PDA

View Full Version : Suggestions for speed limit enforcement



MikeL
24th November 2004, 10:50
In the interests of getting the road toll lower, I think we should all help out the police by suggesting stretches of road which offer potential for enhanced enforcement of speed limits.

I'll start the ball rolling by mentioning the southern motorway exit to Wellesley St. Here the posted speed limit goes from 80 to 50 then back to 80.
Since reforming my character (*see below) I've been eagerly scanning the bushes at the roadside every morning but to my disappointment there's been no sign of any attempt at enforcing the 50 kph limit. Since I now religiously slow to 50 well before the sign, I'm sure I would have spotted a laser, radar or speed camera however well camouflaged. Zilch. Nada. And every morning every other vehicle whizzes past at 80 or more. Even stranger, one of those "be prepared to kill" signs has just been erected at that very spot. Everybody just ignores it. Murderers...
What gives?

*Note regarding reformed character: since receiving my second speeding ticket (oh the shame, the ignominy, the demerit points...) I've gone over to the other side. Cowed into submission, with my rebellious spirit finally broken, my innocent pleasures hopelessly tainted with permanent paranoia, I have abandoned the fight for freedom and justice. I now ride within the law. Totally. What's more, "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em, eh?" Watch out, all you heedless speeding potential murderers. My cellphone is always in my pocket...

StoneChucker
24th November 2004, 10:57
Why not increase the open road speed limit. Say to 120km/h? And, if it's a sunny Sat/Sun, and you have a fast bike, make the Autobahn rules apply :devil2:

JohnBoy
24th November 2004, 11:19
and you have a fast bike, make the Autobahn rules apply :devil2:

i am a firm believer in this, however... it must be only on state highways and only avalible to people who can prove that the and their vehicle are worthy of higher speeds.
i would propose this:
a 4th licence that could follow these guide lines:
A) be over 25.
B) have had no driving convictions (not tickets, like DIC and dangerous driving) in 3 years
C) require a course to be taken, through study and through practicle track oriented training. (ie govt sponsord track day!).
D) belong to a car club and attend track days and other such meetings (to make sure your driving is always being tested).

for the vehicle:
for bikes this maybe hard, but for a cage it should just be subjected to a higher form (say more anal) of warrent of fitness. That mainly focusus on brakes, stearing, handling and body structure.
but most of all these higher spec cars must be no older that say 3 or 4 years.

my idea is that obviouly speed dosn't kill, it's the idiot who thinks its ok to drive like a nut in the wrong situation. Hence why i propose a 4th licence, to educate joe public on how to drive defencively but efficiantly.

this is just my proposal, its open to your comments, jeers or support. :rockon:

That Guy
24th November 2004, 11:23
How about putting in chicanes on straight bits of road, with braking markers, run off areas, and air fences........

Marmoot
24th November 2004, 11:36
Johnboy: That I have suggested so many times here in this forum but I was laughed at..... :mellow:
I call it "high speed endorsement"
Some sort of Special License (license to speed?)
Very good idea, right?
Subject the driver to rigorous police driver training too if need be
:devil2:
I know I want one

Hitcher
24th November 2004, 11:46
I have a cunning plan.

1. Make cars intrinsically unsafe:
-- instead of nice soft absorbing airbags, a dirty great jagged spike that comes flying out of the dash.
-- a legal requirement to have at least two unbalanced tyres on a vehicle.
-- a legal requirement for all vehicles to be fitted with non-power-assisted drum brakes.
-- seat belts to comprise of a single strand of embryotomy wire, instead of webbing.
-- all headlights to comprise low-beam only bulbs not exceeding 15W output.
-- no windscreens to be fitted to vehicles.

2. Encourage drivers to take stupid risks:
-- remove entirely all speed limits and warning signs.
-- remove median and any other form of impact barriers.
-- make driving on the left optional.
-- offer cash prizes for the best video evidence of spectacular motor vehicle stupidity directly causing death.

3. Remove ACC and health insurance payouts for people injured in motor accidents.

4. Go on a leisurely overseas holiday for a year.

Blakamin
24th November 2004, 11:51
Johnboy: That I have suggested so many times here in this forum but I was laughed at..... :mellow:
I call it "high speed endorsement"
Some sort of Special License (license to speed?)

it'd just be a pain when they go to pass someone and cause a head-on or a lesser-skilled driver to have an accident when they get a fright etc.
imagine the road rage!
not to mention what the cage drivers would attempt around corners. (keep it on the track)
I'm all for increased speed limits, just not for the few "elite" that A) can afford a 3-4 year old cage. B) can get mummy and daddy to buy their cage. C) can afford track time and all the shit that this licence would need.


I dont think you'd need to be away that long, Hitcher :laugh:

Quasievil
24th November 2004, 12:06
I have a cunning plan.

1. Make cars intrinsically unsafe:
-- instead of nice soft absorbing airbags, a dirty great jagged spike that comes flying out of the dash.
-- a legal requirement to have at least two unbalanced tyres on a vehicle.
-- a legal requirement for all vehicles to be fitted with non-power-assisted drum brakes.
-- seat belts to comprise of a single strand of embryotomy wire, instead of webbing.
-- all headlights to comprise low-beam only bulbs not exceeding 15W output.
-- no windscreens to be fitted to vehicles.

2. Encourage drivers to take stupid risks:
-- remove entirely all speed limits and warning signs.
-- remove median and any other form of impact barriers.
-- make driving on the left optional.
-- offer cash prizes for the best video evidence of spectacular motor vehicle stupidity directly causing death.

3. Remove ACC and health insurance payouts for people injured in motor accidents.

4. Go on a leisurely overseas holiday for a year.

Man you are seriously "together" when you forming that political Party, can I stand for Hamilton. whats the name going to be ?

Your proposed reforms and your agenda are truly what NZ needs!!!!

Hitcher
24th November 2004, 12:33
Can I stand for Hamilton. Whats the name going to be?
Yes, you can stand. Not just on or near a roadway.

How about the "Go out with a bang" party?

Marmoot
24th November 2004, 12:44
it'd just be a pain when they go to pass someone and cause a head-on or a lesser-skilled driver to have an accident when they get a fright etc.
imagine the road rage!
not to mention what the cage drivers would attempt around corners. (keep it on the track)
I'm all for increased speed limits, just not for the few "elite" that A) can afford a 3-4 year old cage. B) can get mummy and daddy to buy their cage. C) can afford track time and all the shit that this licence would need.


I dont think you'd need to be away that long, Hitcher :laugh:

but there would be rigorous testing, and personality checks Im sure?

jrandom
24th November 2004, 12:46
All very well and good, Hitcher, but it's important not to become a single-issue party.

I suggest developing a comprehensive approach to the nigger question.

bear
24th November 2004, 12:50
How about introducing a restriction on the cars (cc, kw, hp) that can be driven while on a provisional licence or while under 20, something similar to the graduated motorcycle licence system.

Or, why not put a governance in all cars (not bikes) limiting them to a designated top speed, similar to some big trucks on the road.

jrandom
24th November 2004, 12:53
Oh, fuxache, guys. This thread is a TROLL, mmm kay? Get with the program.

Traffic regulation and enforcement ideas really have been well-thrashed in other places on the forum (to the point where one might indeed use the phrase 'ad nauseAm'.

*Those* threads are where you should put all your good ideas.

Hitcher
24th November 2004, 13:08
All very well and good, Hitcher, but it's important not to become a single-issue party.

I suggest developing a comprehensive approach to the nigger question.
Single-issue party? Pah! The measures outlined above would contribute significantly to an environmental policy, a health and disabilities policy and also, presumably, an immigration policy.

The "nigger question" would indeed require a "comprehensive approach".

Jamezo
24th November 2004, 13:14
All very well and good, Hitcher, but it's important not to become a single-issue party.

I suggest developing a comprehensive approach to the nigger question.

final solution anyone?

doc
24th November 2004, 13:18
cmon guys and girls really what we should do is just obey the advertising, slow down be careful out there. Once they have control over everything there is no money made out o speeding law enforcement Traffic enforcement will only be able make revenue out of failing to indicate ,not stopping completely, intending to go faster or excessive atempt at displaying speed hienious crimes , off siding public in general .they get made redundant We all drive Ladas or step thru fifties We then fight off the Politically corect and you will not be able to go faster than a larger capacity bike if its in front type bullshit, and we can go like fuck. Seems logical to me unless you want to take it further and we turn the place into another Falluja which can also offer a lot chances to redeme those demerit points . Does the SIS monitor this site or just watch it with a search engine for subversiveness. Just cool down summer is here more good riding days. Stuff them. Do your own thing and pay the consequences went they think you have had enough. You are never going to win . Killing your cerebral defeicent offspring is another matter not revenue in that not enough of it going on.

manuboy
24th November 2004, 13:19
Oh, fuxache, guys. This thread is a TROLL, mmm kay? Get with the program.

Traffic regulation and enforcement ideas really have been well-thrashed in other places on the forum (to the point where one might indeed use the phrase 'ad nauseAm'.

*Those* threads are where you should put all your good ideas.

You wanna troll JRandom?

* Off Topic *

I suggest an IQ ceiling should be imposed on all members of this forum. The select few of you (you know who you are) who insist on making valid points, pointing out others foibles and inaccuracies, using large words - or pharking latin (wtf???), piss off... the rest of us would like to talk complete shit in peace. :rolleyes:

StoneChucker
24th November 2004, 14:38
I suggest an IQ ceiling should be imposed on all members of this forum. The select few of you (you know who you are) who insist on making valid points, pointing out others foibles and inaccuracies, using large words - or pharking latin (wtf???), piss off... the rest of us would like to talk complete shit in peace.
Ahh, one of my "people" Thought I was the only one :beer:

Blakamin
24th November 2004, 14:46
Ahh, one of my "people" Thought I was the only one :beer:
how could that be???
I didnt make whoredom by being relevent!

that must mean theres 3 of us :shifty:

scumdog
24th November 2004, 16:10
i am a firm believer in this, however... it must be only on state highways and only avalible to people who can prove that the and their vehicle are worthy of higher speeds.
i would propose this:
a 4th licence that could follow these guide lines:
A) be over 25.
B) have had no driving convictions (not tickets, like DIC and dangerous driving) in 3 years
C) require a course to be taken, through study and through practicle track oriented training. (ie govt sponsord track day!).
D) belong to a car club and attend track days and other such meetings (to make sure your driving is always being tested).

for the vehicle:
for bikes this maybe hard, but for a cage it should just be subjected to a higher form (say more anal) of warrent of fitness. That mainly focusus on brakes, stearing, handling and body structure.
but most of all these higher spec cars must be no older that say 3 or 4 years.

my idea is that obviouly speed dosn't kill, it's the idiot who thinks its ok to drive like a nut in the wrong situation. Hence why i propose a 4th licence, to educate joe public on how to drive defencively but efficiantly.

this is just my proposal, its open to your comments, jeers or support. :rockon:

"course these drivers you mentioned would have to drive cars painted in bright colours and have flashing lights so the drivers without the special licence would know that you were 'special' and were allowed to travel faster than them and not to change lanes, pull out of driveways, overtake or call *555 etc when you were around.? :whistle:

scumdog
24th November 2004, 16:12
I have a cunning plan.

1. Make cars intrinsically unsafe:
-- instead of nice soft absorbing airbags, a dirty great jagged spike that comes flying out of the dash.
-- a legal requirement to have at least two unbalanced tyres on a vehicle.
-- a legal requirement for all vehicles to be fitted with non-power-assisted drum brakes.
-- seat belts to comprise of a single strand of embryotomy wire, instead of webbing.
-- all headlights to comprise low-beam only bulbs not exceeding 15W output.
-- no windscreens to be fitted to vehicles.

2. Encourage drivers to take stupid risks:
-- remove entirely all speed limits and warning signs.
-- remove median and any other form of impact barriers.
-- make driving on the left optional.
-- offer cash prizes for the best video evidence of spectacular motor vehicle stupidity directly causing death.

3. Remove ACC and health insurance payouts for people injured in motor accidents.

4. Go on a leisurely overseas holiday for a year.

Hey, NOW you're talking!!! :niceone:

spudchucka
24th November 2004, 18:48
Johnboy: That I have suggested so many times here in this forum but I was laughed at..... :mellow:
I call it "high speed endorsement"
Some sort of Special License (license to speed?)
Very good idea, right?
Subject the driver to rigorous police driver training too if need be
:devil2:
I know I want one
Just how would you propose the police could differentiate between an endorsed speeder and a non-endorsed one? The only way is to stop the driver and check the licence, you can't assume the registered owner of the vehicle is the actual driver.

ZorsT
24th November 2004, 19:48
You guyes all have it wrong, the major factor no-one has mentioned yet is the roads. it would be interesting to see some accident Statistics, to see what percentage are from head on collisions. In canada (well Alberta anyway) all the major roads are two lane each way, divided and perfectly straight. We saw a sign for a corner ONCE.... it wouldn't of even got a sign in NZ.
Speed limit =120kph driving is so easy, that one can easily do a 10 hour day. Very safe as there is no stress, if you want to pass, you just pull into the other lane, and pass, and the traffic going the other way is about 30m away from you, so head on collisions are not likely.


The police there, dont pull people over until they are going 135, even then they usually dont get a ticket :shifty: (my uncle is a cop) but we couldn't have that here..... how could the country run without our "fun-tax?"

scumdog
24th November 2004, 20:01
You guyes all have it wrong, the major factor no-one has mentioned yet is the roads. it would be interesting to see some accident Statistics, to see what percentage are from head on collisions. In canada (well Alberta anyway) all the major roads are two lane each way, divided and perfectly straight. We saw a sign for a corner ONCE.... it wouldn't of even got a sign in NZ.
Speed limit =120kph driving is so easy, that one can easily do a 10 hour day. Very safe as there is no stress, if you want to pass, you just pull into the other lane, and pass, and the traffic going the other way is about 30m away from you, so head on collisions are not likely.


The police there, dont pull people over until they are going 135, even then they usually dont get a ticket :shifty: (my uncle is a cop) but we couldn't have that here..... how could the country run without our "fun-tax?"

We will have rules like that - when we get roads like that! And we won't get that as long as we have so many leeches relying on the taxes that COULD be used to improve the roads :mad: :moon:

avgas
24th November 2004, 20:15
A) be over 25.

for the vehicle:
for bikes this maybe hard, but for a cage it should just be subjected to a higher form (say more anal) of warrent of fitness. That mainly focusus on brakes, stearing, handling and body structure.
but most of all these higher spec cars must be no older that say 3 or 4 years.
:rockon:

Im going to jeer, im not over 25, but i have been riding religeously for a damn long time, i have out run the cops on occasion, and had accidents. Infact i have compressed as much as i can into my 10 or so years riding as possible.
Ive done the Cold kiwi all the time, owned 2stroke, owned dogs-of-a-bike, ridin as a form of transport, ridin every bike to see a top speed in the middle of nights, tourered with the misses, raced, dropped, dropped more, tried stutns, ridin cafe racer style, ridin cruiser style, Club rides, ridin naked...basically if you have heard a 'biker story', there may be a picture of me attempting it. Im at the same riding level as most advanced riders more than twice my age now (note i say most, not all, im not that cocky). But yet some hobbo who rides a jawa is now better than me
:moon:
Also in reference to the car thing - is it the gun or the owner that shoots people dead. Most new cars are designed with safety to pedestrians in mind (well ok not very well but they do, do it). But people will still drive badly, just the same as people (not kids) fuck up on bikes.

PS: the only reason i ride a 400 is cos thats all i could swap my car for - but its ok, all derestricted, tuned and capable of 230+.

MikeL
24th November 2004, 20:20
Not quite the reaction I was expecting. C'est la vie.

It was a slow day at work, that's all...

ZorsT
24th November 2004, 20:23
We will have rules like that - when we get roads like that! And we won't get that as long as we have so many leeches relying on the taxes that COULD be used to improve the roads :mad: :moon:

good point, and fair enough... Where does all that money go anyway?

I also heard somewhere (i dunno how true it is) that if the police pull you over, and you were speeding, they are obliged to give you a ticket, is this true? or is there still some justice in this world?

SPman
24th November 2004, 21:56
I have a cunning plan.

1. Make cars intrinsically unsafe:
-- instead of nice soft absorbing airbags, a dirty great jagged spike that comes flying out of the dash.
-- a legal requirement to have at least two unbalanced tyres on a vehicle.
-- a legal requirement for all vehicles to be fitted with non-power-assisted drum brakes.
-- seat belts to comprise of a single strand of embryotomy wire, instead of webbing.
-- all headlights to comprise low-beam only bulbs not exceeding 15W output.
-- no windscreens to be fitted to vehicles.

2. Encourage drivers to take stupid risks:
-- remove entirely all speed limits and warning signs.
-- remove median and any other form of impact barriers.
-- make driving on the left optional.
-- offer cash prizes for the best video evidence of spectacular motor vehicle stupidity directly causing death.

.
Aren't most of those things in force already???

cycosis
24th November 2004, 22:01
Why not increase the open road speed limit. Say to 120km/h? And, if it's a sunny Sat/Sun, and you have a fast bike, make the Autobahn rules apply :devil2:

HaaHaHA I gree,Autobahn everywere 24/7.Pull ova and fine the ones doin unda 100 :gob:

JohnBoy
25th November 2004, 11:01
Just how would you propose the police could differentiate between an endorsed speeder and a non-endorsed one?
a simple placard on your reg plate, maybe someting similar to an L plate or even different coloured number plates (ie red).

my intention would be (like its really gonna happen!) would be that this right to drive faster would only apply if the approved vehicle was driving by the licence holder. but i see what you mean, it would be hard to enforce.

Marmoot
25th November 2004, 15:58
Just how would you propose the police could differentiate between an endorsed speeder and a non-endorsed one? The only way is to stop the driver and check the licence, you can't assume the registered owner of the vehicle is the actual driver.

With an "E" plate like the "L" plate for learners?
Or a little signal transmitter in the car and a detector screen in the police car?
C'mon....It's 21 century, spud
And you're spoiling my daydream........... ;)

spudchucka
25th November 2004, 19:01
good point, and fair enough... Where does all that money go anyway?

I also heard somewhere (i dunno how true it is) that if the police pull you over, and you were speeding, they are obliged to give you a ticket, is this true? or is there still some justice in this world?
The decision to write up a ticket is the cops decision to make,no one elses. They do still have discrection despite what others say.

Quasievil
25th November 2004, 19:05
The decision to write up a ticket is the cops decision to make,no one elses. They do still have discrection despite what others say.
Oh really, Im right then !!! the cop who did me for riding down hill doing 111km was a FUCKEN PRICK then

MikeL
25th November 2004, 19:22
The decision to write up a ticket is the cops decision to make,no one elses. They do still have discrection despite what others say.

But they don't seem to be exercising it quite as often as in the past...

Marmoot
26th November 2004, 09:03
Oh really, Im right then !!! the cop who did me for riding down hill doing 111km was a FUCKEN PRICK then
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
good point

Spud: do the Highway Patrol guys have different briefing than the Beat guys?

jrandom
26th November 2004, 09:12
Not quite the reaction I was expecting. C'est la vie.

The waters are over-fished.

spudchucka
26th November 2004, 09:19
But they don't seem to be exercising it quite as often as in the past...
Depends who you talk to.

spudchucka
26th November 2004, 09:20
Oh really, Im right then !!! the cop who did me for riding down hill doing 111km was a FUCKEN PRICK then
Thats a fair enough description.

MikeL
26th November 2004, 15:11
Depends who you talk to.

Of course. All we have is anecdotal evidence. It would be good to hear the facts from someone in the know...

spudchucka
26th November 2004, 22:34
Of course. All we have is anecdotal evidence. It would be good to hear the facts from someone in the know...
What exactly would you like to know?

In the last month I've transferred to a new station and have written one speeding ticket, 75 in a 50. I've also warned one person for the same offence, I grey haired old pensioner who was chatting to her bowling mate and didn't realise what her speed was. I've locked up one disqualified driver and impounded his car, which the courts saw fit to give back to him after only five days. The driver pled guilty and got another 5 months disqualification and $250 fine. I've had one pusuit that went for 35 minutes and got to speeds of 150 in a 50 and 170 in a 100, it was abandoned when it hit population density. The driver was not known to me but enquiries have given me a lead and I intend to take the bugger to court. I've also been on a two week course in forensics so the month has been a bit on the slow side as far as the action goes. I've dealt with numerous theft, assault, burglary & disorder incidents and resolved a few civil disputes over property ownership. However this is the stuff that goes on every day without the public knowing anything about it unless they for some reason become involved.

Oh, by the way, I have also just put my bike back together today and took it for its first ride of the summer.

MikeL
27th November 2004, 16:37
What exactly would you like to know?



Whether cops are less likely to use their discretion and give a verbal warning for motoring offences such as doing 111 kph on the open road, and if so why.

spudchucka
27th November 2004, 20:42
Whether cops are less likely to use their discretion and give a verbal warning for motoring offences such as doing 111 kph on the open road, and if so why.
I'll speak for myself to begin with. I didn't join the police to write traffic tickets but I accept it as part of the job I signed up for. I prefer to target behaviour rather than have a simple threshold that once exceeded earns a ticket. I don't write a lot of speeding tickets but I do write tickets for unsafe vehicles, seatbelt non compliance and general behaviour oriented offences.

As far as speeding goes, if you are doing 65 or over in a 50 then you are likely to get a ticket, in some cases 63 depending on the circumstances. If you are speeding near a school, hospital or old folks home then you are going to get a ticket regardless of what excuse you can come up with. If you are a burglar, theif, druggy or any other form of general scum bag I'll give you what ever tickets I can, whenever I can.

In relation to 100 kph areas I'll start to think about stopping a vehicle if they are doing 118 or over. If it is a shitty looking vehicle I will pretty much always stop it, likewise if the driver looks like a dodgy bugger. I won't target vehicles on passing lanes unless they are doing 125 or more, unless they are again a shitty car or dodgy looking driver. No body will get a ticket from me for 111 unless they fit the shitty car / dodgy driver profile as I wouldn't have bothered to pull them over in the first place.

Most of the cops I work with have a similar mentality to myself. There are those however who have joined the police because they want to write lots of tickets and I guess that most of the time these are the ones you see in the HP cars. Having said that however I know plenty of real good bastards working in Highway Patrol too.

The official police line on speeding is no secret, exceed the speed limit by 11 kph or more and you will get a ticket. I don't really have a problem with that because it is black & white and therefore people know where they stand and should behave appropriately. However I'm not buying into some policy telling me who to give speeding tickets to and prefer to keep an open mind, taking into account all the circumstances. As far as I'm concerned thats what discretion is and no policy is going to change my attitude towards it.

A lot depends on the boss you work under and the attitude they have to traffic enforcement. The brass try to force you to dish out tickets by allocating x amount of hours to speeding, drink driving, restraints etc and then set performance measurements such as two "contacts" per hour delivered. Thats the terrible quota that people go on about. Another way they get you by the short and curlies is when you start thinking about promotion as you will have to be able to demonstrate that you have consistantly performed traffic enforcement to the required standard. The internal politics involved are too complex to go into here. All I can say is that there is nothing preventing individual cops from using their discretion if they choose to, you just have to be able to play the system the right way.

I hope that answers the question.

Jackrat
27th November 2004, 21:04
I'll speak for myself to begin with. I didn't join the police to write traffic tickets but I accept it as part of the job I signed up for. I prefer to target behaviour rather than have a simple threshold that once exceeded earns a ticket. I don't write a lot of speeding tickets but I do write tickets for unsafe vehicles, seatbelt non compliance and general behaviour oriented offences.

As far as speeding goes, if you are doing 65 or over in a 50 then you are likely to get a ticket, in some cases 63 depending on the circumstances. If you are speeding near a school, hospital or old folks home then you are going to get a ticket regardless of what excuse you can come up with. If you are a burglar, theif, druggy or any other form of general scum bag I'll give you what ever tickets I can, whenever I can.

In relation to 100 kph areas I'll start to think about stopping a vehicle if they are doing 118 or over. If it is a shitty looking vehicle I will pretty much always stop it, likewise if the driver looks like a dodgy bugger. I won't target vehicles on passing lanes unless they are doing 125 or more, unless they are again a shitty car or dodgy looking driver. No body will get a ticket from me for 111 unless they fit the shitty car / dodgy driver profile as I wouldn't have bothered to pull them over in the first place.

Most of the cops I work with have a similar mentality to myself. There are those however who have joined the police because they want to write lots of tickets and I guess that most of the time these are the ones you see in the HP cars. Having said that however I know plenty of real good bastards working in Highway Patrol too.

The official police line on speeding is no secret, exceed the speed limit by 11 kph or more and you will get a ticket. I don't really have a problem with that because it is black & white and therefore people know where they stand and should behave appropriately. However I'm not buying into some policy telling me who to give speeding tickets to and prefer to keep an open mind, taking into account all the circumstances. As far as I'm concerned thats what discretion is and no policy is going to change my attitude towards it.

A lot depends on the boss you work under and the attitude they have to traffic enforcement. The brass try to force you to dish out tickets by allocating x amount of hours to speeding, drink driving, restraints etc and then set performance measurements such as two "contacts" per hour delivered. Thats the terrible quota that people go on about. Another way they get you by the short and curlies is when you start thinking about promotion as you will have to be able to demonstrate that you have consistantly performed traffic enforcement to the required standard. The internal politics involved are too complex to go into here. All I can say is that there is nothing preventing individual cops from using their discretion if they choose to, you just have to be able to play the system the right way.

I hope that answers the question.

LOL,yeah it answers the question for me perfectly.
Seeing as how I now drive an old Toyota Corolla and have always visualy fitted the scumbag profile,I guess I'm fucked if I get pulled over by you.
Such is the price if not being rich huh.
Nice to know nothing changes :no:

marty
27th November 2004, 21:08
ahhh the southern motorway on a friday evening. every dorklander and his KFC driving his fucked diesel with the speedo disconnected pulling out in front of me. oh how i love passing people on the left and flicking them the bird. just fitted some 100w spotlights to the front of the diamante today. i'm gonna really enjoy doing the euro light flashing thing as i'm freight training up behind some dickhead who decided to dawdle out into the fast lane, giving me 50 metres (if i'm lucky) to slow from warp commuter factor to yummy-mummy-out-for-a-coffee-in-cambridge factor. i think my next accessory to the mitsi beast is one of those stainless nudge bars... :)

Jackrat
27th November 2004, 21:15
ahhh the southern motorway on a friday evening. every dorklander and his KFC driving his fucked diesel with the speedo disconnected pulling out in front of me. oh how i love passing people on the left and flicking them the bird. just fitted some 100w spotlights to the front of the diamante today. i'm gonna really enjoy doing the euro light flashing thing as i'm freight training up behind some dickhead who decided to dawdle out into the fast lane, giving me 50 metres (if i'm lucky) to slow from warp commuter factor to yummy-mummy-out-for-a-coffee-in-cambridge factor. i think my next accessory to the mitsi beast is one of those stainless nudge bars... :)

This friday just gone???
Damn wasn't it fun?,another nose to tail every 10kms :blink:
Took 1 1/2 hours to get from Silverdale to East Tamaki.
I noticed the Motorway patrol film crew were doing a roaring trade :msn-wink:

marty
27th November 2004, 21:56
yeah - last night. it was frigging ridiculous. i just wanna get home - everyone else seems to be in holiday mode. that's ok, as long as they cruise in holiday mode in the SLOW lane

avgas
27th November 2004, 22:36
i agree here - im still a little timid bout cutting through traffic since my accident, but i may as well drive if the bastards dont give you room. Gonna have to hook up an electric fan on my bike to switch on when the traffic does 1kmh.

ResidentAngel
28th November 2004, 10:25
In the interests of getting the road toll lower, I think we should all help out the police by suggesting stretches of road which offer potential for enhanced enforcement of speed limits.

I'll start the ball rolling by mentioning the southern motorway exit to Wellesley St. Here the posted speed limit goes from 80 to 50 then back to 80.



thats because there are major roadworks going on ....

***********
I have found that if your riding safely, and going a little bit fast, than if its perfectly safe and on an empty motorway, the peeps tend to just wave at me to slow down, rather than pulling me over .... but I guess I wouldnt risk travelling too fast cause I dont want to have to pay - I have better uses for my $ than giving it away ... ...

NOW ... if there was somewhere where you could just open up on long trips, that would be nice .... but the problem with another licence, is how the peeps are going to tell the difference when your travelling down the road ... we'd need a difefrent number plate or some form of identification ?

Being able to use the bus lanes on the new motorway additions coming on the Northshore of Auckland would also be nice ... could get us out of the main traffic ...

Riding within the law is one thing ... riding safely is another .... and I wonder how much the law recognises the difference? And ... how are you going to work out if a bikes frame is up to it ? I know that my VF's frame has been straightened ... does that mean its no longer good enough, or does the fact that I know its straight mean more than the fact its been dropped ?

ResidentAngel
28th November 2004, 10:29
How about the motorway norh from Albany to Orewa .. if there is a section of motorway that has relatively little traffic , and few off ramps, thats got to be one example ...

MikeL
28th November 2004, 16:13
thats because there are major roadworks going on ....


It depends on your definition of "work"...

spudchucka
28th November 2004, 19:14
LOL,yeah it answers the question for me perfectly.
Seeing as how I now drive an old Toyota Corolla and have always visualy fitted the scumbag profile,I guess I'm fucked if I get pulled over by you.
Such is the price if not being rich huh.
Nice to know nothing changes :no:
There is a difference between a shitty car and an old car. I'm talking about the sort of crapped out, rusted out, back yard modified dangerous pieces of shit that are a danger to all of us. There are heaps of old but decent cars on the road.

As for dodgy looking people, let me expand on that. Dodgy isn't necessarily just scruffy or rough looking, often its things like the driver avoiding eye contact or slouching down in their seats, having a hoody or cap pulled down low over their faces. Also you get to know common distinguishing features amongst crims, gang colours for instance, the spaced out look of a druggy is a dead give away too.

The decision to pull a vehicle over and then subsequently to issue a ticket or not is unique to each police member. I've simply described some of the things that I consider when making such decisions. Each event remains unique and decisions made independantly of other events. However nothing is written in blood so I don't mean for it to be taken literaly.

marty
29th November 2004, 15:36
i *555'd a dodgy looking car, with an even dodgier looking hairy in it, on the southern on wednesday morning. it had JUST been stolen from the mercer food court not 10 minutes earlier - the owner was on the phone to comms when i called them. (OMG the system works sometimes!) he got picked up at drury.

i still got it

:Police:

Marmoot
29th November 2004, 15:50
yeah, hey a bit of question here to our police constables:

When it involves swerving cars (drunk driver possibility) or a rather large debris on Motorway, do we go *555 or go 111?

marty
29th November 2004, 16:21
*555. it was bought in to try to offset the amount of wanky (there's a sign post down on smith st, there's a jaywalker on queen st) calls being made on 111.

marty
29th November 2004, 16:22
and your swerving car nowadays is more than likely someone texting. or getting a blowjob.

Marmoot
29th November 2004, 16:27
and your swerving car nowadays is more than likely someone texting. or getting a blowjob.

what's a blowjob?

marty
29th November 2004, 17:53
it's something you get from your 14 year old cousin while doing 120k on SH1 south of cambridge....

Marmoot
29th November 2004, 18:04
it's something you get from your 14 year old cousin while doing 120k on SH1 south of cambridge....

Ooooooooooooo :2thumbsup

marty
29th November 2004, 18:17
and when the cops stops you and says - 'that was crap driving - you're either pissed or getting a blow job', you say 'i was getting a blowjob sir'

Lou Girardin
29th November 2004, 19:04
Or; she's pissed, I'm getting a blow job.

Slightly more seriously though, if the coppers went back to a sense of reasonableness, eg, up to 20 k's over before you got written up. (depending on real circumstances).
Then there would be a lot less angst directed their way.
It's not coincidence that the number of people surveyed as not believing the Police are doing a good job is almost exactly the same as those who received traffic tickets last year. About 1.3 million people.
It was always known that those who regarded the Police highly were those that had least contact with them. The new, minimal tolerance, policy has shown the truth of that.
If John Kelly, Steve Fitzgerald and Rob Robinson had a functioning brain cell between them they would recognise this. Common sense is not that common.

ZorsT
29th November 2004, 19:41
spud, we need cops like you here in nelson. We had a "zero tolerence" policy for speeding eirler in the year, and right now, we have alot extra cops here now from CHCH, along with the booze bus doing a blitz until XMAS. why here? surely because there are more people (therefore motorists, and therefore revinue) in bigger citys they could blitz there? why blitz at all?

spudchucka
29th November 2004, 20:25
yeah, hey a bit of question here to our police constables:

When it involves swerving cars (drunk driver possibility) or a rather large debris on Motorway, do we go *555 or go 111?
*555 unless it appears in the circumstances that he will kill someone if not stopped in the very near future, then consider 111.

spudchucka
29th November 2004, 20:28
spud, we need cops like you here in nelson. We had a "zero tolerence" policy for speeding eirler in the year, and right now, we have alot extra cops here now from CHCH, along with the booze bus doing a blitz until XMAS. why here? surely because there are more people (therefore motorists, and therefore revinue) in bigger citys they could blitz there? why blitz at all?
Blitz tactics do appear over the top but they sure as hell make people think before doing something stupid.

marty
29th November 2004, 20:39
it's actually a true story

Marmoot
30th November 2004, 09:07
it's actually a true story

If your sister is the one in your avatar, where do I sign up? ;)

But, looking at Lou's posting, why don't we just raise up the speed limit by 20k and adopt zero tolerance from there then? :shifty:

120kph in the motorway plus 10kph leeway? anyone?

scroter
30th November 2004, 11:11
ive got a suggestion about speed enforcment. dont do it. or at least not for me any way.
yeah i know dreams are free

scumdog
30th November 2004, 21:29
If your sister is the one in your avatar, where do I sign up? ;)

But, looking at Lou's posting, why don't we just raise up the speed limit by 20k and adopt zero tolerance from there then? :shifty:

120kph in the motorway plus 10kph leeway? anyone?

There was this one time, at band camp, and the speed limit was 80kph, then the Govt of the day bumped it up to 100kph and said there will be no tolerance for speeding, now 20 or so years later people want it bumped up to 120kph and no tolerance.....

This also is a true story :thud:

Yokai
1st December 2004, 07:19
now 20 or so years later people want it bumped up to 120kph and no tolerance.....
This also is a true story :thud:

I agree - I think we should force every vehicle that can travel over 4mph to have a flagperson.

Yokai

marty
1st December 2004, 07:53
it used to be 100km/h, with a 20k tolerance. guys like me, scumdog, spud et al, spent our weekends scraping people off their windscreens. personally, i like the 100k with defacto 110k limit. rather that than the aussie situation with a 110k limit/5k tolerance.

Marmoot
1st December 2004, 08:36
yeah i know dreams are free

yeah...I agree

World wouldn't be exciting if it is all good.
Current speed limit gives us something to dream about for tomorrow :)

Quasievil
1st December 2004, 09:31
Why is it that when you get pulled up for speeding or whatever, you 1/ get a demerit point deduction on your licence and 2/ you get a financal penalty as well

I beleive this is wrong.

You are effectively penalised twice. I think there is no neccesity to recieve a financal penalty when you have lost a number of points and on your way to loosing your licence.
the fear of loosing points is enough and this fear is of more concern to me than the money itself. So wont Points Loss do it ??? wouldnt a point deduction instil enough fear into people to keep the speeds down by itself???

From this I beleive the financal penalty is nothing more than feeding the machine and a tax collection on the motorist.
:angry2: And I have alot of attitude towards it and the people who enforce it :Police: and the cronies in government that hide behind the "speeding kills" banner.

Time for a change !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:finger:
and Spudchucker I have no problem with you personally but the organisation you work for (HP only not police) have fallen to the bottom of the social standing list in NZ careers. And frankly I dont know how HP members can even do there job with any element of job satisfaction

scroter
1st December 2004, 10:05
got pulled over the other day in the truck by the HP (random check not speeding) and the guy just wanted to talk about driving trucks and that he wanted to get out of the force cause after 27 years(whatever he said) they were now treating him like crap. he was a nice guy so i told him why cant all the HPs be like this instead of having enough bad eggs that we hate the buggers. he even told me his wife got laid off by them after about 18yrs or something. after about 10 mins he let me go, corse i was about 10mins late but i didnt mind. i wonder how many other cops dont like the cops either.

Quasievil
1st December 2004, 10:17
got pulled over the other day in the truck by the HP (random check not speeding) and the guy just wanted to talk about driving trucks and that he wanted to get out of the force cause after 27 years(whatever he said) they were now treating him like crap. he was a nice guy so i told him why cant all the HPs be like this instead of having enough bad eggs that we hate the buggers. he even told me his wife got laid off by them after about 18yrs or something. after about 10 mins he let me go, corse i was about 10mins late but i didnt mind. i wonder how many other cops dont like the cops either.
There certainly aint the love there used to be Im sure between Hp and Police, look at who has the new cars nice raincoats jackets etc, all the flash gear goes to the HP, cause thats where the money is ?? I dunno but its a bit hard on the police guys. ( I deliberatly put HP and police in different catergories)

Jackrat
1st December 2004, 16:24
There is a difference between a shitty car and an old car. I'm talking about the sort of crapped out, rusted out, back yard modified dangerous pieces of shit that are a danger to all of us. There are heaps of old but decent cars on the road.

As for dodgy looking people, let me expand on that. Dodgy isn't necessarily just scruffy or rough looking, often its things like the driver avoiding eye contact or slouching down in their seats, having a hoody or cap pulled down low over their faces. Also you get to know common distinguishing features amongst crims, gang colours for instance, the spaced out look of a druggy is a dead give away too.

The decision to pull a vehicle over and then subsequently to issue a ticket or not is unique to each police member. I've simply described some of the things that I consider when making such decisions. Each event remains unique and decisions made independantly of other events. However nothing is written in blood so I don't mean for it to be taken literaly.

Hmmm,Yeah was just having a bad day,Sorry.
Towing rusted out old wrecks out of the back yards of dodgy looking,,,, <_<

crashe
1st December 2004, 16:49
Im quite happy with the open roads and motorway speed limit.... its the around town speed limit... it should be raised...to 60km.... sometimes sitting behind someone doing 50km is like so slow... yeah I know its the speed limit and we are all supposed to go at that speed... but hells teeth...at least on the bike I can go around them safely, its when you are in a car...
:angry2:

*555 costs money to dial isnt that correct if using the cell phone.
yet 111 costs nothing.
If I have to report something like rubbish all over the motorway or stupid drivers.... I always ring 111.
The one and only time I rung *555 it cost me money on the cell ph... :spudwhat:

The trucks out there arent doing the speed limit.... man some of them are flying down the motorways... they hoon past me and I am doing 100km to 110km so I would hate to think what speed they are doing.... and then if they have stop in a hurry.... oh the carnage they will cause.

Jackrat
1st December 2004, 18:21
There certainly aint the love there used to be Im sure between Hp and Police, look at who has the new cars nice raincoats jackets etc, all the flash gear goes to the HP, cause thats where the money is ?? I dunno but its a bit hard on the police guys. ( I deliberatly put HP and police in different catergories)

I guess that must depend on where they live.
My mate that's HP lives in a small n'th island east coast town.
He's effectively HP but he does everything.
This is a little different from where I live (Waiuku),we just got another seven HP cars but still don't have a full time cop.The guys that look after this area come from Pukekohe but we still have to ring Papakura on a weekend or AH to get anybody.
I don't have any issue with the current speed limits, but there's some strange shit happening in this country for sure. :confused2

Hitcher
1st December 2004, 19:24
My mate that's HP lives in a small n'th island east coast town.
Rides a cruiser, as does his missus who commutes to Wellington?

spudchucka
1st December 2004, 22:52
Why is it that when you get pulled up for speeding or whatever, you 1/ get a demerit point deduction on your licence and 2/ you get a financal penalty as well

I beleive this is wrong.

You are effectively penalised twice. I think there is no neccesity to recieve a financal penalty when you have lost a number of points and on your way to loosing your licence.
the fear of loosing points is enough and this fear is of more concern to me than the money itself. So wont Points Loss do it ??? wouldnt a point deduction instil enough fear into people to keep the speeds down by itself???

From this I beleive the financal penalty is nothing more than feeding the machine and a tax collection on the motorist.
:angry2: And I have alot of attitude towards it and the people who enforce it :Police: and the cronies in government that hide behind the "speeding kills" banner.

Time for a change !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:finger:
and Spudchucker I have no problem with you personally but the organisation you work for (HP only not police) have fallen to the bottom of the social standing list in NZ careers. And frankly I dont know how HP members can even do there job with any element of job satisfaction
Demerits alone might be a strong deterent if the situation was that if you got caught doing 20kms over it means that you lost 3/4 of your licence. Then most people who give a shit would be sticking to the speed limit like they had a cop tailing them every where they went. I personaly wouldn't object to an approach like that.

I know there are some arsewipes in HP and in other sections of the police too but in all honesty I believe that the vast majority of cops are genuine good bastards who work hard and are in the job because they believe in what they are doing. It's a shame that some members of the public think poorly of us but it's a job in which you can't please all of the people all of the time. There will always be people who think poorly of the police regardless of policy etc, simply because outcomes are not in their favour.

750Y
2nd December 2004, 05:39
...There will always be people who think poorly of the police regardless of policy etc, simply because outcomes are not in their favour.

some good points spud, but you are glazing over things a little. the jews disliked Hitler, was that simply because outcomes were not in their favour?
just wanted to point out that from my perspective there is a lot more to it & no I'm not likening the Police to the third reich or anything that crazy.
i believe in driver skill & education as a big part of the solution.
demerit points? incentive to avoid being caught...

spudchucka
2nd December 2004, 07:25
demerit points? incentive to avoid being caught...
If it makes people think about what they are doing and drive in a manner that doesn't attract the attention of the fuzz then its probably a worthwhile approach.

Quasievil
2nd December 2004, 07:40
Is the super enhanced HP presence and the NZ road user intimidation regime working ??
I actually am unsure but is all of this ticketing actually lowering the road toll?
particulary to a point where it can justify such a investment into road policing?
just curious.

spudchucka
2nd December 2004, 08:10
Is the super enhanced HP presence and the NZ road user intimidation regime working ??
I actually am unsure but is all of this ticketing actually lowering the road toll?
particulary to a point where it can justify such a investment into road policing?
just curious.
Try asking the question "what would happen if we didn't have the current level of road policing"?

I'm 99.99% certain that there would be a hell of a lot more carnage.

I can't remember which paper I read it in, (probably the Dom), but an article recently quoted the number of speeding issued for this year as being markedly down. The article suggested that this was due to the introduction of anywhere anytime speed cameras???

From the LTSA web site.

Road deaths
As at 1 Dec 2004 385
Same time last year 419
Last 12 months 427

It appears that 34 fewer people have been killed so far this year. The last 12 months figure doesn't look that flash but its a hell of a lot better than the 700 odd deaths per year that we had in the early 90's.

At a cost to the country of 1.5 million bucks, (or some crazy figure like that, I can't remember the exact cost) per road death its easy to justify the heavy handed approach.

scumdog
2nd December 2004, 09:42
Rare to clock somebody doing much over 120kph, 4 years ago that was the norm on the open road. :Police:
Crashes down here are way less than 4 years ago - injury AND non-injury.
Anecdotely from talking to H.P. guys it seems they have the same opinion, BTW most of their top-end speed tickets are overseas tourists, most who would be out of their depth in a show-ground go-cart :spudwhat: :eek:

Hitcher
2nd December 2004, 10:13
Rare to clock somebody doing much over 120kph, 4 years ago that was the norm on the open road.
It's interesting to note that while the "average" recorded open road speed has come down, the speeds of the "top 15%" haven't changed. There is some political fall-out for the former, which is why the politicians have backed off some of the proposed harder-edged enforcement tactics, such as hidden speed cameras and unmarked vehicles. There is also a growing body of evidence to suggest that unnecessarily slow open road speeds contribute to accidents.

scroter
2nd December 2004, 10:24
The trucks out there arent doing the speed limit.... man some of them are flying down the motorways... they hoon past me and I am doing 100km to 110km so I would hate to think what speed they are doing.... and then if they have stop in a hurry.... oh the carnage they will cause.

im a truck driver doin a measly 400ks a night and i dont see them speeding not that much anyway. corse i dont go on the motorway much but mate its too easy to get a ticket in a truck. not me for the extra 2 mins it takes stuff it. plus a trucks top speed is usually not much over 120kph. if you do speeds like that all the time not only will it suck your tank dry faster (already about 2k per litre) but the truck wont last long.

vifferman
2nd December 2004, 10:32
Try asking the question "what would happen if we didn't have the current level of road policing"?

I'm 99.99% certain that there would be a hell of a lot more carnage.

At a cost to the country of 1.5 million bucks, (or some crazy figure like that, I can't remember the exact cost) per road death its easy to justify the heavy handed approach.I don't have a problem with any of that, and I guess I don't even have a problem with both fines AND demerit points being handed out. It's certainly made me look more critically at my riding, possibly to the detriment of the quaility of it. I mean, the markings on my speedo are a poofteenth of a millimetre apart, and the difference between travelling legally or illegally is likewise a fraction of a degree of throttle twist. I found that for the first time, my last open-highway ride was requiring an inordinate amount of attention to the speedo to ensure I didn't inadvertantly becoming a speeding killer. On a bike, you don't need that kind of distraction away from the business of staying safe.

I also must admit that my view of, and satisfaction with the police has taken a backward step with my son being given a ticket for careless use after his crash the other day. Is he a careless driver? No, definitely not. He NEVER speeds, and is very attentive and careful. Inexperienced, yes; careless, no way!
How does a passing cop giving him a ticket (apparently, almost as an afterthought) help him be more careful or a better driver? :spudwhat:
He already has the penalty of a $1k insurance excess, the trauma of the crash to get over, and now has to deal with a court appearance and whatever the judge slaps him with. Eight hours after the crash, he was still trembling and upset. :crazy:

I'll tell you how it helps: he won't be able to afford to drive on the road, especially if a conviction means he/we can't get insurance. :angry2:

Good plan. Tax/fine/intimidate as many drivers/riders off the road as possible.

Blakamin
2nd December 2004, 10:37
Just a thought, how many road deaths does Australia have a year?? about 1700 (4 times whats here)... whats the population??? a lot more that 4 times whats here...
wonder why that is??

Victoria has over 5 million people and less deaths than here.
Victoria has a 110 limit on freeways, 100 everywhere else.
SA is 110, WA 110,

Spot the one with no speed limit!

Road Fatality Rates by State/Territory, 1995/2000
Per 100 000 population
State 2000 1995
NSW 9.39 10.14
VIC 8.54 9.28
QLD 8.92 13.91
SA 11.08 12.28
WA 11.31 12.07
TAS 9.14 12.05
NT 26.09 35.08
ACT 5.79 4.93
AUST 9.52 11.17

Makes ya think about speed limits when you can compare the differences in states (unlike here)


one thing to note is the toll in ACT is up...lets hope it politicians

scumdog
2nd December 2004, 11:23
I also must admit that my view of, and satisfaction with the police has taken a backward step with my son being given a ticket for careless use after his crash the other day. Is he a careless driver? No, definitely not. He NEVER speeds, and is very attentive and careful. Inexperienced, yes; careless, no way!
How does a passing cop giving him a ticket (apparently, almost as an afterthought) help him be more careful or a better driver? :spudwhat:
He already has the penalty of a $1k insurance excess, the trauma of the crash to get over, and now has to deal with a court appearance and whatever the judge slaps him with. Eight hours after the crash, he was still trembling and upset. :crazy:

I'll tell you how it helps: he won't be able to afford to drive on the road, especially if a conviction means he/we can't get insurance. :angry2:

Good plan. Tax/fine/intimidate as many drivers/riders off the road as possible.

How DID your son crash?
IMHO it is part of life, you're young ,dumb and full of cum, you crash (don't have an "accident" these days) the law penalises you, they don't care if you have a $1,000 excess, why should the guy who has no excess because he can't afford anything other than third party insurance be penalised more because he does not have a $1,000 excess?

Careless Use - Driving in a Manner a Normal Prudent Motorist would Not. :doh:

Not winding you up, just pointing out one of lifes cruel facts. :crybaby:

If no one else involved/injured he will most likely get a moderate fine and no disqualification, good luck :2thumbsup

spudchucka
2nd December 2004, 11:23
Firestormer, I feel sorry for your son but pretty much anyone who crashes / loses control without a very good reason will find themselves charged with careless use. How else could the crash have happened if someone hadn't been careless, (please note I am NOT having a go at your boy).

Its a rough lesson for a young fella to learn and the whole family suffers through loss of no claims bonus etc. Those things are unfortuneate but not in themselves reason to not lay charges.

AMPS
2nd December 2004, 11:36
Just a thought, how many road deaths does Australia have a year?? about 1700 (4 times whats here)... whats the population??? a lot more that 4 times whats here...
wonder why that is??

Victoria has over 5 million people and less deaths than here.
Victoria has a 110 limit on freeways, 100 everywhere else.
SA is 110, WA 110,

Spot the one with no speed limit!

Road Fatality Rates by State/Territory, 1995/2000
Per 100 000 population
State 2000 1995
NSW 9.39 10.14
VIC 8.54 9.28
QLD 8.92 13.91
SA 11.08 12.28
WA 11.31 12.07
TAS 9.14 12.05
NT 26.09 35.08
ACT 5.79 4.93
AUST 9.52 11.17

Makes ya think about speed limits when you can compare the differences in states (unlike here)


one thing to note is the toll in ACT is up...lets hope it politicians


Could it be that there are fewer people travelling further in NT and WA? Distances are longer, risk of fatigue greater.
There are also a lot of multiple fatals in NT, car loads of Aborigines with drunken drivers habitually wipe themselves out.
There's more to the story than a few stats.
Fatals per 10,000 vehicles may tell an interesting story.
Lou

scumdog
2nd December 2004, 11:43
Smoke screen, smoke screens, smoke screens, yes all the variables MAY influence but at the end of the day it is a lack of policing and speed limits in NT that causes it to have three times the death rate of the next highest state death rate. :disapint: :yeah:

750Y
2nd December 2004, 11:46
If it makes people think about what they are doing and drive in a manner that doesn't attract the attention of the fuzz then its probably a worthwhile approach.

amen to that,
there's a lot of drivers out there who seem to be have their brain disconnected. I'm glad to hear less people are going splat. that's the bottom line after all...

Marmoot
2nd December 2004, 12:01
yea Lou.
As well as people's attitude, road quality, road layout, traffic arrangement, travel time of day, weather pattern, bad luck, and even genetical arrangements (overal low IQs and inter-family marriage that results in idiots on the road?) can play factor.

I always believe bi-polar discussion would lead to nowhere as none of the parties involved would consider thinking of the unthinkables.

Lou Girardin
2nd December 2004, 19:45
Thank you Mr Dog, your analytical approach is worthy of a Monash study grant. I assume from your post that German autobahns also have an extremely high fatality rate?
And, as for Firestormer junior, I'm sure that being involved in an accident that was truly an accident, then being charged for it will make him respect the Police and vow to be a better driver in future.
I only wish he defends it, this 'careless driving' bullshit is merely a catch all used to ensure that someone is held to be at fault.

Lou Girardin
2nd December 2004, 19:50
There was this one time, at band camp, and the speed limit was 80kph, then the Govt of the day bumped it up to 100kph and said there will be no tolerance for speeding, now 20 or so years later people want it bumped up to 120kph and no tolerance.....

This also is a true story :thud:

I don't recall talk of no tolerance when they increased the limit. The MOT did not, in fact, change their tolerance. I do recall how cynically I viewed the change, when not long prior I had been booking people for exceeding 80 k's.

Lou Girardin
2nd December 2004, 19:54
it used to be 100km/h, with a 20k tolerance. guys like me, scumdog, spud et al, spent our weekends scraping people off their windscreens. personally, i like the 100k with defacto 110k limit. rather that than the aussie situation with a 110k limit/5k tolerance.

Cops must be sick of scraping people off windscreens since the 'near zero' tolerance policy was introduced. Remember last year? Highest toll for some time as I recall. Even this year is only 25 or so less, despite record high fuel prices. (High fuel prices always changes vehicle usage and results in a lower road toll.)

marty
2nd December 2004, 20:55
i'll need to see some stats for that lou. in 1990, when gas was $1.10 a litre, i don't think the road toll was <500

marty
2nd December 2004, 21:01
don't worry about it - i looked it up myself. in 1990, when gas was $1.10 a litre, (and the MOT was in charge of road safety), the road toll was 729. in 2002, when gas was $0.80 a litre, the road toll was 363. i'm not sure how that equates to your bracketed comment above lou, but if it does, please enlighten me.

speedpro
2nd December 2004, 21:17
Just a thought, how many road deaths does Australia have a year?? about 1700 (4 times whats here)... whats the population??? a lot more that 4 times whats here...
wonder why that is??

Victoria has over 5 million people and less deaths than here.
Victoria has a 110 limit on freeways, 100 everywhere else.
SA is 110, WA 110,

Spot the one with no speed limit!

Road Fatality Rates by State/Territory, 1995/2000
Per 100 000 population
State 2000 1995
NSW 9.39 10.14
VIC 8.54 9.28
QLD 8.92 13.91
SA 11.08 12.28
WA 11.31 12.07
TAS 9.14 12.05
NT 26.09 35.08
ACT 5.79 4.93
AUST 9.52 11.17

Makes ya think about speed limits when you can compare the differences in states (unlike here)


one thing to note is the toll in ACT is up...lets hope it politicians

Stats in this case mean nothing on their own. If the discussion was about the proportion of young males working in high paying remote jobs then the stats could support the hypothesis that they are more likely to be involved in a fatal crash. What about the roads as well - they are mostly red dust/gravel. From experiance, they are quite safe to do very high speeds on. In fact they can be a good test of a vehicles ability to sustain high speeds over long distances. Hilux gearboxes tend to fall out if you keep your foot in it long enough, for example. The NT cops will still book you if you are travelling faster than the vehicle or conditions suggest is safe.

marty
2nd December 2004, 21:49
and the 110kmh freeway limit is on separated motorway, of which i think there is about 200km of it in NZ (i know it is exactly 100km from mercer to orewa on sh1, plus there is the north western, sh20, and some in wellington and chch). oh that's right - hamilton has got 3 kms worth too! and there's some between whangarei and kamo...

scumdog
3rd December 2004, 01:32
I don't recall talk of no tolerance when they increased the limit. The MOT did not, in fact, change their tolerance. I do recall how cynically I viewed the change, when not long prior I had been booking people for exceeding 80 k's.

There WAS extensive publicity prior to the 'new' speed limit along the lines of "o.k. we gave you the speed limit you all wanted but by hokey anybody exceeding it will be penalised severely" or something like that, there was a fair bit on the radio & newspapers about it, I can remember it well, especially as on the first day of the new limit (a Sunday I believe) my mate and I were sprung exceeding it while having a friendly "acceleration contest" - he got the ticket. :laugh:

scumdog
3rd December 2004, 01:39
Cops must be sick of scraping people off windscreens since the 'near zero' tolerance policy was introduced. Remember last year? Highest toll for some time as I recall. Even this year is only 25 or so less, despite record high fuel prices. (High fuel prices always changes vehicle usage and results in a lower road toll.)

And how many more vehicles are on the road now?

For example, in 1985 I wanted a no. plate with a specific letter prefix (pre-personalised plate days!) and was told "we don't issue plates more than 2 years ahead of there due date and for those letters the due date is 2002" guess what? -the plates with that set up came and went by 1997!!!

So at a guess there were 5 years worth of extra cars on the road by that date that the government had not anticipated. (the Jap imports did it I'd say)

AMPS
3rd December 2004, 07:31
don't worry about it - i looked it up myself. in 1990, when gas was $1.10 a litre, (and the MOT was in charge of road safety), the road toll was 729. in 2002, when gas was $0.80 a litre, the road toll was 363. i'm not sure how that equates to your bracketed comment above lou, but if it does, please enlighten me.

Let me clarify, my post was murky after a couple of wines. I should have said when fuel prices spike suddenly, there is a change in vehicle usage for a period until the public get used to them. That's why the road toll dropped earlier this year and the LTSA crowed about the success of the 'anywhere, anytime' camera policy. Unfortunately it also co-incided with the first major fuel price jump. When we get used to these prices we'll start killing each other with gay abandon again.
There is a similar effect caused by bad weather during holiday periods.

spudchucka
3rd December 2004, 12:21
Stats in this case mean nothing on their own.
Stats in every case mean nothing on their own. Every organisation that uses stats does so to promote their own cause and therefore they should not be taken as being written in blood, (yes Lou, even the police and LTSA).

spudchucka
3rd December 2004, 12:26
Let me clarify, my post was murky after a couple of wines. I should have said when fuel prices spike suddenly, there is a change in vehicle usage for a period until the public get used to them. That's why the road toll dropped earlier this year and the LTSA crowed about the success of the 'anywhere, anytime' camera policy. Unfortunately it also co-incided with the first major fuel price jump. When we get used to these prices we'll start killing each other with gay abandon again.
There is a similar effect caused by bad weather during holiday periods.
Thats putting a bloody simplistic spin on the whole debate. All the crash stats and dreaded Monash uni research are crap and the whole reason the road toll rises or falls is due to the price of petrol and the weather. How many wines did you have Lou?

Marmoot
3rd December 2004, 12:32
Wait until US invades NZ....the roadside fatalities would zoom up pretty high :)
As would the household fatalities due to inaccurate bombings :)

scumdog
3rd December 2004, 12:42
Wait until US invades NZ....the roadside fatalities would zoom up pretty high :)
As would the household fatalities due to inaccurate bombings :)

'Specially with them driving on the right-hand side of the road and us on the left :wacko: :whistle:

Marmoot
3rd December 2004, 12:44
'Specially with them driving on the right-hand side of the road and us on the left :wacko: :whistle:

Scary eh?
That's why we need to let Maori protesters to start charging people for using foreshore and beaches. That way the Americans would be a bit mroe reluctant to land their forces here. Imagine the cost!

Sniper
3rd December 2004, 13:00
Scary eh?
That's why we need to let Maori protesters to start charging people for using foreshore and beaches. That way the Americans would be a bit mroe reluctant to land their forces here. Imagine the cost!

Shit Sky is getting expensive, I would hate to pay for Beach and foreshore too :gob: :eek: :buggerd:

Jackrat
3rd December 2004, 13:07
Rides a cruiser, as does his missus who commutes to Wellington?
Your on to it :yeah:

marty
3rd December 2004, 19:04
thanks for that lou. alcohol is a great excuse. a little bit of it never killed anyone. i just thought you were spouting off your usual shite again, so thanks again for clearing that one up.

spudchucka
5th December 2004, 12:34
Thats putting a bloody simplistic spin on the whole debate. All the crash stats and dreaded Monash uni research are crap and the whole reason the road toll rises or falls is due to the price of petrol and the weather. How many wines did you have Lou?
I'll have to take it back. The price of fuel droped on Friday & 5 people were killed on the roads on Saturday. Go figure?? Good thing the weather was a bit shitty or it might have been 10 or more!