What is life without risk? [Archive]

swbarnett

30th May 2007, 13:37

Forgive me while I wax philosophical for a moment but it occurs to me that it may be of some benefit to regale you with some of my thoughts on living, driving and the risks that are an inherent part of both of these vital activities.

Let me start by clearing up what I mean by living. I'm not talking about merely surviving. One can exist in a corporeal form with the sole purpose of pushing birth and death as far apart as possible or one can actually enjoy the time one has however long or short it may be. This is living!

The LTSA had a slogan (probably still do) - “Drive to Survive”. Sorry, wrong emphasis. I “Drive to Live”.

In all aspects of life there is an element of risk. There are two ways we as humans can handle this risk: We can cover ourselves in figureative cotton wool and wait to die or we can mitigate risk where it is reasonable to do so and embrace that which isn't. Evolution has programmed us for the latter. A life without suffucient risk is unhealthy.

This brings me to the subject of mitigation. Although a life without risk is mentally damaging a life with too much risk can be equally damaging both mentally and physically. The trick is to strike a balance. This is where things get subjective; how much risk is too much? This can only be answered by the individual. Noone has the right to impose risk on someone or remove it without the express consent of that person. This balance is sadly lacking in modern society. Some of the risk mitigation that is imposed on us by others will be appreciated (warning labels on poisons for example) but as far as it pertains to driving they have gone too far. What's the odd death or injury as compared to a society that bored silly and ready for revolution just for something exciting to do?

let's face facts, considering the number of kms driven every day is our road toll really anything to worry about?

There is another way to look at risk mitigation. There comes a point where the more we remove risk from peoples lives the less they think. If drivers expect the roads to be safe they stop looking for hazards (and us). The road toll will actually climb. We have to stop “improving safety” and acknowledge that people can actually think for themselves when given the chance. If you choose to drive, you accept the risks that are an inherent part of that activity. Don't blame others for proving me right.

Let me finish with a paragraph on speed limits. In essence the government is saying to us that anyone who drives at a speed higher than that posted is a murderer (“If you're prepared to speed, you're prepared to kill”). Consider this analogy: If a murder was committed at a party would you imprison everyone that attended? Of course not. Ticketing speeding drivers is exactly the same. You're penalising the innocent for the actions of a few guilty parties just because they fit into some arbitrary group. If your actions lead directly to the death or injury of another person you deserve to be “educated”. Otherwise, leave the rest of us alone.

MSTRS

30th May 2007, 13:42

You've been spending too much time on KB. Great to see the site is working.:Punk:

yod

30th May 2007, 14:32

welcome to the world of the mindless moral majority....

shcabbeh

30th May 2007, 14:48

Yeah good write up. I think a lot of people like living in their bubbles. They don't have to see the bigger picture so they don't.

Change is a natural process, that includes life and death. Those that live fast and die young tend to make more of an impact on others than those who putter along until they die. Funny thing is, it's usually the loss of the former that causes the latter to be dead ('scuse pun) scared of taking risks.

Oh and who knows, maybe some peoples' idea of risk = lobbying against thousands of angry bikers? :P

Biff

30th May 2007, 20:58

Ticketing speeding drivers is exactly the same. You're penalising the innocent for the actions of a few guilty parties just because they fit into some arbitrary group.

Speeding kills apparently. Far more often in fact than when people, on the whole, stick to govt imposed speed limits.

I for one feel much safer living in a country where the overwhelming majority of road users do so in a relatively predictable manner, largely thanks to imposed and enforced speed limits. With just the occasional arsehole hell bent on acting the prick and spoiling other people's days.

I've lived in places where there are no speed limits, or lax enforcement of any limits, it's nasty.

That doesn't mean to say I don't speed - I just don't get caught.

Jantar

30th May 2007, 21:41

I agree. You have taken a long way of saying:

"Some people are scared of dying. They are also scared of living".

swbarnett

30th May 2007, 22:15

Speeding kills apparently. Far more often in fact than when people, on the whole, stick to govt imposed speed limits.

Well, actually, it's not so black and white. According to an article in the July 2000 issue of "Investigate Magazine" the open road speed limit was dropped from 100km/h to 80km/h in the early 1970s. For the ten years prior the average road toll was 608 deaths/year. In the ten years after the average road toll was 707 deaths/year. They went on to talk about states in the US that had removed interstate speed limits all together. The death toll saw a marked drop.

I've driven on the German autobahn (no limit) and felt perfectly safe. I had a Merc honking at me for hogging the road in northern Italy - I was doing 170km/h. Never felt in the slightest bit unsafe.

I've lived in places where there are no speed limits, or lax enforcement of any limits, it's nasty.

Do you mind if I ask where?

I also must clarify that I'm talking primarily about open road speed limits. I'd like to have the urban limits raised for major connecting roads and lowered for quiet side roads (in Switzerland there is the concept of a child freindly road with a limit of 30km/h) but I do think a speed limit per se is needed in urban areas, just a more realistic one.

Mole_C

31st May 2007, 11:25

Im sure most people here would agree, hence why we all rid bikes and hate SUVs :yes:

However raising the speed limit in NZ isn't really an option. The majority or our roads are rural roads with driveways and other obstacles, such as poos and oil. You may feel safe speeding through these, it's your decision to risk hitting poo or oil but you increase the chance of the farmer pulling out of his driveway being hit. Many of these driveways are around corners and they just have to pull out and hope. Raising the speed limit in these places would impose a forced danger on these people. Without changing almost every road or driveway in the country to long straights before the driveways there is no way speeds in these places can be safely increased.

Motorway speeds could be increased but no where near the speeds of the autobahn. Our roading surface compared to theirs is simply put "shit". It gets munted as it is, is full of bumps, potholes and bad drivers. If you want to go fast on the motorway then go for it. As you say it is your choice to take the risk.

Making the speed limit faster won't improve our standard of driving. I heard some stupid bitch the other day say "I don't like to do head checks, it messes up my hair" You really want her to be allowed to go faster?

Anyway my point is that although i like to speed, that is my own choice. I choose to take the extra risk for the extra fun and will take the consequences. I have done adventure sports since i was 4 and still do, any risks and consequences are mine to accept. However increasing the speed limit is imposing greater danger on me from others and making my taxes higher

MSTRS

31st May 2007, 11:31

.... the overwhelming majority of road users do so in a relatively predictable manner....

Being able to predict that cagers will act unpredictably is a motorcyclist's greatest asset in his bag of 'avoid being rundown/over' tricks.
Speeding is not the curse we are told ad nauseum. Failure to observe 99% of the other rules is....

Grahameeboy

31st May 2007, 11:42

This brings me to the subject of mitigation. Although a life without risk is mentally damaging a life with too much risk can be equally damaging both mentally and physically. The trick is to strike a balance. This is where things get subjective; how much risk is too much? This can only be answered by the individual. Noone has the right to impose risk on someone or remove it without the express consent of that person. This balance is sadly lacking in modern society. Some of the risk mitigation that is imposed on us by others will be appreciated (warning labels on poisons for example) but as far as it pertains to driving they have gone too far. What's the odd death or injury as compared to a society that bored silly and ready for revolution just for something exciting to do?

let's face facts, considering the number of kms driven every day is our road toll really anything to worry about?

There is another way to look at risk mitigation. There comes a point where the more we remove risk from peoples lives the less they think. If drivers expect the roads to be safe they stop looking for hazards (and us). The road toll will actually climb. We have to stop “improving safety” and acknowledge that people can actually think for themselves when given the chance. If you choose to drive, you accept the risks that are an inherent part of that activity. Don't blame others for proving me right.

Let me finish with a paragraph on speed limits. In essence the government is saying to us that anyone who drives at a speed higher than that posted is a murderer (“If you're prepared to speed, you're prepared to kill”). Consider this analogy: If a murder was committed at a party would you imprison everyone that attended? Of course not. Ticketing speeding drivers is exactly the same. You're penalising the innocent for the actions of a few guilty parties just because they fit into some arbitrary group. If your actions lead directly to the death or injury of another person you deserve to be “educated”. Otherwise, leave the rest of us alone.

It's an odd world at times.

The Govt receive taxes on Cigarettes which we all know are almost guaranteed to cause health issues or death and they put a Govt Warning on the packet and will happily pay for Health care when needed.

So the Govt's actions be allowing cigarettes to be sold can lead to the death of another person........are they murderers?

The Govt sell Motorcycles which can easily exceed the speed limit.....bit like selling a loaded gun.......they receive Gst on new sales and I guess on motorcycle clothing, yet it is illegal to exceed the speed limit and if you do and get caught we pay a fine.

Well you get my drift

Sanx

31st May 2007, 12:07

The Govt receive taxes on Cigarettes which we all know are almost guaranteed to cause health issues or death and they put a Govt Warning on the packet and will happily pay for Health care when needed.

So the Govt's actions be allowing cigarettes to be sold can lead to the death of another person........are they murderers?

It's in the government's best interests to allow people to smoke. Not only do they gain enormous revenue from cigarettes, but it reduces health care and other government costs into the bargain. I know this might sound daft, but let me explain.

Smokers, on average, die ten years earlier than their non-smoking counterparts. That ten years is, obviously, at the end of the lifespan when people are not in work, not paying as much income tax and receive a state pension. Smokers do get ill, obviously, but they tend to get serious life-ending diseases like cancer and heart disease, rather than long lingering illnesses that require constant palliative care.

If you take into account ten years of government pension and fewer chronic ongoing health costs, smokers put far less of a burden on the government towards the end of their lives than non-smokers do.

So why do they allow cigarettes to be sold? Simple economics; if they didn't, it'd cost the government a bloody fortune.

Speeding kills apparently. Far more often in fact than when people, on the whole, stick to govt imposed speed limits.

Unmitigated garbage.

The government claim that 'speeding' is the root cause of 30% of all accidents. However, Land Transport have two definitions for speeding, which are conveniently lumped together. They are: "Speed in excess of the posted limit" and "Speed in excess of what is safe for the conditions". The first definition of speeding is not inherently dangerous, which the second is.

So when you hear about a driver 'speeding', don't always assume he was going faster than the limit in force. 95kph of some rural roads can be regarded as downright bloody madness, altough technically it's legal. Should a person crash at that speed, the cops would still report that the death was speed-related and it would go into the politically-useful tally of speed-related deaths. Land Transport have been asked to seperate the two figures out, but they seem very reluctant to do so.

In 1995, the Transport Reasearch Labs in the UK (a wholly-owned subsidiary of the UK's Department of Transport, Environment and the Regions) conducted a widespread survery of KSI accidents; accidents where one or more people were Killed or Seriously Injured. They gave accident investigation forms to about 75% of the Police Forces in the UK and officers were required to fill them out at the scene. After six months, the results were tallied and made for very interesting reading.

They broke down causal factors into two categories: major and minor. A major factor was the main cause of an accident. A minor factor was a contributory cause. Cleverly, the survey compilers had listed 'speed in excess of the posted limit' and 'speed in excess of what is safe for the conditions' as two seperate categories. Speed in excess of the posted limit was found to be a minor factor in only 7% of KSI accidents, and a major factor in just 3%.

Of course, this kind of report made for scary reading for the UK government, being even more speed-obsessed than the traffic mullahs here. Shortly after, Transport Research Labs released another report which applied a new statistical methodology which re-interpreted to the results collected previously. They lumped together the two definitions of speeding and added in 'driving too close', 'unsafe overtaking' and a few other factors - based on the theory that to do any of them at speed was dangerous. Only by doing this could they get the KSI accidents caused by speeding up to the 33% figure the UK government had been quoting for years.

Essentially ... don't believe a word of what the bastards tell you.

Biff

31st May 2007, 12:18

Well, actually, it's not so black and white. According to an article in the July 2000 issue of "Investigate Magazine" the open road speed limit was dropped from 100km/h to 80km/h in the early 1970s. For the ten years prior the average road toll was 608 deaths/year. In the ten years after the average road toll was 707 deaths/year. They went on to talk about states in the US that had removed interstate speed limits all together. The death toll saw a marked drop.

I've driven on the German autobahn (no limit) and felt perfectly safe. I had a Merc honking at me for hogging the road in northern Italy - I was doing 170km/h. Never felt in the slightest bit unsafe.

Yup - hence my 'on the whole' caveat. I lived in Gernamy for a little over a year, and the autobahns sure are built for high speeds (surface, width, then there's policing, electronic monitoring of all vehicle average speeds) unlike NZ roads. And despite common belief, there are limits on the majority of the autobahns most of the time, but these are monitored from a central control room, and varied continuoulsy. Unless there's little traffic on the roads, then the outside lanes have no limits.

Do you mind if I ask where?

They include the US, Germany, certain countries in the Middle East, the Indian Sub-continent and south east Asia. Most of which either had poorly policed roads, or no limits on the open roads.

In an ideal world, where everyone was responsible, then I'd be happy for there to be a no limit policy on motrways etc. But the fact is the roads here and the quality of driving is relatively poor compared to many other 'developed' countries'. Especially Germany.

Unmitigated garbage.

Come on, be a little more open minded dude. Accept that speed is at least a contributing factor to the cause of some accidents at least, instead of refuting and all of the facts point blank. Sure the accidents could also be blamed on other factors - such as inexperience, bad decision making etc - but 'unmitigated garbage'.....really ?

Sanx

31st May 2007, 13:30

Come on, be a little more open minded dude. Accept that speed is at least a contributing factor to the cause of some accidents, instead of refuting and all of the facts point blank. Sure the accidents could also be blamed on other factors - such as inexperience, bad decision making etc - but 'unmitigated garbage'.....really ?

Well, you chose to quote the first two words I wrote, without refering to the following 423 words. I am open minded but I do not believe everything I am told without supporting evidence. I do my research and I read other people's research. You said, and I quote:

"Speeding kills apparently. Far more often in fact than when people, on the whole, stick to govt imposed speed limits."

Unfortunately, that statement has little in the way of supporting evidence behind it. There are official government figures, which on closer examination simply don't stand up. I explained why they don't. You ask that I:

"Accept that speed is at least a contributing factor in the cause of accidents"

I do. I quoted figures from a comprehensive UK study that showed that travelling in excess of the posted speed limit is a causal factor in accidents, but far less of one than a whole host of other reasons, including drink driving, driving whilst under the influence of drugs, failing to give way, driving without due care and attention, failing to observe, and most importantly, driving at a speed in excess of what is safe for the conditions.

Speed limits do not define safe speed. Conditions define safe speed. The government simply doesn't understand this and persist with the ridiculous opinion that 99kph on the motorway is safe and 101kph is dangerous. There are times and places in NZ where it's perfectly safe to travel at 200kph. There are also plenty of 100kph limit roads where travelling at 60kph makes you a bloody menace.

The government's continual brainwashing regarding speed, and their attempt to use legislation and regulation to replace personal responsibility, means a fair proportion of people now believe provided they're travelling at or under the speed limit, they're driving safely. Nothing could be further from the truth. Driving requires intelligence and assesment of ever-changing conditions. No amount of regulation and legislation can replace that. Should the government drop their obsession with speeding and start concentrating on driver education and risk assesment, they might find that the road toll starts dropping faster.

Mole_C

31st May 2007, 14:29

Driving requires intelligence and assesment of ever-changing conditions.

Which the majority of people do not have.

I agree that we need far better education and assesment but there still remains the fact that most of this education would be aimed at new drivers and we would have 50 years of drivers who are uneducated and find driving one of the the few thrills they still have.

Take away the enforcement of speed and they will think that it is now safe for them to drive faster and act like even bigger dicks on the road. Cars feel safe and comfortable at huge speeds these days. The majority of people, even with greater education would not know the limits of their own cars, let alone changing to a SUV or similar.

Im not saying that speed is a major contributor to crashes but taking away the limit opens up things like the heightened adrenaline from speed, greater sense of invulnerability and makes all the people who don't look or give way just that much more dangerous.

The government's continual brainwashing regarding speed, and their attempt to use legislation and regulation to replace personal responsibility, means a fair proportion of people now believe provided they're travelling at or under the speed limit, they're driving safely. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I would love a world where people could be responsible for thier own actions and actually have sense but we do not live in such a world. People are stupid and blame others wherever they can. As you know its not their fault when they don't see you to give way, its not their fault when they run a red light and it's obviously not thier fault when loose control at speed. People drive drunk and don't stop when they hit people, yet they still continue to do it regardles of the education and advertising telling them not to. You really think saying "Go as fast as you like but do it responibly" is going to make them listen? You will get more people not judging conditions correctly and entering corners to fast or coming to stop signs to fast. Not caused by speed but by bad driving. Sure, if people were responsible this wouldn't be a problem but they are not.

Education should be number one priority but until kiwis stop being such shit and irresponsable drivers i'd rather they were slow enough to dodge or get away from.

Biff

31st May 2007, 14:47

Well, you chose to quote the first two words I wrote, without refering to the following 423 words.

And you chose to write them.

So in summary - I think we're in agreement. Although I can't be bothered nor have the time to write (or count) 400+ words telling you why I think this. Maybe tomorrow.

swbarnett

31st May 2007, 14:49

Im sure most people here would agree, hence why we all rid bikes and hate SUVs :yes:

However raising the speed limit in NZ isn't really an option. The majority or our roads are rural roads with driveways and other obstacles, such as poos and oil.

We already have different speed limits for different roads. I agree with you that areas with blind corners followed closely by driveways should be posted as such but not necessarily with a speed limit. A hazard warning sign would be far more effective.

You may feel safe speeding through these.

I don't. But the decision is mine. And if I hit anybody because I haven't left enough visibility to stop at the speed that I have chosen then I deserve everything the law throws at me. I was taught to always travel at a speed such that I can stop in half the visibility I have. This is how I judge what speed is safe.

Motorway speeds could be increased but no where near the speeds of the autobahn. Our roading surface compared to theirs is simply put "shit".

I don't think the roads are as bad as most people think. Yes, they could be better but a well maintained vehicle with good tyres (not the nylon crap most people use) can be quite safe at higher speeds on them.

Making the speed limit faster won't improve our standard of driving.

Agreed. I'm not sure what the mechanism is but the evidence does suggest that higher speed limits leads to lower road tolls.

Anyway my point is that although i like to speed, that is my own choice.

And you shouldn't be penalised for this.

swbarnett

31st May 2007, 14:52

So the Govt's actions be allowing cigarettes to be sold can lead to the death of another person........are they murderers?

No, the smoker is committing suicide.

The Govt sell Motorcycles which can easily exceed the speed limit.....bit like selling a loaded gun.......they receive Gst on new sales and I guess on motorcycle clothing, yet it is illegal to exceed the speed limit and if you do and get caught we pay a fine.

Well you get my drift

Selling a tool does not make you responsible for it's misuse. Is a hardware store responsible for a murder committed with a shovel?

swbarnett

31st May 2007, 15:17

I would love a world where people could be responsible for thier own actions and actually have sense but we do not live in such a world.

This is mostly because this is what we expect of them. Treat someone like an idiot and that is what they will become. Treat someone with respect and intelligence and you'll be surprised at how they respond.

Quoting from the Investigate article I mentioned earlier (http://www.investigatemagazine.com/july00speed.htm):

"Using speed limits and speed enforcement as the cornerstone of US highway safety policy is a major mistake," says the NMA’s Chad Dornsife in what should also be a clear warning to New Zealand police. "It is time to accept the fact that increases in traffic speeds are the natural byproduct of advancing technology. People do, in fact, act in a reasonable and responsible manner without constant government intervention.
(I believe NMA is the U.S. National Medical Association)

MSTRS

1st June 2007, 09:41

Agreed. I'm not sure what the mechanism is but the evidence does suggest that higher speed limits leads to lower road tolls.

It is a matter of concentration. The slower the speed, the less 'challenge' - therefore, the (more experienced) driver/rider becomes bored and distracted by things other than the road ahead.

Big Dave

1st June 2007, 10:05

I did the best stunt I've ever done on a bike yesterday.
Not going to say what it was other than it was irresponsible, potentially deadly and highly dangerous.
Fark I enjoyed it - what a buzz!
Speeding is SO yesterday.

Reckless

1st June 2007, 10:18

I don't think the roads are as bad as most people think. Yes, they could be better but a well maintained vehicle with good tyres (not the nylon crap most people use) can be quite safe at higher speeds on them.

As a biker I disagree.
Ever ridden on the Taupo-Napier or far North Roads or most places in the wet. Where that black slippery tar is exposed because the chip has been punched under. Its like Ice.
We use rubber on our tyres that is quite a bit harder because of the coarse chip we use, then the chip on the driving line gets punched under??? And a lot of our roads are in this condition, are pot holed, or very irregular.

I wonder alot of the time how much our crap roads contirbute to accidents.

007XX

1st June 2007, 10:31

As a biker I disagree.
Ever ridden on the Taupo-Napier or far North Roads or most places in the wet. Where that black slippery tar is exposed because the chip has been punched under. Its like Ice.
We use rubber on our tyres that is quite a bit harder because of the coarse chip we use, then the chip on the driving line gets punched under??? And a lot of our roads are in this condition, are pot holed, or very irregular.

I wonder alot of the time how much our crap roads contirbute to accidents.

I definitely would tend to agree with you there. I have ridden quite a lot on overseas roads (aka: New Caledonia and France), and there is a big difference. It's not so much that the roads are better elsewhere, but definitely a bit more "even".
It would seem in NZ that a lot pot holes have gathered in particularly dangerous areas such as sharp corners.
Also, a lot of them having been fixed in a"patchwork" style makes for a dodge the slick patch riding style.

But it's still fun, otherwise we wouldn't be doin' it!!!:yes:

loftyk3

1st June 2007, 10:37

Im sure most people here would agree, hence why we all rid bikes and hate SUVs :yes:

I operate & love both bikes & SUVs. At least on the bike I am less likely to do damage to anyone but myself if something goes wrong. When driving the SUV (or any cage) I have a greater chance of causing injury to others and drive accordingly.

Equally I accept the risk of injury through my mistake on the bike, but take a great deal of care to avoid being taken out due to the actions of some other idiot on the road.

swbarnett

1st June 2007, 14:49

And a lot of our roads are in this condition, are pot holed, or very irregular.

I must clarify. When I made the comment about our roads being better than people think I was thinking primarily about those in and around Auckland. From what I've seen lately they seem in pretty good condition.

I used to tour quite a bit but haven't done so for about 20 years. I seem to remember that the roads weren't that bad (although I was mostly on the main highways). I used to run softer tyres and never had much of a problem with grip (although I did run foul of the odd pot-hole repair).

mbazza

3rd June 2007, 22:48

swbarnett

3rd June 2007, 23:29

Your final analogy about murder is not logical. Imprisoning those in attendance at a murder is not like getting a fine for speeding! I've never had a fine for NOT SPEEDING. The opposite is not unfortunately true! Anyone ticketed for not speeding (other than going too slowly!) should of course not pay the fine and seek their day (10 min.) in court. Cheers.

If you're ticketed for speeding you are, in effect, being penalised for the actions of others that cause harm because you share ONE characteristic. Exactly as if all the attendants were jailed for the murder. Another analogy would be if you were to imprison all black people because you know a black person committed the murder. A speeder may have caused an accident, that does not mean that because I'm a speeder that I should be penalised also. It's a form of prejudice.

swbarnett

3rd June 2007, 23:37

Gremlin

4th June 2007, 00:03

If drivers expect the roads to be safe they stop looking for hazards (and us). The road toll will actually climb.
I definitely agree with your point about living life... but sheesh, this thread is much too wordy for me :mellow:

One point re above... I believe these massive long straights the gubbermint likes to build (because they are "safer") are more dangerous. sooooooo boooooooring, no wonder people fall asleep. I hereby demand no more straights, and lots and lots of corners instead, as it would stop me wanting to fall asleep out of sheer boredom :Punk:

swbarnett

4th June 2007, 18:07

the police are lazy

I thought it prudent to say that I have no problem with the front line police officers. By "Police" I mean the organisation (i.e. the policy makers).

peasea

4th June 2007, 19:35

Or, to put it another way.........

"Here's a ticket for 111kph"

Whenever you get into the groove, fine day, sun above, clean, dry road beneath and you're 'living life' there'll be someone in a funny hat lurking in the undergrowth to lighten your wallet. (No, I'm not cop-bashing, just stating facts.)

Be calm, never exceed 100kph regardless of the conditions or your abilities. The powers that be have decreed that nobody has the ability to exceed 100kph and we must bow to their authority, yet they allow the importation of vehicles that cruise economically at 115kph etc etc. They know better, it's true! They tell us so, therefore it's fact.

Don't ever have fun, you'll hurt yourself, playgrounds are dangerous places and that makes the roads even moreso. Tax the bikers off the road, adjust the statistics to prove they are a danger to themselves....ad infinitum.

Live life?
Only if you can afford it.........

Justice for all (who have the money) and good health to you all, all who have the right insurance, that is.

(Oops, here's today's headline "Cynical old fart escapes, offers opinion....")

fishb8nz

4th June 2007, 19:55

I love riding to the max but I have to be VERY aware that my wife of 35 years would probably miss miss if I killed myself doing unsafe and dangerous manoevres, hell even if I was doing safe riding. We are a very vulnerable species.
I can remember being a party to to a plot to stop my dad getting back on a bike at the age I am, right now. Sorry dad! Never realised how much you enjoyed biking.
I got into a straight-line tankslapper on SH1 on Sat evening. Accelerated, coming out of the 70 km zone from Ngrauawahia towards Hamilton and got wheel-spin, followed by a huge snake. Only moving from 80 to 100!!

swbarnett

4th June 2007, 19:58

(Oops, here's today's headline "Cynical old fart escapes, offers opinion....")

I think most of us are at least "Cynical old farts in the making". It seems we have lots of company.

The "powers that be" will only listen to reason when they have no other choice. It's all about lining their pockets and protecting the cosy little life style. It's just human nature.

swbarnett

4th June 2007, 20:05

Only moving from 80 to 100!!

Exactly, what's supposed to be so safe about 100km/h anyway? It seems a pretty arbitrary limit to me.

98tls

4th June 2007, 20:10

Interesting read............life without risk would hardley seem life at all.........to me anyway you dont have to do warp speed to have fun....in fact straight roads are bloody boring,find a road like the one from fox to hokitika.....awsome,endless very tight corners going up and down the mountain........risk yes....warp speed not possible....feel alive......more than ever.:Punk:

Toaster

4th June 2007, 20:18

I have no problem with people living - just don't kill or hurt anyone else while you are out there doing your living on the roads that we all share.

moT

4th June 2007, 20:19

i think that if the speed lmits were to be lifted then there should be stricter and harder drivers licencing tests not just your knowlage of the road code but tests of how to control oversteer, understeer, a spin, high speed manovering, brakeing etc then i think that would deacreae road tolls and make commuting hours shorter:yes:

swbarnett

4th June 2007, 20:34

I have no problem with people living - just don't kill or hurt anyone else while you are out there doing your living on the roads that we all share.

People die. It's a fact of life. You shouldn't stop living just because the odd person dies sooner than you think they should.

The problem here is that people are confusing two issues (even I do on occasion):

On the one had you have speed limits, an arbitrarily imposed cut-off. Higher speed limits (or none at all) lead to a lower road toll.

On the other hand you have outright dangerous driving at whatever speed. If someone is genuinely dangerous then the police have other laws at their disposal, they don't need speed limits.

Myself, I fall somewhere between plodding and hooning - probably wouldn't do much over 140 on the best of roads (given a vehicle capable of it). The way I ride I'm not killing anybody and I'm not putting anybody at undue risk so why should I be penalised for minding my own business?

swbarnett

4th June 2007, 20:36

98tls

4th June 2007, 20:47

FWIW in my opinion anyway its not so much the speeding that kills its where they choose to do it,as long as theres motor vehicles people will die in em..no matter what the speed limit.......i chuckle when i read the road police bashing threads on here,on the road today i saw idiots speeding in the stupidest places........the cops must just sit and wait......munch munch another idiot for lunch.

Toaster

4th June 2007, 20:54

The way I ride I'm not killing anybody and I'm not putting anybody at undue risk so why should I be penalised for minding my own business?

I am not confused there lad.

Riding on publicly funded roads is never "our own business". We speed at our own risk (yes "our") - so we should not complain when we get caught. As a rider, I'd like to see higher limits on good roads too, but then there are a lot of people out there I wish were not on them. 5 times I have been taken out by other dickheads on the roads over some 20 years of sharing them with other road users. I suffered immensely from those experiences and am only alive, becasue each time I was in a car that saved my ass.

During the years when I was in the police, I attended fatal crashes facing the horrific sites that you have to deal with and also told relatives that their loved one is dead because either they were stupid or some other dickhead who thought they were gods-gift to riding/driving were stupid. I am glad those days are over for me.

All I can say is don't overestimate your own ability and don't assume too much. Quite simply, the faster you go, the longer it takes to stop and the more chance there is you will hit what ever it is that caught you out. I heard too many a time "I never thought it would happen to me!"

Good luck riding.

Storm

4th June 2007, 22:48

I'd agree with the statement that life without risk is no life at all, however, I also feel that too much risk will equal no life full stop!
My sig is a line I heard in a song that really struck a chord with me, and I reckon there's worse ways to look at things than that.
That said, I have a pregnant wife at home when I am out riding- I like to have a good time on the bike, but I'm conscious of the fact I want to make it home at the end of the day.

Bit disjointed sorry, but thats my 2 c for today

swbarnett

4th June 2007, 23:47

I am not confused there lad.

Did I say you were? How old do you think I am?

Riding on publicly funded roads is never "our own business".

When I say "my own business" this includes looking out for and respecting the rights of other road users. I am an individual but am also part of a society. My respect for others extends far beyond the road.

We speed at our own risk (yes "our") - so we should not complain when we get caught.

I don't complain if I get caught. I understand that whether I like it or not speed limits are there.

... am only alive, because each time I was in a car that saved my ass.

I don't accept that a car is safer than a bike. I've had near misses where I only avoided the accident because I could squeeze through a gap or accelerate away.

All I can say is don't overestimate your own ability and don't assume too much.

I actually drive more cautiously than this thread would suggest. No, I'm not slow but I do exercise caution when driving. I'm aware of what's in front, behind and to each side of me.

Quite simply, the faster you go, the longer it takes to stop and the more chance there is you will hit what ever it is that caught you out.

At the same time someone travelling at the speed limit that is not paying attention to everything around them is a damn site more dangerous than someone over the limit and fully aware.

I heard too many a time "I never thought it would happen to me!"

I am aware that it could happen to me. Maybe this is why, in 26 years of driving, it hasn't. As soon as you lose site of your own human fallibility you're in deep trouble (not just on the road).

It has been shown that higher speed limits lead to lower road tolls. Check out http://www.fastandsafe.org.nz/Pages/factsAndMyths.htm

swbarnett

4th June 2007, 23:49

I'd agree with the statement that life without risk is no life at all, however, I also feel that too much risk will equal no life full stop!

Agreed, the question is when is that level reached? You can only answer that for yourself.

scumdog

5th June 2007, 10:00

Another thought:

The only reason that we have speed limits in the first place is that the police are lazy and the population at large do not want to pay for a fairer law. Without speed limits the careless/dangerous driving laws would have to be used instead for people out driving the conditions. This would involve more face to face policing instead of cheap, revenue gathering, speed cameras.

The reason we have speed limits is that a fair percentage of drivers are day-dreaming fuckwits who would drive through the middle of town at 95kmh without even thinking about it if it wasn't for speed limits - or drive down the motorway in their blinged-out night-club-on-wheels at 190kmh and weaving through the 'slower' cars while txting their mate to make sure they'll meet at Maccas in ten minutes.

YOU might be a good safe driver but you are paying for those that aren't - you may also be able to drive well with a breath-alcohol level of 680 but you are paying for those that can't......yadda..yadda..yadda..

More "Face to face policing"? - I hope you would be satisfied with the (a) increase in tax (and/or huge fines/costs) to pay for this or (b) put up with less money going into schools/hospitals/social services etc to pay for this.

Sanx

5th June 2007, 10:04

All I can say is don't overestimate your own ability and don't assume too much. Quite simply, the faster you go, the longer it takes to stop and the more chance there is you will hit what ever it is that caught you out.

Whilst it's true it takes longer to stop when you're travelling faster, there's no conclusive evidence that higher average speed equates to more road fatalities; despite various western governments having spent millions on research with the intention of showing a causal link. In fact, there's plenty of evidence that suggests precisely the opposite from the US; one of the very few countries to have raised speed limits in the past twenty years or so.

When the US government repealed the 55mph maximum on all Interstate highways, they devolved power to set speed limits to the individual state legislatures. Despite various anti-speed pressure groups predicting carnage and destruction, the precise opposite was seen. Where states raised the limits, the road toll fell when compared to those states that left them the same. There was even a proportional link evident: the higher the speed limit, the greater the fall in fatalities.

Britain's motorways are another good example. Even the UK Police, usually gestapo-like in their application of speed limits, have given up issuing tickets for less than 80mph (the limit's 70mph). My nightly journeys from London to Oxford often saw average speed in the outside two lanes of more than 90mph. No action ever taken. Why? Quite simply, it was demonstrably safer. The higher the speed, the more people kept their distance. With a higher speed differential between lanes, there was more opportunity for people to change lanes safely, rather than having to force your way in as is often the case here.

None of this changes the fact the speeding is illegal. No point whining when you get caught because you know it is. However, it is worth whining about enforcement or the limits in place. In many places, they're ridiculous and counter-intuitive. However, until such time comes when overwhelming evidence that higher speed limits equates to fewer road deaths, then the mad mullahs down in Wellington will continue to impose slower limits and stiffer penalties and raise more revenue, all while claiming it's for our own good.

scumdog

5th June 2007, 10:15

It is a matter of concentration. The slower the speed, the less 'challenge' - therefore, the (more experienced) driver/rider becomes bored and distracted by things other than the road ahead.

I agree - modern cars require minimal effort/concentration to get them down the road, straightening out roads does not help this either.

Result is bored inattentive 'car-steerers' (they ain't 'drivers', that's for sure) that have no idea how slippery the road is, how cold it is out there, how long it will take to stop and other factors obvious to us motorbike riders that generally leading to safer driving.

Cars to a lot of people are just 'things' to get them from a to b as quck as possible and with the least inconvenience, they are just another disposable usable comodity like an electric jug, cordless drill etc, things that also injury and main the unthinking, unfortunatley the big difference is that cars will kill and maim others and several at the same time too, hence more constraints on the manner of their use.

End of rambling blurb.

Grahameeboy

5th June 2007, 10:19

scumdog

5th June 2007, 10:20

Whilst it's true it takes longer to stop when you're travelling faster, there's no conclusive evidence that higher average speed equates to more road fatalities; despite various western governments having spent millions on research with the intention of showing a causal link. In fact, there's plenty of evidence that suggests precisely the opposite from the US; one of the very few countries to have raised speed limits in the past twenty years or so..

Would that our roads allowed a higher speed - while there are a few that do most are too rough/narrow/poor visibility with humps and bends.

The freeways and interstates in the US DO allow for safer higher speed.

Grahameeboy

5th June 2007, 10:22

MSTRS

5th June 2007, 10:25

When the US government repealed the 55mph maximum on all Interstate highways, they devolved power to set speed limits to the individual state legislatures. Despite various anti-speed pressure groups predicting carnage and destruction, the precise opposite was seen. Where states raised the limits, the road toll fell when compared to those states that left them the same. There was even a proportional link evident: the higher the speed limit, the greater the fall in fatalities.

Also, the practice of making roads 'safer' (ie straight + boring, not fixing poor corner/camber alignment say) is counter-productive, in that lowish speed on a boring road = attention radar OFF.

scumdog

5th June 2007, 10:25

But my car tells me how cold it is outside......it's cold getting to the car you know.....I have ABS.......wet road..........how can it not be obvious.....:dodge:

But do you know what the coldness outside equates to? (probably won't mean anything to people living up your way but it does down here).

And even with ABS most people will just tend to bury the brake-pedal, grit their teeth and still plow into whatever is straight ahead without attempting to swerve around it. (besides, you have to be alert enough and far enough back to stop anyway!)

MSTRS

5th June 2007, 10:31

I agree - modern cars require minimal effort/concentration to get them down the road, straightening out roads does not help this either.

Result is bored inattentive 'car-steerers' (they ain't 'drivers', that's for sure) that have no idea how slippery the road is, how cold it is out there, how long it will take to stop and other factors obvious to us motorbike riders that generally leading to safer driving.

Cars to a lot of people are just 'things' to get them from a to b as quck as possible and with the least inconvenience, they are just another disposable usable comodity like an electric jug, cordless drill etc, things that also injury and main the unthinking, unfortunatley the big difference is that cars will kill and maim others and several at the same time too, hence more constraints on the manner of their use.

End of rambling blurb.
Geez, for a moment there I thought you had joined the darkside:shit:
Stick around so we can keep working on you, then when we think you are ready, you can go for the commissioner's post.....

Grahameeboy

5th June 2007, 10:36

But do you know what the coldness outside equates to? (probably won't mean anything to people living up your way but it does down here).

And even with ABS most people will just tend to bury the brake-pedal, grit their teeth and still plow into whatever is straight ahead without attempting to swerve around it. (besides, you have to be alert enough and far enough back to stop anyway!)

I know:innocent: ............being from UK I know what cold is and Auckland is summer everyday.....even found Queenstown warm..........

Sanx

5th June 2007, 11:48

Would that our roads allowed a higher speed - while there are a few that do most are too rough/narrow/poor visibility with humps and bends. The freeways and interstates in the US DO allow for safer higher speed.

It's not that the speed limit is higher in absolute terms. Obviously a 6-lane mirror-smooth highway is going be safe at higher speeds than on some of the goat-tracks LTNZ laughingly refer to as roads. The point was that raising the speed limits on these roads equated to fewer fatal accidents. I'm not saying that all NZ roads would benefit from higher speed limits - precisely the opposite, in fact - but the government's mantra of "Speed Kills" is just simply wrong.

Inappropriate speed kills. Higher speed limits and average road speeds, where safe, have been shown to reduce road accidents. Obviously limits need to be set taking into account the road itself, but the general principle is cannot be ignored.

peasea

5th June 2007, 12:37

It's not that the speed limit is higher in absolute terms. Obviously a 6-lane mirror-smooth highway is going be safe at higher speeds than on some of the goat-tracks LTNZ laughingly refer to as roads. The point was that raising the speed limits on these roads equated to fewer fatal accidents. I'm not saying that all NZ roads would benefit from higher speed limits - precisely the opposite, in fact - but the government's mantra of "Speed Kills" is just simply wrong.

Inappropriate speed kills. Higher speed limits and average road speeds, where safe, have been shown to reduce road accidents. Obviously limits need to be set taking into account the road itself, but the general principle is cannot be ignored.

Some good points are being made here and we've heard most of them before. It all boils down to education, not legislation. I can't for the life of me understand why the Road Code isn't part of the school curriculum, starting at primary level. From how to cross the street safely in Year 1, progressing into road rules at Intermediate, and car control and even some basic maintenance, (tyre pressures for one!) at secondary level. Sure the local bobbies do the rounds and teach some bicycle safety stuff and that's all good, but it should be expanded on by the schools, not just loaded onto the cops. Would a five-minute scrub-up on basic road rules at 2.55pm be so hard? It would probably save some young lives.

If you don't teach people, how will they know.....anything?

My 17y/o got to restricted level recently and there was no way she was leaving home on her own until she proved that she could check her tyres, change one, find the dipstick and check the water without getting scalded. (Actually, she already knew it all but I made her run through it.) She knows to slow down in the rain, use her rear view mirrors and I find her to be a cautiously confident driver. Now I'm looking at finding somewhere to show her some skid control, which sadly isn't part of the testing procedure. (Watch this space, I bet I get slapped with some sort of fine doing that too, regardless of the location!)

When everyone is 'fully educated' then we MIGHT see SOME roads get an increase in the speed limit. Don't hold your breath tho'.

As an aside; there seems to some lack of understanding here when it comes to sarcasm. Oh well.

Grahameeboy

5th June 2007, 12:40

Some good points are being made here and we've heard most of them before. It all boils down to education, not legislation. I can't for the life of me understand why the Road Code isn't part of the school curriculum, starting at primary level. From how to cross the street safely in Year 1, progressing into road rules at Intermediate, and car control and even some basic maintenance, (tyre pressures for one!) at secondary level. Sure the local bobbies do the rounds and teach some bicycle safety stuff and that's all good, but it should be expanded on by the schools, not just loaded onto the cops. Would a five-minute scrub-up on basic road rules at 2.55pm be so hard? It would probably save some young lives.

If you don't teach people, how will they know.....anything?

My 17y/o got to restricted level recently and there was no way she was leaving home on her own until she proved that she could check her tyres, change one, find the dipstick and check the water without getting scalded. (Actually, she already knew it all but I made her run through it.) She knows to slow down in the rain, use her rear view mirrors and I find her to be a cautiously confident driver. Now I'm looking at finding somewhere to show her some skid control, which sadly isn't part of the testing procedure. (Watch this space, I bet I get slapped with some sort of fine doing that too, regardless of the location!)

When everyone is 'fully educated' then we MIGHT see SOME roads get an increase in the speed limit. Don't hold your breath tho'.

As an aside; there seems to some lack of understanding here when it comes to sarcasm. Oh well.

Agree totally..................cyclists jumping reds, car drivers doing same......all starts with education at school as you say.

MSTRS

5th June 2007, 12:42

Agree totally..................cyclists jumping reds, car drivers doing same......all starts with education at school as you say.

Gotta be knowing stuff. Commonsense is not an exam subject.....

swbarnett

5th June 2007, 14:58

The reason we have speed limits is that a fair percentage of drivers are day-dreaming fuckwits who would drive through the middle of town at 95kmh without even thinking about it if it wasn't for speed limits - or drive down the motorway in their blinged-out night-club-on-wheels at 190kmh and weaving through the 'slower' cars while txting their mate to make sure they'll meet at Maccas in ten minutes.

This has not been born out in countries that have raised speed limits. Also, I'm talking mainly about highway limits. suburban limits need to be raised in some places and reduced in others (mostly as a guide to hidden driveways, schools etc.).

YOU might be a good safe driver but you are paying for those that aren't - you may also be able to drive well with a breath-alcohol level of 680 but you are paying for those that can't......yadda..yadda..yadda..

Exactly my point. Why should I pay for someone else's ineptitude? The police need to judge competence of each driver on a case by case basis.

More "Face to face policing"? - I hope you would be satisfied with the (a) increase in tax (and/or huge fines/costs) to pay for this or (b) put up with less money going into schools/hospitals/social services etc to pay for this.

This is also proving my point. Yes, policing costs money. I don't want more money spent on the police. At the same time I don't want cheap band-aid solutions that 1. don't address the root causes and 2. only fool people into thinking they're safe. We have a choice - either spend more on fair policing or accept the fact that a certain amount of carnage on our roads is inevitable and live with it. Finding scapegoats is morally reprehensible.

Sanx

5th June 2007, 15:03

Gotta be knowing stuff. Commonsense is not an exam subject.....

But it should be made one. And for the sake of the gene pool, it should be a big part of the "Permission to Breed 101" exam paper.

For instance...

Q: Your mother is reliant on oxygen for continued survival. She's stopped taking her medication and prefers to rely on traditional remedies and prayer. Because the electricity bill hasn't been paid and you haven't bothered contacting the power company despite numerous bills and warnings being sent, the power has been cut off. Do you:
a) Get you mother to a neighbour and plug in her oxygen machine
b) Call an ambulance
c) Sing hymns to your mother to help her through this difficult time
d) Sit on your fat arse and do nothing

MSTRS

5th June 2007, 15:06

E. None of the above. I plan the media campaign with associated fingerpointing, manouevre for the best compensation deal I can get, and take every bit of charity that I can blag from the gullible.

swbarnett

5th June 2007, 15:49

Inappropriate speed kills

Something I think should be mentioned although it doesn't really have a great bearing on the practicalities of the issue:

Speed doesn't kill - period. If it did every astronaut would die as soon as they made orbit (or before). The shuttle orbits at 27,000km/h with no problems. I'm travelling at 6,000km/h as I type being wipped around as the earth rotates.

What kills is deceleration. That's why speed alone is never enough to cause injury.

Grahameeboy

5th June 2007, 15:59

E. None of the above. I plan the media campaign with associated fingerpointing, manouevre for the best compensation deal I can get, and take every bit of charity that I can blag from the gullible.

Erm ... get my unionist malcontent relatives to plan a media campaign using the death as an excuse to attack everyone in 'big business' that they can think of, and then go for compensation and charity.

Gotta be knowing stuff. Commonsense is not an exam subject.....

True but seems commonsense ain't so good these days and with road safety you have to do an exam/test to get a licence so what's wrong with education.

MSTRS

6th June 2007, 08:46

....so what's wrong with education.

Education is all about teaching you what they want you to know. Not what you need to know.
Take the licence thing...you are taught how to get your licence, not how to drive.

Grahameeboy

6th June 2007, 09:02

Education is all about teaching you what they want you to know. Not what you need to know.
Take the licence thing...you are taught how to get your licence, not how to drive.

I agree to a point but lessons helps you to drive and experience is the way to know what you need....but education is a start.

Trubs is that whether we like it or not, education meets the needs of employers / university etc. No education = no fitting in with society.

What we do with our roles in society is our choice.

smoky

7th June 2007, 07:20

I'm travelling at 6,000km/h as I type being wipped around as the earth rotates.

So which way does the earth rotate? and if I jump on my bike and head in the same direction doing 100Km/h - that would mean my total speed would be 6100km/h - shit, I wonder if I would be able hang on at that speed.

swbarnett

7th June 2007, 09:56

So which way does the earth rotate? and if I jump on my bike and head in the same direction doing 100Km/h - that would mean my total speed would be 6100km/h - shit, I wonder if I would be able hang on at that speed.

To us, the sun appears to rise towards us. In actual fact (as we all know) the earth rotates towards the sun. So if you ride due east you will indeed be doing 6100km/h.

This rotation is one theory that explains the Noah's Ark flood. The theory says that a meteor hit the earth and changed the earth's rotational speed. Since the oceans are free to move relative to the crust, when the crust slowed the oceans didn't and washed over the continents.

smoky

7th June 2007, 18:48

This rotation is one theory that explains the Noah's Ark flood. The theory says that a meteor hit the earth and changed the earth's rotational speed. Since the oceans are free to move relative to the crust, when the crust slowed the oceans didn't and washed over the continents.

wow - and thought it was because it rained!
But I guess diluvian hypothesis isn't my thing – I’m more into prediluvian palaeontological theories of lithosphere fragmentation and the recreation of the tectonic surface by catastrophic change in the asthenosphere. So I'll just have to take your word for it.

swbarnett

7th June 2007, 20:14

wow - and thought it was because it rained!

I suppose if the ocean was suddenly dumped on your house it could be classed as one almighty rain storm!

But I guess diluvian hypothesis isn't my thing – I’m more into prediluvian palaeontological theories of lithosphere fragmentation and the recreation of the tectonic surface by catastrophic change in the asthenosphere. So I'll just have to take your word for it.

Now, was that of the top of your head or did you fall into a encyclopedia?

I'm not really into it either. I just seem to soak up little titbits like this and never forget them - maybe I'm an intellectual elephant? (don't always remember them right though).

smoky

7th June 2007, 21:37

Now, was that of the top of your head or did you fall into a encyclopedia?

I am a self proclaimed creationist theoratrical guru.
It was my own theory - you won't find it in an encyclopedia

peasea

7th June 2007, 21:54

I am a self proclaimed creationist theoratrical guru.
It was my own theory - you won't find it in an encyclopedia

I'm more into adiabatic expansion and chemical dissassociation myself. It helps me go faster; in theory. (If you get it right and all things being equal.)

smoky

7th June 2007, 23:03

I'm more into adiabatic expansion and chemical dissassociation myself. It helps me go faster; in theory. (If you get it right and all things being equal.)

Now your talking dirty – how about volumetric efficiencies and pulse timing, whoar!

Sanx

8th June 2007, 00:46

MSTRS

8th June 2007, 09:29

Suck, squeeze, bang, blow.

Any need to make it more complicated? Good. Didn't think so.

You are talking about the infernal combustion engine? Aren't you?

modalx

8th June 2007, 13:39

Ahhh! The hairy old chestnut. Lots more of this discussion here http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=8506&highlight=fast+and+safe

Max Preload

10th June 2007, 16:02

In an ideal world, where everyone was responsible, then I'd be happy for there to be a no limit policy on motrways etc. But the fact is the roads here and the quality of driving is relatively poor compared to many other 'developed' countries'. Especially Germany.

Certainly. We certainly need to raise the standard of driving in this country before raising the speed limits. Or do we? Perhaps the worst drivers, those who are dangerous at any speed, would simply stay off the roads that scare them because the cars are going too fast. Sounds like a great way to get the neurotic minions out of everyone elses way.

smoky

10th June 2007, 17:40

Certainly. We certainly need to raise the standard of driving in this country before raising the speed limits.... Sounds like a great way to get the neurotic minions out of everyone elses way.

After travelling around the globe a bit, driven on every continents I have seen a whole lot of different kinda roads, our roads are very poor, under developed for the amount of traffic on them (not so much in the South Island) – I have some ideas for NZ;
We need more duel carriageways – more passing lanes. It would cut down on impatience and head on accidents. all those trucks, tourist buses and campervans to get passed. And we'll be seeing more and more of the campervans and tourists buses.
Really it’s quite foolish to burden an under resourced 2nd class (predominately ‘B’ class) roading system, with all our main freight and transport, when we have world class harbours. All our major cities and most minor centres have a harbour.
We should impose a higher tax on trucks over 10 tonne, require anything over that limit to have a permit for each load over that weight – they would have to show that the freight couldn’t get there by rail or sea first.
Can you imagine how much easier it would be with out those monsters on the road, how it would cut down on maintenance costs.