Lost in the rush [Archive] - Kiwi Biker forums

Monsterbishi

10th January 2008, 12:25

That article is just about the biggest pile of steaming BS I've ever wandered across!

I'm thinking of how to respond to it without writing a document of equal length, and it comes down to this.

I'm a STMS - A traffic management supervisor, one of the dudes who drive the trucks with the crash pads on the back, and control the traffic when the crap hits the fan on the roads.

Weekends and holidays are considerably more dangerous periods than weekdays, that's when our callout phones go off the most. Christmas is so bad that we halt all new roadworks from Mid-Dec to Mid-Jan and even then it's madness.

Speeding and/or drink driving are components in just about every serious or fatal accident we attend, it's not rocket science to figure that if you remove those variables, things will be a lot more pleasant on the road.

You can't use Australia as a guide for anything regarding NZ road safety, we're light years behind them in terms of safety, they have a population 5 times greater than our own, yet their road roll is only three times more than ours.

New Zealanders need to slow down, it's that simple, we have a mentality here that since the police use a 10kph tolerance on speeding that it's ok to drive 9kph over the limit, all the time. So you save 45 seconds from your trip, catch up the the next queue of traffic so you have to stop for the lights, and double the chances of killing a pedestrian if you hit one.

If I was to make a list of causes of serious accidents it would start like this:

1. Speed
2. Alcohol
3. Fatigue
4. Inattention
5. Mechanical

Ixion

10th January 2008, 12:43

Uh huh. And the top speed of a Yamaha 750 is ? When do you trade it in on a Scorpio ? Cos they'll break the speed limit y'know.

warewolf

10th January 2008, 12:48

That article is just about the biggest pile of steaming BS I've ever wandered across!Opinion or fact? He's just analysing the roading authorities' own numbers.

Christmas is so bad that we halt all new roadworks from Mid-Dec to Mid-Jan and even then it's madness.Granted NZ probably has a bigger xmas peak of road usage.

Speeding and/or drink driving are components Do you know this as a fact, or are you toeing the party line? Most accidents are not properly analysed, and the people filling in the paperwork are highly likely to toe the party line and tick the speeding box thus justifying their own policies - Ouroboros. It's even worse for bikes due to the lack of trained, certified motorcycle crash investigators (last I heard there were none in the country). Therefore you can't use the gov't numbers that blame speeding as a cause of a crash... GIGO.

You can't use Australia as a guide for anything regarding NZ road safety,Of course you can, don't be ridiculous. Do you think that physics is different over there? Anatomy? (Don't answer that!) It may not map 1-to-1 but you can certainly use it as a guide. Just don't blindly follow. To that end, how's about getting rid of that kamikaze left-turn-right-turn rule that Victoria introduced (erroneously, they've since revoked it) and NZ copied and still persist with in the face of all the evidence internationally?

New Zealanders need to slow down, it's that simple, we have a mentality here that since the police use a 10kph tolerance on speeding that it's ok to drive 9kph over the limit, all the time.And who's to blame for that one? The roading authorities, as pointed out in the article. You constantly have the state saying "100km/h is OK, 101km/h we'll pwn your arse!" thereby absolving the driver of personal responsibility. "I can drive like shit as long as it is 100km/h or lower." Good driving is not enforced nor encouraged; the holy grail of speeding revenue is persecuted with a vengeance, all other sins are ignored (except alcohol, which has a solid argument).

Usarka

10th January 2008, 12:49

If I was to make a list of causes of serious accidents it would start like this:

1. Speed
2. Alcohol
3. Fatigue
4. Inattention
5. Mechanical

You must have a clean brain! Sounds like it's been well washed.

IMHO poor driving is the number one cause - inability to control a vehicle and/or make sound and safe decisions.

The others are merely factors.

Littleman

10th January 2008, 12:51

Uh huh. And the top speed of a Yamaha 750 is ? When do you trade it in on a Scorpio ? Cos they'll break the speed limit y'know.

In your case it's 4. Inattention, where you've missed the point.

Most bikes can exceed the speed limit. Just because he owns one that can, does not make his veiws any less valid.

Katman

10th January 2008, 12:53

IMHO poor driving is the number one cause - inability to control a vehicle and/or make sound and safe decisions.

Dead right - as is poor motorcycle riding.

vifferman

10th January 2008, 12:54

Weekends and holidays are considerably more dangerous periods than weekdays, that's when our callout phones go off the most. Christmas is so bad that we halt all new roadworks from Mid-Dec to Mid-Jan and even then it's madness.
Quelle surprise!
Could it be that there might be a lot more people on the road then, and that they're all anxious to get somewhere, and that many of them are tired and/or hungover from the end-of-year functions?

You can't use Australia as a guide for anything regarding NZ road safety, we're light years behind them in terms of safety, they have a population 5 times greater than our own, yet their road roll is only three times more than ours.
Neither can you.
What's the ratio of cars/km in each country?

If I was to make a list of causes of serious accidents it would start like this:

1. Speed
2. Alcohol
3. Fatigue
4. Inattention
5. Mechanical

In my opinion, the REAL list would read like this:
1. Extremely poor attitude to the very serious business of driving.
2. Poor basic skills.
3. Impaired mental/physical condition due to alcohol and/or drugs and/or tiredness and/or other distractions.

The results of these would be:
1. Excessive speed for the conditions, coupled with allowing insufficient distance to other vehicles, coupled with poor decision making.
2. Failure to allow for changes in conditions or potential hazards (including weather, crap road conditions, mechanical faults, other drivers' poor driving).

Ixion

10th January 2008, 12:58

scumdog

10th January 2008, 13:01

You must have a clean brain! Sounds like it's been well washed.

IMHO poor driving is the number one cause - inability to control a vehicle and/or make sound and safe decisions.

The others are merely factors.

So the fact the 'poor driving' (i.e. those who has no abilty to control a vehicle and or make sound and safe decisions) may be caused by pissed/tired/stoned drivers is not worth taking into account?

It's like saying somebody died from lack of oxygen to the brain when they've actually had their head cut off.

Monsterbishi

10th January 2008, 13:03

Opinion or fact? He's just analysing the roading authorities' own numbers.

He's analysing numbers to form his opinion, and I'm actually out there seeing it first hand to form my own.

Uh huh. And the top speed of a Yamaha 750 is ? When do you trade it in on a Scorpio ? Cos they'll break the speed limit y'know.

Your point being that since a vehicle can break the speed limit, that it should be expected to?

Usarka

10th January 2008, 13:09

So the fact the 'poor driving' (i.e. those who has no abilty to control a vehicle and or make sound and safe decisions) may be caused by pissed/tired/stoned drivers is not worth taking into account?

It's like saying somebody died from lack of oxygen to the brain when they've actually had their head cut off.

They fall into the "inability to make sound and safe decisions" category.

It's almost a 1:1 correlation between stupidity and drunk driving though, so it's not worth arguing.

What is worth arguing is that speed is inhernently unsafe and poor driving does not cause serious accidents.

Using your example, you're saying that if the person was drunk then alcohol would have been the cause of their death. Not the fact that they chose to fuck around with an axe while pissed and chopped their head off.

Matt_TG

10th January 2008, 13:09

Thanks for your views Monsterbishi.

Good going most of the respondents.... I just love how one cannot voice their own experiences around here without other's jumping down their throats, especially the "I am the uber biker and will travel and what speed I like, for as long as I like and drink when I like" brigade.

Get your head out of the sand guys. Speed does kill, so does drinking and driving. They are all too often ingredients in what turns out to be a bloody mess on our roads.

Before you get all antzy, it's not only bikes that are targeted, but cars and trucks too. Think about the Police efforts as one less speeding drunk driver heading your way on the wrong side of the road in his car, rather than what you perceive as an attack on your fine motorcycling skillz. It's not always about you..

scumdog

10th January 2008, 13:12

Using your example, if the person was drunk then alcohol would have been the cause of their death.

I gained the impression Mr Ixion would not agree with you however I do, he on the other hand would blame the poor driving component for the cause of death.

scumdog

10th January 2008, 13:15

It's not always about you..

(In best olde comedy voice: "Oh yes it is".

This is KB - it's ALWAYS about 'me'.

cooneyr

10th January 2008, 13:15

........To that end, how's about getting rid of that kamikaze left-turn-right-turn rule that Victoria introduced (erroneously, they've since revoked it) and NZ copied and still persist with in the face of all the evidence internationally?

........ "I can drive like shit as long as it is 100km/h or lower." Good driving is not enforced nor encouraged; the holy grail of speeding revenue is persecuted with a vengeance, all other sins are ignored (except alcohol, which has a solid argument).

Dont start this man - I had to listen to an hour of his ausi ramblings on these topics amongst others. Problem what I agreed whole heartily (especially on the second point quoted above) and he still wouldn't shut up! :D

If you ask me (no dont) I reckon poor basic skills is the biggest issue and it is not being enforced as it is too objective and hard to prosecute. Speed, alcohol, fatigue etc are just contributing factors that can result in dangerous driving.

The weekend and holiday thing is easy to explain - more entropy. More of the car drivers and doing different things hence traffic conditions are more chaotic. There often is less cars on the road but the greater entropy means the roading network operates in a crappier state.

I analysis Police traffic crash reports for a crust (traffic and transportation engineer). It is often obvious the factors they are pushing but they mostly include the real details, i.e. failing to look, distracted, to hot into a corner etc. There are 86 basic crash types codes and in the order of 900 cause codes i.e. alcohol, diverted attention etc etc. Interesting thing is that on the lists to pic from the speed ones occupy the second block and contribute a sum total of 10.

Speed might kill but that doesnt mean it is the cause of the crash in the first place. Common engineering knowledge Traffic signals have higher speeds associated with them than roundabouts yet roundabouts have more crashes. Net result roundabouts have less serious but more crashes. Now I'm not saying that we should get rid of all signal either OK!

Cheers R

rwh

10th January 2008, 13:16

Speeding and/or drink driving are components in just about every serious or fatal accident we attend, it's not rocket science to figure that if you remove those variables, things will be a lot more pleasant on the road.

Given your job, I assume that motor vehicles are components of nearly all those accidents. Removing those would cut down the road toll hugely. I guess rockets aren't, so rocket science is probably useless, but you might need to at least use some kind of science.

Richard

vifferman

10th January 2008, 13:17

Speed does kill, so does drinking and driving.
Could you at least please not talk/write in simplistic advertising slogans?

How about: "driving at an inappropriate speed for the conditions increases the risk of possible injury or death".
Yes, I'm a pedantrist, but I know what I like, and it's not sloganeering and propaganda.

warewolf

10th January 2008, 13:18

especially the "I am the uber biker and will travel and what speed I like, for as long as I like and drink when I like" brigade.No-one is saying that at all, nor trying to debate Newtonian physics that "speed kills". We are annoyed that an inappropriate focus on "speeding" does more harm than good.

Usarka

10th January 2008, 13:21

Get your head out of the sand guys. Speed does kill, so does drinking and driving. They are all too often ingredients in what turns out to be a bloody mess on our roads.

I told a story on here a while ago, was following a car that lost control on a corner in maramurua. Under the posted speed limit, and the corner was more than suitable for taking at 100kph. It was a hairs width between an oncoming car that it wasn't a head on and I could have been collected in the carnage.

The woman driving:
1. Speed NO (I was behind her doing 95kph)
2. Alcohol NO (the cops turned up pretty quick and tested her)
3. Fatigue NO (she looked awake when i saw her)
4. Inattention NO (I was following and she was watching the road)
5. Mechanical NO (car was fine, albeit a crappy daihatsu).

I'd just been riding at speeds of up to 1xx km/hr on quiet roads with plenty of visibility, slowing down for hazards. I'd committed sin number one but evidence proves that day I was the safer driver/rider. Sure if I'd hit something at 120 instead the mess would have been higher than at 100, but it would also have been higher than 80, 60, 40 or even 20.

yungatart

10th January 2008, 13:32

Get your head out of the sand guys. Speed does kill, so does drinking and driving. They are all too often ingredients in what turns out to be a bloody mess on our roads.

Speed does not kill! If what you say is true, then allthe astronauts who ever left Earth's orbit would be dead. Their speed far exceeds anything a car or bike can produce.
Inappropriate speed, however, does kill.
So does inattention, lack of skill, fatigue, drug or alcohol addled brains, failure to keep left ....
the focus in NZ is on speed because it is easy to police and gathers in large amounts of revenue. The powers that be want you to believe that speed and alcohol are the only demons...you, my friend, have swallowed their BS, hook, line and sinker.

rwh

10th January 2008, 13:32

Not at all. Someone who runs a machine capable of in excess of double the speed limit , but condemns others for exceeding it does not command much credbility.

And I never believe those folk who possess high performance machines and claim "oh but I never use it". Yeah, right. Tui , anyone.

Someone on a GN250 who says "I never break the speed limit, and I condemn those that do", I will accept this views as valid (wrong, but valid).

But someone who never rides at > 100kph, yet has a bike capable of double that is either running with both the hare and the hounds, or a poser. He either does himself exceed 100kph , while condemning others for it; or he wants observers to think he does.

Can't agree with this line of reasoning. Yes my bike (when running) is capable of over 200k, yes I've done it. That does not imply that that's the reason I bought it. Even if you never went above 100km/h, would you really want a bike/car that couldn't? If the engine was only powerful enough to get you to the limit, it would be doing so pretty slowly - wasting time and causing a hazard. Imagine trying to pull onto the motorway in one of the shorter acceleration lanes, when there aren't many decent gaps.

Ok we may all go a bit quicker than the law allows at times, and many of us might want those speeds to be legal, but that doesn't justify using the capabilities of the bike to judge the person. The logic doesn't stack up.

Richard

scumdog

10th January 2008, 13:36

[B].
Inappropriate speed, however, does kill..

Uh, no.... inappropriate stopping does the killing.

Ya need to have speed before you can stop, inappropriately or otherwise.

car

10th January 2008, 14:04

not being enforced as it is too objective and hard to prosecute

Good old arbitrary limits, however they might mask the complexity of the situation, are much easier to enforce.

Matt_TG

10th January 2008, 14:18

Uh, no.... inappropriate stopping does the killing.

Ya need to have speed before you can stop, inappropriately or otherwise.

Yeah, that's what i was getting at... when you go too fast you also stop too fast if you hit something. Add in piss and tom foolery into the mix and she's all shits and giggles for sure.

Speed all ya like, of course it's your right to. Don't worry about the other idiots on the road, it's their right to drink and drive. Right.

Do they not do a common sense gene anymore?

Hitcher

10th January 2008, 14:30

That article is just about the biggest pile of steaming BS I've ever wandered across!

Don't play the anecdotal game. Where's your data?

As for the Australian article? I could kiss its author for a well crafted and reasoned article. I await with interest somebody submitting credible data to refute his assumptions.

swbarnett

10th January 2008, 14:40

He's analysing numbers to form his opinion, and I'm actually out there seeing it first hand to form my own.
No, he's analysing numbers with no preformed opinion to see what falls out the bottom. Rather like a cook throwing a couple of ingredients together to see what they taste like. The trouble is that you're interpreting your every day experiences and drawing conclusions that are based on suspect observation.

Something from my earlier school years to illustrate the point:

"A scientist hung a piece of meat in their garden and watched it for a week from their kitchen window what. They concluded that the meat underwent a metamorphosis and turned into flies."

Today we all know that the conclusion was flawed because the observation was insufficient. A closer inspection of the meat over the week would have revealed the true story. It's the same problem when we try to interpret anecdotal evidence. The conclusions you draw are what you think might be happening but until you conduct a proper scientific study that can stand up to the intense scrutiny of a peer review prior to publication you don't really know anything with any degree of certainty.

This is why I don't think what you say has much credibility. Not because of the bike you ride. Hell, if truth be told most owners of 200km/h+ bikes probably bought them for the acceleration anyway (just my opinion, I haven't studied this).

What you say is just opinion and does not have weight just because you happen to see the accidents first hand.

vifferman

10th January 2008, 14:44

I told a story on here a while ago, was following a car that lost control on a corner in maramurua. Under the posted speed limit, and the corner was more than suitable for taking at 100kph. It was a hairs width between an oncoming car that it wasn't a head on and I could have been collected in the carnage.
Hmmm...
I would venture to guess (without knowing any more than what you've posted here) that in this case the woman lost control because she was going too fast for the conditions (these being her ability to handle that particular corner in that particular car at that time). Another driver might have been fine, or maybe the car had some minor defect(s) not readily apparent, that contributed, like a worn or underinflated tyre or tyres, sub-optimal suspension and/or steering, etc. Maybe she was momentarily distracted and instead of 'finessing' the car around the corner she jerked the steering wheel and overcorrected?
Or maybe it was just an act of Satan. Let's blame him - he doesn't get enough credit for the shit that happens in the world.:devil2:

In any case, assuming this had resulted in an collision, what conclusions would the crash investigators have drawn? Once again assuming, I reckon it would be very difficult for them to ascertain the facts and cause. Would it just end up in a "one size fits all" box? How does this work?
As humans we want simplistic and snug answers, particularly if they match our own personal gut feelings, predispositional biases, vision of reality or whatever.

SPman

10th January 2008, 14:57

An interesting article. Bill Tuckey has been around cars all his life and has seen a lot. What he brings up, is really common sense and obvious to anyone with half a brain (which excludes most politicians - particularly Aussie politicos..)
I think what Monsterbishi and others who actually work on the roads sees, is the utter arrogance a lot of road users display about their "god given right" to have unimpeded access to all roadways, at whatever speed they want, despite and regardless of conditions (roadworks, rain, sleet, livestock, traffic,etc etc).
You really have to work on, or next to, a (particularly) main road,to see driver stupidity in all its unfettled glory. The anecdotes come thick and fast......

Coldrider

10th January 2008, 15:11

Don't play the anecdotal game. Where's your data?

As for the Australian article? I could kiss its author for a well crafted and reasoned article. I await with interest somebody submitting credible data to refute his assumptions.
Exactly, I thought we all die on road of statistics.

vifferman

10th January 2008, 15:18

Exactly, I thought we all die on road of statistics.
LOL!
That's the sort of thing I say when driving past those execrable signs near Maramarua:
"97.59% of road deaths are caused by statistics!"
"38% of all crashes are caused by irritating signs."

*caution*

10th January 2008, 15:49

.....poor driving does not cause serious accidents.

HUH???????????????

warewolf

10th January 2008, 16:02

HUH???????????????Quote it all; it's not worded the best, but what he means to convey is paraphrased as "the gummit says speed is bad, poor driving is not the problem" and we should debate that.

It's almost a 1:1 correlation between stupidity and drunk driving though, so it's not worth arguing.

What is worth arguing is that speed is inhernently unsafe and poor driving does not cause serious accidents.

SPman

10th January 2008, 16:12

..."the gummit says speed is bad, poor driving is not the problem" and we should debate that.
Debate?

KB?

Pshaw.......

warewolf

10th January 2008, 16:19

Debate?

KB?That's a royal "we", as in the wider community.

paturoa

10th January 2008, 17:49

Horse

12th January 2008, 21:26

I analysis Police traffic crash reports for a crust (traffic and transportation engineer). It is often obvious the factors they are pushing but they mostly include the real details, i.e. failing to look, distracted, to hot into a corner etc. There are 86 basic crash types codes and in the order of 900 cause codes i.e. alcohol, diverted attention etc etc. Interesting thing is that on the lists to pic from the speed ones occupy the second block and contribute a sum total of 10.
Is this data publicly available?

mowgli

13th January 2008, 08:23

In my opinion, the REAL list would read like this:
1. Extremely poor attitude to the very serious business of driving.
2. Poor basic skills.
3. Impaired mental/physical condition due to alcohol and/or drugs and/or tiredness and/or other distractions.

The results of these would be:
1. Excessive speed for the conditions, coupled with allowing insufficient distance to other vehicles, coupled with poor decision making.
2. Failure to allow for changes in conditions or potential hazards (including weather, crap road conditions, mechanical faults, other drivers' poor driving).

Well stated. The answer (I think) is education but I am at a loss as to how we would fix this in NZ. Our road user edumication cistem is as poor as my spelling of it :(

mowgli

13th January 2008, 08:32

My observations while doing several hundred K's in the cage over summer (Coro) were more than the usual bunch of tail gaters and people cutting blind corners.

Both these are deliberate acts. If I was a plain clothes rozza I would have made a considerable amount of pingas for the chief thief!

I agree with your observation but would prefer the term negligent to deliberate. These guys aren't thinking "I know it's illegal but I'm gonna tailgate anyway". Rather they're not thinking at all ..... except perhaps about the latest txt or the 027 on the back of the car in front.

MSTRS

13th January 2008, 08:57

Everyone 'knows' that speed kills...we are told often enough. What we are not told, and most are too thick to figure out, is that any motion, in any direction, has a 'speed' component. Including being stationary. Being in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and/or possessing any ability to manage one's weapon of choice is the problem within the slogan 'Speed kills'. The paper-war-mongers are obviously not allowed to have a category titled 'Stupidity'.

cooneyr

13th January 2008, 09:54

Is this data publicly available?

No.

PM sent.

Cheers R

steveb64

15th January 2008, 20:57

Snip'd
"38% of all crashes are caused by irritating signs."

Particularly those shitty new (over the last couple of years) yellow 'corner' markers. Who was the bloody moron who thought those up?

I mean - the idea of marking the worst corners is great - even reduces the number of accidents - except where they use them on EVERY corner, regardless of whether there's ever been an accident on that corner or not, or whether there's full vision of the road all the way through the corner or not.
The worst thing about them (and it nearly caused me to crash, with all the family on board just the other night) is the reflectivity! The small ones are bad enough, but the big 5 chevron ones are terrible when you're driving with the lights on high beam. The glare back is like having an oncoming vehicle with un-dipped lights.
What's that? Just dip your lights you say? Yeah. Great idea - then you still can't see the road - and the feckin sign is still blasting you with reflected light.
And what's even worse - is the sunlight reflection from the same damn signs. Driving along, minding my own business, and FLASH arrrggghh. Where'd the road go?

Solution? Keep the signs, but paint over the reflective coating (must be able to find something out there to reduce the reflection/glare without removing the ability to see the sign).
And move the ones in stupidly obvious places to where they'll do some good.

Ixion

15th January 2008, 21:26

BRONZ has raised the question of the blinding corner signs with Transit. They have promised to review their design and location. For whatever that mayn be worth

steveb64

15th January 2008, 21:59

Uh, no.... inappropriate stopping does the killing.

Ya need to have speed before you can stop, inappropriately or otherwise.

You also need to have speed before you can go anywhere.

So back to the initial days of motoring then - have a man walking along in front of each vehicle, waving a red flag?... Then there'd be an outcry over the number of 'flag bearers' run over by drivers falling asleep. :(

Why do the authorities seem to have this fixation on 'stopping' as being the only means of avoiding an accident? In my experience (30 years on and off road motorcycling, road and dirt competition, NO other vehicle accidents, last 2 tickets were 160k and 180k - 15 years apart), straightline stopping (or trying to) is the surest way of having an accident!
What's wrong with accident AVOIDENCE? You know - where you jam on the brakes to scrub off some speed, then let go of the brakes, and SWERVE around the obstruction - or at least aim for a less hazardous target?

It doesn't matter what speed you're doing - if you don't hit anything!

steveb64

15th January 2008, 22:03

BRONZ has raised the question of the blinding corner signs with Transit. They have promised to review their design and location. For whatever that mayn be worth

Nice to know it's not just me having problems with them... :cool:

scumdog

15th January 2008, 22:05

You also need to have speed before you can go anywhere.
What's wrong with accident AVOIDENCE? You know - where you jam on the brakes to scrub off some speed, then let go of the brakes, and SWERVE around the obstruction - or at least aim for a less hazardous target?

It doesn't matter what speed you're doing - if you don't hit anything!

Re your 1st question: Nothing at all - but most just brake'n'crash.

Re your last comment - if you do, it does!

steveb64

15th January 2008, 22:26

Re your 1st question: Nothing at all - but most just brake'n'crash.

Re your last comment - if you do, it does!

Uh, yeah, well, I'd have to agree with that too... :rolleyes:

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=80379&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1197982547

mstriumph

15th January 2008, 22:39

i believe that 'lack of attention' is responsible for most accidents

closely followed by 'failure to drive to road/weather conditions and vehicle/driver capability'

'speed' is a loooooooooooong way down MY list - after all 5kmph is a 'speed' :yes:

but what do i know
i'm just a road survivor [on several continents for more years than i prefer to own up to] ............
i'm no 'expert' no, not me .............
my opinion and a coupla dollars wouldn't buy you a cup of coffee :no:

Mikkel

16th January 2008, 00:08

Speed kills - your brain cells! Stay off the fucking amphetamines ok...

Anyway, I agree wholeheatedly with what somebody have said about your ability having to be factored into "your driving/riding conditions" and you having to adjust your speed in relation to this.

However, if I have a gripe with anything it's the fact that it's just too fucking easy to get a license. It's too damn easy to be allowed legal responsibility of what is a deadly weapon if handled badly. If you can't go around a corner at the posted suggested speed in a normal car/bike while being calm and confident then you don't belong on the road - period. Am I the only one who would actually like to be able to trust the competence of my fellow motorists. Not whether they are sober or drunk. Not whether they are speeding or not. But the simple fact that they just know and remain within their own personal limits. I'm against drink driving for the simple fact that I believe that people loose the ability to judge their own ability to operate anything more complex than corkscrew.
However, if people are capable motorists I won't give a fuck if they decide to carve up the road at 200+ km/h - I trust competent people to not jeopadise neither themselves nor other roadusers. Too many people just don't have the basic intellect to make that call and shouldn't be allowed on the road even IF they are so sensible that they just decide to stick to the speed limit.

scumdog

16th January 2008, 10:14

However, if people are capable motorists I won't give a fuck if they decide to carve up the road at 200+ km/h - I trust competent people to not jeopadise neither themselves nor other roadusers.

That's the crux of the matter Mikkel - EVERYBODY thinks they're 'capable' and 'competent' and is safe at speeds over what the law says are legal.

When was the last time you heard somebody say "Ah, yeah, well, actually I'm not really a good rider/driver at all and I've done some dumb-arse shit on the roads due to my incompetence"?

yungatart

16th January 2008, 10:18

When was the last time you heard somebody say "Ah, yeah, well, actually I'm not really a good rider/driver at all and I've done some dumb-arse shit on the roads due to my incompetence"?

Umm, er... that would be me.
But then I'm not normal...I actually ask competent people for advice, then I listen and take it on board.....

As you were...

vifferman

16th January 2008, 10:26

When was the last time you heard somebody say "Ah, yeah, well, actually I'm not really a good rider/driver at all and I've done some dumb-arse shit on the roads due to my incompetence"?
Ah, yeah, well while I'm a reasonably good rider, I do occasionally do some dumb-arse shit on the roads, due to my mental condition. Like this week, I'm REALLY tired (having had a proper night's sleep in weeks), so I have to concentrate extra hard not to do dumb-arse stuff. Like riding into the back of cars through momentary inattention/distraction. :rolleyes:
Or not coping with simultaneously having to brake, turn, and push the gargre door opener.
Or not paying attention to feeling tired and light-headed and deciding that undertaking on the verge is a good idea.
Or giving the throttle an extra bit of a twist because I'm enjoying the buzz of riding. (That last one is OK, but not if you exceed the posted speed limit and enter the "Prepare to Kill!" zone.

I'd give it away, but then what would I do?
Bicycle to work?
Take a bus, and another one, and one more, and then walk the last half km?
Shoot myself?

cooneyr

16th January 2008, 10:53

warewolf

16th January 2008, 12:37

I know that studies have been done on this and from memory 81% (something of that order) of drivers think they are better than average drivers - uhh :spudwhat:Yeah, that's normal. But mathematically 50%-1 are actually better than average. Or better than the mean? median? whatever, you get the idea.

warewolf

16th January 2008, 12:50

That's the crux of the matter Mikkel - EVERYBODY thinks they're 'capable' and 'competent' and is safe at speeds over what the law says are legal.No it isn't. The crux of the matter is that speed has nothing to do with it. The rest of your statement is on the money.

Bad drivers are unsafe at any speed. The current roading policies do not weed these drivers out. The message to the policy makers is: Stop being so fixated on speed being the root of all evil, and start working on actual driving skills.

steveb64

18th January 2008, 00:46

That's the crux of the matter Mikkel - EVERYBODY thinks they're 'capable' and 'competent' and is safe at speeds over what the law says are legal.

When was the last time you heard somebody say "Ah, yeah, well, actually I'm not really a good rider/driver at all and I've done some dumb-arse shit on the roads due to my incompetence"?

Does this mean that we're all incapable and incompetent to travel at 100kph then? Given the current push by authorities to reduce the speed limit back to 80kph... - and given previous 80kph open road speed limits.

Surely it would make more sense to train AND test drivers to ensure that they ARE capable and competent - at whatever speed? Well - OK, within reason... (... say <120 - 130kph). Such basic training would have prevented at least 9 accidents outside my driveway over the past 3-4 years alone.

And remember SD - just because its a law - doesn't necessarily mean it's sensible - or justice. Given your occupation, I'd figure you must run into such cases from time to time? :Police:

PS - I don't know about dumb-arse shit due to incompetence - but EVERYONE does something dumb-arse sooner or later :Oops:, regardless of how competent or skilled they are. It's called human error, and it only takes a split second of inattention/loss of concentration to happen. Comes with not being machines. Then it's up to experience/training as to whether a recovery is possible - hence point 2 above... better training - not MORE laws.

James Deuce

18th January 2008, 01:03

Does this mean that we're all incapable and incompetent to travel at 100kph then? Given the current push by authorities to reduce the speed limit back to 80kph... - and given previous 80kph open road speed limits.

Yes. I've met one capable driver and couple of capable motorcyclists in NZ.

A UK village with a population of 50 has more competent and capable drivers than all of NZ.

Everyone else could do with a lot of work, practice, study, and most of all ECT to damp down the aggressiveness.

scumdog

18th January 2008, 06:48

Yes. I've met one capable driver and couple of capable motorcyclists in NZ.

A UK village with a population of 50 has more competent and capable drivers than all of NZ.

Everyone else could do with a lot of work, practice, study, and most of all ECT to damp down the aggressiveness.

Jim2s on the money.

Mikkel reckons more/better training would be the way to go - and he's right,
But who is going to pay for this (expensive) training? - o.k. you and I would be quite happy but the broken arses moan they can't afford a licence already so how woud they afford the additional cost of the training??

They'd moan 'it's unfair, it's discrimination' etc and the politicians would not push it through 'cos it would lose them the vote of everyone on a benefit and/or low income. (which in this country is a shitload)

And warewolf, speed has everything to do with it - if you turn looose incempetent drivers on the road then you want to make sure they don't plough into each other at too high a speed, makes more of a mess donchaknow.

Ixion

18th January 2008, 08:28

,,,

And warewolf, speed has everything to do with it - if you turn looose incempetent drivers on the road then you want to make sure they don't plough into each other at too high a speed, makes more of a mess donchaknow.

Actually, if you abolished speed limits completely, the incompetent drivers would drive slower.

In the absence of a speed limit, most drivers drive at a speed that reflects their competence. Especially the experienced but incompetent ones. They feel nervous going faster. But if you put in a speed limit , Doris feels obliged to drive up to it. Or at 90 anyway. But take away the limit and she'll slow down to 70.

Boi racer will drive too fast, cos he doesn't know WHAT he's doing. But that's cos of inexperience, so you have a speed limit for him, like the 70kph one for 6L. (which does mean P plates, yes).

James Deuce

18th January 2008, 08:38

Jim2s on the money.

Just to make it clear, I include myself in the "needs more work" category.

warewolf

18th January 2008, 08:41

And warewolf, speed has everything to do with it - if you turn looose incempetent drivers on the road then you want to make sure they don't plough into each other at too high a speed, makes more of a mess donchaknow.We are not debating Newtonian physics. Sorry but those in the anti-speed 'industry' (and it is run as a business) always trot that one out in a lame attempt to divert discussion away from the real issues.

We don't want to turn loose incompetent drivers. I don't care how much it costs. I don't care how many people forfeit their licence 'cos they can't drive well enough. I don't care how many people are offended at the thought. It is argued that 'not speeding is more important than time, money, etc etc 'cos it will save lives'. I'm saying divert all your enthusiasm, justification and expenditure (revenue?) spent persecuting people who exceed some arbitrarily set number on a meter to making the roads safer instead.

warewolf

18th January 2008, 08:50

In the absence of a speed limit, most drivers drive at a speed that reflects their competence. Especially the experienced but incompetent ones. They feel nervous going faster. But if you put in a speed limit , Doris feels obliged to drive up to it. Or at 90 anyway. But take away the limit and she'll slow down to 70.This is one of those things that is well known and studied. Those in the anti-speed 'industry' really like to keep that one quiet, particularly the bit about putting the speed limits UP reduces the number of crashes for the reasons you stated. I alluded to this in post #5:

And who's to blame for that one? The roading authorities, as pointed out in the article. You constantly have the state saying "100km/h is OK, 101km/h we'll pwn your arse!" thereby absolving the driver of personal responsibility. "I can drive like shit as long as it is 100km/h or lower."

Big Dave

18th January 2008, 08:55

Well, by some margin the most common cause of near misses and possible accidents for me is distracted drivers - mainly on cell phones or texting.

Ixion

18th January 2008, 09:03

warewolf

18th January 2008, 09:08

Well, by some margin the most common cause of near misses and possible accidents for me is distracted drivers - mainly on cell phones or texting.Too bloody right. Half a dozen times in the last month I've been following/approaching a car ahead. Suddenly the behaviour changes, goes from steady to erratic, all over the show. Yep, in each case they'd just picked up the cell phone.

warewolf

18th January 2008, 09:16

Well, by some margin the most common (indeed , the only) cause of near misses and possible accidents for me is my own incompetence or carelessness. Everything else is just a hazard, my job to deal with it.Too true. However that doesn't mean that we should devolve to an unskilled free-for-all.

Big Dave

18th January 2008, 09:22

Well, by some margin the most common (indeed , the only) cause of near misses and possible accidents for me is my own incompetence or carelessness.

The fact that they are misses means I suffer no such malaise.

Apart from that - bullshit. Tell it to someone t-boned through a red light or waiting in traffic and got rear ended.

Big Dave

18th January 2008, 09:24

Too true. However that doesn't mean that we should devolve to an unskilled free-for-all.

Spartans had the right idea.

Hitcher

18th January 2008, 09:32

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?t=48436&highlight=Spaaarta

Ixion

18th January 2008, 09:32

The fact that they are misses means I suffer no such malaise.

Apart from that - bullshit. Tell it to someone t-boned through a red light or waiting in traffic and got rear ended.

Mine are all misses, too. Never said it was easy. I no longer assume that red lights mean anything at all, and rear ending is a very good reason to lane split.

scumdog

18th January 2008, 10:06

Actually, if you abolished speed limits completely, the incompetent drivers would drive slower.

In the absence of a speed limit, most drivers drive at a speed that reflects their competence. Especially the experienced but incompetent ones. They feel nervous going faster. But if you put in a speed limit , Doris feels obliged to drive up to it. Or at 90 anyway. But take away the limit and she'll slow down to 70.

Boi racer will drive too fast, cos he doesn't know WHAT he's doing. But that's cos of inexperience, so you have a speed limit for him, like the 70kph one for 6L. (which does mean P plates, yes).

So now you will have roads littered with 'competent' driver - Doris's doing 70kph and Boi-Racer doing 135kph. (when he gets his Full Licence)

What a delightful mixture.

Guaranteed to make for smooth flow of traffic and safe driving....

Ixion

18th January 2008, 10:27

The difference to now being ?
Except that Doris won't be stressed out thinking she should go faster.

swbarnett

18th January 2008, 16:28

All this talk about the causes of accidents is dancing around the real issue. The fact of the matter is that we all make mistakes and we are all, from time to time, on the recieving end of another driver's mistake. The ONLY thing that will ever keep you safe is to take responsibility for your own safety and drive with a decent Margin For Error. And the ONLY way to instill this into the driving population is through driver education with emphasis on hazard identification and vehicle control.

Maffoo

21st January 2008, 19:26

my god there is some BS in this thread

i spent 8 years as a tow truck driver in Auckland... & the way i see it, the biggest cause of accidents is impatience
impatience makes people speed, overtake in stupid places, txt/talk on phone while driving, drink & drive, take corners too fast, eat while driving...

in fact, just about any accident that does happen, could have been avoided if the person who caused said accident had just been a bit more patient.. in less of a hurry...
pull over to use the phone & eat
slow down a bit
wait a bit longer for that gap
dont overtake there... just wait a little while longer, you'll get a better chance soon enough
catch a bus, or walk to a taxi when pissed... might take you longer to get home... but be patient, you'll get there...

see what i mean?