Unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration

[MotoGirl]

I just saw on teletext that a driver was charged for unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration. There are a few threads around about boy racer laws, but I haven’t found the answer I’m looking for yet.

These laws got me thinking about acceleration in general, particularly because many of us could exceed the 100km speed limit without leaving fist gear.

Basically, I want to know this: If I blast off from the lights (alone, not racing anyone) and I don’t exceed the speed limit, can I be done for hard acceleration?

[HDTboy]

Yes .

[Maha]

Basically, I want to know this: If I blast off from the lights (alone, not racing anyone) and I don’t exceed the speed limit, can I be done for hard acceleration?


I wouldn't have thought so....so what if ya go from 0-50 in 1.5 sec's from a set of lights, well ok 2 sec's but point is...if you are not exceeding the posted speed limit then whats the prob?.... i would certainly contest the argument..:yes:

Seems the 'Slow down' campain has work a little toooooo well, they (the cops) will ping ya for anything now to get the revenue the need...

[Back Fire]

I have personally seen in a court room a guy lose his license for 6 months, excessive show of acceleration... he went to fast from a stand start to 60 in a 50 zone... driving a EVO V... and yes that was the ONLY thing he was there for...

[MotoGirl]

Yes .

Interesting, I wonder how they could justify it. One would expect that you can take as little or as long as you want to get up to the speed limit. Some might might take three seconds; others 10.

[davereid]

I think it would be hard for the plice to win if a determined defence was put up. If you skid tyres, lift a front wheel etc, it would be different. But excessive acceleration - measured how ? How many cops would even know the SI units for acceleration ! You would have to have well failed the attitude test to be done for that one !

[Macktheknife]

It does sound like one of those laws passed to target specific groups like boi-racers, I have never heard of anyone charged with it myself, but can imagine how an arguement could be made for it. In short, I would guess yes you can get done for it.

[Motu]

They have always been able to get you for ''display'' antics.....usually just charged you with dangerous driving,which is a pretty serious offence.I thought sideways around the Panmure roundabout in the wet was pretty cool....but the Cop didn't and I lost my licence....fair cop I thought.

[kiwifruit]

excessive acceleration - measured how

the police person's opinion

[Deviant Esq]

I thought sideways around the Panmure roundabout in the wet was pretty cool....but the Cop didn't...
I would've thought sideways around a roundabout in the wet would be pretty cool too, but clearly I've been misinformed all these years. Ah well... nothing wrong with a bit of selective hearing... :whistle:

Was coming up to a roundabout around a year ago... light drizzle had just started a minute before. Gave way to a middle aged man driving a totally bog standard 200SX, who proceeded to get halfway through his right turn before the rear lost traction and the car spun in a lazy 360. The look on his face was totally priceless, could tell he wasn't expecting it! Was one of those new surface roundabouts with all the channels cut in the seal. Very slippery, don't know why they bother.

[Wasp]

you mean the boy ricer that was charged with running down that women in wellington?

[MWVT]

http://www.police.govt.nz/service/road/boyracerdetails.html

Point One, read it and weep.

Wave goodbye to another little piece of your freedom. Don't expect to see it again either.

Answer = Yes
Maximum penalty - 3 months in prison, 6 months disqualified, 4.5K in fines

Method of measuring - none stated (I assume police opinion)

edit:- oh and get done twice in four years, wave bye bye to your vehicle.

Lucky the cops are currently using their discretion in almost every single case, otherwise we would all be walking.

[MWVT]

They have always been able to get you for ''display'' antics.....usually just charged you with dangerous driving,which is a pretty serious offence.I thought sideways around the Panmure roundabout in the wet was pretty cool....but the Cop didn't and I lost my licence....fair cop I thought.

In this case they don't have to show that it's dangerous, just 'unnecessary' (I would love to be proven wrong here). An important difference to me.

But as you allude to above, it's all about the cop being fair.

[MotoGirl]

you mean the boy ricer that was charged with running down that women in wellington?

I believe that was the one - I was more interested in the "unnecessary exhibition of acceleration" than the story!

[MotoGirl]

Cajun and I were discussing it earlier today. He suggested that Mr. Plod would assume you're accelerating hard if your bike is making truckloads of noise. :Police: My old Gixxer 1000 (+ Yoshi. pipe) was noisy enough riding it normally, let alone under hard acceleration. Gosh, I wonder how upset they'd get with the RSV :doh:

[johnnyflash]

Sorry Officer, you MUST be mistaken, that was ANOTHER cruiser you saw flash past back there, Ive been sitting at these lights for 3 minutes ..... darn, now I have to go back and pick up the missus off the road back there, new I needed a higher sissy bar LOL !

[Wasp]

I believe that was the one - I was more interested in the "unnecessary exhibition of acceleration" than the story!
yea I agree but I think it makes sense in this case as he was draggin the other (or was it 2 other?) car(s)

be an interesting point of view for a bike though

[KLOWN]

i got done for accelerating too quickly. The charge was driving in a manner liable to cause damage, got a $600 dollar fine. The cop was a real bitch about it. she was about 100-200 meters down the road and it was dark and I was in a standard 1990 integra (1800cc). Even at full acceleration those things ain't fast.

[The Stranger]

I was in a standard 1990 integra (1800cc). Even a full acceleration those things ain't fast.

Now there's the problem, you were in a Honda.






way too powerful for a young fella.

[MotoGirl]

Sorry Officer, you MUST be mistaken, that was ANOTHER cruiser you saw flash past back there, Ive been sitting at these lights for 3 minutes .....
I think you'd be safe there, not too many cruisers "flash" past. They chug. :dodge:

[avgas]

Hang on.....why would you stop?
Would the cop have to accelerate hard to catch you?

[MidnightMike]

Now there's the problem, you were in a Honda.

For a sec i thought that post would end differently. :dodge:

Im just glad i wouldnt have to worry about this cos my twin ( producing bugger all hp) at 280kg (full of petrol and with me on it) wouldnt be going anywhere in a hurry, believe me :(

[kiwifruit]

i got done for accelerating too quickly. The charge was driving in a manner liable to cause damage, got a $600 dollar fine. The cop was a real bitch about it. she was about 100-200 meters down the road and it was dark and I was in a standard 1990 integra (1800cc). Even at full acceleration those things ain't fast.

did you take it to court or just accept it?

[MotoGirl]

Hang on.....why would you stop?
Would the cop have to accelerate hard to catch you?
Accelerating hard in a car and on a bike can be two different things if they're trying to reach the same speed, i.e. you'd have to accelerate harder in the car!

[HenryDorsetCase]

you mean the boy ricer that was charged with running down that women in wellington?

there were pictures of those fucking oxygen theives in my paper this morning.

mouth breathing lowlife scum who need a bullet between the eyes, then their vehicles confiscated and sold, plus a $5000000 fine levied against their parents, plus compulsory sterilization for the parents and any other offspring of their awful twisted loins. money from the fine to be paid to the victims family, and the surplus to some worthwhile charity. Anyone else in their cars when they hit that woman also to be put to death.

[johnnyflash]

I think you'd be safe there, not too many cruisers "flash" past. They chug. :dodge:

Hehehe, :niceone: they only "chug" when u let em, we can coax a leettlee more out of em when its time to play :Playnice:

[cowboyz]

cops discression is becoming more and more which is a shame really. Would like to see a set of rules that you can either choose to abide by and be happy or choose not to abide by and accept the penatly. Bit like noise levels.

My unterstanding of the excessive acceleration thing was if you are wheel spinning or doing a wheelie then you can be had for it. Simply bringing your bike up to speed as fast as you can is not "excessive" acceleration.

[rwh]

http://www.police.govt.nz/service/road/boyracerdetails.html

Point One, read it and weep.


That site is strange - or the law is:


# You must not operate a motor vehicle in a race or in an unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration on a road (unless authorised by law).

And then in the FAQ section:


# Does the Act prohibit all races - such as the Wanganui Motorcycle Race, any car club rally or even the Energywise Rally?

No. If a race is "authorised by law", it is permitted. "Authorised by law" means:

Either: The race takes place on a road which has been closed for that purpose by Transit New Zealand or the local council (such as the roads closed by the Wanganui District Council for the Wanganui Motorcycle Race)

Or: The vehicle complies with the speed limit; and the operator of the vehicle does not contravene any other enactment that applies to the operation of the vehicle (e.g. the driver must not drive the vehicle recklessly).

The Energywise Rally or any lawful car club event would be permitted under this provision.


So with the definition of 'authorised by law' as given, it seems completely pointless, except as an additional charge where charges could already be laid: it's ok if you're not over the speed limit or driving recklessly etc.

Anybody else read that differently?

Richard

[scumdog]

there were pictures of those fucking oxygen theives in my paper this morning.

mouth breathing lowlife scum who need a bullet between the eyes, then their vehicles confiscated and sold, plus a $5000000 fine levied against their parents, plus compulsory sterilization for the parents and any other offspring of their awful twisted loins. money from the fine to be paid to the victims family, and the surplus to some worthwhile charity. Anyone else in their cars when they hit that woman also to be put to death.

Hmmmm, seems pretty fair to me!

[Dodgyiti]

Yeah, back in the day there was nothing as specific to charge someone on. The worst you could get, as Motu said, was dangerous driving. Other laws that were used was excessive noise for burnouts :innocent:

[Ixion]

The vital word (though as far as I aware this law has not been properly tested in court) is exhibition . There must be an "exhibition". A "showing off".

This is an example of a bad drafted law, intended for a specific purpose that has been perverted by a few cops as a general purpose clobbering device.

It was passed (and reference to hansard makes that clear) as a measure to dela with boi racers drag racing. It covers bikes, too, which is fair enough.

But the critical point was that the behaviour aimed at was the "boi racer drag". Accelerating as hard as possible , before an audience.

No audience, no exhibition.

[Swoop]

there were pictures of those fucking oxygen theives in my paper this morning.

mouth breathing lowlife scum .... ..... put to death.

I like the cut of your jib young man!
A honda rider as well, so obviously very intelligent!
:clap:

[Edbear]

Hehehe, :niceone: they only "chug" when u let em, we can coax a leettlee more out of em when its time to play :Playnice:




Tee Hee...!:innocent:

Jus' gotta watch the corners a bit....:sunny:

[SPman]

......

Lucky the cops are currently using their discretion in almost every single case, otherwise we would all be walking.

But - the legislation is there and, if the powers want to be even bigger arseholes than they already are, all they have to do is make the cops enforce it, every time, regardless! Then there'll be some complaints!
Fecking useless politicians!!

[MotoGirl]

That site is strange - or the law is:

And then in the FAQ section:


So with the definition of 'authorised by law' as given, it seems completely pointless, except as an additional charge where charges could already be laid: it's ok if you're not over the speed limit or driving recklessly etc.

Anybody else read that differently?

Richard
So it's OK to do it when you're alone (effectively race yourself) but you're not allowed to do it against someone else? That's ridiculous!

[MotoGirl]

The vital word (though as far as I aware this law has not been properly tested in court) is exhibition . There must be an "exhibition". A "showing off".
...
No audience, no exhibition.

Hmm, interesting. I guess it comes down to what defines "exhibition" and what actions actually constitute it. For example, does hooning off from the car beside you, which is full of 18yr old blondes count as showing off for an audience?

[Waylander]

I think you'd be safe there, not too many cruisers "flash" past. They chug. :dodge:
Ahem.:shutup:

[MotoGirl]

Ahem.:shutup:

Let me rephrase, your one just "chu..." :Pokey:

[breakaway]

I just started riding, and I had NO idea such a law was in place.

/me backs off the throttle

[MotoGirl]

I just started riding, and I had NO idea such a law was in place.

/me backs off the throttle

You can't back off the throttle too much, otherwise there's no point in riding :scooter:

[Ixion]

Hmm, interesting. I guess it comes down to what defines "exhibition" and what actions actually constitute it. For example, does hooning off from the car beside you, which is full of 18yr old blondes count as showing off for an audience?

I would think so. Indeed, that is the sort of behaviour that the law was intended to curb.

But note the actual wording of the law


Land Transport Act 1998
Part 3 Additional responsibilities concerning road transport (s 14 to s [22C)
[22A Persons not to engage in unauthorised street or drag racing, or other related prohibited activities on roads

(1)A person must not operate a motor vehicle in a race, or in an unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration, on a road unless the operation of the vehicle in that manner is authorised by law.
..
(3)A person must not, without reasonable excuse, operate a motor vehicle on a road in a manner that causes the vehicle to undergo sustained loss of traction unless the operation of the vehicle in that manner is authorised by law.

(4)In this section and in section 96(9), the operation of a motor vehicle in a particular manner is authorised by law if,—
(a)in the case of a race or an exhibition of speed or acceleration,—
(i)the speed of the vehicle is within the applicable speed limit or speed limits; and(ii)the vehicle operator does not contravene any enactment other than this section that applies in relation to the operation of the vehicle; or


The qualification in subsection (4) is often ignored by the police. So they CANNOT ping you for excessive acceleration so long as you do not exceed the speed limit.

But note, the qualification does NOT extend to the loss of traction clause. So, accelerate as hard as you wish PROVIDED you do not reach 51kph (in a 50 zone) , or screech the tyres. Or breach any other enactment!

But , I would think that if pinged, and the cop did not also issue a ticket for breaking the speedlimit, or some other offence, you would have a good defence.

[NordieBoy]

I don't like that "unnecessary exhibition of speed" bit at all.
That could catch you out when doing 50kph around a tight corner in a 50 zone.

[avgas]

Accelerating hard in a car and on a bike can be two different things if they're trying to reach the same speed, i.e. you'd have to accelerate harder in the car!

Hehe, "But officer, i was just testing the EXUP valves"

[Mr. Peanut]

I would think so. Indeed, that is the sort of behaviour that the law was intended to curb.

But note the actual wording of the law


The qualification in subsection (4) is often ignored by the police. So they CANNOT ping you for excessive acceleration so long as you do not exceed the speed limit.

But note, the qualification does NOT extend to the loss of traction clause. So, accelerate as hard as you wish PROVIDED you do not reach 51kph (in a 50 zone) , or screech the tyres. Or breach any other enactment!

But , I would think that if pinged, and the cop did not also issue a ticket for breaking the speedlimit, or some other offence, you would have a good defence.

I have read a letter regarding a court case where the judge stated that if there's ANYONE in the general vicinity whether it be a person on the street or
a car beside you then you're exhibiting.

<<<<<:angry: FUCKING POLITICS LAWS ET AL:angry: >>>>>

[Ixion]

I imagine the question of whether defendant was "exhibiting" the acceleration of his vehicle would be a question of fact in each case.

The general demeanour etc would be relevant also, eg revving the engine and so on.

But, there must be *someone* to witness the exhibition, I think, And the defendant would have to be shown to be aware that the observer was there .

So, for instance, hard acceleration into a 100kph area with no other traffic around - it would be hard to argue that was an "exhibition"

Unfortunately I don't think this aspect has been properly tested (ie a fully defended case, with a lawyer etc).

[Mr. Peanut]

Could you not argue that your exhibition was necessary to ensure procreation, and thus the survival of the human race?

[MidnightMike]

For example, does hooning off from the car beside you, which is full of 18yr old blondes count as showing off for an audience?


i tried that once, but i got cut off....... :angry:













probably cos her boyfriend was in the drivers seat :dodge:

[MotoGirl]

Could you not argue that your exhibition was necessary to ensure procreation, and thus the survival of the human race?

haha!!! Although semi off topic, you could argue that you're trying to reduce the number of immigrants.

[MotoGirl]

I would think so. Indeed, that is the sort of behaviour that the law was intended to curb.

But note the actual wording of the law


The qualification in subsection (4) is often ignored by the police. So they CANNOT ping you for excessive acceleration so long as you do not exceed the speed limit.

But note, the qualification does NOT extend to the loss of traction clause. So, accelerate as hard as you wish PROVIDED you do not reach 51kph (in a 50 zone) , or screech the tyres. Or breach any other enactment!

But , I would think that if pinged, and the cop did not also issue a ticket for breaking the speedlimit, or some other offence, you would have a good defence.

Thanks for that - very informative indeed :rockon:

[scumdog]

I would think so. Indeed, that is the sort of behaviour that the law was intended to curb.

But note the actual wording of the law


The qualification in subsection (4) is often ignored by the police. So they CANNOT ping you for excessive acceleration so long as you do not exceed the speed limit.

But note, the qualification does NOT extend to the loss of traction clause. So, accelerate as hard as you wish PROVIDED you do not reach 51kph (in a 50 zone) , or screech the tyres. Or breach any other enactment!

But , I would think that if pinged, and the cop did not also issue a ticket for breaking the speedlimit, or some other offence, you would have a good defence.

Yup, due to q quirk in the way the legislation was worded technically it would take another offence in conjunction to fanging it to get you pinged - speed, worn tyre, failing to keep left etc etc - so be aware, you would have to be damn sure that giving the throttle a quick twist was ALL you did!!

[MotoGirl]

Yup, due to q quirk in the way the legislation was worded technically it would take another offence in conjunction to fanging it to get you pinged - speed, worn tyre, failing to keep left etc etc - so be aware, you would have to be damn sure that giving the throttle a quick twist was ALL you did!!

Phew! Cheers for that.

[KLOWN]

did you take it to court or just accept it?

I wrote in about it and got a letter back saying tough titties, pay the fine. its as far as I took it. It was my word against a cop and my record ain't great

just a thought, would the cop being there be enough of a person to facilitate(sp) exhibition. I mean, if NO ONE is around then neither are the cops. But like what happened to me, they ticketed for driving in a manner liable to cause damage and ALL i did was accelerate hard and I kept within the speed limit. If they wanna get you they can.

[kiwifruit]

I wrote in about it and got a letter back saying tough titties, pay the fine. its as far as I took it. It was my word against a cop and my record ain't great

Should have taken it to court.

[90s]

But, there must be *someone* to witness the exhibition, I think, And the defendant would have to be shown to be aware that the observer was there .

No, I don't think this semantic argument works. The OED defines an exhibition as:
d. concr. Something that is exhibited; a display, sight, spectacle.
(ref: http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50080032?single=1&query_type=word&queryword=exhibition&first=1&max_to_show=10)

Is a display no longer a display if no-one is a witness? (this is getting close to "if a tree falls in a forest ..." No, it is a display for observers if they are present or not. The point about an unseen observer is exactly that - the observer percieves a "sight or spectacle" even despite any unintentionality.
I certainly think that a lawyer would not have any problem in removing the necessity of an observer to qualify for an exhibition and a defence that rested in this would be very weak in this case.
The rest of the leg. is pretty clear in linking this to racing or race like behaviours, whoever is observing or not. Exhibiting 'race-like' behaviours is the interpretation that I submit would be understood and accepted in court.

Ultimately of course the null hypothesis cannot be tested - if you are charged you have been observed by someone or in some way. You will never be charged with this is you have not been observed.

Of course, then we are into the arguments about different perceptions of observed events etc etc

But then again I don't actually know what I am talking about.

[gamgee]

i was threatened with this by a mufti cop, starting going up a hill, in a 1.3l automatic ford laser, I explained to him how I had to accelerate hard in first or else I wouldn't get up the hill in second, and how it just sounded like I was accelerating quickly <_<

[Delerium]

This is exactly why so many young people were agains this legislation. we are already prime targets, and this is completely subjective to the cop that is there.

[Toaster]

Basically, I want to know this: If I blast off from the lights (alone, not racing anyone) and I don’t exceed the speed limit, can I be done for hard acceleration?

Yes, absolutely. It would be a simple summary of facts for the cops on that one! :dodge:

[MotoGirl]

Yep, it's just another way we can get nailed for making our own lives amusing, whilst not endangering anyone else in the process!

[speeding_ant]

Cajun and I were discussing it earlier today. He suggested that Mr. Plod would assume you're accelerating hard if your bike is making truckloads of noise. :Police: My old Gixxer 1000 (+ Yoshi. pipe) was noisy enough riding it normally, let alone under hard acceleration. Gosh, I wonder how upset they'd get with the RSV :doh:

Thats what got me wondering. I obviously dont have as much of a sound issue as you might but I was heading up a street near newtown and I passed a cop whilst accelerating. It was lazy accelerating up to 50km/h but 250 happened to louder at 9000RPM as I passed him. He jammed on his brakes and started chasing me, thinking I was going as fast as I possibly could. He did me for 80Km/h as that was the speed he was doing to catch up with me. By the time I knew he was actually following me I had just gotten up to 55km/h. Couldnt get out of it, I was furious. Didnt help I was completely dressed in black with a tint visor and that it was 9:30 at night on a Friday. :angry: Writing a letter to get out of it now...

[Ghost_Bullet]

mmmm intersting one this, I could see it making sense maybe if it was strung on top of another charge, sa you took off so quick and stuck somthing.
I must admit to enjoying acceleration... Its just one of the wonderful things about a bike uh...

[MotoGirl]

I must admit to enjoying acceleration... Its just one of the wonderful things about a bike uh...
Absolutely! Acceleration is probably the main reason I ride a bike.
What allows me to pass that slow car? Acceleration!
How can I pass a whole line of slow cars? Extreme acceleration!

I must be an adrenaline junkie :doh:

[eviltwin]

i could accelerate to 50kph fairly swiftly and i personally wouldn't consider it excessive.

if i got pulled over i'd ask the cop to mark the distance it took for me to get up to speed then i'd go back and do it again faster (on video), if you could prove that your bike was capable of covering that distance 20, 30, 40, 50% faster! was it really excessive acceleration for the power of that vehicle?

i'm not driving a 2 tonne truck, or a mini, all vehicles have different power to weight ratios and therefore acceleration, and some will naturally accelerate faster than others. so is their argument that you were driving your vehicle excessively or excessively in comparison to other vehicles.

excessive by definition means 'inordinate', 'beyond normal limits', how do you define the 'normal' rate of acceleration for your vehicle. lets presume a normal rate of acceleration was 50% of throttle, i could get to 50kph at 50% throttle in about 1-2 seconds, i'm sure they would consider this excess, but in the relative scheme of things, is it?

[Patrick]

Circumstances will always dictate...

Accellerate hard in the CBD with people crossing the road everywhere, drunken idiots stumbling out between parked cars, wet roads etc, the "conditions" may mean that the speed limit is too fast... says summit like that somewhere in the road code too...

[MikeyG]

If you are accelerating off the lights and there is a merge from two lanes to one soon after the lights (fairly common) could it be argued that since most bike vs car crashes are a result of "I didn't see you" from the car driver accelerating hard to get ahead of the cars is in fact safer?

In situations like this I always accelerate hard as there are so many dipshits on the road that do not know how to merge.

[Bnonn]

Agreed. Accelerating to get ahead of danger could sensibly be used as a defense. So could questioning the definition of "excessive". Excessive compared to what? The law doesn't say, so how can they even prosecute at all?

It's also ridiculous that noise is equated with speed. I have seen any number of disgusting trash cars with fart cans that make three or four times as much noise as my bike (the FZ6 is fairly quiet, admittedly, but still though!) and yet could not do better than a 30 second quarter mile. Yesterday I was behind a lowered 1.3 L Mitsi which looked like it hadn't been washed in a decade. When it took off from the lights it sounded like a jet was taking off on full afterburn. Sadly for the pillocks inside it, it was actually making a pace only slightly quicker than a geriatric tortoise. I suspect it could have made 0-100 in slightly under a minute. Much as I hate cars like that, and the wankers that drive them, it would be absurd to smack such a vehicle with an excessive acceleration charge. Obviously it's an extreme example, but the principle still applies.

(Of course, I'd love for it to be slapped with violating noise regulations.)

[Max Preload]

the police person's opinion

and a dangerous precedent leaving the door for cops who had their lunch stolen at school by a person who later became a biker to punish people to match that profile.

As far as I'm concerned, it's not even close to excessive unless the front wheel is skipping across the pavement.

[CM2005]

i love northland, i turned my race bike around in a cops driveway the otherday, and he waved. then i accelerated excessively up a no exit road, and no probs. a super noisy pipe is going to make the dumbass coppa look at you too..

[ruphus]

But Mr Officer, I was accelerating hard from the lights so that the f**ktard in the cage behind me talking on their cellphone(or reading the paper, putting on makeup etc) wouldn't scone me in the back....

[craigs288]

Is it "unnecessary display of speed or acceleration", or is it "unnecessary display of excessive speed or acceleration"?

In both cases there could be a few points to question.

Obviously when your red light turns green, you "necessarily" must show some sort of acceleration (and therefore speed) otherwise you will remain stationary at the lights annoying motorists until one of our respected revenue collectors shows up to issue an infringement for obstructing traffic.

Obviously to get from 0km/h to 50km/h it is NECESSARY to accelerate and therefore increase your speed.

The term excessive is one that is questionable. It implies that you exceeded a clearly defined limit. In the following example I am excluding a wheelspin or wheelstand which is obviously loss of traction.

With speed it is easy. You land in court with a ticket for 70 in a 50 zone.
We all know that some roads have a limit of 50, and if the radar device says 70 then your speed was excessive because you obviously "exceeded" it by 20. Pretty clear.

Now, by the use of maths and physics, an officer could "radar" you at the lights doing 0km/h. And three seconds later "radar" you doing 36km/h. This would imply a constant acceleration of 5m/s/s. (5 metres per second per second). 5m in the first second, 10m in the second second, and 15m in the third second, for a total of 30m in 3seconds, which averages out to 10m/s which equals 36km/h.

Now while it is easily proven that you had a constant acceleration of 5 metres per second squared, for it to be "excessive" surely you would have had to exceed some sort of limit.

I'm not an encyclopaedia on the road laws of N'Zillind so perhaps one of our illustrious revenue collectors may care to enlighten us as to whether there is a law which clearly states the limit for acceleration. Is there one? If so, what is the magic number?

Or would it fall into the category of "the officers (in)discretion", which could mean "slap you with a fine(or baton), anytime, anyplace, anywhere, for any reason".

Here's an unlikely situation, that would involve silly behaviour.
Your traffic signal turns green and you take off slowly, necessarily displaying some acceleration and therefore speed, but obviously without a wheelstand or wheelspin and not exceeding the speed limit. However you failed to anticipate the obligatory 5 or 6 cars which run their red light and you ride your motorcycle into the side of the third car. Obviously they are at fault for failing to comply with a traffic signal.

But could you also receive a ticket for "excessive acceleration"? It stands to reason that if you had accelerated more slowly, the people breaking the law would have cleared the intersection and there would not have been an accident.

But could I also receive a ticket for coming up with such an unlikely situation, and then posting it on here, thinking I am funny but probably just coming across as a dick, who is at work and bored with nothing to do.

Before anyone rags on me for the comments I have made, I feel I should say I don't condone the sort of behaviour that would be considered dangerous. That dick who killed that woman deserves everything he gets and then some.

[marty]

for clarity, go to http://www.legislation.co.nz/browse_vw.asp?content-set=pal_statutes and read it for yourself. it's not hard. would stop a lot of stupid questions being asked, and uninformed comment being given.


“(4)In this section and in section 96(9), the operation of a motor vehicle in a particular manner is authorised by law if,—

(a)in the case of a race or an exhibition of speed or acceleration,—

“(i)the speed of the vehicle is within the applicable speed limit or speed limits; and

“(ii)the vehicle operator does not contravene any enactment other than this section that applies in relation to the operation of the vehicle; or

[Sanx]

The offence is kindly brought to you courtesy of The Land Transport (Unauthorised Street and Drag Racing) Amendment Act 2003 (http://www.legislation.co.nz/libraries/contents/om_isapi.dll?clientID=1190462487&infobase=pal_statutes.nfo&record={537E9}&hitsperheading=on&softpage=DOC).

Worse than the fact that 'unnecessary' is an entirely subjective term are the powers granted to Revenue Collectors:

"An enforcement officer may seize and impound, or seize and authorise the impoundment of, a motor vehicle for 28 days if the officer believes on reasonable grounds that a person ... operated the vehicle in a race, or in an unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration, on a road in contravention of section 22A"

So not only is the interpretation of 'unnecessary' entirely up to the officer involved, he has the power to seize and impound the vehicle - with immediate effect at the roadside - if he merely believes that the driver / rider commited the offence.

To get the vehicle back, one has to go to court and essentially prove one's innocence. But that's not a case of proving that you did not accelerate in an 'unnecessary' manner; you have to prove that the officer did not have reasonable ground for believing you to have done so.

The ability for an officer to seize a vehicle at the roadside infers that you are guilty. You have to go to court to prove that you are not. This in itself contravenes the NZ Bill of Rights (http://www.legislation.co.nz/libraries/contents/om_isapi.dll?clientID=1190462487&hitsperheading=on&infobase=pal_statutes.nfo&jump=act-nzl-pub-y.1990-109%7ebdy%7ept.2%7esg.%215%7ehdg&softpage=DOC#JUMPDEST_act-nzl-pub-y.1990-109~bdy~pt.2~sg.!5~hdg) - specifically section 25:

"Everyone who is charged with an offence has, in relation to the determination of the charge, the following minimum rights: ... (c) The right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law."

The government, who rammed through this amendment under urgency, were warned by the Attorney General that certain schedules of the amendment breached the NZ Bill of Rights, but they ignored her - as they ignore every other law which doesn't suit their cause-du-jour. The ACT party, via Deborah Coddington and Stephen Franks did raise this during committee hearings but by ten it was to late. Even the Green Party, for whom being on or in any vehicle that isn't a bicycle is 'unnecessary' speed and acceleration, refused to support it.

So - it's an act that breaches the fundamental principles of NZ justice, and is open to flagrant abuse by any revenue collector with a grudge. And there's sod all you can do about it.

[Forest]

http://www.police.govt.nz/service/road/boyracerdetails.html

Point One, read it and weep.

Wave goodbye to another little piece of your freedom. Don't expect to see it again either.

What rally shits me is the following


You must not, without reasonable excuse, pour onto or place on, or allow to spill onto any road petrol, oil or diesel fuel, or any other substance likely to cause a vehicle to undergo loss of traction.
Pouring, or spilling a slippery substance on the road is an infringement offence with a fee of $600, or if proceeded with

Only a $600 fine for spreading oil or diesel on the road?

Fuck that shit! Anyone who screws with the road surface deserves at least a $6,000 fine.

[peasea]

The government, who rammed through this amendment under urgency, were warned by the Attorney General that certain schedules of the amendment breached the NZ Bill of Rights, but they ignored her - as they ignore every other law which doesn't suit their cause-du-jour.

So - it's an act that breaches the fundamental principles of NZ justice, and is open to flagrant abuse by any revenue collector with a grudge. And there's sod all you can do about it.


Quite right, it's an interesting government we have, led from the front by a person who signs other's artworks. Everything expands exponentially from there. Power corrupts and all that............

[terbang]

There is a big void between: Hard out acceleration right through the gears on an old Suzuki T90 with both 45cc smokers screeching away (ixion) to achieve all of 70 KPH and a tweak of the wrist on a Hayabusa in first gear. The bus will easily and silently achieve 70Kays within a few metres.

[Patrick]

Only a $600 fine for spreading oil or diesel on the road?

That one is more for the end of a cul de sac with little/no traffic...

Endangering Transport (pour diesel on a bend on a highway/main road...)carries harsher penalties and disqualification

[Skytwr]

Quote"To get the vehicle back, one has to go to court and essentially prove one's innocence. But that's not a case of proving that you did not accelerate in an 'unnecessary' manner; you have to prove that the officer did not have reasonable ground for believing you to have done so"

this is not correct, to try and get ones vehicle back you can fill out the appeal form have it signed by a JP or Senior Member of Police stating that what you are saying is true and correct and then the Police have 5 days to consider it for giving back of the vehicle. they are then kept on file. It has been good to have a copy for court to produce as evidence when the idiot for got what he wrote down and then changes his story. As he said it was a true record when the JP signed it, they then look bad in front of the judge as they have to explain the difference.
This law brought in was a watered down version of the American laws. They don't give the vehicle back they crush them.
I also agree that the fine for pouring diesel or anything on the roadway is too low.
The forms for the appeals are at the front counter of most Police stations.

[Pancakes]

excessive by definition means 'inordinate', 'beyond normal limits', how do you define the 'normal' rate of acceleration for your vehicle. lets presume a normal rate of acceleration was 50% of throttle, i could get to 50kph at 50% throttle in about 1-2 seconds, i'm sure they would consider this excess, but in the relative scheme of things, is it?

I got arrested for bridge swinging and done for "disorderly behavior". My first question was what is that? Whats th discription? No one wanted to tell me, I used my legal aid call to ask the duty lawyer who reminded me it was 2:30am and advised to plead guilty to whatever it was cos I probably did it then hung up. I asked to have a proper legal aid call and they said nup, that was it! The point is the charge (I found out in the end) hinges around disorderly being based around what members of the public perceived as being normal behaviour!! As if the cops having free reign isn't enough people with nothing better to do can say we are doing something they don't think we should be and it IS against the law, their opinion forms the standard you are judged on.

Bullshit, don't even get me started, I did take diversion for the second time : )
tho, so there goes that urban myth.

'unnecessary'

ie, not necessary. You didn't need to do that, therefore it is unnecessary. What crap, you can only act in a functional, purposeful manner. It needs to have been necessary for the purpose of your travels. Could you have done it slower and served the same purpose? Yes? Done!

I have a slow bike so I get to give full throttle in 1st, 2nd and sometimes all the rest of the gears and while pulling away from all the cars don't get hassled by the man. In saying that I've stopped looking for cops while lanesplitting and got done less! I figure I should be looking at the dumb cars and not trying to spot the undie commodores and bike cops that cruise in the lanes hiding from me. If I get tickets and to stay in one peice too it's worth it.

[Puddlejumper]

ok this is a bit off topic but reading posts about oil on road and $6000 fines reminded me of a painful moment as I limped over to look down at my bike twisted through a wire fence. I had hit a line of diesel or oil on a corner. Thing is, a lot of truckies and cage drivers know their vehicles spit crap over the road (The huge stain on their driveway is a bit of a giveaway) but don't do anything about it. To my mind that is intentional spreading. They should be fined and spanked.

[gambit]

done it in front of the police and nothing happened . maybe they were in a good mood eh

[Chilling_Silence]

Sadly a lot of the time, noise is associated with speed / acceleration.

Theory: If you dont go over 50kmph when accelerating then they cant do you.
Problem: Most people wont stop at 50kmph, but rather go over to 55, maybe 60+
Solution: Dont accelerate quite so fast. You're going to reach 50kmph im all of about 2-3 seconds, and sure you might get there a slight bit faster than the car behind you, but basically you're stuck going right on 50Ks to cover your ass. Within all of about another 2-3 seconds, you will quite likely have been passed by the car in the other lane who's doing 60kmph but just took a little longer to get there than you did. Then there's the question of 'why did you need to get away so fast if you were going to sit right on 50?' :( Ive known people who've had that asked before.. and been let off!

Its all just part of the thrill: You accelerate too fast, you could pay the price. Chances of that are slim if you're being 'sensible', but still there...

Heck, you dont have to be doing anything wrong at all to be pulled over. I was driving home (west) from town along the motorway at 2am with the top down in my old '92 MX5, centre lane of the motorway doing 95kmph, silencer was in so car was pretty much quieter than a standard MX5, music was Adeaze and it was playing at a barely audible level over the wind rushing past.. yet I still got pulled over and got the full breath test, check WoF, Rego, vehicle height, license, yadda yadda...

That was just after the new anti-boy-racer laws were passed.
Seriously, sucks, but appears nothing can be done about it :(

[Max Preload]

The real issue is the fact that such a purely subjective action is an offence.

Just remember, it's not uneccessary if you're doing a runner! :yes:

[craigs288]

[QUOTE]
But, there must be *someone* to witness the exhibition, I think, And the defendant would have to be shown to be aware that the observer was there .

So, for instance, hard acceleration into a 100kph area with no other traffic around - it would be hard to argue that was an "exhibition" [QUOTE]



BUT..... if a police(wo)man issues you an infringement notice for this offence, it implies they saw you doing it, which in turn makes them the 'audience of one' required to 'witness your exhibition of speed'.

Q.E.D.

[craigs288]

Quite right, it's an interesting government we have, led from the front by a person who signs other's artworks. Everything expands exponentially from there. Power corrupts and all that............

What do you mean 'we'??? I certainly didn't vote for any of the f$%kheads that are currently in there ruining our country and reputations.
There is nobody in Par-LIAR-ment that represents me and what I want.
Yet they take my taxes and pay their own wages with it and then create more laws and taxes to empty my pockets further.
Dammit!! I would like to have been a bloody politician for the money, but I couldn't stand the though of f$%cking innocent NZ'ers in that way while being hated so much for doing it.
Plus I thought it would involve having all my teeth removed so nobody could ever accuse me of lying through them

[scumdog]

Heck, you dont have to be doing anything wrong at all to be pulled over. I was driving home (west) from town along the motorway at 2am with the top down in my old '92 MX5, centre lane of the motorway doing 95kmph, silencer was in so car was pretty much quieter than a standard MX5, music was Adeaze and it was playing at a barely audible level over the wind rushing past.. yet I still got pulled over and got the full breath test, check WoF, Rego, vehicle height, license, yadda yadda...

That was just after the new anti-boy-racer laws were passed.
Seriously, sucks, but appears nothing can be done about it :(

So just by the fact your car had nothing obviously wrong with it and you weren't doing anything 'wrong' the cop was meant to know you had an appropriate licence, you were sober and the car wasn't stolen? Amazing!:innocent:

[Renegade]

i think the the question has been pretty well answered, and to prove the case the following ingredients need to be proven....

Unnecessary - there was no reason to fang it in the first place (although we love it)

Exhibition - you have to have an audiance you are showing off to or appear to the officer to be showing off to.

Acceleration - usually given away by the tye squeal, how else can you judge it?

Speed - exceeding posted speed limit by 11kph, after all we do have an 11kph tolerance.

Also seriously fail the attitude test, i.e lippy little prick, 95 demerit points, flash car and $30k in outstanding fines.

I have personally seen a case fall over because one of these ingredients wasnt satisfactorily proven.

Revenue gathering - just for the record the police dont get a dime of the ticket money, if the did i'd have reasonable gear and a hummer SR/T to ram those inconsiderate pricks that dont understand that flashing red and blue lights mean get the f**k out of my way so i can thrash the holden to go help some one who needs it.

[scumdog]

i
Speed - exceeding posted speed limit by 11kph, after all we do have an 11kph tolerance.

Of course if you're 'gobby' enough you COULD get a ticket for 102kph........

[Pancakes]

The attitute test, have no preconceptions about the PERSON who has stopped you. If I get pulled over and I have been speeding I'll slow down so the cop knows I'm stopping for them, stop in a safe place for us both and not give them shit. It sounds a bit gay but really, you go to work and don't need assholes to give you shit all the time, I'll petition to change rules and if someone does you wrong, go hard out, get justice and teach them a lesson but if your speeding (etc) and a cop pulls you over they're not a dick if they do you (although they might be dicks in general) if you AREN'T a dick you might just make customer of the day and get a warning. Remember, cops see all the smeared bodies and deal with the real scum to a degree where it would affect your judgement to a degree. Thats not dissing the cops, just reality, what you experience day in, day out becomes the truth. If you pick your times for two wheeled fun you never know your luck!

[Pancakes]

Oh yeah, I had a little truck, a Dyna or something simalar that would leave a good diesel slick behind it. I followed it home one day and in my least menacing and most polite way let them know that they might not be aware but they were leaking fuel oil, the guy laughed and said "so what" and went inside. I called the cops and said XXX vehicle at XXX address leaves dangerous slicks all over. They said it would get picked up at WOF time, I asked about the "boy racer" slippery crap on the road thing (not exact words) and they sais that was for illegal drags, I asked why and they said cos people hit the oil and crash (true) so I said so this guys oil won't make people crash and the office person said "look, it's not up to me". Our coversation ended but whats the deal? Oil on the road is bad, if people get told they should fix it, if they don't they should get fined. Whats the deal?

[peasea]

i
Speed - exceeding posted speed limit by 11kph, after all we do have an 11kph tolerance.



No we fuckin don't. I have the paperwork to prove it. 111kph, eighty bucks, twenty points.


Oh yeah, I had a little truck, a Dyna or something simalar that would leave a good diesel slick behind it. I followed it home one day and in my least menacing and most polite way let them know that they might not be aware but they were leaking fuel oil, the guy laughed and said "so what" and went inside. I called the cops and said XXX vehicle at XXX address leaves dangerous slicks all over. They said it would get picked up at WOF time, I asked about the "boy racer" slippery crap on the road thing (not exact words) and they sais that was for illegal drags, I asked why and they said cos people hit the oil and crash (true) so I said so this guys oil won't make people crash and the office person said "look, it's not up to me". Our coversation ended but whats the deal? Oil on the road is bad, if people get told they should fix it, if they don't they should get fined. Whats the deal?

Good point. Would they take the same attitude if some attractive young woman was stuck in a dodgey situation in Piha and she thought her life was in danger?

Oops...

[Sanx]

So just by the fact your car had nothing obviously wrong with it and you weren't doing anything 'wrong' the cop was meant to know you had an appropriate licence, you were sober and the car wasn't stolen? Amazing!:innocent:

Driving under the speed limit in a sensible manner, even late at night, is not just cause for being pulled over. If Chilling_Silence is to be believed (and we have no reason not to), the Police even measured the vehicle ride-height. This does rather smack of a fishing expidition, no?


Unnecessary - there was no reason to fang it in the first place (although we love it)

That might be your definition of unnecessary, but it's a purely subjective one.


Acceleration - usually given away by the tye squeal, how else can you judge it?

Who says you have to judge it? You can measure it. In metres per second squared or in kilometres per hour per second, it doesn't matter. Acceleration is measurable and quantifiable. Measure the speed at one point. Measure it one second later. The difference between the two speeds is acceleration. Hardly difficult, is it?


Speed - exceeding posted speed limit by 11kph, after all we do have an 11kph tolerance.

Yes, we do. Except when it's not applied. Which is purely at the discretion of the officer.


Of course if you're 'gobby' enough you COULD get a ticket for 102kph........

Careful now. The way Comrade Helen and the Politburo are going, phrases like 'gobby enough' might end up in the new anti-speeding legislation. It's about as subjective as half the terms in the 'Boy Racer' act.


Good point. Would they take the same attitude if some attractive young woman was stuck in a dodgey situation in Piha and she thought her life was in danger?

Now now. That's uncalled for.

[Sanx]

To wander slightly off topic (inspired by Renegade though)...

Would any of the resident cops care to state how often they abuse their blues and twos priviliges? For example, to get home in time for an All Blacks test on TV, when they're busting for the toilet ... when they've heard over the radio that donut shop's running low on Vanilla Creams. That sort of thing.

I witness it quite often in Auckland. Cop waiting at traffic lights. Lights and siren go on. Cop drives through red lights or does a U-turn across traffic, then lights go straight off and they carry on at a completely normal speed, even to the point of waiting at the next set of lights.

[NordieBoy]

I asked about the "boy racer" slippery crap on the road thing (not exact words) and they sais that was for illegal drags, I asked why and they said cos people hit the oil and crash (true) so I said so this guys oil won't make people crash and the office person said "look, it's not up to me". Our coversation ended but whats the deal? Oil on the road is bad, if people get told they should fix it, if they don't they should get fined. Whats the deal?

It's the intent part.
Physically pouring slippery crap on the road VS slippery crap being poured on the road poss. without your knowledge.

[Renegade]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renegade
Speed - exceeding posted speed limit by 11kph, after all we do have an 11kph tolerance.


No we fuckin don't. I have the paperwork to prove it. 111kph, eighty bucks, twenty points.

stink for you, every cops got his own figure, dont think i could bring myself to dish that one out let alone even bother to stop ya.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renegade
Unnecessary - there was no reason to fang it in the first place (although we love it)

That might be your definition of unnecessary, but it's a purely subjective one.


yeah, it is, so, if you didnt have a reason to did it was unnecessary though wasnt it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renegade
Acceleration - usually given away by the tyre squeal, how else can you judge it?

Who says you have to judge it? You can measure it. In metres per second squared or in kilometres per hour per second, it doesn't matter. Acceleration is measurable and quantifiable. Measure the speed at one point. Measure it one second later. The difference between the two speeds is acceleration. Hardly difficult, is it?

yip cos we are all geeky mathmaticians and carry that sort of equipment in the car, you HAVE to judge it dont you by what you see, hear and smell(rubber) at that time, usually these things happen when youre dealing with something else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Renegade
Speed - exceeding posted speed limit by 11kph, after all we do have an 11kph tolerance.

Yes, we do. Except when it's not applied. Which is purely at the discretion of the officer.

yip but most of us like to sleep straight in bed at night so turn a blind eye when possible.

Remember, cops see all the smeared bodies and deal with the real scum to a degree where it would affect your judgement to a degree

yip and those images you never forget, and yes to sound like a broken record speed and a sudden stop does = dead, our bodies just arent tough enough.

[scumdog]

Driving under the speed limit in a sensible manner, even late at night, is not just cause for being pulled over. If Chilling_Silence is to be believed (and we have no reason not to), the Police even measured the vehicle ride-height. This does rather smack of a fishing expidition, no?

Maybe. Maybe not - the MX5 may have been/looked lowered.

"Anywhare - anytime" sunshine, driving in a sensible manner on a registered car with a current Warrant of Fitness is no guarantee you won't get pulled over.
"Just cause" went out with Mk4 Zephyrs and 80kmh speed limits, just like the cop having to put his hat on before he can arrest you/give you a ticket.

[scumdog]

To wander slightly off topic (inspired by Renegade though)...

Would any of the resident cops care to state how often they abuse their blues and twos priviliges? For example, to get home in time for an All Blacks test on TV, when they're busting for the toilet ... when they've heard over the radio that donut shop's running low on Vanilla Creams. That sort of thing.

I witness it quite often in Auckland. Cop waiting at traffic lights. Lights and siren go on. Cop drives through red lights or does a U-turn across traffic, then lights go straight off and they carry on at a completely normal speed, even to the point of waiting at the next set of lights.

You would be surprised the number of times cops get sent to "priority 1 violent domestic at xxxx happening right now" turns to a "stand down, it's only a verbal thing and both parties have gone off in opposite directions" etc etc.
Witnesses tend to get carried away at times.

[MotoGirl]

You would be surprised the number of times cops get sent to "priority 1 violent domestic at xxxx happening right now" turns to a "stand down, it's only a verbal thing and both parties have gone off in opposite directions" etc etc.
Witnesses tend to get carried away at times.

That must be the same reason why some speed and fail to indicate :bleh:

[Sanx]

You would be surprised the number of times cops get sent to "priority 1 violent domestic at xxxx happening right now" turns to a "stand down, it's only a verbal thing and both parties have gone off in opposite directions" etc etc.
Witnesses tend to get carried away at times.

Sounds like a pretty good reason I hadn't thought of. Fair's fair.

[Pancakes]

One of my best mates dad's was a bike cop in the 70's & early 80's and he told me once that they would quite often get stood down and the policy then was to leave the lights & siren on and safely head down a less busy street to turn them off, saving the complaints of running lights etc.

What would your job be like without the perks tho eh? hehehehe:yes:

[Toaster]

You would be surprised the number of times cops get sent to "priority 1 violent domestic at xxxx happening right now" turns to a "stand down, it's only a verbal thing and both parties have gone off in opposite directions" etc etc.
Witnesses tend to get carried away at times.

Damn straight. I recall many a time get dispatched to P1 jobs only to get stood down part-way there.... I hated it because you always knew some of the public would make stupid assumptions about 'being late for doughnuts'.

[Renegade]

i love a cream and rasberry doughnut and the round cinnamin ones as much as the next guy but i REFUSE to buy one in uniform due to that dam american stereo type!!

[swbarnett]

speed and a sudden stop does = dead, our bodies just arent tough enough.

Exactly, speed alone is never enough, you need the sudden stop as well. Who are you to judge the likelihood of me having a sudden stop? Do you do a thorough investigation of my vehicle and my driving skills before issuing a speeding ticket? No, you just assume that everyone doing X km/h has the same chance of crashing. Some drivers that look perfectly safe shouldn't be on the road at any speed because they don't have clue what's going on around them while others are perfectly safe over the speed limit because they know what they, their vehicle, the road and everyone else in the vicinity are doing (and when they don't they know to slow down - often to way below the speed limit).

[JimBob]

Exactly, speed alone is never enough, you need the sudden stop as well. Who are you to judge the likelihood of me having a sudden stop? Do you do a thorough investigation of my vehicle and my driving skills before issuing a speeding ticket? No, you just assume that everyone doing X km/h has the same chance of crashing. Some drivers that look perfectly safe shouldn't be on the road at any speed because they don't have clue what's going on around them while others are perfectly safe over the speed limit because they know what they, their vehicle, the road and everyone else in the vicinity are doing (and when they don't they know to slow down - often to way below the speed limit).

So how would you tell which cars to pull over?

[scumdog]

So not only is the interpretation of 'unnecessary' entirely up to the officer involved, he has the power to seize and impound the vehicle - with immediate effect at the roadside - if he merely believes that the driver / rider commited the offence.

So who else is the copper meant to ask about the 'unnecessary' bit - the driver of said car/bike????:shit:

[scumdog]

Exactly, speed alone is never enough, you need the sudden stop as well.

So the new series of ads. will say : "Slow down, stopping kills"????????


Like nobody makes the association between speed and sudden stops??????

I don't think so Tim.

[Sanx]

So who else is the copper meant to ask about the 'unnecessary' bit - the driver of said car/bike????:shit:

You get me wrong, Scumdog. This isn't really the Police's problem; it's the the courts and ultimately the governments.

The Boy Racer act legislation was rammed through Parliament under urgency a couple of years ago. Margaret Wilson (you know, Attorney General) warned the government that the Bill could violate the NZ Bill of Rights. They didn't listen. The problem is the wording of the bill. It contains wishy-washy terminology like "unnecessary", "reasonable grounds", "may have", "believe".

Until such time as the legislation's wording is clarified and objective limits replace subjective definitions, the Police are going to be stuck trying to enforce a set of laws which are deliberately vague, and any enforcement of such is going to make the traffic cops even less unpopular than they already are - if possible.

The Police use the powers they're given. Whilst I believe that enforcement of law should be done with common sense and natural justice as the over-riding principles, it's hardly surprising that legislation like the Boy Racer act get enforced. Cop spots boy racer in vehicle being a bit of a dick. Loud music, raucous voices, etc. No proof or indication that they've done anything wrong, but hey - there was a bit of a drag away from the lights eariler, so let's ping 'em under the good old 'unnecessary acceleration' charge. No proof is needed; the cop has to merely believe the vehicle may have been operated in such a manner.

So, until the legislation is changed to introduce objective limits and to shift the burden of proof where it belongs - the Police - these incidents will keep on happening. The Police need to be given the tools to measure compliance with said limits. And the Police, no matter how unfairly, are going to keep getting the blame.

[N4CR]

another lovely loophole with that 'if no one is there then it's not excessive/display etc'

if they were being usual ****y selfs in court if the cop sees you he is watching therefore = display if you contest it.

owned...

for the 10th million time:

1. at the rise of the hand by policeman, stop rapidly. do not pass him
by or
otherwise disrespect him.

2. when a passenger of the foot, hooves in sight, tootel the horn
trumpet
melodiously at first. if he still obstacles your passage, tootel him
with vigor
and express by word of mouth, warning hi, hi.

3. beware of the wandering horse that he shall not take fright as you
pass
him. do not explode the exhaust box at him. go smoothingly by.

[scumdog]

another lovely loophole with that 'if no one is there then it's not excessive/display etc'

if they were being usual ****y selfs in court if the cop sees you he is watching therefore = display if you contest it.

owned...

for the 10th million time:

1. at the rise of the hand by policeman, stop rapidly. do not pass him
by or
otherwise disrespect him.

2. when a passenger of the foot, hooves in sight, tootel the horn
trumpet
melodiously at first. if he still obstacles your passage, tootel him
with vigor
and express by word of mouth, warning hi, hi.

3. beware of the wandering horse that he shall not take fright as you
pass
him. do not explode the exhaust box at him. go smoothingly by.

What about the festive dog and the danger of him 'entanglement with the spokes'?

And the skid demon? eh?

[Mr. Peanut]

Speed camera signs in China.

[N4CR]

what about the festive dog and the danger of him 'entanglement with the spokes'?

and the skid demon? eh?

they are not related to excessive acceleration/exhibition! skid demon might partially be though, sorry i missed that one.

i fabricated 'exhibition of acceleration' story below.

"i exploded the exhaust box while traveling in direction passenger of the foot, with hooves in sight, exhibiting my tootle. i disrespected the policeman at rise of hand and light flashing while making air under wheel in front. skid demon exhaust box explode saved collapse and tie up while creating the escape smoke.
i successfully disentangled passenger of the foot with officer hand warning made a way home without the circular plane flyer of police."

[cooneyr]

You get me wrong, Scumdog. This isn't really the Police's problem; it's the the courts and ultimately the governments.

The Boy Racer act legislation was rammed through Parliament under urgency a couple of years ago. Margaret Wilson (you know, Attorney General) warned the government that the Bill could violate the NZ Bill of Rights. They didn't listen. The problem is the wording of the bill. It contains wishy-washy terminology like "unnecessary", "reasonable grounds", "may have", "believe".

Until such time as the legislation's wording is clarified and objective limits replace subjective definitions, the Police are going to be stuck trying to enforce a set of laws which are deliberately vague, and any enforcement of such is going to make the traffic cops even less unpopular than they already are - if possible.

The Police use the powers they're given. Whilst I believe that enforcement of law should be done with common sense and natural justice as the over-riding principles, it's hardly surprising that legislation like the Boy Racer act get enforced. Cop spots boy racer in vehicle being a bit of a dick. Loud music, raucous voices, etc. No proof or indication that they've done anything wrong, but hey - there was a bit of a drag away from the lights eariler, so let's ping 'em under the good old 'unnecessary acceleration' charge. No proof is needed; the cop has to merely believe the vehicle may have been operated in such a manner.

So, until the legislation is changed to introduce objective limits and to shift the burden of proof where it belongs - the Police - these incidents will keep on happening. The Police need to be given the tools to measure compliance with said limits. And the Police, no matter how unfairly, are going to keep getting the blame.

Going off topic here but if you are going to set upper limits you need lower limits as well (granny at 35kph in a 50kph zone). It seems to me that the police are slowing having their discretion eroded with the likes of the speeding campaign i.e. zero tolerance where as in the "old days" they we made more of a judgment call based on the situation. Specifying upper (and lower) limits for acceleration (that would be fun to monitor) etc etc means there is even less room to move.

I got done for doing 13kph over the speed limit on a set of passing lanes after following a 80kph truck for about 5kms - sense would tell you that passing is safer on passing lanes that along the wiggly bit that it is to difficult to build passing lanes on. If they had done me for +13kph on a different part of the road then so be it but this pissed me off. I dont see it as the copper being a pain rather the current policy being an arse.

It must be damn hard to be a Police man/woman at the moment though with all the lippy shitheads out there who challenge everything and all the shit being flung at the cops at the moment. Understand the intent of the laws and save it for somewhere more appropriate that doesn't piss all the neighbors off - respect those around you (including the police) and life would be sweet. Finally - take some damn personal responsibility for your actions. Society sucks at this - there is too much finger pointing IMHO.

/rant

Cheers R

[swbarnett]

So how would you tell which cars to pull over?

You can't. But once you've pulled the driver over any decent cop can make a pretty accurate judgement as to the state of driver, vehicle and conditions.

My wife was pulled over years ago for doing 150km/h on the Auckland motorway on her CR1000. Before the cop was even out of the patrol car she had taken off her helmet before and laid it on the ground (without getting off the bike). It was pretty obvious to the cop that she knew what she was doing (and showed the cop no disrespect). Add to that a nearly empty road and a bike in obviously good nick and she was let off with a "take it easy" and left to go on her merry way.

All I ask is that we accept that people have brains (cops included) and need to be given a chance to use them. Expect people to be brainless and that's exactly what they will be. Over-regulation for "safety's sake" only encourages people to stop thinking.

[swbarnett]

So the new series of ads. will say : "Slow down, stopping kills"????????


Like nobody makes the association between speed and sudden stops??????

I don't think so Tim.

There is no causal relationship between speed and sudden stops! Speed is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a sudden stop to occur. As I've said before, why do astronauts survive space flight if speed is all that is required? A sudden stop from 100km/h will kill you too. Why is this speed deemed so safe?

[scumdog]

There is no causal between speed and sudden stops! Speed is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a sudden stop to occur. As I've said before, why do astronauts survive space flight if speed is all that is required? A sudden stop from 100km/h will kill you too. Why is this speed deemed so safe?

Sufficient? it is NECESSARY!!!!!

The 100 thing is because most people can mostly handle figuring out where/when it's safe to do a 100 and still stop safely.

Actually that's not true - it's the AVERAGE person, not most.

Bad luck if you're a cretin eh?


130kph speed limit on all NZ roads would kill way too many people = less taxes for the Gubmint.

[swbarnett]

Sufficient? it is NECESSARY!!!!!

If you'd like to reread what I said I agree with you on this point. I said that speed is not "sufficient" but it is "necessary".


The 100 thing is because most people can mostly handle figuring out where/when it's safe to do a 100 and still stop safely.

Actually that's not true - it's the AVERAGE person, not most.

So what you're saying is that a large proportion of our drivers are not capable of driving at 100? Then why do we have a limit at 100? Why not 50? Oh, there's a little old granny that can't handle any more that 30. Trust people to set their own limits and you'll be amazed what they're capable of. If you set too many limits people either zone out or rebel, I suppose I'm in the latter group.


Bad luck if you're a cretin eh?

Finally, someone got my point. Why should the fact that someone else is a cretin mean that I get penalised? If you're not up to scratch then it's you (not you personally) that should be penalised. Don't set arbitrary limits that dumb down the rest of the population. (This applies to all aspects of life. Our education system is a prime example of a failure to show people what they're not good at and hence what they are).


130kph speed limit on all NZ roads would kill way too many people

There seems to be evidence to refute this. If everybody drove at 130 on every road I would agree with you. I don't believe that this would happen. The proof of this is getting caught behind a slow driver on the twisties. Besides, why do we have to have only one open-road limit? Why not a higher on on motorways and main arterials as a compromise?


= less taxes for the Gubmint.

I agree with you here, the Government is definitely motivated by money when it comes to arbitrary limits based on insufficient and probably flawed data.

[scumdog]

If you'd like to reread what I said I agree with you on this point. I said that speed is not "sufficient" but it is "necessary".



So what you're saying is that a large proportion of our drivers are not capable of driving at 100? Then why do we have a limit at 100? Why not 50? Oh, there's a little old granny that can't handle any more that 30. Trust people to set their own limits and you'll be amazed what they're capable of. If you set too many limits people either zone out or rebel, I suppose I'm in the latter group.



Finally, someone got my point. Why should the fact that someone else is a cretin mean that I get penalised? If you're not up to scratch then it's you (not you personally) that should be penalised. Don't set arbitrary limits that dumb down the rest of the population. (This applies to all aspects of life. Our education system is a prime example of a failure to show people what they're not good at and hence what they are).



There seems to be evidence to refute this. If everybody drove at 130 on every road I would agree with you. I don't believe that this would happen. The proof of this is getting caught behind a slow driver on the twisties. Besides, why do we have to have only one open-road limit? Why not a higher on on motorways and main arterials as a compromise?



I agree with you here, the Government is definitely motivated by money when it comes to arbitrary limits based on insufficient and probably flawed data.

The 'average' driver can cope with 100kph - so yeah , a 'large' percentage of the driving (more likely 'can steer a car and stop in time most of the time' drivers) ARE below the standard needed..
It costs more to treat ding-bats injuries than said ding-bat pays in taxes/fines/levies - so YOU pay to support ding-bat and his cretinous driving habits - and the resulting injuries etc..

[NordieBoy]

If you set too many limits people either zone out or rebel, I suppose I'm in the latter group.

A GN250 riding rebel.

[swbarnett]

A GN250 riding rebel.

For the moment. Until 9months ago I'd been in a cage for 13 years. I was nervous as hell about getting back on a bike but knew it was time. Although I'm now well and truly over that fear I've got to save my pennies (my wife is a full time student) before I can get onto something bigger. The GN makes a pretty good commuter though and I'm actually having fun on it for the moment (admittedly mostly around town). It's really nice just to be back on a bike, no matter how big.

[swbarnett]

The 'average' driver can cope with 100kph - so yeah , a 'large' percentage of the driving (more likely 'can steer a car and stop in time most of the time' drivers) ARE below the standard needed..
It costs more to treat ding-bats injuries than said ding-bat pays in taxes/fines/levies - so YOU pay to support ding-bat and his cretinous driving habits - and the resulting injuries etc..

Freedom has a financial cost. If I have to pay more tax to support a free society then so be it. I do believe however that raising speed limits would actually be cheaper financially do to a reduced road toll.

Under the current system if a cretin has an accident but they were under the speed limit etc. (maybe they slid out on an icy road) they are straight back on the road to cause even more carnage. If I had my way every accident would be investigated as is the case for civil aviation and the cretin responsible would be done for losing control (i.e. not driving to the conditions) and probably disqualified. Hang on, don't we already have laws that make this possible? They're called "careless/dangerous driving causing injury/death". Speed limits get in the way of accident investigations because they provide a convenient scape goat.

[scumdog]

[QUOTE=swbarnett;1092372] If I had my way every accident would be investigated as is the case for civil aviation and the cretin responsible would be done for losing control (i.e. not driving to the conditions) and probably disqualified. [QUOTE]


And we do just that in the deep south - but "Johnny-Doogood" feels it's not fair.

"He was only doing 95" - (on a wet road with marginal tyres on a tight bend)

"It had a warrant" - (Yeah, 4 months ago when the tyres were JUST over the minimum)

"He was going to get his 'full' next month" (but he had been riding on his Restricted for the last 18 months - and had done 200km in that time)

"He shouldn't have been disqualified, he was over 20 and blew under the limit" ( even though he had a level of 380 and was just 22 years old at time of crash).

And so it goes.

[swbarnett]

If I had my way every accident would be investigated as is the case for civil aviation and the cretin responsible would be done for losing control (i.e. not driving to the conditions) and probably disqualified.

And we do just that in the deep south.
Glad to hear it!

We've all got our own ideas on what makes for safe driving and no matter what you do you'll always get someone disagreeing with you. That's what makes us human and I'm damn glad we live in a country where just disagreeing is not illegal!

In the examples you gave they were all post accident I assume?

I have no problem with whatever is thrown at me post accident (even though I may feel it's a bit harsh I know there's a mark on the road with my name on it so we can't complain). Pre-accident is another matter entirely. You can't judge the probability of any given driver on any given day causing an accident just by how fast they were going.

[Waylander]

You really sound the rebel wanting more laws to keep us safe from ourselfs.

[scumdog]

Yup, all post crash - there ain't such a beast as an "accident" generally.

And NOBODY ever did anything that could lead to a crash - and admitted it pre-crash eh?

[cooneyr]

You really sound the rebel wanting more laws to keep us safe from ourselfs.


Yup, all post crash - there ain't such a beast as an "accident" generally.

And NOBODY ever did anything that could lead to a crash - and admitted it pre-crash eh?

Unfortunately natural selection can have unwanted consequences for others, hence sometimes we need to be protected from ourselves - pre-crash policing maybe?

Just a matter of targeting the policing appropriately which is what the govt would like to think it is doing with guidance from LTNZ crash statistics monitoring. I know people (say it with a mob accent :D) whos job it is to analyse the crash database looking for patterns and trends. Problem is I think the govts own agenda sometimes gets in the way of the stats.

Cheers R

[swbarnett]

You really sound the rebel wanting more laws to keep us safe from ourselfs.

Who said anything about more laws? I actually said that we have more than enough without the speed limit laws.

[swbarnett]

Yup, all post crash - there ain't such a beast as an "accident" generally.

And NOBODY ever did anything that could lead to a crash - and admitted it pre-crash eh?

The important word here is "could" lead to a crash. Yes there is a risk. Just leaving your driveway involves risk. Who are you to say that what I'm doing, just based on speed alone, constitutes a risk worthy of retribution? Total safety is a myth.

[swbarnett]

Unfortunately natural selection can have unwanted consequences for others.

And this is the price we pay for freedom. I'd rather die in a motor accident tomorrow as the result of the abused freedom of others than live the next 60 years in a draconian society that claims to be "safe".

[swbarnett]

- pre-crash policing maybe?

I'm not saying that nobody should be ticketed pre-crash. I'm just trying to put the point that speed is never the sole determining factor in any crash.

[Waylander]

The important word here is "could" lead to a crash. Yes there is a risk. Just leaving your driveway involves risk. Who are you to say that what I'm doing, just based on speed alone, constitutes a risk worthy of retribution? Total safety is a myth.
What do you think all those air crash investigations lead to? More laws and safty regulations. Why would Automotive crash investigations lead to anything else?

[Patrick]

I'm just trying to put the point that speed is never the sole determining factor in any crash.

Never??? Pffftttt......:zzzz:

[swbarnett]

What do you think all those air crash investigations lead to? More laws and safty regulations. Why would Automotive crash investigations lead to anything else?

If the new laws are based on sound evidence that shows their value as a carnage prevention tool and don't result in an undue loss of freedom I'm all for them.

I saw a documentary recently that followed a multi-engined passenger jet as it was skillfully landed after losing all hydraulics using only engine power. It turns out that a similar incident that resulted in complete loss of the aircraft led to the creation of a computer that can fly the plane with engines only but the FAA deemed it too expensive to be worth installing due to the low likelihood of this type of incident. You have to weigh up the costs and benefits of any new law before imposing it on everybody.

[swbarnett]

Never??? Pffftttt......:zzzz:

This is basic physics.

Newton's first law: An object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by an external and unbalanced force.

Speed alone = constant motion.

Speed + opposing, unbalanced force (another vehicle perhaps) = sudden stop.

Therefore, speed alone cannot cause an accident. QED

[Waylander]

If the new laws are based on sound evidence that shows their value as a carnage prevention tool and don't result in an undue loss of freedom I'm all for them.

And what are the odds of that one? Given any governments past record do you really expect them to react to sound evidence or simply public reaction?

Here is an example for you. When it rains, car crashes happen quite often here (infact whenever we lose power at work during a rain storm the first thought it someone has hit a power pole) Ofcourse the blame is put on speed and not driving to the slippery conditions. Ignoring the speed lets take a look at the conditions. Water is slippery, when it's in a puddle it's worse. Why is it then that very few roads in this country have any sort of drainage to them?
Doesn't take a lot of effort to put a slight slope to the roads from the centre outwards so that water will run off the road to the side instead of just sitting there creating all sorts of hazards. OFcourse you hve to have somewhere for the water to go else it will just flood the road again if there is enough of it. But that wht sewers are for isn't it? I'm certain when I flush the toilet it goes somewhere. No reason why road drainage can't be joined into that.

But ofcourse instead of looking into that what does the government and roading NZ or whatever they call themselfs do? Air annoying tax money wasting comercials.

[spudchucka]

Therefore, speed alone cannot cause an accident. QED

But it flys in the face of common sense to suggest that you can have one without the other.

[swbarnett]

And what are the odds of that one? Given any governments past record do you really expect them to react to sound evidence or simply public reaction?

No, I don't expect it but there is always hope.


But it flys in the face of common sense to suggest that you can have one without the other.

You CAN have speed without a sudden stop. I do this every time I drive to work. The two combine to form an accident on extremely rare occasions when you consider how many kays are driven every day.

[Kwaka14]

Hmm, interesting. I guess it comes down to what defines "exhibition" and what actions actually constitute it. For example, does hooning off from the car beside you, which is full of 18yr old blondes count as showing off for an audience?

I'm guessing if a cop saw you then he'd probably qualify as an audience therefore witnessed you exhibiting uneccesarily...

[Waylander]

No, I don't expect it but there is always hope.
Hope is a dangerous thing.
Personally I'de rather the government just left me the fuck alone. Stop bombarding me with useless shit that no one pays attention to anyway.
Let me keep what little money I earn and grab joy and happiness where I can without some fuckwit comming down and saying "That's unsafe and I don't like you doing it so I'm gonna make it illegal." (brings us back to the original topic, I like practising drag starts at the lights) I'm the only one that should be able to choose what I do with my life and how I do it.

I know some people out there need the rules and regulations and shit so a few laws are good, but they should not take freedom away from decent people with sound minds. There's my Utopia, shame it'll never happen.

[spudchucka]

You CAN have speed without a sudden stop. I do this every time I drive to work. The two combine to form an accident on extremely rare occasions when you consider how many kays are driven every day.

The point is that you can't have a "crash", (there are no accidents) if you are stationary. Therefore, it flys in the face of common sense to suggest that you can have one without the other! Or, in other words, you can't have a sudden stop, (crash) unless you first have velocity, (speed).

[RC1]

The point is that you can't have a "crash", (there are no accidents) if you are stationary. Therefore, it flys in the face of common sense to suggest that you can have one without the other! Or, in other words, you can't have a sudden stop, (crash) unless you first have velocity, (speed).

so when i was slammed into while stationary does this mean i did not have a "CRASH" :scratch:

[spudchucka]

so when i was slammed into while stationary does this mean i did not have a "CRASH" :scratch:

Even though you were stationary does it mean that there was no speed involved?

[swbarnett]

you can't have a sudden stop, (crash) unless you first have velocity, (speed).

Agreed, but you can have speed without a sudden stop. A relationship being true in one direction does not mean that the reverse is also true.


Hope is a dangerous thing.
Personally I'de rather the government just left me the fuck alone. Stop bombarding me with useless shit that no one pays attention to anyway.

:2thumbsup


There's my Utopia, shame it'll never happen.

Can I come? I promise not to nag!

[spudchucka]

Agreed, but you can have speed without a sudden stop. A relationship being true in one direction does not mean that the reverse is also true.

Yep, well you can own lotto tickets without ever actually winning the thing too, doesn't mean that the latest lotto winner isn't travelling at high speed in your direction and fucken kills you in their haste to get the hands on the $$$$.

[Waylander]

Yep, well you can own lotto tickets without ever actually winning the thing too, doesn't mean that the latest lotto winner isn't travelling at high speed in your direction and fucken kills you in their haste to get the hands on the $$$$.
Or...

Krnt1ZyUkpw

[swbarnett]

Yep, well you can own lotto tickets without ever actually winning the thing too, doesn't mean that the latest lotto winner isn't travelling at high speed in your direction and fucken kills you in their haste to get the hands on the $$$$.

The chances of this happening are infinitesimal. Personally, I like the odds.

[scumdog]

Agreed, but you can have speed without a sudden stop.

And you can vouch that is going to happen EVERY time you go for a ride - at any speed you happen to chose?

(Who needs speed limits, right?)

[swbarnett]

Agreed, but you can have speed without a sudden stop.

And you can vouch that is going to happen EVERY time you go for a ride - at any speed you happen to chose?

(Who needs speed limits, right?)

No, I can't guarantee that is going to happen EVERY time I go for a ride. This is where a definition of the term "safe" is required. "Safe" does not come with a guarantee. To be 100% safe is to be dead, so what's the point?

A zero road toll is only achievable when the human factor is removed (even then, computers break down). Automated roads may sound safe but I don't want to be around when the data gets corrupted.

Actually, I do have a speed limit - that which allows me to stop in half the visibility in front of me or the whole distance between me and any hazard not connected with oncoming traffic. Under this model why do we need posted speed limits?

[scumdog]

Actually, I do have a speed limit - that which allows me to stop in half the visibility in front of me or the whole distance between me and any hazard not connected with oncoming traffic. Under this model why do we need posted speed limits?

Because not everybody is astute as you - and that little old man backing his trailer out onto the street might 'assume your bike is doing about 50kph when you are actually doing 80kph...or the guy doing the right turn across your bows that didn't even see you, 50 might give you a better chance than 80...

How do you adjust your speed for undulating road? 140 going into a dip in the road may be real safe but 100 may still be a risk as you go over the crest.....

Until everybody is as good as you we need speed limits, breath alcohol limits etc etc all based on the lowest common denominator.

[Patrick]

This is basic physics.

Newton's first law: An object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by an external and unbalanced force.

Speed alone = constant motion.

Speed + opposing, unbalanced force (another vehicle perhaps) = sudden stop.

Therefore, speed alone cannot cause an accident. QED

All nice and a box of fluffys in your physics world, I see... where is this majical road that no one else uses and has no other obstructions on it??? I'd like to go for a blat on it....

[swbarnett]

Because not everybody is astute as you - and that little old man backing his trailer out onto the street might 'assume your bike is doing about 50kph when you are actually doing 80kph...or the guy doing the right turn across your bows that didn't even see you,

So what you're saying is that because I and others like me (or better) have to drive like we're complete idiots? Guess what, treat people like idiots and that's what you get.


50 might give you a better chance than 80...

Agreed. And 30 might give you a better chance than 50. Which is why I am down to a speed at which I can stop before the driveway when someone threatens to come into my path and I don't have room to avoid if necessary.


How do you adjust your speed for undulating road? 140 going into a dip in the road may be real safe but 100 may still be a risk as you go over the crest.....

As I've already stated I drive to the visibility. I try to keep a constant speed in a straight line where possible but if the visibility drops so does my speed so that I can still stop in half my visibility. This is why I corner on blind bends slower than open ones.


Until everybody is as good as you we need speed limits, breath alcohol limits etc etc all based on the lowest common denominator.

I think you've hit it here. This is the root of the argument. You want everybody to be totally safe (zero road toll etc.) and I respect life and the price that must be paid. I don't want total freedom, that would be anarchy, but total safety is just as bad. All I ask for is that if I'm not harming anybody to be left alone to live my life as I see fit.

A thought just occurred to me - I lived in Switzerland for a couple of years a while back. Over there they have the best public transport system I've ever seen. As a result the density of motor vehicles is very low - in Zurich there were 1350 people for every car. The "lowest common denominator" of drivers simply doesn't drive. They don't want to, they prefer to be chauffeur driven in comfort than to have the stress of driving. Perhaps that could be applied here. A decent public transport system would remove a large number of bad drivers from the roads and vastly reduce the road maintenance bill. This would leave the road largely for those of us that actually enjoy driving or make a living out of it (truck drivers, couriers, taxis and the like).

[swbarnett]

All nice and a box of fluffys in your physics world, I see... where is this majical road that no one else uses and has no other obstructions on it??? I'd like to go for a blat on it....

All I'm trying to say is that blaming speed alone is a misnomer. Speed is only attacked IMO because it's easy and let's the politicians fool the voters into thinking that they're doing something constructive.

[Patrick]

May be.. but clearly, speed is a factor, as is the sudden stop. The faster you are going, the worse the forces are going to be in stopping. (Simple fizics 101)... :innocent:

[scumdog]

So what you're saying is that because I and others like me (or better) have to drive like we're complete idiots? Guess what, treat people like idiots and that's what you get.

You only have to look around when out riding (or read KB threads) to realise a shit-load of drivers/riders out there ARE complete idiots, THEY are the ones causing resticive laws to be made - to protect them from themselves AND hopefully you from them.

[swbarnett]

You only have to look around when out riding (or read KB threads) to realise a shit-load of drivers/riders out there ARE complete idiots, THEY are the ones causing resticive laws to be made - to protect them from themselves AND hopefully you from them.

No, the restrictive laws are creating them.

[N4CR]

but it flys in the face of common sense to suggest that you can have one without the other.

if a perfectly good bike spontaneously combusts while stationary then it's an accident right? it didn't involve speed either :dodge: find a way to tax that one!

[Squiggles]

Most of us dont burn off from the lights at full bore, only half which looks real quick (unless its a gn :lol:) how bout showing the cop what it looks like when you really accelerate quick (and dont stop)

good info on pg2 of this thread in regards to not breaking any other law in the process :yes:

[spudchucka]

if a perfectly good bike spontaneously combusts while stationary then it's an accident right? it didn't involve speed either :dodge: find a way to tax that one!

Fine for littering!

[Biff]

No, the restrictive laws are creating them.

Are you trying to say that before speed limits and other restrictions on motor vehicles and their drivers were first made law over a hundred years ago (England, 1903, a speed limit of a heady 20mph was introduced) and enforced, the roads of the world were a safer place, and the standard of driving better than that which exists today, with tens of thousands of times more traffic on the roads than at the turn of the last century?

Or that by removing all restrictions the roads would be a safer place?

Or were you being sarcastic?

[swbarnett]

Are you trying to say that before speed limits and other restrictions on motor vehicles and their drivers were first made law over a hundred years ago (England, 1903, a speed limit of a heady 20mph was introduced) and enforced, the roads of the world were a safer place, and the standard of driving better than that which exists today, with tens of thousands of times more traffic on the roads than at the turn of the last century?

100 years ago the roads and vehicles were a lot worse than today but the drivers thought for themselves and may well have been better.

What I'm trying to say is that if you treat people like idiots that's what you'll get. You have to temper restrictions so that they still allow drivers to use their brains. If a law is too restrictive and leaves no room for common sense (or defies common sense) people will stop thinking, zone out and become worse drivers as a result.

[Biff]

if you treat people like idiots that's what you'll get.

Sorry mate - but I fail to follow your logic. Although I've obviously heard that particular statement of yours applied to a thousand and one different scenarios.

In no way do I feel like I'm being treated like an idiot because I'm told what the acceptable (legal) limits are with regards to any aspects of my life. I know the speed limit is 100Kmph, but any decent thinking cop wouldn't consider pinging me until I was traveling more than 110. If I do (did) exceed these speeds it would be because I wanted to experience the 'rush' associated with speeding (or similar), and not because I knowingly or unknowingly believed I was being treated like an idiot.

Any given laws were/are designed to protect the majority from the idiotic actions of a minority. Get rid of/educate that minority - and the world would be a much better place.

[crshbndct]

this government seems to be in a current mood of passing legislation which counteracts whichever thing is in teh news currently...

boyracers kill someone... pass new boy racer law.
some old fatty dies becasue noone bothered to point out to her that a lifesaving medical device(which it was most definitley NOT) should be on a ups/backup generator... pass new laws about when and how to switch off power

etc etc etc..

[MotoGirl]

...If I do (did) exceed these speeds it would be because I wanted to experience the 'rush' associated with speeding (or similar)

I get what you're saying, however, no matter what the speed limit is we're going to exceed it. It's human nature to get off on doing things we know are wrong.

My point is that idiots will be idiots regardless of the rules.

[swbarnett]

Sorry mate - but I fail to follow your logic.

It goes something like this:

Before - Driver is looking for hazards on the road because they there are a lot of them about.

After - Driver believes that all hazards have been removed by laws, stops looking for hazards. Actually only a proportion of hazards have been removed.

If the perception is that a road is "safe" people stop looking for the hazards that are still there.


In no way do I feel like I'm being treated like an idiot because I'm told what the acceptable (legal) limits are with regards to any aspects of my life.

A lot of the time the set limit is sensible for the circumstances under which it is applied. With speed limits, however, the limit is often grossly inappropriate. Sometimes higher speeds are just as safe, other times lower speeds are called for. By setting an arbitrary limit that has at best only a thin basis in logic you're telling people not to think because common sense doesn't tally with the law.


Any given laws were/are designed to protect the majority from the idiotic actions of a minority. Get rid of/educate that minority - and the world would be a much better place.

In principle I agree. In practice, however, most laws are put in place to meet a political agenda. We have a choice - either eliminate the minority and take some innocents with them or err on the side of caution and leave a small part of that minority untouched. I'd rather have the odd murderer wandering the streets than have innocent people in jail.

[Patrick]

I'd rather have the odd murderer wandering the streets than have innocent people in jail.

Like BAIN? He's "wondering" the streets... like... "I wonder how the fuck I pulled the wool over so many peoples eyes and got away with mass murder"...:Offtopic: but couldn't help myself tho...:bye:

[swbarnett]

My point is that idiots will be idiots regardless of the rules.

Yes and no. Although you will always have idiots, the number and degree can be influenced by the way people are treated. When someone is down in the dumps you can brighten their day just be smiling at them. Frown at them and they will just go down further. Like it or not, we are reactionary beings and our surroundings (including the laws that are placed on us) have a large influence.

[swbarnett]

Like BAIN? He's "wondering" the streets... like... "I wonder how the fuck I pulled the wool over so many peoples eyes and got away with mass murder"...:Offtopic: but couldn't help myself tho...:bye:

Well, yes. If we can't prove the case beyond "reasonable doubt" without resorting to twisting logic then we need to let the person go. This should be applied to the road thus: If we can't prove someone is a danger to others (even a common sense argument would do) we should leave them alone.

[Patrick]

Well, yes. If we can't prove the case beyond "reasonable doubt" without resorting to twisting logic then we need to let the person go. This should be applied to the road thus: If we can't prove someone is a danger to others (even a common sense argument would do) we should leave them alone.

You have a very scary logic... "if you cant prove someone is a danger then let it go..." Is that for the rules on the road????? Good luck to you on that one... Afganistan and Iraq will welcome you with open arms, they have very few rules (and very high road death rates too...)

As for BAIN, he was proved beyond reasonable doubt... but some new things have come up from both sides, which need testing in court. Have a read of the BAIN thread of recent weeks... some VERY interesting points made there which leave me in no doubt whatsoever (way beyond reasonable...) that he is guilty as sin...

[swbarnett]

You have a very scary logic... "if you cant prove someone is a danger then let it go..."

Isn't this the guiding principle of "Innocent until PROVEN guilty"?


As for BAIN, he was proved beyond reasonable doubt... but some new things have come up from both sides, which need testing in court. Have a read of the BAIN thread of recent weeks... some VERY interesting points made there which leave me in no doubt whatsoever (way beyond reasonable...) that he is guilty as sin...

I have no opinion on whether Bain is guilty or not. It's not the media's place to try anybody. I agree that he was convicted originally beyond reasonable doubt but this has been overturned so is no longer the case. Yes, he should probably be retried.

[cooneyr]

This is a post well worthy of replying too.


It goes something like this:

Before - Driver is looking for hazards on the road because they there are a lot of them about.

After - Driver believes that all hazards have been removed by laws, stops looking for hazards. Actually only a proportion of hazards have been removed.

If the perception is that a road is "safe" people stop looking for the hazards that are still there.

You are correct for a lot of people and that is the scary thing - however - if you as a person travel over any of the remote rural i.e. Alpine passes in SI or Desert Road (canty plains etc don't count) you learn very quickly that you cannot drive like this without risking a serious problem. I think that motorways, and urban and near rural environments tend to promote this attitude. My wife and I drive the Lewis Pass both ways nearly every month to Nelson and while we know the road very well we also know there are a number of areas where there is potential for ice/grit/snow esp at this time of year.

As an inexperienced long distance driver I tended to assume that the road would be fine the whole way. With 11 years more experience traveling this route and others I have now have the experience to know what type of terrain is fast and flowing and what type of terrain needs more attention. We have seen many "boy racers" (term used loosely) on the Lewis and it is painfully obvious that they have no high speed experience either that they drive far to fast for the traffic and road conditions or have no confidence at high speeds. I seriously believe that a huge percentage (85+%) of drivers would gain a lot of experience by simply driving over a remote rural road a a dozen times a year during for a couple of years. How much the road condition and traffic conditions can change is scary to the ignorant.


A lot of the time the set limit is sensible for the circumstances under which it is applied. With speed limits, however, the limit is often grossly inappropriate. Sometimes higher speeds are just as safe, other times lower speeds are called for. By setting an arbitrary limit that has at best only a thin basis in logic you're telling people not to think because common sense doesn't tally with the law.

Not taking account of the temporary speed limits the only legally recognised (legislated) speed limits are 40, 50, 60, 70 (although on the way out), 80 and 100 kph. What is more important however is the strict process that engineers working for councils (yes engineers set the limits not the Cops) must go through to determine the appropriate limits. The process are set by LTNZ by the way. The processes basically take into account the potential for hazards to appear on the road. The limits don't normally take into account the road surfacing - that is left to the driver or temporary limits during construction. Below is a very rough summary of the speed limit rules.

Simply put 40kph is the is the "new" school zone limit

50kph is any urban street that is not median divided in which case it is 60kph. The 60kph limit generally feels to low (most median devided roads tend to run closer to 10kph high - 70kph) but in reality there is still over 50% (side adjacent to property and turn bays in median) of the hazard potential of a 50kph road which would tend to run 5kph high - 55kph).

Not going to talk about 70 as not so relevant any more.

80kph is difficult to apply. It is typically used where the number of hazards per km (i.e. driveway entrances etc) drops below a threshhold i.e. it tends to appear on the outskirts of towns in lower density development areas.

100 kph is applied where none of the rest are necessary.

In all cases there is a compromise between the potential for an unseen hazard and the distance needed to stop (obviously related to speed) and wanting to have reduced travel times. The speed limits below 100kph have less to do with the interactions between moving traffic and much more to do with the potential for a hazard to appear from the side of the road.

So saying that the speed limits are illogically set is complete and utter bollocks. There has been a hugh amount of work put into the process and there a strict guidelines in place to administer the application of a limit. Many people just do not see the hazards.

Lastly though there is a lot of history around the country granted there are a few locations where Councils have failed to get off their butts and update the speed limits for the new activity levels.

Cheers R

[spudchucka]

It goes something like this:

Before - Driver is looking for hazards on the road because they there are a lot of them about.

After - Driver believes that all hazards have been removed by laws, stops looking for hazards. Actually only a proportion of hazards have been removed.

I've never met anyone quite that stupid. However, if they do exist its just a matter of time before their own stupidity kills them, be it on the road or elsewhere.

[Biff]

It goes something like this:


The logic you use has been used on here, and the wider world for eons. And it's a very simplistic and idealistic viewpoint IMO. In reality you are different to me, you will act differently to different circumstances, and you will travel at a different speed to me on certain stretched of roads.

What you're purporting to promote here is driving Nervana - it simply doesn't exist in the real world. In a perfect world - sure. But at the risk of offending you, I think you're being somewhat naive in lumping every person in the world together in the same group, believing that we all act in the same way to a given set of circumstances, while the fact is we don't. As such arbitrary limits have to be imposed on all of us for the greater good of the masses. And blaming the enforcement, and indeed the creation of legislation on the grounds of some sort of political agenda whiffs of paranoia from where I'm sitting. Or maybe it's the Thai curry I had last night?

In my world - I'm happy that there are enforced limits to the speeds some of the idiots around me drive, and restrictions on peoples actions as a whole. I for one feel a little safer knowing that Mr/Ms Policeperson is keeping an eye on my wife and kids, ensuring that anyone who exceeds the acceptable limits (acceptable to the majority) is dealt with in the appropriate manner.

That's my 6c for this topic (a guy named Alan something, he heads an organization lobbying for the abolition of speed limits I think, posted views similar to yours in the general biker section last year, or the year before, sometime, before this section existed, and he got a right royal kick-in for his efforts courtesy of the KB masses).

[cooneyr]

......... I think you're being somewhat naive in lumping every person in the world together in the same group, believing that we all act in the same way to a given set of circumstances, while the fact is we don't. As such arbitrary limits have to be imposed on all of us for the greater good of the masses......

Firstly the limits are not arbitrary! Reaction times, braking distances plus probability of potential hazards are all very real and have been considered long and hard (along with other matters) in the development of speed limits. Sounds stupid but the average reaction time of Joe Blogs driving home from work (i.e. not in amped up fanging is mode) is around 2 seconds. Thats a lot of meters even at 50kph - 27.8m to be exact. No you cant test this on you way home tonight. If you try you will be ready for the hazard and have a shorter reaction time and if you are not ready for it you wont measure the time.

The whole thing with engineering is "for the greater good". Yes "you" (whomever that is) might be Casey Stoner (screw the "doc") on a shiny fandangle bike but you are not one of the "masses". There will always be the a spectrum of abilities so limits/laws/designs etc etc have to be for the masses.

In a "perfect" world we wouldn't have idiots, intersections, corners, chipseal, broken bones, road rash etc etc etc but that would be boring as hell and impossible to achieve. Think of the opposite to every one of "your" arguments then reach a compromise based on scientific fact and general society's views and live with it.

Cheers R

P.S. not attacking anyone in particular, just don't assume that shit is made up by the pollys or cops cause they feel like it. The whole lot is a mix of scientific fact, probability, engineering (which means best result per dollar spend these days), and political will. On top of that the Police are there to enforce the rules and cop (no pun intended) all the flack for doing their jobs.

[swbarnett]

You are correct for a lot of people and that is the scary thing - however - if you as a person travel over any of the remote rural i.e. Alpine passes in SI or Desert Road (canty plains etc don't count) you learn very quickly that you cannot drive like this without risking a serious problem. I think that motorways, and urban and near rural environments tend to promote this attitude. My wife and I drive the Lewis Pass both ways nearly every month to Nelson and while we know the road very well we also know there are a number of areas where there is potential for ice/grit/snow esp at this time of year.

It looks like there is a regional difference here. My experience of both drivers and roads is mainly in and around Auckland (although I have driven the roads you speak of - but not in winter). Indeed, the more hazardous the road in the first place the less this will apply.


I seriously believe that a huge percentage (85+%) of drivers would gain a lot of experience by simply driving over a remote rural road a a dozen times a year during for a couple of years. How much the road condition and traffic conditions can change is scary to the ignorant.

Sounds like a damn good idea!


So saying that the speed limits are illogically set is complete and utter bollocks.

Setting the same speed limit for a tight blind corner on a one lane country road and a clear, wide motorway does not seem logical to me. The limits are set for the lowest common denominator, we need to recognise that not everyone is that dumb. If we must have a limit then treat each and every infringement according to the merits of the individual incident.


limits/laws/designs etc etc have to be for the masses.

So again the minority loses out because the powers that be can't distinguish them from the masses.


On top of that the Police are there to enforce the rules and cop (no pun intended) all the flack for doing their jobs.

Yes, this needs to be made clear. I for one have no problem with the individual cop on the street - their hands are tied most of the time.

[cooneyr]

Can you tell I'm bored at work today?


It looks like there is a regional difference here. My experience of both drivers and roads is mainly in and around Auckland (although I have driven the roads you speak of - but not in winter). Indeed, the more hazardous the road in the first place the less this will apply.

Your regional difference is what I was politely referring to with the motorway vs remote rural roads. Again, I think living in a urban environment tends to build complancy when it should be doing exactly the opposite. This includes motorways which are a kind of artificial environment in NZ given the relative lack of them.


Setting the same speed limit for a tight blind corner on a one lane country road and a clear, wide motorway does not seem logical to me. The limits are set for the lowest common denominator, we need to recognise that not everyone is that dumb. If we must have a limit then treat each and every infringement according to the merits of the individual incident.

Ever seen those yellow diamond shaped signs with a curved arrow and a yellow square below it with black numbers on it? Curve adversary signs - to indicate where there could be trouble negotiating a curve. Generally set so that the cornering speed equates to about 0.2g given that these signs are generally only for certain speeds as well. 0.2g is a "comfortable" speed but is doesn't take long to figure out how fast you can really go around a corner of that speed (+20kph in a car maybe). These advisory speeds are not enforceable and would only be mentioned if you get done for dangerous driving etc if you happened to fall off. If a there is a sign missing/needed at a particular corner get onto the Council or Transit about getting it fixed or replaced. Otherwise if you see the shithead stealing one let them know how they might be putting their girlfriends mother in danger.

As for motorways, given the potential for falling lumps of concrete are you sure you want to go faster? We went for a 5 day drive around england and I tell you the speed differential on some of the motorways was scary as shit. You could be screaming along at 80mph (+10 over the the limit on a divided carriageway) then come up upon a truck struggling to do 60mph and go to overtake only to notice a car doing 100+mph coming up behind you. It was fun but I'm really not sure it is worth the potential carnage. Besides all of which when we did get off onto A roads (similar to our two lane State Highways in NZ) they all drove like Nanas cause it was tight and you actually had to drive around a corner. I'd much rather have less motorways and better drivers than lots of motorways with shit drivers doing 80+ mph who become 45mph Nanas when the road finally becomes really fun. You cant really call riding/drive fast or fun till you get to a corner (a real one mind - not one of the 120kph+ design speed ones you get on motorways).


So again the minority loses out because the powers that be can't distinguish them from the masses.

And how do we distinguish good drivers from bad? First problem, whatever driving test you develop it will not be in the real world less you kill somebody. Second problem, do you want/going to wear/display some sort of identification that says "I'm a shit driver". How long till a certain part of society starts obtaining the "good drivers" identification rather than "I'm a shit driver watch out for me" identification.

Just about every bit of legislation is a compromise. Laws might suck if you are a "good" driver, perfect citizen etc but where do you draw the line?

Cheers R

[swbarnett]

In reality you are different to me, you will act differently to different circumstances

I agree that we are all different to a degree. The situation is complex but to a certain level we are all human and as such we share a common set of mechanisms inside the brain. On a subconscious level we tend to act in similar ways.


What you're purporting to promote here is driving Nervana - it simply doesn't exist in the real world. In a perfect world - sure. But at the risk of offending you, I think you're being somewhat naive in lumping every person in the world together in the same group, believing that we all act in the same way to a given set of circumstances, while the fact is we don't.

No offence taken. It's good to share opinions.

Actually, I've driven in a country that has the situation I'm promoting. They do have speed limits but the only cop I ever saw on the road in two years was escorting a house removal. They're used as a guideline more than a hard and fast rule. The lowest common denominator choose not to drive because of an excellent public transport system. Also, the population is taught critical thinking at school so they're better equipped when they do drive.


Can you tell I'm bored at work today?

I know what you mean. I, unfortunately have some work that I must do. I'll digest what you've said and get back to you later. Thanks for a lively debate. The world would be boring indeed if we all agreed. Spot you later...

[Sanx]

Long rambling post warning!

I've sat here and watched this thread evolve (for want of a better word) and considered some of the various arguments that have been bandied about. Most of the arguments have been high on emotive terms and massively lacking in any form of evidence and research. Let's take a few examples:

More traffic laws mean fewer people actively think for themselves.

To some extent this is true. Take the ever-present issues of speed limits, for example. In many western countries, road engineers set speed limits in accordance with what's known as the 85th precentile rule. This rule accepts that a proportion of drivers will speed regardless of what limit's in place. To test this, road engineers in the UK progressively lowered the speed limit on a section of road: 70mph, 60mph, 50mph, 40mph and 30mph. They then measured the speed of each car going along the road. As with any statistical spread, the results formed a bell graph. There was a massive peak around the speed limit and a progressively diminishing number either side.

As the speed limit was lowered, the number of people who routinely ignored it increased. When more than 15% of the traffic ignored it, they found the average speed on the road went up. The peak on the bell graph shifted above the lower speed limit, with a much wider distribution of speeds than before. Essentially, drivers looked at the speed limit and obeyed it - but only to a point. Where the majority of drivers felt the limit was unreasonable, they ignored it. So now, engineers do consider hidden risk factors when setting speed limits, however, they monitor the traffic flow afterwards. When the limit has been set too low, they find that they can reduce the average speed on the road in question by raising the limit to the next increment.

Too low a speed makes people complacent

True, according to research carried out in Canada and empirical evidence from the USA. The USA is one of the few western countries in recent years that has increased speed limits. In 1995, the federal highway limit of 55moh was removed and the power to set maximum limits devolved to the individual states. Despite huge opposition from various road-safety (i.e. anti-speed) lobby groups, some states raised the highway limit by up to 30mph.

In the intervening twelve years, what's become evident is that there has been a marked decrease in KSI (killed and seriously injured) accidents in those states that have increased their limits, and that the decrease is directly proportional to the amount by which the limit was increased.

The Canadian research supports this evidence. The researchers asked a number of drivers to drive a simulator along a motorway class highway first at a speed that the drivers themselves chose (remember they weren't going from A to B, they were driving for a set period of time so there was no incentive to go faster) and then at a number of set speeds for a reasonable period of time (an hour per speed). They monitored eye movement, brain function and occasionally through a simulated emergency hazard into the equation for good measure. Their findings illustrated that each driver has a speed at which he or she feels comfortable at. At that speed, the driver is alert but not frightened and reacts well to unexpected events. In those drivers that had a high comfortable speed, the brain activity and eye movements decreased proprtionally to the amount under their comfortable speed they were asked to drive at. Their reaction times proportionally increased. Basically, the drivers were awake but no longer fully alert. The act of driving was no longer interesting or challenging; they were bored, easily distracted and got tired a lot faster. Once these drivers speeded up, things returned to normal.

A driver who believes that all hazards have been removed by laws, stops looking for hazards

Again, partially true. There is a small town in Holland that has done away with traffic lights (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/04/ntraffic04.xml). The experiment, called "Shared Space", was to encourage pedestrians, cyclists and motorists to co-exist happily and more easily. The architect of the experiment, a traffic planned by the name of Hans Monderman, explained:

"It works well because it is dangerous, which is exactly what we want. But it shifts the emphasis away from the Government taking the risk, to the driver being responsible for his or her own risk."

The citizens of the town have voted the experiment a success, back up by accident statistics. Accidents have gone down overall, with fewer serious incidents compared to minor dings. And there hasn't been one death since the experiment started seven years ago. Drivers have reported that they've slowed down, but there are fewer jams and they can get around the town faster than before.

The same principle can be applied to other items of traffic furniture. When a warning item or dangeer sign becomes too common, without drivers seeing a perceived need for it, they become ignored. How many 30kph limits do we see around Auckland where there's no work going on, no obvious hazard and in some cases, absolutely no evidence of any work having gone on. Because they're so commonplace and so over-used, people just ignore them, including those times when they're actually justified. If the signs were only used where there was obvious risk, and removed the moment that risk was removed (i.e. when the workmen pack up for the night), it's likely that more people would heed them.

The same applies to stop signs. If only junctions that actually needed a stop sign had them, people would take more notice of them. Consider the thought process: "It's a stop sign, like the last fifteen junctions where a mere give way sign would have done." compared to "It's a stop sign. Haven't seen one of those in a while. Better stop". OK, maybe a little simplistic, but the theory behind it is sound and has evidential backing.

Speed kills

I thought I'd save the best till last. When people - especially governments, Police and road safety bodies - talk about speed and speeding they are often rather vague as to which meaning of the word 'speeding' they're referring to. The uneducated (government ministers, mainly) fail to realise there even is more than one meaning. The LTSA, although aware of both meanings of the word (http://www.transport.govt.nz/speed-index/), conveniently lump the two together for statistical purposes though they do declare each meaning:
Inappropriate Speed - Travelling too fast for the conditions Excess speed - travelling faster than the posted speed limit
Travelling too fast for the conditions is inherently dangerous. Travelling faster than the speed limit, provided the speed is suitable for the conditions, is not. Car magazines, when measuring the performance of different models, often refer to the 80-120 acceleration test as the TED test, or Time Exposed to Danger. This test is meant to give an indication of the time it takes to overtake a slower-moving vehicle. Simple physics dictates that if the slower vehicle is travelling at 80kph, overtaking with a 40kph speed differential means that you're on the wrong side of the road for less time than if you overtake with a 20kph speed differential.

Various advanced driving and riding courses, such as the Institute of Advanced Motoring courses in the UK (mainly run by serving traffic cops) instruct their pupils to overtake safely by exceeding the speed limit in force for the duration of the overtaking manouver. For example, if you're travelling at 100kph and come across a vehicle travelling at 80kph, the safe way to overtake is to pass the vehicle at 120kph, and then drop your speed back down to 100kph once the overtaking manouver is finished. This minimises your Time Exposed to Danger, and the risk overtaking presents to you, the vehicle you're overtaking and any other vehicles that might be in the vicinity.

The faster one travels, the more chance that any accident you have will kill you. That's undisputed. However, there is absolutely no statistical evidence to suggest that the faster one travels, the more likely you are to have an accident. Governments have been claiming this for years, but there isn't a single bit of credible research to back up that claim. In fact, there's a reasonable amount of evidence to suggest the claim is false.

Look at the NZ road toll, for instance. Since 1995, the average open road speed has dropped by around 4.5kph (http://www.transport.govt.nz/speed1/). The LTSA claim that for every 1kph reduction in average open road speed, we can expect a 4% reduction in fatal crashes (http://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/NewPDFs/NewFolder/Speed-crash-facts-may-2006.pdf). Unfortunately, according the the LTSA, the Police Traffic Crash Report from was modified in 2001 which renders data collected prior to 2001 not strictly comparable with data recorded since. So - if we look at the 2001 to 2005 period (all of this based upon the LTSA's own figures) mean road speed dropped from 100.2kph to 97.1kph. That's a 3.1kph drop over four years. In the same period, fatal crashes have numbered (starting in 2001): 455, 405, 461, 435, 405. Overall, there's a small trend down, but it isn't the 12% we're told to expect. The trend could equally be explained by the increase in safety in cars; better crash protection, ABS being more prevalent, airbags, etc. Hardly conclusive, it is?

So:

In conclusion, the best thing for road safety in NZ would be to stop concentrating on the lowest common denominator, re-focus policing on preventing bad driving and allowing officers to exercise common sense when witnessing cases of speeding (the overtaking scenario, for instance) and improve the quality of the roads and road surfaces.

[Patrick]

100 years ago the roads and vehicles were a lot worse than today but the drivers thought for themselves and may well have been better.

What I'm trying to say is that if you treat people like idiots that's what you'll get. You have to temper restrictions so that they still allow drivers to use their brains. If a law is too restrictive and leaves no room for common sense (or defies common sense) people will stop thinking, zone out and become worse drivers as a result.

Soooo....... you want roads without laws and enforcement, right?
It goes something like this:

Before - Driver is looking for hazards on the road because they there are a lot of them about.

After - Driver believes that all hazards have been removed by laws, stops looking for hazards. Actually only a proportion of hazards have been removed.

If the perception is that a road is "safe" people stop looking for the hazards that are still there.

Sooo... you're saying people think the roads are safe, so they stop looking? Or just stop looking for motorbikes???? You're loosing me....

A lot of the time the set limit is sensible for the circumstances under which it is applied. With speed limits, however, the limit is often grossly inappropriate. Sometimes higher speeds are just as safe, other times lower speeds are called for. By setting an arbitrary limit that has at best only a thin basis in logic you're telling people not to think because common sense doesn't tally with the law.

The limit is 100kmph. Some will still do this 100kmph in snow and whiteout conditions with 10 metres of visibility, or still follow right up your date while it is pouring with rain... the rules state that this is stupid, but many still do it. Limits do need to be in place or we are all toast.

In practice, however, most laws are put in place to meet a political agenda.

Now this is just bizarre... most laws are to protect people, from others (and themselves...)

[QUOTE=cooneyr;1096814] I seriously believe that a huge percentage (85+%) of drivers would gain a lot of experience by simply driving over a remote rural road a a dozen times a year during for a couple of years. How much the road condition and traffic conditions can change is scary to the ignorant.

Good call... and how about compulsory motorbike licence before car licence to make drivers more aware of what goes on around them too..!!!!!:yes:

[swbarnett]

Soooo....... you want roads without laws and enforcement, right?

No, just common sense ones.

[swbarnett]

Long rambling post warning!

I've sat here and watched this thread evolve (for want of a better word) and considered some of the various arguments that have been bandied about. Most of the arguments have been high on emotive terms and massively lacking in any form of evidence and research. Let's take a few examples:

Thank you, thank you, thank you :first:

You've managed to drag what was fast becoming an emotive argument (I know my objectivity was starting to wane) back to one of clear-headed logic.

What you've said has summarised the salient points of what I've been trying to say in a way I was finding difficult to master.

To the masses in general: I stand by what I have said but please take it with a small grain of salt as the context may not have always been clear. The most important thing in life to me is my personal freedoms and those of others. I would sacrifice a lot to maintain or regain those freedoms (including my own sense of safety to a large degree). Safety for it's own sake is overrated.

:done:

[scumdog]

Hmmm, read all the above posts by various people.
Points I felt may not have been considerd:

Those places with higher speed limits than us (US, Britain etc) tend to have more suitable roads for this than than NZ.

The mention of removing Stop/Give Way signs would work - eventually after a lot of carnage. I have seen on more than one occassion people driving right through both types of intersection without even slowing down, their reason? "Oh, I thought I had the right of way" (WTF it's a STOP sign) and "I didn't see the Give Way sign" (WTF they just drove through it going one way and were returning back through the same intersection).

Speeding: "I have a modern car with good brakes and stuff and I hold a Motorsports licence and I'm a good driver (sez who?) so I don't see why ishould drive at the same speed as people with old cars that can't drive"
Just one of the fancy 'reasons' given by people who think that speed restrictions shouldn't apply to them - but SHOULD apply to 'everybody else'.

These are some of the types of people that those advocating higher speed limits, less restrictions etc are willing to share the roads with?

At the end of the day there is no bozo test, no way of indicating whether somebody IS a bozo (barring their driving abilities) so the law figures at least 50% of the population is in the bozo catagory and makes laws inthat respect.

Somewhere in KB land (and NZ) are bozos for who the laws are too easy, allowing them to outdrive their capabilities.:yes:

[Patrick]

No, just common sense ones.

Yeah, fair call, but there are too few people out there with common sense any more. That is the problem.

[cooneyr]

Long rambling post warning!

Whoa no kidding. I agree with a lot of what you have said and it is entirely correct for the context in which it applies however some of points of clarification needed


Too low a speed makes people complacent

Your discussion regarding drivers and their preferred speeds is entirely true, however the road environment needs to be taken into context. Freeways and motorways provide a very consistent road environment (unless they get traffic jams a la Auckland but thats another story). The problem in NZ is that by far the biggest proportion of our roading is two lane roads. In rural situations there is a very real potential for there to be cow, tractor, tight bend, ice grit etc so the road environment is not consistent. This means until you are an experienced driver many do not realise that the desired speed needs to change with the environment. I therefore believe that it would be in appropriate to do a blanket lift in speed for all rural roads but then again too many limit changes would again breed complacency.




Again, partially true. There is a small town in Holland that has done away with traffic lights (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/04/ntraffic04.xml).

What they have done in this small town is awesome, however, it would not work in cities like Auckland or Chch. This is because congestion would become too much of an issues. We have though about this at work and think that the best way to apply this concept would be in cells or residential areas. By this I mean there would need to be extremely good arterial roads providing to travel between the areas with no controls. This surprisingly screams of the rooms and corridors approach that was developed in the 1960s but never really put into practice in NZ. There is a recent push towards this approach through hierarchy planning but it will take a loooong time to implement fully.


In conclusion, the best thing for road safety in NZ would be to stop concentrating on the lowest common denominator, re-focus policing on preventing bad driving and allowing officers to exercise common sense when witnessing cases of speeding (the overtaking scenario, for instance) and improve the quality of the roads and road surfaces.

Now this I completely and whole heartedly agree with. Stop targeting the non disputable easily targetable revenue raising offences and start policing again. This is a policy decision though not the cops so dont give them a hard time about it.

Cheers R

[MSTRS]

In conclusion, the best thing for road safety in NZ would be to stop concentrating on the lowest common denominator, re-focus policing on preventing bad driving and allowing officers to exercise common sense when witnessing cases of speeding (the overtaking scenario, for instance) and improve the quality of the roads and road surfaces.

Oh, if only....
Not until Policy and Sanity are on the same page