of causes. One of these is the tailgating/following too closely behaviour that can lead to drivers feeling pressured to speed up beyond what speed they wish t travel at. Yes, of course, they do have the option of pulling over when safe to allow the traffic behind to pass.

Re your second sentence: rather than it being any 'event', it's what is more broadly termed 'the law'.

[bell]

That's exactly what I didn't say, read my post slowly.
I'll also go on record and say that I'm an inveterate speeder, in that I exceed the posted limits. I consider my detector use to be tax avoidance, although I have used them for 22 years. I was once deemed sufficiently skilled to have a legal defence to speeding charges and I'll put my accident history up against anyones. I also note that you own a bike that seems to have a superfluous speed capability for your needs. Why?
So spare me the lectures, I have had them from vastly more qualified people.

Good on you lou. Did I detect a hint of self-righteousness there re lecuring? :zzzz:

Why my bike? Personal choice lou. Capable all-rounder, sufficient upgrade from the 250 I had to use when I went down the path of getting a NZ class 6 licence. And I liked the colour. There's a few reasons. Speed capability is irrelevant. Having 200km/h+ capability in one's bike does not automatically mean one is going to be immature enough to utilise those capabilities on a public road. Track perhaps, but not public roads.

[bell]

On what grounds could we justify choosing our own speed limit as an individual on a particular section of road? I believe Ixion has already answered that for you.

Choosing one's own limit that is 30, 40, 50 km/h over the legal limit included?

[Jantar]

Choosing one's own limit that is 30, 40, 50 km/h over the legal limit included? I can't comment on a particular speed. It may be 30, 40 50 km/h under the limit.

[bell]

In the second case I choose to bring my speed back down to 100 kmh as that is the legal speed. I watch the speedo as I reduce power and after around 2 - 3 seconds I am back to 110 kmh. A quick glance at the road, and I am still on track and no traffic. I do not see the sheep standing at the side of the road. Look back at the speedo for another 2 - 3 seconds and I am now at 100 kmh. I look up and see a sheep at the side of the road about 50 meters ahead, it doesn't look like it is going to move but I watch it anyway. Just as I am passing it there is a hell of a bang and I go sailing through the air. What didn't I see?

Now which do you consider safer: Watching for hazards and riding to the conditions, or mindlessly obeying the speed limit?

Had you throttled back for a second or three while still scanning the road ahead and then checked your speedo, we could assume, just as in scenario 1, that you would have detected the hazard ahead.

It is evident too that if the rider had been travelling at say, 105-110 km/h and they maintained that pace as in scenario 1, they would probably have picked up both of the hazards too.

Mindless indeed to religiously maintain the legal speed if it means that you need to focus unduly on the bike's instruments as opposed to the road around you. A case in point that illustrates the same point you make was when I used to travel on local highways on my old 250. It was a dual sport Kwaka that severely struggled to maintain 100, let alone when minor hills or headwinds were added to the bargain.

Trying to obey the speed limit is quite different to allowing it to consume a disproportionate amount of your focus which needs to be on the road.

I hope you're 2-3 second speedo checks aren't on the V-strom? Sounds cumbersome. The 650 V-Strom was actually my bike of choice when I bought the Z750.

[Jantar]

I hope you're 2-3 second speedo checks aren't on the V-strom? . Yes it is. When looking down at the instruments I can only see about 50 meters of road ahead, and with the rather small number size on the analogue speedo it takes time to focus and read it properly.

I have ridden bikes that are worse.

[Ixion]

Choosing one's own limit that is 30, 40, 50 km/h over the legal limit included?

The same rational and logical processes are used to determine appropriate speed at any speed. Logic does not take a U turn at some arbitrary speed limit, nor does rationality. The only effect the speed limit has is to bring into play another hazard factor to be included in the calculation, that of the possible presence of Mr Plod (which, indeed, may be no minor factor, but it is simply part of the same universal process).
EDIT: Coming back to the original question, having a radar detector helps ameliorate the risk of possible Plod-Presence, thus reducing (though not eliminating) one hazard factor. They may therefore be considered a safety device.

[Jantar]

It is evident too that if the rider had been travelling at say, 105-110 km/h and they maintained that pace as in scenario 1, they would probably have picked up both of the hazards too.. True, but how would the rider know he was doing 105 - 110 without checking his speedo? And are you now saying that 105 - 110 is safe? It is over the speed limit you know?

[mstriumph]

..........................
Mindless indeed to religiously maintain the legal speed if it means that you need to focus unduly on the bike's instruments as opposed to the road around you. .............................

Trying to obey the speed limit is quite different to allowing it to consume a disproportionate amount of your focus which needs to be on the road..................



for the most part the limits placed on roads around here have so little connection with common sense, or relevance to the actual roads concerned and traffic patterns/conditions on them that their ONLY rational seems to be to allow opportunity for revenue-raising by the government's lackeys. some of the local plod have tantamount to admitted this.

i will ride at the speed i consider safe for the conditions........... :innocent:
so i cop the occasional fine .....
so be it

it's got to be preferable to living as a forelock-tugging serf

rules are there for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools.

[bell]

True, but how would the rider know he was doing 105 - 110 without checking his speedo? And are you now saying that 105 - 110 is safe? It is over the speed limit you know?

Sure, rider still had to do the speedo check but only once - 'ok, I'm down to 114....roll off another second and it'll be approx 108....' that kind of process.

We're allowed a bit of tolerance for speedo error are we not?!:msn-wink:

No, seriously, I think this discussion has reinforced for me that there are a couple of broad schools of thought on safe speeds: those that try to respect a law that they may not agree with in all aspects and those that have little respect for some aspects of traffic law. Personal choice.

105-110 km/h safe? Situational. Legal is a separate issue still.

[bell]

for the most part the limits placed on roads around here have so little connection with common sense, or relevance to the actual roads concerned and traffic patterns/conditions on them that their ONLY rational seems to be to allow opportunity for revenue-raising by the government's lackeys. some of the local plod have tantamount to admitted this.

That wouldn't be the esteemed Assistant Commissioner (Traffic & Operations) WA Police John McRoberts you're referring to?

I re-read the editorial type column that he wrote in twowheels magazine (July 06). Titled "Attitude: the silent killer", it raises some valid points. Some that appear to be in conflict with the stats you quoted earlier Jantar. Interesting to draw comparisons between other countries and NZ.

I haven't found a link to it. I'll type it up tomorrow arvo.

[kevie]

Hmmm.....tell you what, why don't they just make driving illegal?

Or, ooh, ooh, I know this might sound silly but (and apologies if I make any sort of sense here) how about 1) increasing learner driver training and making it harder for idiots to get licences, 2) raise the age at which you can learn to drive and get a full licence and, 3) improve the state of NZ roads.

Just the thoughts of a crazy lady....

OMG wash your mouth out ....... to improve roads would mean using the roading tax money on roading instead of putting it into the Aunty Helen slush fund to use to bribe voters on election year ........ and they need a high accident rate and toll to justify the revenue gathering they do LMAO

Ive told a few cops to come for a ride with us linehaul truckers and they will see the reason for the toll in NZ (no its not us )...... NZ drivers in general are impatient, intollerant and I dont think they can see more than 1.5 seconds in front of them!!!!!!

[Dai]

for the most part the limits placed on roads around here have so little connection with common sense, or relevance to the actual roads concerned and traffic patterns/conditions on them that their ONLY rational seems to be to allow opportunity for revenue-raising by the government's lackeys. some of the local plod have tantamount to admitted this.

i will ride at the speed i consider safe for the conditions........... :innocent:
so i cop the occasional fine .....
so be it

it's got to be preferable to living as a forelock-tugging serf

rules are there for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools.

I do not know how the 100kph speed limit came about here. I was on my great OE at the time.

What I do know is that a lot of our laws originated in the UK, we played copy cat for a very long time.

In the early 60's there never used to be a speed limit on the UK's first motorway, the M1. There was a spate of fatal accidents and the government was under pressure to do something about them.

They came up with the 70 mph speed limit.

Why?

Because a serving MP at the time, a woman by the name of Barbara Castle (I think), who happened to be the transport minister, stated that she wouldnt like to travel at anything faster than 70mph. Guess what the speed limit was set at.

When I left NZ in the mid 70's for my OE, that was what the speed limit was in this country. I started riding in the early 70's and for all that time top speed was 70mph (112 kph).

Be it that NZ copied a lot of UK laws I personally feel that that is why they set a 70mph limit over here also.

When I left the UK in 2002 I remeber there was a growing push by motorists and organisations such as ther AA and RAC, to have the speed limit raised to 80mph (130 kph approx). This is what the speed limit is in most of the European countries. The argument was that given the huge increase in transport manufacture and safety standards and the much better built roads that 70mph was more of a danger than a restriction.

From my own experience over in the UK I found that most people travelled at a speed suited to the road. 80-85 mph seems to be the standard. I had a couple of friends over there in the traffic dept of their police force and they wouldnt even pull anyoner over if the were 85 mph or less. 24 mph over the speeed limit ie 94 mph (150kph approx) was a definite loss of licence.

On the other hand the UK has a very high number of fixed spered cameras (usualy hidden). Try driving down the A1 into London, one every mile or less.

Anyway my thoughts and input to this discusion over.

[mstriumph]

.................They came up with the 70 mph speed limit.

Why?

Because a serving MP at the time, a woman by the name of Barbara Castle (I think), who happened to be the transport minister, stated that she wouldnt like to travel at anything faster than 70mph. Guess what the speed limit was set at..............................

lol

bit like the reason that only male-on-male sexual acts were made illegal in Britain ................ apparrantly the draft law that was presented to Queen Victoria for approval after passing both houses of parliament outlawed both male AND female gay sex ..... she expressed disbelief that women could have have sex with each other and NOBODY was game to explain it to her ....... :yes:

[Lou Girardin]

Yes it is. When looking down at the instruments I can only see about 50 meters of road ahead, and with the rather small number size on the analogue speedo it takes time to focus and read it properly.

I have ridden bikes that are worse.

Not forgetting, of course, our aging population and the deterioration in focussing capabilities that entails.
Anyway, that's my excuse yer honor.

[Lou Girardin]

One of my rationales for not issuing tickets for less than 20 over, was that even the most inept driver knows when he is that much over the limit. 11 km/h, on the other hand, is not enough to remove the inadvertent element of the offence.

[bell]

From twowheels magazine July 06. "John McRoberts is the Assistant Commissioner, Traffic & Operations for the Western Australia Police. He also rides a Hayabusa. He's not one of them, he's one of us. So pay attention."

Attitude: the silent killer

"It was 2am when the patrol car parked in the driveway of a suburban family home. Inside the occupants were fast asleep, totally unaware of the shock they would soon experience. As they crossed the well manicured lawn, the police officers knew there would be tears and disbelief as they explained what had happened and asked who would formally identify the body now temporarily entombed in the city mortuary.

That scenario occurs almost daily somewhere in Australia and all too often involves a motorcycle. Based on the myriad material in magazines, newspapers and, more recently, the internet, one could be fooled into believing some within the motorcycling fraternity view police as the enemy. Let me assure you nothing could be further from the truth. After some 27 years in my profession, I've seen more death and destruction than I care to remember and our efforts focus purely on reducing road trauma and the consequences.

Police are not the sole custodians of the road safety agenda. Each and every one of us has a part to play if we are to achieve a 40 percent reduction in the number of fatalities per 100,000 population by 2010 (The National Road Safety Strategy 2001-2010, Australian Transport Council, Canberra). There is no doubt that is a hard task, but an achievable one if we all commit to it. On the bright side, we've come a long way when you consider the rate is now 8 per 100,000 compared to 30 per 100,000 in 1997.

For some time now, much emphasis has been placed on fatigue, speed, drink driving and seatbelt use as the causal factors of most serious injury and fatal road crashes. There is good reason for that because we know, more often than not, one or more of those factors led to the death or serious injury of someone's friend, relative or loved one. But I believe attitude is the silent killer in many crashes and I have the evidence to prove it.

In Western Australia last year 83 motorcyclists were killed or seriously injured compared with 66 in 2004, representing a 25.8 percent increase. That is an alarming statistic: 22 motorcyclists (including 2 pillion passengers) are no longer with us and the cost to the community is great. Regrettably, I suspect this trend will continue unless some motorcyclists change their attitude.

No doubt riders and motorcycle lobby groups will be quick to point the finger at car drivers. Excuse the pun, but that's a cop out and here's why...Of 20 fatal crashes in WA last year, nine involved single motorcycles with speed identified as the primary cause. Of the remainder, seven were attributed to the car driver. There is no doubt riding fast is a buzz, but it needs to be balanced with road and environmental factors, vehicle condition and, most importantly, the skill and attitude of the rider. For the most part we ride mechanically sound bikes on good roads in ideal weather conditions, which suggests the rider is to blame in many crashes. Simply put - attitude played a part and some riders died as a result.

Still in doubt? Just over 12 months ago a man went to his brothers funeral followed by the traditional wake and, no doubt, a few drinks to say farewell. Later the same night he convinced a companion to join him for a 'quick blast'. With the passenger wearing only a bicycle helmet, both left the family gathering and were never seen again. The bike left the roadway at high speed, hit a tree stump and the rest is history. Two lives lost and one can only imagine the grief for those left behind. Sure, speed and alcohol played their part, but what does it say about attitude?

Worse still is the case of a rider stopped by police doing 101km/h in a 60 km/h zone. The exchange with police over, the 20-year-old took off. Tragically, four minutes and a few kilometres later, he ignored a red traffic light, collided with a 4WD and was killed instantly. The harsh but stark reality is that this man's death need not have occurred but for attitude. Crash investigators concluded that speed and rider error were to blame and that's exactly why police enforce speed limits - to reduce road trauma by changing driver behaviour and attitude.

Speed detection devices are not the most popular road safety equipment west of the Nullarbor and I suspect a similar attitude prevails on the other side of the continent. However, they are a necessary tool in our quest to lower the road toll. Why? Because speed, or should I say attitude, kills.

Fortunately, not all riders who speed will crash. No doubt many have the skill to gracefully manoeuvre their machines down the highway without incident providing all goes well. But what happens when things go wrong? We recently detected a motorcycle travelling at 243 km/h on a metropolitan arterial road (90 km/h zone). Luckily, no one was hurt, but the stopping distance at that speed is more than 300 metres. There is no doubt that a collision at or near that velocity would almost certainly result in death for the rider, but there are potentially fatal consequences for other road users and to ignore that fact demonstrates a serious lack of judgement and a poor attitude.

Riding brings enormous pleasure to thousands of Australians every week, including me. In my humble opinion it's hard to find a better way to forget the office woes, take in the wonderful sights Australia has to offer and enjoy the 'esprit de corps' with fellow bikers. That is a right we all have and one we should enjoy whenever possible, providing of course we do so responsibly. For those who do, there is much fun to be had. For those who don't, there is a possibility it will be your driveway the patrol car is parked in as a police officer prepares to deliver the worst news possible.

So, my friends, next time you saddle up and twist the wrist, take a moment to think of Winston Churchill who said, "Attitude is a little thing that makes a big difference". It might just keep you alive!"

[Ixion]

I don't think that advances your cause any. The fact that idiots contrive to kill themselves at high speed, doesn't mean that high (or any particular) speed automatically kills you. It just proves that stupidity kills you. Which we all agree on. And more people die under 100kph than over it. Frequently, because of stupidity.

Like the erstwhile Mr Cliff (Mr Scumdog, it was Mr Cliff with the scrambled egg, not Wright), who was quoted to day , condemning the 5 deaths in the weekend (fair enough), then going on to say that 99.9% of the time it's caused by speed, alcohol or not wearing a seat belt. Then followed the report of one of the deaths, a woman who die when she slid off the roof of a van where she was road surfing.The man's an idiot. (So was she, but he was the one on record )

[bell]

Posted out of interest to the discussion here ixion. I bothered posting my initial post in this thread to get some other NZers opinion on a topic of interest. I consider that I've been enlightened by some of the responses to my post. Good on you and Jantar for taking the time to share.

[Jantar]

In Western Australia last year 83 motorcyclists were killed or seriously injured compared with 66 in 2004, representing a 25.8 percent increase. That is an alarming statistic: 22 motorcyclists (including 2 pillion passengers) are no longer with us and the cost to the community is great. Regrettably, I suspect this trend will continue unless some motorcyclists change their attitude.
If you are going to quote this type of comparisom statistic, then please put it in context. A 25.8 persent increase in motorcyle serious accidents, but what was the associated increase in motorcycle use? One increase without the other is meaningless.


Worse still is the case of a rider stopped by police doing 101km/h in a 60 km/h zone. The exchange with police over, the 20-year-old took off. Tragically, four minutes and a few kilometres later, he ignored a red traffic light, collided with a 4WD and was killed instantly. he harsh but stark reality is that this man's death need not have occurred but for attitude. Crash investigators concluded that speed and rider error were to blame and that's exactly why police enforce speed limits - to reduce road trauma by changing driver behaviour and attitude. So he ignored a red light, yet Crash investigators concluded that speed and rider error were to blame? I would say that running a red light was to blame. That was not error, that had to be deliberate.


Fortunately, not all riders who speed will crash. No doubt many have the skill to gracefully manoeuvre their machines down the highway without incident providing all goes well. But what happens when things go wrong? We recently detected a motorcycle travelling at 243 km/h on a metropolitan arterial road (90 km/h zone). There is a point where speed is not appropriate, and although that point is often difficult to determine I would suggest that in this example it has been exceeded.

I do note that you are quoting John McRoberts, but you are doing so to put forward your own point of view. Nowhere has John McRoberts looked at the rider who is travelling well within his limits on an open road. All examples are either extreme examples or ones where the primary cause is something other than speed.

[avgas]

SPEED KILLS!
along with cancer, radiation, cellphones, diet, lack of diet, underexercise, overexercise, lead, toothpase, arsnic, explosives, bullets, knives, dirt, driving, flying, diplomacy, trains, sound, air, age, bee's, spiders, bears, war, heartbrake, negligence, poor eyesight, technology....... you get the idea

[Ixion]

Sex. You left out sex. Sex kills, y'know. And pumpkins. Y'left them out too.

[bell]

beer? you include beer? but i like beer...

[bell]

If you are going to quote this type of comparisom statistic, then please put it in context. A 25.8 persent increase in motorcyle serious accidents, but what was the associated increase in motorcycle use? One increase without the other is meaningless.

I do note that you are quoting John McRoberts, but you are doing so to put forward your own point of view. Nowhere has John McRoberts looked at the rider who is travelling well within his limits on an open road. All examples are either extreme examples or ones where the primary cause is something other than speed.

The assertion you make Jantar that I have posted this to put forward my own point of view is incorrect. It is fair to state that I agree with some of the points he makes, however I'd stop well short of plagiarising his magazine article and claiming his views to be my own - hence the quotation marks I bothered to include.

Perhaps someone reading the thread will find the piece by McRoberts useful and that would be positive.

West Aust had a 28.2% increase in m/c registrations between 2002 and 2006. Sourced from Census data on the abs.gov.au website. Not as useful as it could be the 2002-2006 comparison, but...

[bluninja]

All interesting stuff....I have the 'joy' of travelling along a variable speed limit section of motorway with speed cameras every other overhead gantry. It's so nice to see the twinkling of speed camera lights snapping cameras on the other carriageway as I make my way home at night..(30 mins to go).

If you think standard speed limits are arbitrary you should travel where the speed limit is (all mph) 60 when it's nose to tail, and 40 as things are clear. I personally have more to watch than my speedo....including somebody sat right on my arse (within the speed limit) and making sure I have an escape route from a shunt should I need to brake firmly.

In the UK radar and laser detectors are technically illegal. However using satnav to alert you to the position of fixed speed traps is not. This has been allowed on the basis that speed traps should be set up in blackspots and this gives you advanced warning of a hazardous piece of road......it also makes you aware so that you can deal with the panic braking as people spot the bright yellow cameras. I travel home past a speed camera on the transiton from a 50mph to 40mph zone. I am constantly amazed at the cars that brake suddenly from 40 down to 30 as they get to the camera. To me many speed cameras and the threat of police enforcement is likely to cause more accidents and near misses as people concentrate on the policing 'threat' and react in unpredictable ways (fear does that to you) than concentrate on driving to the prevailing conditions.

I will soon leave for my 110 km trip home. I will possibly exceed the posted speed on motorway and dual carriageway if I deem it safe for me to do so. I will certainly lane split for about 30 kms of my trip. I will look at my speedo rarely, as the engine note and the gear that I'm in give me a good reference so I can use my eyes for other things.

Until the majority are convinced through education to adjust their riding/driving habits and attitude then speeding enforcement will cease to have a profound and lasting effect. If punishment were a successful and good way of behaviour modification we'd still be beating sense into our kids!Like kids we stick to the rules when parents (the police) are watching, and do what we consider is right for us when their backs are turned.

Time to get my bike gear on and select a 'safe' attitude to get me home.

[madandy]

Until the majority are convinced through education to adjust their riding/driving habits and attitude then speeding enforcement will cease to have a profound and lasting effect. If punishment were a successful and good way of behaviour modification we'd still be beating sense into our kids!Like kids we stick to the rules when parents (the police) are watching, and do what we consider is right for us when their backs are turned.

Well said that man:clap:

The first step to improved driver education will be educating politicians and those who run the LTSA etc.

Coup anyone?

[Lou Girardin]

Worse still is the case of a rider stopped by police doing 101km/h in a 60 km/h zone. The exchange with police over, the 20-year-old took off. Tragically, four minutes and a few kilometres later, he ignored a red traffic light, collided with a 4WD and was killed instantly. The harsh but stark reality is that this man's death need not have occurred but for attitude. Crash investigators concluded that speed and rider error were to blame and that's exactly why police enforce speed limits - to reduce road trauma by changing driver behaviour and attitude.


It sounds like ignoring a red light killed him. But what the hell, let's blame speed and issue more tickets.

[Swoop]

beer? you include beer? but i like beer...

I note that IdleIdolIdyll has been silent for a while...
You wouldn't be one-in-the-same, by any chance???

New login perhaps?

Same stuff being spouted, plus the inability to NOT comment on a post...

[avgas]

beer? you include beer? but i like beer...

Time to pick up 6pack of Hoe's....and some beer i say ;)

[bell]

I note that IdleIdolIdyll has been silent for a while...
You wouldn't be one-in-the-same, by any chance???

New login perhaps?

Same stuff being spouted, plus the inability to NOT comment on a post...

....n....o...

[avgas]

I just got declined a wof.... however after reading this :http://landtransport.govt.nz/publications/vir-manual/motorcycles/motorcycles-v2-3.pdf
I'm bloody supprised any motorbike is on the road.
Basically if you ride anything other than an unmodified gn125.....you are now illegal!
Anyone here work in a wof station? Cos apparently all the new kids coming through the ranks are getting forced this stuff before they can test

[Steam]

I'm bloody supprised any motorbike is on the road.


Eh? I have read through that pdf for bikes and it all seems quite normal. What are you surprised at?
There are lots of rules, but you just approach them one by one when you are modifying and it's sweet.
Oh, and of course take the non-complying bits off at Wof time.

[Ixion]

Um. I'm not clear about the nature of the problem. That link is just the VIR manual. It's been the "bible" for WoF testers for a good many years. The only recent change to it is the addition of the bit about checking for smokey engines, which would normally only be an issue on two strokes (which have a special exemption, thanks to good work by BRONZ).

I agree that sometimes testers don't know their own rule book (especially with older bikes, where the rules don't all apply). But reference to it with a polite request to identify the section that they believe non compliant usualy sorts them out.

What did you get failed on ? Unless it was exhaust smoke, the rules are the same as they would have been last WoF. No new restrictions there. Of course, something may have been borderline last WoF and gone over the limit by this one. And as always different testers wll have different interpretations of a borderline case.

[TonyB]

Picked up an LTSA card giving following distances at different speeds. I thought it was quite interesting that all of the different speeds that they gave following distances for related to current speed limits.... all except the highest one. It was for 90km/h (or above), NOT 100km/h.

[Tim 39]

all this speed limit bullshit pisses me off, theyre robbing people of their common sense, if you don't know when you should be doin 30 or 100 your an idiot. But because you get issued a speed for every situation (like 50k wen theres gravel cos of roadworks) this stops people having to think about what they shuld be doing. So all in all theyre going to have to get more and more guidance because theyre breeding retards quite effectively. and for those who can't control a car at 100k, what the hell are they doing with a licence? Imagine how useful theyre going to be in an emergency situation!!
and as for the 70k lerners thing, I got 400 buks stolen frm me by the police over this issue, apparently I "wasn't capable" of doing 100k on the motorway, when I questioned the officer about why. The thing that realy got to me is that I thought I was quite capable because I was road racing, and doing 170k on a 150, which is legal at 13, I don't understand it!
I'm sure you'll all agree

[Skyryder]

About the only public education that is going to happen is from the Government and that will be on THE MYTH OF REVINUE GATHERING. This will be only one of the measures taken to restrore public confidence in the police in general.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10121798

Just you see if I'm wrong.


Skyryder

[avgas]

got pulled up for:
a) chain being loose....only just picked the bike up off a mate, and didnt have my 32mm spanner with me. However most testers simply inform you of this as you fix it when you get home because NO ONE INTELLIGENT rides with their chain slack.
b) Brake lever hitting throttle linkage, however if you pulled that hard on the fazer brake you probably would have the back wheel embedded in you helm....but to humor him i spend the next 3 seconds adjusting it so it didnt.
c) Rear guard to high.....gee wizz it only reaches 1/4 way down the rear tyre and is only 250mm long past the plate never mind the fact that most modern bikes dont even have a rear guard past the plate.

Have been talking to a few people, and the basic assumption was that i just happened to get a prat on that day.

Still the rules in that book get a bit scary - check out the one about the rear mudguard