Harry Duynhoven

[Lou Girardin]

Article in the Star-Times quotes Harry Duynhoven as wanting higher speed limits on roads that can support them. He asks, "is it rational to have a 100 km/h limit on long, clear, straight roads?"
He's asked the speed management team to look at better ways to to control speed and driver behaviour, including making drivers keep left when not overtaking.
He says that speed cameras are costing public support, a big chunk of the public see it as nothing but revenue collecting.

So. if this happens, I'll look forward to comments from certain members of this forum who think it's better to sit on their fat butts than try to change anything. No doubt they'll continue to travel at 100 km/h in the interests of 'trauma reduction'.
As if!

[TLDV8]

"is it rational to have a 100 km/h limit on long, clear, straight roads?"


In a perfect world common sense would prevail as far as speed limits go,at the end of most straights there will be a corner........there lies the problem.

[Bonez]

In a perfect world common sense would prevail as far as speed limits go,at the end of most straights there will be a corner........there lies the problem.
Agreed and those folk that have returned to m/c after many years absence, reliving their youth, and purchased these modern rocketships realise just how slow their reactions have become. :crybaby:

[FROSTY]

ohh yea -i can vouch for that.

[MacD]

I recently spent 3 weeks driving around the UK and was reasonably impressed with their approach to speed limits. There is the standard motorway and dual carriage-way limit of 70 mph, single carriage-way of 60mph and built-up area limit of 30mph. However there also seemed to be a lot of urban areas with 40 mph or even 50 mph limits where it was reasonable for the type of road. On the other hand there were 20mph limits through small villages.

It seems to me that applying an appropriate speed limit is an important step towards getting people to actually comply with speed limits, rather than just sending them a bill in the mail after the event?

Perhaps Harry Duynhoven is showing some signs of actually thinking about the issues!?

[Lou Girardin]

I'm sorry if I upset anyone with that post. What I should have said was "those members that sit on their fat butts and actively discourage anyone from trying to change anything."

[jrandom]

I'm sorry if I upset anyone with that post. What I should have said was "those members that sit on their fat butts and actively discourage anyone from trying to change anything."

Well, rather. I mean, your original description covered about 90% of KBers, myself included, if you equate "thinking it's better to..." with observable behaviour.

But I don't quite know who you're talking about regarding "actively discouraging". Surely not our local potato-hurling policeman again. :rolleyes:

[Hitcher]

Surely not our local potato-hurling policeman again.
People who inhabit glass houses shouldn't either.

[Jackrat]

So Lou,does your logic extend in the other direction, or would that not allow you to air your chip on the shoulder.
Oh sorry,It's the Gov'ts fault,nothing to do with speed,Right!! <_<

[TLDV8]

I'm sorry if I upset anyone with that post. What I should have said was "those members that sit on their fat butts and actively discourage anyone from trying to change anything."

I certainly was not upset (i have no idea who Harry Duynhoven is come to think of it ?)...... but...As most know Speed Limits and most rules in general are based on the lowest denominator,along the lines of it only takes one to !@#$ it for the rest.......What should the speed limit be? that would be easy based on common sense,Perhap's the problem is not a number but the dismal driving abilities of the average punter behind the wheel?.....Lets take mine and many others beloved homeland,Auckland..probably some of the worst drivers in the country,who at the best of times struggle at driving in straight lines down the motorway or keeping any kind safe following distance etc etc......Shock Horror it gets worse,come the Weekend..and there is a fairly good posibility of that same "City Driver/Rider" actually leaving the city and heading out onto the open road :gob: ......OMG now you have to think... go around corners... evaluate the driving conditions... even overtake other vehicles with the added bonus of other oncoming vehicles.......imagine if the posted limit was 120kph on the open road or even better it really was based on common sense :killingme .......The whole thing is a Catch 22....if you sign post a speed camera fixed or mobile ,you slow down untill passing it,but not much is gained......when there is the risk of getting pinged by a concealed Camera ( :doh: 115kph in the middle of nowhere!!!) then perhaps the limit will be adhered to (for a bit)....... In the end it comes down to driver education and skills learned,some drivers are dangerous in a parking lot let alone out on the road... http://www.tlplanet.com/forums/images/smilies/sadlike.gif

Ohh no...... just read the above posts ......could this thread be the Kiwi version of Gixxer.com? ..... :killingme

[jrandom]

People who inhabit glass houses shouldn't...

... hurl potatoes?

Unless they're mashed, I suppose.

[Lou Girardin]

So Lou,does your logic extend in the other direction, or would that not allow you to air your chip on the shoulder.
Oh sorry,It's the Gov'ts fault,nothing to do with speed,Right!! <_<

Sorry, I don't follow. What direction are you referring to?

[spudchucka]

Article in the Star-Times quotes Harry Duynhoven as wanting higher speed limits on roads that can support them. He asks, "is it rational to have a 100 km/h limit on long, clear, straight roads?"
He's asked the speed management team to look at better ways to to control speed and driver behaviour, including making drivers keep left when not overtaking.
He says that speed cameras are costing public support, a big chunk of the public see it as nothing but revenue collecting.

So. if this happens, I'll look forward to comments from certain members of this forum who think it's better to sit on their fat butts than try to change anything. No doubt they'll continue to travel at 100 km/h in the interests of 'trauma reduction'.
As if!
You forgot to mention that in the same article Harry said he would like to see strick enforcement of a 110 kph speed limit, sounds very much like what we have now.

[spudchucka]

I'm sorry if I upset anyone with that post. What I should have said was "those members that sit on their fat butts and actively discourage anyone from trying to change anything."
Firstly, you have no idea how fat my butt is.

Secondly, I'm not discouraging anyone from trying to change things, just highlighting how feable your attempts are. :finger:

By the way, what a load of crap you spoke in another recent thread about abusing other members who dissagree with you.

[badlieutenant]

sigh...........everyone grab a rock.........
the speed limit has been the same for a few years now. The only thing thats changed is the ability to enforce these rules (i.e technology). If getting a ticket is revenue grabing then they've been at it a while, only now they are a lot better at it. I hate getting tickets and i hate demerit points. But them the rules, gotta live by them or be prepared to pay fines.
Lou, was this thread started just so spud or marty would bite ? Im curious, not that ive gota problem with that :D Ive had a good laugh at some of the to-ings and fro-ings, keep it up. makes a dull night interesting.
one more thing, wasnt public support damaged more by things like the springbok tourthan road safety revenue grabing ? everyone remember the red squad ?

[stevedee]

100-109 km/h is about it for joe blogges, and I am... and I stick to it or just a wee bit above, realistically roads in NZ were never designed for anything faster. There ain't no barrier for error like in other countries, we kill each other head on . ......So ya just have to chill and accept that this is it. Pass the peanutts or find a track day, and hey we live to ride and enjoy riding so just chill and enjoy life... ain't alwas about who is first or is faster

[scumdog]

Lou, should perchance the open road speed limit be lifted -then THAT would be the only change on the roads (apart from more deaths I suspect), you would STILL get the same whingers whinging about 'speed limits' and 'revenue gathering' ad nauseum, ad infinitum as they are doing right now!
You would have to be dreaming if you thought it would placate those that whinge, even a blanket speed limit of 120kmh on the open road would still not keep them happy - or make the roads safe from those that are out of their depth on a fairground dodgem.

[spudchucka]

Secondly, I'm not discouraging anyone from trying to change things, just highlighting how feable your attempts are. :finger:

I've been thinking about this and what I question about you Lou are your motives.

You act as if you're on some sort of a crusade to bring about change to the transport system, yet your writing, (especially on this public forum) appears to be motivated simply to discredit the police, LTSA, Transit etc. Every time there is something in the news that you can use to score points against the police you start off on your crusade again. Your writing is not capable of masking your irrational hatred for authority, particularly police. You use the fact that you were once a Ministry of Transport traffic cop to add some credibility to your writing and in an attempt to mask your true motivation. You critiscise the police on issues that you can not possibly have any true depth of understanding of the complex issues at hand, (Waitara for instance).

It seems to me that you are primarily motivated by your hatred for police, (for whatever the true reasons are we will never know) or perhaps that you simply like seeing your name in print. Does it give you a feeling of power that you can no longer get from other avenues?

If you are truely motivated by a desire to initiate change then why don't YOU run for public office? Put yourself in a position to bring about change directly rather than just writing endless letters to newspapers. I imagine you wouldn't consider that because it would mean that you would then be in the unenviable position of having to make decisions instead of being in the comfortable position of being able to publicly critiscise everyone elses decisions.

Why don't you identify what the issues are that you want to change and start a national referendum? "The Govt will just thumb their noses at it like they did with the harsher sentencing referendum" I can hear you saying. Maybe so but at least if you got the support from the public then you would perhaps gain some legitimacy and you would have done something positive that takes some considerable effort to achieve. Unlike writing a letter to the Sunday paper from the comfort of own hobbit hole.

[rodgerd]

So. if this happens, I'll look forward to comments from certain members of this forum who think it's better to sit on their fat butts than try to change anything. No doubt they'll continue to travel at 100 km/h in the interests of 'trauma reduction'.
As if!

Whereas I'll be waiting for the squeals of outrage from those who clim to be interested in safe speeds when the limit on current 100km/h areas drops...

FWIW I think Duynhoven's thinking is very sound on this. Personally I'd like to see something like the French model, with 130km/h on the motorway, 110km/h on non-motorway, high end roads, and 90 km/h everywhere else, at most.

Of course, I'd also like to see people re-sit their license every 10 years. Which will never happen.

[James Deuce]

Whereas I'll be waiting for the squeals of outrage from those who clim to be interested in safe speeds when the limit on current 100km/h areas drops...
That was the little alarm bell going off in the back of my brain too. More from the perspective that all the roads I like to go for a ride on that have little traffic and great surfacing will suddenly be 80km/hr or less, and the "plus" side will be being allowed to go 110km/hr on the more congested, less well surfaced straight roads.

We should all be very, very careful about what we ask for. We might just get it.

[James Deuce]

FWIW I think Duynhoven's thinking is very sound on this. Personally I'd like to see something like the French model, with 130km/h on the motorway, 110km/h on non-motorway, high end roads, and 90 km/h everywhere else, at most.

I like this bit, except for the last bit. Our secondary roads are way better than French country lanes. Seriously.



Of course, I'd also like to see people re-sit their license every 10 years. Which will never happen.

You and me both.

[Hitcher]

Of course, I'd also like to see people re-sit their license every 10 years. Which will never happen.
Use it or lose it too! Practical and written re-sits!

[scumdog]

"Of course, I'd also like to see people re-sit their license every 10 years. Which will never happen."

Stopped a car on Sat night, 16 year old driver who was a month into a 4 month disqualification for numerous breaches of learners licence, this time not only were they disqualified but were drunk to boot, also had 5 passengers in a big old car they had not previously driven, good recipe for tragedy.

Penalties would have to be pretty severe to make people fall into line with a 10 year re-sit if they don't bother with the present system anyway.

[James Deuce]

"Of course, I'd also like to see people re-sit their license every 10 years. Which will never happen."

Stopped a car on Sat night, 16 year old driver who was a month into a 4 month disqualification for numerous breaches of learners licence, this time not only were they disqualified but were drunk to boot, also had 5 passengers in a big old car they had not previously driven, good recipe for tragedy.

Penalties would have to be pretty severe to make people fall into line with a 10 year re-sit if they don't bother with the present system anyway.
That's just a touch cynical Scumdog, though I can understand where you a coming from, when you see it all the time. Like most legal systems most people comply most of the time and aren't visible to law enforcement. There are a great deal of road use legal changes in ten years and people need the refresher. If we have to get a new license every ten years we should at least need to do a written test to say that we understand those changes.

I think Police have to be really careful not to tar everyone with the "You're a criminal until proven not" feather.

[spudchucka]

I think Police have to be really careful not to tar everyone with the "You're a criminal until proven not" feather.
You're right Jim. Police as a rule tend to deal with either victims or offenders and it can be a challenge to not slot every person you encounter into a nice pre-formatted stereotype. The nature of the job can cause you to become suspicious of people whether you have good reason for suspition or not. The correct approach is of course to address the offence, not the offender. That is to say if you are dealing with someone over a speeding infringement, (using that example because everyone here obviously relates to it) you don't treat them as if they just raped your grandmother. If an offence has been disclosed you deal with it in the appropriate manner. The way you deal with an offender is often governed by them, if they are compliant the job gets done nice and quietly.

[spudchucka]

Stopped a car on Sat night, 16 year old driver who was a month into a 4 month disqualification for numerous breaches of learners licence, this time not only were they disqualified but were drunk to boot, also had 5 passengers in a big old car they had not previously driven, good recipe for tragedy.
See the Dorkland cops stopped around 16,000 vehicles and nabbed 140 drunk drivers over the weekend in an operation.

Percentage wise 140 drunks out of 16,000 vehicles is stuff all but dissregarding the number of vehicles stopped 140 drunk drivers over a weekend is somewhat staggering. What would happen if the police weren't actively targeting drunks on our roads? How many would drive drunk then? Can the same logic be applied to speeding? How many people would drive at much higher speeds than they do now if police weren't enforcing the speed limit? How would that effect the annual road carnage?

[rodgerd]

See the Dorkland cops stopped around 16,000 vehicles and nabbed 140 drunk drivers over the weekend in an operation.
Yeah, that staggered me. And it's not as though our limit is "one or two and you're over", either. You've got to be well liquored up to fail a test in NZ.

While I'm not a big fan of simple-minded American style "3 strikes and you're out" laws, I've got to wonder how you actually stop these asshats, because I bet habitual drunks drivers are just as happy to drive without a license as with one. Make it illegal to sell a car to anyone without a current license, a la firearms?

I would like to see a harder line taken on host responsibility - I note that the Hospitality Association is coming over all hard-line on drug testing their staff, which is pretty fucking rich considering how many of their members must be selling booze to people with cars in the pub/restaurant parking lot and are well over the limit.

Of course part of the problem is that a proportion of these people will be the white, middle class types who only think it's breaking the law when someone else is doing it...


Can the same logic be applied to speeding? How many people would drive at much higher speeds than they do now if police weren't enforcing the speed limit? How would that effect the annual road carnage?

That's been one of the LTSA's arguments - targetting the guy doing 150 is less important that all the people doing 120.

[rodgerd]

Penalties would have to be pretty severe to make people fall into line with a 10 year re-sit if they don't bother with the present system anyway.

The worst offenders won't pay attention to anything. You know that, I know that, everyone with half a brain knows that. I'm looking at the people over 35-ish who got their license before the graduated program and (like my father) got endorsements because the local cop gave them to him, not by sitting the tests. The people who haven't cracked a road code in 40 years, like my mother-in-law, and thought the "recommended speed" signs on corners were a change in speed limit, because she'd missed the info on the change to international signing standards.

The aging population of people who are moving to places like Martinborough and driving more than they did in urban/suburban areas, just as their sight and hearing head downhill and they start having the risk of serious health problems kick in. The "returning riders" who last sat on a bike in 1973, thought 40 HP was wicked performance, and now walk into a store and pick up something with 2 - 3x that and total themselves.

The fact that 15-25 fatalities have spiked *down* over the past few years, yet (as a proportion) the biggest spikes *up* are 35-55 and 70+ road users.

[marty]

That's been one of the LTSA's arguments - targetting the guy doing 150 is less important that all the people doing 120.
when i started on highway patrol in 2000 in the waikato, it was quite comon to get a dozen speeders over 150k a week. in 6 months, it had dropped to less than 1 a day, and now, anything over 150k is smoko room bragging. i don't beleive that this is from targetting the over 150's, but by targetting everything, the perception that you are going to be caught is increased.

the NZ public compliance relies on fear, not on sensibility, to comply with laws set down. if there were no speed limits/give way/stop/driver licensing rules, it would be each for their own, with a road toll like china, and people would be complaining that the police arent doing enough.

[vifferman]

While I'm not a big fan of simple-minded American style "3 strikes and you're out" laws, I've got to wonder how you actually stop these asshats, because I bet habitual drunks drivers are just as happy to drive without a license as with one. That's quite likely to be true.
Some years ago, I worked with a guy once (real nice guy he was, too) who had lost his licence several times for drunk driving. Each time, he had continued to drive while disqualified. When I expressed amazement at this, he said, "It's no big deal, as long as you don't drink and drive while disqualified. Otherwise, if you're caught driving while disqualified, it's just a slap on the wrist."
While working with him, he came up for his third (IIRC) drink driving charge. Talking to him, he said - quite matter-of-factly - "It'll be prison this time, fer sure", and it was. He was sentenced to a few weeks at Waikeria (prison farm).
After he returned to work (a gummint farm), I asked him what it was like.
"Just like here, actually, only I got paid less." The only thing that bothered him about the 'punishment' was that some schoolmates of his young son had found out about him 'doing time' and had given his son a real hard time about his dad being a jailbird. Otherwise, he seemed rather unaffected by the whole experience.
I don't imagine his attitude would be atypical of repeat offenders: just a matter of weighing up the risks and deciding it's no big deal.

[jrandom]

I don't imagine his attitude would be atypical of repeat offenders: just a matter of weighing up the risks and deciding it's no big deal.

That's one problem that will never be completely solved. There will always be a segment of society that tends toward that sort of behaviour; one's mission, should one choose to accept it, can only be to minimise the size of that segment via the propagation of moral convictions (:killingme) or the raising of the general socioeconomic level ( :no: ).

We're f*cked, aren't we?

[Fryin Finn]

Have you noticed that most of the crosses on the sides of the road are on long straight bits - I suggest this is a result of people going too slow.
And putting crosses by the side of the road - It'l get ya killed

[That Guy]

I lived in Austria for two years and spent a lot of time driving around legally at 180kph on the motorways there. I got completely used to it and because its fast enough for people to concentrate on what they are doing; road tolls are low. However, that was on roads built to handle it. One place like them is on the motorway just north of the bombay hills. A few times visiting NZ I would come back, get onto that part of the motorway and drive along at 180 before I realised that you can't do that in NZ. Whoops! Didn't get caught but if I did I accept I have no excuse for that. However the point I am trying to make is that NZ does not have enough of a speed limit range like other countires. 120 or 130 would be safe there (in fact if kiwis were used to probably no speed limit would be safe but that would be too much of a shock to our brain numb dirving habits I suspect). However - there are also places were 100 is too fast - and even worse heaps of built up areas were 50 is too fast. Anyone ever driven into Devonport down hill around that blind left hander at 50kph? You have to really jam on the brakes if someone is crossing that pedistrian crossing - 50 is too fast.

My only other point is that all NZ's anti-accident campaigns focus on SPEED, not DANGEROUS DRIVING. And the two are completely seperate. Speed never killed anybody, ever. Dangerous dirving is what kills people. Sometimes 100kph in a 100kph zone is dangerous driving.....and Transit et al aren't interested in that message. Don't know why. :spudwhat:

[marty]

I Speed never killed anybody, ever. Dangerous dirving is what kills people. Sometimes 100kph in a 100kph zone is dangerous driving.....and Transit et al aren't interested in that message. Don't know why. :spudwhat:WTF????:gob: :gob: :gob: :gob:

[Posh Tourer :P]

If you are truely motivated by a desire to initiate change then why don't YOU run for public office?

Perhaps because some of us have no desire to surround ourselves with *more* idiots? :P

TBH, Public office isnt for everyone, I know I couldnt handle it....

[Posh Tourer :P]

I think Police have to be really careful not to tar everyone with the "You're a criminal until proven not" feather.

Tarring with a feather? Isnt that a little labourious?

[Posh Tourer :P]

the NZ public compliance relies on fear, not on sensibility, to comply with laws set down. if there were no speed limits/give way/stop/driver licensing rules, it would be each for their own, with a road toll like china, and people would be complaining that the police arent doing enough.

Ok fair enough, but better driving skills in a more comprehensive licencing programme that taught people what to do when things turned to shit, and/or how to recognise when it might do so, would also be an advantage

[Posh Tourer :P]

WTF????:gob: :gob: :gob: :gob:

"The fuck" as you so elegantly put it, is that simply exceeding the speed limit (speeding) cannot be seen as a cause of crashes. I hope you will agree, that on some roads in some conditions it is safe to exceed the speed limit by quite a bit.

The reason people die, is that they are driving in a manner that is not appropriate to the conditions - be that by speeding, driving within the speed limit in a dangerous car, by doing stupid things eg stunts and tricks in the wrong place or any other act of "dangerous" driving - note this is not the legal sense of "dangerous driving".

While the speed limit VERY ROUGHLY estimates what is an appropriate maximum speed in good conditions, doing the speed limit is often untenable. I'm allowed to travel at 100kmh on most of Scenic Drive. I could easily be driving dangerously while not speeding.

I can be safe while speeding, and unsafe while not speeding.

Sure, speed does increase the kinetic energy, and the potential to do damage, and increases the risk of you dying if you do crash, but "speeding" does not directly cause you to die. There are far more layers of complexity in this, which is what most of the public see.

Spud/Lou: This is why people are moaning at the police - a single, simplistic and sometimes draconian view of things. There is no education, there is yelling at us and telling us we are all bad, with few clarifications as to why.

Marty, I'm sure you know all this, so I wont go on.

But you did ask....

[bikerboy]

"The fuck" as you so elegantly put it, is that simply exceeding the speed limit (speeding) cannot be seen as a cause of crashes. I hope you will agree, that on some roads in some conditions it is safe to exceed the speed limit by quite a bit...........But you did ask....

Well said Posh......however you are using an intelligent, logical approach, something some members neither understand nor consider in their dogmatic approach to this topic. :whistle:

[DEATH_INC.]

I think the driving standard in this country is too poor to have the speed limit lifted at this stage.Here in jafaland,and up north too,seemingly most people are incapable of driving safely at 100kph.......and a lot travel at 80kph or even less on the open road/righthand- passing lane on the motorway causing much havoc,no-one signals turns,everyone runs red lights,talks on cellphones,no-one looks before they pull out into traffic,those that do on motorway onramps then stop till they splutter out into the traffic at 50kph,no-one keeps left,ect,ect.
The problem I believe stems from our Dumbass joke 'scratch and win' licence tests and just as stupid driven tests which seem to take no skill to pass.
But as usual it's catch22,make it too hard and they'll just drive without one.... :thud:

[Skyryder]

I tend to think that most of us drive at what we see as a safe speed. For example haow many of us drive at 50k's when it is pefectly safe to drive a little faster safely. For my part I would sooner see the the 50k limit raised to 60k's with 63k's ticketed or perhaps even less
The only problem I have with the speed limit raised over the 100k's is the traffic build up behind a slow car. But that aside I do think that there is a case for the speed limit to be raised on some sections of highway.

I'll toss one of my favourite hobby horses into the pot and see what the response is.

I am also of the opinion that when passing a vehicle that requires traveling on the wrong side of the road then speed restrictions should not apply.


Skyryder

[speedpro]

I tend to think that most of us drive at what we see as a safe speed. For example haow many of us drive at 50k's when it is pefectly safe to drive a little faster safely. For my part I would sooner see the the 50k limit raised to 60k's with 63k's ticketed or perhaps even less
The only problem I have with the speed limit raised over the 100k's is the traffic build up behind a slow car. But that aside I do think that there is a case for the speed limit to be raised on some sections of highway.

I'll toss one of my favourite hobby horses into the pot and see what the response is.

I am also of the opinion that when passing a vehicle that requires traveling on the wrong side of the road then speed restrictions should not apply.


Skyryder

In Seattle (back in '82) if you had more than 3 vehicles following you, you had to pull in to these passing bays. They weren't passing lanes but an actual bay off the side of the rode and the cops were hot on it too. Traffic got along real well.

I like that last idea, though I can just imagine Christmas down highway 27, 2 miles of nose-to-tail traffic, me passing the lot at 270kmh, legally. You would actually be praying for traffic. Imagine how fast you could get from Auckland to Wellington during holidays.

[Mr Skid]

I am also of the opinion that when passing a vehicle that requires traveling on the wrong side of the road then speed restrictions should not apply.


Maybe a 'gentlemans agreement' would be useful in this context - certainly if there is a queue of traffic behind a 90 km/h vehicle, it would be more efficent for them to pass it at 125km/h than 109km/h in a passing lane.

You'd get more vehicles past the slower vehicle, in the same length of passing lane, and I would assume that passing lanes are located in 'safe' stretchs of road?

[dhunt]

Maybe a 'gentlemans agreement' would be useful in this context - certainly if there is a queue of traffic behind a 90 km/h vehicle, it would be more efficent for them to pass it at 125km/h than 109km/h in a passing lane.

You'd get more vehicles past the slower vehicle, in the same length of passing lane, and I would assume that passing lanes are located in 'safe' stretchs of road?
I don't think it is efficiency that is the issue. In my oppinion the longer I am on the other side of the road the more dangerous it is, so the quicker I get back to my side the better. So if I have to "speed" to get past so be it.

[Stevo]

Of course, I'd also like to see people re-sit their license every 10 years. Which will never happen.


Hardly a practical idea and certainly very costly. Maybe you should run for government as you would cost us all MORE money AND create jobs!!

What other great ideas do you have???

[Stevo]

Maybe that was a bit harsher than I meant it to be. I just hate the fact that more ideas like this are actually brought in costing Joe average yet more money, when it is probably not Joe who is the problem. Certainly repeat offenders are and if I had the solution to this police and society would surely want to know!

I honestly don't have as much a problem with police as I do with people who tow boats!!!!! I find they are generally the most goddamn ignorant pricks on the road. It is as if they are on a mission to get from Chch - Nelson or Marlborough as fast as they can and pulling over to let someone past (Even without a boat) is someone who could potentially beat them to their favourite possy. Grrrrrrrrr. Truckies generally I find are the opposite.
Tonight on my way home I took a slight detour by heading to Havelock then thru Queen Charlotte Drive (on the way Nelson) and halfway down the first big tight and twisty hill I come tearing up behind a fuel tanker. I was actually happy to sit there and cruise down behind him, but he on the very next corner pulled out wide and indicating to let me thru. "What a Bloke!" No way I woulda been able to pass otherwise.

I guess my point if ever I was to have one is that in general if we were all more courteous to each other on the roads "We could actually get from A to B without raising speed limits or driving faster, but.............. but...................That would be in a Perfect world I guess!"

Again 10/10 for that driver tonight tho. :twothumbsup:

[spudchucka]

The problem I believe stems from our Dumbass joke 'scratch and win' licence tests and just as stupid driven tests which seem to take no skill to pass.
But as usual it's catch22,make it too hard and they'll just drive without one.... :thud:
The problem stems from peoples attitudes to road safety. A belief that "it won't happen to me" or "I'm a good driver and I can handle the speed" or "My car is superior and can safely be driven at higher speeds" etc etc etc has become part of the NZ driver mentality. I agree with education and a higher standard of driver licence testing but I'm not convinceed that these things alone will change the national attitude towards road safety.

[spudchucka]

For my part I would sooner see the the 50k limit raised to 60k's with 63k's ticketed or perhaps even less
Mate, that is pretty much what you have now. An official speed limit of 50 with a ten kph tolerance, ticket at 61kph. You're saying ticket 63 or perhaps a little less, sounds pretty much like what you have now???


I am also of the opinion that when [I]passing a vehicle that requires traveling on the wrong side of the road then speed restrictions should not apply
Speed restrictions should still apply but with a higher discretionary tolerance.

[rodgerd]

Hardly a practical idea and certainly very costly. Maybe you should run for government as you would cost us all MORE money AND create jobs!!

What other great ideas do you have???

So if it costs you an extra 80 bucks a year, but gets idiots off the road, it's not worth doing?

You obviously don't set much value on your life. Ride with a second hand helmet from the Sally Army, as well?

[scumdog]

"Can the same logic be applied to speeding? How many people would drive at much higher speeds than they do now if police weren't enforcing the speed limit? How would that effect the annual road carnage?"

As per the above quote, (and this is aimed at the whinging element) what speed limit do they dream should be allowed on our roads? and how would they dream it could be enforced? (like without speed-cameras, radar, lasers and the resultant monetary penalties) :wacko:

[riffer]

Speed restrictions should still apply but with a higher discretionary tolerance.
Again, you make sense Spud. :niceone:

I have no problem with the speed limits. I believe police are out there every day on the roads, and have a better sense of what the roads conditions are like, and what is acceptable and not acceptable speed.

Speed is not about staying under the speed limit. It's about appropriate speed for the conditions. 100km/hr on the motorway is different to 100km/hr on Middleton Road (between Johnsonville and Tawa).

I can (and do) do 100km/hr on both. But one's a whole lot safer.

Most police are not stupid. It's more the exact opposite. I just wish their superiors would credit thim with the intelligence they have and let them have greater discretion.

I miss the gold old days where we knew the local coppers and they were happy to pull us up for doing the odd burn down the local roads and give us a good lecture.

In fact the local copper used to ring my parents up so I'd get another lecture when I got home.

That had more effect on me and I had more respect for the local constabulary because of that, than some policeman pulling me up for doing 8 km/hr over the limit and fining me $90.

[rodgerd]

In fact the local copper used to ring my parents up so I'd get another lecture when I got home.

Wouldn't you rather have the ticket 8)

But more to the point: which is more likely to make you act in line with the law.

And how far to we extend this principle? If someone lifts your wallet, nicks $20, and leaves it at the cop shop how would you react if the police applied "discretionary power" and told you they wouldn't bother to arrest the theif? Or if you owned a dairy and got told the police wouldn't bother with anyone shoplifting unless they got a certain dollar amount?

[riffer]

Wouldn't you rather have the ticket 8)

But more to the point: which is more likely to make you act in line with the law.

And how far to we extend this principle? If someone lifts your wallet, nicks $20, and leaves it at the cop shop how would you react if the police applied "discretionary power" and told you they wouldn't bother to arrest the theif? Or if you owned a dairy and got told the police wouldn't bother with anyone shoplifting unless they got a certain dollar amount?
I'm not talking about anything other than appropriate speed for the conditions and appropriate methods of handling it, give that the police have at least as much intelligence as any other person, maybe more ... let's not confuse the issue rogerd...

[scumdog]

Wouldn't you rather have the ticket 8)

But more to the point: which is more likely to make you act in line with the law.

And how far to we extend this principle? If someone lifts your wallet, nicks $20, and leaves it at the cop shop how would you react if the police applied "discretionary power" and told you they wouldn't bother to arrest the theif? Or if you owned a dairy and got told the police wouldn't bother with anyone shoplifting unless they got a certain dollar amount?

You're making WAY too much sense here for THIS site, where is the rampant rabid ravings from all the nay-sayers out there???? :moon:

[scumdog]

Well said Posh......however you are using an intelligent, logical approach, something some members neither understand nor consider in their dogmatic approach to this topic. :whistle:

I agree, the 'speed' thing is a bit of a misnomer but it is easier than saying "slow down and drive to the conditions" or similar.
As I've said before, a lot of so called 'drivers' (and 'riders') out there would be out of their depth in a sideshow dodgem.

Speed killed nobody but the stopping from speed does kill quite a few, the faster the speed - the more likely such stop will kill, ergo less speed = less death.


Some of you guys on this site attribute too much intelectual ability to too many.
Yesterday went to a crash (low SPEED - no real injury) driver in ute with only rear brakes, no drivers door, outboard fuel tank on seat beside driver hooked up to engine, passengers door tied shut with string, no windscreen, bald tyres etc.
The plan went wrong when driver 'planted boot' and ute got up to a speed undesirable by the 'driver' and he hit the brakes - that's when he pulled the steering-wheel off the column 'cos there was no nut holding it there (just the one with his hands on it).
Ute skidded on the dry-seal with both rear wheels locked up until it left the road and hit a power-pole about 35 metres after lock-up!!!
Yup, throw the speed limit out the window, and the need for a licence,and the need for a W.O.F .....:mad: :mad: :spudwhat:

[Pwalo]

Lot's of interesting input on this one. IMHO speed is always going to be a rather contentious issue. It's simplistic at best to blame speed for causing accidents, because all accidents are mistakes (ok I guess a few may be deliberate), or errors of judgement. And of course speed as such isn't the problem, it's trying to stop or take evasive action from too high a speed that's gonna hurt.

If we (drivers & riders) didn't make any mistakes, modulated our speed to road conditions, didn't drink too much alcohol, maintained our vehicles, understood the road code, had some consideration for other road users, etc life would be a breeze for everyone.

Of course it isn't going to happen. We all love to go fast (even my GS will get me banned if I'm a naughty boy), and we all tend to have inflated ideas of our own ability to control our vehicles until we stuff up somewhere.

Whatever your opinion on speed limits, and other road rules, the simple fact is that those are the rules. I can choose to ignore them if I choose but I can't complain if I get ticketed etc, even if I feel that my ability etc is being questioned.

Sorry about the rambling but people keep interrupting me for work purposes (WTF!!!).

[rodgerd]

I'm not talking about anything other than appropriate speed for the conditions and appropriate methods of handling it, give that the police have at least as much intelligence as any other person, maybe more ... let's not confuse the issue rogerd...

I'm not confusing anything.

The law, as written, says it is illegal to go over 100 km/h on the open road. Period. The only exceptions are for emergency services and the like. There's nothing there that says, "unless you think it's safe to do 120", just like the law says, "you can't steal stuff from a shop", not, "unless you're broke."

What you're asking for is that the police ignore the law when it suits *you*. I want to know how happy you'll be if they start ignoring other laws when it suits them, or other people.

Don't get me wrong - I think it's bloody silly that on motorways built to a 160 km/h standard (as Transit used to build them), with solid median barriers and 3 lanes, that we have the same limit as the back blocks. But that's the law. If I chose to break it, I have to take my lumps, and whining about how the police shouldn't enforce it is bullshit.

People are quick to complain when we see stories about others failing to take responsibility for themselves (Taria Turiana blaming everything wrong with every Maori in New Zealand on white people alwas gets me going, for example), but this is one area where many of those very same people seem to be very good at coming up with 1001 excuses for not taking responsibility for their own actions.

[Ghost Lemur]

Speed is not about staying under the speed limit. It's about appropriate speed for the conditions. 100km/hr on the motorway is different to 100km/hr on Middleton Road (between Johnsonville and Tawa).


Funny you should mention that road. My first ever accident was on that road. Went though the infamous s-bend and rolled down the bank. Sole surviver from 4 cars that had done the same thing in one month.

As for the topic.

Speed limits are necessary. Discretionary powers should be available to police. People should NOT be under the impression that driving is a right, it's not it's a privilege. One that should be taken away from those who don't deserve it. Repeat offenders should be band for life, with jail time if they're caught breaking the life ban. Insurers and govt should be working together so that you can get premium discounts for doing regular or further driver/rider training (similar to what is done for no claims).

I think what I'm talking about over all is just common sense (really a contridiction isn't it, common implying average, at yet the average person seem to be distinctly lacking in having any sense whatsoever).

[SPman]

Werent limited speed zones a discretionary variable speed limit - something like ...speed limit 50mph but reduced to 30 when there is poor visibility,bad road conditions, etc!

Oops, theres that word discretionary again - something thats not black and white to the beauracrats, so cant be rigidly enforced!

[riffer]

I'm not confusing anything.

The law, as written, says it is illegal to go over 100 km/h on the open road. I get your point rogerd, and agree 99% with it. :niceone:

Where I am referring to discretion is, to quote my previous example of Middleton Road, which, along with Makara Road, are the only two rural roads in the Wellington Area where you can legally do 100km/hr.

Pedants could include Peakakariki Hill Road, Moonshine Road and Akatarawa Road, but they are not 100km/hr for the full length.

Anyway, you could legally ride on those roads at 100, but its probably not safe. In fact 80 is sometimes not safe.

However, you can ride at 115km/hr on the Porirua motorway safely, but get done for speeding.

And another of my pet peeves is the speed camera vans which frequent the passing lanes on River Road (Upper Hutt). Totally unnecessary. Cars are stuck behind idiots who travel at 80, then accelerate as soon as there's a passing lane to 100-ish. You have to do 120 to pass them and sometimes its just safer to wind on the gas, an on my bike you're at 140 as you go past, immediately releasing the throttle. I'm at 140 for maybe 5 seconds.

Do we consider time exposed to danger in speed statistics? No! In LTSA's opinion, you are better off taking 30 seconds to pass at 100km/hr on the wrong side of the road, than to spend 5-10 seconds at 120-140 and then slow down. Even accounting for covering more distance per second at 140, I would speculate that I would spend less time in a passing lane or on the wrong side of the road than if I was doing 100.

However, speed is speed is speed. Exceed 100 and you are in the wrong.

Again, driver education is more important than attacking those who exceed the limits (which I agree are there as an example of a safe average maximum speed for everyone to travel at.)

And what about posted advisory corner limits? Are these enforceable? I've not heard of it happening, but is it possible to be ticketed for exceeding the posted advisory speed? Or would this come under driving without undue care and attention to other road users?

This is where I'm coming from...

[Pwalo]

"Do we consider time exposed to danger in speed statistics? No! In LTSA's opinion, you are better off taking 30 seconds to pass at 100km/hr on the wrong side of the road, than to spend 5-10 seconds at 120-140 and then slow down. Even accounting for covering more distance per second at 140, I would speculate that I would spend less time in a passing lane or on the wrong side of the road than if I was doing 100.

However, speed is speed is speed. Exceed 100 and you are in the wrong."

That's an interesting point Mr CelticNo6. Hard to argue against as head on crashes must be the most dangerous (speed & mass & sudden deceleration x 2)it makes sense that there should be an element of discretion, but that needs a policeman to be present rather than a camera. Too expensive, and open to doubt.

Another factor that perhaps needs to be looked at is the speed differential between road users. Some of this is down to experience, preference (some drivers just like to drive at a slower speed!!! - apparently), but it's another potential hazard that can occur well within the posted speed limit.

Speaking of Middleton Rd, what do you think of the new road surface. Sure wouldn't like to go down on that. Some of the realignment is interesting as well.

[scumdog]

Maybe a 'gentlemans agreement' would be useful in this context - certainly if there is a queue of traffic behind a 90 km/h vehicle, it would be more efficent for them to pass it at 125km/h than 109km/h in a passing lane.

You'd get more vehicles past the slower vehicle, in the same length of passing lane, and I would assume that passing lanes are located in 'safe' stretchs of road?

Ii hear what you're saying but just want to point out that a lot of serious crashes occur during an overtaking manouevre, from the plain old head on caused by a dick-head that only ever looked 50m ahead of themselves to other dick-headed types that actually hit the rear of the vehicle they are attempting to pass!

Also saw a close call by a teenage dickhead that was sitting so low in his already lowered seat that he did not see the oncomming car in a hollow in the road, would have been a head-on if the other driver hadn't hit the brakes and pulled to his left - d/h argued with me that "there wasn't another car coming, I'd have seen it, you're just making it up so you can take me licence off me" wasn't happy to hear a smart arsed cop (who shall remain anonymous) tell him he could get another one out of his next packet of Weetbix - same way he got the one he had at the moment. :innocent: :msn-wink:

[rodgerd]

Where I am referring to discretion is, to quote my previous example of Middleton Road, which, along with Makara Road, are the only two rural roads in the Wellington Area where you can legally do 100km/hr.

Anyway, you could legally ride on those roads at 100, but its probably not safe. In fact 80 is sometimes not safe.


Hell, going out to Makara there's rarely the sight line/space combination to go much over 50 - 70.



However, you can ride at 115km/hr on the Porirua motorway safely, but get done for speeding.


Indeed. And that's an artifact of having to pick a number to enforce. It's no different, to my mind, to the fact there's a particular amount of blood alcohol I'm allowed when driving. Is it an arbitary number? In a sense, yeah. But in a practical sense it's almost impossible to write laws without 'em.

If we think it's hard getting people to accept a speeding ticket, imagine if we just had a genuine "open subject to condition" limit, and the police gave tickets for travelling too fast for conditions. Now *that* would kick off some real shitfights...



And another of my pet peeves is the speed camera vans which frequent the passing lanes on River Road (Upper Hutt). Totally unnecessary. Cars are stuck behind idiots who travel at 80, then accelerate as soon as there's a passing lane to 100-ish.


A huge pet peeve of mine, although I see it more commonly on rural roads, where the driver who dawdles along a narrow road at 80 in a 100 zone then continues past a village shopping strip and school at the same time, and is gone past the passing zone on the other side.

Part of the problem is lack of *enough* enforcement, in the sense that you and I get aggrieved by this bad and dangerous driving (which ought to have a cop pulling the driver over for a chat, at least), so it makes us annoyed when someone says, "sure, you were on a straight, clear, wide road, but you're being fined for being over an arbitary limit."



You have to do 120 to pass them and sometimes its just safer to wind on the gas, an on my bike you're at 140 as you go past, immediately releasing the throttle. I'm at 140 for maybe 5 seconds.

Do we consider time exposed to danger in speed statistics? No! In LTSA's opinion, you are better off taking 30 seconds to pass at 100km/hr on the wrong side of the road, than to spend 5-10 seconds at 120-140 and then slow down. Even accounting for covering more distance per second at 140, I would speculate that I would spend less time in a passing lane or on the wrong side of the road than if I was doing 100.


And I agree that this is bollocks: less time passing is better. That said, how would you write the law to make it practical for enforcement? If you gave a blanket exemption for passing, then everyone will pile into the rightmost lane on the motorway at 140, and claim to be passing the slower traffic. If you make it discretionary, you're back to where we are now, with people complaining that a police officer's interpretion of safe isn't the same as theirs.

And it does the LTSA no good when they appear to be arguing the point just because.



Again, driver education is more important than attacking those who exceed the limits (which I agree are there as an example of a safe average maximum speed for everyone to travel at.)


Agreed *to a point*, although New Zealand has come a long way on driver licensing and training. It irks me when older people whine about it too easy to get a license, because I think they're severely out of touch; our staged regime is pretty good, although I'd like some modifications (like power/displacement limits for car learners and big 4WDs reclassified as Class 2 vehicles), and ideally integrate driver's ed into the school system (although I suspect teachers would groan about *yet another thing* they're supposed to do, along with raising the kids of parents who can't be bothered, on top of reading, writing, and maths...).

It was noticeable on that "test the nation's driving" show that it was the middle-aged and older drivers who were complete rubbish and didn't have a clue what the law is.

That's one reason I'd regard re-testing as a pre-requisite for raising the limits in places where it's appropriate. If you can't pass a license test every 10 years, you shoudn't be on the road...

Overall though, it's not an either/or, to my mind. There's no point putting a huge effort into education and then dropping the ball on enforcement.

[riffer]

Speaking of Middleton Rd, what do you think of the new road surface. Sure wouldn't like to go down on that. Some of the realignment is interesting as well.
No, I wouldn't like to hit that surface. Same as the one on the old Hutt Road too... any surface hurts when you hit it. But those surfaces would rip your gear apart, not to mention cause unbelievable damage to the bike.

I hate to think what its doing to the tyres as well...

[riffer]

Roger - I agree with everything you said there. Particularly the graduated licence system/displacement limits. :)

[Posh Tourer :P]

Maybe that was a bit harsher than I meant it to be. I just hate the fact that more ideas like this are actually brought in costing Joe average yet more money, when it is probably not Joe who is the problem.

......

I guess my point if ever I was to have one is that in general if we were all more courteous to each other on the roads "We could actually get from A to B without raising speed limits or driving faster, but.............. but...................That would be in a Perfect world I guess!"

Again 10/10 for that driver tonight tho. :twothumbsup:

So. Is it about the average Joe or not?

[Posh Tourer :P]

I agree, the 'speed' thing is a bit of a misnomer but it is easier than saying "slow down and drive to the conditions" or similar.
As I've said before, a lot of so called 'drivers' (and 'riders') out there would be out of their depth in a sideshow dodgem.

Speed killed nobody but the stopping from speed does kill quite a few, the faster the speed - the more likely such stop will kill, ergo less speed = less death.

Yes. But lets keep separate here the issues of legally "Speeding" ie exceeding the speed limit, and going fast.

There should be some sort of risk balancing going on here - called driving to the conditions. Ideally, the better the conditions, the faster you go (more risk if you crash) but good conditions = less chance of crashing.

For the statistically minded, combined probability ought to be similar at all times. Bad conditions = slower speed.

[marty]

advisory speeds are just that, there is no enforcment action per se, but if logging trucks are caught exceeding the posted (advisory) speed 3 times, then they are taken off the road for 24 hours (this is an LTSA/CVIU/Logging industry initiative to reduce the roll-over incidents).

i do know of a guy who has been ticketed in a 100km/h speed limit area for doing 103km/h around a 55k corner in the wet though. He should have been charged with careless driving, but he was happy to take the $30 fine and 10 demerits....

[Lou Girardin]

I really need to spend more time on this forum, it's hard to keep up.
I promise you scumdog, that if we see appropriate speed limits and sensible Policing, ie, cops allowed to use their discretion, no more quotas and simple commonsense. Such as recognising that it is safer to go a bit faster while overtaking rather than sitting right on the limit. I will stop writing critical letters/posts. After all, you wouldn't have seen any letters from me prior to 2001.
And rogerd, interesting nom de net that, anyway, the prima facie speed limit you refer to has been in effect in the Northern Territory for ages. It seems to work well except for carloads of Aboriginees killing themselves regularly. But that's a function of things other than speed. Drink for one.
As for Spudmund Freud, thank you for the, very, amateur psychoanalysis. It's good to see that you have a career opportunity when Policing palls.
Then I'll have another windmill to tilt at, the low standard of Psychologists being admitted to the profession.

[spudchucka]

And what about posted advisory corner limits? Are these enforceable? I've not heard of it happening, but is it possible to be ticketed for exceeding the posted advisory speed? Or would this come under driving without undue care and attention to other road users?
Advisory speeds are not enforcible but they are taken into consideration if a person is charged with an offence following a crash.

[spudchucka]

As for Spudmund Freud, thank you for the, very, amateur psychoanalysis. It's good to see that you have a career opportunity when Policing palls.
Then I'll have another windmill to tilt at, the low standard of Psychologists being admitted to the profession.
Do you want your horoscope too??

[marty]

sorry lou, but i can't agree. when the generally accepted discretion speed was 120k - (countrywide, 'even' in the north waikato), the road toll was over 500. i attended 19 (nineteen) deaths due to car crashes one month....that was on top of the 1/2 dozen others i attended in the previous and following months. speed was pretty much a factor in all of those. naturally, some form of carelessness/unluckyness/etc was also involved. having been at the coal face at the introduction of HP (and a vocal opponent of the 110k 'discretion' limit i must add), but seeing the reasonably dramatic drop in high speed related crashes on sh1 in the waikato, even i wrote out a few for 112/113k, depending on the circumstances.
you come on here trolling about lack of discretion, yet when i was 15/16, and being policed by black and white uniformed traffic cops, i don't recall discretion being a word that they could even pronounce, let alone invoke. geez, when road policing was being looked after by so called 'experts' like yourself, it was out of control.


Year Road deaths
1980 599
1981 669
1982 673
1983 644
1984 669
1985 747
1986 766
1987 795
1988 727
1989 755

(from ltsa website)

[Velox]

Well I just read that article and got pretty worried, because it could eventually mean that it's no longer legal to have fun on the Rimutakas. :thud: If they set a new speed limit for specific areas like they're proposing, it would no doubt be a limit set for cars at a 'safe' speed which is pretty slow by motorbike standards. That bit of road is one of the only legally fun bits left, and I know that I personally don't boot it on 'normal' bits of road as often, but save it for places like that.

Also I think you can't wrap people in bubble-wrap when setting speed limits. Yep - definitely have low limits in rural areas where there are people etc, but changing the limit in areas like Makara (not counting the villiage) really isn't going to do much because you can't go near 100 there anyway. Seems like it would just be putting the limit nearer to the speed that people already drive at on a particular road, resulting in the fact that you'll be had up for speeding suddenly.

[Posh Tourer :P]

Whatever your opinion on speed limits, and other road rules, the simple fact is that those are the rules. I can choose to ignore them if I choose but I can't complain if I get ticketed etc, even if I feel that my ability etc

So you dont want to try and get it changed?

[Posh Tourer :P]

you come on here trolling about lack of discretion, yet when i was 15/16, and being policed by black and white uniformed traffic cops, i don't recall discretion being a word that they could even pronounce, let alone invoke. geez, when road policing was being looked after by so called 'experts' like yourself, it was out of control.


Year Road deaths
1980 599
1981 669
1982 673
1983 644
1984 669
1985 747
1986 766
1987 795
1988 727
1989 755

(from ltsa website)

So given the recent innovations in education and enforcement, imagine what the road toll would be at if we still had a dedicated traffic dept. :gob:

[Posh Tourer :P]

Seems like it would just be putting the limit nearer to the speed that people already drive at on a particular road, resulting in the fact that you'll be had up for speeding suddenly.

Good point and kinda scary...

[rodgerd]

So you dont want to try and get it changed?

Othorgonal to obeying the current laws.

[geoffm]

I agree, the 'speed' thing is a bit of a misnomer but it is easier than saying "slow down and drive to the conditions" or similar.
As I've said before, a lot of so called 'drivers' (and 'riders') out there would be out of their depth in a sideshow dodgem.

Speed killed nobody but the stopping from speed does kill quite a few, the faster the speed - the more likely such stop will kill, ergo less speed = less death.


Some of you guys on this site attribute too much intelectual ability to too many.
Yesterday went to a crash (low SPEED - no real injury) driver in ute with only rear brakes, no drivers door, outboard fuel tank on seat beside driver hooked up to engine, passengers door tied shut with string, no windscreen, bald tyres etc.
The plan went wrong when driver 'planted boot' and ute got up to a speed undesirable by the 'driver' and he hit the brakes - that's when he pulled the steering-wheel off the column 'cos there was no nut holding it there (just the one with his hands on it).
Ute skidded on the dry-seal with both rear wheels locked up until it left the road and hit a power-pole about 35 metres after lock-up!!!
Yup, throw the speed limit out the window, and the need for a licence,and the need for a W.O.F .....:mad: :mad: :spudwhat:


So did this ute have a current WOF? Was it to WOF standard, as it has to be if used on the road? Is it illegal to drive a vehicle on the road without a WOF?
Given the answer to the last question is yes, and the vehicle was not of WOF standard, and hence shouldn't be on the road, I fail to see your point.
Geoff

[rodgerd]

So did this ute have a current WOF? Was it to WOF standard, as it has to be if used on the road? Is it illegal to drive a vehicle on the road without a WOF?
Given the answer to the last question is yes, and the vehicle was not of WOF standard, and hence shouldn't be on the road, I fail to see your point.
Geoff

That someone who's too stupid to understand why it might be a poor decision to take a fully-laden ute on the road with non-functional brakes may, perhaps, be to stupid to make intelligent decisions about what a "safe speed" might be; hence a need for firm limits.

[Pwalo]

So you dont want to try and get it changed?

You're just winding me up now. I'd love to be able to determine my own speed limits but it's a somewhat facetious POV. I'm just stating the blatantly obvious.

But yes I think that the speed limit could be lifted on SOME stretches of roads. The downside is that variable speed limits could be just as frustrating as what we have at the moment, and probably more confusing. Perhaps we just adjust 100 to 110??

[spudchucka]

So did this ute have a current WOF? Was it to WOF standard, as it has to be if used on the road? Is it illegal to drive a vehicle on the road without a WOF?
Given the answer to the last question is yes, and the vehicle was not of WOF standard, and hence shouldn't be on the road, I fail to see your point.
Geoff
I think the ute story refers to the lack of intellectual ability in many road users and thus their incapibilty of making sound decisions as a road user. The same halfbreed could equally be driving down the road at high speed in a high performance car making equally as stupid decisions.

I believe ScumDog is suggesting that you will see more of these types of drivers if laws / rules were slackened or revoked.

[Posh Tourer :P]

You're just winding me up now. I'd love to be able to determine my own speed limits but it's a somewhat facetious POV. I'm just stating the blatantly obvious.

But yes I think that the speed limit could be lifted on SOME stretches of roads. The downside is that variable speed limits could be just as frustrating as what we have at the moment, and probably more confusing. Perhaps we just adjust 100 to 110??

Yes. Your post just seemed to be saying the laws are the laws, they know best, I'll just comply. My position is probably best described below, which I assumed was probably yours as well - but I felt the need to bring it up for the greater good anyway....


Othorgonal to obeying the current laws.

[Pwalo]

Yes. Your post just seemed to be saying the laws are the laws, they know best, I'll just comply. My position is probably best described below, which I assumed was probably yours as well - but I felt the need to bring it up for the greater good anyway....

No worries mate, but was the heck is the 'greater good'. I think it's already been said that laws have to act as a catch all so they are always going to be a compromise.Besides if they raise the speed limit too much my GS will seem even slower.

With the way that oil prices are going we'll probably find speed limits dropped!!!!

[marty]

and the advantage of opening the speed limit on sh1 south auck motorway, for those of us that like to ride sh22/sh25 etc are? cripes, the southern motorway is boring at 140k, 110 doesn't even get close.

[scumdog]

you come on here trolling about lack of discretion, yet when i was 15/16, and being policed by black and white uniformed traffic cops, i don't recall discretion being a word that they could even pronounce, let alone invoke. geez, when road policing was being looked after by so called 'experts' like yourself, it was out of control.


Year Road deaths
1980 599
1981 669
1982 673
1983 644
1984 669
1985 747
1986 766
1987 795
1988 727
1989 755

(from ltsa website)

Damn tootin' right Marty, I never saw 'discretion' from MOT, fail to indicate? ticket, WOF out by a week? ticket, blown tail light? ticket, number-plate bent to fit US mounting bracket? ticket, stop across foot-path? ticket - oh yeah, lets talk about discretion and how good it was in the old days before they stopped using discretion!!!! :moon: :spudwhat:

[scumdog]

That someone who's too stupid to understand why it might be a poor decision to take a fully-laden ute on the road with non-functional brakes may, perhaps, be to stupid to make intelligent decisions about what a "safe speed" might be; hence a need for firm limits.

You took the words right out of my mouth... the guy himself said "sometimes I just don't think and do stupid stuff" :blink:

[Lou Girardin]

Year Road deaths
1980 599
1981 669
1982 673
1983 644
1984 669
1985 747
1986 766
1987 795
1988 727
1989 755

(from ltsa website)

So, let's not even talk about the improvemnents in primary/secondary safety features in cars, improved/quicker emergency medical treatment, improved roads.
Just look at the reduction in Auck motorway fatals after the median barriers went in.
This argument by the LTSA/Police has been well demolished before.
If you guys were making a difference, why has the road toll increased as enforcement gets tougher?
More cars on the road? Or are people just sick of big brother and being the perverse creatures that humans are, they are protesting by pushing the limits?
When do your bosses admit that they've got it wrong or does Harry have to force them to?

[marty]

oh lou you're such a troll

[scumdog]

oh lou you're such a troll

AND he forgot to enlighten me on how I missed the point on 'discretion' as per my last post :sly:

[spudchucka]

More cars on the road? Or are people just sick of big brother and being the perverse creatures that humans are, they are protesting by pushing the limits?
There are more cars on the road. The fleet has increase by 36% since 1990. Road deaths have decreased 41%. How the f**k did that happen??

[marty]

*not* through aggressive road policing obviously...