Fast and Safe [Archive] - Page 3

Alan Wilkinson

13th February 2005, 14:20

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?

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

The only way to tell is to look at what happens to the trend when there is a major change. We had a major change with the highway patrol and the rigid enforcement of speedlimits to 10 km/h tolerance. It dramatically has reduced average speeds, but has had no impact on the fatality trend. All the indications are that there would have been the same number of fatalities without all the extra speeding tickets.

And the numbers of cars on the road was increasing before the change too, so it was contributing to the trend line then and there is no reason to believe its contribution has changed or is having more impact.

scumdog

13th February 2005, 14:28

More people + more cars, should = more fatal/serious injury crashes, however, + (a)safer vehicles + (b)more rigourous speed & traffic law enforcment?

= less no. of serious crashes, less deaths & less serious injuries.

Remove (a) or (b) and the numbers WOULD go up.

Speed tickets are like GST, like it or lump it, they're both here to stay, NOTHING you do/say is going to change things.

Joust at your windmills Alan if it keeps you happy.

Alan Wilkinson

13th February 2005, 14:48

Speed tickets are like GST, like it or lump it, they're both here to stay, NOTHING you do/say is going to change things.

Fortunately that isn't true, Scumdog. I've been involved in a lot of political issues in my lifetime and almost all have been won in the end. But it may take a decade - that is a typical length of time to win public opinion and defeat the entrenched vested interests.

speedpro

13th February 2005, 14:54

Alan Wilkinson

13th February 2005, 15:00

Blakamin

13th February 2005, 15:01

Fortunately that isn't true, Scumdog. I've been involved in a lot of political issues in my lifetime and almost all have been won in the end. But it may take a decade - that is a typical length of time to win public opinion and defeat the entrenched vested interests.
i'd vote they get rid of speeding fines... if jail was the other option... good-bye boy racers :yeah: (and my boss)

a realist can see that it is never gunna happen tho.....

politicians on the other hand... they just aren't real....

avgas

13th February 2005, 15:14

We cannot confuse aspects of motoring, such as speed and death.
Statistics on speed are a load of bullshit - on both sides (for and against speeding).
Yes if we decrease speed limits, less people MIGHT die. However if change some other aspect, such as carless (and bikeless) days - less people will also die.
Mentioning 'Fast' and 'Safe' in the same sentence is like mentioning 'grass' and 'milk'.
People think that milk comes from grass, yet if i eat grass - i do not fill up with milk.
Likewise if i change my speed, and do not die, that does not mean i wont die later at the same speed.
Yes i do on occasion ride fast, but i do not wish to all the time. Yet by increasing the speed limit i would be forced to.
Practice does make perfect, but repetition means chance of error will increase.

scumdog

13th February 2005, 15:17

Yes, but you don't have to have 50% of the population fully understanding an issue to win. In fact, the critical number has been put as low as 5%. Then it just snowballs, because most people don't think logically - they go with the flow and the trend.

They go with the flow 'cos they'll get hammered if they don't - and the polies keep telling them that.

Fully understanding doesn't come into it - a lot are incapable of "understanding" anyway, hence why a 'blanket' speed limit etc.

It's like when your dad said 'do it' and never bothered to explain - but you did it anyway 'cos you knew it would hurt if you didn't.

Clockwork

13th February 2005, 17:39

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 more 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.

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

Hang on, what has what people "think" got to do with what is safe? Lets face it it not like the Great New Zealand public hasn't been continuously subjected to LTSA propagenda for the last 10 years!!!

marty

13th February 2005, 18:07

The only way to tell is to look at what happens to the trend when there is a major change. We had a major change with the highway patrol and the rigid enforcement of speedlimits to 10 km/h tolerance. It dramatically has reduced average speeds, but has had no impact on the fatality trend. All the indications are that there would have been the same number of fatalities without all the extra speeding tickets.

.

rubbish. when HP was introduced, there was a drop in both the fatality numbers to under 500 for the first time ever. this downward trend continued until 2004, however the numbers are still under 500. the 2005 trend is down.

'all the indications'?????? which ones? i hope that's not your opinion, as facts are sacred......, and that's what we are talking about here.

{edit} and alan, i suggest you talk to some volly ambo and firefighters in the rural areas that have a heavily policed SH1 running through them. ask them what their observations are, in relation to fatal/serious MVAs. i can't remember there being 19 deaths in a month due to speed/alcohol for a long time (within a 10km stretch of road that is).

spudchucka

13th February 2005, 20:39

Yes indeed there is more than one element involved in the road toll dropping, so why discard speed restrictions and not wny of the others?
I've noticed one of Alan's "trends" is to not answer questions that make too much sense for the counter side of his arguement.

spudchucka

13th February 2005, 20:45

I don't believe that anyone is saying the situation hasn't improved, or that it isn't continuing to improve. What I am saying is that the improvement is due to a lot of factors, and speed control is only one of them.
I totaly agree! There are many factors contributing to the reduction, including police enforcement of traffic regulations, (speed limits).

However, Alan is suggesting that police enforcing the speed limit has no impact on the road toll and actually contributes to an increase on traffic crash related injuries.

speedpro

13th February 2005, 20:47

I've noticed one of Alan's "trends" is to not answer questions that make too much sense for the counter side of his arguement.
Actually Alan has already explained his reasoning for suggesting this. He might do it again, or you could just look at his web site, or scan back thru this thread.

spudchucka

13th February 2005, 20:49

Actually Alan has already explained his reasoning for suggesting this. He might do it again, or you could just look at his web site, or scan back thru this thread.
Not interested enough in his web site to bother going back there again. If you want to supply the post number in this thread that you are talking about I'll happily go have a look.

scumdog

14th February 2005, 00:54

I think scum is right. The huge effort and resources that have gone into making the NZ public aware that "speed kills" will be very difficult to counter. It's a numbers game, people vote for politicians, people think "speed kills", politicians are for "speed kills" solutions. Politicians ensure that more "speed kills" propoganda is published to support their platform. More of the public become aware that "speed kills", etc etc. I despair at the stupidity of people in general, especially when it comes to issues like this. The catch-cry, in this case "speed kills" is repeated endlessly with no understanding to back it up.

Years ago my group used to all go everywhere on our bikes as fast as possible. We were all on 900-1100cc bikes. Average sort of "cruising" speed was 140-160kmh, or higher in places like the Napier-Taupo road. More recently I've been Ak to Wn in the car at a minimum cruising speed of 140 or so and for a lot of the time just off the speed limiter. In the car I never had a moment, did nothing that would have caused anyone else to have a moment, and generally just cruised along. There was no demon braking to avoid anything or anyone, no crazy swerving round obstacles, no intimidating flying up behind someone and then jamming on the brakes, nothing, just a good fast cruise to Wellington.

But that makes me a bad bastard 'cause "speed kills". Yeah right.

Years ago I use to drive home very drunk, always travelled fairly slow, never had a crash while drunk.

But that makes me a bad bastard 'cause "drink drivers kill innocent people"

Yeah right.

You could use that adage for a lot of other factors, like seat belts and not wearing them.

Fact is it is a COMBINATION of enforcement of factors that is keeping the lid on the road toll, not just one factor i.e. speed.

So why does nobody say the same about seat belts or drunk-driving?
e.g. "As most people are affected the same amount by different blood alcohol levels police are wasting their effort in enforcing the 400 breath alcohol level, most people will know when they have had enough to drink so it is a waste of police resources targetting drink drivers"

speedpro

14th February 2005, 08:15

That's a good point, , but I LIKE going fast.

scumdog

14th February 2005, 10:23

That's a good point, , but I LIKE going fast.

Glad to see some honesty!, - no b.s. about "I'm safe" and all the other pathetic reasons you read on this site.

Paul in NZ

14th February 2005, 11:06

I was thinking about this thread while we were riding home down SH1 yesterday afternoon. No matter how much I thought about it and the various arguments, 2 things struck me as being totally ‘unsafe’ and until these problems are addressed, there is no point in doing anything about the speed limit except lowering it.

1. There are too many cars for not enough road. From Levin to Wellington on any weekend, this road is packed and impossible to do 100kph for more than 5 or 10 minutes at any stage.

2. SHW1 should NOT have roundabouts (Otaki), go through small towns (Otaki and Levin), have fruit stalls, driveways, intersections and other places where people can decide to stop, turn or otherwise move in any direction other than with the flow of traffic.

It was not a pleasant trip at all.

However, crazy as the traffic was, I actually wonder how many accidents actually occur during these high traffic volume times and how many occur (like the one in Hamilton) at off peak low volume times?

And more importantly, why….

Mongoose

14th February 2005, 14:18

Actually Alan has already explained his reasoning for suggesting this. He might do it again, or you could just look at his web site, or scan back thru this thread.

So asking for clarification of statements like
"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." is a no go region?
From what I have seen, speed is the ONLY factor commented on and no other explanation offered, why?
Why did some states appear to go down? What was theur roading structure like? ow did their population and roads compare to NZs?
Alan claims to be a "From the top down man" but unfortuantely to get to the top result one must start to get answers from the bottom up.

Alan Wilkinson

14th February 2005, 14:42

rubbish. when HP was introduced, there was a drop in both the fatality numbers to under 500 for the first time ever. this downward trend continued until 2004, however the numbers are still under 500. the 2005 trend is down.

But the trend was down before HP was introduced, in fact since 1985. The question is whether it changed direction perceptibly, and it hasn't. You can't tell from one year either - you have to look at the whole picture.

Mongoose

14th February 2005, 14:44

But the trend was down before HP was introduced, in fact since 1985. The question is whether it changed direction perceptibly, and it hasn't. You can't tell from one year either - you have to look at the whole picture.

Yes, the WHOLE picture, and not leaving out the bits that you disagree with :yeah:

Alan Wilkinson

14th February 2005, 14:46

Yes, the WHOLE picture, and not leaving out the bits that you disagree with

Exactly, and that is why my charts show all the available data, whereas the LTSA and police show only the bits they want you to see.

Mongoose

14th February 2005, 14:51

Exactly, and that is why my charts show all the available data, whereas the LTSA and police show only the bits they want you to see.

Unike you who mentions things like the increased speed limit in the US of A, claim it caused the death rate to go up in some states and down in others but offer no other info as to the whys of it all? Except to say speed was not a factor, yeah right. If you believ that speed is not a contributing factor, all your stats(and you of all people should know how to manipulate them) mean zilch.Sure there are other factrs bt for injury and or death speed is a LARGE factor.

Alan Wilkinson

14th February 2005, 14:57

Alan Wilkinson

14th February 2005, 15:00

Unike you who mentions things like the increased speed limit in the US of A, claim it caused the death rate to go up in some states and down in others but offer no other info as to the whys of it all? Except to say speed was not a factor, yeah right. If you believ that speed is not a contributing factor, all your stats(and you of all people should know how to manipulate them) mean zilch.Sure there are other factrs bt for injury and or death speed is a LARGE factor.

If we don't even agree on what is happening it's a bit pointless to discuss why. I'll be happy to have people understand what is happening for a start.

Mongoose

14th February 2005, 15:04

If we don't even agree on what is happening it's a bit pointless to discuss why. I'll be happy to have people understand what is happening for a start.

To me that means, those that agree with me I will talk to, that is not a discussion Alan.
how abut questions being asked so people can understand what yu are saying? Ever thought of that, huh?
Surely if youuse an example, you understand what is happening, why not, with your sacred facts explain to all and sundry.

ps, What are you other Poltical victories?

Mongoose

14th February 2005, 15:06

scumdog

14th February 2005, 22:59

Like I said, spend less money on cops and "speed kills" programmes and more money on roads, especially upgrade SH1.

I could imagine serious crashes occur disproportionately off-peak for a whole bunch of reasons including alcohol, tiredness, young drivers, less familiarity with route, less care and attention apparently necessary, worse visibility.

"Upgrading" the roads will do diddly-squat with the budget this country has, to get your idea of a 'safe' road (4lane,centre-divider and slow sweeping bends) would be prohibitive, we just have too many km to upgrade and we can't even afford to do SH1..

Look, since so many people can't drive to their ability or the conditions and are going to crash we might as well hold the speed down to lessen the mess (figuratively speaking).

How do you police for innattention, fatigue, drug use, failing to drive to the road/weather conditions? Tell me a way and I'll be all ears.

speedpro

15th February 2005, 07:08

"Upgrading" the roads will do diddly-squat with the budget this country has, to get your idea of a 'safe' road (4lane,centre-divider and slow sweeping bends) would be prohibitive, we just have too many km to upgrade and we can't even afford to do SH1..

Look, since so many people can't drive to their ability or the conditions and are going to crash we might as well hold the speed down to lessen the mess (figuratively speaking).

How do you police for innattention, fatigue, drug use, failing to drive to the road/weather conditions? Tell me a way and I'll be all ears.

Education would be a good start. Teaching people to pull over to let others past would stop a bit of rage and reduce the subsequent silliness. Learning how to drive and actually being tested to see if you can. Making driving without a licence a very unrewarding experiance and making ALL overseas drivers attain some sort of competency before letting them loose, including knowing the road rules. The rules bit applies to everyone, for example I commonly see drivers who don't know the "right hand rule" at intersections, and members of this forum apparently don't know at which point a speed limit sign applies.

Coldkiwi

15th February 2005, 12:46

saying we have no money to upgrade SH1 is arse. Its just that the government have decided to spend our billions and billions of dollars in taxes on other things (like changing to NCEA... well done folks!) and paying for hidden speed camera's (and yes a whole bunch of other good things).

On a slightly different matter, I think that if the HP are going to use 'hidden 'speed cameras then they should be properly bloody hidden so you don't see them at all! I saw three sodding van's in the weekend on the southern motorway that were not visible until about 30-40m from the back of the van (and then very damn obvious). I saw quite a few cars in front of me slam on the brakes at the last minute (lets hear it for rearward number plates fellas!) .
A sudden perceived hazard like that to a driver is just plain freakin dangerous and surely its creating a worse situation than cars travelling on an otherwise very safe piece of road at 120kmhr.
Whether hidden cameras are fun and profitable is a different matter but they should surely be applied in a safe manner.

Any thoughts?

spudchucka

15th February 2005, 12:48

Education would be a good start. Teaching people to pull over to let others past would stop a bit of rage and reduce the subsequent silliness.
I agree but these messages have been around for a long time and people still drive to the standard that they think should apply to them. Then they expect all other road users to conform to their standards, which amounts to pure arogance in my books. What needs adjusting is the attitudes & core beliefs of Joe Public motorist. Thats what most of the hated advertising is trying to achieve, too make people think about what they are doing and the consequences of their attitudes and behaviour on the road.

Biff

15th February 2005, 13:00

Mongoose

15th February 2005, 13:32

spudchucka

15th February 2005, 14:31

I saw quite a few cars in front of me slam on the brakes at the last minute (lets hear it for rearward number plates fellas!) .
A sudden perceived hazard like that to a driver is just plain freakin dangerous and surely its creating a worse situation than cars travelling on an otherwise very safe piece of road at 120kmhr
If people observed proper following distances then this wouldn't be a problem at all. Its just another reason why the bulk of drivers aren't "fast & safe".

Speed cameras aren't meant to be hidden anymore.

Timetogo

15th February 2005, 15:19

GOOD point about the UK, most of the f..'n things aren't be hidden they're permanently mounted in the proverbial black spots and as suggested clearly signposted plus they don't drive around with them mounted on there dashboards :angry2:

In fact they they seem to have far more important things to do than stopping people for minor infringements, perhaps the NZ police should take a leaf from their book.

Funnily enough people there drive a damn sight faster than here and they seem to be better drivers AND a lot more aware of bikers, even with all that extra traffic. WHAT does that say about the speed limit :brick:

Biff

15th February 2005, 15:32

speedpro

15th February 2005, 18:28

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedpro
Education would be a good start. Teaching people to pull over to let others past would stop a bit of rage and reduce the subsequent silliness.

I agree but these messages have been around for a long time and people still drive to the standard that they think should apply to them. Then they expect all other road users to conform to their standards, which amounts to pure arogance in my books. What needs adjusting is the attitudes & core beliefs of Joe Public motorist. Thats what most of the hated advertising is trying to achieve, too make people think about what they are doing and the consequences of their attitudes and behaviour on the road.

"these messages" may have been around a long time but you see them a whole lot less than the "speed kills" messages. Most of the "hated advertising" I see anywhere is all about speed. In fact I don't recall seeing any "hated advertising" for anything else except speeding.

Blakamin

15th February 2005, 18:40

that the German Autobahn costs 900,000 euro per mile per year just to maintain???
and they have 12,000 miles of it!!!
who will be paying for our 2000k of SH1????

what do we maintain it with... and I hope no-one says tolls as we would be paying thru the nose for the amount people that use it (how many of the 4 million kiwis use SH1 daily?)

[off topic]
btw, the Germans ADAC (equivilent of AA) fix 80% of vehicles on the side of the road and they have 36 ADAC rescue choppers... how many do the AA fix? (not tow).. 5 cars with flat batteries per week??

hobdar

15th February 2005, 20:20

I went to look at the study Alan quotes on his website that supposedly refutes the LTSA stating speed kills, The Us Study he mentiones "Spatially Disaggregate Panel Models of Crash and Injury Counts by Kockelmann & Kweon, Univ of Texas, presented at Transportation Research Board annual meeting in Washington, DC, January 2004. "

their final paragraph is as follows

"Taken all together, these results suggest speed limits play a central role in driving safety and traffic fatalities. They dominate most other factors, and the estimated cost impacts of raised limits overwhelm even the most liberal time saving estimates. Though increasing speed limits may have some positive network or system effects (as suggested by work by Lave and Ellias
(1994, 1997) and Houston (1999)), they appear to rather dramatically raise local crash injury counts and fatalities. Though crashes claim more human lives in the U.S. than any other disease or accident, they remain a rare event. And, in the long term, vehicle design and driver choices
may counteract more of the risks that Americans seem to be facing due to the raised speed limits."

Some of you are way smarter than I and here is the link to the study

http://www.ce.utexas.edu/prof/kockelman/public_html/TRB04CrashCount.pdf

BUT what it does say in the conclusion is that SPEED IS A FACTOR...........please correct me if i misinterrput the data...

Mongoose

16th February 2005, 03:59

marty

16th February 2005, 06:26

But the trend was down before HP was introduced, in fact since 1985. The question is whether it changed direction perceptibly, and it hasn't. You can't tell from one year either - you have to look at the whole picture.

you'll have to post a link to that fact alan, cause i can't find it.

Coldkiwi

16th February 2005, 11:35

If people observed proper following distances then this wouldn't be a problem at all. Its just another reason why the bulk of drivers aren't "fast & safe".

Absolutely. It'd be nice to see some adverts about that again. bring back Brock!

Speed cameras aren't meant to be hidden anymore. Thats what i kept telling people in the weekend but no bugger beleived me! The 'anytime, anywhere' hidden camera campaign has been properly put to rest right?

So if hiding mobile vans behind bushes should be not allowed anymore, I would gladly write a very irate letter to LTNZ, PCA etc. noting the buggers who were contravening this because with the normal following distances on the motorway it was kinda scary to watch!

bear

16th February 2005, 14:32

scumdog

16th February 2005, 16:36

So why does Alan not have a bad rep with so many people bagging him?

Nice work Spudchucka!

Had some points to post of this thread, but after reading most of it I just feel drained.

Can't get past Alan's theory on letting everyone go as fast as they deem is safe, and using the courts to establish if this was the case afterwards where that person's judgement is challenged for going too fast/slow. If this happens then won't the cases ruled on in court provide guidelines for safe speeds, and then there will be rules in effect anyway!?! (case law)

I hope you are as happy with Alans theory when you have just been cleaned up by some dick who was going as fast "as he deemed safe" and decides to take it to court to 'prove' he WAS driving at a safe speed.

And if that speed was quite low when he crashed into you? Then the Court might decide that even 70kph was too fast and make the open road limit 65kph.

avgas

16th February 2005, 19:48

Why does Alan not have a bike?
Sorry i prob. missd a point here somewhere.
If i didnt have a bike, i would talk about bikes - not about leagalities, laws or the general public.
Unless he doesnt ride....

spudchucka

16th February 2005, 20:16

So why does Alan not have a bad rep with so many people bagging him?

Nice work Spudchucka!
Well I'm not sure what you mean exactly but I've only ever dished out bad rep to total retards like WINJA. Alan is not quite on the same planet as I am but he clearly isn't in that category yet. And he hasn't resorted to calling police officers pigs or insulting other KB members mothers yet.

spudchucka

16th February 2005, 20:31

Absolutely. It'd be nice to see some adverts about that again. bring back Brock!

Thats what i kept telling people in the weekend but no bugger beleived me! The 'anytime, anywhere' hidden camera campaign has been properly put to rest right?

So if hiding mobile vans behind bushes should be not allowed anymore, I would gladly write a very irate letter to LTNZ, PCA etc. noting the buggers who were contravening this because with the normal following distances on the motorway it was kinda scary to watch!
Maybe the cameras should be video cameras and send out tickets to anyone not observing the 2 second rule?

It don't know much at all about cameras, its not an area of my job that I'm even slightly interested in. I'm pretty sure however that the sites the vans operate in are pre-determined or pre-approved and are GPS logged. They all have a unique identifying number that relates to the GPS plot. If you have concerns about how the vans are being deployed then you should consider writing and asking for an explanation. If nothing else results you may at least acquire knowledge of their operational standards that may be of interest to you.

spudchucka

16th February 2005, 20:45

you'll have to post a link to that fact alan, cause i can't find it.
Last year LTSA had fatal & injury crash stats dating back to the 60's on their web site. They don't have it up anymore unfortunately. If you e-mailed them I'm sure it would still be available.

Alan is just playing on the fact that the HP were introduced in 2000 and in 2003 the road toll spiked from 404 to 461. Going totally off the top of my head I can recall a number of multiple fatality crashes that year, which contributed to the high toll.

In 2000 when the HP were introduced the road toll was 462, 2001 was 453 followed by the all time low of 404 in 2002. Last year, 2004 the toll was 435, once again on the downward track despite the high toll in 2003.

I sure as hell hope kiwis wise up for the remainder of 2005 because we are already sitting on 49 and we aren't even through the second month yet.

spudchucka

16th February 2005, 20:51

BUT what it does say in the conclusion is that SPEED IS A FACTOR...........please correct me if i misinterrput the data...
Anyone with a head wired up correctly can see this is the truth. Regardless of how much anyone enjoys a good burst of speed in circumstances they deem to be safe, shit still happens and when it happens at high speed it makes a bloody big mess.

spudchucka

16th February 2005, 20:54

Quote:
"these messages" may have been around a long time but you see them a whole lot less than the "speed kills" messages. Most of the "hated advertising" I see anywhere is all about speed. In fact I don't recall seeing any "hated advertising" for anything else except speeding.
I'll take your word for it. I don't watch enough TV to see the ads on a regular basis and quite frankly when an ad comes on I either mute or change channels.

Blakamin

16th February 2005, 20:58

Regardless of how much anyone enjoys a good burst of speed in circumstances they deem to be safe, shit still happens and when it happens at high speed it makes a bloody big mess.
yup... look at the fact germany has about 2000 deaths a year on the autobahn
but less actual crashes than most countries (source: Autobahn, discovery channel)...
you dont get injured when you or your car fucks up at 200kph, you die!
all this on a road without a pot-hole....
we're screwed! :yeah:

spudchucka

16th February 2005, 21:00

It's also worth noting that the number of traffic police on UK roads is very, very low compared to NZ (per head of population).

I know what you're all thinking - wooohoooo, fewer nasty people to catch us. But there is a more sinister downside to this trend, and that is that the number of fuckwits in cages going un-checked is increasing at an alarming rate. From jumping red lights, to driving while drunk, unlicensed drivers, unfit vehicles and so on are increasing at an alarming rate.

I know that this may sound perverted, but I'd much rather see a traffic cop on the road capable of doing several duties associated with traffic/crime related issues than a freaking Polaroid camera on a stick.
I'm not sure about actual traffic cops per population but England and Wales have more police than NZ per population. 1 cop to 406 people in England & Wales. 1 cop to 543 people in NZ.

http://www.nzpa.org.nz/

Go to the media releases section.

You will note that NZ has the lowest cop to population ratio of any of the developed nations on that graph.

spudchucka

16th February 2005, 21:02

yup... look at the fact germany has about 2000 deaths a year on the autobahn
but less actual crashes than most countries (source: Autobahn, discovery channel)...
you dont get injured when you or your car fucks up at 200kph, you die!
all this on a road without a pot-hole....
we're screwed! :yeah:
And the majority of vehicles would be Mercs, Volvos etc etc. Not POS jap import rice rockets and rusted out Fords & Holdens.

Skyryder

16th February 2005, 21:04

I'm not sure about actual traffic cops per population but England and Wales have more police than NZ per population. 1 cop to 406 people in England & Wales. 1 cop to 543 people in NZ.

http://www.nzpa.org.nz/

Go to the media releases section.

You will note that NZ has the lowest cop to population ratio of any of the developed nations on that graph.

And I see in the Chch Press that our esteemed Minister of Police is 'happy' with the current Police numbers.

Skyryder

Mongoose

16th February 2005, 21:07

And I see in the Chch Press that our esteemed Minister of Police is 'happy' with the current Police numbers.

Skyryder

Ya'all must mean Minister Stupid? :wari: :yeah:

scumdog

16th February 2005, 21:09

yup... look at the fact germany has about 2000 deaths a year on the autobahn
but less actual crashes than most countries (source: Autobahn, discovery channel)...
you dont get injured when you or your car fucks up at 200kph, you die!
all this on a road without a pot-hole....
we're screwed! :yeah:

Does Alan have this info on his site? Does he even KNOW about such figures? :spudwhat:

Probably just touts the low crash figures but skips on the death bit....

spudchucka

16th February 2005, 21:22

And I see in the Chch Press that our esteemed Minister of Police is 'happy' with the current Police numbers.

Skyryder
If you have a good look at the NZPA web site and read over some of the online association journals you will pick up on the feeling amongst the troops on that issue.

marty

17th February 2005, 06:15

aaallllaaaannnn........cooeee.......come in alllllaaaannn....we're waiting for your factual comments alllaaannnnn

Clockwork

17th February 2005, 07:13

So why does Alan not have a bad rep with so many people bagging him?

Nice work Spudchucka!

Had some points to post of this thread, but after reading most of it I just feel drained.

Can't get past Alan's theory on letting everyone go as fast as they deem is safe, and using the courts to establish if this was the case afterwards where that person's judgement is challenged for going too fast/slow. If this happens then won't the cases ruled on in court provide guidelines for safe speeds, and then there will be rules in effect anyway!?! (case law)

I'm not certain he was advocating "no speed limits". I thought he was asking for the ability to defend a ticket on the grounds of safety. :yeah:

Perhaps the issue here is the mandatory sentence. Does anyone reading this believe that 140Kph on a dry, empty, lane separated road is more dangerous than doing 63kph in rain and heavy traffic past a school at 3pm? :spudwhat

bear

17th February 2005, 07:15

I hope you are as happy with Alans theory when you have just been cleaned up by some dick who was going as fast "as he deemed safe" and decides to take it to court to 'prove' he WAS driving at a safe speed.

And if that speed was quite low when he crashed into you? Then the Court might decide that even 70kph was too fast and make the open road limit 65kph.

Perhaps I was mis-interpreted. I mean that Alan's view would be ridiculous in policing the masses on an individual basis, and at the end of the day judgements in court would no doubt set presidence's and then we would be back at square one - with rules and guidelines in place for the masses to follow.

Also, as mentioned earlier in the thread by countless others, you'd need to huge court system to handle the cases as no doubt everyone would be playing the game and seeing how much they could get away with (fast and slow) - anarchy on the roads I imagine.

Clockwork

17th February 2005, 07:16

Maybe the cameras should be video cameras and send out tickets to anyone not observing the 2 second rule?

I think this is a great idea! :niceone:

bear

17th February 2005, 07:23

I'm not certain he was advocating "no speed limits". I thought he was asking for the ability to defend a ticket on the grounds of safety. :

Yeah, but safety might be a matter of one's perception at times, and a young fella in a fast car may think that 140kmh is okay, but others may not, and then you've got to go through the whole system to resolve.
I just think it's too individual, and in order to most effectively manage to masses simplistic rules that cover the majority are needed.

Alan Wilkinson

17th February 2005, 10:12

Does Alan have this info on his site? Does he even KNOW about such figures? :spudwhat:

Probably just touts the low crash figures but skips on the death bit....

Check out the chart here:

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

or here:

http://www.fastandsafe.org/sharedfiles/fastandsafe/documents/p102.pdf

Germany has the same fatality rates as Australia despite its autobahns with unrestricted speed limits.

Alan Wilkinson

17th February 2005, 10:15

you'll have to post a link to that fact alan, cause i can't find it.

See charts on this page:

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

and also:

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

Biff

17th February 2005, 10:23

Alan Wilkinson

17th February 2005, 10:24

Perhaps I was mis-interpreted. I mean that Alan's view would be ridiculous in policing the masses on an individual basis, and at the end of the day judgements in court would no doubt set presidence's and then we would be back at square one - with rules and guidelines in place for the masses to follow.

Also, as mentioned earlier in the thread by countless others, you'd need to huge court system to handle the cases as no doubt everyone would be playing the game and seeing how much they could get away with (fast and slow) - anarchy on the roads I imagine.

This is fair comment, but I don't agree with your conclusions. We already have a huge court system to deal with some 75,000 speeding tickets every month. After an initial settling down, I would expect few cases would go to court.

The advantage would be that safety rules would be based on fact, not political opinion. In court, fact defeats opinion.

I have no problem with rules and guidelines based on relevant safety facts. At the moment, though, they are mostly based on bureaucratic convenience and political opinions.

vifferman

17th February 2005, 10:26

I also have another theory that relates to foreign drivers. Some of these people come from countries where they can't or don't drive and their brains just arent used to seeing things coming at them at 200km/h (100km/h in each direction). This induces a state of panic etc etc and then they kill someone, their family pays the victims family 40 grand and they get off scott free. Bastards.
Iam not a bastrds I new both of my fathers.
but I am not used to seeig things comming so fast towrds me so how can I stop the painic? I donot want to kill someone who is not my enimies.

vifferman

17th February 2005, 10:31

Iam most ly slow and safes.

Blakamin

17th February 2005, 10:39

Germany has the same fatality rates as Australia despite its autobahns with unrestricted speed limits.
according to the doco, germany has those deaths just on autobahns... it does NOT include cities, b roads etc!!!!

um.. you might wanna check the years on your chart... I'm sure we haven't got to 19969 yet or 20007 either... if you get that wrong, what else???

and "per 10,000 registered vehicles" is pretty stupid.. what about overall numbers?? how many "per 10,000 registered vehicles" use the autobahn everyday? same as the kiwi vehicles that use sh1? or the aussies (that actually have states, therefore can use "State Highway") use the Hume????
A bit mis-leading...

Alan Wilkinson

17th February 2005, 10:44

I saw a crash on an Autobahn in Germany once. It was horrific. The vehicles involved pretty much disintegrated in front of my eyes without any hope of anyone surviving.

I think you'll find that the main reason that traffic accidents are relatively low in Germany is not because there are no limits on some stretches of the autobahn some of the time (there are very, very few stretches if any where there are no speed restrictions at all, all of the time), but because they have invested very heavily in driver training (arguably the best drivers in Europe/the world), rigid traffic policing (yep, lots and lots of Police in fast cars and no sense of leniency), strict traffic laws (you'd have a fit living there Alan), cameras everywhere, intelligent traffic flow/speed monitoring systems and so on.

You are just as dead however you do it. Our neighbours' son just slid off the edge of the road 5 km from home on our little back country road. Less spectacular, just as sad and bad for the statistics.

So you have to be objective about overall results and not make decisions and policies swayed by occasional spectacular or emotive incidents.

Alan Wilkinson

17th February 2005, 10:48

according to the doco, germany has those deaths just on autobahns... it does NOT include cities, b roads etc!!!!

So what? You have to scale it for the number of people, amount of km travelled before you know whether the number is good or bad relative to everywhere else.

Blakamin

17th February 2005, 10:53

So what? You have to scale it for the number of people, amount of km travelled before you know whether the number is good or bad relative to everywhere else.
why do you have to scale anything??? 2000 deaths on a highway is huge!!!
why do you insist on scales?? didn't work for the NCEA, how can it work for you?

go back and re-read my edited post...or I'll just quote it here
um.. you might wanna check the years on your chart... I'm sure we haven't got to 19969 yet or 20007 either... if you get that wrong, what else???

and "per 10,000 registered vehicles" is pretty stupid.. what about overall numbers?? how many "per 10,000 registered vehicles" use the autobahn everyday? same as the kiwi vehicles that use sh1? or the aussies (that actually have states, therefore can use "State Highway") use the Hume????

Biff

17th February 2005, 11:09

So you have to be objective about overall results and not make decisions and policies swayed by occasional spectacular or emotive incidents.

The point I attempting to make, "spectacular" incidents aside, is that German Autobahns are far more than roads that you can drive fast on. They are state of the art highways, constructed out of leading edge composite materials and are littered with a wide range of real time traffic monitoring equipment, as well as very strict policing by law enforcement authorities.

So in-keeping with the theme of being objective, in order to allow the same kinds of speeds to be travelled on the roads here would require an enormous amount of investment & innovation. Quite simply I don't believe that New Zealand has the population density to be able to afford such a major development, bearing in mind that the autobahns were conceived and began being built during the 1940's (courtesy of Her Hitler). The German chancellery has now admitted that maintaining the autobahns is draining 100's of millions of Euro's a year for the nations coffers, money that they would rather spend on other public services, and at the risk of insulting Kiwi drivers, we are nowhere near achieving the standard of Germans or most Europeans attain in terms of driving skills. So we'd also need to invest heavily in re-training our road users. Again - at huge expense.

Alan Wilkinson

17th February 2005, 11:13

why do you have to scale anything??? 2000 deaths on a highway is huge!!!
why do you insist on scales?? didn't work for the NCEA, how can it work for you?

go back and re-read my edited post...or I'll just quote it here

Thanks for noting the typos. I've fixed them. I think you'll find it was "not scaling" that's got NCEA in big trouble.

You scale to compare apples with apples and to put things into perspective. Otherwise, you tend to get excited about things that don't matter in the big picture.

The best comparison basis is on total distance travelled. But this is hard to get good data for - so people tend to use population or total number of vehicles as an approximation.

Alan Wilkinson

17th February 2005, 11:20

Blakamin

17th February 2005, 11:21

The best comparison basis is on total distance travelled. But this is hard to get good data for - so people tend to use population or total number of vehicles as an approximation.
why not the whole picture??? how many people actually died on German roads last year???
stuff the scaling... I wanna know!!!

Biff

17th February 2005, 11:27

Biff Baff

I don't think anyone is proposing that 240 km/h is safe on NZ roads or we upgrade them to that level. But there are plenty of times and places that 120 km/h is perfectly safe and we should accept that kind of target as a first step towards progress.

OMG - I think I agree with you!!! As a Brit living here I must admit to the fact that I was surprised that on 'some' long, straight (or mildly windy), wide roads the speed limit's appear to be rather low. But I'd stop short at going any further with you and join you in stating that this was the, "first step towards progress". My fear is that if we managed to get 120 K, then we'd be pushing for 130, then 140 and so on.

The first step has to be the basics - and that is to improve driver training. Then and only then should we consider increasing speed limits.

Alan Wilkinson

17th February 2005, 11:35

Blakamin

17th February 2005, 11:48

Blakamin

If you really want to know, get off your butt and onto Google and go find out. My focus is on NZ stats, not the rest of the world, and even there I am still waiting on an official information request to get all the 2004 numbers.
you're the one comparing stats, not me....
geez, Alan, If you made the chart, I thought you would have them :spudwhat:

Alan Wilkinson

17th February 2005, 15:42

you're the one comparing stats, not me....
geez, Alan, If you made the chart, I thought you would have them

I didn't make the chart(s). If you bother to look you will see both were referenced from authoritative external sources.

So you really don't want the data, you just want to put me to some trouble?

scumdog

17th February 2005, 16:14

Biff Baff

I don't think anyone is proposing that 240 km/h is safe on NZ roads or we upgrade them to that level. But there are plenty of times and places that 120 km/h is perfectly safe and we should accept that kind of target as a first step towards progress.
Sure there are times/places where 120kph is safe - for SOME. Others feeling unsafe at that kind of speed would be dawdling along at 90kph, in that case you would have an oncoming vehicle that could be doing 90 or it could be doing 120 - almost half as much again, makes o'taking tricky, especially if you're in a havily laden 4X4 or similar as opposed to a bike.
Also human nature being what it is they would want to go for 130kph or more.

"Geeze officer, it's not even 10% over the limit"

And WHO is going to decide the time/place WAS safe?? at THAT time or at THAT place? for WHAT vehicle? for WHO? :spudwhat:

Mongoose

17th February 2005, 16:33

Did I miss Alans comment on this quote, from his site, or is it just another ignored one?

(1994, 1997) and Houston (1999)), they appear to rather dramatically raise local crash injury counts and fatalities. Though crashes claim more human lives in the U.S. than any other disease or accident, they remain a rare event. And, in the long term, vehicle design and driver choices
may counteract more of the risks that Americans seem to be facing due to the raised speed limits."

Blakamin

17th February 2005, 17:04

I didn't make the chart(s). If you bother to look you will see both were referenced from authoritative external sources.

So you really don't want the data, you just want to put me to some trouble?
I thought you made the charts so I thought you'd have the numbers.....
I'll find out myself and let you know....

marty

17th February 2005, 17:04

See charts on this page:

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

and also:

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

i want independent facts, i'm not going to your site

marty

17th February 2005, 17:05

Blakamin

If you really want to know, get off your butt and onto Google and go find out. My focus is on NZ stats, not the rest of the world, and even there I am still waiting on an official information request to get all the 2004 numbers.

funnily enough, if you're on google, there's a good chance you're on your butt anyway....

Blakamin

17th February 2005, 17:23

hmmm...
Germany - According to the German Federal Statistical Office in 1998, 7,792 citizens were killed in motor vehicle accidents, with 497,000 injuries reported. We estimate that 65,000 of the reported injuries were serious.

just a few more than australia.....

and here's a little sumfin from the european transport safety council... you pretty much only have to read the 1st 4 lines... in either column
http://www.etsc.be/documents/2rgb.pdf

Mongoose

17th February 2005, 17:29

You scale to compare apples with apples and to put things into perspective. Otherwise, you tend to get excited about things that don't matter in the big picture.

The best comparison basis is on total distance travelled. But this is hard to get good data for - so people tend to use population or total number of vehicles as an approximation.

Even with your theory you are still not comparing apples with apples, total distance travelled is but one factor(as you well know) so why just the one factor and call it a comparison? Is this the one best suited to your arguement, or do statasticians have other reasons for doing it this way?

Blakamin

17th February 2005, 17:39

marty

17th February 2005, 17:39

Otherwise, you tend to get excited about things that don't matter in the big picture.

.

like this thread.....

Blakamin

17th February 2005, 17:48

or people dying.....

marty

17th February 2005, 18:20

The best comparison basis is on total distance travelled. But this is hard to get good data for - so people tend to use population or total number of vehicles as an approximation.

i don't agree. distance is relative - aussies travel huge distances, but their comparable traffic whebn travelling long distance is low. nowhere is more than a day's drive for us.

scumdog

17th February 2005, 19:33

So what? You have to scale it for the number of people, amount of km travelled before you know whether the number is good or bad relative to everywhere else.

How about using figures from India and say South America and do a comparison?????????????

Blakamin

17th February 2005, 19:51

How about using figures from India and say South America and do a comparison?????????????
have a look at one of my links for turkey!!!! farqin hell!!!!

spudchucka

17th February 2005, 19:54

So you have to be objective about overall results and not make decisions and policies swayed by occasional spectacular or emotive incidents.
Spectacular or emotive incidents like the spike in the road toll in 2003 just a few years after the introduction of the highway patrol? You have been more than willing to make a decision that the highway patrol and rigid traffic enforcement was responsible for this spike. What gives? Why the double standard?

spudchucka

17th February 2005, 20:00

This is fair comment, but I don't agree with your conclusions. We already have a huge court system to deal with some 75,000 speeding tickets every month. After an initial settling down, I would expect few cases would go to court.

The advantage would be that safety rules would be based on fact, not political opinion. In court, fact defeats opinion.

I have no problem with rules and guidelines based on relevant safety facts. At the moment, though, they are mostly based on bureaucratic convenience and political opinions.
What experience do you base your expectation that the load on the court system would settle down?

It would settle down, after parliament passed or ammended laws to stop the rort that would result.

spudchucka

17th February 2005, 20:05

Yeah, but safety might be a matter of one's perception at times, and a young fella in a fast car may think that 140kmh is okay, but others may not, and then you've got to go through the whole system to resolve.
I just think it's too individual, and in order to most effectively manage to masses simplistic rules that cover the majority are needed.
What is safe to one person is reckless to another. If Alan is buzzing along at 120, quite safe in his opinion, his actions may actually be terrorising the elderly or learner driver cruising along at 98. If he was coming the other way the elderly or learner driver may struggle to accurately assess his approaching speed and turn into his path, thinking he was moving slower than what he actually was.

Biff

17th February 2005, 20:36

and you can look at motorway deaths here (http://www.abd.org.uk/safest_roads.htm) ... so the germans aren't really that good considering the speed limit thing...
oohhh.. look another graph (http://www.bast.de/htdocs/fachthemen/irtad/utility/p73.pdf)

(To be read in a Sir Winston Churchill kinda voice.)

Thank you Blakamin. By producing those graphs (and an excellent piece of research may I say) you have confirmed that Brits, are indeed, the best drivers in Europe, possibly even the world.

I believe that we , as coalition forces, have whooped the German's arses, yet again.

I make three nil to us chaps. Anyone for tea ?

scumdog

17th February 2005, 20:39

Blakamin

17th February 2005, 20:52

(To be read in a Sir Winston Churchill kinda voice.)

Thank you Blakamin. By producing those graphs (and an excellent piece of research may I say) you have confirmed that Brits, are indeed, the best drivers in Europe, possibly even the world.

I believe that we , as coalition forces, have whooped the German's arses, yet again.

I make three nil to us chaps. Anyone for tea ?
see how ya can twist any old piece 'o shit???? :killingme :killingme

Biff

17th February 2005, 21:16

Alan,
There's no way on this planet that every man, cat, and his dog isn't going to try their luck if there's any chance of getting out of a fine and/or demerit points. Virtually every single one of them will be playing the fast and safe card, and not just once. Heavens no. You can bet that an awful lot of these individuals (myself included) will also go on to fight every single speeding ticket they ever receive. This would place a massive burden on an already over stretched judicial process. It just wouldn’t be practical.

This would also mean the government would have to find even more money in order to sustain, or improve, the courts system so they were capable of handling a constant barrage of individuals, all chomping at the bit, to stick one up the police/govt/system etc. The government’s prosecution costs (legal representation, evidence gathering etc) alone would be astronomical.

Money better spent elsewhere ? Like roads. Like safer roads. Like safer roads with plenty of nice sweeping corners and the occasional fast straight bit. Oh, and a tight right hander with positive camber that flicks you into a pub serving a real cool :apint:

Alan Wilkinson

18th February 2005, 08:21

i want independent facts, i'm not going to your site
You ask me for the links and then refuse to look at them.

Fine, shows everyone what your views are worth.

Alan Wilkinson

18th February 2005, 08:25

Spectacular or emotive incidents like the spike in the road toll in 2003 just a few years after the introduction of the highway patrol? You have been more than willing to make a decision that the highway patrol and rigid traffic enforcement was responsible for this spike. What gives? Why the double standard?

Your keep trotting out this nonsense like a demented parrot but it doesn't make it true. I have never even mentioned the upward spike in 2003 or the downward spike in 2002. I simply plot all the data and let you look at it for yourself.

FYI it is the upward turn in 2001 injuries that concerns me most. Regarding fatalities, I regard the evidence as "no significant change".

Alan Wilkinson

18th February 2005, 08:32

Alan,
There's no way on this planet that every man, cat, and his dog isn't going to try their luck if there's any chance of getting out of a fine and/or demerit points. Virtually every single one of them will be playing the fast and safe card, and not just once. Heavens no. You can bet that an awful lot of these individuals (myself included) will also go on to fight every single speeding ticket they ever receive. This would place a massive burden on an already over stretched judicial process. It just wouldn’t be practical.

This would also mean the government would have to find even more money in order to sustain, or improve, the courts system so they were capable of handling a constant barrage of individuals, all chomping at the bit, to stick one up the police/govt/system etc. The government’s prosecution costs (legal representation, evidence gathering etc) alone would be astronomical.

If you lose, you pay the full cost of all parties. It would only cost the government if they take losing cases to court - or if they were silly enough to dole out legal aid to losers. They would soon learn those lessons.

Alan Wilkinson

18th February 2005, 08:37

hmmm...

just a few more than australia.....

Fine, now give us the Oz figures for the same year and the populations of both countries.

and here's a little sumfin from the european transport safety council... you pretty much only have to read the 1st 4 lines... in either column
http://www.etsc.be/documents/2rgb.pdf

You don't believe that 30% garbage do you? It is 100%. No crash can happen unless different relative velocities exist. Speed is ALWAYS a factor.

Paul in NZ

18th February 2005, 08:40

What is safe to one person is reckless to another. If Alan is buzzing along at 120, quite safe in his opinion, his actions may actually be terrorising the elderly or learner driver cruising along at 98. If he was coming the other way the elderly or learner driver may struggle to accurately assess his approaching speed and turn into his path, thinking he was moving slower than what he actually was.

I cannot actually believe I'm doing this but... Thats not quite what Alan is necessarily saying..

Given the current state of our roads, it is unlikely (IMHO) that unrestricted speed limits will work. The trick is to build roads where an approaching driver cannot turn across the traffic into his path. ie a proper motorway.

I have to say that I support this. Rather than just repaving existing roads I believe we should be building motorways with no side streets, intersections, traffic lights, round abouts, fruit stands, gas stations and (my personal fave) driveways. Both directions seperated so the only thing you need to worry about is the relative speed between the vehicles all going in the same direction.

Use of these roads will be restricted to vehicles capable of accelerating to and maintaining a reasonable speed.

To me, this is the only way higher speeds can be tolerated. You could never allow unlimited speeds on country roads for instance.

Example. By choice I commute in a 1989 Toyota Starlet over country roads and motorway. It is capable of 100kph, is well maintained and I have an excellent driving record so i assume I'm at least competent (or lucky).

On the piecok hill road, lesser drivers (everyone else :angry2: ) in more modern cars easily catch us. And I mean easily. Cars have advanced that much in 16 years. If I can, I always pull over and let them pass (not that many options there) but usually catch them up later when someone else does not. Point is, not everyone wants to have the latest car so they can travel really fast. Also, the laws of physics don't change. More modern cars crash better but are designed to isolate the driver and flatter their ability. At the speeds they travel, there are no second chances for them or anyone else.

Even if I had a 'better' car (how can anything be better than a car you pay $1,500 for, do 60,000km in at 50mpg and have spent only $220 for a set of tyres) I would not go any faster because there are lots of drive ways, agricultural vehicles and cyclists (the bike is different)... It's not fair on other users..

Anyway. Thats my take for this morning. back to work...

spudchucka

18th February 2005, 08:44

It would only cost the government if they take losing cases to court - or if they were silly enough to dole out legal aid to losers. They would soon learn those lessons.
They have been doling out legal aid to losers ever since legal aid was introduced. They haven't learnt the lesson yet. Why do you think they would suddenly learn it under your scheme?

spudchucka

18th February 2005, 08:45

I simply plot all the data and let you look at it for yourself.
Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bulls hit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!B ullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullsh it!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bu llshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshi t!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bul lshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit !Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bull shit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit! Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bulls hit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!B ullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullsh it!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bu llshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!

Biff

18th February 2005, 08:50

It would only cost the government if they take losing cases to court.

I simply cannot believe that.
It would cost the government a fortune just to keep courts up and running in order to enable them to cope with non speeding related cases, let alone cater for the enormous increase in speeding related cases as well. We're possibly talking about new court houses, judges, clerks, security etc etc. The burden on the entire legal system would be huge, and there's no way that the real cost of implementing and maintaining this process would ever be passed onto losing parties in such a case.

From what I gather it wouldn't be the government taking losing cases to court anyway, it would be virtually everyone that ever receives a speeding ticket laying claim to have been driving safe and demanding their right to go to court in an attempt to fight the charge. These cases could get very complex & be time consuming. I just cannot see how this could ever work in practice.

Blakamin

18th February 2005, 08:53

The trick is to build roads where an approaching driver cannot turn across the traffic into his path. ie a proper motorway.

I have to say that I support this. Rather than just repaving existing roads I believe we should be building motorways with no side streets, intersections, traffic lights, round abouts, fruit stands, gas stations and (my personal fave) driveways. Both directions seperated so the only thing you need to worry about is the relative speed between the vehicles all going in the same direction.

Use of these roads will be restricted to vehicles capable of accelerating to and maintaining a reasonable speed.

To me, this is the only way higher speeds can be tolerated. You could never allow unlimited speeds on country roads for instance.

something like an autobahn??? like I said before, who's gunna pay the $1.8m per mile just to maintain it? (900000 euro per mile on autobahn every year)
whos going to pay to build it?

we're just gunna have to be putting up with what we've got! unfortunately...

and stop wasting the courts time... you think any judge in their right mind would just do "safe" traffic every case... by day 2 he/she wouldn't even look at details... "guilty, next"

spudchucka

18th February 2005, 08:54

Your keep trotting out this nonsense like a demented parrot but it doesn't make it true.
"Demented Parrot". I hardly think that was called for, you cock gobbling half bred troll dropping. :finger:

spudchucka

18th February 2005, 08:56

I simply cannot believe that.
It would cost the government a fortune just to keep courts up and running in order to enable them to cope with non speeding related cases, let alone cater for the enormous increase in speeding related cases as well. We're talking possibly new court houses, judges, clerks, security etc etc. The burden on the entire legal system would be huge, and there's no way that the real cost of implementing and maintaining this process would ever be passed onto losing parties in such a case.

From what I gather it wouldn't be the government taking losing cases to court anyway, it would be virtually everyone that ever receives a speeding ticket laying claim to have been driving safe and demanding their right to go to court in an attempt to fight the charge. These cases could get very complex & be time consuming. I just cannot see how this could ever work in practice.
But its a small price to pay to allow Alan to indulge himself, as far as he's concerned at least.

spudchucka

18th February 2005, 09:05

Given the current state of our roads, it is unlikely (IMHO) that unrestricted speed limits will work. The trick is to build roads where an approaching driver cannot turn across the traffic into his path. ie a proper motorway.

I have to say that I support this. Rather than just repaving existing roads I believe we should be building motorways with no side streets, intersections, traffic lights, round abouts, fruit stands, gas stations and (my personal fave) driveways. Both directions seperated so the only thing you need to worry about is the relative speed between the vehicles all going in the same direction.

In theory I support the use of motorways as major carriage ways. I would also support the possibility that speed limits could be raised on such pieces of roading.

However in reality it simply isn't going to happen in NZ unless we suddenly become a much wealthier country than we presently are. For this reason it is a redundant arguement.

Clockwork

18th February 2005, 09:06

What is safe to one person is reckless to another. If Alan is buzzing along at 120, quite safe in his opinion, his actions may actually be terrorising the elderly or learner driver cruising along at 98.

Judging from experience there are plenty of people who seem to think 100kph is reckless..... but that doesn't make them right.

Paul in NZ

18th February 2005, 09:10

something like an autobahn??? like I said before, who's gunna pay the $1.8m per mile just to maintain it? (900000 euro per mile on autobahn every year)
whos going to pay to build it?

we're just gunna have to be putting up with what we've got!

and stop wasting the courts time... you think any judge in their right mind would just do "safe" traffic every case... by day 2 he/she wouldn't even look at details... "guilty, next"

No.. An Autobahn is way over the top. More like extending the current motorway system out of the cities. Just add a few kms every year and stop stupid projects like the 3 lane through Mana. It needs to be a motorway not a half arsed halfbred thingy that satisfies all the goat breeding bicycle enthusiasts but accomplishes nothing.

They really really need to stop arsing about and come up with a proper vision for the future. It does not have to be all built in one year.

spudchucka

18th February 2005, 09:17

Judging from experience there are plenty of people who seem to think 100kph is reckless..... but that doesn't make them right.
They would be right from their own perspective. The roads are public places, open to and available for all people who hold a current drivers licence. The roads aren't the exclusive playground for those who want to fang along at 120+ kph. Because the roads are a public domain they have to cater to all users. Once Alan gets his four lane exclusive, user pays snobs highway anyone that can afford to can take off and play being Michael Schumacher as much as they want to. Untill then they'll just have to put up with speed limits and cops enforcing them.

Paul in NZ

18th February 2005, 09:43

In theory I support the use of motorways as major carriage ways. I would also support the possibility that speed limits could be raised on such pieces of roading.

However in reality it simply isn't going to happen in NZ unless we suddenly become a much wealthier country than we presently are. For this reason it is a redundant arguement.

I'm not sure about that.

We already have the start of a motorway system that was built at a time when we were not really all that wealthy. Extending it need not cost as much.

Of course, I suppose a lot of the old system was built by the Minsitry of Works and I'm sure private companies can do it sooo much cheaper (ha ha).

Most of the motorway here in wellie or in chch did not seem to need as much looking after as your average piece of road. The old roads are built on top of old cart tracks but motorways seem to get a proper route and base and thus last longer.

I dunno. What I think is really missing is the desire to do this. The current govt contains a lot of people that actively dislike cars (and yet refuse to spend money on public transport)... Either they know the petrol is about to run out and are not telling or they are all mad.

Besides, if they built a decent motorway we could have the other roads to play on... woo hoo....

Paul N

Alan Wilkinson

18th February 2005, 11:41

Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bulls hit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!B ullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullshit!Bullsh it!...
Squawk! Squawk! Polly wants a cracker?

Alan Wilkinson

18th February 2005, 11:43

I'm not sure about that.
Of course, I suppose a lot of the old system was built by the Minsitry of Works and I'm sure private companies can do it sooo much cheaper (ha ha).

They already do. Private contractors build everything now.

Alan Wilkinson

18th February 2005, 11:49

They have been doling out legal aid to losers ever since legal aid was introduced. They haven't learnt the lesson yet. Why do you think they would suddenly learn it under your scheme?
It's in their own hands. And public pressure would force it I think.

spudchucka

18th February 2005, 12:01

Squawk! Squawk! Polly wants a cracker?
Dork! Dork! Polly sticks the cracker up Alan's arse!

spudchucka

18th February 2005, 12:03

I'm not sure about that.

We already have the start of a motorway system that was built at a time when we were not really all that wealthy. Extending it need not cost as much.

Of course, I suppose a lot of the old system was built by the Minsitry of Works and I'm sure private companies can do it sooo much cheaper (ha ha).

Most of the motorway here in wellie or in chch did not seem to need as much looking after as your average piece of road. The old roads are built on top of old cart tracks but motorways seem to get a proper route and base and thus last longer.

I dunno. What I think is really missing is the desire to do this. The current govt contains a lot of people that actively dislike cars (and yet refuse to spend money on public transport)... Either they know the petrol is about to run out and are not telling or they are all mad.

Besides, if they built a decent motorway we could have the other roads to play on... woo hoo....

Paul N

The sort of road that Alan wants would be so expensive it would put motoring out of reach of ordinary paople. But then again I somehow think that is what Alan really wants.

spudchucka

18th February 2005, 12:05

You ask me for the links and then refuse to look at them.

Fine, shows everyone what your views are worth.
He said he wants independant facts. Not links to your own self serving propaganda.

Alan Wilkinson

18th February 2005, 12:23

He said he wants independant facts. Not links to your own self serving propaganda.

No, he didn't. He said (post 541):

you'll have to post a link to that fact alan, cause i can't find it.

And anyway all the data I plot comes straight from LTSA and the NZ Police as per the spreadsheets. They're not my facts, they're theirs.

Alan Wilkinson

18th February 2005, 12:25

Dork! Dork! Polly sticks the cracker up Alan's arse!

Ah, the pleasure of open discussion with the intellectual giants of our NZ police force.

Paul in NZ

18th February 2005, 12:26

They already do. Private contractors build everything now.

I was being a bit sarcastic Alan. Driving in from Kapiti and watching the snails pace at which these guys build roads. I long for the good old days, the MOW does not seem so bad now...

Paul N

Paul in NZ

18th February 2005, 12:31

The sort of road that Alan wants would be so expensive it would put motoring out of reach of ordinary paople. But then again I somehow think that is what Alan really wants.

I know what you mean. Sadly, this seems to be the view of everyone that obtains enough $$ for an XR8 or something with 4x4 on the side.

It's probably at the core of the problem eh?

At the other end, we have commercial operators that roll out onto the roads with overloaded and underpowered trucks / busses that can barely manage 50kph up a slight hill (while bellowing black smoke)

I've had brand new company cars and shit and it turned me into an arrogant wanker (residual effects still present - sorry about that) and thats another reason I like my humble Starlet. Keeps me real...

Paul N

Alan Wilkinson

18th February 2005, 12:32

I was being a bit sarcastic Alan. Driving in from Kapiti and watching the snails pace at which these guys build roads. I long for the good old days, the MOW does not seem so bad now...
Paul N

That (slowness) is something I've noticed too. There has to be a reason. Either the way money is dolled out or some other bureaucratic road blocks.

spudchucka

18th February 2005, 12:41

Ah, the pleasure of open discussion with the intellectual giants of our NZ police force.
Get fucked!

Alan Wilkinson

18th February 2005, 12:45

Oh dear, now you're on about the parrot's crack as well as mine. From bad to worse.

... but now you've edited it out.

Blakamin

18th February 2005, 12:45

And anyway all the data I plot comes straight from LTSA and the NZ Police as per the spreadsheets. They're not my facts, they're theirs.
thought you said
I didn't make the chart(s). If you bother to look you will see both were referenced from authoritative external sources.
or were those just the charts for the rest of the world?
I f you dont care about the rest of the world, why are you comparing them?
why not just look at the stats and say "shit, road deaths are dropping all the time"
end of story....

Blakamin

18th February 2005, 12:46

ok... the name calling is stopping or I'll lock the thread....

Alan Wilkinson

18th February 2005, 12:49

Those were just the charts for the rest of the world.

It's not that I don't care about the rest of the world, just that other people worry about those stats and I concentrate on NZ.

I look at NZ data showing road deaths dropping and the question is whether we are unique or in line with overseas trends. That is why I put up those other charts.

Blakamin

18th February 2005, 12:54

I look at NZ data showing road deaths dropping and the question is whether we are unique or in line with overseas trends. That is why I put up those other charts.
but really, everywhere is unique... places have different laws, different geography, different problems...
Our problem is we cant afford roads that work properly... unless bill gates and richard branson move over and think "fuck, these roads suck", not a lot can be done about it... so we have laws to try and keep the road deaths as low as possible...
and when you consider what a coupla judges make a year, we cant afford your way either..... I'd rather see the money spent on health care than wasting the courts time with whining over tickets....

Alan Wilkinson

18th February 2005, 13:02

but really, everywhere is unique... places have different laws, different geography, different problems...
Our problem is we cant afford roads that work properly... unless bill gates and richard branson move over and think "fuck, these roads suck", not a lot can be done about it... so we have laws to try and keep the road deaths as low as possible...
But the interesting thing is there's not that much difference in the developed countries - both in trends and in relative numbers. Basically there has been new technology in radar and cameras which have enabled the cops to harvest huge numbers of speeding fines and made a lot of money for the equipment suppliers and operators. (Except in British Columbia where the govt decided cameras weren't doing any good and pulled them out.)

But there is no evidence all the speeding tickets have done any good.

And we can't just "keep the road deaths as low as possible" or we wouldn't have a transport system. We have to balance competing needs of safety and efficiency, and we have to allow for progress.

Blakamin

18th February 2005, 13:10

But there is no evidence all the speeding tickets have done any good.
worked for me... I no longer sit above 120 in the work van... therefore I am driving a hell of a lot safer (not passing when previously I would etc)

And we can't just "keep the road deaths as low as possible" or we wouldn't have a transport system. We have to balance competing needs of safety and efficiency, and we have to allow for progress.
Obviously we aren't going to take all the bloody cars off the road!!
if cops didn't give out tickets, the idiots with their BR cars would cause multiple accidents in my street... already happens... saw a pisser right outside last year when a guy was speeding in daddys merc.... rego was "SSS" but had lines drwan so it looked like "$$$"
fuck I laughed at him... after calling an ambulance for the girl in the other vehicle......

Biff

18th February 2005, 13:15

worked for me... I no longer sit above 120 in the work van... therefore I am driving a hell of a lot safer (not passing when previously I would etc).

It worked for me too, you won't catch me doing over 110 in the car, and this is because I've recevied two speeding tickets and I've learnt my lesson.

But then again you wont catch me at all on my bike.......

Mongoose

18th February 2005, 13:29

We have to balance competing needs of safety and efficiency, and we have to allow for progress.

Is that not exactly what is being achieved with things like speeding and other raod laws, a balance for everyone with progress.Taken to the extreme you no longer need a bell ringer walking infront of your car to warn people.?
ps, You still seem not to care for the last bit off one of your own link sites that states that there was no proof that raised speed limits made roads safer.See post 539 for exact wording.

Alan Wilkinson

18th February 2005, 14:47

ps, You still seem not to care for the last bit off one of your own link sites that states that there was no proof that raised speed limits made roads safer.See post 539 for exact wording.
Sorry, I'd missed that post previously.

The answer is that study was revised several times after that first report when the authors got more data.

For instance, the author told me this prior to my writing up his work on my website:

From: Young-Jun Kweon
Sent: Friday, 19 March 2004 9:48 a.m.
To: Alan Wilkinson
Subject: Re: Spatially Disaggregate Panel Models of Crash and Injury Counts

Dear Mr. Alan Wilkinson,

Since I included speed choice models' results into crash occurrence models,
the conclusions have been changed. The following is a draft of my dissertation conclusion, which is not the final version, but close to the final.
Once I have the final version in my hands, I will send its abstract to you.

"Responding to a hypothetical 10 mph speed limit increase, the final models predict just a 0.07 percent increase in fatalities, a 1.62 percent increase in fatal crashes, an 11.7 percent decrease in injuries, a 12.3 percent decrease in injury crashes, a 9.2 percent decrease in PDO crashes, and an 8.4 percent decrease in total crashes. Using Blincoe et al.'s 2002 findings, a 10 mph speed limit increase on high-speed roadways in the State of Washington is estimated to offer benefits worth $2.9 million (in 1996 dollars) to society."

{PDO = Property Damage Only}

Mongoose

18th February 2005, 14:59

Dear Mr. Alan Wilkinson,

Since I included speed choice models' results into crash occurrence models,
the conclusions have been changed. The following is a draft of my dissertation conclusion, which is not the final version, but close to the final.
Once I have the final version in my hands, I will send its abstract to you.

"Responding to a hypothetical 10 mph speed limit increase, the final models predict just a 0.07 percent increase in fatalities, a 1.62 percent increase in fatal crashes, an 11.7 percent decrease in injuries, a 12.3 percent decrease in injury crashes, a 9.2 percent decrease in PDO crashes, and an 8.4 percent decrease in total crashes. Using Blincoe et al.'s 2002 findings, a 10 mph speed limit increase on high-speed roadways in the State of Washington is estimated to offer benefits worth $2.9 million (in 1996 dollars) to society."

{PDO = Property Damage Only}

So what brought this complete turn around on his previous findings? And how can he be so at odds with A) His original findings and B) The accepted norm of MoI ie Speed.
I would need way more info on how faster causes, say, less injury for starters.
Follow that thru and an increase of huge ammounts would see the disappearance of all injury and death crashes

Alan Wilkinson

18th February 2005, 15:34

So what brought this complete turn around on his previous findings? And how can he be so at odds with A) His original findings and B) The accepted norm of MoI ie Speed.

I asked him that ...

----- Original Message -----
From: Alan Wilkinson
To: Young-Jun Kweon
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 2:41 AM
Subject: RE: Spatially Disaggregate Panel Models of Crash and Injury Counts

Thank-you Jun.

Your earlier paper showed 80% increase in fatalities but a slight reduction in crashes after the speed limit changes.

Why does introducing the speed choice model change that result to a greater reduction in crashes and almost zero increase in fatalities?

I don't understand how it attributes the extra fatalities to some other causal factor?

Regards
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: Young-Jun Kweon
Sent: Monday, 22 March 2004 2:17 p.m.
To: Alan Wilkinson
Subject: Re: Spatially Disaggregate Panel Models of Crash and Injury Counts

First, the old paper only used 5 interstate highways for analysis, which is not correct because it may only consider roadways experiencing speed limits (biased treatment).
And the recent work (i.e., my dissertation) includes all roadways with a speed limit of 50 or higher mph (7 interstates and 162 state routes).
Moreover, the recent work includes speed estimates. These two aspects change the results about speed limit impacts.

Jun

I would need way more info on how faster causes, say, less injury for starters.
Follow that thru and an increase of huge ammounts would see the disappearance of all injury and death crashes

Nobody is saying that it keeps happening as speed limits keep getting faster. We don't have any data on that. Just that it seems to happen on these one-off changes. [And it is just the injury crashes - fatalities don't change.]

Although in NZ it shows up both in 50 km/h and 100 km/h speed zones when the enforcement changed in both. Some of that could be affected by police reporting changes because the ACC data doesn't give any speed zone info so we don't know where the extra ACC claim traffic injuries happened.

Mongoose

18th February 2005, 15:42

I asked him that ...

----- Original Message -----
From: Alan Wilkinson
To: Young-Jun Kweon
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 2:41 AM
Subject: RE: Spatially Disaggregate Panel Models of Crash and Injury Counts

Thank-you Jun.

Your earlier paper showed 80% increase in fatalities but a slight reduction in crashes after the speed limit changes.

Why does introducing the speed choice model change that result to a greater reduction in crashes and almost zero increase in fatalities?

I don't understand how it attributes the extra fatalities to some other causal factor?

Regards
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: Young-Jun Kweon
Sent: Monday, 22 March 2004 2:17 p.m.
To: Alan Wilkinson
Subject: Re: Spatially Disaggregate Panel Models of Crash and Injury Counts

First, the old paper only used 5 interstate highways for analysis, which is not correct because it may only consider roadways experiencing speed limits (biased treatment).
And the recent work (i.e., my dissertation) includes all roadways with a speed limit of 50 or higher mph (7 interstates and 162 state routes).
Moreover, the recent work includes speed estimates. These two aspects change the results about speed limit impacts.

Jun

Almost makes you wonder if the first results were not as expected and changes were made untill the desired results were achieved. As you were refering, originally, to having a motorway built that would be safer his first results are the relevant ones.

Mongoose

18th February 2005, 15:47

Although in NZ it shows up both in 50 km/h and 100 km/h speed zones when the enforcement changed in both. Some of that could be affected by police reporting changes because the ACC data doesn't give any speed zone info so we don't know where the extra ACC claim traffic injuries happened.

Ask any emergency service personel what is the biggest contributor to injury in a crash, all other things being equal, with out a doubt it is speed, or as I said earlier more correctly, the rate of decelaration.

Alan Wilkinson

18th February 2005, 16:00

As I said, speed is a factor in 100% of crashes. But knowing that doesn't help set optimal policies on speed limits or enforcement.

Mongoose

18th February 2005, 16:13

As I said, speed is a factor in 100% of crashes. But knowing that doesn't help set optimal policies on speed limits or enforcement.
Is that an admission that you want to inmcrease the speed limit, with no idea as to how that will impact on crach victims?.
While everyone needs a hobby, this idea of your is so pie in the sky it will never take off. My reasoning, you are so flippant with your responses when anyone points out a potential problem. Take for example the courts and the system, you quite happily say how it will work, but that is ONLY in your head. The changes are so vast, not only on the road, the building of better super Hi-ways, the less policing etc makes your idea a non-runner.
With respect I suggest o you that you stick to one plausable idea that does NOT impact on so many other areas at the same time.
Further, you have no idea where the money will come from(maybe even more petrol tax?) to make this idea work.
What you seem to forget is the population of NZ and the fact that for the size of population NZ has in fact roads that are more than reasonable. Go to another country, say Canada and go away from the cities, head north and see what their roads are like when you get away from the populated areas. Same could be said for the USA.
The models you base your arguements on all have large, densely populated areas.

marty

18th February 2005, 16:17

If you lose, you pay the full cost of all parties. It would only cost the government if they take losing cases to court - or if they were silly enough to dole out legal aid to losers. They would soon learn those lessons.

we've already discussd the legal aid thing, my recollection is that you said that people should be able to get legal aid if they can't afford to pay for it. please correct me if i'm wrong - point me to the post if you like.

and you referring me to your site is like me referring you to the ltsa one. show me some independent stats that back up a single thing you say, and i'll look at them

bear

18th February 2005, 19:59

Gees, Alan is going to be a hardcore biker soon at this rate, and he doesn't even own a bike.

Reading through some of the posts, it strikes me as to how would a system where people get to dictate safe speeds, or a decent increase (20-30kmh), be implemented. Surely, the next few years on the roads would be killer as people worked out what was good for them, and natural selection was allowed to take place.

spudchucka

19th February 2005, 02:42

And we can't just "keep the road deaths as low as possible" or we wouldn't have a transport system. We have to balance competing needs of safety and efficiency, and we have to allow for progress.
We should always strive for the safest possible traffic environment with a goal of keeping road deaths as low as possible. Efficiency and progress at the expense of human life isn't an option.

spudchucka

19th February 2005, 02:43

ok... the name calling is stopping or I'll lock the thread....
Spoil sport!

Opps, was that a name?

spudchucka

19th February 2005, 02:49

Oh dear, now you're on about the parrot's crack as well as mine. From bad to worse.

... but now you've edited it out.
I was going to point out the fact that you are the intellectual giant that started the name calling with this crack;

post 609
Your keep trotting out this nonsense like a demented parrot but it doesn't make it true.

but decided you weren't worth the bother and it was much more satisfying to me to simply tell you to GET FUCKED!

Sorry Blakamin. :apint:

Alan Wilkinson

19th February 2005, 07:59

I will not tease the nice policeman. I will not tease the nice policeman. I will not tease the nice policeman. ....

Alan Wilkinson

19th February 2005, 08:03

Reading through some of the posts, it strikes me as to how would a system where people get to dictate safe speeds, or a decent increase (20-30kmh), be implemented. Surely, the next few years on the roads would be killer as people worked out what was good for them, and natural selection was allowed to take place.

It's a good question. All I can say is that despite all the predictions of doom and gloom when it was done before (eg 80 -> 100 in NZ and removal of Fed 50 mph limit in US) nothing happened.

Alan Wilkinson

19th February 2005, 08:17

What you seem to forget is the population of NZ and the fact that for the size of population NZ has in fact roads that are more than reasonable. Go to another country, say Canada and go away from the cities, head north and see what their roads are like when you get away from the populated areas. Same could be said for the USA.
The models you base your arguements on all have large, densely populated areas.
I lived in Canada for 2 years. Its city roads were light years ahead of ours at the time and so were its highways. Sure it had the roughest logging roads in the forests but most people don't drive on them.

Denmark and Norway are very similar in population to NZ but their busy roads are out of sight better. Sure, Norway is huge, mountainous and frozen and the older roads up north are narrow and dangerous. Sweden has twice the population but twice the area of NZ. Again, all the roads we drove there were much better than our highways.

You just have to see what happens to tourists when they drive here. They smash and crash all over the place. But Kiwis don't do that when we drive overseas. In England we had to laugh when we got warnings about a little bend coming up from a couple of miles away. Here it wouldn't have rated a sign on most of our country roads.

scumdog

19th February 2005, 08:36

I lived in Canada for 2 years. Its city roads were light years ahead of ours at the time and so were its highways. Sure it had the roughest logging roads in the forests but most people don't drive on them.

Denmark and Norway are very similar in population to NZ but their busy roads are out of sight better. Sure, Norway is huge, mountainous and frozen and the older roads up north are narrow and dangerous. Sweden has twice the population but twice the area of NZ. Again, all the roads we drove there were much better than our highways.

You just have to see what happens to tourists when they drive here. They smash and crash all over the place. But Kiwis don't do that when we drive overseas. In England we had to laugh when we got warnings about a little bend coming up from a couple of miles away. Here it wouldn't have rated a sign on most of our country roads.
There is only SO much money to go around, SOMETHING in NZ is sucking it away from roading - find that "something", sort it out and THEN we may see more spent on the roads.

What is the tax structure like in the countries you mentioned? And what is their social welfare etc system like?
Maybe they don't have it as good in that department, I don't know myself the answer to those questions but worth a thought eh?

spudchucka

19th February 2005, 08:55

I will not tease the nice policeman. I will not tease the nice policeman. I will not tease the nice policeman. ....
Go right ahead if its what amuses your tiny mind. Just be willing to get it back when you do.

James Deuce

19th February 2005, 08:58

There is only SO much money to go around, SOMETHING in NZ is sucking it away from roading - find that "something", sort it out and THEN we may see more spent on the roads.

What is the tax structure like in the countries you mentioned? And what is their social welfare etc system like?
Maybe they don't have it as good in that department, I don't know myself the answer to those questions but worth a thought eh?

Sweden and Norway's social services make NZ's look terrible by comparison. But they both have access to much larger pools of wealth than we do. Norway comes 2nd in the GDP per capita lists behind the Luxembourg and ahead of the US.

Alan Wilkinson

19th February 2005, 09:33

Alan Wilkinson

19th February 2005, 10:03

We should always strive for the safest possible traffic environment with a goal of keeping road deaths as low as possible. Efficiency and progress at the expense of human life isn't an option.
Actually, human life is quite often sacrificed for progress - in various ways. But my point is that eventually, and usually quite quickly, progress leads to greater safety not less. Striving for progress is a worthwhile activity. Accepting mediocrity is not.

spudchucka

19th February 2005, 10:11

As I said earlier, wealth comes from making sensible investments and working hard - and sometimes from a bit of luck like Norway's North Sea oil.

But we had Maui and pretty much frittered it away as quickly as possible.

We have had too many governments that don't have a clue - and voters that elect them. And they control too many things that they don't understand.
So we are a country of clueless voters lead by the clueless governments we elected? I suppose you would prefer to see the country dictated to by someone ............ like yourself, who understands all things in the wide wide world of sports.

Alan Wilkinson

19th February 2005, 10:16

So we are a country of clueless voters lead by the clueless governments we elected? I suppose you would prefer to see the country dictated to by someone ............ like yourself, who understands all things in the wide wide world of sports.
No, I'd prefer to see the government controlling less of our lives and our resources. Nations do better when individuals are freer so long as life, liberty and property are protected.

spudchucka

19th February 2005, 10:18

Actually, human life is quite often sacrificed for progress - in various ways. But my point is that eventually, and usually quite quickly, progress leads to greater safety not less. Striving for progress is a worthwhile activity. Accepting mediocrity is not.
Progress at the expense of human life? So long as it isn't your life or the life of someone close to you.

Your dreams of a national four lane divided highway are delusions of granduer. We will be travelling by teleporter before that road gets built.

Teleporter, hmmmmm, progress.....................

spudchucka

19th February 2005, 10:20

No, I'd prefer to see the government controlling less of our lives and our resources. Nations do better when individuals are freer so long as life, liberty and property is protected.
You'll find few countries freer than little old NZ.

If the Govt isn't going to pay for your road through some form of tax, (controlling our resources), then who will be funding it and how will they be raising the revenue?

Alan Wilkinson

19th February 2005, 10:23

Progress at the expense of human life? So long as it isn't your life or the life of someone close to you.

When individuals are free to make their own decisions, they take risks to innovate and may invest their life in something they believe in. Sometimes they win and sometimes they lose. The human race benefits from their endeavours and their experiments.

Your dreams of a national four lane divided highway are delusions of granduer. We will be travelling by teleporter before that road gets built.

No, it is a realistic objective and should guide planning and investment. That would stop an awful lot of waste I see happening.

Alan Wilkinson

19th February 2005, 10:32

You'll find few countries freer than little old NZ.
And those countries got wealthier than we did.

If the Govt isn't going to pay for your road through some form of tax, (controlling our resources), then who will be funding it and how will they be raising the revenue?
If the Govt continues to raise revenue from road users, it should spend it on the roads, and spend it wisely. Otherwise it should lease road corridors to private operators and let them build and operate those roads. They would raise money the way they do for everything else - from investors - and users would pay tolls.

speedpro

19th February 2005, 10:46

Comments a little earlier in the post to the effect that the rigid enforcement of speed limits has had an effect on drivers missed the point. Yes you may have slowed down as a consequence. The point of this thread is whether going slower has made you any safer on the road. I don't believe so. Yes you may now survive an accident, BUT if you'd been paying attention you may have avoided the accident completely. In that regard going slower is worse as the perceived risk is lower so you would relax, imperceptibly raising the risk again.

All the propoganda about NZ roads being built in the '50s is irrelevant here. Noone is advocating raising the limit on some backwater road. The topic is about having realistic speed limits, and enforcement, on our main roads. Typical examples I'm thinking of are places like the Bombay hills, SH1 motorway north of Albany, etc. There is no logical reason taking into consideration the roads and modern vehicles why the limit couldn't be 120kmh or even higher. The only risk I think would come from peoples lack of ability to drive.

Examples illustrating my view that speed is not THE issue is the number of crashes that occur in places like the Canterbury plains. We have long, flat, straight, well maintained, pieces of road and still there are crashes. My opinion is that driver skill/paying attention is THE problem.

spudchucka

19th February 2005, 10:47

When individuals are free to make their own decisions, they take risks to innovate and may invest their life in something they believe in. Sometimes they win and sometimes they lose. The human race benefits from their endeavours and their experiments.
How does this theory apply in the context of humans who have destroyed not only their own lives but the lives of innocent parties purely in the pursuit of arriving at a destination a few minutes faster than they would have if they drove at the speed limit?

How can you justify such risk simply to save yourself a few minutes on a journey?

The human race benefits from their endeavours? The poor shmuck that gets killed some arsehole in a hurry today might have been the genious that invents the teleporter tomorrow. How would his death benefit the human race?

Or maybe he'll just becomes a vegetable, wheel chair bound for the rest of his life and a great burden to society and his family.

Who are the winners and losers in this situation?

speedpro

19th February 2005, 10:57

How does this theory apply in the context of humans who have destroyed not only their own lives but the lives of innocent parties purely in the pursuit of arriving at a destination a few minutes faster than they would have if they drove at the speed limit?

The theory is that going a little faster isn't going to CAUSE an accident, quite the opposite in fact.

Noone is arguing about the severity IF an accident occurs and you are going a bit quicker.

spudchucka

19th February 2005, 11:01

Examples illustrating my view that speed is not THE issue is the number of crashes that occur in places like the Canterbury plains. We have long, flat, straight, well maintained, pieces of road and still there are crashes. My opinion is that driver skill/paying attention is THE problem.
Why the hell would you want inattentive drivers moving at high speed on any section of road?

You can't legislate against peoples stupidity and inability to make reasonable decisions. You can however minimise the risk by imposing speed restrictions.

spudchucka

19th February 2005, 11:03

The theory is that going a little faster isn't going to CAUSE an accident, quite the opposite in fact.

Noone is arguing about the severity IF an accident occurs and you are going a bit quicker.
Its not an absolute. Going a little faster can cause a crash. Its not often the sole cause but is almost always a factor in both cuase and effect.

Alan Wilkinson

19th February 2005, 12:00

Why the hell would you want inattentive drivers moving at high speed on any section of road?

For example, bored drivers forced to travel at 90 km/h when they want to travel at 120 km/h?

You can't legislate against peoples stupidity and inability to make reasonable decisions. You can however minimise the risk by imposing speed restrictions.
Only if it does minimise the risk. My point is that it doesn't, hasn't and won't.

Alan Wilkinson

19th February 2005, 12:16

How does this theory apply in the context of humans who have destroyed not only their own lives but the lives of innocent parties purely in the pursuit of arriving at a destination a few minutes faster than they would have if they drove at the speed limit?

How can you justify such risk simply to save yourself a few minutes on a journey?

That is about judgement and risk-taking, not innovation.

It is a decision a driver makes every moment - what speed to travel at. Whether it is above or below the posted speed limit makes no difference whatever. The risk and outcome possibilities are exactly the same.

As I have said, almost always drivers get it right. Occasionally, not, and we should investigate those cases properly to find out why and what we can do to avoid recurrence.

You are right, you cannot legislate against people making mistakes. First you have to understand why they made them - then you can try to do something about it.

scumdog

19th February 2005, 12:19

For example, bored drivers forced to travel at 90 km/h when they want to travel at 120 km/h?

Keep the roads twisty and rough, that'll keep 'em from getting bored!! :laugh: :laugh: :killingme
Life's a risk anyway. :wacko:

scumdog

19th February 2005, 12:22

That is about judgement and risk-taking, not innovation.

It is a decision a driver makes every moment - what speed to travel at. Whether it is above or below the posted speed limit makes no difference whatever. The risk and outcome possibilities are exactly the same.

As I have said, almost always drivers get it right. Occasionally, not, and we should investigate those cases properly to find out why and what we can do to avoid recurrence.

You are right, you cannot legislate against people making mistakes. First you have to understand why they made them - then you can try to do something about it.

Yesterdays prangs I went to, one was worn tyres on a wet road, the other lack of attention, how do we "do" something about that type of thing?? :spudwhat:

Mongoose

19th February 2005, 15:35

For example, bored drivers forced to travel at 90 km/h when they want to travel at 120 km/h?

Only if it does minimise the risk. My point is that it doesn't, hasn't and won't.

You seem fixated on crashes and not the after effects of a crash. How long before 120kmh becomes boring for some? Where would you draw the line Alan?

Minimise risk you say? Again think of minimising the risk of serious injury or death, or does that not count?

Alan Wilkinson

19th February 2005, 15:38

Yesterdays prangs I went to, one was worn tyres on a wet road, the other lack of attention, how do we "do" something about that type of thing??

Maybe a good start would be to require people have insurance and let the insurance companies put the pressure on their customers. No insurance, no entrance to private toll roads.

Oh, and as usual when the govt runs things, if they drive on public roads without insurance we'll fine and/or jail them. Anything the govt runs, it has to invent yet more crimes to manage it.

Alan Wilkinson

19th February 2005, 15:44

You seem fixated on crashes and not the after effects of a crash. How long before 120kmh becomes boring for some? Where would you draw the line Alan?

Minimise risk you say? Again think of minimising the risk of serious injury or death, or does that not count?
I am fixated on what works and what doesn't work, that is all. What we might think minimises risk doesn't matter. What matters is what actually does minimise risk. To find out we have to investigate and measure things.

Mongoose

19th February 2005, 16:16

I am fixated on what works and what doesn't work, that is all. What we might think minimises risk doesn't matter. What matters is what actually does minimise risk. To find out we have to investigate and measure things.

But you DO NOT know what works, its all an experiment to you, its all theory not proof.
Are you in any way suggesting that a lower speed does not minimise the risk of unjury/death?

Mongoose

19th February 2005, 16:20

Maybe a good start would be to require people have insurance and let the insurance companies put the pressure on their customers. No insurance, no entrance to private toll roads.

Oh, and as usual when the govt runs things, if they drive on public roads without insurance we'll fine and/or jail them. Anything the govt runs, it has to invent yet more crimes to manage it.

Sounds like another form of tax to me, just the place it is going is different. I mean that private business is going to want to pay for what the build PLUS make a profit PLUS have enough to mantian their asset. Who will police these private roads, private police?
Compulsory insurance has done a great job of reducing the cost of insuring in places like the UK has it?

hobdar

19th February 2005, 16:23

I am fixated on what works and what doesn't work, that is all. What we might think minimises risk doesn't matter. What matters is what actually does minimise risk. To find out we have to investigate and measure things.

Actually i think you have reached a conclusion and then looked for facts to back them up. The american study as per my last post you quoted used data for 3 years 1996 - 1999 and only used very small sections of road and concluded that speed is in fact a significant issue still in road safety.

The conclusion indicated in that study (not the persons unpublished (read non-peer reviewed) dissertation) was that there was little to be gained from increasing the speed limit i.e. the imfamous cost/benefit ratio. The study also indicated that the impact in the rural areas was that there would be a higher road toll which I would assume reflects NZ roads much better than comparing the US Highways or the German Autobahns.

Personally i think to achieve your 4 lane highway we should increase the taxes of companies and those people who are in the top tax bracket... (PT) :done:

Mongoose

19th February 2005, 16:27

Actually i think you have reached a conclusion and then looked for facts to back them up. :

Alan is after all a statistician :yeah:

James Deuce

19th February 2005, 16:28

As I have said, almost always drivers get it right. Occasionally, not, and we should investigate those cases properly to find out why and what we can do to avoid recurrence.

From personal experience, and I am sure that most active motorcyclists would agree, most drivers do NOT almost always get it right. Collect data from motorcyclists and you would have a very bleak picture about the ability of most drivers to negotiate a straight piece of two lane highway.

Collecting the data could be problematic though. If I was required to log every example of a driver not complying with the road rules, or making a decision that put someone else at risk, it would take me two to three hours to ride the 22km to or from work. It is more by luck and ingrained habit that most drivers get it something like right.

The most annoying thing is that I've just made a subjective judgement of the driving standards in the Wellington/Wairarapa region, and I'm about to be informed that my opinion is unwanted.

spudchucka

20th February 2005, 01:30

Oh, and as usual when the govt runs things, if they drive on public roads without insurance we'll fine and/or jail them. Anything the govt runs, it has to invent yet more crimes to manage it.
What do you suggest they do to punish all the miscreants? Take their birthdays away from them?

John

20th February 2005, 01:36

What do you suggest they do to punish all the miscreants? Take their birthdays away from them?
..?

sacrific their first born to judist preists.

spudchucka

20th February 2005, 01:37

It is a decision a driver makes every moment - what speed to travel at. Whether it is above or below the posted speed limit makes no difference whatever. The risk and outcome possibilities are exactly the same.
I can't see how you arrive at that. In terms of traffic crashes the risks and and outcome possibilities only get worse as speed increases. Reaction times, stopping distances, the ability to effectively scan for hazards, the negative effectcs of a sudden reduction in forward momentum, physics, human falability etc etc etc all say increased speed means increased risk.

spudchucka

20th February 2005, 01:42

For example, bored drivers forced to travel at 90 km/h when they want to travel at 120 km/h?There is no reason to increase the speed limit simply because some people find it boring. Some road users find 110 terrifying but I suppose you would ban these otherwise legitimate road users from sharing your playground.

Only if it does minimise the risk. My point is that it doesn't, hasn't and won't.You are having a hard time proving your point as far as I can see.

spudchucka

20th February 2005, 01:46

..?

sacrific their first born to judist preists.
Never liked Judas Priest. I was always more of a Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, Fleetwood Mac (the original fleetwood, not the wussy girl stuff they did with Stevie Nicks) kinda guy.

Slipstream

20th February 2005, 01:57

..?

sacrific their first born to judist preists.

what is it with you and sacrificing first borns????

John

20th February 2005, 01:59

what is it with you and sacrificing first borns????
I have not had one yet, so the options still on the table.

Waylander

20th February 2005, 01:59

..?

sacrific their first born to judist preists.
Are you a middle child John?

John

20th February 2005, 01:59

But on topic, I totally agree with you spud, and only can register my vote for you because your saying everything I beleave so heres a cold one :apint:

Are you a middle child John?
actually yes...lol only had a step brother and sister. :done:

Slipstream

20th February 2005, 02:04

There is no reason to increase the speed limit simply because some people find it boring. Some road users find 110 terrifying but I suppose you would ban these otherwise legitimate road users from sharing your playground.

You are having a hard time proving your point as far as I can see.

I sometimes find it confusing why some roads are the speed they are. Who decides them? I mean, how do they work it out?

Waylander

20th February 2005, 02:06

I sometimes find it confusing why some roads are the speed they are. Who decides them? I mean, how do they work it out?
Magical lepricons that instead of giving you money when you find them, they take it form you?

Slipstream

20th February 2005, 02:10

Magical lepricons that instead of giving you money when you find them, they take it form you?

Dude...that was an actual question...keep your buffoonery to the other silly threads :p

What I meant by my previous post was, is there some guy who follows a formula in deciding what speed goes where? Or do people actually go check out the roads and make an informed decision?
And why make it a 50km road when it really should be a 70km road? And Vice Versa.

Waylander

20th February 2005, 02:12

Dude...that was an actual question...keep your buffoonery to the other silly threads :P

What I meant by my previous post was, is there some guy who follows a formula in deciding what speed goes where? Or do people actually go check out the roads and make an informed decision?
And why make it a 50km road when it really should be a 70km road? And Vice Versa.
Awwww... but all I post IS baffoonery.:wari: <--- need a monkey that does this now.

John

20th February 2005, 02:15

Dude...that was an actual question...keep your buffoonery to the other silly threads :p

What I meant by my previous post was, is there some guy who follows a formula in deciding what speed goes where? Or do people actually go check out the roads and make an informed decision?
And why make it a 50km road when it really should be a 70km road? And Vice Versa.
In all seriousness, I thought that the ultimate speed was 'eqated' by the calculation of width, direction, proximity, and corners (width of road, Direction it is heading, Proximity to townships, And Cornering Difficulty (visibility etc))?
There are some factors like crash rates, which slowed most northland roads down from 100 to 80kph.

Clockwork

20th February 2005, 06:47

Maybe a good start would be to require people have insurance.....

They do this in the UK.... Personally I think this was a license for the insurance companies to rip off the motorist!... (its also a good way of keeping poor people off roads... or in courts for driving without insurance)

Clockwork

20th February 2005, 06:50

Clockwork

20th February 2005, 07:10

In all seriousness, I thought that the ultimate speed was 'eqated' by the calculation of width, direction, proximity, and corners (width of road, Direction it is heading, Proximity to townships, And Cornering Difficulty (visibility etc))?
There are some factors like crash rates, which slowed most northland roads down from 100 to 80kph.

I think the authority is split between Tranzit and local government. For instance, Fergusson Drive used to be SH2. North of Upper Hutt the speed limit along this road was 70kph, that part of Fergusson Drive that is still SH2 (north of the River Road which ends at Maoribank) is still 70kph But when the River Road (bypass) was built and became SH2 then the section of Fergusson Drive that was bypassed fell under the authority of the local council. They saw fit to reduce the speed limit to 50kph despite the fact that the road was originally engineered for 70kph..... its straight..... its very wide.... and these days its largely empty of traffic too.

I can't understand why this road used to be considered safe at 70kph but is now only safe at 50kph.

Alan Wilkinson

20th February 2005, 08:57

Actually i think you have reached a conclusion and then looked for facts to back them up. The american study as per my last post you quoted used data for 3 years 1996 - 1999 and only used very small sections of road and concluded that speed is in fact a significant issue still in road safety.

It used those years because that was when the speed limit changed. It chopped the roads into smaller sections so that it could investigate different impacts on straight/curved/hilly/flat etc. etc. sections and not just assume that the average result applied to all roads.

You are entitled to your opinion but you are wrong. I initially got into this investigation when an MP sent me a chart of data and one glance showed me that what LTSA was telling the public about the hidden speed camera trial did not square with the facts. I went looking for overseas analyses when I found the NZ casualty facts were contrary to official beliefs and propaganda.

And incidentally, peer review in the traffic casualty study field seems to be exceptionally incompetent. I prefer to find competent, objective researchers who are independent of "speed kills" funding sources.

Alan Wilkinson

20th February 2005, 09:02

What do you suggest they do to punish all the miscreants? Take their birthdays away from them?
Private enterprise avoids making clients into miscreants when at all possible and uses carrots instead of sticks. Governments do the opposite.

For example, now you can be fined $370 for tying a white flag onto the end of an overhanging load. You have to use the approved flag - no doubt supplied by a company with mates in govt.

Alan Wilkinson

20th February 2005, 11:33

But you DO NOT know what works, its all an experiment to you, its all theory not proof.

You seem confused. Experiments provide proof. Theories and beliefs do not.

Are you in any way suggesting that a lower speed does not minimise the risk of unjury/death?
Yes. That is an assumption that requires testing. Don't forget there are two separate factors involved - first, the risk of a crash and second, the risk of injury or death in that crash.

The second factor may reduce with lower speed at first but then rise as the chance of being rear-ended at a higher speed differential rises. [An effective way to get killed is to stop or reverse slowly up a motorway.]

The first factor depends on a heap of things including several such as time at risk, inattention and tiredness which may increase with lower speeds.

Mongoose

20th February 2005, 11:49

You seem confused. Experiments provide proof. Theories and beliefs do not.

Yes. That is an assumption that requires testing. Don't forget there are two separate factors involved - first, the risk of a crash and second, the risk of injury or death in that crash.

The second factor may reduce with lower speed at first but then rise as the chance of being rear-ended at a higher speed differential rises. [An effective way to get killed is to stop or reverse slowly up a motorway.]

The first factor depends on a heap of things including several such as time at risk, inattention and tiredness which may increase with lower speeds.

Just thinking Alan, do you actually believe what you just wrote?? Read again and see if it make any logical sense or is it just total garbage

Alan Wilkinson

20th February 2005, 11:52

What don't you understand?

Mongoose

20th February 2005, 11:53

The second factor may reduce with lower speed at first but then rise as the chance of being rear-ended at a higher speed differential rises. [An effective way to get killed is to stop or reverse slowly up a motorway.]

Why does clutching at straws spring to mind with this analogy?

Yes. That is an assumption that requires testing. Don't forget there are two separate factors involved - first, the risk of a crash and second, the risk of injury or death in that crash.
An assumption that requires testing, an experiment in other words? And for the time being tis a theory of yours, right?
Both risks increase with speed Alan, stop trying to sound inteligent, it does you no good.

Alan Wilkinson

20th February 2005, 11:57

I have no interest in "sounding intelligent". I gave you an accurate answer. What you do with it is your problem.

marty

20th February 2005, 11:58

[QUOTE=Alan Wilkinson]
The second factor may reduce with lower speed at first but then rise as the chance of being rear-ended at a higher speed differential rises. [An effective way to get killed is to stop or reverse slowly up a motorway.]

QUOTE]

BUT, reversing up the motorway won't in itself get you killed, but the (insert any speed you want) closing speed of the approaching doodler driving at the speed s/he feels comfortable with probably will.

leaves 4 options.

the person driving forward lives, the reverser dies. the reverser wasn't doing anything wrong (they were doing what they thought was prudent and safe in the circumstances), so it must be the fault of the doodler. they weren't doing anything wrong, just travelling at their 'safe' speed. no no-one's at fault - it must be the road's fault.

the doodler dies, reverser lives. same as above.

both live. they exchange insurance details and get on with their lives. the insurance companies however, want to apportion blame, so one of them can bill the other. unless they are a state-owned insurer who just covers people cause it's good like that. shame about the $1000 premiums.

both die. it was both their faults....couldn't be the road, as everyone is responsible for their own actions.

Mongoose

20th February 2005, 12:02

What don't you understand?

You know what they say about assumptions Alan? How can that be an accurate answer when it involves guess work?(which is what an assumption is)

speedpro

20th February 2005, 12:15

The second factor may reduce with lower speed at first but then rise as the chance of being rear-ended at a higher speed differential rises. [An effective way to get killed is to stop or reverse slowly up a motorway.

Many people on this thread are claiming that the first effect occurs, no mention had been made previously to the effects of going even slower. In the situation Alan mentions, stopped or reversing on the motorway, that is a proven way to kill yourself and it's all down to the speed differential. You are doing 0 or even -20kmh which makes you way slower than following traffic. I know there are all sorts of rules about being able to stop before hitting anything -the 2 second rule sort of thing, but you could be a safe reccommended distance behind another vehicle travelling at or below the legal limit but your view of the motorway could be obstructed for any reason. Suddnely the driver ahead darts to the left leaving you looking at a stationary or reversing vehicle with no time to avoid.

In fact a while ago there was a van load of people who had missed their off-ramp. They were reversing on the motorway and a collision occurred. I think the whole family in the van were killed. They were in the "fast" lane, reversing. Just as an illustration of how going REAL slow comparitively can get you killed.

Clockwork

20th February 2005, 13:40

:calm:
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:

Post #301 on this thread...... still awaiting an answer.

James Deuce

20th February 2005, 14:03

Post #301 on this thread...... still awaiting an answer.

It's a "www.stuff.co.nz" poll question.

Blakamin

20th February 2005, 14:51

If you take this argument to its its logical conclusion maybe we should reduce the limit to ......... 50kph?
no... we leave the limit the way it is and people that get caught speeding stop trying to get out of tickets/bitching and moaning... I got a ticket, um, 3 weeks ago (?), bitched for a minute then accepted I was speeding... oh well, never mind... it's done, fine paid, end of story.... and I have actually slowed my average speed down...

that was easy... didn't even have to kill anyone...

Blakamin

20th February 2005, 14:54

Post #301 on this thread...... still awaiting an answer.
I accept that I'm breaking the law and, if caught, will suffer the consequences...
simple... do the crime, do the blah blah blah

I need my licence to work... pretty friggin easy to work out why I'm not speeding anymore...

speedpro

20th February 2005, 15:07

I accept that I'm breaking the law and, if caught, will suffer the consequences...
simple... do the crime, do the blah blah blah

I need my licence to work... pretty friggin easy to work out why I'm not speeding anymore...

I don't think even Alan has an argument with doing the crime etc etc. His argument is about what is classified as a crime and why.

Exceeding 100kmh is classified as a (heinous) crime because "speed kills". Alan and others disagree and are willing to argue and present contrary views and (verifiable & reviewed) research to support their views.

By the same token, it's good to see that members of this forum have also been doing some research and have presented information to support their arguments. I've checked out most of it and it has made me think.

Thing is I still like going (REALLY) fast. Personally I still view Alan's case as more compelling.

Blakamin

20th February 2005, 15:13

I'd rather see the government spend money on health care than people defending tickets in courts.....
and I like going fast too, but there are places for it.. and probably places you wont get caught :niceone:
but if I do, I accept the consequences...

and I'd like to see cops doing people for doing 70-80 on sh1 coz they cause a hell of a lot of stupidity (tail-gating, stupid passing manouvres and reckless driving just for a start). If you can't drive around a corner without slowing by 30ks.. get off the fuckin road, you shouldn't be driving!

spudchucka

20th February 2005, 15:15

I don't think even Alan has an argument with doing the crime etc etc. His argument is about what is classified as a crime and why.

Exceeding 100kmh is classified as a (heinous) crime because "speed kills".
Speeding isn't a crime, its an offence. If it was a crime it would covered under the Crimes Act 1961.

Saying that speeding tickets make criminals of otherwise innocent people is hog wash and is only usually argued by people who; (A) are stupid enough to collect heaps of tickets and subsequently lose their licence on demerit points, or; (B) have a political agenda to push and use this emotive BS to strengthen their otherwise weak arguements.

spudchucka

20th February 2005, 15:27

Private enterprise avoids making clients into miscreants when at all possible and uses carrots instead of sticks. Governments do the opposite.
So what? New Zealand isn't a private company. This makes no sense in the context of what is being discussed.

spudchucka

20th February 2005, 15:31

If you take this argument to its its logical conclusion maybe we should reduce the limit to ......... 50kph?
Rubbish. All people have to do to avoid carnage on the roads is observe the road rules that we all studied when we first got our licences, maintain safe vehicles and stay on there own side of the friggin road. It really isn't that hard but for some people it seems to be exceedingly difficult.

spudchucka

20th February 2005, 15:48

They do this in the UK.... Personally I think this was a license for the insurance companies to rip off the motorist!... (its also a good way of keeping poor people off roads... or in courts for driving without insurance)
Maybe the insurance companies should take the American & Canadian approach and bump the premiums through the roof when their clients get speeding tickets?

If insurance was compulsary and drivers were heavily penalised for using a motor vehicle without insurance then they might think before putting themselves in a position where they may not be able to legally afford to use the roads.

After all the insurance companies as private enterprise need to turn a profit for their shareholders so why shouldn't they cover their arses by making those who have been found not observing acceptable driving standards pay more for cover? They do that in a way now with the no claims bonus that gets chucked out the window after a claim. The only difference would be that under the American example they are making a pre-emptive strike against the driver they assess as being more likely to crash.

Private enterprise avoids making clients into miscreants when at all possible and uses carrots instead of sticks.

I guess under Alan's example insurance companies aren't private enterprise??

spudchucka

20th February 2005, 15:57

I sometimes find it confusing why some roads are the speed they are. Who decides them? I mean, how do they work it out?
Paper, Scissor, Rock???

I can't give you a 100% answer sorry. As far as I'm aware different agencies have the say over different sections of road. Tranzit take care of state highways, local authorities take care of local residential roads etc. There are obviously rules & regulations governing what types of roads can have what maximum speed limits. Local residents have in some cases made submissions to local authorities and had the speed limit lowered on local roads that have proven to be problem areas.

spudchucka

20th February 2005, 16:04

and I'd like to see cops doing people for doing 70-80 on sh1 coz they cause a hell of a lot of stupidity (tail-gating, stupid passing manouvres and reckless driving just for a start). If you can't drive around a corner without slowing by 30ks.. get off the fuckin road, you shouldn't be driving!
They do get the odd ticket but the awkward thing is that these people are usually some old granny or grandad, retired, payed taxes all their lives and is just having trouble keeping pace with the modern world. Try giving a ticket to your granny, its not a pretty picture. They would no doubt be on the Holmes show the next evening and Paul would just lap it up.

I guess they should get off the road and use public transport but as long as the a fit to hold a licence then they have the right to be on the road.

Clockwork

20th February 2005, 16:58

I accept that I'm breaking the law and, if caught, will suffer the consequences...
simple... do the crime, do the blah blah blah

I need my licence to work... pretty friggin easy to work out why I'm not speeding anymore...

The whinge is superficial, anyone will do this when they feel they have been hard done by. You admit you broke the speed limit (as do I) are you prepared to accept you are a danger to other road users. If thats the case, and you're a rational human being (as I believe you are) then obviously you will never knowingly break a speed limit again. Otherwise you must accept that not all limits are appropriate for all circumstances.

Clockwork

20th February 2005, 17:00

Rubbish. All people have to do to avoid carnage on the roads is observe the road rules that we all studied when we first got our licences, maintain safe vehicles and stay on there own side of the friggin road. It really isn't that hard but for some people it seems to be exceedingly difficult.

If you can't stay on your own side of the road..... people will die at 100kph!

Clockwork

20th February 2005, 17:06

Maybe the insurance companies should take the American & Canadian approach and bump the premiums through the roof when their clients get speeding tickets?

If insurance was compulsary and drivers were heavily penalised for using a motor vehicle without insurance then they might think before putting themselves in a position where they may not be able to legally afford to use the roads.

After all the insurance companies as private enterprise need to turn a profit for their shareholders so why shouldn't they cover their arses by making those who have been found not observing acceptable driving standards pay more for cover? They do that in a way now with the no claims bonus that gets chucked out the window after a claim. The only difference would be that under the American example they are making a pre-emptive strike against the driver they assess as being more likely to crash.

I guess under Alan's example insurance companies aren't private enterprise??

You don't have to look hard on this site to find evidence that insurance companies are already trying to price Motorcycles (not just bad riders) off the road. The fact is that many insurance companies just don't want our business, we are in a minority and thay can afford to ignore us, consequently thay can, and will stick it to us.

If they continue to take this attitude how long will it be before they force you off your bike?

Clockwork

20th February 2005, 17:09

Speeding isn't a crime, its an offence. If it was a crime it would covered under the Crimes Act 1961.

Saying that speeding tickets make criminals of otherwise innocent people is hog wash and is only usually argued by people who; (A) are stupid enough to collect heaps of tickets and subsequently lose their licence on demerit points, or; (B) have a political agenda to push and use this emotive BS to strengthen their otherwise weak arguements.

It may have been in jest ,Spud. But I have seen you refer to offenders as "Road Criminals"

James Deuce

20th February 2005, 17:19

If you can't stay on your own side of the road..... people will die at 100kph!

That's a potential collective 200kph.

James Deuce

20th February 2005, 17:21

The whinge is superficial, anyone will do this when they feel they have been hard done by. You admit you broke the speed limit (as do I) are you prepared to accept you are a danger to other road users. If thats the case, and you're a rational human being (as I believe you are) then obviously you will never knowingly break a speed limit again. Otherwise you must accept that not all limits are appropriate for all circumstances.

It was a BS question as I tried to point out, but you ignored. You asked a deliberately loaded question, so beloved of anyone trying to spin an answer. A truly scientific investigation collects data with as little spin as possible, depending on the original postulate.

Clockwork

20th February 2005, 17:33

I mean no disrespect to you guys arguing for the staus quo. Undoubtably the the faster you go the bigger the mess (its simple physics init?). I must admit, I hadn't really considered the issues around others judging your speed. But; I still feel that 100kph is not appropriate for all roads, for all conditions.

To be honest I would be happier with the existing limits providing there wasn't the politcal pressure to enforce it at all costs. There will always be Police offices who will enforce "the letter of the law" :brick: , some, given the opportunity will take a more practical approach (these guys can make the present system work :niceone: ). But to say all speed limits are appropriate at all times is to put your head in the sand. If the rules must be rigidly policed, then the applied limits should be more appropriate.

Clockwork

20th February 2005, 17:40

It was a BS question as I tried to point out, but you ignored. You asked a deliberately loaded question, so beloved of anyone trying to spin an answer. A truly scientific investigation collects data with as little spin as possible, depending on the original postulate.

Sorry, I didn't ignore you, I didn't understand your point.
(I even went to Stuff to check :Oops: )

Sure, the question was loaded, obviously so. Does that make it any less relevant? Where is the spin?

Clockwork

20th February 2005, 17:46

That's a potential collective 200kph.

Yes, and I understand that e=mc2 which means that one vehicle doing 200kph releases four times the energy of one doing 100kph. The point I was arguing was that people would die if the limit was increased. They are already dying.

Also, as mass does form part of the above equation, maybe we need to look at the speed limits applied to 60 tonne trucks.

James Deuce

20th February 2005, 17:54

Sorry, I didn't ignore you, I didn't understand your point.
(I even went to Stuff to check :Oops: )

Sure, the question was loaded, obviously so. Does that make it any less relevant? Where is the spin?

The way the question was stated would be regarded as entrapment in a legal system that allows entrapment as a defence.

There isn't a motorcyclist alive who hasn't ignored a speed limit, but coupling that with the second part of your question explains why you didn't get many responses.

Stuff is reknowned for creating polls that ask questions in a way that supports government policy, and usually coincides with a crest in both public opinion and a heinous crime that relates to the question. The resulting justification for a new law or amendment to an existing one, usually restricts or removes something that was previously regarded as a "right".

Clockwork

20th February 2005, 18:19

The way the question was stated would be regarded as entrapment in a legal system that allows entrapment as a defence.

There isn't a motorcyclist alive who hasn't ignored a speed limit, but coupling that with the second part of your question explains why you didn't get many responses.

Stuff is reknowned for creating polls that ask questions in a way that supports government policy, and usually coincides with a crest in both public opinion and a heinous crime that relates to the question. The resulting justification for a new law or amendment to an existing one, usually restricts or removes something that was previously regarded as a "right".

OK, thanks for that Jim2. re stuff. I honestly hadn't noticed, don't read their polls very often.

With regard to your second paragraph..... Well..... that's just what I was thinking, which is why I was getting so frustrated by the debate.

God knows the roads are full of f**k-wits, but the speed camera just isn't a good f**k-wit detector (hopefully, unfettered Police officers are). Pinging someone automatically because they are 10kph above the limit will (probably) reduce the road toll but it will inevitably piss-off lots of safe drivers.

James Deuce

20th February 2005, 18:30

God knows the roads are full of f**k-wits, but the speed camera just isn't a good f**k-wit detector (hopefully, unfettered Police officers are).

That's one of the most sensible statements I've seen in this thread yet.

Clockwork

20th February 2005, 18:55

Aw shucks...... thanks.
:o

Blakamin

20th February 2005, 19:13

Otherwise you must accept that not all limits are appropriate for all circumstances.
of course... if every cage could stay at the limit over pi-cock, we would have a lot less boi racers...
but if i'm being a dick and breaking rules and I kill someone, and didn't die myself, I would top myself....end of story... I've known people that have done this and live with it... if "live" is the word.. most don't "live" ever again...

Clockwork

20th February 2005, 19:41

of course... if every cage could stay at the limit over pi-cock, we would have a lot less boi racers...
but if i'm being a dick and breaking rules and I kill someone, and didn't die myself, I would top myself....end of story... I've known people that have done this and live with it... if "live" is the word.. most don't "live" ever again...

I guess you can't say fairer than that, BK :niceone: (that is assuming, that your speeding was the only contributing factor to the accident.)

BK, I've just posted on another thread where you discuss your Daughter. For her sake I hope your threat to top yourself is an exaggeration...... ya gotta think of the ones you leave behind also. After all, it would be your burdon, not theirs.

speedpro

20th February 2005, 21:23

Speeding isn't a crime, its an offence. If it was a crime it would covered under the Crimes Act 1961.

Saying that speeding tickets make criminals of otherwise innocent people is hog wash and is only usually argued by people who; (A) are stupid enough to collect heaps of tickets and subsequently lose their licence on demerit points, or; (B) have a political agenda to push and use this emotive BS to strengthen their otherwise weak arguements.

Pedantic is the word that springs to mind.

My last speeding ticket was 3-4 years ago on a nearly deserted piece of beautiful highway just north of Taupo in the middle of the day. 114kmh in a 100kmh area driving a mint Mitsi Lancer MX.

Blakamin

20th February 2005, 21:31

BK, I've just posted on another thread where you discuss your Daughter. For her sake I hope your threat to top yourself is an exaggeration...... ya gotta think of the ones you leave behind also. After all, it would be your burdon, not theirs.
thats why I don't drive like a dick.....anymore... much..... :confused:

speedpro

20th February 2005, 21:40

Originally Posted by Blakamin
I accept that I'm breaking the law and, if caught, will suffer the consequences...
simple... do the crime, do the blah blah blah

I need my licence to work... pretty friggin easy to work out why I'm not speeding anymore...

This is typical. He's slowed down NOT because speeding is perceived as dangerous but because getting caught speeding jeopardises(sp) his livelihood. Is there anyone on this forum who does not exceed 100kmh EVER because they think it is dangerous?? I think not!!

Surely we can't all be wrong about the dangers of exceeding the speed limit, surely?

James Deuce

20th February 2005, 22:31

This is typical. He's slowed down NOT because speeding is perceived as dangerous but because getting caught speeding jeopardises(sp) his livelihood. Is there anyone on this forum who does not exceed 100kmh EVER because they think it is dangerous?? I think not!!

Surely we can't all be wrong about the dangers of exceeding the speed limit, surely?

Well we can be. Especially when you subscribe to the Alan Dick school of thought that states that about 90% of NZ drivers shouldn't have a license. Having driven in the UK, I know what he means. The only place in the UK that in any way reminded me of NZ was the South Coast of England, from Devon to Kent. Poorly designed road network, congested roads, and lots of impatient drivers. The rest of the country was a model of road behaviour, even London's North Circular and the M25 was easier to drive on at peak times than most NZ motorways. The peak times last longer, but they don't have that feeling of "chaos effect in action" to them.

The piece on how people act around roadworks tonight on TV One was a good example to illustrate my point that most of us are substandard drivers. By European standards I rate myself as below average in driving and riding skill. The reasons I say that we can be wrong about raising speed limits are:

a. 50% of the population are of below average intelligence.
b. Most New Zealanders are appallingly ill equipped to drive, both temperamentally and skill-wise.
c. Every time I go on the road it's a lottery. I've had people hit me because they fell asleep, were too drunk to drive, didn't stop at intersections, passengers opening doors to free a dress caught in the door jam, dropping passengers off and allowing them to exit the road side of the vehicle, trucks changing three lanes of traffic without indicating and flinging me over the concrete barrier on the Hutt Rd into oncoming traffic, and I've fallen off on diesel distributed by vehicles with no fuel cap twice. I've also seen a person drive straight into the crash buffer on the back of a Fulton Hogan truck at 100km/hr. It had a big flashing arrow on the back and there were cones on the road they had to driver OVER to hit the truck.

I just don't think the argument to raise speed limits or substantially upgrade the road network holds any weight until the NZ culture of tailgating, aggression, and thoroughly inadequate driver education is addressed. Too many people drive with their brain switched off. The road toll isn't going to see a substantial reduction until car, truck, and bus drivers care as much about their ability to control their vehicle appropriately for the conditions as much as most motorcyclists do. even then, too many motorcyclists over estimate their ability and fall off, so maybe the argument that advanced driver training increases the number of accidents holds some weight. It certainly bears some study rather than off-hand comments from the head of the HP.

If anything I think the dangers of not adhering to the speed limit in the current environment are understated. It is my opinion (and I'd love to get funding to study this - and may just attempt to do so) that most New Zealanders drive dangerously to a degree every time they get behind the wheel/handlebars. That is at some point in their journey they passively or actively endanger another road user.

scumdog

21st February 2005, 07:01

I'm right with Jim2, he's hit the nail on the head.

Unless I'm mistaken a lot of others on this site will more or less reiterate Jim2s thoughts as well.

The rest that think it's a load of hogwash would be the ones with blinkers on - especially when they ride/drive.

Well done J2 :niceone:

moko

21st February 2005, 09:01

I break speed limits fairly regularly,as I suspect most do.I`m not suicidal and only ever go as fast as I feel is safe.BUT,the constant whingeing about "speed cameras have no discretion","I was only a few miles/kilometres per hour over the limit" argument gets me.Tough shit matey,the law`s the law and if you choose to break it and you get caught who`s fault is that?Why should you get any discretion shown,you know the law and you`ve broken it,same as if you steal something from a shop,it`s theft whether it`s a pair of socks or a Diamond ring.There`s guilty and not guilty,former`s if you`ve broken the law,latter is if you havn`t.Do the first and you get nicked,the latter and you wont,how difficult is that to understand?
I live on the south coast of England and all of Jim2`s comments on Kiwi drivers apply here as well.One guy`s been done for going through a camera on the outskirts of Plymouth at 120 on a bike,that`s m.p.h. folks not k.p.h.Worst of all he was a local coming back from work past a fixed camera that had been there for over 2 years on one of the main roads out of the city.He`s now off the road,lucky not to be in prison.Road workers complained to police about speeding drivers endangering them(sadly one got killed by a car last week)at road-works so a camera was set up complete with legally required warning signs.Despite the signs,the muddy conditions,40 m.p.h. limit signs all over the place and guys in Hi-Vis jackets working behind barriers the police caught over 100 doing over 60,including one clown doing 140.Biggest downside to the cameras here is that since they`ve come in the number of traffic cops has been cut.If you`re thinking "great",no it`s not because the roads are vergeing on anarchy,many dont indicate at all,most are selfish and incompetent and red light-jumping is epidemic.When the traffic police have spot checks they regularly haul in idiots who`ve never passed a test let alone have any insurance or a roadworthy vehicle and guess which group of road-users is most vulnerable to these cretins.my first ever ride in N.Z. was from Auckland to Hamilton and seriously I reckon I saw more traffic cops on that one stretch of road than I`d seen for several months in Britain,maybe the only one pleased to see them because we have the alternative and it gets scary out there sometimes.
So you know the speed limit,you know if you get caught breaking it you get done so why expect sympathy when that`s exactly what happens?Whatever your thoughts,whatever the rights and wrongs the law is the law.If you want to speed without getting caught get on a race-track and you can go as fast as you want without getting caught,tail-gated or having a Volvo pull out in front of you.

Clockwork

21st February 2005, 10:48

<deleted....... double post>

Clockwork

21st February 2005, 10:50

Moko, I don't thinks its fair to say this thread is about whinging over speeding tickets. I believe its about whinging over inappropriate speed limits. You've cited a long list of idiot drivers/riders who all sound like they got what they deserved. I don't think anyone here wants to speak up in support of them. (ok, maybe one or two might)

All I'd ask you to acknowledge is that not all speed limits are appropriate at all times (and I'd suggest that you've already done this from this quote "I break speed limits fairly regularly,as I suspect most do.I`m not suicidal and only ever go as fast as I feel is safe.")

Paul in NZ

21st February 2005, 11:45

All I'd ask you to acknowledge is that not all speed limits are appropriate at all times (and I'd suggest that you've already done this from this quote "I break speed limits fairly regularly,as I suspect most do.I`m not suicidal and only ever go as fast as I feel is safe.")

Yes but in return you would need to acknowledge that even if the limit was 3,000kph some tosser would believe that either this was the minimum speed or that it didn't apply to him...

Personally. I'm actually happy with 100kph. But, I'm not in much of a hurry anymore. If (say) you did make limits variable, how do I handle someone behind me that considers 140 to be a reasonable speed?

Pull over? Why? (and indeed HOW without showering everyone with stones and debris and causing more problems). How does one persons 'right' to enjoy a higher speed subjegate anothers right to enjoy an un interupted trip at a reasonable speed?

Serious question btw.

Lets put in an example. I drive a cheap car because I don't have much $$ and like to spend what spare dosh I have on stuffed old bikes. My car can travel happily at 100kph.

Someone else likes a fast car and is happy to go without in other areas. They like to drive at 140kph.

So. Why does one persons desire to travel fast get priority over my choice? Take this to to the extreme. Cyclists like to travel in big groups. We all get antsy about them doing so in fucking stupid places like the Piecock hill road yet they actually have a right to do so.

I think people just don't 'like' limits and tend to get way competitive about speed and cars. Yes, I think some road laws are damn stupid such as giving someone a ticket for exceeding 100kph while overtaking but after that it's just the thin end of the wedge.

In all likelyhood, we are better off with 100kph.

Paul N

spudchucka

21st February 2005, 12:16

The piece on how people act around roadworks tonight on TV One was a good example to illustrate my point that most of us are substandard drivers. By European standards I rate myself as below average in driving and riding skill. The reasons I say that we can be wrong about raising speed limits are:
Going by the two or three video clips of motorway driving we saw on that piece last night I'm happy to say that the last thing we need is more motorway. What I saw on that show mirrored pretty much exactly what I've seen everytime I drive on either the Auckland or Wellington motorways. It is a miracle that our road toll is as low as it currently is.

spudchucka

21st February 2005, 12:19

This is typical. He's slowed down NOT because speeding is perceived as dangerous but because getting caught speeding jeopardises(sp) his livelihood. Its called a deterant and its having the exact effect that it should have.

spudchucka

21st February 2005, 12:22

Pedantic is the word that springs to mind. No. Its called being correct or knowing what the fuck you are talking about before you gob off. (PT)

spudchucka

21st February 2005, 12:31

It may have been in jest ,Spud. But I have seen you refer to offenders as "Road Criminals"
Yup. Thats just my opinion of arseholes who constantly flaut every traffic regulation in the book. The recidivist ones that constantly drive drunk, unlicenced, disqualified and in clapped out dangerous pieces of shit. They are the ones that I really enjoy seeing get jail time. And by the way, pretty much all drivers in this category are criminals in the true sense of the word too.

spudchucka

21st February 2005, 12:34

You don't have to look hard on this site to find evidence that insurance companies are already trying to price Motorcycles (not just bad riders) off the road. The fact is that many insurance companies just don't want our business, we are in a minority and thay can afford to ignore us, consequently thay can, and will stick it to us.

If they continue to take this attitude how long will it be before they force you off your bike?
Sadly that is a fact that we may all have to face. We have to ask why the insurance companies don't want our business even at the very high premiums they set.

Pretty much its because motorcycling is a high risk game and the companies aren't blind to the fact that most bikers will usually travel at high speeds, thus increasing that risk to them.

spudchucka

21st February 2005, 12:36

If you can't stay on your own side of the road..... people will die at 100kph!
If you can't stay on the correct side of the road you should be publicly flogged.

Clockwork

21st February 2005, 13:02

Yes but in return you would need to acknowledge that even if the limit was 3,000kph some tosser would believe that either this was the minimum speed or that it didn't apply to him...
Acknowledged. By the way, I consider myself to be reasonable person, ergo all my opinions are reasonable.
(anyone may use them as a yardstick if they wish :niceone: )

Personally. I'm actually happy with 100kph. But, I'm not in much of a hurry anymore. If (say) you did make limits variable, how do I handle someone behind me that considers 140 to be a reasonable speed?
Let them pass..... remember what Billy Connelly said last night, "its nothing personal". Anyway I never suggested that the limits should be variable but the state's approach to policing them can be. In some cases higher limits may be appropriate.

Pull over? Why? (and indeed HOW without showering everyone with stones and debris and causing more problems). How does one persons 'right' to enjoy a higher speed subjegate anothers right to enjoy an un interupted trip at a reasonable speed?

Lets put in an example. I drive a cheap car because I don't have much $$ and like to spend what spare dosh I have on stuffed old bikes. My car can travel happily at 100kph.

Someone else likes a fast car and is happy to go without in other areas. They like to drive at 140kph.

So. Why does one persons desire to travel fast get priority over my choice?
To my mind this argument cuts both ways.

In all likelyhood, we are better off with 100kph.

Paul N
No problem, Paul. Your opinions are as valid as mine.
(...probably :whistle: )