I'm a grave menace to society [Archive]

Sanx

24th July 2007, 00:49

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.

scumdog

24th July 2007, 00:56

Panther

24th July 2007, 01:16

Runners!!
One time some coon did one with a chainsaw in his left arm.
:sunny::sunny:

Mekk

24th July 2007, 03:44

Seems to me like you're angry with the wrong group. The politicians set the rules, the cops only enforce them. Go and bomb parliament, that'd be way cooler.

sAsLEX

24th July 2007, 04:24

Seems to me like you're angry with the wrong group. The politicians set the rules, the cops only enforce them. Go and bomb parliament, that'd be way cooler.

Ah but who decides what to target?

Burglary? Assault? Youth Gangs? Drugs?

or the nice and easy one, Speed on the motorway?

Mekk

24th July 2007, 06:24

Ah but who decides what to target?

Burglary? Assault? Youth Gangs? Drugs?

or the nice and easy one, Speed on the motorway?

I'm not a cop but I think there'd be some sort of system in place with regards to what gets tackled and by whom. I can't imagine sitting on the side of the road monitoring vehicles would be very much fun at all, certainly not something you'd do by choice.

I doubt very much people are getting tickets because it's easier to do that than bust a youth gang.

sAsLEX

24th July 2007, 07:00

I doubt very much people are getting tickets because it's easier to do that than bust a youth gang.

It makes $$ solving general crime does not.

It is an easy statistic to help in the combating of the road toll...

boomer

24th July 2007, 07:16

I'm not a cop but I think there'd be some sort of system in place with regards to what gets tackled and by whom. I can't imagine sitting on the side of the road monitoring vehicles would be very much fun at all, certainly not something you'd do by choice.

I doubt very much people are getting tickets because it's easier to do that than bust a youth gang.

lets face it... the coppers aren't very bright. everything else goes in the 'uhhh :scratch: too hard basket'. this way the simpson like brain of the rozza thinks hes starsky or hutch

Grub

24th July 2007, 08:13

It makes $$ solving general crime does not.

And the $$ pay the Policemen and the Policemen catch bad guys (like the ones that stole Frosty's kids bikes!)

I wish people would just get off the "it's only revenue gathering" bandwagon.
- Speed is the major factor in the road toll
- Therefore they police speed

Losers blame someone else for their mistakes, never themselves.

sAsLEX

24th July 2007, 08:15

Albino

24th July 2007, 08:16

I wish people would just get off the "it's only revenue gathering" bandwagon.
- Speed is the major factor in the road toll
- Therefore they police speed

I really do disagree. Poor driving skill is the number one factor in the road toll.

Speed is the easiest to prove and enforce.

kiwifruit

24th July 2007, 08:32

Runners!!
One time some coon did one with a chainsaw in his left arm.
:sunny::sunny:

:nono: :nono:
NAUGHTY NAUGHTY!
those cop cars are fast too, when i was young and stupid(er) i was chasing a rx3 on my gsxr250 (whoa!), i was flat out laying on the tank pulling an indicated 190km/h when a mufti commodore pulled up beside me, passenger waved finger then pulled away hard after the rx3 (which was also giving me the learn). they must have gone at least 200, now i dunno about you but theres no way i'll go 200 or more on public roads just to evade mr plod :shit: no

Sanx, you're fookin menace, i hope you have learnt your lesson, let me know if you want a speed limiter made up for your bike..

Grub

24th July 2007, 08:33

I really do disagree.

There is of course an element of truth in that but your disagreement would fly in the face of all the accident research from here and the rest of the world if it were wholly true.

- Driving performance is generally ok at legal speeds buit any higher, people loose it.
- Someone with marginal skills drinks and then speeds = big mess

So sure there's other factors but the deaths come from the speed of impacts, not from people bumping into each other and powerpoles at 50kph

sAsLEX

24th July 2007, 08:37

There is of course an element of truth in that but your disagreement would fly in the face of all the accident research from here and the rest of the world if it were wholly true.

- Driving performance is generally ok at legal speeds buit any higher, people loose it.
- Someone with marginal skills drinks and then speeds = big mess

Explain why then:

1. Raising the speed limit in the states resulted in a drop in accidents
2. Why there are few fatalities on the Autobahn
3. Why here in the UK 100MPH on the motorway is the norm

Who chose 100kmh? A nice round number but was there any study done to find out if this was the safest speed? I mean the newer vehicles in the fleet can do that easily, your old 1970s car is really struggling with its drum brakes and little wheel but thats when they set the limit?!

MSTRS

24th July 2007, 08:48

There is of course an element of truth in that but your disagreement would fly in the face of all the accident research from here and the rest of the world if it were wholly true.

- Driving performance is generally ok at legal speeds buit any higher, people loose it.
- Someone with marginal skills drinks and then speeds = big mess

So sure there's other factors but the deaths come from the speed of impacts, not from people bumping into each other and powerpoles at 50kph

You've been brainwashed by the spurious stats. Any speed is 'speeding' if the conditions are inappropriate for that speed. But the stats just say 'speed was a major factor'. Same as alcohol is a 'factor' if it was present - even if the driver had not had any. Stupidity is probably THE major factor, but that is not a category for the statisticians.

Grahameeboy

24th July 2007, 08:52

You are right Sir Alex

NZ has one of the lowest average speeds in the world yet is probably ranked 2nd highest in the Fatals per Head of Population in the world.

Police Accident Investigators rank speed, from memory, as 3rd or 4th on the list, not 1st. I think tiredness is the main culprit.

Sanz if you were riding your blade which has a digital readout, you may have been doing 112kph at time of lock and then when you saw the cop you looked down and saw 105kph.

Agree it was not excessive speed but that's life eh.

Albino

24th July 2007, 08:53

I was very recently following a woman on SH2 who lost control on a bend at 100kph. She crossed the centre line twice before ending up on the other side of the road. God knows how she missed all the oncoming traffic (2 lanes each way), but if she hadn’t I am certain there would have been a few people dead, and it’s possible I may have been one of them.

If this woman wasn’t in front of me I would have been going 120kph. Who was the biggest danger on the road that day – the speeder or the poor driver?

Statistics are not research. 100kph is not a magic number at which driving becomes safe. But this is what we are telling drivers - doesn't matter as long as you are not speeding.

Train crossings: low speed + stupid driving = death.

scumdog

24th July 2007, 08:59

Explain why then:

1. Raising the speed limit in the states resulted in a drop in accidents
2. Why there are few fatalities on the Autobahn
3. Why here in the UK 100MPH on the motorway is the norm

Who chose 100kmh? A nice round number but was there any study done to find out if this was the safest speed? I mean the newer vehicles in the fleet can do that easily, your old 1970s car is really struggling with its drum brakes and little wheel but thats when they set the limit?!

When we get freeways with two lanes each way and a large median strip for our main intercity routes and 4 lanes in town then yeah, maybe then our speed limit might go up - but even then the 'drop in accidents' did not happen on smaller two lane roads.

And same goes for the autobahn, roll on the day NZ gets one from Kaitaia to Bluff 'cos then the speed limit will go up

I guess we can dream - roads like that with a population of 4 million+ ? "I don't think so Tim".

BTW Say speed limit get bumped up to 120kph - will you NEVER exceed it??
Pffft!

scumdog

24th July 2007, 09:02

lets face it... the coppers aren't very bright. everything else goes in the 'uhhh :scratch: too hard basket'. this way the simpson like brain of the rozza thinks hes starsky or hutch

Sooo, you don't even enough smarts to become a cop eh?

Bad luck!!

Albino

24th July 2007, 09:05

Sooo, you don't even enough smarts to become a cop eh?

I'm not normally one to care about spelling or grammar, but :killingme

sAsLEX

24th July 2007, 09:09

When we get freeways with two lanes each way and a large median strip for our main intercity routes a

I guess we can dream - roads like that with a population of 4 million+ ? "I don't think so Tim".

Kinda like the new Waikato expressway which on opening had cops doing speed checks hiding on the overpasses and at the end of it?

Pull the other one. I know you are just doing your job, but the direction from above sucks.

Hey MR or FF remember the cop, was he waving at you? :motu::motu:

idb

24th July 2007, 09:11

Harden up ya big woose!:nya:

Ferks sake, getting your knickers in a twist over a $80 ticket, sheesh!

Like it or lump it, the speed limit IS 100kph - and I doubt your speedo is accurate enough to back up you were only doing 105kph.

BTW, If you were riding along thinking you were 'only' doing an indicated 110kph imagine what you would really be doing??

You're right, it is 100kmh but what pisses people off is that sometimes it just doesn't matter if it's being exceeded.
On the other hand a large portion of the driving public in this country has no idea on how to judge what is an appropriate speed.

My eyes were really opened in Europe.
In the two months I spent travelling around I only saw one car pulled over.....and I don't know what that was for.
I saw bugger all traffic cops but people seemed to drive at whatever speeds they wanted.

But, and here's the other side of the coin, drivers moved aside when you filtered or came up behind them in their lane, they slowed down when it rained or traffic was heavy and they indicated.
There's so much traffic and often so little road marking that consideration and courtesy is the only way the traffic system could work.

I don't know why NZ drivers can't be more like that, is it something in our national psyche, is it our roads, is it because we get treated like children by the enforcement agencies, lack of breast feeding?

tide

24th July 2007, 09:14

Explain why then:

1. Raising the speed limit in the states resulted in a drop in accidents
2. Why there are few fatalities on the Autobahn
3. Why here in the UK 100MPH on the motorway is the norm

Who chose 100kmh? A nice round number but was there any study done to find out if this was the safest speed? I mean the newer vehicles in the fleet can do that easily, your old 1970s car is really struggling with its drum brakes and little wheel but thats when they set the limit?!

mmm

1. can't answer that one.
2. have you seen the infrastructure that goes into the German autobahn the road surface is better than some race tracks... and not all of it is open speed by the way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobahn makes for an interesting read.
3. better road conditions...

Agreed... 100kph is slow, but be honest the road surface and conditions in NZ are crap...

sAsLEX

24th July 2007, 09:15

3. better road conditions...

Agreed... 100kph is slow, but be honest the road surface and conditions in NZ are crap...

Maybe the M roads. On to an A or B road?! They suck as much as our goat tracks, its just that they drive better over here, tend to keep a newer fleet.

Edbear

24th July 2007, 09:18

... Any speed is 'speeding' if the conditions are inappropriate for that speed. ...Stupidity is probably THE major factor, but that is not a category for the statisticians.

Perzackly! Up this way, driving the roads of Rodney District, outright speed is never a problem as too many drivers seem incapable of reaching the open road limit! Many travel at 15-20km/h under the speed limit yet do not know how to turn a corner and brake and slow for corners that would be perfectly safe at 20-30km/h above the limit.

These drivers weave over the road, and simply are incompetent! Add the many who are physically behind the wheel but their mind is anywhere but - they are engaged in animated conversation either with their passengers or on their cellphones, talking or texting while weaving across the centre line... All at speeds around 80km/h!

Until four weeks ago when I quit my job, I was on the roads daily, so saw the whole cross-section of society on all types of roads in all types of conditions. It was rare to see a speeding driver.

Okay, the limit is 100km/h, one hasn't got a leg to stand on if one is exceeding the limit and gets pinged. Sure, my car and bike are more than capable of cruising at speeds well above, and my experience and driving record show that I am more than capable of driving and riding at those speeds, however, it is plain that the majority, (well, seems like the majority), of other road users are unsafe at any speed and I wonder that the road toll is actually as low as it is! Therefore I accept the limit and generally stick to, or close to, it. I don't have a radar detector and don't feel the need for one.

I do wish there was some way for the HP to be able to target and ticket incompetence. Much harder to spot than speeding, though.

scumdog

24th July 2007, 09:18

I don't know why NZ drivers can't be more like that, is it something in our national psyche, is it our roads, is it because we get treated like children by the enforcement agencies, lack of breast feeding?

When the Govt allows licences to be handed out like Toffee-pops (and to those as young as 15) and does not have serious consequences for bad driving we are going to have to put up with the standard of driving we have in NZ.
That and the attitude that people have that having a licence is a 'right' and they 'own' the section of road they happen to be on and the 'me first' attitude is what is the problem.

How to change it?

Pffft! Would be a wise man to give a workable answer - and it's unlikley to be anybody on KB.

idb

24th July 2007, 09:18

Agreed... 100kph is slow, but be honest the road surface and conditions in NZ are crap...

So folk should drive accordingly....but often they dont.

Edbear

24th July 2007, 09:25

Grahameeboy

24th July 2007, 09:27

When the Govt allows licences to be handed out like Toffee-pops (and to those as young as 15) and does not have serious consequences for bad driving we are going to have to put up with the standard of driving we have in NZ.
That and the attitude that people have that having a licence is a 'right' and they 'own' the section of road they happen to be on and the 'me first' attitude is what is the problem.

How to change it?

Pffft! Would be a wise man to give a workable answer - and it's unlikley to be anybody on KB.

Agree with you SD........sadly it is a Kiwiattitude on the road. That 'Carefree' attitude becomes a menace on the roads because they actually don't care if the cut someone up / pull out in front of someone etc.......well "she'll be right" wont she.

I remember years ago a guy did a bad u-turn in front of me...I just tooted my horn...head out of window "get a life, it's a Sunday"....says it all eh.

Kiwi's actually need to 'Soften up' not 'Hardenup' when it comes to attitude.:yes::dodge:

Toaster

24th July 2007, 09:28

Sanx

24th July 2007, 09:35

I was in the other half's cage - not on the Blade, last night.

Ferks sake, getting your knickers in a twist over a $80 ticket, sheesh! Like it or lump it, the speed limit IS 100kph - and I doubt your speedo is accurate enough to back up you were only doing 105kph. BTW, If you were riding along thinking you were 'only' doing an indicated 110kph imagine what you would really be doing??

The point is that my actions did not pose the slightest bit of harm to anyone. It might have been faster than the ridiculously low legal limit, but it was not too fast for the conditions.

And, should I have been travelling along at an indicated 110, it still would have been absolutely safe.

Seems to me like you're angry with the wrong group. The politicians set the rules, the cops only enforce them. Go and bomb parliament, that'd be way cooler.

Cops have powers of discretion, and the cops choose to, for instance, place speed traps on motorways late at night and ticket people fractionally over the limit. It was unnecessary and counter-productive.

And the $$ pay the Policemen and the Policemen catch bad guys (like the ones that stole Frosty's kids bikes!)

Wrong. The $s go into the government's consolidated fund, along with fuel taxes and the like. This large pool of money is used for all sorts of things, including road upgrades and repair (don't laugh), treaty settlements, funding the America's cup challenge and paying for a full time minder for Trevor Mallard to stop him putting his feet in his mouth. Again.

I wish people would just get off the "it's only revenue gathering" bandwagon.
- Speed is the major factor in the road toll
- Therefore they police speed

Absolute unmitigated garbage. Speed is a minor factor in the road toll, in whatever country you care to look at. Even the LTSA has deliberately muddied the waters by, using two definitions of the word 'speeding', when calculating its statistics. The first, "speed in excess of what's safe for the conditions", is inherently dangerous. The second, "speed in excess of the posted limit", is rarely so. If they were to break down their accident statistics further, I'd hazard a guess that (like many other countries) accidents that had "speed in excess of the posted limit" as the causal factor would feature pretty low on the list.

For reference, in the UK's last major study of accident causes, "speed in excess of the posted limit" was the root cause of just 3% of accidents. other causes that rated higher included tailgating, not paying attention, tiredness, alcohol, drug impairment, failing to observe, failing to give way and driving whilst in a clown suit. OK, maybe not the last one.

There is of course an element of truth in that but your disagreement would fly in the face of all the accident research from here and the rest of the world if it were wholly true.

Care to state any such research?

- Driving performance is generally ok at legal speeds buit any higher, people loose it.
- Someone with marginal skills drinks and then speeds = big mess

So, in the second case, is the causal factor of the accident alcohol or speed? As for the first example; sorry, but you're talking unmitigated nonsense. Legal speed means a speed under the posted limit. As the posted limit changes, it'd disingenuous to suggest that someones ability to control a car changes according to the speed limit.[/quote]

Sanx, you're fookin menace, i hope you have learnt your lesson

Absolutely.

let me know if you want a speed limiter made up for your bike

Sounds good. Can I have it fitted at the same time as my lobotomy?

Kinda like the new Waikato expressway which on opening had cops doing speed checks hiding on the overpasses and at the end of it?

Or, on a recent trip back from Paihia (again, in the cage), the cops sitting at the end of virtually every bloody overtaking lane; the only places you could get past the smoke-belching logging trucks that had been doing 75kph for the past 45 kms.

MSTRS

24th July 2007, 09:36

...am glad it wasn't them having to pick you up off the road after a crash. We want you around a lot longer mate.

Agreed in general. But specifically, why would he be risking a crash at 112kph on the NW 3 lane at midnight, almost on an empty road?

scumdog

24th July 2007, 09:42

So in summation, how fast do you believe you should be allowed to get to after which you would happily accept a speeding ticket?

Albino

24th July 2007, 09:52

So in summation, how fast do you believe you should be allowed to get to after which you would happily accept a speeding ticket?

So in summation do you believe that the current focus on speed will reduce the road toll to acceptable limits?

MSTRS

24th July 2007, 09:54

So in summation, how fast do you believe you should be allowed to get to after which you would happily accept a speeding ticket?

Now there's an opening....

scumdog

24th July 2007, 09:58

So in summation do you believe that the current focus on speed will reduce the road toll to acceptable limits?

What's this shit of answering a question with another question?

Are you a lawyer or (shudder) a politician or something??

Haven't written out a speeding ticket for two weeks or more now so I'm not sure where 'the current focus' bit comes from - well not down here, that's for sure.

Toaster

24th July 2007, 09:59

Sanx

24th July 2007, 10:05

So in summation, how fast do you believe you should be allowed to get to after which you would happily accept a speeding ticket?

A speed unsuitable for the conditions. If that's 10kph under the limit (doing 90kph in fog, for instance), then so be it. Road policing should be about road safety; not about blindly enforcing arbitrary limits.

So in summation do you believe that the current focus on speed will reduce the road toll to acceptable limits?

Exactly. It won't. In fact, there's evidence to suggest that the accident (not fatality) injury rate has increased, year on year, since 1997 - a total rise of over 20%. The LTSA's figures dispute this, but ACC's (http://www.acc.co.nz/about-acc/acc-injury-statistics-2006/SS_WIM2_062766) give a different picture.

In fact, the current focus on speed may well be counterproductive for a number of reasons, but chief amongst them is driver attitude. For far too long, there's been an concerted effort to convince the public that any speed above the posted limit is dangerous. This of course leads to the impression that any speed under the posted limit is safe; something so far from the truth it's not funny.

The Police did come up with their "It's not a target. Drive to the conditions." scheme, but failed to follow it through to its logical conclusion; showing some leeway to drivers exceeding the limit where safe to do so. Trying to convince people that there's a blanket cut off of safe speed at whatever arbitrary limit has been imposed has failed, and with good reason - it's absolute bollocks.

scumdog

24th July 2007, 10:11

A speed unsuitable for the conditions. If that's 10kph under the limit (doing 90kph in fog, for instance), then so be it. Road policing should be about road safety; not about blindly enforcing arbitrary limits.

Hah!
Tried that.
Got the reply "But I wasn't breaking the speed limit, what's your problem?"

BTW Also got a guy doing 80kph in thick fog.

As he drove through the centre of town - his 'excuse'? - "It is that foggy I never noticed I was in the 50kph area or in town".

THAT is the kind of people we 'allow' on the roads in NZ.

idb

24th July 2007, 10:18

Hah!
Tried that.
Got the reply "But I wasn't breaking the speed limit, what's your problem?"

BTW Also got a guy doing 80kph in thick fog.

As he drove through the centre of town - his 'excuse'? - "It is that foggy I never noticed I was in the 50kph area or in town".

THAT is the kind of people we 'allow' on the roads in NZ.

The breathalyser machine that can be attached to a car's ignition might be supplemented with a moronalyser that asks some simple questions to assess the driver's suitability to be on the road...........

Sanx

24th July 2007, 10:23

Hah!
Tried that.
Got the reply "But I wasn't breaking the speed limit, what's your problem?"

And therein lies the problem. Spend long enough telling everyone that doing 101kph makes you a dangerous criminal and people begin to assume that 'cos they're under the limit, they're driving safely.

BTW Also got a guy doing 80kph in thick fog.

As he drove through the centre of town - his 'excuse'? - "It is that foggy I never noticed I was in the 50kph area or in town".

THAT is the kind of people we 'allow' on the roads in NZ.

Good excuse. Remind me to try it some time...

I've always thought an IQ test and a handling test should be part of the licensing scheme. Questions like:

You're on a motorway with a 100 kph speed limit. You run into fog limiting your visibility. What speed should you slow down to:

90kph.
80kph.
70kph.
60kph.
50kph.
40kph.
Whatever speed is appropriate for the visibility.
Stop completely.Any answer other than number 7 is an instant fail, with an automatic ban on resitting the licence within six months. And the handling test? Easy. Here's a (for instance) BDA Escort. Here's a racetrack. Now get round in under 1m05s.

Edbear

24th July 2007, 10:34

And the handling test? Easy. Here's a (for instance) BDA Escort. Here's a racetrack. Now get round in under 1m05s.

Now there's the best idea I've heard! May I please have a go..?:yes:

scumdog

24th July 2007, 10:34

And therein lies the problem. Spend long enough telling everyone that doing 101kph makes you a dangerous criminal and people begin to assume that 'cos they're under the limit, they're driving safely.

And the handling test? Easy. Here's a (for instance) BDA Escort. Here's a racetrack. Now get round in under 1m05s.

The top quotation shows the level of mentality we have to contend with in NZ.

The second one? WHO is going to teach the handling? and where are all the suitable racetracks? more importantly who the hell has a spare 10 or 20 BDA Escorts in NZ??????????

(And a quick lap time does not necessarily a good driver make.)

MSTRS

24th July 2007, 10:37

Hah!
Tried that.
Got the reply "But I wasn't breaking the speed limit, what's your problem?"

BTW Also got a guy doing 80kph in thick fog.

As he drove through the centre of town - his 'excuse'? - "It is that foggy I never noticed I was in the 50kph area or in town".

THAT is the kind of people we 'allow' on the roads in NZ.

So what did you do him for? Excessive reading on the moronometer?

idb

24th July 2007, 10:38

The top quotation shows the level of mentality we have to contend with in NZ.

The second one? WHO is going to teach the handling? and where are all the suitable racetracks? more importantly who the hell has a spare 10 or 20 BDA Escorts in NZ??????????

(And a quick lap time does not necessarily a good driver make.)

Use the moronalyser!!!!

scumdog

24th July 2007, 10:38

So what did you do him for? Excessive reading on the moronometer?

Dangerous driving.

RantyDave

24th July 2007, 10:40

When the Govt allows licences to be handed out like Toffee-pops (and to those as young as 15)
This is definitely a problem and something needs to be done. I don't understand why bikers are limited to a 250 for a year (or two) yet it seems OK for a 16 year old to have a 300Hp cage. I say raise the driving age to 18 except scooters, bikes, quads and other farm machinery.

Dave

Edbear

24th July 2007, 10:41

who the hell has a spare 10 or 20 BDA Escorts in NZ??????????

SHudder to think what they're worth these days, too...!

Just had a thought! Those who remember following the BDA's on the rally circuit are showing their age...:gob:

I bet many on this forum wouldn't know what a BDA Escort was! Mention Skyline or Cefiro or 180/200SX and most would know immediately...:yes:

Grahameeboy

24th July 2007, 10:43

What's this shit of answering a question with another question?

Are you a lawyer or (shudder) a politician or something??

Haven't written out a speeding ticket for two weeks or more now so I'm not sure where 'the current focus' bit comes from - well not down here, that's for sure.

To be fair you have not answered the question though. But guess indirectly if you are saying you have not issued a ticket in two weeks or more that you side with the view that speeding is not a major factor in accidents??

MSTRS

24th July 2007, 10:45

Dangerous driving.

Good call.

MSTRS

24th July 2007, 10:48

To be fair you have not answered the question though. But guess indirectly if you are saying you have not issued a ticket in two weeks or more that you side with the view that speeding is not a major factor in accidents??

According to SD, he is a 'sensible' cop.
But it may be that Southlanders go about their roads in fear of his reputation/zealous ticketing of any speed infringement and therefore seldom cross that line....:innocent:

scumdog

24th July 2007, 10:48

To be fair you have not answered the question though. But guess indirectly if you are saying you have not issued a ticket in two weeks or more that you side with the view that speeding is not a major factor in accidents??

OK, speed is a factor.
Like having a breath alcohol level of over 400. (It seems like a shitload of Aucklanders had that last weekend judging by the news.)

No tickets of any sort - too short handed, doing 'real' Police work that all the whingers seem to think gets overlooked.

Swoop

24th July 2007, 10:48

Grahameeboy

24th July 2007, 10:49

Agreed, they teach kids to pass the test, but they forget to actually teach them to drive properly and defensively.

But to be honest driving is hardly difficult and driving is basically commonsense.

I cannot see the rear bumper - I am following too close
The Traffic Lights show Amber - I should consider stopping
I want to emerge from an interesection - Is it safe to pull in front of traffic.
Speed of vehicle - Are they passing static objects quickly
I am 3 cars back following a slow vehicle and want to pass - Maybe I should wait for cars in front of me to pass 1st as they may pull out as I overtake.
etc.

Or I will just blame Asian drivers...........cause that is easy isn't it?

NordieBoy

24th July 2007, 10:50

SHudder to think what they're worth these days, too...!

Just had a thought! Those who remember following the BDA's on the rally circuit are showing their age...:gob:

They were on TV just the other week.
Still out there racing and... cornering... :buggerd::rockon:

scumdog

24th July 2007, 10:50

Use the moronalyser!!!!

Ah, you modern hi-tech types!

I always use a stupidometer.:yes:

NordieBoy

24th July 2007, 10:51

I really do disagree. Poor driving skill is the number one factor in the road toll.

Speed is the easiest to prove and enforce.

I would have thought that crashes would be the #1.
Ban crashing.
Problem solved.
Next...

scumdog

24th July 2007, 10:52

But to be honest driving is hardly difficult and driving is basically commonsense.

Ah, therein lies the flaw in your argument - common sense ain't common.

jonbuoy

24th July 2007, 10:53

112 on an empty road -shooting fish in a barrel. It pisses people off because in those circumstances its not dangerous - I see more dangerous driving every day at low speeds in rush hour. 100KPH is the legal limit - but why do they have to be so anal about it? Its unbelievable that you can get ticketed for that but not jabbering distractedly on your cellphone at 99KMH. Surely its their discretion if they ticket you or not.

Tailgaiting, not reading the road not indicating, running red lights is way more dangerous. How about we see some unmarked cop cars at those intersections where the red light runners are prevelant? Easy money for them, increase road safety and gets brownie points with the public.

Grahameeboy

24th July 2007, 10:54

OK, speed is a factor.
Like having a breath alcohol level of over 400. (It seems like a shitload of Aucklanders had that last weekend judging by the news.)

No tickets of any sort - too short handed, doing 'real' Police work that all the whingers seem to think gets overlooked.

Cool...

Speeding is a factor in 33% of accidents - The 67% were not moving at time

Alcohol is a factor in 33% of accidents - The rest were sober

Well cars get along by velocity so speed will always be a factor.

In the UK the Police accept that real 'speed' related accidents only amount to 4% of accidents. They often include the following in stats:

- I could not stop because I was going to fast - Not concentrating
- I pulled out but the other car was going to fast - Not looking properly

MSTRS

24th July 2007, 10:55

scumdog

24th July 2007, 10:57

10500 stopped. Approx 150 over the limit. = .015% haven't got the message. Not as big a number as 'shitloads'....but yes, still .015% too many. At least a few of those nasty speeders would have been 'safe' while this was going on:innocent:

The drunk speeders????

MSTRS

24th July 2007, 10:59

The drunk speeders????

Only if they didn't go through the checkpoint

Grahameeboy

24th July 2007, 11:00

Ah, therein lies the flaw in your argument - common sense ain't common.

Well I was actually making a subtle point along your lines..........I actually think that this is a flaw in Kiwi Culture when it comes to driving.

This a.m. I stoped to fuel up. There was this car...it was dark, no way he could see out cause he was too lazy to clear the windows....I pointed this out to him....how can you see properly out of your back window..response "Well I have never been rear ended"......."I use my mirrors".....door mirrors had not been cleared either....."anyway, I am in a hurry"

No hope.........

Toaster

24th July 2007, 11:00

Agreed in general. But specifically, why would he be risking a crash at 112kph on the NW 3 lane at midnight, almost on an empty road?

Mate, I hear what you are saying.... but driving or riding is risking a crash any time of day or night. The issue is how fast do you want to be going when you crash.

jrandom

24th July 2007, 11:02

i dunno about you but theres no way i'll go 200 or more on public roads just to evade mr plod :shit:

Hell no. That would be irresponsible. And naughty and inconsiderate and really rather dodgy. Possibly even dangerous. I'm sure anyone witnessing such behaviour would be suitably horrified.

let me know if you want a speed limiter made up for your bike..

I think I need one of those.

That 62mph limiter working out well for you then?

Personally, I'm against autobahns. I think all roads should be built as a continuous series of tight S-bends. That'd slow me down plenty...

<img src="http://www.mybrandsinc.com/ShopOnline/Images/WB/155_3270098503.JPG" />

Grahameeboy

24th July 2007, 11:03

MSTRS

24th July 2007, 11:10

Mate, I hear what you are saying.... but driving or riding is risking a crash any time of day or night. The issue is how fast do you want to be going when you crash.

What do you mean 'when' ?? Who said it is inevitable? In the circumstances described, he could have been 'off the clock' and still not have been at much greater risk.
I'm not promoting no limits but getting a ticket for what he was doing has only created a/nother person with an ax to grind

I don't know about no common sense but 150/10500 x 100 - 1.43% not 0.015% you dimbo............:dodge::bye:
Ummmm....bloody calculator. Must need it's battery changing.

Sanx

24th July 2007, 11:14

The top quotation shows the level of mentality we have to contend with in NZ.

Are you saying that I'm mental, or the people I'm describing are mental?

The second one? WHO is going to teach the handling? and where are all the suitable racetracks? more importantly who the hell has a spare 10 or 20 BDA Escorts in NZ?

The choice of car was a little bit of a pisstake, but the principle was something that doesn't have any driver aids, other than good handling and responsive-ness. Rip the power-steering and ABS out of a Toyota Starlet, and you'd have the same idea. As for teaching the handling? I'm not suggesting people have to go round in a race qualifying time; but going round fast enough to get the tyres squealing a bit shows they're not afraid of a car and they know how to drive at speed.

(And a quick lap time does not necessarily a good driver make.)

But it's a better test than the learning-by-rote of the road code the current system seems to focus on.

Dangerous driving.

Nice one.

SHudder to think what they're worth these days, too...! Just had a thought! Those who remember following the BDA's on the rally circuit are showing their age...

I'm not that bloody old! I was a little kid when the BDA Escort was superceded by the first of the Audi Quattros. Still great to see them out racing though.

OK, speed is a factor.

A small one.

No tickets of any sort - too short handed, doing 'real' Police work that all the whingers seem to think gets overlooked.

Oh, so you were the regular cop on duty - I'd wondered who'd got "catching criminals" duty :dodge:

Or I will just blame Asian drivers...........cause that is easy isn't it?

Easy, and often accurate. Before I came to NZ, I never thought there'd be a particular ethnic group whose collective ability behind the wheel would mark them out for attention. Only when I got to Dorkland did I see for myself how bad many of them actually are. Obviously, some are on foreign licences and some will have bought them off a friendly asian tester (proven, not slander). And people of Asian origin born and bred in NZ don't seem to demonstrate a complete lack of a ability, so it's little to do with ethnicity, and more training (or lack thereof) in the home countries.

They were on TV just the other week.
Still out there racing and... cornering...

Great, wasn't it.

Ban crashing.
Problem solved.
Next...

In fact, almost all accidents happened on roads. Therefore, we should ban roads.

Toaster

24th July 2007, 11:15

But to be honest driving is hardly difficult and driving is basically commonsense.

I agree... but isn't it amusing how so many people manage to crash or bin themselves and take others with them when it is so easy to drive.

Grahameeboy

24th July 2007, 11:20

Easy, and often accurate. Before I came to NZ, I never thought there'd be a particular ethnic group whose collective ability behind the wheel would mark them out for attention. Only when I got to Dorkland did I see for myself how bad many of them actually are. Obviously, some are on foreign licences and some will have bought them off a friendly asian tester (proven, not slander). And people of Asian origin born and bred in NZ don't seem to demonstrate a complete lack of a ability, so it's little to do with ethnicity, and more training (or lack thereof) in the home countries.

I was making the point that Kiwi's throw rocks at the Asian drivers to cover their arses..........

I still maintain that Kiwi drivers are worse than Asian drivers. For 2 simple reasons;

- Because they are
- And at least Asian / New Migrants have an excuse.

Geeze, when I was in Kenya the drivers were better and you should see there roads....or lack of.

Grahameeboy

24th July 2007, 11:26

Ummmm....bloody calculator. Must need it's battery changing.

Batteries for the calculator you mean!!

Sanx

24th July 2007, 11:28

I still maintain that Kiwi drivers are worse than Asian drivers. For 2 simple reasons;

- Because they are
- And at least Asian / New Migrants have an excuse.

Based upon my highly scientific research (i.e. what I've seen and noticed):

They're not
No they don't. Auckland is not Bangkok. Don't drive like it is. Incidentally, China has something like 0.5% of the world's cars but 25% of the world's road toll.

Jantar

24th July 2007, 11:43

Hah!
Tried that.
Got the reply "But I wasn't breaking the speed limit, what's your problem?"

SD, I've got to agree with the other comments made in relation to this idiot. By emphasising the supposed dangers of exceeding the posted speed limit, rather than recognising what is or isn't a safe speed for the road and traffic conditions, the anti speed campaign is deluding people into thinking that they are safe when they are under the limit. But it also doesn't allow them to learn when it is safe to exceed that same abitary limit.

Here is an interestin snippet: http://www.safeas.govt.nz/smf/index.php?topic=568.0

New York Times
Safe at Any Speed
With higher speed limits, our highways have been getting safer.

Friday, July 7, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT.

....Of the 31 states that have raised their speed limits to more than 70
mph, 29 saw a decline in the death and injury rate and only two--the
Dakotas--have seen fatalities increase. Two studies, by the National
Motorists Association and by the Cato Institute, have compared crash
data in states that raised their speed limits with those that didn't
and found no increase in deaths in the higher speed states.....

Grahameeboy

24th July 2007, 11:47

Based upon my highly scientific research (i.e. what I've seen and noticed):

They're not We will just have to disagree
No they don't. Auckland is not Bangkok. Don't drive like it is. Incidentally, China has something like 0.5% of the world's cars but 25% of the world's

So they still have 660 million cars which is double the population of America which is slight larger than China so no wonder they have so many accidents.

America has approx 150 million cars so China has 4.4 times the number of cars than America so it doesn't take much to work out the car density in China.

China is 35 times larger than New Zealand. NZ in 2002 had 245,000 registered vehicles so x 35 gives a comparison figure of 8,575,000 vehicle so given the low traffic density of NZ we are not too hot.

I am not sure how a Kiwi driver would cope in China or for that matter in UK so I reckon that Asians do alright over here considering.

Scientific enough?

...........................

idb

24th July 2007, 11:55

SD, I've got to agree with the other comments made in relation to this idiot. By emphasising the supposed dangers of exceeding the posted speed limit, rather than recognising what is or isn't a safe speed for the road and traffic conditions, the anti speed campaign is deluding people into thinking that they are safe when they are under the limit. But it also doesn't allow them to learn when it is safe to exceed that same abitary limit.

Here is an interestin snippet: http://www.safeas.govt.nz/smf/index.php?topic=568.0

New York Times
Safe at Any Speed
With higher speed limits, our highways have been getting safer.

Friday, July 7, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT.

It's more dangerous ground I know but the same can be said of alcohol limits.
I know myself that the amount of booze I can drink before feeling the effects varies from sesh to sesh.
............and some days I'm stupider than others so the stupidometer could fail me on Wednesday when I would passed on Tuesday.

Sanx

24th July 2007, 12:22

So they still have 660 million cars which is double the population of America which is slight larger than China so no wonder they have so many accidents.

America has approx 150 million cars so China has 4.4 times the number of cars than America so it doesn't take much to work out the car density in China.

China is 35 times larger than New Zealand. NZ in 2002 had 245,000 registered vehicles so x 35 gives a comparison figure of 8,575,000 vehicle so given the low traffic density of NZ we are not too hot.

Good try, but...

China has (according to the figures (http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=2484) I can find (http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2006/s1676074.htm)) 8 cars per 1000 inhabitants; 9.6 million cars. The US has 940 cars per 1000 inhabitants; 283 million cars. So your figures aren't just wrong, they're out by more than an order of magnitude. Every year, there are between 110,000 and 250,000 people killed on China's roads, depending on whether you believe the Chinese authorities or independent organisations like the World Health organisation. Let's take an average: 180,000. The US, by comparison, has an annual road toll of around 40,000.

So, by whatever measure you use, the US's record is massively better than China's. One death per 7075 cars in the US, versus one death per 53 cars in China. One death per 7500 individuals in the US versus one death per 7343 individuals in China. The usual measure of road toll, though, is fatalities per million km driven. China doesn't publish this information, but I think it's safe to assume the number of kms driven in China is massively less than in the US.

Still not scientific, but - sorry to say - a crap load more so than your effort.

Grahameeboy

24th July 2007, 12:28

Good try, but...

China has (according to the figures (http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=2484) I can find (http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2006/s1676074.htm)) 8 cars per 1000 inhabitants; 9.6 million cars. The US has 940 cars per 1000 inhabitants; 283 million cars. So your figures aren't just wrong, they're out by more than an order of magnitude. Every year, there are between 110,000 and 250,000 people killed on China's roads, depending on whether you believe the Chinese authorities or independent organisations like the World Health organisation. Let's take an average: 180,000. The US, by comparison, has an annual road toll of around 40,000.

So, by whatever measure you use, the US's record is massively better than China's. One death per 7075 cars in the US, versus one death per 53 cars in China. One death per 7500 individuals in the US versus one death per 7343 individuals in China. The usual measure of road toll, though, is fatalities per million km driven. China doesn't publish this information, but I think it's safe to assume the number of kms driven in China is massively less than in the US.

Still not scientific, but - sorry to say - a crap load more so than your effort.

Well not according to the sites I looked at and I chose the top ones which must be current / most hits.

However, does not detract from the fact that NZ drivers are not good.

If number of cars increased by 67% in 4 years that is a huge jump and is bound to have a huge impact of accident rates with liberated Chinese taking to cars so still not a comparable comparison.............still they have enough spare labour to go back to using red flags!!

Still it proves one thing...we are not rocket scientists eh?

Grahameeboy

24th July 2007, 12:29

It's more dangerous ground I know but the same can be said of alcohol limits.
I know myself that the amount of booze I can drink before feeling the effects varies from sesh to sesh.
............and some days I'm stupider than others so the stupidometer could fail me on Wednesday when I would passed on Tuesday.

So at anyone time you are still stupid but to varying degrees then...

Edbear

24th July 2007, 12:38

So at anyone time you are still stupid but to varying degrees then...

:jerry::jerry::jerry::whistle:

Sanx

24th July 2007, 12:38

China is 35 times larger than New Zealand. NZ in 2002 had 245,000 registered vehicles so x 35 gives a comparison figure of 8,575,000 vehicle so given the low traffic density of NZ we are not too hot.

Incidentally, New Zealand has 3.9 million registered vehicles (http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/statistics/motor-vehicle-registration/2006/table-39.html), not 245,000; 951 vehicles per 1000 inhabitants, slightly higher than the USA. So to compare NZ against China's figures: one death per 9750 vehicles compared to one death per 53 vehicles in China. One death per 10250 inhabitants versus one death per 7343 in China.

Grahameeboy

24th July 2007, 12:43

Incidentally, New Zealand has 3.9 million registered vehicles (http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/statistics/motor-vehicle-registration/2006/table-39.html), not 245,000; 951 vehicles per 1000 inhabitants, slightly higher than the USA. So to compare NZ against China's figures: one death per 9750 vehicles compared to one death per 53 vehicles in China. One death per 10250 inhabitants versus one death per 7343 in China.

Bugger that was a top site I checked out too......but like all figures that shows that there is almost 1 car per person in NZ compared with less in China so interesting...

See my last post.......

SPman

24th July 2007, 13:08

And the $$ pay the Policemen and the Policemen catch bad guys (like the ones that stole Frosty's kids bikes!)

I wish people would just get off the "it's only revenue gathering" bandwagon.
- Speed is the major factor in the road toll
- Therefore they police speed

Losers blame someone else for their mistakes, never themselves. I guess you're right. If every vehicle in the country didn't actually move (ie, travel at a speed), then the only accidents would be trees falling on garages!

Mate, I hear what you are saying.... but driving or riding is risking a crash any time of day or night. The issue is how fast do you want to be going when you crash. So - by that statement you are assuming that you and everyone else on the road IS going to crash at some stage, irrespective of how fast they are going or what is happening, just by the fact of being on the road???? If that is your outlook, you'd be better off refusing to venture out on the road and going everywhere by train......self fulfilling prophecies we could well do without.......

swbarnett

24th July 2007, 13:51

The issue is how fast do you want to be going when you crash.

Preferably no more than 8km/h. That's the speed of impact at which bones start to break. Would this be a good speed limit?

MSTRS

24th July 2007, 13:53

Preferably no more than 8km/h. That's the speed of impact at which bones start to break. Would this be a good speed limit?

SHUT UP. You never know who might be listening.

scumdog

24th July 2007, 13:57

I'm not suggesting people have to go round in a race qualifying time; but going round fast enough to get the tyres squealing a bit shows they're not afraid of a car and they know how to drive at speed.

But it's a better test than the learning-by-rote of the road code the current system seems to focus on.

In fact, almost all accidents happened on roads. Therefore, we should ban roads.

Teaching a person to handle a car well is not the same as teaching them to drive well.:no:

And a counter to your last comment:

In fact almost all accidents (and most ain't 'accidents' BTW) happened with vehicles. Therefore, we should ban vehicles.:dodge:

Toaster

24th July 2007, 14:06

SHUT UP. You never know who might be listening.

Yeah i can hear the phones at LTNZ going hot now.

swbarnett

24th July 2007, 14:09

Yeah i can hear the phones at LTNZ going hot now.

Maybe I'm naive but I'd like to think even they would see how ludicrous an 8km/h speed limit would be. Maybe I'm just over estimating the level of brain activity in NZ government?

GIXser

24th July 2007, 14:10

Sanx me dear boy we need to chat. my favourite used to be going past them "one up" whilst giving them a one finger salute" then ya slow down a bit.. cos they think they can catch ya... then just bait the fuckers.. anyways . im older and wiser now.... i dont wheelie past them anymore, i just salute them...

idb

24th July 2007, 14:15

So at anyone time you are still stupid but to varying degrees then...

Damn!!
Rumbled!!!

scumdog

24th July 2007, 14:18

So at anyone time you are still stupid but to varying degrees then...

And then there's the times he's drunk as well - to varying degrees.:dodge:

avgas

24th July 2007, 14:44

Seems to me like you're angry with the wrong group. The politicians set the rules, the cops only enforce them. Go and bomb parliament, that'd be way cooler.
I will pay $100 out of my own pocket for this to happen, anyone else....its worth it

avgas

24th July 2007, 14:48

Geeze, when I was in Kenya the drivers were better and you should see there roads....or lack of.
Have to keep your window closed less someone tries to threaten you with human crap.
Ah Kenya, not quite as corrupt as NZ.

Scouse

24th July 2007, 15:10

Grahameeboy

24th July 2007, 15:16

Have to keep your window closed less someone tries to threaten you with human crap.
Ah Kenya, not quite as corrupt as NZ.

Actually NZ is the 2nd least corrupt nation in the world.

We managed to avoid problems in Kenya.....always kept window down....it was the whites in fancy cars that were targets.

Grub

24th July 2007, 15:54

Should I have been travelling along at an indicated 110, it still would have been absolutely safe.

Dude the speed limit is 100, not 110!

Cops have powers of discretion, and the cops choose to, for instance, place speed traps on motorways late at night and ticket people fractionally over the limit.

Dude the speed limit is 100, not 110!

Sanx

24th July 2007, 15:55

Your a Nob harden up and take your medicine if you dont like the rules crawl back into to hole that you came from

Someone forgot to take their happy juice this morning...

Sanx

24th July 2007, 15:57

Dude the speed limit is 100, not 110!

Speed limit does not define safe. Ever. It's the people that think that "I am under the speed limit, ergo, I'm driving safely" that are the real worries.

Dude the speed limit is 100, not 110!

Well, 10/100 is a fraction, ain't it?

kiwifruit

24th July 2007, 15:59

That 62mph limiter working out well for you then?

works a treat
bikes should come out with the from the factory :sunny:

Ewan Oozarmy

24th July 2007, 16:29

I'm with Sanx on this one. I'm from the UK and have ridden/driven in many countries with higher speed limits and far fewer road deaths per capita. Quite frankly the standard from driving in this country (which I otherwise love) is appalling.

Yes, I agree that speeding near schools, residential areas, etc, is a no no but on a large non-residential road, motorway, etc, late at night there should be some discretian shown.

I've been in NZ 8 months and already picked up a speeding ticket (58 in a 50 for f*cks sake late at night, empty non-resedential road - in my language that equates to 5mph over the limit!!) whereas never had one in over 20 years in the UK depsite being stopped on a number of occasions and merely recieving a "slapped wrist" due to police discretion.

I don't know about the laws here but in the UK you can ask to see that the laser/radar was callibrated recently (I think they need to be at least one a month or your ticket is revoked).

I'm sure the cops are just following orders but I'm also sure the whole "you were speeding - you get a ticket" thing is a revenue generator.

Yes, the speed limit is 50 or 100, but there must be room for police discretion.

MSTRS

24th July 2007, 16:35

.... but there must be room for police discretion.

There is. After their shift quota is filled.
Except Scummy, cos he's a good c**t. Apparently.

Sanx

24th July 2007, 16:44

I don't know about the laws here but in the UK you can ask to see that the laser/radar was callibrated recently (I think they need to be at least one a month or your ticket is revoked).

The device needs to be calibrated once per year. You can ask to see the calibration certificate. You can also demand to see the certificate stating the officer has been trained in the equipment's use. The device also needs to be checked at the start of each shift, usually by doing a drive through against a car with a calibrated speedo; which also needs to be checked at the start of each shift, by travelling a measured mile and timing the trip against a stopwatch. Which needs to be calibrated once per year.

If any one of those actions are not performed, or the Police cannot prove to the magistrate's satisfaction that they have not been performed, then goodbye ticket.

The exception to these rules is VASCAR, but this also needs to be calibrated / checked at the start of each shift though (as I never got caught by VASCAR) I'm not sure of the exact process.

Although relatively difficult to find out, the rules and processes the cops must follow are strictly laid out. A reasonably large proportion of the tickets stick simply because the driver does not know the Police rules and magistrates have a long history in completely ignoring them unles specifically brought to their attention.

In NZ though, it's hard to find out what the exact rules are; i suspect because there are precious few of them and therefore precious few opportunities for us drivers to exercise a loophole in the law to get off a ticket.

avgas

24th July 2007, 16:57

Actually NZ is the 2nd least corrupt nation in the world.

Depends on what side of the IRD/WINZ your on

Grahameeboy

24th July 2007, 17:50

Depends on what side of the IRD/WINZ your on

Knock knock...anyone there.....2nd least corrupt Country in the WORLD......LOOK at the POSITIVES......:yes:

Usarka

24th July 2007, 18:47

i heard HC was flicking the bead of the lady who did the survey. actually it's not a rumour I'm POSITVE. :lol:

Grahameeboy

24th July 2007, 18:53

Someone forgot to take their happy juice this morning...

Nah he ran out in 1978.......................

riffer

24th July 2007, 19:17

Okay, I've read through 8 pages of this now. A few pages back Scumdog asked for a sensible solution to the problem.

I'd like to offer one. And it's radical.

Completely remove ALL speeding offences and tickets thereof. Speed no longer becomes an infringement. However it becomes a crime. Hear me out here...

We get rid of all the speeding ticket offences. But the police have to come to the party somewhat. I want to see more use of careless and dangerous driving. Change the emphasis to speed appropriate to the conditions or actions inappropriate to the conditions. This carries a hell of a lot higher penalty than any speeding tickets could.

Yes, it would involve a lot more police discretion. And you would probably have to test a few cases in court in order to set appropriate precedents. But that's acceptable in my opinion.

And the end result I believe? You would get a huge amount of more respect for the Highway Patrol. Police who make stupid decisions will get tested in court, and found out. Police who make the right calls will get idiots off the road.

And it's a lot harder to argue against a careless charge than a ticket.

Let the flame war begin. :mellow:

NordieBoy

24th July 2007, 19:43

Preferably no more than 8km/h. That's the speed of impact at which bones start to break. Would this be a good speed limit?

But that's a fast walk...

spudchucka

24th July 2007, 19:52

Ah but who decides what to target?

Burglary? Assault? Youth Gangs? Drugs?

or the nice and easy one, Speed on the motorway?

Burglars, violent offenders, gang members, druggies.......

........speed too!

boomer

24th July 2007, 20:00

Sooo, you don't even enough smarts to become a cop eh?

Bad luck!!

skimping on the paperwork Skumy!? its not like the rozzas to take short cuts..or were you one of the intakes allowed special dispensation?

i didn't go to school, pass my exams or go to university however i'm still clever enough to realise i can earn 4 times what a copper does and not have to put up with being called a useless, donut eating, tax collecting, porka... well ok.. i get called useless :doobey:

McJim

24th July 2007, 20:07

I say gap it and let us know how you get on. you only get punished for small crimes in New Zealand - Major criminals get the red carpet treatment.

scumdog

24th July 2007, 20:32

i didn't go to school, pass my exams or go to university however i'm still clever enough to realise i can earn 4 times what a copper does and not have to put up with being called a useless, donut eating, tax collecting, porka... well ok.. i get called useless :doobey:

Hmm, ya sound almost as bright as me...almost.
I got my educamation from 23 years at the freezing works, riddled with wannabe boomers it was.....

And wotz tha matta? can't eat donuts, collect taxes etc? only useless?

Well that sure as hell ain't much of a resume'.

(BTW, earn 4 times as much? been there, done that - but don't need it no more what with living down here in the impoverished South, besides, my CB earns enough to support me in the poverty to which I've become accustomed to)

scumdog

24th July 2007, 20:35

Okay, I've read through 8 pages of this now. A few pages back Scumdog asked for a sensible solution to the problem.

I'd like to offer one. And it's radical.

Completely remove ALL speeding offences and tickets thereof. Speed no longer becomes an infringement. However it becomes a crime. Hear me out here...

We get rid of all the speeding ticket offences. But the police have to come to the party somewhat. I want to see more use of careless and dangerous driving. Change the emphasis to speed appropriate to the conditions or actions inappropriate to the conditions. This carries a hell of a lot higher penalty than any speeding tickets could.

And it's a lot harder to argue against a careless charge than a ticket.

Let the flame war begin. :mellow:

Sorry, there would be a shitload more 'not guilty' calls as it's way more easier to prove speed than it is to prove careless and dangerous driving.

boomer

24th July 2007, 20:38

i aint ready for a move south.. im still gettin to terms with moving to a 3rd world country here in Auckland after nearly 8 yrs.... i'd go postal if i moved south of the bombays.

unfortunately money is the root of all evil.. and being a tax collecting servant YOU KNOW THAT !

but hey.. by the time i get to your age i'll probably be ready for a hog and a little shack in the middle of hicksville but i've got another 20 ish years before i hit 60

:dodge:

scumdog

24th July 2007, 20:42

but hey.. by the time i get to your age i'll probably be ready for a hog and a little shack in the middle of hicksville but i've got another 20 ish years before i hit 60

:dodge:
Should you live so long of course!!!:shutup:

boomer

24th July 2007, 20:46

Should you live so long of course!!!:shutup:

my dad will smash you;

on a lighter more on topic note.. i'm now fair game and naked on the roads as i lent my pig spotter to Speedie to go to the mountain.. so GAME ON MOTHER****ers

riffer

24th July 2007, 20:55

Sorry, there would be a shitload more 'not guilty' calls as it's way more easier to prove speed than it is to prove careless and dangerous driving.

Come on SD. You're not getting it.

You've just confirmed to me that even the Police don't believe exceeding the speed limit by a small margin is inherently dangerous. If you genuinely believed it was, you'd jump at this opportunity.

Saying it's easier to prove speed than careless or dangerous is just lazy policing. It's difficult to prove murder too but if one of my loved ones was murdered (and an immediate family member HAS BEEN but I won't get started there) I would expect the Police to work damn hard to prove it.

We need to decide as a nation if speed really IS the problem. I don't think it is. I think bad decisions, inappropriate speed and lack of courtesy is more likely a larger problem. The government needs to enact legislation to support you in confirming this.

scumdog

24th July 2007, 21:00

Squiggles

24th July 2007, 21:11

cbf'd reading the last 6 pages as i tink they'll be a repeat of last time

112 with an indicated 105, so if ya were going 100 then that'd be under 110, fix ya speedo then you can freely use up that 10k buffer which prevents you getting a ticket for an indicated 100k :sunny:

I hate speeding, i used to but then i got a ticket for something else (admittedly was close to speeding) and have sinced slowed down, that's one less person speeding, so perhaps ticketing does work :yes:

86GSXR

24th July 2007, 21:24

Here's something I prepared earlier. It's an excerpt from Back Blocks America, Jo and Gareth Morgans account of their bike trip through the States.

I posted this before, so apologies to those who may have already read it, but it's relevant to us here in NZ and nicely makes the point that it's bad driver behaviour/ability and not necessarily the roads or speed that cause accidents.

One thing we noticed right away about biking in the US - the home of the automobile - is that motorist behaviour is infinitely more courteous than it is back home. While the traffic tends to move a lot faster than is permitted in New Zealand there's a notable lack of aggression in everything they do.

Then again, we've noticed the same thing in most of the countries we've travelled in.

The thing that America has in common with Germany, say, or Bulgaria and that sets it apart from New Zealand is that there is far less regulation of driver behaviour. Drivers are expected to be responsible for their own actions and dependant upon the courtesey of others. Rather than relying on a rule to tell them how to behave, they are guided by the principle of cooperation.

It's a clever discretion of the rule makers. Regulatory latitude gives rise to a 'do as you would be done by' ethos.

Drivers have no choice but to make decisions themselves and, surprise, surprise, they rise to the challenge. It turns out there's no need for a rule for every situation. People work it out among themselves.

Better yet, courtesy - like king of the road aggression - is infectious and prevails in every situation drivers encounter.

There were plenty of examples of how lightly the hand of regulation sits - and how much faith the regulator has in the capacity of individuals to make intelligent choices for themselves. If you're at a red light but you can turn to the right (left in NZ) without danger, you can go ahead and do it. On the open road a speed limit can be exceeded by up to 15 kmh without placing you at risk of receiving a ticket.

This convention had us stumped until, sick of being passed while riding piously at the limit, Jo decided to interrogate a radar gunning cop about how the system worked. Our Kiwi paranoia naturally had us thinking every mile per hour over the limit would see us stung a tidy sum in fines.

'Well little lady' CHiPs responded 'over here we like to see you get from A to B as quickly as possible. So as long as the traffic is orderly we don't worry too much about the speed. Way we figure it, highways are supposed to be of service to the travelling public. I'm just after the maniacs'.

Jo congatulated him on the sanity of this approach to law enforcement and made to leave.

'Hey!' he called after her. 'Make sure you keep up with the traffic. You'll be safe that way'.

The only time Jo did get pulled up was in Montana, by a cop who saw rain a coming and was worried that she didn't have her wet weather gear on.

'You'll get five minutes down the road' he told her, 'then them clouds are going to open right up. You'll be soaked through'.

He finished by asking if she'd like some maps of the area! Does this seem a long way from cop behaviour in New Zealand?

Motorcyclists in many states of America are free to choose whether or not to wear helmets. We wore ours most of the time but it was great having the right to shed them every now and then at our discretion and feel the wind in our hair. Remember when it was like that in New Zealand? That was before we sank into a swill of smothering maternalistic supervision.

Stifling over-regulation such as the laws that prevail in New Zealand creates automatons; morons who need rules and regulations to determine their behaviour for them. People lose the skills that the feedom to make decisions fosters. Sure, lower speeds lower the road toll - but so would banning driving altogether.

This is not to say the power of the state in America is not there, hovering in the background. Their road code has fewer rules but it also has far higher fines - and there is also the fear of being sued if you screw up. Responsibility is very much on individuals - the law treats them almost as though they're grown ups.

puddytat

24th July 2007, 22:09

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.

Money's one thing, its the points that fuck me off....Ive had 3 tickets in the last 5 years & theyve also cost me an extra 500 on my excess, sure you can say its my fault but a previous 25 yrs of accident & ticket free riding obviously counts for nothing...so Im buying a radar detector & if traffic & road conditions allow it'll be the last time those guys gonna pull me up cause Im goind to nail !!!:Punk:

riffer

24th July 2007, 22:15

The thing is: You show Joe Snerd he was doing 128kph on the radar and he moans but accepts it.

You summons them for 'careless use' and you can hear the screams of denial from where you are.

Got just such a case - he spun-out, hit a bank, bounce of the bank, spun around twice more and came to rest sideways at the side of the road.

And he wants to go not guilty for careless driving.....WTF?'''/ j

Fair enough. Still not convinced though. What's the likelihood he'll get away with it? It sounds like a clear case of careless driving.

Are you trying to say its just too hard? Please please please don't tell me you're going to give up and concede defeat on the ones you can't prove with a radar gun?

And on the other subject, I'm yet to hear of a vehicle that can outrun a 2-way radio. Running's a waste of time.

Max Preload

24th July 2007, 22:24

When we get freeways with two lanes each way and a large median strip...

You mean like the entire Auckland motorway network including the north-western which sparked this thread... :confused:

Max Preload

24th July 2007, 22:32

And on the other subject, I'm yet to hear of a vehicle that can outrun a 2-way radio. Running's a waste of time.

A radio is only as good as the users ability to see what it is he's trying to advise his comrades of.

Sanx

25th July 2007, 00:16

A radio is only as good as the users ability to see what it is he's trying to advise his comrades of.

"Sierra Oscar 24 to Sierra Oscar. Chasing a black bike last seen heading west on State Highway 16. Registration unknown."

And of course, they're no exits to use and nice surburban back streets to pootle through at 49kph all the way home. Hmmm - I wonder if the standard UK big city method of evading Police choppers works in Auckland too; head to the airport.

In the UK, at least, there's a snowball's chance in hell that air traffic control would let a Police chopper fly into Heathrow or Manchester airport controlled airspace unless the person they were chasing had done something particularly nasty. Air traffic control have been known to ask Police chopper crews what the accused is meant to have done, and then allow or deny them based upon that. When you've got a passenger plane taking off or landing every thirty seconds, closing the airport approach for ten minutes to allow a police chopper access can prove rather costly.

And if air traffic control ever find out the Police chopper pilot's lied; that's his pilot's licence.

Mekk

25th July 2007, 00:18

The point is that my actions did not pose the slightest bit of harm to anyone. It might have been faster than the ridiculously low legal limit, but it was not too fast for the conditions.

Think of practicality though. Because we share this fine country with a whole lot of morons that would have contributed to the need to have a speed limit in the first place, the discretion used would have assumed you're another one of those morons.

I personally believe you when you say you're driving at a speed safe for the conditions, but there are other factors to consider. The fact that the speed limit has been placed on the roads isn't to stop safe drivers from getting to where they want to quicker, it's to ping fuckwits that abuse all rules anyway and are bad drivers.

Assuming you're a good driver, have good reflexes, 20/20 vision, common sense and experience, the speed you were going is fine and suitable for the conditions. If someone else is doing that same speed, has slower reactions, not the best driver, far less experience and so forth, is that driver still driving at a safe speed for the conditions? Conditions include that of the driver, not just the environment.

I would say the limit is set because unfortunately (statistically), there are a lot of bad drivers/fools on the road. There always has been. I mean hey, perfect world, no speed limit, no morons on the road, everyone has fun, society progresses wonderfully.

Because it's not a perfect world, the best, or as near to the best solution is required to maintain feasibility. Maybe far in the future there'll be a comprehensive chip installed into you to determine how suited you are to be driving at a given speed, but until then we have to put up with the flawed system...or kill more idiot drivers.

swbarnett

25th July 2007, 00:23

Okay, I've read through 8 pages of this now. A few pages back Scumdog asked for a sensible solution to the problem.

I'd like to offer one. And it's radical.
Brilliant, absolutely brilliant. This is in essence what I've been proposing all along. Let the circumstances dictate the action.

Sorry, there would be a shitload more 'not guilty' calls as it's way more easier to prove speed than it is to prove careless and dangerous driving.
So the police would have to put more effort into documenting the circumstances to prove the danger. Surely this would only bring road policing into line with other areas of policing ?

unfortunately money is the root of all evil..
Often mis-quoted. "The LOVE of money is the root of all evil" (If you believe in such things).

112 with an indicated 105, so if ya were going 100 then that'd be under 110, fix ya speedo
No speedo in a private vehicle can ever be expected to have less than a 5% error. I seem to remember reading that NZ law actually allows for this in the WOF laws or the like. In Europe you have 5km/h knocked off your speed before the alleged speed is stated to account for exactly this.

Jantar

25th July 2007, 00:29

Actually the speed limit has been set to collect revenue for the government coffers. It is rated as the greatest enforceable risk, ie the one that is easily able to collect revenue from. Statistics now show that very few crashes are caused by exceeding the speed limit. Even the catchcry "too fast for the conditions" is often used to cover crashes caused by fatigue, and if you look at the data provided by Akilla, it shows that fatigue is by far the biggest cause of accidents.

Insurance assesor reports now show that over 90% of accidents happen at speeds below the speed limit, yet the number of speeding tickets issued shows that most drivers/riders do exceed the speed limit regularly.

swbarnett

25th July 2007, 00:35

Think of practicality though.

So what you're saying is that because Joe Bloggs is unstable and likely to murder someone I should be rounded up to because we both have the same hair colour?

Max Preload

25th July 2007, 00:39

While the traffic tends to move a lot faster than is permitted in New Zealand there's a notable lack of aggression in everything they do.

Of course there is - people can get to where they're going!

Jantar

25th July 2007, 00:43

Further evidence that speeding offences are intended for revenue gathering can be found here: http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=48226&page=3

Note that over half of all driving tickets are for speeding (740,000 in 2006).

Mekk

25th July 2007, 00:45

So what you're saying is that because Joe Bloggs is unstable and likely to murder someone I should be rounded up to because we both have the same hair colour?

If your hair colour can affect your driving and/or others safety, then sure!

But dude, those have gotta be some serious locks.

I'm not proposing a solution (except for the microchipping, that'd be sweet) I'm providing an explanation based on what I think the reason it's in place is.

justsomeguy

25th July 2007, 00:47

Just curious do you have a "friend" who's ever done a runner?

A "friend" told me they aren't that easy to do.

Max Preload

25th July 2007, 01:02

Just curious do you have a "friend" who's ever done a runner?

A "friend" told me they aren't that easy to do.

I have a "friend" who's done a few... but this "friend" advised me that he only fights the battles he can win - little or no traffic, dry roads etc. The "friend" also advised that that's fairly easy to do as a responsible rider, since the only time this "friend" has needed to has been when it's blatantly obvious what he was going to be pulled for was revenue gathering and nothing more.

swbarnett

25th July 2007, 01:19

If your hair colour can affect your driving and/or others safety, then sure!
Perhaps that wasn't the best example. Try this for size: Let's say that two people have the gene for having a flaky heart. One actually has a flaky heart and the other doesn't. Under the reasoning applied to speed limits neither will ever be allowed to become airline pilots even though one of them is perfectly healthy. Ever seen Gattaca?

But dude, those have gotta be some serious locks.
Actually sport a number 1 clip these days (were some serious locks till they receded :()

I'm not proposing a solution (except for the microchipping, that'd be sweet) I'm providing an explanation based on what I think the reason it's in place is.
I'm sure you're right. The powers that be need to get a clue.

Mekk

25th July 2007, 01:44

Perhaps that wasn't the best example. Try this for size: Let's say that two people have the gene for having a flaky heart. One actually has a flaky heart and the other doesn't. Under the reasoning applied to speed limits neither will ever be allowed to become airline pilots even though one of them is perfectly healthy. Ever seen Gattaca?

I have seen and enjoyed Gattaca.

I don't think this example is the best either because we're dealing with very different situations. I was referring to practicality in a system that deals with masses (millions) of people. Numbers that are become impractical to police flawlessly with the amount of cops available.

It's different with an airforce position/Gattaca scenario because they have the resources to have a better solution for the people applying etc. Not everyone is going to be a applying for a pilot's licence (esp in NZ) but I'm sure a similar method of controlling the madness would be a speed limit to aircraft if they became mainstream transport methods.

The other thing is that the speed limit does not STOP you from driving, it limits it. I would maybe compare driver licensing to aircraft licensing, but not aircraft licensing to a driver's speed limit and vice versa. Different procedures and different factors required in order to reach a goal.

If you want to be tricky though, you could reduce my micro-chipping thing to something like a really hard to pass skills test for people qualified to drive over the speed limit? It might work, but there'd be a whole lot more things to consider if it happened.

As an aside, we don't see what happens to Ethan Hawke on Gattaca... for all we know he may have died in a fiery crash due to his heart condition. :P

I'm sure you're right. The powers that be need to get a clue.

If intended sarcastically, again, I'm not trying to be "right" or assuming that I know more than the authorities, I'm only providing an insight into what I think may be the case. Shrug.

spudchucka

25th July 2007, 06:35

Note that over half of all driving tickets are for speeding (740,000 in 2006).

All that indicates is how stupid Joe Average motorist actually is.

Max Preload

25th July 2007, 10:39

All that indicates is how stupid Joe Average motorist actually is.

Really... in what way?

swbarnett

25th July 2007, 10:39

Numbers that are become impractical to police flawlessly with the amount of cops available.
So because of practicality the innocent get stung. I think we're just on opposite sides of the fence as to were to err.

The other thing is that the speed limit does not STOP you from driving, it limits it.
And Ethan's character was "limited" as to how he was allowed to live his life because of a gene that had no effect on his health. My speed on the road is a condition that may, or may not, be a contributing factor in an accident. Most of the time it's impossible to tell which from the outside.

As an aside, we don't see what happens to Ethan Hawke on Gattaca... for all we know he may have died in a fiery crash due to his heart condition. :P
I thought the whole point of Gattaca was that he didn't have a heart condition, just the gene that made it ever so slightly more likely to develop?

All that indicates is how stupid Joe Average motorist actually is.
Or that the police concentrate too much on speed. Can't tell which from the figures.

scumdog

25th July 2007, 10:53

Brilliant, absolutely brilliant. This is in essence what I've been proposing all along. Let the circumstances dictate the action.

So the police would have to put more effort into documenting the circumstances to prove the danger. Surely this would only bring road policing into line with other areas of policing ?

If 'speeding' was replaced with 'careless/dangerous use' EVERYBODY so charged would plaster the Courts with pathetic bleating (as they do with speeding) trying to justify their speed.

It would come down to words vs words of two people - and you know how cops lie so you wouldn't stand a chance! (Unless you had a fancy lawyer - $1,200 to defend what would have been a $120 ticket? hmmmm)

And which would you rather have - a pissy speeding ticket or two OR a dangerous driving/careless use conviction or two?

Some people know when to just get on with their lives after getting a ticket or two - others fester for yonks and joust at windmills endlessly, which are you?????????

Sanx

25th July 2007, 11:11

Some people know when to just get on with their lives after getting a ticket or two - others fester for yonks and joust at windmills endlessly, which are you?????????

The latter. :nya:

(Though I've lost my jousting stick).

MSTRS

25th July 2007, 11:15

(Though I've lost my jousting stick).

Viagra could help?

vifferman

25th July 2007, 11:19

Whelp, I've had just two tickets in the last 32 years (which included quite a bit of speeding, BTW), and both tickets were annoying, but justifiable. The first was 132 in a 100, which was justifiable because I was so far over the limit, but annoying because it was in a passing lane, was momentary (I was doing 85 before passing, and 95 afterwards) and the cop caused far more disruption and potential hazard to other motorists in trying to catch up to me than I did in passing safely and efficiently. But I accept my error, even if the medicine was unpalatable ($300 and 40 points).
The second was different: 73 in a 50. I was VERY late for work, and a bit exuberant with the throttle. But the cop (like the first one) was reasonable: "Keep it under 60 and you'll be right". The ticket was fair enough - I needed another wake-up call. $170 and 35 points made me pay attention.

Mekk

25th July 2007, 11:48

So because of practicality the innocent get stung. I think we're just on opposite sides of the fence as to were to err.

The "innocent" get stung for breaking a limit set in place for practicality, in my view. This sort of thing is all across society, mind. We have to take a brainless roadcode test, do a simple motor skills test and all other kinds of bullshit due to idiots out there.

Even if we were to devise a specific license to allow you to go over 100km/h, there'd still be restrictions due to the fact that there are people who are unable to perform as others. Due to the fact that inequality exists.

I'm all for recognising inequality, but at this stage it's just not practical for a society to manage millions of road users every day in a more individual system. Especially one with an under-funded and under-resourced police department.

And Ethan's character was "limited" as to how he was allowed to live his life because of a gene that had no effect on his health. My speed on the road is a condition that may, or may not, be a contributing factor in an accident. Most of the time it's impossible to tell which from the outside.

Exactly, impossible to tell from an officer's standpoint. That's why this dude got ticketed and that's why "driving to the conditions" is irrelevant if you're over the speed limit. It's not like driving faster makes you any safer than if you were under the limit...except in special circumstances.

I thought the whole point of Gattaca was that he didn't have a heart condition, just the gene that made it ever so slightly more likely to develop?

I remember the first scene reading out the list of possible defects with Vincent and 99% being heart condition. I forget whether he actually had them or not.

riffer

25th July 2007, 11:53

If 'speeding' was replaced with 'careless/dangerous use' EVERYBODY so charged would plaster the Courts with pathetic bleating (as they do with speeding) trying to justify their speed.

Again, this is LAZY policing. My idea encourages the Police to use their discretion. Why would you have have to book EVERYBODY?

Come on, SD, you know if someone's driving stupidly. If they are using inappropriate speed for the conditions, do them for careless. If they are using stupidly fast speed for the conditions, do them for dangerous.

Surely you're not telling me that the Police have no idea at all whether someone's driving isn't up to scratch.

Its all about evidence. Currently we have a very lazy method of determining whether driving is dangerous based on an arbitrary line in the sand. What we need is a more scientific approach to the problem.

Take into account other conditions: yes speed; also time of day, road condition, weather conditions, road congestion, current condition of vehicle, and a whole load of other stuff I just can't think about as I type but will remember later.

If I used the same lack of scientific evidence in my job that Police can use to justify ticketing drivers, I'd be laughed out of a job.

Mekk

25th July 2007, 12:21

What we need is a more scientific approach to the problem.

Take into account other conditions: yes speed; also time of day, road condition, weather conditions, road congestion, current condition of vehicle, and a whole load of other stuff I just can't think about as I type but will remember later.

I agree, but again you have to look at practicality too. It's not laziness, it's just bloody hard for 1 cop to monitor thousands of cars.

If you've got an idea that'll effectively monitor someone as an individual and meets the following three criteria, awesome!

A) Needs to be fast
B) Needs to be able to monitor everybody fairly and equally
C) Needs to be cost effective so we don't have another thread on road tolls

The problem with the inequality thing is that people WANT equality, despite that being impossible. People bitch when they get singled out for breaking the law, yet want a system that lets them do what they do legally...and individually...it's a bit contradictory.

idb

25th July 2007, 13:02

scumdog

25th July 2007, 13:36

Come on, SD, you know if someone's driving stupidly. If they are using inappropriate speed for the conditions, do them for careless. If they are using stupidly fast speed for the conditions, do them for dangerous.

Surely you're not telling me that the Police have no idea at all whether someone's driving isn't up to scratch..

But would the drivers/motorcyclists know and accept the were driving stupidly?
A majority of the time the answer would be 'no' hence why they would want to defend it.

the POLICE generally would know whether somebodys driving was not up to scratch - but getting somebody to accept their driving is crap is like getting them to accept the have a small willy - nobody wants to admit either.

Imagine if there were no speed limits as suggested - I can tell you there would be so many dickheads driving at 130+ in unsuitable areas with no idea on how to drive/ride AND who would argue whether their driving was up to scratch.
After all, look back only 6-7 years - NOBODY got a ticket from a cop for doing less than 20kph over the limit (well not down here anyway) and that became the 'norm' with a lot of people doing 130+ and moaning when they got a ticket.
With no limit? I shudder to think what speed a lot would think suitable.

scumdog

25th July 2007, 13:38

Why not retain the speed limit as it is but allow the cops to use their discretion?
Get rid of the quotas.
No need for dangerous driving charges and if you get pinged the cop doesn't have to do any more work than he does now.

I'll go with that.

(What are you ON idb??? - so much sense and so early too)

idb

25th July 2007, 13:52

I'll go with that.

(What are you ON idb??? - so much sense and so early too)

You can be so hurtful SD!!!!

All other areas of law enforcement rely on an individual officer's discretion, why not traffic?

Edbear

25th July 2007, 13:54

But would the drivers/motorcyclists know and accept the were driving stupidly?.

I've often opined, "Show me an incompetent driver who knows and can admit they are incompetent and I will show you a very rare individual!"

I see incompetence behind the wheel every day and it is plainly obvious that most of these drivers consider they are driving very well, thankyou!

The cemeteries, (sp), are full of riders and drivers who considered themselves "good drivers/riders". No doubt the roads are full of ticketed drivers/riders who consider themselves law-abiding and safe and competent, too.

While I agree there have been incidents posted which appear to indicate an officer is being a bit harsh - and I have noted some officers parked in positions where I think they are taking advantage of a situation that has little to do with safety - I accept the speed limit because of the large number of incompetent drivers who are unsafe at any speed and need limits. I don't use, nor feel I need, a detector and haven't had a speeding ticket since the first year speed cameras were installed and I was coasting down a hill in Auck and didn't notice the speed creep up. Got done for 61 in a 50 area.

riffer

25th July 2007, 14:36

I don't recall every advocating the removal of the speed limit. God forbid.

The limit is there for an good reason. It's suggested that this is the maximum speed safe for the majority of people to drive on the majority of roads in this country.

I'm really sorry if you've read it that way. Never my intention. The Police however should be allowed to say "110km/hr straight road perfect weather no one else around - it ain't dangerous or careless." Or - "80km/hr winding road, congested traffic, pissing down with rain - absolutely stupid behaviour". At the moment you can't do shit because they are under the limit.

Remember it works BOTH ways.

spudchucka

25th July 2007, 15:33

Really... in what way?

The same number of stupid retards keep getting caught every year. They drive along in a daze, oblivious to the possibility that they might get pinged around the next bend or along the next straight. If the idiots would open their eyes and pay attention while on the road there would be A: less speeding tickets issued because fewer people would get pinged & B: fewer crashes because if they are paying attention to what they are doing they might realise that they have crossed the centre line etc.

spudchucka

25th July 2007, 15:35

Or that the police concentrate too much on speed. Can't tell which from the figures.

Only the motoring public can change the outcome. As long as there are monkeys in the barrel wanting to be shot the cops will keep on obliging them.

spudchucka

25th July 2007, 15:37

Again, this is LAZY policing.

No its not. Its a practical person having a realistic, pragmatic approach to an issue that is not well understood by the general public.

spudchucka

25th July 2007, 15:38

Why not retain the speed limit as it is but allow the cops to use their discretion?
Get rid of the quotas.
No need for dangerous driving charges and if you get pinged the cop doesn't have to do any more work than he does now.

You wouldn't find many cops that would disagree, other than the ones with the pips and crowns on their shoulders.

swbarnett

25th July 2007, 16:02

If 'speeding' was replaced with 'careless/dangerous use' EVERYBODY so charged would plaster the Courts with pathetic bleating (as they do with speeding) trying to justify their speed.
As is the case with every other charge I can think of except the instant fines. I have a moral if not legal right to defend myself in court.

$1,200 to defend what would have been a $120 ticket?
Worth it for the principle and the demerits.

And which would you rather have - a pissy speeding ticket or two OR a dangerous driving/careless use conviction or two?
I'd rather have something I could defend.

Some people know when to just get on with their lives after getting a ticket or two - others fester for yonks and joust at windmills endlessly, which are you?????????
The former until I end up with enough to affect my license.

The "innocent" get stung for breaking a limit set in place for practicality, in my view. This sort of thing is all across society, mind.
If it's not practical to protect the innocent on a day to day basis then let there be a recourse in the courts.

I'm all for recognising inequality, but at this stage it's just not practical for a society to manage millions of road users every day in a more individual system.
And yet we don't manage millions of road users as it is. We aren't watched every minute we drive (and neither should we be).

Exactly, impossible to tell from an officer's standpoint. That's why this dude got ticketed and that's why "driving to the conditions" is irrelevant if you're over the speed limit. It's not like driving faster makes you any safer than if you were under the limit...except in special circumstances.
And driving at or under the speed limit doesn't make you any safer either.

I remember the first scene reading out the list of possible defects with Vincent and 99% being heart condition. I forget whether he actually had them or not.
He didn't. This was the point of the movie - how he got penalised regardless.

I agree, but again you have to look at practicality too. It's not laziness, it's just bloody hard for 1 cop to monitor thousands of cars.
Then don't. We don't monitor millions of people to see if they might murder someone.

If you've got an idea that'll effectively monitor someone
Why should we be constantly monitored? I have a moral right to take whatever risks I like when the only person remotely likely to suffer from the consequences is myself.

Imagine if there were no speed limits as suggested
You may find (as has been illustrated elsewhere) that drivers find their own speed, some high, some low and on the most part they will be competent at that speed.

the large number of incompetent drivers who are unsafe at any speed and need limits.
Then why let them drive at all if they're not safe at any speed? Ticketing for speed limits does not solve the problem.

Only the motoring public can change the outcome. As long as there are monkeys in the barrel wanting to be shot the cops will keep on obliging them.
Or the cops and lawmakers could concentrate on something else that may actually be dangerous.

Edbear

25th July 2007, 16:33

Then why let them drive at all if they're not safe at any speed? Ticketing for speed limits does not solve the problem.
.

Wow! For one so new to the forum, you multi-quote like a pro..!:yes:

Only my opinion of course, these same drivers would consider themselves capable and safe, no doubt... I think I said earlier that it would be great if the Police could catch and ticket incompetence but that it's not easy to do so.

spudchucka

25th July 2007, 16:37

Or the cops and lawmakers could concentrate on something else that may actually be dangerous.

As long as the motoring public keep proving their stupidity by killing themselves regularly the state will have an easily justifiable reason to target speed. The ability to change lies in your hands.

Max Preload

25th July 2007, 16:43

As long as the motoring public keep proving their stupidity by killing themselves regularly the state will have an easily justifiable reason to target speed.

Again, the spurious linking of speed to crashing and dieing. Nobody with more than half a clue is swallows this claptrap - it's more political than road safety orientated.

The ability to change lies in your hands.

I'm pretty sure there's nobody posting here who has died from crashing, but I'm prepared to be corrected.

MSTRS

25th July 2007, 16:47

As long as the motoring public keep proving their stupidity by killing themselves regularly the state will have an easily justifiable reason to target speed. The ability to change lies in your hands.

That is all very well, but what has been said is that speed alone is responsible for very few (3%?) of fatals. So why the heavy targeting of such a limited area of the problem?

avgas

25th July 2007, 16:48

Just curious do you have a "friend" who's ever done a runner?
A "friend" told me they aren't that easy to do.
Depends on where you are and what you do.
I won't do another one as i fear there is a stupid cop out there that will try and tazer me and either hit and i go down like a slinky fired out a canon, or they miss and hit the tank.

boomer

25th July 2007, 18:01

Often mis-quoted. "The LOVE of money is the root of all evil" (If you believe in such things).

no.. no.. NO!!!

I like what i say and say what i like.. YOU mis quoted me numpty.

spudchucka

25th July 2007, 21:24

That is all very well, but what has been said is that speed alone is responsible for very few (3%?) of fatals. So why the heavy targeting of such a limited area of the problem?

Link speed with the previously mentioned bone headed retards that use the roads and the answer is obvious.

spudchucka

25th July 2007, 21:25

Again, the spurious linking of speed to crashing and dieing. Nobody with more than half a clue is swallows this claptrap - it's more political than road safety orientated.

I'm pretty sure there's nobody posting here who has died from crashing, but I'm prepared to be corrected.

You miss the point.

Max Preload

25th July 2007, 21:53

You miss the point.

You haven't made one. Your ridiculous claim is that stupid people killing themselves justifies targeting speed. It doesn't. It justifies removing licences from people who are bad drivers. Rarely is it speed alone that makes someone a bad driver.

Sanx

25th July 2007, 21:58

Link speed with the previously mentioned bone headed retards that use the roads and the answer is obvious ... You miss the point.

No dude, I think you are. The current targetting of speed above everything else was made in response to a government aim to bring the road toll down to 300 by 2010. The Mad Mullahs of Wellington seem to think that speed is the root of all evil and by stopping people speeding, the road toll will fall.

Except it won't. And it hasn't. The current policy was started in 2002 and the previous year-on-year progressive fall in the road toll abruptly halted. It's wiggled a bit since then, including last year's record low figure, but this year seems well on the way to beating it.

The government and the LTSA like to parrot that speed is the cause of 30% of all accidents. But that's fuck-all to do with going faster than the speed limit. The MoT and LTSA even admit this: clicky (http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/factsheets/33.html) clicky (http://www.transport.govt.nz/speed-index/). Both linked articles state that accidents are caused by going to fast for the conditions and, as has been argued many a time, an appropriate speed for the conditions rarely has little in common with a speed limit. Just look at the contradictory statements here (from the first article):

Judge the safe speed for the conditions
When you're driving, you need to be constantly judging the safe speed for the stretch of road you're on at that particular time. This is called driving to the conditions. If you don't adjust your speed to suit the conditions, you may be driving too fast, even if you're within the speed limit.

Keep inside the speed limit
Drivers who travel above the speed limit endanger the lives of others. We've all heard the saying 'Speed kills'. Higher speeds result in injuries that are more severe.

On one hand, drivers are expected to adjust their speed according to the conditions. Use common sense, in other words. And then, in the very next paragraph, the LTSA come out with "travel above the speed limit endanger the lives of others". Unmitigate steaming piles of rotten bovine faeces. The drivers endangering others are those travelling at a speed unsuitable for the conditions, as stated in the very first sentence on the page.

None of this stops retards driving; that's a job for the government who can take away automatic right to drive in NZ for foreign-licence holders, toughen up the practical driving test and introduce compulsory re-testing every few years. But some instruction from on high for the Police to concentrate on bad driving (and that includes inappropriate speed) rather than simple limit-breaches would prove far more beneficial to the road toll. Just not quite as lucrative.

swbarnett

25th July 2007, 22:50

no.. no.. NO!!!

I like what i say and say what i like.. YOU mis quoted me numpty.

1 Timothy 6:10 -

"For the love of money is the root of every evil"

(BTW: I'm not religious, just full of useless trivia and love Google)

boomer

25th July 2007, 23:04

1 Timothy 6:10 -

"For the love of money is the root of every evil"

(BTW: I'm not religious, just full of useless trivia and love Google)

that'd go down a treat every time i wanted use that saying.. can u imagine down the pub ... and out i spout with..... " 1 Timothy 6:10..."

i'd have less mates than i've got now

scumdog

26th July 2007, 00:02

I'm pretty sure there's nobody posting here who has died from crashing, but I'm prepared to be corrected.

Yeah, you may be right - I'll get those who go on the memorial ride for deceased KB members to ask them why they don't post - I believe at least a couple are no longer with us due to crashing...
:whistle::wait:

Mekk

26th July 2007, 00:07

If it's not practical to protect the innocent on a day to day basis then let there be a recourse in the courts.

You seem to be making me out to be some sort of human hater which is odd, considering I was merely speculating on the probable reasons the system is in place.

It is not practical with current technology to protect the innocent in the manner you're demanding. The speed limit is a more practical solution for now.

And yet we don't manage millions of road users as it is. We aren't watched every minute we drive (and neither should we be).

Are you suggesting there's no reason for policing of the roads? Us against the cages...no thanks.

And driving at or under the speed limit doesn't make you any safer either.

Logic tells us that driving at a slower speed means you have more time to react to any hazards or problematic situations. With that I would contest that driving slower would make you safer. I say you in a general manner meant for the general populace, not you specifically. You may be Casey Stoner for all I know.

He didn't. This was the point of the movie - how he got penalised regardless.

I guess I missed that theme, apologies.

Then don't. We don't monitor millions of people to see if they might murder someone.

Millions of people don't have hand weapons either, but the ones that do aren't allowed them in a public place without a bloody good reason. Again, are you suggesting that policing the roads should be abolished?

Why should we be constantly monitored? I have a moral right to take whatever risks I like when the only person remotely likely to suffer from the consequences is myself.

I agree entirely which is why there are no speed limits or monitoring on private roads. Go nuts.

I don't like being monitored either but I would personally rather put up with that at the risk of being fined etc than to have no monitoring and sharing the roads with fuckwits who are much more likely to kill me.

Younguns are bulletproof, remember? They can go whatever speed they want and be perfectly safe!

scumdog

26th July 2007, 00:11

As is the case with every other charge I can think of except the instant fines. I have a moral if not legal right to defend myself in court.

You may find (as has been illustrated elsewhere) that drivers find their own speed, some high, some low and on the most part they will be competent at that speed.

(1) You have 'a moral if not legal right to defend' yourself - regardless if you're guilty?????? For what reason? Just 'cos you can???

(2) Mwahahahaha! Imagine the chaos, the speedygonzales whinging their arses off because those wanting to drive at 90kph are preventing them cruising at 140kph!! And 'competent'?? (picks self off the floor after collapsing from laughing too much) competent? Is that some kind of camping equipment?
Cos it sure as hell ain't something seen on the roads too often - at any speed.

Ah well..........

inlinefour

26th July 2007, 00:20

Mekk

26th July 2007, 00:24

Judge the safe speed for the conditions
When you're driving, you need to be constantly judging the safe speed for the stretch of road you're on at that particular time. This is called driving to the conditions. If you don't adjust your speed to suit the conditions, you may be driving too fast, even if you're within the speed limit.

Keep inside the speed limit
Drivers who travel above the speed limit endanger the lives of others. We've all heard the saying 'Speed kills'. Higher speeds result in injuries that are more severe.

Problem is, "driving to the conditions" is a subjective argument. The limit is there because a lot of morons don't know how to drive to the conditions or are unable to correctly assess the conditions. Besides, going over the speed limit isn't safer than going under it, people lose control a lot easier at higher speeds. That and the damage is obviously going to be more severe at higher speeds.

Maybe we could get a big plate like our learners certifying you a registered person who can drive to the conditions. It could be a giant W for winner or something. But seriously, how are the cops gonna know if you can drive to the conditions or not? What about someone that can drive to the conditions but is tired and thus impaired? What about someone who is on their cellphone while "driving to the conditions"?

I'd definitely say the speed limit is a form of lowering the pain the retards are causing. As I said above, there's this all throughout society... I mean the craft glue bottle warns of eating it...why? Because some fuck at some stage probably tried.

Attack the rule-makers, not the enforcers.

For the record, those two paragraphs don't contradict themselves. It says adjust your speed to the conditions...I'd say it's meaning within the speed limit. I cannot reasonably see any way that going faster than the speed limit would improve your safety or be "more" to the conditions than not.

Mekk

26th July 2007, 00:26

competent? Is that some kind of camping equipment?
Cos it sure as hell ain't something seen on the roads too often - at any speed.

Ah well..........

Yeah, they always sell out of competent in central Auckland, it's rare and pricey to get a hold of.

Mekk

26th July 2007, 00:33

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limit

That's a very interesting article too. 4mph in the country and 2mph in town for 1865...sorta defeats the purpose when you can walk faster than a car.

Otherwise the article has some interesting points on why they're set at the limits they are.

swbarnett

26th July 2007, 00:40

(1) You have 'a moral if not legal right to defend' yourself - regardless if you're guilty?????? For what reason? Just 'cos you can???

(2) Mwahahahaha! Imagine the chaos, the speedygonzales whinging their arses off because those wanting to drive at 90kph are preventing them cruising at 140kph!! And 'competent'?? (picks self off the floor after collapsing from laughing too much) competent? Is that some kind of camping equipment?
Cos it sure as hell ain't something seen on the roads too often - at any speed.

Ah well..........

(1) Under NZ law I have a right to defend myself in court, guilty or not, for everything except instant fines. If the speeding laws were truly about safety I'd have the same right there as well.

(2) How many millions of kms are driven in NZ every day? The vast majority of them without incident. Having a speed limit tells drivers that they are safe at that speed regardless. Without them drivers won't be lulled into this false sense of security.

scumdog

26th July 2007, 00:47

(2) Having a speed limit tells drivers that they are safe at that speed regardless. Without them drivers won't be lulled into this false sense of security.

Like the guy doing 80 in a 50 area in thick fog - or the dozens that are genuinely shocked when they find out what speed they actually were doing.

People just don't pay attention to what speed they are doing (especially women) and it's only the thought 'ooh, I might get a ticket' that makes them bother to be aware of their speed.

I know this from first hand experience, not from 'thinking' what other people should be thinking.

swbarnett

26th July 2007, 01:06

You seem to be making me out to be some sort of human hater which is odd, considering I was merely speculating on the probable reasons the system is in place.
Sorry if this seems personal, it's not meant to be.

It is not practical with current technology to protect the innocent in the manner you're demanding.
All I'm asking is that I get the chance to present evidence that refutes the claim that what I was doing was a menace to society.

The speed limit is a more practical solution for now.
But it's not a solution. It's worse than that. It allows the politicians to claim they're doing something.

Are you suggesting there's no reason for policing of the roads? Us against the cages...no thanks.
No, but I don't want to be watched every minute either.

Logic tells us that driving at a slower speed means you have more time to react to any hazards or problematic situations.
I totally agree. This is driving to the conditions. 120km/h on a clear, dry day is a lot safer than 80km/h in thick fog. You don't need speed limits to police this.

Millions of people don't have hand weapons either, but the ones that do aren't allowed them in a public place without a bloody good reason.
Checked your kitchen lately? Are you constantly watched while you're chopping the veges?

Again, are you suggesting that policing the roads should be abolished?
Yes and no. Ideally I'd rather go to a retroactive model. Let the accidents happen and then throw the book at anyone deemed to be at fault. Kind of like what we do for most other aspects of life.

swbarnett

26th July 2007, 01:10

Like the guy doing 80 in a 50 area in thick fog.
I agree that this element also exists. Do you need speed limits to deal with the problem. Surely 80km/h in a built up area in thick fog would merit at least a careless driving charge?

scumdog

26th July 2007, 01:18

I agree that this element also exists. Do you need speed limits to deal with the problem. Surely 80km/h in a built up area in thick fog would merit at least a careless driving charge?

Yeah, he didn't get away with just a speeding ticket - but that's not the point.
The point is that there's way more cretins and incompetents on the road than you realise.

Mekk

26th July 2007, 01:28

Sorry if this seems personal, it's not meant to be.

Not a problem, I'm just quick to jump on people trying the old Ad Hominem trick with arguments. A lot of people resort to that and I try to weed them out before they get there. No biggie!

All I'm asking is that I get the chance to present evidence that refutes the claim that what I was doing was a menace to society.

That's not a bad thing and I agree, if you're able to prove that then you should be able to by all means. Unfortunately again, the courts will argue that the speed limit is in place to protect you based on this data and this blah blah.

But it's not a solution. It's worse than that. It allows the politicians to claim they're doing something.

I dunno about this. It's better than nothing, which (because of the huge amount of variables in each individual case relative to safety) would be the alternative.

No, but I don't want to be watched every minute either.

Neither. I don't like reading signs that are a result of stupidity either, they're almost embarrassing. But yeah...one nation, one people and all that crap. We have to share the world with morons. It sucks, but it's just a fact of life really.

Checked your kitchen lately? Are you constantly watched while you're chopping the veges?

I dunno...am I? :eek5:

I chop my veges privately though. I don't expect to share my kitchen with morons (except for my flatmates) either. Again, there's no speed limit on a private road.

Yes and no. Ideally I'd rather go to a retroactive model. Let the accidents happen and then throw the book at anyone deemed to be at fault. Kind of like what we do for most other aspects of life.

I'm of two minds for this. One the one hand, I believe in an eye for an eye and I agree, ping the fuckers when they mess up. On the other though, I don't want those people messing up with my family on the road. They're also unable to be punished when they're dead.

I see merits to both preventative policing and aftermath policing...the trouble is striking a balance that is effective enough for this society. Not an easy thing to do.

Albino

26th July 2007, 08:14

Yeah, he didn't get away with just a speeding ticket - but that's not the point.
The point is that there's way more cretins and incompetents on the road than you realise.

And the only thing you can do these incompetent cretins for is speeding?

MSTRS

26th July 2007, 09:05

Link speed with the previously mentioned bone headed retards that use the roads and the answer is obvious.

What is obvious is that because of the actions of a few, the rest of us 'suffer' retribution for ignoring often unrealistic limits.
Kinda like when the teacher kept your whole class in because someone put a drawing pin on his/her chair and 'no-one knew' who did it....

MSTRS

26th July 2007, 09:10

Yeah, you may be right ...
Thanks for the flippant reminder....we all know they were hovering around 112kph at the time, don't we? Other factors played as great a part too.

Edbear

26th July 2007, 09:41

People just don't pay attention to what speed they are doing (especially women) and it's only the thought 'ooh, I might get a ticket' that makes them bother to be aware of their speed..

Very true, very often! THough it's certainly not just women. I seem to see many drivers of any age or either gender who are obviously unaware of their speed in the roads up here!

Their speed is hopelessly inconsistent wavering 10km/h either way and as soon as they see the HP they brake, even if they're only doing 85km/h at the time - and often, even if the HP is on the other side of the motorway! (Or in one case, 45km/h on the open road!!!! The parked HP ignored the fact he was holding up 23 cars, too, and just watched us all crawl past).

It seems most driver's minds are anywhere but on their driving and this is, I believe, the main cause of accidents. Outright speed is rarely a problem up here as most drivers are well under the 100km/h but plainly incapable of driving around corners or keeping a consistent speed.

It is rare to see someone exceeding the limit up here even on the motorway and I'd like to see reports of the actual speed of the vehicles involved in fatal accidents. I doubt a big percentage were exceeding the limit...

Ewan Oozarmy

26th July 2007, 09:53

None of this stops retards driving; that's a job for the government who can take away automatic right to drive in NZ for foreign-licence holders, toughen up the practical driving test and introduce compulsory re-testing every few years. But some instruction from on high for the Police to concentrate on bad driving (and that includes inappropriate speed) rather than simple limit-breaches would prove far more beneficial to the road toll. Just not quite as lucrative.

Bang on mate!! And that's coming from a foreign licence holder.

None of this is rocket science yet it seems to be as far as the government are concerned. At the end of the day it's their resonsibility to serve and protect the public yet they seem to be burying their heads in the sand here.

spudchucka

26th July 2007, 10:29

What is obvious is that because of the actions of a few, the rest of us 'suffer' retribution for ignoring often unrealistic limits.
Kinda like when the teacher kept your whole class in because someone put a drawing pin on his/her chair and 'no-one knew' who did it....

Sucks aye, that's life though.

Sanx

26th July 2007, 10:30

Problem is, "driving to the conditions" is a subjective argument. The limit is there because a lot of morons don't know how to drive to the conditions or are unable to correctly assess the conditions. Besides, going over the speed limit isn't safer than going under it, people lose control a lot easier at higher speeds. That and the damage is obviously going to be more severe at higher speeds.

Correct, but with an emphasis on rigid enforcement of limits, regardless of whether or not people were driving to the conditions, and with a complete lack of driver education, how are people ever meant to learn?

But seriously, how are the cops gonna know if you can drive to the conditions or not? What about someone that can drive to the conditions but is tired and thus impaired? What about someone who is on their cellphone while "driving to the conditions"?

They don't have to know that you are capable. They simply have to observe that you are (or not, as the case may be). Just because I don't run red lights doesn't mean I haven't got the ability to.

I'd definitely say the speed limit is a form of lowering the pain the retards are causing. As I said above, there's this all throughout society... I mean the craft glue bottle warns of eating it...why? Because some fuck at some stage probably tried.

And I'd disagree. I'm not sure I'm in favour of abolishing the speed limit, as has been sugested by others, but I'm certainly in favour of concentrating on bad driving - whatever form it takes - rather than rigid enforcement of rules. There's significant evidence from around the world that rigid speed-focused policing not only doesn't work, but it actively counter-productive. It's not a very popular opinion amongst Police or law-makers - as it reduces revenue - but occasionally you do get a senior official willing to stand up and declare the system flawed. An example is Paul Garvin, Chief Constable of County Durham Police in the UK. He's very publically stated that speed cameras and rigid enforcement do not work (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/07/ncam07.xml), and the accident statistics in his bailiwick would seem to back that up. It's not a small difference either; 43% lower than in comparable force areas.

I'm not necessarily saying the same would work in New Zealand. However, the current fatality and hospitalisation figures show the current policy simply does not work. Despite increases in road safety (don't laugh), massive increases in active and passive safety devices in cars and a huge increase in the number of tickets issued the road toll figures, which declined year on year from 1990 through 2001, have flat-lined. The ACC claims for injuries following traffic accidents have jumped 26% since the anti-speed policy began.

By anyone's reckoning, it just does not work.

For the record, those two paragraphs don't contradict themselves. It says adjust your speed to the conditions...I'd say it's meaning within the speed limit. I cannot reasonably see any way that going faster than the speed limit would improve your safety or be "more" to the conditions than not.

Conditions dictate safe speed. Speed limits do not. The first line of the first linked page reads "The single biggest road safety issue in New Zealand today is speed - drivers travelling too fast for the conditions". This does not correlate with the statement that people who break speed limits are endangering others. So, unless you want to claim that speed limits define a safe maximum speed in all conditions regardless of every other variable, you have to admit that that these comments contradict each other.

Mekk

26th July 2007, 12:30

Correct, but with an emphasis on rigid enforcement of limits, regardless of whether or not people were driving to the conditions, and with a complete lack of driver education, how are people ever meant to learn?

I personally believe the educated driver is capable of driving over 100Km/h safely in the right conditions. I don't believe the uneducated (I use this term loosely) is but we have to share the roads with these people and there has to be a cut off point somewhere.

The people who set the limit believe (through statistics) that is the safest speed for the majority of road users...probably just to account for the stupid and the mistakes of the wise, because realistically I would say no one is a good driver ALL the time. Look at fatigue, distractions etc.

They also think that anything over that limit becomes dangerous and not to the conditions of the road. Without being an engineer myself, I can't say whether they're right or not, but the limits are similar all over the world.

They don't have to know that you are capable. They simply have to observe that you are (or not, as the case may be). Just because I don't run red lights doesn't mean I haven't got the ability to.

Anyone can drive fast in a straight line. I don't understand how you would be able to properly monitor driver ability from the side of a stretch of road. That would be exceedingly difficult, I would have thought.

And I'd disagree. I'm not sure I'm in favour of abolishing the speed limit, as has been sugested by others, but I'm certainly in favour of concentrating on bad driving - whatever form it takes - rather than rigid enforcement of rules.

Fine for things like running reds and doing dangerous maneuvers in the city, but very hard to tell on a stretch of 100km/h road.

There's significant evidence from around the world that rigid speed-focused policing not only doesn't work, but it actively counter-productive. It's not a very popular opinion amongst Police or law-makers - as it reduces revenue - but occasionally you do get a senior official willing to stand up and declare the system flawed. An example is Paul Garvin, Chief Constable of County Durham Police in the UK. He's very publically stated that speed cameras and rigid enforcement do not work (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/07/ncam07.xml), and the accident statistics in his bailiwick would seem to back that up. It's not a small difference either; 43% lower than in comparable force areas.

I'm not necessarily saying the same would work in New Zealand. However, the current fatality and hospitalisation figures show the current policy simply does not work. Despite increases in road safety (don't laugh), massive increases in active and passive safety devices in cars and a huge increase in the number of tickets issued the road toll figures, which declined year on year from 1990 through 2001, have flat-lined. The ACC claims for injuries following traffic accidents have jumped 26% since the anti-speed policy began.

By anyone's reckoning, it just does not work.

Thanks for the article, it was a good read. I don't understand what you mean when you say that it's counter-productive though. There is no situation I can think of where driving faster would be safer.

I can understand possibly the notion of focusing on the road rather than the speedo but I'd like to see stats on the amount of accidents caused by that.

Conditions dictate safe speed. Speed limits do not. The first line of the first linked page reads "The single biggest road safety issue in New Zealand today is speed - drivers travelling too fast for the conditions". This does not correlate with the statement that people who break speed limits are endangering others. So, unless you want to claim that speed limits define a safe maximum speed in all conditions regardless of every other variable, you have to admit that that these comments contradict each other.

I agree, conditions dictate safe speed and a lot of us are able to judge the conditions and choose a speed to suit. That unfortunately does not remove the idiots from the road who cannot. The limit at least gives SOME control over those idiots.

I would contest also that the conditions it is referring to also include the road. Again, not being an engineer, I can't say what a safe speed for our roads is as I didn't design them. If you're travelling too fast for the road conditions, then the statements are fine and don't contradict because they're saying that speeds over 100Km/h are over what the road conditions are.

This is just my take on it, by the way. If you have evidence to show that the majority of roads are capable of handling over the speed limit while maintaining the same level of safety as driving at 100, then I'll happily revise my opinion.

peasea

26th July 2007, 12:45

My 2c:

I rode through some pretty thick fog in the Waikato a few weeks ago on my way to Taupo. At 80-90kph I was having trouble seeing what was what and I was often below 80k. I got passed my a couple of utes and a mum in a mini van, kids on board etc. Where do these goobers get off?

You must adjust your speed to suit the conditions no argument but IMHO if the revenue collectors would give more people a good talking to instead of ticketing arbitrarily some respect for the police in general might (just might) return.

I have to agree with earlier comments that
1) General crime doesn't rate too highly on the priority scale because it doesn't generate any revenue and
2) We need to pressure the govt to look at increasing the max speed in certain areas. I won't hold my breath on that one though, modern cars and bikes cruise at 115-120, so setting the limit at 100 is a sure cash earner. It's so easy to exceed 100 and they know it.

Road users are treated like ignorant, bottomless cash machines and the longer they are treated like idiots the longer they'll behave like that.

Take two kids the same age, call one an idiot for ten years and see how he ends up, educate the other one thoroughly and observe the difference.

There's nothing wrong with 120kph on some sections of road, in fine weather etc etc. but what the driver/rider needs to understand is that it's not safe to do 120 in all conditions on all roads.

You can make what you will of statistics but look at the LTNZ website and check out the number of deaths per 10,000 cars or 100,000 people and compare them to previous decades. The 2006 toll was the lowest in 46 years yet look at the volume of traffic!!!! While any death is tragic we're actually not the maniacs that the govt would have you believe. Sure they'll tell you that the blitz on speeding is working wonders and how good they are for fining our arses off but what they don't mention is the ability of cars/bikes/trucks to stop better, handle better and for the cars, the airbags must have made a difference.

There is also a (slightly) better system for obtaining driver's licenses. Its leaves a lot to be desired but it's better than it was.

This is lifted from the LTNZ site:

"Preliminary analysis shows that driving too fast for the conditions and drink-driving were the two biggest factors in fatal crashes last year, with excessive speed a factor in 30 percent and drink-driving contributing to 28 percent. Twenty-four percent of the vehicle occupants killed last year were not wearing seatbelts."

Three dumb things; Too fast for the conditions, pissed and no belt. How stupid can you get? Pulling 111 (or 112) on a state highway or motorway in fine conditions should just be ignored. If it's wet, then ok, ticket the dork and while 100kph is the legal limit I'm not the only one who thinks it's too slow.

It used to be law that blacks had to sit in the rear of a bus in Alabama; it was a dumb law and was changed through public pressure. We won't change anything by blathering on about it on KB.

It really pisses me off when you can't find a cop to attend a burglary or assault but they've got all freakin' day to scribble out tickets for exceeding the limit on a great piece of road.

Rant over, sorry about that.

scumdog

26th July 2007, 13:49

My 2c:

I have to agree with earlier comments that
1) General crime doesn't rate too highly on the priority scale because it doesn't generate any revenue and

How It really pisses me off when you can't find a cop to attend a burglary or assault but they've got all freakin' day to scribble out tickets for exceeding the limit on a great piece of road.

Rant over, sorry about that.

About (1) above - you obtained that 'fact' where?

Re the above: the Gov't has kinda re-invented the wheel.
Remember the 'good old days' when there were police and there were traffic cops? and how traffic cops never attended burglaries or assaults?

Well the only difference these days is the two sectors wear the same uniform etc.

Would you be happier if the two reverted to pre-'92 situation?

MSTRS

26th July 2007, 14:28

Would you be happier if the two reverted to pre-'92 situation?

Every cop I've ever talked about this with would be.

spudchucka

26th July 2007, 16:05

I have to agree with earlier comments that
1) General crime doesn't rate too highly on the priority scale because it doesn't generate any revenue and

It really pisses me off when you can't find a cop to attend a burglary or assault but they've got all freakin' day to scribble out tickets for exceeding the limit on a great piece of road.

Rant over, sorry about that.

1: You are wrong but I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you.

Regarding burglary attendance and traffic cops. The traffic cops are ring fenced to perform their specific duties. The traffic branch receives funds from various outside agencies that all expect their pound of flesh for their money. That's why traffic cops won't be diverted to attend historic burglary complaints. However, they will divert to help out with burglaries that are happening now when there is a very good chance of catching an offender on the job.

There is a trial taking place at the moment that has been quite successful in reducing time delays for burglary attendance. It is being trialled in two districts at present and I have no doubt that it will be implemented nation wide in the next couple of years.

Basically it involves the complainant ringing a single non emergency number (SNEN) instead of 111 to report their historic burglary. All the offence report details are taken by a call centre and a job is created for a crime scene forensic specialist to attend. When they attend they check all the details of the offence, carry out area enquiries and complete whatever forensic examination that may be required. They then pass the file on to a burglary squad that does all the follow up with suspects etc.

It has been extremely successful in the pilot areas. Burglaries are usually attended within 24 hours. It has required significant investment by police to increase the numbers of Scene of Crime Officers that are required to cover the work load so don't tell me that general volume crime isn't a priority.

It has also taken about 30% of the previous workload away from the cops working the front line, which means they have more time to investigate all manner of other offences. It also however means that they have more time to police the roads and will be expected to do so.

more_fasterer

26th July 2007, 17:25

There is a trial taking place at the moment that has been quite successful in reducing time delays for burglary attendance. It is being trialled in two districts at present and I have no doubt that it will be implemented nation wide in the next couple of years.

Basically it involves the complainant ringing a single non emergency number (SNEN) instead of 111 to report their historic burglary. All the offence report details are taken by a call centre and a job is created for a crime scene forensic specialist to attend. When they attend they check all the details of the offence, carry out area enquiries and complete whatever forensic examination that may be required. They then pass the file on to a burglary squad that does all the follow up with suspects etc.

It has been extremely successful in the pilot areas. Burglaries are usually attended within 24 hours. It has required significant investment by police to increase the numbers of Scene of Crime Officers that are required to cover the work load so don't tell me that general volume crime isn't a priority.

It has also taken about 30% of the previous workload away from the cops working the front line, which means they have more time to investigate all manner of other offences. It also however means that they have more time to police the roads and will be expected to do so.

It is great to hear this from a currently serving Police officer. Strangely, it contradicts the comments from another currently serving Police officer which were (excuse the paraphrasing, I didn't have my dictaphone with me):

"I've recently moved from the beat to traffic, as there was so much paperwork involved in policing crimes such as burglaries that it became incredibly frustrating. Traffic seemed that much more enticing as it's easier to meet your performance targets with less time stuck at a desk."

marty

26th July 2007, 21:02

For reference, in the UK's last major study of accident causes, "speed in excess of the posted limit" was the root cause of just 3% of accidents. other causes that rated higher included tailgating, not paying attention, tiredness, alcohol, drug impairment, failing to observe, failing to give way and driving whilst in a clown suit. OK, maybe not the last one.

.

so speed may not have been the root cause in 97% of crashes, but i bet it was either mitigating (tailgating - at speed. driving tired - at speed. alcohol/drug impaired - at speed etc etc) or just really hurt a lot when they stopped quickly.

suck it up dude. if you're fool enough to get caught, too bad. if you don't like the limits, instead of bleating on here like some hard-done-by moron, either move to europe, or get andy knackers job.

marty

26th July 2007, 21:09

peasea - you sound like a herald-letter-writing busybody that has his head stuck in the sand dune of idealism. unfortunately the quagmire of reality is over >>>>>>

(note how that points outside of the internet.....)

it's all a conspiriacy against people like you, you know.

and by the way - i got pinged on Renwick Rd in Blenheim at 3am this morning. 85 in a 50. could see the 100k signs about a k ahead of me. nice cop gave me a growling, and said don't do it again :)

oh, i ws talking on my phone, and eating a pie at the time too.....

Storm

26th July 2007, 21:36

Would you be happier if the two reverted to pre-'92 situation?

Yes.
Then you could be an upstanding member of the police force, or a revenue gathering bastard. Nice and clear, black and white. Everyone knows what jobs you'd be doing.

Still wont stop the wingeing when someone gets a ticket mind you-then again nothing does!

spudchucka

26th July 2007, 22:01

It is great to hear this from a currently serving Police officer. Strangely, it contradicts the comments from another currently serving Police officer which were (excuse the paraphrasing, I didn't have my dictaphone with me):

"I've recently moved from the beat to traffic, as there was so much paperwork involved in policing crimes such as burglaries that it became incredibly frustrating. Traffic seemed that much more enticing as it's easier to meet your performance targets with less time stuck at a desk."

That's an individuals choice to make. General Duties policing can be bloody hard work at times, people burn out very quickly and it can actually be quite beneficial to take breaks into different areas of policing that aren't generally quite so stressful.

marty

26th July 2007, 22:05

"Sierra Oscar 24 to Sierra Oscar. Chasing a black bike last seen heading west on State Highway 16. Registration unknown."

And of course, they're no exits to use and nice surburban back streets to pootle through at 49kph all the way home. Hmmm - I wonder if the standard UK big city method of evading Police choppers works in Auckland too; head to the airport.

In the UK, at least, there's a snowball's chance in hell that air traffic control would let a Police chopper fly into Heathrow or Manchester airport controlled airspace unless the person they were chasing had done something particularly nasty. Air traffic control have been known to ask Police chopper crews what the accused is meant to have done, and then allow or deny them based upon that. When you've got a passenger plane taking off or landing every thirty seconds, closing the airport approach for ten minutes to allow a police chopper access can prove rather costly.

And if air traffic control ever find out the Police chopper pilot's lied; that's his pilot's licence.

fucking bullshit. police helos operate well under the circuit height for airports, and helicopter movements at heathrow would generally not infringe on the approach/departure. you'd be a brave man in todays environment to take a pursuit into a major airport in london.....i can imagine it now - 'police chopper to control - in pursuit of black bike - looks like it's going to the airport' . Seen the security at Heathrow lately?

auckland airport - the only place it 'may' become an issue is if you headed up puhinui rd, however it is easy to stay off to the side of the approach - i have a couple of times had to hold overhead the viewing carpark waiting for 74s etc to fly past, and the wake turbulence to dissapate.

on top of everything else, it would require the turning off of the transponder for someone to illegally bust a CTA -more foolish than lying about where you flew.

swbarnett

27th July 2007, 00:05

I dunno about this. It's better than nothing,
Giving people a false sense of security can't be good.

I see merits to both preventative policing and aftermath policing...the trouble is striking a balance that is effective enough for this society. Not an easy thing to do.
Probably one of the more level-headed things I've read in this thread. I think the current balance is way too heavy towards arbitrary limits.

scumdog

27th July 2007, 00:48

fucking bullshit. police helos operate well under the circuit height for airports, and helicopter movements at heathrow would generally not infringe on the approach/departure. you'd be a brave man in todays environment to take a pursuit into a major airport in london.....i can imagine it now - 'police chopper to control - in pursuit of black bike - looks like it's going to the airport' . Seen the security at Heathrow lately?

auckland airport - the only place it 'may' become an issue is if you headed up puhinui rd, however it is easy to stay off to the side of the approach - i have a couple of times had to hold overhead the viewing carpark waiting for 74s etc to fly past, and the wake turbulence to dissapate.

C'mon Marty, don't go bursting yet another 'urban myth' bubble, sheesh, let 'em dream eh?

Whynot

27th July 2007, 02:11

oh, i ws talking on my phone, and eating a pie at the time too.....

what flavour?

marty

27th July 2007, 07:57

well she was a brunette.

the pie was a mrs mac - mince and double cheese

Whynot

27th July 2007, 08:25

well she was a brunette.

the pie was a mrs mac - mince and double cheese

good choice on both counts :first:

Swoop

27th July 2007, 13:17

fucking bullshit. police helos operate well under the circuit height for airports....
Police helos AND fixed wing police a/c have operated at exactly the same height over Auckland... Not successfully though...:bye:

auckland airport - the only place it 'may' become an issue is if you headed up puhinui rd, however it is easy to stay off to the side of the approach - i have a couple of times had to hold overhead the viewing carpark waiting for 74s etc to fly past, and the wake turbulence to dissapate.
Bloody superb eye-candy when you transit southwards directly over the tower at 1k! Jumbo coming at you head-on, on the left, another showing his tail on the right:Punk::Punk:
Have only done it once though.

Patrick

27th July 2007, 16:59

Again, the spurious linking of speed to crashing and dieing. Nobody with more than half a clue is swallows this claptrap - it's more political than road safety orientated..

You do miss the point, don't ya... Speed doesn't only kill, it also maims and injures, costing ACC and the taxpayer hundreds of millions of $$$ every year. Those with less than half a clue can't get to grips with this...

Yes.
Then you could be an upstanding member of the police force, or a revenue gathering bastard. Nice and clear, black and white. Everyone knows what jobs you'd be doing.

The merger happened back in 1992, 15 years ago. If people don't understand that all Police can, and will, and are required to issue tickets after all this time, then what hope is there....

carver

27th July 2007, 17:03

Max Preload

27th July 2007, 17:04

You do miss the point, don't ya... Speed doesn't only kill, it also maims and injures, costing ACC and the taxpayer hundreds of millions of $$$ every year. Those with less than half a clue can't get to grips with this...

If it's 'speeding' that kills and maims how come I'm not dead or maimed? I 'speed' lots. I can't fathom it. Maybe it's because I don't 'speed' recklessly or at inapproriate times and crash. Could it actually be crashing that kills and maims?

Max Preload

27th July 2007, 17:14

Police helos AND fixed wing police a/c have operated at exactly the same height over Auckland... Not successfully though...:bye:

If you're meaning the Eagle Police helicopter vs the traffic spotter plane in 1993, I thought the plane was civillian not Police...

Jantar

27th July 2007, 17:24

" The numbers of people admitted to hospital following a road traffic accident:2006 - 8,788"

"There were 740,120 speeding offences reported covering 38 different speed limits, excluding those reported as a breach of a specified condition on a drivers licence."

Both sets of data are from the Ministry of Transport for the financial year ended June 2006. I am not sure what proportion of speeding motorists and motorcyclists are actually stopped and issued with a ticket, but we all know how often each of us speeds and doesn't get caught.

Note that there are aproximately 100 times the number of speeding tickets issued as there are hospital discharges, and many of these hospital discharges will be passengers, not drivers/riders. Also consider that exceeding the speed limit only accounts for a very small proportion of accidents, and we can easily see the lie about speeding causing accidents, death & injury.

Accidents DO cause death and injury, but exceding the speed limit does not neccessarily cause accidents.

MSTRS

27th July 2007, 17:32

Yes.
Then you could be an upstanding member of the police force, or a revenue gathering bastard. Nice and clear, black and white. Everyone knows what jobs you'd be doing.

Still wont stop the wingeing when someone gets a ticket mind you-then again nothing does!

The merger happened back in 1992, 15 years ago. If people don't understand that all Police can, and will, and are required to issue tickets after all this time, then what hope is there....

This is the crux of it...we do understand. It's one of the big reasons why police are not respected as they were...you are 'all revenue gathering bastards'.
And liars.
And sexual deviants.
And lazy on 'real crime'.
pt

Patrick

27th July 2007, 17:58

If it's 'speeding' that kills and maims how come I'm not dead or maimed? I 'speed' lots. I can't fathom it. Maybe it's because I don't 'speed' recklessly or at inapproriate times and crash. Could it actually be crashing that kills and maims?

Perhaps your time is coming? It is not only speed... but speed keeps us too busy to do other stuff...

If you're meaning the Eagle Police helicopter vs the traffic spotter plane in 1993, I thought the plane was civillian not Police...

Quite right. It was a plane "spotting" for a radio station.

This is the crux of it...we do understand. It's one of the big reasons why police are not respected as they were...you are 'all revenue gathering bastards'.
And liars.
And sexual deviants.
And lazy on 'real crime'.
pt

and donut eaters...

swbarnett

27th July 2007, 18:25

Perhaps your time is coming? It is not only speed... but speed keeps us too busy to do other stuff...
Only because you view that other stuff as a lower priority.

Swoop

27th July 2007, 20:17

If you're meaning the Eagle Police helicopter vs the traffic spotter plane in 1993, I thought the plane was civillian not Police...

Quite right. It was a plane "spotting" for a radio station.
http://www2.taic.org.nz/InvList/Air/Page19.aspx
93-020 Aerospatiale AS 355 F1 ZK-HIT and Piper PA 28-181 ZK-ENX, mid-air collision, Auckland City, 26 November 1993

Volume A10 1 Safety Recommendations of which 0 are open.
A AS 355 helicopter with a PA 28 aeroplane, both on Police patrol flights over Auckland City, collided on 26 November 1993. Safety issues discussed include the limitations of the "see and avoid" concept of collision avoidance,

marty

27th July 2007, 20:35

If you're meaning the Eagle Police helicopter vs the traffic spotter plane in 1993, I thought the plane was civillian not Police...

it was a private traffic spotter plane. and it wasn't anywhere near the airport. and auckland city is still an uncontrolled mandatory broadcast zone up to 1500'. and they have closed the only airport available to light aircraft encountering difficulty overhead the city.

Sanx

27th July 2007, 23:13

so speed may not have been the root cause in 97% of crashes, but i bet it was either mitigating (tailgating - at speed. driving tired - at speed. alcohol/drug impaired - at speed etc etc) or just really hurt a lot when they stopped quickly.

Actually, only 7% of all KSI crashes had exceedin the speed limit as a factor, causual or otherwise.

fucking bullshit. police helos operate well under the circuit height for airports, and helicopter movements at heathrow would generally not infringe on the approach/departure. you'd be a brave man in todays environment to take a pursuit into a major airport in london.....i can imagine it now - 'police chopper to control - in pursuit of black bike - looks like it's going to the airport' . Seen the security at Heathrow lately?

Yes, I have seen the security, thanks. And I could also point to three different roads on the perimeter of Heathrow airport that, depending on which runway they were using, would require a police chopper to be on the ground to be outside of the approach run. And these roads are not airport property, either; they're normal standard roads which skirt the end of the runway. And, as the Police chopper pilot, there'd be bugger all chance of waiting somewhere and nipping across when there's time - the airport's simply far too busy.

on top of everything else, it would require the turning off of the transponder for someone to illegally bust a CTA -more foolish than lying about where you flew.

I was referring to the pilot lying about what the person being chased had done, not lying about where they were going.

Sanx

27th July 2007, 23:24

A AS 355 helicopter with a PA 28 aeroplane, both on Police patrol flights over Auckland City, collided on 26 November 1993. Safety issues discussed include the limitations of the "see and avoid" concept of collision avoidance, the use of radio contact between aircraft and the variety of radio frequencies in use.

The aircraft were obviously speeding...

Patrick

28th July 2007, 11:23

http://www2.taic.org.nz/InvList/Air/Page19.aspx
93-020 Aerospatiale AS 355 F1 ZK-HIT and Piper PA 28-181 ZK-ENX, mid-air collision, Auckland City, 26 November 1993

Volume A10 1 Safety Recommendations of which 0 are open.
A AS 355 helicopter with a PA 28 aeroplane, both on Police patrol flights over Auckland City, collided on 26 November 1993. Safety issues discussed include the limitations of the "see and avoid" concept of collision avoidance,

The plane is not, and never was, a Police patrol flight... so wherever this came from, it is wrong in that regard.

Patrick

28th July 2007, 11:38

Only because you view that other stuff as a lower priority.

Trolling are we???

I view it as a low priority??? Since when???

There aren't too many threads on KB about tickets being issued for overtaking on blind bends, driving through stop signs, whatever, because YOU think tickets aren't being issued for those???

Just wrong, plain and simple. 35% of all tickets issued (excluding speed and seatbelts) are for road safety in this district (IE: Overtaking on blind bends, stop signs, red lights, whatever...) It may differ in other areas, but I believe that is a national quota figure.

People don't tend to overtake on blind bends, into oncoming traffic, crash stop signs, whatever, if there is a patrol car that sticks out like dogs balls following them... While a patrol car is in the area, the driving is usually impeccable.

As for the shite I see when I am on my bike or in my private car, well........ sheesh......

swbarnett

28th July 2007, 12:20

Trolling are we???
I view it as a low priority??? Since when???

Perhaps I misunderstood you. You Said:

but speed keeps us too busy to do other stuff...
I took this to mean that you were too busy giving out speeding tickets to deal with the other stuff that you see i.e. if you saw someone speeding and someone else dangerously overtaking at the same time you'd go after the speeding. My apologies if I misread what you said.

swbarnett

28th July 2007, 12:27

People don't tend to overtake on blind bends, into oncoming traffic, crash stop signs, whatever, if there is a patrol car that sticks out like dogs balls following them... While a patrol car is in the area, the driving is usually impeccable.

So the only way that these people get caught is if they actually have an accident.

This is, in effect, what I'm proposing with regards to speeding. The drivers are essentially doing what they like unmonitored until they actually do something that leads directly to an accident. Then you can throw the book at them.

Why is this not applied to speeding? Simply because speeding is easy to spot, not because anyone actually thinks speeding has a greater chance of leading to an accident than, say, overtaking on a blind corner.

Max Preload

28th July 2007, 12:27

Perhaps your time is coming? It is not only speed... but speed keeps us too busy to do other stuff...

Well, I wish it'd hurry up - the 19 years of motorcycling while waiting has been intense! I even tried helping it along by not owning a car until I was 27. What more could I do?

Mekk

28th July 2007, 12:58

If it's 'speeding' that kills and maims how come I'm not dead or maimed? I 'speed' lots. I can't fathom it. Maybe it's because I don't 'speed' recklessly or at inapproriate times and crash. Could it actually be crashing that kills and maims?

Feigning ignorance hardly helps your point. Do you understand cause and effect?

How come I can leave my computer on during an electrical storm and have never had the PSU fried? Those nay-sayers must be all shit.

Max Preload

28th July 2007, 13:15

Feigning ignorance hardly helps your point. Do you understand cause and effect?

How come I can leave my computer on during an electrical storm and have never had the PSU fried? Those nay-sayers must be all shit.

I understand cause and effect perfectly. I'd have thought you'd realise that simply by noticing I'm not the one claiming that simply driving at a speed over and above a posted arbitrary speed limit automatically leads to death or injury.

Mekk

28th July 2007, 13:19

I understand cause and effect perfectly. I'd have thought you'd realise that simply by noticing I'm not the one claiming that simply driving at a speed over and above a posted arbitrary speed limit automatically leads to death or injury.

Not automatically, but I've been over how that limit is set for the majority of road users. I mean it's fine if you're Rossi or whatever, but you cannot deny that travelling at a greater speed increases the risks of your ride.

Human reactions are not as good as so many people think they are, unfortunately.

Max Preload

28th July 2007, 16:03

Not automatically, but I've been over how that limit is set for the majority of road users. I mean it's fine if you're Rossi or whatever, but you cannot deny that travelling at a greater speed increases the risks of your ride.

Human reactions are not as good as so many people think they are, unfortunately.

Not surprisingly, I disagree. Driving at a speed higher than the posted limit does not increase risk any more than driving below that limit decreases risk.

What decreases risk is being observant and profiling other drivers on the road with you based on a large number of variables and taking appropriate actions (be that reducing or increasing your speed or any number of other things).

If the punishment for causing an crash was much worse than it currently is, and the level of practical driving skills and knowledge of the road rules required to obtain a license in the first place was higher that also would reduce risk. Regular retesting would have to be part of this so people don't slip into bad habits.

Low speed limits are merely damage limiting measures for when, not if, someone who probably shouldn't be on the road in the first place does something to further reinforce that fact. Remove those idiots and the risk drops.

Being a motorcyclist yourself I would have thought that the greatest risk to you is in fact other road users driving around in their cages completely oblivious to your presence on the road, isolated from the true conditions with sound proofing and a stereo, heating, traction control and a nonchalant attitude towards safety because they have 8 airbags ready to cushion their empty heads if they do happen to smack into something due to their own negligence - like say you.

Any fall at speed from a bike can be fatal but more so when it's as the result of a collision with another vehicle piloted by an indifferent idiot who "didn't see you".

Jantar

28th July 2007, 20:01

35% of all tickets issued (excluding speed and seatbelts) are for road safety in this district (IE: Overtaking on blind bends, stop signs, red lights, whatever...) It may differ in other areas, but I believe that is a national quota figure.......
But as speeding (excluding riding/driving outside conditions of licence) accounts for 50% of traffic infringement notices, this means that only 18% of tickets all issued are for road safety. So what are the other 82% of tickets issued for?

Obviously they are for revenue gathering.

Now Patrick, before you jump to the conclusion that I'm implying that the police somehow benefit from this revenue gathering... I'm not. Its treasury that benefits.

This quote is from Hon ANNETTE KING in response to a question in the house:
"I have done a lot of work on the issue. It is now apparent that the use of infringement notices and traffic offence notices-performance measures-was first introduced in 1997-98 in line with Treasury guidelines."

scumdog

28th July 2007, 20:07

But as speeding (excluding riding/driving outside conditions of licence) accounts for 50% of traffic infringement notices, this means that only 18% of tickets all issued are for road safety. So what are the other 82% of tickets issued for?

Obviously they are for revenue gathering.

:

ALL tickets are for revenue gathering...after all, except for compliance tickets they all cost somebody some money!

The fun is in avoiding said revenue collections....

Jantar

28th July 2007, 20:09

The fun is in avoiding said revenue collections.... Oh, so true. :innocent:

kiwifruit

28th July 2007, 20:11

The fun is in avoiding said revenue collections....

:not: :not:

Mekk

29th July 2007, 01:01

Not surprisingly, I disagree. Driving at a speed higher than the posted limit does not increase risk any more than driving below that limit decreases risk.

If a hazard comes into view faster than your reactions can respond to it, then there's your accident. Therefore driving faster means less time to react which means a higher risk of binning. This is basic physics.

What decreases risk is being observant and profiling other drivers on the road with you based on a large number of variables and taking appropriate actions (be that reducing or increasing your speed or any number of other things).

I agree, all that you have mentioned there does decrease risk.

Remove those idiots and the risk drops.

I agree entirely with that sentence. That's also why the limit is in place. It's not just damage control, it's reaction time and idiot control too.

Being a motorcyclist yourself I would have thought that the greatest risk to you is in fact other road users driving around in their cages completely oblivious to your presence on the road, isolated from the true conditions with sound proofing and a stereo, heating, traction control and a nonchalant attitude towards safety because they have 8 airbags ready to cushion their empty heads if they do happen to smack into something due to their own negligence - like say you.

No need to swing this personally, it isn't. The ad hominem fallacy doesn't further anything either.

I know the greatest risk to me is a cage, hence why I wouldn't want them to be able to go any faster and increase the risk to me. Which side are you on?

Any fall at speed from a bike can be fatal but more so when it's as the result of a collision with another vehicle piloted by an indifferent idiot who "didn't see you".

Yes, who has less of a chance to react to "seeing you" if you or they are speeding.

rwh

29th July 2007, 02:54

If a hazard comes into view faster than your reactions can respond to it, then there's your accident. Therefore driving faster means less time to react which means a higher risk of binning. This is basic physics.

That's true. But if you choose the right time and place, the chances of hazards coming into view in the first place are reduced. For instance, if you're travelling along the centre lane (ie neither the fast lane or the slow lane) of a straight section of motorway, with no other vehicles in sight, it would take a rather determined hazard to get into your way before you see it, even at 150.

And if it's something you didn't see because it's too small, well, at least you've got clear road to slide down, with no innocents in the way.

You're never going to get rid of the risk entirely, but there will always be occasions you can ride at greater than the speed limit with similar risk to situations that are considered perfectly normal and acceptable. And many of those situations should be quite obvious to a police observer.

Richard

Kickaha

29th July 2007, 08:52

The fun is in avoiding said revenue collections....

Not that hard to do

1 speeding ticket in the last 25 years and I haven't ever had any demerits, it's just a matter of picking the time and place

Mekk

29th July 2007, 10:44

That's true. But if you choose the right time and place, the chances of hazards coming into view in the first place are reduced. For instance, if you're travelling along the centre lane (ie neither the fast lane or the slow lane) of a straight section of motorway, with no other vehicles in sight, it would take a rather determined hazard to get into your way before you see it, even at 150.

And if it's something you didn't see because it's too small, well, at least you've got clear road to slide down, with no innocents in the way.

You're never going to get rid of the risk entirely, but there will always be occasions you can ride at greater than the speed limit with similar risk to situations that are considered perfectly normal and acceptable. And many of those situations should be quite obvious to a police observer.

Richard

That begs the question...where do you put the police? In the twisties?

I understand that Sanx's "maneuvre" was low risk, but it's not unreasonable to see why he was pinged in my opinion.

Patrick

29th July 2007, 18:01

I took this to mean that you were too busy giving out speeding tickets to deal with the other stuff that you see i.e. if you saw someone speeding and someone else dangerously overtaking at the same time you'd go after the speeding. My apologies if I misread what you said.

No worries, you were wrong, and quite wrong as above to assume speed would get the priority... stupid shit gets my interest every time.

Well, I wish it'd hurry up - the 19 years of motorcycling while waiting has been intense! I even tried helping it along by not owning a car until I was 27. What more could I do?

Hopefully it won't happen... it may not be your driving that you need to worry about... it could be the kid who steps out unseen in the dark, the black dog, someone misjudging your oncomiing speed, whatever...

But as speeding (excluding riding/driving outside conditions of licence) accounts for 50% of traffic infringement notices, this means that only 18% of tickets all issued are for road safety. So what are the other 82% of tickets issued for?

Huh? Where is this 18% figre from??? It is 35%, quota per copper...

Jantar

29th July 2007, 18:39

Huh? Where is this 18% figre from??? It is 35%, quota per copper...

OK so it isn't 18%, I was being generous, its closer to 16%. But it is just basic arithmetic based on your statement:

35% of all tickets issued (excluding speed and seatbelts) are for road safety in this district (IE: Overtaking on blind bends, stop signs, red lights, whatever...) It may differ in other areas, but I believe that is a national quota figure.
......

This data is from the MOT.

The total number of infringements and offences reported for 2006 was 1,411,251.

There were 740,120 speeding offences reported

So that means that there were 671,131 tickets issued excluding speed. I don't have the figure for seatbelts, so I will assume none. Of course as some would have been issued, that would decrease the number from 671,131 to some smaller number.

Now your claim is that 35% of these 671,131 tickets are for road safety, or nationally that would be 234,896 tickets issued for road safety. This equates to 16.6% of all tickets issued being for road safety. I was being generous, and if we allow that some tickets were issued for seat belt offences then the true value is probably 16%. So 84% of all tickets are not for road safety.

What are they for then?

Swoop

29th July 2007, 21:20

...so wherever this came from, it is wrong in that regard.
By clicking on the link it will take you to "wherever" this information came from.

Patrick

30th July 2007, 16:12

By clicking on the link it will take you to "wherever" this information came from.

Doesn't matter... It is wrong....

Patrick

30th July 2007, 16:19

OK so it isn't 18%, I was being generous, its closer to 16%. But it is just basic arithmetic based on your statement:

This data is from the MOT.

So that means that there were 671,131 tickets issued excluding speed. I don't have the figure for seatbelts, so I will assume none. Of course as some would have been issued, that would decrease the number from 671,131 to some smaller number.

Now your claim is that 35% of these 671,131 tickets are for road safety, or nationally that would be 234,896 tickets issued for road safety. This equates to 16.6% of all tickets issued being for road safety. I was being generous, and if we allow that some tickets were issued for seat belt offences then the true value is probably 16%. So 84% of all tickets are not for road safety.

What are they for then?

Your math is probably better than mine.....

Of all tickets I issue, 35% are to be for road safety. It is to be the same for all cops. Whether they reach these targets is unclear. The argument could also be that speed may be a safety issue?? "All infringements" would include speed, seatbelts, parking, licence breaches, WOF, Regos, whatever....

Do your part, stop speeding and really piss off all those coppers who can't get quota, which then flows uphill to his/her bosses, then to his/her bosses, then to his/her bosses etc etc...