Radar detectors could be banned [Archive]

cold comfort

22nd December 2007, 07:49

http://home.nzcity.co.nz/news/article.aspx?id=79790&fm=psp,tsf

What the fuck is the government on!!!! $150,000 for having a Radar???
You kill 4 motorcyclists by driving a fucking camper van into them and you get less!!!!!

Its' actually $150. I am going to be in trouble with the wife when she reads this as she just got a radar detector yesterday (my suggestion):shit:
I hope this will encourage people to vote Harry (and Helen)out particuarly as the prick supports WRBarriers ignoring all evidence against them. Typically this crap llegislation does nothing to address the incompetence of NZ and tourist driver, recidivist disqualified/drunk drivers etc -the real cause of death.

Toaster

22nd December 2007, 08:07

R1madness

22nd December 2007, 08:08

Ok .Seems like they want to make life a little bit harder. If they ban detectors then i will start importing and selling jammers. they are also illegal but what the hell.

McJim

22nd December 2007, 08:13

The demerit penalties are getting too great for small offences - we are all being encouraged to do runners. Sad really. the answer lies in taking everyone's licence off them and getting the driving examiners over from the UK to test everyone...that way you actually have to be able to ride/drive your vehicle before they give you a licence instead of this 'lip service' riding/driving test you have over here.

Toaster

22nd December 2007, 08:15

Ok .Seems like they want to make life a little bit harder. If they ban detectors then i will start importing and selling jammers. they are also illegal but what the hell.

A client has one in his 6 series BMW + detector. Hugely expensive and I would say will also be banned very soon!

I think Uncle Helen will ban Christmas soon too. Too much alcohol and obesity or something like that. Maybe the Greens will reailse we all fart too much with all the food and booze and will tax us with carbon debits.

cold comfort

22nd December 2007, 08:17

I think some of you are really missing the point... they have reduced many of the fines quite considerably - so no, it is not about revenue. The con to that is that demerits have been introduced and increased across many offences so you could lose your licence and have your bike impounded very quickly indeed!

The idea is that radar detectors would no longer be able to be used because such use shows a clear intention to speed when they are trying to get people to slow down.

Grizzle all you like, but speeding has always been a measurable and attackable issue when it comes to road safety initiatives. It always will be.

All of us, including me, will have to slow down unless we want to lose the freedom to ride. Remember it is not a right, it is a privilege.

Possession of a radar detector does not necessarily indicate an intention to deliberately flout the (rather arbitary) law, rather, to level the playing field for minor infractions ie the creation of roads without corners and passing lanes that require exceeding the limit which are then policed to the max-talk about bloody entrapment!
The appalling incompetence of NZ drivers is such that ANY speed above walking pace would be dangerous. It will be of huge comfort ot my family when i am killed by an incompetent on the wrong side of the road (or maybe even a cop turning to "pursue ") that they were not speeding.

McJim

22nd December 2007, 08:20

A charge of attempted murder for anyone caught accelerating whilst being overtaken would be welcome by me. Then we wouldn't have to squirt past shit drivers.

cold comfort

22nd December 2007, 08:25

Ok .Seems like they want to make life a little bit harder. If they ban detectors then i will start importing and selling jammers. they are also illegal but what the hell.

I have read some creative ways of concealing said detectors. A bad law will always be flouted or circumvented. This option i will investigate but i won't be posting my findings on this forum for MR Plod and the PC brigade to observe.
Its good to see the hoops responsible gun owners have to jump through, with no right of sef defence,have prevent the ciminal element from firearm possession-yeah right!

cold comfort

22nd December 2007, 08:28

A charge of attempted murder for anyone caught accelerating whilst being overtaken would be welcome by me. Then we wouldn't have to squirt past shit drivers.

Absolutely-why DO those F****S ALWAYS speed up in the passing bays but slow down afterwards.

pritch

22nd December 2007, 08:30

I was really pissed off when I read about the proposed detector ban. The good news is that they are talking two years and by that time this bag of arseholes that passes for a Government will hopefully be gone.

There are a number of options to be considered before ditching the detector though, one of which is to finally buy that Harley...

jafar

22nd December 2007, 08:30

http://home.nzcity.co.nz/news/article.aspx?id=79790&fm=psp,tsf

What the fuck is the government on!!!! $150,000 for having a Radar???
You kill 4 motorcyclists by driving a fucking camper van into them and you get less!!!!!

You get to go to a farmstay & play with the animals for killing four bikers, stress leave (paid holiday ) for putting two bikers in hospital. Kind of makes the new demerit system look a bit sad doesn't it. :blink::blink:

Winter

22nd December 2007, 08:37

From http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10483863

Radar detectors will become illegal, attracting fines and demerit points on an escalating scale in a three-year, phase-out plan. Those using detectors will initially face $50 fines and 25 demerit points, rising to $150 fines and 75 demerit points in the third year.

Transport Safety Minister Harry Duynhoven said he was prepared to withstand a potential backlash by those using detectors to lessen their chances of being caught

"My job is to try to save lives out there on the road - if people don't like it, tough."

McJim

22nd December 2007, 08:37

It's not that big a deal really. They're illegal in the UK too but that doesn't stop people from using them.

marty

22nd December 2007, 08:54

it will be interesting to see how the law is written. how could they prove that a detector was being 'used'?

from experience i know if someone has a detector and they are tracked by radar - a sudden braking action gives it away, however by the time the patrol car is behind you, the detector is in the glove box. surely they cannot make it illegal to have one in your car - even turned off.

Storm

22nd December 2007, 09:03

surely they cannot make it illegal to have one in your car - even turned off.

You'd think not, however this is Helengrad, where our rights are what she says they are.

stevedee

22nd December 2007, 09:14

The Stranger

22nd December 2007, 09:33

All of us, including me, will have to slow down unless we want to lose the freedom to ride. Remember it is not a right, it is a privilege.

How do you figure it's not a right?
Could you please define a privilege as distinct from a right?

What is the message you are trying to convey there Toaster - that we should be eternally grateful that the powers that be deign to allow us plebs to use the road at their whim?

Steam

22nd December 2007, 09:41

...the freedom to ride. Remember it is not a right, it is a privilege.

I'm a bit confused about that too. How is riding a privilege? I dinny unnastand

Mikkel

22nd December 2007, 09:54

Hmmm, I must say after having read about the whole "initiative" against speeding in the Press this morning that I am appaled.

I don't understand why it is so hard for the people "Up-stairs" to realise that the people that are going to be affected the most by such legislations are the ones that are generally playing by the rules (don't do runners, drive warranted and registrered vehicles, don't speed dangerously, etc.) not the truly angry and dangerous drivers out there who put our lives at risk every day.

There's only one word to describe the new rules: Draconian.
Why not just do the job properly and say zero-tolerance to speeding? Give the police the right(and duty) to execute anyone who exceed the posted speedlimit on the spot! :rolleyes:

Ixion

22nd December 2007, 09:59

That meaningless mantra "it's a privilege not a right" is utter bollocks . Those who keep mindlessly chanting it display thier ignorance and prejudice.

The RIGHT is use the Queen's Highway is indeed a right available to every citizen . And has been for at least 1000 years.

That is why you can only be forbidden to do so if you are convicted of a crime by a court. And why stopping a road is a complex and legally prescribed process.

The difference between a right and a privilege may easily be shown. If I were to own a farm, with a private road through it, I might allow you to use my road as a privilege. Because it is a privilege, I could revoke it at any time. For no reason at all. "Sorry mate, I don't want you using my road any more. No reason, I just don't want you on it". End of story. And I might allow you to use it, but not Harry. This is a privilege - a special advantage or benefit. Compare this with the public highway. Anyone may use it, and noone can arbitrarily tell you you cannot.

If you wish to drive a car on the public road, you must demonstrate competence to do so, by obtaining a licence . And if you commit certain crimes your licence may be revoked. But the issue of a licence is also a right not a privilege. Just as using the road, provided you meet the conditions , you are entitled to one. No-one can say "You have passed the test, but I'm not going to give you a licence. No reason, just don't want to. Sorry". Most rights have some qualifying condition attached. Would the mindless chanters claim that the right to vote is a privilege? Yet you must meet conditions for that. And if you commit certain crimes your franchise may be revoked.

"It's a privilege not a right" is total nonsense. Worse, those who chant it (and have not the slightest notion what they are talking about) are actively endorsing one of those small steps which, taken in aggregate, lead us down the path to totalatarianism. Such people are a danger to all freedom.

wolverine_nz

22nd December 2007, 10:01

The Government wants to ban radar detectors and fine drivers $150,000 if they are caught using them

21 December 2007

The Government wants to ban motorists from having radar detectors in their vehicles.

It is part of a road safety strategy the police and Transport Safety Minister Harry Duynhoven have released today. They want to make it illegal for drivers to use the radars, which alert motorists when a police car is nearby.

Under the proposal, the ban would be phased in over two years, and once it is fully in place drivers found to be using a radar will be fined $150,000 and receive 75 demerit points.

A driver would lose their licence once they received a total of 100 demerit points.

>> More Politics News Subscribe to NZCity's Politics articles
© 2007 NZCity, NewsTalkZB

:eek5::angry2:

beyond

22nd December 2007, 10:11

Bugga!

:( :( :(

Out with the Zimmerframe.

wolverine_nz

22nd December 2007, 10:14

$150,000 does seem a little steep. :blink:

les king

22nd December 2007, 10:18

Ixion for president. Wish i was able to express myself this well.I just wanna fide my bike as kwik as is safe while points allow. Seee u Helen shes gone.

les king

22nd December 2007, 10:19

should read Ride thinkin bout helen brings out all the f,s in me.

homer

22nd December 2007, 10:24

oh come on
not in this life
wernt they going to ban cellphones and car stereos
what you hear is just talk

Mikkel

22nd December 2007, 11:40

Let's try something wothwhile - let's ban music and laughter as well and we can all be perfect worker drones in uncle Helen's little beehive!

Swoop

22nd December 2007, 12:04

$150,000?
Cullen must be hard up for money!!!
More likely to be $150.00

Gubbinment looked into banning them in the late '80's-early '90's along with bullbars...

The next issue will be the cost of equipment in patrolcars that could be able to detect some types of detectors.

Boob Johnson

22nd December 2007, 12:18

Ok .Seems like they want to make life a little bit harder. If they ban detectors then i will start importing and selling jammers. they are also illegal but what the hell.
Its already being done mate & has been for some time, but they are "Laser" jammers only not POP or KA jammers.

it will be interesting to see how the law is written. how could they prove that a detector was being 'used'?

from experience i know if someone has a detector and they are tracked by radar - a sudden braking action gives it away, however by the time the patrol car is behind you, the detector is in the glove box. surely they cannot make it illegal to have one in your car - even turned off.
Bit like how you can own an "ornamental" bong as long as you don't use it :wacko:

Suggest when this finally comes to fruition. We find a small black box that can be bought at "The Warehouse" get the receipt, every bike rider get one and velcro it to the handlebars. Put your house key in it and your ear plugs so when you are stopped you can show the police that it is there for a reason. That makes every biker a target to be stopped and I would think after a while even the police would give up.

spd:-)lol bling sent, brilliant :2thumbsup

McJim

22nd December 2007, 12:27

I am wondering if these radar detector detectors really exist. I remember enforcing the old TV licence system in the UK where we had to perpetuate the myth by rumour that TV detector vans could 'Detect' a receiver (live aerial attached to a TV that's switched on) when really we had a cross referenced list of every houshold that had paid their licence and ergo we could identify those that didn't.

Where a receiver does not emit a signal it is impossible to detect - I therefore suspect that radar detectors, which receive but do not transmit, are also undetectable and that they are trying to create the same myth 50 years later on a different subject using rumour.

Where are the scientists to prover that a receiver that doesn't transmit can be detected?

trumpy

22nd December 2007, 12:34

John Banks tried this some years ago rabbiting on a out "research showed.." etc. Only trouble was when it was looked at more carefully the only good research they could find showed quite clearly that those using radar detectors regularly had a lower accident rate than those who didn't.
Issue quietly faded into the ether after that.:niceone:

Swoop

22nd December 2007, 12:42

Transport Safety Minister Harry Duynhoven said...
"My job is to try to save lives out there on the road - if people don't like it, tough."
You are doing a great job with the wire rope barriers mate. Keep up the good work and contradictory statements!

Suggest when this finally comes to fruition. We find a small black box that can be bought at "The Warehouse" get the receipt, every bike rider get one and velcro it to the handlebars. Put your house key in it and your ear plugs so when you are stopped you can show the police that it is there for a reason.
Just put your ipod/walkman there with headphones plugged in, so that there is a wire going to your helmet.

Swoop

22nd December 2007, 12:55

I am wondering if these radar detector detectors really exist. I remember enforcing the old TV licence system in the UK where we had to perpetuate the myth by rumour that TV detector vans could 'Detect' a receiver (live aerial attached to a TV that's switched on) when really we had a cross referenced list of every houshold that had paid their licence and ergo we could identify those that didn't.

Where are the scientists to prover that a receiver that doesn't transmit can be detected?
I had a chat with a Snottie, some years back, who had been sent on secondment to BCNZ in Upper Hutt.
They demonstrated that the ability existed to sit outside a house (about 50 feet away) and be able to see what was being watched on a CRT screen inside the residence.
TV = no problem.
Computer screen = no problem.

He said that the amount of sheilding, that would be required to interfere with the outgoing signal from the screen, would have to be quite large.

I am presuming that newer screens (LCD/Plasma/etc) wouldn't have this issue - but I'm not sure!

davereid

22nd December 2007, 13:16

Your radar detector has 4 main parts...

1. An antenna
2. An oscillator
3. A mixer
4. A detector

A small amount of the energy generated by the local oscillator leaks back out the antenna. This is why your radar detector will sometimes beep at other radar detectors.

So yes, your radar detector can be detected. But the level of leakage is very small, and some radar detector manufacturers go to a lot of trouble to minimise oscillator leakage.

In the real world, a well made, carefully concealed detector that was switched off as soon as it detected police radar would not be noticed.

Of course the 75 demerits will ensure you ALWAYS lose you licence if you get a speeding ticket and are found to have one.

slopster

22nd December 2007, 14:34

I had a faulty V1 detector for a while. It would pick up every single other detector as well as what it should. Anoying as fuck but it goes to show the they do emit a signal.

Toaster

22nd December 2007, 14:57

How do you figure it's not a right?
Could you please define a privilege as distinct from a right?

What is the message you are trying to convey there Toaster - that we should be eternally grateful that the powers that be deign to allow us plebs to use the road at their whim?

I'm a bit confused about that too. How is riding a privilege? I dinny unnastand

Quite a simple concept there chaps. We all have to earn a licence to use the roads and thereafter comply with the laws that govern that usage.

That "right" you may think you have - can and will be taken from you if you choose to spoil it for yourself by breaching the conditions of use.

We don't get to use the roads as of right.

Damn right the powers that be tell us what to do according to their agenda - whether we like it or not (and I am not saying I like it or support it either). If you want a Government to be less meddling in your lives then vote for a change in Government.

The good old kiwi way of life has been socially engineered (and immigrated) out of existence.

ElCoyote

22nd December 2007, 15:04

I think some of you are really missing the point...

The idea is that radar detectors would no longer be able to be used because such use shows a clear intention to speed when they are trying to get people to slow down.

Indeed they are and it will alter the road toll not one iota and in fact it may increase with more vehicles to a given area blindly following the leader.

Countries that alllow "water to find it's own level" have significantly fewer fatalities than New Zealand ever will.

CAUTION IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR SKILL :headbang:

xgnr

22nd December 2007, 15:49

This government is determined to get voted out

HornetBoy

22nd December 2007, 16:07

$150,000 :gob: waaat i dont think it would be that step ,holy shit take me a while to pay that off :bye: yea couldn't see this law coming into play anytime soon .although its not supriseing if it did :angry:

AllanB

22nd December 2007, 16:43

Emotive stuff.

I personally don't own a detector probably will never (especially now).

The bottom line is 100 kph is the LEGAL speed limit on the open road (and various lower ones in other areas -50,60,70,80). Get caught over it -shit happens costs money etc.

I was asked only the other day what speed I cruise at on the bike - generally 110-120 range. I was then asked what speed I cruise at in the car - 100 pretty much.

The next question was why do I feel it is OK to go faster on a motorcycle.

I had no valid answer, 20 years ago bikes were better than cars at higher speeds - now days almost any modern car is easily comfortable and handles well in excess of the speed limit.

'Because it feels right officer' apparently does not cut it any more.

Write to the minister of transport if you are really worked up - but don't expect anything to change - how would the letter go" Dear Sir, I regularly ride by ZXGSYZRR 1500 over 100 kph and I have fitted 2 radar detectors to avoid getting caught. I feel you are an arse for proposing to ban them.

As far as red light runners go - I live in Christchuch and apparently we are the 'best' at this and I hope there is not a city worse in NZ - every single day on my way to or from work I'll see red light runners, often it is someone in a lane adjacent to me two or more cars BEHIND (see I use the mirrors) who shoots through a light that I stop at! Scary stuff.

Indeed they are and it will alter the road toll not one iota and in fact it may increase with more vehicles to a given area blindly following the leader.

I agree with this 100%, as often I pass vehicles doing around 90-95 who then speed up and use me as a 'pace setter' for the next X kms.

El Dopa

22nd December 2007, 16:53

speeding has always been a measurable and attackable issue when it comes to road safety initiatives.

When all you have is a hammer, quite a few problems start to take on the apperance of nails.......

A detector which remotely measures shitty driving, including changing lanes without indicating, tailgating, randomly swerving all over the frickin' show, not pulling over and letting people past when you're doing 50 in an 80 zone, and various other numbnuts behaviour, is well overdue.

Da Bird

22nd December 2007, 17:43

This will no doubt start appearing in the patrol vehicle's windscreen along with the Stalker...

http://www.stalkerradar.com/rdd/Stalker-Spectre-III-Radar-Detector-Detector.html

scracha

22nd December 2007, 17:48

I remember enforcing the old TV licence system in the UK where we had to perpetuate the myth by rumour that TV detector

You were one of them bastards....I want the green bling I gave you for another post back. I'd regularly tell your colleagues to go forth and procreate with themselves until they came back with a warrant (never).

I suspect we'll all start switching to GPS / moby phone based detection devices anyhoo.

Oh..and radar detectors are legal in the UK AFAIK.

NighthawkNZ

22nd December 2007, 17:49

I think Uncle Helen will ban Christmas soon too.

But would be the only thing Uncle Elen would do right... fuck I hate Xmas... while we are at ban Easter too, and birthdays... oh andevery other stat holiday...

NighthawkNZ

22nd December 2007, 17:54

Where a receiver does not emit a signal it is impossible to detect - I therefore suspect that radar detectors, which receive but do not transmit, are also undetectable and that they are trying to create the same myth 50 years later on a different subject using rumour.

Being an ex-radar operator from the RNZN you've hit the nail on the head. You can't detect something that does not emit a signal... the electronic warfare guys would laffing their pants off at the radar detector dector statement.

The unit describe above doesn't detect the radar dector as such it detects the leakage

It does this by detecting the radio frequency “leakage” emitted by all radar detectors.

So good sheilding is required... so there is good chance that a sensitive enough bit of equipment could lock on to, but unlikey. And probably would be no way of telling if it was a a dector, or GPS unit or cell phone, PDA, Laptop, your alternator, vibrator... (what ever tickles your fancy) :doh: ...

Radar jammers on the other hand are easily dectable...

After all, if a commercial driver is in possession of an illegal radar detector, who knows what else he may be in possession of.
I did find that comment funny...

At the end of the day its no skin off my nose..

Winston001

22nd December 2007, 18:32

There is every chance this will happen. Remember this is a nanny government. Look at how they rammed through the Electoral Finance Act.

I understand radar detectors are illegal in some states of Australia and other places around the world.

Bill Jefferies was Transport Minister in the 3rd Labour Government (Lange et al) and was moving to this ban but they lost the election to National in 1991.

Slingshot

22nd December 2007, 18:34

Suggest when this finally comes to fruition. We find a small black box that can be bought at "The Warehouse" get the receipt, every bike rider get one and velcro it to the handlebars. Put your house key in it and your ear plugs so when you are stopped you can show the police that it is there for a reason. That makes every biker a target to be stopped and I would think after a while even the police would give up.

spd:-)

That small black box could be the shell of an old detector (http://www.trademe.co.nz/Trade-Me-Motors/Car-parts-accessories/Radar-detectors/auction-132790355.htm), a couple of latches to hold it together and it would be perfect.

Swoop

22nd December 2007, 18:47

This will no doubt start appearing in the patrol vehicle's windscreen along with the Stalker...

http://www.stalkerradar.com/rdd/Stalker-Spectre-III-Radar-Detector-Detector.html
In fact, only the Spectre III detects every radar detector certified for operation in the United States by the Federal Communications Commission as of December 2004.

This unit would be seriously out of date.

homer

22nd December 2007, 18:52

oh stuff the the government
i guess they only get told what to do really

they can all do what ducks cant

stick there bills up there ass

SimJen

22nd December 2007, 19:10

Slingshot

22nd December 2007, 19:19

jammers aren't illegal as they are deemed to not detect anything. They only modify a signal recieved....or they put out interferance which confuses the radar.
Alternatively you can buy Veil paint that is painted invisibly on your headlight (the area most cops will aim for as its often the most visible and reflective) it massively decreases the distance they can get a lock on you.....very good as an extra deterrant, not too pricey either.

At the moment, Laser Jammers aren't illegal as you don't have to have a license to transmit light.

Ka Jammers are illegal as they transmit a radio signal. And it's pretty unlikely that you'll have a license to transmit on the required frequency.

It could be argued that you're interferring with the flow of revenue to the queen though.

SimJen

22nd December 2007, 19:40

id only use a laser jammer as lasers are almost instant.....KA is pretty obious when you see a cop car....its not like the buggers hide with them these days.
I got done a few years back by cops hiding behind a tree in bright sunlight with a handheld laser.....nice :(

Delphinus

22nd December 2007, 19:45

http://www.stalkerradar.com/rdd/Stalker-Spectre-III-Radar-Detector-Detector.html

After all, if a commercial driver is in possession of an illegal radar detector, who knows what else he may be in possession of.

hahahahaha

puddytat

22nd December 2007, 20:02

Fuck the lot of 'em I reckon....

Delphinus

22nd December 2007, 20:04

Are there any countries in the world that are actually reasonable in their laws? And dont just go for the easiest cheapest fix?

Daza

22nd December 2007, 20:06

How will they go about phrasing this ban in over two years? Will it be illegal but have smaller fines to start with then fines go up after 2 years or what?

I just deleted a long winded post about the grey areas of the road code. Where i think a bit like in the States, you are more likely to be better off owning a gun than not, with the widely use/availability of guns over there. I guess there are two camps on this argument, but this isn't the place for that. But i hope you get what i mean.

What it boils down to (a no brainer statement i know) is is money to be made for the govern-mint. I don't think they will put a blackbox on our vehicles to physically force and limit speed to 100-110 only. Because there would be no money in fines for speeding. But i do see a future with road-tolling devices road-users are forced to pay for and have installed, that can backtrack your travels and calculate your average speed. The ultimate speeding fines method eh...

The best way to cook a Lobster unaware is very very slowly.

Horse

23rd December 2007, 00:56

"What man?"

"The man from the cat detector van. I never seen so many bleedin' aerials!"

RiderInBlack

23rd December 2007, 07:09

I take it that the Labour Party are sick of running this Country and want ta be voted out:finger:
The only reason I got a Detector was because I got sick of getting silly tickets for 111-119km on dead straight roads with sweet FA traffic on it. Had they not got more retentive I would not have bothered. As far as I'm concerned being done for 20km over on the open road is a fair cop.
Will banning Radar detectors stop real speeding? Yer Right:apint:. This and other laws they are thinking about introducing, are going ta encourage drivers/riders ta try runners (which are inherently dangerous) more often (as it already has). This is going to lead to more accidents related to pursuits, which in-turn will lead to an increase in road fatalities.
They are just not thinking.

civil

23rd December 2007, 07:41

I The only reason I got a Detector was because I got sick of getting silly tickets for 111-119km on dead straight roads with sweet FA traffic on it.

What he said. I got mine after getting done for 61km/hr around the foreshore (SH1) of Lake Taupo at 6:15pm on a Friday night. Any slower and I would have been driving dangerously.

davereid

23rd December 2007, 08:12

What he said. I got mine after getting done for 61km/hr around the foreshore (SH1) of Lake Taupo at 6:15pm on a Friday night. Any slower and I would have been driving dangerously.

Thats going to be the real piss-off with this law.

When I want to go fast, I pick twisty back-roads that are unlikely to be policed, (and that are hard to exceed the speed limit on anyway), I ride in a group so the police radar is in-effective, and only tail end charlie ever stops for a cop anyway. This won't change that, I'll still have plenty of fast, ticket-free rides.

But when I am essentially obeying the law, thats when I seem to get my tickets.

Like when I use a bit of extra squirt to get past the tosser who gases it up on the passing lane. Or I throttle off when the speed limits drops, but don't actually brake.

It will be so easy to get 100 points in two years.

El Dopa

23rd December 2007, 08:47

I don't think they will put a blackbox on our vehicles to physically force and limit speed to 100-110 only. Because there would be no money in fines for speeding. But i do see a future with road-tolling devices road-users are forced to pay for and have installed, that can backtrack your travels and calculate your average speed. The ultimate speeding fines method eh...

The best way to cook a Lobster unaware is very very slowly.

This has already been suggested in the UK.

One UK Europoll wanted an engine limiter for all new bikes sold in Europe which would basically turn itself on every time the speed reached 100 mph. No matter what the circumstances.

The UK has also already introduced a sophisticated camera/numberplate tracking system that is effectively country-wide, 'to help fight the war on terror'. Totally coincidentally, this system can be used to calculate average vehicle speeds and other data. Gosh, what a surprise.

Delphinus

23rd December 2007, 09:12

The only reason I got a Detector was because I got sick of getting silly tickets for 111-119km on dead straight roads with sweet FA traffic on it.

x2.
And its the only times that the detector is useful/saved me anyway.
Handy to know when not to overtake too.

RiderInBlack

23rd December 2007, 09:33

Coyote

23rd December 2007, 09:54

Ok .Seems like they want to make life a little bit harder. If they ban detectors then i will start importing and selling jammers. they are also illegal but what the hell.
Sign me up. It'll go well with my blacked out, uninsured and derego'd insurance wreck ZX10R I plan to get in the near future.

Untill then, once the law is enforced, I'm going to put a TV ariel on my VFR and see what response I get.

Coyote

23rd December 2007, 09:59

If you want a Government to be less meddling in your lives then vote for a change in Government.

To who? No group of politically minded people believe in freedom for the majority.

Coyote

23rd December 2007, 10:04

Texas Bill Would Require Transponders in All Cars (http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/03/308.asp). Not too much of a jump from that to using them for speed fines.
It's funny how the company "Texas Instruments" is the leading manufacturer of these transponders the Texas house of representatives wants all cars to have. I'm sure that's just a coincidence and there is no financial incentive to anyone involved...

JayRacer37

23rd December 2007, 10:11

You know.....If they actually wanted to improve road safety, they would start with something sensible like making cell phone use illigal, and give $150,000 fines and 75 demerits for txt-ing and driving....easy to check too, just see when the last sent txt was timed and dated. I'll just keep my radar behind the sun-visor in the cage on suckers, and pull it off if i'm pulled over....:yes:

Sketchy_Racer

23rd December 2007, 10:14

But that means you'll have to stop txtn and driving jay :spanking:

Coyote

23rd December 2007, 10:17

This will no doubt start appearing in the patrol vehicle's windscreen along with the Stalker...

http://www.stalkerradar.com/rdd/Stalker-Spectre-III-Radar-Detector-Detector.html
Are there radar detector detector detectors? Or do cops have detector detector detector detectors making detector detector detectors useless?

Coyote

23rd December 2007, 10:29

What it boils down to (a no brainer statement i know) is is money to be made for the govern-mint. I don't think they will put a blackbox on our vehicles to physically force and limit speed to 100-110 only. Because there would be no money in fines for speeding. But i do see a future with road-tolling devices road-users are forced to pay for and have installed, that can backtrack your travels and calculate your average speed. The ultimate speeding fines method eh...

The best way to cook a Lobster unaware is very very slowly.
Most modern cars have speed limiters. For example Mercedes cars can only go 155mph because further than that things start to break. Why can't they have a 60-65mph limiter instead?

My VFR was limited to 180kph at one stage, when the speedo needle hit 180 power to the engine is cut to slow it down, but a previous owner got rid of that.

It's cheaper and easier to make a black box that limits the vehicle to legal speeds. It's already in most cars. It's much harder and more expensive to make a black box that records speeds and sends information to the cops. But they seem to want to opt for the option with manufacturing contracts and speeding fines. This prooves that it's not (at least not just) safety on policy makers minds.

Edbear

23rd December 2007, 10:35

But would be the only thing Uncle Elen would do right... fuck I hate Xmas... while we are at ban Easter too, and birthdays... oh andevery other stat holiday...

No, just rename them "Stat Holiday's"...:niceone:

Toaster

23rd December 2007, 15:28

To who? No group of politically minded people believe in freedom for the majority.

Maybe try 120 KB members in govt... good party at least!

I bags defence and police.... oh and finance portfolios. :cool:

Gixxer peter

23rd December 2007, 16:00

Hmmm
Im okay as my Busa is speed limited (about 300Kph HAHA)
serious tho ,I liken my detector to the reason cop car are painted bright colours, it is a constant reminder to keep within the limits? It warns me frequently that i need to slow down.

And this new law will be great as the cops now will leave their detectors on all the time ,rather than switch them on as they get close ,to hide from detectors, they are going to be much easier to spot .
Less chance of being caught,less chance of finding that hidden detector with the H.A.R.D. system.

swbarnett

23rd December 2007, 16:00

I think some of you are really missing the point... they have reduced many of the fines quite considerably - so no, it is not about revenue.
This always assumes that the tolerances will stay the same. Maybe they'll start ticketing at 5km/h over instead of 10 i.e. more tickets = more revenue even with the lowered fines.

Pixie

23rd December 2007, 16:23

I think some of you are really missing the point... they have reduced many of the fines quite considerably - so no, it is not about revenue.

Use your @#%$! brain.
They have increased the most common fine level.The ones Ma & Pa Kettle get and obediently pay immediately.
They will get more revenue from these changes

Pixie

23rd December 2007, 16:35

Pixie

23rd December 2007, 16:42

This will no doubt start appearing in the patrol vehicle's windscreen along with the Stalker...

http://www.stalkerradar.com/rdd/Stalker-Spectre-III-Radar-Detector-Detector.html

They may have worked in 2004.
A recent test had V1 and other high end detectors sitting right next to the Stalker RDD and it didn't detect them.

Pixie

23rd December 2007, 16:48

How will they go about phrasing this ban in over two years?

Especially from the opposition benches

Pixie

23rd December 2007, 16:54

It will be so easy to get 100 points in two years.

Oh, you will be able to be forced to walk far faster than that.
Exceed a speed limit by 50% and your vehicle will be impounded.
Say you missed that 30 km/hr road works sign and were doing more than 45 km/hr - walkies time.

roogazza

23rd December 2007, 18:17

I only use my V1 to recieve SWS signals ,so I don't crash into tractors.

Likewise Pixie, mine is just a safety device !!

ps. ya know, with all the doom and gloom we hear and get shoved at us, I'm still riding the same way 43 years on ! The game continues .....................................

Toaster

23rd December 2007, 22:37

Use your @#%$! brain.
They have increased the most common fine level.The ones Ma & Pa Kettle get and obediently pay immediately.
They will get more revenue from these changes

Oh I use my brain all the time, albeit one-sided.

How many tickets have you had now? Must be a few since you sound so bitter. Slow down and hey magic... problem disappears. Either that or take a hard pill and stop complaining about it.

swbarnett

24th December 2007, 11:29

Slow down and hey magic... problem disappears.
The problem remains. Our activities are being curtailed in the name of safety when what we're doing is not dangerous in the first place.

P38

24th December 2007, 11:52

Its' actually $150. I am going to be in trouble with the wife when she reads this as she just got a radar detector yesterday (my suggestion):shit:
I hope this will encourage people to vote Harry (and Helen)out particuarly as the prick supports WRBarriers ignoring all evidence against them. Typically this crap llegislation does nothing to address the incompetence of NZ and tourist driver, recidivist disqualified/drunk drivers etc -the real cause of death.

I'd think carefully about this!:scratch:

Might be a case of "Better the Devil You Know":devil2:

les king

24th December 2007, 14:06

for f---- sake i thought the earthquke was in gisborne didnt realise it rattled heads in hastings helen reign is all over.

c4.

24th December 2007, 15:01

It’s a bit like being told that you may not look ahead for signs of law enforcement, close your eyes if you see a car, that may or may not contain an officer of the law.
Surely their very presence on our roads is to encourage us to slow down, or at least check the speed we are traveling.
Incidentally enough, this is exactly what happens every time I detect the presence of law enforcement, be it through visual by seeing lights/vehicles/camera vans, aural by hearing sirens, or my radar detector screaming at me to beware the demerit sharks.
Can anyone else see a massive bottleneck about to occur in the courts?
Meanwhile the burglary and youth crime figures sail through the roof.
I will be continuing to use my detector in the same manner I use it legally now, not to careen around the countryside, but to avoid situations where inattention to minor infractions might now very well cost me my ride.

Does any one know whether or not Harry should have to offer amnesty or recompense for outlawing one of our vehicular tools.

5 Knots

c4.

24th December 2007, 16:27

does any one here have links for hiding the statisical indicator device?

P38

24th December 2007, 16:59

for f---- sake i thought the earthquke was in gisborne didnt realise it rattled heads in hastings helen reign is all over.

Yeah it did shake a bit here too.

Not enouugh to fuddle the brain though, took care of that myself.

Just dont be too dissapointed if Aunty Hellen returns for another term.

She certainly wont give up without a fight.

An if she dont survive, then dont expect too much from the new mob cos as far as I can see it's the same old horse just with a different jockey.

Moxy

24th December 2007, 17:49

The problem remains. Our activities are being curtailed in the name of safety when what we're doing is not dangerous in the first place.

I like the idea of radar detectors. They give people early warning for when the cop is catching dangerous drivers at the end of an overtaking lane.. you know... catching the people who are overtaking at 111k in a 100k zone...

Toaster

24th December 2007, 18:21

The problem remains. Our activities are being curtailed in the name of safety when what we're doing is not dangerous in the first place.

And how is fantasyland nowdays? Ever heard of physics?

Higher speed is always more dangerous than lower speed. You simply can't stop or react as fast because you give yourself less time to do so.

But then you are better than the rest of us aren't you? Hey what the hell, just ride at 200km/h everywhere since you are so damn good nothing will ever happen to you because it isn't dangerous according to the gospel of swbarnett.

Jantar

24th December 2007, 19:09

... Ever heard of physics?

Higher speed is always more dangerous than lower speed. ....

Yes, I do believe I have heard of physics, and the strange thing is that physics actually proves that sometimes a higher speed is safer than a lower speed.

Try riding your bike at 5 kmh on the open road and see how safe you are. Then ride the same piece of road at 100 kmh and see how much more responsive your handling is. The main difference between a cage and a bike that makes a bike safer at slightly higher speeds is the different physics involved in the vehicles handling characteristics. A cage relies mainly on gravity and friction for stability whereas a bike relies more on centripedal force and centrifugal reaction. These last two are more pronounced as rotational speed increases. A car relies almost entirely friction and mechanical advantage (steering box or power steering) to change direction, but a bike has centrifical progression as an additional aid.

Thus a cage is very safe and stable at no speed, but a bike will fall over at zero speed. A cage becomes more dangerous with every extra kmh, but a bike becomes safer as speed increases to the speed where the wheels, frame, tyres and suspension all work as a unit, then, from that point on (like a cage) risk increases with speed.

No-one can deny that a rider is more likely to be injured in an accident than a cage driver, but in many circumstances a rider has more chance of avoiding the accident in the first place. Unfortunately, many riders do over extend themselves and throw away that advantage by riding right on the limit.

swbarnett

24th December 2007, 23:49

Higher speed is always more dangerous than lower speed.
High speed and fast driving are not the same thing. What you're talking about is rampant speed with no regard for the conditions i.e. hooning. What I'm talking about is driving fast with respect for the conditions i.e varying speed to what is appropriate irrespective of the posted speed limit.

There is one word that disproves your point - TIMING. At 100km/h I may end up right in the path of a turning car whereas at a higher speed I'm past the intersection before the car even approaches. Slower does not always equal safer (just try doing 50km/h in amongst 100km/h+ traffic).

sAsLEX

25th December 2007, 13:33

High speed and fast driving are not the same thing. What you're talking about is rampant speed with no regard for the conditions i.e. hooning. What I'm talking about is driving fast with respect for the conditions i.e varying speed to what is appropriate irrespective of the posted speed limit.

There is one word that disproves your point - TIMING. At 100km/h I may end up right in the path of a turning car whereas at a higher speed I'm past the intersection before the car even approaches. Slower does not always equal safer (just try doing 50km/h in amongst 100km/h+ traffic).

And maybe toasted could answer this riddle.

Why, when in the states they raised the speed limits on certain stretches of roads, did the accident rate drop?

Especially since speed is inherently linked to the road toll and crashes?

And why on many motorways the world over the speeds travelled at much higher than NZ yet they don't have an exponentially higher accident rate?

I mean UK 100MPH is common on their motorways, France 130 limit, Germany no limit.

sAsLEX

25th December 2007, 13:35

There is one word that disproves your point - TIMING. At 100km/h I may end up right in the path of a turning car whereas at a higher speed I'm past the intersection before the car even approaches. Slower does not always equal safer (just try doing 50km/h in amongst 100km/h+ traffic).

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/E1PtpMs6pn4&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/E1PtpMs6pn4&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

boomer

25th December 2007, 14:50

And how is fantasyland nowdays? Ever heard of physics?

Higher speed is always more dangerous than lower speed. You simply can't stop or react as fast because you give yourself less time to do so.

But then you are better than the rest of us aren't you? Hey what the hell, just ride at 200km/h everywhere since you are so damn good nothing will ever happen to you because it isn't dangerous according to the gospel of swbarnett.

Since fitting Ohlins my bike handles much better the faster i go.

I think you're talking shite.

Toaster

25th December 2007, 20:38

High speed and fast driving are not the same thing. What you're talking about is rampant speed with no regard for the conditions i.e. hooning. What I'm talking about is driving fast with respect for the conditions i.e varying speed to what is appropriate irrespective of the posted speed limit.

There is one word that disproves your point - TIMING. At 100km/h I may end up right in the path of a turning car whereas at a higher speed I'm past the intersection before the car even approaches. Slower does not always equal safer (just try doing 50km/h in amongst 100km/h+ traffic).

So you DO think your riding is so good you could handle any situation? Thought as much.

The timing argument is just ridiculous. What rubbish. That is a what if senario that carries no logic at all.

And bringing up the 50km/h in a 100 zone is also ridiculous. No one is advocating that.

Jantar

25th December 2007, 21:03

And bringing up the 50km/h in a 100 zone is also ridiculous. No one is advocating that.

Sorry, but you did when you said

Higher speed is always more dangerous than lower speed.

Toaster

25th December 2007, 21:05

Sorry, but you did when you said

I am talking about speeds well in excess of the posted speed limit. Any moron should be able to work that one out Jantar.

Jantar

25th December 2007, 21:17

I am talking about speeds well in excess of the posted speed limit. Any moron should be able to work that one out Jantar.

Well maybe I didn't work that out because I'm not a moron. I tracked back through the referred posts and found that your comment

Higher speed is always more dangerous than lower speed.

was in reference to:

The problem remains. Our activities are being curtailed in the name of safety when what we're doing is not dangerous in the first place.

Nowhere have I found any reference to
speeds well in excess of the posted speed limit.

Toaster

25th December 2007, 21:20

Well maybe I didn't work that out because I'm not a moron. I tracked back through the referred posts and found that your comment

was in reference to:

Nowhere have I found any reference to

Whatever mate. I think you need to get out more often!

homer

25th December 2007, 21:24

Yes, I do believe I have heard of physics, and the strange thing is that physics actually proves that sometimes a higher speed is safer than a lower speed.

Try riding your bike at 5 kmh on the open road and see how safe you are. Then ride the same piece of road at 100 kmh and see how much more responsive your handling is. The main difference between a cage and a bike that makes a bike safer at slightly higher speeds is the different physics involved in the vehicles handling characteristics. A cage relies mainly on gravity and friction for stability whereas a bike relies more on centripedal force and centrifugal reaction. These last two are more pronounced as rotational speed increases. A car relies almost entirely friction and mechanical advantage (steering box or power steering) to change direction, but a bike has centrifical progression as an additional aid.

Thus a cage is very safe and stable at no speed, but a bike will fall over at zero speed. A cage becomes more dangerous with every extra kmh, but a bike becomes safer as speed increases to the speed where the wheels, frame, tyres and suspension all work as a unit, then, from that point on (like a cage) risk increases with speed.

No-one can deny that a rider is more likely to be injured in an accident than a cage driver, but in many circumstances a rider has more chance of avoiding the accident in the first place. Unfortunately, many riders do over extend themselves and throw away that advantage by riding right on the limit.

Based on the laws of phisics the faster everything travels the less collisions occur

Jantar

25th December 2007, 21:24

Whatever mate. I think you need to get out more often!

Oh man, I only wish I could. 9 weeks now since I've ridden and looks like another 3 months at least. :weep:

The Pastor

25th December 2007, 21:47

When I think about them banning radar dectors. I think of one thing. Isnt there a LOT of things more important to worry about?

75 demerits for having a dector. WTF. 75 demerits!! WTF

WTF

WTF

WTF

WTF

swbarnett

25th December 2007, 22:36

So you DO think your riding is so good you could handle any situation? Thought as much.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. That's not for you to say. I do however believe that I have the ability to judge the conditions to a fair degree of accuracy and still leave some margin for error (as do most motorcylists).

BTW: 200km/h would seldom if ever be appropriate but there are a great number of roads and conditions where 120km/h or maybe even 130km/h would not be inappropriate.

The timing argument is just ridiculous. What rubbish. That is a what if senario that carries no logic at all.
I use this frequently when following cars at a distance and someone wants to turn right towards me. I will speed up to close the gap so they don't try and take the gap I happen to be in.

And bringing up the 50km/h in a 100 zone is also ridiculous. No one is advocating that.
You did when you said that slower is ALWAYS safer.

Delphinus

25th December 2007, 23:59

I do however believe that I have the ability to judge the conditions to a fair degree of accuracy and still leave some margin for error (as do most motorcyclists).

BTW: 200km/h would seldom if ever be appropriate but there are a great number of roads and conditions where 120km/h or maybe even 130km/h would not be inappropriate.

Thats right on the money. Problem is... how many of the general public could work out where its safe to do 120 and where its better to be doing that corner at 60k?

If only the police had orders to have more choice in who they dish out tickets to. If you're driving like a cock then ticket you. If you're cruising along the Canterbury straights at 120... nothing wrong with that :)

RiderInBlack

26th December 2007, 06:47

OK so all posted speeds are safer? Yer Right. Pass Me A Tui's.
I find that my bike is a lot more stable on road works above 30kph they post for it. When it comes a choice between keeping my bike up, I'll choose a speed that makes it safer, and bugger it if they want ta ticket me for it.
Sorry but I just don't buy that some how the post speed limits are magically the safest speeds ta go at. Ride to the conditions. If that means throttling up ta get me out of trouble instead of staying ta get hit, I'm going ta throttle up (speed limit or no speed limit).

Max Preload

26th December 2007, 19:58

To who? No group of politically minded people believe in freedom for the majority.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. That's not for you to say. I do however believe that I have the ability to judge the conditions to a fair degree of accuracy and still leave some margin for error (as do most motorcylists).

Both these points come down to the stupidity of the masses - the first in they'll vote for people who say what they want to hear, the second in that we're forever catering to the lowest common denominator hence the ridiculously low speed limits. I've said it before, but I'll say it again anyway - the standard required to actually get a license needs to be raised considerably and we need regular re-testing with Police powers to order a resit of the testing. There are people out there who have no fucking idea other people even use the road around them - they need to be removed from the road. Forget speed as the boogeyman - that's largely bullshit.

Delphinus

26th December 2007, 20:11

What I fail to comprehend EVERY DAY I drive on the road, is why people have this phobia of letting people overtake them...
I dont often have people come up behind me, but when they do I'll often slow down on straight bits or pull over a bit if the road is wide to let them pass... Its not hard.. adds about 2.3 seconds to my trip, but NOONE does it.

Coyote

26th December 2007, 20:51

Both these points come down to the stupidity of the masses - the first in they'll vote for people who say what they want to hear, the second in that we're forever catering to the lowest common denominator hence the ridiculously low speed limits. I've said it before, but I'll say it again anyway - the standard required to actually get a license needs to be raised considerably and we need regular re-testing with Police powers to order a resit of the testing. There are people out there who have no fucking idea other people even use the road around them - they need to be removed from the road. Forget speed as the boogeyman - that's largely bullshit.
If I was to "vote for people who say what they (I) want to hear", I'd simply go National*. They're saying what the particular audience at the time wants to hear all the time. But once they get into power they'll bend you over and have their way with you. It'd be so much easier if we could actually decided on what they told us, but what they tell us is a fog of lies and hidden truths.

Regular re-testing is a good idea. For most people, once you've done the test the information learnt goes out the window. Saw that so often at school.

*an exaggeration

mowgli

26th December 2007, 21:36

I have read some creative ways of concealing said detectors. A bad law will always be flouted or circumvented.
Sorry to rain on your parade but concealing won't work. Most if not all automotive radar detectors have very noisy oscillators that are piss easy to detect.

mowgli

26th December 2007, 21:45

surely they cannot make it illegal to have one in your car - even turned off.
I'll bet they do. "honest, Orificer. That opened, half-full bottle of Jim in the passenger seat isn't mine. I don't drink, really!" Compare it with drug dealing where intent can be determined by possession. Doesn't matter that you only make it into town every couple of months and decided to stock up.

BTW I don't and have never :innocent:

Hellraiser

27th December 2007, 10:30

So does anyone know when they intend on passing it into law?

Coyote

27th December 2007, 10:31

Maybe try 120 KB members in govt... good party at least!

I bags defence and police.... oh and finance portfolios. :cool:
I bags ejukashun

How much are private islands going for these days?

Delphinus

27th December 2007, 10:40

How much are private islands going for these days?
I'll chip in.

Coyote

27th December 2007, 10:46

I'll chip in.
Interesting...

Could have another Isle of Mann if enough people want to participate

Ixion

27th December 2007, 10:53

The official NZ TT used to be run on Waiheke Island.

Swoop

27th December 2007, 11:46

OK so all posted speeds are safer? Yer Right. Pass Me A Tui's.
I find it rather intersting that a lot of roads have been signposted, for many years, at a certain speed.
Then along comes the council and "upgrades" the road by widening, straightening, etc.
THEN the road is signposted at a lower speed than what it was when in "poorer" condition.
East Coast Rd is a classic example. Used to be 70kmh, now 50.
Upper harbour dr, 100 now 70.

mowgli

27th December 2007, 12:03

23226

27th December 2007, 12:40

DougieNZ

28th December 2007, 08:05

Its going to be interesting.

Say you have a detector hidden in your fairing with a small LED light (not a HARD system - that would be a givaway) on yoiur dash. You turn your detector off a soon as it alerts.

Would the police be able to search your vehicle for the detector? Surely "I'm sure it was that vehicle that was emitting the signal, your honour" would not be enough where 75 demerits and probable loss of licence was involved?

Or would the posession of a HARD system be enough to prove a radar detector was present?

sinned

30th December 2007, 15:31

It will be difficult to hide a detector on a bike. My Beltronics is sheilded so the device doesn't radiate and it is only a matter of hiding it from view. I am thinking of shoulder mounting in padded shoulders (might look like superman). Even hiding the detector in a cage is difficult as it should be in the cabin with a clear view front and rear. The headrest is a possible location.

Ixion

30th December 2007, 16:10

How did you shield it?

It will be interesting to see if they actually pass a law giving the cops the right to search a vehicle on the dubbious basis of a RDD ping.

The Pastor

30th December 2007, 16:17

I dont think the law will pass.

sAsLEX

30th December 2007, 16:36

How did you shield it?

It will be interesting to see if they actually pass a law giving the cops the right to search a vehicle on the dubbious basis of a RDD ping.

Ixion what is your view on the temporary speed limits that seem to be popping up all over the place? Are they avoiding gazetting changes?

I noted the road into Wellington right next to the coast, you know the cheesecutter one ?

Well anyways that has been 80 Km/hr for ages and yet is signed "temporary", is this as they are to lazy to correctly change the limit? Or are they actually going to reinstate the 100 limit...... I doubt it!

Mr. Peanut

30th December 2007, 16:37

All of us, including me, will have to slow down unless we want to lose the freedom to ride. Remember it is not a right, it is a privilege.

FUCK YOU!!!! It is a right! I PAY MY GODDAMN TAXES. MY ROADS!!!

Ixion

30th December 2007, 16:43

Ixion what is your view on the temporary speed limits that seem to be popping up all over the place? Are they avoiding gazetting changes?

I noted the road into Wellington right next to the coast, you know the cheesecutter one ?

Well anyways that has been 80 Km/hr for ages and yet is signed "temporary", is this as they are to lazy to correctly change the limit? Or are they actually going to reinstate the 100 limit...... I doubt it!

I have wondered about that myself. If you can identify the stretch of road so as to be indentifiable to a non-wellingtonian, I'll have BRONZ ask officially. Which will at least put them on notice that we are on to them.

sAsLEX

30th December 2007, 17:10

I have wondered about that myself. If you can identify the stretch of road so as to be indentifiable to a non-wellingtonian, I'll have BRONZ ask officially. Which will at least put them on notice that we are on to them.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=new+zealand&ie=UTF8&ll=-41.007755,174.917622&spn=0.061661,0.160675&t=h&z=13&om=1

sinned

30th December 2007, 18:36

How did you shield it?

I didn't. It is a Beltronics XR which is built with shielding for extra cost.

Badger8

30th December 2007, 19:56

I find it rather intersting that a lot of roads have been signposted, for many years, at a certain speed.
Then along comes the council and "upgrades" the road by widening, straightening, etc.
THEN the road is signposted at a lower speed than what it was when in "poorer" condition.
East Coast Rd is a classic example. Used to be 70kmh, now 50.
Upper harbour dr, 100 now 70.

indeed. Did the run north (Auckland to Whangarei) in the cage over the christmas break, to find they have lowered the speed from 100 to 80 for a considerable stretch of the open rd (From around about dome valley to not far before wellsford for those who know the area)
It was painful sitting at around 85-90, and it was downright dangerous! people were tailgating me like anything, and passing me in ridiculous and dangerous places. i feel your pain guys, but i dont wanna be dishing out dosh and demerit points, as those roads are frequented by cops over this time of year (as they should be, nutters on that road never cease to amaze me every year)

These are (for the majority) straight open roads with very little stuff around (nothing in most places, just trees and grass). there's only a couple of corners where you've realistically got to lower your speed below 90 in good weather, and these have always been well signposted on the corners. I can appreciate many drivers out there lack any intuition and need to be told how fast to take a corner, but come on!

The reason is most often urban development. Check section 3.1 of Land Transport Rule, Setting of Speed Limits 2003 (http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/rules/setting-of-speed-limits-2003.html) for the definitions of 100, 70 and 50 and it becomes obvious.
100 - The level of roadside development is at a minimum.
70 - areas of intermediate roadside development, such as small country towns, urban fringe areas, short sections of road in partly built-up areas within a large urban traffic area or areas of single-sided development.
50 - In an urban traffic area, the urban speed limit indicates that drivers can expect to encounter vehicles that are turning, slowing, stopping or parking, pedestrians, cycles and heavy vehicles.

I can fully appreciate the need for speed limits in areas like this. houses on side of road, cars coming and going, kids around, definitely a 50k zone.
Rolling countryside, trees and grass, the occasional turnoff (generally with it's own chevron'd turning lane), driveways here and there with plenty of room to pull off (and into) traffic safely (the odd exception of course) that has been 100kph forever, even years back when the road was in terrible condition, NO, that's definitely an 80kph zone now... stupid thing is it goes back to 100k a couple of minutes before you hit the 70k zone coming into wellsford. more built up area, more houses around, more people and traffic in general, definitely a 100k zone...

Urgh, Rant over... Just really gets under the skin at times...

Slingshot

30th December 2007, 20:38

Here are some links to some information re the detector detectors:

Info about Spectre (http://www.radarbusters.com/spectreiiIntroductionarticle.cfm)

Spectre tests with different detectors (http://www.radarbusters.com/2004spectretestingarticle.cfm)

civil

30th December 2007, 20:54

Ixion what is your view on the temporary speed limits that seem to be popping up all over the place? Are they avoiding gazetting changes?

It is called "Speed Zoning Trials" By Transit. There use to be a document on line called Draft Speed Zoning Trails Guidelines, but I notice it has been taken off any of the LTNZ or Transit sites.

It was used by over zelious transit officials to force the speed of traffic down, as opposed to fixing the roads.
The report listed some 22 sites around the country that were suggested by Transit staff as being suitable for a Speed Zone. If the locals do not know how to oppose them when transit suggest a spped zone, then before they know it the speed limit has been lowered and dont ever expect the "trail" to end !!!!! Transit tend to use the tactic of making a "suggestion" of a Speed Zone, as implied fulfulment of their requirement to "consult". If no one points out that they are not meeting their requirements to consult, then too late.

Expect to see more of these popping up around the country.

Ghost_Bullet

30th December 2007, 21:16

And I was thinking about getting one, but was having more drama thinnking of where I could hide the thing on the front... but maybe not even worth the thought now... :oi-grr:

Polo'ticks sux Make ya freakin itch!!!!!

Swoop

31st December 2007, 08:11

MTW

31st December 2007, 10:16

Can see the Bell STi Driver is going to become a very popular choice. Not over the top prices either.

Toaster

1st January 2008, 00:26

FUCK YOU!!!! It is a right! I PAY MY GODDAMN TAXES. MY ROADS!!!

No thanks, your'e not my type lad.

With that logic... you better go catch ya quota of undersized fish then too aye. If they are your roads, shall we all blame you for the road rules? Especially the one that says we STILL can't go faster than 109.9km/h without getting a save the Cullen retirement fund voucher??!!

madandy

1st January 2008, 09:41

mowgli

3rd January 2008, 12:19

These are (for the majority) straight open roads with very little stuff around (nothing in most places, just trees and grass). there's only a couple of corners where you've realistically got to lower your speed below 90 in good weather, and these have always been well signposted on the corners. I can appreciate many drivers out there lack any intuition and need to be told how fast to take a corner, but come on!

When I lived in AK I recall thinking that the lower speed zones north and south of the motorway were intended to protect the locals. Anyone who was brought up outside AK knows that roads have bends and that many require that you slow down. There are young drivers in AK that have only ever driven on the motorway or urban streets. One day (usually a holiday weekend) they venture north or south - open road, opposing traffic, proper overtaking, first set of twisties and they come to grief.

The other thing I've noticed is the increasing prevalence of double yellows for long stretches. Fair enough (maybe) in busy traffic but surely should have the discretion to pass with 100m of clear road thoughout.

swbarnett

3rd January 2008, 12:27

When I lived in AK I recall thinking that the lower speed zones north and south of the motorway were intended to protect the locals. Anyone who was brought up outside AK knows that roads have bends and that many require that you slow down. There are young drivers in AK that have only ever driven on the motorway or urban streets. One day (usually a holiday weekend) they venture north or south - open road, opposing traffic, proper overtaking, first set of twisties and they come to grief.
Another illustration that the problem is one of driver education. Reducing speed limits and banning detectors will do nothing if people still don't know how to drive.

sAsLEX

3rd January 2008, 12:32

surely should have the discretion to pass with 100m of clear road thoughout.

S H 2

A favourite of Ixions if I recall correctly

xgnr

4th January 2008, 21:53

Even if this BS passes into law we'll find ways of keeping our detectors hidden. New models will appear and so will novel ways to camoflage them.
Sometimes I actually ride/drive slower the many on a stretch of road due to conditions or a detector warning and I LOVE watching dick heads pass me, 'speeding' right into the web cast out by a dutiful Cop.
My Bel has slowed me down so many times I'd take quite serious steps to keep it.

My RD is a "Whistler" and designed for the bike and to be "discrete" . I bought it on tardme cos it had air temp and voltage (cheaper than seperate VDO gauges TBH... and it came with a RD yay). Interesting if I can still use this (although I can disable RD etc) if they ban the fuking thing.

I do not speed (well, I admit I am a law breaker as I ride at around 110km true as per the GPS-- when safe). One thing that I am very aware of is the sheer number of Mr Plods out there in mufti.

This little bit of kit has shown me how little time you have to react when they hit the button.

Enough to get the speed down to save a license I guess.

Warped logic I know. If you don't speed then don't worry was my old mantra.

But that was when I drove a car :Punk: