I'm a grave menace to society

[swbarnett]

Riiiiight....so it's about filling Govt coffers from the pockets of losers who can't keep under the limit eh?:dodge:
Realistically it could be one of two things. Either it's about revenue gathering or there is a chance that the law makers actually believe rigid adherence to a speed limit improves public safety. Personally I think the former is more likely as I don't think politicians are that stupid.

[Patrick]

It is so simple... The "limit" is 100... not 101, not 193... the signs are there to remind those who "forget."

Speed all you like, you know the rules, take the risks... make your donations to the Govt as often as you like, who really cares?

Speed does kill, I've picked up enough splattered brains and torn limbs to prove it. Some might have been drunk, some were shit drivers, and any combination makes a wipeout more likely, but speed is a factor.

So does shit driving and if we see it we deal to it... or if you complain about it, we will deal to it too... same with speed, if we see it, we deal to it. Your choice. Its your money.....

Uncle Helen loves ya.

[spudchucka]

Personally I think the former is more likely as I don't think politicians are that stupid.

Ever listened to question time on national radio? They ARE stupid and incredibly childish too.

[Mekk]

It's not about pleasing people. It's about the fact that probably the vast majority of society consider that the rigid enforcement of speed limits does nothing for the stated aim of reducing the road toll.

If you don't have rigid adherence, you may as well not have a limit at all. As I said before, give people room to bend the rules and they will break them. Besides, the fact that a tolerance exists suggests non-rigid adherence. Yet people still push it.

They had to change the rather generous tolerance of 20km/h because as scumdog said, people would STILL break that and look for lenience.

Again, people want rules without applying them to themselves because they're such amazing drivers.

Another thing, if it were revenue gathering, why even have a tolerance?

[Edbear]

Another thing, if it were revenue gathering, why even have a tolerance?




:gob::shutup::shutup::shutup:

[swbarnett]

If you don't have rigid adherence, you may as well not have a limit at all.
Then why not rigidly enforce the other traffic laws? Why is speeding singled out for a higher level of enforcement?


Another thing, if it were revenue gathering, why even have a tolerance?
To fool the public into thinking that it's for safety?


Ever listened to question time on national radio? They ARE stupid and incredibly childish too.
There are certainly stupid ones just like any other sector of society. The ones that have the real power are probably not those. Their public face is probably quite different to what you'd see behind closed office doors.

[Mekk]

Then why not rigidly enforce the other traffic laws? Why is speeding singled out for a higher level of enforcement?

I would say because so many people do it. It would also be the result of research into the most important factors of crashes and of that which need addressing the most.

Besides, if this is like any of the other biker forums, I'm sure it's full of people who have been "hard-done" by the law. There'll be people annoyed at noise restrictions, people annoyed at being pinged for pulling stoppies at intersections, people annoyed at not getting a warning when they deserved an infraction etc.

If you don't think the law is being "rigidly" upheld in other areas, just look at the other posts here!

I'd like a cop at some intersections due to the red light issue...but then people would bitch that they're too rigidly enforcing that, they should be "doing real crime" etc etc. There is absolutely no winning.

Issues only become important if they happen to the individual. How many posts are started about someone else they don't know being pinged? How many responses? If there were any, I'd say they'd be laughing at the guy who got done and how stupid he was.




To fool the public into thinking that it's for safety?

If this is some sort of elaborate conspiracy theory, they've done a bang up job of keeping all the competing government parties, all the police and ex-police, all the government workers and volunteers quiet on the issue.

If I were John Key I'd want as much dirt on Labour as I could get. It seems highly unrealistic that they would let that one slide or that they wouldn't know if it were a conspiracy.

Anyway, the speed limit has spanned several governments. The tolerance hasn't, but the 20km/h over the limit was ridiculous and abused as well.

[Jantar]

I would say because so many people do it. It would also be the result of research into the most important factors of crashes and of that which need addressing the most.
Then you would be wrong. Exceeding the speed limit is a cause in only a very crashes. Depending on whose figures you believe its around 5% of crashes. Speeding, as defined by "Driving too fast for the conditions" is a causal factor in around 30% of crashes, but that is seldom ticketed. Exceeding the speed limit is quoted by MOT and LTSA as the GER or Greatest Enforceable Risk, as although it is a small risk, it is the easiest to measure. Look at http://www.safeas.govt.nz/smf/ for discussion with the MOT on this topic.


Besides, if this is like any of the other biker forums, I'm sure it's full of people who have been "hard-done" by the law. There'll be people annoyed at noise restrictions, people annoyed at being pinged for pulling stoppies at intersections, people annoyed at not getting a warning when they deserved an infraction etc.
This time you are right. However most riders who are ticketed when they are not being careful seem to admit that they deserved it.


If you don't think the law is being "rigidly" upheld in other areas, just look at the other posts here!
Again, you are right. Most posts concerning policing on offences other than speed would agree with you that the law is not being rigidly enforced in other areas.


I'd like a cop at some intersections due to the red light issue...but then people would bitch that they're too rigidly enforcing that, they should be "doing real crime" etc etc. There is absolutely no winning.
Wrong. Have a look at http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=48226


Issues only become important if they happen to the individual. How many posts are started about someone else they don't know being pinged? How many responses? If there were any, I'd say they'd be laughing at the guy who got done and how stupid he was.
There are a large number of posts about policing and road safety in general. However you are partially right in that for most people their own experience is the best indicator.


If this is some sort of elaborate conspiracy theory, they've done a bang up job of keeping all the competing government parties, all the police and ex-police, all the government workers and volunteers quiet on the issue.

If I were John Key I'd want as much dirt on Labour as I could get. It seems highly unrealistic that they would let that one slide or that they wouldn't know if it were a conspiracy.

I don't know where this idea of conspiracy theory comes from, can you elaborate more on where this was raised? Or is it just a straw man argument?


Anyway, the speed limit has spanned several governments. The tolerance hasn't, but the 20km/h over the limit was ridiculous and abused as well.
Another strawman? When was there ever a 20kmh tolerance?

[swbarnett]

I would say because so many people do it.
And so many people don't stop for red lights either. Why does speed get the priority?


It would also be the result of research into the most important factors of crashes and of that which need addressing the most.
Research that has been shown as flawed. It seems clear to me that speed is not the number one cause of accidents or a major drain on the health system.


Besides, if this is like any of the other biker forums, I'm sure it's full of people who have been "hard-done" by the law.
I Haven't seen much of that over the past year.


Issues only become important if they happen to the individual.
I haven't had a ticket for anything since 2000. Speed limits still piss me off.


If this is some sort of elaborate conspiracy theory, they've done a bang up job of keeping all the competing government parties, all the police and ex-police, all the government workers and volunteers quiet on the issue.
Maybe not at the top level. I forget where but one of the US states has actually said that speed enforcement is for revenue in a recent draft of a new law.


If I were John Key I'd want as much dirt on Labour as I could get.
At the same time they don't want to stop the gravy train for when they get in to power.


Anyway, the speed limit has spanned several governments.
They all like their gravy train.


The tolerance hasn't, but the 20km/h over the limit was ridiculous and abused as well.
Tolerance isn't a big issue to me. If you're going to have a law it should be enforced. You've just got to make damn sure that the law is fair and equitable and actually addresses the issue that it is designed for.

[Edbear]

...When was there ever a 20kmh tolerance?


It may have been when it was publicly stated they'd be targetting the "top 15 percentile" when speed cameras were introduced? Then I think it was lowered to 15km/h over, then 9km/h. I stand to be corrected, though.

[Max Preload]

I would say because so many people do it. It would also be the result of research into the most important factors of crashes and of that which need addressing the most.

If that were really true they'd not be solely hammering 'speeding' which has been shown time and time again to not be a major factor in the majority of crashes.


Besides, if this is like any of the other biker forums, I'm sure it's full of people who have been "hard-done" by the law. There'll be people annoyed at noise restrictions, people annoyed at being pinged for pulling stoppies at intersections, people annoyed at not getting a warning when they deserved an infraction etc.

Nobody *likes* getting a ticket. But the fact speed is targeted without consideration to other mitigating factors (location, traffic volume, road conditions etc) makes it pure revenue collection. There is no arguing that.


If you don't think the law is being "rigidly" upheld in other areas, just look at the other posts here!

But it isn't.


I'd like a cop at some intersections due to the red light issue...but then people would bitch that they're too rigidly enforcing that, they should be "doing real crime" etc etc. There is absolutely no winning.

I can't remember the last time someone passing me at 120km/h made me the slightest bit worried. But cars running reds happens all the time and it does warrant reflection on mortality - it's not going to make the slightest bit of difference to me as a motorcylist if they t-bone me at 50km/h or 61km/h.


Issues only become important if they happen to the individual.

See above.


If this is some sort of elaborate conspiracy theory, they've done a bang up job of keeping all the competing government parties, all the police and ex-police, all the government workers and volunteers quiet on the issue.

If I were John Key I'd want as much dirt on Labour as I could get. It seems highly unrealistic that they would let that one slide or that they wouldn't know if it were a conspiracy.

He's still a politician. The brainwashed public would think he was reckless if he increased the speed limit. And if he toughened licensing they'd feel victimised - it's their right to drive poorly as long as they stay within the speed limit, you know - they think that's all that matters.


Anyway, the speed limit has spanned several governments. The tolerance hasn't, but the 20km/h over the limit was ridiculous and abused as well.

Meanwhile, you're stopped at the side of the road writing out a ticket for some poor schmuck caught at 111km/h on the motorway at 2am Monday morning instead of biding your time and waiting for the worst offenders, who simply don't drive to the conditions.

[Jantar]

It may have been when it was publicly stated they'd be targetting the "top 15 percentile" when speed cameras were introduced? Then I think it was lowered to 15km/h over, then 9km/h. I stand to be corrected, though.
Yes, speed cameras were originally supposed to target the top 15 percentile of speeders, but there was no set speed given. In some areas that top percentile was only 5 kmh above the limit, and it was soon found that no matter what speed was set the cameras were getting a lot more than the fastest 15% of ALL drivers, not just the speeders.

[MSTRS]

When was there ever a 20kmh tolerance?

I don't believe there was....in the days of MPH, 5mph (at 55 or 60mph) was accepted as being within speedo-error guidelines. This translated to 8kph but settled on 10kph. Anything over that was given over to the individual cop's discretion, something that is now missing due to rigid 'guidelines' out of Bullshit Castle....

[Mekk]

Then you would be wrong. Exceeding the speed limit is a cause in only a very crashes. Depending on whose figures you believe its around 5% of crashes. Speeding, as defined by "Driving too fast for the conditions" is a causal factor in around 30% of crashes, but that is seldom ticketed. Exceeding the speed limit is quoted by MOT and LTSA as the GER or Greatest Enforceable Risk, as although it is a small risk, it is the easiest to measure. Look at http://www.safeas.govt.nz/smf/ for discussion with the MOT on this topic.

Returning to the realistic issue, you must understand that you cannot put an accurate speed limit on every piece of road that covers all weather and all times. Therefore, the limit is set. If cops removed the limit and just started ticketing people for driving faster than the conditions, people would still bitch. In fact probably more so because it would come down to discretion. Driver vs cop, not driver vs established limit.

People would be pinged for going 90 on the open road in the wet and they would howl with rage.

112km/h was probably perfectly safe but it's no safer than travelling at the limit. I have been over reaction times and all that, I don't think elaboration is necessary.

Forgive me but I don't remember what your position was for the solution of this.

-



Again, you are right. Most posts concerning policing on offences other than speed would agree with you that the law is not being rigidly enforced in other areas.

I think you misread my position on that. I'm saying that people will only think that the law is being rigidly (or not) upheld when it happens to them. With that, the rigigidigiittggyty of the law is based a lot on public perception, not actual knowledge.



Wrong. Have a look at http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=48226

Again, this is only due to the perception of an isolated incident. A perception that obviously differs from the officer's also.



However you are partially right in that for most people their own experience is the best indicator.

I am saying that for most people their own experience is the ONLY indicator. Which is why threads like this form. I'm trying to form an objective opinion on the matter.



I don't know where this idea of conspiracy theory comes from, can you elaborate more on where this was raised? Or is it just a straw man argument?

It was referenced by swbarnett in saying that the limit is only there to fool th e public. Admittedly, it was slightly strawman in emphasising the impact of the statement but I think that is what he was getting at. Is anything that widespread in fooling the public by the government...not considered a conspiracy? I used the word elaborate also because it would not be an easy task.



Another strawman? When was there ever a 20kmh tolerance?

Not at all. I was using that from a post further up that scumdog did. I assumed because he is an authority on such matters that the knowledge was sound.

I'll reply to the others later, I'm late for work.

[spudchucka]

This thread is becoming too much of a pain in the arse to read any more with the number of multi quote posts.

But, people seem to be hung up on how many crashes excess speed is responsible for causing, which is only a minor part of the overall equation. The real problem is in reducing the trauma caused in crashes, not so much stopping the crashes from happening.

People will always crash, even if you restricted them to 20KPH there would still be some moron that couldn't stay on the road.

The speed limits are enforced because speed has a direct tangible correlation to trauma in crashes. Its not just about the death toll, the impact on society from road crash trauma is massive and that is the sum total of why speed limits are enforced.

Carry on with your BS theorising though, most of you wouldn't know the truth if it jumped out and kicked you in the jatz crackers.

[MSTRS]

None of us are questioning the correlation between speed and damage/injury/death in the event of a crash...just the current regime that makes no distinction of speed subject to varying conditions. eg. a deserted 3 lane motorway at night as compared to a one lane country highway with oncoming traffic

[skidMark]

Yes, I admit it. I'm a killer. OK, I haven't killed anyone yet, but it's obviously only a matter of time before my thoroughly irresponsible and unacceptable behaviour results in the deaths of some poor tax-paying member of society.

Midnight on the north-western, traffic's light and the conditions dry. I was pulled over by a marked car with a laser gun and given a ticket for the heinous crime against humanity of doing 112kph. $80 and twenty demerits. I was the picture of politeness. I pulled over immediately on seeing their lights, I had my licence out ready and waiting, I was friendly. Not the slightest hint of a warning, just a 'please stay here sir, I'll just go and write you out a ticket.'

What a complete crock of shit. I'm going to challenge it anyway (as I was doing 105 according to my speedo) and the officer's managed to get my address wrong on the ticket. Pointless, but at least they'll have to do some work for their $80.

Still, it's taught me a good lesson. The next time this happens (provided I'm on my bike, which tonight I wasn't), I'm just going to gap it. According to the laser gun, I was 184 metres away when I was pinged. By my rough calculations, I could be doing well over 200kph by the time I passed the cop car and unless they can scramble a heli damn fast, they've got about as much chance of catching me as I have getting off this ticket.

Well done, NZ Police, here's another perfectly safe driver you've just fucked off.


so hang on...you were riding an 07 blade....and you bothered to stop?

the speedo goes to 300 for a good reason u know....

[Ocean1]

If cops removed the limit and just started ticketing people for driving faster than the conditions, people would still bitch. In fact probably more so because it would come down to discretion. Driver vs cop, not driver vs established limit.

As a matter of interest when did we lose the LSZ thing.
I don't recall pingings there ever causing too much argument it court.
Remind me what the deal was there, still an open road limit but an expectation to drive to the conditions? On one hand it gives the oshifers more leaway and discression but on the other hand (again) it's open to interpretation (and therefore abuse on both parts).

[swbarnett]

The speed limits are enforced because speed has a direct tangible correlation to trauma in crashes.
What is important in trauma reduction is the speed of impact, not the speed of travel prior to braking. The speed of impact is governed by a lot more, namely the effectiveness of the brakes, tyre grip, suspension set up and condition, vehicle weight, reaction time, angle of impact and probably many others. Also, the trauma level at any given speed of impact will vary widely depending on the safety features in the vehicle (air bags and the like).

The police estimate of the speed prior to an accident is probably wrong most of the time anyway. In these days of ABS etc. skid marks are no longer an accurate measure (not that they ever were).

[swbarnett]

LSZ - Remind me what the deal was there,
Open road unless certain conditions existed (pedestrians, weather, ...) then it was 70km/h or maybe even 50km/h.

[scumdog]

What is important in trauma reduction is the speed of impact, not the speed of travel prior to braking.

Speed of impact is directly related to speed prior to braking - always had, always will. (ABS MAY have made a hiccup in the graph but in a year or two it will level out again - just as it did when hydraulic brakes came into being, and boosted disc brakes etc).

[rwh]

Speed of impact is directly related to speed prior to braking - always had, always will. (ABS MAY have made a hiccup in the graph but in a year or two it will level out again - just as it did when hydraulic brakes came into being, and boosted disc brakes etc).

Um. Yes it's related, but there are other factors involved. Like, how far away you are when you notice the hazard and start braking. Hence why I'm always more nervous of tailgaters than speeders with a clear road ahead.

(Note the difference between an explanation and a simple 'bollocks')

Richard

[scumdog]

Um. Yes it's related, but there are other factors involved. Like, how far away you are when you notice the hazard and start braking. Hence why I'm always more nervous of tailgaters than speeders with a clear road ahead.

(Note the difference between an explanation and a simple 'bollocks')

Richard


The above is not bol-locks.

[rwh]

The above is not bol-locks.

Thank you. Glad we agree on something :)

Richard

[Sanx]

... (provided I'm on my bike, which tonight I wasn't) ...


so hang on...you were riding an 07 blade....and you bothered to stop? the speedo goes to 300 for a good reason u know....

Erm ... amazing how many people haven't picked up I wasn't on my bike.

[marty]

Another strawman? When was there ever a 20kmh tolerance?

until i joined the HWP in 2000, there was a generally accepted 20k tolerance in the south waikato.

i was also scraping dead guys/girls/babies who had been driving/driven too fast, and in the absence of concentration, or someone else doing something they didn't expect in front of them, off the road, on a reasonably (like every week - sometimes every day) regular occasion.

for the first 6 months of HWP in the south waikato, excess of 160km/h tickets were common - sometimes 5 a day. speeds over 140k were common. pinging under 120k was a waste of time, when there were 135-150k tickets to write.

after 12 months the high speed numbers had dropped to a trickle. fatals in my patch dropped by, i estimate, 90%.

fatal numbers are now at an all time low. i believe though they have plateaued, and something significant now has to happen to drop it further. speed enforcement pressure will remain. driver behaviour and skill will be the next target. don't ask me how.

BTW, the 10km/h tolerance came about primarily as a directive to standardise across NZ - it took the guesswork out of joe public not knowing if auckland cops had a 30k tolerance, waikato 20, bop 10k etc. everyone's 10k. simple

[Usarka]

how much of the low fatalataties in the waikato is due to the big new road they put in rather than people adhering to speed limits? :scooter:

[spudchucka]

What is important in trauma reduction is the speed of impact, not the speed of travel prior to braking. The speed of impact is governed by a lot more, namely the effectiveness of the brakes, tyre grip, suspension set up and condition, vehicle weight, reaction time, angle of impact and probably many others. Also, the trauma level at any given speed of impact will vary widely depending on the safety features in the vehicle (air bags and the like).

The police estimate of the speed prior to an accident is probably wrong most of the time anyway. In these days of ABS etc. skid marks are no longer an accurate measure (not that they ever were).

Crap!______

[Edbear]

Erm ... amazing how many people haven't picked up I wasn't on my bike.


This is KB... Everyone reads posts carefully before responding so no-one gets the wrong idea...:yes:

[scumdog]

Latest corones court down here included a case where one dead and two badly injured - those not so injured WERE the only ones wearing seatbelts.

Oh, yeah they weren't exceeding 100kph - but they were exceeding the recommended 65kph the sign posted prior to the corner.

NaH, SPEED NEVER KILLS - CRASHING DOES.

[Edbear]

Latest corones court down here included a case where one dead and two badly injured - those not so injured WERE the only ones wearing seatbelts.

Oh, yeah they weren't exceeding 100kph - but they were exceeding the recommended 65kph the sign posted prior to the corner.

NaH, SPEED NEVER KILLS - CRASHING DOES.


Quite correct! That's why I try very hard to avoid said crashing!:yes:

Now can anyone say by what factor the likelihood of crashing increases as speed increases...?:innocent:

[Max Preload]

Now can anyone say by what factor the likelihood of crashing increases as speed increases...?:innocent:

It doesn't increase at all if you're speeding to the conditions.

[marty]

how much of the low fatalataties in the waikato is due to the big new road they put in rather than people adhering to speed limits? :scooter:

what new road is in the SOUTH waikato?

and i used to work in huntly while it was still the killing fields up there - i still recall personally attending to 19 deaths due to car crashes in october 1991. a big call for a 23 year old kid back then

[roadracingoldfart]

Now can anyone say by what factor the likelihood of crashing increases as speed increases...?:innocent:[/QUOTE]




Yupp .... it increases by LOTS , but im sure we all know that.

[bryce]

it may be because you were on a bike.i was on s,h, 1 ,400m behind 6 cars, came over a rise still 400m behind the last car ,the cop had past the 3rd car when i came in to his view. it turned on his lights did a u"e, i got an $80 fine 4 113km . months later i was following a white falcon over napier-taupo @ 140.desided to pass, got to the drivers window to see a cop driving and all the radar etc ,so slowly pulled away with out trouble.

[Mekk]

And so many people don't stop for red lights either. Why does speed get the priority?

I don't know, perhaps because there are more speed related crashes. I wish there was more policing of red light runners but I'd say they are allocating resources to the more important.



Research that has been shown as flawed. It seems clear to me that speed is not the number one cause of accidents or a major drain on the health system.
The whole system is flawed, but it's better than any other solution I have seen posted here. I say better in terms of practicality and fairness for all.


Sorry, I'm not replying to the quotes in between. I can just see it taking the thread elsewhere and is mostly irrelevant.




At the same time they don't want to stop the gravy train for when they get in to power.


They all like their gravy train.

This idea seems a bit far-fetched for me. Anyone who is in power has a lot of gravy and I'm sure the others would fight for that to the point of spilling it. It also doesn't explain how they've managed to keep everyone quiet. In this day and age the colour of Hilton's underwear makes the news, that certainly would have by now.



Tolerance isn't a big issue to me. If you're going to have a law it should be enforced. You've just got to make damn sure that the law is fair and equitable and actually addresses the issue that it is designed for.

Well the law is being enforced, as per this thread existing. In terms of fairness, one limit for all seems to be the most fair in my eyes. I mean sure, it could be better but there'd be a helluva lot more to consider.

With regards to it addressing the issue, that's its goal. It's not flawless but it is definitely addressing it.

---


If that were really true they'd not be solely hammering 'speeding' which has been shown time and time again to not be a major factor in the majority of crashes.

Well they're not solely targeting speeding are they? I mean there are still checkpoints for alcohol and other related offences.

It may not be a majority of crashes, but I was looking through some stats here (http://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/NewPDFs/NewFolder/casualties-and-crashes-2005.pdf). If you look at page 49 you will see that the number one fatality percentage comes from "probably driving too fast for the conditions". It doesn't show whether they were under the limit or not but it shows that speed is a factor. Keep in mind these stats are from 2005, but I checked 2004 and 2003 and there's a definite trend.

Another interesting thing to note is that the majority of crashes occur when the weather is fine, suggesting the conditions changing are more of the driver than the weather. Again I don't know which of these were too fast for the conditions, which were alcohol etc, but I found it interesting anyway. :P


But the fact speed is targeted without consideration to other mitigating factors (location, traffic volume, road conditions etc) makes it pure revenue collection. There is no arguing that.

I think they are though. I know that weather conditions are taken into account, I haven't seen other variables but didn't really look for them either. But sure, if you have information to put me right, by all means share.


But it isn't.

This was a bit tongue-in-cheek anyway, but there aren't really any stats saying that they're not. I mean they may not be, but I was just going from reading other posts. I think this one's open only to perception.



it's not going to make the slightest bit of difference to me as a motorcylist if they t-bone me at 50km/h or 61km/h.

This first part of what you said was subjective, so I'm just addressing this part because I disagree. I think it would make a difference. I mean that 11km/h could be the difference between you hitting something and not, or the difference between your neck breaking and not. If there's more force there's definitely going to be a difference. Of course you won't notice a difference if you're a coma...or if you're dead...but that could be the difference right there.


He's still a politician. The brainwashed public would think he was reckless if he increased the speed limit. And if he toughened licensing they'd feel victimised - it's their right to drive poorly as long as they stay within the speed limit, you know - they think that's all that matters.

I dunno, I don't think we'd think he was reckless if he provided proof that they were doing it just for money. If he had facts that said that we were safer without a limit, then we would accept them.




Meanwhile, you're stopped at the side of the road writing out a ticket for some poor schmuck caught at 111km/h on the motorway at 2am Monday morning instead of biding your time and waiting for the worst offenders, who simply don't drive to the conditions.

Yep, that's definitely a flaw in the system but I've said already how it isn't perfect. Thing is though, that person stopped for doing 111km/h could have been driving to the conditions at 100km/h as well, so whose fault is it?

You could be cheeky and ticket him for wasting officers' time by driving over the limit when he could be stopping real offenders. :D


Sorry that this reply is such a novel, taking on 3 at once isn't easy. :dodge:

*edit: Oh yeah and this is interesting as well: http://www.police.govt.nz/service/road/facingthefacts.pdf

[Mekk]

Um. Yes it's related, but there are other factors involved. Like, how far away you are when you notice the hazard and start braking. Hence why I'm always more nervous of tailgaters than speeders with a clear road ahead.

(Note the difference between an explanation and a simple 'bollocks')

Richard

There definitely are other factors involved but I mean if you're speeding, there's going to be less time to notice that hazard and start braking anyway. Sure you'd have to be going a fair click for it to make a big enough difference, but they would have had to have a cut off point somewhere to account for different peoples' reaction times.

I'd be more nervous of idiot tailgaters too. It's just because of their proximity for me, which in itself is a hazard.

[Mekk]

Quite correct! That's why I try very hard to avoid said crashing!:yes:

Now can anyone say by what factor the likelihood of crashing increases as speed increases...?:innocent:

You could probably work it out if you took the subject's reaction time, the speeds they're travelling, the weather they're travelling in and the road conditions and threw them all together into one big blender of equations and made one disgusting smoothie.

Problem is, it'd be an individual equation for everyone and would depend on their state of mind, the amount of sleep they had last night, their diminishing age, LOADS of things. Things that would change all the time. You could have the likelihood of crashing at one speed for one weather condition for one day...for one person.

Now imagine that officer trying to drink that smoothie, the smoothie's contents changing, the chef's opinion of the smoothie changing and you can see that they're better off eating a donut.

[Albino]

In essence the logic is that by enforcement we can reduce one of the factors to a low "safer" level reasonably easy.

A question I have is, have any studies been done on the psychological effects of being restricted to a performance level of the lowest common demoninator?

My guess is that the following would result:

Less attention to own actions
Some feeling of resentment especially when penalised
Disrespect for authority especially those enforcing
Anger towards poor drivers who are viewed to be the cause of the restrictions


When performing a dangerous activity you need a certain level of stimulation to keep focused. Roughly half the drivers on our road would be of an above average skill and they are being forced to drive at a limit designed for the lower quartile. Do they switch off?

Just something to consider.......

:scooter:

[MSTRS]

In essence the logic is that by enforcement we can reduce one of the factors to a low "safer" level reasonably easy.

A question I have is, have any studies been done on the psychological effects of being restricted to a performance level of the lowest common demoninator?

My guess is that the following would result:

Less attention to own actions
Some feeling of resentment especially when penalised
Disrespect for authority especially those enforcing
Anger towards poor drivers who are viewed to be the cause of the restrictions


When performing a dangerous activity you need a certain level of stimulation to keep focused. Roughly half the drivers on our road would be of an above average skill and they are being forced to drive at a limit designed for the lower quartile. Do they switch off?

Just something to consider.......


You are correct. On all points.
Just to be a prick tho...100kph is the limit, it is now the norm, and as such has become boring. When we exceed this, we generally pay much more attention at the higher speed if only to keep an eye peeled for a pinging. If 120/130, say, was brought in as the limit, that would become the norm and therefore become boring.....

[ManDownUnder]

A question I have is, have any studies been done on the psychological effects of being restricted to a performance level of the lowest common demoninator?


I don't know of studies per se, but I know of a wonderful phenominon called Social Facilitation. Basically it says that if you're doing something (anything really) with people better than you, there is a natural tendency to lift your game.

Go bowling with a national champ and I bet you have a better game than you normally do. Run with those fitter than you and you will do better etc etc etc (You'll still be tired, but overall you'll do better than you would have solo)

I expect the opposite is also true - I know I used to suffer from "dumbing down"... hainging around people incapable of holding higher level conversations, and it was interesting to observe how my own world stopped expanding and I got held back with them.

Peter Gabriel's song Big Time mentions it to (it actually inspired me to think big like I naturally do, rather than limit myself for the sake of others).

[swbarnett]

Crap!______
Which part? If there are now better methods to estimate the vehicle's speed prior to braking tell us about them. Or do you honestly think tyre wear etc. is not a factor?

[spudchucka]

Which part?
Pretty much all of it.

[swbarnett]

You could probably work it out if you took the subject's reaction time, the speeds they're travelling, the weather they're travelling in and the road conditions and threw them all together into one big blender of equations and made one disgusting smoothie.
Whatever happened to "Innocent until PROVEN guilty". Nobody has the right to call me an accident causer without proof. This smoothie is what the courts are for. If the police can't prove in a court of law that I'm a hazard to other road user (not OTHER road users, not myself) then they should leave me alone.

[swbarnett]

Pretty much all of it.
So you're saying that the ONLY factor in the level of trauma is speed prior to braking? I think you need to go back to school and do some physics.

Perhaps you could fill us in on how speed prior to braking is estimated from an accident scene.

[Ocean1]

if you're doing something (anything really) with people better than you, there is a natural tendency to lift your game.

So, the reason for your presence here is.... ?

[ManDownUnder]

So, the reason for your presence here is.... ?

I love social intercourse

[spudchucka]

So you're saying that the ONLY factor in the level of trauma is speed prior to braking?

No. I'm saying post number 269 is crap.

[scumdog]

Whatever happened to "Innocent until PROVEN guilty". Nobody has the right to call me an accident causer without proof. This smoothie is what the courts are for. If the police can't prove in a court of law that I'm a hazard to other road user (not OTHER road users, not myself) then they should leave me alone.

Does your above ideas also include those driving with over the breath alcohol limit that haven't crashed into others?
And those that cut blind corners and haven't crashed into others?
And run red lights and haven't crashed into others?
And......................?

I'm sure in your mind they too are 'innocent'

[Ocean1]

I love social intercourse

I see, and you find consorting with your betters improves your performance in this regard? I ask merely for information, I’ve had no luck at all in my attempts to consort with various chicks of extreme hotness.

[spudchucka]

Perhaps you could fill us in on how speed prior to braking is estimated from an accident scene.

v^2 = 2 u g d v = (2 u g d)^1/2 = 4.42( u d)^1/2

[ManDownUnder]

I see, and you find consorting with your betters improves your performance in this regard? I ask merely for information, I’ve had no luck at all in my attempts to consort with various chicks of extreme hotness.

I hate to say it but it proves my point... Head into a pub with a gorgeous woman and you'll have more success with the women there than if you head in alone, or with a bunch of guys.

Well it doesn't actually prove my point - there are other mechanisms at work... but it is interesting. Just have to find the first gorgeous woman. Go with a friend?

You do have female friends don't you?

[ManDownUnder]

v^2 = 2 u g d v = (2 u g d)^1/2 = 4.42( u d)^1/2

So... let's see if I understand this correctly...
Two jars of Vegemite stacked one on the other
= 2 Uneaten Green Donuts tasting of Vegemite
= 2 Uneaten Green Donuts with one 1/2 eaten placed on the other
= 4.42 Uneaten Donuts with one half eaten placed on the other?

[Ocean1]

I hate to say it but it proves my point... Head into a pub with a gorgeous woman and you'll have more success with the women there than if you head in alone, or with a bunch of guys.

Well it doesn't actually prove my point - there are other mechanisms at work... but it is interesting. Just have to find the first gorgeous woman. Go with a friend?

You do have female friends don't you?

Oh way too serious, and tantamount to an admission that one doesn’t meet the criteria for natural selection for gorgeous women, which would be altogether misleading.

Oh, and ALL females are my friend.

PD anyone?

[ManDownUnder]

Oh way too serious, and tantamount to an admission that one doesn’t meet the criteria for natural selection for gorgeous women, which would be altogether misleading.

A big admission for you to make but not so surprising consider your previous heartfelt outpourings ...


I ask merely for information, I’ve had no luck at all in my attempts to consort with various chicks of extreme hotness.

[spudchucka]

So... let's see if I understand this correctly...
Two jars of Vegemite stacked one on the other
= 2 Uneaten Green Donuts tasting of Vegemite
= 2 Uneaten Green Donuts with one 1/2 eaten placed on the other
= 4.42 Uneaten Donuts with one half eaten placed on the other?

That makes more sense than anything Mr Barnett has come up with so far.

[ManDownUnder]

That makes more sense than anything Mr Barnett has come up with so far.

LOL... dammit... no more bling available to me...

:niceone:

[swbarnett]

That makes more sense than anything Mr Barnett has come up with so far.
At least I'm willing to answer my critics instead of resorting to abuse. I have seen nothing in here to shift me from the notion that speed is not the menace that the authorities make it out to be.

The crux of the matter comes down to personality. Some people live in constant fear and some people just live. The trouble is that the two groups will never understand each other and the fearful will always gain more political power because we who fear less have better things to do with our lives than trying to stop other people from living.

Yes, life is precious. Note LIFE, not survival.

[Ocean1]

Head into a pub with a gorgeous woman and you'll have more success

I'm lazy, I prefer to find a pub first. The gorgeous women magically manifest themselves later, in roughly similar quantities to those of the previous, more mundane variety. The hotness of said inhabitants is readily regulated by the application of certain ancient, arcane (and also magical) beverages.

Such advance social activities require strict adherence to certain rules regarding the half-life of such magic. Sleep (for example) seems to be an all too effective antidote, resulting in sometimes severely unfortunate consequences. One has seen Cinderella after punkin hour, and one is not impressed.

[ManDownUnder]

I'm lazy, I prefer to find a pub first. The gorgeous women magically manifest themselves later, in roughly similar quantities to those of the previous, more mundane variety. The hotness of said inhabitants is readily regulated by the application of certain ancient, arcane (and also magical) beverages.

Such advance social activities require strict adherence to certain rules regarding the half-life of such magic. Sleep (for example) seems to be an all too effective antidote, resulting in sometimes severely unfortunate consequences. One has seen Cinderella after punkin hour, and one is not impressed.

Lots of words for "I got drunk and woke up with a slapper"

LOL... and I'm sure you're the only one .. Tui anyone?

[Mekk]

Whatever happened to "Innocent until PROVEN guilty". Nobody has the right to call me an accident causer without proof. This smoothie is what the courts are for. If the police can't prove in a court of law that I'm a hazard to other road user (not OTHER road users, not myself) then they should leave me alone.

He was proven to be over the speed limit, which under legislation is illegal and thus he was guilty.

You're a hazard to other road users just by being on the road. Any moving block of steel is. You're MORE of a hazard if you're travelling faster, the limit is just a gauge for that.

112km/h may not have made a difference in those conditions at that time to that driver...but that's a flaw in the system that has to be accepted for it to apply to the general populace. Again, I haven't seen suggestion of a better system here yet.

Besides, he could have just as easily NOT gone over the limit.

[spudchucka]

At least I'm willing to answer my critics instead of resorting to abuse.

I haven't abused anyone your post was crap though.

You asked earlier how police work out speed prior to braking etc. I'm not a crash investigator, I don't even work in traffic, not at all, 0% of time is spent on traffic duties. However, I have in the past attended a basic traffic crash investigators course.

There are several levels of crash investigator within the police and the guys that investigate serious crashes are walking encyclopaedias on the subject. I'm not, that's why I had to go and refer to a text book before giving you a proper answer. The following is the basic formula used to determine the initial speed of a vehicle.

The basic speed from slide to stop calculation: v = the square root of (2*g*d*f)

v = velocity (metres per second)
g = gravity, which is represented by the figure 9.81 (don't ask me why, it just is)
d = skidded distance
f = drag factor or co-efficient of friction. (the typical NZ road has a drag factor of 0.6 - 0.65)

Example:

A vehicle skids to a stop leaving 29.5 metres of skid marks and the road surface has a friction value of 0.7g.

Initial velocity = the square root of (2*9.81*29.5*0.7) = 20.13m/s

To convert metres per second to kilometres per hour you multiply it by 3.6.

20.13 * 3.6 = 72.4kph initial speed.

This is the most basic formula used. There are many variations to it and you can add in other factors such as gradients plus or minus, whether all four wheels are locked up or only three etc etc. There are also calculations for factoring in ABS and for impact velocity based upon crumple damage etc.

[Mekk]

The crux of the matter comes down to personality. Some people live in constant fear and some people just live. The trouble is that the two groups will never understand each other and the fearful will always gain more political power because we who fear less have better things to do with our lives than trying to stop other people from living.

Yes, life is precious. Note LIFE, not survival.

I feel I'm being misrepresented here. I evade cops and push limits as much as anybody here. This isn't about being scared, law-abiding citizens. This is about fronting up and accepting personal responsibility when you fuck up.

This thread was started by a dude throwing his toys out of his cot over an $80 fine. If he can't handle that, knowing the limit is 100km/h and knowing cops will ping him for doing over that, then why even ride/drive?

[Sanx]

This thread was started by a dude throwing his toys out of his cot over an $80 fine. If he can't handle that, knowing the limit is 100km/h and knowing cops will ping him for doing over that, then why even ride/drive?

Oi. I didn't throw my toys out of my cot. I ejected them in a controlled fashion.

And the main reason for the post, other than to have a general bitch, was toc omment on the complete pointlessness of the cops' actions and to demonstrate how they have turned another safe driver against them, through a complete lack of common sense and a complete failure to exercise discretion. Can't handle it? Course I can. Choose to handle it gracefully? Why the hell should I?

[MSTRS]

I feel I'm being misrepresented here.
By ????

... I evade cops and push limits as much as anybody here. .... This is about fronting up and accepting personal responsibility when you fuck up.
....
Que? Care to explain how those two statements go together?

[Mekk]

By ????

I may be wrong, but it looks as if barnett is saying that people defending the law or system in this argument are scared of living, scared of taking risks etc. That does not reflect my attitude towards biking and thus the feeling of misrepresentation.



Que? Care to explain how those two statements go together?

I don't really understand the confusion.

I'm saying this is about accepting responsibility for being caught when knowingly travelling over the limit. As opposed to not taking risks due to being scared of the consequences.

[MSTRS]

Reads to me like you are saying you do runners when pinged AND yet take responsibility when pinged. Can't do both...

[Mekk]

Oh I see, sorry.

Nah I didn't mean evade as in doing runners. I meant avoiding them in the first place and keeping under the limit around them because I do exceed it at times too. What I'm saying is that getting caught is a risk we know of and take anyway...which means there's no point in creating a big fuss when we are caught.

[MSTRS]

.... no point in creating a big fuss when we are caught.

Wot? This is KB, ffs. It's wot we do. Mostly.

[Mekk]

I know, it's what most bike forums do which was a point further up. SHRUG.

[rwh]

The basic speed from slide to stop calculation: v = the square root of (2*g*d*f)

v = velocity (metres per second)
g = gravity, which is represented by the figure 9.81 (don't ask me why, it just is)
d = skidded distance
f = drag factor or co-efficient of friction. (the typical NZ road has a drag factor of 0.6 - 0.65)

Example:

A vehicle skids to a stop leaving 29.5 metres of skid marks and the road surface has a friction value of 0.7g.

Initial velocity = the square root of (2*9.81*29.5*0.7) = 20.13m/s

To convert metres per second to kilometres per hour you multiply it by 3.6.

20.13 * 3.6 = 72.4kph initial speed.

This is the most basic formula used. There are many variations to it and you can add in other factors such as gradients plus or minus, whether all four wheels are locked up or only three etc etc. There are also calculations for factoring in ABS and for impact velocity based upon crumple damage etc.

Cool.

A couple of points I'd like to note, which no doubt crash investigators are also well aware of:

If the vehicle skidded to a stop, that implies it didn't hit anything - that would have slowed it down faster. So there's presumably a more complex formula which involves speed at impact, as estimated from damage to the vehicles etc.

This example also assumes the vehicle was skidding, right from the first moment of deceleration - I'm guessing it's much harder to see where braking started if it didn't immediately result in a skid. And judging the rate of deceleration without skidmarks must be really hard too - you don't know how hard the driver was pushing the pedal.

Merely defining what you mean by 'initial velocity' is tricky.

One of my nastiest close encounters was several years ago:
I was driving down the Ngauranga Gorge in Wellington at about midnight, in the wet, with hardly anyone else on the road. As I came round one of the corners, I saw a car way ahead near the next corner - no problem. The lights were bright - must be brake lights - ok, but back off a bit. That car is not moving very fast - start braking. That car is nearly stopped - brake hard. I ended up locking the wheels and releasing several times before coming to a stop, maybe 5-10m back from the car (which had stopped behind a truck that had rolled onto its side).

So what counts as my initial velocity? I was probably doing around 100, maybe a bit more, before all this started. By the time I started braking hard, I was probably doing around 70. By the time I locked my wheels and started leaving evidence, maybe 50. Of course in the end I didn't hit, so there was nothing to investigate (on my part; I don't know whether the cops were involved for the truck). Anyway - what counts as my initial velocity? 100-120? 70? 50?

What I do know is that I don't drive down the Gorge at 100 any more - especially not in the left lane, with its reduced visibility round the corners.

Richard

[swbarnett]

He was proven to be over the speed limit, which under legislation is illegal and thus he was guilty.
Technically you are correct. That's how the right to innocence is subjugated. I was extrapolating and saying that a speeding ticket is in essence an accusation that you are a "grave menace to society".


I haven't abused anyone your post was crap though.
Sorry if I over-reacted. I appreciate that this type of argument can be frustrating from both sides. It felt like a knee-jerk reaction with no substance.

Your explanation of the skid/speed formula was very interesting. I've managed to do a full emergency stop from 50km/h in the cage with the wheels only losing traction for the last metre or so. According to the skid marks I would only have been travelling at 3.7km/h on the same road in your example. This is what leads me to believe that skid marks aren't always a good indicator of the initial speed of the vehicle. I run stickier tyres than most with standard brakes so they don't skid too easily.

[spudchucka]

If the vehicle skidded to a stop, that implies it didn't hit anything - that would have slowed it down faster. So there's presumably a more complex formula which involves speed at impact, as estimated from damage to the vehicles etc.

Yes, that calculation gives you the speed from the start of the skid to the stop. Where that eventual safe stop has been brought forward by the vehicle hitting another object the crash investigator will take into consideration many more factors, including damage to vehicles.

However if you look at the skid to stop calculation as a bench mark figure that says the initial speed of that vehicle was "no less than", then that gives you a starting point.

The experts use all sorts of flash as gear and science to work these things out, forensic mapping, computer programmes that analyse the surveyed skid marks and location of each vehicle post crash and can reconstruct the pre crash circumstances etc etc.

[spudchucka]

Your explanation of the skid/speed formula was very interesting. I've managed to do a full emergency stop from 50km/h in the cage with the wheels only losing traction for the last metre or so. According to the skid marks I would only have been travelling at 3.7km/h on the same road in your example. This is what leads me to believe that skid marks aren't always a good indicator of the initial speed of the vehicle. I run stickier tyres than most with standard brakes so they don't skid too easily.

When the crash guys are doing their sums they will test the drag factor for the road surface in a similar vehicle and with similar tyres fitted in order to get the most accurate figures for that particular road surface and vehicle type.

[boomer]

When the crash guys are doing their sums they will test the drag factor for the road surface in a similar vehicle and with similar tyres fitted in order to get the most accurate figures for that particular road surface and vehicle type.

you mean he licks his fingers and holds it in the air?

[swbarnett]

I may be wrong, but it looks as if barnett is saying that people defending the law or system in this argument are scared of living, scared of taking risks etc. That does not reflect my attitude towards biking and thus the feeling of misrepresentation.
Indeed I can see were you're coming from in this. I did have the impression that you were more on the fearful side than the last couple of post would suggest. My apologies. It seems that you are somewhere nearer the middle.

[scumdog]

Indeed I can see were you're coming from in this. I did have the impression that you were more on the fearful side than the last couple of post would suggest. My apologies. It seems that you are somewhere nearer the middle.

It goes both ways - at times I think YOU (among others)are totally on the other side.

And at times it's hard to tell trolls from real curiosity/lack of knowledge, for that reason (and a bit of experience with KB) I tend to err on the 'ah, probably a troll' side of things.

[spudchucka]

you mean he licks his fingers and holds it in the air?Or:

Pick a number and double it, divide by 3, add 47, multiply by your age, stand on your head, scratch your arse, have a cold pie and warm beer, run three kilometres, turn around five times and then multiply your answer by the number of peas and carrots your throw up.

[rwh]

And at times it's hard to tell trolls from real curiosity/lack of knowledge, for that reason (and a bit of experience with KB) I tend to err on the 'ah, probably a troll' side of things.

One also needs to be open to the possibility that the other person is actually right - or at least arguing rationally ... I may have been reminded of this recently ...

And when one is trying to work out whether the person who has just pulled one over for speed in exess of the posted limit is a troll or just ignorant, displaying either attitude seems likely to result in less favourable discretion being used ...

Richard

[Patrick]

Roughly half the drivers on our road would be of an above average skill

We wish it was as high as that... Funny.... Roughly half wouldn't even make average, let alone above average...


Or:

Pick a number and double it, divide by 3, add 47, multiply by your age, stand on your head, scratch your arse, have a cold pie and warm beer, run three kilometres, turn around five times and then multiply your answer by the number of peas and carrots your throw up.

Ummm.. show me the formula?????

[McJim]

I'm a grave menace

Just realised you meant you're a necrophiliac. You can get some nasty diseases doing that bro'...saw it on CSI so it must be true. :rofl:

[SPman]

Over here, with the death toll 26% up this year, there's a big push on, re speed - particularly out in the country - so, during the day, the main and subsidary roads are very regularly patrolled and speed cameras are being used more. Fine - there are very few fatalities during the day, though, - most of the country fatalities - probably 75%, seem to be late at night/early morning, single occupant/rider running off the road and hitting a tree (of which nearly all the roads are liberally lined - normally about 1 metre off the seal). And very few of them are wearing seat belts!.....

So - we have tired/intoxicated drivers, at night, at a time of high wildlife activity, on roads with no margin for error, where most drivers seem to be able to lose control of a car if a wheel drops off the seal, killing themselves, and the authorities tell everyone to slow down and target speed !!

It seems to have become a knee jerk reaction - instead of looking at the problem they look at numbers!
:bash:

[avgas]

I should go for a ride now....i cant see very far so i wont ride very fast

[Usarka]

Roughly half the drivers on our road would be of an above average skill

We wish it was as high as that... Funny.... Roughly half wouldn't even make average, let alone above average...



That needs to go on the police college entrance exam bahahahaha (p/t please dont shoot me) lol.

[HungusMaximist]

Yes, I admit it. I'm a killer. .

How about getting yourself a radar next time, you poofter boy!

[Usarka]

How about getting yourself a radar next time, you poofter boy!

Whats a radar going to do for him? get a speed reading of the cop? you were going 120 - no you were - were not - were too - i know you are you said you are bahahahahha silly idea!

[Patrick]

We wish it was as high as that... Funny.... Roughly half wouldn't even make average, let alone above average...


That needs to go on the police college entrance exam bahahahaha (p/t please dont shoot me) lol.

Hmmm...

The original call was roughly half the drivers out there are above average...

I am pointing out that half would struggle to make average and roughly half would be piss poor... the remaining 37 or so people on our roads, give or take a few extra KB members who rate themselves :zzzz:as well, would be above average or really good....

I think I made it clear now?:yes:

[Out-law]

Sanx

You Laught at me when I asked A question about how to put a radar detector on a 250cc... well I dont wanna get a speeding ticket like a looser like you !

Get a radar detector and stop being Cry baby... made A big deal of $80... GROW UP !

[swbarnett]

made A big deal of $80... GROW UP !
I don't believe that the big deal was in regards to the ammount of the fine. His point was that he was charged under a law supossedly designed to preserve public safety for an act that in no way reduces it.

[Sanx]

Sanx

You Laught at me when I asked A question about how to put a radar detector on a 250cc... well I dont wanna get a speeding ticket like a looser like you !

Get a radar detector and stop being Cry baby... made A big deal of $80... GROW UP !

Yeah, you da man.

[peasea]

I don't believe that the big deal was in regards to the ammount of the fine. His point was that he was charged under a law supossedly designed to preserve public safety for an act that in no way reduces it.

Good point. Such insight.

[boomer]

Sanx

You Laught at me when I asked A question about how to put a radar detector on a 250cc... well I dont wanna get a speeding ticket like a looser like you !

Get a radar detector and stop being Cry baby... made A big deal of $80... GROW UP !


s'ok mate.. he rides a honduh; he should be glad he made the bike go those speeds


go the mighty toooo fiddy!