Traffic lights and the attitude of the Police [Archive]

swbarnett

19th July 2007, 12:02

This morning I was dutifully waiting at the lights at the corner of Fanshawe and Halsey streets facing east. My light changes to green and, as happens every morning at that intersection, two cars are still crossing perpendicular to me heading into Halsey St.

The unusual thing about this morning was that there was a bike cop sitting on his bike in a prime position to have seen them enter the intersection. He did nothing. I executed a u-turn further up Fanshawe St. and pulled up beside him. I pointed out what I've described above and his answer was that if the light turns red after you have crossed the white line you're legal. I pointed out that you're technically supposed to stop on a yellow if you can do so and he replied that if they ticketed every occurrence of this they'd have to ticket everybody in Auckland (fair enough to a point).

Now, If I'm not mistaken there's a 2 second pause between one light changing to red and the other changing to green. At 50km/h you travel approximately 28m in 2 seconds. Considering that lanes are between 2 and 3m in width and there were 3 lanes to cross to cross before they reached my side of the road this would be a time of at most approximately 0.6 seconds. Surely this means that the light was red before they crossed their white line?

If the police are going to ignore this sort of blatant infraction it's only going to get worse.

Also, he seemed miffed at the fact that I'd been bold enough to question him. I think the police need to remember who they work for.

janno

19th July 2007, 12:05

I sincerely hope you just came across a dud copper, because that sort of behaviour is how bikers get killed!!

And car drivers, and pedestrians . . . :shit:

Gremlin

19th July 2007, 12:13

...and he replied that if they ticketed every occurrence of this they'd have to ticket everybody in Auckland (fair enough to a point).
whats the bloody problem with that? its an offence... you don't see them not targeting 111kph... Its that sort of attitude that lets these people get away with it, and the problem gets bigger and bigger. :nono:

Pity Bykey Cop has apparently moved from patrol to SCU or something... I used to see him in action at intersections out east. It was fantastic. He would wait for the phase, and as it went orange, down went visor, bike was started, someone ran the red, and he was after them :2thumbsup

Macktheknife

19th July 2007, 12:39

Also, he seemed miffed at the fact that I'd been bold enough to question him. I think the police need to remember who they work for.

They work for the government, they serve the public interest (as defined by the law and the government).
this should not be confused as working for the public.

Still would have thought that a bike cop would know the dangers that red light runners cause for bikes though, maybe he was just having a bad start to the day.

craigs288

19th July 2007, 13:37

They work for the government, they serve the public interest (as defined by the law and the government).
this should not be confused as working for the public.

And the government is there to work for 'us' and to serve our interests, theoretically. But they don't. In reality they serve their own interests.

What makes you think a government that doesn't serve our interests is going to put the police to work doing it??? The police are made to serve the government's interests, not ours. Sometimes though, there is a small effort made by the government to give the appearance of doing something for the public good.

Like um,.... um,.... um,... wait, I've got it. Passing legislation for less than 2% of the country so that gay people can feel more normal by getting hitched. No wait, more than 2% of the politicians are gay. Does that make them over-represented. Perhaps they only did it to serve their own interest so they could get hitched.

Bring on the insults about homophobia. Unless there are no gay kiwibikers. Does that mean we under-represent these people. That would make this website politically incorrect.

P.S. Not trying to offend anyone. Except maybe the government.

Sanx

19th July 2007, 13:54

Like um,.... um,.... um,... wait, I've got it. Passing legislation for less than 2% of the country so that gay people can feel more normal by getting hitched. No wait, more than 2% of the politicians are gay. Does that make them over-represented. Perhaps they only did it to serve their own interest so they could get hitched.

That's a genuine-enough example. Sure, it only affected 2% (by your figures - I've no idea how many Honda riders exist in the population as a whole) but it did nto adversely affect anyone else, unless you count all the religious zealots getting their knickers into a twist about how allowing two men or two women to marry was a violation of their particular god's law.

But overall, I'm struggling to think of an example of a law they passed that genuinely was done in the interests of serving the whole population.

swbarnett

19th July 2007, 14:28

unless you count all the religious zealots getting their knickers into a twist about how allowing two men or two women to marry was a violation of their particular god's law.

No, the law didn't hurt them at all. They hurt themselves by trying to tell others how to run their lives.

swbarnett

19th July 2007, 14:32

whats the bloody problem with that?

Too true. I agree with a degree of leniency and considering context but maybe if every Aucklander was ticketed people might stop doing it (or at least it would become less common).

swbarnett

19th July 2007, 14:36

They work for the government, they serve the public interest (as defined by the law and the government).
this should not be confused as working for the public.
And who pays the government so that they can pay the Police? I don't work for my employer, I work for my clients.

maybe he was just having a bad start to the day.
I sincerely hope so.

Macktheknife

19th July 2007, 15:13

And who pays the government so that they can pay the Police? I don't work for my employer, I work for my clients.

Unless you are self-employed, I think your employer may view the situation quite differently.
If you are employed, you work for the employer, and the clients are the businesses clients.
Illustrated simply by the fact that if you were fired tomorrow, the clients would be passed on to another employee to manage.

Storm

19th July 2007, 16:40

However, if you have done your job properly(ie real good), the clients follow you to your next job

DISCLAIMER(Of course this wont apply to some jobs)

Pumba

19th July 2007, 16:56

Now, If I'm not mistaken there's a 2 second pause between one light changing to red and the other changing to green. At 50km/h you travel approximately 28m in 2 seconds. Considering that lanes are between 2 and 3m in width and there were 3 lanes to cross to cross before they reached my side of the road this would be a time of at most approximately 0.6 seconds. Surely this means that the light was red before they crossed their white line?

As much as I hate amber light runners, Especialy the ones who think its ok to que accross intersections:nono: (this infact anoys me more than people flying through at speed), I need to correct you on the statement above. It is not a blanket 2 second pause between lights changing.

The gap an be varried from about 0.1 of a second up to anything you chose, and this gap can vary dependant on the thime of the day and volume of traffic passing through a intersection. Normally a standard gap of 2 - 3 seconds is is allowed for on a new intersection, however if amber light runners become a problem (yes certian intersections are worse than others) the programme can be changed allowing for a longer gap and therefore a larger margin of safety.

I know that is not the issue you are pointing out, and probally the cop should have done somthing (I thought there was a blitz on this sort of behavour at the moment?) but if you regulary pass through this intersection and experience bad amber light runners making it unsafe for you and other motorists it may be worth registering a complaint with Road Controlling Authority, normaly the local council or Transit NZ. The more complaints the better traffic signals can be fine tuned to real world conditions and traffic flows.

davereid

19th July 2007, 18:02

Yeah, but at 2am I stopped at a red light on my scooter. Waited...waited...waited.. didn't change, so off I goes through the red. Cop thought THAT was worth a ticket.

p.s. Ticket was shit - lights are supposed to change for a vehicle, if they don't change they are faulty and you can ignore them, applying the right hand rule. But I had to go to court cos the cops wouldn't drop it, though the court only took 2 secs to dump it.

swbarnett

19th July 2007, 18:22

Unless you are self-employed, I think your employer may view the situation quite differently.
If you are employed, you work for the employer, and the clients are the businesses clients.
Illustrated simply by the fact that if you were fired tomorrow, the clients would be passed on to another employee to manage.

Yes, my employer has power over my livelihood. I work for my clients. I used to work for Air NewZealand and we were told that we worked for the passengers (I don't think upper management shared this view).

If my employer and my client ask me to do contradictory things the client wins out every time. This is expected as part of my job.

swbarnett

19th July 2007, 18:30

Normally a standard gap of 2 - 3 seconds is is allowed for on a new intersection, however if amber light runners become a problem (yes certian intersections are worse than others) the programme can be changed allowing for a longer gap and therefore a larger margin of safety.

Does this not lull drivers into a false sense of security? People get to know that they've got a couple of seconds after the red so they use it. I may be wrong but when the gap was introduced it seemed that more people started running the red. At least when there was no gap people knew when the opposing green was active.

BTW: Thanks for clarifying the gap situation.

Skyryder

19th July 2007, 20:07

Saw exactly the same thing down here in CHCH a couple of weeks ago. Biker cop waiting for the green and car running red. Cop just ignored it and drove off. Few months back when the police were trialing the bikes I pulled up beside a biker cop on red. No sooner had I stopped and he took off. Did the good citizen duty thing and reported through the 'dob a driver' thing don't know the right name, can't remember. Never heard a word back. As I understand the law you can go through an orange light providing you get 'across' the intersection before the light turns red.

Skyryder

Usarka

19th July 2007, 20:24

swabnet, you did the right thing man, take it one step further and right your mp with that story tell them they've got it all fooked up and the cops are dangering our lives. it aint unusual, though im surprised at a bike cop, usually those guys are traffic - u can sort of understand with gd crew but it still aint good. U shoulda got his reg.

Telling the mp might not do squat, but then again it might and it'll likely do more than posting here though glad you did.

craigs288

20th July 2007, 11:12

No, the law didn't hurt them at all. They hurt themselves by trying to tell others how to run their lives.

On the whole, as much as I find religious nuts annoying, they aren't quite as annoying and dangerous as your government. Religious nuts don't get to make and pass legislation that people don't like, and then enforce it on you anyway. Only the government gets to do that, but maybe we should let sleeping dogs lie (lie).

Plus, religious nuts can be fun to have conversation with.
If you tell them they are wrong, where is their proof, all they can come up with is "God said 'whatever', therefore it is so, therefore you should do it because it is right".
I generally start with "When was the last time God spoke to you?" , followed closely by "So you admit to hearing voices in your head, that aren't you?", "You can get drugs from a doctor to help with that, or psychiatric treatment".
The second most common argument is that it is in the book of God, the bible so it must be right. I usually ask to see it, because I am curious to see what God's handwriting looks like. In the end it is always just another book written by humans, and there are so many variations that contradict each other, it is hard to tell which, if any, are correct.
I end by saying I have a religion, it is called motorcycling.

Grub

20th July 2007, 11:17

I think the police need to remember who they work for.

Nothing personal, but I wish people would stop thinking like this and spouting this rubbish.

They have never worked for you, they never will.

BTW I don't agree with the cop and I hope you have filed a complaint - he's so wrong!

Patrick

20th July 2007, 11:33

I think the police need to remember who they work for.

Where is my raise then???? I'm still waiting.....

I pay taxes, so am I self employed then? Hope so, so I can get that raise...

I think you will find your taxes actually go toward keeping BURTON and other oxygen thieves fed in prison....

Patrick

20th July 2007, 11:35

Nothing personal, but I wish opeople would stop thinking like this and spouting this rubbish.

They have never worked for you, they never will.

BTW I don't agree with the cop and I hope you have filed a complaint - he's so wrong!

I agree... those cars could have stopped as the lights changed and if they proceed through an orange, able to stop, then they can be ticketed for it... $150 a pop. That cop is wrong. Easy quota....

swbarnett

20th July 2007, 13:45

Nothing personal,

No offence taken. I love the to and fro of opposing ideas - somewhere, in the continuum between lies the truth.

but I wish opeople would stop thinking like this and spouting this rubbish.

They have never worked for you, they never will.

This depends on how you look at it. No, I don't directly pay their salary but I do buy police services from the government via my taxes. This makes me (and every other tax payer) a client of the police. I apply this philosophy in my job - my employer pays my salary, I work for my clients (and in the case where my client is a hospital I work for the patients).

Where is my raise then???? I'm still waiting.....

I pay taxes, so am I self employed then? Hope so, so I can get that raise...

There is an argument for not taxing anyone that is paid completely out of taxpayers money. This would cut down on a lot of treasury bureaucracy.

Pumba

20th July 2007, 16:54

Does this not lull drivers into a false sense of security? People get to know that they've got a couple of seconds after the red so they use it. I may be wrong but when the gap was introduced it seemed that more people started running the red. At least when there was no gap people knew when the opposing green was active.

BTW: Thanks for clarifying the gap situation.

I see the logic in the point raised, and is probally a fair argument. Im not familiar with the time when the was gap introduced (hell Ive only been driving for 8 years and working as ane engineer for 3 or 4, im not that old) but such a system would have been introduced becuase of two reasons:

1. Technology

2. Accident Reduction

If it didnt reduce acidents and show zero to minimal increase in conjestion (statisitcly at least, real world it may be quite different but the paper pushers, and policy makers in the road controlling authoritys dont seem to give a dam about this) the system wouldnt have lasted for long.

Skyryder

20th July 2007, 20:56

On the whole, as much as I find religious nuts annoying, they aren't quite as annoying and dangerous as your government. Religious nuts don't get to make and pass legislation that people don't like, and then enforce it on you anyway. Only the government gets to do that, but maybe we should let sleeping dogs lie (lie).

Plus, religious nuts can be fun to have conversation with.
If you tell them they are wrong, where is their proof, all they can come up with is "God said 'whatever', therefore it is so, therefore you should do it because it is right".
I generally start with "When was the last time God spoke to you?" , followed closely by "So you admit to hearing voices in your head, that aren't you?", "You can get drugs from a doctor to help with that, or psychiatric treatment".
The second most common argument is that it is in the book of God, the bible so it must be right. I usually ask to see it, because I am curious to see what God's handwriting looks like. In the end it is always just another book written by humans, and there are so many variations that contradict each other, it is hard to tell which, if any, are correct.
I end by saying I have a religion, it is called motorcycling.

If Zed ever comes back you'll have some fun.

Skyryder

Sanx

20th July 2007, 23:48

If Zed ever comes back you'll have some fun.

Skyryder

Arguing over religion is like arguing over who's got the best imaginary friend. In fact, it's the same thing.

carver

20th July 2007, 23:51

And the government is there to work for 'us' and to serve our interests, theoretically. But they don't. In reality they serve their own interests.

What makes you think a government that doesn't serve our interests is going to put the police to work doing it??? The police are made to serve the government's interests, not ours. Sometimes though, there is a small effort made by the government to give the appearance of doing something for the public good.

Like um,.... um,.... um,... wait, I've got it. Passing legislation for less than 2% of the country so that gay people can feel more normal by getting hitched. No wait, more than 2% of the politicians are gay. Does that make them over-represented. Perhaps they only did it to serve their own interest so they could get hitched.

Bring on the insults about homophobia. Unless there are no gay kiwibikers. Does that mean we under-represent these people. That would make this website politically incorrect.

P.S. Not trying to offend anyone. Except maybe the government.

vote libertarianz (http://www.libertarianz.org.nz/)

swbarnett

21st July 2007, 07:31

If it didnt reduce acidents and show zero to minimal increase in conjestion (statisitcly at least, real world it may be quite different but the paper pushers, and policy makers in the road controlling authoritys dont seem to give a dam about this) the system wouldnt have lasted for long.

The thought occurs to me that the gap system may actually reduce accidents at a given intersection (I have no hard evidence either way) but it certainly raises driver stress levels. This can't be good for the accident rate in general.

Grahameeboy

21st July 2007, 08:04

Arguing over religion is like arguing over who's got the best imaginary friend. In fact, it's the same thing.

That's why I don't argue.......but I agree with your analogy.

SlashWylde

21st July 2007, 08:50

...and his answer was that if the light turns red after you have crossed the white line you're legal. I pointed out that you're technically supposed to stop on a yellow if you can do so and he replied that if they ticketed every occurrence of this they'd have to ticket everybody in Auckland (fair enough to a point).

Bollocks. If your light had already turned green and there were still two cars crossing the intersection then they were too late in getting there and should have stopped for the orange or red. Their intent was to get through the intersection no matter what, rather than doing what is safest for them selves and other members of the community. The officer should have pulled one of these motorists over and ticketed them.

His policing is also inconsistent with that of his fellow officers. On a number of occasions I have seen BikeyCop parked at intersections in east Auckland snapping people who run the red.

His claim that if the police ticketed every occurrence of this then they would have to ticket everybody in Auckland smacks of laziness and misses the point.

If they did that then people would quickly get the idea that there's a real possibility of getting a ticket for rushing an orange light or running a red light. This is what the police are supposed to be doing. If they can pull me up for making a momentary mistake and doing 69 on a straight stretch of 50kph zone after just coming off a state highway, then they can damn well improve the safety of intersections by policing them properly.

Holy Roller

21st July 2007, 09:23

janno

21st July 2007, 09:26

More red light cameras are needed lightening the wallet has a behaviour modification componet incorporated. Much better than a sudden intrusion into ones own private space to modify ones behaviour. This is one situation that cameras have a true safety purpose.

Agreed! I was getting pretty cavalier about red lights until I got a fine in the mail some years ago. That modified my behaviour instantly.

Having said that, if I am sitting on a red turn arrow and there is no traffic coming, I sometimes sneak around. Not the best habit, I know. :whistle:

Toaster

21st July 2007, 09:52

They work for the government, they serve the public interest (as defined by the law and the government).
this should not be confused as working for the public.

Still would have thought that a bike cop would know the dangers that red light runners cause for bikes though, maybe he was just having a bad start to the day.

Mac, I completely agree. Having been a cop in the past, I usually chewed up and spat out red light runners... but hey, I am the Toaster.

Poor showing from that cop... one thing I was always mindful of was everything I did or didn't do was observed by the public and I knew I would be judged for that action or inaction.

One of my favorites was to tell off slow drivers for holding up the flow of traffic... always got a few friendly waves and it did the driver good to get a warning instead of a $150 fine.

Da Bird

21st July 2007, 18:58

whats the bloody problem with that? its an offence... you don't see them not targeting 111kph... Its that sort of attitude that lets these people get away with it, and the problem gets bigger and bigger. :nono:

Pity Bykey Cop has apparently moved from patrol to SCU or something... I used to see him in action at intersections out east. It was fantastic. He would wait for the phase, and as it went orange, down went visor, bike was started, someone ran the red, and he was after them :2thumbsup

Somebody misses me... :wavey:.. aint that nice.

I miss giving those red light running #$%#$ a roasting too to be honest but I needed a bit of a change. Another KB lurker/occasional poster has my old work bike and works the same area so if you see him, be nice.

BC.

Max Preload

22nd July 2007, 00:18

...he replied that if they ticketed every occurrence of this they'd have to ticket everybody in Auckland

Then that's what they fucking well need to do - their jobs. The fact that red light running has been largely ignored as an offence for so long (along with damn near every other regulation except arbitrary speed limits) is the whole reason it's so bad now. Without a word of a lie, I'm now more surprised when someone DOESN'T run a red. It's really reaching epidemic proportions.

Max Preload

22nd July 2007, 00:29

Having said that, if I am sitting on a red turn arrow and there is no traffic coming, I sometimes sneak around. Not the best habit, I know. :whistle:

I do that all the time. The fact the lights don't register my bike for the most part, and the fact I have actually stopped before doing it justifies it for me. I actually had to do it last night turning right into Fanshawe Street from Beaumont Street - no vehicles anywhere.

Once I was heading up Symonds Street over the motorway bridge at about 2am, the only vehicle on the road (my trusty GPz600R). I stopped at the red light at the intersection with the northbound Symonds Street off-ramp and waited. Nothing happened for nearly a minute so I took a good look around and moved off through the red. Who should get off the motorway right at the instant I was halfway through the intersection but a bloody MoT V3000. I thought I was going to get stopped at a minimum, but he just ignored me, much to my relief.

bull

22nd July 2007, 12:07

Good on you for stopping and telling the cop that he should have ticketed those red light runners. Seems we find useless workers in all areas of life, but like toaster said, the Police have a high profile to keep and that means you are under constant scrutiny.

swbarnett

23rd July 2007, 13:15

Having said that, if I am sitting on a red turn arrow and there is no traffic coming, I sometimes sneak around. Not the best habit, I know. :whistle:

I do this all the time myself. If there's no other traffic within site that has any chance of crossing your path I see no problem with taking the opportunity. Those red arrows are yet another way that the government is treating us like brainless twits. Treat people like idiots and that's what you'll get.

This does not, however, affect my view on red-light runners where there IS opposing traffic. :angry:

scumdog

23rd July 2007, 14:59

. Those red arrows are yet another way that the government is treating us like brainless twits. Treat people like idiots and that's what you'll get.

This does not, however, affect my view on red-light runners where there IS opposing traffic. :angry:

A bob each way huh?

BTW NZ has more than it's share of idiots and brainless twits - just have a look at driver behaviour in your area.

Would YOU trust them with your life to do the correct thing/drive safely ALL the time, depending on them to do so because they had 'common sense' ......would you???

Max Preload

23rd July 2007, 17:20

Those red arrows are yet another way that the government is treating us like brainless twits.

Yes - there are circumstances where they can be useful (like intersections at the brow of a hill) but for the most part they're merely compensating for people that are simply too stupid to be operating heavy machinery that can endanger other people, like say a motor vehicle.

Bass

23rd July 2007, 17:23

A bob each way huh?

BTW NZ has more than it's share of idiots and brainless twits - just have a look at driver behaviour in your area.

Would YOU trust them with your life to do the correct thing/drive safely ALL the time, depending on them to do so because they had 'common sense' ......would you???

And yet having discretion to ignore the turning arrow is legal in several countries eg USA.

I confess to doing it myself when there is NOTHING in sight and it's obvious the lights are on timers rather than sensors - like when they stop traffic for NO-ONE waiting for cross flow.

However, I ALWAYS stop first.

Max Preload

23rd July 2007, 17:26

And yet having discretion to ignore the turning arrow is legal in several countries eg USA.

Isn't that just the equivalent of our free left turns though? (which are slowly but surely disappearing).

swbarnett

23rd July 2007, 17:43

A bob each way huh?

Not really, just common sense. I won't go through in any direction if the main light (straight through) is red but a red arrow when the main light is green and there's nothing anywhere in sight on the other side of the road is just the government trying to flex it's muscles and telling me that they think I'm not capable of judging the traffic. Why then am I allowed to turn right on a quite road at all without lights? Traffic lights are about courtesy (letting each line of traffic have their turn where no other law is suitable). Red arrows have nothing to do with courtesy, the give way to straight-through law is more than adequate.

BTW NZ has more than it's share of idiots and brainless twits - just have a look at driver behaviour in your area.

And we'd have a lot less if they were expected to think for themselves.

Would YOU trust them with your life to do the correct thing/drive safely ALL the time, depending on them to do so because they had 'common sense' ......would you???

I do every day and I'm sure you do to. No matter how vigilant you are you're still relying on the behaviour of the other driver every time you cross their path. Otherwise you'd be giving way to every other driver whether you were required to by law or not and regardless of your appraisal of their state of mind.

swbarnett

23rd July 2007, 17:50

Yes - there are circumstances where they can be useful (like intersections at the brow of a hill) but for the most part they're merely compensating for people that are simply too stupid to be operating heavy machinery that can endanger other people, like say a motor vehicle.

Thanks for pointing out the brow of the hill situation. I'd forgotten that one. Indeed this is one situation where I would not go against a red arrow.

Compensating for stupidity is a downward spiral. The more you compensate, the more stupidity you generate. Far better to accept a certain amount of carnage as a natural part of operating a motor vehicle and force people to think for themselves. It is not possible to compensate for all human failings. If you did manage to do it I for one would rather die than live in such a society.

swbarnett

23rd July 2007, 17:51

However, I ALWAYS stop first.

Indeed, the compulsory stop laws are more than adequate in most situations that currently have red arrows.

scumdog

23rd July 2007, 17:53

Not really, just common sense.

I do every day and I'm sure you do to. No matter how vigilant you are you're still relying on the behaviour of the other driver every time you cross their path. Otherwise you'd be giving way to every other driver whether you were required to by law or not and regardless of your appraisal of their state of mind.

Common sense? - THAT it ain't!! - and that's the problem!

And regarding the second paragraph - I trust NOBODY on the road, the last time I DID I got T-boned by a slack-jawed mouthbreathing broken-arsed cretin who ran a red arrow - and I was driving a marked 'work' car!!

Trust other driver? - NEVER! (and even less when I'm on the bike).

Patrick

23rd July 2007, 17:54

And we'd have a lot less if they were expected to think for themselves.

They tried that... years ago... then they found that didn't work because people would not think for themselves. Someone invented give way and stop signs... and they don't always work either, so lets put in traffic lights... do these work?????

Hmmmm........ NOPE... (going from all the crashes we get to go to at traffic light controlled intersections...)

jafar

23rd July 2007, 17:58

if the light turns red after you have crossed the white line you're legal.

This statement is 100% correct, If the cop thinks they had their front wheels over the white line BEFORE the light turned red there isn't a problem as far as running the red is concerned.
If however they then stop in the intersection that is a seperate issue & they can be ticketed for that.
To add some common sense to this , it is a foolish rider / driver who proceeds into an intersection without looking to make sure the way is clear, a green light is an indication only & should never be taken as correct without using your eyes first.

Max Preload

23rd July 2007, 18:43

To add some common sense to this , it is a foolish rider / driver who proceeds into an intersection without looking to make sure the way is clear, a green light is an indication only & should never be taken as correct without using your eyes first.

The intersection blocking rule, a little known one, covers this. But when was the last time anyone was ticketed for it?

Max Preload

23rd July 2007, 18:49

Oops! Got the gist of that all wrong - I thought you were talking about these asswipes who go into an intersection where traffic is already stopped just so they don't miss the light change, and then force opposing traffic to miss their opportunity by blocking the road.

jafar

23rd July 2007, 18:54

The intersection blocking rule, a little known one, covers this. But when was the last time anyone was ticketed for it?

That I don't know, mabey one of our pet cops can give you this information :scooter:

Grahameeboy

23rd July 2007, 19:35

So when did 'Amber' stop meaning 'Stop unless to do so will cause and accident etc'

This is what the NZ Road Code says:

A yellow signal means stop, unless you are so close to the intersection that you can't stop safely.
A yellow signal indicates that the lights will soon turn red.

UK Road Code

AMBER means 'Stop' at the stopline. You may go on only if the AMBER appears after you have crossed the stop line or are so close to it that to pull up might cause an accident

Why do some folk think that being over the line after the lights change to red is okay when the lights take say 2/3 seconds to change from Amber to Red when a vehicle travelling at 50kph should stop in 25metres or 6/7 (or 3/4 Holdens) car lengths............I suspect that 90% of drivers could stop if they cared, but sadly they do not yet this is probably worse than exceeding the speed limit.

Today I saw a car pull up to lights as they changed to Red. Some idiot behind accelerated from behind the stopped vehicle and ran the lights.

The reason they do this is because there is a long delay between lights changing. I often see a wait time of 5-8 seconds.Drivers know this so what do they do?

Reduce the sequence time a bit. Advertise this and see what a difference it makes..........

Pumba

23rd July 2007, 20:02

And yet having discretion to ignore the turning arrow is legal in several countries eg USA.

This is NOT the US and we should give up on this idea that we need to compare ourselves to larger countries, with heap more resources, and a completly different way of life, in my opinion this also includes Aussie.

Isn't that just the equivalent of our free left turns though? (which are slowly but surely disappearing).

This has more to do with land avaliablility than anything else.

Not really, just common sense. I won't go through in any direction if the main light (straight through) is red but a red arrow when the main light is green and there's nothing anywhere in sight on the other side of the road is just the government trying to flex it's muscles and telling me that they think I'm not capable of judging the traffic. Why then am I allowed to turn right on a quite road at all without lights? Traffic lights are about courtesy (letting each line of traffic have their turn where no other law is suitable). Red arrows have nothing to do with courtesy, the give way to straight-through law is more than adequate.

This has nothing to do with government social engineering or them wishing to take the thought process away form the everyday kiwi (please note I am not saying that they are not trying to this in other areas of our lives).

Traffic light system have greatly improved over the years and are continually upgrade has technology improves, as you my or may not have noticed the right turn arrow has changed from lag (after the straight through traffic) to lead (before the straight through traffic) and this has dramatically reduced right turn accidents, but it is still a compromise. To have a system that does what you want when you want it we should just be reverting back 50 years, ripping out the traffic signals and putting our friendly police force back on point duty, stretching an already stretched resource further.

Traffic signals are a compromise, and weather you think you are in the right or acting safely, or any other way you go about justifying it if you turn or travel straight through on a Red light you are breaking the law. A law that when you sat your driving test and received your license you signed a document saying you would obey, simple as that.

Pumba

23rd July 2007, 20:06

Compensating for stupidity is a downward spiral. The more you compensate, the more stupidity you generate. Far better to accept a certain amount of carnage as a natural part of operating a motor vehicle and force people to think for themselves. It is not possible to compensate for all human failings. If you did manage to do it I for one would rather die than live in such a society.

To error is human. It is this reason and this reason only why no matter how hard the powers at be try there will still be accidents.

However if the powers that be ignore the situation they are accused of sweeping issues under the carpet.

Dammed if you do dammed if you don't.

davereid

23rd July 2007, 20:49

Someone invented give way and stop signs... and they don't always work either, so lets put in traffic lights... do these work?????Hmmmm........ NOPE... (going from all the crashes we get to go to at traffic light controlled intersections...)

Traffic lights are just an accident waiting to happen.

If they change every minute, you get 1440 chances a day for someone to run the red, misjudge the stopping distance, rear end the biker in front etc etc.

And it all happens at the posted speed limit.

Roundabouts are much kinder, they slow you down, they don't give you a red unexpectedly, they dont conk out and leave you stopped cos they cant see your aluminium motorcycle, and if you have your wits about you, even the most determined idiot trying to run you down can be avoided.

If the G'mint want something to ban, they should get rid of traffic lights, and leave my after market exhaust alone !

swbarnett

23rd July 2007, 22:56

I trust NOBODY on the road,

When you're travelling down a straight road at 100km/h and a vehicle wants to do a right turn from a side road across your path do you stop and let them out? If you don't you're trusting them to stay put while you pass. Unless you pass them at a much reduced speed there's little chance of avoiding them if they suddenly decide to come out at you.

swbarnett

23rd July 2007, 22:59

They tried that...

The problem is that they think about one aspect of life in isolation. If they applied the principle of making people think to all aspects of life the stupidity rate would drop; both on and off the road.

swbarnett

23rd July 2007, 23:02

it is a foolish rider / driver who proceeds into an intersection without looking to make sure the way is clear,

I wholehartedly agree. This does not, however, negate the arrogance of those that cross your path when it's your turn. What they don't realise is that, by delaying the progression of other traffic, they in turn will be delayed later in the day. The practice is self-defeating.

swbarnett

23rd July 2007, 23:05

Sweet so i can moan to you about my meager pay, underfunded work conditions and being overworked.

Well, yes. Along with all the other tax payers of this country I am responsible for what the politicians do on my behalf. If we collectively felt strongly enough about it then something would be done.

It is said that a country gets the government it deserves.

swbarnett

23rd July 2007, 23:08

Dammed if you do dammed if you don't.

I think you've put the problem in a nutshell. It is one more of public education about human nature than anything else. To aim for a zero road toll is utterly ludicrous.

swbarnett

23rd July 2007, 23:24

I wish to clarify.

It seems that some of you got the impression that I roll through every red arrow I meet without a second thought. Not true. I will go through a red arrow only when it is blatantly obvious to even the most dim witted imbecile that I'm being held up for no good reason. If the only traffic anywhere in sight is travelling in the same direction as me I will sometimes get fed up with being treated like a two year old. If I come up to a red arrow I will, in preference, go straight ahead through the green and take an alternative route.

I also understand that If were to get into any trouble as a result of proceeding through a red arrow I would be the one at fault, irrespective of any give way laws that might otherwise apply.

Sanx

24th July 2007, 00:41

Why do some folk think that being over the line after the lights change to red is okay when the lights take say 2/3 seconds to change from Amber to Red when a vehicle travelling at 50kph should stop in 25metres or 6/7 (or 3/4 Holdens) car lengths............I suspect that 90% of drivers could stop if they cared, but sadly they do not yet this is probably worse than exceeding the speed limit.

37 metres, according to LTNZ (click here (http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/regions/2005/hamilton/rotorua.html), and scroll down to the section about 'Speed' - and that's in perfect conditions. If it's wet, you're expected to double it. I wouldn't like to try it (and I'd like to try the offence even less) but it would be interesting to see how the cops and the magistrates would view such a defence.

"Sorry, your honour, I couldn't stop before the red light as the light changed to amber when I was 36 metres away. As, according to Land Transport NZ, my stopping distance is 37 metres, I felt I could not safely stop and carried on accordingly."

Grahameeboy

24th July 2007, 07:19

37 metres, according to LTNZ (click here (http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/regions/2005/hamilton/rotorua.html), and scroll down to the section about 'Speed' - and that's in perfect conditions. If it's wet, you're expected to double it. I wouldn't like to try it (and I'd like to try the offence even less) but it would be interesting to see how the cops and the magistrates would view such a defence.

"Sorry, your honour, I couldn't stop before the red light as the light changed to amber when I was 36 metres away. As, according to Land Transport NZ, my stopping distance is 37 metres, I felt I could not safely stop and carried on accordingly."

Interesting because the LTSA obviously do not have confidence in their drivers because in the UK the stopping distance is 25 metres including thinking distance (maybe that is why the Ltsa extend the distance:gob:) and I have UK Police manuals that say that the Ltsa's 37 metres is way out.

Agreed on road surface, however, you and I know that a significant amount of drivers don't even know about wet roads or bother to even think about stopping although I would dispute the double argument.

37 Metres is a just a tad over 100 feet more than enough to pull up with time to order a latte.

Ocean1

24th July 2007, 09:40

37 metres, according to LTNZ (click here (http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/regions/2005/hamilton/rotorua.html), and scroll down to the section about 'Speed' - and that's in perfect conditions. If it's wet, you're expected to double it. I wouldn't like to try it (and I'd like to try the offence even less) but it would be interesting to see how the cops and the magistrates would view such a defence.

"Sorry, your honour, I couldn't stop before the red light as the light changed to amber when I was 36 metres away. As, according to Land Transport NZ, my stopping distance is 37 metres, I felt I could not safely stop and carried on accordingly."

Actually might work, especially if it was wet. Bikes generally don't stop in the distance a car can let alone an 18 wheeler. This fact used to be drummed into learner riders big time, my old man insisted on demonstrating it (dramatically) for me when I got my first bike. Not sure what the average distances are (anyone?) but it's significant and documented evidence to that effect might well influence a court (assuming the officer's report didn't indicate an extreme disregard of the signal).

bell

24th July 2007, 19:55

When you're travelling down a straight road at 100km/h and a vehicle wants to do a right turn from a side road across your path do you stop and let them out? If you don't you're trusting them to stay put while you pass. Unless you pass them at a much reduced speed there's little chance of avoiding them if they suddenly decide to come out at you.

Some of us might:
(a) roll off the throttle and drop back 5km/hr while checking the state of the traffic that might be around us (behind, ahead, beside, opposite the vehicle that wants to turn...),
(b) check what escape route/s might be an option if that vehicle does move out,
(c) some might cover their brake levers,
(d) some might be looking at the drivers head and seeing if they've turned toward us (and hopefully estimated our distance and speed and correctly decided to wait, or pull out as the case may be), and
(e) some of us might do all of that and then check the front wheels to see if there's been any movement (often precedes the person pulling out I believe).

And (f) some of us won't do any of that.

Best of luck to them. Maybe their road position was suitably 'lucky' for them to avoid the vehicle that did pull out after all...

(BTW try the Multiquote tool (the little "+ icon between the "Quote" button and the "QuickReply" button. It makes it easier to read a thread.)

Ocean1

24th July 2007, 20:27

Some of us might:
(a) roll off the throttle and drop back 5km/hr while checking the state of the traffic that might be around us (behind, ahead, beside, opposite the vehicle that wants to turn...),
(b) check what escape route/s might be an option if that vehicle does move out,
(c) some might cover their brake levers,
(d) some might be looking at the drivers head and seeing if they've turned toward us (and hopefully estimated our distance and speed and correctly decided to wait, or pull out as the case may be), and
(e) some of us might do all of that and then check the front wheels to see if there's been any movement (often precedes the person pulling out I believe).

I've gone over two cars having done all of the above, in both cases they later said they didn't see me. On one occasion I swear I had actual eye contact with the driver about 3 seconds before she pulled out.

There's some inherent deficit in the human brain that seems to allow us to "not see" things smaller than us. I've even noticed some evidence of it in myself when I'm in a car, and I like to think I'm usually very aware of what's around me no matter how many wheels I'm on.

Everyone's got their own way of assessing risk and their own level of acceptable risk but the older I get the less risk I find I'm prepared to accept (and I refuse to accept that as evidence I'm growing up :nono:). That's probably a good thing because my skills have never been good enough to support the level of risk that tickles my "let's boogie" gland. :laugh:

scumdog

24th July 2007, 20:39

swbarnett

24th July 2007, 22:44

Some of us might:
I do all of the above. This minimises the chances that they'll pull out unexpectedly and greatly improves your chances of survival. You are still, however, left with a small level of trust in the other driver that is unavoidable.

(BTW try the Multiquote tool

Thanks for the tip. Hadn't caught on to that one.

InsaneFreak

1st August 2007, 17:54

Someone earlier mentioned that you cant expect stupid drivers to think with common sense and for themselves. I think we should come right back to the beginning, getting a license. It nice to compare various nations road codes, but also compare the standard of driver they let on to their roads. I think this is the best and most fundamental of solutions, to fix red light running, and of course many other road issues.

Max Preload

1st August 2007, 17:58

BMW

1st August 2007, 18:01

good for you questioning it! I would have too.

Toaster

1st August 2007, 18:45

I reckon the wording for the charge careless driving:
"did drive on a road in a manner considered to be careless".

should be changed to:
"did drive on a road in a manner considered to be stupid".

Ocean1

1st August 2007, 20:18

I reckon the wording for the charge careless driving:
"did drive on a road in a manner considered to be careless".

should be changed to:
"did drive on a road in a manner considered to be stupid".

I've got more of a problem with the word "considered". More particularly, the issue of who's doing the "considering".

Give me a number or go away, if you can't quantify an action in numerical terms then you don't have a fact you have an opinion.

Half the reason we have over the top speed enforcement is because it's easily quantifiable behaviour. OK, don't like it much because there's only a marginal correlation between speed in general and safety, but I like having to anticipate and accommodate other peoples opinions on my behaviour even less. :angry:

And yes, it’s been said I’ve got a problem with authority, but it was a person in authority who said it, and he was wrong, OK? :whistle:

scumdog

1st August 2007, 20:24

I've got more of a problem with the word "considered". More particularly, the issue of who's doing the "considering".

Give me a number or go away, if you can't quantify an action in numerical terms then you don't have a fact you have an opinion.

So far all judges have agree with MY 'considering'.

I guess they too know a loser when they see one.

Max Preload

1st August 2007, 20:28

I guess they too know a loser when they see one.

More like they wouldn't have a clue what the really constitutes careless. As above: unquantifiable and emotive is opinion and worthless. Just because it's in law doesn't mean it's right.

Toaster

1st August 2007, 20:31

I've got more of a problem with the word "considered". More particularly, the issue of who's doing the "considering".

Give me a number or go away, if you can't quantify an action in numerical terms then you don't have a fact you have an opinion.

Half the reason we have over the top speed enforcement is because it's easily quantifiable behaviour. OK, don't like it much because there's only a marginal correlation between speed in general and safety, but I like having to anticipate and accommodate other peoples opinions on my behaviour even less. :angry:

And yes, it’s been said I’ve got a problem with authority, but it was a person in authority who said it, and he was wrong, OK? :whistle:

I get the feeling that person had a reason for saying that to you.

"Considered" comes from the fact the driver/rider crashed and its their fault, not the vehicle or conditions or anyone else, just the driver/rider being a dickhead.

This thread and my comment on careless driving are not specifically in relation to speeding. However, speeding is a matter of pure physics... the faster you go, the further and longer it takes to stop. Even dickheads know that.

I don't really care if individuals speed... but I do care when others have to pay for the mess when they crash or when they hurt other people/property.

Millions is spent on road crashes each year.... a complete waste of taxpayer money and lives.

I still recall seeing the mess from where bikers were doing huge speeds and hit a small truck coming out of a driveway... just horrific. 2 lives lost and many leves wrecked as a result of a cocky rider going too fast and unable to take evasive action when the unexpected happened because he was going too fast. Such a sad waste.

Mate, I hope this helps. Ride to survive.... please.

scumdog

1st August 2007, 20:32

More like they wouldn't have a clue what the really constitutes careless. As above: unquantifiable and emotive is opinion and worthless. Just because it's in law doesn't mean it's right.

Used a vehicle carelessly = "drove in a manner a normal prudent motorist would not" - kinda covers a shitload of situations.

How would you self-opinionated brainiacs 'legally' decribe careless use??

Max Preload

1st August 2007, 20:36

I still recall seeing the mess from where bikers were doing huge speeds and hit a small truck coming out of a driveway... just horrific. 2 lives lost and many leves wrecked as a result of a cocky rider going too fast and unable to take evasive action when the unexpected happened because he was going too fast.

Sounds the truck driver failing to give way was the cause.

Toaster

1st August 2007, 20:44

Sounds the truck driver failing to give way was the cause.

My understanding of the facts: The truck was actually driving down the road after pulling out - the biker came over a rise and up the arse of the truck at 200km/h plus. Simply had nowhere to go and no time to react as the rider gave himself no safety margin riding at such a high speed.

The other biker travelling behind and at slower speed drove through his mate - literally - and just missed the truck because he had more reaction time - because he was travelling slower.

Max Preload

1st August 2007, 20:52

My understanding of the facts: The truck was actually driving down the road after pulling out - the biker came over a rise and up the arse of the truck at 200km/h plus. Simply had nowhere to go and no time to react as the rider gave himself no safety margin riding at such a high speed.

The other biker travelling behind and at slower speed drove through his mate - literally - and just missed the truck because he had more reaction time - because he was travelling slower.

Driving at a speed at which he was unable to stop in half the distance of clear road ahead (quite often below the speed limit this can be the case) and following too close then...

Toaster

1st August 2007, 20:57

Driving at a speed at which he was unable to stop in half the distance of clear road ahead (quite often below the speed limit this can be the case) and following too close then...

hehe summit like that!

I remember blatting up SH16 one day at about 110kmh and came across some cows around a corner... lets just say I am glad I wasn't doing 140 like I had done the day prior... (bad Toaster, naughty boy) otherwise it would have been toasted cow burgers for months. The Gixxer pulled up really well considering I hit gravel and ended up face to face with Miss Daisy.

Toaster

1st August 2007, 20:57

What I am getting at is - expect the unexpected - it may save your life one day.

Toaster

1st August 2007, 21:01

Used a vehicle carelessly = "drove in a manner a normal prudent motorist would not" - kinda covers a shitload of situations.

I loved that word "prudent"... most people who got interviewed after crashes had not idea what I mean't by the word (which was no great revelation!).

They were always so quick to blame everything but themselves for what happened. Good to see they all nodded the head in court or paid their fines though. I just hope they actually learned their lesson.

Max Preload

1st August 2007, 21:54

I loved that word "prudent"... most people who got interviewed after crashes had not idea what I mean't by the word (which was no great revelation!).

They were always so quick to blame everything but themselves for what happened. Good to see they all nodded the head in court or paid their fines though. I just hope they actually learned their lesson.

One persons prudent is another's pissing about like an old woman... and therein lies the problem. The most incompetent and slow drivers are the most prudent but this does not make their presence on the road safer.

Since my last post I've just driven 40km on the southern motorway and even in that short distance came across several drivers who were cause for concern. One muppet in a Commonwhore decided he wanted to share my lane. He indicated but didn't look. He looked when he got a blast of the horn though. I figure he was a bit tanked... I saw him leave his right indicator on (separate time - he was in the right lane) for about 1km. I was going to *555 him but since he wasn't speeding I doubt they'd be interested in what might only be incompetence. Besides, I've reported drunks before and wasted my time. The only one I've been inclined to follow hit the median barrier southbound past Mt Wellington and rode up it - I swear the whole damn van he was driving leapt in the air. He got off at Otahuhu and we followed him around in circles before he got caught - prick could barely stand up.

These are the fucktards we have to share the road with - no amount of not speeding is going to make you safe around them.

scumdog

1st August 2007, 22:00

These are the fucktards we have to share the road with - no amount of not speeding is going to make you safe around them.

And speeding WILL make you safer around them??????

Chrislost

1st August 2007, 22:03

Max Preload

1st August 2007, 22:03

And speeding WILL make you safer around them??????

It won't make you less safe. The more time you spend in close proximity, the more opportunity they have to smack into you.

scumdog

1st August 2007, 22:08

It won't make you less safe. The more time you spend in close proximity, the more opportunity they have to smack into you.

And the faster you go the more opportunity you have to plough into them - at a better speed.

Ocean1

1st August 2007, 22:19

So far all judges have agree with MY 'considering'.

I guess they too know a loser when they see one.

OK, (sigh), gota confess there was a huge tongue-in-cheek component to my post. Orta learned by now it don't work on the interweeb.

However, tongue firmly under control... Scummie, the judges almost always agree with opinions expressed in police statements. For good reason, usually they're valid opinions relative to the case. I can believe your considerations are worthy of belief. Can you do me the courtise of returning the favour?

Unfortunately over the last decade or so I've become aware of far too many cases where not only official opinion but official factual reporting has been constructed, sometimes to an alarming extent. The fact that the courts discourage or ignore challenges to official opinion (particularly in traffic cases) simply propagates this. Saying the judge agrees with official opinion in no way explains or excuses outright lies.

I'm seriously pissed about that, the one thing that authority has which does make a difference and is actually able to influence public behaviour is respect. Particularly respect for the truth. If it's not obvious I speak from personal experience. Does that make me a looser? I don't believe so. Your opinion there is as poorly researched and flippantly applied as some of the more official ones I've seen. The official examples mean that my respect for the police is less than what it was, and I'm as sorry about that as you are.

I get the feeling that person had a reason for saying that to you.

"Considered" comes from the fact the driver/rider crashed and its their fault, not the vehicle or conditions or anyone else, just the driver/rider being a dickhead.

Perhaps, I certainly have no problem whatsoever with taking responsibility for my actions or the outcomes of my behaviour. Maybe I’ve been lucky but it’s a fact that I’ve never harmed or caused anyone to come to harm on the road. I’m just questioning the validity of an interested party’s interpretation of events, especially when “considered” is often used as a backup charge.

Disinterested, dude, the correct ethical precept for policing is disinterest.

Max Preload

1st August 2007, 22:57

And the faster you go the more opportunity you have to plough into them - at a better speed.

Based on that logic I'd say it balances out to be no different then - they have to be quicker to get you.

In any case, being 10% over an arbitrary speed limit is going to make no difference when the conditions are suitable. Being able to judge the condition and adjust your speed accordingly is safer than simply sticking to a speed limit. The fact this is ignored by the police as far as road safety goes is obvious - quotas to fill mean they spend their time writing tickets for speeding while dangerous and careless driving goes largely unnoticed until the drivers that shouldn't be on the road cause a serious accident with their inattention.

Toaster

2nd August 2007, 07:26

And speeding WILL make you safer around them??????

Dang, you beat me to it. It's the typical strategy of change the topic onto someone else doing something else wrong to cover my own sins... makes them feel better about themselves.

swbarnett

2nd August 2007, 10:26

I don't really care if individuals speed... but I do care when others have to pay for the mess when they crash or when they hurt other people/property.
So let people speed and throw the book at them when and if they do cause an accident.

And speeding WILL make you safer around them??????
Well....

I was travelling between Taupo and Turangi in the cage at about 130km/h and came up behind another car travelling at about 120km/h. We then both came up behind a caravan travelling at about 90km/h. The car in front of me passed the caravan on a blind corner. I bided my time and waited for a long straight, passed safely and proceeded at about 130km/h as before. Five minutes later I came up behind the same car doing about 120km/h. The moral of this story is that, because I was travelling a bit faster when the road was clear I had less incentive to pass slower vehicles dangerously. Now you tell me who the safer driver was?

Toaster

2nd August 2007, 10:34

So let people speed and throw the book at them when and if they do cause an accident.

No such thing as an accident - it is caused by something or someone. And why let innocent people suffer just because someone wants the freeedom to be a fuckwit? No thanks... I have been the victim of that and the cost to me was very high physically, financially etc etc, but I survived. How about thinking about the community you share the roads with rather than yourself all the time.

swbarnett

2nd August 2007, 10:40

No such thing as an accident - it is caused by something or someone. And why let innocent people suffer just because someone wants the freeedom to be a fuckwit? No thanks... I have been the victim of that and the cost to me was very high physically, financially etc etc, but I survived. How about thinking about the community you share the roads with rather than yourself all the time.

"Avoidable collision" if you like. Same thing.

Why do we treat traffic matters differently to the rest of our laws? It is a basic human right (probably the only one we really have) to do whatever I damn well please until that action leads directly to harm to others. Why should the fact that I have a road under me at the time make any difference? Ever seen "Minority Report"? Nothing is certain. If I cock up and harm someone by my actions I'll take what's handed to me. Until then, leave me alone.

ZeroIndex

2nd August 2007, 10:44

I was travelling between Taupo and Turangi in the cage at about 130km/h and came up behind another car travelling at about 120km/h. We then both came up behind a caravan travelling at about 90km/h. The car in front of me passed the caravan on a blind corner. I bided my time and waited for a long straight, passed safely and proceeded at about 130km/h as before. Five minutes later I came up behind the same car doing about 120km/h. The moral of this story is that, because I was travelling a bit faster when the road was clear I had less incentive to pass slower vehicles dangerously. Now you tell me who the safer driver was?
You have a really good point there...

Toaster

2nd August 2007, 10:50

"Avoidable collision" if you like. Same thing.

Why do we treat traffic matters differently to the rest of our laws? It is a basic human right (probably the only one we really have) to do whatever I damn well please until that action leads directly to harm to others. Why should the fact that I have a road under me at the time make any difference? Ever seen "Minority Report"? Nothing is certain. If I cock up and harm someone by my actions I'll take what's handed to me. Until then, leave me alone.

Well, if you want to live in a world where people are left to drive or ride however they please, good luck to you but I don't think you'd last long.

I like my right to be able to get where I want to go with a reasonable chance of not getting killed on the way there, because the roads are being policed.

rwh

2nd August 2007, 11:15

No such thing as an accident - it is caused by something or someone.

According to my dictionary:

accident: 1. an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally. 2. something that happens by chance or without apparent cause (3 is not relevant)

I believe sense 1 is what is commonly meant in the traffic sense, not 2. So unless you're claiming that every crash is deliberate, you're talking rubbish. I get really annoyed by people who twist the language around to suit their own purposes. I realise you're not the first to make this claim.

Oh, and by the way, I don't care that the perpetrator may have been deliberately driving at 130km/h, or even if they deliberately got stoned and deliberately tried to lanesplit in a Kenworth, hoping people would get out of the way - if they didn't deliberately try to hit something, it's an accident.

Richard

Toaster

2nd August 2007, 11:29

According to my dictionary:

accident: 1. an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally. 2. something that happens by chance or without apparent cause (3 is not relevant)

I believe sense 1 is what is commonly meant in the traffic sense, not 2. So unless you're claiming that every crash is deliberate, you're talking rubbish. I get really annoyed by people who twist the language around to suit their own purposes. I realise you're not the first to make this claim.

Oh, and by the way, I don't care that the perpetrator may have been deliberately driving at 130km/h, or even if they deliberately got stoned and deliberately tried to lanesplit in a Kenworth, hoping people would get out of the way - if they didn't deliberately try to hit something, it's an accident.

Richard

Legal definition thank you - remember it is the law we are debating, not your personal dictionary or opinion of what you think a crash is or isn't. Deliberate doesn't even come into it fella so slow your horse down before you bolt like that and spout dribble. You are miles off the mark there.

scumdog

2nd August 2007, 11:31

So let people speed and throw the book at them when and if they do cause an accident.

I was travelling a bit faster when the road was clear I had less incentive to pass slower vehicles dangerously. Now you tell me who the safer driver was?

Lemme guess, one of the cars that was speeding??

If the other guy was doing 130kph would he have been safer? Or if you were doing 120kph would you have been even more safer?

And I'm not sure on your Irish logic:"I was travelling a bit faster when the road was clear I had less incentive to pass slower vehicles dangerously"

WTF Often people travelling 20+km over the limit do so because they're in a hurry - passing everything wherever they can. "I was speeding becuase I'm late for (Insert doctor/lawyer/plane/pick up the kids whatever here)".

scumdog

2nd August 2007, 11:32

Oh, and by the way, I don't care that the perpetrator may have been deliberately driving at 130km/h, or even if they deliberately got stoned and deliberately tried to lanesplit in a Kenworth, hoping people would get out of the way - if they didn't deliberately try to hit something, it's an accident.

Richard

Two words: bol locks.

avgas

2nd August 2007, 11:41

I think the police need to remember who they work for.
Jesus? Bill Gates? Your aunt?

ZeroIndex

2nd August 2007, 11:42

Lemme guess, one of the cars that was speeding??

If the other guy was doing 130kph would he have been safer? Or if you were doing 120kph would you have been even more safer?

And I'm not sure on your Irish logic:"I was travelling a bit faster when the road was clear I had less incentive to pass slower vehicles dangerously"

WTF Often people travelling 20+km over the limit do so because they're in a hurry - passing everything wherever they can. "I was speeding becuase I'm late for (Insert doctor/lawyer/plane/pick up the kids whatever here)".
Congrats on post 10,000... time to slightly modify your signature to "feeding trolls for 10,000 posts and counting" or something to that effect

scumdog

2nd August 2007, 11:46

Congrats on post 10,000... time to slightly modify your signature to "feeding trolls for 10,000 posts and counting" or something to that effect

Thank yuh, thank yuh thank y'all.

To be truthful I never even noticed!!! Bugger.

Toaster

2nd August 2007, 11:56

10,000 doughnuts please!

swbarnett

2nd August 2007, 13:18

Lemme guess, one of the cars that was speeding??
All I was trying to point out was that just because one driver is travelling faster than the other that doesn't mean they're at greater risk of an accident.

If the other guy was doing 130kph would he have been safer?
Not necessarily, no. You can't judge safety level by speed alone.

And I'm not sure on your Irish logic:"I was travelling a bit faster when the road was clear I had less incentive to pass slower vehicles dangerously"
Travelling faster on the clear, straight roads can do wonders for removing the sense of frustration when you get held up.

WTF Often people travelling 20+km over the limit do so because they're in a hurry -
If you're in a hurry you probably shouldn't be driving at all, at any speed. Speed is just another part of driving that makes it a pleasurable activity.

Legal definition thank you -
So can you quote the legal definition so that we are all informed?

Jesus? Bill Gates? Your aunt?
Jesus: Depends on your religion.
Bill Gates: Not a kiwi.
My aunt: As all of these are kiwis, yes.

NinjaNanna

2nd August 2007, 13:29

So let me get this straight, we are upset about people entering intersections on Orange and very early Red lights whilst the opposing traffic is still stationary.

Lets differentiate this from the Red Light Runners doing it movie style and racing through after the opposing traffic has began to move.

Ok so far so good, this is a valid and justified opinion to have.

Lets expand, whats more, we are upset that police are using their discretionary powers and overlooking this.

Once again a valid and justified position.

What I find hypocritical is that the percieved concensus on KB, is that the Police should be more discretionary with Speeding Tickets, yet the offense discribed above deserves ZERO Tolerance.

From a generic point of view both are defensible by the same age old excuse - "I'm not endangering anybody"

If this thread was related to being upset with the lack of consistency shown by the Police then all well and good - but it isn't is it.

Now before we all start going on about - do the crime do the time etc, understand that I have no beef with anybodies posts/opinion (hence no quote). Simply put this post is about two incompatible and contradicary views on Policing, it is not meant to be a comparison between speeding and red light running.

Perhaps I have provided some food for thought - or perhaps not.

NinjaNanna

2nd August 2007, 14:06

Toaster

2nd August 2007, 15:11

All I was trying to point out was that just because one driver is travelling faster than the other that doesn't mean they're at greater risk of an accident.

Um, yes you are. It's simple and logical (to me anyway) that the faster the speed you travel at, then the longer it takes to slow down and stop - therefore the higher the risk you will be unable to avoid the object you wish to avoid.

Also factored in can be things like road surfaces, bumps etc biffing off riders because they were going so fast it chucks them off - something that is more avoidable at slower speeds.

Mate, all I want you to think about is how precious life is. I have seen so many people throw away their lives or physical abilities because they thought speeding didn't hurt anyone... it hurt them forever.

Max Preload

2nd August 2007, 15:30

So let me get this straight, we are upset about people entering intersections on Orange and very early Red lights whilst the opposing traffic is still stationary.

No. Quite a few times now I've had a car pass across AFTER I've been given a green light.

Max Preload

2nd August 2007, 15:37

Um, yes you are. It's simple and logical (to me anyway) that the faster the speed you travel at, then the longer it takes to slow down and stop - therefore the higher the risk you will be unable to avoid the object you wish to avoid.

The velocity difference at impact is what counts. Velocity being a vector includes a direction - on the motorway you're safer doing 140km/h with other traffic at 100km/h than you are driving with opposing traffic when you're both driving at 30km/h.

Also factored in can be things like road surfaces, bumps etc biffing off riders because they were going so fast it chucks them off - something that is more avoidable at slower speeds.

Again it comes down to the conditions. If you're right on the limit of adhesion in the wet on a blind corner unable to stop within half the distance of clear road ahead that's totally different to driving at 61km/h on a straight road in the dry with a 50km/h posted limit.

Mate, all I want you to think about is how precious life is. I have seen so many people throw away their lives or physical abilities because they thought speeding didn't hurt anyone... it hurt them forever.

And yet statistically it's a highly unlikely occurrance. I sure as hell don't want to wrap myself in cotton wool and never leave the house for fear of what might happen.

Toaster

2nd August 2007, 15:53

This really is pointless.... you lot are going to talk yourselves blue in the face trying to justify it with stupid arguments like that. It is never going to be legal for you to act like dickheads so get over it.

Have you ever crashed at 130km/h? I bet you wish you were going 100km/h - it could make all the difference for life and death.

61 km/h over the limit - that is just the rules all of us have to stick to - and by the way - the limit is 50, not 61. So if you get a ticket at 61 - stiff shit really - you were over the limit by 11 km/h. I would never argue the toss - if you did it, you take the ticket and don't complain as you only have yourself to blame!

Stats are bollocks.... tell that to the people who have been hurt from crashes where if they had slowed down they might have avoided all the pain and heartache and cost that comes with the aftermath of a crash small or large.

Max Preload

2nd August 2007, 16:05

Have you ever crashed at 130km/h? I bet you wish you were going 100km/h - it could make all the difference for life and death.

Just as depending on the actual circumstances and conditions, dictated by the prudence of the driver, it could make no difference whatsoever. And even travelling at 100km/h might be too fast to be prudent given the particulars of the conditions.

The more that responsibility for ascertaining what is safe is removed from the drivers only to be substituted with something as purely arbitrary as a ridiculously low (in many cases) speed restriction to try and compensate, the worse drivers are going to get. Dumbing them down is not going to help anyone, much less motorcyclists.

rwh

2nd August 2007, 16:08

Legal definition thank you - remember it is the law we are debating, not your personal dictionary or opinion of what you think a crash is or isn't. Deliberate doesn't even come into it fella so slow your horse down before you bolt like that and spout dribble. You are miles off the mark there.

The term was used in a casual conversation, in English, not a legal document.

And if the people screwing with the language are lawyers, so what? I still disapprove.

And I'm not arguing about what a crash is or isn't; I'm arguing about an accident.

But anyway - can you quote the legal definition (of accident) for me?

Thanks,

Richard

The Pastor

2nd August 2007, 16:16

SO SWBARNETT? YOU MUST BE THE FOUNDER OF WWW.SNAPT.CO.NZ WHAT A COCKWANK YOU ARE OH NOES SOMONE RAN A RED LIGHT IN AUCKLAND WHAT EVERWILL HAPPEN!

THIS IS MY VIEW ON CITY RIDING - DON'T DO IT.

IF YOU MUST RIDE IN THE CITY RIDE AS IF YOU ARE GOING TO GET HIT ON EVERY ROAD AT ANY TIME. EVEN ON GREEN ARROWS I STOP. THERES JUST NO REASON WHY NOT TO (UNLESS THE CAR BEHIND YOU WONT STOP)

rwh

2nd August 2007, 16:16

Two words: bol locks.

Care to elaborate? Or is your argument the same as Toaster's; that we've branched out from English in this thread into legalese?

Richard

scumdog

2nd August 2007, 17:44

Question: Are swbarnett, rwh and awful-truth really the same person??

The above posts would lend one to think that.

swbarnett

2nd August 2007, 17:53

Question: Are swbarnett, rwh and awful-truth really the same person??

The above posts would lend one to think that.
No.

(Evidently that answer is too short...)

rwh

2nd August 2007, 17:53

Question: Are swbarnett, rwh and awful-truth really the same person??

The above posts would lend one to think that.

No. Well, not me anyway.

I guess a useless post like that (and the one referred to) is easier than a rational discussion.

Richard

Max Preload

2nd August 2007, 17:53

Question: Are swbarnett, rwh and awful-truth really the same person??

The above posts would lend one to think that.

Are Patrick, Mekk, Toaster, Spudchucka and Scumdog the same person? Probably not, but they foolishly and blindly tow the same company line.

Max Preload

2nd August 2007, 17:55

Oh no... posts at the same time... now he'll be going all night with the conspiracy theories! :zzzz:

scumdog

2nd August 2007, 18:09

Are Patrick, Mekk, Toaster, Spudchucka and Scumdog the same person? Probably not, but they foolishly and blindly tow the same company line.

Ah, and YOU guys pay us to do so..Mwahahahahaaahahah!

BTW What about all the other cops and ex cops on KB - do they not 'tow the party line' too????

jafar

2nd August 2007, 20:38

Sweet so i can moan to you about my meager pay, underfunded work conditions and being overworked.

No :angry: you get to moan @ your boss about that . Thats what we pay HIM for :dodge:

jafar

2nd August 2007, 20:59

Are Patrick, Mekk, Toaster, Spudchucka and Scumdog the same person? Probably not, but they foolishly and blindly tow the same company line.

That they tow the same company line makes them neither foolish or blind . Try scraping a mate or two up & then you will see

Littleman

2nd August 2007, 21:05

No. Well, not me anyway.

I guess a useless post like that (and the one referred to) is easier than a rational discussion.

Richard

No. Well, not me anyway.

I guess a useless post like that (and the one referred to) is easier than a rational discussion.

Richard

huh?

You give a dictionary quote for an accident as being 'unexpected' yet claim being stoned and speeding and crashing as being an accident also.

What? you expect not to crash in these conditions? Rational indeed.

I don't want to appear patronising but come to me when someone you give a shit about is at the recieving end of such an 'accident'.

Your bravado and indifference to life may be shortlived when mummy gets run over, but hey, he didn't mean to hit her did he?

Max Preload

2nd August 2007, 21:06

That they tow the same company line makes them neither foolish or blind . Try scraping a mate or two up & then you will see

Of course it does. I'd hate to be so desperate to be accepted that I'd just go along with anything to gain the adoration of my peers.

My friends have strong opinions too and although we often differ it beats the hell out of just nodding in agreement on everything - try it some time - break out of your comfort zone - have your thoughts challenged. If you have the guts. You'll be a bigger man for doing so.

jafar

2nd August 2007, 21:25

Of course it does. I'd hate to be so desperate to be accepted that I'd just go along with anything to gain the adoration of my peers.

My friends have strong opinions too and although we often differ it beats the hell out of just nodding in agreement on everything - try it some time - break out of your comfort zone - have your thoughts challenged. If you have the guts. You'll be a bigger man for doing so.

I seriously doubt they have similar opinions for the sake of acceptance, I certainly don't.
As for breaking out of my 'comfort zone' etc , you obviously don't know me @ all.

rwh

2nd August 2007, 21:28

huh?

You give a dictionary quote for an accident as being 'unexpected' yet claim being stoned and speeding and crashing as being an accident also.

What? you expect not to crash in these conditions? Rational indeed.

I don't want to appear patronising but come to me when someone you give a shit about is at the recieving end of such an 'accident'.

Your bravado and indifference to life may be shortlived when mummy gets run over, but hey, he didn't mean to hit her did he?

Where did bravado and indifference come into it? I never said any of those things wasn't stupid, dangerous or wrong, just that if it wasn't intentional then it was an accident.

However In the process of preparing to quote the definition back at you, I realise I misread it to be how I'd always understood it, not what was actually there. I thought it only required lack of intent, not unexpedtedness as well. I apologise for that, to all concerned.

There would still be room for debate on how predictable or expected an incident is, though - and my second example is probably predictable enough, even by the stoned driver concerned (not that I've ever been stoned) to be not an accident by the dictionary definition.

I'm also not sure whether it would have to be predictable (ie expected) by the perpetrator in particular.

Richard

avgas

3rd August 2007, 15:03

Jesus: Depends on your religion.
Bill Gates: Not a kiwi.
My aunt: As all of these are kiwis, yes.
Are you sure? Cos im not so sure.
Also where are my keys?

jafar

3rd August 2007, 16:37

What is he supposed to starting busking on the streets to get more funding and resources?

There you go, an innovative idea for more funding:dodge:
He could run a blue light disco & charge $5.00 per head to get in :innocent:
Or a cake stall outside the cop shop:shutup:
My favorite though is to give the cops a 20% commission on every ticket they write.:sunny:

rwh

3rd August 2007, 16:57

But then i would get no commission as i dont do traffic...what do i get?:bye:

20% of the prison sentence, presumably :rofl:

Richard

jafar

3rd August 2007, 16:58

But then i would get no commission as i dont do traffic...what do i get?:bye:

you get to run the cake stall :yes:

Coldrider

3rd August 2007, 17:08

Ocean1

3rd August 2007, 17:58

I can relax all weekend with the pleasant thought that our village does not have a traffic light, and we even defeated the council on the installation of parking meters, although we got a $20 rate increase to cover this.

And we're ever so grateful.

Having to stop there would be bad enough without having to park. :dodge:

Patrick

3rd August 2007, 18:14

you get to run the cake stall :yes:

But he would eat all the donuts!!!

And accidents aren't called accidents any more.

The Traffic Accident Report was renamed and reprinted... Traffic Crash Report. They usually aren't "accidents."

jafar

3rd August 2007, 19:40

But he would eat all the donuts"

Oh :shit: no pay rise cos he's eaten all the profits :nono:
Mabey the busking plan isn't so bad after all

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT I want my lock ups to have more time then less!

never fear , we can add your 20% on top :innocent:

Pancakes

3rd August 2007, 21:25

To get rid of the idea's that people here are just saying things to be popular and all that crap, I'm not.

SWBarnett, you always post crap up then retact and disagree with yourself to the point where I wonder what the crap your actually talking about? do you have an opinion or just a whole bunch of disagreement you need to use before it's expiry date? I'll give you $20 if you tell the next cop that pulls you over that they work for you. Please do it! Dickhead.

Ritchard, it's not an accident. I hate that shit and put your dictionary down. What I'm talking about is whether it was accidental, you were trying to avoid the situation or not. Neglegence, failure to pay the due attention etc doesn't cause an accident. It causes you to crash into someone. You need to stop thinking that there are two people in an accident. NO! there is typically someone that crashed into the other/s.

I've read so many of these other guys (Scummy etc) posts and they have formed opinions based on real world experience and they are consistent and have been for years. You guys can't be consistent from one sentence to the next! Please (and I'm not being a dick, I reccomend you do this) volunteer with a Ambo or Towie or someone, go to a serious crash and then sit down once it's sunk in and cry. Honestly.

That isn't a tenth of what I have to say but I'm soooo over this.

fireliv

3rd August 2007, 21:28

Bet if it was ureself or a young person he might have cared more........

rwh

3rd August 2007, 21:57

Ritchard, it's not an accident. I hate that shit and put your dictionary down.

Put the dictionary down? You don't like the idea of actual research? Did you notice, by the way, that I apologised and retracted a bunch of it? That's not being contradictory by the way, it's admitting I was wrong.

What I'm talking about is whether it was accidental, you were trying to avoid the situation or not. Neglegence, failure to pay the due attention etc doesn't cause an accident. It causes you to crash into someone.

There are plenty of times I've been inattentive and not crashed. There's an element of unpredictability. Now that I've got straightened out on the definitions - it's still often an accident.

You need to stop thinking that there are two people in an accident. NO! there is typically someone that crashed into the other/s.

And typically, the person that made the mistake neither intended to do it nor expected it to happen. That makes it an accident in my book. My stupid example of lane splitting in a truck was just that - stupid - and I apologise.

Also, there are times when nobody is particularly at fault - a blowout for example. Will you let me call that an accident?

If not, we might as well drop the word from the language entirely.

My feeling is that those who would like to stop using the word think it somehow absolves the guilty party, which it doesn't. It does, however, allow someone who didn't intend to cause a crash to be viewed and treated more leniently than someone who did - which I think is entirely reasonable, don't you?

I've read so many of these other guys (Scummy etc) posts and they have formed opinions based on real world experience and they are consistent and have been for years. You guys can't be consistent from one sentence to the next!

There's inconsistency and there's learning. The only inconsistency in what I've written, that I'm aware of, is my misinterpretation of the word accident - and that was an acknowledged mistake. I don't think I've actually stated a view on the larger issue of this thread at all - I'm trying to straighten out the arguments within it, and filter out the ones that don't hold up, in order to work out what my opinions actually are, and maybe expose illogical conclusions that others have come to.

If everybody is expected to be consistent the whole time, any discussion like this is a complete waste of time. I don't think it is.

Please (and I'm not being a dick, I reccomend you do this) volunteer with a Ambo or Towie or someone, go to a serious crash and then sit down once it's sunk in and cry. Honestly.

This reminds me of discussions on penalties for crimes. Something horrendous happens, the world gets angry, and demands blood. My feeling is that an excessively emotional state is not the best time to be making those decisions.
You might get the feeling that I'm a particularly cold and unemotional person as a result of this point of view; I don't think I am. I think I'm probably as shocked as anyone by the results of accidents or child abuse or whatever. I just make a point of trying not to let it affect decisions that I would rather deal with rationally.

Richard

Pancakes

3rd August 2007, 22:20

Also, there are times when nobody is particularly at fault - a blowout for example. Will you let me call that an accident?Richard

If you have checked the tyres as often as possible and there wasn't excessive wear, had paid due care to the roads so pothole etc didn't cause it then yeah. Like that truck part that blew up on the motorway a few years back. Installed correctley, being run right, just a manufacturers defect and blam, metal everywhere!!

I wasn't pointing out all your inconsistancies (sp?) just SWBarnett's posts that turn into an undoing of what he said last time and try to get all legalisious on me! Point it out to the cop they ran the lights for sure, if they were doing something else or decided not to for whatever reason I doubt your amazing powers of influence are going to change his mind!

Suck it up boyeez.

You come off like nitpicking little kids.

I wasn't suggesting you go see the reality that would affect the opinion the cops on the site to skew your views. Maybe you would think that there is more to safety that your made-up arguments etc.

rwh

3rd August 2007, 22:51

You come off like nitpicking little kids.

I realise that.

However, if faulty reasoning is used to come to a conclusion that affects us all, isn't it better to have it exposed?

Regarding views on safety - I know that crashes are bad; we all agree on that, and watching an ambo mopping someone up isn't going to change that. Where there are differences in this thread (and others) is in how a limited police budget should be best spent to reduce them.

Richard

swbarnett

3rd August 2007, 22:58

I wasn't pointing out all your inconsistancies (sp?) just SWBarnett's posts that turn into an undoing of what he said last time and try to get all legalisious on me!
I'm not sure what you mean by me contradicting myself. Perhaps my wording is not always the clearest or perhaps it's just that I do read every post and try to take on board comments that seem to make sense. The to and fro of this type of thread helps one to question one's own beliefs.

I've come to realise that the thing that annoys me most about red light runners is just that they're being very discourtious and not treating me with the respect I deserve (something I try to do to everyone else, road user or not). For me it's not really a safety issue at all as I'm very weary of any cross traffic when I ride. (I've come of a bike probably about a dozen times in my early years and only once was another vehicle involved, my wife rear-ended me on her bike. I've also never done any harm to myself beyond a grazed knee.)

This and other threads have also been instrumental in my forming the view that traffic policing in general is far too proactive for my liking. I'm not saying that I want anarchy on the road, just that the balance seems far too much towards curtailing personal freedoms for the sake of safety. I'm also not sure where I would like the balance to sit or how it could be achieved.

Safety is all very well but we have to look very closely at the cost. Considering the millions of kms that are driven daily in NZ do we really have a a problem? Have we ever had a problem? Surely the road toll should be measured in deaths or injuries per x km rather than per year?

I do not want to live in a society where safety is the most important thing. First I live, then I worry about living safely.

Pancakes

4th August 2007, 13:04

Oh but Richard, certain mental images as you decide your going to try and get lower htru that corner than you have before just may (or almost certainly will) make you check yourself.

SWB, don't get me wrong, I agree with your attitude and wish that other road users would be so self aware and responsible. The system we have in place takes into account that the vast majority of road users are ill-equipt for most driving situations and don't have a clue about the type of attitude needed to keep themselves and other safe on the roads.

SWB Quotes:
Those red arrows are yet another way that the government is treating us like brainless twits. Treat people like idiots and that's what you'll get.

This does not, however, affect my view on red-light runners where there IS opposing traffic.

Then;
Thanks for pointing out the brow of the hill situation. I'd forgotten that one. Indeed this is one situation where I would not go against a red arrow.

Then;
Indeed, the compulsory stop laws are more than adequate in most situations that currently have red arrows.

Thats enough.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to knock you guys, the government and roading engineers design systems that can be linked together and applied in multiple situations and the results for the most part tested on paper to handle an estiumated workload/flow. The result is the idealised traffic laws and control systems applied in the real world. How is that different to you applying your idealised drivers with awareness and skill in the real world.

Out in the nitty gritty there are pre-made solutions applied to varying situations gauged by the averaged resonces of computer simulated drivers! Don't lose your standards and for sure keep discussing this kind of thing but don't hold your breath waiting for traffic systems to be customised for every intersection and traffic load. (I wouldn't wait too long for your perfect drivers that are happy to wear the consequences of their actions either!)

rwh

4th August 2007, 15:50

Oh but Richard, certain mental images as you decide your going to try and get lower htru that corner than you have before just may (or almost certainly will) make you check yourself.

I'm having trouble relating this comment to the rest of the thread. I assume the mental images you're talking about are the memories I'd have if I'd been out with an ambo or a towie? Sure they might make a difference to how I ride - but how I ride has never been an issue in this thread.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to knock you guys

I'm not convinced that bundling swbarnett and myself together like this is necessarily a good idea. Some of our opinions may be similar, but treating both of us as one argument has the effect of attributing the rest to each other as well, which isn't valid. I think it would be better to respond to each of us in separate posts. Thanks.

Richard

swbarnett

5th August 2007, 15:16

SWB Quotes:
Those red arrows are yet another way that the government is treating us like brainless twits. Treat people like idiots and that's what you'll get.

This does not, however, affect my view on red-light runners where there IS opposing traffic.

Then;
Thanks for pointing out the brow of the hill situation. I'd forgotten that one. Indeed this is one situation where I would not go against a red arrow.

Then;
Indeed, the compulsory stop laws are more than adequate in most situations that currently have red arrows.

Thats enough.

Are you trying to say that these statements are contradictory? If so, perhaps I need to paraphrase it a bit more clearly.

A red arrow where there is plenty of clear visibility is just unnecessary. If someone turns right and an accident results (with or without a red arrow) they can be done for failure to give way.

Any intersection at the brow of a hill (or otherwise lacking in visibility) is just poor planning, lights or not.

How is that different to you applying your idealised drivers with awareness and skill in the real world.
I'm not trying to say that every driver is perfect. I think where we differ most is in the direction in which to err. You would, I think, tend to err on the side of caution and I would err more on the side of personal freedom.

BTW: Thanks for your (and others) comments. They're certainly helping to get my own ideas into clearer focus.

rwh

5th August 2007, 18:21

Any intersection at the brow of a hill (or otherwise lacking in visibility) is just poor planning, lights or not.

I think that's a bit rough. Sometimes there's not much choice. And the speed of the horses (especially uphill) probably wasn't enough to worry about when many intersections were built.

Not to mention that intersections are now sometimes deliberately put on rises, especially on faster roads, because it saves energy - you don't need to brake so hard coming up to the lights, or use so much throttle to accelerate away again.

I think red arrows are a good solution in this case.

I'm a bit disappointed with the intersection of The Terrace and Salamanca Rd in Wellington though - it's a shocking one for visibility, and it has arrows - but from memory, while the reds might get used, I don't think they ever use the greens for the right turning traffic; you just have to sit up in your seat and hope nobody's coming through too fast.

Richard

Pancakes

5th August 2007, 20:11

I think that's a bit rough. Sometimes there's not much choice. And the speed of the horses (especially uphill) probably wasn't enough to worry about when many intersections were built.

Not to mention that intersections are now sometimes deliberately put on rises, especially on faster roads, because it saves energy - you don't need to brake so hard coming up to the lights, or use so much throttle to accelerate away again.Richard

Bang on, our roads are typically laid over cart tracks that followed trails cut in the bush! They follow ridgelines or run east - west (sun as a guide?) and are set-up for sunstrike. Mix that with the highest road volumes being commuters and in the morning windows can be foggy and it's crash city!

I also agree with off ramps being uphill and onramps being downhill to help accelleration/braking. Saves energy and safer too.

SWB; the arrows are there so people don't have to think. They don't think when given the chance, red light runners. Whole family in a poorly maintained van with no seatbelts and fall asleep at the wheel, the list goes on. I know in your idea it would be clear who is at fault, that is if you live through the crash to see them in court! People are fricken idiots. I'm honestly happy you want to think for yourself and are able to see you are responsible for your actions, I'd like to think I'm the same but don't trust anyone for a second to follow suit!

rwh

5th August 2007, 20:27

SWB; the arrows are there so people don't have to think. They don't think when given the chance, red light runners. Whole family in a poorly maintained van with no seatbelts and fall asleep at the wheel, the list goes on. I know in your idea it would be clear who is at fault, that is if you live through the crash to see them in court! People are fricken idiots. I'm honestly happy you want to think for yourself and are able to see you are responsible for your actions, I'd like to think I'm the same but don't trust anyone for a second to follow suit!

Interesting that the only time I remember almost cutting in front of opposing traffic (got yelled at by my passenger) was against a red arrow, not an uncontrolled intersection. Dunno what the significance of that is ... maybe it's more significant that I was driving a Volvo :dodge:

Actually I think a relative had an accident in similar circumstances. Maybe it's a case of being able to see both a green light and an arrow, and failing to click that they're not in the same place.

Richard

swbarnett

5th August 2007, 21:52

I think that's a bit rough. Sometimes there's not much choice. And the speed of the horses (especially uphill) probably wasn't enough to worry about when many intersections were built.
Let me rephrase - Any intersection at the brow of a hill (or otherwise lacking in visibility) with knowledge of modern traffic is just poor planning, lights or not.

Yes, historically traffic was a lot slower. These existing intersections should probably be turned in to no right turns (although in a lot of cases there won't be an alternative route).

Not to mention that intersections are now sometimes deliberately put on rises, especially on faster roads, because it saves energy - you don't need to brake so hard coming up to the lights, or use so much throttle to accelerate away again.
Unless you're second in the queue. I do see the point though. This is a perfect example of the planners thinking of cost over safety.
They do the same with passing lanes. I've seen loads of cars overtaking late because they can't see where the lane ends. Much better to stop the lane before the brow so you can see the end clearly.

I think red arrows are a good solution in this case.
Probably is the best solution given a bad road layout.

swbarnett

5th August 2007, 22:16

I also agree with off ramps being uphill and onramps being downhill to help accelleration/braking. Saves energy and safer too.
No problem there. I think the problem comes when you have a hill with no flat portion, just up one side and down the other.

SWB; the arrows are there so people don't have to think.
That's my main objection to them.

They don't think when given the chance
If you remove the need to think in some areas then that attitude is taken into other areas. I'm in favour of making people think in all aspects of life. In order to get people to think on the road we have to start much earlier and get them thinking as soon as they can walk (or before) and follow on with that at school. The intellectual level in Switzerland is far higher than NZ (you won't see a calculator in your local bakery) for two reasons - parents already know how to think and the school system instils a high level of mental ability. Once we have a population of thinkers (or a long way towards it) we can start removing the crutches from our roads without major carnage.

I'm the same but don't trust anyone for a second to follow suit!
It's a principle of interpersonal psychology that you get what you expect. Treat a population like idiots and that's what they become. I expect people to follow suit and behave skilfully on the roads but I'm pragmatic enough that I'm also prepared for them not to.

scumdog

6th August 2007, 02:00

The intellectual level in Switzerland is far higher than NZ (you won't see a calculator in your local bakery) for two reasons - parents already know how to think and the school system instils a high level of mental ability. Once we have a population of thinkers (or a long way towards it) we can start removing the crutches from our roads without major carnage.

It's a principle of interpersonal psychology that you get what you expect. Treat a population like idiots and that's what they become. I expect people to follow suit and behave skilfully on the roads but I'm pragmatic enough that I'm also prepared for them not to.

New Zealand offers no incentive to make people think - it might make the dumb bastards among us feel inferior and we can't have that in a nanny-state PC country.:nono:

The Big J

6th August 2007, 05:34

In the USA the law is that you can turn right on the arrow, but not left.

So reversing for our correct side of the road you can turn around the corner but not cut across the opposing lane. I think it is a good law but imagine NZers would abuse it. :mellow:

Pancakes

6th August 2007, 11:11

Yes, historically traffic was a lot slower. These existing intersections should probably be turned in to no right turns (although in a lot of cases there won't be an alternative route).

Hey sorry dude, who am I to say you contradict yourself?:innocent:

Pancakes

6th August 2007, 11:17

The intellectual level in Switzerland is far higher than NZ (you won't see a calculator in your local bakery) for two reasons - parents already know how to think and the school system instils a high level of mental ability. Once we have a population of thinkers (or a long way towards it) we can start removing the crutches from our roads without major carnage.

I would make sure I had ALL the facts and figures before I started using phrases like "Intellectual level". I would say that better academic results are acheived in Japan too and the learning style used is to memorise information by "rote". ie, the information is memorised by repitition as opposed to learning key formula's etc.

You should start a traffic engineering firm and see if you can't get some contracts eh?

swbarnett

6th August 2007, 16:31

I would make sure I had ALL the facts and figures before I started using phrases like "Intellectual level".
This is from my personal observations. People in Switzerland just seem to use their brains more often. I'm not talking about scholastic results.

Pancakes

6th August 2007, 18:02

Sorry bro! I thought you'd be basing it on national average aptitude testing or something! So you know a few Swiss people?

swbarnett

6th August 2007, 21:15

Sorry bro! I thought you'd be basing it on national average aptitude testing or something! So you know a few Swiss people?
No worries, logical assumption.

Lived there for a couple of years in the late 90s.

Pancakes

7th August 2007, 11:29

Another thing to think about is that the car counters (machines) used to measure traffic volume each day don't describe the exact situations as they play out, also that once the data is used to change an intersection the traffic will then change too! Even though it might seem ideal to make the "perfect" traffic controls they would be too specific for the given needs they were designed too and worse if the flow etc varies. The averages used to describe traffic situations will take into account not any one situation but the range of situations that apply to that intersection. The fact that an intersection is never "perfect" makes it more adaptable/flexible.