Fast and Safe [Archive] - Page 2

marty

9th February 2005, 16:04

Sorry Spud, I got lost in the interchange between you and Marty can you please restate your/his point? :confused2

"(a)Direct a person on a road (whether or not in charge of a vehicle) to give the person's name and address and date of birth, or such of those particulars as the enforcement officer may specify, and give any other particulars required as to the person's identity, and (unless the person is for the time being detained or under arrest under any enactment) give such information as is within the person's knowledge and as may lead to the identification of the driver or person in charge of a vehicle: "

The way I read the above legistlation you've posted it seems to me that she couldn't be asked any such questions if she was under arrest. Or am I missing something else? :spudwhat:

my interpretation of this is that if a person is under arrest/in custody, then they are afforded the right to silence, that is, they would have to be cautioned before being asked questions, so they cannot be charged with refusing to give those details, as they have that right to silence. if they are not under arrest/custody/identified as an offender, then they do not have to be cautioned before questioning, and should they refuse those details, they can be charged (if appropriate).

so yes, an arrested person can be asked the question, they just can't be charged (with the refusing details offence) if they refused to answer it. they can still be charged with whatever other offence they were arrested for (like party to an offence)

Alan Wilkinson

9th February 2005, 16:09

Rats, so we are meant to take "I want the right to drive as I see fit" seriously?
Which, as I said earlier, is what you are promoting ammounts to as I doubt you consider yourself in the bottom 1/4 of driver skills, right?

I want the right to drive (and to live) as I wish so long as what I do does not significantly adversely affect the lives, freedom or property of anyone else.

I am happy for that to be testable in court. I am not happy for the government to arbitrarily set limits on our freedoms - it should always be testable against solid evidence as to what limits are necessary.

There is a serious question as to whether speed limits have a beneficial or adverse affect on safety. There is no clear-cut scientific agreement currently on either that question or on the secondary question of how to set them. I have presented the NZ data. You can argue from it, or you can argue from whatever bunch of prejudices you might have.

J J Leeming said 30 years ago, "It doesn't matter what people think causes accidents. What matters is what does cause them." Only careful studies can find that out.

marty

9th February 2005, 16:10

the person being asked about the driver though, has a legislative requirement to give the information, so cannot simply say 'i'm not telling, i'm invoking my right to silence'.

well they can, but they run the risk of being charged with that offence.

Mongoose

9th February 2005, 16:17

I want the right to drive (and to live) as I wish so long as what I do does not significantly adversely affect the lives, freedom or property of anyone else.

gee, sounds just like Lindsay Perigo and as i thought, it ammounts to you wanting to do what you want to do and has nothing to do with anyone else, others might argue that ammounts to greed.

I am happy for that to be testable in court. I am not happy for the government to arbitrarily set limits on our freedoms - it should always be testable against solid evidence as to what limits are necessary.

And the solid evidence you would come up with in your defence would come from, you?

There is a serious question as to whether speed limits have a beneficial or adverse affect on safety. There is no clear-cut scientific agreement currently on either that question or on the secondary question of how to set them. I have presented the NZ data.

You have yet to post any "clear-cut scientific" proof of what you promote being any safer than what we now have.

You can argue from it, or you can argue from whatever bunch of prejudices you might have.

Not much point in argueing with some one who has already shown their prejudiced opinions.

J J Leeming said 30 years ago, "It doesn't matter what people think causes accidents. What matters is what does cause them." Only careful studies can find that out.

Human error would be one of the bigger causes, how do you propose to eliminate that?

Alan Wilkinson

9th February 2005, 16:22

I get to pick up the pieces, what do you get to do?

I get to pay for you to pick up the pieces, and to pay for your mates to issue hundreds of thousands of speeding tickets which have failed to make any detectable improvement in the road toll trend line.

I also get to pay for George Hawkins to lie to Parliament and to the public that the highway patrol has reduced fatalities when the data clearly shows the reverse.

Blakamin

9th February 2005, 16:25

J J Leeming said 30 years ago, "It doesn't matter what people think causes accidents. What matters is what does cause them." Only careful studies can find that out.
yup... another coupla trillion dollars to people who plot graphs and nothing known for 20 years ....
not looking for a job are you?

(pt)

I also get to pay for George Hawkins to lie to Parliament and to the public that the highway patrol has reduced fatalities when the data clearly shows the reverse.

Yeah... the fact that there are more people on the road and none are doing any courses in better driving has nothing to do with it... just data to you, aye?

marty

9th February 2005, 16:27

I want the right to drive (and to live) as I wish so long as what I do does not significantly adversely affect the lives, freedom or property of anyone else.

I am happy for that to be testable in court. I am not happy for the government to arbitrarily set limits on our freedoms - it should always be testable against solid evidence as to what limits are necessary.

There is a serious question as to whether speed limits have a beneficial or adverse affect on safety. There is no clear-cut scientific agreement currently on either that question or on the secondary question of how to set them. I have presented the NZ data. You can argue from it, or you can argue from whatever bunch of prejudices you might have.

J J Leeming said 30 years ago, "It doesn't matter what people think causes accidents. What matters is what does cause them." Only careful studies can find that out.

1. so go and live in northern territory
2. it has been tested in court. many, many times.
3. question for you maybe, but for those of us who have seen it 1st hand, lower speed limits and hard general road safety enforcment saves lives
4. eliminate all the factors that cause accidents and you'll be living in a bubble. i'm sure the govt et.al doesn't give a shit how many crashes happen, just how much trauma occurs in those crashes, and if they can reduce the trauma by one or two significant indicators (speed, alcohol, seat belts spring to mind) then they will go for it, as they are fiscally driven. crashes don't cost the govt. money - the trauma following does. would you be prepared to reduce your tax contribution by the amount you contribute to the health budget, and if involved in a crash pay for it out of your pocket? insurance wouldn't pay if you were speeding, eba etc. before you say "hell yeah" - do some research on a weeks stay in ITU, or 6 months in the Otara spinal unit.

marty

9th February 2005, 16:29

I get to pay for you to pick up the pieces, and to pay for your mates to issue hundreds of thousands of speeding tickets which have failed to make any detectable improvement in the road toll trend line.

I also get to pay for George Hawkins to lie to Parliament and to the public that the highway patrol has reduced fatalities when the data clearly shows the reverse.

not the "i pay your wages" line. now we KNOW you know what you're talking about.:brick:

Alan Wilkinson

9th February 2005, 16:48

Human error would be one of the bigger causes, how do you propose to eliminate that?

We have to spend more money on finding out why drivers make particular errors and then do something about it.

Firstly, there should be an independent investigative agency for serious crashes that is not linked to enforcement in any way. That is how airline safety works and it has the best record for passenger safety per distance travelled. Its reports should be public so the public can put pressure on for proper fixes when causes are known.

Secondly, as I have said, safety regulations should be testable in court. The expert evidence given will help inform and educate about what really is safe and what is not.

Thirdly, we need to allow competitive private enterprise to run road services. They will be more innovative and sensitive to reality than bureaucratic organisations which are always politically-driven.

Finally, there are already ways we know work. Motorways are the safest roads - we need more of them, certainly SH1. Head-protecting side airbags halve side impact fatalities. In Northland, simply improve the roads enormously and get people off benefits, drugs and alchohol and into jobs. Better roads up here mean more jobs and more money.

Mongoose

9th February 2005, 16:57

Firstly, there should be an independent investigative agency for serious crashes that is not linked to enforcement in any way. That is how airline safety works and it has the best record for passenger safety per distance travelled. Its reports should be public so the public can put pressure on for proper fixes when causes are known.

The causes are human, what are the fixes?
Airlines also cover the most distance with no other humans to cock up, remember its not just your cock up, its the other persons too.

Secondly, as I have said, safety regulations should be testable in court. The expert evidence given will help inform and educate about what really is safe and what is not.

They are, have a prang and you get to prove what you did was safe, although after a prang you might have trouble getting people to listen seriously to your arguement.

You post seems like a piece of Political Electioneering, what other policies are you standing on?

Alan Wilkinson

9th February 2005, 16:57

1. so go and live in northern territory

Go there yourself. This is my country.

2. it has been tested in court. many, many times.

Rubbish. There is no way to challenge the current law. If you are doing 51 km/h in a 50 km/h area you are guilty, end of story. You cannot defend by proving it was safe.

3. question for you maybe, but for those of us who have seen it 1st hand, lower speed limits and hard general road safety enforcment saves lives

Show me the New Zealand evidence. Opinions are irrelevant.

4. eliminate all the factors that cause accidents and you'll be living in a bubble. i'm sure the govt et.al doesn't give a shit how many crashes happen, just how much trauma occurs in those crashes, and if they can reduce the trauma by one or two significant indicators (speed, alcohol, seat belts spring to mind) then they will go for it, as they are fiscally driven. crashes don't cost the govt. money - the trauma following does. would you be prepared to reduce your tax contribution by the amount you contribute to the health budget, and if involved in a crash pay for it out of your pocket? insurance wouldn't pay if you were speeding, eba etc. before you say "hell yeah" - do some research on a weeks stay in ITU, or 6 months in the Otara spinal unit.

Hell yeah! Like a shot! But I'm sure IRD wouldn't want to take a hit like that.

Alan Wilkinson

9th February 2005, 17:01

You post seems like a piece of Political Electioneering, what other policies are you standing on?

Your post seems like a piece of arrogant b.s. from start to finish. Do you have anything useful to say?

Mongoose

9th February 2005, 17:06

Your post seems like a piece of arrogant b.s. from start to finish. Do you have anything useful to say?

You are so right, it's a reflection of what i have read from you.
When last were you given a ticket for 51kmh? Or is that just but one of your exagerations you use to TRY and make a point with out letting facts get in the way?

Why have you not bothered with any serious questions asked of you but go straight for the one thing that did not need an answer?

Blakamin

9th February 2005, 17:13

Finally, there are already ways we know work. Motorways are the safest roads - we need more of them, certainly SH1. Head-protecting side airbags halve side impact fatalities. In Northland, simply improve the roads enormously and get people off benefits, drugs and alchohol and into jobs. Better roads up here mean more jobs and more money.
excluding SH1, you've come to the wrong place to tell people we need more motorways!!!!
In case you haven't realised, most people here enjoy going around corners.
ever thought that the motorcycle hire industry actually functions coz people from other places (with $$$) like the fact every road isn't a super-highway??

Air bags.... yup,
Speeding... yup
driving thinking you are better than someone else... yup

all of those cause fatalities....

I can see so many drug dealers and single mums giving it up just to build your roads...

marty

9th February 2005, 17:17

Go there yourself. This is my country.

Rubbish. There is no way to challenge the current law. If you are doing 51 km/h in a 50 km/h area you are guilty, end of story. You cannot defend by proving it was safe.

Show me the New Zealand evidence. Opinions are irrelevant.

Hell yeah! Like a shot! But I'm sure IRD wouldn't want to take a hit like that.

get fucked.

wanking in public might be safe, but it's still an offence. go and live somewhere else if you don't like the laws of the land

i have scraped enough people out of their cars/bikes/trucks/planes to know what i'm talking about. it's not opinion - it is backed up by evidence i just can't be fucked dredging up again.

that was quick research. oh that's right, "I never claimed to be a lawyer or legal beagle. I consult one or look up the stuff when I need to know." (yours from an earlier post) should read "if it's going to prove someone elses point, i'll ignore it" (mine from this post) i'd be happy for you to not pay tax, if it meant that you had to pay for your own care, or be left to bleed to death on the road side. we have a 'no questions asked' system at the moment - are you suggesting that you could do better?

Alan Wilkinson

9th February 2005, 18:37

Get lost meat-head. When you pay my salary instead of me paying yours I could believe there is something inside your skull worth listening to.

You have no evidence, just a big mouth.

Alan Wilkinson

9th February 2005, 18:40

excluding SH1, you've come to the wrong place to tell people we need more motorways!!!!
In case you haven't realised, most people here enjoy going around corners.

You may. But we all depend on road transport for our livelihoods and wealth. One of the cops bleated about our low GDP. The reason is we have made bad investments and continue to do stupid things.

And bad roads mean more casualties.

Blakamin

9th February 2005, 18:40

OK.... nuff of the names... we aren't all 12..... :done:

Alan Wilkinson

9th February 2005, 18:42

Why have you not bothered with any serious questions asked of you but go straight for the one thing that did not need an answer?

Because I gave you a serious answer and got a b.s. reply.

Blakamin

9th February 2005, 18:42

You may.
no, most, if not all here on kiwi biker do... thats the point... if you don't like what we like, you are free to leave......
we dont want super-highways... simple...you want them, find a super highway forum... they'll love you...

marty

9th February 2005, 18:54

you know nothing about me or how my salary gets paid. once again, you are making ill-informed conclusions about things that you don't know anything about. thanks for the enlightened discussion alan, i have enjoyed watching you make a right dick out of yourself. see ya!

Alan Wilkinson

9th February 2005, 18:55

no, most, if not all here on kiwi biker do... thats the point... if you don't like what we like, you are free to leave......
we dont want super-highways... simple...you want them, find a super highway forum... they'll love you...

I used to live at the end of 50 km of the one of the most winding roads in NZ. Yeah, sure it was fun doing it sometimes - but day after day, year after year, you just get tired of the extra concentration it takes out of you.

Mongoose

9th February 2005, 18:56

Because I gave you a serious answer and got a b.s. reply.

And the answers I gave were not serious replies?? You poor deluded man if you think others can not hold a differing opinion to yours.
You have yet to say where all this money is coming from, given your take on traffic laws, it wont be from there, so where?
An example "We have to spend more money on finding out why drivers make particular errors and then do something about it."

Another "Firstly, there should be an independent investigative agency for serious crashes that is not linked to enforcement in any way. "

"Secondly, as I have said, safety regulations should be testable in court" that would of course suit those that could afford it.

"Thirdly, we need to allow competitive private enterprise to run road services" Would only happen in the area you mentioned if it could be proved that there would be a return on the money invested.

ps, For some one who says they research things, you are not that good at it or you might have worked out who may benifit from your tax paying and who does not rely on it, saved yourself an embarrising outburst if you checked your facts first

Alan Wilkinson

9th February 2005, 18:58

i have enjoyed watching you make a right dick out of yourself. see ya!

In your case, no effort was required. What you enjoy tells enough about you.

James Deuce

9th February 2005, 18:58

OK.... nuff of the names... we aren't all 12..... :done:

It's all getting a bit much alright.

A non-bike rider sets up a login and then proceeds to dazzle us with his "charm".

The back biting is getting a bit tedious.

Would there be any merit in suggesting that Alan has another go by starting his own Q&A thread about his views and proposals? I'd like to explore the issue further, but the tone is definitely "Parliament Question Time" at the moment. I'd like to see if we can't actually contribute to the process of roading reform rather than ignoring an active lobbyist due to differences of opinion.

The Highway concept has merit for me, because it means the secondary highways will have less traffic on them, making a trip through the swervery a touch safer for motorcyclists.

Indo

9th February 2005, 19:01

Get lost meat-head. When you pay my salary instead of me paying yours I could believe there is something inside your skull worth listening to.

You have no evidence, just a big mouth.

Haha so heres the true Wilkinson, didn't take so long to expose eh.

Unfortunately i guess you don't know that Marty isnt a cop, and that the Cops on this forum actually pay their own salary many times over. But i guess thats typical of your 'research'.

Isn't it the ultimate rebuff that even on a motorcycling site (where you could expect the most support), that people see you for what you really are.

Blakamin

9th February 2005, 19:05

I used to live at the end of 50 km of the one of the most winding roads in NZ. Yeah, sure it was fun doing it sometimes - but day after day, year after year, you just get tired of the extra concentration it takes out of you.
which is a problem with a lot of car drivers, severe lack of fuckin concentration!!!! ... but this is KiwiBiker.. we love corners, we love concentrating.. and when in a cage (god help us all), we are probably a hell of a lot more aware than your average citizen... we dont want highways and we dont want deaths.. shit, I live at the end of "the killer highway", but the reason people die there is because they are all fuckin idiots... trying to pass on double yellows coz they think they're good, people not concentrating coz they are looking at the fucking sea..... trying to do the tonne over pi-cock hill... come have a look at the skids... these are the people you want to claim that they are safe.... safe as houses on a motorway at times, but not on NZ roads.... why? because they cant be fucked concentrating!!!!...
and thats what makes New Zealand what it is.. these roads with the geography we have... like someone else said... go somewhere else for your highways.. there you will have people going to sleep and killing others.
If you cant fuckin concentrate on the road.. GET OFF THE FRIGGING THING AND LEAVE IT TO PEOPLE THAT WILL!!!

{edit}

How can you be FAST AND SAFE when you can't be bothered CONCENTRATING?

Hitcher

9th February 2005, 19:08

Yet again, as seen on occasion in the Scottish thread, we have evidence of the the ugliness of fundamentalist extremeism -- with as much "religious" fervour too it seems.

There is much not to like about it.

I suspect that "fast and safe" and "Destiny New Zealand" will both attract their share of converts, but at the end of the day middle New Zealand will not vote for either. Why not? They because they don't believe it will work, that's why. And no amount of yelling or brow-beating will convince them otherwise.

Our society may be imperfect but it is not a police state.

Now let's go riding and enjoy those twisty roads before they all get straightened out to make life easier for the meanderthals!

Alan Wilkinson

9th February 2005, 19:12

And the answers I gave were not serious replies??

Good God, were you serious? You do have real problems then.

marty

9th February 2005, 19:13

it'll be a 'Peter Ellis is innocent' thread next

Mongoose

9th February 2005, 19:14

Good God, were you serious? You do have real problems then.

Good to see you are such a firm believer in your own ideas that that is the best reply you can come up with, still lacking substance or answers of any merit

Alan Wilkinson

9th February 2005, 19:15

How can you be FAST AND SAFE when you can't be bothered CONCENTRATING?

I do concentrate, you don't - else you wouldn't misquote me. Get a life and stop being idiotic.

Alan Wilkinson

9th February 2005, 19:18

Cops on this forum actually pay their own salary many times over.

So pigs do fly then? I must take another look at the police budget and see how it's done.

Blakamin

9th February 2005, 19:21

I do concentrate, you don't - else you wouldn't misquote me. Get a life and stop being idiotic.
I have a life. I work. I have a family and I ride... what I dont do is sit and make pretty pictures out of strange numbers that some statistician came up with. dunno about you (actually, I got a fair idea) but life aint statistics buddy, it aint a practice and it aint something you do in your spare time.

and being idiotic... are you saying no accidents are caused by lack of concentration??? you'd know... you have the numbers!

but day after day, year after year, you just get tired of the extra concentration it takes out of you.

how is that a mis-quote?? did you or did you not type it?????

well???

Mongoose

9th February 2005, 19:22

So pigs do fly then? I must take another look at the police budget and see how it's done.

And you must have a fucken big tax bill if you pay George Hawkins, the Commissioner and ever single cop, but i rather suspect this not to be true, huh?
Which is a pity as it would save the rest of NZ paying as much tax if you did.

Alan Wilkinson

9th February 2005, 19:28

how is that a mis-quote?? did you or did you not type it?????

well???

Sigh.

I said I did concentrate - and it is tiring when you have to work all day on top of driving for 4 hours which is what I did for 10 years. You claimed I couldn't be bothered concentrating so I couldn't be Fast And Safe.

Like much else here, that is just crap.

Alan Wilkinson

9th February 2005, 19:30

Haha so heres the true Wilkinson, didn't take so long to expose eh.

Just thought I'd give you sleazy little creeps some of your own back. I guess most of the decent people have given up posting when you are around.

Mongoose

9th February 2005, 19:31

Like much else here, that is just crap.

THE BEST thing you have said so far, you wouold be amazed at how many would agree with you, alas, I dont think they would be thinking about it the way you meant it.

Joni

9th February 2005, 19:32

Like much else here, that is just crap.

Question: Then what are you doing here if its so crap?

Sign off....? No need to put yourself through this "torture"....

James Deuce

9th February 2005, 19:32

Clockwork

9th February 2005, 19:37

:calm:

I am a motorcyclist :ride: (and a driver :innocent: )....... I do break the speed limit :nono: :nono: :nono: but I can honestly say that when I do, I still feel I am driving within mine and the vehicles capabilities. In short, I honestly can't accept that just because I am exceeding an arbitrary limit that I am putting other road users at risk. To put this another way, I never drive/ride in a way I feel puts myself or others in danger.

Do those of you who feel "Fast And Safe" (AW, if you will) has nothing to contribute to the road safety debate, always adhere to all posted limits or do you accept that by breaking them you are being a menace to society? :spudwhat:

:calm:

Blakamin

9th February 2005, 19:38

Sigh.

I said I did concentrate - and it is tiring when you have to work all day on top of driving for 4 hours which is what I did for 10 years. You claimed I couldn't be bothered concentrating so I couldn't be Fast And Safe.

Like much else here, that is just crap.
why is that crap?
I think if you cant concentrate, or find it too hard, you shouldn't be allowed on the road...
your stats should agree!
I'm sure if you put your mind to it you could even make a graph....
you know, falling asleep at the wheel and shit... that is obvious lack of concentration...
I wasn't directing the "if you cant concentrate..." personally at you... EVERYONE who thinks they are fast and safe doesn't concentrate 100% of the time... if they did, there would never be 2 cars colliding! fuck, no-one will concentrate 100% of the time, but us bike riders do it a hell of a lot more than you cage types that think you're "fast and safe", in fact, sometimes we have to concentrate FOR you people... thats why we aren't all dead.

more than "stop being idiotic" or "get a life" would be considered a reply... anything else just goes to show... you cant be bothered

btw, half of my living comes from driving... a lot more than 4 hours a day...
had 1 speeding ticket in 16 years... 112k on the desert road... i was speeding... i'll pay the fine.... I don't think it was dangerous, but thats the law

Clockwork

9th February 2005, 19:40

it'll be a 'Peter Ellis is innocent' thread next
actually........

nah..... its not the time or place.
:apint:

Alan Wilkinson

9th February 2005, 19:44

I wasn't directing the "if you cant concentrate..." personally at you...

Ok, then I apologise to you. Since everything else was directed at me I took that comment the same way.

Of course I agree with you - concentration is essential.

SPman

9th February 2005, 19:49

Might be time to take a deep breath and make a fresh start in a couple of days I think.

Yup, unfortunately when emotions,religion, politics and egos start taking hold, rationality cowers behind the nearest gargre!

Preferably with a good Rum...(or in the case of you heathens down south, a good malt!)

Think I'll crank up some Bad Brains

Hitcher

9th February 2005, 19:56

Yup, unfortunately when emotions,religion, politics and egos start taking hold, rationality cowers behind the nearest gargre!

Preferably with a good Rum...(or in the case of you heathens down south, a good malt!)

Think I'll crank up some Bad Brains
There is a time and a place for a good rum, even in a malt drinker's gargre...

Cockspur is a most excellent tipple!

Unfortunately the same can't be said for that egregious Coruba, even with Coke.

Alan Wilkinson

9th February 2005, 19:57

you know nothing about me or how my salary gets paid. once again, you are making ill-informed conclusions about things that you don't know anything about.

Let me see, you scrape people off the roads, discuss traffic laws and regulations with Spud, I don't pay your salary - you must be a self-employed road cleaner.

Mongoose

9th February 2005, 20:10

Let me see, you scrape people off the roads, discuss traffic laws and regulations with Spud, I don't pay your salary - you must be a self-employed road cleaner.

Another example of your conclusion reaching Alan? I hope it works a lot better on all you facts and figures you spout, your conclusions that is?

marty

9th February 2005, 20:14

maybe i'm a just well read, researching, educated individual who has experienced plenty and lived my own life at 110%, instead of experiencing it vicariously.

or maybe i'm a road cleaner.

does it matter?

Alan Wilkinson

9th February 2005, 20:18

Just an earnest seeker after whatever truth can be had here, Mongoose.

Cheers for tonight.

Mongoose

9th February 2005, 20:20

Just an earnest seeker after whatever truth can be had here, Mongoose.

Cheers for tonight.

If you were a seeker of the truth and a researcher, you would not keep making a complete plonker out of yourself by jumping to conclusions. If your analitical mind had paid attention it was pointed out to you way back there that you were barking up the wrong tree and yet you continue to make the same mistake, is this also possible in other things you do?

Waylander

9th February 2005, 20:21

If you were a seeker of the truth and a researcher, you would not keep making a complete plonker out of yourself by jumping to conclusions
Nor would you be insulting members of this forum.

marty

9th February 2005, 20:22

Just an earnest seeker after whatever truth can be had here, Mongoose.

Cheers for tonight.

no you're not - you're a fucking nosy whinger that has an opinion on everything, but knowledge about nothing.

cheers :)

Hitcher

9th February 2005, 20:23

Mr Wilkinson

While I may agree with some of the issues "fast and safe" promulgates, I am having increasing difficulty accepting your abusive and bullying tone, particularly towards some of my Kiwibiker friends and others here whose opinions I respect considerably.

This site is special to those of us who choose to frequent it and socialise here for a whole bunch of reasons. If you would take the chance to hang out and socialise a bit in other threads -- even some of the seemingly inane ones -- you may start to develop some appreciation for what it is that binds us together. You will note that we often disagree strongly on some things but that is often offset by other matters on which we fervently agree. Who knows, if we got to know you a bit better we may see something more than a one-dimensional, arrogant boor.

We are all bikers here. That is one passion we have in common. We are a very broad church but I think one that is a pretty representative cross-section both of bikers and of New Zealanders, for that matter.

This is a pretty special place and one that is frequented by REAL people. People who deserve some courtesy and respect.

SPman

9th February 2005, 20:32

There is a time and a place for a good rum, even in a malt drinker's gargre...

Cockspur is a most excellent tipple!

Unfortunately the same can't be said for that egregious Coruba, even with Coke.
Cockspur. - cant say I've tried it.

Some cocks have certainly been spurred on this thread, the last few days!

Coruba!.....soap and water!

Mongoose

9th February 2005, 20:36

Cockspur. - cant say I've tried it.

Some cocks have certainly been spurred on this thread, the last few days!

Coruba!.....soap and water!

Oh, the joy of returning to the KB language :wari: :apint: :banana: BOOZE!!!

Joni

9th February 2005, 20:38

This is a pretty special place and one that is frequented by REAL people. People who deserve some courtesy and respect.

Thank you Hitcher.
This was needed, hopefully its heard and absorbed.

Alan - There are some very special people here, maybe if got off the defensive and took the time to read what we have to say on other subjects you would find the real value of KB....

:niceone:

Skunk

9th February 2005, 20:47

Shit, I don't look at a thread after page two and look what I miss. (I only read the last six pages - what a plonker.) I never saw an answer to a question from him, just name calling.

Who needs I am Milky or theknightrider? :banana:

El Dopa

9th February 2005, 20:55

Mate you have just not lived :shake:

Perhaps we could get Marty, Spud and Scumdog 'Lawmaster' bikes for Christmas?

'You're going to the cubes, perp, because....I AM!....THE LAW!'

Ahhhh, memories.

Paul in NZ

9th February 2005, 21:01

Let me see, you scrape people off the roads, discuss traffic laws and regulations with Spud, I don't pay your salary - you must be a self-employed road cleaner.

Just perhaps he is fully employed and a volunteer fireman in his off hours Alan. You know, someone that donates their time for a good cause with bugger all hope of fair reward. Just does a job because it needs doing in some little town thats prepared to turn out anytime to save your sorry arse... Why take the negative and get all uppity...

Besides.... Maybe we ought to invest in decent railway systems eh? Buy it back and lay some new track! Roads are too hard and we have coal and water - steams the future lads....

Anyway. I really don't like your idead of privatising the roads. It's not worked so well with everything else? (Air NZ, Telecom, BNZ, Railways) (please don't tell me how your phone costs less these days - thats an accident of technology) Besides, how would they pay for them? Toll roads? ETC? Well I know a bit about that, it's not easy, it's not cheap, it's barely economic and most people can't afford them.

I'm sorry Alan but some of us do believe in the classless society that was the ideal of our grandparents. That does not make us idiots, just a little different to you (thank god). No need to get wound up!

Paul N

Biff

9th February 2005, 21:19

Alan
Your opinions and those of your organisation are never going to carry much weight here. Particularly from this point on. Let me tell you why:

Fact - As has been stated on more than one occasion, "We" are the general public. "We" being a cross section of society hailing from all walks of life. As such we have our opinions. Opinions that should be respected, and not derided in any way. Unless you place "PT" (pi$$ take) after your comment that is, in which case you are most welcome to call me Tracey and ask me out on a date. If you don't then you’re going to make enemies. I wouldn't recommend asking me out at this stage, as I have a big dog.

Fact - I'd never walk into someone’s front room and begin hurling insults within 5 minutes of being welcomed in for chat. I expect the same courtesy from visitors to my house.

Fact - Anyone that claims to take the moral high ground who then resorts to hurling personal insults and conjecture, while presenting a cogent if not what could be described as an extreme opinion on any matter, must be prepared to
accept that they are going to loose credibility, and get a bloody nose in the process.

Fact - Some of us like to sit in a room full of people and listen to intelligent and constructive debate. Even if some opinions could be expressed more succinctly. But we all get a bit pi$$ed when someone who hasn't earned the right to come in here and hurl insults at us, does so. You're a guest. Please remember that and respect our hospitality.

Fact - We're a close knit community here. Friends. Personally I don't have the time of day for anyone that walks into our communal living room and insults my friends.

:niceone:

scumdog

9th February 2005, 21:39

I want the right to drive (and to live) as I wish so long as what I do does not significantly adversely affect the lives, freedom or property of anyone else.

.

The cemeteries are full of people that decided to excercise "the right to drive as I wish", unfortunately a few in the cemetery are the innocents that paid for that attitude. :cry:

As I mentioned in a sarcastic way (and got criticised by you for it) some people are just not capable of controlling a vehicle even at 100kph, even if THEY feel they are doing o.k. and do not realise how abysmal their 'driving' is. :blah:

spudchucka

9th February 2005, 22:53

Get lost meat-head. When you pay my salary instead of me paying yours I could believe there is something inside your skull worth listening to.

You have no evidence, just a big mouth.
Holy crap!! It looks like Alan has pretty much insulted or abused every member that has posted couter arguements in this thread.

As expected replies made by Alan Wilkinson have degenerated into abuse, a sure sign of a weak counter-arguement.

Hmmm, what have I just written, it sounds oddly familiar, let me think for a moment...................

...............................
As expected replies to Alan Wilkinson have degenerated into abuse, as sure sign of a weak counter-argument.

There it is!

Thanks Lou, I knew that pearl of wisdom would come in handy one day.

speedpro

9th February 2005, 22:54

I want the right to drive (and to live) as I wish so long as what I do does not significantly adversely affect the lives, freedom or property of anyone else.

I have trouble believing that people keep taking this all wrong. The important part of Alan's statement above is "so long as what I do does not significantly adversely affect the lives, freedom or property of anyone else".

Why give him a hard time for the first bit when if it's read in full it's a very reasonable statement.

He wants to drive at a sensible speed, not neccessarily currently a legal speed, PLUS at the same time he doesn't want to adversely affect anyone. Something we all probably practice ourselves at various times - we ride fast :whistle: but we sure as hell don't want to hurt anyone.

spudchucka

9th February 2005, 23:04

Hmmm. Where have I read this before.
That's right almost word for word from a speech by the most infamous politician of the '30's.
"We have a God given duty to protect our people from the evils of international jewry."
You obviously don't delve into cause and effect with regard to crime. But just think back to the major job losses of the mid-late '80's.
Consider the saying, "the devil makes work for idle hands".
We may have ended up with a more efficient economy, but we are paying the price for it.
Whatever, you're talking bullshit again. Your head is obviously stuck in the 30's as you have some sort of a Nazi fixation.

spudchucka

9th February 2005, 23:11

So what you're saying is that by not answering she could be charged with an offence but not arrested?

It was Indo in thread #102 that first claimed she was arrested legally....
Firstly we don't know what exactly she was arrested for. However we do know that she wasn't arrested for refusing to offer the detail of the driver because there is no powere to arrest for this offence. She was probably arrested for obstruction or for being a party to another offence, (burglary).

If she had been arrested for either of these offences she can still be questioned about the drivers details, however she would have to be cautioned first, ("You are not obliged to say anything unless you wish to do so, anything you do say can be given in evidence").

spudchucka

9th February 2005, 23:13

Firstly, I never claimed to be a lawyer or legal beagle. I consult one or look up the stuff when I need to know. In this instance I thought the Star-Times article looked dubious so asked your mate to clarify as I assumed he would know and save me the trouble. He just said obstruction usually led to arrest. What you have just said is probably what the lawyer told the reporter who then garbled it a bit.
You're subject to a fair bit of "garbeling" yourself.

Lou Girardin

10th February 2005, 07:23

Okie Dokie, so the crime rate has dropped in the last few years lou? The unemployment rate is at a comparitive low, so your logic tells us that there must be less crime, right?

That's what the Govt is claiming - less crime. Actually less 'reported' crime. Not necessarily the same thing.

Lou Girardin

10th February 2005, 07:31

Cops on this forum actually pay their own salary many times over. B

This should read, "Earn the Govt their salary many times over"

Lou Girardin

10th February 2005, 07:36

For those that are interested, go back to the first few pages. Check who started abusive replies.

Paul in NZ

10th February 2005, 08:47

Now I'm dying to see a debate between Spud, regurgitating his bosses stats, and Alan Wilkinson who knows the facts.

Well Lou...

Some people (not me of course) might just consider it was this piece of fat thrown on the fire that sparked it all off....

Paul N

Alan Wilkinson

10th February 2005, 08:50

Holy crap!! It looks like Alan has pretty much insulted or abused every member that has posted couter arguements in this thread.

No, for one short session I thought I would return in kind only to those who had insulted me. Possibly that is all who had posted counter arguments, because virtually all of those have been of the "I believe this, you are xxxx" kind. There has not been one piece of authenticated counter fact that I can recall.

And after going all round in circles on the arrested woman red-herring, we finish up that she was probably arrested illegitimately anyway which accounts for why she was then released with no charge.

Alan Wilkinson

10th February 2005, 09:00

i have scraped enough people out of their cars/bikes/trucks/planes to know what i'm talking about. it's not opinion - it is backed up by evidence i just can't be fucked dredging up again.

It is opinion. If you have verifiable evidence, produce it.

Mongoose

10th February 2005, 13:59

No, for one short session I thought I would return in kind only to those who had insulted me. Possibly that is all who had posted counter arguments, because virtually all of those have been of the "I believe this, you are xxxx" kind. There has not been one piece of authenticated counter fact that I can recall.

And after going all round in circles on the arrested woman red-herring, we finish up that she was probably arrested illegitimately anyway which accounts for why she was then released with no charge.

Dang, just as I was getting my daily postings up a bit too, you do have some uses Alan.
Anyone who posted anything that questioned your "beliefs", as that is all they are, graphs or otherwise, was either A) Ignored or B) Abused.
Need an example?
What about the question as to where all the money was coming from for new roads, more research, longer court sittings? If you reread the postings all those questions and more were asked and ignored, why?

Blakamin

10th February 2005, 14:06

It is opinion. If you have verifiable evidence, produce it.
ok, I know I'm not marty, but I suppose you'd like a graph?????

why don't you get out and volunteer to scrape people off the road??? too busy crunching numbers???

Might just be a statistic to you, buddy, but it's someones fucking life that becomes a red mess. go volunteer, you'll see for yourself....

Lou Girardin

10th February 2005, 14:37

Well Lou...

Some people (not me of course) might just consider it was this piece of fat thrown on the fire that sparked it all off....

Paul N

Ther'e's no abuse in it though.

Mongoose

10th February 2005, 14:40

Ther'e's no abuse in it though.

Nor in what I said, so just how sensitive is this Alan chap?

Lou Girardin

10th February 2005, 14:41

Lou Girardin

10th February 2005, 14:44

Nor in what I said, so just how sensitive is this Alan chap?

He wasn't aware of what he was getting into. Held his own quite well, I thought.

Biff

10th February 2005, 14:52

He wasn't aware of what he was getting into. Held his own quite well, I thought.

I don't believe he could have done a worse job at attempting to get people on side. His facts were weak, and he appeared uncomfortable and defensive when they were called into question, and this was before he started to get personal.

He might make a good home loan agent though.

Mongoose

10th February 2005, 14:57

He wasn't aware of what he was getting into. Held his own quite well, I thought.

As a crusader, that he purports to be, I doubt "He wasn't aware of what he was getting into." Or he has a lot to learn, but how can he when he is so educated he should know.
The man wants to learn the art of LISTENING and ANSWERING if he wants to push a barrow to any effect

Alan Wilkinson

10th February 2005, 15:27

Alan Wilkinson

10th February 2005, 15:35

What about the question as to where all the money was coming from for new roads, more research, longer court sittings?

Traffic policing now costs around $350M per annum. Fines and current court costs re speeding are probably another $150M. Better roads reduce casualties (save Health and ACC costs) as well as contributing to future wealth in many ways and reducing future welfare costs.

There is plenty of money now being wasted that could be redirected.

Mongoose

10th February 2005, 15:39

Traffic policing now costs around $350M per annum. Fines and current court costs re speeding are probably another $150M. Better roads reduce casualties (save Health and ACC costs) as well as contributing to future wealth in many ways and reducing future welfare costs.

There is plenty of money now being wasted that could be redirected.

And those figures are varifiable and accurate (not that i would think you would post other wise)
Can see one flaw already, what you were proposing would NOT do away with Traffic Policing. By how much you dont indicate.

"Fines and current court costs re speeding are probably another $150M." is obviously at best a gestimate, and what you propose would INCREASE court costs as EVERY ticket would be contested, no saving made at all

Midnight 82

10th February 2005, 15:44

That's why it's important to do things that work and are proven to do so.

Swearing and performing doesn't make you right or impress me in the slightest.

I think you need to eat your own words. you are one of the worst on here for swearing and name calling.

Alan Wilkinson

10th February 2005, 15:54

And those figures are varifiable and accurate (not that i would think you would post other wise)
Can see one flaw already, what you were proposing would NOT do away with Traffic Policing. By how much you dont indicate.

"Fines and current court costs re speeding are probably another $150M." is obviously at best a gestimate, and what you propose would INCREASE court costs as EVERY ticket would be contested, no saving made at all

You can go onto the govt budget websites and check for yourself, but they are around those numbers so it gives you the relative sizes which are large.

Yes, there would be residual costs to be met. Not every ticket would be contested, but there would be far fewer of them in total - maybe only one third or even less. And as I said there are the future benefits as well to support the case for investment.

Mongoose

10th February 2005, 15:58

You can go onto the govt budget websites and check for yourself, but they are around those numbers so it gives you the relative sizes which are large.

Yes, there would be residual costs to be met. Not every ticket would be contested, but there would be far fewer of them in total - maybe only one third or even less. And as I said there are the future benefits as well to support the case for investment.

Idealology rarely meets reality though.
Very few tickets are contested now, you catch cry back there was the RIGHT to contest, to have proven by whatever means you have, that what you did, ie speeding was safe, and that will take up far more court time.Maybe fewer tickets, but more court time that way.

Alan Wilkinson

10th February 2005, 16:04

Yes, some court cases will be longer, but useful - examining expert evidence to determine what is safe. But they will set precedents so that people will not need to go over that ground again, and can learn from other's experiences.

At present it is all about legal technicalities - almost nothing to do with safety gets looked at - unless there is a crash.

Mongoose

10th February 2005, 16:08

Alan Wilkinson

10th February 2005, 16:28

"But they will set precedents so that people will not need to go over that ground again, and can learn from other's experiences."

That is exactly what you want to challenge now, and yet will give up that right at a later date?

I don't understand what you mean by that.

IF(notice BIG IF) for the sake of debate, your law came into effect, people would demand the right to challenge any and every ticket they got, after all a precedent is only someone elses opinion.

They have the right now, but it costs money. The only difference is that under my proposal they could challenge on safety grounds, not just on legal technicalities. Again, it costs money. The courts are not sympathetic to foolish challenges - they would cost the defendent more money than those with a sound basis.

Mongoose

10th February 2005, 16:54

I don't understand what you mean by that..

Simple, you do not like the system as it is, want to challenge it to "Prove" what you did was safe, set a precedent and thereby set the bench mark(convenientlky forgetting that a majority of tickets under your scheme would have enough variables to not have commonality for a precedent) taking the right of those following you to challenge. Same applies now, precedents have been set, therefore your form of defence is not applicable.

But, while you are on about facts to everyone, wanting us all to back up what we say how about these examples of what you say?

I aim to discover and publish the truth irrespective of what anyone thinks.
Is that the truth according to Alan Wilkinson?

How is this difference to be accommadated?
absolutely agree that all kinds of needs should be met by our road transport system. It is clear from the research that there are different needs. For a simple example, on average, women prefer to drive 7 mph slower than men. Those differences should be catered for and not ignored or suppressed.

More opinion here?
I would like to see private operators running toll lanes and new toll roads with freedom to innovate and provide services for different kinds of users

Speculation not fact?
In the Central police district, police are now issuing 6500 speed tickets per month instead of 3000 and there are now 100 traffic injuries a month whereas if the trend prior to rigid speed limit enforcement had continued there would have been about 50.

Later to be admitted as such to make a point?
I extrapolated and 50 is probably a little too low. But the basic argument doesn't change.

How to make friends on a biker site?
ps - had a bike when I was younger, now enjoy a good car.

Lastly
You are free to answer my questions or tell me to get stuffed. But the questions will remain.
Why did i post this you ask? because Alan, when others challenged you, you DEMANDED they came up with facts to back what they said up, but Oh No, a different rule applies to you, why is this?
On that last point, you were asked numerous sensible questions, continually ignored them, again, different standards.

speedpro

10th February 2005, 17:51

ok, I know I'm not marty, but I suppose you'd like a graph?????

why don't you get out and volunteer to scrape people off the road??? too busy crunching numbers???

Might just be a statistic to you, buddy, but it's someones fucking life that becomes a red mess. go volunteer, you'll see for yourself....

I don't think Alan is arguing that people are being hurt or killed. The issue is what to do about what is causing it and indeed what is actually causing it.

Are some people here deliberately misinterpreting Alan's statements and the facts he produces? Facts which are generally backed up by verifiable evidence such as "independant" research. The research mentioned in another thread into motorcycle accidents highlights causes of accidents which probably applies to general traffic here in NZ. Speed which is focused on by the enforcement authorities here as the "obvious" cause of most of our driving ills was down the list.

Blakamin

10th February 2005, 18:42

I don't think Alan is arguing that people are being hurt or killed. The issue is what to do about what is causing it and indeed what is actually causing it.
.
I realise that, but just putting them as numbers and saying Marty scraping up bodies is an "opinion" without the stats is just bullshit.... :angry2:

Mongoose

10th February 2005, 18:44

I don't think Alan is arguing that people are being hurt or killed. The issue is what to do about what is causing it and indeed what is actually causing it.

Are some people here deliberately misinterpreting Alan's statements and the facts he produces? Facts which are generally backed up by verifiable evidence such as "independant" research. The research mentioned in another thread into motorcycle accidents highlights causes of accidents which probably applies to general traffic here in NZ. Speed which is focused on by the enforcement authorities here as the "obvious" cause of most of our driving ills was down the list.

Going by what Alan has said on this forum so far, he has at best half an idea because there has not been enough thought put in past what he wants, ie no firm thoughts on how to reach his objective

Alan Wilkinson

10th February 2005, 19:24

Simple, you do not like the system as it is, want to challenge it to "Prove" what you did was safe, set a precedent and thereby set the bench mark(convenientlky forgetting that a majority of tickets under your scheme would have enough variables to not have commonality for a precedent) taking the right of those following you to challenge. Same applies now, precedents have been set, therefore your form of defence is not applicable.

It's nothing to do with precedents. It's the way the law is written that prevents a challenge to speed limits on the basis of safety.

I aim to discover and publish the truth irrespective of what anyone thinks.
Is that the truth according to Alan Wilkinson?

No.

How is this difference to be accommadated?
absolutely agree that all kinds of needs should be met by our road transport system. It is clear from the research that there are different needs. For a simple example, on average, women prefer to drive 7 mph slower than men. Those differences should be catered for and not ignored or suppressed.

We discussed some options. Obviously different lanes, roads, and private providers. But I don't pretend to have all the answers. Recognising the problem would be the first step.

More opinion here?
I would like to see private operators running toll lanes and new toll roads with freedom to innovate and provide services for different kinds of users

Yes, and clearly such.

Speculation not fact?
In the Central police district, police are now issuing 6500 speed tickets per month instead of 3000 and there are now 100 traffic injuries a month whereas if the trend prior to rigid speed limit enforcement had continued there would have been about 50.

Absolutely not.

Later to be admitted as such to make a point?
I extrapolated and 50 is probably a little too low. But the basic argument doesn't change.

A log plot extrapolation is more accurate but only slightly over short timespans. And as we saw earlier in this thread log plots confuse a lot of people.

How to make friends on a biker site?
ps - had a bike when I was younger, now enjoy a good car.

Just call it the truth.

Lastly
You are free to answer my questions or tell me to get stuffed. But the questions will remain.
Why did i post this you ask? because Alan, when others challenged you, you DEMANDED they came up with facts to back what they said up, but Oh No, a different rule applies to you, why is this?
On that last point, you were asked numerous sensible questions, continually ignored them, again, different standards.
Opinions are free, facts are sacred. We are all free to have our own opinions, but not to pass them off as facts. I answered all questions which I thought were sensible and where the questioner genuinely wanted to listen to an answer.

spudchucka

10th February 2005, 19:35

And after going all round in circles on the arrested woman red-herring, we finish up that she was probably arrested illegitimately anyway which accounts for why she was then released with no charge.
You only read YOUR posts, aye.

Mongoose

10th February 2005, 19:36

It's nothing to do with precedents. It's the way the law is written that prevents a challenge to speed limits on the basis of safety

So, you know for a FACT that no one has EVER challenged the law on safety?

No.
You are way to madest

We discussed some options. Obviously different lanes, roads, and private providers. But I don't pretend to have all the answers. Recognising the problem would be the first step.

no we didn't, you came up with some theories but did not back them up with the how. maybe you think you have one way of funding all this, the traffic police and thre Courts, or according to you the lack of them.Not a runner.

Opinions are free, facts are sacred. We are all free to have our own opinions, but not to pass them off as facts. I answered all questions which I thought were sensible and where the questioner genuinely wanted to listen to an answer.

Yopur problem then is you mix fact and opinion to suit yourself, exagerate to suit yourself but expect ALL others to come up with the FACTS

Skyryder

10th February 2005, 19:36

Going by what Alan has said on this forum so far, he has at best half an idea because there has not been enough thought put in past what he wants, ie no firm thoughts on how to reach his objective

I thought he wanted to privatise the roads. I have read his website and I must confess that the man can handle himslef in a debate. http://www.fastandsafe.org/site.aspx/Pages/Facts/HiddenCameraTrial/LTSAComments
and http://www.fastandsafe.org/site.aspx/Pages/Media/Haden. Mind you it's not hard to cut this man down to size. Done it myself on one occasion.
His stats have survived peer review. Here is a man who is and can take on the 'estabishment' at their own game. He talks the same language as them but comes to a different conclusion. Is he right or wrong?. On this I am undecided. But I am leaning to the view that he may just have something. To me his biggest stumbling block is the privatising of highways. If this is his answer then he is going to need Govt legislation to do so. Now if the Govt. is willing to do this on private highways why not on public roads? After all the mindset is the same. Perhaps Allan you could elaborate futher on this point.

Skyryder

spudchucka

10th February 2005, 19:38

He wasn't aware of what he was getting into. Held his own quite well, I thought.
I bet he's pissed at you for inviting him in to the lions den.

spudchucka

10th February 2005, 19:40

Swearing and performing doesn't make you right or impress me in the slightest.
Neither does answering every challenge with the words "rubish", "total nonsense" or "bollocks" at the start of a sentence.

spudchucka

10th February 2005, 19:41

spudchucka

10th February 2005, 19:43

That's what the Govt is claiming - less crime. Actually less 'reported' crime. Not necessarily the same thing.
Under reporting has always been an issue with crime statistics. Can you prove that it is anymore of a problem now than it ever has been?

Mongoose

10th February 2005, 19:46

How much of your national four lane highway will $350M purchase?

Oi, i was saving that for later :yeah:

And if privately built, that would only happen where a return was viable, so what about all the other raods?

spudchucka

10th February 2005, 19:53

For those that are interested, go back to the first few pages. Check who started abusive replies.
Kindly pointed out by Indo in post #33, Alan Wilkinson insults anybody that wants to go slower than him by calling them less educated & poorer than him, (from his web site).

the people who want to go slower are typically 'less educated, poorer' whereas those who want to go faster are 'more educated and affulent'.
Reply With Quote

Mongoose

10th February 2005, 19:56

Kindly pointed out by Indo in post #33, Alan Wilkinson insults anybody that wants to go slower than him by calling them less educated & poorer than him, (from his web site).

reminds me of something else I read.
Ever notice how those that drive slower than you are idiots and those that drive faster than you are maniacs?

Mongoose

10th February 2005, 20:21

I don't think Alan is arguing that people are being hurt or killed. The issue is what to do about what is causing it and indeed what is actually causing it.
.

Forgive some of us who may apear cynical of Alan Wilkinson, but after having another look at his site(that will pleaee him, another return visit for his site stats) it is so slanted anti police it strays away from what its intended, stated purpose is.
Statements like
Rigid speed limit enforcement by the NZ police produced no change in fatality trend but a large upward trend in crashes and injuries in every district. Waikato got it sooner - with the introduction of hidden speed cameras. Excessive speeding tickets just mean more traffic injuries but no fewer deaths

Shows no causal affect, are we to believe its all because of the "Rigid" speed limit enforcement that the crash rate went up? Thank goodness i live in another country called the South Island and seem to have missed these "Rigid" enforcements. Come to think about it, there has been reports on this site of this "Rigid" enforcement NOT being followed.

Blakamin

10th February 2005, 20:36

Kindly pointed out by Indo in post #33, Alan Wilkinson insults anybody that wants to go slower than him by calling them less educated & poorer than him, (from his web site).
round here we just call them "retired" or "tourists"

madboy

10th February 2005, 20:55

round here we just call them "retired" or "tourists"are there people who aren't retired or tourists in Raumati? :confused:

Paul in NZ

10th February 2005, 21:01

are there people who aren't retired or tourists in Raumati? :confused:

YES! Several goat keeping Llama breeders and a bee keeper...

Oh.. And us...

Paul N

SPman

10th February 2005, 21:05

reminds me of something else I read.
Ever notice how those that drive slower than you are idiots and those that drive faster than you are maniacs?

Hmmmmmm......nope.
after a full and thorough evaluation of their driving skill, and chances of having actually sat a license test, (this should take about 7-8 secs to do ) the normal phrase that follows is along the lines of -"FFS you prick, pull your fuckin finger out- jesus kriste - were'd you get your fuckin licence - in a weetbix packet!"...or somesuch. So they are pricks! - full of malice aforethought!

with the fast ones it s normally "fuck! Where did he come from!"...let him go! (its normally him) They are normally titleless.

But thats just my opinion! :apint:

speedpro

10th February 2005, 21:06

Under reporting has always been an issue with crime statistics. Can you prove that it is anymore of a problem now than it ever has been?
I don't have a table created from some survey of thousands, BUT, , , immediate acquantances don't even consider reporting minor crimes. Could be just people I know . . . .

speedpro

10th February 2005, 21:44

Hitcher

10th February 2005, 22:02

Having followed this thread for a while I was struck in a senior moment by deja vu. Those who have been around a while may remember this as well.

BUACA!

SPman

10th February 2005, 22:07

Aaahh...BUACA. A bit like CLOACA - and about as effective!

Hitcher

10th February 2005, 22:09

Aaahh...BUACA. A bit like CLOACA - and about as effective!
There's much to like about a multifunctional orifice. Just ask Winja...

bluninja

10th February 2005, 22:26

Having followed this thread for a while I was struck in a senior moment by deja vu. Those who have been around a while may remember this as well.

BUACA!

Thought they had their own site and blocked NZ from accessing it when we continued the discussion on their website. They are now on http://groups.msn.com/BUACA/ in case anyone wants to debate with them some more. :confused:

Can you imagine Alan trying to do the same? Don't think so, though he does have editorial control of all on his site.

spudchucka

11th February 2005, 07:48

I don't have a table created from some survey of thousands, BUT, , , immediate acquantances don't even consider reporting minor crimes. Could be just people I know . . . .
It has always been a problem getting people to report minor crimes and this is what makes the crime stats misleading. Likewise with crimes such as rape and sexual violation, many victims simply won't report these crimes because they don't want to go through the degrading processes that are part of investigation and medical examination, some just don't want to relive the experience by telling their story. The true extent of all crime is pretty much unknowable.

Alan Wilkinson

11th February 2005, 08:19

I thought he wanted to privatise the roads. I have read his website and I must confess that the man can handle himslef in a debate. http://www.fastandsafe.org/site.aspx/Pages/Facts/HiddenCameraTrial/LTSAComments
and http://www.fastandsafe.org/site.aspx/Pages/Media/Haden. Mind you it's not hard to cut this man down to size. Done it myself on one occasion.
His stats have survived peer review. Here is a man who is and can take on the 'estabishment' at their own game. He talks the same language as them but comes to a different conclusion. Is he right or wrong?. On this I am undecided. But I am leaning to the view that he may just have something. To me his biggest stumbling block is the privatising of highways. If this is his answer then he is going to need Govt legislation to do so. Now if the Govt. is willing to do this on private highways why not on public roads? After all the mindset is the same. Perhaps Allan you could elaborate futher on this point.

Skyryder

I think the biggest problem to solve with privatisation is to make sure you don't hand a private provider a monopoly. If there is one thing worse than a public monopoly it is a private monopoly. So to my mind there must always be a competitive alternative, or the realistic opportunity for a competitor to come in if you overprice - either public or private.

Apart from avoiding a monopoly there are probably a lot of ways to go. For example, the govt could own the major highway land corridors and lease out portions to private operators (eg toll lanes).

Yes, it will certainly need legislation. It has to be a government initiative.

I'm not sure if this answered your question because I'm not 100% sure what you were asking.

spudchucka

11th February 2005, 08:22

Quote:
Originally Posted by spudchucka
Kindly pointed out by Indo in post #33, Alan Wilkinson insults anybody that wants to go slower than him by calling them less educated & poorer than him, (from his web site).

This is typical BS that Alan has been getting from this thread. In relation to this was a link to the research by I think US academics which investigated the demographics of fast or slow drivers. They found that the more of a go-getter you were the faster you tended to drive. The less educated and lower socio-economic tended to drive slower. The old story I suppose - things to do, places to go, people to meet, and not enough time.

Annoyingly I can't find the link.
http://www.fastandsafe.org/site.aspx/Pages/Media/OurComments

You'll note it came from the section entitled "Our Comments" This is his thought process at work.

My current thinking is that the major problem with speed limits is that they attempt to impose the same speed solution on all subgroups and this is suboptimal almost all the time.

People who want to go slower (typically females, van-drivers, less affluent, less educated, elderly) feel pressured to go faster and people who want to go faster (typically male, car drivers, more affluent, more educated) feel impatient and bored.

He lost what little respect I had for him and his ideas when I read this absolute load of maggot crap.

http://www.fastandsafe.org/site.aspx/Pages/Media/PayOrWeTakeYourBaby12Dec04

Register Your Car Or We Take Your Baby We're from the Government and we're here to help.

Thuggery in Police Uniform

Words just about fail me on this story. A disgrace to my sex, three carloads of cops bullying a teenage mother. Just a gang of low-life thugs in my book, and that goes too for their spineless commander who ducks his responsibility behind "just following guidelines".

But of course the hidden story here is that vehicle registration fees are sky-rocketing beyond the ability of low-paid families to afford. Why? Because the ACC levy component is rising due to the increased road injuries caused by the catastrophic failure of rigid speed enforcement policies.

So the police are responsible for the whole sorry story here from start to finish. Uncaring total incompetence reigns.

He makes endless assumptions and passes them off as facts.

http://www.fastandsafe.org/site.aspx/Pages/Facts/TicketQuotas/index

However, it is plain that the police budget and funding by the Government is based on meeting target objectives in the form of numbers of speeding tickets issued per year. There is simply no other possible consequence than that police managers send out their staff on patrol with the demand that they return with the requisite number of tickets per hour.

He admitted himself that this little beauty is unprovable and amounts to total speculation.

http://www.fastandsafe.org/site.aspx/Pages/Facts/RigidEnforcement/index

High visibility/rigid enforcement policies introduced in Dec 2000 resulted in 11,000 ADDITIONAL injuries and some 50 ADDITIONAL deaths in three years, and continues to cause 5000 unnecessary injuries every year.

Great idea Alan. I mean it really worked out well for the consumer privatising the power companies, water supply companies, etc etc etc.

We support competing private toll roads and toll lanes. These must be actively managed and controlled by private operators to ensure innovative best practices and services.

Alan can't see that in fact, he too is part of a prejudiced minority.

This book is dedicated to the countless thousands who have died on the roads of the world as the result of the prejudices of a minority

Alan replies to any comment he doesn't like with one of the following sentences.

Farcical pseudo-science.
Rubbish.
More rubbish.
Meaningless drivel.
Emotive claptrap.
No.
Hogwash.
More hogwash.
More hogwash statistics
Untrue.
We, the public, are sick of all this official deceit.
A cascade of assertions without evidence,
Don't you just love that arrogance -

And those are just the ones from his web site, theres more if you want to read back through this thread.

ABC of Tabloid Journalism 101

Passed with Distinction: Abuse and Bluster
Failed to Achieve: Content

This is how he summed up Frank Haden, a Sunday Star Times columnist. Yet elswhere he has celebrated the word of the Sunday Star Times journalists as being some sort of miraculous truth - when it suits him.

Like I've said earlier, based on what I've seen on his web site and what he has posted here, I have nothing but contempt for the man.

Alan Wilkinson

11th February 2005, 08:28

Kindly pointed out by Indo in post #33, Alan Wilkinson insults anybody that wants to go slower than him by calling them less educated & poorer than him, (from his web site).

This is a finding reported by Univ of Texas researchers, not me. They investigated desired speeds and broke down the results by many variables including also sex, age, vehicle type, population density where they lived.

Alan Wilkinson

11th February 2005, 08:34

Like I've said earlier, based on what I've seen on his web site and what he has posted here, I have nothing but contempt for the man.

That's good, because I would be concerned at any praise from a man like you.

Alan Wilkinson

11th February 2005, 08:44

However, it is plain that the police budget and funding by the Government is based on meeting target objectives in the form of numbers of speeding tickets issued per year. There is simply no other possible consequence than that police managers send out their staff on patrol with the demand that they return with the requisite number of tickets per hour.

He admitted himself that this little beauty is unprovable and amounts to total speculation.

Not quite, cutie. You've admitted yourself you don't report traffic infringement warnings in case your ticket/warning ratio looks bad. The pressure is obvious.

Also in today's Herald:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10010610

But the source said Strategic Traffic Unit staff were judged on the number of tickets - "contacts" - issued and officers were expected to make three contacts an hour.

If unit staff did not meet that quota, it could be looked on as "a performance issue".

As the unit was judged solely on the number of "contacts", attending police jobs that did not result in an infringement being issued were considered lost time.

Police spokesman Jon Neilson said three "contacts" an hour was a department guideline, but not a quota.

Alan Wilkinson

11th February 2005, 08:53

Great idea Alan. I mean it really worked out well for the consumer privatising the power companies, water supply companies, etc etc etc.

As I said, avoid creating private monopolies. But it sounds like you would have been really happy in communist Russia or Albania. You would have enjoyed the fantastic service and innovations from government enterprises.

Come to think of it, the police probably had dachas on the Black Sea coast.

Paul in NZ

11th February 2005, 09:30

As I said, avoid creating private monopolies. But it sounds like you would have been really happy in communist Russia or Albania. You would have enjoyed the fantastic service and innovations from government enterprises.

Come to think of it, the police probably had dachas on the Black Sea coast.

I think thats below the belt Alan... You have to accept people will have different politics / opinions to yours and that does not make them either wrong or communist dictators.

The investigations I have done here indicate that (from a commercial point of few) that any privatisation of roading in NZ would end up in the hands of one or 2 monopolies (price fixing in the free market - surely not) with only a few metropolitan areas being profitable.

Given the current state of politics in NZ, this move would be fairly un acceptable in the forseeable future. Indeed, the public don't seem that keen. (no I'm not giving you my data it is very commercially sensitive and I like my job thanks)

The private enterprise model is considered smoke and mirrors to Joe Average Voter here in NZ. You would need to do a lot of work to convince them otherwise and a website is not going to achieve that.

My own personal opinion is that I would not support you generally except:

I do agree SHW1 should be 4 lanes Northland to Dunedin.
I do agree that speed policing was far too enthusiastic.
I do see this backing off slightly.
I believe Police need better resources for handling emergency situations

Every country has a unique situation. In general we are well served by our Police in this country and get good value for money. I have been personally and professionally involved with a lot of Police and generally found them to be of a high standard and dedicated to their jobs.

Criminals are finding new ways to tax the Police resources constantly and they have had to pick up the pieces of a lot of the failed right wing social experiments from your side of the spectrum. I think they need better resources...

The actions of the Police are to some extent dictated by the government and public officials. These same officials, while they demand performance levels, are usually a bit skinny on delivering resource.

I see this same situation in NZ's roading.

On the other hand. I do not want to see a country where you can decide how fast you want to drive that day. (ie flat out) or where rich owners of large cars are allowed to do as they please. There is a tradition of ownership of old and classic vehicles here and I kind of like sharing the road with Morris Minors. It's part of our charm. Besides, if I'm in a hurry I catch a plane. It's cheaper and faster.

Paul N

Alan Wilkinson

11th February 2005, 10:45

I think thats below the belt Alan... You have to accept people will have different politics / opinions to yours and that does not make them either wrong or communist dictators.

Just pitching to Spud at his own level. But it's correct as well.

The investigations I have done here indicate that (from a commercial point of few) that any privatisation of roading in NZ would end up in the hands of one or 2 monopolies (price fixing in the free market - surely not) with only a few metropolitan areas being profitable.

Given the current state of politics in NZ, this move would be fairly un acceptable in the forseeable future. Indeed, the public don't seem that keen. (no I'm not giving you my data it is very commercially sensitive and I like my job thanks)

I think it depends how it's done. Even if there is competition between private and public provisions it would be an improvement. [E.g. private prisons - so successful the govt closed it down to protect its unions]

The private enterprise model is considered smoke and mirrors to Joe Average Voter here in NZ. You would need to do a lot of work to convince them otherwise and a website is not going to achieve that.
[\QUOTE]
I think average Joe in Auckland would have a different opinion.
[QUOTE=Paul in NZ]
My own personal opinion is that I would not support you generally except:

I do agree SHW1 should be 4 lanes Northland to Dunedin.
I do agree that speed policing was far too enthusiastic.
I do see this backing off slightly.
I believe Police need better resources for handling emergency situations

Every country has a unique situation. In general we are well served by our Police in this country and get good value for money. I have been personally and professionally involved with a lot of Police and generally found them to be of a high standard and dedicated to their jobs.

Criminals are finding new ways to tax the Police resources constantly and they have had to pick up the pieces of a lot of the failed right wing social experiments from your side of the spectrum. I think they need better resources...

The actions of the Police are to some extent dictated by the government and public officials. These same officials, while they demand performance levels, are usually a bit skinny on delivering resource.

I see this same situation in NZ's roading.

I agree with most of that. Where I would differ (and this is just personal opinion - nothing to do with FastAndSafe issues), is:

a) we have far too many laws and regulations designed to protect people from themselves and this has created far too many pseudo crimes and work for police.

b) classic example is cannabis laws. How many people have died from cannabis? How many people have died from cannabis prohibition? How much money has cannabis prohibition delivered to organised crime? How many people grow and support addictive habits on welfare?

c) police get landed with too many mental health problems.

On the other hand. I do not want to see a country where you can decide how fast you want to drive that day. (ie flat out) or where rich owners of large cars are allowed to do as they please. There is a tradition of ownership of old and classic vehicles here and I kind of like sharing the road with Morris Minors. It's part of our charm. Besides, if I'm in a hurry I catch a plane. It's cheaper and faster.

The charm wears off when you have a 250 km journey to do a job. Incidentally, I've nothing against slow drivers when they are considerate and allow other traffic to pass. Very often it is the second driver in a long queue who is incompetent, blocks others from overtaking but won't overtake themselves.

Lou Girardin

11th February 2005, 11:38

I bet he's pissed at you for inviting him in to the lions den.

Wasn't me.

Alan Wilkinson

11th February 2005, 12:14

Wasn't me.

Ha! Lion's den??? Poor old Spud has delusions of grandeur. More like a little kid's play pen for him and his mates.

Lou Girardin

11th February 2005, 12:15

Kindly pointed out by Indo in post #33, Alan Wilkinson insults anybody that wants to go slower than him by calling them less educated & poorer than him, (from his web site).

Is that actually an insult? Or are you deflecting attention from who actually started the abuse on THIS website.

Lou Girardin

11th February 2005, 12:19

It has always been a problem getting people to report minor crimes and this is what makes the crime stats misleading. Likewise with crimes such as rape and sexual violation, many victims simply won't report these crimes because they don't want to go through the degrading processes that are part of investigation and medical examination, some just don't want to relive the experience by telling their story. The true extent of all crime is pretty much unknowable.

And getting worse. As the public increasingly believe that the Police won't respond, they're less likely to bother reporting crime. Unless their insurance co requires it.

Lou Girardin

11th February 2005, 12:36

Ha! Lion's den??? Poor old Spud has delusions of grandeur. More like a little kid's play pen for him and his mates.

It's good to have company, I've been entertaining Spud, Scumdog, et al. for a while now. They've been missing me lately, since I've been busy with other things.

spudchucka

11th February 2005, 12:47

And getting worse. As the public increasingly believe that the Police won't respond, they're less likely to bother reporting crime. Unless their insurance co requires it.
And there are heaps that report bogus crimes for their insurance companies too. Does that make it even then?

Biff

11th February 2005, 12:48

More like a little kid's play pen for him and his mates.

I think I'll join a forum full of people from all walks of life, be condescending, belittle them and finally abuse every single one of them. Way to go.

spudchucka

11th February 2005, 12:49

It's good to have company, I've been entertaining Spud, Scumdog, et al. for a while now. They've been missing me lately, since I've been busy with other things.
Entertaining in a "what a load of dogs bollocks" sort of way.

Alan Wilkinson

11th February 2005, 12:55

It's good to have company, I've been entertaining Spud, Scumdog, et al. for a while now. They've been missing me lately, since I've been busy with other things.
Yes, I noticed they began by trying to insult you and then moved on to me. It's been interesting getting a good look at their mentality and temper which is a bit worse than I expected I guess. But they might be unrepresentative of cops?

Alan Wilkinson

11th February 2005, 13:03

I think I'll join a forum full of people from all walks of life, be condescending, belittle them and finally abuse every single one of them. Way to go.

A bit upset that you haven't been able to bully us, are you? Well, fyi, there are some sensible people here with whom I have enjoyed debate, even when we disagreed. Unfortunately, there seem to be quite a few others.

spudchucka

11th February 2005, 13:05

Is that actually an insult? Or are you deflecting attention from who actually started the abuse on THIS website.
I'm suggesting that noody other you gives a shit.

I made my position quite clear to Alan in posts 77 & 128. Up until then I was willing to give him a go and hadn't "abused" him unless you consider a little traditional baiting as abuse. If you do then you obviously have double standards as this is pretty much your own standard operating procedure.

In post 89 you suggest I have started abusing him but prior to that I had been answering his questions as openly as I could.

As the thread has progressed I've been steadily losing all respect for him.

If my posts reflect that then too bad.

Lou Girardin

11th February 2005, 13:08

Yes, I noticed they began by trying to insult you and then moved on to me. It's been interesting getting a good look at their mentality and temper which is a bit worse than I expected I guess. But they might be unrepresentative of cops?

It seems to be a characteristic of the authoritarian personality type. I hate to admit it, but I thought a bit like Spud when I was in the MOT (not much though). But life outside law enforcement opens your eyes to other possiblities.

spudchucka

11th February 2005, 13:09

Ha! Lion's den??? Poor old Spud has delusions of grandeur. More like a little kid's play pen for him and his mates.
And you've been spitting your dummy again, have'nt you Alan.

Alan, you don't even ride a bike. You only came here to either rub up your own ego or to recruit support for your own cause.

Seems that other than old Lou you have been annoying quite a few of the locals. Maybe you should go back to you own play pen? Have you thought about starting a forum on your own web site? Think of the fun you could have.

spudchucka

11th February 2005, 13:12

Alan Wilkinson

11th February 2005, 13:15

You only came here to either rub up your own ego or to recruit support for your own cause.
No, I originally came here to correct some misrepresentations I read on this thread. I stayed mostly to see what I could find out, and to answer the few sensible questioners. But also to see how you bully boys reacted to a bit of your own medicine. Not very well, as I expected.

spudchucka

11th February 2005, 13:15

Not quite, cutie. You've admitted yourself you don't report traffic infringement warnings in case your ticket/warning ratio looks bad. The pressure is obvious.

Also in today's Herald:
ASSUMPTION! Its my choice, there is no pressure, it actually makes me look bad because I'm not delivering the hours they want me too. I could achieve this by recording warnings. I choose not to for my own personal reasons not because of the pressure from some boss or policy.

spudchucka

11th February 2005, 13:17

That's good, because I would be concerned at any praise from a man like you.
:whocares: :whocares:

Paul in NZ

11th February 2005, 13:21

I think it depends how it's done. Even if there is competition between private and public provisions it would be an improvement. [E.g. private prisons - so successful the govt closed it down to protect its unions]
.

Really? - Thats a new one on me? I did a little work on electronics systems for prisons etc etc but civil rights people don't like stuff like that. To be fair, Unions have there place and can do a lot of good for the ordinary working man! I've been on both sides of that coin!

I agree with most of that. Where I would differ (and this is just personal opinion - nothing to do with FastAndSafe issues), is:

a) we have far too many laws and regulations designed to protect people from themselves and this has created far too many pseudo crimes and work for police.

.

Possibly. Others would argue we don't have enough laws to stop people being exploited by cruel corporations and carpet baggers.

b) classic example is cannabis laws. How many people have died from cannabis? How many people have died from cannabis prohibition? How much money has cannabis prohibition delivered to organised crime? How many people grow and support addictive habits on welfare?

.

There is another thread on this already! PLEASE don't throw petrol on the fires of this thread. I can just see stoned CEO's driving at 200kph in the company XR8....

c) police get landed with too many mental health problems.
.

Yet Lou and co lambasted the Police over the recent Irena Asher case. This is a classic one where the Police were overloaded due to a individual making bad personal choices over where they went, who they went with and their medication (mental health issue). While you point about there being too many laws preventing people from harming themselves everyone still expects the Police to turn out and often risk their own lives to help them. How would the average cop on the beat manage that? "Sorry mate, we can't help you because you made a stupid decision?"

The charm wears off when you have a 250 km journey to do a job.
.

I dunno. I still commute 500km a week and used to do over 1300km a week for several years around the country. Never felt the need to speed in the company vehicle. Kinda liked to get into a good frame of mind for the job in hand! (working on live telecommunications gear and power is not a job for a man in a hurry or stressed by time)

Incidentally, I've nothing against slow drivers when they are considerate and allow other traffic to pass. Very often it is the second driver in a long queue who is incompetent, blocks others from overtaking but won't overtake themselves.

Now THAT we can agree on. If the second vehicle would just drop back a little so people could pass in 2 hops, a lot of frustration would be avoided!

BTW - It works 2 ways. I commute in a small economical old car I bought to teach the kids to drive in (and found I love it) and regularly pull over to let people pass. About 10% thank you for it.. Amazing!

spudchucka

11th February 2005, 13:22

This is a finding reported by Univ of Texas researchers, not me. They investigated desired speeds and broke down the results by many variables including also sex, age, vehicle type, population density where they lived.
Its in a section entitled "Our Comments" And is preceeded by a paragraph that starts "My current thinking is.....".

Shouldn't you be referencing the "research" of others instead of passing it off as your own ideas?

Isn't that plagerism?

Alan Wilkinson

11th February 2005, 13:25

BTW - It works 2 ways. I commute in a small economical old car I bought to teach the kids to drive in (and found I love it) and regularly pull over to let people pass. About 10% thank you for it.. Amazing!

I agree. I always try to wave a thank-you. But it's a bit hard to be seen from the driver's seat - and I worry they might think I'm being rude. We need a clear "thank-you" sign. Overseas they do it with flashing lights.

spudchucka

11th February 2005, 13:26

But also to see how you bully boys reacted to a bit of your own medicine. Not very well, as I expected.
Get a grip of yourself. That comment once again simply highlights your true motivation, to discredit police at any opportunity. You are shaping up as a true oxygen theif.

Alan Wilkinson

11th February 2005, 13:33

I can just see stoned CEO's driving at 200kph in the company XR8....

No company is going to tolerate a stoned CEO, or any other senior manager.

Yet Lou and co lambasted the Police over the recent Irena Asher case. This is a classic one where the Police were overloaded due to a individual making bad personal choices over where they went, who they went with and their medication (mental health issue). While you point about there being too many laws preventing people from harming themselves everyone still expects the Police to turn out and often risk their own lives to help them. How would the average cop on the beat manage that? "Sorry mate, we can't help you because you made a stupid decision?"

Isn't that part of the consequence of not making people responsible for themselves? But mental health is rather different when it involves mind-changing illnesses. We do have to look after those people better. It is not just the job of the police and I would not often blame them when things go wrong. It usually started way back up the chain.

Alan Wilkinson

11th February 2005, 13:38

Its in a section entitled "Our Comments" And is preceeded by a paragraph that starts "My current thinking is.....".

Shouldn't you be referencing the "research" of others instead of passing it off as your own ideas?

Isn't that plagerism?
See below:

http://www.fastandsafe.org/site.aspx/Pages/Facts/InjuryTrends/Dyson4Nov04
Recent detailed and extensive academic US traffic accident research I have examined fails to uphold any clear relationship between speed and crash frequency. For example, a comparison of crash frequencies on multi-lane highways failed to find any difference between fast and slow lanes. A comparison of male and female drivers found that on average males prefered to drive 7 mph faster than females. However, males and females had similar frequency of crashes per distance driven. Other studies failed to find any relationship between average speed immediately before the crash and the likelihood of a crash. Studies have also failed to confirm any consistent relationship between speed variations and crash likelihood.

Alan Wilkinson

11th February 2005, 13:41

That comment once again simply highlights your true motivation, to discredit police at any opportunity.

Nothing I can say will discredit you. You have to do it yourself.

Biff

11th February 2005, 13:48

A bit upset that you haven't been able to bully us, are you? Well, fyi, there are some sensible people here with whom I have enjoyed debate, even when we disagreed. Unfortunately, there seem to be quite a few others.

Bully you ? Getting upset. Not at all. Get a grip man, I've done nothing of the sort. I think you're getting a little paranoid.

Although, I'll admit to being a bit pissed at the fact that on several occasions you've sought to deride, on mass, pretty much everyone on this site.

But hey , you carry on, I'll just sit here, shaking my head and drinking coffee. I've pretty much abstained from getting involved in this thread basically because I've only been in this country for a few months, and don't believe I know enough about 'the system', or have earnt the right to tell every other bugger here what they should or shouldn't be doing and thinking. Unlike some.

sparrow_34

11th February 2005, 13:48

People die on the roads. Always have, always will. You break the speed limit of say 100kp/h, tough. It's not like you were entraped into thinking the limit was 110km/h the big round sign says 100. Don't bitch and moan if you go faster and get caught. I ride faster than 100kp/h, if I get caught I get caught, no complaining from me. Sure 100kp/h is not some mystical magic number that once broken has the grim reaper creeping up to get you. It is a number that has been chosen as the open road speed limit.

The LTSA stats are tipped in their favour, yes, but really who gives a rats arse about the stats, if you have the intelligence to see through them then get over it and move on.

Biff

11th February 2005, 13:50

No company is going to tolerate a stoned CEO, or any other senior manager.

I think what you meant to say was, "knowingly tolerate". You'd be surprised how many CEO's directors, senior execs, CFO's and such like that I know for a fact smoke pot.

Alan Wilkinson

11th February 2005, 13:51

on several occasions you've sought to deride, on mass, pretty much everyone on this site.
Rubbish. And that doesn't either.

Biff

11th February 2005, 14:06

Rubbish.

It's not rubbish Alan. See my post further up this page where you alluded that we were all children in a play pen. Further back in this thread you also accussed most of us as being less intelligent than you because we tended to disagree with your opinions.

If you never meant these things and myself and other people here have misinterpreted your comments, then I suggest you take your time a bit more when responding to posts here and consider the fact that you're talkng to an audience.

And that doesn't either.

I'm sorry I haven't a clue what you're referring to. What's "that"?

Alan Wilkinson

11th February 2005, 14:14

It's not rubbish Alan. See my post further up this page where you alluded that we were all children in a play pen.
If you never meant these things and myself and other people here have misinterpreted your comments, then I suggest you take your time a bit more when responding to posts here and consider the fact that you're talkng to an audience.

The play pen was just a refutation of Spud's "lion's den" and referred only to his childish tag team trying to give me a hard time.

Further back in this thread you also accussed most of us as being less intelligent than you because we tended to disagree with your opinions.

I don't know what you are talking about but you certainly misinterpreted me.

I'm sorry I haven't a clue what you're referring to. What's "that"?
Saying "Rubbish."

Biff

11th February 2005, 14:22

The play pen was just a refutation of Spud's "lion's den" and referred only to his childish tag team trying to give me a hard time.

Apology accepted.

I don't know what you are talking about but you certainly misinterpreted me.

I'd suggest that you practice being a little more sycinct with your comments then, that way nodoby will misinterpret what you say.

Apology accepted.

Lou Girardin

11th February 2005, 14:26

Really? -

Yet Lou and co lambasted the Police over the recent Irena Asher case. This is a classic one where the Police were overloaded due to a individual making bad personal choices over where they went, who they went with and their medication (mental health issue).

B Amazing!

If this becomes the criteria for a Police response, we may as well disband them now.

spudchucka

11th February 2005, 14:35

hobdar

11th February 2005, 14:36

You can go onto the govt budget websites and check for yourself, but they are around those numbers so it gives you the relative sizes which are large.

Yes, there would be residual costs to be met. Not every ticket would be contested, but there would be far fewer of them in total - maybe only one third or even less. And as I said there are the future benefits as well to support the case for investment.

1/3 or less where do you get this figure from, heck if i was able to contest a speeding ticket i would...hell think of the overtime for the cops being dragged into court....the cost of the wages of the people who work in the courts, the added cops to cover the cost of police being tied up in court cases.....

But well at least the lawyers will make even more money, maybe we could start a scheme to get some of those dole bludgers and single mothers off the DPB and into studying to become law clerks....

Alan Wilkinson

11th February 2005, 14:36

Apology I'd suggest that you practice being a little more succinct with your comments then, that way nobody will misinterpret what you say.

I'm probably too succinct. I'll try, but some here are rather determined to misinterpret me.

Alan Wilkinson

11th February 2005, 14:40

1/3 or less where do you get this figure from, heck if i was able to contest a speeding ticket i would...hell think of the overtime for the cops being dragged into court....the cost of the wages of the people who work in the courts, the added cops to cover the cost of police being tied up in court cases.....

Because the number of tickets would drop back to the days when cops' common-sense discretion prevailed and a little below that, because even then some traffic cops had no common sense. I think that would be around 30% of what we have now, although it could be a lot less eventually as the law gets clarity and everyone learns from it.

sparrow_34

11th February 2005, 14:55

My common-sense tells me, that if I rely on the common-sense of the boys in blue to let me off if I am breaking a speed limit, then I will begin to question my own common-sense.

Alan Wilkinson

11th February 2005, 14:59

My common-sense tells me, that if I rely on the common-sense of the boys in blue to let me off if I am breaking a speed limit, then I will begin to question my own common-sense.

I think the law would quickly develop guidelines on what is safe and what is not and both drivers and cops would learn about these and not try to take losing cases to courts which would penalise either side for being out of line.

hobdar

11th February 2005, 15:01

Because the number of tickets would drop back to the days when cops' common-sense discretion prevailed and a little below that, because even then some traffic cops had no common sense. I think that would be around 30% of what we have now, although it could be a lot less eventually as the law gets clarity and everyone learns from it.

Well so much for rigorus research.....your guessing....

the cops are just doing what they are told.

Why don't you commission some research through a reputable University (they are always looking for money and will gladly research something if you pay for it) and get them to look at the New Zealand environment and why crashes occur...

Alan Wilkinson

11th February 2005, 15:09

Well so much for rigorus research.....your guessing....

Statements about the future are always guesses.

Why don't you commission some research through a reputable University (they are always looking for money and will gladly research something if you pay for it) and get them to look at the New Zealand environment and why crashes occur...
We have commissioned some research already. We used a major law firm first. They proposed quite a lot of options for future research and I expect we will pursue some.

The problem with crash cause research is that raw data of sufficient quality is not easily available. The LTSA data base of crash causes is hopeless. I have looked at the classification criteria and it is so ill-defined the data is useless.

Crashes are often complex. (Not talking about the drunken lunatic type.) I think most value would come from an independent serious crash unit investigating and publishing public reports on individual crashes the way the air safety authorities do.

spudchucka

11th February 2005, 15:32

Nothing I can say will discredit you. You have to do it yourself.
You may not think much of me, feelings mutual. If I discredit myself then I'll have to live with that. But I didn't suggest you were trying to discredit me. I said your motivation is to discredit "the" police. If in doing that you somehow discredit me because I'm part of that organisation then I'll live with that too.

Alan, if you stuck to what you say is your primary aims are

We aim to:

* make road travel faster, safer, cheaper and more flexible
* stop road users being ripped off by unproductive regulations and enforcement policies
* reverse the erosion of our civil rights and freedoms
* provide accurate, relevant, and authenticated information
* refute misleading slogans and other misrepresentations
* expose vested interests supporting bad road safety policies

and didn't go off on a crusade of dirty politics and smear campaigns then I'd be giving you a lot more credit.

This website debunks those falsehoods and we maintain a rigorous respect for the truth and for open debate.

Your web site is full of falsehoods, half truths and assumptions on issues you have little or no practical exerience of.

On the face of what I've seen you simply have an axe to grind and aren't too fussed about how you go about sharpening it.

If you stuck to the issue you'd go up in my estimation.

spudchucka

11th February 2005, 15:37

Crashes are often complex. (Not talking about the drunken lunatic type.)
Everything is complex dependant on how in depth you want to examine it. Sometimes over examination just increases the fog, (unable to see the wood for the trees so to speak). Crashes are also extremely basic, the KISS formula is often relevant.

A driver lost control.
The car hit something.

scumdog

11th February 2005, 15:38

I think the law would quickly develop guidelines on what is safe and what is not and both drivers and cops would learn about these and not try to take losing cases to courts which would penalise either side for being out of line.

Courts are clogged as it is; what would they be like if each motorist stood there clutching their ticket waiting for a chance to say why it was undeserved and their driving was quite safe at that time and in those circumstances?? Even if each only took 15 minutes (unlikely to be THAT short) just imagine 1000's all wanting their 15 minutes :confused: :spudwhat:

SPman

11th February 2005, 15:47

I'd suggest that you practice being a little more sycinct with your comments then, that way nodoby will misinterpret what you say.
.
Nodoby? What. Do you mean no doobie in reference to an earlier comment? Or am I misinterpreting you?

spudchucka

11th February 2005, 15:55

I think the law would quickly develop guidelines on what is safe and what is not and both drivers and cops would learn about these and not try to take losing cases to courts which would penalise either side for being out of line.
People will no doubt take the approach of a certain shotgun toting activist and call 500 witnesses who will all spout whatever purjury he wants them to.

The courts can't cope with the load they have now. The cost of the ensuing rort on the legal aid system would cost the country $$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

Mongoose

11th February 2005, 16:09

Thanks for the answers again Alan. kind of you to take the time.
I agree with some one else who said you should stick to your own admitted aims on your site. You tend to cofuse yourself and start making reference to lealising dope when the point of discusion is about speed on our roads.
You are also showing signs of what i consoder greed, you only refer to NI roads and conveniently forget NZs largest Island.To do this will get zilch support from the South Islanders, losing you approx 25% of your potential support base, meaning you would have to garner over roughly 60% or the remaining potential support for your cause.
As I also said back there, your site seems more politically inclined and takes pleasure in attacking the Police when these attacks are not about speed on the roads, why do you do this?

Alan Wilkinson

11th February 2005, 16:32

People will no doubt take the approach of a certain shotgun toting activist and call 500 witnesses who will all spout whatever purjury he wants them to.

The courts can't cope with the load they have now. The cost of the ensuing rort on the legal aid system would cost the country $$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

Not if they don't get legal aid.

Mongoose

11th February 2005, 16:38

Not if they don't get legal aid.

What are you saying Alan, just in case i picked your meaning up all wrong, that not only does your plan involve reforming roading and traffic laws in NZ but also either abolishes legal Aid or you propose changes of some sort to it?

Alan Wilkinson

11th February 2005, 16:50

I agree with some one else who said you should stick to your own admitted aims on your site. You tend to cofuse yourself and start making reference to lealising dope when the point of discusion is about speed on our roads.
You seem to be always just looking for something to criticise. That response was in regard to police overloads and costs.

You are also showing signs of what i consoder greed, you only refer to NI roads and conveniently forget NZs largest Island.To do this will get zilch support from the South Islanders, losing you approx 25% of your potential support base, meaning you would have to garner over roughly 60% or the remaining potential support for your cause.
No, I was born & bred in Chch and lived there for 40 years. But I've been away a long time now so I don't pretend to make specific comments about it.

As I also said back there, your site seems more politically inclined and takes pleasure in attacking the Police when these attacks are not about speed on the roads, why do you do this?
Example? Even the baby-snatch page has a connection and that's about the only one I can think of you might mean. And in that case I expressed my disgust that ever more draconian road safety measures are being misused for other purposes by the police.

Alan Wilkinson

11th February 2005, 16:52

What are you saying Alan, just in case i picked your meaning up all wrong, that not only does your plan involve reforming roading and traffic laws in NZ but also either abolishes legal Aid or you propose changes of some sort to it?

Well I certainly don't believe people should get legal aid to make frivolous challenges to traffic tickets.

Mongoose

11th February 2005, 17:04

You seem to be always just looking for something to criticise. That response was in regard to police overloads and costs.

No, I was born & bred in Chch and lived there for 40 years. But I've been away a long time now so I don't pretend to make specific comments about it.

Example? Even the baby-snatch page has a connection and that's about the only one I can think of you might mean. And in that case I expressed my disgust that ever more draconian road safety measures are being misused for other purposes by the police.

Example? Why do others HAVE to supply examples when you yourself do not?Guess that also means that if your house had been burged you would be happy for the person involved to get off?

You seem to be always just looking for something to criticise. That response was in regard to police overloads and costs
That was but one example of your changing of topic

No, I was born & bred in Chch and lived there for 40 years. But I've been away a long time now so I don't pretend to make specific comments about it.

Dont pretend to make speciffic comments, you make NONE about the SI, so for once I would agree with you, none equal no speciffic.

Well I certainly don't believe people should get legal aid to make frivolous challenges to traffic tickets.

Frivilous in whose mind? According to you it should be everyones right to challenge on safety grounds. Each case would have its own peculiararities, so each case should beable to be challenged on safety grounds. According to youself, people decide when its safe to speed so why would they not challenge a ticket?

Clockwork

11th February 2005, 17:06

Alan Wilkinson

11th February 2005, 17:07

Everything is complex dependant on how in depth you want to examine it. Sometimes over examination just increases the fog, (unable to see the wood for the trees so to speak). Crashes are also extremely basic, the KISS formula is often relevant.

A driver lost control.
The car hit something.

There is one particular blind bend on my trip home where I just pray every time that nothing is coming the other way that is fast and heavy as I go around it. If there is then there is absolutely nothing I can do about it.

Coming the other way, it is a steep straight descent into it, a very sharp LH bend at the bottom with a long fall on the other side of the road and the road surface used to change from chip to glass just about the point you needed to brake. Plus the road carries a massive stream of tourists and we get plenty of rain.

Thankfully they have improved the surface, but I would like to think that someone is monitoring the skid resistence closely. Unfortunately, I doubt that is happening.

I don't know how many deaths there have been there, but certainly a number and several in the three years I have been driving it.

These are the kinds of hazards that need to be exposed to public view and political pressure. (And the safe speed into that bend is way, way below any speed limit.)

Clockwork

11th February 2005, 17:08

Not if they don't get legal aid.
..... and now you're saying that legal redess should only be available to people who can afford it.
:nono: :nono: :nono:

Mongoose

11th February 2005, 17:11

These are the kinds of hazards that need to be exposed to public view and political pressure. (And the safe speed into that bend is way, way below any speed limit.)

Speed limits are maximums, not a compulsory speed you HAVE to do.
You point is what exactly

Alan Wilkinson

11th February 2005, 17:59

Well I certainly don't believe people should get legal aid to make frivolous challenges to traffic tickets.

Frivilous in whose mind? According to you it should be everyones right to challenge on safety grounds. Each case would have its own peculiararities, so each case should beable to be challenged on safety grounds. According to youself, people decide when its safe to speed so why would they not challenge a ticket?

That's the best question you've asked. I don't know the best answer, but one would be to limit legal aid to cases where the defendent was potentially liable to a certain minimum penalty - set above the level for simple speeding fines.

Mongoose

11th February 2005, 18:13

That's the best question you've asked. I don't know the best answer, but one would be to limit legal aid to cases where the defendent was potentially liable to a certain minimum penalty - set above the level for simple speeding fines.

That is one thing I have been trying to fathom out, while you have this grand big picture you seem to have forgotten the little pixels that make up this big picture.
This is why I see so many problems with what you propose and you see none, or maybe you do not want to see any?

Seeing as to how you like examples, you still do not know how this great plan will be financed.

marty

11th February 2005, 19:10

marty

11th February 2005, 19:13

Opinions are free, facts are sacred. We are all free to have our own opinions, but not to pass them off as facts. .

remembered where it was

speedpro

11th February 2005, 21:59

That is one thing I have been trying to fathom out, while you have this grand big picture you seem to have forgotten the little pixels that make up this big picture.
This is why I see so many problems with what you propose and you see none, or maybe you do not want to see any?

Seeing as to how you like examples, you still do not know how this great plan will be financed.
People in the world can be seperated into two groups (sort of). There are "big picture" people and there are "small picture" people. The big pic dudes run companies and countries, not always well. The small pic persons look after the details with varying success. I'm a small p*ick person, I've even done psycho tests for something else and it came out. Alan would appear to be a big pic type of guy, IMHO. Obviously the details are important but the overall big picture needs to be formulated first which is what I believe Alan is attempting.

speedpro

11th February 2005, 22:01

This discussion is almost going "civil" at the moment. Is everyone getting a bit tired??

Alan Wilkinson

11th February 2005, 22:05

Speed limits are maximums, not a compulsory speed you HAVE to do.
You point is what exactly

That crash causes need to be investigated properly and necessary remedial action taken and maintained; that a well-informed public is necessary to ensure that happens; that safety requires consideration of matters other than speed limits.

gav

11th February 2005, 22:06

Know anyone that could be interested in these ?
http://www.grandprixlegends.com/DieCastSite/pages/category/category.asp?ctgry=D_Collectibles_I_SpeedFreaks(Di ecast)&affiliatecode=WEB002

Alan Wilkinson

11th February 2005, 22:10

Mongoose

12th February 2005, 04:07

I'm a top down kind of guy. I like to work from principles down to detail. Also, detail usually needs to be decided by people at the coal-face.

What, the details get put in the to hard backet, dreams are easier?
If that is your idea of research and planning, guess your idea is sunk before it starts, still everyone needs a hobby(horse), huh?

Mongoose

12th February 2005, 04:12

That crash causes need to be investigated properly and necessary remedial action taken and maintained; that a well-informed public is necessary to ensure that happens; that safety requires consideration of matters other than speed limits.

Well, that would appear to be akin to teaching your Grandma to suck eggs, to come into a bike forum and announce that, like its something new(that safety requires consideration of matters other than speed limits.) Go;;y, wich us motorcyclists had thought of that.

Alan Wilkinson

12th February 2005, 09:14

Mongoose, I've tried to be kind to you but it's a lost cause. When you grow up we may be able to have a proper conversation.

spudchucka

12th February 2005, 09:46

Mongoose, I've tried to be kind to you but it's a lost cause. When you grow up we may be able to have a proper conversation.
So now we're poorer, less educated and less mature than you, must be a lonely world you live in Alan.

Funny how everyone else on the site can manage proper conversations with each other but you can't. I guess you are just a social class above us scummy motorcyclists.

spudchucka

12th February 2005, 09:51

I'm a top down kind of guy. I like to work from principles down to detail. Also, detail usually needs to be decided by people at the coal-face.
Sounds a lot like you decide on the outcomes you want and then look for the details to fill in the gaps. Sounds highly self serving. Did you get your PhD & BSc(Hons) using this research method?

Alan Wilkinson

12th February 2005, 09:58

So now we're poorer, less educated and less mature than you, must be a lonely world you live in Alan.

Funny how everyone else on the site can manage proper conversations with each other but you can't. I guess you are just a social class above us scummy motorcyclists.

Cheer up Spud. Look on the bright side. At least you're not George Hawkins having a bad week.

spudchucka

12th February 2005, 10:06

There is one particular blind bend on my trip home where I just pray every time that nothing is coming the other way that is fast and heavy as I go around it. If there is then there is absolutely nothing I can do about it.

Coming the other way, it is a steep straight descent into it, a very sharp LH bend at the bottom with a long fall on the other side of the road and the road surface used to change from chip to glass just about the point you needed to brake. Plus the road carries a massive stream of tourists and we get plenty of rain.

Thankfully they have improved the surface, but I would like to think that someone is monitoring the skid resistence closely. Unfortunately, I doubt that is happening.

I don't know how many deaths there have been there, but certainly a number and several in the three years I have been driving it.

These are the kinds of hazards that need to be exposed to public view and political pressure. (And the safe speed into that bend is way, way below any speed limit.)
Alan, all anyone needs to do to avoid disaster on a corner like that is to open their eyes and engage their brains.

Having nationwide road condition assesors checking skid resistence daily and posting the results on a "skid Resistence" warning sign at every hazardous bend is just impracticle.

It comes down to individual drivers taking responsibility for their own driving.

This includes accurately assessing the road conditions at any particular time and place. This is an area of driver training that basically doesn't exist. Its also a reason why we have a graduated restricted driver licence system. Experienced drivers are supposed to accompany the learner driver and assist them to become "aware" motorists.

For some reason it rarely seems to happen that way and in fact what happens mostly is that mums and dads assist their little darlings to buy a jap import performance car and then kick them out on their own on a learners or restricted licence to encounter what ever the road holds ahead for them.

spudchucka

12th February 2005, 10:13

Not if they don't get legal aid.
So in your perfect world only the wealthy get the right to defend a charge in Court?

spudchucka

12th February 2005, 10:16

Cheer up Spud. Look on the bright side. At least you're not George Hawkins having a bad week.
He could always quit if he can't handle it. He might switch camps and join your crusade.

Alan Wilkinson

12th February 2005, 10:30

So in your perfect world only the wealthy get the right to defend a charge in Court?

Nope, but there are limits to how people can freeload on the taxpayer.

marty

12th February 2005, 10:34

scumdog

12th February 2005, 11:06

Nope, but there are limits to how people can freeload on the taxpayer.

You find a way to stop that AND implement it and you'd be da man!!

Even the freeloaders see it as their 'right' 'cos they pay taxes! (yeah right! -on their benefits!!) :angry2:

Alan Wilkinson

12th February 2005, 11:24

so what about people who are *obviously* guilty, like the samurai sword guy in court at the moment. pleading NG on diminished responsibility due to drug use. betcha he's not paying for his lawyer.

why not get prisoners to build roads? now there's a cost saving measure.

I think we have to pay legal aid on serious cases like this. We should be looking upstream for a fix, not at the courts once he's fallen over the cliff and taken innocent people with him.

It's the welfare system that sets these kinds of guys up. I'm in favour of having them build roads before they go off the rails and become prisoners.

scumdog

12th February 2005, 11:38

I think we have to pay legal aid on serious cases like this. We should be looking upstream for a fix, not at the courts once he's fallen over the cliff and taken innocent people with him.

It's the welfare system that sets these kinds of guys up. I'm in favour of having them build roads before they go off the rails and become prisoners.

A little TOO much 'Pollyanna" there A.W.

This is the 'REAL' world full of nasty unfixable people who use nasty drugs that fry what few brain cells they have, who have no intentions of 'coming right', who are self-centred, who would be like that even if the 'welfare system' was not there.

Don't point the finger at the welfare system, it's there for all of us, not just the losers that breed and leech more tax-dollars to support their lifestyle. :angry2:

I hereby declare this rant over. :D

Alan Wilkinson

12th February 2005, 11:53

A little TOO much 'Pollyanna" there A.W.

This is the 'REAL' world full of nasty unfixable people who use nasty drugs that fry what few brain cells they have, who have no intentions of 'coming right', who are self-centred, who would be like that even if the 'welfare system' was not there.

Don't point the finger at the welfare system, it's there for all of us, not just the losers that breed and leech more tax-dollars to support their lifestyle.

I hereby declare this rant over.

Yes, I know. I've lived in the North long enough to see these people. But there's just far too much bad welfare up here. And people who leave perfectly good jobs in town to go and get drugged and boozed for life in the country.

marty

12th February 2005, 12:14

so, if i leave my job, move to the country, go on welfare, get drugged up,. then kill someone, i should be able to get legal aid for my defence, however if i stay working, pay my taxes (and no, beneficiaries DO NOT pay tax) and kill someone, i have to pay for my own defence? how fair is that?

Mongoose

12th February 2005, 13:22

Mongoose, I've tried to be kind to you but it's a lost cause. When you grow up we may be able to have a proper conversation.

Here we effing go again Alan, to have a conversation with you is to convert to your way of thinking and agreeing with you anyone who holds other thoughts needs to grow up? I am realising rapidly who it is that needs to grow up Alan and it sure aint me. I acept others differing opinions whether I agree or not but will not change my mind because of some bully boy likes of you

speedpro

12th February 2005, 14:32

Alan, all anyone needs to do to avoid disaster on a corner like that is to open their eyes and engage their brains.

It comes down to individual drivers taking responsibility for their own driving.

This includes accurately assessing the road conditions at any particular time and place. This is an area of driver training that basically doesn't exist.

This logic could be applied to speed management as well.

Nah , , , lets just have a rigidly enforced brain-dead blanket speed limit, irrespective of whether it's a narrow rural road or divided deserted motorway!

speedpro

12th February 2005, 14:35

why not get prisoners to build roads? now there's a cost saving measure.
PD guys do roadside maintenance now. It might actually be beneficial in terms of rehabilitation as well. I would rather do that than be confined all day.

spudchucka

12th February 2005, 14:58

This logic could be applied to speed management as well.

Nah , , , lets just have a rigidly enforced brain-dead blanket speed limit, irrespective of whether it's a narrow rural road or divided deserted motorway!
The logic can be applied to anything. The difficulty lies in actually getting people to wake up and be aware of what they are doing. It is the inability of humans to remain aware 100% of the time that contributes to a need for fixed speed limits.

spudchucka

12th February 2005, 15:03

It's the welfare system that sets these kinds of guys up. I'm in favour of having them build roads before they go off the rails and become prisoners.
In the case of the legal aid system its very much a bunch of fat cat lawyers who can't cut it in the real world and are making a killing of a system that is easy as hell to rip off. They are just another form of "beneficiary".

Mongoose

12th February 2005, 15:06

This logic could be applied to speed management as well.

Nah , , , lets just have a rigidly enforced brain-dead blanket speed limit, irrespective of whether it's a narrow rural road or divided deserted motorway!

You are sort of catching on, fixed speed limits are for the brain dead who THINK they are better than average drivers whether they be on a narrow rural road or devided deserted motorway.

spudchucka

12th February 2005, 15:14

Why is it that the people who work in an emergency services capacity seem to have similar views on this topic?

Skyryder

12th February 2005, 16:01

Alan the point I was making is that it requires a different mindset than the current one from our MP’s to put your idea into practice.

I have a sneaky suspicion that your arguments, on the surface, of an unrestricted speed limit may indeed have some merit. I believe that most road users do drive at what they ‘know or consider ‘ is a safe speed for the conditions. This forum is full of riders who have been ticketed where they have believe that their riding skills and the conditions at the time of the offence do not constitute a safety risk to either themselves or other road users. I say this with the qualification of the unexpected. Not too long ago there was a discussion here about roadwork signs or the lack of them and the danger this posed to the biker community at large. There were two main schools of thought with this thread.

1 Each of us is responsible for out ‘driving’ as opposed to
2 the road crews are responsible for forewarning of road works.
In truth there is a bit of both.

To continue on this theme there is in this country all sorts of problems that can cause accidents let alone the type of accident where speed is not restricted. The ejection of litter from vehicles, road debris, etc. It is not uncommon now to see retreads lying on th eside of the road where they have become 'unstuck.' Now I admit that these in themselves are not a major cause of accidents but where you get into unrestricted speed and litigation commences into who is at fault it has been my experience that the one with the most resources (money) will win the case. Serious litigation is not an option for the majority of New Zealanders. Never mind the trauma for the innocent party/ies

I mention this as only one example where an unrestricted speed limit could pose problems for the users.

Your solution is where we fundamentally diverge. You suggest in what is euphemistically referred to as the 'privatisation' of our roadways and I quote from your website “The key is to making progress on road transport is to recognise and provide incentives to improve on all four parameters: faster, safer, cheaper and more flexible.” Just can’t see how the privatisation of New Zealand roads is cheaper when road tolls are in place. And that word flexible, I have a problem with this as I can remember not too long ago when the Labour reforms were thrust upon us where flexible meant HERE’S THE CONTRACT TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT.

I see in your wish list you are not only advocating the privatisation of our highways but also the privatisation of our prisons. Call me a traditionalist Allan but I believe the uses of our highways remain free to travel on and that the housing of criminals is the responsibility of the State. Anything less, to use an America aphorism, is “passing the buck.”

A rethink on your part Alan as to the solution of our road toll and social problems may just make your ideas more acceptable.

Skyryder

speedpro

12th February 2005, 16:20

The logic can be applied to anything. The difficulty lies in actually getting people to wake up and be aware of what they are doing. It is the inability of humans to remain aware 100% of the time that contributes to a need for fixed speed limits.

How does a fixed speed limit improve the situation of an unaware person. The condition that needs addressing in this instance is the lack of awareness, not that they may be doing 112.76kmh. If they are unaware that they have crossed the centre line that is THE problem, not that they are doing the aforementioned speed, for instance. Correcting one of these issues will reduce the consequences of the accident. Correcting the other will eliminate the accident. Currently all effort is directed at the former.

Actually that's not quite true, I have heard about places where drivers can stop for a coffee, typically over holiday breaks, thereby refreshing themselves and possibly regaining alertness.

hobdar

12th February 2005, 16:36

I'm a top down kind of guy. I like to work from principles down to detail. Also, detail usually needs to be decided by people at the coal-face.

Ok so what do the cops/firefighters/ambulance drivers on this site think about it for THEY are indeed the people at the coalface, scraping up the mess drivers put themselves into.....Should we have no speed limit and should we be able to go to court and prove that what we are doing was safe........

:apint: some one bring me a beer please speights old dark...

speedpro

12th February 2005, 16:57

Ok so what do the cops/firefighters/ambulance drivers on this site think about it for THEY are indeed the people at the coalface, scraping up the mess drivers put themselves into.....Should we have no speed limit and should we be able to go to court and prove that what we are doing was safe........

:apint: some one bring me a beer please speights old dark...

Fairly obviously the coalface people you mention prefer the status quo versus what Alan proposes. I can't quite see their logic, unless they are concerned that Alan's proposed change in thinking would result in an increase in casualties. Alan's interpretation of the statistics he has gathered suggests that the current focus has resulted in an increase in casualties and changing emphasis would reduce casualties.

Who's brainwashing who is yet to be determined. Though, again fairly obviously, the ltsa was giving it a go.

spudchucka

12th February 2005, 16:57

How does a fixed speed limit improve the situation of an unaware person. The condition that needs addressing in this instance is the lack of awareness, not that they may be doing 112.76kmh. If they are unaware that they have crossed the centre line that is THE problem, not that they are doing the aforementioned speed, for instance. Correcting one of these issues will reduce the consequences of the accident. Correcting the other will eliminate the accident. Currently all effort is directed at the former.

Actually that's not quite true, I have heard about places where drivers can stop for a coffee, typically over holiday breaks, thereby refreshing themselves and possibly regaining alertness.
An inattentive driver is a problem at any speed. They just become an increasingly more dangerous problem as their speed increases.

spudchucka

12th February 2005, 17:07

If we in fact had an Autobahn style of national highway, divided down the middle then a higher speed limit would be appropriate and workable. I simply can't see that national motorway ever existing in NZ, at least not in the next few generations lives. However on the current roading we have in this country we most certainly require speed limits.

As for proving speed at any particular time and place was safe in the circumstances, on the face of it I have no problem with the concept. Again however I just can't see it ever being workable. The factors involved are simply too subjective and court cases would just go around and around with each side calling expert witness after expert witness.

It would be a pointless drain on an already overloaded court system. Spend a couple of days in your local district courts, see how the system operates and you will probably understand what I mean.

hobdar

12th February 2005, 17:10

Fairly obviously the coalface people you mention prefer the status quo versus what Alan proposes. I can't quite see their logic, unless they are concerned that Alan's proposed change in thinking would result in an increase in casualties. Alan's interpretation of the statistics he has gathered suggests that the current focus has resulted in an increase in casualties and changing emphasis would reduce casualties.

Who's brainwashing who is yet to be determined. Though, again fairly obviously, the ltsa was giving it a go.

Yes you would think that the cops etc on the ground would jump at a change if they thought it would reduce accidents and deaths, and if the ads etc result in the saving of one life surely that is worth all the money spent esp if it was you or me that was saved :) or is that too simplistic?

Is there a great conspiracy to say that speed is indeed a killer on our road?

Also how many traffic tickets does Alan hace? (if you don't mind me asking) and the circumstances they were gained..? again if you don't mind me asking?

And spudchukka et al if you had the ability to deteremine road policy etc...what initiatives would you put in place to reduce the road toll? :apint:

speedpro

12th February 2005, 17:20

An inattentive driver is a problem at any speed. They just become an increasingly more dangerous problem as their speed increases.

Totally agree.

My point is, making the inattentive driver travel at some arbitrary speed, assuming they are paying some small bit of attention to the speed they are doing, will not "stop" them being a problem. The problem is what to do to make them pay attention.

I personally pay a lot more attention when I'm travelling at a reasonable, not neccessarily legal, speed. I used to pay a lot more attention to the roads but now I pay attention to who may be hiding in the bushes, if I'm doing anything illegal, and therefore am paying less attention to other things like other road users. I have trouble staying awake at the legal speed in some circumstances. Driving SH1 past Meremere at the legal limit for some reason makes me sleepy.

The reasonable speed that is the threshold for remaining alert for me appears to be fairly high. In that regard I think I'm probably safer at a speed above the legal limit. As per everybody else, I consider myself to be a reasonably proficient driver/rider and well capable of travelling our roads above the current speed limit. In my case I can back that up with experiance racing (bikes) and that I have never been involved in an accident on the roads in a car. 20+ Years ago I fell off various bikes being a dumb cunt, as you do.

hobdar

12th February 2005, 17:25

spudchucka

12th February 2005, 17:33

My point is, making the inattentive driver travel at some arbitrary speed, assuming they are paying some small bit of attention to the speed they are doing, will not "stop" them being a problem. The problem is what to do to make them pay attention.I agree with the point you are making about the lack of attention being the primary problem. However controlling the top speed at which they can travel helps to reduce the potential for harm to all road users, not just the idoits. After all it is often the driver who is in the right that suffers the worst. Regardless of how good a driver is they can still be taken out by the inattentive driver approaching from the other direction. If you are traveling at 130 and maintaing control but some retard that can't manage 80 crosses into your path then you are about to become a statistic, even if you were in total control at the time of the crash.

Limiting speed helps to reduce trauma. I'm all for better training though and encourage any endeavours to improve the skills of the average driver.

The reasonable speed that is the threshold for remaining alert for me appears to be fairly high. In that regard I think I'm probably safer at a speed above the legal limit.Unfortuneately there are plenty of drivers who think like that as well but are definitely not safer at speeds above the legal limit.

spudchucka

12th February 2005, 17:38

And spudchukka et al if you had the ability to deteremine road policy etc...what initiatives would you put in place to reduce the road toll? :apint:
I'd like to see a live shotgun round in the drivers seat of every vehicle that discharged up the arsehole of the driver the moment his or her vehicle crosses the centre line.

It would cause a sharp increase in the road toll initially but in a very short space of time it would rapidly decline to pretty much nil.

(PT)

speedpro

12th February 2005, 18:02

speedpro

12th February 2005, 18:10

I'd like to see a live shotgun round in the drivers seat of every vehicle that discharged up the arsehole of the driver the moment his or her vehicle crosses the centre line.

(PT)

I have a similar idea for when I'm elected President of NZ. Every person will be issued with a single shot firearm at say 21yrs age.. Only that person may use it and they will be immune from any legal action as a result of using it. Imagine how much more pleasant people would be. No more road rage, you would never know how bad a day the person you were abusing had and whether they still had their single shot. Thing is you wouldn't just go and shoot someone because someone else might come and shoot you.

Skyryder

12th February 2005, 19:43

I have a similar idea for when I'm elected President of NZ. Every person will be issued with a single shot firearm at say 21yrs age.. Only that person may use it and they will be immune from any legal action as a result of using it. Imagine how much more pleasant people would be. No more road rage, you would never know how bad a day the person you were abusing had and whether they still had their single shot. Thing is you wouldn't just go and shoot someone because someone else might come and shoot you.

I shall make the assumption that when they have used their single shot they will not be allocated further ammo, the gun will be returned to the state as they will have no use for it. Bloody good idea. Everyones armed and everyones afraid to use it. Shit I wish I had thought of that when I was slinging barbs on some of the militia forums a few years back.

Skyryder

speedpro

12th February 2005, 21:20

I shall make the assumption that when they have used their single shot they will not be allocated further ammo, the gun will be returned to the state as they will have no use for it. Bloody good idea. Everyones armed and everyones afraid to use it. Shit I wish I had thought of that when I was slinging barbs on some of the militia forums a few years back.

Skyryder

My in-laws would be looking for me :whistle:

Clockwork

13th February 2005, 06:14

My in-laws would be looking for me :whistle:

Oh..... that's two bullets to your one! :ar15:

Alan Wilkinson

13th February 2005, 10:39

some kids dies near hamilton today...

My thoughts are that surely this is the reason why we have speed limits...and why the fast and safe argument is too simplistic it just does not work there are people who are already driving at what they feel is a safe speed and splattering themselves on the road/highway/rivers of our country.....even some kb'ers driving at what they think is a safe speed in the circumstances and out of no where in comes a duck.... or gravel or something that could not in the circumstances be accounted for....the list goes on

the sheep wandering into the road, the cow coming around the blind corner the car in the opposite lane drifiting into the oncoming lane (if you had been going that fraction of a second slower you could have survived)

if we have an unlimited speed on the roads instances like this will get worse and the road toll will increase..... do i have any research to back this up no- but i think most people will agree that it is common sense...if the fast and safe argument becomes popular then very strict driver education becomes of upmost important....imho..

We have speed limits and rigid enforcement of them, yet this still happens.

When the NZ open road speed limit was raised to 100 km/h around 1985 we began a long period of steadily falling road casualties. Prior to that, they had been rising.

Same thing happened in the U.S. when they relaxed the federal speed limit. There was no consistent impact on the road toll. Some States went up, some went down. There just isn't a strong connection between speed limits and casualties.

Yes, driver education and training of young drivers is very important (whatever the speed policy is). But I'm not sure we know how to do it yet. LTSA keeps quoting research that says it is ineffective. I don't think the evidence is very convincing either way, so I think it needs a lot more work.

scumdog

13th February 2005, 11:22

Point not mentioned: the road toll has fallen since rigid enforcement of speed limit commenced. :yeah:

Jantar

13th February 2005, 11:39

Point not mentioned: the road toll has fallen since rigid enforcement of speed limit commenced. :yeah:

Yes, But it has also fallen in conjunction with improvd tyres, greater use of ABS systems, the introduction of crumple zones in vehicles etc.

As has been mentioned on this thread a number of times already, statisitcs can be used and/or misused to prove or disprove almost anything. Rather than look at the enforcement of the speed limit as a comparison to the road toll, the only correct way would be to compare an area with less speed enforcement with an area of greater speed enforcement, and then look at the accident trends (ie cause rather than effect). The resultant should then be subjected to a statistical analysis to see what (if any) confidence limit has been exceeded.

scumdog

13th February 2005, 11:50

The other way of looking at it is; WITHOUT rigid speed enforcement but with the safety features mentioned by some of you what do you think the road toll would be like? :spudwhat:

Remember the number of vehicles on the road is still increasing steadily too.

Sad thing is the safety devices that save lives not only save the lives of intelligent people who contribute to society etc but also save those that by the laws of nature should have been eliminated in a crash to prevent another generation of 'stoopid' people that can't drive safely. :angry2:

Jantar

13th February 2005, 11:59

Sad thing is the safety devices that save lives not only save the lives of intelligent people who contribute to society etc but also save those that by the laws of nature should have been eliminated in a crash to prevent another generation of 'stoopid' people that can't drive safely. :angry2:

Now that is one comment I must agree with. Its a pity there isn't an open season on stupidity every now and then.

spudchucka

13th February 2005, 12:23

Rather than look at the enforcement of the speed limit as a comparison to the road toll, the only correct way would be to compare an area with less speed enforcement with an area of greater speed enforcement, and then look at the accident trends (ie cause rather than effect). The resultant should then be subjected to a statistical analysis to see what (if any) confidence limit has been exceeded.
The two sections of road would have to be identical in nature, have the exact same road & weather conditions on any given day, have identical traffic flows and driver demographics.

Unless the study was over a long period of time, (a decade) I think there would be far too many subjective variables for the study to actually prove anything worthwhile.

Jantar

13th February 2005, 12:28

Unless the study was over a long period of time, (a decade) I think there would be far too many subjective variables for the study to actually prove anything worthwhile.
Absolutely correct. So now do you also see the falacy of claiming a reduced road toll is simply due to better speed enforcement? :spudwhat:

spudchucka

13th February 2005, 12:39

Absolutely correct. So now do you also see the falacy of claiming a reduced road toll is simply due to better speed enforcement? :spudwhat:
I don't think anyone has ever said it is simply because of better speed enforcement. I think what has been said is that speed is a factor in most fatal and serious injury crashes and they will continue to strickly enforce speed limits as a counter measure to speeding drivers.

spudchucka

13th February 2005, 12:55

Have a look at the graph here; http://www.ltsa.govt.nz/media/2005/050101.html

I don't see how anyone can say that the situation hasn't improved.

Deaths per 100,000 of population have halved. 21.4(1990) - 10.7(2004).

Deaths per 10,000 vehicles have more than halved. 3.3(1990) - 1.5(2004).

From the Public attitudes to road safety - 2004 survey.

6. Speed

6.1 Risk of crash. Recognition of the risk of speeding has gradually increased over the last ten years. 15% of New Zealanders still think there is not much chance of an accident when speeding if you were careful. This is an improvement on last year's 18%, and a return to the 2002 level.

6.2 The attitude that speeding isn't risky as long as you are careful is most common among men (22%) and in the 20 to 24 year age group (23%). People who said that there was not much chance of an accident when speeding, as long the driver was careful, were more likely than others to have received a speeding ticket in the previous year (26% vs. 18%).

6.3 Like driving fast. More than one-third (36%) of drivers say they enjoy driving fast on the open road. Overall, 42% of males and 31% of females say they like driving fast on the open road. Half of all males aged 15 to 34 like driving fast.

6.4 Effectiveness of enforcement. Support for speed enforcement remains high: 77% of New Zealanders agree that enforcing the speed limit helps to lower the road toll. 13% disagree and 9% said they were neutral on this issue.

6.5 Risk of being caught. Awareness of speed enforcement has increased markedly in the last four years. Only 25% of New Zealanders now think the risk of being caught speeding is small, compared to 33% in 2002 and 2003, and around 40% in earlier years. People aged 60 and over are most likely to think that the risk of being caught was small.

6.6 Speed limits. The great majority of New Zealanders (84%) think that speed limits on the roads they normally use are about right. 4% think they are too high and 10% think they are too low.

6.7 Most New Zealanders are in favour of retaining the open road speed limit at 100km/h. 80% want the speed limit kept at 100km/h or lower.

6.8 It's a similar story in urban areas – 85% of New Zealanders want the urban 50km/h speed limit retained or lowered. Since these questions were first asked in 1995, there has been in a gradual decline in support for raising speed limits.

6.9 Automatic licence loss. Most New Zealanders find extremely high speeds unacceptable. 90% describe automatic loss of licence for drivers caught speeding at 150 km/h on the open road as fair or very fair, up from 87% in 2003. Three quarters think loss of licence for speeds of 140km/h is fair and half think loss of licence is fair at 130km/h.

6.10 Speeding in an urban area was regarded equally unfavourably. 92% support loss of licence for speeding at 90km/h in a 50km/h zone. Three quarters (76%) now support loss of licence for doing 80km/h in a 50km/h zone, an increase from 72% in 2003 and 68% in 2002.

6.11 Just under two-thirds (63%) of New Zealanders think automatic loss of licence for three speeding tickets in a year is fair or very fair. 19% said it was unfair or very unfair, and 16% were neutral on this issue.

6.12 Support for automatic loss of licence for three speeding tickets in a year has decreased slightly in the last year, from 67% in 2003 to 63% in 2004. This may reflect the perception that speeding tickets are more often issued at speeds of 110 – 115 km/h (see sections 6.15 and 7.3 below).

6.13 Penalties. Twenty-six percent agree with the statement 'penalties for speeding are not very severe even if you are caught'. Over the last eight years this has gradually become a less prevalent view. In general, penalties for speeding are more often thought to be severe than those for drink-driving or failing to wear a safety belt, though the gap is closing as the public becomes more aware of safety belt enforcement (see Fig. 3).

6.14 Self-reported speeding infringements. Nearly one fifth (19%) of all drivers reported receiving at least one speeding ticket in the previous year. This is a slight increase on 16% in 2001-2003. Fourteen percent of women and 24% of men reported receiving a speeding ticket in the year preceding the survey.

6.15 Chance of receiving a ticket. The number of people who expect to get a ticket if passing a Police officer (without a speed camera) at speeds over 110 km/h has continued to increase (see Fig 5). 42% said they would expect to get a ticket if they passed a Police officer (without a speed camera) at 115 km/h, compared with 36% in 2003 and 28% before the advent of the State Highway Patrol in 2000. 68% would have expected a ticket at 120 km/h, compared with only 54% in 2000.

6.16 However, expected ticketing rates are still lower for Police officers than for speed cameras – 13% of New Zealanders still do not think they would be likely to receive a ticket if they drove past a Police officer at 130 km/h.

6.17 In 2004, several new questions about speed enforcement were added to the survey.

6.18 Definition of speeding. Respondents were asked 'On the open road, what speed do you consider to be speeding?' 55% named speeds of 115 or lower, as speeding. This may reflect widespread knowledge of the 10km/h enforcement tolerance applied by Police in practice.

6.19 The other new questions relate to the use of unmarked vehicles, other than speed camera vehicles, to detect offending on the roads.

6.20 Unmarked vehicles for traffic enforcement. 84% of New Zealanders are aware of the use of unmarked vehicles for this purpose.

6.21 Most New Zealanders think unmarked cars are good for road safety. 70% said the use of unmarked cars to detect traffic offending was very effective or quite effective in helping to reduce the road toll. 21% thought the use of unmarked cars was not very effective, 4% said they have no effect and 5% said they didn't know.

6.22 Most New Zealanders are happy with the use of unmarked cars. 78% think using unmarked cars to catch traffic offenders is fair or very fair; 9% think it is unfair or very unfair, and the remaining 12% were neutral.

It seems that the vast majority of NZ road users support the current approach to road safety.