View Full Version : Another speed camera rant, anyone had a Reminder Notice recently?
jaykay
25th April 2008, 11:54
Here's how a speed camera ticket is supposed to work.
1 Police send Infringement Notice.
2 If you don't do anything and the Police want to continue the proceedings they have to send a Reminder Notice with substantially the same particulars as the original notice.
3 If you don't either pay or request a hearing within 28 days the Reminder notice is lodged with the court as an unpaid fine. (The fine is for not paying the infringement fee, not for the original offence!).
A friend of mine had an Infringement Notice early February - to the address where the car is registered. Just about the time the Reminder Notice was due to sent a High Court judge pointed out that ALL the Police Reminder Notices were wrongly worded - so I assumed there would be a delay whilst it was sorted.
Wrong - a Notice of Fine turned up recently (remembering this can only follow from an unpaid Reminder Notice), to a totally different address - his mothers - which he hasn't used for ten years.
What's happened? Who has decided first of all not to send a Reminder Notice, and then to lodge it with the court as an unpaid fine with a different address. Someone is either totally incompetent or dishonest - and if the Police can get something as trivial as this completely wrong how can they be trusted with anything important?
In order to sort all this out it will be necessary to fill in Forms at the court, which takes time and effort - the only consolation is that done the right way the original fine won't need paying.
Whic brings me on to my second point - does anyone have a recent Reminder Notice? I want to see what changes the Police have made so it complies with the law. On the reverse will be "notes to defendant" - anyone tell me how the paragraph concerning how you request a hearing is worded?
firefighter
25th April 2008, 12:02
Yep, well they shouldn't be trusted to help you when in need, since theyr'e so incompetent......perhaps if you ever need police assistance and you dont trust them dont call them, maybe you should be pissed at the couts and civilian administrators...... who deal with that shit,dont just blame the police,law enforcers not writers, perhaps they are busier with their limited resources and the speeding ticket which was deserved was given a bit of a back seat in the big scheme of things......just my 2cents
dont be so quick to bad mouth the police, there's enough of that around.....
McJim
25th April 2008, 12:14
and if the Police can get something as trivial as this completely wrong how can they be trusted with anything important?
I'm quite comfortable with the Police concentrating on the important and fucking up the trivial. Assuming that a simple and fairly unimportant facet is incorrect is due to incompetence throughout an organisation is an argument commonly utilised by the intellectually impaired.
firefighter
25th April 2008, 12:48
I'm quite comfortable with the Police concentrating on the important and fucking up the trivial. Assuming that a simple and fairly unimportant facet is incorrect is due to incompetence throughout an organisation is an argument commonly utilised by the intellectually impaired.
exactly, and it's all civilians and the courts that handle the speeding tickets not the police anyway!
Number One
25th April 2008, 14:27
does anyone have a recent Reminder Notice? I want to see what changes the Police have made so it complies with the law. On the reverse will be "notes to defendant" - anyone tell me how the paragraph concerning how you request a hearing is worded?
quote
Further Action
2: If you wish to raise any matter relating to the circumstances of the alleged offence, you should do so by writing to the informatnt at the address shown on the front page of this notice within 28 days after service of this notice.
3:If you wish to deny liability in respect of the alleged offence, you must, within 28 days after the service of this notice, write to the informant at the address shown on the front page of this notice requesting a hearing in respect of the offence. The information will then, if it decides to commence court proceedings in respect oft he offence, serve you with a notice of hearing setting out the place and time at which the matter will be heard by the Court.
NOTE: If the Court finds you guilty of the offence, costs will be imposed in addition to any penalty.
end quote
jaykay
26th April 2008, 15:48
This was the wording on the back of Reminder Notices prior to early March - I understood it had been changed.
This wording says you have to write within 28 days (of service), the law says the police have to receive it within 28 days.
I have a number of letters from the Police telling people their request for a hearing was received too late, despite them writing and posting them within 28 days exactly as specified on the paperwork.
If anyone has a Reminder Notice with a due date after 10th April, I am still interested to know if the wording is the same as the previous post, or if it has been changed as a High Court judge strongly suggested in early March.
Kickaha
26th April 2008, 16:12
If anyone has a Reminder Notice with a due date after 10th April, I am still interested to know if the wording is the same as the previous post, or if it has been changed as a High Court judge strongly suggested in early March.
Yes It has been changed
Number One
26th April 2008, 18:36
If anyone has a Reminder Notice with a due date after 10th April, I am still interested to know if the wording is the same as the previous post, or if it has been changed as a High Court judge strongly suggested in early March.
If it's changed they've cut it fine then....my one is due to be paid on the 4 April.....
jaykay
26th April 2008, 19:53
What has the wording been changed to?
Soul.Trader
28th April 2008, 05:51
Does it really matter? Just pay the fine and be done with it.
Bren
28th April 2008, 06:15
Ya know a sure fire way to avoid this bullshit? DONT SPEED....Guaranteed to Work...It has for me!
Swoop
28th April 2008, 09:13
What has the wording been changed to?
Does it matter? Whatever the wording on the document that you have been sent is enough. If you want to question the "new" wording, you had better get down to the court and have a chat with the registrar or someone else in a position to do something about it.
ynot slow
29th April 2008, 18:28
Have to laugh at times,I had a P.O.Box after I seperated,stopped me recieving shit from the ex,only thing was when you got speed camera or parking tickets they went to your residential address,no problem with that except I was living in a rural delivery area,and the ticket etc never arrived.Found out one time when I saw the meter maid(and a hot one too)give my car a ticket,didn't worry about it at the time as I had to finish what I was doing.Went back to my car and the ticket was gone,waited a couple of weeks and rang the council,they said yep it is due within the next month,I said when did you send it,they said 3 weeks ago to ....RdRD... etc,I said why not post it to my P O Box,she said it is sent to a physical address,to which I said fine but noone is home from 7.30 till 5.30.Moral learnt was check if in doubt.
Similar thing happened with my mum and her husband,they found out the same way when they were picked up in a routine checkpoint,was told you have outstanding fines,they checked it out and had one due the next day.
Patrick
2nd May 2008, 11:56
Here's how a speed camera ticket is supposed to work.
Two steps....
1. You speed, you get ticket.
2. You pay fine.
Or, put it thorugh the complicator....
- deny you were, even if you were...?
- find a loop hole from some wording on the back, which has absolutely nothing to do witht he fact you were speeding anyway...?
- defend it in court, because you were actually speeding...?
- go on KB and whinge about it...?
Hmmm....
Gotta go now to pay the 2 I got the other week... A Camera van outside a school at 8.10am 56kmph (going to the shop for bread for kids lunches) and 8.16am 58kmph (going home again with the bread). Schools aren't even open then, but... oh well...
jaykay
4th May 2008, 15:44
As with any ticket you have to receive a Reminder Notice. The Police or Council will try and say that sending one in the post is sufficient - it isn't. In law you MUST be served with one.
If you end up with a Notice of Fine without a Reminder Notice you should go and fill in a Form 57 at the court. This puts the fine on hold and it cannot be enforced until you receive a response, usually with another Reminder Notice being sent, which gives another 28 days to pay. At the very least this avoids the court costs added on.
Even better is to delay filling in a Form 57 until five months from the date of the alleged offence. The due date of another Reminder Notice will then be over six months from the date of the alleged offence.
Why is this relevant? Because an unpaid Reminder Notice HAS to be filed in a court within six months of the date of the alleged offence to be legal - and a Notice of Hearing (if you request one) also HAS to be dated within six months.
I've been trying to get an out of date Reminder Notice into court for the past two or three years, either the Police end up dropping the case or the court is very slow in chasing up unpaid fines. Unless anyone knows any different a friend of mine holds the record at present - court hasn't chased him for well over a year. When/if they ever do........he will fill in a Form 57 as his request for a hearing was routinely ignored - get another Reminder Notice...and we will chalk up another victory.
Banesto John
18th May 2008, 09:48
As with any ticket you have to receive a Reminder Notice. The Police or Council will try and say that sending one in the post is sufficient - it isn't. In law you MUST be served with one.
Please advise the law that says that "you MUST be served with one." (Your quote).
The Summary Proceeding Act says.......
"the Registrar shall deliver to the defendant or send to the defendant by ordinary post addressed to the defendant's last known place of residence or business, a notice of the fine."
As far as I can see, if you filled out a motor vehicle registration document 2 years ago (for example) saying you lived at a particular place, this then entitles them to send it by ordinary post to that address.
I'll look forward to your advice as to what law says they have to serve the reminder notice. I have found some of your legal advice to be "interesting", and at variance with actual statute.
Banesto John
18th May 2008, 09:52
Isn't it interesting how, when people get caught doing something, their immediate reaction is to deflect blame? It's revenue collecting, what about the boy racers, go catch a gang member, the ticket was written incorrectly?
This looks like another case of blame deflection.
Like, when will it be that people accept responsibility for what they did wrong, and just get on with life. I don't believe anyone ever said we have to be perfect, so admit you were speeding, and move on.
Perversely, I'd also suggest that if the notices are wrong, the feds just take it on the chin, fix the problem and move on.
Why can't we ever look in the mirror and accept that we made a mistake?
Patrick
18th May 2008, 14:39
No no no... its the wording on the back of the ticket that made him speed... apparently.....
swbarnett
18th May 2008, 16:01
Like, when will it be that people accept responsibility for what they did wrong, and just get on with life.
While I don't usually jump up and down bleating about the injustice of a speeding ticket, I, and many others, don't accept that we were doing anything wrong. It has been shown time and time again that speed alone does not reduce public safety.
awayatc
18th May 2008, 16:47
While I don't usually jump up and down bleating about the injustice of a speeding ticket, I, and many others, don't accept that we were doing anything wrong. It has been shown time and time again that speed alone does not reduce public safety.
The world would be a colourless place if we all just meekly obeyed by the rules, and never questioned anything or pushed the boundaries.:wari:
Recently Nana brings up its dependants to be perfect public servants, become a glorified human automatum to "Do as you are told"......" follow the rules".....:baby:
If you don't push the boundaries, you should at least check em periodicly..:2thumbsup
scumdog
18th May 2008, 18:05
While I don't usually jump up and down bleating about the injustice of a speeding ticket, I, and many others, don't accept that we were doing anything wrong. It has been shown time and time again that speed alone does not reduce public safety.
Who fucking cares -IT'S THE LAW.
Like driving on the left-hand side of the road or not drinking and driving etc
Don't worry about all the 'speed kills' stuff - just accept it's the law.
Sheesh, how hard is that???:rolleyes:
swbarnett
18th May 2008, 20:52
Who fucking cares -IT'S THE LAW.
Like driving on the left-hand side of the road or not drinking and driving etc
Don't worry about all the 'speed kills' stuff - just accept it's the law.
Sheesh, how hard is that???:rolleyes:
If someone passed a law making alcohol illegal would you stop drinking?
scumdog
18th May 2008, 20:57
If someone passed a law making alcohol illegal would you stop drinking?
Probably.
But one thing I WOULDN'T do is moan my frikkin' arse off about how unfair it was and how the anti-drinking messages were shit etc etc...
awayatc
18th May 2008, 20:59
If someone passed a law making alcohol illegal would you stop drinking?
While on duty you mean?......:innocent:
Mr Triple
18th May 2008, 21:14
The world would be a colourless place if we all just meekly obeyed by the rules, and never questioned anything or pushed the boundaries.:wari:
Recently Nana brings up its dependants to be perfect public servants, become a glorified human automatum to "Do as you are told"......" follow the rules".....:baby:
If you don't push the boundaries, you should at least check em periodicly..:2thumbsup
You'd be used to speed cameras in your town, they're there every second day. :2thumbsup
swbarnett
18th May 2008, 21:58
Probably.
But one thing I WOULDN'T do is moan my frikkin' arse off about how unfair it was and how the anti-drinking messages were shit etc etc...
With an attitude like that it's no wonder the Government gets away with so much.
I don't generally moan about the speed issue either. I've long since given up expecting a majority of the country to understand what it means to live (as opposed to just surviving). I will however try and put my side of the story when the subject comes up.
scumdog
18th May 2008, 22:27
With an attitude like that it's no wonder the Government gets away with so much.
I don't generally moan about the speed issue either. I've long since given up expecting a majority of the country to understand what it means to live (as opposed to just surviving). I will however try and put my side of the story when the subject comes up.
How noble of you:rolleyes:
Ixion
18th May 2008, 22:40
Who fucking cares -IT'S THE LAW.
Like driving on the left-hand side of the road or not drinking and driving etc
Don't worry about all the 'speed kills' stuff - just accept it's the law.
Sheesh, how hard is that???:rolleyes:
So is parking a cage and not returning before the meter runs out. If I do, and get a parking ticket, I will sigh, but pay without major complaint. It is just another tax laoded onto us by a capitalist government. But I will certainly object if some prat of a parking warden tries to cast me as a criminal for over parking.
So likewise with speeding. If caught, I pay the tax. But you would receive a sharp dressing down if you tried to come the "criminal" lark.
I must in fairness say that the only two speeding tickets I have ever recieved were handled in a professional and straight forward manner. "Clocked you at xxx. Want to see the reading. No, OK here's the ticket." Just like a parking ticket.
Probably.
But one thing I WOULDN'T do is moan my frikkin' arse off about how unfair it was and how the anti-drinking messages were shit etc etc...
Which makes me wonder how much you would stop doing if some reality-detached bureacrat decided to introduce a bill against it, and got his politically weak-minded fellow party members to go along with it.
Whilst I have a massive problem with the way road safety is (or isn't) promoted in New Zealand, getting speeding tickets is simply part of the risk you take every time you go out and enjoy yourself. Getting a ticket is not unfair. But it's certainly absolutely pointless, of not completely counter-productive, in terms of road safety. But it does increase the government's revenue and allow the Police to claim they're doing something, even if that something is actually making things worse.
The link between speeding and the road toll is simply not there, as any examination of the road toll, injuries, average speed and enforcement figures over the past few years. Not even such KB luminaries as SD have managed to come up with a convicing reason why with more tickets issued (an increase of almost 400%) and resulting lower road speeds, injuries and fatalities have gone up.
So, there really is no point in complaining about getting a ticket, especially with the preaching holier-than-thou hypocrites that infest this particular forum. Pay it, get over it, and then do something about the system that allows the situation to continue.
awayatc
18th May 2008, 23:15
You'd be used to speed cameras in your town, they're there every second day. :2thumbsup
Luckily I am only there every other month.....:banana:
But yes I know how American humvee drivers must feel avoiding ambushes in Iraq......:chase:
Banesto John
19th May 2008, 07:52
It has been shown time and time again that speed alone does not reduce public safety.
Oh so correct. Speed alone does not reduce public safety.
Please tell me how it is that we could make every driver so good that speed alone would be the only factor, so then it couldn't hurt anyone.
In the meantime, given that we all regard each other as the worst drivers in the world, I guess that rules out the speed-alone factor, as if we are such bad drivers, speed would rarely be the only factor in a crash.
What is clear is that whatever reason a crash happens for (cages or bikes, regardless of fault), the greater the kinetic energy dissipated, the greater the trauma.
So, on the distant day that everyone is a fantastic driver, I'd agree with increasing, even abolishing speed limits. Until then, I'd rather have the general vehicle fleet travelling a little slower, so when the crashes happen, they don't ouch so much.
swbarnett
19th May 2008, 11:38
I'd rather have the general vehicle fleet travelling a little slower, so when the crashes happen, they don't ouch so much.
While I agree with you that the faster you hit the greater the consequences, reducing the average speed of the vehicle fleet has been shown to have no affect on the road toll.
What you're talking about are the physics of an individual accident. What I'm talking about is the statistical relationship (actually the lack of it) between the average speed of the vehicle fleet and the road toll for the entire driving population.
scumdog
19th May 2008, 12:47
While I agree with you that the faster you hit the greater the consequences, reducing the average speed of the vehicle fleet has been shown to have no affect on the road toll.
What you're talking about are the physics of an individual accident. What I'm talking about is the statistical relationship (actually the lack of it) between the average speed of the vehicle fleet and the road toll for the entire driving population.
Well I bet all that is a great comfort to the two dead people in the ute that crashed up the road on Saturday night...
Ixion
19th May 2008, 12:52
So, they would have been saved if there had been a speed camera there ?
scumdog
19th May 2008, 12:56
So, they would have been saved if there had been a speed camera there ?
Yup.
Because a speed camera would have done less damage than the bridge they hit.
swbarnett
19th May 2008, 16:59
Well I bet all that is a great comfort to the two dead people in the ute that crashed up the road on Saturday night...
Perhaps they would be alive now if they had been travelling slower, perhaps not. This is not the point. The point is that, as a population, the number of deaths does not decrease as a result of a drop in the average speed of the vehicle fleet.
Riding or driving comes with inherent risks. With the number of vehicles on the road today people will die as a result of accidents and there's nothing we can do about it short of banning cars (then people will find some other way to kill themselves).
I'm not against measures that have some chance of reducing the road toll but I do get annoyed when our freedoms are curtailed in the name of public safety when it is abundantly clear that those freedoms do not contribute to the road toll.
scumdog
19th May 2008, 17:10
The point is that, as a population, the number of deaths does not decrease as a result of a drop in the average speed of the vehicle fleet.
Riding or driving comes with inherent risks. With the number of vehicles on the road today people will die as a result of accidents and there's nothing we can do about it short of banning cars (then people will find some other way to kill themselves).
I'm not against measures that have some chance of reducing the road toll but I do get annoyed when our freedoms are curtailed in the name of public safety when it is abundantly clear that those freedoms do not contribute to the road toll.
Soooo... The road toll would not increase at all if the speed limit was raised?
Regardless, the sheer number of vehicles on the road at present combined with population growth and paltry ineffective Court imposed penalties in addition to a drivers licence that is wayy too easy to get (and at too early an age) are going to make sure not many undertakers will go bankrupt.
Sadly for some.
peasea
19th May 2008, 17:28
[QUOTE=scumdog;1569939]Soooo... The road toll would not increase at all if the speed limit was raised?
QUOTE]
It has been so proven, because people don't get impatient and pull stupid overtaking stunts if the cruising speed is comfortable. 100kph on a dead straight road isn't comfortable. I can't be arsed finding the stats but in many instances raising the speed limit has resulted in fewer deaths per capita.
You can't explain that to the NZ authorities though, coz they're fuckwits.
scumdog
19th May 2008, 17:46
[QUOTE=scumdog;1569939]Soooo... The road toll would not increase at all if the speed limit was raised?
QUOTE]
It has been so proven, because people don't get impatient and pull stupid overtaking stunts if the cruising speed is comfortable. 100kph on a dead straight road isn't comfortable. I can't be arsed finding the stats but in many instances raising the speed limit has resulted in fewer deaths per capita.
You can't explain that to the NZ authorities though, coz they're fuckwits.
And where would go to for their next source of revenue if the limit was raised eh??
It seems a change of government from Sir Helen and her band of hoods would be a good thing - and soon.
peasea
19th May 2008, 18:03
[QUOTE=peasea;1569983]
And where would go to for their next source of revenue if the limit was raised eh??
It seems a change of government from Sir Helen and her band of hoods would be a good thing - and soon.
Seriously???
I'd be much happier if the fine for failing to signal a lane change (or similar stupid act) was upped to 250 bucks or more and the speed limit raised to 115 or even 120 in some places, then to exceed that more sensible limit the fines/demerits could be heavier.
Let's not forget that when speed cameras were introduced the catchcry was that they were there to nab the "top ten percent" of speedsters. It was bullshit then and it's still bullshit today. The top ten percenters (way more scary than 1%'ers) either simply pay up or add it to the tab until a judge waives the total.
Most of the revenue comes from the average kiwi who transgresses minimally.
peasea
19th May 2008, 18:05
PS: You're right about the government.
Banesto John
19th May 2008, 20:34
[QUOTE=scumdog;1570025]
Let's not forget that when speed cameras were introduced the catchcry was that they were there to nab the "top ten percent" of speedsters. It was bullshit then and it's still bullshit today. The top ten percenters (way more scary than 1%'ers) either simply pay up or add it to the tab until a judge waives the total.
The 85th percentile was the basis of the original speed camera settings. It is an internationally recognized standard. The way it was used was silly. Still, it's long gone.
Cameras snap a very small percentage, and they are the ones that moan the loudest. Ironically, they are the ones with the power to avoid being snapped, by slowing down.
Sick of tickets? Don't speed.
peasea
19th May 2008, 20:50
[QUOTE=peasea;1570059]
The 85th percentile was the basis of the original speed camera settings. It is an internationally recognized standard. The way it was used was silly. Still, it's long gone.
Cameras snap a very small percentage, and they are the ones that moan the loudest. Ironically, they are the ones with the power to avoid being snapped, by slowing down.
Sick of tickets? Don't speed.
Yes, massa, please don't beat me, massa.
IMHO the speed limit is too low for certain areas, that's all.
Sick of tickets? Don't stop!
mashman
19th May 2008, 21:59
I kinda like the idea for speed cameras to a certain extent. They have their place in inner city areas, although there are quite a few that are out to just catch the speeder on the straights. You may well argue that that's the point, but it was sold as a health and safety issue. The idea was to stop people speeding through high risk crash areas under the guise of you're going too fast, ergo you're gonna crash and that's where I disagree with speed cameras. Speed is very rarely the only factor in a crash... From what i;ve seen on the roads it's the road conditions and condition of the roads, coupled with speed (sometimes, perhaps even most of the time) that causes most of the crashes. When the sun is low in the sky of a morning or an evening, the crash rate goes up. When it's been raining the crash rate goes up. I truley believe that driver education is the only way to bring a death toll down... but as mentioned above Driving Nirvana will never happen and the only good speed cameras do on highways is to burn a little brake dust whilst the vehicle is in range before cranking on the power again... It's a no win argument.
Clockwork
20th May 2008, 13:37
Oh so correct. Speed alone does not reduce public safety.
Please tell me how it is that we could make every driver so good that speed alone would be the only factor, so then it couldn't hurt anyone.
In the meantime, given that we all regard each other as the worst drivers in the world, I guess that rules out the speed-alone factor, as if we are such bad drivers, speed would rarely be the only factor in a crash.
What is clear is that whatever reason a crash happens for (cages or bikes, regardless of fault), the greater the kinetic energy dissipated, the greater the trauma.
So, on the distant day that everyone is a fantastic driver, I'd agree with increasing, even abolishing speed limits. Until then, I'd rather have the general vehicle fleet travelling a little slower, so when the crashes happen, they don't ouch so much.
Oh, well if its all about kinetic energy then since a motorbike carries a lot less than a car at 100kph perhaps bikes should be allowed to go faster and for that matter maybe trucks should be required to go slower.
peasea
20th May 2008, 17:51
Oh, well if its all about kinetic energy then since a motorbike carries a lot less than a car at 100kph perhaps bikes should be allowed to go faster and for that matter maybe trucks should be required to go slower.
However, they recently upped the limit for truck and trailer to 90kph didn't they? That means you gotta go another 10kph minimum to get past the rolling bricks. Sounds like entrapment to me, but then I'm a conspiracy theorist.
scumdog
20th May 2008, 17:56
However, they recently upped the limit for truck and trailer to 90kph didn't they? That means you gotta go another 10kph minimum to get past the rolling bricks. Sounds like entrapment to me, but then I'm a conspiracy theorist.
I agree.
Shoulda been lft as it was -or bumped up to 100kph like all the other traffic.:mad:
Patrick
20th May 2008, 17:59
the number of deaths does not decrease as a result of a drop in the average speed of the vehicle fleet.
Yeah it does, they have the figures somewhere.... The speed average has lowered as have the death rates, even though there are more cars/people on the roads. But then the other side is that cars are safer with airbags, abs etc etc. Speed alone isn't the problem, but it is a problem... Always amazes me how no one does stupid overtaking shit when there is a marked patrol car around....
wickle
20th May 2008, 18:04
speed limit or just above what about those crawlers on the open road sometimes they are just as bad and danrerous as the GO FAST BOYS
Soooo... The road toll would not increase at all if the speed limit was raised?
Regardless, the sheer number of vehicles on the road at present combined with population growth and paltry ineffective Court imposed penalties in addition to a drivers licence that is wayy too easy to get (and at too early an age) are going to make sure not many undertakers will go bankrupt.
Sadly for some.
Examine the statistics of road toll vs average open road speed for the years between 1999 and 2005 (2005 being the latest year they're available). Now add hospitalisations into the mix. Now look at how the number of speed-related tickets has quadrupled in that time.
Look at all the figures, conveniently supplied by the government, and unless you're particularly stupid or a politician, you come up with the interesting statistic that in New Zealand, average road speed dropped and the road toll increased slightly and serious injuries went up by about 12%.
Now examine the road toll is those states in the US where they raised the speed limit in 1995. Oooh, look! They fell. Yes, we don't have US Interstate-class highways in NZ but as a demnstration of how if average road speed increases the road toll drops, it's a good one. It's also about the only place in the word where the speed limit HAS increased in recent years.
Lowering road speed does not lower road toll. Increased speed enforcement does not lower road toll. There's not a western country on the planet where that's the case. Victoria, often hailed by NZ as the road saftey poster-child, has exactly the same problem but, like NZ, they still think that even harsher enforcement is the answer. All the evidence from the UK, would suggest that strictrer enforcement equals higher road toll. The best police area in the UK when it comes to road toll is County Durham. They have just one speed camera.
So who's the blame? The government for being incredibly greedy and simply using speeding-fine revenue as a stealth tax, or the Police for being incredibly stupid and going along with whatever the government say? Take your pick. They're both equally culpable in my eyes.
Yeah it does, they have the figures somewhere.... The speed average has lowered as have the death rates, even though there are more cars/people on the roads. But then the other side is that cars are safer with airbags, abs etc etc. Speed alone isn't the problem, but it is a problem... Always amazes me how no one does stupid overtaking shit when there is a marked patrol car around....
Wrong, Mr Patrick. The road toll has not lowered consistently since 2001, when the current speed-above-all-else focus came in. There was a steady year-on-year downward trend between 1990 and 2001. Since then, the trend has reversed. The figures are the government's, not some pressure groups, so one cannot be accused of massaging them.
And the problem isn't, and never has been, exceeding the speed limit. Even the government, in a desperate attempt to justify their demonstrably failing tactics, deliberately do not break down accident causes into "speed to fast for the conditions" (always dangerous) and "speed in excess of the posted limit" (never dangerous, unless also too fast for the conditions). They lump them together as one.
I can't be bothered to type them all out again, so here's a link to a quick precis of the statistics:
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?p=1538097#post1538097
mashman
20th May 2008, 23:39
The thing that irks me the most is that the data is available to a select few. Before I came over to Nz i worked at a small company in the UK who started providing the online "Check your car sites". The only way to substantiate the condition of a car was to compare the DVLA record to the ABI (Association of British Insurers) record. Now this ABI data wasn't overly comprehensive, but it did contain dates and times of crashes. After pithin about for a while finding out which CC range was most likely to have an accident (125 - 250 ... huh wonder why!!!) I decided to have a look at the seasonal aspects. I wish I could remember the exact figures, but from September to February the number of crashes rose drastically, about 26 percent sticks in my head for some reason)... anyhoo, that autumn coming into winter... the sun is lower in the sky when commuting (granted more cars on the road during peak hours and nose to tail was top of the list), but at those times of year, when the sun isn't their, the roads get greasy, temperatures are minus in the evenings, roads ice etc... I'm sure you can see where I'm going with that... It was literally 4 agencies in the UK that had this information... Shame we never mined the information and lobbied with it as it was an eye opener and needed more quantifying... but the company went bust not being able to keep up with the big boys... There'll be a database somewhere that contains this information and I despare at the lack of use on this information when it comes to policy making... I blame the insurance companies first for not providing an analysis that's useful for the politicians to actually make a decent policy with (same can be said for most policies, commissions full of idiots that don't really know what they're looking for, trying to squeeze the facts to fit the policy) blah blah rant rant... it's annoyed the shit out of me for years and it's all coming out, waaaaaahhh, i feel so alone and lost in the lonely blackness :bash: pass me a hammer!!!!
scumdog
21st May 2008, 08:07
So who's the blame? The government for being incredibly greedy and simply using speeding-fine revenue as a stealth tax, or the Police for being incredibly stupid and going along with whatever the government say? Take your pick. They're both equally culpable in my eyes.
Mwahaha...so you would be quite happy for Police to ignore what the Governement say AS LONG AS IT SUITED YOUR AGENDA???:confused:
The 'increase in the road toll' in the main can be attributed to the ongoing stupidity, drunkeness and outright dangerous driving (yes, at times that includes speeding) by the majority of those that cause crashes, sure, enforcement ain't going to STOP it, maybe just keep a relative lid on it.
But I'm waiting for YOUR 'silver-bullet' answer to the road toll.:wait:
mashman
21st May 2008, 08:59
The silver-bullet is being developed... It takes the drivers out of the loop and replaces it with computers... Might be worth extending the driving test to include a trip around a skid pan so that drivers get the idea behind dry and wet as well as different road surfaces... Driver education may well not be a silver bullet, but until you've experienced varying road conditions and learn to drive in them and how they affect the cars handling blah blah blah
Mwahaha...so you would be quite happy for Police to ignore what the Governement say AS LONG AS IT SUITED YOUR AGENDA???:confused:
Of course I'd be happy with that. People are happy with governments that do things they agree with and don't do things they don't agree with. Why should this be any different?
The 'increase in the road toll' in the main can be attributed to the ongoing stupidity, drunkeness and outright dangerous driving (yes, at times that includes speeding) by the majority of those that cause crashes, sure, enforcement ain't going to STOP it, maybe just keep a relative lid on it.
But it isn't keeping a relative lid on it, is it? A massive increase in enforcement has resulted in an increase in the road toll and serious injuries, despite lowering of average road speed. Over-zealous enforcement, concentrating on the wrong areas, has not kept a lid on anything, it's become a large part of the problem.
But I'm waiting for YOUR 'silver-bullet' answer to the road toll.:wait:
Give me the silver bullet and you'd end up with a very high road toll -stupid / slow drivers shot for being too stupid or indecisive or slow or having daft bumper stickers or riding Suzukis or any other of a whole raft of reasons made up on the spot. Trust me, it'd sort out a lot of problems.
Back back in a world where I'm not allowed to summarily execute people I don't like, I don't have all the answers. In fact, I don't have many of them. But given that the current tactics are demonstrably failing miserably (unless the aim of them was to increase government revenue), surely the government and other interested parties should be encouraging debate on possible alternative solutions.
But since you ask, here's my quick list of solutions:
Build some decent fucking roads. Ban further use of chip-seal immediately. Investigate plans to four-lane between Auckland and Wellington and fast-track it though the RM process.
Introduce compulsory retesting every five years, and make the testing and retesting procedure much more rigorous. Tests and retests can only be conducted in English; no translators allowed. Included in the test is a confidence-in-vehicle component. Anyone who drives excessively slowly or indecisively fails.
Lower the amount of time one's allowed to drive on a foreign licence down from a year to three months. Make presentation of a licence a pre-requisite of registration of a vehicle.
Increase open road speed limits to 110kph and 130kph on motorways.
Allow speeds up to 130kph whilst overtaking either in overtaking lanes or on single-lane roads. Ban trucks from overtaking in overtaking lanes.
Enforce the drive in the left-hand lane unless overtaking on motorways rule.
Remove all speed cameras unless they're directly before accident blackspots. These figures to be published. All fixed speed cameras to be clearly visible and advertised no more than 100m in advance. Adopt the Queensland and NSW tactic of making the cameras visible. They work as a deterrent when people can see them clearly, so make them visible unless you wold prefer people to speed and pay fines.
Get rid of camera vans. Cops not allowed to run stationary speed traps.
Put more red light cameras in, especially at junctions where past history would indicate it's a problem. Also look at phasing and timing of lights (especially in Auckland City) where the light phasing seems to be designed to ensure as much congestion as possible. Better phasing would automatically result in fewer people running red lights.
Introduce a power-to-weight restriction for learner and restriced licence holders, similar in concept to the soon-to-be-introduced LAMS list for motorbikes.
Ixion
21st May 2008, 13:16
But since you ask, here's my quick list of solutions:
Build some decent fucking roads. Ban further use of chip-seal immediately. Investigate plans to four-lane between Auckland and Wellington and fast-track it though the RM process.
..
I disagree. Roads are too good nowdays. Build some crappy roads. One reason for the high toll is that the standard of roads has improved more than the standard of driving. Back when roads really were bad only good drivers/riders went fast. The bumpy, narrow roads made Ethel and Mabel and Stan uneasy. They drove slowly. Now the surface is so good, the ride so smooth, the road so wide that it all seems effortlessly easy. So their speed goes up. All well and good, until something goes wrong. Then they're still Mabel and ethel and Stan withtheir 40mph abilities.
Make roads that feel dangerous, but are actually safe. Instead of raods that appear safe and are actually not so.
scumdog
21st May 2008, 13:29
I disagree. Roads are too good nowdays. Build some crappy roads. One reason for the high toll is that the standard of roads has improved more than the standard of driving. Back when roads really were bad only good drivers/riders went fast. The bumpy, narrow roads made Ethel and Mabel and Stan uneasy. They drove slowly. Now the surface is so good, the ride so smooth, the road so wide that it all seems effortlessly easy. So their speed goes up. All well and good, until something goes wrong. Then they're still Mabel and ethel and Stan withtheir 40mph abilities.
Make roads that feel dangerous, but are actually safe. Instead of raods that appear safe and are actually not so.
Ixion has a good point - that's why on the motorway near Dunedin boiracers (and a few others) are constantly loosing their licences at the side of the road.
Nice clear straightish road , two lanes each way with cheese-cutters deviding them.
So these guys ae 'cruising' down it at 190+km weaving through the traffic on a wet Saturday night....
Catch 22 :
- 'we need better roads, they're unsafe'
Roads get fixed up
-'the speed limit should be raised, the roads are so good they're capable of having a higher speed limit'.
then down the track a few years: "these roads aren't that safe for these speeds, they need to be upgraded".
scumdog
21st May 2008, 13:44
Wrong, Mr Patrick. The road toll has not lowered consistently since 2001, when the current speed-above-all-else focus came in. There was a steady year-on-year downward trend between 1990 and 2001. Since then, the trend has reversed. The figures are the government's, not some pressure groups, so one cannot be accused of massaging them.
So can you obtain the figures for vehicle numbers increase, population increase and death/injury increase.
And put it together in a per capita form so we can look at any year and compare it with any other year and say "Ah yes, it was better/worse back then".
I'm sure there is a relationship between the increases in crashes, injuries, deaths and the increase in vehicle numbers and population growth.
And how would the figures compare to the 'before air-bags etc' era??
SPman
21st May 2008, 14:19
So can you obtain the figures for vehicle numbers increase, population increase and death/injury increase.
And put it together in a per capita form so we can look at any year and compare it with any other year and say "Ah yes, it was better/worse back then".
I'm sure there is a relationship between the increases in crashes, injuries, deaths and the increase in vehicle numbers and population growth.
And how would the figures compare to the 'before air-bags etc' era??
I believe the worst year, on a vehicles per head of population vs miles driven etc etc, was around 1938. After that (from what figures are available), until the late 90's, the trend was steadily down. On 1938 figures, we would currently have 2500-3000 deaths a year!
So can you obtain the figures for vehicle numbers increase, population increase and death/injury increase.
And put it together in a per capita form so we can look at any year and compare it with any other year and say "Ah yes, it was better/worse back then".
I'm sure there is a relationship between the increases in crashes, injuries, deaths and the increase in vehicle numbers and population growth.
And how would the figures compare to the 'before air-bags etc' era??
Yes - you can obtain those figures, together with things like average age of the road fleet. I haven't got tome to find them now, however. There may well be a correlation between population growth and road toll. The 'normal' method of measuring comparitive road safety is to look at deaths per million km driven which is a statistic that copes with increases in population and the vehicle fleet. Simply concentrating on road toll alone (which is the government's method) is overly simplistic.
However, the period I'm interested in is the one between 2001 and 2007; the period in which the government got a hard-on about speed and concentrated on that to the exclusion of almost everything else. For comparison, take the 7 year period immediatelybefore it. Population growth spiked in the period between 2002 and 2004, peaking at 1.8% annual growth in 2003. However, there was a similar spike in 1995, 1996 and 1997; years where the road toll and injuries continued the then-present trend and dropped.
The vehicle fleet also rose by a similar amount, though I can't find exact figures from a two minute search. Nearest I could get are the tables here (http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/MultipageDocumentTOC____22148.aspx). Vehicle fleet tends to following population size. Interestingly, slide 5 from the page linked above shows historical trend for vehicle kilometres travelled. The fastest increase was between 1990 and 1999; a period in which road toll and injuries consistently dropped, year on year. In 2000 and 2001, the figure flatlined and was followd by a slight rise in 2004 and 2005. It was during this time, the road toll and injuries rate rose.
You would expect that the deaths per million km rate to stay even, given external factors such as road quality, safety of vehicles, etc staying the same. Given that the safety features in vehicles have massively increased over the past 7 years, you'd expect the figure to go down. Except it hasn't. It's gone up.
scumdog
21st May 2008, 15:41
All the evidence from the UK, would suggest that strictrer enforcement equals higher road toll. The best police area in the UK when it comes to road toll is County Durham. They have just one speed camera.
I work with an ex-Durham cop, been here since the start of the year.
He reckons the reason Durham has such a low road toll is a combination of driver education (easpecially motorbike riders) and the Police been given a blank check to hammer speeding and bad driving 24/7 anywhere anytime without Governemnt interference for those that didn't 'absorbe' the education.
And they had no speed cameras by the time he left.
I work with an ex-Durham cop, been here since the start of the year.
He reckons the reason Durham has such a low road toll is a combination of driver education (easpecially motorbike riders) and the Police been given a blank check to hammer speeding and bad driving 24/7 anywhere anytime without Governemnt interference for those that didn't 'absorbe' the education.
And they had no speed cameras by the time he left.
They've had one speed camera for a while. It's a mobile one. And the main reason they don't have any is the Chief Constable thinks they're counter-productive and soley used for raising revenue.
But you hit on one of the things missing from NZ's road safety drive; education. I don't mean patronising commercials based on highly dubious science preaching about the dangers of speeding. That's not education. The threee planks of road safety are education, enforcement and engineering. NZ only has one.
Ixion
21st May 2008, 16:59
I work with an ex-Durham cop, been here since the start of the year.
...
Fark me, the NZ polis force keeps reaching new lows, doesn't it. First it was cops with weird mustachios that runa round naked. then gingas. Now we've got Geordies. Can they sink any lower in recruiting standards. Y' never saw that sort of carry on on Dixon of Dock Green , did y'. Or even Inspector Morse.
Swoop
21st May 2008, 17:04
The threee planks of road safety are education, enforcement and engineering. NZ only has one.
The kiwi road user is forced to walk the plank.
A raft of pirate jokes come to mind. Police with swords and eye patches???
scumdog
21st May 2008, 17:08
That's education.
An item the majority on NZ drivers (and riders but not as bad) seem hell bent on ignoring - they're all too good a driver to worry about THAT!!
Banesto John
26th May 2008, 10:34
But you hit on one of the things missing from NZ's road safety drive; education. I don't mean patronising commercials based on highly dubious science preaching about the dangers of speeding. That's not education. The threee planks of road safety are education, enforcement and engineering. NZ only has one.
What? We don't have engineering? Yeah right.
The engineering that has changed in the last 20 years includes roads, cars and roadside furniture. By furniture I mean the stuff you hit when leaving the road. Cars now have airbags, ABS, ESC, side impact beams, crumple zones, seatbelts, the list goes on. Roads now have barriers (e.g.Auck Harbour Bridge, that one saves lives), better surfaces, better engineering of intersections, better preventative design. Roadside we now have far more collapsible poles, undergrounding of cables meaning less poles to hit. All those things are engineering.
So, lets see, thats Engineering, Enforcement (we must have that, coz people keep grizzling about it), where the hell is the Education?
Education is a funny old beast. The people who gain the most are most often the ones who need it least. I mean, the ones who seek out education, who actually want it, are not really the problem in the first place. The problem ones are those who already know it all, well, in their own mind anyway. Of all the driver education in this country, I bet bugger all is taken up by those who pose the greatest threat to society.
Land Transport New Zealand is the agency responsible for road safety education, not the Police. Apart from the work education cops do in schools, the Police are the enforcement branch. You want better education? Get pressure on LTNZ. Remember to also put pressure on the people who need the education, so the ones who need it actually get it. Most likely you'll be preaching to the deaf.
The ads are a propaganda weapon, planting a seed of doubt. They are pretty average at doing that, but the long term goal is to effect a culture change, and that takes decades and persistence.
Sorry to rant, but I just can't go sanctimonious uninformed tripe.
Whoops, slipped getting down off the soapbox.
swbarnett
26th May 2008, 17:05
Education is a funny old beast. The people who gain the most are most often the ones who need it least. [and vice versa]
Bang on!
What is required is not pointed education i.e. this is how you drive so you don't cause carnage on the road etc. What is required is education about education. What we are lacking as a country (and I don't think we're alone) is a respect for education. It's seen as an unnecessary chore instead of a useful tool in a person's repertoire of life skills.
What? We don't have engineering? Yeah right.
The engineering that has changed in the last 20 years includes roads, cars and roadside furniture. By furniture I mean the stuff you hit when leaving the road. Cars now have airbags, ABS, ESC, side impact beams, crumple zones, seatbelts, the list goes on. Roads now have barriers (e.g.Auck Harbour Bridge, that one saves lives), better surfaces, better engineering of intersections, better preventative design. Roadside we now have far more collapsible poles, undergrounding of cables meaning less poles to hit. All those things are engineering.
You claim that we have better engineering and quote two examples in addition to the obvious improvements in the safety of the vehicles, which has precisely fuck all to do with the current administration. We do not have better surfaces. New Zealand's roads, at least around Auckland, are goat tracks compared to the surfaces in most civilised countries. They use chip-seal wherever they can get away with it, don't fix pot-holes, don't put down anti-skid coatings, don't camber roads properly and generally do the cheapest nastiest job possible whenever it comes to road repair with scant regard for the quality of the surface. That's not engineering.
As for road furniture? Yes, some barriers have gone up. The vast majority of which are cheese-cutters. Why? 'Cos it's cheap. Ignoring the fact they're used contrary to the manufacturer's own guidelines, they kill or maim bikers when hit even at low speeds and they don't stop trucks, buses or SUVs very well - if at all. And if you have a low-slung car, you run the risk of the bonnet going under the cables as you run into them (especially when the barrier's on grass) thus causing the cables to run over the bonnet, through the A-pillar and neatly guillotining the car occupants' necks. These are the same cheese-cutters that have been banned in several European countries and US states for being unsafe. That's not engineering.
Better designed intersections? Where? The traffic light sequences seem to be set to cause as much interuption to traffic flow possible, thus causing people to risk running red lights out of sheer frustration. There are ornamental plantings on the approach to junctions and roundabouts meaning your view of oncoming traffic is obscured. There are stop signs everywhere, meaning in places where they actually are required, they have less of a mental impact. That's not engineering.
So, lets see, thats Engineering, Enforcement (we must have that, coz people keep grizzling about it), where the hell is the Education?
Education is a funny old beast. The people who gain the most are most often the ones who need it least. I mean, the ones who seek out education, who actually want it, are not really the problem in the first place. The problem ones are those who already know it all, well, in their own mind anyway. Of all the driver education in this country, I bet bugger all is taken up by those who pose the greatest threat to society.
Which is precisely why you target the education at them. When was the last time you saw education aimed at getting people to drive without talking on their cell-phones? Or not braking in corners? Or not riding brakes down long hills? Or not following too closely? Or not driving down the middle lanes of motorways? Have there been any? No. Not one. The education one sees is all about two things. Drink driving and speeding. And going faster than the speed limit has absolutely zero effect of the road toll, as the figures quoted in various posts I've made above indicate. That's not education.
And related to education is the driving test itself. Half the drivers one sees in Auckland on a daily basis must have passed their test on an ox-cart, given the abysmal standard of driving. Far too many people pass the tests, often with absolutely no confidence or ability behind the wheel. The driving test is way too easy, and the restrictions on foreign drivers way too soft. That's not education.
Land Transport New Zealand is the agency responsible for road safety education, not the Police.
I'm aware of that, which is why I was aiming my criticism at this joke of a government, who set the policies that the Police and LTNZ follow. The fact that both organisations adhere to the "speed is the root of all evil" creed, however, is proof that the mullahs at the top have no concept of road safety or are purely there for their pensions.
The ads are a propaganda weapon, planting a seed of doubt. They are pretty average at doing that, but the long term goal is to effect a culture change, and that takes decades and persistence.
You're wrong. The anti-speed ads are actually quite effective. The propaganda, combined with massive over-enforcement, has been quite succesfull in bringing down open road speeds over the last few years; those same last few years in which the road toll has plateaued and injuries have risen sharply. The propaganda works. It's just that it's aimed at something that has no effect on the road toll in the slightest.
Sorry to rant, but I just can't go sanctimonious uninformed tripe.
Uninformed tripe? Really. I don't know which planet you're on, but it certainly doesn't inhabit the reality plane as Earth. But don't argue with me. Argue with the statistics that show the current system is failing and failing badly. Argue with the increases in serious injuries. Argue with the the figures that show the decline in road toll, year in year out, since 1990 stopped (actually, it's trending up slightly) in 2001 when the government brought in their current policies. Argue your way through those.
Which makes me wonder how much you would stop doing if some reality-detached bureacrat decided to introduce a bill against it, and got his politically weak-minded fellow party members to go along with it.
Whilst I have a massive problem with the way road safety is (or isn't) promoted in New Zealand, getting speeding tickets is simply part of the risk you take every time you go out and enjoy yourself. Getting a ticket is not unfair. But it's certainly absolutely pointless, of not completely counter-productive, in terms of road safety. But it does increase the government's revenue and allow the Police to claim they're doing something, even if that something is actually making things worse.
The link between speeding and the road toll is simply not there, as any examination of the road toll, injuries, average speed and enforcement figures over the past few years. Not even such KB luminaries as SD have managed to come up with a convicing reason why with more tickets issued (an increase of almost 400%) and resulting lower road speeds, injuries and fatalities have gone up.
So, there really is no point in complaining about getting a ticket, especially with the preaching holier-than-thou hypocrites that infest this particular forum. Pay it, get over it, and then do something about the system that allows the situation to continue.
You don't need to be a genius so see why injuries and fatalities have gone up. It's because people talk on cell phones and drive at the same time a lot more than they used to. Funny that the gubmint doesn't feel like doing anything about it. I guess they are scared it might affect votes or something....
swbarnett
29th May 2008, 17:46
You don't need to be a genius so see why injuries and fatalities have gone up. It's because people talk on cell phones and drive at the same time a lot more than they used to.
While this may be true (personally, I don't believe it's as big a problem as we are led to believe) but it's just a symptom of a larger and much more serious problem. As a society we seem to have lost respect for each other. There seems to be an assumption that the next person is a worthless until proven otherwise. This leads to the attitude that one has a god given right to live and behave however one likes and screw the consequences to anyone else. It leads to the "my time is more valuable than yours" attitude that causes red light running among other things.
Patrick
2nd June 2008, 19:42
While this may be true (personally, I don't believe it's as big a problem as we are led to believe)
Sadly, wrong there.....
Know personally of at least half a dozen fatals (one of two teenaged girls into a truck...)where testing was occurring at the time, in the last year or so... There will be others I don't know of...
brendonjw
2nd June 2008, 22:56
As far as the education bit goes, i did my restricted under the old test and my full under the new one when it came out, I've got to say i was asked to do a lot more in my restricted under the old test, having spoken to friends that have done their restricted under the new test it sounds 10 times easier than what i had to do, a friend was even expecting to fail her test cause she had mucked a few things up, brought out the tears at the end of it and the tester gave it to her.
Id love to see a show like Target do a special on getting a restricted and full licence, see just how slack some of the testers are and how they can be influenced by a few tears. I think that the licencing is WAYYYYY too easy :dodge:
Id love to see a show like Target do a special on getting a restricted and full licence, see just how slack some of the testers are and how they can be influenced by a few yuan.
Corrected your post for you. Didn't think you'd mind.
swbarnett
3rd June 2008, 16:43
Sadly, wrong there.....
Know personally of at least half a dozen fatals (one of two teenaged girls into a truck...)where testing was occurring at the time, in the last year or so... There will be others I don't know of...
If you read more carefully you'll see I was referring to "talking" not texting. Texters should be shot.
Patrick
3rd June 2008, 19:40
If you read more carefully you'll see I was referring to "talking" not texting. Texters should be shot.
"If you read more carefully, you will see I was referring to" testing, not texting...
Texting or talking, both are as bad as each other IMHO.... and as for those tests...
swbarnett
3rd June 2008, 22:03
"If you read more carefully, you will see I was referring to" testing, not texting...
Apologies, I assumed it was a typo. Now I'm just confused.
Texting or talking, both are as bad as each other IMHO.... and as for those tests...
Anything that takes your eyes off the road is going to be a darn sight worse than just talking. After all, there seems to be a consensus that talking to a passenger is no big deal.
Patrick
4th June 2008, 17:39
Apologies, I assumed it was a typo. Now I'm just confused.
That was easy.....
Anything that takes your eyes off the road is going to be a darn sight worse than just talking. After all, there seems to be a consensus that talking to a passenger is no big deal.
But what if she has nice tits?
geoffm
4th June 2008, 20:36
[QUOTE=peasea;1570059]
The 85th percentile was the basis of the original speed camera settings. It is an internationally recognized standard. The way it was used was silly. Still, it's long gone.
Cameras snap a very small percentage, and they are the ones that moan the loudest. Ironically, they are the ones with the power to avoid being snapped, by slowing down.
Sick of tickets? Don't speed.
You are wrong.
They haven't published the profit-and-loss for speed cameras for a while, but a few years ago it was in the order of $30m income 10 years ago It may well be more, but it will do for now. There are around 2m (give or take a few - the numbers aren't on line) licensed drivers in NZ (and a heap of ones where the license is optional). 10 years ago, the same article said the average fine was around $90 - 10-15km over on other words, whish seems about right. That works out to be 300,000 tickets per year. Repeat offenders (like Patrick and other Menaces To Society) will mean some multiple kills, but it is still around 10% of the drivers get taxed each year.
Doesn't sound like a small percentage to me, especially since you consider the large number of people who have licenses but don't drive, or drive very little, and hence aren't really included in the sample population.
Geoff
geoffm
4th June 2008, 20:44
Further to the previous post:
of interest:
The average fine is $80 being 10-15km over - so hardly targeting th etop speeders here.
One camera is bringing in half a million dollars per year - a nice little earner.
and interestingly (if unsurprisingly)
"A list of Auckland blackspots produced by the LTSA does not appear to match the speed camera sites with the most serious accident areas" - so much for the promises made when they were introduced.
Most interestingly:
"The number of tickets issued through speed cameras peaked in 2003 when about 494,600 were issued but that dropped to 464,000 last year, worth roughly $40.8 million in fines."
So the tax ratio on licensed drivers is more like 20-25% - Definitely not a small percentage of drivers, and earnings are well up on the numbers I recall.
As an aside, IIRC, in the first year of operation, they brought in $27m, and had paid for themselves within 6 months or so, including all setup, capital and operational costs.
You may apologize to the KB community...
geoff
Banesto John
5th June 2008, 14:10
Wrong? Maybe. It depends on your perspective.
The number of people snapped is small compared to the number of people who drive past the cameras. Don't assume that every driver in NZ drives past a one camera once per year, as that skews your figures.
The cameras are able to count cars as well as take photos, so they know how many are snapped as a percentage of the total that go past. That's what I was talking about. The snapped total is a small percentage of those that went past.
It was originally going to be the top 15%, but it turned out to be far less than that.
That may be because most people drive around with their eyes open, and are able to see the cameras before they get snapped. Other people slow down because they see oncoming cars flashing headlights.
Anyway, spend your time arguing any figures you want, or slow down, and don't get snapped.
swbarnett
5th June 2008, 17:08
But what if she has nice tits?
Well, that's just a matter of discipline and goes to show how good you are at concentrating on your driving.
swbarnett
5th June 2008, 17:41
... slow down, and don't get snapped.
Imagine you're an avid golfer, you're just mad about it, you get all cranky if you haven't had your weekly round.
Now imagine that a couple of idiots that get too close behind other golfers teeing off and get seriously hurt by the back swing. Because of this a law is passed restricting the back swing to no more than horizontal.
You can still play but a lot of the fun has been taken out of the game.
How often do you think you'ld restrict your back swing to within the law? Even with random checks by the golfing police?
Banesto John
5th June 2008, 21:37
Yawn. Build a bridge. And get over it.
swbarnett
6th June 2008, 12:17
Yawn. Build a bridge. And get over it.
That's easy for you to say. You're not the one directly affected. Your normal behaviour is obviously within the law's tight constraints in the first place.
Speed laws do three things:
1. Gather revenue (whether intentional or not)
2. Penalise drivers for an action that is not even against the stated intent of the law
3. Divert attention from measures that might have a chance of reducing the road toll.
scumdog
6th June 2008, 12:30
That's easy for you to say. You're not the one directly affected. Your normal behaviour is obviously within the law's tight constraints in the first place.
Speed laws do three things:
1. Gather revenue (whether intentional or not)
2. Penalise drivers for an action that is not even against the stated intent of the law
3. Divert attention from measures that might have a chance of reducing the road toll.
As I've said in the past; the bottom line base of this 'speed limit' thing is: It's the Law.
Like it or lump it - that's the way it is, whether you see your pet-hate as 'revenue gathering' or not.
Break it if you feel like it and wear the penalty if caught.
If you don't like the law and the penalties? - rant on KB, it's bound to help, but at the end of the day YOU broke a law.
Us saintly ones probably have a different outlook to those 'contributing' to H.C.s coffers I guess.:dodge:
About to go revenue gathering of a different sort - well I guess that's how HE will see it - after all, he only hit her once for goodness sake...
Swoop
6th June 2008, 12:37
We do not have better surfaces. New Zealand's roads, at least around Auckland, are goat tracks compared to the surfaces in most civilised countries. ...and generally do the cheapest nastiest job possible whenever it comes to road repair with scant regard for the quality of the surface. That's not engineering.
Tar snakes are the sign of a cheap road repair. Instead of doing the job properly, the kiwi "cheapo" attitude comes to the fore once again.
swbarnett
6th June 2008, 16:35
As I've said in the past; the bottom line base of this 'speed limit' thing is: It's the Law.
Like it or lump it - that's the way it is, whether you see your pet-hate as 'revenue gathering' or not.
Break it if you feel like it and wear the penalty if caught.
When all's said and done I have to agree with the above and I do wear it. However, this is only because I don't have the power to affect change of the type that is required to make our politicos see sense.
Whether or not any instruction is obeyed is governed by one or more of three factors:
1. Who is giving the instruction the amount of respect I have for them.
2. The amount of power they have to enforce the instruction.
3. Whether or not I agree with the reason given for the instruction.
This applies for any and all instructions, be they from a parent to a child, a boss to an employee or a government trying to control the population they're supposed to be serving.
In the case of speed limits 1. I do not respect the government, 2. They do not have the power (thankfully) to enforce the instruction 24x7 and 3. I do not agree that the law has anything to do with the stated reason.
If you don't like the law and the penalties? - rant on KB, it's bound to help, but at the end of the day YOU broke a law.
Yes, it does help. Maybe someone reading this will start to realise how much draconian pressure is being placed on us without our consent (and not just on the road).
Us saintly ones probably have a different outlook to those 'contributing' to H.C.s coffers I guess.:dodge:
Never a truer word has been said. I envy you the fact that your outlook just happens to coincide with the law. This issue does boil down in the end to a personality clash.
About to go revenue gathering of a different sort - well I guess that's how HE will see it - after all, he only hit her once for goodness sake...
I assume you're talking about a domestic assault? I would hope the penalty is more than a fine?
Banesto John
6th June 2008, 17:11
How's the bridge building going? Not well, I surmise, from your continued insistence on self justification.
Glad I'm not as bitter as you about something I can't change.
On a lighter note, :banana:
swbarnett
8th June 2008, 11:45
How's the bridge building going? Not well, I surmise, from your continued insistence on self justification.
Glad I'm not as bitter as you about something I can't change.
On a lighter note, :banana:
To say that I can't change it is, I believe, a bit naive. I may not be able to convince you or others of your persuasion but you never can tell who reads these threads. My hope is that the silent readers will at least take away a balanced view instead of the largely unopposed "speed kills" rhetoric.
I will never get over being bullied when it is repetitive and unceasing. I will get on with my life at the same time, however, this issue is not my primary focus.
Patrick
10th June 2008, 19:43
[QUOTE=Banesto John;1570337]
Repeat offenders (like Patrick and other Menaces To Society) will mean some multiple kills...
Huh? I haven't killed anyone... Menace to the dregs of society perhaps....:sunny:
Banesto John
11th June 2008, 10:16
[QUOTE=geoffm;1592926]
Huh? I haven't killed anyone... Menace to the dregs of society perhaps....:sunny:
Dude..........I don't recall ever having said those things about you. Where did I say that?
Patrick
12th June 2008, 19:24
[QUOTE=Patrick;1601248]
Dude..........I don't recall ever having said those things about you. Where did I say that?
DOH!:doh::doh:
Multi quote... must have chopped the wrong name... apologies.:doh:
See post 78... it starts with your name and the quote function must have read it as your post....
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.