PDA

View Full Version : Lower Speed Limits



jimbo600
3rd January 2005, 08:22
Hey all check this out

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=9005392

Now would this be an attempt to boost takings as people are driving slower these days and therefore HP are making less moolah. What about putting the limit up on some stretches of road. When will it end? 40Kmh over the whole country? Hey I know let's not go out at all.

I saw on another thread that more pedestrians got killed than bikes in 2004. Let's ban walking too.

Bloody hell
:mad:

Coyote
3rd January 2005, 08:26
Nightmares do come true :eek5:

Monsterbishi
3rd January 2005, 08:28
Geez man, harden up already, even if they dropped a 50kph zone to 40kph, it would only add, on average, 90 seconds to your journey.

They're doing it to save lives, what better reason dya need?

Coyote
3rd January 2005, 08:30
Last year's toll was 435, which was 26 fewer than in 2003 but seven per cent higher than a 40-year low achieved in 2002.
Bloody Hell. If the '40 year low' was achieved in 1976, they would've said we have to work toward that

Posh Tourer :P
3rd January 2005, 08:57
Yep, it sounds like the twisty areas will be the ones with lower speed limits......

How about better driver training? Or is that too hard to do?

Deano
3rd January 2005, 08:58
Speed limits ?

Is that when you've got your bike on the limiter in top gear ?

What if you're drunk and speeding - which category does the 'stat' (sorry Jim2) go ? Is it relevant to put in the speeding category if your judgement is impaired by alcohol ?

MSTRS
3rd January 2005, 09:01
".....use good judgment regardless of the standard limit, and to slow down on winding roads...." WTF :puke:

Coyote
3rd January 2005, 09:01
Yep, it sounds like the twisty areas will be the ones with lower speed limits......

How about better driver training? Or is that too hard to do?
Ah, but that would mean wasting money better spent on parliaments fairy cakes and such

Deano
3rd January 2005, 09:03
Now would this be an attempt to boost takings as people are driving slower these days and therefore HP are making less moolah.

Come on Jimbo - its all about safety - thats why white crosses on the side of the road are being banned, yet LTSA still allows Transit to collect revenue from large billboards advertising..........yes, you guessed it.... alcohol.

:brick:

jimbo600
3rd January 2005, 09:32
Geez man, harden up already, even if they dropped a 50kph zone to 40kph, it would only add, on average, 90 seconds to your journey.

They're doing it to save lives, what better reason dya need?

Ah another gullible pawn. Add 90 secs to your journey? Wouldn't that depend on how far you were going?

When they lowered the 'killer highway' from 100 to 80 there was a fatal within a week. What does that tell you. If I were to run a business and there was an issue with it, I would not labour on one redundant solution. Such is the MO LTSA seem to be employing. Until the govt and LTSA see the folly in their ways by ignoring other solutions I believe they are vicariously liable.

You can bet your bottom dollar the speed reductions will be at the end of passing lanes or at the foot of hills, anywhere where the unwary can be pinged easily.

jimbo600
3rd January 2005, 09:36
Come on Jimbo - its all about safety - thats why white crosses on the side of the road are being banned, yet LTSA still allows Transit to collect revenue from large billboards advertising..........yes, you guessed it.... alcohol.

:brick:

Silly me. Those white crosses are lethal mate. Thank fuck they,re being banned. They always grab my attention when I'm going 200+ kph

Coyote
3rd January 2005, 09:36
I hope they will have a 10m stretch of 50kph road on a 100kph highway and a speed camera right next to that stretch of road. That would pull in the money, I mean, make the roads safer

theknightrider
3rd January 2005, 09:56
Speed limits? who gives a fuck about them anyway. I'll just do what the fuck I want out there.

Coyote
3rd January 2005, 09:59
Speed limits? who gives a fuck about them anyway. I'll just do what the fuck I want out there.
Better get a high paying job to pay off all those tickets then :niceone:

theknightrider
3rd January 2005, 10:11
Better get a high paying job to pay off all those tickets then :niceone:

Fuck that shit. Just don't pay them. They write them of eventually.

mini_hooks_
3rd January 2005, 10:19
I hope they will have a 10m stretch of 50kph road on a 100kph highway and a speed camera right next to that stretch of road. That would pull in the money, I mean, make the roads safer

they will probably do that now, what were you thinking saying that...:lol:
i wonder how long it will take them to think of that...
:soon:

Coyote
3rd January 2005, 10:22
Fuck that shit.
:lol: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA :lol:

avgas
3rd January 2005, 10:31
Yep, it sounds like the twisty areas will be the ones with lower speed limits......

How about better driver training? Or is that too hard to do?
Or they actually punish those that do wrong :angry2: , instead of the "Oh you didnt see a motorbike - thats understandable. Dont take it too hard" approach.
Cant believe the guy who hit me only got $400 fine and 4 months licence disqualification - after pleeding guilty.
I didnt get squat from him, and he was driving before i could walk. :angry2:
:finger: car drivers that dont see shit smaller than a horse.
PS: where he hit me a was 1ft from a foot path - what if that had been a little kid

scumdog
3rd January 2005, 10:32
Fuck that shit. Just don't pay them. They write them of eventually.

Look at all the riding time you will lose doing 'community service' - and don't forget the court appearances, more time lost and then if you have anything of value (not your head at present) you will lose it when the courts sieze it, notice the common word here is LOSE and if you lose anything you must be a loser. :crazy:

Of course you might just be an annoying, persistant troller.

avgas
3rd January 2005, 10:33
Fuck that shit. Just don't pay them. They write them of eventually.
actually now they have the right to reposess the vehicle if you dont pay your fines - ask white trash

Coyote
3rd January 2005, 11:03
actually now they have the right to reposess the vehicle if you dont pay your fines - ask white trash
eep :eek5:

Jantar
3rd January 2005, 11:20
Geez man, harden up already, even if they dropped a 50kph zone to 40kph, it would only add, on average, 90 seconds to your journey.

They're doing it to save lives, what better reason dya need?

It would add 25% to your journey. 90 seconds would be added to a journey that previously only took 6 minutes.. Who would use a motorbike for such a short trip?

moko
3rd January 2005, 12:17
Just down the road from me a few streets have been turned into what is called a "Homezone",bear with this for a moment.Transport Minister is local M.P. so somehow £6 million quid gets spent turning this area into a pedestrian-friendly area 10m.p.h. limit(25 kph or so),no road markings at all,no pavements,pedestrians get right of way everywhere.They have these things in Holland where to be fair they do work.BUT this is Britain,home of the brainless and after 6 weeks of near-misses and the place being used as a stunt circuit by boy-racers they put bollards up to section off the pavements(which they still insisted were not pavements because Homezones dont have them) and put in a mini-roundabout and speed humps all over the place,what they could have done in the first place without all the fancy paving and saved millions of pounds.Ministry had about 20 complaints from residents in the first few weeks but still filled the media with positive stuff,including an interview in the local paper with a "resident" who didn`t even live there.Next the Police announce that the 10m.p.h. is un-enforceable as such a thing isnt currently in Brit legislation and wont be until if and when it goes through Parliament,the signs are still up though.Along with all the other stuff "homezones dont have" they installed monitering equipment with a view to sticking a speed camera there,would have been the ultimate trashing of the original idea.Main problem being that as the current "limit" is un-enforcable and the Minister had already been crowing about it in the national press it would have had to have been set to at least 20 m.p.h and made the guy look the twat he is.Latest is they`ve made part of it one-way and are still arguing about the rest of it.Typically Minister STILL proclaims this waste of time,money and space as being a success,well it was his idea so he would wouldn`t he?When t.v. filmed him doing the opening ceremony the cameras were actually placed on the site of a 30 metre long set of skid marks where the local hot-hatch dicks had been performing the Saturday before.

Monsterbishi
3rd January 2005, 13:05
The 90 seconds saved is the result they found of a study done years ago, most journeys at 50kph, are less than 10k's travelled.

Whilst it's a 20% reduction in speed, the duration doesn't increase by the same factor since traffic doesn't flow at a constant rate over 50kph anyway.

Jantar
3rd January 2005, 15:09
The 90 seconds saved is the result they found of a study done years ago, most journeys at 50kph, are less than 10k's travelled.

Whilst it's a 20% reduction in speed, the duration doesn't increase by the same factor since traffic doesn't flow at a constant rate over 50kph anyway.

You are partially right. A 20% reduction in speed results in at least a 25% increase in time. It is even worse if the average speed was already less than 50 kph. Lets say its actually a decrease in average speed from 45 kph tp 35 kph (both 5 kph under the limit). The increase in time for this reduction is 28%. This is even worse as the 90 seconds saved now is from a journey of only 5 min 20 secs or 3.09 km.

I would be prepared to bet that the study for distances traveeled in a 50 kph zone was for commuters in cars. Few motorcyclists that I know would bother with getting their gear on for such a short journey. Car, pushbike or even walk would be more like it.

avgas
3rd January 2005, 15:34
Just down the road from me a few streets have been turned into what is called a "Homezone",bear with this for a moment.Transport Minister is local M.P. so somehow £6 million quid gets spent turning this area into a pedestrian-friendly area 10m.p.h. limit(25 kph or so),no road markings at all,no pavements,pedestrians get right of way everywhere.
HAHAHAHAHA......hang on i'll just down gear my bike so it actually can do that without stalling......Otherwise my clutch will get abused.

Blakamin
3rd January 2005, 15:38
ok... 35% speed.... 30% drink driving... why aren't there more random checks for drinking??? coz it cost money, not makes it!!!!
shit in Oz, you'll see a booze bus or random check any nite of the week if you're out after 8pm.... I haven't seen more than 2 in 2 years here... and neither were on highways like the "killer" one down the road... but theres a cop been on Raumati straight since 8.30am with a radar....
what is the other 35% and why aren't they targeting it????

scroter
3rd January 2005, 16:37
ok... 35% speed.... 30% drink driving... why aren't there more random checks for drinking??? coz it cost money, not makes it!!!!
shit in Oz, you'll see a booze bus or random check any nite of the week if you're out after 8pm.... I haven't seen more than 2 in 2 years here... and neither were on highways like the "killer" one down the road... but theres a cop been on Raumati straight since 8.30am with a radar....
what is the other 35% and why aren't they targeting it????

i havent seen one for ages either, i do about 2000ks a week in the truck and havent seen one for..... i cant actually remember. the other thing i dont like about them is they seem to let all the trucks drive straight thru like truck drivers dont drink and drive, there must be some, probably not 30% but some, hell its only gonna take 20 seconds. annoys me no end.

Coyote
3rd January 2005, 16:58
what is the other 35% and why aren't they targeting it????
The other 35% will be mobiles, seat-belts, and the elderly

avgas
3rd January 2005, 17:10
I would like to emphasize the need for autopilots in cars, would stop all stupid deaths on the road/
:thud:

inlinefour
17th January 2005, 03:47
Hey all check this out

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=9005392

Now would this be an attempt to boost takings as people are driving slower these days and therefore HP are making less moolah. What about putting the limit up on some stretches of road. When will it end? 40Kmh over the whole country? Hey I know let's not go out at all.

I saw on another thread that more pedestrians got killed than bikes in 2004. Let's ban walking too.

Bloody hell
:mad:

Geez there are some dumb arses...

Drunken Monkey
17th January 2005, 07:45
Geez man, harden up already, even if they dropped a 50kph zone to 40kph, it would only add, on average, 90 seconds to your journey.

They're doing it to save lives, what better reason dya need?

Apparently not, although the LTSA would never admit it. I tacked this on to the end of the 85/15 thread, but no-one seems to be reading that thread anymore:


Canada
In Ontario, Canada's most populous province, speed cameras (usually hidden in vans) were scrapped in 1995 after public anger over them helped the Conservatives win the election, with the provincial premier criticising each device as 'an Orwellian cash machine'. Road deaths fell after the scrapping and have kept falling since, much to opponents' chagrin, we presume.


From a Top Gear article: http://www.topgear.com/content/features/stories/Motorworld_Speed/01/

Drunken Monkey
17th January 2005, 07:53
The other 35% will be mobiles, seat-belts, and the elderly

Whilst understandably there is quite a disdain around for people who talk on their mobiles while driving, I think the reasoning behind the decision to not ban cell-phones while driving is fair - it makes no more impact to a driver's concentration than say, scoffing a burger or changing a CD. I doubt the powers that be will get away with banning eating while driving and fiddling with radio while driving.

With seat belts the level of compliance has levelled off for a long time. Compliance with seat-belt wearing is at about the level it will always be. The people that still don't wear them, won't. You could chuck a few more million dollars a year at it and still not make a significant difference.

PhilBilly
17th January 2005, 07:57
I cant afford to get more tickets at mo, got 80 demerits at moment. If i speed and get caught then thats my prob. Speed limit is there for a reason, but i think they should only have motorbikes on the Rimutaka hill over summer :ride:

Lou Girardin
17th January 2005, 08:11
They're establishing an 80km/h limit by stealth as it is. Noticed all the 80 signs and 80 or 70 temp limits that seem to become permanent?
On the other hand, all the cages I saw on SH 2 (another KILLER highway) on Sunday seemed to be stuck at 70 km/h. I was passing everything in sight while doing 100 - 110 k's. Strangely enough I didn't die doing so, didn't kill anyone either.
Still, lower speed limits raise revenue. Proper solutions cost money.
And wouldn't it be amusing if they lowered the national speed limit to 80 and the road toll rose? I'd love to hear the LTSA/Police excuses.

Drunken Monkey
17th January 2005, 08:45
They're establishing an 80km/h limit by stealth as it is. Noticed all the 80 signs and 80 or 70 temp limits that seem to become permanent?

Yeah, seen a few 'roadworks' 70km/h temp signs, no cones, no pea gravel, no new seal, no workers, no maintenance trucks, no new paint.
Can't figure that one out yet...

denill
17th July 2005, 11:35
Geez man, harden up already, even if they dropped a 50kph zone to 40kph, it would only add, on average, 90 seconds to your journey.

They're doing it to save lives, what better reason dya need?

Yeah, and why not be preceeded by a man waving a red flag. I've heard that used to work really well?? :yes: :yes:

scumdog
17th July 2005, 11:48
With seat belts the level of compliance has levelled off for a long time. Compliance with seat-belt wearing is at about the level it will always be. The people that still don't wear them, won't. You could chuck a few more million dollars a year at it and still not make a significant difference.

Ah yes but they are good for 'revenue gathering', a car with three idiots not wearing seatbelts = $450, the same car would have to be doing more than 80kph (can't remember exact speed) a 50 to get that sort of ticket, of course if you get them at that sort of speed AND no seatbelts? whoo-hoo, jackpot!!

Anybody got a problem with seatbelt tickets??

BTW How did you guys cope with the old 80kph national open road speed limit? (this does not apply to snot-noses - ya weren't around then!)

Aitch
17th July 2005, 11:52
I wonder how they reach these apparently arbitrary numbers?? Since they don't know which roads are to have reduced limits how on earth can they say how many they need to do????
This smacks of a government minister deperate to be seen to be doing something positive! (Though how anyone could possibly justify this stunt as positive is beyond me!)
Instead of loading the place up with more speed camera traps why, oh why doesn't he spend the money on better driver training? (like teaching people how to merge at motorway on ramps).
I wonder if National will do any better??

Ixion
17th July 2005, 12:47
..
Anybody got a problem with seatbelt tickets??

BTW How did you guys cope with the old 80kph national open road speed limit? (this does not apply to snot-noses - ya weren't around then!)

No probs with seatbelt tickets, so long as they're sensible ones.

I knew a guy (I was actually there), who went out to move his car back about 6 foot into the next park, so someone could get out. And got a ticket for not putting his seatbelt on. True, he didn't, but come on. He just started the engine moved back about 6 foot and turned the engine off.

As for the 80kph limit (was actually 50mph, they hadn't invented kilowassinames then). No probs, we just ignored it.

Back then radar sets were the size of a small refrigerator and sat on top of the roof of the Ford Zephyr. And had a range of about 50 yards. If you couldn't see that before you got in range you needed a new seeing eye dog.

Only tricky bit was at night, especially in the small towns down along SH1. They could get you before you realised they were there in the shadows. Very lucrative that was for the local councils who got the fines. And right bastards those cops were - they really were petty . Hated the "tourists passing through"

So the only way the snakes could get you was to follow you, for the 2/10 mile that convention required. Which meant catching you in the first place, without you seeing them coming up behind. Just had to keep a good lookout.

Did get a fright once on the Speed Twin on the Northern Motorway. I was trying to see what it would do, got to just under 80 and rising, thought I better check behind (had to lift my head off the tank, so couldn't keep a constant lookout), and shit, there was a snake on a bike 100 yards back and gaining. So I braked hard, and he shot past and shook his fist at me! Didn't stop me though so I guess he hadn't stabilised his speed.

In theory they could do you just on the basis of observation, and a few did get done that way, but it was pretty unlikely.

And, by and large, the MOT guys were pretty reasonable, so long as you weren't doing stupid crap near schools or old ladies etc.

EDIT. Most bikers back then cruised on the open road at 70 -90 mph, about 130 - 150kph. So, much slower than present day sports bikes, but faster than present day cruisers and tourers (cruising speeds I mean, not top speed)

Bonez
17th July 2005, 12:51
BTW How did you guys cope with the old 80kph national open road speed limit? (this does not apply to snot-noses - ya weren't around then!)Still cruised around at about 100kish on the cb400T.

Kickaha
17th July 2005, 15:42
Anybody got a problem with seatbelt tickets??

No


BTW How did you guys cope with the old 80kph national open road speed limit? (this does not apply to snot-noses - ya weren't around then!)

Completely ignored it

When one of my friends drove my car from Chch to Cheviot one time she sat on 80mph the whole way as she thought the speedo was in Km

mstriumph
18th July 2005, 01:12
always wondered why some things were a no-no and others were allowed ... i mean, one would imagine that NOTHING would intefere with a driver's concentration like spilling scalding coffee in his/her lap?.... :eek5:
Whilst understandably there is quite a disdain around for people who talk on their mobiles while driving, I think the reasoning behind the decision to not ban cell-phones while driving is fair - it makes no more impact to a driver's concentration than say, scoffing a burger or changing a CD. .................etc.

crazylittleshit
18th July 2005, 02:29
(Quote)You take a mortal man,
And put him in control
Watch him become a god,
Watch peoples heads a'roll
A'roll...
(Quote) mega death.

SPman
18th July 2005, 06:44
My open road cruising speed then was about 120-130 - about the same as now! The Duc would lope along quite nicely at that clip, regardless of load.
The Mighty Morris 1300 was happy on the motorway at 60 - 70 mph.
about the same as most cars now.......
although 50 was not the painfully slow speed it is now - for a while it was quite relaxing.....until we all got bored and thought....."oh fuckit!"

So - 30 yrs on ..whats changed?

Clockwork
18th July 2005, 08:33
.......... of course if you get them at that sort of speed AND no seatbelts? whoo-hoo, jackpot!!


Careful now SD.... you wouldn't want to give the impression that your guys see us road users as "wallets on wheels" :no:

Just out of curiosity, what's your cut? :whistle:

scumdog
18th July 2005, 08:43
Careful now SD.... you wouldn't want to give the impression that your guys see us road users as "wallets on wheels" :no:

Just out of curiosity, what's your cut? :whistle:

We don't see 'em as wallets on wheels (we get no 'cut' out of it) but it's a good type of comment to get a bite out of some - sort of like Claytons trolling!!

skidz
18th July 2005, 09:31
I can see reason for a slower speed in certain areas, but it dosn't mean much to someone who just wants to ignore it. I used to do earthmoving on main roads, and we could have 30kph signs up, but 40 percent of the drivers didn't see the signs. That's when you see who are better drivers than others. Motorcycles have to be one of the better ones out there. Good on you lot out there that show the others off.

MikeL
18th July 2005, 09:53
The 50 mph limit? Never gave it much thought...

I remember the summer of '68, and a glorious road trip from Wlg to Akl via the East Coast. All you had to do was remember that from Wlg to Palmerston North, or through the Wairarapa from Wlg to Woodville, the place was literally crawling with MOT cops ("crawling" in this context = 2 or 3). From there on your chances of encountering one were minimal.

Since back in those days I was even poorer than I am now anything I rode or drove was likely to be clapped-out, so the main worry was not speeding tickets but the expensive consequences of over-enthusiastic revving.
Driving a 1955 Ford Prefect that used almost as much oil per mile as petrol, there was little danger of a speeding fine...

skidz
18th July 2005, 10:09
Ha Ha, how times have changed. It's hard to find a Prefect on the roads these days. They are still only doing about the same speed these days.

Jeremy
18th July 2005, 16:23
No probs with seatbelt tickets, so long as they're sensible ones.

I knew a guy (I was actually there), who went out to move his car back about 6 foot into the next park, so someone could get out. And got a ticket for not putting his seatbelt on. True, he didn't, but come on. He just started the engine moved back about 6 foot and turned the engine off.


Must have gone over 25km/h or whatever it is then. As according to the road code you don't need to wear a seatbelt in a car if what you are doing makes it unsensible to wear a seatbelt or requires you to leave the frequently the car. They just can't travel over some really low km/h speed. Probably a concession for milkmen.

madboy
18th July 2005, 17:34
This whole thing is just friggin funny... lower the speed limit and save lives. Instead it'll just piss off more people who'll do silly erratic ill-conceived overtaking manoeuvres and have head-ons with poor innocent people coming the otherway. And since speed was a factor, speed will get the blame.

Just remember, everyone, speeders are killing you - so don't piss me off or I'll put you on the top of my list on the way home!!

skidz
18th July 2005, 17:44
Yeah, ya see it all the time!!!

SuperDave
18th July 2005, 17:54
ok... 35% speed.... 30% drink driving... why aren't there more random checks for drinking??? coz it cost money, not makes it!!!!
shit in Oz, you'll see a booze bus or random check any nite of the week if you're out after 8pm.... I haven't seen more than 2 in 2 years here... and neither were on highways like the "killer" one down the road... but theres a cop been on Raumati straight since 8.30am with a radar....
what is the other 35% and why aren't they targeting it????

I have never seen a drink driving checkpoint or booze bus, except once where it came to school to 'educate' us.

SuperDave
18th July 2005, 18:08
They're establishing an 80km/h limit by stealth as it is. Noticed all the 80 signs and 80 or 70 temp limits that seem to become permanent?


Yes! I have noticed that, particularly in Oteha Valley Road. Used to be an 80kph zone but they changed it after they made it a two laned road. It now has a sign saying it is a 60kph zone but right underneath the sign it says 'temporary'. The funny thing is it has said temporary for a year or something already. I asked my dad about it and he reckons it might be awaiting approval from the council for something - if this is the case, which I doubt, then what is the speed limit?

It says 60 but if this speed limit is yet to be approved then can a cop justifiably ticket you for going at 80kph?

raster
19th July 2005, 19:20
Must have gone over 25km/h or whatever it is then. As according to the road code you don't need to wear a seatbelt in a car if what you are doing makes it unsensible to wear a seatbelt or requires you to leave the frequently the car. They just can't travel over some really low km/h speed. Probably a concession for milkmen.

My Bro is a contractor for the Taupo council, gets in and out of his truck 50 times a day to move it around shifting things, has had 6 seatbelt tickets now from a certain cop who obviously has nothing better to do, just sits there waiting for him to get in his truck and move it 6 feet and slap. :devil2:

Biff
19th July 2005, 20:34
I'm pro capital punishment for all motoring offences, in fact all offences period. I'm also pro guns, abortions, euthanasia and anything else that will eventually reduce the number of people driving on our roads.

Another useful comment courtesy of BiffMeister Inc.

Lou Girardin
20th July 2005, 12:56
If speed kills, why are several US states now raising their limits to 130 km/h?
Do they know something the LTNZ doesn't?
Correction: everyone knows something the LTNZ doesn't.

scumdog
20th July 2005, 13:13
If speed kills, why are several US states now raising their limits to 130 km/h?
Do they know something the LTNZ doesn't?
Correction: everyone knows something the LTNZ doesn't.

'Cos we don't got no lovely loong straight roads with concrete dividers between the lanes!

Lou Girardin
20th July 2005, 15:48
Not all Murkin roads are freeways. I watch TV ya know.